lectures on the industrial revolution in england-第20部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


for　instance；　diminishes　real　wages　by　enhancing　the　cost　of　many　articles　in　common　use；　such　as　cutlery。　It　is　owing　to　Protection　also　that　capitalists　are　able　to　obtain　exceptionally　high　profits　at　the　expense　of　the　workmen。　By　combining　and　forming　rings　they　can　govern　the　market；　and　not　only　control　prices　but　dictate　the　rate　of　wages。　Six　or　seven　years　ago；　the　whole　output　of　Pennsylvanian　anthracite　was　in　the　hands　of　a　few　companies。　Hence　it　was　that；　in　the　Labour　War　of　1877；　the　workmen　declared　that；　while　they　did　not　mind　wages　being　fixed　by　competition；　they　would　not　endure　their　being　fixed　by　rings；　and　that　such　rings　would　produce　a　revolution。　And　the　monopoly　of　these　companies　was　only　broken　through　by　a　great　migration　of　workmen　to　the　West。　The　experience　of　America　in　this　instance　is　of　interest　in　showing　how；　as　industry　advances；　trade　tends　to　get　concentrated　into　fewer　hands；　hence　the　danger　of　monopolies。　It　has　even　been　asserted　that　Free　Trade　must　lead　to　great　natural　monopolies。　This　may　be　true　of　a　country　like　America　which　has　internal　but　not　external　free　trade；　but　only　of　such　a　country；　for　foreign　competition　would　prevent　a　knot　of　capitalists　from　ever　obtaining　full　control　of　the　market。　　　　　I　have　shown　why　wages　are　higher　in　America　than　in　England。　We　may　go　on　to　inquire　why　they　are　higher　in　England　than　in　any　other　part　of　Europe。　The　great　reason　is　that　the　total　amount　of　wealth　produced　in　this　country　is　larger；　and　that　from　a　variety　of　causes；　material　and　moral。　The　chief　material　causes　are　our　unrivalled　stores　of　coal　and　iron；　and　perhaps；　above　all；　our　geographical　position。　On　the　moral　side；　our　political　institutions；　being　favourable　to　liberty；　have　developed　individual　energy　and　industry　in　a　degree　unknown　in　any　other　country。　On　the　other　hand；　it　has　been　said　that　the　exclusion　of　the　labourer　from　the　land　in　England　must　have　tended　to　lower　wages。　And　no　doubt　the　adoption　of　a　system　of　large　farms　has　driven　the　labourers　into　the　towns；　and　made　the　competition　for　employment　there　very　keen。　But；　to　set　against　this；　the　efficiency　of　English　manufacturing　labour　is　largely　due　to　this　very　fact；　that　it　is　not　able　to　shift　on　to　the　land。　While　in　America　the　whole　staff　of　a　cotton　factory　may　be　changed　in　three　years；　in　England　the　artisan　'sticks　to　his　trade；'　and　brings　up　his　children　to　it；　and　thus　castes　are　formed　with　inherited　aptitudes；　which　render　labour　more　efficient；　and　its　produce　greater。　I　believe　the　higher　wages　obtained　in　England；　in　comparison　with　the　Continent；　are　mainly　due　to　greater　efficiency　of　labour　…　that　this　is　the　chief　cause　why　the　total　produce　is　greater。　But　if　we　go　further；　and　ask　what　determines　the　division　of　the　produce；　the　answer　must　be：　mainly　competition。　To　return　to　the　comparison　with　America；　the　reason　why　the　English　labourer　gets　lower　wages　than　the　American　is　the　great　competition　for　employment　in　the　overstocked　labour…market　of　this　country。　　　　　I　must　notice　an　objection　to　the　theory　of　wages　as　stated　above。　Wages；　I　have　explained；　are　the　labourers'　share　of　the　produce；　and　are　paid　out　of　it。　But；　it　may　be　said；　while　our　new　Law　Courts；　or　an　ironclad；　are　being　built　…　operations　which　take　a　long　time　before　there　is　any　completed　result　…　how　can　it　be　correctly　held　that　the　labourer　is　paid　out　of　the　produce？　It　is　of　course　perfectly　true　that　he　is　maintained　during　such　labours　only　by　the　produce　of　others；　and　that　unless　some　great　capitalist　had　either　accumulated　capital；　or　borrowed　it；　the　labourer　could　not　be　paid。　But　this　has　nothing　to　do　with　the　rate　of　wages。　That　is　determined　by　the　amount　of　the　produce　and　is　independent　of　the　method　of　payment。　What　the　capitalist　does　is　merely　to　pay　in　advance　the　labourer's　share；　as　a　matter　of　convenience。　　　　　We　will　next　inquire　what　are　the　limits　to　a　rise　of　wages　in　any　particular　trade？　The　answer　depends　on　two　thing。　First；　is　the　capitalist　getting　more　than　the　ordinary　rate　of　profits？　If　he　is　not；　he　will　resist　a　rise　on　the　ground　that　he　'cannot　afford'　to　pay　more　wages。　This　is　what　an　arbitrator；　for　instance；　might　say　if　he　examined　the　books；　and　he　would　mean　by　it　that；　if　the　employer　had　to　raise　his　wages；　he　would　have　to　be　content　with　lower　profits　than　he　could　make　in　other　trades。　As　a　matter　of　fact；　however；　capitalists　often　do　make　exceptionally　high　profits；　and　it　is　in　such　cases　that　Trades…Unions　have　been　very　successful　in　forcing　them　to　share　these　exceptional　profits　with　their　men。　Secondly；　though　the　employer　be　getting　only　ordinary　profits；　his　workmen　may　still　be　strong　enough　to　force　him　to　give　higher　wages；　but　he　will　only　do　so　permanently　if　he　can　compensate　himself　by　raising　the　price　of　his　commodity。　Thus　the　second　limit　to　a　rise　in　wages　in　a　particular　trade　is　the　amount　which　the　consumer　can　be　forced　to　pay　for　its　products。　Workmen　have　often　made　mistakes　by　not　taking　this　into　account；　and　have　checked　the　demand　for　the　articles　which　they　produced；　and　so　brought　about　a　loss　both　to　their　masters　and　themselves。　In　a　particular　trade　then　the　limit　to　a　rise　in　wages　is　reached　when　any　further　rise　will　drive　the　employer　out　of　the　trade；　or　when　the　increased　price　of　the　commodity　will　check　the　demand。　When　dealing　with　the　general　trade　of　a　country；　however；　we　can　neglect　prices　altogether；　since　there　can　be　no　such　thing　as　a　general　rise　in　prices　while　the　value　of　the　precious　metal　is　stationary。　Could；　then；　the　whole　body　of　the　workmen　throughout　the　kingdom；　by　good　organisation；　compel　employers　to　accept　lower　profits？　If　there　was　a　general　strike；　would　it　be　the　interest　of　the　employers　to　give　way？　It　is　impossible　to　answer　such　a　question　beforehand。　It　would　be　a　sheer　trial　of　strength　between　the　two　parties；　the　outcome　of　which　cannot　be　predicted；　for　nothing　of　the　kind　has　ever　actually　taken　place。　And　though　there　is　now　a　nearer　approximation　than　ever　before　to　the　supposed　conditions；　there　has　as　yet　been　nothing　like　a　general　organisation　of　workmen。　　　　　Assuming；　however；　that　the　workmen　succeeded　in　such　a　strike；　we　can　then　ask　what　would　be　the　effect　of　a　general　rise　of　wages　in　the　long…run？　One　of　several　results　might　ensue。　The　remuneration　of　employers　having　declined；　their　numbers　might　diminish；　and　the　demand　for　labour　would　then　diminish　also　and　wages　fall。　Or　again　the　decline　in　the　rate　of　interest　might　check　the　accumulation　of　capital；　thus　again　diminishing　the　demand　for　labour。　Or；　on　the　other　hand；　the　rise　in　wages　might　be　permanent；　the　remuneration　of　employers　still　proving　sufficient；　and　the　accumulation　of　capital　remaining　unchecked。　Or　lastly；　higher　wages　might　lead　to　greater　efficiency　of　labour；　and　in　this　case　profits　would　not　fall。　It　is　impossible　to　decide　on　a　priori　grounds　which　of　these　results　would　actually　take　place。　　　　　Returning　to　our　period；　we　may　apply　these　principles　to　explain　the　fall　in　wages　between　1790　and　1820。　During　this　period；　while　rent　was　doubled；　interest　also　was　nearly　doubled　（this　by　the　way　disproves　Mr　George's　theory　on　that　point）；　and　yet　wages　fell。　We　may　take　Mr　Porter's　estimate。　'In　some　few　cases　there　had　been　an　advance　of　wages；　but　this　occurred　only　to　skilled　artisans；　and　even　with　them　the　rise　was　wholly　incommensurate　with　the　increased　cost　of　all　the　necessaries　of　life。　The　mere　labourer。。。　did　not　participate　in　this　partial　compensation　for　high　prices；　but　was。。。　at　the　same　or　nearly　the　same　wages　as　had　been　given　before　the　war。'　In　1790　the　weekly　wage　skilled　artisans　and　farm　labourers　respectively　would　buy　82　and　169　pints　of　corn：　in　1800　they　would　buy　53　and　83。　According　to　Mr　Barton；　a　contemporary　writer；　wages　between　1760　and　1820；　'estimated　in　money；　had　risen　100　per　cent。；　estimated　in　commodities；　they　had　fallen　33　per　cent。'　What　were　the　causes　of　this　fall？　Let　us　first　take　the　case　of　the　artisans　and　manufacturing　labourers。　One　cause　in　their　case　was　a　series　of　bad　harvests。　To　explain　how　this　wOUld　affect　wages　in　manufactures　we　must　fall　back　on　the　deductive　method；　and　assume　certain　conditions　from　which　to　draw　our　conclusions。　Let　us　suppose　two　villages　side　by　side；　one　agricultural；　the　other　manufacturing；　in　the　former　of　which　the　land　is　owned　by　landowners；　and　tilled　by　labour　employed　by　farmers。　Suppose　the　manufacturing　village　to　be　fed　by　its　neighbours　in　exchange　for　cutlery。　Then；　if　there　is　a　bad　harvest　in　the　agricultural　village；　every　labourer　in　the　manufacturing　village　will　have　to　spend　more　on　corn。　The　owners　of　land　will　gain　enormously；　the　farmers　will　be　enriched　in　so　far　as　they　can　retain　the　increased　prices　for　themselves；　which　they　will　do；　if　holding　on　leases。　But　every　one　else　will　be　poorer；　for　there　has　been　a　loss　of　wealth。　In　order　to　get　his　corn；　the　labourer　will　have　to　give　more　of　his　share　of　the　produce；　and　hence　the　demand　for　all　other　goods；　which　are　produced　for　the　labourers'　consumption；　will　diminish。　Nothing　affects　the　labourer　so　much　as　good　or　bad　harvests；　and　it　is　because　of　its　tendency　to　neutralise　the　consequences　of　deficient　crops　at　home；　that　the　labourer　has　gained　so　much　by　Free　Trade。　When　we　have　a　bad　harvest　here；　we　get　plenty　of　corn　from　America；　and　the　labourer　pays　nearly　the　same　price　for　his　loaf；　and　has　as　much　money　as　before　left　to　spend　on　other　commodities。　Still；　even　at　the　present　day；　some　depression　of　trade　is　generally　associated　with　bad　harvests。　And　though　Free　Trade　lessens　the　force　of　their　incidence　on　a　particular　locality；　it　widens　the　area　affected　by　them…a　bad　harvest　in　Brazil　may　prejudice　trade　in　England。　　　　　The　next　point　to　be　taken　into　consideration　is　the　huge　taxation　which　fell　upon　the　workmen　at　this　time；　even　as　late　as　1834　half　the　labourers'　wages　went　in　taxes。　There　was　also　increase　in　the　National　Debt。　During　the　war　we　had　nominally　borrowed　*600；000；000；　although　owing　to　the　way　in　which　the　loans　were　raised；　the　actual　sum　which　came　into　the　national　exc