Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 139.: EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTORIES EXAMINER, 29 JAN., 1832, PP. 67-8 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

139.: EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTORIES EXAMINER, 29 JAN., 1832, PP. 67-8 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II [1831]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


139.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN MANUFACTORIES

EXAMINER, 29 JAN., 1832, PP. 67-8

This leader, headed as title, is in the “Political Examiner.” See the further correspondence in No. 146. The article is described in Mill’s bibliography as “An article headed ‘Employment of children in Manufactories’ in the Examiner of 29th Jan. 1832” (MacMinn, p. 19), and listed as title and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set of the Examiner, where there is one correction: at 399.20, “this gradually; and” is changed to “this. Gradually, and”.

we have received a most able and interesting paper, emanating from a committee of operative flax-spinners at Dundee, and entituled “Reasons for a Legislative measure (similar to that lately proposed by Sir J.C. Hobhouse) to limit and regulate the hours during which young persons may be employed to labour in flax-spinning mills throughout Scotland.”1 The force of argument, and dignified calmness of manner, displayed in this document, to which the ablest periodical works of the day could not produce on this important subject any thing superior, entitle it to be read and pondered over by every one who takes interest either in the physical well being of the manufacturing population, or in the symptoms and results of that remarkable intelligence which, under so many unfavourable circumstances, has so generally diffused itself among them.

The moral and physical evils occasioned by the over-working of male and female children in manufactories are powerfully depicted in this paper; all the arguments against legislative interference, which self-interest or the spirit of routine has suggested, are refuted with much dialectical skill, and an enquiry before a parliamentary committee is prayed for to substantiate all the facts stated. For our own part, we should most strenuously applaud, not merely the measure proposed, of restricting the employment of children in manufactories to a certain number of hours out of the twenty-four, but even a far wider measure than this. Gradually, and, with due consideration of existing interests and expectations, we should wish to see a law established, interdicting altogether the employment of children under fourteen, and females of any age, in manufactories.

No one can hesitate to acknowledge how desirable it is that such employment should cease. No well-wisher to his species can desire that children, up to the age of fourteen, should be employed otherwise than in fitting their bodies by exercise and freedom, and their minds by education, and that best of all moral training, that of the parental fireside, for the duties which they have to discharge in life. As little can it be desired that the mother of children should be employed in any gainful occupation which withdraws her from the midst of her family. Another thing is equally obvious.

The Dundee operatives profess themselves willing to submit to the diminution of earnings, which would be the effect of the measure they propose; but the truth is, that neither that, nor the more extensive measure which we advocate, would produce any diminution of earnings. It would withdraw a certain number of competitors from the labour market; and the wages of the remainder would immediately rise to the same aggregate amount. The diminished production would be a diminution solely of the capitalist’s profits; which would no doubt be reduced by this, in the same manner as by any other rise of wages. Such diminution is desirable; since it is of greater importance that the labourer should have wages sufficient for his comfort, than that his employer should receive £2000 a year instead of £1000. If the manufacturer requires compensation, let it be given by a repeal of the corn laws, and a commutation of all taxes falling upon the necessaries of life, or the materials of manufacture.

The objections which are to be anticipated from well-meaning and enlightened men, are not to the desirableness of the end in view, but to the propriety of attempting to effect it by legislative enactment. They consist of arguments drawn from the non-interference philosophy, and resting on the maxim, that government ought not to prohibit individuals, not under the influence of force or fraud, from binding themselves by any engagement which they may think fit to contract, provided it do not violate the legal rights of a third party.

Of this principle we are ourselves partisans up to a certain point; but it appears to us that there is a large class of cases, to which the reason of the principle does not apply, and to which, therefore, the principle itself cannot properly be applicable. The reason of the principle is, that an individual may be presumed a better judge of his own interest than the government, at least as governments are now constituted. But is it not very possible that cases may exist, in which it would be highly for the advantage of every body, if every body were to act in a certain manner, but in which it is not the interest of any individual to adopt the rule for the guidance of his own conduct, unless he has some security that all others will do so too? There are a thousand such cases: and when they arise, who is to afford the security that is wanting, except the legislature?

The case now under consideration is a case of this description. It would be highly for the advantage of the labouring classes, to agree never to allow their wives or young children to receive employment in manufactories. If this agreement were made and executed, wages would rise, so that the man alone would be able to earn all that is now earned by the entire family. But as soon as this was the case, it would become the private interest of individuals to break through the rule. Any man whose wife and children work while others abstain, gets the advantage of the high wages, both for his own labour and for theirs. All needy and selfish persons would take advantage of this; wages would gradually relapse to their present low rate; and then, it would be necessary for all to revert to present practice, in order to live.

This is therefore precisely the kind of case in which the government ought to interfere. It is a case in which the private immediate interest of each individual is necessarily in opposition to the general interest, unless a universal compact among all individuals is made and enforced. But the only power which can promulgate and guarantee a compact among all the labouring people of the community, is the government; and the only mode in which it can do so is by a law. If it is beyond the competency of government to do this, it is beyond their competency to do any thing. No objection would apply to their right to make this law, which would not prove that they had no right to prohibit stealing. Even if there were no government, it would be for the general interest of the community that nobody should steal. Why not leave it then to individual interest? Because, although nobody would benefit if all mankind were to steal, yet if some abstain voluntarily, that very abstinence enables others to benefit themselves by stealing. It is necessary therefore that the compact made among the community generally, should be enforced by penal sanctions against any individual who, while he reaps the benefit of its observance by others, does not himself conform to it.

[1 ]No copy of this paper has been located. John Cam Hobhouse, Baron Broughton de Gyfford (1786-1869), reforming M.P. for Westminster since 1820, initiated 1 & 2 William IV, c. 39 (1831), which applied only to cotton mills; it limited the hours of work for young people to sixty-nine per week, and made illegal the employment of children under nine years of age.