case in most young countries, was not then favourable to the development of manufactures, they naturally seized upon the point of least resistance. The Molasses was accordingly disregarded and became a dead letter.

No better conclusion to our argument can be found than the fate of this Act. If it is allowed that it was universally disobeyed, why should it be thought extraordinary that a like policy should have been adopted with regard to all other regulations which were held to be a grievance?1

The truth is that the new school, of whom Mr. Ashley has made himself the mouthpiece, have attempted to prove too much. There is indeed much force in their contention that the grievances of the Acts of Trade have been much exaggerated. They are quite right in pointing out that the "Navigation Laws" proper were in no sense a grievance, since they acted as a protection to colonial as well as English shipping and ship-building. The restrictions imposed on certain enumerated articles which could only be sent to England, and those forbidding any manufactures which might compete with Englishmade goods, were on the whole complied with because they suited the economical condition of the colonies. The productions of the colonies at that time were chiefly agricultural. England offered a ready and a sufficient market for all they could produce, they had neither the capital, nor the labour, nor the technical knowledge necessary for the erection of manufactures on a large scale. Even had there been no trade laws the commercial relations of the two countries would not have materially differed.

So far, then, Professor Ashley seems to have proved his point, although there were indications even here that the system would not last. But when we turn to the regulation with regard to European. imports this argument to a great extent fails.

From the very first it was held to be a grievance; from the very first it was violated. The evasions tended to lower the whole tone of colonial morality, as "that demoralisation came to pass which always results when a community, even with good reason, is full of lawbreakers." The fruitless attempts to enforce the Act led to that political discontent which only needed the foolish measures of George Grenville, of Charles Townshend, and of Lord North, to end in open rebellion.

The American War of the Independence which ensued embittered the relations of the mother-country and her rebellious children to such an extent that a dispassionate view of the previous policy of England was out of the question.

Those prejudices are now happily being in part dispelled, but we should beware of too easily following the popular mood, and of shutting

1 Note also that the existence of much illicit trade with the French during the Seven Years' War is not denied. Lecky, iii., 303.

these parts of the Acts of Trade, cf., Mr. Ashley's Article.

our eyes to the faults of those misguided trade laws, of which the particular one which has been here considered was certainly the most unfortunate. ARTHUR H. JOHNSON

NOTES TOWARDS THE HISTORY OF LONDON WAGES.

(Continued from Vol. IX., No. 36, p. 305.)

MATERIALS for the study of London wages are relatively abundant in the years immediately following the Restoration. The Harl. MSS. (1656-8) contain several very interesting account-books giving many details of labour and wages in and near London, not only year by year, but month by month, and from these accounts a fairly accurate sketch of industrial conditions between 1660 and 1667 might be put together. It would however scarcely fall within the scope of this paper to print such a mass of figures relating to one short period. For present purposes a more comprehensive view of the movement of wages is desirable, and this is best obtained from the Declared Accounts, Works and Buildings, which range over a long succession of

years.

Not very much seems necessary by way of comment on the accompanying tabulation. It will be seen that no very great change is to be recorded; indeed, the rise of wages after the great fire is less than one would expect. The average wage is distinctly higher at the end of the period than at the beginning, although the highest wage paid rises for a time only to fall back again; and it is noticeable that the wages of labour rise more steadily and decidedly than do those of artisans. A tendency to greater uniformity of rates is observable as the years go on, but this may be more apparent than real, as from the beginning of the eighteenth century the accounts are far less carefully and elaborately kept. The custom evidently crept in of paying wages in a lump sum down to the master-mason, mastercarpenter, &c., and the figures showing actual daily earnings become more and more scanty and unsatisfactory.

In my "Notes" for the first half of the seventeeth century I attempted a comparison between the London wages drawn from these. Accounts, and the country rates summarised in Thorold Rogers's averages. In the present case this cannot well be done; partly because Thorold Rogers's averages do not entirely cover the time under consideration, and still more because they were for this later period compiled of London entries and country ones thrown together. There is probably a good deal of material in existence for this comparison, both published and unpublished, but the work of sorting, tabulating, and reducing it to averages, still waits to be done.

THE WAR BUDGET

"IN ordinary years, when nothing occurs to concentrate public attention on this branch of the budget, it will be observed that the expenditure on the services has a tendency to increase in proportion to the prosperity of the country. . . . It would seem as if there were some unseen power behind the Government, always able, unless held in check by an agitation in the country, to help itself to a portion of the national savings, limited only by the taxable patience of the public." The five closing years of the nineteenth century illustrate in a most remarkable way the truth of Mr. Cobden's observation. Allowing for further abatements, the yield of a penny in the income tax has improved by at least 10 per cent., and probably by as much as 15 per cent. There are many other indications of a startling expansion of trade. There has been not only a complete absence of agitation in the country, but a marked relaxation in the jealousy and vigilance of Parliament. Nor has the nation, so far as I am aware, given any sign whatever of taxable impatience. For a quinquennium taxation has remained practically stationary; and the revenue advancing by leaps and bounds was only last year for the first time caught up and passed by the expenditure. Then, that the burden of militarism might not yet be felt, the Sinking Fund was reduced by half, and the paying off of the National Debt retarded just as the country seemed to have reached the highest point of a commercial prosperity plateau. The forces of nature have conspired with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconcile a stationary system of taxation with a progressive rate of expenditure; but Sir Michael Hicks-Beach is forced to admit that his coalition has at last been beaten by Mars, Neptune, and the Agrestes Dei. His words have not received the attention they deserve. They were as follows:

Now, sir, I think one thing is quite clear, and that s that it is impossible, however great the prosperity of the country may be, for such increases as this-of £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 a year in our expenditure-to be met by mere automatic increase of our existing taxation, nor could they be met for long by any increase of existing taxes. If this rate of increase is to continue, Parliament and the country must make up their minds not only to large increases in the existing taxes, but also to the discovery of new and productive sources of revenue." 1

Sir M. Hicks-Beach added that he feared this increase of taxation, and the discovery and utilising of new sources of revenue would produce a deplorable reaction against the increase of public expenditure. Whether such a reaction would be deplorable may be open to question; but students of our political history will agree that his prediction is justified. The figures themselves are more eloquent

Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Hansard, April 13, 1899.

than any words, and it may be worth while to arrange them in the following table. It covers a financial period of comparative peace, which concludes before even the notion of a war in South Africa had entered into the mind of Parliament or into the prices of consols.

£

L

£

£

£

Military and Naval expenditure...... 35,595,000 38,334,000 41,453,802 40,395,000 44,283,000 Civil expenditure.. 58,323,421 59,430,357 60,022,867 62,540,994 | 63,867,236

Total expenditure. 93,918,421 97,764,357 101,476,669 102,935,994 108,150,236

Thus you get in the five years ending March 31, 1899, an increase of 9 per cent. in civil expenditure, and of no less than 25 per cent. in military expenditure. One may say without fear of contradiction that no parallel nor even the faintest analogy for such ratios as are here exhibited can be found in the financial history of this country. But our table excludes the expenditure out of loans. That expenditure is preponderatingly military in character; and it was more than six times greater in 1899 than in 1895!

Such was the position of British finances in the autumn of 1899, when our Government found itself involved in hostilities with the two Boer Republics. With the surpassing military and political interests of the war we have not to deal. Yet from a purely financial standpoint it is impossible to exclude its causes; for they must enter into the great question of how the huge liabilities now being piled up week by week and month by month are to be met. But whichever side should ultimately be successful (and an Englishman may not doubt), both are pledged to exact a large contribution to the expenses of the war from the goldfields-the English Government by the distinct declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October, the Transvaal Government by its own action and legislation since the outbreak of hostilities. With the latter we have no concern. The declaration of the Queen's Cabinet through the mouth of the responsible minister is, however, so seldom quoted, that it is well to remind ourselves of its exact terms:

"The Transvaal is wealthy in its possession of gold. I know it has been among the complaints of those interested in the goldfields that their taxation has been excessive; but I believe at any rate from the best information that I can obtain, that under a pure and honest government it will be perfectly possible for the Transvaal not only to bear the ordinary expenses of government and to provide for the maintenance of peace and order within that territory, but also to provide a reasonable sum towards the expenses which we may incur in this war consistently with a reduction in the taxation of the goldfields."1

1 Hansard, October 23, 1899.