Household words, no. 304, January 19, 1856 : $b A weekly journal
General
Household words, no. 304, January 19, 1856 : $b A weekly journal
English literature -- Periodicals
So far as we can understand the figures of the pamphlet, they arise
from the ingenuity of some friend, who has eliminated from the rest
those accidents arising out of actual contact with a shaft, and then
put this part for the whole. But the law says, “That every fly-wheel
directly connected with the steam-engine or water-wheel, or other
mechanical power, whether in the engine-house or not, and every part
of a steam-engine and water-wheel, and every hoist or teagle, near to
which children or young persons are liable to pass or be employed,
and all parts of the mill-gearing in a factory shall be securely
fenced.” The whole controversy is about obedience to this law, and the
consequences of resistance to it. The most horrible and fatal accidents
are those connected most immediately with the shafts; the unfenced
shafts are the essential type of the whole question, and the fencing
of them implies necessarily the general consent to obey the law. For
this reason we have, no doubt, in common with other people, frequently
represented by such a phrase as unfenced shafts, the whole fact of
resistance to the law, without any suspicion of the ingenious turn that
might be given to the question on this ground, by an Association not
ashamed to employ sleight of hand in argument.
And now that we discuss the figures of the pamphlet, we turn to another
of the strange pages, headed Mis-statements in Household Words. We
make, it is said, the extraordinary statement, that these deadly
shafts “mangle or murder, every year, two thousand human creatures;
and considering,” the writer adds, “the magnitude of this exaggeration
(our readers will remember that the average of deaths by factory shafts
is twelve per year) it is no wonder that he finds fault with figures
when used in reply to charges so monstrous. When the manufacturers
produce facts in answer to romance,” we proceed, it is said, “to beg
the question as usual; in this passage: ‘As for ourselves, we admit
freely, that it never did occur to us that it was possible to justify,
by arithmetic, a thing unjustifiable by any code of morals, civilised
or savage.’”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account