The exposition of the several members of society being finished, I now come to treat of that inoperative moiety of it, which more especially concerns us here. The non-workers, we have seen, consist of broadly marked and distinct orders, viz:—

, or compulsory nonworkers.

, or voluntary non-workers.

, or privileged nonwork- ers.

It would be of the highest possible importance, could we ascertain with any precision the number of people existing in this country, who do no manner of work for their support; and I was anxious to have concluded the preceding account of the several divisions of society, with an estimate of the numbers appertaining to each of the great classes, as well as the incomes accruing to them. I found, however, on consulting the official documents with this view, that the government returns were in such an economical tangle— distributor being confounded with employer, and employer again jumbled up with the employed—that any attempt to unravel the twisted yarn would have cost an infinity of trouble, and have been almost worthless after all; and it was from a long experience as to the incompetency of the official returns to aid the social inquirer in solving the great economical problems concerning the production and distribution of wealth, that I was induced to suggest to Sir George Grey (to whom I had been indebted for much courtesy and valuable information, and who, from the commencement of my investigations, had shown a readiness to afford me every assistance), that, in the ensuing census, an attempt should be made to obtain some definite account of the numbers of employers and employed, and I am happy to say that, in conformity with my suggestion, the next "Abstract of the Occupations of the People," will at least teach us the proportion between these main elements of our social state; so that if the Distributors are but kept distinct from the Promoters and Producers of the wealth of the country, important step towards a right understanding of the subject will assuredly have been made.

It should, however, be borne in mind, that, though the distribution, the promotion, and the production of the riches or exchangeable commodities of a country are usually distinct offices in every civilized nation, they are not invariably separate functions, even in our own. The exceptions to the economical rule with us appear to be as follows:—

. Sometimes the producers themselves supply the materials, tools, shelter, and subsistence, that they require for their work, though this is usually done by some capitalist; and having finished the work, proceed themselves to find purchasers for it likewise (though this is generally the office of the distributor or dealer). Street artizans, or those who make the goods they sell in the streets, may be cited as instances of a class uniting in itself the functions of producer, capitalist (supplying the materials, &c.), and distributor.

. Sometimes the capitalist employer is also the distributor of the commodities, such being the case with bakers, tailors,

. Sometimes the craft does not admit of a distributor being attached to it; the employer himself undertaking to supply the wants of the public; this is the case with the building and decoration of houses.

. Sometimes the work is done directly for the public, without the intervention of either a distributor or trading-employer; such is the case with the jobbing, day, or piece workers—among the seamstresses and journeymen tailors, for instance—who "make up ladies' and gentlemen's own materials," either at home or at the houses of those for whom the work is done.

. Sometimes the artificers or working men are their own capitalists; providing the materials, tools, shelter, and subsistence requisite for the work, as is the case with the garret and chamber-masters in the slop cabinet and shoe trades, and among the members of co-operative associations.

. Sometimes the artificers are both employers and employed; being supplied with their materials and subsistence from a capitalist, and supplying them again to other artificers working under them; this is the case with sweaters, piece-working masters, hands, and the like.

. Sometimes the capitalist employer, on the other hand, is, or rather assumes to be, the proprietor of both the capital and labour; as is the case with the slaveowners, masters of serfs, bondmen, villeins, and the like; though this state of things, thank God, no longer exists in this country.

. Sometimes the capitalist supplies all the requisites of production, excepting the subsistence of the artificer, who is remunerated by a certain share of the profits (if any); this is often the case with publishers and authors.

. Sometimes the capitalist supplies only the materials and subsistence, but not the tools, of the artificers, and sometimes he compels them to pay him a rent for them out of their wages; as is the case with the employers of the sawyers and stockingers.

. Sometimes the capitalist supplies the materials, tools, and subsistence of the artificers, but not the appliances of their work; and sometimes he compels them to purchase such appliances of him at an exorbitant profit; as the trimmings in the tailors' trade, thread with the seamstresses, and the like.

. Sometimes the capitalist supplies the materials, tools, subsistence, and shelter of the artificers, but not their gas-light, and compels them to pay a rent for the same out of their wages.

. Sometimes the capitalist supplies the materials, tools, appliances, and subsistence, but not the shelter, necessary for the due performance of the work, the artificers, in such cases, doing the work at their own homes.

But all this concerns the workers more directly than the non-workers of society, and it is mentioned here merely with the view of completing the classification before given. Our more immediate business in this place lies with the inoperative, rather than the operative, members of the community. Nor is it with the entire body of these that we have to deal, but rather with that order of the non-working class who are unwilling, though able, to work, as contradistinguished from those who are willing, but unable, to do so. The nonworkers are a peculiar class, including orders diametrically opposed to each other: the very rich and the very poor, in the place, and the honest and dishonest in the . The dishonest members of society constitute those who are known more particularly as the criminal class. Hence to inquire into their means of living and mode of life, involves an investigation into the nature and the extent of crime in this country. Crime, sin, and vice are terms used for the infraction of different kinds of laws—social, religious, and moral. Crime is the transgression of some social law, even as sin is the transgression of some religious law, and vice the breach of some moral . These laws, however, often differ only in emanating from different authorities; while infractions of them are merely offences against different powers. To thieve is to offend at once socially, religiously, and morally; for not only does the social, but the religious and moral law, each and all, enjoin that we should respect the property of others.

But there are other crimes or offences against the social powers, besides such as are committed by those who will not work. The crimes perpetrated by those who object to labour for their living, are habitual crimes; whereas those perpetrated by the other classes of society are accidental crimes, arising from the pressure of a variety of circumstances. Here, then, we have a most important fundamental distinction: all crimes, and consequently all criminals, are divisible into different classes, the professional and the casual; that is to say, there are distinct orders of people continually offending against the laws of society, viz., those who do so as a regular means of living, and those who do so from some

At present the several crimes of the country are officially divided into classes:—

M. Guerry, the eminent French statist, adopts a far more philosophic arrangement, and divides the several crimes into—

The same fundamental error which renders the government classification comparatively worthless, deprives that of the French philosopher of all practical value. It gives us no knowledge of the character of the people committing the crimes; being merely a system of criminal mnemonics, as it were, or easy method of remembering the several varieties of offences. The classes in both systems are but so many mental pigeon-holes for the orderly arrangement and partitioning of the various infractions of the law; further than this they cannot help us.

Whatever other information the inquirer may want, he must obtain for himself; if he wish to learn from the crimes something as to their causes, as well as the nature of the criminals, he must begin , and, using the official facts, but rejecting the official system of classification, proceed to arrange all the several offences into classes, according as they are of a professional and casual character, committed by habitual or occasional offenders. Adopting this principle, it will be found that the crimes consist mainly of murder, assaults, incendiarism, ravishment, bigamy, embezzlement, high treason, and the like; for it is evident that none can make a trade or profession of the commission of these crimes, or resort to them as a regular means of living.

The crimes, on the other hand, will be generally found to include burglary, robbery, poaching, coining, smuggling, working of illicit stills, larceny from the person, simple larceny, &c., because each and every of these are regular crafts, requiring almost the same apprenticeship as any other mode of life. Burglary, coining, working illicit stills, and picking pockets, are all to which no man, without some previous training, can take. Hence to know whether the number of these dishonest —for such they really are —be annually on the increase or not, is to solve a most important portion of the criminal problem; it is to ascertain whether crime pursued as a profession or business, is being augmented among us—to discover whether the criminal class, as a distinct portion of our people is, or is not, on the advance. The non-professional crimes will furnish us with equally curious results, showing a yearly impress of the character of the times; for being only occasional offences, of course the number of such offenders at different years will give us a knowledge of the intensity of the several occasions inducing the crimes in such years.

The accidental crimes, classified according to their causes, may be said to consist of—

With the class of casual or accidental criminals, however, we are not at present concerned. Those who resort to crime as a means of support, when in a state of extreme want, for instance, cannot be said to belong to the non-workers, for many of these would willingly work to increase their sustenance, if that end were attainable by such means, but the poor shirt-workers, slop-tailors, and the like, have not the power of earning more than the barest subsistence by their labour, so that the pawning of the work entrusted to them by their employers, becomes an act to which they are immediately impelled for "dear life," on the occurrence of the least illness or mishap among them. Such , therefore, belong more properly to those who cannot work for their living, or rather, who cannot live by their working, and though they offend against the laws in the same manner as those that will not work, they cannot certainly be said to be of the same class.

The non-workers are a distinct body of people. In the introductory chapter to the volume of the "Street-folk," they have been shown to appertain to even the rudest nations, being as it were the human parasites of every civilized and barbarous community. The Hottentots have their "," and the Kafirs their "," as we have our "Prigs" and "Cadgers." Those who will not work for the food they consume, appear to be part and parcel of a State—an essential element of the social fabric as much as those who cannot, or need not work for their living. Go where you will, to what corner of the earth you please, search out or propound what new-fangled or obsolete form of society you may, there will be some members of it more apathetic than the rest, who object to work—some more infirm than the rest, who are denied the power to work— and some more thrifty than the rest, who from their past savings have no necessity to work for the future. These several forms are but the necessary consequences of specific differences in the constitution of different beings. Circumstances may tend to give an unnatural development to either or other of the classes; the criminal class, the pauper class, or the wealthy class, may be in excess in form of society, as compared with another, or they may be repressed by certain social arrangements; nevertheless, to a greater or less degree, there they will and ever be.

Since, then, there an essentially distinct class of people who not work for their living, and since work is a necessary condition of the human organism, the question becomes, How do such people live? There is but answer:—If they do not labour to procure their own food, of course they must live on the food procured by the labour of others. But how do they obtain possession of the food belonging to others? There are but means: it must either be given to them by, or be taken from, the industrious portion of the community. Consequently, the next point to be settled is, what are the means by which those who to work get their food given to them, and what the means by which they are enabled to take it from others. Let us begin with the last mentioned.

The means by which the criminal classes obtain their living constitute the essential points of difference among them, and form indeed the methods of distinction among themselves. The "Rampsmen," the "Drummers," the "Mobsmen," the "Sneaksmen," and the "Shofulmen," which are the terms by which they themselves designate the several branches of the "profession," are but so many expressions indicating the several modes of obtaining the property of which they become possessed.

The "" or "" plunders by force; as the burglar, footpad, &c.

The "" plunders by stupefaction; as the "hocusser."

The "" plunders by manual dexterity; as the pickpocket.

The "" plunders by stealth; as the petty-larceny men and boys.

The "" plunders by counterfeits; as the coiner.

Now each and all of these are distinct species of the genus, having often little or no connection with the others. The "Cracksman," or housebreaker, would no more think of associating with the "Sneaksman" than a barrister would dream of sitting down to dinner with an attorney; the perils braved by the housebreaker or the footpad make the cowardice of the sneaksman contemptible to him; and the is distinguished by a

Such are the more salient features of that portion of the voluntary non-workers who live by what they want from others. The other moiety of the same class who live by getting what they want to them, is equally peculiar. These consist of the "Flatcatchers," the "Hunter" and "Charley Pitchers," the "Bouncers" and "Besters," the "Cadgers," the Vagrants, and the Prostitutes.

The "" obtain what they want by false pretences; as swindlers, duffers, ring droppers, and cheats of all kinds.

The "" and "" obtain what they want by gaming; as thimblerig men, &c.

The "" and "" obtain what they want by betting, intimidating, or talking people out of their property.

The "" obtain what they want by begging, and exciting false sympathy.

The obtain what they want by declaring on the casual ward of the parish workhouse.

The obtain what they want by the performance of an immoral act.

Each of these, again, are unmistakeably distinguished from the rest. The "Flatcatchers" are generally remarkable for great shrewdness, especially in the knowledge of human character and ingenuity in designing and carrying out their several schemes. The "Charley Pitchers" appertain more to the conjuring or sleight-of-hand and blackleg class. The "Cadgers," again, are to the class of cheats what the "Sneaksmen" are to the thieves, the lowest of all, being the least distinguished for those characteristics which mark the other members of the same body. As the "Sneaksmen" are the least daring and expert of all the thieves, so are the "Cadgers" the least intellectual and cunning of all the cheats. A "shallow cove," that is to say, who exhibits himself half naked in the streets as a means of obtaining his living, is looked upon as the most despicable of all, since the act requires neither courage, intellect, nor dexterity for the execution of it. The Vagrants, on the other hand, are the wanderers—the English Bedouins— those who, in their own words, "love to shake a free leg"—the thoughtless and the careless vagabonds of our race; while the Prostitutes, as a body, are the shameless among our women.

Such, then, are the characters of the voluntary non-workers, or professionally criminal class, the vagrants, beggars, cheats, thieves, and prostitutes — each order expressing some different mode of existence adopted by those who object to labour for their living. The vagrants, who love a roving life, exist principally by declaring on the parish funds for the time being; the beggars, as deficient in courage and intellect as in pride, prefer to live by soliciting alms of the public; the cheats, possessed of considerable cunning and ingenuity, choose rather to subsist by continual fraud and deception; the thieves, distinguished generally by a hardihood and comparative disregard of danger, find greater delight in risking their liberty by taking what they want, instead of waiting to have it given them; while the prostitutes, as deficient in shame as the beggars are in pride, prefer to live by using their charms for the vilest of purposes.

The exposition of the why the several species of voluntary non-workers object to labour for their living, I shall reserve for a future occasion; that they do to work is patent in the fact that they might sustain themselves by their industry if they chose (for those who are unable to do so,

The number of individuals belonging to the professional criminal class, we are not yet in a position to ascertain; but few dependable facts have been collected on the subject, and even these have been obtained so many years back that, with the increase of population, they have become almost worthless, except in a historic point of view. Such as they are, however, it will be as well to add them to this introduction to the class of voluntary non-workers, as the best information at present existing upon the subject.

The estimate made for of the prin- cipal provincial towns in the same year was as follows:—

By the above table it will be seen that, in , there were persons of known bad character, infesting of the principal towns in England: nearly of the entire number had no visible means of subsistence, and were believed to live wholly by depredation; were believed to augment their gains by habitual or occasional violation of the law; and were known to be associates of the others, and otherwise deemed suspicious characters. According to the average proportion of these persons to the population, there would have been in the other large towns nearly persons of a similar class, and upwards of of such persons dispersed throughout the rest of the country. Adding these together, we have as many as individuals of known bad character in England and Wales, the walls of the prisons.

To form an accurate notion of the total number of the criminal population at the above period, we must add to the preceding amount the number of persons resident the walls of the prisons. These, at the time of taking the last census, amounted to , which, added to the above enumerated, gives within a fraction of individuals for the entire criminal population of the country, as known to the police in .

Let us now, for a moment, turn our attention to the number and cost of the honest and dishonest poor throughout England and Wales. Mr. Porter, usually no mean authority upon all matters of a statistical nature, tells us, in his "Progress of the Nation," p. , that "the proportion of persons in the United Kingdom who pass their time without applying to any gainful occupation is quite Of males of years and upwards living at the time of the census of , there were said to be engaged in some calling or profession , thus leaving unemployed only , or rather less than per cent." "The number of unemployed adult males in Great in ," he afterwards informs us, "was only and odd."

But this statement gives us no accurate idea of the number of persons subsisting by charity or crime, for the author of the "Progress of the Nation," strange to say, wholly excludes from his calculation the mass of individuals maintained by the several parishes, as well as the criminals, almspeople, and lunatics throughout the country! Now, according to the Report of the Poor-law Commissioners, the number of paupers receiving in and out-door relief, in , was no less than and odd. The number of criminals and suspicious characters throughout the country, in , we have seen, was . In the number of lunatics in county asylums was and odd; while, according to the occupation abstract of the population returns there were in upwards of almspeople, beggars, and pensioners. These, formed into sum, give us no less than of individuals living upon the income of the remainder of the population. By the above computation, therefore, we see that, out of a total of souls, in England and Wales, -, or per cent. of the whole, continue their existence either by pauperism, mendicancy, or crime.

Now, the cost of this immense mass of vice and want is even more appalling than the number of individuals subsisting in such utter degradation. The total amount

But though it may be said that we give altogether a year to alleviate the distress of those who want or suffer, we must remember that this vast sum expresses not only the liberal extent of our sympathy, but likewise the fearful amount of want and suffering, on the hand, and of excess and luxury on the other, that there must be in the land. If the poorer classes require millions to be added in charity every year to their aggregate income in order to relieve their pains and privations, and the richer can afford to have the same immense sum taken from theirs, and yet scarcely feel the loss, it shows at once how much the class must have in excess and the other in deficiency. Whether such a state of things is a necessary evil connected with the distribution of wealth, this is not the place for me to argue. All I have to do here is to draw attention to the fact. It is for others to lay bare the cause, and, if possible, discover the remedy.

There still remains, however, to be added to the sum expended in voluntary or compulsory relief of the poor, the cost of our criminal and convict establishments at home and abroad. This, according to the Government estimates, amounts to very nearly ; then there is the value of the property appropriated by the habitual criminals, and this, at a week per head, amounts to very nearly ; so that, adding these items to the sum before-mentioned, we have, in round numbers, the enormous amount of per annum as the cost of the paupers and criminals of this country; and, reckoning the national income, with Mr. M'Culloch and others, at , it follows that the country has to give upwards of per cent. out of its gross earnings every year to support those who are either incapable or unwilling to obtain a living for themselves.

[] Mr. Mill's mistake in ranking the Employers and Distributors among the Enrichers. or those who increase the exchangeable commodities of the country, arose from a desire to place the dealers and capitalists among the productive labourers, than which nothing could be more idle, for surely they do not add, directly, one brass farthing, as the saying is, to the national stock of wealth. A little reflection would have shown that gentleman that the true function of employers and dealers was that of the indirect aiders of production rather than the direct producers. The economical scale of production appears to be as follows:— (1) The Employer, providing the materials, tools, and shelter necessary for the due performance of the work, together with the food for the subsistence of the artificer during the work. (2) The Labourer, fitting or preparing the materials for the artificer. (3) The Artificer or workman, positively doing the work and creating a new product. (4) The Superlative Artizan, engaged in adding to the beauty or utility of such product. (5) The Distributor or Dealer, engaged in carrying and disposing of the product in the best market. The functions of Nos. 1 and 2 generally precede production, those of Nos. 4 and 5 usually succeed it; while No. 3 is the absolute producer. The labours of No. 4, however, are so intimately associated with the produce—sometimes designing the work, and sometimes "finishing" it—that it seems but right that the superlative artizan should be ranked with the artificer: the mere labourer, however, who turns the wheel for the turner, or carries the bricks to the bricklayer and the like, cannot strictly be ranked as a producer any more than a porter or dock labourer.

[] At one time, however, murder became a trade in this country, namely, when the dead bodies of human beings grew to be of such value that the burking of the living was resorted to by the "resurrectionists," as a means of keeping up the supply.

[] The word Shoful is derived from the Danish skuffe, to shove, to deceive, cheat; the Saxon form of the same verb is Scufan, whence the English Shove.

[] A Charley Pitcher seems to be one who pitches to the Ceorla, or countryman, and hence is equivalent to the term Yokel-hunter.