Yes, the five francs thus diverted by legislation towards the strong box of Mr. Prohibitor, constitute an advantage for him and for those whose labour he encourages. And if the decree had brought that crown down from the moon, those good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any compensating bad effects. Unhappily, it is not from the moon that the mysterious five-franc piece proceeds, but in truth from the pockets of a smith, a nailer, a cartwright, a farrier, a labourer, a builder, in a word, of James Goodfellow, who now gives it without receiving an ounce of iron more than when he paid ten francs. At the first glance, it must be perceived that the question is thus greatly changed, for, very clearly, the profit of Mr. Prohibitor is compensated by the loss of James Goodfellow, and all that Mr. Prohibitor will be able to do with that five-franc piece for the encouragement of national industry, James Goodfellow would have done himself. The stone is thrown into the lake at one point only, because by law it has been prevented from being thrown in at another.

Let us state the case both before and after the issuing of the supposed decree. James Goodfellow is possessed of fifteen francs, the reward of his labour. What does he do with these fifteen francs? Mr. Prohibitor being obliged by Belgian competition to sell his iron at ten francs, James Goodfellow buys from him a hundredweight of iron for that sum, and still retains five francs. He does not throw them into the river, but (and this is what is not seen) he transfers them to some branch of industry in exchange for some enjoyment,-for example, to a bookseller, for Bossuet's Discourse on Universal History. Thus, as regards the national industry, it is encouraged to the extent of fifteen francs, namely, ten francs which go to the iron-master, five francs which go to the bookseller; and as regards James Goodfellow, he obtains for his sum of fifteen francs two objects of satisfaction, namely, 1st, a hundredweight of iron; 2d, a book.

But it will be said "You assume that James Goodfellow buys the iron from Mr. Prohibitor. Were he, however, to buy the Belgian iron, would not the French national industry lose precisely what the Belgian national industry gained?" The answer is easy: "Not so; the Belgian, no more than the Frenchman, gives his iron for nothing (though if he did, would that be a calamity ?), he demands an equivalent in exchange; all exchange is of product against product; and whether directly in the form of French

goods, or indirectly in the form of money, which has been obtained, as only it can, by the previous sale of French goods, the Belgian receives in exchange for his iron, precisely as does Mr. Prohibitor, some one or other product of French industry. In the one case, as in the other, the national industry is encouraged to the extent of fifteen francs."

But the decree is issued. What, then, is the condition of James Goodfellow ? What is that of the national industry? James Goodfellow, who delivers his fifteen francs, to the last centime, to Mr. Prohibitor, in exchange for a hundredweight of iron, has no more than the enjoyment of that hundredweight of iron he loses five francs. This is obvious. It cannot be denied that, when Protection raises the price of articles, the consumer loses the difference. Neither does the national industry gain it. For, after the decree, as before, it can be at most (with a reserve to be yet made) encouraged only to the extent of fifteen francs; five of which, in the one case, are employed by James Goodfellow, for his own satisfaction, and in the other, transferred to Mr. Prohibitor for his. Thus what is not seen, at least compensates what is seen; and up to this point there remains as residue of the operation, an injustice-and, alas! an injustice perpetrated by the law.

But this is not all. There is the multitude of preventive officers to be maintained, not in any useful, or even harmless employment, but for the sole purpose of forbidding the passage of Belgian iron across the French frontier. Even were the cost borne by Mr. Prohibitor, for whose sole advantage the exclusion is enforced, this would be a loss. The cost, however, is borne, not by Mr. Prohibitor, but by the community, who thus (in addition to the loss of a mass of industry that ought to be productive) suffer doubly: first, in the enhanced price of iron; second, in the taxes levied in order to enforce this very enhancement. There is a twofold injustice, and to James Goodfellow a twofold loss. And even if his first loss, caused by the advanced price of iron, were fully compensated as regards the national industry (waiving the question of injustice) by the increased gain of Mr. Prohibitor, and his consequently increased employment of the national industry,-the second, at least, is pure, uncompensated, and national loss. again is what is not seen, though surely it is important that it should be seen. And, be it once for all observed, that what is

This

true of absolute exclusion, is true, in degree, of protection in every form, however modified, and under whatever plausible name it may

assume.

The violence which Mr. Prohibitor himself employs at the frontier, or which he causes the law to employ for him, may be judged very differently in its moral aspect. There are persons who think that spoliation loses all its immorality provided it be legal. For my part, I can imagine no circumstance of greater aggravation. But, however that may be, certain it is that the economic results are always bad. Turn the matter over how you will, but look keenly, steadily, and you will see that no good issues from spoliation, legal or illegal. To use violence is not to produce, it is to destroy. Alas! if violence were production, this France of ours would be much richer than she is!

VI. ECONOMY AND LUXURY.

There is not a father of a family who does not make it a duty to teach his children order, arrangement, carefulness, economy, and moderation in expenditure. There is not a religion which does not thunder against pomp and luxury. This is very well; but, on the other side, what is there more popular than such remarks as these? "To store, is to dry up the veins of the people the luxury of the great makes the comfort of the small; prodigals ruin themselves, but they enrich the state; it is on the superfluity of the rich that the bread of the poor grows."

:

Here, assuredly, is a flagrant contradiction between the moral idea and the social idea. How many men are there, men not without intelligence, who, after having remarked this incongruity, yet rest in peace ? This is what I have never been able to comprehend for it seems to me, that there can be nothing more painful than to perceive two incompatible tendencies in humanity. Can it be that both alike degrade humanity? Economy sinks it into misery; prodigality hurls it into the abyss of demoralization! It is well that the vulgar maxims show economy and luxury in a false light, by reckoning only the immediate effects, which are seen, and not the ulterior effects, which are not seen. Let us endeavour to rectify this incomplete view.

Mondor and his brother Ariste, having divided their paternal

inheritance, have each an income of £2500 a year. Mondor practises the fashionable philanthropy. He scatters his money right and left. He renews his furniture several times a year; changes his equipages every month; men quote the ingenious devices to which he has recourse to get through his wealth; in a word, he eclipses the most extravagant heroes of Balzac and Alexander Dumas.

Well, you should hear the concert of panegyrics with which he is always surrounded! "Tell us about Mondor! Long live Mondor! He is the benefactor of the workmen; he is the providence of the people. It is true he wallows in luxury, he bespatters the passers by with mud; his dignity and that of humanity suffer some little; but what does it signify? If he is not useful in himself, he is useful by his fortune. He makes money circulate; his hall is always filled with tradesmen, who always retire contented. Is it not said that if gold is round, it is that it may roll?"

Ariste has adopted a very different plan of life. If he is not an egotist, he is, at least, an "individualist," for he reckons his expenses, he seeks only moderate and reasonable enjoyments, thinks of the future, of his children, and, to speak plainly, he economizes.

He

And you should hear what the vulgar say of him! "What is the good of this rich niggard, this skin-flint? Doubtless there is something imposing and touching in the simplicity of his life; he is, besides, humane, beneficent, generous, but he calculates. does not spend his income. His house is not always in a glitter and a fluster. What gratitude can he earn amongst upholsterers, coach-makers, jockeys, and confectioners ?"

These judgments, so fatal to morality, are founded on this, that there is here something which strikes the eye-the outlay of the prodigal; and something else which escapes the eye-the outlay, equal and even greater, of the economical.

But things have been so admirably arranged by the divine Inventor of the social order, that in this, as in everything, political economy and morality, far from being hostile, are perfectly agreed; and the prudence of Ariste is not only more noble, but even more profitable, than the folly of Mondor.

And when I say more profitable, I do not mean only profitable to Ariste, or even to society in general, but more profitable to existing workmen-to the industry of the day.

To prove this, it suffices to place before the mind's eye the

hidden consequences of human actions, which the bodily eye does not see.

Yes, the prodigality of Mondor has effects visible to all; every one can see his Berlins, his landaus, his phaetons, the delicate painting of his ceilings, his rich carpets, the dazzling lights in his palace, which rival the day. Every one knows that his thorough-breds run on the turf. The dinners which he gives at the Hôtel de Paris gather a crowd on the Boulevard, and people say to each other, "He is a capital fellow this, who, far from saving anything from his income, most likely makes a hole in his capital." is what is seen.

This

It is not so easy to see, as regards the interests of workmen, what becomes of the revenues of Ariste. Let us trace them, nevertheless, and we shall be convinced, that all, even to the uttermost farthing, go to employ workmen, as certainly as the revenues of Mondor. There is only this difference: the foolish outlay of Mondor is doomed to decrease incessantly, and to come to an inevitable end; the wise outlay of Ariste will go on increasing from year to year.

And it is thus, assuredly, that the public interest is in harmony with morality.

Ariste spends, for himself and his household, a thousand pounds a year. If that were not enough for his happiness he would not deserve the name of wise. He is touched with the evils which weigh on the poor; he believes himself bound in duty to do something for their relief, and he consecrates £500 to acts of beneficence. Among merchants, manufacturers, agriculturists, he has friends whose means are straitened for a time. He acquaints himself with their position, in order to come to their aid prudently and efficiently; and to this employment he destines other £500. Finally, he does not forget that he has daughters to endow,-sons, to whom he ought to secure a future; and, consequently, he imposes on himself the duty of saving and investing every year £500. This, then, is the employment of his income :1st, Personal Expenses,

£1000

500

500

500

Let us consider each of those heads, and we shall see that not a single farthing escapes from the national industry. 1st, Personal