112
What we have said shows how the technical progress in weavingalso caused a permanent increase of production per operative, andtherewith a continuous lowering of piece-wages. Thereby, as inspinning, the weekly earnings of the operatives have risen. Thiscan be proved by figures. The following instance is taken froma large weaving-mill in Hyde, which since the introduction of thepower-loom has remained in the hands of the same family: —
Weekly
production per
Cost of labour.
Hours oflabour.
Weeklyearnings per
Buying-powerin flour.
operative.
Yards.
Per Yard.
Per week.
Lb.
1814...
130-7
l-3d.
80
14s.
5G
1832...
001 *9
0-Gd.
72
12s.
65
1890...
540
0-13d.
541
f
3-loom weaver.17s.3d.
•i-loom weaver,
} 1514(18)
(
22 s.6d.
) 20S
The goods to which these figures refer are ordinary printingcalicoes (31-i- in. wide, 72’s reed, 26’s twist, 30’s weft, 20 picks perquarter-inch) (19). Figures comprising the whole of cottonweaving, on the basis of Ellison’s estimates, have like results: ■—
English totalproduction incotton goods.
Numberof opera-tives.
Capacity peroperative.
Cost of labourper lb.
Yearlyearnings peroperative.
In 1,000 lb.
Lb.
Pence.
£ s. d.
1819-21 ..
80,620
250,000
322
15*5
20 18 0
1829-31 ...
143,200
275,000
521
9-0
19 8 0
1S44-G ...
348,110
210,000
1,658
3-5
24 10 0
1859-0.1 ...
650,870
203,000
3,200
2-9
30 15 0
1880-82 ...
993,540
240,000
4,039
2-3
39 0 0
The apparent irregularities of the table (20) are explained bythe decline of hand-weaving being included in it. To this thelowering of the yearly earnings between 1820 and 1830 must beascribed.
18. The prices of flour are the same as before (p. 98). In Hyde, southof Manchester, the weavers, unlike those in the districts of the staple industryin the North, only mind three to four looms.
19. The figures for 181G and 1830 are reckoned from the particulars ofBaines ; those for 1890 emanate from private communications.
20. Compare Kllison: “ Cotton Trade,” p. 09.