- 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
The
Bury
Guardian
said,
on
the
completion
of
the
French
treaty,
that
\"10,000
additional
hands
could
be
absorbed
by
Lancashire,
and
that
30,000
or
40,000
will
be
needed.\"
After
the
\"flesh
agents
and
sub
agents\"
had
in
vain
sought
through
the
agricultural
districts,
\"a
deputation
came
up
to
London,
and
waited
on
the
right
hon.
gentleman
[Mr.
Villiers,
President
of
the
Poor
Law
Board]
with
a
view
of
obtaining
poor
children
from
certain
union
houses
for
the
mills
of
Lancashire.\"
78
What
experience
shows
to
the
capitalist
generally
is
a
constant
excess
of
population,
i.e.,
an
excess
in
relation
to
the
momentary
requirements
of
surplus
labour-absorbing
capital,
although
this
excess
is
made
up
of
generations
of
human
beings
stunted,
short
lived,
swiftly
replacing
each
other,
plucked,
so
to
say,before
maturity.79And,
indeed,
experience
shows
tothe
intelligent
observer
with
what
swiftness
and
grip
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
dating,
historically
speaking,
only
from
yesterday,
has
seized
the
vital
power
of
the
people
by
the
very
root
–
shows
how
the
degeneration
of
the
industrial
population
is
only
retarded
by
the
constant
absorption
of
primitive
and
physically
uncorrupted
elements
from
the
country–
shows
how
even
the
country
labourers,
in
spite
of
fresh
air
and
the
principle
of
natural
selection,
that
works
so
powerfully
amongst
them,
and
only
permits
the
survival
of
the
strongest,
are
already
beginning
to
die
off.
80Capital
that
has
such
good
reasons
for
denying
the
sufferings
of
the
legions
of
workers
that
surround
it,
is
in
practice
moved
as
much
and
as
little
by
the
sight
of
the
coming
degradation
and
final
depopulation
of
the
human
race,
as
by
the
probable
fall
of
the
earth
into
the
sun.
In
every
stockjobbing
swindle
every
one
knows
that
some
time
or
other
the
crash
must
come,
but
every
one
hopes
that
it
may
fall
on
the
head
of
his
neighbour,
after
he
himself
has
caught
the
shower
of
gold
and
placed
it
in
safety.
Après
moi
le
déluge!
[After
me,
the
flood]
is
thewatchword
of
every
capitalist
and
of
every
capitalist
nation.
Hence
Capital
is
reckless
of
the
health
or
length
of
life
of
the
labourer,
unless
under
compulsion
from
society.81To
the
out-cry
as
to
the
physical
and
mental
degradation,
the
premature
death,
the
torture
of
over-work,
it
answers:
Ought
these
to
trouble
us
since
they
increase
our
profits
But
looking
at
things
as
a
whole,
all
this
does
not,
indeed,
depend
on
the
good
or
ill
will
of
the
individual
capitalist.
Free
competition
brings
out
the
inherent
laws
of
capitalist
production,
in
the
shape
of
external
coercive
laws
having
power
over
every
individual
capitalist.82
The
establishment
of
a
normal
working
day
is
the
result
of
centuries
of
struggle
between
capitalist
and
labourer.
The
history
of
this
struggle
shows
two
opposed
tendencies.
Compare,
e.g.,
the
English
factory
legislation
of
our
time
with
the
English
labour
Statutes
from
the
14th
century
to
well
into
the
middle
of
the
18th.83Whilst
the
modern
Factory
Acts
compulsorily
shortened
the
working
day,
the
earlier
statutes
tried
to
lengthen
it
by
compulsion.
Of
course
the
pretensions
of
capital
in
embryo
–
when,beginning
to
grow,
it
secures
the
right
of
absorbing
a
quantum
sufficit
[sufficient
quantity]
of
surplus
labour,not
merely
by
the
force
of
economic
relations,
but
by
the
help
of
the
State
–
appear
very
modest
when
put
face
to
face
with
the
concessions
that,
growling
and
struggling,
it
has
to
make
in
its
adult
condition.It
takes
centuries
ere
the
\"free\"
labourer,
thanks
to
the
development
of
capitalistic
production,
agrees,i.e.,
is
compelled
by
social
conditions,
to
sell
the
whole
of
his
active
life，his
very
capacity
for
work,for
the
price
of
the
necessaries
of
life,
his
birth-right
for
a
mess
of
pottage.
Hence
it
is
natural
that
the
lengthening
of
the
working
day,
which
capital,
from
the
middle
of
the
14th
to
the
end
of
the
17th
century,tries
to
impose
by
State-measures
on
adult
labourers,
approximately
coincides
with
the
shortening
of
the
working
day
which,
in
the
second
half
of
the
19th
century,
has
here
and
there
been
effected
by
the
State
to
prevent
the
coining
of
children's
blood
into
capital.That
which
to-day,
e.g.,
in
the
State
of
Massachusetts,until
recently
the
freest
State
of
the
North-American
Republic,
has
been
proclaimed
as
the
statutory
limit
of
the
labour
of
children
under
12,
was
in
England,
even
in
the
middle
of
the
17th
century,
the
normal
working
day
of
able-bodied
artisans,
robust
labourers,
athletic
blacksmiths.84
The
first
\"Statute
of
Labourers\"
(23
Edward
III.,1349)
found
its
immediate
pretext
(not
its
cause,for
legislation
of
this
kind
lasts
centuries
after
the
pretext
for
it
has
disappeared)
in
the
great
plague
that
decimated
the
people,
so
that,
as
a
Tory
writer
says,\"The
difficulty
of
getting
men
to
work
on
reasonable
terms
(i.e.,
at
a
price
that
left
their
employers
a
reasonable
quantity
of
surplus
labour)
grew
to
such
a
height
as
to
be
quite
intolerable.\"
85Reasonable
wages
were,
therefore,
fixed
by
law
as
well
as
the
limits
of
the
working
day.
The
latter
point,
the
only
one
that
here
interests
us,
is
repeated
in
the
Statute
of
1496
(Henry
VII.).
The
working
day
for
all
artificers
and
field
labourers
from
March
to
September
ought,according
to
this
statute
(which,
however,
could
not
be
enforced),
to
last
from
5
in
the
morning
to
between
7
and
8
in
the
evening.
But
the
meal-times
consist
of
1
hour
for
breakfast,
1
hours
for
dinner,
and
an
hour
for
\"noon-meate,\"
i.e.,
exactly
twice
as
much
as
under
the
factory
acts
now
in
force.86In
winter,
work
was
to
last
from
5
in
the
morning
until
dark,
with
the
same
intervals.
A
statute
of
Elizabeth
of
1562
leaves
the
length
of
the
working
day
for
all
labourers
\"hired
for
daily
or
weekly
wage\"
untouched,
but
aims
at
limiting
the
intervals
to
2
hours
in
the
summer,
or
to
2
in
the
winter.
Dinner
is
only
to
last
1
hour,
and
the
\"afternoon-sleep
of
half
an
hour\"
is
only
allowed
between
the
middle
of
May
and
the
middle
of
August.For
every
hour
of
absence
1d.
is
to
be
subtracted
from
the
wage.
In
practice,
however,
the
conditions
were
much
more
favourable
to
the
labourers
than
in
the
statute-book.
William
Petty,
the
father
of
Political
Economy,
and
to
some
extent
the
founder
of
Statistics,says
in
a
work
that
he
published
in
the
last
third
of
the
17th
century:
\"Labouring-men
(then
meaning
field-labourers)
work
10
hours
per
diem,
and
make
20
meals
per
week,
viz.,
3
a
day
for
working
days,
and
2
on
Sundays;
whereby
it
is
plain,
that
if
they
could
fast
on
Friday
nights,
and
dine
in
one
hour
and
an
half,
whereas
they
take
two,
from
eleven
to
one;
thereby
thus
working
1\/20
more,
and
spending
1\/20
less,
the
above-mentioned
(tax)
might
be
raised.\"
87
Was
not
Dr.
Andrew
Ure
right
in
crying
down
the
12
hours'
bill
of
1833
as
a
retrogression
to
the
times
of
the
dark
ages
It
is
true
these
regulations
contained
in
the
statute
mentioned
by
Petty,
apply
also
to
apprentices.But
the
condition
of
child-labour,
even
at
the
end
of
the
17th
century,
is
seen
from
the
following
complaint:
\"'Tis
not
their
practice
(in
Germany)
as
with
us
in
this
kingdom,
to
bind
an
apprentice
for
seven
years;
three
or
four
is
their
common
standard:
and
the
reason
is,
because
they
are
educated
from
their
cradle
to
something
of
employment,
which
renders
them
the
more
apt
and
docile,
and
consequently
the
more
capable
of
attaining
to
a
ripeness
and
quicker
proficiency
in
business.
Whereas
our
youth,
here
in
England,
being
bred
to
nothing
before
they
come
to
be
apprentices,
make
a
very
slow
progress
and
require
much
longer
time
wherein
to
reach
the
perfection
of
accomplished
artists.\"88
Still,
during
the
greater
part
of
the
18th
century,up
to
the
epoch
of
Modern
Industry
and
machinism,capital
in
England
had
not
succeeded
in
seizing
for
itself,
by
the
payment
of
the
weekly
value
of
labour
power,
the
whole
week
of
the
labourer,
with
the
exception,
however,
of
the
agricultural
labourers.The
fact
that
they
could
live
for
a
whole
week
on
the
wage
of
four
days,
did
not
appear
to
the
labourers
a
sufficient
reason
that
they
should
work
the
other
two
days
for
the
capitalist.
One
party
of
English
economists,
in
the
interest
of
capital,
denounces
this
obstinacy
in
the
most
violent
manner,
another
party
defends
the
labourers.
Let
us
listen,
e.g.,
to
the
contest
between
Postlethwayt
whose
Dictionary
of
Trade
then
had
the
same
reputation
as
the
kindred
works
of
MacCulloch
and
MacGregor
to-day,
and
the
author
(already
quoted)
of
the
\"Essay
on
Trade
and
Commerce.\"
89
Postlethwayt
says
among
other
things:
\"We
cannot
put
an
end
to
those
few
observations,
without
noticing
that
trite
remark
in
the
mouth
of
too
many;
that
if
the
industrious
poor
can
obtain
enough
to
maintain
themselves
in
five
days,
they
will
not
work
the
whole
six.
Whence
they
infer
the
necessity
of
even
the
necessaries
of
life
being
made
dear
by
taxes,
or
any
other
means,
to
compel
the
working
artisan
and
manufacturer
to
labour
the
whole
six
days
in
the
week,
without
ceasing.
I
must
beg
leave
to
differ
in
sentiment
from
those
great
politicians,
who
contend
for
the
perpetual
slavery
of
the
working
people
of
this
kingdom;
they
forget
the
vulgar
adage,
all
work
and
no
play.
Have
not
the
English
boasted
of
the
ingenuity
and
dexterity
of
her
working
artists
and
manufacturers
which
have
heretofore
given
credit
and
reputation
to
British
wares
in
general
What
has
this
been
owing
to
To
nothing
more
probably
than
the
relaxation
of
the
working
people
in
their
own
way.
Were
they
obliged
to
toil
the
year
round,
the
whole
six
days
in
the
week,
in
a
repetition
of
the
same
work,
might
it
not
blunt
their
ingenuity,
and
render
them
stupid
instead
of
alert
and
dexterous;and
might
not
our
workmen
lose
their
reputation
instead
of
maintaining
it
by
such
eternal
slavery...
And
what
sort
of
workmanship
could
we
expect
from
such
hard-driven
animals
...
Many
of
them
will
execute
as
much
work
in
four
days
as
a
Frenchman
will
in
five
or
six.
But
if
Englishmen
are
to
be
eternal
drudges,
'tis
to
be
feared
they
will
degenerate
below
the
Frenchmen.
As
our
people
are
famed
for
bravery
in
war,
do
we
not
say
that
it
is
owing
to
good
English
roast
beef
and
pudding
in
their
bellies,
as
well
as
their
constitutional
spirit
of
liberty
And
why
may
not
the
superior
ingenuity
and
dexterity
of,
our
artists
and
manufacturers,be
owing
to
that
freedom
and
liberty
to
direct
themselves
in
their
own
way,
and
I
hope
we
shall
never
have
them
deprived
of
such
privileges
and
that
good
living
from
whence
their
ingenuity
no
less
than
their
courage
may
proceed.\"90
Thereupon
the
author
of
the
\"Essay
on
Trade
and
Commerce\"
replies:
\"If
the
making
of
every
seventh
day
an
holiday
is
supposed
to
be
of
divine
institution,
as
it
implies
the
appropriating
the
other
six
days
to
labour\"
(he
means
capital
as
we
shall
soon
see)
\"surely
it
will
not
be
thought
cruel
to
enforce
it
....
That
mankind
in
general,
are
naturally
inclined
to
ease
and
indolence,
we
fatally
experience
to
be
true,
from
the
conduct
of
our
manufacturing
populace,
who
do
not
labour,
upon
an
average,
above
four
days
in
a
week,
unless
provisions
happen
to
be
very
dear....Put
all
the
necessaries
of
the
poor
under
one
denomination;
for
instance,
call
them
all
wheat,or
suppose
that
...
the
bushel
of
wheat
shall
cost
five
shillings
and
that
he
(a
manufacturer)
earns
a
shilling
by
his
labour,
he
then
would
be
obliged
to
work
five
days
only
in
a
week.
If
the
bushel
of
wheat
should
cost
but
four
shillings,
he
would
be
obliged
to
work
but
four
days;
but
as
wages
in
this
kingdom
are
much
higher
in
proportion
to
the
price
of
necessaries
...
the
manufacturer,
who
labours
four
days,
has
a
surplus
of
money
to
live
idle
with
the
rest
of
the
week
.
...
I
hope
I
have
said
enough
to
make
it
appear
that
the
moderate
labour
of
six
days
in
a
week
is
no
slavery.
Our
labouring
people
do
this,
and
to
all
appearance
are
the
happiest
of
all
our
labouring
poor,91but
the
Dutch
do
this
in
manufactures,
and
appear
to
be
a
very
happy
people.
The
French
do
so,
when
holidays
do
not
intervene.92But
our
populace
have
adopted
a
notion,
that
as
Englishmen
they
enjoy
a
birthright
privilege
of
being
more
free
and
independent
than
in
any
country
in
Europe.
Now
this
idea,
as
far
as
it
may
affect
the
bravery
of
our
troops,
may
be
of
some
use;
but
the
less
the
manufacturing
poor
have
of
it,
certainly
the
better
for
themselves
and
for
the
State.
The
labouring
people
should
never
think
themselves
independent
of
their
superiors....It
is
extremely
dangerous
to
encourage
mobs
in
a
commercial
state
like
ours,
where,
perhaps,
seven
parts
out
of
eight
of
the
whole,
are
people
with
little
or
no
property.
The
cure
will
not
be
perfect,till
our
manufacturing
poor
are
contented
to
labour
six
days
for
the
same
sum
which
they
now
earn
in
four
days.\"
93
To
this
end,
and
for
\"extirpating
idleness
debauchery
and
excess,\"
promoting
a
spirit
of
industry,
\"lowering
the
price
of
labour
in
our
manufactories,
and
easing
the
lands
of
the
heavy
burden
of
poor's
rates,\"
our\"faithful
Eckart\"
of
capital
proposes
this
approved
device:
to
shut
up
such
labourers
as
become
dependent
on
public
support,
in
a
word,
paupers,
in\"an
ideal
workhouse.\"
Such
ideal
workhouse
must
be
made
a
\"House
of
Terror,\"
and
not
an
asylum
for
the
poor,
\"where
they
are
to
be
plentifully
fed,warmly
and
decently
clothed,
and
where
they
do
but
little
work.\"
94In
this
\"House
of
Terror,\"
this
\"ideal
workhouse,
the
poor
shall
work
14
hours
in
a
day,allowing
proper
time
for
meals,
in
such
manner
that
there
shall
remain
12
hours
of
neat-labour.\"95
Twelve
working-hours
daily
in
the
Ideal
Workhouse,in
the
\"House
of
Terror\"
of
1770!
63
years
later,in
1833,
when
the
English
Parliament
reduced
the
working
day
for
children
of
13
to
18,
in
four
branches
of
industry
to
12
full
hours,
the
judgment
day
of
English
Industry
had
dawned!
In
1852,
when
Louis
Bonaparte
sought
to
secure
his
position
with
the
bourgeoisie
by
tampering
with
the
legal
working
day,the
French
working
people
cried
out
with
one
voice\"the
law
that
limits
the
working
day
to
12
hours
is
the
one
good
that
has
remained
to
us
of
the
legislation
of
the
Republic!\"
96At
Zürich
the
work
of
children
over
10,
is
limited
to
12
hours;
in
Aargau
in
1862,
the
work
of
children
between
13
and
16,
was
reduced
from
12to
12
hours;
in
Austria
in
1860,
for
children
between
14
and
16,
the
same
reduction
was
made.97\"What
a
progress,\"
since
1770!
Macaulay
would
shout
with
exultation!
The
\"House
of
Terror\"
for
paupers
of
which
the
capitalistic
soul
of
1770
only
dreamed,
was
realised
a
few
years
later
in
the
shape
of
a
gigantic
\"Workhouse\"for
the
industrial
worker
himself.
It
is
called
the
Factory.
And
the
ideal
this
time
fades
before
the
reality.
Section
6:
The
Struggle
for
a
Normal
Working
Day.
Compulsory
Limitation
by
Law
of
the
Working-Time.
English
Factory
Acts,
1833
After
capital
had
taken
centuries
in
extending
the
working
day
to
its
normal
maximum
limit,
and
then
beyond
this
to
the
limit
of
the
natural
day
of
12
hours,98there
followed
on
the
birth
of
machinism
andmodern
industry
in
the
last
third
of
the
18th
century,
a
violent
encroachment
like
that
of
an
avalanche
in
its
intensity
and
extent.
All
bounds
of
morals
and
nature,age
and
sex,
day
and
night,
were
broken
down.
Even
the
ideas
of
day
and
night,
of
rustic
simplicity
in
the
old
statutes,
became
so
confused
that
an
English
judge,
as
late
as
1860,
needed
a
quite
Talmudic
sagacity
to
explain
\"judicially\"
what
was
day
and
what
was
night.99Capital
celebrated
its
orgies.
As
soon
as
the
working-class,
stunned
at
first
by
the
noise
and
turmoil
of
the
new
system
of
production,recovered,
in
some
measure,
its
senses,
its
resistance
began,
and
first
in
the
native
land
of
machinism,
in
England.
For
30
years,
however,
the
concessions
conquered
by
the
workpeople
were
purely
nominal.Parliament
passed
5
labour
Laws
between
1802
and
1833,
but
was
shrewd
enough
not
to
vote
a
penny
for
their
carrying
out,
for
the
requisite
officials,
&c.
100
They
remained
a
dead
letter.
\"The
fact
is,
that
prior
to
the
Act
of
1833,
young
persons
and
children
were
worked
all
night,
all
day,
or
both
ad
libitum.\"101
A
normal
working
day
for
modern
industry
only
dates
from
the
Factory
Act
of
1833,
which
included
cotton,
wool,
flax,
and
silk
factories.
Nothing
is
more
characteristic
of
the
spirit
of
capital
than
the
history
of
the
English
Factory
Acts
from
1833
to
1864.
The
Act
of
1833
declares
the
ordinary
factory
working
day
to
be
from
half-past
five
in
the
morning
to
half-past
eight
in
the
evening
and
within
these
limits,
a
period
of
15
hours,
it
is
lawful
to
employ
young
persons
(i.e.,
persons
between
13
and
18
years
of
age),
at
any
time
of
the
day,
provided
no
one
individual
young
person
should
work
more
than
12
hours
in
any
one
day,
except
in
certain
cases
especially
provided
for.
The
6th
section
of
the
Act
provided.\"That
there
shall
be
allowed
in
the
course
of
every
day
not
less
than
one
and
a
half
hours
for
meals
to
every
such
person
restricted
as
hereinbefore
provided.\"
The
employment
of
children
under
9,
with
exceptions
mentioned
later
was
forbidden;
the
work
of
children
between
9
and
13
was
limited
to
8
hours
a
day,
night
work,
i.e.,
according
to
this
Act,
work
between
8:30
p.m.
and
5:30
a.m.,
was
forbidden
for
all
persons
between
9
and
18.
The
law-makers
were
so
far
from
wishing
to
trench
on
the
freedom
of
capital
to
exploit
adult
labour
power,
or,
as
they
called
it,
\"the
freedom
of
labour,\"that
they
created
a
special
system
in
order
to
prevent
the
Factory
Acts
from
having
a
consequence
so
outrageous.
\"The
great
evil
of
the
factory
system
as
at
present
conducted,\"
says
the
first
report
of
the
Central
Board
of
the
Commission
of
June
28th
1833,
\"has
appeared
to
us
to
be
that
it
entails
the
necessity
of
continuing
the
labour
of
children
to
the
utmost
length
of
that
of
the
adults.
The
only
remedy
for
this
evil,
short
of
the
limitation
of
the
labour
of
adults
which
would,
in
our
opinion,create
an
evil
greater
than
that
which
is
sought
to
be
remedied,
appears
to
be
the
plan
of
working
double
sets
of
children.\"
...
Under
the
name
of
System
of
Relays,
this
\"plan\"was
therefore
carried
out,
so
that,
e.g.,
from
5.30
a.m.until
1.30
in
the
afternoon,
one
set
of
children
between
9
and
13,
and
from
1.30
p.m.
to
8.30
in
the
evening
another
set
were
\"put
to,\"
&c.
In
order
to
reward
the
manufacturers
for
having,in
the
most
barefaced
way,
ignored
all
the
Acts
as
to
children's
labour
passed
during
the
last
twenty
two
years,
the
pill
was
yet
further
gilded
for
them.Parliament
decreed
that
after
March
1st,
1834,
no
child
under
11,
after
March
1st
1835,
no
child
under
12,
and
after
March
1st,
1836,
no
child
under
13
was
to
work
more
than
eight
hours
in
a
factory.
This
\"liberalism,\"
so
full
of
consideration
for
\"capital,\"
was
the
more
noteworthy
as
Dr.
Farre,
Sir
A.
Carlisle,
Sir
B.
Brodie,
Sir
C.
Bell,
Mr.
Guthrie,
&c.,
in
a
word,the
most
distinguished
physicians
and
surgeons
in
London,
had
declared
in
their
evidence
before
the
House
of
Commons,
that
there
was
danger
in
delay.Dr.
Farre
expressed
himself
still
more
coarsely.
\"Legislation
is
necessary
for
the
prevention
of
death,
in
any
form
in
which
it
can
be
prematurely
inflicted,
and
certainly
this
(i.e.,
the
factory
method)
must
be
viewed
as
a
most
cruel
mode
of
inflicting
it.\"
That
same
\"reformed\"
Parliament,
which
in
its
delicate
consideration
for
the
manufacturers,condemned
children
under
13,
for
years
to
come,to
72
hours
of
work
per
week
in
the
Factory
Hell,on
the
other
hand,
in
the
Emancipation
Act,
which
also
administered
freedom
drop
by
drop,
forbade
the
planters,
from
the
outset,
to
work
any
negro
slave
more
than
45
hours
a
week.
But
in
no
wise
conciliated,
capital
now
began
a
noisy
agitation
that
went
on
for
several
years.
It
turned
chiefly
on
the
age
of
those
who,
under
the
name
of
children,
were
limited
to
8
hours'
work,
and
were
subject
to
a
certain
amount
of
compulsory
education.According
to
capitalistic
anthropology,
the
age
of
childhood
ended
at
10,
or
at
the
outside,
at
11.
The
more
nearly
the
time
approached
for
the
coming
into
full
force
of
the
Factory
Act,
the
fatal
year
1836,
the
more
wildly
raged
the
mob
of
manufacturers.
They
managed,
in
fact,
to
intimidate
the
government
to
such
an
extent
that
in
1835
it
proposed
to
lower
the
limit
of
the
age
of
childhood
from
13
to
12.
In
the
meantime
the
pressure
from
without
grew
more
threatening.Courage
failed
the
House
of
Commons.
It
refused
to
throw
children
of
13
under
the
Juggernaut
Car
of
capital
for
more
than
8
hours
a
day,
and
the
Act
of
1833
came
into
full
operation.
It
remained
unaltered
until
June,
1844.
In
the
ten
years
during
which
it
regulated
factory
work,
first
in
part,
and
then
entirely,
the
official
reports
of
the
factory
inspectors
teem
with
complaints
as
to
the
impossibility
of
putting
the
Act
into
force.
As
the
law
of
1833
left
it
optional
with
the
lords
of
capital
during
the
15
hours,
from
5:30
a.m.
to
8:30
p.m.,to
make
every
\"young
person,\"
and
every
\"child\"begin,
break
off,
resume,
or
end
his
12
or
8
hours
at
any
moment
they
liked,
and
also
permitted
them
to
assign
to
different
persons,
different
times
for
meals,these
gentlemen
soon
discovered
a
new
\"system
of
relays,\"
by
which
the
labour-horses
were
not
changed
at
fixed
stations,
but
were
constantly
re-harnessed
at
changing
stations.
We
do
not
pause
longer
on
the
beauty
of
this
system,
as
we
shall
have
to
return
to
it
later.
But
this
much
is
clear
at
the
first
glance:that
this
system
annulled
the
whole
Factory
Act,
not
only
in
the
spirit,
but
in
the
letter.
How
could
factory
inspectors,
with
this
complex
bookkeeping
in
respect
to
each
individual
child
or
young
person,
enforce
the
legally
determined
work-time
and
the
granting
of
the
legal
mealtimes
In
a
great
many
of
the
factories,
the
old
brutalities
soon
blossomed
out
again
unpunished.In
an
interview
with
the
Home
Secretary
(1844),
the
factory
inspectors
demonstrated
the
impossibility
of
any
control
under
the
newly
invented
relay
system.102In
the
meantime,
however,
circumstances
had
greatly
changed.
The
factory
hands,
especially
since
1838,had
made
the
Ten
Hours'
Bill
their
economic,
as
they
had
made
the
Charter
their
political,
election
cry.
Some
of
the
manufacturers,
even,
who
had
managed
their
factories
in
conformity
with
the
Act
of
1833,
overwhelmed
Parliament
with
memorials
on
the
immoral
competition
of
their
false
brethren
whom
greater
impudence,
or
more
fortunate
local
circumstances,
enabled
to
break
the
law.
Moreover,however
much
the
individual
manufacturer
might
give
the
rein
to
his
old
lust
for
gain,
the
spokesmen
and
political
leaders
of
the
manufacturing
class
ordered
a
change
of
front
and
of
speech
towards
the
workpeople.They
had
entered
upon
the
contest
for
the
repeal
of
the
Corn
Laws,
and
needed
the
workers
to
help
them
to
victory.
They
promised
therefore,
not
only
a
double
sized
loaf
of
bread,
but
the
enactment
of
the
Ten
Hours'
Bill
in
the
Free-trade
millennium.103Thus
they
still
less
dared
to
oppose
a
measure
intended
only
to
make
the
law
of
1833
a
reality.
Threatened
in
their
holiest
interest,
the
rent
of
land,
the
Tories
thundered
with
philanthropic
indignation
against
the
\"nefarious
practices\"104of
their
foes.
This
was
the
origin
of
the
additional
Factory
Act
of
June
7th,
1844.
It
came
into
effect
on
September
10th,1844.
It
places
under
protection
a
new
category
of
workers,
viz.,
the
women
over
18.
They
were
placed
in
every
respect
on
the
same
footing
as
the
young
persons,
their
work
time
limited
to
twelve
hours,their
night-labour
forbidden,
&c.
For
the
first
time,legislation
saw
itself
compelled
to
control
directly
and
officially
the
labour
of
adults.
In
the
Factory
Report
of
1844-1845,
it
is
said
with
irony:
\"No
instances
have
come
to
my
knowledge
of
adult
women
having
expressed
any
regret
at
their
rights
being
thus
far
interfered
with.\"
105The
working-time
of
children
under
13
was
reduced
to
6,
and
in
certain
circumstances
to
7
hours
a-day.106
To
get
rid
of
the
abuses
of
the
\"spurious
relay
system,\"
the
law
established
besides
others
the
following
important
regulations:
–
\"That
the
hours
of
work
of
children
and
young
persons
shall
be
reckoned
from
the
time
when
any
child
or
young
person
shall
begin
to
work
in
the
morning.\"
So
that
if
A,
e.g.,
begins
work
at
8
in
the
morning,and
B
at
10,
B's
work-day
must
nevertheless
end
at
the
same
hour
as
A's.
\"The
time
shall
be
regulated
by
a
public
clock,\"
for
example,
the
nearest
railway
clock,by
which
the
factory
clock
is
to
be
set.
The
occupier
is
to
hang
up
a
\"legible\"
printed
notice
stating
the
hours
for
the
beginning
and
ending
of
work
and
the
times
allowed
for
the
several
meals.
Children
beginning
work
before
12
noon
may
not
be
again
employed
after
1
p.m.
The
afternoon
shift
must
therefore
consist
of
other
children
than
those
employed
in
the
morning.
Of
the
hour
and
a
half
for
meal-times,
\"one
hour
thereof
at
the
least
shall
be
given
before
three
of
the
clock
in
the
afternoon
...
and
at
the
same
period
of
the
day.
No
child
or
young
person
shall
be
employed
more
than
five
hours
before
1
p.m.
without
an
interval
for
meal-time
of
at
least
30
minutes.
No
child
or
young
person
[or
female]
shall
be
employed
or
allowed
to
remain
in
any
room
in
which
any
manufacturing
process
is
then
[i.e.,
at
mealtimes]
carried
on,\"
&c.
It
has
been
seen
that
these
minutiae,
which,
with
military
uniformity,
regulate
by
stroke
of
the
clock
the
times,
limits,
pauses
of
the
work
were
not
at
all
the
products
of
Parliamentary
fancy.
They
developed
gradually
out
of
circumstances
as
natural
laws
of
the
modern
mode
of
production.
Their
formulation,official
recognition,
and
proclamation
by
the
State,were
the
result
of
a
long
struggle
of
classes.
One
of
their
first
consequences
was
that
in
practice
the
working
day
of
the
adult
males
in
factories
became
subject
to
the
same
limitations,
since
in
most
processes
of
production
the
co-operation
of
the
children.
young
persons,
and
women
is
indispensable.
On
the
whole,therefore,
during
the
period
from
1844
to
1847,
the
12
hours'
working
day
became
general
and
uniform
in
all
branches
of
industry
under
the
Factory
Act.
The
manufacturers,
however,
did
not
allow
this\"progress\"
without
a
compensating
\"retrogression.\"At
their
instigation
the
House
of
Commons
reduced
the
minimum
age
for
exploitable
children
from
9
to
8,
in
order
to
assure
that
additional
supply
of
factory
children
which
is
due
to
capitalists,
according
to
divine
and
human
law.107
The
years
1846-47
are
epoch-making
in
the
economic
history
of
England.
The
Repeal
of
the
Corn
Laws,
and
of
the
duties
on
cotton
and
other
raw
material;
Free-trade
proclaimed
as
the
guiding
star
of
legislation;
in
a
word,
the
arrival
of
the
millennium.On
the
other
hand,
in
the
same
years,
the
Chartist
movement
and
the
10
hours'
agitation
reached
their
highest
point.
They
found
allies
in
the
Tories
panting
for
revenge.
Despite
the
fanatical
opposition
of
the
army
of
perjured
Free-traders,
with
Bright
and
Cobden
at
their
head,
the
Ten
Hours'
Bill,
struggled
for
so
long,
went
through
Parliament.
The
new
Factory
Act
of
June
8th,
1847,
enacted
that
on
July
1st,
1847,
there
should
be
a
preliminary
shortening
of
the
working
day
for
\"young
persons\"(from
13
to
18),
and
all
females
to
11
hours,
but
that
on
May
1st,
1848,
there
should
be
a
definite
limitation
of
the
working
day
to
10
hours.
In
other
respects,
the
Act
only
amended
and
completed
the
Acts
of
1833
and
1844.
Capital
now
entered
upon
a
preliminary
campaign
in
order
to
hinder
the
Act
from
coming
into
full
force
on
May
1st,
1848.
And
the
workers
themselves,
under
the
presence
that
they
had
been
taught
by
experience,were
to
help
in
the
destruction
of
their
own
work.
The
moment
was
cleverly
chosen.
\"It
must
be
remembered,
too,
that
there
has
been
more
than
two
years
of
great
suffering(in
consequence
of
the
terrible
crisis
of
184647)
among
the
factory
operatives,
from
many
mills
having
worked
short
time,
and
many
being
altogether
closed.
A
considerable
number
of
the
operatives
must
therefore
be
in
very
narrow
circumstances
many,
it
is
to
be
feared,
in
debt;
so
that
it
might
fairly
have
been
presumed
that
at
the
present
time
they
would
prefer
working
the
longer
time,
in
order
to
make
up
for
past
losses,
perhaps
to
pay
off
debts,
or
get
their
furniture
out
of
pawn,
or
replace
that
sold,
or
to
get
a
new
supply
of
clothes
for
themselves
and
their
families.\"108
The
manufacturers
tried
to
aggravate
the
natural
effect
of
these
circumstances
by
a
general
reduction
of
wages
by
10%.
This
was
done
so
to
say,
to
celebrate
the
inauguration
of
the
new
Free-trade
era.
Then
followed
a
further
reduction
of
8
1\/3%
as
soon
as
the
working
day
was
shortened
to
11,
and
a
reduction
of
double
that
amount
as
soon
as
it
was
finally
shortened
to
10
hours.
Wherever,
therefore,
circumstances
allowed
it,
a
reduction
of
wages
of
at
least
25%
took
place.109Under
such
favourably
prepared
conditions
the
agitation
among
the
factory
workers
for
the
repeal
of
the
Act
of
1847
was
begun.
Neither
lies,bribery,
nor
threats
were
spared
in
this
attempt.
But
all
was
in
vain.
Concerning
the
half-dozen
petitions
in
which
workpeople
were
made
to
complain
of
\"their
oppression
by
the
Act,\"
the
petitioners
themselves
declared
under
oral
examination,
that
their
signatures
had
been
extorted
from
them.
\"They
felt
themselves
oppressed,
but
not
exactly
by
the
Factory
Act.\"110But
if
the
manufacturers
did
not
succeed
in
making
the
workpeople
speak
as
they
wished,
they
themselves
shrieked
all
the
louder
in
press
and
Parliament
in
the
name
of
the
workpeople.
They
denounced
the
Factory
Inspectors
as
a
kind
of
revolutionary
commissioners
like
those
of
the
French
National
Convention
ruthlessly
sacrificing
the
unhappy
factory
workers
to
their
humanitarian
crotchet.
This
manoeuvre
also
failed.
Factory
Inspector
Leonard
Horner
conducted
in
his
own
person,
and
through
his
sub-inspectors,many
examinations
of
witnesses
in
the
factories
of
Lancashire.
About
70%
of
the
workpeople
examined
declared
in
favour
of
10
hours,
a
much
smaller
percentage
in
favour
of
11,
and
an
altogether
insignificant
minority
for
the
old
12
hours.111
Another
\"friendly\"
dodge
was
to
make
the
adult
males
work
12
to
15
hours,
and
then
to
blazon
abroad
this
fact
as
the
best
proof
of
what
the
proletariat
desired
in
its
heart
of
hearts.
But
the
\"ruthless\"
Factory
Inspector
Leonard
Horner
was
again
to
the
fore.
The
majority
of
the
\"over-times\"
declared:
\"They
would
much
prefer
working
ten
hours
for
less
wages,
but
that
they
had
no
choice;
that
so
many
were
out
of
employment
(so
many
spinners
getting
very
low
wages
by
having
to
work
as
piecers,
being
unable
to
do
better),
that
if
they
refused
to
work
the
longer
time,
others
would
immediately
get
their
places,
so
that
it
was
a
question
with
them
of
agreeing
to
work
the
longer
time,
or
of
being
thrown
out
of
employment
altogether.\"112
The
preliminary
campaign
of
capital
thus
came
to
grief,
and
the
Ten
Hours'
Act
came
into
force
May
1st,
1848.
But
meanwhile
the
fiasco
of
the
Chartist
party
whose
leaders
were
imprisoned,
and
whose
organisation
was
dismembered,
had
shaken
the
confidence
of
the
English
working-class
in
its
own
strength.
Soon
after
this
the
June
insurrection
in
Paris
and
its
bloody
suppression
united,
in
England
as
on
the
Continent,
all
fractions
of
the
ruling
classes,landlords
and
capitalists,
stock-exchange
wolves
and
shop-keepers,
Protectionists
and
Freetraders,government
and
opposition,
priests
and
freethinkers,young
whores
and
old
nuns,
under
the
common
cry
for
the
salvation
of
Property,
Religion,
the
Family
and
Society.
The
working-class
was
everywhere
proclaimed,
placed
under
a
ban,
under
a
virtual
law
of
suspects.
The
manufacturers
had
no
need
any
longer
to
restrain
themselves.
They
broke
out
in
open
revolt
not
only
against
the
Ten
Hours'
Act,
but
against
the
whole
of
the
legislation
that
since
1833
had
aimed
at
restricting
in
some
measure
the
\"free\"
exploitation
of
labour-power.
It
was
a
pro-slavery
rebellion
in
miniature,
carried
on
for
over
two
years
with
a
cynical
recklessness,
a
terrorist
energy
all
the
cheaper
because
the
rebel
capitalist
risked
nothing
except
the
skin
of
his
\"hands.\"
To
understand
that
which
follows
we
must
remember
that
the
Factory
Acts
of
1833,
1844,
and
1847
were
all
three
in
force
so
far
as
the
one
did
not
amend
the
other:
that
not
one
of
these
limited
the
working
day
of
the
male
worker
over
18,
and
that
since
1833
the
15
hours
from
5.30
a.m.
to
8.30
p.m.
had
remained
the
legal
\"day,\"
within
the
limits
of
which
at
first
the
12,
and
later
the
10
hours'
labour
of
young
persons
and
women
had
to
be
performed
under
the
prescribed
conditions.
The
manufacturers
began
by
here
and
there
discharging
a
part
of,
in
many
cases
half
of
the
young
persons
and
women
employed
by
them,
and
then,
for
the
adult
males,
restoring
the
almost
obsolete
night
work.
The
Ten
Hours'
Act,
they
cried,
leaves
no
other
alternative.113
Their
second
step
dealt
with
the
legal
pauses
for
meals.
Let
us
hear
the
Factory
Inspectors.
\"Since
the
restriction
of
the
hours
of
work
to
ten,
the
factory
occupiers
maintain,
although
they
have
not
yet
practically
gone
the
whole
length,that
supposing
the
hours
of
work
to
be
from
9
a.m.to
7
p.m.
they
fulfil
the
provisions
of
the
statutes
by
allowing
an
hour
before
9
a.m.
and
half
an
hour
after
7
p.m.
[for
meals].
In
some
cases
they
now
allow
an
hour,
or
half
an
hour
for
dinner,
insisting
at
the
same
time,
that
they
are
not
bound
to
allow
any
part
of
the
hour
and
a
half
in
the
course
of
the
factory
working
day.\"114The
manufacturers
maintained
therefore
that
the
scrupulously
strict
provisions
of
the
Act
of
1844
with
regard
to
meal
times
only
gave
the
operatives
permission
to
eat
and
drink
before
coming
into,
and
after
leaving
the
factory
–
i.e.,
at
home.
And
why
should
not
the
workpeople
eat
their
dinner
before
9
in
the
morning
The
crown
lawyers,
however,
decided
that
the
prescribed
meal-times
\"must
be
in
the
interval
during
the
working
hours,
and
that
it
will
not
be
lawful
to
work
for
10
hours
continuously,
from
9
a.m.
to
7
p.m.,
without
any
interval.\"115
After
these
pleasant
demonstrations,
Capital
preluded
its
revolt
by
a
step
which
agreed
with
the
letter
of
the
law
of
1844,
and
was
therefore
legal.
The
Act
of
1844
certainly
prohibited
the
employment
after
1
p.m.
of
such
children,
from
8
to
13,
as
had
been
employed
before
noon.
But
it
did
not
regulate
in
any
way
the
6
hours'
work
of
the
children
whose
work
time
began
at
12
midday
or
later.
Children
of
8
might,if
they
began
work
at
noon,
be
employed
from
12
to
1,
1
hour;
from
2
to
4
in
the
afternoon,
2
hours;
from
5
to
8.30
in
the
evening,
3
hours;
in
all,
the
legal
6
hours.
Or
better
still.
In
order
to
make
their
work
coincide
with
that
of
the
adult
male
labourers
up
to
8.30
p.m.,
the
manufacturers
only
had
to
give
them
no
work
till
2
in
the
afternoon,
they
could
then
keep
them
in
the
factory
without
intermission
till
8.30
in
the
evening.
\"And
it
is
now
expressly
admitted
that
the
practice
exists
in
England
from
the
desire
of
mill
owners
to
have
their
machinery
at
work
for
more
than
10
hours
a-day,
to
keep
the
children
at
work
with
male
adults
after
all
the
young
persons
and
women
have
left,
and
until
8.30
p.m.
if
the
factory
owners
choose.\"116
精選分類
