materials for producing wealth. But of this aggregate stock a very considerable portion is so far incorporated with, or affixed to, the soil, as to be by law, custom, or necessity, inseparable from it. Such are the permanent improvements which have been made upon the land at various times since its first occupation, with the view of augmenting its productiveness-such as fences, durable manures, roads, canals for irrigation or traffic, plantations of fruit or forest trees, and buildings of different kinds;—all of which are ranked by law and custom, together with the land to which they are affixed, in the general class of 'immoveables,' or landed property; and the returns derived from them are merged in rent. Nor can Political Economy when taking a general view of the sources of wealth, without inextricable confusion, depart in this generic nomenclature from the established usage.

Another portion of the accumulated results of labour resides in the acquired skill and knowledge of individuals, in the acquisition of which much time and trouble has been expended. The entire body of the useful arts and sciences forms a part, and the most valuable part of the stock of society. It is the accumulated result of intense preceding labour on the part of the great benefactors of mankind for ages back, preserved to us through successive generations, and with continual improvements, by tradition or in writing. These treasures of knowledge, however, before they can be productively applied, must be appropriated by individuals with additional labour on their part, and so far mixed up with their natural qualifications

IN ABILITY-IN MOVEABLES.

139

as to become personal to them. This kind of stock, therefore, enters into the category of ability or human powers of production, under which head we have already considered it. Its returns properly fall under the appellation of wages.

The third and remaining portion of the aggregate stock of a community consists of the material products of previous labour, that are separable from the soil as well as from individuals; and it is therefore properly designated as 'moveables' or moveable stock.

Moveable stock is itself to be distinguished into two great divisions, according as it is kept or used for the purpose of producing wealth, or simply for individual gratification without any ulterior object.

The first division comprehends the various tools, machinery, materials, necessaries of subsistence, or other things provided for sale, or for the consumption and use of labourers while employed in the production of saleable commodities;-and is properly designated, as we have already explained, by the term capital. The remaining portion of moveable stock which is not kept for sale, or consumed with the view of facilitating further production-but only for that, which is, in truth, the real end and object of all production, the gratification of its owner-is indifferently called revenue, wealth, property, goods and chattels, &c.;-but must not be confounded with capital.

Though it may be difficult in all cases to determine of every particular object, whether it is productively engaged, and therefore to be reckoned capital or not ;-yet this need no more prevent our

distinguishing the whole moveable stock of a country under two great heads, according as it is employed with a view to the reproduction of more wealth, or only with a view to immediate gratification, than we need be interdicted from classifying natural objects into minerals, vegetables, and animals, because there are some few intermediate species which can be with difficulty referred to either class. No useful conclusions can possibly be come to upon what is going forward in society, if we do not distinguish between those masses of wealth which are habitually consumed in a productive manner-in such a way, that is, as to produce an equal or greater quantity of wealth-from those which are consumed unproductively, or so as to leave no equivalent behind. When an individual consumes a certain quantity of his stock with no other aim or result than the gratification of himself or his friends, the mass of wealth is pro tanto diminished; and though gratification is the ultimate end of all production, yet since a portion of the means of gratification is destroyed, and no similar portion produced, such consumption is evidently unproductive. What is consumed in this way is usually said to be expended as revenue. When an individual, on the other hand, purposely expends stock in such a way as that its consumption is the means of producing an equal or greater quantity as for example, the consumption of seed and husbandry implements by a farmer: no portion of the aggregate of wealth is destroyed; but on the contrary, there is, in almost every case, an increase, which forms, what is usually called profit, and is the motive for such expenditure.

DEFINITION OF CAPITAL.

141

We should therefore define capital as that portion of moveable stock which is employed, or reserved for employment, in production,-to which we would add (in order to exclude ambiguity as far as possible)-with a view to profit by the sale of its produce*.

*The term capital is employed, we think, by Smith and most other economists in far too extended a sense, and requires to be more strictly limited than it usually is by writers on the subject, if we desire to preserve any distinction between this and the other main elements of production, land and labour. We cannot acknowledge acquired skill, for instance, to be properly called capital, unless by metaphor. Otherwise, what is pure labour? The mere brute force of man is rarely, if ever, exerted without some little skill to aid its application, a skill acquired by practice or precept. There is no occupation so mechanical, not even that of carrying a load, or breaking stones on the highway, in which some skill may not be acquired, so as to enable one man to do more work than another who is less skilled. It is true that much capital is often expended by labourers in the acquisition of skill and knowledge, which eventually bring in to their owners an increased return; but when capital has been thus incorporated with man himself in the increase of his productive powers, we must consider it more accordant with usage, and less likely to create confusion, that it should thenceforward go by the name of ability, not capital; and its returns be called wages, not profit.

Again, when capital has been expended upon the permanent improvement of land, as in clearing, fencing, draining, and fertilizing it, in roads, canals, bridges, and buildings, we can no longer think it properly designated as capital. It is incorporated with land, so as to be inseparable from it, except by an extremely slow process; and its returns are practically merged in rent. This portion of rent undoubtedly represents the profit of the capital which has been spent on the land, just as the increased wages of an artificer represent the profit of the capital expended in teaching him his trade; and we need not forget this, though it may be more

No labourer, we have said, can work at anything but with the aid of capital, either produced by himself, or procured from others. But production could advance only with the utmost slowness,

convenient and more accordant with usage, instead of calling them both profits, to call one rent, the other wages. If labour, land, and capital, are to be distinguished by any intelligible line of separation, we think it can only be by including, under the first term, all the productively engaged powers of man, natural or acquired; under the second, those of the soil and the things permanently affixed to it; under the third, those of the moveable substances man has stored up with a view to production. In Political Economy, much labour has been expended in vain, and great confusion introduced, where all is really plain enough, by over refining, and by ill-judged endeavours to give a mathematical accuracy to definitions and propositions which from the nature of their subject can pretend to no more than the grouping of phenomena according to their most striking general characters. If, as the definitions and language of some economists would contend, every thing on which capital has been expended with a view to a return is still to be called capital, there is an end to all distinction between the three primary elements of wealth. All labour then is capital, and all land. The labourer must be reared on capital for years before he can do any work; he must be fed daily on capital, or his ability vanishes; land must be cleared and cultivated by capital, or it will produce nothing. Both labour and land are, therefore, by this rule essentially and entirely capital, and all wages and rents are in fact profits! And so, indeed, says Mr. Macculloch, with all possible gravity, (Principles of Political Economy, p. 118) quite regardless of the circumstance that every one of his works, even that in which he comes to so startling a conclusion, is entirely made up of a series of disquisitions on the reciprocal influence of land, labour, and capital, rent, wages, and profit. We need hardly observe that things which are identical can have no reciprocal action on each other. The same spirit of ultra-refinement has driven him into the equally monstrous inconsistency of defining labour to be