Chapter OF THE WAGES OF LABOUR.

CHAPTER VIII. OF THE WAGES OF LABOUR.

  The produce of labour constitutes the natural recompence or wages of
  labour. In that original state of things which precedes both the
  appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock, the whole produce of
  labour belongs to the labourer. He has neither landlord nor master to
  share with him.

  Had this state continued, the wages of labour would have augmented with
  all those improvements in its productive powers, to which the division of
  labour gives occasion. All things would gradually have become cheaper.
  They would have been produced by a smaller quantity of labour; and as the
  commodities produced by equal quantities of labour would naturally in this
  state of things be exchanged for one another, they would have been
  purchased likewise with the produce of a smaller quantity.

  But though all things would have become cheaper in reality, in appearance
  many things might have become dearer, than before, or have been exchanged
  for a greater quantity of other goods. Let us suppose, for example, that
  in the greater part of employments the productive powers of labour had
  been improved to tenfold, or that a day’s labour could produce ten times
  the quantity of work which it had done originally; but that in a
  particular employment they had been improved only to double, or that a
  day’s labour could produce only twice the quantity of work which it had
  done before. In exchanging the produce of a day’s labour in the greater
  part of employments for that of a day’s labour in this particular one, ten
  times the original quantity of work in them would purchase only twice the
  original quantity in it. Any particular quantity in it, therefore, a pound
  weight, for example, would appear to be five times dearer than before. In
  reality, however, it would be twice as cheap. Though it required five
  times the quantity of other goods to purchase it, it would require only
  half the quantity of labour either to purchase or to produce it. The
  acquisition, therefore, would be twice as easy as before.

  But this original state of things, in which the labourer enjoyed the whole
  produce of his own labour, could not last beyond the first introduction of
  the appropriation of land and the accumulation of stock. It was at an end,
  therefore, long before the most considerable improvements were made in the
  productive powers of labour; and it would be to no purpose to trace
  further what might have been its effects upon the recompence or wages of
  labour.

  As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of
  almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise or collect from
  it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour
  which is employed upon land.

  It seldom happens that the person who tills the ground has wherewithal to
  maintain himself till he reaps the harvest. His maintenance is generally
  advanced to him from the stock of a master, the farmer who employs him,
  and who would have no interest to employ him, unless he was to share in
  the produce of his labour, or unless his stock was to be replaced to him
  with a profit. This profit makes a second deduction from the produce of
  the labour which is employed upon land.

  The produce of almost all other labour is liable to the like deduction of
  profit. In all arts and manufactures, the greater part of the workmen
  stand in need of a master, to advance them the materials of their work,
  and their wages and maintenance, till it be completed. He shares in the
  produce of their labour, or in the value which it adds to the materials
  upon which it is bestowed; and in this share consists his profit.

  It sometimes happens, indeed, that a single independent workman has stock
  sufficient both to purchase the materials of his work, and to maintain
  himself till it be completed. He is both master and workman, and enjoys
  the whole produce of his own labour, or the whole value which it adds to
  the materials upon which it is bestowed. It includes what are usually two
  distinct revenues, belonging to two distinct persons, the profits of
  stock, and the wages of labour.

  Such cases, however, are not very frequent; and in every part of Europe
  twenty workmen serve under a master for one that is independent, and the
  wages of labour are everywhere understood to be, what they usually are,
  when the labourer is one person, and the owner of the stock which employs
  him another.

  What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract
  usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means
  the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as
  little, as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise,
  the latter in order to lower, the wages of labour.

  It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must,
  upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force
  the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in
  number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or
  at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those
  of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower
  the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such
  disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a
  master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single
  workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they
  have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could
  subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long
  run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to
  him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

  We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though
  frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account,
  that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the
  subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but
  constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above
  their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most
  unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours
  and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the
  usual, and, one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever
  hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to
  sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted
  with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when
  the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though
  severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people. Such
  combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive
  combination of the workmen, who sometimes, too, without any provocation of
  this kind, combine, of their own accord, to raise the price of their
  labour. Their usual pretences are, sometimes the high price of provisions,
  sometimes the great profit which their masters make by their work. But
  whether their combinations be offensive or defensive, they are always
  abundantly heard of. In order to bring the point to a speedy decision,
  they have always recourse to the loudest clamour, and sometimes to the
  most shocking violence and outrage. They are desperate, and act with the
  folly and extravagance of desperate men, who must either starve, or
  frighten their masters into an immediate compliance with their demands.
  The masters, upon these occasions, are just as clamorous upon the other
  side, and never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil
  magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been
  enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants,
  labourers, and journeymen. The workmen, accordingly, very seldom derive
  any advantage from the violence of those tumultuous combinations, which,
  partly from the interposition of the civil magistrate, partly from the
  superior steadiness of the masters, partly from the necessity which the
  greater part of the workmen are under of submitting for the sake of
  present subsistence, generally end in nothing but the punishment or ruin
  of the ringleaders.

  But though, in disputes with their workmen, masters must generally have
  the advantage, there is, however, a certain rate, below which it seems
  impossible to reduce, for any considerable time, the ordinary wages even
  of the lowest species of labour.

  A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be
  sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat
  more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and
  the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. Mr
  Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of
  common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own
  maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring
  up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary
  attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to
  provide for herself: But one half the children born, it is computed, die
  before the age of manhood. The poorest labourers, therefore, according to
  this account, must, one with another, attempt to rear at least four
  children, in order that two may have an equal chance of living to that
  age. But the necessary maintenance of four children, it is supposed, may
  be nearly equal to that of one man. The labour of an able-bodied slave,
  the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and
  that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of
  an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to
  bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even
  in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more
  than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what
  proportion, whether in that above-mentioned, or any other, I shall not
  take upon me to determine.

  There are certain circumstances, however, which sometimes give the
  labourers an advantage, and enable them to raise their wages considerably
  above this rate, evidently the lowest which is consistent with common
  humanity.

  When in any country the demand for those who live by wages, labourers,
  journeymen, servants of every kind, is continually increasing; when every
  year furnishes employment for a greater number than had been employed the
  year before, the workmen have no occasion to combine in order to raise
  their wages. The scarcity of hands occasions a competition among masters,
  who bid against one another in order to get workmen, and thus voluntarily
  break through the natural combination of masters not to raise wages. The
  demand for those who live by wages, it is evident, cannot increase but in
  proportion to the increase of the funds which are destined to the payment
  of wages. These funds are of two kinds, first, the revenue which is over
  and above what is necessary for the maintenance; and, secondly, the stock
  which is over and above what is necessary for the employment of their
  masters.

  When the landlord, annuitant, or monied man, has a greater revenue than
  what he judges sufficient to maintain his own family, he employs either
  the whole or a part of the surplus in maintaining one or more menial
  servants. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the number
  of those servants.

  When an independent workman, such as a weaver or shoemaker, has got more
  stock than what is sufficient to purchase the materials of his own work,
  and to maintain himself till he can dispose of it, he naturally employs
  one or more journeymen with the surplus, in order to make a profit by
  their work. Increase this surplus, and he will naturally increase the
  number of his journeymen.

  The demand for those who live by wages, therefore, necessarily increases
  with the increase of the revenue and stock of every country, and cannot
  possibly increase without it. The increase of revenue and stock is the
  increase of national wealth. The demand for those who live by wages,
  therefore, naturally increases with the increase of national wealth, and
  cannot possibly increase without it.

  It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual
  increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not,
  accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in
  those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are
  highest. England is certainly, in the present times, a much richer country
  than any part of North America. The wages of labour, however, are much
  higher in North America than in any part of England. In the province of
  New York, common labourers earned in 1773, before the commencement of the
  late disturbances, three shillings and sixpence currency, equal to two
  shillings sterling, a-day; ship-carpenters, ten shillings and sixpence
  currency, with a pint of rum, worth sixpence sterling, equal in all to six
  shillings and sixpence sterling; house-carpenters and bricklayers, eight
  shillings currency, equal to four shillings and sixpence sterling;
  journeymen tailors, five shillings currency, equal to about two shillings
  and tenpence sterling. These prices are all above the London price; and
  wages are said to be as high in the other colonies as in New York. The
  price of provisions is everywhere in North America much lower than in
  England. A dearth has never been known there. In the worst seasons they
  have always had a sufficiency for themselves, though less for exportation.
  If the money price of labour, therefore, be higher than it is anywhere in
  the mother-country, its real price, the real command of the necessaries
  and conveniencies of life which it conveys to the labourer, must be higher
  in a still greater proportion.

  But though North America is not yet so rich as England, it is much more
  thriving, and advancing with much greater rapidity to the further
  acquisition of riches. The most decisive mark of the prosperity of any
  country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants. In Great
  Britain, and most other European countries, they are not supposed to
  double in less than five hundred years. In the British colonies in North
  America, it has been found that they double in twenty or five-and-twenty
  years. Nor in the present times is this increase principally owing to the
  continual importation of new inhabitants, but to the great multiplication
  of the species. Those who live to old age, it is said, frequently see
  there from fifty to a hundred, and sometimes many more, descendants from
  their own body. Labour is there so well rewarded, that a numerous family
  of children, instead of being a burden, is a source of opulence and
  prosperity to the parents. The labour of each child, before it can leave
  their house, is computed to be worth a hundred pounds clear gain to them.
  A young widow with four or five young children, who, among the middling or
  inferior ranks of people in Europe, would have so little chance for a
  second husband, is there frequently courted as a sort of fortune. The
  value of children is the greatest of all encouragements to marriage. We
  cannot, therefore, wonder that the people in North America should
  generally marry very young. Notwithstanding the great increase occasioned
  by such early marriages, there is a continual complaint of the scarcity of
  hands in North America. The demand for labourers, the funds destined for
  maintaining them increase, it seems, still faster than they can find
  labourers to employ.

  Though the wealth of a country should be very great, yet if it has been
  long stationary, we must not expect to find the wages of labour very high
  in it. The funds destined for the payment of wages, the revenue and stock
  of its inhabitants, may be of the greatest extent; but if they have
  continued for several centuries of the same, or very nearly of the same
  extent, the number of labourers employed every year could easily supply,
  and even more than supply, the number wanted the following year. There
  could seldom be any scarcity of hands, nor could the masters be obliged to
  bid against one another in order to get them. The hands, on the contrary,
  would, in this case, naturally multiply beyond their employment. There
  would be a constant scarcity of employment, and the labourers would be
  obliged to bid against one another in order to get it. If in such a
  country the wages of labour had ever been more than sufficient to
  maintain the labourer, and to enable him to bring up a family, the
  competition of the labourers and the interest of the masters would soon
  reduce them to the lowest rate which is consistent with common humanity.
  China has been long one of the richest, that is, one of the most fertile,
  best cultivated, most industrious, and most populous, countries in the
  world. It seems, however, to have been long stationary. Marco Polo, who
  visited it more than five hundred years ago, describes its cultivation,
  industry, and populousness, almost in the same terms in which they are
  described by travellers in the present times. It had, perhaps, even long
  before his time, acquired that full complement of riches which the nature
  of its laws and institutions permits it to acquire. The accounts of all
  travellers, inconsistent in many other respects, agree in the low wages of
  labour, and in the difficulty which a labourer finds in bringing up a
  family in China. If by digging the ground a whole day he can get what will
  purchase a small quantity of rice in the evening, he is contented. The
  condition of artificers is, if possible, still worse. Instead of waiting
  indolently in their work-houses for the calls of their customers, as in
  Europe, they are continually running about the streets with the tools of
  their respective trades, offering their services, and, as it were, begging
  employment. The poverty of the lower ranks of people in China far
  surpasses that of the most beggarly nations in Europe. In the
  neighbourhood of Canton, many hundred, it is commonly said, many thousand
  families have no habitation on the land, but live constantly in little
  fishing-boats upon the rivers and canals. The subsistence which they find
  there is so scanty, that they are eager to fish up the nastiest garbage
  thrown overboard from any European ship. Any carrion, the carcase of a
  dead dog or cat, for example, though half putrid and stinking, is as
  welcome to them as the most wholesome food to the people of other
  countries. Marriage is encouraged in China, not by the profitableness of
  children, but by the liberty of destroying them. In all great towns,
  several are every night exposed in the street, or drowned like puppies in
  the water. The performance of this horrid office is even said to be the
  avowed business by which some people earn their subsistence.

  China, however, though it may, perhaps, stand still, does not seem to go
  backwards. Its towns are nowhere deserted by their inhabitants. The lands
  which had once been cultivated, are nowhere neglected. The same, or very
  nearly the same, annual labour, must, therefore, continue to be performed,
  and the funds destined for maintaining it must not, consequently, be
  sensibly diminished. The lowest class of labourers, therefore,
  notwithstanding their scanty subsistence, must some way or another make
  shift to continue their race so far as to keep up their usual numbers.

  But it would be otherwise in a country where the funds destined for the
  maintenance of labour were sensibly decaying. Every year the demand for
  servants and labourers would, in all the different classes of employments,
  be less than it had been the year before. Many who had been bred in the
  superior classes, not being able to find employment in their own business,
  would be glad to seek it in the lowest. The lowest class being not only
  overstocked with its own workmen, but with the overflowings of all the
  other classes, the competition for employment would be so great in it, as
  to reduce the wages of labour to the most miserable and scanty subsistence
  of the labourer. Many would not be able to find employment even upon these
  hard terms, but would either starve, or be driven to seek a subsistence,
  either by begging, or by the perpetration perhaps, of the greatest
  enormities. Want, famine, and mortality, would immediately prevail in that
  class, and from thence extend themselves to all the superior classes, till
  the number of inhabitants in the country was reduced to what could easily
  be maintained by the revenue and stock which remained in it, and which had
  escaped either the tyranny or calamity which had destroyed the rest. This,
  perhaps, is nearly the present state of Bengal, and of some other of the
  English settlements in the East Indies. In a fertile country, which had
  before been much depopulated, where subsistence, consequently, should not
  be very difficult, and where, notwithstanding, three or four hundred
  thousand people die of hunger in one year, we may be assured that the funds
  destined for the maintenance of the labouring poor are fast decaying. The
  difference between the genius of the British constitution, which protects
  and governs North America, and that of the mercantile company which
  oppresses and domineers in the East Indies, cannot, perhaps, be better
  illustrated than by the different state of those countries.

  The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so
  it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty
  maintenance of the labouring poor, on the other hand, is the natural
  symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition, that
  they are going fast backwards.

  In Great Britain, the wages of labour seem, in the present times, to be
  evidently more than what is precisely necessary to enable the labourer to
  bring up a family. In order to satisfy ourselves upon this point, it will
  not be necessary to enter into any tedious or doubtful calculation of what
  may be the lowest sum upon which it is possible to do this. There are many
  plain symptoms, that the wages of labour are nowhere in this country
  regulated by this lowest rate, which is consistent with common humanity.

  First, in almost every part of Great Britain there is a distinction, even
  in the lowest species of labour, between summer and winter wages. Summer
  wages are always highest. But, on account of the extraordinary expense of
  fuel, the maintenance of a family is most expensive in winter. Wages,
  therefore, being highest when this expense is lowest, it seems evident
  that they are not regulated by what is necessary for this expense, but by
  the quantity and supposed value of the work. A labourer, it may be said,
  indeed, ought to save part of his summer wages, in order to defray his
  winter expense; and that, through the whole year, they do not exceed what
  is necessary to maintain his family through the whole year. A slave,
  however, or one absolutely dependent on us for immediate subsistence,
  would not be treated in this manner. His daily subsistence would be
  proportioned to his daily necessities.

  Secondly, the wages of labour do not, in Great Britain, fluctuate with the
  price of provisions. These vary everywhere from year to year, frequently
  from month to month. But in many places, the money price of labour remains
  uniformly the same, sometimes for half a century together. If, in these
  places, therefore, the labouring poor can maintain their families in dear
  years, they must be at their ease in times of moderate plenty, and in
  affluence in those of extraordinary cheapness. The high price of
  provisions during these ten years past, has not, in many parts of the
  kingdom, been accompanied with any sensible rise in the money price of
  labour. It has, indeed, in some; owing, probably, more to the increase of
  the demand for labour, than to that of the price of provisions.

  Thirdly, as the price of provisions varies more from year to year than the
  wages of labour, so, on the other hand, the wages of labour vary more from
  place to place than the price of provisions. The prices of bread and
  butchers’ meat are generally the same, or very nearly the same, through
  the greater part of the united kingdom. These, and most other things which
  are sold by retail, the way in which the labouring poor buy all things,
  are generally fully as cheap, or cheaper, in great towns than in the
  remoter parts of the country, for reasons which I shall have occasion to
  explain hereafter. But the wages of labour in a great town and its
  neighbourhood are frequently a fourth or a fifth part, twenty or five-and—twenty
  per cent. higher than at a few miles distance. Eighteen pence a day may be
  reckoned the common price of labour in London and its neighbourhood. At a
  few miles distance, it falls to fourteen and fifteen pence. Tenpence may
  be reckoned its price in Edinburgh and its neighbourhood. At a few miles
  distance, it falls to eightpence, the usual price of common labour through
  the greater part of the low country of Scotland, where it varies a good
  deal less than in England. Such a difference of prices, which, it seems,
  is not always sufficient to transport a man from one parish to another,
  would necessarily occasion so great a transportation of the most bulky
  commodities, not only from one parish to another, but from one end of the
  kingdom, almost from one end of the world to the other, as would soon
  reduce them more nearly to a level. After all that has been said of the
  levity and inconstancy of human nature, it appears evidently from
  experience, that man is, of all sorts of luggage, the most difficult to be
  transported. If the labouring poor, therefore, can maintain their families
  in those parts of the kingdom where the price of labour is lowest, they
  must be in affluence where it is highest.

  Fourthly, the variations in the price of labour not only do not
  correspond, either in place or time, with those in the price of
  provisions, but they are frequently quite opposite.

  Grain, the food of the common people, is dearer in Scotland than in
  England, whence Scotland receives almost every year very large supplies.
  But English corn must be sold dearer in Scotland, the country to which it
  is brought, than in England, the country from which it comes; and in
  proportion to its quality it cannot be sold dearer in Scotland than the
  Scotch corn that comes to the same market in competition with it. The
  quality of grain depends chiefly upon the quantity of flour or meal which
  it yields at the mill; and, in this respect, English grain is so much
  superior to the Scotch, that though often dearer in appearance, or in
  proportion to the measure of its bulk, it is generally cheaper in reality,
  or in proportion to its quality, or even to the measure of its weight. The
  price of labour, on the contrary, is dearer in England than in Scotland.
  If the labouring poor, therefore, can maintain their families in the one
  part of the united kingdom, they must be in affluence in the other.
  Oatmeal, indeed, supplies the common people in Scotland with the greatest
  and the best part of their food, which is, in general, much inferior to
  that of their neighbours of the same rank in England. This difference,
  however, in the mode of their subsistence, is not the cause, but the
  effect, of the difference in their wages; though, by a strange
  misapprehension, I have frequently heard it represented as the cause. It
  is not because one man keeps a coach, while his neighbour walks a-foot,
  that the one is rich, and the other poor; but because the one is rich, he
  keeps a coach, and because the other is poor, he walks a-foot.

  During the course of the last century, taking one year with another, grain
  was dearer in both parts of the united kingdom than during that of the
  present. This is a matter of fact which cannot now admit of any reasonable
  doubt; and the proof of it is, if possible, still more decisive with
  regard to Scotland than with regard to England. It is in Scotland
  supported by the evidence of the public fiars, annual valuations made upon
  oath, according to the actual state of the markets, of all the different
  sorts of grain in every different county of Scotland. If such direct proof
  could require any collateral evidence to confirm it, I would observe, that
  this has likewise been the case in France, and probably in most other
  parts of Europe. With regard to France, there is the clearest proof. But
  though it is certain, that in both parts of the united kingdom grain was
  somewhat dearer in the last century than in the present, it is equally
  certain that labour was much cheaper. If the labouring poor, therefore,
  could bring up their families then, they must be much more at their ease
  now. In the last century, the most usual day-wages of common labour
  through the greater part of Scotland were sixpence in summer, and
  fivepence in winter. Three shillings a-week, the same price, very nearly
  still continues to be paid in some parts of the Highlands and Western
  islands. Through the greater part of the Low country, the most usual wages
  of common labour are now eight pence a-day; tenpence, sometimes a
  shilling, about Edinburgh, in the counties which border upon England,
  probably on account of that neighbourhood, and in a few other places where
  there has lately been a considerable rise in the demand for labour, about
  Glasgow, Carron, Ayrshire, etc. In England, the improvements of
  agriculture, manufactures, and commerce, began much earlier than in
  Scotland. The demand for labour, and consequently its price, must
  necessarily have increased with those improvements. In the last century,
  accordingly, as well as in the present, the wages of labour were higher in
  England than in Scotland. They have risen, too, considerably since that
  time, though, on account of the greater variety of wages paid there in
  different places, it is more difficult to ascertain how much. In 1614, the
  pay of a foot soldier was the same as in the present times, eightpence
  a-day. When it was first established, it would naturally be regulated by
  the usual wages of common labourers, the rank of people from which foot
  soldiers are commonly drawn. Lord-chief-justice Hales, who wrote in the
  time of Charles II. computes the necessary expense of a labourer’s family,
  consisting of six persons, the father and mother, two children able to do
  something, and two not able, at ten shillings a-week, or twenty-six pounds
  a-year. If they cannot earn this by their labour, they must make it up, he
  supposes, either by begging or stealing. He appears to have enquired very
  carefully into this subject {See his scheme for the maintenance of the
  poor, in Burn’s History of the Poor Laws.}. In 1688, Mr Gregory King,
  whose skill in political arithmetic is so much extolled by Dr Davenant,
  computed the ordinary income of labourers and out-servants to be fifteen
  pounds a-year to a family, which he supposed to consist, one with another,
  of three and a half persons. His calculation, therefore, though different
  in appearance, corresponds very nearly at bottom with that of Judge Hales.
  Both suppose the weekly expense of such families to be about twenty-pence
  a-head. Both the pecuniary income and expense of such families have
  increased considerably since that time through the greater part of the
  kingdom, in some places more, and in some less, though perhaps scarce
  anywhere so much as some exaggerated accounts of the present wages of
  labour have lately represented them to the public. The price of labour, it
  must be observed, cannot be ascertained very accurately anywhere,
  different prices being often paid at the same place and for the same sort
  of labour, not only according to the different abilities of the workman,
  but according to the easiness or hardness of the masters. Where wages are
  not regulated by law, all that we can pretend to determine is, what are
  the most usual; and experience seems to shew that law can never regulate
  them properly, though it has often pretended to do so.

  The real recompence of labour, the real quantity of the necessaries and
  conveniencies of life which it can procure to the labourer, has, during
  the course of the present century, increased perhaps in a still greater
  proportion than its money price. Not only grain has become somewhat
  cheaper, but many other things, from which the industrious poor derive an
  agreeable and wholesome variety of food, have become a great deal cheaper.
  Potatoes, for example, do not at present, through the greater part of the
  kingdom, cost half the price which they used to do thirty or forty years
  ago. The same thing may be said of turnips, carrots, cabbages; things
  which were formerly never raised but by the spade, but which are now
  commonly raised by the plough. All sort of garden stuff, too, has become
  cheaper. The greater part of the apples, and even of the onions, consumed
  in Great Britain, were, in the last century, imported from Flanders. The
  great improvements in the coarser manufactories of both linen and woollen
  cloth furnish the labourers with cheaper and better clothing; and those in
  the manufactories of the coarser metals, with cheaper and better
  instruments of trade, as well as with many agreeable and convenient pieces
  of household furniture. Soap, salt, candles, leather, and fermented
  liquors, have, indeed, become a good deal dearer, chiefly from the taxes
  which have been laid upon them. The quantity of these, however, which the
  labouring poor are under any necessity of consuming, is so very small, that
  the increase in their price does not compensate the diminution in that of
  so many other things. The common complaint, that luxury extends itself
  even to the lowest ranks of the people, and that the labouring poor will
  not now be contented with the same food, clothing, and lodging, which
  satisfied them in former times, may convince us that it is not the money
  price of labour only, but its real recompence, which has augmented.

  Is this improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of the people
  to be regarded as an advantage, or as an inconveniency, to the society?
  The answer seems at first abundantly plain. Servants, labourers, and
  workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great
  political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater
  part, can never be regarded as any inconveniency to the whole. No society
  can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the
  members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who
  feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a
  share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably
  well fed, clothed, and lodged.

  Poverty, though it no doubt discourages, does not always prevent,
  marriage. It seems even to be favourable to generation. A half-starved
  Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a
  pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally
  exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion,
  is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury, in the fair sex,
  while it inflames, perhaps, the passion for enjoyment, seems always to
  weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.

  But poverty, though it does not prevent the generation, is extremely
  unfavourable to the rearing of children. The tender plant is produced; but
  in so cold a soil, and so severe a climate, soon withers and dies. It is
  not uncommon, I have been frequently told, in the Highlands of Scotland,
  for a mother who has born twenty children not to have two alive. Several
  officers of great experience have assured me, that, so far from recruiting
  their regiment, they have never been able to supply it with drums and
  fifes, from all the soldiers’ children that were born in it. A greater
  number of fine children, however, is seldom seen anywhere than about a
  barrack of soldiers. Very few of them, it seems, arrive at the age of
  thirteen or fourteen. In some places, one half the children die before
  they are four years of age, in many places before they are seven, and in
  almost all places before they are nine or ten. This great mortality,
  however will everywhere be found chiefly among the children of the common
  people, who cannot afford to tend them with the same care as those of
  better station. Though their marriages are generally more fruitful than
  those of people of fashion, a smaller proportion of their children arrive
  at maturity. In foundling hospitals, and among the children brought up by
  parish charities, the mortality is still greater than among those of the
  common people.

  Every species of animals naturally multiplies in proportion to the means
  of their subsistence, and no species can ever multiply beyond it. But in
  civilized society, it is only among the inferior ranks of people that the
  scantiness of subsistence can set limits to the further multiplication of
  the human species; and it can do so in no other way than by destroying a
  great part of the children which their fruitful marriages produce.

  The liberal reward of labour, by enabling them to provide better for their
  children, and consequently to bring up a greater number, naturally tends
  to widen and extend those limits. It deserves to be remarked, too, that it
  necessarily does this as nearly as possible in the proportion which the
  demand for labour requires. If this demand is continually increasing, the
  reward of labour must necessarily encourage in such a manner the marriage
  and multiplication of labourers, as may enable them to supply that
  continually increasing demand by a continually increasing population. If
  the reward should at any time be less than what was requisite for this
  purpose, the deficiency of hands would soon raise it; and if it should at
  any time be more, their excessive multiplication would soon lower it to
  this necessary rate. The market would be so much understocked with labour
  in the one case, and so much overstocked in the other, as would soon force
  back its price to that proper rate which the circumstances of the society
  required. It is in this manner that the demand for men, like that for any
  other commodity, necessarily regulates the production of men, quickens it
  when it goes on too slowly, and stops it when it advances too fast. It is
  this demand which regulates and determines the state of propagation in all
  the different countries of the world; in North America, in Europe, and in
  China; which renders it rapidly progressive in the first, slow and gradual
  in the second, and altogether stationary in the last.

  The wear and tear of a slave, it has been said, is at the expense of his
  master; but that of a free servant is at his own expense. The wear and
  tear of the latter, however, is, in reality, as much at the expense of his
  master as that of the former. The wages paid to journeymen and servants of
  every kind must be such as may enable them, one with another to continue
  the race of journeymen and servants, according as the increasing,
  diminishing, or stationary demand of the society, may happen to require.
  But though the wear and tear of a free servant be equally at the expense
  of his master, it generally costs him much less than that of a slave. The
  fund destined for replacing or repairing, if I may say so, the wear and
  tear of the slave, is commonly managed by a negligent master or careless
  overseer. That destined for performing the same office with regard to the
  freeman is managed by the freeman himself. The disorders which generally
  prevail in the economy of the rich, naturally introduce themselves into
  the management of the former; the strict frugality and parsimonious
  attention of the poor as naturally establish themselves in that of the
  latter. Under such different management, the same purpose must require
  very different degrees of expense to execute it. It appears, accordingly,
  from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done
  by freemen comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves. It is
  found to do so even at Boston, New-York, and Philadelphia, where the wages
  of common labour are so very high.

  The liberal reward of labour, therefore, as it is the effect of increasing
  wealth, so it is the cause of increasing population. To complain of it, is
  to lament over the necessary cause and effect of the greatest public
  prosperity.

  It deserves to be remarked, perhaps, that it is in the progressive state,
  while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than
  when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of
  the labouring poor, of the great body of the people, seems to be the
  happiest and the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and
  miserable in the declining state. The progressive state is, in reality,
  the cheerful and the hearty state to all the different orders of the
  society; the stationary is dull; the declining melancholy.

  The liberal reward of labour, as it encourages the propagation, so it
  increases the industry of the common people. The wages of labour are the
  encouragement of industry, which, like every other human quality, improves
  in proportion to the encouragement it receives. A plentiful subsistence
  increases the bodily strength of the labourer,

（本文超出站点单文档体积上限，已截断）