labour scientifically. To arrange the several varieties of work into
“orders,” and to group the manifold species of arts under a few
comprehensive genera--so that the mind may grasp the whole at one
effort--is a task of a most perplexing character. Moreover, the first
attempt to bring any number of diverse phenomena within the rules of
logical division is not only a matter of considerable difficulty, but
one, unfortunately, that is generally unsuccessful. It is impossible,
however, to proceed with the present inquiry without making some
attempt at systematic arrangement; for of all scientific processes,
the classification of the various phenomena, in connection with a
given subject, is perhaps the most important; indeed, if we consider
that the function of cognition is essentially _discriminative_, it is
evident, that without distinguishing between one object and another,
there can be no knowledge, nor, indeed, any perception. Even as the
seizing of a particular difference causes the mind to _apprehend_ the
special character of an object, so does the discovery of the agreements
and differences among the several phenomena of a subject enable the
understanding to _comprehend_ it. What the generalization of events
is to the ascertainment of natural laws, the generalization of things
is to the discovery of natural systems. But classification is no less
dangerous than it is important to science; for in precisely the same
proportion as a correct grouping of objects into genera and species,
orders and varieties, expands and assists our understanding, so does
any erroneous arrangement cripple and retard all true knowledge.
The reduction of all external substances into four elements by the
ancients--earth, air, fire, and water--perhaps did more to obstruct the
progress of chemical science than even a prohibition of the study could
have effected.
But the branches of industry are so multifarious, the divisions of
labour so minute and manifold, that it seems at first almost impossible
to reduce them to any system. Moreover, the crude generalizations
expressed in the names of the several arts, render the subject still
more perplexing.
Some kinds of workmen, for example, are called after the _articles
they make_--as saddlers, hatters, boot-makers, dress-makers,
breeches-makers, stay-makers, lace-makers, button-makers,
glovers, cabinet-makers, artificial-flower-makers, ship-builders,
organ-builders, boat-builders, nailers, pin-makers, basket-makers,
pump-makers, clock and watch makers, wheel-wrights, ship-wrights, and
so forth.
Some operatives, on the other hand, take their names not from what they
make, but from the _kind of work they perform_. Hence we have carvers,
joiners, bricklayers, weavers, knitters, engravers, embroiderers,
tanners, curriers, bleachers, thatchers, lime-burners, glass-blowers,
seamstresses, assayers, refiners, embossers, chasers, painters,
paper-hangers, printers, book-binders, cab-drivers, fishermen,
graziers, and so on.
Other artizans, again, are styled after the _materials upon which they
work_, such as tinmen, jewellers, lapidaries, goldsmiths, braziers,
plumbers, pewterers, glaziers, &c. &c.
And lastly, a few operatives are named after the _tools they use_; thus
we have ploughmen, sawyers, and needlewomen.
But these divisions, it is evident, are as unscientific as they are
arbitrary; nor would it be possible, by adopting such a classification,
to arrive at any practical result.
Now, I _had_ hoped to have derived some little assistance in my attempt
to reduce the several varieties of work to system from the arrangement
of the products of industry and art at “the Great Exhibition.” I
knew, however, that the point of classification had proved the great
stumbling block to the French Industrial Exhibitions. In the Exposition
of the Arts and Manufactures of France in 1806, for instance, M. Costaz
adopted a topographical arrangement, according to the departments of
the kingdom whence the specimens were sent. In 1819, again, finding
the previous arrangement conveyed little or no knowledge, depending,
as it did, on the mere local association of the places of manufacture,
the same philosopher attempted to classify all arts into a sort of
natural system, but the separate divisions amounted to thirty-nine,
and were found to be confused and inconvenient. In 1827 M. Payon
adopted a classification into five great divisions, arranging the arts
according as they are chemical, mechanical, physical, economical, or
“miscellaneous” in their nature. It was found, however, in practice,
that two, or even three, of these characteristics often belonged to the
same manufacture. In 1834 M. Dupin proposed a classification that was
found to work better than any which preceded it. He viewed man as a
locomotive animal, a clothed animal, a domiciled animal, &c., and thus
tracing him through his various daily wants and employments, he arrived
at a classification in which all arts are placed under nine headings,
according as they contribute to the alimentary, sanitary, vestiary,
domiciliary, locomotive, sensitive, intellectual, preparative, or
social tendencies of man. In 1844 and 1849 attempts were made towards
an eclectic combination of two or three of the above-mentioned systems,
but it does not appear that the latter arrangements presented any
marked advantages.
Now, with all the experience of the French nation to guide us, I
naturally expected that especial attention would be directed towards
the point of classification with us, and that a technological system
would be propounded, which would be found at least an improvement on
the bungling systems of the French. It must be confessed, however, that
no nation could possibly have stultified itself so egregiously as we
have done in this respect. Never was there anything half so puerile as
the classification of the works of industry in our own Exhibition!
But this comes of the patronage of Princes; for we are told that at
one of the earliest meetings at Buckingham Palace his Royal Highness
_propounded_ the system of classification according to which the works
of industry _were to be_ arranged. The published minutes of the meeting
on the 30th of June, 1849, inform us--
“His Royal Highness communicated his views regarding the formation of
a Great Collection of Works of Industry and Art in London in 1851, for
the purposes of exhibition, and of competition and encouragement. His
Royal Highness considered that such a collection and exhibition should
consist of the following divisions:--
Raw Materials.
Machinery and Mechanical Inventions.
Manufactures.
Sculpture and Plastic Art generally.”
Now, were it possible for monarchs to do with natural laws as with
social ones, namely, to blow a trumpet and declaring “_le roi le
veut_,” to have their will pass into one of the statutes of creation,
it might be advantageous to science that Princes should seek to lay
down orders of arrangement and propound systems of classification. But
seeing that Science is as pure a republic as Letters, and that there
are no “Highnesses” in philosophy--for if there be any aristocracy at
all in such matters, it is at least an aristocracy of intellect--it is
rather an injury than a benefit that those who are high in authority
should interfere in these affairs at all; since, from the very
circumstances of their position it is utterly impossible for them to
arrive at anything more than the merest surface knowledge on such
subjects. The influence, too, that their mere “authority” has over
men’s minds is directly opposed to the perception of truth, preventing
that free and independent exercise of the intellect from which alone
all discovery and knowledge can proceed.
Judging the quadruple arrangement of the Great Exhibition by the laws
of logical division, we find that the three classes--Raw Materials,
Machinery, and Manufactures--which refer more particularly to the Works
of Industry, are neither distinct nor do they include the whole. What
is a raw material, and what a manufacture? It is from the difficulty
of distinguishing between these two conditions that leather is placed
under Manufactures, and steel under Raw Materials--though surely
steel is iron _plus_ carbon, and leather skin _plus_ tannin; so that,
technologically considered, there is no difference between them. If
by the term raw material is meant some natural product in its crude
state, then it is evident that “Geological maps, plans, and sections;
prussiate of potash, and other mixed chemical manufactures; sulphuric,
muriatic, nitric, and other acids; medicinal tinctures, cod liver oil,
dried fruits, fermented liquors and spirits, preserved meats, portable
soups, glue, and the alloys” cannot possibly rank as _raw_ materials,
though one and all of these articles are to be found so “classified”
at the Great Exhibition; but if the meaning of a “raw material” be
extended to any product which constitutes the substance to be operated
upon in an industrial art, then the answer is that leather, which
is the material of shoes and harness, is no more a manufacture than
steel, which is placed among the raw materials, because forming the
constituent substance of cutlery and tools. So interlinked are the
various arts and manufactures, that what is the product of one process
of industry is the material of another--thus, yarn is the product
of spinning, and the material of weaving, and in the same manner
the cloth, which is the product of weaving, becomes the material of
tailoring.
But a still greater blunder than the non-distinction between products
and materials lies in the confounding of _processes_ with _products_.
In an Industrial Exhibition to reserve no special place for the
processes of industry is very much like the play of Hamlet with the
part of Hamlet omitted; and yet it is evident that, in the quadruple
arrangement before mentioned, those most important industrial
operations which consist merely in arriving at the same result by
simpler means--as, for instance, the hot blast in metallurgical
operations--can find no distinct expression. The consequence is that
methods of work are arranged under the same head as the work itself;
and the “Executive” have been obliged to group under the first
subdivision of _Raw Materials_ the following inconsistent jumble:--Salt
deposits; ventilation; safety lamps and other methods of lighting;
methods of lowering and raising miners, and draining; methods of
roasting, smelting, or otherwise reducing ores; while under the second
subdivision of Raw Materials chemical and pharmaceutical _processes_
and _products_ are indiscriminately confounded.
Another most important defect is the omission of all mention of those
industrial processes which have _no special or distinct products of
their own_, but which are rather engaged _in adding to the beauty or
durability of others_; as, for instance, the bleaching of some textile
fabrics, the embroidering of others, the dyeing and printing of others;
the binding of books; the cutting of glass; the painting of china,
&c. From the want of an express division for this large portion of
our industrial arts, there is a jumbling and a bungling throughout
the whole arrangement. Under the head of _manufactures_ are grouped
printing and bookbinding, the “dyeing of woollen, cotton, and linen
goods,” “embroidery, fancy, and industrial work,” the cutting and
engraving of glass; and, lastly, the art of “decoration generally,”
including “ornamental, coloured decoration,” and the “imitations of
woods, marbles, &c.,”--though surely these are one and all _additions_
to manufactures rather than _manufactures_ themselves. Indeed, a more
extraordinary and unscientific hotch-potch than the entire arrangement
has never been submitted to public criticism and public ridicule.
Amid all this confusion and perplexity, then, how are we to proceed?
Why, we must direct our attention to some more judicious and more
experienced guide. In such matters, at least, as the Exposition of
the Science of Labour, it is clear that we must “put not our trust in
princes.”
That Prince Albert has conferred a great boon on the country in the
establishment of the Great Exhibition (for it is due not only to his
patronage but to his own personal exertions), no unprejudiced mind can
for a moment doubt; and that he has, ever since his first coming among
us, filled a most delicate office in the State in a highly decorous
and commendable manner, avoiding all political partizanship, and
being ever ready to give the influence of his patronage, and, indeed,
co-operation, to anything that appeared to promise an amelioration of
the condition of the working classes of this country, I am most glad
to have it in my power to bear witness; but that, _because of this_,
we should pin our faith to a “hasty generalization” propounded by him,
would be to render ourselves at once silly and servile.
If, with the view of obtaining some more precise information concerning
the several branches of industry, we turn our attention to the
Government analysis of the different modes of employment among the
people, we shall find that for all purposes of a scientific or definite
character the Occupation Abstract of the Census of this country is
comparatively useless. Previous to 1841, the sole attempt made at
generalization was the division of the entire industrial community into
three orders, viz.:--
I. _Those employed in Agriculture._
1. Agricultural Occupiers.
_a._ Employing Labourers.
_b._ Not employing Labourers.
2. Agricultural Labourers.
II. _Those employed in Manufactures._
1. Employed in Manufactures.
2. Employed in making Manufacturing Machinery.
III. _All other Classes._
1. Employed in Retail Trade or in Handicraft, as Masters or Workmen.
2. Capitalists, Bankers, Professional, and other educated men.
3. Labourers employed in labour not Agricultural--as Miners,
Quarriers, Fishermen, Porters, &c.
4. Male Servants.
5. Other Males, 20 years of age.
The defects of this arrangement must be self-evident to all who have
paid the least attention to economical science. It offends against
both the laws of logical division, the parts being neither distinct
nor equal to the whole. In the first place, what is a manufacturer?
and how is such an one to be distinguished from one employed in
handicraft? How do the workers in metal, as the “tin manufacturers,”
“lead manufacturers,” “iron manufacturers,”--who are one and all
classed under the head of manufacturers--differ, in an economical
point of view, from the workers in wood, as the carpenters and
joiners, the cabinet-makers, ship-builders, &c., who are all classed
under the head of handicraftsmen? Again, according to the census of
1831, a brewer is placed among those employed in retail trade or in
handicrafts, while a vinegar maker is ranked with the manufacturers.
According to Mr. Babbage, _manufacturing_ differs from mere _making_
simply in the quantity produced--he being a manufacturer who makes
a greater number of the same articles; manufacturing is thus simply
production in a large way, in connection with the several handicrafts.
Dr. Ure, however, appears to consider such articles manufactures as
are produced by means of machinery, citing the word which originally
signified production by hand (being the Latin equivalent for the Saxon
_handicraft_) as an instance of those singular verbal corruptions
by which terms come to stand for the very opposite to their literal
meaning. But with all deference to the Doctor, for whose judgment I
have the highest respect, Mr. Babbage’s definition of a manufacturer,
viz., as a producer on a large scale, appears to me the more correct;
for it is in this sense that we speak of manufacturing chemists, boot
and shoe manufacturers, ginger-beer manufacturers, and the like.
The Occupation Abstract of the Census of 1841, though far more
comprehensive than the one preceding it, is equally unsatisfactory and
unphilosophical. In this document the several members of Society are
thus classified:--
I. _Persons engaged in Commerce, Trade, and Manufacture._
II. _Agriculture._
III. _Labour, not Agricultural._
IV. _Army and Navy Merchant Seamen, Fishermen, and Watermen._
V. _Professions and other pursuits requiring education._
VI. _Government, Civil Service, and Municipal and Parochial Officers._
VII. _Domestic Servants._
VIII. _Persons of Independent Means._
IX. _Almspeople, Pensioners, Paupers, Lunatics, and Prisoners._
X. _Remainder of Population, including Women and Children._
Here it will be seen that the defects arising from drawing distinctions
where no real differences exist, are avoided, those engaged in
handicrafts being included under the same head as those engaged in
manufacture; but the equally grave error of confounding or grouping
together occupations which are essentially diverse, is allowed to
continue. Accordingly, the first division is made to include those
who are engaged in trade and commerce as well as manufacture, though
surely--the one belongs strictly to the distributing, and the other
to the producing class--occupations which are not only essentially
distinct, but of which it is absolutely necessary for a right
understanding of the state of the country that we know the proportion
that the one bears to the other. Again, the employers in both cases
are confounded with the employed, so that, though the capitalists
who supply the materials, and pay the wages for the several kinds
of work are a distinct body of people from those who _do_ the work,
and a body, moreover, that it is of the highest possible importance,
in an economical point of view, that we should be able to estimate
numerically,--no attempt is made to discriminate the one from
the other. Now these three classes, distributors, employers, and
operatives, which in the Government returns of the people are jumbled
together in one heterogeneous crowd, as if the distinctions between
Capital, Labour, and Distribution had never been propounded, are
precisely those concerning which the social inquirer desires the most
minute information.
The Irish census is differently arranged from that of Great Britain.
There the several classes are grouped under the following heads:--
I. _Ministering to Food._
1. As Producers.
2. As Preparers.
3. As Distributors.
II. _Ministering to Clothing._
1. As Manufacturers of Materials.
2. As Handicraftsmen and Dealers.
III. _Ministering to Lodging, Furniture, Machinery, &c._
IV. _Ministering to Health._
V. _Ministering to Charity._
VI. _Ministering to Justice._
VII. _Ministering to Education._
VIII. _Ministering to Religion._
IX. _Various Arts and Employments, not included in the foregoing._
X. _Residue of Population_, not having specified occupations, and
including unemployed persons and women.
This, however, is no improvement upon the English classification. There
is the same want of discrimination, and the same disregard of the
great “economical” divisions of society.
Moreover, to show the extreme fallacy of such a classification, it is
only necessary to make the following extract from the Report of the
Commissioners for Great Britain:--
“We would willingly have given a classification of the occupations of
the inhabitants of Great Britain into the various wants to which they
respectively minister, but, in attempting this, we were stopped by the
various anomalies and uncertainties to which such a classification
seemed necessarily to lead, from the fact that many persons supply more
than one want, though they can only be classed under one head. Thus to
give but a single instance--_the farmer and grazier may be deemed to
minister quite as much to clothing by the fleece and hides as he does
to food by the flesh of his sheep and cattle_.”
He, therefore, who would seek to elaborate the natural history of
the industry of the people of England, must direct his attention to
some social philosopher, who has given the subject more consideration
than either princes or Government officials can possibly be expected
to devote to it. Among the whole body of economists, Mr. Stuart
Mill appears to be the only man who has taken a comprehensive and
enlightened view of the several functions of society. Following in the
footsteps of M. Say, the French social philosopher, he first points out
concerning the products of industry, that labour is not creative of
objects but of utilities, and then proceeds to say:--
“Now the utilities produced by labour are of three kinds; they are--
“First, utilities _fixed and embodied in outward objects_; by labour
employed in investing external _material_ things with properties which
render them serviceable to human beings. This is the common case, and
requires no illustration.
“Secondly, utilities _fixed and embodied in human beings_; the labour
being in this case employed in conferring on human beings qualities
which render them serviceable to themselves and others. To this
class belongs the labour of all concerned in education; not only
schoolmasters, tutors, and professors, but governments, so far as
they aim successfully at the improvement of the people; moralists and
clergymen, as far as productive of benefit; the labour of physicians,
as far as instrumental in preserving life and physical or mental
efficiency; of the teachers of bodily exercises, and of the various
trades, sciences, and arts, together with the labour of the learners
in acquiring them, and all labour bestowed by any persons, throughout
life, in improving the knowledge or cultivating the bodily and mental
faculties of themselves or others.
“Thirdly, and lastly, utilities _not fixed or embodied in any object_,
but consisting in a mere _service rendered_, a pleasure given, an
inconvenience or pain averted, during a longer or a shorter time, but
without leaving a _permanent_ acquisition in the improved qualities of
any person or thing; the labour here being employed in producing an
utility _directly_, not (as in the two former cases) in _fitting some
other_ thing to afford an utility. Such, for example, is the labour of
the musical performer, the actor, the public declaimer or reciter, and
the showman.
“Some good may, no doubt, be produced beyond the moment, upon the
feeling and disposition, or general state of enjoyment of the
spectators; or instead of good there may be harm, but neither the one
nor the other is the effect intended, is the result for which the
exhibitor works and the spectator pays, but the immediate pleasure.
Such, again, is the labour of the army and navy; they, at the best,
prevent a country from being conquered, or from being injured or
insulted, which is a service, but in all other respects leave the
country neither improved nor deteriorated. Such, too, is the labour of
the legislator, the judge, the officer of justice, and all other agents
of Government, in their ordinary functions, apart from any influence
they may exert on the improvement of the national mind. The service
which they render is to maintain peace and security; these compose the
utility which they produce. It may appear to some that carriers, and
merchants or dealers, should be placed in this same class, since their
labour does not add any properties to objects, but I reply that it
does, it adds the property of being in the place where they are wanted,
instead of being in some other place, which is a very useful property,
and the utility it confers is embodied in the things themselves, which
now actually are in the place where they are required for use, and in
consequence of that increased utility could be sold at an increased
price proportioned to the labour expended in conferring it. This
labour, therefore, does not belong to the third class, but to the
first.”