V 
 
REMEDIES 
 
 FOR THE 
 
 POVERTY, DEGRADATION, AND MISERY 
 WHICH EXIST: 
 
 Three Letters to the Editor of “The Times.” 
 
 By william TOYLE, 
 
 Author of “ Our National Resources and How they are Wasted,” etc., etc. 
 
 WITH AN 
 
 ARTICLE FROM “THE TIMES. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. 
 
 ALLIANCE OFFICES, 52, PARLIAMENT STREET. 
 MANCHESTER: 
 
 ALEXANDER IRELAND & CO. 
 
 UNITED KINGDOM ALLIANCE, 44, JOHN DALTON STREET. 
 1882. 
 
 PRICE THREEPENCE. 
 
(0 
 
 I 
 
 ^vv\c^^ ISSze-/ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The writer has been urged to reprint the following 
 letters, because it was believ'^ed that employers of 
 labour, social reformers, and many of the working 
 classes also, would be glad to take copies for distri¬ 
 bution, and so assist in the dissemination of principles 
 which are essential to the future progress of the 
 nation’s industrial, social, and moral well-being, 
 
 Claremont, 
 
 Bury, 
 
 December 5///, 1882. 
 
The following works, by Mr. Hoyle, may be had :— 
 
 “Our National Resources and How they are Wasted.” 
 Cheap Edition. Price 4d. The library edition is out of print. 
 
 Mr. Hoyle is a deep thinker, .and the mass of statistics, and the very valuable hints 
 that are thrown out all through the book, will furnish useful material to many a com¬ 
 mercial man .—British Trade youmal. 
 
 “Crime in England and Wales.” A History of Crime, and of 
 the laws relating thereto during the present century. With reference 
 also to the causes of Crime. Price 2s. 6d. 
 
 In a volume entitled “Crime in England and W.ales,” Mr. William Hoyle has 
 gathered together from tnistworthy^ sources a large body of facts of an instructive and 
 valuable kind, carefully distinguishing periods, and tracing the influences both of changes 
 in the law, and of varying modes of compiling statistic-s. The alarming results of intem¬ 
 perance, and its close connection with our criminal returns, are brought out very forcibly 
 in Mr. Hoyle’s chapters.—Z>a//y News. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN HEY^VOOD, ti, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS. 
 MANCHESTER: 
 
 UNITED KINGDOM ALLIANCE; AND JOHN HEYWOOD. 
 
REMEDIES FOR THE POVERTY, DEGRADATION, 
 AND MISERY WHICH EXIST. 
 
 [To the Editor of TIu Times.] 
 
 I HAVE read with much interest the various contributions 
 which have recently appeared in your columns from the pen 
 of Mr. Potter; and also your review of Mr. George’s book, 
 “ Progress and Poverty.” It is gratifying that so much 
 attention is being paid to questions which are of such vital 
 interest to the well-being of society; but it is to be regretted 
 that the remedies suggested for the evils which exist are so 
 wide of the mark, and so little calculated to effect the end 
 desired, viz., the sweeping away of the poverty, degradation, 
 and misery which are so prevalent in our country. 
 
 In the concluding paragraph of Mr. Potter’s last letter 
 he says:— 
 
 “ The lot of the labouring classes is, as a rule, a hard one. 
 There is no denying that. With a large number of them life 
 is absolute misery. Though they may not actually starve, 
 they are more or less hungry from one week’s end to another. 
 Their dull round of toil occupies the whole day, and their 
 homes are the abodes of wretched nights seldom free from 
 disease, aggravated by poverty.” 
 
 Mr. Potter further says :— 
 
 “ Thoughtful men frequently ask how it happens with all 
 our vast sources of wealth, so much poverty, degradation, and 
 misery should exist. My answer is, simply because labour is 
 not adequately paid for, and the working classes are unable 
 to obtain the food and necessaries which are required to 
 nourish their health and physical energies. Low wages first 
 of all abridge the comforts of the working man individually, 
 and next, by limiting his power of consumption, prevent him 
 encouraging and keeping in activity the labours of the other 
 classes of industiy.” 
 
[ 6 ] 
 
 Mr. Potter’.s picture of the position of a large section of 
 the working classes of this country is unfortunately too 
 truthful, but when applied indiscriminately to the working 
 classes generally it very grievously misrepresents them. It is 
 a melancholy fact that there arc large numbers of our working- 
 class population who live, as Mr. Potter says, in “poverty, 
 degradation, and misery,” but there are hundreds of thousands, 
 nay, I may say millions, who live in comfort and happiness. 
 Many of the.se reside in their own houses, they have money 
 in the savings bank, the building society, or the co-operative 
 .stores, and many of their homes are models of neatness, 
 comfort, and domestic happiness. 
 
 And these operatives who are so happy and comfortable 
 are only earning the same wages as those who are pictured 
 by Mr. Potter as being in such degradation and misery. I 
 speak, of course, for Lancashire. The question then presents 
 itself—How comes it to pass that one section of the operatives 
 of the country are found in such poverty and misery, whilst 
 another section, earning no higher wages, are living in peace 
 and plenty? The answer is plain, the difference is owing to 
 the way they spend their wages. If those who are in misery 
 begin to live and to act rightly, to shun the public-house and 
 spend their money properly, they soon rise out of their misery 
 and degradation, and, like the others, become happy and 
 comfortable. I have seen hundreds and thousands of them 
 do so. 
 
 Before proceeding further, I wish to ask the attention of 
 your readers to three points. 
 
 (1) During the last forty years our foreign trade has 
 increased nearly 400 per cent. For the ten years ending 
 1840, the total exports of the United Kingdom amounted to 
 ;£'452,000,000 in value, or ;^45,200,000 per annum, whereas, 
 for the ten years ending 1881, our total exports reached 
 .^2,214,000,000, or ^^"221,400,000 per annum. In 1840, the 
 population of the United Kingdom was 26,487,000, giving 
 jCi. 14s. per head of exports. In 1881, the population was 
 34,929,000, or ;^ 6 . 6 s. per head. 
 
 (2) As a consequence of this great increase in our foreign 
 
[ 7 ] 
 
 trade, wages have risen very greatly. Since 1840, the wages 
 of mill operatives have risen from 50 to 80 per cent. The 
 wages of out-door labourers, masons, joiners, mechanics, &c., 
 have gone up in like proportion. I could give facts to prove 
 this ; but, if Mr. Potter will read the speech delivered by Mr. 
 Bright at Rochdale in November, 1881, on the occasion of the 
 celebration of his 70th birthday, he will find abundant evidence 
 to substantiate what I now say. 
 
 (3) And whilst this expansion in our foreign trade and 
 this increase in wages have taken place, there has been little, 
 if any, increase in the cost of living. The cereal foods, 
 wheat, &c., which arc the staff of life, have at no time in the 
 present century been so cheap as during the last eight years. 
 Clothing never was so cheap as it is now, whilst candles, soap, 
 tea, coffee, sugar, &c., are also much cheaper than forty years 
 ago. It is true that flesh foods, butter, cheese, &c., arc dearer, 
 and rents are somewhat higher ; but taking the cost of living 
 all round, it is less now than forty years ago. 
 
 Now, if trade and wages have so increased, and if the 
 cost of living has lowered rather than advanced, and if, along¬ 
 side all, the hours of labour have been materially reduced, it 
 follows that the means of comfort are enjoyed by the working 
 classes of the country to a degree never before known ; and 
 their happiness and prosperity ought to be in proportion. 
 
 It is argued that higher wages will lead to proportionate 
 increase of trade. If produce and manufactures do not rise 
 along with wages, then, increased trade ought to come, and will 
 come, if the wages are properly spent. I have shown that since 
 1840 wages have risen from 50 to 80 per cent, and yet that the 
 products of industry have not risen ; and coupling with this 
 the fact that our foreign trade has increased near 400 per 
 cent it shows that we ought now to have had a trade that 
 would have banished poverty and misery from the land. 
 
 In this country, as Mr. Potter says, “we have vast sources 
 of wealth,” and it is too often the practice to refer to this 
 great increase in the nation’s wealth as a proof of its pros¬ 
 perity. Such a view, however, is but a partial one. A correct 
 idea of national progress can only be arrived at by having 
 
[ 8 ] 
 
 regard to all the conditions which go to constitute progress. 
 The development of a nation’s foreign trade, and the resulting 
 augmentation of its wealth, are but two of these conditions; 
 for, if when a nation becomes wealthy it appropriates its 
 wealth to luxury, to self-indulgence and intemperance, its 
 wealth then becomes the instrument of its demoralization 
 and impoverishment. Here we have the explanation of the 
 “ poverty, degradation, and misery” which Mr. Potter laments. 
 
 The genius and energy of writers upon political economy 
 have been directed chiefly to the elucidation of the laws which 
 affect the production of wealth, and too little to the exposition 
 of the consuming, or spending departments. Now, so far as 
 economic result goes, waste of wealth is as hurtful to trade and 
 prosperity when it occurs in expenditure or consumption, as 
 when it takes place in the process of production; nay, it is often 
 more so, for, whilst the laws affecting production, in respect of 
 the evils of waste, equally affect consumption, it often happens 
 that with the economic loss resulting from improvidence, is 
 coupled the degradation of the consumer ; and besides this, 
 there are often other grievous losses and evils entailed upon the 
 community. 
 
 The power of production at the present day in the various 
 industries of the nation, is at least eight or ten times as great 
 as it was 150 years ago ; that is, 100 individuals, aided by the 
 appliances of machinery and of science, will produce as much 
 or more to-day than 1,000 persons could produce then. This 
 increased power of production is the measure of the increase 
 of available comforts, and if there be only due industry and 
 reasonable economy exercised along with it, distress and 
 poverty would hardly be possible. Let us try to find out 
 wherein our shortcomings consist. 
 
 Economically considered, there are three ways of spending 
 money, ist—So as to yield a productive return ; 2nd—so 
 as to yield no return at all; or 3rd—so as to yield a mis¬ 
 chievous return. 
 
 I shall best explain these points by using personal illus¬ 
 trations, such as may commonly be seen in every-day life. 
 I will suppose the case of three men. A, B, and C, each one. 
 
[ 9 ] 
 
 when at work, earning 30s. per week. The first one, A, lives 
 upon 20s., and saves lOs. and sometimes more weekly, which 
 he deposits in some building club, co-operative store, or other 
 place of security, and gets 5 per cent interest for it. At the 
 end of five years, with interest and compound interest added, 
 A is worth ;^I50. With this sum he builds a house for which 
 he receives a rent of 4s. weekly. A’s income is then virtually 
 34s. weekly, for 4s. of which he does not now work. 
 
 Continuing to live upon his 20s. weekly, A will now save 
 14s. per week, and at the end of another five years, with 
 interest, &c., he will have saved £200 more, with which he 
 builds another house and lets it (say) for 5s. weekly. A is 
 now po.ssessed of 39s. weekly, and his income is 39.S. per 
 week. He still goes on living upon his 20s. weekly, and now 
 saves 19s., and at the end of other five years has saved 
 £270 more ; with this he builds two other cottages, and lets 
 them (say) for 3s. or 3s. 6d. per week, each. His income is 
 now 45s. 6d. weekly. He now saves 25s. 6d., which, in five 
 years more, with interest, &c., amounts to ;£^350. With this 
 he may build two other cottages, and let the two (say) for 
 7s. 6d. per week rental. 
 
 At the end of twenty years the position of A would be as 
 follows;—Each week during the twenty years he has expended 
 20s. in providing himself with food, clothing, &c., and so far 
 as this item goes he has given to trade and wealth just as 
 much as he has taken from it. ] 5 ut, over and above thus 
 supporting himself, he has saved £9/5 > or to put it in 
 another way, he has added £9^5 to the wealth of the country, 
 and, whilst at the beginning of the twenty years the weekly 
 income of A was but 30s., at the end thereof it is 53s., or 
 76 per cent more than at the beginning. 
 
 Political economy teaches that labour is the source of 
 wealth, and that things are valuable in proportion to the cost 
 of their production, or, in other words, of the labour expended 
 upon them. If this be so, it must follow that the wages of 
 one week, if properly expended, will create a demand for an 
 equal amount of labour for the succeeding week : and there¬ 
 fore, if there were only the current wages or income fund 
 
[ 10 ] 
 
 to fall back upon, this, if properly applied, would keep the 
 industrial ball rolling; but, when in addition to this, we take 
 into account the cumulative power of productive labour and 
 expenditure, and the corresponding development thus given 
 to trade, we are forced to the conclusion that there must be 
 something radically wrong in the habits of society, for, other¬ 
 wise, there would be work and plenty for all. 
 
 I will further ask your readers to consider the influence of 
 A’s expenditure upon the production of wealth, the increase 
 of trade, and the demand for labour. 
 
 (1) At the beginning of the twenty years, A’s income is 
 30s. weekly, which he applies as he ought, and so finds 
 employment for another labourer at a salary of 30s. weekly. 
 
 (2) At the end of five years it has added 150 to the 
 wealth of the community, and his income is now 34s. He has 
 thus 34s. to spend instead of 30s., and so in regard to his 
 future expenditure, he increases trade 13 per cent, and instead 
 of finding work for one man, he finds work for men. 
 
 (3) At the end of ten years, A’s capital has grown to 
 and his income to 39s. weekly. He thus adds 30 per 
 
 cent to his trade demand, and finds work for i J men. 
 
 (4) At the end of fifteen years, A is possessed of £620, 
 and his income is 45s. 6d. weekly. His power to trade is 
 increased 51 per cent, and he finds work for over men at 
 30s. per week. 
 
 (5) At the end of the twenty years, A’s savings reach 
 £97$. His income is 53s. weekly, his trade is increased 76 
 per cent, and he finds employment for if persons at 30s. 
 weekly. If we make liberal allowance for taxes, repairs, &c., 
 we may still place his twenty years’ savings at ;^90O, his 
 weekly income at 51/-, the increase of trade at 70 per cent, 
 and employment found for nearly if persons. 
 
 Or it may be that A, whilst he is saving his money, spends 
 his evenings at the Mechanics’ Institute, or elsewhere, acquir¬ 
 ing knowledge; and at the end of ten years, having saved 
 ;^35o, goes into business. He is a good business man, well 
 adapted to superintending the organisation of labour, and so 
 by his tact and industry, during the second ten years, instead 
 
[ II ] 
 
 of raising his capital from ;^350 to £97^, he raises it to £z,0OO 
 or possibly more. 
 
 Let us now glance at the second man, B. B is a man of 
 fashion, and to a greater or less extent he represents a con¬ 
 siderable section of the community. B needs a silver-headed 
 walking stick, an extra suit of clothes yearly, so as to keep 
 up with the fashion ; and, may be, an extra pair of kid 
 gloves, &c., quarterly. He must also be fashionable in his 
 apartments, and in his diet he is somewhat indulgent. He 
 thus spends the whole of the 30s. weekly, if he does not run 
 into debt. He does not, however, get a whit more, nor 
 indeed so much comfort from his expenditure as does A, who 
 lived upon 20s., for, being the slave of fashion, and to some 
 extent of appetite, he both pays for it and suffers by it. 
 
 But it is not so much to draw attention to these points as 
 to illustrate the influence of the expenditure upon trade and 
 labour that I write. Contrasting B’s expenditure with A’s, 
 they are alike in this, that they both create an immediate 
 demand for goods, and consequently for labour; but the 
 money of A was partly spent re-productively, whilst that of 
 B was not. Five, ten, fifteen, twenty years roll over, but all 
 along B squares off with his income, his wealth at the end of the 
 twenty years is where it was at the beginning, that is, he has 
 nothing. During the twenty years, A saved £97^, he in¬ 
 creased trade, so far as his own expenditure was concerned, 
 76 per cent, and he found work for men. B did nothing 
 of this. Economically considered, he might as well never 
 have lived, for he consumed everything he produced, and if 
 his health had broken down, there would have been no reserve 
 fund to fall back upon, and he might have had to go to the 
 parish for relief 
 
 We come now to the third man, C. Like the other two, 
 
 C, when at work, earns his 30s. per week ; but out of this he 
 spends may be 12s. or 13s. in drink, and perhaps is. or is. 6d. 
 per week in tobacco. Once or twice or oftener weekly, he 
 goes home drunk. Once or twice or oftener monthly,’ he 
 neglects his work to go drinking. Frequently when he goes 
 to his work he is not in a fit condition to perform it efificiently. 
 
[ 12 ] 
 
 and it is slighted, or perhaps some mischief results. His 
 intemperate habits injure his health, and he is sometimes 
 away from his work through sickness so induced. It often 
 happens that such a man loses his situation in consequence of 
 his drunken habits, and, in a very short time, he comes to 
 trouble the parish. Every Poor Law Guardian has seen 
 multitudes of such cases. 
 
 In the case of C, therefore, the money is not only spent 
 unproductively, but destructively, for food has to be destroyed 
 to make the drink which he consumes. His health, and time, 
 and character are wasted or injured in the consumption of it. 
 When maddened by the liquor, the man often does deeds of 
 mischief, and so there is necessitated the keeping of a police¬ 
 man to look after him. In these and other ways, heavy 
 indirect losses result, which careful calculations show to be 
 as great in amount as the money spent upon the drink. 
 
 Now, what does C do for trade ? Literally nothing ; for, 
 in the first place, one-half of his income is squandered away 
 in a manner that gives little or no immediate demand for 
 labour, for out of every sovereign so spent upon drink not 
 more than 6d. goes in wages for labour. B, the man of 
 fashion, spent his money so as to help current trade, but there 
 was no reproductiveness in his expenditure. In the case of 
 C’s expenditure there is neither present help to trade nor 
 future reproductiveness ; on the contrary, whilst the present is 
 7 iil, the future is a piling up of burdens which tax the rate¬ 
 payers, and take money out of their pockets which ought 
 to go to trade. C is therefore a constant burden to the 
 community. 
 
 Comparing the case of C with that of A, a threefold loss 
 is seen to result. 
 
 (1) The immediate loss to the labour market. 
 
 (2) The indirect loss arising from the absence of repro¬ 
 ductiveness ; and 
 
 (3) The loss arising from the mischiefs inflicted, and the 
 burdens imposed. 
 
 In the light of these facts and reasonings, let it be borne 
 in mind that during the last ten years the population of the 
 
[ 13 ] 
 
 United Kingdom have spent 1,364,000,000 upon drink, or 
 nearly twice the amount of the national debt, and when it is 
 remembered that this expenditure represents about an equal 
 sum of indirect loss in the burdens and mischiefs arising from 
 drinking, or a total of direct and indirect cost and of resulting 
 loss of over £2,700,000,000, it will show the terrible character 
 of the burden which has been weighing down the nation’s 
 industries during the last ten years. No wonder, therefore, 
 that there should be poverty, degradation, and misery. How 
 could it be otherwise ? 
 
 But if the C’s in the country had followed the example of 
 the A’s, and if the B’s in society had only striven to save a 
 little, instead of spending so much of their incomes in making 
 a show, where would have been the “poverty, degradation, 
 and misery” of which Mr. Potter speaks ? It could not have 
 been. Instead thereof, in every home there would have been 
 comfort and plenty, and the trade of the country which has 
 so long been depressed would have been flourishing and 
 profitable. 
 
 There are other reforms which the country needs, but I 
 venture to say that without a reform in the habits of our 
 population, including both rich and poor, the uplifting of the 
 masses is an impossibility ; but with this reform secured, 
 poverty, degradation, and misery would soon be things of the 
 past. 
 
 In conclusion, I must apologise for the length of this 
 letter, but the question is one of paramount importance. As 
 you say in your leader of to-day, social questions are coming 
 to the front, and it is important that the action taken in 
 respect thereto should be based upon sound principles and 
 carried out upon correct lines. I have, therefore, trespassed 
 at length upon your indulgence, feeling assured that, without 
 the reform indicated in this letter, all other reforms will lead 
 us deeper into the quagmire of poverty, degradation, and 
 I remain, yours sincerely, 
 
 William Hoyle. 
 
 Claremont, Bury, Sept. 25, 1882. 
 
[ 14 ] 
 
 REMEDIES FOR POVERTY.—II. 
 
 [To the Editor of The Times.^ 
 
 Sir,—I am glad to see from Mr. Potter’s letter in your 
 issue of the 3rd inst. that he recognises that there is another 
 phase of the question touching remedies for poverty, &c. It 
 is to be regretted that writers should so often ignore this, the 
 vitally important phase of the question, and advocate a some¬ 
 thing which can hardly ever possibly serve the purpose for 
 which they contend ; but which may often result in producing 
 mischief 
 
 Permit me, before I go further, to disclaim any sympathy 
 with low wages. I am as much in favour of high wages as 
 any man, but improved wages cannot be conjured into being 
 by the passing of resolutions. Wages are the workman’s 
 share of the wealth that is produced by industry; and he 
 ought to have a fair share of this. But the wages of industry 
 can only be secured by realising the fruits of industry, and, 
 therefore, whatever augments the trade of the country must 
 increase the workman’s chance of higher wages ; and, on the 
 other hand, whatever diminishes trade must necessarily lessen 
 his chances of obtaining any such advance. 
 
 I have observed that the suggested remedy for poverty is 
 insufficient, and that it may be mischievous. Supposing that 
 an arbitrary resolution were passed to claim a universal rise of 
 wages, and that this was agreed to, it would not, apart from 
 other things, improve the position of the working man, for the 
 simple reason that a rise in wages would involve increased 
 cost of production, and consequently higher prices for goods 
 to the extent of the increased cost induced by the rise in 
 wages, and so the extra wages would be swallowed up in the 
 increased expense of living, and the position of the workman 
 would in no way be benefited. 
 
 But such an arbitrary rise in wages would be likely to 
 
[ 15 ] 
 
 result in mischief. I will illustrate how this would come 
 about, by reference to the cotton trade in which I am engaged. 
 At the present time, as those who are engaged in this trade 
 know, it is very unremunerative. Many spinners and most 
 manufacturers arc losing money. How has this come about? 
 Simply from the fact that the demand for goods is not 
 sufficient to take off the production at paying prices. As a 
 consequence, some mills are stopped wholly, and others 
 partially, and there is more or less of poverty and distress as 
 the result. Ilut I venture to say that for one case of poverty 
 caused by the bad condition of trade, there arc at least 
 twenty cases caused by the intemperate habits of the people 
 themselves. 
 
 The remedy suggested for this poverty and distress is to 
 advance wages. Now, how would this operate ? 
 
 In the first place, in regard to those whose poverty arises 
 from dissipation, to increase their wages would only be to 
 afford them greater facilities for indulgence. As you remarked 
 in your able leader, “ their spending power is illimitable,” 
 and much of what they spend is money wasted. A rise in 
 wages would therefore give to them no help, whilst, being an 
 increased draw upon trade without corresponding compensa¬ 
 tion, it would necessarily injure it. In this manner, therefore, 
 it would prove mischievous. 
 
 But it would be mischievous on a much more extended 
 scale. Of the cotton goods manufactured in this country about 
 six-sevenths are exported, and only one-seventh is used at 
 home ; or, putting the amount in figures, we have £80,000,000 
 worth exported and 3,000,000 or ;^i4,ooo,ooo worth 
 (including 15 per cent for the cost of distribution) u.sed at 
 home. 
 
 Now, when manufacturers are losing money, they cannot 
 advance wages without also advancing the prices of their 
 goods, and if the world will not take off our production at 
 present prices how would it be likely to do so if prices were 
 advanced ? Under such circumstances trade would go from 
 bad to worse, and the poverty and misery sought to be 
 alleviated would only be aggravated. 
 
[ i6 ] 
 
 But there would be further evils resulting. In our foreign 
 trade we are subject to the keen competition of other countries; 
 and, as I have remarked, we have to rely for six-sevenths of 
 our trade in cotton goods upon this foreign demand. And, 
 if at the present time it is so difficult to compete with other 
 countries, what would be our condition when the cost of 
 production was still further enhanced ? The result would 
 inevitably be increased stagnation, a further stoppage of mills, 
 and so workmen, instead of receiving increased wages, would 
 get no wages at all. 
 
 Let us for a moment consider what would result if the 
 remedy suggested by myself were attended to. 
 
 In my former letter I pointed out that during the last ten 
 years we have spent, in the United Kingdom £i ,364,000,000 
 in drink, or about 136I millions yearly, so that, whilst we have 
 spent i^i4,cxx),ooo in cotton goods, our staple manufacture, we 
 have spent nearly ten times as much upon drink. 
 
 Let us suppose that one-tenth of the drink expenditure, or 
 1 4,000,000, had gone in the purchase of cotton goods ; this 
 would have doubled our home trade, and would have relieved 
 the necessity for pressing our goods so much upon foreign 
 markets ; as a consequence, stocks would have been kept 
 down, and prices of goods would have been more firmly 
 maintained, and to-day, instead of our mills being kept running 
 at a loss, they might, and doubtless would, have been making 
 a profit. 
 
 And if, alongside the transferring of this .^I4,c)00,cxx) of 
 the drink expenditure to cotton goods, the remainder of the 
 36,000,000 had been appropriated to other and profitable uses, 
 say ;^20,ooo,ooo to purchasing woollen goods, ;65,ooo,ooo to 
 linen, ;6i5,000,000 to buying additional furniture, ;6’io,ooo,ooo 
 to cutlery, ;620,000,000 to building new houses, £20,000,000 
 to improving the land of the country. See., and if, besides this, 
 we had been freed from the costs and taxations resulting from 
 the crime, pauperism, vagrancy, &c., arising from drinking; 
 and if, further, the drink-made criminals, paupers, vagrants, 
 &c., instead of destroying wealth, had been at work producing 
 it, then, alongside the improvement in the cotton trade there 
 
[ 17 ] 
 
 would have been universal improvemeni: in other trades ; and 
 with this all-round improvement in trade, there would have 
 been a greater demand for labour, and it is extremely probable 
 that along with this prosperity there would also have been a 
 rise in wages. » 
 
 I have already remarked that wages are the workmen’s 
 share of wealth that is produced ; but the wages of industry 
 can only be secured by realising the fruits of industry. There 
 is an opinion commonly prevalent that the way to get higher 
 wages is to reduce the production of wealth. In an abnormal 
 condition of things such a policy might temporarily succeed, 
 but it would be very short-lived, for it is impossible that more 
 wealth can be divided if it be not produced. If, therefore, we 
 want an increase of wages, we can only ensure it by securing 
 an increased production of wealth. 
 
 There arc only two possible ways in which this increase 
 can be effected, and therefore there are only two ways by which 
 wages can be permanently benefited, viz.:— 
 
 ist. By the application of science, or by inventions in 
 machinery, so as to lessen the cost of production, and thereby, 
 for the same amount of cost or labour, to realise a greater 
 amount of wealth; or— 
 
 2nd. By using greater industry and frugality, so as to 
 increase the sum of wealth which is available for distribution. 
 
 As I observed in my former letter, the power of production 
 at the present day is on the average eight or ten times as 
 great as it was 150 years ago. Much of this increased power 
 of production is due to the mechanical inventions of the past 
 fifty years, and this power of production is the measure of 
 the comforts which are available for man’s use. Bart of this 
 increased production is swallowed up in providing and main¬ 
 taining the more extensive and costly machinery which the 
 increased production involves; but when all this is allowed 
 for, there is an enormous surplus left, which if rightly appro¬ 
 priated, would not only banish poverty from the land, but 
 place our population in circumstances of comfort, if not of 
 abundance. 
 
 When a survey is taken of the vast amount of machinery 
 
[ i8 ] 
 
 which the nation possesses, for the production of wealth; and 
 when, too, our enormous foreign trade is taken into account, 
 it is not to be wondered at, that there should be a feeling of 
 disappointment, bordering on soreness, in the minds of many- 
 working men, that, amidst all this’ wealth-producing power, 
 the poverty, degradation, and misery which exist should be 
 so appalling; for, in a country so situated, such a state of 
 things ought not to be, and their existence proves that there 
 is something radically wrong in the conduct and arrangements 
 of society. 
 
 A survey of the nation’s history during the past fifty years 
 supplies a full explanation of the cause of this melancholy 
 state of things. Let us briefly review it. 
 
 In the year 1830, the number of places in England and 
 Wales where intoxicating liquors were sold was 50,442 ; in 
 1870 there were 135,720. In 1830 the intemperance of the 
 nation was so widespread as to be universally deplored ; and 
 in order to check the evil the Legislature stepped in and 
 passed the Beer Bill, but this made the evil worse. In 1834, 
 a committee of the House of Commons, presided over by 
 Mr. Buckingham, declared that;— 
 
 “The loss of productive labour in every department of 
 occupation, to the extent of at least one day in six throughout 
 the kingdom (as testified by witnesses engaged in various 
 manufacturing operations), by which the wealth of the country, 
 created as it is chiefly by labour, is retarded or suppressed to 
 the extent of one million out of every six that is produced ; 
 to say nothing of the constant derangement, imperfection, 
 and destruction in every agricultural and manufacturing 
 process, occasioned by the intemperance, and consequent 
 unskilfulness, inattention, and neglect of those affected by 
 intoxication, producing great injury in our domestic and 
 foreign trade.” 
 
 This was only one of a number of declarations made by 
 that committee showing the evil effects which our drinking 
 customs exert upon the national well-being. It might have 
 been expected that after such decided declarations as to the 
 evils of intemperance something would have been done by 
 
[ 19 ] 
 
 the Legislature to check it; but unfortunately there was not 
 At that period there was some excuse for this, for nearly 
 everybody believed not only that these drinks were useful, 
 but that they were essential for health ; and they endured 
 the evil, because of the supposed good which they imagined 
 was got from the drink. 
 
 For the ten years ending 1829, the yearly expenditure of 
 the United Kingdom averaged ;^58,890 ,ocxd, whilst for the ten 
 years ending 1881 it averaged 36,481,000 yearly. In 1825, 
 the middle of the former decade, the population of the United 
 Kingdom was 22,258,598, in 1875 it was 32,749,167, and, 
 calculating from these figures, I find that whilst the population 
 has only increased 47 per cent, the consumption of intoxicating 
 liquors grew 131 per cent. 
 
 Before we can accurately estimate the effect of the drink 
 expenditure of the present day, as compared to that of fifty 
 years ago, it will be needful to take into account one or two 
 facts which have an influence thereon. 
 
 In the first place, fifty years ago, beer was the national 
 beverage, and at that time almost everybody believed that it 
 was not only beneficial, but cs.scntial to health and life, the 
 consequence was, nearly everybod)^ used it as a daily bev'erage. 
 At that time temperance societies were unknown, but now 
 nearly every town and village in the United Kingdom, and 
 almost every Sunday School have their Bands of Hope or 
 Temperance Societies; and the belief as to the utility of in¬ 
 toxicating liquors is largely dispelled. As a result of this, 
 large numbers, probably not less than 4,000,000 of the 
 population, are professed abstainers ; and large numbers more, 
 though they make no profession of abstinence, yet rarely or 
 never take intoxicating liquors. 
 
 Secondly: As the outcome of this change of opinion, beer 
 has largely ceased to be the national beverage, and has been 
 superseded by tea, coffee, and cocoa, especially by tea. From 
 1820 to 1830, the consumption of tea was 24,920,114 lbs. 
 annually, whereas for the ten years ending 1880 it averaged 
 I44)3b5,ooo lbs., an increase of 480 per cent. Or, taking it 
 per head of the population, the average consumption from 
 
[ 20 ] 
 
 1 820 to 1830 was I Ib. 2 ozs. and from 187010 1880 4 lbs. 6 ozs. 
 The consumption of coffee has not increased to the same 
 extent; in the former period it was about 8 ozs. per head, 
 in the latter 15 ozs. Cocoa was practically not in use prior 
 to 1830, now its consumption is about 5 ozs. per head per 
 annum. 
 
 If we take the ten years prior to 1830, we find that the 
 average expenditure upon intoxicating liquors was £ 2 . 13s. 
 per head yearly; whereas for the last ten years, ending 1881, 
 it has averaged £ 6 ^. 3s. per head, being an increase per head 
 of 56 per cent. 
 
 Now, if the consumption of intoxicating liquors at the 
 present day averaged only the same per head of the population 
 as it did before 1830, it will be clear that those who drink 
 now, must drink much more than those who drank then, for 
 the simple reason that many persons abstain now, whereas 
 few abstained then. But when, besides this, the fact is borne 
 in mind that there is 56 per cent per head more consumed 
 now than at that period, it follows, that if in 1830 there was 
 so much of excess and intemperance, the excess and intem¬ 
 perance of to-day must be enormously greater. 
 
 Owing to the mechanical inventions which our country¬ 
 men have devised, and partly also owing to fiscal reforms in 
 our legislation, our trade and wealth during the last 40 years 
 has grown in a manner unparalleled in the world’s history ; 
 and yet, as Mr. Potter says, we have a large portion of our 
 population in poverty, degradation, and misery. Whence 
 does this arise? From lowness of wages? This cannot be 
 the cause, for others who are getting no higher wages are 
 living in comfort. The explanation of the paradoxical posi¬ 
 tion is found in the fact that side by side with the machinery 
 for developing our wealth, the Legislature has promoted the 
 legalisation of another system of machinery which has 
 ensnared our population, and, as the wealth of the country 
 has grown, and as wages have risen and hours of labour have 
 been reduced, the temptations to intemperance have also been 
 multiplied ; workmen with their wages in their pockets have 
 been beguiled into the public-house, and the wealth which 
 
[ 21 ] 
 
 should have secured their prosperity and comfort has been 
 the instrument of their degradation and ruin. 
 
 Here, tlicn, lies the explanation of the poverty and misery 
 which exist in the country ; and also of most of the crime 
 and demoralisation which prevail. There are other causes of 
 poverty. I do not deny these, but they are insignificant when 
 compared with this cause, for when a traffic leads to the 
 wasting of over 100,000,000 of the people’s income, when it 
 leads to idleness and neglect of work to such an extent as, on 
 the authority of a Parliamentary Committee, “ reduces or 
 retards the nation’s wealth equal to one-sixth of the wealth 
 produced,” and when, besides this, there are the burdens of 
 taxation and other evils inducing costs and losses ; and when 
 it is remembered that all these various influences are con¬ 
 stantly in operation, destroying the wealth available for 
 distribution, and retarding the progress of our industries, 
 there will need no further evidence as to the main cause of 
 the poverty and misery which exist. 
 
 Mr. Potter enters at considerable length into the question 
 of benefit societies. These societies reflect great credit upon 
 the working classes, but this is not the question at issue, for 
 there are multitudes of men who are in clubs who yet squander 
 much, if not all their wages in drink. But even in the matter 
 of clubs a lesson may be learned as to the value of sobriety. 
 Mr. Potter gives the total membership of benefit societies as 
 being 4,367,000, with a capital of ;6i0,787,000, or an average 
 per head of £ 2 . 9s. Among those which he gives are included 
 the Rechabites. These are mostly hard-working men, but 
 all of them abstainers. In this order there are 35,000 members, 
 and they have an invested capital of ;6200,000, or 14s. per 
 head. If clubs would keep away from public-housc.s, and if 
 the members would follow the example of the Rechabites, 
 they would have less sickness, and fewer deaths, and con¬ 
 sequently there would be more money accumulating in their 
 coffers. 
 
 I agree with Mr. Potter as to the value of the co-operative 
 movement. In the village where I reside (Tottington) as 
 well as in the town of Bury, and indeed I may say all over 
 
[ 22 ] 
 
 Lancashire, it has been of immense service in promotine 
 habits of thrift and providence ; and, although not yet fully 
 developed, the movement contains a principle which will help 
 to solve the problem as to the due apportionment of the 
 nation’s income between capital and labour. 
 
 I have briefly referred to the history of temperance 
 legislation during the past fifty years, and I have also 
 supplied the application, and he that runs may read ; for when 
 a nation spends 36,000,000 a year upon drink, and sacrifices 
 at least another ^^100,000,000 to make good the mischiefs 
 which the drink expenditure produces, it is idle to say that 
 its population cannot save money, and it is contrary to all 
 economic law to expect that with such waste, trade can be 
 good, or that we can escape poverty and misery. 
 
 In a speech made by Mr. Gladstone at Buckley some 
 years ago he laid down the maxim that it was the duty of the 
 Government so to legislate as to make it easy for the people 
 to do right and difficult for them to do wrong. But the policy 
 of our Government from 1830 to 1870 was directly the reverse. 
 On every hand public-house temptations were multiplied and 
 drunkenness was increased. Our budgets went up, but it was 
 at the expense of the morality and well-being of the people. 
 Such legislation is at variance with the fundamental principles 
 of right government, and contrary to the maxim enunciated 
 by Mr. Gladstone. The remedy is plain—reverse the legisla¬ 
 tion which has proved so disastrous to the nation, and give to 
 the working man the power to protect himself from'’ those 
 influences which ensnare, degrade, impoverish, and often hurry 
 him on to ruin and death. 
 
 Claremont, Bury, Oct. 7, 1882. 
 
 William Hoyle. 
 
[ 23 ] 
 
 THE POVERTY OF THE WORKING CLASSES.—III. 
 
 [To the Editor of The Times.'] 
 
 Sir—Permit me the favour of a few further remarks in 
 reference to Mr. Potter’s letter in The Times of Saturday. 
 
 I would first of all observe that I entirely agree with the 
 concluding remark in Mr. Potter’s letter, that the workman 
 ought to have a fair share of the wealth which is produced. 
 But it will be evident that the amount of the fair share 
 which the workman receives must be dependent upon the 
 quantity produced. As I said in my last letter, wages are the 
 workman’s share of what is produced. If little be produced 
 there will be little to divide, for it will be impossible for the 
 workman to get a share of that which does not exist. 
 
 It will be evident, therefore, that whatever tends to 
 destroy wealth or to retard its production must necessarily 
 tend to keep wages down, for the simple reason that it 
 diminishes the amount of wealth that is divisible, and the 
 only possible way in which any one can secure to the work¬ 
 man the proper benefit of his position in regard to wages is to 
 see first, that there is proper industry in the development of 
 wealth, and, secondly, due economy in the use of it. 
 
 Now, the purpose of the two letters which you have 
 done me the honour to insert in your columns was to 
 point out those habits of society which arc at war with 
 these fundamental principles, and which will need to be 
 corrected before society can be free from the resulting 
 poverty and misery. It is an error to imagine that higher 
 wages can be secured by the passing of a resolution. Here is 
 the defect of his position. Wealth cannot be divided until it 
 is produced ; and, when we, as a nation, license a system of 
 machinery that leads to the mis-spending and waste of 
 136,000,000 of the nation’s income yearly, that tends to 
 cause neglect of work, idleness, vagrancy, crime, disease. 
 
[ 24 ] 
 
 poverty, &c., in this way further retarding the development of 
 wealth ; and when, in addition to the waste of money spent 
 and the loss in undeveloped wealth, we saddle ourselves with 
 heavy taxes and burdens as the result of the crime, drunken¬ 
 ness, and pauperism, it must follow that these, all contributing 
 as they do to the retardation and waste of wealth, must 
 proportionately damage our trade and reduce the workman’s 
 chances of getting higher wages. 
 
 I trust, sir, that if your readers have done me the honour 
 to follow the arguments and facts which I have adduced in 
 this correspondence, they will have come to the conclusion 
 that my case is made out. But it may not be improper for 
 me, notwithstanding this, to supplement my arguments by 
 a little corroborative testimony. This I will take from the 
 proceedings of the Trades Union Congress held at Birming¬ 
 ham in August, 1868. At that Congress a paper was read in 
 which occurs the following passage:— 
 
 “ The position of England, staggering in the greatness of 
 her way, is at once ridiculous and sublime. We suckle fools 
 because we chronicle small beer. We see more. This law of 
 demand and supply, which spends 228 millions not in food, 
 clothes, education—not on factories of beef, corn, clothes, 
 household necessaries, and knowledge—but on that which 
 neither satisfies nor reproduces. We see now what accounts 
 for the million or two of paupers, for lowness of wages, &c.; 
 we cannot have capital and drink it; we cannot attend chiefly 
 to pauper manufactories, and yet expect the other factories to 
 flourish ; we cannot expect the labourer to get enough corn 
 when— 
 
 ‘ Hell is so merry with the harvest home.’” 
 
 In the above paragraph, the whole question is put into a 
 nutshell. As the writer says, we cannot have capital and 
 drink it; we cannot have vagrants, idlers, criminals, paupers, 
 &c., and divide the wealth which they should, but do not 
 produce ; nor can we pay taxes, and at the same time pocket 
 the money which the tax collector takes from us. This is 
 exactly what I have been striving to show, and ft is put very 
 tersely. Your readers will be gratified to know that the 
 
[ 25 ] 
 
 writer of the paper from which the above extract is taken 
 was ]\Ir. Potter. It was read at a conference of Trades 
 Unions held in Birmingham in 1868, It is to be regretted 
 that this teaching, so vitally important to the economic 
 welfare of the working classes, should not have been more 
 frequently pressed, 
 
 Mr. Potter is right in his statement touching the 
 £22^,000,000 of wealth which the nation loses yearly owing to 
 our drinking habits ; if this be so, what does it involve? It 
 involves that there is yearly a sum of ;^228,ooo,ocxi less as 
 divisible among the population than there would be but for 
 our drinking habits. It will be evident that the sum to be 
 divided without the £22^,000,000 must be much less than if it 
 were added. There are about 7,000,000 families in the United 
 Kingdom, and dividing the ;^228,ooo,ooo among them it will 
 every year give £‘^2. ns. 5d. to each family. Here is the 
 key to an advance of wages, and not only so, but along with 
 it, too, the removal of the inducements to vice and demoralisa¬ 
 tion which so curse and degrade our nation. If we paid the 
 £■^2 per family to be rid of this demoralisation, it would be 
 well-spent money, but when the removal of the vice will also 
 ensure such a magnificent economical gain as £-^2 per family, 
 surely to delay it stamps us as being a nation, if not of idiots, 
 at any rate of persons who are remarkable for the absence of 
 wisdom. 
 
 It is a source of gratification to myself that in this dis¬ 
 cussion no attempt has been made to impugn the main 
 argument having reference to the influence of industry and 
 thrift in promoting trade, and also to the disastrous mischiefs 
 which are inflicted upon trade by the liquor traffic. Exception, 
 however, has been taken to the fact that in the illustrations 
 given in my first letter I did not sufficiently recognise irregu¬ 
 larities in work and changes in the circumstances of life. It 
 is true that circumstances change, and these changes may 
 affect the details of either side of the argument; but they do 
 not affect the general principles. I have used the figures in 
 round numbers in order that there might be as little com¬ 
 plication as possible in illustrating the principle contended 
 
[ 26 ] 
 
 for. Let those who think them too high or too low, adopt 
 their own estimates, and apply the argument accordingly. 
 The principle of the argument will be seen, and each reader 
 can then apply it to the circumstances of life in which he 
 himself may be found. 
 
 I cannot conclude without thanking you for your great 
 kindness in throwing open The Times so freely to the dis¬ 
 cussion of this very important question. 
 
 I remain, yours sincerely, 
 
 Claremont, Bury, Oct. 23, 1882. WILLIAM Hoyle. 
 
 “THE TIMES” ON MR. HOYLE’S LETTER. 
 
 Mr. William Hoyle, in a letter we print this morning, 
 brings us back once again to the great subject of the day— 
 the working man, his habits, his position, and his opportu¬ 
 nities. On each of these points Mr. Hoyle has something to 
 say well worth listening to. He shows us the modern working 
 man, not, as his admirers would make him out, the one wise 
 and blameless personage we have among us; not, as .some 
 philanthropists imagine him to be, the general scapegoat of 
 society, the unhappy creature on whom all burdens are laid, 
 the victim of the prosperity of other classes ; not as the hope¬ 
 less sufferer Mr. Potter has lately declared him to be ; but as 
 he really is—a great deal better off in every way than he has 
 ever been before, and, as far as he is a sufferer at all, a sufferer 
 by his own fault. From whatever point of view we regard 
 the working classes of the country, the above is the conclusion 
 to which we are driven. They have obtained their full share 
 of the general advance in wealth and in a command of the 
 conveniences of life. We find them in receipt of higher wages 
 than the generation before them, and for shorter hours of 
 work. Their expenses are lower than they used to be, 
 
[ 27 ] 
 
 especially in those articles which enter primarily and neces¬ 
 sarily into their every-day consumption. Rents, it is true, have 
 somewhat risen, so have milk and cheese and butchers’ meat. 
 But the cheapness of bread and of clothing is much more than 
 a set-off for a rise in anything else. The conclusion on the 
 whole case is that working men get more money wages than 
 their fathers did, that the purchasing power of their money is 
 greater than it was in their fathers’ time, and that their hours 
 of work have been very considerably shortened. But, in spite 
 of all this, we still hear dismal tales of the want and misery 
 which are to be found among the working classes, and the 
 worst of it is that the tales are unquestionably true. How are 
 we to account for this, and what remedy, if any, are we to find 
 for it ? That men who had to work twelve hours a day, and 
 to bring up a family on some ten or fifteen shillings a week 
 should have broken down under the strain, and should have 
 been driven to take refuge in the poor-house can be no 
 wonder to anybody. But when the twelve hours have been 
 reduced to ten or nine or eight, and when the wages have 
 been almost doubled, we expect to see clear signs of the 
 general improvement which has come about. Nor arc these 
 signs wanting. Pauperism has not disappeared, but it has 
 been very markedly reduced. Vast numbers of the working 
 classes are comfortably housed and well-fed, and have saved 
 enough from their superfluity to support them in old age or 
 in illness, or to carry them over occasional bad times, l^ut if 
 some can manage as well as this, how is it that others just as 
 conspicuously fail ? Is it the circumstances or the men that 
 are at fault, and what is to be the remedy in cither case ? 
 This, in some form or other, is the ever-recurring question of 
 the day. It is put forward under various disguises and in all 
 sorts of question-begging phrases, and a multiplicity of answers 
 have been found for it. It will be worth while to examine 
 some of these, and to bring them, if possible, to a test. 
 
 We must admit, in the first place, that instances are to be 
 found of extreme poverty and suffering which are not to be 
 traced to the fault of the sufferers. The bread-winner of the 
 family may be struck down by illness or accident before he 
 
[ 28 ] 
 
 has had time to make any provision for the future. He may 
 have a wife and children on his hands, and may be entirely 
 incapacitated for work. Or the demand may fail for the one 
 form of labour in which his skill as a workman lies, and after 
 trying to hold on for a time he may find himself driven to 
 some new employment in which he must engage at a disad¬ 
 vantage, and in which it may not be easy for him to obtain 
 work at all. There are cases of this kind, many and pitiful. 
 In a country where the working classes are reckoned by 
 millions, there must always be some who for some reason or 
 another arc unable to keep their place with the rest, and are 
 thrown out of the industrial race. The percentage may be 
 small, but the totals will be very considerable. This is some 
 explanation of the admitted poverty which is to be found 
 among the working classes, but it goes a very small way 
 towards explaining it. It applies possibly to one case out of 
 a hundred, and leaves the odd ninety-nine unaccounted for. 
 It is with these that the difficulty lies. It is to be met, in Mr. 
 Potter’s opinion, by a general rise of wages. He takes the 
 working man as he is. He says nothing about his spendthrift 
 idle habits. He clearly does not consider him as in any need 
 of reform. He asks only that his material position shall be 
 improved from the outside. If the working man has thirty 
 shillings a week now, and spends it in living like a fighting 
 cock, with an occasional bout of even less defensible indul¬ 
 gence, the thing to be done for him is to clap on a further five 
 or ten shillings a week. This done, he can go on as 
 before, and can save money without the pain of deny¬ 
 ing himself in any of his tastes. But would he be at all 
 more likely to save money then than now? If a rise in 
 wages has done nothing yet to make him provident, why 
 should a further rise do it? His spending power is illimi¬ 
 table. No rise in wages could by any possibility keep up with 
 it, much less go beyond it. If he were paid in pounds instead 
 of in shillings, he could find, if he were so disposed, an 
 instant use for every farthing he received. If he is a poor 
 man at sixty now, he would be no less a poor man then. Mr. 
 Potter’s views are no doubt to the mind of the class for which 
 
[ 29 ] 
 
 he is pleading. To increase wages, and so to get a larger 
 share of the good things going, is the one grand aim of trades 
 unions and trades union congresses. At whose expense it is 
 to be done, and whether the trade will really bear the wage, are 
 questions which do not seem to have occurred to them. Mr. 
 Potter docs say something about them. He remarks, truly 
 enough, that high wages do not necessarily mean dear labour. 
 If the labour is more effective, it may be really cheaper 
 to the employer. The man who mows an acre of grass 
 a day and who earns ten shillings for doing it is a less ex¬ 
 pensive instrument than the man who earns his six shillings 
 for mowing half an acre. But does Mr. Potter really 
 believe that a general rise in money wages would be fol¬ 
 lowed, as a matter of course, by a general determination 
 to deserve them ? Would trades unions which now look 
 with displeasure on any man who is caught working harder 
 than the rest be so untrue to their traditions as to insist that 
 their members should begin working at full power? If he 
 does believe it, he is alone in his belief. If he does not believe 
 it, and docs not profess to believe it, his argument is nothing 
 to the point. The one way which work and wages can be 
 made to correspond is by the system of piece-work, and we 
 need look no further for an explanation why it is that piece¬ 
 work is so much disliked and so generally condemned by 
 trades union rules. Again, Mr. Potter urges that if the 
 working man had more to spend and spent more, he would 
 impart briskness to the home trade, and that everybody 
 would in consequence be the better for it. But if Mr. Potter 
 kept a shop, would he think it a sharp stroke of business to 
 make his customers a present of a shilling all round on 
 condition that they spent it with him ? His trade on 
 these terms would be brisk enough, but we scarcely 
 think it would be profitable. But this, under a thin 
 disguise, is just what he has been recommending the 
 employers to do, and he must not be surprised if they decline to 
 follow his advice. Wages, we fear, will follow their own laws, 
 and will rise or fall in accordance with them. There will be 
 times when the closest combination of the men will fail to raise 
 
[ 30 ] 
 
 them, and there will be times when they will rise of them¬ 
 selves. The one most obvious thing the working classes as a 
 body can do to help themselves in the matter is to work as 
 hard as they can, and so to increase the general stock of good 
 things available for distribution ; and this, unfortunately, is 
 the very thing which they are most steadily minded not to do, 
 and which they think they see their interest in not doing and 
 in hindering their fellows from doing. 
 
 But if wages are not to be coaxed or driven up to a 
 higher point than that at which they now stand, and if it 
 would be a very doubtful benefit if they were, what is to be 
 the remedy for the admitted pauperism, for the want and 
 misery which exist among the wage-earning classes ? There 
 must be a change of some kind it is clear, and since the cir¬ 
 cumstances will not change, the men must. Mr. Hoyle’s 
 letter gives us three examples of the way in which a working 
 man’s wages may be employed. He may spend a part 
 and save the rest, or he may spend the whole wastefully, 
 or he may spend the whole mischievously. In the first 
 case, the man will gain and society will gain with him. 
 The country will be so much the richer for his thrift, 
 so much the more capable of giving employment to 
 labour. Mr. Hoyle takes pleasure in sketching his upward 
 course, how he passes at each decade into a higher stage of 
 well-being, and how he tends at each remove to diffuse 
 prosperity all around him. For the second case there is 
 not much to be said. The man who spends his whole 
 income consumes as much as he produces. He has no 
 reserve fund, and if his health gives way or if old age comes 
 upon him, there is nothing for it but he must go to the 
 parish for relief Worst of all is the third case, that of the 
 man who spends his money in Mr. Hoyle’s special aversion— 
 drink. His earnings fall short, his health breaks down, his 
 character is injured. A policeman must be provided to 
 look after him when he is drunk, and to take him into 
 custody when drink urges him to crime. It is most 
 properly for him and for his like that the prison and the 
 poor-house exist. He is useless to himself, and a burden 
 
[ 31 ] 
 
 and a cost to all around him. Now, all this is no very new 
 discovery. It is plain matter of fact to which common sense 
 may serve to guide us. It is a sound explanation of the 
 existence of poverty and of high wages together, and it is not 
 far from being a sufficient one. It e.xplains all but the few 
 exceptional cases to which we have already referred, and 
 which are very much fewer in number than they are 
 commonly supposed to be. The working man, we all know, 
 is the great authority of the day. It is on his utterances 
 that we have been taught to depend for guidanee. He can 
 tell us what ought to be done in every department. He can 
 direct our home policy and our foreign policy. He can re¬ 
 form the world, but can he take Mr. Hoyle’s advice and begin 
 by reforming himself? We hope he can and will, for we are 
 quite sure that until he does this no other sort of reform 
 can do much to help him. As things stand now, his future 
 is in his own hand, and it depends upon himself to make it 
 or to mar it. We fear Mr. Hoyle’s letter will not be altogether 
 to his taste, but we venture none the less to recommend him 
 to read it, to attend to it, and to profit by it.—“ The Times',' 
 September 2gth, 1882. 
 
 A. Ireland & Co., Printers, Pall Mall, Manchester. 
 

i 
 
 
i 
 
 ■'H 
 
 ■4 
 
ii 
 
 • 
 
 
■ 4 ^ 
 
 - ^ M % 
 
 fc ^ . * / '* ^ 
 
 * V ^ ■ 
 
 , 'l 4 * - * 
 
 f'^\^ ., ^ ‘ 
 
 ''1. ^^r'V* <ju 
 
 I » > Hj'i 
 
 ■ ■ rC .' 
 
 4 
 
 
 ■^_ ^ *• 
 
 
 y 
 
 r" 
 
 i*^ 3