£ _s._ _d._
400,000 persons living in
London expend in clothing (at
2_l._ 10_s._ per annum) 1,000,000 0 0
400,000 persons living in better
atmospheres in rural parts,
and with the same stock of
clothes, expend one-third less,
or 666,666 13 4
------------------
Difference 333,333 6 8
It would be pushing the inquiry to exceeding minuteness were I to enter
into calculations as to the comparative expense of boots, hats, and
ladies’ dresses worn in town and country; suffice it, that competent
persons in each of the vestiary trades have been seen, and averages
drawn for the accounts of their town and country customers.
All things, then, being duly considered, the following conclusion would
seem to be warranted by the facts:--
Annual cost of clothes to 800,000 of
the metropolitan population (those
belonging to the class who have incomes
_above_ 150_l._ per annum) at 4_l._
per year each £3,200,000
Annual cost of clothes to 1,600,000
of the metropolitan population (those
belonging to the class who have incomes
_below_ 150_l._ per annum), at 1_l._
per year each 1,600,000
----------
£4,800,000
Annual cost of the same clothes if
worn in the country 3,600,000
----------
Extra expense annually entailed by
dust and dirt of metropolis £1,200,000
In the above estimate I have included the cost of wear and tear of
linen from extra washing when worn in London, and this has been stated
on the authority of the Board of Health to be double that of linen worn
in the country.
In connection with this subject I may cite the following curious
calculation, taken from a Parliamentary Report, as to the cost of a
working man’s new shirt, comprising four yards of strong calico.
_Material._--Cotton at 6_d._ per lb. _d._
1-1/4 lb., with loss thereupon 8·25
_Manufacture_,-- _d._
Spinning 2·25
Weaving 3·00
Profit ·25
-----
5·50
-----
13·75
Bleaching about 1·25
-----
15·00
Grey (calico) 13·75_d._ + 9_d._ (making) = 1_s._ 10-3/4_d._
Bleached 15_d._ + 9_d._ „ = 2_s._
As regards the loss and damage occasioned by the injury to
household furniture and decorations, and to stocks-in-trade, which
is another important consideration connected with this subject, I
find the following statement in the Report of the Philanthropic
Institution:--“The loss by goods and furniture is incalculable:
shopkeepers lose from 10_l._ to 150_l._ a-year by the spoiling of
their goods for sale; dealers in provisions especially, who cannot
expose them without being deteriorated in value, from the dust that is
incessantly settling upon them. Nor is it much better with clothiers of
all kinds:--Mr. Holmes, shawl merchant, in Regent-street, has stated
that his losses from road-dust alone exceed 150_l._ per annum.”...
“In a communication with Mr. Mivart, respecting the expenses of mud
and road-dust to him, that gentleman stated that the rent of the four
houses of which his hotel is composed, was 896_l._; and that he could
not (considering the cost of cleaning and servants) estimate the
expense of repairing the damage done by the dirt and dust, carried and
blown into these houses, at a less annual sum than that of his rent!”
An upholsterer obliged me with the following calculations, but so many
were the materials, and so different the rates of wear or the liability
to injury in different materials in his trade, that he could only
calculate generally.
The same quality, colour, and pattern of curtains, silk damasks, which
he had furnished to a house in town, and to a country house belonging
to the same gentleman, looked far fresher and better after five years’
wear in the country than after three in town. Both windows had a
southern aspect, but the occupant would have his windows partially
open unless the weather was cold, foggy, or rainy. It was the same,
or nearly the same, he thought, with the carpets on the two places,
for London dust was highly injurious to all the better qualities
of carpets. He was satisfied, also, it was the same generally in
upholstery work subjected to town dust.
I inquired at several West-end and city shops, and of different
descriptions of tradesmen, of the injury done to their shop and
shop-window goods by the dust, but I found none who had made any
calculations on the subject. All, however, agreed that the dust was an
excessive annoyance, and entailed great expense; a ladies’ shoemaker
and a bookseller expressed this particularly--on the necessity of
making the window a sort of small glass-house to exclude the dust,
which, after all, was not sufficiently excluded. All thought, or with
but one hesitating exception, that the estimation as to the loss
sustained by the Messrs. Holmes, considering the extent of their
premises, and the richness of the goods displayed in the windows, &c.,
was not in excess.
I can, then, but indicate the injury to household furniture and
stock-in-trade as a corroboration of all that has been advanced
touching the damaging effects of road dirt.