«Joseph Garnier.»—“The rent of the proprietor differs essentially from the wages of the labourer and the profits of the capitalist, inasmuch as these two kinds of remuneration are the recompense, the one of trouble or pains taken, the other of a privation submitted to, and a risk encountered, whilst Rent is received by the proprietor ‹gratuitously, and in virtue alone of a legal convention› which recognises and maintains in certain individuals the right to landed property.”—(‹Eléments de l’Économie Politique›, 2^e edition, p. 293.) In other words, the labourer and capitalist are paid, in the name of equity, for the services they render; and the proprietor is paid, in the name of law, for services which he does not render. “The boldest innovators do not go farther than to propose the substitution of collective for individual property. ‹It seems to us that they have reason on their side as regards human right›; but they are wrong practically, inasmuch as they are unable to exhibit the advantages of a better Economical system.” . . . —(‹Ibid.›, pp. 377, 378.) “But at the same time, ‹in avowing that property is a privilege, a monopoly›, we must add, that it is a natural and a useful monopoly. . . . “In short, it seems to be admitted by Political Economy” [it is so, alas! and here lies the evil] “that property does not flow from divine right, demesnial right, or any other speculative right, but simply from its utility. ‹It is only a monopoly tolerated in the interest of all›,” etc. This is precisely the judgment pronounced by Scrope, and repeated in modified terms by Say. I think I have now satisfactorily shown that Political Economy, setting out with the false datum, that “natural agents possess or create value,” has arrived at this conclusion, “that property (in as far as it appropriates and is remunerated for this value, which is independent of all human service) is a privilege, a monopoly, a usurpation; but that it is a necessary monopoly, and must be maintained.” It remains for me to show that the Socialists set out with the same postulate, only they modify the conclusion in this way: “Property is a necessary monopoly; it must be maintained, but we must demand, from those who have property, compensation to those who have none, in the shape of Right to Employment.” I shall, then, dispose of the doctrine of the Communists, who, arguing from the same premises, conclude that “Property is a monopoly, and ought to be abolished.”