nd； if to prove my assertion is an offence against you； I am guilty of it；〃 immediately the listener opens his ears； he is all attention； and； if I do not succeed in convincing him； at least I give his thought an impulse； and set him the wholesome example of doubt and free examination。
Then do not think； sir； that； in tripping up the philosophy of your very learned and very estimable confrere； M。 Troplong； I fail to appreciate his talent as a writer （in my opinion； he has too much for a jurist）； nor his knowledge； though it is too closely confined to the letter of the law； and the reading of old books。 In these particulars； M。 Troplong offends on the side of excess rather than deficiency。 Further； do not believe that I am actuated by any personal animosity towards him； or that I have the slightest desire to wound his self…love。 I know M。 Troplong only by his 〃Treatise on Prescription；〃 which I wish he had not written； and as for my critics； neither M。 Troplong； nor any of those whose opinion I value； will ever read me。 Once more； my only object is to prove； as far as I am able； to this unhappy French nation； that those who make the laws； as well as those who interpret them； are not infallible organs of general； impersonal； and absolute reason。
I had resolved to submit to a systematic criticism the semi… official defence of the right of property recently put forth by M。 Wolowski； your colleague at the Conservatory。 With this view； I had commenced to collect the documents necessary for each of his lectures； but； soon perceiving that the ideas of the professor were incoherent； that his arguments contradicted each other； that one affirmation was sure to be overthrown by another； and that in M。 Wolowski's lucubrations the good was always mingled with the bad； and being by nature a little suspicious； it suddenly occurred to me that M。 Wolowski was an advocate of equality in disguise； thrown in spite of himself into the position in which the patriarch Jacob pictures one of his sons； _inter duas clitellas_； between two stools； as the proverb says。 In more parliamentary language； I saw clearly that M。 Wolowski was placed between his profound convictions on the one hand and his official duties on the other； and that； in order to maintain his position； he had to assume a certain slant。 Then I experienced great pain at seeing the reserve； the circumlocution； the figures； and the irony to which a professor of legislation； whose duty it is to teach dogmas with clearness and precision； was forced to resort； and I fell to cursing the society in which an honest man is not allowed to say frankly what he thinks。 Never； sir； have you conceived of such torture： I seemed to be witnessing the martyrdom of a mind。 I am going to give you an idea of these astonishing meetings； or rather of these scenes of sorrow。
Monday； Nov。 20； 1840。The professor declares； in brief；1。 That the right of property is not founded upon occupation； but upon the impress of man； 2。 That every man has a natural and inalienable right to the use of matter。
Now； if matter can be appropriated； and if； notwithstanding； all men retain an inalienable right to the use of this matter； what is property？and if matter can be appropriated only by labor； how long is this appropriation to continue？questions that will confuse and confound all jurists whatsoever。
Then M。 Wolowski cites his authorities。 Great God！ what witnesses he brings forward！ First； M。 Troplong； the great metaphysician； whom we have discussed； then； M。 Louis Blanc； editor of the 〃Revue du Progres；〃 who came near being tried by jury for publishing his 〃Organization of Labor；〃 and who escaped from the clutches of the public prosecutor only by a juggler's trick；＇1＇ Corinne；I mean Madame de Stael；who； in an ode； making a poetical comparison of the land with the waves； of the furrow of a plough with the wake of a vessel； says 〃that property exists only where man has left his trace；〃 which makes property dependent upon the solidity of the elements； Rousseau； the apostle of liberty and equality； but who； according to M。 Wolowski； attacked property only AS A JOKE； and in order to point a paradox； Robespierre； who prohibited a division of the land； because he regarded such a measure as a rejuvenescence of property； and who； while awaiting the definitive organization of the republic； placed all property in the care？？ of the people； that is； transferred the right of eminent domain from the individual to society； Babeuf； who wanted property for the nation； and communism for the citizens； M。 Considerant； who favors a division of landed property into shares；that is； who wishes to render property nominal and fictitious： the whole being intermingled with jokes and witticisms （intended undoubtedly to lead people away from the HORNETS' NESTS） at the expense of the adversaries of the right of property！
＇1＇ In a very short article； which was read by M。 Wolowski； M。 Louis Blanc declares； in substance； that he is not a communist （which I easily believe）； that one must be a fool to attack property （but he does not say why）； and that it is very necessary to guard against confounding property with its abuses。 When Voltaire overthrew Christianity； he repeatedly avowed that he had no spite against religion； but only against its abuses。
November 26。M。 Wolowski supposes this objection： Land； like water； air； and light； is necessary to life； therefore it cannot be appropriated； and he replies： The importance of landed property diminishes as the power of industry increases。
Good！ this importance DIMINISHES； but it does not DISAPPEAR； and this； of itself； shows landed property to be illegitimate。 Here M。 Wolowski pretends to think that the opponents of property refer only to property in land； while they merely take it as a term of comparison； and； in showing with wonderful clearness the absurdity of the position in which he places them； he finds a way of drawing the attention of his hearers to another subject without being false to the truth which it is his office to contradict。
〃Property；〃 says M。 Wolowski； 〃is that which distinguishes man from the animals。〃 That may be； but are we to regard this as a compliment or a satire？
〃Mahomet；〃 says M。 Wolowski； 〃decreed property。〃 And so did Genghis Khan； and Tamerlane； and all the ravagers of nations。 What sort of legislators were they？
〃Property has been in existence ever since the origin of the human race。〃 Yes； and so has slavery； and despotism also； and likewise polygamy and idolatry。 But what does this antiquity show？
The members of the Council of the StateM。 Portalis at their headdid not raise； in their discussion of the Code； the question of the legitimacy of property。 〃Their silence；〃 says M。 Wolowski； 〃is a precedent in favor of this right。〃 I may regard this reply as personally addressed to me； since the observation belongs to me。 I reply； 〃As long as an opinion is universally admitted； the universality of belief serves of itself as argument and proof。 When this same opinion is attacked； the former faith proves nothing； we must resort to reason。 Ignorance； however old and pardonable it may be； never outweighs reason。〃
Property has its abuses； M。 Wolowski confesses。 〃But；〃 he says； 〃these abuses gradually disappear。 To…day their cause is known。 They all arise from a false theory of property。 In principle； property is inviolable； but it can and must be checked and disciplined。〃 Such are the conclusions of the professor。
When one thus remains in the clouds； he need not fear to equivocate。 Nevertheless； I would like him to define these ABUSES of property； to show their cause； to explain this true theory from which no abuse is to spring； in short； to tell me how； without destroying property； it can be governed for the greatest good of all。 〃Our civil code；〃 says M。 Wolowski； in speaking of this subject； 〃leaves much to be desired。〃 I think it leaves every thing undone。
Finally； M。 Wolowski opposes； on the one hand； the concentration of capital； and the absorption which results therefrom； and； on the other； he objects to the extreme division of the land。 Now I think that I have demonstrated in my First Memoir； that large accumulation and minute division are the first two terms of an economical trinity；a THESIS and an ANTITHESIS。 But； while M。 Wolowski says nothing of the third term； the SYNTHESIS； and thus leaves the inference in suspense； I have shown that this third term is ASSOCIATION； which is the annihilation of property。
November 30。LITERARY PROPERTY。 M。 Wolowski grants that it is just to recognize the rights of talent （which is not in the least hostile to equality）； but he seriously objects to perpetual and absolute property in the works of genius； to the profit of the authors' heirs。 His main argument is； that society has a right of collective production over every creation of the mind。 Now； it is precisely this principle of collective power that I developed in my 〃Inquiries into Property and Government；〃 and on which I have established the complete edifice of a new social organization。 M。 Wolowski is； as far as I know； the first jurist who has made a legislative application of this economical law。 Only； while I have extended the principle of collective power to every sort of product； M。 Wolowski； more prudent than it is my nature to be； confines it to neutral ground。 So； that that which I am bold enough to say of the whole； he is contented to affirm of a part； leaving the intelligent hearer to fill up the void for himself。 However； his arguments are keen and close。 One feels that the professor； finding himself more at ease with one aspect of property； has given the rein to his intellect； and is rushing on towards liberty。
1。 Absolute literary property would hinder the activity of other men； and obstruct the development of humanity。 It would be the death of progress； it would be suicide。 What would have happened if the first inventions；the plough； the level； the saw； &c。； had been appropriated？
Such is the first proposition of M。 Wolowski。
I reply： Absolute property in land and tools hinders human activity； and obstructs progress and the free development of man。
What happened in Rome； and in all the anc