- 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
serious
accidents
at
the
scutching
mills
are
of
the
most
fearful
nature.
In
many
cases
a
quarter
of
the
body
is
torn
from
the
trunk,
and
either
involves
death,
or
a
future
of
wretched
incapacity
and
suffering.
The
increase
of
mills
in
the
country
will,
of
course,
extend
these
dreadful
results,
and
it
will
be
a
great
boon
if
they
are
brought
under
the
legislature.
I
am
convinced
that
by
proper
supervision
of
scutching
mills
a
vast
sacrifice
of
life
and
limb
would
be
averted.\"214
What
could
possibly
show
better
the
character
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
than
the
necessity
that
exists
for
forcing
upon
it,
by
Acts
of
Parliament,
the
simplest
appliances
for
maintaining
cleanliness
and
health
In
the
potteries
the
Factory
Act
of
1864
\"has
whitewashed
and
cleansed
upwards
of
200
workshops,after
a
period
of
abstinence
from
any
such
cleaning,
in
many
cases
of
20
years,
and
in
some,
entirely,\"
(this
is
the
\"abstinence\"
of
the
capitalist!)
\"in
which
were
employed
27,800
artisans,
hitherto
breathing
through
protracted
days
and
often
nights
of
labour,
a
mephitic
atmosphere,
and
which
rendered
an
otherwise
comparatively
innocuous
occupation,
pregnant
with
disease
and
death.
The
Act
has
improved
the
ventilation
very
much.\"215
At
the
same
time,
this
portion
of
the
Act
strikingly
shows
that
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
owing
to
its
very
nature,
excludes
all
rational
improvement
beyond
a
certain
point.
It
has
been
stated
over
and
over
again
that
the
English
doctors
are
unanimous
in
declaring
that
where
the
work
is
continuous,
500
cubic
feet
is
the
very
least
space
that
should
be
allowed
for
each
person.
Now,
if
the
Factory
Acts,
owing
to
their
compulsory
provisions,
indirectly
hasten
on
the
conversion
of
small
workshops
into
factories,thus
indirectly
attacking
the
proprietary
rights
of
the
smaller
capitalists,
and
assuring
a
monopoly
to
the
great
ones,
so,
if
it
were
made
obligatory
to
provide
the
proper
space
for
each
workman
in
every
workshop,thousands
of
small
employers
would,
at
one
full
swoop,
be
expropriated
directly!
The
very
root
of
the
capitalist
mode
of
production,
i.e.,
the
self-expansion
of
all
capital,
large
or
small,
by
means
of
the
\"free\"purchase
and
consumption
of
labour-power,
would
be
attacked.
Factory
legislation
is
therefore
brought
to
a
deadlock
before
these
500
cubic
feet
of
breathing
space.
The
sanitary
officers,
the
industrial
inquiry
commissioners,
the
factory
inspectors,
all
harp,
over
and
over
again,
upon
the
necessity
for
those
500
cubic
feet,
and
upon
the
impossibility
of
wringing
them
out
of
capital.
They
thus,
in
fact,
declare
that
consumption
and
other
lung
diseases
among
the
workpeople
are
necessary
conditions
to
the
existence
of
capital.216
Paltry
as
the
education
clauses
of
the
Act
appear
on
the
whole,
yet
they
proclaim
elementary
education
to
be
an
indispensable
condition
to
the
employment
of
children.217The
success
of
those
clauses
proved
for
the
first
time
the
possibility
of
combining
education
and
gymnastics218with
manual
labour,
and,
consequently,of
combining
manual
labour
with
education
and
gymnastics.
The
factory
inspectors
soon
found
out
by
questioning
the
schoolmasters,
that
the
factory
children,
although
receiving
only
one
half
the
education
of
the
regular
day
scholars,
yet
learnt
quite
as
much
and
often
more.
\"This
can
be
accounted
for
by
the
simple
fact
that,
with
only
being
at
school
for
one
half
of
the
day,
they
are
always
fresh,
and
nearly
always
ready
and
willing
to
receive
instruction.
The
system
on
which
they
work,
half
manual
labour,and
half
school,
renders
each
employment
a
rest
and
a
relief
to
the
other;
consequently,
both
are
far
more
congenial
to
the
child,
than
would
be
the
case
were
he
kept
constantly
at
one.
It
is
quite
clear
that
a
boy
who
has
been
at
school
all
the
morning,
cannot
(in
hot
weather
particularly)
cope
with
one
who
comes
fresh
and
bright
from
his
work.\"219
Further
information
on
this
point
will
be
found
in
Senior's
speech
at
the
Social
Science
Congress
at
Edinburgh
in
1863.
He
there
shows,
amongst
other
things,
how
the
monotonous
and
uselessly
long
school
hours
of
the
children
of
the
upper
and
middle
classes,uselessly
add
to
the
labour
of
the
teacher,
\"while
he
not
only
fruitlessly
but
absolutely
injuriously,
wastes
the
time,
health,
and
energy
of
the
children.\"220From
the
Factory
system
budded,
as
Robert
Owen
has
shown
us
in
detail,
the
germ
of
the
education
of
the
future,
an
education
that
will,
in
the
case
of
every
child
over
a
given
age,
combine
productive
labour
with
instruction
and
gymnastics,
not
only
as
one
of
the
methods
of
adding
to
the
efficiency
of
production,but
as
the
only
method
of
producing
fully
developed
human
beings.
Modern
industry,
as
we
have
seen,
sweeps
away
by
technical
means
the
manufacturing
division
of
labour,under
which
each
man
is
bound
hand
and
foot
for
life
to
a
single
detail-operation.
At
the
same
time,
the
capitalistic
form
of
that
industry
reproduces
this
same
division
of
labour
in
a
still
more
monstrous
shape;
in
the
factory
proper,
by
converting
the
workman
into
a
living
appendage
of
the
machine;
and
everywhere
outside
the
Factory,
partly
by
the
sporadic
use
of
machinery
and
machine
workers,221partly
by
re
establishing
the
division
of
labour
on
a
fresh
basis
by
the
general
introduction
of
the
labour
of
women
and
children,
and
of
cheap
unskilled
labour.
The
antagonism
between
the
manufacturing
division
of
labour
and
the
methods
of
modern
industry
makes
itself
forcibly
felt.
It
manifests
itself,
amongst
other
ways,
in
the
frightful
fact
that
a
great
part
of
the
children
employed
in
modern
factories
and
manufactures,
are
from
their
earliest
years
riveted
to
the
most
simple
manipulations,
and
exploited
for
years,
without
being
taught
a
single
sort
of
work
that
would
afterwards
make
them
of
use,
even
in
the
same
manufactory
or
factory.
In
the
English
letter-press
printing
trade,
for
example,
there
existed
formerly
a
system,
corresponding
to
that
in
the
old
manufactures
and
handicrafts,
of
advancing
the
apprentices
from
easy
to
more
and
more
difficult
work.
They
went
through
a
course
of
teaching
till
they
were
finished
printers.
To
be
able
to
read
and
write
was
for
every
one
of
them
a
requirement
of
their
trade.
All
this
was
changed
by
the
printing
machine.
It
employs
two
sorts
of
labourers,
one
grown
up,
renters,
the
other,boys
mostly
from
11
to
17
years
of
age
whose
sole
business
is
either
to
spread
the
sheets
of
paper
under
the
machine,
or
to
take
from
it
the
printed
sheets.
They
perform
this
weary
task,
in
London
especially,
for
14,
15,
and
16
hours
at
a
stretch,
during
several
days
in
the
week,
and
frequently
for
36
hours,
with
only
2
hours'
rest
for
meals
and
sleep.222A
great
part
of
them
cannot
read,
and
they
are,
as
a
rule,
utter
savages
and
very
extraordinary
creatures.
\"To
qualify
them
for
the
work
which
they
have
to
do,
they
require
no
intellectual
training;
there
is
little
room
in
it
for
skill,
and
less
for
judgment;
their
wages,
though
rather
high
for
boys,
do
not
increase
proportionately
as
they
grow
up,
and
the
majority
of
them
cannot
look
for
advancement
to
the
better
paid
and
more
responsible
post
of
machine
minder,
because
while
each
machine
has
but
one
minder,
it
has
at
least
two,
and
often
four
boys
attached
to
it.\"223
As
soon
as
they
get
too
old
for
such
child's
work,that
is
about
17
at
the
latest,
they
are
discharged
from
the
printing
establishments.
They
become
recruits
of
crime.
Several
attempts
to
procure
them
employment
elsewhere,
were
rendered
of
no
avail
by
their
ignorance
and
brutality,
and
by
their
mental
and
bodily
degradation.
As
with
the
division
of
labour
in
the
interior
of
the
manufacturing
workshops,
so
it
is
with
the
division
of
labour
in
the
interior
of
society.
So
long
as
handicraft
and
manufacture
form
the
general
groundwork
of
social
production,
the
subjection
of
the
producer
to
one
branch
exclusively,
the
breaking
up
of
the
multifariousness
of
his
employment224is
a
necessary
step
in
the
development.
On
that
groundwork
each
separate
branch
of
production
acquires
empirically
the
form
that
is
technically
suited
to
it,
slowly
perfects
it,and,
so
soon
as
a
given
degree
of
maturity
has
been
reached,
rapidly
crystallises
that
form.
The
only
thing,that
here
and
there
causes
a
change,
besides
new
raw
material
supplied
by
commerce,
is
the
gradual
alteration
of
the
instruments
of
labour.
But
their
form,too,
once
definitely
settled
by
experience,
petrifies,as
is
proved
by
their
being
in
many
cases
handed
down
in
the
same
form
by
one
generation
to
another
during
thousands
of
years.
A
characteristic
feature
is,
that,
even
down
into
the
eighteenth
century,
the
different
trades
were
called
\"mysteries\"
(mystères);225into
their
secrets
none
but
those
duly
initiated
could
penetrate.
modern
industry
rent
the
veil
that
concealed
from
men
their
own
social
process
of
production,and
that
turned
the
various,
spontaneously
divided
branches
of
production
into
so
many
riddles,
not
only
to
outsiders,
but
even
to
the
initiated.
The
principle
which
it
pursued,
of
resolving
each
process
into
its
constituent
movements,
without
any
regard
to
their
possible
execution
by
the
hand
of
man,
created
the
new
modern
science
of
technology.
The
varied,apparently
unconnected,
and
petrified
forms
of
the
industrial
processes
now
resolved
themselves
into
so
many
conscious
and
systematic
applications
of
natural
science
to
the
attainment
of
given
useful
effects.Technology
also
discovered
the
few
main
fundamental
forms
of
motion,
which,
despite
the
diversity
of
the
instruments
used,
are
necessarily
taken
by
every
productive
action
of
the
human
body;
just
as
the
science
of
mechanics
sees
in
the
most
complicated
machinery
nothing
but
the
continual
repetition
of
the
simple
mechanical
powers.
Modern
industry
never
looks
upon
and
treats
the
existing
form
of
a
process
as
final.
The
technical
basis
of
that
industry
is
therefore
revolutionary,
while
all
earlier
modes
of
production
were
essentially
conservative.226By
means
of
machinery,
chemical
processes
and
other
methods,
it
is
continually
causing
changes
not
only
in
the
technical
basis
of
production,but
also
in
the
functions
of
the
labourer,
and
in
the
social
combinations
of
the
labour-process.
At
the
same
time,
it
thereby
also
revolutionises
the
division
of
labour
within
the
society,
and
incessantly
launches
masses
of
capital
and
of
workpeople
from
one
branch
of
production
to
another.
But
if
modern
industry,
by
its
very
nature,
therefore
necessitates
variation
of
labour,
fluency
of
function,
universal
mobility
of
the
labourer,
on
the
other
hand,
in
its
capitalistic
form,
it
reproduces
the
old
division
of
labour
with
its
ossified
particularisations.
We
have
seen
how
this
absolute
contradiction
between
the
technical
necessities
of
modern
industry,
and
the
social
character
inherent
in
its
capitalistic
form,
dispels
all
fixity
and
security
in
the
situation
of
the
labourer;
how
it
constantly
threatens,
by
taking
away
the
instruments
of
labour,to
snatch
from
his
hands
his
means
of
subsistence,227and,
by
suppressing
his
detail-function,
to
make
him
superfluous.
We
have
seen,
too,
how
this
antagonism
vents
its
rage
in
the
creation
of
that
monstrosity,
an
industrial
reserve
army,
kept
in
misery
in
order
to
be
always
at
the
disposal
of
capital;
in
the
incessant
human
sacrifices
from
among
the
working-class,
in
the
most
reckless
squandering
of
labour-power
and
in
the
devastation
caused
by
a
social
anarchy
which
turns
every
economic
progress
into
a
social
calamity.
This
is
the
negative
side.
But
if,
on
the
one
hand,
variation
of
work
at
present
imposes
itself
after
the
manner
of
an
overpowering
natural
law,
and
with
the
blindly
destructive
action
of
a
natural
law
that
meets
with
resistance228at
all
points,
modern
industry,
on
the
other
hand,
through
its
catastrophes
imposes
the
necessity
of
recognising,
as
a
fundamental
law
of
production,variation
of
work,
consequently
fitness
of
the
labourer
for
varied
work,
consequently
the
greatest
possible
development
of
his
varied
aptitudes.
It
becomes
a
question
of
life
and
death
for
society
to
adapt
the
mode
of
production
to
the
normal
functioning
of
this
law.
Modern
Industry,
indeed,
compels
society,
under
penalty
of
death,
to
replace
the
detail-worker
of
to
day,
grappled
by
life-long
repetition
of
one
and
the
same
trivial
operation,
and
thus
reduced
to
the
mere
fragment
of
a
man,
by
the
fully
developed
individual,fit
for
a
variety
of
labours,
ready
to
face
any
change
of
production,
and
to
whom
the
different
social
functions
he
performs,
are
but
so
many
modes
of
giving
free
scope
to
his
own
natural
and
acquired
powers.
One
step
already
spontaneously
taken
towards
effecting
this
revolution
is
the
establishment
of
technical
and
agricultural
schools,
and
of
\"écoles
d'enseignement
professionnel,\"
in
which
the
children
of
the
working-men
receive
some
little
instruction
in
technology
and
in
the
practical
handling
of
the
various
implements
of
labour.
Though
the
Factory
Act,
that
first
and
meagre
concession
wrung
from
capital,
is
limited
to
combining
elementary
education
with
work
in
the
factory,
there
can
be
no
doubt
that
when
the
working-class
comes
into
power,
as
inevitably
it
must,technical
instruction,
both
theoretical
and
practical,will
take
its
proper
place
in
the
working-class
schools.There
is
also
no
doubt
that
such
revolutionary
ferments,
the
final
result
of
which
is
the
abolition
of
the
old
division
of
labour,
are
diametrically
opposed
to
the
capitalistic
form
of
production,
and
to
the
economic
status
of
the
labourer
corresponding
to
that
form.
But
the
historical
development
of
the
antagonisms,
immanent
in
a
given
form
of
production,is
the
only
way
in
which
that
form
of
production
can
be
dissolved
and
a
new
form
established.
\"Ne
sutor
ultra
crepidam\"
–
this
nec
plus
ultra
of
handicraft
wisdom
became
sheer
nonsense,
from
the
moment
the
watchmaker
Watt
invented
the
steam-engine,the
barber
Arkwright,
the
throstle,
and
the
working
jeweller,
Fulton,
the
steamship.229
So
long
as
Factory
legislation
is
confined
to
regulating
the
labour
in
factories,
manufactories,
&c.,it
is
regarded
as
a
mere
interference
with
the
exploiting
rights
of
capital.
But
when
it
comes
to
regulating
the
so-called
\"home-labour,\"230it
is
immediately
viewed
as
a
direct
attack
on
the
patria
potestas,
on
parental
authority.
The
tender-hearted
English
Parliament
long
affected
to
shrink
from
taking
this
step.
The
force
of
facts,
however,
compelled
it
at
last
to
acknowledge
that
modern
industry,
in
overturning
the
economic
foundation
on
which
was
based
the
traditional
family,and
the
family
labour
corresponding
to
it,
had
also
unloosened
all
traditional
family
ties.
The
rights
of
the
children
had
to
be
proclaimed.
The
final
report
of
the
Ch.
Empl.
Comm.
of
1866,
states:
\"It
is
unhappily,
to
a
painful
degree,
apparent
throughout
the
whole
of
the
evidence,
that
against
no
persons
do
the
children
of
both
sexes
so
much
require
protection
as
against
their
parents.\"
The
system
of
unlimited
exploitation
of
children's
labour
in
general
and
the
so-called
home-labour
in
particular
is
\"maintained
only
because
the
parents
are
able,
without
check
or
control,
to
exercise
this
arbitrary
and
mischievous
power
over
their
young
and
tender
offspring....
Parents
must
not
possess
the
absolute
power
of
making
their
children
mere'machines
to
earn
so
much
weekly
wage....'
The
children
and
young
persons,
therefore,
in
all
such
cases
may
justifiably
claim
from
the
legislature,as
a
natural
right,
that
an
exemption
should
be
secured
to
them,
from
what
destroys
prematurely
their
physical
strength,
and
lowers
them
in
the
scale
of
intellectual
and
moral
beings.\"231
It
was
not,
however,
the
misuse
of
parental
authority
that
created
the
capitalistic
exploitation,
whether
direct
or
indirect,
of
children's
labour;
but,
on
the
contrary,
it
was
the
capitalistic
mode
of
exploitation
which,
by
sweeping
away
the
economic
basis
of
parental
authority,
made
its
exercise
degenerate
into
a
mischievous
misuse
of
power.
However
terrible
and
disgusting
the
dissolution,
under
the
capitalist
system,of
the
old
family
ties
may
appear,
nevertheless,modern
industry,
by
assigning
as
it
does
an
important
part
in
the
process
of
production,
outside
the
domestic
sphere,
to
women,
to
young
persons,
and
to
children
of
both
sexes,
creates
a
new
economic
foundation
for
a
higher
form
of
the
family
and
of
the
relations
between
the
sexes.
It
is,
of
course,
just
as
absurd
to
hold
the
Teutonic-Christian
form
of
the
family
to
be
absolute
and
final
as
it
would
be
to
apply
that
character
to
the
ancient
Roman,
the
ancient
Greek,or
the
Eastern
forms
which,
moreover,
taken
together
form
a
series
in
historical
development.
Moreover,
it
is
obvious
that
the
fact
of
the
collective
working
group
being
composed
of
individuals
of
both
sexes
and
all
ages,
must
necessarily,
under
suitable
conditions,become
a
source
of
humane
development;
although
in
its
spontaneously
developed,
brutal,
capitalistic
form,
where
the
labourer
exists
for
the
process
of
production,
and
not
the
process
of
production
for
the
labourer,
that
fact
is
a
pestiferous
source
of
corruption
and
slavery.232
The
necessity
for
a
generalisation
of
the
Factory
Acts,
for
transforming
them
from
an
exceptional
law
relating
to
mechanical
spinning
and
weaving
–
those
first
creations
of
machinery
–
into
a
law
affecting
social
production
as
a
whole,
arose,
as
we
have
seen,
from
the
mode
in
which
modern
industry
was
historically
developed.
In
the
rear
of
that
industry,the
traditional
form
of
manufacture,
of
handicraft,
and
of
domestic
industry,
is
entirely
revolutionised;manufactures
are
constantly
passing
into
the
factory
system,
and
handicrafts
into
manufactures;
and
lastly,
the
spheres
of
handicraft
and
of
the
domestic
industries
become,
in
a,
comparatively
speaking,wonderfully
short
time,
dens
of
misery
in
which
capitalistic
exploitation
obtains
free
play
for
the
wildest
excesses.
There
are
two
circumstances
that
finally
turn
the
scale:
first,
the
constantly
recurring
experience
that
capital,
so
soon
as
it
finds
itself
subject
to
legal
control
at
one
point,
compensates
itself
all
the
more
recklessly
at
other
points;233secondly,
the
cry
of
the
capitalists
for
equality
in
the
conditions
of
competition,
i.e.,
for
equal
restrain
on
all
exploitation
of
labour.234On
this
point
let
us
listen
to
two
heart
broken
cries.
Messrs.
Cooksley
of
Bristol,
nail
and
chain,
&c.,
manufacturers,
spontaneously
introduced
the
regulations
of
the
Factory
Act
into
their
business.
\"As
the
old
irregular
system
prevails
in
neighbouring
works,
the
Messrs.
Cooksley
are
subject
to
the
disadvantage
of
having
their
boys
enticed
to
continue
their
labour
elsewhere
after
6
p.m.
'This,'
they
naturally
say,
'is
an
unjustice
and
loss
to
us,
as
it
exhausts
a
portion
of
the
boy's
strength,
of
which
we
ought
to
have
the
full
benefit'.\"235
Mr.
J.
Simpson
(paper
box
and
bagmaker,
London)
states
before
the
commissioners
of
the
Ch.
Empl.
Comm.:
\"He
would
sign
any
petition
for
it\"
(legislative
interference)...
\"As
it
was,
he
always
felt
restless
at
night,
when
he
had
closed
his
place,
lest
others
should
be
working
later
than
him
and
getting
away
his
orders.\"236
Summarising,
the
Ch.
Empl.
Comm.
says:
\"It
would
be
unjust
to
the
larger
employers
that
their
factories
should
be
placed
under
regulation,
while
the
hours
of
labour
in
the
smaller
places
in
their
own
branch
of
business
were
under
no
legislative
restriction.
And
to
the
injustice
arising
from
the
unfair
conditions
of
competition,
in
regard
to
hours,
that
would
be
created
if
the
smaller
places
of
work
were
exempt,would
be
added
the
disadvantage
to
the
larger
manufacturers,
of
finding
their
supply
of
juvenile
and
female
labour
drawn
off
to
the
places
of
work
exempt
from
legislation.
Further,
a
stimulus
would
be
given
to
the
multiplication
of
the
smaller
places
of
work,
which
are
almost
invariably
the
least
favourable
to
the
health,
comfort,
education,
and
general
improvement
of
the
people.\"
237
In
its
final
report
the
Commission
proposes
to
subject
to
the
Factory
Act
more
than
1,400,000
children,
young
persons,
and
women,
of
which
number
about
one
half
are
exploited
in
small
industries
and
by
the
so-called
home-work.238It
says,
\"But
if
it
should
seem
fit
to
Parliament
to
place
the
whole
of
that
large
number
of
children,young
persons
and
females
under
the
protective
legislation
above
adverted
to
...
it
cannot
be
doubted
that
such
legislation
would
have
a
most
beneficent
effect,
not
only
upon
the
young
and
the
feeble,
who
are
its
more
immediate
objects,
but
upon
the
still
larger
body
of
adult
workers,
who
would
in
all
these
employments,
both
directly
and
indirectly,
come
immediately
under
its
influence.
It
would
enforce
upon
them
regular
and
moderate
hours;
it
would
lead
to
their
places
of
work
being
kept
in
a
healthy
and
cleanly
state;
it
would
therefore
husband
and
improve
that
store
of
physical
strength
on
which
their
own
well-being
and
that
of
the
country
so
much
depends;
it
would
save
the
rising
generation
from
that
overexertion
at
an
early
age
which
undermines
their
constitutions
and
leads
to
premature
decay;
finally,
it
would
ensure
them
–
at
least
up
to
the
age
of
13
–
the
The
Tory
Cabinet240announced
in
the
Speech
from
the
Throne,
on
February
5,
1867,
that
it
had
framed
the
proposals
of
the
Industrial
Commission
of
Inquiry241into
Bills.
To
get
that
far,
another
twenty
years
of
experimentum
in
corpore
vili
had
been
required.opportunity
of
receiving
the
elements
of
education,and
would
put
an
end
to
that
utter
ignorance
...
so
faithfully
exhibited
in
the
Reports
of
our
Assistant
Commissioners,
and
which
cannot
be
regarded
without
the
deepest
pain,
and
a
profound
sense
of
national
degradation.\"239
Already
in
1840
a
Parliamentary
Commission
of
Inquiry
on
the
labour
of
children
had
been
appointed.
Its
Report,
in
1842,
unfolded,
in
the
words
of
Nassau
W.
Senior,
\"the
most
frightful
picture
of
avarice,
selfishness
and
cruelty
on
the
part
of
masters
and
of
parents,and
of
juvenile
and
infantile
misery,
degradation
and
destruction
ever
presented....
It
may
be
supposed
that
it
describes
the
horrors
of
a
past
age.But
there
is
unhappily
evidence
that
those
horrors
continue
as
intense
as
they
were.
A
pamphlet
published
by
Hardwicke
about
2
years
ago
states
that
the
abuses
complained
of
in
1842,
are
in
full
bloom
at
the
present
day.
It
is
a
strange
proof
of
the
general
neglect
of
the
morals
and
health
of
the
children
of
the
working-class,
that
this
report
lay
unnoticed
for
20
years,
during
which
the
children,
'bred
up
without
the
remotest
sign
of
comprehension
as
to
what
is
meant
by
the
term
morals,
who
had
neither
knowledge,
nor
religion,nor
natural
affection,'
were
allowed
to
become
the
parents
of
the
present
generation.\"242
The
social
conditions
having
undergone
a
change,Parliament
could
not
venture
to
shelve
the
demands
of
the
Commission
of
1862,
as
it
had
done
those
of
the
Commission
of
1840.
Hence
in
1864,
when
the
Commission
had
not
yet
published
more
than
a
part
of
its
reports,
the
earthenware
industries
(including
the
potteries),
makers
of
paperhangings,
matches,cartridges,
and
caps,
and
fustian
cutters
were
made
subject
to
the
Acts
in
force
in
the
textile
industries.
In
the
Speech
from
the
Throne,
on
5th
February,
1867,the
Tory
Cabinet
of
the
day
announced
the
introduction
of
Bills,
founded
on
the
final
recommendations
of
the
Commission,
which
had
completed
its
labours
in
1866.
On
the
15th
August,
1867,
the
Factory
Acts
Extension
Act,
and
on
the
21st
August,
the
Workshops'Regulation
Act
received
the
Royal
Assent;
the
former
Act
having
reference
to
large
industries,
the
latter
to
small.
The
former
applies
to
blast-furnaces,
iron'
and
copper
mills,
foundries,
machine
shops,
metal
manufactories,
gutta-percha
works,
paper
mills,
glass
works,
tobacco
manufactories,
letter-press
printing(including
newspapers),
book-binding,
in
short
to
all
industrial
establishments
of
the
above
kind,
in
which
50
individuals
or
more
are
occupied
simultaneously,and
for
not
less
than
100
days
during
the
year.
To
give
an
idea
of
the
extent
of
the
sphere
embraced
by
the
Workshops'
Regulation
Act
in
its
application,we
cite
from
its
interpretation
clause,
the
following
passages:
\"Handicraft
shall
mean
any
manual
labour
exercised
by
way
of
trade,
or
for
purposes
of
gain
in,
or
incidental
to,
the
making
any
article
or
part
of
an
article,
or
in,
or
incidental
to,
the
altering,repairing,
ornamenting,
finishing,
or
otherwise
adapting
for
sale
any
article.\"
\"Workshop
shall
mean
any
room
or
place
whatever
in
the
open
air
or
undercover,
in
which
any
handicraft
is
carried
on
by
any
child,
young
person,
or
woman,
and
to
which
and
over
which
the
person
by
whom
such
child,
young
person,
or
woman
is
employed,
has
the
right
of
access
and
control.\"
\"Employed
shall
mean
occupied
in
any
handicraft,
whether
for
wages
or
not,
under
a
master
or
under
a
parent
as
herein
defined.\"
\"Parent
shall
mean
parent,
guardian,
or
person,having
the
custody
of,
or
control
over,
any...
child
or
young
person.\"
Clause
7,
which
imposes
a
penalty
for
employment
of
children,
young
persons,
and
women,
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
the
Act,
subjects
to
fines,
not
only
the
occupier
of
the
workshop,
whether
parent
or
not,but
even
\"the
parent
of,
or
the
person
deriving
any
direct
benefit
from
the
labour
of,
or
having
the
control
over,
the
child,
young
person
or
woman.\"The
Factory
Acts
Extension
Act,
which
affects
the
large
establishments,
derogates
from
the
Factory
Act
by
a
crowd
of
vicious
exceptions
and
cowardly
compromises
with
the
masters.
The
Workshops'
Regulation
Act,
wretched
in
all
its
details,
remained
a
dead
letter
in
the
hands
of
the
municipal
and
local
authorities
who
were
charged
with
its
execution.
When,
in
1871,
Parliament
withdrew
from
them
this
power,
in
order
to
confer
it
on
the
Factory
Inspectors,
to
whose
province
it
thus
added
by
a
single
stroke
more
than
one
hundred
thousand
workshops,
and
three
hundred
brickworks,
care
was
taken
at
the
same
time
not
to
add
more
than
eight
assistants
to
their
already
undermanned
staff.243
What
strikes
us,
then,
in
the
English
legislation
of
1867,
is,
on
the
one
hand,
the
necessity
imposed
on
the
parliament
of
the
ruling
classes,
of
adopting
in
principle
measures
so
extraordinary,
and
on
so
great
a
scale,
against
the
excesses
of
capitalistic
exploitation;and
on
the
other
hand,
the
hesitation,
the
repugnance,and
the
bad
faith,
with
which
it
lent
itself
to
the
task
of
carrying
those
measures
into
practice.
The
Inquiry
Commission
of
1862
also
proposed
a
new
regulation
of
the
mining
industry,
an
industry
distinguished
from
others
by
the
exceptional
characteristic
that
the
interests
of
landlord
and
capitalist
there
join
hands.
The
antagonism
of
these
two
interests
had
been
favourable
to
Factory
legislation,
while
on
the
other
hand
the
absence
of
that
antagonism
is
sufficient
to
explain
the
delays
and
chicanery
of
the
legislation
on
mines.
The
Inquiry
Commission
of
1840
had
made
revelations
so
terrible,
so
shocking,
and
creating
such
a
scandal
all
over
Europe,
that
to
salve
its
conscience
Parliament
passed
the
Mining
Act
of
1842,
in
which
it
limited
itself
to
forbidding
the
employment
underground
in
mines
of
children
under
10
years
of
age
and
females.
Then
another
Act,
The
Mines'
Inspecting
Act
of
1860,
provides
that
mines
shall
be
inspected
by
public
officers
nominated
specially
for
that
purpose,
and
that
boys
between
the
ages
of
10
and
12
years
shall
not
be
employed,
unless
they
have
a
school
certificate,
or
go
to
school
for
a
certain
number
of
hours.
This
Act
was
a
complete
dead
letter
owing
to
the
ridiculously
small
number
of
inspectors,
the
meagreness
of
their
powers,and
other
causes
that
will
become
apparent
as
we
proceed.
One
of
the
most
recent
Blue
books
on
mines
is
the\"Report
from
the
Select
Committee
on
Mines,
together
with
&c.
Evidence,
23rd
July,
1866.\"
This
Report
is
the
work
of
a
Parliamentary
Committee
selected
from
members
of
the
House
of
Commons,
and
authorised
to
summon
and
examine
witnesses.
It
is
a
thick
folio
volume
in
which
the
Report
itself
occupies
only
five
lines
to
this
effect;
that
the
committee
has
nothing
to
say,
and
that
more
witnesses
must
be
examined!
The
mode
of
examining
the
witnesses
reminds
one
of
the
cross-examination
of
witnesses
in
English
courts
of
justice,
where
the
advocate
tries,
by
means
of
impudent,
unexpected,
equivocal
and
involved
questions,
put
without
connexion,
to
intimidate,surprise,
and
confound
the
witness,
and
to
give
a
forced
meaning
to
the
answers
extorted
from
him.
In
this
inquiry
the
members
of
the
committee
themselves
are
the
cross-examiners,
and
among
them
are
to
be
found
both
mine-owners
and
mine
exploiters;
the
witnesses
are
mostly
working
coal
miners.
The
whole
farce
is
too
characteristic
of
the
spirit
of
capital,
not
to
call
for
a
few
extracts
from
this
Report.
For
the
sake
of
conciseness
I
have
classified
them.
I
may
also
add
that
every
question
and
its
answer
are
numbered
in
the
English
Blue
books.
I.
Employment
in
mines
of
boys
of
10
years
and
upwards.
–
In
the
mines
the
work,
inclusive
of
going
and
returning,
usually
lasts
14
or
15
hours,
sometimes
even
from
3,
4
and
5
o'clock
a.m.,
till
5
and
6
o'clock
p.m.
(n.
6,
452,
83).
The
adults
work
in
two
shifts,
of
eight
hours
each;
but
there
is
no
alternation
with
the
boys,
on
account
of
the
expense
(n.
80,
203,
204).The
younger
boys
are
chiefly
employed
in
opening
and
shutting
the
ventilating
doors
in
the
various
parts
of
the
mine;
the
older
ones
are
employed
on
heavier
work,
in
carrying
coal,
&c.
(n.
122,
739,
1747).
They
work
these
long
hours
underground
until
their
18th
or
22nd
year,
when
they
are
put
to
miner's
work
proper(n.
161).
Children
and
young
persons
are
at
present
worse
treated,
and
harder
worked
than
at
any
previous
period
(n.
1663-1667).
The
miners
demand
almost
unanimously
an
act
of
Parliament
prohibiting
the
employment
in
mines
of
children
under
14.
And
now
Hussey
Vivian
(himself
an
exploiter
of
mines)
asks:
\"Would
not
the
opinion
of
the
workman
depend
upon
the
poverty
of
the
workman's
family\"
Mr.Bruce:
\"Do
you
not
think
it
would
be
a
very
hard
case,
where
a
parent
had
been
injured,
or
where
he
was
sickly,
or
where
a
father
was
dead,
and
there
was
only
a
mother,
to
prevent
a
child
between
12
and
14
earning
1s.
7d.
a
day
for
the
good
of
the
family
...
You
must
lay
down
a
general
rule
...Are
you
prepared
to
recommend
legislation
which
would
prevent
the
employment
of
children
under
12
and
14,
whatever
the
state
of
their
parents
might
be\"
\"Yes.\"
(ns.
107-110).
Vivian:
\"Supposing
that
an
enactment
were
passed
preventing
the
employment
of
children
under
the
age
of
14,would
it
not
be
probable
that
...
the
parents
of
children
would
seek
employment
for
their
children
in
other
directions,
for
instance,
in
manufacture\"\"Not
generally
I
think\"
(n.
174).
Kinnaird:
\"Some
of
the
boys
are
keepers
of
doors\"
\"Yes.\"
\"Is
there
not
generally
a
very
great
draught
every
time
you
open
a
door
or
close
it\"
\"Yes,
generally
there
is.\"\"It
sounds
a
very
easy
thing,
but
it
is
in
fact
rather
a
painful
one\"
\"He
is
imprisoned
there
just
the
same
as
if
he
was
in
a
cell
of
a
gaol.\"
Bourgeois
Vivian:
\"Whenever
a
boy
is
furnished
with
a
lamp
cannot
he
read\"
\"Yes,
he
can
read,
if
he
finds
himself
in
candles....
I
suppose
he
would
be
found
fault
with
if
he
were
discovered
reading;he
is
there
to
mind
his
business,
he
has
a
duty
to
perform,
and
he
has
to
attend
to
it
in
the
first
place,and
I
do
not
think
it
would
be
allowed
down
the
pit.\"
(ns.
139,
141,
143,
158,
160).
II.
Education.
–
The
working
miners
want
a
law
for
the
compulsory
education
of
their
children,
as
in
factories.
They
declare
the
clauses
of
the
Act
of
1860,which
require
a
school
certificate
to
be
obtained
before
employing
boys
of
10
and
12
years
of
age,
to
be
quite
illusory.
The
examination
of
the
witnesses
on
this
subject
is
truly
droll.
\"Is
it
(the
Act)
required
more
against
the
masters
or
against
the
parents\"
\"It
is
required
against
both
I
think.\"
\"You
cannot
say
whether
it
is
required
against
one
more
than
against
the
other\"
\"No;
I
can
hardly
answer
that
question.\"
(ns.
115,
116).\"Does
there
appear
to
be
any
desire
on
the
part
of
the
employers
that
the
boys
should
have
such
hours
as
to
enable
them
to
go
to
school\"
\"No;
the
hours
are
never
shortened
for
that
purpose.\"
(n.
137)
Mr.
Kinnaird:
\"Should
you
say
that
the
colliers
generally
improve
their
education;
have
you
any
instances
of
men
who
have,
since
they
began
to
work,
greatly
improved
their
education,
or
do
they
not
rather
go
back,
and
lose
any
advantage
that
they
may
have
gained\"
\"They
generally
become
worse:
they
do
not
improve;
they
acquire
bad
habits;
they
get
on
to
drinking
and
gambling
and
such
like,
and
they
go
completely
to
wreck.\"(n.
211.)
\"Do
they
make
any
attempt
of
the
kind(for
providing
instruction)
by
having
schools
at
night\"
\"There
are
few
collieries
where
night
schools
are
held,
and
perhaps
at
those
collieries
a
few
boys
do
go
to
those
schools;
but
they
are
so
physically
exhausted
that
it
is
to
no
purpose
that
they
go
there.\"
(n.
454.)
\"You
are
then,\"
concludes
the
bourgeois,
\"against
education\"
\"Most
certainly
not;
but,\"
&c.
(n.
443.)
\"But
are
they
(the
employers)
not
compelled
to
demand
them
(school
certificates)\"
\"By
law
they
are;
but
I
am
not
aware
that
they
are
demanded
by
the
employers.\"
\"Then
it
is
your
opinion,
that
this
provision
of
the
Act
as
to
requiring
certificates,
is
not
generally
carried
out
in
the
collieries\"
\"It
is
not
carried
out.\"
(ns.443,
444.)
\"Do
the
men
take
a
great
interest
in
this
question
(of
education)\"
\"The
majority
of
them
do.\"
(n.
717.)
\"Are
they
very
anxious
to
see
the
law
enforced\"
\"The
majority
are.\"
(n.
718.)
\"Do
you
think
that
in
this
country
any
law
that
you
pass...
can
really
be
effectual
unless
the
population
themselves
assist
in
putting
it
into
operation\"\"Many
a
man
might
wish
to
object
to
employing
a
boy,
but
he
would
perhaps
become
marked
by
it.\"(n.
720.)
\"Marked
by
whom\"
\"By
his
employers.\"(n.
721.)
\"Do
you
think
that
the
employers
would
find
any
fault
with
a
man
who
obeyed
the
law...
\"
\"I
believe
they
would.\"
(n.
722.)
\"Have
you
ever
heard
of
any
workman
objecting
to
employ
a
boy
between
10
and
12,
who
could
not
write
or
read\"\"It
is
not
left
to
men's
option.\"
(n.
123.)
\"Would
you
call
for
the
interference
of
Parliament\"
\"I
think
that
if
anything
effectual
is
to
be
done
in
the
education
of
the
colliers'
children,
it
will
have
to
be
made
compulsory
by
Act
of
Parliament.\"(n.
1634.)
\"Would
you
lay
that
obligation
upon
the
colliers
only,
or
all
the
workpeople
of
Great
Britain\"
\"I
came
to
speak
for
the
colliers.\"
(n.1636.)
\"Why
should
you
distinguish
them
(colliery
boys)
from
other
boys\"
\"Because
I
think
they
are
an
exception
to
the
rule.\"
(n.
1638.)
\"In
what
respect\"
\"In
a
physical
respect.\"
(n.
1639.)
\"Why
should
education
be
more
valuable
to
them
than
to
other
classes
of
lads\"
\"I
do
not
know
that
it
is
more
valuable;
but
through
the
over-exertion
in
mines
there
is
less
chance
for
the
boys
that
are
employed
there
to
get
education,
either
at
Sunday
schools,
or
at
day
schools.\"
(n.
1640.)\"It
is
impossible
to
look
at
a
question
of
this
sort
absolutely
by
itself\"
(n.
1644.)
\"Is
there
a
sufficiency
of
schools\"
–
\"No\"...
(n.
1646).
\"If
the
State
were
to
require
that
every
child
should
be
sent
to
school,
would
there
be
schools
for
the
children
to
go
to\"
\"No;
but
I
think
if
the
circumstances
were
to
spring
up,
the
schools
would
be
forthcoming.\"
(n.
1647.)
\"Some
of
them(the
boys)
cannot
read
and
write
at
all,
I
suppose\"\"The
majority
cannot...
The
majority
of
the
men
themselves
cannot.\"
(ns.
705,
725.)
精選分類
