Proposition II. (I. 5).--Of such prosperity I, for one, have seen enough, and will endure it no longer quietly; but will set aside some part of my income to help, if anybody else will join me, in forming a National store instead of a National Debt; and will explain to you as I have time and power, how to avoid such distress in future, by adhering to the elementary principles of Human Economy, which have been of late wilfully entombed under pyramids of falsehood. "Wilfully;" note this grave word in my second proposition; and invest a shilling in the purchase of 'Bishop Berkeley on Money,' being extracts from his 'Querist,' by James Harvey, Liverpool. [27] At the bottom of the twenty-first page you will find this query, "Whether the continuous efforts on the part of the 'Times,' the 'Telegraph,' [28] the 'Economist,' the 'Daily News,' and the daily newspaper press, and also of monied men generally, to confound money and capital, be the result of ignorance or design." Of ignorance in great part, doubtless, for "monied men, generally," are ignorant enough to believe and assert anything; but it is noticeable that their ignorance always tells on their own side; [29] and the 'Times' and 'Economist' are now nothing more than passive instruments in their hands. But neither they, nor their organs, would long be able to assert untruths in Political Economy, if the nominal professors of the science would do their duty in investigation of it. Of whom I now choose, for direct personal challenge, the Professor at Cambridge; and, being a Doctor of Laws of his own University, and a Fellow of two colleges in mine, I charge him with having insufficiently investigated the principles of the science he is appointed to teach. I charge him with having advanced in defence of the theory of Interest on Money, four arguments, every one of them false, and false with such fallacy as a child ought to have been able to detect. I have exposed one of these fallacies at page 19 of the first letter, and the three others at page 15 to 18 of the eighteenth letter, in this book, and I now publicly call on Professor Fawcett either to defend, or retract, the statements so impugned. And this open challenge cannot be ignored by Professor Fawcett, on the plea that Political Economy is his province, and not mine. If any man holding definite position as a scholar in either University, challenged me publicly and gravely with having falsely defined an elementary principle of Art, I should hold myself bound to answer him, and I think public opinion would ratify my decision. Proposition III. (I. 6).--Your redemption from the distress into which you have fallen is in your own hands, and in nowise depends on forms of government or modes of election.