listless and cross; at last, if they do not go mad or die of consumption, seeking consolation in the belief of an approaching millennium, or in the single pursuit of that happiness in another world, which this world has denied to them. The picture may displease, even because it is correct. This, Americans, you whose domestic manners an Englishwoman holds up to the ridicule of her countrywomen; this is a faithful sketch from domestic life amongst the English middle class.

The misery of the working class of Englishmen, is not, perhaps, at this time much greater in degree than at former times, or so great as the misery of the bulk of the people in most other countries, except America. In this respect, the difference between the past and the present seems to be; first, that with the increase of population there are more people to be miserable, not more in proportion, but more absolutely; and secondly, that, with the increase of knowledge, one learns all about that misery which was formerly concealed from the happy classes. But the great uneasiness of the middle class in England, is a new state of things; unexplained, and at first sight unaccountable, if one reflects on the vast and rapidly increasing wealth of the English nation. Competition for wages is, plainly, the immediate cause of misery amongst the working class; but what occasions that severe competi

tion amongst people of capital and education, that snatching at each others means of existence, which renders the life of the English middle class one struggle with difficulties? This question is examined in the following note.

107

NOTE IV.

COINCIDENCE OF OVERFLOWING NATIONAL WEALTH WITH THE UNEASINESS AND MISERY OF INDIVIDUALS.

Theories of the English economists-a dream of Robinson Crusoe's island-the field of production an element of wealth-argument with the economists-argument with the archbishop of Dublin-America and England, as to the field of production -cases of various proportions amongst the elements of production-peculiar case of England-as wealth increases, many individuals are less rich-moral and strictly political effects of the various proportions which the field of production bears to capital and labour-peculiar effects in the peculiar case of England.

ACCORDING to certain theories of the English political economists, it is quite impossible that my account of the wealth, uneasiness and misery, of the English people should be true. Those philosophers would say-If the capital of England be so much greater in proportion to people than that of other countries, wages must be higher in England than elsewhere ;* for

wages depend on the proportion between population and capital."* Again, if the middle class suffered from the low profits of stock, the labouring class would enjoy high wages; and if the labouring class suffered from low wages, the capital of the middle class would yield high profits; since" the profits of stock depend upon wages, rise as wages fall, and fall as wages rise."++ This is called reasoning à priori, and though very sound and profound, no doubt, to those who understand it, is sadly puzzling to common intellects. Let us try, however, to make it out.

The English people have accumulated a far greater capital than the same number of people ever possessed, or dreamed of possessing, since the world began: they have so much capital that

remaining the same, if the ratio which capital and population bear to one another remains the same, wages will remain the same; if the ration which capital bears to population increases, wages will rise; if the ratio which population bears to capital increases, wages will fall. From this law, clearly understood, it is easy to trace the circumstances which, in any country, determine the condition of the great body of the people." Mill's Elements of Political Economy, page 44, 3rd edit.

* Mill's Elements of Political Economy, Section Wages, p. 41, 3d edit.

† Mills' Elements, Section Profits, p. 71, 3d edit.

"It must at once be seen," says Mr. Ricardo, that "profits would be high or low, exactly as wages were low or high. ***** There could be no rise in the value of labour, without a fall of profits."

they know not what to do with it: though during the last half century they have squandered, wasted, utterly thrown away, more capital than most nations possess, they still possess more capital than they ever possessed before. Abundance of capital, in proportion to people, always produces high wages. Therefore, wages are much higher in England than they ever were amongst any other people, or at any previous time amongst the English people. Aristotle would not have quarrelled with the syllogism, and that great logician and economist, the archbishop of Dublin, will find no fault in it, logically speaking. But there must be an error somewhere, since the conclusion is directly at variance with a known fact. Let us try again.

1. When capital is less in proportion to people, wages are lower;

2. The proportion of capital to people, is far less in America than in England;

3. Therefore, wages are far lower in America than in England.

The logic is still good; but the conclusion is again directly at variance with a known truth; the fact being, that wages are far higher in America than in England. Wherein lies the error ? in one of the propositions, but in which of them, my lord? I put the question to the archbishop, and to Mr. Mill, who, like his grace, is a great economist and logician.