the claims and advantages of the bargain; that it alters the proportion of the two services.  Does it not appear plainly enough, in fact, that Peter asks of Paul a new and an additional service; one of a different kind?  Is it not as if he had said, “Render me the service of allowing me to use for my profit, for a year, five shillings which belong to you, and which you might have used for yourself?” And what good reason have you to maintain that Paul is bound to render this especial service gratuitously; that he has no right to demand anything more in consequence of this requisition; that the State ought to interfere to force him to submit?  Is it not incomprehensible that the economist, who preaches such a doctrine to the people, can reconcile it with his principle of the reciprocity of services?  Here I have introduced cash; I have been led to do so by a desire to place, side by side, two objects of exchange, of a perfect and indisputable equality of value.  I was anxious to be prepared for objections; but, on the other hand, my demonstration would have been more striking still, if I had illustrated my principle by an agreement for exchanging the services or the productions themselves.

Suppose, for example, a house and a vessel of a value so perfectly equal that their proprietors are disposed to exchange them even-handed, without excess or abatement.  In fact let the bargain be settled by a lawyer.  At the moment of each taking possession, the shipowner says to the citizen, “Very well; the transaction is completed, and nothing can prove its perfect equity better than our free and voluntary consent.  Our conditions thus fixed, I shall propose to you a little practical modification.  You shall let me have your house to-day, but I shall not put you in possession of my ship for a year; and the reason I make this demand of you is, that, during this year of delay, I wish to use the vessel.”  That we may not be embarrassed by considerations relative to the deterioration of the thing lent, I will suppose the shipowner to add, “I will engage, at the end of the year, to hand over to you the vessel in the state in which it is to-day.”  I ask of every candid man, I ask of M. Proudhon himself, if the citizen has not a right to answer, “The new clause which you propose entirely alters the proportion or the equal value of the exchanged services.  By it, I shall be deprived, for the space of a year, both at once of my house and of your vessel.  By it, you will make use of both.  If, in the absence of this clause, the bargain was just, for the same reason the clause is injurious to me.  It stipulates for a loss to me, and a gain to you.  You are requiring of me a new service; I have a right to refuse, or to require of you, as a compensation, an equivalent service.”  If the parties are agreed upon this compensation, the principle of which is incontestable, we can easily distinguish two transactions in one, two exchanges of service in one.  First, there