he is a duke or a docker—is living on the community. If you set him to grow food he is enriching the community by what he produces. Therefore, my idea is that the direction in which a remedy for the unemployed evil is to be sought is in the production of food.
Here is the evidence of the Tory Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury—
They looked around them and saw a growing mass of poverty and want of employment, and of course the one object which every statesman who loved his country should desire to attain, was that there might be the largest amount of profitable employment for the mass of the people.
He did not say that he had any patent or certain remedy for the terrible evils which beset us on all sides, but he did say that it was time they left off mending the constitution of Parliament, and that they turned all the wisdom and energy Parliament could combine together in order to remedy the sufferings under which so many of their countrymen laboured.
Here is the evidence of the Colonial Secretary, the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.—
The rights of property have been so much extended that the rights of the community have almost altogether disappeared, and it is hardly too much to say that the prosperity and the comfort and the liberties of a great proportion of the population have been laid at the feet of a small number of proprietors, who "neither toil nor spin."
And here is further evidence from Mr. Chamberlain—
For my part neither sneers, nor abuse, nor opposition shall induce me to accept as the will of the Almighty, and the unalterable dispensation of His providence, a state of things under which millions lead sordid, hopeless, and monotonous lives, without pleasure in the present, and without prospect for the future.
And here is still stronger testimony from Mr. Chamberlain—
The ordinary conditions of life among a large proportion of the population are such that common decency is absolutely impossible; and all this goes on in sight of the mansions of the rich, where undoubtedly there are people who would gladly remedy it if they could. It goes on in presence of wasteful extravagance and luxury, which bring but little pleasure to those who indulge in them; and private charity is powerless, religious organisations can do nothing, to remedy the evils which are so deep-seated in our social system.
You have read what these eminent men have said, Mr. Smith, as to the evils of the present time.
Well, Mr. Atkinson, a well-known American statistical authority, has said—
Four or five men can produce the bread for a thousand. With the best machinery one workman can produce cotton cloth for 250 people, woollens for 300, or boots and shoes for 1000.
How is it, friend John Smith, that with all our energy, all our industry, all our genius, and all our machinery, there are 8,000,000 of hungry poor in this country?
If five men can produce bread for a thousand, and one man can produce shoes for a thousand, how is it we have so many British citizens suffering from hunger and bare feet?
That, Mr. Smith, is the question I shall endeavour in this book to answer.
Meanwhile, if you have any doubts as to the verity of my statements of the sufferings of the poor, or as to the urgent need for your immediate and earnest aid, read the following books, and form your own opinion:—
Labour and Life of the People. Charles Booth. To be seen at most free libraries.
Poverty: A Study of Town Life. By B. S. Rountree. Macmillan. 10s. 6d.
Dismal England. By R. Blatchford, 72 Fleet Street, E.C. 2s. 6d. and 1s.
No Room to Live. By G. Haw, 72 Fleet Street, E.C. 1s.
The White Slaves of England. By R. Sherard. London, James Bowden. 1s.
Pictures and Problems from the Police Courts. By T. Holmes. Ed. Arnold, Bedford Street, W.C.
And the Fabian Tracts, especially No. 5 and No. 7. These are 1d. each.
CHAPTER II WHAT IS WEALTH? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? WHO CREATES IT?
Those who have read anything about political economy or Socialism must often have found such thoughts as these rise up in their minds—
How is it some are rich and others poor? How is it some who are able and willing to work can get no work to do? How is it that some who work very hard are so poorly paid? How is it that others who do not work at all have more money than they need? Why is one man born to pay rent and another to spend it?
Let us first face the question of why there is so much poverty.
This question has been answered in many strange ways.
It has been said that poverty is due to drink. But that is not true, for we find many sober people poor, and we find awful poverty in countries where drunkenness is almost unknown.
Drink does not cause the poverty of the sober Hindoos. Drink does not cause the poverty of our English women workers.
It has been said that poverty is due to "over-production," and it has been said that it is due to "under-consumption." Let us see what these phrases mean.
First, over-production. Poverty is due to over-production—of what? Of wealth. So we are to believe that the people are poor because they make too much wealth, that they are hungry because they produce too much food, naked because they make too many clothes, cold because they get too much coal, homeless because they build too many houses!
Next, under-consumption. We are told that poverty is due to under-consumption—under-consumption of what? Of wealth. The people are poor because they do not destroy enough wealth. The way for them to grow rich is by consuming riches. They are to make their cake larger by eating it.
Alas! the trouble is that they can get no cake to eat; they can get no wealth to consume.
But I think the economists mean that the poor will grow richer if the rich consume more wealth.
A rich man has two slaves. The slaves grow corn and make bread. The rich man takes half the bread and eats it. The slaves have only one man's share between two.
Will it mend matters here if the rich man "consumes more"? Will it be better for the two slaves if the master takes half the bread left to them, and eats that as well as the bread he has already taken?
See what a pretty mess the economists have led us into. The rich have too much and the poor too little. The economist says, let the poor produce less and the rich consume more, and all will be well!
Wonderful! But if the poor produce less, there will be less to eat; and if the rich eat more, the share of the poor will be smaller than ever.
Let us try another way. Suppose the poor produce more and the rich consume less! Does it not seem likely that then the share of the poor would be bigger?
Well,
