Front Page Titles (by Subject) APPENDICES - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II
Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
APPENDICES - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - Principles of Political Economy Part II 
The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume III - The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books III-V and Appendices), ed. John M. Robson, Introduction by V.W. Bladen (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965).
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The online edition of the Collected Works is published under licence from the copyright holder, The University of Toronto Press. ©2006 The University of Toronto Press. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of The University of Toronto Press.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Book II, Chapter i (“Of Property”), §§ 3-6, 2nd edition (1849), collated with the 1st edition and the MS1
§ 3. [Examination of Communism] It would be too much to affirm that communities constituted on aanya of these principles could not permanently subsist. That a country of any large extent could be formed into a single “Co-operative Society,” is indeed not easily conceivable. The nearest approach to it ever realized seems to have been the government of Peru under the Incas, a despotism held together by a superstition; not likely to be erected into a type for modern aspirations, although it appeared mild and beneficent to those who contrasted it with the iron rule which took its place.* But a country might be covered with small Socialist communities, and these might have a Congress to manage their joint concerns. The scheme is not what is commonly meant by impracticable. Supposing that the soil and climate were tolerably propitious, and that the several communities, possessing the means of all necessary production within themselves, had not to contend in the general markets of the world against the competition of societies founded on private property, I doubt not that by a very rigid system of repressing population, they might be able to live and hold together, without positive discomfort. This would be a considerable improvement, so far as the great majority are concerned, over those existing states of society in which no restraint at all is placed on population, or in which the restraint is very inadequate.
[The objection ordinarily made to a system of community of property and equal distribution of the produce, that each person would be incessantly occupied in evading his fair share of the work,]2 is, I think, in general considerably overstated. There is a kind of work, hitherto more indispensable than most others, that of fighting, which is never conducted on any other than the co-operative system; and neither in a rude nor in a civilized society has the supposed difficulty been experienced. Education and the current of opinion having adapted themselves to the exigency, the sense of honour and the fear of shame have as yet been found to operate with sufficient strength; and common sentiment has sanctioned the enforcement by adequate penalties, upon those not sufficiently influenced by other motives, of rules of discipline certainly not deficient in rigidity. The same sanctions would not fail to attach themselves to the operations of industry, and to secure, as indeed they are found to do in the Moravian and similar establishments, a tolerable adherence to the prescribed standard of duty. The deficiency would be of motives to exceed that minimum standard. In war, the question lies between great success and great failure, between losing a battle and gaining it, perhaps between being slaves and conquerors; and the circumstances of the case are stirring and stimulating to the feelings and faculties. The common operations of industry are the reverse of stirring and stimulating, and the only direct result of extra exertion would be a trifling addition to the common stock shared out among the mass. Mankind are capable of a far greater amount of public spirit than the present age is accustomed to suppose possible. But if the question were that of taking a great deal of personal trouble to produce a very small and unconspicuous public benefit, the love of ease would preponderate. Those who made extra exertions would expect and demand that the same thing should be required from others and made a duty; and in the long run, little more work would be performed by any, than could be exacted from all: the limit to all irksome labour would be the amount which the majority would consent to have made compulsory on themselves. But the majority, even in our present societies, where the intensity of competition and the exclusive dependence of each on his own energies tend to give a morbid strength to the industrial spirit, are almost everywhere indolent and unambitious; content with little, and unwilling to trouble themselves in order to make it more. The standard of industrial duty would therefore be fixed extremely low. There are, no doubt, some kinds of useful exertion to which the stimulus would not be weakened in the same degree. Invention is one of these. Invention is in itself an agreeable exercise of the faculties; and when applied successfully to the diminution of labour or the satisfaction of the physical wants of the community, it would in any society be a source of considerable éclat. But though to invent is a pleasant operation, to perfect an invention and render it practical is a dull and toilsome one; requiring also means and appliances which, in a society so bconstructed,b no one would possess of his own. The many and long-continued trials by which the object is at last attained, could only be made by first persuading the majority that the scheme would be advantageous: and might be broken off at the very time when the work approached completion, if the patience of the majority became exhausted. We might expect therefore that there would be many projects conceived, and very few perfected; while, the projects being prosecuted, if at all, at the public expense and not at the projector’s, if there was any disposition to encourage them, the proportion of bad schemes to good would probably be even greater than at present.
It must be further observed, that the perfect equality contemplated in the theory of the scheme could not be really attained. The produce might be divided equally, but how could the labour? There are many kinds of work, and by what standard are they to be measured one against another? Who is to judge how much cotton spinning, or distributing goods from the stores, or bricklaying, or chimney sweeping, is equivalent to so much ploughing? In the existing system of industry these things do adjust themselves with some, though but a distant, approach to fairness. If one kind of work is harder or more disagreeable than another, or requires a longer practice, it is better paid, simply because there are fewer competitors for it; and an individual generally finds that he can earn most by doing the thing which he is fittest for. I admit that this self-adjusting machinery does not touch some of the grossest of the existing inequalities of remuneration, and in particular the unjust advantage possessed by almost the commonest mental over almost the hardest and most disagreeable bodily labour. Employments which require any kind of technical education, however simple, have hitherto been the subject of a real monopoly as against the mass. But as popular instruction advances, this monopoly is already becoming less complete, and every increase of prudence and foresight among the people encroaches upon it more and more. On the Communist system the impossibility of making the adjustment between different qualities of labour is so strongly felt, that the advocates of the scheme usually find it necessary to provide that all should work by turns at every description of useful labour; an arrangement which, by putting an end to the division of employments, would sacrifice the principal advantage which co-operative production possesses, and would probably reduce the amount of production still lower than in our supposition. And after all, the nominal equality of labour would be so great a real inequality, that justice would revolt against its being enforced. All persons are not equally fit for all labour; and the same quantity of labour is an unequal burthen on the weak and the strong, the hardy and the delicate, the quick and c slow, the dull and the intelligent.
Assuming, however, all the success which is claimed for this state of society by its partisans, it remains to be considered how much would be really gained for mankind, and whether the form that would be given to life, and the character which would be impressed on human nature, dwould be such as tod satisfy any but a e low estimate of the capabilities of the species. fOn the Communistic scheme, supposing it to be successful, there would be an end to all anxiety concerning the means of subsistence; and this would be much gained for human happiness. But it is perfectly possible to realize this same advantage in a society grounded on private property; and to this point the tendencies of political speculation are rapidly converging. Supposing this attained, it is surely a vast advantage on the side of the individual system, that it is compatible with a far greater degree of personal liberty.f The perfection of social arrangements would be to secure to all persons complete independence and freedom of action, subject to no restriction but that of not doing injury to othersg. Theg scheme which we are considering h(at least as it is commonly understood)h abrogates this freedom entirely, and places every action of every member of the community under command.
iCommunism, it is true, might exist without forcing the members of the community to live together, or controlling them in the disposal of their appointed rations, and of such leisure as might be left to them; but it is of the essence of the scheme, that the association, through its managing body, should have absolute power over every one of its members during working hours, and that no one could choose either at what, or with whom, or generally in what method, he would work. Let us add, that the work would be devoid of all feeling of interest, except that which might be conferred on it by a principle of duty to the community. All the interest which it now derives from the hope of advancement, or of increased gain to the labourer himself, or to the objects of his private affections, would cease; and it remains to be shown that any equally powerful source of excitement would be substituted for these, or that the feeling of duty, even if strong enough to ensure performance of the work, would have the power of rendering it agreeable. What was done, would probably be done as men do the things, which are not done from choice but from necessity: and a life passed in the enforced observance of an external rule, and performance of a prescribed task, would sink into a monotonous routine. Lastly, the identity of education and pursuits would tend to impress on all the same unvarying type of character; to the destruction of that multiform development of human nature, those manifold unlikenesses, that diversity of tastes and talents, and variety of intellectual points of view, which not only form a great part of the interest of human life, but by bringing intellects into stimulating collision, and by presenting to each innumerable notions that he could not have conceived of himself, are the mainspring of mental and moral progression.i
I am aware it may be said that the great majority of the species already suffer, in the existing state of society, all the disadvantages which I ascribe to the Communist system. The factory labourer has as monotonous, indeed a more monotonous existence, than a member of an Owenite community; working a greater number of hours, and at the same dull occupation, without the alternation of employment which the Socialist scheme provides. The generality of labourers, in this and most other countries, have as little choice of occupation or freedom of locomotion, are practically as dependent on fixed rules and on the will of others, as they could be on any system short of actual slavery; to say nothing of the entire domestic subjection of one half the species, to whom it is the signal honour of Owenism and most other forms of jSocialismj that they assign equal rights, in all respects, with those of the hitherto dominant sex. Again, it may be said of almost all labourers, on the present system, namely of all who work by the day, or for a fixed salary, that labouring for the gain of others, not for their own, they have no interest in doing more than the smallest quantity of work which will pass as a fulfilment of the mere terms of their engagement. Production, therefore, it may be said, should be at least as inefficient on the present plan, as it would be from a similar cause under the other.
To take the last argument first, it is true that, for the very reason assigned, namely the insufficient interest which day-labourers have in the result of their labour, there is a natural tendency in such labour to be extremely inefficient: a tendency only kto bek overcome by l vigilant superintendence on the part of persons who are interested in the result. The “master’s eye” is notoriously the only security to be relied on. If a delegated and hired superintendence is found effectual, it is when the superintendents themselves are well superintended, and have a high salary and a privileged situation to lose on being found neglectful of their trust. Superintend them as you will, day-labourers are so much inferior to those who work by the piece, that the latter system is practised in all industrial occupations to which it is conveniently applicable. And yet it is by no means true that day-labourers, under the present arrangements, have no inducements of private interest to energetic action. They have a strong inducement, that of gaining a character as workmen, which may secure them a preference in employment; and they have often a hope of promotion and of rising in the world, nor is that hope always disappointed. Where no such possibility is open to the labouring classes, their condition is confessedly wrong, and demands a remedy. With respect to the other objections which I have anticipated, I freely admit them. I believe that the condition of the operatives in a well-regulated manufactory, with a great reduction of the hours of labour and a considerable variety of the kind of it, is very like what the condition of all would be in man Owenitem community. n But to maintain even this state, the limitation of the propagative powers of the community must be as much a matter of public regulation as everything else; since under the supposed arrangements prudential restraint would no longer exist. Now, if we suppose an equal degree of regulation to take place under the present system, either compulsorily, or, what would be so much preferable, voluntarily; a condition at least equal to what the oCommunisto system offers to all, would fall to the lot of the least fortunate, by the mere action of the competitive principle. Whatever of pecuniary means or freedom of action any one obtained beyond this, would be so much to be counted in favour of the competitive system. It is an abuse of the principle of equality to demand that no individual be permitted to be better off than the rest, when his being so makes none of the others worse off than they otherwise would be.
§ 4. [Examination of St. Simonism] These arguments a against Communism are not applicable to St. Simonism, a system of far higher intellectual pretensions than the bformer:b constructed with greater foresight of objections, and juster appreciation of them; grounded on views of human nature much less limited, and the work altogether of larger and more accomplished minds, by most of whom accordingly, what was erroneous in their theory has long ago been seen and abandoned. [The St. Simonian scheme does not contemplate an equal, but an unequal division of the produce; it does not propose that all should be occupied alike, but differently, according to their vocation or capacity; the function of each being assigned, like grades in a regiment, by the choice of the directing authority, and the remuneration being by salary, proportioned to the importance, in the eyes of that authority, of the function itself, and the merits of the person who fulfils it. For the constitution of the ruling body, different plans might be adopted, consistently with the essentials of the system. It might be appointed by popular suffrage. In the idea of the original authors, the rulers were supposed to be persons of genius and virtue, who obtained the voluntary adhesion of the rest by]1 mere [force of mental superiority],2 through a religious feeling of reverence and subordination. Society, thus constituted, would wear as diversified a face as it does now; would be still fuller of interest and excitement, would hold out even more abundant stimulus to individual exertion, and would nourish, it is to be feared, even more of rivalries and animosities than at present. [That the scheme might in some peculiar states of society work with advantage,]3 I will not deny. [There is indeed a successful experiment, of a somewhat similar kind, on record, to which I have once alluded, that of the Jesuits, in Paraguay. A race of savages, belonging to a portion of mankind more averse to consecutive exertion for a distant object than any other authentically known to us, was brought under the mental dominion of civilized and instructed men who were united among themselves by a system of community of goods. To the absolute authority of these men they reverentially submitted themselves, and were induced by them to learn the arts of civilized life, and to practise labours for the community which no inducement that could have been offered would have prevailed on them to practise for themselves. This social system was of short duration, being prematurely destroyed by diplomatic arrangements and foreign force. That it could be brought into action at all was probably owing to the immense distance in point of knowledge and intellect which separated the few rulers from the whole body of the ruled, without any intermediate orders, either social or intellectual. In any other circumstances it would probably have been a complete failure]4 ; and we may venture to say that in no European community could it have even the partial success which might really be obtained by an association on the principle of Communism. [It supposes an absolute despotism in the heads of the association; which would probably not be much improved if the depositaries of the despotism (contrary to the views of the authors of the system) were varied from time to time according to the result of a popular canvass. But to suppose that one or a few human beings, howsoever selected, could, by whatever machinery of subordinate agency, be qualified to adapt each person’s work to his capacity, and proportion each person’s remuneration to his merits—to be, in fact, the dispensers of distributive justice to every member of a community]5 , were it even the smallest that ever had a separate political existence—[or that any use which they could make of this power would give general satisfaction, or would be submitted to without the aid of force—is a supposition almost too chimerical to be reasoned against. A fixed rule, like that of equality, might be acquiesced in, and so might chance, or an external necessity; but that a handful of human beings should weigh everybody in the balance, and give more to one and less to another at their sole pleasure and judgment, would not be borne unless from persons believed to be more than men, and backed by supernatural terrors.
§ 5. [Examination of Fourierism] aThe most skilfully combined, and ]1 in every respect the least open to objection, of [the forms of Socialism, is that commonly known as Fourierism. This system does not contemplate the abolition of private property, nor even of inheritance: on the contrary, it avowedly takes into consideration, as an element in the distribution of the produce, capital as well as labour. It proposes that the operations of industry should be carried on by associations of about two thousand members, combining their labour on a district of about a square league in extent, under the guidance of chiefs selected by themselves. In the distribution, a certain minimum is first assigned for the subsistence of every member of the community, whether capable or not of labour. The remainder of the produce is shared in certain proportions, to be determined beforehand, among the three elements, Labour, Capital, and Talent. The capital of the community may be owned in unequal shares by different members, who would in that case receive, as in any other joint-stock company, proportional dividends. The claim of each person on the share of the produce apportioned to talent, is estimated by the grade or rank which the individual occupies in the several groups of labourers to which he or she belongs; these grades being in all cases conferred by the choice of his or her companions. The remuneration, when received, would not of necessity be expended or enjoyed in common; there would be separate ménages for all who preferred them, and no other community of living is contemplated, than that all the members of the association should reside in the same pile of buildings; for saving of labour and expense not only in building, but in every branch of domestic economy; and in order that, the whole]2 [buying and selling operations of the community being performed by a single agent, the enormous portion of the produce of industry now carried off by the profits of mere distributors might be reduced to the smallest amount possible.]3
Thus far it is apparent that this [system, unlike Communism, does not, in theory at least, withdraw any of the motives to exertion which exist in the present]4 system [of society. On the contrary, if the arrangement]5 could be supposed to work [according to the intentions of its contrivers, it would even strengthen those motives, since each person would have much more certainty of reaping individually the fruits of increased skill or energy, bodily or mental, than under the present social arrangements can be felt by any but those who are in the most advantageous positions, or to whom the chapter of accidents is more than ordinarily favourable. The Fourierists, however, have still another resource. They believe that they have solved the great and fundamental problem of rendering labour attractive. That this is not impracticable, they contend by very strong arguments; in particular by one which they have in common with the Owenites, viz., that scarcely any labour, however severe, undergone by human beings for the sake of subsistence, exceeds in intensity that which other human beings, whose subsistence is already provided for, are found ready and even eager to undergo for pleasure. This certainly is a most significant fact, and one from which the student in social philosophy may draw important instruction. But the argument founded on it may easily be stretched too far. If occupations full of discomfort and fatigue are freely pursued by many persons as amusements, who does not see that they are amusements exactly because they are pursued freely, and may be discontinued at pleasure? The liberty of quitting a position often makes the whole difference between its being painful and pleasurable. Many a person remains in the same town, street, or house from January to December, without a wish or a thought tending towards removal, who if confined to that same place by the mandate of authority, would find the imprisonment absolutely intolerable.
According to the Fourierists, scarcely any kind of useful labour is naturally and necessarily disagreeable, unless it is either regarded as dishonourable, or is immoderate in degree, or destitute of the stimulus of sympathy and emulation.]6 The few kinds of useful employment which are inherently distasteful to either the physical or the moral sense, or which would be so to persons in as high a state of cultivation as the Fourierists rightly aspire to confer upon all, they propose to surround with marks of honour, and to remunerate on the highest scale. [Excessive toil needs not, they contend, be undergone by any one, in a society in which there would be no idle class, and no labour wasted, as so enormous an amount of labour is now wasted, in useless things; and where full advantage would be taken of the power of association, both in increasing the efficiency of production, and in economizing consumption. The other requisites for rendering labour attractive would, they think, be found in the execution of all labour by social groups, to any number of which the same individual might simultaneously belong, at his or her own choice; their grade in each being determined by the degree of service which they were found capable of rendering, as appreciated by the suffrages of their comrades. It is inferred from the diversity of tastes and talents, that every member of the community would be attached to several groups, employing themselves in various kinds of occupation, some bodily, others mental, and would be capable of occupying a high place in some one or more; so that a real equality, or]7 a [something more nearly approaching to it than might at first be supposed, would practically result: not]8 (as in Communism) [from the compression, but, on the contrary, from the largest possible developement, of the various natural superiorities residing in each individual.
Even from so brief an outline, it]9 will be perceived [that this system does no violence to any of the general laws by which human action, even in the present imperfect state of moral and intellectual cultivation, is influenced]10 . All persons would have a prospect of deriving individual advantage from every degree of labour, of abstinence, and of talent, which they individually exercised. The impediments to success would not be in the principles of the system, but in the unmanageable nature of its machinery. Before large bodies of human beings could be fit to live together in such close union, and still more, before they would be capable of adjusting, by peaceful arrangement among themselves, the relative claims of every class or kind of labour and talent, and of every individual in every class, a vast improvement in human character must be presupposed. When it is considered that each person who would have a voice in this adjustment would be a party interested in it, in every sense of the term—that each would be called on to take part by vote in fixing both the relative remuneration, and the relative estimation, of himself as compared with all other labourers, and of his own class of labour or talent as compared with all others; the degree of disinterestedness and of freedom from vanity and irritability, which would be required in such a community from every individual in it, would be such as is now only found in the élite of humanity: while if these qualities fell much short of the required standard, either the adjustment could not be made at all, or if made by a majority, would engender jealousies and disappointments destructive of the internal harmony on which the whole working of the system avowedly depends. These, it is true, are difficulties, not impossibilities: and the Fourierists, who alone among Socialists are in a great degree alive to the true conditions of the problem which they undertake to solve, are not without ways and means of contending against these. With every advance in education and improvement, their system tends to become less impracticable, and the very attempt to make it succeed would cultivate in those making the attempt, many of the virtues which it requires. But we have only yet considered the case of a single Fourierist community. When we remember that the communities themselves are to be the constituent units of an organised whole, (otherwise competition would rage as actively between rival communities as it now does between individual merchants or manufacturers,) and that nothing less would be requisite for the complete success of the scheme, than the organisation from a single centre, of the whole industry of a nation, and even of the world; we may, without attempting to limit the ultimate capabilities of human nature, affirm, that the political economist, for a considerable time to come, will be chiefly concerned with the conditions of existence and progress belonging to a society founded on private property and individual competition; and that, rude as is the manner in which those two principles apportion reward to exertion and to merit, they must form the basis of the principal improvements which can for the present be looked for in the economical condition of humanity.
§ 6. [The institution of property requires, not subversion, but improvement] And those improvements will be found to be far more considerable than the adherents of the various Socialist systems are willing to allow. Whatever may be the merit or demerit of their own schemes of society, they have hitherto shown themselves extremely ill acquainted with the economical laws of the existing social system; and have, in consequence, habitually assumed as necessary effects of competition, evils which are by no means inevitably attendant on it. It is from the influence of this erroneous interpretation of existing facts, that many Socialists of high principles and attainments are led to regard the competitive system as radically incompatible with the economical well-being of the mass.a
[The principle of private property has never yet had a fair trial in any country; and less so, perhaps, in this country than in some others. The social arrangements of modern Europe commenced from a distribution of property which was the result, not of ajust partition, or acquisition by industry,a but of conquest and violence: and notwithstanding what industry has been doing for many centuries to modify the work of force, the system still retains many band largeb traces of its origin. The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race. That all should indeed start on perfectly equal terms, is inconsistent with any law of private property: but if as much pains as has been taken to aggravate the inequality of chances arising from the natural working of the principle, had been taken to temper that inequality by every means not subversive of the principle itself; if the tendency of legislation had been to favour the diffusion, instead of the concentration of wealth—to encourage the subdivision of the large masses, instead of striving to keep them together; the principle of individual property would have been found to have no cnecessaryc connexion with the physical and social evils which]1 have made so many minds turn eagerly to any prospect of relief, however desperate.
d[We are ]2 as yet [too ignorant either of what individual agency in its best form, or Socialism in its best form can accomplish, to be qualified to decide which of the two will be the ultimate form of human society.]3 In the present stage of human improvement at least, it is not (I conceive) the subversion of the system of individual property that should be aimed at, but the improvement of it, and the participation of every member of the community in its benefits. Far, however, from looking upon the various classes of Socialists with any approach to disrespect, I honour the intentions of almost all who are publicly known in that character, the acquirements and talents of several, and I regard them, taken collectively, as one of the most valuable elements of human improvement now existing; both from the impulse they give to the reconsideration and discussion of all the most important questions, and from the ideas they have contributed to many; ideas from which the most advanced supporters of the existing order of society have still much to learn.d
Book II, Chapter x (“Means of Abolishing Cottier Tenancy”), §§ 1-7, 2nd edition (1849), collated with the 1st edition and the MS1
§ 1. [Mode of disposing of a cottier population is the vital question for Ireland] The question, what is to be done with a cottier population? which in any case would have been a fit subject for consideration in a work like the present, is to the English Government at this time [the most urgent of practical questions. The majority of a population of eight millions, having long grovelled in helpless inertness and abject poverty under the cottier system; reduced by its operation to mere food, of the cheapest description, and to an incapacity of either doing or willing anything for the improvement of their lot]2 ; have [at last, by the failure of that lowest quality of food, been plunged into a state a in which the alternative]3 is [death, or to be permanently supported by other people, or a radical change in the economical arrangements under which it]4 has [hitherto been their misfortune to live. Such an emergency]5 has [compelled attention to the subject from the legislature and from the nation, but it]6 can [hardly] as yet [be said, with much result; for, the evil having originated in a system of land tenancy which withdrew from the people every motive to industry or thrift except the fear of starvation, the remedy provided by Parliament was to take away even that, by conferring on them a legal claim to eleemosynary support: while, towards correcting the cause of the mischief, nothing was done, beyond vain complaints, though at the price to the national treasury of ten millions sterling for] one year’s [delay.]7
I presume it [is needless] [to expend any argument in proving that the very foundation of the economical evils of Ireland is the cottier system: that while peasant rents fixed by competition are the practice of the country, to expect industry, useful activity, any restraint on population but death, or any the smallest diminution of poverty, is to look for figs on thistles and grapes on thorns. If our practical statesmen are not ripe for the recognition of this fact; or if while they acknowledge it in theory, they have not a sufficient feeling of its reality, to be capable of founding upon it any course of conduct; there is still another, and a purely physical consideration, from which they will find it impossible to escape. If the one crop on which the people have hitherto supported themselves continues to be precarious, either some new and great impulse must be given to agricultural skill and industry, or the soil of Ireland can no longer feed any thing like its present population. The whole produce of the western half of the island, leaving nothing for rent, will not now keep permanently in existence the whole of its people: and they will necessarily remain an annual charge on the taxation of the empire, until they are reduced either by emigration or by starvation to a number corresponding with the low state of their industry, or unless the means are found of making that industry much more productive.]8
Cottiers, therefore, must cease to be. Nothing can be done for Ireland without transforming her rural population from cottier tenants into something else. But into what? [Those who, knowing neither Ireland nor any foreign country, take as their sole standard of social and economical excellence, English practice, propose as the single remedy for Irish wretchedness, the transformation of the cottiers into hired labourers.]9 I contend that the object should be their transformation, as far as circumstances admit, into landed proprietors. Either, indeed, would be a most desirable exchange from the present nuisance; but as a practical object the latter of the two seems to me preferable in an almost incalculable degree to the former, both as the most desirable in itself, and very much the easiest to effect.
§ 2. [To convert the cottiers into hired labourers is not desirable or practicable] To convert the cottiers into hired labourers [is rather a scheme for the improvement of Irish agriculture, than of the condition of the Irish people. The status of a day labourer has no charm for infusing forethought, frugality, or self-restraint, into a people devoid of them.]1 It is not necessarily injurious to those qualities where they exist, but it seldom engenders them where they are absent. [If the Irish peasantry could be] instantaneously [changed into receivers of wages,]2 the wages being no higher than they now are, or than there is any reason to hope that they would be, and the present [habits and mental characteristics of the people remaining, we should merely see] five or six [millions of people living as day labourers in the same wretched manner in which as cottiers they lived before; equally passive in the absence of every comfort, equally reckless in multiplication, and even, perhaps, equally listless at their work; since they could not be dismissed] en masse [, and if they could, dismissal would now be simply remanding them to the poor-rate. Far other would be the effect of making them peasant proprietors. A people who in industry and providence have everything to learn—who are confessedly among the most backward of European populations in the industrial virtues—require for their regeneration the most powerful incitements by which those virtues can be stimulated: and there is no stimulus] [comparable to property in land. A permanent interest in the soil to those who till it, is almost a guarantee for the most unwearied laboriousness: against over-population, though not infallible, it is the best preservative yet known; and where it failed, any other plan would probably fail much more egregiously; the evil would be beyond the reach of merely aeconomica remedies.]3 Having already insisted so strongly on these topics, I feel it needless to argue any further, that the conversion of the Irish peasantry, or of some considerable portion of them, into small landed proprietors, is a more beneficial object than the transformation of all of them indiscriminately into labourers for hire.
But besides being more desirable, it is, above all, more attainable. The other plan, as a measure standing by itself, is wholly impracticable. It involves contradictory conditions. The conversion of the cottiers into hired labourers implies the introduction, all over Ireland, of capitalist farmers, in lieu of the present small tenants. These farmers, or their capital at least, must come from England. But to induce capital to come in, the cottier population must first be peaceably got rid of: in other words, that must be already accomplished, which English capital is proposed as the means of accomplishing. Why is Ireland the only country in the world to which English capital does not go? Because it cannot go to any purpose without turning out the people, and the people refuse to be turned out. I presume it is not seriously proposed that they should be turned out en masse, without being otherwise provided for. With their own consent they never will be dislodged from their holdings until something better is given to them. They will not be got rid of by merely telling them that something better will follow.
It is necessary however in the next place to consider, what is the condition of things which would follow. The ineffective Irish agriculture is to be converted into an effective English agriculture, by throwing together the small holdings into large farms, cultivated by combined labour, with the best modern improvements. On the supposition of success, Ireland would be assimilated, in her agriculture, to the most improved parts of England. But what are the most improved parts of England? Those in which fewest labourers are employed, in proportion to the extent of the soil. Taking the number of Irish peasants to the square mile, and the number of hired labourers on an equal space in the model counties of Scotland or England, the former number is commonly computed to be about three times the latter. Two-thirds, therefore, of the Irish peasantry, would be absolutely dispensed with. What is to be done with them? Is it supposed that they would find employment in manufacturing labour? They are at present unfit for it; and even if fit, capital would require to be imported for that purpose too; and is it likely that manufacturing capital will resort to Ireland, abandoning Leeds and Manchester? Under a more efficient cultivation of her soil, Ireland would require a greatly increased amount of manufactured goods, but these would still be most advantageously manufactured in Lancashire or Yorkshire; and even if Ireland became, as to agricultural improvement, an English county, she would be but a larger Devonshire, drawing everything which she consumed, except the products of agriculture, from elsewhere. All the excess of Irish population above the Devonshire standard would be a local surplus, which must migrate to England, or to America, or subsist on taxation or b charity, or must be enabled to raise its own food from its own soil. The plan therefore of turning the cottiers into labourers for wages, even if it fulfilled its utmost promise, only disposes of a third of the population; with respect to the remaining two-thirds, the original difficulty recurs in its full force.
The question, what system of agriculture is best in itself, is, for Ireland, of purely theoretical interest: the people are there, and the problem is not how to improve the country, but how it can be improved by and for its present inhabitants. It is not probable that England will undertake a simultaneous removal of two millions—the smallest number which in the opinion of any person acquainted with the subject, would make a clear field for the introduction of English agriculture. But unless she does, the soil of Ireland must continue to employ and feed the people of Ireland: and since it cannot do this on the English system, or on any system whatever of large farming, all idea of cthatc species of agricultural improvement as an exclusive thing must be abandoned: the petite culturedin some one of its shapesd will continue, and a large proportion of the peasants, eif they do not become small proprietors, will remaine small farmers. In the few cases in which comprehensive measures of agricultural improvement have been undertaken by large capitals, the capitalists have not, as some might perhaps suppose, employed themselves in creating large farms, and cultivating them by hired labour; their farms are of a size only sufficient for a single family: it was by other expedients that the improvement, which was to render the enterprise profitable, was brought about: these were, advances of capital, and a temporary security of tenure. There is a Company called the Irish Waste Land Improvement Society, of whose operations, in 1845, the following report was made, by their intelligent manager, Colonel Robinson.*
[ f “Two hundred and forty-five tenants, many of whom were a few years since in a state bordering on pauperism, the occupiers of small holdings of from ten to twenty plantation acres each, have, by their own free labour, with the Society’s aid, improved their farms to the value of 4396l.; 605l. having been added during the last year, being at the rate of 17l. 18s. per tenant for the whole term, and 2l. 9s. for the past year; the benefit of which improvements each tenant will enjoy during the unexpired term of a] thirty-one years lease.
[“These 245 tenants and their families, have, by spade] husbandry [, reclaimed and brought into cultivation 1032 plantation acres of land, previously unproductive mountain waste, upon which they grew, last year, crops valued by competent practical persons at 3896l., being in the proportion of 15l. 18s., each tenant; and their live stock, consisting of cattle, horses, sheep, and pigs, now actually upon the estates, is valued, according to the present prices of the neighbouring markets, at 4162l., of which 1304l. has been added since February 1844, being at the rate of 16l. 19s. for the whole period, and 5l. 6s. for the last year; during which time their stock has thus increased in value a sum equal to their present annual rent; and by the statistical] table [and returns referred to in previous reports, it is proved that the tenants, in general, improve their little farms, and increase their cultivation and crops, in nearly direct proportion to the number of available working persons of both sexes of which their families consist.”
There cannot be a stronger testimony to the superior amount of] gross [produce raised by small farming, under any tolerable system of landed tenure: and it is worthy of attention, that the industry and zeal] are [greatest among the smaller holders: Colonel Robinson noticing as exceptions to the remarkable and rapid progress of improvement, some tenants] “who are [occupants of larger farms than twenty acres, a class too often deficient in the enduring industry indispensable for the successful prosecution of mountain improvements.”]*4
§ 3. [Limitation of rent, by law or custom, is indispensable] [The case of Ireland is similar in its requirements to that of India. In India, though great errors have from time to time been committed, no one ever proposed, under the name of agricultural improvement, to eject the ryots or peasant farmers from their possession;] all [the improvement that has been looked for, has been through making their tenure more secure to them, and the sole difference of opinion is between those who contend for a perpetuity, and those who think that long leases will suffice. The same question] may exist [as to Ireland];1 and with the case of the Waste Lands Improvement Society before us, as well as many other instances of reclamation of land, recorded by Lord Devon’s Commission, [it would be idle to deny that long leases, under such landlords as are sometimes to be found, do effect wonders, even in Ireland. But then, they must be leases at a low rent. Long leases are in no way to be relied on for getting rid of cottierism. During the existence of cottier tenancy, leases have always been long; twenty-one years and three lives concurrent, was a usual term. But the rent being fixed by competition, at a higher amount than could be paid, so that the tenant neither had, nor could by any exertion acquire, a beneficial interest in the land, the advantage of a lease was] merely [nominal. In India, the government]2 [is able to prevent this evil, because, being itself the landlord, it can fix the rent according to its own judgment; but under individual landlords, while rents are fixed by competition, and the competitors are a peasantry struggling for subsistence, nominal rents are inevitable, unless the population is so thin, that the competition itself is only nominal. The majority of landlords will grasp at immediate money and immediate power; and so long as they find cottiers eager to offer them every thing, it is useless to rely on them for tempering the vicious practice by a considerate self-denial.
A perpetuity is a]3 preferable tenure to a long lease; it is a far stronger stimulus to improvement[: not only because the longest lease, before coming to an end, passes through all the varieties of short leases down to no lease at all; but for more fundamental reasons. It is very shallow, even in pure economics, to take no account of the influence of imagination: there is a virtue in “for ever” beyond the longest term of years; even if the term is long enough to include children, and all whom a person individually cares for,]4 [he will not exert himself with the same ardour to increase the value of an estate, his interest in which diminishes in value every year.]5 A lease, therefore, is never a complete substitute for a perpetuity. [But where a country is under cottier tenure, the question of perpetuity is quite secondary to the more important point, a limitation of the rent. Rent paid by a bcapitalist who farmsb for profit, and not for bread, may safely be abandoned to competition; rent paid by labourers cannot, unless the labourers were in a state of civilization and improvement which labourers have nowhere yet reached, and cannot easily reach under such a tenure. Peasant rents ought never to be arbitrary, never at the discretion of the landlord: either by custom or law, it is imperatively necessary that they should be fixed; and where no mutually advantageous custom, such as the metayer system of Tuscany, has established itself, reason and experience recommend that they should be fixed] in perpetuity[: thus changing the rent into a quit-rent, and the farmer into a peasant proprietor.]6
§ 4. [Fixity of Tenure considered] Let us, then, examine what means are afforded by the economical circumstances of Ireland, for [carrying this change into effect on a sufficiently large scale to accomplish the complete abolition of cottier tenancy]. The [mode which] first [suggests itself is the] obvious and [direct one, of doing the thing outright by Act of Parliament; making the whole land of Ireland the property of the tenants, subject to the rents now really paid (not the nominal] rents[), as a fixed rent charge. This, under the name of “fixity of tenure,” was one of the demands of the Repeal Association during the most successful period of their agitation; and was better expressed by Mr. Conner, its earliest, most enthusiastic, and most indefatigable apostle,* by the words, “a valuation and a perpetuity.” In] this [measure there would not], strictly speaking, be [any injustice, provided the landlords were compensated for the present value of the chances of increase which they] would be [prospectively required to forego. The rupture of existing social relations would hardly] be [more violent than that effected by the ministers Stein and Hardenberg, when, by a series of edicts, in the early part of the present century, they revolutionized the state of landed property in the Prussian monarchy, and left their names to posterity among the greatest benefactors of their country. To enlightened foreigners writing on Ireland, Von Raumer and Gustave de Beaumont, a remedy of this sort] seems [so exactly and obviously what the disease] requires[, that they] have [some difficulty in comprehending how it] is [that the thing] is [not yet done.]1
But though this measure is not beyond the competence of a just legislature, and would be no infringement of property if the landlords had the option allowed them of giving up their lands at the full value, reckoned at the ordinary number of years purchase; it is aonly fit to be adopted if the nature of the case admitted of no milder remedya . In the first place, it is [a complete expropriation of the higher classes of Ireland: which, if there is any truth in the principles we have laid down, would be perfectly warrantable, but only if it were the sole means of effecting a great public good. bInb the second place, that there should be none but peasant-proprietors, is in itself far from desirable. Large farms, cultivated by large] capitals[, and owned by persons of the best education which the country can give, persons qualified by instruction to cappreciate scientific discoveriesc , and able to bear the delay and risk of costly experiments, are an important part of a good agricultural system. Many such landlords there are even in Ireland; and it would be a public misfortune to drive them from their]2 post. Other objections might be added; a [large proportion] [of the present holdings are] [too small to try the proprietary system under the greatest advantages: nor are the tenants always the persons one would desire to select, as the first occupants of peasant-properties. There are numbers of them on whom it would have a more beneficial effect to give them the hope of acquiring a landed property by industry and frugality, than the property itself in immediate possession.]3
§ 5. [Tenant Right] Some persons who desire to avoid the term fixity of tenure, but who cannot be satisfied without some measure co-extensive with the whole country, have proposed the universal adoption of “tenant-right.” Under this equivocal phrase, two things are confounded. What it commonly stands for in Irish discussion, is the Ulster practice, which is in fact, fixity of tenure. It supposes a customary, though not a legal, limitation of the rent; without which the tenant evidently could not acquire a beneficial and saleable interest. Its existence is highly salutary, and is one principal cause of the superiority of Ulster in efficiency of cultivation, and in the comfort of the people, notwithstanding a minuter subdivision of holdings than in the other provinces. But to convert this customary limitation of rent into a legal one, and to make it universal, would be to establish aaa fixity of tenure by law, the objections to which have already been stated.
The same appellation b(tenant right)b has of late years been applied, more particularly in England, to something altogether different, and falling as much short of the exigency, as the enforcement of the Ulster custom would exceed it. This English tenant right, with which a high agricultural authority has connected his name by endeavouring to obtain for it legislative sanction, amounts to no more than this, that on the expiration of a lease, the landlord should make compensation to the tenant for “unexhausted improvements.” This is certainly very desirable, but provides only for the case of capitalist farmers, and of improvements made by outlay of money; of the worth and cost of which, an experienced land agent or a jury of farmers could accurately judge. The improvements to be looked for from peasant cultivators are the result not of money but of their labour, applied at such various times and in such minute portions as to be incapable of judicial appreciation. For such labour, compensation could not be given on any principle but that of paying to the tenant the whole difference between the value of the property when he received it, and when he gave it up: which would as effectually annihilate the right of property of the landlord as if the rent had been fixed in perpetuity, while it would not offer the same inducements to the cultivator, who improves from affection and passion as much as from calculation, and to whom his own land is a widely different thing from the most liberal possible pecuniary compensation for it.
§ 6. [Location of peasant proprietors on the waste lands] There are then strong objections, as well as great difficulties, opposed to the attempt to make peasant properties universal. But, fortunately, that they should be universal is not necessary to their usefulness. There is no need to extend them to all the population, or all the land. It is enough if there be land available, on which to locate so great a portion of the population, that the remaining area of the country shall not be required to maintain greater numbers than are compatible with large farming and hired labour. For this purpose there is an obvious resource in the waste lands; which are happily so extensive, and a large proportion of them so improvable, as to afford a means by which, without making the present tenants proprietors, nearly the whole surplus population might be converted into peasant proprietors elsewhere. This plan has been strongly pressed upon the public by several writers: but the first to bring it prominently forward in England was Mr. William Thornton, in a work* honourably distinguished from most others which have been recently published, by its rational treatment of the great questions affecting the economical condition of the labouring classes.a
The detailed estimate of an irrefragable authority, Mr. Griffith, annexed to the Report of Lord Devon’s Commission, shows nearly a million and a half of acres reclaimable for the spade or plough, some of them with the promise of great fertility, and about two millions and a half more, reclaimable for pasture:† the greater part being in most convenient proximity to the principal masses of destitute population. Besides these four millions of acres, there are above two millions and a half,* pronounced by Mr. Griffith to be unimprovable; but he is only speaking of reclamation for profit: it is doubtful if there be any land, in a temperate climate, which cannot be reclaimed and rendered productive by labourers themselves, under the binducementb of a permanent property. Confining ourselves to the one and a half million of arable first mentioned, it would furnish properties averaging five acres each to three hundred thousand persons, cwhichc at the rate of five persons to a family, a rather low rate for Ireland, danswersd to a population of fifteen hundred thousand. Suppose such a number drafted off to a state of independence and comfort, together with a very moderate additional relief by emigration; and the introduction of English capital and farming, over the remaining surface of Ireland, would at once cease to be chimerical.†
“The improvement of wastes,” Mr. Thornton eobservese , “may perhaps be thought to require a good deal of capital; but capital is principally useful for its command of labour, and the Irish peasantry have quite labour enough at their own disposal. Their misfortune is, that they have so much. Their labour would not be the worse applied because they worked for themselves, instead of for a paymaster. So far is [large] capital from being indispensable for the cultivation of barren tracts, that schemes of this kind, which could only bring loss to a rich speculator, are successfully achieved by his penniless rival. A capitalist must have a certain return for the money he lays out, but the poor man expends nothing but his own superabundant labour, which would be valueless if not so employed, so that his returns, however small, are all clear profit. No man in his senses would ever have thought of wasting money upon the original sand of the Pays de Waes; but the hard-working boors who settled there two hundred years ago, without any other stock than their industry, contrived to enrich both themselves and the land, and indeed to make the latter the richest in Europe. There is no soil so worthless that an English labourer will not eagerly accept an allotment of it; and while the green valley, from which some Highland community has been driven, is fast relapsing under the superintendence of a wealthy sheep-farmer into its primitive wildness, its former tenants are forming new patches of arable land on the rock-strewn moors along the seacoast.”[*]
“The profit of reclaiming waste land,” says the Digest of Evidence to Lord Devon’s Commission,† “will be best understood from a practice not uncommon in Ireland, to which farmers sometimes resort. This consists in giving the use of a small portion of it to a poor cottier or herdsman for the first three crops, after which this improved portion is given up to the farmer, and a fresh piece of the waste land is taken on the same terms by the cottier.” Well may the compiler say, “Here we have the example of the very poorest class in Ireland obtaining a livelihood by the cultivation of waste land under the most discouraging and the least remunerative circumstances that can well be imagined.”
It is quite worthy of the spirit which pervades the wretched attempts as yet made to do good to Ireland, that this spectacle of the poorest of mankind making the land valuable by their labour for the profit of other people, who have done nothing to assist them, does not once strike Lord Devon and his Commission as a thing which ought not to be. Mr. Thornton strongly urges the claims of common justice and common sense.
“The colonists ought to be allowed to retain permanent possession of the spots reclaimed by them. To employ them as labourers in bringing the land into a remunerative condition, (see Report of Land Occupation Commissioners), in order that it may then be let to some one else, while they are sent to shift for themselves where they can, may be an excellent mode of enriching the landlord, but must eventually aggravate the sufferings of the poor. It is probably because this plan has been generally practised, that the reclamation of waste land has hitherto done nothing for the benefit of the Irish peasantry. If the latter are to derive any advantage from it, such of them as may be located on the waste, should receive perpetual leases of their respective allotments—should be made freeholders, in fact, or at least perpetual tenants at a quit-rent. Such an appropriation of waste land would of course require that compensation should be made to all who previously possessed any interest in it. But the value of a legal interest in land which cannot be enclosed or cultivated without permission of the legislature, can only be proportionate to the actual yearly produce; and as land in a natural state yields little or nothing, all legal claims upon it might be bought up at a trifling expense, or might be commuted for a very small annual payment to be made by the settlers. Of the perfect competence of Parliament to direct some arrangement of this kind, there can be no question. An authority which compels individuals to part with their most valued property on the slightest pretext of public convenience, and permits railway projectors to throw down family mansions and cut up favourite pleasure grounds, need not be very scrupulous about forcing the sale of boggy meadows or mountain pastures, in order to obtain the means of curing the destitution and misery of an entire people.”[*]
It would be desirable, and in most cases necessary, that the tracts of land should be prepared for the labours of the peasant, by being drained and intersected with roads at the expense of Government; the interest of the sums so expended, and of the compensation paid for existing rights to the waste land, being charged on it when reclaimed as a perpetual quit-rent, redeemable at a moderate number of years’ purchase. The state would thus incur no loss, while the advances made would give that immediate employment to the surplus labour of Ireland, which if not given in this manner, will assuredly have to be given in some other, not only less useful, but far less likely to repay its cost. The millions lavished during the famine in the almost nominal execution of useless works, without any result but that of keeping the people alive, would, if employed in a great operation on the waste lands, have been quite as effectual for relieving immediate distress, and would have laid the foundation broad and deep for something really deserving the name of social improvement. But, as usual, it was thought better to throw away money and exertion in a beaten track, than to take the responsibility of the most advantageous investment of them in an untrodden one.
§ 7. [Resources supplementary to the waste lands] If after the superabundant evidence elicited in the Irish inquiries, of the extent and capability of improvement of the waste lands, the reader can doubt their sufficiency for home colonization on such a scale as to effect with benefit to everybody the “clearing” of all Ireland; there are yet other means, by which not a little could be done in the dissemination of peasant proprietors over even the existing area of cultivation. There is at the present time an experiment in progress, in more than one part of England, for the creation of peasant proprietors. The project is of Chartist origin, and its first colony is now in full operation near Richmansworth, in Hertfordshire. The plan is as follows:—Funds were raised aby subscription, and vested ina a joint-stock company. With part of these funds an estate of several hundred acres was bought. This estate was divided into portions of two, three, and four acres, on each of which a house was erected by the Association. These holdings were let to select labourers, to whom also such sums were advanced as were thought to amount to a sufficient capital for cultivation by spade labour. An annual payment, affording to the Company an interest of five per cent on their outlay, was laid on the several holdings as a fixed quit-rent, never in any circumstances to be raised. The tenants bareb thus proprietors from the first, and their redemption of the quit-rent, by saving from the produce of their labour, is desired and calculated upon.
cThe originator of this experiment appears to have successfully repelled (before a tribunal by no means prepossessed in his favour, a Committee of the House of Commons) the imputations which were lavished upon his project, and upon his mode of executing it. Should its issue ultimatelyc be unfavourable, d the cause of failure will be in the details of management, not in the principle. These well-conceived arrangements afford [a mode in which private capital may] co-operate [in renovating the social and agricultural economy of Ireland, not only without sacrifice but with considerable profit to its owners. The remarkable success of the Waste Land Improvement Society, which proceeded on a plan far less advantageous to the tenant, is an instance of what an Irish peasantry can be stimulated to do, by a sufficient assurance that what they do will be for their own advantage. It is not] [indispensable to]1 begin at once with a perpetuity[; long leases at moderate rents, like those of the Waste Land Society, would suffice, if a prospect were held out to the farmers of being allowed to purchase their farms with the capital which they might acquire, as the Society’s tenants were so rapidly acquiring under the influence of its beneficent system.]2 It would be a boon to allow them to become purchasers of the land even at the value given to it by their own labour: and though, on the part of government, to take such an advantage of their exertions would be most ungenerous and illiberal, it would be allowable in private capitalists undertaking a work of national benefit as an advantageous investment of capital. [eWhen the lands weree sold, the funds of the association would be liberated, and it might recommence operations in some other quarter.]3
Nor is it only by joint-stock associations, and the introduction of English capital, that this system might be acted upon: it would be most advantageous to every individual landowner in the distressed counties, who has any funds which he can freely dispose of. Under the new Irish poor law, there are no means for the landlords of escaping ruin, unless, by some potent stimulant to the industrial energies of the people, they can largely increase the produce of agriculture: and since there is no stimulant available, so potent as a permanent interest in the soil, either the present landlords, or those English mortgagees to whom the estates of the more impoverished landowners must inevitably pass, would find it to their advantage, if not to grant at once this permanent interest to their tenants, at least to hold out to them the prospect of acquiring it. The government, too, into whose hands no small portion of the land of Ireland may be expected to fall, in consequence of unrepaid advances, either past or yet to come, will have a noble opportunity of rendering the acquisition instrumental to the formation of a peasant proprietary: but, to the state, it would be most discreditable to seek for profit at the expense of the peasantry; and whether the fownershipsf were granted immediately or only held out in prospect, the rent or price should be no more than sufficient to repay the state for its advances.
Book II, Chapter x (“Means of Abolishing Cottier Tenancy”), § 3, 4th edition (1857), collated with the earlier editions and the MS1
a§ 3.a [Probable consequences of the measures recommended] When the bdifficulties of governing a country whose social system requires not ordinary amendment but radical change,b shall be met instead of cbeingc evaded, by men capable of rising superior both to their own indolence and prejudices and to those of others; we may hope to see, from the present lazy, apathetic, reckless, improvident and lawless Ireland, a new Ireland arise, consisting of peasant proprietors with something to lose, and of hired labourers with something to gain; the former dpeaceful and industriousd through the possession of property, the latter through the hope of it; while the agriculture of e Ireland would be fpartlyf conducted on the best system of small cultivation, gand partlyg on the best principles of large farming and combination of labour. hNor wouldh it be too much to hope, that when the number of hired labourers was duly proportioned to the soil on which they were employed, and a peaceful “clearing” had made the country safe for English capital to dwell in, the rate of wages would be sufficient to establish a tolerably high standard of living; and ithati the spirit of saving, fostered by the desire of acquiring land, jmightj prevent that standard from being again depressed through an imprudent increase of kpopulation.k
In the complication of human affairs, the actual effects of causes, whether salutary or injurious, remain always far short of their tendencies. But history is not without examples of changes, similar in kind to that which I have been sketching, and the results of them are not uninstructive. [lThree times during the course of] French history, [the peasantry have been purchasers of land; and these times immediately preceded the three principal eras of French agricultural prosperity.
“Aux temps les plus mauvais,” says the historian Michelet,* “aux moments de pauvreté universelle, où le riche même est pauvre et vend par force, alors le pauvre se trouve en état d’acheter; nul acquéreur ne se présentant, le paysan en guenilles arrive avec sa pièce d’or, et il acquiert un bout de terre. Ces moments de désastre où le paysan a pu acquérir la terre à bon marché, ont toujours été suivis d’un élan subit de fécondité qu’on ne s’expliquait pas. Vers 1500, par exemple, quand la France épuisée par Louis XI. semble achever sa ruine en Italie, la noblesse qui part est obligée de vendre; la terre, passant à de nouvelles mains, refleurit tout-à-coup; on travaille, on bâtit. Ce beau moment (dans le style de l’histoire monarchique) s’est appelé le bon Louis XII.
“Il dure peu, malheureusement. La terre est à peine remise en bon état, le fisc fond dessus; les guerres de religion arrivent, qui semblent raser tout jusqu’au sol, misères horribles, famines atroces où les mères mangeaient leurs enfants. Qui croirait que le pays se relève de là? Eh bien, la guerre finit à peine, de ce champ ravagé, de cette chaumière encore noire et brulée, sort l’épargne du paysan. Il achète; en dix ans, la France a changé de face; en vingt ou trente, tous les biens ont doublé, triplé de valeur. Ce moment encore baptisé d’un nom royal, s’appelle le bon Henri IV. et le grand Richelieu.”
Of the third era it is needless magainm to speak: it was that of the Revolution.
Whoever would study the reverse of the picture, may compare these historic periods, characterized by the dismemberment of large and the construction of small properties, with the wide-spread national suffering which accompanied, and the permanent deterioration of the condition of the labouring classes which followed, the “clearing” away of small yeomen to make room for large grazing farms, which was the grand economical event of English history during the sixteenth century.l]2
[I have concluded a discussion, which has] already [occupied a space almost disproportioned to the dimensions of this work; and I here close the examination of those simpler forms of social economy in which the produce of the land either belongs undividedly to one class, or is shared only between two classes. We now proceed to the hypothesis of a threefold division of the produce, among labourers, landlords, and capitalists: and in order to connect the coming discussions as closely as possible with those which have now for some time occupied us, I shall commence with the subject of Wages.]3
Book IV, Chapter vii (“On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes”), §§ 5-6, 2nd edition (1849), collated with the 1st edition.1
§ 5. [Examples of the association of the labourers in the profits of industrial undertakings] aIt is this feeling, almost as much as despair of the improvement of the condition of the labouring masses by other means, which has caused so great a multiplication of projects for the “organization of industry” by the extension and development of the co-operative or joint stock principle: some of the more conspicuous of which have been described and characterized in an early chapter of this work. It is most desirable that all these schemes should have opportunity and encouragement to test their capabilities by actual experiment. There are, in almost all of them, many features, in themselves well worth submitting to that test; while, on the other hand, the exaggerated expectations entertained by large and growing multitudes in all the principal nations of the world, concerning what it is possible, in the present state of human improvement, to effect by such means, have no chance of being corrected except by a fair trial in practice. The French Revolution of February 1848, at first seemed to have opened a fair field for the trial of such experiments, on a perfectly safe scale, and with every advantage that could be derived from the countenance of a government which sincerely desired their success. It is much to be regretted that these prospects have been frustrated, and that the reaction of the middle class against anti-property doctrines has engendered for the present an unreasoning and undiscriminating antipathy to all ideas, however harmless or however just, which have the smallest savour of Socialism. This is a disposition of mind, of which the influential classes, both in France and elsewhere, will find it necessary to divest themselves. Socialism has now become irrevocably one of the leading elements in European politics. The questions raised by it will not be set at rest by merely refusing to listen to it; but only by a more and more complete realization of the ends which Socialism aims at, not neglecting its means so far as they can be employed with advantage.
On the particular point specially considered in the present chapter, those means have been, to a certain extent, put in practice in several departments of existing industry; by arrangements giving toa [every one who contributes to the work,]2 whether [by labour or by pecuniary resources,]3b [a partner’s interest in it,]4 proportionally [to the value of his contribution. It is already a common practice to remunerate those in whom peculiar trust is reposed by means of a percentage on the profits; and cases exist in which the principle is, with]5 the most [excellent success, carried down to the class of mere manual labourers.
In the American ships trading to China, it has long been the custom for every sailor to have an interest in the profits of the voyage; and to this has been ascribed the general good conduct of those seamen, and the extreme rarity of any collision between them and the government or people of the country. An instance in England]6 itself[, not so well known as it deserves to be, is that of the Cornish miners. “In Cornwall the mines are worked strictly on the system of joint adventure; gangs of miners contracting with the agent, who represents the owner of the mine, to execute a certain portion of a vein, and fit the ore for market, at the price of so much in the pound of the sum for which the ore is sold. These contracts are put up at certain regular periods, generally every two months, and taken by a voluntary partnership of men accustomed to the mine. This system has its disadvantages, in consequence of the uncertainty and irregularity of the earnings, and consequent necessity of living for long periods on credit; but it has advantages which more than counterbalance these drawbacks. It produces a degree of intelligence, independence, and moral elevation, which raise the condition and character of the Cornish miner far above that of the generality of the labouring class. We are told by Dr. Barham, that ‘they are not only, as a class, intelligent for labourers, but men of considerable knowledge.’ Also, that ‘they have a character of independence, something American, the system by which the contracts are let giving the takers entire freedom to make arrangements among themselves; so that each man feels, as a partner in his little firm, that he meets his employers on nearly equal terms.’ . . . With this basis of intelligence and independence in their character, we are not surprised when we hear that ‘a very great number of miners are now located on possessions of their own, leased for three lives or ninety-nine years, on which they have built houses;’ or that ‘281,541l. are deposited in]7 savings [banks in Cornwall, of which two-thirds are estimated to belong to miners.’ ”*
Mr. Babbage, who also gives an account of this system, observes† that the payment to the crews of whaling ships is governed by a similar principle; and that “the profits arising from fishing with nets on the south coast of England are thus divided: one-half the produce belongs to the owner of the boat and net; the other half is divided in equal portions between the persons using it, who are also bound to assist in repairing the net when required.” Mr. Babbage has the great merit of having pointed out the practicability, and the advantage, of extending the principle to manufacturing industry generally.]8 I venture to quote the principal part of his observations on the subject.
“The general principles on which the proposed system is founded, are—1st. That a considerable part of the wages received by each person employed, should depend on the profits made by the establishment; and 2nd. That every person connected with it should derive more advantage from applying any improvement he might discover, to the factory in which he is employed, than he could by any other course.
“It would be difficult to prevail on the large capitalist to enter upon any system, which would change the division of the profits arising from the employment of his capital in setting skill and labour in action; any alteration, therefore, must be expected rather from the small capitalist, or from the higher class of workmen, who combine the two characters; and to these latter classes, whose welfare will be first affected, the change is most important. I shall therefore first point out the course to be pursued in making the experiment; and then, taking a particular branch of trade as an illustration, I shall examine the merits and defects of the proposed system as applied to it.
“Let us suppose, in some large manufacturing town, ten or twelve of the most intelligent and skilful workmen to unite, whose characters for sobriety and steadiness are good, and are well known among their class. Such persons will each possess some small portion of capital; and let them join with one or two others who have raised themselves into the class of small master-manufacturers, and therefore possess rather a larger portion of capital. Let these persons, after well considering the subject, agree to establish a manufactory of fire-irons and fenders; and let us suppose that each of the ten workmen can command forty pounds, and each of the small capitalists possesses two hundred pounds: thus they have a capital of 800l., with which to commence business, and for the sake of simplifying, let us further suppose the labour of each of these twelve persons to be worth two pounds a week. One portion of their capital will be expended in procuring the tools necessary for their trade, which we shall take at 400l., and this must be considered as their fixed capital. The remaining 400l. must be employed as circulating capital, in purchasing the iron with which their articles are made, in paying the rent of their workshops, and in supporting themselves and their families until some portion of it is replaced by the sale of the goods produced.
“Now the first question to be settled is, what proportion of the profit should be allowed for the use of capital, and what for skill and labour? It does not seem possible to decide this question by any abstract reasoning: if the capital supplied by each partner is equal, all difficulty will be removed; if otherwise, the proportion must be left to find its level, and will be discovered by experience; and it is probable that it will not fluctuate much. Suppose it to be agreed that the capital of 800l. shall receive the wages of one workman. At the end of each week, every workman is to receive one pound as wages, and one pound is to be divided amongst the owners of the capital. After a few weeks the returns will begin to come in; and they will soon become nearly uniform. Accurate accounts should be kept of every expense and of all the sales; and at the end of each week the profit should be divided. A certain portion should be laid aside as a reserved fund, another portion for repair of the tools, and the remainder being divided into thirteen parts, one of these parts would be divided amongst the capitalists and one belong to each workman. Thus each man would, in ordinary circumstances, make up his usual wages of two pounds weekly. If the factory went on prosperously, the wages of the men would increase; if the sales fell off, they would be diminished. It is important that every person employed in the establishment, whatever might be the amount paid for his services, whether he act as labourer or porter, or as the clerk who keeps the accounts, or as book-keeper employed for a few hours once a week to superintend them, should receive one-half of what his service is worth in fixed salary, the other part varying with the success of the undertaking.
“The result of such arrangements in a factory would be,
“1. That every person engaged in it would have a direct interest in its prosperity; since the effect of any success, or falling off, would almost immediately produce a corresponding change in his own weekly receipts.
“2. Every person concerned in the factory would have an immediate interest in preventing any waste or mismanagement in all the departments.
“3. The talents of all connected with it would be strongly directed to improvement in every department.
“4. None but workmen of high character and qualifications could obtain admission into such establishments, because when any additional hands were required, it would be the common interest of all to admit only the most respectable and skilful, and it would be far less easy to impose upon a dozen workmen than upon the single proprietor of a factory.
“5. When any circumstance produced a glut in the market, more skill would be directed to diminishing the cost of production; and a portion of the time of the men might then be occupied in repairing and improving their tools, for which a reserved fund would pay, thus checking present, and at the same time facilitating future production.
“6. Another advantage, of no small importance, would be the total removal of all real or imaginary causes for combinations. The workmen and the capitalist would so shade into each other—would so evidently have a common interest, and their difficulties and distresses would be mutually so well understood, that instead of combining to oppress one another, the only combination which could exist would be a most powerful union between both parties to overcome their common difficulties.
“One of the difficulties attending such a system is, that capitalists would at first fear to embark in it, imagining that the workmen would receive too large a share of the profits: and it is quite true that the workmen would have a larger share than at present: but at the same time, it is presumed the effect of the whole system would be, that the total profits of the establishment being much increased, the smaller proportion allowed to capital under this system would yet be greater in actual amount, than that which results to it from the larger share in the system now existing.
“A difficulty would occur also in discharging workmen who behaved ill, or who were not competent to their work; this would arise from their having a certain interest in the reserved fund, and perhaps from their possessing a certain portion of the capital employed; but without entering into detail, it may be observed, that such cases might be determined on by meetings of the whole establishment; and that if the policy of the laws favoured such establishments, it would scarcely be more difficult to enforce just regulations than it now is to enforce some which are unjust by means of combinations either amongst the masters or the men.”[*]
In this imaginary case, it is supposed that each labourer brings some small portion of capital into the concern: but the principle is equally applicable to the ordinary case, in which the whole capital belongs to an individual capitalist. An application of it to such a case is actually in progress, by a Paris tradesman, a house-painter, M. Leclaire.* The intelligent author of this meritorious experiment, published a pamphlet in the year 1842, descriptive of his system of operations; to which attention was first directed by M. Duveyrier, in his Lettres Politiques, and a full abstract of which has been published in Chambers’ Journal.† M. Leclaire [employs on an average two hundred workmen, whom he pays in the usual manner, by fixed wages or salaries. He assigns to himself, besides interest for his capital, a fixed allowance for his labour and responsibility as manager. At the end of the year, the surplus profits are divided among the c body, himself included, in the proportion of their d salaries.‡ The reasons by which M. Leclaire was led to adopt this system are]9 interesting and [instructive. Finding the conduct of his workmen unsatisfactory, he first tried the effect of giving higher wages, and by this he managed to obtain a body of excellent workmen, who would not quit his service for any other. “Having thus succeeded” (I quote from]10 the [abstract] [in Chambers’ Journal,] “in producing some sort of stability in the] arrangements [of his establishment, M. Leclaire expected, he says, to enjoy greater peace of mind. In this, however, he was disappointed. So long as he was able to superintend everything himself, from the general concerns of his business down to its minutest details, he did enjoy a certain satisfaction; but from the moment that, owing to the increase of his business, he found that he could be nothing more than the centre from which orders were issued, and to which reports were brought in, his former anxiety and discomfort returned upon him.” He speaks lightly of the other sources of anxiety to which a tradesman is subject, but describes as an incessant cause of vexation the losses arising from the misconduct of workmen. An employer “will find workmen whose indifference to his interests is such that they do not perform two-thirds of the amount of work which they are capable of; hence the continual fretting of masters, who, seeing their interests neglected, believe themselves entitled to suppose that workmen are constantly conspiring to ruin those from whom they derive their livelihood. If the journeyman were sure of constant employment, his position would in some respects be more enviable than that of the master, because he is assured of a certain amount of day’s wages, which he will get whether he works much or little. He runs no risk, and has no other motive to stimulate him to do his best than his own sense of duty. The master, on the other hand, depends greatly on chance for his returns: his position is one of continual irritation and anxiety. This would no longer be the case to the same extent, if the interests of the master and those of the workmen were bound up with each other, connected by some bond of mutual security, such as that which would be obtained by the plan of a yearly division of profits.”
eEven in the first year during which M. Leclaire’s experiment was in complete operation, the success wase remarkable. Not one of his journeymen who worked as many as three hundred days, earned in that year less than 1500 francs, and some considerably more. His highest rate of daily wages being four francs, or 1200 francs for 300 days, the remaining 300 francs or 12l. must have been the smallest amount which any journeyman, who worked that number of days, obtained as his proportion of the surplus profit. M. Leclaire describes in strong terms the improvement which was already manifest in the habits and demeanour of his workmen, not merely when at work, and in their relations with their employer, but at other times and in other relations, showing increased respect both for others and for themselves.]11fThe system is still in operation; and we learn from [M. Chevalier]12 [that the increased zeal of the workpeople]13 continues [to be a full compensation to]14 M. Leclaire[, even in a pecuniary sense, for the share of profit which he]15 foregoes [in their favour.]*f16
Under this system, as well as under that recommended by Mr. Babbage, the labourers are, in reality, taken into partnership with their employer. Bringing nothing into the common concern but their labour, while he brings not only his labour of direction and superintendence but his capital also, they have justly a smaller share of the profits; this, however, is a matter of private arrangement in all partnerships: one partner has a large, another a small share, according to their agreement, grounded on the equivalent which is given by each. The essence, however, of a partnership is obtained, since each benefits by all things that are beneficial to the concern, and loses by all which are injurious. It is, in the fullest sense, the common concern of all.
§ 6. [Probable future developement of this principle] To this principle, in whatever form embodied, it seems to me that futurity has to look for obtaining the benefits of co-operation, without constituting the numerical majority of the co-operators an inferior caste. The objections that apply to a “co-operative society,” in the Communist or Owenite sense, in which, by force of giving to every member of the body a share in the common interest, no one has a greater share in it than another, are not applicable to what is now suggested. It is expedient that those, whose performance of the part assigned to them is the most essential to the common end, should have a greater amount of personal interest in the issue of the enterprise. If those who supply the funds, and incur the whole risk of the undertaking, obtained no greater reward or more influential voice than the rest, few would practise the abstinence through which those funds are acquired and kept in existence. Up to a certain point, however, the principle of giving to every person concerned an interest in the profits is an actual benefit to the capitalist, not only (as M. Leclaire has testified) in point of ease and comfort, but even in pecuniary advantage. And after the point of greatest benefit to the employers has been attained, the participation of the labourers may be carried somewhat further without any material abatement from that maximum of benefit. At what point, in each employment of capital, this ultimatum is to be found, will one day be known and understood from experience; and up to that point it is not unreasonable to expect that the partnership principle will be, at no very distant time, extended.
The value of this “organization of industry,” for healing the widening and embittering feud between the class of labourers and the class of capitalists, must, I think, impress itself by degrees on all who habitually reflect on the condition and tendencies of modern society. I cannot conceive how any such person can persuade himself that the majority of the community will for ever, or even for much longer, consent to hew wood and draw water all their lives in the service and for the benefit of others; or can doubt, that they will be less and less willing to co-operate as subordinate agents in any work, when they have no interest in the result, and that it will be more and more difficult to obtain the best work-people, or the best services of any work-people, except on conditions similar in principle to those of M. Leclaire. Although, therefore, arrangements of this sort are now in their infancy, their multiplication and growth, when once they enter into the general domain of popular discussion, are among the things which may most confidently be expected.
Appendix to Volume II in the 4th edition (1857). The information contained in this Appendix came to John Stuart Mill’s notice too late for incorporation into the text of the 4th edition;1 in the 5th and subsequent editions it was incorporated into Book IV, Chapter vii (“On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes”), §§ 5-6.2
Latest Information on the French Industrial Associations. (From “Nouveau Traité d’Economie Politique,” by M. Villiaumé, Paris, 1857.)
1. Associations between the labourers and the employer.
[“En Mars 1847, M. Paul Dupont, gérant d’une imprimerie de Paris, eut l’idée d’associer ses ouvriers en leur promettant le dixième des bénéfices. Il en emploie habituellement trois cents, dont deux cents travaillent aux pièces et cent à la journée. Il emploie, en outre, cent auxiliaires, qui ne font pas partie de l’association.
“La part de bénéfice avenant aux ouvriers ne leur vaut guère, en moyenne, qu’une quinzaine de jours de travail; mais ils reçoivent leur salaire ordinaire suivant le tarif établi dans toutes les grandes imprimeries de Paris; et, de plus, ils ont l’avantage d’être soignés dans leurs maladies aux frais de la communauté, et de recevoir 1 fr. 50 cent. de salaire par jour d’incapacité de travail. Les ouvriers ne peuvent retirer leur part dans les bénéfices que quand ils sortent de l’association. Chaque année, cette part, qui est représentée tant en matériel qu’en rentes sur l’Etat, s’augmente par la capitalisation des intérêts, et crée ainsi une réserve à l’ouvrier.
“M. Dupont et les capitalistes, ses commanditaires, trouvent dans cette association un profit bien supérieur à celui qu’ils auraient; les ouvriers, de leur côté, se félicitent chaque jour de l’heureuse idée de leur patron. Plusieurs d’entre eux, encouragés à la réussite de l’établissement, lui ont fait obtenir une médaille d’or en 1849, une médaille d’honneur à l’Exposition Universelle de 1855; et quelques-uns même ont reçu personellement la récompense de leurs découvertes et de leurs travaux. Chez un patron ordinaire, ces braves gens n’auraient pas eu le loisir de poursuivre leurs inventions, à moins que d’en laisser tout l’honneur à celui qui n’en était pas l’auteur; tandis qu’étant associés, si le patron eût été injuste, deux cents hommes eussent fait redresser ses torts.
“J’ai visité moi-même cet établissement, et j’ai pu m’assurer du perfectionnement que cette association apporte aux habitudes des ouvriers.
“M. Gisquet, ancien préfet de police, est propriétaire depuis long-temps d’une fabrique d’huile à Saint-Denis, qui est la plus importante de France, après celle de M. Darblay, de Corbeil. Lorsqu’en 1848 il prit le parti de la diriger lui-même, il rencontra des ouvriers habitués à s’enivrer plusieurs fois par semaine, et qui, pendant le travail, chantaient, fumaient, et quelquefois se disputaient. On avait maintes fois essayé sans succès de changer cet état de choses; il y parvint par la prohibition faite à tous ses ouvriers de s’enivrer les jours de travail, sous peine d’exclusion, et par la promesse de partager entre eux, à titre de gratification annuelle, 5 p. 100 de ses bénéfices nets, au pro rata des salaires, qui, du reste, sont fixés aux prix courants. Depuis ce moment, la réforme a été complète; il se voit entouré d’une centaine d’ouvriers pleins de zèle et de dévouement. Leur bien-être s’est accru de tout ce qu’ils ne dépensent pas en boissons, et de ce qu’ils gagnent par leur exactitude au travail. La gratification que M. Gisquet leur accorde, leur a valu, en moyenne, chaque année, l’équivalent de leur salaire pendant six semaines.]3
“L’un des patrons qui comprirent le mieux l’association avec les ouvriers est M. Leclaire, entrepreneur de peinture en bâtiments, à Paris. Dès 1842, sur les conseils de quelques économistes, il associa ses deux cents ouvriers, en leur promettant la moitié du bénéfice net outre leur salaire, qui était toujours au moins égal au taux courant. Une amélioration extraordinaire se manifesta tout à coup dans les habitudes de ses ouvriers, qui devinrent des modèles d’exactitude et de probité. M. Leclaire introduisit l’usage du blanc de zinc au lieu du blanc de céruse, qui était souvent mortel pour les ouvriers. Les immenses travaux que lui nécessita cette heureuse innovation l’ont tellement fatigué, qu’il se vit forcé de s’adjoindre deux associés en titre, qu’il choisit parmi ses anciens ouvriers; et depuis 1853, la part du bénéfice partagée entre les ouvriers n’est plus que du quart, ce dont ceux-ci sont encore satisfaits. Quant à M. Leclaire, quoiqu’il [ait toujours banni la fraude, qui n’est que trop fréquente dans sa profession, il a toujours pu soutenir la concurrence et acquérir une belle aisance, malgré l’abandon d’une si large part de ses profits. Assurément, il n’y est parvenu que parce que l’activité inusitée de ses ouvriers, et la surveillance qu’ils exerçaient les uns sur les autres dans les nombreux chantiers, avaient compensé la diminution de ses profits personnels.”]4
[“M. Beslay, ancien député de 1830 à 1839, et représentant du peuple à l’Assemblée constituante, a fondé un atelier important de machines à vapeur à Paris, dans le faubourg du Temple. Il eut l’idée d’associer dans ce dernier établissement ses ouvriers, dès le commencement de 1847. Je transcris ici cet acte d’association, que l’on peut regarder comme l’un des plus complets de tous ceux faits entre patrons et ouvriers.”]5
2. Associations of labourers among themselves.
“Dès 1851, il existait à Paris environ cent cinquante associations d’ouvriers qui avaient réussi, la plupart même sans aucun secours. Les événements politiques de la fin de cette année, et les rivalités de patrons jaloux, en firent dissoudre le plus grand nombre. L’on n’en compte plus en 1857 que vingt-trois à Paris, qui, presque toutes, prospèrent. Je vais brièvement examiner la situation de quelques-unes.
[“Après les journées de juin 1848, le travail était suspendu dans le faubourg Saint-Antoine, occupé surtout, comme on le sait, par les fabricants de meubles. Quelques menuisiers en fauteuils firent un appel à ceux qui seraient disposés à travailler ensemble. Sur six à sept cents de cette profession, quatre cents se firent inscrire. Mais comme le capital manquait, neuf hommes des plus zélés commencèrent l’association avec tout ce qu’ils possédaient; savoir, une valeur de 369 francs en outils, et 135 francs 20 centimes en argent.
“Leur bon goût, leur loyauté et l’exactitude de leurs fournitures augmentant leurs débouchés, les associés furent bientôt au nombre de cent huit. Ils reçurent de l’Etat une avance de 25 mille francs, remboursables en quatorze ans par annuité, à raison de 3 fr. 75 c. pour cent d’intérêt.
“En 1857, le nombre des associés est de soixante-cinq, celui des auxiliaires de cent en moyenne. Tous les associés votent pour l’election d’un conseil d’administration de huit membres, et d’un gérant, dont le nom représente la raison sociale. La distribution et la surveillance du travail dans les ateliers sont confiées à des contremaîtres choisis par le gérant et le conseil. Il y a un contre-maître pour vingt ou vingt-cinq hommes.
“Le travail est payé aux pièces, suivant les tarifs arrêtés en assemblée générale. Le salaire peut varier entre 3 et 7 francs par jour, selon le zèle et l’habileté de l’ouvrier. La moyenne est de 50 francs par quinzaine. Ceux qui gagnent le moins touchent près de 40 francs par quinzaine. Un grand nombre gagnent 80 francs. Des sculpteurs et mouluriers gagnent jusqu’à 100 francs, soit 200 francs par mois. Chacun s’engage à fournir cent-vingt heures par quinzaine, soit dix heures par jour. Aux termes du réglement chaque heure de déficit soumet le délinquant à une amende de 10 centimes par heure en-deça de trente heures, et de 15 centimes au-delà. Cette disposition avait pour objet d’abolir l’habitude du lundi, et elle a produit son effet. Depuis deux ans, le système des amendes est tombé en désuetude, à cause de la bonne conduite des associés.
“Quoique l’apport des associés n’ait été que de 369 francs, le matériel d’exploitation appartenant à l’établissement* s’élevait déjà, en 1851, à 5713 francs, et l’avoir social, y compris les créances, à 24,000 francs. Depuis lors cette association est devenue plus florissante, ayant resisté à tous les obstacles qui lui ont été suscités. Cette maison est la plus forte de Paris dans son genre, et la plus considérée. Elle fait des affaires pour 400 mille francs par an. Voici son inventaire de décembre 1855.
[“L’association des maçons fut fondée le 10 août 1848. Elle a son siége rue Saint-Victor, 155. Le nombre de ses membres est de 85, et celui de ses auxiliaires de trois à quatre cents. Elle a deux gérants à sa tête; l’un, chargé spécialement des constructions; l’autre, de l’administration. Les deux gérants passent pour les plus habiles entrepreneurs de maçonnerie de Paris, et ils se contentent d’un modeste traitement. Cette association vient de construire trois ou quatre des plus remarquables hôtels de la capitale. Bien qu’elle travaille avec plus d’économie que les entrepreneurs ordinaires, comme on ne la rembourse qu’à des termes éloignés, c’est surtout pour elle qu’une banque serait nécessaire, car elle a des avances considérables à faire. Néanmoins elle prospère, et la preuve en est dans le dividende de 56 pour 100 qu’a produit cette année son propre capital, et qu’elle a payé aux citoyens qui se sont associés à ses opérations.
“Cette association est formée d’ouvriers qui n’apportent que leur travail; d’autres qui apportent leur travail et un capital quelconque; enfin de citoyens qui ne travaillent point, mais qui se sont associés en fournissant un capital.”
“Les maçons se livrent le soir à un enseignement mutuel. Chez eux, comme chez les fabricants de fauteuils, le malade est soigné aux frais de la société, et reçoit en outre un salaire durant sa maladie. Chacun est protégé par l’association dans tous les actes de sa vie. Les fabricants de fauteuils auront bientôt chacun un capital de deux ou trois mille francs à leur disposition, soit pour doter leurs filles, soit pour commencer une réserve pour l’avenir. Quant aux maçons, quelques-uns possèdent déjà 4000 francs d’épargnes qui restent au fonds social.
“Avant qu’ils fussent associés, ces ouvriers étaient pauvrement vêtus de la veste et de la blouse; parce que, faute de prévoyance, et surtout à cause du chômage, ils n’avaient jamais une somme disponible de 60 francs pour acheter une redingote. Aujourd’hui, la plupart sont vêtus aussi bien que les bourgeois; quelquefois même avec plus de goût. Cela tient à ce que l’ouvrier, ayant un crédit dans son association, trouve partout ce dont il a besoin sur un bon qu’il souscrit; et la caisse retient chaque quinzaine une partie de la somme à éteindre. De la sorte, l’épargne se fait, pour ainsi dire, malgré l’ouvrier. Plusieurs même, n’ayant plus de dettes, se souscrivent à eux-mêmes des bons de 100 francs payables en cinq mois, afin de résister à la tentation des dépenses inutiles. On leur retient 10 francs par quinzaine; et au bout des cinq mois, bon gré, mal gré, ils trouvent ce petit capital épargné.”]7
[“J’ai pu me convaincre par moi-même de l’habileté]8 du choix [des gérants et des conseils d’administration des associations ouvrières. Ces gérants sont bien supérieurs pour l’intelligence, le zèle, et même pour la politesse, à la plupart des patrons ou entrepreneurs particuliers. Et chez les ouvriers associés, les funestes habitudes d’intempérance disparaissent peu à peu, avec la grossièreté et la rudesse qui sont la conséquence de la trop incomplète éducation de leur classe.”]9
The MS of the Principles
the only known ms of the Principles is that in the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.* It is the press-copy MS of Vol. I of the 1st edition, bound in three volumes, half-green morocco, the MS volumes containing, respectively, Book I; Book II; and Chapters i-vi of Book III, with the Appendix to Vol. I. The folios of MS Vols. I and II are watermarked 1846; those of Vol. III are watermarked 1829 and 1833, but were undoubtedly prepared at the same time as those of the other volumes. The binding paper, however, is watermarked 1878 (five years after Mill’s death), and the original folios may not have been cut to their present size (circa 24c. × 18.5c.) until that time.
The text is written on recto, with the verso sheets reserved for notes and revisions. (This is one of the two methods usually employed by Mill, the other being to write on the right-hand side of both recto and verso, reserving the left-hand side for notes and revisions.) The sheets are gathered usually into groups of twenty which are lettered sequentially in Mill’s hand from A to Bb (L, which would occur on the first folio of Vol. II, does not appear, as the folio is missing). The first volume is numbered 1-66, 66x, 67-187, and 1-40. Neither the Table of Contents nor the Preface is here, and the “Preliminary Remarks” of the printed editions appear as Chapter i, so the chapter numbers differ. The second volume is numbered 2-139, 1-60, and 1-58, the first folio, as noted above, being missing; also ff135 and 136 have been misbound between ff129 and 130. The third volume is numbered 1-60, and 1-16, the last 16ff being the Appendix to Vol. I of the printed text, consisting here of pasted-up columns from the Morning Chronicle, linked and altered in ink by Mill. Printers’ marks and signatures are found throughout.
As indicated in the Textual Introduction, the MS is heavily revised, almost every folio containing cancellations and interlineations. Most of the cancellations are trivial (many are false starts); many are virtually indecipherable. In the following illustrative examples the early readings are sometimes tentative.
The longest revision evidently took place in Book I, Chapter ix, §2 (on joint-stock management), which appears in the MS on slightly smaller sheets in a different pen. The earlier version must have been rejected in full, as the beginning of this first version of §2 is cancelled on the last full-sized folio, and the beginning of §3 is found on the last of the smaller folios, where the last line does not reach the margin. (These folios are watermarked like those in MS Vol. III.)
Trivial changes are very frequent; I.97.35, “considerable”, will serve as example. The final MS reading is “material”, but Mill wrote and then cancelled “great” and “large”, interlined and cancelled “considerable”, and finally interlined “material”. There are other places where Mill restored cancelled readings (evidently) in proof; for example at I.135.31, where the cancelled “advantages” replaces the MS “recommendations” in the printed version. In a few places proof corrections were necessary to clear up tangles created by the MS revisions. For example at I.187.34-5, in altering by cancellation and interlineation “the improvements which in the arts of production” to “the improvements which facilitate production”, Mill forgot to cancel “of” in the MS, but it was caught in proof. A similar change which was not caught in proof, and so is recorded as a variant,] may be seen at I.188i-i, where Mill cancelled “properties of the soil” and interlined “niggardliness of nature” without altering the verb “are” to the singular. A printer’s error which led to a revision is seen at I.110k-k, where Mill wrote “the direst waste of wealth”, which the typesetter read as “the direct waste of wealth”; in looking over the passage in 1852 (and probably puzzling over his apparent choice of words), Mill must have seen “direct” used again six lines lower in the next sentence, and so changed the reading to the final “the most obvious part of the waste of wealth”.
One typical example of the extent of revision will illustrate Mill’s habits. At I.67, a paragraph ends: “I conceive this to be one of the many errors arising in political economy, from the practice of not beginning with the examination of simple cases, but rushing at once into the complexity of concrete phenomena.” The earliest MS version read, after “rushing”, “at once into the complication of concrete phenomena, without having obtained a clue to disentangle them, & hence seeing only a part of the facts which are relevant to the point in consideration.” A first revision altered “point in consideration” to “matter”; a second resulted in the reading, “into the complexity of concrete phenomena, without first obtaining a clue to disentangle it”; and the final reading was reached in proof. (Such passages were often altered again in later editions.)
The most interesting cancellations are, of course, the longer ones. In the 1st edition is found the following passage (an interesting anticipation of On Liberty), which was altered in the 3rd edition:
The perfection of social arrangements would be to secure to all persons complete independence and freedom of action, subject to no restriction but that of not doing injury to others: but the scheme which we are considering abrogates this freedom entirely, and places every action of every member of the community under command.
In the MS (II.f9v) that sentence is added to replace the following cancelled one:
Deprive human life of all which this system would take away from it, & it would be reduced as I said before, to a sort of sentient vegetation; a state not so much superior as may be thought, to the condition of any of the other gregarious animals when they have enough to eat. [In these two passages I ignore internal revisions.]
An example of a cancelled passage not replaced will seem, to those who know Mill’s habits, even more typical. At I.368.20, between the sentences ending with “discussed” and beginning with “People,” the following sentences were cancelled in the MS:
The maladies of society are like the physical ailments of the wealthy Turk, whom the Swedish traveller Hasselquist was asked to prescribe for at Smyrna. The patient was dying of marasmus, & Hasselquist learning that he had a numerous harem, well knew what advice he needed, but forbore to give it, & prescribed some trifling palliative, knowing that any allusion to such a subject, besides being entirely useless, would be regarded as a mortal affront.
A longer example, tentatively reproducing all the stages of revision (ignoring only a few false starts), shows Mill in difficulty over one of his key notions, the distinction between Production and Distribution. Towards the end of his “Preliminary Remarks,” he first wrote the following sentences:
But though governments or nations can in some measure determine what institutions shall be established, it is not in their power to make those institutions have any other effects, than those which naturally belong to them. What are the effects of human institutions is as much a question of necessary laws & of strict science, as what are the effects of natural agencies. The laws, therefore, of the Distribution of Wealth, are as susceptible of scientific treatment as those of its production: the latter however are universal, & belong to all states of society equally, while the former are in a great measure different, according to the artificial circumstances of different societies; to ascertain the relation between these artificial circumstances & the differences in the distribution of wealth which are consequent on it, is the very scientific object which Political Economy, in this branch of it, proposes to itself. If mankind will produce wealth, they can do so according to invariable laws: the manner in which they will distribute it, is partly, & would on the supposition of perfect wisdom be wholly, in their own power to determine: but the necessary conditions of the power they can exercise over the distribution, & the manner in which it is affected by the various modes of conduct which society may think fit to adopt, are determined by laws as rigid, & as independent of human control, as the laws of Production itself.
[MS Vol. I.27r, 28r.]
The words “in their power” were altered to “in the power of either”, and then altered again to produce, with other revisions, the reading:
But though governments or nations can in some measure determine what institutions shall be established, they cannot arbitrarily determine how those institutions shall work; their operation when established is a question of necessary laws & strict science & quite as susceptible of scientific treatment as are the operation of natural agencies. Though [illegible word] difference is [illegible word], the laws of Production are universal, & belong equally to all states of society, while those of Distribution are in a great measure different, according to the artificial circumstances of different societies. Mankind can produce wealth only by conforming to the natural laws of its production; the manner in which they will distribute it, is partly, & would on the supposition of perfect knowledge be wholly, in their own power to determine, but the conditions of the power which they can exercise over the distribution, & the manner in which it is affected by the various modes of conduct which society may think fit to adopt, are determined by laws as rigid, & as independent of human control, as those of Production itself.
Immediately after this revision, Mill carried the beginning of the sentence starting “Mankind can” over to the verso of f26, writing:
Mankind can produce wealth, only by conforming to the natural laws of its production, while the manner in which they will distribute it,
Then, apparently going through the passage yet again, he cancelled all between “strict science” and “to the laws of Production”, and then decided to cancel the middle part of the account totally by drawing vertical lines through it; he then rewrote the final sentence, producing the last MS version, which is reproduced in the 1st edition with only one change (“, & as independent of human control,” being omitted from the last clause). Here is the 1848 version, with subsequent changes indicated in square brackets:
But though governments or nations can in some measure determine [3rd to 7th eds. nations have the power of deciding] what institutions shall be established [3rd to 7th eds. shall exist], they cannot arbitrarily determine how those institutions shall work. The conditions on which the power they possess over the distribution of wealth is dependent, and the manner in which the distribution is affected [5th to 7th eds. effected] by the various modes of conduct which society may think fit to adopt, are determined by laws as rigid as those of Production itself [3rd to 7th eds. are as much a subject for scientific enquiry as any of the physical laws of nature].
One final example will show the difficulty of reconstructing the heavily revised passages. The passage below, which is reproduced on the opposite page, is an attempt at reconstruction: the final reading is given in bold-face; the first two readings are given in italic, with square brackets to indicate the cancellations which led (with the italic interlineation) to the second reading; further revisions are given in ordinary roman type. (It should be realized that none of the readings but the last may have existed in complete form.)
Butthis seems to me adecidedmisunderstandingis intended to any ofof the matter in dispute.no [one intends any] disparagement [to] these classes of words, if not of things.Productionnot beingis notthe sole end of human existence, & the termof persons by refusing to their labour the name of productive, nor areunproductive,therefore,does not necessarily imply any stigma;norIt is not inwas nevertheir respective functions in the economy of society at all in questionintended to do so in the present case. The question is one of mere language & classification.here. [I.45.20–4; MS I.56]
The assumption is that the first reading was:
But no one intends any disparagement to these classes of persons by refusing to their labour the name of productive, nor are their respective functions in the economy of society at all in question here.
The second reading was:
But no disparagement is intended to any of these classes of persons by refusing to their labour the name of productive, nor are their respective functions in the economy of society at all in question here.
The third reading was:
But this seems to me a decided misunderstanding of words, if not of things. Production is not the sole end of human existence & the term unproductive, therefore, does not necessarily imply any stigma. It was never intended to do so in the present case. The question is one of mere language & classification.
(Here a false start in the penultimate sentence is ignored: Mill wrote “It is not in” and then cancelled “is not in”.) Finally he reached the ultimate MS reading:
But this seems to me a misunderstanding of the matter in dispute. Production not being the sole end of human existence, the term unproductive does not necessarily imply any stigma; nor was ever intended to do so in the present case. The question is one of mere language & classification.
The complexity and uncertainty of this reconstruction should illustrate the inutility of any attempt to reproduce in full the MS cancellations.
John Stuart Mill—Harriet Taylor Mill Correspondence
in view of John Stuart Mill’s account of Harriet Taylor’s part in the writing of the Principles,1 his dedication of the work to her,2 and his description of it as a “joint production” with her,3 it seems useful to include here those passages in their correspondence which refer specifically to the Principles.4 Unfortunately, Harriet Taylor’s side of the correspondence is lost, except for isolated items not here germane, and only part of John Stuart Mill’s survives. The passages printed below include all references in these letters to revisions for the 2nd and 4th editions. There is no record of the specific part she played in the writing of the first draft, in the revision for the press copy, or for the 3rd edition.5 (The revisions for the 5th, 6th, and 7th were made, of course, after her death.) This is not the place to consider in detail John Stuart Mill’s account of her role as co-author of the Principles, but it might be pointed out that the evidence given below concerns the revision of two important chapters (II, i and IV, vii), both of which were subject to major revisions again after the editions to which this evidence applies.
The letters quoted are all in the Sterling Library at Yale, except that quoted at II.1032n, which is in the Huntington Library. The numbers at the upper left of each letter are those used by the correspondents to indicate the sequence. The letters have no salutations; the dates have been regularized in form; a series of seven dots has been used to indicate omitted passages not dealing with the revisions. Superscript letters (for example, in “2d,” “Messrs,” etc.) have been lowered.
The 1st edition having sold quickly, Mill was urged into revision at the beginning of 1849, when Harriet (to be widowed in July) was at Pau.
19 Feb., 1849
I received your dear letter 11 on Saturday & this morning the first instalment of the Pol. Ec. This last I will send again (or as much of it as is necessary) when I have been able to make up my mind about it. The objections are I think very inconsiderable as to quantity—much less than I expected—but that paragraph, p. 248,6 in the first edit. which you object to so strongly & totally, is what has always seemed to me the strongest part of the argument (it is only what even Proudhon says against Communism)—& as omitting it after it has once been printed would imply a change of opinion, it is necessary to see whether the opinion has changed or not—yours has, in some respects at least, for you have marked strong dissent from the passage that “the necessaries of life when secure for the whole of life are scarcely more a subject of consciousness”7 &c. which was inserted on your proposition & very nearly in your words. This is probably only the progress we have been always making, & by thinking sufficiently I should probably come to think the same—as is almost always the case, I believe always when we think long enough. But here the being unable to discuss verbally stands sadly in the way, & I am now almost convinced that as you said at first, we cannot settle this 2d edit. by letter. We will try, but I now feel almost certain that we must adjourn the publication of the 2d edit. to November. In the new matter one of the sentences that you have cancelled is a favorite of mine, viz “It is probable that this will finally depend upon considerations not to be measured by the coarse standard which in the present state of human improvement is the only one that can be applied to it.”8 What I meant was that whether individual agency or Socialism would be best ultimately—(both being necessarily very imperfect now, & both susceptible of immense improvement) will depend on the comparative attractions they will hold out to human beings with all their capacities, both individual & social, infinitely more developed than at present. I do not think it is English improvement only that is too backward to enable this point to be ascertained for if English character is starved in its social part I think Continental is as much or even more so in its individual, & Continental people incapable of entering into the feelings which make very close contact with crowds of other people both disagreeable & mentally & morally lowering. I cannot help thinking that something like what I meant by the sentence, ought to be said though I can imagine good reasons for your disliking the way in which it is put. Then again if the sentence “the majority would not exert themselves for anything beyond this & unless they did nobody else would &c”9 is not tenable, then all the two or three pages of argument which precede & of which this is but the summary, are false, & there is nothing to be said against Communism at all—one would only have to turn round & advocate it—which if done would be better in a separate treatise & would be a great objection to publishing a 2d edit. until after such a treatise. I think I agree in all the other remarks. Fourrier10 if I may judge by Considerant is perfectly right about women both as to equality & marriage—& I suspect that Fourier himself went farther than his disciple thinks prudent in the directness of his recommendations. Considerant sometimes avails himself as Mr Fox used, of the sentimentalities & superstitions about purity, though asserting along with it all the right principles. But C. says that the Fourrierists are the only Socialists who are not orthodox about marriage—he forgets the Owenites, but I fear it is true of all the known Communist leaders in France—he says it specially of Buchez, Cabet, & what surprises one in Sand’s “guide, philosopher & friend” of Leroux. This strengthens one exceedingly in one’s wish to prôner the Fourrierists besides that their scheme of association seems to me much nearer to being practicable at present than Communism.
21 Feb., 1849
I despatched yesterday to the dear one an attempt at a revision of the objectionable passages.11 I saw on consideration that the objection to Communism on the ground of its making life a kind of dead level might admit of being weakened, (though I think it never could be taken away) consistently with the principle of Communism, though the Communistic plans now before the public could not do it. The statement of objections was moreover too vague & general. I have made it more explicit as well as more moderate; you will judge whether it is now sufficiently either one or the other; & altogether whether any objection can be maintained to Communism, except the amount of objection which, in the new matter I have introduced, is made to the present applicability of Fourierism.12 I think there can—& that the objections as now stated to Communism are valid: but if you do not think so, I certainly will not print it, even if there were no other reason than the certainty I feel that I never should long continue of an opinion different from yours on a subject which you have fully considered. I am going on revising the book: not altering much, but in one of the purely political economy parts which occurs near the beginning, viz. the discussion as to whether buying goods made by labour gives the same employment to labour as hiring the labourers themselves, I have added two or three pages of new explanation & illustration which I think make the case much clearer.13
14 March, 1849
What a nuisance it is having anything to do with printers—Though I had no reason to be particularly pleased with Harrison, I was alarmed at finding that Parker had gone to another, & accordingly, though the general type of the first edition is exactly copied, yet a thing so important as the type of the headings at the top of the page cannot be got right—you know what difficulty we had before—& now the headings, & everything else which is in that type, they first gave much too close & then much too wide, & say they have not got the exact thing, unless they have the types cast on purpose. Both the things they have produced seem to me detestable & the worst is that as Parker is sole owner of this edition I suppose I have no voice in the matter at all except as a point of courtesy. I shall see Parker today & tell him that I should have much preferred waiting till another season rather than having either of these types—but I suppose it is too late now to do any good—& perhaps Parker dragged out the time in useless delays before, on purpose that all troublesome changes might be avoided by hurry now. It is as disagreeable as a thing of the sort can possibly be—because it is necessary that something should be decided immediately without waiting for the decision of my only guide & oracle. If the effect should be to make the book an unpleasant object to the only eyes I wish it to please, how excessively I shall regret not having put off the edition till next season.
17(?) March, 1849
The bargain with Parker is a good one & that it is so is entirely your doing—all the difference between it & the last being wholly your work, as well as all the best of the book itself so that you have a redoubled title to your joint ownership of it. While I am on the subject I will say that the difficulty with the printer is surmounted—both he & Parker were disposed to be accommodating & he was to have the very same type from the very same foundry today—in the meantime there has been no time lost, as they have been printing very fast without the headings, & will I have no doubt keep their engagement as to time. You do not say anything this time about the bit of the P.E.—I hope you did not send it during the week, as if so it has miscarried—at the rate they are printing, both volumes at once, they will soon want it.
21 March, 1849
The Pol. Ec. packet came on Monday for which a thousand thanks. I have followed to the letter every recommendation. The sentence which you objected to in toto of course has come quite out.14 In explanation however of what I meant by it—I was not thinking of any mysterious change in human nature—but chiefly of this—that the best people now are necessarily so much cut off from sympathy with the multitudes that I should think they must have difficulty in judging how they would be affected by such an immense change in their whole circumstances as would be caused by having multitudes whom they could sympathize with—or in knowing how far the social feelings might then supply the place of that large share of solitariness & individuality which they cannot now dispense with. I meant one thing more, viz. that as, hereafter, the more obvious & coarser obstacles & objections to the community system will have ceased or greatly diminished, those which are less obvious & coarse will then step forward into an importance & require an attention which does not now practically belong to them & that we can hardly tell without trial what the result of that experience will be. I do not say that you cannot realize & judge of these things—but if you, & perhaps Shelley & one or two others in a generation can, I am convinced that to do so requires both great genius & great experience & I think it quite fair to say to common readers that the present race of mankind (speaking of them collectively) are not competent to it. I cannot persuade myself that you do not greatly overrate the ease of making people unselfish. Granting that in “ten years” the children of a community might by teaching be made “perfect” it seems to me that to do so there must be perfect people to teach them. You say “if there were a desire on the part of the cleverer people to make them perfect it would be easy—but how to produce that desire in the cleverer people? I must say I think that if we had absolute power tomorrow, though we could do much to improve people by good laws, & could even give them a very much better education than they have ever had yet, still, for effecting in our lives anything like what we aim at, all our plans would fail from the impossibility of finding fit instruments. To make people really good for much it is so necessary not merely to give them good intentions & conscientiousness but to unseal their eyes—to prevent self flattery, vanity, irritability & all that family of vices from warping their moral judgments as those of the very cleverest people are almost always warped now. But we shall have all these questions out together & they will all require to be entered into to a certain depth, at least, in the new book which I am so glad you look forward to as I do with so much interest.
c. 31 March, 1849
The alteration I had made in that sentence of the P.E. was instead of “placard their intemperance” to say “placard their enormous families”—it does not read so well, but I think it may do, especially as the previous sentence contains the words “this sort of incontinence”—but your two sentences are so very good that as that sheet is not yet printed, get them in I must & will.15 —Are you not amused with Peel about Ireland? He sneers down the waste lands plan, two years ago, which the timid ministers, timid because without talent, give up at a single sarcasm from him, & now he has enfanté a scheme containing that & much more than was then proposed—& the Times supports him & Ireland praises him. I am extremely glad he has done it—I can see that it is working as nothing else has yet worked to break down the superstition about property—& it is the only thing happening in England which promises a step forward—a thing which one may well welcome when things are going so badly for the popular cause in Europe—not that I am discouraged by this—progress of the right kind seems to me quite safe now that Socialism has become inextinguishable. I heartily wish Proudhon dead however—there are few men whose state of mind, taken as a whole, inspires me with so much aversion, & all his influence seems to me mischievous except as a potent dissolvent which is good so far, but every single thing which he would substitute seems to me the worst possible in practice & mostly [?] in principle. I have been reading another volume of Considerant lately published16 —he has got into the details of Fourierism, with many large extracts from Fourier himself. It was perhaps necessary to enter into details in order to make the thing look practicable, but many of the details are, & all appear, passablement ridicules. As to their system, & general mode of thought there is a great question at the root of it which must be settled before one can get a step further. Admitting the omnipotence of education, is not the very pivot & turning point of that education a moral sense—a feeling of duty, or conscience, or principle, or whatever name one gives it—a feeling that one ought to do, & to wish for, what is for the greatest good of all concerned. Now Fourier, & all his followers, leave this out entirely, & rely wholly on such an arrangement of social circumstances17 as without any inculcation of duty or of “right,” will make every one, by the spontaneous action of the passions, intensely zealous for all the interests of the whole. Nobody is ever to be made to do anything but act just as they like, but it is calculated that they will always, in a phalanstere, like what is best. This of course leads to the freest notions about personal relations of all sorts, but is it, in other respects, a foundation on which people would be able to live & act together [?]18Owen keeps in generals & only says that education can make everybody perfect, but the Fourierists attempt to shew how, & exclude, as it seems to me, one of the most indispensable ingredients.
The next references to the Political Economy in the correspondence between John Stuart Mill and Harriet occur in the series of letters written early in 1854 when Harriet was at Hyères. As the letters indicate, Mill was approached by Frederick J. Furnivall, on behalf of the Christian Socialists, with a request to reprint “On the Probable Futurity of the Labouring Classes” (IV, vii) as a pamphlet. Mill, with Harriet’s and his publisher’s approval, acceded to the request, and made extensive alterations to the chapter. Although he sent the proofs to Furnivall, no copy of the pamphlet has been located, and there is considerable doubt as to whether it was printed. In fact, Furnivall approached him again in 1860 with the same request, to which Mill replied almost exactly as he had done six years earlier.19
4 Feb., 1854
While I write, in comes a note from one of the Kingsley set who has written before, as you probably remember. I send his affected note which asks leave to reprint the Chapter on the Future of the Labouring Classes. Of course I must tell him that he must ask leave of Parker, but I should perhaps tell him also, & certainly should be prepared to tell Parker, whether I have any objection myself. I should think I have not: what does my angel think? I did not expect the Xtian Socialists would wish to circulate the chapter as it is in the 3d edit. since it stands up for Competition against their one-eyed attacks & denunciations of it.
13 Feb., 1854
I will answer Furnivall as you say. I do not know what alterations the chapter requires & cannot get at it as the last edition is locked up in the plant room. I can of course get from Parker another copy, or even those particular sheets from the “waste”. I imagine that if I tell Furnivall of making alterations he will be willing to give me time enough—besides I could send you the chapter by post.
18 Feb., 1854
I wrote to Furnivall in the manner you wished, & have had two notes from him since—the first short—“I am very much obliged to you for your kind letter of yesterday, & will communicate forthwith with Messrs Parker & Son, & then again with you as to the additions to the chapter.” The other which came this morning “Messrs P. & Son have given me their consent to your chapter on” &c. “being reprinted. If you will be kind enough to send me the additions you said you would be so good as to make, as soon as is convenient to you, I will have the chapter as revised set up immediately on receipt of them, & send you a proof.” I wrote a short answer asking for a few days time to consider how I could improve it, & wrote to Parker for the sheets—they will come I suppose on Monday & I will send them to my precious guide philosopher & friend by that day’s post. I have not the least idea at present what additions they require, but between us we shall I am sure manage to improve them very much.
20 Feb., 1854
The chapter of the P.E. I shall send by the post which takes this letter. If the post office tells me right, a penny stamp will cover it & you will have nothing to pay. I do not know where to begin or where to stop in attempting to improve it. One would like to write a treatise instead. As for minor additions I wish I could get some more recent facts as to the French Associations Ouvrières. I must also say something about the English ones (though a very little will suffice) as Furnivall suggests in another note he has written to me which I inclose. The note at p. 33120 now requires modification so far as concerns the first half of it. I shall not attempt any alterations till I hear from you.
28 Feb., 1854
You have by this time got the chapter—As so much is said of the French associations I must put in a few words about the English, of which Furnivall has sent me a long list21 —especially as it is going among the very people—but I shall take care not to commit myself to anything complimentary to them. F. has also from Nadaud some later intelligence about the French,22 nearly all of which are put down.
6 March, 1854
The Pol. Ec. was put into the post 21 Feb. being Tuesday, instead of Monday, the day I wrote—the reason being that Parker did not send it till I was just leaving the I.H. at near five oclock, & as I had no other copy I wished to read it quietly at home before sending it. It certainly dear was very wrong to send it without making that sentence illegible,23 for it was wrong to run any risk of that kind—the risk happily was small, as they were not likely to take the trouble of looking into letters or packets addressed to unsuspected persons, nor if they did were they likely to see that sentence, nor if they saw it to make the receiver answerable for a sentence in a printed paper forming part of an English book. Still it was a piece of criminal rashness which might have done mischief though it probably has not. Did it arrive with a penny stamp, attached half to the cover & half to the blank page, so as to be a sort of cachet? If it did not, however, it would not prove it to have been opened, as the stamp might come off. It was another piece of thoughtlessness not to say that I had no other copy. It is, however, probable, though not certain, that I could get another from Parker, & I would have applied to him for one now if you had said that you would not send yours until you receive this; but as you will probably have sent it after receiving my next letter, & it is therefore probably on its way, I will wait to see. I quite agree with you about the inexpediency of adding anything like practical advice, or anything at all which alters the character of the chapter—the working men ought to see that it was not written for them—any attempt to mingle the two characters would be sure to be a failure & is not the way in which we should do the thing even if we had plenty of time & were together.
9 March, 1854
About the P.E. I shall write immediately to Parker for another copy. I do not intend to say anything in praise of the English Associations but solely to state the fact that they are now very numerous & increasing—perhaps stating how many, according to a list which F. gave me. Whatever I do write I will send you & it will cause no or but little delay as the thing can go to press meanwhile & alterations be made when it is in proof.
11 March, 1854
I have not yet any answer from Parker to my application for another copy of the chapter.
14 March, 1854
I find a good deal of difficulty in adding much to the chapter of the P. Econ. without altering its character, which must be maintained, in the main, as it is, as something written of but not to the working classes. I think I agree in all your remarks & have adopted them almost all—but I do not see the possibility of bringing in the first two pages (from the preceding chapter)24 —I see no place which they would fit. Not having your copy, I do not know what sentence you would omit from page 330.25 I do not see how to bring in anything about short hours bills well; does it seem necessary to do so here?—& I have not yet succeeded in bringing in your remark on page 346.26 I have translated (with some omissions) all the French. I give on the next page all the additions I have made. If I make any more I will send them. I shall keep it back from Furnivall for a few days—if he is not urgent, till I hear from you.
Additional note, in brackets, to p. 33127
[Mr Fitzroy’s Act for the better protection of women & children against assaults, is a well meant though inadequate attempt to remove the first reproach. The second is more flagrant than ever, another Reform Bill having been presented this year, which largely extends the franchise among many classes of men, but leaves all women in their existing state of political as well as social servitude.]
Page 332 near the bottom.28 “The rich in their turn are regarded as a mere prey & pasture for the poor & are the subject of demands & expectations wholly indefinite, increasing in extent with every concession made to them. The total absence of regard for justice or fairness in the relations between the two, is at the least as marked on the side of the employed as on that of the employers. We look in vain among the working classes for the just pride which will choose to give good work for good wages: for the most part their sole endeavour is to receive as much, & return as little in the shape of service, as possible.”
Page 346, continuation of note.29 “One of the most discreditable indications of a low moral condition, given of late by the English working classes, is the opposition to piece work. Dislike to piecework, except under mistaken notions, must be dislike to justice & fairness, or desire to cheat, by not giving work in proportion to the pay. Piecework is the perfection of contract; & contract, in all work, & in the most minute detail—the principle of so much pay for so much service carried to the utmost extremity—is the system, of all others, in the present state of society, most favorable to the worker, though most unfavourable to the non-worker who wishes to be paid for being idle.”
Note to p. 347.30 “According to the latest accounts which have reached us (March 1854) seven of these associations are all which are now left. But Cooperative stores (associations pour la consommation) have greatly developed themselves, especially in the S. of France, & are at least not forbidden (we know not whether discouraged) by the Government.”
Note to p. 348.31 “Though this beneficent movement has been so fatally checked in the country in which it originated, it is rapidly spreading in those other countries which have acquired, & still retain, any political freedom. It forms already an important feature in the social improvement which is proceeding at a most rapid pace in Piedmont: & in England on the 15th of Feb. of the present year 1854 there had been registered under the Indl & Provt Societies Act, 33 associations, 17 of which are Industrial Societies, the remainder being associations for cooperative consumption only. This does not include Scotland, where also these assns are rapidly multiplying. The Societies which have registered under this new Act are only a portion of the whole. A list dated in June 1852 gives 41 assns for productive industry in E. & Sc. besides a very much greater number of flour mill societies & cooperative stores.”
18 March, 1854
My letter to Avignon also contained copies of all the new matter of any importance in the Chapter of the Pol. Ec. & asked what was the sentence in page 330 that you had marked to come out—but the chapter itself has arrived since & there is no sentence marked in that page—I suppose the dear one altered her mind & rubbed out the marks.32 I still hold to keeping it back from Furnivall till I hear your opinion of the additional matter which will be in a few days now.
3 April, 1854
When I got her approval of the alterations in the chapter, I inserted a saving clause about piece work33 & sent the whole to Furnivall who promises a proof shortly.
The last references to the Political Economy in the correspondence between John Stuart Mill and Harriet occur in 1857, when he was revising for the 4th edition while she was in Glasgow.
18 Feb., 1857
I get on quickly with the Pol. Econ. as there is but little to add or alter.
19 Feb., 1857
I pass the evening always at the Pol. Economy, with now & then a little playing to rest my eyes & mind. There will be no great quantity to alter, but now & then a little thing is of importance. One page I keep for consideration when I can shew it to you. It is about the qualities of English workpeople, & of the English generally. It is not at all as I would write it now, but I do not, in reality, know how to write it.34
John Stuart Mill—John E. Cairnes Correspondence and Notes
the central and most detailed part of the long and friendly correspondence between John Stuart Mill and John E. Cairnes concerns the suggestions which Cairnes made, on Mill’s request, about the revision for the 6th edition of the Principles. This appendix draws on that correspondence (both sides of which are in the Mill-Taylor Collection, London School of Economics),1 and on two sets of notes written by Cairnes to accompany his letters. The first of these, hereafter called “Notes on the Principles” (Mill-Taylor Collection) deals with technical criticisms of isolated passages in the 5th edition; the second, hereafter called “Notes on Ireland” (National Library of Ireland), supplies information about land tenure and population in Ireland.
The “Notes on the Principles” were sent in two batches, with Cairnes’ letters of 29 Nov. and 6 Dec., 1864. The “Notes on Ireland” were also sent in two batches, on 23 and 24 Dec., 1864. The material is arranged below in chronological order, with the Notes attached at the end of the relevant letters. It has been necessary to limit quotation from the letters to passages concerning the revision of the Principles, although other economic and political matters are discussed at great length in this very interesting correspondence. All the letters between 3 Oct., 1864, and 27 March, 1865, are here represented in part, except for Cairnes’ letters of 17 and 20 March, which contain no reference to revision. The passage from Cairnes’ letter of 2 June, 1865, is given merely as a conclusion. As in Appendix G, the form of the dates has been regularized; a series of seven dots has been used to indicate omitted passages not dealing with the revisions, and superscripts have been lowered.
The “Notes on the Principles” are given in full, with editorial notes in square brackets at the end of each note, indicating the relevant passages in the present edition, and noting (by the words “Altered” and “Unaltered”) whether Mill changed the passage as a result of Cairnes’ criticism. The following editorial liberties have been taken: the separate notes are each headed by a centred number, and the page reference to the present edition is given at the beginning of each note, followed by Cairnes’ reference to the 5th edition in parentheses. Cairnes’ numbering of his folios has been ignored; his square brackets have been altered to round; punctuation has been supplied where necessary for abbreviations; and superscripts (as in “wd” and “shd”) have been lowered. Square brackets within the text, unless otherwise noted, indicate tears in the manuscript or (as there is no chance of confusion) references to the present edition where Cairnes has references to the 5th edition. (At two places references to the present edition replace Cairnes’ references to folios in this manuscript.) Cairnes’ footnotes are given at the bottom of the page; occasionally the exact placing of the footnote indicator in the text has been difficult, because Cairnes places them in the margin against passages; they are here placed after the most appropriate word. One curious matter: the manuscript is very delicate, and the British Library of Political Science and Economics has a photostat copy which actually contains readings no longer preserved in the manuscript, because of the latter’s deterioration.
The “Notes on Ireland” have not been reproduced in full; most of them are summaries of books and articles on Ireland (a list is given at II.1075n), and what appears below is Cairnes’ final version of his own opinions and findings, which appears in the collection as a discrete item. (There is also an earlier version.) The same editorial liberties have been taken, where appropriate, as in the case of the “Notes on the Principles,” and footnotes added to indicate the passages incorporated by Mill into the 6th edition.
MILL TO CAIRNES
3 Oct., 1864.
We shall be here till January. I have much work cut out for me to do during this autumn and winter, part of which is that of correcting my Political Economy for a new edition. I should be very glad to make any improvement in it which you can suggest, and especially to know if there is anything which you think it would be useful to say on the present state of Ireland. My speculations on the means of improvement there have been in a state of suspended animation, from which it is almost time that they should emerge.
CAIRNES TO MILL
13 Oct., 1864.
I assure you I feel very deeply gratified by your wish for suggestions from me for the forthcoming edition of your Political Economy, with which I shall be only too happy to comply. In about a month I go down to Galway to put in a course of lectures there, and I purpose to take that opportunity to make a careful perusal of your Political Economy. I shall then make notes of any points that occur to me as at all deserving of your consideration, and will send them to you. I do not anticipate, however, that I can make any suggestion of the least importance. There is one portion of the subject indeed in which I should like to see the nomenclature considerably recast—that which deals with the causes affecting the phenomena of the Money Market, including the subjects of the loan fund, credit &c., but even should you approve of my views on this point, the gain from the change would form no kind of compensation for the trouble it would involve. I have a paper on this subject partly written2 (which I had intended as one of the essays which were to form that volume of which I spoke to you some time ago) and, as soon as I can find time to finish it, I should be very glad to submit it to you. I shall hope to have both it and the notes ready before Xmas. With regard to Ireland, I think you have exactly hit the true state of the case in the remark in the last edition of your Pol. Economy in which you say that the time has passed for heroic remedies.3 Further improvement is I think to be effected by such measures as Land Law reform, with a view principally to facilitating the transfer and acquisition of land in small portions, diffusion of agricultural knowledge, and lastly—a point to which I attach some importance—the inculcation through the press and otherwise of sound opinions on the subject of land tenure with a view to the creation of a public opinion capable of controlling landlords in the exercise of their legal rights. All such measures, however, appear to me to be quite as much needed for England as for this country. As for land-compensation schemes I have no faith in them.
As regards the actual condition of Ireland, I hope to be able in the course of a month to furnish you with at least the materials for forming a sound opinion. My friend Judge Longfield, of whom I have just spoken, is at present preparing an address for the opening of the approaching Session of our Statistical Society on this subject;4 and I know no one on whose judgment, from his long and extended acquaintance with the subject, the soundness of his economic views (he was the first Whately Professor) and his entire freedom from prejudice, I should for my part be more disposed to rely. I expect a very valuable address from him, and you may depend upon me to lose no time in sending you a copy.
MILL TO CAIRNES
8 Nov., 1864.
Your letter of the 13th October was as your letters always are, extremely interesting to me. I am very desirous of any suggestions that may occur to you for the improvement of this edition of my Political Economy, as it will be the foundation of a cheap popular edition which will be stereotyped. I have just heard from the publisher that the old edition is so nearly out, as to require that the new one should be got on with sooner than I expected when I wrote to you, and I am therefore obliged to lay aside what I was writing (a paper on Comte for the Westminster Review)5 to set about the revision. Consequently, the sooner I can have even a part of your remarks, the better: but what is not ready for the revision may easily be in time to be made use of in the proofs.
I expect to learn much respecting the state of Ireland from Judge Longfield’s address. But I at present feel considerably puzzled what to recommend for Ireland. It cannot be said any longer that the English system of landlords, tenant farmers, and hired labourers is impossible in Ireland, as it was in the days before the famine. But it does not seem to me to suit the ideas, feelings, or state of civilization of the Irish. And I cannot see that the changes, great as they are, have abolished cottierism. They have diminished competition for land, and the evil of rackrents, and tenants always in arrear. But I do not see that the tenant has an atom more of motive to improve, or inducement to industry and frugality than he had. He finds all this in America: if he could find it at home, he probably would not emigrate.
CAIRNES TO MILL
29 Nov., 1864.
You will think it strange that you have not heard from me sooner in reply to your letter of the 8th inst. It reached me at a time when I was working under much pressure, and, not having any notes in such a state that I could send them to you, I have deferred writing till I could get some material ready. I now send you some ten pages of notes set down in the order which I happened to have them most forward in preparation. You will see that I have in several instances made bold to criticise you: for the most part my criticisms do not pass beyond verbal questions; but even when they go no further than this I offer them with the most sincere deference: much more do I feel distrust of my conclusions when I venture to differ from you on points of doctrine. I hope to send you another batch of notes in about a week, the remainder will consist in what I have to say on Ireland & on the theory of money and interest.6
Ere this reaches you, you will probably have seen Judge Longfield’s address, and possibly will detect my hand in some articles in the Daily News,7 setting forth his views. I expect you will be somewhat disappointed with his address. I certainly do not agree with much of his argument on the subject of “fixity of tenure,” which I think is pervaded by the fallacy of transferring what is true from an individual point of view to a point of view of a general kind. However his suggestions are I think very valuable. I have just received from him a bundle of M.S., from which I hope to extract a good deal of information to send you with my next despatch.
Notes on the Principles of Political Economy (Fifth Edition)
I.58.6-7 (I.71). “This mode of levying taxes, therefore, limits unnecessarily the industry of the country.” This, I think, is only true where the Govt keeps in hand larger funds than the requirements of the public service call for; and where the Govt does this, the observation holds in whatever way taxation be imposed. [This note cancelled by Cairnes. Unaltered.]
I.65-6 (I.81). To the instances given here of industry falling short of the development rendered possible by the state of capital might perhaps be added the case of “unemployed capital” referred to ante p. 70 [I.57]. [Unaltered.]
I.70.11 (I.87). “To consume less than is produced, is saving”.—Might it not be well to add “the balance being employed productively”—with a view to distinguish “saving” from “hoarding”. Without this distinction two good terms seem to be thrown away in expressing the same conception. (I observe in the next paragraph this distinction is maintained.) [Unaltered. The “next paragraph” is at I.70.17ff.]
I.78.32 (I.98). Fourth fundamental theorem:—“Demand for commodities is not demand for labour.” It seems to me that this is rather a different mode of stating the third fundamental theorem (p. 87 [I.70.20-3])—“that the result of saving is consumed, though by persons other than he who saves”, than a separate and distinct proposition, and that there wd, with a view to clearness of exposition, be an advantage in connecting the discussion of this doctrine with that—the third theorem. I say with a view to clearness; because if the fact be once firmly seized, that saving, as compared with unproductive spending, involves the distinction, that in the former case [pro]ductive labourers consume, while in the latter the consumption is performed by the owner of the wealth (and the fact is so simple that it has only need to be fairly presented to the mind in order to be apprehended)—I say if this simple distinction be once firmly seized, I think all that follows with the important consequences which attach to it cannot but be accepted. In short to establish the doctrine that “demand for commodities is not demand for labour”—i.e. does not benefit the labouring classes—all that is needed is the two assumptions 1. that he who profits by (i.e. enjoys) wealth is he who consumes it, and 2. that productive labourers consume saved wealth, while wealth unproductively spent is consumed wholly by the unproductive consumers.
Perhaps the best practical reductio ad absurdum of the opposite doctrine is afforded by the Poor Law. If it be equally for the benefit of the poorer classes whether I consume my wealth unproductively or set aside a portion in the form of wages or alms for their direct consumption, then on what ground can the policy be justified of taking my money from me to support paupers? wd not my unproductive expenditure have equally benefitted them, while I shd have enjoyed it too? If society can both eat its cake and have its cake, why shd it not be permitted to indulge in the double luxury? Whately said somewhere8 that the only difference between giving money in alms and spending it for one’s own pleasure, was, that in one case you paid a man for doing something, while in the other you paid him for doing nothing. Now let us test this by a simple case. I have a sixpence and am in doubt whether to purchase a cake with it for my own eating or to give it to a beggar. By purchasing the cake, according to Whately, I pay a man for making a cake; by giving it to the beggar I pay a man for doing nothing; therefore on the principle of encouraging industry, I am bound to eat the cake. But suppose the beggar were to plead that he meant to purchase & consume the very same sweetmeat? &c &c
[Altered. At I.84r-r Mill adopts, mostly in Cairnes’ words, the material contained in the paragraph beginning: “Perhaps the best practical. . . . ” The passage above in quotation marks, beginning: “that the result of saving . . .” is not a direct quotation.]
I.8.26-8 (I.9). “Wealth as applied to the possessions of an individual, and to those of a nation or of mankind”. The distinction might be carried further—to capital, and even to the subdivisions of capital. Thus the rent paid by the farmer is a portion of his capital, but it is not capital to the nation or to mankind. Again Surplus Wages—i.e. wages in excess of what is necessary “for the strictly indispensable” requirements of the labourer, is capital to his employer, but not in the general sense;—in short all the limitations specified at pp. 70-71 [I.57-8] wd be met by this distinction.* Further the same distinction may be traced in the subdivisions. e.g. Money is, regarded from an individual point of view, “circulating capital”, but it is “fixed capital” in a national sense. (I rather think Adam Smith has made a remark to this effect).10 It may be regarded as a machine for effecting the exchanges of the nation. To that portion however which passes from country to country, and which in times like the present when gold & silver are increasing is very large the remark of course does not apply. [Unaltered in specified places.]
I.97b-b (I.120). “I doubt if there could be found a single example of a great increase of fixed capital at a time and place where circulating capital was not rapidly increasing also.” I think Ireland during the last four years wd furnish such a case. That her total agricultural wealth has greatly diminished is proved by the Registrar General’s returns—Mr Gladstone estimated the loss at £27,000,000—and during the same time the conver[sion] of tillage into pasture has been rapidly progressing. The coincidence of the two occurrences has no doubt powerfully stimulated the emigration. [Altered.]
I.99.18-19 (I.122). “Capital as to its destination” which “is not yet capital in actual exercise”:—Might we not conveniently distinguish the former as “potential capital”? “Potential capital” in the largest sense wd include all the capital which the credit of an individual or of a nation, if forced to the utmost, cd command. [Unaltered.]
I.100-15 (I.124-41). Should not the strength of “abstinence”, or (what is the positive aspect of the same principle) of the “effective desire of accumulation” have a place among the causes on which “the degrees of productiveness” depend? [Unaltered.]
I.120.1-3 (I.147). “There is no inconsistency between this doctrine and the proposition we before maintained that a market for commodities does not constitute employment for labour.” This statement appears irreconcileable with the admission made in note * to p. 107. [I.87w-w] where this very case is regarded as “a limitation” of the proposition in question.* [The] latter seems to me the more correct view, and with this limitation I think might be combined others. I wd state the doctrine and its limitations thus:—The generalprinciple is, that demand for coms determines merely the direction of labour and the kind of wealth produced, not the quantity or efficiency of the labour or the aggregate of wealth. The exceptions are:—
1. Where labour is supported but not fully occupied, an increase of demand may stimulate the labour thus supported to increased exertions—to full activity—of which the result may be an increase of wealth; the producers obtaining a share of this increase. But note—even in the supposed case this result will only happen when the new demand is based upon a new creation of commodities directly applicable to human purposes. An increase of demand based on an increase of money (whether paper or gold) wd not have this effect:* it wd only issue in a general rise of prices; the motives to industry being the same as before. An increase of money might indeed have the effect of stimulating partially employed labour into increased exertion if money were an object of desire for its own sake, as in hoarding countries (it would here become “directly applicable to human purposes”). It is probable that the increased production of the precious metals of late years may have in this way contributed to the augmentation of wealth in certain semi-civilized countries—e.g. India.
2. There is another case in which increase of demand may increase the aggregate of wealth and benefit the productive classes—namely, where this increase renders possible an increased development of the principle of division of labour, and thus a more effective distribution of the productive forces of society.
Communities having a certain density of population are more favourably situated for the production of wealth and therefore for the remuneration of the productive classes than some in which population is extremely sparse. The benefit obtained in this case is effected through an increased demand for commodities. Note This is not identical with the last exception: the advantage in that case was obtained by calling into greater activity labour which had previously been but partially employed: in the latter instance the labour may have been all fully employed, but exerted inefficiently through lack of that market for its products which was requisite to allow of its due division.
3. A third exception occurs in the case noticed post p. 410 [I.338]—the case described by the common saying that “wages are high when trade is good”. It is true that in this case the proximate agency in the benefit conferred on the labouring classes is the capital applied to the purchase of their labour, but this capital is called into activity through the demand for commodities. [Unaltered at I.120, but I.87 altered and moved to text, incorporating Cairnes’ wording; see I.87x-x. For Cairnes’ second case, see I.87y-y88; the passage indicated in his third case (I.338) is unaltered.]
I.119.17ff. (I.146). If an actual illustration be preferred to a hypothetical one, one will be found in Vol. IV, pp. 11-12 of Grote’s History of Greece (new ed.),11 where the historian describes the stimulating effect on Athenian agriculture of the accession of a large number of “metics” to the population of Athens and its neighbourhood on the occasion of the building the fortifications of the Piræus after the expulsion of the Persians. [Unaltered.]
I.118-22 (I.145-50). It seems to me that in this passage more is attributed to “separation of employments” than is fairly due to it. In the imaginary case of the settlement, a separation of empls is no doubt coincident with the advantages which arise from the accession of new settlers; but I cannot see that separation of employments is the cause of this gain in such a sense as wd justify one in saying that the separation being effected the result must follow. The true cause, I should prefer to say, was the increase of population coupled with an accession of industrial skill and knowledge. Now with a view to the practical application of the illustration this is an important distinction; for if we adopt the former view, that the benefit is the result of separation of emplts, the natural conclusion wd be that, in order to secure the benefit, we have only to effect the separation. This was the conclusion which Wakefield drew, and he consistently advocated measures which had for their object to compel the population of new settlements into towns, overlooking, or at least regarding as of subordinate importance, their aggregate increase. But if we adopt the latter [view] the practical conclusion will be very different. Recognizing in the advantages gained the effect of increased numbers and superior industrial skill, we should direct our attention, as the main business, to rendering by every means the colony attractive, and attractive especially to persons in possession of industrial skill, trusting that when the conditions of society occurred in which separation of employments was profitable, separation wd take place. Thus in considering the question of a “sufficient price” for colonial land, we should decide it exclusively with a view to what wd render the colony attractive to the greatest number of the right sort of people, without complicating the problem by introducing the consideration of “separation of employments.” I am fully alive to the immense services which Wakefield has rendered to the cause of colonization; but his system, as he himself conceived it, appears to me to commit the mistake of seeking to accomplish by giving increased complexity to the machinery of society—multiplying the social valves and cranks—what can only be accomplished and can be completely and effectually accomplished by augmenting the motive power. It may be added that, with a view to the end contemplated by Wakefield, even granting the importance of separation of employments, there wd be no necessity in the present state of the world for the local separation of employments which he was anxious to enforce. The “territorial” separation—foreign trade—wd furnish the stimulus in an intensified form. This is in truth contained in the remarks on the best means of promoting the prosperity of India pp. 149-50. [I.121-2.] [Unaltered.]
I.135-7 (I.168-9). Among the advantages which the Joint Stock plan enjoys over individual management is its incident of publicity. In banking especially publicity is, I should think, a most important a [sic] condition towards securing confidence—perhaps as much so as a large subscribed capital. A heavy loss occurring to a private bank may be kept secret; even though it were of such magnitude as to occasion the ruin of the bank, the copartners may nevertheless go on for years trying to retrieve its position, only to fall in the end with a greater crash; but this cannot happen in the case of a joint stock company whose accounts are published periodically. The accounts indeed may be, as they often are, cooked; but they do exercise some check. Hence the public repose greater confidence in joint stock management in the case of banks. I observe it stated in a financial article in the D. News that nearly all new accounts are opened with the joint stock banks. The most striking testimony to the superiority of the joint stock principle in banking yet furnished has been furnished within the present year, by the amalgamation of three of the oldest private banking houses in London—those of Messrs Masterman & Co., of Messrs Hankey & Co. and Heywood & Kennard & Co., and of Messrs Jones Lloyd & Co., with joint stock concerns—viz. the first with “the Agra & United Service Bank”, the two next with “the Consolidated Bank”, and the last with “the London & Westminster Bank”. See Daily News, 18 April 1864.12 [Altered; see I.136g-g.]
I.155.19ff. (I.194). “ephemeral theories of a different law of increase &c.” I observe the Spectator frequently of late13 bringing forward what it regards as a “decisive fact” against the practical deduction from the doctrine of Malthus—namely that even where men defer marriage they generally choose young wives; and that such marriages—the man say being 40 and the woman 20—are as prolific—indeed I believe the statement is are more prolific—than where both parties are young: hence the Spectator argues the deferring of marriage tends to accelerate the rate of human increase. The insufficiency of the premiss for the conclusion based on it is obvious enough; but how far are there physiological grounds for the statement? And wd it be worth while to dispose of the so called “refutation” in a foot note? [Unaltered.]
I.172.12-15 (I.214) as compared with p. 230 [I.186.3]. There seems to be here a verbal contradiction. In the former passage are the words:—“the second requisite, increase of capital, shows no tendency to become deficient. So far as that element is concerned, production is susceptible of an increase without assignable limits”; while in the latter “the limit to the increase of production” is stated as “twofold; from deficiency of capital or of land.” The context in the former passage shows that, in speaking of capital you there had in view the mental principle on which the accumulation of capital depends—abstinence or the effective desire of accumulation; which, as you show, becomes stronger with the advance of human society; while in the latter passage the reference is obviously to the material substances which form the prerequisites of production. The verbal difficulty appears to me to arise from the imperfect analysis of the agents of production contained in the formula—“land, capital, and labour”—capital being itself wealth in its most complex form: to explain the law of its increase is to explain the law of the increase of wealth; and, were the word throughout chap. XI employed in the sense in which it had been previously defined, nothing wd be gained by the analysis towards the simplification of the problem; but the word is throughout the argument I think plainly used as convertible with the principle of the “effective desire of accumulation.” This is so manifestly the case that I do not think any intelligent reader cd be led astray: still perhaps it wd be better—it wd certainly I think be more accurate—to make the analysis of industrial agents into land, the effective desire of accumulation, and labour. All verbal confusion wd thus be avoided. What we want I think is some word which wd express both the purpose and the self-denial—the desire to accumulate and the sacrifice in the form of abstinence which the satisfaction of that desire entails. [Unaltered.]
I.414.22-5 (I.503). “The cost of labour is a function of three variables: the efficiency of labour; the wages of labour (meaning thereby the real reward of the labourer); and the greater or less cost at which the articles composing that real reward can be produced or * purchased.”
The analysis here, it seems to me, is incomplete; “the cost of the real reward of the labourer” involving the very conception—“cost of labour”—which it is the purpose of the analysis to elucidate. Or look at it in this way—The “cost of the real reward” depends in part on “the efficiency of labour”, which element forms the first branch of the division, and is thus included twice. I have always found great difficulty in getting students to take in this statement of the theory of profits, so much so that I have attempted to throw it into another form, which I will here state for what it is worth.
I Take first the simplest conceivable case—an act of production in which the whole process is performed by labour, and in which the return from that labour is in commodities the same in kind as that of which the outlay is composed. For example, 100 quarters of corn are applied to the support of workmen who, while consuming them, produce 120 quarters. Here it is plain the rate of profit, which is obviously 20 per cent, depends upon two conditions and upon two conditions only—1. the real wages necessary to command the labour of the men who produce the 120 quarters† ; and 2. the productiveness of their industry in raising corn. Diminish the productiveness of their industry, their real wages remaining the same, and you will diminish the rate of profit; and vice versa.
II Take now a slightly more complex case:—another set of workmen, who also receive 100 qrs of corn, are employed in producing not corn, but silk: while consuming those 100 qrs they produce, say, 200 lbs of manufactured silk. What will determine the rate of profit in this case? The outlay and the return not being homogeneous, they cannot be directly compared: we must look at them through their values. The rate of profit will plainly depend on the ratio which the value of the 200 lbs of silk will bear to the value of the 100 qrs of corn which formed the means of effecting their production. What will determine the value of the silk? The cost of its production; but this by hypothesis is equal to the cost of 120 qrs of corn; for it required the same outlay to produce both—viz. 100 qrs of corn. Hence it follows that the rate of profit in the silk manufacture will be the same as in agriculture. And this will be the case whatever may be the productiveness of industry in the former branch of production. For if the silk weavers in the supposed case were only to produce 100 lbs of silk instead of 200, or were to produce 400, this wd not affect the question; since in all cases alike the cost of production being the same, the value of the return, large or small, wd be the same: its ratio to the value of the outlay wd therefore be the same; and, therefore, also the rate of profit.
It thus appears that the law of profit which we found to operate in the simplest case operates also in that which we may describe as of the first degree of complexity: the rate still depends on the real remuneration of the labourer as compared with the productiveness of his industry in producing his own remuneration.
III We may now introduce a second element of complication. Suppose the outlay to consist only partly in advances to labourers, and for the rest in the purchase of raw materials & machinery. I then proceed to show, as in pp. 500-501 [I.412], that the latter advances are resolvable into wages.
IV Lastly, Suppose a portion of the outlay to consist in the purchase of a natural agent—e.g. the rent paid by the farmer to the landowner. This is then shown not to alter the case, rent representing merely surplus profits—the diffce between the returns on the worst soils cultivated and the return from the better. Rent, in short, merely brings down the rate of profit on the better soils to the general level.
The law of profit is thus found under all circumstances to be that which we found it in the simplest case: it varies inversely—other things being the same—with the real remuneration of the labourer; directly with the productiveness of his industry in producing that real remuneration. But the latter condition—the productiveness of the labourer’s industry—is resolvable into two elements—1. the efficiency of his industry, & 2. the fertility of the natural agents to which it is applied; or since rent, for the reason stated, must be eliminated, rather the fertility of the least fertile of the natural agents &c. I am thus brought by my method to the conclusion that the rate of profit is “a function of three variables”—viz. 1. the real remuneration of the labourer; 2. the efficiency of his industry in producing his own remuneration; and 3. the fertility of the [least fertile] natural agents to which this industry is applied. It seems to me that these three elements contain all that is included in your “cost of labour”, while they are at the same time, so far as I see, independent and distinct.
A further case of complication arises through foreign trade. By this means the efficiency of industry in obtaining labourers’ commodities may be increased by improvements in industry in other departments of production, or by occurrences in foreign countries which may affect foreign demand. Increased efficiency of industry in manufacturing silk, or in raising the more expensive wines, might thus tend to raise profits in the country in which this occurred, if by means of the cheapened silk or wine, the industry of the country was made more efficient in obtaining labourer’s [sic] coms. So also the discovery of gold in one country might lead to a rise of profits in another.
The only objection, I see, to the above mode of stating the theory of profits is that it presupposes a knowledge of the laws of value and rent. And in reply to this I can only say that I have found it much easier to state the latter laws without reference to the law of profits, than to reverse the process. In fact I have never yet succeeded in making the law of profits intelligible to a student till I had first made him familiar with the doctrine of value; and I accordingly now always send my students to your chapter on value before bringing them to grapple with the former problem. I do not at all think that it wd be desirable on this account to alter the general arrangement of your book; but perhaps it might be worth considering—supposing you shd concur in the above criticisms—whether it wd not be well to confine the exposition of the doctrine in Chap. XV to the simplest case of production (No. I on the other side),14 and reserve the full exposition till after the chapter on “Value”. You have adopted a similar course in other instances. [The text is unaltered at this point. The word “purchased” objected to in Cairnes’ footnote is changed to “procured”.]
I.422.7 (I.512). “The truths of political economy are truths only in the rough.” Would it not be better to say that they express tendencies which are liable to be counteracted? The expression “truths only in the rough” seems to give up the scientific pretension of political economy. [Altered; see I.422i-i.]
II.459.33-7ff. (I.531). “A general rise or general fall of prices. . . . is a matter of complete indifference save in so far as it affects existing contracts &c.”—save also in so far as it affects the interests of those who produce money—e.g. Australia & California are interested in maintaining a low range of general prices. Whatever tends to keep up the value of money benefits them, and in the same degree injures the rest of the world—so far at least as its trade with those countries is concerned. The point may be turned to account in showing the way in which the gold discoveries affect the world within and without the auriferous regions. [Altered; see II.459d-d.]
II.808-9 (II.387-8). I ventured to advocate (Economist 4 May 1861)15 the principle of a graduated property tax as a set off against the undue pressure of indirect taxation on the lower class of incomes. Considering that the bulk of our indirect taxation is raised from a few leading articles—tea, sugar, tobacco, malt liquor, and spirits—all of which are staple articles of consumption with the lower middle class, it must be allowed that our indirect taxation presses with undue weight on this section of the people. The proportion of an income of £3 or £400 a year which is spent on such commodities is plainly much larger than that of an income of £3 or £4000. Quoad indirect taxation, therefore, the lower class of incomes are mulcted more heavily than the higher; and this, I think, constitutes for the lower incomes a claim for special consideration in the imposition of direct taxation. The principle has already been recognized in the distinction made in favour of incomes below £200 in laying on the income tax; but the allowance seems to me to be altogether inadequate to meet the justice of the case. I should be disposed to exempt altogether incomes under £200 a year, and carry the reduced rate of charge up at least to £500 a year. This of course wd necessitate a higher rate on the incomes above this level; and this is only I think what the principle of equality demands. I regard this as the most important reform now to be effected in the direction of financial equality. [Unaltered. The date of Cairnes’ article in the Economist is supplied by JSM in pencil.]
II.813 (II.390-1). I must confess myself unable to go with you here in your concessions to the popular argument in favour of the justice of a uniform income tax: it seems to me that such a tax does “arithmetically violate the rule that taxation ought to be in proportion to means”. What are a man’s “means”? Surely they are not to be confined to that portion of his possessions which he decides to apply to his expenditure in a given year. I cannot understand on what principle it can be said that a man making £1000 a year at a profession or in trade has in a given year the same “means” as a man in possession of a fee simple property which yields the same annual sum. Suppose the latter were to make up his mind to sell his estate and to expend the proceeds in a single year, this determination cd scarcely be said to add to his “means”; yet in this case, tried by what standard you please, his “means” in this year wd exceed the “means” during the same period of the professional man or trader earning yearly £1000. [Unaltered.]
II.813.31 (II.390). “It capitalizes the incomes, but forgets to capitalize the payments.” But why shd the payments be capitalized? The reason for capitalizing the income is to ascertain what its owner is worth in a given year: the thing to be compared with this is the payment in that year—not the capitalized value of the payments in future years. [Unaltered; but see II.814f-f.]
II.814.14-17 (II.391). “I wonder it does not occur . . . that precisely because this principle of assessment wd be just in the case of a payment made once for all, it cannot possibly be just for a permanent tax”. Here again I am unable to follow: on the contrary my inference is exactly the reverse. If a deduction from all incomes in proportion to their capitalized values produce an equality of sacrifice this year, I cannot see why a deduction carried out on the same principle next year shd not produce the same result for that year; nor why this argument may not be applied to all future years. [Unaltered.]
II.814.27-9 (II.392). “It is not because the temporary annuitant has smaller means, but because he has greater necessities, that he ought to be assessed at a lower rate.” But why has the temporary annuitant greater necessities? I see no answer to this except “because he has smaller means”. The means of the perpetual annuitant has enabled him to make the provision for his posterity which the means of the temporary annuitant has not yet allowed him to make. The necessity of the temporary annuitant to provide for his family seems to me to be merely another way of saying that he is wanting in the means which the perpetual annuitant commands.
At the risk of appearing dense or perverse I have stated broadly my inability to follow your reasoning on this doctrine of capitalization of incomes; at the same time I do not adopt that principle as affording a solution of the practical problem of equalizing direct taxation. Its grand defect, as it seems to me, is that it fails to distinguish between human requirements of very different urgency—the portion of income which goes for necessaries or comforts which, if not strictly necessaries in a physical sense, are at least essential to the maintenance of a standard of decent living among the masses, and that which is expended on mere superfluities. “Equality of sacrifice” is I am sure the sound principle; and this can only be attained by resolving income into its parts—that required for necessaries, that for comforts, that for luxuries &c., and dealing with each portion on a distinct principle; the sacrifice, as you point out, involved in a curtailment of necessaries being quite incommensurable with that which a curtailment of mere luxuries involves. For such distinctions the “capitalization” plan affords no field: the whole means of every man is regarded as standing in the same relation to his happiness—which is I think palpably a fallacious position. [Unaltered.]
II.831.35-6 (II.413). “Rents, salaries, annuities, and all fixed incomes, can be exactly ascertained”; and these, it is important to note, yield, I think, more than three-fourths of the proceeds from the tax. This fact, I think, considerably attenuates the practical force of the objection founded on the demoralizing tendency of the tax. [Unaltered.]
II.839.30-2 (II.423). “The necessity of advancing the tax obliges producers and dealers to carry on their business with larger capitals than wd otherwise be necessary”. Ricardo I think has pointed out16 that this does not constitute (as it might at first sight seem to do) a case of “taking more out of the pockets of taxpayers than the State receives”; since the State gets the benefit of the advance: it is thus enabled to dispense with Exchequer bills to the same amount, the interest of which is saved to the community. [Altered by the addition of footnote (II.840n) incorporating Cairnes’ wording.]
II.841.4-5 (II.424). “the compensation being of course at the expense of profits”. It appears to me that the compensation wd be partly at the expense of rent. The rise in wages, taking place through an action on population, less food wd be required; the area of cultivation wd be curtailed; corn rents wd fall—but, on consideration, corn being more valuable by reason of the tax, money rents wd I believe remain as before. I suppose profits would bear the whole compensation. [This note cancelled by Cairnes. Unaltered.]
II.850ff. (II.437). § 6. I venture to point out what appears to me to be an important condition overlooked in the reasoning in this section,—a condition which, taken account of, invalidates I think altogether, or nearly altogether, the application here made of the principle of the “Equation of International Demand” to the subject of taxation.
In reasoning on taxation—at all events on taxation as it imposed [sic] in civilized countries—it is proper I think to assume that a tax is only imposed or retained where the revenue it yields is indispensable. It follows that, in discussing the effects of a tax, we are not at liberty to consider those effects apart from the indispensableness of the revenue which the tax yields—in other words we are bound always to take account of this, that the imposition or retention of any given tax will relieve the community from taxation in some other direction. Now if this be admitted, the conclusion seems to follow that a rise in the price of a commodity consequent on the imposition of a tax does not necessarily (and as I think I can show will not generally) “lessen the demand for it.”
Let us suppose that the country requires an additional million of revenue, and that in raising it the choice lies between an increased duty on beer and an increased duty on tobacco. By adopting the latter method, it is said, we should raise the price and thus check the demand for a foreign commodity, alter international demand in our favour, and thereby obtain our imports from the foreign country which produces tobacco on better terms: we shd in short by this means throw a portion of our taxation [on] a foreign country. Now granting that this reasoning is sound, the question still remains whether precisely the same result wd not be reached by laying the tax upon beer. Supposing the tax laid on beer, the price of tobacco no doubt wd not rise, but the margin of the consumer’s means available for the purchase of tobacco wd be diminished in the same proportion as the rise in the price of tobacco in the former case. The price of his tobacco was then higher, but he had an undiminished income to meet it: he has now his tobacco at an unenhanced price, but then his available means of purchase have been reduced by the necessity of paying more for his beer.
Let me state the principle in a more general form. A man has £1000 a year, and with this sum he obtains annually necessaries comforts and luxuries in certain proportions. His power of commanding these things is curtailed to a certain extent by taxation; but the amount thus deducted from his income being given, I contend that the character of his expenditure will not be affected by the mode in which the deduction is made. If £50 a year be taken in the form of remitted taxes from the price of necessaries, and placed in the form of new taxes on the price of luxuries; or if both necessaries and luxuries are relieved at the expense of a direct deduction from his income—so long as the total amount taken from him is the same, I cannot see (apart from objections to particular taxes on other grounds) why this shd affect the proportions in which he consumes commodities. His means of commanding commodities remains in all cases the same, and if his tastes also remain the same, why shd the mode of taxation affect the quality of his demand? It is conceivable indeed that for a time, the expenditure of people on particular commodities having been regulated with reference to a certain scale of prices, any sudden change in relative prices might induce them to alter the character of their expenditure; but I imagine they wd very soon ascertain what their most urgent wants were, and find also the means of distributing their expenditure in such a way as most effectually to satisfy them.
The above argument proceeds upon the assumption that the taxes, between which the alternative lies, fall upon the same persons. In practice this is substantially the case in this country (unless where the alternative lies between direct & indirect taxation); our indirect taxation now being confined to a few grand staples which are consumed by all above the worst paid classes. So far as this is the case I think it must be allowed, that the inference contended for in §6 [II.850ff.] cannot be sustained. A given revenue being indispensable, it cannot be admitted that a tax on a foreign commodity will lessen the demand for it, nor therefore that it will alter the “Equation of International Demand.”
Even in the other case—where the option lies between taxes which fall upon different classes in the community—or in different proportions on different classes—say between a tax on wine and a tax on paper—even in this case the soundness of the inference, at least with a view to a practical policy, is I think more than questionable. For 1st. Suppose a customs’ duty on wine were substituted for an excise duty on paper—the wine drinkers not being identical with the paper consumers, the substitution, it may be granted, wd check the demand for wine; but then the effects of the substitution wd not end here: as the expenses of the wine drinkers increased, those of the consumers of paper wd be diminished: a portion of the income of the latter wd be set free, of which portion it is possible, and I suppose not improbable, that a share wd be applied to the purchase of foreign commodities—say tea and sugar. [So] far as this was the case, what was gained for the Equation of International Demand [by(?)] the retrenchment on wine wd be lost in the increased expenditure on the foreign articles of a different [kind thus(?)] brought into increased requisition. Further, even supposing something were gained for [the(?) Equa]tion of International Demand by this mode of distributing taxation, still I think it [might be(?)] questioned if this wd be a gain to the community. To show this, let us take the case which wd be most favourable for your argument—a tax transferred from a commodity of domestic production to one of foreign, so similar in its nature that one may become a substitute for the other; a substitution of a customs’ duty on cheap French wines in lieu of an excise duty on light ale will furnish an example in point. Now the effect of such a change wd probably be to check the demand for the foreign commodity, and so far as this was the case to alter international demand in our favour. We shd get consequently our imports on better terms; but this wd not be clear gain. It wd be accomplished at the expense of forcing people by an artificial arrangement of price, to consume an inferior liquor, or one at least less suited to their tastes: it wd be an artificial interference with the natural course of human desires. The case wd not, so far as I can see, differ in principle from a protective duty: the distinction wd be this, that whereas a protective duty gives artificial encouragement to the production at home of a commodity which cd be obtained more cheaply from abroad, an import duty of the kind we are considering wd encourage the home production, not indeed of a commodity which cd better be obtained from foreign countries, but of an inferior substitute for such a commodity.
The principle, of which I have endeavoured to exhibit some of the applications—the principle that the operation of a tax must properly be regarded in relation to the whole income of the community as affected by taxation—has other important bearings in connexion with the theory of taxation. If the position which I have taken be sound it leads to this conclusion, that the question of encouraging particular modes of expenditure is not one which it is competent to a financial minister to entertain; for, as I have shown, this can only be done by shifting the burden of taxation from one class to another; and as regards the relative pressure of taxation, the rule for him is equality. It seems to me therefore that the objection to a tax that it is a tax on knowledge is not a sound objection; for supposing the persons affected by the paper duty paid no more than their fair proportion to the revenue, justice wd require that the tax [removed?] from paper shd be reimposed on the same persons in another form; and provided this were done the increased cheapness of paper wd not in the least increase their ability to acquire knowledge. In practice I believe that the abolition of the paper duty was a good financial measure; because, the duty not being reimposed on them at least not to its full extent in any other form—the real substitution for the duty being the retention of a higher rate of income tax than wd otherwise have been necessary—the effect of the abolition was to relieve the classes who were the chief payers of the duty. But I think the true grounds on which to have put the case wd have been the undue pressure of taxation on the lower middle classes. Equal encouragement to knowledge wd I believe have been afforded by a reduction of the duty on tea and sugar.
I think it therefore important to insist on this principle, as enabling us to clear financial discussions from many irrelevant topics.
See Ricardo’s Works (McCulloch’s edition), pp. 141-142, more particularly note to p. 142.17 [Unaltered at indicated place. The square brackets at II.1054.25 indicate a faded word, and at II.1053.21 “[on]”, which was mistakenly cancelled by Cairnes in a minor revision, has been inserted.]
MILL TO CAIRNES
1 Dec., 1864.
Am I right in thinking that among the improvements consequent on the Irish famine and emigration, the desuetude of cottier tenancy is not one? My impression is that the land is still mainly let direct to the labourer, without the intervention of a capitalist farmer—and if so, other things in Ireland being as they are, all the elements of the former overpopulation are still there, though for the present neutralized by the emigration. I very much wish to hear from you whether I am right.
Have you formed any opinion, or can you refer me to any good authority, respecting the ordinary rate of mercantile and manufacturing profit in the United States? I have hitherto been under the impression that it is much higher than in England, because the rate of interest is so. But I have lately been led to doubt the truth of this impression, because it seems inconsistent with known facts respecting wages in America. High profits are compatible with a high reward of the labourer through low prices of necessaries, but they are not compatible with a high cost of labour; and it seems to me that the very high money wages of labour in America, the precious metals not being of lower value there than in Europe, indicates a high cost as well as a high remuneration of labour. Supposing profits to be lower than in Europe instead of higher, it is yet quite intelligible that interest might be higher. There is, I apprehend, in America, scarcely any unoccupied class, living on interest: almost everybody is in active business, needing all his own capital and more too. In New England even the banks have scarcely any deposits, the class who in England would be depositors being there shareholders. Consequently the loan market is hardly supplied at all from native sources, except the capital and notes of the banking companies: and when there is a great demand for loans it has to be supplied from the European money market, and therefore at a rate of interest so high as to be a temptation to foreigners. I should be much indebted to you if you could help me on this subject, as, if I have been misleading the readers of my Political Economy, it is very desirable that the error should be corrected in this edition.
I have been obliged to read, with a view to my new edition, the most recent & most voluminous of Carey’s writings, his “Principles of Social Science”:18 because his attacks on the Ricardo political economy and on free trade are, some of them, if not new, at least made in a new shape, and I have thought it good to give a brief refutation of them, the rather as the book is a good deal thought of by some of the French political economists, and is helping to muddle their ideas. The parts of his speculations which I have had to attack are really the best parts, as it was not worth while to notice any of his errors but those which had some affinity with truths. But it really would be a useful exercise for any clearheaded and painstaking student of political economy to shew up the book, for I think I never met with any modern treatise with such an apparatus of facts and reasonings, in which the facts were so untrustworthy and the interpretations of fact so perverse and absurd. I do not imagine that it would be worth your while any more than mine to take the trouble of reviewing it, but I should very much like to see it properly done. To give a really adequate exposure of the book would be out of the question, for there would be something requiring comment in every page: but a selection might be made, in a moderate compass, which would suffice to destroy any authority the book might have. Withal I cannot dislike the man, for his feelings, and his way of thinking on general subjects, so far as I can perceive, are usually right.
I have not yet had any application from Longman to begin printing, but I think it will not be long before I have.
CAIRNES TO MILL
6 Dec., 1864.
Your letter of the 1st. inst. reached me here yesterday. I hope in about a week to be able to answer your questions pretty fully and accurately. Meantime, however, I will state my impression on the points to which you refer. I believe there is no doubt that the class of cottier tenants has been immensely reduced in Ireland, and that the causes now in operation are tending rapidly to its entire extinction. I gave some figures from the census of 1861 illustrating this point in an article on “Ireland” in the Edin. Review of last Jany—;19 and it is quite certain that the movement has made great progress since 1861. That “the elements of over population” however, still exist in Ireland is, I regret to say, but too undeniable. They exist in the wretched morale of the agricultural population brought almost to the level of the brute by centuries of neglect and oppression, and which I fear it will take more than one generation of good influences to effect any substantial change in; and they exist also in that recklessness of mind which dependence on the labour market—the condition of all the ex-cottiers who have not died or emigrated—seems in my mind inevitably to engender. So much so that I see for my part no hope of effectually elevating the mass of the Irish working population than by measures which may ultimately have the effect of dissociating them altogether from their present mode of life. Something may I think be done in this way by facilitating the acquisition of land in small parcels—i.e. by encouraging the growth of a peasant proprietary; more by developing manufactures or other non-agricultural pursuits, such as mining, and bringing to bear upon the people thus brought together the influences which are now working such wonders in the manufacturing districts of England. Lastly the extensive conversion of the land to grass will render a smaller population necessary; and, now that the emigration movement is in full swing, this may be effected without severe suffering. By such means I think the number of the population dependent on the agricultural labour market may be greatly reduced, while those which are drawn off will be brought within the range of ameliorative influences. Up to the present, however, I think you may take this for granted that, so far as cottiers have been converted into labourers, no good has been done. For the present the rate of wages may be somewhat higher than formerly; but if it were not for the emigration it might be confidently predicted that within a generation it would be reduced once more to the starvation point—even with the emigration I dont feel very sanguine that they will be avoided. In these remarks I speak of the cottier & labouring class: with the class above them—the farmer class, and such a class is beyond question growing up in Ireland, the case is much more hopeful. Real progress has I think already been made here; and I think it only needs such measures as Judge Longfield has advocated to accelerate this progress greatly. But on this, as well as the former point I hope to write to you more fully and with greater confidence after I have returned to Dublin and conversed with the Judge and some others whose practical acquaintance with the country is far more extensive than mine.
As to the rate of mercantile and manufacturing profit in the U.S., I have written to a quarter from which I have good hopes of getting information. I have indeed hitherto taken the supposed high rate of profit in the U.S. for granted. The high rate of money wages certainly would make one suspect the correctness of this view, but the fact is not conclusive. The precious metals may not be lower in value in America than in Europe, but their cost is certainly lower; the only question is whether it is so much lower as to render the high rate of money wages which prevails consistent with a rate of profit also higher than, or as high as, in this country. In what you say on the rate of interest in its relation to profit I entirely concur. You will find something on this point in my notes.20
I send by this post a second batch of notes which I submit to you for what they are worth—I do not at all expect you will find them of any real use, but I rejoice at the opportunity of passing my speculations under your eye. I shall learn whether there is any value in them: should you think so, and turn it to account in any way, it will be to me a source of real gratification.
I should like to write to you on other topics you refer to, but I am anxious not to lose this post, and will therefore bring this to a close. . . .
I hope you received the batch of notes sent with a letter about a week ago. With those now sent I send also a number of the N. British Review with an article of mine on Capital & Currency,21 which perhaps you will do me the favour of reading.
[Further Notes on the Fifth Edition of the Principles]
II.647-59 (Book III, Chap. xxiii). The doctrine laid down here is that the rate of interest is “a question of demand and supply” [II.647.22] . . . “The rate of interest will be such as to equalize the demand for loans with the supply of them” [II.647.24-5]. Thus far I agree; but loans of what? You say of “capital”—Here I join issue with you. It cannot be denied that the thing lent is money—the medium of exchange; but you say that, though money passes formally, in reality it is “capital” which in such transactions is passed from hand to hand. I maintain, on the contrary, 1. that in the case of a large class of loans “capital” does not pass in any sense other than that in which the word is identified either with the medium of exchange or with commodities consumed unproductively—that is to say, in which either “capital” and “currency” or “capital” and “non-capital” are confounded; 2. that where in a certain sense “capital” may be said to pass—i.e., where the money borrowed is employed in the purchase of “capital”—this does not entitle us to call the money, “capital”,—to say that the transaction is one in which “capital”, not money, is borrowed, or, if it does, then in an ordinary sale we ought to speak of the commodity sold being exchanged for capital, when the money obtained in exchange is applied in the same manner—in short according to this way of speaking, all that portion of the circulating medium which is employed in effecting exchanges of “capital” shd be called “capital”; 3. that the straining of nomenclature, as is done in such explanations, is prejudicial to a clear apprehension of the monetary phenomena, introducing verbal inconsistencies which react on our conceptions, and preventing us from perceiving, or causing us to perceive but obscurely, the operation of some powerful, but not obvious, influences on the course of the Money Market.
I will take these points in order, and set down what occurs to me on each head.
1. I say that in a large class of loans “capital” does not pass in any sense other than &c. This, I think, is involved in your admission at p. 192 [II.648] where you distinguish loans into those for productive and those for unproductive uses. Taking the case of money lent to a Govt to be expended in war, or to a spendthrift to be expended in profligacy—the money itself is here not “capital”, if any distinction between capital and currency is to be preserved; nor are the things on which it is spent “capital”, unless we obliterate the distinction between productive and unproductive wealth. Apply your own test—“the mind” of the person owning the wealth—and I think you must admit that the loan belongs to the category—“not capital”. (Vol. I, pp. 68-70 [I.55-7]). I can imagine still another ground taken: it may be said that the money borrowed by Govt or by the spendthrift wd, but for their competition, have passed into the hands of productive borrowers, and that it may therefore be regarded as so much capital withdrawn from the market. But, first, the statement is not strictly true: a portion—I fancy no inconsiderable portion—of the money obtained by Govt is attracted to the loan market by the enhanced rate of interest caused by Govt demand, and wd but for this inducement have been employed unproductively: so far as this is the case, the effect of the Govt loan is merely to substitute one kind of unproductive expenditure for another; and, secondly, this way of describing the operation appears to me to obscure its real character, for an analysis of which see N.B. article pp. 204-205.22
2. I cannot see why, because the money borrowed is afterwards applied to the purchase of “capital”, it shd therefore be said that “capital” is borrowed. We do not use language in this way in speaking of purchase and sale, why shd we do so in speaking of loans. Besides the way of using language is open to the serious of [sic] objection of comprising, and in fact confounding, under the same description two perfectly distinct acts—acts which are often separated by a considerable interval of time. The lending of the money produces a certain effect—an effect which is realized whether the subsequent purchase takes place or not: the purchase also when it takes place produces an effect, but this effect wd be quite the same though the money had not been borrowed. A nomenclature which precludes the possibility of distinguishing effects distinct in their character, and separated in point of time must I think be pronounced especially vicious.
3. I say the received mode of stating the doctrine involves verbal inconsistencies which react on our conceptions, and are prejudicial to a clear apprehension of monetary phenomena. I will give a few instances. In describing at pp. 37-38 [II.528-9] the nature of the service performed by banks of deposit, you say that they collect together the scattered “sums” which individuals wd otherwise have to keep as reserves; the aggregate of which being more than sufficient, when collected into one fund, as a reserve against the liabilities it has to provide for, the greater part is lent out to producers and dealers; “thereby”, you say, “adding the amount, not indeed to the capital in existence, but to that in employment, and making a corresponding addition to the aggregate production of the community.” Now here it seems to me there is verbal inconsistency. The “sums” which individuals hold in reserve against liabilities are clearly money, not capital; and all that your description proves is that Banks of deposit add to the money in employment, yet, without assigning reason for the change in the phraseology, you substitute the word “capital” for “sums”, which I think must be regarded as meaning “money”. But further it seems to me that this use of language not merely obscures the real nature of the function performed by banks of deposit, but has even led you into a slight inaccuracy of doctrine. For the true nature of the process, I take it, is this. The Banks by collecting together the stagnant money of the country and rendering it active, cause an effect on prices, which results in increased importation, the money rendered redundant, through the economy effected by the banks, passing out of the country. The result of the whole is a larger amount of consumable commodities in the country and less money. The addition of consumable commodities may be employed productively, or they [sic] may not:* if they are not, then the banks have neither increased capital in the country, nor have they rendered it more active: if the new commodities are employed productively, then the banks have added to the aggregate amount of capital in the country. In no case can I see that banks have any tendency to render “capital” more active. They render “money” more active, by this means economize “money”, thereby enable us to dispense with a portion and get capital in exchange, and add to the aggregate amount of capital in the country in which they are established: ultimately, if the cause be traced to its last result, as it is in another passage by you, they add to the capital in existence by superseding the necessity of a portion of that which is employed in producing money, & thus setting it free for other purposes. Perfectly analogous is the effect of the economy of credit—e.g. bank notes. The credit instruments cannot [like coin(?)] go abroad; but in proportion as they are economized or as cheaper forms of credit are substituted for dearer, a smaller amount of capital is required for carrying on the business of circulation in a country, and the portion saved is set free for other occupations.
Further I have said that this straining of nomenclature prevents us from perceiving, or causes us to perceive but obscurely, the operation of some powerful influences on the Money Market.—On consideration I will reserve this topic till I have stated my view of the causes governing the rate of interest, or rather my view of the best mode of stating those laws.
The first point, and that which is the most fundamental in the whole matter, is to establish the relation in which the rate of interest stands to the productive powers of capital. That relation is this: (1) the productive powers of capital are the condition which render [sic] it possible that interest should be permanently paid: consequently the productiveness of capital sets the limit within which the rate of interest over long periods must confine itself; (2) since “more will be given for the use of money when more can be made with money”, the rate of interest will tend† to rise and fall with the rate of profit. These two propositions, I think, express adequately the relation in which the rate of interest stands to capital. The fundamental importance of appreciating that relation I fully admit; but I do not admit that the importance of securing this result justifies in [sic] so stating the doctrine as to shut out from view the relation in which the same phenomenon stands to money. This I think the received formula does. The rate of interest, then, though permanently limited by the productiveness of capital, and though tending to follow the variations in that productiveness, is temporarily not limited by any thing, but the actual pecuniary means of borrowers at the time of effecting the loan, and does not, with any general conformity follow the fluctuations in the rate of profit, often rising when profit—i.e. the productiveness of capital—is falling, & vice versa; the tendency noticed being constantly more or less neutralized and frequently wholly overcome by influences of an opposite kind. What then are the proximate causes on which the rate of interest depends?—I answer simply—on “the demand & supply of the community in relation to the amount of its money* (using the word in a large sense to include circulating medium of every kind which practically possesses purchasing or paying power according to the purpose for which the loan is made) disposable on loan.” (This statement of the doctrine differs in words only from that given by Tooke in his tract on the Currency 1826—for my view of which I refer you to N.B. Review, pp. 199-201.)24 This mode of stating the doctrine brings me directly into conflict with the proposition which you lay down p. 197 [II.653b-b657]—viz. “An increase of the currency has in itself no effect, and is incapable of having any effect on the rate of interest.” I venture to maintain as against this, that “an increase of the currency is capable of affecting the rate of interest, and as a matter of fact almost invariably does affect it in one direction or the other.” Let us consider this point.
An increase of the currency (understanding by currency for the present simply circulating medium in any form which practically possesses purchasing & paying power) must take effect in one or other of two ways:—either through the medium of a loan, or through that of purchase: the persons into whose hands the new currency first comes either lend it, or spend it. Now in either case I contend that the augmentation will tend to affect the rate of interest. I observe you draw a distinction (p. 198 [II.653b-b657]) between issues “as currency” and issues “as loans.” But this distinction seems to me exactly to beg the question in dispute. You say the issue are “loans”—no doubt—but loans of what?—of capital? This I deny and refer you back on this point to my previous arguments. I say that they are “loans of currency” just as truly as money handed over the counter in exchange for a commodity is payment in currency. Well if I am right in this it certainly follows that an increase of currency is capable of affecting the rate of interest—further the illustration shows, that, when the increase takes place by way of loan, its tendency is to depress the rate of interest. In conformity with the doctrine as stated above:—the supply of money disposable on loan being increased, while the demand by hypothesis remains the same, the rate of interest falls. Now take the other case, suppose the increase of the currency to take place through the medium of purchase, here again the rate of interest will be affected, though in an opposite direction. For the effect of an augmentation of the currency by means of purchase is to raise prices. Now as prices rise, the pecuniary needs of borrowers will increase, the demand for money on loan will therefore increase; but the supply of disposable money, according to our hypothesis, remaining as before, the rate of interest will rise. Another consideration, noticed by you, will tend to strengthen this tendency: if the depreciation of the circulating medium be so rapid as to be perceptible, this will affect the inclination of those in possession of money to lend: thus at the same time that the demand for money on loan will increase, the supply will diminish; both changes operating in the same direction—towards an elevation of the rate.
And now, reverting to the question as I left it at [II.1060.22ff.], let us try the two theories by the only effective test—the ability of each to explain the phenomena, and for this purpose let us take first the effect of the gold discoveries on the rate of interest. Viewing the occurrence through the received theory the judgment of economists was I think in general to the effect, that the increased supplies of gold wd have no tendency to disturb the rate of interest. The argument urged by you p. 197 [II.653b-b657] was employed. The theory directed attention to “capital”, as distinguished from currency; and it not being apparent that the increased supplies of gold wd have any speedy effect in altering the demand for capital as compared with the supply, the decision was as I have stated. Now I think it cannot be denied that the increased supplies of gold have in the event profoundly affected the money-markets of the world; and further I think the doctrine, as I have stated it above, wd if applied to the known facts of the case, have indicated generally the course which the fluctuations have taken. Thus that doctrine wd at once have suggested this inquiry:—into whose hands will the new money first come?—into the hands of persons who will spend it, or into the hands of persons who will lend it? So far as it promised to fall into the possession of the former class we might have expected the rate of interest to rise—so far as it promised to fall into the possession of the latter, we might have expected it to fall. Now in the gold countries, whither people went, not to live on their income, but to make money rapidly, spending wd clearly be the rule; and in these we might accordingly have expected the rate of interest rapidly to rise and to remain constantly nearly as high as the productiveness of capital wd admit: this in fact is what happened both in Australia & California: in the latter country especially money on loan was scarcely to be had on any terms: in both countries interest was for a time computed by the month, not by the year. I do not know whether this is still the case. On the other hand, we might have expected the rates for loans to have taken an opposite course in Gt Britain. The new money first reached this country principally through the hands of large capitalists. The rising demand in the gold countries wd of course lead them to extend their operations; but meanwhile the new gold wd find its way to the banks and show itself in an increase of their reserves. Even when their operations had reached the full limits of the expanding demand, still, economized as coin is in this country, the extended business wd be far from absorbing the whole of the new money, which wd still continue a dead weight on the loan market. This is, as you will remember what happened. From 1852 down to the breaking out of the Russian war the rate of interest in England was quite abnormally low—so low as to tempt Mr Gladstone to attempt a conversion of the 3 per cents into 2½ per cent stock—an operation in which he failed solely through the unexpected turn of our relations with Russia. No doubt it may be said that all this is merely wisdom after the event; but I submit that there is nothing in the above beyond the reach of fair inference from the theory of the rate of interest as I have stated it taken in connexion with the known facts of the case.
Again, I will give another example of the way in which, as it seems to me, the received mode of stating the law of interest the real operation of causes affecting the money market [sic]. Take a case which has occurred lately in which, owing to the sudden failure of a leading staple, there has happened a great derangement in the course of trade. The effect of such a derangement invariably is to cause a rise in the rate of interest. Why? I really do not clearly see how the fact wd be explained on the principles of the received doctrine. I do not think it cd be done at all without a very violent straining of words. But I will state how I wd explain it on my mode of conceiving the theory. In the case supposed—a derangement of trade from the failure of a leading staple—the rate of interest tends to rise chiefly from a diminution in the supply of lendable money, but this tendency may be strengthened by a simultaneous increase of demand; though it is possible also that the effect on demand may be in the opposite direction; and may in some degree neutralize the tendency of the other agent in the change. The effect on the demand for money on loan depends upon this—will the aggregate sum applied to the purchase of the staple be increased or the contrary? The price may so rise as to check the demand very greatly, so that on the whole the sum applied to the purchase of the scarce article will be less than before: this was I believe the case for some time with cotton on the first breaking out of the American war; but, speaking from memory, the Board of Trade returns have lately shown a larger aggregate expenditure on cotton than in the times of its abundance. In the latter state of affairs, the pecuniary requirements of borrowers in cotton manufacturing will be augmented; consequently the effect of the failure must be to increase the demand for money on loan: in the former state, of course the effect wd be the opposite. So far as to demand. But in all circumstances a derangement of trade from the cause supposed, indeed from any cause, wd be to diminish for a considerable time the supply of lendable money. For its effect is to send us to other countries in search of the staple which has failed us in its usual field. Now when a trade is opened for the first time with a new country it is an almost invariable rule that for a time, more or less extended, it is carried on, on one side, in the precious metals. It wd be an extraordinary circumstance if the failure which in 1856 & 57 sent us to China for silk shd have synchronized with an accident which shd have sent the Chinese to us for goods to the same value. It may therefore be assumed as a rule that a derangement in trade necessitates a larger use of gold and silver international transactions. Where is this gold & silver to come from? In the main it must come from the stocks which are held as the disposable reserve in commercial countries. The supply of money on loan is thus diminished, and a rise in the rate of interest is the natural result.* The above conditions supply I think all the elements for a solution of the problem: can it be said that the received doctrine supplies those elements? That doctrine wd, I think, direct the attention of the inquirer to the loss of “capital” incident to the failure of the staple. Now though the phenomena which result may no doubt be traced back to this fact, these phenomena take their shape & character, not at all from the fact itself, but from the way in which the occurrence happens to affect the pecuniary apparatus by which trade is carried on. For example, supposing the loss were one which could be repaired by a diversion of production within the limits of our own country, or within some civilized country, not given to hoarding and with tastes already formed for our commodities—in this case, although we were quite as slow in repairing the loss, the effect on the rate of interest wd be very different from that which wd be experienced if we were obliged to resort for the deficient article to a semi-barbarous country. Nor wd the circumstance that the failing staple were an element of “capital” affect the result in the least: if it were a finished manufacture suited only to luxurious consumption the effect wd, or at least might be, quite the same.
I could multiply these illustrations very considerably, but probably I have now said enough to give you a fair idea of the view for which I seek to obtain a hearing. If I were asked to characterize it by a word I should say that it regards the rate of interest as essentially a “monetary” phenomenon; whereas it has hitherto been represented as expressing a relation of “capital”, as distinguished from money. Monetary science in short, as a department of political economy, resolves itself, according to my notion, into two leading departments—prices and the rate of interest—or, as we might describe them, the value of money in relation to commodities at a given time, and its value in relation to itself at different times. All classifications of the circulating medium shd I think be made with reference to the convenience of interpretation in regard to these two classes of phenomena.
As an example of what I mean I will venture to lay before you a speculation as to the definition of money, which I had hoped before now to have brought before the Pol. Economy Club.
Let me first state what I understand to be the true criteria of a definition in Political Economy. The purpose of definition in P.E. is, I think, altogether analogous to its purpose in the physical sciences, say in Chemistry—namely to classify phenomena with a view to their interpretation. That classification of economic phenomena will be best, & therefore those definitions will be best, which mark those relations in the facts of wealth which are most important in determining the laws of its production and distribution. (I may observe here by the way that, if this view be sound, definitions in Pol. Economy should not be regarded, as Senior regards them, as the bases of our reasoning, and as final, but merely as provisional expedients to be constantly modified with the progress of our economic knowledge—as, in short, registers of the state of that knowledge.) The business of defining in P.E., therefore, is more than a verbal affair: it involves a question as to the relative importance of external facts. It is also indeed in some degree a question of words, inasmuch as P.E. deals in popular language, and it will always be desirable, as far as possible, to use words in such a sense that they shall suggest the right ideas. Well, keeping these two criteria of sound definition in view the question I have to consider is—What is the best definition of money?
The purpose of a definition of money, agreeably to the foregoing view, will be to assist the interpretation of monetary phenomena: these phenomena resolve themselves into two grand divisions—prices, and (according to my notions) the rate of interest. Confining ourselves, for the present, to the first class of phenomena, let us observe the relation in which the several portions of the circulating medium stand to them. And first we may note this fact, that in one point all the elements of the circulating medium agree;—they are all capable of affecting prices; and further none of them affect prices unless so far as they are actually employed as instruments of purchase. I need not illustrate this position as I know you will accept it. But, secondly, there is this difference between certain elements of the circulation and others, that the action of some upon prices is what, for want of a better word, I will call “unconditional”, while that of others is “conditional”. One condition indeed must be satisfied in all cases—the circulating medium, whatever its nature, must be used—used I mean as an instrument of demand. But assuming this condition to be fulfilled, one portion of the circulating medium is capable, not only of raising prices but of permanently sustaining them at the enhanced level; while other portions may raise prices, but whether they are capable of keeping them up or not depends on the fulfilment of a condition which has no place in the former case. Thus an increase of coin (on the assumption only that the persons into whose hands it comes be willing to use it) will, other things being the same, not merely raise prices for once, or keep them up for a time, but will permanently maintain them at the level to which it has raised them; the same may be said of inconvertible bank notes; but it is otherwise with credit in all its forms. So long as the credit circulation is trusted, it is perfectly efficacious in its action on price, but distrust at once smites it with impotence. The power of the credit circulation in every form (bank notes included) to uphold price depends upon the condition that the promise which it implies be performed, or at least that there be belief that this shall be done.
Now this distinction suggests some important inferences. It follows from it, for example, that, while any cause calculated to cheapen coin or to augment the supply of inconvertible notes tends to raise permanently the level of prices over the field throughout which these media circulate, and thus permanently to depreciate the currency over this area; an increased facility of creating credit instruments, even though resulting in an increased supply of these instruments, has no such tendency. Temporarily indeed an effect on prices may be produced, but whether that effect be permanently sustained depends, not on the facilities of creating credit media of exchange, but on the possibility of maintaining a sufficient supply of that commodity—gold or silver—in which the credit instruments are made payable, to enable the promises embodied in those instruments to be made good. Thus a discovery of gold or silver mines tends with certainty to raise prices and to depreciate those metals. But improvements in banking have no tendency permanently to depreciate the currency in the country in which they occur. They may indeed depreciate it slightly for a time till the excess in the circulation be got rid of; but so soon as this happens prices will return to their ordinary gold or silver level. The distinction again will throw light upon a point around which in the early days of the Bank Charter Act discussion much vehement controversy took place. In those days the stereotyped explanation of the monetary phenomena incident to all periods of speculative excitement was—the banks forced their issues into circulation; prices were driven up &c., &c. The evidence indeed of all competent bankers showed conclusively that the banks had no power of the kind attributed to them; but in spite of reiterated denials, the explanation was still put forward, still apparently believed in by those who advanced it, and I think was generally accepted by loose thinkers as satisfactory. The plausibility of the explanation consisted, I think, in this:—It was certain that the banks were anxious to find employment for their reserves: the low rate of interest proved this: now this anxiety on the part of the banks implied the power on the part of all persons in fair credit to obtain the command of purchasing power. In fact the credit, whether of the banks or of individuals, represented purchasing power; and it was assumed that this undefined store of purchasing power being left free from all legislative restraint wd surely be used. Such an inference wd be perfectly just if the purchasing power consisted in gold and silver. If the Banks, for example, had each a gold mine in its vault, and the large capitalists each a Fortunatus’ purse in his pocket, purchasing power of this sort wd quite certainly be brought into exercise and force up prices; but purchasing power resting on credit differed from purchasing power resting on coin in this, that it cd not be put in operation without bringing those who employed it under an obligation to make good the amt at some time or other in specie. Individuals and institutions, accordingly, who were in good credit, sensible of this, wd of course refuse to employ their credit in unproductive expenditure, and were deterred from employing it in productive operation unless where they saw their way or thought they saw their way to turning their capital with a profit. Hence the justification of the position maintained with so much ability by Tooke, that overtrading and speculative extravagance were due, not to the facilities afforded by credit establishments, but to the prospects, well-founded or delusive, of turning increased capital (I use the word in the received sense) with a profit.
There is also another position of Tooke, in his treatment of it assuming sometimes I think a paradoxical character, which receives elucidation from the same distinction. Tooke maintained that “the prices of commodities do not depend on the quantity of money as indicated by the amount of bank notes, nor upon the amount of the whole circulating medium, but, on the contrary, that the amount of bank notes & of the circulating medium is the consequence of prices.”25 The doctrine encountered abundant ridicule from Colonel Torrens and other writers of his school: nevertheless I have not the least doubt that the principle laid down is both true and important. The whole plausibility of the objection to the doctrine depends upon one ignoring the distinction which I am contending for. The statement wd be palpably absurd if made with regard to coin, or inconvertible currency: it seems to me to be not less clearly true when the allegation is confined to a credit circulation. The truth which the proposition embodies is this, that in a country like England, where the great mass of the circulation consists of instruments of credit, the proximate cause of prices is opinion—the opinion of merchants and dealers as to the value of commodities estimated in gold: when, for example the price of a given commodity rises, the fact indicates that, in the opinion of the dealers in that commodity, its value, until the present stock of it be consumed or until an increased supply be obtained, may be maintained at that level in relation to gold and silver or, what comes to the same thing, paper convertible into gold or silver: the judgment to this effect once being formed by those who have credit at their command, this credit is (to borrow an expression of yours) “coined” into bills, cheques and other convenient forms. The advance in price is thus not caused by an increase of the circulating medium, but on the contrary the increase in the circulating medium is caused by the advance of price. (I think, by the way, that this analysis shows that credit may influence prices potentially—I mean without being actually offered for commodities: the belief that it wd be offered or that at some future time it will be offered is sufficient to induce the holders of the commodity to raise their terms. The same qualification must, I rather think, be applied also in the case of coin.)
Once more, the distinction for which I contend enables us to answer a question about which much confused argument was put forward some years ago—the question whether in estimating the probable effects of the gold discoveries we should compare the new increments of gold with the stock of the metal in existence, or with the composite aggregate of metal, circulating paper, and credit of all kinds. I remember M. Leon Faucher26 maintained that it was with the latter body that the comparison shd be made; and the same position was maintained in the Times no longer ago than a year27 by less known names. But with the distinction which I have stated in view, it is quite plain that the position is fallacious. The (gold & silver) prices which at present prevail in commercial countries are, as permanent phenomena, the consequence of the quantity of gold & silver which is maintained there, not at all of the quantity of credit in circulation; this being, on the contrary as we have seen, the effect, instead of the cause of prices.
I have now pointed out one important distinction between coin and inconvertible notes on the one hand, & credit media of circulation on the other—the circumstance that the one class act “unconditionally” on prices and are therefore capable of “permanently” sustaining them, while the sustaining power of the other is conditional & liable at any moment to break down. Closely connected with this is another important distinction—the elasticity of credit as compared with coin (as compared also with inconvertible notes). This elasticity may conduce, in a certain state of public feeling, to intensify oscillations of price; but it may also, (and this is its more frequent though less noticed effect), be made the means of moderating such oscillations.* By following up this line of speculation we shd be led to the true conditions on which the stability of a credit system depends—those conditions being—(1) sound views amongst the mercantile community as to the causes affecting the supply and demand of commodities, (2) entire freedom in the use of credit, and lastly (3) the habitual maintenance of a large reserve of gold or silver. The Bank Act of 1844, founded as it is on a theory of currency essentially unsound, so far as it has any operation, tends, as I conceive, to aggravate all the causes which conduce to instability. On this point I refer to N.B. Review, pp. 211 et seq.28
The result of the foregoing investigation has been, to show that, as regards the phenomena of price, the most important distinction among the elements of the circulating medium lies between coin and inconvertible notes† on the one hand and instruments of credit on the other. This distinction I wd mark by confining the term “money” to the two former; of money therefore there wd be two sorts—metallic and paper money (the latter being inconvertible notes): all the rest wd come under the general head of “credit.” We might, agreeably with this view, define money as consisting of those kinds of exchange media of which the purchasing & paying power is unconditional, or of which the power of sustaining prices can never suffer defalcation. I have treated the question so far solely with reference to the phenomena of price, but it is plain that an examination of it with reference to those of the rate of interest wd lead us to precisely the same conclusion; the purposes for which circulating medium is borrowed having always direct regard to its purchasing and paying power. (Supposing this definition to be adopted, it wd be necessary to substitute in the statement of the law governing the rate of interest (as given ante II.1060-1) for “money”, the words circulating medium possessing at the time of the loan purchasing or paying power.) [Altered; see e.g. II.650c-c, 651a-a, 651c-c, 651d, 651f-f652, 653a-a, 653b-b657.]
II.665 (II.208-9). I understand you to admit here that the contrivance of the Act—i.e. the separation of departments combined with the restriction placed on the power of issue—does in some degree “prevent the ultimate aggravation of the severity” of a commercial crisis. I cannot but think that in doing so you make a concession which the facts of the case do not call for. I cannot see that the “retardation” of a crisis must necessarily or would probably, aggravate its severity. If the retardation occurred during the “ascending period”, obviously enough it wd have this effect. Doubtless too it wd have this effect if it took place during the “quiescent state”. But the highest point having been reached and the descent having commenced, I should expect that the more gradual the descent, the more it wd allow time for the disentangling of sound from unsound speculation; and that, on the contrary, a very abrupt collapse of the markets wd be well calculated to bring down solvent and insolvent houses, solid and bubble schemes, in one general ruin—in fact to produce a crisis which otherwise might never have happened. There is a phrase that is frequently in the mouths of the admirers of the Act—that of “clearing the air”; but experience seems to show that those sudden oscillations in the rate of interest which the Act produces, while they are quite sufficient to send into the Gazette men who are afterwards able to pay 20s. in the £, are very far from being certainly efficacious in searching out the rotten parts of our commercial economy. How many bubble schemes have been exploded in times of commercial quiescence; while the very worst and most disgraceful speculations which the country has seen have lived through all the rigours of the most violent crisis. To mention one instance, that gigantic scheme of complicated fraud organized in the leather trade survived the crisis of 1857, though now known to have been at that time in a state of bankrupcy—survived “the clearing of the air” of that time to succumb in the comparatively mild season of some years ago. The truth, as I fancy, is, that the detection and explosion of rotten schemes depends less upon the stringency of the money market than on the private knowledge of creditors as to the position of persons and houses with whom they have transactions. In a period of alarm suspicion is generally undiscriminating, so that it becomes a good deal a matter of chance on whom the pressure falls. In connexion with the point now under discussion I venture to think that you do not sufficiently advert to the fact, that neither at this stage—the commencement of the decline—any more than at any other stage, does the Act make any provision that the Bank shall not continue its advances until its reserve is absolutely exhausted: if the Bank contracts its operations a moment before this consummation is reached, it is in deference to its own discretion, not at all to any restraint imposed by the law. This is in truth a vital point in connexion with the theoretical justification of the Act, because the doctrine originally laid down, and still frequently assumed as realized in practice, was that the Act took the management of the currency out of the reach of individual discretion and placed it under a self-acting law: in fact nothing is more certain than that the stability of our currency rests now as much on the discretion of individuals as it ever did. This has indeed become so apparent that the defence of the Act is now generally shifted—at least by its more judicious advocates—from theoretical to practical grounds—practical grounds which directly negative its theoretical pretensions. It is said that the Act virtually compels the Bank to raise the rate of interest under a drain at an earlier period than it otherwise wd do. Doubtless it does: if the Bank did not raise the rate of interest sooner now than under the old system, the certain result wd be that it wd find itself, at what under the old system wd be an early stage of the movement, at the end of its resources. But does this constitute a practical justification of the Act? It creates an artificial pitfall, and because efforts are made, more or less successfully, to avoid the snare, its admirers take credit for having added to our security, and point triumphantly to the strainings of the endangered parties as conclusive evidence of the wisdom and benevolence of the law! What those who undertake to defend the Act on practical grounds ought to show, is, either that it renders the task of maintaining the stability of our credit system more easy than formerly, or, failing this, that it provides for the exercise on the part of the Bank directors of a larger and surer discretion. The former end it certainly has not accomplished: on the contrary the separation of the departments by splitting the reserve in two combined with the restriction on issue has enormously enhanced the difficulty of the problem; while, as regards the latter point, though public criticism has done something towards quickening the discretion of the Bank directors (as it wd with the progress of monetary knowledge under any system), this cannot be ascribed in any degree to the influence of the Act of 1844, the teaching of whose promoters was, as the Times once put it, that “it was for bankers to look to their own interest, leaving the currency under Sir. R. Peel’s Act, to take care of itself.”30 [Unaltered in specified place.]
II.649-50 and 667-8 (II.194 and 212-13). In the former passage p. 194 [II.649-50], you enumerate, as constituting the elements of “the general loan fund of the country”—“the disposable capital deposited in banks or represented by bank-notes (I am not quite clear whether the expression “or represented by bank notes” is intended to qualify “disposable capital”, or “disposable capital deposited in banks”—in other words whether you intend it as an equivalent expression for “deposited in banks”, or as denoting a particular form in which such deposits may be made), together with the funds of those who . . . live upon the interest of their property” [II.649.42-650.5]; and in the reasoning in pp. 212-13 [II.667-8] these seems [sic] to be the only elements of the loan fund which you contemplate. But surely there is another very important one—the credit of bankers,* as distinct both from the sums lodged with them on deposit, and from the notes which they hold, or under the present law, may issue. The reasoning in pp. 212-13 [II.667-8] appears to proceed upon the assumption that when a bank discounts a bill, it must either issue notes to the person from whom the bill is obtained, or encroach (in order to discount the bill) on the money lying with them in deposit. But, as I understand the matter, the bank may, and in the great majority of instances does, adopt neither of these courses: may it not simply place the amount to the credit of the person from whom it receives the bill, leaving him to draw against it at his convenience; and may not the cheques thus drawn be lodged again in the bank, the amt being simply transferred from the credit of drawer to that of the drawee? or if not lodged in the bank which originally discounted the bill, it might be lodged in [some (?)] other, with whom an exchange wd be effected through the Clearing House. If I correctly conceive the process, it seems to me that the banks possess an indefinite fund from [wh (?)] to extend monetary accomodation to the public, without sensibly increasing their issue, or touching the funds left with them in deposit—a fund of which the only limit is the prudence [of (?)] the managers of each institution. Supposing my notion to be right as to what happens in a large class of [cases when (?)] a bill is discounted, I presume the sum, written down by the bank to the credit of [the (?)] person presenting the bill, wd be regarded as a “deposit”. I have no authoritat[ive] knowledge as to how the matter stands, but I presume this is so. If so, it is a ver[y im]portant consideration; for “deposits” are commonly supposed to represent reso[urces(?)] of the bank as well as liabilities; but a deposit occurring in the way I hav[e] described wd represent a liability only. I think it wd be very desirable if this point were cleared up, but I have not here access to any one sufficiently informe[d] to enlighten me. [Altered; see II.650c-c and b-b (referring to “disposable capital”).]
II.668.4ff. (II.212). “But the mode in which they are really objectionable &c &c . . . The rate of interest is [not] prevented from rising.” I do not follow this reasoning: it seems to me the effect on the rate [of] interest wd be the same in either case. What really happens, and happens alike in bo[th] cases, is this:—a certain amt of circulating medium formerly existing in the state of mo[ney(?)] disposable on loan is withdrawn from this state and employed in circulating commo[—] Supposing the bank to make the loan out of actual funds lodged with it, the lending abili[ty(?)] of the bank and of the country is diminished by so much, and a certain portion of [—] demand for purchasing or paying power is satisfied: supposing the depositors to draw the funds out themselves, an equal encroachment is made on the loan fund of the bank and of the country, and an equal portion of the demand for loans is satisfied. I cannot see that either the demand or the supply of money on loan wd be affected by the mode in which this result—the same in each case—was brought about; nor therefore why, one course shd affect the rate of interest more than the other. In practice I believe there wd be a difference; because I believe that in practice the bank wd make the loan not out of funds actually in its possession, but out of its general credit in the way indicated above. Made in this way the rate of interest wd not be affected in the same degree as if made in the other; but why? because a refusal to [discount(?)] by the bank wd be a refusal to extend its credit further: it wd therefore be equivalent to a curtailment effected in the available loan fund of the country.
Supposing I am right in the view above advanced I think it must be admitted that the considerations urged attenuate indefinitely, if they do not entirely remove, the force of the concession made to the supporters of the Act on pp. 213-14 [II.670.12ff.]. “I am compelled to think that the being restricted from increasing their issues is a real impediment” &c. . . . If the restrictions of the Act of 1844 were no obstacle to the advances of the banks in the interval preceding the crisis, why were they found an insuperable obstacle during the crisis”? I answer, because in the former period a credit with the Bank—to be used by means of cheques and not involving any important increase of issue—answered the purpose of those who borrowed; whereas in the latter period—owing to the extensive collapse in the mean time in the ordinary media of circulation—actual notes were required. See the quotation from Fullarton p. 216. [II.671.17ff.] [Altered; see II.668q-q and r-r, and 670y-y.]
II.678 (II.225). “Every drain for exportation. . . . . is now compulsorily drawn from that source alone—the bank-note circulation.” [II.678o-o.] This I think is only true when we include as part of the “circulation” the notes or gold held in the banking department of the bank, as well as other “reserves” existing through the country; but these “reserves” are not “circulation” in the sense in which the word is used by Mr Fullarton in the passages previously quoted. In those passages the word “circulation” is restricted to “that portion of the metallic wealth of the nation which really circulates” (224 [II.677.7-8]), as distinguished from “the hoards”, or stagnant metallic wealth only to be called into activity by the attraction of a high rate of interest. Restrict the term “circulation” equally in its application to our monetary system, and it is not true that every drain for exportation is drawn from “the bank-note circulation”. As you point out in the next paragraph “the first operation (and I venture to add not merely the first but almost the entire operation) of the drain is on the banking department, “the deposits” in [sic] which, as you add, “constitute the bulk of the unemployed and disposable capital of the country.” The drain therefore does not fall on the “circulation” in Fullarton’s sense of that word. The true analogue in our system for the hoards which exist under a metallic currency are clearly I think the bank reserves, or more generally lendable money wherever it is to be found. The objection to the Act of ’44, it seems to me, is, not that it throws a drain upon a part of the currency on which it wd not fall under a metallic system, but that it curtails the dimensions of the available reserve: this it does by the separation of departments; the effect of which is to lock up in the Issue department a vast quantity of gold which really answers no practical purpose whatever. In the passage (p. 224 [II.677.24]) beginning “In a country &c . . . [sic] the word “reserve” of the Bank of England seems [to be(?)] used to cover the gold in both departments. Reasoning on the principles of the Act I do not [think(?)] this use of “reserve” is justifiable. The gold in the Issue department wd not I think be regarded by those who framed the Act, as “reserve”, but as “circulation”—the notes actually circulating being mere tickets representing it. [Altered; see II.678o-o.]
MILL TO CAIRNES
12 Dec., 1864.
I do not know how sufficiently to thank you for all you have done for me. That you should have taken the trouble to write out your thoughts so fully on so many points, only for my use, is a favour such as I should never have presumed to ask from you. It is like nothing but the philosophic correspondences in which the thinkers of the 16th and 17th centuries used to compare notes and discuss each other’s opinions before or after publication—of which we have so many interesting specimens in the published works of Descartes. I shall keep the notes carefully and return them to you, for I do not like that so much thought, so clearly worked out on paper, should have no reader but me: besides, it enables me with a better conscience to use their contents.
On most of the minor points I think you are right, and shall profit by your suggestions. On Ireland I shall cancel all I had newly written on that subject, and wait for the further communication you kindly promise.31 On the few points of doctrine on which our opinions differ, you have not, thus far, convinced me, though you have taught me much. Among these I do not count the theory of the rate of interest, for I agree entirely with your explanation of the phenomena, and the article in the North British Review appears to me excellent. I had, even before I heard from you, inserted a passage pointing out how the new gold, as long as it continues to flow in, must tend to keep down the rate of interest [II.651f-f652]. We differ, I believe, only on a question of nomenclature, and at present it seems to me that the objections to your phraseology are stronger than to mine. But I have not done thinking on the subject, and I shall in any case have to modify several expressions, if nothing more.
In the matter of the operation of duties on international values, I see that I have omitted one of the elements of the question, viz. the competing demands of other commodities on the purse of the consumer; but it does not seem to me that this omission materially affects the conclusion. Suppose that I have a given sum, say £10 a year, the expenditure of which I am determined, whatever happens, to divide between two commodities, A and B. I conceive that even then, if A rises in price and B falls, the effect in the average of cases will be that I shall buy more of B and less of A.
On the Wakefield system I scarcely understand your argument. In the supposed case of the settlers, and in every other, I apprehend the separation of employments to be a real cause and indispensable condition of a larger production. It is true that territorial separation of employments, by international trade, often suffices: but the main justification of Wakefield’s system is, that this trade does not take effect when families settle, each of them many miles from its next neighbour in the wilderness.
The point on which we seem to differ most, & to be least likely to come to an agreement, is the income tax. You think it fair to take from different people in a single year, an equal percentage of what their incomes, whether permanent or temporary, would sell for in that year: because (you say) the payment in each year should be compared with what the income is worth in that year to its owner. In this I agree; but I answer, that the income is, in that year, worth to him its capitalized value only on the supposition that he actually capitalizes it, and spends the whole value within the year. Then, indeed, he will have been fairly taxed: but then, he will not have to pay the tax in any future year, for the income will have passed into other hands. On any other supposition the income is only worth to him its capitalized value spread over the whole of its duration, that is, in each year the total amount divided by the number of years. I agree in what you say about equality of sacrifice, but in estimating this, I only exclude necessaries. I do not think a distinction can be fairly made between comforts and luxuries, or that I am entitled to call my tea and coffee by the one name, and another person’s melons and champagne by the other. I allow for nothing but what is needed to keep an average person alive and free from physical suffering.
I have read with the greatest interest Judge Longfield’s address, and two of your articles on it in the Daily News.32 There may be others which I have missed, as the paper is often stopped at the French post office. Though I thought the Judge wrong in much of what he said on fixity of tenure, I agreed with, I think, every part of his address which was praised in your articles, and I think it altogether a most important paper. I give him the greatest credit for speaking out so plainly, and so much to the purpose. It is particularly timely, coming so soon after the speech in which Gladstone included remedial measures for Ireland among the things which he put in the front of his policy.33 We see there, as usual in Gladstone, the man who speaks from his own convictions, and not from external influences. No other minister would have put forward Ireland, any more than Reform, just at this time, when there is no public outcry about it.
MILL TO CAIRNES
20 Dec., 1864.
I wrote to you some days ago a letter addressed Dublin and “to be forwarded”, thanking you for the two packets of notes you kindly sent and remarking generally on their purport. I have since carefully revised all the passages you referred to, and there are very few of the notes by which I have not, to some extent, profited. In a great many cases I have entirely adopted your view. I have rewritten the fourth section of the chapter on the Rate of Interest and have much enlarged it [II.653-8]; completing my exposition of the causes on which the rate of interest depends, by adopting nearly all you have said on the subject that involves doctrine. In what merely involves the mode of stating the theory, I still prefer my own: but I see that the whole truth of the subject may be expressed in either way, and may usefully be so in both. Your remarks on the definition of money I have not used, for a different reason: I cannot, in conscience, take without necessity what belongs to you. When it is for the correction of an error I have less scruple, but all I have said on this matter tended to your opinion, though less thorough and conclusive. Even on the Interest question, I should like, if you will permit me, to acknowledge my obligations to you in a note.
CAIRNES TO MILL
23 Dec., 1864.
I have received both your letters—that of the 20th inst. this day—which have caused me, I needly not say, very sincere gratification. That you should have modified your book in any degree in deference to suggestions of mine is a compliment which I shall never cease to prize, coming as it does from one to whom I lie under the deepest intellectual obligations. It brings me the comforting assurance that I have so appropriated your principles and methods that I can now apply them for myself. I shall not affect to deny that I shall be proud of any reference you may make to me in your work; but be assured that whatever I have done (and in truth you very greatly overrate this) has been a labour of love, for which I have thought of no other acknowledgment than its being received and considered by you.
I must apologize for the delay which I have allowed to elapse in forwarding you the results of my inquiries into the state of Ireland. You will accept my assurance that it has been quite unavoidable. I have now got on paper, and hope to forward you by next post [sic], the most material items of such information as I have been able to obtain. So far as the facts go, I think you may accept them as trustworthy. When not taken from official documents or from my own experience they are given on the authority of informants in whom I have every confidence, of whom the principal have been Judge Longfield, Mr Thom (of Thom’s Almanack)34 and Mr Jonathan Pim35 —the last a merchant of this city connected with the Quaker body & author of a very good book on Ireland which, together with another in the compiling of which he took part, he has (as you will see by his letter which I enclose) requested me to forward to you. I have also had the advantage of conversing much with an intimate friend, Mr McDonnell,36 Examiner in Judge L’s Court, than whom I dont know any one more thoroughly familiar with the present state of land tenure in Ireland or more anxious to impart his knowledge truthfully. A good deal of what I send is in the nature of speculation, and of the value of this you will judge yourself.
I have read with great interest what you have said on my criticisms, but before replying to this part of your letter, I prefer to wait till I have time to consider some of the points you have urged more carefully than since the receipt of your letter I have had time to do.
Notes on the State of Ireland (1864) for J.S.M.37
That cottierism has undergone an extensive reduction in Ireland is quite beyond question. The fact is conclusively indicated in the statistics of holdings quoted at p. 18 of the article sent herewith.38 The causes which have brought about this reduction are numerous and powerful, and are still in active operation. At the head of these I would place free trade. The cottier class, on the scale on which it has been known in modern Irish history, had its origin in the transition of Ireland from a grazing to a corn-producing country, which occurred in the latter half of the 18th century: the phenomenon was connected with the same group of causes under the influence of which England from being an exporter became an importer of grain: and the cottiers have always been identified with the system of agriculture under which they arose. Free trade has effectually shattered, and already in great part overthrown, that system, by throwing the country upon its special capabilities which (speaking generally) are pastoral. It is curious to note how exactly the process which was in operation a century ago is now being reversed. Tillage was then rapidly taking the place of pasture; the labourers employed in this conversion being paid (in the absence of circulating capital) in land. At the commencement of the movement, which we may date at 1754, the population of Ireland, which for quarter [sic] of a century had scarcely moved, having been 2,309,000 in 1726, was 2,372,634 persons: by 1788 it was upwards of 4,000,000; in 1805 it was 5,395,456.*Now a contrary impulse is causing tillage to give way to pasture: the labour† of the cottiers is every year less and less required; on the other hand the land which they hold can be turned to good account in grass. The circulating capital which came into existence a century ago contemporaneously with the cottier system is now going back into the fixed form; and with the decline in the country’s circulating capital, the population is also declining. Free trade, it must be confessed, has been injurious to Ireland if the maintenance of an immense agricultural population in the condition of the cottiers was a good.
I have placed free trade at the head of the causes tending to the reduction of cottierism, because I think that it is the fundamental agency in the movement, and would even alone have led sooner or later to this result. Of course the tendency thus developed was immensely accelerated by the famine: it has also been aided by other causes:—Amongst these the principal are the lesson of experience; the universal breakdown of the system in 1847 has shown landlords that the system is as ruinous to them as it is demoralizing to the peasantry; 2. the commercial ideas infused into agricultural society through the medium of the new men who have purchased land in the Encumbered and Landed Estates Court. Land is every day coming more and more to be looked at in the light of an investment; and from this point of view cottiers are an abomination. Lastly, the increased facilities of intercourse and communication with America and other new countries have opened the door of escape to the superfluous population, and allowed the movement to go forward at a rate which without this wd be impossible. It may be too much to say that cottierism is tending towards entire extinction; but I think there need be no hesitation in saying that the dimensions of the phenomenon will soon be so reduced that it will cease to be important.
What is the state of things that is taking its place? This is indicated by the statistics already referred to. The farms between 15 and 30 acres and those above 30, have increased pari passu with the diminution of those below 15 acres. The usual course of proceeding is much as follows:—A landlord finds his estate encumbered with a number of small cottiers holding from 1 to 9 or 10 acres. He has no occasion for their services as labourers; for he finds he can turn what land he farms himself to better account in grass; nor for the same reason can they procure employment from the larger farmers in the neighbourhood. For any other purpose than that of mere labourers they are utterly unfit: they are ignorant unenterprising and generally largely in arrear of rent. Improvement of his estate, or the rendering of it profitable in any way, is manifestly impossible while they are on it. He comes to the most hopeless amongst them, urges them to give up the land, offers to remit all arrears of rent, suggests emigration, and occasionally offers to contribute something towards the expenses of the journey. While this is going forward those poor people are probably plied at the same time with invitations from their friends on the other side of the Atlantic to join them; their invitations being seconded by remittances to pay their passage money out. Then the movement once set on foot is contagious. The cottiers are thus rapidly passing away, and the landlord, once rid of them, will not be anxious to submit his back again to the burden. He will proceed to consolidate several of the small holdings, and, according to circumstances, will either take the land into his own hands, or look out for a solvent tenant of some substance to whom he can let the whole: very frequently the plan adopted is to add the land thus liberated to the holdings of the most promising of the existing tenants.*
I have referred above to the beneficial influence exercised on land tenure in Ireland through the commercial ideas of the new proprietory: it must be confessed that this agency is not without its drawbacks.41 A class of men, not very numerous, but sufficiently so to do much mischief, have through the Landed Estates Court, got into possession of land in Ireland who of all classes are least likely to recognize the duties of a landlords position. These are small traders in towns, who by dint of sheer parsimony frequently combined with money lending at usurious rates have succeeded in the course of a long life in scraping together as much money as will enable them to buy 50 or 100 acres of land. These people never think of turning farmers, but proud of their position as landlords, proceed to turn it to the utmost account. An instance of this kind came under my notice lately in the neighbourhood of Drogheda. The tenants on the property were at the time of the purchase, some 12 years ago, in a tolerably comfortable state. Within that period their rent has been raised three several times; and it is now, as I was informed last night by the priest of the district, nearly double its amount at the commencement of the present proprietor’s reign. The result is that the people who were formerly in tolerable comfort, are now reduced to poverty: two of them have left the property and squatted near an adjacent turf bog where they exist trusting for support to occasional jobs. In the end, if this man is not shot, he will injure himself through the deterioration of his property, but meantime he has been getting 8 or 10 per cent on his purchase money. This is by no means a rare case. The worst evil is that the scandal which such occurrences cause casts its reflection on transactions of a wholly different & perfectly legitimate kind, such as I have described above, where the removal of the tenants is simply an act of mercy for all parties.
I have indicated above the causes which are conducing to the decline of cottierism. Simultaneously with the movement thus induced, there is an opposite process going on. The anxiety of landlords to get rid of cottiers is to some extent neutralized by the anxiety of middlemen to get them. To understand this it should be remembered that about one fourth of the whole land of Ireland is held under long leases; the rent reserved, where the lease is of long standing, being generally greatly under the real value of the land. It rarely happens that the land thus held is cultivated by the owner of the lease: instead of this he sublets it at a rack rent to small men, and lives on the excess of the rent which he receives over that which he pays. These leases are constantly running out; and as they draw towards their close, the middleman has no other interest in the land than at any cost of permanent deterioration to get the utmost out of it during the unexpired period of the term. In this purpose the small cottier tenants precisely answer his turn. Middlemen in this position are as anxious to obtain cottiers as tenants as the landlords are to be rid of them; and the result is a transfer of this sort of tenant from one class of estates to the other. The movement is of limited dimensions, but it does exist, and so far as it exists, neutralizes the general tendencies. Perhaps it will here occur that this system will reproduce itself; that the same motives which led to the existence of middlemen will perpetuate the class; but there is no danger of this. Landowners are now perfectly alive to the ruinous consequences of this system however convenient for a time; and a clause against subletting is now becoming a matter of course in every lease.
We see then that the cottier class are rapidly diminishing in Ireland, absorbed chiefly in the emigration; not however altogether: to some extent they pass into the position of ordinary labourers. So far as the latter lot has been theirs, I do not believe that any sensible improvement has been effected in their condition. For a time their wages may rise under the influence of a good harvest and the drain of population to America: in the last 20 years the rates at large over the country have probably risen from 20 to 40 or 50 per cent; but this mode of stating the case is I believe misleading; the improvement in real wages not at all corresponding to this nominal rise. Potatoes, which was almost their sole subsistence in former years, and is still their main subsistence, have in recent times sold at 2 or 3 or 4 times their former price. In this year potatoes are exceptionally low, but are probably twice their price as it stood 20 years ago, or nearly so. The 4d or 6d a day which in remote parts of the country was a common rate of wage twenty years ago cd not now by any means subsist a man. Money wages, therefore, have necessarily risen: I dare say too that on the whole looking at the lowered prices of tea sugar and clothing during the time in question, real wages have risen; but I see no indications in any direction of an advance in the standard of comfort. In the part of the country that I know best—the Co. Meath & more especially the neighbourhood of Drogheda—the ordinary course of things is for men to marry at the age of three or four and twenty, often earlier, the women being somewhat younger, and their joint wage frequently not exceeding 1s/6d a day, rarely exceeding 2s/6d. A man of good character earning 2s/6d a day is thought to be a catch. Any hope of permanent improvement therefore by the conversion of cottiers into labourers I regard as quite chimerical.*
The cottier class, as the statistics of holdings show are giving place in a large degree to the class of farmers immediately above them—those holding from 15 to 30 or 40 acres. What are the prospects of improvement amongst these? One cannot represent them as very hopeful: still the horison in this direction is not altogether dark. One fact is noteworthy. Within the last 20 years a very large increase has taken place in the private balances and deposits in the banks of the country. In 1840 the aggregate of these moneys was, on the last day of the year, £5,568,000: in 1862 it had risen to £14,389,000: it is probably now more than three times its amount at the former date. During this period the deposits in savings banks, after falling at the time of the famine from nearly three to little over one million, have on the whole undergone little change: In 1861 they stood almost exactly at the same amount as in 1841. With regard to the former item—the deposits in banks—there seems good reason for believing that the increase is mainly due to the accumulations of the small farmers. The banks in which the increase has been most marked are, as I have been informed by Mr. Jon. Pim, the Provincial and National banks, which are also the banks of which the branches in the rural districts are most numerous. Now it is not likely that these accumulations wd come from the larger class of farmers—the so called “gentlemen-farmers”:—these, when they have made money, look out for investments of a different kind—as railways mining speculations and stocks of various kinds: on the other hand the rural traders, accustomed to larger profits, wd be dissatisfied with the low rate of interest allowed by the banks. The small farmer class is the only one whose ideas on the subject of pecuniary return are so limited and moderate as to be content with this sort of investment. For the most part they look upon the bank as the only alternative to the thatch.
The last remark will suggest a qualification of the inference which wd at first view suggest itself on contemplating the statistics just quoted. A good part of the ten millions added in the last fourteen years to the aggregate of bank deposits has been undoubtedly merely transferred from hoards—the form which the savings of the same class formerly assumed; and this process is still going on. A priest—the same to whom I have referred as my informant on another point—told me that, only a few months ago, he received 600 sovereigns from a small farmer to be lodged in a bank at Drogheda: these had all been concealed in the thatch of his cottage—the sum of the savings of a life time. Nevertheless, making all due allowance for accessions from this source, a considerable portion of the ten millions of new deposits will doubtless represent new accumulations. We are justified therefore in concluding, notwithstanding the symptoms of poverty that still everywhere abound, that wealth is growing among this class.
And here the question occurs, why with agriculture in its present backward state, do not these people invest their savings in the most obvious way—the improvement of their farms? The tenant-righter has a reply at hand—want of security. But, plausible as this solution is, it may be met by a practical answer. It is an unquestionable fact that many of the worst cultivated farms in the country are held under long and profitable leases; it is a common saying amongst country people—such a man can “afford” to farm badly—i.e. even below the low standard which generally prevails. Further, though it is probably true that in the Northern districts where “tenant-right” prevails, cultivation is on the whole somewhat better than in other parts of the country, the superiority after all is not very great; while, such as it is, it may be sufficiently accounted for by the superior energy which generally characterises the people in the Northern part of the island. This view of the case is confirmed by what I am told is an admitted fact—admitted even by R. Catholic landlords—that Protestants form the best tenants, and are invariably preferred. In dealing with the case I think we should distinguish between proximate and ultimate causes. Proximately I think it is beyond question that the bad state of cultivation is to be referred to the low industrial morale of the farming population. With the vast majority the one idea of farming which prevails is to take as much as they can out of the land and to put as little as they can into it. The notion of considerable outlay with a view to improvement of a permanent kind, whatever be the interest of the cultivator in the land, hardly occurs to an Irish farmer. But I think it is not the less true that this low conception of the farmer’s functions—this fear to cast his bread upon the waters—is the result of causes among which insecurity of tenure holds a prominent place. Insecurity of tenure has long been and is still the rule in Ireland; and the state of feeling generated under this condition of things, has not only, as frequently happens, in a great degree detached itself from and become independent of its original cause, but has influenced opinion far beyond the reach of its direct action. The standard of farming which prevails generally becomes the standard for the few who are placed under circumstances more favourable than those which generally prevail. The conclusion to which I come is that the remedy is to be sought in many directions. Security of tenure I regard as an indispensable condition, and this I think an improved public opinion in connexion with the reforms suggested by Judge Longfield wd substantially accomplish;* but this should go hand in hand with general and specific instruction. As regards instruction, the National Board have attempted something in this direction: in 1862 altogether 134 agricultural school farms were in operation, of which 19 were school farms of the first class under the exclusive control of the Commissioners; but, so far as I can discover, the instruction imparted in these schools has not yet reached the farming classes to any sensible extent:† the function which these schools have hitherto performed has been the training of stewards for the gentry, through whom it is possible some knowledge may have trickled down to the classes beneath them. The means of instruction which has hitherto been found most efficacious is that described in the “Irish Landlords” letter in The Gardener’s Chronicle—a combination of example, precept, and coercion. Another mode which has been tried, but not with success, is the introduction of Irish & Scotch farmers on the lands obtained from the emigrating cottiers. The want of local knowledge, both of places and character, and the jealousy of the native population of “foreigners” has generally succeeded in defeating experiments of this kind.
In connexion with this part of the subject—the condition of the small farmers in the rank above the cottiers—you will be curious to know what is the prospect of a class of peasant proprietors arising in Ireland. The prevailing opinion amongst those with whom I have conversed on the subject is that there is no likelihood of this. This is Judge Longfield’s opinion, who founds himself upon the following considerations:—1. that, wherever in Ireland substantial interests exist in land, the owner of such interests almost invariably sublets; 2—(and this is plainly but another aspect of the fact just mentioned)—that the natural disposition of the Irish people is careless improvident given to dash and show—in a word the opposite in all respects of that mental type which is the characteristic of peasant proprietors, and which seems to be indispensable to the keeping up of peasant-properties; 3. that the peasant-proprietor régime belongs to an early and primitive condition of society, and may be expected to disappear before the influences developed by the increase of intercourse amongst peoples, commercial progress and other modern forces; and that therefore the introduction of peasant proprietors wd be a movement antagonistic to strong modern tendencies. These reasons do not seem to me to be conclusive: 1. The disposition evidenced by the practice of subletting is only the natural and inevitable consequence of former social and political conditions—conditions which are now rapidly passing away. Landlords have admittedly felt the force of this change, and are every day coming to look at their estates less and less through the medium of feudal and mediæval, and more and more through that of commercial and modern, ideas. Why should not the same influences reach the classes below them, and neutralize in them too the mere “landlord” passion? 2. No doubt the Irish disposition is careless and improvident; but why are we to suppose that these qualities are ineradicable? Has there not been quite enough in the history of the country to account for them? And if they be eradicable, what more effectual means of accomplishing their extirpation than by bringing the Irish people under the influence of a system which in every quarter of Europe among various races of men is found invariably accompanied with exactly opposite traits of mind? Regarded from this point of view, peasant proprietorship appears to me to be exactly the specific for the prevailing Irish disease. With regard to the third consideration adverted to above, it wd certainly seem, if we confined our view to a few countries, as if the pursuits connected with land moved in a sort of cycle, commencing with pastoral industry, passing into agriculture carried on by peasant proprietors, and issuing in the large farm system carried on by capitalist farmers, and in which pasture wd in Ireland at least occupy a large place. Thornton has traced this course of things in the case of the Jews, Greeks, Romans and English.42 But there are patent facts which suggest the doubt whether there be any thing normal or necessary in this sequence of affairs. Peasant proprietorship exists extensively all over the Continent of Europe: in France its definitive establishment and greatest extension have been directly connected with the triumph and growth of democratical ideas—emphatically a modern power. In the United States, industrially the most advanced country in the world, the cultivators of the soil are I believe every where throughout the free states its owners. I am not aware that in the more advanced countries of Europe where peasant proprietorship exists, there are any indications of a decline of this form of tenure. The greatly higher prices obtained for land when sold in small than when sold in large quantities seems, on the contrary, to point to a tendency towards increased growth. I do not think therefore that experience wd warrant us in assuming the existence of a law in social progress inconsistent with the permanence (or at all events the maintenance for some generations) of a peasant-proprietory system: indeed I should rather be inclined to regard the tenor of affairs in England as an exception to the prevailing order of democratic progress than as indicating the rule. But, however this may be, the state of Ireland is so backward as compared with countries which are now cultivated by peasant proprietors that, even supposing the ultimate tendency was as is alleged, it might, and I conceive would, still be good policy to encourage this system as a transitional expedient to help Ireland forward in its course.
But leaving these general considerations, what are the prospects in the actual state of things in Ireland of the land getting in any large extent into the hands of the actual cultivators? To some, but I believe to a very limited extent, this has been, or at least was, realized.43 On the sale some eight or ten years ago of the Thomond, Portarlington, and Kingston estates in the Encumbered Estates Court, it was observed that a considerable number of occupying tenants purchased the fee of their farms. I have no knowledge of the localities where these properties are situated, and have not been able to obtain any information as to what followed that proceeding—whether the purchasers continued to farm their small properties, or under the mania of landlordism tried to escape from their former mode of life. But there are other facts which have a bearing on this question which I will mention here. In those parts of the country where tenant-right prevails, the prices given for the good will of a farm are enormous. The following figures, taken from the schedule of an estate in the neighbourhood of Newry, now passing through the Landed Estates Court, will give an idea, but a very inadequate one, of the prices which this mere customary right generally fetches.
Statement showing the prices at which the tenant-right of certain farms near Newry sold.
The prices here represent on the whole about three years purchase of the rental; but this, as I have said, wd give but an altogether inadequate idea of that which is frequently, indeed of that which is ordinarily, paid. The right being purely customary will vary in value with the confidence generally reposed in the good faith of the landlord. In the present instance circumstances have come to light in the course of the proceedings connected with the sale of the estate which give reason to believe that the confidence in this case was not high: consequently the rates above given may be taken as considerably under those which ordinarily prevail. Cases, as I am informed on the highest authority, have in other parts of the country come to light, also in the Landed Estates Court, in which the price given for the tenant right was equal to that of the whole fee of the land. Now here is a very remarkable fact, that people shd be found to give say 20 or 25 year’s purchase for land which is still subject to a good round rent: why is it, it will be asked, that they do not purchase land out and out for the same or a slightly larger sum. I believe the true answer is that the cost of transferring land in small parcels is even in the Landed Estates Court very great, very great that is to say as compared with the purchase money; while the good will of a farm may be transferred without any cost at all. The cheapest conveyance that cd be drawn in the Landed Estates Court wd, irrespective of stamp duties, cost £ 10, which wd represent a year’s or two year’s purchase of a small peasant estate: a conveyance to transfer a thousand acres might not cost more, and wd probably not cost much more. This is the case of land sold in the Landed Estates Court, where all expenses of investigating title are avoided: where those must be incurred, of course the expense is wholly inconsistent with the transfer of property in any but large lots.
The heavy expenses incident to the sale & purchase of land have thus obviously the effect of placing an immense premium upon large dealings in land; and while this is the state of the law, the experiment of peasant proprietorship it is plain cannot fairly be tried. The facts, however, which I have stated, show I think conclusively that there is no obstacle to the introduction of this system in the disposition of the people.
That the fortunes of Ireland must, at all events for a considerable future, turn upon her agriculture is manifest on looking to the limited extent to which her other industries have yet been carried. Taking manufacturing industry proper, including cotton, woollen and worsted, flax, jute, silk,—the total number of persons (i.e. of males & females, old & young—[sic] employed in all these branches was in 1862 only 37,872. Of these 33,525 were employed in Flax factories, situated almost exclusively in Ulster, and chiefly in the counties of Antrim, Down and Armagh; 2,734 in Cotton factories (one half of these—viz. 1,412 being employed in one factory in Waterford, and the rest in the North); 1,039 in Woollen and Worsted factories; the remainder being distributed among the Jute and Silk factories. The only other industry of any moment is mining, and this is of moment rather for the possibilities it may have in store, than for any results which it has yet achieved. The following figures will give some idea of the present state of mining industry in Ireland.* In 1861 the number of collieries at work in Ireland were 46: these turned out altogether 123,070 tons of coal. Of iron almost nothing has been produced. Copper in the same year (1861) was raised, chiefly in Cork and Waterford, to the value of £132,535. Of lead ore in the same year 2,403 tons were turned out, yielding 1,592 tons of metal. Lastly silver was raised, chiefly in Wicklow, to the value of £14,575. So inconsiderable are the results yet accomplished. As to the future all is conjecture & speculation. I have not been able to obtain any opinion on the subject on which I am disposed to place the least reliance; there being a general disposition among those who know most of the matter to conceal their knowledge.
Such, as nearly as I have been able to ascertain it, is our present position. The direction in which we are moving seems to be indicated with sufficient clearness. The figures already given show the large reduction which had been effected in the cottier class up to 1861. I have just learned from Mr. Thom that returns obtained within the last year show that since that time, the movement has gone forward with an accelerated pace. (A summary of these returns Mr Thom has promised to send me, and I hope to be able to transmit them with these notes). The emigration steadily increases. It nearly reached last year the figure of 90,000: this year it had up to October reached 90,000: there can be no doubt that before the year closes it will have exceeded 100,000. This has occurred in the face of the American civil war, and all the alarm which has been excited about compulsory enlistment. There can be little doubt that the effect of peace, whenever it comes, will be to swell considerably the tide. In view of these facts I look for a further considerable decrease in the population; this consummation seems to me at once inevitable and desirable: it is the effect of all those causes which are shortening the distance and facilitating the intercourse between nations acting upon a country surcharged with population under the influence of a bad economic and a worse moral and political system. The new and best parts of the world have, for the first time in history, been brought into practical competition with the old and exhausted portions. The result, I think, must be, as I have said elsewhere, “a greater dispersion and mixing of populations and a greater equalization of the conditions of wealth. It will no longer be a few favoured and conveniently situated spots on the earth’s surface, but the whole earth, that will be turned to the purposes of man.”44
The same tendencies, which in the emigration exhibit themselves on a cosmopolitan scale, are traceable also in the internal economy of the country. Those portions of the country in which the natural advantages are greatest are advancing, not merely relatively to, but in some degree at the expense of, the less favoured parts. For example, Galway—the place in the West with which I am best acquainted—has beyond all question seriously retrograded within the last twenty years, and I think is still going back. The population has greatly declined, and I have no doubt the present reduced population is, man for man, poorer than the larger population of former years. I will mention a few facts connected with this town. When I first went to Galway some fifteen years ago—1849—things at that time having greatly declined from their former state under the shock of the famine—there were at work three distilleries, three breweries, several large grain storing establ[ishments,] several large corn mills, a paper manufactory, and I am sure other industrial establishments which now escape my memory. Every one of these has now either closed, or is carrying on a business so diminished that its closing is only a question of time. There was at this time an export trade in cattle, and previous to the famine there had been a considerable export trade in grain, chiefly oats. Both these branches of trade have wholly disappeared, and the sole seaward trade of Galway at present is an import of coal, chiefly for unproductive consumption; the return cargo being taken in ballast. Now this collapse is the more remarkable, as on no town in Ireland has the outlay of public money been so large as on Galway—this outlay occurring exactly during the period of its decline. 1. The Queen’s College was built, having been commenced about 1846. Besides the original outlay this has entailed a permanent expenditure in the town from the residence there of at the lowest computation some 200 persons of the better-off classes, connected with the College, some of these being persons maintaining domestic establishments on a considerable scale. 2. A very fine dry dock, and, connected with this, a ship canal (connecting Lough Corrib with the sea), both executed in the mostly [?] costly style, have been made during the same time by the Board of Works—both for all practical purposes as useless as the Irish round towers. 3. An extensive drainage was carried out during the same time all round the shores of Lough Corrib, also under the management of the Board of Works. Lastly (though it is true the funds in this case did not come from the public revenue) the Galway end of the Gt. Western Railway was made, in connexion with which an enormous hotel was built at the Galway terminus, the largest I believe in Ireland,—built in expectation of requirements which have never come to pass. Yet in spite of such adventitious aids Galway has retrograded. The causes are not far to seek. The grain export was the creature of the monopoly of the English market secured under the protective system. Free trade, followed by a succession of good harvests between 1849 & 53 gave the coup de grace to the corn growing interest in this part of the country. What free trade did for the export trade in grain the railway has done for the export trade in cattle. The live stock of all that part of the country westward of Roscommon which formerly found a port at Galway or Limerick is now carried by the railways to the Eastern coast. These two facts involved all the rest: the small cottiers who were identified with the grain-growing régime were the chief customers of the distilleries; the better class of farmers who dealt in cattle, and the merchants and traders whom this conflux of people supported, were the chief stays of the breweries. The larger population, from all these causes, supplied the paper manufactory with rags, for lack of which, I heard the other day, it was preparing to close. Galway is perhaps a palmary instance, but it is only an instance of a very general tendency. At Limerick, which I visited lately,—though things there are greatly better, two or three large manufactories being now maintained there in a flourishing condition—I heard also complaints of decay, and saw evidences of it. For example, what was once a staple export from Limerick—butter—is now all carried off to Cork by railway, from whence it is shipped to England, and largely to Australia.
Contemporaneously, therefore, with the decline of population in Ireland, I think there is going forward a redistribution of it—a redistribution which will be effected in a large degree at the expense of those parts of the country of which the natural advantages are least. This latter circumstance should be borne in mind, as it will serve to explain a good deal of what is conflicting in the accounts of the country.
CAIRNES TO MILL
25 Dec., 1864.
In writing to you yesterday I omitted in my haste to refer to your question respecting the rate of profit in the United States. I am sorry to say I am not able as yet to give you any satisfactory information upon this point. On receiving your letter I communicated with Mr. Ashworth of Bolton45 with whom I occasionally correspond, and from whom,—as he is a thoughtful man, with large experience in business, and who has spent some time in the U. States on which he has also written a book—I had great hopes I should have been able to obtain the information I desired. I have had two letters from him on the subject: in the last referring to this point, he writes as follows:—“Your inquiry relating to the ordinary rate of mercantile profit in N. York and the other cities of the U. States is difficult to answer:—indeed I do not find from all the inquiries I have made that any definite answer can be given.” He then proceeds to describe a method by which the risk in mercantile transactions is provided against in N. York, which complicates in some degree the question of profit, and concludes with the remark that “The rates of profit on sale of goods and the fluctuations on the current credit of the buyer admit of no general estimate.” Let me state that the way I put the question was as to the rate of profit which a person about to engage in a business would regard as “fair”; his conception of “fairness” would of course be founded on his knowledge of what in that business was ordinarily obtained.
I wrote also to Mr Moran of the U. States Legation46 on the subject, and have had a reply to this effect. “At this time I have no documents bearing upon the subject of the ordinary rate of mercantile & manufacturing profits in the U.S., but I will write this week (his letter is dated the 9th Dec.) to a friend at home for all the data he may be able to furnish.” He adds “Nearly all the manufactories of N. England are Joint Stock Concerns, and reports are furnished annually of their dividends. These I think I can get, & they may be useful.” Supposing that in striking these dividends an adequate reserve fund against risk is maintained, might they not be taken to represent the net profit on manufacturing undertakings? and would not railway reports give us the same element for this kind of investment? Combining these with the returns of a few more industrial departments, might we not obtain the average net profit on investments of a permanent kind (which of course would be quite distinct from the interest on mercantile bills?; and, this obtained, should we not have a basis for comparing American with English profits? For gross profits being made up of the reward to abstinence, indemnity for risk, & wages of superintendence, we should by this process obtain the first quantity, and the two latter—at all events the last—there would not be much difficulty in ascertaining with approximate accuracy. But, without going into a complicated calculation, if we know the net profit on a few of the leading investments of capital, we might I fancy with sufficient accuracy for your purposes, infer the rest. Supposing, for example, that railway dividends were found to be on the whole the same for the U. S. & England, I think it would be a sound inference that profits are higher in the former country, since the wages of superintendance [sic], which net profit does not cover are certainly higher, & the indemnity for risk is I suppose not less. The information promised by Mr Moran may be expected in about three weeks from this.
Having thought over your remarks in reply to my criticisms I may as well say now what occurs to me on the points between us. You say—“Suppose I have a given sum, £10 a year, the expenditure of which I am determined whatever happens to divide between two commodities A & B, I conceive that even then, if A rises in price and B falls, the effect in the average of cases will be that I shall buy more of B and less of A. If this position be sound I admit my point fails—at least to the extent of the “more” and “less”. But I cannot think that it is sound. Substitute for A & B, beer & tobacco. Suppose a man has £10 to spend on these luxuries, & that after the transference of the tax from one commodity to the other, his money will enable him to consume them in the same quantities & in the same proportion as before, is it conceivable that he will continue permanently to regulate the proportion of his smoking and drinking not by his tastes—his means being by hypothesis sufficient—but by the relative prices? I conceive that he might do so for a time under the influence of association; but this influence would be constantly diminishing, while his tastes & means would remain constant forces.
What I intended to say with reference to the Wakefield system was that the forcible separation of employments was unnecessary, and for this reason, that where the density of the population and the variety of industrial skill and knowledge are such as to render expedient a separation of employments, there a separation of employments will naturally take place; it seems to me that the tendency of Wakefield’s scheme for requiring a “sufficient-price” for land was to force on an artificial separation of employments at the cost of these conditions—density of population &c—under which alone separation of employments is expedient or indeed permanently possible; his test of “sufficiency” having reference, not to the satisfying of the requirements of the colony (on which its attractiveness to emigrants depends) but to the checking of the purchase of land. So far as this latter end is obtained without full compensation in the increased attractiveness of the colony, the effect must be to repel immigration—i.e. to prevent the realization of the conditions in which the separation of employment becomes expedient.
Lastly, with regard to the income tax question I do not think my position was (or if it was I did not correctly state my ideas) that “the payment in each year should be compared with what the income is worth in that year to the owner”. My position is that the payment in each year should be compared with what the payer is worth in that year; and that the payer is worth, not merely his income—that portion of his wealth which he allocates to current expenses, but also, that which he invests, or allows to remain invested. The latter, no less than the former, appears to me to be to the owner a real source of pecuniary power, as well as of present enjoyment—that enjoyment which arises from the sense of having provided against future contingencies. Were it not that you so decidedly reject what I have said on this point, I should be inclined to feel confident in it, and for this reason, that applying the principle, subject to a deduction for necessaries, it would I imagine bring us to precisely the same practical conclusion as your principle of “equality of sacrifice”. With regard to this, I should not think of insisting on the distinction between comfort & luxuries. In practice it could not evidently be carried out, though I think something might be said for it in speculation.
Pray do not think of troubling yourself by replying further to what I have said: in the end I dare say my errors will find me out. I hope the parcels sent yesterday & the day before will reach you safely.
MILL TO CAIRNES
5 Jan., 1865.
I have been too long in acknowledging the receipt of the very interesting things you last sent; but I was working against time on another subject, and had unwillingly to put by your last notes unread until this morning. I thank you most heartily for them. They are a complete Essay on the state and prospects of Ireland, and are so entirely satisfactory that they leave me nothing to think of except how to make the most use of them. For my new edition I must confine myself chiefly to the general results; but if I find it advantageous to transcribe certain paragraphs entire, will you allow me to name their real author? The article is a valuable supplement to the notes. The letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle I was already acquainted with, having read it in I forget what newspaper.47 I beg you to offer my sincere thanks to Mr Pim for the books he so kindly sent, which I shall immediately read. His letter, inclosed [sic] in yours, is full of good sense.
Respecting the rate of profits in the United States, we must hope to learn something through the kind offices of Mr Moran. But it is, I imagine, very difficult to ascertain the real average rate of profit, or expectation of profit, in any country. It would, however, be something to have an answer to the more vague question, whether, in the opinion of Mr Ashworth, or other persons to whom business in both countries is familiar, the profits of capital in the United States are or are not, higher than in England.
Of the two or three points which we differ about, I will only touch upon one—the influence of price on demand. You say, if a tax is taken off beer and laid on tobacco in such a manner that the consumer can still, at the same total cost as before, purchase his usual quantity of both, his tastes being supposed unaltered, he will do so. Does not this assume that his taste for each is a fixed quantity? or at all events that his comparative desire for the two is not affected by their comparative prices. But I apprehend the case to be otherwise. Very often the consumer cannot afford to have as much as he would like of either: and if so, the ratio in which he will share his demand between the two may depend very much on their price. If beer grows cheaper and tobacco dearer, he will be able to increase his beer more, by a smaller sacrifice of his tobacco, than he could have done at the previous prices: and in such circumstances it is surely probable that some will do so. His apportionment of self-denial between his two tastes is likely to be modified, when the obstacle that confined them is in the one case brought nearer, in the other thrown farther off.
I take Macmillan, and was much interested by your article,48 which makes more distinct the idea I already had of the contract system in the mining districts. Laing, in his Prize Essay, brought it forward many years ago as an example of the cooperative principle.
I have had a visit here from a rather remarkable American, Mr Hazard, of Peacetown, Rhode Island.49 Do you know him, or his writings? If not, I shall have a good deal to tell you about him that will interest you.
CAIRNES TO MILL
9 Jan., 1865.
I am sincerely happy that you are pleased with my notes on the state of Ireland. As I said before, I shall not affect to deny that I shall be gratified by the appearance of my name on your pages wherever it may occur; at the same time I should be sorry that you introduced it if there were no other object for doing this but my gratification.
I will write to Mr. Ashworth putting the question respecting the rate of profit in the U. States in the relative form in which you suggest.
Touching the taxation question, after weighing carefully what you say I am still inclined to think that the position is substantially sound that “a man’s comparative desire for two commodities is not affected by their comparative prices”. The animal propensity towards beer and tobacco in certain proportions to each other depends on physical conditions: I can conceive that these may be overborne in some degree by the force of mental impressions; but then I think the mental impressions depending for their force on the principle of association are liable to become weak, while the force of the former is a constant quantity. At all events we have, I think, brought the question to a point at which it can only be decided by experiment, which, next to agreement, is the most satisfactory issue of an economic argument.
Mr. Hazard I am not acquainted with, or his writings, but I shall look forward to learning something of both from you at your leisure.
It occurs to me to call your attention to that passage in your Political Economy (I cannot this moment put my finger on it) in which you allow that Protection may in a conceivable case be justifiable as a means of helping manufacturing industry through its initial stage [II.918-19]. I know you have expressed yourself very guardedly: still it would seem that the concession is frequently turned to bad account. In a recent letter from the Times’ Australian correspondent,50 the writer represents the protectionist party there as founding themselves on your authority. It occurs to me as questionable whether the theoretic value of the admission is worth the practical evil which its perversion involves.
I intended in a former letter to have suggested to you the advisability of adding an index to the new edition. I often myself feel the want of one.
CAIRNES TO MILL
24 Jan., 1865.
I received the enclosed from Mr. Moran two days ago, and have waited in hopes of getting the further information he promises; but as it has not yet arrived I think it better to forward you what has reached me. I have also had a letter from Mr. Ashworth in which he says:—“I make no doubt that the rate of profit upon commercial capital is greater in the United States than it is in this country, and this may be inferred not only from the higher rate of interest which prevails, but also from the extent of mercantile losses by bad debts which require to be covered by compensating profits, and by the evidence afforded in the household extravagance which prevails amongst the mercantile classes.” The reasoning is somewhat shaky, but I send you the remarks for what they are worth. He adds that he had, at the time of writing, written to an “eminent merchant and manufacturer in Boston who has long been engaged in business there, and has also resided 20 years in this country engaged in trading pursuits,” and that he hoped in a month or six weeks to be able to send me the opinion on the point in question of this gentleman. You may depend on my forwarding it the moment it is received.
MILL TO CAIRNES
4 Feb., 1865.
I have delayed answering your last letter, until I could at the same time inform you of my return here.
The Political Economy has gone to press, considerably improved as I think, and indebted to you for much of the improvement. I have availed myself of your permission to acknowledge this in the preface, and also in the chapter on the Irish question, a good deal of which I have given in inverted commas as a communication from you. I have endeavoured to correct the effect of the passage which has been used by Australian protectionists, not by omitting it, but by giving a fuller expression of my meaning [II.919-21]. The subject of an Index I had thought of, but most Indexes of philosophical treatises are so badly and stupidly done, that unless I could have made it myself or got it made by a political economist, I thought it better let alone. An index is less wanted for a systematic treatise than for a book of a miscellaneous character, as the general arrangement of topics, aided by the analytical table of contents, shews where to find the things most likely to be wanted.
CAIRNES TO MILL
5 Feb., 1865.
I have just received your letter informing me of your arrival in England. I am not certain from it whether you received mine in which I enclosed a communication from Mr. Moran (of the U. S. Legation) on the subject of profits in the U. States, and also sent an extract from a letter of Mr. Ashworth on the same subject. The opinion expressed by both writers was not very definite, and probably would be late for the purpose for which you desired it, but I may as well state that, in reply to your question as to the relative state of manufacturing and mercantile profits here and in the U. States, Mr. Ashworth expressed the opinion that the rate in the U. States was decidedly higher than here. The communication from Mr. Moran came from a correspondent in Chicago who said that mercantile profits in that town & district had been very high since the war had broken out—I forget the precise figures he named. Mr. Moran promised further information as did also Mr. Ashworth. In a letter since received from Mr. Ashworth he suggests Messrs Brown or Messrs Rathbone of Liverpool51 as the persons in this country most competent to give an opinion on the point in question. All this I expect will be quite late for any practical purpose; but should you wish for any further inquiries to be made I shall be happy to make them.
I am glad to hear that you have got the Political Economy to press. I have already said how gratified I shall feel for your reference in it to me, though I expect from what you tell me that it will not be without some sense of shame at the disproportion of my slender services to your acknowledgment.
What you say on the subject of an Index is quite true: it is no doubt far better there should be none than a bad one. Were there time, and had I a little more leisure than I am likely to have for the next two or three months I should have been very happy to have undertaken it, could you have entrusted it to me.
MILL TO CAIRNES
9 Feb., 1865.
As you supposed, your letter of Jan. 24 had not reached me when I last wrote to you, but it has been sent from Avignon since. I am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken to get information respecting the rate of profit in the U. States, but I fear it is next to impossible to obtain any conclusive evidence on the subject. There is no more difficult point to ascertain in the whole field of statistics. The scientific question remains as great a puzzle to me as ever. Hitherto I have left the passage of my Pol. Economy exactly as it was; but I shall have to alter it more or less in the proof sheet.
I may perhaps get some light on the subject from Mr Hazard, (himself a New England manufacturer of great experience) whom I shall see tomorrow. I wish you had been already here, that I might have asked you to meet him. He leaves for America on the 25th.
CAIRNES TO MILL
1 March, 1865.
I have just received the enclosed from Mr. Pim. I send it to you, as he seems to wish that I should do so, though I do not expect that you will derive much new light from his remarks, even if it should reach you in time to enable you to turn it to practical account. Much of his criticism appears to me to be irrelevant, and more to be answered by reference to the date of the publication (for you will see that he writes from the 3rd edition) some of his remarks indeed—as for example his demand for an explanation of “cottier tenure”—would seem to argue that he had read the book with but little attention. However I send you his comments such as they have come to me.
MILL TO CAIRNES
5 March, 1865.
Your two letters, with their inclosures, arrived in time; the former of them only just in time. Mr. Pim’s remarks, as you anticipated, do not change any of my opinions, but they have enabled me to correct one or two inaccuracies, not so much of fact as of expression. On reading the proofs of the new matter I have inserted respecting Ireland for most of which I am indebted to you, and in which consequently your name is mentioned, I feel unwilling that it should see the light without your imprimatur. I have therefore taken the liberty of sending you by this post the two sheets of which it forms a part, and I shall not have them struck off until I hear from you that you do not object to anything they contain. Any addition or improvement you may kindly suggest will be most welcome.
The American information is very valuable, and I can hardly be thankful enough to Mr Ashworth and to his Boston correspondent for the trouble they have taken and the service they have done me. I beg you will convey to Mr Ashworth my grateful acknowledgements. From their statements it is clear that the ordinary notion of the extravagantly high rate of profit in the U. States is an exaggeration, and there seems some doubt whether the rate is at all higher than in England. But that does not resolve the puzzle, as even equality of profits, in the face of the higher cost of labour, indicated by higher money wages, is as paradoxical as superiority. This is the scientific difficulty I mentioned, and I cannot yet see my way through it. I have framed a question for the purpose of bringing it before the P. Ec. Club, which will perhaps be discussed at the April meeting & if not, at the July. I hope you may be present in either case. You were greatly missed on Friday last. Had not I shone in plumes borrowed from you, we should not have made much of it, and I regretted your absence the more, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer52 was present, and spoke.
MILL TO CAIRNES
11 March, 1865.
I thank you sincerely for your further favours in regard to my Political Economy. I have sent your new matter to press, and have profited to the full by your observations on what I had myself written. I am indebted to you for nearly all which will give to that chapter of the book, any present value.
Your solution of the difficulty as to American profits is perfectly scientific, and was the one which had occurred to myself. As far as it goes, I fully admit it; but my difficulty was, and still is, in believing that there can be so great a difference between the cost of obtaining the precious metals in America and in England, as to make the enormous difference which seems to exist in money wages, consistent with a difference the contrary way in the cost of labour. It is impossible to approfondir the subject in time for the present edition. I have contented myself, therefore, with qualifying the opinion I had previously expressed [I.414.20-1], so as to leave the subject open for further inquiry.
CAIRNES TO MILL
13 March, 1865.
You very much overrate my small services in reference to the “Political Economy”; but I should not easily exaggerate the satisfaction it has given me to have rendered even these small services. Had I thought of recompense, which I trust you will acquit me of, I have received it in copious measure in the terms in which you speak of me in the portion of your book of which you sent me the proof—terms of which I cannot help saying that one epithet included in them appears to me so disproportioned to its subject that, were the omission of this epithet easily feasible, I could almost wish it made: as for the latter you could have used none which I should have prized so highly. It is the highest compliment I have ever received; but it is much more than a compliment, it is a rich reward; and will be a powerful incentive. Pray excuse my having said this much on what perhaps I had better not to have referred to.
I see my observations on American wages and profits in their connexion with the theory of profit did not hit the mark; and I fear I must now relinquish the hope—I might say the ambition—of doing this, as on the assumption that the exposition I gave was correct—which you concede to me—I am unable to perceive where the difficulty lies: in short the scientific problem seems to me to be solved. For the rest, it is (to my apprehension) merely a matter of evidence whether money wages and profits are, at one and the same time, so high as is alleged: if they are—then the fact on the assumption that my exposition was correct is conclusive, as it seems to me, that the difference between the cost of obtaining the precious metals in America and in England is great enough to produce the results which we see. Am I guilty of arrogance in suspecting that the difference between us here—my inability to perceive the difficulty of which you are sensible—is due to the greater simplicity of the theory of profit through which I look at the phenomena?—I refer to that mode of stating the doctrine—differing from yours and Ricardo’s only in form—of which a sketch was contained in the papers I sent you.53 Of course if the theory, thus stated, failed to embrace any essential condition, this would be simply its condemnation; but it appears to me to embrace all the conditions included in your doctrine of “cost of labour”, and it renders the phenomena in the case with which we are now concerned unless I deceive myself perfectly intelligible. Might I ask as a favour, when you come to deal with this question at your leisure, that you would consider once again that mode of stating the theory.
MILL TO CAIRNES
22 March, 1865.
I have again gone through your exposition of profits in the papers you so kindly took the trouble of writing for me; and I think, as before, that your mode of putting the doctrine is very good as one among others, and that there is no difference of opinion between us. I still, however, prefer my own mode of statement, for reasons which it would be long to state, and which I have not time at present to reconsider from the foundations. I am inclined to think that the real solution of the difficulty, and the only one it admits of, has been given by myself in a subsequent place, Book III, ch. xix, § 2 (vol. ii. p. 156 of the fifth edition.) [II.620.]
CAIRNES TO MILL
27 March, 1865.
Thank you for looking over my note on profits again: I suppose it must be that I overrate the importance of my form of stating the theory, which indeed is in itself not unlikely—I have not a copy of the “Political Economy” at hand, but will not neglect to look up the passage you refer to.
CAIRNES TO MILL
2 June, 1865.
Accept my warm thanks for your kind letter. I had frequently lately thought of writing to you, amongst other reasons to thank you for the much prized present of your “Political Economy”—the second copy of that work you have given me. . . .
Bibliographic Index of Persons and Works Cited in the Principles, with Variants and Notes
mill, like most nineteenth-century authors, is very cavalier in his approach to sources, seldom identifying them with sufficient care, and very frequently quoting them inaccurately and without indicating omissions.1 This Appendix is intended to help correct these deficiencies, and also to serve as an index of names and titles (which are consequently omitted in the Index proper). The material is arranged in alphabetical order, with an entry for each author and work quoted or referred to in the Principles and Appendices A-H.
The entries take the following form:
1. Identification: author, title, etc., in the usual bibliographic form.
2. A list of the places in the Principles where the author or work is quoted, and a separate list of the places where there is reference only.
3. Notes (if required) giving information about JSM’s use of the source, and any other relevant information.
4. A list of substantive variants between the Principles and the source, in this form: Page and line reference to the Principles. Reading in the Principles] Reading in the source (page reference in the source).
The list of substantive variants also attempts to place quoted remarks in their contexts by giving the beginnings and endings of sentences. Omissions of two sentences or less are given in full; only the length of other omissions is given. Following the page reference to the source, cross-references to substantive variants within editions (i.e., those recorded in footnotes to the present text) are given, where applicable. (These help identify places where inaccuracies may be blamed on the printer.) Only surnames are given in cases of simple reference.
Aeschylus. Referred to: 16
Alfieri. Referred to: 310n
Ampère. Referred to: 42
Anderson, James.An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn-Laws; with a View to the New Corn-Bill proposed for Scotland. Edinburgh: Mundell, 1777.
referred to: 419
Anon. “Australia,” The Times, 14 Dec., 1864, 4.
referred to: 1090-1
Anon. “Co-operative Manufacturing Companies,” Rochdale Observer, 26 May, 1860, 3.
Anon. “Foreign Intelligence: France,” The Times, 24 November, 1864, 9.
785.n6 operatives stand] operatives still stand (9)
785.n7 who have also] who also (9)
Anon. “Trade and Finance,” Daily News, 18 Apr., 1864, 4.
referred to: 1047
note: The Daily News correctly reads “Loyd” not “Lloyd”.
Anon. Unheaded article, Le Siècle, 29 Dec., 1847, 2.
referred to: 437
note: JSM reduces to round numbers, and uses the figures for the Départment de la Seine rather than those for Paris. The article gives the population of Paris in 1846 as 1,053,907; that of the Département de la Seine in 1846 as 1,356,907, in 1841 as 1,181,425, in 1836 as 1,106,000, and in 1832 as 935,000.
Anon. Unheaded leading articles, Daily News, 1 Dec., 1864, 4, and 3 Dec., 1864, 4.
referred to: 1042
Aristophanes. Referred to: 16
Aristotle. Referred to: 969
Arkwright. Referred to: 96, 189, 344
Ashworth, Henry.A Tour in the United States, Cuba, and Canada. London: Bennett and Pitman, .
referred to: 1086-7, 1089-91, 1093
Attwood. Referred to: 563-4
Babbage, Charles.On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. 3rd ed. London: Knight, 1832 .
quoted: 106, 111, 111n-113n, 124-6, 128-9, 131-2, 770, 1008-10 referred to: 1012
note: Babbage’s text is broken into numbered sections, with other (not subsidiary) numbers as required: JSM ignores these. In the passages he quotes, they occur at 126.17, 132.8, 132.16, 132.24, 1008.24, 1008.34, 1009.18, 1010.1 (twice), 1010.26, 1010.34 (twice). Italics and quotation marks distinguishing ‘doctoring,’ ‘single-press,’ ‘double-press,’ and ‘warp-lace’ are ignored.
111.7 At] To such an extent is this confidence in character carried in England, that, at (219)
111.n5.112.n2 The cost . . . contracts] [in italics] (134)
112.n10 customers. The] customers. [paragraph] The (135)
112.n12-13 Government . . . themselves] [in italics] (135)
112.n24 it by] it with (135)
113.n6 articles,] article; (136) [see 140n]
124.6 it is] is (202) [see 124d-d]
125.13 process.] process; in this view of the subject, therefore, the division of labour will diminish the price of production. (171)
131.20 person] servant (214) [see 131b-b]
132.8 When] Where (215) [see 132c-c]
132.15-16 order. [paragraph] Pursuing] order. One of the first results will be, that the looms can be driven by the engine nearly twice as fast as before: and as each man, when relieved from bodily labour, can attend to two looms, one workman can now make almost as much cloth as four. This increase of producing power is, however, greater than that which really took place at first; the velocity of some of the parts of the loom being limited by the strength of the thread, and the quickness with which it commences its motion: but an improvement was soon made, by which the motion commenced slowly, and gradually acquired greater velocity than it was safe to give it at once; and the speed was thus increased from 100 to about 120 strokes per minute. [paragraph] Pursuing (215-6)
770.25 “the] Some approach to this system is already practised in several trades: the mode of conducting the Cornish mines has already been alluded to; the payment to the crew of whaling ships is governed by this principle; the (259)
770.29 required] injured (259)
1008.10-14 “the . . . required.”] [as in 770.25 and 770.29 above]
1008.19-23 1st. That . . . course.] [except for ordinals, in italics with paragraph breaks at 1st. and 2d.] (253-4)
1009.1 their class] their own class (254)
1009.24 Suppose] Let us suppose (255)
1009.42-1010.1 undertaking. [paragraph] “The] [one paragraph omitted] (256-7)
1010.2 direct] direct (257)
1010.8 to improvement] to its improvement (257)
1010.21 evidently] evidently (258)
1010.25 between] between (258)
1010.33-4 existing. [paragraph] “A] existing. [paragraph] It is possible that the present laws relating to partnerships might interfere with factories so conducted. If this interference could not be obviated by confining their purchases under the proposed system to ready money, it would be desirable to consider what changes in the law would be necessary to its existence:—and this furnishes another reason for entering into the question of limited partnerships. [paragraph] A (258)
Barham. Referred to: 770, 1007
Bastiat, Frédéric. “Considérations sur le métayage,” Journal des Économistes, 2e Série, XIII (Feb., 1846), 225-39.
quoted: I, 299n-300n
300.n3 fait bien] fait également bien (236)
300.n7 redoutable. C’est] redoutable. [paragraph] C’est (236)
300.n9 salariat] salariat (236)
300.n14 opére] opère (237)
— Harmonies économiques. Paris: Guillaumin, 1850.
referred to: 424
Beaumont. Referred to: 329, 995
Bentham, Jeremy. Referred to: 220, 392, 809, 811, 862, 883
— “Letters on Usury.” [Defence of Usury. London, 1816.] Referred to: 923
Béranger, Charles. “La liberté et le monopole,” La République, 1 Jan., 1851, 2.
446.n4 “La consommation] [paragraph] Or, tandis que la consommation de la viande de boucherie diminuait ainsi, un fait opposé se produisait dans la consommation des autres denrées: celle du (2)
446.n10 presque] près de (2)
446.n11 fr. C’est] fr. [paragraph] C’est (2)
446.n24—447.1 1835 . . . Nous] 1835, pour l’habitant de la banlieue, tandis que de 1812 à 1847, la consommation individuelle des habitans de Paris a diminué de 10 kilog. Si la boucherie eût été libre à Paris, il est impossible de douter que la consommation parisienne ne se fût développée dans des proportions égales à celle de la banlieue. [paragraph] Nous (2)
447.n5 constaté. Nous] constaté. [paragraph] Nous (2)
447.6-7 1835 . . . L’accroissement] 1835; mais ceux que nous avons cités suffisent amplement pour démontrer que la cherté de la viande et la diminution relative de la consommation n’ont point d’autres causes que la constitution de boucherie en monopole. L’accroissement (2)
447.n7-8 corréspond] correspond (2)
Bertin, Amédée, and Maupillé, Léon.Notice historique et statistique sur la Baronie, la Ville et l’Arrondissement de Fougères. Rennes: Marteville and Lefas, 1846.
quoted: 450 referred to: 450-1
note: JSM draws broadly from pp. 350-414.
450.26-30 “It . . . period.”] [translated from:] C’est seulement depuis la paix que l’agriculture a fait quelques progrès dans l’arrondissement de Fougères: à partir de 1815, le mouvement d’amélioration de son agriculture a toujours été de plus en plus rapide. On peut dire que si, de 1815 à 1825 ce mouvement a été comme 1, il a été comme 3 de 1825 à 1835, et qu’il est comme 6 depuis 1835. (352)
Beslay. Referred to: 774n, 1017
Blacker, William.Prize Essay, Addressed to the Agricultural Committee of the Royal Dublin Society. On the Management of Landed Property in Ireland; the Consolidation of Small Farms, Employment of the Poor, Etc. Etc. Dublin: Curry, 1834.
144.17 plough and] plough or (23n)
144.18-19 if . . . house] if . . . house (23n)
144.21-2 subject . . . The] subject, and I think it will not appear extraordinary, that such should be the case, to any one who reflects that the (23n)
144.23 farmer. He] farmer in this country. He (23n)
144.26 acres.” After . . . adds, “Besides] acres. Add to this, he must appear himself, and have his family also to appear in a superior rank, and his farm must not only enable him to pay his rent, and yield him the support he requires, but it must also be chargeable with the interest of the large capital which is necessary to its cultivation; besides (23n)
144.30 children. And] children; and (23n)
144.33 difference.”] difference perfectly. (24n)
Blackstone, Sir William.Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1766.
note: JSM gives no indication of edition.
893.9 “for] Children grew disobedient when they knew they could not be set aside: farmers were ousted of their leases made by tenants in tail; for (116)
893.10 cover] colour (116)
893.10 disinherited;”] disinherited: creditors were defrauded of their debts; for, if the tenant in tail could have charged his estate with their payment, he might also have defeated his issue, by mortgaging it for as much as it was worth: innumerable latent entails were produced to deprive purchasers of the lands they had fairly bought; of suits in consequence of which our antient books are full: and treasons were encouraged; as estates-tail were not liable to forfeiture, longer than for the tenant’s life. (116)
Blanc, Jean Joseph Louis. Referred to: 203, 210, 775, 783n
— Organisation du travail. Paris: Société de l’industrie fraternelle, 1839.
referred to: 1012.n4
Briggs, Henry (Messrs.) Referred to: 774-5, 903
note: JSM is evidently citing the prospectus of the Company’s reconstitution in 1865. No such prospectus has been located.
Bright. Referred to: 1032n
Brown. Referred to: 1091
Browne. Referred to: 287, 295n
Buchez. Referred to: 1028
Byron. Referred to: 392
Cabet, Étienne. Referred to: 203
— Voyage en Icarie, Roman philosophique et social. 2nd ed. Paris: Mallet, 1842.
referred to: 1028
Cairnes, John E. “Capital and Currency,” North British Review, XXVIII (Feb., 1858), 191-230.
referred to: 1058, 1059, 1067
— “Co-operation in the Slate Quarries of North Wales,” Macmillan’s Magazine, XI (Jan., 1865), 181-190; reprinted in Essays in Political Economy, Theoretical and Applied. London: Macmillan, 1873, 166-186.
referred to: 1089
— “The Cause of the Inequalities in the Pressure of the Income Tax,” Economist, XIX (4 May, 1861), 481-3.
referred to: 1050
note: The date of Cairnes’ article is supplied by JSM in pencil.
— “Fragments on Ireland,” in Political Essays. London: Macmillan, 1873, 147.
referred to: 1084
— “Ireland,” Edinburgh Review, CXIX (Jan., 1864), 279-304.
referred to: 1057
— Personal communication to JSM.
quoted: 332n-333n, 334-6, 1038-95
Campbell. Referred to: 885
Carey, Henry Charles. “Commercial Associations of France and England,” Hunt’s Merchants’ Magazine, XII (May, 1845), 403-20; ibid. (June, 1845), 499-520.
quoted: 899-900, 902-3, 905-6, 906 referred to: 904, 919-21, 1056
note: Carey is translating from Charles Coquelin, “Des Sociétés Commerciales en France et en Angleterre,” Revue des Deux Mondes, n.s. III (Aug., 1843), 397-437. Carey adds “Remarks and Notes.”
899.30 “While] Thus, while (514)
899.31 even that] that even (514)
900.2 case. Again] case. [paragraph] Again (514)
900.4-5 Even his confidential clerk] His confidential clerk, even, (514)
900.14 information. Thus] information. [paragraph] Thus (514)
900.33 placed. . . . Our] placed; and thus are the parties doubly deceived. Our (515)
900.35 possible] possible (515)
902.6 “Suppose] Would the reader see the action of a limited partnership in its most rigorous form, let him suppose (412)
902.7 to carry] to enable him to carry (412)
902.11-13 certainly;” . . . “Neither] certainly! for who would call in a third person to take part in the management of a business, the secret of which belonged exclusively to himself? What advantage, indeed, would result from the unlimited liability of the partners, where there was no reciprocity? Neither (412)
902.14 anonyme,” or any other form of joint-stock company, “in] anonyme, or chartered company, in (412)
902.18 right. Cases] right. [paragraph] Cases (412)
905.1 “nowhere] No where (517)
905.4 these] those (517)
905.11 Every district] Every little district (517)
905.13 neighbourhood,] neighborhood,* [footnote:] *In the banking laws of both Massachusetts and Rhode Island, there are provisions in relation to a liability of the shareholders for the payment of their notes, in case of bankruptcy; but they are of such a character as to be of scarcely any importance, whatever. It is nearly impossible that they should ever become operative, and consequently they do little injury. (517)
905.18 institutions.] [footnote containing list of types of shareholders in New England small companies omitted] (517-18)
905.21 through] throughout (518)
905.26 economy. Charitable] economy. All are, therefore, interested in the success of the concern; the consequence of which is, that the manufactures of New England are gradually superseding those of Great Britain, in the markets of the world. Charitable (518)
905.34 world.] [4-paragraph footnote omitted] (518)
— Essay on the Rate of Wages: with an examination of the causes of the differences in the condition of the labouring population throughout the world. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1835.
946.10 warp.] warp! (195)
946.16 fortune, reputation] future reputation (195)
946.18 shag] shag (195)
946.20 mohair. I] mohair. [paragraph] I (195)
— The Past, the Present, and the Future. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848.
427.n4 We find the settler] If we find him
427.n5 requiring] requring [sic]
427.n8 increase. . . . . When] increase: then will the theory we have offered be confirmed by practice: American practice at least. If, however, we can thence follow him into Mexico, and through South America; into Britain, and through France, Germany, Italy, Greece and Egypt, into Asia and Australia, and show that such has been his invariable course of action, then may it be believed that when
427.n9 soils. With] soils: that with (25)
427.n12 them.”] them; and that with this change there is a steady diminution in the proportion of the population required for producing the means of subsistence, and as steady an increase in the proportion that may apply themselves to producing the other comforts, conveniences and luxuries of life. (25)
— Principles of Political Economy. Part the First: of the laws of the production and distribution of wealth. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Blanchard, 1837.
referred to: 424c-c
— Principles of Social Science. 3 vols. London: Trübner, 1858.
referred to: 919-21, 1056
Chalmers, Thomas. Referred to: 67n, 75-7, 418, 570-1, 576, 697, 725, 735-6, 741, 841.
— On Political Economy in connexion with the Moral State and Moral Prospects of Society. 2nd ed. Glasgow: Collins, 1832.
note: JSM does not indicate edition. Chalmers’ Chapter iii is “On the Increase and Limit of Capital.”
referred to: 735
Charlevoix. Referred to: 166-7
Châteauvieux, Jacob Frédéric Lullin de.Italy, its Agriculture, &c. From the French of Mons. Châteauvieux, being Letters written by him in Italy, in the years 1812 & 1813. Trans. Edward Rigby. Norwich: Hunter, 1819.
quoted: 303-4, 304-5, 305, 306, 306-7 referred to: 298, 435, 443
note: The letters are presumably addressed to Charles Pictet.
303.14 “an extent] This farm, like all others in Lombardy, displays an extent (19)
303.15 rarely] scarcely (19) [see 302d-d]
303.16 “affords] [paragraph] This is a perfect model of all the farm-houses in Lombardy, with nearly their dimensions, and should be that of every one in Europe; for it is a plan which affords (20)
303.19 “exhibits a] To secure the purpose of cleanliness, the dung of the cattle is thrown on the outside of the court, which exhibits, among its symmetrical columns, a (20)
303.24 “the] [paragraph] The (25)
303.24 great.”] great in Piedmont; and this country, in whose limited extent a considerable space is occupied by mountains, supplies, in corn and cattle, the riviere of Genoa, Nice, and as far as the port of Toulon. (25)
303.26 plough works] plough thus works (27)
303.27 season. . . . Nothing] season. You have, yourself, some years ago, so well described the excellent Piedmont plough, and the skill with which the active laborers manage it, that it would be superfluous to repeat it here. I cannot, however, avoid mentioning to you the method they have acquired of executing, with a single plough, all the work necessary for putting in the grain and earthing up the plants, for which, in England, so many implements have been invented. Nothing (27-8)
303.34 grain. . . . . In] grain. [paragraph] [5-sentence omission] It will be obvious, that in (30-1)
304.10 amphitheatre. The] amphitheatre. [paragraph] The (73)
304.11 other. . . . . They] other; they are built of brick, and in a justness of proportion, and with an elegance of form unknown in our country. They consist of only one story, which has often but a single door and two windows in the front. They (74)
304.15 vines. . . . . . Before] vines, so that during the summer it is difficult to determine whether they are green pavilions, or houses for winter. [paragraph] Before (74)
304.17 flowers. . . . . These] flowers, and placed on one side of the head. [10-sentence omission] [paragraph] These (74-6)
304.23-4 vine. . . . . These] vine, the branches of which are twined round, in various directions. [paragraph] These (76)
304.24 arrayed] arranged (76) [see 304f-f]
304.25 oxen] them (76) [see 304g-g]
304.27 farms . . . . . Almost] farms. The oxen come from the neighbourhood of Rome and the maremmes. They are of the Hungarian breed, extremely well kept, and covered with embroidered white linen and red ornaments. [paragraph] Almost (76)
305.3 which] that (78) [see 305h-h]
305.4 small. I] small. [paragraph] I (79)
305.30 fifteen to twenty pence] thirty to forty sous (75) [not quoted directly]
306.3-4 society. The] society. [paragraph] The (295)
306.10 hills: gradual] hills. Gradual (295)
306.13 interested. Thus] interested. [paragraph] Thus (296)
306.16 labour] labors (296) [see 306j-j]
Cherbuliez, Antoine Élisée. “Des associations ouvrières,” Journal des Économistes, 2e Série, XXVIII (Nov., 1860), 161-95.
quoted: 779n-780n, 782n-783n
779.n15 et aucun] ni aucun (168)
779.n21 très onéreuses. En] très-onéreuses. [paragraph] En (168)
779.n27 maximum.” [paragraph] “La] [4-paragraph omission] (168-9)
780.n2-3 francs. [paragraph] “L’association] [4-sentence omission] (170)
782.n35 344,240] 344,210 (170)
782.n36 46,000] 16,000 (170)
Chevalier, Michel.Lettres sur l’organisation du travail, ou études sur les principales causes de la misère et sur les moyens proposés pour y remédier. Paris: Capelle, 1848.
quoted: 772n, 1012
note: 772n is identical with Appendix D, 1012; therefore the entry is not duplicated.
772.n4 l’avantage du] l’avantage qui résulte du (298)
— “Rapport verbal sur un ouvrage de M. Armand Husson, intitulé: Les Consommations de Paris,” Journal des Économistes, 2e Série, XI (July, 1856), 121-7.
note: Chevalier heads the extract: “En résumé, chaque Parisien absorbe annuellement en denrées animales un poids total de 95 kilog. 561 grammes, savoir:” (124)
Clément, A. Recherches sur les causes de l’indigence. Paris: Guillaumin, 1846.
290.n4 “Les] Pour démontrer combien les évaluations au moyen desquelles on prétend prouver que l’accroissement de l’indigence suit les progrès industriels méritent peu d’attention, il suffit de leur opposer un fait incontestable et reconnu de tous: l’industrie a fait en France, pendant les quarante dernières années, plus de progrès qu’à aucune autre époque, et les (84)
290.n5 les] le (84)
290.n7 siècle. . . . On] siècle. [paragraph] Ce fait ne peut être traduit en chiffres, mais il prouve évidemment le contraire de ce que l’on a voulu établir par les données statistiques dont il s’agit, et comme on (84-5)
290.n7 appuyer] l’appuyer (85)
290.n8 [ce fait [JSM’s addition] (85)]]
290.n9 comparées. . . . S’il] comparées, il est assurément beaucoup plus concluant que des évaluations fondées, en grande partie, sur l’imagination de leurs auteurs.* [footnote:] *S’il (85, 85n)
290.n11 nous-mêmes] nous-même (85n)
290.n13 exact, M.] exact, déjà cité, M. (85n)
290.n17 “la] On peut raisonnablement conclure, des observations que nous avons présentées, que la (118)
290.18 journaliers;”] journaliers, doit être attribuée, en partie, au fractionnement des vastes propriétés territoriales qui existaient à cette epoque. (118)
290.n23-4 parure. . . . . . Les] parure. On doit s’applaudir, sans doute, de ce que les (164)
290.n24-6 Lyon,” . . . “ne] Lyon, par exemple, ne (164)
290.n27 haillons.”] haillons; mais peut-être eût-il mieux valu, dans leur intérêt, que le développement de leurs besoins ne se portât pas aussi exclusivement sur cet objet; des vêtements propres, mais simples, et composés de ces étoffes grossières et durables dont se revêtent encore les travailleurs de nos campagnes, auraient assuré leur bien-être, sous ce rapport, aussi bien et mieux que ne peuvent le faire les habits d’un prix élevé et de peu de durée dont ils font trop généralement usage. (164)
Cobbett. Referred to: 576
Cochut. Referred to: 777
Comte. Referred to: 1041
Conner, William.A Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of Devon, Chairman of the Land Commission, on the Rackrent System of Ireland: showing its Cause, its Evils, and its Remedy. Dublin: Machen, 1843.
referred to: 328n
note: This pamphlet and the two following are bound in JSM’s own collection of Conner’s pamphlets on the Irish Land Question, now in the Goldsmith’s Library, University of London. In the Pierpont Morgan MS, the footnote listing Conner’s writings (II.ii.lv) includes a cancelled title, “The Cane laid to the root of Irish oppression,” which may have been cancelled because of its oddness: the correct title is The Axe Laid to the Root of Irish Oppression.
— The True Political Economy of Ireland: or Rack-rent the one great cause of all her evils: with its remedy. Being a speech delivered at a meeting of the Farming and Laboring Classes, at Inch, in the Queen’s County. Dublin: Wakeman, 1835.
referred to: 328n
— Two Letters to the Editor of the Times, on the Rackrent Oppression of Ireland, its Source—its Evils—and its Remedy, in reply to the Times Commissioner, with prefatory strictures on public men and parties in Ireland, showing their perfidy to the People. Also, on Lord Lincoln’s three Bills, showing their unfairness and utter futility. Dublin: Machen, 1846.
quoted: 328, 994
Considerant, Victor Prosper.Le socialisme devant le vieux monde, ou, le vivant devant les morts. Paris: Librairie Phalanstérienne, 1848.
referred to: 1028, 1031
Conway, Derwent.See Inglis, Henry David.
Cooper, William. “Report from Rochdale. Free Speech and the Wholesale Society,” The Co-operator, LVII (Nov., 1864), 89-90.
789.n19 to an educational] to educational (89)
Coquelin, Charles. Referred to: 899-900, 902-4, 905n. See also Carey, Henry Charles, “Commercial Associations of France and England.”
Corry. Referred to: 113n
Croker, J. W. “Agriculture in France,” Quarterly Review, LXXIX (Dec., 1846), 202-38.
quoted: 433, 436 referred to: 433n, 438
433.14 “in] The law has no limits—though the land has; and in (217)
433.14 Napoleon will] Napoleon—still in all its power and vigour—will (217)
436.34-5 “on . . . inheritance,”] But however that may be, it is obvious that under the unremitting action of the law, the ten thousand 690l. incomes of one generation must become in the next (on . . . inheritance), thirty thousand of 230l.; and although there is at work an antagonist process of reconstruction or accumulation by marriage, purchase, and collateral inheritance, it is altogether inadequate to stem the dispersing torrent. (212)
438.7 & 8 600,000] In the ten years from 1826 to 1835 the Côtes Foncières exhibit an increase of 60,000 properties. (212)
Cunin-Gridaine. Referred to: 445
Daily News. See Anon., “Trade and Finance”; and Anon., Unheaded leading articles, Daily News.
Darblay. Referred to: 774n
Defournaux. Referred to: 772n-773n
De L’Isle Brock. Referred to: 272-3
De Persigny, F. “Rapport au Prince Président de la République Française,” Le Moniteur Universel, CLV, 14 May, 731.
referred to: 437n
De Quincey, Thomas.The Logic of Political Economy. Edinburgh: Blackwood and Sons, 1844.
quoted: 462-4, 474 referred to: 456-7, 466, 468
462.7 “Any] Indeed, it is evident to common sense, that any (13)
462.10 secondly, even] secondly, that even (13)
462.17 not] not (14)
462.24 “Walk] Thus, by way of illustration, walk (24)
462.26 the ninety-nine] ninety-nine (24) [see 462a-a]
462.26 cases out] cases (24)
463.11 for the] for a (25)
463.11 come. One] come: one (25) [see 463b-b]
463.21 guineas] [18-sentence footnote omitted] (25-7)
463.36 under a] under the (28)
474.6 cheaper. Silk] cheaper: silk (230) [see 474g-g]
474.18 stationary? . . . . Offer] stationary? The articles and the manufacturing interests are past counting which conform to the case here stated; viz. which are so interorganized with other articles or other interests, that apart from that relation—standing upon their own separate footing—they cannot be diminished in price through any means or any motive depending upon the extension of sale. Offer (231)
474.22 whose habits and] whose rank, habits, and (231)
474.24 Oxford.”] Oxford, or the separate costume for Cantabs. (231)
Descartes. Referred to: 1072
Destutt-Tracy. Referred to: 302
Devon, William Courtenay, Earl of. “Report from Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in Respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland,” Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XIX-XXII.
quoted: 318, 330n-1n, 992-3, 997-1000 referred to: 992n, 993, 994n, 997, 999
note: for specific passages, see Griffith, R., Hurley, J., and Robinson, Colonel. See also Kennedy, J. P.
Doubleday. Referred to: 155n-156n
Duncan. Quoted: 902n (see Fane)
Dunning, T. J. Trades’ Unions and Strikes: their Philosophy and Intention. London: Dunning, 1860.
referred to: 934n
Dunoyer, Charles B. De la liberté du travail ou simple exposé des conditions dans lesquelles les forces humaines s’exercent avec le plus de puissance. Vol. II. Paris: Guillaumin, 1845.
quoted: 111y, 945-6 referred to: 35, 948n
note: the passage referred to in 948n occurs in Dunoyer, Vol. III, Book ix, Chapter iv.
945.13 etc.] etc.* [footnote:] *V. dans Chaptal, t. II, p. 250 à 280, le détail des règlements aux-quels étaient assujétis une multitude de métiers.
945.34 galères] galères* [footnote:] *Dulaure, Hist. de Paris, t. IV, p. 443.
Dupont. Referred to: 773n, 1015-16
Duveyrier. Referred to: 1011
Elizabeth I (of England). Referred to: 233n, 955n
Elliott, J. H. Credit the Life of Commerce: being a defence of the British Merchant against the unjust and demoralizing tendency of the recent alterations in the Laws of Debtor and Creditor; with an outline of remedial measures. London: Madden and Malcolm, 1845.
quoted: 908-9, 910
908.28-9 it. Excessive] it. It is asserted by a gentleman, one of the able officers of the latter court, whose business it is, as an official assignee, to investigate the cases that come before it, that a case of bankruptcy, arising from misfortune,—unavoidable misfortune,—is extremely rare. By far the great majority arise from excessive (49)
908.29 speculation] speculations (49)
908.31 speculation] speculations (49)
909.3 innocent] [in italics] (49)
909.10 neglecting] neglected (49)
909.11 and means] and facile means (49)
909.16 “fifty-two] “The New Court has been open upwards of eighteen months, during which period fifty-two (49) [see 509x-x]
909.16 care. It] care. To the best of my judgment, not one of them can be attributed to what may be termed general distress. It (49)
909.31 not one-fourth] [in italics] (50)
910.4 alone.”] alone; but it is possible that if further examination were made, some delinquency could be made out against that one. (51)
Ellis, William. “Employment of Machinery,” Westminster Review, V (Jan., 1826), 101-30.
referred to: 736n
Escher, Albert G. “Evidence of Employers of Labourers on the Influence of Training and Education on the Value of Workmen, and on the Comparative Eligibility of Educated and Uneducated Workmen for Employment,” in “Report to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the Poor Law Commissioners, on the Training of Pauper Children,” House of Lords Sessional Papers, 1841, XXXIII, 15-21.
quoted: 108, 108d-d, 109-110, 110
note: Escher’s answers were in response to questions probably put by the Secretary to the Poor Law Commission, Edwin Chadwick. JSM omits these questions, which read:
108.13 The] [paragraph] What are the more particular natural characteristics of the several classes of workmen?—The (16)
108.19 As] [paragraph] What, however, do you find to be the differences of acquirements imparted by specific training and education?—As (16)
108.34 JSM here omits one question and its answer. (16)
108.36 The] [paragraph] But is the superior general usefulness of the Saxon, or workman of superior education, accompanied by any distinction of superiority as to moral habits?—Decidedly so. The (16)
109.10 Whilst] [paragraph] In respect to order and docility what have you found to be the rank of your English workmen?—Whilst (19)
In the following places JSM departs in substance from his source:
108.14 , in a power] [not in Source] (16) [see 108e-e]
108.30 else; and] else; he will understand only his steam-engine, and (16)
108.33 work] works (16)
109.3 kind; they have] kind; they are more refined themselves, and they have (17)
Euripides. Referred to: 16
Fane, Robert George Cecil.Bankruptcy Reform: in a series of Letters addressed to Sir Robert Peel, Bart. Letters IV. V. VI. VII. London: Sweet, 1838.
note: Fane uses numbered sections drawn from his source; JSM omits these numbers at the following places: 912.n7, 912.n11, 912.n13, 912.n14, 912.n17, 912.n19, 912.n22, 912.n29, 912.n31, 912.n41.
912.n8 in the investigation of his affairs] [in italics] (44)
912.n9 shall be] shall be* [footnote:] *There seems to be some distinction between the cases provided for by clause 587; and that distinction seems to be expressed in the French, by the words “sera poursuivi,” applied to the first class of cases, and “pourra être poursuivi” applied to the second, which I understand to be, the one imperative and the other permissive. I have translated the first “shall be,” and the second “may be.” (44)
912.n11 in a] in his (44) [see 912n]
912.n19 may] may* [same footnote as in 912.n9 above] (44)
912.n22 time limited] limited time (45)
912.n26-8 [JSM’s information drawn from Fane’s translation of Section 592 (p. 45) and Section 596 (pp. 46-7)]
912.n29 expenses and] expenses or (45)
912.n41 may] may* [footnote:] *See note, p. 44. [i.e., 912.n9] (46)
912.n46-7 [JSM’s note]
— “Report from the Select Committee on the Law of Partnership; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix, and Index,” Parliamentary Papers, 1851, XVIII, 66-113.
quoted: 896, 896n, 897, 902n referred to: 899n
note: JSM omits the question numbers in the ellipsis at 896.n5, and at 896.n9. The “competent authorities” cited at 897.4 would appear to be H. Bellenden Ker, in his “Reply to Queries, Appendix 5,” in the above Report (and see Parliamentary Papers, 1851, XLIV, 165-7). In 899.n1, the reference is to the evidence of E. W. Field (pp. 145-50) and John Duncan (pp. 151-8).
896.n5 out. . . . Very] [ellipsis indicates omission of 3 questions and answers, and also:] I have no doubt that the difficulty of getting judicial decisions in partnership disputes does operate to prevent persons from engaging in partnership; but still I do not think that is the thing which prevents them, because I believe that very (86)
896.n10 it or not, I] it I (86)
896.n16 therefore is] is therefore (87)
897.4 “mass of confusion,”] After years of discussion, reports, committees, &c., that mass of confusion the Joint Stock Companies Act was passed. (167)
897.4-5 “never was such an infliction”] Never was such an infliction on parties entering into partnership as these Acts; and yet the registrar and his staff go on putting, in my opinion, the most absurd construction, on the inconsistent and contrarient clauses of these Acts, whilst one would have thought it would have been the duty of the head of the office, long before this, to have furnished such information as would have led to a reasonable and plain law. (167)
902.n9 the risk] their risk (155) [see 902n]
Fauche. Referred to: 287, 295n
Faucher, Léon.Recherches sur l’or et sur l’argent considérés comme étalons de valeur (Paris: Librairie de Paulin, 1843).
referred to: 1067
Fawcett, Henry. “Strikes, their Tendencies and Remedies,” Westminster Review, n.s. XVIII (July, 1860), 1-23.
referred to: 932-3
note: the relevant passages are on 5ff.
Feugueray, H. L’association ouvrière, industrielle et agricole. Paris: Havard, 1851.
quoted: 776, 776-9, 783n, 784, 784h-h, 795
note: from 777.22 to 778.17, Feugueray is quoting from M. Cochut: JSM does not indicate this quotation.
776.30 l’eau. . . . C’est] l’eau; il fallait ainsi volontairement se faire une condition de vie très-inférieure à celle qu’on aurait pu se procurer comme simple salarié, et que pis est, il fallait souvent faire partager ces souffrances à des femmes, à des enfants, qui semblaient avoir le droit de se plaindre d’être sacrifiés par leurs maris, par leurs pères! [paragraph] C’est à ce prix, c’est (112)
777.13 refusa] refusa* [footnote:] *Je dois reconnaître qu’au dernier moment les délégués finirent par consentir à une diminution; ils abaissèrent leur demande à 197,000 francs d’abord, et enfin à 140,000 francs. Mais ces concessions arrivèrent trop tard, quand la démission de plusieurs des membres de la commission avait enlevé à l’affaire toute chance de succès. (114)
777.17 fabrique] fabrication (114)
778.39 sociétaires. L’association] sociétaires. [paragraph] L’association (116)
778.n4 débuts: une] débuts. Une (116)
784.13 “les] Certes, les (37)
795.9 “La] Mais depuis, en y réfléchissant davantage, j’en suis venu à mieux comprendre que si la concurrence a beaucoup de puissance pour le mal, elle n’a pas moins de fécondité pour le bien, surtout en ce qui concerne le développement des facultés individuelles et le succès des innovations; et d’autre part, en étudiant plus profondément le problème de la misère, j’ai vu de plus en plus clairement que la (90)
795.12-15 Si . . . innovations.”] [see entry above; JSM has rearranged the text]
Fitzroy. Referred to: 766n, 1035
Fourier. Referred to: 1028, 1031
Fox. Referred to: 1028
Fritob. Referred to: 248n
Fullarton, John.On the Regulation of Currencies; being an Examination of the Principles, on which it is proposed to restrict, within certain fixed limits, the Future Issues on Credit of the Bank of England, and of the other Banking Establishments throughout the Country, 2nd ed. London: Murray, 1845.
quoted: 516-17, 551-2, 662, 671-2, 674-7, 678p-preferred to: 661, 662-4, 670n, 684, 1071-2
516.9 “it rises] In August, the currency is found to be uniformly lowest; it rises (88)
516.12 taxes,” and . . . loans. “Those] taxes.* These [footnote:] *See ‘Report of the Commons’ Committee of 1841,’ pp. 5 and 59. (88)
516.16 payments have] payments which I have mentioned have (88)
516.16-17 superfluous” currency . . . million, “as] superfluous half-million as (88)
516.18 disappears.”] disappears, and that on the mere cessation of the demand, without the slightest effort on the part of the banks. (89)
662.1 “the amount] I am not more disposed than most men to place implicit reliance on the testimony of parties who have personal interests depending on the question at issue; but it is impossible, I think, for any man, with the least pretensions to candour, to peruse the great mass of evidence furnished to the several Committees of the House of Commons by the intelligent body of country bankers, without attaching some faith to their unanimous and consistent assurances, sustained, too, as those assurances are, by all the collateral facts and probabilities of the case, that the amount (85)
662.4 their] those (86)
662.5 prescribes] prescribe (86)
662.8 source.”] source.* [JSM omits a long footnote of evidence] (86)
671.17 “it] Then certainly, if the Bank complies with those applications, it (106)
671.35 market] markets (107)
671.39 exactly] precisely (107) [see 671d-d]
674.22 population.* [JSM’s footnote] (72)
675.2 authorities,] authorities,* [footnote:] *See Sir William Clay’s ‘Remarks,’ &c., p. 25. (72)
675.11 demands. That] demands. The purpose of banks, according to the excellent aphorism of Adam Smith, is not to supply the trader “with the whole or even any considerable part of the capital with which he trades, but that part of it only which he would otherwise be obliged to keep by him unemployed, and in ready money, for answering occasional demands.”* That [footnote:] *See Mr. M‘Culloch’s edition of ‘The Wealth of Nations,’ vol. ii. p. 49, 50. (73)
675.16-17 derangements] derangement (73)
675.17 proofs:” among others, “the] proofs. Among the examples most frequently referred to is the circumstance remarked by Lord King, that the displacement and expulsion of the entire metallic circulation of France by the assignats had been accomplished without producing, as he affirms, any sensible effect on the state of prices in the neighbouring kingdoms. So much uncertainty, however, hangs over the facts connected with this extraordinary operation, and there are such strong grounds for supposing, that by far the larger portion of the specie, which disappeared during the reign of the assignats, was not exported, but buried and concealed on the spot, that the case, perhaps, is scarcely one on which we can build any very confident argument. A much more conclusive inference may be drawn from the (73-4)
675.24 currency. . . . There] currency. Lord Ashburton estimated, in 1819, that little less than a hundred millions sterling would be required, for the completion of the various projects of monetary reform at that period in progress.* And though this, probably, was an exaggerated view of the case, there [footnote:] *See ‘Report of the Lords’ Committee of 1819, on the Bank of England,’ p. 102. (74)
675.39 imagine,” says Mr. Fullarton, “that] imagine, from the manner in which these gentlemen treat the question, that (139)
676.4 hoard] hoard (140)
676.8 experience what] experience, as I have already observed, what (140)
676.11 hoards? Let] [½ page omitted] (140)
676.11-12 think how] think, then, how (140)
676.20-4 lender?” If . . . borrowers? “And] lender? And (141)
676.27-8 advantage? . . . . [paragraph] “To] [elision indicates omission of one paragraph; see 676l-l] (141)
676.28 [1844 [JSM’s addition] (141)]]
676.33 beyond] below (141)
678.n10 object, therefore,” says Mr. Fullarton, “which] object therefore, as it seems to me, which (137)
678.n12 exchange] exchanges (137)
Furnivall. Referred to: 1032-7
Gardener’s Chronicle. See “Irish Landlord, An.”
Gisquet. Referred to: 773n-774n, 1016
Gladstone. Referred to: 809n, 815n, 871, 1044, 1062, 1073, 1093n
Godley, John Robert.Letters from America. London: Murray, 1844.
Göschen, George. “Seven Per Cent,” Edinburgh Review, CXXI (Jan., 1865), 223-51.
referred to: 652n
Gray, John.Lectures on the Nature and Use of Money. Delivered before the members of the “Edinburgh Philosophical Institution” during the months of February and March, 1848. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848.
562.n24 “can] Because, as no one valuable thing can (250)
562.n25 as . . . together:”] as . . . together, whenever the commodities to be measured are increased faster than—the modes of using it remaining the same—the measure itself, prices must fall, and production will stop. (250)
563.n4 “increased . . . together?”] [as above] (250)
Griffith, R. “Return of the Probable Extent of Waste Lands in each County in Ireland, furnished by R. Griffith, esq., C.E., and General Valuation Commissioner,” No. VII in “Papers referred to in this Report,” Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XIX, 48-53 [Devon Report].
referred to: 997-8
Grote, George.History of Greece. Vol. IV. London, 1862, 11-12 (i.e., Chap. xliv).
referred to: 1045
Guilhaud de Lavergne.See Lavergne.
Hardenberg. Referred to: 329, 995
Hardinge. Referred to: 1075
Hargreaves. Referred to: 96
Harrison. Referred to: 1029-30
Hasselquist. Referred to: 1023
Hazard. Referred to: 1089-90, 1092
Head. Referred to: 272
Henri IV (of France). Referred to: 275, 296n, 1004
Henry II (of England). Referred to: 578
Hill. Referred to: 272
Historisch- geographisch- statistisches Gemälde der Schweiz. Erstes Heft. Knonau, Gerold Meyer von. “Der Kanton Zürich.” St. Gallen: Huber, 1834.
quoted: 258n, 393 referred to: 690-1
— Zwölftes Heft. Im-Thurn, Edward. “Der Kanton Schaffhausen.” St. Gallen: Huber, 1840.
quoted: 278n referred to: 258n
— Siebenzehntes Heft. Pupikofer, J. A. “Der Kanton Thürgau.” St. Gallen: Huber, 1837.
quoted: 259n referred to: 258n
258.n [the expression is on 80, but the discussion continues onto 81]
259.n2 mehrere] mehre (72)
278.n1 übermenschliche] übermenschichen (53)
393.12-15 It is . . . machinery.] [the translated passage is introduced by von Knonau as follows:]
Die Lichtseite der zürcherischen Fabrikation schildert ein ebenso erfahrner als beredter Sprecher des zürcherischen Handelstandes, Herr Stiftsamtmann Ernst, so: [the passage reads:] “Der zürcherische Arbeiter ist heute Fabrikant, morgen wieder Landbauer und mit den Jahreszeiten wechselt in beständigem Kreislaufe seine Beschäftigung. Hand in Hand schreiten Industrie und Landwirthschaft in unzertrennlichem Bunde vorwärts, und in dieser Vereinigung der beiden nährenden Beschäftigungen mag wohl das Geheimniss zu finden seyn, wie der unscheinbare und ungelehrte schweizerische Fabrikant neben jenen ausgedehnten, mit grossen ökonomischen und den noch wichtigern intellektuellen Mitteln ausgestatteten Anstalten noch immer concurrirt [sic] und seinen Wohlstand mehrt. Auch in denjenigen Gegenden des Kantons, wo die Fabrikation am weitesten sich ausgedehnt hat, gehören nur ein Siebentheil aller Haushaltungen ihr allein an, vier Siebentheile aber verbinden Fabrikation und Landwirthschaft mit einander. Der Vorzug dieser häuslichen oder Familienfabrikation besteht hauptsächlich darin, dass sie alle andere Beschäftigungen zulässt oder vielmehr, dass sie zum Theil nur als Nebenverdienst betrachtet werden kann. Im Winter ist in den Wohnungen der Fabrikarbeiter alles mit dem sogenannten Handverdienste beschäftigt, die Erwachsenen weben, die Kleinen und die Betagten spulen, sowie aber der Frühling erwacht, verlassen diejenigen, welchen die ersten Feldgeschäfte obliegen, die Stube, manches Weberschiffchen ruht und nach und nach folgt bei der vermehrten Feldarbeit eines dem andern, bis am Ende in der Ernte und den sogeheissenen grossen Werken alle Hände die landwirthschaftlichen Werkzeuge ergriffen haben, bei ungünstiger Witterung aber oder in jeder sonst freien Stunde wird die Arbeit in der Stube fortgesetzt, und wenn dann die unfreundliche Jahreszeit wieder heranrückt, kehren in gleicher Reihenfolge die Hausbewohner zu der innern Beschäftigung zurück, bis sich zuletzt alle wieder dabei versammelt haben.” (105)
393.n2-3 The cotton . . . population;] [derived by JSM from the following passage:] Das Ergebnis dieser Angaben zeigt, dass sich mit der Verarbeitung der Baumwolle und mit dem Handeln derselben 23,000 Menschen im Kanton Zürich oder beinahe der zehnte Theil seiner ganzen Bevölkerung beschäftigen und dafür mit 1,600,000 Gulden jährlichen Einkommens belohnt werden. (108)
393.n3-5 and they . . . England.] [derived by JSM from the following passage:] Nach statistischen Angaben soll die Bevölkerung Frankreichs im Durchschnitte für jedes Individuum jährlich 1 Pfund 12 Loth Baumwolle consumiren, England 1 Pfund 20 Loth für jeden Bewohner. Die grosse Wohlfeilheit der Zeuge macht, dass jeder Einwohner des Kantons Zürich 1¼ Pfund (ungefähr 9 bis 10 Pariserstab) gebraucht. (109-10)
Holyoake, George Jacob.Self-help by the People. History of Co-operation in Rochdale. London: Holyoake and Co., .
quoted: 786-9, 788n, 794n referred to: 790-1, 1032
787.11 1852] 1855 (33)
787.16 members] member (33)
787.26 been opened. In] have been lately opened. A members’ meeting can no longer be held at the Store Rooms. 1,600 members make a public meeting, and the business meetings of the Society are held in the public hall of the town. In (35)
787.31-5 “Every . . . business. One . . . library.] One . . . library. Every . . . business. (37) [i.e., JSM has reversed the order of the passages]
787.36-8 club.” . . . “The] club, and the (49)
787.36 “free] The quarterly meeting passed a resolution that the News-room should be free (49n)
788.2 free. From] free. In their News-room, conveniently and well fitted up, a member may read, if he has the time, twelve hours a day, also free. [paragraph] From (50)
788.5 mutual instruction] mutual and other instruction (50)
788.10 kind. The] kind. It is now spoken of as ‘the Society’s New Mill in Weir Street, near the Commissioners’ Rooms.’ The (37)
788.20 persons. . . . .”] [ellipsis indicates 5-sentence omission] (37)
788.25 hosiery] hosiery,* [footnote:] *In 1855 the drapery stock was ordered to be insured with the Globe for £1000. (37)
788.29 and cheerful] and crowds of cheerful (38)
788.n2 brilliancy] brilliance (38)
788.n6 other. . . . . These] other; and Toad Lane on Saturday night, while as gay as the Lowther Arcade in London, is ten times more moral. These (38)
789.n6-8 (Last . . . duty.)] [in footnote, without parentheses] (39)
789.n17 these.] these.* [footnote:] *The Arbitrators . . . as in 789.n25-6 . . . quarrels. The peaceableness of the Co-operators amounts to what elsewhere would be termed ‘contempt of court.’ (39) [i.e., JSM transposes the sentence from Holyoake’s footnote]
789.n20-1 The . . . quarrels.] [see 789.n22 above] (39)
790.n14 They . . . chicanery. [JSM’s italics] (39)
Howitt, William.The Rural and Domestic Life of Germany: with characteristic sketches of its cities and scenery, collected in a general tour, and during a residence in the country in the years 1840, 41 and 42. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1842.
quoted: 263-4, 328-9
263.11 among] amongst (40.) [see 263b]
263.12 multitude. . . . . . The] multitude; and wherever you go, instead of the great halls, the vast parks, and the broad lands of the nobility and gentry, as in England, you see the perpetual evidences of an agrarian system. The exceptions to this, which I shall afterwards point out, are the exceptions, they are not the rule. The (40)
263.17 themselves. . . . . . The] [ellipsis indicates 6-sentence omission] (41)
263.19 trees, commonly] trees, as we have seen commonly (41)
263.19 heavy] hung (41)
263.25 greater. The] greater. [paragraph] The (41)
263.27 time. . . . . . They] time. You never witness that scene of stir and hurry that you often do in England; that shouting to one another and running, where the need of dispatch rouses all the life and energy of the English character. They (41-2)
262.32 purposeless. . . . . . The] purposeless, and at once the terror and the victim of the capitalists. The (42)
262.34 in the] in his (42)
262.35 neighbours; no man] neighbours; he is content with his black bread, because his labour has at once created it and sweetened it to his taste, and because no proud man (42)
264.2 one.”] one; and he knows that when he dies, he shall not be buried between the vile boards of a pauper’s coffin, threatening to fall asunder before they reach the grave, nor be consigned to the knife of the surgeon; but his children will lay him by his fathers, and plant the rose, the carnation, and the cross on his grave—Zum Andenken des frommen Vaters—to the memory of the good father—and will live the same active and independent life, on his native soil, or seek it in America or Australia. (42)
264.4 of the] of that (44)
264.6 do. They] do. Of their in-door employments we shall speak elsewhere. They (44)
264.12 depths] depth (44) [see 264c-c]
264.13 you will] you (44) [see 264d-d]
264.26 buckwheat] [3-sentence footnote omitted] (50)
264.31 of] off (50) [see 264e-e]
264.33 anew: their] anew. Their (50)
264.35 after; their] after. Their (50)
264.36 when] where (51) [see 264f-f]
Hubbard, John C. “Report from the Select Committee on Income and Property Tax; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix,” Parliamentary Papers, 1861, VII, ix-xx.
note: Hubbard, Chairman of the Select Committee, prepared “a Draft of Report,” or “proposed Report,” which was amended. The passage JSM quotes is followed by this sentence: “This estimate of the relative savings of the two classes is avowedly an arbitrary one, but the concession which it involves agrees with the average result of the scientific computations of Dr. Farr, and receives the approval of Mr. John Stuart Mill.” (xiv) JSM omits the Section No. (“44.”), and the subsidiary letters (“b,” “c,” and “d”).
817.n11-12 property are] property (or, as they are briefly called, spontaneous incomes) are (xiv)
Huber, Victor Aimé.Die gewerblichen und wirtschaftlichen Genossenschaften der arbeitenden Klassen in England, Frankreich und Deutschland. Tübingen: Laupp, 1860.
referred to: 782n-783n (quoted by Cherbuliez)
Hume, David. “Essay on Money,” in Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, II. Edinburgh, 1752.
referred to: 511, 564-5
Hurly, John. “Evidence taken before the Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Occupation of Land in Ireland,” Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XX, 850-4 [Devon Report].
Im-Thurn, Edward. See Historisch- geographisch- statistisches Gemälde der Schweiz.
Inglis, Henry David. “Conway, Derwent.”Switzerland, the Southof France, and the Pyreness, in 1830. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Constable, 1831.
quoted: 256-7, 257-8 referred to: 273
256.23 vines. . . . It] vines. But there are other and better evidences of the industry of the Zurichers, than merely seeing them late and early at work. It (33)
257.6 two, or three] two and four (33)
257.12 not] nor (33) [see 257c-c]
257.15 powder; every] powder. Every (33)
257.18 thing] twig (33) [see 257d-d]
257.23 possessions. . . . Generally] possessions. If a peasant owns from eight to fifteen cows, and land sufficient for their support, as well as for growing what is consumed in his own family, he is esteemed in good circumstances. He consumes whatever part of the produce of his dairy is needed at home; and he sells the surplus, chiefly the cheese, which he keeps till the arrival of the travelling merchant, who buys it for exportation. Generally (110)
257.26 wine. Flax is] [7-sentence omission] In enumerating the articles which the Grison of the Engadine is supplied with from his own property, I omitted to mention flax, which is (111) [see 257e]
257.29 tailor. The] tailor: the latter vocation is invariably exercised by the females of the house. [paragraph] [14-sentence omission] The (111-13)
257.31 devise. There] [33 pages omitted] (113-46)
257.34 an ear of rye will ripen, there it is to be found] rye will succeed, there it is cultivated (146)
258.2 attempted. In] [jump backwards of 37 pages] (146-109)
“Irish Landlord, An,” “Twenty-five Years’ Work in Ireland,” The Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 3 Dec., 1864, 1162-4.
referred to: 1077, 1078n, 1081, 1088
Isabella (of Castille). Referred to: 955n
Jacob. Referred to: 248
Johnson, Samuel. Referred to: 889
note: reference not located, but Louis Guilhaud de Lavergne says, in a work quoted by JSM (Economie rurale, p. 32): “L’avantage du droit d’aînesse, disait ironiquement en Angleterre le docteur Johnson, c’est qu’il ne fait qu’un sot par famille.”
Jones, Rev. Richard.An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth, and on the Sources of Taxation. London: Murray, 1831.
quoted: 247-8, 249, 283 referred to: 302, 305, 311
248.11 England.] England.* [footnote:] Schmalz, Vol. II, p. 103. (50)
248.20 of] for (51) [see 248k-k]
283.7 kind, are] kind, whatever may be the form of their rents, are (146)
283.9 restraint. The] restraint. The causes of this peculiarity we shall have hereafter to point out. The (146)
283.11 territory, very] territory, whatever be the form of their rents, very (146)
283.14-15 disposition] disposition* [footnote:]* The actual disposition of the population to increase with extreme rapidity shews that these apprehensions are far from fanciful. See Jacob’s Second Report. (68)
283.17 or more] or of more (68) [see 283b]
283.17 people.] people, and if the too great subdivision of their allotments is not guarded against in time, they will probably, in the course of a very few generations, be more miserable than their ancestors were as serfs, and will certainly be more hopeless and helpless in their misery, since they will have no landlord to resort to. (68)
Jonnès, Moreau de. Referred to: 288n
Joyce, Arthur J. “The Progress of Mechanical Invention,” Edinburgh Review, LXXXIX (Jan., 1849), 47-83.
Jusseraud. Referred to: 147n
Kay, Joseph.The Social Condition of the People in England and Europe; Shewing the Results of the Primary Schools, and of the Division of Landed Property, in Foreign Countries. Vol. I. London: Longman, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1850.
quoted: 260n, 264-6, 266-7, 286, 286n, 348
260.n1 [Kay does not “quote” from Reichensperger, but summarizes] (I, 126)
260.n9 Germany, &c., in] Germany, and the district of Siegenshen, in (I, 126)
265.23 land, there] land, which they formerly held as the Irish hold their little leaseholds, viz., from and at the will of owners of great estates, there (I, 138)
265.38 seen. The] seen. The little plots of land belonging to the peasantry lie side by side, undivided by hedge or ditch or any other kind of separation. The (I, 139)
266.3 portions. All] portions; and this very rivalry tends to improve all the more the system of tillage and the value of the crops. [paragraph] All (I, 139)
266.20 gross] gross (I, 114)
266.23 net] net (I, 114)
266.23 latter. . . . He] [ellipsis indicates 2-page omission] (I, 114-16)
266.24 of the land] of land (I, 116)
266.31-2 as . . . prosperous] as . . . prosperous (I, 117)
266.34 gross] gross (I, 117)
266.35 net] net (I, 117)
266.37 a great proprietor] great proprietors (I, 117)
267.6-7 (Grundsatz . . . Landwirthschaft)] [in footnote] (I, 117)
267.9 tenants. . . . This] [ellipsis indicates omission of 1 sentence quoted from Thaer] (I, 117-18)
267.11 farms.” . . . “The] farms. [paragraph] But whether the net produce of the land cultivated by peasant proprietors be greater than its net produce when cultivated by great proprietors, or not, all accounts agree in showing that the cultivation and productiveness of the land has very much improved, and is in a state [of] progressive improvement, wherever trade in land has been rendered free, and wherever the peasants have been able to acquire. [paragraph] The (I, 118)
286.4 thirty. . . . Nor] [ellipsis indicates omission of 2 sentences quoted below, 348.18-26, q.v.] (I, 68)
286.10 evening] evenings (I, 68)
286.25 “Wherever . . . population.”] [in Kay this passage appears between two quotations from this part of JSM’s Principles (which appeared in earlier editions in the next section)] (I, 90)
286.28 upon undue] upon the undue (I, 90)
286.n12-13 we . . . proprietors] [in capitals in Source] (I, 266)
348.18-26 [see 286.4 above]
348.18 “So] Indeed, so (I, 68)
348.26 years.”] years; but I mention them rather as symptoms, than as causes of the prudence and self-denial of the peasantry. (I, 68)
Kemmeter. Referred to: 150n
Kennedy, J. P. Digest of Evidence taken before Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in respect to the Occupation of Land In Ireland. Part I, II. Dublin: Thorn, 1847-8.
note: J. P. Kennedy was Secretary to Lord Devon’s Commission. See also Devon, Lord.
quoted: 315n, 330f, 998n, 999
315.n1 “It] In the north of Ireland this system is pretty generally either authorized or connived at by the landlord; and it (I, 1)
315.n4-5 rent.”—Digest . . . adds, “the] rent; and the (I, 1)
315.n8 is in] is, therefore, in (I, 2)
315.n10 “The present] They [the landlords] do not perceive that the present (I, 2)
315.n11 copyhold.”] copyhold, which must decline in value to the proprietor in proportion as the practice becomes confirmed, because the sum required by the outgoing tenant must regulate ultimately the balance of gross produce which will be left to meet the payment of rent. (I, 2-3)
315.n12 there, if] there, however, if (I, 319)
315.n12 ejected] evicted (I, 319)
315.n14—316.n1 “The disorganized] They [the landlords] do not perceive that the disorganized (I, 3)
316.n2 tenant-right.”] tenant-right, or that an established practice not only may, but must, erect itself finally into law; and any one who will take the pains to analyze this growing practice will soon perceive how inevitable that consequence must be in the present case, unless the practice itself be superseded by a substitute that shall put the whole question on a sound, equitable, and invigorating basis. (I, 4)
330.n4 “The] [paragraph] The (I, 570)
330.n9-10 cottier.” . . . “Here] [the two passages are contiguous in Source, with no indication of where the compiler’s remarks begin]
998.n6 “There are] Taking this basis for our calculating, and referring to Appendix, No. 95(2) (see page 564), we find that there are (I, 399)
998.n10 them.” It is shown by calculation, “that] them. [paragraph] In the same table, No. 95(2), page 564, the calculation is put forward, showing that (I, 399)
998.n19-20 “and that] And the evidence leads to the conviction, that this result can be obtained not only without any permanent loss, but with a very large permanent gain; as it appears that 3,755,000 acres of waste land, not now giving a gross produce exceeding, on the average, 4s. per acre, may be made to yield a gross produce of £6. per acre, being a total increase from £751,000 to £22,530,000, and that (I, 565)
Kingsley. Referred to: 1032
Knonau, Gerold Meyer von. See Historisch- geographisch- statistisches Gemälde der Schweiz.
Labruyère. Referred to: 442
Laing, Samuel (the elder).Journal of a Residence in Norway, during the Years 1834, 1835, and 1836; made with a view to inquire into the moral and political economy of that country, and the condition of its inhabitants.
quoted: 260d, 281c, 285
260.n25-6 cultivators. . . . Good] [ellipsis indicates 4-sentence omission] (37)
260.n30-1 It . . . condition] [no italics] (37)
260.n36 have only] only have (37)
260.n38 the smallest] the very smallest (38)
281.n10 restraint] self-restraint (21)
285.30 of the] of (19) [see 285i-i]
285.35 as another] as at another (19) [see 285j]
— Notes of a Traveller, on the Social and Political State of France, Prussia, Switzerland, Italy, and other parts of Europe, during the Present Century. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1842.
quoted: 105r-r, 261-2, 261n-262n, 284, 364-5
261.16 Frith] Firth (299) [see 261e-e]
261.29 than] as (299) [see 261f-f]
261.36 terms] returns (300) [see 261g-g]
262.n4-5 cheese. One] cheese; and if the man comes from Gruyere, all that he makes is called Gruyere cheese, although made far from Gruyere. One (352)
284.18 husbandry” under small properties. “The] husbandry under this social construction. The 46)
364.37 and maize] or maize (457)
365.3 or the inclination] or inclination (457)
— Observations on the Social and Political State of the European People in 1848 and 1849; being the Second Series of the Notes of a Traveller. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1850.
Laing, Samuel (the younger).Atlas Prize Essay. National Distress; its Causes and Remedies. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1844.
quoted: 769-70, 1007-8 referred to: 1089
note: 1009-10 in Appendix D is the same as 769-70
770.11 Barham,] Barham,* [footnote:] *Report of Children’s Employment Commission in Mines and Colleries [sic], Appendix, pp. 758, 759. (40) [see 770.n4-5]
770.17 terms.’ . . . With] terms. The tributor, likewise, entertains a hope—often realised if he is a good miner—that some fortunate contracts will put him on a parity as to station with the wealthier individuals near him, who have for the most part, at no remote period, occupied some of the lower steps of the ladder on which he himself stands. [paragraph] With (40-1) [in Source, the quotation which JSM ends at terms is not closed; in the British Museum copy a diagonal pencil line is drawn after terms]
770.20 houses;’] houses,”* [footnote:] *Report of Children’s Employment Commission in Mines and Collieries, Appendix, p. 753.
770.21 saving] savings’ (41) [cf. 770c-cand 1008 savings]
770.22 miners.’ ”] miners;”* [footnote:]* Ibid. p. 753. [text:] and, finally, that they are, as a class, “a religious people, leading habitually excellent and religious lives, and giving conclusive evidence of the real influence of the great doctrines of revelation on their hearts, by their equanimity under suffering and privation, and in calmness and resignation when death is known to be inevitable.”* [footnote:] *Ibid. p. 760.
Landi. Referred to: 307n
Lavergne, Louis Gabriel Léonce Guilhaud de. Referred to: 262n, 289
— “Dénombrement de la population de 1856,” Journal des Économistes, 2e Série, XIII (Feb., 1857), 225-33.
referred to: 437
— Économie rurale de la France depuis 1789. 2nd ed. Paris: Guillaumin, 1861.
quoted: 152, 290n-291n, 293, 436, 442 referred to: 435, 437
152.17-23 “We . . . attained.”] [translated from:] Il ne nous a pas fallu moins de soixante-dix ans pour défricher deux millions d’hectares de landes, supprimer la moitié de nos jachères, doubler nos produits ruraux, accroître la population de 30 pour 100, le salaire de 100 pour 100, la rente de 150 pour 100. A ce compte, il nous faudrait encore trois quarts de siècle pour arriver au point où en est aujourd’hui l’Angleterre. (59)
291.n10 doublé . . . Cette] doublé. Ce genre de progrès marchait aussi vite avant 1789, car Arthur Young dit que, vingt-cinq ans seulement avant son voyage, le salaire moyen n’était que de seize sols par jour, et qu’il avait par conséquent monté de 20 pour 100 dans cet intervalle. [paragraph] Cette (57-8)
293.17-23 “In . . . best.”] [translated from:] Sur quelques points, dans les environs de Paris, par exemple, où les avantages de la grande culture deviennent manifestes, l’étendue des fermes tend à s’accroître. On voit plusieurs fermes se réunir pour n’en former qu’une et des fermiers s’arrondir en louant des parcelles à des propriétaires différents. Ailleurs les fermes trop grandes tendent à se diviser comme les trop grandes propriétés. La culture va d’elle-même à l’organisation qui lui convient le mieux. (455)
436.n1 pp. 23 and 51.] [the figure of one-third is quoted on p. 23 from ArthurYoung, and queried as being high for 1789. On p. 51 it is Lavergne’s own figure, applied to the current situation]
436.11-14 “enjoy . . . wealth.”] [translated from:] Ceux-là jouissent quelquefois d’une aisance véritable. Leurs biens se divisent par des héritages, mais beaucoup d’entre eux ne cessent d’acheter, et, en fin de compte, ils tendent plus à s’élever qu’à descendre dans l’échelle de la richesse. (451)
436.21 “car] Suivant toute apparence, ces évaluations sont aujourd’hui plutôt audessus qu’au-dessous de la vérité, car (454)
442.27—443.4 “Thanks . . . capital.”] [translated from:] Grâce à cette meilleure division du sol, qui permet de consacrer 6 millions d’hectares de plus à la nourriture des animaux, et par conséquent à la production des fumiers; grâce à des marnages, des irrigations, des assainissements, des labours mieux faits, le rendement de toutes les cultures s’est élevé. Le froment, qui ne donnait en moyenne que 8 hectolitres à l’hectare, semence déduite, en a donné 12, et comme en même temps l’étendue semée s’est accrue, la production totale a plus que doublé. Le même fait s’est présenté pour le bétail, qui, recevant deux fois plus d’aliments, a grandi à la fois en nombre et en qualité, de manière à doubler ses produits; les cultures industrielles se sont développées, la soie et le colza ont quintuplé, le sucre indigène a pris naissance, la récolte en vin a doublé. Il n’y a pas jusqu’au bois qui, mieux défendu contre la dent des animaux, mieux exploité en vue des nouveaux débouchés, n’ait augmenté ses revenus annuels, mais trop souvent aux dépens du capital. (52-3)
— Essai sur l’économie rurale de l’Angleterre, de l’Écosse et de l’Irlande. 3rd ed. Paris: Guillaumin, 1858.
quoted: 280 referred to: 448, 1075n
280.3-14 “In . . . Paris?” [translated from:] Transportons-nous, au contraire, dans les grasses plaines de la Flandre, sur les bords du Rhin, de la Garonne, de la Charente, du Rhône; nous y retrouvons la petite culture, mais bien autrement riche et productive. Toutes les pratiques qui peuvent féconder la terre et multiplier les effets du travail y sont connues des plus petits cultivateurs et employées par eux, quelles que soient les avances qu’elles supposent. Sous leurs mains, des engrais abondants, recueillis à grands frais, renouvellent et accroissent incessamment la fertilité du sol, malgré l’activité de la production; les races de bestiaux sont supérieures, les récoltes magnifiques. Ici c’est le tabac, le lin, le colza, la garance, la betterave, ailleurs la vigne, l’olivier, le prunier, le mûrier, qui demandent pour prodiguer leurs trésors, un peuple de travailleurs industrieux. N’est-ce pas aussi à la petite culture qu’on doit la plupart des produits maraîchers obtenus à force d’argent autour de Paris? (127)
Leatham. Referred to: 550n
Le Brun. Referred to: 274
Leclaire, Edmé-Jean. “M. Leclaire of Paris,” Chambers’s Edinburgh Journal, n.s. IV (Sept., 1845), 193-6.
quoted: 770-2, 1011-14 referred to: 773-4, 1010, 1016-17
note: 1011-12 in Appendix D is the same as 771-2. In 771.9-18, JSM is quoting the reviewer in Chambers’s; in 771.21-772.3, he is quoting Leclaire in translation from Chambers’s. Leclaire’s pamphlet is entitled: Des améliorations qu’il serait possible d’apporter dans le sort des ouvriers peintres en bâtiments, suivies des règlements d’administration et de répartition des bénéfices que produit le travail.
771.11 arrangement] arrangements (193) [see 771e-e]
771.17 in, his] in, then, he says, notwithstanding the stability which he had introduced into his establishment, and notwithstanding the attachment and zeal of many of his workmen, his (193)
771.21 “will] ‘Under the present system,’ says he, in his pamphlet of 1842, ‘a master tradesman has to endure not only the disquiet arising from bad debts and the failure of persons he may be connected with in business—losses from these causes, especially from the latter, are always trifling when the tradesman is possessed of prudence—but what to him is an incessant cause of torment, is the losses which arise from the misconduct of the workmen in his service. We have no fear of being accused of exaggeration when we say that he will (193-4)
771.23 capable of] able for (194)
771.26 livelihood. If] [4 sentences omitted; the next sentence begins:] Accordingly, if (194)
771.32 anxiety. This] anxiety. [paragraph] This (194)
1011.20-1 arrangements] arrangements (193) [see 771.11 above]
Legoyt, A. “Recensement de la population de la France en 1846 et du mouvement de la population en Europe,” Journal des Économistes, 2e Série, XVII (May, 1847), 169-94.
quoted: 288n, 289n
note: the tables on 288n and 289n are translated by JSM.
289.n18 34.39] 34,49 (176) [see 289n]
Leroux. Referred to: 1028
Longfield, Mountifort. “Address by the President, Hon. Judge Longfield, at the Opening of the Eighteenth Session,” Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, IV, Part 24 (January, 1865), 129-46; “Appendix to the foregoing Address,” ibid., 146-54.
referred to: 333, 1040, 1042, 1057, 1073-4, 1079-80
Louis XI (of France). Referred to: 296n, 1004
Louis XII (of France). Referred to: 296n, 1004
Louis XIV (of France). Referred to: 441, 442n, 945
Louis-Philippe (of France). Referred to: 445, 449
Lyell, Charles.Travels in North America with Geological Observations on the United States, Canada and Nova Scotia. 2 vols. London: Murray, 1845.
quoted: 226n referred to: 175n
McCulloch, John Ramsay. Referred to: 45, 267, 283, 752, 818n, 838, 890n
— A Dictionary, Geographical, Statistical, and Historical, of the Various Countries, Places, and Principal Natural Objects in the World. 2 vols. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1841.
quoted: 267, 445-6
445.41 “France] The truth is that France (I, 855)
446.2 imported;” and in 1822 the duty “was] imported; and had the duty been allowed to continue at this reasonable rate it could not have been justly objected to. But in 1822 the duty of 3 fr. was (I,855-6)
446.3 francs,] fr.! (I, 856)
446.4 importation.”] importation of cattle, and been productive of many mischievous results. (I,856)
— The Principles of Political Economy: with some inquiries respecting their application, and a sketch of the rise and progress of the science. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: Tait, 1843.
quoted: 302, 889-90
302.3 “Wherever] The practice of letting lands by proportional rents, or, as it is there termed, on the métayer principle, is very general on the continent; and wherever (471)
302.5 poverty.”] [3-sentence footnote omitted] (471)
889.33 station] situation (264)
— On the Succession to Property Vacant by Death. London, 1848.
referred to: 890n
— A Treatise on the Principles and Practical Influence of Taxation and the Funding System. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1845.
859.n12-13 increase. . . . In] [ellipsis indicates omission of 3 paragraphs and a footnote] (227-9)
859.n13 freehold, the duty is] freehold the stamp on the lease was the same as on the release, so that the duty was and still is (279)
859.n14 while on the] while in the (279)
859.n16 notice. It] notice [paragraph] It (279)
859.n17 this conveyance] this double (or doubly-stamped) conveyance (279)
859.n18 and the] and it is important to observe that the (279)
859.n21 “eighty times] The rate of the ad valorem duty, therefore, is 80 times (280)
859.n25 stamp duties in] stamp-duties, therefore, in (276)
860.n1 “it] And such being the case, it (281)
McDonnell. Referred to: 1074
Macgregor. Referred to: 236n
MacMicking, Robert.Recollections of Manilla and the Philippines, during 1848, 1849, and 1850. London: Bentley, 1851.
note: JSM spells his name “McMicking”.
Maine, Henry James Sumner.Ancient Law: its Connection with the Early History of Society, and its Relation to Modern Ideas. London: Murray, 1861.
referred to: 219n
Malthus, Thomas Robert. Referred to: 67n, 154, 155n, 156n, 158, 162, 345, 346, 353, 359, 370, 570, 576, 581, 753
— An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, and the Principles by which it is Regulated. London: Murray, 1815.
referred to: 419
— Principles of Political Economy considered with a view to their Practical Application. London: 1820.
343.n17 “a] And the result was, that, instead of an increase of population exclusively, a considerable portion of their increased real wages was expended in a (253-4)
Mason, William Shaw.A Statistical Account or Parochial Survey of Ireland. Dublin: Cumming, 1814ff.
referred to: 1076
Maupillé, Léon. See Bertin, Amédée.
Mazarin. Referred to: 441n—442n
Meyer von Knonau, Gerold. See Historisch- geographisch- statistisches Gemälde der Schweiz.
Michelet, J. Le peuple. Paris: Hachette, Paulin, 1846.
quoted: 279n, 296n, 441n—442n, 1004
note: 1004 in Appendix C is the same as 296.n5-24.
279.n21 apperçoit] aperçoit (2)
296.n5 Aux] [paragraph] Cette grande histoire, si peu connue, offre ce caractère singulier: aux (5)
296.n9 terre. Ces] [3-sentence paragraph omitted] (5-6)
296.n18 sol,] sol*, [footnote:] *Voir Froumenteau: Secret des finances de France (1581), Preuves, surtout p. 397-8.
296.n20 brulée] brûlée (6)
441.n8 journaliers. . . . Je] journaliers. Par quels incroyables efforts purent-ils, à travers les guerres et les banqueroutes du grand roi, du régent, garder ou reprendre les terres que nous avons vues plus haut se trouver dans leur mains au dix-huitième siècle, c’est ce qu’on ne peut s’expliquer. [paragraph] Je (8)
442.n2-3 , réimprimé . . . Economistes] [drawn from an omitted 4-sentence footnote to Boisguillebert] (8)
Mill, Harriet. Referred to: 1026-37
Mill, James.Commerce Defended. An Answer to the arguments by which Mr. Spence, Mr. Cobbett, and others, have attempted to prove that Commerce is not a Source of National Wealth. London: Baldwin, 1808.
referred to: 576
— Elements of Political Economy. 3rd ed. London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1826.
quoted: 589-90 referred to: 27b, 28n, 818n
589.26 “It] If the cloth and the corn, each of which required 100 days’ labour in Poland, required each 150 days’ labour in England, it (120)
590.15-16 “If,” . . . “while] If, on the other hand, while (121)
— The History of British India. Vol. III. London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1817.
Mill, John Stuart.Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. London: Parker, 1844.
quoted: 589-90, 596-9, 632n-634n, 851-4, 855-6 referred to: 49n, 701, 589n
note: the full collation of these passages will be found in Vol. IV of this edition, Essays on Economics and Society.
589.6 “it] It (2)
596.28 the other] another (7)
596.29 than the] than, it is self-evident, the (7)
596.32 “Suppose that] Suppose, for example, that (6)
597.7 of cloth] of broad cloth (7)
597.15 20. The] 20. [paragraph] The (8)
597.18 exchange] exchangeable (10)
597.21 at. Let] at. [paragraph] Let (10)
597.40 exchange] exchangeable (10)
598.6 suppositions] supposition (11)
598.7 has] had (11) [see 598b-b]
598.15 this] that (11) [see 598c-c]
598.16 would] could (11)
598.34 for one another] for another [sic] (12) [altered to correct reading in 2nd ed. (1874) of Essays]
598.36 without further alteration] as they are (12)
598.38 exchange] exchangeable (12)
598.41 articles] article (12)
599.17 exchange] exchangeable (13)
599.33 that] one (13)
599.40 be a] be in a (14) [see 599d]
632.n7 yard.] yard.* [footnote:] *The figures used are of course arbitrary, having no reference to any existing prices. (14)
633.n14 diminish. As] diminish. Although the increased exportation of cloth takes place at a lower price, and the diminished importation of linen at a higher, yet the total money value of the exportation would probably increase, that of the importation diminish. As (15)
634.n6 gainers. They] gainers. If they do not choose to increase their consumption of cloth, this does not prevent them from being gainers. They (17) [as in the previous entry, the omitted sentence ends with the same word as the previous sentence; both may be copying errors]
851.1 exports, we may, in] exports, for instance, we may, under (21)
851.9 “suppose] Suppose (21)
851.15 before. Or] before. It may diminish it in such a ratio, that the money value of the quantity consumed will be exactly the same as before. Or (22) [see note to 634.n6 above]
851.25 in some] under some (22)
851.35 total value] total money value (22)
851.35 would] will (22) [see 851b-b]
852.9 while] which [sic] (23) [altered in ink in JSM’s own copy of the Essays (Somerville College, Oxford) to the reading of the Principles, which is reproduced in the 2nd ed. (1874) of the Essays]
852.10 the fall] consequent fall (23)
853.7 exports;] exports*: [7-sentence footnote omitted] (24-5)
853.15 “In any case, whatever] It is certain, however, that whatever (25)
853.18-19 exist.” . . . “We] exist. Moreover, the imposition of such a tax frequently will, and always may, expose a country to lose this branch of its trade altogether, or to carry it on with diminished advantage, in consequence of the competition of untaxed exporters from other countries, or of the domestic producers in the country to which it exports. Even on the most selfish principles, therefore, the benefit of such a tax is always extremely precarious. [paragraph] 5. We
854.19 appropriate] be almost sure of appropriating (27)
855.9 “into] With a view to practical legislation, therefore, duties on importation may be divided into (27)
855.11 not. The] not. [paragraph] The (28)
855.33 means which] means of gain which (28)
855.38 linen] cloth (29)
855.39 cloth] linen (29)
855.40 linen] cloth (29)
856.5-6 when . . . commodities] so long as any other kind of taxes on commodities are retained, as a source of revenue (29)
856.6 little objectionable] unobjectionable (29)
856.6 too] moreover (29)
856.12 the revenue duties] the duties (29)
856.13-14 corresponding revenue duties] corresponding duties (29)
856.14 those] these (29)
— “The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte,” Westminster Review, LXXXIII (Apr., 1865), 339-405, and “Later Speculations of Auguste Comte,” ibid., LXXXIV (July, 1865), 1-42; republished together as Auguste Comte and Positivism. London: Trübner, 1865.
referred to: 1041
— “Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts; together with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index,” Parliamentary Papers, 1857 (Sess. 2), X.i, 177-206.
680.n1 “the double action of drains,”] Those who framed the Act [of 1844] do not seem to have adverted to what may be called the double action of drains. (179)
— Unheaded articles on French agriculture. Morning Chronicle, 11, 13, and 16 Jan., 1847, pp. 4,4,4.
note: The MS of this Appendix consists of pasted-up extracts from the articles in the Morning Chronicle, with introductory matter and linking passages added in ink (all on rectos), and notes added in ink (on versos); occasionally alterations are made in ink on the columns. In most cases, therefore, the Source and MS readings are the same (and are so recorded in the variant notes to this Appendix, 431-51 above); consequently, when there is a variant between the Source and the 7th edition, there is usually a variant recorded in the variant notes: the cross-references between these variants and the list below are indicated below in square brackets after the Source reading. The page reference of the Source is omitted, as it is always the same (i.e., 4).
The arrangement of materials in the MS is as follows:1 I: 433.1—434.5 In . . . France. ink (1v-2r); 434.6—438.7 The . . . increase of nearly [nearly cancelled in ink] news (2r-5r); 438.7-36 more than . . . diminished. ink (5r-6r); 438.37—439.17 It . . . subdivision. news (6r); 439.18-20 We . . . extraordinary ink [clipping cut at hyphen division of extra-/ordinary so ordinary cancelled in ink] (6r); 439.20-36 number . . . properties. news (6r); II: 439.37—442.11 We . . . favourable. news (7r-9r); 442.11-14 Compare . . . returns ink (9r); 442.14—444.24 of the rate . . . farming. news (9r-10r); III: 444.25—451.35 The . . . arrondisement.” news (11r-15r); 451.36-9 We . . . France. ink (16r).
The passages at I: 439.18-20 and III: 451.36-9, although written in ink, are similar to the newspaper text (see variants below). Mill added footnote indicators in ink where necessary, and the appropriate notes (to the 1st edition) on the verso opposite, except for 446n, which appeared in the text of the newspaper article; 442.13, the MS has a note to “now.”, which reads “Vide supra, p.” (evidently a reference to the passage also noted at 448n), not reproduced in the 1st or any later edition. The MS corrections of a typographical error and two errors in French accents in the Morning Chronicle are here silently accepted.
434.22 collectors’] collector’s
435.26 think as] think is as [see 435b]
435.29 acre. The] acre: the [see 435c-c]
435.39-40 acres—on that of] acres, of [see 435d-d]
436.1 only a third] much less than half [see 436e-e]
436.2 third] half [see 436f-f]
436.5-22 [see 436g-g]
436.26-7 that this] that it [see 436h-h]
437.17 increased] increases [see 437i-i]
438.1 had in 1846] has now [see 438k-k]
438.7-8 of more . . . Let] of nearly 60,000. Let [Quarterly Review also reads 60,000]
438.8 600,000] 60,000
438.9 300,000] 30,000
438.12 consulted . . . on,] turned a few pages back
438.13 cause sufficient] cause amply sufficient
438.13 considerable portion of this] much larger
438.37 It] But it [But cut off in MS clipping, and i altered to I in ink]
439.12 among those] among these [see 439m-m]
439.18 We . . . subject] Long as this article is, we cannot close it
439.25 against] against [see 439n-n]
439.32 not] not [see 439o-o]
439.33 poor] poor [altered in MS clipping to roman]
439.34 does] does [see 439p-p]
439.35 which some] which, also, some [altered in ink in MS clipping]
439.36 properties. We] properties. [paragraph] We need not trouble our readers any further with the Quarterly reviewer; but the state of French agriculture, and the social condition of France, as connected with it, are subjects on which we have much more to say; and we shall take an early opportunity of attempting to show what is really amiss in these matters, and to what causes it is imputable. [end of article]
439.37 have shown] showed on Monday [altered in ink in MS clipping]
440.1 best authorities] best living authorities [see 440q]
440.2 and from] and that from [see 440r]
440.5 represent them to be] would represent them [see 440s-s]
440.8-9 earth. [paragraph] We] [3-sentence omission] [cut out of MS clipping]
441.2-3 France. [paragraph] That] [4-sentence omission] [see 441t]
441.21 the general] the food and general [see 441u]
441n [not in Source]
442.11-13 Compare . . . now.] While now, “the classes of the population who have only their wages, and who for that reason are the most exposed to indigence, are much better provided with the requisites of food, lodging, and clothing than they were at the beginning of the century. The fact may be established by the testimony of all who have a personal recollection of the earlier of the two epochs. If there could be a doubt on the subject, it might be dissipated by consulting aged cultivators and workpeople, as I have myself done in various localities, without meeting with a single opposing testimony: we may also refer to the facts collected on the subject by an exact observer, M. Villermé.”—(From a recent work by an intelligent writer, “Recherches sur les Causes de l’Indigence, par A. Clément.”) [cf. 290n]
442.13 M. Rubichon’s] [paragraph] M. Rubichon’s
443.26 millions are held only by] millions only are held by [see 443w-w]
443.30-1 resident, a primitive relationship] resident; a sort of patriarchal relationship [altered in ink in MS clipping]
444.1 said by] said somewhere in these volumes, by [see 444x]
444.6 frugality] prudence [see 444y-y]
444.7-8 savings, . . . purpose, are] savings are [see 444z-z]
444.21-2 the grande] la grande [see 444a-a]
444.22 it. But] it. The thing would soon be done if the love of industrial progress should ever supplant in the French mind the love of national glory, or if the desire of national glorification should take that direction. But [see 444b]
444.23 be little] be no [see 444c-c]
444.24 farming.] farming. [paragraph] In one article more we hope to dispose of the remainder of the subject. [end of article]
445.10 (five ounces) “of meat per] (quære five ounces) per [altered in ink in MS clipping]
445.29-30 little of it, the portion] little, the ration [see 445d-d]
445.39 butchers’] butcher’s
446n M‘Culloch’s . . . France.] [in text of MS clipping]
446.7-18 A third . . . excepted.] These causes are enough of themselves to account for a considerable part of the enhancement complained of. [see 446e-e]
447.9 were it not] but [see 447f-f]
447.10 communication] navigation [see 447g-g]
447.11 could formerly] can [see 447h-h]
447.17 double] doubled [see 447i-i]
447.17 so cheaply] so well or so cheaply [see 447j]
447.19 these causes] these three causes [see 447k]
447.20 another] a fourth [see 447l-l]
447.27—448.3 admitted . . . But] admitted; but [see 447m-m]
448.7 sheep. It] [16-sentence omission; partly quoted at 145n—147n from Passy, Des systèmes de culture] [cut out of MS clipping] [the note to sheep does not, of course, appear in the MS clipping]
448.7 diminish the number of cattle] diminish cattle [see 448o-o]
448.24 is, the] is, as before-mentioned, the [altered in ink in MS clipping]
449.6 most influential] first [see 449p-p]
449.18 the French] the present French [see 449q]
449.19 was] has been [see 449r-r]
449.20 having been] being [see 449s-s]
449.21 had] have [see 449t-t]
449.22 had] have [see 449u-u]
449.24 occupied] now occupy [see 449v-v]
449.24 had] have [see 449w-w]
449.27 was] is [see 449y-y]
449.27 were] are [see 449z-z]
449.28 had] have [see 449a-a]
450.1 had] has [see 450b-b]
450.2 had] have [see 450c-c]
450.4 was] is [see 450d-d]
450.5 had] has [see 450e-e]
450.6 had] has [see 450f-f]
450.10 more] more and more [see 450g]
450.12 had] has [see 450h-h]
450.13 had] has [see 450i-i]
450.14 had] has [see 450j-j]
450.25 1845] 1846 [see 450k-k]
451.1-2 hectolitres . . . M. Bertin] hectolitres. At present M. Bertin [see 451l-landm-m]
451.2-3 16 . . . acre. The] 16. The [see 451n-n]
451.14 he says] he also says [altered in ink in MS clipping]
451.14 are also proprietors] are proprietors [altered in ink in MS clipping]
451.18 therefore] all [see 451o-o]
451.28 in “good] “in good [see 451p-p]
451.29 2¼] 2½ [altered in ink in MS clipping]
451.32 towns (or rather town), but] towns, but [altered in ink in MS clipping]
451.36 discussion;] article,
451.37 to enable our readers] and our readers will now be able
451.38-9 respecting . . . France.] on the consequences of the division of property. [end of article]
Mirabeau. Referred to: 442
Moniteur. See De Persigny.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de.De l’esprit des loix ou du rapport que les loix doivent avoir avec la constitution de chaque gouvernement, les moeurs, le climat, la religion, le commerce, &c. à quoi l’auteur a ajouté des recherches nouvelles sur les loix romaines touchant les successions, sur les loix françoises, & sur les loix féodales. Geneva: Barillot, .
quoted: 501 referred to: 503
note: There is no indication which edition JSM used. Reference here is to the 1st edition.
501.19 “Il] Mais il (I,294)
Moorehouse. Referred to: 787
Moran. Referred to: 1086-8, 1090-1
Mounier, M. L. De l’agriculture en France, d’après les documents officiels. Avec des remarques par M. Rubichon. 2 vols. Paris: Guillaumin, 1846.
referred to: 433ff.
Muggeridge, Richard M. “Hand-Loom Weavers. Report of the Commissioners,” Parliamentary Papers, 1841, X.
381.22 lead] leads (38)
381.24 recreation. There] recreation. Beyond the necessity imposed upon him of yielding a given quantity of labour to produce a given amount of earnings, he has little, if any, control. In the proportion he is willing to sacrifice the one, he can dispense with the other, and idleness carries with it no punishment, beyond the restrictions of enjoyment which arise from its being unremunerated. There (38)
381.26 mulcted of his] mulct his (38)
Mushet, Robert.A Series of Tables, Exhibiting the Gain and Loss to the Fundholder, Arising from the Fluctuations in the Value of the Currency, from 1800 to 1821. 2nd ed., corrected. London: Baldwin, Cradock and Joy, 1821.
referred to: 568
Nadaud. Referred to: 1034
Napoleon. Referred to: 627n
Newmarch, William. “Appendix, No. 39. Paper presented by Mr. Newmarch, 5 June 1857. Bills of Exchange (Inland Bills), England and Wales,” in “Report from the Select Committee on Bank Acts; together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index,” Parliamentary Papers, 1857 (Sess. 2), X.ii, 324-7.
referred to: 550
— See also Tooke, Thomas. History of Prices. Vols. V and VI.
Nicholls. Referred to: 996n
Niebuhr, B. G. The Life and Letters of Barthold George Niebuhr, with Essays on his Character and Influence, by the Chevalier Bunsen, and Professors Brandis and Loebell. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, 1852.
Norman. Referred to: 665
Œdipus. Referred to: 445
Œrsted. Referred to: 42
Olmsted. Referred to: 247
Overstone (Loyd). Referred to: 665
Owen. Referred to: 203, 775, 786
Papini. Referred to: 307n
Parennin. Referred to: 168
Parker. Referred to: 1029-30, 1032-7
Passy, Hippolyte Philbert. “Des changements survenus dans la situation agricole du Département de l’Eure depuis l’année 1800,” Journal des Économistes, I (Jan. [?], 1842), 44-66.
quoted: 292-3 referred to: 302n, 449, 450
293.1-16 “The . . . them.”] [translated from:] [paragraph] L’exemple du département de l’Eure atteste, au surplus, qu’il n’existe pas, comme quelques écrivains l’ont supposé, entre les formes de la propriété et celles de la culture des liens qui tendent invinciblement à les assimiler. Nulle part les mutations foncières n’y ont influé sensiblement sur la distribution des exploitations. S’il est ordinaire dans les communes à petites cultures que des terres appartenant à la même personne soient affermées à de nombreux locataires, il n’est pas rare non plus, dans les lieux où règne la grande culture, qu’un fermier se charge des terres de plusieurs propriétaires. Dans les plaines du Vexin surtout, beaucoup de cultivateurs actifs et riches ne se contentent pas d’une seule ferme; d’autres, aux terres du fairevaloir principal réunissent toutes celles du voisinage qu’ils peuvent louer, et se composent ainsi des exploitations parmi lesquelles il en est qui atteignent ou dépassent 200 hectares. Plus les domaines se démembrent, plus ces sortes d’arrangements se propagent; et comme ils satisfont à toutes les convenances, il est vraisemblable que le temps ne fera que les confirmer. (63)
— Des systèmes de culture et de leur influence sur l’économie sociale. Paris: Guillaumin, 1846.
quoted: 145n—147n, 151n referred to: 437n
145.n27 contesté. En] contesté. [paragraph] En (116)
146.n6 35,] 35*, [footnote:] *D’après les documents statistiques publiés par le ministre de l’intérieur, troisième publication officielle. Il faut dans ces sortes d’évaluation s’en tenir à mesurer les quantités de bétail par les surfaces cultivées, puisque ce sont celles-là seules dont les animaux entretiennent la fertilité. (117) [cf. next entry]
146.n6-8 énorme. (D’après . . . officielle.) Il] énorme. Il (117) [cf. previous entry]
146.n24-25 (D’après . . . i.)] [in footnote] (118)
147.n5 terres. Dans] terres. [paragraph] Dans (119)
147.n24 s’appercevra] s’apercevra (120)
Peel. Referred to: 567, 589n, 660, 857, 1031, 1069
Périer, Auguste Victor Laurent Casimir.Les sociétés de coopération: la consommation, la crédit, la production, l’amélioration morale et intellectuelle par l’association. Paris: Dentu, 1864.
referred to: 785n
Pheidias. Referred to: 16
Pim, Jonathan. Referred to: 1074, 1079, 1088, 1092-3
— On the Connection between the Condition of Tenant Farmers and the Laws respecting the Ownership and Transfer of Land in Ireland. Dublin, 1853.
referred to: 1074n
— The Land Question in Ireland. Dublin: 1867.
referred to: 1074n
Pitman. Referred to: 789n
Plato. Referred to: 969
Plummer, John. “Co-operation in Lancashire and Yorkshire,” Companion to the Almanac; or, Year-Book of General Information for 1862, bound with The British Almanac of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge for the Year of Our Lord 1862. London: Knight, [1863.]
quoted: 790 referred to: 785n-786n
Poor Laws. “Foreign Communications: Appendix F to the Report from Her Majesty’s Commissioners for inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws,” Parliamentary Papers, 1834, XXXIX.
quoted: 236n, 286, 286-7, 347-50, 347b
note: Nassau Senior’s “Preface,” is on pp. iii-cii; also published separately, Statement of the Provision for the Poor, and of the Condition of the Labouring Classes, in a Considerable Portion of America and Europe. Being the Preface to the Foreign Communications Contained in the Appendix to the Poor-Law Report. London: Fellowes, 1835. In the following places JSM omits page or section references from his Source: 236.n2, 236.n7, 236.n13, 236.n15, 236.n18, 347.13 (reference to p. 697, where the Norwegian Report is given at length), 347.18, 347.22, 348.3.
287.6 horse and] horse or (268)
287.8 Denmark. Indeed] Denmark. He purchases cheap (all present charges on the land taken into consideration), and his way of living being very economical. Indeed (268)
347.10 Thus] [paragraph] Thus (xxxix)
347.20 words] word (xxxix)
347.30 “The] But the (xxxiii) [the minister is Lord Erskine]
347.34 The] [paragraph] The (xxxiii)
Prescott, William H. History of the Conquest of Peru, with a Preliminary View of the Civilization of the Incas. 2 vols. London: Bentley, 1847.
referred to: 975
Proudhon. Referred to: 1027, 1031
Pupikofer, J. A. See Historisch- geographisch- statistisches Gemälde der Schweiz.
Quetelet, Lambert Adolphe Jacques.Sur l’homme et le développement de ses facultés, ou essai de physique sociale. Vol. I. Paris: Bachelier, 1835.
note: The table is translated by JSM, who omits the latter half of the table, drawn by Quetelet from Charles Dupin, Forces productives, which also includes figures for Prussia (as distinct from Rhenish Prussia) and Russia. (292)
Rae, John.Statement of Some New Principles on the Subject of Political Economy, Exposing the fallacies of the system of Free Trade, and of some other doctrines mentioned in the “Wealth of Nations.” Boston: Hilliard, Gray and Co., 1834.
quoted: 129, 162-3, 164-70, 869n-870n referred to: 918
129.19 “If] But, as a man can only do one thing at once, if (164)
129.20 many different] these several (164)
129.21 be idle] lie idle (164)
129.25 employment. The] [6-sentence omission] (164-5) [see 129i]
129.28 them.] them; being sooner exhausted they pass to a more quickly returning order. (165)
129.29-30 construction.] construction; the effective desire of accumulation carries them on to a class corresponding to its own strength. (165)
163.6 others, tend”] others, also tend (123)
163.17 train. For] train. [paragraph] For (123)
164.23—165.1 this state] it (131)
165.2 governed. . . . . . Besides] governed [ellipsis indicates 4-page omission] (131-5)
165.8 it.” [paragraph] For instance: “Upon] it. [paragraph] These deficiencies in the motives to exertion, and in the habits of action of the Indian, serve to account for the condition of the remnants of the tribes scattered over the North American continent, in situations where they are in contact with the white man. There is a general similarity throughout, that will, I believe, render an example, taken from one part of the continent, sufficiently illustrative of the state of the whole. [paragraph] Upon (136)
165.16 it in] in it (136)
166.6 to more] to much more (137)
166.14 Indian, succeeding] Indian again, succeeding (137)
166.26 dyers,” &c.] dyers, &c. (141)
166.37 hungry. . . .] [ellipsis indicates 1-page omission] (140-1)
166.38 These fathers, says Ulloa, have] “These fathers,” says Ulloa, “have (141)
167.2 lost.” “But] [3 sentences from Charlevoix omitted] (141)
167.3 superintendence,” says Charlevoix, “and] superintendence, and (141)
167.5 embarrassed. It] embarrassed. This proceeds from three defects, of which the Indians have not yet been corrected, their improvidence, indolence* and want of economy, so that, it [footnote:] *Indolence and improvidence are, in our system, reduced to one defect. Indolence is, the not laying out present labor to secure future abundance. Improvidence, the squandering present abundance, in disregard of future coming want. They both proceed from the predominance of the present over the future, the low strength of the effective desire of accumulation. (141)
167.6 reserve to themselves] reserve themselves (141)
167.8 life.”] life.” (141) [i.e., Rae’s quotation also ends here]
167.17 desire] strength (151)
167.22 fabrics.] fabrics.* [footnote:] *La Harp, Vol. 8. p. 289. Lettres édifiantes, Vol. X. p. 107.
167.23 year. A] year. [paragraph] A (152)
167.31 lands,] land, (152)
168.3 empire.] empire.* [footnote:] *Staunton, Vol. 2, p. 244. Ellis, p. 268 and 316; the best proof perhaps is in the premiums offered for their cultivation. See Lettres édifiantes, Vol. xi. p. 525. (152)
168.13-15 indeed, (who seems to have been one of the most intelligent of the Jesuits, and spent a long life among the Chinese of all classes,) asserts] [JSM interpolates the parenthesis, summarizing from Rae’s note to 153, the relevant part of which reads:] The father Parennin seems to have been one of the most intelligent of the Jesuits, and had the very best opportunities for observation, having spent a long life among the Chinese of all classes. His testimony is much more to be depended on, concerning such a fact, than that of passing travellers, whose cursory observations extend only to what may be seen on the exterior of the habitations.
168.21 they were] they are (153)
168.27 soil of the] soil of a variety of the (154)
168.42 forced] found (154)
169.3 rivers,] waters (154)
169.19 content to] content, as we say, to
869.n1 “Were] Thus, were (369)
869.n7 some commodity] some other commodity (370)
869.n9-10 of legislators. . . . . it] of the legislators of the distant countries, it (370)
869.n17—870.n1 of society] of women in the society (371)
870.n3 If [paragraph] If (371)
870.n10-11 them.” The net . . . “would] them. If we suppose the yearly expense of obtaining the pearls, and of collecting the duty on them, to amount to twenty thousand pounds, there would then remain to the legislator, a clear annual revenue from this source of eighty thousand pounds. This revenue would (371)
Rapp. Referred to: 202
Rathbone. Referred to: 1091
Rau, Karl Heinrich.Traité d’économie nationale. Trans. F. de Kemmeter, from the 3rd. ed. Brussels: Hauman, 1839.
quoted: 288n, 292 referred to: 150
292.21-7 “The . . . divided.”] [translated from:] L’habitude de ne pas diviser les propriétés, et l’opinion que cela est avantageux se sont tellement conservées en Flandre, qu’aujourd’hui encore, lorsqu’un paysan vient à mourir laissant plusieurs enfants, ceux-ci ne songent pas à se partager son patrimoine, bien qu’il ne soit ni majoratisé ou donné en fidéicommis; et ils préfèrent le vendre en bloc, et s’en partager le prix, parce qu’ils le considèrent comme un joyau qui perd de sa valeur lorsqu’il est divisé. Voy. Schwertz, Landwirthschaftliche Mittheilungen, I, 185. (334n)
— Ueber die Landwirthschaft der Rheinpfalz und insbesondere in der Heidelberger Gegend. Heidelberg: Winter, 1830.
quoted: 265, 291n referred to: 266
note: in George Grote’s copy of this work (University of London Library) the three passages quoted by Mill have pencil marks drawn beside them in the margin; that on pp. 15-6 has “Good farming” written beside it in a hand that could be JSM’s; that on p. 20 also has a penciled “X” beside it.
265.9-20 “The . . . harm.”] [translated from:] Die Unverdrossenheit der Landleute, die man das ganze Jahr und den ganzen Tag in Thaetigkeit sieht, und die darum nicht muessig gehen, weil sie die Arbeiten gut eintheilen, und zu jeder Zeit eine passende Beschaeftigung wissen, ist eben so anerkannt, als ihr Eifer in der Benutzung aller sich darbietenden Umstaende, in der Ergreifung des dargebotenen Neuen, woferne es sich nuetzlich erweisst, ja in der Ausspaehung neuer, vorteilhafterer Methoden gelobt werden muss. Leicht ueberzeugt man sich, dass der Bauer der hiesigen Gegend viel ueber sein Geschaeft nachgedacht hat, er weiss Gruende anzugeben fuer sein Verfahren, wenn sie auch nicht statthaft seyn sollten, er weiss die Zahlenverhaeltnisse so bestimmt mitzuteilen, als sie beim Mangel geordneter Aufzeichnung, im Gedaechtnis behalten werden koennen, er richtet sich in der Wahl der Fruechte nach den Preisen, er achtet auf allgemeine Zeiterscheinungen, von denen er Nutzen oder Schaden zu erkennen glaubt. (15-16)
291.n25 Sie] Die Kost kann auch auf 10 Kr. angeschlagen werden, da sie (20)
291.n25 heutigen] heutigens (20)
291.n27-30 “Such . . . increased.] [translated from:] Bekanntlich ist eine solche Erhoehung des Lohnes, die man nicht nach dem Geldbetrage, sondern nach der Menge von nothwendigen und nuetzlichen Guetern bemessen muss, welche der Arbeitsmann sich verschaffen kann, ein Zeichen, dass die vorhandene Capitalmasse sich vermehrt hat. (18)
Raumer, von. Referred to: 329, 995
Reichensperger. Referred to: 260n, 266
Remquet. Referred to: 779n
Revans, John.Evils of the State of Ireland: their Causes and their Remedy—a Poor Law. 2nd ed. London: Hatchard, 1837.
317.17 fairly be] be fairly (10)
317.23 is most] is the most (10)
317.25 paying; and consequently] paying; consequently (10) [see 317i-i]
318.19 defer ejectment.] defer what must sooner or later happen—ejectment. (11)
— A Per Centage Tax on Domestic Expenditure, to Supply the Whole of the Public Revenue: the Customs, Excise, Stamp, Legacy, Assess, Income, and all other Government Taxes, and Tax Establishments; together with the Coast Guard and Revenue Cruisers to be Abolished. London: Hatchard and Son, 1847.
referred to: 832-3
Rham, Rev. William Lewis.Outlines of Flemish Husbandry. In Burke, John L. (ed.) British Husbandry. Vol. III. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge: Library of Useful Knowledge. London: Baldwin and Cradock, 1840.
quoted: 145n, 267-70 referred to: 279
145.n7 greater. After] [1-page omission] (59-60)
145.n11-12 greater. It] greater; an ordinary cow fed on young clover will give at three milkings, for the first three months after calving, from fifteen to eighteen quarts per day, which will produce 1¼ lb. of butter, that is nearly 9 lbs. of butter per week. Where the number of cows is great, the average is much less, because when there are only two or three cows, a deficiency in one of them is immediately noticed; the cow is got rid of, and a better one purchased. In a great number, there are always a few inferior cows, and a lower average is the consequence. It (60)
267.28 sands] sand (11) [see 267b-b]
267.29 sand] sands (11) [see 267c-c]
268.3-4 itself:” . . . “and] itself: but there is a heap of dung and compost forming. The urine of the cow is collected in a small tank, or perhaps in a cask sunk in the earth; and (11)
268.5 around. . . . If] [1½-page omission] (11-12)
268.6 pure] poor (12) [see 268d-d]
268.9 slight] certain (13) [see 268e-e]
268.17 plants. . . . After] [ellipsis indicates ⅔-page omission] (13)
268.17 After] [paragraph] After (13)
268.30 The] Speaking with great impartiality, we may safely assert, that notwithstanding this [comparative conservatism of Flemish farmers], the (3)
268.31 or a moderate soil] on a moderate scale (3) [see 268g-g]
269.1 peasant. But] peasant; but (3)
269.5 Flemings,”] Flemings; and a detailed account of the mode of cultivation, especially of light lands, in Flanders, cannot fail to be both interesting and instructive. (3)
269.10 “When] “Where (73)
269.14 family;” children soon beginning “to] family; and children, instead of being a burden, soon begin to (73)
269.21 Suppose] Supposing (73) [see 269i-i]
269.22-3 manage;” . . . “if] [1 page summarized] (73-4)
269.23 “if] [paragraph] If (74)
269.37-9 Land.” . . . “In] [½ page summarized] (75)
269.39 In] [paragraph] In (75)
270.1 ten] ten (75)
270.3 with] with a (75) [270f]
270.4 fifteen] fifteen (75)
270.5 cultivated. . . . Thus] [ellipsis indicates 6-page omission] (75-81)
270.5 Thus] [paragraph] Thus, (81)
270.8 paying a good rent] paying a good rent (81)
270.16 the] The (81) [follows directly from previous quotation]
270.28 Accordingly] [follows directly from previous quotation]
270.28 they are gradually acquiring capital] they are gradually acquiring capital (81)
270.30 by] by the (81) [see 270m]
Ricardo, David. Referred to: 80, 341, 392, 413, 426-8, 457, 472, 479, 589, 648, 727, 823, 1052, 1055n, 1056, 1094
— Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock: shewing the Inexpediency of Restrictions on Importation; with Remarks on Mr. Malthus’ Two Last Publications. London: Murray, 1815.
referred to: 419
— On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. 3rd ed. London: Murray, 1821.
quoted: 477-8, 636
477.28 “In] [paragraph] If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made, and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in (19)
478.26 and command] and consequently command (19)
— Ibid., in The Works of David Ricardo, Esq., M.P. with a Notice of the Life and Writings of the Author, by J. R. McCulloch. London: Murray, 1846, 230-1.
referred to: 1052, 1055
Richelieu. Referred to: 296n, 1004
Rigby. Referred to: 298n, 303n
Robinson, Colonel. “Appendix No. 18.3. Report, by Colonel Robinson, to the Directors of the Irish Waste Land Improvement Society, 25th February, 1845,” “in Appendix to Part II. of the Evidence taken before her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in Respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland,” Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XX, 84-8 [Devon Report].
quoted: 331n, 332n, 992-3
331.n11 industry] husbandry (84)
331.n16—332.n4 now . . . consist] [in italics] (84)
332.n1 tables] table (85) [see 332n]
332.n10 “occupants] Of the total number of tenants on the estates, nine-tenths have added greatly to the extent and value of their improvements and property since the publication of the tabular return in February last, the exceptions being some who are occupants (84)
332.n10-11 acres, a . . . improvements.”] acres, (a . . . improvements,) a few who have persisted in the injurious practice of working off their farms, and the remainder are new tenants very recently come into possession. (84)
992.21 thirty-one years lease] [not in italics] (84)
992.26-34 [as 331.n16—332.n4]
993.3 “who are [see 332.n10]
993.4-6 [as 332.n10-11]
Rochdale Equitable Pioneers’ Co-operative Society’s Almanack for 1861. Rochdale: Lawton, .
789.Titles of table. Amount of capital] Amount of Funds
Amount of cash sales in store (annual)] Business Done
Amount of profit (annual)] Profit Made
789.9.Year 1846. 86 [Members 80]]
£1,146.17.7 [Amount of cash sales £1146.17.1]]
£80.16.3½ [Amount of profit £80.16.6]]
789.10.Year 1847. £286.5.3½ [Amount of capital £286.15.3½]]
789.18.Year 1855. £3,106.8.4½ [Amount of profit £3106.8.4]]
Rochdale Observer. See Anon., “Co-operative Manufacturing Companies.”
Roland. Quoted: 945n (see Carey)
Rubichon, Maurice. Referred to: 433ff. (see Mounier, M. L.)
Say, Jean-Baptiste. Referred to: 45, 46, 59, 80, 466, 576, 1055n
— Cours complet d’économie politique pratique; ouvrage destiné a mettre sous les yeux des hommes d’état, des propriétaires fonciers et des capitalistes, des savans, des agriculteurs, des manufacturiers, des négocians, et en général de tous les citoyens, l’économie des sociétés. Vol. I. Paris: Rapilly, 1828.
quoted: 123, 123n
123.3-17 [in translating this passage, JSM omits a paragraph break at 123.10, “The influence. . . . ” (341)]
123.5 seventy operations] 70 opérations différentes (341) [see 123b]
123.n5 et d’ouvrières] et d’ouvriers ou d’ouvrières (340) [see 123n]
123.n9-11 presse; les] presse; les mêmes qui colorent le côté destiné à former le dos des cartes; les (340) [see 123n]
123.n13 s’occupent de] s’occupant à (340)
Schmalz, Theodor Anton Heinrich.Économie politique. Trans. Henri Jouffroy Fritob. 2 vols. Paris: Bertrant, 1826.
referred to: 248n
Schwerz. Referred to: 292n
Scott. Referred to: 392
Senior, Nassau William. Referred to: 347-8, 400, 620, 712, 1064
— “J. S. Mill on Political Economy,” Edinburgh Review, LXXXVIII (Oct., 1848), 293-339.
37.n7 result.”] result: and that the best definition of circulating capital, is to confine it to materials—and the best definition of fixed capital is to confine it to instruments. (314)
— An Outline of the Science of Political Economy London: Clowes, 1836.
referred to: 843-4, 846, 1043
— Three Lectures on the Cost of Obtaining Money, and on some effects of Private and Government Paper Money; Delivered before the University of Oxford, in Trinity Term, 1829. London: Murray, 1830.
referred to: 616
— Three Lectures on the Value of Money, Delivered before the University of Oxford, in 1829. [Unpublished.] London: Fellowes, 1840.
note: the “Advertisement” says: “I have allowed a few copies to be printed for private distribution” (3)
522.31 will] in that case would (21)
522.33 production: and] production. It is obvious that twice as much money would be required to effect every exchange, if a day’s labour could obtain from the washing places 34 grains of gold, as would be necessary if a day’s labour could obtain only 17. And (21)
522.34 money would] money wanted would (21)
— See also Poor Laws, “Preface to Foreign Communications.”
Shelley. Referred to: 392, 1030
Siècle. See Anon., Unheaded article, Le Siècle.
Sismondi, Jean Charles Leonardo Simonde de. Referred to: 67n, 371, 570, 574, 576, 741, 869, 922
—Études sur l’économie politique. Paris: Treuttel et Würtz, 1837.
quoted: 227n-228n, 254-6, 298-300, 306-11, 311n-312n
227.n1 Ce qui] Alors l’homme dompta la nature et renouvela entièrement sa face; alors on put reconnaître la différence entre la richesse que la terre peut produire et la pauvreté de ses dons naturels; mais aussi on put reconnaître que ce qui (165-6)
227.n1-2 travaux, qui] travaux, que ce qui (166)
254.31 laboureur. On] laboureur. Soit qu’on parcoure le riant Emmethal, ou qu’on s’enfonce dans les vallées les plus reculées du canton de Berne, on (172)
254.31 admiration ces] admiration, sans attendrissement, ces (172)
255.6 santé.] santé, ils frappent par cette beauté de traits qui devient le caractère d’une race, lorsque pendant plusieurs générations elle n’a souffert ni du vice ni du besoin. (173)
255.10 retrouve les] retrouve des (170)
255.23 l’aquéduc] l’aqueduc (171)
255.25 sur les] sur ses (171)
255.35 enchère. [paragraph] Le] enchère! [1⅓-page omission] Le (171-3)
298.7-19 “This . . . another.”] [translated from:] Cette convention est souvent l’objet d’un contrat, pour préciser certaines redevances et certains services auxquels le métayer s’oblige; cependant les différences entre les obligations de l’un et celles de l’autre sont minimes; l’usage règle également tous ces contrats; il supplée aux stipulations qui n’ont pas été exprimées, et le maître qui voudrait s’écarter de l’usage, qui exigerait plus que son voisin, qui prendrait pour base autre chose que le partage égal des récoltes, se rendrait tellement odieux, il serait tellement sûr de ne pouvoir trouver de métayer honnête homme, que le contrat de tous les métayers peut être considéré comme identique tout au moins dans chaque province, et qu’il ne donne jamais lieu à aucune compétition entre les paysans qui cherchent à se placer, à aucune offre de travailler la terre à meilleur prix que l’autre. (290)
306.36 lit. . . . La] lit: les fenêtres n’ont que des volets, elles sont sans vitres, mais il faut se souvenir aussi que l’hiver est sans frimas. La (295)
307.14 Tout] [paragraph] Tout (296)
307.17 d’étoupe] d’étoupes (296) [see 307k-k]
307.26-308.4 and 307n [JSM here rearranges Sismondi’s text, transferring “Cette épouse . . . 6 francs.” from Sismondi’s footnote (where JSM indicates an ellipsis, 307.n11), and “La dot . . . 600 francs.” from Sismondi’s footnote (where it forms a paragraph between “vie.” and “Les hommes”, 307.n13-4), and omitting at 308.2, one sentence (“francs. [paragraph] Toutes les épouses plus riches ont de plus la verte di seta, la grande robe de toilette, de soie, qu’elles ne portent que quatre ou cinq fois dans leur vie. [paragraph] La”) (297n-298n)
308.18-20 But . . . mixture.”] [translated and summarized from Sismondi:] Le paysan toscan est sobre, mais sa nourriture est saine et variée: sa base est un excellent pain de froment, brun, mais pur de son et de tout mélange. (305)
308.21 saison, il ne] saison, en effet, le laboureur a surtout besoin d’une nourriture chaude. Il ne (306)
308.21 fait que] fait alors que (306)
308.21 repas pour] repas par (306) [silent correction in text]
308.24 de feu] le feu (306)
308.36 nutritifs.] nutritifs*. [footnote:] *Les paysans de France, de Suisse et de Savoie, récoltent de même de l’huile de noix. S’il y avait de vrais paysans dans les îles Britanniques, ils cultiveraient les plantes oléagineuses pour en faire le même usage. (307)
308.37 et des] ou des (307)
309.3 cinquante] cinq cents (307)
309.22 “Le] Aussi le (292)
309.27-8 donner . . . Les] donner. Les collines du val de Nievole sont plantées d’oliviers, de vignes, de mûriers, de figuiers, d’arbres fruitiers de tout genre, et l’on cultive à leur pied le froment, plus encore pour entretenir la terre propre et meuble, que pour le profit que le blé peut rendre. Les (292)
309.36 une espace] un espace (292)
309.40 negliger] négliger (293)
310.6 couches de] couches du (293)
— Nouveaux principes d’économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Paris: Delaunay, 1827.
quoted: 256n, 284-5, 299n, 311n, 348n-349n, 369
256.n4-5 il n’est pas] n’est-il pas (I,168)
284.33-285.15 “In . . . population.”] [translated from:] [paragraph] Dans les pays qui ont conservé l’exploitation patriarcale, la population s’accroît régulièrement et rapidement, jusqu’à ce qu’elle ait atteint ses limites naturelles: c’est-à-dire, que les héritages continuent à se diviser et à se subdiviser entre plusieurs fils, tant qu’avec une augmentation de travail, chaque famille peut tirer un égal revenu d’une moindre portion de terre. Le père qui possédait une vaste étendue de pâturages, les partage entre ses fils, pour que ceux-ci en fassent des champs et des prés; ces fils les partagent encore, pour exclure le système des jachères: chaque perfectionnement de la science rurale permet une nouvelle division de la propriété; mais il ne faut pas craindre que le propriétaire élève ses enfans pour en faire des mendians; il sait au juste l’héritage qu’il peut leur laisser; il sait que la loi le partagera également entre eux; il voit le terme où ce partage les ferait descendre du rang qu’il a occupé lui-même, et un juste orgueil de famille, qui se retrouve dans le paysan comme dans le gentilhomme, l’arrête avant qu’il appelle à la vie des enfans au sort desquels il ne pourrait pas pourvoir. S’ils naissent cependant, du moins ils ne se marient pas, ou ils choisissent eux-mêmes, entre plusieurs frères, celui qui continuera la famille. On ne voit point, dans les cantons suisses, les patrimoines des paysans se subdiviser jamais de manière à les faire descendre au-dessous d’une honnête aisance, quoique l’habitude du service étranger, en ouvrant aux enfans une carrière inconnue et incalculable, excite quelquefois une population surabondante. (I,170-1)
299.n4-8 “The . . . engagement.”] [translated from:] Le même malheur serait probablement arrivé au peuple de Toscane, si l’opinion publique ne protégeait le cultivateur; mais un propriétaire n’oserait imposer des conditions inusitées dans le pays, et, en changeant un métayer contre un autre, il ne change rien au contrat primitif. (I, 199-200)
311.n7 lui-même] le premier (I, 190)
349.n11 jurande. On] jurande. [paragraph] On (I, 425)
349.n17 sustenter] substanter (I, 425)
349.n21 lucratives. L’apprenti] lucratives. [paragraph] L’apprenti (I, 426)
349.n28 maître. [paragraph] “Il] [5-page omission] (I, 426-31)
349.n31 surabondante. D’après] surabondante. Il est de même certain que cette population existe aujourd’hui, et qu’elle est le résultat nécessaire de l’ordre actuel. [paragraph] D’après (I, 431)
369.16 point] pas (II, 296)
369.21 aussi doit-il] aussi, lorsqu’il ne peut point augmenter son revenu, doit-il (II, 296)
Slaney. Referred to: 786, 904n
Smith, Adam. Referred to: 4-5, 7, 29, 66, 116n, 127-8, 138-9, 162n, 349n, 405, 456, 465n, 472-3, 579-81, 592, 597, 642, 648, 733-4, 735, 753, 830, 833, 923, 1044
— An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. With a Commentary by the Author of “England and America” [E. G. Wakefield]. 4 vols. London: Knight, 1835-9.
quoted: 116-18, 122, 124-6, 300-1, 380-2, 383, 384, 385-92, 404, 733-4, 805-6, 924-5, 932 referred to: 349n, 1044
note: this is the only edition specifically cited by JSM, and so has been used for comparison throughout.
116.14 is “of two] [paragraph] Co-operation appears to be of two (I, 26)
116.18-9 Co-operation. [paragraph] The] co-operation. It will be seen presently, that, until men help each other in simple operations, they cannot well help each other in operations which consist of several parts. [paragraph] The (I, 26)
122.26 paper . . . . . I] paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations, which, in some manufactories, are all performed by distinct hands, though in others the same man will sometimes perform two or three of them. I (I, 8) [JSM here has transposed part of the omitted passage; see 122.20-2 and 122a]
122.26 manufactory where] manufactory of this kind where (I, 8)
122.35 pins in a day] pins a day (I, 8)
122.38 day.”] day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations. (I, 8-9)
124.13 “First, the ] first, to the (I, 12)
124.14 secondly, the] secondly, to the (I, 12)
124.15 lastly, the] lastly, to the (I, 12)
124.37 of certain] of those (I, 14)
125.19 “The advantage] Secondly, the advantage (I, 14)
300.15 “it could . . .] [paragraph] It could [7 sentences and a footnote omitted] (II, 21)
300.16 interest of] interest even of (II, 21)
300.16 this species] this last species (II, 21)
380.14 “from] partly from (I, 255)
380.17 others.”] others; and partly from the policy of Europe, which no where leaves things at perfect liberty. (I, 256)
380.26-381.11, 381.12-7 [JSM’s comments are here interspersed amongst direct and consecutive sentences from Source]
381.11 considered,”] considered, they are generally under-recompensed, as I shall endeavour to show by-and-by. (I, 257) [see 381b-b]
382.12 When the] Where the
382.16 wages. No] wages. Where common labourers earn four and five shillings a week, masons and bricklayers frequently earn seven and eight; where the former earn six, the latter often earn nine and ten, and where the former earn nine and ten, as in London, the latter commonly earn fifteen and eighteen. No (I, 261)
382.16-17 learn than that] learn that that [sic] (I, 261)
382.17 bricklayers. The] bricklayers. Chairmen in London, during the summer season, are said sometimes to be employed as bricklayers. The (I, 262)
382.19-20 employment. [paragraph] “When] employment. [7-sentence omission] [paragraph] When (I, 262)
382.20 of the employment] of employment (I, 262)
382.22 most skilled] most skilful (I, 263) [see 382e-e]
382.30 the arrival] the arrivals (I, 263) [see 382f-f]
382.35-6 earn about four times the wages of common labour in London. How] earn from six to ten shillings a day. Six shillings are about four times the wages of common labour in London, and in every particular trade, the lowest earnings may always be considered as those of the far greater number. How (I, 263)
382.36 soever these] soever those (I, 263.) [see 382g-g]
384.27 a small] a very small (I, 265)
384.29 done.”] done. The lottery of the law, therefore, is very far from being a perfectly fair lottery; and that, as well as many other liberal and honourable professions, is, in point of pecuniary gain, evidently under-recompensed. (I, 266) [see 384j]
385.3 to sea . . . .] to sea, than in the eagerness of those of better fashion to enter into what are called the liberal professions. [ellipsis indicates 2⅓-page omission] (I, 270-3)
385.3 The dangers] [paragraph] The dangers (I, 273)
385.8 prospect] prospects (I, 273)
385.20 “The] Fourthly, the (I, 264)
385.21 The] [paragraph] The (I, 264)
385.25 We] [paragraph] We (I, 264)
385.29 in society] in the society (I, 264)
389.20 than what] than than what [sic] (I, 307)
389.22-3 or a chaplain] or chaplain (I, 308) [see 389b-b]
389.28 marks] merks [ sic] (I, 308)
389.28 containing as] containing about as (I, 308)
390.6 year. This] year. There are journeyman shoe-makers in London who earn forty pounds a year, and there is scarce an industrious workman of any kind in that metropolis who does not earn more than twenty. This (I, 309)
390.6 sum does] sum indeed does (I, 309)
390.14 been either] either been (I, 309)
390.20-21 them.” [paragraph] “In] [1-paragraph omission] (I, 309-10)
390.21 law (?) and] law and (I, 310)
390.29 recompense. [paragraph] That] recompense, to the entire degradation of the now respectable professions of law and physic. [paragraph] That (I, 310)
390.35 as to] as commonly to (I, 311)
391.5 teacher bears] teachers bears (I, 311) [see 391d-d]
404.39 cheapest. Thirty] cheapest. He must have all the knowledge, in short, that is necessary for a great merchant, which nothing hinders him from being but the want of a sufficient capital. Thirty (I, 276)
733.12 profits] profit (I, 210)
734.38 cultivators] cultivation (I, 217)
734.38 situation.] situation, and less interest can be afforded for the stock which is so employed. (I, 217)
805.6 contribute to] contribute towards (IV, 215)
805.9 state. In] state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In (IV, 215)
805.10 taxation. [paragraph] “2. The] taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal, in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it. [paragraph] II. The (IV, 216)
805.19 even when] even where (IV, 216)
805.27 at a] at the (IV, 217)
806.3 to him] for him (IV, 217)
806.6 inconvenience] inconveniency (IV, 217)
806.14-16 Secondly . . . employment,] [JSM is summarizing the following:] Secondly, it may obstruct the industry of the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and employment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. (IV, 217-18)
806.19 derived] received (IV, 218)
806.20 smuggling. Fourthly] smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment too in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime.* [footnote:] *See Sketches of the History of Man, page 474, et seq. [text:] Fourthly (IV, 218)
806.23 oppression:”] oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign. (IV, 218)
924.39 “prodigals and projectors”] Where the legal rate of interest, on the contrary, is fixed but a very little above the lowest market rate, sober people are universally preferred, as borrowers, to prodigals and projectors. (I, 408-9)
932.20 “the higgling of the market”] . . . it is not easy to find any accurate measure either of hardship or ingenuity. In exchanging indeed the different productions of different sorts of labour [employment] for one another, some allowance is commonly made for both. It is adjusted, however, not by any accurate measure, but by the higgling and bargaining of the market, according to that sort of rough equality which, though not exact, is sufficient for carrying on the business of common life. (I, 102) [Wakefield’s square bracket]
Smith, Goldwin. Referred to: 1075n
Sophocles. Referred to: 16
Spence. Referred to: 576
Spenser. Referred to: 1075n
Stein. Referred to: 329, 995
Stephenson. Referred to: 926
Taylor. Referred to: 1026n
Thackeray. Referred to: 997n
Thaer. Referred to: 267
Thiers, A. De la propriété. Paris: Paulin, L’Heureux et Cie, 1848.
referred to: 290n
Thom, Alexander.Thom’s Irish Almanac and Official Directory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the year 1863. Dublin: Thom, 1863.
referred to: 1074, 1084
Thornton, Henry.An Enquiry into the Nature and Effects of the Paper Credit of Great Britain. London: Hatchard, 1802.
531.24 manufacturers] manufactures (25)
531.27 question, giving] question (for we may assume a sufficient quantity to be usually circulating in the place): giving (25)
531.30 manufacturers] shopkeepers (25)
531.32 saved. Letters] saved; and the traders in question would of course be, on the whole, enabled to sell their article at a price proportionably lower than that which they would otherwise require. Letters (25)
532.35-6 country, and] country (a topic which shall not be here anticipated), and (30)
533.3-7 “Real . . . real.”] [in this paragraph Thornton cites a supposed opponent’s argument, and so uses quotation marks, which JSM ignores] (30)
533.17 only one] one only (31)
533.17-18 property. [paragraph] “In] property [paragraph] In the next place it is obvious, that the number of those bills which are given in consequence of sales of goods, and which, nevertheless, do not represent property, is liable to be encreased through the extension of the length of credit given on the sale of goods. If, for instance, we had supposed the credit given to be a credit of twelve months instead of six, 1,200l. instead of 600l. would have been the amount of the bills drawn on the occasion of the sale of goods; and 1,100l. would have been the amount of that part of these which would represent no property. [paragraph] In (31)
533.41 forms] form (32)
534.27 “They] But they (40)
534.29-30 giving him] giving to him (40)
534.37 to a bearer] to bearer (40) [see 534b-b]
534.37 demand. A] demand. It will, however, have circulated in consequence chiefly of the confidence placed by each receiver of it in the last indorser, his own correspondent in trade; whereas, the circulation of a bank note is owing rather to the circumstance of the name of the issuer being so well known as to give to it an universal credit. A (40)
534.40 kingdom.” [5-sentence footnote omitted] (40n-41n)
Thornton, William Thomas. Referred to: 365, 608
— Over-Population and its Remedy; or, an Inquiry into the Extent and Causes of the Distress Prevailing among the Labouring Classes of the British Islands, and into the means of Remedying it. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1846.
quoted: 350, 997-1000
350.4 “are lodged] They are commonly hired by the half-year, for which period they are paid from 61.10s. to 91.10s., and are lodged (18)
350.7 farm. What . . . exist.”] farm. “What . . . exist. Intersected in every direction by ranges of almost inaccessible and barren mountains, the population is thinly dotted over the intervening valleys,” in due proportion to the facilities for cultivation and the opportunities for employment.* [footnote:] *Mr Voules’ Report on Westmoreland and Cumberland, in Appendix to Second Annual Report of Poor Law Commissioners. Messrs. Bailey and Culley’s Report on Northumberland, Cumberland, &c. (18-19)
997.n24 created. . . . There] created. “Many of them passed months in jail for that,” said the describers’ informant; “for it appears that certain gentlemen in the neighbourhood looked upon the titles of these new colonists with some jealousy, and would have been glad to depose them; but there were some better philosophers among the surrounding gentry, who advise that, instead of discouraging the settlers, it would be best to help them; and the consequence has been that there (430)
997.n26 & plenty*. Now [footnote:] *The facts mentioned are extracted by Mr Thornton from Mr Thackeray’s “Irish Sketch Book.”] and plenty.”* [paragraph] Now [footnote:] *Irish Sketch Book, vol. i. p. 46. (430)
997.n28-9 peasantry. . . . Mr Nicholls] peasantry, which is a large proportion as can well be supposed unable to procure a competent livelihood. [ellipsis indicates 4 further sentences omitted] (430-1)
997.n31 time.”] time.* [footnote:] Nicholl’s Three Reports on Irish Poor Laws, p. 18. (431)
999.1 is [large] capital] is capital (432) [i.e., JSM’s square brackets]
999.34 “The] It has been said that the (432)
999.35-7 them as . . . condition, (see Report of Land Occupation Commissioners), in] them “as . . . condition,*” in [footnote:] *See Report of Land Occupation Commissioners (433)
— A Plea for Peasant Proprietors; with the Outlines of a Plan for their Establishment in Ireland. London: Murray, 1848.
quoted: 272-3 referred to: 1081
272.7 “Not] We have already seen that in Guernsey, neither the partition of land nor the number of cultivators is such as to produce any injurious effect on the rest of the community, for not (99)
272.12 observer. ‘The happiest community,’ says Mr Hill,] observer.* “The happiest community,” says Mr Hill,† [footnotes:] *To the previous unanimity on this point, there is at length one exception. Mr. Macculloch, in his recent treatise on Succession to Property, p. 30, characteristically mistaking a mere inference of his own for an actual fact, asserts that the people of the Channel Islands “are for the most part exceedingly poor.” Any theory may be constructed when the necessary materials can be so easily created. †Mr Hill was formerly an inspector of schools in Scotland. His observations on Guernsey first appeared in the London Examiner, and were re-published in Tait’s Magazine for June, 1834. (99)
272.16 prevails.’] prevails.”* [footnote:] *Home Tour through various Parts of the United Kingdom. (100)
272.20 other] others (100) [see 272b-b]
272.22 labourers . . . Literally] [ellipsis indicates 8-sentence omission] (100-1)
272.24 labourer. . . . ‘Look] [ellipsis indicates omission of 13 sentences and a footnote] (101-2)
272.25 hovels] hovels (102)
272.26 peasantry.’ . . . Beggars] peasantry;” and, in truth, his contempt, however strange and impertinent it may sound to English ears, would be completely justified by the comparison. [ellipsis also indicates omission of 4 further sentences] (102-3)
272.27 unknown. . . . Pauperism] unknown, and their absence cannot be wholly accounted for by the interdict enacted against them; for in England, where their profession is equally illegal, not a day passes without our meeting several, whereas in the Channel Islands not one is ever seen. Pauperism (103)
272.28 mendicancy. The] [4-sentence omission] (103-4)
273.14 bushels.] [8-sentence footnote omitted] (9)
273.15 bushels. In] bushels, and, according to a statement resting on the same authority, the produce of the seed is “seldom less than twelve-fold, but if drilled, fourteen-fold, and if dibbled, sixteen, or even twenty-fold.”* In [footnote:] *Speech of Mr. E. Chadwick, at a meeting of the Farmers’ Club in the early part of 1847. (9-10)
273.16 Inglis] Inglis,* [footnote:] *Inglis’s Channel Islands, vol. i. p. 186. (10)
273.18 1833.] 1833.* [footnote:] *Guernsey and Jersey Magazine, vol. iii. p. 106. (10)
273.19-20 is . . . crop.”] “is . . . crop.” (10) [i.e., Thornton is quoting from Inglis]
273.23 4l.”] 4l., and in Switzerland the average rent seems to be 6l. per acre. (32)
Times. See Anon., “Australia”; and Anon., “Foreign Intelligence.”
Tooke, Thomas. Referred to: 549, 567, 661-4, 673, 678, 714
— Considerations on the State of the Currency. London: Murray, 1826.
referred to: 1061n, 1066, 1067n
— A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, from 1793 to 1837. 2 vols. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1838.
quoted: 466n referred to: 343n, 467n
— A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, from 1838 to 1847. 2 vols. [Vols. III and IV of the complete work.] London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1848.
quoted: 547 referred to: 1067
— and Newmarch, William.A History of Prices, and of the State of the Circulation, during the Nine Years 1848-1856. 2 vols. [Vols. V and VI of the complete work.] London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longman, and Roberts, 1857.
referred to: 550n
466.n1 “The] It is perhaps superfluous to add, that no such strict rule [as Gregory King’s] can be deduced; at the same time, there is some ground for supposing that the estimate is not very wide of the truth, from observation of the repeated occurrence of the fact, that the (I, 12-13)
466.n4 supplies. If] [6-paragraph omission; see 466n] (I, 13-15)
466.n5-7 If there should be a deficiency of the crops amounting to one-third, without any surplus from a former year, and without any chance of relief by importation, the price might rise five, six, or even tenfold.”] But upon the principle here stated, the case would be widely different. In the event of a deficiency of one third of an average crop, a bushel of wheat might rise to 18s. and upwards.* [footnote:] *Considering the institutions of this country relative to the maintenance of the poor, if there should be a deficiency of the crops amounting to one-third, without any surplus from a former year, and withoutany chance of relief by importation, the price might rise five, six, or even tenfold. (I, 15)
547.3 “Applications] The figures are correctly given; and, viewed in connection with the facts, the great increase of private securities serves to illustrate an observation which I have more than once had occasion to make in reference to this subject: namely, that applications (IV, 125)
547.11 on the spot] on the spot (IV, 125)
547.22 them. It] them. The term speculation, in its obnoxious sense, is not, in such cases, applied to the transaction; and the parties engaged have the credit of superior sagacity. [paragraph] It (IV, 126)
— An Inquiry into the Currency Principle; the Connection of the Currency with Prices, and the Expediency of a Separation of Issue from Banking. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1844.
quoted: 537, 547-50, 657-8
537.n4 “in] And some corroboration of the vastness of the amounts is afforded by a reference to the adjustments of the clearing house in London, which in (26-7)
547.33 “The] The truth is, that the (79)
547.36 of. . . .] of.* [footnote:] *See Appendix (B). (79) [i.e., Tooke refers to his own Appendix B, from which JSM quotes his next sentence, and the following long passage]
547.36 A] What I mean to say is, that a (136)
548.8 “Amongst] Among (137)
548.8 earlier] earliest (137) [see 548a-a]
548.22-3 Without . . . shape] [in italics] (137)
548.26 attention. In] attention. [paragraph] In (137)
548.32 realized, if] realised by sales, if (137)
657.40 or mining] or in mining (88)
658.3 subservient.”] subservient, is unfortunately but too true. (88)
658.4 coin, is] coin, might it not be his business then, as now, in consideration of his care and trouble in keeping the cash and answering the depositors’ drafts, to employ so much of the deposits as by experience he computes may not be immediately wanted by the depositors, in loans and discounts. How then can it be said that the issue of metallic money in ordinary circumstances yields no profit? And can it with truth be maintained that he cannot issue it in excess? Is (91)
658.9 depositors? In] depositors? Would not this be issuing metallic money in excess? In (91)
— “Report from the Committee of Secrecy on the Bank of England Charter; with the Minutes of Evidence, Appendix and Index,” Parliamentary Papers, 1831-2, VI, 269-304, 432-44.
661.26-7 “In . . . in every] I have never called in question the principle, that, cæteris paribus, an increase or diminution of Bank of England notes, if they were to be taken as indicative of the whole amount of circulation, would produce a tendency to a rise or fall of prices; I have only observed, as far as my researches have gone, that in point of fact, and historically, in every (441)
661.27 rise or fall] rise of prices or a fall (441)
661.27 or fall] or the fall (441)
661.31 or contraction] or a contraction (441)
— “Report from the Select Committee, to whom the Several Petitions Complaining of the Depressed State of the Agriculture of the United Kingdom, were Referred,” Parliamentary Papers, 1821, IV, 224-40, 287-98, 344-55.
referred to: 467n
note: Tooke is quoted with approval on this point, “Report,” 8-9.
Torrens, Robert. Referred to: 604n, 665, 1066
— The Economists Refuted; or, an Inquiry into the Nature and Extent of the Advantages derived from Trade. London: Oddy, 1808.
referred to: 589n
note: the reprint noted by JSM is in Torrens, Robert. The Principles and Practical Operation of Sir Robert Peel’s Act of 1844 Explained and Defended. 2nd ed. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1857. Here Torrens claims his “right to be regarded as the original propounder of so much of the corrected theory of the nature and extent of the advantages derived from foreign trade as may be comprised in the view which [he] ventured to present to the public forty-nine years ago” (xvi). The work also includes “a critical examination of the chapter ‘On the Regulation of a Convertible Paper Currency’ ” (III, xxiv) in JSM’s Principles.
Turgot. Referred to: 302
Ulloa. Referred to: 166
Vauban. Referred to: 442
Villermé, Louis-René.Tableau de l’état physique et moral des ouvriers employés dans les manufactures de coton, de laine et de soie. 2 vols. Paris: Renouard, 1840.
referred to: 290n
Villiaumé, Nicolas.Nouveau traité d’économie politique. Vol. II. Paris: Guillaumin, 1857.
quoted: 772, 773n-774n, 779n-783n, 1015-20
note: Appendix to Vol. II of JSM’s Principles (4th ed. only; Appendix E in the present edition) is made up of quotations from this work, which were integrated into the text of the 5th edition. The following passages in the 7th ed. are the same as the passages in Appendix E which are given in parentheses: 773.n15—774.n13 (1015.9—1016.34), 772.19-25 (1017.8-14), 774.n14-19 (1017.15-20), 780.n10-781.n29 (1017.28—1019.16), 781.n31—782.n18 (1019.17—1020.15), 783.n4-10 (1020.16-22). Appendix E, 1016.35—1017.8, 1017.22-7 are not in the 7th ed.
772.19 “Quoiqu’il] Quant à M. Leclaire, quoiqu’il (82)
773.n34 recompense] récompense (80) [see 1016.12]
774.n13-14 semaines. . . . . [paragraph] M.] [JSM moves from p. 81 to p. 271]
780.n15 l’association] l’association* [footnote:] *En Octobre 1848. (88)
780.n33 réglement] règlement (88)
780.n34 en-deça] en deçà (89)
780.n37 désuetude] désuétude (89)
780.n41 Chavonne] Charonne (89)
781.n1 les] ses (89)
781.n2 resisté] résisté (89)
781.n3 suscités. Cette] suscités.
[paragraph] Cette (89)
781.n8 82,930] 82950 (89)
781.n15 169,831 55] 169851 55 (89)
781.n18 133] 135 (90)
781.n24 [total omitted 66752 65 (90)]]
781.n40-2 “Cette . . . capital.] [transferred from footnote to opérations. (781.n39)] (91)
782.n7 maladie. Chacun] maladie; chacun (92)
783.n4 l’habileté des] l’habileté du choix des (94)
783.n9 education] éducation (94)
1016.12 récompense] récompense [cf. 773.n34 above]
1018.4 l’election] l’élection (88)
1018.20 désuetude] désuétude (89)
1018.24 resisté] résisté (89)
1019.14 66,752 65] 66752 65 (90) [cf. 781.n24 above]
1020.16 l’habilité du choix des] [ibid.] (94) [cf. 783.n4 above]
1020.22 éducation] éducation (94) [cf. 783.n9 above]
Wakefield, Edward Gibbon. Referred to: 116-18, 120, 130n, 143, 149, 150, 325, 376, 735-6, 742-3, 921, 958-9, 965-6, 1044n, 1046, 1072, 1087. See also Smith, Adam.
Walker, George. “The Bank Charter Act. No. V.,” Aberdeen Herald, 26 April, 1856, p. 6.
note: the series appeared in six issues, 15, 22, 29 March, 12, 26 April, and 3 May, 1856.
682.14 of eighteen] of the eighteen (6)
682.17 eighteen. . . . . . The] eighteen. The drain of six millions would, if unchecked, reduce the reserve to two millions; and along with that reduction there would be a convulsion. On the other hand, if attempts are made to check the drain, they are accompanied by evils, though much less intense than those of a panic, but still evils—a contraction of credit and a fall of prices, and that at a time when credit was not inflated nor prices high. In short, the (6)
682.18 is, that] is this (and the illustration which we have given may be multiplied indefinitely), (6)
682.18-20 the proceedings . . . department] [in italics] (6)
682.26 as it may fail] [in italics] (6)
Watt. Referred to: 42, 189, 344
West, Edward.Essay on the Application of Capital to Land, with Observations shewing the Impolicy of any great restriction of the Importation of Corn, and that the Bounty of 1688 did not lower the Price of it. London: Underwood, 1815.
referred to: 419
Westbury. Referred to: 885n
Whately, Richard.Introductory Lectures on Political Economy. London: Fellowes, 1831.
referred to: 317n, 1043
Wordsworth, William.A Description of the Scenery of the Lakes in the North of England. 3rd ed. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1822.
253.n3 agriculturists, proprietors, for the most part, of the lands which they occupied and cultivated. The plough] Agriculturists, among whom the plough (63) [see 253n]
253.n6 neighbour.] [4-sentence footnote omitted] (64)
253.14 blood. . . . Corn] blood; —and venerable was the transition, when a curious traveller, descending from the heart of the mountains, had come to some ancient manorial residence in the more open parts of the Vales, which, through the rights attached to its proprietor, connected the almost visionary mountain Republic he had been contemplating with the substantial frame of society as existing in the laws and constitution of a mighty empire. [JSM skips backward 14 pages] Corn (65, 51)
253.15 vales sufficient] vales (through which no carriage-road had been made) sufficient (51)
253.15 family, no more. The] family, and no more: notwithstanding the union of several tenements, the possessions of each inhabitant still being small, in the same field was seen an intermixture of different crops; and the plough was interrupted by little rocks, mostly overgrown with wood, or by spongy places, which the tillers of the soil had neither leisure nor capital to convert into firm land. The (52)
Young, Arthur.Travels during the Years 1787, 1788, & 1789; undertaken more particularly with a view of ascertaining the cultivation, wealth, resources, and national prosperity of the Kingdom of France. 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: Richardson, 1794.
quoted: 274, 275, 298n, 301-2, 303-4, 305 referred to: 273, 276, 278, 283, 291n
note: JSM’s italics usually indicate small capitals in Source.
274.14 Rossendal,” (near Dunkirk) “where] Rossendal near the town, where (I, 88)
274.21 passed] pass (I, 51)
275.4-5 another. There] another. The men are all dressed with red caps, like the highlanders of Scotland. There (I, 56)
275.18 “are] The farms in the open country are generally large; but in the rich deep low vale of Flanders, they are (I, 322)
275.21 “is] I must, upon this, observe, that the whole Pays de Caux is (I, 325)
275.21 country, and farming] country; the properties usually small; and that farming (I, 325)
275.26 “Flanders] Maize is also an article of great consequence in the French husbandry; olives, silk, and lucerne are not to be forgotten; nor should we omit mentioning the fine pastures of Normandy, and every article of culture in the rich acquisitions of Flanders (I, 357)
275.27 Garonne, France] Garonne. In all this extent, and it is not small, France (I, 357)
275.27 own.”] own; and it is from well seconding the fertility of nature in these districts, and from a proper attention to the plants adapted to the soil, that there has arisen any equality in the resources of the two kingdoms; for, without this, France, with all the ample advantages she otherwise derives from nature, would be but a petty power on comparison with Great Britain. (I, 357)
275.28 “are] Flanders, part of Artois, the rich plain of Alsace, the banks of the Garonne, and a considerable part of Quercy, are (I, 364)
275.30 properties.”] properties; but this is not the place to examine that question, which is curious enough to demand a more particular discussion. (I, 364)
275.35 this is] this in (I, 364)
276.21 be well] well be (I, 412) [see 276g-g]
298.n4 these. In] these. In Berry some are at half, some one-third, some one-fourth produce. In (I, 403)
298.n7 cattle. At] cattle. Near Falaise, in Normandy, I found metayers, where they should least of all be looked for, on the farms which gentlemen keep in their own hands; the consequence there is, that every gentleman’s farm must be precisely the worst cultivated of all the neighbourhood:—this disgraceful circumstance needs no comment. At (I, 403)
298.n11 half. In] half. Produce sold for money divided. Butter and cheese used in the metayer’s family, to any amount, compounded for at 5s. a cow. In (I, 403)
301.19 “There] This subject may be easily dispatched; for there (I, 404)
301.27 wicked. . . . In] wicked. Among some gentlemen I personally knew, I was acquainted with one at Bagnere de Luchon, who was obliged to sell his estate, because he was unable to restock it, the sheep having all died of epidemical distempers; proceeding, doubtless, from the execrable methods of the metayers cramming them into stables as hot as stoves, on reeking dunghills; and then in the common custom of the kingdom, shutting every hole and crack that could let in air.—In (I, 405)
301.28 land, the] land, after running the hazard of such losses, fatal in many instances, the (I, 405)
301.32 found . . . . Wherever] [ellipsis indicates 2-paragraph omission] (II, 151-2)
301.35 “their] All this proves the extreme poverty, and even misery, of these little farmers; and shews, that their (II, 153)
302.1 their] there (II, 217)
303.2 “in] In (I, 404)
303.4 landlords,”] landlords; it is commonly computed that half the tenantry are deeply in debt to the proprietor, so that he is often obliged to turn them off with the loss of these debts, in order to save his land from running waste. (I, 404)
305.21 live] be (I, 156)
305.23 money to] money to enable him to (II, 156)
305.23 half. . . . . The] half; but they hire farms with very little money, which is the old story of France, &c.; and indeed poverty and miserable agriculture are the sure attendants upon this way of letting land. The (II, 156)
[1 ]The method of footnoting is the same as that used in the text proper: i.e., the MS and 48 variants are indicated by superscript letters and given in footnotes. The places where the 49 text agrees with the 71 text are surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of bracketed passages.
[a-a]MS, 48 either
[* ]See [William H.] Prescott’s History of the Conquest of Peru [with a Preliminary View of the Civilization of the Incas. 2 vols. London: Bentley, 1847].
[2 ][See I.203.37—204.2 above.]
[d-d]MS, 48 can
[e]MS, 48 very
[f-f]MS, 48 Those who have never known freedom from anxiety as to the means of subsistence, are apt to overrate what is gained for positive enjoyment by the mere absence of that uncertainty. The necessaries of life, when they have always been secure for the whole of life, are scarcely more a subject of consciousness or a source of happiness than the elements. There is little attractive in a monotonous routine, without vicissitudes, but without excitement; a life spent in the enforced observance of an external rule, and performance of a prescribed task: in which labour would be devoid of its chief sweetener, the thought that every effort tells perceptibly on the labourer’s own interests or those of some one with whom he identifies himself; in which no one could by his own exertions improve his condition, or that of the objects of his private affections; in which no one’s way of life, occupations, or movements, would depend on choice, but each would be the slave of all: a social system in which identity of education and pursuits would impress on all the same unvarying type of character, to the destruction of that multiform developement of human nature, those manifold unlikenesses, that diversity of tastes and talents, and variety of intellectual points of view, which by presenting to each innumerable notions that he could not have conceived of himself, are the great stimulus to intellect and the mainspring of mental and moral progression. [Cf. p. 979. 13-19.]
[g-g]MS, 48 : but the
[j-j]MS, 48 Communism
[m-m]MS, 48 a Socialist
[n]MS, 48 I believe that the majority would not exert themselves for any thing beyond this, and that unless they did, nobody else would; and that on this basis human life would settle itself into one invariable round.
[o-o]MS, 48 Socialist
[a]MS conclusive] 48 , to my mind conclusive
[b-b]MS, 48 other;
[1 ][See I.210.37—211.7 above.]
[2 ][See I.211.7-8 above.]
[3 ][See I.211.8-9 above.]
[4 ][See I.211.9-25 above.]
[5 ][See I.211.25-9 above.]
[a-a]986MS, 48 There has never been imagined any mode of distributing the produce of industry, so well adapted to the requirements of human nature on the whole, as that of letting the share of each individual (not in a state of bodily or mental incapacity,) depend in the main on that individual’s own energies and exertions, and on such furtherance as may be obtained from the voluntary good offices of others. It is not the subversion of the system of individual property that should be aimed at; but the improvement of it, and the participation of every member of the community in its benefits.
[1 ][See I.211.33-42 above.]
[2 ][See I.212.1-24 above.]
[3 ][See I.212.24-7 above.]
[4 ][See I.212.28-9 above.]
[5 ][See I.212.29-30 above.]
[6 ][See I.212.30—213.17 above.]
[7 ][See I.213.17-31 above.]
[8 ][See I.213.31-3 above.]
[9 ][See I.213.33-5 above.]
[10 ][See I.213.35-7 above.]
[a-a]MS justice or industry
[1 ][This passage appears in 71.§3; see I.207.25—208.8 above.]
[d-d]987MS It is, at the same time, undeniable that an increasing power of co-operation in any common undertaking, is one of the surest fruits, and most accurate tests, of the progress of civilization: and we may expect, as mankind improve, that joint enterprises of many kinds, which would now be impracticable, will be successively numbered among possibilities, thus augmenting, to an indefinite extent, the powers of the species. But the proper sphere for collective action lies in the things which cannot be done by individual agency, either because no one can have a sufficiently strong personal interest in accomplishing them, or because they require an assemblage of means surpassing what can be commanded by one or a few individuals. In things to which individual agency is at all suitable, it is almost always the most suitable; working, as it does, with so much greater intensity of motive when the object is personal, with so much stronger a sense of responsibility when it is public, and in either case with a feeling of independence and individual power, unknown to the members of a body under joint government.] 48 as MS . . . few individuals. Where individual agency . . . as MS
[2 ][Ibid., I.208.29-30.]
[3 ][Ibid., I.208.30-2. The next sentence (“In . . . benefits.”) appears in altered form in 71.§4 (see I.214.9-12 above), and in MS, 48.§5 (see II.982a-aabove).]
[1 ]The method of footnoting is the same as that used in the text proper: i.e., the MS and 48 variants are indicated by superscript letters and given in footnotes. The places where the 49 text agrees with the 71 text are surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of bracketed passages.
[2 ][See I.324.3-8 above.]
[a]MS worse than the worst in which it is physically possible for human beings to exist—a state
[3 ][See I.324.8-9 above.]
[4 ][See I.324.10-11 above.]
[5 ][See I.324.12 above.]
[6 ][See I.324.12-13 above.]
[7 ][See I.324.14-20 above.]
[8 ][See I.324.21—325.8 above.]
[9 ][See I.326.20-3 above.]
[1 ][See I.326.23-7 above.]
[2 ][See I.326.27-8 above.]
[a-a]MS, 48 economical
[3 ][See I.326.28—327.5 above.]
[b]MS, 48 on
[d-d]MS must, and indubitably
[e-e]MS will & must be, either small proprietors or
[* ]In the Appendix to the Report of Lord Devon’s Commission, [Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XX,] p. 84[-5].
[f][The following quotation occurs in a footnote in 71; see I.331n above]
[* ] I have recently seen, with much regret, an announcement that this most useful Society is under the necessity of winding up its affairs. In the state to which Ireland has been reduced by the poor law and the famine, such a fact detracts nothing from the evidence which the previous success of the Society afforded in favour of its plan of operations.
[4 ][See I.331.n4—332.n12 above.]
[a]MS, 48 a
[1 ][See I.327.6-13 above.]
[2 ][See I.327.13-21 above.]
[3 ][See I.327.22-31 above.]
[4 ][See I.327.31-7 above.]
[5 ][See I.328.1-3 above.]
[b-b]MS capitalists, who farm
[6 ][See I.328.7-19 above.]
[* ]Author of numerous pamphlets, entitled “True Political Economy of Ireland,” “Letter to the Earl of Devon,” “Two Letters [MS Letters to the Editor of the Times] on the Rackrent Oppression of Ireland,” and others. Mr. Conner has been an agitator on the subject since 1832.
[1 ][See I.328.20—329.9 above.]
[a-a]MS open to objections which I cannot but regard as decisive
[b-b]MS But, in
[c-c]MS be the earliest recipients of new ideas
[2 ][See I.329.10-20 above.]
[3 ][See I.329.20-6 above.]
[b-b]MS of tenant right,
[* ]Over Population and its Remedy. By William Thomas Thornton. Pp. 429-34.  In his subsequent work, “A Plea for Peasant Proprietors,” Mr. Thornton has restated his former arguments and suggestions, with many additions and improvements.
[a]MS [paragraph] “The present exorbitance of rents & want of leases are owing” says Mr Thornton “to the keenness of competition for land, which enables proprietors to dictate their own terms. Better conditions would of course be obtainable if the competitors were less numerous; & if those who are unable to procure adequate settlements on the land already occupied were removed to a distance, the rest would no longer have to outbid each other, or to submit to any outrageous demands. Is it then possible that an asylum can anywhere be found for the crowds who are at present without any certain means of support? The question is a difficult one, but there is at least one spot in Ireland where a satisfactory answer has already been made to it. Two miles from the little town of Kilculler, in Kildare, is a tract of excessively green land, dotted over with brilliant white cottages, each with its couple of trim acres of garden, where you see thick potato ridges covered with blossom, great blue plots of comfortable cabbages & such pleasant plants of the poor man’s garden. Two or three years since, the land was a marshy common, which had never since the days of the Deluge fed any being bigger than a snipe, & into which the poor people descended, draining & cultivating & rescuing the marsh from the water, & raising their cabins, & setting up their little enclosures of two or three acres upon the land which they had thus created. . . . There are now two hundred flourishing little homesteads upon this rescued land, & as many families in comfort & plenty*. Now, if two or three acres of reclaimed marsh can furnish plentiful subsistence to one family, 600,000 acres would do as much for 200,000 families; that is to say, for one-fourth part of the Irish peasantry. . Mr Nicholls tells us that most of the recently recovered bog which he saw in the western counties was reclaimed by small occupiers, who drained & enclosed an acre or two at a time.” [footnote:] *The facts mentioned are extracted by Mr Thornton from Mr Thackeray’s “Irish Sketch Book.” [Thornton, Over-population, pp. 429-31.]
[† ]Mr. Griffith’s numbers are 1,425,000 and 2,330,000. See p. 53 of the Report [Parliamentary Papers, 1845, XIX].
[† ]If instead of throwing small farms into large, and exchanging peasant for capitalist farmers, the “clearing” were limited to such a consolidation of small holdings as would make [MS as should make] them correspond in size to the admirable small farms of Belgium, the adequacy of the resource is still more clear and unquestionable. “There are at present,” says the Digest of Evidence to Lord Devon’s Report, ([Vol. I,] p. 399,) “326,084 occupiers of land (more than one-third of the total number returned in Ireland) whose holdings vary from seven acres to less than one acre, and are therefore inadequate to support the families residing upon them.” It is shown by calculation, “that the consolidation of these small holdings, up to eight acres, would require the removal of about 192,368 families, and that the first class of improvable waste land in Ireland would furnish to those removed families locations of about eight acres each; or the first and second qualities of improvable waste land, taken together, would furnish them with locations of about twenty acres each.” It is computed (p. 565) that by these arrangements 500,000 labourers, equivalent to at least two millions and a half of population, would be abstracted from competition in the labour market, while, on the waste land alone, an addition of nearly twenty-two millions sterling would be made to the gross produce of the country; “and that the first three or four years’ crops would return the cost requisite to bring about this change.” [Ibid., p. 565.]
[[*] ]Over-population, pp. 431-2. [JSM’s square brackets around large]
[† ][Vol. I,] P. 570.
[[*] ]Over-population, pp. 432-4.
[a-a]MS, 48 , in shares, by
[b-b]MS, 48 were
[c-c]MS, 48 Should the issue of this experiment
[d]MS, 48 which at present there seems no reason to believe,
[1 ][See I.330.14-20 above.]
[2 ][See I.330.21-5 above.]
[e-e]MS The lands thus
[ ]See I.330.25-7 above.
[1 ]The method of footnoting is the same as that used in the text proper: i.e., the MS, 48, 49, and 52 variants are indicated by superscript letters and given in footnotes. The places where the 57 text agrees with the 71 text are surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of bracketed passages.
[a-a]MS, 48, 49 §8.
[b-b]MS, 48, 49 formidable difficulties in which the government of this country is becoming more and more deeply involved by the condition of Ireland,
[c-c]+49, 52, 57
[d-d]MS, 48, 49 attached to peace and law
[e]MS, 48, 49 one-half of
[g-g]MS that of the other half] 48, 49 and that . . . as MS
[h-h]MS, 48, 49 Would
[j-j]MS, 48, 49 would
[k-k]MS, 48, 49 population?
[l-l][In II, vii, § 5; see I.296n above]
[* ]Le Peuple, 1re partie, ch. 1.
[2 ][See I.296.n2-31 above.]
[3 ][See I.336.27-36 above.]
[1 ]The method of footnoting is the same as that used in the text proper: i.e., the 48 variants are indicated by superscript letters and given in footnotes. The places where the 49 text agrees with the 71 text are surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of bracketed passages.
[a-a]100748 A solution of this problem is afforded by the extension and development of which the co-operative or joint-stock principle is susceptible. That principle supplies means by which
[2 ][See II.769.21 above.]
[3 ][See II.769.21-2 above.]
[b]48 may have
[4 ][See II.769.22 above.]
[5 ][See II.769.23-5 above.]
[6 ][See II.769.25-31 above.]
[7 ][See II.769.31—770-21 above.]
[* ]This passage is from the Prize Essay on the Causes and Remedies of National Distress, [pp. 40-1,] by Mr. Samuel Laing. The extracts which it includes are from the Appendix to the Report of the Children’s Employment Commission.
[† ]Economy of Machinery and Manufactures, 3rd edition, ch. 26 [p. 259]. [52, 57, 62, 65, 71 [this footnote occurs at the end of the paragraph]]
[8 ][See II.770.21-31 above.]
[[*] ]Babbage, pp. 253-9.
[* ][His establishment is] (or was) [11, Rue Saint Georges.] [See II.770n above.]
[† ][For September 27, 1845.] [See II.771n above.]
[‡ ] [It appears, however, that the workmen whom M. Leclaire] admits [to this participation of profits,] are as yet [only a portion (rather less than half) of the whole number whom he] employs. [This is explained by another part of his system. M. Leclaire pays the full market rate of wages to all his workmen. The share of profit assigned to them is, therefore, a clear addition to the ordinary gains of their class, which he very laudably uses as an instrument of improvement, by making it the reward of desert, or the recompense for peculiar trust.] [See II.771n above.]
[9 ][See II.770.35—771.6 above.]
[10 ][See II.771.6-9 above.]
[e-e]48 It is to be regretted that we are only in possession of the result of M. Leclaire’s experiment in the first year during which it was in complete operation. Already, however, the success had been
[11 ][See II.771.10—772.15 above.]
[12 ][See II.772.15 above.]
[13 ][See II.772.16 above.]
[14 ][See II.772.17 above.]
[15 ][See II.772.17-18 above.]
[* ] “Je tiens de M. Leclaire que chez lui l’avantage du zèle extrême dont sont animés les ouvriers, depuis qu’il a adopté le système de la participation, fait plus que compenser le sacrifice représenté par la somme des parts qu’on leur alloue.” Lettres sur l’Organisation du Travail, par Michel Chevalier, (1848,) lettre xiv [p. 298].
[16 ][See II.772.18 above.]
[1 ]In a letter thanking Villiaumé for a copy of his Nouveau traité d’économie politique, in return for which JSM sent a copy of the 4th edition of his Principles, JSM says: “Vous avez probablement deviné que l’impression de ma nouvelle édition se trouvait trop avancée pour que j’eûsse pû [sic] la faire profiter de votre ouvrage autrement qu’en y ajoutant, en forme d’appendice, les renseignements importants que vous avez donnés sur l’état actuel des associations ouvrières.” A.L.s. in the Hollander Collection, item 4017, University of Illinois. I would like to thank Professor Jack Stillinger for a copy of this letter.
[2 ]The variants within IV, vii, §§5-6 are given in the normal way as footnotes to the text at the relevant places; as this Appendix is arranged differently, and contains linking passages from Villiaumé not contained in those variants, it is reprinted here as a unit, with the places where the 57 text of the Appendix agrees with the 71 text surrounded by square brackets to simplify comparison; references to the 71 text are given in numbered footnotes to the end of each bracketed passage.
[3 ][See II.773.n15—774.n13 above.]
[4 ][See II.772.19-25 above.]
[5 ][See II.774.n14-19 above.]
[* ][Il est situé dans la rue de Chavonne, cour Saint-Joseph, au faubourg Saint-Antoine.] [See II.780n above.]
[7 ][See II.781.n32—782.n23 above.]
[8 ][See II.783.n4 above.]
[9 ][See II.783.n4-10 above.]
[* ]It was bought in 1919 for £225 from Bernard Quaritch Limited, who had obtained it from Sotheby’s sale (6 May, 1919) of Alfred Morrison’s autograph collection.
[1 ]Autobiography (Columbia University Press, 1924), 173-6. An early draft of part of this passage is in the Sterling Library, Yale.
[2 ]This dedication, not included in the 1st edition because Harriet’s husband, John Taylor, objected, was pasted into gift copies of the 1st and 2nd editions. (Cf. F. A. Hayek, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor [London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1951], 121-2, and M. St. J. Packe, The Life of John Stuart Mill [London: Secker and Warburg, 1954], 309-10.) The only one I have seen is in JSM’s copy of the 2nd edition, in the library of Somerville College, Oxford. It reads: “TO/MRS JOHN TAYLOR,/AS THE MOST EMINENTLY QUALIFIED/OF ALL PERSONS KNOWN TO THE AUTHOR/EITHER TO ORIGINATE OR TO APPRECIATE/SPECULATIONS ON SOCIAL IMPROVEMENT,/THIS ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN AND DIFFUSE IDEAS/MANY OF WHICH WERE FIRST LEARNED FROM HERSELF,/IS/WITH THE HIGHEST RESPECT AND REGARD,/DEDICATED.”
[3 ]N. MacMinn, J. McCrimmon, and J. Hainds (eds.), Bibliography of the Published Writings of John Stuart Mill (Northwestern University Press, 1945), 69.
[4 ]Most of the passages are quoted or referred to by Professor Hayek in John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor; they are printed here, in corrected form, from the MSS.
[5 ]Actually, except for the two brief references in letters dated 1857 (quoted below), the revisions for the 4th edition apply not to the edition itself, but to the preliminary rewriting done in 1854 with a view to the proposed reprint of IV, vii by the Christian Socialists as working-class propaganda. See II.1032-7.
[6 ]48.I.247-8; see II.978.1-18.
[7 ]In 48 the passage actually reads: “The necessaries of life, when they have always been secure for the whole of life, are scarcely more a subject of consciousness. . . .” (48.I.247.34ff.) It was altered in 49; see II.978f-f.
[8 ]This passage does not occur in any edition, and its intended place cannot be accurately determined. The most likely place is in 49.I.254.31—255.4 (see II.978f-f, and the next letter below, II.1028.note 11); other possibilities are 49.I.265.26ff. (suggested by Professor Hayek, 300.n44), and 49.I.264 (see II.986-7).
[9 ]In 48 the passage actually reads: “I believe that the majority would not exert themselves for any thing beyond this, and that unless they did, nobody else would. . . .” (48.I.250.5-7.) The sentence is deleted in 49; see II.980n.
[10 ]JSM’s inconsistency in spelling Fourier’s name may indicate that at the time he knew his work only at second-hand.
[11 ]The reference here is undoubtedly to the passage referred to in the previous letter; see II.1027. note 8.
[12 ]49.I.263.5—264.18; see II.984.37—985.38.
[13 ]49.I.102.1—105.2 (I.84n—86n).
[14 ]See II.1027. note 8.
[15 ]See I.368c-c. The phrase “this species [not sort] of incontinence” occurs two sentences above; Harriet’s sentences presumably are those in the note added in 49 (I.368n).
[16 ]V. P. Considerant, Le socialisme devant le vieux monde, ou, le vivant devant les morts. Paris: 1848. Cf. Hayek, 302. note 72.
[17 ]Page ripped; MS reads only “circumstance”.
[18 ]Page ripped.
[19 ]Were the date on the letter not so clear, and the last paragraph omitted, one would assume that it was written in 1854. It reads:
Saint Véran near Avignon Dec. 10. 1860.
I would with great pleasure accede to your proposal with respect to a reprint of the chapter on the Futurity of the Labouring Classes for separate sale, if it rested with me to do so. The current edition however of the Pol. Economy is the property of the publisher Mr Parker, and he alone has the power of authorizing what you propose. Your application therefore should be to him, unless you prefer waiting till the present edition is out of print, which is likely to be, I believe, in a few months. I propose making some additions to the chapter for another edition, so as to bring up the facts of Cooperation to the latest date, and if I have anything to say worth saying in the way of advice to Cooperators, that will be, I think, the most suitable occasion.
I am very glad to hear such good news of the progress of Cooperation. The publicity given to the brilliant results of the Rochdale and Leeds experiments, by Mr Holyoake’s book, by Bright’s speech, and otherwise, was likely to encourage others to do the same. I am
Dear Sir very truly yours
J. S. Mill
57.II.335n. Deleted in 62; see II.765b.
[21 ]See 57.II.352n-353n. Passage rewritten in 62; see II.784i-i793.
[22 ]See II.784i-i793, and II.1036.23-30.
[23 ]Probably one of the sentences in the paragraph at 52.II.347.10ff., beginning “It is painful to think. . . .” See II.784h-h.
[24 ]The reference is not clear; probably IV.vi.2 is intended; see II.753-7. No such change was made in any subsequent edition.
[25 ]No alterations were made to this passage, see II.764-5.
[26 ]The only alteration to this page is that indicated in the note by JSM added to this letter; see II.1036, note to p. 346.
[27 ]See II.765b (the wording was altered before the 4th ed.).
[28 ]See II.767e-e and the variants therein.
[29 ]See II.783n and the variants therein.
[30 ]This passage was almost completely rewritten for the 57 edition; see II.784h-h.
[31 ]See II.784i-i793 and the variants therein.
[32 ]See II.1035. note 25.
[33 ]See II.783n, and JSM’s note to 52.346 (II.1036). Cf. Hayek, 203, who says that Harriet suggested the added clause.
[34 ]The reference is probably to I.104f-f (I.vii.3); cf. Hayek, who suggests I.viii [? vii]. 5.
[1 ]An account of this correspondence, with quotations, is given in George O’Brien, “J. S. Mill and J. E. Cairnes,” Economica, n.s. X (Nov., 1943), 273-85.
[2 ]This paper does not appear to have been published.
[3 ]See I.331c-c336.
[4 ]Mountifort Longfield, “Address by the President, Hon. Judge Longfield, at the Opening of the Eighteenth Session,” Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland, IV, Part 24 (January, 1865), 129-46; “Appendix to the foregoing Address,” ibid., 146-54. The address was given on 26 November, 1864.
[5 ]“The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte,” Westminster Review, LXXXIII (Apr., 1865), 339-405, and “Later Speculations of Auguste Comte,” ibid., LXXXIV (July, 1865), 1-42; republished together as Auguste Comte and Positivism (London: Trübner, 1865).
[6 ]See below, II.1058ff.
[7 ]Unheaded leading articles, Daily News, 1 Dec., 1864, 4, and 3 Dec., 1864, 4.
[8 ]Richard Whately, Introductory Lectures on Political Economy (London: Fellowes, 1831), 164.
[* ]Had the distinction been kept in view by Senior it wd have saved his readers the tedious and unprofitable discussion on the question whether “houses and other articles of slow consumption” were “capital”—a discussion in which I think Adam Smith was plainly in the right.9
[10 ]Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chap. ii; in Wakefield’s ed., II, 266-340.
[* ]The conclusion from the illustration given at pp. 146-47 [I.119-20] seems to me, so far as it reaches directly to negative the general doctrine laid down at pp. 98-110 [I.78-89]. Substantially that doctrine amounted to this, that it is only by what a man abstains from consuming that he can benefit the labouring classes; while the illustration shows that those classes may be benefitted by the unproductive demand (or, to be more accurate, the demand for their own consumption) of other people.
[* ]It is important I think to insist on this by way of precaution against the popular currency fallacy.
[11 ]George Grote, History of Greece, IV (London, 1862), 11-12 (i.e., Chap. xliv).
[12 ]“Trade and Finance,” Daily News, 18 Apr., 1864, 4. The Daily News correctly reads “Loyd” not “Lloyd.”
[13 ]Reference not located.
[* ]“purchased”: this word appears to me to have a disturbing effect, suggesting the idea of price as equivalent to, or connected with, the “cost” just mentioned: perhaps “obtained” mi[ght] answer the purpose, & be free from this objection.
[† ]i.e., in other words, “proportional wages”—the statement is therefore entirely equivalent to the doctrine of Ricardo.
[14 ]See above, II.1048.
[15 ]“The Cause of the Inequalities in the Pressure of the Income Tax,” Economist, XIX (4 May, 1861), 481-3.
[16 ]David Ricardo, Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in The Works of David Ricardo, Esq., M.P., with a Notice of the Life and Writings of the Author, by J. R. McCulloch (London: Murray, 1846), 230-1.
[17 ]Ricardo, Works (ed. McCulloch), 141-2. At 142n Ricardo quotes Say’s argument that a tax, by raising the price of a commodity, necessarily reduces its consumption.
[18 ]Henry Charles Carey, Principles of Social Science, 3 vols. (London: Trübner, 1858). This is the unnamed work by Carey referred to by JSM at II.919-21, in a passage added in 1865.
[19 ]“Ireland,” Edinburgh Review, CXIX (Jan., 1864), 279-304.
[20 ]See below, II.1060.
[21 ]Cairnes, “Capital and Currency,” North British Review, XXVIII (Feb., 1858), 191-230.
[22 ]Ibid., 204-5.
[* ]On consideration it is fair to suppose that the new commodities wd be employed productively; since the money, rendered active by the banks, wd get into the hands of “producers & dealers”. The prices first & principally affected wd be those of coms required by “producers & dealers”: the new commodities therefore wd chiefly belong to this class.
[† ]A tendency, however, which, as you point out in your letter of the 1st Dec. (just received)23 need not by any means necessarily be realized in fact, since other causes, such as those existing in the U.S. to which you advert, may more than neutralize it, leaving as the result a rate of interest in some places higher than in others where profits are higher.
[* ]“Money”. See as to this word post II.1064ff.
[24 ]Thomas Tooke, Considerations on the State of the Currency (London: Murray, 1826); Cairnes, “Capital and Currency,” 199-201.
[* ]A rise in the rate may, I think, be taken as the most usual result of a commercial derangement; but it is quite conceivable that it might have the opposite effect, and, so far as my memory now serves me, the early effect of the cotton famine was to depress the rate of interest. This will happen when the check given to demand by the advance in price is so great that the diminished requirements for money on loan more than balance the diminution in the supply. Further it shd be considered that the falling off in the demand will occur in a very early stage; while that in the supply will not happen till the new sources for repairing the deficiency in the staple have been opened.
[25 ]Tooke, Considerations; exact location not found, but cf. pp. 31 and 62.
[26 ]Léon Faucher, Recherches sur l’or et sur l’argent considérés comme étalons de la valeur (Paris: Librairie de Paulin, 1843).
[27 ]Reference not located.
[* ]The elasticity of a credit currency, and the power which in virtue of this quality it possesses of moderating the fluctuations in the value of a mixed currency of metal and paper, seems to have wholly escaped the “currency school” of writers. I observe you call attention to it at p. 211 [II.666-7].
[28 ]Cairnes, “Capital and Currency,” 211ff.
[† ]I have not thought it necessary to apply the reasoning to inconvertible notes, both because the application is very obvious, and because the argument will be found in the 4th Volume of Tooke’s History of Prices.29
[30 ]Quotation not located.
[* ]I observe that in the following paragraph p. 196[5?] [II.650.24-5] you take account of this element where you say “in speculative times money lenders, as well as other people, are inclined to extend their business by stretching their credit.”
[31 ]See below, II.1074ff.
[32 ]See note 7 above; JSM presumably read the reports of Longfield’s paper in the Daily News (“Statistical Society of Dublin,” DN, 29 Nov., 1864, 5, and “Judge Longfield on Ireland,” DN, 1 Dec., 1864, 2).
[33 ]Reference not located.
[34 ]Alexander Thom, Thom’s Irish Almanac and Official Directory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for the year 1863 (Dublin: Thom, 1863).
[35 ]Jonathan Pim, of Pim Bros. and Co., author of On the Connection between the Condition of Tenant Farmers and the Laws respecting the Ownership and Transfer of Land in Ireland (Dublin, 1853), and The Land Question in Ireland (Dublin, 1867).
[36 ]A Randal McDonnell is mentioned in the accompanying material sent by Cairnes.
[37 ]In addition to the two versions of the “Notes on Ireland,” MS 8983 in the National Library of Ireland also has notes by Cairnes derived from (a) Thornton’s A Plea for Peasant Proprietors, (b) the notes Judge Longfield sent to Cairnes, (c) Lavergne’s Essai sur l’économie rurale de l’Angleterre, de l’Ecosse et de l’Irlande, (d) Edmund Spenser’s A View of the State of Ireland, Written Dialogue-Wise Betweene Eudoxus and Irenæus (Cairnes was probably using the reprint in A Collection of Tracts and Treatises, Illustrative of the Natural History, Antiquities, and the Political and Social State of Ireland, I [Dublin: Thom, 1860], 417-592), (e) Goldwin Smith’s Irish History and Irish Character (London: Parker, 1861), (f) William Henry Hardinge’s “Observations on the earliest known Manuscript Census Returns of the People of Ireland,” read 16 Mar., 1865, and printed in Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy, Part III, Antiquities, XXIV (1873), 317-28, (g) the Devon Commission’s Report and Evidence, Part I, (h) Henry Fawcett’s Manual of Political Economy (London: Macmillan, 1863), (i) various accounts of the Irish labouring population, drawn from the Social Science Transactions for 1859, 1860, 1862, 1863, and (j) “Co-operative Societies in 1864,” Edinburgh Review, CXX (Oct., 1864), 407-36. The surrounding MSS in the National Library of Ireland contain related material.
[38 ]Article not identified.
[† ]The movement towards pasture is also favoured by the extreme inefficiency of the cottier’s labour—indeed of agricultural labour in every form in Ireland: this gives capital in the fixed form a constant pull as against capital in the circulating: it enhances the relative superiority of Ireland in respect to pasture.
[41 ]The following passage, to “mercy for all parties.” (II.1077.36), and (omitting the next two sentences) from “The anxiety of landlords” to “in every lease.” (II.1078.23), is quoted by JSM at I.332n-333n. JSM alters the punctuation and spelling, and makes the following alterations: omits “in the neighbourhood of Drogheda”; substitutes “as I am informed” for “as I was informed last night”; omits “In the end”; omits “The worst evil is that”; omits “such as I have described above”; adds “also” after “cottiers is”; omits “To understand this it should be remembered that”; substitutes “rent received” for “rent reserved”; substitutes “Some of these leases are always” for “These leases are constantly”; substitutes “For this purpose” for “In this purpose”; substitutes “general tendency” for “general tendencies”; substitutes “Perhaps it may be thought” for “Perhaps it will here occur”.
[* ]I observe the Irish landlord writing in the Gardener’s Chronicle represents the change as resulting in a marked improvement. His evidence should certainly go for what it is worth; and I do not desire that mine shd go for more. My statements are based upon experience of two localities in Meath, the town of Galway, and the confirmatory observation of friends with whom I have conversed on the subject: I shd state however that some of those with whom I have talked take a more favourable view of the labourer’s position than I do—Judge Longfield for one.
[* ]Substantial security of tenure, coupled I would add with the extinction, once for all, of the hopes constantly kept alive by tenant-right agitation (in the revolutionary sense) of a wholesale confiscation of property in favour of existing cultivators. Judge Longfield’s treatment of this project seemed to me, as a matter of speculation, to be profoundly fallacious; but I do not think he has at all overstated the practical mischief which the constant agitation of these schemes produces in the unsettling of people’s minds.
[† ]I find it is Judge Longfield’s opinion (he is a member of the National Board) that the instruction given in these schools has been hitherto too high, and that simpler and more strictly practical courses, with a view to the actual exigencies of the small farmers, should be established. Some such change, it is probable, will soon be made.
[42 ]William Thornton, A Plea for Peasant Proprietors, 60ff.
[43 ]The following passage, to “disposition of the people.” (II.1083.49), is quoted by JSM at I.334-6. As above, JSM alters the punctuation and spelling, and here rewrites more freely, as follows: omits “have no knowledge of the localities where these properties are situated, and”; omits “which I will mention here”; substitutes “Newry was sold” for “Newry sold”; substitutes “gives but an inadequate” for “wd give but an altogether inadequate”; substitutes “It is a remarkable” for “Now here is a very remarkable”; substitutes “Why, it will be asked, do they . . . ?” for “why is it, it will be asked, that they do. . . . ”; substitutes “The answer to this question, I believe, is to be found in the state of our land laws. The cost” for “I believe the true answer is that the cost”; substitutes “portions is, relatively to the purchase money, very inconsiderable, even in the Landed Estates Court” for “parcels is even in the Landed Estates Court very great, very great that is to say as compared with the purchase money”; substitutes “in that Court, where the utmost economy, consistent with the present mode of remunerating legal services, is strictly enforced, would” for “in the Landed Estates Court wd”; substitutes “10l.—a very sensible addition to the purchase” for “£ 10, which would represent a year’s or two year’s purchase”; four sentences “But, in truth . . . of the evil.” replace the sentence “This is the case . . . lots.”; the changes in the last two sentences are so complex as to make direct comparison necessary.
[* ]These figures are taken from Thom’s Almanack.
[44 ]Cairnes, “Fragments on Ireland,” in Political Essays (London: Macmillan, 1873), 147.
[45 ]Henry Ashworth, author of A Tour in the United States, Cuba, and Canada (London: Bennett and Pitman, ).
[46 ]Benjamin Moran, Secretary of the United States Legation in London from 1857 to 1875.
[47 ]Reference not located.
[48 ]Cairnes, “Co-operation in the Slate Quarries of North Wales,” Macmillan’s Magazine, XI (Jan., 1865), 181-90; reprinted in Essays in Political Economy, Theoretical and Applied (London: Macmillan, 1873), 166-86.
[49 ]Rowland Gibson Hazard, of Peacedale, Rhode Island, had just published Our Resources. A Series of Articles on the Financial and Political Condition of the United States (London, 1864). He later wrote Two Letters on Causation and Freedom in Willing, addressed to J. S. Mill (Boston, 1869).
[50 ]“Australia,” The Times, 14 Dec., 1864, 4. For JSM’s reaction, see Letter 14 below, and II.919u-u921.
[51 ]Brown, Shipley and Co., merchant bankers, and Rathbone Bros. and Co., cotton and general merchants.
[53 ]See above, II.1060ff.
[1 ]See my remarks in the Textual Introduction, pp. lxxvi-lxxvii.
[1 ]The following abbreviations are used here: ink = material added in ink by JSM; news = pasted-in newspaper columns; I, II, III are JSM’s headings for the separate articles from the Morning Chronicle; the page references are to the present edition; the folio references are to MS Vol. III.
[* ]Had the distinction been kept in view by Senior it wd have saved his readers the tedious and unprofitable discussion on the question whether “houses and other articles of slow consumption” were “capital”—a discussion in which I think Adam Smith was plainly in the right.9
[† ]A tendency, however, which, as you point out in your letter of the 1st Dec. (just received)23 need not by any means necessarily be realized in fact, since other causes, such as those existing in the U.S. to which you advert, may more than neutralize it, leaving as the result a rate of interest in some places higher than in others where profits are higher.
[† ]I have not thought it necessary to apply the reasoning to inconvertible notes, both because the application is very obvious, and because the argument will be found in the 4th Volume of Tooke’s History of Prices.29
Nassau William Senior, An Outline of the Science of Political Economy (London: Clowes, 1836), 155ff.
See above, II.1055-6.
Tooke, History of Prices, IV, 171-97.
William Shaw Mason, A Statistical Account or Parochial Survey of Ireland, Drawn Up From the Communications of the Clergy. 3 vols. (Dublin: Cumming, 1814ff.).
“An Irish Landlord,” “Twenty-five Years’ Work in Ireland,” The Gardener’s Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, 3 Dec., 1864, 1162-4.