maintained. He may to some slight extent affect the supply, but otherwise he is powerless to control the forces that regulate the demand. A reduction in prices tends to reduce the rate of wages.

And in so far as any miner working a forty-eight hours week sends to the surface a smaller amount of coal than he does at present his weekly wages will fall. From the table previously referred to it appears that in all the districts it is possible for a maximum eight hours day to be worked without reducing the actual number of hours per week that the men work at the face. For instance, in West Lancashire the hewers are underground fortyfive hours per week of 4.83 days, and of this time 46 hours are devoted to meals. Under a maximum eight hours day, if they work only the same number of days, i.e. 483, they would be in the mine 386 hours. It is not to be supposed that a miner in 38-6 hours can hew as much as in forty-five hours. His weekly wages will tend to be reduced in proportion to the reduction of hours. But such reduction will tend to make him work a sufficient time to secure his former weekly wages. Will he be able to do so under an eight hours day? Undoubtedly. Out of the forty-five hours previous to the reduction 46 hours were devoted to meals, leaving only 40-4 for getting to and from the face and hewing. If after the introduction of the eight hours day the hewer saves the 4.6 hours, he will be able to devote the whole 386 hours to his work, leaving only 1.8 hours to be worked additional on the fifth day. To put the matter shortly, 40'4 hours (the average number of weekly hours the West Lancashire miners work at present, meal time being excluded) could be worked under an eight hours day in 505 days, no time being allowed for meals. The hewer who is underground at present for 4.83 days in the week and is allowed 46 hours per week for meals, would be underground 5·05 days, and receive no time for meals. The figures given in column 7 of Table A show clearly the possibility of most miners hewing as many hours under an eight hours day as under the present system.

Will the possibility be realized? Will the miner be ready and willing under an eight hours day to endeavour to maintain his output? Whatever answer may be given to this question, there is no doubt but the miner will have every incentive to hew as much coal as possible. The miner's standard of comfort' varies, it is true, in different parts of the country; but that he aims at some standard is beyond all doubt. Prices not rising, he must, to gain the same wages in the shorter day, send as much

6

coal to the surface as he did before, and hence he will have the strongest possible motive to save time from the hours allowed for meals, to use a faster stroke, to idle less, and even to increase if necessary the average number of days he works in the week in order to realize his standard.

It has been said that high prices and the consequent high wages generally result in miners decreasing their output. I have given more than one reason tending to show that any rise in prices owing to a reduction in hours is likely to be very temporary. But the fact, if it be true, that when wages reach a certain point miners reduce their output, would certainly tend to raise prices still higher. Owing to the recent rise in the price of coal the miners in Durham and Northumberland have, it is said, reduced the number of hours they work per week. The only detailed evidence on the point that I have been able to find is that contained in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1873. It appears that the miners in Durham and Northumberland in 1872 reduced their hours of working. In our collieries,' said Sir Isaac Lothian Bell, where in 1870 hewers earned 4s. 7 d. per day, and to do that had to work, or rather had to be absent from daylight from the pit head, about ten hours, now the same man can earn 7s. 5d. a day in eight hours. At the same time he has reduced his quantity from four and a half to three and a half tons, and, unless the colliery workings had been extended, that would have represented a falling off in the output, but we have gone on extending as fast as we could to supply our own works and to supply markets.'1 Similar evidence was given by other witnesses as to Lancashire 2 though the miners' agent refused to admit that there had been any reduction in the output. Unfortunately the statistics furnished to the inspectors of mines previous to the enactment of the Mines Regulation Act as to the output per man are practically useless, inasmuch as it was not compulsory on mine-owners to make returns. The inspectors, who were examined before the Committee, were careful to point out that, though the figures for the year 1872 showed a substantial reduction in the output per man, the figures by themselves were misleading, inasmuch as the compulsory returns for 1872 were much more accurate than the voluntary returns for previous years. The figures given in the Report of the Committee represent that the average output in 1871 was 321 tons; in 1872, 299 tons per worker as compared with 317 tons per worker in the year 1870. On the whole the diminution in the yield per man employed in getting Q. 1991, 2104. 3 Q. 4109.

1 Q. 6163.

2

3

coal since 1871 is not much less than that shown by the table.' Outside Northumberland, Durham and Lancashire, the evidence tended to show that the increase in prices and wages did not affect the output of the hewers. In South Wales,1 Yorkshire, Derby, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Worcestershire, or West Scotland, the hours were not reduced, whilst in South Staffordshire, East Worcestershire, North Staffordshire, Shropshire, and Cheshire, the output per hewer was increased.

2

If the hours of labour in these last mentioned districts are compared with the hours of labour prevalent in Durham, Northumberland, and Lancashire for the years 1871 and 1872, the cause of the reduction of the output per man is evident. In these last mentioned counties the working week previous to the rise in prices and wages was apparently longer than in other parts of England, and the colliers utilized the rise in prices to secure either a shorter working day or else a shorter working week or fortnight. The result was that an eight hours day was prevalent in England during the year 1872.

The choice between money and leisure presents itself to the collier as it does to every one who has to earn a living. Prosperity makes some men work harder, whilst to others it brings an opportunity for rest. The Durham hewer prefers, when wages reach a certain point, to reduce his toil; the Welshman in higher wages sees an opportunity of increasing his income. But whether the high prices bring in their train more wages or greater leisure, the total output of coal steadily increases under the influence of forces that the additional leisure may slightly modify but cannot control.

It remains to draw attention to the experience that England has already had of an eight hours day. The great rise in the price of coal that occurred in the years 1872 and 1873 resulted not merely in an increase in wages, but in a reduction of the hours of labour. The Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to inquire into the causes of the present dearness and scarcity of coal' contains valuable evidence on the effect of a reduction of hours on production. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out, the statistics relating to the production of coal per man previous to the year 1872 have to be used with the greatest care, as the Coal Mines Regulation 1 Q. 1519. 4 Q. 1730-1741.

5 No. 313, 1873.

2 Q. 692.

3 Q. 856.

Act, which makes it compulsory on mine-owners to supply returns relating to the output and the number of persons employed, was not then in force. The great increase shown in the number of persons employed in the year 1872 is ascribed by the Inspectors of Mines partly to the more accurate returns received.1

2

In Northumberland, North Durham, and Cumberland the days and hours of working were reduced from five days of six hours to four and three-quarter days of six hours; in South Durham from four and a half days of eight hours to four and a half days of six hours; in the Midlands from sixty to fortyeight hours per week; and in South Staffordshire from four and a half days of eleven hours to four and a half days of eight hours.5

In Yorkshire, South Wales, and North Staffordshire no change occurred, but in the majority of districts either the average number of days worked per week, or the average number of hours worked per day, was reduced, with the result that a maximum eight hours day was universal over the whole country. One cause of this reduction of hours was undoubtedly the limitations placed on the employment of boys by the Coal Mines Regulation Act. That Act practically established a maximum week of fiftyfour hours for hewers. A man,' says Mr. Hewlett, has his drawer with him, the person who hauls the coal from where it is cut to the nearest mechanical appliance, and they refuse to work without these drawers, and consequently, by limiting the hours of labour of the boys, the hours of labour of the men have diminished.'" It was calculated that in Northumberland and Durham the Act had shortened the hours of hewers by one hour in the fortnight. Apart, however, from any effects of the Act, the high wages prevailing during 1872 led to a very general reduction in the average number of hours worked per week by the hewers. Why was this? The answer lies in the fact that the hewer, like every other member of the community, aims at a certain standard of comfort,' and when that is realized he prefers to take subsequent improvements in his economic position in the form of greater leisure. Eight hours is the maximum day at which the miner aims, and when the conditions of industry enable him in that time to earn his standard wages, he prefers to reduce his hours rather than increase his wages. We have now to consider the effect of the reduction of hours

upon the output of the miner. The average output for each man employed for the five years 1868-72 was as follows:

From this table it appears that between the years 1871 and 1872 the average output decreased by 18 tons. The Select Committee comment on these figures as follows:

'The comparison between 1872 and the former years is affected by the facts that the previous returns were not compulsory, and did not include in all cases the whole of the persons employed in the mine and about the colliery, nor do the returns admit of any account being taken of the saving of labour either in the mine or above ground in consequence of improved arrangements for working the collieries or delivering the coal into the waggons for transport. The evidence given in some individual cases shows that the quantity raised per man has diminished in the last year, and on the whole your Committee think that the diminution in the yield per man employed in getting coal in the mine since 1871 is not much less than that shown in the table.' The evidence apparently bears out this conclusion: under shorter hours the output per man was reduced in Northumberland and Durham, 2 Lancashire, and Yorkshire, whilst it increased in South Wales, where no change was made in hours, and in North Staffordshire; but on the average there was a substantial reduction. The Committee omit to point out that the whole of this reduction cannot be attributed to the shortening of hours. The new men who flocked into the industry were unskilled in coal mining. It was not to be expected that an agricultural labourer or a factory operative who had never handled a pick in his life could hew the same quantity of coal in a given time as a skilled miner, and some reduction per head was to be expected. But whilst the output per man was reduced, the total output was increased.

5

3

6