agitating independently and the supporters of the
Ten Hours’ Bill. It nowhere recognises
the right of the working-man to a life worthy of
a human being, to independent activity, and opinions
of his own. It reproaches the operatives that
in sustaining the Ten Hours’ Bill they thought,
not of the children only, but of themselves as well;
it calls the working-men engaged in the agitation demagogues,
ill-intentioned, malicious, etc., is written,
in short, on the side of the bourgeoisie; and still
it cannot whitewash the manufacturers, and still it
leaves such a mass of infamies upon the shoulders of
the employers, that even after this report, the agitation
for the Ten Hours’ Bill, the hatred against
the manufacturers, and the committee’s severest
epithets applied to them are all fully justified.
But there was the one difference, that whereas the
Sadler report accuses the manufacturers of open, undisguised
brutality, it now became evident that this brutality
was chiefly carried on under the mask of civilisation
and humanity. Yet Dr. Hawkins, the medical commissioner
for Lancashire, expresses himself decidedly in favour
of the Ten Hours’ Bill in the opening lines of
his report, and Commissioner Mackintosh explains that
his own report does not contain the whole truth, because
it is very difficult to induce the operatives to testify
against their employers, and because the manufacturers,
besides being forced into greater concessions towards
their operatives by the excitement among the latter,
are often prepared for the inspection of the factories,
have them swept, the speed of the machinery reduced,
etc. In Lancashire especially they resorted
to the device of bringing the overlookers of workrooms
before the commissioners, and letting them testify
as working-men to the humanity of the employers, the
wholesome effects of the work, and the indifference,
if not the hostility of the operatives, towards the
Ten Hours’ Bill. But these are not genuine
working-men; they are deserters from their class, who
have entered the service of the bourgeoisie for better
pay, and fight in the interests of the capitalists
against the workers. Their interest is that
of the capitalists, and they are, therefore, almost
more hated by the workers than the manufacturers themselves.
And yet this report suffices wholly to exhibit the most shameful recklessness of the manufacturing bourgeoisie towards its employees, the whole infamy of the industrial exploiting system in its full inhumanity. Nothing is more revolting than to compare the long register of diseases and deformities engendered by overwork, in this report, with the cold, calculating political economy of the manufacturers, by which they try to prove that they, and with them all England, must go to ruin, if they should be forbidden to cripple so and so many children every year. The language of Dr. Ure alone, which I have quoted, would be yet more revolting if it were not so preposterous.