(M'Culloch's Evidence before the Select Committee on the State of Ireland, 1825, Fourth Report, pp. 813-815 ; also his Evidence before the Select Committee on the State of the Poor in Ireland, 1830, p. 592, &c.—Leslie Foster's Essay upon Commercial Exchange, 1804, quoted in the Deport, p. 597 ; Say, Cours Complet d'Economie Politigue, tom. v. chap. 6 ; Chalmers on Political Eco nomy, p. 200, 1832 ; Quarterly Review, vol. xxxiii. p. 459, for a hostile examina tion of Mr. M'Culloch's opinions.) So far we have given the arguments of those economists who have contended that absenteeism is no injury to the country from which the rent of the absentee is derived. It must be admitted that the evil is not so serious as many people suppose, and if we take everything into the account, it may be that the evil is inconsiderable. So complicated are the relations of modern society, that any restraint upon the mode in which a man spends his income would probably do much more mischief, even to the country from which an absentee derives his income, than the absenteeism itself does, whatever that amount of mischief may be.
Still, as a mere scientific question, the opinion of those who maintain that ab senteeism is no loss to the country of the absentee, requires some limitation. It is easy to show that its direct effect is to diminish accumulation iu the country of the absentee, and it is not easy to show that this direct effect is counteracted to its full amount in any indirect way.
It cannot be proved, as it has been stated above, that the absentee's consump tion of foreign Foods abroad is equivalent to an importation of foreign goods into England, and that such consumption pro duces a correspondent exportation of English foods to the foreigner. The absentee is enabled to receive his rent abroad because a foreign trade already exists; and it is not necessary, in order that he shall be able to receive his rent in money abroad, that a trade should exist between his native country and the coun try of his residence. There must be a foreign trade somewhere, in order that he may receive his rent abroad in money, but a man may live in a part of Europe which has no trade with Great Britain, and he will receive his money by an indirect route, and by means of the trade of England with some other foreign country. But it does not follow that the foreign trade of Great Britain is increased by the consumption of an absentee abroad so as to produce an exportation of English goods to the amount of his foreign con sumption. And if we admit that the absentee's consumption of foreign goods abroad produces all the effect that has been attributed to it, this will not remove the whole difficulty. Many of the things which he consumes abroad are not the peculiar products of the foreign country which he would or might consume, whe ther he was in England or a foreign country. He consumes and uses many things abroad which he would consume or use in England, and which must be furnished by the country in which he is residing.
Accumulation, or the increase of wealth in a country, can only arise from savings or from profits. All persons who supply the demands of others obtain a profit by the transaction ; at least the obtaining of a profit is the object with which a demand is supplied, and the actual obtaining of a profit is the condition without which a demand cannot be permanently supplied. All persons who have an income to spend may in one sense consume it unproduc tively, as it is termed, that is, the income may be spent merely for the purpose of enjoyment, and not for the purpose of profitable production. But no income which is received in money can be spent without indirectly causing profitable pro duction, for every person who supplies the wants of the spender of the income receives a portion of the spender's money, part of which portion is the profit of the supplier. If this income is spent in France or in Belgium, persons in France or in Bel gium derive a profit from supplying the absentee, and this profit enables them to accumulate. What is thus spent in France or in Belgium produces a profit to a Frenchman or a Belgian, and enables him to accumulate, and this profit is something taken from the profits of those who would supply the demands of the consumer in England. If all the persons who come to settle in London, and iv quire commodious houses, servants, fruits, vegetables, and so forth, were to settle at Brussels, the houses which are now built in London, and the grounds which are employed as kitchen-gardens round the metropolis, would not exist, and the profit derived from this employment of capital would not exist. It would be transferred to Brussels and tq Belgian capitalists. This would be the immediate effect of the wealthy residents in London remov ing to Brussels. The removal of these residents to Brussels would be the with drawal of one of the means of profitably employing capital, and would so far be a loss to the national wealth. Nor can it be shown that the capital which is now employed in and about London in building houses and cultivating garden ground could be employed with equal profit in some other way ; for to assert this would be equivalent to asserting that it is always possible to employ capital under all circumstances in a manner equally profitable. It may be rejoined, that if the wealthy residents of London removed to Brussels, English capital would be required in order to accommodate them with houses, and to provide other ordinary necessaries. This may be admitted, and yet it does not remove all the difficulty, for if the resi dents were to remove to various towns of Italy, the employment of English capital would not be required to the same degree as if they were all to remove to Brussels.