Civil liberty is the sum-total*of rights recognised by law and ensured by the coercive power of the State. These rights are of several kinds, e.g. rights to life, freedom, property, equality before law, right of the education, etc. But the question is: How far can these rights and privileges be (enjoyed by men? They can be enjoyed only when there is no overt or covert denial to their enjoyment: or exercise. One of the most common possibilities of denying this enjoyment of rights by the individual is the inequality of income and wealth. Inequalities of wealth or economic possessions will inevitably bring inequalities of treatment and rights. For example, one of the most important civil rights is the equality before law.
But when two persons, one rich and other poor, go to the court to seek justice, the rich has greater chances of getting it as compared to his poor rival. He can engage better and more qualified lawyers and legal counsels, while the poor man cannot pay their high charges and fees. That is why we sometimes find that a rich murderer is set free by a magistrate who was convinced by the clever and hair-splitting arguments of his counsel, while the poor man is hanged for murder because he could not engage a learned advocate Such difference in the administration of law “are dependent not upon the law itself but upon the social results of the inequality of wealth. Hence Laski said that there seems to be one law for the rich and another for the poor when it comes to the preparation of a defence in the case. The same difference in the enjoyment of rights is seen in other civil rights.
Take, for instance, the right to education, or to rest, culture, etc. A rich man can make them real, while for poor a man they are empty words. He cannot avail of them at all, or at least not to the same extent as the rich. We concede that the realisation of civil liberty depends to a great extent upon economic equality or upon the removal of gross economic inequalities.