"THE LAST TWO HOURS" CONTROVERSY.
MIL SENIOR must have the toothache : not only had the dentifrice been so liberally applied that the gilt was rubbed off some days ago, but the tooth itself decays—the very Morning Chronicle has dis- covered a flaw in that which was challenged as " irrefragable," as not having "a weak point " ! Still, the champion thinks it neces- Bary to make some stand for the inference depending on the delusive premises ; and so desperate is the case, that he is obliged to resort to the not very creditable trick of falsifying the terms of the state- ment. And he no longer confronts the Spectator, but now speaks
at us ; for some reason preferring another antagonist ; to whom, on Monday, he replied thus-
" A writer in the Times of Friday, signed • Philopatris,' has made some re- marks on Mr. Senior's calculation which deserve attention, as containing what appears to us to be the only qualification to which that calculation is really subject. Mr. Senior states, that if three of the present twenty-three half-hours of work are taken away, all other things remaining the same, profit will be de- stroyed. To which ' Philopatris 'answers, that all other things cannot remain the same, since 3-23ds less of finished goods will require:1-23de less of raw ma- terial. This is certain : it is an element omitted by Mr. Senior, and we pro- ceed to allow the amount to which it affects the calculation. It applies only to the raw material ; wages are supposed to remain the same. Tht. proportion which the cost of the raw material bears to the remainder a the circulating capital differs in different branches of the cotton manufacture. In spinning coarse numbers, it may amount to one-half; in fine numbers, to less than one-third ; in weaving, to less than one-fourth. We will take one-third as a general average. According to Mr. Senior's calculation, goods, which we will call twenty-three packages, selling for 23,000/., are now produced in seventy-three days, at twenty-three half-hours of work per day, at the expense, as far as cir- culating capital is concerned, of 21,000/. This 21,000/. consists of 1,000/. ex- pended on reparations of the fixed capital, 6,666/. 6s. 8d. on raw material, and 13,333/. 138. 4d. on wages. Take away the last hour and a halt, and the pro- duce falls to twenty packages, selling for 20,0001., and mduced, according to Mr. Senior, at the expense of 21,000/. ' Philopatris ' states, most truly, that this cannot be so, since twenty packages would require 3-23ds less of tali, ma- terial than twenty-three packages; 3-23da thereihre, or 8691. 8s. lid., must be deducted from the 6,666/. 6s. 8d., the former cost of the raw material ; and the twenty packages which sell for 20,000/. will have lost not 21,000/., but 20,130/. lls. bid. Still, however, profit is destroyed; and the only effect of the correction is, to retard slightly the effects attributed by Mr. Senior to the diminution of the hours of labour. It would require the loss of rather more - than an hour-and-three-quarters to produce all the effects which he antici- pates from the loss of an hour-and-a-half."
Here is as extraordinary an instance of forced concession, mingled with shuffling, to avoid a frank admission of mistake and retain possession of a fallacy, as ever we encountered. It is ad- mitted that less raw material will be needed ; but, to make out that the process of destroying profit is only retarded, not pre- vented, it is argued that wages will not be reduced ; for, it is said, • Mr. SENIOR'S calculation supposed "all other things remaining the same." This is a change of terms : Mr. SENIOR supposed , " PRICES remaining the same." It may be fair in an argument di- rected to a special point, to suppose "other things" not absolutely implied in a given change to "remain the same"—you may con- cede, for the convenience of argument, that present circumstances remain unaltered ; but the postulate can never be made to include the direct consequences of the change. To beg the question that any direct consequence of a change, whose consequences are under consideration, must remain the same, is mere idleness : if you assume that shorter time will not involve shorter wages, you might as well assume that it will not involve the use of less raw material, or less profit. Indeed, a diminution of wages has been one of the very things discussed ; and some have said that the workpeople are prepared for it. There is therefore neither practical nor abstract reason in the further concession now demanded to sa■,e a portion of Mr. SENIOR'S once " irrefragable" calculation. Last week, we showed that, "prices remaining the same," profits, instead of being "destroyed," would only be reduced from 10,000/. to 8,0401.; and by a different process, a correspondent came to the same conclu- sion; his briefer calculation affording a very clear summing-up. We repeat that summing-up, that the reader may judge how far it is affected by the foregoing "refutation," as we suppose Mr. SENIOR considers it- " Assuming that the value of a manufactured article is always greater than the sum expended for raw materials and wages, and that, were there noiired charges—that is to say, none that did not result from and bear a direct pro- portion to the quantity of goods manufactured—there would be a profit on the production of any quantity, however small; there would be a profit on work- ing one hour, as well as twenty-four. In Mr. SENIOR'S case, before deducting thefixed charge of 5,000/. per annum, the annual profit from the mill would be 15,000/, produeed by the daily labour of 23 half-hours; the proportion derived from each half-hour being 652/. The work of 20 of these half-hours would thus yield a gross profit of 13,040/. per annum; from which deduct the fixed charge 5,0001., and there would remain a net profit of 8,040/."
So far as we are concerned, the controversy is closed. Do we say that Mr. SENIOR has "exposed" himself; that he is proved to be " ignorant " or " incapable " ; that the blowing-up of his " indis- putable" calculation has destroyed his reputation ? Not at all; but the reverse that he has experienced in the jaunty career of his economics may teach him, not to lend himself so readily to become the patron of clients more interested than himself, less capable of abstracting or generalizing their practical information, and by no means responsible for his good name. He took, without sufficient scrutiny, the absurd case with which they crammed him ; and, like schoolboys who have put forward a head boy to make some foolish proposition, they will only laugh at the scrape into which they have brought him. When millowners renew their blandishments, let him turn his back, and exclaim, with a groan, like the afflicted student of French in the farce—" Oh, my hollow dong ! "
Previous page
