538 Proceedings. 
and gives the vendor a sovereign, he gets value for value; but if tendered a piece 
of paper, and told that it is worth a pound, he will probably dispute the dictum. The 
ease is different with a bank note, because the public have confidence in the banker, 
that he is able to pay specie to the amount specified on the note, upon demand. 
The author then gives his reasons for disagreeing from others of Mr. Carruthers’ 
propositions. He says that Mr. Carruthers' argument appears to him to involve two 
S aay dti namely, 1st, * That no real injury is done to the working classes by what 
he ma the disturbance of the equilibrium of labour. 2nd. That benevolence invari- 
ably deal its end, and results in actual injury to the poor." With regard to the first: 
Politieal economists of this school pass too lightly over the important consequences 
which must ensue to a section of the labouring classes by the sudden cessation or 
diminution of any of our national industries. They console themselves with the fact that 
capital which is withdrawn from one branch of industry can be immediately employed in 
another. And hence they say no harm is done to the working classes as a whole, 
because if there is a falling off of work in one department of industry, there is a corres- 
ponding inerease in another. Hence it follows that any disturbance of an industry 
conseqnent upon the withdrawal of capital, to be turned into another channel, results in 
a real injury to the labourers and artizans thus deprived of their legitimate employment. 
And any Rad benefit conferred upon another section of labourers, will not 
soantexbal anie the e 
regard to de bo proposition: The author takes it for granted that it is 
the e of the State, or of the wealthy classes, to support those who are in want. He does 
not understand Mr. Caruthers to mean that he is opposed to charity in general, but 
to that particular part of it dispensed by private individuals. Were it so, he should 
confront him with a very different line of argument. Objection is taken by Mr. Car- 
ruthers to the rich man dispensing charity, because he gives away money that would 
otherwise be used in the purchase of manufactured articles, and thereby robs the 
poorer classes of a portion of their income. By a parity of reasoning, it can be shown 
that, if there were no poor-rates, the rich man would have still more to spend. And if 
there were no taxes at all he would have a still larger sum at his command. Thus we 
come to the conclusion, that the poorer classes pay for the rich man's charity ; they pay 
his poor-rates, and indeed all the taxes of the nation, and the rich man pays none at all: 
for it follows, as a natural consequence, that the charities, rates, and taxes paid by the 
ich , if they were not paid, go into the pockets of the poor—in fact, to a reductio 
ad sidan. 
It is not stating the case fairly to say that “ The corn sent to feed the starving 
millions of India was taken from the labouring man’s stock.” It was simply an ordinary 
commercial transaction, so far as the mere export of corn was concerned. Corn is grown 
for sale, just the same as manufactured articles are produced for sale. If there is a 
superabundance of corn in one part of the world and a scarcity in another, the current of 
immediately sets in to restore the equilibrium. And the case of India is no excep- 
tion to the rule. We might as well say that the corn annually —— from ihe 
Australian colonies and New Zealand to Europe, is taken from the poor man 
8. ** Notice of the Discovery of Monoclea forsteri, GE in Rew 
Zealand," by T. Kirk, F.L.S. (Transactions, p. 418.) 
4, “ Descriptions of new Plants," by T. Kirk, F.L.S. (Trans., p. 419.) 
