duce so much 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, therefore, 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 employment 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 continues 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 having 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, however, 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.
