A people in this situation will become more energetic-more enterprising-more productive more restless-more laborious-yet, dark by the side of the picture which exhibits the riches and activity, will come forth the table that displays the crimes, and the misery of the population; and the legislator will find that he has not merely to consider how a nation may be made most wealthy, but how the pursuit of wealth may be made most accordant with morality, and its distribution most compatible with enjoyment. If it were only necessary to consider the riches of a country, in order to consult the prosperity of a people, what would be the case? The revenue of England is about 550 millions. The revenue of France 320 millions. The revenue of England then, is, in respect to its population, double the revenue of France; —but will any one pretend to say that the great mass of the people are twice as well off? Turn to M. Villeneuve's calculation! One twentieth of the population (i.e. 1,600,000 in 32,000,000) he reckons as "poor," in France. One sixth of the population (i. e. 3,900,000 in 23,400,000) as poor, in England!!! Has this pauperism been diminishing? From official tables laid before the House of Commons, it appears 1801, Population of England, 8,331,434, ditto 13,009,338, 1831, i. e. the population increased about one-third. But during this time there has taken place a great difference in the value of money, and there has also been a reduction of taxation in many of the common articles of subsist ence. Prices in March, 1814, and in March, 1834, Moreover we must note an extraordinary improvement, especially of late years, that every one practically acquainted with the subject will allow-in the administrative economy of the poor. If then pauperism had increased in an equal ratio with population (i. e. by a third), the same sum which was applied to it in 1801 would more than suffice in 1831. Is this so? 1801 1831 3,869,504 6,509,466 Pauperism, then, instead of costing nearly as much as in 1801, costs nearly double, and has consequently increased in a ratio of 3 to 1 faster than population. But at the very time that the poverty of the country has been making this frightful advance, its riches have been increasing in an equal degree. The exportation of manufactured goods, 66 In 1803 1831 £22,252,102 'Ay;" I may be told-"the poverty has been increasing in one part of the country, and the riches in the other." Let us see! we will first take the three most important commercial and manufacturing districts, in two of which wealth has more than quadrupled within the thirty years I have been referring to, has poverty decreased? In Lancashire : Poor rates. In 1801, the poor rates amounted to £. 148,282 1831 VOL. I. 293,226 N Now let us turn to the agricultural districts! The agriculture of England is more advanced than the agriculture of France; and the more perfect agricultural system employs a smaller number of hands than the less perfect one. And what is the state of the agricultural population in England? What is their state in Norfolk, where agriculture is, perhaps, brought to the greatest perfection? I could appeal to an able pamphlet, written by a practical man, which declares, that unless extensive alteration take place, the utter annihilation of all property will be the consequence of the accumulation of useless poverty. But if I follow the same test I have hitherto adopted, a test which, though not perfectly accurate, is sufficiently so to justify the line of argument I am pursuing. If I follow this test in three agricultural counties * Mr. Richardson, of Heydon. Looking then at those counties where, in two different lines, the principle of producing most by the smallest quantity of labour has been carried to its greatest perfection—the experiment, as far as the happiness and virtues of the people are concerned, does not seem to have been completely successful. |
