Gregory King has given 'A Scheme of the Income and Expense of the several Families in England, calculated for the year 1688.' He considers that, in the aggregate, there were five hundred thousand families who were accumulators--that is to say, whose annual expense was less than their income. He values this accumulation at three millions. The number of persons comprised in the accumulating families was two million six hundred and seventy-five thousand. Of this number only one-fifth belonged to the trading classes--merchants, shopkeepers and tradesmen, artisans and handicrafts. The remainder were the landholders, farmers, lawyers, clergy, holders of office, and persons in liberal arts and sciences. But there was a large non-accumulating class, consisting of two million eight hundred and twenty-five thousand, whom he puts down as "decreasing the wealth of the kingdom,"--that is to say, that their annual expense exceeded their income; and this excess he computes at six hundred and twenty-two thousand pounds, which reduces the annual national accumulation to two million four hundred thousand pounds. The positive plunderers of the national capital were thirty thousand vagrants, such as gipsies, thieves, and beggars. We were in a happier condition than Scotland at the same period; where, according to Fletcher of Saltoun, there were two hundred thousand "people begging from door to door," out of a population of one million, for whose suppression he saw no remedy but slavery. We were more favoured, too, than France; where, as Vauban records, in 1698, more than a tenth part of the population of sixteen millions were beggars, in the extremity of hunger and nakedness.[41] But we may be sure that in England the two million eight hundred and twenty-five thousand "labouring people, out-servants, cottagers, and paupers," who are put down by Gregory King as non-accumulators, were working upon very insufficient means, and that they were constantly pressing upon the fund for the maintenance of profitable labour. It is a curious fact that he classes "cottagers and paupers" together; but we can account for it when we consider how much of the land of the country was uninclosed, and how many persons derived a scanty subsistence from the commons, upon which they were "squatters," living in mean huts with "one chimney."