In an interesting article, entitled, "The Effect of an Increased Production of Wealth on Wages," which appeared. last year in the Fortnightly Review, Professor Fawcett, M.P., called attention to the small increase that had been made in the wages of the workingclasses generally, when compared with the largely increased trade of the country during the last quarter of a century, and he endeavoured to show that this was chiefly owing to "the increase of population, the displacement of labour by machinery, and the export of capital." The great importance of an economic question which affects the material wellbeing of a large majority of the people; the inadequate notice which it has hitherto received, and the unsettled state of the labour market at the present time, are my reasons for reverting to this subject.

Mr. Fawcett assumes that the wealth of England has increased enormously, and that the working classes have not duly shared in it. This is to a certain extent erroneous. The increase of wealth has certainly been great, but not so great as a comparison of the value of the exports of thirty years ago with that of those of the present time would appear to indicate. The income of the nation has increased to that extent, but its expenditure has also increased largely. The increase of wealth accumulated has not been proportionate to the increase of trade. An immense amount of wealth has been produced (and the working classes have had a large share of it), but much of it has been squandered and wasted. The annual waste of money on the follies of fashion, the use of intoxicating drinks, and indulgence in unreasonable luxuries, has increased to such an extent as to very materially counterbalance the addition

to the national income. Our exports increased from 60,000,000l. in 1845 to 255,000,000l. in 1873; and our expenditure on intoxicating drinks alone increased from 81,000,000l. in 1845 to 140,000,000l. in 1873.

The assumption that the increase in the remuneration of labour has not corresponded with the increase of trade is based on certain statements made and examples given by Mr. Brassey, M.P., in his book on Work and Wages. Mr. Brassey shows that in the Government dockyards and the private shipbuilding yards on the Thames, wages rose but very little during the years 1851 to 1869. These are, however, special cases, and the cause of the non-advance can be explained. The wages of shipbuilders generally did advance considerably during this time, although the wages of the Thames men were almost stationary. The fact is, the Southern masters were being driven out of the market by their competitors in the North and on the Clyde. Iron ships were supplanting wooden ones. The. Thames is not near to the iron-fields. So soon as shipbuilding yards were established in the iron districts, the London masters were placed at a disadvantage in the item of the carriage of their materials, as well as in the high rent of their yards. Their only chance of counteracting this was by keeping down wages. This was done, and yet the bulk of the trade has left the Thames, and is now done in the North of England and in Scotland. The almost absolute certainty of permanent employment, and the system of granting pensions in old age are special and peculiar features in the Government yards which preclude them from being taken as fair illustrations of the rate of wages. Mr. Brassey thinks that the

operatives employed in the building trades of London and Manchester did obtain an advance in their wages of about one-third between 1853 and 1872. I think that a careful investigation of this question would show that as great an average advance was obtained by the whole of the working classes of this country during that time. The style in which numbers of our artisans live is proof that their incomes have increased. The cost of living-houserents, price of food and clothing-is greater now than twenty-five years ago. If wages have not risen, the men must be worse off, since the purchasing power of the wages they do get is reduced. Any one who is acquainted with the working classes knows, however, that they spend more money, that many of them live in better houses, clothe themselves better, and eat more meat (hence the increased demand and consequent rise in price) than formerly.1 If wages had not increased, and houserents, &c., had, they would live in inferior houses now; whereas, they pay higher rents, and live in better houses. It should also be remembered that the hours of labour have been considerably shortened. A given quantity of work will now employ the same men for a longer period, or more men for the same time. So that even at the same rate of wages more money would be paid now for a piece of work, and more men would be employed than formerly.

There is one point to which Mr. Fawcett does not refer, but which is a very serious one, and one that should not be overlooked in considering this subject. It is the question of pauperism. The number of paupers relieved in England and Wales in 1851 was 860,000, at a cost of 4,962,000l.; in 1870 it was 1,207,000, at a cost of 8,007,000. This is an increase of 40 per cent in the number, and 61 per cent in the cost of our paupers in

That there are many who are not so well off even in the same trades and with the same wages, proves that the fault is not in the rate

ges, but that they do not earn what they or that they squander what they do

twenty-one years, while the population had only increased 26 per cent.

The Professor proceeds to account for the supposed stationary remuneration of labourers on the ground that an increased demand for labour is accompanied by a nearly corresponding increase in the supply. This supply, he says, is increased in two ways-1st. The increase in the demand calls into activity an influence which must ultimately lead to an increase in the supply of labour. "It is, in fact, clearly shown that when wages advance in consequence of an increased demand for labour, the number of marriages is sure to increase, and in this way the supply of labour is certain to be augmented." 2nd. Scarcity and consequent dearness of labour stimulates the invention of new machines and other industrial improvements, which, by economising labour, and rendering it more efficient, produce just the same effect in increasing its supply as if an addition were made to the number of the labouring population.-An examination of these two propositions will, I think, show that, though they are to a certain extent true per se, the facts do not warrant their application to the case under consideration, and that there is no proof that the small extent to which it is asserted the labourers have benefited by a great increase in the production of wealth is due to the action of the principles they enunciate.

Assuming the accuracy of the proposition that an increase of wages is followed by an increase of marriageswhich, by the way, is only partially correct, and is subject to modifying conditions-the increase of population thus traceable to good trade and high wages could not be the cause, or one cause of wages remaining stationary, even in those occupations where they have so remained during the time to which Mr. Fawcett particularly refers, viz., 1851 to 1869. The effect of such an increased supply of labour would not begin to be felt till some twenty years after the period of prosperity in

If trade was good and an extra number of marriages were contracted in 1854 and 1855, the effect of the consequent increased population on the labour market would only now be manifest. Prior to that time there was no great increase of trade to induce a special number of marriages. The total value of the exports and imports of the United Kingdom in 1840, was 67. 10s. per head of the population; in 1855, it was 91. 78. per head, an increase of about 44 per cent in fifteen years; whereas, in 1870, their total value was 177. 10s. per head, or an increase of about 87 per cent in the fifteen years-double the increase per cent of the previous period. Nor did the marriage-rate show any variation worth noticing till 1850. The marriages in England and Wales were :

the demand for labour. Machinery does work in better style, more uniformly, and with greater rapidity than men possibly can by hand. Makers are then enabled to supply superior articles at a reduced price. The result is that their sale is so much increased that the number of men employed in the manufacture of the goods is actually larger than before. Take the cotton, woollen, and iron trades-the staple trades of the country-where I suppose there has been more machinery invented and used than in any other manufactures. The marvellous increase in the population of the chief towns of these trades where machinery has been most extensively introduced, shows that the aggregate number of people employed is not lessened by inventions :Birmingham. Leeds.

Manchester.

1840.

These statistics certainly show that neither marriages nor the population increased to any such extent as would influence the supply of labourers or the rate of wages.

Mr. Fawcett's second proposition is that high wages promote the invention of machinery, or the introduction of some new method of carrying on industry by which more work can be done, and that the supply of labour is augmented, and wages are kept down thereby. I have always supposed that, as a general rule, the invention of machinery

So

The introduction of steam-engines, by means of which an immense amount of work can be done by a few men, instead of decreasing has marvellously increased the demand for labour. with railways, although a few men can now transport fifty times the number of passengers and weight of goods they could in the old coaching days, there are vastly more men employed now in carrying people and goods than ever there were. The facilities for doing the work better at a lower rate have, as it were, created the demand, or, more accurately, have brought the supply down to the level of an immense demand. Further, the introduction of machinery by augmenting the reproductive power of labour, leads to a rapid increase of capital, and the amount of money available for the employment of labour is thereby soon increased. So that even when an invention does throw some men out of work, the harm done is only temporary, and the increased demand for labour that soon follows makes up for it. The introduction of machinery is, however, always too gradual for there to be much injury of this

enough to read the signs of the times, and take steps accordingly.

Again, if it were true that the invention of machinery increases the supply of labour beyond the demand, and that such invention is stimulated by a scarcity of labourers, there would be nothing gained by restricting marriages, and keeping down the population, since the supply of machine labour thus brought into play would more than counterbalance the human supply of labour, which the Malthusian theory (one of Mr. Fawcett's remedies) would check. A restriction of population would be useless unless accompanied by a prohibition or restriction of invention. Are the political disciples of Malthus prepared to go to this length? Unless my statements and arguments thus far are fallacious, it appears clear that not only are the supposed facts on which Mr. Fawcett bases his arguments to a great extent erroneous, but also that his two principal explanations of them are unsound, insomuch as they would not account for the conditions he supposes if they were real,-and they do not .account for the actual facts. Then the question once more comes to the front

"How is it that in the midst of such marvellous prosperity and increase of wealth there is so much poverty and pauperism, and so little wide-spread -material improvement?"

One other explanation which Mr. Fawcett offers is, "that only a portion of the wealth annually saved or accumulated in England is invested in our own industry." He shows that during the last twenty years a very large amount of English capital has been exported in loans to foreign governments, and in investments in foreign industrial enterprises. This portion of our national capital is, he says, "for the time, so far as our own labour market is concerned, non-existent." This is quite true, and may be put down as one influence which has prevented the full benefit of the national prosperity being reaped. It is, however, only one influence, and by no means the most im

the fact that much of this capital is really expended in purchasing English goods, and in employing English labour. Also that that portion of this exported money which is wisely used improves the material condition of the countries to which it is sent. One result of which is that they do more trade with us, and their consumption of the goods we manufacture increases.

I would submit that the comparatively small increase in the accumulated wealth of the majority of the people, whatever lack of employment there may be, and that vast mass of pauperism, which is "a standing blot on our civilization," are to a great extent traceable to the use of intoxicating drinks.

The rate of wages depends on the proportion between the number of workers and the capital devoted to the employment of labour. Wages can only be permanently raised either (a) by improving trade, and thus increasing the amount of capital that is devoted to the employment of labourand that will increase as the wealth of the country increases; or (b) by decreasing the number of workers, and that is decreased by those who do well giving up altogether, or becoming masters, and ters, and in their, turn employing others. Both these conditions are opposed and counteracted by the drinking system.1

The wealth of the nation is decreased by the money spent on drink. We spend 140,000,000l. a year on alcoholic liquors, and if they are practically useless-as many affirm they are—if they answer no good purpose-being at the best only a luxury-that sum is actually thrown away.

That they are not a necessity may be gathered from the fact that whole nations in various parts of the world pass through life without them. Further, if intoxicating drinks. are in any degree beneficial to health, if they assist any part of our system in

I use the term "drinking system" to comprehend "whatever is concerned in the production, circulation, and consumption of

the discharge of its functions, if they contribute to any appreciable extent to keep our bodies or minds in proper working condition, either by direct assistance, or by protecting them from injury, it must follow that any one who is deprived of these liquors, or who is not provided with a substitute for them, must be so much the worse in proportion to the benefit to be derived from them. Nothing can be a benefit of which it is no loss to be deprived. In our own country hundreds of thousands of people do not drink intoxicating liquors, nor are they provided with a substitute, yet it has never been proved that they are, in consequence of their non-use of these liquors, in any way, morally or physically, incapacitated for the discharge of all the duties of life. On the contrary, it has been shown that, compared with those who do use the drinks even in what is called proper way," they are the healthier, the less injurious, and the more moral citi

zens.

a

They suffer less from sickness and disease, they are longer lived, and their names are far less frequently, if ever, found in the lists of those who are known as our pauper and criminal classes.

It is sometimes urged that the manufacture and sale of drink circulates money, and employs labour and capital, and that although the man spending the money may be poorer, others are richer, and the country is benefited by the trade done. The reply to this is that if the drink really is useless, and consequently valueless, the more capital there is invested, and the more men there are employed in its manufacture, the worse for the nation. The same capital and labour employed in producing useful articles would circulate as much money, and produce something that would add to the wealth of the country, and sustain and assist a certain number of men, while they produced other articles that would still further add to its wealth, and the sale and use of which would again facilitate the production of articles of value. After a

tion of the nation is this: Capital, labour, and material of a certain value have been employed in producing drink, that drink is swallowed, and the nation is not one iota better for it, either materially or morally; not an article has been produced, not a fraction of wealth created that would not have been quite as well, if not better, done if the liquor had never been made. Therefore the 140,000,000%. annually spent on drink is a dead draw on the wealth of the country-is so much taken from its labour-employing capital.

Further, drinking causes poverty. People waste not only their money on drink, but also their time in drinking; a man spends sixpence on drink, and he will waste as much time over it as he could have earned another sixpence in. It indisposes men for work by bringing them into association with idle, dissolute companions: disease is promulgated, and accidents are caused by it a father or а son is laid aside, or killed, and families are thus reduced to poverty. In the report presented to the Convocation of Canterbury by the Committee on Intemperance (1869) the testimony of 119 governors of workhouses is quoted; of this number 80 state the proportion of pauperism that they consider to be the result of intemperance; not one gives it lower than one-half, and the average estimate is 73 per cent. That proportion of our poverty that can be traced to drinking costs the nation 10,000,000l. a year.

Drinking promotes crime. It leads to crimes of violence by exciting men's brutal passions, and throwing them into evil associations. It causes dishonesty by pauperizing the drinker, and creating within him an appetite for that which money alone can buy. The steps from drinking to poverty, gambling and dishonesty, are frequently short and quick. Our judges and magistrates, superintendents of police, and governors and chaplains of prisons, unite in testifying that almost every criminal that passes through their