Since Mill,in 1848,wrote his chapter on the future of the working classes,the question of the distribution of wealth has become of still greater importance.We cannot look round on the political phenomena of to-day without seeing that this question is at the root of them.We see the perplexity in which men stand,and the divisions springing up in our great political parties,because of the uncertainty of politicians how to grapple with it.
Political power is now widely diffused;and whatever may be the evils of democracy,this good has come of it,that it has forced men to open their eyes to the misery of the masses,and to inquire more zealously as to the possibility of a better distribution of wealth.Economists have to answer the question whether it is possible for the mass of the working classes to raise themselves under the present conditions of competition and private property.Ricardo and Henry George have both answered,No;and the former has formulated a law of economic development,according to which,as we have seen,rent must rise,profits and interest fall,and wages remain stationary,or perhaps fall.Now is there any relation of cause and effect between this rise in rent and fall in wages?Ricardo thought not.According to his theory,profits and wages are fixed independently of rent;a rise in rent and a fall in wages might be due to the same cause,but the one was not the result of the other,and the rise in rent would not be at the expense of the labourers.Yet practical opinion goes in the opposite direction.From the evidence of farmers and land-agents we see that it is widely believed that the high rents exacted from farmers have been partly taken out of the pockets of the labourers.'If there is a fall in the price of corn,agricultural wages will fall,unless there is a corresponding fall in rent,'was said before a Parliamentary Commission in 1834.Ten years ago the connection was admitted in Ireland;and the Land Act of 1870 was founded on the belief that rack-rents were not really the surplus left when capital and labour had received their fair returns,and that the only limit to the rise of rents was the bare necessities of the peasantry.
In England it has been assumed that wages and profits have fixed lines of their own independent of rent,but this is not universally true;where the farmers have suffered from high rents,they in their turn have ground down the labourers.Thus even in England rent has been exacted from the labourer;and this is not an opinion but a fact,testified by the evidence of agents,clergy,and farmers themselves.What appears accurate to say about the matter is,that high rents have in some cases been one cause of low wages.
This direct effect of rent on wages under certain conditions is quite distinct from the 'brazen law of wages'which Lassalle took from Ricardo.It is impossible,according to Ricardo,for labourers to improve their position under existing industrial conditions,for if wages rise,population will advance also,and wages return to their own level;there cannot therefore be any permanent rise in them.Ricardo,indeed,did not deny that the standard of comfort varied in different countries,and in the same country at different times;but these admissions he only made parenthetically,he did not seem to think they seriously touched the question of population,and they did not affect his main conclusions.For instance,he argues that a tax on corn will fall entirely on profits,since the labourer is already receiving the lowest possible wages.This statement may be true with regard to the very lowest class of labourers,but it certainly does not apply to artisans,nor to a large proportion of English working men at the present time.With them,at any rate,it is not true that they are already receiving the lowest possible wage,nor that there is an invincible bar to their progress.Let us turn to the test of facts and see if wages have risen since 1846.Henry George says that free trade has done nothing for the labourer'.
Mill,in 1848,predicted the same.Professor Cairnes came to a very similar conclusion;writing in 1874he said,that 'the large addition to the wealth of the country has gone neither to profit nor to wages,nor yet to the public at large,but to swell...the rent-roll of the owner of the soil.'Yet it is a fact that though the cost of living has undoubtedly increased,wages have risen in a higher ratio.Take the instance of a carpenter as a fair average specimen of the artisan class.The necessaries of a carpenter's family in 1839cost 24s.10d.per week;in 1875 they cost 29s.But meanwhile the money wages of a carpenter had risen from 24s.to 35s.Thus there had been not only a nominal but a real rise in his wages.Turning to the labourer,his cost of living was about 15s.In 1839,it was a little under 15s.In 1875.The articles he consumes have decreased in cost,while in the case of the artisan they have increased,because the labourer spends a much larger proportion of his wages on bread.The labourer's wages meanwhile have risen from 8s.to 12s.or 14s.;in 1839he could not properly support himself on his wages alone.
These facts seem conclusive,but certainty is difficult from the very varying estimates of consumption and money wages.For strong proof of a rise in agricultural wages we may take a particular instance.
According to his own admission the standard of comfort of the first ploughman employed on this estate in 1810had risen,for he complained,in a letter describing his position,of his increased expenditure,increased not because things were dearer,but because he now needed more of them.
