[[p. 212]] I note a fallacy in Professor Marshall's lectures on "Progress and Poverty." He endeavours to show that the condition of the labourer has greatly improved in the last century, by comparing wages at the two periods, estimated in wheat. Now this is quite as fallacious as to estimate it in money, and is, in fact, no test at all. In the last century, the bulk of the labourers lived in the country, and had cottages and some land in permanent tenure, with the use of commons and woodlands. They obtained a considerable portion of their income from the produce of their gardens, from pigs and poultry which they could keep. They had milk often free from the farmers; they had wood and turf free from commons and woodlands; and they used, to a considerable extent, rye or oats or barley bread instead of wheat. Their cottages, too, were often copyhold, or at mere nominal rents. Now the bulk of the labourers are town-dwellers, with no land or common rights. Rents are high, and every scrap of food and fuel has to be bought, while cheaper bread than the finest wheat is not to be had, and thus beggars and paupers eat it, though it is dearer, less wholesome, and often less palatable than the old brown bread! Consequently, the value of four pecks of wheat now, in wages, may leave a man worse off than the value of two pecks in the last century. Such a fallacy ought to have been exposed at once, but I cannot see that it was noticed. The political economists always ignore the difference of condition of labourers formerly as regards "use of land," when comparing wages, yet it is the essential thing. Another supposed error of George's was attacked by equal fallacies. Interest was said to be high and wages low in Asia--ignoring the fact that interest there includes enormous risk owing to plundering and bribable government, while wages are only low estimated in money, food and all that land produces being cheap, and fuel and house rent being usually nothing.

Note Appearing in the Original Work

1. Western Daily Press, Mar. 17, 1883, at 3. This letter was read by the chairman at a meeting of the Land Nationalisation Society in Bristol and published as part of an account of the proceedings. The meeting was held to hear a lecture on The Nationalisation of the Land by Professor Newman. [[on p. 212]]

     [[p. 215]] My objection to Professor Marshall's estimate of the comparative condition of the agricultural labourer now and in the last century was that he founded it wholly on wages estimated in wheat, and made no allowance for the labourer's different relation to the land then and now. In his letter in your columns on the 20th last, he says that I overestimated the advantages the labourer formerly possessed, but he admits that these advantages did exist to some extent, and it follows that to that extent his estimate was misleading. I have not the extensive knowledge of the subject which Professor Marshall no doubt possesses, but I would ask permission to point out that other good authorities do not hold his opinion on this question. In the report of the Women's and Children's Employment Commission (1868), paragraph 251, it is stated that:--"Previous to 1775 the agricultural labourer was in a most prosperous condition. His wages gave him a great command over the necessaries of life; his rent was lower, his wearing apparel cheaper, his shoes cheaper, his living cheaper, than formerly; and he had on the commons and wastes liberty of cutting furze for fuel, with the chance of getting a little land, and in time, a small farm." Mr. Brodrick, too, in his "English Land and English Landlords," speaking of those few benevolent landlords who let their labourers have plots of land of from two and a-half to three and a-half acres, with their cottages, at an ordinary farm rent, the results of which are eminently beneficial, adds: "This practice, after all, is but the revival of a custom once almost universal among the peasantry of [[p. 216]] England, and it is found to be fraught with manifold advantages. The most obvious of these is an abundant supply of milk for the farm labourer's children, who in many districts grow up without tasting the natural diet of childhood." Mr. Brodrick also agrees with me in my main contention, for in reference to this very question of wages as estimated by Malthus and Arthur Young in the last century he remarks: "But the value of a labourer's wages is not to be measured by the price of bread alone." I think, therefore, that my objections to Professor Marshall's estimate of the comparative condition of the labourer at different periods by wheat-wages alone are fully justified.

     As to the second point, I will remark that, in the part of Asia I am personally acquainted with, at all events, wages, though low in money are really, in relation to purchasing power and habits of life, very much higher than in Europe, since they furnish the labourer with all the necessaries and many of the luxuries of existence in return for a very easy day's work; and from what I have read of other parts of Asia, I believe this statement will very generally apply. Interest, therefore, may be higher without being higher in proportion to wages.

Note Appearing in the Original Work

1. Western Daily Press, Mar. 23, 1883, at 3. [[on p. 215]]