The duke buys food, clothing, and lodging for himself, for his family, and for his servants. He buys, let us say, a suit of clothes for himself. That finds work for a tailor. And we are told that but for the duke the tailor must starve. _Why?_ The agricultural labourer is badly in want of clothes; cannot _he_ find the tailor work? No. The labourer wants clothes, but he has no money. _Why_ has he no money? _Because the duke has taken his clothing money for rent!_ Then in the first place it is because the duke has taken the labourer's money that the tailor has no work. Then if the duke did not take the labourer's money the labourer could buy clothes? Yes. Then if the duke did not take the labourer's money the tailor _would_ have work? Yes. Then it is not the duke's money, but the labourer's money, which keeps the tailor from starving? Yes. Then in this case the duke is no use? He is worse than useless. The labourer, who _earns_ the money, has no clothes, and the idle duke has clothes. So that what the duke really does is to take the earnings of the labourer and spend them on clothes for _himself_. Well, suppose I said to a farmer, "You give me five shillings a week out of your earnings, and I will find employment for a man to make cigars, _I_ will smoke the cigars." What would the farmer say? Would he not say, "Why should I employ you to smoke cigars which I pay for? If the cigar maker needs work, why should I not employ him myself, and smoke the cigars myself, since I am to pay for them?" Would not the farmer speak sense? And would not the labourer speak sense if he said to the duke, "Why should I employ you to wear out breeches which I pay for?" My offer to smoke the farmer's cigars is no more impudent than the assertion of the Duke of Argyll, that he, the duke, finds employment for a tailor by wearing out clothes for which the farmer has to pay. If the farmer paid no rent, _he_ could employ the tailor, and he would have the clothes. The duke does nothing more than deprive the farmer of his clothes. But this is not the whole case against the duke. The duke does not spend _all_ the rent in finding work for the poor. He spends a good deal of it on food and drink for himself and his dependants. This wealth is consumed--it is _wasted_, for it is consumed by men who produce nothing. And it all comes from the earnings of the men who pay the rent. Therefore, if the farmer and his men, instead of giving the money to the duke for rent, could spend it on themselves, they would find more employment for the poor than the duke can, because they would be able to spend all that the duke and his enormous retinue of servants waste. Although the duke (with the labourer's money) does find work for some tailors, milliners, builders, bootmakers, and others, yet he does not find work for them all. There are always some tailors, bootmakers, and builders out of work.