¹ See Himmelfarb, Gertrude, The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age (New York, 1983), for a discussion of the contemporary debate over the “Condition of England”;Google Scholar and Cannadine, David, “The Present and the Past in the English Industrial Revolution,” Past and Present, 103 (05 1984), pp. 131–72, for a review of the subsequent historical literature.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² See J. L. and Hammond, Barbara, The Rise of Modern Industry (9th edn., London, 1966), 232.Google Scholar

³ See Thompson, E. P., The Making of the English Working Class (New York, 1966).Google Scholar

⁴ See Lindert, Peter and Williamson, Jeffrey, “English Workers' Living Standards During the Industrial Revolution: A New Look,” Economic History Review, 36 (02 1983), pp. 1–25Google Scholar; and Lindert, Peter and Williamson, Jeffrey, “English Workers' Real Wages: Reply to Crafts,” this JOURNAL, 45 (03 1985), pp. 145–53, for the evidence on real wages.Google ScholarWilliamson, Jeffrey G., “Urban Disamenities, Dark Satanic Mills, and the British Standard of Living Debate,” this JOURNAL, 41 (03 1981), pp. 75–83Google Scholar; and Williamson, Jeffrey O., “Was the Industrial Revolution Worth It? Disamenities and Death in 19th Century British Towns,” Explorations in Economic History, 19 (06 1982), pp. 221–45, provide evidence on the compensation estimated from hedonic regressions of earnings paid laborers in 1909 and 1834. The estimates range from 13 percent in the far North to 7 to 10 percent in the Midlands, Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire, and a -2 percent in the South and East for moves to London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵ See Himmelfarb, Idea of Poverty, p. 137.Google Scholar

⁶ See Ashton, T. S., “The Standard of Life of the Workers in England, 1790–1830,” this JOURNAL, 9 (Supplement 1949), pp. 19–38Google Scholar; and Gourvish, T. R., “Flinn and Real Wages in Britain, 1750–1850: A Comment,” Economic History Review, 2nd Series, 29 (02 1976), pp. 135–45.Google Scholarvon Tunzelmann, G. N., “Trends in Real Wages, 1750–1850, Revisited,” Economic History Review, 2nd Series, 32 (02 1979), pp. 37–49, concludes from principal-components analysis of wage series of town laborers from six towns that regional variation in real nonagricultural wages was more likely influenced by differences in prices than in wage rates.Google Scholar

⁷ See Crafts, N. F. R., British Economic Growth during the Industrial Revolution (Oxford, 1985), pp. 105–7Google Scholar and Williamson, Jeffrey O., “Did English Factor Markets Fail during the Industrial Revolution?,” Oxford Economic Papers 39 (12 1987), pp. 641–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ See Neale, R. S., Writing Marxist History (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar; Walton, John, A Social History of Lancashire, 1558–1939 (Manchester, 1985), chap. 9;Google Scholar and Fleischman, Richard K., Conditions of Life Among the Cotton Workers of Southeastern Lancashire, 1780–1850 (New York, 1985).Google Scholar

⁹ Mokyr, Joel, “Is There Still Life in the Pessimist Case? Consumption during the Industrial Revolution, 1790–1850,” this JOURNAL, 48 (03 1988), pp. 69–92Google Scholar; and Mokyr, Joel, “Has the Industrial Revolution been Crowded Out? Some Reflections on Crafts and Williamson”, Explorations in Economic History, 24 (07 1987), pp. 293–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ See Farnie, D. A., The English Cotton Industry and the World Market: 1815–1896 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 52–57Google Scholar; and von Tunzelmann, G. N., Steam Power and British Industrialization to 1860 (Oxford, 1978), pp. 137–38, who notes that the strong demand for water-power sites after 1790to the construction of mills in northern Wales and the far north of Lancashire.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Taylor, A. J., “Concentration and Specialization in the Lancashire Cotton Industry, 1825–1850,” Economic History Review, 2nd Series, 1 (1949), pp. 114–22.Google Scholar

¹² See Taylor, “Cotton Industry,” pp. 114–16; and von Tunzelmann, Steam Power, pp. 64–67.Google Scholar The estimates of fuel usage in Ure, Andrew, The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain (London, 1836), vol. 1, p. 306Google Scholar; and the price of calico found in Baines, Edward, History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain (2nd edn., New York 1971), p.407, imply that in 1833, for each 10 shillings' reduction in the price of a ton of coal, the firm would realize a savings of 1 percent on the sales price of calico.Google Scholar

¹³ See Lloyd-Jones, R. and Le Roux, A. A., “The Size of Firms in the Cotton Industry, Manchester: 1815–1841,” Economic History Review, 2nd series, 33 (02 1980), pp. 72–82Google Scholar; Tunzelmann, von, Steam Power, pp. 124–47;Google ScholarGatrell, V. A. C., “Labor, Power, and the Size of Firms in the Lancashire Cotton Industry in the Nineteenth Century””, Economic History Review, 30 (02 1978), pp. 95–139Google Scholar; and Chapman, Stanley D., “The Cost of Power in the Industrial Revolution in Britain: the Case of the Textile Industry,” Midland History, I (Autumn 1971), pp. 1–23. By 1850 specialized weaving firms accounted for only one-fifth of power looms, an estimate that appears to be consistent with Homer's 1841 survey as well. See Taylor, “Cotton Industry”, p. 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ See Marvel, Howard, “Factory Regulation: A Reinterpretation of Early English Experience,” Journal of Law and Economics (10 1977), pp. 379–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tunzelmann, von, Steam Power, pp.172–73.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Farnie, English Cotton Industry, pp. 60–66;Google ScholarEdwards, Michael M., The Growth of the British Cotton Trade: 1780–1815 (Manchester, 1967), pp. 111–21, 171–77;Google Scholar and Baines, Edward, Baines' Lancashire (1st edn., 1824, 2nd edn., Newton Abbot, England, 1969), vol. 2, p. 135.Google ScholarLyons, John, “The Lancashire Cotton Industry and the Introduction of the Power Loom” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1977), pp. 195, 246, provides data from Horrocks' of Preston on the weight, cost of transport, and market price of printers' calico.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Edwards, Cotton Trade, pp. 201–2.Google ScholarHekman, John S., “The Product Cycle and New England Textiles,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (06 1980). pp. 697–717, stresses the importance of access to machine-makers located in the Boston area for explaining the geographic concentration of the New England textile industry during this period. Over one-half of the machine-making firms and iron founders serving the Northwest textile area who were listed in Baines' Lancashire lived within 10 miles of Manchester, and three-quarters lived within 20 miles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ See von Schulze-Gävernitz, Gerhart. The Cotton Trade in England and on the Continent (London, 1895), for a comparison of the English with the other leading industries in Europe.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Fleischman, Conditions of Life, pp. 297, 313.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Anderson, Alan, The Origins and Resolution of an Urban Crisis (Baltimore, 1977), for a general discussion of these issues.Google Scholar

²⁰ See the report on Ashton-under-Lyne by Coulthart, J. R. in the “Appendix to the First Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Large Towns,” Parliamentary Papers, 1844, vol. 17Google Scholar; the report on Preston of the Rev. Clay, J., “Appendix to the Second Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Large Towns,” Parliamentary Papers, 1845, vol. 18Google Scholar; and the comments on Ashton by Reach, Angus Bethune, Manchester and the Textile Districts in 1849 (Helmshore, Lancs., 1972), pp. 71, 76.Google Scholar

²¹ The Seventh Annual Report of the Registrar-General (London, 1847), p. 330Google Scholar, provides the data on adult male mortality for ages 15 to 65 for Manchester and the surrounding townships, and theNinth Annual Report of the Registrar-General (London, 1849), pp. 230–33, provides the same data for the registration districts of Lancashire. The gap between urban Preston and rural Garstang is noteworthy given the continued prevalence of low-quality “mud and thatch” housing in Garstang. See Walton, Social History of Lancashire, p. 173.Google ScholarWhether the urban-rural difference prevailing in the early 1840s is the outcome of a deterioration in cities of the same size class is unclear. Fleischman, Conditions of Life, pp. 278–79, uses evidence on the age structure of mortality to argue that life expectancy in several Lancashire towns fell slightly between 1800 and 1840.Google Scholar Williamson and Linden argue that the lengthening of life expectancy in all of England up to 1820, and only a modest dip thereafter, suggests an improvement in urban living conditions well before environmental reform got underway after 1860. Woods, Robert, “The Effects of Population Redistribution on the Level of Mortality in Nineteenth-Century England and Wales,” this JOURNAL, 45 (09. 1985), pp. 645–51, concludes that the arithmetic of population growth and redistribution does not rule out rising life expectancies in cities of particular size classes after 1820.Google ScholarPubMed

²² See Henderson, J. Vernon, “Evaluating Consumer Amenities and Interregional Welfare Differences,” Journal of Urban Economics, 11 (01. 1982), pp. 32–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roback, Jennifer, “Wages, Rents, and the Quality of Life,” Journal of Political Economy, 90 (12 1982), pp. 1257–78;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Blomquist, Glenn C., Berger, Mark C., and Hoehn, John P., “New Estimates of Quality of Life in Urban Areas,” American Economic Review, 78 (03. 1988), pp. 89–107.Google Scholar

²³ The compensation will actually equal the workers' valuation of conditions if differences across communities are capitalized entirely in wage rates and all workers have similar tastes. Those preferring other aspects of “country living” would require an even larger payment than those who chose to live in the city. See Henderson, “Interregional Welfare Differences,” pp. 36–44.Google Scholar

²⁴ See Pollard, Sidney, “Sheffield and Sweet Auburn—Amenities and Living Standards in the Industrial Revolution: A Comment,” this JOURNAL, 41 (12. 1981), pp. 902–4, who questions the use of the spatial labor market model in Williamson, “Urban Disamenities” and “Disamenities and Death.”Google ScholarMacKinnon, Mary and Johnson, Paul, in “The Case Against Productive Whipping,” Explorations in Economic History, 21 (04. 1984), pp. 218–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, doubt whether the bargaining relationship between children and factory managers would allow for the compensation for corporal punishment reported by Nardinelli, Clark, “Corporal Punishment and Children's Wages in Nineteenth Century Britain,” Explorations in Economic History, 19 (07 1982), pp. 283–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ See Report of the Registrar-General, 1854, for the data on migration and Wood, George Henry, The History of Wages in the Cotton Trade During the Past One Hundred Years (London, 1910), table 35, for the data on interregional earnings.Google Scholar Reach, Textile Districts, pp. 66–68, provides a description of conditions at the Ashworths' mill at Egerton near Bolton and Collier, Frances, The Family Economy of the Working Classes in the Cotton Industry, 1784–1833 (Manchester, 1964), describes conditions at the Greg mill at Styal.Google ScholarFishback, Price V. and Lauszus, Dieter, “The Quality of Services in Company Towns: Sanitation in Coal Towns During the 1920s,” this JOURNAL, 49 (05. 1989), pp. 125–44, provide evidence of firm efforts to influence local living conditions in the United States.Google ScholarPubMed

²⁶ See Thompson, English Working Class, chap. 9. for a restatement of the traditional view;Google Scholar and Bythell, Duncan, The Handloom Weavers: A Study of the English Cotton Industry during the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ See Lyons, John, “Family Response to Economic Decline: Handloom Weavers in Early Nineteenth-Century Lancashire” in Research in Economic History, 12 (1989), pp. 45–91.Google Scholar

²⁸ Baines, Cotton Manufacture, pp. 229–37, and Lyons, “Introduction of the Powerloom,” p. 167, describe the power-loom sector. The survey covers two-thirds of the parishes in Lancashire and West Yorkshire and is included in the “Returns Relative to Power Looms Used in Factories,” Parliamentary Papers, 1836, vol. 45. Pigot and Company, National and Commercial Directory for the North of England (London, 1834), provides the names of towns for mills in West Yorkshire.Google Scholar

²⁹ See the “economiser” indices for provisions for the North, the Northwest, and the industrial North in Crafts, N. F. R., “Regional Price Variations in England in 1843: An Aspect of the Standard of Living Debate,” Explorations in Economic History, 19 (01. 1982), pp. 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The data on rents are from the Manchester Statistical Society, Report on the Condition of the Working Classes in an Extensive Manufacturing District (London, 1838)Google Scholar; and Milne, Joshua, “Survey of the Condition of the Poor in Thirty-Three Townships of the Manufacturing Districts,” Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vol. 6, pp. 664–67. The regression model of rents used to predict rents for the entire sample, with t-statistics in parentheses, is as follows: Data on population and area are from the Abstracts of the 1831 Census, Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vols. 36–38.Google Scholar

³⁰ See Chadwick, Edwin, Report of the Sanitary Conditions of the Laboring Population of Great Britain, in Flinn, M. W., ed. (1st edn., 1842; London, 1965), pp. 8, 148–49.Google Scholar Although infant mortality is also cited as an indicator of the quality of life, it depends upon other influences, such as breast-feeding practices, income, and female labor-force participation, that are only partially related to urban environmental conditions. A puzzle for historians of nineteenth-century demography, for example, is the failure of urban infant mortality to fall until after 1900, over 30 years after most English cities had installed modern water supply and sewer systems. See Robert Woods and John Woodward, “Mortality, Poverty and the Environment,” and Thompson, Barbara, “Infant Mortality in Bradford,” in Woods, Robert and Woodward, John, eds., Urban Disease and Mortality in Nineteenth-Century England (London, 1984), pp. 1–36 and 120–47, respectively;Google Scholar and Wohl, Anthony, Endangered Lives: Public Health in Victorian Britain (Cambridge, MA, 1983), pp. 10–42. Mortality from typhoid fever is another indicator of local sanitary conditions, but was not reported separately from typhus during this period. The mortality data by registration district are from “Abstracts of the Causes of Death,” Reports of the Registrar-General for 1838–1842.Google Scholar

³¹ See Peacock, A. E., “The Successful Prosecution of the Factory Acts, 1833–1855,” Economic History Review, 37 (05 1984), pp. 197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Marvel, “Factory Regulation,” p. 387. The data for FINES for the period 1834 to 1837 are from the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, Parliamentary Papers, 1836, vol. 45; 1837, vol. 50; and 1837–1838, vol. 45.Google Scholar

³² RELIEF was, for example, 1.7 to 2 times higher in the handloom weaving centers of Padiham and Burnley than in Bury, which by the mid-1830s had few handloom weavers. See Bythell, Handloom Weavers, p. 57;Google Scholar the “Reports of Assistant Commissioners: Report of G. Henderson,” Report from His Majesty's Commissioners for Inquiring into the Administration and Practical Operation of the Poor Laws, appendix A (London, 1834), pp. 909–10A, 922–24;Google ScholarWalton, Social History of Lancashire, pp. 194–95; and Fleischman, Conditions of Life, pp. 329–35. RELIEF is the per capita amount “Expended for the Relief of the Poor” for 1835–1836 found in the Appendix, Second Annual Report of the Poor Law Commission, Parliamentary Papers, 1836, vol. 29.Google Scholar

³³ The data for SHAREWATER for weaving and integrated mills are available by parish for most of the sample area from “Appendix to Mr. Homer's Report,” Reports of the Inspectors of Factories, Parliamentary Papers, 1842, vol. 22.Google Scholar The power-loom survey provided data on the number of looms. See Hutchins, B. L. and Harrison, A., History of Factory Legislation (London, 1911), pp. 70, 79–80, and Bayson, Ashworth Cotton, p. 164, for discussions of relays. The data on relays are for those factories identified as using them for children on July 1, 1836, by the Report of the Inspector of Factories, Parliamentary Papers, 1837, vol. 50, pp. 193–95.Google Scholar

³⁴ See Gatrell, , “Size of Firms.” The Report of the Inspector of Factories for 1835 and 1838, Parliamentary Papers, 1836, vol. 45; 1839, vol. 42, provides parish-level data on the numbers employed and on horsepower. I am grateful to an anonymous referee and the editor for bringing this issue to my attention.Google Scholar

³⁵ The survey includes earnings for three age groups: adults 18 years or older, teens 13 to 17 years, and children under 13 years. Of the 195 factories in the sample, 65 report a range of earnings for each age group that bracket what are apparently the average earnings reported for the remaining 130 factories. The age-earnings profile resulting from the wage regressions supports this interpretation. The predicted ratios of earnings of 9-, 12-, and 13-year-olds to 18-year-olds from the regressions for Manchester are all within 10 percent of the ratios found in Stanway's 1833 survey of children employed in factories in Stockport and Manchester in the “Report of the Factory Commission,” Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vol. 20, pp. Dl 87–88.Google Scholar Chow tests determined the appropriate breakdown of the data into subsamples. In each of the four resulting subsamples, coefficients were stable across potentially smaller subgroupings at better than a 5 percent level of significance. Since the observations on earnings were averaged over differing numbers of looms, one might expect heteroskedastic error terms that would lead to biases of an unknown direction in the t-statistics. The Goldfeld-Quandt test failed to reject the hypothesis of homoskedasticity at a 5 percent level of significance. See Kmenta, Jan, Elements of Econometrics (2nd edn., New York, 1986), pp. 292–94.Google Scholar

³⁶ Note, however, that the average-skilled weavers received no compensation for high levels of Factory Act violations.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Lloyd-Jones and Le Roux. “Size of Firms,” p. 78.Google Scholar

³⁸ The differentials in earnings are based upon a comparison of the handloom weaving towns of Padiham and Burnley with the factory town of Bury.Google Scholar

³⁹ Taylor, “Cotton Industry,” pp. 117–18.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Towns with a value of WATERDISEASE or RENT greater than one standard deviation above the mean were assigned to the dense urban parish; those with either value more than one standard deviation below the mean were assigned to the rural parish. The remaining towns were assigned to the urban parish. Dividing the towns into seven representative locations did improve the approximation of the wage gradients, but led to only slightly higher estimates of compensation.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Williamson, “Factor Markets,” pp. 648–54. The revised estimate of compensation is 30 percent for “the North,” which arises from a different specification of the hedonic regression and a modified definition of the compensation.Google Scholar

⁴² See Lyons, “Introduction of the Powerloom,” table A.II.3, and p. 185, for estimates of the output per weaver.Google Scholar

⁴³ The nominal wage series is from Wood,History of Wages, tables 37, 38. The series relies upon wage data from Manchester prior to 1833 and assumes that the gap in wages between southeastern and northeastern Lancashire in 1833 prevailed for the period from 1806 to 1833. See Fleischman, Conditions of Life, chap. 4, for the data on prices for Manchester and Bolton for 1806 through 1834;Google Scholar and Neild, William, “Comparative Statement of the Income and Expenditures of Certain Families of the Working Classes in Manchester and Dukinfield, in the Years 1836 and 1841,” Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 4 (01. 1842), pp. 320–34, for the data for 1836 and 1841. Data on rents and the ”northern urban” budget weights are from Williamson, British Capitalism, appendix tables A.3 and A. 1 respectively. Data on coal prices in Manchester are from von Tunzelmann, Steam Power, pp. 96–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarGayer, Arthur D., Rostow, W. W., and Schwartz, Anna Jacobson, The Growth and Fluctuation of the British Economy. 1790–1850, microfilmed supplement (Oxford, 1953), table 123, provides the data on the price of tea inclusive of duties; the index of clothing prices is from Williamson and Lindert, “Reply to Crafts,” pp. 148–49. The regional cost-of-living index is linked to Williamson and Lindert's ”southern urban” price index to extend it from 1842 to 1850.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Edwards, Cotton Trade, p. 212.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Himmelfarb, Idea of Poverty, p. 137.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Lyons, , “Family Economy,” p. 51.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Bythell, Handloom Weavers, pp. 115–22. The output of a child weaver was typically less than one-half the output of an adult male.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Fleischman, in Conditions of Life, pp. 129–33, provides the price data. Weavers testifying to Parliament argued that the cost of inputs as a share of gross earnings was 8 to 25 percent higher in 1833 than in 1814. See the “Report of the Select Committee on the Present State of Manufactures, Commerce, and Shipping in the United Kingdom,” Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vol. 6, pp. 605, 665.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Bythell, Handloom Weavers, p. 117, accepts this estimate as a “plausible guess.” The assumption does contradict the 1833 testimony of handloom weaver Richard Needham that there had been no productivity growth in the weaving of cambric since 1800. See “Report of Select Committee,” Parliamentary Papers, 1833, vol. 6, p. 700.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ See Wood, History of Wages, table 41.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Lyons, “Family Response,” tables 3, 7, 8, for the data on the relative productivity and age-mix of weaving household members from a survey of 142 weavers in Tottington in 1818 and the census of 1851.Google Scholar

⁵² See Famie, English Cotton Industry, pp. 101–2.Google Scholar

⁵³ Assuming a weekly output of four pieces per adult weaver of calico and one piece per weaver of cambric, and that power-loom production was exclusively calico, production of cambric and fancy goods would occupy at most one-third of the weaving population. See Lyons, “Power Loom,” p. 247; Bythell, Handloom Weavers, p. 115; and Baines, Cotton Manufacture, p. 407.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Annual growth in real agricultural wages in West Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cheshire, Cumberland, and Westmoreland from 1795 to 1833 was from 0 to 0.6 percent; growth rates more than doubled after 1833. A time series from Cumberland suggests a pattern of improvement from 1795 to 1806–1810, little growth up to the mid-1830s, and then rapid growth of about 2 percent until 1850. See Bowley, Arthur L., “The Statistics of Wages in the United Kingdom during the last Hundred Years: Part l, Agricultural Wages,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 61 (12 1898), pp. 702–22.Google Scholar From 1818–1820 to the mid-1830s earnings of Manchester porters rose 6 percent, while earnings of bricklayers' laborers apparently stagnated. Most of the growth in earnings of town laborers between 1805 and 1850 occurred after 1831. See Fleischman, Conditions of Life, pp. 188–89, Baines, Cotton Manufacture, p. 438; and von Tunzelmann, “Trends in Real Wages,” p. 46.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Richards, Paul, “The State and Early Industrial Capitalism: The Case of the Handloom Weavers,” Past and Present, 83 (05 1979), pp. 91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thompson, English Working Class, pp. 295–305, do contend that state intervention, whether through continuation of supplements to income under the Old Poor Law or mandating minimum earnings, would have been appropriate.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ See Hartwell, R. M., “The Rising Standard of Living in England, 1800–1850,” Economic History Review, 2nd Series, 13 (05 1960), pp. 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ See the Hammonds, Modern Industry, p. 223;Google ScholarVigier, François, Change and Apathy: Liverpool and Manchester during the Industrial Revolution (Cambridge, MA, 1970)Google Scholar; Wohl, Endangered Lives, chap. 7: and Jeffrey G. Williamson. “Underinvestment in Britain's Cities during the Industrial Revolution?” mimeo, Cambridge, MA, 1987.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Fn. 20 provides the sources for the estimates for Ashton-under-Lyne and Preston.“The Return of the Average Rate of Expense of Combined Works of Drainage and Water Supply for Towns under the Public Health Act …,” House of Lords Papers, vol. 31, 1852, p. 305, suggests that these estimates are consistent with the actual costs reported for several unnamed towns.Google Scholar