176 CAPITAL— THE MOTHER OF LABOUR, iv 



equivalent to the possession of capital; but to class such 

 things as capital would be to put an end to the distinc- 

 tion between land and capital. 



Just SO. But the fatal truth is that these 

 things are capital; and that there really is no 

 fundamental distinction between land and capital. 

 Is it denied that a fertile field, a rich vein of ore, 

 or a falling stream, may form part of a man's 

 stock, and that, if they do, they are capable of 

 yielding revenue? Will not somebody pay a share 

 of the produce in kind, or in money, for the privi- 

 lege of cultivating the first; royalties for that of 

 working the second; and a like equivalent for that 

 of erecting a mill on the third? In what sense, 

 then, are these things less " capital " than the 

 buildings and tools which on page 27 of " Progress 

 and Poverty " are admitted to be capital? Is it not 

 plain that if these things confer " advantages 

 equivalent to the possession of capital," and if the 

 " advantage " of capital is nothing but the yield- 

 ing of revenue, then the denial that they are capi- 

 tal is merely a roundabout way of self-contradic- 

 tion? 



All this confused talk about capital, however, 

 is lucidity itself compared with the exposition of 

 the remarkable thesis, " Wages not drawn from 

 capital, but produced by labour," which occupies 

 the third chapter of " Progress and Poverty." 



If, for instance, I devote my labour to gathering birds' 

 eggs or picking wild berriesj the eggs or berries I thus 



