[TO THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTATOR.") Sea,—In your article on
"Army Reform" in the Spectator of August 29th there are two statements on which I offer a passing comment. (1) That in the early part of last century a sovereign bought more. The Report of the Labour Depart- ment of the Board of Trade just published is prefaced by a chart showing "changes in the level of general prices 1801- 1902, based on the Index Numbers for 1801-1846." The year 1871 is taken as the standard. Till 1827 prices never fell below the standard; since 1877 they have never risen above it. From 1800-15 prices never fell below 50 per cent. above what they stand at to-day; between 1815-27 they fell for a couple of years only to within 25 per cent, of to-day's prices. Taking the whole century, prices from 1848-53, in 1886-87, and from about 1893-99, were slightly lower than now. The Report deals with the wholesale and retail prices of coal and metals, of textiles, of food and drink, and of miscellaneous articles such as hay, building materials, candles, soap, oil, paraffin, and leather. A sovereign at the beginning of last century appears to have bought no more of anything, except content- ment. (2) Is not Lord Kitchener himself an example of the fact that a man without private fortune may, even yet, go into the Army and do well there P—I am, Sir, &c.,
E. A. B.
[The phrase about the sovereign buying more a hundred years ago was, perhaps, rather loosely employed. No doubt many things were cheaper then than now, though not all things,—for example, house-rent. But it remains unquestion- ably true that gentlefolks with a fixed income of a hundreds a year then felt themselves better off than their descendants with the same income do now, and that a higher salary is needed to-day to make a post in the public service attractive to an educated and well-qualified man.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
