their brow, that bread is far sweeter for the previous efforts, than if it fell spontaneously into the hand of listless indolence. It is scarcely to be questioned, then, that labour is desirable for its own sake, as well as for the substantial results which it affords; and, consequently, that it by no means lessens, but rather adds to the general chance of happiness, that nearly all the members of society should, in some shape or other, be placed under an obligation to labour for their support.*

Nor is it much to be regretted that some modes of employment are less agreeable or more irksome than others. Habit has a powerful effect in qualifying the disagreeableness of occupations, and of converting them into sources of gratification. Hundreds of facts might be adduced to prove that the persons engaged in employments which to others of different habits appear intolerably disgusting or irksome, become after some practice not merely reconciled, but attached to them. There are few workmen who, if asked, will not declare their preference for the branch of labour to which they have been brought up or long accustomed, over any other. It will appear, on examination, that whether an individual ply his occupation by sea or land, in the open air, in the interior of crowded towns or manufactories, or in the bowels of the earth, these circumstances in no degree influence

* In a popular farce, Deputy Figgins, a London shopkeeper, when persuaded by the solicitation of his wife to leave his shop for a day, and take an excursion to Richmond, exclaims, Well, my dear, since we must give up the day to pleasure, let us make it as like business as possible.' And the sentiment is so true to nature, that the hit always tells through the theatre.

LABOUR SHOULD BE FREE.

49

the pleasure he takes in his labour, or the amount of comparative happiness which falls to his lot. In truth, whatever inconveniences do attend particular employments are necessarily compensated by the proportionately increased remuneration, which, under a system of free labour, is sure to be awarded to them; and that this compensation is complete in the estimation of the labourers themselves, is proved by there being as much competition for such employments as for any other.

This brings us to the important consideration that, in order not to interfere with happiness, labour must be FREE, that is to say, voluntarily exerted, and left at liberty to take any direction that it may please the individual labourer to give to it. Compulsion is itself a privation, and a source often of very considerable suffering; and an occupation which might be undertaken and exercised with pleasure by any one of his free will, must be a grievance and a hardship if forced upon him.

But not only is forced labour less pleasurable than free, it is likewise incomparably less productive. All observation confirms what our instinctive sentiments will suggest, that to encourage a man to put forth his powers to the utmost in any kind of labour, he must be left free in his choice as to the nature and quantity of his work. It is scarcely necessary to refer, in proof of this, to the notorious idleness, apathy, and obstinacy of the slave. But it may be as well to advert to the decisive fact, that by far the most productive labour of all is that of the mind, which is not susceptible of compulsion. A man may be forced to dig a field, or spin a web, but he cannot be forced to improve a plough

E

or a loom,-much less to invent a steam-engine or a spinning-jenny. Nor even if compulsion could extort such results of mental labour from those who were capable of it, could a master know beforehand where lay the dormant capacity. No artificially prescribed contrivances can direct the ingenuity of individuals into those lines of thought or action for which they are by nature best qualified. Perfect liberty in the choice of occupations is absolutely necessary, to ensure the adoption of such as are most suitable to the peculiar qualifications of the individual, and likely, in consequence, to be most productive, as well as most agreeable. And thus the freedom of labour becomes doubly important, as necessary for increasing both the happiness of the labourer and the productiveness of his toil. It is moreover, as we have seen, one of the first natural rights of man, which no government can justly intrench upon, without the strongest proofs of the necessity of such interference for the general welfare.

Neither must labour, to be pleasurable or productive, be without an object. It is the cheering anticipation of some gratifying result, and the hope of enjoying this, which sweetens the toils of labour, relieves its irksomeness, and appears to shorten its duration. It is the produce of labour which forms its natural reward. It is in the satisfaction of man's wants that the sacrifices, if any, necessary for that end, are more or less fully repaid. Though labour is necessarily no evil, yet it is the prospect of its reward that gives it much of its zest; and if this be scanty and inadequate, the toil endured for its sake is embittered. If sufficiently

LABOUR SHOULD BE REMUNERATIVE.

51

remunerated, labour cannot, under a system of freedom, be a source of suffering. The temptation of high wages may, it is true, induce some individuals to over-work themselves imprudently, and exhaust their strength and health. But these are rare exceptions. We deal only in generals; and, as a general rule, it cannot be doubted that where a sufficient remuneration is to be obtained by moderate labour, it may be most safely left to the labourers themselves how far they will or will not exceed that point.*

With respect to what constitutes a sufficient remuneration for labour, there may be some uncertainty. This, however, may be laid down as unquestionable, that it must not be less than will find the labourer and his family, if he have oneay, even as large an one as he can possibly have,in a sufficiency of wholesome and agreeable food,

*This assertion does not militate against the principle of the sabbath, or that on which the Factory Bill' is founded. The sabbath was instituted for a state of society in which the labourers were principally slaves, and needed some protection from being overworked by their masters. It has operated most beneficially in countries where slavery no longer exists, but where the reward of labour, owing to a bad system of public economy, is so scanty that the labourers would otherwise have been driven to ceaseless toil, by sheer want. As a moral and religious institution, the sabbath is beyond all praise. But in an economical view, where labour is free and well remunerated, it is clear no law can be wanted to protect the labourer from overworking himself. And, in fact, where wages are high, the workmen generally take one, often two holydays in the week, in addition to the Sunday. The same reasoning applies to the Factory Bill, a measure which in a healthy state of society would be a needless interference, though in the existing circumstances of this country, it seems to us highly desirable.

warm and decent clothing, and convenient lodg→ ing, in short, in the means of comfortable subsistence, besides enabling him to indulge in an occasional holyday, and to lay by a provision against sickness, casualty, and old age.

If, as we think will hardly be denied, these views are correct, we arrive through them at something like a general principle as to the fundamental conditions essential to the general happiness;namely, that the labour, which we must believe will always be necessary for the support and gratification of the great mass of mankind, be voluntary and free in the choice of its direction; and that by moderate exertion it obtain as its recompense at least a sufficiency of the necessaries and principal comforts of life, both for the present consumption of the labourer and his family, and for a reserve against contingencies.

These conditions fulfilled, every further increase of the comforts or luxuries which falls to be divided among the members of a community, is an increase to their general means of happiness, proportionate, cæteris paribus, to the equality with which they are distributed. But these conditions must be fulfilled before an increase of the general wealth can be assumed to be an addition to the general happiness, and therefore a desirable object in the eyes of the political economist; who, mindful of the true end of his science, looks to wealth only às a means of happiness, and declares against all such measures as, though tending to augment the mass of wealth, do not tend to distribute it in such a manner as to augment the general happiness.

That every increase of wealth is not a propor