|! 'I'li 



u iiH n| 



832 



REPORT — 1884. 



m 



!i • 



COMPARISON OF 1840 WITH i8H3~\. 

 This comparison will not show the full reduction in the cost of labour prr yard which mnv be ft 

 pcc'ted in 1 881-5, because chanr"s have been in progress which, whoa completed, will increiise tM 

 cnpncity of the mill about 15 pi cent., and it is a well-understood rule that, while such chanmare 

 being niade, the current work of production is done at a disadvantage, ' 



Sou. 



Sm. 



DcCKoftl 



60 per ctt;.| 



li'cy;* 

 22rfrKy 



Inciti-'J 

 100 per o( 



Dccrtid 

 ISpjrMiJ 



IncifJ 

 240 per c 



iRCtuI 

 CIpeiKl 



Incra 

 Mpel.l 



4' leia^ 



Decna 

 63 per « 



22pfrt( 



|ra|ii'iitv 

 (mil ' 



liii! it 



ivard 



luiintv-cos 



I'ljiids to 1 



flues ( 



Oiirsp 

 Inlistaniia 

 ! IlliiSfly _ 

 iniali part' 



The CO! 



Ostfr], 



« of adi 



■eatise of 



n,!,' the 



fstriliutcd 



If the ; 



I tlie prosi 



Efficient ti 



noio<ale n 



! work 



I' i< a'sl 



i>h:\l to 



iittil til 



pii^aiid I 

 ptaiid 



FSross s;( 



I "11 the 

 jtlic crns 

 If.ofthc 

 [lie hiiil, 

 pial in; 



1884. 



'I' 



