THE GIST OF THE TEN-HOUR BILL. To THE EDITOR OP
THE SPECTATOR.
London, 16th May INC
SIR—There are some bold and useful truths in your last article on the Fac- tory Question. You always, moreover, bestow liberal and thoughtful otten- lion upon views opposed to your own ; and I therefore trouble you with mine, though it may be that their chief value will prove to be that of avoiding the extremes which base alloyed both arguments on this question.
I can well attest the fact that the labour and inhumanity of factories have
been overstated ; and that nine miles is the extreme average which young persons walk in the day who attend the mules. But I cannot help thinking, that for a young person to spend twelve hours in walking at the rate of about a mile per hour, allowing for stoppages, with the head hanging down, and partly walk- ing backwards, is alone irksome and toilsome work, and sufficient to unfit them for any sort of bodily or mental exercise during the week. They who doubt this should attach themselves to a mule and try the experiment.
But it is in the hindrance to education that consists the chief evil in twelve
hours labour under any circumstances. It is less the severity of toil, than the darkening and animalizing of the man, which constitutes the wrong to the aufferer, and the mischief to society. The havoc of mind is far more terrible than the wear and tear of the body. The moral darkness of the working- classes is confirmed by a host of witnesses in every grade and class. Each day adds 1,000 blank minds to swell the catalogue of the untaught, and press upon the meagre means of teaching. To these facts we have the answer, that of factory. labourers "82 per cent can read"! So can three-fourths of our felons. The folly of this sophistical solace is truly preposterous. I desire, however, to address my remarks to the false political economy of those who uphold long labour. We are told that foreign competition is to be dreaded, and that therefore production must not be diminished. Here is proof that the production required has been realized, and therefore can be realized in less time than that to which it is proposed to limit juvenile labour alone. In the year 1841, Mr. HORNER, the very active and able Inspector for the Lancashire district, made and returned a report of the then state of factory- operations. He found, that out of 1,541 mills, 1,082 only were working full time. 259 were working short time, and 200 were not at work at all. If these mills had all been working full time, they would have employed 227,870 per-
S ons; of whom Mr. HORNER found only 193,503 actually at work at the time of his visit.
It is therefore manifest, that as 87 per cent only of the mills were at work at all, and upwards of 16-80 per cent of that number were on short time, the remaining 13 per cent bring wholly inactive, 13 per cent of the mills were not wanted; and probably what would be equivalent to 5 per cent more, in the por- tion of the 259 working short time. Here, then, was 18 per cent of the exist- ing power disused, and nearly 15 per cent of the Lands disemployed.
Was this power, then alone in activity, insufficient to enable us to keep up
our foreign trade ? Let the returns in the Trade and Navigation papers answer. In 1841, we exported no less than 16,232,5104 in value of cotton manufactured goods; being within 17,0004 of the value of our cotton exports of last year, when we exported more than in any of the last three years, trade having revived. Now it is not charged on Lord ASHLET that his proposal will diminish pro- duction more than by 16 per cent ; that is, by less than the existing power abso- lutely unemployed, when it is not pretended that there was any such clwch to our foreign trade!
This is a clear proof, not only that the Ten-hour Bill would not disable us in the least from encountering foreign competition, but that it could only lessen production by the wilful disuse of existing machinery. There would be less unemployed power and persons.
The argument that compressed labour is more effective than prolonged and wearisome exertion, is by no means met by Sir ROBERT PEEL'S solitary in- , stance of one chance case, of which he gives none of the attending circum- stances. The fact that the people are paid by piece-work, affords a strong pre- , gumption that they would take care to produce more work in proportion to the time and wages would be lessened. But if the shortening of time did lessen production in each working-mill, it would have the effect of bringing more hands as well as more power into activity, and would thus prevent the aggre- gate of wages from being less: if it did not lesaen production, wages, being by piece-work, could not fall. The real truth is, that foreign competition is chiefly the competition of our own manufacturers with each other in foreign markets. For instance, our ex- ports of cotton-manufactures were increased by nearly two and a half millions last year over the year before. By whom were these extra goods thrown on the foreign market, but by the very men who fear the danger of competition there 1 Sir ROBERT PEEL has a curious talent in the technical tactics of political economy ; and he meets the home truth that gain consists in imports alone, by saying that we cannot obtain them without exports. Certainly not ; but when, by a deluge of exports, we virtually and in effect compel the foreigner to give ms leas than he otherwise would do for a given amount of those exports, where is the gain ? The most enlightened and liberal economy has never taught that a nation Ia enriched by giving a larger amount of material and labour in exchange for what she wants than is necessary. Mr. CORDER has truly said that cheap- ness creates sale ; but the ingenuity uf discovering that the excess of the things Add i8 gain to the seller, was reserved for Sir ROBERT PEEL. The very word " cheapness," as applied to foreign trade, means that little relatively is given bt return.
Although these remarks have been extended to the limit of a readable letter,
I find I have yet aomewhat to add to make my argument complete; which, with your permission, I will do next week. The subject will not die. So long as great questions affecting the vital welfare of a whole people are measured by their supposed effects on capital alone, and determined by the threats of a Government and the apostacy of its minions in Parliament, the principle at stake will daily grow in public interest and discussion. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, J. C. &sows.
Previous page
