- 歡迎訪問欣可小說小說網
-
桌麵快捷
-
加入收藏
-
設為首頁
桌麵快捷
加入收藏
設為首頁
Since
12
working-hours
of
the
spinner
are
embodied
in
6s.,
it
follows
that
in
yarn
of
the
value
of
30s.,there
must
be
embodied
60
working-hours.
And
this
quantity
of
labour-time
does
in
fact
exist
in
the
20
lbs
of
yarn;
for
in
8\/10ths
or
16
lbs
there
are
materialised
the
48
hours
of
labour
expended,
before
the
commencement
of
the
spinning
process,
on
the
means
of
production;
and
in
the
remaining
2\/10ths
or
4
lbs
there
are
materialised
the
12
hours'
work
done
during
the
process
itself.
On
a
former
page
we
saw
that
the
value
of
the
yarn
is
equal
to
the
sum
of
the
new
value
created
during
the
production
of
that
yarn
plus
the
value
previously
existing
in
the
means
of
production.
It
has
now
been
shown
how
the
various
component
parts
of
the
value
of
the
product,
parts
that
differ
functionally
from
each
other,
may
be
represented
by
corresponding
proportional
parts
of
the
product
itself.
To
split
up
in
this
manner
the
product
into
different
parts,
of
which
one
represents
only
the
labour
previously
spent
on
the
means
of
production,
or
the
constant
capital,
another,
only
the
necessary
labour
spent
during
the
process
of
production,
or
the
variable
capital,
and
another
and
last
part,
only
the
surplus
labour
expended
during
the
same
process,
or
the
surplus-value;
to
do
this,
is,
as
will
be
seen
later
on
from
its
application
to
complicated
and
hitherto
unsolved
problems,
no
less
important
than
it
is
simple.
In
the
preceding
investigation
we
have
treated
the
total
product
as
the
final
result,
ready
for
use,
of
a
working
day
of
12
hours.
We
can
however
follow
this
total
product
through
all
the
stages
of
its
production;and
in
this
way
we
shall
arrive
at
the
same
result
as
before,
if
we
represent
the
partial
products,
given
off
at
the
different
stages,
as
functionally
different
parts
of
the
final
or
total
product.
The
spinner
produces
in
12
hours
20
lbs.
of
yarn,or
in
1
hour
1
lbs;
consequently
he
produces
in
8
hours
13
lbs.,
or
a
partial
product
equal
in
value
to
all
the
cotton
that
is
spun
in
a
whole
day.
In
like
manner
the
partial
product
of
the
next
period
of
1
hour
and
36
minutes,
is
2
lbs.
of
yarn:
this
represents
the
value
of
the
instruments
of
labour
that
are
consumed
in
12
hours.
In
the
following
hour
and
12
minutes,the
spinner
produces
2
lbs.
of
yarn
worth
3
shillings,a
value
equal
to
the
whole
value
he
creates
in
his
6
hours'
necessary
labour.
Finally,
in
the
last
hour
and
12
minutes
he
produces
another
2
lbs.
of
yarn,whose
value
is
equal
to
the
surplus-value,
created
by
his
surplus
labour
during
half
a
day.
This
method
of
calculation
serves
the
English
manufacturer
for
every
day
use;
it
shows,
he
will
say,
that
in
the
first
8
hours,or
of
the
working
day,
he
gets
back
the
value
of
his
cotton;
and
so
on
for
the
remaining
hours.
It
is
also
a
perfectly
correct
method:
being
in
fact
the
first
method
given
above
with
this
difference,
that
instead
of
being
applied
to
space,
in
which
the
different
parts
of
the
completed
product
lie
side
by
side,
it
deals
with
time,
in
which
those
parts
are
successively
produced.
But
it
can
also
be
accompanied
by
very
barbarian
notions,
more
especially
in
the
heads
of
those
who
are
as
much
interested,
practically,
in
the
process
of
making
value
beget
value,
as
they
are
in
misunderstanding
that
process
theoretically.
Such
people
may
get
the
notion
into
their
heads,
that
our
spinner,
for
example,
produces
or
replaces
in
the
first
8
hours
of
his
working
day
the
value
of
the
cotton;
in
the
following
hour
and
36
minutes
the
value
of
the
instruments
of
labour
worn
away;
in
the
next
hour
and
12
minutes
the
value
of
the
wages;
and
that
he
devotes
to
the
production
of
surplus-value
for
the
manufacturer,
only
that
well
known
\"last
hour.\"
In
this
way
the
poor
spinner
is
made
to
perform
the
two
fold
miracle
not
only
of
producing
cotton,
spindles,steam-engine,
coal,
oil,
&c.,
at
the
same
time
that
he
spins
with
them,
but
also
of
turning
one
working
day
into
five;
for,
in
the
example
we
are
considering,
the
production
of
the
raw
material
and
instruments
of
labour
demands
four
working
days
of
twelve
hours
each,
and
their
conversion
into
yarn
requires
another
such
day.
That
the
love
of
lucre
induces
an
easy
belief
in
such
miracles,
and
that
sycophant
doctrinaires
are
never
wanting
to
prove
them,
is
vouched
for
by
the
following
incident
of
historical
celebrity.
Section
3:
Senior's
\"Last
Hour\"
One
fine
morning,
in
the
year
1836,
Nassau
W.Senior,
who
may
be
called
the
bel-esprit
of
English
economists,
well
known,
alike
for
his
economic\"science,\"
and
for
his
beautiful
style,
was
summoned
from
Oxford
to
Manchester,
to
learn
in
the
latter
place,the
Political
Economy
that
he
taught
in
the
former.
The
manufacturers
elected
him
as
their
champion,
not
only
against
the
newly
passed
Factory
Act,
but
against
the
still
more
menacing
Ten-hours'
agitation.
With
their
usual
practical
acuteness,
they
had
found
out
that
the
learned
Professor
\"wanted
a
good
deal
of
finishing;\"
it
was
this
discovery
that
caused
them
to
write
for
him.On
his
side
the
Professor
has
embodied
the
lecture
he
received
from
the
Manchester
manufacturers,
in
a
pamphlet,
entitled:
\"Letters
on
the
Factory
Act,
as
it
affects
the
cotton
manufacture.\"
London,
1837.Here
we
find,
amongst
others,
the
following
edifying
passage:
\"Under
the
present
law,
no
mill
in
which
persons
under
18
years
of
age
are
employed,
...
can
be
worked
more
than
11
hours
a
day,
that
is,
12
hours
for
5
days
in
the
week,
and
nine
on
Saturday.
\"Now
the
following
analysis
(!)
will
show
that
in
a
mill
so
worked,
the
whole
net
profit
is
derived
from
the
last
hour.
I
will
suppose
a
manufacturer
to
invest
￡100,000:
–
￡80,000
in
his
mill
and
machinery,
and
￡20,000
in
raw
material
and
wages.
The
annual
return
of
that
mill,
supposing
the
capital
to
be
turned
once
a
year,
and
gross
profits
to
be
15
per
cent.,
ought
to
be
goods
worth￡115,000....
Of
this
￡115,000,
each
of
the
twenty
three
half-hours
of
work
produces
5-115ths
or
one
twenty-third.
Of
these
23-23rds
(constituting
the
whole
￡115,000)
twenty,
that
is
to
say
￡100,000
out
of
the
￡115,000,
simply
replace
the
capital;
–one
twenty-third
(or
￡5,000
out
of
the
￡115,000)
makes
up
for
the
deterioration
of
the
mill
and
machinery.
The
remaining
2-23rds,
that
is,
the
last
two
of
the
twenty-three
half-hours
of
every
day,
produce
the
net
profit
of
10
per
cent.
If,
therefore(prices
remaining
the
same),
the
factory
could
be
kept
at
work
thirteen
hours
instead
of
eleven
and
a
half,
with
an
addition
of
about
￡2,600
to
the
circulating
capital,
the
net
profit
would
be
more
than
doubled.
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
hours
of
working
were
reduced
by
one
hour
per
day
(prices
remaining
the
same),
the
net
profit
would
be
destroyed
–
if
they
were
reduced
by
one
hour
and
a
half,
even
the
gross
profit
would
be
destroyed.\"10
And
the
Professor
calls
this
an
\"analysis!\"
If,
giving
credence
to
the
out-cries
of
the
manufacturers,
he
believed
that
the
workmen
spend
the
best
part
of
the
day
in
the
production,
i.e.,
the
reproduction
or
replacement
of
the
value
of
the
buildings,
machinery,cotton,
coal,
&c.,
then
his
analysis
was
superfluous.
His
answer
would
simply
have
been:
–
Gentlemen!if
you
work
your
mills
for
10
hours
instead
of
11,then,
other
things
being
equal,
the
daily
consumption
of
cotton,
machinery,
&c.,
will
decrease
in
proportion.You
gain
just
as
much
as
you
lose.
Your
work-people
will
in
future
spend
one
hour
and
a
half
less
time
in
reproducing
or
replacing
the
capital
that
has
been
advanced.
–
If,
on
the
other
hand,
he
did
not
believe
them
without
further
inquiry,
but,
as
being
an
expert
in
such
matters,
deemed
an
analysis
necessary,
then
he
ought,
in
a
question
that
is
concerned
exclusively
with
the
relations
of
net
profit
to
the
length
of
the
working
day,
before
all
things
to
have
asked
the
manufacturers,to
be
careful
not
to
lump
together
machinery,workshops,
raw
material,
and
labour,
but
to
be
good
enough
to
place
the
constant
capital,
invested
in
buildings,
machinery,
raw
material,
&c.,
on
one
side
of
the
account,
and
the
capital
advanced
in
wages
on
the
other
side.
If
the
Professor
then
found,
that
in
accordance
with
the
calculation
of
the
manufacturers,the
workman
reproduced
or
replaced
his
wages
in
2
half-hours,
in
that
case,
he
should
have
continued
his
analysis
thus:
According
to
your
figures,
the
workman
in
the
last
hour
but
one
produces
his
wages,
and
in
the
last
hour
your
surplus-value
or
net
profit.
Now,
since
in
equal
periods
he
produces
equal
values,
the
produce
of
the
last
hour
but
one,
must
have
the
same
value
as
that
of
the
last
hour.
Further,
it
is
only
while
he
labours
that
he
produces
any
value
at
all,
and
the
amount
of
his
labour
is
measured
by
his
labour-time.
This
you
say,
amounts
to
11
hours
a
day.
He
employs
one
portion
of
these
11
hours,
in
producing
or
replacing
his
wages,
and
the
remaining
portion
in
producing
your
net
profit.Beyond
this
he
does
absolutely
nothing.
But
since,
on
your
assumption,
his
wages,
and
the
surplus-value
he
yields,
are
of
equal
value,
it
is
clear
that
he
produces
his
wages
in
5
hours,
and
your
net
profit
in
the
other
5
hours.
Again,
since
the
value
of
the
yarn
produced
in
2
hours,
is
equal
to
the
sum
of
the
values
of
his
wages
and
of
your
net
profit,
the
measure
of
the
value
of
this
yarn
must
be
11
working-hours,
of
which
5
hours
measure
the
value
of
the
yarn
produced
in
the
last
hour
but
one,
and
5,
the
value
of
the
yarn
produced
in
the
last
hour.
We
now
come
to
a
ticklish
point;
therefore,
attention!
The
last
working-hour
but
one
is,
like
the
first,
an
ordinary
working-hour,
neither
more
nor
less.
How
then
can
the
spinner
produce
in
one
hour,
in
the
shape
of
yarn,
a
value
that
embodies
5
hours'
labour
The
truth
is
that
he
performs
no
such
miracle.
The
use-value
produced
by
him
in
one
hour,
is
a
definite
quantity
of
yarn.
The
value
of
this
yarn
is
measured
by
5
working-hours,
of
which
4were,
without
any
assistance
from
him,
previously
embodied
in
the
means
of
production,
in
the
cotton,the
machinery,
and
so
on;
the
remaining
one
hour
alone
is
added
by
him.
Therefore
since
his
wages
are
produced
in
5
hours,
and
the
yarn
produced
in
one
hour
also
contains
5
hours'
work,
there
is
no
witchcraft
in
the
result,
that
the
value
created
by
his
5
hours'
spinning,
is
equal
to
the
value
of
the
product
spun
in
one
hour.
You
are
altogether
on
the
wrong
track,
if
you
think
that
he
loses
a
single
moment
of
his
working
day,
in
reproducing
or
replacing
the
values
of
the
cotton,
the
machinery,
and
so
on.
On
the
contrary,it
is
because
his
labour
converts
the
cotton
and
spindles
into
yarn,
because
he
spins,
that
the
values
of
the
cotton
and
spindles
go
over
to
the
yarn
of
their
own
accord.
This
result
is
owing
to
the
quality
of
his
labour,
not
to
its
quantity.
It
is
true,
he
will
in
one
hour
transfer
to
the
yarn
more
value,
in
the
shape
of
cotton,than
he
will
in
half
an
hour;
but
that
is
only
because
in
one
hour
he
spins
up
more
cotton
than
in
half
an
hour.
You
see
then,
your
assertion,
that
the
workman
produces,
in
the
last
hour
but
one,
the
value
of
his
wages,
and
in
the
last
hour
your
net
profit,
amounts
to
no
more
than
this,
that
in
the
yarn
produced
by
him
in
2
working-hours,
whether
they
are
the
2
first
or
the
2
last
hours
of
the
working
day,
in
that
yarn,
there
are
incorporated
11
working-hours,
or
just
a
whole
day's
work,
i.e.,
two
hours
of
his
own
work
and
9
hours
of
other
people's.
And
my
assertion
that,
in
the
first
5hours,
he
produces
his
wages,
and
in
the
last
5
hours
your
net
profit,
amounts
only
to
this,
that
you
pay
him
for
the
former,
but
not
for
the
latter.
In
speaking
of
payment
of
labour,
instead
of
payment
of
labour
power,
I
only
talk
your
own
slang.
Now,
gentlemen,
if
you
compare
the
working-time
you
pay
for,
with
that
which
you
do
not
pay
for,
you
will
find
that
they
are
to
one
another,
as
half
a
day
is
to
half
a
day;
this
gives
a
rate
of
100%,
and
a
very
pretty
percentage
it
is.Further,
there
is
not
the
least
doubt,
that
if
you
make
your
\"hands\"
toil
for
13
hours,
instead
of
11,
and,
as
may
be
expected
from
you,
treat
the
work
done
in
that
extra
one
hour
and
a
half,
as
pure
surplus
labour,
then
the
latter
will
be
increased
from
5
hours'
labour
to
7
hours'
labour,
and
the
rate
of
surplus-value
from
100%
to
126
2\/23%.
So
that
you
are
altogether
too
sanguine,
in
expecting
that
by
such
an
addition
of
1hours
to
the
working
day,
the
rate
will
rise
from
100%to
200%
and
more,
in
other
words
that
it
will
be
\"more
than
doubled.\"
On
the
other
hand
man's
heart
is
a
wonderful
thing,
especially
when
carried
in
the
purse
–you
take
too
pessimist
a
view,
when
you
fear,
that
with
a
reduction
of
the
hours
of
labour
from
11
to
10,
the
whole
of
your
net
profit
will
go
to
the
dogs.
Not
at
all.All
other
conditions
remaining
the
same,
the
surplus
labour
will
fall
from
5
hours
to
4
hours,
a
period
that
still
gives
a
very
profitable
rate
of
surplus-value,namely
82
14\/23%.
But
this
dreadful
\"last
hour,\"
about
which
you
have
invented
more
stories
than
have
the
millenarians
about
the
day
of
judgment,
is
\"all
bosh.\"If
it
goes,
it
will
cost
neither
you,
your
net
profit,
nor
the
boys
and
girls
whom
you
employ,
their
\"purity
of
mind.\"11Whenever
your
\"last
hour\"
strikes
in
earnest,think
of
the
Oxford
Professor.
And
now,
gentlemen,\"farewell,
and
may
we
meet
again
in
yonder
better
world,
but
not
before.\"
Senior
invented
the
battle
cry
of
the
\"last
hour\"
in
1836.12In
the
London
Economist
of
the
15th
April,
1848,
the
same
cry
was
again
raised
by
James
Wilson,an
economic
mandarin
of
high
standing:
this
time
in
opposition
to
the
10
hours'
bill.
Section
4:
Surplus-Produce
The
portion
of
the
product
that
represents
the
surplus-value,
(one
tenth
of
the
20
lbs.,
or
2
lbs.of
yarn,
in
the
example
given
in
Sec.
2)
we
call\"surplus-produce.\"
Just
as
the
rate
of
surplus-value
is
determined
by
its
relation,
not
to
the
sum
total
of
the
capital,
but
to
its
variable
part;
in
like
manner,
the
relative
quantity
of
surplus-produce
is
determined
by
the
ratio
that
this
produce
bears,
not
to
the
remaining
part
of
the
total
product,
but
to
that
part
of
it
in
which
is
incorporated
the
necessary
labour.
Since
the
production
of
surplus-value
is
the
chief
end
and
aim
of
capitalist
production,
it
is
clear,
that
the
greatness
of
a
man's
or
a
nation's
wealth
should
be
measured,
not
by
the
absolute
quantity
produced,
but
by
the
relative
magnitude
of
the
surplus-produce.13
The
sum
of
the
necessary
labour
and
the
surplus
labour,
i.e.,
of
the
periods
of
time
during
which
the
workman
replaces
the
value
of
his
labour-power,
and
produces
the
surplus-value,
this
sum
constitutes
the
actual
time
during
which
he
works,
i.e.,
the
working
day.
NOTES:
1\"If
we
reckon
the
value
of
the
fixed
capital
employed
as
a
part
of
the
advances,
we
must
reckon
the
remaining
value
of
such
capital
at
the
end
of
the
year
as
a
part
of
the
annual
returns.\"
(Malthus,
\"Princ.
of
Pol.
Econ.\"
2nd.
ed.,
Lond.,1836,
p.
269.)
2What
Lucretius
says
is
self-evident;
\"nil
posse
creari
de
nihilo,\"
out
of
nothing,
nothing
can
be
created.
Creation
of
value
is
transformation
of
labour-power
into
labour.
Labour
power
itself
is
energy
transferred
to
a
human
organism
by
means
of
nourishing
matter.
3In
the
same
way
that
the
English
use
the
terms
\"rate
of
profit,\"
\"rate
of
interest.\"
We
shall
see,
in
Book
III,
that
the
rate
of
profit
is
no
mystery,
so
soon
as
we
know
the
laws
of
surplus
value.
If
we
reverse
the
process,
we
cannot
comprehend
either
the
one
or
the
other.
4Note
added
in
the
3rd
German
edition.
—
The
author
resorts
here
to
the
economic
language
in
current
use.
It
will
be
remembered
that
on
p.
182
(present
edition,
p.
174)
it
was
shown
that
in
reality
the
labourer
\"advances\"
to
the
capitalist
and
not
the
capitalist
to
the
labourer.
—
F.
E.
5In
this
work,
we
have,
up
to
now,
employed
the
term\"necessary
labour-time,\"
to
designate
the
time
necessary
under
given
social
conditions
for
the
production
of
any
commodity.Henceforward
we
use
it
to
designate
also
the
time
necessary
for
the
production
of
the
particular
commodity
labour-power.The
use
of
one
and
the
same
technical
term
in
different
senses
is
inconvenient,
but
in
no
science
can
it
be
altogether
avoided.Compare,
for
instance,
the
higher
with
the
lower
branches
of
mathematics.
6Herr
Wilhelm
Thucydides
Roscher
has
found
a
mare's
nest.He
has
made
the
important
discovery
that
if,
on
the
one
hand,the
formation
of
surplus-value,
or
surplus-produce,
and
the
consequent
accumulation
of
capital,
is
now-a-days
due
to
the
thrift
of
the
capitalist,
on
the
other
hand,
in
the
lowest
stages
of
civilisation
it
is
the
strong
who
compel
the
weak
to
economise.(l.c.,
p.
78.)
To
economise
what
Labour
Or
superfluous
wealth
that
does
not
exist
What
is
it
that
makes
such
men
as
Roscher
account
for
the
origin
of
surplus-value,
by
a
mere
rechauffé
of
the
more
of
less
plausible
excuses
by
the
capitalist,for
his
appropriation
of
surplus-value
It
is,
besides
their
real
ignorance,
their
apologetic
dread
of
a
scientific
analysis
of
value
and
surplus-value,
and
of
obtaining
a
result,
possibly
not
altogether
palatable
to
the
powers
that
be.
7Although
the
rate
of
surplus-value
is
an
exact
expression
for
the
degree
of
exploitation
of
labour-power,
it
is,
in
no
sense,
an
expression
for
the
absolute
amount
of
exploitation.For
example,
if
the
necessary
labour
=
5
hours
and
the
surplus
labour
=
5
hours,
the
degree
of
exploitation
is
100%.
The
amount
of
exploitation
is
here
measured
by
5
hours.
If,
on
the
other
hand,
the
necessary
labour
=
6
hours
and
the
surplus
labour
=
6
hours,
the
degree
of
exploitation
remains,
as
before,100%,
while
the
actual
amount
of
exploitation
has
increased
20%,
namely
from
five
hours
to
six.
8The
above
data,
which
may
be
relied
upon,
were
given
me
by
a
Manchester
spinner.
In
England
the
horse-power
of
an
engine
was
formerly
calculated
from
the
diameter
of
its
cylinder,
now
the
actual
horse-power
shown
by
the
indicator
is
taken.
9The
calculations
given
in
the
text
are
intended
merely
as
illustrations.
We
have
in
fact.
assumed
that
prices
=
values.We
shall,
however,
see,
in
Book
III.,
that
even
in
the
case
of
average
prices
the
assumption
cannot
be
made
in
this
very
simple
manner.
10Senior,
l.c.,
pp.
12,
13.
We
let
pass
such
extraordinary
notions
as
are
of
no
importance
for
our
purpose;
for
instance,the
assertion,
that
manufacturers
reckon
as
part
of
their
profit,gross
or
net,
the
amount
required
to
make
good
wear
and
tear
of
machinery,
or
in
other
words,
to
replace
a
part
of
the
capital.So,
too,
we
pass
over
any
question
as
to
the
accuracy
of
his
figures.
Leonard
Horner
has
shown
in
\"A
Letter
to
Mr.
Senior,\"&c.,
London,
1837,
that
they
are
worth
no
more
than
so-called\"Analysis.\"
Leonard
Horner
was
one
of
the
Factory
Inquiry
Commissioners
in
1833,
and
Inspector,
or
rather
Censor
of
Factories
till
1859.
He
rendered
undying
service
to
the
English
working-class.
He
carried
on
a
life-long
contest,
not
only
with
the
embittered
manufacturers,
but
also
with
the
Cabinet,
to
whom
the
number
of
votes
given
by
the
masters
in
the
Lower
House,
was
a
matter
of
far
greater
importance
than
the
number
of
hours
worked
by
the
\"hands\"
in
the
mills.
Apart
from
efforts
in
principle,
Senior's
statement
is
confused.
What
he
really
intended
to
say
was
this:
The
manufacturer
employs
the
workman
for
11
hours
or
for
23
half-hours
daily.
As
the
working
day,
so,
too,
the
working
year,may
be
conceived
to
consist
of
11
hours
or
23
half-hours,
but
each
multiplied
by
the
number
of
working
days
in
the
year.
On
this
supposition,
the
23
half-hours
yield
an
annual
product
of￡115,000;
one
half-hour
yields
1\/23
×
￡115,000;
20
half-hours
yield
20\/23
×
￡115,000
=
￡100,000,
i.e.,
they
replace
no
more
than
the
capital
advanced.
There
remain
3
half-hours,
which
yield
1\/23
×
￡115,000
=
￡5,000
or
the
gross
profit.
Of
these
3
half-hours,
one
yields
1\/23
×
￡115,000
=
￡5,000;
i.e.,
it
makes
up
for
the
wear
and
tear
of
the
machinery;
the
remaining
2
half-hours,
i.e.,
the
last
hour,
yield
2\/23
×
￡115,000
=
￡10,000
or
the
net
profit.
In
the
text
Senior
converts
the
last
2\/23
of
the
product
into
portions
of
the
working
day
itself.
11If,
on
the
one
hand,
Senior
proved
that
the
net
profit
of
the
manufacturer,
the
existence
of
he
English
cotton
industry,and
England's
command
of
the
markets
of
the
world,
depend
on
\"the
last
working-hour,\"
on
the
other
hand,
Dr.
Andrew
Ure
showed,
that
if
children
and
young
persons
under
18
years
of
age,
instead
of
being
kept
the
full
12
hours
in
the
warm
and
pure
moral
atmosphere
of
the
factory,
are
turned
out
an
hour
sooner
into
the
heartless
and
frivolous
outer
world,
they
will
be
deprived,
by
idleness
and
vice,
of
all
hope
of
salvation
for
their
souls.
Since
1848,
the
factory
inspectors
have
never
tired
of
twitting
the
masters
with
this
\"last,\"
this
\"fatal
hour.\"
Thus
Mr.Hovell
in
his
report
of
the
21st
May,
1855:
\"Had
the
following
ingenious
calculation
(he
quotes
Senior)
been
correct,
every
cotton
factory
in
the
United
Kingdom
would
have
been
working
at
a
loss
since
the
year
1850.\"
(Reports
of
the
Insp.
of
Fact.,
for
the
half-year,
ending
30th
April,
1855,
pp.
19,
20.)
In
the
year
1848,
after
the
passing
of
the
10
hours'
bill,
the
masters
of
some
flax
spinning
mills,
scattered,
few
and
far
between,over
the
country
on
the
borders
of
Dorset
and
Somerset,
foisted
a
petition
against
the
bill
on
to
the
shoulders
of
a
few
of
their
work-people.
One
of
the
clauses
of
this
petition
is
as
follows:\"Your
petitioners,
as
parents,
conceive
that
an
additional
hour
of
leisure
will
tend
more
to
demoralise
the
children
than
otherwise,
believing
that
idleness
is
the
parent
of
vice.\"
On
this
the
factory
report
of
31st
Oct.,
1848,
says:
The
atmosphere
of
the
flax
mills,
in
which
the
children
of
these
virtuous
and
tender
parents
work,
is
so
loaded
with
dust
and
fibre
from
the
raw
material,
that
it
is
exceptionally
unpleasant
to
stand
even
10
minutes
in
the
spinning
rooms:
for
you
are
unable
to
do
so
without
the
most
painful
sensation,
owing
to
the
eyes,
the
ears,
the
nostrils,
and
mouth,
being
immediately
filled
by
the
clouds
of
flax
dust
from
which
there
is
no
escape.
The
labour
itself,
owing
to
the
feverish
haste
of
the
machinery,
demands
unceasing
application
of
skill
and
movement,
under
the
control
of
a
watchfulness
that
never
tires,
and
it
seems
somewhat
hard,to
let
parents
apply
the
term
\"idling\"
to
their
own
children,who,
after
allowing
for
meal-times,
are
fettered
for
10
whole
hours
to
such
an
occupation,
in
such
an
atmosphere....
These
children
work
longer
than
the
labourers
in
the
neighbouring
villages....
Such
cruel
talk
about
\"idleness
and
vice\"
ought
to
be
branded
as
the
purest
cant,
and
the
most
shameless
hypocrisy....That
portion
of
the
public,
who,
about
12
years
ago,
were
struck
by
the
assurance
with
which,
under
the
sanction
of
high
authority,
it
was
publicly
and
most
earnestly
proclaimed,that
the
whole
net
profit
of
the
manufacturer
flows
from
the
labour
of
the
last
hour,
and
that,
therefore,
the
reduction
of
the
working
day
by
one
hour,
would
destroy
his
net
profit,
that
portion
of
the
public,
we
say,
will
hardly
believe
its
own
eyes,when
it
now
finds,
that
the
original
discovery
of
the
virtues
of\"the
last
hour\"
has
since
been
so
far
improved,
as
to
include
morals
as
well
as
profit;
so
that,
if
the
duration
of
the
labour
of
children,
is
reduced
to
a
full
10
hours,
their
morals,
together
with
the
net
profits
of
their
employers,
will
vanish,
both
being
dependent
on
this
last,
this
fatal
hour.
(See
Repts.,
Insp.
of
Fact.,
for
31st
Oct.,
1848,
p.
101.)
The
same
report
then
gives
some
examples
of
the
morality
and
virtue
of
these
same
pure
minded
manufacturers,
of
the
tricks,
the
artifices,
the
cajoling,the
threats,
and
the
falsifications,
they
made
use
of,
in
order,first,
to
compel
a
few
defenceless
workmen
to
sign
petitions
of
such
a
kind,
and
then
to
impose
them
upon
Parliament
as
the
petitions
of
a
whole
branch
of
industry,
or
a
whole
country.It
is
highly
characteristic
of
the
present
status
of
so-called
economic
science,
that
neither
Senior
himself,
who,
at
a
later
period,
to
his
honour
be
it
said,
energetically
supported
the
factory
legislation,
nor
his
opponents,
from
first
to
last,
have
ever
been
able
to
explain
the
false
conclusions
of
the
\"original
discovery.\"
They
appeal
to
actual
experience,
but
the
why
and
wherefore
remains
a
mystery.
12Nevertheless,
the
learned
professor
was
not
without
some
benefit
from
his
journey
to
Manchester.
In
the
\"Letters
on
the
Factory
Act,\"
he
makes
the
whole
net
gains
including\"profit\"
and
\"interests\"
and
even
\"something
more,\"
depend
upon
a
single
unpaid
hour's
work
of
the
labourer.
One
year
previously,
in
his
\"Outlines
of
Political
Economy,\"
written
for
the
instruction
of
Oxford
students
and
cultivated
Philistines,
he
had
also
\"discovered,
in
opposition
to
Ricardo's
determination
of
value
by
labour,
that
profit
is
derived
from
the
labour
of
the
capitalist,
and
interest
from
his
asceticism,
in
other
words,from
his
abstinence.\"
The
dodge
was
an
old
one,
but
the
word\"abstinence\"
was
new.
Herr
Roscher
translates
it
rightly
by\"Enthaltung.\"
Some
of
his
countrymen,
the
Browns,
Jones,and
Robinsons,
of
Germany,
not
so
well
versed
in
Latin
as
he,have,
monk-like,
rendered
it
by
\"Entsagung\"
(renunciation).
13\"To
an
individual
with
a
capital
of
￡20,000,
whose
profits
were
￡2,000
per
annum,
it
would
be
a
matter
quite
indifferent
whether
his
capital
would
employ
a
100
or
1,000
men,whether
the
commodity
produced
sold
for
￡10,000
or
￡20,000,provided,
in
all
cases,
his
profit
were
not
diminished
below￡2,000.
Is
not
the
real
interest
of
the
nation
similar
Provided
its
net
real
income,
its
rent
and
profits,
be
the
same,
it
is
of
no
importance
whether
the
nation
consists
of
10
or
of
12
millions
of
inhabitants.\"
(Ric.
l.c.,.p.
416.)
Long
before
Ricardo,Arthur
Young,
a
fanatical
upholder
of
surplus-produce,
for
the
rest,
a
rambling,
uncritical
writer,
whose
reputation
is
in
the
inverse
ratio
of
his
merit,
says,
\"Of
what
use,
in
a
modem
kingdom,
would
be
a
whole
province
thus
divided
[in
the
old
Roman
manner,
by
small
independent
peasants],
however
well
cultivated,
except
for
the
mere
purpose
of
breeding
men,which
taken
singly
is
a
most
useless
purpose\"
(Arthur
Young:
\"Political
Arithmetic,
&c.\"
London,
1774,
p.
47.)
Very
curious
is
\"the
strong
inclination...
to
represent
net
wealth
as
beneficial
to
the
labouring
class...
though
it
is
evidently
not
on
account
of
being
net.\"
(Th
.
Hopkins,
\"On
Rent
of
Land,
&c.\"
London,
1828,
p.
126.)
精選分類
