Part 68
Of the inhabitants of Liverpool, it is ascertained that about 9500 live in cellars underground, and upwards of 9000 in back houses, which in general have an imperfect ventilation, especially in the new streets on the south side of the town, where a pernicious practice has been introduced of building houses to be let to labourers, in small confined courts, which have a communication with the street by a narrow aperture, but no passage for the air through them. Among the inhabitants of the cellars and these back houses the typhus is constantly present; and the number of persons under this disease that apply for medical assistance to the charitable institutions, the public will be astonished to hear, exceeds, on an average, 3000 annually. For the ten years preceding 1797, there were, on an average, 119 patients ill of fever constantly on the books of the dispensary. Of convalescents, unfit for labour, the average number will be nearly as great. Thus, in Liverpool, 240 of the poor may be considered as constantly rendered incapable of earning their subsistence by this single disease; and as the poor seldom lay up any part of their earnings for a season of sickness, the expense of their maintenance must, in one form or other, fall on the public. If we take this as low as 10_l._ for each, it will amount to 2400_l._ annually.
Though the cure of this disease is a principal object of our charitable institutions in Liverpool, it is to be lamented that hitherto little or nothing has been done for its prevention. The infection arises from a want of cleanliness and ventilation, and its influence is promoted by damp, fatigue, sorrow, and hunger. A vigilant exercise of all the means of prevention might, in a short period, supersede the use of hospitals, by extinguishing the disease; a prospect in which the philanthropist might more safely indulge, if he could calculate with the same confidence on the wisdom as on the power of his species.[63]
24.—_Extract from Dr. Ferriar’s Advice to the Labouring Classes in Manchester; given in 1800._
Avoid living in damp cellars; they destroy your constitutions and shorten your lives. No temptation of low rents can counterbalance their ill effects. You are apt to crowd into the cellars of new buildings, supposing them to be clean; this is a fatal mistake; a new house is always damp for two years, and the cellars which you inhabit under them are generally as moist as the bottom of a well. In such places you are liable to bad fevers, which often throw the patient into a decline, and you are apt to get rheumatic complaints, that continue for a long time and disable you from working.
If you cannot help taking a cellar, be attentive to have all the windows put in good repair before you venture into it, and, if possible, get it whitewashed. If you attempt to live in a cellar with broken windows, colds and fevers will be the certain consequences.
In many parts of the town you sleep in back rooms, behind the front cellar, which are dark and have no proper circulation of air. It would be much more healthy to sleep to the front; at least when you have large families, which is often the case, you ought to divide them, and not to crowd the whole together in the back cellar.
Keep your persons and houses as clean as your employments will permit, and do not regret the loss of an hour’s wages when your time is occupied in attending to cleanliness. It is better to give up a little time occasionally to keep your houses neat, than to see your whole family lying sick in consequence of working constantly without cleaning. It would be of great service if you could contrive to air your bed and bed-clothes out of doors once or twice a-week.
Always wash your children from head to foot with cold water before you send them to work in the morning. Take care to keep them dry in their feet, and never allow them to go to work without giving them their breakfast, though you should have nothing to offer them but a crust of bread and a little water. Children who get wet feet, when they go out early fasting, seldom escape fever or severe colds.
* * * * *
Your health will always be materially injured by the following circumstances:—living in small back buildings, adjoining to the open vaults of privies; living in cellars where the streets are not properly soughed or drained; living in narrow bye-streets where sheep are slaughtered, and where the blood and garbage are allowed to stagnate and corrupt, and perhaps more than all, by living crowded together in dirty lodging-houses, where you cannot have the common comforts of light and air.
It should be unnecessary to remind you that much sickness is occasioned among you by passing your evenings at ale-houses, or in strolling about the streets or in the fields adjoining to the town. Perhaps those who are most apt to expose themselves in this manner would pay little attention to dissuasive arguments of any kind; however, those who feel an interest in your welfare cannot omit making the remark.
25.—_Principles of Jurisprudence and Responsibility for Accidents._
(_Extract from the First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Labour Children in Factories._)
From the evidence collected, it appears that in many of the mills, numerous accidents of a grievous nature do occur to the workpeople. It appears also that these accidents may be prevented, since in some mills where more care of the workpeople is in general displayed they are prevented. It appears further, that whilst some manufacturers liberally contribute to the relief of the sufferers, many other manufacturers leave them to obtain relief from public bounty, or as they may.
The refusal to contribute to the expense of the cure of those who have been maimed is usually founded on the assertion that the accident was occasioned by culpable heedlessness or temerity. In the cases of the children of tender years, we do not consider this a valid defence against the claim for contribution from the employer. We cannot suppose an obligation to perpetual caution and discretion imposed on children at an age when those qualities do not usually exist. The indiscretion of children must, we consider, be presumed and guarded against as a thing that must necessarily, and to a greater or less extent, be manifested by all of them.
But the accidents which occur to the adults, are of themselves evidence (unless they were wilfully incurred in a state of delirium) that the individual used all the caution of which he is capable; as it may be presumed that the loss of life or limb, or the infliction of severe pain, would rarely be wantonly incurred.
Some of the manufacturers have proposed that the inspectors, who they think ought to be appointed to insure compliance with any legislative regulation, should have power to inspect the factories, and direct what parts of the machinery should be fenced off, and that after such directions have been complied with, the manufacturer should be relieved from further responsibility.
We concur in the proposition for giving such power to inspectors, but we do not concur in the proposal to relieve the manufacturer from responsibility.
We apprehend that no inspector would probably be so fully conversant with all the uses of every variety of machinery as to be acquainted with all the dangers which may be provided against; and also, that whilst there is much machinery which does not, from its nature, admit of its being boxed off, there is much that could not be made entirely safe without the reconstruction of whole manufactories.
Excluding from consideration the cases of culpable temerity on the part of the adults, and assuming that the aid to be given when accidents do occur shall afford no bounty on carelessness, the cases which remain for provision are those of adults which may be considered purely accidental. Taking a case of this class, where mischief has occurred in the performance of the joint business of the labourer and his employer; the question is, by which of these parties the pecuniary consequences of such mischief shall be sustained.
We conceive that it may be stated, as a principle of jurisprudence applicable to the cases of evils arising from causes which ordinary prudence cannot avert, that responsibility should be concentrated, or, as closely as possible, apportioned on those who have the best means of preventing the mischief. Unless we are to impose on the workman the obligation of perpetual care and apprehension of danger, the nature of the injuries inflicted are of themselves evidence that all the care which can be taken by individuals attending to their work is taken by them; it is only the proprietor of the machinery who has the most effectual means of guarding against the dangers attendant upon its use.
If such an extent of pecuniary responsibility for the accidents which are incidental to the use of the machines is imposed upon him, those consequences will be more likely to be taken into account, and to be guarded against at the time of the erection of the machinery. The workmen are not prone to regard immediate dangers, still less dangers which are remote and contingent, and many of the accidents are of a nature apparently too uncertain to form data for insurance. It could hardly be expected that a workman in entering a manufactory should object that any portion of the machinery is dangerous, and that it ought to be boxed off. But the proprietor of the machine is necessarily the person who can best foresee all the consequences incidental to its use, and can best guard against them. By throwing upon him a portion of the pecuniary responsibility for those mischiefs, we combine interest with duty, and add to the efficiency of both.
If the pecuniary consequences from unavoidable accidents were considerable, the imposition of the proposed responsibility may be met by the master, or by a deduction from the wages. Considering the defective nature of most existing modes of provision against sickness and casualties by benefit or friendly societies, and also, unhappily, the large proportion of those who, from improvidence, do not take advantage of these or other means, (of which some portion of the working-class avail themselves in so exemplary and admirable a manner), if we were to devise a form of insurance against the casualties in question, available to all classes, we should recommend that measures should be taken to secure from the master the regular deductions of the amount of the contribution of the persons employed.
We propose that in the case of all accidents whatsoever from machinery occurring to children under fourteen years of age, the proprietor of the machinery shall pay for the medical attendance on the child, and all the expenses of the cure, until medical attendance is no longer required; and also during the same period, shall continue to pay wages at the rate of half the wages enjoyed by the individual in question at the time of the occurrence of the accident.
We are of opinion that persons above that age, in all cases where the injury was received from accidents in the ordinary course of business, where there was no culpable temerity, should receive similar treatment at the expense of the employer, and should also be allowed half wages until the period of cure, as we believe that an allowance of full wages would occasion considerable fraud in the protraction of that period, especially in the cases of accidents of a less serious nature.
We think that the remedy should be given on complaint before a magistrate or the inspector.
“With regard to fatal injuries occasioned by wilful negligence, we have at present no new remedies to suggest as substitutes to those afforded by the common law.”
[In a recent case, I believe in Scotland, 300_l._ damages were recovered against the owner of an old mine for the loss of a child, which had fallen into it accidentally from the opening not being properly protected.
It is sometimes stated that the owners of mines already come within the principle, that they are interested in prevention, inasmuch as they incur loss from the stoppage of work and otherwise by accidents. The fact, however, of no exertions being made for prevention might be adduced as proof that the share of the loss was not sufficiently great, and the interest therefore inadequate; but it will generally be found that no share of the loss falls directly on the manager of the works, and that the pecuniary consequences are so far diffused over numerous partners as not to be felt, and that this is so particularly in works or machinery belonging to joint-stock companies.
In Prussia, as well as Austria, deductions are required by the law to be made from the wages of the men engaged in mining operations, which deductions constitute a sick-fund for the support of the men during ordinary sickness. The following is a translation of the articles of the Prussian code in respect to the responsibility now imposed on the owners for accidents to the workpeople in Prussia as in Austria:—
Art. 214. “The proprietors of the mines are bound to take care of the miners who are wounded or fall into bad health in their service.
Art. 215. “When the provincial laws do not contain any express provisions thereon, the person who works the mine shall pay to the sick or wounded workman four weeks’ wages if the produce of the mine does not cover the expense of working, or if it be only just equal to it, or if it be required to defray the antecedent expenses of the mine; and when the mine produces a sufficient dividend, the workman shall be paid eight weeks’ wages in case the illness lasts that length of time.
Art. 216. “If the illness lasts a greater length of time, the miner shall be supported out of the sick-fund.
Art. 217. “The expenses of medical treatment, and of burial of a miner wounded or killed by accident, shall be defrayed from the same fund.
Art. 218. “The widow of a miner has also the right to claim the gratuitous wages fixed by Article 215.
Art. 219. “The gratuitous wages granted to the miner in case of wounds or death are not allowed if the miner has killed or wounded himself with premeditation, or by any gross neglect, working otherwise than in the mine.
Art. 220. “If the wound or death has been occasioned by malice or the gross neglect of a third person, the latter shall indemnify the sick-fund and the proprietors of the mine.”—E. C.]
26. _Extract from the Report of John L. Kennedy, Esq., Barrister at Law, to the Commissioners for Inquiring into the Labour of Young Persons in Mines and Manufactories._
In all the instances which I have met with of accidents occurring in coal-mines, as I have repeatedly stated, negligence forms an almost invariable element—negligence which is fairly assignable to one or other of the parties concerned in this branch of industry: either negligence on the part of the colliers, whether adults or children, in omitting those means of safety which are within their own control, or negligence on the part of the superintendent, or ultimately of the owners of the mines, in not providing the _means_, or duly regulating those means of safety, which are not within the discretion of any child or the control of the individual workman.
The children who are below the age of discretion are of course not to be deemed responsible for that which they have not to exercise; and unfortunately in the present state of education of the adult colliers, a large proportion of them are in the same category as children in respect to the want of discretion; and hence arises the first difficulty of any direct legislative interference for their protection.
Whatever detailed provisions might be laid down in any statute, or directed by any public officer acting under the authority of any statute, I can see no reason to believe that they would be adopted below ground by such a population.
For example; the safety-lamp is provided by most, and directed by all proprietors and underlookers to be used by the colliers; but, as we have seen, they habitually set aside the protection thus provided for them, though they do so under a penalty of maiming or death—and what more severe penalty could any statute impose or enforce with greater certainty? Education appears to me to be the slow and remote but complete preventive of those calamities arising from indiscretion. The efficiency of this remedy, the fact that ignorance and brutality are not essential to mining occupations, will, I apprehend, be shown by the comparative superiority of a better educated class of miners, namely, the Cornish miners and the lead miners of Lead Hills, Lanarkshire, who often, with less wages than the colliers of this district, attain a superior condition and are comparatively free from the like instances of indiscretion.
It will, however, be seen that there is a large class of accidents which comes within the control of responsible agents, and which would scarcely be within the control of the colliers, even if they had the discretion. For example, the sufficiency of the winding-ropes, guiders and side-rods, chairs, sliders, casing of the pit sides with brick and mortar, covers over the tubs to prevent coal falling on those ascending and descending in them, and the various other means of security in superior pit gearing, which, having been adopted in some mines with success, are demonstrably practicable, and no doubt ought to be used in all other similar cases.
But these practical measures appear to me from their number to be incapable of specification in any statute that could be discussed or tolerated in Parliament, if it should take upon itself the direction of mining operations, and they are apparently too numerous and important, to be intrusted to the discretion of any public officer. Positive regulations by statute or under legislative sanction would, I apprehend, impede changes in machinery and in operations which are commonly beneficial to the whole class of the workpeople. In whatsoever mode such preventive regulations were prescribed, the enforcement of them would, I apprehend, imply an inspection by a public officer; from the nature of the places I should doubt the efficiency of such inspection. I doubt whether inspectors could be found who would faithfully descend shafts two or three times the depth of the height of St. Paul’s, and amidst wet and damp and noxious gases crawl or allow themselves to be waggoned through miles of dark drains and subterranean caverns, with the chance of the roof falling on them or being burnt by explosion, _to see that all was right_, and not act on the easy assumption that it was so.
I believe, in the course of my own performance of the disagreeable duty assigned to me, I became tolerably familiar with such places; but I could not but perceive that I might easily have been deceived, and was always at the mercy of the colliers themselves for the completeness of my information.
No familiarity diminishes the disagreeable duty of proceeding through low, hot, and damp galleries, bent with the chest on the knees, under the oppression of clothes damp with moisture or perspiration, which the inspector must endure.
Proprietors themselves, whose direct interest it is to be aware of what is going forward under ground, are obliged to depend for inspection on their underlookers or foremen, who have been colliers.
In a large proportion of accidents, especially those where the witnesses are themselves destroyed, it would, I conceive, be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove against underlookers or proprietors the neglect of proper precaution. For example, in explosions of fire-damp the air-doors are frequently blown to pieces, the waggons dashed to atoms, the roof brought in by collapse from the exhaustion of the air in the mine, and, in short, the position of everything so completely deranged that it would be impossible to arrive at any correct conclusion as to the state of things previous to the accident.
A boy is thrown out of a tub in ascending the pit-shaft by the chairs coming in contact half way, the chairs may or may not be broken, the body is found dashed to pieces at the bottom; if it so happen that there are no marks either on the chairs or basket to show that they have been in contact, no one would be so bold as to swear that it was so. Numerous cases of this nature might be cited.
It may be a question whether extensive remedies are not practicable by the application of the principle of concentrating responsibility on those who have the best means of prevention, by such self-acting arrangements as shall give them a direct interest in prevention. Coal-owners and the underlookers of collieries assume that all the accidents which are not caused by the negligence of the workmen themselves are absolutely unavoidable, and in the present state of their interest and knowledge I believe them to be sincere in their assumption. As evidence of its truth, and in justification, they may adduce the frequent return of verdicts of simply “accidental death” upon inquests before the coroners. Conceding most fully that a large extent of accident is an unavoidable and essential concomitant of this branch of industry, the question then arises, Why should not this branch of industry bear the whole of its necessary and unavoidable consequences?
The more this question is examined, the more I apprehend will it be found desirable that the full expenses of such accidents should be borne by that branch of industry in which they are created; in which case they will be borne either by those who, as producers, have the chief profits, or they will fall, as I apprehend they ought to fall, on the consumers.
The satisfaction of the pecuniary losses attendant on _personal injuries_ from accidents, heavy and long continued as those losses are, will be found to be a consideration of minor importance to the _prevention_ of the accidents; and, above all, the prevention of the degraded mental condition of the reckless population amidst which such accidents occur. By imposing the pecuniary consequences, not as penalties for omissions, which at present are really not wilful, but as a trade charge or _insurance_ payable by the branch of industry liable to the accidents, an interest will be created in their prevention on the part of those who alone have the means of efficiently preventing them. Instead of a penalty in the expense to which they might be put, they would thus have a perpetually acting bounty in the saving of every new improvement, and would be made the most efficient inspectors—having in every foreman and collier a superintendent in himself, gratis to the public.