AND UN THE CONTINENT.

121

bus luil to an increased production—lias been gone through.Tlioso tacts aro based upon communications from Swiss millowuersaccompanied by detailed figures. Numerous manufacturers andspinners expressly acknowledge the favourable influence of shorten-ing the hours of labour. This opinion is certainly limited in onedirection. Mills with out-of-date machinery, which at the sametime employ the worse, poorer-paid class of labour, havenot been able to participate in this development, by which thesame production was crowded into a. shorter time. Such millshave without doubt been prejudiced by the shortening of thohours of labour, inasmuch as tho quantity of their production liasexperienced in some cases a considerable falling-off. l’oormachinery and poor operatives became impossible. The loss withhand-looms was still more complete’—it was in exact proportionto the lessening of the time for labour. But these disadvantagesfor tho few show r a decided progress for national economy on thowhole.

But cannot the flourishing state of Indian spinning be used asan instance against the opinion expressed here'! Does not thisstrongest living competitor of England depend upon tho lowerwages which are paid in India? Against this view' the researchesof the Manchester Chandler of Commerce have shown that cheaplabour is by no means the advantage of India. According to theview' of the Chamber of Commerce, it lies much rather in theconstantly falling silver-prices. In India the buying power ofsilver falls but slowly and incompletely in comparison with thelowering silver prices in the international market, but in everycase the Indian spinner always produces under a higher price con-dition of silver than that which obtains at tho time when English yarn is sold in India (12).

That cheaper labour does not create the strength of Indianspinning is shown already by the fact that in India only thecoarsest yarns are produced successfully ; therefore tlioso in whichraw' material outweighs capital as well as labour. Twist No. 40'srequires about double as much labour and spinning wages as No.20’s. If cheap labour w r as the advantage of the Indian spinner hewould therefore rather spin 40’s than 20’s. .Just the opposite is

12. Compare “Bombav aud Lancashire ” (Manchester Chamber of Com-merce. 1888), p. 111. Farther, pp. 2, f. 29, 33, 75. With 20's the cost oflabour is the same in Bombay and Oldham. 0-62d to 0-(!4d. per pound of yarn ;bundling costs, on the other hand, 0-4+d. in Oldham, against only (Kind, inBombay, taking Is. 5d. as the value of the rupee.