{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38367/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38367","id":"gutenberg_38367","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38367","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Economics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Teaching & Education","Industrial arts","Industries"],"text":"Produced by Pat McCoy, Odessa Paige Turner and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n KNOWLEDGE IS POWER:\n\n A VIEW OF\n\n THE PRODUCTIVE FORCES OF MODERN SOCIETY,\n\n AND THE\n\n RESULTS OF LABOUR, CAPITAL, AND SKILL.\n\n BY CHARLES KNIGHT.\n\n\n Illustrated with numerous Woodcuts.\n\n\n \"The empire of man over material things has for its only foundation\n the sciences and the arts.\"--BACON.\n\n\n\n\n _THE SECOND EDITION._\n\n\n WITH TWENTY-FOUR ADDITIONAL CUTS OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSES.\n\n\n\n\n LONDON:\n JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.\n 1859.\n\n _The right of Translation is reserved._\n\n\n\n\n\n\nEXTRACT FROM THE INTRODUCTION.\n\n\n \"Without attempting to give this volume the formal shape of a\n treatise on _Political Economy_, it is the wish of the author to\n convey the broad parts of that science in a somewhat desultory\n manner, but one which is not altogether devoid of logical\n arrangement. He desires especially to be understood by _the young_;\n for upon their right appreciation of the principles which govern\n society will depend much of the security and happiness of our own\n and the coming time.\"\n\n\n\n\n LONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD-STREET,\n AND CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nNEIL ARNOTT, ESQ., M.D.,\n\nWITH SINCERE ADMIRATION OF THE DISINTERESTED SPIRIT IN WHICH HE HAS\nDEVOTED HIS SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE TO THE PUBLIC GOOD; AND IN GRATEFUL\nACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HIS NEVER-FAILING KINDNESS DURING A LONG FRIENDSHIP,\n\nTHIS VOLUME\n\nIS AFFECTIONATELY INSCRIBED.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION Page 1\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n Feeble resources of civilized man in a desert--Ross Cox,\n Peter the Wild Boy, and the Savage of Aveyron--A Moskito\n Indian on Juan Fernandez--Conditions necessary for the\n production of utility 6\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n Society a system of exchanges--Security of individual\n property the principle of exchange--Alexander Selkirk and\n Robinson Crusoe--Imperfect appropriation and unprofitable\n labour 14\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n Adventures of John Tanner--Habits of the American\n Indians--Their sufferings from famine, and from the absence\n among them of the principle of division of labour--Evils of\n irregular labour--Respect to property--Their present improved\n condition--Hudson's Bay Indians 23\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n The Prodigal--Advantages of the poorest man in civilized life\n over the richest savage--Savings-banks, deposits, and\n interest--Progress of accumulation--Insecurity of capital,\n its causes and results--Property, its constituents--\n Accumulation of capital 38\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n Common interests of Capital and Labour--Labour directed by\n Accumulation--Capital enhanced by Labour--Balance of rights\n and duties--Relation of demand and supply--Money\n exchanges--Intrinsic and representative value of money 49\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n Importance of capital to the profitable employment of\n labour--Contrast between the prodigal and the prudent man:\n the Dukes of Buckingham and Bridgewater--Making good for\n trade--Unprofitable consumption--War against capital in the\n middle ages--Evils of corporate privileges--Condition of the\n people under Henry VIII. 60\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n Rights of labour--Effects of slavery on production--Condition\n of the Anglo Saxons--Progress of freedom in England--Laws\n regulating labour--Wages and prices--Poor-law--Law of\n settlement 71\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n Possessions of the different classes in England--Condition of\n Colchester in 1301--Tools, stock-in-trade, furniture,\n &c.--Supply of food--Comparative duration of human life--Want\n of facilities for commerce--Plenty and civilization not\n productive of effeminacy--Colchester in the present day 82\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n Certainty the stimulus to industry--Effects of\n insecurity--Instances of unprofitable labour--Former notions\n of commerce--National and class prejudices, and their remedy 96\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n Employment of machinery in manufactures and\n agriculture--Erroneous notions formerly prevalent on this\n subject--Its advantages to the labourer--Spade-husbandry--The\n principle of machinery--Machines and tools--Change in the\n condition of England consequent on the introduction of\n machinery--Modern New Zealanders and ancient Greeks--\n Hand-mills and water-mills 106\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n Present and former condition of the country--Progress of\n cultivation--Evil influence of feudalism--State of\n agriculture in the sixteenth century--Modern\n improvements--Prices of wheat--Increased breadth of land\n under cultivation--Average consumption of wheat--Implements\n of agriculture now in use--Number of agriculturists in\n Great Britain 124\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n Production of a knife--Manufacture of iron--Raising coal--The\n hot-blast--Iron bridges--Rolling bar-iron--Making\n steel--Sheffield manufactures--Mining in Great\n Britain--Numbers engaged in mines and metal manufactures 139\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n Conveyance and extended use of coal--Consumption at various\n periods--Condition of the roads in the seventeenth and\n eighteenth centuries--Advantages of good roads--Want of roads\n in Australia--Turnpike-roads--Canals--Railway of\n 1680--Railway statistics 157\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n Houses--The Pyramids--Mechanical power--Carpenters'\n tools--American machinery for building--Bricks--Slate--\n Household fittings and furniture--Paper-hangings--Carpets--\n Glass--Pottery--Improvements effected through the\n reduction or repeal of duties on domestic requirements 174\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n Dwellings of the people--Oberlin--The Highlander's\n candlesticks--Supply of water--London waterworks--\n Street-lights--Sewers 199\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n Early intercourse with foreign nations--Progress of the\n cotton manufacture--Hand-spinning--Arkwright--Crompton--\n Power-loom--Cartwright--Especial benefits of machinery in\n this manufacture 213\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n The woollen manufacture--Divisions of employment--Early\n history--Prohibitory laws--The Jacquard loom--Middle-age\n legislation--Sumptuary laws--The silk manufacture--\n Ribbon-weaving--The linen manufacture--Cloth-printing--\n Bleaching 233\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n Hosiery manufacture--The stocking-frame--The circular\n hosiery-machine--Hats--Gloves--Boots and shoes--Straw-plat--\n Artificial flowers--Fans--Lace--Bobbin-net machine--Pins--\n Needles--Buttons--Toys--Lucifer-matches--Envelopes 255\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n Labour-saving contrivances--The nick in Types--Tags of\n laces--Casting shot--Candle-dipping--Tiring a wheel--\n Globe-making--Domestic aids to labour--Aids to mental\n labour--Effects of severe bodily labour on health and\n duration of life 276\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n Influences of knowledge in the direction of labour and\n capital--Astronomy: Chronometer--Mariner's compass--\n Scientific travellers--New materials of manufactures--\n India-rubber--Gutta-percha--Palm-oil--Geology--Inventions\n that diminish risk--Science raising up new employments--\n Electricity--Galvanism--Sun-light--Mental labourers--\n Enlightened public sentiment 295\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n Invention of printing--Effects of that art--A daily\n newspaper--Provincial newspapers--News-writing of former\n periods--Changes in the character of newspapers--Steam\n conveyance--Electric telegraph--Organization of a London\n newspaper-office--The printing-machine--The\n paper-machine--Bookbinding--Paper-duty 323\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n Power of skill--Cheap production--Population and\n production--Partial and temporary evils--Intelligent\n labour--Division of labour--General knowledge--'The Lowell\n Offering'--Union of forces 344\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n Accumulation--Productive and unproductive consumption--Use of\n capital--Credit--Security of property--Production applied to\n the satisfaction of common wants--Increase of\n comforts--Relations of capitalist and labourer 361\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n Natural law of wages--State-laws regulating wages--Enactments\n regulating consumption--The labour-fund and the\n want-fund--Ratio of capital to population--State of industry\n at the end of the seventeenth century--Rise of\n manufactures--Wages and prices--Turning over capital 381\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n What political economy teaches--Skilled labour and trusted\n labour--Competition of unskilled labour--Competition of\n uncapitalled labour--Itinerant traders--The contrast of\n organized industry--Factory-labour and garret-labour--\n Communism--Proposals for state organization of labour--\n Social Publishing Establishment--Practical co-operation 398\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.\n\n\n PAGE\n\n 1. African Hut 12\n 2. Robinson Crusoe (from a design by Stothard) 20\n 3. Dying lion 25\n 4. Penn's treaty with the Indians 33\n 5. Pine-marten 37\n 6. Treasure-finding 45\n 7. Brindley 63\n 8. The hock-cart 66\n 9. Adam Smith 71\n 10. \"Under his own vine\" 100\n 11. Centre of gravity 113\n 12. A tool made a machine 115\n 13. Spinning a rope 118\n 14. Analysis of a cable 119\n 15. Mill at Guy's Cliff 122\n 16. Oriental plough 126\n 17. Clod-crusher 132\n 18. Scarifier 133\n 19. Horse-hoe 134\n 20. Moveable steam-engine and thrashing-machine 135\n 21. Thrashing-machine with horse-power 136\n 22. Draining-tile machine 137\n 23. The first iron bridge, Colebrook Dale 147\n 24. Rolling bar-iron 149\n 25. File-cutters 152\n 26. Cupids forging arrows (from Albani) 156\n 27. Telford 162\n 28. Modern Syrian cart 165\n 29. Brindley's aqueduct over the Irwell 168\n 30. Railway locomotive 171\n 31. Reindeer 173\n 32. Beaver 174\n 33. Pyramid and sphinx 176\n 34. Boulton 179\n 35. Carpenters and their tools (from an old German woodcut) 181\n 36. Egyptian labour in the brick-field 183\n 37. Scotch carpet-loom 188\n 38. Sheet-glass making 192\n 39. Potter's wheel of modern Egypt 195\n 40. Moulds for porcelain, and casts 196\n 41. Wedgwood 197\n 42. Ancient shadoof 202\n 43. Conduit in Westcheap 206\n 44. Old water-carrier of London 208\n 45. Plug in a frost 209\n 46. London street-lights, 1760 211\n 47. Cotton; showing a pod bursting 214\n 48. Distaff 216\n 49. A Hindoo woman spinning cotton 217\n 50. Sir Richard Arkwright 219\n 51. Arkwright's original spinning-machine 220\n 52. Samuel Crompton, inventor of the spinning-mule 222\n 53. Hindoo weaver at work in a field 228\n 54. Dr. Cartwright, inventor of the power-loom 229\n 55. Flemish weaver (from a print of 1568) 230\n 56. Mechanism of power-loom 242\n 57. Jacquard cards 243\n 58. Hanks of silk 247\n 59. Egyptian winding-reel 247\n 60. Silk-winding machine 248\n 61. Indigo-harvest In the West Indies 252\n 62. Gloves for the great 260\n 63. Cobbler's stall, about 1760 261\n 64. Men'seg, or Egyptian embroidery frame 263\n 65. Bobbin-net meshes 264\n 66. Essential parts of the bobbin-net machine 265\n 67. Stamping the eye of a needle 269\n 68. Stamping, pressing, and punching buttons.--Elliott's\n factory 271\n 69. Envelope-making machine 275\n 70. Compositor at work 277\n 71. Machine for fixing tags to laces 278\n 72. Inclined plane for separating shot 279\n 73. Candle-dipping machine 281\n 74. Tiring a wheel 281\n 75. Harrison 298\n 76. Greenwich Observatory 299\n 77. Linnaeus in his Lapland dress 302\n 78. Elaeis Guineensis, and Cocoa butyracea, yielding palm-oil 306\n 79. Franklin medal 310\n 80. Newton 313\n 81. Ambrose Pare 314\n 82. Sir Walter Scott (from Sir F. Chantrey's bust) 319\n 83. Statue of Bacon 322\n 84. Old hand-gunner 330\n 85. Carrier-pigeon 332\n 86. Cowper's printing-machine 335\n 87. The 'Times' printing-machine 338\n 88. Papyrus 343\n 89. Medal to Locke 380\n 90. Vision of Henry I 381\n 91. Irish mud cabin 393\n 92. \"Feed the hungry\" (from Flaxman) 401\n 93. Costermonger 407\n 94. \"Pots to mend\" 411\n 95. Statue of Watt 424\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n THE PRESENT EDITION IS ILLUSTRATED WITH TWENTY-FOUR\n ADDITIONAL CUTS, ON SEPARATE PAGES, OF MANUFACTURING\n PROCESSES, &C., WHICH ARE TO BE PLACED AS FOLLOWS:--\n\n\n Bursting of Dykes. The forces of Nature overcoming the\n industry of Man 99\n Making ropes by machinery 119\n Steam-boiler making 145\n Shear and tilt-hammers--Steel Manufacture 151\n Ancient lead-mine in Derbyshire 154\n Coal-railway 157\n Locomotive-engine factory 170\n Stone quarry, Portland 177\n Timber rafts of the Tyrol 178\n Glass-cutting 191\n Plate-glass factory 192\n The English potter 194\n Mill-room of a pottery 196\n Cotton mule-spinning 222\n Power-looms 229\n Jacquard power-looms 241\n Interior of Marshall's flax-mill, Leeds 250\n Calico-printing by cylinder 252\n Bleaching-ground at Glasgow 254\n Electro-gilding 311\n Pianoforte manufactory 320\n Bas-relief on Gutenberg's monument 323\n Paper-making by hand 341\n Processes of bookbinding 342\n\n\n\n\nKNOWLEDGE IS POWER.\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nIt has been wisely said by a French writer who has scattered abroad\nsound and foolish opinions with a pretty equal hand, that \"it requires a\ngreat deal of philosophy to observe once what is seen every day.\"[1] To\nno branch of human knowledge can this remark be more fitly applied than\nto that which relates to the commonest things of the world,--namely, the\nWants of Man and the Means of satisfying them.\n\nMan, it has been maintained, has greater natural wants and fewer natural\nmeans than any other animal. That his wants are greater, even in the\nrudest state of the species, than the wants of any quadruped--to say\nnothing of animals lower in the scale of being--there can be no doubt.\nBut that his natural means are feebler and fewer we cannot believe; for\nthe exercise of his understanding, in a variety of ways which no brute\nintelligence can reach, is the greatest of his natural means,--and that\npower enables him to subdue all things to his use.\n\nIt is the almost unlimited extent of the wants of man in the social\nstate, and the consequent multiplicity and complexity of his means--both\nhis wants and means proceeding from the range of his mental\nfaculties--which have rendered it so difficult to observe and explain\nthe laws which govern the production, distribution, and consumption of\nthose articles of utility, essential to the subsistence and comfort of\nthe human race, which we call Wealth. It is not more than a century ago\nthat even those who had \"a great deal of philosophy\" first began to\napply themselves to observe \"what is seen every day\" exercising, in the\ncourse of human industry, the greatest influence on the condition and\ncharacter of individuals and nations. The properties of light were\nascertained by Sir Isaac Newton long before men were agreed upon the\ncircumstances which determined the production of a loaf of bread; and\nthe return of a comet after an interval of seventy-six years was pretty\naccurately foretold by Dr. Halley, when legislators were in almost\ncomplete ignorance of the principle which regularly brought as many\ncabbages to Covent Garden as there were purchasers to demand them.\n\nSince those days immense efforts have been made to determine the great\ncircumstances of our social condition, which have such unbounded\ninfluence on the welfare of mankind. But, unhappily for themselves and\nfor others, many of every nation still remain in comparative darkness,\nwith regard even to the elementary truths which the labours of some of\nthe most acute and benevolent inquirers that the world has produced have\nsucceeded in establishing. Something of this defect may be attributed to\nthe fact that subjects of this nature are considered difficult of\ncomprehension. Even the best educated sometimes shrink from the\nexamination of questions of political economy when presented in their\nscientific form. Charles Fox said that he could not understand Adam\nSmith. And yet Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' is essentially an\namusing book in many parts. Matters affecting the interests of every\nhuman being, and involving a variety of facts having relation to the\ncondition of mankind in every age and country, are not necessarily, as\nhas been supposed, dry and difficult to understand, and consequently\nonly to be approached by systematic students. In this belief it is\nproposed in this volume to exhibit the natural operation of the\nprinciples by which Industry, as well as every other exchangeable\nproperty, must be governed. The writer has to apply all the universal\nlaws which regulate the exchanges of mankind to the direction of that\nexchange which the great bulk of the people are most interested in\ncarrying forward rapidly, certainly, and uninterruptedly--the exchange\nof Labour for Capital. But he has also to regard those laws with\nespecial reference to that mighty Power which has become so absorbing\nand controlling in our own day--the Power of Science applied to the\nArts, or, in other words, Knowledge. It is not too much to assert that,\nhenceforth, Labour must take its absolute direction from that Power. It\nis now the great instrument of Capital. In time it will be understood\nuniversally to be the best partner of Labour. \"Wherever education and an\nunrestricted press are allowed full scope to exercise their united\ninfluence, progress and improvement are the certain results, and among\nthe many benefits which arise from their joint co-operation may be\nranked most prominently the value which they teach men to place upon\nintelligent contrivance; the readiness with which they cause new\nimprovements to be received; and the impulse which they thus unavoidably\ngive to that inventive spirit which is gradually emancipating man from\nthe rude forms of labour, and making what were regarded as the luxuries\nof one age to be looked upon in the next as the ordinary and necessary\nconditions of human existence.\"[2]\n\nThe present volume is founded upon two little works which the author\nwrote more than twenty years ago, and which were widely circulated. One\nof these books, 'The Results of Machinery,' was published, in connexion\nwith the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, at a period of\ngreat national alarm, when a blind rage against a power supposed to\ninterfere with the claims of labour was generally prevalent, and led, in\nthe southern agricultural districts especially, to many acts of daring\nviolence. Happily that spirit is passed away. The spirit of knowledge\nhas arisen; and we are told now, by an unquestionable authority, that\nlabourers themselves begin to regard the tedious work of the flail as\ntoo irksome[3]--the same class that in 1830 broke the thrashing\nmachines. In remodelling that portion of the present volume it is\nunnecessary to deprecate the evils of hostility to machinery; but rather\nto look forward to its more complete union with skilled labour as the\ntriumph of the productive forces of modern society. In the other little\nbook upon which this volume is founded, 'Capital and Labour,' the\ngeneral subject of the _Production_ of wealth was popularly treated, and\nthe argument is here carried forward. But in the present work it will be\nthe further endeavour of the writer not to overlook the general\nrelations of Capital and Labour in the _Distribution_ of wealth. As the\nmistakes about Production have yielded, in a great degree, to improved\neducation, so may those which belong to Distribution also yield to the\nprogress of Knowledge. These are not mistakes which are confined to one\nclass, and that the most numerous. The freedom of Industry has as much\nclaim to be regarded as the security of Capital. We have distinct\nevidence that in another country these principles are better understood.\n\n \"The results which have been obtained in the United\n States, by the application of machinery wherever it has\n been practicable to manufactures, are rendered still more\n remarkable by the fact that combinations to resist its\n introduction there are unheard of. The workmen hail with\n satisfaction all mechanical improvements, the importance\n and value of which, as releasing them from the drudgery of\n unskilled labour, they are enabled by education to\n understand and appreciate. With the comparatively\n superabundant supply of hands in this country, and\n therefore a proportionate difficulty in obtaining\n remunerative employment, the working classes have less\n sympathy with the progress of invention. Their condition\n is a less favourable one than that of their American\n brethren for forming a just and unprejudiced estimate of\n the influence which the introduction of machinery is\n calculated to exercise on their state and prospects. I\n cannot resist the conclusion, however, that the different\n views taken by our operatives and those of the United\n States upon this subject are determined by other and\n powerful causes, besides those dependent on the supply of\n labour in the two countries. The principles which ought to\n regulate the relations between the employer and the\n employed seem to be thoroughly understood and appreciated\n in the United States; and while the law of limited\n liability affords the most ample facilities for the\n investment of capital in business, the intelligent and\n educated artisan is left equally free to earn all that he\n can, by making the best use of his hands, without let or\n hindrance by his fellows.\"[4]\n\nWithout attempting to give this volume the formal shape of a treatise on\nPolitical Economy, it is the wish of the author to convey the broad\nparts of his subject in a somewhat desultory manner, but one which is\nnot altogether devoid of logical arrangement. He desires especially to\nbe understood by _the young_; for upon their right appreciation of the\nprinciples which govern society will depend much of the security and\nhappiness of our own and the coming time. The danger of our present\nperiod of transition is, that theory should expect too much, and that\npractice should do too little, in the amelioration of the condition of\nthe people.\n\nA great number of woodcuts have been for the first time introduced into\nthis volume, which illustrate mechanical inventions. But the author begs\ndistinctly to be understood that his object here is not to _describe_\nprocesses. His notices of them, more or less extended, are simply to\nillustrate the course of his argument; and in that way to make the book\nmore useful, because more attractive, for purposes of education.\n\n [1] J. J. Rousseau.\n\n [2] Special Report of Mr. Joseph Whitworth on the New York Industrial\n Exhibition.\n\n [3] Mr. Pusey's Report on Agricultural Implements.\n\n [4] Mr. Whitworth's Special Report.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\n Feeble resources of civilized man in a desert--Ross Cox,\n Peter the Wild Boy, and the Savage of Aveyron--A Moskito\n Indian on Juan Fernandez--Conditions necessary for the\n production of utility.\n\n\nLet us suppose a man brought up in civilized life, cast upon a desert\nland--without food, without clothes, without fire, without tools. We see\nthe human being in the very lowest state of helplessness. Most of the\nknowledge he had acquired would be worse than useless; for it would not\nbe applicable in any way to his new position. Let the land upon which he\nis thrown produce spontaneous fruits--let it be free from ferocious\nanimals--let the climate be most genial--still the man would be\nexceedingly powerless and wretched. The first condition of his lot, to\nenable him to maintain existence at all, would be that he should labour.\nHe must labour to gather the berries from the trees--he must labour to\nobtain water from the rivulets--he must labour to form a garment of\nleaves, or of some equally accessible material, to shield his body from\nthe sun--he must labour to render some cave or hollow tree a secure\nplace of shelter from the dews of night. There would be no intermission\nof the labour necessary to provide a supply of food from hand to mouth,\neven in the season when wild fruits were abundant. If this labour, in\nthe most favourable season, were interrupted for a single day, or at\nmost for two or three days, by sickness, he would in all probability\nperish. But, when the autumn was past, and the wild fruits were gone, he\nmust prolong existence as some savage tribes are reported to do--by raw\nfish and undressed roots. The labour of procuring these would be\ninfinitely greater than that of climbing trees for fruit. To catch fish\nwithout nets, and scratch up roots with naked hands, is indeed painful\ntoil. The helplessness of this man's condition would principally be the\neffect of one circumstance;--he would possess no accumulation of former\nlabour by which his present labour might be profitably directed. _The\npower of labour would in his case be in its least productive state._ He\nwould partly justify the assertion that man has the feeblest natural\nmeans of any animal;--because he would be utterly unpossessed of those\nmeans which the reason of man has accumulated around every individual in\nthe social state.\n\nWe asked the reader to _suppose_ a civilized man in the very lowest\nstate in which the power of labour may be exercised, because there is no\nrecord of any civilized man being for any length of time in such a\nstate.\n\nRoss Cox, a Hudson's Bay trader, whose adventures were given to the\nworld some twenty years ago, was in this state for a fortnight; and his\nsufferings may furnish some idea of the greater miseries of a\ncontinuance in such a powerless condition. Having fallen asleep in the\nwoods of the north-west of America, which he had been traversing with a\nlarge party, he missed the traces of his companions. The weather being\nvery hot, he had left nearly all his clothes with his horse when he\nrambled from his friends. He had nothing to defend himself against the\nwolves and serpents but a stick; he had nothing of which to make his bed\nbut long grass and rushes; he had nothing to eat but hips and wild\ncherries. The man would doubtless have perished, unless he had met with\nsome Indians, who knew better how to avail themselves of the spontaneous\nproductions around them. But this is not an instance of the continuance\nof Labour in the lowest state of its power.\n\nThe few individuals, also, who have been found exposed in forests, such\nas Peter the Wild Boy, and the Savage of Aveyron,--who were discovered,\nthe one about a century ago, in Germany, the other about forty years\nsince, in France,--differed from the civilized man cast naked upon a\ndesert shore in this particular--their _wants_ were of the lowest\nnature. They were not raised above the desires of the most brutish\nanimals. They supplied those desires after the fashion of brutes. Peter\nwas enticed from the woods by the sight of two apples, which the man who\nfound him displayed. He did not like bread, but he eagerly peeled green\nsticks, and chewed the rind. He had, doubtless, subsisted in this way in\nthe woods. He would not, at first, wear shoes, and delighted to throw\nthe hat which was given him into the river. He was brought to England,\nand lived many years with a farmer in Hertfordshire. During the Scotch\nRebellion, in 1745, he wandered into Norfolk; and having been\napprehended as a suspicious character, was sent to prison. The gaol was\non fire; and Peter was found in a corner, enjoying the warmth of the\nflames without any fear. The Savage of Aveyron, in the same manner, had\nthe lowest desires and the feeblest powers. He could use his hands, for\ninstance, for no other purpose than to seize upon an object; and his\nsense of touch was so defective, that he could not distinguish a raised\nsurface, such as a carving, from a painting. This circumstance of the\nlow physical and intellectual powers of these unfortunate persons\nprevents us exhibiting them as examples of the state which we asked the\nreader to suppose.\n\nLet us advance another step in our view of the power of Labour. Let us\ntake a man in one respect in the same condition that we supposed--left\nupon a desert land, without any direct social aid; but with some help to\nhis labour by a small Accumulation of former industry. We have instances\non record of this next state.\n\nIn the year 1681 a Moskito Indian was left by accident on the island of\nJuan Fernandez, in the Pacific Ocean; the English ship in which he was a\nsailor having been chased off the coast by some hostile Spanish vessels.\nCaptain Dampier describes this man's condition in the following words:--\n\n \"This Indian lived here alone above three years; and\n although he was several times sought after by the\n Spaniards, who knew he was left on the island, yet they\n could never find him. He was in the woods hunting for\n goats, when Captain Watlin drew off his men, and the ship\n was under sail before he came back to shore. He had with\n him his gun, and a knife, with a small horn of powder, and\n a few shot; which being spent, he contrived a way, by\n notching his knife, to saw the barrel of his gun into\n small pieces, wherewith he made harpoons, lances, hooks,\n and a long knife; heating the pieces first in the fire,\n which he struck with his gun-flint, and a piece of the\n barrel of his gun, which he hardened, having learnt to do\n that among the English. The hot pieces of iron he would\n hammer out and bend as he pleased with stones, and saw\n them with his jagged knife, or grind them to an edge by\n long labour, and harden them to a good temper as there was\n occasion.[5] With such instruments as he made in that\n manner, he got such provisions as the island afforded,\n either goats or fish. He told us that at first he was\n forced to eat seal, which is very ordinary meat, before he\n had made hooks; but afterwards he never killed any seals\n but to make lines, cutting their skins into thongs. He had\n a little house, or hut, half a mile from the sea, which\n was lined with goat's skin; his couch, or barbecu of\n sticks, lying along about two feet distance from the\n ground, was spread with the same, and was all his bedding.\n He had no clothes left, having worn out those he brought\n from Watlin's ship, but only a skin about his waist. He\n saw our ship the day before we came to an anchor, and did\n believe we were English; and therefore killed three goats\n in the morning, before we came to an anchor, and dressed\n them with cabbage, to treat us when we came ashore.\"\n\nHere, indeed, is a material alteration in the wealth of a man left on an\nuninhabited island. He had a regular supply of goats and fish; he had\nthe means of cooking this food; he had a house lined with goats' skins,\nand bedding of the same; his body was clothed with skins; he had\nprovisions in abundance to offer, properly cooked, when his old\ncompanions came to him after three years' absence. What gave him this\npower to labour profitably?--to maintain existence in tolerable comfort?\nSimply, the gun, the knife, and the flint, which he accidentally had\nwith him when the ship sailed away. The flint and the bit of steel which\nhe hardened out of the gun-barrel gave him the means of procuring fire;\nthe gun became the material for making harpoons, lances, and hooks, with\nwhich he could obtain fish and flesh. Till he had these tools, he was\ncompelled to eat seal's flesh. The instant he possessed the tools, he\ncould make a selection of what was most agreeable to his taste. It is\nalmost impossible to imagine a human being with less accumulation about\nhim. His small stock of powder and shot was soon spent, and he had only\nan iron gun-barrel and a knife left, with the means of changing the form\nof the gun-barrel by fire. Yet this single accumulation enabled him to\ndirect his labour, as all labour is directed even in its highest\nemployment, to the change of form and change of place of the natural\nsupplies by which he was surrounded. He created nothing; he only gave\nhis natural supplies a value by his labour. Until he laboured, the\nthings about him had no value, as far as he was concerned; when he did\nobtain them by labour, they instantly acquired a value. He brought the\nwild goat from the mountain to his hut in the valley--he changed its\nplace; he converted its flesh into cooked food, and its skin into a\nlining for his bed--he changed its form. Change of form and change of\nplace are the beginning and end of all human labour; and the Moskito\nIndian only employed the same principle for the supply of his wants\nwhich directs the labour of all the producers of civilized life into the\nchannels of manufactures or commerce.\n\nBut the Moskito Indian, far removed as his situation was above the\ncondition of the man without any accumulation of former labour--that is,\nof the man without any capital about him--was only _in the second stage\nin which the power of labour can be exercised_, and in which it is\ncomparatively still weak and powerless. He laboured--he laboured with\naccumulation--but he laboured without that other power which gives the\nlast and highest direction to profitable labour.\n\nLet us state all the conditions necessary for the production of Utility,\nor of what is essential to the support, comfort, and pleasure of human\nlife:--\n\n1. _That there shall be Labour._\n\nThe man thrown upon a desert island without accumulation,--the\nhalf-idiot boy who wandered into the German forests at so early an age\nthat he forgot all the usages of mankind,--were each compelled to\nlabour, and to labour unceasingly, to maintain existence. Even with an\nunbounded command of the spontaneous productions of nature, this\ncondition is absolute. It applies to the inferior animals as well as to\nman. The bee wanders from flower to flower, but it is to labour for the\nhoney. The sloth hangs upon the branches of a tree, but he labours till\nhe has devoured all the leaves, and then climbs another tree. The\ncondition of the support of animation is labour; and if the labour of\nall animals were miraculously suspended for a season, very short as\ncompared with the duration of individual life, the reign of animated\nnature upon this globe would be at an end.\n\n [Illustration: African Hut.]\n\nThe second condition in the production of utility is,--\n\n2. _That there shall be accumulation of former labour, or Capital._\n\nWithout accumulation, as we have seen, the condition of man is the\nlowest in the scale of animal existence. The reason is obvious. Man\nrequires some accumulation to aid his natural powers of labouring; for\nhe is not provided with instruments of labour to anything like the\nperfection in which they exist amongst the inferior animals. He wants\nthe gnawing teeth, the tearing claws, the sharp bills, the solid\nmandibles that enable quadrupeds, and birds, and insects to secure their\nfood, and to provide shelter in so many ingenious ways, each leading us\nto admire and reverence the directing Providence which presides over\nsuch manifold contrivances. He must, therefore, to work profitably,\naccumulate instruments of work. But he must do more, even in the\nunsocial state, where he is at perfect liberty to direct his industry as\nhe pleases, uncontrolled by the rights of other men. He must accumulate\nstores of covering and of shelter. He must have a hut and a bed of\nskins, which are all accumulations, or capital. He must, further, have a\nstock of food, which stock, being the most essential for human wants, is\ncalled _provisions_, or things provided. He would require this provision\nagainst the accidents which may occur to his own health, and the\nobstacles of weather, which may prevent him from fishing or hunting. The\nlowest savages have some stores. Many of the inferior animals display an\nequal care to provide for the exigencies of the future. But still, all\nsuch labour is extremely limited. When a man is occupied only in\nproviding immediately for his own wants--doing everything for himself,\nconsuming nothing but what he produces himself,--his labour must have a\nvery narrow range. The supply of the lowest necessities of our nature\ncan only be attended to, and these must be very ill supplied. The\nMoskito Indian had fish, and goats' flesh, and a rude hut, and a girdle\nof skins; and his power of obtaining this wealth was insured to him by\nthe absence of other individuals who would have been his competitors for\nwhat the island spontaneously produced. Had other Indians landed in\nnumbers on the island, and had each set about procuring everything for\nhimself, as the active Moskito did, they would have soon approached the\npoint of starvation; and then each would have begun to plunder from the\nother, unless they had found out the principle that would have given\nthem all plenty. There wanted, then, another power to give the labour of\nthe Indian a profitable direction, besides that of accumulation. It is a\npower which can only exist where man is social, as it is his nature to\nbe;--and where the principles of civilization are in a certain degree\ndeveloped. It is, indeed, the beginning and the end of all civilization.\nIt is itself civilization, partial or complete. It is the last and the\nmost important condition in the production of useful commodities,--\n\n3. _That there shall be exchanges._\n\nThere can be no exchanges without accumulation--there can be no\naccumulation without labour. Exchange is that step beyond the constant\nlabour and the partial accumulation of the lower animals, which makes\nman the lord of the world.\n\n[5] It is difficult to understand how the Indian could convert the iron\ngun-barrel into steel, which it appears from Dampier's account that he\ndid. Steel is produced by a scientific admixture of carbon with iron.\nBut we assume that the statement is correct, and that a conversion,\npartial doubtless, of iron into steel did take place.\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\n Society a system of exchanges--Security of individual\n property the principle of exchange--Alexander Selkirk and\n Robinson Crusoe--Imperfect appropriation and unprofitable\n labour.\n\n\nSociety, both in its rudest form and in its most refined and complicated\nrelations, is nothing but a system of Exchanges. An exchange is a\ntransaction in which both the parties who make the exchange are\nbenefited;--and, consequently, society is a state presenting an\nuninterrupted succession of advantages for all its members. Every time\nthat we make a free exchange we have a greater desire for the thing\nwhich we receive than for the thing which we give;--and the person with\nwhom we make the exchange has a greater desire for that which we offer\nhim than for that which he offers us. When one gives his labour for\nwages, it is because he has a higher estimation of the wages than of the\nprofitless ease and freedom of remaining unemployed;--and, on the\ncontrary, the employer who purchases his labour feels that he shall be\nmore benefited by the results of that labour than by retaining the\ncapital which he exchanges for it. In a simple state of society, when\none man exchanges a measure of wheat for the measure of wine which\nanother man possesses, it is evident that the one has got a greater\nstore of wheat than he desires to consume himself, and that the other,\nin the same way, has got a greater store of wine;--the one exchanges\nsomething to eat for something to drink, and the other something to\ndrink for something to eat. In a refined state of society, when money\nrepresents the value of the exchanges, the exchange between the\nabundance beyond the wants of the possessor of one commodity and of\nanother is just as real as the barter of wheat for wine. The only\ndifference is, that the exchange is not so direct, although it is\nincomparably more rapid. But, however the system of exchange be carried\non,--whether the value of the things exchanged be determined by barter\nor by a price in money,--all the exchangers are benefited, because all\nobtain what they want, through the store which they possess of what they\ndo not want.\n\nIt has been well said that \"Man might be defined to be an animal that\nmakes exchanges.\"[6] There are other animals, indeed, such as bees and\nants amongst insects, and beavers amongst quadrupeds, which to a certain\nextent are social; that is, they concur together in the execution of a\ncommon work for a common good: but as to their individual possessions,\neach labours to obtain what it desires from sources accessible to all,\nor plunders the stores of others. Not one insect or quadruped, however\nwonderful may be its approaches to rationality, has the least idea of\nmaking a formal exchange with another. The modes by which the inferior\nanimals communicate their thoughts are probably not sufficiently\ndeterminate to allow of any such agreement. The very foundation of that\nagreement is a complicated principle, which man alone can understand. It\nis the Security of individual Property. Immediately that this principle\nis established, labour begins to work profitably, for it works with\nexchange. If the principle of appropriation were not acted upon at all,\nthere could be no exchange, and consequently no production. The scanty\nbounty of nature might be scrambled for by a few miserable\nindividuals--and the strongest would obtain the best share; but this\ninsecurity would necessarily destroy all accumulation. Each would of\ncourse live from hand to mouth, when the means of living were constantly\nexposed to the violence of the more powerful. This is the state of the\nlowest savages, and as it is an extreme state it is a rare one,--no\nsecurity, no exchange, no capital, no labour, no production. Let us\napply the principle to an individual case.\n\nThe poet who has attempted to describe the feelings of a man suddenly\ncut off from human society, in \"Verses supposed to be written by\nAlexander Selkirk during his solitary abode in the island of Juan\nFernandez,\" represents him as saying, \"I am monarch of all I survey.\"[7]\nAlexander Selkirk was left upon the same island as the Moskito Indian;\nand his adventures there have formed the groundwork of the beautiful\nromance of \"Robinson Crusoe.\" The meaning of the poet is, that the\nunsocial man had the same right over all the natural productive powers\nof the country in which he had taken up his abode, as we each have over\nlight and air. He was alone; and therefore he exercised an absolute\nalthough a barren sovereignty, over the wild animals by which he was\nsurrounded--over the land and over the water. He was, in truth, the one\nproprietor--the one capitalist, and the one labourer--of the whole\nisland. His absolute property in the soil, and his perfect freedom of\naction, were both dependent upon one condition--that he should remain\nalone. If the Moskito Indian, for instance, had remained in the island,\nSelkirk's entire sovereignty must have been instantly at an end. Some\nmore definite principle of appropriation must have been established,\nwhich would have given to Selkirk, as well as to the Moskito Indian, the\nright to appropriate distinct parts of the island each to his particular\nuse. Selkirk, for example, might have agreed to remain on the eastern\ncoast, while the Indian might have established himself on the western;\nand then the fruits, the goats, and the fish of the eastern part would\nhave been appropriated to Selkirk, as distinctly as the clothes, the\nmusket, the iron pot, the can, the hatchet, the knife, the mathematical\ninstruments, and the Bible which he brought on shore.[8] If the Indian's\nterritory had produced something which Selkirk had not, and if Selkirk's\nland had also something which the Indian's had not, they might have\nbecome exchangers. They would have passed into that condition naturally\nenough;--imperfectly perhaps, but still as easily as any barbarous\npeople who do not cultivate the earth, but exchange her spontaneous\nproducts.\n\nThe poet goes on to make the solitary man say, \"My right there is none\nto dispute.\" The condition of Alexander Selkirk was unquestionably one\nof absolute liberty. His rights were not measured by his duties. He had\nall rights and no duties. Many writers on the origin of society have\nheld that man, upon entering into union with his fellow-men, and\nsubmitting, as a necessary consequence of this union, to the restraints\nof law and government, sacrifices a portion of his liberty, or natural\npower, for the security of that power which remains to him. No such\nagreement amongst mankind could ever have possibly taken place; for man\nis by his nature, and without any agreement, a social being. He is a\nbeing whose rights are balanced by the uncontrollable force of their\nrelation to the rights of others. The succour which the infant man\nrequires from its parents, to an extent, and for a duration, so much\nexceeding that required for the nurture of other creatures, is the\nnatural beginning of the social state, established insensibly and by\ndegrees. The liberty which the social man is thus compelled by the force\nof circumstances to renounce amounts only to a restraint upon his brute\npower of doing injury to his fellow-men: and for this sacrifice, in\nitself the cause of the highest individual and therefore general good,\nhe obtains that dominion over every other being, and that control over\nthe productive forces of nature, which alone can render him the monarch\nof all he surveys. The poor sailor, who for four years was cut off from\nhuman aid, and left alone to struggle for the means of supporting\nexistence, was an exception, and a very rare one, to the condition of\nour species all over the world. His absolute rights placed him in the\ncondition of uncontrolled feebleness; if he had become social, he would\nhave put on the regulated strength of rights balanced by duties.\n\nAlexander Selkirk was originally left upon the uninhabited island of\nJuan Fernandez at his own urgent desire. He was unhappy on board his\nship, in consequence of disputes with his captain; and he resolved to\nrush into a state which might probably have separated him for ever from\nthe rest of mankind. In the belief that he should be so separated, he\ndevoted all his labour and all his ingenuity to the satisfaction of his\nown wants alone. By continual exercise, he was enabled to run down the\nwild goat upon the mountains; and by persevering search, he knew where\nto find the native roots that would render his goat's flesh palatable.\nHe never thought, however, of providing any store beyond the supply of\nhis own personal necessities. He had no motive for that thought; because\nthere was no human being within his reach with whom he might exchange\nthat store for other stores. The very instant, however, that the English\nships, which finally gave him back to society, touched upon his\nshores,--before he communicated by speech with any of his fellow-men, or\nwas discovered by them,--he became social. He saw that he must be an\nexchanger. Before the boat's crew landed he had killed several goats,\nand prepared a meal for his expected guests. He knew that he possessed a\ncommodity which they did not possess. He had fresh meat, whilst they had\nonly salt. Of course what he had to offer was acceptable to the sailors;\nand he received in exchange protection, and a place amongst them. He\nrenounced his sovereignty, and became once more a subject. It was better\nfor him, he thought, to be surrounded with the regulated power of\ncivilization, than to wield at his own will the uncertain strength of\nsolitary uncivilization. But, had he chosen to remain upon his island,\nas in after-years he regretted he had not done, although a solitary man\nhe would not have been altogether cut off from the hopes and the duties\nof the social state. If he had chosen to remain after that visit from\nhis fellow-men, he would have said to them, before they had left him\nonce more alone, \"I have hunted for you my goats, I have dug for you my\nroots, I have shown you the fountains which issue out of my\nrocks;--these are the resources of my dominion: give me in exchange for\nthem a fresh supply of gunpowder and shot, some of your clothes, some of\nthe means of repairing these clothes, some of your tools and implements\nof cookery, and more of your books to divert my solitary hours.\" Having\nenjoyed the benefits which he had bestowed, they would, as just men,\nhave paid the debt which they had incurred, and the exchange would have\nbeen completed. Immediately that they had quitted his shores, Selkirk\nwould have looked at his resources with a new eye. His hut was rudely\nfashioned and wretchedly furnished. He had fashioned, and furnished it\nas well as he could by his own labour, working upon his own materials.\nThe visit which he had received from his fellow-men, after he had\nabandoned every hope of again looking upon their faces, would have led\nhim to think that other ships would come, with whose crews he might make\nother exchanges,--new clothes, new tools, new materials, received as the\nprice of his own accumulations. To make the best of his circumstances\nwhen that day should arrive, he must redouble his efforts to increase\nhis stock of commodities,--some for himself, and some to exchange for\nother commodities, if the opportunity for exchange should ever come. He\nmust therefore transplant his vegetables, so as to be within instant\nreach when they should be wanted. He must render his goats domestic,\ninstead of chasing them upon the hills. He must go forward from the\nhunting state, into the pastoral and agricultural.\n\n [Illustration: Robinson Crusoe. (From a design by Stothard.)]\n\nIn Defoe's story, Robinson Crusoe is represented as going into this\npastoral and agricultural state. But he had more resources than Selkirk;\nand he at last obtained one resource which carried him back, however\nincompletely, into the social condition. He acquired a fellow-labourer.\nHe made a boat by his own unassisted labour; but he could not launch it.\nWhen Friday came, and was henceforth his faithful friend and willing\nservant, he could launch his boat. Crusoe ultimately left his island;\nfor the boat had given him a greater command over his circumstances. But\nhad he continued there in companionship with Friday, there must have\nbeen such a compact as would have prevented either struggling for the\nproperty which had been created. The course of improvement that we have\nimagined for Selkirk supposes that he should continue in his state of\nexclusive proprietor--that there should be none to dispute his right. If\nother ships had come to his shores--if they had trafficked with him\nfrom time to time--exchanged clothes and household conveniences, and\nimplements of cultivation, for his goats' flesh and roots--it is\nprobable that other sailors would in time have desired to partake his\nplenty;--that a colony would have been founded--that the island would\nhave become populous. It is perfectly clear that, whether for exchange\namongst themselves, or for exchange with others, the members of this\ncolony could not have stirred a step in the cultivation of the land\nwithout appropriating its produce;--and they could not have appropriated\nits produce without appropriating the land itself. Cultivation of the\nland for a common stock would have gone to the establishment precisely\nof the same principle;--they would still have been exchangers amongst\nthemselves, and the partnership would not have lasted a day, unless each\nman's share of what the partnership produced had been rendered perfectly\nsecure to him. Without security they could not have accumulated--without\naccumulations they could not have exchanged--without exchanges they\ncould not have carried forward their labours with any compensating\nproductiveness.\n\nImperfect appropriation--that is, an appropriation which respects\npersonal wealth, such as the tools and conveniences of an individual,\nand even secures to him the fruits of the earth when he has gathered\nthem, but which has not reached the last step of a division of\nland--imperfect appropriation such as this raises up the same invincible\nobstacles to the production of utility; because, with this original\ndefect, there must necessarily be unprofitable labour, small\naccumulation, limited exchange. Let us exemplify this by another\nindividual case.\n\nWe have seen, in the instances of the Moskito Indian and of Selkirk, how\nlittle a solitary man can do for himself, although he may have the most\nunbounded command of natural supplies--although not an atom of those\nnatural supplies, whether produced by the earth or the water, is\nappropriated by others--when, in fact, he is monarch of all he surveys.\nLet us trace the course of another man, advanced in the ability to\nsubdue all things to his use by association with his fellow-men; but\ncarrying on that association in the rude and unproductive relations of\nsavage life;--not desiring to \"replenish the earth\" by cultivation, but\nseeking only to appropriate the means of existence which it has\nspontaneously produced;--labouring, indeed, and exchanging, but not\nlabouring and exchanging in a way that will permit the accumulation of\nwealth, and therefore remaining poor and miserable. We are not about to\ndraw any fanciful picture, but merely to select some facts from a real\nnarrative.\n\n [6] Dr. Whately's Lectures on Political Economy.\n\n [7] Cowper's Miscellaneous Poems.\n\n [8] These circumstances are recorded in Captain Woodes Rogers' Cruising\n Voyage round the World, 1712.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\n Adventures of John Tanner--Habits of the American\n Indians--Their sufferings from famine, and from the absence\n among them of the principle of division of labour--Evils of\n irregular labour--Respect to property--Their present improved\n condition--Hudson's Bay Indians.\n\n\nIn the year 1828 there came to New York a white man named John Tanner,\nwho had been thirty years a captive amongst the Indians in the interior\nof North America. He was carried off by a band of these people when he\nwas a little boy, from a settlement on the Ohio river, which was\noccupied by his father, who was a clergyman. The boy was brought up in\nall the rude habits of the Indians, and became inured to the abiding\nmiseries and uncertain pleasures of their wandering life. He grew in\ntime to be a most skilful huntsman, and carried on large dealings with\nthe agents of the Hudson's Bay Company, in the skins of beavers and\nother animals which he and his associates had shot or entrapped. The\nhistory of this man was altogether so curious, that he was induced to\nfurnish the materials for a complete narrative of his adventures; and,\naccordingly, a book, fully descriptive of them, was prepared for the\npress by Dr. Edwin James, and printed at New York, in 1830. It is of\ncourse not within the intent of our little work to furnish any regular\nabridgment of John Tanner's story; but it is our wish to direct\nattention to some few particulars, which appear to us strikingly to\nillustrate some of the positions which we desire to enforce, by thus\nexhibiting their practical operation.\n\nThe country in which this man lived so many years is that immense\nterritory belonging to the United States, which at that period was\ncovered by boundless forests which the progress of civilization had not\nthen cleared away. In this region a number of scattered Indian tribes\nmaintained a precarious existence by hunting the moose-deer and the\nbuffalo for their supply of food, and by entrapping the foxes and\nmartens of the woods and the beavers of the lakes, whose skins they\ngenerally exchanged with the white traders of Europe for articles of\nurgent necessity, such as ammunition and guns, traps, axes, and woollen\nblankets; but too often for ardent spirits, equally the curse of savage\nand of civilized life. The contact of savage man with the outskirts of\ncivilization perhaps afflicts him with the vices of both states. But the\nprinciple of exchange, imperfectly and irregularly as it operated\namongst the Indians, furnished some excitement to their ingenuity and\ntheir industry. Habits of providence were thus to a certain degree\ncreated; it became necessary to accumulate some capital of the\ncommodities which could be rendered valuable by their own labour, to\nexchange for commodities which their own labour, without exchange, was\nutterly unable to procure. The principle of exchange, too, being\nrecognised amongst them in their dealings with foreigners, the security\nof property--without which, as we have shown, that principle cannot\nexist at all--was one of the great rules of life amongst themselves. But\nstill these poor Indians, from the mode which they proposed to\nthemselves for the attainment of property, which consisted only in\nsecuring what nature had produced, without directing the course of her\nproductions, were very far removed from the regular attainment of those\nblessings which civilized society alone offers. We shall exemplify these\nstatements by a few details.\n\n [Illustration: Dying Lion]\n\nThe country over which these people ranged occupies a surface that may\nbe roughly described as five or six times as large as all England. They\nhad the unbounded command of all the natural resources of that country;\nand yet their entire numbers did not equal the population of a\nmoderately sized English county. It may be fairly said that each Indian\nrequired a thousand acres for his maintenance. The supplies of food were\nso scanty--a scantiness which would at once have ceased to exist had\nthere been any cultivation--that if a large number of these Indians\nassembled together to co-operate in their hunting expeditions, they were\nvery soon dispersed by the urgent desire of satisfying hunger. Tanner\nsays, \"We all went to hunt beavers in concert. In hunts of this kind the\nproceeds are sometimes equally divided; but in this instance every man\nretained what he had killed. In three days I collected as many skins as\nI could carry. But in these distant and hasty hunts little meat could be\nbrought in; and the whole band was soon suffering with hunger. Many of\nthe hunters, and I among others, for want of food became extremely weak,\nand unable to hunt far from home.\" What an approach is this to the case\nof the lower animals; and how forcibly it reminds us of the passage in\nJob (c. iv., v. 11), \"The fierce lion perisheth for lack of prey.\"[9] In\nanother place he says, \"I began to be dissatisfied at remaining with\nlarge bands of Indians, as was usual for them, after having remained a\nshort time in a place, to suffer from hunger.\" These sufferings were\nnot, in many cases, of short duration, or of trifling intensity. Tanner\ndescribes one instance of famine in the following words:--\"The Indians\ngathered around, one after another, until we became a considerable band,\nand then we began to suffer from hunger. The weather was very severe,\nand our suffering increased. A young woman was the first to die of\nhunger. Soon after this, a young man, her brother, was taken with that\nkind of delirium or madness which precedes death in such as die of\nstarvation. In this condition he had left the lodge of his debilitated\nand desponding parents; and when, at a late hour in the evening, I\nreturned from my hunt, they could not tell what had become of him. I\nleft the camp about the middle of the night, and, following his track, I\nfound him at some distance, lying dead in the snow.\"\n\nThis worst species of suffering equally existed at particular periods,\nwhether food was sought for by large or by small parties, by bands or by\nindividuals. Tanner was travelling with the family of the woman who had\nadopted him. He says, \"We had now a short season of plenty; but soon\nbecame hungry again. It often happened that for two or three days we had\nnothing to eat; then a rabbit or two, or a bird, would afford us a\nprospect of protracting the sufferings of hunger a few days longer.\"\nAgain he says, \"Having subsisted for some time almost entirely on the\ninner bark of trees, and particularly of a climbing vine found there,\nour strength was much reduced.\"\n\nThe misery which is thus so strikingly described proceeded from the\ncircumstance that the labour of the Indians did not take a profitable\ndirection; and that this waste of labour (for unprofitable applications\nof labour are the greatest of all wastes) arose from the one fact, that\nin certain particulars these Indians laboured without appropriation.\nThey depended upon the chance productions of nature, without compelling\nher to produce; and they did not compel her to produce, because there\nwas no appropriation of the soil, the most efficient natural instrument\nof production. If the Indians had directed the productive powers of the\nearth to the growth of corn, instead of to the growth of foxes' skins,\nthey would have become rich. But they could not have reached this point\nwithout appropriation of the soil. They had learnt the necessity of\nappropriating the products of the soil, when they had bestowed labour\nupon obtaining them; but the last step towards productiveness was not\ntaken. The Indians therefore were poor; the European settlers who had\ntaken this last step were rich.\n\nThe imperfect appropriation which existed amongst the Indians,\npreventing, as it did, the accumulation of capital, prevented the\napplication of that skill and knowledge which is preserved and\naccumulated by the Division of employment. Tanner describes a poor\nfellow who was wounded in the arm by the accidental discharge of a gun.\nAs there was little surgical skill amongst the community, because no one\ncould devote himself to the business of surgery, the Indian, as the only\nchance of saving his life, resolved to cut off his own arm; \"and taking\ntwo knives, the edge of one of which he had hacked into a sort of saw,\nhe with his right hand and arm cut off his left, and threw it from him\nas far as he could.\" The labour which an individual must go through when\nthe state of society is so rude that there is scarcely any division of\nemployment, and consequently scarcely any exchanges, is exhibited in\nmany passages of Tanner's narrative. We select one. \"I had no pukkavi,\nor mats for a lodge, and therefore had to build one of poles and long\ngrass. I dressed more skins, made my own mocassins and leggings, and\nthose for my children; cut wood and cooked for myself and family, made\nmy snow-shoes, &c. &c. All the attention and labour I had to bestow\nabout home sometimes kept me from hunting, and I was occasionally\ndistressed for want of provisions. I busied myself about my lodge in the\nnight-time. When it was sufficiently light I would bring wood, and\nattend to other things without; at other times I was repairing my\nsnow-shoes, or my own or my children's clothes. For nearly all the\nwinter I slept but a very small part of the night.\"\n\nTanner was thus obliged to do everything for himself, and consequently\nto work at very great disadvantage, because the principle of exchange\nwas so imperfectly acted upon by the people amongst whom he lived. This\nprinciple of exchange was imperfectly acted upon, because the principle\nof appropriation was imperfectly acted upon. The occupation of all, and\nof each, was to hunt game, to prepare skins, to sell them to the\ntraders, to make sugar from the juice of maple-trees, to build huts, and\nto sew the skins which they dressed and the blankets which they bought\ninto rude coverings for their bodies. Every one of them did all of these\nthings for himself, and of course he did them very imperfectly. The\npeople were not divided into hunters, and furriers, and dealers, and\nsugar-makers, and builders, and tailors. Every man was his own hunter,\nfurrier, dealer, sugar-maker, builder, and tailor; and consequently,\nevery man, like Tanner, was so occupied by many things, that want of\nfood and want of rest were ordinary sufferings. He describes a man who\nwas so borne down and oppressed by these manifold wants, that, in utter\ndespair of being able to surmount them, he would lie still till he was\nat the point of starvation, replying to those who tried to rouse him to\nkill game, that he was too poor and sick to set about it. By describing\nhimself as poor, he meant to say that he was destitute of all the\nnecessaries and comforts whose possession would encourage him to add to\nthe store. He had little capital. The skill which he possessed of\nhunting game gave him a certain command over the spontaneous productions\nof the forest; but, as his power of hunting depended upon chance\nsupplies of game, his labour necessarily took so irregular a direction,\nand was therefore so unproductive, that he never accumulated sufficient\nfor his support in times of sickness, or for his comfortable support at\nany time. He became, therefore, despairing; and had that perfect apathy,\nthat indifference to the future, which is the most pitiable evidence of\nextreme wretchedness. This man felt his powerless situation more keenly\nthan his companions; but with all savage tribes there is a want of\nsteady and persevering exertion, proceeding from the same cause. Severe\nlabour is succeeded by long fits of idleness, because their labour takes\na chance direction. This is a universal case. Habits of idleness, of\nirregularity, of ferocity, are the characteristics of all those who\nmaintain existence by the pursuit of the unappropriated productions of\nnature; while constant application, orderly arrangement of time, and\ncivility to others, result from systematic industry. The savage and the\npoacher are equally the slaves of violent impulses--equally disgusted at\nthe prospect of patient application. When the support of life depends\nupon chance supplies, the reckless spirit of a gambler is sure to take\npossession of the whole man; and the misery which results from these\nchance supplies produces either dejection or ferocity. The author of\nthis book used to observe the habits of a class of such persons, who\nfrequent the Thames at Eton; and he thus described them in verses of his\nboyhood:--\n\n What boat is this which creeps so lazily\n Up the still stream? How quietly falls the drip\n Of the slow paddle! Now it shoots along,\n As if that lone man fear'd us. Well I ken\n His rough and dangerous trade. He knows each hole\n Where the quick-sighted eel delights to swim\n When clouds obscure the moon; and there he lays\n His traps and gins, and then he sleeps awhile;\n But rouses up before the prying dawn\n Betrays his course; and out he cautiously glides\n To try his doubtful luck. Perchance he finds\n Stores that may buy him bread; but oft'ner still\n His toil is fruitless, and deject he comes\n Home to his emberless hearth, and sits him down,\n Idle and starving through the busy day.\n\nMungo Park describes the wretched condition of the inhabitants of\ncountries in Africa where small particles of gold are found in the\nrivers. Their lives were spent in hunting for the gold to exchange for\nuseful commodities, instead of raising the commodities themselves; and\nthey were consequently poor and miserable, listless and unsteady. Their\nfitful industry had too much of chance mixed up with it to afford a\ncertain and general profit. The accounts which of late years we have\nreceived from the gold-diggings of California and Australia exhibit the\nsame suffering from the same cause. The natives of Cape de la Hogue, in\nNormandy, were the most wretched and ferocious people in all France,\nbecause they depended principally for support on the wrecks that were\nfrequent on their coasts. When there were no tempests, they made an easy\ntransition from the character of wreckers to that of robbers. A\nbenefactor of his species taught these unhappy people to collect a\nmarine plant to make potash. They immediately became profitable\nlabourers and exchangers; they obtained a property in the general\nintelligence of civilized life; the capital of society raised them from\nmisery to wealth, from being destroyers to being producers.\n\nThe Indians, as we thus see, were poor and wretched, because they had no\nappropriation beyond articles of domestic use; because they had no\nproperty in land, and consequently no cultivation. Yet even they were\nnot insensible to the importance of the principle, for the preservation\nof the few advantages that belonged to their course of life. Tanner\nsays, \"I have often known a hunter leave his traps for many days in the\nwoods, without visiting them, or feeling any anxiety about their\nsafety.\" The Indians even carried the principle of appropriation almost\nto a division of land; for each tribe, and sometimes each individual,\nhad an allotted hunting-ground--imperfectly appropriated, indeed, by the\nfirst comer, and often contested with violence by other hunters, but\nstill showing that they approached the limit which divides the savage\nfrom the civilized state, and that, if cultivation were introduced\namongst them, there would be a division of land, as a matter of\nnecessity. The security of individual property is the foundation of all\nsocial improvement. It is impossible to speak of the productive power of\nlabour in the civilized state, without viewing it in connexion with that\ngreat principle of society which considers all capital as appropriated.\n\nWhen 'Capital and Labour' was written twenty years ago, the Indian\ntribes who were abiding in the territory of the United States were\nprincipally in the condition which has been described by Tanner. The\nwant of resources in the country of the Indians was so manifest, that,\nwhen commissioners from the government of the United States, in 1802,\ngathered together the chiefs of the various tribes of the Creek Indians\nin their own country, to propose to them a plan for their civilization,\nit became necessary to provide for the support of the people so\nassembled by conveying food into the forests from the stores of the\nAmerican towns. The Indians have now vanished from their old\nhunting-grounds. Where they so recently maintained a precarious\nexistence, there are populous cities, navigable rivers, roads, railways.\nThe clink of the hammer is heard in the forge, and the rush of the\nstream from the mill-dam tells of agriculture and commerce. But even the\nIndians themselves have become labourers. They have been removed to a\nlarge tract of country, far away from the settled parts of the United\nStates, and have been raised into the dignity of cultivators. The\nCherokees, the Creeks, and the Choctaws, with many smaller tribes, now\nbreed cattle instead of hunting martens. They have houses in the place\nof huts; they have schools and churches. Instead of being extirpated by\nfamine or the sword, they have been adopted into the great family of\ncivilized man.\n\n [Illustration: Penn's Treaty with the Indians.]\n\nBut this wise and humane arrangement of the United States has not wholly\nremoved the Indians from the wide regions of North America. In the\nHudson's Bay territories the life which Tanner described still goes\nforward. The wants of civilized society--the desire to possess the\nearth--have transported the Indians from the banks of the Ohio to the\nlands watered by the Arkansas. The opposite principle has retained them\non the shores of Hudson's Bay. They are wanted there as hunters, and are\nnot encouraged as cultivators. They are kept out of the pale of\ncivilization, and not received within it. The rude industry of the\nHudson's Bay Indians is stimulated by the luxury of Europe into an\nemploy which would cease to exist if the people became civilized. If\nagriculture were introduced amongst them--if they were to grow corn and\nkeep domestic animals--they would cease to be hunters of foxes and\nmartens, because their wants would be much better supplied by other\nmodes of labour, involving less suffering and less uncertainty. As it\nis, the traders, who want skins, do not think of giving the Indians\ntools to work the ground, and seeds to put in it, and cows and sheep to\nbreed other cows and sheep. They avail themselves of the uncivilized\nstate of these poor tribes, to render them the principal agents in the\nmanufacture of fur, to supply the luxuries of another hemisphere. But\nstill the exchange which the hunters carry on with the European traders,\nimperfect as it is in all cases, and unjust as it is in many, is better\nfor the Indians than no exchange; although we fear that ardent spirits\ntake away from the Indians the greater number of the advantages which\nwould otherwise remain with them as exchangers. If the Indians had no\nskins to give to Europe, Europe would have no blankets and ammunition to\ngive to them. They would obtain their food and clothing by the use of\nthe bow alone. They would live entirely from hand to mouth. They would\nhave no motive for accumulation, because there would be no exchanges;\nand they would consequently be even poorer and more helpless than they\nare now as exchangers of skins. They are suffering from the effects of\nsmall accumulations and imperfect exchange; but these are far better\nthan no accumulation and no exchange. If the course of their industry\nwere to be changed by perfect appropriation--if they were consequently\nto become cultivators and manufacturers, instead of wanderers in the\nwoods to hunt for wild and noxious animals--they would, in the course of\nyears, have abundance of profitable labour, because they would have\nabundance of capital. This is the better lot of the tribes with whom the\ngovernment of the United States has made a far nobler treaty than Penn\nmade with his Indians. As it is, their accumulations are so small, that\nthey cannot proceed with their own uncertain labour of hunting without\nan advance of capital on the part of the traders; and thus, even in\nthe rude tradings of these poor Indians, credit, that complicated\ninstrument of commercial exchange, operates upon the direction of their\nlabour. Of course credit would not exist at all without appropriation.\nTheir rights of property are perfect as far as they go; but they are not\ncarried far enough to direct their labour into channels which would\nensure sufficient production for the labourers. Their labour is\nunproductive because they have small accumulations;--their accumulations\nare small because they have imperfect exchange;--their exchange is\nimperfect because they have limited appropriation. We may illustrate\nthis state of imperfect production by another passage from Tanner's\nstory:--\n\n \"The Hudson's Bay Company had now no post in that part of the\n country, and the Indians were soon made conscious of the advantage\n which had formerly resulted to them from the competition between\n rival trading companies. Mr. Wells, at the commencement of winter,\n called us all together, gave the Indians a ten-gallon keg of rum\n and some tobacco, telling them at the same time he would not\n credit one of them the value of a single needle. When they brought\n skins he would buy them, and give in exchange such articles as\n were necessary for their comfort and subsistence during the\n winter. I was not with the Indians when this talk was held. When\n it was reported to me, and a share of the presents offered me, I\n not only refused to accept anything, but reproached the Indians\n for their pusillanimity in submitting to such terms. They had been\n accustomed for many years to receive credits in the fall; they\n were now entirely destitute not of clothing merely, but of\n ammunition, and many of them of guns and traps. How were they,\n without the accustomed aid from the traders, to subsist themselves\n and their families during the ensuing winter? A few days\n afterwards I went to Mr. Wells, and told him that I was poor, with\n a large family to support by my own exertions; and that I must\n unavoidably suffer, and perhaps perish, unless he would give me\n such a credit as I had always in the fall been accustomed to\n receive. He would not listen to my representation, and told me\n roughly to be gone from his house. I then took eight silver\n beavers, such as are worn by the women as ornaments on their\n dress, and which I had purchased the year before at just twice the\n price that was commonly given for a capote;[10] I laid them before\n him on the table, and asked him to give me a capote for them, or\n retain them as a pledge for the payment of the price of the\n garment, as soon as I could procure the peltries.[11] He took up\n the ornaments, threw them in my face, and told me never to come\n inside of his house again. The cold weather of the winter had not\n yet set in, and I went immediately to my hunting-ground, killed a\n number of moose, and set my wife to make the skins into such\n garments as were best adapted to the winter season, and which I\n now saw we should be compelled to substitute for the blankets and\n woollen clothes we had been accustomed to receive from the\n traders.\"\n\nThis incident at once shows us that the great blessing of the civilized\nstate is its increase of the powers of production. Here we see the\nIndians, surrounded on all sides by wild animals whose skins might be\nmade into garments, reduced to the extremity of distress because the\ntraders refused to advance them blankets and other necessaries, to be\nused during the months when they were employed in catching the animals\nfrom which they might obtain the skins. It is easy to see that the\nIndians were a long way removed from the power of making blankets\nthemselves. Before they could reach this point, their forests must have\nbeen converted into pasture-grounds;--they must have raised flocks of\nsheep, and learnt all the various complicated arts, and possessed all\nthe ingenious machinery, for converting wool into cloth. By their\nexchange of furs for blankets, they obtained a share in the\nproductiveness of civilization;--they obtained comfortable clothing with\nmuch less labour than they could have made it out of the furs. If Tanner\nhad not considered the capote which he desired to obtain from the\ntraders, better, and less costly, than the garment of moose-skins, he\nwould not have carried on any exchange of the two articles with the\ntraders. The skins of martens and foxes were only valuable to the\nIndians, without exchange, for the purpose of sewing together to make\ncovering. They had a different value in Europe as articles of luxury;\nand therefore the Indians by exchange obtained a greater plenty of\nsuperior clothing than if they had used the skins themselves. But the\nvery nature of the trade, depending upon chance supplies, rendered it\nimpossible that they should accumulate. They had such pressing need of\nammunition, traps, and blankets, that the produce of the labour of one\nhunting season was not more than sufficient to procure the commodities\nwhich they required to consume in the same season. But supposing the\nIndians could have bred foxes and martens and beavers, as we breed\nrabbits, for the supply of the European demand for fur, doubtless they\nwould have then advanced many steps in the character of producers. The\nthing is perhaps impossible; but were it possible, and were the Indians\nto have practised it, they would immediately have become capitalists, to\nan extent that would have soon rendered them independent of the credit\nof the traders. They must, however, have previously established a more\nperfect appropriation. Each must have enclosed his own hunting-ground;\nand each must have raised some food for the maintenance of his own stock\nof beavers, foxes, and martens. It would be easier, doubtless, to raise\nthe food for themselves, and ultimately to exchange corn for clothing,\ninstead of furs for clothing. When this happens--and it will happen\nsooner or later, unless the remnant of the hunting Indians are\nextirpated by their poverty, which proceeds from their imperfect\nproduction--Europe must go without the brilliant variety of skins which\nwe procure at the cost of so much labour, accompanied with so much\nwretchedness, because the labour is so unproductive to the labourers.\nWhen the ladies of London and Paris are compelled to wear boas of\nrabbits instead of sables, and when the hair of the beaver ceases to be\nemployed in the manufacture of our hats, the wooded regions of Hudson's\nBay will have been cleared--the fur-bearing animals will have\nperished--corn will be growing in the forest and the marsh--the\ninhabitants will be building houses instead of trapping foxes;--there\nwill be appropriation and capital, profitable labour and comfort. Three\nhundred thousand mink and marten-skins will no longer be sent from those\nshores to London in one year; but Liverpool may send to those shores\nwoven cottons and worsteds, pottery and tools, in exchange for products\nwhose cultivation will have exterminated the minks and martens.\n\n [Illustration: Pine-Marten.]\n\n\n [9] The authorized version has _old_; the more correct translation is\n _fierce_.\n\n [10] A sort of great-coat.\n\n [11] Skins.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n The Prodigal--Advantages of the poorest man in civilized\n life over the richest savage--Savings-banks, deposits, and\n interest--Progress of accumulation--Insecurity of capital,\n its causes and results--Property, its\n constituents--Accumulation of capital.\n\n\nThere is an account in Foster's Essays of a man who, having by a short\ncareer of boundless extravagance dissipated every shilling of a large\nestate which he inherited from his fathers, obtained possession again of\nthe whole property by a course which the writer well describes as a\nsingular illustration of decision of character. The unfortunate\nprodigal, driven forth from the home of his early years by his own\nimprudence, and reduced to absolute want, wandered about for some time\nin a state of almost unconscious despair, meditating self-destruction,\ntill he at last sat down upon a hill which overlooked the fertile fields\nthat he once called his own. \"He remained,\" says the narrative, \"fixed\nin thought a number of hours, at the end of which he sprang from the\nground with a vehement exulting emotion. He had formed his resolution,\nwhich was, that all these estates should be his again; he had formed his\nplan, too, which he instantly began to execute.\" We shall show, by and\nby, how this plan worked in detail;--it will be sufficient, just now, to\nexamine the principles upon which it was founded. He looked to no freak\nof fortune to throw into his lap by chance what he had cast from him by\nwilfulness. He neither trusted to inherit those lands from their present\npossessor by his favour, nor to wring them from him by a course of law.\nHe was not rash and foolish enough to dream of obtaining again by force\nthose possessions which he had exchanged for vain superfluities. But he\nresolved to become once more their master by the operation of the only\nprinciple which could give them to him in a civilized society. He\nresolved to obtain them again by the same agency through which he had\nlost them--by exchange. But what had he to exchange? His capital was\ngone, even to the uttermost farthing; he must labour to obtain new\ncapital. With a courage worthy of imitation he resolved to accept the\nvery first work that should be offered to him, and, however low the\nwages of that work, to spend only a part of those wages, leaving\nsomething for a store. The day that he made this resolution he carried\nit into execution. He found some service to be performed--irksome,\ndoubtless, and in many eyes degrading. But he had a purpose which made\nevery occupation appear honourable, as every occupation truly is that is\nproductive of utility. Incessant labour and scrupulous parsimony soon\naccumulated for him a capital; and the store, gathered together with\nsuch energy, was a rapidly increasing one. In no very great number of\nyears the once destitute labourer was again a rich proprietor. He had\nearned again all that he had lost. The lands of his fathers were again\nhis. He had accomplished his plan.\n\nA man so circumstanced--one who possesses no capital, and is only master\nof his own natural powers--if suddenly thrown down from a condition of\nease, must look upon the world, at the first view, with deep\napprehension. He sees everything around him appropriated. He is in the\nvery opposite condition of Alexander Selkirk, when he is made to exclaim\n\"I am monarch of all I survey.\" Instead of feeling that his \"right there\nis none to dispute,\" he knows that every blade of corn that covers the\nfields, every animal that grazes in the pastures, is equally numbered as\nthe property of some individual owner, and can only pass into his\npossession by exchange. In the towns it is the same as in the country.\nThe dealer in bread and in clothes,--the victualler from whom he would\nask a cup of beer and a night's lodging,--will give him nothing,\nalthough they will exchange everything. He cannot exist, except as a\nbeggar, unless he puts himself in the condition to become an exchanger.\n\nBut still, with all these apparent difficulties, his prospects of\nsubsisting, and of subsisting comfortably, are far greater than in any\nother situation in which he must labour to live. As we have already\nseen, the condition of by far the greater number of the millions that\nconstitute the exchangers of civilized society is greatly superior to\nthat of the few thousands who exist upon the precarious supplies of the\nunappropriated productions of nature in the savage life. Although an\nexchange must always be made--although in very few cases \"the fowl and\nthe brute\" offer themselves to the wayfaring man for his daily\nfood--although no herbs worth the gathering can be found for the support\nof life in the few uncultivated parts of a highly cultivated\ncountry--the aggregate riches are so abundant, and the facilities which\nexist for exchanging capital for labour are therefore so manifold, that\nthe poorest man in a state of civilization has a much greater certainty\nof supplying all his wants, and of supplying them with considerably more\nease, than the richest man in a state of uncivilization. The principle\nupon which he has to rely is, that in a highly civilized country there\nis large production. There is large production because there is\nprofitable labour;--there is profitable labour because there is large\naccumulation;--there is large accumulation because there is unlimited\nexchange;--there is unlimited exchange because there is universal\nappropriation. John Tanner was accounted a rich man by the\nIndians--doubtless because he was more industrious than the greater\nnumber of them; but we have seen what privations he often suffered. He\nsuffered privations because there was no capital, no accumulation of the\nproducts of labour, in the country in which he lived. Where such a store\nexists, the poorest man has a tolerable certainty that he may obtain his\nshare of it as an exchanger; and the greater the store the greater the\ncertainty that his labour, or power of adding to the store, will obtain\na full proportion of what previous labour has gathered together.\n\nIn 1853 the amount of stock vested to the account of depositors in\nsavings-banks in the United Kingdom was 34,546,434_l._ Since the\nestablishment of savings-banks, 68,885,283_l._ had been so invested; and\nthe gross amount of interest paid to the depositors had been\n25,733,771_l._ This large capital, which had so fructified as to produce\nmore than twenty-five millions as interest, was an accumulation, penny\nby penny, shilling by shilling, and pound by pound, of the savings of\nthat class of persons who, in every country, have the greatest\ndifficulty in accumulating. Habitual efforts of self-denial, and a rigid\ndetermination to postpone temporary gratification to permanent good,\ncould alone have enabled these accumulators to retain so much of what\nthey had produced beyond the amount of what they consumed.\n\nThe capital sum of more than thirty-four millions now belonging to the\ndepositors in 575 savings-banks, represents as many products of industry\nas could be bought by that sum. It is a capital which remains for the\nencouragement of _productive_ consumption; that is, it is now applied as\na fund for setting others to produce,--to enable them to consume while\nthey produce,--and in like manner to accumulate some part of their\nproductions beyond what they consume. The millions of interest which the\ndepositors have received is the price paid for the use of the capital by\nothers who require its employment. The whole amount of our national\nriches--the capital of this and of every other country--has been formed\nby the same slow but certain process of individual savings, and the\naccumulations of savings, stimulating new industry, and yielding new\naccumulations.\n\nThe consumption of any production is the destruction of its value. The\nproduction was created by industry to administer to individual wants, to\nbe consumed, to be destroyed. When a thing capable of being consumed is\nproduced, a value is created; when it is consumed, that value is\ndestroyed. The general mass of riches then remains the same as it was\nbefore that production took place. If the power to produce, and the\ndisposition to consume, were equal and constant, there could be no\nsaving, no accumulation, no capital. If mankind, by their intelligence,\ntheir skill, their division of employments, their union of forces, had\nnot put themselves in a condition to produce more than is consumed while\nthe great body of industrious undertakings is in progress, society would\nhave been stationary,--civilization could never have advanced.\n\nIt may assist us in making the value of capital more clear, if we take a\nrapid view of the most obvious features of the accumulation of a highly\ncivilized country.\n\nThe first operation in a newly settled country is what is termed to\nclear it. Look at a civilized country, such as England. It _is_ cleared.\nThe encumbering woods are cut down, the unhealthy marshes are drained.\nThe noxious animals which were once the principal inhabitants of the\nland are exterminated; and their place is supplied with useful\ncreatures, bred, nourished, and domesticated by human art, and\nmultiplied to an extent exactly proportioned to the wants of the\npopulation. Forests remain for the produce of timber, but they are\nconfined within the limits of their utility;--mountains \"where the\nnibbling flocks do stray,\" have ceased to be barriers between nations\nand districts. Every vegetable that the diligence of man has been able\nto transplant from the most distant regions is raised for food. The\nfields are producing a provision for the coming year; while the stock\nfor immediate consumption is ample, and the laws of demand and supply\nare so perfectly in action, and the facilities of communication with\nevery region so unimpeded, that scarcity seldom occurs, and famine\nnever. Rivers have been narrowed to bounds which limit their\ninundations, and they have been made navigable wherever their navigation\ncould be profitable. The country is covered with roads, with canals, and\nnow, more especially, with railroads, which render distant provinces as\nnear to each other for commercial purposes as neighbouring villages in\nless advanced countries. Science has created the electric telegraph, by\nwhich prices are equalized through every district, by an instant\ncommunication between producers and consumers. Houses, all possessing\nsome comforts which were unknown even to the rich a few centuries ago,\ncover the land, in scattered farm-houses and mansions, in villages, in\ntowns, in cities, in capitals. These houses are filled with an almost\ninconceivable number of conveniences and luxuries--furniture, glass,\nporcelain, plate, linen, clothes, books, pictures. In the stores of the\nmerchants and traders the resources of human ingenuity are displayed in\nevery variety of substances and forms that can exhibit the multitude of\ncivilized wants; and in the manufactories are seen the wonderful\nadaptations of science for satisfying those wants at the cheapest cost.\nThe people who inhabit such a civilized land have not only the readiest\ncommunication with each other by the means of roads and canals, but can\ntrade by the agency of ships with all parts of the world. To carry on\ntheir intercourse amongst themselves they speak one common language,\nreduced to certain rules, and not broken into an embarrassing variety of\nunintelligible dialects. Their written communications are convoyed to\nthe obscurest corners of their own country, and even to the most remote\nlands, with prompt and unfailing regularity, and now with a cheapness\nwhich makes the poorest and the richest equal in their power to connect\nthe distant with their thoughts by mutual correspondence. Whatever is\ntransacted in such a populous hive, the knowledge of which can afford\nprofit or amusement to the community, is recorded with a rapidity which\nis not more astonishing than the general accuracy of the record. What is\nmore important, the discoveries of science, the elegancies of\nliterature, and all that can advance the general intelligence, are\npreserved and diffused with the utmost ease, expedition, and security,\nso that the public stock of knowledge is constantly increasing. Lastly,\nthe general well-being of all is sustained by laws--sometimes indeed\nimperfectly devised and expensively administered, but on the whole of\ninfinite value to every member of the community; and the property of all\nis defended from external invasion and from internal anarchy by the\npower of government, which will be respected only in proportion as it\nadvances the general good of the humblest of its subjects, by securing\ntheir capital from plunder and defending their industry from oppression.\n\nThis capital is ready to be won by the power of every man capable of\nwork. But he must exercise this power in complete subjection to the\nnatural laws by which every exchange of society is regulated. These laws\nsometimes prevent labour being instantly exchanged with capital, for an\nexchange necessarily requires a balance to be preserved between what one\nman has to supply and what another man has to demand; but in their\ngeneral effect they secure to labour the certainty that there shall be\nabundance of capital to exchange with; and that, if prudence and\ndiligence go together, the labourer may himself become a capitalist, and\neven pass out of the condition of a labourer into that of a proprietor,\nor one who lives upon accumulated produce. The experience of every day\nshows this process going forward--not in a solitary instance, as in that\nof the ruined and restored man whose tale we have just told, but in the\ncase of thriving tradesmen all around us, who were once servants. But if\nthe labourer or the great body of labourers were to imagine that they\ncould obtain such a proportion of the capital of a civilized country\nexcept as exchangers, the store would instantly vanish. They might\nperhaps divide by force the crops in barns and the clothes in\nwarehouses--but there would be no more crops or clothes. The principle\nupon which all accumulation depends, that of security of property, being\ndestroyed, the accumulation would be destroyed. Whatever tends to make\nthe state of society insecure, tends to prevent the employment of\ncapital. In despotic countries, that insecurity is produced by the\ntyranny of one. In other countries, where the people, having been\nmisgoverned, are badly educated, that insecurity is produced by the\ntyranny of many. In either case, the bulk of the people themselves are\nthe first to suffer, whether by the outrages of a tyrant, or by their\nown outrages. They prevent labour, by driving away to other channels the\nfunds which support labour. In some eastern countries, where, when a man\nbecomes rich, his property is seized upon by the one tyrant, nobody\ndares to avow that he has any property. Capital is not employed; it is\nhidden: and the people who have capital live not upon its profits, but\nby the diminution of the capital itself. In the very earliest times we\nhear of concealed riches. In the book of Job those who \"long for death\"\nare said to \"dig for it more than for hid treasures.\" The tales of the\nEast are full of allusions to money buried and money dug up. The poor\nwoodman, in making up his miserable faggot, discovers a trap-door, and\nbecomes rich. In India, where the rule of Mohammedan princes was usually\none of tyranny, even now the search after treasure goes on. The popular\nmind is filled with the old traditions; and so men dream of bags of gold\nto be discovered in caves and places of desolation, and they forthwith\ndig, till hope is banished, and the real treasure is found in systematic\nindustry. It was the same in the feudal times in England, when the lord\ntyrannized over his vassals, and no property was safe but in the hands\nof the strongest. In those times people who had treasure buried it. Who\nthinks of burying treasure now in England? In the plays and story-books\nwhich depict the manners of our own early times, we constantly read of\npeople finding bags of money. We never find bags of money now, except\nwhen a very old hoard, hidden in some time of national trouble, comes to\nlight. So little time ago as the reign of Charles II. we read of the\nSecretary to the Admiralty going down from London to his country-house,\nwith all his money in his carriage, to bury it in his garden. What\nSamuel Pepys records of his doings with his own money, was a natural\nconsequence of the practices of a previous time. He also chronicles, in\nseveral places of his curious Diary, his laborious searches, day by day,\nfor 7000_l._ hid in butter firkins in the cellars of the Tower of\nLondon. Why is money not hidden and not sought for now? Because people\nhave security for the employment of it, and by the employment of it in\ncreating new produce the nation's stock of capital goes on hourly\nincreasing. When we read in Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of\nEngland,' that the concealment of treasure-trove, or found treasure,\nfrom the king, is a misdemeanour punishable by fine and imprisonment,\nand that it was formerly a capital offence, we at once see that this is\na law no longer for our time; and we learn from this instance, as from\nmany others, how the progress of civilization silently repeals laws\nwhich belong to another condition of the people.\n\n [Illustration: Treasure-finding.]\n\nWhen we look at the nature of the accumulated wealth of society, it is\neasy to see that the poorest member of it who dedicates himself to\nprofitable labour is in a certain sense rich--rich, as compared with the\nunproductive and therefore poor individuals of any uncivilized tribe.\nThe very scaffolding, if we may so express it, of the social structure,\nand the moral forces by which that structure was reared, and is upheld,\nare to him riches. To be rich is to possess the means of supplying our\nwants--to be poor is to be destitute of those means. Riches do not\nconsist only of money and lands, of stores of food or clothing, of\nmachines and tools. The particular knowledge of any art--the general\nunderstanding of the laws of nature--the habit from experience of doing\nany work in the readiest way--the facility of communicating ideas by\nwritten language--the enjoyment of institutions conceived in the spirit\nof social improvement--the use of the general conveniences of civilized\nlife, such as roads--these advantages, which the poorest man in England\npossesses or may possess, constitute individual property. They are means\nfor the supply of wants, which in themselves are essentially more\nvaluable for obtaining his full share of what is appropriated, than if\nall the productive powers of nature were unappropriated, and if,\nconsequently, these great elements of civilization did not exist.\nSociety obtains its almost unlimited command over riches by the increase\nand preservation of knowledge, and by the division of employments,\nincluding union of power. In his double capacity of a consumer and a\nproducer, the humblest man has the full benefit of these means of\nwealth--of these great instruments by which the productive power of\nlabour is carried to its highest point.\n\nBut if these common advantages, these public means of society, offering\nso many important agents to the individual for the gratification of his\nwants, alone are worth more to him than all the precarious power of the\nsavage state--how incomparably greater are his advantages when we\nconsider the wonderful accumulations, in the form of private wealth,\nwhich are ready to be exchanged with the labour of all those who are in\na condition to add to the store. It has been truly said by M. Say, a\nFrench economist, \"It is a great misfortune to be poor, but it is a much\ngreater misfortune for the poor man to be surrounded only with other\npoor like himself.\" The reason is obvious. The productive power of\nlabour can be carried but a very little way without accumulation of\ncapital. In a highly civilized country, capital is heaped up on every\nside by ages of toil and perseverance. A succession, during a long\nseries of years, of small advantages to individuals unceasingly renewed\nand carried forward by the principle of exchanges, has produced this\nprodigious amount of the aggregate capital of a country whose\ncivilization is of ancient date. This accumulation of the means of\nexistence, and of all that makes existence comfortable, is principally\nresulting from the labours of those who have gone before us. It is a\nstock which was beyond their own immediate wants, and which was not\nextinguished with their lives. It is our capital. It has been produced\nby labour alone, physical and mental. It can be kept up only by the same\npower which has created it, carried to the highest point of\nproductiveness by the arrangements of society.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n Common interests of Capital and Labour--Labour directed by\n Accumulation--Capital enhanced by Labour--Balance of rights\n and duties--Relation of demand and supply--Money\n exchanges--Intrinsic and representative value of money.\n\n\nThere is an old proverb, that \"When two men ride on one horse, one man\nmust ride behind.\" Capital and Labour are, as we think, destined to\nperform a journey together to the end of time. We have shown how they\nproceed on this journey. We have shown that, although Labour is the\nparent of all wealth, its struggles for the conversion of the rude\nsupplies of nature into objects of utility are most feeble in their\neffects till they are assisted by accumulation. Before the joint\ninterests of Labour and Capital were at all understood, they kept\nseparate; when they only began to be understood, as we shall show, they\nwere constantly pulling different ways, instead of giving \"a long pull,\na strong pull, and a pull altogether;\" and even now, when these\ninterests in many respects are still imperfectly understood, they\noccasionally quarrel about the conditions upon which they will continue\nto travel in company. In the very outset of the journey, Labour,\ndoubtless, took the lead. In the dim morning of society Labour was up\nand stirring before Capital was awake. Labour did not then ride; he\ntravelled slowly on foot through very dirty ways. Capital, at length, as\nslowly followed after, through the same mire, but at an humble distance\nfrom his parent. But when Capital grew into strength, he saw that there\nwere quicker and more agreeable modes of travelling for both, than\nlabour had found out. He procured that fleet and untiring horse\nExchange; and when he proposed to Labour that they should mount\ntogether, he claimed the right, and kept it, for their mutual benefit,\nof taking the direction of the horse. For this reason, as it appears to\nus, we are called upon to assign to one of the companions, according to\nthe practice of the old Knights Templars, the privilege of sitting\nbefore the other--holding the reins, indeed, but in all respects having\na community of interests, and an equality of duties, as well as rights,\nwith his fellow-traveller.\n\nLet us endeavour to advance another step in the illustration of these\npositions, by going back to the prodigal who had spent all his\nsubstance. Let us survey him at the moment when he had made the wise,\nand in many respects heroic, resolution to pass from the condition of a\nconsumer into that of a producer. The story says, \"The first thing that\ndrew his attention was a heap of coals shot out of a cart on the\npavement before a house. He offered himself to shovel or wheel them into\nthe place where they were to be laid, and was employed.\" Here, then, we\nsee that the labour of this man was wholly and imperatively directed by\naccumulation. It was directed as absolutely by the accumulation of\nothers as the labour of Dampier's Moskito Indian was directed by his own\naccumulation. The Indian could not labour profitably--he could not\nobtain fish and goats for his food, instead of seal's flesh--till he had\ncalled into action the power which he possessed in his knife and his\ngun-barrel. The prodigal had no accumulation whatever of his own. He had\nnot even the accumulation of peculiar skill in any mode of labour;--for\na continual process of waste enlarges neither the mental nor physical\nfaculties, and generally leaves the wretched being who has to pass into\nthe new condition of a producer as helpless as the weakest child. He had\nnothing but the lowest power, of labouring without peculiar knowledge or\nskill. He had, however, an intensity and consistency of purpose which\nraised this humble power into real strength. He was determined never to\ngo backward--always to go on. He knew, too, his duties as well as his\nrights; and he saw that he must wholly accommodate his power to the\ngreater power which was in action around him. When he passed into the\ncondition of a producer, he saw that his powers and rights were wholly\nlimited and directed by the principles necessary to advance production;\nand that his own share of what he assisted in producing must be measured\nby the laws which enabled him to produce at all. He found himself in a\nposition where his labour was absolutely governed by the system of\nexchanges. No other system could operate around him, because he was in a\ncivilized country. Had he been thrown upon a desert land without food\nand shelter, his labour must have been instantly and directly applied to\nprocuring food and shelter. He was equally without food and shelter in a\ncivilized country. But the system of exchanges being in action, he did\nnot apply his labour directly to the production of food and lodging for\nhimself. He added by his labour a new value to a heap of coals; he\nenabled another man more readily to acquire the means of warmth; and by\nthis service, which he exchanged for \"a few pence\" and \"a small gratuity\nof meat and drink,\" he indirectly obtained food and lodging. He\nconferred an additional value upon a heap of coals; and that additional\nvalue was represented by the \"few pence\" and \"a small gratuity of meat\nand drink.\" Had the system of exchange been less advanced, that is, had\nsociety been less civilized, he would probably have exchanged his labour\nfor some object of utility, by another and a ruder mode. He would have\nreceived a portion of the coals as the price of the labour by which he\ngave an additional value to the whole heap. But mark the inconvenience\nof such a mode of exchange. His first want was food; his next, shelter:\nhad he earned the coals, he must have carried them about till he had\nfound some other person ready to exchange food and lodging for coals.\nSuch an occurrence might have happened, but it would have been a lucky\naccident. He could find all persons ready to exchange food and clothes\nfor money--because money was ready again to exchange for other articles\nof utility which they might require, and which they would more readily\nobtain by the money than by the food and clothes which our labourer had\nreceived for them. During the course of the unprofitable labour of\nwaiting till he had found an exchanger who wanted coals, he might have\nperished. What then gave him the means of profitable labour, and\nfurnished him with an article which every one was ready to receive in\nexchange for articles of immediate necessity? Capital in two forms. The\nheap of coals was capital. The coals represented a very great and\nvarious accumulation of former labour that had been employed in giving\nthem value. The coals were altogether valueless till labour had been\nemployed to raise them from the pit, and to convey them to the door of\nthe man who was about to consume them. But with what various helps had\nthis labour worked! Mere manual labour could have done little or nothing\nwith the coals in the pit. Machines had raised them from the pit.\nMachines had transported them from the pit to the door of the consumer.\nThey would have remained buried in the earth but for large accumulations\nof knowledge, and large accumulations of pecuniary wealth to set that\nknowledge in action by exchanging with it. The heap of coals represented\nall this accumulation; and it more immediately represented the\nCirculating Capital of consumable articles of utility, which had been\npaid in the shape of wages, at every stage of the labour exercised in\nraising the coals from the mine, and conveying them to the spot in which\nthe prodigal found them laid. The coals had almost attained their\nhighest value by a succession of labour; but one labour was still\nwanting to give them the highest value. They were at their lowest value\nwhen they remained unbroken in the coal-pit; they were at their highest\nvalue when they were deposited in the cellar of the consumer. For that\nlast labour there was circulating capital ready to be exchanged. The man\nwhose course of production we have been tracing imparted to them this\nlast value, and for this labour he received a \"few pence\" and a\n\"gratuity of meat and drink.\" These consumable commodities, and the\nmoney which might be exchanged for other consumable commodities, were\ncirculating capital. They supplied his most pressing wants with\nincomparably more readiness and certainty than if he had been turned\nloose amongst the unappropriated productions of nature, with unlimited\nfreedom and absolute rights. In the state in which he was actually\nplaced his rights were limited by his duties,--but this balance of\nrights and duties was the chief instrument in the satisfaction of his\nwants. Let us examine the principle a little more in detail.\n\nAn exchange was to be carried on between the owner of the coals and the\nman who was willing to shovel them into the owner's cellar. The labourer\ndid not want any distinct portion of the coals, but he wanted some\narticles of more urgent necessity in exchange for the new value which he\nwas ready to bestow upon the coals. The object of each exchanger was,\nthat labour should be exchanged with capital. That object could not have\nbeen accomplished, or it would have been accomplished slowly,\nimperfectly, and therefore unprofitably, unless there had been\ninterchangeable freedom and security for both exchangers,--for the\nexchanger of capital, and the exchanger of labour. The first right of\nthe labourer was, that his labour should be free;--the first right of\nthe capitalist was, that his capital should be free. The rights of each\nwere built upon the security of property. Could this security have been\nviolated, it might have happened, either that the labourer should have\nbeen compelled to shovel in the coals--or, that the capitalist should\nhave been compelled to employ the labourer to shovel them in. Had the\nlot of the unfortunate prodigal been cast in such a state of society as\nwould have allowed this violation of the natural rights of the labourer\nand the capitalist, he would have found little accumulation to give a\nprofitable direction to his labour. He would have found production\nsuspended, or languishing. There would probably have been no heap of\ncoals wanting his labour to give them the last value;--for the engines\nwould have been idle that raised them from the pit, and the men would\nhave been idle that directed the engines. The circulating capital that\nfound wages for the men, and fuel for the engines, would have been idle,\nbecause it could not have worked with security. Accumulation, therefore,\nwould have been suspended;--and all profitable labour would, in\nconsequence, have been suspended. It was the unquestionable right of the\nlabourer that his labour should be free; but it was balanced by the\nright of the capitalist that his accumulation should be secure. Could\nthe labour have seized upon the capital, or the capital upon the labour,\nproduction would have been stopped altogether, or in part. The mutual\nfreedom and security of labour and capital compel production to go\nforward; and labour and capital take their respective stations, and\nperform their respective duties, altogether with reference to the laws\nwhich govern production. These laws are founded upon the natural action\nof the system of exchange, carrying forward all its operations by the\nnatural action of the great principle of demand and supply. When capital\nand labour know how to accommodate themselves to the direction of these\nnatural laws, they are in a healthy state with respect to their\nindividual rights, and the rights of industry generally. They are in\nthat state in which each is working to the greatest profit in carrying\nforward the business of production.\n\nThe story of the prodigal goes on to say, \"He then looked out for the\nnext thing that might chance to offer; and went with indefatigable\nindustry through a succession of servile employments, in different\nplaces, of longer and shorter duration.\" Here we see the principle of\nDemand and Supply still in active operation. \"He _looked out_ for the\nnext thing that might chance to offer.\" He was ready with his supply of\nlabour immediately that he saw a demand for it. Doubtless, the\n\"indefatigable industry\" with which he was ready with his supply created\na demand, and thus he had in some degree a control over the demand. But\nin most cases the demand went before the supply, and he had thus to\nwatch and wait upon the demand. In many instances demand and supply\nexercise a joint influence and control, each with regard to the other.\nPliny, the Roman naturalist, relates that in the year 454 of the\nbuilding of Rome (300 years before Christ) a number of barbers came over\nfrom Sicily to shave the Romans, who till that time had worn long\nbeards. But the barbers came in consequence of being sent for by a man\nin authority. The demand here distinctly went before the supply; but the\nsupply, doubtless, acted greatly upon the demand. During a time of wild\nfinancial speculation in Paris, created by what is called the\nMississippi bubble, a hump-backed man went daily into the street where\nthe stock-jobbers were accustomed to assemble, and earned money by\nallowing them to sign their contracts upon the natural desk with which\nhe was encumbered. The hump-back was doubtless a shrewd fellow, and saw\nthe difficulty under which the stock-jobbers laboured. He supplied what\nthey appeared to want; and a demand was instantly created for his hump.\nHe was well paid, says the story. That was because the supply was\nsmaller than the demand. If other men with humps had been attracted by\nthe demand, or if persons had come to the street with portable desks\nmore convenient than the hump, the reward of his service would naturally\nhave become less. He must have yielded to the inevitable law by which\nthe amount of circulating capital, as compared with the number of\nlabourers, prescribes the terms upon which capital and labour are\nunited.\n\nBy following the direction which capital gave to his industry, the\nprodigal, whose course we have traced up to the point when he went into\nthe condition of a labourer, became at length a capitalist. \"He had\ngained, after a considerable time, money enough to purchase, in order to\nsell again, a few cattle, of which he had taken pains to understand the\nvalue. He speedily, but cautiously, turned his first gains into second\nadvantages; retained, without a single deviation, his extreme parsimony;\nand thus advanced by degrees into larger transactions and incipient\nwealth. The final result was that he more than recovered his lost\npossessions, and died an inveterate miser, worth 60,000_l._\"\n\nHe gained \"money,\" and he \"purchased\" cattle. In the simple transaction\nwhich has been recorded of the first exchange of the prodigal's labour\nfor capital, we find the circumstances which represent every exchange of\nlabour for capital. The prodigal wanted meat and drink, and he gave\nlabour in exchange for meat and drink; the capitalist wanted the produce\nof labour--he wanted a new value bestowed upon his coals by labour--and\nhe gave meat and drink in exchange for the labour which the prodigal had\nto give. But the prodigal wanted something beyond the meat and drink\nwhich was necessary for the supply of the day. He had other immediate\nnecessities beyond food; and he had determined to accumulate capital. He\ntherefore required \"a few pence\" in addition to the \"meat and drink.\"\nThe capitalist held that the labour performed had conferred a value upon\nhis property, which would be fairly exchanged for the pence in addition\nto the food, and he gave, therefore, in exchange, that portion of his\ncapital which was represented by the money and by the food. This\nblending of one sort of consumable commodity, and of the money which\nrepresented any other consumable commodity which the money could be\nexchanged with, was an accident arising out of the peculiar\ncircumstances in which the prodigal happened to be placed. In ordinary\ncases he would have received the money alone,--that is, he would have\nreceived a larger sum of money to enable him to exchange for meat and\ndrink, instead of receiving them in direct payment. It is clear,\ntherefore, that as the money represented one portion of the consumable\ncommodities which were ready to pay for the labour employed in giving a\nnew value to the coals, it might represent another portion--the meat,\nfor instance, without the drink; or it might represent all the\nconsumable commodities, meat, drink, lodging, clothes, fuel, which that\nparticular labourer might want; and even represent the accumulation\nwhich he might extract out of his self-denial as to the amount of meat,\ndrink, lodging, clothes, and fuel which he might require as a consumer;\nand the farthing saved out of his money-payment might be the nest-egg\nwhich was to produce the increase out of which he purchased cattle, and\ndied a rich miser.\n\nWe may be excused for calling attention to the fact, which is a very\nobvious one, that if the labourer, whose story we have told, had\nreceived a portion of the coals upon which he had conferred a new value\nin exchange for the labour which produced that value, he would have been\npaid in a way very unfavourable for production. It would have required a\nnew labour before the coals could have procured him the meat, and drink,\nand lodging of which he had an instant want; and he therefore must have\nreceived a larger portion of coals to compensate for his new labour, or\notherwise his labour must have been worse paid. There would have been\nunprofitable labour, whose loss must have fallen somewhere,--either upon\nthe capitalist or the labourer in the first instance, but upon both\nultimately, because there would have been less production. All the\nunprofitable labour employed in bringing the exchange of the first\nlabour for capital to maturity would have been so much power withdrawn\nfrom the efficiency of the next labour to be performed; and therefore\nproduction would have been impeded to the extent of that unprofitable\nlabour. The same thing would have happened if, advancing a step forward\nin the science of exchange, the labourer had received an entire payment\nin meat and drink, instead of a portion of the coals, which he could\nhave exchanged for meat and drink. Wanting lodging, he would have had to\nseek a person who wanted meat and drink in exchange for lodging, before\nhe could have obtained lodging. But he had a few pence,--he had money.\nHe had a commodity to exchange that he might divide and subdivide as\nlong as he pleased, whilst he was carrying on an exchange,--that is, he\nmight obtain as much lodging as he required for an equivalent portion of\nhis money. If he kept his money, it would not injure by keeping as the\nfood would. He might carry it from place to place more easily than he\ncould carry the food. He would have a commodity to exchange, whose value\ncould not be made matter of dispute, as the value of meat and drink\nwould unquestionably have been. This commodity would represent the same\nvalue, with little variation, whether he kept it a day, or a week, or a\nmonth, or a year; and therefore would be the only commodity whose\nretention would advance his design of accumulating capital with\ncertainty and steadiness. It is evident that a commodity possessing all\nthese advantages must have some intrinsic qualities which all exchangers\nwould recognise--that it must be a standard of value--at once a\ncommodity possessing real value, and a measure of all other values. This\ncommodity exists in all commercial or exchanging nations in the shape of\ncoined metal. The metal itself possesses a real value, which represents\nthe labour employed in producing it; and, in the shape of coin,\nrepresents also a measure of other value, because the value of the coin\nhas been determined by the sanction of some authority which all admit.\nThat authority is most conveniently expressed by a Government, as the\nrepresentative of the aggregate power of society. The metal itself,\nunless in the shape of coined money, would not represent a definite\nvalue; because the metal might be depreciated in value by the admixture\nof baser or inferior metals, unless it bore the impress of authority to\ndetermine its value. The exchangers of the metal for other articles of\nutility could not, without great loss of labour, be constantly employed\nin reducing it to the test of value, even if they had the knowledge\nrequisite for so ascertaining its value. It used to cost 1000_l._ a year\nto the Bank of England for the wages of those who weighed the gold coin\nbrought to the Bank; and it has been estimated that 30,000 sovereigns\npass over the Bank counter daily. A machine is now used at the Bank,\nwhich separates the full-weight sovereigns and the light ones, at the\nrate of 10,000 an hour. In Greece a piece of gold in the rude times was\nstamped with the figure of an ox, to indicate that it would exchange for\nan ox. In modern England, a piece of gold, called a sovereign,\nrepresents a certain weight in gold uncoined, and the Government stamp\nindicates its purity; whilst the perpetual separation of the light\nsovereigns from those of full-weight affords a security that very few\nlight ones are in general circulation. A sovereign purchases so many\npounds weight of an ox, and a whole ox purchases so many sovereigns. The\ngreat use of the coined metal is to save labour in exchanging the ox for\nother commodities. The money purchases the ox, and a portion of the ox\nagain purchases some other commodity, such as a loaf of bread from the\nbaker, who obtains a portion of the ox through the medium of the money,\nwhich is a standard of value between the bread and the beef. Our great\npoetical satirist, Pope, in conducting his invective against the private\navarice and political corruption of his day, imagines a state of things\nin which, money and credit being abolished, ministers would bribe and be\nbribed in kind. It is a true picture of what would be universal, if the\nexchanges of men resolved themselves into barter:\n\n \"A statesman's slumbers how this speech would spoil!\n 'Sir, Spain has sent a thousand jars of oil;\n Huge bales of British cloth blockade the door;\n A hundred oxen at your levee roar.'\"\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n Importance of capital to the profitable employment of\n labour--Contrast between the prodigal and the prudent man:\n the Dukes of Buckingham and Bridgewater--Making good for\n trade--Unprofitable consumption--War against capital in the\n middle ages--Evils of corporate privileges--Condition of the\n people under Henry VIII.\n\n\nIf we have succeeded in making our meaning clear, by stating a general\ntruth, not in an abstract form, but as brought out by various instances\nof the modes in which it is exhibited, we shall have led the reader to\nthe conclusion that accumulation, or capital, is absolutely essential to\nthe profitable employment of labour; and that the greater the\naccumulation the greater the extent of that profitable employment. This\ntruth, however, has been denied altogether by some speculative\nwriters;--and, what is more important, has been practically denied by\nthe conduct of nations and individuals in the earlier state of\nsociety,--and is still denied by existing prejudices, derived from the\ncurrent maxims of former days of ignorance and half-knowledge. With the\nspeculative writers we have little to do. When Rousseau, for instance,\nadvises governments not to secure property to its possessors, but to\ndeprive them of all means of accumulating, it is sufficient to know that\nthe same writer advocated the savage state, in which there should be no\nproperty, in preference to the social, which is founded on\nappropriation. Knowing this, and being convinced that the savage state,\neven with imperfect appropriation, is one of extreme wretchedness, we\nmay safely leave such opinions to work their own cure. For it is not\nlikely that any individual, however disposed to think that accumulation\nis an evil, would desire, by destroying accumulation, to pass into the\ncondition, described by John Tanner, of a constant encounter with hunger\nin its most terrific forms: and seeing, therefore, the fallacy of such\nan opinion, he will also see that, if he partially destroys\naccumulation, he equally impedes production, and equally destroys his\nshare in the productive power of capital and labour working together for\na common good in the social state.\n\nBut, without going the length of wishing to destroy capital, there are\nmany who think that accumulation is a positive evil, and that\nconsumption is a positive benefit; and, therefore, that economy is an\nevil, and waste a benefit. The course of a prodigal man is by many still\nviewed with considerable admiration. He sits up all night in frantic\nriot--he consumes whatever can stimulate his satiated appetite--he is\nwaited upon by a crowd of unproductive and equally riotous retainers--he\nbreaks and destroys everything around him with an unsparing hand--he\nrides his horses to death in the most extravagant attempts to wrestle\nwith time and space; and when he has spent all his substance in these\nexcesses, and dies an outcast and a beggar, he is said to have been a\nhearty fellow, and to have \"made good for trade.\" When, on the contrary,\na man of fortune economizes his revenue--lives like a virtuous and\nreasonable being, whose first duty is the cultivation of his\nunderstanding--eats and drinks with regard to his health--keeps no more\nretainers than are sufficient for his proper comfort and decency--breaks\nand destroys nothing--has respect to the inferior animals, as well from\nmotives of prudence as of mercy--and dies without a mortgage on his\nlands; _he_ is said to have been a stingy fellow who did not know how to\n\"circulate his money.\" To \"circulate money,\" to \"make good for trade,\"\nin the once common meaning of the terms, is for _one_ to consume\nunprofitably what, if economized, would have stimulated production in a\nway that would have enabled _hundreds_, instead of one, to consume\nprofitably. Let us offer two historical examples of these two opposite\nmodes of making good for trade, and circulating money. The Duke of\nBuckingham, \"having been possessed of about 50,000_l._ a year, died in\n1687, in a remote inn in Yorkshire, reduced to the utmost misery.\"[12]\nAfter a life of the most wanton riot, which exhausted all his princely\nresources, he was left at the last hour, under circumstances which are\nwell described in the following lines by Pope:--\n\n \"In the worst inn's worst room, with mat half hung,\n The floors of plaster, and the walls of dung,\n On once a flock bed, but repair'd with straw,\n With tape-tied curtains never meant to draw,\n The George and Garter dangling from that bed\n Where tawdry yellow strove with dirty red;\n Great Villiers lies....\n No wit to flatter left of all his store,\n No fool to laugh at, which he valued more,\n There, victor of his health, of fortune, friends,\n And fame, this lord of useless thousands ends.\"\n\nContrast the course of this unhappy man with that of the Duke of\nBridgewater, who devoted his property to really \"making good for trade,\"\nby constructing the great canals which connect Manchester with the coal\ncountries and with Liverpool. The Duke of Buckingham lived in a round of\nsensual folly: the Duke of Bridgewater limited his personal expenditure\nto 400_l._ a-year, and devoted all the remaining portion of his revenues\nto the construction of a magnificent work of the highest public utility.\nThe one supported a train of cooks and valets and horse-jockeys: the\nother called into action the labour of thousands, and employed in the\ndirection of that labour the skill of Brindley, one of the greatest\nengineers that any country has produced. The one died without a penny,\nloaded with debt, leaving no trace behind him but the ruin which his\nwaste had produced: the other bequeathed almost the largest property in\nEurope to his descendants, and opened a channel for industry which\nafforded, and still affords, employment to thousands.\n\n [Illustration: Brindley.]\n\nWhen a mob amused themselves by breaking windows, as was once a common\nrecreation on an illumination night, by way of showing the amount of\npopular intelligence, some were apt to say they have \"made good for\ntrade.\" Is it not evident that the capital which was represented by the\nunbroken windows was really so much destroyed of the national riches\nwhen the windows were broken?--for if the windows had remained unbroken,\nthe capital would have remained to stimulate the production of some new\nobject of utility. The glaziers, indeed, replaced the windows; but there\nhaving been a destruction of windows, there must have been a necessary\nretrenchment in some other outlay, that would have afforded benefit to\nthe consumer. Doubtless, when the glazier is called into activity by a\nmob breaking windows, some other trade suffers; for the man who has to\npay for the broken windows must retrench somewhere, and, if he has less\nto lay out, some other person has less to lay out. The glass-maker,\nprobably, makes more glass at the moment; but he does so to exchange\nwith the capital that would otherwise have gone to the maker of clothes\nor of furniture: and, there being an absolute destruction of the funds\nfor the maintenance of labour, by an unnecessary destruction of what\nformer labour has produced, trade generally is injured to the extent of\nthe destruction. Some now say that a fire makes good for trade. The only\ndifference of evil between the fire which destroys a house, and the mob\nwhich breaks the windows, is, that the fire absorbs capital for the\nmaintenance of trade, or labour, in the proportion of a hundred to one\nwhen compared with the mob. Some say that war makes good for trade. The\nonly difference of pecuniary evil (the moral evils admit of no\ncomparison) between the fire and the war is, that the war absorbs\ncapital for the maintenance of trade, or labour, in the proportion of a\nmillion to a hundred when compared with the fire. If the incessant\nenergy of production were constantly repressed by mobs, and fires, and\nwars, the end would be that consumption would altogether exceed\nproduction; and that then the producers and the consumers would both be\nstarved into wiser courses, and perceive that nothing makes good for\ntrade but profitable industry and judicious expenditure. Prodigality\ndevotes itself too much to the satisfaction of present wants: avarice\npostpones too much the present wants to the possible wants of the\nfuture. Real economy is the happy measure between the two extremes; and\nthat only \"makes good for trade,\" because, while it carries on a steady\ndemand for industry, it accumulates a portion of the production of a\ncountry to stimulate new production. That judicious expenditure consists\nin\n\n \"The sense to value riches, with the art\n T' enjoy them.\"\n\nThe fashion of \"making good for trade\" by unprofitable consumption is a\nrelic of the barbarous ages. In the twelfth century a count of France\ncommanded his vassals to plough up the soil round his castle, and he\nsowed the ground with coins of gold, to the amount of fifteen hundred\nguineas, that he might have all men talk of his magnificence. Piqued at\nthe lordly prodigality of his neighbour, another noble ordered thirty\nof his most valuable horses to be tied to a stake and burnt alive, that\nhe might exhibit a more striking instance of contempt for accumulation.\nIn the latter part of the fourteenth century, a Scotch noble, Colin\nCampbell, on receiving a visit from the O'Neiles of Ireland,\nostentatiously burnt down his house at Inverary upon their departure;\nand an Earl of Athol pursued the same course in 1528, after having\nentertained the papal legate, upon the pretence that it was \"the\nconstant habitude of the high-landers to set on fire in the morning the\nplace which had lodged them the night before.\" When the feudal lords had\nso little respect for their own property, it was not likely that they\nwould have much regard for the accumulation of others. The Jews, who\nwere the great capitalists of the middle ages, and who really merit the\ngratitude of Europeans for their avarice, as that almost alone enabled\nany accumulation to go forward, and any production to increase, were, as\nit is well known, persecuted in every direction by the crown, by the\nnobles, by the people. When a solitary farmer or abbot attempted to\naccumulate corn, which accumulation could alone prevent the dreadful\nfamines invariably resulting from having no stock that might be\navailable upon a bad harvest, the people burnt the ricks of the\nprovident men, by way of lessening the evils of scarcity. The\nconsequence was, that no person thought of accumulating at all, and that\nthe price of wheat often rose, just before the harvest, from five\nshillings a quarter to five pounds.\n\nWe are accustomed to read and talk of \"merry England,\" but we sometimes\nfail to think how much real suffering lay beneath the surface of the\nmerriment. Herrick, one of our charming old lyric poets, has sung the\nglories of the hock-cart--the cart that bore the full sheaves to the\nempty barn:--\n\n \"The harvest swains and wenches bound\n For joy, to see the hock-cart crown'd;\n About the cart hear how the rout\n Of rural younglings raise the shout,\n Pressing before, some coming after,\n Those with a shout, and these with laughter.\n Some bless the cart, some kiss the sheaves,\n Some prank them up with oaken leaves;\n Some cross the fill-horse, some with great\n Devotion stroke the home-borne wheat.\"\n\nAssuredly there was joy and there was devotion; for the laden cart made\nthe difference between plenty and starvation. Before that harvest-home\ncame there had been many an aching heart in the village hovels, for\nthere was no store to equalize prices, and no communication to make the\nabundance of one district--much less of one country--mitigate the\nscarcity of another. It was not a question of the rise or the fall of a\npenny or two in the price of a loaf of bread; it was a question of bread\nor no bread.\n\n [Illustration: The Hock-Cart.]\n\nDuring those dark periods the crown carried on the war against capital\nwith an industry that could not be exceeded by that of the nobles or the\npeople. Before the great charter the Commons complained that King Henry\nseized upon whatever was suited to his royal pleasure--horses,\nimplements, food, anything that presented itself in the shape of\naccumulated labour. In the reign of Henry III. a statute was passed to\nremedy excessive distresses; from which it appeared that it was no\nunfrequent practice for the king's officers to take the opportunity of\nseizing the farmer's oxen at the moment when they were employed in\nploughing, or, as the statute says, \"winning the earth,\"--taking them\noff, and starving them to death, or only restoring them with new and\nenormous exactions for their keep. Previous to the Charter of the Forest\nno man could dig a marl-pit on his own ground, lest the king's horses\nshould fall into it when he was hunting. As late as the time of James I.\nwe find, from a speech of the great Lord Bacon, that it was a pretty\nconstant practice of the king's purveyors to extort large sums of money\nby threatening to cut down favourite trees which grew near a\nmansion-house or in avenues. Despotism, in all ages, has depopulated the\nfinest countries, by rendering capital insecure, and therefore\nunproductive; insomuch that Montesquieu lays it down as a maxim, that\nlands are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but in\nproportion to their freedom. In the fifteenth century, in England, we\nfind sums of money voted for the restoration of decayed towns and\nvillages. Just laws would have restored them much more quickly and\neffectually. The state of agriculture was so low that the most absurd\nenactments were made to compel farmers to till and sow their own lands,\nand calling upon every man to plant at least forty beans. All the laws\nfor the regulation of labourers, at the same period, assumed that they\nshould be _compelled_ to work, and not wander about the country,--just\nin the same way that farmers should be compelled to sow and till. It is\nperfectly clear that the towns would not have been depopulated, and gone\nto decay, if the accumulation of capital had not been obstructed by\ninsecurity and wasted by ignorance, and that the same insecurity and the\nsame waste rendered it necessary to assume that the farmer would not\ntill and sow, and the labourer would not labour, without compulsion. The\nnatural stimulus to industry was wanting, and therefore there was no\nindustry, or only unprofitable industry. The towns decayed, the country\nwas uncultivated--production languished--the people were all poor and\nwretched; and the government dreamt that acts of parliament and royal\nordinances could rebuild the houses and cultivate the land, when the\nmeans of building and cultivation, namely, the capital of the country,\nwas exhausted by injustice producing insecurity.\n\nBut if the king, the nobles, and the people of the middle ages conspired\ntogether, or acted at least as if they conspired, to prevent the\naccumulation of capital, the few capitalists themselves, by their\nmonstrous regulations, which still throw some dark shadows over our own\ndays, prevented that freedom of industry without which capital could not\naccumulate. Undoubtedly the commercial privileges of corporations\noriginally offered some barriers against the injustice of the crown and\nof the nobility; but the good was always accompanied with an evil, which\nrendered it to a certain extent valueless. Where these privileges gave\nsecurity, they were a good; where they destroyed freedom, they were an\ninjury. Instead of encouraging the intercourse between one trade and\nanother, they encircled every trade with the most absurd monopolies and\nexclusive privileges. Instead of rendering commerce free between one\ndistrict and another, they, even in the same country, encompassed\ncommerce with the most harassing restrictions, which separated county\nfrom county, and town from town, as if seas ran between them. If a man\nof Coventry came to London with his wares, he was encountered at every\nstep with the privileges of companies; if the man of London sought to\ntrade at Coventry, he was obstructed by the same corporate rights,\npreventing either the Londoner or the Coventry man trading with\nadvantage. The revenues of every city were derived from forfeitures\nupon trades, almost all established upon the principle that, if one\ntrade became too industrious or too clever, it would be the ruin of\nanother trade. Every trade was fenced round with secrets; and the\ncommonest trade, as we know from the language of an apprentice's\nindenture, was called an \"art and mystery.\" All these follies went upon\nthe presumption that \"one man's gain is another man's loss,\" instead of\nvanishing before the truth, that, in proportion as the industry of all\nmen is free, so will it be productive; and that production on all sides\nensures a state of things in which every exchanger is a gainer, and no\none a loser.\n\nIt is not to be wondered at that, while such opinions existed, the union\nof capital and labour should have been very imperfect; and that, while\nthe capitalists oppressed the labourers, in the same way that they\noppressed each other, the labourers should have thought it not\nunreasonable to plunder the capitalists. It is stated by Harrison, an\nold writer of credit,[13] that during the single reign of Henry VIII.\nseventy-two thousand thieves were hanged in England. No fact can exhibit\nin a stronger light the universal misery that must have existed in those\ndays. The whole kingdom did not contain half a million grown-up males,\nso that, considering that the reign of Henry VIII. extended over two\ngenerations, about one man in ten must have been, to use the words of\nthe same historian, \"devoured and eaten up by the gallows.\" In the same\nreign the first statute against Egyptians (gipsies) was passed. These\npeople went from place to place in great companies--spoke a cant\nlanguage, which Harrison calls Pedler's French--and were subdivided into\nfifty-two different classes of thieves. The same race of people\nprevailed throughout Europe. Cervantes, the author of 'Don Quixote,'\nsays of the Egyptians or Bohemians, that they seem to have been born for\nno other purpose than that of pillaging. While this universal plunder\nwent forward, it is evident that the insecurity of property must have\nbeen so great that there could have been little accumulation, and\ntherefore little production. Capital was destroyed on every side; and\nbecause profitable labour had become so scarce by the destruction of\ncapital, one-half of the community sought to possess themselves of the\nfew goods of the other half, not as exchangers but as robbers. As the\nrobbers diminished the capital, the diminution of capital increased the\nnumber of robbers; and if the unconquerable energy of human industry had\nnot gone on producing, slowly and painfully indeed, but still producing,\nthe country would have soon fallen back to the state in which it was a\nthousand years before, when wolves abounded more than men. One great\ncause of all this plunder and misery was the oppression of the\nlabourers.\n\n [12] Ruffhead's Pope.\n\n [13] Preface to the Chronicles of Holinshed.\n\n\n [Illustration: Adam Smith.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n Rights of labour--Effects of slavery on production--\n Condition of the Anglo-Saxons--Progress of freedom\n in England--Laws regulating labour--Wages and\n prices--Poor-law--Law of settlement.\n\n\nAdam Smith, in his great work, 'The Wealth of Nations,' says, \"The\nproperty which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original\nfoundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and\ninviolable. The patrimony of a poor man lies in the strength and\ndexterity of his hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength\nand dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his\nneighbour, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.\" The right\nof property, in general, has been defined by another writer, M. Say, to\nbe \"the exclusive faculty guaranteed to a man, or body of men, to\ndispose, at their own pleasure, of that which belongs to them.\" There\ncan be no doubt that labour is entitled to the same protection as a\nproperty that capital is entitled to. There can be no doubt that the\nlabourer has rights over his labour which no government and no\nindividual should presume to interfere with. There can be no doubt that,\nas an exchanger of labour for capital, the labourer ought to be assured\nthat the exchange shall in all respects be as free as the exchanges of\nany other description of property. His rights as an exchanger are, that\nhe shall not be compelled to part with his property, by any arbitrary\nenactments, without having as ample an equivalent as the general laws of\nexchange will afford him; that he shall be free to use every just means,\neither by himself or by union with others, to obtain such an equivalent;\nthat he shall be at full liberty to offer that property in the best\nmarket that he can find, without being limited to any particular market;\nthat he may give to that property every modification which it is capable\nof receiving from his own natural or acquired skill, without being\nnarrowed to any one form of producing it. In other words, natural\njustice demands that the working-man shall work when he please, and be\nidle when he please, always providing that, if he make a contract to\nwork, he shall not violate that engagement by remaining idle; that no\nlabour shall be forced from him, and no rate of payment for that labour\nprescribed by statutes or ordinances; that he shall be free to obtain as\nhigh wages as he can possibly get, and unite with others to obtain them,\nalways providing that in his union he does not violate that freedom of\nindustry in others which is the foundation of his own attempts to\nimprove his condition; that he may go from place to place to exchange\nhis labour without being interfered with by corporate rights or\nmonopolies of any sort, whether of masters or workmen; and that he may\nturn from one employment to the other, if he so think fit, without being\nconfined to the trade he originally learnt, or may strike into any line\nof employment without having regularly learnt it at all. When the\nworking-man has these rights secured to him by the sanction of the laws,\nand the concurrence of the institutions and customs of the country in\nwhich he lives, he is in the condition of a free exchanger. He has the\nfull, uninterrupted, absolute possession of his property. He is upon a\nperfect legal equality with the capitalist. He may labour cheerfully\nwith the well-founded assurance that his labour will be profitably\nexchanged for the goods which he desires for the satisfaction of his\nwants, as far as laws and institutions can so provide. In a word, he may\nassure himself that, if he possesses anything valuable to offer in\nexchange for capital, the capital will not be fenced round with any\nartificial barriers, or invested with any unnatural preponderance, to\nprevent the exchange being one of perfect equality, and therefore a real\nbenefit to both exchangers.\n\nWe are approaching this desirable state in England. Indeed, there is\nscarcely any legal restriction acted upon which prevents the exchange of\nlabour with capital being completely unembarrassed. Yet it is only\nwithin a few centuries that the working-men of this country have emerged\nfrom the condition of actual slaves into that of free labourers; it is\nonly a few hundred years ago since the cultivator of the ground, the\ndomestic servant, and sometimes even the artisan, was the absolute\nproperty of another man--bought, sold, let, without any will of his own,\nlike an ox or a horse--producing nothing for himself--and transmitting\nthe miseries of his lot to his children. The progress of civilization\ndestroyed this monstrous system, in the same way that at the present day\nit is destroying it in Russia and other countries where slavery still\nexists. But it was by a very slow process that the English slave went\nforward to the complete enjoyment of the legal rights of a free\nexchanger. The transition exhibits very many years of gross injustice,\nof bitter suffering, of absurd and ineffectual violations of the natural\nrights of man; and of struggles between the capitalist and the labourer,\nfor exclusive advantages, perpetuated by ignorant lawgivers, who could\nnot see that the interest of all classes of producers is one and the\nsame. We may not improperly devote a little space to the description of\nthis dark and evil period. We shall see that while such a struggle goes\nforward--that is, while security of property and freedom of industry\nare not held as the interchangeable rights of the capitalist and the\nlabourer--there can be little production and less accumulation. Wherever\npositive slavery exists--wherever the labourers are utterly deprived of\ntheir property in their labour, and are compelled to dispose of it\nwithout retaining any part of the character of voluntary\nexchangers--there are found idleness, ignorance, and unskilfulness;\nindustry is enfeebled--the oppressor and the oppressed are both\npoor--there is no national accumulation. The existence of slavery\namongst the nations of antiquity was a great impediment to their\nprogress in the arts of life. The community, in such nations, was\ndivided into a caste of nobles called citizens, and a caste of labourers\ncalled slaves. The Romans were rich, in the common sense of the word,\nbecause they plundered other nations; but they could not produce largely\nwhen the individual spirit to industry was wanting. The industry of the\nfreemen was rapine: the slaves were the producers. No man will work\nwillingly when he is to be utterly deprived of the power of disposing at\nhis own will of the fruits of his labour; no man will work skilfully\nwhen the same scanty pittance is doled out to each and all, whatever be\nthe difference in their talents and knowledge. Wherever the freedom of\nindustry is thus violated, property cannot be secure. If Rome had\nencouraged free labourers, instead of breeding menial slaves, it could\nnot have happened that the thieves, who were constantly hovering round\nthe suburbs of the city, like vultures looking out for carrion, should\nhave been so numerous that, during the insurrection of Catiline, they\nformed a large accession to his army. But Rome had to encounter a worse\nevil than that of the swarms of highwaymen who were ready to plunder\nwhatever had been produced. Production itself was so feeble when carried\non by the labour of slaves, that Columella, a writer on rural affairs,\nsays the crops continued so gradually to fall off that there was a\ngeneral opinion that the earth was growing old and losing its power of\nproductiveness. Wherever slavery exists at the present day, there we\nfind feeble production and national weakness. Poland, the most prolific\ncorn-country in Europe, is unquestionably the poorest country. Poland\nhas been partitioned, over and over again, by governments that knew her\nweakness; and she has been said to have fallen \"without a crime.\" That\nis not correct. Her \"crime\" was, and is, the slavery of her labourers.\nThere is no powerful class between the noble and the serf or slave; and\nwhilst this state of things endures, Poland can never be independent,\nbecause she can never be industrious, and therefore never wealthy.\n\nEngland, as we have said, once groaned under the evils of positive\nslavery. The Anglo-Saxons had what they called \"live money,\" such as\nsheep and slaves. To this cause may be doubtless attributed the easy\nconquest of the country by the Norman invaders, and the oppression that\nsucceeded that conquest. If the people had been free, no king could have\nswept away the entire population of a hundred thousand souls that dwelt\nin the country between the Humber and the Tees, and converted a district\nof sixty miles in length into a dreary desert, which remained for years\nwithout houses and without inhabitants. This the Conqueror did. In the\nreign of Henry II. the slaves of England were exported in large numbers\nto Ireland. These slaves, or villeins, as is the case in Russia and\nPoland at the present day, differed in the degree of the oppression\nwhich was exercised towards them. Some, called \"villeins in gross,\" were\nat the absolute disposal of the lord--transferable from one owner to\nanother, like a horse or a cow. Others, called \"villeins regardant,\"\nwere annexed to particular estates, and were called upon to perform\nwhatever agricultural offices the lord should demand from them, not\nhaving the power of acquiring any property, and their only privilege\nbeing that they were irremoveable except with their own consent. These\ndistinctions are not of much consequence, for, by a happy combination of\ncircumstances, the bondmen of every kind, in the course of a century or\ntwo after the Conquest, were rapidly passing into the condition of free\nlabourers. But still capital was accumulated so slowly, and labour was\nso unproductive, that the land did not produce the tenth part of a\nmodern crop; and the country was constantly exposed to the severest\ninflictions of famine, whenever a worse than usual harvest occurred.\n\nIn the reign of Edward III. the woollen manufacture was introduced into\nEngland. It was at first carried on exclusively by foreigners; but as\nthe trade extended, new hands were wanting, and the bondmen of the\nvillages began to run away from their masters, and take refuge in the\ntowns. If the slave could conceal himself successfully from the pursuit\nof his lord for a year and a day, he was held free for ever. The\nconstant attraction of the bondmen to the towns, where they could work\nfor hire, gradually emboldened those who remained as cultivators to\nassert their own natural rights. The nobility complained that the\nvilleins refused to perform their accustomed services; and that corn\nremained uncut upon the ground. At length, in 1351, the 25th year of\nEdward III., the class of free labourers was first recognised by the\nlegislature; and a statute was passed, oppressive indeed, and impolitic,\nbut distinctly acknowledging the right of the labourer to assume the\ncharacter of a free exchanger. Slavery, in England, was not wholly\nabolished by statute till the time of Charles II.: it was attempted in\nvain to be abolished in 1526. As late as the year 1775, the colliers of\nScotland were accounted _ascripti glebae_--that is, as belonging to the\nestate or colliery where they were born and continued to work. It is not\nnecessary for us further to notice the existence of villeinage or\nslavery in these kingdoms. Our business is with the slow progress of the\nestablishment of the rights of free labourers--and this principally to\nshow that, during the long period when a contest was going forward\nbetween the capitalists and the labourers, industry was comparatively\nunproductive. It was not so unproductive, indeed, as during the period\nof absolute slavery; but as long as any man was compelled to work, or to\ncontinue at work, or to receive a fixed price, or to remain in one\nplace, or to follow one employment, labour could not be held to be\nfree--property could not be held to be secure--capital and labour could\nnot have cordially united for production--accumulation could not have\nbeen certain and rapid.\n\nIn the year 1349 there was a dreadful pestilence in England, which swept\noff large numbers of the people. Those of the labourers that remained,\nfollowing the natural course of the great principle of demand and\nsupply, refused to serve, unless they were paid double the wages which\nthey had received five years before. Then came the 'Statute of\nLabourers,' of 1351, to regulate wages; and this statute enacted what\nshould be paid to haymakers, and reapers, and thrashers; to carpenters,\nand masons, and tilers, and plasterers. No person was to quit his own\nvillage, if he could get work at these wages; and labourers and\nartificers flying from one district to another in consequence of these\nregulations, were to be imprisoned.\n\nGood laws, it has been said, execute themselves. When legislators make\nbad laws, there requires a constant increase of vigilance and severity,\nand constant attempts at reconciling impossibilities, to allow such laws\nto work at all. In 1360 the Statute of Labourers was confirmed with new\npenalties, such as burning in the forehead with the letter F those\nworkmen who left their usual abodes. Having controlled the wages of\nindustry, the next step was for these blind lawgivers to determine how\nthe workmen should spend their scanty pittance; and accordingly, in\n1363, a statute was passed to compel workmen and all persons not worth\nforty shillings to wear the coarsest cloth called russet, and to be\nserved once a day with meat, or fish, and the offal of other victuals.\nWe were not without imitations of such absurdities in other nations. An\nordinance of the King of France, in 1461, determined that good and fat\nmeat should be sold to the rich, while the poor should be allowed only\nto buy the lean and stinking.\n\nWhile the wages of labour were fixed by statute, the price of wheat was\nconstantly undergoing the most extraordinary fluctuations, ranging from\n2_s._ a quarter to 1_l._ 6_s._ 8_d._ It was perfectly impossible that\nany profitable industry could go forward in the face of such unjust and\nridiculous laws. In 1376 the Commons complained that masters were\n_obliged_ to give their servants higher wages to prevent their running\naway; and that the country was covered with _staf-strikers_ and _sturdy\nrogues_, who robbed in every direction. The villages were deserted by\nthe labourers resorting to the towns, where commerce knew how to evade\nthe destroying regulations of the statutes; and to prevent the total\ndecay of agriculture, labourers were not allowed to move from place to\nplace without letters patent:--any labourer, not producing such a\nletter, was to be imprisoned and put in the stocks. If a lad had been\nbrought up to the plough till he was twelve years of age, he was\ncompelled to continue in husbandry all his life; and in 1406 it was\nenacted that all children of parents not possessed of land should be\nbrought up in the occupation of their parents. While the legislature,\nhowever, was passing these abominable laws, it was most effectually\npreparing the means for their extermination. Children were allowed to be\nsent to school in any part of the kingdom. When the light of education\ndawned upon the people, they could not long remain in the \"darkness\nvisible\" that succeeded the night of slavery.\n\nWhen the industry of the country was nearly annihilated by the laws\nregulating wages, it was found out that something like a balance should\nbe preserved between wages and prices; and the magistrates were\ntherefore empowered twice a year to make proclamation, according to the\nprice of provisions, how much every workman should receive. The system,\nhowever, would not work well. In 1496 a new statute of wages was passed,\nthe preamble of which recited that the former statutes had not been\nexecuted, because \"the remedy by the said statutes is not very perfect.\"\nThen came a new remedy: that is, a new scale of wages for all trades;\nregulations for the hours of work and of rest; and penalties to prevent\nlabour being transported from one district to another. As a necessary\nconsequence of a fixed scale for wages, came another fixed scale for\nregulating the prices of provisions; till at last, in the reign of Henry\nVIII., lawgivers began to open their eyes to the folly of their\nproceedings, and the preamble of a statute says \"that dearth, scarcity,\ngood cheap, and plenty of cheese, butter, capons, hens, chickens, and\nother victuals necessary for man's sustenance, happeneth, riseth, and\nchanceth, of so many and divers occasions, that it is very hard and\ndifficile to put any certain prices to any such things.\" Yet they went\non with new scales, in spite of the hardness of the task; till at last\nsome of the worst of these absurd laws were swept from the statute-book.\nThe justices, whose principal occupation was to balance the scale of\nwages and labour, complained incessantly of the difficulty of the\nattempt; and the statute of the 5th Elizabeth acknowledged that these\nold laws \"could not be carried into execution without the great grief\nand burden of the poor labourer and hired man.\" Still new laws were\nenacted to prevent the freedom of industry working out plenty for\ncapitalists as well as labourers; and at length, in 1601, a general\nassessment was directed for the support of the impotent poor, and for\nsetting the unemployed poor to work. The capitalists at length paid a\ngrievous penalty for their two centuries of oppression; and had to\nmaintain a host of paupers, that had gradually filled the land during\nthese unnatural contests. It would be perhaps incorrect to say, that\nthese contests alone produced the paupers that required this legislative\nprotection in the reign of Elizabeth; but certainly the number of those\npaupers would have been far less, if the laws of industry had taken\ntheir healthy and natural course,--if capital and labour had gone hand\nin hand to produce abundance for all, and fairly to distribute that\nabundance in the form of profits and wages, justly balanced by the\nsteady operation of demand and supply in a free and extensive market.\n\nThe whole of these absurd and iniquitous laws, which had succeeded the\nmore wicked laws of absolute slavery, proceeded from a struggle on the\npart of the capitalists in land against the growing power and energy of\nfree labour. If the capitalists had rightly understood their interests,\nthey would have seen that the increased production of a thriving and\nhappy peasantry would have amply compensated them for all the increase\nof wages to which they were compelled to submit; and that at every step\nby which the condition of their labourers was improved their own\ncondition was also improved. If then capital had worked naturally and\nhonestly for the encouragement of labour, there would have been no lack\nof labourers; and it would not have been necessary to pass laws to\ncompel artificers, under the penalty of the stocks, to assist in getting\nin the harvest (5 Eliz.). If the labourers in agriculture had been\nadequately paid, they would not have fled to the towns; and if they had\nnot been liable to cruel punishments for the exercise of this their\nnatural right, the country would not have been covered with \"valiant\nrogues and sturdy beggars.\"\n\nThe Law of Settlement, which, however modified, yet remains upon our\nstatute-book, has been the curse of industry for nearly two centuries.\nAll the best men of past times have cried out against its oppression.\nRoger North, soon after its enactment, in the time of Charles II.,\nclearly enough showed its general operation:--\"Where most work is, there\nare fewest people, and _e contra_. In Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, a\nlabourer hath 12_d._ a day; in Oxfordshire, 8_d._; in the North, 6_d._,\nor less; and I have been credibly informed that in Cornwall a poor man\nwill be thankful for 2_d._ a day and poor diet: and the value of\nprovisions in all these places is much the same. Whence should the\ndifference proceed? Even from plenty and scarcity of work and men, which\nhappens crossgrainedly, so that one cannot come to the other.\" When men\nhonestly went from home to seek work, they were called vagrants, and\nwere confounded with the common beggars, for whom every severity was\nprovided by the law--the stocks, the whip, the pillory, the brand. It\nwas all in vain. Happy would it have been for the land if the law had\nleft honest industry free, and in the case of dishonesty had applied\nitself to more effectual work than punishments and terror. One of our\ngreat judges, Sir Matthew Hale, said, long ago, what we even now too\noften forget--\"The prevention of poverty, idleness, and a loose and\ndisorderly education, even of poor children, would do more good to this\nkingdom than all the gibbets, and cauterizations, and whipping-posts,\nand jails in this kingdom.\" The whole scheme of legislation for the poor\nwas to set the poor to work by forced contributions from capital. If the\nenergy of the people had not found out how to set themselves to work in\nspite of bad laws, we might have remained a nation of slaves and\npaupers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n Possessions of the different classes in England--Condition\n of Colchester in 1301--Tools, stock-in-trade, furniture,\n &c.--Supply of food--Comparative duration of human\n life--Want of facilities for commerce--Plenty and\n civilization not productive of effeminacy--Colchester in the\n present day.\n\n\nIt will be desirable to exhibit something like an average view of the\nextent of the possessions of all classes of society, and especially of\nthe middling and labouring classes, in this country, at a period when\nthe mutual rights of capitalists and labourers were so little understood\nas in the fourteenth century. We have shown how, at that time, there was\na general round of oppression, resulting from ignorance of the proper\ninterests of the productive classes; and it would be well also to show\nthat during this period of disunion and contest between capital and\nlabour, each plundering the other, and both plundered by arbitrary\npower, whether of the nobles or the crown, production went on very\nslowly and imperfectly, and that there was little to plunder and less to\nexchange. It is difficult to find the materials for such an inquiry.\nThere is no very accurate record of the condition of the various classes\nof society before the invention of printing; and even after that\ninvention we must be content to form our conclusions from a few\nscattered facts not recorded for any such purpose as we have in view,\nbut to be gathered incidentally from slight observations which have come\ndown to us. Yet enough remains to enable us to form a picture of\ntolerable accuracy; and in some points to establish conclusions which\ncannot be disputed. It is in the same way that our knowledge of the\nformer state of the physical world must be derived from relics of that\nformer state, to which the inquiries and comparisons of the present\ntimes have given an historical value. We know, for instance, that the\nanimals of the southern countries once abounded in these islands,\nbecause we occasionally find their bones in quantities which could not\nhave been accumulated unless such animals had been once native to these\nparts; and the remains of sea-shells upon the tops of hills now under\nthe plough show us that even these heights have been heaved up from the\nbosom of the ocean. In the same way, although we have no complete\npicture of the state of property at the period to which we allude, we\nhave evidence enough to describe that state from records which may be\napplied to this end, although preserved for a very different object.\n\nIn the reign of Edward III., Colchester, in Essex, was considered the\ntenth city in England in point of population. It then paid a poll-tax\nfor 2955 lay persons. In 1301, about half a century before, the number\nof inhabitant housekeepers was 390; and the whole household furniture,\nutensils, clothes, money, cattle, corn, and every other property found\nin the town, was valued at 518_l._ 16_s._ 0-3/4_d._ This valuation took\nplace on occasion of a subsidy or tax to the crown, to carry on a war\nagainst France; and the particulars, which are preserved in the Rolls of\nParliament, exhibit with great minuteness the classes of persons then\ninhabiting that town, and the sort of property which each respectively\npossessed. The trades exercised in Colchester were the following:--baker,\nbarber, blacksmith, bowyer, brewer, butcher, carpenter, carter, cobbler,\ncook, dyer, fisherman, fuller, furrier, girdler, glass-seller, glover,\nlinen-draper, mercer and spice-seller, miller, mustard and vinegar\nseller, old clothes seller, saddler, tailor, tanner, tiler, weaver,\nwood-cutter, and wool-comber. If we look at a small town of the present\nday, where such a variety of occupations are carried on, we shall find\nthat each tradesman has a considerable stock of commodities, abundance\nof furniture and utensils, clothes in plenty, some plate, books, and\nmany articles of convenience and luxury to which the most wealthy\ndealers and mechanics of Colchester of the fourteenth century were utter\nstrangers. That many places at that time were much poorer than\nColchester there can be no doubt: for here we see the division of labour\nwas pretty extensive, and that is always a proof that production is\ngoing forward, however imperfectly. We see, too, that the tradesmen were\nconnected with manufactures in the ordinary use of the term; or there\nwould not have been the dyer, the glover, the linen-draper, the tanner,\nthe weaver, and the wool-comber. There must have been a demand for\narticles of foreign commerce, too, in this town, or we should not have\nhad the spice-seller. Yet, with all these various occupations,\nindicating considerable profitable industry when compared with earlier\nstages in the history of this country, the whole stock of the town was\nvalued at little more than 500_l._ Nor let it be supposed that this\nsmallness of capital can be accounted for by the difference in the\nstandard of money; although that difference is considerable. We may\nindeed satisfy ourselves of the small extent of the capital of\nindividuals at that day, by referring to the inventory of the articles\nupon which the tax we have mentioned was laid at Colchester.\n\nThe whole stock of a carpenter's tools was valued at one shilling. They\naltogether consisted of two broad axes, an adze, a square, and a navegor\nor spoke-shave. Rough work must the carpenter have been able to perform\nwith these humble instruments; but then let it be remembered that there\nwas little capital to pay him for finer work, and that very little fine\nwork was consequently required. The three hundred and ninety\nhousekeepers of Colchester then lived in mud huts, with a rough door and\nno chimney. Harrison, speaking of the manners of a century later than\nthe period we are describing, says, \"There were very few chimneys even\nin capital towns: the fire was laid to the wall, and the smoke issued\nout at the roof, or door, or window. The houses were wattled, and\nplastered over with clay; and all the furniture and utensils were of\nwood. The people slept on straw pallets, with a log of wood for a\npillow.\" When this old historian wrote, he mentions the erection of\nchimneys as a modern luxury. We had improved little upon our Anglo-Saxon\nancestors in the article of chimneys. In their time Alcuin, an abbot who\nhad ten thousand vassals, writes to the emperor at Rome that he\npreferred living in his smoky house to visiting the palaces of Italy.\nThis was in the ninth century. Five hundred years had made little\ndifference in the chimneys of Colchester. The nobility had hangings\nagainst the walls to keep out the wind, which crept in through the\ncrevices which the builder's bungling art had left: the middle orders\nhad no hangings. Shakspere alludes to this rough building of houses even\nin his time:--\n\n \"Imperial Caesar, dead and turn'd to clay,\n Might stop a hole to keep the wind away.\"\n\nEven the nobility went without glass to their windows in the fourteenth\nand fifteenth centuries. \"Of old time,\" says Harrison, \"our country\nhouses, instead of glass, did use much lattice, and that made either of\nwicker or fine rifts of oak, in checkerwise.\" When glass was introduced,\nit was for a long time so scarce that at Alnwick Castle, in 1567, the\nglass was ordered to be taken out of the windows, and laid up in safety,\nwhen the lord was absent.\n\nThe mercer's stock-in-trade at Colchester was much upon a level with the\ncarpenter's tools. It was somewhat various, but very limited in\nquantity. The whole comprised a piece of woollen cloth, some silk and\nfine linen, flannel, silk purses, gloves, girdles, leather purses, and\nneedle-work; and it was altogether valued at 3_l._ There appears to have\nbeen another dealer in cloth and linen in the town, whose store was\nequally scanty. We were not much improved in the use of linen a century\nlater. We learn from the Earl of Northumberland's household book, whose\nfamily was large enough to consume one hundred and sixty gallons of\nmustard during the winter with their salt meat, that only seventy ells\nof linen were allowed for a year's consumption. In the fourteenth\ncentury none but the clergy and nobility wore white linen. As industry\nincreased, and the cleanliness of the middle classes increased with it,\nthe use of white linen became more general; but even at the end of the\nnext century, when printing was invented, the paper-makers had the\ngreatest difficulty in procuring rags for their manufacture; and so\ncareful were the people of every class to preserve their linen, that\nnight-clothes were never worn. Linen was so dear that Shakspere makes\nFalstaff's shirts eight shillings an ell. The more sumptuous articles of\na mercer's stock were treasured in rich families from generation to\ngeneration; and even the wives of the nobility did not disdain to\nmention in their wills a particular article of clothing, which they left\nto the use of a daughter or a friend. The solitary old coat of a baker\ncame into the Colchester valuation; nor is this to be wondered at, when\nwe find that even the soldiers at the battle of Bannockburn, about this\ntime, were described by an old rhymer as \"well near all naked.\"\n\nThe household furniture found in use amongst the families of Colchester\nconsisted, in the more wealthy, of an occasional bed, a brass pot, a\nbrass cup, a gridiron, and a rug or two, and perhaps a towel. Of chairs\nand tables we hear nothing. We learn from the Chronicles of Brantome, a\nFrench historian of these days, that even the nobility sat upon chests\nin which they kept their clothes and linen. Harrison, whose testimony we\nhave already given to the poverty of these times, affirms, that if a man\nin seven years after marriage could purchase a flock bed, and a sack of\nchaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself as well lodged as the\nlord of the town, \"who peradventure lay seldom on a bed entirely of\nfeathers.\" An old tenure in England, before these times, binds the\nvassal to find straw even for the king's bed. The beds of flock, the few\narticles of furniture, the absence of chairs and tables, would have been\nof less consequence to the comfort and health of the people, if they had\nbeen clean; but cleanliness never exists without a certain possession of\ndomestic conveniences. The people of England, in the days of which we\nare speaking, were not famed for their attention to this particular.\nThomas a Becket was reputed extravagantly nice, because he had his\nparlour strewed every day with clean straw. As late as the reign of\nHenry VIII., Erasmus, a celebrated scholar of Holland, who visited\nEngland, complains that the nastiness of the people was the cause of the\nfrequent plagues that destroyed them; and he says, \"their floors are\ncommonly of clay, strewed with rushes, under which lie unmolested a\ncollection of beer, grease, fragments, bones, spittle, excrements of\ndogs and cats, and of everything that is nauseous.\" The elder Scaliger,\nanother scholar who came to England, abuses the people for giving him no\nconvenience to wash his hands. Glass vessels were scarce, and pottery\nwas almost wholly unknown. The Earl of Northumberland, whom we have\nmentioned, breakfasted on trenchers and dined on pewter. While such\nuniversal slovenliness prevailed as Erasmus has described, it is not\nlikely that much attention was generally paid to the cultivation of the\nmind. Before the invention of printing, at the time of the valuation of\nColchester, books in manuscript, from their extreme costliness, could be\npurchased only by princes. The royal library of Paris, in 1378,\nconsisted of nine hundred and nine volumes,--an extraordinary number.\nThe same library now comprises upwards of four hundred thousand volumes.\nBut it may fairly be assumed that, where one book could be obtained in\nthe fourteenth century by persons of the working classes, four hundred\nthousand may be as easily obtained now. Here then was a privation which\nexisted five hundred years ago, which debarred our ancestors from more\nprofit and pleasure than the want of beds, and chairs, and linen; and\nprobably, if this privation had continued, and men therefore had not\ncultivated their understandings, they would not have learnt to give any\nreally profitable direction to their labour, and we should still have\nbeen as scantily supplied with furniture and clothes as the good people\nof Colchester of whom we have been speaking.\n\nLet us see what accumulated supply, or capital, of food the inhabitants\nof England had five centuries ago. Possessions in cattle are the\nearliest riches of most countries. We have seen that cattle was called\n\"live money;\" and it is supposed that the word capital, which means\nstock generally, was derived from the Latin word \"capita,\" or heads of\nbeasts. The law-term \"chattels\" is also supposed to come from cattle.\nThese circumstances show that cattle were the chief property of our\nancestors. Vast herds of swine constituted the great provision for the\nsupport of the people; and these were principally fed, as they are even\nnow in the New Forest, upon acorns and beech-mast. In Domesday Book, a\nvaluation of the time of William the Conqueror, it is always mentioned\nhow many hogs each estate can maintain. Hume the historian, in his\nEssays, alluding to the great herds of swine described by Polybius as\nexisting in Italy and Greece, concludes that the country was thinly\npeopled and badly cultivated; and there can be no doubt that the same\nargument may be applied to England in the fourteenth century, although\nmany swine were maintained in forests preserved for fuel. The hogs\nwandered about the country in a half-wild state, destroying, probably,\nmore than they profitably consumed; and they were badly fed, if we may\njudge from a statute of 1402, which alleges the great decrease of fish\nin the Thames and other rivers, by the practice of feeding hogs with the\nfry caught at the weirs. The hogs' flesh of England was constantly\nsalted for the winter's food. The people had little fodder for cattle in\nthe winter, and therefore they only tasted fresh meat in the summer\nseason. The mustard and vinegar seller formed a business at Colchester,\nto furnish a relish for the pork. Stocks of salted meat are mentioned in\nthe inventory of many houses there, and live hogs as commonly. But\nsalted flesh is not food to be eaten constantly, and with little\nvegetable food, without severe injury to the health. In the early part\nof the reign of Henry VIII., not a cabbage, carrot, turnip, or other\nedible root, grew in England. Two or three centuries before, certainly,\nthe monasteries had gardens with a variety of vegetables; but nearly\nall the gardens of the laity were destroyed in the wars between the\nhouses of York and Lancaster. Harrison speaks of wheaten bread as being\nchiefly used by the gentry for their own tables; and adds that the\nartificer and labourer are \"driven to content themselves with\nhorse-corn, beans, peason, oats, tares, and lentils.\" There is no doubt\nthat the average duration of human life was at that period not one-half\nas long as at the present day. The constant use of salted meat, with\nlittle or no vegetable addition, doubtless contributed to the shortening\nof life, to say nothing of the large numbers constantly swept away by\npestilence and famine. Till lemon-juice was used as a remedy for scurvy\namongst our seamen, who also are compelled to eat salted meat without\ngreen vegetables, the destruction of life in the navy was something\nincredible. Admiral Hosier buried his ships' companies twice during a\nWest India voyage in 1726, partly from the unhealthiness of the Spanish\ncoast, but chiefly from the ravages of scurvy. Bad food and want of\ncleanliness swept away the people of the middle ages, by ravages upon\ntheir health that the limited medical skill of those days could never\nresist. Matthew Paris, an historian of that period, states that there\nwere in his time twenty thousand hospitals for lepers in Europe.\n\nThe slow accumulation of capital in the early stages of the civilization\nof a country is in a great measure caused by the indisposition of the\npeople to unite for a common good in public works, and the inability of\ngovernments to carry on these works, when their principal concern is\nwar, foreign or domestic. The foundations of the civilization of this\ncountry were probably laid by our Roman conquerors, who carried roads\nthrough the island, and taught us how to cultivate our soil. Yet\nimprovement went on so slowly that, even a hundred years after the\nRomans were settled here, the whole country was described as marshy. For\ncenturies after the Romans made the Watling-street and a few other\nroads, one district was separated from another by the general want of\nthese great means of communication. Bracton, a law-writer of the period\nwe have been so constantly mentioning, holds that, if a man being at\nOxford engage to pay money the same day in London, he shall be\ndischarged of his contract, as he undertakes a physical impossibility.\nWe find, as late as the time of Elizabeth, that her Majesty would not\nstay to breakfast at Cambridge because she had to travel twelve miles\nbefore she could come to the place, Hinchinbrook, where she desired to\nsleep. Where there were no roads, there could be few or no markets. An\nact of parliament of 1272 says that the religious houses should not be\ncompelled to _sell_ their provisions--a proof that there were no\nconsiderable stores except in the religious houses. The difficulty of\nnavigation was so great, that William Longsword, son of Henry II.,\nreturning from France, was during three months tossed upon the sea\nbefore he could make a port in Cornwall. Looking, therefore, to the want\nof commerce proceeding from the want of communication--looking to the\nsmall stock of property accumulated to support labour--and looking, as\nwe have previously done, to the incessant contests between the small\ncapital and the misdirected labour, both feeble, because they worked\nwithout skill--we cannot be surprised that the poverty of which we have\nexhibited a faint picture should have endured for several centuries, and\nthat the industry of our forefathers must have had a long and painful\nstruggle before it could have bequeathed to us such magnificent\naccumulations as we now enjoy.\n\nThe writers who lived at the periods when Europe was slowly emerging\nfrom ignorance and poverty, through the first slight union of capital\nand labour as voluntary exchangers, complain of the increase of comforts\nas indications of the growing luxury and effeminacy of the people.\nHarrison says, \"In times past men were contented to dwell in houses\nbuilded of sallow, willow, plum-tree, or elm; so that the use of oak was\ndedicated to churches, religious houses, princes' palaces, noblemen's\nlodgings, and navigation. But now, these are rejected, and nothing but\noak any whit regarded. And yet see the change; for when our houses were\nbuilded of willow, then had we oaken men; but now that our houses are\nmade of oak, our men are not only become willow, but many, through\nPersian delicacy crept in among us, altogether of straw, which is a sore\nalteration. In those days, the courage of the owner was a sufficient\ndefence to keep the house in safety; but now, the assurance of the\ntimber, double doors, locks, and bolts, must defend the man from\nrobbing. Now have we many chimneys, and our tenderlings complain of\nrheums, catarrhs, and poses. Then had we none but rere-dosses, and our\nheads did never ache.\" These complaints go upon the same principle that\nmade it a merit in Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, to have had no door\nto his hovel. We think he would have been a wiser man if he had\ncontrived to have had a door. A story is told of a Highland chief, Sir\nEvan Cameron, that himself and a party of his followers being benighted,\nand compelled to sleep in the open air, when his son rolled up a ball of\nsnow and laid his head upon it for a pillow, the rough old man kicked it\naway, exclaiming, \"What, sir! are you turning effeminate?\" We doubt\nwhether Sir Evan Cameron and his men were braver than the English\nofficers who fought at Waterloo; and yet many of these marched from the\nball-room at Brussels in their holiday attire, and won the battle in\nsilk stockings. It is an old notion that plenty of the necessaries and\nconveniences of life renders a nation feeble. We are told that the\nCarthaginian soldiers whom Hannibal carried into Italy were suddenly\nrendered effeminate by the abundance which they found around them at\nCapua. The commissariat of modern nations goes upon another principle;\nand believes that unless the soldier has plenty of food and clothing he\nwill not fight with alacrity and steadiness. The half-starved soldiers\nof Henry V. won the battle of Agincourt; but it was not because they\nwere half-starved, but because they roused their native courage to cut\ntheir way out of the peril by which they were surrounded. The Russians\nof our time had a notion that the English could not fight on land,\nbecause for forty years we had been a commercial instead of a military\nnation. The battle of the Alma corrected their mistake. When we hear of\nancient nations being enervated by abundance, we may be sure that the\nabundance was almost entirely devoured by a few tyrants, and that the\nbulk of the people were rendered weak by the destitution which resulted\nfrom the unnatural distribution of riches. We read of the luxury of the\ncourt of Persia--the pomp of the seraglios, and of the palaces--the\nlights, the music, the dancing, the perfumes, the silks, the gold, and\nthe diamonds. The people are held to be effeminate. The Russians, from\nthe hardy north, can lay the Persian monarchy any day at their feet. Is\nthis national weakness caused by the excess of production amongst the\npeople, giving them so extravagant a command over the necessaries and\nluxuries of life that they have nothing to do but drink of the full cup\nof enjoyment? Mr. Fraser, an English traveller, thus describes the\nappearance of a part of the country which he visited in 1821:--\"The\nplain of Yezid-Khaust presented a truly lamentable picture of the\ngeneral decline of prosperity in Persia. Ruins of large villages thickly\nscattered about with the skeleton-like walls of caravansaries and\ngardens, all telling of better times, stood like _memento moris_\n(remembrances of death) to kingdoms and governments; and the whole plain\nwas dotted over with small mounds, which indicate the course of cannauts\n(artificial streams for watering the soil), once the source of riches\nand fertility, now all choked up and dry; for there is neither man nor\ncultivation to require their aid.\" Was it the luxury of the people which\nproduced this decay--the increase of their means of production--their\nadvancement in skill and capital; or some external cause which repressed\nproduction, and destroyed accumulation both of outward wealth and\nknowledge? \"Such is the character of their rulers,\" says Mr. Fraser,\n\"that the only measure of their demands is the power to extort on one\nhand, and the ability to give or retain on the other.\" Where such a\nsystem prevails, all accumulated labour is concealed, for it would\notherwise be plundered. It does not freely and openly work to encourage\nnew labour. Burckhardt, the traveller of Nubia, saw a farmer who had\nbeen plundered of everything by the pacha, because it came to the ears\nof the savage ruler that the unhappy man was in the habit of eating\nwheaten bread; and that, he thought, was too great a luxury for a\nsubject. If such oppressions had not long ago been put down in England,\nwe should still have been in the state of Colchester in the fourteenth\ncentury. When these iniquities prevailed, and there was neither freedom\nof industry nor security of property--when capital and labour were not\nunited--when all men consequently worked unprofitably, because they\nworked without division of labour, accumulation of knowledge, and union\nof forces--there was universal poverty, because there was feeble\nproduction. Slow and painful were the steps which capital and labour had\nto make before they could emerge, even in part, from this feeble and\ndegraded state. But that they have made a wonderful advance in five\nhundred years will not be difficult to show. It may assist us in this\nview if we compare the Colchester of the nineteenth century with the\nColchester of the fourteenth, in a few particulars.\n\nIn the reign of Edward III. Colchester numbered 359 houses of mud,\nwithout chimneys, and with latticed windows. In the reign of Queen\nVictoria, according to the census of 1851, it has 4145 inhabited houses,\ncontaining a population of 19,443 males and females. The houses of the\nbetter class, those rented at ten pounds a year and upwards, are\ncommonly built of brick, and slated or tiled; secured against wind and\nweather; with glazed windows and with chimneys; and generally well\nventilated. The worst of these houses are supplied, as fixtures, with a\ngreat number of conveniences, such as grates, and cupboards, and\nfastenings. To many of such houses gardens are attached, wherein are\nraised vegetables and fruits that kings could not command two centuries\nago. Houses such as these are composed of several rooms--not of one room\nonly, where the people are compelled to eat and sleep and perform every\noffice, perhaps in company with pigs and cattle--but of a kitchen, and\noften a parlour, and several bedrooms. These rooms are furnished with\ntables, and chairs, and beds, and cooking-utensils. There is ordinarily,\ntoo, something for ornament and something for instruction;--a piece or\ntwo of china, silver spoons, books, and not unfrequently a watch or\nclock. The useful pottery is abundant and of really elegant forms and\ncolours; drinking-vessels of glass are universal. The inhabitants are\nnot scantily supplied with clothes. The females are decently dressed,\nhaving a constant change of linen, and gowns of various patterns and\ndegrees of fineness. Some, even of the humbler classes, are not thought\nto exceed the proper appearance of their station if they wear silk. The\nmen have decent working habits, strong shoes and hats, and a respectable\nsuit for Sundays, of cloth often as good as is worn by the highest in\nthe land. Every one is clean; for no house above the few hovels which\nstill deform the country is without soap and bowls for washing, and it\nis the business of the females to take care that the linen of the family\nis constantly washed. The children, very generally, receive instruction\nin some public establishment; and when the labour of the day is over,\nthe father thinks the time unprofitably spent unless he burns a candle\nto enable him to read a book or the newspaper. The food which is\nordinarily consumed is of the best quality. Wheaten bread is no longer\nconfined to the rich; animal food is not necessarily salted, and salt\nmeat is used principally as a variety; vegetables of many sorts are\nplenteous in every market, and these by a succession of care are brought\nto higher perfection than in the countries of more genial climate from\nwhich we have imported them; the productions too of distant regions,\nsuch as spices, and coffee, and tea, and sugar, are universally consumed\nalmost by the humblest in the land. Fuel, also, of the best quality, is\nabundant and comparatively cheap.\n\nIf we look at the public conveniences of a modern English town, we shall\nfind the same striking contrast. Water is brought not only into every\nstreet, but into every house; the dust and dirt of a family is regularly\nremoved without bustle or unpleasantness; the streets are paved, and\nlighted at night; roads in the highest state of excellence connect the\ntown with the whole kingdom, and by means of railroads a man can travel\nseveral hundred miles in a few hours, and more readily than he could ten\nmiles in the old time; and canal and sea navigation transport the\nweightiest goods with the greatest facility from each district to the\nother, and from each town to the other, so that all are enabled to apply\ntheir industry to what is most profitable for each and all. Every man,\ntherefore, may satisfy his wants, according to his means, at the least\npossible expense of the transport of commodities. Every tradesman has a\nstock ready to meet the demand; and thus the stock of a very moderately\nwealthy tradesman of the Colchester of the present day is worth more\nthan all the stock of all the different trades that were carried on in\nthe same place in the fourteenth century. The condition of a town like\nColchester--a flourishing market-town in an agricultural\ndistrict--offers a fair point of comparison with a town of the time of\nEdward III.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n Certainty the stimulus to industry--Effects of\n insecurity--Instances of unprofitable labour--Former notions\n of commerce--National and class prejudices, and their\n remedy.\n\n\nTwo of the most terrific famines that are recorded in the history of the\nworld occurred in Egypt--a country where there is greater production,\nwith less labour, than is probably exhibited in any other region. The\nprincipal labourer in Egypt is the river Nile, whose periodical\noverflowings impart fertility to the thirsty soil, and produce in a few\nweeks that abundance which the labour of the husbandman might not hope\nto command if employed during the whole year. But the Nile is a workman\nthat cannot be controlled and directed, even by capital, the great\ncontroller and director of all work. The influences of heat, and light,\nand air, are pretty equal in the same places. Where the climate is most\ngenial, the cultivators have least labour to perform in winning the\nearth; where it is least genial, the cultivators have most labour. The\nincreased labour balances the small natural productiveness. But the\ninundation of a great river cannot be depended upon like the light and\nheat of the sun. For two seasons the Nile refused to rise, and labour\nwas not prepared to compensate for this refusal; the ground refused to\nproduce; the people were starved.\n\nWe mention these famines of Egypt to show that _certainty_ is the most\nencouraging stimulus to every operation of human industry. We know that\nproduction as invariably follows a right direction of labour, as day\nsucceeds to night. We believe that it will be dark to-night and light\nagain to-morrow, because we know the general laws which govern light and\ndarkness, and because our experience shows us that those laws are\nconstant and uniform. We know that if we plough, and manure, and sow the\nground, a crop will come in due time, varying indeed in quantity\naccording to the season, but still so constant upon an average of years,\nthat we are justified in applying large accumulations and considerable\nlabour to the production of this crop. It is this certainty that we have\nsuch a command of the productive powers of nature as will abundantly\ncompensate us for the incessant labour of directing those forces, which\nhas during a long course of industry heaped up our manifold\naccumulations, and which enables production annually to go forward to an\nextent which even half a century ago would have been thought impossible.\nThe long succession of labour, which has covered this country with\nwealth, has been applied to the encouragement of the productive forces\nof nature, and the restraint of the destroying. No one can doubt that,\nthe instant the labour of man ceases to direct those productive natural\nforces, the destroying forces immediately come into action. Take the\nmost familiar instance--a cottage whose neat thatch was never broken,\nwhose latticed windows were always entire, whose whitewashed walls were\never clean, round whose porch the honeysuckle was trained in regulated\nluxuriance, whose garden bore nothing but what the owner planted. Remove\nthat owner. Shut up the cottage for a year, and leave the garden to\nitself. The thatched roof is torn off by the wind and devoured by mice,\nthe windows are driven in by storms, the walls are soaked through with\ndamp and are crumbling to ruin, the honeysuckle obstructs the entrance\nwhich it once adorned, the garden is covered with weeds which years of\nafter-labour will have difficulty to destroy:--\n\n \"It was a plot\n Of garden-ground run wild, its matted weeds\n Mark'd with the steps of those whom, as they pass'd,\n The gooseberry-trees that shot in long lank slips,\n Or currants, hanging from their leafless stems\n In scanty strings, had tempted to o'erleap\n The broken wall.\"\n\nApply this principle upon a large scale. Let the productive energy of a\ncountry be suspended through some great cause which prevents its labour\ncontinuing in a profitable direction. Let it be overrun by a conqueror,\nor plundered by domestic tyranny of any kind, so that capital ceases to\nwork with security. The fields suddenly become infertile, the towns lose\ntheir inhabitants, the roads grow to be impassable, the canals are\nchoked up, the rivers break down their banks, the sea itself swallows up\nthe land. Shakspere, a great political reasoner as well as a great poet,\nhas described such effects in that part of 'Henry V.' when the Duke of\nBurgundy exhorts the rival kings to peace:--\n\n \"Let it not disgrace me,\n If I demand, before this royal view,\n What rub, or what impediment, there is,\n Why that the naked, poor, and mangled peace,\n Dear nurse of arts, plenties, and joyful births,\n Should not, in this best garden of the world,\n Our fertile France, put up her lovely visage?\n Alas! she hath from France too long been chas'd;\n And all her husbandry doth lie on heaps,\n Corrupting in its own fertility.\n Her vine, the merry cheerer of the heart,\n Unpruned, dies; her hedges even-pleach'd,\n Like prisoners wildly overgrown with hair\n Put forth disorder'd twigs: her fallow leas,\n The darnel, hemlock, and rank fumitory\n Doth root upon; while that the coulter rusts,\n That should deracinate such savagery:\n The even mead, that erst brought sweetly forth\n The freckled cowslip, burnet, and green clover,\n Wanting the scythe, all uncorrected, rank,\n Conceives by idleness; and nothing teems\n But hateful docks, rough thistles, kecksies, burs,\n Losing both beauty and utility:\n And as our vineyards, fallows, meads, and hedges,\n Defective in their natures, grow to wildness;\n Even so our houses, and ourselves and children,\n Have lost, or do not learn, for want of time,\n The sciences that should become our country.\"\n\n [Illustration: Dykes of Holland: destruction by bursting.]\n\nWe have heard it said that Tenterden steeple was the cause of Goodwin\nSands. The meaning of the saying is, that the capital which was\nappropriated to keep out the sea from that part of the Kentish coast\nwas diverted to the building of Tenterden steeple; and there being no\nfunds to keep out the sea, it washed over the land.[14] The Goodwin\nSands remain to show that man must carry on a perpetual contest to keep\nin subjection the forces of nature, which, as is said of fire, one of\nthe forces, are good servants but bad masters. But these examples show,\nalso, that in the social state our control of the physical forces of\nnature depends upon the right control of our own moral forces. There was\ninjustice, doubtless, in misappropriating the funds which restrained the\nsea from devouring the land. Till men know that they shall work with\njustice on every side, they work feebly and unprofitably. England did\nnot begin to accumulate largely and rapidly till the rights both of the\npoor man and the rich were to a certain degree established--till\nindustry was free and property secure. Our great dramatic poet has\ndescribed this security as the best characteristic of the reign of Queen\nElizabeth:--\n\n \"In her days every man shall eat in safety\n Under his own vine what he plants.\"\n\n [Illustration: \"Under his own vine\"]\n\nShakspere derived his image from the Bible, where a state of security is\nfrequently indicated by direct allusion to a man sitting under the shade\nof his own fig-tree or his own vine. In the days of Elizabeth, as\ncompared with previous eras, there was safety, and a man might\n\n \"sing\n The merry songs of peace to all his neighbours.\"\n\nWe have gone on constantly improving these blessings. But let any\ncircumstances again arise which may be powerful enough to destroy, or\neven molest, the freedom of industry and the security of property, and\nwe should work once more without certainty. The elements of prosperity\nwould not be constant and uniform. We should work with the apprehension\nthat some hurricane of tyranny, no matter from what power, would arise,\nwhich would sweep away accumulation. When that hurricane did not rise,\nwe might have comparative abundance, like the people of Egypt during the\ninundation of the Nile. We then should have an inundation of\ntranquillity. But if the tranquillity were not present--if lawless\nviolence stood in the place of justice and security--we should be like\nthe people of Egypt when the Nile did not overflow. We should suffer the\nextremity of misery; and that possible extremity would produce an\naverage misery, even if tranquillity did return, because security had\nnot returned. We should, if this state of things long abided, by degrees\ngo back to the condition of Colchester in the fourteenth century, and\nthence to the universal marsh of two thousand years ago. The place\nwhere London stands would be, as it once was, a wilderness for howling\nwolves. The few that produced would again produce laboriously and\npainfully, without skill and without division of labour, because without\naccumulation; and it would probably take another thousand years, if men\nagain saw the absolute need of security, to re-create what security has\naccumulated for our present use.\n\nFrom the moment that the industry of this country began to work with\nsecurity, and capital and labour applied themselves in union--perhaps\nnot a perfect union, but still in union--to the great business of\nproduction, they worked with less and less expenditure of unprofitable\nlabour. They continued to labour more and more profitably, as they\nlaboured with knowledge. The labour of all rude nations, and of all\nuncultivated individuals, is labour with ignorance. Peter the wild boy,\nwhom we have already mentioned, could never be made to perceive the\nright direction of labour, because he could not trace it through its\ncircuitous courses for the production of utility. He would work under\ncontrol, but, if left to himself, he would not work profitably. Having\nbeen trusted to fill a cart with manure, he laboured with diligence till\nthe work was accomplished; but no one being at hand to direct him, he\nset to work as diligently to unload the cart again. He thought, as too\nmany think even now, that the good was in the labour, and not in the\nresults of the labour. The same ignorance exhibits itself in the\nunprofitable labour and unprofitable application of capital, even of\npersons far removed beyond the half-idiocy of Peter the wild boy. In the\nthirteenth century many of the provinces of France were overrun with\nrats, and the people, instead of vigorously hunting the rats, were\npersuaded to carry on a process against them in the ecclesiastical\ncourts; and there, after the cause of the injured people and the\ninjuring rats was solemnly debated, the rats were declared cursed and\nexcommunicated if they did not retire in six days. The historian does\nnot add that the rats obeyed the injunction; and doubtless the farmers\nwere less prepared to resort to the profitable labour of chasing them to\ndeath when they had paid the ecclesiastics for the unprofitable labour\nof their excommunication. There is a curious instance of unprofitable\nlabour given in a book on the Coal Trade of Scotland, written as\nrecently as 1812. The people of Edinburgh had a passion for buying their\ncoals in immense lumps, and, to gratify this passion, the greatest care\nwas taken not to break the coals in any of the operations of conveying\nthem from the pit to the cellar of the consumer. A wall of coals was\nfirst built within the pit, another wall under the pit's mouth, another\nwall when they were raised from the pit, another wall in the waggon\nwhich conveyed them to the port where they were shipped, another wall in\nthe hold of the ship, another wall in the cart which conveyed them to\nthe consumer, and another wall in the consumer's cellar; and the result\nof these seven different buildings-up and takings-down was, that after\nthe consumer had paid thirty per cent. more for these square masses of\ncoal than for coal shovelled together in large and small pieces, his\nservant had daily to break the large coals to bits to enable him to make\nany use of them. It seems extraordinary that such waste of labour and\ncapital should have existed amongst a highly acute and refined community\nwithin the last forty years. They, perhaps, thought they were making\ngood for trade, and therefore submitted to the evil; while the Glasgow\npeople, on the contrary, by saving thirty per cent. in their coals, had\nthat thirty per cent. to bestow upon new enterprises of industry, and\nfor new encouragements to labour.\n\nThe unprofitable applications of capital and labour which the early\nhistory of the civilization of every people has to record, and which,\namongst many, have subsisted even whilst they held themselves at the\nheight of refinement, have been fostered by the ignorance of the great,\nand even of the learned, as to the causes which, advancing production or\nretarding it, advanced or retarded their own interests, and the\ninterests of all the community. Princes and statesmen, prelates and\nphilosophers, were equally ignorant of\n\n \"What makes a nation happy, and keeps it so;\n What ruins kingdoms, and lays cities flat.\"\n\nIt was enough for them to consume; they thought it beneath them to\nobserve even, much less to assist in, the direction of production. This\nwas ignorance as gross as that of Peter the wild boy, or the\nexcommunication of rats. It has always been the fashion of ignorant\ngreatness to despise the mechanical arts. The pride of the Chinese\nmandarins was to let their nails grow as long as their fingers, to show\nthat they never worked. Even European nobles once sought the same absurd\ndistinction. In France, under the old monarchy, no descendant of a\nnobleman could embark in trade without the highest disgrace; and the\nprinciple was so generally recognised as just, that a French writer,\neven as recently as 1758, reproaches the sons of the English nobility\nfor the contrary practice, and asks, with an air of triumph, how can a\nman be fit to serve his country in Parliament after having meddled with\nsuch paltry concerns as those of commerce? Montesquieu, a writer in most\nrespects of enlarged views, holds that it is beneath the dignity of\ngovernments to interfere with such trumpery things as the regulation of\nweights and measures. Society might have well spared the interference of\ngovernments with weights and measures if they had been content to leave\nall commerce equally free. But, in truth, the regulation of weights and\nmeasures is almost a solitary exception to the great principle which\ngovernments ought to practise, of not interfering, or interfering\nlittle, with commerce.\n\nLouis XIV. did not waste more capital and labour by his ruinous wars,\nand by his covering France with fortifications and palaces, than by the\nperpetual interferences of himself and his predecessors with the freedom\nof trade, which compelled capital and labour to work unprofitably. The\nnaturally slow progress of profitable industry is rendered more slow by\nthe perpetual inclination of those in authority to divert industry from\nits natural and profitable channels. It was therefore wisely said by a\ncommittee of merchants to Colbert, the prime minister of France in the\nreign of Louis XIV., when he asked them what measures government could\nadopt to promote the interests of commerce,--\"Let us alone, permit us\nquietly to manage our own business.\" It is undeniable that the interests\nof all are best promoted when each is left free to attend to his own\ninterests, under the necessary social restraints which prevent him doing\na positive injury to his neighbour. It is thus that agriculture and\nmanufactures are essentially allied in their interests; that\nunrestrained commerce is equally essential to the real and permanent\ninterests of agriculture and manufactures; that capital and labour are\nequally united in their interests, whether applied to agriculture,\nmanufactures, or commerce; that the producer and the consumer are\nequally united in their most essential interest, which is, that there\nshould be cheap production. While these principles are not understood at\nall, and while they are imperfectly understood, as they still are by\nmany classes and individuals, there must be a vast deal of unprofitable\nexpenditure of capital, a vast deal of unprofitable labour, a vast deal\nof bickering and heart-burning between individuals who ought to be\nunited, and classes who ought to be united, and nations who ought to be\nunited; and as long as it is not felt by all that their mutual rights\nare understood and will be respected, there is a feeling of insecurity\nwhich more or less affects the prosperity of all. The only remedy for\nthese evils is the extension of knowledge. Louis XV. proclaimed to the\nFrench that the English were their \"veritables ennemis,\" their true\nenemies. When knowledge is triumphant it will be found that there are no\n\"veritables ennemis,\" either among nations, or classes, or individuals.\nThe prejudices by which nations, classes, and individuals are led to\nbelieve that the interest of one is opposed to the interest of another,\nare, nine times out of ten, as utterly absurd as the reason which a\nFrenchman once gave for hating the English--which was, \"that they\npoured melted butter on their roast veal;\" and this was not more\nridiculous than the old denunciation of the English against the French,\nthat \"they ate frogs, and wore wooden shoes.\" When the world is\ndisabused of the belief that the wealth of one nation, class, or\nindividual must be created by the loss of another's wealth, then, and\nthen only, will all men steadily and harmoniously apply to produce and\nto enjoy--to acquire prosperity and happiness--lifting themselves to the\npossession of good\n\n \"By Reason's light, on Resolution's wings.\"\n\n [14] Grey's Notes to Hudibras.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\n Employment of machinery in manufactures and\n agriculture--Erroneous notions formerly prevalent on this\n subject--Its advantages to the labourer--Spade-husbandry--\n The _principle_ of machinery--Machines and tools--Change in\n the condition of England consequent on the introduction of\n machinery--Modern New Zealanders and ancient\n Greeks--Hand-mills and water-mills.\n\n\nOne of the most striking effects of the want of knowledge producing\ndisunions amongst mankind that are injurious to the interests of each\nand all, is the belief which still exists amongst many well-meaning but\nunreflecting persons, that the powers and arrangements which Capital has\ncreated and devised for the advancement of production are injurious to\nthe great body of working-men in their character of producers. The great\nforces by which capital and labour now work,--forces which are gathering\nstrength every day,--are accumulation of skill and division of\nemployments. It will be for us to show that the applications of science\nto the manufacturing arts have the effect of ensuring cheap production\nand increased employment. These applications of science are principally\ndisplayed in the use of MACHINERY; and we shall endeavour to prove that,\nalthough individual labour may be partially displaced, or unsettled for\na time, by the use of this cheaper and better power than unassisted\nmanual labour, all are great gainers by the general use of that power.\nThrough that power all principally possess, however poor they may be,\nmany of the comforts which make the difference between man in a\ncivilized and man in a savage state; and further, that, in consequence\nof machinery having rendered productions of all sorts cheaper, and\ntherefore caused them to be more universally purchased, it has really\nincreased the demand for that manual labour, which it appears to some,\nreasoning only from a few instances, it has a tendency to diminish.\n\nIn the year 1827 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to\nexamine into the subject of Emigration. The first person examined before\nthat Committee was Joseph Foster, a working weaver of Glasgow. He told\nthe Committee that he and many others, who had formed themselves into a\nsociety, were in great distress; that numbers of them worked at the\n_hand-loom_ from eighteen to nineteen hours a day, and that their\nearnings, at the utmost, did not amount to more than seven shillings\na-week, and that sometimes they were as low as four shillings. That\ntwenty years before that time they could readily earn a pound a-week by\nthe same industry; and that as _power-loom_ weaving had increased, the\ndistress of the hand-weavers also had increased in the same proportion.\nThe Committee then put to Joseph Foster the following questions, and\nreceived the following answers:--\n\n \"_Q._ Are the Committee to understand that you attribute the\n insufficiency of your remuneration for your labour to the\n introduction of machinery?\n\n \"_A._ Yes.\n\n \"_Q._ Do you consider, therefore, that the introduction of\n machinery is objectionable?\n\n \"_A._ We do not. The weavers in general, of Glasgow and its\n vicinity, do not consider that machinery can or ought to be\n stopped, or put down. They know perfectly well that machinery must\n go on, that it will go on, and that it is impossible to stop it.\n They are aware that every implement of agriculture or manufacture\n is a portion of machinery, and, indeed, everything that goes\n beyond the teeth and nails (if I may use the expression) is a\n machine. I am authorized, by the majority of our society, to say\n that I speak their minds, as well as my own, in stating this.\"\n\nIt is worthy of note how the common sense of this working-man, a quarter\nof a century ago, saw clearly the great principle which overthrows, in\nthe outset, all unreasoning hostility to machinery. Let us follow out\nhis principle.\n\nAmongst the many accounts which the newspapers in December, 1830, gave\nof the destruction of machinery by agricultural labourers, we observed\nthat in the neighbourhood of Aylesbury a band of mistaken and\nunfortunate men destroyed all the machinery of many farms, _down even to\nthe common drills_. The men conducted themselves, says the county\nnewspaper, with civility; and such was their consideration, that they\nmoved the machines out of the farm-yards, to prevent injury arising to\nthe cattle from the nails and splinters that flew about while the\nmachinery was being destroyed. They _could not make up their minds_ as\nto the propriety of destroying a horse-churn, and therefore that machine\nwas passed over.\n\nA quarter of a century has made a remarkable difference in the feelings,\neven in the least informed, with regard to machinery. The majority of\nthe people now know, as the weavers of Glasgow knew in 1827, that\n\"machinery must go on, that it will go on, and that it is impossible to\nstop it.\" We therefore, adapting this volume to the improved times in\nwhich it is now published, think it needless to urge, as fully as we\nonce did, any of the notions of the labourers of Aylesbury to their\ninevitable conclusions. It is sufficient briefly to show, that, if the\nlabourers had been successful in their career, had broken all those\ningenious implements which have aided in rendering British agriculture\nthe most perfect in the world, they would not have advanced a single\nstep in obtaining more employment, or being better paid.\n\nWe will suppose, then, that the farmer has yielded to this violence;\nthat the violence has had the effect which it was meant to have upon\nhim; and that he takes on all the hands which were out of employ, to\nthrash and winnow, to cut chaff, to plant with a dibber instead of with\na drill, to do all the work, in fact, by the dearest mode instead of the\ncheapest. But he employs _just as many people as are absolutely\nnecessary_, and no more, for getting his corn ready for market, and for\npreparing, in a slovenly way, for the seed-time. In a month or two the\nvictorious destroyers find that not a single hand the more of them is\nreally employed. And why not? There are no drainings going forward, the\nhedges and ditches are neglected, the dung-heap is not turned over, the\nchalk is not fetched from the pit; in fact, all those labours are\nneglected which belong to a state of agricultural industry which is\nbrought to perfection. _The farmer has no funds to employ in such\nlabours_; he is paying a great deal more than he paid before for the\nsame, or a less, amount of work, because his labourers choose to do\ncertain labours with rude tools instead of perfect ones.\n\nWe will imagine that this state of things continues till the next\nspring. All this while the price of grain has been rising. Many farmers\nhave ceased to employ capital at all upon the land. The neat inventions,\nwhich enabled them to make a living out of their business, being\ndestroyed, they have abandoned the business altogether. A day's work\nwill now no longer purchase as much bread as before. The horse, it might\nbe probably found out, was as great an enemy as the drill-plough; for,\nas a horse will do the field-work of six men, there must be six men\nemployed, without doubt, instead of one horse. But how would the fact\nturn out? If the farmer still went on, in spite of all these losses and\ncrosses, he might employ men in the place of horses, but not a single\nman more than the number that would work at the price of the keep of one\nhorse. To do the work of each horse turned adrift, he would require six\nmen; but he would only have about a shilling a-day to divide between\nthese six--the amount which the horse consumed.\n\nAs the year advanced, and the harvest approached, it would be discovered\nthat not one-tenth of the land was sown: for although the ploughs were\ngone, because the horses were turned off, and there was plenty of\n_labour_ for those who chose to labour for its own sake, or at the price\nof horse-labour, this amazing employment for human hands, somehow or\nother, would not quite answer the purpose. It has been calculated that\nthe power of horses, oxen, &c., employed in husbandry in Great Britain\nis ten times the amount of human power. If the human power insisted\nupon doing all the work with the worst tools, the certainty is that not\neven one-tenth of the land could be cultivated. Where, then, would all\nthis madness end? In the starvation of the labourers themselves, even if\nthey were allowed to eat up all they had produced by such imperfect\nmeans. They would be just in the condition of any other barbarous\npeople, that were ignorant of the inventions that constitute the power\nof civilization. They would eat up the little corn which they raised\nthemselves, and have nothing to give in exchange for clothes, and coals,\nand candles, and soap, and tea, and sugar, and all the many comforts\nwhich those who are even the worst off are not wholly deprived of.\n\nAll this may appear as an extreme statement; and certainly we believe\nthat no such evils could have happened: for if the laws had been\npassive, the most ignorant of the labourers themselves would, if they\nhad proceeded to carry their own principle much farther than they had\ndone, see in their very excesses the real character of the folly and\nwickedness to which it had led, and would lead them. Why should the\nlabourers of Aylesbury not have destroyed the harrows as well as the\ndrills? Why leave a machine which separates the clods of the earth, and\nbreak one which puts seed into it? Why deliberate about a horse-churn,\nwhen they were resolved against a winnowing-machine? The truth is, these\npoor men perceived, even in the midst of their excesses, the gross\ndeception of the reasons which induced them to commit them. Their motive\nwas a natural, and, if lawfully expressed, a proper impatience, under a\ncondition which had certainly many hardships, and those hardships in\ngreat part produced by the want of profitable labour. But in imputing\nthose hardships to machinery, they were at once embarrassed when they\ncame to draw distinctions between one sort of machine and another. This\nembarrassment decidedly shows that there were fearful mistakes at the\nbottom of their furious hostility to machinery.\n\nIt has been said, by persons whose opinions are worthy attention, that\nspade-husbandry is, in some cases, better than plough-husbandry;--that\nis, that the earth, under particular circumstances of soil and\nsituation, may be more fitly prepared for the influences of the\natmosphere by digging than by ploughing. It is not our business to enter\ninto a consideration of this question. The growth of corn is a\nmanufacture, in which man employs the chemical properties of the soil\nand of the air in conjunction with his own labour, aided by certain\ntools or machines, for the production of a crop; and that power, whether\nof chemistry or machinery,--whether of the salt, or the chalk, or the\ndung, or the guano, which he puts upon the earth, or the spade or the\nplough which he puts into it,--that power which does the work easiest is\nnecessarily the best, _because it diminishes the cost of production_. If\nthe plough does not do the work so well as the spade, it is a less\nperfect machine; but the less perfect machine may be preferred to the\nmore perfect, because, taking other conditions into consideration, it is\na cheaper machine. If the spade, applied in a peculiar manner by the\nstrength and judgment of the man using it, more completely turns up the\nsoil, breaks the clods, and removes the weeds than the plough, which\nreceives one uniform direction from man with the assistance of other\nanimal power, then the spade is a more perfect machine in its\ncombination with human labour than the plough is, worked with a lesser\ndegree of the same combination. But still it may be a machine which\ncannot be used with advantage to the producer, and is therefore not\ndesirable for the consumer. All such questions must be determined by the\ncost of production; and that cost in agriculture is made up of the rent\nof land, the profit of capital, and the wages of labour--or the portions\nof the produce belonging to the landlord, the farmer, and the labourer.\nWhere rent is high, as in the immediate neighbourhood of large towns, it\nis important to have the labour performed as carefully as possible, and\nthe succession of crops stimulated to the utmost extent by manure and\nlabour. It is economy to turn the soil to the greatest account, and the\nland is cultivated as a garden. Where rent is low, it is important to\nhave the labour performed upon other principles, because one acre\ncultivated by hand may cost more than two cultivated by the plough; and\nthough it may be the truest policy to carry the productiveness of the\nearth as far as possible, field cultivation and garden cultivation must\nhave essential differences. In one case, the machine called a spade is\nused; in the other, the machine called a plough is employed. The use of\nthe one or the other belongs to practical agriculture, and is a question\nonly of relative cost.\n\n [Illustration: Centre of gravity]\n\nAnd this brings us to the great _principle_ of all machinery. A tool of\nthe simplest construction is a machine; a machine of the most curious\nconstruction is only a complicated tool. There are many cases in the\narts, and there may be cases in agriculture, in which the human arm and\nhand, with or without a tool, may do work that no machine can so well\nperform. There are processes in polishing, and there is a process in\ncopper-plate printing, in which no substance has been found to stand in\nthe place of the human hand. And, if therefore the man with a spade\nalone does a certain agricultural work more completely than a man\nguiding a plough, and a team of horses dragging it (which we do not\naffirm or deny), the only reason for this is, that the man with the\nspade is a better machine than the man with the plough and the horses.\nThe most stupid man that ever existed is, beyond all comparison, a\nmachine more cunningly made by the hands of his Creator, more perfect in\nall his several parts, and with all his parts more exquisitely adapted\nto the regulated movement of the whole body, less liable to accidents,\nand less injured by wear and tear, than the most beautiful machine that\never was, or ever will be, invented. There is no possibility of\nsupplying in many cases a substitute for the simplest movements of a\nman's body, by the most complicated movements of the most ingenious\nmachinery. The laws of mechanism are the same whether applied to a man,\nor to a lever, or a wheel; but the man has more pliability than any\ncombination of wheels and levers. \"When a porter carries a burden, the\nattitude of the body must accommodate itself to the position of the\ncommon centre of gravity of himself and his load. Thus, in the\naccompanying figures it will be observed that when the man stands\nupright the centre of gravity of the man G falls within the base of\nsupport; and if his load L falls without the base, as does likewise _g_,\nthe common centre of gravity of the man and load, the consequence would\nbe that he would fall backwards; but this is prevented, or, which is the\nsame thing, the point _g_ is brought within the base by the man bending\nhis body forward.\"[15] What is called the lay figure of the painter--a\nwooden image with many joints--may be bent here and there; but the\nartist who wanted to draw a porter with a load could not put a\nhundredweight upon the back of his image and keep it upon its legs. The\nnatural machinery by which a man even lifts his hand to his head is at\nonce so complex and so simple, so apparently easy and yet so entirely\ndependent upon the right adjustment of a great many contrary forces,\nthat no automaton, or machine imitating the actions of man, could ever\nbe made to effect this seemingly simple motion, without showing that the\ncontrivance was imperfect,--that it was a mere imitation, and a very\nclumsy one. What an easy thing it appears to be for a farming man to\nthrash his corn with a flail; and yet what an expensive arrangement of\nwheels is necessary to produce the same effects with a thrashing-machine!\nThe truth is, that the man's arm and the flail form a much more curious\nmachine than the other machine of wheels, which does the same work; and\nthe real question as regards the value of the two machines is, which\nmachine in the greater degree lessens the cost of production?\n\nWe state this principle broadly, in our examination into the value of\nmachinery in diminishing the cost of producing human food. A machine is\nnot perfect because it is made of wheels or cylinders, employs the power\nof the screw or the lever, is driven by wind or water or steam, but\nbecause it best assists the labour of man, by calling into action some\npower which he does not possess in himself. If we could imagine a man\nentirely dispossessed of this power, we should see the feeblest of\nanimal beings. He has no tools which are a part of himself, to build\nhouses like the beaver, or cells like the bee. He has not even learnt\nfrom nature to build, instinctively, by certain and unchangeable rules.\nHis power is in his mind; and that mind teaches him to subject all the\nphysical world to his dominion, by availing himself of the forces which\nnature has spread around him. To act upon material objects he arms his\nweakness with tools and with machines. As we have before said, tools and\nmachines are in principle the same. When we strike a nail upon the head\nwith a hammer, we avail ourselves of a power which we find in\nnature--the effect produced by the concussion of two bodies; when we\nemploy a water-wheel to beat out a lump of iron with a much larger\nhammer, we still avail ourselves of the same power. There is no\ndifference in the nature of the instruments, although we call the one a\ntool, and the other a machine. Neither the tool nor the machine has any\nforce of itself. In one case the force is in the arm, in the other in\nthe weight of water which turns the wheel. The distinctions which have\nbeen taken between a tool and a machine are really so trivial, and the\nline of separation between the one and the other is so slight, that we\ncan only speak of both as common instruments for adding to the\nefficiency of labour. The simplest application of a principle of\nmechanics to an every-day hand-tool may convert it into what is called a\nmachine. Take a three-pronged fork--one of the universal tools;--fasten\na rope to the end of the handle; put a log under the fork as a fulcrum;\nand we have a lever, when pulled down by the rope, which will grub up a\nstrongly-rooted large shrub in a few minutes. The labourer has called in\na powerful ally. The tool has become a machine.\n\n [Illustration: A tool made a machine]\n\nThe chief difference between man in a rude, and man in a civilized state\nof society is, that the one wastes his force, whether natural or\nacquired,--the other economizes, that is, saves it. The man in a rude\nstate has very rude instruments; he therefore wastes his force: the man\nin a civilized state has very perfect ones; he therefore economizes it.\nShould we not laugh at the gardener who went to hoe his potatoes with a\nstick having a short crook at the end? It would be a tool, we should\nsay, fit only for children to use. Yet such a tool was doubtless\nemployed by some very ancient nations; for there is an old medal of\nSyracuse which represents this very tool. The common hoe of the English\ngardener is a much more perfect tool, because it saves labour. Could we\nhave any doubt of the madness of the man who would propose that all iron\nhoes should be abolished, to furnish more extensive employ to labourers\nwho should be provided only with a crooked stick cut out of a hedge? The\ntruth is, if the working men of England had no better tools than crooked\nsticks, they would be in a state of actual starvation. One of the chiefs\nof New Zealand, before that country had been colonized by us, told Mr.\nMarsden, a missionary, that his wooden spades were all broken, and he\nhad not an axe to make any more;--his canoes were all broken, and he had\nnot a nail or a gimlet to mend them with;--his potato-grounds were\nuncultivated, and he had not a hoe to break them up with;--and that _for\nwant of cultivation_ he and his people would have nothing to eat. This\nshows the state of a people without tools. The man had seen English\ntools, and knew their value.\n\nAbout three or four hundred years ago, from the times of king Henry IV.\nto those of king Henry VI., and, indeed, long before these reigns, there\nwere often, as we have already mentioned, grievous famines in this\ncountry, because the land was very wretchedly cultivated. Men, women,\nand children perished of actual hunger by thousands; and those who\nsurvived kept themselves alive by eating the bark of trees, acorns, and\npig-nuts. There were no machines then; but the condition of the\nlabourers was so bad, that they could not be kept to work upon the land\nwithout those very severe and tyrannical laws noticed in Chap. VII.,\nwhich absolutely forbade them to leave the station in which they were\nborn as labourers, for any hope of bettering their condition in the\ntowns. There were not labourers enough to till the ground, for they\nworked without any skill, with weak ploughs and awkward hoes. They were\njust as badly off as some of the people of Portugal and Spain, who are\nmiserably poor, _because_ they have bad machines; or as the Chinese\nlabourers, who have scarcely any machines, and are the poorest in the\nworld. There was plenty of labour to be performed, but the tools were so\nbad, and the want of agricultural knowledge so universal, that the land\nwas never half cultivated, and therefore all classes were poorly off.\nThey had little corn to exchange for manufactures, and in consequence\nthe labourer was badly clothed, badly lodged, and had a very indifferent\nshare of the scanty crop which he raised. The condition of the labourer\nwould have proceeded from bad to worse, had agricultural improvement not\ngone forward to improve the general condition of all classes. Commons\nwere enclosed; arable land was laid down to pasture; sheep were kept\nupon grass-land where wretched crops had before been growing. This was\nsuperseding labour to a great extent, and much clamour was raised about\nthis plan, and probably a large amount of real distress was produced.\nBut mark the consequence. Although the money wages of labour were\nlowered, because there were more labourers in the market, the real\namount of wages was higher, for better food was created by pasturage at\na cheaper rate. The labourer then got meat who had never tasted it\nbefore; and when the use of animal food became general, there were\ncattle and corn enough to be exchanged for manufactured goods, and the\nlabourer got a coat and a pair of shoes, who had formerly gone half\nnaked. Step by step have we been going in the same direction for two\ncenturies; and the agricultural industry of Great Britain is now as much\ndirected to the production of meat, milk, butter, cheese, as to the\ngrowth of corn and other cereals. The once simple husbandry of our\nforefathers has become a scientific manufacture.\n\n [Illustration: Spinning.]\n\nThere may be some persons still who object to machinery, because, having\ngrown up surrounded with the benefits it has conferred upon them,\nwithout understanding the source of these benefits, they are something\nlike the child who sees nothing but evil in a rainy day. The people of\nNew Zealand very rarely came to us; but when they did come they were\nacute enough to perceive the advantages which machinery has conferred\nupon us, and the great distance in point of comfort between their state\nand ours, principally for the reason that they have no machinery, while\nwe have a great deal. One of these men burst into tears when he saw a\nrope-walk; because he perceived the immense superiority which the\nprocess of spinning ropes gave us over his own countrymen. He was\ningenious enough, and so were many of his fellow islanders, to have\ntwisted threads together after a rude fashion; but he knew that he was a\nlong way off from making a rope. The New Zealander saw the spinner in\nthe rope-walk, moving away from a wheel, and gradually forming the hemp\nround his body into a strong cord. By the operation of the wheel he is\nenabled so to twine together a number of separate fibres, that no one\nfibre can be separated from the mass, but forms part of a hard and\ncompact body. A series of these operations produces a cable, such as may\nhold a barge at anchor. The twisted fibres of hemp become yarn; many\nyarns become a strand; three strands make a rope; and three ropes make a\ncablet, or small cable. By carefully untwisting all its separate parts,\nthe principle upon which it is constructed is evident. The operation\nis a complex one; and the rope-maker is a skilled workman. Rope-making\nmachinery is now carried much farther. But the wheel that twisted the\nhemp into yarn was a prodigy to the inquiring savage.\n\n [Illustration: Making Ropes by Huddart's Machinery.]\n\n [Illustration: Analysis of a Cablet.]\n\nAnother of these New Zealanders, and he was a very shrewd and\nintelligent person, carried back to his country a small hand-mill for\ngrinding corn, which he prized as the greatest of all earthly\npossessions. And well might he prize it! He had no machine for\nconverting corn into meal, but two stones, such as were used in the\nremote parts of the highlands of Scotland some years ago. And to beat\nthe grain into meal by these two stones (a machine, remember, however\nimperfect) would occupy the labour of one-fourth of his family, to\nprocure subsistence for the other three-fourths. The ancient Greeks,\nthree thousand years ago, had improved upon the machinery of the\nhand-stones, for they had hand-mills. But Homer, the old Greek poet,\ndescribes the unhappy condition of the slave who was always employed in\nusing this mill. The groans of the slave were unheeded by those who\nconsumed the produce of his labour; and such was the necessity for meal,\nthat the women were compelled to turn these mills when there were not\nslaves enough taken in war to perform this irksome office. There was\nplenty of labour then to be performed, even with the machinery of the\nhand-mill; but the slaves and the women did not consider that labour was\na good in itself, and therefore they bitterly groaned under it. By and\nbye the understandings of men found out that water and wind would do the\nsame work that the slaves and the women had done; and that a large\nquantity of labour was at liberty to be employed for other purposes.\nDoes any one ask if society was in a worse state in consequence? We\nanswer, labour is worth nothing without results. Its value is only to be\nmeasured by what it produces. If, in a country where hand-mills could be\nhad, the people were to go on beating grain between two stones, all\nwould pronounce them fools, because they could obtain an equal quantity\nof meal with a much less expenditure of labour. Some have a general\nprejudice against that sort of machinery which does its work with very\nlittle human assistance; it is not quite so certain, therefore, that\nthey would agree that a people would be equal fools to use the hand-mill\nwhen they could employ the wind-mill or the water-mill. But we believe\nthey would think that, if flour could drop from heaven, or be had like\nwater by whoever chose to seek it, it would be the height of folly to\nhave stones, or hand-mills, or water-mills, or wind-mills, or any\nmachine whatever for manufacturing flour. Does any one ever think of\n_manufacturing_ water? The cost of water is only the cost of the labour\nwhich brings it to the place in which it is consumed. Yet this admission\noverturns all objections against machinery. _We admit that it is\ndesirable to obtain a thing with no labour at all; can we therefore\ndoubt that it is desirable to obtain it with the least possible labour?_\nThe only difference between no labour and a little labour is the\ndifference of the cost of production. And the only difference between\nlittle labour and much labour is precisely the same. In procuring\nanything that administers to his necessities, man makes an exchange of\nhis labour for the thing produced, and the less he gives of his labour\nthe better of course is his bargain.\n\nTo return to the hand-mill and the water-mill. An ordinary water-mill\nfor grinding corn will grind about thirty-six sacks a day. To do the\nsame work with a hand-mill would require 150 men. At two shillings a day\nthe wages of these men would amount to 15_l._, which, reckoning six\nworking days, is 90_l._ a week, or 4680_l._ a year. The rent and taxes\nof a mill would be about 150_l._ a year, or 10_s._ a working day. The\ncost of machinery would be certainly more for the hand-mills than the\nwater-mill, therefore we will not take the cost of machinery into\ncalculation. To produce, therefore, thirty-six sacks of flour by hand we\nshould pay 15_l._; by the water-mill we should pay 10_s._: that is, we\nshould pay thirty times as much by the one process as by the other. The\nactual saving is something about the price of the flour in the market;\nthat is, the consumer, if the corn were ground by hand, would pay double\nwhat he pays now for flour ground at a mill.\n\nBut if the system of grinding corn by hand were a very recent system of\nsociety, and the introduction of so great a benefit as the water-mill\nhad all at once displaced the hand-grinders, as the spinning machinery\ndisplaced the spinning-wheel, what must become, it is said, of the one\nhundred and fifty men who earned the 15_l._ a-day, of which sum the\nconsumer has now got 14_l._ 10_s._ in his pocket? They must go to other\nwork. And what is to set them to that work? The same 14_l._ 10_s._;\nwhich, being saved in the price of flour, gives the poor man, as well as\nthe rich man, more animal food and fuel; a greater quantity of clothes,\nand of a better quality; a better house than his hand-labouring\nancestors used to have, much as his house might yet be improved; better\nfurniture, and more of it; domestic utensils; and books. To produce\nthese things there must be more labourers employed than before. The\nquantity of labour is, therefore, not diminished, while its\nproductiveness is much increased. It is as if every man among us had\nbecome suddenly much stronger and more industrious. The machines labour\nfor us, and are yet satisfied without either food or clothing. They\nincrease all our comforts, and they consume none themselves. The\nhand-mills are not grinding, it is true: but the ships are sailing that\nbring us foreign produce; the looms are moving that give us more\nclothes; the potter, and glass-maker, and joiner, are each employed to\nadd to our household goods; we are each of us elevated in the scale of\nsociety; and all these things happen because machinery has diminished\nthe cost of production.\n\n [Illustration: Mill at Guy's Cliff.]\n\nThe water-mill is, however, a simple machine compared with some mills of\nmodern times. We are familiar with the village-mill. As we walk by the\nside of some gentle stream, such as that which turns the mill at Guy's\nCliff, in Warwickshire, we hear at a distance the murmur of water and\nthe growl of wheels. We come upon the old mill, such as it has stood for\na couple of centuries. No peasant quarrels with the mill. It is an\nobject almost of his love; for he knows that it cheapens his food. It\nseems a part of the natural scenery amidst which he has been reared.\n\nBut let a more efficient machine for grinding corn be introduced, such\nas the Americans have at Pittsburgh, and the peasant might think that\nthe working millers would be ruined. And yet the mill at Pittsburgh is\nmaking flour cheaper in England, by that competition which here forces\nonward improvement in mill-machinery; and by increasing the consumption\nof flour calls into action more superintending labour for its\nproduction. That particular American mill produces 500 barrels of flour\nper day, each containing 196 lbs., and it employs forty managing persons.\nIt produces cheap flour by saving labour in all its processes. It stands\non the bank of a navigable river--a high building into which the corn\nfor grinding must be removed from boats alongside. Is the grain\nnecessary to produce these 500 barrels of flour per day, amounting to\n98,000 lbs., carried by man's labour to the topmost floor of that high\nmill? It is \"raised by an elevator consisting of an endless band, to\nwhich are fixed a series of metal cans revolving in a long wooden\ntrough, which is lowered through the respective hatchways into the boat,\nand is connected at its upper end with the building where its belt is\ndriven. The lower end of the trough is open, and, as the endless band\nrevolves, six or eight men shovel the grain into the ascending cans,\nwhich raise it so rapidly that 4000 bushels can be lifted and deposited\nin the mill in an hour.\"[16] The drudging and unskilled labourers who\nwould have toiled in carrying up the grain are free to do some skilled\nlabour, of which the amount required is constantly increasing; and the\ncost saved by the elevator goes towards the great universal fund, out of\nwhich more labour and better labour are to find the means of employment.\n\n [15] See an article by Mr. Bishop, on 'Locomotion of Animals,' in\n 'English Cyclopaedia.'\n\n [16] Whitworth's Special Report.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\n Present and former condition of the country--Progress of\n cultivation--Evil influence of feudalism--State of\n agriculture in the sixteenth century--Modern\n improvements--Prices of wheat--Increased breadth of land\n under cultivation--Average consumption of wheat--Implements\n of agriculture now in use--Number of agriculturists in Great\n Britain.\n\n\nIt is the remark of foreigners, as they travel from the sea-coast to\nLondon, that the country is a garden. It has taken nineteen centuries to\nmake it such a garden. The marshes in which the legions of Julius Caesar\nhad to fight, up to their loins, with the Britons, to whom these swamps\nwere habitual, are now drained. The dense woods in which the Druids\nworshipped are now cleared. Populous towns and cheerful villages offer\nthemselves on every side. Wherever the eye reaches there is cultivation.\nInstead of a few scattered families painfully earning a subsistence by\nthe chace, or by tilling the land without the knowledge and the\ninstruments that science has given to the aid of manual labour,--that\ncultivation is carried on with a systematic routine that improves the\nfertility of a good season, and diminishes the evils of a bad. Instead\nof the country being divided amongst hostile tribes, who have little\ncommunication, the whole territory is covered with a network of roads,\nand canals, and navigable rivers, and railroads, through which means\nthere is an universal market, and wherever there is demand there is\ninstant supply. Rightly considered, there is no branch of production\nwhich has so largely benefited by the power of knowledge as that of\nagriculture. It was ages before the great physical changes were\naccomplished which we now behold on every side; and we are still in a\nstate of progress towards the perfection of those results which an\nover-ruling Providence had in store for the human race, in the gradual\nmanifestation of those discoveries which have already so changed our\ncondition and the condition of the world.\n\nThe history of cultivation in Great Britain is full of instruction as\nregards the inefficiency of mere traditional practice and the slowness\nwith which scientific improvement establishes its dominion. It is no\npart of our plan to follow out this history; but a few scattered facts\nmay not be without their value.\n\n [Illustration: 1. The plough. 2. The pole. 3. The share (various). 4.\n The handle, or plough-tail. 5. Yokes.]\n\nThe oppressions of tenants that were perpetrated under the feudal\nsystem, when ignorant lords of manors impeded production by every\nspecies of extortion, may be estimated by one or two circumstances.\nThere can be no doubt that the prosperity of a tenant is the best\nsecurity for the landlord's due share of the produce of the land.\nWithout manure, in some form or other, the land cannot be fertilized:\nthe landlords knew this, but they required to have a monopoly of the\nfertility. Their tenants kept a few sheep, but the landlords reserved to\nthemselves the exclusive privilege of having a sheepfold; so that the\nlittle tenants could not fold their own sheep on their own lands, but\nwere obliged to let them be folded with those of their lord, or pay a\nfine.[17] The flour-mill was the exclusive property of the manorial\nlord, whether lay or ecclesiastical; and whatever the distance, or\nhowever bad the road, the tenant could grind nowhere but at the lord's\nmill. No doubt the rent of land was exceedingly low, and the lord was\nobliged to maintain himself and his dependents by adding something\nconsiderable to his means by many forms of legalized extortion. The rent\nof land was so low because the produce was inconsiderable, to an extent\nwhich will be scarcely comprehended by modern husbandmen. In the\nlaw-commentary called 'Fleta,' written about the end of the thirteenth\ncentury, the author says the farmer will be a loser unless corn be dear,\nif he obtains from an acre of wheat only three times the seed sown. He\ncalculated the low produce at six bushels an acre: the average produce\nwas perhaps little higher; we have distinct records of its being no\nhigher a century afterwards. In 1390, at Hawsted, near Bury, the produce\nof the manor-farm was forty-two quarters of wheat, or three hundred and\nthirty-six bushels, from fifty-seven acres; and upon an average of three\nyears sixty-one acres produced only seventy quarters, or five hundred\nand sixty bushels. Sir John Cullum, who collected these details from the\nrecords of his own property, says, \"no particular dearness of corn\nfollowed, so that, probably, those very scanty crops were the usual and\nordinary effects of the imperfect husbandry then practised.\" The\nhusbandry was so imperfect that an unfavourable season for corn-crops,\nwhich in our days would have been compensated by a greater production of\ngreen crops, was followed by famine. When the ground was too hard, the\nseed could not be sown for want of the sufficient machine-power of\nplough and harrow. The chief instrument used was as weak and imperfect\nas the plough which we see depicted in Egyptian monuments, and which is\nstill found in parts of Syria. The Oriental ploughman was with such an\ninstrument obliged to bend over his plough, and load it with all the\nweight of his body, to prevent it merely scratching the ground instead\nof turning it up. His labour was great and his care incessant, as we may\njudge from the words of our Saviour,--\"No man having put his hand to the\nplough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.\" Latimer, the\nProtestant martyr, in his 'Sermon of the Plough,' in which he holds that\n\"preaching of the Gospel is one of God's plough-works, and the preacher\nis one of God's ploughmen,\" describes the labour upon which he raises\nhis parallel: \"For as the ploughman first setteth forth his plough, and\nthen tilleth his land and breaketh it in furrows, and sometimes ridgeth\nit up again; and at another time harroweth it and clotteth it, and\nsometimes dungeth it and hedgeth it, diggeth it and weedeth it, purgeth\nit and maketh it clean,--so the prelate, the preacher, hath many divers\noffices to do.\" Latimer was the son of a Liecestershire farmer, and knew\npractically what he was talking about. He knew that the land would not\nbear an adequate crop without all this various and often-repeated\nlabour. And yet the labour was so inadequately performed, that a few\nyears after he had preached this famous sermon, we are told by a\ncredible writer of the times of Queen Mary--William Bulleyn, a physician\nand botanist--that in 1555 \"bread was so scant, insomuch that the plain\npoor people did make very much of acorns.\" A few years onward a great\nimpulse was given to husbandry through various causes, amongst which the\nincreased abundance of the precious metals through the opening of the\nmines of South America had no inconsiderable influence. The industrious\nspirit of England was fairly roused from a long sleep in the days of\nQueen Elizabeth. Harrison, in his 'Description of Britain,' says, \"The\nsoil is even now in these our days grown to be much more fruitful than\nit hath been in times past.\" This historian of manners saw the reason.\n\"In times past\" there was \"idle and negligent occupation;\" but when he\nwrote (1593) \"our countrymen are grown to be more painful, skilful, and\ncareful, through recompense of gain.\" The cultivators had their share of\nthe benefits of cultivation; they had their \"recompense of gain.\"\nCapital had been spread amongst the class of tenants: they were no\nlonger miserable dependents upon their grasping lords. For a century or\nso onward the improvements in agriculture were not very decided. The\nrotation of crops was unknown; and winter food for sheep and cattle not\nbeing raised, the greater number were slaughtered and salted at\nMartinmas. The fleeces were wretchedly small, for the few sheep nibbled\nthe stubbles and commons bare till the spring-time. The carcases of beef\nwere not half their present size. At the beginning of the last century\nthe turnip cultivation was introduced, and in the middle of the century\nthe horse-hoeing husbandry came into use. Our agricultural revolution\nwas fairly begun a hundred years ago; and yet for many years the value\nof manure was very imperfectly understood, and even up to our own time\nit has been wasted in every direction. There is given in Sir John\nCullum's book an abstract of the lease of a farm in 1753. The tenant was\nto be allowed two shillings for every load of manure that he brought\nfrom Bury, about four miles distant. During twenty-one years the\nlandlord was charged with only one load. At that period all agriculture\nwas in a great degree traditional. There were no agricultural\nsocieties--no special journals for this great branch of national\nindustry. Arthur Young applied his shrewd and observing talent to the\ndissemination of farming knowledge; but the agricultural mind, with very\nfew exceptions, rejected book-knowledge as vain and impertinent.\nChemistry applied to the soil was as unknown to the cultivator as the\nperturbations of the planets. Geology was an affair of conjecture, and\nhad assumed no form of utility. Meteorology entered into no farmer's\nmode of estimating the comparative value of one site and another. Sir\nJohn Cullum made a most curious and instructive estimate of the science\nof the Suffolk farmers in 1784, when he wrote,--\"The farm-houses are in\ngeneral well furnished with every convenient accommodation. Into many of\nthem a _barometer_ has of late years been introduced--a most useful\ninstrument for the husbandman, and which is mentioned here as _a\nstriking instance of the intelligence of this period_.\"\n\nThe wars of the French Revolution, and the high prices consequent upon\nthe almost utter absence of foreign supplies, gave a stimulus to\nagriculture, which principally displayed itself in the effort to bring\nwaste lands into cultivation. From 1790 to 1819, a period of thirty\nyears, there were two thousand one hundred and sixty-nine Inclosure\nBills passed by Parliament. In the first ten years of this period the\naverage price of wheat had increased ten shillings above the average of\nthe ten years from 1780 to 1789. In the second ten years it had\nincreased thirty-six shillings above that average. In the third ten\nyears it was very nearly double, being 88_s._ 8_d._ from 1810 to 1819,\nand 45_s._ 9_d._ from 1780 to 1789. A portion of these prices, however,\nmust be attributed to a depreciated currency. During that period of\nthirty years, very few of the great scientific improvements which have\ncheapened production had been introduced, although better modes of\ncultivation unquestionably prevailed. During the twenty years from 1820\nto 1839 there were only three hundred and thirty-one Inclosure Bills\npassed; and the price of wheat had fallen to about the average of the\nten years from 1790 to 1799, and it continued at that average for\nanother ten years. In the ten years from 1840 to 1849, we cannot gather\nthe amount of land brought into new cultivation from the number of\nInclosure Bills, as there was a General Inclosure Act passed in 1835, to\nprevent the expense of particular bills for small tracts of land. But it\nhas been calculated that, while more than three million acres were\nbrought into cultivation in the twenty years from 1800 to 1819, about\none million acres only were inclosed in the thirty years from 1820 to\n1849.[18] If we look then, as we shall briefly do, at the wonderfully\nincreased production of Great Britain, we shall be naturally led to the\nconclusion that some cause, much more efficient than the inclosure of\nwaste lands, has given us the means of feeding a population which has\ndoubled since the beginning of the century. This production is the\nresult of the whole course of improvement effected by science, and\nstimulated by capital. The Bedford Level was drained by our ancestors.\nThe fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire have been drained\neffectually in our time. That luxuriant flat now rejoices in waving\ncorn-crops over many a mile. A few years ago it was a land of stagnant\nditches; where little wind-mills, that looked to the solitary traveller\nthrough that cold district like the toys of children, lifted the water\nout of the trenches, and left an isolated acre or two of dry earth for\nman to toil in. Now mighty steam-pumps carry the water into artificial\nrivers, and the whole region is unrivalled for fertility.\n\nIt is estimated by some statists that the average consumption of wheat\nfor each individual of the population is eight bushels. Others estimate\nthat consumption at six bushels. It will be sufficient for a broad view\nof the increase of production, as compared with the increase of\npopulation, to take the consumption at eight bushels, or a quarter of\nwheat per head. In the ten years from 1801 to 1810, deducting an annual\naverage of 600,000 quarters of foreign wheat and flour imported, the\npopulation in 1811 being 11,769,725, the number fed by wheat of home\ngrowth was somewhat above eleven millions. In the ten years from 1841 to\n1850, deducting an annual average of 3,000,000 quarters of foreign wheat\nand flour, the population in 1851 being 21,121,967, the number fed by\nwheat of home growth was somewhat above eighteen millions. The\nproductive power of the country had increased, in the course of fifty\nyears, to the enormous extent of giving subsistence, in one article of\nagricultural produce alone, to seven millions of people. The population\nin 1751 was estimated at little more than seven millions. It has trebled\nin a century; and we may be perfectly sure that the production of the\nland has far more than trebled in that period. The probability is that\nit has quadrupled; for there is no doubt that the great bulk of the\npeople are better fed than in 1751, when rye-bread was the common\nsustenance of the great body of labourers throughout the country.\n\nLet us endeavour to take a rapid view of the implements of agriculture\nin common use at the present time--implements which have been described\nas \"intended not to bring about new conditions of soil, nor to yield\nnew products of any kind, but to do with more certainty and cheapness\nwhat had been done hitherto by employing the rude implements of former\ncenturies.\" Such are the words of Mr. Pusey's admirable Report on the\nAgricultural Implements in the 'Exhibition of the Works of Industry of\nall Nations.' We cannot do better than furnish a few slight notices of\nthe leading subjects of this report.\n\nThe plough and the harrow were the sole instruments of tillage at the\nbeginning of this century. Bloomfield, in his 'Farmer's Boy,' describes\nthem:--\n\n \"The ploughs move heavily, and strong the soil,\n And clogging harrows with augmented toil\n Dive deep.\"\n\nThe old plough used to be drawn with four horses; and they were needed.\nIt was a cumbrous instrument, \"adapted to the clay soils when those\nsoils were the chief source of corn to the country, and had been handed\ndown from father to son, after the heavy lands had been widely laid down\nto grazing-ground, and the former downs had become our principal arable\nland.\" The modern plough is an implement constructed on mathematical\nprinciples, which, by its mould-board, \"raising each slice of earth\n(furrow-slice) from its flat position, through an upright one, lays it\nover half inclined on the preceding slice.\" The perfect instrument\nproduces the skilled labourer. A good ploughman will set up a pole a\nquarter of a mile distant, and trace a furrow so true up to that goal\nthat no eye can detect any divergence from absolute straightness. Mr.\nPusey justly says that this is a triumph of art.\n\nWith an agriculture that permits no waste, much of the picturesque has\nfled from our fields. Bloomfield describes the repose of the ploughman\nafter he has driven his team to the boundary of his furrow:--\n\n \"Welcome green headland! firm beneath his feet;\n Welcome the friendly bank's refreshing seat;\n There, warm with toil, his panting horses browse\n Their sheltering canopy of pendent boughs.\"\n\nGone is the green headland; gone the cowslip bank; gone the pendent\nboughs. The furrow runs up to the extremest point of a vast field\nwithout hedges. Gone, too, are the green slips between the lands of\ncommon fields. Their very names of \"balk\" and \"feather\" are obsolete.\nThese adornments of the landscape are inconsistent with the demands of a\npopulation that doubles itself in half a century. The labourer has small\nrest, and the soil has less. Under the old husbandry, before the culture\nof the green crops, one-third of the arable land was always idle. Two\nyears of grain-crop, and one year of fallow, was the invariable rule.\nLook how the land is worked now. The plough and the harrow turn up and\npulverize the soil, but they do it much more effectually than of old.\nThe roller is a noble iron instrument, instead of an old pollard. Modern\ningenuity has added the clod-crusher. But something was still wanting\nfor the better preparation of land for seed--this is the scarifier or\ncultivator; which, according to Mr. Pusey, will save one half of the\nhorse-labour employed upon the plough. Into the details of this saving\nit is no part of our purpose to enter.[19] We give a cut of the\nimplement, covering as much ground in width as 8-1/2 ploughs.\n\n [Illustration: Clod-crusher.]\n\n [Illustration: Scarifier.]\n\nWe proceed to \"Instruments used in the Cultivation of Crops.\" Mr. Pusey\ntells us that \"the sower with his seed-lip has almost vanished from\nsouthern England, driven out by a complicated machine, the drill,\ndepositing the seed in rows, and drawn by several horses.\" We miss the\nsower; and the next generation may require a commentary upon the many\nreligious and moral images that arose out of his primitive occupation.\nWhen James Montgomery says of the seed of knowledge, \"broadcast it o'er\nthe land,\" some may one day ask what \"broadcast\" means. But the drill\ndoes not only sow the seed; it deposits artificial manures for the\nreception of the seed. The bones that were thrown upon the dunghill are\nnow crushed. The mountains of fertilizing matter that have been\naccumulated through ages on islands of the Pacific, from the deposits of\nbirds resting in their flight upon rocks of that ocean, and which we\ncall guano, now form a great article of commerce. Superphosphate,\nprepared from bones, or from the animal remains of geological ages, is\nanother of the precious dusts which the drill economizes. There are even\ndrills for dropping water combined with superphosphate. \"Such,\" says Mr.\nPusey, \"is the elastic yet accurate pliability with which, in\nagriculture, mechanism has seconded chemistry.\" The system of\nhorse-hoeing, which is the great principle of modern husbandry, entirely\ndepends upon the use of the drill. The horse-hoe cannot be worked unless\nthe plants are in rows. Such a hoe as this will clean at once nine rows\nof wheat, six of beans, and four of turnips. To manage such an\ninstrument requires \"a steady and cool hand.\" The skilled labourer is as\nessential as the beautiful machine.\n\n [Illustration: Horse-hoe.]\n\nOf instruments for gathering the harvest, the most important are\nreaping-machines. In the United States they are sold to a great extent.\nMr. M'Cormick, who completed his invention in 1845, states that the\ndemand reaches to a thousand annually. Mr. Pusey says of this machine\nthat, \"in bad districts and late seasons, it may often enable the farmer\nto save the crop.\" In Scotland and the north of England Mr. Bell's\nreaping-machine is coming into extensive use. The Americans have also\ntheir mowing-machines, drawn by two horses, which mow, upon an average,\nsix acres of grass per day. The haymaking machines, as labour-saving\ninstruments, are not uncommon in England.\n\nMachines for preparing corn for market are amongst the most important\ninventions of modern times. Here, indeed, agriculture assumes many of\nthe external features of a manufacture. Steam comes prominently into\naction. In many large farms there is fixed steam-power; and most\nefficient it is. But the moveable steam-engine comes to the aid of the\nsmall farmer; and in some districts that power is let out to those who\nwant it. By this little engine applied to a thrashing-machine, corn is\nthrashed at once from the rick, instead of being carried into the barn.\nHere is a representation of the combined steam-engine and\nthrashing-machine. The thrashing-machine with horse-power is that\ngenerally used in England. Rarely, now, can the beautiful description of\nCowper be realized:--\n\n \"Thump after thump resounds the constant flail,\n That seems to swing uncertain, and yet falls\n Full on the destined ear.\"\n\n\n [Illustration: Moveable steam-engine and thrashing-machine.]\n\nFew now wield that ancient instrument. Nor is the chaff now separated\nfrom the corn by the action of the wind, which was called winnowing, but\nwe have the winnowing-machine, by which forty quarters of wheat can be\ntaken from the thrashing-machine and prepared for the market in five\nhours.\n\nBut machinery does not end here. The food of stock is prepared by\nmachines. First, there is the turnip-cutter. Our 'Farmer's Boy' will\ntell us how his sheep and kine were fed in the winter fifty years\nago:--\n\n [Illustration: Thrashing-machine with horse-power.]\n\n \"No tender ewe can break her nightly fast,\n Nor heifer strong begin the cold repast,\n Till Giles with ponderous beetle foremost go,\n And scattering splinters fly at every blow;\n When, pressing round him, eager for the prize,\n From their mix'd breath warm exhalations rise.\"\n\nWe are told that \"lambs fed with a turnip-cutter would be worth more at\nthe end of a winter by eight shillings a head than lambs fed on whole\nturnips.\" The chaff-cutter is an instrument equally valuable.\n\nThe last machine which we shall mention is connected with the greatest\nof all improvements in the crop-producing power of British land--the\nsystem of tile-draining. Pipes are now made by machinery; and land may\nbe effectually drained at a cost of 4_l._ per acre.\n\n [Illustration: Draining-tile machine.]\n\nThe farmers of England have made what we may fairly call heroic efforts\nto meet foreign competition; but their efforts would have been\ncomparatively vain had science not come to the aid of production.\n\nAccording to the Census of 1851, the total population of Great Britain\nis 20,959,477--in round numbers, twenty-one millions. In the 'Return of\nOccupations,' one-half of this entire population is found under the\nfamily designation--such as child at home, child at school, wife,\ndaughter, sister, niece, with no particular occupation attributed to\nthem. They are important members of the state; they are growing into\nfuture producers, or they preside over the household comforts, without\nwhich there is little systematic industry. But they are not direct\nproducers. Of this half of the entire population, one-fifth belong to\nthe class of cultivators, viz.:--\n\n Male. Female.\n Holders of farms 275,676 28,044\n Farmers' relatives, in-door 137,446\n Out-door labourers 1,006,728 70,899\n Farm-servants, in-door 235,943 128,251\n Shepherds, out-door 19,075\n Woodmen 9,832\n Gardeners 78,462 2,484\n Farm bailiffs 12,805\n Graziers 3,036\n ____________ __________\n 1,779,003 229,678\n\nThis total (in which we omit the farmers' wives and daughters, amounting\nto about 240,000) shows that one-fifth of the working population provide\nfood, with the exception of foreign produce, for themselves and families\nand the other four-fifths of the population. Such a result could not be\naccomplished without the appliances of scientific power which we have\ndescribed in this chapter. In the early steps of British society a very\nsmall proportion of labour could be spared for other purposes than the\ncultivation of the soil. It has been held that a community is\nconsiderably advanced when it can spare one man in three from working\nupon the land. Only twenty-six per cent of our adult males are\nagricultural--that is, three men labour at some other employment, while\none cultivates the land. During the last forty years the proportion of\nagricultural employment, in comparison with manufacturing and\ncommercial, has been constantly decreasing; and is now about twenty per\ncent., whereas in 1811 it was thirty-five per cent. of all occupations.\n\n [17] Cullum's 'History of Hawsted.'\n\n [18] See various tables in Porter's 'Progress of the Nation.'\n\n [19] See 'Journal of Royal Agricultural Society,' vol. xii. p. 595.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\n Production of a knife--Manufacture of iron--Raising\n coal--The hot-blast--Iron bridges--Rolling bar-iron--Making\n steel--Sheffield manufactures--Mining in Great\n Britain--Numbers engaged in mines and metal manufactures.\n\n\nWe have been speaking somewhat fully of agricultural instruments and\nagricultural labour, because they are at the root of all other\nprofitable industry. Bread and beef make the bone and sinew of the\nworkman. Ploughs and harrows and drills and thrashing-machines are\ncombinations of wood and iron. Rude nations have wooden ploughs. Unless\nthe English labourer made a plough out of two pieces of stick, and\ncarried it upon his shoulder to the field, as the toil-worn and poor\npeople of India do, he must have some iron about it. He cannot get iron\nwithout machinery. He cannot get even his knife, his tool of all-work,\nwithout machinery. From the first step to the last in the production of\na knife, machinery and scientific appliances have done the chief work.\nPeople that have no science and no machinery sharpen a stone, or bit of\nshell or bone, and cut or saw with it in the best way they can; and\nafter they have become very clever, they fasten it to a wooden handle\nwith a cord of bark. An Englishman examines two or three dozens of\nknives, selects which he thinks the best, and pays a shilling for it,\nthe seller thanking him for his custom. The man who has nothing but the\nbone or the shell would gladly toil a month for that which does not cost\nan English labourer half a day's wages.\n\nAnd how does the Englishman obtain his knife upon such easy terms? From\nthe very same cause that he obtains all his other accommodations\ncheaper, in comparison with the ordinary wages of labour, than the\ninhabitant of most other countries--that is, from the operations of\nscience, either in the making of the thing itself, or in procuring that\nwithout which it could not be made. We must always remember that, if we\ncould not get the materials without scientific application, it would be\nimpossible for us to get what is made of those materials--even if we had\nthe power of fashioning those materials by the rudest labour.\n\nKeeping this in mind, let us see how a knife could be obtained by a man\nwho had nothing to depend upon but his hands.\n\nReady-made, without the labour of some other man, a knife does not\nexist; but the iron, of which the knife is made, is to be had. Very\nlittle iron has ever been found in a native state, or fit for the\nblacksmith. The little that has been found in that state has been found\nonly very lately; and if human art had not been able to procure any in\naddition to that, gold would have been cheap as compared with iron.\n\nIron is, no doubt, very abundant in nature; but it is always mixed with\nsome other substance that not only renders it unfit for use, but hides\nits qualities. It is found in the state of what is called _iron-stone_,\nor _iron-ore_. Sometimes it is mixed with clay, at other times with lime\nor with the earth of flint; and there are also cases in which it is\nmixed with sulphur. In short, in the state in which iron is frequently\nmet with, it is a much more likely substance to be chosen for paving a\nroad, or building a wall, than for making a knife.\n\nBut suppose that the man knows the particular ore or stone that contains\nthe iron, how is he to get it out? Mere force will not do, for the iron\nand the clay, or other substance, are so nicely mixed, that, though the\nore were ground to the finest powder, the grinder is no nearer the iron\nthan when he had a lump of a ton weight.\n\nA man who has a block of wood has a wooden bowl in the heart of it; and\nhe can get it out too by labour. The knife will do it for him in time;\nand if he take it to the turner, the turner with his machinery, his\nlathe, and his gouge, will work it out for him in half an hour. The man\nwho has a lump of iron-ore has just as certainly a knife in the heart of\nit; but no mere labour can work it out. Shape it as he may, it is not a\nknife, or steel, or even iron--it is iron-ore; and dress it as he will,\nit would not cut better than a brickbat--certainly not so well as the\nshell or bone of the savage.\n\nThere must be knowledge before anything can be done in this case. We\nmust know what is mixed with the iron, and how to separate it. We cannot\ndo it by mere labour, as we can chip away the wood and get out the bowl;\nand therefore we have recourse to fire.\n\nIn the ordinary mode of using it, fire would make matters worse. If we\nput the material into the fire as a stone, we should probably receive it\nback as slag or dross. We must, therefore, prepare our fuel. Our fire\nmust be hot, very hot; but if our fuel be wood we must burn it into\ncharcoal, or if it be coal into coke.\n\nThe charcoal, or coke, answers for one purpose; but we have still the\nclay or other earth mixed with our iron, and how are we to get rid of\nthat? Pure clay, or pure lime, or pure earth of flint, remains stubborn\nin our hottest fires; but when they are mixed in a proper proportion,\nthe one melts the other.\n\nSo charcoal or coke, and iron-stone or iron-ore, and limestone, are put\ninto a furnace; the charcoal or coke is lighted at the bottom, and wind\nis blown into the furnace, at the bottom also. If that wind is not sent\nin by machinery, and very powerful machinery too, the effect will be\nlittle, and the work of the man great; but still it can be done.\n\nIn this furnace the lime and clay, or earth of flint, unite, and form a\nsort of glass, which floats upon the surface. At the same time the\ncarbon, or pure charcoal, of the fuel, with the assistance of the\nlimestone, mixes with the stone, or ore, and melts the iron, which,\nbeing heavier than the other matters, runs down to the bottom of the\nfurnace, and remains there till the workman lets it out by a hole made\nat the bottom of the furnace for that purpose, and plugged with sand.\nWhen the workman knows there is enough melted, or when the appointed\ntime arrives, he displaces the plug of sand with an iron rod, and the\nmelted iron runs out like water, and is conveyed into furrows made in\nsand, where it cools, and the pieces formed in the principal furrows are\ncalled \"sows,\" and those in the furrows branching from them \"pigs.\"\n\nWe are now advanced a considerable way towards the production of a\nknife. We have the materials of a knife. We have the iron extracted out\nof the iron-ore. Before we trace the progress of a knife to its final\npolish, let us see what stupendous efforts of machinery have been\nrequired to produce the cast iron.\n\nIn every part of the operation of making iron--in smelting the iron out\nof the ore; in moulding cast iron into those articles for which it is\nbest adapted; in working malleable iron, and in applying it to use after\nit is made; nothing can be done without fire, and the fuel that is used\nin almost every stage of the business is coal. The coal trade and the\niron trade are thus so intimately connected, so very much dependent upon\neach other, that neither of them could be carried on to any extent\nwithout the other. The coal-mines supply fuel, and the iron-works give\nmining tools, pumps, railroads, wheels, and steam-engines, in return. A\nlittle coal might be got without the iron engines, and a little iron\nmight be made without coals, by the charcoal of wood. But the quantity\nof both would be trifling in comparison. The wonderful amount of the\nproduction of iron in Great Britain, and the cheapness of iron, as\ncompared with the extent of capital required for its manufacture, arises\nfrom the fact that the coal-beds and the beds of iron-ore lie in\njuxta-position. The iron-stones alternate with the beds of coal in\nalmost all our coal-fields; and thus the same mining undertakings\nfurnish the ore out of which iron is made and the fuel by which it is\nsmelted. If the coal were in the north, and the fuel in the south, the\ncarriage of the one to the other would double the cost.\n\nThere was a time when iron was made in this country with very little\nmachinery. Iron was manufactured here in the time of the Romans; but it\nwas made with great manual labour, and was consequently very dear.\nHutton, in his 'History of Birmingham,' tells us that there is a large\nheap of cinders near that town which have been produced by an ancient\niron-furnace; and that from the quantity of cinders, as compared with\nthe mechanical powers possessed by our forefathers, the furnace must\nhave been constantly at work from the time of Julius Caesar. A furnace\nwith a steam blast would produce as large a heap in a few years.\n\nAt present a cottager in the south of England, where there is no coal in\nthe earth, may have a bushel of good coals delivered at the door of his\ncottage for eighteen pence; although that is far more than the price of\ncoal at the pit's mouth. If he had even the means of transporting\nhimself and his family to the coal district, he could not, without\nmachinery, get a bushel of coals at the price of a year's work. Let us\nsee how a resolute man would proceed in such an undertaking.\n\nThe machinery, we will say, is gone. The mines are filled up, which the\ngreater part of them would be, with water, if the machinery were to stop\na single week. Let us suppose that the adventurous labourer knows\nexactly the spot where the coal is to be found. This knowledge, in a\ncountry that has never been searched for coals before, is no easy\nmatter, even to those who understand the subject best: it is the\nprovince of geology to give that knowledge. But we shall suppose that he\ngets over that difficulty too, for after it there is plenty of\ndifficulty before him.\n\nWell, he comes to the exact spot that he seeks, and places himself right\nover the seam of coal. That seam is only a hundred fathoms below the\nsurface, which depth he will, of course, reach in good time. To work he\ngoes; pares off the green sod with his shovel, loosens the earth with\nhis pickaxe, and, in the course of a week, is twenty feet down into the\nloose earth and gravel, and clears the rock at the bottom. He rests\nduring the Sunday, and comes refreshed to his work on Monday morning;\nwhen, behold, there are twelve feet of water in his pit.\n\nSuppose he now calls in the aid of a bucket and rope, and that he bales\naway, till, as night closes, he has lowered the water three feet. Next\nmorning it is up a foot and a half: but no matter; he has done\nsomething, and next day he redoubles his efforts, and brings the water\ndown to only four feet. That is encouraging; but, from the depth, he now\nworks his bucket with more difficulty, and it is again a week before his\npit is dry. The weather changes; the rain comes down heavily; the\nsurface on which it falls is spongy; the rock which he has reached is\nwater-tight; and in twelve hours his pit is filled to the brim. It is in\nvain to go on.\n\nThe sinking of a pit, even to a less depth than a hundred fathoms,\nsometimes demands, notwithstanding all the improvements by machinery, a\nsum of not less than a hundred pounds a fathom, or ten thousand pounds\nfor the whole pit; and therefore, supposing it possible for a single man\nto do it at the rate of eighteen pence a day, the time which he would\nrequire would be between four hundred and five hundred years.\n\nWhence comes it that the labour of between four hundred and five hundred\nyears is reduced to a single day? and that which, independently of the\ncarriage, would have cost ten thousand pounds, is got for eighteen\npence? It is because man joins with man, and machinery is employed to do\nthe drudgery. Nations that have no machinery have no coal fires, and are\nignorant that there is hidden under the earth a substance which\ncontributes more, perhaps, to the health and comfort of the inhabitants\nof Britain than any other commodity which they enjoy.\n\nNo nations have worked coal to anything approaching the extent in which\nit has been worked by our countrymen. It has been calculated that\nFrance, Belgium, Spain, Prussia, Bohemia, and the United States of\nAmerica, do not annually produce more than seventeen million tons of\ncoal, which is about half of our annual produce.[20]\n\n [Illustration: Steam-Boiler making.]\n\nThe greater part of the coal now raised in Britain is produced by the\nemployment of the most enormous mechanical power. There are in some\nplaces shallow and narrow pits, where coals may be raised to the surface\nby a windlass; and there are others where horse-power is employed. But\nthe number of men that can work at a windlass, or the number of horses\nthat can be yoked to a gin, is limited. The power of the steam-engine is\nlimited only by the strength of the materials of which it is formed. The\npower of a hundred horses, or of five hundred men, may be very easily\nmade by the steam-engine to act constantly, and on a single point; and\nthus there is scarcely anything in the way of mere force which the\nengine cannot be made to do. We have seen a pit in Staffordshire, which\nhardly gave coal enough to maintain a cottager and his family, for he\nworked the pit with imperfect machinery--with a half-starved ass applied\nto a windlass. A mile off was a steam-engine of 200-horse power, raising\ntons of coals and pumping out rivers of water with a force equal to at\nleast a thousand men. This vast force acted upon a point; and therefore\nno advantage was gained over the machine by the opposing force of water,\nor the weight of the material to be raised. Before the steam-engine was\ninvented, the produce of the coal-mines barely paid the expense of\nworking and keeping them dry; and had it not been for the steam-engines\nand other machinery, the supply would long before now have dwindled into\na very small quantity, and the price would have become ten or twenty\ntimes its present amount. The quantity of coal raised in Great Britain\nwas estimated by Professor Ansted in 1851 at thirty-five million tons;\nand the value at nine millions sterling at the pit-mouth, and eighteen\nmillions at the place of consumption. The capital engaged in the coal\ntrade was then valued at ten millions. In 1847 the annual value of all\nthe precious metals raised throughout the world was estimated at\nthirteen millions sterling. That value has been increased within a few\nyears. But the coal of Great Britain, as estimated by the cost at the\npit's mouth, is above two-thirds of this value of the precious metals\nseven years ago; and the mean annual value, at the furnace, of iron\nsmelted by British coal being eight millions sterling, the value\ntogether of our iron and our coal exceeds the value of all the gold and\nsilver of South America, and California, and Australia, however large\nthat amount has now become.\n\nHow the value of our cast iron has been increased by modern science may\nbe in some degree estimated by a consideration of what the hot-blast has\naccomplished. The hot-blast blows hot air into the iron-furnace instead\nof cold air. The notion seems simple, but the results are wonderful. The\ninventor, Mr. Neilson, has seen since 1827 the production of iron raised\nfrom less than seven hundred thousand tons to two million two hundred\nthousand tons. The iron is greatly cheaper than a quarter of a century\nago, for only about one-half the coal formerly used is necessary for its\nproduction. That production is almost unlimited in amount. In 1788 we\nproduced only sixty thousand tons, or one-thirty-sixth part of what we\nnow produce. The beautiful iron bridge of Colebrook-dale, erected in\n1779, consumed three hundred and seventy-eight tons of cast iron. The\nwonderful Britannia Bridge which has been carried over the Menai Strait,\nhung in mid air at the height of a hundred feet above the stream, has\nrequired ten thousand tons of iron for its completion. If chemistry and\nmachinery had not been at work to produce more iron and cheaper iron,\nhow would our great modern improvements have stopped short--our\nrailroads, our water-pipes, our gas-pipes, our steam-ships! How should\nwe have lacked the great material of every useful implement, from the\ngigantic anchor that holds the man-of-war firm in her moorings, and the\nmighty gun that, in the last resort, asserts a spirit without which all\nmaterial improvement cannot avert a nation's decay,--to the steel pen\nwith which thoughts are exchanged between friends at the opposite ends\nof the earth, and the needle by which the poor seamstress in her garret\nmaintains her place amongst competing numbers.\n\n [Illustration: The first iron bridge, Colebrook Dale.]\n\nNearly all the people now engaged in iron-works are supported by the\nimprovements that have been made in the manufacture, _by machinery_,\nsince 1788. Yes, wholly by the machinery; for before then the quantity\nmade by the charcoal of wood had fallen off one-fourth in forty-five\nyears. The wood for charcoal was becoming exhausted, and nothing but the\npowerful blast of a machine will make iron with coke. Without the aid of\nmachinery the trade would have become extinct. The iron and the coal\nemployed in making it would have remained useless in the mines.\n\nAnd now, having seen what is required to produce a \"pig\" of cast iron,\nlet us return to the knife, whose course of manufacture we traced a\nlittle way.\n\nThe lump of cast iron as it leaves the furnace has many processes to go\nthrough before it becomes fit for making a knife. It cannot be worked by\nthe hammer, or sharpened to a cutting edge; and so it must be made into\nmalleable iron,--into a kind of iron which, instead of melting in the\nfire, will soften, and admit of being hammered into shape, or united by\nthe process of welding.\n\nThe methods by which this is accomplished vary; but they in general\nconsist in keeping the iron melted in a furnace, and stirring it with an\niron rake, till the blast of air in the furnace burns the greater part\nof the carbon out of it. By this means it becomes tough; and, without\ncooling, is taken from the furnace and repeatedly beaten by large\nhammers, or squeezed through large rollers, until it becomes the\nbar-iron of which so much use is made in every art of life.\n\n [Illustration: Rolling bar-iron.]\n\nAbout the close of the last century the great improvement in the\nmanufacture of bar-iron was introduced by passing it through grooved\nrollers, instead of hammering it on the anvil; but in our own time the\ninvention has become most important. The inventor, Mr. Coet, spent a\nfortune on the enterprise and died poor. His son, in 1812, petitioned\nParliament to assign him some reward for the great gift that his father\nhad bestowed upon the nation. He asked in vain. It is the common fate of\nthe ingenious and the learned; and it is well that life has some other\nconsolations for the man that has exercised his intellect more\nprofitably for the world than for himself, than the pride of the mere\ncapitalist, who thinks accumulation, and accumulation only, the chief\nbusiness of existence. Rolling bar-iron is one of the great\nlabour-saving principles that especially prevail in every branch of\nmanufacture in metals. The unaided strength of all the men in Britain\ncould not make all the iron which is at present made, though they did\nnothing else. Machinery is therefore resorted to; and water-wheels,\nsteam-engines, and all sorts of powers are set to work in moving\nhammers, turning rollers, and drawing rods and wires through holes, till\nevery workman can have the particular form which he wants. If it were\nnot for the machinery that is employed in the manufacture, no man could\nobtain a spade for less than the price of a year's labour; the yokes of\na horse would cost more than the horse himself; and the farmer would\nhave to return to wooden plough-shares, and hoes made of sticks with\ncrooked ends.\n\nAfter all this, the iron is not yet fit for a knife, at least for such a\nknife as an Englishman may buy for a shilling. Many nations would,\nhowever, be thankful for a little bit of it, and nations too in whose\ncountries there is no want of iron-ore. But they have no knowledge of\nthe method of making iron, and have no furnaces or machinery. When our\nships sail among the people of the eastern islands, those people do not\nask for gold. \"Iron, iron!\" is the call; and he who can exchange his\nbest commodity for a rusty nail or a bit of iron hoop is a fortunate\nindividual.\n\nWe are not satisfied with that in the best form, which is a treasure to\nthose people in the worst. We must have a knife, not of iron, but of\n_steel_,--a substance that will bear a keen edge without either breaking\nor bending. In order to get that, we must again change the nature of our\nmaterial.\n\nHow is that to be done? The oftener that iron is heated and hammered, it\nbecomes the softer and more ductile; and as the heating and hammering\nforced the carbon out of it, if we give it the carbon back again, we\nshall harden it; but it happens that we also give it other properties,\nby restoring its carbon, when the iron has once been in a ductile state.\n\nFor this purpose, bars or pieces of iron are buried in powdered\ncharcoal, covered up in a vessel, and kept at a red heat for a greater\nor less number of hours, according to the object desired. There are\nniceties in the process, which it is not necessary to explain, that\nproduce the peculiar quality of steel, as distinguished from cast iron.\nIf the operation of heating the iron in charcoal is continued too long,\nor the heat is too great, the iron becomes cast steel, and cannot be\nwelded; but if it is not melted in the operation, it can be worked with\nthe hammer in the same manner as iron.\n\nIn each case, however, it has acquired the property upon which the\nkeenness of the knife depends; and the chief difference between the cast\nsteel, and the steel that can bear to be hammered is, that cast steel\ntakes a keener edge, but is more easily broken.\n\n [Illustration: Shear and Tilt Hammers: Steel-manufacture.]\n\nThe property which it has acquired is that of bearing to be tempered.\nIf it be made very hot, and plunged into cold water, and kept there till\nit is quite cooled, it is so hard that it will cut iron, but it is\nbrittle. In this state the workman brightens the surface, and lays the\nsteel upon a piece of hot iron, and holds it to the fire till it becomes\nof a colour which he knows from experience is a test of the proper state\nof the process. Then he plunges it again into water, and it has the\ndegree of hardness that he wants.\n\nThe grinding a knife, and the polishing it, even when it has acquired\nthe requisite properties of steel, if they were not done by machinery,\nwould cost more than the whole price of a knife upon which machinery is\nused. A travelling knife-grinder, with his treadle and wheels, has a\nmachine, but not a very perfect one. The Sheffield knife-maker grinds\nthe knife at first upon wheels of immense size, turned by water or\nsteam, and moving so quickly that they appear to stand still--the eye\ncannot follow the motion. With these aids the original grinding and\npolishing cost scarcely anything; while the travelling knife-grinder\ncharges two pence for the labour of himself and his wheel in just\nsharpening it.\n\n [Illustration: File-cutters.]\n\nThe \"Sheffield whittle\" is as old as the time of Edward III., as we know\nfrom the poet Chaucer. Sheffield is still the metropolis of steel. It is\nin the change of iron into steel by a due admixture of carbon--by\nhammering, by casting, by melting--that the natural powers of Sheffield,\nher water and her coal, have become of such value. Wherever there is a\nstream with a fall, there is the grinding-wheel at work: and in hundreds\nof workshops the nicer labour of the artificer is fashioning the steel\ninto every instrument which the art of man can devise, from the scythe\nof the mower to the lancet of the surgeon. The machinery that made the\nsteel has called into action the skill that makes the file-cutter. No\nmachine can make a file. The file-cutter with a small hammer can cut\nnotch after notch in a piece of softened steel, without a guide or\ngauge,--even to the number of a hundred notches in an inch. It is one\nout of many things in which skilled labour triumphs over the uniformity\nof operation which belongs to a machine. The cutting of files alone in\nGreat Britain gives employment to more than six thousand persons. This\nis one of the many instances in which it is evident that the application\nof machinery to the arts calls into action an almost infinite variety of\nhandicrafts. An ordinary workman can obtain a knife for the price of a\nfew hours' labour. The causes are easily seen. Every part of the labour\nthat can be done by machinery is so done. One turn of a wheel, one\nstroke of a steam-engine, one pinch of a pair of rollers, or one blow of\na die, will do more in a second than a man could do in a month. One man,\nalso, has but one thing to do in connexion with the machinery; and when\nthe work of the hand succeeds to the work of the wheel or the roller,\nthe one man, like the file-cutter, has still but one thing to do. In\ncourse of time he comes to do twenty times as much as if he were\nconstantly shifting from one thing to another. The value of the work\nthat a man does is not to be measured in all cases by the time and\ntrouble that it cost him individually, but by the market value of what\nhe produces; which value is determined, as far as labour is concerned,\nby the price paid for doing it in the best and most expeditious mode.\n\nAnd does not all this machinery, and this economy of labour, it may\nstill be said, deprive many workmen of employment? No. By these means\nthe iron trade gives bread to hundreds, where otherwise it would not\nhave given bread to one. There are more hands employed at the iron-works\nthan there would have been if there had been no machinery; because\nwithout machinery men could not produce iron cheap enough to be\ngenerally used.\n\nThe machinery that is now employed in the iron trade, not only enables\nthe people to be supplied cheaply with all sorts of articles of iron,\nbut it enables a great number of people to find employment, not in the\niron trade only, but in all other trades, who otherwise could not have\nbeen employed; and it enables everybody to do more work with the same\nexertion by giving them better tools; while it makes all more\ncomfortable by furnishing them with more commodious domestic utensils.\n\nThere are thousands of families on the face of the earth, that would be\nglad to exchange all they have for a tin kettle, or an iron pot, which\ncan be bought anywhere in the three kingdoms for a shilling or two. And\ncould the poor man in this country but once see how even the rich man in\nsome other places must toil day after day before he can scrape or grind\na stone so as to be able to boil a little water in it, or make it serve\nfor a lamp, he would account himself a poor man no more. An English\ngipsy carries about with him more of the conveniences of life than are\nenjoyed by the chiefs or rulers in countries which naturally have much\nfiner climates than that of England. But they have no machinery, and\ntherefore they are wretched.\n\nGreat Britain is a country rich in other minerals than iron-stone and\ncoal. Our earliest ancestors are recorded to have exchanged tin with\nmaritime people who came to our shores. They had lead also, which was\ncast into oblong blocks during the Roman occupation of the island, and\nwhich bear the imperial stamp. At the beginning of the eighteenth\ncentury we worked tin into pewter, which, in the shape of plates, had\nsuperseded wooden trenchers. But we raised and smelted no copper,\nimporting it unwrought. The valuable tin and copper mines of Cornwall\nwere imperfectly worked in the middle of the last century, because the\nwater which overflowed them was only removed by hydraulic engines, the\nbest of which was introduced in 1700. When Watt had reconstructed the\nsteam-engine, steam-power began to be employed in draining the Cornwall\nmines. In 1780, 24,443 tons of copper-ore were raised, producing 2932\ntons of copper. In 1850, 155,025 tons of ore were obtained, producing\n12,254 tons of copper. The tin-mines produced 1600 tons in 1750, and\n10,719 tons in 1849. The produce of the lead-mines has not been\naccurately estimated.\n\n [Illustration: Entrance to the Mine of Odin, an ancient Lead-mine in\n Derbyshire.]\n\nIn all mining operations, conducted as they are in modern times, and\nin our own country, we must either go without the article produced,\nwhether coal, or iron, or lead, or copper, if the machines were\nabolished,--or we must employ human labour, in works the most painful,\nat a price which would not only render existence unbearable, but destroy\nit altogether. The people, in that case, would be in the condition of\nthe unhappy natives of South America, when the Spaniards resolved to get\ngold at any cost of human suffering. The Spaniards had no machines but\npickaxes and spades to put in the hands of the poor Indians. They\ncompelled them to labour incessantly with these, and half the people\nwere destroyed. Without machinery, in places where people can obtain\neven valuable ore for nothing, the collection and preparation of metals\nis hardly worth the labour. Mungo Park describes the sad condition of\nthe Africans who are always washing gold-dust;--and we have seen in\nDerbyshire a poor man separating small particles of lead from the\nlimestone, or spar, of that country, and unable to earn a shilling a day\nby the process. A man of capital erects lead-works, and in a year or two\nobtains an adequate profit, and employs many labourers.\n\nIt may enable us, in addition to our slight notices of quantities\nproduced, to form something like an accurate conception of the vast\nmineral industry of this country, if we give the aggregate of men\nemployed as miners and metal-workers, according to the census of 1851.\nOf coal-miners there were 216,366; of iron-miners, 27,098; of\ncopper-miners, 18,468; of tin-miners, 12,912; of lead-miners, 21,617.\nThis is a total of 296,461. In the manufacture of various articles of\niron and steel, in addition to the iron and coal miners, who cannot be\naccurately distinguished, there are employed 281,578 male workers, and\n18,807 female; and in the manufacture of articles of brass and other\nmixed metals, 46,076; of which number 8370 are females. The workers in\nmetal thus enumerated amount to 542,922. We may add, from the class of\npersons engaged in mechanic productions, in which we find 48,050 engine\nand machine makers, and 7429 gunsmiths, a number that will raise the\naggregate of miners and workers in metals to 600,000 persons. The\nboldness of some of the operations which are conducted in this\ndepartment of industry, the various skill of the labourers, and the\nvastness of the aggregate results, impress the mind with a sense of\npower that almost belongs to the sublime. The fables of mythology are\ntame when compared with these realities of science. Vulcan, with his\nanvils in AEtna, is a feeble instrument by the side of the steam-hammer\nthat forges an anchor, or the hydraulic press that lifts a bridge. A\nknot of Cupids co-operating for the fabrication of their barbed arrows\nis the poetry of painting applied to the arts. But there is higher\npoetry in that triumph of knowledge, and skill, and union of forces,\nwhich fills a furnace with fifty thousand pounds of molten iron, and\nconducts the red-hot stream to the enormous mould which is to produce a\ncylinder without a flaw.\n\n [Illustration: Cupids forging arrows. From Albani.]\n\n [Illustration: Coal-Railway from South Hetton to Seaham Harbour, with\n the ascending and descending Trains.]\n\n [20] See a table by Professor Ansted in the Great Exhibition Catalogue,\n vol. i. p. 181.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\n Conveyance and extended use of coal--Consumption at various\n periods--Condition of the roads in the seventeenth and\n eighteenth centuries--Advantages of good roads--Want of\n roads in Australia--Turnpike-roads--Canals--Railway of\n 1680--Railway statistics.\n\n\nWe have seen how by machinery more than thirty-five million tons of\ncoal--now become one of the very first necessaries of life--are\nobtained, which without machinery could not be obtained at all in the\nthousandth part of the quantity; and which, consequently, would be a\nthousand times the price--would, in fact, be precious stones, instead of\ncommon fuel.\n\nEngines or machines, of some kind or other, not only keep the pits dry\nand raise the coals to the surface, but convey them to the ship upon\nrailroads; the ship, itself a machine, carries them round all parts of\nthe coast; barges and boats convey them along the rivers and canals;\nand, within these few years, railways have carried the coals of the\nnorth into remote places in the southern and other counties, where what\nwas called \"sea-coal,\" from its being carried coastwise, was scarcely\nknown as an article of domestic use. The inhabitants of such places had\nno choice but to consume wood and turf for every domestic purpose.\n\nThrough the general consumption of wood instead of coal, a fire for\ndomestic use in France is a great deal dearer than a fire in England;\nbecause, although the coal-pits are not to be found at every man's door,\nnor within many miles of the doors of some men, machinery at the pits,\nand ships and barges, and railways, which are also machinery, enable\nmost men to enjoy the blessings of a coal fire at a much cheaper rate\nthan a fire of wood, which is not limited in its growth to any\nparticular district. Without the machinery to bring coals to his door,\nnot one man out of fifty of the present population of England could have\nhad the power of warming himself in winter; any more than without the\nmachines and implements of farming he could obtain food, or without\nthose of the arts he could procure clothing. The sufferings produced by\na want of fuel cannot be estimated by those who have abundance. In\nNormandy, very recently, such was the scarcity of wood, that persons\nengaged in various works of hand, as lace-making by the pillow,\nabsolutely sat up through the winter nights in the barns of the farmers,\nwhere cattle were littered down, that they might be kept warm by the\nanimal heat around them. They slept in the day, and were warmed by being\nin the same outhouse with cows and horses at night;--and thus they\nworked under every disadvantage, because fuel was scarce and very dear.\n\nCoals were consumed in London in the time of Queen Elizabeth; but their\nuse was, no doubt, very limited. Shakspere, who always refers to the\ncustoms of his own time, makes Dame Quickly speak of \"sitting in my\nDolphin-chamber at the round table, by a sea-coal fire, on Wednesday in\nWhitsun week.\" But Mrs. Quickly was a luxurious person, who had plate\nand tapestry and gilt goblets. Harrison, in his 'Description of\nBritain,' at the same period, says, that coal is \"used in the cities and\ntowns that lie about the coast;\" but he adds, \"I marvel not a little\nthat there is no trade of these into Sussex and Southamptonshire; for\nwant thereof the smiths do work their iron with charcoal.\" He adds, with\ngreat truth, \"I think that far carriage be the only cause.\"\n\nThe consumption of coal in London in the last year of Charles II. (1685)\namounted to three hundred and fifty thousand tons. This was really a\nlarge consumption, however insignificant it may sound when compared with\nthe modern demand of the metropolis. In 1801 there were imported into\nLondon about a million tons of coals. In 1850, three million six\nhundred thousand tons were brought to the London market. The average\ncontract price in the ten years ending 1810 was 45_s._ 6_d._; in the ten\nyears ending 1850 it was 18_s._ 6_d._ But in 1824 the oppressive duty of\n7_s._ 6_d._ per ton on seaborne coals was reduced to 4_s._; and in 1831\nthe duty was wholly repealed. It is the boast of our present fiscal\nsystem that the chief materials of manufacture, and the great\nnecessaries and conveniences of life, are no longer made dear by\ninjudicious taxation.\n\nThe chief power which produces coal and iron cheap is that of machinery.\nIt is the same power which distributes these bulky articles through the\ncountry, and equalizes the cost in a considerable degree to the man who\nlives in London and the man who lives in Durham or Staffordshire. The\ndifference in cost is the price of transport; and machinery, applied in\nvarious improved ways, is every year lessening the cost of conveyance,\nand thus equalizing prices throughout the British Islands. The same\napplications of mechanical power enable a man to move from one place to\nanother with equal ease, cheapness, and rapidity. Quick travelling has\nbecome cheaper than slow travelling. The time saved remains for\nprofitable labour.\n\nAbout a hundred and ninety years ago, when the first turnpike-road was\nformed in England, a mob broke the toll-gates, because they thought an\nunjust tax was being put upon them. They did not perceive that this\nsmall tax for the use of a road would confer upon them innumerable\ncomforts, and double and treble the means of employment.\n\nIf there were no road, and no bridge, a man would take six months in\nfinding his way from London to Edinburgh, if indeed he found it at all.\nHe would have to keep the line of the hills, in order that he might come\nupon the rivers at particular spots, where he would be able to jump over\nthem with ease, or wade through them without danger.\n\nWhen a man has gone up the bank of a river for twelve miles in one\ndirection, in order to be able to cross it, he may find that, before he\nproceeds one mile in the line of his journey, he has to go along the\nbank of another river for twelve miles in the opposite direction; and\nthe courses of the rivers may be so crooked that he is really farther\nfrom his journey's end at night than he was in the morning.\n\nHe may come to the side of a lake, and not know the end at which the\nriver, too broad and deep for him to cross, runs out; and he may go\ntwenty miles the wrong way, and thus lose forty.\n\nDifficulties such as these are felt by every traveller in an uncivilized\ncountry. In reading books of travels, in Africa for instance, we\nsometimes wonder how it is that the adventurer proceeds a very few miles\neach day. We forget that he has no roads.\n\nTwo hundred years ago--even one hundred years ago--in some places fifty\nyears ago--the roads of England were wholly unfit for general traffic\nand the conveyance of heavy goods. Pack-horses mostly carried on the\ncommunication in the manufacturing districts. The roads were as unfit\nfor moving commodities of bulk, such as coal, wool, and corn, as the\nsandy roads of Poland were thirty years ago, and as many still are. Mr.\nJacob, who went upon the continent to see what stores of wheat existed,\nfound that in many parts the original price of wheat was doubled by the\nprice of land conveyance for a very few miles.\n\nIn 1663 the first turnpike act, which was so offensive to some of the\npeople, was carried through Parliament. It was for the repair of the\n\"ancient highway and post-road leading from London to York,\" which was\ndeclared to be \"very ruinous, and become almost impassable.\" This was,\non many accounts, one of the most important lines of the country. Let us\nsee in what state it was seventeen years after the passing of the act.\nIn the 'Diary of Ralph Thoresby,' under the date of October, 1680, we\nhave this entry:--\"To Ware, twenty-miles from London, a most pleasant\nroad in summer, and as bad in winter, because of the depth of the\ncart-ruts.\" Take another road a little later. In December, 1703, Charles\nIII., King of Spain, slept at Petworth on his way from Portsmouth to\nWindsor, and Prince George of Denmark went to meet him there by desire\nof the Queen. The distance from Windsor to Petworth is about forty\nmiles. In the relation of the journey given by one of the prince's\nattendants, he states,--\"We set out at six in the morning, by\ntorchlight, to go to Petworth, and did not get out of the coaches (save\nonly when we were overturned or stuck fast in the mire) till we arrived\nat our journey's end. 'Twas a hard service for the Prince to sit\nfourteen hours in the coach that day without eating anything, and\npassing through the worst ways I over saw in my life. We were thrown but\nonce indeed in going, but our coach, which was the leading one, and his\nHighness's body-coach, would have suffered very much, if the nimble\npoors of Sussex had not frequently poised it, or supported it with their\nshoulders, from Godalming almost to Petworth, and the nearer we\napproached the duke's house the more inaccessible it seemed to be. The\nlast nine miles of the way cost us six hours' time to conquer them.\"\nFrom Horsham, the county-town of Sussex, about the beginning of the\nreign of George III., the roads were never in such a condition as to\nallow sheep or cattle to be driven on them to the London market; and\nconsequently, there not being sufficient demand at home to give a\nremunerating price, the beef and mutton were sold at a rate far below\nthe average to the small population in the country, which was thus\nisolated from the common channels of demand and supply.\n\n [Illustration: Telford.]\n\nIn the Highlands of Scotland, at the beginning of the present century,\nthe communication from one district to another was attended with such\ndifficulty and danger, that some of the counties were excused from\nsending jurors to the circuit to assist in the administration of\njustice. The poor people inhabiting these districts were almost entirely\ncut off from intercourse with the rest of mankind. The Highlands were of\nless advantage to the British empire than the most distant colony.\nParliament resolved to remedy the evil; and, accordingly, from 1802 to\n1817, the sum of two hundred thousand pounds was laid out in making\nroads and bridges in these mountainous districts. Mark the important\nconsequences to the people of the Highlands, as described by Mr.\nTelford, the engineer of the roads:--\n\n \"Since these roads were made accessible, wheelwrights and\n cartwrights have been established, the plough has been introduced,\n and improved tools and utensils are used. The plough was not\n previously used in general; in the interior and mountainous parts\n they frequently used crooked sticks with iron on them, drawn or\n pushed along. The moral habits of the great mass of the working\n classes are changed; they see that they may depend on their own\n exertions for support. This goes on silently, and is scarcely\n perceived until apparent by the results. I consider these\n improvements one of the greatest blessings ever conferred upon any\n country. About two hundred thousand pounds has been granted in\n fifteen years. It has been the means of advancing the country at\n least one hundred years.\"\n\nThere are many parts of Ireland which sustained the same miseries and\ninconveniences from the want of roads as the Highlands of Scotland did\nat the beginning of the present century. In 1823 Mr. Nimmo, the\nengineer, stated to parliament, that the fertile plains of Limerick,\nCork, and Kerry, were separated from each other by a deserted country,\npresenting an impassable barrier between them. This region was the\nretreat of smugglers, robbers, and culprits of every description; for\nthe tract was a wild, neglected, and deserted country, without roads,\nculture, or civilization. The government ordered roads to be made\nthrough this barren district. We will take one example of the immediate\neffect of this road-making, as described by a witness before\nParliament:--\"A hatter, at Castle-island, had a small field through\nwhich the new road passed; this part next the town was not opened until\n1826. In making arrangements with him for his damages, he said that he\nought to make me (the engineer) a present of all the land he had, for\nthat the second year I was at the roads he sold more hats to the people\nof the mountains alone than he did for seven years before to the high\nand low lands together. Although he never worked a day on the roads, he\ngot comfort and prosperity by them.\"\n\nThe hatter of Castle-island got comfort and prosperity by the roads,\nbecause the man who had to sell and the man who had to buy were brought\ncloser to each other by means of the roads. When there were no roads,\nthe hatter kept his goods upon the shelf, and the labourer in the\nmountains went without a hat. When the labourer and the hatter were\nbrought together by the roads, the hatter soon sold off his stock, and\nthe manufacturer of hats went to work to produce him a new stock; while\nthe labourer, who found the advantage of having a hat, also went to work\nto earn more money, that he might pay for another when he should require\nit. It became a fashion to wear hats, and of course a fashion to work\nhard, and to save time, to be able to pay for them. Thus the road\ncreated industry on both sides,--on the side of the producer of hats and\nthat of the consumer.\n\nInstances such as these of the want of communication between one\ndistrict and another are now very rare indeed in these islands. But if\nwe look to countries intimately connected with our own, we shall find no\nlack of examples of a state of commercial intercourse attending a want\nof roads. The gold-fields of Australia have largely stimulated the\nexport of manufactured goods from Great Britain. One of the colonists at\nSydney writes thus to the chief organ of intelligence in England:--\"The\nroads throughout the colony, bad as they were, are now worse than ever.\nThe inland mails cannot run by night, and stick fast and upset in all\ndirections by day. Communication with the interior towns is possible\nonly at enormous cost. The price of conveying a ton of goods from Sydney\nto Bathurst, about 130 miles, is eight times the freight of the same\nquantity from London to Sydney. In cost of conveyance London and\nLiverpool are, in fact, only sixteen miles from Sydney by land, though\nthe distance by sea is 16,000. We here see daily the most striking\nillustration of the truth that\n\n 'Seas but join the regions they divide.'\n\nCargoes are poured into the seaports with the greatest facility, and\nthen the distribution is suddenly checked. Hence the enormous rents of\nstores, cessation of demand, and the necessity of forced sales, with the\nnatural consequence--heavy losses to the exporters, who perhaps wonder\nhow trade with Australia can be so unprofitable, scarcely suspecting one\nof the main causes of its uncertainty. English merchants might do worse\nthan help to open up the internal communications of this continent.\"\n\nThe city of Sydney has a wharfage two miles in extent. The communication\nfrom the port to the interior is thus described:--\"Imagine the Great\nWestern Railroad, instead of terminating in a splendid station, with\nevery means of conveying and removing goods to roads in every direction,\nending suddenly in swamp, forest, and sand, through which, by dint of\nlashing, and swearing, and unloading, and reloading, a team of bullocks\nand a dray drag their Manchester goods ten miles _per diem_, at 50_l._\nor 80_l._ per ton for the journey. The channel of trade is all that\ncivilization, science, and capital can make it, from the threshold of\nthe Manchester factory to the edge of the Sydney wharf. There it breaks\nsuddenly, and beyond all is primitive, rude, and barbarous in the means\nof conveyance. The bale of goods last unloaded from the railway train is\ntransferred to the bullock dray, to begin its 'crawl' up the country,\ncosting all its freight from England for every twenty miles. It cannot\nbe otherwise. There are no passable roads.\"\n\n [Illustration: Modern Syrian Cart.]\n\nIt is impossible to have a more vivid picture than this of the sudden\nimpediment which the commercial enterprise of one country receives from\nthe want of the commonest means of communication in another. The\nbullock-cart of Syria, and the Australian bullock-cart, would be useful\ninstruments if they had roads to work in. But there must be general\ncivilization before there are extensive roads. Carts and bullocks are of\nreadier creation than roads. It has taken eighteen centuries to make our\nEnglish roads, and the Romans, the kings of the world, were our great\nroad-makers, whose works still remain:--\n\n \"labouring pioneers,\n A multitude with spades and axes arm'd,\n To lay hills plain, fell woods, or valleys fill,\n Or where plain was raise hill, or overlay\n With bridges rivers proud, as with a yoke.\"--PARADISE REGAINED.\n\nWhat the Romans were to England, the colonized English must be to\nAustralia. But the discovery of great natural wealth, the vigour of the\nrace, the intercourse with commercial nations of the old and new world,\nthe free institutions which have been transplanted there without any\narbitrary meddling or chilling patronage, will effect in a quarter of a\ncentury what the parent people, struggling with ignorant rulers and\nfeeble resources, have been ages in accomplishing.\n\nIt is encouraging to all nations to see what we have accomplished in\nthis direction.\n\nIn 1839 the turnpike-roads of England and Wales amounted to 21,962\nmiles, and in Scotland to 3666 miles; while in England and Wales the\nother highways amounted to 104,772 miles. The turnpike-roads were\nmaintained at a cost of a million a year; and the parish highways at a\ncost of about twelve hundred thousand pounds. There were at that time\nnearly eight thousand toll-gates in England and Wales. There had been\ntwo thousand miles of turnpike-roads, and ten thousand miles of other\nhighways, added to the number existing in 1814. But the improvements of\nall our roads during that period had been enormous. Science was brought\nto bear upon the turnpike lines. Common sense changed their form and\nre-organized their material. The most beautiful engineering was applied\nto raise valleys and lower hills. Mountains were crossed with ease;\nrivers were spanned over by massive piers, or by bridges which hung in\nthe air like fairy platforms. The names of M'Adam and Telford became\n\"household words;\" and even parish surveyors, stimulated by example,\ntook thought how to mend their ways.\n\nThe Canals of England date only for a hundred years back. The first Act\nof Parliament for the construction of a canal was passed in 1755. The\nDuke of Bridgewater obtained his first Act of Parliament in 1759, for\nthe construction of those noble works which will connect his memory with\nthose who have been the greatest benefactors of their country. The great\nmanufacturing prosperity of England dates from this period; and it will\nbe for ever associated with the names of Watt, the improver and almost\nthe inventor of the steam-engine,--of Arkwright, the presiding genius of\ncotton-spinning,--and of Brindley, the great engineer of canals. In the\nconception of the vast works which Brindley undertook for the Duke of\nBridgewater, there was an originality and boldness which may have been\ncarried further in recent engineering, but which a century ago were the\ncreators of works which were looked upon as marvels. To cut tunnels\nthrough hills--to carry mounds across valleys--to build aqueducts over\nnavigable rivers--were regarded then as wild and impracticable\nconceptions. Another engineer, at Brindley's desire, was called in to\ngive an opinion as to a proposed aqueduct over the river Irwell. He\nlooked at the spot where the aqueduct was to be built, and exclaimed, \"I\nhave often heard of castles in the air, but never before was shown the\nplace where any of them were to be erected.\" Brindley's castle in the\nair still stands firm; and his example, and that of his truly\nillustrious employer, have covered our land with many such fabrics,\nwhich owe their origin not to the government but to the people.\n\n [Illustration: Brindley's Aqueduct over the Irwell.]\n\nThe navigable canals of England are more than two thousand miles in\nlength. For the slow transport of heavy goods they hold their place\nagainst the competition of railroads, and continue to be important\ninstruments of internal commerce. When railways were first projected it\nis said that an engineer, being asked what would become of the canals if\nthe new mode of transit were adopted, answered that they would be\ndrained and become the beds of railways. Like many other predictions\nconnected with the last great medium of internal communication, the\nengineer was wholly mistaken in his prophecy.\n\nThe great principle of exchange between one part of this empire and\nanother part, which has ceased to be an affair of restrictions and\njealousies, has covered the island with good roads, with canals, and\nfinally with railways. The railway and the steam-carriage have carried\nthe principle of diminishing the price of conveyance, and therefore of\ncommodities, by machinery, to an extent which makes all other\nillustrations almost unnecessary. A road with a waggon moving on it is a\nmechanical combination; a canal, with its locks, and towing-paths, and\nboats gliding along almost without effort, is a higher mechanical\ncombination; a railway, with its locomotive engine, and carriage after\ncarriage dragged along at the rate of thirty or forty miles an hour, is\nthe highest of such mechanical combinations. The force applied upon a\nlevel turnpike-road, which is required to move 1800 lbs., if applied to\ndrag a canal-boat will move 55,500 lbs., both at the rate of 2-1/2 miles\nper hour. But we want economy in time as well as economy in the\napplication of motive power. It has been attempted to apply speed to\ncanal travelling. Up to four miles an hour the canal can convey an equal\nweight more economically than a railroad; but after a certain velocity\nis exceeded, that is 13-1/2 miles an hour, the horse on the\nturnpike-road can drag as much as the canal-team. Then comes in the\ngreat advantage of the railroad. The same force that is required to draw\n1900 lbs. upon a canal, at a rate above 13-1/2 miles an hour, will draw\n14,400 lbs. upon a railway, at the rate of 13-1/2 miles an hour. The\nproducers and consumers are thus brought together, not only at the least\ncost of transit, but at the least expenditure of time. The road, the\ncanal, and the railway have each their distinctive advantages; and it is\nworthy of note how they work together. From every railway station there\nmust be a road to the adjacent towns and villages, and a better road\nthan was once thought necessary. Horses are required as much as ever,\nalthough mails and post-chaises are no longer the glories of the road;\nand the post finds its way into every hamlet by the united agency of the\nroad and the railway.\n\nRoger North described a Newcastle railway in 1680:--\"Another thing that\nis remarkable is their way-leaves; for when men have pieces of ground\nbetween the colliery and the river, they sell leave to lead coals over\ntheir ground; and so dear that the owner of a rood of ground will expect\n20_l._ per annum for this leave. The manner of the carriage is by laying\nrails of timber, from the colliery down to the river, exactly straight\nand parallel; and bulky carts are made with four rowlets fitting these\nrails; whereby the carriage is so easy that the horse will draw down\nfour or five chaldron of coals, and is an immense benefit to the\ncoal-merchant.\" Who would have thought that this contrivance would have\nled to no large results till a hundred and fifty years had passed away?\nWho could have believed that \"the rails of timber, exactly straight and\nparallel,\" and the \"bulky carts with four rowlets exactly fitting the\nrails,\" would have changed the face, and to a great degree the\ndestinies, of the world?\n\nIf we add to the road, the canal, and the railway, the steam-boat\ntraffic of our own coasts, we cannot hesitate to believe that the whole\nterritory of Great Britain and Ireland is more compact, more closely\nunited, more accessible, than was a single county two centuries ago. It\nmay be said, without exaggeration, that it would now be impossible for a\ntraveller in England to set himself down in any accessible situation\nwhere the post from London would not reach him in twelve hours. When the\nfirst edition of the 'Results of Machinery' was published in 1831, we\nsaid that the post from London would reach any part of England in three\ndays; and that, \"fifty years before, such a quickness of communication\nwould have been considered beyond the compass of human means.\" In\ntwenty-four years we have so diminished the practical amount of distance\nbetween one part of Great Britain and another, that the post from London\nto Aberdeen is carried five hundred and forty miles in little more than\ntwenty hours. It is this wonderful rapidity of communication, in\nconnection with the cheapness of postage, which has multiplied letters\nfive-fold since 1839, when the penny rate was introduced. In that year\nthe number of chargeable and franked letters distributed in the United\nKingdom was eighty-two millions; in 1853 it was four hundred and ten\nmillions.\n\n [Illustration: Locomotive-Engine Factory.]\n\nThe annual returns of our railways furnish some of the most astounding\nfigures of modern statistics. On the 1st of January 1854 there were open\nin England 5811 miles of railway; in Scotland, 995 miles; in Ireland,\n834 miles. In 1853 there were one hundred and two million passengers\nconveyed, who travelled one billion five hundred million miles, being an\naverage of nearly fifteen miles to each passenger. In England\nconsiderably less than one-half of the passengers were by\npenny-a-mile and other third-class trains; in Ireland one-half; and in\nScotland two-thirds. The receipts from goods traffic exceed those of the\npassenger traffic in England and Scotland, but are less in Ireland.\nThese are indeed wonderful results from a system which was wholly\nexperimental twenty-five years ago.\n\n [Illustration: Railway Locomotive.]\n\nWhen William Hutton, in the middle of last century, started from\nNottingham (where he earned a scanty living as a bookbinder) and walked\nto London and back for the purpose of buying tools, he was nine days\nfrom home, six of which were spent in going and returning. He travelled\non foot, dreading robbers, and still more dreading the cost of food and\nlodging at public-houses. His whole expenses during this toilsome\nexpedition were only ten shillings and eight pence; but he contented\nhimself with the barest necessaries, keeping the money for his tools\nsewed up in his shirt-collar. If William Hutton had lived in these days,\nhe would, upon sheer principles of economy, have gone to London by the\nNottingham train at a cost of twenty shillings for his transit, in one\nforenoon, and returned in another. The twenty shillings would have been\nsacrificed for his conveyance, but he would have had a week's labour\nfree to go to work with his new tools; he need not have sewed his money\nin his shirt-collar for fear of thieves; and his shoes would not have\nbeen worn out and his feet blistered in his toilsome march of two\nhundred and fifty miles.\n\nA very few years ago it was not uncommon to hear men say that this\nwonderful communication, the greatest triumph of modern skill, was not a\nblessing;--for the machinery had put somebody out of employ. Baron\nHumboldt, a traveller in South America, tells us that, upon a road being\nmade over a part of the great chain of mountains called the Andes, the\ngovernment was petitioned against the road by a body of men who for\ncenturies had gained a living by carrying travellers in baskets strapped\nupon their backs over the fearful rocks, which only these guides could\ncross. Which was the better course--to make the road, and create the\nthousand employments belonging to freedom of intercourse, for these very\ncarriers of travellers, and for all other men; or to leave the mountains\nwithout a road, that the poor guides might gain a premium for risking\ntheir lives in an unnecessary peril? But, looking at their direct\nresults, we have no doubt that railroads have greatly multiplied the\nemployments connected with the conveyance of goods and passengers. In\n1853 there were eighty thousand persons employed upon the railroads of\nthe United Kingdom in various capacities. We do not include those\nemployed in working upon lines that are not open for traffic, which\nclass in England amounted to twenty-five thousand persons in 1853. But\nthe indirect occupations called into activity by railroads are so\nnumerous as to defy all attempts at calculating the numbers engaged in\nthem. No doubt many occupations were changed by railroads;--there were\nfewer coachmen, guards, postboys, waggoners, and others, on such a\npost-road as that from London to York. But it is equally certain that\nthroughout the kingdom there are far more persons employed in conducting\nthe internal communication of the country, effecting that great addition\nto its productive powers, without which all other production would\nlanguish and decay. The census returns of 1851 give the number of three\nhundred and eighty-six thousand males so employed, including those\nengaged on our rivers, canals, and coast traffic.\n\n [Illustration: Reindeer.]\n\nThe vast extension, and the new channels, of our foreign commerce have\nbeen greatly affected by the prodigious facilities of our internal\ncommunication. They have created, in a measure, special departments of\nindustry, which can be most advantageously pursued in particular\nlocalities; but which railways and steam-vessels have united with the\nwhole kingdom, with its colonies, with the habitable globe. The reindeer\nconnects the Laplander with the markets of Sweden, and draws his sledge\nover the frozen wilds at a speed and power of continuance only rivalled\nby the locomotive. The same beneficent Providence which has given this\nanimal to the inhabitant of the polar regions,--not only for food, for\nclothing, but for transport to associate him with some civilization,--has\nbestowed upon us the mighty power of steam, to connect us with the\nentire world, from which we were once held to be wholly separated.\n\n\n [Illustration: Beaver.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n Houses--The pyramids--Mechanical power--Carpenters'\n tools--American machinery for building--Bricks--Slate--\n Household fittings and furniture--Paper-hangings--\n Carpets--Glass--Pottery--Improvements effected through\n the reduction or repeal of duties on domestic requirements.\n\n\nThe beaver builds his huts with the tools which nature has given him. He\ngnaws pieces of wood in two with his sharp teeth, so sharp that the\nteeth of a similar animal, the agouti, form the only cutting-tool which\nsome rude nations possess. When the beavers desire to move a large piece\nof wood, they join in a body to drag it along.\n\nMan has not teeth that will cut wood: but he has reason, which directs\nhim to the choice of much more perfect tools.\n\n [Illustration: Pyramid and sphinx]\n\nSome of the great monuments of antiquity, such as the pyramids of Egypt,\nare constructed of enormous blocks of stone brought from distant\nquarries. We have no means of estimating, with any accuracy, the\nmechanical knowledge possessed by the people engaged in these works. It\nwas, probably, very small, and, consequently, the human labour employed\nin such edifices was not only enormous in quantity, but exceedingly\npainful to the workmen. The Egyptians, according to Herodotus, a Greek\nwriter who lived two thousand five hundred years ago, hated the memory\nof the kings who built the pyramids. He tells us that the great pyramid\noccupied a hundred thousand men for twenty years in its erection,\nwithout counting the workmen who were employed in hewing the stones, and\nin conveying them to the spot where the pyramid was built. Herodotus\nspeaks of this work as a torment to the people; and doubtless the labour\nengaged in raising huge masses of stone, that was extensive enough to\nemploy a hundred thousand men for twenty years, which is equal to two\nmillions of men for one year, must have been fearfully tormenting\nwithout machinery, or with very imperfect machinery. It has been\ncalculated that about half the steam-engines of England, worked by\nthirty-six thousand men, would raise the same quantity of stones from\nthe quarry, and elevate them to the same height as the great pyramid, in\nthe short time of eighteen hours. The people of Egypt groaned for twenty\nyears under this enormous work. The labourers groaned because they were\nsorely taxed; and the rest of the people groaned because they had to pay\nthe labourers. The labourers lived, it is true, upon the wages of their\nlabour, that is, they were paid in food--kept like horses--as the reward\nof their work. Herodotus says that it was recorded on the pyramid that\nthe onions, radishes, and garlic which the labourers consumed, cost\nsixteen hundred talents of silver: an immense sum, equivalent to several\nmillion pounds. But the onions, radishes, and garlic, the bread, and\nclothes of the labourer, were wrung out of the profitable labour of the\nrest of the people. The building of the pyramid was an unprofitable\nlabour. There was no immediate or future source of produce in the\npyramid; it produced neither food, nor fuel, nor clothes, nor any other\nnecessary. The labour of a hundred thousand men for twenty years,\nstupidly employed upon this monument, without an object beyond that of\ngratifying the pride of the tyrant who raised it, was a direct tax upon\nthe profitable labour of the rest of the people.\n\n \"Instead of useful works, like nature great,\n Enormous cruel wonders crush'd the land.\"\n\nBut admitting that it is sometimes desirable for nations and governments\nto erect monuments which are not of direct utility,--which may have an\nindirect utility in recording the memory of great exploits, or in\nproducing feelings of reverence or devotion,--it is clearly an advantage\nthat these works, as well as all other works, should be performed in the\ncheapest manner; that is, that human labour should derive every possible\nassistance from mechanical aid. We will give an illustration of the\ndifferences of the application of mechanical aid in one of the first\noperations of building, the moving a block of stone. The following\nstatements are the result of actual experiment upon a stone weighing ten\nhundred and eighty pounds.\n\n [Illustration: Portland Quarry.]\n\nTo drag this stone along the smoothed floor of the quarry required a\nforce equal to seven hundred and fifty-eight pounds. The same stone\ndragged over a floor of planks required six hundred and fifty-two\npounds. The same stone placed on a platform of wood, and dragged over\nthe same floor of planks, required six hundred and six pounds. When the\ntwo surfaces of wood were soaped as they slid over each other, the force\nrequired to drag the stone was reduced to one hundred and eighty-two\npounds. When the same stone was placed upon rollers three inches in\ndiameter, it required, to put it in motion along the floor of the\nquarry, a force only of thirty-four pounds; and by the same rollers upon\na wooden floor, a force only of twenty-eight pounds. Without any\nmechanical aid, it would require the force of four or five men to set\nthat stone in motion. With the mechanical aid of two surfaces of wood\nsoaped, the same weight might be moved by one man. With the more perfect\nmechanical aid of rollers, the same weight might be moved by a very\nlittle child.\n\nFrom these statements it must be evident that the cost of a block of\nstone very much depends upon the quantity of labour necessary to move it\nfrom the quarry to the place where it is wanted to be used. We have seen\nthat with the simplest mechanical aid labour may be reduced sixty-fold.\nWith more perfect mechanical aid, such as that of water-carriage, the\nlabour may be reduced infinitely lower. Thus, the streets of London are\npaved with granite from Scotland at a moderate expense.\n\nThe cost of timber, which enters so largely into the cost of a house, is\nin a great degree the cost of transport. In countries where there are\ngreat forests, timber-trees are worth nothing where they grow, except\nthere are ready means of transport. In many parts of North America, the\ngreat difficulty which the people find is in clearing the land of the\ntimber. The finest trees are not only worthless, but are a positive\nincumbrance, except when they are growing upon the banks of a great\nriver; in which case the logs are thrown into the water, or formed into\nrafts, being floated several hundred miles at scarcely any expense. The\nsame stream which carries them to a seaport turns a mill to saw the logs\ninto planks; and when sawn into planks the timber is put on shipboard,\nand carried to distant countries where timber is wanted. Thus mechanical\naid alone gives a value to the timber, and by so doing employs human\nlabour. The stream that floats the tree, the sawing-mill that cuts it,\nthe ship that carries it across the sea, enable men profitably to employ\nthemselves in working it. Without the stream, the mill, and the ship,\nthose men would have no labour, because none could afford to bring the\ntimber to their own doors.\n\n [Illustration: Timber Rafts of the Tyrol.]\n\nWhat an infinite variety of machines, in combination with the human\nhand, is found in a carpenter's chest of tools! The skilful hand of the\nworkman is the _power_ which sets these machines in motion; just as the\nwind or the water is the power of a mill, or the elastic force of vapour\nthe power of a steam-engine. When Mr. Boulton, the partner of the great\nJames Watt, waited upon George III. to explain one of the improvements\nof the steam-engine which they had effected, the king said to him, \"What\ndo you sell, Mr. Boulton?\" and the honest engineer answered, \"What\nkings, sire, are all fond of--_power_.\" There are people at Birmingham\nwho let out _power_, that is, there are people who have steam-engines\nwho will lend the use of them, by the day or the hour, to persons who\nrequire that saving of labour in their various trades; so that a person\nwho wants the strength of a horse, or half a horse, to turn a wheel for\ngrinding, or for setting a lathe in motion, hires a room, or part of a\nroom, in a mill, and has just as much as he requires. The _power_ of a\ncarpenter is in his hand, and the machines moved by that power are in\nhis chest of tools. Every tool which he possesses has for its object to\nreduce labour, to save material, and to ensure accuracy--the objects\nof all machines. What a quantity of waste both of time and stuff is\nsaved by his foot-rule! and when he chalks a bit of string and stretches\nit from one end of a plank to the other, to jerk off the chalk from the\nstring, and thus produce an unerring line upon the face of the plank, he\nmakes a little machine which saves him great labour. Every one of his\nhundreds of tools, capable of application to a vast variety of purposes,\nis an invention to save labour. Without some tool the carpenter's work\ncould not be done at all by the human hand. A knife would do very\nlaboriously what is done very quickly by a hatchet. The labour of using\na hatchet, and the material which it wastes, are saved twenty times over\nby the saw. But when the more delicate operations of carpentry are\nrequired--when the workman uses his planes, his rabbet-planes, his\nfillisters, his bevels, and his centre-bits--what an infinitely greater\nquantity of labour is economized, and how beautifully that work is\nperformed, which, without them, would be rough and imperfect! Every boy\nof mechanical ingenuity has tried with his knife to make a boat; and\nwith a knife only it is the work of weeks. Give him a chisel, and a\ngouge, and a vice to hold his wood, and the little boat is the work of a\nday. Let a boy try to make a round wooden box, with a lid, having only\nhis knife, and he must be expert indeed to produce anything that will be\nneat and serviceable. Give him a lathe and chisels, and he will learn to\nmake a tidy box in half an hour. Nothing but absolute necessity can\nrender it expedient to use an imperfect tool instead of a perfect. We\nsometimes see exhibitions of carving, \"all done with the common\npenknife.\" Professor Willis has truly said, with reference to such weak\nboasting, \"So far from admiring, we should pity the vanity and folly of\nsuch a display; and the more, if the work should show a natural aptitude\nin the workman: for it is certain that, if he has made good work with a\nbad tool, he would make better with a good one.\"\n\n [Illustration: Boulton.]\n\nThe Emperor Maximilian, at the beginning of the sixteenth century,\nordered a woodcut to be engraved that should represent the carpentry\noperations of his time and country. This prince was, no doubt, proud of\nthe advance of Germany in the useful arts. If the President of the\nUnited States were thus to record the advance of the republic of which\nhe is the chief, he would show us his saw-mills and his planing-mills.\nThe German carpenters, as we see, are reducing a great slab of wood into\nshape by the saw and the adze. The Americans have planing-mills, with\ncutters that make 4000 revolutions, and which plane boards eighteen feet\nlong at the rate of fifty feet, per minute; and while the face of the\nboard is planed, it is tongued and grooved at the same time--that is,\none board is made to fit closely into another. But the Americans carry\nmachinery much farther into the business of carpentry. Mr. Whitworth\ntells us that \"many works in various towns are occupied exclusively in\nmaking doors, window-frames, or staircases, by means of self-acting\nmachinery, such as planing, tenoning, morticing, and jointing machines.\nThey are able to supply builders with various parts of the wood-work\nrequired in building at a much cheaper rate than they can produce them\nin their own workshops without the aid of such machinery.\"\n\n [Illustration: Carpenters and their tools. (From an old German\n woodcut.)]\n\nBy the use of those machines we are told that twenty men can make\npanelled doors at the rate of a hundred a day--that is, one man can make\nfive doors. A panelled door is a very expensive part of an English\nhouse; and so are window-frames and staircases. If doors and windows and\nstaircases can be made cheaper, more houses and better houses will be\nbuilt; and thus more carpenters will be employed in building than if\nthose parts of a house were made by hand. The same principle applies to\nmachines as to tools. If carpenters had not tools to make houses, there\nwould be few houses made; and those that were made would be as rough as\nthe hut of the savage who has no tools. The people would go without\nhouses, and the carpenter would go without work,--to say nothing of the\npeople, who would also go without work, that now make tools for the\ncarpenter.\n\nWe build in this country more of brick than of stone, because\nbrick-earth is found almost everywhere, and stone fit for building is\nfound only in particular districts. Bricks used to pay the state a duty\nof five shillings and ten pence a thousand; and yet at the kilns they\nwere to be bought under forty shillings a thousand, which is less than a\nhalfpenny apiece. The government wisely resolved, in 1850, to repeal the\nexcise-duty on bricks. In 1845 the duty on glass was repealed. In 1847\nthe timber-duties were reduced; and in 1848 they were further reduced.\nThe ever-present necessities of the people--the absolute want of\nhouse-accommodation for a population increasing so rapidly--rendered it\na paramount duty of the government no longer to let tax interfere with\nthe cheap building of houses. Every invention that adds to cheapness\nacts in the same direction; for although the direct taxes cease to press\nupon the various trades of building, the constant demand keeps bricks\nand timber at a price almost as high as before the removal or mitigation\nof the tax. But bricks, regarded as the production of a vast amount of\nlabour, are intrinsically cheap. And why? Because they are made by what\nis truly machinery; as they were made three thousand years ago by the\nEgyptians.\n\nThe clay is ground in a horse-mill; the wooden mould, in which every\nbrick is made singly, is a copying machine. One brick is exactly like\nanother brick. Every brick is of the form of the mould in which it is\nmade. Without the mould the workman could not make the brick of uniform\ndimensions; and without this uniformity the after labour of putting\nbricks together would be greatly increased. Without the mould the\nworkman could not form the bricks quickly;--his own labour would be\nincreased ten-fold. The simple machine of the mould not only gives\nemployment to a great many brickmakers who would not be employed at all,\nbut also to a great many bricklayers who would also want employment if\nthe original cost of production were so enormously increased.\n\n [Illustration: Egyptian labour in the brick-field.]\n\nThere is another material for building which was little used at the\nbeginning of the century. The consumption of slate in London alone was,\nin 1851, from thirty thousand to forty thousand tons per annum. The\nquarries of Wales principally supply this immense quantity; but some\nslates are shipped from Lancashire and Westmorland, and from Scotland\nand Ireland. In the production of this one material, eight thousand\nquarriers are employed in Great Britain. Slates are not only used for\nroofing houses, but in slabs for cisterns and chimney-pieces. The great\nincrease of the supply of water to houses by machinery led to a demand\nfor a safer and cheaper material than lead for cisterns; and slate\nsupplied the want.\n\nHow great a variety of things are contained in an ironmonger's shop!\nHalf his store consists of tools of one sort or another to save labour;\nand the other half consists of articles of convenience or elegance most\nperfectly adapted to every possible want of the builder or the maker of\nfurniture. The uncivilized man is delighted when he obtains a nail,--any\nnail. A carpenter and joiner, who supply the wants of a highly civilized\ncommunity, are not satisfied unless they have a choice of nails, from\nthe finest brad to the largest clasp-nail. A savage thinks a nail will\nhold two pieces of wood together more completely than anything else in\nthe world. It is seldom, however, that he can afford to put it to such a\nuse. If it is large enough, he makes it into a chisel. An English joiner\nknows that screws will do the work more perfectly in some cases than any\nnail; and therefore we have as great a variety of screws as of nails.\nThe commonest house built in England has hinges, and locks, and bolts. A\ngreat number are finished with ornamented knobs to door-handles, with\nbells and bell-pulls, and a thousand other things that have grown up\ninto necessities, because they save domestic labour, and add to domestic\ncomfort. And many of these things really are necessities. M. Say, a\nFrench writer, gives us an example of this; and as his story is an\namusing one, besides having a moral, we may as well copy it:--\n\n \"Being in the country,\" says he, \"I had an example of one of those\n small losses which a family is exposed to through negligence. For\n the want of a latchet of small value, the wicket of a barn-yard\n leading to the fields was often left open. Every one who went\n through drew the door to: but as there was nothing to fasten the\n door with, it was always left flapping; sometimes open, and\n sometimes shut. So the cocks and hens, and the chickens, got out,\n and were lost. One day a fine pig got out, and ran off into the\n woods; and after the pig ran all the people about the place,--the\n gardener, and the cook, and the dairymaid. The gardener first\n caught sight of the runaway, and, hastening after it, sprained his\n ankle; in consequence of which the poor man was not able to get\n out of the house again for a fortnight. The cook found, when she\n came back from pursuing the pig, that the linen she had left by\n the fire had fallen down and was burning; and the dairymaid\n having, in her haste, neglected to tie up the legs of one of her\n cows, the cow had kicked a colt, which was in the same stable, and\n broken its leg. The gardener's lost time was worth twenty crowns,\n to say nothing of the pain he suffered. The linen which was\n burned, and the colt which was spoiled, were worth as much more.\n Here, then, was caused a loss of forty crowns, as well as much\n trouble, plague, and vexation, for the want of a latch which would\n not have cost three-pence.\" M. Say's story is one of the many\n examples of the truth of the old proverb--\"for want of a nail the\n shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of\n a horse the man was lost.\"\n\nNearly all the great variety of articles in an ironmonger's shop are\nmade by machinery. Without machinery they could not be made at all, or\nthey would be sold at a price which would prevent them being commonly\nused. Some of the finer articles, such as a Bramah lock, or a Chubb's\nlock, could not be made at all, unless machinery had been called in to\nproduce that wonderful accuracy, through which no one of a hundred\nthousand locks and keys shall be exactly like another lock and key. With\nmachinery, the manufacture of ironmongery employs large numbers of\nartisans who would be otherwise unemployed. There are hundreds of\ningenious men at Birmingham who go into business with a capital acquired\nby their savings as workmen, for the purpose of manufacturing some one\nsingle article used in finishing a house, such as the knob of a lock.\nAll the heavy work of their trade is done by machinery. The cheapness of\nthe article creates workmen; and the savings of the workmen accumulate\ncapital to be expended in larger works, and to employ more workmen.\n\nThe furniture of a house, some may say--the chairs, and tables, and\nbedsteads--is made nearly altogether by hand. True. But tools are\nmachines; and further, we owe it to what men generally call machinery,\nthat such furniture, even in the house of a very poor man, is more\ntasteful in its construction, and of finer material, than that possessed\nby a nobleman a hundred years ago. How is this? Machinery (that is\nships) has brought us much finer woods than we grow ourselves; and other\nmachinery (the sawing-mill) has taught us how to render that fine wood\nvery cheap, by economising the use of it. At a veneering-mill, that is,\na mill which cuts a mahogany log into thin plates, much more delicately\nand truly, and in infinitely less time, than they could be cut by the\nhand, two hundred and forty square feet of mahogany are cut by one\ncircular saw in one hour. A veneer, or thin plate, is cut off a piece of\nmahogany, six feet six inches long, by twelve inches wide, in\ntwenty-five seconds. What is the consequence of this? A mahogany table\nis made almost as cheap as a deal one; and thus the humblest family in\nEngland may have some article of mahogany, if it be only a tea-caddy.\nAnd let it not be said that deal furniture would afford as much\nhappiness; for a desire for comfort, and even for some degree of\nelegance, gives a refinement to the character, and, in a certain degree,\nraises our self-respect. Diogenes, who is said to have lived in a tub,\nwas a great philosopher; but it is not necessary to live in a tub to be\nwise and virtuous. Nor is that the likeliest plan for becoming so. The\nprobability is, that a man will be more wise and virtuous in proportion\nas he strives to surround himself with the comforts and decent ornaments\nof his station.\n\nIt is a circumstance worthy to be borne in mind by all who seek the\nimprovement of the people, that whatever raises not only the standard of\ncomfort, but of taste, has direct effects of utility which might not at\nfirst be perceived. We will take the case of paper-hangings. Their very\nname shows that they were a substitute for the arras, or hangings, of\nformer times, which were suspended from the ceilings to cover the\nimperfections of the walls. This was the case in the houses of the rich.\nThe poor man in his hut had no such device, but must needs \"patch a hole\nto keep the wind away.\" Till 1830, what, in the language of the excise,\nwas called stained paper, was enormously dear, for a heavy tax greatly\nimpeded its production. When it was dear, many walls were stencilled or\ndaubed over with a rude pattern. The paper-hangings themselves were not\nonly dear, but offensive to the eye, from their want of harmony in\ncolour and of beauty in design. The old papers remained on walls for\nhalf a century; and it was not till paper-hangings became a penny a\nyard, or even a halfpenny, that the landlord or tenant of a small house\nthought of re-papering. The eye at length got offended by the dirty and\nugly old paper. The walls were recovered with neat patterns. But what\nhad offended the eye had been prejudicial to the health. The old papers,\nthat were saturated with damp from without and bad air from within, were\nrecipients and holders of fever. When the bed-room became neat it also\nbecame healthful. The duty on paper was 1-3/4_d._ per yard, when the\npaper-hanger used to paste together yard after yard, made by hand at the\npaper-mill, and stamped by block. The paper-machine which gave long\nrolls of paper enabled hangings to be printed by cylinder, as calico is\nprinted. The absence of tax, and the improvement of the manufacture by\nmachinery, have enabled every man to repaper his filthy and noxious room\nfor almost as little as its whitewashing or colouring will cost him.\n\nLook, again, at the carpet. Contrast it in all its varieties, from the\ngorgeous Persian to the neat Kidderminster, with the rushes of our\nforefathers, amidst which the dogs hunted for the bones that had been\nthrown upon the floor. The clean rushes were a rare luxury, never\nthought of but upon some festive occasion. The carpet manufacture was\nlittle known in England at the beginning of the last century; as we may\njudge from our still calling one of the most commonly-woven English\ncarpets by the name of \"Brussels.\" There are twelve thousand persons now\nemployed in the manufacture of carpets in Great Britain. The Scotch\ncarpet is the cheapest of the produce of the carpet-loom; and it may be\nsufficient to show the connection of machinery with the commonest as\nwell as the finest of these productions by an engraving of the loom. One\nof the most beautiful inventions of man, the Jacquard apparatus (so\ncalled from the name of its inventor), is extensively used in every\nbranch of the carpet manufacture.\n\n [Illustration: Scotch carpet-loom.]\n\nLet us see what mechanical ingenuity can effect in producing the most\nuseful and ornamental articles of domestic life from the common earth\nwhich may be had for digging. Without chemical and mechanical skill we\nshould neither have Glass nor Pottery; and without these articles, how\nmuch lowered beneath his present station, in point of comfort and\nconvenience, would be the humblest peasant in the land!\n\nThe cost of glass is almost wholly the wages of labour, as the materials\nare very abundant, and may be said to cost almost nothing; and glass is\nmuch more easily worked than any other substance.\n\nHard and brittle as it is, it has only to be heated, and any form that\nthe workman pleases may be given to it. It melts; but when so hot as to\nbe more susceptible of form than wax or clay, or anything else that we\nare acquainted with, it still, retains a degree of toughness and\ncapability of extension superior to that of many solids, and of every\nliquid; when it has become red-hot all its brittleness is gone, and a\nman may do with it as he pleases. He may press it into a mould; he may\ntake a lump of it upon the end of an iron tube, and, by blowing into the\ntube with his mouth (keeping the glass hot all the time), he may swell\nit out into a hollow ball. He may mould that ball into a bottle; he may\ndraw it out lengthways into a pipe; he may cut it open into a cup; he\nmay open it with shears, whirl it round with the edge in the fire, and\nthus make it into a circular plate. He may also roll it out into sheets,\nand spin it into threads as fine as a cobweb. In short, so that he keeps\nit hot, and away from substances by which it may be destroyed, he can do\nwith it just as he pleases. All this, too, may be done, and is done with\nlarge quantities every day, in less time than any one would take to give\nan account of it. In the time that the readiest speaker and clearest\ndescriber were telling how one quart bottle is made, an ordinary set of\nworkmen would make some dozens of bottles.\n\nBut though the materials of glass are among the cheapest of all\nmaterials, and the substance the most obedient to the hand of the\nworkman, there is a great deal of knowledge necessary before glass can\nbe made. It can be made profitably only at large manufactories, and\nthose manufactories must be kept constantly at work night and day.\n\nGlass does not exist in a natural form in many places. The sight of\nnative crystal, probably, led men to think originally of producing a\nsimilar substance by art. The fabrication of glass is of high antiquity.\nThe historians of China, Japan, and Tartary speak of glass manufactories\nexisting there more than two thousand years ago. An Egyptian mummy two\nor three thousand years old, which was exhibited in London, was\nornamented with little fragments of coloured glass. The writings of\nSeneca, a Roman author who lived about the time of our Saviour, and of\nSt. Jerome, who lived five hundred years afterwards, speak of glass\nbeing used in windows. It is recorded that the Prior of the convent of\nWeymouth, in Dorsetshire, in the year 674, sent for French workmen to\nglaze the windows of his chapel. In the twelfth century the art of\nmaking glass was known in this country. Yet it is very doubtful whether\nglass was employed in windows, excepting those of churches and the\nhouses of the very rich, for several centuries afterwards; and it is\nquite certain that the period is comparatively recent, as we have\nshown,[21] when glass windows were used for excluding cold and admitting\nlight in the houses of the great body of the people, or that glass\nvessels were to be found amongst their ordinary conveniences. The\nmanufacture of glass in England now employs twelve thousand people,\nbecause the article, being cheap, is of universal use. The government\nhas wisely taken off the duty on glass; and as the article becomes still\ncheaper, so will the people employed in its manufacture become more\nnumerous.\n\nMachinery, as we commonly understand the term, is not much employed in\nthe manufacture of glass; but chemistry, which saves as much labour as\nmachinery, and performs work which no machinery could accomplish, is\nvery largely employed. The materials of which glass is made are sand, or\nearth, and vegetable matter, such as kelp or burnt seaweed, which\nyield alkali. For the finest glass, sand is brought from great\ndistances, even from Australia. These materials are put in a state of\nfusion by the heat of an immense furnace. It requires a red heat of\nsixty hours to prepare the material of a common bottle. Nearly all\nglass, except glass for mirrors, is what is called blown. The machinery\nis very simple, consisting only of an iron pipe and the lungs of the\nworkman; and the process is perfected in all its stages by great\nsubdivision of labour, producing extreme neatness and quickness in all\npersons employed in it. For instance, a wine-glass is made thus:--One\nman (the blower) takes up the proper quantity of glass on his pipe, and\nblows it to the size wanted for the bowl; then he whirls it round on a\nreel, and draws out the stalk. Another man (the footer) blows a smaller\nand thicker ball, sticks it to the end of the stalk of the blower's\nglass, and breaks his pipe from it. The blower opens that ball, and\nwhirls the whole round till the foot is formed. Then a boy dips a small\nrod in the glass-pot, and sticks it to the very centre of the foot. The\nblower, still turning the glass round, takes a bit of iron, wets it in\nhis mouth, and touches the ball at the place where he wishes the mouth\nof the glass to be. The glass separates, and the boy takes it to the\nfinisher, who turns the mouth of it; and, by a peculiar swing that he\ngives it round his head, makes it perfectly circular, at the same time\nthat it is so hardened as to be easily snapped from the rod. Lastly, the\nboy takes it on a forked iron to the annealing furnace, where it is\ncooled gradually.\n\n [Illustration: Glass-cutting.]\n\nAll these operations require the greatest nicety in the workmen; and\nwould take a long time in the performance, and not be very neatly done\nafter all, if they were all done by one man. But the quickness with\nwhich they are done by the division of labour is perfectly wonderful.\n\nThe cheapness of glass for common use, which cheapness is produced by\nchemical knowledge and the division of labour, has set the ingenuity of\nman to work to give greater beauty to glass as an article of luxury. The\nemployment of sharp-grinding wheels, put in motion by a treadle, and\nused in conjunction with a very nice hand, produces _cut_ glass. Cut\nglass is now comparatively so cheap, that scarcely a family of the\nmiddle ranks is without some beautiful article of this manufacture.\n\n [Illustration: Sheet-glass making.]\n\nBut the repeal of the duty on glass, and of the tax upon windows, has\nhad the effect of improving the architecture of our houses to a degree\nwhich no one would have thought possible who had not studied how the\noperation of a tax impedes production. We have now plate-glass of the\nlargest dimensions, giving light and beauty to our shops; and\nsheet-glass, nearly as effective as plate, adorning our private\ndwellings. Sheet-glass, in the making of which an amount of ingenuity is\nexercised which would have been thought impossible in the early stages\nof glass-making, is doing for the ordinary purposes of building what\nplate-glass did formerly for the rich. A portion of melted glass,\nweighing twelve or fourteen pounds, is, by the exercise of this skill,\nconverted into a ball, and then into a cylinder, and then into a flat\nplate; and thus two crystal palaces have been built, which have consumed\nas much glass, weight by weight, as was required for all the houses in\none-fourth of the area of Great Britain in the beginning of the century.\n\n [Illustration: Plate-glass Factory.]\n\nThere are two kinds of pottery--common potters' ware, and porcelain. The\nfirst is a pure kind of brick; and the second a mixture of very fine\nbrick and glass. Almost all nations have some knowledge of pottery; and\nthose of the very hot countries are sometimes satisfied with dishes\nformed by their fingers without any tool, and dried by the heat of the\nsun. In England pottery of every sort, and in all countries good\npottery, must be baked or burnt in a kiln of some kind or other.\n\nVessels for holding meat and drink are almost as indispensable as the\nmeat and drink themselves; and the two qualities in them that are most\nvaluable are, that they shall be cheap, and easily cleaned. Pottery, as\nit is now produced in England, possesses both of these qualities in the\nvery highest degree. A white basin, having all the useful properties of\nthe most costly vessels, may be purchased for twopence at the door of\nany cottage in England. There are very few substances used in human food\nthat have any effect upon these vessels; and it is only rinsing them in\nhot water, and wiping them with a cloth, and they are clean.\n\nThe making of an earthen bowl would be to a man who made a first attempt\nno easy matter. Let us see how it is done so that it can be carried two\nor three hundred miles and sold for twopence, leaving a profit to the\nmaker, and the wholesale and retail dealer.\n\nThe common pottery is made of pure clay and pure flint. The flint is\nfound only in the chalk counties, and the fine clays in Devonshire and\nDorsetshire; so that, with the exception of some clay for coarse ware,\nthe materials out of which the pottery is made have to be carried from\nthe South of England to Staffordshire, where the potteries are\nsituated.\n\nThe great advantage that Staffordshire possesses is abundance of coal to\nburn the ware and supply the engines that grind the materials.\n\nThe clay is worked in water by various machinery till it contains no\nsingle piece large enough to be visible to the eye. It is like cream in\nconsistence. The flints are burned. They are first ground in a mill, and\nthen worked in water in the same manner as the clay, the large pieces\nbeing returned a second time to the mill.\n\nWhen both are fine enough, one part of flint is mixed with five or six\nof clay; the whole is worked to a paste, after which it is kneaded\neither by the hands or a machine; and when the kneading is completed, it\nis ready for the potter.\n\nHe has a little wheel which lies horizontally. He lays a portion of clay\non the centre of the wheel, puts one hand, or finger if the vessel is to\nbe a small one, in the middle, and his other hand on the outside, and,\nas the wheel turns rapidly round, draws up a hollow vessel in an\ninstant. With his hands, or with very simple tools, he brings it to the\nshape he wishes, cuts it from the wheel with a wire, and a boy carries\nit off. The potter makes vessel after vessel, as fast as they can be\ncarried away.\n\n [Illustration: The English Potter.]\n\nThe potter's wheel is an instrument of the highest antiquity. In the\nbook of Ecclesiasticus we read--\"So doth the potter, sitting at his\nwork, and turning the wheel about with his feet, who is always carefully\nset at his work, and maketh all his work by number: he fashioneth the\nclay with his arm, and boweth down his strength before his feet; he\napplieth himself to lead it over, and is diligent to make clean the\nfurnace.\"--(c. xxxix., v. 29, 30.) At the present day the oriental\npotter stands in a pit, in which the lower machinery of his wheel is\nplaced. He works as the potter of the ancient Hebrews.\n\nAs the potter produces the vessels they are partially dried; after which\nthey are turned on a lathe and smoothed with a wet sponge when\nnecessary. Only round vessels can be made on the wheel; those of other\nshapes are made in moulds of plaster. Handles and other solid parts are\npressed in moulds, and stuck on while they and the vessels are still\nwet.\n\n [Illustration: Potter's wheel of modern Egypt.]\n\nThe vessels thus formed are first dried in a stove, and, when dry,\nburnt in a kiln. They are in this state called biscuit. If they are\nfinished white, they are glazed by another process. If they are figured,\nthe patterns are engraved on copper, and printed on coarse paper rubbed\nwith soft soap. The ink is made of some colour that will stand the fire,\nground with earthy matter. These patterns are moistened and applied to\nthe porous biscuit, which absorbs the colour, and the paper is washed\noff, leaving the pattern on the biscuit.\n\n [Illustration: Moulds for porcelain, and casts.]\n\nThe employment of machinery to do all the heavy part of the work, the\ndivision of labour, by which each workman acquires wonderful dexterity\nin his department, and the conducting of the whole upon a large scale,\ngive bread to a vast number of people, make the pottery cheap, and\nenable it to be sold at a profit in almost every market in the world. It\nis not ninety years since the first pottery of a good quality was\nextensively made in England; and before that time what was used was\nimported,--the common ware from Delft, in Holland (from which it\nacquired its name), and the porcelain from China.\n\n [Illustration: Mill-room, where the Ingredients for Pottery are mixed.]\n\nThe history of the manufacture of porcelain affords us two examples\nof persevering ingenuity--of intense devotion to one object--which have\nfew parallels in what some may consider the higher walks of art. Palissy\nand Wedgwood are names that ought to be venerated by every artisan. The\none bestowed upon France her manufacture of porcelain, so long the\nalmost exclusive admiration of the wealthy and the tasteful. The other\ngave to England her more extensive production of earthenware, combining\nwith great cheapness the imitation of the most beautiful forms of\nancient art. The potteries of Staffordshire may be almost said to have\nbeen created by Josiah Wedgwood. In his workshops we may trace the\ncommencement of a system of improved design which made his ware so\nsuperior to any other that had been produced in Europe for common uses.\nIn other branches of manufacture this system found few imitators; and we\nwere too long contented, in our textile fabrics especially, with\npatterns that were unequalled for ugliness--miserable imitations of\nforeign goods, or combinations of form and colour outraging every\nprinciple of art. We have seen higher things attempted in the present\nday; but for the greater part of a century the wares of the\nStaffordshire potter were the only attempts to show that taste was as\nvaluable a quality in association with the various articles which are\nrequired for domestic use, as good materials and clean workmanship. It\nwas long before we discovered that taste had an appreciable commercial\nvalue.\n\n [Illustration: Wedgwood.]\n\nWe think that, with regard to buildings and the furniture of buildings,\nit will be admitted that machinery, in the largest sense of the word,\nhas increased the means of every man to procure a shelter from the\nelements, and to give him a multitude of conveniences within that\nshelter. Most will agree that a greater number of persons are profitably\nemployed in affording this shelter and these conveniences, with tools\nand machines, than if they possessed no such mechanical aids to their\nindustry. In 1851 there were a hundred and eighty-two thousand\ncarpenters and joiners; thirty-one thousand brickmakers; sixty-eight\nthousand bricklayers; sixty-two thousand painters, plumbers, and\nglaziers; eighteen thousand plasterers; a hundred thousand masons (some\nof whom were paviours); forty-two thousand glass and earthenware makers;\nbesides an almost innumerable variety of subordinate trades--engaged in\nthe production of houses, their fittings, and their utensils.\n\n [21] Chapter viii. pp. 85 and 87.\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\n Dwellings of the people--Oberlin--The Highlander's\n candlesticks--Supply of water--London waterworks--\n Street-lights--Sewers.\n\n\nIt is satisfactory to observe that the increase of houses has kept pace\nwith the increase of population. In 1801, in Great Britain, there was a\npopulation of ten million five hundred thousand persons, and one million\neight hundred thousand inhabited houses. In 1851 there were twenty\nmillion eight hundred thousand persons, and three million eight hundred\nthousand inhabited houses. The numbers, in each case, had, as nearly as\nmay be, doubled.\n\nBut it is not equally satisfactory to know that the improvement in the\nquality of the houses in which the great body of those who labour for\nwages abide is not commensurate with the increase in their quantity. It\nis not fitting, that, whilst the general progress of science is raising,\nas unquestionably it is raising, the average condition of the\npeople--and that whilst education is going forward, slowly indeed, but\nstill advancing--the bulk of those so progressing should be below their\nproper standard of physical comfort, from the too common want of decent\nhouses to surround them with the sanctities of home.\n\nIn the great business of the improvement of their dwellings the\nworking-men require leaders--not demagogues, whose business is to\nsubvert, and not to build up--but leaders like the noble pastor,\nOberlin, who converted a barren district into a fruitful, by the example\nof his unremitting energy. This district was cut off from the rest of\nthe world by the want of roads. Close at hand was Strasburg, full of all\nthe conveniences of social life. There was no money to make roads--but\nthere was abundant power of labour. There were rocks to be blasted,\nembankments to be raised, bridges to be built. The undaunted clergyman\ntook a pickaxe, and went to work himself. He worked alone, till the\npeople were ashamed of seeing him so work. They came at last to perceive\nthat the thing was to be done, and that it was worth the doing. In three\nyears the road was made. If there were an Oberlin to lead the\ninhabitants of every filthy street, and the families of every wretched\nhouse, to their own proper work of improvement, a terrible evil would be\nsoon removed, which is as great an impediment to the productive powers\nof a country, and therefore to the happiness of its people, as the want\nof ready communication, or any other appliance of civilization. The\nenormity of the evil would be appalling, if the capability of its\nremoval in some degree were not equally certain.\n\nWhatever a government may attempt--whatever municipalities or benevolent\nassociations--there can be nothing so effectual in the upholding to a\nproper mark the domestic comfort of the working-men of this country, as\ntheir firm resolve to uphold themselves.\n\nStill, unhappily, it is an undoubted fact that the most industrious men\nin large cities are too often unable to procure a fit dwelling, however\nable to pay for it and desirous to procure it. The houses have been\nbuilt with no reference to such increasing wants. The idle and the\ndiligent, the profligate and the prudent, the criminal and the honest,\nthe diseased and the healthful, are therefore thrust into close\nneighbourhood. There is no escape. Is this terrible evil incapable of\nremedy? To discover that remedy, and apply it, is truly a national\nconcern; for assuredly there is no capital of a country so worth\npreserving in the highest state of efficiency as the capital it\npossesses in an industrious population. There is a noble moral in a\npassage of Scott's romance, 'The Legend of Montrose.' A Highland chief\nhad betted with a more luxurious English baronet whom he had visited,\nthat he had better candlesticks at home than the six silver ones which\nthe richer man had put upon his dinner-table. The Englishman went to the\nchief's castle in the hills, where the owner was miserable about the\nissue of his bragging bet. But his brother had a device which saved the\nhonour of the clan. The attendant announced that the dinner was ready,\nand the candles lighted. Behind each chair for the guests stood a\ngigantic Highlander with his drawn sword in his right hand, and a\nblazing torch in his left, made of the bog-pine; and the brother\nexclaimed to the startled company--'Would you dare to compare to THEM in\nvalue the richest ore that ever was dug out of the mine?'\n\nWe may naturally pass from these considerations to a most important\nbranch of the great subject of the expenditure of capital for public\nobjects.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThe people who live in small villages, or in scattered habitations in\nthe country, have certainly not so many _direct_ benefits from machinery\nas the inhabitants of towns. They have the articles at a cheap rate\nwhich machines produce, but there are not so many machines at work for\nthem as for dense populations. From want of knowledge they may be unable\nto perceive the connexion between a cheap coat, or a cheap tool, and the\nmachines which make them plentiful, and therefore cheap. But even they,\nwhen the saving of labour by a machine is a saving which immediately\naffects them, are not slow to acknowledge the benefits they derive from\nthat best of economy. The Scriptures allude to the painful condition of\nthe \"hewers of wood\" and the \"drawers of water;\" and certainly--in a\nstate of society where there are no machines at all, or very rude\nmachines--to cut down a tree and cleave it into logs, and to raise a\nbucket from a well, are very laborious occupations, the existence of\nwhich, to any extent, amongst a people, would mark them as remaining in\na wretched condition. Immediately that the people have the simplest\nmechanical contrivance, such as the loaded lever, to raise water from a\nwell, which is found represented in Egyptian sculpture, and also in our\nown Anglo-Saxon drawings, they are advancing to the condition of raising\nwater by machinery. The oriental _shadoof_ is a machine. In our own\ncountry, at the present day, there are not many houses, in situations\nwhere water is at hand, that have not the windlass, or, what is better,\nthe pump, to raise this great necessary of life from the well. Some\ncottagers, however, have no such machines, and bitterly do they lament\nthe want of them. We once met an old woman in a country district\ntottering under the weight of a bucket, which she was labouring to carry\nup a hill. We asked her how she and her family were off in the world.\nShe replied, that she could do pretty well with them, for they could all\nwork, if it were not for one thing--it was one person's labour to fetch\nwater from the spring; but, said she, if we had a pump handy, we should\nnot have much to complain of. This old woman very wisely had no love of\nlabour for its own sake; she saw no advantage in the labour of one of\nher family being given for the attainment of a good which she knew might\nbe attained by a very common invention. She wanted a machine to save\nthat labour. Such a machine would have set at liberty a certain quantity\nof labour which was previously employed unprofitably; in other words,\nit would have left her or her children more time for more profitable\nwork, and then the family earnings would have been increased.\n\n [Illustration: Ancient Shadoof.]\n\nBut there is another point of view in which this machine would have\nbenefited the good woman and her family. Water is not only necessary to\ndrink and to prepare food with, but it is necessary for cleanliness, and\ncleanliness is necessary for health. If there is a scarcity of water, or\nif it requires a great deal of labour to obtain it, (which comes to the\nsame thing as a scarcity,) the uses of water for cleanliness will be\nwholly or in part neglected. If the neglect becomes a habit, which it is\nsure to do, disease, and that of the worst sort, cannot be prevented.\n\nWhen men gather together in large bodies, and inhabit towns or cities, a\nplentiful supply of water is the first thing to which they direct their\nattention. If towns are built in situations where pure water cannot be\nreadily obtained, the inhabitants, and especially the poorer sort,\nsuffer even more misery than results from the want of bread or clothes.\nIn some cities of Spain, for instance, where the people understand very\nlittle about machinery, water, at particular periods of the year, is as\ndear as wine; and the labouring classes are consequently in a most\nmiserable condition. In London, on the contrary, water is so plentiful,\nthat, as it appears from a return of the various water companies, the\ndaily average of water-supply is sixty-two million gallons, being an\naverage of about two hundred and two gallons to each house and other\nbuildings, which amount to three hundred and ten thousand. This seems an\nenormous supply; but there are reasons for thinking that the quantity\nought to be increased, and the arrangements made so perfect, that there\nshould be a perpetual stream of water through the pipes of each house,\nlike that through the arteries from the heart. The condition upon which\nthe present water companies are allowed to continue their functions is,\nthat they shall, before the expiration of another year, provide a larger\nand a purer supply. Yet, incomplete as these arrangements are, they are\nwondrous when compared with the water-supply of other times; and it is\nsatisfactory to know that there are very few of our great towns which\nare not supplied as well as, and many much better than, London. There\nare very few large places in Great Britain where, by machinery, water is\nnot only delivered to the kitchens and washhouses on the ground-floors,\nwhere it is most wanted, but is sent up to the very tops of the houses,\nto save even the comparatively little labour of fetching it from the\nbottom. The cost of this greatly varies in particular localities; and in\nmost places the supply is afforded more cheaply than in the metropolis.\nThere are natural difficulties in London, as in other vast cities, which\nhave been chiefly created through the unexampled increase of the people.\nThe sanitary arrangements of our great towns--the supply of water, the\ndrainage--have followed the growth of the population and not preceded\nit. As the necessity has arisen for such a ministration to the absolute\nwants of a community, it has inevitably become a system of expedients.\nWe are wiser now when we build upon new ground. We first construct our\nlines of street, with sewers, and water-pipes, and gas-pipes, and then\nwe build our houses. What a different affair is it to manage these\nmatters effectually when the houses have been previously built with very\nslight reference to such conditions of social existence!\n\nAs long ago as the year 1236, when a great want of water was felt in\nLondon, the little springs being blocked up and covered over by\nbuildings, the ruling men of the city caused water to be brought from\nTyburn, which was then a distant village, by means of pipes; and they\nlaid a tax upon particular branches of trade to pay the expense of this\ngreat blessing to all. In succeeding times more pipes and conduits, that\nis, more machinery, were established for the same good purpose; and two\ncenturies afterwards, King Henry the Sixth gave his aid to the same sort\nof works, in granting particular advantages in obtaining lead for making\npipes. The reason for this aid to such works was, as the royal decree\nset forth, that they were \"for the common utility and decency of all\nthe city, and _for the universal advantage_,\" and a very true reason\nthis was. As this great town more and more increased, more waterworks\nwere found necessary; till at last, in the reign of James the First,\nwhich was nearly two hundred years after that of Henry the Sixth, a most\ningenious and enterprising man, and a great benefactor to his country,\nHugh Myddleton, undertook to bring a river of pure water above\nthirty-eight miles out of its natural course, for the supply of London.\nHe persevered in this immense undertaking, in spite of every difficulty,\ntill he at last accomplished that great good which he had proposed, of\nbringing wholesome water to every man's door. At the present time, the\nNew River, which was the work of Hugh Myddleton, supplies more than\nseventeen millions of gallons of water every day; and though the\noriginal projector was ruined, by the undertaking, in consequence of the\ndifficulty which he had in procuring proper support, such is now the\ngeneral conviction of the advantage which he procured for his\nfellow-citizens, and so desirous are the people to possess that\nadvantage, that a share in the New River Company, which was at first\nsold at one hundred pounds, is now worth three thousand pounds.\n\nBefore the people of London had water brought to their own doors, and\neven into their very houses, and into every room of their houses where\nit is desirable to bring it, they were obliged to send for this great\narticle of life--first, to the few springs which were found in the city\nand its neighbourhood, and, secondly, to the conduits and fountains,\nwhich were imperfect mechanical contrivances for bringing it.\n\n [Illustration: Conduit in Westcheap.]\n\nThe service-pipes to each house are more perfect mechanical\ncontrivances; but they could not have been rendered so perfect without\nengines, which force the water above the level of the source from which\nit is taken. When the inhabitants fetched their water from the springs\nand conduits there was a great deal of human labour employed; and as in\nevery large community there are always people ready to perform labour\nfor money, many persons obtained a living by carrying water. When the\nNew River had been dug, and the pipes had been laid down, and the\nengines had been set up, it is perfectly clear that there would have\nbeen no further need for these water-carriers. When the people of London\ncould obtain two hundred gallons of water for twopence, they would not\nemploy a man to fetch a single bucket from the river or fountain at the\nsame price. They would not, for the mere love of employing human labour\ndirectly, continue to buy an article very dear, which, by mechanical\naid, they could buy very cheap. If they had resolved, from any mistaken\nnotions about machinery, to continue to employ the water-carriers, they\nmust have been contented with one gallon of water a day instead of two\nhundred gallons. Or if they had consumed a larger quantity, and\ncontinued to pay the price of bringing it to them by hand, they must\nhave denied themselves other necessaries and comforts. They must have\ngone without a certain portion of food, or clothing, or fuel, which they\nare now enabled to obtain by the saving in the article of water. To have\nhad for each house two hundred gallons of water, and, in having this two\nhundred gallons of water, to have had the cleanliness and health which\nresult from its use, would have been utterly impossible. The supply of\none gallon, instead of two hundred gallons to each house, would at\npresent amount to 310,000 gallons daily; which at a penny a gallon would\ncost 1291_l._ per day; or 9037_l._ per week; or 469,724_l._, or very\nnearly half a million, per year. Upon the assumption that one man,\nwithout any mechanical arrangement besides his can, could carry twenty\ngallons a day, thus earning ten shillings a week, this would employ no\nfewer than 18,074 persons--a very army of water-carriers. To supply ten\ngallons a day to each house would cost nearly five millions a year, and\nwould employ 180,740 persons. To supply two hundred gallons a day would\nrequire 3,614,800 persons--a number exceeding the total population of\nLondon. The whole number of persons engaged in the waterworks' service\nof all Great Britain is under 1000.\n\n [Illustration: Old water-carrier of London.]\n\nThere is now, certainly, no labour to be performed by water-carriers.\nBut suppose that five hundred years ago, when there were a small number\nof persons who gained their living by such drudgery, they had determined\nto prevent the bringing of water by pipes into London. Suppose also that\nthey had succeeded; and that up to the present day we had no pipes or\nother mechanical aids for supplying the water. It is quite evident that\nif this misfortune had happened--if the welfare of the many had been\nretarded (for it never could have been finally stopped) by the ignorance\nof the few--London, as we have already shown, would not have had a\ntwentieth part of its present population; and the population of every\nother town, depending as population does upon the increase of\n_profitable_ labour, could never have gone forward. How then would the\ncase have stood as to the amount of labour engaged in the supply of\nwater? A few hundred, at the utmost a few thousand, carriers of water\nwould have been employed throughout the kingdom; while the smelters and\nfounders of iron of which water-pipes are made, the labourers who lay\ndown these pipes, the founders of lead who make the service-pipes, and\nthe plumbers who apply them; the carriers, whether by water or land, who\nare engaged in bringing them to the towns, the manufacturers of the\nengines which raise the water, the builders of the houses in which the\nengines stand--these, and many other labourers and mechanics who\ndirectly and indirectly contribute to the same public advantage, could\nnever have been called into employment. To have continued to use the\npower of the water-carriers would have rendered the commodity two\nhundred times dearer than it is supplied by mechanical power. The\npresent cheapness of production, by mechanical power, supplies\nemployment to an infinitely greater number of persons than could have\nbeen required by a perseverance in the rude and wasteful system which\nbelonged to former ages of ignorance and wretchedness.\n\nWhen a severe frost chokes up the small water-pipes that conduct the\nuseful stream into each house, what anxiety and trouble is there in\nevery thoroughfare! The main pipes are not frozen; and the supply is to\nbe got in pails and pitchers from a plug in the pavement, where a\ntemporary cock is inserted. How gladly is this device resorted to! But\nimagine it to be the labour of every day, and what an amount of\nprofitable time would be deducted from domestic employ!\n\n [Illustration: Plug in a frost.]\n\nWhen society is more perfectly organized than it is at present, and when\nthe great body of the people understand the value of co-operation for\nprocuring advantages that individuals cannot attain, public baths will\nbe established in every town, and in every district of a town. The great\nRoman people had public baths for all ranks; and remains of their baths\nstill exist in this country. The great British people have only thought\nwithin these few years that public baths were a necessity. The\nestablishment of public washhouses, in connexion with baths, having\nevery advantage of machinery and economical arrangements, are real\nblessings to the few who now use them.\n\nIt is little more than thirty years since London was lighted with gas.\nPall Mall was thus lighted in 1807, by a chartered company, to whose\nclaims for support the majority of householders were utterly opposed.\nThey had their old oil-lamps, which were thought absolute perfection.\nThe main pipes which convey gas to the London houses are now fifteen\nhundred miles in length. There are, we believe, nearly a thousand\nproprietory gas-works in Great Britain. The noblest prospect in the\nworld is London from Hampstead Heath on a bright winter's evening. The\nstars are shining in heaven, but there are thousands of earthly stars\nglittering in the city there spread before us: and as we look into any\nsmall space of that wondrous illumination, we can trace long lines of\nlight losing themselves in the general splendor of the distance, and we\ncan see dim shapes of mighty buildings afar off, showing their dark\nmasses amidst the glowing atmosphere that hangs over the capital for\nmiles, with the edges of flickering clouds gilded as if they were\ntouched by the first sunlight. This is a spectacle that men look not\nupon, because it is common; and so we walk amidst the nightly splendours\nof the Strand, and forget what it was in the middle of the last\ncentury--the days of \"darkness visible,\" under the combined efforts of\nthe twinkling lamp, the watchman's lantern, and the vagabond's link.\n\nThe last, but in many respects one of the most useful of public works in\nGreat Britain, to which a large amount of capital has been devoted, is\nthe construction of sewers in our cities and towns. Popular intelligence\nand official power have been very slowly awakened to the performance of\nthis duty. And yet the consequences of neglect have been felt for\ncenturies. In 1290 the monks of White Friars and of Black Friars\ncomplained to the king that the exhalations from the Fleet River\novercame the pleasant odour of the frankincense which burned on their\naltars, and occasioned the deaths of the brethren. This was the polluted\nstream that in time came to be known as Fleet Ditch, which Pope\ndescribed as\n\n \"The king of dykes, than whom no sluice of mud\n With deeper sable blots the silver flood.\"\n\n [Illustration: London street-lights, 1760.]\n\nFleet Ditch became such a nuisance that it was partly filled up by act\nof parliament soon after these lines were written. The Londoners had\nthen their reservoirs of filth, called laystalls, in various parts near\nthe river; and the pestilent accumulations spread disease all over the\ncity. The system of sewers was begun in 1756, and from that time to the\npresent several hundreds of miles of sewers have been constructed. But,\nalas, the Thames itself is now \"the king of dykes,\" and the metropolis,\nhealthy as it is, will never attain the sanitary state of which it is\ncapable till the whole system of the outfall of the sewers is changed.\nThe necessary work would involve the expenditure of millions. But the\nmillions must be spent. In the mean time it is satisfactory to know that\nin towns of smaller population, where the evil is far less vast, and the\nnatural difficulties of removal greatly less, the work of purification\nis going on rapidly. Public opinion has gone so strongly in the\ndirection of a thorough reformation, that the duty can no longer be\nneglected. Every thousand pounds of public capital so expended is an\naddition to one of the best accumulations of national wealth.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\n Early intercourse with foreign nations--Progress of the\n cotton manufacture--Hand-spinning--Arkwright--Crompton--\n Power-loom--Cartwright--Especial benefits of machinery\n in this manufacture.\n\n\nThere was a time when the people of England were very inferior to those\nof the Low Countries, of France, and of Germany, in various productions\nof manufacturing industry. We first gave an impulse to our woollen\ntrade, which for several centuries was the great staple of the country;\nby procuring foreign workmen to teach our people their craft. Before\nthat period the nations on the Continent had a proverb against us. They\nsaid, \"the stranger buys of the Englishman the skin of the fox for a\ngroat, and sells him the tail again for a shilling.\" The proverb meant\nthat we had not skill to convert the raw material into an article of\nuse, and that we paid a large price for the labour and ingenuity which\nmade our native material available to ourselves.\n\nBut still our intercourse, such as it was then, with \"the stranger\" was\nbetter than no intercourse. We gave the rough and stinking fox's skin\nfor a groat, and we got the nicely dressed tippet for a shilling. The\nnext best thing to dressing the skin ourselves was to pay other people\nfor dressing it. Without foreign communication we should not have got\nthat article of clothing at all.\n\nAll nations that have made any considerable advance in civilization have\nbeen commercial nations. The arts of life are very imperfectly\nunderstood in countries which have little communication with the rest of\nthe world, and consequently the inhabitants are poor and\nwretched;--their condition is not bettered by the exchange with other\ncountries, either of goods or of knowledge. They have the fox's skin,\nbut they do not know how to convert it into value, by being furriers\nthemselves, or by communication with \"stranger\" furriers.\n\n [Illustration: Cotton; showing a pod bursting.]\n\nThe people of the East, amongst whom a certain degree of civilization\nhas existed from high antiquity, were not only the growers of many\nproductions which were unsuited to the climate and soil of Europe, but\nthey were the manufacturers also. Cotton, for instance, was cultivated\nfrom time immemorial in Hindustan, in China, in Persia, and in Egypt.\nCotton was a material easily grown and collected; and the patient\nindustry of the people by whom it was cultivated, their simple habits,\nand their few wants, enabled them to send into Europe their manufactured\nstuffs of a fine and durable quality, under every disadvantage of\nland-carriage, even from the time of the ancient Greeks. Before the\ndiscovery, however, of the passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope,\ncotton goods in Europe were articles of great price and luxury. M. Say\nwell observes that, although cotton stuffs were cheaper than silk (which\nwas formerly sold for its weight in gold), they were still articles\nwhich could only be purchased by the most opulent; and that, if a\nGrecian lady could awake from her sleep of two thousand years, her\nastonishment would be unbounded to see a simple country girl clothed\nwith a gown of printed cotton, a muslin kerchief, and a coloured shawl.\n\nWhen India was open to the ships of Europe, the Portuguese, the Dutch,\nand the English sold cotton goods in every market, in considerable\nquantities. These stuffs bore their Indian names of calicoes and\nmuslins; and, whether bleached or dyed, were equally valued as amongst\nthe most useful and ornamental articles of European dress.\n\nIn the seventeenth century France began to manufacture into stuffs the\n_raw_ cotton imported from India, as Italy had done a century before. A\ncruel act of despotism drove the best French workmen, who were\nProtestants, into England, and we learned the manufacture. The same act\nof despotism, the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, caused the\nsettlement of silk-manufacturers in Spitalfields. We did not make any\nconsiderable progress in the art, nor did we use the material of cotton\nexclusively in making up the goods. The warp, or longitudinal threads of\nthe cloth, were of flax, the weft only was of cotton; for we could not\ntwist it hard enough by hand to serve both purposes. This weft was spun\nentirely by hand with a distaff and spindle--the same process in which\nthe women of England had been engaged for centuries; and which we see\nrepresented in ancient drawings. Our manufacture, in spite of all these\ndisadvantages, continued to increase; so that about 1760, although\nthere were fifty thousand spindles at work in Lancashire alone, the\nweaver found the greatest difficulty in procuring a sufficient supply of\nthread. Neither weaving nor spinning was then carried on in large\nfactories. They were domestic occupations. The women of a family worked\nat the distaff or the hand-wheel, and there were two operations\nnecessary in this department; roving, or coarse spinning, reduced the\ncarded cotton to the thickness of a quill, and the spinner afterwards\ndrew out and twisted the roving into weft fine enough for the weaver.\nThe spinsters of England were carrying on the same operation as the\nspinsters of India. In the middle of the last century, according to Mr.\nGuest, a writer on the cotton-manufacture, very few weavers could\nprocure weft enough to keep themselves constantly employed. \"It was no\nuncommon thing,\" he says, \"for a weaver to walk three or four miles in a\nmorning, and call on five or six spinners, before he could collect weft\nto serve him for the remainder of the day; and when he wished to weave a\npiece in a shorter time than usual, a new ribbon or gown was necessary\nto quicken the exertions of the spinner.\"\n\n [Illustration: Distaff.]\n\nThat the manufacture should have flourished in England at all under\nthese difficulties is honourable to the industry of our country; for the\nmachinery used in weaving was also of the rudest sort, so that, if the\nweb was more than three feet wide, the labour of two men was necessary\nto throw the shuttle. English cotton goods, of course, were very dear,\nand there was little variety in them. The cloth made of flax and cotton\nwas called fustian; for which article Manchester was famous, as well as\nfor laces. We still, received the calicoes and printed cottons from\nIndia.\n\n [Illustration: A Hindoo woman spinning Cotton.]\n\nIn a country like ours, where men have learned to think, and where\ningenuity therefore is at work, a deficiency in material or in labour to\nmeet the demand of a market is sure to call forth invention. It is a\ncentury ago since it was perceived that spinning by machinery might give\nthe supply which human labour was inadequate to produce, because,\ndoubtless, the remuneration for that labour was very small. The work of\nthe distaff, as it was carried on at that period, in districts partly\nagricultural and partly commercial, was, generally, an employment for\nthe spare hours of the young women, and the easy industry of the old.\nIt was a labour that was to assist in maintaining the family,--not a\ncomplete means for their maintenance. The supply of yarn was therefore\ninsufficient, and ingenious men applied themselves to remedy that\ninsufficiency. Spinning-mills were built at Northampton in 1733, in\nwhich, it is said, although we have no precise account of it, that an\napparatus for spinning was erected. A Mr. Lawrence Earnshaw, of Mottram,\nin Cheshire, is recorded to have invented a machine, in 1753, to spin\nand reel cotton at one operation; which he showed to his neighbours and\nthen destroyed it, through the generous apprehension that he might\ndeprive the poor of bread. We must admire the motive of this good man,\nalthough we are now enabled to show that his judgment was mistaken.\nRichard Arkwright, a barber of Preston, invented, in 1769, the principal\npart of the machinery for spinning cotton, and by so doing he gave bread\nto about two millions of people instead of fifty thousand; and, assisted\nby subsequent inventions, raised the importation of cotton-wool from\nless than two million pounds per annum to a thousand million pounds; has\nenabled us to supply other nations with cotton manufactures to the\nenormous amount of thirty-three million pounds sterling, in one year,\n1853; has raised the annual produce of the manufacture from two hundred\nthousand pounds sterling to at least sixty million pounds sterling; and\nhas given direct employment to half a million of men, women, and young\npersons.\n\n [Illustration: Sir Richard Arkwright.]\n\nAnd how did Arkwright effect this great revolution? He asked himself\nwhether it was not possible, instead of a wheel which spins a single\nthread of cotton at a time, and by means of which the spinner could\nobtain in twenty-four hours about two ounces of thread,--whether it\nmight not be possible to spin the same material upon a great number of\nwheels, from which many hundreds of threads might issue at the same\nmoment. The difficulty was in giving to these numerous wheels, spinning\nso many threads, the peculiar action of two hands when they pinch, at a\nlittle distance from each other, a lock of cotton, rendering it finer\nas it is drawn out. It was necessary, also, at the same time, to imitate\nthe action of the spindle, which twisted together the filaments at the\nmoment they had attained the necessary degree of fineness. It would be\nextremely difficult, if not impossible, to give an adequate idea, by\nwords, of the complex machinery by which Arkwright accomplished his\nobject. Since Arkwright's time prodigious improvements have been made in\nthe machinery for cotton-spinning; but the principle remains the same,\nnamely, to enable rollers to do the work of human fingers, with much\ngreater precision, and incomparably cheaper. We will attempt briefly to\ndescribe this chief portion of the great invention.\n\nWe must suppose that, by the previous operation of carding, the\ncotton-wool has been so combed and prepared as to be formed into a long\nuntwisted line of about the thickness of a man's finger. This line so\nformed (after it has been introduced into the spinning-machine) is\ncalled a _roving_, the old name in hand-spinning.\n\n [Illustration: Arkwright's original spinning-machine.]\n\nIn order to convert this roving into a thread, it is necessary that the\nfibres, which are for the most part curled up, and which lie in all\ndirections, should be stretched out and laid lengthwise, side by side;\nthat they should be pressed together so as to give them a more compact\nform; and that they should be twisted, so as to unite them all firmly\ntogether. In the original method of spinning by the distaff, those\noperations were performed by the finger and thumb, and they were\nafterwards effected with greater rapidity, but less perfectly, by means\nof the long wheel and spindle. For the same purpose, Arkwright employed\ntwo pairs of small rollers, the one pair being placed at a little\ndistance in front of the other. The lower roller in each pair is\nfurrowed or fluted lengthwise, and the upper one is covered with\nleather; so that, as they revolve in contact with each other, they take\nfast hold of the cotton which passes between them. Both pairs of rollers\nare turned by machinery, which is so contrived that the second pair\nshall turn round with much more swiftness than the first. Now suppose\nthat a roving is put between the first pair of rollers. The immediate\neffect is merely to press it together into a more compact form. But the\nroving has but just passed through the first pair of rollers, when it is\nreceived between the second pair; and as the rollers of the second pair\nrevolve with greater velocity than those of the first, they draw the\nroving forwards with greater rapidity than it is given out by the first\npair. Consequently, the roving will be lengthened in passing from one\npair to the other; and the fibres of which it is composed will be drawn\nout and laid lengthwise side by side. The increase of length will be\nexactly in proportion to the increased velocity of the second pair of\nrollers.\n\nTwo or more rovings are generally united in this operation. Thus,\nsuppose that two rovings are introduced together between the first pair\nof rollers, and that the second pair of rollers moves with twice the\nvelocity of the first. The new roving thus formed by the union of the\ntwo will then be of exactly twice the length of either of the original\nones. It will therefore contain exactly the same quantity of cotton per\nyard. But its parts will be very differently arranged, and its fibres\nwill be drawn out longitudinally, and will be thus much better fitted\nfor forming a thread. This operation of doubling and drawing is repeated\nas often as is found necessary, and the requisite degree of twist is\ngiven by a machine similar to the spindle and fly of the common\nflax-wheel.\n\nThe spinning-mule, invented by Samuel Crompton, carried the mechanism of\nthe cotton-factory many steps in advance. Long after Crompton, came the\nself-acting mule. It is a carriage some twenty or thirty feet long,\ntravelling to and fro, and drawing out the most delicate threads through\nhundreds of spindles, whirling at a rate which scarcely permits the eye\nto trace their motion. Mr. Whitworth says,--\"So great are the\nimprovements effected in spinning machinery, that one man can attend to\na mule containing 1088 spindles, each spinning 3 hanks, or 3264 hanks in\nthe aggregate per day. In Hindustan, where they still spin by hand, it\nwould be extravagant to expect a spinner to accomplish one hank per day;\nso that in the United States [and in Great Britain also] we find the\nsame amount of manual labour, by improved machinery, doing more than\n3000 times the work.\"\n\n [Illustration: Samuel Crompton, inventor of the spinning-mule.]\n\nOf the rapidity with which some portions of the machinery operate, we\nmay form an idea from the fact that the very finest thread which is used\nin making lace is passed through the strong flame of a lamp, which burns\noff the fibres without burning the thread itself. The velocity with\nwhich the thread moves is so great, that we cannot perceive any motion\nat all. The line of thread, passing off a wheel through the flame,\nlooks as if were perfectly at rest; and it appears a miracle that it is\nnot burnt.\n\n [Illustration: Cotton Mule-spinning.]\n\nThe invention of Arkwright--the substitution of rollers for\nfingers--changed the commerce of the world. The machinery by which a\nman, or woman, or even child, could produce two hundred threads where\none was produced before, caused a cheapness of production much greater\nthan that of India, where human labour is scarcely worth anything. But\nthe fabric of cotton was also infinitely improved by the machinery. The\nhand of the spinner was unequal to its operations. It sometimes produced\na fine thread, and sometimes a coarse one; and therefore the quality of\nthe cloth could not be relied upon. The yarn which is spun by machinery\nis sorted with the greatest exactness, and numbered according to its\nquality. This circumstance alone, which could only result from\nmachinery, has a direct tendency to diminish the cost of production.\nMachinery not only adds to human power, and economizes human time, but\nit works up the most common materials into articles of value, and\nequalizes the use of valuable materials. Thus, in linen of which the\nthread is spun by the hand, a thick thread and a thin thread will be\nfound side by side; and, therefore, not only is material wasted, but the\nfabric is less durable, because it wears unequally.\n\nThese circumstances--the diminished cost of cotton goods, and the added\nvalue to the quality--have rendered it impossible for the cheap labour\nof India to come into the market against the machinery of Europe. The\ntrade in Indian cotton goods is gone for ever. Not even the caprices of\nfashion can have an excuse for purchasing the dearer commodity. We make\nit cheaper, and we make it better. The trade in cotton, as it exists in\nthe present day, is the great triumph of human ingenuity. We bring the\nraw material from the country of the people who grow it, on the other\nside of our globe; we manufacture it by our machines into articles which\nwe used to buy from them ready-made; and taking back those articles to\ntheir own markets, encumbered with the cost of transport for fourteen\nthousand miles, we sell the cotton to these very people cheaper than\nthey can produce it themselves, and they buy it therefore with\neagerness.\n\nNearly twenty years after Arkwright had begun to spin by machinery, that\nis in 1786, the price of a particular sort of cotton-yarn much used in\nthe manufacture of calico was thirty-eight shillings a pound. That same\nyarn in 1832 was two shillings and eleven pence a pound. In 1814 the\nselling price of a piece of calico distinguished by the trade as 72-7/8\nwas twenty-eight shillings; in 1844 it was six shillings and nine pence.\nIt is probably less at this day. If cotton goods were worn only by the\nfew rich, as they were worn in ancient times, and even in the latter\nhalf of the last century, that difference of price would not be a great\nobject; but the price is a very important object when every man, woman,\nand child in the United Kingdom has to pay it. Calico is four times as\ncheap as it was forty years ago. There are no very certain data for the\nproduce of our looms, for, happily, no tax exists upon the great\nnecessaries of life which they produce. But it has been calculated that\nthe home consumption of cotton cloth is equal to twenty-six yards for\nevery individual of the population; and taking the total number at\ntwenty-seven millions, the quantity required would be seven hundred\nmillion yards. At five pence a yard, the seven hundred million yards of\ncloth amount to above fourteen million pounds sterling. At half-a-crown\na yard, which we will take as the average price about forty years ago,\nthey would amount to eighty-four millions of pounds sterling. At twelve\nor fourteen times the present price, or six shillings a yard, which\nproportion we get by knowing the price of yarn seventy years ago and at\nthe present day, the cost of seven hundred million yards of cotton cloth\nwould be one hundred and seventy-five millions of pounds sterling. It is\nperfectly clear that no such sum of money could be paid for cotton\ngoods, and that in fact, instead of between fourteen and fifteen\nmillions being spent in this article of clothing by persons of all\nclasses, in consequence of the cheapness of the commodity, we should go\nback to very nearly the same consumption that existed before Arkwright's\ninvention, that is, to the consumption of the year 1750, when the whole\namount of the cotton manufacture of the kingdom did not exceed the\nannual value of two hundred thousand pounds. At that rate of value, the\nquantity of cloth manufactured could not have been equal to one\nfive-hundredth part of that which is now manufactured for home\nconsumption. Where one person a century ago consumed one yard, the\nconsumption per head has risen to about twenty-six yards. This vast\ndifference in the comforts of every family, by the ability which they\nnow possess of easily acquiring warm and healthful clothing, is a clear\ngain to all society, and to every one as a portion of society. It is\nmore especially a gain to the females and the children of families,\nwhose condition is always degraded when clothing is scanty. The power of\nprocuring cheap clothing for themselves, and for their children, has a\ntendency to raise the condition of females more than any other addition\nto their stock of comfort. It cultivates habits of cleanliness and\ndecency; and those are little acquainted with the human character who\ncan doubt whether cleanliness and decency are not only great aids to\nvirtue, but virtues themselves. John Wesley said that cleanliness was\nnext to godliness. There is little self-respect amidst dirt and rags,\nand without self-respect there can be no foundation for those qualities\nwhich most contribute to the good of society. The power of procuring\nuseful clothing at a cheap price has raised the condition of women\namongst us, and the influence of the condition of women upon the welfare\nof a community can never be too highly estimated.\n\nThat the manufacture of cotton by machinery has produced one of the\ngreat results for which machinery is to be desired, namely, cheapness of\nproduction, cannot, we think, be doubted. If increased employment of\nhuman labour has gone along with that cheapness of production, even the\nmost prejudiced can have no doubt of the advantages of this machinery to\nall classes of the community.\n\nAt the time that Arkwright commenced his machinery, a man named\nHargreave, who had set up a less perfect invention, was driven out of\nLancashire, at the peril of his life, by a combination of the old\nspinners by the wheel. In 1789, when the spinning machinery was\nintroduced into Normandy, the hand-spinners there also destroyed the\nmills, and put down the manufacture for a time. Lancashire and Normandy\nare now, in England and France, the great seats of the cotton\nmanufacture. The people of Lancashire and Normandy had not formerly the\nmeans, as we have now, of knowing that cheap production produces\nincreased employment. There were many examples of this principle\nformerly to be found in arts and manufactures; but the people were badly\neducated upon such subjects, principally because studious and inquiring\nmen had thought such matters beneath their attention. We live in times\nmore favourable for these researches. The people of Lancashire and\nNormandy, at the period we mention, being ignorant of what would conduce\nto their real welfare, put down the machines. In both countries they\nwere a very small portion of the community that attempted such an\nillegal act. The weavers were interested in getting cotton yarn cheap,\nso the combination was opposed to their interests; and the spinners were\nchiefly old women and girls, very few in number, and of little\ninfluence. Yet they and their friends, both in England and France, made\na violent clamour; and but for the protection of the laws, the\nmanufactories in each country would never have been set up. What was the\neffect upon the condition of this very population? M. Say, in his\n'Complete Course of Political Economy,' states, upon the authority of an\nEnglish manufacturer of fifty years' experience, that, in ten years\nafter the introduction of the machines, the people employed in the\ntrade, spinners and weavers, were more than forty times as many as when\nthe spinning was done by hand. The spinning machinery of Lancashire\nalone now produces as much yarn as would require more than the entire\npopulation of the United Kingdom to produce with the distaff and\nspindle. This immense power might be supposed to have superseded human\nlabour altogether in the production of cotton yarn. It did no such\nthing. It gave a now direction to the labour that was formerly employed\nat the distaff and spindle; but it increased the quantity of labour\naltogether employed in the manufacture of cotton, at least a hundred\nfold. It increased it too where an increase of labour was most\ndesirable. It gave constant, easy, and not unpleasant occupation to\nwomen and children. In all the departments of cotton spinning, and in\nmany of those of weaving by the power-loom, women and children are\nemployed. There are degrees, of course, in the agreeable nature of the\nemployment, particularly as to its being more or less cleanly. But there\nare extensive apartments in large cotton-factories, where great numbers\nof females are daily engaged in processes which would not soil the\nnicest fingers, dressed with the greatest neatness, and clothed in\nmaterials (as all women are now clothed) that were set apart for the\nhighest in the land a century ago. And yet there are some who regret\nthat the aged crones no longer sit in the cottage chimney, earning a few\npence daily by their rude industry at the wheel!\n\n [Illustration: Hindoo weaver at work in a field.]\n\nThe creation of employment amongst ourselves by the cheapness of cotton\ngoods produced by machinery, is not to be considered as a mere change\nfrom the labour of India to the labour of England. It is a creation of\nemployment, operating just in the same manner as the machinery did for\nprinting books. The Indian, it is true, no longer sends us his calicoes\nand his coloured stuffs; we make them ourselves. But he sends us fifty\ntimes the amount of raw cotton that he sent when the machinery was first\nset up. The workman on the banks of the Ganges is no longer weaving\ncalicoes for us, in his loom of reeds under the shadow of a palm-tree;\nbut he is gathering for us fifty times as much cotton as he gathered\nbefore, and making fifty times as much indigo for us to colour it with.\n\n [Illustration: Power-looms.]\n\n [Illustration: Dr. Cartwright, inventor of the power-loom.]\n\nThe change that has been produced upon the labour of India by the\nmachinery employed for spinning and weaving cotton, has a parallel in\nthe altered condition of the hand-loom weavers in Great Britain. In 1785\nDr. Cartwright produced his first _power loom_. It was a rude machine\ncompared with the refinements that have successively carried on his\nprinciple. Every resistance was made to the introduction to this new\npower. The mill owners were slow to perceive its advantages; the first\nmills in which these looms were introduced were burnt. The hand-loom\nweavers worked at a machine which little varied from that with which\ntheir Flemish instructors had worked three centuries before. But no\nprejudice and no violence could prevent the progress of the new machine.\nThe object for which machines are established, and the object which they\ndo effect, is cheapness of production. Machines either save material, or\ndiminish labour, or both. \"Which is the cheapest,\" said the committee to\nJoseph Foster, \"a piece of goods made by a power-loom, or a piece of\ngoods made by a hand-loom?\" He answered, \"a power-loom is the\ncheapest.\"[22] This answer was decisive. The hand-loom weavers have\ncontinued to struggle, even up to this time, with the greater productive\npower of the power-loom; but the struggle is nearly over. It would have\nbeen terminated long ago, if the miserable wages which the hand-loom\nweaver obtained, had not been eked out by parochial contributions. It\nwas the duty of society to break the fall of the workmen who were thrust\nout of their place by the invention; but had society attempted to\ninterpose between the new machines and the old, so as to have kept the\nold workers to their less profitable employment, there would have been\nfar more derangements of labour to mitigate. Upon the introduction of\nthe spinning machinery there was great temporary distress of the\nhand-spinners, with rioting and destruction of spinning-mills. If these\nmodes of resistance to invention had gone on to prevent altogether the\nmanufacture of cotton thread by the spinning machinery, the consumption\nof cotton cloth would have been little increased, and the number of\npersons engaged in the manufacture would have been twenty, thirty or\neven forty times less than the present number. But there would have been\nanother result. Would the great body of the people of Europe have chosen\nto wear for many years _dear_ cloth instead of _cheap_ cloth, that a\nfew thousand spinners might have been kept at their ancient wheels in\nLancashire? Capital can easily shift its place, and invention follows\nwhere capital goes before. The people of France, and Germany, and\nAmerica, would have employed the cheap machine instead of the dear one;\nand the people of England would have had cheap cloth instead of dear\ncloth from thence. We cannot build a wall of brass round our islands;\nand the thin walls of prohibitive duties are very easily broken through.\nA profit of from twenty to thirty per cent. will pour in any given\nquantity of smuggled goods that a nation living under prohibitive laws\ncan demand. Bonaparte, in the height of his power, passed the celebrated\nBerlin decree for the exclusion of all English produce from the\ncontinent of Europe. But our merchants laughed at him. The whole coast\nof France, and Holland, and Italy, became one immense receiving place\nfor smuggled goods. If he had lined the whole coast with all the six\nhundred thousand soldiers that he marched to Russia, instead of a few\ncustom-house officers, he could not have stopped the introduction of\nEnglish produce. It was against the nature of things that the people who\nhad been accustomed to cheap goods should buy dear ones; or that they\nshould go without any article, whether of necessity or luxury, whose use\nhad become general. Mark, therefore, if the cotton-spinners of\nLancashire had triumphed eighty years ago over Arkwright's machinery,\nthere would not have been a single man, woman, or child of those\nspinners employed _at all_, within twenty years after that most fatal\ntriumph. The manufacture of cotton would have gone to other countries;\ncotton spinning in England would have been at an end. The same thing\nwould have happened if the power-loom, fifty years ago, had been put\ndown by combination; other countries would have used the invention which\nwe should have been foolish enough to reject. Thirty years ago America\nhad adopted the power-loom.\n\n [Illustration: Flemish weaver. From a print of 1568.]\n\nIn the cotton manufacture, which from its immense amount possesses the\nmeans of rewarding the smallest improvement, invention has been at work,\nand most successfully, to make machines, that make machines, that make\nthe cotton thread. There is a part of the machinery used in\ncotton-spinning called a reed. It consists of a number of pieces of\nwire, set side by side in a frame, resembling, as far as such things\nadmit of comparison, a comb with two backs. These reeds are of various\nlengths and degrees of fineness; but they all consist of cross pieces of\nwire, fastened at regular intervals between longitudinal pieces of split\ncane, into which they are tied with waxed thread. A machine now does the\nwork of reed-making. The materials enter the machine in the shape of two\nor three yards of cane, and many yards of wire and thread; and the\nmachine cuts the wire, places each small piece with unfailing regularity\nbetween the canes, twists the thread round the cane with a knot that\ncannot slip, every time a piece of wire is put in, and does several\nyards of this extraordinary work in less time than we have taken to\nwrite the description. There is another machine for making a part of the\nmachine for cotton-spinning, even more wonderful. The cotton wool is\ncombed by circular cards of every degree of fineness; and the\ncard-making machine, receiving only a supply of leather and wire, does\nits own work without the aid of hands. It punches the leather--cuts the\nwire--passes it through the leather--clinches it behind--and gives it\nthe proper form of the tooth in front--producing a complete card of\nseveral feet in circumference in a wonderfully short time. All men feel\nthe benefit of such inventions, because they lessen the cost of\nproduction. The necessity for them always precedes their use. There were\nnot reed-makers and card-makers enough in England to supply the demands\nof the cotton machinery; so invention went to work to see how machines\ncould make machines; and the consequent diminished cost of machinery has\ndiminished the price of clothing.\n\n [22] See p. 107.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\n The woollen manufacture--Divisions of employment--Early\n history--Prohibitory laws--The Jacquard loom--Middle-age\n legislation--Sumptuary laws--The silk manufacture--\n Ribbon-weaving--The linen manufacture--Cloth-printing--\n Bleaching.\n\n\nThose who have not taken the trouble to witness, or to inquire into, the\nprocesses by which they are surrounded with the conveniences and\ncomforts of civilized life, can have no idea of the vast variety of ways\nin which invention is at work to lessen the cost of production. The\npeople of India, who spin their cotton wholly by hand, and weave their\ncloth in a rude loom, would doubtless be astonished when they first saw\nthe effects of machinery, in the calico which is returned to their own\nshores, made from the material brought from their own shores, cheaper\nthan they themselves could make it. But their indolent habits would not\npermit them to inquire how machinery produced this wonder. There are\nmany amongst us who only know that the wool grows upon the sheep's back,\nand that it is converted into a coat by labour and machinery. They do\nnot estimate the prodigious power of thought--the patient labour--the\nunceasing watchfulness--the frequent disappointment--the uncertain\nprofit--which many have had to encounter in bringing this machinery to\nperfection, and in organizing the modes of its working, in connection\nwith labour. Further, their knowledge of history may have been confined\nto learning by rote the dates when kings began to reign, with the names\nof the battles they fought or the rebels they executed. Of the progress\nof commerce and the arts they may have been taught little. The records\nof wool constitute a real part of the history of England; and form, in\nour opinion, a subject of far more permanent importance than the\nscandalous annals of the wives of Henry VIII., or the mistresses of\nCharles II.\n\nLet us first take a broad view of the more prominent facts that belong\nto our woollen manufacture; and then proceed to notice those of other\ntextile fabrics.\n\nThe reader will remember that when the fur-traders refused to advance to\nJohn Tanner a supply of blankets for his winter consumption, he applied\nhimself to make garments out of moose-skins. The skin was ready\nmanufactured to his hands when he had killed and stripped the moose; but\nstill the blanket brought from England across the Atlantic was to him a\ncheaper and a better article of clothing than the moose-skin which he\nhad at hand; and he felt it a privation when the trader refused it to\nhim upon the accustomed credit. It never occurred to him to think of\nmanufacturing a blanket; although he was in some respects a\nmanufacturer. He was a manufacturer of sugar, amongst the various trades\nwhich he followed. He used to travel about the country till he had found\na grove of maple-trees; and here he would sit down for a month or two\ntill he had extracted sugar from the maples. Why did he not attempt to\nmake blankets? He had not that Accumulated Knowledge, and he did not\nwork with that _Division of Labour_, which are essential to the\nmanufacture of blankets--both of which principles are carried to their\nhighest perfection when capital enables the manufacture of woollen\ncloth, or any other article, to be carried forward upon a large scale.\n\nWe will endeavour to trace what accumulations of skill, and what\ndivisions of employment, were necessary to enable Tanner to clothe\nhimself with a piece of woollen cloth. We shall not stop to inquire\nwhether the skill has produced the division of employment, or the\ndivision of employment has produced the skill. It is sufficient for us\nto show, that the two principles are in joint operation, unitedly\ncarrying forward the business of production in the most profitable\nmanner. It is enough for us to know, that where there is no skill there\nis no division of employment, and where there is no division of\nemployment there is no skill. Skill and division of employment are\ninseparably wedded. If they could be separated, they would in their\nseparation cease to work profitably. They are kept together by the\nconstant energy of capital, devising the most profitable direction for\nlabour.\n\nBefore a blanket can be made, we must have the material for making a\nblanket. Tanner had not the material, because he was not a cultivator.\nBefore wool can be grown there must be, as we have shown, appropriation\nof land. When this appropriation takes place, the owner of the land\neither cultivates it himself, which is the earliest stage in the\ndivision of agricultural employment,--or he obtains a portion of the\nproduce in the shape of corn or cattle, or in a money payment. Hence a\ntenantry. But the tenant, to manufacture wool at the greatest advantage,\nmust possess capital, and carry forward the principle of the division of\nemployment by hiring labourers. We use the word _manufacture_ of wool\nadvisedly; for all farming processes are manufacturing processes, and\ninvariably reduce themselves to change of form, as all commercial\nprocesses reduce themselves to change of place. If the capital of the\nfarmer is sufficient to enable him to farm upon a large scale, he\ndivides his labourers; and one becomes a shepherd, one a ploughman,--one\nsows the ground, and one washes and shears the sheep, more skilfully\nthan another. If he has a considerable farm, he divides his land, also,\nupon the same principle, and has pasture, and arable, and rotation of\ncrops. By these divisions he is enabled to manufacture wool cheaper than\nthe farmer upon a small scale, who employs one man to do everything, and\nhas not a proper proportion of pasture and arable, or a due rotation of\ncrops. At every division of employment skill must be called forth in a\nhigher perfection than when two or more employments were joined\ntogether; and the chief director of the skill, the capitalist himself,\nor farmer, must require more skill to make all the parts which compose\nhis manufactury work together harmoniously.\n\nBut we have new divisions of employment to trace before the wool can be\ngot to the manufacturer. These employments are created by what may be\ncalled the _local_ division of labour. It is convenient to rear the\nsheep upon the mountains of Wales, because there the short and thymy\npastures are fitted for the growth of wool. It is convenient to\nmanufacture the wool into cloth at Leeds, because coals are there at\nhand to give power to the steam-engines, with which the manufacture is\ncarried on. The farmer in Wales, and the manufacturer of cloth at Leeds,\nmust be brought into connection. In the infancy of commerce one or both\nof them would make a journey to establish this connection; but the cost\nof that journey would add to the cost of the wool, and therefore lessen\nthe consumption of woollen cloth. The division of employment goes on to\nthe creation of a wool-factor, or dealer in wool, who either purchases\ndirectly from the grower, or sells to the manufacturer for a commission\nfrom the grower. The grower, therefore, sends the wool direct to the\nfactor, whose business it is to find out what manufacturer is in want of\nwool. If the factor did not exist, the manufacturer would have to find\nout, by a great deal of personal exertion, what farmer had wool to sell;\nor the farmer would have to find out, with the same exertion, what\nmanufacturer wanted to buy wool. The factor receives a commission, which\nthe seller and buyer ultimately unite in paying. They co-operate to\nestablish a wool-factor, just as we all co-operate to establish a\npostman; and just as the postman, who delivers a number of letters to a\ngreat many individuals, does that service at little more cost to all,\nthan each individual would pay for the delivery of a single letter, so\ndoes the wool-factor exchange the wool between the grower and the\nmanufacturer, at little more cost to a large number of the growers who\nemploy him, than each would be obliged to pay in expenses and loss of\ntime to travel from Wales to Leeds to sell his wool.\n\nWe have, however, a great many more divisions of employment to follow\nout before the wool is conveyed from Wales to Leeds or Bradford. If the\npacks are taken on shipboard, and carried down the Mersey to Liverpool,\nwe have all the variety of occupations, involving different degrees of\nskill, which make up the life of a mariner; if they go forward upon the\nrailroad to Manchester, we have all the higher degrees of skill involved\nin their transport which belong to the business of an engineer; or if\nthey finally reach their destination by canal, we have another division\nof labour that adjusts itself to the management of boats in canals. But\nthe ship, the railroad, the canal, which are created by the necessity of\ntransporting commodities from place to place, have been formed after the\nmost laborious exercise of the highest science, working with the\ngreatest mechanical skill; and they exist only through the energy of\nprodigious accumulations of capital, the growth of centuries of patient\nand painful labour and economy.\n\nWe have at length the wool in a manufactury at Leeds or Bradford. The\nfirst class of persons who prepare the wool, are the sorters and\npickers. It is their business to separate the fine from the coarse\nlocks, so that each may be suited to different fabrics. There is\njudgment required, which could not exist without division of labour; and\nthe business, too, must be done rapidly, or the cost of sorting and\npicking would outweigh the advantage. The second principal operation is\nscouring. Here the men are constantly employed in washing the wool, to\nfree it from all impurities. It is evident that the same man could not\nprofitably pass from the business of sorting to that of scouring, and\nback again,--from dry work to wet, and from wet to dry. When the wool is\nout of the hands of the scourers it comes into those of the dyers, who\ncolour it with the various chemical agents applied to the manufacture.\nThe carders next receive it, who tear it with machines till it attains\nthe requisite fineness. From the carders it passes to the slubbers, who\nform it into tough loose threads; and thence to spinners, who make the\nthreads finer and stronger. There are subdivisions of employment which\nare not essential for us to notice, to give an idea of the great\ndivision of employment, and the consequent accumulation of peculiar\nskill, required to prepare wool to be made into yarn, to be made into\nwoollen cloth.\n\nThe next stages in the manufacture are the spinning, the warping, the\nsizing, and the weaving. These are all distinct operations, and are all\ncarried forward with the most elaborate machinery, adapted to the\ndivision of labour which it enforces, and by which it is enforced.\n\nBut there is a great deal still to be done before the cloth is fit to be\nworn. The cloth, now woven, has to be scoured as the wool was. There is\na subsequent process called burling, at which females are constantly\nemployed. The boiling and milling come next, in which the cloth is again\nexposed to the action of water, and beaten so as to give it toughness\nand consistency. Dressers, called giggers, next take it in hand, who\nalso work with machinery upon the wet cloth. It has then to be dried in\nhouses where the temperature is sometimes as high as 130 degrees, and\nwhere the men work almost naked. It is evident that the boilers and\ndressers could not profitably work in the dry-houses: and that there\nmust be division of employment to prevent those sudden transitions which\nwould destroy the human frame much more quickly than a regular exposure\nto cold or heat, to damp or dryness. The cloth must be next cropped or\ncut upon the face, to remove the shreds of wool which deform the surface\nin every direction. When cut, it has to be brushed dry by machinery, to\nget out the croppings which remain in its texture. This done, it is dyed\nin the shape of cloth, as it was formerly dyed in the shape of wool.\nThen come a variety of processes, to increase the delicacy of the\nfabric:--singeing, by passing the cloth within a burning distance of\nred-hot cylinders; frizing, to raise a nap upon the cloth; glossing, by\ncarrying over it heavy heated plates of iron; pressing, in which\noperation of the press red-hot plates are also employed; and drawing, in\nwhich men, with fine needles, draw up minute holes in the cloth when it\nhas passed through the last operation. Then comes the packing; and after\nall these processes it must be bought by a wholesale dealer, and again\nby a retailer, before it reaches the consumer. Between the growth of the\nfleece of wool, and the completion of a coat by a skilful tailor,--who,\nit is affirmed, puts five-and-twenty thousand stitches into it,--what an\ninfinite division of employments! what inventions of science! what\nexercises of ingenuity! what unwearied application! what painful, and\ntoo often unhealthy labour! And yet if men are to be clothed well and\ncheaply, all these manifold processes are not in vain; and the\nindividual injury in some branches of the employ is not to be compared\nto the suffering that would ensue if cloth were not made at all, or if\nit were made at such a cost that the most wealthy only could afford to\nwear it. But for the accumulation of knowledge, and the division of\nemployments, engaged in the manufacture of cloth, and set in operation\nby large capital, we should each be obliged to be contented with a\nblanket such as John Tanner desired, and very few indeed would even\nobtain that blanket: for if skill and division of labour were, not to go\non in one branch, they would not go on in another, and then we should\nhave nothing to give in exchange for the blanket. The individual injury\nto health, also, produced by the division of labour, is not so great,\nupon the average, as if there were no division. All the returns of human\nlife in this country show an extremely little difference in the effect\nupon life, even of what we consider the most unhealthy trades; and this\nproceeds from that extraordinary power of the human body to adapt itself\nto a habit, however apparently injurious, which is one of the most\nbeautiful evidences of the compensating principle which prevails\nthroughout the moral world.\n\nThe wool manufacture of Great Britain employs very nearly three hundred\nthousand persons; in the various processes connected with the production\nof cloth, worsted, flannel, blankets, and carpets. What a contrast to\nall this variety of labour is the history of the earlier stages of the\nmanufacture of woollen cloth. It is unnecessary to go back to the time\nof Henry III., when the production of wool was in such an imperfect\nstate through flocks of sheep being scattered over immense tracts of\nwaste land, that a manor in Surrey was held under the crown by the\ntenure of gathering wool for the Queen. According to the record, Peter\nde Baldewyn was to gather the wool from the thorns that had torn it from\nthe sheep's back; and if he did not choose to gather it he was to\nforfeit twenty shillings.[23] In the time of Edward III., according to\nFuller, in his 'Church History,' the English clothiers were wholly\nunskilful; \"knowing no more what to do with their wool than the sheep\nwhich wear it, as to any artificial and curious drapery, their best\ncloth being no better than frieze, such their coarseness for want of\nskill in the making.\" When the Flemish clothiers came into England, the\nmanufacture improved; in spite of the regulating power of the state,\nwhich was perpetually interfering with material, quality, and wages. In\ntime wool became the chief commodity of England. The woolsack of the\nHouse of Lords was typical of this staple industry; and of the mode also\nin which the majesty of legislation sat heavy upon the produce. To\nencourage the manufacture nothing was to be woven but wool. From the\ncradle to the grave all were to be wrapt in wool. The genius of\nprohibition prevented the exchange of wool with other manufactured\ncommodities; and, therefore, to keep up rents, Narcissa was \"odious in\nwoollen,\" and a Holland shirt--for British linen did not exist--was a\nrare commodity, cheap at \"eight shillings an ell,\" as in the days of\nDame Quickly.\n\nThis was the state of things at the end of the 17th century, and\nsomewhat later. The manufacturers clamoured against the exportation of\nwool; and the agriculturists at the same time resisted the importation\nof Irish and Scotch cattle. The parliament listened to both sets of\nclamourers. It said to the people:--You of trade shall not be ruined by\nthe land selling wool to foreigners--there shall be no competition; you\nshall buy the wool at the lowest price. And then parliament turned round\nto the complaining grazier, and said,--the cloth-maker and his men\nshall not ruin you by buying meat cheap--no Irish cattle or Scotch sheep\nshall come here to lower your prices. From 1664 to 1824 the exportation\nof wool was strictly prohibited. The importation was sometimes prevented\nby high duties--sometimes encouraged by low. The manufacture was\nconstantly struggling with these attempts of the state to hold a balance\nbetween what were so universally considered as conflicting interests. In\n1844 the whole system was abandoned. In 1853, we imported one hundred\nand seventeen million lbs. of sheep and lamb's wool--of which\nthree-fifths came from Australia--and two million of alpaca and llama\nwool. The wool-growers at home still found a ready market; the great\nbody of the population had good coats and flannels and blankets; and, in\naddition, we exported ten million pounds sterling of woollen\nmanufactures.\n\n [Illustration: Jacquard Power-looms: Stuff-manufacture.]\n\n [Illustration: Mechanism of power-loom.]\n\nThe employment of wool in the manufacture of broadcloth and flannel was,\na few years ago, almost the entire business of the woollen factories.\nThe novel uses to which wool is now applied, and the almost innumerable\nvarieties of articles of clothing which are produced from long wool and\nshort wool--from combinations of alpaca wool and coarse wool, of wool\nwith cotton, of wool with silk--together with the introduction of\nbrilliant dyes and tasteful designs, formerly unknown--have established\nvast seats of manufacture which are almost peculiar to our country, and\nhave converted, in a few years, humble villages into great cities. The\nfinest Paisley shawls rival the elaborate handicraft of Hindustan; and,\nwhat is of more importance, the humblest female may purchase a tasteful\narticle of dress at a price which a few years ago would have been\nthought fabulous. The wonderful variety of patterns which we see in\nthese and other productions of modern skill are effected by the Jacquard\napparatus, in which the pattern depends upon the disposition of holes\npierced in separate bits of pasteboard. In common weaving, the weft\nthreads pass alternately under and over the entire warp threads, which\nare lifted up to allow the weft in the shuttle to traverse from one\nside to the other. The Jacquard apparatus determines, by the number and\narrangement of the holes in the cards, which of the separate warp\nthreads shall be so lifted; for at every throw of the shuttle the blank\npart of each card moves a series of levers which raise certain warp\nthreads; while other levers, passing into the holes in the card, do not\naffect the other warp threads. In this way, patterns of the greatest\ncomplexity are woven in cotton, and worsted, and silk; so that even a\nminute work of art, such as a portrait or a landscape, may be produced\nfrom the loom. Every pattern requires a separate set of cards. We do not\nexpect this brief notice to be readily understood. Those who would\ncomprehend the extent of ingenuity involved in the principle of this\ninvention, and the beautiful results of which it is capable, should\nwitness its operation in a Halifax power-loom. In a bobbin-net machine\nthe cards are connected with a revolving pentagonal bar, each side of\nwhich is pierced with holes, corresponding with the pins or levers\nabove. When a card comes over the topmost side of the pentagon the\nlevers drop; but those pins only which enter through the holes in the\ncard affect the pattern which is being worked. Any one who views this\ncomplicated arrangement in a Nottingham lace-machine, requires no small\namount of attention to comprehend its mysterious movements; and when the\nconnection is perceived between that chain of dropping cards, and the\nflower that is being worked in the lace, a vague sense of the manifold\npower of invention comes over the mind--we had almost said an awful\nsense.\n\n [Illustration: Jacquard cards.]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIf there be one thing more remarkable than another in the visible\ncondition of the people of Great Britain, it is the universality of\nuseful, elegant, and cheap clothing. There is very small distinction in\nthe ordinary coat and trowsers of the peer and the best dress of the\nartisan; and not a great deal more in the gown and shawl of the\nhigh-born lady and those of the handmaid of her toilet. Perhaps the\nabsence of mere finery, and the taste which is an accompaniment of\nsuperior education, constitute the chief difference in the dress of\nvarious ranks. This feature of the present times is a part of our social\nhistory.\n\nFor several centuries the domestic trade of the country was hemmed round\nand fettered by laws against extravagance in dress, which had always\nbeen a favourite subject for the experimentalizing of barbarous\nlegislation. An act of 1463, recites that the Commons pray their lord\nthe king to remember that in the times of his noble progenitors,\nordinances and statutes were made for the apparel and array of the\ncommons, as well of men as of women, so that none of them should use or\nwear any inordinate or excessive apparel, but only according to their\ndegrees. However, we find that all these ordinances had been utterly\nfruitless. The parliament makes new ordinances. The nobles, according to\nthese, may wear whatever they please; knights and their wives were to\nwear no cloth of gold, or fur of sables; no person under the state of a\nlord to wear any purple silk; no esquires or gentlemen and their wives\nany silk at all; no persons not having possessions of the yearly value\nof forty pounds, any fur; and, what is cruel indeed, no widow but such\nas hath possessions of the value of forty pounds, shall wear any fur,\nany gold or silver girdle, or any kerchief that had cost more than three\nshillings and four-pence; persons not having forty shillings a-year were\ndenied the enjoyment of fustian and scarlet cloth; the yeoman was to\nhave no stuffing in his doublet; nor servants in husbandry, broadcloth\nof a higher price than two shillings a yard. The length of gowns,\njackets, and cloaks, was prescribed by the same statute; and the unhappy\ntailor who exceeded the length by the breadth of his nail, was to be\nmulcted in the same penalties as those who flaunted in skirts of more\nthan needful longitude. The men and women of the mystery and workmanship\nof silk prefer their piteous complaint to parliament, that silk-work\nready wrought is brought into the realm. If it had occurred to them to\npetition that the gentlemen and their wives might be permitted to wear\nsatin, as well as the lords, their piteous complaint of want of\noccupation might have been more easily redressed than by foreign\nprohibition. Sumptuary laws have long been abolished; but to them\nsucceeded the laws of custom, which prescribed one sort of dress to one\ncondition of people, and another to another. We cannot doubt which state\ngives most employment to manufacturers, the law of exclusiveness or the\nlaw of universality. If the labourer and artificer were still\nrestricted, by enactment or by custom, to the wearing of cloth of a\ncertain price per yard, we may be quite sure that the manufacture of the\nfiner cloths would be in no flourishing condition; and if the\nservant-maid could not put on her Sunday gown of silk, we may be equally\nclear that the silk-trade would continue to be the small thing that it\nwas half a century ago, when it had the full benefit of restriction,\ninstead of being, as it is now, one of the great staple trades of the\ncountry.\n\nWhen the frame-work knitters of silk stockings petitioned Oliver\nCromwell for a charter, they said, \"the Englishman buys silk of the\nstranger for twenty marks, and sells him the same again for one hundred\npounds.\" The higher pride of the present day is that we buy seven\nmillion pounds of raw silk from the stranger, employ a hundred and\nfourteen thousand of our own people in the manufacture of it by the aid\nof machinery, and sell it to the stranger, and our own people, at a\nprice as low as that of the calico of half a century ago. In 1853 the\nexports of silk manufactures, including those of silk mixed with other\nmaterials, silk-yarn and silk-twist, amounted to the enormous sum of two\nmillions sterling, having doubled since 1849. In 1826, when the ruin of\nour silk-trade was boldly prophesied as the sure result of the reduction\nof the prohibitive duties on foreign silk, the exports of our silk\nmanufactures did not reach two hundred thousand pounds. William\nHuskisson, the great statesman who produced this mighty change, was then\ndenounced in parliament as \"an insensible and hard-hearted\nmetaphysician.\"\n\n [Illustration: Hanks of silk. _a_, Bengal; _b_, Italian; _c_, Persian;\n _d_, Broussa.]\n\n [Illustration: Egyptian winding-reel.]\n\nWhen a boy who keeps silk-worms upon mulberry leaves, puts a\nspinning-worm into a little paper bag, and finally obtains an oval ball\nof silk,--he does, upon a small scale, what is done in the silk-growing\ncountries upon a large scale. When he winds off his cocoon of silk upon\na little reel, he is engaged in the first process of silk making. There\nmust be myriads of silk-worms reared to produce the seven million pounds\nof raw silk that Great Britain manufactures. The school-boy, from three\nor four silk-worms, can obtain a little skein of silk, which he\ncarefully puts between the leaves of a book, and looks at it again and\nagain, in delight at its glossy beauty. Perhaps he does not take the\ntrouble to think how many such skeins would be required to produce a\npair of silk stockings. As the school-boy puts his skein into a book, so\nthe silk-producers of India, Italy, Persia, and Turkey, send us their\nhanks of silk, which we call by various names, made up as shown in the\nopposite page. In Egypt, a silk-producing country, a woman has a simple\nmachine for preparing the hanks of silk for the purposes of commerce.\nShe winds the silk upon a reel. She has no moving power but that of her\nhand and arm. In England a woman also attends to a winding-machine, by\nwhich the silk is transferred to bobbins, for the purpose of being spun\nto various degrees of fineness. She has no labour to perform, beyond\nproviding a supply of material to be wound, removing a bobbin when it is\nfilled, placing an empty one in its place, and occasionally piecing a\nbroken thread. She is doing what the machine cannot do--adjusting her\noperations to many varying circumstances. The machine is moved by the\nsteam-engine; but the steam-engine, the reels, and the bobbins would\nwork unavailingly, without the guidance of the mind that waits upon and\nwatches them.\n\n [Illustration: Silk winding-machine.]\n\nThe peculiarity in the manufacture of silk-twist, or thread, as\ndistinguished from that of cotton, or flax, or wool, is that it is\nproduced naturally in one uninterrupted length. The object of the\nmachinery of a silk-mill is, not to combine short fibres in a\ncontinuous thread by spinning, but to wind and twist, so as to unite\nmany slight threads already formed into one thread of sufficient\nstrength for the purpose of weaving, or of sewing. The subsequent\nprocesses are the same as with the fibrous substances. The machinery by\nwhich these processes are carried on has been improved, by successive\ndegrees, since Thomas Lombe erected the first silk-mill at Derby, in the\nbeginning of the 18th century. He obtained a patent which expired in\n1732; and parliament, refusing to renew his patent, granted him a\ncompensation, upon the condition that he should deposit an exact model\nof his machinery in the Tower of London. That model was shown to the\nvisitors of the Tower in the present century; and, by comparison with\nthe vast array of spindles in a modern silk-mill, would seem as\ninefficient as the flail compared with the thrashing-machine.\n\nRibbon-weaving is a branch of the silk manufacture, in which our country\nis rapidly attaining an excellence as regards beauty of design, which\nmay fairly compete with the best productions of the French looms.\n\n * * * * *\n\nThomas Firmin, a philanthropic writer, who published 'Proposals for the\nEmployment of the Poor,' in 1681, says, \"It is a thing greatly to be\nwished that we could make linen cloth here as cheap as they send it us\nfrom abroad.\" He thought the poor might then be employed; but he\ndespairingly adds, \"if that cannot be done, nor any other way found out\nto employ our poor people, we had much better lose something by the\nlabour of our poor, than lose all their labour;\" and so he proposes to\ngive those who were idle flax and hemp to spin in spacious workhouses.\nThe notion was a benevolent one; and it was the favourite scheme, for\nhalf a century, to destroy idleness and beggary in England, by setting\nup manufactories at the public cost. Defoe saw the fallacy of the\nprinciple, and resisted it with his strong common sense: \"Suppose now a\nworkhouse for the employment of poor children sets them to spinning of\nworsted. For every skein of worsted these poor children spin, there\nmust be a skein the less spun by some poor person or family that spun it\nbefore.\" Defoe saw that there could be no profitable increase of labour\nwithout increase of consumption; and he argues that if the Czar of\nMuscovy would order his people to wear stockings, and we could supply\nthem, the poor might then be set to work. The increase of consumption,\nall over the world, is produced by the inventions which diminish the\ncost of production. We now make linen cloth here cheaper than it is sent\nto us from abroad; and the result is that in 1853 we exported our linen\nmanufactures to the extent of six million pounds sterling; and employed\na hundred thousand persons in the manufacture. In the flax-mill of\nMessrs. Marshall, at Leeds, where all the operations of spinning are\ncarried on in one enormous room, five times as large as\nWestminster-hall, seventy thousand lbs. of flax are worked up weekly\ninto yarn. The question of flax-cultivation in these kingdoms has been\nagitated of late years; and the course of political events has rendered\nthe consideration of an increased home supply, a matter of pressing\nimportance. It is not an easy matter to provide for the demand. The\ngreat flax-mill at Leeds would require the flax-cultivation of six\nthousand acres, to keep its spindles at work for one year.\n\n [Illustration: Interior of Marshall's Flax-Mill, Leeds.]\n\nHaving thus noticed the leading processes of the manufacture of cotton,\nof wool, of silk, of linen, we may conclude this chapter with a brief\nmention of the art that gives to many of the fabrics produced their\nchief beauty--the art of printing cloth in colours. This art applies to\nthe finest as well as the commonest productions of the loom; and the\nscience of the British dyer, the beauty of his patterns, and the\nperfection of his machinery, have now given us an eminence in this\ndepartment of industry which can only be preserved by constant efforts\ntowards perfection of design and durable brilliancy of colour.\n\n [Illustration: Indigo-harvest in West Indies.]\n\nThere is a striking, although natural parallel, between printing a piece\nof cloth and printing a sheet of a book, or a newspaper. Block-printing\nis the impress of the pattern by hand; as block-books were made four\ncenturies ago. We have no block-books now; for machinery has banished\nthat tedious process. But block-printing is used for costly shawls and\nvelvets, which require to have many colours produced by repeated impress\nfrom a large number of blocks, each carrying a different colour. Except\nfor expensive fabrics, this mode is superseded by block-printing with a\nsort of press, in which several blocks are set in a frame. Here again is\nsomewhat of a similarity to the operation of the book-press. Lastly, we\nhave cylinder-printing, resembling the rapid working of the\nbook-printing machine, each producing the same cheapness. As the pattern\nhas to be obtained from several cylinders, each having its own colour,\nthere is great nicety in the operation; and the most beautiful mechanism\nis necessary for feeding the cylinder with colour; moving the cloth to\nmeet the revolving cylinder; and giving to the cylinder its power of\nimpression. But those who witness the operation see little of the\nultimate effect to be obtained in the subsequent processes of dyeing.\nFast colours are produced by the use in the pattern of substances called\nmordants; which may be colourless themselves but receive the colour of\nthe dye-bath, which colour is only fixed in the parts touched by the\nmordant, and is washed out from the parts not touched. When what is\ncalled a substantive colour is at once impressed upon the white cloth,\nmuch of the beauty is also derived from subsequent processes. The\nchemist, the machinist, the designer, and the engraver--science and\nart--set the calico-printing works in activity; and the carrying on\nthese complicated processes can only be profitably done upon a large\nscale. In the earlier days of our cotton manufacture there were small\nprint-works in the neighbourhood of London, where the imperfect\nmachinery was turned by water-power. The steam-engine of one Lancashire\nfactory now produces more printed cottons and muslins than all the\nrivers of southern England in the last century. The calico-printers now\nnumber about twenty-seven thousand persons. But no direct enumeration\ncan be made of the employments that are required merely to produce the\ndyes with which the calico-printer works. The mineral and vegetable\nkingdoms, and even the animal kingdom, combine their natural productions\nin the colours of a lady's dress. The sulphur-miner of Sicily, the\nsalt-worker of Cheshire, the hewer of wood in the Brazils, the Negro in\nthe indigo plantations of the East and West Indies, the cultivator of\nmadder in France, and the gatherer of the cochineal insect in Mexico,\nare all labourers for the print-works of England and Scotland. The\ndiscoveries of science, in combination with the experience of practice,\nhas set all this industry in motion, and has given a value to\ninnumerable productions of nature which would otherwise be useless and\nunemployed. But these demands of manufactures do more--they create modes\nof cultivation which are important sources of national prosperity. Jean\nAlthen, a Persian of great family, bred up in every luxury, became a\nslave in Anatolia, when Kouli-Khan overthrew the Persian empire. For\nfourteen years he worked in the cotton and madder-fields. He then\nescaped to France, carrying with him some madder-seeds. Long did he\nlabour in vain to attract the attention of the government of Louis XV.\nto his plans. At length, having spent all the fortune which he had\nacquired by marriage with a French heiress, he obtained the patronage of\nthe Marquis de Caumont, in his attempts to introduce the cultivation of\nmadder into the department of Vaucluse. His life was closing in\ncomparative indigence when a new branch of industry was developed in his\nadopted country. The district in which he created a new industry has\nincreased a hundred-fold in value. The debt of gratitude was paid by a\ntablet to his memory, erected sixty years after he was insensible to\nhuman rewards. We starve our benefactors when they are living; and\nsatisfy our consciences by votive monuments. Althen's daughter died as\npoor as her father. The tablet was erected at Avignon when the family\nwas extinct.\n\n [Illustration: Calico-printing by Cylinder.]\n\nThere is a process connected with the production of clothing which we\nmust briefly refer to, as one of the signal examples of the axiom of our\ntitle--'Knowledge is Power.'\n\nLet us suppose that chemistry had not discovered and organised the modes\nin which bleaching is performed; and that the thousands of millions of\nyards of calico and linen which we weave in this country had still to be\nbleached, as bleaching was accomplished in the last century. We knew\nnothing about the matter, and our linen was then sent over to Holland to\ngo through this operation. The Dutch steeped the bundles of cloth in ley\nmade by water poured upon wood ashes--then soaked them in\nbuttermilk--and finally spread them upon the grass for several months.\nThese were all natural agencies which discharged the colouring matter\nwithout any chemical science. It was at length found out that sulphuric\nacid would do the same work in one day which the buttermilk did in six\nweeks; but the sun and the air had still to be the chief bleaching\npowers. A French chemist then found out that a new gas, chlorine, would\nsupersede the necessity for spreading out the linen for several months;\nand so the acres of bleaching ground which we were using in England and\nScotland--for we had left off sending the brown and yellow cloth to\nHolland--were free for cultivation. But the chlorine was poisonous to\nthe workmen, and imparted a filthy odour to the cloth. Chemistry again\nwent to work, and finally obtained the chloride of lime, which is the\nuniversal bleaching powder of modern manufactures. What used to be the\nwork of eight months is now accomplished in an hour or two; and so a bag\nof dingy raw cotton may be in New York on the first day of the month,\nand be converted into the whitest calico before the month is at an end.\n\n [Illustration: Bleaching-ground at Glasgow.]\n\n [23] Blount's 'Ancient Tenures,' ed. 1784, p. 183.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\n Hosiery manufacture--The stocking-frame--The circular\n hosiery-machine--Hats--Gloves--Boots and shoes--\n Straw-plait--Artificial flowers--Fans--Lace--Bobbin-net\n machine--Pins--Needles--Buttons--Toys--Lucifer-matches--\n Envelopes.\n\n\nBefore the invention of the first stocking-machine, in the year 1589, by\nWilliam Lee, a clergyman, none but the very rich wore stockings, and\nmany of the most wealthy went without stockings at all, that part of\ndress being sewn together by the tailor, or their legs being covered\nwith bandages of cloth. The covering for the leg was called a\n\"nether-stock,\" or lower stocking. Philip Stubbes, a tremendous\ndeclaimer against every species of luxury, thus describes the expensive\nstockings of his time, 1585:--\n\n\"Then have they nether-stocks to these hosen, not of cloth (though never\nso fine), for that is thought too base, but of jarnsey, worsted,\ncrewell, silk, thread, and such like, or else at the least of the finest\nyarn that can be got, and so curiously knit with open seam down the leg,\nwith quirks and clocks about the ancles, and sometime, haply, interlaced\nwith gold or silver threads, as is wonderful to behold. And to such\nimpudent insolency and shameful outrage it is now grown, that every one,\nalmost, though otherwise very poor, having scarce forty shillings of\nwages by the year, will not stick to have two or three pair of these\nsilk nether-stocks, or else of the finest yarn that may be got, though\nthe price of them be a ryall, or twenty shillings, or more, as commonly\nit is; for how can they be less, when as the very knitting of them is\nworth a noble or a ryall, and some much more? The time hath been when\none might have clothed his body well for less than a pair of these\nnether-stocks will cost.\"\n\nIt is difficult to understand how those who had only forty shillings a\nyear wages could expend twenty shillings upon a pair of knit stockings.\nIt is quite clear they were for the rich only; and that very few persons\nwere employed in knitting and embroidering stockings.\n\nWilliam Lee struggled to make stockings cheap. He made a pair of\nstockings by the frame, in the presence of King James I.; but such was\nthe prejudice of those times, that he could get no encouragement for his\ninvention. His invention was discountenanced, upon the plea that it\nwould deprive the industrious poor of their subsistence. He went to\nFrance, where he met with no better success, and died at last of a\nbroken heart. The great then _could_ discountenance an invention,\nbecause its application was limited to themselves. _They_ only wore\nstockings: the poor who made them had none to wear. Stockings were not\ncheap enough for the poor to wear, and therefore they went without. Of\nthe millions of people now in this country, how few are without\nstockings! What a miserable exception to the comfort of the rest of the\nEnglish people does it appear when we see a beggar in the streets\nwithout stockings! We consider such a person to be in the lowest stage\nof want and suffering. Two centuries ago, not one person in a thousand\nwore stockings;--one century ago, not one person in five hundred wore\nthem;--now, not one person in a thousand is without them. Who made this\ngreat change in the condition of the people of England, and, indeed, of\nthe people of almost all civilized countries? William Lee--who died at\nParis of a broken heart. And why did he die of grief and penury? Because\nthe people of his own days were too ignorant to accept the blessings he\nhad prepared for them.\n\nWe ask with confidence, had the terror of the stocking-frame any real\nfoundation? Were any people thrown out of employment by the\nstocking-frame?\n\n \"The knitters in the sun,\n And the free maids who weave their thread with bones,\"\n\nas Shakspere describes the country lasses of his day, had to _change_\ntheir employment; but there was far more employment for the makers of\nstockings, for then every one began to wear stockings.\n\nThe hosiery manufacture furnishes employment to many persons besides\nthose who work at the stocking-machine. The frame-worker, in many cases,\nmakes the knit-work in a piece adapted for a stocking, and does not make\na finished stocking; the seamer makes the stocking out of the piece so\nproduced. When we speak of the stocking-frame, we speak of a machine\nwhich knits every article of hosiery. In this manufacture there were\nemployed, in 1851, sixty-five thousand five hundred persons, of whom\nthirty thousand were females.\n\nSuppose that the ignorance and prejudice which prevailed at the time of\nJames I. upon the subject of machinery had continued to the present day;\nand that not only the first stocking-frame of William Lee had never been\nused, but that all machines employed in the manufacture of hosiery had\nnever been thought of; and they could not have been thought of if the\nfirst machines had been put down. The greater number of us, in that\ncase, would have been without stockings.\n\nBut there would have been a greater evil than even this. We might all\nhave found substitutes for stockings, or have gone without them. But the\nprogress of ingenuity would have been stopped. The inventive principle\nwould have been destroyed.\n\nWe have not reached the end of our career of improvement. Civilization\nis not destined to run a backward race. William Lee's stocking-frame\nworked well for two centuries and a half. One of the most beautiful\ncontrivances of our time has now greatly superseded it. The circular\nhosiery machine--more properly called a machine for manufacturing\n\"looped fabrics\"--works at such a rate that one girl attending upon the\nrevolutions of this wonderful instrument can produce in one day the\nmaterial for two hundred and forty pairs of stockings. She turns a\nlittle handle, with the ease with which she would turn a barrel-organ;\nand, as the machine revolves, hundreds of needles catch the thread and\nloop it into the chain which forms the stocking-cloth, or it makes the\nfashioned stocking. The new hosiery-machines have doubled the employment\nof the stocking-makers, by enabling us to meet the competition of\nforeign countries. The English were working upon the old slow\nstocking-frame, while the French and Belgians were using the rapid\ncircular machine. The markets of the world would have been soon closed\nto us if we had clung to the old machine, through the force of any\npopular prejudice against a new machine. There is no portion of the\nexport trade of this country which has increased with such extraordinary\nrapidity within the last six years as that of hosiery. The following\nabstract of the declared value of stockings exported since 1848 will\nsufficiently indicate the effects of improved machinery in cheapening\nproduction:--\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Stockings exported. | 1848. 1850. 1852. 1853.\n -------------------------------|----------------------------------------\n | L L L L\n Cotton | 77,095 104,434 243,994 461,494\n Silk | 24,324 20,256 25,140 23,579\n Worsted | 40,413 74,482 117,349 261,140\n Silk mixed with other material | 39 3,327 4,705 10,464\n |----------------------------------------\n | 141,871 202,499 391,188 756,677\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe hosiery of Saxony was superseding, a few years ago, from its extreme\ncheapness, the shipment to the United States of goods made at\nNottingham. The cheapness in Saxony was produced, not by the employment\nof large capital and the application of the most expensive machinery,\nbut by the miserably low wages of labour. It is stated by Mr. Porter\nthat, in 1837, a man of Saxony, with his wife and three children,\nworking incessantly at the stocking-loom, could only earn 5_s._ 4d.\nweekly. In the principal manufacturing districts of that country, the\nfood of the artisans is of the coarsest kind, and of the most limited\nsupply. The comparative ease and comfort of the workers in our hosiery\ndistricts is one of the most satisfactory proofs that invention is as\ngreat a benefit to the labourer as to the capitalist.\n\nAs the nether-stocks of our ancestors were for the great and wealthy, so\nwere their Hats. Old Stubbes writes, \"Sometimes they use them sharp on\nthe crown, pearking up like the spear or shaft of a steeple, standing a\nquarter of a yard above the crown of their heads, some more, some less,\nas please the phantasies of their inconstant minds. Other some be flat\nand broad on the crown, like the battlements of a house. Another sort\nhave round crowns, sometimes with one kind of band, sometimes with\nanother, now black, now white, now russet, now red, now green, now\nyellow, now this, now that, never content with one colour or fashion two\ndays to an end. And thus in vanity they spend the Lord his treasure,\nconsuming their golden years and silver days in wickedness and sin. And\nas the fashions be rare and strange, so is the stuff whereof their hats\nbe made divers also; for some are of silk, some of velvet, some of\ntaffeta, some of sarsenet, some of wool, and, which is more curious,\nsome of a certain kind of fine hair; these they call beaver hats, of 20,\n30, or 40 shillings price, fetched from beyond the seas, from whence a\ngreat sort of other vanities do come besides.\" Here, then, we see that\nthe beaver hat was in those days an article of great price. The\ncommonalty had their \"plain statute caps\" of wool. In our time the\nbeaver hat was the common wear of the middle classes until the last few\nyears, when the cheaper silk hat became almost universal. We import from\nFrance some plush for making hats; but much of this silk material is\nalso prepared in our own factories. Hats have therefore become\nintimately associated with the material produced by the loom.\n\nThe manufacture of Gloves is connected, in a very large department, with\nthe hosiery manufactory. The use of thread gloves and cotton gloves has\nhad the effect, in some degree, of lessening the consumption of leather\ngloves. The importation of leather gloves and mitts was prohibited until\n1825. We now import three million pairs annually; and the home\nmanufacture, instead of being ruined as was predicted, was never more\nprosperous. The French gloves, once so superior to our own, have\nimproved the English, by the natural force of competition; and the\nmanufacturers not only purchase better leather than formerly, but the\ncottage-workwomen that labour in the glove districts have become neater\nand more careful sewers. The consumption of gloves has ceased to be\nexclusively for the rich. The perfumed and embroidered glove of the 16th\ncentury is no longer required. The use of gloves has become universal\namongst both sexes of the middle classes. The female domestic would\nthink it unbecoming to go to church without her gloves; and the\nwell-dressed artisan holds it nothing effeminate to use a covering for\nhis hands, which his forefathers thought a distinguishing appurtenance\nof the high-born and luxurious.\n\n [Illustration: Gloves for the great.]\n\nOur home-manufacture of Boots and Shoes has received an immense impulse\nfrom foreign competition. The number of men's and women's boots and\nshoes which we import is not much above two hundred thousand. But we\nalso import six hundred thousand boot-fronts from France, which our own\npeople work up. Although the boot and shoe manufacture can scarcely be\nconsidered a factory process, it has now adapted itself to certain\nlocalities, such as Northampton. The articles made in the provinces were\noriginally distinguished for their cheapness merely. They now unite the\ncharacters of goodness and cheapness. This chiefly arises from the trade\nbeing carried on, at Northampton especially, upon a large scale--upon a\nprinciple the very reverse of the old familiar spectacle of the cobbler\nin his stall.\n\n [Illustration: Cobbler's stall, about 1760.]\n\nThe Straw-plat is a domestic manufacture, chiefly carried on in the\nmidland and eastern counties. It employs thirty-two thousand persons, of\nwhom twenty-eight thousand are females. The straw hat and bonnet makers\namount to twenty-two thousand, of whom more than twenty thousand are\nfemales. The art of straw-platting has been greatly improved amongst us\nof late years; but the Italian straw, being of a finer nature, is in\ngreater demand for the higher priced bonnets.\n\nThe beautiful production of Artificial Flowers has, in very recent\nyears, been much increased in England. France, with its superior taste,\nlong supplied us with these ornaments, which had the brilliancy of\nnatural flowers without their perishableness. But three thousand\nfemales, and five hundred males, are now engaged with us in this branch.\n\nThe Fan-makers of England are only thirty in number. In France this is a\nlarge branch of manufacture. In the Jury Report on the Exhibition of\nIndustry in 1851 there is a notice of the fan-trade of Paris, which is\ncurious as showing the joint influences upon cheapness, of machinery,\nand of the multiplication of works of art by engraving. The fan-makers\nof Paris in 1847 employed five hundred and seventy-five work-people--the\nnumber of the sexes being pretty equally divided. \"The men were for the\nmost part copper-plate engravers and printers, lithographic draughtsmen\nand printers, painters, and colourers; the women were mounters,\nilluminators, painters, colourers, and overlookers. In twenty years it\nappears that the produce in fans had increased in value nearly\nthreefold, whilst the number of work-people had diminished one-half.\nThis change is attributed to the employment of machinery, especially of\nthe fly press, in stamping out and embossing the ribs, and the extensive\nemployment of chromo-lithography, an art not practised at the former\nperiod. By these means the French have been enabled greatly to increase\ntheir exports by the production of cheap fans, to compete with those\nmade by the Chinese.\"\n\nDekker, in his 'Gull's Hornbook,' printed in 1609, advises the gallant\nof his day to exhibit a \"wrought handkerchief.\" A \"handkerchief, spotted\nwith strawberries,\" was Othello's first gift to Desdemona. It was an\nembroidered handkerchief, such as is produced in the present day at\nCairo by the Egyptian ladies in their private apartments. The\nembroidered shirts of the time of Elizabeth are thus noticed by\nStubbes:--\n\n\"These shirts (sometimes it happeneth) are wrought throughout with\nneedle-work of silk, and such like, and curiously stitched with open\nseam, and many other knacks besides, more than I can describe; in so\nmuch as I have heard of shirts that have cost some ten shillings, some\ntwenty, some forty, some five pound, some twenty nobles, and (which is\nhorrible to hear) some ten pound apiece.\"\n\n [Illustration: Men'seg, or Egyptian embroidery-frame.]\n\nThe embroidery-frame was in time superseded by the lace-pillow, which is\nstated to have been first used in Saxony in the sixteenth century. The\nproduction of Lace extended to Belgium and France; and we are still\nfamiliar with the names of Brussels, Mechlin, Lisle, Valenciennes, and\nAlencon lace. Until the present century no lace was heard of but\npillow-lace,--a domestic manufacture, of which Honiton was the most\nfamous seat. A stocking-weaver of Nottingham adapted his stocking-frame\nto the making of lace about 1770; and the bobbin-frame was invented in\n1809. It was never extensively used till the expiration of the patent;\nand the produce of this machine was kept at so high a price by the\npatentees that it interfered little with the labour of the lace-makers\nin the cottages of the midland counties.\n\n [Illustration: Bobbin-net meshes.]\n\nBut a time was coming when as much bobbin-net as the patentees of the\nfirst frame charged five pounds for would be sold for half-a-crown; and\nwhen, as a necessary consequence of this cheapness, lace-making as a\ndomestic employment would wholly cease, or be confined to the production\nof an expensive article, supposed to be superior to machine-made lace.\nThat the old hand-labour could compete with the machine was an\nimpossibility. Lace of an ordinary figured pattern used to be made on\nthe pillow at the rate of about three meshes per minute. A bobbin-net\nmachine will produce similar lace at the rate of twenty-four thousand\nmeshes per minute, one person only being required to wait upon the\nmachine. Those who have watched the cottage lace-maker, working with her\nbobbins and pins, were unable, without long observation, to understand\nthe principle upon which she intertwined the threads. But to explain the\nmore rapid working of the bobbin-net machine would require such a minute\nacquaintance with all its parts as belongs to the business of the\npractical machinist, and which words are inadequate to exhibit. The\naccompanying engraving offers the best notion we can furnish.\n\n [Illustration: Essential parts of the bobbin-net machine.\n\n The warp, ascending from the beam A, passes through small holes in a\n guide-bar B, and thence to the point C, where the bobbins in their\n respective combs, driven by the ledges on the two bars beneath, traverse\n the warp to and fro, and interlace the threads as shown at D; the points\n E assisting to maintain the forms of the meshes.]\n\nInstead of England being now supplied with lace from France and Belgium,\nwe are now an exporting lace-country. In 1848 we exported cotton lace\nand net to the amount of 363,255_l._; in 1853 to the amount of\n596,578_l._\n\nAccording to the census of 1851, the number of persons employed in the\nlace manufacture was 63,660; of whom 54,080 were females. The same\nreturns give the number of 4658 embroiderers.\n\nThere is an article employed in dress which is at once so necessary and\nso beautiful that the highest lady in the land uses it, and yet so cheap\nthat the poorest peasant's wife is enabled to procure it. The quality of\nthe article is as perfect as art can make it; and yet, from the enormous\nquantities consumed by the great mass of the people, it is made so cheap\nthat the poor can purchase the best kind, as well as the rich. It is an\narticle of universal use. United with machinery, many hundreds, and even\nthousands, are employed in making it. But if the machinery were to stop,\nand the article were made by human hands alone, it would become so dear\nthat the richest only could afford to use it; and it would become at the\nsame time so rough in its appearance, that those very rich would be\nashamed of using it. The article we mean is a Pin.\n\nIt is not necessary for us to describe the machinery used in pin-making,\nto make the reader comprehend its effects. A pin is made of brass. We\nhave seen how metal is obtained from ore by machinery; and therefore we\nwill not go over that ground. But suppose the most skilful workman has a\nlump of brass ready by his side, to make it into pins with common\ntools,--with a hammer and with a file. He heats it upon an anvil, till\nit becomes nearly thin enough for his purpose. A very fine hammer, and a\nvery fine touch, must he have to produce a pin of any sort,--even a\nlarge corking-pin! But the pin made by machinery is a perfect cylinder.\nTo make a metal, or even a wooden cylinder, of a considerable size, with\nfiles and polishing, is an operation so difficult that it is never\nattempted; but with a lathe and a sliding rest it is done every hour by\na great many workmen. How much more difficult would it be to make a\nperfect cylinder the size of a pin? A pin hammered out by hand would\npresent a number of rough edges that would tear the clothes, as well as\nhold them together. It would not be much more useful or ornamental than\nthe skewer of bone with which the woman of the Sandwich Islands fastens\nher mats. But the wire of which pins are made acquires a perfectly\ncylindrical form by the simplest machinery. It is forcibly drawn through\nthe circular holes of a steel plate; and the hole being smaller and\nsmaller each time it is drawn through, it is at length reduced to the\nsize required.\n\nThe head of a pin is a more difficult thing to make even than the body.\nIt is formed of a small piece of wire twisted round so as to fit upon\nthe other wire. It is said that by a machine fifty thousand heads can be\nmade in an hour. We should think that a man would be very skilful to\nmake fifty in an hour by hand, in the roughest manner; if so, the\nmachine does the work of a thousand men. The machine, however, does not\ndo all the work. The head is attached to the body of a pin by the\nfingers of a child, while another machine rivets it on. The operations\nof cutting and pointing the pins are also done by machinery; and they\nare polished by a chemical process.\n\nIt is by these processes,--by these combinations of human labour with\nmechanical power,--that it occurs that fifty pins can be bought for one\nhalfpenny, and that therefore four or five thousand pins may be consumed\nin a year by the most economical housewife, at a much less price than\nfifty pins of a rude make cost two or three centuries ago. A woman's\nallowance was formerly called her _pin-money_,--a proof that the pins\nwere a sufficiently dear article to make a large item in her expenses.\nIf pins now were to cost a halfpenny apiece instead of being fifty for a\nhalfpenny, the greater number of females would adopt other modes of\nfastening their dress, which would probably be less neat and convenient\nthan pins. No such circumstance could happen while the machinery of\npin-making was in use.\n\nNeedles are not so cheap as pins, because the material of which they are\nmade is more expensive, and the processes cannot be executed so fully by\nmachinery. But without machinery how could that most beautiful article,\na _fine_ needle, be sold at the rate of six for a penny?\n\nAs in the case of pins, machinery is at work at the first formation of\nthe material. Without the tilt-hammer, which beats out the bar of steel,\nfirst at the rate of ten strokes a minute, and lastly at that of five\nhundred, how could that bar be prepared for needle-making at anything\nlike a reasonable price? In all the processes of needle-making, labour\nis saved by contrivance and machinery. What human touch, without a\nmachine, would be accurate enough to make the eye of the finest needle,\nthrough which the most delicate silk is with difficulty passed? There\nare two needles to be formed out of one piece of wire; in the previous\npreparation of which the eyes are marked. The workman, holding in his\nhand several wires, drops one at a time on the bed-iron of the machine,\nadjusts it to the die, brings down the upper die upon it by the action\nof the foot, and allows it to fall into a little dish when done. This he\ndoes with such rapidity that one stamper can stamp four thousand wires,\nequivalent to eight thousand needles, in an hour.\n\n [Illustration: Stamping the eye of a needle.]\n\nNeedles are made in such large quantities, that it is even important to\nsave the time of the child who lays them all one way when they are\ncompleted. Mr. Babbage, who is equally distinguished for his profound\nscience and his mechanical ingenuity, has described this process as an\nexample of one of the simplest contrivances which can come under the\ndenomination of a tool. \"It is necessary to separate the needles into\ntwo parcels, in order that their points may be all in one direction.\nThis is usually done by women and children. The needles are placed\nsideways in a heap, on a table, in front of each operator. From five to\nten are rolled towards this person by the forefinger of the left hand;\nthis separates them a very small space from each other, and each in its\nturn is pushed lengthways to the right or to the left, according as its\neye is on the right or the left hand. This is the usual process, and in\nit every needle passes individually under the finger of the operator. A\nsmall alteration expedites the process considerably; the child puts on\nthe forefinger of its right hand a small cloth cap or finger-stall, and,\nrolling from the heap from six to twelve needles, it keeps them down by\nthe forefinger of the left hand; whilst it presses the forefinger of the\nright hand gently against the ends of the needles, those which have\ntheir points towards the right hand stick into the finger-stall; and the\nchild, removing the finger of the left hand, allows the needles sticking\ninto the cloth to be slightly raised, and then pushes them towards the\nleft side. Those needles which had their eyes on the right hand do not\nstick into the finger-cover, and are pushed to the heap on the right\nside previous to the repetition of the process. By means of this simple\ncontrivance, each movement of the finger, from one side to the other,\ncarries five or six needles to their proper heap; whereas, in the former\nmethod, frequently only one was moved, and rarely more than two or three\nwere transported at one movement to their place.\"\n\nA large number of people are employed, at Birmingham chiefly, in the\nmanufacture of buttons. The census return gives about seven thousand. In\nthe manufacture of a single button there is great division of labour\namongst piercers, cutters, stampers, gilders, and burnishers. The\nengraving exhibits the operations of stamping, pressing, and punching,\nas carried on in a great factory. The shank of a button is made by very\ncomplicated machinery as a distinct class of manufacture, and the\nbutton-makers buy the shanks. It has been stated that three firms in\nBirmingham annually make six hundred million of button-shanks.\n\n [Illustration: Stamping, pressing, and punching buttons.--Elliott's\n factory.]\n\nThe application of machinery, or of peculiar scientific modes of\nworking, to such apparently trifling articles as pins, needles, buttons,\nand trinkets, may appear of little importance. But let it be remembered,\nthat the manufacture of such articles furnishes employment to many\nthousands of our fellow-countrymen; and, enabling us to supply other\nnations with these products, affords us the means of receiving articles\nof more intrinsic value in exchange. In 1853 our exports of hardware and\ncutlery amounted to more than three millions and a half sterling. No\narticle of ready attainment, and therefore of general consumption,\nwhether it be a labourer's spade or a child's marble, is unimportant in\na commercial point of view. The wooden figures of horses and sheep that\nmay be bought for twopence in the toy-shops furnish employment to cut\nthem, during the long winter nights, to a large portion of the peasantry\nof the Tyrol. The Swiss peasant cuts a piece of white wood into a boy or\na cottage, as he is tending his herd on the side of a mountain. These\nbecome considerable articles of export. In the town of Sonneberg, near\nthe forest of Thuringia, four thousand inhabitants are principally\nemployed in the toy-trade, and also find employment for the neighbouring\nvillagers. Mr. Osler, of Birmingham, some years ago, addressing a\nCommittee of the House of Commons upon the subject of his beads and\ntrinkets, said,--\"On my first journey to London, a respectable-looking\nman in the City asked me if I could supply him with dolls' eyes; and I\nwas foolish enough to feel half offended. I thought it derogatory to my\nnew dignity as a manufacturer to make dolls' eyes. He took me into a\nroom quite as wide and perhaps twice the length of this (one of the\nlarge rooms for Committees in the House of Commons), and we had just\nroom to walk between stacks, from the floor to the ceiling, of parts of\ndolls. He said, 'These are only the legs and arms--the trunks are\nbelow.' But I saw enough to convince me that he wanted a great many\neyes; and as the article appeared quite in my own line of business, I\nsaid I would take an order by way of experiment; and he showed me\nseveral specimens. I copied the order. He ordered various quantities and\nof various sizes and qualities. On returning to the Tavistock Hotel, I\nfound that the order amounted to upwards of five hundred pounds.\"\n\nMr. Osler tells this story to show the importance of trifles. The making\nof dolls' eyes afforded subsistence to many ingenious workmen in glass\ntoys; and in the same way the most minute and apparently insignificant\narticle of general use, when rendered cheap by chemical science or\nmachinery, produces a return of many thousand pounds, and sets in\nmotion labour and labourers. Without the science and the machinery,\nwhich render the article cheap, the labourers would have had _no_\nemploy, for the article would not have been consumed. What a pretty\narticle is a common tobacco-pipe, of which millions are used! It is made\ncheap and beautiful in a mould--a machine for copying pipes. If the pipe\nwere made without the mould, and other contrivances, it would cost at\nleast a shilling instead of a halfpenny:--the tobacco-smoker would go\nwithout his pipe, and the pipe-maker without his employment.\n\nAmongst articles of great demand that have become of importance, though\napparently insignificant, in our own day, there is nothing more worthy\nof notice than the Lucifer-Match. About twenty years ago chemistry\nabolished the tinder-box; and the burnt rag that made the tinder went to\nmake paper. Slowly did the invention spread. The use of the\nlucifer-match is now so established that machines are invented to\nprepare the splints. In London one saw-mill annually cuts up four\nhundred large timber-trees for matches. The English matches are\ngenerally square, and thus thirty thousand splints are cut in a minute.\nThe American matches are round; and the process of shaping being more\nelaborate, four thousand five hundred splints are cut in a minute. We\nwill follow a bundle of eighteen hundred of the square splints, each\nfour inches long, through its conversion into three thousand six hundred\nlucifer-matches.\n\nWithout being separated, each end of the bundle is first dipped into\nsulphur. When dry, the splints, adhering to each other by means of the\nsulphur, must be parted by what is called dusting. A boy, sitting on the\nfloor with a bundle before him, strikes the matches with a sort of\nmallet on the dipped ends till they become thoroughly loosened. They\nhave now to be plunged into a preparation of phosphorus or chlorate of\npotash, according to the quality of the match. The phosphorus produces\nthe pale, noiseless fire; the chlorate of potash, the sharp cracking\nillumination. After this application of the more inflammable substance,\nthe matches are separated, and dried in racks. Thoroughly dried, they\nare gathered up again into bundles of the same quantity, and are taken\nto the boys who cut them; for the reader will have observed that the\nbundles have been dipped at each end. There are few things more\nremarkable in manufactures than the extraordinary rapidity of this\ncutting-process and that which is connected with it. The boy stands\nbefore a bench, the bundle on his right hand, a pile of half-opened\nempty boxes on his left. The matches are to be cut, and the empty boxes\nfilled, by this boy. A bundle is opened; he seizes a portion, knowing by\nlong habit the required number with sufficient exactness; puts them\nrapidly into a sort of frame, knocks the ends evenly together, confines\nthem with a strap which he tightens with his foot, and cuts them in two\nparts with a knife on a hinge, which he brings down with a strong\nleverage. The halves lie projecting over each end of the frame; he\ngrasps the left portion and thrusts it into a half-open box, which\nslides into an outer case; and he repeats the process with the matches\non his right hand. This series of movements is performed with a rapidity\nalmost unexampled; for in this way, two hundred thousand matches are\ncut, and two thousand boxes filled, in a day, by one boy.\n\nIt is a law of this manufacture that the demand is greater in the summer\nthan in the winter. The increased summer demand for the lucifer-matches\nshows that the great consumption is among the masses--the labouring\npopulation--those who make up the vast majority of the contributors to\nduties of customs and excise. In the houses of the wealthy there is\nalways fire; in the houses of the poor, fire in summer is a needless\nhourly expense. Then comes the lucifer-match to supply the want--to\nlight the candle to look in the dark cupboard--to light the afternoon\nfire to boil the kettle. It is now unnecessary to run to the neighbour\nfor a light, or, as a desperate resource, to work at the tinder-box. The\nlucifer-matches sometimes fail, but they cost little, and so they are\nfreely used, even by the poorest. Their value was sufficiently shown\nwhen an officer in camp at Balaclava wrote home that no want was\ngreater than that of the ready means of procuring fire and light, and\nthat he should hold a box of lucifer-matches cheap at half-a-crown.\n\n [Illustration: Envelope-making machine.]\n\nWe may notice one other article of almost universal use, which is of\nvery recent introduction--the Envelope. It is a labour-saving\ncontrivance for the writer of letters. The use of the envelope has been\nmainly created by the penny postage. We find, in the census, that seven\nhundred persons, chiefly females, are employed in making envelopes. But\nthere is a beautiful machine also for making them, at the rate of\ntwenty-five thousand a day. The envelope-making machine was one of the\nmost attractive objects in the Great Exhibition.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\n Labour-saving contrivances--The nick in types--Tags of\n laces--Casting shot--Candle-dipping--Tiring a\n wheel--Globe-making--Domestic aids to labour--Aids to mental\n labour--Effects of severe bodily labour on health and\n duration of life.\n\n\nWe drew attention in the last chapter to a particular process in\nneedle-making--the sorter's sheath--to show that great saving of labour\nmay be effected by what is not popularly called machinery. In modern\ntimes, wherever work is carried on upon a large scale, the division of\nlabour is applied; by which one man attending to one thing learns to\nperform that one thing more perfectly than if he had attended to many\nthings. He thus saves a considerable portion of the whole amount of\nlabour. Every skilful workman has individually some mode of working\npeculiar to himself, by which he lessens his labour. An expert\nblacksmith, for instance, will not strike one more blow upon the anvil\nthan is necessary to produce the effect he desires. A compositor, or\nprinter who arranges the types, is a swift workman when he makes no\nunnecessary movement of his arms or fingers in lifting a single type\ninto what is called his composing-stick, where the types are arranged in\nlines. There is a very simple contrivance to lessen the labour of the\ncompositor, by preventing him putting the type into his composing-stick\nthe wrong side outwards. It is a nick, or two or three nicks, on the\nside of the type which corresponds with the lower side of the face of\nthe letter. By this nick or nicks he is enabled to see by one glance of\nhis eye on which side the letter is first to be grasped, and then to be\narranged. If the nick were not there he would have to look at the face\nof every letter before he could properly place it. This is a\nlabour-saving contrivance; and if the labour were not thus saved, two\ncompositors would certainly be required to do the work of one; and the\nnatural and inevitable effect would be that, as the funds for the\npayment of the compositor's labours would not be increased, the wages of\neach compositor would be diminished by one-half. The new labour that\nwould be required would enter into competition with the old labour, and\ndepreciate its value, because each individual labourer had lost one-half\nof his efficiency.\n\n [Illustration: Compositor at work.]\n\nContrivances to economize labour, such as that of the needle-sorter's\nsheath, and the nicks in the type of the compositor, are constantly\noccurring in manufactures. The tags of laces, which are made of thin\ntin, are sometimes bent into their requisite form by the same movement\nof the arm that cuts them. A piece of steel, adapted to the side of the\nshears, gives them at once their proper shape. The writer can remember\nthat when he was a boy, and was fitted with a pair of laced boots, he\nused to wait with patience in the shoemaker's shop, whilst he clumsily\nbent a piece of tin into the form of a tag, and then as clumsily\nhammered it round the lace. In a silk manufactory boot-laces are now\nprepared with tags made by machinery. One machine cuts and hollows the\ntags much more efficiently than the shears mentioned above; and at\nanother machine, worked by a boy, the tags are fitted to the laces with\na rapidity which is acquired by continued practice.\n\n [Illustration: Machine for fixing tags to laces.]\n\nIf the small shot which is used by sportsmen were each cast in a mould,\nthe price would be enormous; but by pouring the melted lead, of which\nthe shot is made, through a sort of cullender, placed at the top of a\ntower, high enough for the lead to cool in its passage through the\nair, before it reaches the ground, the shot is formed in a spherical or\nround shape by the mere act of passing through the atmosphere. Some of\nthe shots thus formed are not perfectly spherical--they are pear-shaped.\nIf the selection of the perfect from the imperfect shots were made by\nthe eye, or the touch, the process would be very tedious and\ninsufficient, and the price of the article much increased. The simplest\ncontrivance in the world divides the bad from the good. The shots are\npoured down an inclined plane, and, without any trouble of selection,\nthe spherical ones run straight to the bottom, while the pear-shaped\nones tumble off on one side or the other of the plane.\n\n [Illustration: Inclined plane for separating shot.]\n\nIn speaking of such contrivances we are constantly passing over the\nnarrow line which separates them from what we popularly term machinery.\nLet us take an example of the readiness with which a small aid to manual\nlabour gradually becomes perfected into a machine, requiring little\nimpulse from human action. The dippers of candles have gradually, in\nsmall establishments, made several improvements in their art for the\npurpose of diminishing labour. They used to hold the rods between their\nfingers, dipping three at a time; they next connected six or eight rods\ntogether by a piece of wood at each end, having holes to receive the\nrods; and they now suspend the rods so arranged upon a sort of balance,\nrising and falling with a pulley and a weight, so as to relieve the arms\nof the workman almost entirely, while the work is done more quickly and\nwith more precision. But in large candle-factories the principle is\ncarried much further. The wicks, having been cut by machinery of the\nrequisite length, instead of being cut one at a time, are arranged upon\na rod. For the sort of candle called \"twelves,\" or twelve to a pound,\ntwenty-four wicks are suspended on one of these rods. Thirty rods are\nconnected together in a frame, which thus holds seven hundred and twenty\nwicks. Attached to the machine are thirty-six of these frames. The whole\nnumber of wicks is therefore twenty-five thousand nine hundred and\ntwenty. The machine, as it revolves, dips one frame into a vessel of\nmelted tallow; and so on till the thirty-six frames have each been once\ndipped,--and the process is continued till the candles are fully formed.\nOne man and a boy complete this number of candles in a working-day of\nten hours.\n\n [Illustration: Dipping-machine.]\n\nWalking by a wheelwright's shop in some quiet village, did our readers\never see the operation of \"tiring\" a wheel? The wood-work of the wheel\nis entirely formed; but the joints of the felloes are imperfectly fitted\ntogether. They used to be drawn close by separate straps of iron applied\nwith great labour. The wheel rests upon some raised bricks. Out from the\nforge rush three or four men bearing a red-hot iron hoop. It is laid\nupon the outer rim of the wood-work, burning its way as it is hammered\ndown with the united force of the wheelwrights. When it is nearly\nfitted, floods of water are thrown upon it, till it no longer burns. The\nknowledge of the simple fact that the iron shrinks as it cools, and thus\nknits the whole wheel into a firm body, taught the wheelwright how to\naccomplish the difficult task of giving the last strength to his wheel\nwith the least possible labour.\n\n [Illustration: Tiring a wheel.]\n\nThe manufacture of a globe offers an example of the production of a most\nbeautiful piece of work by the often repeated application of a series of\nprocesses, each requiring very little labour. A globe is not a ball of\nwood; but a hollow sphere of papers and plaster. The mould, if we may so\nexpress it, of a globe is turned out of a piece of wood. This sphere\nneed not be mathematically accurate. It is for rough work, and flaws and\ncracks are of little consequence. This wooden ball has an axis, a piece\nof iron wire at each pole. And here we may remark, that, at every stage\nof the process, the revolution of a sphere upon its axis, under the\nhands of the workman, is the one great principle which renders every\noperation one of comparative ease and simplicity. The labour would be\nenormously multiplied if the same class of operations had to be\nperformed upon a cube. The solid mould, then, of the embryo globe is\nplaced on its axis in a wooden frame. In a very short time a boy will\nform a pasteboard globe upon its surface. He first covers it entirely\nwith strips of strong paper, thoroughly wet, which are in a tub of water\nat his side. The slight inequalities produced by the over-lapping of the\nstrips are immaterial. The saturated paper is not suffered to dry; but\nis immediately covered over with a layer of pasted paper, also cut in\nlong narrow slips. A third layer of similarly pasted paper--brown paper\nand white being used alternately--is applied; and then, a fourth, a\nfifth, and a sixth. Here the pasting process ends for globes of moderate\nsize. For the large ones it is carried further. This wet pasteboard ball\nhas now to be dried--placed upon its axis in a rack. If we were\ndetermined to follow the progress of this individual ball through all\nits stages, we should have to wait a fortnight before it advanced\nanother step. But in a large factory there are many scores of globes all\nrolling onward to perfection; and thus we may witness the next operation\nperformed upon a pasteboard sphere that began to exist some weeks\nearlier, and is now hard to the core.\n\nThe wooden ball, with its solid paper covering, is placed on its axis. A\nsharp cutting instrument, fixed on a bench, is brought into contact with\nthe surface of the sphere, which is made to revolve. In less time than\nwe write the pasteboard ball is cut in half. There is no adhesion to the\nwooden mould, for the first coating of paper was simply _wetted_. Two\nbowls of thick card now lie before us, with a small hole in each, made\nby the axis of the wooden ball. But a junction is very soon effected.\nWithin every globe there is a piece of wood--we may liken it to a round\nruler--of the exact length of the inner surface of the sphere from pole\nto pole. A thick wire runs through this wood, and originally projected\nsome two or three inches at each end. This stick is placed upright in a\nvice. The semi-globe is nailed to one end of the stick, upon which it\nrests, when the wire is passed through its centre. It is now reversed,\nand the edges of the card rapidly covered with glue. The edges of the\nother semi-globe are instantly brought into contact, the other end of\nthe wire passing through its centre in the same way, and a similar\nnailing to the stick taking place. We have now a paper globe, with its\nown axis, which will be its companion for the whole term of its\nexistence.\n\nThe paper globe is next placed on its axis in a frame, of which one side\nis a semicircular piece of metal;--the horizon of a globe cut in half\nwould show its form. A tub of white composition, a compound of whiting,\nglue, and oil, is on the bench. The workman dips his hand into this\n\"gruel thick and slab,\" and rapidly applies it to the paper sphere with\ntolerable evenness; but as it revolves, the semicircle of metal clears\noff the superfluous portions. The ball of paper is now a ball of plaster\nexternally. Time again enters largely into the manufacture. The first\ncoating must thoroughly dry before the next is applied, and so again\ntill the process has been repeated four or five times. Thus, when we\nvisit a globe-workshop, we are at first surprised at the number of white\nballs, from three inches in diameter to three feet, which occupy a large\nspace. They are all steadily advancing towards completion; and as they\nadvance to the dignity of perfect spheres, increased pains are taken in\nthe application of the plaster. At last they are polished. Their surface\nis as fine and hard as ivory. But beautiful as they are, they may, like\nmany other beautiful things, want a due equipoise. They must be\nperfectly balanced. They must move upon their poles with the utmost\nexactness. A few shot, let in here and there, correct all\nirregularities. And now the paper and plaster sphere is to be endued\nwith intelligence. The sphere is marked with lines of direction for the\npurpose of covering it with engraved slips. We have now a globe with a\nplain map. An artist colours it by hand.\n\nWe have given these examples of several modes of production, in which\nknowledge and skill have diminished labour, for the purpose of showing\nthat not only machinery and scientific applications are constantly\ntending to the same end, but that the mere practice of the mechanical\narts necessarily leads to labour-saving inventions. Every one of us who\nthinks at all is constantly endeavouring to diminish his individual\nlabour by the use of some little contrivance which experience has\nsuggested. Men who carry water in buckets, in places where water is\nscarce, put a circular piece of wood to float on the water, which\nprevents its spilling, and consequently lessens the labour. A boy who\nmakes paper bags in a grocer's shop so arranges them that he pastes the\nedges of twenty at a time, to diminish the labour. The porters of\nAmsterdam, who draw heavy goods upon a sort of sledge, every now and\nthen throw a greased rope under the sledge, to diminish its friction,\nand therefore to lessen the labour of dragging it. Other porters, in the\nsame city, have a little barrel containing water, attached to each side\nof the sledge, out of which the water slowly drips like the water upon a\nstone-cutter's saw, to diminish the friction.\n\nIn the domestic arrangements of a well-regulated household, whether of a\npoor man or of a rich man, one of the chief cares is to save labour.\nEvery contrivance to save labour that ingenuity can suggest is eagerly\nadopted when a country becomes highly civilized. In former times, in our\nown country, when such contrivances were little known, and materials as\nwell as time were constantly wasted in every direction, a great Baron\nwas surrounded with a hundred menial servants; but he had certainly less\nreal and useful labour performed for him than a tradesman of the present\nday obtains from three servants. Are there fewer servants now employed\nthan in those times of barbarous state? Certainly not. The middle\nclasses amongst us can get a great deal done for them in the way of\ndomestic service, at a small expense, because servants are assisted by\nmanifold contrivances which do much of the work for them. The\ncontrivances render the article of service cheaper, and therefore there\nare more servants. The work being done by fewer servants, in consequence\nof the contrivances, the servants themselves are better paid than if\nthere was no cost saved by the contrivance.\n\nThe common jack by which meat is roasted is described by Mr. Babbage as\n\"a contrivance to enable the cook in a few minutes to exert a force (in\nwinding up the jack) which the machine retails out during the succeeding\nhour in turning the loaded spit, thus enabling her to bestow her\nundivided attention on her other duties.\" We have seen, years ago, in\nfarm-houses, a man employed to turn a spit with a handle; dogs have\nbeen used to run in a wheel for the same purpose, and hence a particular\nbreed so used are called \"turnspits.\" When some ingenious servant-girl\ndiscovered that, if she put a skewer through the meat and hung it before\nthe fire by a skein of worsted, it would turn with very little\nattention, she made an approach to the principle of the bottle-jack. All\nthese contrivances diminish labour, and ensure regularity of\nmovement;--and therefore they are valuable contrivances.\n\nA bell which is pulled in one room and rings in another, and which\ntherefore establishes a ready communication between the most distant\nparts of a house, is a contrivance to save labour. In a large family the\ntotal want of bells would add a fourth at least to the labour of\nservants. Where three servants are kept now, four servants would be\nrequired to be kept then. Would the destruction of all the bells\ntherefore add one-fourth to the demand for servants? Certainly not. The\nfunds employed in paying for service would not be increased a single\nfarthing; and, therefore, by the destruction of bells, all the families\nof the kingdom would have some work left undone, to make up for the\nadditional labour required through the want of this useful contrivance:\nor all the servants in the kingdom would be more hardly worked,--would\nhave to work sixteen hours a day instead of twelve.\n\nIn some parts of India the natives have a very rude contrivance to mark\nthe progress of time. A thin metal cup, with a small hole in its bottom,\nis put to float in a vessel of water; and as the water rises through the\nhole the cup sinks in a given time--in 24 minutes. A servant is set to\nwatch the sinking of the cup, and when this happens he strikes upon a\nbell. Half a century ago, almost every cottage in England had its\nhour-glass--an imperfect instrument for registering the progress of\ntime, because it only indicated its course between hour and hour; and an\ninstrument which required a very watchful attention, and some labour, to\nbe of any use at all. The universal use of watches or clocks, in India,\nwould wholly displace the labour of the servants who note the progress\nof time by the filling of the cup; and the same cause has displaced,\namongst us, the equally unprofitable labour employed in turning the\nhour-glass, and watching its movement. Almost every house in England has\nnow a clock or watch of some sort; and every house in India would have\nthe same, if the natives were more enlightened, and were not engaged in\nso many modes of unprofitable labour to keep them poor. His profitable\nlabour has given the English mechanic the means of getting a watch.\nMachinery, used in every possible way, has made this watch cheap. The\nlabour formerly employed in turning the hour-glass, or in running to\nlook at the church clock, is transferred to the making of watches. The\nuser of the watch obtains an accurate register of time, which teaches\nhim to know the value of that most precious possession, and to economize\nit; and the producers of the watch have abundant employment in the\nuniversal demand for this valuable machine.\n\nA watch or clock is an instrument for assisting an operation of the\nmind. Without some instrument for registering time, the mind could very\nimperfectly attain the end which the watch attains, not requiring any\nmental labour. The observation of the progress of time, by the situation\nof the sun in the day, or of particular stars at night, is a labour\nrequiring great attention, and various sorts of accurate knowledge. It\nis therefore never attempted, except when men have no machines for\nregistering time. In the same manner the labours of the mind have been\nsaved, in a thousand ways, by other contrivances of science.\n\nThe foot-rule of the carpenter not only gives him the standard of a foot\nmeasure, which he could not exactly ascertain by any experience, or any\nmental process, but it is also a scale of the proportions of an inch, or\nseveral inches, to a foot, and of the parts of an inch to an inch. What\na quantity of calculations, and of dividing by compasses, does this\nlittle instrument save the carpenter, besides ensuring a much greater\ndegree of accuracy in all his operations! The common rules of\narithmetic, which almost every boy in England now learns, are parts of a\ngreat invention for saving mental labour. The higher branches of\nmathematics, of which science arithmetic is a portion, are also\ninventions for saving labour, and for doing what could never be done\nwithout these inventions. There are instruments, and very curious ones,\nfor lessening the labour of all arithmetical calculations; and tables,\nthat is, the results of certain calculations, which are of practical\nuse, are constructed for the same purpose. When we buy a joint of meat,\nwe often see the butcher turn to a little book, before he tells us how\nmuch a certain number of pounds and ounces amounts to, at a certain\nprice per pound. This book is his 'Ready Reckoner,' and a very useful\nbook it is to him; for it enables him to despatch his customers in half\nthe time that he would otherwise require, and thus to save himself a\ngreat deal of labour, and a great deal of inaccuracy. The inventions for\nsaving mental labour, in calculations of arithmetic, have been carried\nso far, that Mr. Babbage had almost perfected a calculating machine,\nwhich not only did its work of calculation without the possibility of\nerror, but absolutely was to arrange printing types of figures, in a\nframe, so that no error could be produced in copying the calculations\nbefore they are printed. We mention this curious machine, to show how\nfar science may go in diminishing mental labour, and ensuring accuracy.\nThe want of government funds prevented its completion.\n\nTo all who read this book it is no difficulty to count a hundred; and\nmost know the relation which a hundred bears to a thousand, and a\nthousand bears to a million. Most are able, also, to read off those\nnumbers, or parts of those numbers, when they see them marked down in\nfigures. There are many uncivilized people in the world who cannot count\ntwenty. They have no idea whatever of numbers, beyond perhaps as far as\nthe number of their fingers, or their fingers and their toes. How have\nwe obtained this great superiority over these poor savages? Because\nscience has been at work, for many centuries, to diminish the amount of\nour mental labour, by teaching us the easiest modes of calculation. And\nhow did we learn these modes? We learnt them from our schoolmasters.\n\nIf any follow up the false reasoning which has led some to think that\nwhatever diminishes labour diminishes the number of labourers, they\nmight conclude, that, as there is less mental work to be done, because\nscience has diminished the labour of that work, there would, therefore,\nbe fewer mental workmen. Thank God, the greater facilities that have\nbeen given to the cultivation of the mind, the greater is the number of\nthose who exert themselves in that cultivation. The effects of saving\nunprofitable labour are the same in all cases. The use of machinery in\naid of _bodily_ labour has set that bodily labour to a thousand new\nemployments; and has raised the character of the employments, by\ntransferring the lowest of the drudgery to wheels and pistons. The use\nof science in the assistance of _mental_ labour has conducted that\nlabour to infinitely more numerous fields of exertion; and has elevated\nall intellectual pursuits, by making their commoner processes the play\nof childhood, instead of the toil of manhood.\n\nWe cannot doubt that any invention which gives assistance to the\nthinking powers of mankind, and, therefore, by dispensing with much\nmental drudgery, leads the mind forward to nobler exertions, is a\nbenefit to all. It is not more than four hundred years ago, that the use\nof Arabic numerals, or figures, began to be generally known in this\ncountry. The first date in those numerals said to exist in England, is\nupon a brass plate in Ware church, 1454. The same date in Roman\nnumerals, which were in use before the Arabic ones, would be expressed\nby eight letters, MCCCCLIV. The introduction of figures, therefore, was\nan immense saving of time in the commonest operations of arithmetic. How\npuzzled we should be, and what a quantity of labour we should lose, if\nwe were compelled to reckon earnings and marketings by the long mode of\nnotation, instead of the short one! This book is easily read, because it\nis written in words composed of twenty-four letters. In China, where\nthere are no letters in use, every word in the language is expressed by\na different character. Few people in China write or read; and those who\ndo, acquire very little knowledge, except the mere knowledge of writing\nand reading. All the time of their learned men is occupied in acquiring\nthe means of knowledge, and not knowledge itself; and the bulk of the\npeople get very little knowledge at all. It would be just the same thing\nif there were no machines or engines for diminishing manual labour.\nThose who had any property would occupy all their time, and the time of\ntheir immediate dependents, in raising food and making clothes for\nthemselves, and the rest of the people would go without any food or\nclothes at all; or rather, which comes to the same thing, there would be\n_no_ \"rest of the people;\" the lord and his vassals would have all the\nproduce;--there would be half a million of people in the United Kingdom\ninstead of twenty-seven millions.\n\nWhen a boy has got hold of what we call the rudiments of learning, he\nhas possessed himself of the most useful tools and machines which exist\nin the world. He has obtained the means of doing that with extreme ease,\nwhich, without these tools, is done only with extreme labour. He has\nearned the time which, if rightly employed, will elevate his mind, and\ntherefore improve his condition. Just so is it with all tools and\nmachines for diminishing bodily exertion. They give us the means of\ndoing that with comparative ease, which, without them, can only be done\nwith extreme drudgery. They set at liberty a great quantity of mere\nanimal power, which, having then leisure to unite with mental power,\nproduces ingenious and skilful workmen in every trade. But they do more\nthan this. They diminish human suffering--they improve the health--they\nincrease the term of life--they render all occupations less painful and\nlaborious;--and, by doing all this, they elevate man in the scale of\nexistence.\n\nA late Pasha of Egypt, in one of those fits of caprice which it is the\nnature of tyrants to exhibit, ordered, a few years ago, that the male\npopulation of a district should be set to clear out one of the ancient\ncanals which was then filled up with mud. The people had no tools, and\nthe Pasha gave them no tools; but the work was required to be done. So\nto work the poor wretches went, to the number of fifty thousand. They\nhad to plunge up to their necks in the filthiest slime, and to bale it\nout with their hands, and their hands alone. They were fed, it is true,\nduring the operation; but their food was of a quality proportioned to\nthe little _profitable_ labour which they performed. They were fed on\nhorse-beans and water. In the course of one year, more than thirty\nthousand of these unhappy people perished. If the tyrant, instead of\ngiving labour to fifty thousand people, had possessed the means of\nsetting up steam-engines to pump out the water, and scoop out the\nmud,--or if he had provided the pump, which is called Archimedes' screw,\nand was invented by that philosopher for the very purpose of draining\nland in Egypt,--or if the people had even had scoops and shovels,\ninstead of being degraded like beasts, to the employment of their\nunassisted hands,--the work might have been done at a fiftieth of the\ncost, even of the miserable pittance of horse-beans and water; and the\nmoney that was saved by the tools and machines, might have gone to\nfurnish _profitable_ labour to the thousands who perished amidst the\nmisery and degradation of their _unprofitable_ labour.\n\nSome may say that this is a case which does not apply to us; because we\nare free men, and cannot be compelled to perish, up to our necks in mud,\nupon a pittance of horse-beans, doled out by a tyrant. Exactly so. But\nwhat has made us free? Knowledge. Knowledge,--which, in raising the\nmoral and intellectual character of every Englishman, has raised up\nbarriers to oppression which no power can ever break down.\nKnowledge,--which has set ingenious men thinking in every way how to\nincrease the profitable labour of the nation, and therefore to increase\nthe comforts of every man in the nation.\n\nThe people of England have gone on increasing very rapidly during the\nlast fifty years; and the average length of life has also gone on\nincreasing in the same remarkable manner. Men who have attended to\nsubjects of political economy have always been desirous to procure\naccurate returns of the average duration of life at particular places,\nand they could pretty well estimate the condition of the people from\nthese returns. Savages, it is well known, are not long livers; that is,\nalthough there may be a few old people, the majority of savages die very\nyoung. Why is this? Many of the savage nations that we know have much\nfiner climates than our own; but then, on the other hand, they sustain\nprivations which the poorest man amongst us never feels. Their supply of\nfood is uncertain, they want clothing, they are badly sheltered from the\nweather, or not sheltered at all, they undergo very severe labour when\nthey are labouring. From all these causes savages die young. Is it not\nreasonable, therefore, to infer that if in any particular country the\naverage duration of life goes on increasing; that is, if fewer people,\nin a given number and a given time, die now than formerly, the condition\nof that people is improved; that they have more of the necessaries and\ncomforts of life, and labour less severely to procure them? Now let us\nsee how the people of England stand in this respect. The average\nmortality in a year about a century ago was reckoned to be one in\nthirty, and now it is one in forty-six. This result is, doubtless,\nproduced in some degree by improvement in the science of medicine, and\nparticularly by the use of vaccination. But making every allowance for\nthese benefits, the fact furnishes the most undeniable truth, that the\npeople of England are much better fed, clothed, and lodged than they\nwere a century ago, and that the labour which they perform is far less\nsevere.\n\nThe effect of continued violent bodily exertion upon the duration of\nlife might be illustrated by many instances; we shall mention one. The\nlate Mr. Edgeworth, in his Memoirs, repeatedly speaks of a boatman whom\nhe knew at Lyons, as an old man. \"His hair,\" says Mr. Edgeworth, \"was\ngrey, his face wrinkled, his back bent, and all his limbs and features\nhad the appearance of those of a man of sixty; yet his real age was but\ntwenty-seven years. He told me that he was the oldest boatman on the\nRhone, that his younger brothers had been worn out before they were\ntwenty-five years old; such were the effects of the hardships to which\nthey were subject from the nature of their employment.\" That employment\nwas, by intense bodily exertion, and with the daily chance of being\nupset, to pull a boat across one of the most rapid rivers in the\nworld,--\n\n \"The swift and arrowy Rhone,\"\n\nas one of our poets calls it. How much happier would these boatmen have\nbeen during their lives, and how much longer would they have lived,\ncould their labour have been relieved by some mechanical contrivance!\nand without doubt, the same contrivance would have doubled the number of\nboatmen, by causing the passage to be more used. As it was, they were\nfew in number, they lived only a few years, and the only gratification\nof those few years was an inordinate stimulus of brandy. This is the\ncase in all trades where immense efforts of bodily power are required.\nThe exertion itself wears out the people, and the dram, which gives a\nmomentary impulse to the exertion, wears them out still more. The\ncoal-heavers of London, healthy as they look, are but a short-lived\npeople. The heavy loads which they carry, and the quantity of liquor\nwhich they drink, both together make sad havoc with them.\n\nViolent bodily labour, in which the muscular power of the body is\nunequally applied, generally produces some peculiar disease. Nearly all\nthe pressmen who were accustomed to print newspapers of a large size, by\nhand, were ruptured. The printing-machine now does the same description\nof work.\n\nWhat is the effect upon the condition of pressmen generally by the\nintroduction of the printing-machine to do the heaviest labour of\nprinting? That the trade of a pressman is daily becoming one more of\n_skill_ than of _drudgery_. At the same time that the printing-machine\nwas invented, one of the principles of that machine, that of inking the\ntypes with a roller instead of two large cushions, called balls, was\nintroduced into hand-printing. The pressmen were delighted with this\nimprovement. \"Ay,\" said they, \"this saves our labour; we are relieved\nfrom the hard work of distributing the ink upon the balls.\" What the\nroller did for the individual pressman, the machine, which can only be\nbeneficially applied to rapid and to very heavy printing, does for the\ngreat body of pressmen. It removes a certain portion of the drudgery,\nwhich degraded the occupation, and rendered it painful and injurious to\nhealth. We have seen two pressmen working a daily paper against time: it\nwas always necessary, before the introduction of the machines, to put an\nimmense quantity of bodily energy into the labour of working a\nnewspaper, that it might be published at the proper hour. Time, in this\ncase, was driving the pressman as fast as the rapid stream drove the\nboatman of the Rhone; and the speed with which they worked was killing\nthem as quickly.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\n Influences of knowledge in the direction of labour and\n capital--Astronomy--Chronometer--Mariner's\n compass--Scientific travellers--New materials of\n manufactures--India-rubber--Gutta-percha--Palm-oil--\n Geology--Inventions that diminish risk--Science raising\n up new employments--Electricity--Galvanism--Sun-light--\n Mental labourers--Enlightened public sentiment.\n\n\nLord Bacon, the great master of practical wisdom, has said that \"the\neffort to extend the dominion of man over nature is the most healthy and\nmost noble of all ambitions.\" \"The empire of man,\" he adds, \"over\nmaterial things has for its only foundation the sciences and the\narts.\"[24] A great deal of the knowledge which constitutes this dominion\nhas been the property of society, handed down from the earliest ages. No\none can tell, for instance, how the art of leavening bread was\nintroduced amongst mankind; and yet this process, now so familiar to\nall, contributes as much, if not more, than any other art to the\nwholesome and agreeable preparation of our food. Leavening bread is a\nbranch of chemistry, and, like that process, many other processes of\nchemistry have been the common property of civilized man from time\nimmemorial. Within a few centuries, however, science has applied its\ndiscoveries to the perfection of the arts; and in proportion as capital\nhas been at hand to encourage science, has the progress of the\napplication been certain and rapid. The old Alchemists, or hunters after\nthe philosopher's stone, sought to create capital by their discoveries.\nThey could not make gold, but they discovered certain principles which\nhave done as much for the creation of utility in a few hundred years as\nthe rude manual labour of all mankind during the same period. Let it\nnot be supposed that we wish to depreciate manual labour. We only wish\nto show that labour is incomparably more prolific when directed by\nscience. Mahomet Bey, the ruler of Tunis, was dethroned by his subjects.\nHe had the reputation of possessing the philosopher's stone, or the art\nof turning common metals into gold. The Dey of Algiers restored him to\nhis throne upon condition that the secret should be communicated to him.\nMahomet, with great pomp and solemnity, sent the Dey of Algiers a\nplough. This was so far well. He intimated that to compel production by\nlabour is to make a nation rich. But had he been able to transmit some\nof the science which now controls and guides the operations of the\nplough--the chemical knowledge which teaches the proper application of\nmanures to soils--the rotation of crops introduced by the\nturnip-husbandry, which renders it unnecessary that the ground should\never be idle,--he would have gone farther towards communicating the real\nphilosopher's stone.\n\nThe indirect influence, too, of a general advance in knowledge upon the\nparticular advance of any branch of labour, is undeniable;--for the\ninquiring spirit of an age spreads itself on all sides, and improvement\nis carried into the most obscure recesses, the darkest chinks and\ncorners of a nation. It has been wisely and beautifully said, \"We cannot\nreasonably expect that a piece of woollen cloth will be wrought to\nperfection in a nation which is ignorant of astronomy, or where ethics\nare neglected.\"[25] The positive influence of science in the direction\nof labour is chiefly exhibited in the operations of mechanics and\nchemistry applied to the arts, in the shape of machines for saving\nmaterials and labour, and of processes for attaining the same economy.\nWe have described the effects of some of these manifold inventions in\nthe improvement of the condition both of producers and consumers. But\nthere are many particulars in which knowledge has laboured, and is still\nlabouring, for the advance of the physical and moral condition of us\nall, which may have escaped attention; because these labours operate\nremotely and indirectly, though not without the highest ultimate\ncertainty and efficiency, in aiding the great business of production.\nThese are the influences of science upon labour, not so direct as the\nmechanical skill which has contrived the steam-engine, or so indirect as\nthe operation of ethics upon the manufacture of a piece of woollen\ncloth; but which confer a certain and in some instances enormous benefit\nupon production, by the operation of causes which, upon a superficial\nview, appear to be only matters of laborious but unprofitable\nspeculation. If we succeed in pointing out the extent and importance of\nthose aids which production derives from the labours of men, who have\nnot been ordinarily classed amongst \"working men,\" but who have been\ntruly the hardest and most profitable workers which society has ever\npossessed, we shall show what an intimate union subsists amongst those\nclasses of society who appear the most separated, and that these men\nreally labour with all others most effectually in the advancement of the\ngreat interests of mankind.\n\n [Illustration: Harrison.]\n\nWhen Hume thought that a nation would be behind in the manufacture of\ncloth that had not studied astronomy, he perhaps did not mean to go the\nlength of saying, that the study of astronomy has a real influence in\nmaking cloth cheaper, in lessening the cost of production, and in\ntherefore increasing the number of consumers. But look at the direct\ninfluence of astronomy upon navigation. A seaman, by the guidance of\nprinciples laid down by the great minds that have directed their\nmathematical powers to the study of astronomy--such minds as those of\nNewton and La Place--measures the moon's apparent distance from a\nparticular star. He turns to a page in the 'Nautical Almanac,' and, by a\ncalculation directed principally by this table, can determine whereabout\nhe is upon the broad ocean, although he may not have seen land for three\nmonths. Sir John Herschel, who unites to the greatest scientific\nreputation the rare desire to make the vast possessions of the world of\nscience accessible to all, has given, in his 'Discourse on the Study of\nNatural Philosophy,' an instance of the accuracy of such lunar\nobservations, in an account of a voyage of eight thousand miles, by\nCaptain Basil Hall, who, without a single landmark during eighty-nine\ndays, ran his ship into the harbour of Rio as accurately, and with as\nlittle deviation, as a coachman drives his stage into an inn-yard. But\nnavigation not only depends upon lunar distances, but upon an instrument\nwhich shall keep perfect time under every change of temperature produced\nby variety of climate. That instrument is a chronometer. Every one who\npossesses a watch, however good, must have experienced the effects of\nheat or cold upon its accuracy, in making it go faster or\nslower--perhaps a minute in a week. Now if there were not an instrument\nthat would measure time so exactly that between London and New York not\na minute, or large fraction of a minute, would be lost or gained, the\nvoyage would be one of difficulty and uncertainty. A Yorkshire joiner,\nJohn Harrison, at the beginning of the last century, found out the\nprinciple of the chronometer, which consists in the union in the\nbalance-spring of two metals, one which contracts under increased\ntemperature, and one which expands; and on the contrary under diminished\ntemperature. Harrison worked for fifty years at his discovery; and he\nobtained a parliamentary reward of 20,000_l._\n\n [Illustration: Greenwich Observatory.]\n\nThe English chronometers are set by what is called Greenwich time. At\nthe Greenwich Observatory a ball falls from a staff exactly at one\no'clock; and by the application of electricity, a similar ball falls at\nthe same instant at Charing Cross. The beautiful instruments that are\nconstantly at work, and the laborious calculations which are daily\nproceeding, at the Observatory, are essentially necessary for the\nmaintenance of a commerce that embraces the whole habitable globe.\n\nBut what has this, it may be said, to do with the price of clothing?\nExactly this: part of the price arises from the cost of transport. If\nthere were no \"lunar distances\" in the 'Nautical Almanac,' or\nchronometers, the voyage from New York to Liverpool might require three\nmonths instead of a fortnight. But go a step farther back in the\ninfluence of science upon navigation. There was a time when ships could\nhardly venture to leave the shore. In the days of our Anglo-Saxon\nancestors, a merchant who went three times over sea with his own craft,\nwas entitled to rank as a thegn, or nobleman. Long after this early\nperiod of England's navigation, voyages across the Atlantic could never\nhave been attempted. That was before the invention of the mariner's\ncompass; but even after that invention, when astronomy was not\nscientifically applied to navigation, long voyages were considered in\nthe highest degree dangerous. The crews both of Vasco de Gama, who\ndiscovered the passage to India, and of Columbus, principally consisted\nof criminals, who were pardoned on condition of undertaking a service of\nsuch peril. The discovery of magnetism, however, changed the whole\nprinciple of navigation, and raised seamanship to a science. If the\nmariner's compass had not been invented, America could never have been\ndiscovered; and if America, and the passage to India by the Cape of Good\nHope, had never been discovered, cotton would never have been brought to\nEngland; and if cotton had never been brought to England, we should have\nbeen as badly off for clothing as the people of the middle ages, and the\nmillion of working men and women, manufacturers of cotton, and dealers\nin cotton goods, would have been without employment.\n\nAstronomy, therefore, and navigation, both sciences the results of long\nages of patient inquiry, have opened a communication between the\nuttermost ends of the earth; and therefore have had a slow, but certain\neffect upon the production of wealth, and the consequent diffusion of\nall the necessaries, comforts, and conveniences of civilized life. The\nconnexion between manufactures and science, practical commerce and\nabstract speculation, is so intimate that it might be traced in a\nthousand striking instances. Columbus, the discoverer of America,\nsatisfied his mind that the earth was round; and when he had got this\nabstract idea firmly in his head, he next became satisfied that he\nshould find a new continent by sailing in a westerly course. The\nabstract notion which filled the mind of Columbus that the earth was a\nsphere, ultimately changed the condition of every living being in the\nOld World that then existed, or has since existed. In the year 1488, the\nfirst geographical maps and charts that had been seen in England were\nbrought hither by the brother of Christopher Columbus. If these maps had\nnot been constructed by the unceasing labours of men in their closets,\nColumbus would never have thought of discovering \"the unknown land\"\nwhich occupied his whole soul. If the scanty knowledge of geography\nwhich existed in the time of Columbus had not received immense additions\nfrom the subsequent labours of other students of geography, England\nwould not have twenty-seven thousand merchant ships ready to trade\nwherever men have anything to exchange,--that is, wherever men are\nenabled to give of their abundance for our abundance, each being\nimmensely benefited by the intercourse. A map now appears a common\nthing, but it is impossible to overrate the extent of the accumulated\nobservations that go to make up a map. An almanac seems a common thing,\nbut it is impossible to overrate the prodigious accumulations of science\nthat go to make up an almanac. With these accumulations, it is now no\nvery difficult matter to construct a map or an almanac. But if society\ncould be deprived of the accumulations, and we had to re-create and\nremodel everything for the formation of our map and our almanac, it\nwould perhaps require many centuries before these accumulations could be\nbuilt up again; and all the arts of life would go backward, for want of\nthe guidance of the principles of which the map and the almanac are the\ninterpreters for popular use.\n\n [Illustration: Linnaeus in his Lapland dress.]\n\nThere never was a time when man had so complete possession of the planet\nwhich he inhabits as the present. Much of the globe has yet to be\nexplored; but how much is familiar to us that was comparatively unknown\neven at the beginning of the present century. How thoroughly during that\nperiod have we acclimated many of the plants of distant lands, which are\nnow the common beauties of our gardens and greenhouses. There are\nthousands of timber-trees coming to rapid maturity in our parks and\npleasure-grounds which thirty years ago grew only in the solitudes of\nCalifornia and Australia. One enterprising man, James Douglas, whose\nfather was a working mason at Scone, bestowed upon this country, about\ntwenty-five years ago, two hundred new species of plants which are now\nof common culture, and he gave us a tree of the pine-tribe, called after\nhis name, which will in all probability become one of the most valuable\nof our timbers, from its strength, its rapid growth, and its enormous\nsize. What impelled James Douglas, and hundreds of other travellers of a\nsimilar character, to encounter the perils of travel in desert regions,\nbut the abstract love of science, which made them naturalists in their\nclosets before they were explorers and discoverers? We are familiar with\nthe name of Linnaeus, and the Linnean system of botany; and some may\nthink that this great naturalist was not doing much for knowledge when\nhe classified and arranged what we call the vegetable kingdom. When very\nyoung, Linnaeus underwent many hardships in travelling through Lapland,\nin search of plants. So far, some may say, he was well employed. He was\nequally well employed when he made such an inventory, to use a familiar\nterm, of all the known plants of his time, as would enable succeeding\nnaturalists to know a distinct species from an accidental variety, and\nto give a precision to all future botanical investigation. Other\nnaturalists have produced other systems, which may be more simple and\nconvenient; but the impulse which Linnaeus gave to botanical discovery,\nand thence to the increase of the vegetable wealth of Europe, can never\nbe too highly appreciated.\n\nIn every branch of natural history the study of the science, in its\nmanifold forms of classification, is constantly leading to the most\nvaluable discoveries connected with our means of existence. Some twenty\nyears ago all the timber of the Hartz Forest in Germany was destroyed by\na species of beetle, which, gnawing completely round the bark, prevented\nthe sap from rising. This destructive animal made its appearance in\nEngland; and science very soon discovered the cause of the evil, and\nprovided for its removal. If there had been no knowledge of natural\nhistory here, not a tree would have been left in our woods: and what\nthen would have been the cost of timber. The naturalist is now carrying\nhis investigations, with the aid of the microscope, into the lowest\ndepartments of animal life. He finds the causes of blight and mildew,\nand knows the species of the minutest insect that mars the hopes of the\nfarmer and the gardener. The chemist steps in; and the ravager is\ndestroyed or rendered less noxious.\n\nIt is to the scientific travellers that we owe the successive\nintroduction of new materials of manufactures. Of the enormous extent in\nwhich such new materials affect production, we may form some adequate\nnotion from the mention of three--India-rubber, Gutta Percha, and\nPalm-oil.\n\nIn 1853 we imported 1,940,000 lbs. of caoutchouc or India-rubber. The\ngum of a Brazilian-tree, discovered by some scientific Frenchman in\n1735, had been employed for nearly a century for no higher purpose than\nrubbing out pencil-marks. After 1820 the mode of applying the substance\nfor the production of water-proof garments was discovered. But even in\n1830 we only imported 50,000 lbs. Since then caoutchouc has become one\nof our great materials of manufacture, applied, not only to clothing,\nbut to useful articles of every description. Its great property of\nelasticity has rendered it available in numberless instances beyond\nthose of making cloth water-proof and air-tight. When we discovered how\nto make India-rubber soluble by spirit, we obtained our water-proof\nclothes, our air-cushions, and water-beds. When machinery drew out the\nlump of gum into the finest threads, and connected them with cotton,\nflax, silk, or worsted, in a braiding-machine, we became provided with\nevery species of elastic web that can render dress at once tight and\neasy. But chemistry has carried the use of India-rubber further than the\nspirit which dissolves it, or the machinery which splits it into minute\nthreads. Chemistry has combined it with sulphur, and thus added in a\nremarkable degree to its strength and its elasticity. It has made it\nindependent of temperature. It has doubled its utility. \"Vulcanized\nIndia-rubber\" is one of the most valuable of recent inventions.\n\nIt is a striking characteristic of our age, and particularly as compared\nwith the period when India-rubber was first sent to Europe, that the\napplication of gutta percha to the arts immediately followed the\ndiscovery of the substance. In 1842, Dr. Montgomerie was observing a\nwood-cutter at Singapore at his ordinary labour. Looking at the man's\naxe he saw that the handle was not of wood, but of some material that he\nhad not previously known. The woodman told Dr. Montgomerie that, hard as\nthe handle was, it became quite soft in boiling water, and could be\nmoulded into any form, when it would again become hard. It was a gum\nfrom a tree growing in various islands of the Eastern archipelago,\ncalled _pertsha_. Specimens were immediately sent to the Society of\nArts; and the inquiring surgeon to the Presidency at Singapore received\nthe Society's gold-medal. In 1842-3, Mr. Lobb, visiting these islands to\ncollect botanical specimens, also discovered the same tree, and the gum\nwhich issues from it.\n\nIn twelve years the wonderful utility of this new material has been\nestablished in very various applications. But the gum would have\nremained comparatively useless but for the inventive spirit which has\nsubdued every difficulty of a new manufacture. The substance is now\napplied to the humblest as well as the highest purposes. It is a\nclothes' line defying the weather; it is a buffer for a railway\ncarriage. It is a stopping for a hollow tooth; it is a sheathing for the\nwire that conveys the electric spark across the Channel. It is a\ncricket-ball; it is a life-boat in the Arctic seas. It is a noiseless\ncurtain-ring; it is a sanitary water-pipe. It resists the action of many\nchemical substances, and is thus largely employed for vessels in\nbleaching and dyeing factories; it is capable of being moulded into the\nmost beautiful forms, and thus becomes one of the most efficient\nmaterials for multiplying works of ornamental art. The collection of\ngutta percha has given a new stimulus to the feeble industry of the\ninhabitants of Java and Sumatra, and Borneo, and a new direction to the\ncommerce of Singapore. It has brought the people of the Indian\narchipelago into more direct contact with European civilization.\n\n [Illustration: Elaeis Guineensis, and Cocos butyracea, yielding\n Palm-oil.]\n\nWhat the use of gutta percha is doing for the Malays, the use of\npalm-oil is doing for the Africans. A great commerce has sprung up on\nthe African coasts, in which statesmen and philanthropists see the\ncoming destruction of the slave-trade. In 1853 we imported seventy-one\nmillion lbs. of palm-oil and eighteen million lbs. of cocoa-nut oil. The\ngreater part of this oil is for making candles. It is equal to\nthree-fourths of all the tallow we import. What has created this\nenormous manufacture of one of the most improved articles of domestic\nutility? Knowledge. The palm-oil candles have been brought to their\npresent perfection by chemical and mechanical appliances, working with\nthe most complete division of labour, carried through by the nicest\neconomy resulting from great administrative skill. 'Price's Candle\nCompany' is a factory, or rather a number of factories, in which, in\nthe exact proportion that the health, the comfort, and the intelligence\nof the workers is maintained in the highest efficiency, the profits of\nthe capitalist are increased. The superior quality of the products of\nthe oil-candle factories is the result of chemistry. A French chemist\ndiscovered that fats, such as oil, were composed of three inflammable\nacids--two of which, called stearic and margaric, are solid; and one\ncalled oleic, fluid. Another substance called glycerine is also present.\nThe oil is now freed from the oleic acid and the glycerine, which\ninterfere with its power of producing light, and the two solid acids are\ncrystalized. What are called stearine and composite candles are thus\nproduced, at a cost which is really less than that of the old\ntallow-candles, when we consider that they burn longer and with greater\nbrilliancy, besides being freed from a disagreeable smell and from a\ntendency to gutter. Candles from animal fat have also been greatly\nimproved by chemical appliances in the preparation of the tallow.\n\nScience, we thus see, connects distant regions, and renders the world\none great commercial market. Science is, therefore, a chief instrument\nin the production of commercial wealth. But we have a world beneath our\nfeet which science has only just now begun to explore. We want fuel and\nmetallic ore to be raised from the bowels of the earth; and, till within\na very few years, we used to dig at random when we desired to dig a\nmine, or confided the outlay of thousands of pounds to be used in\ndigging, to some quack whose pretensions to knowledge were even more\ndeceptive than a reliance upon chance. The science of geology, almost\nwithin the last quarter of a century, has been able, upon certain\nprinciples, to determine where coal especially can be found, by knowing\nin what strata of earth coal is formed; and thus the expense of digging\nthrough earth to search for coal, when science would, at once pronounce\nthat no coal was there, has been altogether withdrawn from the amount of\ncapital to be expended in the raising of coal. That this saving has not\nbeen small, we may know from the fact, that eighty thousand pounds were\nexpended fruitlessly in digging for coal at Bexhill, in Sussex, not many\nyears ago, which expense geology would have instantly prevented; and\nhave thus accumulated capital, and given a profitable stimulus to\nlabour, by saving their waste. But geological science has not only\nprevented the expensive search for coal where it does not exist, but has\nshown that it does exist where, a few years ago, it was held impossible\nto find it. The practical men, as they are called, maintained that coal\ncould not be found beneath the magnesian limestone. A scientific\ngeologist, Dr. William Smith, held a contrary opinion; and the result of\nhis abstract conviction is, that the great Hetton collieries have been\ncalled into action, which supply a vast amount of coal to the London\nmarket, found beneath this dreaded barrier of magnesian limestone.\nGeology--however scanty its facts at present are, compared with what\nthey will be when miners have been accustomed to look at their\noperations from the scientific point of view--geology can tell pretty\naccurately in which strata of the earth the various metals are likely to\nbe found; and knowing, to some extent, the strata of different\ncountries, can judge of the probability of finding the precious metals\nas well as the more common. Sir Roderick Murchison, in 1844, expressed\nhis belief, in a public address, that gold existed in the great Eastern\nChain of Australia. In 1849, an iron-worker in Australia, reading this\nopinion, searched for gold, and found it. The discovery was neglected,\ntill an enterprising man came from California, and completed the\nrealization of the scientific prediction. The gold-diggings of Australia\nare producing, by their attraction to emigrants, changes in the amount\nand value of labour in the United Kingdom, which may materially affect\nthe condition of every worker in the parent-land; and they have given an\nimmense impulse to our home industry. The importance of gold, merely as\na material of manufacture, may be estimated from the fact that in\nBirmingham alone a thousand ounces of fine gold are worked up every\nweek; and that ten thousand ounces are annually used in the porcelain\nworks of Staffordshire.\n\nWhatever diminishes the risk to life or health, in any mechanical\noperation, or any exertion of bodily labour, lessens the cost of\nproduction, by diminishing the premium which is charged by the producers\nto cover the risk. The safety-lamp of Sir Humphry Davy, by diminishing\nthe waste of human life employed in raising coals, diminished the price\nof coals. The contrivance is a very simple one, though it was no doubt\nthe result of anxious and patient thought. It is a common oil-lamp, in\nwhich the flame is surrounded with a fine wire-gauze. The flame cannot\npass through the gauze; and thus if the destructive gas of a coal-mine\nenters the gauze and ignites, the flame cannot pass again out of the\ngauze, and ignite the surrounding gas. Sometimes the inner flame burns\nwith a terrible blue light. It is the symptom of danger. If the lamp\nwere an open flame the fire-damp would shake the pit with one dreadful\nexplosion. The safety-lamp yields a feeble light; and thus,\nunfortunately, the miner sometimes exposes the flame, and perishes. The\nmagnetic mask, which prevents iron-filings escaping down the throats of\ngrinders and polishers, and thus prevents the consumption of the lungs,\nto which these trades are peculiarly obnoxious, would diminish the price\nof steel goods, if the workmen did not prefer receiving the premium in\nthe shape of higher wages, to the health and long life which they would\nget, without the premium, by the use of the mask. This is not wisdom on\nthe part of the workmen. But whether they are wise or not, the natural\nand inevitable influence of the discovery, sooner or later, to lessen\nthe cost of production in that trade, by lessening the risk of the\nlabourers, must be established. The lightning conductor of Franklin,\nwhich is used very generally on the Continent, and almost universally in\nshipping, diminishes the risk of property, in the same way that the\nsafety-lamp diminishes the risk of life; and, by this diminution, the\nrate of insurance is lessened, and the cost of production therefore\nlessened.\n\n [Illustration: Franklin medal.]\n\nWe have given many examples of labour-saving processes produced by\nscience. We may regard it as a compensating principle that science is\nconstantly raising up new employments. In 1798, Galvani, an Italian\nphysician, accidentally discovered that the muscles of a dead frog were\nconvulsed by the body coming in contact with two metals. Soon after,\nVolta, another Italian physician, produced electric currents by a\ncombination of metals in what was called the voltaic-pile. Who could\nhave imagined that the patient working-out of the scientific principle\nthat was evolved in the movement of Galvani's dead frog, should have\nraised up new branches of human industry, of the most extensive and\nvaried utility? Galvanic batteries used to be considered amongst the\ntoys of science. They now send an instantaneous message from London to\nParis; and fill our houses with the most beautiful articles of metallic\nmanufacture, electro-plate. About sixteen years ago it was discovered\nthat a piece of metal might receive a fine permanent coating of another\nmetal by the agency of galvanism. The discovery created a strong\ninterest in men of science, and many small experiments were tried to fix\na coating of copper to some other metal. Manufacturing enterprize saw\nthe value of the discovery; which has been simply described in a popular\nwork:--\n\n\"Diluted sulphuric acid is poured into a porous vessel; this is placed\nin a larger vessel containing a solution of sulphate of copper; a piece\nof zinc is placed in the former, and a piece of silver or of copper in\nthe latter, and both pieces are connected by a wire. Then does the\nwondrous agent, electricity, begin its work; a current sets in from the\nzinc to the acid, thence through the porous vessel to the sulphate,\nthence to the silver or copper, and thence to the conducting wire back\nagain to the zinc; and so on in an endless circuit. But electricity\nnever makes such a circuit without disturbing the chemical relations of\nthe bodies through which it passes; the zinc, the silver or copper, the\nsulphuric acid, the oxygen, and the hydrogen--all are so far affected\nthat the zinc becomes eaten away, while a beautiful deposit of metallic\ncopper, derived from the decomposition of the sulphate, appears on the\nsurface of the silver or copper. Copper is not the only metal which can\nbe thus precipitated; gold, silver, platinum, and other metals may be\nsimilarly treated.\"[26]\n\n [Illustration: Electro-gilding.]\n\nWhen experiment had proved that every imaginable form of cheap metal\ncould be coated with silver or gold, by the agency of electro-chemistry,\nan immediate demand was created for designers, modellers, and moulders.\nVases of the most beautiful forms were to be produced in metal which\nshould have the properties of solid silver without its costliness. The\ncommon metal vase is dipped into a tank containing a solution of silver.\nIt is placed in connection with the wires of the galvanic battery. Atom\nafter atom of the silver in solution clings to the vase, which soon\ncomes out perfectly silvered. The burnisher completes its beauty. It is\nthe same with a solution of gold. The pride of riches may boast the\nvalue of the solid plate, which tempts thieves to \"break in and steal.\"\nThe nobler gratification of taste may secure the beauty without the\nexpense or risk of loss.\n\nBut the great principle thus brought into practical use is carried\nfarther in the realms of art. It becomes a copying process. It can\nmultiply copies of the most minute engraving without in the slightest\ndegree deteriorating the beauty of the engraver's work. The copy is as\ngood as the original.\n\nThe same principle of depositing one metal upon another in minute atoms\nhas produced galvanized tinned-iron--iron which will not rust upon\nexposure to weather, and thus applicable to many purposes of\nbuilding--and iron which can be applied to many objects of utility with\ngreater advantage than tin-plate.\n\nThere are few houses now without their daguerreotype portraits of some\nmember of the family. This is a portrait copied from the human face by a\nsunbeam. The name daguerreotype is derived from the Frenchman Daguerre,\nwho announced his discovery at the time when our countryman, Mr. Fox\nTalbot, was engaged in working out the same wonderful problem. We notice\nthis branch of recent invention merely to point out how science and art\ncall forth mechanical labour. When every house has its little portrait,\nthere will naturally be a great demand for frames. The manufacture of\ndaguerreotype-frames, both here, and in the United States, has furnished\na new field of employment.\n\nEvery scientific discovery, such as photography, is a step in advance of\npreceding discovery. If Newton had not discovered the fundamental\nproperties of light, in the seventeenth century, we should, in all\nlikelihood, have had no photography in the nineteenth. Abstract science\nis the parent of practical art.\n\n [Illustration: Newton.]\n\nIt has been said by an American writer, who has published several\ntreatises well-calculated to give the workman an elevated idea of his\nrights and duties, that the \"man who will go into a cotton-mill,--who\nwill observe the parts of the machinery, and the various processes of\nthe fabric, till he reaches the hydraulic press, with which it is made\ninto a bale, and the canal or railroad by which it is sent to market,\nmay find every branch of trade, and every department of science,\nliterally crossed, intertwined, interwoven with every other, like the\nwoof and the warp of the article manufactured.\"[27] This crossing and\nintertwining of the abstract and practical sciences, the mechanic skill\nand the manual labour, which are so striking in the manufacture of a\npiece of calico, prevail throughout every department of industry in a\nhighly-civilized community. Every one who labours at all profitably\nlabours for the production of utility, and sets in motion the labour of\nothers. Look at the labour of the medical profession. In the fourteenth\ncentury, John de Gaddesden treated a son of Edward II. for the small-pox\nby wrapping him up in scarlet cloth, and hanging scarlet curtains round\nhis bed; and, as a remedy for epilepsy, the same physician carried his\npatients to church to hear mass. The medical art was so little\nunderstood in those days, that the professors of medicine had made no\nimpression upon the understanding of the people; and they consequently\ntrusted not to medicine, but to vain charms, which superstitions the\nignorance of the practitioners themselves kept alive. The surgical\npractitioners of Europe, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, put\ntheir unhappy patients to the most dreadful torture by their mode of\ntreating wounds and broken limbs. When they amputated a leg or an arm\nthey applied the actual cautery, or red-hot iron, to stop the effusion\nof blood. Ambrose Pare, one of the most eminent of the French surgeons\nof that period, who accompanied the army to the siege of Turin, in 1536,\nthus describes the mode in which he found his surgical brethren dealing\nwith gun-shot wounds:\n\n [Illustration: Ambrose Pare.]\n\n\"I was then very raw and inexperienced, having never seen the treatment\nof gun-shot wounds. It is true that I had read in the Treatise of Jean\nde Vigo on wounds in general, that those inflicted by fire-arms partake\nof a poisonous nature on account of the powder, and that they should be\ntreated with hot oil of elder, mixed with a little theriacum. Seeing,\ntherefore, that such an application must needs put the patient to\nextreme pain, to assure myself before I should make use of this boiling\noil, I desired to see how it was employed by the other surgeons. I found\ntheir method was to apply it at the first dressing, as hot as possible,\nwithin the wound, with tents and setons; and this I made bold to do\nlikewise. At length my oil failed me, and I was fain to substitute a\ndigestive, made of the yolk of eggs, rose-oil, and turpentine. At night\nI could not rest in my bed in peace, fearing that I should find the\nwounded, in whose cases I had been compelled to abstain from using this\ncautery, dead of poison: this apprehension made me rise very early in\nthe morning to visit them; but beyond all my hopes, I found those to\nwhom I had applied the digestive, suffering little pain, and their\nwounds free from inflammation; and they had been refreshed by sleep in\nthe night. On the contrary, I found those to whom the aforesaid oil had\nbeen applied, feverish, in great pain; and with swelling and\ninflammation round their wounds. I resolved, therefore, that I would\nnever burn unfortunate sufferers from gun-shot in that cruel manner\nagain.\" Francis I., king of France, having a persuasion that, because\nthe Jews were the most skilful physicians of that day, the virtue was in\nthe Jew, and not in the science which he professed, sent to Charles V.\nof Spain for a Jewish physician; but finding that the man who arrived\nhad been converted to Christianity, he refused to employ him, thinking\nthe virtue of healing had therefore departed from him. A statute of\nHenry VIII. says, \"For as much as the science and cunning of physic and\nsurgery is daily within this realm exercised by a great multitude of\nignorant persons, of whom the greater part have no insight in the same,\nnor in any other kind of learning: some, also, con no letters on the\nbook, so far forth, that common artificers, as smiths, and weavers, and\nwomen, boldly and accustomably, take upon them great cures, in which\nthey partly use sorcery and witchcraft, partly apply such medicines to\nthe disease as be very noxious, and nothing meet, to the high\ndispleasure of God, great infamy to the faculty, and the grievous damage\nand destruction of diverse of the king's people.\" When such ignorance\nprevailed, diseases of the slightest kind must have been very often\nfatal; and the power of all men to labour profitably must have been\ngreatly diminished by the ravages of sickness. These ravages are now\nchecked by medical science and medical labour.\n\nBut even within our own times how greatly has general ignorance retarded\nthe exertions of medical science to diminish suffering and to reduce the\namount of mortality! The prejudices against vaccination have rendered it\nextremely difficult to eradicate small-pox, however certain the result\nof the great discovery of Jenner. According to the present law, all\nchildren, born in England and Wales after August 1, 1853, _must_ be\nvaccinated at the public expense. Such a law would have been very\ndifficult of execution twenty years ago. The people had then seen the\nscarred faces from small-pox disappearing amongst them. They had learnt\nthat, at the beginning of this century, vaccination, or the puncture of\nthe skin with matter originally obtained from the cow, was rooting out\nthe small-pox, which used to destroy, not more than a hundred years ago,\nthirty-six thousand persons annually, in this kingdom. But yet they had\nprejudices. No medical man would practise inoculation--a great blessing\nin its day--because the disease was thus kept amongst us. But still many\nignorant persons did not avail themselves of the law passed fourteen\nyears ago, under which their children _might_ be vaccinated at the\npublic cost. The undoubted testimony of the whole medical profession\nproves that vaccination in almost all cases prevents small-pox, and in\nall cases mitigates its evil. But that testimony further proves that if\nvaccination were universal, small-pox would wholly disappear; and that\nis the reason why vaccination is now compulsory.\n\nBut we may regard the influences of knowledge upon the direction and\naid of profitable labour, even from a higher point of view. The sciences\nand arts cannot be carried forward except in a country where the laws of\nGod are respected, where justice is upheld; where intellect generally is\ncultivated, and taste is diffused. The religious and moral teacher,\ntherefore, who lifts the mind to a contemplation of the duties of man,\nas they are founded upon a belief in the Providence of an all-wise and\nall-powerful Creator, is a profitable labourer. The instructor of the\nyoung, who dedicates his time to advancing the formation of right\nprinciples, and the acquirement of sound knowledge, by his pupils, is a\nprofitable labourer. The writer who applies his understanding to the\ndiscovery and dissemination of moral and political truth, is a\nprofitable labourer. The interpreter and administrator of the laws, who\nupholds the reign of order and security, defending the innocent,\npunishing the guilty, and vindicating the rights of all from outrage and\noppression, is a profitable labourer. These labourers, it may be said,\nare still direct producers of utility, but that those who address\nthemselves to the imagination--the poets, the novelists, the painters,\nand the musicians--in every polished society, are unprofitable\nlabourers. One word is sufficient for an answer. These men advance the\ngeneral intellect of a country, and they therefore indirectly advance\nthe production of articles of necessity. We have already shown how the\nstudy of the higher mathematics, upon which astronomy is founded, has an\ninfluence upon the production of a piece of woollen cloth; and we beg\nour readers to bear this connection in mind when they hear it said, as\nthey sometimes may, that an abstract student, or an elegant writer, is\nnot a producer,--is, in fact, an idler. The most illustrious writers of\nevery country, the great poets,\n\n \"High notions and high passions best describing,\"\n\nhave, next to the inspirations of religion, lifted mankind, more than\nany other class of intellectual workmen, to their noblest pursuits of\nknowledge and virtue. Even those who especially devote themselves to\ngive pleasure and amusement, call into action some of the highest and\npurest sources of enjoyment. They lead the mind to seek its recreations\nin more ennobling pursuits than those of sensuality; their arts connect\nthemselves by a thousand associations with all that is beautiful in the\nnatural world; they are as useful for the promotion of pure and innocent\ndelight as the flowers that gladden us by their beauty and fragrance by\nthe side of the corn that nourishes us. An entire community of poets and\nartists would be as unprofitable as if an entire country were dedicated\nto the cultivation of violets and roses; but the poets and the artists\nmay, as the roses and the violets, furnish the graces and ornaments of\nlife, without injury, and indeed with positive benefit, to the classes\nwho more especially dedicate themselves to what is somewhat exclusively\ncalled the production of utility. The right direction of the talents\nwhich are dedicated to art and literature is all that is required from\nthose who address themselves to these pursuits. He, therefore, who\nbeguiles a vacant hour of its tediousness, by some effort of intellect\nwhich captivates the imagination without poisoning the morals,--and he\nwho by the exercise of his art produces forms of beauty which awaken in\nthe mind that principle of taste which, more than any other faculty,\nrequires cultivation,--have each bestowed benefits upon the world which\nmay be accurately enough measured even by the severe limitations of\npolitical economy;--they are profitable labourers and benefactors of\ntheir species.\n\nThe positive influence of the labours of the poet and the artist upon\nthe advance of other labour might be easily shown. In their productions,\nespecially, supply goes before demand, and creates demand. It has been\ncalculated by an American writer, that the number of workmen who have\nbeen set in action--paper-makers, printers, binders--by the writings of\nSir Walter Scott alone, in all countries, would, if gathered together,\nform a community that would fill a large town. The Potteries of Etruria,\nin Staffordshire, could not have existed unless Mr. Wedgwood had\nintroduced into our manufacture of china the forms of Grecian art,\nbequeathed to us by the taste of two thousand years ago, and thus\ncreated a demand which has furnished profitable labour to thousands.\nThere are four thousand musical-instrument makers in Great Britain. What\nhas given their industry its chief impulse? The divine art of Handel,\nMozart, Beethoven, Weber, Rossini, Mendelsohn. If these great composers,\nand many others, had not raised music into something higher and more\ncapable of producing enjoyment than the rude melodies of uncivilized\ntribes, there would have been no trade in pianofortes.\n\n [Illustration: Sir Walter Scott. From Sir F. Chantrey's Bust.]\n\nWe have entered into these details, principally to show that there are\nother and higher producers in society than the mere manual labourers. It\nwas an ignorant fashion amongst the mental labourers of other days to\ndespise the class of the physical labourers. They have learnt to know\ntheir value; and there should be a reciprocal knowledge. Both classes\nare working-classes. No one can say that the mental labourers are not\nworkers. They are, we may truly affirm, taken as a class, the hardest\nworkers in the community. No one ever reached eminence in these pursuits\nwithout unwearied industry: the most eminent have been universally\ndespisers of ease and sloth, and have felt their highest pleasures in\nthe absorbing devotion of their entire minds to the duties of their high\ncalling. They have wooed Knowledge as a mistress that could not be won\nwithout years of unwearied assiduity. The most eminent, too, have been\npractical men, despising no inquiry, however trifling it might appear to\ncommon eyes, and shrinking from no occupation, however tedious, as long\nas it was connected with their higher duties.\n\n [Illustration: Pianoforte Manufactory.]\n\nThere is no higher duty than that of endeavouring so to lead public\nopinion, as that the general mind of the community shall be directed to\nnoble and unselfish ends. The poet, the historian, the essayist, the\nnovelist, have the responsibility of keeping alive the love of freedom,\nthe hatred of oppression, the cultivation of Christian charity. There\nnever was a truly great nation that had a low literature. It is the\nglory of our nation that its literature is amongst its best possessions;\nand that the general scope and tendency of that literature are\ncalculated to raise and cherish an enlightened public sentiment.\nWhatever be the amount of national wealth--however various the comforts\nand luxuries which private riches may command--it is quite certain that\nwithout that courage and intelligence which make a people free and keep\nthem so, the public and private accumulations are comparatively\nworthless. There is a beautiful Eastern story which may better\nillustrate this position than any lengthened argument.[28]\n\n [Illustration: Statue of Bacon.]\n\n \"It is related that a man of the pilgrims slept a long\n sleep, and then awoke, and saw no trace of the other\n pilgrims. So he arose and walked on; but he wandered from\n the way, and he proceeded until he saw a tent, and an old\n woman at its door, and he found by her a dog asleep. He\n approached the tent, saluted the old woman, and begged of\n her some food; whereupon she said to him, Go to yon\n valley, and catch as many serpents as will suffice thee,\n that I may broil some of them for thee. The man replied, I\n dare not catch serpents, and I never ate them. The old\n woman therefore said, I will go with thee, and catch some\n of them, and fear thou not. Then she went with him, and\n the dog followed her, and she caught as many of the\n serpents as would suffice, and proceeded to broil some of\n them. The pilgrim could not refrain from eating; for he\n feared hunger and emaciation: so he ate of those serpents.\n And after this, being thirsty, he demanded of the old\n woman some water to drink; and she said to him, Go to the\n spring, and drink of it. Accordingly he went to the\n spring; but he found its water bitter; yet he could not\n refrain from drinking of it, notwithstanding its exceeding\n bitterness, on account of the violence of his thirst. He\n therefore drank, and then returned to the old woman, and\n said to her, I wonder at thee, O thou old woman, and at\n thy residing in this place, and thy feeding thyself with\n this food, and thy drinking of this water.--How then, said\n the old woman, is your country? He answered her, Verily,\n in our country are spacious and ample houses, and ripe and\n delicious fruits, and abundant sweet waters, and excellent\n viands, and fat meats, and numerous sheep, and everything\n good, and blessings of which the like exist not save in\n the Paradise that God (whose name be exalted!) hath\n described to his just servants.--All this, replied the old\n woman, I have heard; but tell me, have you any Sultan who\n ruleth over you, and oppresseth in his rule while ye are\n under his authority; and who, if any one of you committeth\n an offence, taketh his wealth, and destroyeth him, and\n who, if he desire, turneth you out from your houses, and\n eradicateth you utterly? The man answered her, That doth\n sometimes happen. And the old woman rejoined, If so, by\n Allah, that dainty food and elegant life, and those\n delightful comforts, with oppression and tyranny, are\n penetrating poison; and our food, with safety, is a\n salutary antidote.\"\n\n [Illustration: Bas-Relief on Gutenberg's Monument: Comparing a printed\n Sheet with a Manuscript.]\n\n [24] We have taken this sentence as a motto which may point to the\n general scope of this volume.\n\n [25] Hume's Essays.\n\n [26] 'Curiosities of Industry.' By George Dodd.\n\n [27] 'Everett's Working Man's Party.' Printed in the American Library of\n Useful Knowledge, 1831.\n\n [28] Note in Mr. Lane's admirable translation of the 'Thousand and One\n Nights,' original edition, vol. ii. p. 635.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\n Invention of printing--Effects of that art--A daily\n newspaper--Provincial newspapers--News-writing of former\n periods--Changes in the character of newspapers--Steam\n conveyance--Electric telegraph--Organization of a London\n newspaper-office--The printing-machine--The\n paper-machine--Bookbinding--Paper-duty.\n\n\nThe art of printing offers one of the readiest and most forcible\nillustrations of the advantages that have been bestowed upon the world\nby scientific discovery and by mechanical power. Although there is,\nhappily, little occasion now to combat any wide-spread hostility to\nmachinery, the argument for its use derived from printing may be very\nbriefly stated.\n\nIt is nearly four hundred years since the art of printing books was\ninvented. Before that time all books were written by the hand. There\nwere many persons employed to copy out books, but they were very dear,\nalthough the copiers had small wages. A Bible was sold for thirty pounds\nin the money of that day, which was equal to a great deal more of our\nmoney. Of course, very few people had Bibles or any other books. A mode\nwas invented of imitating the written books by cutting the letters on\nwood, and taking off copies from the wooden blocks by rubbing the sheet\non the back. Soon after, the idea was carried farther by casting metal\ntypes or letters, which could be arranged in words, and sentences, and\npages, and volumes; and then a machine, called a printing-press, upon\nthe principle of a screw, was made to stamp impressions of these types\nso arranged. There was an end, then, at once to the trade of the\npen-and-ink copiers; because the copiers in types, who could press off\nseveral hundred books while the writers were producing one, drove them\nout of the market. A single printer could do the work of at least two\nhundred writers. At first sight this seems a hardship, for a hundred and\nninety-nine people might have been, and probably were, thrown out of\ntheir accustomed employment. But what was the consequence in a year or\ntwo? Where one written book was sold, a thousand printed books were\nrequired. The old books were multiplied in all countries, and new books\nwere composed by men of talent and learning, because they could then\nfind numerous readers. The printing press did the work more neatly and\nmore correctly than the writer, and it did it infinitely cheaper. What\nthen? The writers of books had to turn their hands to some other trade,\nit is true; but type-founders, paper-makers, printers, and bookbinders,\nwere set to work, by the new art or machine, to at least a hundred times\ngreater number of persons than the old way of making books employed.\n\nBut there is a far more important mode of viewing this matter than any\nconsideration resulting out of the increased employment that the art of\nprinting unquestionably has created. If printing, which is a cheap and a\nrapid process, could by possibility be superseded by writing, which is\nan expensive and a slow operation, no book, no newspaper, could be\nproduced for the use of the people. Knowledge, upon which every hope of\nbettering their condition must ultimately rest, would again become the\nproperty of a very few; and mankind would lose the greater part of that\npower which constitutes the essential difference between civilization\nand barbarism. The art of printing has gone on more and more adapting\nitself to the increase of our population, during the three centuries and\na half in which it has been exercised in this country. Herein consists,\nperhaps, one of the mightiest differences between our condition and that\nof every generation which has preceded us. Through that art, no idea can\nnow perish. Through that art, knowledge is fast becoming the common\npossession of all. Through that art, what the people have gained in the\npast is secured for the future. It has established the empire of public\nopinion.\n\nThere is possibly no more striking example of the manifold combinations\nof mental labour, of scientific power, of mechanical invention, and of\nthe use of rapid means of communication, than the forces now called into\naction for the issue of a London daily newspaper. Nor is there any\nproduction of literary industry which more pointedly illustrates the\ndistinctive qualities of printing as compared with writing--the\nrapidity, the cheapness, and the general diffusion. Let us endeavour to\nsupply a rapid sketch of the wonderful organization that is required to\nproduce this great necessary of modern society.\n\nThe essential characteristic of a newspaper is news. It may be\nphilosophical, or critical, or imaginative--it may pour forth treasures\nof learning or eloquence, to live but a few hours and then be too\nreadily forgotten--but no amount of ability will give it currency if it\nbe deficient in news. It is the imperative demand for news, embracing\nevery movement of human life in every class and every country, that sets\nin action the wondrous organization that produces a daily newspaper. Its\nministers of communication are almost ubiquitous. They are in the\nBow-street police-office, watching the effrontery of the detected\nfelon;--they are on the heights of Inkermann, to stir our hearts \"as\nwith a trumpet,\" and fill our eyes with tears as they tell us\n\n \"How sleep the brave, who sink to rest\n By all their country's wishes blest.\"\n\nThey are at the city feast, where all is blandishment and turtle;--they\nare at the coroner's inquest upon a street-starved pauper. They furnish\nnews to all the world; and they receive news from all the world.\n\nBut there are similar organizations going forward through the country.\nThe increase in number of the provincial papers, and their efforts to\nprocure intelligence, are equally remarkable.\n\nThe London editors have the not very easy task of glancing over the\nfive hundred local papers of the United Kingdom. These are, in ordinary\ncases, the vehicles from which they obtain their home intelligence. If\nany local matter of general interest is to be specially attended to,\ntheir own correspondent, or their own reporter, furnishes the details.\nSome unexpected event puts, occasionally, the electric telegraph in\nmotion, to tell the world of London, on Saturday morning, what occurred\nat Liverpool on Friday night; and the Liverpool merchant reads on the\nExchange at noon of that Saturday, in the newspaper printed at a\ndistance of two hundred miles, some notice of an arrival in his own port\nduring the hours when he was sleeping. Even the state of the weather at\ndifferent parts of the kingdom is thus daily transmitted. But the London\neditors, and some of the provincial, have to look out for news at a\ngreater distance than is comprised in our \"nook-shotten isle of Albion.\"\nThey have to search the papers of every land and every people--whether\nwritten in English, French, German, Italian, Greek, or Turkish. Of\ncourse translators are always at hand. For the London daily papers the\nelectric telegraph is \"throwing its shadows\" before the authentic\nheralds of \"coming events.\" For them is the steamer bringing the special\ncorrespondence from the gold-diggings in Australia, and from the camp in\nthe Crimea. For them do the people's representatives make long speeches\nto empty benches, secure that there is a medium of communication for\nunnumbered eyes, although the ears be shut of those who listen not to\nthe voice of the charmers. For them do great ministers go into obscure\nplaces, and, addressing an enthusiastic dinner-table, or a solemn\ncorporation, speak to the world. For them does every discoverer of a\nprivate grievance claim public redress. For them is produced, in letters\n\"to the editor,\" that great chaotic accumulation of fact and theory, of\nwisdom and folly, of calculation and impulse, whose atoms finally\nresolve themselves into a solid mass called public opinion.\n\nThe mental labours attendant upon the provincial newspapers are more\nnarrowed. But they are nevertheless very important; and the extension of\ntheir functions by the enormous extension of the facilities for\nobtaining intelligence is equally striking. The old county papers,\ncirculating steadily through the rural districts, and duly chronicling\nsession and assize, markets and misdemeanours, have been stirred into\nactivity by newspapers issuing from great commercial and manufacturing\ncentres, which have arisen with the immense development of our industry.\nLiverpool had two papers in 1803,--it has now ten; Manchester,\nBirmingham, Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, which had each one at that\nperiod, have now each four. Many towns that had one paper at the\nbeginning of the century have now two. There are about eighty provincial\nEnglish papers now published in towns which had no journal at that\nperiod. Some belong to manufacturing districts which then contained a\nsmall population; such as Bolton, Bradford, Hanley, Kidderminster,\nMacclesfield, Stockport, Sunderland, Wakefield, Wolverhampton. Others,\nto places of fashion and luxury which have grown up out of changes of\nsociety, such as Brighton and Cheltenham. Others, to new local centres,\nwhich, through the great modern facilities of communication, can\ncirculate their weekly sheets at little expense, instead of sending\ntheir own messengers throughout the small towns and villages. The local\nchanges in these vehicles of intelligence are strikingly connected with\nthe other great social changes which have been noticed in this volume.\nIt is satisfactory to know that the provincial press is no imperfect\nrepresentative of an age of progress.\n\nThe history of news-writing and news-publishing is a mirror of many of\nthe changes in social necessities and conveniences. In 1625, Ben\nJonson's play of 'The Staple of News' exhibited a countrywoman going to\nan office of news, and saying to the manager, who sits in state with his\nregisters and examiners,--\n\n \"I would have, sir,\n A groatsworth of any news, I care not what,\n To carry down this Saturday to our vicar.\"\n\nThis was written news. In London, before a newspaper existed, there were\nprivate gazetteers, who made a living by picking up scraps of\nintelligence in taverns and barbers' shops. This class of persons\ncontinued even when there were newspapers; for the news-letter, as it\nwas called, is thus described in the first number of the 'Evening Post,'\nissued in 1709:--\"There must be 3_l._ or 4_l._ per ann. paid by those\ngentlemen that are out of town for written news, which is so far\ngenerally from having any probability or matter of fact in it, that it\nis frequently stuffed up with a 'We hear,' or 'An eminent Jew merchant\nhas received a letter.'\" The same 'Evening Post' adds,--\"We read more of\nour own affairs in the Dutch papers than in any of our own.\" Sir Roger\nL'Estrange, who published 'The Intelligencer,' with privilege, in 1663,\nsays that he shall publish once a week, \"to be published every Thursday,\nand finished upon the Tuesday night, leaving Wednesday entire for the\nprinting it off.\" The first advertisement in an English paper appeared\nin 1649.\n\nAt the beginning of the present century the public used to look with\nwonder upon their \"folio of four pages,\" and contrast it with the scanty\nchronicles of the days of Charles II. and Anne. We of the present time,\nin the same way, contrast our newspapers with the meagre records of the\nbeginning of the century. The essential difference has been produced by\nsteam navigation, by railways, by the extension of the post, dependent\nupon both applications of steam, and by the electric telegraph. The same\nscientific forces and administrative organization that bring the written\nnews from every region of the earth, re-convey the printed news to every\nregion. It is sufficient to glance at the lists of foreign mails, and\nthe low rates of postage from the United Kingdom, to see the enormous\nextent of that intercourse which enables our government, by the packet\nservice, to transmit a letter for sixpence to the British West Indies,\nto Hong-kong to our North American colonies, to Belgium; to nearly all\nthe German States, by an uniform British and foreign rate, for\neightpence; to France, Algeria, Spain, and Portugal, for ten pence; to\nthe Italian States for a trifle more; to Turkey in Europe for one\nshilling and five pence; and to India for one shilling and ten pence.\nWith this certain and rapid intercourse, it is not likely that the least\nenterprising newspaper editor would have to repeat the doubt of\nL'Estrange, who says, \"Once a week may do the business; yet if I shall\nfind, when my hand is in, and after the planting and securing my\ncorrespondents, that the matter will fairly furnish more, I shall keep\nmyself free to double at pleasure.\"\n\nIt is the external communication so wonderful in our own times, we\nrepeat, which has chiefly changed the character of our newspapers. When\nwe read in a London daily paper the one line,--\"The Overland Mail--by\nelectric telegraph,\"--we have two facts of the highest significance.\n\"The Overland Mail\" would appear, of itself, a marvel great enough for\none age. The Overland Mail has brought London within a month of Bombay.\nIt has joined India most effectually to England for all commercial and\nstate purposes. It gives us the news of India, by the aid of the\nelectric telegraph, in as little time as we ordinarily received news\nfrom Vienna at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The steamer and\nthe electric telegraph made the blood of England beat quicker in every\nheart, when our newspapers recorded, on the 13th of November, the most\nsanguinary and heroic battle of modern times, fought in the Crimea only\na week previous. When Marlborough was setting out for his campaign of\n1709, and so many political, if not patriotic, hopes, were fixed upon\nthe probable issue, 'The Tatler,' then a newspaper, had the following\nparagraph:--\"We learn from Brussels, by letters dated the 20th, that on\nthe 14th, in the evening, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene\narrived at Courtray, with a design to proceed the day following to\nLisle, in the neighbourhood of which city the confederate army was to\narrive the same day.\" The account of the movement of the great allied\ngenerals was transmitted from Brussels six days after the movement had\ntaken place, Courtray being only distant forty-six miles; and the\nimportant news from Brussels, of the 20th May, was published in London\non the 28th, London being distant some two hundred and fifty miles. The\ndistance from Balaclava to London is about three thousand miles.\n\n [Illustration: Old hand-gunner.]\n\nThe function of a great newspaper, in connexion with the positions of\narmies and the events of siege and battle, is as different from the\nfunction of the journalist of fifty years ago, as the rapid firing of\nthe soldier of the Alma with his Minie rifle contrasts with the slow\nevolutions of the old hand-gunner. In the war with Russia the presence\nof the newspaper reporter gives a new feature, strikingly characteristic\nof our times and our country. It is necessary to have the earliest and\nthe most detailed accounts of this eventful contest; for the people, one\nand all, understand that they are deeply interested in its issue, and\nthat, if their country fails to assert the superiority of freedom and\nintelligence over slavery and barbarism, the material prosperity of\nthat country can be of no long duration. Wisely, therefore, did the\nLondon daily papers each send their active, fearless, and eloquent\ncorrespondents, to endure some of the hardships of the march and the\nbivouac--to observe the battle-field, not secure from its dangers--to\nwrite of victories, surrounded by the dead and dying--to be the\nhistorians of a day, and thus to furnish the best materials for all\nfuture historians. The life of a London reporter, although a life of\nconstant labour, is generally accompanied by much ease and comfort. The\nsenate does not acknowledge his presence; but it provides the \"stranger\"\nwith the best seat. He takes his place at the public dinner as an\nhonoured guest--one whose absence would be more regretted than that of\nthe city's mayor or the borough's patron. But in a campaign, where his\nduties are new, he must fight his way through every difficulty. His\nfunction is recognised in an age when it would be useless to suppress\nintelligence, even if it were possible. He finds a ready mess in every\ntent where a scanty meal is set out; he stands by the side of the\ncommander, and gazes with him upon \"the currents of the heady fight.\"\nHow he wears after two months of unusual service we have some slight\nnotion, when we read, in a letter to '_The Times_' of November 30, that\nthe writer had seen an officer who had lately parted from the special\ncorrespondent. \"The chances of war had deprived him of nearly all his\ngarments; and when last seen he was walking about in a rifleman's\njacket, much too small for his portly person; and his nether garments\nhad been converted into breeches by a constant scrambling amongst rocks\nand briers.\" Let us not forget our obligations to the men who, in peril\nand suffering, have made heroic action more familiar to us; and have\ncontributed no mean part in giving a moral impulse to our country, as\nessential to future safety and honour as the material wealth which has\nmade us a people amongst the foremost of the earth.\n\n [Illustration: Carrier-pigeon.]\n\nWhat the carrier-pigeon was in the conveyance of intelligence in the\nmiddle ages, and even within a few years, the electric telegraph is in\nthe present day. The carrier-pigeon went out from a besieged castle, to\nask for succour, in eastern countries, five centuries ago. The electric\ntelegraph, land and submarine, brings the tidings of slaughter and\nsickness from Sebastopol, and England and France send instant\nreinforcements. The carrier-pigeon, in the last century, was despatched\nby the merchants of the English factory, from Scanderoon to Aleppo, to\nannounce the arrival of the company's ships. The electric telegraph\ncommunicates to London the arrival of an Australian packet at\nSouthampton. Within the last ten years one of the annual expenses of a\nLondon newspaper was 1800_l._ for pigeon expresses. The pigeons have\nlost their employment. The price of stocks and shares in 'Change-alley\nis known every quarter of an hour upon the exchanges of our great\ncommercial marts; and the closing price of the French funds is in type\nbefore midnight at our daily newspaper-offices. The carrier-pigeon\ntravelled sixty miles an hour. The time which it takes to transmit a\nmessage by the electric telegraph is inappreciable. The newspapers of\nthe United States employ the electric telegraph far more extensively\nthan our English papers; for the distances between one State and one\ncity and another State and another city are so great, that steam\ntravelling would not accomplish the object of communication with\nsufficient rapidity. The density of our population renders the\nemployment of the telegraph less necessary for the ordinary transmission\nof intelligence. But private curiosity, in a time of great public\ninterest, steps in; and one of the most remarkable exhibitions of our\nprovincial towns at the time at which we are writing--when an agonizing\nanxiety for the fortunes of our heroic defenders in the Black Sea is the\nchief thought of millions--is the crowd about the telegraph-office to\nknow something more than the morning paper, brought by railway speed,\ncan furnish to this universal excitement. In America the distance\nbetween Quebec and New Orleans, a distance of three thousand miles, is\noverleaped by the electric telegraph. Two lines, each two thousand miles\nlong, connect New York with New Orleans; and over this space messages\nare transmitted, and answers received, in three hours. When we read long\nparagraphs in the London morning papers, received by electric telegraph\nafter midnight from Paris, we wonder how this is accomplished. Eighteen\nwords, which are equal to about two newspaper lines, are transmitted\nevery minute; and the full message from Dover, carefully transcribed, is\nin the hands of the newspaper editor in half an hour.\n\nTo carry out all this scientific conquest of time and space, by the most\nperfect mental and mechanical arrangements in the newspaper-office\nitself, appears, at first sight, almost as great a wonder as the rapid\ncommunication. Nothing but the most perfect organization of the division\nof labour could accomplish the feat.\n\nThere is, after midnight, in the office of a morning paper, a constant\nnecessity for adapting the labour of every quarter of an hour to the\nrequirements of the instant time. Much of the newspaper matter may have\nbeen in type in the evening; some portion may be quite ready for\nprinting off. But new necessities may derange much of this preparation.\nSay that the Parliament is sitting. The reporters are in the gallery at\nthe meeting of the House, and each arrives at the office with his\nassigned portion of the debate. A heavy night is not expected, and the\nearly reporters write with comparative fulness. Suddenly an unexpected\nturn is given to the proceedings. A great debate springs up, out of a\nministerial statement or an opposition objection. Then come reply and\nrejoinder. Column after column is poured in. Smaller matters must give\nway to greater. The intelligence that will keep is put aside for the\ninformation that is pressing. The debate is prolonged till one or two\no'clock, and the paper is approaching its completion. But an electric\ntelegraph communication has arrived--perhaps an important express. Away\ngoes more news. Advertisements, law reports, police reports,\ncorrespondence--all retire into obscurity for one day. There is plenty\nof manipulating power in the great body of compositors to effect these\nchanges. But not in any department is there any apparent bustle. Nor is\nthere any neglect in the labours that wait upon the work of the\ncompositors. One word is not put for another. The readers are as\nvigilant to correct every error--to have no false spelling and no\ninaccurate punctuation--as if they were bestowing their vigilance upon a\nbook to be published next season. The reporters are as careful to make\nno slips which would indicate a want of knowledge, as if they were\ncalmly writing in their libraries after breakfast. The one-presiding\nmind of the editor is watchful over all. At four or five o'clock the\nmorning paper goes to press.\n\n [Illustration: Cowper's machine.]\n\nBut there are many hundred copies to be despatched by the morning mails.\nManchester and Glasgow would be frightened from their propriety, if the\ndaily London papers did not arrive at the accustomed hour. The London\nmerchant, banker, lawyer, would go unwillingly to his morning labour, if\nhe had not had one passing glance at the division in the House, the\nstate of the money-market, the last foreign intelligence. Late as the\npaper may have been in its mental completion, Manchester, Glasgow, and\nLondon will not be kept without that illumination which has become\nalmost as necessary as sunlight. Machinery has been created by the\ndemand, to carry the demand farther than the warmest imagination could\nhave anticipated. In 1814, Koenig, a German, erected the first\nprinting-machine at the \"Times Office,\" and produced eighteen hundred\nimpressions an hour on one side. The machine superseded the duplicates\nof the type which were once necessary, painfully and laboriously to keep\nup a small supply, worked by men, with relays, at the rate of five\nhundred an hour. In 1818 Edward Cowper produced his cylinder-machine,\nwhich effected a revolution in the commerce of books; and, in connexion\nwith the paper-machine, enabled the principle of cheapness to contend\nagainst an impolitic and oppressive tax. This is still the machine in\ngeneral use for many newspapers and much book-printing. We will briefly\ndescribe the operation of printing a sheet of paper on both sides by\nthis instrument.\n\nUpon the solid steel table at each end of the machine lie the pages\nwhich print one side of the sheet. At the top of the machine, where the\nlaying-on boy stands, is a heap of wet paper. The signal being given by\nthe director of the work, the laying-on boy turns a small handle, and\nthe moving-power of the strap connected with a steam-engine is\nimmediately communicated. Some ten or twenty spoiled sheets are first\npassed over the types to remove any dirt or moisture. If the director is\nsatisfied, the boy begins to lay on the white paper. He places the sheet\nupon a flat table before him, with its edge ready to be seized by the\napparatus for conveying it upon the drum. At the first movement of the\ngreat wheel, the inking-apparatus at each end has been set in motion.\nThe steel cylinder attached to the reservoir of ink has begun slowly to\nmove,--the \"doctor,\" or more properly \"ductor,\" has risen to touch that\ncylinder for an instant, and thus receive a supply of ink,--the\ninking-table has passed under the \"doctor\" and carried off that\nsupply,--and the distributing-rollers have spread it equally over the\nsurface of the table. This surface, having passed under the\ninking-rollers, communicates the supply to them; and they in turn impart\nit to the _form_ which is to be printed. All these beautiful operations\nare accomplished in the sixteenth part of a minute, by the travelling\nbackward and forward of the carriage or table upon which the _form_\nrests. Each roller revolves upon an axis which is fixed. At the moment\nwhen the _form_ at the back of the machine is passing under the\ninking-roller, the sheet, which the boy has carefully laid upon the\ntable before him, is caught in the web-roller and conveyed to the\nendless bands or tapes which pass it over the first impressing\ncylinder. It is here seized tightly by the bands, which fall between the\npages and on the outer margin. The moment after the sheet is seized upon\nthe first cylinder, the _form_ passes under that cylinder, and the paper\nbeing brought in contact with it receives an impression on one side. To\ngive the impression on the other side the sheet is to be turned over,\nand this is effected by the two drums in the centre of the machine. The\nendless tapes never lose their grasp of the sheet, although they allow\nit to be reversed. While the impression has been given by the first\ncylinder, the second _form_ of types at the other end of the table has\nbeen inked. The drums have conveyed the sheet during this inking upon\nthe second cylinder; it is brought in contact with the types, and the\noperation is complete.\n\nKoenig's machine, which was a very complicated instrument, was\nsupplanted at the '_Times_' office by a modification of Applegath's and\nCowper's machine, which printed four thousand sheets an hour on one\nside. But that has been superseded by a vertical machine, which prints\nten thousand copies an hour, on one side. The separate columns of type\nare fixed on a large type-drum, two hundred inches in circumference. The\ndrum is surrounded by eight impressing cylinders; the ink is applied to\nthe surface of the type by rollers which work between these cylinders;\nand the sheets are laid on upon eight tables, (_h_, _h_, _h_,) which, by\na most ingenious mechanism, carry each sheet to a point where its\nposition is suddenly changed, and it is impressed between the type and\nthe cylinder; the paper being then suspended by tapes, from which it is\nreleased as it passes forward, to be laid upon the heap which will be\nscattered, in a few hours, to every corner of the kingdom.\n\n [Illustration: Times Printing-Machine.]\n\nThe printing machines, which have been in full operation for little more\nthan twenty years, have called into action an amount of employment which\nwas almost wholly unknown when knowledge was for the few. Paper-makers,\ntype-founders, wood-engravers, bookbinders, booksellers, have been\nraised up by this extension of the art of printing, in numbers which far\nexceed those of any former period.\n\nBut the printing machine would have worked feebly and imperfectly\nwithout the paper machine. That most complete invention has not only\ncheapened paper itself, but it has cheapened the subsequent operations\nof printing, in a remarkable degree. It has enabled one revolution of\nthe cylinder of the printing machine to produce four sheets instead of\none, or a surface of print equal to four sheets. When paper was\naltogether made by hand, the usual paper for books was called demy; and\na sheet of demy produced sixteen octavo pages of a book. The paper could\nnot have been economically made larger by hand. A sheet of paper equal\nto four sheets of demy is now worked at the newspaper machine; and\nsixty-four pages of an octavo book might be so worked, if it were\nneedful for cheapening production. Double demy is constantly worked for\nbooks. Thus, one economical arrangement of science produces another\ncontrivance; and machines in one direction combine with machines having\na different object, to produce legitimate cheapness, injurious to no\none, but beneficial to all.\n\nLet us attempt to convey a notion of the beautiful operations of the\npaper-machine.\n\nIn the whole range of machinery, there is, perhaps, no series of\ncontrivances which so forcibly address themselves to the senses. There\nis nothing mysterious in the operation; we at once see the beginning and\nthe end of it. At one extremity of the long range of wheels and\ncylinders we are shown a stream of pulp, not thicker than milk and\nwater, flowing over a moving plane; at the other extremity the same\nstream has not only become perfectly solid, but is wound upon a reel in\nthe form of hard and smooth paper. This is, at first sight, as\nmiraculous as any of the fancies of an Arabian tale. Aladdin's wonderful\nlamp, by which a palace was built in a night, did not in truth produce\nmore extraordinary effects than science has done with the paper-machine.\n\n [Illustration: Paper-making by Hand.]\n\nAt one extremity of the machine is a chest, full of stuff or pulp. We\nmount the steps by its side, and see a long beam rolling incessantly\nround this capacious vessel, and thus keeping the fibres of linen, which\nlook like snow flakes, perpetually moving, and consequently equally\nsuspended, in the water. At the bottom of the chest, and above the vat,\nthere is a cock through which we observe a continuous stream of pulp\nflowing into the vat; which is, always, therefore, filled to a certain\nheight. From the upper to the lower part of this vat a portion of the\npulp flows upon a narrow wire frame, which constantly jumps up and down\nwith a noise resembling a cherry-clack. Having passed through the\nsifter, the pulp flows still onward to a ledge, over which it falls in a\nregular stream, like a sheet of water over a smooth dam. Here we see it\ncaught upon a plane, which presents an uninterrupted surface of five or\nsix feet, upon which the pulp seems evenly spread, as a napkin upon a\ntable. A more accurate inspection shows us that this plane is constantly\nmoving onwards with a gradual pace; that it has also a shaking motion\nfrom side to side; and that it is perforated all over with little\nholes--in fact, that it is an endless web of the finest wire. If we\ntouch the pulp at the end of the plane, upon which it first descends, we\nfind it fluid; if we draw the finger over its edge at the other end, we\nperceive that it is still soft--not so hard, perhaps, as wet\nblotting-paper,--but so completely formed, that the touch will leave a\nhole, which we may trace forward till the paper is perfectly made. The\npulp does not flow over the sides of the plane, we observe, because a\nstrap, on each side, constantly moving and passing upon its edges,\nregulates the width. After we pass the wheels upon which these straps\nterminate, we perceive that the paper is sufficiently formed not to\nrequire any further boundary to define its size;--the pulp has ceased to\nbe fluid. But it is yet tender and wet. The paper is not yet completely\noff the plane of wire; before it quits it, another roller, which is\nclothed with felt, and upon which a stream of cold water is constantly\nflowing subjects it to pressure. The paper has at length left what\nmay be called the region of wire, and has entered that of cloth. A\ntight surface of flannel, or felt, is moving onwards with the same\nregular march as the web of wire. Like the wire, the felt is what is\ncalled endless,--that is, united at the extremities, as a jack-towel is.\nWe see the sheet travelling up an inclined plane of this stretched\nflannel, which gradually absorbs its moisture. It is now seized between\ntwo rollers, which powerfully squeeze it. It goes travelling up another\ninclined plane of flannel, and then passes through a second pair of\npressing-rollers. It has now left the region of cloth, and has entered\nthat of heat. The paper, up to this point, is quite formed; but it is\nfragile and damp. It is in the state in which, if the machinery were to\nstop here, as it did upon its first invention, it would require (having\nbeen wound upon a reel) to be parted and dried as hand-made paper is.\nBut in a few seconds more it is subjected to a process by which all this\nlabour and time is saved. From the last pair of cloth-pressing rollers,\nthe paper is received upon a small roller which is guided over the\npolished surface of a large heated cylinder. The soft pulp tissue now\nbegins to smoke; but the heat is proportioned to its increasing power of\nresistance. From the first cylinder, or drum, it is received upon a\nsecond, considerably larger, and much hotter. As it rolls over this\npolished surface, we see all the roughness of its appearance, when in\nthe cloth region, gradually vanishing. At length, having passed over a\nthird cylinder, still hotter than the second, and having been subjected\nto the pressure of a blanket, which confines it on one side, while the\ncylinder smooths it on the other, it is caught upon the last roller,\nwhich hands it over to the reel. The last process of the machine is to\ncut the roll of paper into sheets.\n\n [Illustration: Various processes of Bookbinding.]\n\nIn consequence of the cheaper production of the press, and the\nconsequent extension of the demand for books, bookbinding has become a\nlarge manufacture, carried on with many scientific applications. We have\nrolling-machines, to make the book solid; cutting-machines, to supersede\nthe hand-labour of the little instrument called a plough; embossing\nmachines, to produce elaborate raised patterns on leather or cloth;\nembossing presses, to give the gilt ornament and lettering. These\ncontrivances, and other similar inventions, have not only cheapened\nbooks, but have enabled the publisher to give them a permanent instead\nof a temporary cover, ornamental as well as useful. There are eleven\nthousand bookbinders now employed, of which one-third are females. The\nnumber employed has been quadrupled by these inventions. In 1830, the\njourneymen bookbinders of London opposed the introduction of the\nrolling-machine. Books were formerly beat with large hammers upon a\nstone, to give them solidity. The workmen were relieved from the\ndrudgery of the beating-hammer by the easy operation of the\nrolling-machine. They soon discovered the weak foundation of their\nobjection to an instrument which, in truth, had a tendency, above all\nother things, to elevate their trade, and to make that an art which in\none division of it was a mere labour. If the painter were compelled to\ngrind his own colours and make his own frames, he would no longer follow\nan art, but a trade; and he would receive the wages of a labourer\ninstead of the wages of an artist, not only so far as related to the\ngrinding and frame-making, but as affecting all his occupations, by the\ndrudgery attending a portion of them.\n\n [Illustration: Papyrus.]\n\nThe commerce of literature has been doubled in twenty years. But it\nwould be scarcely too much to assert that the influence of the press, in\nforming public opinion, and causing it to operate upon legislation, has\ndoubled almost every other employment. To that public opinion, chiefly\nso formed, we owe the successive removals of restrictions upon trade,\nwhich have carried forward our exports from thirty-six millions sterling\nin 1831 to ninety millions in 1853. To that public opinion we owe the\nabolition of prohibitive duties upon foreign produce, which has given us\na far wider range of beneficial consumption. To that public opinion we\nowe the repeal of the oppressive excise duties upon salt, leather,\ncandles, glass, bricks--which duties impeded production even more\neffectually than the extortions and tyrannies of the middle ages.\nStrange it is, that the power of the press, which has done so much for\nthe removal of other fiscal impediments to industry, should have been\nable to effect so little for itself;--that the tax upon paper should\nstill interfere with the commerce of literature, when general education\nhas no longer to encounter any misgivings in the minds of those who\ngovern an earnest and patriotic people. The difficulty of procuring the\nmaterial of paper has become a serious impediment to the cheap diffusion\nof knowledge; and the paper-tax works in the same evil direction. There\nhave been innumerable obstacles to the extension of knowledge since the\ndays when books were written on the papyrus--obstacles equally raised up\nby despotic blindness and popular ignorance. But it is not fitting that\neither of such causes should still be in action in the days of the\nprinting-machine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\n Power of skill--Cheap production--Population and\n production--Partial and temporary evils--Intelligent\n labour--Division of labour--General knowledge--The Lowell\n Offering--Union of forces.\n\n\nWe have thus, without pretending to any approach to completeness, taken\na rapid view of many of the great branches of industry in this country.\nWe have exhibited capital working with accumulation of knowledge; we\nhave shown labour working with skill. We desire to show that the\ncounter-control to the absorbing power of capital is the rapidly\ndeveloping power of skill--for that, also, is capital. Knowledge is\npower, because knowledge is property. Mr. Whitworth, whose Report on\nAmerican Manufactures we have several times quoted, says that the\nworkmen of the United States, being educated, perform their duty \"with\nless supervision than is required when dependence is to be placed upon\nuneducated hands.\" He adds, \"It rarely happens that a workman, who\npossesses peculiar skill in his craft, is disqualified to take the\nresponsible position of superintendent, by the want of education and\ngeneral knowledge, _as is frequently the case in this country_.\" This is\na reproach which every young person in our land ought, as speedily as\npossible, to wipe out. The means of education may not be quite so\nuniversal here as in the United States; but they are ample to produce a\nlarge increase of that skill and that trustworthiness which are the most\nefficient powers which those who work for their living can possibly\ncommand, for elevating their individual positions, and for elevating the\ngreat body of workers throughout the realm. One of the most essential\nsteps towards the attainment of this elevation is the conviction that\nmanual labour, to be effective, must adapt itself almost wholly to the\ndirection of science; and that under that direction unskilled labour\nnecessarily becomes skilled, and limited trust enlarges into influential\nresponsibility.\n\nThose who have taken a superficial view of the question of scientific\napplication say, that, only whenever there is a greater demand than the\nexisting means can supply, is any new discovery in mechanics a benefit\nto society, because it gives the means of satisfying the existing wants;\nbut that, on the contrary, whenever the things produced are sufficient\nfor the consumers, the discovery is a calamity, because it does not add\nto the enjoyments of the consumers; it only gives them a better market,\nwhich better market is bought at the price of the existence of the\nproducers.\n\nAll such reasoning is false in principle, and unsupported by experience.\nThere is no such thing, nor, if machines went on improving for five\nhundred years at the rate they have done for the last century, could\nthere be any such thing, as a limit to the wants of the consumers. The\ngreat mass of facts which we have brought together in this book must\nhave shown, that the cheaper an article of necessity becomes, the more\nof it is used; that when the most pressing wants are supplied, and\nsupplied amply by cheapness, the consumer has money to lay out upon new\nwants; that when these new wants are supplied cheaply, he goes on again\nand again to other new wants; that there are no limits, in fact, to his\nwants as long as he has any capital to satisfy them. Bear in mind this;\nthat the first great object of every invention and every improvement is\nto confer a benefit upon the consumers,--to make the commodity cheap and\nplentiful. The working man stands in a double character; he is both a\nproducer and a consumer. But we will be bold to say that the question of\ncheapness of production is a much more important question to be decided\nin his favour as a consumer, than the question of dearness of production\nto be decided in his favour as a producer. The truth is, every man\ntries to get as much as he can for his own labour, and to pay as little\nas he can for the labour of others. If a mechanic, succeeding in\nstopping the machine used in his own trade, by any strange deviation\nfrom the natural course of things were to get higher wages for a time,\nhe himself would be the most injured by the extension of the principle.\nWhen he found his loaf cost him two shillings instead of sixpence; when\nhe was obliged to go to the river with his bucket for his supply of\nwater; when his coals cost a guinea a bushel instead of eighteen pence;\nwhen he was told by the hosier that his worsted stockings were advanced\nfrom a shilling a pair to five shillings; when, in fact, the price of\nevery article that he uses should be doubled, trebled, and, in nine\ncases out of ten, put beyond the possibility of attainment;--what, we\nask, would be the use to him of his advance in wages? Let us never\nforget that it is not for the employment of labourers, but for the\nbenefit of consumers, that labour is employed at all. The steam-engines\nare not working in the coal-pits of Northumberland, and the ships\nsailing from the Tyne to the Thames, to give employment to colliers and\nto sailors, but to make coals cheap in London. If the people of London\ncould have the coals without the steam-engines and the ships, it would\nbe better for them, and better for the rest of the world. If they could\nget coals for nothing, they would have more produce to exchange for\nmoney to spend upon other things; and the comforts, therefore, of every\none of us would be increased.\n\nThis increase of comfort, some may say, is a question that more affects\nthe rich than it affects the great mass. This again is a mistake. The\nwhole tendency of the improvements of the last four hundred years has\nnot only been to lift the meanest, in regard to a great many comforts,\nfar above the condition of the rich four hundred years ago, but\nabsolutely to place them, in many things, upon a level with the rich of\ntheir own day. They are surrounded, as we have constantly shown\nthroughout this book, with an infinite number of comforts and\nconveniences which had no existence two or three centuries ago; and\nthose comforts and conveniences are not used only by a few, but are\nwithin the reach of almost all men. Every day is adding something to our\ncomforts. Our houses are better built--our clothes are cheaper--we have\na number of domestic utensils, whose use even was unknown to our\nancestors--we can travel cheaply from place to place, and not only\ntravel at less expense, but travel ten times quicker than the richest\nman could travel two hundred years ago. The bulk of society is not only\nadvancing steadily to the same level in point of many comforts with the\nrich, but is gaining that knowledge which was formerly their exclusive\npossession. Let all of us who are producers keep fast hold of that last\nand best power.\n\nWe have endeavoured to show throughout this book that the one great\nresult of machinery, and of every improvement in art, is to lessen the\ncost of production; to increase the benefit to the consumer. But it is a\nmost fortunate arrangement of the social state, as we have also shown,\nthat cheap production gives increased employment. The same class of\nfalse reasoners who consider that the wants of society are limited, cry\nout, it is better to have a population of men than of steam-engines.\nThat might be true, if the steam-engines _did_ put out the men; but\ninasmuch as they increase the productions by which men are maintained,\nthey increase the men. What has increased the population of England\nnearly ten-fold during the last five hundred years, but the improvement\nof the arts of life, which has enabled more men to live within the land?\nThere is no truth so clear, that as the productions of industry\nmultiply, the means of acquiring those productions multiply also. The\nproductions which are created by one producer furnish the means of\npurchasing the productions created by another producer; and, in\nconsequence of this double production, the necessities of both the one\nand the other are better supplied. The multiplication of produce\nmultiplies the consumers of produce. There are, probably, upon the\naverage, no more hats made in the year than there are heads to wear\nthem; but as there are twenty-one millions of heads of the British\nsubjects of Queen Victoria, and there were only five millions of the\nBritish subjects of Queen Anne, it is self-evident that the hat-makers\nhave four times as much work as they had a century and a half ago. What\nhas given the hat-makers four times as much work? The quadrupling of the\npopulation. And what has quadrupled the population? The quadrupling of\nproduce--the quadrupling of the means of maintaining that population. It\nis a remarkable fact, derived from the official returns, that whilst our\nexports of home produce and manufactures have increased about twofold in\nprice since the commencement of the century, they have increased\neight-fold in quantity. Their real or declared value indicates the\nprice. What is called the official value indicates the quantity. What is\ntrue of our exports is also true of our home-consumption. The great\nmultiplication of produce is accompanied, proportionately, with a far\ngreater diminution of price.\n\nThere is a just and eloquent passage in the Registrar-General's Report\nupon the Census of 1851, which we gladly copy:--\n\n \"With all that we now see around us, it is difficult to place\n ourselves in the position of the people of 1751; and to understand\n either the simplicity of the means, or the greatness of the task\n which has since been achieved by the people of England and\n Scotland. It is evident, however, that if the whole that they have\n accomplished had been proposed as a project, or been held out as\n the policy of the greatest minister then living, its difficulty\n and grandeur would have overwhelmed him with confusion. If in the\n height of power he had thus addressed the people of Britain, would\n he not have been heard with justifiable incredulity?--'These\n islands and Ireland are occupied by the men of many separate\n states that are now happily united. After the settlement on the\n land of tribes, fleets, and armies of Celts, of Saxons, of Danes,\n and of Normans--and after centuries of patient culture, its\n fertile soil sustains _seven millions_ of people in its whole\n length from the Isle of Wight to the Shetland Islands. We\n cannot--for the mighty power is not given us--say, let there be on\n the European shores of the Atlantic ocean--_three_ Great Britains.\n But the means exist for creating on this land, in less than a\n hundred years, two more nations, each in number equal to the\n existing population, and of distributing them, over its fields, in\n cottages, farms, and towns, by the banks of its rivers, and around\n its immemorial hills: and they will thus be neither separated by\n longer roads, nor wider seas, but be neighbours, fellow-workers,\n and fellow-countrymen on the old territory; wielding by machines\n the forces of nature, that shall serve them with the strength of\n thousands of horses, on roads, and seas,--in mines, manufactories,\n and ships. Subsistence shall be as abundant as it is now, and\n luxuries, which are confined to the few, shall be enjoyed by\n multitudes. The wealth of the country--its stock and its\n produce--shall increase in a faster ratio than the people. All\n this shall be accomplished without any miraculous agency, by the\n progress of society,--by the diffusion of knowledge and\n morals,--by improvements,--and improvements chiefly in the\n institution of marriage--'that true source of human offspring,'\n whence,\n\n 'Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure,\n Relations dear, and all the charities\n Of father, son, and brother, first were known.'\"\n\nIf the reader has rightly considered the various facts which we have\npresented, he will long before this have come to the conclusion, that\nit, is for the general interests of society that every invention, which\nhas a tendency to diminish the cost of production, shall have the most\nperfect freedom to go forward. He will also have perceived, that the\nexercise of this natural right, this proud distinction, of man, to carry\non the work of improvement to the fullest extent of his capacity and\nknowledge, can never be wholly stopped, however it may be opposed. It\nmay be suspended by the ignorance of a government--it may be clamoured\ndown by the prejudice of a people; but the living principle which is in\nit can never be destroyed. To deny that this blessing, as well as many\nother blessings which we enjoy, is not productive of any particular\nevil, would be uncandid and unwise. Every change produced by the\nsubstitution of a perfect machine instead of an imperfect one, of a\ncheap machine instead of a dear one, is an inconvenience to those who\nhave been associated with the imperfect and the dear machines. It is a\nchange that more or less affects the interests of capitalists as well as\nof workmen. In a commercial country, in a highly civilized community,\nimprovement is hourly producing some change which affects some\ninterests. Every new pattern which is introduced in hardware deranges\nfor a moment the interests of the proprietors of the old moulds. Every\nnew book, upon any specific subject upon which books have formerly been\nwritten, lessens the value of the copyright of those existing books.\nWhat then? Is every improvement, which thus produces a slight partial\ninjury, to be discountenanced, because of this inevitable condition\nwhich we find at every step in the march of society? Or rather, ought we\nnot to feel that every improvement brings healing upon its wings, even\nto those for whom it is a momentary evil;--that if it displaces their\nlabour or their capital for a season, it gives new springs to the\ngeneral industry, and calls forth all labour and all capital to higher\nand more successful exertions? At every advance which improvement makes,\nthe partial and temporary evils of improvement are more and more\nlessened. In the early stages of social refinement, when a machine for\ngreatly diminishing labour is for the first time introduced, its effects\nin displacing labour for an instant may be seen in the condition of\ngreat masses of people. It is the first step which is the most trying.\nThus, when printing superseded the copies of books by writing, a large\nbody of people were put out of employ;--they had to seek new employ. It\nwas the same with the introduction of the spinning machinery,--the same\nwith the power-loom. It would be presumptuous to say that no such great\nchanges could again happen in any of the principal branches of human\nindustry; but it may be said, that the difficulty of superseding our\npresent expeditious and cheap modes of manufacture is daily increasing.\nThe more machines are multiplied, that is, the more society approaches\ntowards perfection, the less room is there for those great inventions\nwhich change the face of the world. We shall still go on improving,\ndoubtless; but ingenuity will have a much narrower range to work in. It\nmay perfect the machines which we have got, but it will invent fewer\noriginal machines. And who can doubt, that the nearer we approach to\nthis state, the better will it be for the general condition of mankind?\nWho can doubt whether, instead of a state of society where the labourers\nwere few and wretched, wasting human strength, unaided by art, in\nlabours which could be better performed by wind, and water, and\nsteam,--by the screw and the lever,--it would not be better to approach\nas nearly as we can to a state of society where the labourers would be\nmany and lightly tasked, exerting human power in its noblest occupation,\nthat of giving a direction by its intelligence to the mere physical\npower which it had conquered? Surely, a nation so advanced as to apply\nthe labour of its people to occupations where a certain degree of\nintelligence was required, leaving all that was purely mechanical to\nmachines and to inferior animals, would produce for itself the greatest\nnumber of articles of necessity and convenience, of luxury and taste, at\nthe cheapest cost. But it would do more. It would have its population\nincreasing with the increase of those productions; and that population\nemployed in those labours alone which could not be carried on without\nthat great power of man by which he subdues all other power to his\nuse,--his reason.\n\nBut it is not only science which has determined, and is more and more\ndetermining, the condition of the great body of operatives, but the\norganization of industry upon the factory principle, so universal and so\npowerful, has rendered it impossible for the future that the larger\namount of the labour of a country should be regarded as an insulated\nforce. It must work in conjunction with higher and more powerful forces.\n\nIn France, which, as a commercial and manufacturing country, was\nconsiderably behind the advance of England, it was a common practice, in\nmany villages and small towns, not very long ago, for the weavers to\nmake the looms and other implements of their trade. In the fifteenth\ncentury, in the same country, before an apprentice could be admitted to\nthe privilege of a master-weaver, it was not only necessary for him to\nprove that he understood his trade as a weaver, but that he was able to\nconstruct all the machines and tools with which he carried on his craft.\nThose who know anything of the business of weaving will very readily\ncome to the conclusion that the apprentice of the fifteenth century,\nwhose skill was put to such a proof, was both an indifferent weaver and\nan indifferent mechanician;--that in the attempt to unite two such\nopposite trades, he must have excelled in neither;--and that in fact the\nregulation was one of those monstrous violations of the freedom of\nindustry, which our ancestors chose to devise for the support of\nindustry.\n\nCarrying the principle of a division of labour to the other extreme\npoint, we have seen that a vast number of persons are engaged in the\nmanufacture of a piece of cloth,[29] who, if individually set to carry\nthe workmanship of that piece of cloth through all its stages, would be\nutterly incompetent to produce it at all, much less to produce it as\ndurable and beautiful as the cloth which we all daily consume. How would\nthe sorter of the wool, for example, know how to perform the business of\nthe scourer, or of the dyer, or of the carder? or the carder that of the\nspinner or the weaver? or the weaver that of the miller, or boiler, or\ndyer, or brusher, or cutter, or presser? We must be quite sure that, if\nany arbitrary power or regulation, such as compelled the weaver of the\nfifteenth century to make his own loom, were, on the other hand, to\ncompel a man engaged in any one branch of the manufacture of woollen\ncloth to carry that manufacture through all its stages, the production\nof cloth would be utterly suspended; and that the workmen being\nincompetent to go on, the wages of the workmen could no longer be\npaid;--for the wages of labour are paid by the consumer of the produce\nof labour, and here there would be nothing to consume.\n\nThe great principle, therefore, which keeps the division of labour in\nfull activity is, that the principle is necessary to production upon a\nscale that will maintain the number of labourers engaged in working in\nthe cheapest, because most economical manner, through the application of\nthat mode of working. The labourers, even if the principle were\ninjurious to their individual prosperity and happiness, which we think\nit is not, could not dispense with the principle, because it is\nessential to economical production; and if dear production were to take\nthe place of economical production, there would be a proportionately\ndiminished demand for products, and a proportionate diminution of the\nnumber of producers.\n\nThe same laws of necessity which render it impossible for the working\nmen to contend against the operation of the division of labour,--even if\nit were desirable that they should contend against it, as far as their\nindividual interests are concerned,--render it equally impossible that\nthey should contend against the operation of accumulation of knowledge\nin the direction of their labour. The mode in which accumulation of\nknowledge influences the direction of their labour is, that it furnishes\nmechanical and chemical aids to the capitalist for carrying on the\nbusiness of production. The abandonment of those mechanical and chemical\naids would suspend production, and not in the slightest degree increase,\nbut greatly diminish, and ultimately destroy, the power of manual\nlabour, seeking to work without those mechanical and chemical aids. The\nabandonment of the division of labour would work the same effects.\nThere would be incomparably less produced on all sides; and the workmen\non all sides, experiencing in their fullest extent the evils which\nresult from diminished production, would all fall back in their\ncondition, and day by day have less command of the necessaries and\ncomforts of life, till they sank into utter destitution.\n\nWe dwell principally on the effects of accumulation of knowledge and\ndivision of labour on the working man as a consumer, because it is the\nmore immediate object of this volume to consider such questions with\nreference to production. But the condition of the working man as a\nproducer is, taking the average of all ranks of producers, greatly\nadvanced by the direction which capital gives to labour, by calling in\naccumulation of knowledge and division of labour. If the freedom of\nlabour were not established upon the same imperishable basis as the\nsecurity of property, we might, indeed, think that it was a pitiable\nthing for a man to labour through life at one occupation, and believe\nthat it was debasing to the human intellect and morals to make for ever\nthe eye of a needle, or raise a nap upon woollen cloth. The Hindoos,\nwhen they instituted their castes, which compelled a man to follow,\nwithout a possibility of emerging from it, the trade of his fathers, saw\nthe general advantage of the division of labour; but they destroyed the\nprinciple which could make it endurable to the individual. They\ndestroyed the Freedom of Industry. \"To limit industry or genius, and\nnarrow the field of individual exertion by any artificial means, is an\ninjury to human nature of the same kind as that brought on by a\ncommunity of possessions. Where there is no stimulus to industry, things\nare worst; where industry is circumscribed, they cannot prosper; and are\nthen only in a healthy state, when every avenue to personal advantage is\nopen to every talent and disposition. A state of equality is an instance\nof the first case; the division of the people into castes, as among the\nAncient Egyptians, and still among the Hindoos, of the second. This\ndivision has been considered by all intelligent travellers as one\npowerful cause of the stationary character of the inhabitants of that\ncountry: and the effect would have been still more pernicious, if time\nor necessity had not introduced some relaxation into the rigorous\nrestrictions originally established, and so ancient as to be attributed\nto Siva. As long, however, as the rule is generally adhered to, that a\nman of a lower class is restricted from the business of a higher class,\nso long, we may safely predict, India will continue what it is in point\nof civilization. An approach to the same effect may be witnessed in the\nlimitation of honours, privileges, and immunities in some countries of\nEurope.\"[30]\n\nIn those manufactures and trades where the division of labour is carried\nto the greatest extent, such as the cotton and silk trades, workmen\nreadily change from one branch to the other, without molestation, and\nwithout any great difficulty of adapting themselves to a new occupation.\nThe simpler the process in which a workman has been engaged--and every\nprocess is rendered more simple by the division of labour--the easier\nthe transition: and the principal quality which is required to make the\ntransition is, that stock of general knowledge which the division of\nlabour enables a man to attain: and which, in point of fact, is attained\nin much higher perfection in a large manufactory, than in that rude\nstate where one man is more or less compelled to do everything for his\nbody, and therefore has no leisure to do anything for his mind. There\nare evils, undoubtedly, in carrying the division of labour to an extreme\npoint; but we think that those very evils correct themselves, because\nthey destroy the great object of the principle, and give imperfect\ninstead of perfect production. The moral evils which some have dreaded\nmay assuredly be corrected by general education, and in fact are\ncorrected by the union of numbers in one employment. What sharpens the\nintellect ought, undoubtedly, to elevate the morals; and, indeed, it is\nonly false knowledge which debases the morals. Knowledge and virtue, we\nbelieve, are the closest allies; and wisdom is the fruit of knowledge\nand virtue.\n\nThe same principles as to the course which the division of labour should\nlead the labourer to pursue, apply to the higher occupations of\nindustry. No man of learning has ever very greatly added to the stock of\nhuman knowledge, without devoting himself, if not exclusively, with\nsomething like an especial dedication of his time and talents, to one\nbranch of science or literature. In the study of nature we have the\nmathematician, the astronomer, the chemist, the botanist, the zoologist,\nand the physician engaged, each in his different department. In the\nexposition of moral and political truths, we have the metaphysician, the\ntheologian, the statesman, the lawyer, occupied each in his peculiar\nstudy or profession. A mental labourer, to excel in any one of these\nbranches, must know something of every other branch. He must direct\nindeed the power of his mind to one department of human knowledge; but\nhe cannot conquer that department without a general, and, in many\nrespects, accurate knowledge of every other department. The same\nprinciple produces the same effects, whether applied to the solution of\nthe highest problem in geometry, or the polishing of a pin. The division\nof labour must be regulated by the acquisition of general knowledge.\n\nThere was probably no more striking example ever given of the union of\nfactory labour with a taste for knowledge and an ardour for mental\nimprovement, than was presented by the young women working in the\ncotton-manufactories of Lowell, in the United States. They wrote and\npublished for their own amusement, a magazine, called 'The Lowell\nOffering,' in which the writers exhibited remarkable attainments, and no\ncommon facility of composition. The author of the present volume made a\nselection from 'The Lowell Offering,' which he introduced to English\nnotice by a preface, one passage of which may be extracted as an\nillustration of the argument before us:--\n\n \"In dwelling upon the thoughts of others, in fixing their own\n thoughts upon some definite object, these factory girls have\n lifted themselves up into a higher region than is attained by\n those, whatever be their rank, whose minds are not filled with\n images of what is natural and beautiful and true. They have raised\n themselves out of the sphere of the partial and the temporary,\n into the broad expanse of the universal and the eternal. During\n their twelve hours of daily labour, when there were easy but\n automatic services to perform, waiting upon a machine--with that\n slight degree of skill which no machine can ever attain--for the\n repair of the accidents of its unvarying progress, they may,\n without a neglect of their duty, have been elevating their minds\n in the scale of being by cheerful lookings-out upon nature; by\n pleasant recollections of books; by imaginary converse with the\n just and wise who have lived before them; by consoling reflections\n upon the infinite goodness and wisdom which regulates this world,\n so unintelligible without such a dependence. These habits have\n given them cheerfulness and freedom amidst their uninterrupted\n toils. We see no repinings against their twelve hours' labour, for\n it has had its solace. Even during the low wages of 1842, which\n they mention with sorrow but without complaint, the same\n cultivation goes on; 'The Lowell Offering' is still produced. To\n us of England these things ought to be encouraging. To the immense\n body of our factory operatives the example of what the girls of\n Lowell have done should be especially valuable. It should teach\n them that their strength, as well as their happiness, lies in the\n cultivation of their minds. To the employers of operatives, and to\n all of wealth and influence amongst us, this example ought to\n manifest that a strict and diligent performance of daily duties,\n in work prolonged even more than in our own factories, is no\n impediment to the exercise of those faculties, and the\n gratification of those tastes, which, whatever was once thought,\n can no longer be held to be limited by station. There is a contest\n going on amongst us, as it is going on all over the world, between\n the hard imperious laws which regulate the production of wealth,\n and the aspirations of benevolence for the increase of human\n happiness. We do not deplore the contest; for out of it must come\n a gradual subjection of the iron necessity to the holy influences\n of love and charity. Such a period cannot, indeed, be rashly\n anticipated by legislation against principles which are secondary\n laws of nature; but one thing nevertheless is certain--that such\n an improvement of the operative classes, as all good men--and we\n sincerely believe amongst them the great body of manufacturing\n capitalists,--ardently pray for, and desire to labour in their\n several spheres to attain, will be brought about in a parallel\n progression with the elevation of the operatives themselves in\n mental cultivation, and consequently in moral excellence.\"[31]\n\nThe division of labour in carrying forward the work of production is\ninvariably commanded, because it is perfected, by the union of forces,\nor co-operation. The process of manufacturing a piece of woollen cloth\nis carried on by division of labour, and by union of forces, working\ntogether. In fact, if there were not that ultimate co-operation, the\ndivision of labour would be not only less productive than labour without\ndivision, but it would not be productive at all. The power of large\ncapital is the power which, as society is arranged, compels this\ndivision of parts for the more complete production of a whole. A large\ncloth manufactory, as we have seen, exhibits itself to the eye chiefly\nin the division of labour; but all that division ends in a co-operation\nfor the production of a piece of cloth. A ship, with five hundred men on\nboard, each engaged in various duties, and holding different ranks, is\nan example of the division of labour; but the division ends in a\nco-operation to carry the ship from one port to another, and, if it be a\nship of war, to defend it from the attacks of an enemy. Those who would\ndirect the principle of co-operation into a different channel, by\nremodelling society into large partnerships, do not, because they\ncannot, depart, in the least degree, from the principles we have laid\ndown. They must have production, and therefore they must have division\nof labour; the division of labour involves degrees of skill; the whole\nrequires to be carried on with accumulation of former labour or capital,\nor it could not exist. The only difference proposed is, that the\nlabourers shall be the capitalists, and that each shall derive a share\nin the production, partly from what now is represented as his profits as\na capitalist, and partly from what is represented as his wages as a\nlabourer; but that all separate property shall be swallowed up in joint\nproperty. But we mention this subject here to show that even those who\naspire to remodel society cannot change the elements with which it is\nnow constructed, and must work with the same principles, however\ndifferent may be the names of those principles, and however varied in\ntheir application. This is in favour even of the ultimate success of the\nprinciples of co-operation, if they should be found practically to work\nfor the increase of the happiness of mankind; which would not be\neffected by equalizing the distribution of wealth, if, at the same time,\nits production were materially checked. This view of the subject goes to\nshow that no sudden or violent change is necessary. In many things\nsociety has always acted on the principles of co-operation. As\ncivilization extends, the number of instances has hitherto increased;\nand if there is no natural maximum to the adoption of these principles\n(which remains to be seen), men may gradually slide more and more into\nthem, and realize all sane expectations, without any reconstruction of\ntheir social system,--any pulling down and building up again of their\nmorals or their houses.[32]\n\nIt is this union of forces which, whether it prevail in a single\nmanufactory, in a manufacturing town viewed in connexion with that\nmanufactory, in an agricultural district viewed in connexion with a\nmanufacturing town, in a capital viewed in connexion with both, in a\nkingdom viewed in connexion with all its parts, and in the whole world\nviewed in connexion with particular kingdoms;--it is this union of\nforces which connects the humblest with the highest in the production of\nutility. The poor lad who tends sheep upon the downs, and the capitalist\nwho spends thousands of pounds for carrying forward a process to make\nthe wool of these sheep into cloth, though at different extremities of\nthe scale, are each united for the production of utility. The\ndifferences of power and enjoyment (and the differences of enjoyment are\nmuch less than appear upon the surface) between the shepherd boy and the\ngreat cloth-manufacturer, are apparently necessary for the end of\nenabling both the shepherd boy and the capitalist to be fed, and\nclothed, and lodged, by exchanges with other producers. They are also\nnecessary for keeping alive that universal, and, therefore, as it would\nappear, natural desire for the improvement of our condition, which,\nindependently of the necessity for the satisfaction of immediate wants,\nmore or less influences the industry of every civilized being as to the\nhopes of the future. It is this union which constitutes the real dignity\nof all useful employments, and may make the poorest labourer feel that\nhe is advancing the welfare of mankind as well as the richest\ncapitalist; and that, standing upon the solid foundation of free\nexchange, the rights of the one are as paramount as the rights of the\nother, and that the rights of each have no control but the duties of\neach. We believe that the interests of each are also inseparably united,\nand that the causes which advance or retard the prosperity of each are\none and the same.\n\n\n [29] See Chapter XVII.\n\n [30] Sumner's 'Records of the Creation.'\n\n [31] 'Mind amongst the Spindles;' in the series called 'Knight's Weekly\n Volume.'\n\n [32] The subject is examined more fully in Chapters XXV. and XXVI.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\n Accumulation--Productive and unproductive consumption--Use\n of capital--Credit--Security of property--Production applied\n to the satisfaction of common wants--Increase of\n comforts--Relations of capitalist and labourer.\n\n\nDr. William Bulleyn, who lived three centuries ago, first gave currency\nto the saying, that great riches were \"like muckhills, a burthen to the\nland, and offensive to the inhabitants thereof, till their heaps are\ncast abroad, to the profit of many.\" The worthy physician belonged to an\nage when the class called misers extensively prevailed; and when those\nwho lent out money upon interest were denominated usurers. They were\ngenerally objects of public obloquy, and their function was not\nunderstood. There are plenty of men still amongst us who, in Dr.\nBulleyn's view of the matter, are impersonations of the muck that is not\nspread. The muck-spreaders, according to the old notion, were those\nwhose consumption was always endeavouring to outstrip the production\nthat was going forward around them. The latter is by far the larger\nclass at the present day; the former, the more powerful.\n\nLet us endeavour, somewhat more with reference to practical results than\nwe have already attempted, to look at some of the general principles\nexisting in modern society which determine the existence, and regulate\nthe employment, of capital.\n\nWhatever is saved and accumulated is a saving and accumulation of\ncommodities which have been produced. The value of the accumulation is\nmost conveniently expressed by an equivalent in money; but only a very\nsmall part of the accumulation is actually money. A few millions of\nbullion are sufficient to carry on the transactions of this country.\nIts accumulations, or capital, which have been considered to amount to\ntwenty-two hundred million pounds sterling, could not be purchased by\nseveral times the amount of all the bullion that exists in the world. A\ngreat part of what is saved, therefore, is an accumulation of products\nsuitable for consumption. The moment that they are applied to the\nencouragement of production, they begin to be consumed. They encourage\nproduction only as far as they enable the producers to consume while\nthey are in the act of producing. Accumulation, therefore, is no\nhindrance to consumption. It encourages consumption as much as\nexpenditure of revenue unaccompanied by accumulation. It enables the\nthings consumed to be replaced, instead of being utterly destroyed.\n\nWhatever is consumed by those who are carrying forward the business of\nproduction has been called productive consumption. Whatever, on the\nother hand, is consumed by those who are not engaged in re-producing,\nhas been called unproductive consumption. The difference may be thus\nillustrated:--A shoemaker, we will say, rents a shop, works up leather\nand other materials, uses various tools, burns out candles, and is\nhimself fed and clothed while in the act of producing a pair of shoes.\nThis is productive consumption;--for the pair of shoes represents the\nvalue of the materials employed in them, the commodities consumed by the\nshoemaker during their production, and the wear and tear of the tools\napplied in making them. If the shoes represent a higher value than what\nhas been consumed, in consequence of the productiveness of the labour of\nthe shoemaker, the difference is net produce, which may be saved, and,\nwith other savings, become capital. But further:--The shoemaker, we will\nsuppose, accumulates profits sufficient to enable him to live without\nmaking shoes, or applying himself to any other branch of industry. He\nnow uses no materials, he employs no tools, but he consumes for the\nsupport and enjoyment of existence, without adding anything to the gross\nproduce of society; this is called unproductive consumption.\n\nThe differences, however, between productive and unproductive\nconsumption admit of considerable qualification. We have already\ndescribed the course of a spendthrift, and of a man of fortune who lives\nvirtuously and economically.[33] Whatever may be the scientific\ndefinition, no one can say that these, even viewed from the industrial\npoint, can be classed together as unproductive consumers. Productive\nconsumption, according to the strict definition of the earlier\neconomists, is consumption directly applied to the creation of some\nmaterial product. But a new element was introduced into the question by\nMr. Mill's definition--that labour and expenditure are also productive,\n\"which, without having for their direct object the creation of any\nuseful natural product, or bodily or mental faculty or quality, yet lead\nindirectly to promote one or other of those ends.\" On the other hand,\nunproductive consumption consists of labour and expenditure exerted or\nincurred \"uselessly, or in pure waste, and yielding neither direct\nenjoyment nor permanent sources of enjoyment.\"\n\nIt has been suggested by Dr. Cooper, an American professor, that the\nparable of \"the ten talents,\" in St. Matthew's Gospel, points to the\nemployment of capital for future production. \"For the kingdom of heaven\nis as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants,\nand delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to\nanother two, and to another one; to every man according to his several\nability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the\nfive talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five\ntalents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other\ntwo. But he that had received one, went and digged in the earth, and hid\nhis lord's money.\" The last was the \"wicked and slothful,\" because\nunprofitable, servant. His was the sin of omission. He ought to have put\nout the money to \"the exchangers,\" even if he had been afraid to trade\nwith it.\n\nAdam Smith has laid it down as an axiom that the proprietor who\nencroaches upon his capital by extravagance and waste, is a positive\ndestroyer of the funds destined for the employment of productive labour.\nNo doubt this is, in many respects, true. He, also, has buried his \"one\ntalent.\" But the common opinion of what are called \"the money-making\nclasses\" of our time goes somewhat further than this. It is said that,\namongst \"the middle class\" of this country, \"the life of a man who\nleaves no property or family provision, of his own acquiring, at his\ndeath, is felt to have been _a failure_.\"[34] There are many modes in\nwhich the life of an industrious, provident, and able man may have been\nfar other than \"a failure,\" even in a commercial point of view, when he\nleaves his family with no greater money inheritance than that with which\nhe began the world himself. He may have preserved his family, during the\nyears in which he has lived amongst them, in the highest point of\nefficiency for future production. He may have consumed to the full\nextent of his income, producing, but accumulating no money capital for\nreproductive consumption; and, indirectly, but not less certainly, he\nmay have accumulated whilst he has consumed, so as to enable others to\nconsume profitably. If he have had sons, whom he has trained to manhood,\nbestowing upon them a liberal education; bringing them up, by honest\nexample, in all trustworthiness; and causing them to be diligently\ninstructed in some calling which requires skill and experience--he is an\naccumulator. If he have had daughters, whom he has brought up in habits\nof order and frugality--apt for all domestic employments--instructed\nthemselves, and capable of carrying forward the duties of\ninstruction--he has reared those who in the honourable capacity of wife,\nmother, and mistress of a family, influence the industrial powers of the\nmore direct labourers in no small degree; and, being the great promoters\nof all social dignity and happiness, create a noble and virtuous nation.\nBy the capital thus spent in enabling his children to be valuable\nmembers of society, he has accumulated a fund out of his consumption\nwhich may be productive at a future day. He has postponed his money\ncontribution to the general stock; but he has not withheld it\naltogether. He has not been \"the wicked and slothful servant.\" On the\nother hand, many a man, whose life, according to the mere capitalist\ndoctrine, has not been \"a failure,\" and who has taught his family to\nattach only a money-value to every object of creation, bequeaths to the\nworld successors whose rapacity, ignorance, unskilfulness, and\nimprovidence, will be so many charges upon the capital of the nation.\nThe \"muckhill\" will by them be \"cast abroad,\" but it will be devoted to\nthe mere pursuit of sensual indulgence, losing half its fertilizing\npower, and too often burning up the soil that its judicious application\nwould stimulate. He that has been weak enough, according to this\n\"middle-class\" doctrine, not to believe that the whole business of man\nis to make \"a muckhill,\" may have spent existence in labours, public or\nprivate, for the benefit of his fellow creatures; but his life is \"a\nfailure!\" The greater part of the clergy, of the bar, of the medical\nprofession, of the men of science and literature, of the defenders of\ntheir country, of the resident gentry, of the aristocracy, devote their\nminds to high duties, and some to heroic exertions, without being\ninordinately anxious to guard themselves against such \"a failure.\" It\nwould perhaps be well if some of those who believe that all virtue is to\nbe resolved into pounds sterling, were to consider that society demands\nfrom \"the money-making classes\" a more than ordinary contribution--not\nto indiscriminate benevolence, but to those public instruments of\nproduction--educational institutions--improved sanitary\narrangements--which are best calculated to diminish the interval between\nthe very rich and the very poor.\n\nWhatever tends to enlighten the great body of the people facilitates\nindividual accumulation. A large portion of the productions of industry,\nespecially amongst the humbler classes of the community, is wasted, in\naddition to that portion which is enjoyed. Every consumption that is\nsaved by habits of order, by knowing the best way of setting about a\nthing, by economy in the use of materials, is so much saved of the\nnational capital; and what is saved remains to give new encouragement to\nthe labour of the producer, and to bestow an increase of comforts upon\nthe consumer. Again, the more that professional skill of every sort is\nbased upon real knowledge, the more productive will be the industry of\nevery class of labourers. Above all, sound morals, and pure and simple\ntastes, are the best preservatives from wasteful expenditure, both in\nthe rich, and in the poor; and he that limits his individual\ngratification to objects worthy of a rational being, has the best chance\nof acquiring a sufficiency for his wants, and of laying by something to\nprovide a fund for that productive consumption by which the wants of\nothers are supplied.\n\nWith these general remarks upon accumulation and consumption, let us\nproceed to consider some points connected with the application of\ncapital.\n\nThe use of capital consists in its advance. It goes before all\noperations of labour and trade. It is the power that sets labour and\ntrade in motion; just as the power of wind, or water, or steam, gives\nmovement to wheels and pistons.\n\nLet us briefly see how capital operates upon the three great branches of\nhuman industry, namely, upon agriculture, manufactures, and commerce.\n\nA farmer having acquired capital, either by the former savings of\nhimself or his fathers, or by borrowing from the savings of others,\ntakes a certain number of acres of land. He changes his capital of money\ninto other things which are equally capital;--into horses, and cows, and\nsheep, and agricultural instruments, and seed. He makes an advance in\nthe hope of producing a profit. He therefore sets his horses to\nwork;--he gets milk from his cows;--he shears his sheep;--he fattens his\noxen;--and he put his tools into the hands of labourers, to prepare the\nground for the reception of his seed. He is paying money away on every\nside, which he would not do if he did not expect a return, with a\nprofit. By all these operations--by the work of his horses and his\nlabourers--by the increase in number, and the increase in value of his\nflocks and herds,--and by the harvest after the seed-time,--new produce\nis created which produces a return of capital, and ought to produce a\nprofit if that capital is properly expended. The hope of profit sets the\ncapital to work, and the capital sets the labour to work. If there were\nno capital there would be no labour. Capital gives the labourer the\npower, which he has not in himself, of working for a profit.\n\nA capitalist desires to set up a cotton manufactory. He erects\nbuildings, he purchases machines, he buys cotton-wool, he engages\nworkmen. The annual value of the buildings and of the machines,--that is\nthe interest upon their cost, added to their loss by wear and tear--the\nprice of the raw material, and the wages of the workmen, are all\ncalculated to be paid out of the price at which the cotton thread will\nbe sold. To engage in such large undertakings, in which the returns are\nslow, there must be great accumulation of capital. To engage in such\nlarge undertakings, in which the risk is considerable, there must be\nabundant enterprise. Without extensive accumulations of capital, which\nproduce enterprise, they could not be engaged in at all.\n\nCapital employed in commerce circulates through the world in a thousand\nforms; but it all comes back in produce to the country that sends it\nout. Nations that have no accumulated stock, that is no capital, have no\ncommerce; and where there is no commerce there are no ships and no\nsailors; and there are no comforts besides those which spring up at the\nfeet of the more fortunate individuals of such nations.\n\nIn all these operations of capital upon the enterprises of agriculture,\nmanufactures, and commerce, another power, which is the result of\naccumulation, is more or less, in most cases, called into action. That\npower is Credit.\n\nCredit, upon a large scale, arose from the difficulty of transmitting\ncoined money from place to place, and particularly from one country to\nanother; and hence the invention of bills of exchange. A bill of\nexchange is an order by one person on another, to pay to a specified\nperson, or his order, a sum of money specified, at a certain time and a\ncertain place. It is evident that the bill of exchange travels as much\nmore conveniently than a bag of money, as the bag of money travels more\nconveniently than the goods which it represents. For instance a box of\nhardware from Birmingham might be exchanged for a case of wine from\nBordeaux, by a direct barter between the tradesman at Birmingham and the\ntradesman at Bordeaux; but this sort of operation must be a very limited\none. Through the agency of merchants, the hardware finds it way to\nBordeaux, and the wine to Birmingham, without any direct exchange\nbetween either place, or without either having more of the commodity\nwanted than is required by the market,--that is, the supply proportioned\nto the demand of each town. Through the division of labour, the merchant\nwho exports the hardware to Bordeaux, and the merchant who imports the\nwine from Bordeaux, are different people; and there are other people\nengaged in carrying on other transactions at and with Bordeaux, with\nwhom these merchants come in contact. When, therefore, the merchant at\nBordeaux has to pay for the hardware in England, he obtains a bill of\nexchange from some other merchant who has to receive money from England,\nfor the wine which he has sent there. And thus not only is there no\ndirect barter between the grower of the wine and the manufacturer of the\nhardware, but the wine and the hardware are each paid for without any\ndirect remittance of coined money from France to England, but by a\ntransfer of the debt due from one person to another in each country. By\nthis transfer, the transaction between the buyer and the seller is at\nonce brought to maturity; and by this operation the buyer and seller are\neach benefited, because the exchange which each desires is rendered\nincomparably more easy, because more speedy and complete. The same\nprinciple applies to transactions between commercial men in the same\ncountry. The order for payment, which stands in the place of coined\nmoney in one case, is called a Foreign bill of exchange; in the other an\nInland bill of exchange.\n\nThe operation of credit in a country whose industry is in an advanced\nstate of activity, is extended over all its commercial transactions, by\nthe necessity of obtaining circulating capital for the carrying forward\nthe production of any commodity, from its first to its last stages. A\nmanufacturer has a large sum expended in workshops, warehouses,\nmachinery, tools. This is called his plant, or fixed capital. He has\ncapital invested also in the raw material which he intends to convert\ninto some article of utility. He works up his raw material; he makes\nadvances for the labour required in working it up. The article is at\nlength ready for the market. The wholesale dealer, who purchases of the\nmanufacturer, sells to a retailer, who is in the habit of buying upon\ncredit, long or short, because the article remains a certain time in his\nhands before it reaches the consumer, who ultimately pays for it. From\nthe time when a fleece of wool is taken from the sheep's back in\nAustralia, till it is purchased in the shape of a coat in London, there\nare extensive outlays in every department, which could not be carried on\nsteadily unless there were facilities of credit from one person\nconcerned in the production to another person concerned in the\nproduction,--the whole credit being grounded upon the belief that the\ndebt contracted in so many stages will be repaid by the sale of the\ncloth to the consumer. The larger operations of this credit are\nrepresented by bills of exchange, or engagements to pay at a given date;\nand these bills being converted into cash by a banker, furnish a\nconstant supply of consumable commodities to all parties concerned in\nadvancing the production, till the produce arrives in the hands of the\nconsumer. To judge of the extent to which credit is carried in this\ncountry, it is only necessary to mention, that five millions sterling\nare daily paid in bills and cheques by the London bankers alone; that\nthe Bank of England alone, in 1853, discounted bills to the amount of\ntwenty-five millions sterling; and that the note circulation of the\nUnited Kingdom is about forty millions. Credit, undoubtedly, if\nconducted upon fair principles, represents some capital actually in\nexistence, and therefore does not really add to the accumulation or\ncapital of the producers. But it enables men in trade at once to have\nstock and circulating capital--to use even their houses and shops and\nmanufactories and implements; and to give, at the same time, a security\nto others upon that fixed capital. This process is, as it were, as if\nthey coined that fixed capital. The credit, which is rendered as secure\nas possible in all its stages by the accumulating securities of the\ndrawer, acceptor, and endorsers of a bill of exchange, brings capital\ninto activity,--it carries it directly to those channels in which it may\nbe profitably employed,--it conducts it to those channels by a\nsystematic mode of payment for its use, which we call interest, or\ndiscount;--and it therefore carries forward accumulation to its highest\npoint of productiveness.\n\nIf the reader will turn to the passage in our third chapter, where\nTanner describes the refusal of the traders to give him credit, he will\nsee how capital, advanced upon credit, sets industry in motion. The\nIndians had accumulated no store of skins to exchange for the trader's\nstore of guns, ammunition, traps, and blankets. The trader, although he\npossessed the articles which the Indians wanted, refused to advance them\nupon the usual credit; and they were consequently as useless to the\nIndians as if they had remained in a warehouse at Liverpool or Glasgow.\nWhen the credit was taken away from the Indians, they could no longer be\nexchangers. Their own necessities for clothing were too urgent to enable\nthem to turn their attention from that supply to accumulate capital for\nexchange, after the winter had passed away. They hunted only for\nthemselves. The trader went without his skins, and the Indians without\ntheir blankets. Doubtless, the keenness of commercial activity soon saw\nthat this state of things was injurious even to the more powerful party,\nfor the accustomed credit was presently restored to the Indians. It was\nthe only means by which that balance of power could be quickly restored\nwhich would enable the parties again to become exchangers. Every\nexchange presupposes a certain equality in the exchangers; and credit,\ntherefore, from the capitalist to the non-capitalist, must, in many\ncases, be the first step towards any transaction of mutual profit. If\nthe Indians had adopted the resolution of Tanner, to do without the\nblankets for the winter, and had substituted the more imperfect clothing\nof skins,--and if the traders had persevered in their system of refusing\ncredit, that is, of advancing capital,--the exchange of furs must have\nbeen suspended, until, by incessant industry, and repeated self-denial,\nthe Indians had become capitalists themselves. They probably, after a\nlong series of laborious accumulations, might have done without the\ncredit--that is, have not consumed the goods which they received before\nthey were in a condition to give their own goods as equivalents; and\nthen, as it usually happens in the exchanges of civilized society, they\nwould have ensured a higher reward for their labour. The credit rendered\nthe labour of the Indians loss severe, inasmuch as it allowed them to\nwork with the aid of the accumulations of others, instead of with their\nown accumulations. But it doubtless gave the traders advantage, and\njustly so, in the terms of the exchange. If the Indians had brought\ntheir furs to the mart where the dealers had brought their blankets,\nthere would have been exchange of capital for capital. As the Indians\nhad not accumulated any furs, and were only hoping to accumulate, there\nwas, on the part of the white traders, an advance of a present good for\na remote equivalent. The traders had doubtless suffered by the\ncasualties which prevented the Indians completing their engagements.\nThey made a sudden, and therefore an unjust, change in their system. The\nforbearance of the Indians shows their respect for the rights of\nproperty, and their consequent appreciation of their own interests. They\nmight, possessing the physical superiority, have seized the blankets\nand ammunition of the traders. If so, their exchanges would have been\nat an end; the capital would have gone to stimulate other industry; the\nIndians would have ripped up the goose with the golden eggs.\n\nIt is easy to see that the employment of capital, through the agency of\ncredit, in all the minute channels of advanced commerce, must wholly\ndepend upon the faith which one man has in the stability and the honesty\nof another; and also upon the certainty of the protection of the laws\nwhich establish security of property, to enforce the fulfilment of the\ncontract.\n\nIt is necessary to establish this point of the security of property, as\none of the rights, and we may add as the greatest right, of\nindustry;--and therefore, at the risk of being thought tedious, we may\ncall attention to the general state of the argument in reply to some who\nhold that the rights of property, and the rights of labour, are\nantagonistic.\n\nThe value of an article produced is the labour required for its\nproduction.\n\nCapital, the accumulation of past labour, represents the entire amount\nof that labour which is not consumed;--it is the old labour stored up\nfor exchange with new labour.\n\nThose who attach an exclusive value to new labour as distinguished from\nold labour--or labour as distinguished from capital--say that the new\nproduction shall be stimulated by the old production, without allowing\nthe old production to be exchanged against the new;--that is, that the\nold production shall be an instrument for the reward of new labour, but\nnot a profitable one to its possessor.\n\nThe doctrine therefore amounts to this; that labour shall be exchanged\nwith labour, but not with the produce of labour,--or that there shall be\nno exchange whatever;--for if the present labourers are to have the sole\nbenefit of the capital, the principle of exchange, in which both\nexchangers benefit, is destroyed. There must be an end of all exchanges\nwhen the things to be exchanged are not equally desired by both parties.\nIf the capitalist is to lend or give the capital to the labourer\nwithout a profit, or without a perfect freedom which would entitle him\nto withhold it if no profit could be obtained, the balance is destroyed\nbetween capital and labour. Accumulation is then at an end; because the\nsecurity of the thing accumulated to the accumulator is at an end. The\nsecurity is at an end, because if the new labour is to have the\nadvantage of the old labour without compensation or exchange, the new\nlabour must take the old labour by force or fraud; for the new cannot\nproceed without the old;--labour cannot stir without capital.\nAccumulation, therefore, being at an end, labour for an object beyond\nthe wants of an hour is at an end. Society resolves itself into its\nfirst elements.\n\nStrabo, the ancient geographer, has described a tribe amongst whom the\ntitle of the priest to the priesthood was acquired by having murdered\nhis predecessor; and consequently the business of the priest in\npossession was not to discharge the duties of the priesthood, but to\nwatch sword in hand, to defend himself against the new claimant to the\noffice. If the principle were to be recognized, that the accumulation of\n_former_ labour belongs to the _present_ labourers; and that the best\ntitle to the accumulation is to have added nothing towards it, but only\nto be willing to add,--the title of the labourers in possession would\nrequire to be maintained by a constant encounter with new claimants; as\nthe priest of Strabo, who had dispossessed the previous priest, had to\ndread a similar expulsion from his office, by a new violence.\n\nThe course of national misery resulting from national disorders always\nbegins with financial embarrassment; by the destruction of capital, or\nits withdrawal from all useful works. Capital was circulated only\nbecause it could be circulated with security. If the present capitalists\nwere driven away, as some reasoners would imply might easily be done,\nand the labourers were left to work the tools and steam-engines--to\nlabour in the manufactories, and to inhabit the houses of the present\ncapitalists,--production could not go on an hour, unless the\nappropriation of the plunder were secured to the individual plunderers.\n\nIn speaking of credit, then, we naturally turn to the only foundation\nupon which credit rests--the security of property. Commercial men, who\nknow how easily credit is destroyed by individual guilt or imprudence,\nalso know how easily it is interrupted, generally by a combination of\ncircumstances over which an individual, apart from a nation, has no\ncontrol. The instant that any circumstances take place which weaken the\ngeneral confidence in the security of property, credit is withdrawn. The\nplant remains--the tools and warehouses stand--the shops are open; but\nproduction languishes, labour is suspended. The stocks of consumable\ncommodities for the maintenance of labour may still in part exist, but\nthey do not reach the labourer through the usual channels. Then men say,\nand say truly, confidence is shaken; the usual relations of society are\ndisturbed. Capital fences itself round with prudence--hesitates to go on\naccumulating--refuses to put its existence in peril--withdraws in great\npart from production--\n\n \"Spreads its light wings, and in a moment flies.\"\n\nWithin these six years we have had before our eyes a fearful example of\nthe universal evil created by the sudden loss of confidence in the\nsecurity of property; The revolution of 1848, which overthrew the\ngovernment of Louis Philippe, was associated with a general belief that\nthe whole fabric of society was about to be shaken in the overthrow of\ncapital. The capital was instantly withdrawn from circulation; there was\nno exchange; there was no labour. The more immediate sufferers were the\nworkmen themselves; and the mode in which the ruling power relieved them\nby giving forced employment was wholly unavailing, except as a temporary\nexpedient. After several dreadful months of tumult and bloodshed, a\nlittle confidence was restored by the pressure of an armed force; and\nwhen at length a government was established that rested upon security of\nproperty, it was hailed as the greatest of all blessings, although\naccompanied with some evils to which Englishmen, especially, cannot\nshut their eyes. When capital and labour could once more work in a safe\nunion, France quickly developed those great natural resources with which\nshe is blessed; and the ingenuity of her people was again called into\nactivity, to carry forward and perfect those resources by higher and\nhigher exertions of science and skill.\n\nWhen the great body of the people of a country are so generally educated\nas to know that it is the interest of the humblest and the poorest that\nproperty shall be secure, there will be little occasion for fencing\nround property with guards, against the secret violence of the midnight\nrobber, or the open daring of the noonday mob. \"It is an enlightened\nmoral public sentiment that must spread its wings over our dwellings,\nand plant a watchman at our doors.\"[35] A very little insecurity\ndestroys the working of capital. The cloth trade of Verviers, a town in\nFrance, was utterly ruined, because the morals of the people in the town\nwere so bad, and the police so ineffectual, that the thefts in the\nvarious stages of the manufacture amounted to eight per cent. upon the\nwhole quantity produced. The trade of the place, therefore, was\ndestroyed; and the capital went to encourage labour in places where the\nrights of property were better respected.\n\nBut, generally speaking, the security of property is not so much\nweakened by plunder, as by those incessant contentions which harass the\nmarch of capital and labour; and keep up an irritation between the\nclasses of the capitalists and the labourers, who ought to be united in\nthe most intimate compact for a common good. These irritations most\nfrequently exhibit themselves in the shape of combinations for the\nadvance of wages. We have no hesitation in declaring our opinion that it\nis the positive duty of the working-man to obtain as high wages as he\ncan extract out of the joint products of capital and labour; and that he\nhas an equal right to unite with other workmen in making as good a\nbargain as he can, consistently with the rights of others, for his\ncontribution of industry to the business of production. But it is also\nnecessary for us to declare our conviction that, in too many cases, the\nworking men attempt an object which no single exertion, and no union\nhowever formidable or complete, can ever accomplish. They attempt to\nforce wages beyond the point at which they could be maintained, with\nreference to the demand for the article produced;--and if they succeed\nthey extinguish the demand, and therefore extinguish the power of\nworking at any wages. They drive the demand, and therefore the supply,\ninto new channels;--and they thrust out capital from amongst them, to\nwork in other places where it can work with freedom and security. Above\nall, such combinations, and the resistance which they call up, have a\ntendency to loosen the bonds of mutual regard which ought to subsist\nbetween capitalists and labourers. Their real interests are one and the\nsame.\n\nAll men are united in one bond of interests, and rights, and duties; and\nalthough each of us have particular interests, the parts which we play\nin society are so frequently changing, that under one aspect we have\neach an interest contrary to that which we have under another aspect. It\nis in this way that we find ourselves suddenly bound closely with those\nagainst whom we thought ourselves opposed a moment before; and thus no\nclass can ever be said to be inimical to another class. In the midst,\ntoo, of all these instantaneous conflicts and unions, we are all\ninterchangeably related in the double interest of capitalists and\nconsumers,--that is, we have each and all an interest that property\nshall be respected, and that production shall be carried forward to its\nutmost point of perfection, so as to make its products accessible to\nall. The power of production, in its greatest developments of industry,\nis really addressed to the satisfaction of the commonest wants. If\nproduction, as in despotic countries, were principally labouring that\nsome men might wear cloth of gold whilst others went naked, then we\nshould say that production was exclusively for the rich oppressor. But,\nthank God, the man who _exclusively_ wears \"purple and fine linen every\nday\" has ceased to exist. The looms do not work for him alone, but for\nthe great mass of the people. It is to the staple articles of\nconsumption that the capitals of manufactures and commerce address their\nemployment. Their employment depends upon the ability of the great body\nof the people to purchase what they produce. The courtiers of the\nfifteenth century in France carried boxes of sugar-plums in their\npockets, which they offered to each other as a constant compliment; the\ncourtiers of the next age carried gingerbread in the same way; and\nlastly, the luxury of snuff drove out the sugar-plums and the\ngingerbread. But the consumption of tobacco would never have furnished\nemployment to thousands, and a large revenue to the state, if the use of\nsnuff had rested with the courtiers. The producers, consequently, having\nfound the largest, and therefore the most wealthy class of consumers\namongst the working men, care little whether the Peer wears a silk or a\nvelvet coat, so that the Peasant has a clean shirt. When capital and\nlabour work with freedom and security, the wants of all are supplied,\nbecause there is cheap production. It is a bad state of society where\n\n \"One flaunts in rags, one flutters in brocade.\"\n\nThose who like the brocade may still wear it in a state of things where\nthe rights of industry are understood; but the rags, taking the average\ncondition of the members of society, are banished to the lands from\nwhich capital is driven,--while those who labour with skill, and\ntherefore with capital, have decent clothes, comfortable dwellings,\nwholesome food, abundant fuel, medical aid in sickness, the comfort and\namusement of books in health. These goods, we have no hesitation in\nsaying, all depend upon the security of property; and he that would\ndestroy that security by force or fraud is the real destroyer of the\ncomforts of those humbler classes whose rights he pretends to advocate.\n\nThe principles which _we_ maintain, that the interests of all men, and\nof the poorer classes especially, are necessarily advanced in a\nconstantly increasing measure by the increase of capital and skill, have\nbeen put so strikingly by a philosophical writer, that we cannot forbear\nquoting so valuable an authority in support and illustration of our\nopinions:--\n\n \"The advantage conferred by the augmentation of our physical\n resources, through the medium of increased knowledge and improved\n art, have this peculiar and remarkable property,--that they are in\n their nature diffusive, and cannot be enjoyed in any exclusive\n manner by a few. An eastern despot may extort the riches and\n monopolize the art of his subjects for his own personal use; he\n may spread around him an unnatural splendour and luxury, and stand\n in strange and preposterous contrast with the general penury and\n discomfort of his people; he may glitter in jewels of gold and\n raiment of needle-work; but the wonders of well-contrived and\n executed manufacture which we use daily, and the comforts which\n have been invented, tried, and improved upon by thousands, in\n every form of domestic convenience, and for every ordinary purpose\n of life, can never be enjoyed by him. To produce a state of things\n in which the physical advantages of civilized life can exist in a\n high degree, the stimulus of _increasing comforts and constantly\n elevated desires_ must have been felt by millions; since it is not\n in the power of a few individuals to create that wide demand for\n useful and ingenious applications, which alone can lead to great\n and rapid improvements, unless backed by that arising from the\n speedy diffusion of the same advantages among the mass of\n mankind.\"[36]\n\n * * * * *\n\nIn looking back upon all the various circumstances which we have\nexhibited as necessary for carrying industry to the greatest point of\nproductiveness, we think that we must have established satisfactorily\nthat the two great elements which concur in rendering labour in the\nhighest degree beneficial, are, 1st, the accumulated results of past\nlabour, and 2nd, the contrivances by which manual labour is\nassisted,--those contrivances being derived from the accumulations of\nknowledge. Capital and skill, therefore, are essential to the productive\npower of labour. The different degrees in which each possesses capital\nand skill make the difference between an English manufacturer and a\nNorth American savage; and the less striking gradations in the\nproductive power of the English manufacturer of the present time, and\nthe English manufacturer of five hundred years ago, may be all resolved\ninto the fact that the one has at his command a very large amount of\ncapital and skill, and that the other could only command a very small\namount of the same great elements of production.\n\nWe think, also, that we have shown that the accumulation of former\nlabour in the shape of tangible wealth, and the accumulation of former\nlabour in the shape of the no less real wealth of knowledge, are\nprocesses which go on together, each supporting, directing, and\nregulating the other. Knowledge is the offspring of some leisure\nresulting from a more easy supply of the physical wants; and that\nleisure cannot exist unless capital exists; which allows some men to\nlive upon former accumulations. Capital, therefore, may be said to be\nthe parent of skill, as capital and skill united are the encouragers and\ndirectors of profitable labour.\n\nWe have shown that the only foundation of accumulation is security of\nproperty--we have shown, too, that labour is the most sacred of\nproperties. It results, therefore, that in any state of society in which\nthe laws did not equally protect the capitalist and the labourer as free\nexchangers, each having the most absolute command over his property,\ncompatible with a due regard to the rights of the other,--in such a\nstate, where there was no real freedom and no real security, there would\nbe very imperfect production; and production being imperfect, all men,\nthe capitalists and the labourers, would be equally destitute, weak,\nignorant, and miserable.\n\nIt is under these several conditions, all working together with united\nforce, that the entire labour of this country, and indeed of all other\ncountries advanced in civilization, must now be directed. The enormous\nincrease of productiveness which we have exhibited, in so many\noperations of industry, is chiefly the result of production carried on\nupon a large scale, and working with every possible application of\nscience. It is in this sense that Knowledge is Power; and skilled labour\nis a part of that power.\n\n [Illustration: Medal to Locke]\n\nThe mode in which the respective proportions of capitalist and labourer\nare assigned in the division of the products of industry, are called by\none Profit, by the other Wages. If we were writing a treatise on\nPolitical Economy, we should have to regard Rent as distinct from the\nprofits of capital. But for our purpose this is unnecessary. We proceed,\nthen, to consider the practical relations of Profit and Wages, as they\nexist amongst us. Unquestionably the only solid foundation for these\nrelations must be equal justice; without which there can be neither\npermanent prosperity nor increasing intelligence. A medal to our great\nphilosopher, Locke, exhibits Justice and Plenty enthroned together.\n\n\n [33] See p. 61.\n\n [34] An Essay on the 'Relations between Labour and Capital.' By C.\n Morison, p. 34.\n\n [35] Everett's 'Address to the Working Man's Party.'\n\n [36] Sir John Herschel's 'Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy.'\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\n Natural law of wages--State-laws regulating\n wages--Enactments regulating consumption--The labour-fund\n and the want-fund--Ratio of capital to population--State of\n industry at the end of the seventeenth century--Rise of\n manufactures--Wages and prices--Turning over capital.\n\n\n [Illustration: Vision of Henry I.]\n\nThe old chroniclers relate that our Norman king, Henry I., had once a\nterrible vision, of soldiers, and priests, and peasants, surrounding his\nbed, one band succeeding another, and threatening to kill him. The\nlegend became the subject of illuminated drawings in an ancient MS.\npreserved at Oxford, and one of these represented the tillers of the\nland, with spade, and fork, and scythe, demanding justice. The\ncultivators were loaded with heavy exactions, so great that the tenants\nof the crown even offered to give up their ploughs to the king. They\nploughed, but they reaped not themselves. In such a state of things\nthere could be no accumulation, and no profitable labour. The funds for\nsupplying the wages of labour were exhausted. The country was\ndepopulated.\n\nDuring the next two centuries, the condition of the people had been\nmaterially improved. Capital had increased, and so had population. But\ncapital had increased faster than population, and hence the improvement.\nThe class of free labourers had for the most part succeeded to the old\nclass of villeins. Labourers for hire, without understanding the great\nprinciples which govern the rate of wages, any more than did their\nmasters, would practically seek to measure their earnings according to\nthose principles. The lawgivers determined the contrary.[37] The Statute\nof Labourers, 23rd Edward III., says:--\"Because a great part of the\npeople, and especially of workmen and servants, late died of the\npestilence, many, seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity of\nservants, will not serve unless they receive excessive wages.\" They were\ntherefore to be compelled to serve, and they were to serve at the same\nwages which they had received three years before. The ratio of\npopulation, in consequence of the pestilence, had fallen considerably\nbelow the ratio of accumulated capital seeking to employ labour. Under\nthe natural laws of demand and supply, the scarcity of labourers and the\nexcess of capital would have raised the wages of labour. These laws were\nnot to operate. Forty years after this enactment of Edward III., comes\nthe statute of Richard II., which says that \"Servants and labourers will\nnot, nor by a long season would, serve and labour without outrageous and\nexcessive hire, and much more than hath been given to such servants and\nlabourers in any time past, so that for scarcity of the said servants\nand labourers the husbands and land-tenants may not pay their rents, nor\nscarcely live upon their lands.\" Here was a distinct conflict between\nthe capitalists seeking profits and the labourers seeking wages. The\nlaw-makers resolved that the hires of the servants and labourers should\nbe \"put in certainty;\" and they fixed the rate of wages throughout the\nland. They settled the contest in favour of profits, arbitrarily. To\navoid this interference with the due payments of their labour in\nproportion to the ratio of capital and labour, the husbandmen might have\nfled to the towns, and some did so. But they were met there by the\nenactment that the artificers should be subject to the same controlling\npower, and that the boy who had laboured at the plough and cart till he\nwas twelve years old should continue so to labour for the rest of his\nlife. This state of things was truly slavery without the name. Some such\nmarvellous folly and injustice went on for several centuries. But,\nregulating wages, the laws also undertook to regulate the cost of food\nand of clothing--their quality, and their consumption--how much people\nshould eat, and what coats they should wear. These absurdities also went\non for centuries--of course under a perpetual system of open violation\nor secret evasion. The people, we may safely conclude, never fully\nbelieved what their rulers told them of their prodigious kindness in\nmanaging private affairs so much better than individuals could\nthemselves. Mr. Sergeant Thorpe, judge of assize for the northern\ncircuit, in a charge to the grand jury in 1648, tells them to be\nvigilant against servants taking higher wages than those allowed by the\njustices,--to enforce the laws against everybody who bought every thing\nfor the sustenance of man, with intent to make a profit by it--against\nevery tradesman who did not produce his wares in conformity with the\nstatutes;--wonderful laws, which would not permit the tanner to sell a\npiece of leather that had not been kept twelve months in the tan-pit,\nand which forbade the cloth-maker to use lime in whitening linen cloth.\n\"And thus you see,\" says solemn Mr. Sergeant Thorpe, \"how the wisdom of\nthe common laws of this nation, and of the parliaments, from time to\ntime, hath provided for the security and ease of the people; and hath\nfurnished us with a salve for every sore; and gives us rules and\ninstructions how to govern ourselves, that we may be helpful and useful\nto one another.\"[38] Instead of providing the salve, it probably would\nhave been better not to have made the sore.\n\nBut, after all, it is scarcely candid to laugh at the wisdom of \"the\ngood old times\" in regulating trades, when in our own day, we have had\nexcise laws which interfered in the most absurd way with production, and\nsome of which still interfere. Nor can we look with perfect complacency\nat the manifest impolicy and injustice of fixing the rate of wages,\nwhen, within the last quarter of a century, we have had justices at work\nall over the country to keep down the wages of labour, by paying\nlabourers not in proportion to their earnings, but according to their\nnecessities; and raising up a fund for the encouragement of idleness and\nimprovidence, by a diversion of the real funds for the maintenance of\nlabour. The Poor Laws, as they were administered in the beginning and\nmiddle of the last half century, did this evil, and a great deal more;\nand persons of influence, with the most benevolent intentions, could see\nno difference between the parish allowance to able-bodied labourers, and\nthe wages which they could have really commanded for their labour if\nthis opposing fund had not been called into action. In those times, and\neven after a strenuous effort had been made to bring about an\nimprovement, educated gentlemen used to say--\"something must be done to\ngive the labourers employment upon fair wages;\" and they were accustomed\nto believe that \"some plan should be devised whereby work should be at\nhand.\"[39] These gentlemen, and many others, did not understand that\nthere is a natural fund for the maintenance of labour which is to\nproduce such beneficial results; that this fund cannot be increased but\nby the addition of the results of _more_ profitable labour; that\nwhatever is paid out of the fund for the support of unprofitable labour\nhas a direct tendency to lower the rate at which the profitable labour\nis paid,--to prevent the payment of \"fair wages;\" and that there is a\n\"plan\" which requires no devising, because our necessities are\nconstantly calling it into operation,--the natural law of exchange,\nwhich makes \"work at hand\" wherever there is capital to pay for it. Such\nreasoners also held that the labourers were not to seek for the fund\n\"about the country on an uncertainty;\" but that the work for the\nlabourers \"should be at hand\"--\"it should be certain.\" This clearly was\nnot the ordinary labour-fund. That is neither always at hand, nor is it\nalways certain. It shifts its place according to its necessity for use;\nit is uncertain in its distribution in proportion to the demand upon it.\nThe fund which was to work this good was clearly not the labour-fund--it\nwas the _want_-fund; and the mistake that these gentlemen and many\nothers fell into was that the want-fund had qualities of far greater\npowers of usefulness than the labour-fund; that the parish purse was the\npurse of Fortunatus, always full; that the parish labour field was like\nthe tent of the Indian queen in the Arabian tale--you could carry it in\nthe palm of your hand, and yet it would give shelter to an army of\nthousands. All these fallacies are now, happily, as much exploded as the\nlaws for the regulation of wages and the price of commodities. The real\nlabour-fund--the accumulation of a portion of the results of past\nlabour--is the only fund which can find profitable work and pay fair\nwages.\n\nIt is extremely difficult to ascertain the ratio of Capital to\nPopulation at any particular period; yet some approximations may be\nmade, which, in a degree, may indicate the activity or the inertness of\nthe labour-fund, in regard to the condition of the labourer.\n\nAt the end of the seventeenth century, about half the land of England\nand Wales was, according to the best authorities, held to be under\ncultivation, either as arable or pasture. As the whole area of England\nand Wales is about thirty-seven millions of acres, this would show a\ncultivation of eighteen million five hundred thousand acres. The entire\nquantity of wheat, rye, barley, oats, pease, beans, and vetches, grown\nupon these eighteen million and a half acres, was estimated at less than\nten millions of quarters, wheat being little more than a sixth of the\nwhole produce. The quantity of stock annually fattened for food was even\nmore inconsiderable. We may safely assume that in a century and a half\nthe amount of agricultural produce in England has increased five-fold.\nTwo-thirds of the whole area of England and Wales are now under\ncultivation; for in the census returns of 1851 we have twenty-five\nmillion acres of farm holdings, occupied by two hundred and twenty-five\nthousand farmers. In the calculations of Gregory King, in 1688, the\nnumber of farmers was given at a hundred and fifty thousand; but the\nnumber of lesser freeholders, who were doubtless cultivators, was also a\nhundred and twenty thousand. The produce of the land has increased at a\ngreater rate than the increase of population. According to the commonly\nreceived estimates, the population of England and Wales was about five\nmillions and a half, perhaps six millions, at the end of the seventeenth\ncentury; it is now eighteen millions. The inhabited houses, according to\nthe hearth-books of 1690,[40] were one million three hundred and twenty\nthousand. In 1851 they were three million two hundred and seventy-eight\nthousand. The hearth-books of 1685 show that, of the houses of the\nkingdom, five hundred and fifty-four thousand had only one chimney--they\nwere mere hovels.\n\nGregory King has given 'A Scheme of the Income and Expense of the\nseveral Families in England, calculated for the year 1688.' He considers\nthat, in the aggregate, there were five hundred thousand families who\nwere accumulators--that is to say, whose annual expense was less than\ntheir income. He values this accumulation at three millions. The number\nof persons comprised in the accumulating families was two million six\nhundred and seventy-five thousand. Of this number only one-fifth\nbelonged to the trading classes--merchants, shopkeepers and tradesmen,\nartisans and handicrafts. The remainder were the landholders, farmers,\nlawyers, clergy, holders of office, and persons in liberal arts and\nsciences. But there was a large non-accumulating class, consisting of\ntwo million eight hundred and twenty-five thousand, whom he puts down as\n\"decreasing the wealth of the kingdom,\"--that is to say, that their\nannual expense exceeded their income; and this excess he computes at six\nhundred and twenty-two thousand pounds, which reduces the annual\nnational accumulation to two million four hundred thousand pounds. The\npositive plunderers of the national capital were thirty thousand\nvagrants, such as gipsies, thieves, and beggars. We were in a happier\ncondition than Scotland at the same period; where, according to Fletcher\nof Saltoun, there were two hundred thousand \"people begging from door to\ndoor,\" out of a population of one million, for whose suppression he saw\nno remedy but slavery. We were more favoured, too, than France; where,\nas Vauban records, in 1698, more than a tenth part of the population of\nsixteen millions were beggars, in the extremity of hunger and\nnakedness.[41] But we may be sure that in England the two million eight\nhundred and twenty-five thousand \"labouring people, out-servants,\ncottagers, and paupers,\" who are put down by Gregory King as\nnon-accumulators, were working upon very insufficient means, and that\nthey were constantly pressing upon the fund for the maintenance of\nprofitable labour. It is a curious fact that he classes \"cottagers and\npaupers\" together; but we can account for it when we consider how much\nof the land of the country was uninclosed, and how many persons derived\na scanty subsistence from the commons, upon which they were \"squatters,\"\nliving in mean huts with \"one chimney.\"\n\nThe small number of \"artisans and handicrafts,\" comprising only sixty\nthousand families, is of itself a sufficient indication that our\nmanufactures, properly so called, were of very trifling amount. In\nvarious parts of this volume we have incidentally mentioned how slowly\nthe great industries of this country grew into importance. At the period\nof which we are now speaking, nearly every article of clothing was, in\nmany districts, of domestic production, and was essentially connected\nwith the tillage of the land. The flax and the wool were spun at home;\nthe stockings were knit; the shoes were often untanned hide nailed upon\nheavy clogs. Furniture there was little beyond the rough bench and the\nstraw bed. The fuel came from the woods and hedges. About forty thousand\nof the cottages mentioned in the hearth-books had some land belonging to\nthem; and, to prevent the growth of a \"squatter\" population, it was the\nbusiness of the Grand Jury to present, as a nuisance, all newly-erected\ncottages that had not four acres of land attached to them. There was a\ncontest perpetually going on between the more favoured portion who had\nregular means of subsistence, and the unhappy many who were pressing\nupon those means, in all the various forms of pauperism. One of the\nmeans of keeping down this class was to prevent them having dwellings.\n\nTowards the end of the seventeenth century, then, we see that there was\nsome accumulation of capital, however small. There was then a vague\nfeeling amongst the accumulators that something might be saved by\nsetting the unemployed and the starving to other work than was provided\nfor them in the fields. Population was pressing hard upon Capital. It\npressed, chiefly, in the shape of increasing demands upon the poor-rate.\nThe remedy universally proposed was \"to set the poor to work.\" The\nnotion was extremely crude as to the mode in which this was to be\neffected; but there was a sort of universal agreement expressed by sober\neconomists as well as visionary projectors, that the more general\nintroduction of manufactures would remedy the evil. Of course, the first\nthing to be done was to prohibit foreign manufactures by enormous\nduties; and then we were to go to work vigorously at home, knowing very\nlittle of the arts in which foreigners were greatly our superiors. But\nwe were to go to work, not in the ordinary way of profitable industry,\nby the capitalist working for profit employing the labourer for wages,\nbut by withholding from the poor the greater part of the want-fund, and\nconverting it into a labour-fund, by setting up manufactures under the\nmanagement of the poor-law administrators. Here, in these \"workhouses\"\nwas the linen trade to be cultivated. Mr. Firmin set up a workhouse in\nAldersgate Street, of the results of which, after four years, he thus\nspeaks:--\"This, I am sure, is the worst that can be said of it, that it\nhath not been yet brought to bear its own charges.\" Sir Matthew Hale was\nfor setting up a public manufactory of coarse cloth, of which the\ncharges for materials and labour in producing thirty-two yards would be\n11_l._ 15_s._ He calculated that the cloth, if sold, would only yield\n12_l._ The excellent Judge does not make any calculation of the cost of\nimplements, or rent, or superintendence. He desires to employ fifty-six\npoor people, who are paid by the parish 400_l._ per annum, and by this\ncloth manufacture he will give them the 400_l._ for their work, and save\nthe parish their cost. One thing is forgotten. The pauper labour\nyielding no profit, and consequently preventing any accumulation, the\nlabourers must be kept down to the minimum of subsistence, which appears\nto be about seven pounds per annum for each labourer. The earnings of\nthe artisan and handicraft are estimated by Gregory King at thirty-eight\npounds per annum. These were the wages of skilled labourers. The pauper\nlabourers were unskilled. If these schemes had not broken down by their\nown weight, and workhouse manufactories had gone on producing a\ncompetition of unskilled labourers with skilled, the rate of wages would\nhave been more and more deteriorated, and the amount of poor seeking\nworkhouse employment as a last resource more and more increased.\nExperience has very satisfactorily demonstrated that these schemes for\nemploying the poor ought to be strictly limited to the production of\narticles of necessity for their own consumption. Even the production of\nsuch articles is scarcely remunerating,--that is, the produce scarcely\nreturns the cost of materials and superintendence. Even the boasted Free\nand Pauper Colonies of Holland have turned out to be commercial\nfailures. They are not self-sustaining. The want of skill in the\ncolonists, and their disinclination to labour, having no immediate\nindividual benefit from their labours, have combined to produce the\nresult that one good day-labourer is worth five colonists working in\ncommon. There are also tenants of small colonial farms, at a low rent,\nand having many advantages. They are not so prosperous as the little\nfarmers out of the colony, who pay a higher rent, and have no incidental\nbenefits. The solution of the question is thus given:--\"The certainty\nthat the society will maintain them, whether they save or not, has an\nunfavourable influence on their habits.\"[42]\n\nThe increase of population was very small during the first fifty years\nof the eighteenth century. It absolutely declined at one period. The two\nmillion four hundred thousand pounds that were calculated by Gregory\nKing as annual savings, were probably more and more trenched upon by\npauperism and war, by \"malice domestic, foreign levy,\" under a disputed\nsuccession. The upper classes were licentious and extravagant; the\nlabourers in towns were drunkards to an excess that now seems hardly\ncredible. Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' was scarcely an exaggeration of the\ndestitution and misery that attended this national vice. About the\nmiddle of the century, or soon after, sprang up many of the great\nmechanical improvements which made us a manufacturing people; and which,\nin half a century, added a third to the population. In spite of the most\nexpensive war in which England had ever been engaged, the accumulated\ncapital, chiefly in consequence of these discoveries and improvements,\nhad increased as fast as the population in the second fifty years of the\neighteenth century. In the present century the population has doubled\nin fifty years; and the accumulated capital has more than doubled.\nPopulation has been recently increasing at the rate of one and a half\nper cent.; capital has been increasing at the rate of two and a half per\ncent.[43] It is this accumulation which has been steadily raising the\nrate of wages in many employments of industry; whilst the chemical and\nmechanical arts, the abundant means of rapid transit, the abolition or\nreduction of duties upon great articles of consumption, and the freedom\nof commercial intercourse, have given all the receivers of wages a\ngreatly increased command of articles of necessity, and even of what\nused to be thought luxuries.\n\nThere is nothing more difficult in economical inquiries than the attempt\nto ascertain what was the actual rate of wages at any given period. The\nfluctuations in the value of money enter into this question, more or\nless, at every period of our history. We find the nominal rate of wages\nconstantly increasing, from one generation to another, but we cannot at\nall be certain that the real rate is increasing. That nominal rate\nalways requires to be compared with the prices of the necessaries of\nlife. What pertains to wages pertains to all fixed money-payments. A\nFellow of a college applied to Bishop Fleetwood to know if he could\nconscientiously hold his fellowship, when the statutes of the college,\nmade in the time of Henry VI., say that no one shall so hold who has an\nestate of 5_l._ a year. The Fellow had an estate of much larger nominal\namount. The Bishop made a very valuable collection of the prices of\ncommodities, and he thus answers the conscientious inquirer:--\n\n \"If for 20 years together (from 1440 to 1460) the common price of\n wheat were 6_s._ 8_d._ the quarter; and if from 1686 to 1706 the\n common price of wheat were 40_s._ the quarter; 'tis plain that\n 5_l._ in H. VI. time would have purchased 15 quarters of wheat;\n for which you must have paid, for these last 20 years, 30 pound.\n So that 30 pound _now_, would be no more than equivalent to 5\n pound in the reign of H. VI. Thus if oats, from 1440 to 1460,\n were generally at 2_s._ the quarter, and from 1686 to 1706 were at\n 12_s._ the quarter, 'tis manifest that 12_s._ _now_ would be no\n more than equivalent to 2_s._ _then_, which is but a sixth part of\n it. Thus, if beans were _then_ 5_s._ and _now_ 30_s._ the quarter,\n the same proportion would be found betwixt 5_l._ and 30_l._ But\n you must not expect that everything will answer thus exactly. Ale,\n for instance, was, during the time of your founder, at\n three-halfpence the gallon; but it has been, ever since you were\n born, at 8_d._ at the least: which is but five times more, and a\n little over. So that 5_l._ heretofore (betwixt 1440 and 1460)\n would purchase no more ale than somewhat above 25_l._ would _now_.\n Again, good cloth, such as was to serve the best doctor in your\n University for his gown, was (between 1440 and 1460) at 3_s._\n 7_d._ the yard; at which rate, 5_l._ would have purchased 29\n yards, or thereabouts. _Now_ you may purchase that quantity of\n fine cloth at somewhat less, I think, than 25_l._ So that 25_l._\n _now_ would be an equivalent to your 5_l._ _then_, 250 years\n since, if you pay about 18_s._ the yard for your cloth. I think I\n have good reason to believe that beef, mutton, bacon, and other\n common provisions of life, were six times as cheap in H. VI. reign\n as they have been for these last 20 years. And therefore I can see\n no cause why 28 or 30_l._ per ann. should now be accounted a\n greater estate than 5_l._ was heretofore betwixt 1440 and\n 1460.\"[44]\n\nBut we are not to infer from these considerations that the wages of\nlabour ought to fluctuate with the prices of commodities, or that\npractically they do so fluctuate. If this were the principle of wages,\nevery improvement which lowers the price of commodities would lower the\nrewards of labour. Almost every article of necessity is cheaper now than\nit was ten years ago, taking the average of years; and the larger amount\nof this cheapness has been produced by improvements in manufactures, by\nfacilities of communication, and by the removal of taxation. At the same\ntime, taking the average of years and of employments, wages have risen.\nThere must be some general cause in operation to produce this result.\n\n [Illustration: Irish Mud-cabin.]\n\nThe wages of labour cannot be reduced below the standard necessary to\nsupport the labourer and his family whilst he produces. If he cannot\nobtain this support he ceases to be a producer. He is starved out of\nexistence; or he falls upon the public fund for the support of want; or\nhe becomes a beggar or a thief. In states of society where there is no\naccumulating capital, the labourer necessarily receives low wages,\nbecause he maintains himself at the minimum of subsistence. Our poet\nSpenser, writing nearly three centuries ago upon the miseries of\nIreland, describes the cottiers as inhabiting \"swine-sties rather than\nhouses.\" Swift, long after, describes the same state of things:--\"There\nare thousands of poor wretches who think themselves blessed if they can\nobtain a hut worse than the squire's dog-kennel, and an acre of ground\nfor a potato plantation.\" This condition of society unhappily lasted up\nto our own day. If the Irish cottier had been a labourer for wages\ninstead of deriving his miserable living direct from the land, he would\nhave been no better off, unless his desire for something higher than\nthe coarsest food, and the most wretched lodging, had set some limit to\nthe increase of population beyond the increase of capital. Population\nnecessarily increases faster than subsistence when there is no restraint\nupon the increase by the disposition to accumulate on the part of the\nlabourer. There may be accumulation in the form of his money-savings;\nand there may be accumulation in an increase of the conveniences of life\nby which he is surrounded. When there is neither money saved nor\ncomforts increased--when there is no accumulation for the gratification\nof other wants than that of food--competition is driving the labourers\nto the lowest point of misery. The competition in Ireland was for the\npossession of land, at an extravagant rent, out of the labour upon which\nthe cottier could only obtain the very lowest amount of necessaries for\nhis subsistence. If, in the habits of the whole body of the peasantry,\nclothes and furniture had been as necessary as potatoes, the oppressive\nexactions of the landlords must have yielded to what then would have\nbeen the natural rate, whether we call it profit or wages, necessary for\nthe maintenance of that peasantry; and the necessity, on their part, for\nmaintaining the average _status_ of their class, would in a considerable\ndegree have kept down the inordinate increase of the people. A century\nago the great body of the working-people of England ate rye bread, which\nis cheaper than wheaten. If all the workers were to come back to\nrye-bread, the rate at which they could be comfortably maintained would\nbe somewhat less; and unless the accumulation from the economy were\nexpended universally in some improved accommodation, labourers would\ngradually arise who would be contented with the smaller amount necessary\nfor subsistence, and the greater number of labourers seeking for wages\nwould depress the amount paid to each individual labourer.\n\n\"In England and Scotland,\" says Mr. Morison, \"the classes living by\nwages form the majority of the population.\" It has been estimated by Mr.\nGreg that the annual amount paid in wages is a hundred and forty\nmillions sterling; to which may be added twenty millions for the board\nof domestic servants. The profits of all the operations of industry to\nthe capitalists are estimated by Mr. Morison at ninety millions. The\ncensus returns show that there were three hundred and fifty-four\nthousand masters in trades, and farmers, employing fourteen hundred\nthousand men. This gives a proportion of about four men employed to one\nemployer. Compared with the estimate of profits it shows that each\nemployer, assuming the calculation to be correct, would derive a revenue\nof two hundred and fifty pounds a year as the recompense of his capital,\nskill, and risk. This is not so large an aggregate profit as is\nordinarily supposed. The men employed would each receive a revenue of\none hundred a year. But we must add a large number to the men receiving\nwages, who would not be returned by their employers; and the calculation\nof payments must be further diminished by the consideration that in many\nbranches of industry, and in factory labour especially, a very large\nnumber of females are employed, as well as boys. But the fact of the\ngeneral proportion of wages to profits is sufficiently striking to show\nthat the inequality of the condition of the labourer and the employer is\nnot so extravagantly great as we have been accustomed of late years to\nhear asserted.\n\nIn looking back upon the historical evidence which we possess, imperfect\nas it is, of the condition of society at various periods of our\nindustrial progress, we cannot doubt that there has been a process\nconstantly going forward by which the circumstances of all classes have\nbeen steadily raised. In the table of Gregory King, which we have\nseveral times referred to, the average income of ten thousand merchants\nis put down at three hundred a year; of shopkeepers and tradesmen at\nforty-five pounds; of farmers at forty-two pounds; and of labouring\npeople at fifteen pounds. The income of gentlemen is taken at two\nhundred and eighty pounds a year. The increase of the means of these\nvarious classes at the present day as compared with the end of the\nseventeenth century, has certainly been threefold. If we turn to the\npassage which we have quoted from the 'Chronicon Preciosum,' originally\npublished in 1707, we may at once compare the advantages which a\nthreefold increase of means will procure. Wheat is not six pounds a\nquarter, nor broadcloth two pounds fourteen shillings a yard,--which\nwould be the case if we trebled the prices of 1707. We have abundance of\nconveniences and comforts of which the people of Queen Anne's reign had\nno notion, which have been bestowed upon us by manufactures, and\ncommerce, and scientific agriculture.\n\nWe have already stated and illustrated the general principle that the\nwages of labour are determined by the accumulations of capital, compared\nwith the number of labourers. Hence it necessarily results that, as has\nbeen forcibly expressed, \"the additional capital, whenever it is\nproductively employed, will tend as certainly to the benefit of the\nworking population at large as if the owner were a trustee for their\nbenefit.\"[45] But the profitable employment of capital depends very\ngreatly upon activity, knowledge, and foresight on the part of the\ncapitalist. It was for the want of these qualities that all the old\nschemes for providing labour out of a common stock chiefly broke down.\nSir Matthew Hale, in his plans for employing paupers in spinning flax\nand weaving cloth, knew theoretically the truth that the amount of\ncapital available for the payment of labour would be largely increased\nby the rapidity with which it might be turned over. He says, \"If it\ncould be supposed that the cloth could be sold as soon as made,--which\nis not, I confess, reasonably to be expected--then a stock of 24_l._\nwould, by its continual return, provide materials and pay the workmen\nfor one loom's work in perpetuity.\" The \"if\" expresses the difference\nbetween individual commercial activity and knowledge, and official\nsluggishness and incapacity. But it also expresses the difference\nbetween the commerce of our days, and that of the end of the seventeenth\ncentury. Without roads, or canals, or railroads, how difficult was it to\nbring the seller and the buyer together! All manufactures would be, for\nthe most part, local. The cloths of Kendal might go to the neighbouring\nfairs on packhorses; and thence slowly spread through the country by\npedlers and other small dealers; and the proceeds might return to the\nmanufacturer at the end of a year. But the rapid turning over of capital\nwhich begins with buying a bale of cotton at New York, and having it in\nSydney in the shape of calico in three months, with the bill that is to\npay for it drawn at Manchester, accepted in Sydney, and discounted in\nLondon in another three months, is a turning over of capital which was\nscarcely imagined by the projectors and practical traders of a century\nago.\n\nThis rapid turning over of capital, and the consequent more rapid\naccumulation of the labour-fund, depends upon the confidence of the\ncapitalist that his capital will work to a profit. It will not so work\nif he is to be undersold. If wages could press upon profit beyond a\ncertain ascertained limit, he would be undersold. The home competition\nof localities and individuals is perpetually forcing on the most\neconomical arrangements in production. The foreign competition is doing\nso still more. If we have increased productiveness here, through\nscientific application, the same increased productiveness, from the same\ncauses, is going forward elsewhere. 'Price-Currents' supply a perpetual\nbarometer of industrial cloud or sunshine; and the manufacturer and\nmerchant have constantly to unfurl or furl their sails according to the\nindications. Whenever there is shipwreck, the ship's crew and the\ncaptain partake of a common calamity; and the calamity is always\nprecipitated and made more onerous when, from any cause, there is not\ncordial sympathy and agreement.\n\n [37] We have already noticed the ancient oppressive laws for the\n regulation of labour, in Chap. VII. We recur to them here more\n particularly, as illustrating the principle of Wages.\n\n [38] See the full 'Charge' in the 'Harleian Miscellany.'\n\n [39] See the Evidence on Poor-laws before a Committee of House of\n Commons, 1837.\n\n [40] Hearth-money was a tax upon houses according to the number of\n chimneys, at the rate of two shillings a chimney, for every house\n having more than two chimneys.\n\n [41] See the passage in Dunoyer, 'Liberte du Travail,' tom. i. p. 416.\n\n [42] Sir John M'Neill's 'Report on Free and Pauper Colonies in Holland.'\n 1853.\n\n [43] Morison, 'Labour and Capital,' Appendix B.\n\n [44] Chronicon Preciosum, 1745, p. 136.\n\n [45] Morison, 'Labour and Capital,' p. 24.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\n What political economy teaches--Skilled labour and trusted\n labour--Competition of unskilled labour--Competition of\n uncapitalled labour--Itinerant traders--The contrast of\n organised industry--Factory-labour and garret-labour--\n Communism--Proposals for state organisation of labour--\n Social publishing establishment--Practical co-operation.\n\n\nThere is a passage in Wordsworth's 'Excursion' in which he describes the\nbenevolent and philosophical hero of his poem, a pedler, listening to\nthe complaints of poverty, and searching into the causes of the evil:--\n\n \"Nor was he loth to enter ragged huts,\n Huts where his charity was blest; his voice\n Heard as the voice of an experienced friend.\n And, sometimes, where the poor man held dispute\n With his own mind, unable to subdue\n Impatience, through inaptness to perceive\n General distress in his particular lot;\n Or cherishing resentment, or in vain\n Struggling against it, with a soul perplex'd\n And finding in herself no steady power\n To draw the line of comfort that divides\n Calamity, the chastisement of Heaven,\n From the injustice of our brother men;\n To him appeal was made as to a judge;\n Who, with an understanding heart, allay'd\n The perturbation; listen'd to the plea;\n Resolv'd the dubious point; and sentence gave\n So grounded, so applied, that it was heard\n With soften'd spirit--e'en when it condemn'd.\"\n\nThe poor man is accustomed to hold dispute with his own mind; he thinks\nhis particular lot is worse than the general lot; his soul is perplexed\nin considering whether his condition is produced by a common law of\nsociety, or by the injustice of his fellow-men; the experienced friend\nlistens, discusses, argues,--but he argues in a temper that produces a\nsoftened spirit. The adviser soothes rather than inflames, by dealing\nwith such questions with \"an understanding heart.\" He unites the\nsympathising heart with the reasoning understanding.\n\nNow, we may fairly inquire if, during the many unfortunate occasions\nthat are constantly arising of contests for what are called the rights\nof labour against what is called the tyranny of capital, those who are\nthe most immediate sufferers in the contest are addressed with the\n\"understanding heart?\" If argument be used at all, the principles which\ngovern the relations between capital and labour are put too often\ndictatorially or patronisingly before them, as dry, abstract\npropositions. They are not set forth as matters of calm inquiry, whose\ntruths, when dispassionately examined, may be found to lead to the\nconclusion that a steadily-increasing rate of wages, affording the\nemployed a greater amount of comforts and conveniences, is the\ninevitable result of increasing capital, under conditions which depend\nupon the workers themselves. The result is generally such as took place\nin a recent Lancashire strike, where one of the leaders exclaimed, \"The\nsooner we can rout political economy from the world, the better it will\nbe for the working-classes.\" It might, indeed, as well be said, the\nsooner we can rout acoustics from the world, the better it will be for\nthose who have ears to hear; but the absurdity would not be corrected by\na mathematical demonstration to those who did not comprehend\nmathematics. The same person held that political economy was\nincompatible with the gospel precept of doing unto others as we would be\ndone unto, because it encourages buying in the cheapest market and\nselling in the dearest; and he necessarily assumed that political\neconomy recommends the capitalist to buy labour cheap and sell it dear.\nWe have not learnt that calmly and kindly he was told, in the real\nspirit of political economy, that it is impossible that, by any\nindividual or local advantage the capitalist may possess, he can long\ndepress wages below the rate of the whole country, because other\ncapitalists would enter into competition for the employment of labour,\nand raise the average rate. If Wordsworth's experienced friend had heard\nthis perversion of the meaning of the axiom about markets, he would have\nsaid, we think, that to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the\ndearest simply means, in commerce, to buy an article where its cheapness\nrepresents abundance, and to sell it in a place where its dearness\nrepresents a want of it and a consequent demand,--even as he, the\npedler, bought a piece of cloth at Kendal, where there was plenty of\ncloth, and sold it for a profit at Grasmere, where there was little\ncloth. The business of mercantile knowledge and enterprise is to\ndiscover and apply these conditions; so that, if a trader were to buy\nhides in Smithfield and carry them to Buenos Ayres, he would reverse\nthese conditions,--he would buy in the dearest market and sell in the\ncheapest. Political economy--the declaimer against it might have been\ntold--says that to produce cheap is essential to large demand, and\nconstantly-increasing demand; but it does not say that cheap production\nnecessarily implies diminished wages. It says that cheap production, as\na consequence of increased production, depends upon the\nconstantly-increasing use of capital in production, and the\nconstantly-diminishing amount of mere manual labour compared with the\nquantity produced--which result is effected by the successive\napplication of all the appliances of science to the means of production.\nAt every step of scientific improvement there is a demand for labour of\na higher character than existed without the science. At every extended\norganization of industry, resulting from an extended demand, not only\nskilled labour, but trusted labour, becomes more and more in request;\nand the average amount of all labour is better paid. A bricklayer is\npaid more than the man who mixes his mortar, because one is a skilled\nlabourer, and has learnt his art by some expenditure of time, which is\ncapital. The merchant's bookkeeper is paid more than his porter, because\nthe one has an office of high trust and responsibility, and the other a\nduty to perform of less importance, and for which a far greater number\nof men wanting hire are fitted. We could wish that not only \"in ragged\nhuts,\" but in well-appointed houses, were the things better understood\nthat political economy really does say.\n\n [Illustration: Feed the hungry.]\n\nThe process which has been steadily going on amongst us for increasing\nthe demand for skill and trustworthiness has no doubt produced a\ndiminution of the funds for employ in which neither skill nor trust is\nrequired. Thus a great amount of suffering is constantly presented to\nour view, which benevolence has set about relieving, in our time, with a\nzeal which shows how fully it is acknowledged that the great principle,\nto \"Love one another,\" is not to evaporate in sentiment, but is to be\nripened in action. As a nation, England was never indifferent to the\ncommand, \"Feed the hungry.\" The art of Flaxman has shown this \"act of\nmercy\" in its most direct form. But the \"understanding heart\" has\ndiscovered that many of the miseries of society may be relieved by other\nmodes as effectually as by alms-giving, and perhaps much more\neffectually. Whether some of these efforts may be misdirected, in no\ndegree detracts from the value of the principle which seeks the\nprevention of misery rather than the relief. One of the most obvious\nforms in which misery has presented itself in our large cities, and\nespecially in London, has arisen from the competition amongst labour\nwhich may be called unskilled, because there are a numerous unemployed\nbody of labourers at hand to do the same work, in which there is no\nspecial skill. This was the case with the sempstresses of London; and\nthe famous 'Song of the Shirt' struck a note to which there was a\nresponding chord in every bosom. But the terrible evils of the low wages\nof shirt-making would not have been relieved by an universal agreement\nof the community to purchase none but shirts that, by their price, could\nafford to give higher wages to the shirt-makers. The higher wages would\nhave infallibly attracted more women and more children to the business\nof shirt-making. The straw-platters, the embroiderers, the milliners\nwould have rushed to shirt-making; and, unless there had been a\nconstantly-increasing rate of price charged to the wearers of shirts,\nand therefore a constant forced contribution to the capital devoted to\nshirt-making, the payment to one shirt-maker would have come to be\ndivided amongst two; and the whole body, thus doubled by a rate of wages\ndisproportioned to the rate of other labour requiring little peculiar\nskill, would have been in a worse condition in the end than in the\nbeginning.\n\nWhatever suffering may arise out of the competition that must exist\nbetween mere manual labour, and also between that labour which is\ndisplayed in the practice of some art easily learnt, capable of exercise\nby both sexes, and in which very young children may readily engage--it\nis scarcely fair that those who witness the suffering of the employed\nat very low wages should instantly conclude that the employers are\nextortioners and oppressors. A branch of trade which seems\ninconsiderable as regards the article produced is often found in a\nparticular locality, and furnishes employment to large numbers. In the\nLondon parish of Cripplegate there are great quantities of toothbrushes\nmade. The handle is formed by the lathe, in which skilled labour is\nemployed. The hair is cut by machinery. The holes in the handle in which\nthe hair is inserted are also pierced by machines. But the insertion of\nthe hair, and the fastening it by wire, are done by hand. Excellent\npeople, who, with a strong sense of Christian duty, enter \"ragged huts\"\nto relieve and to advise, see a number of women and children daily\nlabouring at the one task of fastening the hair in toothbrushes; and\nthey learn that the wages paid are miserably low. They immediately\nconclude that the wages should be higher; because in the difference\nbetween the retail price of a toothbrush and the manufacturing cost\nthere must necessarily be large profits. They say, therefore, that the\nwholesale manufacturer is unjust in not giving higher wages. But the\nretail price of toothbrushes, however high, does not enable the\nmanufacturer, necessarily, to give a payment more considerable than the\naverage of such labour to the women and children who very quickly learn\nthe art of fastening the hair. The price he can pay is to be measured by\nthe average price of such labour all over the country. It is not in the\nleast unlikely that the manufacturer in Cripplegate may not receive a\nfourth of the price at which a toothbrush is sold in Saint James's. The\nprofits are determined by the average of all his transactions. He has to\nsell as cheaply as possible for the export trade. If he sell dear, the\nexport-trader will see if he cannot buy a hundred thousand toothbrushes\nat Havre instead of London. It is nothing to the exporter whether he\nobtain a profit out of French or English toothbrushes. Again. The\nmanufacturer sends a hundred thousand toothbrushes to a wholesale dealer\nat Glasgow, who supplies the retailers throughout Scotland. But before\nthe Scotch warehouseman will repeat the order, he will ascertain whether\nhe can buy the article cheaper at Birmingham; and one per cent. lower\nwill decide against Cripplegate. Now, in all these domestic labours\ninvolving small skill, the question is whether the miserably-paid\nworkers can do anything more profitable. Mr. Mayhew says that some large\nclasses \"do not obtain a fair living price for their work, because, as\nin the case of the needle-workers and other domestic manufacturers,\ntheir livelihood is supposed to be provided for them by the husband or\nfather; and hence the remuneration is viewed rather as an aid to the\nfamily income than as an absolute means of support.\" It is not what is\n\"supposed,\" or what is \"viewed,\" that determines the question. It is\nwhat really is. Such employ may, unhappily, be sought by many as \"an\nabsolute means of support.\" But if there be an almost unlimited number\nwho seek it as \"an aid to the family income,\" there is no possibility of\npreventing a competition, perfectly equal as regards the wages of\nlabour, but wretchedly unequal in the application of those wages.\n\nThe miseries that are so frequently resulting from the competition of\nunskilled labour are also results from what we will venture to call\nuncapitalled labour, attempting to unite wages with profits. Upon a\nlarge scale, the miseries of Ireland, which finally collapsed in the\nterrible famine, were produced by labour trenching upon the functions of\ncapital without possessing capital. In 1847 there were in Ireland five\nhundred thousand acres of land in more than three hundred thousand\nholdings, thus supplying the only means of maintenance to three hundred\nthousand male labourers and their families, but averaging little more\nthan an acre and a half to each tenant. There are not more than nine\nhundred thousand labourers and farmers to the twenty-five million\ncultivated acres in England and Wales--about one labourer to every\nthirty-eight acres, and about one farmer capitalist to every hundred and\nten acres. Nor is the effect of uncapitalled and unskilled labour--for\nuncapitalled labour is for the most part unskilled--less remarkable in\nmanufactures than in agriculture. Many are familiar with the minute\ndetails of low wages and suffering--of the oppressions attributed to\nmasters and middle-men--which are contained in a series of papers by Mr.\nHenry Mayhew, published in '_The Morning Chronicle_' in 1849-50, under\nthe title of 'London Labour, and London Poor.' Nothing could be more\nlaudable than the general object of these papers, which, in the preface\nto a collected edition of a portion of them, was \"to give the rich a\nmore intimate knowledge of the sufferings, and the frequent heroism\nunder these sufferings, of the poor;\" and to cause those \"of whom much\nis expected, to bestir themselves to improve their condition.\" But, at\nthe same time, it would be difficult to say how the condition of\nparticular classes of these sufferers was to be improved, except by such\ngeneral efforts as would raise up the whole body of the people in\nknowledge and virtue, and by directing the labours of those who, without\nskill or capital, were struggling against skill and capital, into\ncourses of industry more consonant with the great modes of\nproductiveness all around them. One example may illustrate our\nmeaning--that of \"the garret-masters of the cabinet-trade.\" The writer\nwe have mentioned says that wages had fallen 400 per cent. in that\ntrade, between 1831 and 1850; but he also says that the trade was\n\"depressed by the increase of small masters--that is to say, by a class\nof workmen possessed of just sufficient capital to buy their own\nmaterials, and to support themselves while making them up.\" Taking the\nwhole rate of wages,--the payment to the unskilled as well as the\nskilled workmen--it would be difficult not to believe that the average\nreduction was quite as great as represented. A cabinet-maker tells this\ntale:--\n\n\"One of the inducements,\" he said, \"for men to take to making up for\nthemselves is to get a living when thrown out of work until they can\nhear of something better. If they could get into regular journeywork\nthere a'n't one man as wouldn't prefer it--it would pay them a deal\nbetter. Another of the reasons for the men turning small masters is the\nlittle capital that it requires for them to start themselves. If a man\nhas got his tools he can begin as a master-man with a couple of\nshillings. If he goes in for making large tables, then from 30_s._ to\n35_s._ will do him, and it's the small bit of money it takes to start\nwith in our line that brings many into the trade who wouldn't be there\nif more tin was wanted to begin upon. Many works for themselves, because\nnobody else won't employ them, their work is so bad. Many weavers has\ntook to our business of late. That's quite common now--their own's so\nbad; and some that used to hawk hearthstones about is turned Pembroke\ntablemakers.\" Whether the mode in which this workman expresses himself\ncorrectly indicates, or not, the amount of his education, it is quite\ncertain that he had got to the root of the evil of which he complains.\n\nThe competition that is only limited by the capacity of endurance\nbetween the unskilled workman and the uncapitalled workman--each\nstriving against the other, and striving, in vain against capital and\nskill--has been going on for centuries in the distribution of\ncommodities. The retailer with small capital has always had to carry on\nan unequal contest with the retailer with large capital. In our time,\nsmall shops are swallowed up in magnificent warehouses, in which every\narticle of dress especially can be purchased under one roof--from a\npenny yard of ribbon to a hundred-guinea shawl. In splendour these\nbazaars, with one proprietor, rival the oriental with many competitors.\nBut their distinguishing characteristic is the far-seeing organization,\nby which the capital is turned over with unexampled rapidity, and no\nunsaleable stock is kept on hand. It is easy to understand that the\nlarger profits of the small retailer have very little chance of\naccumulation against the smaller profits of the large retailer.\n\nBut this contest of small capital against large was formerly carried on\nin the struggle of the itinerant traders against the shopkeepers. It is\nnow carried on in a struggle amongst themselves. The census returns show\nseven thousand costermongers, hucksters, and general-dealers. Mr.\nMayhew says there are ten thousand in London.[46]\n\n [Illustration: Costermonger.]\n\nThe costermonger is a travelling shopkeeper. We encounter him not in\nCornhill, or Holborn, or the Strand: in the neighbourhood of the great\nmarkets and well-stored shops he travels not. But his voice is heard in\nsome silent streets stretching into the suburbs; and there his\ndonkey-cart stands at the door, as the dingy servant-maid cheapens a\nbundle of cauliflowers. He has monopolized all the trades that were\nanciently represented by such \"London cries\" as \"_Buy my artichokes,\nmistress_;\" \"_Ripe cowcumbers_;\" \"_White onions, white St. Thomas'\nonions_;\" \"_White radish_;\" \"_Ripe young beans_;\" \"_Any baking pears_;\"\n\"_Ripe speragas_.\" He would be indignant to encounter such petty chapmen\ninterfering with his wholesale operations. Mr. Mayhew says that \"the\nregular or thoroughbred costermongers repudiate the numerous persons who\nonly sell nuts or oranges in the streets.\" No doubt they rail against\nthese inferior competitors, as the city shopkeepers of the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries railed against itinerant traders of every\ndenomination. In the days of Elizabeth, they declare by act of common\ncouncil, that in ancient times the open streets and lanes of the city\nhave been used, and ought to be used, as the common highway only, and\nnot for hucksters, pedlers, and hagglers, to stand and sit to sell their\nwares in, and to pass from street to street hawking and offering their\nwares. In the seventh year of Charles I. the same authorities denounce\nthe oyster-wives, herb-wives, tripe-wives, and the like, as \"unruly\npeople;\" and they charge them, somewhat unjustly as it must appear, with\n\"framing to themselves a way whereby to live a more easy life than by\nlabour.\"\n\n \"How busy is the man the world calls idle!\"\n\nThe evil, as the citizens term it, seems to have increased; for in 1694\nthe common council threatened the pedlers and petty chapmen with the\nterrors of the laws against rogues and sturdy beggars, the least penalty\nbeing whipping, whether for male or female. The reason for this terrible\ndenunciation is very candidly put: the citizens and shopkeepers are\ngreatly hindered and prejudiced in their trades by the hawkers and\npedlers. Such denunciations as these had little share in putting down\nthe itinerant traders. They continued to flourish, because society\nrequired them; and they vanished from our view when society required\nthem no longer. In the middle of the last century they were fairly\nestablished as rivals to the shopkeepers. Dr. Johnson, than whom no man\nknew London better, thus writes in the 'Adventurer:' \"The attention of a\nnewcomer is generally first struck by the multiplicity of cries that\nstun him in the streets, and the variety of merchandise and manufactures\nwhich the shopkeepers expose on every hand.\" The shopkeepers have now\nruined the itinerants--not by putting them down by fiery penalties, but\nby the competition amongst themselves to have every article at hand, for\nevery man's use, which shall be better and cheaper than the wares of the\nitinerant.\n\nA curious parallel might be carried out between the itinerant\noccupations which the progress of society has imperfectly suspended, and\nthose which even the most advanced civilization is compelled to retain.\nFor example,--the water-carrier is gone. It is impossible that London\ncan ever again see a man bent beneath the weight of a yoke and two\nenormous pails, vociferating \"_New River Water_.\" But the cry of\n\"_Milk_,\" or the rattle of the milk-pail, will never cease to be heard\nin our streets. There can be no reservoirs of milk, no pipes through\nwhich it flows into the houses. The more extensive the great capital\nbecomes, the more active must be the individual exertion to carry about\nthis article of food. The old cry was, \"_Any milk here_?\" and it was\nsometimes mingled with the sound of \"_Fresh cheese and cream_;\" and it\nthen passed into \"_Milk, maids, below_;\" and it was then shortened into\n\"_Milk below_;\" and was finally corrupted into \"_Mio_,\" which some wag\ninterpreted into _mi-eau--demi-eau_--half-water. But it must still be\ncried, whatever be the cry. The supply of milk to the metropolis is\nperhaps one of the most beautiful combinations of industry we have. The\ndays are long since past when Finsbury had its pleasant groves, and\nClerkenwell was a village, and there were green pastures in Holborn, and\nSt. Pancras boasted only a little church standing in meadows, and St.\nMartin's was literally in the fields. Slowly but surely does the baked\nclay stride over the clover and the buttercup; and yet every family in\nLondon may be supplied with milk by eight o'clock every morning at their\nown doors. Where do the cows abide? They are congregated in wondrous\nmasses in the suburbs; and though in spring-time they go out to pasture\nin the fields which lie under the Hampstead and Highgate hills, or in\nthe vales of Dulwich and Sydenham, and there crop the tender blade,\n\n \"When proud pied April, dress'd in all his trim,\n Hath put a spirit of youth in everything,\"\n\nyet for the rest of the year the coarse grass is carted to their stalls,\nor they devour what the breweries and distilleries cannot extract from\nthe grain-harvest. Long before \"the unfolding star wakes up the\nshepherd\" are the London cows milked; and the great wholesale venders of\nthe commodity bear it in carts to every part of the town, and distribute\nit to hundreds of itinerants, who are waiting like the water-carriers at\nthe old conduits. But the wholesale venders have ceased to depend upon\nthe suburban cows. The railways bring milk in enormous cans to every\nstation. The suburb has extended, practically, to a circle of fifty\nmiles instead of five. It is evident that a perishable commodity which\nevery one requires at a given hour must be rapidly distributed. The\ndistribution has lost its romance. Misson, in his 'Travels,' published\nat the beginning of the last century, tell us of the May-games of \"the\npretty young country girls that serve the town with milk.\" Alas! the\nMay-games and pretty young country girls have both departed, and a\nmilkwoman has become a very unpoetical personage. There are few indeed\nof milkwomen who remain. So it is with most of the occupations that\nassociate London with the country. The cry of \"_Water-cresses_\" used to\nbe heard from some barefoot nymph of the brook, who at sunrise had\ndipped her feet into the bubbling runnel, to carry the green luxury to\nthe citizens' breakfast-tables. Water-cresses are now grown like\ncabbages in gardens.\n\nOf the street trades that are past and forgotten, the small-coal man was\none of the most remarkable. He tells a tale of a city with few fires;\nfor who could now imagine a man earning a living by bawling \"_Small\ncoals_\" from door to door, without any supply but that in the sack which\nhe carries on his shoulders? His cry was, however, a rival with \"_Wood\nto cleave_.\" In a metropolis full of haberdashers, large and small, what\nchance would an aged man now have with his flattering solicitation of\n\"_Pretty pins_, _pretty women_?\" He who carries a barrel on his back,\nwith a measure and funnel at his side, bawling \"_Fine writing-ink_,\" is\nwanted neither by clerks nor authors. There is a grocer's shop at every\nturn; and who therefore needs him who salutes us with \"_Lily-white\nvinegar_?\" The history of \"cries\" is a history of social changes. The\n_working_ trades, as well as the venders of things that can be bought in\nevery street, are now banished from our thoroughfares. \"_Old chairs to\nmend_\" still salutes us in some retired suburb; and we still see the\nknife-grinder's wheel; but who vociferates \"_Any work for John Cooper_?\"\nor \"_A brass pot or an iron pot to mend_?\" The trades are gone to those\nwho pay scot and lot.\n\n [Illustration: Pots to mend.]\n\nThere are some occupations of the streets, however, which remain\nessentially the same, though the form be somewhat varied. The sellers of\nfood are of course amongst these. \"Hot peascods,\" and hot sheep's-feet,\nare not popular delicacies, as in the time of Lydgate. \"_Hot wardens_,\"\nand \"_Hot codlings_,\" are not the \"cries\" which invite us to taste of\nstewed pears and baked apples. But we have still apples hissing over a\ncharcoal fire; and potatoes steaming in a shining apparatus, with\nsavoury salt-butter to put between the \"fruit\" when it is cut; and\nchestnuts roasted; and greasy sausages, redolent of onions and marjoram;\nand crisp brown flounders; and the mutton-pie-man, with his \"toss for a\npenny.\" Rice-milk, furmety, barley-broth, and saloop are no longer in\nrequest. The greatest improvement of London in our own day has been the\nestablishment of coffee-shops, where the artisan may take his breakfast\nwith comfort, and even with luxury; where a good breakfast may be had\nfor three-pence; where no intoxicating liquors are sold; and where the\nnewspapers and the best periodical works may be regularly found.\n\nIf we lament over the general decay of the itinerant traders--their\nuncertain gains, their privations from constant exposure, their want of\nhome comforts, their temptation to drive their children into the streets\nto make more sales--we lament over what is an inevitable consequence of\nthe general progress of society. Can we correct these evils by saying\nthat the profits of the itinerant traders ought to be raised? Their low\ncondition is a necessary consequence of their carrying on a system of\nindustry which is at variance with the general system of civilization.\nThey may have their uses in districts with a scattered population,\nbecause they bring articles of consumption to the door of the consumer.\nBut in densely populated districts they must inevitably be superseded by\nthe shopkeepers. They carry on their industry by a series of individual\nefforts, which are interfered with by numerous chances and accidents. We\nare told that the class is extending yearly. But it cannot extend\nprofitably. In many cases it assumes only another form of mendicity. It\nis a precarious occupation. It can count upon no regular returns. Its\ngains, such as they are, are like all other uncertain gains--the impulse\nto occasional profligacy in connection with habitual misery. The\ncostermongers, according to Mr. Mayhew, are drunkards and\ngamblers,--living without religion or the family ties. Their children\nare wholly uneducated. These are brought up to assist very early in\nobtaining their precarious living; and they cleave to a wandering in\nplace of a settled life. Dissociated, thus, from all regular industry,\nthey become the outcasts of the people; and go on swelling the number of\nthose who, in France, are called \"the dangerous classes.\" All classes\nare dangerous in whom there is none of that self-respect which goes\nalong with domestic comfort--with sobriety, with cleanliness, with a\ntaste for some pursuit that has a tincture of the intellectual. How is\nsuch a class to be dealt with? The adult are almost past hope; the\nyoung, taken early enough, may be trained into something better. But the\nvery last thing that society has to do is to encourage, by any forced\nand unnatural process, the accession of numbers to the body, always\nderiving new competitors from the unfortunate and the idle who have\nfallen out of regular occupation. Those who learn the necessity of being\nprovident cease to be costermongers. With some, indeed, the profitable\nsale of an article in the streets may be the first step in an\naccumulation which will lead to the more profitable sale of an article\nat a stall, and thence, onward, to the possession of a shop. There have\nbeen such instances; and we knew of a remarkable one in a boy who went\nto a tea-dealer, and said if he could be trusted with one pound of tea\nhe could make a living. He was trusted. In time he wanted no credit, and\nwas a regular and valuable customer to his first patron. He passed out\nof the itinerant life into the settled; and ultimately became a\nflourishing shopkeeper.\n\nIn striking contrast to the various forms of unskilled labour and\nirregular trading which we have noticed, may be mentioned an industry\nwhich in London has a very perfect organization. In Clerkenwell and the\nneighbouring parish of Saint Luke's, there are sixteen hundred\nwatchmakers. These are not the artisans whom we see as we pass along the\nstreets of the metropolis, and of the provincial towns, sitting in front\nof the shop-window diligently repairing or putting together the works of\na watch, by the light of day or of a brilliant lamp, each with a\nmagnifying glass pressed under his eyebrow. Nor are they the workers in\nmetal who manufacture the movements,--that is, the wheels--of a watch,\nfor these chiefly dwell in Lancashire. The London watchmakers, thus\nclosely packed in a district which is small compared with the whole area\nof the metropolis, are those who put the movements together, and supply\nall the delicate parts of the mechanism, such as the spring and the\nescapement. They provide also the case and the dial-plate. The degree\nof the skilled labour employed in these several branches necessarily\nvaries, according to the quality of the instrument to be produced, from\nthe ordinary metal watch to the most luxurious repeater. With some\nexceptions, the artisans do not work in large factories. They are\nsubdivided according to their respective qualities, amongst small\nestablishments, where a master has several men receiving wages for\nperforming one particular branch of work; or the artisan himself, in his\nown home, may be an escapement-maker, a spring-maker, a fusee-maker, a\nmaker of hands, an enameller, an engine-turner, a jewelled pivot-hole\nmaker. All this beautiful subdivision of employments has been found\nnecessary for the perfection and the cheapness of watches. The\ncapitalist, who is essentially the watch manufacturer, organizes all\nthese departments of industry. English watches, by this economical\nsystem of production, keep their place against the competition of\nforeign watches; of which we imported, in 1853, fifty-four thousand. The\nskilled workmen, in all the various subdivisions of the manufacture, are\nwell paid, and take their due rank amongst the great and increasing body\nof intelligent mechanics.\n\nWithin these few years American clocks have been extensively sold in\nthis country. People would once have thought that the business of\nclockmaking in England would be at an end, if it had been predicted that\nin 1853 we should import, as we did, a hundred and forty thousand\nclocks. The goodness and cheapness of American clocks have carried a\nclock into many a house, that without them would have been deficient of\nthis instrument for keeping all industry in accordance with the\nextraordinary punctuality which has been forced upon us as an\nindispensable quality. We owe the general exercise of this virtue to the\npost and the railroads. No one needs now to be told, as our grandfathers\nwere somewhat roughly told by the sun-dial in the Temple, \"Be gone about\nthy business.\" The American clocks are produced by factory labour. In\nConnecticut two hundred and fifty men are employed in one establishment,\nin making six hundred clocks a-day, the price varying from one dollar\nto ten, and the average price being three dollars. Each clock passes\nthrough sixty different hands; but in every stage the most scientific\napplications of machinery chiefly produce the excellence and the\ncheapness.\n\nBetween the factory-labour required to produce an American clock, which\nlabour affords ample wages to every labourer employed, and ample\nsecurity to the capitalist that he will not establish expensive\nmachinery, and pay constant wages, without profit,--between this\nfactory-labour, and the \"garret-labour\" which produces a rickety\nPembroke-table, with bad materials and imperfect tools, at the lowest\nrate of profit to the workman,--the difference really consists in the\napplication or non-application of capital. The theorist then steps in at\nthis stage of the evidence, and says that the garret-labourer ought to\nbe provided with capital. His theory resolves itself into what is called\nCommunism; and it seeks to be maintained by exhibiting the aggregate\nevils of Competition. The theorist does not deny that competition has\nproduced an immense development of wealth; but he affirms that the\nresult of the struggle has been, to fill the hands that were already too\nfull, and to take away from the hands that were already nearly empty. He\nmaintains that the labouring classes have been more and more declining\nwith every increase of the general riches; and that, at every stop in\nwhich industry advances, the proportion of the wretched to the great\nmass of the population as certainly increases. We shall not attempt to\nreply to these declamations by any counter declamation. We point to the\ngreat body of facts contained in this volume; and upon them rests our\nunqualified assertion that the doctrines of Communism are wholly untrue,\nand are opposed to the whole body of evidence that enables us to judge\nof the average condition of the people, past and present.\n\nTo remedy the evils which it alleges to exist, Communism proposes\nassociations working upon a common capital, and dividing the produce of\nall the labour of the community. To make a whole country labour in this\nway, by a confiscation of all the capital of the country, presents,\nnecessarily, great difficulties; and therefore there must be smaller\ncommunities in particular localities. But these communities must produce\neverything within themselves, or they must deal with other communities.\nThere would be competition in these communistic dealings between one\ncommunity and another. Even if the whole world were to become\ncommunistic, there would be competition between one nation and another\nnation.\n\nThe main objection to the theory of Communism (the objections to its\napplication are obvious enough) is that, in proposing to have a common\nfund for all labour, it wars against the natural principle of\nindividuality, and destroys the efficiency of production, by confounding\nthe distinctions between the various degrees of skill and industry. If\nit give higher rewards to skilled labour than to unskilled, it does\nexactly what is done in the present state of society. If the unskilled\nand idle were the larger number under a system of Communism, they would\nsoon degrade the skilled and the industrious to their own level. If they\nwere the less powerful number, the skilled and the industrious would\nsoon bring back the law of competition, and drive the unskilled and idle\nto the minimum point of subsistence.\n\nBut Communism, to meet such difficulties, sets up a system of\nexpedients. It invokes the aid of the State as a regulating power; and,\nhaving maintained that the State is bound to find employ for every one\nwilling to labour, however inefficiently, and to supply the necessary\nfunds for all labour, it makes the State the great healer of\ndifferences, even as Mr. Sergeant Thorpe held that the State could\nprovide \"a salve for every sore.\" Let us take one example of the mode in\nwhich Communism proposes to discharge its functions.\n\nThere is a little treatise, in Italian, by Count Pecchio, on the\nApplication of the General Laws of Production to Literary and Scientific\nPublications. It considers that literary-labour is governed by the same\nlaws as any other labour; that the capital of a man of letters consists\nin his stores of acquired knowledge; that, as there is no equality in\nliterary talent--as there is a great range of talent between the most\nskilled and the least skilled literary labourer--so the rewards of\nliterary industry are proportionally unequal; that the wages of literary\nlabour depend upon the usual conditions of demand and supply; that,\nunder a system of competition in an open market, the literary labourer\nis more sure of his reward, however large may be the number of\nlabourers, than in the old days of patronage for the few; that State\nencouragement is not necessary to the establishment of a high and\nenduring literature; that when literary industry is free--when it is\nneither fostered by bounties, nor cramped and annihilated by\nprohibitions--when there is neither patronage nor censorship--it is in\nthe most favourable condition for its prosperous development. These\nprinciples, applied to literary production, are in many respects\napplicable to all production.\n\nEvery one has heard of the 'Organization of Labour,' which some\nphilosophers of a neighbouring country were attempting to transfer from\nthe theories of the closet to the experiments of the workshop, in 1848.\nIt is not our object, as we have said, to discuss whether a vast system\nof national co-operation for universal production be a wise thing or a\npractical thing. Let us state only a small part of that system, as\nexhibited in the 'Organisation du Travail,' by Monsieur Louis Blanc, the\nsecond part of which is devoted to the question of literary property.\n\nAll the beneficial results contemplated by the organizers of a universal\nsocial industry are to be obtained for literary industry, according to\nthis system, by the foundation of a Social Publishing Establishment,\nwhich is thus described: It would be a literary manufacture belonging to\nthe State without being subject to the State. This institution would\ngovern itself, and divide amongst its members the profits obtained by\nthe common labour. According to its original laws, which would be laid\ndown by the State, the Social Publishing Establishment would not have to\npurchase any author's right in his works. The price of books would be\ndetermined by the State, with a view to the utmost possible cheapness;\nall the expenses of the impression would be at the charge of the Social\nEstablishment. A committee of enlightened men, chosen and remunerated by\nthe Social Establishment, would receive the works. The writers whose\nworks the Social Establishment would publish would acquire, in exchange\nfor their rights as authors, which they would wholly resign, the right\nof exclusively competing for national recompenses. There would be in the\nannual national budget, a fund provided for such recompense, for authors\nin every sphere of thought. Every time the first work of an author was\ndeemed worthy of a national recompense, a premium would also be given to\nthe Social Establishment, that it might be indemnified for the possible\nloss which it had sustained in giving its support to youthful talent.\nEvery year the representatives of the people would name, for every\nbranch of intellectual exertion, a citizen who would examine the works\nissuing from the social presses. He would have a whole year to examine\nthem thoroughly; to read all the criticisms upon them; to study the\ninfluence which they had produced upon society; to interrogate public\nopinion through its organs, and not judge by the blind multitude of\nbuyers; and finally to prepare a report. The national rewards would then\nbe distributed in the most solemn manner.\n\nWe thus state briefly but fairly the plan which is to put an end to that\nliterary competition which it is proclaimed \"commences in dishonour and\nends in misery;\" which is to destroy bad books and encourage good;\nwhich, it is affirmed, is \"no longer to make the publication of good\nbooks depend upon the speculators, who have rarely any other\nintelligence than a commercial aptitude, but upon competent men, whom it\ninterests in the success of every useful and commendable work.\" We truly\nbelieve that this would be a practicable plan--provided two conditions\nwere secured, which at present seem to be left out of the account. They\nare simply these--that there should be unlimited funds at hand for the\npurpose of rewarding authors, and unlimited wisdom and honesty in their\nadministrators. But unhappily, as we understand it, the entire plan is a\nconfusion of principle--rejecting much that is valuable in competition,\nand adopting much that is positively harmful in co-operation. Those\nauthors who are profiting largely by the competitive system are to give\nup their profits to the common fund, which is to support those who could\nnot make profits under that system. This is the social workshop notion\nof equality. But in the literary workshop the State is to step in and\nrestore the ancient condition of inequality, by exclusive rewards to the\nmost deserving of the competitors. It is a practical satire upon the\nwhole scheme of a new social arrangement.\n\nWith a sincere disposition to speak favourably of every plan for\npromoting the welfare of our fellow-creatures which is not founded upon\na destruction of the security of property, we have no desire to maintain\nthat all the denouncers of competition are weak and dangerous advisers\nof the great body of working people. We believe that the entire system\nof any proposed co-operation that would set aside competition is a\ndelusion,--out of which, indeed, some small good might be slowly and\npainfully evoked, but which can never mainly affect the great workings\nof individual industry, whilst its futile attempts may relax the springs\nof all just and honest action. But we do not in any degree seek to\noppose any practical form of co-operation that is built upon the natural\nand inevitable workings of capital, tending to produce, in a manner not\nless favourable for production than a system entirely competitive.\n\nCo-operation is not a new thing in England. Two centuries and a half\nago, Shakspere became a considerable land-proprietor at Stratford, out\nof his share of the profits of a co-operative enterprise; and, in the\nsame profession of a player, Allen acquired a sufficient fortune to\nfound Dulwich College. In those companies of players of the Elizabethan\nera there were shareholders with varying interests--some having a\ncapital in the building and properties of a theatre, combined with their\nother capital of histrionic skill. The joint proprietors lived in great\nharmony together, and treated each other with affection as friends and\nfellows.\n\nThe co-operation which many earnest thinkers hold to be desirable to\nestablish in England is precisely this sort of united industry. They\nhave no desire to attempt the introduction of a fallacious equality,\nsuch as communism proposes; but they ask to have the legal power of\ncombining men in common labours, according to their respective degrees\nand qualifications. He who brought to the undertaking capital only\nshould receive a share of profits proportioned to its value and\nhazard--the wear and tear of implements--the deterioration of stock. He\nwho brought great administrative skill, and took the higher office of\ntrust and responsibility, should also receive a share in proportion to\nthe rarity of these qualities; and so of those who were skilful and\ntrustworthy in a lesser degree. The great body of the workers would\nreceive their due shares under a scale founded upon experience. But\ncapitalist, inventor, manager, and labourers,--all would have some\nultimate interest in reference to profits.\n\nThe Queen, in opening the Session of Parliament in 1856, announced that\na measure would be brought forward for amending the law relating to\nPartnership. During that Session \"The Joint-Stock Companies Act\" was\npassed, by which it was provided that seven or more associated persons,\nby complying with the forms of the Act with regard to Registration,\nmight form themselves into an Incorporated Company, with or without\nlimited liability. Under this act many Companies have been formed; and,\nas might have been expected, various crude projects have thus been\nborn--quickly to die. A bill for amending the law of Partnership was\nbrought forward; but it met with so much opposition that it was\nwithdrawn. Without the machinery of a Joint-Stock Company, partnership\nliability remains as before.\n\nWhat is risked by the continued existence of the law of Partnership, and\nwhat might be gained by its modification, are clearly put by Mr. J. M.\nLudlow, an eminent barrister:--\"The example of those strikes which have\nbeen first agitating and then desolating the country for the last\nhalf-year (1853) is surely most instructive on this head. It cannot be\ndoubted that, from the energies of the working classes having been\nhitherto directed, it may be said, to the sole economic object of high\nwages, both the best paid and most prudent workmen have often been\ndragged, willingly or unwillingly, into these conflicts, of which some\nat least of the most benevolent employers have in like manner had to\nbear the brunt. But suppose a power given to the working men, by a\nrelaxation of the laws of partnership, to invest their savings as\n_commandite_ partners in their employer's concern, how different might\nhave been the result! Whenever an employer had really deserved the\nconfidence of his work-people, all the most industrious amongst them\nmight have grown bound up as _commandite_ partners with the interests of\nthe establishment, having no longer for their object the raising of\ntheir own wages, but the prosperity of that business in the profits of\nwhich they would have a share--able on the one hand, as receivers of\nwages, to counsel the employer, their managing partner, as to any wise\nadvance; able, on the other, as receivers of profits, to dissuade their\nfellow-workers from any injurious demand.\"[47]\n\nLet us also hear the opinion of a practical merchant--Mr. George Warde\nNorman, a Director of the Bank of England: \"The extreme difficulty, if\nnot the legal impossibility in England, of giving clerks or workmen a\nsalary proportioned to the profits of an employer, without making them\npartners in the widest sense, I consider a vast practical evil. It seems\nto me that the system thus checked is of so highly beneficial a nature,\nthat it merits every encouragement that the law can give it. It would at\nonce enable an earnest wish on the part of a portion of the operative\nclass to be met in a way most satisfactory to their feelings.\"[48]\n\nHowever earnest and thinking men may differ as to the legislative means\nof effecting a more perfect union of skill and capital, it is a prayer\nin which all good men unite, that the condition of the working-classes\nmay be more and more improved,--that their outward circumstances may be\nmade better and better. But those who labour the steadiest, and the most\nzealously, in the endeavour to realize this hope, feel that the day of\nthis amelioration is far removed by perpetual contests between the\nemployed and the employers, which impede production and diminish the\nfunds for the support of labour. They know that every improvement in the\narts of life improves also the condition of the humblest working-man in\nthe land; and they also know that every successive improvement has a\ntendency to lessen the inequality in the distribution of wealth. But, if\nthe condition of the working-men of these kingdoms is to be permanently\nimproved,--if they are to obtain a full share of the blessings which\nscience and industry confer upon mankind,--they must win those blessings\nby their own moral elevation. They cannot snatch them by violence; they\ncannot accomplish them suddenly by clamour; they cannot overthrow a\nthousand opposing circumstances to a great and rapid rise of wages; they\nmust win them by peaceful and steady exertion. When the working-men of\nthis country shall feel, as the larger portion of them already feel,\nthat Knowledge is Power, they will next set about to see how that power\nshall be exercised. The first tyranny which that power must hold in\ncheck is the tyranny of evil habits--those habits which, looking only to\nthe present hour, at one time plunge some into all the thoughtless\nextravagance which belongs to a state of high wages--at another, throw\nthem prostrate before their employers, in all the misery and degradation\nwhich accompany a state of low wages, without a provision for that\nstate. It is for them, and for them alone, to equalize the two\nconditions. The changes of trade, in a highly commercial country like\nthis, must be incessant. It is for the workmen themselves to put a\n\"_governor_\" on the commercial machine, as far as they are concerned; in\na season of prosperity to accumulate the power of capital--in a season\nof adversity to use effectively, because temperately, that power which\nthey have won for themselves.\n\nBut there are other duties to be performed, in another direction--the\nduties of employers. That duty does not consist in making servants\npartners, if the employers have no inclination thereto. It does not\nconsist in attempting any private benevolence, by raising the rate of\nwages paid by their own firms beyond the average rate, which attempt\nwould be ruinous to both classes interested. But it does consist in\nexercising the means within their power to benefit the condition of all\nin their employ, by cultivating every sympathy with them that may be the\nreal expression of a community of interests. Such sympathy is manifested\nwhen large firms devote a considerable portion of their profits to the\neducation of the young persons employed in their factories; when they\ncultivate the intelligent pleasures of their adult work-people; when, in\na word, they make the factory system a beautiful instrument for raising\nthe whole body of their labourers into a real equality, in all the moral\nand intellectual conditions of our nature, with themselves the captains\nof industry. When those duties are attended to, there may be common\nmisfortunes; demand may fall off; the machinery, whether of steam or of\nmind, may be imperfectly in action; the season of adversity may bring\ndiscomfort. But it will not bring animosity. There may be deep anxieties\non one part, and severe privations on the other, but there will not be\nhatreds and jealousies,--the cold neglect, and the grim despair.\n\n \"We know the arduous strife, the eternal laws,\n To which the triumph of all good is given:\n High sacrifice, and labour without pause,\n Even to the death.\"\n\n [46] The subject of itinerant traders is treated fully in an article by\n the author of 'Knowledge is Power,' in a paper in 'London,' vol. i.\n A portion of that article is here reprinted, with some alterations.\n\n [47] First Report of Mercantile Law Commission, 1854.\n\n [48] Ibid.\n\n\n LONDON: PRINTED BY W. CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET, AND\n CHARING CROSS.\n\n\n * * * * *\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER NOTES:\n\n Page x: illustration #95 was not included in this edition.\n\n Page 61: \"seing\" changed to \"seeing\" (and seeing, therefore, the\n fallacy).\n\n Page 83: \"cobler\" changed to \"cobbler\" (carpenter, carter,\n cobbler, cook).\n\n Page 155: \"Parke\" changed to \"Park\" (Mungo Park describes the sad\n condition).\n\n Page 196: \"Delf\" changed to \"Delft\" (the common ware from Delft).\n\n Page 227 two places: \"calicos\" changed to \"calicoes\" (no longer\n sends us his calicoes) and (is not longer weaving calicoes for\n us).\n\n Page 248: deleted \"the\" (beyond providing a supply of material).\n\n Illustration caption preceding page 321: \"Manufctory\" changed to\n \"Manufactory\" (Pianoforte Manufactory).\n\n Page 392: \"an.\" changed to \"ann.\" (30 per ann. should now be).\n\n Page 396: \"diference\" changed to \"difference\" (it also expresses\n the difference between).","title":"Knowledge is power : $b A view of the productive forces of modern society and the results of labor, capital and skill.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":131140}