CHAPTER XIII.

ON LABOUR, OR IMMATERIAL WEALTH, AND

WAGES.

1. We have now to consider the application of the General Equation of Economics to Labour, the second of the three species into which Economic Quantities are divided.

Labour is often divided into muscular and nervous; or an exertion of the body or the mind. In common parlance, indeed, it is more applied to an exertion of the body, and the term labourers or working men, is often considered to include only those who work with their hands, such as ploughmen, carpenters, masons, and other artisans. This, however, is a great error. "Labour" in Economics means an exertion of the mind, however manifested, either by the hand, the tongue, or in any other way. However simple work may apparently be, it must be directed by thought. All labour is in reality thought, accompanied more or less by muscular exertion; and the sedentary scientific student, the lawyer, the clergyman, the author, the professor, the painter, the cabinet minister, the banker, the merchant, are as truly labourers and working men as any ploughmen, carpenters, or

masons.

Each of the great sciences-Geometry, Astronomy, Optics, Chemistry, Medicine, Law, Engineering-is as truly the product of labour as the Pyramids, a steamship, or a railway, and indeed there is no labour so exhausting to the tissues of the brain as mental abstraction on scientific or philosophical subjects. Nothing can be more unfortunate than making distinctions in kind where none exist in reality, and in marking off certain portions of the community as working classes, and supposing that they are governed by peculiar laws, different from those relating to other classes. Corin says truly1

"Sir, I am a true labourer; I earn my bread." All persons are labourers who earn their bread by personal exertions, or services, of any sort or description, from the Lord Chancellor to the lowest hodman.

As you like it, Act III., scene 2.

Mr. J. H. Burton says truly" The hardest work in life is done with the head; for mental exertion admits of indefinite extension, while the sphere of mere muscular exertion is limited. It is for this reason, and this only, that the highest rewards are paid for mental labour. In a free country, all the money rendered for services, whether in the shape of counsel's fees, the superintendent's salary, or the hodman's wages, is the equivalent in value of the services rendered. There are many degrees in the scale of remuneration, and there is the same number of degrees in the value of the service. There are very wide differences in the remuneration between the extremes of the scale-between the head of the law, or the first London physician, with his fifteen thousand a year, and the hodman with his twenty pounds a year. The differences in their services, if we consider it capable of calculation, is probably not so great; it would be a strong assertion to say that the professional man works seven hundred and fifty times as much as the hodman."

2. The question of Labour shews the indispensable necessity of clear and distinct fundamental conceptions in Economics; and the great evil which has been done to the Science by the confused and contradictory doctrines on the word Wealth in Smith and Mill.

Aristotle laid down the broad general definition that Wealth is anything whose value can be measured in money. Now, as it is perfectly indisputable that the value of Labour of all kinds may be measured in money, Labour is Wealth by the very force of Aristotle's definition.

So the author of the Eryrias, adopting and illustrating this definition, shews that the essence of Wealth consists exclusively in exchangeability; and that if persons can gain a living by giving instruction of any sort, that is, by an exertion of their minds, or services, or labour of any sort, their Labour is Wealth to them just in the same way as gold and silver is.

Hence it was distinctly recognised in ancient times that Labour is a vendible, or exchangeable, commodity, and is expressly included under the title of Wealth.

3. In modern times the word Wealth was at first restricted exclusively to gold and silver, but it was afterwards enlarged so as Political and Social Economy, p. 32.

to include all useful material things the products of the earth: and was described as the produce of "land and labour." The Physiocrates constantly asserted that the earth is the sole source of wealth, because man can create nothing, and that Nothing can come out of Nothing. They held that Wealth consists of the material products of the earth which are brought into commerce and exchanged. Le Trosne originated an argument against Labour or Services being Wealth because they are only relative to the person, and are not transmissible, or inheritable, or transferable: they do not result in a product which can be transferred, and whose value can be determined by competition.

The answer to this argument, however, is clear and decisive. Labour is given in exchange for a price, and its value is determined by competition, like that of any other commodity. A single exchange is sufficient to determine value. A person gains an income in exchange for labour exactly in the same way as by selling material products, and is equally a subject of taxation. It is, besides, a complete error to say in many cases, that the products of pure Labour, or Thought, are not transferable, vendible, and transmissible. An enormous mass of valuable products consists of trade secrets, and these are transferable and inheritable, and form a very large mass of Capital, which may be bought and sold like any other material Capital. All the great sciences, the accumulations of pure labour, are transferable and saleable. We shall enter upon this, however, more at length hereafter.

4. Though the arguments of the Physiocrates are erroneous, they are at least consistent with themselves; but the doctrines of Smith and Mill are utterly confused and contradictory.

Smith gives no definition of Wealth, but from his constantly repeating the phrase "the annual produce of land and labour" it is generally supposed that that is his notion of Wealth. We have already pointed out that this expression is ambiguous, and that however it is interpreted, it cannot be accepted as a sound definition of Wealth.

Now every one knows that the land itself, on which no labour was ever bestowed, may be bought and sold, and therefore is wealth by itself; and may produce an income to its possessor, and therefore is Capital. So also Labour itself is a saleable commodity quite independent of any land, and consequently is wealth by itself.

The inconsistency of Smith's notions of Wealth is strikingly apparent in his account of Capital. Under fixed Capital he enumerates "The acquired and useful abilities of all the inhabitants or members of the society. The acquisition of such talents, by the maintenance of the acquirer during his education, study, or apprenticeship, always costs a real expense, which is a Capital fixed and realised, as it were, in his person. These talents are and make a part of his fortune, so do they likewise that of the society to which he belongs. The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade, which facilitates and abridges labour, and which, though it costs a certain expense, repays that expense with a profit."

And also "A man educated at the expense of much labour and time to any of these employments which require extraordinary dexterity and skill may be compared to one of these expensive machines."

Hence we see that Smith expressly includes "natural and acquired abilities" under the title of Wealth and Capital. But these are not Wealth any more than anything else is, unless they are brought into the market and exchanged for something else; and their exercise, or exertion, in exchange for some remuneration is LABOUR.

And this Labour is, of course, a subject of Property, like anything else. Smith says "The Property which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his hands."

Hence we see that Smith expressly admits labour to be a saleable property by itself, quite independent of land or any material product, and therefore Wealth. What becomes then of the doctrine that Wealth is the "produce of land and labour," when each of them is admitted to be Wealth separately, and without any necessary association? What becomes of the doctrine that Nothing can come from Nothing, and that all Wealth comes from the earth?

5. J. B. Say also admits that "abilities" are Wealth. It is true that he frequently contradicts himself; but, as his work is comparatively little read in this country, we need not occupy our space

in pointing out these contradictions. It is sufficient for our purpose to shew that he includes "abilities " under Wealth.

He says" Since it has been proved that immaterial property, such as talents and acquired personal abilities form an integral part of the Wealth of Society."

"What I have said is sufficient, I think, to convince you that industrial faculties are faculties of the same nature as all others; and it is only in considering them equally with others that society can obtain all the advantages attached to the rights of property. For the same reason this kind of property, although it can scarcely be reckoned in figures [Why not?] [Why not?] makes nevertheless a portion of the general wealth of the nation. A nation in which industrial abilities are more numerous and more eminent than in others is a richer nation." And in many other places he maintains the same doctrine.

We have already quoted a long passage from Senior dwelling on the importance of this immaterial Wealth, which we need not repeat.

6. We have now to observe the confusion and self-contradiction of Mill, on the subject of Wealth. He begins by defining Wealth to be everything that has "purchasing power," or which is exchangeable, which is precisely the definition of Aristotle, the author of the Eryxias, and the Roman Jurists.

Now, as Labour has "purchasing power," it is Wealth by this definition.

But a little afterwards Mill completely changes the conception of Wealth, and speaks of the "production of Wealth" as being "the extraction of the instruments of human subsistence and enjoyment from the materials of the globe"; a conception quite different from the former definition, as the idea of exchangeability has entirely vanished from it, and human subsistence and enjoyment is substituted for it.

Afterwards, however, in discussing Productive Labour, he is obliged to return to the consideration of wealth: and he plunges into still further contradictions-" services which only exist while being performed cannot be spoken of as wealth except by an acknowledged metaphor. It is essential to the idea of wealth to be susceptible of accumulation."

Now here is a new condition introduced. Mill began with

1 Cours. Considérations Générales.