The southern press., 1851-07-07
Prsgrsss Of Great Britain.

MONDAY JULY Z. 1901.
Progress sf Great Britain.
The destiny of Great Britain is one of the
most stupendous problems of the age. The
April number of the Edinburgh Rspie,o contains
an article to prove that the empire is advancing
in prosperity. 1t is written in answer to book
by WILLIAM JOHNSTON, who maintains tina,
Great Britain is in serious and rapid decline.
We have examined with some attention ths
article of the Edinburgh, and cannot concur il
it. And as the nature. and tendency of British
institutions are similar to those of the United
States, we will present some Of the leading fen
lures Of the controversy.
The Edinburgh first inaists on the recent ex.
tension Of railroads, and relies on the following
table to prove the augmentation of comfort in
travelling, particularly among the poorer classes
First class 7,292,sll El,oa7.-e
Second do. 23,62l,65O 9,5so,9sS
Sd Parliamentary sa,s90,aas l,SiS.se
No one will question the great advantages. ea
railroads. They are attended. howcvcr, wiaA
one result, whose influence on the condition Of
q people deserves serious attention, as dev~aeT~3
in other facts. Railroads tend to censpassxte
people into large cities.
The next argument of the Edinburgh Is thai the
price of wheat which on an average of the frat ten
years of the present century was $685. 3D. per
quarter--about two dollars and half per
bushel, whilst within the last ten years it has
been 63s 4d, or about one dollar and sixty
cents per bushel. Hence, the Edinburgh con-
cludes, that wheat is now more accessible to the
poor than then But it il not stated that the
first ten years Of the present century lsO0-lSiO,
were years of war between NAPOLEON and the
allied powers of Europe-were years of enor
nous public expenditure in England, of ex-
panded and Of irredeemable currency, and of
extremely high prices, both for wages and food
1t is fallacy, therefore, for the Edinburgh to
infer, as it does that the same earnings now,
would purchase three-fifths more of bread than
then.
We observe that when the reviewer comes to
the statement Of wages, he adopts quite diff
ferent period from that selected for the prices of
of commodities. He gives us the single year
of 1904, instead Of the series of l80O-I8IO
Now this year was the only one of peace in that
period. NAroLEon was triumphant. The ex-
penditure of Great Britain had fallen, and wages
of course fell. British operatives were no
longer engaged in manufacturing clothing aud
arms for the continent In this year, the let
weekly earnings Of q cotton spinner are quoted
at 32s 3d., and they are contrasted with the
amount in 1850, of 40 shillings. But the very
year afterwards, 1905, another grand coalition
of allies was made against NAroLEoN, and war
was resumed.
The reviewer relies, also, on the fall In price
Of coffee, tea, sugar and cottons; all articles
whose cost of production abroad has materially
diminished
The reviewer asserts that since 1918, the
taxes have been reduced f3s,66O,OOO a
year. This, of course, is great Improvement.
But why not compare the taxes of 1850, with
those of 1900, since that was the period at first
selected for comparison with the present. This
shifting the basis of the argument, in order to
meet the exigencies Of the position assumed by
the reviewer, is obvious evidence of its weak
ness.
There =, however, one assertion made in be.
half Of the present system Of British taxation
which is highly in its favor. 1t is, that there
are novv M to VOC lov;oI IN .or, ~.<..;.l - -.
the necessaries of life. This is nearly true, and
it stands as reproach on the federal system of
taxation in this country, which is the reverse
which imposes fifty millions of taxes chiefly on
the prime comforts of life
The reviewer states that betw cen 1888 and
l84S, the probate duty had increased as follows
On estates up to fl,50O. 1856 per cent
Between 800 and 5000 92I
5000 10000 1898 Z"
10000 $4,000 636
Upwards of $4,000 7.2O
And this table is relied on to prove the in
creasing wealth Of the people The reviewer,
however, here seems to forget that the popula-
ton had increased in the same period about
twenty per cent, and hence, since the number
OF property-holders of the different classes do
not increase in rs great a ratio, it is positive
evidence OF the decline of individual or average
wealth. Another table, offered for the same
purpose as this, proves, like this, the reverse.
Thus, fundholders receiving at each payment
(Which we believe is either quarterly or semi
nnnuallyD f5, have increased from 1881 to
ls4s from 8S,l7O to 96,4I5, or 9.35 per cent.
Those not exceeding fl0, from 44,79O to
44,sa7, or only one-third Of one per cent.
Those not exceeding ESQ, have decreased from
9s,32O to 96,024, or 233 per cent. and nearly
all the rest have decreased in still greater ratio
It is admitted that the commitments for GRIM
inal offences in England, have increased from
22,573 in 1899, to 272s2 in l849, or twenty
per cent, although the last census shows that
the population has increased only about twelve
nHA