BY E. M. JOHNSTON, M.S. 



223 



question raised by Mr. Ogilvy as regards the relative 

 personal consumption of wealth by rich and poor respectively. 



Peesonal Consumption of Commodities by the Eich. 



It is evident that Mr. Ogilvy had not bestowed his usual 

 care upon the question concerning commodities consumed 

 respectively by rich and poor, whether luxuries or necessaries. 

 He has taken a very strange course in forming an opinion of 

 the relative amount of consumption of goods by rich and poor 

 from a superficial impression made on his mind by the showy 

 displays seen in shop windows. 



Eich articles are more fitted for attractive display as 

 advertisments, but only the inattentive, or the unskilled, would 

 ever dream of estimating, upon such evidence, the relative 

 quantities and the relative aggregate values of goods held in 

 stock for sale intended for the rich and poor respectively. 



Although the gorgeous silks, satins, velvets, ribbons, and 

 dress goods form the chief displays in the windows of estab- 

 lishments devoted to the sale of textile fabrics generally, 

 they certainly form an infinitesimal part of the value, 

 and a still more infinitesimal part of the weight of the general 

 stock on shelves and in warehouses. This stands to reason ; 

 for it is well ascertained that all persons receiving upwards of 

 ■£150 per annum — i.e., under the annual average income of 

 the skilled mechanic— only form about 2'28 per cent of the 

 total population even in rich England. But a better plan would 

 be to ascertain the value of these luxurious silks, satins, etc., as 

 determined by the imports of a country whose principal 

 supplies of textile fabrics come from foreign sources. Victoria 

 is such a country, and an analysis of that colony's imports 

 shows that scarcely 7 per cent, of the value of textile fabrics 

 and dress are represented by the richer articles, such as silks, 

 satins, ribbons, velvets, dress goods, and scarcely 1 per cent, 

 of the weight of materials. 



As regards Food, certainly not more than 5 per cent, can 

 be set down as consumed by the rich personally, although 

 their expenditure would be a little more than this if the 

 consumption of their boarded servants were by error allowed 

 to be included. 



As regards Luxuries, again, it is remarkable that although 

 we gave to all persons over ,£150 income the whole of 

 uxunous articles imported represented by works of art, 

 paintings, musical instruments, jewellery, and plated- 

 ware, etc., it would not represent more than 7 per cent, of 

 what the masses alone consume of luxuries, in the shape of 

 drink and tobacco. 



Again, as regards the consumption of the fruits of labour 

 connected with the building trades, it is well to bear in mind 



