ver-estimates the mobility of labour and its ability to provide
against impending changes. The story of the introduction of the
power-loom discloses terrible sufferings among the hand-weavers of
certain districts, in spite of the gradual manner in which the change
was effected. The fact that along with the growth of the power-loom
the number of hand-looms was long maintained, is evidence of the
immobility of the hand-weavers, who kept up an irregular and ill-paid
work through ignorance and incapacity to adapt themselves to changed
circumstances.[189] In most of the cases where great distress has been
caused, the directly operative influence has not been introduction of
machinery, but sudden change of fashion. This was the case with the
crinoline-hoop makers of Yorkshire, the straw-plaiters of
Bedfordshire, Bucks, Herts, and Essex.[190] The suddenly-executed
freaks of protective tariffs seem likely to be a fruitful source of
disturbance. So far as the displacement has been due to new
applications of machinery, it is no doubt generally correct to say
that sufficient warning is given to enable workers to check the
further flow of labour into such industries, and to divert it into
other industries which are growing in accordance with the new methods
of production, though much suffering is inflicted upon the labour
which is already specialised in the older method of industry.

Moreover, the changes which are taking place in certain machine
industries favour the increasing adaptability of labour. Many machine
processes are either common to many industries, or are so narrowly
distinguished that a fairly intelligent workman accustomed to one can
soon learn another. If it is true that "the general ability, which is
easily transferable from one trade to another, is every year rising in
importance relatively to that manual skill and technical knowledge
which are specialised in one branch of industry,"[191] we have a
progressive force which tends to minimise the amount of unemployment
due to new applications of specific machinery.

Professor Nicholson's second law is, however, more speculative and
less reliable in its action. It seems to imply some absolute limit to
the number of great inventions. Radical changes are no doubt generally
followed by smaller increments of invention; but we can have no
guarantee that new radical changes quite as important as the earlier
ones may not occur in the future. There are no assignable limits