but there will be 500l. worth of English property less in existence than there was before; for the moment it arrives in France with a view to be expended there, it ceases to be English property.

Of replacing Capital.

Capital is replaced when money, or commodities, are disposed of, or exchanged for other money, or other commodities.

Before capital can be replaced it must be parted with; it must be placed out of the control of the possessor. A manufacturer can hardly be said to have replaced his capital by his productions, till he has sold, or exchanged them; for while he is manufacturing commodities his capital is never out of his own control, and consequently is only putting into a form in which he can exchange it with advantage: while his productions remain on hand his capital has only assumed another shape.

It is said, that "a farmer with a capital of 1,000l. has replaced it as soon as he has raised 1,000l. worth of corn, exclusive of his rent." I think he has not; for, till he has sold it, he cannot be certain that he shall get 1,000l. for it. While it is on his hands he has only the same capital in another shape; as is evident by the fact that he cannot raise as much more corn till he has sold it.

I am not aware that the point is of much importance; yet, I think some distinction should be made between the reproduction and the replacing of capital.

If "all capitalists replace their own capitals by their productions," all exporters replace their own capitals by their imports; and this they do without the assistance of absentees.

If a merchant exports goods to Peru, and receives back a quantity of gold, which gold he exchanges with you for English gold, do you call this replacing his capital? I do not. His capital was replaced by the gold which he received from Peru.

If, indeed, he has exported to France, and has given an order on his correspondent there to pay the amount to you, for value received of you in England, then I grant that you have replaced his capital; but I am sorry you took the trouble to do it; for by so doing you have spared the French merchant the trouble of sending any thing to England. You have actually prevented an import of the same amount.

If I have a coat made in Paris instead of having it made in London, I replace the capital of a French clothier and a French tailor, instead of replacing the capital of an English clothier and an English tailor; and the profit which the English clothier and

the English tailor would have gained, is lost to them, and is given to a French clothier and a French tailor.

To this it is replied; "then I should not have replaced the capital of the manufacturer who fabricated the goods in which my revenue was remitted to France." Very true: but it is not easy to see what great good you have done by this; for the goods were already exported, and without any knowlege that you would go to France. The merchant never dreamed of having you for a customer; and all the mighty good you have done is this; you have replaced his capital lying in France, with your capital İying in England; and have thus prevented his importing any thing, by rendering an import unnecessary for his re-imburse

ment.

I do not object to your sending gold to France, provided you bring back something for it. I am sure you cannot send gold to France without first procuring it, and that it must be procured with British property. We may safely imagine that the merchant who parts with the gold which he has imported will not do so without receiving something for it which is to him of equal value; something which will enable him to repeat the operation which procured the gold; which will enable him to procure as much more, and which he will be equally willing to dispose of in the same way. He considers gold as what it really is, an article of merchandise; and cares not what becomes of it, after it has answered his purpose.

It is true, that goods produced by the employment of British capital and industry, have been previously exported to procure the gold thus sent to France; here the account is balanced; and if I send it away to purchase something to be manufactured, or consumed in England, here the account is also balanced: in both cases British capital is replaced. But if I expend it in a foreign country, British capital is not replaced; and England loses all the profits which would have been made by her own manufacturers and tradesmen if I had expended it in England.

Effects of Absenteeism on the Home Trade.

The domestic or home trade of any country, is nothing else than an expenditure of revenue, or of capital, for articles produced or procured by the employment of the capital and industry of that country.

If I expend my income in England, I expend it for commodities procured for me by the employment of British capital and industry. I thus replace the capital of English tradesmen, with a

profit to them besides; and do thus enable them to manufacture, or procure more commodities for the same purpose, which they could not have done if they had not sold those commodities to me. It is the home trade of England.

If I expend my income in France, I expend it for commodities procured for me by the employment of French capital and industry. I thus replace the capital of French tradesmen, with a profit to them besides; and do thus enable them to manufacture, or procure more commodities for the same purpose, which they could not have done if they had not sold those commodities to me. It is the home trade of France.

It is frequently said, that the residence of Irish gentlemen of fortune in England is not injurious to Ireland. I can easily understand that it is of little importance to the whole nation, whether a million of money be expended in the City of Dublin, in the Orkney Islands, or at the Land's End in Cornwall; but, to say that it is no loss to Ireland if spent elsewhere, seems to be not less extravagant than to say, it would be no loss to the tradesmen of any town if half of their best customers were to purchase the articles which they want in another town.

In like manner I can understand, that if a million of British revenue be expended in foreign countries, the general wealth of the whole world will not be diminished; there will be exactly as much property in existence in the world as there would have been if it had been spent at home: but, to say that it does not benefit the country where it is expended, and injure the country from which it is withdrawn, is, I confess, a doctrine which I cannot understand.

When a family of distinction goes abroad, it will hardly be contended that the tradesmen who supplied them when at home do not feel the loss of their custom.

The shopkeepers, and other tradesmen who have lost their custom, have no means of indemnifying themselves for that loss; their views never extended beyond their own domestic, or home trade. The shoemaker, the tailor, the butcher, the baker, cannot become merchants; but they must still contribute their quota to the public revenue of the state; which quota, unfortunately for them, will be somewhat increased; as will also their contributions for the relief of those who are still poorer than themselves; and all this from diminished resources.

Now, when it is considered that the prosperity of agriculture depends solely on consumption, and that the amount of consumption depends on the ability of the people to consume, we must, I think, admit that absentees, by consuming the productions of a foreign soil, instead of the productions of a British soil, do en

courage foreign, instead of British agriculture, and do thus injure the agricultural and internal trade of their own country.

If an individual spends his income in France, he is no loser by so doing; it is quite immaterial to him where he spends the same amount of income; but the French tradesmen who manufactured or retailed the articles which he purchased, are gainers of the profits thereon; which profits, if he had spent his revenue in England, would have been obtained by British manufacturers and tradesmen.

The advocates for the expenditure of British revenue abroad say, that it is only exchanging "a portion of revenue derived from British capital and industry," for the productions of French capital and industry. Now, to this sort of exchange I have very serious objections; and cannot help thinking that it would be more advantageous to exchange the said "portion of revenue derived from British capital and industry," for the productions of British capital and industry.

It is not a fair exchange. It is not an exchange by which the productions of French capital and industry are received at all by England. British revenue goes to France, and the productions of French capital and industry remain in France, to be consumed there nothing comes to England: it is no exchange at all.

When we speak of commerce, we mean in a national point of view. What does England receive for what is sent from England?

If it were an exchange of the productions of British capital and industry, for the productions of French capital and industry, I should not care to what extent it were carried; such an exchange would be advantageous to both countries: being mutually beneficial, it would greatly tend to promote peace and friendship between them they would be as unwilling to quarrel, as a tradesman with his best customer. Commerce is the great civiliser people must be civil if they wish to deal with each other: but the exchange under consideration is not an exchange of the productions of British capital and industry; for the productions of French capital and industry; it is an expenditure of British capital in France, for the productions of French capital and industry. British industry is lost by this exchange; for the articles received are to be consumed in France, and thus cause a fresh demand for the employment of as much more French capital and industry; while just so much British capital and industry either remains unemployed, or is forced to seek new channels. The exchange, such as it is, is made in France, of French property for British property. No exchange takes place in England, except of British property for British property, for the purpose of taking

one of the portions to France, and thereby augmenting the aggregate capital of France, and diminishing that of England.

I

It is said, that "in buying foreign commodities you are giving just the same employment to British labor as if you had laid out your whole income in commodities of home growth; you are giving employment, namely, to that labor which was employed in making the British commodities, with which the foreign commodities that you consume, were bought." Undoubtedly, if the foreign commodities are regularly imported into England, and consumed in England, it is a fair exchange; because both the wholesale and the retail dealer in England would get a profit thereon: but, I do not think that "the case of the man who has French goods sent to him in Ireland, and that of the man who goes himself and consumes them in Paris, are precisely similar." It would be a more similar case if a farmer were to manure one of his neighbor's fields instead of his own. Now, if he were to do this by feeding off his neighbor's turnips with sheep, although he were to pay for the turnips, and thus give both money and manure, he would manure his neighbor's field not only without any loss, buteven with a profit to himself: he would export money and manure from his own farm, and import an increased quantity and value of animal food. If the French goods imported into Ireland are returns for Irish goods exported to France, the imports balance the exports, and replace the capital that was exported: there is exactly as much property in Ireland, and exactly as much property in France, as there was before the transactions took place: and if I stay in Ireland, I exchange my revenue for those goods, by which the tradesmen of whom I purchase them get a profit, which profit they would not get if I were to buy them in France. I do not know how I can consume either Irish or French goods in Paris, without taking over, or having sent to me, British property to purchase them with. If an import is made of French goods into Ireland, the importer will have to remit, or export the amount to France, in bills of exchange, or merchandise. An absentee cannot assist him; for he is an exporter also. He wants not only to export himself, but also funds for his support in France. If he buys a bill of exchange, he merely gives British property for British property: if he buys gold, he does the same: if he takes a bill on France, he prevents an import of the same amount: if he takes gold, there will be two exports, and only one import; that is, the export which procured the gold, and the gold itself.

1 Morning Chronicle, Sept. 16th, 1825. Letter signed J. S.
2 Ibid.