CONDITION 
 
 WORKING CLASSES; 
 
 ANOMALY OF THE PEOPLE WANTING XEt'ESSARII 
 
 slinmflant means of jproancmg ftjrm, 
 
 WITH A MEW TO ITS HEMOVAL, 
 
 BY II. G. COOPER. 
 
 OHANTUAU: X. 11IDGE, 11IGII-SI 
 LONDON: GlitlOMBlilllUK & SONS. DATE 
 
CONDITION 
 
 WORKING CLASSES, &c. 
 
 Within the last few years considerable attention 1ms been 
 given to the state of the labouring classes. Such attention must 
 be ascribed not to caprice, or to its having become the fashion to 
 express sympathy with the poor, but to the general conviction 
 that there is something anomalous in the condition of the more 
 humble members of the community. 
 
 In whatever light we view the matter, its importance must be 
 perceived. The condition of the labourers determines, in tact, 
 whether there shall be a middle class of society. In Russia there 
 is no middle class, or none worth mentioning, because there is 
 no foundation for it to rest upon. A moment’s examination will 
 show that nine-tenths of the members of the middle class in this 
 country owe their positions in society to, and are dependent upon, 
 the working class. The numerous body of tradesmen who im¬ 
 mediately supply the labourers with the different commodities 
 they require; the wholesale dealers who supply these tradesmen ; 
 and the merchants who import the foreign produce consumed by 
 the poor, are simply the agents of the working class. These per¬ 
 sons, although they perform a very useful and important office in 
 the commonwealth, produce nothing. The different articles con¬ 
 sumed by the poor pass through their bauds, and they deduct, 
 probably, a fifth, which forms their own profits or incomes, and 
 to which they are justly entitled; as, by means of their knowledge 
 and capital, they perform an office for the poor which the latter 
 could not perform for themselves. They, it is true, consume 
 many articles rarely touched by their poorer countrymen. The 
 importers and dealers in coarse sugar, for instance, may convert 
 their share first into money and then into luxuries, and create 
 and support a trade; but still this trade, with its supporters, is 
 equally dependent upon the lower class. Any diminution in the 
 amount of commodities consumed bv the hitter must inevitably 
 affect the former. Reduce the labourers of England to the con¬ 
 dition of Russian serfs, or to the condition of the poor of Ireland, 
 
4 
 
 and tlie incomes of these merchants and tradesmen, and the 
 trades in luxuries they have created will no longer exist. Mer¬ 
 chants and traders do not enrich a country—it is the riches of a 
 country that make the merchant and trade* Is Ireland poor be¬ 
 cause site cannot find people to open shops and import merchan¬ 
 dise? No. Give her labourers the means to consume other articles 
 besides the potatoes that grow at their doors, and parties will 
 soon come forward to act as their agents, and to transact their 
 business for the mutual benefit of both. The income of the manu¬ 
 facturer who produces goods consumed by the poor is also de¬ 
 pendent npon the labouring class : his means are regulated bv 
 the demand for his goods, and this demand depends on the ability 
 of the poor to purchase. The producers of manufactures for ex¬ 
 portation are equally, though indirectly, dependent upon the state 
 of the humbler members of the community. The imports of a 
 country regulate the amount of its exports. The manufactured 
 goods we export purchase the gold, tea, sugar, and other foreign 
 commodities we consume ; and it is evident, if the laborers in 
 this country were, either from necessity, or on any other account, 
 to follow the advice of the advocates of a mistaken economy, and 
 to relinquish tiie use of tea, tobacco, &c, and confine themselves 
 to the absolute necessaries of life, the reduction in the amount 
 of our imports, and consequently of our exports, would be so 
 great that the quantity of goods manufactured for the foreign 
 market would be quite insignificant. It has been said that Ire¬ 
 land suffers from the absence of manufacturers. We should re¬ 
 joice to see a large increase in the amount of wealth produced in 
 Ireland, whether in tiie shape of manufactures or agricultural 
 produce. But what the political economist calls the effectual de¬ 
 mand. for wealth of any description regulates the supply. 
 While brother Paddy wears the coat bequeathed by Ids grand¬ 
 father, lives in a mud hut, and thinks luxuries were created for 
 his betters; the manufacture of cloth and clothes, of bricks, and 
 of goods to export and barter for foreign produce, cannot be very 
 . extensive. When he gets a comfortable dwelling, wears a 
 coat on Sunday fit for a gentleman, and consumes better food 
 and the minor luxuries of life, then, and not till then, the amount 
 of wealth produced in Ireland will rapidly increase, and a nu¬ 
 merous and affluent middle class rise up in the country. Even 
 the majority of professional men, who, at the first view, appear 
 to depend altogether upon the rich, are, in reality, indebted to 
 the bumbler classes for the means of living by their professions. 
 Some of them are directly supported by the poor, and bow many 
 
are supported by tire merchants, tradesmen, and others who are 
 • dependent upon the daily labourers. Doubtless, a lew pro¬ 
 fessional men are exclusively maintained by the rich in every 
 country, as is the case in Russia; but how small is the number 
 in comparison with those who rest upon the broad foundation 
 formed by the labouring classes. What we have written has not 
 been with the intention of disparaging merchants, tradesmen, and 
 the other members of the middle class of society, or to raise the 
 humbler class in importance at their expense. The connection 
 between the two is, in our opinion, mutually advantageous. Our 
 object has been to show that the lower class is the foundation 
 upon which the middle class rests—that the condition of the 
 poor not only influences the condition of the members of the 
 middle class, hut also determines whether nine-tenths of that 
 class shall exist as such at all. 
 
 But further, any change in the circumstances of the labourer 
 derives additional importance from its subsequent reaction upon 
 his own condition. A general rise of five per cent, in the rate of 
 wages,t if considered in the abstract, would appear a matter of 
 little consequence; hut, in fact, it would confer a great benefit up¬ 
 on the poor. The additional sum paid to the workmen would add 
 to the means of the members of the middle class, who are depen¬ 
 dent upon such workmen, and enable them as well as the labourers 
 to become greater consumers. This increase in the consumption 
 of the dilferent descriptions of goods would cause a correspond¬ 
 ing increase in their production, and create an additional demand 
 for labour. The wages paid for this labour, by adding something 
 more to the means of the poor and their dependents, would stiil 
 further increase the consumption of goods, and consequently their 
 production, and so create employment for more labour.” And 
 thus the process would be continued—an increase in the means 
 
 of the working classes and in the demand for labour acting 
 alternately as cause and effect in a diminishing ratio, until the 
 action become too feeble to he appreciated. The whole efi'cct 
 may he compared to a cone, of which the five per cent first 
 added to wages forms the base. The happy effect of a rise in 
 wages upon the condition of the working classes is beautifully 
 illustrated ill the results that often follows a good harvest. 
 
(i 
 
 When the corn is got in, the price falls, and wages in effect rise: 
 a labourer finds that he can purchase as much of the different 
 commodities for his usual week’s wages as he could have done a 
 few month? previously, had two or three shillings been added 
 
 A moment’s consideration will be sufficient to convince us that 
 the opinion very generally entertained, that there is something 
 anomalous in the condition of the working classes, is well founded. 
 In any part of this country we can find shoemakers who want 
 clothes; at the same time wo are told there are too many tailors. 
 We examine into the condition of these tailors, and learn that 
 many of them and their families want shoes ; but if we inquire 
 into the toeans of obtaining shoes, one of the first and most 
 prominent facts brought before our notice is, that there are 
 already too many shoemakers. On turning to Ireland, our atten¬ 
 tion is called to the wretched dwellings and food of the inhabi¬ 
 tants. If we put the question, are there any materials for making 
 bricks, or other building materials to be found in the country, 
 the answer is, the materials exist in abundance. If we ask, is it 
 not possible to produce more food, Mr. Scrope* replies, and no 
 one contradicts him, the land could produce double the quantity. 
 If we put the query, is there any labour that could be spared to 
 cultivate this land, we are told labourers are so numerous that 
 the country is oppressed by them. AVhichcver way we direct our 
 attention,. we see want unrelieved, co-existing with abundant 
 means for relieving it. This is an anomaly that has been con¬ 
 spicuous in the land for years. The late year of scarcity may 
 have made the labourer’s condition worse, but the labourers suf¬ 
 fered, and the anomaly was more apparent, in years of plenty. 
 Two or three years since, when the earth brought forth her 
 increase, and there was no failure of our crops, the manufactur¬ 
 ing districts suffered from great depression. One party ascribed 
 this to over production of manufactured goods, and, according 
 •to their opinion, one of the reasons for people, including cloth- 
 makers, being unable to get sufficient clothes was that there was 
 too much cloth! Another party ascribed it to the increase of the 
 population: according to their views, the people were suffering 
 in consequence of the population exceeding the means of subsis¬ 
 tence. The last year’s experience has shown the fallacy of this 
 opinion; for if England in a year of famine can support her 
 people, and afford assistance to a large amount to Ireland, it is 
 folly in years of plenty to talk about the population exceeding 
 the means of subsistence. 
 
 That we may look further into and endeavour to explain (his 
 anomaly, there is one point to which we must call the reader's 
 
attention. It is a point that lias caused the writer much thought, 
 and the solution of which must, he thinks, throw considerable 
 light upon our position. 
 
 But as possibly there are some of our readers who have paid no 
 attention to political economy, before coming to the question, we 
 must premise that wealth or capital by no means consists of money 
 alone, hut also of all descriptions of goods that are bought or 
 sold. If one gives a beggar a shilling, he values it not because it is 
 a piece of silver, but because it will exchange for a quantity of 
 bread or other commodity. When speaking of a railroad, people 
 say there lies so much money; but this is not at all correct. 
 First, no money was lost or consumed in constructing the 
 work; secondly, it is very doubtful whether the same amount of 
 money would be required in exchange for another railroad exactly 
 like it. Moreover, after a great undertaking is completed, upon 
 inquiry we find that the money said to he expended still exists, and 
 perhaps is distributed much as it was before the undertaking was 
 commenced. Various commodities have been consumed in the 
 undertaking;—if a railroad, the food eaten by the workmen, the 
 clothes they wore out, the coal used in preparing the iron, and 
 the tools rendered useless, have been consumed. The railroad 
 cost, not money, for the gold and silver still exist, but goods, 
 part of which remain upon the works, but part have been ex¬ 
 pended—been utterly consumed in constructing them. A com¬ 
 pany might build without money ; different persons might con¬ 
 tribute goods and labour. Gold and silver, inhaling the coin, 
 constitute a part, but only a small part, of our wealth or capital: 
 but the numerous other commodities constitute by far the great¬ 
 est part of it. Wo must, apologize to our readers for occupying 
 their time with these self-evident truths ; but we refer to them, 
 as it is necessary in our inquiry not only to acknowledge them 
 when called upon to do so, but also to keep them constantly in 
 
 To come to our question. In the agricultural districts, the 
 labourer, with the permission of tile landowner, and the aid of 
 the capitalist or farmer, produces corn, &c—wealth. In our 
 manufacturing towns the workman, with the aid of the machinery 
 and capital of the manufacturer, produces goods—wealth. How 
 is it that the capitalist and landowner in the country say to the 
 labourer keep out of our parish, we will not permit or assist you 
 in producing an additional quantity of wealth, although we pos¬ 
 sess the means of doing so' 5 '? or, which is a more striking case, 
 how is it that the manufacturer at times closes his works, and 
 says to the workmen we will cease producing wealth. Are they 
 
 * That llic cunnti'y coalil produce more wealth in [he -ji'iju of food is n fart 
 established upon the best authority. There is scarcely n distriel in which the 
 tanners do not say they could grow more corn without diminishing tire quantity 
 of live stock. 
 
n 
 
 afraid of possessing too much wealth ? The simple answer to the 
 question is, surprising as it may appear, if they were to produce 
 more its possessors would not know what to do with it. 
 
 The case with respect to the agriculturist involves too many 
 minor points for us to deal with it here; and we shall confine 
 ourselves to that of the manufacturer, which will afford the most 
 simple and best illustration of our subject. The possessor of a 
 hundred sovereigns finds the money of use to him because he can 
 exchange it for other things he wants, or further enrich himself 
 with it by trading or putting it out at interest; but if he pos¬ 
 sessed every necessary he wanted—if he could exchange it for 
 nothing he required, nor obtain interest or make a profit by it in 
 any other way, then it would be of little use to him; lie might 
 value it merely as something to look at. Again: clothes are not 
 only useful but absolutely necessary ; still if a man possessed a 
 hundred suits of clothes, and could not exchange some of them 
 for other things he desired to have, it is most likely that part of 
 them would become moth-eaten and rotten before he could wear 
 them out. Now, a man under these circumstances would not be 
 benefited by an increase in his stock of clothes—the increase 
 would only be an addition to the part that is to lie by and rot. 
 Wealth is valuable only to the man who can find a use 
 for it. Gold, silver, and abundant supplies of food to the 
 man who can find no use for them are valueless ; they are like so 
 much lumber. But to bring this to bear upon our subject. Let 
 us, for the sake of argument, suppose the staple manufactures 
 of this country to consist of clothes ready for wear. To 
 make the case clearer we will leave money out. The manufactu¬ 
 rers pay a quantity of the clothes to the workmen as wages. These 
 workmen spend their share as fast as they receive it; that is, 
 they exchange it with the agriculturist for corn, with the Chinese 
 for tea, and with other parties for different necessaries they require. 
 The manufacturers also exchange some of their portion of the 
 clothes for corn, wine, and other things they require; but as it 
 . does not take all their share to supply their wants, the stock 
 accumulates until their warehouses are full. Now these clothes 
 are wealth, which the manufacturers or the owners* do not know 
 what to do with : consequently they cease to produce any more. 
 
9 
 
 It is true they might exchange it for other tilings. They might 
 exchange it for iron; hut what are they io do with iron ? They 
 might exchange it for corn ; but they have already as much corn as 
 they require, and if they were to exchange it for more, they would 
 be at the expense and trouble of fetching the corn from the mar¬ 
 ket and sending the clothes in exchange, and, after all, instead 
 of an excess of clothes, have an excess of corn that they would 
 not know what to do with. They might exchange it for gold, hut 
 it must be at a loss, for they have already supplied the affluent, 
 and if they purchase they must keep it in store; and the labourer, 
 who wants the clothes both for use and to exchange for other neces¬ 
 saries, has no money to give. 
 
 Under these circumstances, the only way to reduce the manu¬ 
 facturer’s stock, to set him at work again, and to give the labour¬ 
 ers employment, is to create a demand for capital. This stock 
 is so much surplus wealth or capital which the owners wish to 
 invest. Suppose a manufacturer’s stock of clothes to be worth 
 £10,000, and that he is not in debt and does not possess one 
 farthing in money. Set a number of railroads a going; he borrows 
 of a banker a thousand pounds, which enables him to pay the 
 first instalments on a number of shares. This money is expended 
 in articles required on the works, or in wages. Now the manu¬ 
 facturer finds it advantageous to exchange his stock for other 
 things; part he exchanges for iron, food, and other commodities : 
 these he sends to the works with some of his clothes, and receives in 
 exchange for them the £1,000, in part from tire managers of the 
 works, and in part from the workmen, and repays it to his hardier, 
 the only difference in his circumstances being that his stock is re¬ 
 duced to that amount. He repeats the process again and again until 
 his £10, 000 worth of goods is converted into £10, 000 in rail¬ 
 way shares. It is true, in the ordinary way of business tire pro¬ 
 cess is not so simple, tiro goods pass through the hands of many 
 people: but the result is the same, as (if our space permitted,) 
 we think could easily he shown. When the manufacturer has 
 got rid of his surplus goods or wealth, or a part of it, he begins 
 
 Unfortunately while the possessors of this surplus wealth are 
 looking out for an investment, the workman is suffering from 
 want, not in consequence of scarcity or famine (we are alluding to 
 times anterior to the late awful visitation of providence) not he-. 
 cause his labour is really valueless, (he is capable of producing 
 something that would exchange for the necessaries lie requires,) 
 but because the country contains wealth that its possessors cannot 
 find a use for. Ease the capitalist of his surplus wealth by 
 constructing millions wortli of railroads, send large quantities of 
 wealth by way of loan to foreign countries, and you benefit the 
 labourer and the numerous class of persons whose interests are 
 identical with his. If during the ten years that preceded 1816, 
 
10 
 
 some hidden agent had secretly withdrawn from the country an¬ 
 nually ten millions of capital, of money or money’s worth, and 
 sunk it in the Atlantic ocean, the people would have found it 
 easier to live. Nor would this have impoverished (he country, 
 for then we should have produced more—many of the producers, 
 the labourers who were then idle, wonld have been employed in 
 the production of wealth. And let us remember, of all they pro¬ 
 duce they receive a share; and to have provided ten millions of capi¬ 
 tal for the ocean, they must have produced at least fifteen millions 
 worth of wealth—five to have been consumed by themselves and 
 families. The above is a startling assertion, hut involves nothing 
 new; for we must remind our readers that there are good authorities 
 who assert that England would have been no richer had she not ex¬ 
 pended hundreds of millions in war and in loans to foreign coun¬ 
 tries. It has been the fate of the people of this country at one 
 period to waste their wealth, and at another to waste their time. 
 
 During the last year a largo quantity of capital has been ex¬ 
 pended on railroads, but its beneficial effect upon the condition 
 of the labouring classes has been counterbalanced by scarcity and 
 the consequent high price of provisions. If persons who re¬ 
 member the distress occasioned in the manufacturing districts 
 two or three years ago by the markets being glutted, will try to 
 imagine what would have been the condition of the poor had that 
 evil been aggravated by a famine, they may form some idea of 
 the extreme misery from which the great expenditure of capital 
 has saved the working classes in this country. 
 
 To pursue our inquiry with any hope of success there is one 
 point, apparently foreign, but, indeed, most intimately connected 
 with it, to which we must direct the attention of our readers. It 
 is the circumstances that regulate the production of wealth in 
 this country. When, as is well known to every one, our mills 
 and machinery are fully employed, and the production of wealtli 
 goes on rapidly, wages rise and our labourers have plenty of 
 work; but, on the contrary, when little wealtli, comparatively 
 speaking, is produced, our labourers suffer from want of employ¬ 
 ment, as well as from a reduction of wages; and lienee it follows 
 that an inquiry into the circumstances that regulate the amount, 
 of wealth produced is equivalent to an inquiry into the circumstan¬ 
 ces that determine the amount of employment for the people. 
 
 It is asserted that the quantity of goods or wealtli produced by 
 our manufacturers is regulated by the foreign demand; that at 
 times our manufacturing operatives are idle, because we cannot 
 find markets for our goods. Here we mistake the effect for the 
 cause: it is not the will of tile foreigner, but our own internal 
 arrangements, that regulate our foreigu trade. By trading with 
 other countries, we mean exchanging our manufactures for gold, 
 silver, and other tilings they contain or produce; consequently 
 
12 
 
 capital, i. e. invest it in some profitable undertaking. In a nation 
 where men are willing to hoard, the production of wealth will only 
 be limited by their ability to produce. But in a country where 
 men do not hoard, its production will not necessarily depend upon 
 the quantity they can produce, but must be limited to the quan¬ 
 tity they can find a use for. In England we do not hoard; every 
 man, with few exceptions, who possesses any surplus wealth, con¬ 
 verts it into capital, and expects a profit from its use. This being 
 the case, it is evident the amount of wealth produced in England 
 cannot exceed the quantity consumed by the people, added to the 
 , amount employed as capital. If such a nation possesses the ability 
 or means to create a greater quantity of wealth, it matters not; 
 these means must be wasted, as they are in England, where they 
 show themselves in the form of labourers and machinery doing 
 nothing, or only partially employed. 
 
 This law applies to the production of corn as well as to the 
 production of manufactured goods. There are no grounds for 
 complaining of the landowners and agriculturists for not increas¬ 
 ing the amount of their produce. It would be equally just to 
 blame the manufacturers for not making more cotton fabric and 
 cutlery. The agriculturists could produce more of their commo¬ 
 dities ; so also could the manufacturers of their’s. In both cases 
 the demand or consumption regulates the supply. The manufac¬ 
 turer produces goods not only for our own use, but also to pay for 
 the gold, silver, and other foreign commodities we require, because 
 a day’s labour in the shape of a manufactured article will ex¬ 
 change for as much foreign produce as two or more days’ labour 
 in the shape of corn. If we paid for foreign commodities with 
 our corn, we should have to give two or three days’ labour, or some¬ 
 thing which cost us two or three days’ labour, for that we now 
 obtain for one. If England possessed no mines or manufactories, 
 we should export corn, and purchase gold and other descriptions 
 of foreign produce with it. In this case, gold and other foreign 
 commodities would be dearer in England, or rather they would 
 retain their present money prices, and corn and labour be com¬ 
 paratively cheaper. Our ability to produce a larger quantity of 
 corn than at present, has been previously alluded to. But 
 then, it may be asked, why do we import ? why do we not grow 
 sufficient for our own consumption ? In good years we do. The 
 quantity of grain imported in the years 1832-3-4-5 and C, was 
 nearly inappreciable; it was less than one hundredth part of the 
 quantity consumed in the United Kingdom. In bad years we 
 import more; but still the quantity is not so great as many per¬ 
 sons suppose; the average for thirteen years ending with 1812 
 inclusive was less than four per cent., or one twenty-fifth part of 
 the quantity consumed.* And we think it is possible to account 
 
.14 
 
 general opinion upon hoarding. It is said, if a man possessing 
 £100, 000 were to lock it up in a chest, instead of employing it 
 with a view to profit, our employed capital would be reduced by 
 this amount, and a certain evil be inflicted upon the industry of 
 the country. The result, we think, would be the very reverse. 
 The abstraction of the £100,000 would have the same effect as 
 an additional demand for capital to that amount, and would stim¬ 
 ulate the national industry. If we suppose the gold in the 
 country to be the exact quantity required for use as coin and 
 for other purposes, it would occur thus The withdrawal of the 
 £100,000, by creating a deficiency, would compel us to import 
 gold to that amount, which gold would be paid for in British 
 goods; so tiiat the circumstance of an individual hoarding instead 
 of investing his money would cause us to produce an additional 
 quantity of wealth. We should still accumulate all the capital 
 we could find profitable employment for, the only difference would 
 be that our labourers and machinery would be employed a little 
 longer, and the period of partial idleness and depression be some¬ 
 what deferred. England might have produced more wealth than 
 she has done; our unemployed labourers, had there been a greater 
 demand for wealth, would have added to our riches. What we 
 have lost by the partial inactivity of our labourers and machinery 
 it is difficult to say; but for the last few years, including the 
 period of great depression in the manufacturing districts, it can¬ 
 not have been less than forty or fifty millions annually. If we 
 deduct from the amount, whatever it may be, the share of the 
 labourer and the cost for the wear of machinery, the surplus will 
 be the amount that might have been hoarded without diminishing 
 our employed capital. To have hoarded beyond this amount 
 would doubtless have proved injurious; for all must agree with 
 the political economist that it is better to employ wealth than 
 to hoard it. But we have been considering a different question. 
 It is this:—whether, after producing all the wealth that can be 
 profitably employed, we should produce an additional quantity, 
 and hoard it; or whether we should keep our labourers and ma¬ 
 chinery idle and not produce this additional wealth at all. In a 
 national point of view, it would be most advantageous to hoard ; 
 first, because to obtain a million of wealth to hoard we must pro¬ 
 duce a considerable quantity in excess, which would go to the 
 share of the labourers as wages; and secondly, because a large 
 part of the excess, the labourers’ share, would go into the ex¬ 
 chequer as duties. Had it been fashionable during the last few 
 years for capitalists to have hoarded a part of their wealth, to the 
 amount of twenty millions annually ; it is most probable that an 
 additional eight or ten millions would have been expended annually 
 in wages, and that at least two or three millions would have been 
 added to the receipts from the excise and customs. It is quite 
 true that if a portion of wealth is to be hoarded for ever it might 
 
1G 
 
 quantity might have been hoarded, destroyed, or wasted upon 
 useless works, without detriment to the riches of the country, 
 and with benefit to the working classes. For the wealth thus dis¬ 
 posed of, as before observed, would have been created by our 
 labourers at the times they were unemployed ; and its production 
 for these purposes would have proved beneficial to them, because 
 they would at the same time have produced an additional quantity, 
 which must have fallen to their share as wages. The question at 
 once occurs to the mind—would not a larger consumption of wealth 
 by our people prove equally advantageous ? Indeed, it would 
 prove more advantageous. It must at once be admitted, that it 
 would be better to distribute wealth amongst the needy, than to 
 waste or destroy it. And let it be remembered, our object is 
 different to the object of those who advocate an alteration in the 
 distribution of the existing wealth, or who propose to benefit one 
 class by taking from another. Our intention is to produce an 
 additional quantity of wealth, and distribute it amongst those 
 who want. The effect of a larger consumption of wealth by the 
 working classes would be, to stimulate production, to call into 
 activity the means of creating wealth we have long been 
 wasting, and to employ our idle labourers and artizans in pro¬ 
 ducing food for the hungry, clothes for the naked, and necessaries 
 and luxuries for all. How are we to effect this ? The most 
 direct way would be to force up wages by making a more liberal 
 provision for the unemployed out of the poor-rates; but there 
 would be danger of encouraging idleness and other moral evils, 
 in carrying out this plan to a sufficient extent; besides, without 
 incurring such a risk, our object may be attained indirectly, and 
 in a manner for which the public mind is prepared. 
 
 There are three circumstances, each of which, other things 
 remaining the same, would enable the working classes to increase 
 their consumption of wealth:— 
 
 1. A rise in the rate of wages. 
 
 2. A greater demand for labour. 
 
 . 3. A reduction in the price of articles'of general consumption. 
 
 The advantage to the working classes of the first, or a rise in 
 wages, is at once perceived. 
 
 The direct or immediate advantage of the second, or an increase 
 in the demand for labour, is also evident. It would increase 
 consumption amongst the working classes, by supplying work 
 and wages for the unemployed; and it would be of further ad¬ 
 vantage, as it would lead to the first circumstance, or to a rise in 
 wages. The most effectual means to raise the rate of wages, 
 must be to cause the demand for labour to equal the supply. The 
 powerful effect of an increase in the demand for labour upon 
 wages has been strikingly displayed in the neighbourhood in 
 which we write. Owing to the demand for their labour on a rail¬ 
 road, the wages of little boys who serve brick-makers have risen 
 from 3s. and os. Gd. to 5s. and 6s. a week. 
 
n 
 
 17 
 
 The effect of the third circumstance we have enumerated, or 
 a reduction in the price of articles of general consumption, un¬ 
 accompanied by a reduction of wages, would have a powerful 
 effect in increasing the consumption of wealth amongst the 
 labouring classes. First, for their present wages, they would 
 obtain, and consequently consume, a larger quantity of the differ¬ 
 ent commodities ; secondly, this increase in consumption would 
 cause a corresponding increase in production and in the demand 
 for labour, which would give them more employment, and add 
 to their wages. This increase in the demand for labour would 
 also open a prospect of a rise in the rate of wages. 
 
 These beneficial effects are anticipated from a reduction in the 
 price of bread, consequent upon free trade; and we believe, if 
 the demand for labour could be made to equal the supply, the 
 effect of a reduction in the average price of bread would be 
 beneficial and powerful indeed. But, while admitting that the 
 premises upon which the arguments in support of free trade in 
 corn are founded, and the conclusions drawn from these premises 
 are correct, we think the circumstances that regulate the pro¬ 
 duction of wealth in this country must also be taken into con¬ 
 sideration, before the effect of free trade in corn can be under¬ 
 stood. While the supply of labour exceeds the demand, wages, 
 (if they have not already done so,) must continue to fall until 
 they reach the sum that will enable the labourer to obtain the 
 meanest subsistence, unless adventitious circumstances inter¬ 
 pose to prevent it. The adventitious circumstance that sustains 
 wages in England is the allowance to the unemployed out of the 
 poor-rates. This allowance is not a lixed sum in money, but 
 consists chiefly of food, and forms a sort of standard below 
 which wages cannot well fall. We fear, if the average price of 
 grain were to fall one-half, and the supply of labour still to exceed 
 the demand, that wages would gradually sink to one-half also : 
 for if the labourer could support himself and family on lOd. a 
 day as well as the parish supports the pauper, the unemployed 
 labourer, to avoid the Union house, would offer to work for that 
 sum, and the employed labourer be compelled, in consequence of 
 this competition, to accept the same amount of wages. We 
 think that a reduction in the average price of corn, under exist¬ 
 ing circumstances, or while the supply of labour exceeds the 
 demand, would not cause the people to consume more bread or 
 wealth of any other description. We state this not as an argu¬ 
 ment, but simply as an opinion, to which the reader can attach 
 whatever value he pleases. But entertaining this opinion, we 
 must look for other means for effecting our object of increasing 
 the consumption of wealth amongst the people. 
 
 The end in view we think may be attained, by reducing the 
 price of some of the necessaries of life largely, consumed by the 
 humbler classes, the cost of which does not, and is not even sup- 
 
18 
 
 n. 
 
 posed to affect the rate of wages. Tea will afford us an example. 
 If the price of tea, by lowering the duty, were reduced, say to one 
 half, it is most probable we should import and consume double 
 the quantity, and our trade with China would be enlarged ; our 
 increased consumption of tea would cause the Chinese to take a 
 larger quantity of British manufactured goods, or something that 
 had been obtained in exchange for them, and our exports as well 
 as our imports would be increased. Thus the consumption of 
 wealth by the working classes would be promoted in two 
 ways; first, by their consuming double the quantity of tea; 
 and secondly, by the additional wages paid to them consequent 
 upon the increased demand for labour; for more hands would be 
 required by the manufacturer, or the hands engaged would have 
 to be employed for a longer time, to produce the additional 
 quantity of goods for exportation; and more sailors and ships 
 would be required, to carry on the enlarged trade with China. 
 Or, if the people were not to use more tea, still the reduction in 
 its price would prove equally beneficial and effective in pro¬ 
 moting the consumption of wealth ; for then half the sum they 
 now spend in that article would be left in their hands, to pur¬ 
 chase something else. If with the money they were to buy 
 sugar, their consumption of that commodity would be in¬ 
 creased, and our trade with the sugar producing countries would 
 be extended, with the same effect upon our exports as would fol¬ 
 low from the money being expended in tea. If they were to 
 purchase clothes, their consumption of this description of wealth 
 would be increased, and they would supply work and wages, or 
 the means of obtaining commodities, for a number of the manu¬ 
 facturers and makers of clothing. 
 
 To illustrate our argument in another and more general man¬ 
 ner, let us suppose such a reduction to take place in the price of 
 articles like tea, sugar, tobacco, ike., as would leave in the hands 
 of the people, after purchasing the usual quantities of those com¬ 
 modities, five millions of money. Of the money thus saved, we 
 will imagine one million to find its way into the hands of the 
 capitalist, and to help to swell the stock of gold, or glut of corn 
 or other commodity ; and the remaining four millions to go in 
 the hands of persons who will spend it; and consume the produce. 
 If they consume foreign commodities, four millions’ worth of 
 British goods must be exported in exchange. To obtain these 
 goods for exportation, eight millions worth at least must be crea¬ 
 ted, four going in wages to the workmen.* The four millions 
 spent by the consumers will, according to this calculation, 
 throw four millions more into their hands, and cause the con¬ 
 sumption and production altogether of an additional eight 
 
 * The amount going to the labourer as wages must be greater than half, the 
 butn smnll part of the pric C y S ’ 
 
S3 
 
 19 
 
 millions’ worth of wealth. But wejhave not yet traced the whole 
 effect. The reduction in the price of the articles of general con¬ 
 sumption we have alluded) to, would not cause all the parties to 
 increase their consumption of foreign commodities; many of 
 them would purchase shoes, clothes, furniture, &c., with'the 
 amount saved. Some of the persons paid for making these arti¬ 
 cles, instead of purchasing foreign produce, would buy similar 
 articles of home production; tlius the tailor and cloth manufac¬ 
 turer, paid for clothes with part of the savings, might buy shoes, 
 while the tanners and shoemakers, paid for shoes with another part 
 of the savings, might buy clothes. We will venture to assume that 
 the whole of the additional means of the consumers on the average 
 is only once expended in this manner; but if our readers think 
 this is more than is justifiable, they can make what they consider a 
 proper deduction from the result of our calculation. 
 
 We will leave money out of the question, and suppose all the 
 additional means to be in the form of the foreign commodities 
 that have been reduced in price. The intervention of money 
 would in no way interfere with our argument, but only make the 
 process more intricate and difficult to describe. What are these 
 additional means ? First, there are the four millions left in the 
 hands of the consumers for which they obtained foreign produce ; 
 then there are the four millions, the share or wages of the work¬ 
 men, which they created for themselves while producing the goods 
 to pay for the foreign produce. The latter four millions we sup¬ 
 pose also to be exchanged for foreign commodities, making, with 
 the former, eight millions of foreign goods. These are not to lie 
 consumed by the possessors, but to change hands once, and 
 are turned over to the cloth-makers, tailors, tanners, shoe¬ 
 makers, and others, in exchange for clothes, shoes, and other 
 articles of utility, to the value of eight millions. If we suppose 
 a fourth of the foreign produce to go as profits to the accumula¬ 
 tors of capital, six millions will be left for the workmen to con¬ 
 sume, which added to the eight millions in the form of clothes 
 and other articles received and consumed by the first possessors 
 of the foreign produce, make the total additional quantity of 
 wealth consumed by the people amount to fourteen millions— 
 eight millions in the form of articles of utility, and six millions in 
 the form of foreign produce. Thus it appears the five millions 
 saved to the consumers, independently of the direct benefit it 
 would confer upon them, would actually cause the working 
 classes to produce an additional amount of wealth to the value 
 of ten millions for their own use. We beg our readers to bear 
 this in mind, as it will enable us to explain a remarkable fact 
 in connection with taxation in this country.. 
 
 By calling into action the third circumstance that would promote 
 the consumption of wealth by the poor, i. e. by reducing the price 
 of some of the necessaries of life or minor luxuries, we should 
 immediately effect the second circumstance, or ail increase in tiie 
 
20 
 
 demand for labour. And, it is evident, by continuing to pursue 
 tliis- course until the demand for labour equalled the supply, we 
 should attain the first circumstance, or a rise in the rate of wages. 
 
 How is the reduction in the price of necessaries and minor 
 luxuries to he effected? By judiciously lowering the duties upon 
 them. But the expenditure of the country must he provided for. 
 It is far from our desire to starve the Exchequer, or to try ex¬ 
 periments that might lead to a deficiency in the revenue ; and we 
 think the end in view may he attained by a gradual, hut not 
 large transposition of taxes. 
 
 We at once allude to the objection, doubtless already formed 
 in the reader’s mind, that if the reduction of taxes enabled one 
 party to consume more wealth, the imposition of the taxes tran¬ 
 sposed would cause another party to consume less, and that no re¬ 
 sult, so far as the consumption of wealth is concerned, would be 
 produced. We beg leave to call the reader’s attention to a pe¬ 
 culiar circumstance in connection with our past experience of 
 taxation. We shall afterwards endeavour to explain it; and if 
 we succeed, shall at the same time answer the objection and 
 prove that our object is both practicable and expedient. 
 
 In 1839 the receipts from the custom and excise duties, after 
 deducting the drawbacks and payments of a like nature, amount¬ 
 ed to £37, 911, 506. In May, 1840, the additional 5 per cent 
 was added to these duties, and, being collected for nearly nine 
 months of that year, should have produced and increased the 
 total of that year’s revenue from these duties by the addition of, 
 in round numbers, £1, 400, 000 ; but the increase did not exceed 
 £206, 000, or a fraction above one-seventli what it should have 
 done according to the increased rate of taxation. In a word, each 
 £1. added to the duties only brought 3s. into the Exchequer. 
 But even this increase did not take place in the duties derived 
 from some of the highly taxed articles or those in which the 
 duty forms a large part of the price. We have placed below 
 the five principal commodities from which the duties were de¬ 
 rived, and the amount paid upon each in 1839, the year preced¬ 
 ing the imposition of the five per cent., and in 1840, the first 
 year in which it was received:— 
 
 1800. 1810. Decrease. 
 
 Malt. 4,845,949 .. 4,983,602 .. 137,653 
 
 Tobacco and Snuff . 3,495,687 .. 3,588,192 .. 92,505 
 
 Tea . 3,658,800 .. 3,472,864 .. 185,936 
 
 Sugar and Molasses. 4,827,019 . . 4,650,017 .. 177,002 
 
 Spirits, British and Foreign 8,057,929 . . 7,647,858 . . 410,071 
 From this table it appears that the imposition of the five per 
 cent, increased the revenue from the malt tax and tobacco duty, 
 although not to an amount corresponding with the increase in 
 the rate of taxation; but instead of adding to, reduced the reve¬ 
 nue derived from tea, sugar, and spirits. 
 
21 
 
 If thc’doctrine held by political economists, that it was a mat¬ 
 ter of no moment whether taxes were placed upon articles of 
 consumption or upon incomes, excepting so far as the one might 
 he more convenient, easy of collection, or agreeable to the fcel- 
 in<Ts of the people, had been admitted, it might fairly have been 
 concluded from the non-productiveness of the iuciease in the 
 duties, that taxation had been carried nearly to its utmost limits, 
 and that the attempt to make any considerable addition to the 
 revenue would have proved futile. But the " - 1 ' - ' 
 
 elusion was, at the time, rendered somewhat doubtful by the 
 circumstance of the ten per cent, added to the assessed taxes 
 proving productive; and it was shown to be false in 13-13, when 
 the revenue was increased, and upwards of five millions derived 
 from a tax upon incomes, without any decrease in the receipts 
 from the excise and customs, beyond what was clearly the result 
 of the repeal or reduction of duties. 
 
 Another, a striking and, in our oninion. a most imnorfanf con¬ 
 clusion maybe drawn from the result of the imposition of the 
 five per cent. If this additional tax upon lea, sugar, and spirits, 
 added nothing to the revenue, we may infer that its repeai would 
 take nothing from it; or to take all the articles charged with e.visu 
 or custom duties together, if each pound added to the rate of the 
 duties only brought one-seventh, or 3s. into the Exchequer, it 
 may he inferred that a reduction of these duties would only have 
 a corresponding effect upon the revenue derived from them, or 
 that each pound deducted from the rate of the duties would only 
 reduce the total receipts by 3s. And the opinion of all parlies 
 favours this conclusion. It is universally admitted that increased 
 consumption consequent upon the reduction of the duties upon 
 articles of general consumption does, to some extent, make up for 
 
 of merchants advocating the reduction of the duty upon tea, to, 
 we think, a shilling a pound, it was contended that the increase 
 in consumption would prevent any loss to the revenue. Wo arc 
 not prepared to jump to this conclusion ; nor is it nccc-ssary for 
 us to do so, or even to the inference drawn from the effect of the 
 additional 5 per cent, upon the excise and customs. It will be 
 sufficient for our argument to put the case in a much less favour¬ 
 able light, and to assume that a judicious reduction of some of 
 the duties on articles in general consumption would occasion a 
 loss to the revenue equal to one half ot the amount of the reduc¬ 
 tion. For example, instead of concluding with the memorialists 
 mentioned above, that in the event of two millions of taxes 
 being taken off tea, the increase in consumption would make up 
 for the loss ; we assume that the greater consumption would only 
 make up for one half of the loss, and that the reduction of two 
 millions in the duty on tea would lower the toted receipts from this 
 branch of the revenue by a million, Hits assumption wc think is 
 
strictly within the bounds of moderation and fully warranted by 
 past experience. 
 
 A variation in. the rate of taxes upon incomes has not been 
 found to produce the result described above. The 10 per cent, 
 added to the assessed taxes at the same time as the 5 per cent, upon 
 the ex'cise and customs, unlike the latter, proved productive; and 
 after the attempt to raise two or three millions from the excise and 
 customs had turned out a perfect failure, the income tax was 
 resorted to with success and added five millions to the revenue ; 
 without, as before observed, being accompanied by any falling off 
 in the other branches of the income of the country beyond what 
 was the result of the repeal or reduction of duties. No one 
 can doubt that lowering the income tax to one half, or from 7d. to 
 3Jd. in the pound, would cause a corresponding reduction in the 
 revenue; and, on the other hand, the fact that the income tax 
 did not reduce the receipts from the excise and customs justifies 
 the inference that doubling it would not prove injurious to the 
 other branches of the revenue, but actually add live millions to 
 the income of the country. 
 
 What has been said leads to the conclusion that an alteration 
 in the mode of imposing taxes, without any change in the rate of 
 taxation, would make a difference of several millions in the total 
 receipts of the revenue. For example, if the income tax were 
 transposed to the excise and customs, five millions would be 
 sacrificed by the repeal of the former, while the increased rate 
 of duties by the transposition of the five millions to the latter, 
 according to experience as shown in the addition of the five per 
 cent., would produce less than one million, or according to our 
 assumption, two and a half millions; so that the alteration in 
 the manner of imposing the tax, would, according to experience, 
 inflict a loss of four millions, or according to the assumption 
 which is much less favourable for our argument, a loss of two 
 and a half millions on the revenue. Now for the converse. If 
 a judicious reduction of five millions were made in the rate of 
 duties charged on the excise and customs, the consequent increase 
 in consumption, according to our assumption, would make np 
 for one half; so that two millions and a half only would be lost 
 to the revenue. If the five millions were transferred to the in¬ 
 come tax, it would add that amount to the total receipts of the 
 taxes. Hence it follows, that by the transferring of five millions from 
 the excise and customs to the income tax, there would be a loss, 
 according to our assumption, of two and a half millions on the 
 the one hand, and a gain of five millions on the other; or in a 
 word, the simple transposition of five millions of taxes would add 
 two and a half millions to the revenue. This is the peculiar cir¬ 
 cumstance to which we alluded, and which we are to endeavour 
 ^ to explain. 
 
 The effect of reducing the price of articles of general 
 
'23 
 
 consumption by lowering the duties 1ms already been described. 
 We stated that such a reduction as should leare in the hands of 
 the consumers, after purchasing their present amount of commo¬ 
 dities, four millions, would cause them, in addition to these four 
 millions, to create and consume ten millions worth of wealth. 
 This wealth would be an additional source of revenue; for it is 
 evident a part of it would find its way into the Exchequer; and 
 hence it is that a judicious reduction of duties does not cause a 
 corresponding falling off in the total receipts, because the reduced 
 rate of taxation is received upon a larger amount of wealth. 
 Thus also may be explained the circumstance of an increase in 
 the rate of some of the duties upon articles of general consump¬ 
 tion not enlarging the total receipts. It reduces the quantity of 
 wealtii produced and consumed ; and the increased rate of taxa¬ 
 tion is paid on a smaller amount of wealtii. 
 
 The result of a variation in the rate of taxes upon incomes is 
 different, because it produces two effects, and operates in two 
 dissimilar ways. The excise and custom duties are simply taxes 
 upon the consumer, and consist of a proportion or per centagoof 
 tiie wealth consumed; but the income tax is a per ccntage of 
 the wealth created, and not only takes a portion of the wealth 
 about to be consumed, but also a portion of that converted into 
 capital, and of that which by its accumulation causes a glut, and 
 puts a stop for a time to production. We have stated that a cer¬ 
 tain quantity of wealth might have been wasted upon useless 
 works, or destroyed, with benefit to the working classes, and with¬ 
 out injury to the country. A part of the sum that would be 
 obtained from an addition to the income tax would be derived 
 
 in fact, it would increase botli the production a 
 wealtii. England has for many years, oi or and i 
 consumed by the people, created all the weal 
 profitably employed as capital, or expended u 
 which promised to prove profitable, " and yet at 
 
24 
 
 the evils consequent upon an excessive accumulation of wealth, 
 which has shown itself in glutted markets, has stopped production, 
 and compelled the country to waste a part of its means of pro¬ 
 ducing wealth, by leaving labourers and machinery unemployed. 
 And hence, a lax upon that part of incomes which is saved and 
 intended to be employed as capital, would only draw a part of 
 the wealth that accumulates in excess'for the service of the State, 
 ease the glutted markets, and give our labourers a little more 
 work; in a word, the labour of our people who would otherwise 
 be unemployed, is the source whence the amount would he de¬ 
 rived. Now, we may understand the two effects of a tax upon 
 incomes or upon the wealth created, and in what it differs from a 
 tax upon consumption. The portion of the income tax falling 
 upon the incomes of those who spend or consume the whole, or 
 from that part of incomes which its possessors spend upon 
 themselves and families, limits the consumption and production 
 of wealth ; hut the portion of the tax that falls upon the part of 
 incomes which is saved and swells the amount of accumulated 
 wealth in the country, has the same effect as an additional demand 
 for capital already described, and increases the production of 
 wealth. These two dissimilar effects counteract each other, and 
 cause the final result of a tax upon incomes to he so different to 
 that of a tax upon articles of general consumption. 
 
 We will endeavour, by an imaginary example, to trace the effect 
 upon the country of transposing part of the taxes upon consump¬ 
 tion, to that part of incomes which is saved and added to the 
 accumulated wealth. To render the case more simple, we will 
 assume that the tax is first collected from the consumers and thou 
 returned to them in one sum, as this will enable us better to show 
 the effect, which in practice would gradually take place in a year. 
 For our purpose we will suppose a manufacturer to make frying- 
 pans; and to have expended all his money at starting the business 
 in the necessary buildings, machinery, &c., required for the pur¬ 
 pose, so that his income will consist wholly of frying pans or 
 their price in money when sold. Manufacturers of hardware, 
 like manufacturers of other commodities, in this country, are 
 affected by what is termed over pro duction and glut. It will be 
 readily admitted that our manufacturers might produce one-fifth 
 more hardware than they have done, could they find a market 
 for it. Many of our readers may feel inclined to say that instead 
 of one-fifth, double the quantity might he produced; but one- 
 fifth will answer our purpose. The imaginary manufacturer we use 
 for our example, would be affected by the state of the market or the 
 demand for his goods, just as existing manufacturers are; at one 
 time he would produce all the frying pans his works admitted of 
 being made, at another time two-thirds of the quantity, and. at 
 another time one half. We assume that altogether lie produces in 
 a year one-sixth less than lie could do, and to show at one view 
 
the effect of lii.s not being fully employed, eve will else in-uunc 
 that lie produces, in the first ten months, all that he can dispose 
 of in a year ; and that the periods of inactivity from the slate of 
 the market arc all concentrated in the last two mouths, during 
 which time lie produces nothing. We will suppose the yearly 
 income of this manufacturer, after paying wages, and the expense 
 of keeping his works and machinery in an efficient state of repair, 
 to he £20,000, being £2,000 a month for the use of his ma¬ 
 chinery, &c. Let us further suppose, that lie expends one-half 
 of liis income and saves the remainder, and we shall see what 
 would ho tiie elfect of the transposition of taxes mentioned above. 
 It is determined at the end of the ten months to place five per 
 cent, upon incomes saved, ami to return an euuivalont to the 
 consumer. This takes £500 from the manufacturer's £10,000 
 saved. Hut there is the amount returned to the consumer, to be 
 expended ; and if, amongst the different things purchased, frying 
 pans form their usual proportion, the £500 will he returned to 
 tiie manufacturer in exchange for part of his stock. In fact lie 
 will pay the tax in frying pans. And then, as he will not possess 
 in stock two months supply, he must set tu work again to make up 
 the deficiency. While lie is about it he may also make a suffi¬ 
 cient quantity to sell for the money lie pays to his workmen ; fur, 
 as other producers of wealth, owing to the general increase in the 
 demand for goods, must make a corresponding addition to their 
 expenditure in wages, the whole amount he pays to his workmen 
 will, if the consumption of frying pans continue in its former 
 proportion, be returned to him for part of his stock ; and thus 
 his loss, in consequence of the tax, tie reduced to some rough 
 iron. But his demand for iron will cause an additional quantity 
 to lie produced, an additional sum to lie expended in wages, and 
 a further demand for his stock : indeed, frying pans will pay for 
 the rough iron also, and lie will only contribute tiie use of his 
 machinery, which, in the event of the tax not being imposed, 
 will be unemployed. We have traced tiie effect of tiie transpo¬ 
 sition of taxes sufficiently. It would carry a sum into tiie 
 Exchequer without diminishing tiie means of any one, and at the 
 same time cause a quantity of wealtli to be distributed amongst 
 the working classes, all of which would lie derived from the employ¬ 
 ment of men and machinery that would otherwise be idle. 
 
 If our argument is sound, the policy of drawing as large a por¬ 
 tion of tiie revenue as is convenient or practicable from tiie part 
 of incomes which is to be converted into capital, must at once be 
 admitted ; for whatever is obtained from it is a clear gam to the 
 Exchequer and tiie country. A portion of the taxes dern ed from 
 incomes in general, is obtained from that source. lienee it was 
 that a tax upon incomes proven prouucuve uiier me uim™ 
 the taxes upon consumption had turned out. a failure ; and hence 
 it is that a simple transposition of taxes from some articles of 
 

 26 
 
 general consumption to incomes, without any increase in the rate 
 of taxation, would add to the revenue. As it is impossible to 
 distinguish between the part of incomes which will be consumed 
 and the part which will be converted into capital, for the purpose 
 of placing and deriving the advantage from a tax upon the latter ; 
 and as the two parts must be taxed together or the advantage be 
 relinquished, the policy of drawing a larger portion of the sum 
 required for the service of the State from incomes in general must 
 also be admitted. And let it be remembered that the transposi¬ 
 tion of taxes from articles of consumption to incomes in general,* 
 should it not produce exactly the same effect as an exclusive tax 
 upon the part of incomes converted into capital, would be an ap¬ 
 proximation to it: the reduction in the excise and custom duties 
 would compensate the consumer in some measure, if not entirely, 
 for his share of the tax, and the chief burden would fall upon the 
 part of incomes to be converted into capital; or rather, the chief 
 amount of the tax be derived from the labour of those who would 
 otherwise be unemployed. 
 
 What we have written has led to the following conclusions :— 
 
 1 st. According to an assumption, in which less is taken for 
 granted than is warranted by experience, and much less than is 
 contended for by merchants and men of authority, the transposit¬ 
 ion of five millions of taxes would add two and a half millions to 
 the revenue. Hence it follows that by a gradual transposition of 
 taxes (we are opposed to all violent changes) without any increase 
 in the rate of taxation, the revenue may be increased at the rate 
 of two or three millions annually, or in about seven years the 
 gross amount of the Income of the Country may be raised to 
 seventy millions. 
 
 2d. The mere circumstance of thus adding to the revenue would 
 benefit the working classes, as each additional million carried 
 into the Exchequer, so far from impoverishing the people, would 
 cause another million’s worth of wealth to be created and con- 
 
 3d. If the surplus in the revenue so created, or the greater 
 part of it, were returned to the people, then, according to our 
 calculation, which is under the mark, the working classes would 
 increase the amount of wealth produced for the use of themselves 
 and their dependents, at the rate of seven millions annually : or 
 in seven years, independently of the increase of the population, 
 the working classes would have at their command necessaries, 
 articles of utility, aud luxuries, to the value of fifty millions a 
 year more than they have now. This is a startling assertion ; 
 but it involves nothing unnatural or contradictory. If we talk 
 
9 * 
 
 Doubtless it is known to our renders, that in all our large towns, 
 and in our small towns too, there is a numerous class of females 
 who work for the most miserable pittance. These persons are 
 most heavily taxed, or at least such of them as are not driven, by 
 the high duties upon tea and sugar, to a diet approaching to bread 
 and water. Many of the women who sit up half the night to 
 earn three-pence by needlework, pay a greater per centage of their 
 earnings to the State than any other class of persons in the com¬ 
 munity. If they spend fourpence in food, it is most probable 
 that twopence will be for bread, and twopence for tea and sugar; 
 or rather, we should say, for tea, as many of them are compelled 
 to dispense with sugar. To them, tea is an absolute necessary; 
 they prefer it to animal food ; and the recent investigations of 
 the chemist lead to the conclusion that it is better suited for 
 them.* Again, if we go to the cottage of the sick labourer, we 
 find the last thing he dispenses with is tea, unless he has been 
 previously driven to substitute for it a decoction of the drug sold 
 to him under the name of coffee. We propose, as the first step 
 in carrying out our object, to transpose five millions of the taxes 
 from tea and sugar to incomes derived from property. 
 
 The revenue from the duty on tea, of 2s. 2d. a pound, amounts 
 to about five millions annually. Of this we propose to transpose 
 nearly two-thirds, or about £3,300,000, by reducing the duty to 
 9d. The poor buy tea by the ounce, and we believe usually pay 
 either three-pence or four-pence, the former sum being paid by 
 the poorer amongst the working classes, and the latter by those 
 receiving higher wages or who have no families. The proposed 
 reduction would lower the four-penny tea to 2|d., the three¬ 
 penny to 1 |d., and an inferior sort to IJ-d., per ounce. That 
 this would be a great boon to the most needy it is not necessary 
 to show by argument. We propose another test: let those of 
 our readers who have intercourse with the poor select half a dozen 
 persons whom they would most desire to help; let them select an 
 old woman, dependent upon the 2s. 9d. a week from the parish,— 
 the young semstress, whose protracted labours have already 
 marked upon her countenance evidence of the disease that shall 
 never terminate but with her life,—the family, once in comforta¬ 
 ble circumstances, but now reduced, till “ it is impossible to say 
 liow they live,”—the labourer confined by sickness, or with a sick 
 wife or family,—and the man or woman, now dying by slow 
 starvation: f let our readers seek such as these, who most de- 
 
 * See Liebig's Animal Chemistry. 
 
29 
 
 mancl our sympathy, and ask their opinion of our proposal : and 
 by their answer we will gladly abide. Or, if our readers would 
 form a decided and strong opinion of their own, let them observe 
 the old woman carefully placing a farthing with the penny, which, 
 when another farthing is added to it, is to buy half an "ounce of 
 tea ; or the sick labourer's wife going round to her poor neigh¬ 
 bours, with anxiety depicted in her countenance, to borrow a 
 half-penny, to make up the sum to buy the same quantity of tea ;* 
 and say, not only whether the boon proposed is strictly just, Inn 
 whether withholding it is not an act of cruelty and oppression. 
 
 The above remarks nil the duty upon tea apply, but with rather 
 less force, to the duty upon sugar. Header, stand by a grocer’s 
 shop in a low neighbourhood, observe that child in nigs, with her 
 hair uncombed; she is not a cheering object to look upon: but 
 look at her a little closer; her countenance is not without ex¬ 
 pression ; she is upon business of importance, and of a pleasing 
 nature too. Her family cannot afford to drink sugar; but an old 
 grandmother or a sick child is to be indulged, or it is a festal dav. 
 and a little extra expense is to be incurred; the child is going 
 for a pennyworth of sugar. But here is another customer, a 
 woman, not old ; her face and gown are thin, but both are clean : 
 her appearance bespeaks a desire to be “ respectable,” and also 
 shows decided marks of poverty; she considers herself a member 
 of a class above that of the child who preceded her; she drinks 
 sugar and of a better quality ; and is about to buy in some days' 
 stock for her family. See, she has bought half a pound of "five- 
 penny.” Does the reader smile at our dwelling upon such •■tri¬ 
 fles.” They are not considered trifles by those we have descri¬ 
 bed. Much thought is expended upon the two packets of sugar. 
 In the case of the child the thought preceded the purchase ; but 
 in the case of the woman it will succeed it. If the reader would 
 estimate the thought bestowed upon the sugar, he should observe 
 the care and anxiety with which that woman doles it out to make 
 it last the predetermined period. This is a trifle too: but trifles 
 like these influence human life . If that woman, depressed by 
 care and anxiety, sink into an early grave; if after the birth of 
 her next child the doctor shake his head and say her constitution 
 was to weak to stand the shock, we may feel assured that trifles 
 like these were not without effect. As before stated our remarks 
 upon tea do not apply with equal force to sugar. This great and 
 wealthy nation, with enormous resources unemployed, does not 
 take a half of the money from these two purchasers; the amount 
 it demands does not greatly exceed a third. Still it takes too 
 much; and, if our arguments are of any value, the interest of the 
 country as well as the cause of humanity and benevolence would 
 be best served by taking less. 
 
the duty 8s. per hundred weight; returning the present scale smijecl 
 to this reduction. The market price of brown sugar, including 
 the duty, is about 37s. a hundred weight; and hence the pro¬ 
 posed change would reduce the price to the purchaser nearly one- 
 fourth, and cause brown sugar to be retailed at 3d. and 4d. a 
 pound. This would be a boon most acceptable to the poor. 
 And we would willingly submit the opinion here expressed to the 
 same test proposed with regard to a reduction in the price of tea. 
 The duty upon brown sugar at present is 14s. on that produced 
 in our colonies in the West Indies, and in certain British posses¬ 
 sions within the limits of the East India Company’s charter; 
 17s. on that produced in other British possessions within the 
 same limits, and 20s. on that produced in foreign countries. By 
 the proposed reduction we should relinquish rather more than one 
 half of the duty on the first, and less than half on the second and 
 third -, or taking them altogether, about one-half of the duty. 
 We estimate the total of the duties upon sugar at about four 
 millions, making the loss from the proposed reduction, two mil¬ 
 lions. 
 
 We consider sugar an article very favourable for our purpose, 
 as a great part of that imported on account of increased con¬ 
 sumption, consequent upon tbe reduction in price would be from 
 foreign countries, and pay, after tbe proposed reduction, up to 
 July, 1848, 12s. the hundred weight, and in the subsequent year, 
 10s. 6d. Were it not for this circumstance, we should not select 
 sugar for the first essay in carrying out the plan of a gradual 
 transposition of taxes. It is our wish to operate so that each 
 million of taxes transposed, may add half a million to the income 
 of the country, leaving the disposal of the surplus until the fol¬ 
 lowing year ; for we think, by showing that millions may be added 
 to the revenue without any increase in the rate of taxation, we 
 shall induce men to credit our assertion that the resources of this 
 country are not fully appreciated, and that the annual waste of 
 our means for producing wealth is enormous ; and thus induce 
 them to acknowledge, that the idea of distributing additional 
 wealth to the amount of many millions amongst the working 
 classes, is not a vain one formed in the mind of a visionary, but 
 only a perception of that which may be realized in practice. 
 
 By the proposed reduction in the duties on tea and sugar, about 
 £3,300,000 of taxes would be taken off the former, and about 
 2,000,000 off the latter; making together £5,300,000 of taxes to 
 be transposed from these two articles to incomes. We propose 
 to raise this sum by a tax of sevcnpcnce in tbe pound upon all 
 
 incomes derived from property. 
 
 In 1843, the annual value of the real property assessed to the 
 
31 
 
 mially increasing, and the part now justly chargeable witli the pre¬ 
 sent income tax may be estimated at £105,000,000.* Sir Robert 
 Peel, in developing his financial plan in 1812, estimated the real 
 property belonging to persons whose incomes were under £150 
 a year, and which would escape the tax, at one-fourth ; but we 
 think on this point, as well as upon the total amount of real pro¬ 
 perty, his estimate was too low. In the “ return ” containing the 
 assessment alluded to, £1,960,330 only is the amount put down 
 under tithes, but the real annual produce cannot, we think, be 
 less than £3,000,000. If the sums placed under the other heads 
 in the “ return ” hear the same relation to the real value, the an¬ 
 nual amount derived from real property cannot be much less 
 than £160,000,000. But we will assume it to be £150,000,000, 
 and think the adoption of our proposal would prove that we have 
 not overshot the mark. A tax of seven-pence in the pound on 
 this sum would produce £4,375,000. The amount annually de¬ 
 rived from the funds, foreign stock, bank stock, and other descrip¬ 
 tions of properly not included in the above, is upwards of £30, 
 000,000, at which stun we will take it. Seven-pence in the 
 pound upon this would produce £875,000, and with the £4,375 
 000 to be derived from real property, make a total of £5,250,000, 
 being, according to our estimate, £50,000 less than the amount 
 of taxes upon tea and sugar proposed to be transposed. 
 
 It may be thought the tax of sevenpence in the pound would 
 press heavily upou the possessors of small incomes derived from 
 property. Persons saving a part of their incomes and converting 
 the amount into capital, would apparently sutler from the tax ; but 
 
 interest of money, which is less than we anticipate as one of the 
 results of the proposed change, would be an excessive compen¬ 
 sation for the three per cent, abstracted from each addition to their 
 capital. Moreover, wc believe that not one in a hundred of the 
 humbler classes who are saving, and consequently are prosperous, 
 would object to the tax. Widows and other persons li\ing upon 
 small incomes are the parties on whose account most anxiety 
 would be felt; but they would be benefited by the change. Let 
 us, for example, take persons with incomes of £50 a year. On 
 the average they spend 6d. a wed; in sugar and Is. in tea. The 
 transposition of taxes proposed by lowering the price of sugar 
 and tea would save them l ; jd. a week upon the former, and ad. 
 upon the latter article, or £ 1 7s. Id. a year; and carry two and a 
 half millions into the Exchequer; which sum, in the subsequent 
 year, is to be applied in further reducing the duties upon and the 
 priee of articles consumed by them. If the first reduction of live 
 
32 
 
 millions of taxes would save them £1 7s. Id., then the reduction 
 of the two and a half millions, if judiciously effected, would save 
 them half that sum, or 13s. 63d., which, added to the £1 7s. Id., 
 gives £2 Os. 7|d. as the total amount saved by the reduction in 
 the price of uecessaries consequent upon the transposition of five 
 millions of taxes. Deduct from the latter sum £1 9s. 2d., the 
 amount of their income tax, and there remains 11s. 5|d. in their 
 favour or for their share of the additional wealth created. W e 
 think their expenditure for tea and sugar is calculated too low, 
 but this is a point that our readers, by a little observation, can 
 decide for themselves. These persons, although benefited by the 
 proposed transposition of taxes, would, it is true, derive less ad¬ 
 vantage from it than other members of the community ; but most 
 of them have children or other near connections dependent upon 
 wages, who would derive the direct advantage of a reduction in 
 the price of tea and sugar, without any deduction, and who would 
 participate in the indirect but great advantage consequent upon 
 the increase in the demand for labour. 
 
 With this suggestion, for a first step in carrying into effect our 
 object of causing the unemployed labourers to create wealth for 
 the use of themselves and others, we leave the subject to the 
 consideration of the thoughtful reader.