. Luxuries, whether national or
personal, must be paid for by labour withdrawn from useful things; and
no nation has a right to indulge in them until all its poor are
comfortably housed and fed.

[Note 18: I have given the political economist too much credit in
saying this. Actually, while these sheets are passing through the press,
the blunt, broad, unmitigated fallacy is enunciated, formally and
precisely, by the common councilmen of New York, in their report on the
present commercial crisis. Here is their collective opinion, published
in the _Times_ of November 23rd, 1857:--"Another erroneous idea is that
luxurious living, extravagant dressing, splendid turn-outs and fine
houses, are the cause of distress to a nation. No more erroneous
impression could exist. Every extravagance that the man of 100,000 or
1,000,000 dollars indulges in adds to the means, the support, the wealth
of ten or a hundred who had little or nothing else but their labour,
their intellect, or their taste. If a man of 1,000,000 dollars spends
principal and interest in ten years, and finds himself beggared at the
end of that time, he has actually made a hundred who have catered to his
extravagance, employers or employed, so much richer by the division of
his wealth. He may be ruined, but the nation is better off and richer,
for one hundred minds and hands, with 10,000 dollars apiece, are far
more productive than one with the whole."

Yes, gentlemen of the common council; but what has been doing in the
time of the transfer? The spending of the fortune has taken a certain
number of years (suppose ten), and during that time 1,000,000 dollars'
worth of work has been done by the people, who have been paid that sum
for it. Where is the product of that work? By your own statements,
wholly consumed; for the man for whom it has been done is now a beggar.
You have given therefore, as a nation, 1,000,000 dollars' worth of work,
and ten years of time, and you have produced, as ultimate result, one
beggar. Excellent economy, gentlemen! and sure to conduce, in due
sequence, to the production of _more_ than one beggar. Perhaps the
matter may be made clearer to you, however, by a more familiar instance.
If a schoolboy goes out in the morning with five shillings in his
pocket, and comes home penniless, having spent his all in tarts,
principal and interest are gone, and fruiterer and baker are enriched.
So far so good. But suppose the schoolboy, instead, has bought