which does not provide those engaged in it with sufficient
to keep them in health is essentially unsound.
Used-up capital must be replaced, and of all forms
of capital the most fundamental and indispensable
is the human energy necessarily consumed in the work
of production. A sweated industry does not provide
for the replacing of that kind of capital. It
squanders its human material. It consumes more
energy in the work it exacts than the remuneration
it gives is capable of replacing. The workers
in sweated industries are not able to live on their
wages. As it is, they live miserably, grow old
too soon, and bring up sickly children. But they
would not live at all, were it not for the fact that
their inadequate wages are supplemented, directly,
in many cases, by out-relief, and indirectly by numerous
forms of charity. In one way or another the community
has to make good the inefficiency that sweating produces.
In one way or another the community ultimately pays,
and it is my firm belief that it pays far more in
the long run under the present system than if all
workers were self-supporting. If a true account
could be kept, it would be found that anything which
the community gains by the cheapness of articles produced
under the sweating system is more than outweighed
by the indirect loss involved in the inevitable subsidising
of a sweated industry. That would be found to
be the result, even if no account were taken of the
greatest loss of all, the loss arising from the inefficiency
of the sweated workers and of their children, for
sweating is calculated to perpetuate inefficiency and
degeneration.
The question is: Can anything be done? Of
the three related evils—unduly low rates
of wages, excessive hours of labour, and insanitary
condition of work-places—it is evident that
the first applies equally to sweated workers in factories
and at home, but the two others are to some extent
guarded against, in factories, by existing legislation.
This is the reason why some people would like to see
all work done for wages transferred to factories.
Broadly speaking, I sympathise with that view.
But if it were universally carried out at the present
moment, it would inflict an enormous amount of suffering
and injustice on those who add to their incomes by
home work. Hence the problem is twofold.
First, can we extend to workers in their own homes
that degree or protection in respect of hours and
sanitary conditions which the law already gives to
workers in factories? And secondly, can we do
anything to obtain for sweated workers, whether in
homes or factories, rates of remuneration less palpably
inadequate? Now it certainly seems impossible
to limit the hours of workers, especially adult workers,
in their own homes. More can be done to ensure
sanitary conditions of work. Much has been done
already, so far as the structural condition of dwellings
is concerned. But I am afraid that the measures
necessary to introduce what may be called the factory