be regretted that there is no account of the amount of the Poorrates previous to the commencement of the late war in 1793; but, from the very great extension of commerce, and the universal improvement which had taken place in the interim, we should certainly be warranted in supposing, that it had diminished subsequently to 1785: And hence, provided the estimate of the amount of the rates in 1700 be not extremely incorrect, it may be concluded, that they had about doubled in the first 93 years of the last century. But, during the last twenty-seven years, the former rate of increase has been entirely changed. In 1803, the total sum raised on account of the poor amounted to 5,348,2041., or to two and a half times the sum raised for the same purpose at the close of the American war: And, according to the late Reports of the Committees of the House of Commons on the Poor-Laws, the average expenditure of 1813, 1814 and 1815, amounted to no less than 8,164,4967,—a sum which the Committee states must since have been very greatly increased; and which, we believe, would now be underrated at TEN millions.

It is clear, therefore, since, as the population has increased at a nearly uniform rate since 1760, that this extraordinary increase of pauperism had its origin in, and has been owing infinitely more to the privations occasioned by the war, than to any revulsion which may have attended its close; and that the great and radical causes of the present distress and want of employment, were in full operation previous to 1815.

We should, however, form but a very inaccurate estimate of the increased amount of the sums now expended on the poor, if we measured it solely by the increase of the assessments. Voluntary contributions have increased still more rapidly than the rates. Notwithstanding the heavy burdens to which they have been subjected, the more opulent part of the community have generously contributed very large sums for the support of their less fortunate brethren. We have hitherto been entire strangers to the influence ascribed to a compulsory Poor-rate, of drying up the springs of private charity. Individuals of every rank and station have been equally forward to assist in alleviating the wants of the poor, and in promoting every scheme which could be supposed to have the least tendency to ameliorate their condition.

But, notwithstanding this unprecedented extension of the rates, and notwithstanding every assistance which the humanity and generosity of the higher classes has been able to bestow, the condition of the great bulk of the people-of all who must depend on the wages of labour for support-is at thi smoment

decidedly worse than at any former period. The cry for relief has become more loud and general than ever. The palliatives by which it has been attempted to check the progress of pauperism, seem only to have added to the violence of the evil. And, in the words of the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons,- Unless some efficacious check be interposed, there is every reason to think that the amount of the assessment will continue, as it has done, to increase; Till, at a period more or less remote, according to the progress the evil has already made in different places, it shall have absorbed the profits of the property on which the rate may have been assessed; producing thereby the neglect and ruin of the land, and the waste or removal of other property, to the utter subversion of that happy order of society so long upheld in these kingdoms.'

As might have been expected, a variety of conflicting and contradictory statements have been made respecting the causes of this alarming increase of pauperism. We have already stated enough, to show the fallacy of the opinion of those who consider it as principally arising out of the derangement occasioned by the transition from a state of war to a state of peace. Neither are we disposed to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons, and those who contend that it is chiefly, if not entirely, owing to the pernicious operation of the PoorLaws. Not that we mean to deny that the holding out a certain resource to those who have been reduced to a state of poverty, whether occasioned by misfortune, or by the folly and ill conduct of the individual, must have a powerful tendency to weaken the motives stimulating to industry and economy, and to strengthen those of an opposite character. But, however pernicions the Poor-Laws may be supposed to be-and we believe them to have been most pernicious-there is no ground for supposing that they have operated more injuriously during the last twenty-seven years, than in any former period. It is only during the present reign, that friendly or benevolent societies, formed for the express purpose of preserving the members independent, and of avoiding the necessity of having recourse to assessments on the other classes of society, have been introduced. Yet notwithstanding the privations to which the labouring class have been subjected-privations which, from their having been long as well as severely felt, must have tended to impress them with a conviction of the hopelessness of their efforts to preserve their proper place in society-it has been ascertained that, in 1815, the societies referred to included above an eighth part of the whole population of the empire. And we believe we shall rather underrate than overrate their importance, if we estimate, with Mr Moggridge, the sum now contributed by them in aid

of the poor, as being equal to the whole amount of the rates in 1776. It is not, therefore, to any decline in the industry-in the spirit of deliberate and considerate forethought-or in the love of personal independence by which the people of Britain have been so eminently distinguished, that the enormity of the assessments for the support of the poor is to be ascribed. The very impatience of suffering which they have evinced, to whatever excesses it may have led, is honourable to the national character; inasmuch as it shows, conclusively, that dependent poverty is abhorrent to the feelings, and esteemed a degradation by the great body of the people.

Although, therefore, we have no intention of becoming the apologists of the Poor-Laws, we cannot help thinking that their pernicious influence has been very much exaggerated: At all events, it is a principle which has not been recently brought into action. The compulsory provision for the support of the poor, was established in the latter part of the 16th century; and, for the last hundred years, can only be considered as a constantly operating principle, of which the ef fect, in different periods, must have been nearly the same. It may go far to account for the gradual and regular increase of pauperism, from the reign of Elizabeth down to the commencement of the late war; but it will afford no explanation of its late irregular and enormous increase. In the course of the comparatively short period which has elapsed since 1793, the rates, which had only doubled in the previous part of the eighteenth century, have increased in a fivefold proportion, or from Two to TEN millions. Now, although the variations in the value of money since the restriction of cash payments, must have had some effect in causing an increase in the nominal amount of the rates, yet neither these variations, nor the influence of the laws themselves, could possibly have occasioned so inordinate an extension of the rates, or such a degradation in the condition of the lower classes, as has been lately witnessed. Other causes have unquestionably conspired to produce this effect; and of these, it will be found, that Taration, and the restrictions on the trade in Corn, have been decidedly the most powerful.

In the present improved state of the science of political economy, it is unnecessary to set about proving that a heavy taxation on the principal necessaries of life, must be extremely prejudicial to the great body of the people-to all who either depend for subsistence on the wages of labour, or the profits of stock. This is admitted on all hands; but it has been strenuously denied, that these effects can be justly ascribed to the sys

tem of taxation adopted in this country: And as it is of the utmost importance, in every inquiry into the causes of the public distresses, that we should have correct opinions on this fundamental point, we shall avail ourselves of this opportunity to premise a few observations on the effects which must in general result from the imposition of heavy taxes on necessaries, before examining the nature and operation of the system of taxation to which we are now subjected.

In countries, such as the United States, where there is a boundless extent of fertile and unappropriated land, and where no feudal privileges or impolitic restraints fetter the employment. of industry, or retard the accumulation of capital, the imposition of a tax on a commodity necessary for the subsistence of the labourer, would not be attended with any very injurious effects. In such countries, both the profits of stock and the real wages of labour are high; and a considerable revenue might be collected without occasioning any great inconvenience either to the workman or his employer: A little economy would enable the former to save the amount of the tax out of his wages; and these might be advanced without the rate of profit and the power to accumulate capital being thereby materially impaired. But in all old settled and fully peopled countries, taxation is infinitely more injurious. The supply of labour being in this case almost always greater than the demand, the real wages of labour are comparatively low; while, from the necessity of cultivating inferior soils, the profits of stock are also compara tively limited. In a country thus circumstanced, there is obviously very little room for increased economy; nor can a rise in the price of necessaries, that is, of those commodities which the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without, * be compensated by an immediate corresponding rise of wages.-The labourer is, in this respect, placed in a much more disadvantageous position than either the master manufacturer or capitalist.-When a tax is imposed on raw produce, or any species of manufactured commodities, the producers, by limiting the supply, are enabled to raise the price to such a sum as will afford them, exclusive of the tax, the common and ordinary rate of profit on their capital. But this is a resource from which the labourer is in a great measure cut off. He is unable to raise his wages in proportion to the increased price of the commodities he consumes; and for this obvious reason, that, while the competition for employment, or the number of labourers continues undiminished,

* Wealth of Nations, iii. 331.

the demand for their services, however much it may be lessened, cannot be increased by the imposition of the tax.-The supply of workmen is not like the supply of boots and shoes; it does not and cannot be made to vary with every variation in the price of necessaries, or the rate of wages. Whatever degree of stimulus may have been previously given to the principle of population, it is plain that, although the demand for labour should be suddenly contracted, or, which is the same thing in effect, though the proportion of wages to prices should be suddenly reduced, it would, notwithstanding, continue flowing into the market with nearly the same rapidity as before: Nor would the ratio of the increase of population be materially diminished, until the misery occasioned by the restricted demand on the one hand, and the increased supply on the other; had been very generally and widely diffused.

The principle, therefore, which has been laid down by Dr Smith, and other political economists, that every direct tax on wages, or on the commodities necessary for the subsistence of the labourer, falls entirely on his employer, must be received with very great modification: Except in the rare case where an unusual demand for labour occurs at the time that a tax is imposed on necessaries, it is impossible that wages should be equally raised. There is indeed but too much reason to believe that, in the great majority of cases, a very long period must elapse before any such effect can be produced. In the stationary state of society, or where capital and population are advancing with nearly equal degrees of rapidity, the more powerful operation of the principle of moral restraint, or a diminution of the rate at which population had previously increased, is the only way in which wages can be raised. But as this must be the work of time, there is an extreme risk lest the opinions and habits of the labouring class should in the interim undergo a change. When wages are diminished to any great extent, as they are sure to be by every considerable increase of taxation, the poor are obliged to economize; and it is natural to suppose, that what was at first forced on them by necessity, should ultimately become habitual. It is in this that the great evil of excessive taxation principally consists. Wherever the labouring classes are exposed to long-continued suffering and want, their opinions as to what is necessary for their comfortable subsistence, and the place they ought to hold in society, become degraded. The inadequacy of wages has already compelled the greater part of the people of Britain to relinquish a variety of comforts, and to satisfy themselves with comparatively coarse VOL. XXXIII. NO. 65. L