It is only fair to apprise the reader right here, that almost all Economists deny that any new capital is created through Credit. These deny _in toto_ that the relation of debtor and creditor involves anything more than the exchange between the two parties of certain _titles to tangible goods_. Let the reader now hear, and then judge for himself. Bonamy Price of Oxford University, a professed Economist and a teacher of acknowledged ability, writes as follows:[8] "_Omitting the capital which a joint stock company puts into a bank, the banker possesses no capital, except his premises and any coin that may be in them, however much commercial and monetary literature may ascribe capital to banks. Lines and names in ledgers, cheques at the Clearing-house, debts due to depositors, debts due upon bills by borrowers, are neither wealth nor capital. They are words and nothing more. Incorporeal property, under which these kinds of written words are summed up, is not wealth; it is merely a collection of title-deeds, but from which the reality is absent. The corpus is not in those deeds, but the right to acquire that property, even before possession is obtained, is itself a property. If a title-deed or a mortgage is declared to be actual wealth by Political Economy, then the sooner it is consigned to the waste-basket, the better._" This passage shows how the word, "wealth," tangles men up inextricably, who, by discarding it utterly, might have become clear thinkers and useful expositors. It also shows, that Professor Price never analyzed Valuables into their three kinds, never thoroughly mastered in a preliminary way the Idea that underlies Economics, never precisely understood what Money is, and certainly never found out the radical nature of Credit. Nevertheless, the passage just quoted really concedes the whole matter in the present dispute,--"the right to acquire that property, even before possession is obtained, is itself a property,"--that is all that we claim, namely, that rights are property, and that new rights (which are property) are created by Credit, and that some of these new property-rights thus created may become and do become a new Capital. These new rights, however, this new and acknowledged "property," are not "_titles_" to any specific valuables whatever, as Price supposed; "_a title-deed or a mortgage_" is a totally different thing from a Credit, since the one always describes and gives a qualified title to _some specific and tangible thing_, while a credit-right is always a claim against _a person_; the Roman law drew this distinction perfectly, a credit-right was a _jus in personam_, while a title-right was a _jus in re_; the common Latin language as spoken and written marked the difference by separate words, a credit-right or true debt was a _Mutuum_, while a title-right or thing loaned was a _Commodatum_; and the Law of our present national banks explicitly recognizes this universal and fundamental