Part 2

‘The chief novelty and merit,’ he said, ‘of Captain Galton’s fireplace consists in providing a chamber at the back of the grate, into which air passes directly from without, becomes moderately heated (to 84° Fah.), and, rising in a separate flue, is injected into the room under the ceiling with a force due to the heated ascending flue. A plenum of pressure is thus established within the room whereby indraughts through doors and windows are avoided, and the air is continually renewed by passing away through the fireplace chimney as usual. Thus the cheerfulness of an open fire, the comfort of a room filled with fresh but moderately warmed air, and great economy of fuel, are happily combined with unquestionable efficiency and simplicity; and yet this grate is little used, although it has been fully described in papers communicated by Captain Galton, and in an elaborate report made by General Morin, le Directeur du Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers of Paris, which has also appeared in the English language.’

Mr. Bessemer’s inventions.

But economy in the consumption of coal, in the manufacture of iron, is a far larger question than economy, however desirable in itself, in the consumption for domestic purposes; and, as an illustration of what may be achieved in this direction, I will quote some extracts from a letter from Mr. Bessemer, detailing the results, which have actually been attained through his most valuable discoveries.

The average quantity of coal required to make a ton of pig iron is about two tons of coal to a ton of pig; and, as pig iron forms the raw material for the several processes of manufacturing both malleable iron and steel, we may treat the pig simply as the raw material employed, and consider only how much coal is required to make a ton of finished rails. About two tons of coal are required in order to convert pig iron into iron railway bars.

To produce one ton of steel rails by the old process of making steel in Sheffield, a total consumption of ten tons eight cwt. of coal is required; and the conversion of iron bars into blistered bars occupies from 18 to 20 days.

To make Bessemer’s steel from pig iron into steel rails requires about five cwt. of small coal, in the form of coke, to melt the pig iron in the cupola; two cwt. to heat the converting vessel and ladle; two cwt. for the blast engine, which converts five tons of pig iron into fluid cast steel in twenty minutes; and, lastly, for rolling the ingots into rails, sixteen cwt. of coal, making a total consumption of twenty-five cwt. of coal, in producing one ton of Bessemer’s steel rails from pig iron. Thus, common iron rails take two tons of coal; Sheffield cast steel rails, ten tons eight cwt.; Bessemer’s steel rails, one ton five cwt.

But we must also consider other points in connection with these figures, in order to arrive at a correct estimate of the saving of coals, effected by the introduction of steel, as a substitute for iron.

Although the cost of Sheffield steel entirely shut it out of the market for rails, it must be borne in mind that it was extensively used for wheel tires, slide bars, piston rods, and other parts of locomotive engines; and here a saving of over nine tons of coal per ton of steel has been effected. Further, it must be borne in mind that at stations where rails are rapidly worn, the saving by the use of steel, as a substitute for iron, must not be simply estimated as a saving made on one ton of each material. For instance, at the London and North-Western station, at Crewe, the iron rails are so rapidly worn, that they require to be reversed every four months, each rail being completely worn out in eight months. Bessemer’s steel rails were first used at this station, and after being in constant use for seven years, they were removed in consequence of rebuilding the station; one side only of the rail having been used, and this was not quite worn out. During the seven years, therefore, that those rails were down, one ton five cwt. only of coal had been employed in the production of each ton of rails used at this station; whereas ten sets of iron rails would have been entirely worn out in that period, each set consuming two tons of coals in its manufacture, or equal to twenty tons of coals for iron rails, as against one ton five cwt. of coals for steel rails; and these, when turned, would be equal to another seven years’ wear on the side not used.

The above is, no doubt, an extreme case, but the same sort of thing goes on everywhere where steel is used, though in a lesser degree. It has indeed been admitted by competent persons, that the rapid destruction of iron rails would have caused a complete collapse of the Metropolitan railways by continued interference with the traffic, while removing the worn-out rails, had not steel been employed.

It should further be borne in mind that the extra strength of steel over iron admits of a reduction of one-third of its weight in all structures, previously made in iron. Thus, a further saving is effected in the fuel consumed for a given work.

The rapidity, with which Bessemer’s steel is coming into use, will be appreciated, when it is stated that the report of the jury at the London International Exhibition showed that the entire production of steel in Great Britain, prior to Bessemer’s invention, amounted to 51,000 tons per annum; while the quantity of Bessemer’s steel, made in Great Britain during the twelve months ending June 1873, amounted to 481,000 tons, or nearly ten times the amount of production prior to the invention. Had this quantity of steel been made by the old Sheffield process, it would have consumed, according to the foregoing figures, 4,401,000 tons more coal than was actually employed in its production. Should this enormous increase in the manufacture continue, as it at present promises to do, in another five years, we may have treble the quantity of steel made in this country with a corresponding saving of fuel.

Reduced consumption of coal in steamers.

In steam vessels a remarkable economy of fuel has of late been attained. In his lecture at Bradford, Mr. Siemens said, ‘A striking illustration of what can be accomplished in a short space of time was brought to light by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, over which I have at present the honour to preside. In holding their annual general meeting in Liverpool in 1863, they instituted a careful inquiry into the consumption of coal by the best engines in the Atlantic steam service, and the result showed that it fell in no case below 4½ lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour. Last year they again assembled with the same object in view in Liverpool, and Mr. Bramwell produced a table showing that the average consumption by 17 good examples of compound expansive engines did not exceed 2¼ lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour. Mr. E. A. Cowper has proved a consumption as low as 1½ lbs. per indicated horse-power per hour in a compound marine engine, constructed by him with an intermediate superheating vessel. Nor are we likely to stop long at this point of comparative perfection, for in the early portion of my address I have endeavoured to prove that theoretical perfection would only be attained if an indicated horse-power were produced with 1/5.5 lb. of pure carbon, or say ¼ lb. of ordinary steam coal per hour.’

Inventions of Mr. Siemens.

The furnace invented by the Messrs. Siemens is another highly successful contrivance. In melting one ton of steel in pots, 2½ tons of coke are ordinarily consumed. In Messrs. Siemens’ furnace, a ton of steel is melted with 12 cwt. of small coal.

When such results as this have been secured by a few inventors, what may we not venture to expect from the concentration of many ingenious minds on the important problem of economising coal?

Substitution of peat for coal.

As it is, I fear, certain that coal will never fall below fifteen or sixteen shillings a ton at the pit’s mouth, we ought not to neglect any possible source of supply. It has been suggested that the time has come when the peat bogs of these islands should be turned into coal and charcoal; and I am informed that the cost of the process does not exceed five shillings a ton. If these anticipations are verified, the drain on our coal-pits will be materially lessened.

General prospects of the iron trade.

It remains to consider how far the apprehensions, entertained in many quarters for the future of the British iron manufacture, are justified by actual experience. When we look back upon the past, the growth of British commerce cannot fail to reassure those, who are most inclined to look doubtfully on the future of our industry. Some statistics of the increase in the exports of iron and steel were given in a recent number of ‘Iron,’ from which I quote the following figures. Our exports of iron in 1840 amounted to 268,000 tons, of the value of £2,526,000. The quantity in 1850 was 783,000 tons; in 1860, 1,442,000 tons; and in 1870, 2,716,000 tons. The value in the latter year amounted to £21,080,000. In 1872 the quantity was 3,383,000 tons, the value of £36,000,000. We are sometimes assured that Belgium threatens our ironmasters with serious competition; but in Belgium the ore must be carried 100 miles or more to be smelted. The coal-pits are worked in many cases with considerable difficulty, and a Belgian workman does little more than half what an Englishman can accomplish in the same space of time. Sometimes we are told we shall lose our position in the Russian market. The Russian Government are doing their utmost to encourage the manufacture of iron at home; though there is little demand for pig iron in that country. Few Russians have had any experience in puddling. Skilled mill and forge men are scarce. Few of those obtainable have had any experience in the use of mineral fuel, and great difficulty is experienced in consequence of the objection of the Russians to piece-work. Lastly we are threatened with competition from the United States. The production of pig iron in the States may now be estimated at 2,500,000 tons, an increase of 1,000,000 tons on the production five years ago, and yet the ironmasters of the United States, who are protected by a duty of nearly £3 a ton on railroad iron, have hitherto been unable to supply the entire demand at home. There cannot be a doubt as to the ultimate consequences of the comparative exhaustion of our supplies of raw material at home; but we may hope that the tariffs, which now throw obstacles in the way of legitimate trade, will in time be removed, and that, as Mr. Mattieu Williams has suggested, we may be enabled to avail ourselves of the natural resources of America for obtaining our supplies of raw material, just as we already derive large supplies of hematite iron ore from Bilbao.

American competition.

At the present time, the United States, not content with their natural advantages, impose an almost prohibitory tariff on our exportations. There is a party in America opposed to protection, but hitherto the superior organisation and greater determination of the manufacturers interested in the maintenance of the tariffs has overpowered all opposition. At the last annual meeting of the American Institute of Mining Engineers at Philadelphia, the Honourable D. Kelley, who delivered the opening address, asserted that, by its dereliction of duty in not protecting the labourer of Great Britain against competition, the Government of this country have fostered anarchy in Ireland, while the life of the labourer in England and Scotland has been robbed of all its joys. ‘The millions of sturdy men,’ he declared, ‘represented by Bradlaugh, Odger, Joseph Arch, and the travelled and humane patrician, Sir Charles Dilke, know that the world owes every man a living, and that it is only by protection that the means of living can be secured to the people.’ So long as such a feeling prevails, there is little hope of our ironmasters obtaining free access to America.

The progress of the American iron works is the more creditable, because great difficulties are experienced in obtaining a sufficient supply of labour. Men come over from England, having had their expenses paid, on condition of taking an engagement for a period of five years. As soon as their bargain is performed, they generally find it impossible to resist the attractions of an independent farm in the Far West. Their places must be supplied by other workmen, obtained by the same costly means from the mother country. The difficulty of obtaining skilled workmen has had a great effect in America in stimulating the invention of labour-saving machinery; and as scientific manufacturers, the American ironmasters can doubtless hold their own against the world. In finished iron the Americans have been highly successful. Bridge-work, locomotives, wheels and tires, and machinery, are produced at prices, which may compare not unfavourably with our own. As an illustration of American ingenuity and enterprise, which came under my immediate notice, on the occasion of a recent visit to the States, I may point to the Peabody Rifle Company’s establishment at Providence, Rhode Island. During the Rebellion the Company was fully employed in the manufacture of small arms. The cessation of the struggle put an end to the demand for rifles; but, with the fertility of resource which distinguishes American industry, the manual skill of a large body of workmen especially apt in the production of tools or machinery, composed of numerous small and interchangeable parts, and the valuable and ingenious plant belonging to the Company, are now employed in the production of sewing machines. Three hundred machines are turned out every day, and the sale is constantly increasing. The wages of the 500 operatives employed are most liberal. The monthly pay-sheet amounts to 25,000 dollars, giving an average of 40_s._ a week throughout the factory. The leading workmen, five or six in number, to whom the work is let by the piece, or rather by sub-contract, earn nearly £600 a year. The superior mechanics earn 12_s._ to 14_s._; labourers 4_s._ to 6_s._ a day. The supply of highly-skilled labour is limited, but ordinary mechanics can always be obtained. On an average, one skilled mechanic a day makes application for employment.

The success of the Peabody Company affords significant evidence that the cost of production is not augmented in equal proportion to the high rates of pay. At the time of my visit, they were negotiating a contract for the supply of 100,000 rifles to the Roumanian Government, at the rate of 63_s._ per rifle; and they had to compete for the contract against all the makers of Birmingham and Liège. This Company had also in prospect an order for 200,000 rifles, from the Turkish Government. The success, with which the Americans have reduced the cost of production by the invention of machinery, gives us ground for caution, lest our old supremacy be shaken by the energy and talent of the New World; while it also gives us reason to hope that the effects of the exceptionally high rates of wages now prevailing may be mitigated by substituting, wherever it is possible, mechanical for manual labour.

A monopoly of the iron trade impossible.

I can only repeat once more that, in the present condition of our trade, there is nothing to justify serious misgivings as to our power of continuing a successful competition with foreign producers. It does not follow that, because we have lost a monopoly of a particular branch of trade abroad, the skill of the English workman must have deteriorated, or the cost of production have been unduly enhanced by the rise of wages. Foreign countries may have imported from us a particular commodity at a former time, solely because they were entirely inexperienced in its manufacture. When my father was executing the Rouen and Havre Railway, he imported the rails from England, although he had to pay an import duty at the French Custom-house, amounting to a considerably larger sum than the selling price of the rails at home. The almost incredible difference between the price of English and French rails at that time no longer exists: because that special branch of industry is now as well understood in France as in England. So, too, in the case of the employment of English contractors for the execution of public works on the Continent. An opportunity was offered to them in the origin of the railway system on the Continent; because in those early days of railways there were no native contractors, sufficiently acquainted with the art of making railways to venture to compete with the English invaders. Their intelligent observation of our methods of construction soon enabled the contractors on the Continent to tender in competition with the English; and for many years past all the railway works in France have been carried out by Frenchmen. It does not follow that the English contractor has lost his former skill. The true inference is, that the French, who had been previously in a position of inferiority solely from lack of experience, were enabled, as soon as they had gained that experience, to execute the works required, without the assistance of foreigners.

The development of our commercial relations with France, since the negotiation of the Treaty of Commerce, affords convincing proof of the great capabilities of our manufacturing industry. Since 1860, the exportation of iron, wrought and unwrought, to France has increased in value £540,000.

Looking therefore to the present condition of our iron trade, there is nothing to justify serious misgivings. According to the last report of the Commissioners of Customs, the average value of the pig iron exported in 1870 was £2. 19_s._ 2_d._ per ton; in 1871, £3. 1_s._ 8_d._; in 1872, £5. 0_s._ 11_d._; and yet the demand for pig iron continued unchecked. The increase in the quantity exported in 1872 over 1871 was 28 per cent. The increase in the price ranged as high as 108 per cent.

While the export of pig iron attained to the figures I have quoted, the total increase in the exports of iron and steel manufactures did not exceed 6.7 per cent. Indeed the manufacture of steel actually fell off from a value of £683,000 in 1871, to £623,000 in 1872; a result the more remarkable as compared with the increase in pig iron, because the price of steel had not advanced in the same proportion as the rise in pig iron. The price of the latter article had risen, as I have said, from £3. 1_s._ 8_d._ to £5. 0_s._ 11_d._ per ton; while unwrought steel had only advanced from £30. 12_s._ 3_d._ to £32. 18_s._ 7_d._ per ton, and steel manufactures from £52. 8_s._ 1_d._ to £55. 4_s._ 10_d._ per ton.

Hence it would appear that a demand once created for an article of the first necessity, such as iron, is not easily checked, even by a very marked advance of price.

It must, however, be remembered that, when the course of trade has been changed, and consumers, alarmed by the high prices in our market, have been taught to look for their supplies in another, the position once lost is not easily recovered. The superiority of our artisans in skill and industry has assisted our manufacturers to compete successfully in the past. The same success will not be maintained in future, unless our employers and workmen continue, as before, to use their united efforts to reduce the cost of production.

Shipbuilding.

Perhaps no branch of industry has been more successfully prosecuted in this country than shipbuilding; and the extensive use of iron for ships of the largest type makes it a point of great interest to ascertain how far the cost of building ships has been affected by the recent advance of wages. I am informed by an eminent firm of shipbuilders, that at the close of 1871, shortly after the reduction in the hours of labour from fifty-nine or sixty hours a week to fifty-four, an agitation was commenced amongst all classes of men for an advance in their rates of wages, which has been, in some shape or other, conceded to them, to the extent of from 7½ to 15 per cent. In reality, this was the natural consequence of the reduction in the hours of labour; although, at the outset the leaders of that movement professed that they had no desire to raise the rates of wages.

The reduced hours of labour increased the cost of production of all articles, and led to the necessity for an advance in the rates of wages. In point of fact, the advantage of the reduction in the hours of labour being conceded, on social and moral grounds, the necessity for some corresponding advance in wages followed as a matter of course, and was perhaps not unreasonable. The two causes combined have resulted in an increased cost of production, so far as labour is concerned, of from 20 to 25 per cent. The cost of building first-class steamers and first-class marine engines has, in consequence of the rise in wages and materials, been increased from 30 to 40 per cent.

The actual diminution, by the nine hours’ movement, in the amount of work, turned out with a given plant, should, in theory, be only in proportion to the reduced number of the hours of work, or, say, about one-tenth. It is in reality from 15 to 20 per cent.

From an eminent firm on the Clyde, I learn that on riveters’ and smiths’ piece-work there has been an increase of 20 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively, in the last two years; on the other hand, in fitters’ piece-work there has been a decrease of 10 per cent. The price of first-class steamers in 1871 was about £24 per ton. At present the cost would be from 30 to 35 per cent. higher. While the building of sailing ships decreased in 1871 and 1872, in 1873 there has been an increase in the number built. The building of steamers has not been so brisk in 1873 as in 1871 or 1872; a marked falling-off in orders having taken place since the beginning of this year.

On the Thames I find that piece-work is at least 15 per cent. dearer now than in 1869 and 1870. The operatives, employed in attending to large self-acting machines, which require little manual labour, are only working fifty-four hours instead of sixty hours. Again, there has been a large increase of overtime, since the nine hours’ movement commenced. Wages for overtime are higher than for ordinary time. An hour and a half’s pay is given for every hour’s work, and many men refuse to work unless a certain amount of overtime is given to them.

With these recent reports from shipbuilders it may be useful to compare the general progress of shipbuilding in the United Kingdom, in the last ten years. The tonnage of the ships built increased from 328,000 tons in 1867 to 475,000 tons in 1872. There has been no increase in the registered tonnage in the interval, but the vast increase in the proportion of steam to sailing vessels will fully explain the apparently stationary condition of the mercantile marine, if tested solely by the amount of tonnage. It is equally reassuring to find that, in the estimation of foreigners best qualified to form an opinion, the extent of our merchant navy excites profound admiration. M. Bal, director of the Bureau Veritas, in giving evidence before the French Parliamentary Commission of inquiry into the condition of the French Mercantile Marine, said that to him it seemed almost incredible that England, which has only 27,000,000 inhabitants, had 6,903,000 tons of shipping, whereas all the other maritime Powers combined had only 6,648,000 tons.