In fact the legislature,the public at large,and especially our employers,decide on our claims solely by a reference to the former condition of the labourer,or to his condition in other countries.We are told to be contented,because we are not quite so badly off as the ragged Irish peasants who are suffering under a more grievous system even than the one which afflicts us.By them also we are destined to suffer;for they are imported here in crowds,and beat down the wages of our labour.We can have no hope,therefore,either of convincing the public or of calling the blush of shame into the cheek of those who are opulent by our toils,and who deride the poverty and sufferings they cause,by referring to the customs of any other society,either in times past or present.To obtain better treatment the labourers must appeal from practice to principle.We must put out of view how labour has been paid in times past,and how it is now paid in other countries,and we must show how it ought to be paid.This,I admit,is a difficult task,but the former condition of the labourer in this country,and his condition at present in other countries,leaving us no criterion to which we can or ought to appeal,we must endeavour to perform it.
The claims of capital,are,I am aware,sanctioned by almost universal custom;and as long as the labourer did not feel himself aggrieved by them,it was of no use opposing them with arguments.But now,when the practice excites resistance,we are bound,if possible,to overthrow the theory on which it is founded and justified.It is accordingly against this theory that my arguments will be directed.When we have settled the question,however,as to the claims of capital or labour,we shall have proceeded only one step towards ascertaining what ought now to be the wages of labour.The other parts of the inquiry will,Itrust,be entered into by some of my fellow-labourers,and Ishall content myself at present with examining the claims of the capitalists,as supported by the theories of political economy.
I admit that the subject is somewhat abstruse,but there is a necessity for the labourers to comprehend and be able to refute the received notions of the nature and utility of capital.Wages vary inversely as profits;or wages rise when profits fall,and profits rise when wages fall;and it is therefore profits,or the capitalist's share of the national produce,which is opposed to wages,or the share of the labourer.The theory on which profits are claimed,and which holds up capital,and accumulation of capital to our administration as the mainspring of human improvement,is that which I say the labourers must,in their own interest,examine,and must,before they can have any hope of a permanent improvement in their own conditions,be able to refute.
They,indeed,are so satisfied that by their exertions all the wealth of society is produced that no doubt on the subject has ever entered their minds.This is not,however,the case with other people,and whenever the labourers claim larger wages,or combine to do themselves justice,they hear,both from the legislature and the Press,little or nothing about the necessity of rewarding labour,but much about the necessity of protecting capital.They must therefore be able to show the hollowness of the theory on which the claims of capital,and on which all the oppressive laws made for its protection are founded.This will,Ihope,be a motive with them for endeavouring to comprehend the following observations,as it is my excuse for directing them,not so much to show what labour ought,as to what capital ought not to have.
"The produce of the earth,"says Mr Ricardo --"All that is derived from its surface by the united application of labour,machinery and capital is divided among three classes of the community;namely,the proprietor of the land,the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation,and the labourers by whose industry it is cultivated."(Principles of Political Economy,Preface,p.1,2nd Ed.)"It is self-evident,"says Mr M'Culloch,"that only three classes,the labourers,the possessors of capital,and the proprietors of land,are ever directly concerned in the production of commodities.It is to them,therefore,that all which is derived from the surface of the earth,or from its bowels,by the united application of immediate labour,and of capital,or accumulated labour,must primarily belong.The other classes of society have no revenue except what they derive either voluntarily or by compulsion from these three classes."The proportions in which the whole produce is divided among these three classes is said to be as follows:--"Land is of different degrees of fertility.""When,in the progress of society,land of the second quality (or an inferior degree of fertility to land before cultivated)is taken into cultivation,rent immediately commences on that of the first quality,and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality,and the amount of that rent will depend on the difference in the quality of these two portions or land."[Principles of Political Economy]Rent,therefore,or that quantity of the whole produce of the country which goes to the landlords,is,in every stage of society,that portion of this produce which is obtained from every district belonging to a politically organized nation,more than is obtained from the least fertile land cultivated by,or belonging to,that nation.It is the greater produce of all the land which is more fertile than the least fertile land cultivated.To produce this surplus would not break the back,and to give it up would not break the heart of the labourer.The landlord's share,therefore,does not keep the labourer poor.
