increasing，therefore，oneofthetwofactorsonwhichtheremunerationoftheindividuallabourerdepends。Theotherandstillmoreimportantfactor，thenumberofsharers，remainsunaffectedbyanyoftheconsiderationsnowadduced。
ThemostseriousobstacletoarightjudgmentconcerningtheefficacyandtendenciesofTrades’Unions，andtheprospectsoflabourasaffectedbythem，havingthusbeenremoved，theauthorhasafreefieldfortheuntrammelleddiscussionofthosetopics。Butthedueconsiderationofthemaspresentedinhiswork，requiresanarticletoitself。
PARTII
InaformerarticleithasbeenseenhowMr。Thornton，inthefirstchapterofhisFirstBook，disproved，ongroundsofpurepoliticaleconomy，thesupposednaturallawbywhich，intheopinionofmany，thepriceoflabourisasstrictlydeterminedasthemotionoftheearth，anddeterminedinamannerunalterablebythewilloreffortofeitherpartytothetransaction。
Butwhateverintheaffairsofmankindisnotperemptorilydecidedforthembynaturallaws，fallsunderthejurisdictionofthemorallaw。Sincethereisacertainrange，widerthanhasbeengenerallybelieved，withinwhichthepriceoflabourisdecidedbyaconflictofwillsbetweenemployersandlabourers，itisnecessary，asineveryothercaseofhumanvoluntaryaction，toascertainthemoralprinciplesbywhichthisconflictoughttoberegulated。Thetermsofthebargainnotbeingamatterofnecessity，but，withincertainlimits，ofchoice，ithastobeconsideredhowfareithersidecanrightfullypressitsclaims，andtakeadvantageofitsopportunities。Or，toexpressthesameideasinotherphraseology，ithastobedecidedwhetherthereareanyrights，oflabourontheonehand，orofcapitalontheother，whichwouldbeviolatediftheoppositepartypusheditspretensionstotheextremelimitsofeconomicpossibility。
TothisMr。Thorntonanswers，——None。Asamatterofmereright，boththeemployerandthelabourer，whiletheyabstainfromforceorfraud，areentitledtoallthattheycanget，andtonothingmorethanwhattheycanget。Thetermsoftheircontract，provideditisvoluntaryonbothsides，arethesoleruleofjusticebetweenthem。Noonebeingunderanyobligationofjusticetoemploylabouratall，stilllessisanyoneboundinjusticetopayforitanygivenprice。
Exceptunderthetermsofsomemutualagreement，theemployerisnotboundtogiveanything。Beforejoiningintheagreementhewasundernoobligationtofurnishthelabourerwithoccupation。Eitherhemightnothaverequiredhisoranyoneelse’sservices，orhemighthavepreferredtoemploysomeoneelse。Butifhewasnotboundtofurnishemploymentatall，afortiorihewasnotboundtofurnishitonanyparticularterms。If，therefore，hedidconsenttofurnishit，hehadarighttodictatehisownterms;andwhateverelsethosetermsmightbe，howeverharsh，illiberal，exorbitant，orwhatyouwill，theycouldnot，atanyrateorbyanypossibility，beunjust。Fortheycouldonlybeunjustinsofarastheydeviatedfromsomeparticulartermswhichjusticemighthaveexacted。But，aswehaveseen，therewerenosuchterms，anditismanifestlyabsurdtocondemnathingmerelybecauseitslimitsdonotcoincidewiththoseofanabstractionincapableofbeingrealisedordefined，incapable，thatistosay，ofhavinganylimitsatall。（Thornton，p。111。）
Thecounter—theory，onwhichthelabourer’ssideofthequestionisusuallyargued，\"thateverymanwhohasnotbycrimeforfeitedtheright，andwhohasnoothermeansofliving，hasarighttolivebylabour，\"Mr。
Thorntonentirelyrejects。
Although[hesays]thesepageshavelittleotherobjectthanthatofdetermininghowthelabouringclassesmaymosteasilyandeffectuallyobtainfullyasmuchastheyeverdreamtofasking，thewriterisconstrained，evenintheinterestofthoseclasses，toprotestagainstthetheorysetupintheirbehalf。Nocausecanbepermanentlymaintainedthatissufferedtorestonfallacies;andonepervadingfallacy，beginningattheveryfirstlink，runsthroughthewholechainofreasoningofwhichthetheoryconsists。
Therightofthepoortolivebylabour，affirmedasunhesitatinglyasifitwereaself—evidentpropositionbeyondthepossibilityofdispute，isexplainedtomeannotmerelytherightsotoliveiftheycanthemselvesfindthemeans，buttohavethemeanssuppliedbyothersiftheycannotthemselvesobtainthem，andtohavethemsupplied，nominallybysocietyatlarge，butreallybythericherportionofit，therichalonebeinginapositiontofurnishwhatisrequired。Butrightontheonesidenecessarilyimpliescorrespondingobligationontheother;andhowcansociety，orhowcantherich，haveincurredtheobligationofmaintainingintheworldthosewhomtheywereinnodegreeinstrumentalinbringingintoit？Only，ifatall，inoneorotheroftwoways。Eithermankindwereplacedinpossessionoftheearthwhichtheyinhabitoncondition，expressedorimplied，thatthewantsofalltheearth’shumaninhabitantsshouldbeprovidedforfromitsproduce;orpartofthoseinhabitantshave，bysomecommunalactorinstitutionofthewholebody，beendispossessedofthemeansofprovidingforthemselves。Butinthefirstofthesehypotheses，inorderthatthesupposedconditionshouldbeequitable，itwouldbenecessarythattheearthshouldbecapableofproducingenoughforthewantsofwhatevernumberofinhabitantsmightobtainfootinguponit;whereasitisdemonstrablethatpopulationwouldinfalliblyeverywherespeedilyoutrunsubsistence，iftheearth’sproducewerefreelyaccessibletoallwhohadneed。Oftheothersupposition，itistoberemarkedthattheonlyinstitutionthathaseverbeenaccusedofproducingtheallegedeffectistheinstitutionofproperty;andveryslightadvocacywillsufficetoabsolveaninstitutionfromthechargeofdeprivingpeopleofthatwhich，butforitself，couldnothaveexisted。LetitbeadmittedthattheearthwasbestowedbytheCreator，notonanyprivilegedclassorclasses，butonallmankind，andonallsuccessivegenerationsofmen，sothatnoonegenerationcanhavemorethanalifeinterestinthesoil，orbeentitledtoalienatethebirthrightofsucceedinggenerations。Letthisbeadmitted，andtheadmissionissurelylargeenoughtosatisfythemostuncompromisingchampionofthenaturalrightsofman。Stillitiscertainthatthoserights，iffullyexercised，mustinevitablyhaveprovedthemselvestobesofarworsethanworthless，astohavepreventedanybutaveryminutefractionoftheexistingnumberofclaimantsfrombeingborntoclaimthem。Theearth，ifunappropriated，mustalsohaveremaineduntilled，andconsequentlycomparativelyunproductive。
Anythingliketheworld’sactualpopulationcouldnotpossiblyhavebeeninexistence，nor，ifithadbeen，wouldawholeyear’sgrowthoftheearth’snaturalproducehavesufficedforthesubsistenceoftheearth’sinhabitantsduringasingleday。Theutmostofwhichthepoorhavebeendispossessedbytheinstitutionofpropertyistheirfairproportionofwhattheearthcouldhaveproducedifithadremainedunappropriated。Compensationforthisistheutmostwhichisduetothemfromsociety，andthedebtisobviouslysoinfinitesimallysmall，thatthecrumbswhichhabituallyfallfromthetablesoftherichareamplysufficienttopayit。
Ifthesethingsbeso，astrictdebtorandcreditoraccountbetweenrichandpoorwouldshownobalanceagainsttheformer。Societycannotproperlybesaidtooweanythingtothepoorbeyondwhatitisconstantlyandregularlypaying。Itisnotboundinequity，whateveritmaybeincharity，tofindfoodforthehungrybecausetheyareinneed，nortofindoccupationfortheunemployedbecausetheyareoutofwork。Bywithholdingaid，itisnotguiltyofthesmallestinjustice。Forinjusticeimpliesviolationofaright;andnotonlycantherebenobreachofrightwithoutdisregardofacorrespondingobligation，butthatonlycanbearightthebreachordenialofwhichconstitutesawrong。Butwrongiscommittedonlywhensomegoodwhichisdueiswithheld，orwhensomeevilwhichisnotdueisinflicted。Applyingthistest，weshallfindthatthepoor，assuch，havenounliquidatedclaimagainsttherich。Thelatteraredoingthemnowrong，areguiltyofnoinjusticetowardstheminmerelyabstainingfrompayingadebtwhich，whetherduetothepoorornot，is，atanyrate，notduetothemfromtherich。Itwasnottherichwhoplacedthepoorontheearth，anditisnottherichwhoowethemthemeansoflivinghere。
Howfarthepoormaybeforgivenforcomplaining，asofagrievance，ofhavingbeenplacedherewithoutadequatemeansofliving，maypossiblybeaquestionforthetheologian。Butthepoliticaleconomistmayfairlycontenthimselfwithshowingthatthegrievanceis，atanyrate，notonewithwhichtheycanreproachanyoftheirfellow—creatures，excepttheirownparents。Nootherportionofsocietywasapartytothetransaction，andnootherportioncanjustlyberesponsibleforitsconsequences。（8）（Pp。91—94。）
Itisunnecessarytoquotetheapplicationoftheseprinciplestotheparticularcaseofcontractsforlabour。
Here，then，aretwotheoriesofjusticearrayedagainsteachotherinorderofbattle:theoriesdifferingintheirfirstprinciples，markedlyopposedintheirconclusions，andbothofthemdoctrinesapriori，claimingtocommandassentbytheirownlight——tobeevidentbysimpleintuition:apretensionwhich，asthetwoareperfectlyinconsistent，must，inthecaseofoneorotherofthem，beunfounded，andmaybesointhecaseofboth。Suchconflictsinthedomainofethicsarehighlyinstructive，buttheirvalueischieflynegative;theprincipaluseofeachofthecontrarytheoriesistodestroytheother。Thosewhocherishanyoneofthenumerousapriorisystemsofmoralduty，maylearnfromsuchcontroversieshowplausibleacasemaybemadeforotherapriorisystemsrepugnanttotheirown;andtheadeptsofeachmaydiscover，thatwhilethemaximsoraxiomsfromwhichtheyseverallysetoutareallofthemgood，eachinitsproperplace，yetwhatthatproperplaceis，canonlybedecided，notbymentalintuition，butbythethoroughlypracticalconsiderationofconsequences;inotherwords，bythegeneralinterestofsocietyandmankind，mentalandbodily，intellectual，emotional，andphysical，takentogether。Mr。Thorntonseemstoadmitthegeneralhappinessasthecriterionofsocialvirtue，butnotofpositiveduty——notofjusticeandinjusticeinthestrictsense:andheimaginesthatitisinmakingadistinctionbetweenthesetwoideasthathisdoctrinediffersfromthatofutilitarianmoralists。Butthisisnotthecase。Utilitarianmoralityfullyrecognisesthedistinctionbetweentheprovinceofpositivedutyandthatofvirtue，butmaintainsthatthestandardandruleofbothisthegeneralinterest。Fromtheutilitarianpointofview，thedistinctionbetweenthemisthefollowing:——Therearemanyacts，andastillgreaternumberofforbearances，theperpetualpracticeofwhichbyallissonecessarytothegeneralwell—being，thatpeoplemustbeheldtoitcompulsorily，eitherbylaw，orbysocialpressure。
Theseactsandforbearancesconstituteduty。Outsidetheseboundsthereistheinnumerablevarietyofmodesinwhichtheactsofhumanbeingsareeitheracause，orahindrance，ofgoodtotheirfellow—creatures，butinregardtowhichitis，onthewhole，forthegeneralinterestthattheyshouldbeleftfree;beingmerelyencouraged，bypraiseandhonour，totheperformanceofsuchbeneficialactionsasarenotsufficientlystimulatedbybenefitsflowingfromthemtotheagenthimself。ThislargersphereisthatofMeritorVirtue。
Theanxietyofmoralistsforsomemoredefinitestandardofjudgmentthanthehappinessofmankindappearstothemtobe，orforsomefirstprinciplewhichshallhaveagreaterholdonthefeelingofobligationthaneducationhasyetgiventotheideaofthegoodofourfellow—creatures，makesthemeagertoerectintoanaxiomofmoralsanyoneofthefamiliarcorollariesfromtheprincipleofgeneralutility，which，fromtheimpressivenessofthecasestowhichitisapplicable，hastakenadeeprootinthepopularmind，andgatheredrounditselfaconsiderableamountofhumanfeeling。Whentheyhavemadechoiceofanysuchmaxim，theyfollowitoutasiftherewerenoothersofequalauthoritybywhichitsapplicationoughttobelimited;orwithonlyasmuchregardtothoselimitations，astheamountofcommonsensepossessedbytheparticularthinkerperemptorilyenforcesuponhimasapracticalbeing。ThetwooppositetheoriesofsocialjusticesetforthbyMr。Thornton——theRousseauorProudhontheory，andhisown——arecasesofthisdescription。Theformerofthese，accordingtowhichallprivateappropriationofanyoftheinstrumentsofproductionwasawrongfromthebeginning，andaninjurytotherestofmankind，thereisneitherroom，norisitnecessary，heretodiscuss。
ButIventuretothinkthat，onintuitionalgrounds，thereisquiteasmuchtobesaidforitasfortherivaltheory。Mr。ThorntonmustadmitthattheRousseaudoctrine，initsmostabsoluteform，hascharmedgreatnumbersofhumanbeings，includingnotmerelythosetowhoseapparentinterestsitwasfavourable，butmanyofthosetowhomitwashostile;thatithassatisfiedtheirhighestconceptionsofjusticeandmoralright，andhasthe\"note\"ofintuitivetruthascompletelyastheprinciplesfromwhichhisownsystemisadeduction。Stillmoremaythisbesaidofthemoremoderateformsofthesametheory。\"Justiceissupposed\"——erroneouslyintheauthor’sopinion——\"torequirethatalabourer’sremunerationshouldcorrespondwithhiswantsandhismerits\"（p。111）。Ifjusticeisanaffairofintuition——ifweareguidedtoitbytheimmediateandspontaneousperceptionsofthemoralsense——whatdoctrinesofjusticearethere，onwhichthehumanracewouldmoreinstantaneouslyandwithoneaccordputthestampofitsrecognition，thanthese——thatitisjustthateachshouldhavewhathedeserves，andthat，inthedispensationofgoodthings，thosewhosewantsaremosturgentshouldhavethepreference？Inconscience，canitbeexpectedthatanyone，whohasgroundedhissocialtheoriesonthesemaxims，shoulddiscardtheminfavourofwhatMr。Thorntontendersinstead——viz。，thatnooneisaccountableforanyevilwhichhehasnotproducedbysomeviolence，fraud，orbreachofengagementofhisown;andthat，thesethingsapart，noonehasanygroundofcomplaintforhislotonearth，againstthosewhohadnohandinplacinghimhere？Mr。Thorntonhimselfconcedessomuch，asnotpositivelytodenythejusticeofthemaximswhichhepracticallyrepudiates;butregardstheirviolationasagrievance（ifgrievanceatall）againstthegeneralorderoftheuniverse，andnotagainstsociety，ortheemployersoflabour。Butiftherebeinthenaturalconstitutionofthingssomethingpatentlyunjust——somethingcontrarytosentimentsofjustice，whichsentiments，beingintuitive，aresupposedtohavebeenimplantedinusbythesameCreatorwhomadetheorderofthingsthattheyprotestagainst——donotthesesentimentsimposeonusthedutyofstriving，byallhumanmeans，tocorrecttheinjustice？
Andif，onthecontrary，weavailourselvesofitforourownpersonaladvantage，dowenotmakeourselvesparticipatorsininjustice——alliesandauxiliariesoftheEvilPrinciple？
Whiletheauthor’sintuitivetheoryofrightandwronghasthusnoadvantageinpointofintuitiveevidenceoverthedoctrinewhichitisbroughttocontradict，itillustratesanincurabledefectofalltheseaprioritheories——thattheirmostimportantapplicationsmayberebuttedwithoutdenyingtheirpremises。Topointoutinwhatmannerthisconsequencearisesoutoftheinherentnatureofsuchtheories，woulddetainustoolong;buttheexamplesaffordedofitbytheauthor’stheoryarenumerousandremarkable。
Take，forinstance，whatseemsthestrongestpointinhisprincipalargument——viz。，thattheinstitutionofpropertyinlanddoesnotdeprivethepoorofanythingexcept\"theirfairproportionofwhattheearthcouldhaveproducedifithadremainedunappropriated;\"
thatis，littleornothing—since，ifunappropriated，itwouldhavebeenuntilled，anditsspontaneousproducewouldhaveyieldedsustenancetoonlyaverysmallnumberofhumanbeings。ThismaybeananswertoRousseau，thougheventohimnotacompleteone;（9）butitisnoanswertotheSocialistsofthepresentday。Theseare，ingeneral，willingenoughtoadmitthatpropertyinlandwasanecessaryinstitutioninearlyages，anduntilmankindweresufficientlycivilisedtobecapableofmanagingtheiraffairsincommonforthegeneralbenefit。
Butwhenthistimehasarrived——andaccordingtothemithasarrived——thelegitimacyofprivatelandedproperty，theycontend，hasceased，andmankindatlargeoughtnowtore—enterontheirinheritance。Theydenytheclaimofthefirstpossessorstoimposefettersonallgenerations，andtopreventthespeciesatlargefromresumingrightsofwhich，forgoodbuttemporaryreasons，ithadsuspendedtheexercise。Societymadetheconcession，andsocietycanatanymomenttakeitback。
Again，theauthor，inhischapterontheRightsofCapital，verytrulyandforciblyargues，thattheseareaportionoftherightsoflabour。
Theyaretherightsofpastlabour，sincelabouristhesourceofallcapital;
andaresacred，inthesamesense，andinanequaldegree，withthoseofpresentlabour。Fromthishededucestheequallegitimacyofanycontractforemployment，whichpastlabourmayimposeonthenecessitiesofpresentlabour，providedthereisnotaintofforceorfraud。Butistherenotaintofforceorfraudintheoriginaltitleofmanyownersofpastlabour？
Theauthorstatesthecaseasifallproperty，fromthebeginningoftime，hadbeenhonestlycomeby;eitherproducedbythelabouroftheownerhimself，orbestowedonhimbygiftorbequestfromthosewhoselabourdidproduceit。Buthowstandsthefact？Landedpropertyatleast，inallthecountriesofmodernEurope，derivesitsoriginfromforce;thelandwastakenbymilitaryviolencefromformerpossessors，bythosefromwhomithasbeentransmittedtoitspresentowners。True，muchofithaschangedhandsbypurchase，andhascomeintothepossessionofpersonswhohadearnedthepurchase—moneybytheirlabour;butthesellerscouldnotimparttoothersabettertitlethantheythemselvespossessed。Movableproperty，nodoubt，hasonthewholeapurerorigin，itsfirstacquirershavingmostlyworkedforit，atsomethingusefultotheirfellow—citizens。But，lookingatthequestionmerelyhistorically，andconfiningourattentiontothelargermasses，thedoctrinethattherightsofcapitalarethoseofpastlabourisliableevenheretogreatabatements。Puttingasidewhathasbeenacquiredbyfraud，orbythemanymodesoftakingadvantageofcircumstances，whicharedeemedfairincommerce，thoughapersonofadelicateconsciencewouldscrupletousetheminmostoftheotherconcernsoflife—omittingalltheseconsiderations，howmanyofthegreatcommercialfortuneshavebeen，atleastpartly，builtupbypracticeswhichinabetterstateofsocietywouldhavebeenimpossible——jobbingcontracts，profligateloans，orotherabusesofGovernmentexpenditure，improperuseofpublicpositions，monopolies，andotherbadlaws，orperhapsonlybythemanifoldadvantageswhichimperfectsocialinstitutionsgavetothosewhoarealreadyrich，overtheirpoorerfellow—citizens，inthegeneralstruggleoflife？Wemaybetoldthatthereissuchathingasprescription，andthatabadtitlemaybecomeagoodonebylapseoftime。Itmay，andthereareexcellentreasonsofgeneralutilitywhyitshould;buttherewouldbesomedifficultyinestablishingthispositionfromanyaprioriprinciple。Itisofgreatimportancetothegoodorderandcomfortoftheworldthatanamnestyshouldbegrantedtoallwrongsofsoremoteadatethattheevidencenecessaryfortheascertainmentoftitleisnolongeraccessible，orthatthereversalofthewrongwouldcausegreaterinsecurityandgreatersocialdisturbancethanitscondonation。