Part 65
But let us suppose the street-sweeping machine to come into general use, and all the men who are at present employed by the contractors, both large and small, to sweep the street by hand to be superseded by it, what would be the result? how much money would the manual labourers be deprived of per annum, and how many self-supporting labourers would be pauperized thereby? The following table will show us: in the first compartment given below we have the number of manual labourers employed throughout London by the large and small contractors, and the amount of wages annually received by them[20]; in the second compartment is given the number of men that would be required to sweep the same districts by the machine, and the amount of wages that would be received by them at the present rate; and the third and last compartment shows the gross number of hands that would be displaced, and the annual loss that would accrue to the operatives by the substitution of mechanical for manual labour in the sweeping of the streets.
TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF CONTRACTORS’ MEN AT PRESENT EMPLOYED TO SWEEP THE STREETS BY HAND, AND THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SWEEP THE SAME DISTRICTS BY MACHINE WORK, TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT OF WAGES ACCRUING TO EACH.
----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Manual Labour. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Wages | Men at present | received by | employed | Contractors’ | by Contractors | Men for | to sweep the | sweeping the | streets. | Streets, at 15_s._ | | a Week. ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ _s._ Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 262 | 10,218 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 13 | 507 0 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- Total | 275 | 10,725 0 ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------
----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Machine Labour. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Wages | Machine Men | that would be | that would be | received by | required to | Machine Men, | attend the | at 16_s._ a | Street-sweeping | Week. | Machines. | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ _s._ Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 75 | 3120 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 4 | 166 8 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- Total | 79 | 3286 8 ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------
----------------------+---------------------------------------- | Difference. +--------------------+------------------- | Number of | Annual Loss | Men that | that would | would be displaced | accrue to | by | Manual | Machine-work. | Labourers by | | Machine-work. ----------------------+--------------------+------------------- | | £ _s._ Districts at present} | | swept by large } | 187 | 7098 0 contractors (see } | | table, p. 214) } | | | | Districts swept by } | 9 | 340 12 small contractors } | | ----------------------+--------------------+-------------------- Total | 196 | 7438 12 ----------------------+--------------------+--------------------
Here we find that nearly 200 men would be pauperized, losing upwards of 7000_l._ per annum, if the street-sweeping machine came into general use throughout London. But, before the introduction of machines, the thoroughfares of St. Martin’s parish were swept only once a week in dry weather, and three times a week in sloppy weather, and since the introduction of the machines they have been swept daily; allowing, therefore, the extra cleansing to have arisen from the extra cheapness of the machine work--though it seems to have been the result of improved sanatory regulations, for in parts where the machine has not been used the same alteration has taken place--making such allowance, however, it may, perhaps, be fair to say, that the same increase of cleansing would take place throughout London; that is to say, that the streets would be swept by the machines, were they generally used, twice as often as they are at present by hand. At this rate 158 machine men, instead of 79 as above calculated, would be required for the work; so that, reckoning for the increased employment which might arise from the increased cheapness of the work, we see that, were the street-sweeping machines used throughout the metropolis, nearly 120 of the 275 manual labourers now employed at scavaging by the large and small contractors, would be thrown out of work, and deprived of no less a sum than 4680_l._ per annum.
This amount, of course, the parishes would pocket, minus the sum that it would cost them to keep the displaced scavagers as paupers, so that in this instance, at least, we perceive that, however great a benefit cheapness may be to the wealthy classes, to the poorer classes it is far from being of the same advantageous character; for, just as much as the rate-payers are the gainers in the matter of street-cleansing must the labourers be the losers--the economy of labour in a trade where there are too many labourers already, and where the quantity of work does not admit of indefinite increase, meaning simply the increase of pauperism[21].
The “_labour question_” as connected with the sweeping-machine work, requires but a brief detail, as it presents no new features. The majority of the machine men may be described as having been “general (unskilled) labourers” before they embarked in their present pursuits: labourers for builders, brick-makers, rubbish-carters, the docks, &c.
Among them there is but one who was brought up as a mechanic; the others have all been labourers, brick-makers, and what I heard called “barrow-workers” on railways, the latter being the most numerous.
Employment is obtained by application at the wharfs. There is nothing of the character of a trade society among the machine-men; nothing in the way of benefit or sick clubs, unless the men choose to enrol themselves in a general benefit society, of which I did not hear one instance.
The payment is by the week, and without drawback in the guise or disguise of fines, or similar inflictions for the use of tools, &c.; the payment, moreover, is always in money.
The only perquisite is in the case of anything being found in the streets; but the rule as to perquisites seems to be altogether an understanding among the men. The disposal of what may be picked up in the streets appears, moreover, to be very much in the discretion of the picker up. If anything be found in the contents of the vehicle, when emptied, it is the perquisite of the driver, who is also the unloader; he, however, is expected to treat the men “on the same beat” out of any such “treasure trove,” when the said treasure is considerable enough to justify such bounty. Odd sixpences, shillings, or copper coin, I was informed, were found almost every week, but I could ascertain no general average. One man, some time ago, found a purse inside the vehicle containing 20_s._, and “spent it out and out all on hisself,” in a carouse of three days. He lost his situation in consequence.
The number of men employed by the company in this trade is 24, and these perform all the work required in the driving and attendance upon the machines in the street, in loading the barges, grooming the horses, &c. There is, indeed, a twenty-fifth man, but he is a blacksmith, and his wages of 35_s._ weekly are included in the estimate as to wear and tear given below, for he shoes the horses and repairs the machines.
The rate of wages paid by the machine company is 16_s._ a week, so that the full amount of wages is paid to the men.
But though the company cannot be ranked among the grinders of the scavaging trade, they _must_ be placed among “the drivers.”
I am assured, by those who are familiar with such labour, that the 24 men employed by the machine masters do the work of upwards of 30 in the honourable trade, with a corresponding saving to their employers, from an adherence to the main point of the scurf system, the overworking of the men without extra payment.
It has been before stated that, in dry weather, the roads require to be watered before being swept, so that the brushes may _bite_. In summer the machine-men sometimes commence this part of their business at three in the morning; and at the other periods of the year, sometimes at early morning, when moonlight. In summer the hours of labour in the streets are from three, four, five, or six in the morning, to half-past four in the afternoon; in winter, from light to light, and after street there may be yard and barge work.
The saving by this scurf system, then, is:--
30 men (honourable trade), 16_s._ weekly £1248 yearly. 24 men (scurf-trade) doing same work, 16_s._ weekly 998 „ ----- Saving to capitalist and loss to labourer £250 „
It now but remains to sum up the capital, income, and expenditure of the machine-scavaging trade.
The cost of a street-sweeping machine is 50_l._ to 60_l._, with an additional 5_l._ 5_s._ for the set of brooms. The wear and tear of these machines are very considerable. A man who had the care of one told me that when there was a heavy stress on it he had known the iron cogs of the inner wheels “go rattle, rattle, snap, snap,” until it became difficult to proceed with the work. The brooms, too, in hard work and “cloggy” weather, are apt to snap short, and in the regular course of wear have to be renewed every four or five weeks. The sets of brooms are of bass, worked strongly with copper wire. The whole apparatus can be unscrewed and taken to pieces, to be cleaned or repaired. The repairs, independently of the renewal of the brooms, have been calculated at 7_l._ yearly each machine. The capital invested, then, in twelve street-sweeping machines, in the horses, and what may be considered the appurtenances of the trade, together with the yearly expenditure, may be thus calculated:--
CAPITAL OF STREET-SWEEPING MACHINE TRADE.
12 machines, 60_l._ each £720 12 sets of brooms, 5_l._ 5_s._ each set 63 19 horses, 25_l._ each 475 4 water-carts, 20_l._ each 80 19 sets of harness (new), 7_l._ each set 133 4 barges, 50_l._ each 200 ----- £1671
YEARLY EXPENDITURE.
24 men, 16_s._ weekly £998 120 sets of brooms for 12 machines, 4_l._ per set 480 Wear and tear, &c. (15 per cent.) 255 Keep of 19 horses, 10_s._ each weekly 494 Rent (say) 150 Clerk (say) 100 Interest on capital, at 10 per cent. 170 ----- £2674
In this calculation I have included wear and tear of the whole of the implements of the stock-in-trade, &c., taking that of the brooms on the most moderate estimate. According to the scale of payment by the parish of St. Martin (which is now 1000_l._ per annum) the probable receipts of a single year will be:--
YEARLY RECEIPTS.
£ _s._ _d._ For hire of 12 machines 2500 0 0 200 barge-loads of manure, 5_l._ 15_s._ per barge 1150 10 0 --------------- 3650 10 0 Yearly expenditure 2674 0 0 --------------- Profit 976 10 0
OF THE CLEANSING OF THE STREETS BY PAUPER LABOUR.
Under the head of the several modes and characteristics of street-cleansing, I stated at p. 207 of the present volume that there were no less than four distinct kinds of labourers employed in the scavaging of the public thoroughfares of the metropolis. These were:--
1. The self-supporting manual labourers. 2. The self-supporting machine labourers. 3. The pauper labourers. 4. The “philanthropic” labourers.
I have already set forth the distinguishing features of the first two of these different orders of workmen in connection with the scavaging trade, and now proceed in due order to treat of the characteristics of the third.
The subject of pauper labour generally is one of the most difficult topics that the social philosopher can deal with. It is not possible, however, to do more here than draw attention to the salient points of the question. The more comprehensive consideration of the matter must be reserved till such time as I come to treat of the poor specially under the head of those that cannot work.
By the 43 Eliz., which is generally regarded as the basis of the existing poor laws in this country, it was ordained that in every parish a fund should be raised by local taxation, not merely for the relief of the aged and infirm, but _for setting to work all persons having no means to maintain themselves, and using no ordinary or daily trade of life to get their living by_.
It was, however, soon discovered that it was one thing to pass an act for setting able-bodied paupers to work, and another thing to do so. “In every place,” as Mr. Thornton truly says in his excellent treatise on “Over Population,” “there is only a certain amount of work to be done,” (limited by the extent of the market) “and only a certain amount of capital to pay for it; and, if the number of workmen be more than proportionate to the work, employment can only be given to those who want it by taking from those who have.”
Let me illustrate this by the circumstances of the scavaging trade. There are 1760 miles of streets throughout London, and these would seem to require about 600 scavagers to cleanse them. It is self-evident, therefore, that if 400 paupers be “set” to sweep particular districts, the same number of self-supporting labourers must be deprived of employment, and if these cannot obtain work elsewhere, they of course must become paupers too, and, seeking relief, be put upon the same kind of work as they were originally deprived of, and that only to displace and pauperize in their turn a similar number of independent operatives.
The work of a country then being limited (by the capital and market for the produce), there can be but two modes of setting paupers to labour: (1) by throwing the self-supporting operatives out of employment altogether, and substituting pauper labourers in their stead; (2) by giving a portion of the work to the paupers, and so decreasing the employment, and consequently the wages, of the regular operatives. In either case, however, the independent labourers must be reduced to a state of comparative or positive dependence, for _it is impossible to make labourers of the paupers of an over-populated country without making paupers of the labourers_.
Some economists argue that, as paupers are consumers, they should, whenever they are able to work, be made producers also, or otherwise they exhaust the national wealth, to which they do not contribute. This might be a sound axiom were there work sufficient for all. But in an over-populated country there is not work enough, as is proven by the mere fact of the over-population; and the able-bodied paupers _are_ paupers simply _because they cannot obtain work_, so that to employ those who are out of work is to throw out those who are in work, and thus to pauperize the self-supporting.
The whole matter seems to hinge upon this one question--
Who are to maintain the paupers? The ratepaying traders or the non-ratepaying workmen?
If the paupers be set to work in a country like Great Britain, they must necessarily be brought into competition with the self-supporting workmen, and so be made to share the wage fund with them, decreasing the price of labour in proportion to the extra number of such pauper labourers among whom the capital of the trade has to be shared. Hence the burden of maintaining the paupers will be virtually shifted from the capitalist to the labourer, the poor-rate being thus really paid out of the wages of the operatives, instead of the profits of the traders, as it should be.
And here lies the great wrong of pauper labour. It saddles the poor with the maintenance of their poorer brethren, while the rich not only contribute nothing to their support, but are made still richer by the increased cheapness resulting from the depreciation of labour and their consequent ability to obtain a greater quantity of commodities for the same amount of money.
In illustration of this argument let us say the wages of 600 independent scavagers amount, at 15_s._ a week each the year through, to 23,400_l._ per annum; and let us say, moreover, that the keep of 400 paupers amounts, at 5_s._ a week each, to, altogether, 5200_l._; hence the total annual expense to the several metropolitan parishes for cleansing the streets and maintaining 400 paupers would be 23,400_l._ + 5200_l._ = 28,600_l._
If, however, the 400 paupers be set to scavaging work, and made to do something for their keep, one of two things _must_ follow: (1) either the 400 extra hands will receive their share of the 23,400_l._ devoted to the payment of the operative scavagers, in which case the wages of each of the regular hands will be reduced from 15_s._ to 9_s._ a week; hence the maintenance of the paupers will be saddled upon the 600 independent operatives, who will lose no less than 9360_l._ per annum, while the ratepayers will be saved the maintenance of the 400 paupers and so gain 5200_l._ per annum by the change; (2) or else 400 of the self-supporting operatives must be thrown out of work, in which case the displaced labourers will lose no less than 15,600_l._, while the ratepayers will gain upwards of 5000_l._
The reader is now, I believe, in a position to comprehend the wrong done to the self-supporting scavagers by the employment of pauper labour in the cleansing of the streets.
The preparation of the material of the roads of a parish seems, as far as the metropolis is concerned, at one time to have supplied the chief “test,” to which parishes have resorted, as regards the willingness to labour on the part of the able-bodied applicants for relief. When the casual wards of the workhouses were open for the reception of all vagrants who sought a night’s shelter, each tramper was required to break so many stones in the morning before receiving a certain allowance of bread, soup, or what not for his breakfast; and he then might be received again into the shelter of this casual asylum. In some parishes the wards were open without the test of stone-breaking, and there was a crowded resort to them, especially during the prevalence of the famine in Ireland and the immigration of the Irish peasants to England. The favourite resort of the vagrants was Marylebone workhouse, and Irish immigrants very frequently presented slips of paper on which some tramper whom they had met with on their way had written “_Marylebone workhouse_,” as the best place at which they could apply, and these the simple Irish offered as passports for admission!
Gradually, the asylum of these wards, with or without labour tests, was discontinued, and in one where the labour test used to be strongly insisted upon--in St. Pancras--a school for pauper children has been erected on the site of the stone-yard.
This labour test was unequal when applied to all comers; for what was easy work to an agricultural labourer, a railway excavator, a quarryman, or to any one used to wield a hammer, was painful and blistering to a starving tailor. Nor was the test enforced by the overseers or regarded by the paupers as a proof of willingness to work, but simply as a punishment for poverty, and as a means of deterring the needy from applying for relief. To make labour a punishment, however, is _not_ to destroy, but really to confirm, idle habits; it is to give a deeper root to the vagrant’s settled aversion to work. “Well, I always thought it was unpleasant,” the vagabond will say to himself “_that_ working for one’s bread, and now I’m _convinced_ of it!” Again, in many of the workhouses the labour to which the paupers were set was of a manifestly unremunerative character, being work for mere work’s sake; and to apply people to unproductive labour is to destroy all the ordinary motives to toil--to take away the only stimulus to industry, and remove the very will to work which the labour test was supposed to discover[22].
The labour test, then, or setting the poor to work as a proof of their willingness to labour, appears to be as foolish as it is vicious; the objections to it being--(1) the inequality of the test applied to different kinds of work-people; (2) the tendency of it to confirm rather than weaken idle habits by making labour inordinately repulsive; (3) the removal of the ordinary stimulus to industry by the unproductiveness of the work to which the poor are generally applied.
And now, having dealt with the subject of parish labour as a test of the willingness to work on the part of the applicants for relief, I will proceed to deal with that portion of the work itself which is connected with the cleansing of the streets.
And first as to the employment of paupers at all in the streets. If pauperism be a disgrace, then it is unjust to turn a man into the public thoroughfares, wearing the badge of beggary, to be pointed at and scorned for his poverty, especially when we are growing so
## particularly studious of our criminals that we make them wear masks
to prevent even their faces being seen[23]. Nor is it consistent with the principles of an enlightened national morality that we should force a body of honest men to labour upon the highways, branded with a degrading garb, like convicts. Neither is it _wise_ to do so, for the shame of poverty soon becomes deadened by the repeated exposure to public scorn; and thus the occasional recipient of parish relief is ultimately converted into the hardened and habitual pauper. “Once a pauper always a pauper,” I was assured was the parish rule; and here lies the _rationale_ of the fact. Not long ago this system of employing _badged_ paupers to labour in the public thoroughfares was carried to a much more offensive extent than it is even at present. At one time the pauper labourers of a certain parish had the attention of every passer-by attracted to them while at their work, for on the back of each man’s garb--a sort of smock-frock--was marked, with sufficient prominence, “CLERKENWELL. STOP IT!” This public intimation that the labourers were not only paupers, but regarded as thieves, and expected to purloin the parish dress they wore, attracted public attention, and was severely commented upon at a meeting. The “STOP IT!” therefore was cancelled, and the frocks are now _merely_ lettered “CLERKENWELL.” Before the alteration the men very generally wore the garment inside out.
The present dress of the parish scavagers is usually a loose smock-frock, costing 1_s._ 6_d._ to 2_s._, and a glazed hat of about the same price. In some cases, however, the men may wear these things or not, at their option.
The pauper scavagers employed by the several metropolitan parishes may be divided into three classes:--
1. The in-door paupers, who receive no wages whatever (their lodging, food, and clothing being considered to be sufficient remuneration for their labour).
2. The out-door paupers, who are paid partly in money and partly in kind, and employed in some cases three days and in others six days in the week.
These may be subdivided into--(_a_) the single men, who receive, or rather used to receive, 9_d._ and a quartern loaf for each of the three or more days they were so employed; (_b_) the married men with families, who receive 7_s._ and 3 quartern loaves a week to 1_s._ 1-1/2_d._ and 1 quartern loaf for each day’s labour.