LETTER XVII. *

Manchester, Sept., 1842.

THE exemplary conduct of the operatives reverencing law when their enterprises were most lawless, and the preserving of order when their proceedings were most disorderly, gave a novel aspect to the late commotions in Lancashire, which, however gratifying as a proof of the progress of morality and intelligence among the people, is not without a startling significance as a result from a consciousness both of strength and justice. There never was a commotion of such extent and duration in which so little mischief was done to person or property. The only acts of violence committed, and even these were few, arose from the resistance made to the stopping of the mills; no depredations were committed on property, no injury was done to machinery, and the very appearance of disrespect to station or authority was avoided. The Mayor of Manchester has publicly stated that in no single instance were the proclamations and precepts of the magistrates disobeyed. To describe such a movement as an insurrection is a gross abuse of terms; there was no organization in the moving masses, no

*Added to Second Edition.

recognised leader, no unity in the demands made, and no fixedness in the objects proposed. Tens of thousands turned out, and then began to discuss what it was that they wanted. In most of the crowds there appeared rather the fun and frolic of truant schoolboys than the earnestness of persons engaged in a conflict with law; in fact, the whole affair had much more the aspect of a holiday than a riot.

Unprovoked violence offered to such collections of men, women, and children would have been an act of doubtful legality and still more doubtful prudence. The movement was a social confusion, and no doubt perilous to society; but so long as its professed object was confined to the question of wages, it had nothing in its purposes opposed to law and order, though the means employed were such as required to be restrained.

The forbearance and good temper of the civil and military authorities in most places were not less exemplary than the abstinence of the multitude. I know that this moderation has been blamed; I have heard some persons regret that the multitudes were not dispersed at the point of the bayonet or mowed down by musketry; but, if the feelings of common humanity did not show that such severities ought only to be used in cases of the most urgent necessity, prudence must have dictated that the repression of the outward signs of discontent by violent means does not destroy the internal sense of wrong, but leaves it to

rankle in the breast, and to generate that revenge which has been well described as "the wild justice of the hopeless."

Illogical and foolish as the late movement was, no one can doubt that the discontent by which it was produced was perfectly reasonable. The operative has a right to demand " a fair day's wages for a fair day's work." The turn-outs were as clearly right in the end they sought as they were clearly wrong in the means they employed. Until they fell into the error of mixing up the wage-question with the folly of the Charter, they carried with them the sympathies of the great bulk of the middle class and of no small portion of the higher ranks. The result has been, that the question of wages has now forced itself on public attention, and there can be little doubt that the discussions to which it must give rise will soon render the matter "level to the meanest capacities." A great step in advance has been already gained; men have discovered that the amount of wages must be regulated by the amount of employment, and by nothing else. That there are some, both among masters and men, who have a glimmering notion that legislative enactments have something or other, they know not what, to say to the matter, is I fear too true. Indeed a similar blunder is frequently made respecting rents, for both in England and Ireland, farmers may be found urging the necessity of a law to prevent landlords from exacting too much for their ground

The error arises from not perceiving that everything which is bought and sold-everything for which money is paid in exchange-is a marketable commodity and subject to the laws of the market.

Now what's the worth of anything,

But just so much as it will bring?

Supposing

It is impossible to compel men to buy, and it is equally hopeless to force men to sell. that a law were passed, or a firm combination formed, to coerce manufacturers into paying a higher rate of wages than their profits will afford, it is obvious that such a law would be injurious and unjust unless accompanied by another to compel purchasers not to pay less than a certain rate for the manufactured goods. Wages must be paid either out of profit or out of capital, and, if paid out of capital, an exhausting process is commenced which will soon annihilate the manufacturer, and prevent him from paying any wages whatever.

It is easy to raise a clamour against manufacturers for reducing wages, and to speak as if by doing so they had voluntarily inflicted a wrong upon their workmen. But, in all fairness, and, indeed, according to the plainest dictates of common sense, the manufacturer must regulate his outlay by his returns, or he must make up his mind to bankruptcy. Now, let us inquire whether the depreciation of the manufacturers' profits has not been such as amply to justify the lowering of wages. In 1835 a 277-inch

72 printing cloth sold from 9s. 6d. to 9s. 9d.; the price recently was from 4s. 9d. to 5s. I could add some other examples not less striking, but there is some difficulty in determining what is the actual per centage of depreciation on manufactured goods, because allowances must be made for variations in the price of the raw material, and for the greater cheapness of production, arising from improvements in machinery. A more safe element of comparison is the market-value of mill property, and that, unquestionably, has fallen from 30 to 50 per cent. since 1836. The depreciation of wages, so far as I can calculate, has been from 15 to 20 per cent.; and that wages have been in many cases paid out of capital is clear from the ruin which has overtaken nearly all the small manufacturers and some of the great ones.

In most trades the money-rate of wages is so obviously regulated by demand and supply that a child can comprehend the matter; but machinery introduces some difficulties into the question which are not always taken into account by those who discuss the subject. Those who are paid by the piece, as spinners, dressers, &c., may be enabled by machinery to earn a greater amount per week though paid at a lower rate per piece. Let us take the example of a mulespinner, whose frames turn only 300 spindles. It is evident that he, if paid at the rate of 6d. per pound, will earn less than a mule-spinner whose frames turn 600 spindles receiving only 4d. per pound for