80 transactions. — Misceltcineom. 



duce so mucli next time, indeed, having lost part of his capital, he has not 

 the command of the same quantity of commodities to give his workmen as 

 he had before, so he is obliged to dismiss some of them, and would, there- 

 fore, not be able to produce so much, even if he wished to. The corduroy- 

 maker having, however, made money, and finding the demand for his wares 

 brisk, employs more men and produces more corduroy. The total employ- 

 ment given by the two manufacturers together is therefore the same, and 

 no injury to the working class has been produced by the mere transfer of 

 capital from one of them to the other, no wealth in short has been lost 

 or destroyed. There will be next year more corduroy made and less 

 velvet. Our philanthropist has succeeded in doing good to the working 

 classes to this extent ; so long as he contmues his bounty it is at his own 

 expense and not at that of others. The rich man's charity, however, 

 seldom or never does good ; it generally returns into the pockets of the 

 rich, and does so in this case, for his bounty is so much saved in poor rates 

 to the neighbouring gentry. 



If he tries Mill's other expedient of employing labour in building houses 

 (not, however, for the poor to live in), in digging artificial lakes, and in 

 making pleasure gardens, his success will be if possible still smaller. The 

 self-sacrifice shown in making a personal display of wealth by havuig a 

 fine garden instead of by wearing velvet is not of the kind that does much 

 good to anyone. 



We will assume that after having made his annual purchase of velvet, 

 he resolves that in future he will be an employer of labour, and, to simplify 

 the question, that he has told the velvet-maker of his intentions, so that 

 the latter does not make so much velvet but employs his wealth in some 

 other way. Under his old style of proceeding his income would have -been 

 accumulating until the velvet which he was about to buy was manufactured 

 and until the requisite sum had been got together. It would probably have 

 been placed in the bank as it came in, and the bank would have taken good 

 care that it was not left there lying idle. It would have been lent out to 

 manufacturers who would have procured with the money the wealth it gave 

 them a right to, and this wealth would have been given to workmen in 

 exchange for their labour, which would be devoted to some profitable 

 employment in producing new wealth to replace that which they consumed. 

 This must now stop, the philanthropist wants his money from day to day to 

 pay his gardeners, so the manufacturer's labourers are thrown out of work, 

 the manufacturer not having means to pay them. The gardeners, how- 

 ever, get the commodities which the manufacturer's men got before, and so 

 on the average no harm is done. There has been a transfer of work from 

 manufacturer's men to gardeners, and the labouring classes neither gain 

 nor lose. 



