IV CAPITAL— THE MOTHER OF LABOUR 171 



lumps of coal arc to be had for the picking up ; 

 or when native copper lies about in nuggets, or 

 when brick clay forms a superficial stratum, it 

 appears to me that these things are supplied to, 

 nay almost thrust upon, man without his labour. 

 According to the definition, therefore, they are not 

 " wealth." According to the enumeration, however, 

 they are " wealth " : a tolerably fair specimen of a 

 contradiction in terms. Or does " Progress and 

 Poverty " really suggest that a coal seam which 

 crops out at the surface is not wealth ; but that if 

 somebody breaks off a j)iece and carries it away, 

 the bestowal of this amount of labour upon that 

 particular lump makes it wealth ; while the rest 

 remains " not wealth " ? The notion that the 

 value of a thing bears any necessary relation to 

 the amount of labour (average or otherwise) be- 

 stowed upon it, is a fallacy which needs no further 

 refutation than it has already received. The average 

 amount of labour bestowed upon warming-pans 

 confers no value upon them in the eyes of a Gold- 

 Coast negro ; nor would an Esquimaux give a slice 

 of blubber for the most elaborate of ice-machines. 

 So much for the doctrine of " Progress and 

 Poverty" touching the nature of wealth. Let 

 us now consider its teachings respecting capital 

 as wealth or a part of wealth. Adam Smith's 

 definition " that part of a man's stock which 

 he expects to yield him a revenue is called his 

 capital" is quoted with approval (jx 32); else- 



