Oliver Constable, miller and baker, Vol. 2 (of 3) — John Stuart Mill — John Shaqi
Oliver Constable, miller and baker, Vol. 2 (of 3)
John Stuart Mill · en
There had been growls of dissatisfaction, sneers of scepticism, tacit
defiance in the mill and the bakehouse, which had all passed unheeded
by Oliver, before the storm broke forth. It began with a comparatively
trifling _émeute_ in the mill after the miller’s men had been comparing
notes with the journeymen bakers who went far before the grinders of
the raw grain in crude, shallow quickness of reasoning and one-sided,
undigested knowledge. The journeymen bakers first crammed the young
millers with the rank growth of their supposed grievances, and then
adroitly pushed the crammed men before them, into the breach, to open
the battle with Oliver their common enemy.
There were long-standing usages and privileges in the miller and
baker trades which Oliver had thought fit to abolish without asking
the consent of his servants farther than in the address which he
delivered on entering into possession of the mill and the shop, and
that lay beyond the comprehension of the cleverest man among them,
who immediately made up his mind that it was all ‘soft sawder’ and
‘book-learning bosh.’ The men chose to regard these time-out-of-mind
customs and liberties, though they had no direct bearing on any
miller’s or baker’s prosperity, and were even sometimes prejudicial to
fair play among the men themselves, as their rules to which they had
agreed on entering their trades. No master had any right to interfere
with and overturn these rules without the men’s concurrence; above
all, they were not such fools as to be defrauded of them by a fine
assumption of philanthropy on the part of their antagonist.
Oliver discovered that there had been disobedience and evasion of
a regulation which he had laid down at the Mill, that two different
qualities of grain, whether coming from the same or different owners,
should not from that time forward be so taken and ground together as to
produce a spurious average of quality, even when that average might be
accepted with ignorant or indifferent acquiescence in the case of the
better as well as the worse wheat.
‘Why did you not attend to what I said, Green?’ enquired Oliver
angrily. ‘Mind that this lumping together does not occur again. At
the best it is a slovenly, inaccurate makeshift for clean, correct
work, which prevents a proper estimate of each quality of grain and
adulterates flour at the mill; at the worst it is an imposition and
a cheat, hiding careless negligence on our part, or consenting to
withdraw the surplus fineness and cleanness of one man’s growth of corn
in order to add it to the deficient worth of another man’s crop. I will
not have it.’