“Do the tailors from villages take snuff or smoke as well as drink so much as the tailors in the large shops in the towns?—They neither take so much snuff nor tobacco, nor so much of any of the stimulants, as are taken by the workmen in the crowded shops of the towns.
“Do their eyes fail them as soon?—No, certainly not.
“With the tailors, is it the eye that fails first?—Yes; after long hours of work the first thing complained of by the tailors is that the eyes fail; the sight becomes dim, and a sort of mist comes between them and their work.
“Judging from your own practical experience, how long do you conceive that a man would work in a well-ventilated or uncrowded room, as compared with a close, crowded, ill-ventilated room?—I think it would make a difference of two hours in the day to a man. He would, for example, be able, in an uncrowded or well-ventilated room, to do his twelve hours’ work in the twelve hours; whereas in the close-crowded room he would not do more than ten hours’ work in the twelve.
“Of two men beginning at 20 years of age, what would be the difference in extent of labour performed by them in town shops or in the country?—A man who had begun at 20 in these crowded shops would not be so good a man at 40 as a man working to 50 in a country village; of the two, the country tailor would be in the best condition in health and strength: in point of fact he is so. The difference may be set down as a gain of 10 years’ good labour. There are very few who can stand such work as the town shops 20 years.
“The eyes then become permanently injured, as well as fail during the day, in these crowded shops?—Yes, they do. After 45 years of age, the eyes begin to fail, and he cannot do a full day’s work.
“Supposing a workman to work in a well-ventilated room, and to be freed from the nervous exhaustion consequent on the state of the place, might he not save at least all that he drinks in the times between his meals, or be enabled to apply it better, if he were so disposed; and, perhaps, the value of the two hours’ extra work in the 12, when he is working piece-work?—Yes, certainly he might.
“Taking your account of the average loss by nervous exhaustion and bad habits to be two hours’ work for 20 years, and 12 hours daily work for 10 years in addition, supposing him to be employed full time, it would be a loss of the value of 50,000 hours of productive labour (of the value at 6d. per hour, 1,250l.); or, if he were only in work half a-year, at a loss of 25,000 hours; so that if he were employed the half time at the full wages, or full time at the half wages, such workmen will have lost the means of putting by a sum of not less than 600l. to maintain him in comfort when he is no longer able to work?—Yes, I think that would be found to be correct. Very few do save; but I have known some save considerable sums. I knew one man, of the name of John Hale, who saved about 600l. He was not one of the most sober men, but he was in constant employment, sometimes at Allen’s and sometimes at Weston’s, and he was very careful; but he died when he was about 45. I knew another man, whose name was Philip Gray, who used to prefer the smaller shops. He was a man of a very good constitution, and he lived until he was about 70. He was a journeyman all his life, and he had, when he died, more than 1,500l., all saved by London journey work. He used to live in a baker’s shop in Silver-street, Golden-square.
“Was he of a penurious disposition?—He associated less with the men than others, and they knew little about him. He was dressed much the same as the rest, but he was much more clean in his person: he was remarkable for his cleanliness, and he was very neat in his person. Both he and Hale were single men.
“Can you doubt that, under favourable sanitary circumstances, such instances would become frequent?—It cannot be doubted. I have known other instances of saving, but those were not of men working on the board: they were mostly of men who had situations in the cutting-rooms.”