Sixthly . The views which I have been endeayouring to explain, are inconsistent with the common opinion, that theunproductive consumption of landlords and capitalists is beneficial to the labouring classes, because it furnishes them with employment . The maintainers of this theory must forget that it is not employment, but food, clothing, shelter, and fuel--inshort, the materials of subsistence and comfort, that the labouring classes require. The word employment is merely aconcise form of designating toil, trouble, exposure, and fatigue. All these, per se, are evils, and the less of them that isrequired for obtaining a given amount of subsistence and comfort, -- or, in other words, the greater the facility of obtainingthat given amount,--the better, caeteris paribus, will be the condition of the labouring classes; indeed, of all classes in thecommunity. What occasions the prosperity of a colony? Not the dearness of subsistence, but its cheapness; not thedifficulty of obtaining food, clothing; shelter, and fuel, but the facility. Now how can unproductive consumption increasethis facility? How can the fund from which all are to be maintained be augmented by the destruction of a portion of it? Ifthe higher orders were to return to the customs of a century ago, and cover their coats with gold lace, they might enjoytheir own finery; but how would that benefit their inferiors? The theory which I am considering, replies that they would bebenefited by being employed in making the lace. It is true that a coat, instead of costing 5 l., would cost 55 l. But whatbecomes now of the extra 50 l.? for it cannot be said that because it is not spent on a laced coat, it does not exist. If alandlord with 10,000 l. a year spends it unproductively, he pays it away to those who furnish the embellishments of hishouse and grounds, and supply his stable, his equipage, and his clothes. Suppose him now to abandon all unproductiveexpenditure, to confine himself to bare necessaries, and to earn them by his own labour, the first consequence would be,that those among whom he previously spent his 10,000 l. a year would lose him as an employer; and beyond this the theoryin question sees nothing. But what would he do with the 10,000 l. which he would still annually receive? No one supposesthat he would lock it up in a box, or bury it in his garden. Whether productively or unproductively, it still must be spent. Ifspent by himself, as by the supposition it would be spent productively, it must increase, and every year still further increasethe whole fund applicable to the use of the rest of the community. If not spent by himself, it must be lent to some otherperson, and by that person it must be spent productively or unproductively. He might, perhaps, buy with it property in theEnglish funds; but what becomes of it in the hands of tile person who sells to him that funded property? He might buy withit French rentes; but in what form would the price of those rentes go to Paris? -- In the form, as we have seen, ofmanufactured commodities. Quacunque via data, every man must spend his income; and the less he spends on himself, themore remains for the rest of the world.
The last theory, inconsistent with my own views, to which I shall call your attention, is that proposed by Mr. Ricardo in thefollowing passage:-- 'The labouring class have no small interest in the manner in which the net income of the country is expended, although itshould, in all cases, be expended for the gratification and enjoyment of those who are fairly entitled to it.
'If a landlord, or a capitalist, expends his revenue in the manner of an ancient baron, in the support of a great number ofretainers or menial servants, he will give employment to much more labour than if he expended it on fine clothes or costlyfurniture.
'In both cases the net revenue would be the same, and so would be the gross revenue, but the former would be realized indifferent commodities. If my revenue were 10,000 l., the same quantity nearly of productive labour would be employed,whether I realized it in fine clothes and costly furniture, etc. etc., or in 'a quantity of food and clothing of the same value. If,however, I realized my revenue in the first set of commodities, no more labour would be consequently employed: I shouldenjoy my furniture and my clothes, and there would be an end of them; but if I realized my revenue in food and clothing,and my desire was to employ menial servants, all those whom I could so employ with my revenue of 10,000 l, or with thefood and clothing which it would purchase, would be to be added to the former demand for labourers, and this additionwould take place only because I chose this mode of expending my revenue. As the labourers, then, are interested in thedemand for labour, they must naturally desire that as much as possible should be diverted from expenditure on luxuries, tobe expended in the support of menial servants.
In the same manner a country engaged in war, and which is under the necessity of main mining large fleets and armies,employs a great many more men than will be employed when the war terminates, and the annual expenses which it bringswith it cease.
If I were not called upon for a tax of 500 l. during the war, which is expended on men in the situations of soldiers andsailors, I might probably spend that portion of my income on furniture, clothes, books, etc. etc., and whether it wasexpended in the one way or the other, there would be the same quantity of labour employed in production; for the food andclothing of the soldier and sailor would require the same amount of industry to produce them as the more luxuriouscommodities: but, in the case of war, there would be the additional demand for men as soldiers and sailors; and,consequently, a war which is supported out of the revenue, and not from the capital of a country, is favourable to anincrease of population.
