Part 41

The prevalent impression upon such instances would be expressed by such phrases as, “If men will be so careless, there is no help for it; they must take the consequences:” but they only take a part of the consequences—the sickness; the main part of the consequences are taken by others, especially if they are married, when the premature widowhood and orphanage are sustained by the wife and children, who are maintained at the expense of the relations or of the public. This recklessness is however the result of neglected education, of which the workmen are the victims, and for measures of beneficence such workmen are to be regarded and treated as children, for they are children in intellect. An instance of a beneficial measure of compulsory prevention taken by some employers of labour is mentioned by Mr. John Kennedy, jun., in a report on the condition of some classes of workpeople examined under the Commission of Inquiry into the Employment of Children, not included in the regulations of the Factory Act. Some workmen employed in “Kyanizing” wood became frequently ill from the fumes created in the process, to which fumes they unnecessarily exposed themselves. Admonitions to care were found to be of no avail, and the employer at length gave notice that he would discharge entirely from employment the first that was attacked with the peculiar illness produced by the fumes of the metal. This threat was acted upon, and no other cases of illness afterwards occurred.

In France, where the diseases by which the working classes are afflicted have been investigated by those medical men who have given their attention to the improvement of the public health, the general conclusion has been established of the futility of leaving protective measures to the voluntary adoption of the individual workman. In the course of one of his reports, _M. Duchâtelet_ observes, that—

“It appears certain that the greatest part of the attacks of asphyxia which have taken place in the sewers have arisen from the traps being closed. I know that it is now enjoined on the workmen to open these traps while they are at their labour. But do they do this? Assuredly not in by far the majority of cases. Is it not a maxim to render independent of the will and superintendence of men, and above all of workmen, everything which appertains in a notable manner to their preservation? In the grave and learned discussions which have occupied this year (1824) the Academy of Sciences, on the means of preventing the dangers arising from steam-engines, not only all the members of the Commission, but the entire Academy, have been unanimous on the necessity of rendering independent of the workmen the direction of the level of the water in the boilers, and the tension of the steam. It evidently appeared that on this depended the solution of the problem. The same thing is now discussing on the subject of lighting by hydrogen gas.”

I will further adduce parallel examples, drawn from experience, in respect to the condition of the working population in France. It is contained in a treatise by _M. Emile Beres_, on the Means of Ameliorating the Condition of Artisans:—

“The condition of the labouring population would be less precarious, and their lives less exposed to accidents of every kind, if more foresight presided over their operations. Employers are often guilty of unpardonable carelessness with respect to the employed. To see their conduct, one would suppose that the men in their service were inert machines, or else that they possessed the power of the Creator to reconstruct broken limbs, to restore exhausted constitutions, or to give life to the dead. Here a deleterious atmosphere, which ought to be carefully purified, is imprudently allowed to be inhaled; there a poison, which ought to be handled with precaution, is allowed to penetrate every pore. Further on, as if man had wings, he is embarked on the most fragile scaffolds. Again, he is inconsiderately left to prosecute dangerous researches which demand the utmost care. It is not thus that we should act when the health and life of human beings are in question. To such neglects how many families owe their poverty and misery!

“There have long existed mills to grind plaster, which have not, nevertheless, prevented the unhappy workmen from being employed, in many places, and even in Paris, to pound it with a wooden club, their bodies bent towards the ground, and thus inhaling it in such quantities that the greatest number of them die young, of pulmonary phthisis.

“The use of the moveable inodorous tanks has been long understood in Paris. It consists in substituting for the tanks of masonry vessels of oak, painted, and strongly hooped with iron, so as to allow neither matter nor smell to escape. They are placed beneath the pipe which conveys the contents of the water-closet, and, when full, are carried away, and replaced by others at every hour of the day, without difficulty, without danger to the workmen, without inconvenience to the inhabitants. Well; not only are the ancient tanks not suppressed in favour of this system, so convenient in all respects, but every day new ones are constructed, though not a year passes in which we do not hear of unhappy men perishing in the process of emptying, suffocated by the gas which escapes in their disgusting operation. Now, if we add to the danger of emptying the receptacles, the nuisance to all the inhabitants of the house, which is infected in its remotest corners, as well as the neighbouring houses of the same street, or even quarter; when we take into account the damage to furniture (especially to things that are gilt) by the escape of sulphureous gas, we shall have the measure of the negligence, I will not say of the proprietors only who maintain such an abuse without any justifiable motive, but even of the authority that suffers it. It is no rare thing, after the emptying has taken place, to see asphyxia produced in the masons who are employed in repairing the walls, or in remedying the infiltrations from the privies.

“There is another method, more recent, and, in all probability, more advantageous, of preventing the inconveniences of the ancient receptacles; it is the system of disinfecting fecal matter, discovered by a learned chemist, M. Payen. Independently of its hygienic advantages, and the procuring a powerful manure, this method comprises a question of human dignity of great value. It is necessary, as far as possible, to take from our fellow men the mischievous necessity to perform labours which invest them with ideas of disgust.

“Since the use of gas for lighting, several accidents have happened. Are they not due, for the most part, to the want of precaution in the directors of these manufactories, who have not sufficiently prescribed to their men the necessary measures of prevention? Should they not all know that one must not run with a candle into a place where there is a stream of gas, as one would go in search of a stream of water? It is this imprudence which commonly occasions the explosions that happen, and which are ordinarily followed by the gravest accidents. Do we not find the same carelessness in our mines, followed by the same catastrophes? It is in vain, therefore, that Sir Humphry Davy applied his genius to the discovery of the safety-lamp! Do not the most ordinary rules of health condemn the ignorance with which the preparations of mercury, of sulphur, of lead, of oxide of copper, &c., are made? In the places, lastly, in which wool, hides, and other animal substances are prepared, why not purify the atmosphere in which the workmen exist with such difficulty? This omission is the more strange, that some centimes of solution of chlorine every day would be sufficient to purify the largest shops.

“I insist strongly on the contents of this chapter, because it reveals one of the deepest plague-spots of the labouring population of towns, and because the remedies that it indicates are neither difficult to discover, nor expensive in their application. With more solicitude and surveillance on the part of the government, with more philanthropy on the part of masters, with more precaution as well as self-love on the part of the workmen, would our hospitals receive so many unhappy beings, and death reap so many victims?”

_Employers’ Means of influencing the Condition of the Working Population by regard to respectability in Dress._

Besides those means which affect immediately the health and moral condition of the workpeople, others are within the control of their employers which affect the personal appearance, and, through the self-respect, the morality of the population. _Mr. William Fairbairn_, in the course of an examination, adverted to the means of promoting respectability in personal appearance:—

“It is always,” said he, “an indication of looseness of character, and a low standard of moral conduct, to see a mechanic in dirt or in his working-clothes on Sunday. Thirty years’ experience leads me to draw a very unfavourable conclusion as to the future usefulness to me, and of success to himself, of any workman whom I see in dirt on a Sunday.

“As a general rule, does the advance of his house keep pace with the advance in condition of the person?—As a general rule, it does. Better personal condition leads to better associates, and commonly to better marriage, on which the improved condition of the house is entirely dependent. It is due to the labouring classes of females in Lancashire and the surrounding districts to state that, in the important household virtue of cleanliness, they are superior to the females of the same class in Scotland.

“Are you aware of what is the condition of their houses. Have you visited them?—I have not made it a practice to visit them, I chiefly judge of their circumstances from seeing them with their wives and families, and their well-dressed and respectable condition on the Sundays. These externals are always indications of greater comforts and respectability at home. I am a strong advocate for dress, and encourage the working men to dress well; if I see any workman in a dirty condition and in his working-clothes in the streets on the Sunday, I do not, perhaps, speak to him then, but on the Monday I tell him that I have been looking over the books, that I find that he has had as good wages as other men who dress respectably, and that I do not like to have any one about me who will not dress well on the Sunday. This intimation has generally had the desired effect.”

_Employers’ or Owners’ Influence in the Improvement of Habitations and sanitary Arrangements for the Protection of the Labouring Classes in the Rural Districts._

I would now submit, for consideration the evidence collected to show the appropriate means for the improvement of the condition of the labouring; classes in the rural districts; and first, as to the effects produced by improved residences:—

These are stated in a letter from the chairman of the Bedford union to Mr. Weale, the Assistant-Commissioner of the district, who had been requested by the Board to inquire as to the moral as well as the sanitary effects of improved tenements:—

“_Turvey Abbey, January 4, 1841._

“My dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st of January. You there state that, in a Return made to you by the Board of Guardians of the Bedford Union on the sanitary condition of the labouring population, it is reported that, in a few instances, cottages of an improved description have been erected by the employers of labour, the advantages of which have had a salutary influence on the moral habits of the inmates: and you request to know in what particular acts the improvement in moral conduct is displayed.

“I have much pleasure in saying that some cases of the kind have come under my own observation, and I consider that the improvement has arisen a good deal from the parties feeling that they are somewhat raised in the scale of society. The man sees his wife and family more comfortable than formerly; he has a better cottage and garden: he is stimulated to industry, and as he rises in respectability of station, he _becomes aware_ that he has a character to lose. Thus an important point is gained. Having acquired certain advantages, he is anxious to retain and improve them; he strives more to preserve his independence, and becomes a member of benefit, medical, and clothing societies; and frequently, besides this, lays up a certain sum, quarterly or half-yearly, in the savings’ bank. Almost always attendant upon these advantages, we find the man sending his children to be regularly instructed in a Sunday, and, where possible, in a day-school, and himself and family more constant in their attendance at some place of worship on the Lord’s-day. I know of more instances than one where, in consequence of encouragement of the kind above mentioned to the father of a poor family, the children were regularly sent to school, and there became so much improved in character and learning that they are now filling situations of high respectability, (one a confidential clerk in a large mercantile house in London,) and are assisting to support their parents in a manner as delightful as it is creditable.

“A man who comes home to a poor, comfortless hovel after his day’s labour, and sees all miserable around him, has his spirits more often depressed than excited by it. He feels that, do his best, he shall be miserable still, and is too apt to fly for a temporary refuge to the alehouse or beer-shop. But give him the means of making himself comfortable by his own industry, and I am convinced by experience that, in many cases, he will avail himself of it.

“Believe me, my dear sir, sincerely yours, “CHARLES LONGUET HIGGINS.

“_To Robert Weale, Esq._, “_Assistant Poor Law Commissioner_.”

The next exemplification is afforded in a letter from the clerk of the Stafford Union:—

“_Marston, Stafford, January 20, 1841._

“Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, as to the Return made by the Board of Guardians on the sanitary condition of the labouring population of this Union, in which it is stated that improved cottages have been erected by landed proprietors for their labourers, and the advantages afforded by such cottages have had a salutary influence on the moral habits of the inmates, and requesting to be informed in what particular acts the improvement in moral conduct is displayed.

“In answer thereto, I will endeavour to illustrate the remark of the Board of Guardians by contrasting the habits, the condition, and prospects of a labourer occupying an improved cottage with the occupier of a cottage of a contrary description. If we follow the agricultural labourer into his miserable dwelling, we shall find it consisting of two rooms only; the day-room, in addition to the family, contains the cooking utensils, the washing apparatus, agricultural implements, and dirty clothes, the windows broken, and stuffed full of rags. In the sleeping apartment, the parents and their children, boys and girls, are indiscriminately mixed, and frequently a lodger sleeping in the same and the only room; generally no window, the openings in the half-thatched roof admit light, and expose the family to every vicissitude of the weather; the liability of the children so situated to contagious maladies frequently plunges the family into the greatest misery. The husband, enjoying but little comfort under his own roof, resorts to the beer-shop, neglects the cultivation of his garden, and impoverishes his family. The children are brought up without any regard to decency of behaviour, to habits of foresight, or self-restraint; they make indifferent servants; the girls become the mothers of bastards, and return home a burden to their parents, or to the parish, and fill the workhouse. The boys spend the Christmas week’s holiday and their year’s wages in the beer shop, and enter upon their new situation in rags. Soon tired of the restraint imposed upon them under the roof of their master, they leave his service before the termination of the year’s engagement, seek employment as day-labourers, not with a view of improving their condition, but with a desire to receive and spend their earnings weekly in the beer-shop; associating with the worst of characters, they become the worst of labourers, resort to poaching, commit petty thefts, and add to the county rates by commitments and prosecutions.

“On the contrary, on entering an improved cottage, consisting on the ground-floor of a room for the family, a wash-house and a pantry, and three sleeping-rooms over, with a neat and well-cultivated garden, in which the leisure hours of the husband being both pleasantly and profitably employed, he has no desire to frequent the beer-shop or spend his evenings from home; the children are trained to labour, to habits and feelings of independence, and taught to connect happiness with industry, and to shrink from idleness and immorality: the girls make good servants, obtain the confidence of their employers, and get promoted to the best situations. The boys, at the termination of the year’s engagement, spend the Christmas week’s holiday comfortably under the roof of their parents; clothes suitable for the next year’s service are provided, and the residue of wages is deposited in the savings’ bank; a system of frugality is engrafted with the first deposit, increasing with every addition to the fund: they are gradually employed in those departments of labour requiring greater skill, and implying more confidence in their integrity and industry, and they attain a position in society of comparative independence.

“I have selected an extreme case to show more fully the advantages derived from improved cottages, and the immoral effects of inferior dwellings, unfortunately too numerous, in this Union.

“I have the honour to be, sir, “Your obedient servant, “PETER LOWE.

“_To Robert Veale, Esq., “Assistant Poor Law Commissioner._”

Much regret is frequently expressed at the change of condition which has taken place in the cultivation of the soil by farm labourers instead of farm servants living in the house of the farmer, and subject to the household rules at his board; but whatever real ground there may be to regret the change, it appears to be one generally preferred by both parties, and there appears to be no reason to expect that the ancient system will be revived. In the Appendix I have given an examination of the Rev. Thomas Whately, in reference to some frequent and most important mistakes in respect to cottage economy.

The Board agreeing that the most important leading examples of improvement were to be expected from the benevolence and public spirit of opulent individuals, requested the assistant commissioners in England to note the most conspicuous improvements of labourers’ tenements they have met with in their districts, and procure plans with a view to their promulgation. From these I have selected several examples, and have added several that I have met with in the course of my own inquiries.

Some eligible plans of cottage tenements are thus described in _Mr. Twisleton’s_ report from Norfolk and Suffolk:—

“Although the general aspect of the cottages in Norfolk and Suffolk is pleasing and attractive, I do not think that these counties can be generally cited as abounding with model cottages. Some of the best which I have seen belong to the Earl of Stradbroke, at Henham, near Halesworth in Suffolk; to the Earl of Leicester, at Holkham; and to the Rev. Mr. Benyon, at Culford, about five miles from Bury St. Edmunds. Those of the Earl of Stradbroke are built of brick, roofed with tiles, have four rooms at least, and have all proper conveniences of pantries, cupboards, and out-offices; but, at the same time, as they are principally with only one story, so that the bed-rooms are on the same floor with the parlour and kitchen, such cottages would only be built where land is no object; and they must be considered in the light of luxuries and ornaments. Some of the cottages of the Earl of Leicester, at Holkham, are perhaps the most substantial and comfortable which are to be seen in any part of England; and if all the English peasantry could be lodged in similar ones, it would be the realization of an Utopia. I have obtained from Mr. Emerson, of Holkham, their builder, drawings of the plans and of the elevation of eight of these cottages, which are built of brick roofed with tiles. I herewith transmit them to you, and it will be observed that there are three sets, two of two cottages each, and one of four cottages. Without entering into details respecting all the eight, I will draw your attention to the double cottages of 1819. Each of these has a front room, 17 feet by 12 feet in width, and 7 feet to 7 feet 6 inches high; a back kitchen of the same height, and 13 feet by 9 feet wide, together with a pantry on the same floor. Above these are three bed-rooms which, in different proportions, cover the space already specified for the ground-floor. At a convenient distance behind, each cottage has attached to it a wash-house, a dirt-bin, a privy, and a pig-cot. I may add that the drainage is excellent, that the water is good, that each cottage has about 20 rods of garden-ground, and that the rent, including gardens, is only three guineas a-year. Hence it is not to be wondered at that Mr. Emerson the builder has been enabled to say, in a letter to me: ‘I have never known in them an instance of fever or any epidemic.’

“These cottages are cited as showing what may be done by a landed proprietor who takes as great a pride in his good cottages and farms as others in fine hunters and race-horses, rather than with the least intention of asserting that the example is ever likely to be universally imitated. The cost of building two such cottages is stated by Mr. Emerson to be 220_l._ or 230_l._, which would be 110_l._ or 115_l._ each. Now, although individuals, here and there, may build cottages without regard to the pecuniary return, it may be assumed as incontrovertible, that no class of cottages will be universally adopted which does not command a reasonable interest for the money expended on them. But considering the cost of repairs, and the frequent trouble and uncertainty of obtaining the rents, it will probably not be denied that 6_l._ a-year would be the _minimum_ as a remunerative rent for the outlay of 110_l._ or 115_l._ on a cottage. However, the rent of 6_l._ would scarcely be paid by the agricultural population generally at the present wages: for reckoning the rate of wages at 12_s._ a-week (which would be high for some parts of the country), very few would be willing, out of that sum, to expend 2_s._ 3¾_d._ a-week, or nearly a fifth of their earnings, for the rent of their cottage.