694 REPORT— 1902. 



dwelling-place is a most unfortunate one ; the ordinary forms of labour do not, as 

 a matter of fact, require such specialised ability that there should be much difficulty 

 in changing from one to another ; and surely it is much better for a man to work 

 at several different things at different places in the course of his life than to stick 

 fjr ever in the same place, surrounded by the same objects, going through the 

 same monotonous round of duties. Anything which will weaken the present 

 obstructive sentiment and lead people to regard the necessity of a change of 

 employment or residence as a temporary inconvenience rather than a cruel injustice 

 is to be warmly welcomed. 



It is not, however, only the poor and the industrious who would be taught by 

 a greater knowledge of economic theory not to kick against very necessary pricks. 

 The rich, both industrious and idle, would be taujrht to be far more tolerant than 

 they are of attempts to diminish inequality of wealth by reducing the wealth of 

 the rich as well as increasing that of the poor. The economist may be a little 

 annoyed with the workman who insists that he ought to have thirtj' shillings a 

 week for producing something worth fifteen shillings, or live shillings, or nothing 

 at all, but he can only have hearty contempt for the millionaire who holds up his 

 hands in holy horror and murmurs ' confiscation,' ' robbery,' ' eighth command- 

 ment,' when it is proposed to relieve him of a fraction of a farthing in the pound 

 in order to bring up destitute orphans to an occupation in which tliej' may earn 

 twenty-five shillings a week. The sanguine teacher of economic theory has hopes 

 of making even such a man see that he has his wealth, not because Moses brought 

 it down from Sinai, or because of his own super-eminent virtue, but simply because 

 it happens to be convenient, at any rate for the present, for society to allow him 

 to hold it, whether he obtained it by inheritance or otherwise. In other words, 

 that private property exists for the sake of production, not for the sake of the 

 particular kind of distribution which it causes. Some, I know, say that the rich 

 are so few that it does not much matter whether they acquiesce in the measure 

 meted to them or not ; but that is not the teaching of history, and I think you will 

 agree with me that for the progress of the whole community it is, in practice, quite 

 as important to secure the acquiescence of the rich as of the poor. 



In regard to international relations, the first business of the teacher of 

 economic theory is to tear to pieces and trample upon the misleading military 

 metaphors which have been applied by sciolists to the peaceful exchange of 

 commodities. We hear much, for example, in these days of ' England's com- 

 mercial supremacy,' and of other nations ' challenging' it, and how it is our duty to 

 ' repel the attack,' and so on. The economist asks what is ' commercial supre- 

 macy ? ' and there is no answer. No one knows what it means, least of all those 

 who talk most about it. Is it selling goods dear ? Is it selling them cheap P Is 

 it selling a large quantity of goods in proportion to the area of the country ? 

 or in proportion to its population ? or absolutely, without any reference to its area 

 or population ? It seems to be a wonderful muddle of all these various and often 

 contradictory ideas rolled into one. Yet what a pile of international jealousy and 

 ill-feeling rests on that and equally meaningless phrases ! The teacher of economic 

 theory analyses or attempts to analyse these phrases, and they disappear, and with 

 them go the jealousies suggested by them. 



When misleading metaphors and fallacies are dismissed, we are left with the 

 facts that foreign trade — the trade of an area under one government with areas 

 under other governments — is merely an incident of the division of labour, and 

 that its magnitude and increase are no measures of the wealth and prosperity of 

 the country, but merely of the extent to which the country finds it convenient to 

 exchange commodities of its own growth or manufacture for commodities produced 

 elsewhere. If the city of York were made independent, and registered its imports 

 and exports, they would come out far larger per head of population than those of 

 the United Kingdom or any other great country. Should we be justified in 

 concluding York to be far richer than any great country ? If means were 

 discovered of doubling the present produce of arable land with no increase of 

 labour, much less corn would be imported into Great Britain and less of other 

 goods would be exported to pay for it ; the foreign trade of the country would 



