154 EEPORT — 1875. 



duction, must of necessity prove injurious. Yet it may bo a point for con- 

 sideration whether, under certain circumstances, it may not be better for 

 either labour or capital to submit to the evil of restriction, in order to avoid 

 a still greater evil, of producing at a loss, or working at rates of wages not 

 sufficiently remunerative. The labourers justify their proceedings in this 

 respect by reference to the practice of producers. One of the representatives 

 of labour, speaking on this subject, said : — " No doubt there is not a working 

 man in Lancashire who would not say that limitation was an injury. Gene- 

 rally that there should be the largest possible production in a given time is 

 no doubt a true law ; but every trade must regulate that according to its own 

 necessities. The ironmaster blows out his furnaces when an increased pro- 

 duction would injure ; the cotton manufacturer runs his manufactory short 

 time ; and the labourer limits the production." There is httle or no difference 

 in the relative position of capital and labour as respects their need of con- 

 tinuous production. Primarily both employer and employed aHke depend 

 upon production as the only source for profits and wages. Whilst the em- 

 ployers have the maximum interest ia producing as much as possible, from 

 the fact that the fixed capital, which they cannot withdraw, would lie dor- 

 mant and unproductive while the forge or mill is silent, the employed find it 

 their interest to aid in such production, inasmuch as they depend upon it for 

 their means of subsistence. The argument of the employed against a pro- 

 posal for a reduction of wages is exin-essed in the words : — " If you have too 

 much of an article in the market and you cannot sell, I would rather limit 

 the quantity in your hands than aggravate the evil and take less money for 

 it." But by refusing to work when the employer is able or willing to con- 

 tinue producing, or by not submitting himself to accept lower wages when 

 the inevitable law of supply and demand compels the same, the employed 

 only aggravates his own position, whilst he places the employer in a still 

 worse strait ; the certain consequence of the withdrawal of laboiir being to 

 discourage production, to enhance the cost, and to increase the difficulty of 

 foreign competition — injurious alike to the producer and to the whole com- 

 munity. 



A frequent source of contention between employers and employed is the 

 mode of paying wages, viz. by time, such as by the day or hour, or by 

 piecework. There appears to be no uniform practice on the subject. While 

 in some branches of industry the rule is to pay wages by piecework, in other 

 branches the rule is to pay by time — the reason probably being that whilst in 

 some branches it is easy to establish a scale of prices at which the work is to 

 be paid for, in other branches such a scale could not easily be framed. In so 

 far as the method of payment can be considered to affect production, it seems 

 to your Committe that whilst payment by piecework is likely to promote 

 quantity of production, payment by time is more likely to promote precision 

 of execution. Tour Committee cannot believe, what has often been alleged, 

 that payment by piecework is often offered to conceal any reduction of wages. 

 If honestly acted upon on either side, payment by piecework has, in the 

 opinion of your Committee, all the elements of fair justice. But the ques- 

 tion in any case is not of sufficient importance to justify a breach of the 

 friendly relation which should exist between capital and labour. When 

 either party has any decided preference for one system, it seems advisable 

 that the other party should accept the same. 



The economic effects of strikes and lock-oucs are well known, and it matters 

 but little which party in the contest in the end may prove successful. In 

 recent years strikes and lock-outs have occurred among coal- and iro n-miaers 



