[Footnote 177-3: _Watts_ assumes that the strikers seek to attain, on an average, an advance in their wages of five per cent. Now, a week is about equivalent to two per cent. of the year. If, therefore, a strike lasted one month, the increase of wages it operates must last one and three-fifths years to compensate the workmen for their loss. A strike that lasts 12½ months would require 20 years to effect the same, and this does not include interest on lost wages. (Statist. Journal, 1861, 501 ff.) However, it is possible that the striking workingmen themselves should lose more than they gained, but that, for the whole working class, the gain should exceed the loss; since those who had not participated in the strike would participate in the increased wages. _Thornton_ is of opinion that employers have won in most strikes, but surrendered in the intervals between strikes, so that now English workmen receive certainly £5,000,000 more in wages than they would be getting were it not for the trades-unions. (III, ch. 3-4.)] [Footnote 177-4: By the Norwich strike, about the beginning of the fourth decade of this century, what remained of the industrial life of that city disappeared. (_Kohl_, Reise, II, 363 ff.) Similarly in Dublin. (Quart. Rev., October, 1859, 485 ff.) In Cork, the workingmen's union, in 1827, allowed no strange workmen to join them, and, it is said, committed twenty murders with a view to that end. The builders demanded 4s. 1d. a day wages. This discouraged the erection of new buildings, and it frequently happened that they found employment only one day in two weeks. (Edinb. Rev., XLVII, 212.) When workingmen struggle against a natural decline of the rate of wages, they, of course, add to their misfortune.] [Footnote 177-5: The grounds on which _Brentano_, following _Ludlow_ and _Harrison_, justifies the intervention of the state, have a very dangerous bearing, inasmuch as they do not suppose, as a condition precedent, a perfectly wise and impartial governmental authority.]