In all these books the reader will find a further confirmation of the ideas about the small industries that are expressed in chapters vi. and vii. When I developed them in the first edition of this book, it was objected to me that, although the existence of a great number of small industries is out of question, and although their great extension in a country so far advanced in its industrial development as England was not known to economists, still the fact proves nothing. These industries are a mere survival; and if we had data about the different classes of industry at different periods, we should see how rapidly the small industries are disappearing.

Now we have such data for Germany, for a period of twenty-five years, in the three censuses of 1882, 1895, and 1907, and, what is still more valuable, these twenty-five years belong to a moment in the life of Germany when a powerful industry has developed on an immense scale with a great rapidity. Here it is that the dying out of the small industries, their “absorption” by the great concerns, and the supposed “concentration of capital” ought to be seen in full.

But the numerical results, as they appear from the three censuses, and as they have been interpreted by those who have studied them, are pointing out to quite the reverse. The position of the small industries in the life of an industrial country is exactly the same which could have been foreseen twenty-five years ago, and very often it is described in the very same words that I have used.

The German Statistisches Jahrbuch gives us the distribution of workmen in the different industries of the German Empire in 1882 and 1895. Leaving aside all the concerns which belong to trade and those for the sale of alcoholic drinks (955,680 establishments, 2,165,638 workpeople), as also 42,321 establishments belonging to horticulture, fishing, and poultry (103,128 workpeople in 1895), there were, in all the industries, including mining, 1,237,000 artisans working single-handed, and over 900,000 establishments in which 6,730,500 persons were employed. Their distribution in establishments of different sizes was as follows:—

1895.Establishments.Employees. Average per
establishment.
Artisans working single-handed1,237,0001,237,000[214]—
From 1 to 5 employees752,5721,954,1252·6
” 6 to 50 ”139,4591,902,04913
Over 50 ”17,9412,907,329162
——————————
Total909,9726,763,5037·5
(With the artisans)(2,146,972)(8,000,503)(4)

Twelve years later the industries, as they appeared in the next census, made in 1907, were distributed as follows:—

1907.Establishments.Employees. Average per
establishment.
Artisans working single-handed994,743994,743[215]—
From1 to 5employees875,5182,205,5392·5
”6 to 10”96,849717,2827
”11 to 50”90,2251,996,90622
”51 to 100”15,7831,103,94970
”101 to 500”11,8272,295,401194
Over 500”1,4231,538,5771,081
——————————
Total1,091,6259,858,1209
(With the artisans)(2,086,368)(10,852,863)(5)

For the sake of comparison, I give also (in round figures) the numbers of establishments obtained by the three censuses:—

1882. 1895. 1907.
Artisans working single-handed1,430,0001,237,000995,000
From 1 to 5 employees746,000753,000875,000
” 6 to 50 ”85,000139,000187,000
Over 50 ”9,00018,00030,000
————————————
Total830,000910,0001,092,000
(With the artisans)(2,270,000)(2,147,000)(2,086,000)

What appears quite distinctly from the last census is the rapid decrease in the numbers of artisans who work single-handed, mostly without the aid of machinery. Such an individual mode of production by hand is naturally on the decrease, even many artisans resorting now to some sort of motive power and taking one or two hired aids; but this does not prove in the least that the small industries carried on with the aid of machinery should be on the wane. The census of 1907 proves quite the contrary, and all those who have studied it are bound to recognise it.