wealth as it affects the poor.

in the seventh chapter of book iii. mr. malthus criticises an essay of adam smith, on “increasing wealth as it affects the condition of the poor.” the professed object of adam smith’s enquiry is the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. “there is another, however, perhaps still more interesting (says our author) which he occasionally mixes with it, the causes which affect the happiness and comfort of the lower orders of society, which in every nation forms the most numerous class. i am sufficiently aware of the near connection of these two subjects, and that, generally speaking, the causes which contribute to increase the wealth of a state tend also to increase the happiness of the lower classes of the people. but perhaps dr. smith has considered these two inquiries as still more nearly connected than they really are; at least he has not stopped to take notice of those instances, when the wealth of a society may increase, according to his definition of wealth, without having a proportional tendency to increase the comforts of the labouring part of it.”

malthus observes that the comforts of the labouring poor must necessarily depend upon the funds destined for the maintenance of labour, and will generally be in proportion to the rapidity of their increase. the demand for labour, which such increase occasions, will of course raise the value of labour; and till the additional number of hands required are reared, the increased funds will be distributed to the same number of persons as before, and therefore every labourer will live more at his ease. but adam smith was wrong when he represented every increase of the revenue or stock of a society, as a proportional increase of these funds. such surplus stock or revenue will indeed always be considered by the individual possessing it, as an additional fund from which he may maintain more labour; but with regard to the whole country, it will not be an effectual fund for the maintenance of an additional number of labourers, unless part of it be convertible into an additional quantity of provisions; and it will not be so convertible when the increase has arisen merely from the produce of labour, and not from the produce of land. a distinction may in this case occur between the number of hands which the stock of a society could employ and the number which its territory can maintain.

79“supposing a nation for a course of years to add what it saved from its yearly revenue to its manufacturing capital solely, and not to its capital employed on land, it is evident that it might grow richer without a power of supporting a greater number of labourers, and therefore without any increase in the real funds for the maintenance of labour. there would, notwithstanding, be a demand for labour, from the extent of manufacturing capital. this demand would of course raise the price of labour; but if the yearly stock of provisions in the country were not increasing this rise would soon turn out merely nominal, as the price of provisions must necessarily rise with it.”

the question is how far wealth increasing in this way has a tendency to better the condition of the labouring poor. “it is a self-evident proposition, that any general advance in the price of labour, the stock of provisions remaining the same, can only be a nominal advance, as it must shortly be followed by a proportional rise in provisions. the increase in the price of labour which we have supposed, would have no permanent effect therefore in giving to the labouring poor a greater command over the necessaries of life. in this respect they would be nearly in the same state as before. in some other respects they would be in a worse state. a greater portion of them would be employed in manufactures, and a smaller portion in agriculture. (the present condition of england in 1882.) and this exchange of profession will be allowed, i think, by all to be very unfavourable to health, an essential ingredient to happiness, and to be further disadvantageous on account of the greater uncertainty of manufacturing labour, arising from the capricious tastes of man, the accidents of war, and other causes which occasionally produce very severe distress among the lower classes of society.”

mr. malthus then feelingly alludes to the miserable condition of the poor young operatives in manchester in his day, and to the destruction of the comforts of the family so often caused by the women becoming so frequently mere hands in mills and quite unacquainted with any household work. “the females are wholly uninstructed in sewing, knitting, and other domestic affairs, requisite to make them notable and frugal wives and mothers. this is a very great misfortune to them and to the public, as is sadly proved by a comparison of the families of labourers in husbandry, and those in manufactures in general. in the former we meet 80with neatness, cleanliness, and comfort: in the latter with filth, rags, and poverty, although their wages may be nearly double those of the husbandman. in addition to these evils we all know how subject particular manufactures are to fail, from the caprice of taste, or the accident of war. the weavers of spitalfield were plunged into the most severe distress by the fashion of muslins instead of silks; and numbers of the workmen of sheffield and birmingham were for a time thrown out of employment, from the adoption of shoe strings and covered buttons, instead of buckles and metal buttons. under such circumstances, unless the increase of the riches of a country from manufactures gives the lower classes of the society, on an average, a decidedly greater command over the necessaries and conveniences of life, it will not appear that their condition is improved.”

mr. malthus continues: “it will be said, perhaps, that the advance in the price of provisions will immediately turn some additional capital into the channel of agriculture, and thus occasion a much greater produce. but from experience it appears that this is an effect which sometimes follows very slowly, particularly if heavy taxes that affect agricultural industry, and an advance in the price of labour, had preceded the advance in the price of provisions. it may also be said, that the additional capital of the nation would enable it to import provisions sufficient for the maintenance of those whom its stock could employ. a small country with a large navy, and great accommodation for inland carriage, may indeed import and distribute an effectual quantity of provisions; but in large landed nations, if they may be so-called, an importation adequate at all times to the demand is scarcely possible.”

in 1881 the inhabitants of the british islands had to import food consisting of live and dead meat, butter, eggs, flour, and wheat, &c., at an expense of no less than one hundred and thirty-two millions sterling, inclusive of sugar, one of the requisites of nutrition, or at the cost of one hundred and eight millions sterling without sugar. and yet the price of butter was about 1s. 6d. the pound and meat about 9d. a pound in london, whilst milk sold for 5d. the quart. thus we see how true the words of the great writer on population were, even writing before the days of steam and electric telegraphs, improvements in the way of obtaining food supplies that might easily have made food as cheap here as in new zealand, had it not been for the excessive birth-rate 81that has been going on for the whole of this century in the united kingdom.

mr. malthus points out that a nation which from its extent and population must necessarily support the greater part of its population on the produce of its own soil, but which yet, in average years, draws a small portion of its corn from abroad, is in a more precarious position with regard to the constancy of its supplies, than such states as draw almost the whole of their provisions from other countries. a nation possessed of a large territory is unavoidably subject to this uncertainty of its means of subsistence, when the commercial part of its population is either equal to, or has increased beyond the surplus produce of its cultivators. “no reserve being in these cases left in exportation, the full effect of every deficiency from unfavorable seasons must necessarily be felt; and, although the riches of such a country may enable it for a certain period to continue raising the nominal rate of wages, so as to give the lower classes of the society a power of purchasing imported corn at a high price; yet, a sudden demand can very seldom be fully answered, the competition in the market will invariably raise the price of provisions in full proportion to the advance in the price of labor; the lower classes will be but little relieved, and the dearth will operate severely throughout all the ranks of society.

“according to the natural order of things, years of scarcity must occasionally recur in all landed nations. they ought always therefore to enter into our consideration; and the prosperity of any country may justly be considered as precarious, in which the funds for the maintenance of labour are liable to great and sudden fluctuations from every unfavourable variation in the seasons.

“but putting for the present, years of scarcity out of the question. when the commercial population of any country increases so much beyond the surplus produce of the cultivators, that the demand for imported corn is not easily supplied, and the price rises in proportion to the rate of wages, no further increase of riches will have any tendency to give the laborer a greater command over the necessaries of life. in the progress of wealth this will naturally take place, either from the largeness of the supply wanted, the increased distance from which it is brought, and consequently, the increased expense of importation; the greater consumption of it in the countries in which it is usually purchased, or, what must unavoidably 82happen, the necessity of a greater distance of inland carriage in these countries. such a nation, by increasing industry in the improvement of machinery, may still go on increasing the yearly quantity of its manufactured produce; but its funds for the maintenance of labor, and consequently its population, will be perfectly stationary. this point is the natural limit to the population of all commercial states. in countries at a great distance from this limit, an effect approaching to what has been here described will take place, whenever the march of commerce and manufactures is more rapid than that of agriculture.”

malthus takes china as an example, that every increase in the stock or revenue of a nation cannot be considered as an increase of the real funds for the maintenance of labor, and therefore cannot have the same good effect upon the condition of the poor. china, as adam smith remarked, has probably long been as rich as the nature of her laws and institutions will admit; although, with other laws and institutions, and on the supposition of unshackled foreign commerce, she might still be richer, yet, the question is, would such an increase of wealth be an increase of the real funds for the maintenance of labor, and consequently tend to place the lower classes in china in a state of greater plenty?

malthus contends that if trade and foreign commerce were held in great honour in china, it is evident that, from the great number of laborers, and the cheapness of labor, she might work up manufactures for foreign sale to an immense amount. it is equally evident, that from the great bulk of provisions, and the amazing extent of her inland territory, she could not in return import such a quantity as would be any sensible addition to the annual stock of subsistence in the country. “her immense amount of manufactures therefore, she would exchange chiefly for luxuries collected from all parts of the world. at present it appears that no labor whatever is spared in the production of food. the country is rather over-peopled in proportion to what its stock can employ, and labor is therefore so abundant that no pains are taken to abridge it. the consequence of this is probably the greatest production of food that the soil can possibly afford; for it will be generally observed, that processes for abridging agricultural labor, though they may enable a farmer to bring a certain quantity of grain cheaper to market, tend rather to diminish, than increase the whole produce. an immense capital could not be employed in china in preparing manufactures for foreign trade, without taking off so many laborers from agriculture, as to alter this state of 83things, and in some degree, to diminish the produce of the country. the demand for manufacturing laborers would naturally raise the price of labor; but, as the quantity of subsistence would not be increased, the price of provisions would keep pace with it, or even more than keep pace with it, if the quantity of provisions were really decreasing. the country would, however, be evidently advancing in wealth. the exchangeable value of the annual produce of its land and labor would be annually augmented; yet the real funds for the maintenance of labor would be stationary, or even declining; and consequently, the increasing wealth of the nation would tend rather to depress than to raise the condition of the poor. with regard to the command over the necessaries of life, they would be in the same, or rather worse state than before, and a great part of them would have exchanged the healthy labor of agriculture, for the unhealthy occupations of manufacturing industry.”

the observations of the greatest living chancellor of the exchequer, mr. w. e. gladstone, of late years, have frequently pointed out to us how very unfair a proportion of the increasing wealth of this country has been absorbed by the possessors of capital, as compared with that by the recipients of wages. it may indeed be said, in the words of mr. j. s. mill, that owing to the way in which population has increased in this century in this country, pari passu with the increase of the wealth of the nation, it is doubtful whether all the improvements in manufactures and in instruments for abbreviating manual toil have taken one hour’s work from the shoulders of the working classes.

“the condition of the poor in china,” says malthus, “is indeed very miserable at present, but this is not owing to their want of foreign commerce, but to their extreme tendency to marriage and increase; and if this tendency were to continue the same, the only way in which the introduction of a greater number of manufacturers could possibly make the lower classes of people richer, would be by increasing the mortality among them, which is certainly not a very desirable mode of growing rich.” this argument of our author might convince both the fair traders and the free traders of this day, that neither free trade, nor protection, are panaceas against starvation among the poorest classes, and make them learn the lesson that a small-family system alone can solve the fundamental question of 84man’s destiny—how to make the proportion of mouths to food most favorable.

the argument perhaps appears clearer when applied to china, because it is generally allowed that its wealth has been long stationary, and its soil cultivated nearly to the utmost. with regard to any other country it might always be a matter of dispute, at which of the two periods compared wealth was increasing the fastest, for adam smith, and others of his followers think that the condition of the poor depends on the rapidity of the increase of wealth at any particular epoch. malthus to this replies that: “it is evident that two nations might increase exactly with the same rapidity in the exchangeable value of the annual products of their land and labor; yet, if one had applied itself chiefly to agriculture, and the other chiefly to commerce, the funds for the maintenance of labor, and consequently the effect of the increase of wealth in each nation, would be extremely different. in that which had applied itself chiefly to agriculture, the poor would live in greater plenty, and population would rapidly increase. in that which had applied itself chiefly to commerce the poor would be comparatively but little benefited, and consequently, population would either be stationary, or increase very slowly.”

“the condition,” says malthus, “of the laboring poor, supposing their habits to remain the same, cannot be very essentially improved, but by giving them a greater command over the means of subsistence. but any advantage of this kind must from its nature be temporary, and is therefore really of less value to them than any permanent change in their habits. but manufactures, by inspiring a taste for comforts, tend to promote a favorable change in these habits, and in this way perhaps counterbalance all their disadvantages. the laboring classes of society, in nations merely agricultural, are generally on the whole poorer than in manufacturing nations, though less subject to those occasional variations which among manufacturers often produce the most severe distress.”

there are two chapters in malthus’s second volume devoted to the consideration of the agricultural and commercial systems about which so much was written by his contemporaries. mr. malthus says in chapter viii. that there are none of the definitions of the wealth of a state that are not liable to some objections. if the gross produce of the land be taken as indicating wealth, it is clear that this may increase very rapidly whilst the nation is very poor, and, wealth again may increase without tending to increase the funds for the 85maintenance of labor and population. “whichever of these definitions is adopted, the position of the economists will remain true, that the surplus produce of the cultivators is the great fund which ultimately pays all not employed in the land. throughout the whole world the number of manufacturers, of proprietors, and of persons engaged in the various civil and military professions must be exactly proportional to the surplus produce, and cannot in the nature of things increase beyond it. if the earth had been so niggardly of her produce as to oblige all her inhabitants to labor for it, no manufacturer or idle persons could ever have existed. but her first intercourse with man was a voluntary present, not very large indeed, but sufficient as a fund for his subsistence, till by the proper exercise of his faculties he could produce a greater. in proportion as the labor and ingenuity of man increased, again, the land has increased this surplus produce; leisure has been given to a greater number of persons to employ themselves in all the inventions which embellish civilised life; and, although in its turn, the desire to profit by these inventions has greatly contributed to stimulate the cultivators to increase their surplus produce; yet the order of precedence is clearly the surplus produce, because the funds for the subsistence of the manufacturer must be advanced to him before he can complete his work.”

“in the history of the world,” says malthus, “the nations whose wealth has been derived principally from manufactures and commerce, have been perfectly ephemeral beings, compared with those whose wealth has been agriculture. it is in the nature of things that a state which subsists upon a revenue furnished by other countries, must be infinitely more exposed to all the accidents of time and chance, than one which produces its own. no error is more frequent than that of mistaking effects for causes. we are so blinded by the shrewdness of commerce and manufactures, as to believe that they are almost the sole cause of the wealth, power, and prosperity of england; but perhaps they may be more justly considered as the consequence, than the cause of the wealth. according to the definition of the economists, which considers only the produce of land, england is the richest country in europe, in proportion to her size. her system of agriculture is beyond comparison better, and consequently, her surplus produce is more considerable. france is very greatly superior to england in extent of territory and population; but when the surplus produce, or disposable revenue of the two nations are compared, 86the superiority of france almost vanishes. according to the returns lately made of the population of england and wales, it appears that the number of persons employed in agriculture is considerably less than a fifth part of the whole.”

this was written by malthus in 1806, and it is curious to contrast the state of matters which now exists in the united kingdom. in 1881 she consumed 1,740,000 tons of meat, and only produced 1,090,000 of these herself. she also consumed 607 millions of bushels of grain, and produced only 322 millions of these, so that, although her agricultural skill has greatly increased since the days of malthus, she imports nearly half of her grain and one-third of her meat supplies.

malthus was of opinion that the national debt of england was chiefly injurious because it absorbed the redundancy of commercial capital and kept up the rate of interest, thus preventing capital from overflowing upon the soil. he thought that thus a large mortgage had been established on the lands of england, the interest of which was drawn from the payment of productive labor, and dedicated to the support of idle consumers. “it must be allowed, therefore, upon the whole, that our commerce has not done so much for our agriculture, as our agriculture has done for our commerce; and that the improved system of cultivation which has taken place, in spite of considerable discouragements, creates yearly a surplus produce which enables the country, with but little assistance, to support so vast a body of people engaged in pursuits unconnected with the land.”

about the middle of the eighteenth century, england, says our author, was genuinely, and in the strict sense of the economists, an agricultural nation. with london containing a population of more than four millions, and our other immense cities, this description of england is now quite out of place.

about the middle of the last century, says malthus, we were genuinely, and in the strict sense of the economists, an agricultural nation. “we have now, however, slipped out of the agricultural system into a state in which the commercial system clearly predominates, and there is but too much reason to fear that even our consumers and manufacturers will ultimately feel the disadvantage of the change. when a country in average years grows more wheat than it consumes, and is in the habit of exporting a part of it, those great variations of price which from the competition of commercial wealth, often produce lasting effects, cannot occur to the same 87extent. the wages of labour can never rise very much above the common price in other commercial countries; and under such circumstances england would have nothing to fear from the fullest and most open competition.”

our author thinks (chap. ix. book iii.) that if we were to lower the price of labour by encouraging the import of foreign corn, we should probably aggravate our evils. the decline in our agriculture would be certain. the british grower could not, in his own markets, stand the competition of foreign growers, in average years. arable lands of a moderate quality would hardly pay the expenses of cultivation. rich soils alone would yield a rent. round our towns the appearance would be the same as usual; but in the interior of the country much of the land would be neglected, and almost universally, where it was practicable, pasture would take the place of tillage. this state of things would continue till the equilibrium was restored, either by the fall of british rent and wages, or an advance in foreign corn, or, what is more probable, by the union of both causes. but a period would have elapsed of considerable relative encouragement to manufactures, and relative discouragement to agriculture. a certain portion of capital would be taken from the land, and when the equilibrium was at length restored, the nation would probably be found dependent upon foreign supplies for a great portion of its subsistence: and unless some particular cause were to occasion a foreign demand greater than the home demand, its independence, in this respect, would not be recovered. in the natural course of things, a country which depends for a considerable part of its supply of corn upon its poorer neighbours may expect to see this supply gradually diminish, as those countries increase in riches and population, and have less surplus produce to spare.

this last remark of malthus has been verified of late years in europe, for countries from which we used some few years back to receive a considerable amount of our supplies of meat and grain, have now become competitors with us for supplies of these articles from the united states and australasia. and for other countries his further remark holds true, that the political relations of such a country may expose it, during a war, to have that part of its supply of provisions which it derives from foreign states suddenly stopped or greatly diminished; an event which could not take place without producing the most calamitous effects. “a nation,” he continues, “in which agricultural wealth predominates, though it may 88not produce at home such a surplus of luxuries and conveniences as the commercial nation, and may therefore be exposed possibly to some want of these commodities, has, on the other hand, a surplus of that article which is essential to the well-being of the whole state, and is therefore secure from want in what is of the greatest importance. and if we cannot be so sure of the supply of what we derive from others, as of what we produce at home, it seems to be an advantageous policy in a nation whose territory will allow of it, to secure a surplus of that commodity, a deficiency of which would strike most deeply at its happiness and prosperity.”

malthus held that there is no branch of trade more profitable to a country, even in a commercial point of view, than the sale of rude produce. and here he seems to have disagreed with adam smith’s views. that illustrious writer on wealth observes that a trading and manufacturing country exports what can subsist and accommodate but very few, and imports the subsistence and accommodation of a great number. the other exports the subsistence and accommodation of a great number, and imports that of a very few only. the inhabitants in the one must enjoy, said adam smith, a much greater quantity of subsistence than what their own land, in the actual state of cultivation, could afford. the inhabitants of the other must always enjoy a much smaller quantity.

malthus demurs to much of this argument of adam smith. for, says he, “though the manufacturing nation may export a commodity which, in its actual shape, can only subsist and accommodate a very few, yet it must be recollected that in order to prepare this commodity for exportation, a considerable part of the revenue of the country has been employed in subsisting and accommodating a great number of workmen. and with regard to the subsistence and accommodation which the other nation exports, whether it be of a great or a small number, it is certainly no more than sufficient to replace the subsistence that has been consumed in the manufacturing nation, together with the profits of the master manufacturer and merchant, which probably, are not so great as the profits of the farmer and the merchant in the agricultural nation; and, though it may be true that the inhabitants of the manufacturing nation enjoy a greater quantity of subsistence than what their own lands in the actual state of their cultivation could afford, yet an inference in favour of the manufacturing system by no means follows, because the adoption of the one or the other system will make the greatest difference in their 89actual state of cultivation. if, during the course of a century, two landed nations were to pursue these two different systems, that is, if one of them were regularly to export manufacture and import subsistence, and the other to export subsistence and import manufacture, there would be no comparison at the end of the period between the state of cultivation in the two countries; and no doubt could rationally be entertained that the country which exported its raw produce would be able to subsist and accommodate a much larger population than the other.”

it is a matter, says our author, of very little comparative importance, whether we are fully supplied with broadcloth, linens, and muslins, or even with tea, sugar, and coffee, and no rational politician therefore would think of proposing a bounty on such commodities. “but it is certainly a matter of the very highest importance, whether we are fully supplied with food; and if a bounty would produce such a supply, the most liberal economist might be justified in proposing it, considering food as a commodity distinct from all others, and pre-eminently valuable.”