limit to the distress which may be brought upon the people by the cunning of its knaves, and the folly of its multitudes.
I will take the three in their order.
16. (I.) Dress. The general impression on the public mind at this day is, that the luxury of the rich in dress and furniture is a benefit to the poor. Probably not even the blindest of our political economists would venture to assert this in so many words. But where do they assert the contrary? During the entire period of the reign of the late Emperor it was assumed in France, as the first principle of fiscal government, that a large portion of the funds received as rent from the provincial labourer should be expended in the manufacture of ladies' dresses in Paris. Where is the political economist in France, or England, who ventured to assert the conclusions of his science as adverse to this system? As early as the year 1857 I had done my best to show the nature of the error, and to give warning of its danger;[1] but not one of the men who had the foolish ears of the people intent on
- ↑ Political Economy of Art. Now "A Joy for Ever,"— Vol. XI. of the Revised Series of Entire Works,—pp. 47-56)
