SPECIMEN DAYS
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—I understand that you intend your readers to accept the articles " Specimen Days " as authentic. May I question at least two of the statements made in them ? In the Spectator of February 20th is an article by an engine cleaner written in 1894 (he began work as an engine cleaner in 1890, at the age of fourteen, and he says he has been four years at the job). He earns 6s. per day, and states that he pays SOs. per week for his lodgings ! Any person who has had experience of working class life in the early 'nineties knows that no working man ever paid such a sum for his board and lodging. Fifteen shillings would have been the very most, and twelve and sixpence more likely. Even during these last dear years since the War, I find that working men, earning £3 10s. a week or more, try to get lodgings round about twenty-five shillings a week. In the year 1894 living was at a very low rate and prices were at their cheapest.
In the second ease, J.W., a miner, says he went down the pit to work at the age of twelve. I should be obliged if any inspector of mines would say if any boy of twelve was per- mitted down the mines at that age in the year 1898.
It always gives one an uneasy feeling if an article supposed to be bona fide pulls one up by an obviously bad calculation.— [As we have received several letters criticizing some of the articles which have appeared under the title " Specimen Days " we desire to say a few more 'words in explanation. Some readers have found certain statements in the articles incredible and therefore doubt the good faith of the writers ; they haVe suggested that the articles cannot be genuine. We do not complain of this, though we think our correspondents may recognize on reflection that ordinary critical tests cannot be applied to such articles. The articles are exactly what they profess to be ; they were written by persons who are engaged in the work which they describe. If it be said that some of the assertions are untrue to life we cannot dissent from such a statement. We think that some of the articles have exag- gerated the grievances in the trades described and there have been other over-statements. But, after all, is not that exactly what we should have expected ? The writers were asked to describe their work and to say exactly what they thought about it. If there had been any attempt on our part to remove seeming improbabilities we should have defeated the purpose of such articles. We must add a special explana- tion with regard to the article by an engine cleaner, of which the letter printed above is a criticism. Here we must confess that, through a misunderstanding, we made a statement (in our introduction to the article) which has misled our readers. We at first understood that the article was written a long time ago when the writer, " J.B.," who is now an engine driver, was still an engine cleaner. We agree with " Inquirer " that the figures of the cost of living if applied to the year 1894 would be entirely wrong. We now learn that " J.B." wrote the article recently from his memories of what his job was like when he was still cleaning engines ; but in order to bring the article up to date (as he thought) he referred to the cost of living as it is to-day. This is, of course, a method which is bound to yield unexpected results when the article is read in connexion with biographical dates supplied by the author. We might have invited " J.B." to use another method, but, as we have said repeatedly, we deliberately made no attempt at " editing." The statement, for which we were ourselves responsible, that this article was written long ago must, however, bear the chief part of the blame for the misunderstanding.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
