TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE NEW FAITH.
Tama who remember that scarcely half-a-dozen petitions for Par- liamentary Reform were presented to the House of Commons during the six years preceding the fierce agitation of 1831 and 1832, will not imagine that the question of legislative interference with the hours of labour is likely to "blow over" because it has come upon us suddenly and unexpectedly. Its practical importance is too manifest to admit of such a notion. May we not rather be- lieve that a proposal which has threatened the existence of so strong an Administration as the present, which is breaking up old parties and producing new alliances, which is the subject of as eager and bitter controversy as any of us can remember, must be founded on opinions which, though of no long growth, have yet taken a firm root in the public mind ? Nor is it less doubtful that these opinions involve consequences of far greater moment than the economical loss and social gain which would result from short- ening the time of labour for women and children in certain manu- factures. Lord ASHLEY may not be conscious of his mission, but he is really the organ of a new faith, compared with which the once ardent desire of this nation for a change in the composition of the House of Commons appears insignificant ; and he asks us to take the first step in a course of legislation which may be properly termed revolutionary, if we use the word to ex- press much difference from the existing order of things.
In the usual condition of every people there is a governing class, few in proportion to the whole number, and distinguished from the mass by a superior knowledge, which is indeed the source of their power. Under ordinary circumstances, this ruling class, though they may always lean towards what they deem most advantageous to themselves, yet manage, somehow or other, to exercise their autho- rity so far in accordance with the sentiments of the whole people as to obtain respect and obedience. It is only when they fail to do this that revolution comes—when either from some corruption of the ruling order they have become incapable of governing, or when that ruling order, who got on well enough before, remain blind to some great change in the people, and become, because unchanged themselves, as incapable of governing as in the other case. Or both causes may operate at once, as in the French Revolution. Now, in England, at least under the constitution of 1688, the ruling order have invariably accommodated themselves to the prevalent opinion of the country. Whether, at this time or that, they did right or wrong according to present notions, they have ever done what was requisite to prevent lasting collision between the Legislature and the people at large. All their wars were popular in the beginning; and whenever peace was generally desired, war ceased. So with respect to economical matters, it is indubitable that the "commercial policy" of the British Legislature, when most at variance with present ideas—when it comprised every sort of in- terference with the production and distribution of wealth—was highly agreeable to the classes who bad any opinion on the sub- ject; while Lord Jolts! RUSSELL'S late bid for retention of office, and Sir ROBERT PEEL'S proclaimed difference "in the abstract" with many of his supporters, show that only a powerful interest or two, whose strength is continually decreasing, stand in the way of the complete adoption by Parliament of the Free-trade doctrines of the present day. It would be easy to cite more examples of the way in which public opinion operates on the ruling order under our constitution.
We might presume, therefore, even if there were no other evidence of the fact, that the recent vote of the House of Com- mons in favour of Lord ASHLEY'S Ten-hours proposal, was not a freak of the majority on that occasion, but the expression by them of an opinion which has taken pretty strong hold of the public mind. It is an opinion of quite recent growth, hardly developed or matured by anybody, certainly not yet expounded so as to obtain the confident approval of cautious thinkers, who, if they utter it, speak with hesitation and avowed reluctance ; but it is nevertheless one of those opinions which come unbidden, which are adopted instinctively, which partake largely of feeling, and which have always had more influence on human affairs than any elaborated doctrine whatever. It is a rebellion, of sentiment if you please, against that part of the doctrine of the Economists and Free-traders which says that every man is the best judge and guardian of his own interests. Glaring facts contradict the asser- tion. Of late years and in this country, the experiment of letting the common people alone to take care of themselves has been fairly tried ; and we see the result in the state of those who form the bulk of the nation. What are they, whether in mines, or factories, or agricultural villages ?—a thoroughly servile class, socially cut off from their employers ; doomed to excessive toil and perpetual want ; ignorant, vicious, desperate ; and, above all, lamentably short of means for improving their condition by their own unaided efforts. This has come of letting them alone to "manage their own affairs in their own way "; for even the New Poor-law, though a measure of legislation affecting a large portion of the labouring class, was designed to have, and has had, the effect of "throwing them on their own resources." More perfect liberty to dispose of them- selves as they pleased, less protection or interference from the State, than our common people have had for ten years past, it is hardly possible to imagine. It will not do to say that they are no worse off than formerly, but only appear so because we now inquire about them more. They are worse off in two respects,—first, as the whole method of factory-employment, which treats the human being as nothing better than part of the machinery, has resulted from the modern use of steam ; and, secondly, as the factory method of em- ployment has been adopted by the farmer, whose labourers once used to belong to his family. The class of labourers for hire, with the exception always of skilled mechanics, has obviously become cheaper and more helpless under the system of letting them alone to take care of themselves. Extraordinary individuals among them improve their condition ; many more have a desire of improvement unknown to their forefathers ; but as a class they are cheaper than cattle and nearly as helpless. Well, their numbers continually in- crease with the increase of the capital whose slaves they are; mo- dern benevolence observes them closer ; the spectacle has become revolting to humanity ; and hence the new faith—which is, that it is the proper business of the ruling order to take some care of those who can take little or none of themselves.
A new faith it is, but only as being different from that which was last established : for "there is no new thing under the sun"; and, assuredly, a belief in the necessity of government, and in the obligation of rulers to exert their power and superior intelligence in favour of the helpless, is a good deal older than ADAM Sloan and Laissez-faire. And yet we must not deem it a relapse into our grandfathers' notions about interference by authority with the ways of wealth. As uttered by Lord Howlett and Mr. C. Boum', (though anything but explained by either,) it says that the weal of a nation is more to be desired than its wealth ; that the mass of the people, if left wholly to their own guidance, will be miserable and degraded in proportion as the cheapness of their labour re- duces the cost of production, and augments that surplus produce which forms the wealth of the community ; and that it is a proper function or duty of the Legislature, if possible, to correct the po- litical-economy law of competition, as it affects the unrepresented, ignorant, helpless class of labourers for hire, by the interposition of an act of Parliament which would save them from excessive toil and diminish to the same extent the surplus produce of their labour. In this view of the matter, wealth is not despised, but treated as inferior to happiness : political economy is not set at nought, but acknowledged, and allowed much weight : the proposed inter- ference by law bears no resemblance to monopolies, or bounties, or "commercial policy" duties, but is like the protection which the law affords to minors against their own improvidence, and to all the industrious classes by the political institution of Sunday.
This last is the most pertinent illustration. Let it be supposed for a moment that the religious sanction which forbids work on Sunday were removed : would the most zealous advocate of Laissez- faire think of repealing the acts of Parliament which set apart one day in seven for rest ? Would not the whole country demand by ac- clamation new laws to supply the absence of the religious sanction ? And why ?—because if the religious stay of Sunday were removed, no other being provided by Parliament, so surely would the political- economy law of competition, operating both upon capitalists and labourers, gradually overcome the habit of resting on the seventh day, and deprive the common people of an inestimable blessing. But in that case, labour would be cheaper, the cost of production less, and surplus produce, or national wealth, greater by a seventh. We should have to choose between a seventh day of rest on the one hand, and a seventh more wealth on the other ; and if we preferred the leisure to the greater produce, (as everybody but a brute of a landlord, or farmer, or millowner, here and there, would certainly do,) we should acquire it by means of legislation at utter variance with the doctrine that if you will but let people alone they are sure to manage better for themselves than anybody can manage for them.
Another imagined case will prove instructive with respect to the real amount of the economical sacrifice which the nation must make as the purchase-money of some leisure for the working classes. If a Ten-hours law, embracing all employments, had existed for years, what would be the consequences of its repeal as regards wealth ? Competition among the labourers would prevent any increase of wages. Labour would therefore be cheaper, and the cost of pro- duction less. Hence a larger surplus produce—an increase of that portion of the produce which remains after replacing capital with ordinary profits. At first, this gain would be enjoyed by the capitalists in the form of higher profits ; but presently, their competition with each other would induce them to carry on business for ordinary profit—for that minimum of profit which is an inducement to the carrying on of business. What would then become of that portion of the produce which was more than sufficient for replacing capital with ordinary profits ? What would become of it depends on the manner in which the capitalists would abandon it. Their competition with each other would in* duce them to give it up in different ways, according to circum- stances—either by paying more rent wherever the principle of rent was in force, or by selling at lower prices, or, in some cases, partly in one way and partly in the other. After a while, therefore, neither the capitalist nor the labourer, as such, would be any better off than before. The effect would be the same in character as that of improvements in the productive power of capital and labour ge- nerally, such as have taken place during the present century in agriculture and manufactures, and have prodigiously augmented the wealth of the nation without raising profits or wages in any employment whatever. The effect would be to augment the means, and even to increase the numbers, of that portion of the commu- nity which consumes without producing. Captain Basil. Harz called them "the pending class" ; but omitted to explain, that its absence in America is due to the unlimited extent of that field of employment for capital and labour, which maintains high wages and high profits in spite of the law of competition. Inasmuch, too, as we are supposing an increase of all kinds of produce in pro- portion to the capital and labour employed, food of course in- cluded, the base of society would be extended, and there would be more capitalists and labourers as well as more of the merely con- suming class. Some variation might take place in the extent and character of employments ; for the greater quantity of food might be produced by a smaller population, and there is no saying what forms of demand the increased means of the consuming class would take ; but the general result would be a multiplication of people, with a more remarkable contrast than ever between the wealth of the rich and the poverty of the poor. The abolition of Sunday would operate just in the same way. And now it may be asked, if a Ten-hours law were in the statute-book, would the eco- nomical gain from repealing it be thought worth the social sacrifice ? Should we deliberately multiply society at the cost of its deteriora- tion?
Another and a very important consideration arises here. Ad- mitting that a general Ten-hours law would have the same kind of effects on wealth as a general decrease of the powers of capi- tal and labour, it follows that a general increase of those powers by means of improved processes would have the same effects, if equal in degree, as a restoration of the two hours which bad been cut off from each day's labour. The national wealth would be the same, whether we had twelve hours' labour and no improved processes, or the improved processes and only ten hours' labour. Thus, for example, supposing that a Ten-hours law for agriculture had been passed before Lord ALTHORP in- duced Parliament to repeal the Excise-duty on tiles, the improved drainage which has resulted from that measure might long ere now have increased the productive power of capital in agriculture as much as it had been decreased by the Ten-hours law. In that case, the working peasantry would have gained the two hours a day, and nobody would have lost any thing. Turning to realities, can it be doubted that the general powers of production have been augmented of late years, by means of improved processes, to an amount exceeding a sixth of the whole ?—by more, that is, than would have sufficed to counteract the economical operation of a Ten-hours law passed before the improvements began ? In what, then, consists the danger (always supposing discretion in the manner) of shortening the hours of labour to no greater extent than improved processes might be expected to work in the op- pOsite direction ? If Parliament had now to give the Sunday for rest, they might give it by degrees, half an hour at a time, with a certainty that improvements in the arts of production would gradually make up for that decrease of productive power. The loss of a seventh here would be covered by the gain of a seventh there; as soon as the account had been balanced, further improvements of skill would add as now to the heap of wealth ; and the vast social advantage of the Sunday would have been gained in perpetuity.
We do not care to notice here the special case of over-worked women and children, because it is only the principles of the new faith that we are just now desirous of examining; and we are satisfied, moreover, that whenever they shall find sufficient favour with the public to give Lord ASHLEY success in his pre- sent object, they must :receive a far wider application than has yet been seriously contemplated by anybody. No professor of them can uphold the Corn-law without gross inconsistency or hypo- crisy. The general purpose is, to make laws for relieving the common people from the evils of competition ; but the Corn-law circumscribes the field of employment for capital and labour, keeps profits and wages down to the minimum, and is a principal cause of that suffering which the project of Short-time is designed to al- leviate. How, again, can Lord ASHLEY ask the millowners to con- sent to a measure which they believe would tend to diminish their profits, when he joins in denying them a free choice of markets in which to dispose of their goods ? Then, further, it is said with no little show of reason, that if a Ten-hours law enhanced the cost of production in manufactures by a sixth, it would turn the scale against us in foreign markets, and deprive England of her export- trade : but, nevertheless, Lord ASHLEY helps to forbid that com- pensating diminution of the cost of production in manufactures, which would be occasioned by the free importation of food. On the other hand, an inevitable effect of repealing the Corn-law would be to throw a large proportion of the labourers in agriculture out of employment altogether, and produce an extent and degree of misery frightful to contemplate : so here is a job of work for the advocates of paternal government, for which the most rational and consistent of them seem as little prepared as the others. Then, furthermore, several of the means by which it is proposed that legislation should better the condition of the poor, would operate, like vaccination or other sanatory precautions—like a Ten-hours law, be it said, in passing—by decreasing mortality, and ren- dering the competition of numbers severer than before. Com- petition, universal and intense competition, is the disease; and if we only repress symptoms in one place, they will break out in another. A comprehensive treatment of the malady itself would probably combine colonization with free trade in food : but, while the latter is withheld by Parliament, the former is merely left to be brought into disrepute by the red-tape of the Colonial Office. And fivally, (for we must stop somewhere, though the theme is inex- haustible,) education by the State is a noted specific; which, how- ever, it will be simply impossible to administer so long as competi- tion shall deprive the ignotant classes of leisure for receiving in-
struction. If the principles of the new faith should ever be=carried out, there will be plenty for the ruling order to do.
That faith gains ground, however. All the women, of the classes who really influence legislation, have imbibed it more or less ; and their weight will not be despised by such as took note how Queen CAROLINE'S trial conduced to the Reform Bill. The basest of the votes given in support of Lord ASHLEY'S motion may somewhat damage the cause ; but they also indicate that it has become of sufficient importance to be available for party pur- poses. Whenever it shall be traded with for personal aggrandize- ment, as Abolition and Missions to the Heathen have been by a vermin which prey upon benevolence, we may begin to think that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S honest resistance will soon be fruitless. The time may not be so far off when opposition to it will be a disquali- fication, and its advocacy one title, to high office. If ever that time should come, the faith will be theorized by many a busy brain and ready pen. At present, we must repeat, it is little more than an instinct.
Previous page
