“And this brings me to the point I want to put to you about the permitted use of the sewing machine (see [Fors XXXIV., p. 30]).[11] It may seem unreasonable, when our firm employs so many. But it seems to me that the admission of machinery at all is unwise in principle. Machinery, especially the sewing machine, has demoralized the shoe trade,—the same I think you would find in all other trades,—notably in piece-goods for ladies’ dresses—which, owing to the cheapness with which they can be made up, are far more in number than they could have been if no sewing machine had been used. And a manufacturer told me, only the other day, that common piece-goods, both woollen and others, take as much and generally more labour in making than the best. If all work required to supply clothing to the race were to be done by hand, it would be worth no one’s while to make rubbish of any kind,—the work would be done by fewer people, and all raw material would be cheapened.
“In your advice to a young lady, printed at [page 29, Letter XXXIV]., in the third volume of Fors Clavigera, you give her permission to use a sewing machine. I hope that, on fuller consideration of the subject, you will advise all who set the weal of their country above their own convenience, to discontinue its use wherever it can possibly be dispensed with. [[319]]
“For the effect of the sewing machine upon the great industries connected with clothing has been most disastrous.
“Given a certain quantity of cloth, or calico, or leather; and, before it can be made available as clothing, it must be joined or stitched together in certain shapes.
“Now so long as this stitching was, of necessity, all done by hand, it was never worth while, supposing the labour to be paid for at a just rate, to use any but good materials. A print dress at three-halfpence per yard, which might wear a week, would cost as much to make as a dress that would wear a year; and, except for the rich and luxurious, all extravagance of trimming, and all sewing useless for wear, were unattainable.
“But with the introduction of the sewing machine a great change took place. It would be impossible within the limits of a letter to follow it out in every trade which has felt its influence. But briefly,—when it was found that the stitching process could be got through, though less solidly, at a very much reduced cost, it became possible for all classes to have dresses, clothes, and shoes in far greater number, and to embody in all kinds of clothing a larger amount of useless and elaborate work.
“And then arose among manufacturers generally a vigorous competition,—each one striving, not to make the most enduring and sound fabric (the best value), but that which, retaining some appearance of goodness, should be saleable at the lowest price and at the largest apparent profit.
“The Statutes of the old Trade Guilds of England constantly provide for the purity of their several manufactures; as did Richard Cœur de Lion, in his law for the cloth makers, ([Fors, Letter III., p. 15],)—on this thoroughly wise and just ground: namely, that the best cloth, leather, etc., producible, being accurately the cheapest to the consumer,—the man who used [[320]]his knowledge of his trade to make other than the best, was guilty of fraud. Compare this view of the duty of a manufacturer with modern practice!
“It may be said that the customer is not cheated; since he knows, when he buys what is called a cheap thing, that it is not the best. I reply that the consumer never knows to the full what bad value, or unvalue, the common article is. And whose fault is it that he buys any but the best value?
“The answer involves a consideration of the duty and position of the retailer or middleman, and must be given, if at all, hereafter.