Review of
Principles of Political Economy
by John Stuart Mill
Walter Bagehot
[A review of the book by John Stuart Mill,
The Prospective Review, Vol.IV, 16, 1848, pp.460-502]
The work on which we are about to comment, seems to us unavoidably
to present great difficulties to a reviewer. The admirable qualities
of mind displayed in it, and the extensive research out of which it
has sprung, make it necessary for the critic to practise a humility,
to which he is perchance but little accustomed. Moreover the great
size of the work, the number of valuable discussions which it
contains, and, more than all, the great importance of almost the
whole of its subject-matter, exact from us a difficult selection of
topics, in order that our article may not be unpleasing to our
readers or altogether unworthy of the work under review.
The course which we shall take will be first to mark Mr. Mill's
position among economical and, so far as a few words will go, among
general thinkers: and, after this introduction to select a single
large class of considerations, viz., those bearing on the condition
of the labouring classes: and to devote our attention to these
exclusively. We choose this branch of the subject, not only because
of its own intrinsic interest, but also because it contains a large
proportion of Mr. Mill's peculiar and characteristic ideas. He is
the first among great English Economists who has ventured to
maintain, that the present division of the industrial community into
labourers and capitalists is neither destined nor adapted for a
long-continued existence: that a large production of wealth is much
less important than a good distribution of it: that a state of
industry in which both capital and population are stationary is as
favourable to national well-being as one in which they are
advancing: that fixed customs are perpetually modifying the effects
which unrestrained competition would of itself inevitably produce:
that a large body of peasant proprietors is usually a source of
great national advantage: and that a system of Emigration on a great
scale would be productive of much benefit to the English peasantry
by raising their habitual standard of comfort, and therefore putting
a check on the reckless increase of a miserable population. These
propositions (which are not all that might be set down) will be
enough to prove that the subject we have selected for discussion
with Mr. Mill contains a sufficient number of his peculiar opinions,
and therefore asking our readers to acquiesce in our selection of a
special topic, we shall pass on to the general and introductory
portion of our article.
In the preface to his work Mr. Mill states that he wishes his work
to comprise both the theoretic exposition of purely economical
doctrine, and also the extraneous considerations most necessary for
its correct application to the real world in which we have to live
and act. This he says, because he habitually bears in mind that
Political Economy is founded on certain assumptions of which it is
very convenient to trace out the consequences separately, but which
being seldom accurately true, and being often very wide of the mark,
will lead logically to consequences that it may be hazardous to
apply without correction to the actual condition of mankind. Thus it
is perpetually assumed that men will always buy what they want as
cheaply as they can; whereas in matter of fact, vanity, liberality
and indolence are perpetually preventing purchasers from beating
down prices to the full extent of their ability.
The existence of such exceptional considerations distributes
economists into two classes. What we may call common-sense thinkers
have always seen that these extraneous influences were very
important matters for their attention wherever actual practice was
at all concerned. Adam Smith for example is the most striking
specimen of this class of thinkers. He is very eminent in making
short inductions from admitted facts, and in applying them with
consistency and skill. He is not eminent for precision of statement
or for microscopic accuracy of thought: but he is in general very
successful in rather vague descriptions of conspicuous phenomena,
and in tracing them back to the most influential of their proximate
causes. It is evident that a mind so habitually starting with
observed fact would be unlikely to neglect important agencies or to
bind itself by purely hypothetical assumptions. Ricardo on the other
hand is the most important of what may be called the abstract
thinkers on the philosophy of wealth. He sets out from certain
primitive assumptions, and from these he proceeds to evolve all his
results by mere deduction. He but rarely comes into contact with the
actual world at all: but frames a hypothetical one which exists
nowhere out of his own imagination. Accordingly his views of his
subject must be called deep rather than wide: explaining a little
very well, but leaving much without remark: giving a little truth
which it was difficult to arrive at, rather than a comprehensive
summary of all the principles that modify the phenomena which he is
considering. In reference to these peculiarities of their minds, it
is certainly very remarkable that Adam Smith should have been a
recluse student, during his whole life almost exclusively with
abstractions, and that Ricardo, who is so eminently an abstract
thinker, should have been bred up in actual business, and should
have attained his powers of deductive reasoning without any early
philosophical discipline. It would certainly have been expected, if
we had not known how little outward circumstances avail against the
intrinsic aptitudes of a strong mind, that Adam Smith would have
looked on nature principally "through the spectacles of books,"
and that Ricardo would have taken that general, vague, but in the
main sufficient, judgment upon matters of fact which is generally
called "common sense," and which alone among the higher
intellectual gifts is habitually exercised in every-day practical
life.
In that part of his preface to which we just now alluded, Mr. Mill
has substantially expressed his intention of conciliating the two
modes of dealing with his subject; that is, of combining the
abstract deduction and logical accuracy which are exemplified in
Ricardo with that largeness of view and thorough acquaintance with
diversified matters of fact for which the "Wealth of Nations"
is so eminently remarkable.
And this great undertaking he has, so far as we can judge,
admirably accomplished. The principal applications of abstract
science are here treated of with a fulness of information, an
impartiality of judgment, and a command over general principles, any
one of which would have by itself been enough to make the work take
rank as one of eminent merit, and to the union of which we have
never seen anything in an economical writer, even approximating
equal. No great subject within the range of Political Economy
appears to us to have been wholly omitted, and if we acknowledge
that all the larger considerations which we could wish for, are not
on all occasions introduced, we also admit that minds trained in
different schools of thought, and seeing life generally under a
somewhat different aspect, must inevitably form conflicting
judgments as to what was, and what was not, relevant to particular
social problems. We are bound to add, that in almost all cases there
is evidence that Mr. Mill has given much and earnest attention to
all the kinds of argument which seemed to him capable of being
opposed to his opinions. Nor with the exception of the 'System of
Logic' have we read any contemporary publication in which the desire
for the mere discovery of truth was either so strong in itself or so
immensely preponderant over every other consideration. The false
colours of prejudice and passion have no place in an intellect so
thoroughly achromatic.
We feel it, therefore, to be almost presumption in us to attempt,
as we promised, a description, even in the most general way, of Mr.
Mill's position in the list of general thinkers. Yet it seems to us
incumbent on the critic of such a man to try his hand at some such
task. Mr. Mill has treated with first-rate ability of subjects which
involve a discussion of many problems which concern most intimately
the highest interests of man; and if we give a notion of the place
he appears to us to occupy among important thinkers, it will be seen
why, in some instances, we differ from him, and agree with those
whom we should place higher on the scale of worth. Mr. Mill then
belongs we think to the Aristotelic or unspiritual order of great
thinkers. A Philosopher of this sort starts always from
considerations of pure intellect. He never assumes the teachings of
conscience: he never, that is, treats as primordial facts, either
the existence of a law of duty independent of consequences, nor a
moral government of the world, nor a connection either between
virtue and a reward, or between sin and retribution. He may have a
great mastery over trains of reasoning, a great skill in applying
comprehensive principles to complicated phenomena; he may have
robust sense like Locke or Adam Smith, a power of exhausting a
subject like Aristotle or Bentham, or subtlety like the former, or
definiteness in scheming like the latter: but whatever be his merits
or deficiencies, this remains as his great characteristic, that the
light of his intellect is exactly what Bacon calls "dry light;"
it is "unsteeped in the humours of the affections:" it
rests on what is observed to be: it never grounds itself on any
inward assurance of what ought to be: it disregards what Butler
calls the "presages of conscience," and attends only to
the senses and the inductive intellect. In Physical Science and even
in Metaphysics, the views of such men may be extensive, subtle or
profound: in Politics also they may and often will excel, in tracing
the different kinds of administrative machinery: they will in
general be excellent judges of means, though not well fitted to
appreciate what a thinker of a different order would be apt to
consider, the highest ends of Government: in morals their views will
in general be vague and not seldom erroneous, for their conscience
is not luminous enough to give them vivid or well-defined
convictions on the subject of duty: and on religion it is well if
their tone be not that of Protagoras:
Such are the leading characteristics attaching to the school of
thinkers, of whom Locke and Aristotle are perhaps the most
attractive representatives, and among whom Auguste Comte is
assuredly the least valuable specimen compatible with any remarkable
ability. It would lead us too far from our subject to explain at
length, that the extreme opposite of that School of thinkers is to
be found in the School of Plato, and Butler, and Kant, who
practically make the conscience the ultimate basis of all certainty:
who infer from its inward suggestion the moral government of the
world; the connection between shame and fear, and between sin and
retribution: from whose principles it may perhaps be deduced, that
the ground for trusting our other faculties is the duty revealed by
conscience, of trusting those of them essential to the performance
of the task assigned by God to Man: thinkers, in short, whose
peculiar function it is to establish in the minds of thoughtful
persons that primitive Theology which is the necessary basis of all
positive Revelation.
To what may be called the moral genius of these writers, the
author before us makes no pretension: he would, we apprehend,
indeed, deny that it was possible for any man to possess what we
reckon as their characteristic merits. On the other hand, in all the
merits of the purely intellectual class of thinkers, we must travel
far back into the past, before we can find any one whom we know to
be possessed of them in an equal measure. Our author is not indeed
in our judgment eminently qualified either to perceive or to
appreciate nice and exquisite distinctions: he does not therefore at
all make pretension to that combination of metaphysical subtlety and
practical shrewdness which so many ages have agreed to wonder at in
Aristotle: but nevertheless we hardly know of any one who has so
much of that union of sense and science so remarkable in the
Aristotelic treatises on the business of mankind. And in the
firmness of grasp with which his understanding retains whatever has
once come within its range, and in the undeviating consistency with
which he applies every principle that he esteems ascertained, to
every case that fairly comes within its scope, we know not where to
find his equal.
From the shortcomings habitual to the school to which he belongs,
we cannot hold him altogether exempt; but we are bound to add that
these blemishes have rarely been presented in a form so little
calculated to offend those whose conception of life may be cast into
a somewhat different form. It is, as we have hinted, always evident
that Mr. Mill has studiously endeavoured to master the opinions of
those from whom he differs: to master them we mean, not in order to
collect all arguments that may possibly be made available in their
confutation, but what is much rarer, with a view of eliciting from
them, if possible, the latent truth which all large masses of human
belief may be charitably supposed to contain. With these few words
we must abruptly conclude a train of thought which would not stop of
itself until our limits were exhausted. It is seldom indeed that in
this age of books we come into contact with a mind worthy to be
compared with the few great authors of the past; and it is but
seldom, therefore, that we are called to begin a discussion such as
the brief one which we are in the act of ending.
We shall now go on to the more special purpose of our Article,
namely, of describing and, so far as we can, discussing, those of
Mr. Mill's speculations which most intimately concern the condition
of the labouting classes. We shall first discuss the question on the
supposition that the population which we are considering is like
that of England divided into the three classes of rent-owners,
capitalists, and labourers: each with separate interests, and each
capable of separate and, with respect to the others, antagonistic
action. And this discussion will naturally subdivide itself into two
pans: first, what settles the rates of wages in a country with any
given amount of capital and any given number of labourers; secondly,
what is the law of the growth of capital, and what the law according
to which population is augmented. We shall afterwards make some
remarks on the changes which Mr. Mill would introduce into the
social framework of Great Britain and Ireland: inasmuch as he has
two plans for altering the present threefold division of the
productive classes, and one plan for raising the wages paid to the
hired labouter under the present system or under any other at all
similar to it.
The first question then before us is, what in such a community as
England settles the rate of wages when the number of labourers and
the amount of capital are both given? On this point we think Mr.
Mill's exposition much less complete than in any other equally
important portion of his work; and it will therefore be most
convenient to us to state shortly our own view, and then to show
what portions of the truth seems to us to be omitted in Mr. Mill's
solution of the problem.
Among the circumstances which would first strike a philosophical
observer of a country possessing much accumulated wealth, one we
think is, that the portion of the existing accumulation which is
employed in obtaining new additional wealth naturally divides itself
into two classes: one which may be called the Co-operative, and
which assists and economizes the productive agency of Man; and
another which may be fairly called the Remunerative, the
characteristic function of which is to reward the exertion of human
labour, by subsisting, for example, the labouter and his family, or
by conferring on them any enjoyments in which their habitual
circumstances enable them to find a pleasure. The most obvious
instances of co-operative capital are steam-engines, power-looms,
and machinery in general. Remunerative capital (or what is sometimes
called the wages-fund of a nation) consists of corn and clothing,
tea and sugar, and other similar commodities which the labourer
consents, for the sake of their intrinsic qualities, to receive as a
compensation for his mental or muscular exertion. It is obvious that
in considering the rate of wages, the latter kind of capital is the
one more certainly to our purpose. These two commodities, Labour and
Remunerative Capital, come into the market and exchange one against
the other, and their relative value seems to be settled exactly as
in other cases, by the supply of each and also the demand for it; if
there be an additional supply of corn or coarse clothing, and the
demand for labour be unaltered, the working classes will be able to
command more of these articles: if their supply be less, the same
classes will certainly, more or less, be straitened. The
intervention of money makes no difference here: it is the same
thing, except for convenience sake, whether the capitalist purchase
the commodities desired by the labourer, and barter them directly
for their labour, or whether he gives the labourers money-tickets,
by presenting which they will obtain from certain sellers those
identical commodities.
Also it is to be borne in mind that the quantity of such
commodities and of labour is not the only point which it is
necessary to consider: the demand for these commodities also
deserves much careful attention. If an additional number of
unproductive consumers were to come into a nation and were not to
employ any of its labourers, it is apparent that their consumption
entrenches on the fund set apart for the maintenance of the
industrial classes, unless the evil be corrected by the importation
of corn from abroad, or by increased economy in the unproductive
classes previously forming part of the nation. On the other hand, if
these unproductive consumers were to bring with them a stock of
necessaries adequate to their own consumption; and if they were to
employ labourers on a large scale, and to pay them either in money
or in commodities, it is evident that the command of labourers over
wages-paying commodities would be increased, and that the
unproductive classes must expend a larger sum in order to obtain the
same quantities of the necessaries of life. Undoubtedly if in this
instance there was no importation from abroad and no decrease in the
consumption of the more opulent classes, the labouting classes would
derive no benefit from the increase in the demand for labour: the
demand for wages-paying commodities would have been also increased
and their price would have risen: but as a rule that higher price
would enforce a stricter economy in the more opulent classes, and
thus the labourers would be benefitted though not to the full extent
of the increased demand for the article in which they deal. In the
first case which we noticed, the remuneration for labour was
attended by an increased demand in other quarters for wages-paying
commodities; and in the second by an increased demand for labour
itself at a time when the supply and demand for remunerative capital
received -- from other causes -- neither increase nor diminution.
The relative value of labour and of wages-paying commodities is
settled exactly as the relative value of Cloth and Hats is
ascertained. The intervention of money complicates the phenomena in
either case, but, as every one acquainted with the elements of the
subject will admit, without introducing any new matter of
fundamental principle.
Before proceeding further we shall quote Mr. Mill's observations
on this portion of the subject. The following passage does not
strike us as a complete rationale of the entire topic: but it
contains a valuable summary of our author's opinion:--
"Wages like all other things may be regulated either by
competition or by custom; but the last is not a common case. A
custom on this subject could not easily maintain itself in any
other than a stationary state of Society. An increase or a falling
off in the demand for labour, an increase or diminution of the
labouring population, could hardly fail to engender a competition
which would break down any custom respecting wages by giving
either to one side or the other a strong direct interest in
infringing it. We may at all events speak of the wages of labour
as determined in ordinary circumstances by competition.
"Wages then depend upon the demand and supply of labour,
or, as it is often expressed, on the proportion between Population
and Capital. By Population is here meant the number only of the
working class, or rather of those who work for hire, and by
Capital only circulating Capital, and not the whole of that, but
the part which is expended in the direct purchase of labour, -- to
this however must be added all the funds which without forming a
part of Capital are paid in exchange for labour, such as the wages
of soldiers, domestic servants, and other unproductive labourers.
There is unfortunately no mode of expressing by one familiar term
the aggregate of what may be called the wages-fund of a country,
and as the wages of productive labour form nearly the whole of
that fund, it is usual to overlook the smaller and less important
part, and to say that wages depend on population and capital. It
will be convenient to employ this expression, remembering however
to consider it as elliptical and not as a literal statement of the
entire truth.
"With these limitations of the terms, wages not only depend
upon the relative amount of capital and population, but cannot be
affected by anything else. Wages (meaning thereby of course the
general rate) cannot rise except by an increase in the aggregate
funds employed in hiring labourers, or a diminution in the number
of competitors for rise: nor fall, except either by a diminution
of the funds devolvable on paying labour, or by an increase in the
number of labourers to be paid."
We think the simpler formula which we have ventured to lay down
will obviate the necessity of a recourse to an expression which is
not correct, and which is calculated to throw a mist over the real
relations between machinery and manual labour. Mr. Mill is also
inconsistent with himself in speaking of the wages-fund as a part of
"circulating capital," for he has defined the latter to be
"the portion of capital which is only capable of being used
once:" now food is the only wages-paying commodity of
importance that is only capable of a single use: in every sense in
which machinery is capable of being used, often clothing and
cottages are so too. Ricardo it is true uses habitually language of
this sort, but then he defines circulating capital to be all capital
rapidly perishable, and the error is therefore in him much less
considerable, but nevertheless it is on every account undesirable to
pay such special attention to that shortness of duration which is at
best but an accidental quality of remunerative capital.
From this passage, in spite of the ambiguity in its concluding
formula, it is evident that Mr. Mill must in consistency hold that
an increase of machinery may be injurious to the lower classes. In
other parts of his work he fully explains that such is his opinion,
and in this we entirely agree with him. If, for example, a shifting
of industrial relations should ever diminish the remunerative kind
of capital, and at the same time increase the cooperative, the
proportion, as it is phrased, of labour and capital has indeed
remained unaltered; but the amount of that portion of capital which
is set apart for the compensation of human industry has undergone a
diminution which may be very serious. Again, if capital has been
transferred from Agriculture to the production of Railroads, or
Steam Engines, there is no question but that caeteris paribus the
working classes will be straitened by the change: their labour was
before devoted to increasing the fund out of which labour would be
remunerated; after the alteration it is devoted to manufacturing
articles which, though perpetually productive of new wealth, do not
in the same degree contribute to the maintenance of a labouring
population.
In this case machinery has been shown to be hurtful to the lower
classes, because its creation has diverted resources which would
otherwise have been employed in remunerating labour to the
essentially different function of aiding the production of
commodities which the labourers do not consume. It is also quite
possible that the introduction of machinery may be injurious to the
lower classes by diminishing the demand for their labour. If
machinery be substituted for manual labour in any manufacturing
employment, common sense, as Mr. Mill observes, sees that the
labourers are worse off in that particular employment, and the onus
probandi clearly lies upon those who assert that the labouring
classes are not worse off generally for the change. What is usually
said is, that the wages-fund or remunerative capital of the country
remains the same: the use of a certain portion of it is rendered
unnecessary in a particular department of industry; but the same
aggregate amount exists: it can (it is said) only be shifted from
one employment to another, and it is believed that the depression of
a sort of labourers will infallibly be compensated by the extra
remuneration of another. But it is in our judgment an entire mistake
to contend that remunerative capital if released from one employment
is necessarily employed in a similar capacity in some other. It is
one of the points in which this description of capital differs from
the co-operative sort, that the latter, if not used for its own
characteristic function of aiding human labour, cannot be put to any
other use. Machinery if not worked as such in producing wealth, can
never be made to produce pleasure to any one; but remunerative
capital, which consists of food, clothing, and other commodities
adapted to satisfy certain primitive wants of man, can at once be
turned in part at least to the production of transitory enjoyment.
This sort of capital, when released from one manufacturing
employment, is evidently capable of being used in satisfying the
wants of unproductive consumers. The process would be, that less
money-wages would be paid in consequence of the substitution of
machinery for manual labour; that the working classes would have
less to spend on such articles as food and clothing: that these
commodities would therefore fall in price: that the fall in price
would cause an increased consumption by the unproductive classes,
and that their extra consumption would entrench on the fund that
previous to the introduction of Machinery was set apart as a
compensation for industrial exertion. On this point we have some
reason to think that Mr. Mill would agree with us; though this is
inconsistent with his general principle which we have quoted, and
with many arguments which assume that the demand for labour is not
an effective force operating on the rate of wages. But our auth.or
is continually right in detail where his formulae would lead him
wrong: and we know of no intellectual quality more thoroughly
characteristic of a first-rate thinker.
There is we believe also another case in which the introduction of
machinery is detrimental to the labouring classes. It was pointed
out by Mr. Senior several years ago. Mr. Mill has omitted all
consideration of it, probably because its practical importance is
exceedingly slight. This case is, where the machinery consumed more
wages-paying commodities than the labourers whose exertions it has
superseded. Of this kind it is supposed that certain employments of
the lower animals may be reckoned: these creatures being for our
present purpose, simply animated machines, and it being perfectly
possible that they might consume more food than the labourers whose
work they were employed to perform. The peculiarity of this case is
an additional demand for remunerative capital consequent on the
increased use of machinery. The price of the former would
consequently rise, and a certain portion of it be put beyond the
reach of those labourers who would otherwise have consumed it.
Another mode exists beside that just now mentioned in which the
substitution of co-operative for remunerative capital may be
effected, and in which that substitution might be detrimental to the
interests of the labouring classes. Ricardo was, it is believed, the
first who worked out this view of the subject, which is somewhat
more recondite than any consideration with which we have yet had to
deal. His instance is in principle as follows: Suppose that a
manufacturer of remunerative commodities should be in the habit of
employing ú1,000 per annum in paying labourers; then if
profits were ten per cent, it is clear that he would have a revenue
of ú1,100 annually; but if instead of so doing, he choose to
expend the same sum in the purchase of a machine, which will last
ten years, it is apparent that his thousand pounds will be returned
to him together with the ordinary profit by a revenue of ú110
per annum and it is clearly immaterial to him as a capitalist which
course he decide to pursue. But if the commodities represented by
the ú110 be not so numerous as those represented by the ú
1,100, which the greatest produce can be most easily obtained are
those nearest to the consumer; and these will in general be the
first selected for cultivation. We may add, though it is a matter
more of curiosity than of importance, that there is a case in which
this last cause will counteract the effect of the first, -- viz.,
where the lands least favourably situated have the greatest natural
fertility. Here it might happen that the additional labour required
to bring food from a greater distance was exactly counterbalanced by
the additional fertility possessed by the more distant soils, and
therefore that their cultivation would not increase the cost-price
of food. But this case of exception is too improbable to need any
particular attention, and in general it may be laid down that the
first soils taken into cultivation will yield a greater return to
the same labour than those that are left without tillage until a
later period. It is also a fact of experience, and is deducible from
somewhat similar considerations, that doubling the capital and
labour on the same land will not double the produce in an unaltered
state of agricultural knowledge. It is obvious that men will choose
to use first the best means of cultivation which they know of. Hence
it appears that in the progress of civilisation the productive arts
and the general intelligence of the country are in constant
increase, but that this increase is ever in part counteracted and
sometimes more than overbalanced by the constant necessity of
resorting to the cultivation of poorer soils.
So much of the productiveness of industry, which is one cause of
the increase of capital. The propensity to save, which is the other
cause, means, in more distinct words, the disposition of the people
to postpone a present enjoyment for the future advantage of
themselves and others. This will obviously vary with the estimate
which the people in question are able to form of what is distantly
future -- a kind of intelligence in which children, savages, and all
uninstructed persons, are peculiarly deficient, and on the effects
of which Mr. Mill has accumulated various interesting testimonies.
The saving habit will also be fostered by a general security, that
those who save to-day will be able to enjoy to-morrow, or at least
be able to make over their enjoyment to whom they please; by a
boldness to meet whatever risk there is that this event will not
take place; and by the comparative desirableness of the station
which is conferred by accumulated wealth. The two first seem as a
rule to augment in strength during an advance of civilisation; the
third is perhaps at its maximum in a rather rude and boisterous
condition of society; the fourth attains its greatest efficiency in
that state of purely commercial industry through which the
mercantile and manufacturing classes of England, as well as the
Northern States of the American Union, appear at present to be
passing. To these four causes must be added the rate of the profit
which can be derived from the employment of capital. It is evident
that men will be more likely to save, cceterisparibus, when they get
twenty per cent. on their capital, than when they can get two per
cent.: but the efficiency of this cause at different times and
circumstances, it will be better to consider after examining the
subject of population. Then also we shall be better able to estimate
the causes which apportion capital into the two divisions that have
been before mentioned.
We have now then examined the disposition to save and the
productiveness of industry. We have found that the great causes of
accelerating the growth of capital are the increase of foresight and
productive power consequent on the advance of civilisation: the
great retarding cause is the diminishing proportion of return with
which the soil of the earth rewards the increasing industry of the
cultivator. And this is all which can at present be said with
advantage with reference to the growth of capital.
We now go to the subject of Population -- a topic which is of
obvious importance in reference to our peculiar subject, and about
which there has been, and still is, a considerable amount of
controversy. We are not, however, able to afford to it a portion of
our space proportionable either to its interest or its difficulty.
It may be broadly stated at the outset that Mr. Mill does not
believe the doctrine of Malthus and Ricardo, that an increase of the
comforts or a decrease in the misery of the labouting classes is
invariably followed by an accelerated increase of population; or, on
the other hand, that a diminution of their comforts or an increase
in their misery will invariably retard the increase of their
numbers.(1*) Our author is habitually aware that extreme misery is a
great stimulant to population, by begetring recklessness and
improvidence: since it may be safely affirmed that an Irishman who
is as badly off as he can be, and who has no hope and scarcely an
opportunity of becoming better, will, as a general rule, practise no
prudential restraint whatever.
Mr. Mill also holds what is less obvious, that a very great
increase in the comforts of the population, though it may be an
immediate stimulus to population, will nevertheless in all
likelihood, on the whole, retard its increase. This proposition was
admirably brought into view by Mr. Thornton, in his essay on
Over-Population. It is still, however, opposed by many reasoners;
there is in the minds of some Economists an inveterate idea, almost,
if not quite, amounting to a prejudice, to the effect that the most
comfortable classes will always increase the most rapidly. If this
proposition were not a frequent assumption, silently or expressly
taken for granted in many influential arguments, it would have no
intrinsic merit requiring a particular notice. Few ideas on this or
on any other subject can be more clearly opposed to very obvious
facts. It might be urged that in Norway, where the population is
nearly stationary, the mass of the population enjoy a degree of
comfort certainly unsurpassed, and most probably unequalled, in any
other portion of Europe. But far more obvious facts are in every
country at hand to correct this very erroneous idea. Is it by the
increase of the Noblesse that the population of any country is
particularly augmented? Do the middle, the opulent, or the
commercial portions of any nation increase too rapidly? It is clear
that, as we ascend in the social scale, we pass through classes
which have at each step of ascent a diminishing rate of mcrease; the
fact being that comfort, the habitual sense of having something
valuable to lose, and the desire of parents that their children
shall not be below, but, if possible, above the position in which
they themselves live, are all motives which operate most as a check
on population among the opulent and comfortable classes.
This being so, it is clear that it is the habit of the several
classes of mankind to have a rate of increase of their own, fairly
determined by the consumer of those commodities will obviously be
worse off than before. In the case we are supposing the subjects of
manufacture are wages-paying commodities, and the consumers we are
speaking of are the labouring classes. It is clear, therefore, that
they are straitened by whatever diminishes the aggregate annual
proceeds of agriculture and of what may be called for shortness
wages-making manufactures; but that the capitalist is benefitted
only by the profit which is left after deducting the expense. In
mercantile language this is expressed by saying that the consumer is
dependent on the gross and the capitalist on the net return: in more
popular phraseology it may be said that the consumer has only to
heed the amount of commodities produced, whereas the capitalist is
exclusively concerned with the pecuniary excess of income over
outlay. It is evident that the operating cause is, as we said, the
substitution of co-operative for remunerative capital: there was a
certain amount produced to support the labourers during the ensuing
year: there is in lieu of them a machine of equal pecuniary value:
the national capital is the same in amount and the capitalist
obtains as before his accustomed profit: but nevertheless the
condition of the labourer and the consumer is deteriorated because
they have a diminished supply of articles adapted to satisfy their
wants.
To sum up then, the three cases in which the increase of machinery
is detrimental to the labouring population are first when its
introduction diminishes the supply of remunerative capital;
secondly, when the introduction increases the demand for such
capital; thirdly, when the demand for labour is diminished by the
change. We are very far from thinking that any one of these cases is
of frequent occurrence, or that any part of the present depressed
state of the lower orders is in any considerable degree owing to an
extension of machinery. In our judgment Mr. Mill has ample grounds
for contending that by far the greater part of new machinery is
merely an investment for the annual savings of the country; and
being on that account a new creation of wealth does not diminish the
existing amount of remunerative capital: nor do wages-paying
commodities, except in the not very important instance of coal,
appear to be consumed to any considerable extent by existing
machinery. We should also hold, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Mill,
that the increased demand for labour sometimes eventually caused by
the introduction of machinery is decidedly beneficial to the lower
orders. The cotton trade is an obvious instance of this: there is no
reason however for wearying our readers with an examination of our
differences on this point from Mr. Mill, because our reasons are
only the reverse side of those which we have already exhibited in
behalf of our opinion that any decrease in the demand for labour
from a similar cause is detrimental to the real interests of the
labouring classes.
CONTINUE