History of the Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, by E. Baines, Esq. ↩
Stubborn Facts from the Factories by a Manchester Operative. Published and dedicated to the working-classes, by Wm. Rashleigh, M.P., London, Ollivier, , p. 28, et seq. ↩
Compare Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report. ↩
L. Symonds, in Arts and Artisans. ↩
See Dr. Ure in the Philosophy of Manufacture. ↩
Report of Factory Inspector, L. Homer, : “The state of things in the matter of wages is greatly perverted in certain branches of cotton manufacture in Lancashire; there are hundreds of young men, between twenty and thirty, employed as piecers and otherwise, who do not get more than 8 or 9 shillings a week, while children under thirteen years, working under the same roof, earn 5 shillings, and young girls, from sixteen to twenty years, 10–12 shillings per week.” ↩
Report of Factories’ Inquiry Commission. Testimony of Dr. Hawkins, p. 3. ↩
In , among the accidents brought to the Infirmary in Manchester, one hundred and eighty-nine were from burning. ↩
Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report, Power’s Report on Leeds: passim Tufnell Report on Manchester, p. 17. etc. ↩
This letter is retranslated from the German, no attempt being made to reproduce either the spelling or the original Yorkshire dialect. ↩
How numerous married women are in the factories is seen from information furnished by a manufacturer: In 412 factories in Lancashire, 10,721 of them were employed; of the husbands of these women, but 5,314 were also employed in the factories, 3,927 were otherwise employed, 821 were unemployed, and information was wanting as to 659; or two, if not three men for each factory, are supported by the work of their wives. ↩
House of Commons, . ↩
Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report, p. 4. ↩
For further examples and information compare Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report. Cowell Evidence, pp. 37, 38, 39, 72, 77, 59; Tufnell Evidence, pp. 9, 15, 45, 54, etc. ↩
Cowell Evidence, pp. 35, 37, and elsewhere. ↩
Power Evidence, p. 8. ↩
Cowell Evidence, p. 57 ↩
Cowell Evidence, p. 82. ↩
Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report, p. 4, Hawkins. ↩
Stuart Evidence, p. 35. ↩
Tufnell Evidence, p. 91. ↩
Dr. Loudon Evidence, pp. 12, 13. ↩
Dr. Loudon Evidence, p. 16. ↩
Drinkwater Evidence, pp. 72, 80, 146, 148, 150 (two brothers); 69 (two brothers); 155, and many others.
Power Evidence, pp. 63, 66, 67 (two cases); 68 (three cases); 69 (two cases); in Leeds, pp. 29, 31, 40, 43, 53, et seq.
Loudon Evidence, pp. 4, 7 (four cases); 8 (several cases), etc.
Sir D. Barry Evidence, pp. 6, 8, 13, 21, 22, 44, 55 (three cases), etc.
Tufnell Evidence, pp. 5, 6, 16, etc. ↩
Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report, , Sir D. Barry Evidence, p. 21 (two cases). ↩
Factories’ Inquiry Commission’s Report, , Loudon Evidence, pp. 13, 16, etc. ↩
In the spinning-room of a mill at Leeds, too, chairs had been introduced. Drinkwater Evidence, p. 80. ↩
General report by Sir D. Barry. ↩
Power Report, p. 74. ↩
The surgeons in England are scientifically educated as well as the physicians, and have, in general, medical as well as surgical practice. They are in general, for various reasons, preferred to the physicians. ↩
This statement is not taken from the report. ↩
Tufnell, p. 59. ↩
Stuart Evidence, p. 101. ↩
Tufnell Evidence, pp. 3, 9, 15. ↩
Hawkins Report, p. 4; Evidence, p. 14, etc. etc. Hawkins Evidence, pp. 11, 13. ↩
Cowell Evidence, p. 77. ↩
Sir D. Barry Evidence, p. 44. ↩
Cowell, p. 35. ↩
Dr. Hawkins Evidence, p. 11; Dr. Loudon, p. 14, etc.; Sir D. Barry, p. 5, etc. ↩
Compare Stuart, pp. 13, 70, 101; Mackintosh, p. 24, etc.; Power Report on Nottingham, on Leeds; Cowell, p. 33, etc.; Barry, p. 12; (five cases in one factory), pp. 17, 44, 52, 60, etc.; Loudon, p. 13. ↩
Stuart, p. 39. ↩
Philosophy of Manufactures, by Dr. Andrew Ure, p. 277, et seq. ↩
Philosophy of Manufactures, 277. ↩
Philosophy of Manufactures, p. 298. ↩
Philosophy of Manufactures, p. 301. ↩
Dr. Andrew Ure. Philosophy of Manufactures, pp. 405, 406, et seq. ↩
Afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, died . ↩
It is notorious that the House of Commons made itself ridiculous a second time in the same session in the same way on the Sugar Question, when it first voted against the ministry and then for it, after an application of the ministerial whip. ↩
Let us hear another competent judge:
“If we consider the example of the Irish in connection with the ceaseless toil of the cotton operative class, we shall wonder less at their terrible demoralisation. Continuous exhausting toil, day after day, year after year, is not calculated to develop the intellectual and moral capabilities of the human being. The wearisome routine of endless drudgery, in which the same mechanical process is ever repeated, is like the torture of Sisyphus; the burden of toil, like the rock, is ever falling back upon the worn-out drudge. The mind attains neither knowledge nor the power of thought from the eternal employment of the same muscles. The
