The Encyclopedia of Medical Breakthroughs Forbidden

Treatments 2nd Edition Medical Research Associates -

PDF Download (2025)

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-encyclopedia-of-medical-
breakthroughs-forbidden-treatments-2nd-edition-medical-research-
associates/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
 We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookultra.com
to discover even more!

The Gale Encyclopedia of Surgery Medical Tests 2nd Edition

Brigham Narins

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-gale-encyclopedia-of-surgery-
medical-tests-2nd-edition-brigham-narins/

Encyclopedia of Medical Devices and Instrumentation 2nd ed

Edition John G. Webster

https://ebookultra.com/download/encyclopedia-of-medical-devices-and-
instrumentation-2nd-ed-edition-john-g-webster/

Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association

2014 2015 Ed American Medical Association

https://ebookultra.com/download/code-of-medical-ethics-of-the-
american-medical-association-2014-2015-ed-american-medical-
association/

Concise Encyclopedia of Biostatistics for Medical

Professionals 1st Edition Abhaya Indrayan

https://ebookultra.com/download/concise-encyclopedia-of-biostatistics-
for-medical-professionals-1st-edition-abhaya-indrayan/
Medical Research and Technology 1st Edition Alexandra
Morris

https://ebookultra.com/download/medical-research-and-technology-1st-
edition-alexandra-morris/

Advances in Smart Medical Textiles Treatments and Health

Monitoring 1st Edition Lieva Van Langenhove

https://ebookultra.com/download/advances-in-smart-medical-textiles-
treatments-and-health-monitoring-1st-edition-lieva-van-langenhove/

Desk Encyclopedia of Human and Medical Virology 1st

Edition Brian W.J. Mahy

https://ebookultra.com/download/desk-encyclopedia-of-human-and-
medical-virology-1st-edition-brian-w-j-mahy/

Fundamentals of Medical Imaging 2nd Edition Paul Suetens

https://ebookultra.com/download/fundamentals-of-medical-imaging-2nd-
edition-paul-suetens/

Do I Need to See the Doctor The Home Treatment

Encyclopedia Written by Medical Doctors 2nd Edition Murat

https://ebookultra.com/download/do-i-need-to-see-the-doctor-the-home-
treatment-encyclopedia-written-by-medical-doctors-2nd-edition-murat/
The Encyclopedia of Medical Breakthroughs Forbidden
Treatments 2nd Edition Medical Research Associates
Digital Instant Download
Author(s): Medical Research Associates, LLC
ISBN(s): 9780974985930, 0974985937
Edition: 2
File Details: PDF, 37.90 MB
Year: 2011
Language: english
Other documents randomly have
different content
and dearer kind. If the tools and appliances of the trade are
expensive, he either transfers the cost of providing them to the
workmen, or else he charges them a rent for their use; and so with
the places of work, he mulcts their wages of a certain sum per week
for the gas by which they labour, or he makes them do their work at
home, and thus saves the expense of a workshop; and, lastly, he
pays his men either a less sum than usual for the same quantity of
labour, or exacts a greater quantity from them for the same sum of
money. By one or other of these means does the man of limited
capital seek to counterbalance the advantages which his more
wealthy rival obtains by the possession of extensive “resources.” The
large employer is enabled to work cheaper by the sheer force of his
larger capital. He reduces the cost of production, not by employing a
cheaper labour, but by “economizing the labour” that he does
employ. The small employer, on the other hand, seeks to keep pace
with his larger rival, and strives to work cheap, not by “the economy
of labour” (for this is hardly possible in the small way of production),
but by reducing the wages of his labourers. Hence the rule in almost
every trade is that the smaller capitalists pay a lower rate of wages.
To this, however, there are many honourable exceptions among the
small masters, and many as dishonourable among the larger ones in
different trades. Messrs. Moses, Nicoll, and Hyams, for instance, are
men who certainly cannot plead deficiency of means as an excuse
for reducing the ordinary rate of wages among the tailors.
Those employers who seek to reduce the prices of a trade are
known technologically as “cutting employers,” in contradistinction to
the standard employers, or those who pay their workpeople and sell
their goods at the ordinary rates.
Of “cutting employers” there are several kinds, differently
designated, according to the different means by which they gain
their ends. These are:—
1. “Drivers,” or those who compel the men in their employ to do
more work for the same wages; of this kind there are two distinct
varieties:—
 a. The long-hour masters, or those who make the men
work longer than the usual hours of labour.
b. The strapping masters, or those who make the men (by
extra supervision) “strap” to their work, so as to do a
greater quantity of labour in the usual time.
2. Grinders, or those who compel the workmen (through their
necessities) to do the same amount of work for less than the
ordinary wages.
The reduction of wages thus brought about may or may not be
attended with a corresponding reduction in the price of the goods to
the public; if the price of the goods be reduced in proportion to the
reduction of wages, the consumer, of course, is benefited at the
expense of the producer. When it is not followed by a like diminution
in the selling price of the article, and the wages of which the men
are mulct go to increase the profits of the capitalist, the employer
alone is benefited, and is then known as a “grasper.”
Some cutting tradesmen, however, endeavour to undersell their
more wealthy rivals, by reducing the ordinary rate of profit, and
extending their business on the principle of small profits and quick
returns, the “nimble ninepence” being considered “better than the
slow shilling.” Such traders, of course, cannot be said to reduce
wages directly—indirectly, however, they have the same effect, for in
reducing prices, other traders, ever ready to compete with them,
but, unwilling, or perhaps unable, to accept less than the ordinary
rate of profit, seek to attain the same cheapness by diminishing the
cost of production, and for this end the labourers’ wages are almost
invariably reduced.
Such are the characteristics of the cheap employers in all trades. Let
me now proceed to point out the peculiarities of what are called the
scurf employers in the scavaging trade.
The insidious practices of capitalists in other callings, in reducing the
hire of labour, are not unknown to the scavagers. The evils of which
these workmen have to complain under scurf or slop masters are:—
1. Driving, or being compelled to do more work for the same pay.
2. Grinding, or being compelled to do the same or a greater amount
of work for less pay.
1. Under the first head, if the employment be at all regular, I heard
few complaints, for the men seemed to have learned to look upon it
as an inevitable thing, that one way or other they must submit, by
the receipt of a reduced wage, or the exercise of a greater toil, to a
deterioration in their means.
The system of driving, or, in other words, the means by which extra
work is got out of the men for the same remuneration, in the
scavagers’ trade is as follows:—some employers cause their
scavagers after their day’s work in the streets, to load the barges
with the street and house-collected manure, without any additional
payment; whereas, among the more liberal employers, there are
bargemen who are employed to attend to this department of the
trade, and if their street scavagers are so employed, which is not
very often, it is computed as extra work or “over hours,” and paid for
accordingly. This same indirect mode of reducing wages (by getting
more work done for the same pay) is seen in many piece-work
callings. The slop boot and shoe makers pay the same price as they
did six or seven years ago, but they have “knocked off the extras,”
as the additional allowance for greater than the ordinary height of
heel, and the like. So the slop Mayor of Manchester, Sir Elkanah
Armitage, within the last year or two, sought to obtain from his men
a greater length of “cut” to each piece of woven for the same
wages.
Some master scavagers or contractors, moreover, reduce wages by
making their men do what is considered the work of “a man and a
half” in a week, without the recompense due for the labour of the
“half” man’s work; in other words, they require the men to condense
eight or nine days’ labour into six, and to be paid for the six days
only; this again is usual in the strapping shops of the carpenters’
trade.
Thus the class of street-sweepers do not differ materially in the
circumstances of their position from other bodies of workers skilled
and unskilled.
Let me, however, give a practical illustration of the loss accruing to
the working scavagers by the driving method of reducing wages.
A is a large contractor and a driver. He employs 16 men, and pays
them the “regular wages” of the honourable trade; but, instead of
limiting the hours of labour to 12, as is usual among the better class
of employers, he compels each of his men to work at the least 16
hours per diem, which is one-third more, and for which the men
should receive one-third more wages. Let us see, therefore, how
much the men in his employ lose annually by these means.
Sum they
Sum received
should Difference.
per Annum.
receive.
£ s. £ s. £ s.
4 Gangers, at 18s. a
week, for 9 months in 140 8 210 12 70 4
the year
12 Sweepers, at 16s. a
week, for 9 months in 374 8 499 4 124 16
the year
Total wages per Ann. 514 16 709 16 195 0

Here, then, we find the annual loss to these men through the system
of “driving” to be 195l. per annum.
But A is not the only driver in the scavagers’ trade; out of the 19
masters having contracts for scavaging, as cited in the table given at
pp. 213, 214, there are 4 who are regular drivers; and, making the
same calculation as above, we have the following results:—
Sum they
Sum received
should Difference.
per Annum.
receive.
 £ s. £ s. £ s.
26 Gangers, at 18s. a
week, for 9 months in 912 12 1216 16 304 4
the year
80 Sweepers, at 16s. a
week, for 9 months in 2496 0 3328 0 832 0
the year
3308 12 4544 16 1136 4
Thus we find that the gross sum of which the men employed by
these drivers are deprived, is no less than 1136l. per annum.
2. The second or indirect mode of reducing the wages of the men in
the scavaging trade is by Grinding; that is to say, by making the men
do the same amount of work for less pay. It requires nothing but a
practical illustration to render the injury of this particular mode of
reduction apparent to the public.
B is a master scavager (a small contractor, though the instances are
not confined to this class), and a “Grinder.” He pays 1s. a week less
than the “regular wages” of the honourable trade. He employs six
men; hence the amount that the workmen in his pay are mulct of
every year is as follows:—
Sum they
Sum received
should Difference.
per Annum.
receive.
£ s. £ s. £ s.
6 men, at 15s. a
week, for 9 months in 175 10 187 4 11 14
the year
Here the loss to the men is 11l. 14s. per annum, and there is but
one such grinder among the 19 master scavagers who have
contracts at present.
3. The third and last method of reducing the earnings of the men as
above enumerated, is by a combination of both the systems before
explained, viz., by grinding and driving united, that is to say, by not
only paying the men a smaller wage than the more honourable
masters, but by compelling them to work longer hours as well. Let
me cite another illustration from the trade.
C is a large contractor, and both a grinder and driver. He employs 28
men, and not only pays them less wages, but makes them work
longer hours than the better class of employers. The men in his pay,
therefore, are annually mulct of the following sums.
SUMS THEY SHOULD
SUMS THE MEN RECEIVE.
RECEIVE.
£ s.d. £ s.d.
7 Gangers, at 16s. a 7 Gangers, at 18s. a
week, for 9 months in 218 8 0 week, for 9 months in 245 14 0
the year the year
21 Sweepers, at 15s. a Over work, 4 hours per
614 5 0 61 8 6
week day
21 Sweepers, at 16s. a
832 13 0 655 4 0
week, 12 hours a day
Over work, 4 hours a
163 6 0
day
1125 12 6
Here the annual loss to the men employed by this one master is
292l. 19s. 6d.
Among the 19 master scavagers there are altogether 7 employers
who are both grinders and drivers. These employ among them no
less than 111 hands; hence, the gross amount of which their
workmen are yearly defrau—no, let me adhere to the principles of
political economy, and say deprived—is as under:—
SUM THE MEN ANNUALLY SUM THEY SHOULD
RECEIVE. ANNUALLY RECEIVE.
£ s.d. £ s.d.
28 Gangers, at 16s. a 28 Gangers, at 18s. a
week, employed for 9 873 12 0 week (12 hours a day), 982 16 0
months in the year for 9 months in the year
83 Sweepers, at 15s. a
Over work, 4 hours per
week, employed for 9 242715 0 245 14 0
day
months in the year
83 Sweepers, at 16s. a
3301 7 0 258912 0
week, 12 hours a day
Over work, 4 hours per
647 8 0
day
446510 0
Here we perceive the gross loss to the operatives from the system of
combined grinding and driving to be no less than 1164l. 3s. per
annum.
Now let us see what is the aggregate loss to the working men from
the several modes of reducing their wages as above detailed.
£. s.d.
Loss to the working scavagers by the “driving” of
1136 4 0
employers
Ditto by the “grinding” 11 14 0
Ditto by the “grinding and driving” of employers 1164 3 0
Total loss to the working scavagers per annum 2312 1 0
Now this is a large sum of money to be wrested annually out of the
workmen—that it is so wrested is demonstrated by the fact cited at
p. 174 in connection with the dust trade.
The wages of the dustmen employed by the large contractors, it is
there stated, have been increased within the last seven years from
6d. to 8d. per load. This increase in the rate of remuneration was
owing to complaints made by the men to the Commissioners of
Sewers, that they were not able to live on their earnings; an inquiry
took place, and the result was that the Commissioners decided upon
letting the contracts only to such parties as would undertake to pay
a fair price to their workmen. The contractors accordingly increased
the remuneration of the labourers as mentioned.
Now political economy would tell us that the Commissioners
interfered with wages in a most reprehensible manner—preventing
the natural operation of the law of Supply and Demand; but both
justice and benevolence assure us that the Commissioners did
perfectly right. The masters in the dust trade were forced to make
good to the men what they had previously taken from them, and the
same should be done in the scavaging trade—the contracts should
be let only to these masters who will undertake to pay the regular
rate of wages, and employ their men only the regular hours; for by
such means, and by such means alone, can justice be done to the
operatives.
This brings me to the cause of the reduction of wages in the
scavaging trade. The scurf trade, I am informed, has been carried on
among the master scavagers upwards of 20 years, and arose partly
from the contractors having to pay the parishes for the house-dust
and street-sweepings, brieze and street manure at that period often
selling for 30s. the chaldron or load. The demand for this kind of
manure 20 years ago was so great, that there was a competition
carried on among the contractors themselves, each out-bidding the
other, so as to obtain the right of collecting it; and in order not to
lose anything by the large sums which they were induced to bid for
the contracts, the employers began gradually to “grind down” their
men from 17s. 6d. (the sum paid 20 years back) to 17s. a week, and
eventually to 15s., and even 12s. weekly. This is a curious and
instructive fact, as showing that even an increase of prices will,
under the contract system, induce a reduction of wages. The greed
of traders becomes, it appears, from the very height of the prices,
proportionally intensified, and from the desire of each to reap the
benefit, they are led to outbid one another to such an extent, and to
offer such large premiums for the right of appropriation, as to
necessitate a reduction of every possible expense in order to make
any profit at all upon the transaction. Owing, moreover, to the
surplus labour in the trade, the contractors were enabled to offer
any premiums and reduce wages as they pleased; for the casually-
employed men, when the wet season was over, and their services no
longer required, were continually calling upon the contractors, and
offering their services at 2s. and 3s. less per week than the regular
hands were receiving. The consequence was, that five or six of the
master scavagers began to reduce the wages of their labourers, and
since that time the number has been gradually increasing, until now
there are no less than 21 scurf masters (8 of whom have no
contracts) out of the 34 contractors; so that nearly three-fifths of the
entire trade belong to the grinding class. Within the last seven or
eight years, however, there has been an increase of wages in
connection with the city operative scavagers. This was owing mainly
to the operatives complaining to the Commissioners that they could
not live upon the wages they were then receiving—12s. and 14s. a
week. The circumstances inducing the change, I am informed, were
as follows:—one of the gangers asked a tradesman in the city to give
the street-sweepers “something for beer,” whereupon the tradesman
inquired if the men could not find beer out of their wages, and on
being assured that they were receiving only 12s. a week, he had the
matter brought before the Board. The result was, that the wages of
the operatives were increased from 12s. to 15s. and 16s. weekly,
since which time there has been neither an increase nor a decrease
in their pay. The cheapness of provisions seems to have caused no
reduction with them.
Now there are but two “efficient causes” to account for the reduction
of wages among the scurf employers in the scavagers’ trade:—(1)
The employers may diminish the pay of their men from a disposition
to “grind” out of them an inordinate rate of profit. (2) The price paid
for the work may be so reduced that, consistent with the ordinary
rate of profit on capital, and remuneration for superintendence,
greater wages cannot be paid. If the first be the fact, then the
employers are to blame, and the parishes should follow the example
of the Commissioners of Sewers, and let the work to those
contractors only who will undertake to pay the “regular wages” of
the honourable trade; but if the latter be the case, as I strongly
suspect it is, though some of the masters seem to be more
“grasping” than the rest—but in the paucity of returns on this matter,
it is difficult to state positively whether the price paid for the labour
of the working scavager is in all the parishes proportional to the
price paid to the employers for the work (a most important fact to
be solved)—if, however, I repeat, the decrease of the wages be
mainly due to the decrease in the sums given for the performance of
the contract, then the parishes are to blame for seeking to get their
work done at the expense of the working men.
The contract system of work, I find, necessarily tends to this
diminution of the men’s earnings in a trade. Offer a certain quantity
of work to the lowest bidder, and the competition will assuredly be
maintained at the operative’s expense. It is idle to expect that, as a
general rule, traders will take less than the ordinary rate of profit.
Hence, he who underbids will usually be found to underpay. This,
indeed, is almost a necessity of the system, and one which the
parochial functionaries more than all others should be guarded
against—seeing that a decrease of the operative’s wages can but be
attended with an increase of the very paupers, and consequently of
the parochial expenses, which they are striving to reduce.
A labourer, in order to be self-supporting and avoid becoming a
“burden” on the parish, requires something more than bare
subsistence-money in remuneration for his labour, and yet this is
generally the mode by which we test the sufficiency of wages. “A
man can live very comfortably upon that!” is the exclamation of
those who have seldom thought upon what constitutes the minimum
of self-support in this country. A man’s wages, to prevent pauperism,
should include, besides present subsistence, what Dr. Chalmers has
called “his secondaries;” viz., a sufficiency to pay for his
maintenance: 1st, during the slack season; 2nd, when out of
employment; 3rd, when ill; 4th, when old[19]. If insufficient to do
this, it is evident that the man at such times must seek parochial
relief; and it is by the reduction of wages down to bare subsistence,
that the cheap employers of the present day shift the burden of
supporting their labourers when unemployed on to the parish; thus
virtually perpetuating the allowance system or relief in aid of wages
under the old Poor Law. Formerly the mode of hiring labourers was
by the year, so that the employer was bound to maintain the men
when unemployed. But now journey-work, or hiring by the day,
prevails, and the labourers being paid—and that mere subsistence-
money—only when wanted, are necessitated to become either
paupers or thieves when their services are no longer required. It is,
moreover, this change from yearly to daily hirings, and the
consequent discarding of men when no longer required, that has
partly caused the immense mass of surplus labourers, who are
continually vagabondizing through the country begging or stealing as
they go—men for whom there is but some two or three weeks’ work
(harvesting, hop-picking, and the like) throughout the year.
That there is, however, a large system of jobbing pursued by the
contractors for the house-dust and cleansing of the streets, there
cannot be the least doubt. The minute I have cited at page 210
gives us a slight insight into the system of combination existing
among the employers, and the extraordinary fluctuations in the
prices obtained by the contractors would lead to the notion that the
business was more a system of gambling than trade. The following
returns have been procured by Mr. Cochrane within the last few
days:—
“Average yearly cost of cleansing the whole of the public
ways within the City of London, including the removal of
£4,643
dust, ashes, &c., from the houses of the inhabitants, for
eight years, terminating at Michaelmas in the year 1850
Square yards of carriage-way, estimated at 430,000
Square yards of footway, estimated at 300,000
A more specific and later return is as follows:—
Received for Paid for cleansing,
Dust. &c.
£ s. d. £ s. d.
 Streets not cleansed
1845 0 0 0 2833 2 0
daily.
1846 1354 5 0 6034 6 0
1847 4455 5 0 8014 2 0
Streets cleansed
1848 1328 15 0 7226 1 6
daily.
1849 0 0 0 7486 11 6
1850 0 0 0 6779 16 0
“From the above return,” says Mr. Cochrane, “it may be inferred that
the annual sums paid for cleansing in each year of 1844 and 1843
did not exceed 2281l., as this would make up the eight years’
average calculation of 4643l.”
Since the streets have been cleansed daily, it will be seen that the
average has been 7188l. The smallest amount, in 1846, was 6034l.;
and the largest, in 1847, 8014l.; which was a sudden increase of
1980l.
Here, then, we perceive an immediate increase in the price paid for
scavaging between 1846 and 1847 of nearly 33 per cent., and since
the wages of the workmen were not proportionately increased in the
latter year by the employers, it follows that the profits of the
contractors must have been augmented to that enormous extent.
The only effectual mode of preventing this system of jobbing being
persevered in, at the expense of the workmen, is by the insertion of
a clause in each parish contract similar to that introduced by the
Commissioners of Sewers—that at least a fair living rate of wages
shall be paid by each contractor to the men employed by him. This
may be an interference with the freedom of labour, according to the
economists’ “cant” language, but at least it is a restriction of the
tyranny of capital, for free labour means, when literally translated,
the unrestricted use of capital, which is (especially when the moral
standard of trade is not of the highest character) perhaps the
greatest evil with which a State can be afflicted.
Let me now speak of the Scurf labourers. The moral and social
characteristics of the working scavagers who labour for a lower rate
of hire do not materially differ from those of the better paid and
more regularly employed body, unless, perhaps, in this respect, that
there are among them a greater proportion of the “casuals,” or of
men reared to the pursuit of other callings, and driven by want,
misfortune, or misconduct, to “sweep the streets;” and not only that,
but to regard the “leave to toil” in such a capacity a boon. These
constitute, as it were, the cheap labourers of this trade.
Among the parties concerned in the lower-priced scavaging, are the
usual criminations. The parish authorities will not put up any longer
with the extortions of the contractors. The contractors cannot put up
any longer with the stinginess of the parishes. The working
scavagers, upon whose shoulders the burthen falls the heaviest—as
it does in all depreciated tradings—grumble at both. I cannot aver,
however, that I found among the men that bitter hatred of their
masters which I found actuating the mass of operative tailors,
shoemakers, dressmakers, &c., toward the slop capitalists who
employed them.
I have pointed out in what the “scurf” treatment of the labourers
was chiefly manifested—in extra work for inferior pay; in doing eight
or nine days’ work in six; and in being paid for only six days’ labour,
and not always at the ordinary rate even for the lighter toil—not 2s.
8d., but 2s. 6d. or even 2s. 4d. a day. To the wealthy, this 2d. or 4d.
a day may seem but a trifling matter, but I heard a working scavager
(formerly a house-painter) put it in a strong light: “that 3d. or 4d. a
day, sir, is a poor family’s rent.” The rent, I may observe, as a result
of my inquiries among the more decent classes of labourers, is often
the primary consideration: “You see, sir, we must have a roof over
our heads.”
A scavager, working for a scurf master, gave me the following
account. He was a middle-aged man, decently dressed, for when I
saw him, he was in his “Sunday clothes,” and was quiet in his tones,
even when he spoke bitterly.
“My father,” he said, “was once in business as a butcher, but he
failed, and was afterwards a journeyman butcher, but very much
respected, I know, and I used to job and help him. O dear, yes! I
can read and write, but I have very seldom to write, only I think one
never forgets it, it’s like learning to swim, that way; and I read
sometimes at coffee-shops. My father died rather sudden, and me
and a brother had to look out. My brother was older than me, he
was 20 or 21 then, and he went for a soldier, I believe to some of
the Ingees, but I’ve never heard of him since. I got a place in a
knacker’s yard, but I didn’t like it at all, it was so confining, and
should have hooked it, only I left it honourable. I can’t call to mind
how long that’s back, perhaps 16 or 18 years, but I know there was
some stir at the time about having the streets and yards cleaner. A
man called and had some talk with the governor, and says he, says
the governor, says he, ‘if you want a handy lad with his besom, and
he’s good for nothing else’—but that was his gammon—‘here’s your
man;’ so I was engaged as a young sweeper at 10s. a week. I
worked in Hackney, but I heard so much about railways, that I saved
my money up to 10s., and popped [pledged] a suit of mourning I’d
got after my father’s death for 22s., and got to York, both on foot
and with lifts. I soon got work on a rail; there was great call for rails
then, but I don’t know how long it’s since, and I was a navvy for six
or seven years, or better. Then I came back to London. I don’t know
just what made me come back, but I was restless, and I thought I
could get work as easy in London as in the country, but I couldn’t. I
brought 21 gold sovereigns with me to London, twisted in my fob for
safeness, in a wash-leather bag. They didn’t last so long as they
ought to. I didn’t care for drinking, only when I was in company, but
I was a little too gay. One night I spent over 12s. in the St. Helena
Gardens at Rotherhithe, and that sort of thing soon makes money
show taper. I got some work with a rubbish carter, a regular scurf. I
made only about 8s. a week under him, for he didn’t want me this
half day or that whole day, and if I said anything, he told me I might
go and be d——d, he could get plenty such, and I knew he could. I
got on then with a gangsman I knew, at street-sweeping. I had 15s.
a week, but not regular work, but when the work wer’n’t regular, I
had 2s. 8d. a day. I then worked under another master for 14s. a
week, and was often abused that I wasn’t better dressed, for though
that there master paid low wages, he was vexed if his men didn’t
look decent in the streets. I’ve heard that he said he paid the best of
wages when asked about it. I had another job after that, at 15s.,
and then 16s. a week, with a contractor as had a wharf; but a black
nigger slave was never slaved as I was. I’ve worked all night, when
it’s been very moonlight, in loading a barge, and I’ve worked until
three and four in the morning that way, and then me and another
man slept an hour or two in a shed as joined his stables, and then
must go at it again. Some of these masters is ignorant, and treats
men like dirt, but this one was always civil, and made his people be
civil. But, Lord, I hadn’t a rag left to my back. Everything was worn
to bits in such hard work, and then I got the sack. I was on for Mr.
—— next. He’s a jolly good ’un. I was only on for him temp’ry, but I
was told it was for temp’ry when I went, so I can’t complain. I’m out
of work this week, but I’ve had some jobs from a butcher, and I’m
going to work again on Monday. I don’t know at what wages. The
gangsmen said they’d see what I could do. It’ll be 15s., I expect,
and over-work if it’s 16s.
“Yes, I like a pint of beer now and then, and one requires it, but I
don’t get drunk. I dusted for a fortnight once while a man was ill,
and got more beer and twopences give me than I do in a year now;
aye, twice as much. My mate and me was always very civil, and
people has said, ‘there’s a good fellow, just sweep together this bit
of rubbish in the yard here, and off with it.’ That was beyond our
duty, but we did it. I have very little night-work, only for one master;
he’s a sweep as well. I get 2s. 6d. a job for it. Yes, there’s mostly
something to drink, but you can’t demand nothing. Night-work’s
nothing, sir; no more ain’t a knacker’s yard.
“I pay 2s. a week rent, but I’m washed for and found soap as well.
My landlady takes in washing, and when her husband, for they’re an
old couple, has the rheumatics, I make a trifle by carrying out the
clothes on a barrow, and Mrs. Smith goes with them and sees to the
delivery. I’ve my own furniture.
“Well, I don’t know what I spend in my living in a week. I have a bit
of meat, or a saveloy or two, or a slice of bacon every day, mostly
when I’m at work. I sometimes make my own meals ready in my
room. No, I keep no accounts. There’d be very little use or pleasure
in doing it when one has so little to count. When I’m past work, I
suppose I must go to the workhouse. I sometimes wish I’d gone for
a soldier when I was young enough. I shouldn’t have minded going
abroad. I’d have liked it better than not, for I like to be about; yes, I
like a change.
“I go to chapel every Sunday night, and have regularly since Mr. ——
(the butcher) gave me this cast-off suit. I promised him I would
when I got the togs.
“Things would be well enough with me if I’d constant work and fair
pay. I don’t know what makes wages so low. I suppose it’s rich
people trying to get all the money they can, and caring nothing for
poor men’s rights, and poor men’s sometimes forced to undersell
one another, ’cause half a loaf you know, sir, is better than no bread
at all” (a proverb, by the way, which has wrought no little mischief).
In conclusion, I may remark, that although I was told, in the first
instance, there was sub-letting in street sweeping, I could not hear
of any facts to prove it. I was told, indeed, by a gentleman who took
great interest in parochial matters, with a view to “reforms” in them,
that such a thing was most improbable, for if a contractor sub-let
any of his work it would soon become known, and as it would be
evident that the work could be accomplished at a lower rate, the
contractor would be in a worse position for his next contract.

Of the Street-Sweeping Machine, and the Street-

Sweepers employed with it.
Until the introduction of the machines now seen in London, I believe
that no mechanical contrivances for sweeping the streets had been
attempted, all such work being executed by manual labour, and
employing throughout the United Kingdom a great number of the
poor. The street-sweeping machine, therefore, assumes an
importance as another instance of the displacement, or attempted
displacement, of the labour of man by the mechanism of an engine.
The street-sweeping machines were introduced into London about
five years ago, after having been previously used, under the
management of a company, in Manchester, the inventor and maker
being Mr. Whitworth, of that place. The novelty and ingenuity of the
apparatus soon attracted public attention, and for the first week or
two the vehicular street-sweeper was accompanied in its progress by
a crowd of admiring and inquisitive pedestrians, so easily attracted
together in the metropolis. In the first instance the machines were
driven through the streets merely to display their mode and power
of work, and the drivers and attendants not unfrequently came into
contact with the regular scavagers, when a brisk interchange of
street wit took place, the populace often enough encouraging both
sides. At present the street-sweeping machine proceeds on its line of
operation as little noticed, except by visitors, and foreigners
especially, as any other vehicle. The body of the sweeping machine,
although the sizes may not all be uniform, is about 5 feet in length,
and 2 feet 8 inches or 3 feet in width; the height is about 5 feet 6
inches or 6 feet, and the form that of a covered cart, with a rounded
top. The sides of the exterior are of cast iron, the top being of wood.
At the hinder part of the cart is fixed the sweeping-machine itself,
covered by sloping boards which descend from the top of the cart,
projecting slightly behind the vehicle to the ground; under the
sloping boards is an endless chain of brushes as wide as the cart, 16
in number, placed at equal distances, and so arranged, that when
made to revolve, each brush in turn passes over the ground,
sweeping the mud along with it to the bottom sloping board, and so
carrying it up to the interior of the cart. The chain of brushes is set
in motion, over the surface of the pavement, by the agency of three
cog wheels of cast iron; these are worked by the rotation of the
wheels of the cart, the cogs acting upon the spindles to which the
brooms are attached. The spindles, brushes, and the sloped boards
can be raised or lowered by the winding of an instrument called the
broom winder; or the whole can be locked. The brooms are raised
when any acclivity is to be swept, and lowered at a declivity. The
vehicle must be water-tight, in order to contain the slop.
When full the machine holds about half a cart load or half a ton of
dirt; this is emptied by letting down the back in the manner of a trap
door. If the contents be solid, they have to be forked out; if more
sloppy, they are “shot” out, as from a cart, the interior generally
being roughly scraped to complete the emptying.
The districts which have as yet been cleansed by the machines are
what may be considered a government domain, being the public
thoroughfares under the control of the Commissioners of the Woods
and Forests, running from Westminster Abbey to the Regent-circus
in Piccadilly, and including Spring-gardens, Carlton-gardens, and a
portion of the West Strand, where they were first employed in
London; they have been used also in parts of the City; and are at
present employed by the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. The
company by whom the mechanical street-sweeping business is
carried on employ 12 machines, 4 water carts, 19 horses, and 24
men. They have also the use, but not the sole use, of two wharfs
and barges at Whitefriars and Millbank. The machines altogether
collect about 30 cart-loads of street-dirt a day, which is equivalent to
four or five barge-loads in a week, if all were boated. Two barges
per week are usually sent to Rochester, the others up the river to
Fulham, &c. The average price is 5l. 10s. to 6l. per barge load, but
when the freight has been chiefly dung, as much as 8l. has been
paid for it by a farmer.
The street-sweeping machine seems to have commanded the
approbation of the General Board of Health, although the Board’s
expression of approval is not without qualification. “Even that
efficient and economical implement,” says one of the Reports, “the
street-sweeping machine, leaves much filth between the interstices
of the stones and some on the surface.” One might have imagined,
however, that an efficient and economical implement would not have
left this “much filth” in its course; but the Board, I presume, spoke
comparatively.
The reason of the circumscribed adoption of the machine—I say it
with some reluctance, but from concurrent testimony—appears to be
that it does not sweep sufficiently clean. It sweeps the surface, but
only the surface; not cleansing what the scavagers call the “nicks”
and “holes,” and the Board of Health the “interstices,” in the
pavement.
One man is obliged to go along with each machine, to sweep the
ridge of dirt invariably left at the edge of the track of the vehicle into
the line of the next machine, so that it may be “licked up.” In fine
weather this work is often light enough. It is also the occupation of
the accompanying scavager to sweep the dirt from the sloping edges
of the public ways into the direct course of the machine, for the
brushes are of no service along such slopes; he must also sweep out
the contents of any hole or hollow there may be in the streets, as is
frequently the case when the pavement has been disturbed in the
relaying or repairing of the gas or water pipes. But for this
arrangement, I was told, the brushes would pass “clean over” such
places, or only disturb without clearing away the dirt. Indeed
irregularities of any kind in the pavement are great obstructions to
the efficiency of the street-sweeping machine.
There are some places, moreover, wholly unsweepable by the
machine; in many parts of St. Martin’s parish, for instance, there are
localities where the machine cannot be introduced; such are—St.
Martin’s-court; the flagged ways about the National Gallery; and the
approach, alongside the church, to the Lowther Arcade; the
pavement surrounding the fountains which adorn the “noblest site in
Europe;” and a variety of alleys, passages, yards, and minor streets,
which must be cleansed by manual labour.
In fair weather, again, water carts are indispensable before machine
sweeping, for if the ground be merely dry and dusty, the set of
brooms will not “bite.”
We now come to estimate the relative values of the mechanical and
manual labour applied to the scavaging of the streets. The average
progress of the street-sweeping machine, in the execution of the
scavagers’ work, is about two miles an hour. It must not be
supposed, however, that two streets each a mile in length, could be
swept in one hour; for to do this the vehicle would have to travel up
and down those streets as many times as the streets are wider than
the machine. The machines, sometimes two, sometimes three or
four, follow alongside each other’s tracks in sweeping a street, so as
to leave no part unswept. Thus, supposing a street half a mile long
and nine yards wide, and that each machine swept a breadth of a
yard, then three such machines, driven once up, and once again
down, and once more up such a street, would cleanse it in three
quarters of an hour. To do this by manual labour in the same or
nearly the same time, would require the exertions of five men. Each
machine has been computed to have mechanical power equal to the
industry of five street-sweepers; and such, from the above
computation, would appear to be the fact. I do not include the
drivers in this enumeration, as of course the horse in the scavagers’
cart, and in the machine require alike the care of a man, and there is
to each vehicle (whether mechanical or not) one hand (besides the
carman) to sweep after the ordinary work. Hence every two men
with the machine do the work of seven men by hand.
Having, then, ascertained the relative values of the two forces
employed in cleansing the streets, let me now proceed to set forth
what is “the economy of labour” resulting from the use of the
sweeping machine. In the following table are given the number of
men at present engaged by the machine company in the cleansing
of those districts where the machine is in operation, as well as the
annual amount of wages paid to the machine labourers; these facts
are then collocated with the number of manual labourers that would
be required to do the same work under the ordinary contract system
(assuming every two labourers with the machine to do the work of
seven labourers by hand), as well as the amount of wages that
would be paid to such manual labourers; and finally, the number of
men and amount of wages under the one system of street-cleansing
is subtracted from the other, in order to arrive at the number of
street-sweepers at present displaced by machine labour, and the
annual loss in wages to the men so displaced; or, to speak
economically, the last column represents the amount by which the
Wage Fund of the street-sweepers is diminished by the employment
of the machine.

TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER

OF MEN AT PRESENT ENGAGED IN STREET-SWEEPING BY
MACHINES, AND THE NUMBER THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED
TO SWEEP THE SAME DISTRICTS BY HAND, TOGETHER
WITH THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF WAGES ACCRUING TO
EACH.
Machine Labour.
Annual Wages
Number of Men
DISTRICTS. received by Machine
employed to
Men, at 16s. a
attend Machines.
Week.
St. Martin’s-in-the
8 £332 16s.
Fields
Regent-street and
Pall-mall (see table, p. 12 499 4
214)
Other places,
connected with 4 166 8
Woods and Forests
Total 24 998 8

DISTRICTS. Manual Labour.

Number of men that Annual Wages that
would be required would be received by
to sweep the Manual Labourers, at
15s. a Week.
 Streets by Manual
labour.
St. Martin’s-in-the
28 £1092 0s.
Fields
Regent-street and
Pall-mall (see 42 1638 0
table, p. 214)
Other places,
connected with 14 546 0
Woods and Forests
Total 84 3276 0

Difference.
Number of Men Annual Loss in Wages
DISTRICTS.
displaced by to Manual Labourers
Machine-work. by Machine-work.
St. Martin’s-in-the
20 £759 4s.
Fields
Regent-street and
Pall-mall (see table, 30 1138 16
p. 214)
Other places,
connected with 10 379 12
Woods and Forests
Total 60 2277 12
Hence, we perceive that no less than 60 street-sweepers are
deprived of work by the street-sweeping machine, and that the
gross Wage Fund of the men is diminished by the employment of
mechanical labour no less than 2277l. per annum.
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.
Annual Wages
Number of Men at
received by
present employed
Contractors’ Men for
by Contractors to
sweeping the Streets,
sweep the streets.
at 15s. a Week.
Districts at
present swept by
262 £10,218 0s.
large contractors
(see table, p. 214)
Districts swept by
13 507 0
small contractors
Total 275 10,725 0

Machine Labour.
 Number of Machine Annual Wages
Men that would be that would be
required to attend the received by
Street-sweeping Machine Men, at
Machines. 16s. a Week.
Districts at present
swept by large
75 £3120 0s.
contractors (see
table, p. 214)
Districts swept by
4 166 8
small contractors
Total 79 3286 8

Difference.
Number of Men Annual Loss that
that would be would accrue to
displaced by Manual Labourers by
Machine-work. Machine-work.
Districts at present
swept by large
187 £ 7098 0s.
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 7000l. 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
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com