This is a ridiculous accusation.
That science which treats of the laws resulting from the _reciprocity of services_, had no business to inquire into the consequences of generosity with respect to him who receives, nor into its effects, perhaps still more precious, on him who gives; such considerations belong evidently to the science of morals.

We must allow the sciences to have limits; above all, we must not accuse them of denying or undervaluing what they look upon as foreign to their department.
The right of inheritance, against which so much has been objected of late, is one of the forms of gift, and assuredly the most natural of all.

That which a man has produced, he may consume, exchange, or give; what can be more natural than that he should give it to his children?
It is this power, more than any other, which inspires him with courage to labor and to save.

Do you know why the principle of right of inheritance is thus called in question?
Because it is imagined that the property thus transmitted is plundered from the masses.

This is a fatal error; political economy demonstrates, in the most peremptory manner, that all value produced is a creation which does no harm to any person whatever.
For that reason, it may be consumed, and, still more, transmitted, without hurting any one; but I shall not pursue these reflections, which do not belong to the subject.
Exchange is the principal department of political economy, because it is by far the most frequent method of transmitting property, according to the free and voluntary agreements of the laws and effects of which this science treats.
Properly speaking, exchange is the reciprocity of services.