clusions, or even a doubt of their validity, is produced on account of the adoption by himself of a contrariety of argument. At this part of the investigation, I desire to call attention to another remarkable feature pervading the entire matter of argument now brought under notice. It is manifest, that the duty imperative on those who were arguing the case, was, to have exhibited a well-defined source of advantage accruing from the proposed change: for the object sought to be attained by making the change is that of opening a way to the formation of ADDITIONAL capital, in order that the increase of population, and the increase of the means of sustaining population, may be preserved in a progression justly proportioned the one to the other. In the place of which, the whole attention has been absorbed, and the whole strength of argument expended, merely on the attempt to show that from such a change as that contemplated no retrogressive movement or ill effect will ensue; and even on arguing the case in this improperly limited and unbeneficial sense, all the efforts to sustain it have proved futile. The deficiency to which I have just called attention, though pervading the whole of the arguments adduced, is yet rendered so conspicuous in the passage last quoted from the work of Mr. Poulett Scrope, that I cannot avoid feeling the greatest surprise at its having escaped the notice of the author himself. This writer, when dilating on the consequences of indulging to a very great degree in a taste for foreign commodities by the people of this country, frames his case succinctly, and then decides upon its results. He has informed us, that in the event of a great portion of the income of the country being expended abroad, ruin would without doubt fall, first on the tradesmen of London; then upon those of our watering places; then upon many country towns; and then upon many villages; but that Manchester and Sheffield, Leeds - and Liverpool, would gain in exact proportion to the loss sustained by the other places. Now, if I should concede the possibility of realising that which is here advanced as theory, by admitting that the loss will be succeeded by the gain, or the decrease by the increase (and I shall have to show hereafter that it will not); yet, taking the terms of the proposition as granted strictly, even then, the result must be in every way prejudicial. The writer asserts that the gain to the people of some places will be "exactly proportioned" to the loss of those of other places. Now the words "exactly proportioned," must of necessity assign an equal measure, or quantity, to BOTH the predicates of the proposition advanced. The implication therefore is, that the predicate antecedent and the predicate procedent are equal the one to the other. The problem will then stand thus. Let the subtraction from an ascertained congregate be equal to the number 1000,-let the addition to another ascertained congregate be also equal to the number 1000,-hence no increase in the aggregate. It follows, therefore, that the postulate or object required, which is increase, is not found. I will now bring forward another error, which is similar, and of equal importance, to that which I have just examined. It is contained in that part of Mr. M'Culloch's "Principles of Political Economy" to which I have before alluded; it is as follows: "Admitting, however, that the total abolition of the prohibitive system might force a few thousand workmen to abandon their present occupations, it is material to observe that equivalent new ones would, in consequence, be open to receive them; and that the total aggregate demand for their services would not be in any degree diminished. Suppose that, under a system of free trade, we imported a part of the silks and linens we now manufacture at home, it is quite clear, inasmuch as neither the French nor Germans would send us their commodities gratis, that we should have to give them an equal amount of British commodities in exchange; so that such of our artificers as had been engaged in the silk and linen manufactures, and were thrown out of them, would, in future, obtain employment in the production of the articles that must be exported as equivalents to the foreigner. We may, by giving additional freedom to commerce, change the species of labour in demand, we cannot lessen its quantity.” * It is here asserted, that in the event of a stated degree of freedom being acted on, workmen would be forced to abandon their occupations, but that it is material to observe that equivalent new ones would, in consequence, be open to receive them, and that the total aggregate demand for their services would not be in any degree diminished. Here then is exhibited a deficiency of matter which is of a character precisely similar to that which I have noticed as existing in the work of Mr. Poulett Scrope. The author has abandoned the great position which, as a faithful writer on economic science, he was bound to have maintained, namely, that of increase. From this he has retreated, and has taken his stand merely on an equivalent. Injury is admitted by the first portion of his proposition; and only an equivalent is contended for by the last. To show how cruelly such a course of action would operate, I will suppose the case in its application to a number of agricultural labourers. They are informed that it is necessary they should abandon the occupation in which they have been brought up, and instead of labouring in the fields, they must henceforth labour in the factories. Now, in effecting such a change, how much of severe suffering must be endured! The parties are to be forced to quit the scenes of all their earliest, and to them most happy, associations; the places where alone Principles of Political Economy, by J. R. M'Culloch, p. 155. they may have relatives and friends. Their habits of life are to undergo an entire change. The art in which they have been educated and are toiling, the habit of which has become so firmly rooted in their constitutions, is to be abandoned, and in its place a new and most irksome employment is to be learnt and practised. Many other circumstances might be annumerated, showing the misery which could not fail to be attendant upon the course of change here alluded to. Now, all this is to be undertaken and endured, and yet no general social advantage is shown as accruing. For, as it respects the entire community, a thing in possession is to be relinquished, and one of equal capacity merely is to be put in its place; "equivalent new ones" being the utmost amount that is contended for. If it could be shown that such a course of change as that adverted to was necessary in order to secure the advancement of other persons, and that it embraced likewise the ultimate good of the parties immediately connected with the change, or even of their descendants; that is, that it embodied the great law of general increase, the course could not be objected against, and must be cheerfully submitted to, notwithstanding the sufferings by which it may for the time be accompanied. But it will be seen that no such law as that of increase is attempted to be shown, and I shall have to prove hereafter, that even the equivalent which these writers have, with so little due consideration, introduced into their trains of reasoning, cannot be maintained. I shall have to show that the law of expansion, or increase, consists in an arrangement of matter very different from that which they have attempted to establish. Thus it is obvious that a course of action has been traced out, and promulgated as the theory, which is to bring in its train extensive devastation, misery, and ruin, without the pretext of utility being even advanced as an inducement for its adoption. Such a state of things, if brought about, would, assuredly, be the realisation of that pernicious and destructive economy which every benevolent man would desire to see averted, which every wise legislator would use his most strenuous efforts to counteract, and which every writer on political economy professes to argue against. The subject of absentee expenditure has engaged the attention of another writer on Political Economy, I mean Mr. Senior; but his treatment of it is unsatisfactory, because his reasonings are vague in character, loosely thrown together, and are contradictory the one of another. Having adduced, for illustrating the subject, the case of Ireland, and having alluded to the necessity that an Irish landlord is under, whilst residing in Ireland, of employing many of the Irish people in procuring commodities for his consumption, and in rendering him personal services, and so of distributing a large part of his income amongst the people of that country, he has then argued that a change of residence would bring about a very different state of things for the Irish labourers. On this point he has written as follows: "If he were to remove to England, all these wants would be supplied by Englishmen. The land and capital which was formerly employed in providing the maintenance of Irish labourers, would be employed in producing corn and cattle to be exported to England to provide the subsistence of English labourers. The whole quantity of commodities appropriated to the use of Irish labourers would be diminished, and that appropriated to the use of English labourers increased, and wages would, consequently, rise in England and fall in Ireland.” * Having advanced this clear and indisputable working of facts by which the injurious effects of absentee expenditure *Political Economy, by Nassau William Senior, Esq., p. 155. |