WCP1608

[1]

29 Westborne Terrace

July 10: 1879

My dear sir

Right — the shoemaker sells shows and with the money buys food &c. goods for goods.

But so also does the organist. He is in the position of a wage receiver. He renders a service fee which he obtains money. But do the world know that true wages, real wages are what the labourer receives for his ^effort the things which he buys with the shillings he gets. Money is absolutely useless to him, except so for as they produce him goods. The money which he obtains was itself bought with goods. The history of the complete transaction is simply this. Some one, the man who bought the ticket for the [2] [illeg.], bought money with goods — he buys the service of the organist with the money — the organist spends the money in the shops — thus ultimately — goods are exchanged for goods.

It is precisely the same with inherited property. It is land? Then the farmers with corn or sheep buys money — that money he gives to the landlord, it is rent — the propritier buys in the shops — again, good for good.

It always is so, it always must be so, because is absolutely useless except as a good, a cost transferring ownership of substances. It is the only possible conception of money: it is an instrument solely for putting goods in different hands.

If man or England for money in hand, it is because equivalent value was given away in goods save, of course, money got by gift.

[3] This conception is fundamental. We cannot possibly agree; if you deny it but I firmly assert that I have proved my view, by giving the only possible analysis of money and its action.

I do not remember how I brought in the reference to "industries secured under protection which ought to cease": so I cannot say whether I "mis stated the case" by an irrelevant remark. But the assertion is strictly true — it is the very Kernel of Free Trade: an industry which maintains itself because it is protected, and could not go on without. The protection ought to cease. If the doctrine of Free Trade is correct, the influence is irresis [4] tible[.]

I am utterly unable to perceive how "foreign industries secured under protection are now causing our industries secured under free trade to cease in our markets". Protection was given to them in their countries to keep out or handicap English goods this necessarily implies that the English goods are cheaper. I am against quite unable to imagine why protection was asked for and obtained, except upon the supposition that the [illeg.] could not face the [illeg.].

Yours faith^y | B. Price¹ [signature]

It is not a bad way to [illeg.] upon money as tickets for things in shops & elsewhere.

You do not trace back the possession of money.

Alfred R. Wallace Esq