It will be seen, by reference to these two tables, taken from an elaborate work, by G. R. Porter, published in 1847, that, if the men of capital and education be added to the occupiers of land in 1831, we have a population of 570,280 men, of twenty years of age and upwards; who clearly come within the line of the middle and upper classes, without counting any employed in the retail trade and handicrafts; whereas, in 1841, we get, by adding together the educated and wealthy classes, and all those employed on the land not on wages, including graziers, farmers, &c., only 608,641 men, out of a grown male population nearly one million larger than that of 1831; showing a proportionate falling off in the numbers of these classes. How many of those figuring in 1831 as employed in "retail trade and handicraft," and of those appearing in 1841 as engaged in trade and manufactures, would come into the middle classes, we cannot determine; but we have no reason to suppose that the proportions would vary, in those different years, in such a manner as to compensate for the loss of the occupiers of land who have been degraded into the class of hirelings. On the other hand, the proportionate increase of those who depend upon employers is strikingly shown in the class of domestic servants, which, it would seem by the returns, has more than doubled, among the men over twenty years of age, during the ten years. This increase is so enormous, as to make it probable, that the returns of 1841 include a portion of the farm-servants under the head of domestics. However, the most striking fact shown by these tables is, that, although the agricultural population in 1831 was considerably less than that employed in trade and manufactures, it has been diminishing rapidly since; so that, in 1841, there were, of males over twenty years of age,

only 25.2 employed in agriculture,

to

44.6 employed in trade and manufactures, and 30.2 employed otherwise, or not employed at all.

100.0

Of these last, as we have seen, a large share was in domestic service, and nearly twice as many remained unclassed; being a body of 324,670 full-grown men, who were neither laborers, nor servants, nor alms-people; in

1850.]

Condition of England.

269

cluding persons, says the author, "who probably slept in barns and tents on the night preceding the enumeration." As the number of alms-people is put down at only 53,113 males of twenty years of age, it is probable that a large share of the "unclassed" were out-of-door paupers.

If we look at the list to discover what proportion of the whole male population of Great Britain may be supposed to be sufficiently educated and independent in their circumstances to form and maintain any intelligent opinion upon social or political questions, the case looks very unpromising. With the exception of the three classes named, comprising 608,641 men, we see no such body; for, although among those engaged in trade, there may be many very intelligent men, and some independent ones, still nearly all the traders and mechanics are entirely dependent on the patronage of the few rich men for support, and are little more their own men than if living on wages. Those who are exceptions to this rule would probably not more than make up for those among the "farmers, graziers, surveyors, florists, &c.," who are quite unfit to judge of the matters in question, and all the rest are confessedly dependent either on wages or on charity; so that we have, probably, only about half a million of men, or say one tenth part of the grown male population, possessed of either education or property enough to enable them to think and act for themselves in matters involving any changes of importance. This small body constitutes the public of Great Britain, as known to the world in her words and her deeds, through the press, the action of government, the public debates, and the leading enterprises of all kinds. These people lead and control the voters, and wield the energies of the nation to do their bidding, in the stupendous mechanical works of the country. When we talk of what Englishmen think, and say, and do, we mean always this half-million of Englishmen, the only ones known to us. This body is certainly a very intelligent, enterprising, and persevering one, and has rapidly improved, in most respects, within twenty years. It has maintained its sway over a large part of the earth, and apparently rather increased its power at home, by increasing the dependence of the great mass of the population. Small as this body is, however, it is not homogeneous. It has two con

tending elements, the aristocracy of birth, and that of wealth; and in this diversity lies the hope of the people, for it insures discord among their rulers. In the struggle between these two elements, the power of wealth has been constantly increasing, and it now controls the state. Its supporters, being the most intelligent and active portion of the aristocracy, and professing to speak the opinions of the middle classes, are striking down the privileges of their opponents, one by one. The changes in the corn laws and navigation laws are among their triumphs, and the introduction of Jews into Parliament is their most startling innovation. These changes are not procured by the people, nor yet by the middle classes, properly speaking, but by the lords of the loom and of the exchange, struggling with the lords of the soil. The middle classes may be gaining power in England, and perhaps also the people, in some respects, but not by their own direct exertions or influence. They have merely transferred their allegiance from family to wealth, and wealth sustains them, as its vassals, in its own battle for supremacy. It appears that England, during the last ten or fifteen years, has not been following in the general course of the civilized world, in an important particular. While her neighbours have been rapidly increasing the number and proportion of those among the people who have property at stake in the general adventure, and a certain degree of independence derived therefrom, the English seem to have been stationary, or retrograding, in this respect; and the strangest part of it is, that, as far as the agricultural population is concerned, this course of things is looked upon by most Englishmen as very favorable. They find that, since the small holdings have been absorbed in the large ones, a greater aggregate of produce has been obtained from the same extent of soil with fewer hands, in conse quence of the freer application of capital; and they argue that this is a benefit, inasmuch as it frees a certain number of hands for other uses. In this judgment, it is evident that they look only at the question of production, -not at all at distribution, and its moral bearings on the people. Here, however, lies the most interesting and important part of the inquiry.

Let us now take a glance at the condition of France, as relates to the proportion of the middle classes. It is

1850.]

Condition of France.

271

stated in the work before quoted, based upon an estimate made by M. de Chateauvieux, that, out of 32,000,000 of people in that country, 20,000,000 compose the class of landed proprietors and their families. If we estimate five persons to a family, we have four millions of proprietors, (the official returns show over ten millions; but this is got by counting the same individuals several times as owners of different estates,) and these are divided into the following classes: that of large proprietors, numbering 94,031, with an average of 340 acres each; that of moderate proprietors, numbering 344,069, with an average of 88 acres each; and that of small proprietors, numbering 3,563,733, with an average of 14 acres each. Among the latter, there are over one million who average only five acres apiece. There were estimated to be at the same time only three millions of agricultural population, of all ages and sexes, not belonging to the class of proprietors. Among the smallest proprietors, of course, many are obliged to eke out a living by acting, in part, as laborers for their richer brethren, but their character as proprietors gives them, as the English authority admits, "a preference on the part of employers, who thus have an assurance of respectability, and a security for good conduct, which can never be given to the employers of laborers in this country" (England). And yet the Englishman thinks the system of small proprietorships a great evil on the whole. It appears from the foregoing, that two thirds of the French people are directly interested in the capital of the country, without counting any portion of the city population, estimated at seven millions, or of the artisan population in the country, put down at two millions, of all ages and sexes. difficult to imagine a progress more directly opposite than this shows to that of the English agricultural population; and, in spite of all the evils ascribed to it by English croakers, we cannot but see in it an immense, and a necessary, step in the right direction. Certainly, if it be true that social reformation is especially the work of the middle classes, the rapid increase of land-owners in France is a most encouraging fact, which, we think, far outweighs any want of stability apparent in the governments of that progressive country.

It is

Nothing, in fact, more frequently misleads hasty ob

servers, than the apparent attitude of firmness and consistency maintained by a government. These qualities are, no doubt, excellent in themselves; but they may be shown in the support of a bad cause, or may be lacking in the supporters of a good one. Stability in governments has, unfortunately, hitherto been most frequently caused rather by the overwhelming preponderance of one element of power in the state, than by any just balance of these elements; and we see no evidence that England is an exception to this rule. On the other hand, instability in the government, being the consequence of a struggle among the different powers to adjust themselves on a truer basis, is often a sign, or at least a temporary result, of true progress; and this we apprehend to be the case in France.

Whatever may be thought of this, however, and of the extraordinary differences in the mode of progress of the middle classes in different countries, we suppose it will be generally acknowledged, that their influence is increasing, in one way or another, almost everywhere in the older parts of Christendom; and in this country, where they have always held the reins, their number and power do not appear to us to have nearly reached a limit. The middle classes grow in two ways, where free competition exists; by raising mere laborers to their ranks, as they acquire small capitals of their own, and by bringing down the privileged class to their level, as they strike away the props which have supported it in idleness. The first process, that of raising the laborer into the class of those possessed of capital, is one which is going on very rapidly in this country. It is hardly more assisted by the freedom and facilities which our laborers enjoy in bringing their labor to market, than it is by the comparative ease with which they can find safe investments for small sums. The cheapness and extent of soil, and the numerous joint-stock companies and small manufacturing establishments, throughout this country, afford safe and easy modes of investing small sums, to which there is no parallel elsewhere; and when we add to this the general extension of common education, we cannot see any distinct limit to the process by which the laborers may be enabled to raise themselves into the middle classes.