II. Savings in Labour Conditions at the Expense of the Labourers. Coal Mines. Neglect of Indispensable Outlays
"Under the competition which exists among the coal-owners and coal-proprietors ... no more outlay is incurred than is sufficient to overcome the most obvious physical difficulties; and under that which prevails among the labouring colliers, who are ordinarily more numerous than the work to be done requires, a large amount of danger and exposure to the most noxious influences will gladly be encountered for wages a little in advance of the agricultural population round them, in an occupation, in which they can moreover make a profitable use of their children. This double competition is quite sufficient ... to cause a large proportion of the pits to be worked with the most imperfect drainage and ventilation; often with ill-constructed shafts, bad gearing, incompetent engineers; and ill-constructed and ill-prepared bays and roadways; causing a destruction of life, and limb, and health, the statistics of which would present an appalling picture" (First Report on Children's Employment in Mines and Collieries, etc., April 21, 1829, p. 102).[18]
About 1860, a weekly average of 15 men lost their lives in the English collieries. According to the report on Coal Mines Accidents (February 6, 1862), a total of 8,466 were killed in the ten years 1852-61.(1)
But the report admits that this number is far too low, because in the first few years, when the inspectors had just been installed and their districts were far too large, a great many accidents and deaths were not reported. The very fact that the number of accidents, though still very high, has decreased markedly since the inspection system was established, and this in spite of the limited powers and insufficient numbers of the inspectors, demonstrates the natural tendency of capitalist exploitation.— These human sacrifices are mostly due to the inordinate avarice of the mine owners. Very often they had only one shaft sunk, so that apart from the lack of effective ventilation there was no escape were this shaft to become obstructed.
Capitalist production, when considered in isolation from the process of circulation and the excesses of competition, is very economical with the materialised labour objectified in commodities. Yet, more than any other mode of production, it squanders human lives, or living labour, and not only blood and flesh, but also nerve and brain. Indeed, it is only by dint of the most extravagant waste of individual development that the development of the human race is at all safeguarded and maintained in the epoch of history immediately preceding the conscious reorganisation of society. Since all of the economising here discussed arises from the social nature of labour, it is indeed just this directly social nature of labour which causes the waste of life and health. The following question suggested by factory inspector R. Baker is characteristic in this respect:
*"The whole question is one for serious consideration, and in what way this sacrifice of infant life occasioned by congregational labour can be best averted?"* (Reports of Insp. of Fact., October 1863, p. 157).
Factories. Here we have to deal with the disregard for every measure aimed at ensuring the safety, convenience, and health of labourers also in the actual factories. It is to blame for a large portion of the casualty lists containing the wounded and killed of the industrial army (cf. the annual factory reports). Similarly, lack of space, ventilation, etc.(2)
As far back as October 1855, Leonard Horner complained about the resistance of very many manufacturers to the legal requirements concerning safety devices on horizontal shafts, although the danger was continually emphasised by accidents, many of them fatal, and although these safety devices did not cost much and did not interfere with production (Reports of Insp. of Fact., October 1855, p. 6).b In their resistance against these and other legal requirements the manufacturers were openly seconded by the unpaid justices of the peace, who were themselves mostly manufacturers or friends of manufacturers, and handed down their decisions accordingly. What sort of ver-dicts these gentlemen handed down was revealed by Superior Judge Campbell, who said with reference to one of them, against which an appeal had been made to him:
"It is not an interpretation of the Act of Parliament, it is a repeal of the Act of Parliament" (1. c , p. 11).
Horner states in the same report that in many factories labourers are not warned when machinery is about to be started up. Since there is always something to be done about machinery even when it is not operating, fingers and hands are always occupied with it, and accidents happen continually due to the mere omission of a warning sig-nal (1. c , p. 44). The manufacturers had formed a TRADES-UNION at the time to oppose factory legislation, the so-called NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE FACTORY LAWS in Manchester, which in March 1855 collected more than £50,000 by assessing 2 shillings per horse-power, to pay for the court proceedings against its members started by factory inspectors, and to conduct the cases in the name of the union. It was a matter of proving that KILLING was NO MURDER ' [9] when it occurred for the sake of profit. A factory inspector for Scotland, Sir John Kincaid, tells about a certain firm in Glasgow which used the iron scrap at its factory to make protective shields for all its machinery, the cost amounting to £9 Is. Joining the manufacturers' union would have cost it an assessment of £11 for its 110 horse-power, which was more than the cost of all its protective appliances. But the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION had been organised in 1854 for the express purpose of opposing the law which prescribed such protection. The manufacturers had not paid the least heed to it during the whole period from 1844 to 1854. When the factory inspectors, at instructions from Palmerston, then informed the manufacturers that the law would be enforced in earnest, the manufacturers instantly founded their association, many of whose most prominent members were themselves justices of the peace and in this capacity were supposed to enforce the law. When in April 1855 the new Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, offered a compromise under which the government would be content with practically nominal safety appliances the Association indignant-ly rejected even this. In various lawsuits the famous engineer William Fairbairn threw the weight of his reputation behind the principle of economy and in defence of the freedom of capital which had been vio-lated. The head of factory inspection, Leonard Horner, was persecut-ed and maligned by the manufacturers in every conceivable manner.
But the manufacturers did not rest until they obtained a writ of the COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, [20] according to which the Law of 1844 did not prescribe protective devices for horizontal shafts installed more than 7 feet above the ground and, finally, in 1856 they succeeded in securing an Act of Parliament[2] ' entirely satisfactory to them in the circumstances, through the services of the bigot Wilson Patten, one of those pious souls whose display of religion is always ready to do the dirty work for the knights of the money-bag. This Act practically deprived the labourers of all special protection and referred them to the common courts for compensation in the event of industrial accidents (sheer mockery in view of the excessive cost of English lawsuits), while it made it almost impossible for the manufacturer to lose the lawsuit by providing in a finely-worded clause for expert testimony. The result was a rapid increase of accidents. In the six months from May to October 1858, Inspector Baker reported that accidents increased by 2 1 % compared with the preceding half-year. In his opinion 36.7% of these accidents might have been avoided. It is true that the number of accidents in 1858 and 1859 was considerably below that of 1845 and 1846. It was actually 29% less although the number of labourers in the industries subject to inspection had increased 20%. But what was the reason for this? In so far as this issue has been settled now (1865), it was mainly accomplished through the introduction of new machinery already provided with safety devices to which the manufacturer did not object because they cost him no extra expense. Furthermore, a few labourers succeeded in securing heavy damages for their lost arms, and had this judgment upheld even by the highest courts (Reports of Insp. of Fact., April 30, 1861, p. 31, ditto April 1862, p. 17).
So much for economy in devices protecting the life and limbs of labourers (among whom many children) against the dangers of handling and operating machinery.
Work in enclosed places generally. It is well known to what extent economy of space, and thus of buildings, crowds labourers into close quarters. In addition, there is also economy in means of ventilation. Coupled with the long working hours, the two cause a large increase in diseases of the respiratory organs, and an attendant increase in mortality. The following illustrations have been taken from Reports on Public Health, 6th report, 1863. This report was compiled by Dr. John Simon, well known from our Book I.(3)
Just as combination and co-operation of labour permits large-scale employment of machinery, concentration of means of production, and economy in their use, it is this very working together en masse in enclosed places and under conditions rather determined by ease of manufacture than by health requirements — it is this mass concentration in one and the same workshop that acts, on the one hand, as a source of greater profits for the capitalist and, on the other, unless counteracted by a reduced number of hours and special precautions, as the cause of the squandering of the lives and health of the labourers. Dr. Simon formulates the following rule and backs it up with abundant statistics:
"In proportion as the people of a district are attracted to any collective indoor occupation, in such proportion, other things being equal, the district death rate by lung diseases will be increased" (p. 23). The cause is bad ventilation. "And probably in all England there is no exception to the rule, that, in every district which has a large indoor industry, the increased mortality of the workpeople is such as to colour the death return of the whole district with a marked excess of lung disease" (p. 23).
Mortality figures for industries carried on in enclosed places, collected by the Board of Health in 1860 and 1861, indicate that for the same number of men between the ages of 15 and 55, for which the death rate from consumption and other pulmonary diseases in English agricultural districts is 100, the death rate in Coventry is 163, in Blackburn and Skipton 167, Congleton and Bradford 168, Leicester 171, Leek 182, Macclesfield 184, Bolton 190, Nottingham 192, Rochdale 193, Derby 198, Salford and Ashton-under-Lyne 203, Leeds 218, Preston 220, and Manchester 263 (p. 24). The following table presents a still more striking illustration.
District Chief industry
Deaths from pulmonary diseases
between the ages of 15 and 25, per 100,000 population Chief industry
Men Women
Berkhampstead Leighton Buzzard Newport Pagnell Towcester Yeovil Leek Conglcton Macclesfield Healthy country
219 309 301 239 280 437 566 593 It shows the death rate for pulmonary diseases separately for both sexes between the ages of 15 and 25 computed for every 100,000 population. In the districts selected only women are employed in industries carried on in enclosed places, while men work in all other possible lines.[3]
In the silk districts, where more men are employed in the factory, their mortality is also higher. The death rate from consumption, etc., for both sexes, reveals, as the report says,
"the ATROCIOUS (4) sanitary circumstances under which much of our silk industry is conducted".
And it is in this same silk industry that the manufacturers, pleading exceptionally favourable and sanitary conditions in their establishments, demanded by way of an exception, and partially obtained, long working hours for children under 13 years of age (Buch I, Kap. VIII, 6, S. 296/286b).
"Probably no industry which has yet been investigated has afforded a worse picture than that which Dr. Smith gives of tailoring: — 'Shops vary much in their sanitary conditions, but almost universally are overcrowded and ill-ventilated, and in a high degree unfavourable to health.... Such rooms are necessarily warm; but when the gas is lit, as during the day-time on foggy days, and at night during the winter, the heat increases to 80° and even to upwards of 90°' (Fahrenheit, = 27-33° C), 'causing pro-fuse perspiration, and condensation of vapour upon the panes of glass, so that it runs down in streams or drops from the roof, and the operatives are compelled to keep some windows open, at whatever risk to themselves of taking cold.' And he gives the following account of what he found in 16 of the most important West End shops.— 'The largest cubic space in these ill-ventilated rooms allowed to each operative is 270 feet, and the least 105 feet, and in the whole averages only 156 feet per man. In one room, with a gallery running round it, and lighted only from the roof, from 92 to upwards of 100 men are employed, where a large number of gaslights burn, and where the urinals are in the closest proximity, the cubic space does not exceed 150 feet per man. In another room, which can only be called a kennel in a yard, lighted from the roof, and ventilated by a small skylight opening, five to six men work in a space of 112 cubic feet per man.' ... Tailors, in those ATROClOUSd workshops which Dr. Smith describes, work generally for about 12 or 13 hours a day, and at some times the work will be continued for 15 or 16 hours" (pp. 25, 26, 28).
Number of persons Branches of industry and locality
Death rate per 100,000 between the ages of
employed
Branches of industry and locality
25-35 35-45 45-55
958,265
22,301 men and 1 12,377 women J 13,803
Agriculture, England and Wales
Tailoring, London
Type-setters and printers,
743
958
894
805
1,262
1,747
1,145
2,093
2,367
743
958
894
805
1,262
1,747
(p. 30). It must be noted, and has in fact been remarked by John Simon, chief of the Medical Department and author of the report, that the mortality rate for tailors, type-setters, and printers of London between the ages of 25 and 35 was cited lower than the real figure, because London employers in both lines of business have a large number of young people (probably up to 30 years of age) from the country engaged as apprentices and "IMPROVERS", i. e., men getting additional training. These swell the number of hands for which the London industrial death rates are computed. But they do not proportionally contribute to the number of deaths in London because their stay there is only temporary. If they fall ill during this period, they return to their homes in the country, where their death is registered if they die. This circumstance affects the earlier ages still more and renders the London death rates for these age groups completely valueless as indexes of the ill-effects of industry on health (p. 30). The case of the type-setters is similar to that of the tailors. In addition to lack of ventilation, to poisoned air, etc., there is still nightwork to be mentioned. Their regular working time is 12 to 13 hours, sometimes 15 to 16.
"Great heat and foulness which begin when the gas-jets are lit. ... It not infre-quently happens that fumes from a foundry, or foul odours from machinery or sinks, rise from the lower room, and aggravate the evils of the upper one. The heated air of the lower rooms always tends to heat the upper by warming the floor, and when the rooms are low, and the consumption of gas great, this is a serious evil, and one only surpassed in the case where the steam-boilers are placed in the lower room, and supply unwished-for heat to the whole house.... As a general expression, it may be stated that universally the ventilation is defective, and quite insufficient to remove the heat and the products of the combustion of gas in the evening and during^the night, and that in many offices, and particularly in those made from dwelling-houses, the condition is most deplorable. ... And in some offices (especially those of weekly newspapers) there will be work — work too, in which boys between 12 and 16 years of age take equal part — for almost uninterrupted periods of two days and a night at a time; — while, in other printing-offices which lay themselves out for the doing of 'urgent' business, Sunday gives no relaxation to the workman, and his working days become seven instead of six in every week" (pp. 26, 28).
The MILLINERS and DRESSMAKERS(5) have already attracted our attention in Book I (Kap. VIII, 3, S. 249/241) b in respect to overwork. Their workshops are described in our report by Dr. Ord. Even if better during the day, they become overheated, FOUL, C and unhealthy during the hours in which gas is burned. Dr. Ord found in 34 shops of the better sort that the average number of cubic feet per worker was as follows:
"... In four cases more than 500, in four other cases from 400 to 500, ... in seven others from 200 to 250, in four others from 150 to 200, and in nine others only from 100 to 150. The largest of these allowances would but be scanty for continuous work, unless the space were thoroughly well ventilated; and, except with extraordinary ventilation, its atmosphere could not be tolerably wholesome during gas-light."
And here is Dr. Ord's remark about one of the minor workshops which he visited, operated for the account of a MIDDLEMANc:
"One room, area in cubical feet, 1,280; persons present, 14; area to each, in cubical feet, 91.5. The women here were weary-looking and squalid; their earnings were stated to be 7s. to 15s. a week, and their tea. ... Hours 8 a. m. to 8 p. m. The small room into which these 14 persons were crowded was ill-ventilated. There were two movable windows and a fire-place, but the latter was blocked up, and there was no special ventilation of any kind" (p. 27).
The same report states with reference to the overwork of milliners and dressmakers:
"... The overwork of the young women in fashionable dressmaking establishments does not, for more than about four months of the year, prevail in that monstrous degree which has on many occasions excited momentary public surprise and indignation; but for the indoor hands during these months it will, as a rule, be of full 14 hours a day, and will, when there is pressure, be, for days together, of 17 or even 18 hours. At other times of the year the work of the indoor hands ranges probably from 10 to 14 hours; and uniformly the hours for outdoor hands are 12 or 13. For mantle-makers, collar-makers, shirt-makers, and various other classes of needleworkers (including persons who work at the sewing-machine) the hours spent in the common workroom are fewer — generally not more than 10 to 12 hours; but, says Dr. Ord, the regular hours of work are subject to considerable extension in certain houses at certain times, by the practice of working extra hours for extra pay, and in other houses by the practice of taking work away from houses of business, to be done after hours at home, both practices being, it may be added, often compulsory" (p. 28).
John Simon remarks in a footnote to this page:
"Mr. Radcliffe, ... the Honorary Secretary of the EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, ... happening to have unusual opportunities for questioning the young women employed in first-class houses of business ... has found that in only one out of twenty girls examined who called themselves 'quite well' could the state of health be pronounced good; the rest exhibiting in various degrees evidences of depressed physical power, nervous exhaustion, and numerous functional disorders thereupon dependent. He attributes these conditions in the first place to the length of the hours of work — the minimum of which he estimates at 12 hours a day out of the season; and secondarily to ... crowding and bad ventilation of workrooms, gas-vapours, insufficiency or bad quality of food, and inattention to domestic comfort."
The conclusion arrived at by the chief of the English Board of Health is that
"it is practically impossible for workpeople to insist upon that which in theory is their first sanitary right — the right that whatever work their employer assembles them to do, shall, so far as depends upon him, be, at his cost, divested of all needlessly un-wholesome circumstances; ... while workpeople are practically unable to exact that sanitary justice for themselves, they also (notwithstanding the presumed intentions of the law) cannot expect any effectual assistance from the appointed administrators of the NUISANCES REMOVAL ACTS" (p. 29).— "Doubtless there may be some small technical difficulty in defining the exact line at which employers shall become subject to regulation. But ... in principle, the sanitary claim is universal. And in the interest of myriads of labouring men and women, whose lives are now needlessly afflicted and shortened by the infinite physical suffering which their mere employment engenders, I would venture to express my hope, that universally the sanitary circumstances of labour may, at least so far, be brought within appropriate provisions of law, that the effective ventilation of all indoor workplaces may be ensured, and that in every naturally insalubri-ous occupation the specific health-endangering influence may as far as practicable be reduced" (p. 31).
Endnotes
[18] 1 " Marx took the quotation from a review of this Report in The Westminster Review, Vol. 38, 1842, p. 102.—91
[9] The Fabians — members of the English reformist Fabian Society founded by middle-class intellectuals in 1884; among its leaders were Sidney and Beatrice Webb. The Society was named after the Roman general of the 3rd century B. C , Quintus Fabius Maximus, surnamed Cunctator ("the delayer") for his cautious tactics in the war against Hannibal. The Fabians believed that the transition from capitalism to socialism was possible through gradual minor reforms in society. In 1900 the Fabian Society affiliated to the Labour Party.—13
[20] The Court of Queen's Bench is one of the high courts in England; in the nineteenth century (up to 1873) it was an independent supreme court for criminal and civil cases, competent to review the decisions of lower judicial bodies.—93
[2] As early as 1865, when working on the manuscript Marx planned to have Capital translated into English (see Marx's letter to Engels of July 31, 1865; present edition, Vol. 42, p. 173). Reporter Peter Fox, a member of the British labour movement, was to help him find a publisher. However, he died in 1869, and nothing was settled. The English translation of Volume I of Capital, edited by Engels, appeared after Marx's death, in January 1887 (ibid., Vol. 35). The translation was done by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling between mid-1883 and March 1886; Eleanor Marx-Aveling assisted in preparing the translation for the press.— 5
[3] Since the late 1860s Marx repeatedly asked his correspondents to send him materials on landed property in various countries (see present edition, Vol. 43, pp. 61 and 412). He also informed them that he intended to use this new material to supplement the section on ground rent. Having received numerous statistical reference books and other publications on landed property in Russia from Nikolai Danielson, in particular, and having made a thorough study of them, Marx wrote to his Russian correspondent on December 12, 1872: "In Volume II of Capital I shall, in the section on landed property, deal in great detail with the Russian form" (ibid., Vol. 44, p. 457). This passage, among other excerpts from Marx's letters to him, was quoted by Danielson in his letter to Engels of August 25 (September 6), 1885. He thought they could be used in the preface to Volume III of Capital. See also Engels' letter to Danielson of June 3, 1885 (ibid., Vol. 47, p. 294).—10