114
the “sixties”—in 1861, for instance, the first powerloom millwas got to work in Plauen (23).
Grassmann gives the following table regarding plain calicoweaving (23a) : —
Yearly Production per
Power Loom in metres.
Weaversper Loom.
Annual Productionper Weaverin metres.
1861
8,588 (93cm. wide)
0-5
17,176 i
1875
8,966(130 „ „ )
0-494
18,153 |
1891
9,202(130 „ „ )
0-43
21,447
On account of the disparity in the goods produced, an exactcomparison of the cost of labour in weaving between Germany andEngland is more difficult than in the case of spinning. I confinemyself to the following instance, which is based on the authorityof Schoenhof (24), and has been confirmed to me in Lancashire .It, refers to ordinary printing calicoes, 154 yds., 64 by 64 standardsheeting: —
Weekly
production peroperative.
Cost peryard.
Dailyhours oflabour.
Weeklyearnings per ;operative.
Yards.
466
Pence.
0-303
12
s. d.
11 8
706
0-275
9
l(i 3
1,200
0-2
10
20 3 |
That on the field of weaving, however, Germany bravely stepsforward is proved by numerous particulars of the “ Enquete.” Inany case the cost of labour had only increased a little, in manycases even lessened, although since the “fifties” the weeklyincome of the operatives had permanently risen, in some instancesvery considerably, in many cases 60 per cent. This was attainedby giving two looms to a weaver, increasing the speed of thelooms, and introducing piecework and labour-saving machinery
23. Bern : “Industrie des Voigtlandes,” II., 341 ; also “ Protokoile derEnquete,” p. 105. In Augsburg already in 1S30. Compare Grassmann :toe. cil ., pp. 22, 23.
23a. Grassmann : loc. cil., p. 96.
24. J. Schoenhof : “ Influences Bearing on Production ” (188S), a journey-report, out of print,