The Philosophy of Wages.

227

Norway!), so never thought of exceeding the moderate number of one within the house.' This is a lesson for daughters in

England!

After visiting some of the splendid waterfalls in the neighbourhood, the unprotected returned through Sweden and Denmark to England. We wish our space had allowed us to follow their route more closely, and to have introduced some of their lively descriptions of Norwegian scenes and customs. But our readers must for themselves peruse the fascinating and beautiful volume of the Unprotected Females.'

ART. III.-1. Lectures on Political Economy. By Richard Whately, D.D. Fourth Edition. London: J. W. Parker

and Son. 1855.

2. Chaplain's Reports on the County House of Correction at Preston. Presented to the Magistrates of Lancashire. 1855-1858. 3. Early Payment of Wages. Special Lectures to the Working Classes. No. 3. By the Rev. R. Maguire, M.A. London: Partridge and Co. 1858.

POLITICAL economists are not agreed in their opinion re

specting the limits of their particular science. Continental writers have given much freedom to their inquiries, and have discussed questions which, it is true, are connected with national prosperity, but which more naturally belong to the departments of the statesman and the moralist. English writers, however, have been unanimous in their agreement on the fundamental topics of economical science; and from the days of the celebrated author of 'The Wealth of Nations' to the present time, they have confined their attention to the investigation of the principles which regulate the production, accumulation, and distribution of wealth. Many circumstances combine to promote national prosperity; and a long series of causes and results must be investigated, before we can arrive at the essential element which, under certain conditions, produces it. Often a single result, or one of these conditions, is pointed out as the true cause. Thus the statesman refers to the nation's just and wise laws, the merchant to its commerce, the officer to its army and navy, the scientific to its science, the philanthropist to its social condition, and the divine to its religious institutions, as the cause of prosperity. Many of these, however, may be regarded more as the evidence than the cause; or, at least, as belonging to the series of causes and effects which exert a most powerful, reciprocal influence in producing the result. When Lord John Russell says,*The first and main cause of the

* Essay on the English Constitution,' &c. p. 285.

wealth

wealth of nations is liberty,' he evidently points out a condition, necessary, perhaps, to the highest prosperity, but certainly not the first and main cause.' A nation may enjoy a large amount of freedom, and yet there may be something in the character of the people, and in their outward circumstances, which prevents their development and prosperity. We think it would be much more correct to say that the useful industry of the nation is the main element in its prosperity; for, when operating under favourable circumstances, it is that which constitutes its wealth, and enables it to secure the right administration of law, to extend commerce, to provide the sinews of war, to promote the discoveries of science, to ameliorate the social condition of the people, and to support and extend religious institutions. 'Labour,' says Dr. Adam Smith, was the first price, the original purchase-money, that was paid for all things. It was not by gold, or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased.' We have no hesitation, therefore, in affirming that England owes her prosperity to the industry of her people, which has enabled them to turn to advantage their position, and the passing events of their national life.

6

Labour, however, will be conducive to national wealth according to the conditions under which it is performed, and the relation which exists between the employer and the employed. Now there are three aspects in which labour may be regarded. Its performance may be entirely absolute, it may be conditional, or it may be free; corresponding to the three relations which the labourer can sustain towards his employer. He may be in a state of slavery, when his master has absolute power over him and his services, as is the case in the southern states of America. He may be in a state of vassalage, as in Russia, and in the feudal age of England, when the serf is bound to render certain service to his lord. He may be in the state of freedom, now enjoyed by our working classes, when labour is performed under stipulated conditions. Now in each of these relations, the labourer receives what may be regarded as his wages, yet under different circumstances. The slave receives the mere necessaries of life, as the result of his labour; the serf receives protection, and the enjoyment of certain advantages, as the reward of his services; the free labourer receives, as the compensation for his toil, the amount for which he has stipulated with his employer. The first is bound to accept whatever his master pleases to give him; the second is obliged to perform his service as long as he sustains the feudal relation; the third alone is free to choose his work and his master, and to stipulate the conditions under which he will perform it.

It is of the greatest importance to have a clear perception of these

Relation of Employer and Employed.

229

these different relations, if we would understand the right position of master and man, and the duties which are appropriate to it. There is often a disposition on the part of each to treat the other as if the relation existing between them was based on feudal rights and tenure. When the labourer in a free country has performed his stipulated work, the master has no claim to his obedience and reverence, as the feudal lord had; nor has he a right to interfere with him in anything apart from his appointed labour. It is true, there are certain amenities which custom has sanctioned, and which are generally cheerfully rendered by those who occupy a subordinate position: these, however, do not arise out of the relation existing between them, nor can they be claimed by the employer as rights. On the other hand, there is a tendency among the employed to forget the relation they sustain, and to claim from their employer what they might justly claim if they were in a state of vassalage. When they have received their appropriate wages, all claim ceases; and they have no right to expect that assistance in times of need, and protection and support in times of difficulty and danger will be given to them, in addition to the amount for which they are willing to render their services. The relation of master and man is voluntary; the conditions of service are mutual; the one gives his labour, and the other an equivalent for it; and neither has a right to demand anything further. Whatever else is granted must be traced to the influence of interest, kindness, or respect, and does not necessarily arise from the relative position of employer and employed. The master can justly claim the due amount of labour; the operative can equally justly claim the due amount of wages.

6

6

Our present purpose does not require us to discuss the propriety of the definitions which economical writers have given of wages. Adam Smith defines it as "The price of labour;' Malthus, The remuneration of the labourer for his personal exertions; Mill, The price of the labourer's share of the commodity produced;' M'Culloch, The compensation paid to labourers in return for their services.' All these writers draw a distinction between wages, profit, and rent; though, as Dr. Whately has shown, they are often led into confusion by the impossibility of always preserving the distinction. The definition of wages by M'Culloch is quite sufficient for our purpose; and, as now the only legal mode of payment is by money, we shall use the term in its ordinary sense, to denote the amount of money given to the labourer in return for his services.

Now there are two important considerations, arising out of the industrial relation, which claim our notice. The great question, which the employer is constantly asking himself, is-How can I obtain the greatest amount of the best labour at the lowest price?'

The

The question, which the employed are frequently agitating, is— How can we get the greatest amount of wages for the least amount of work? The solution of these problems has often been attempted by each party, and the most lamentable results have followed the endeavour. Masters and men have been arraved against each other in deadly strife; work has been suspended, capital has been wasted, wages have been lost, distress has overwhelmed thousands, and even riot and bloodshed have not unfrequently signalised the attempt to solve these economical problems. A momentary triumph is gained when the weaker side is obliged to surrender. The master, perhaps, congratulates himself that he now pays less than he formerly did for the same kind and amount of work; or the artisan rejoices that he now gains more wages for the same work, or the same for less work. Still the triumph is but short; and each is ere long reminded that the subject is too difficult to be disposed of in a single struggle, and by their individual influence. The fact is, these questions are really already settled by a fundamental principle, which is constantly operating in a free country. It is an axiom in economical science, that the rate of wages and of profits in any department of industry cannot, for any long period, either rise above, or fall below the rate of wages and profits in any other department. The law of competition effectually prevents it; for if any one department secures higher wages, or higher profits, at an equal expenditure of labour and capital, and at equal risk, labour and capital are attracted to it, the demand and the supply become equalised, and the marketable value of labour and money is attained. All attempts, therefore, in a free country, to force the rate of wages or profits beyond their appropriate value by strikes or reductions, can never be successful for any lengthened period. An artificial state may be produced for a time, but it will soon be destroyed; and a reaction will set in, which will ultimately restore the equilibrium to the agitated department. It is true, combination and monopoly will enable men to control the operation of this economical law; but so far as they prevail, to that extent will the freedom of national industry be restrained. The true rate of wages is the marketable value of labour, which is determined by the value of that which labour produces. Men's wages, therefore, will be regulated by the nature of the labour they perform, and will vary from the lowest mechanical work to the highest skilled employment. Each department, however, will have its real price determined by this economical law; and no arbitrary proceedings on the part of either master or men can effectually raise or depress the hire of the labourer.

While there are these definite relations between employer and employed, and these settled principles regulating their

profits

Want of Sympathy between Masters and Men. 231

profits and wages, which cannot be interfered with without producing distressing results, much remains in the power of each to influence the welfare of the other. The artisan may give his amount of stipulated labour in a way, which, though technically correct, may become prejudicial to the interests of his master; and the master may pay the workman his appropriate wages, yet under such conditions that their value is considerably depreciated. Some years ago it was a common practice among masters, especially in the mining districts, to pay their men on a system which obliged them to purchase certain articles of food and clothing at shops in which the employers had an interest. The evils of the truck system,' however, were exposed to the light of day; a terrible outcry was raised against it; and an Act of Parliament, the 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 37, made it illegal for masters thus to gain a profit out of the hard earnings of their men, or to pay their wages otherwise than by the current coin of the realm. It was an injustice, which could scarcely be tolerated under the feudal age, and was wholly incompatible with the relation which men now sustain towards their employer. The practice has not entirely ceased, for it is still connived at in a few districts.

The interests of the employer and employed are so intimately connected, that what will best promote the welfare of the men will also best promote the welfare of the master. The great want. which has long been experienced, has been that of sympathy between those who sustain this relation. Almost the last words of the late Sir Thomas Talfourd were, 'The want of sympathy is the real want of English society;' and nowhere has this been so keenly experienced as in the industrial circle. Often the operatives have regarded their employers more as their tyrants than their friends; and masters have looked down upon their workpeople with supercilious pride and disdain, both forgetful of the fact, that they are dependent upon each other's harmonious cooperation. The steady, upright, industrious labourer must be far more valuable to his employer than the wretched, poverty-stricken, depraved workman, who, while his brief existence lasts, divides his life between labour and sensuality. The social condition of the employed, therefore, has a much greater effect on the employer's interest than has been estimated; and, no doubt, investigation would show that his interest has declined, or prospered, according to their social habits. Self-interest, then, should have led him to consider the welfare of his people; and when to that are joined the higher motives of justice, benevolence, patriotism, and religion, there is a powerful inducement to urge him, not only to pay to those in his employ the right amount of wages, but to consider how he can enhance its value, by placing them in a position to use it to the best advantage. Money is power, which

the