Perkin Harold. The Origins of Modern English Society

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

machinery which require their constant attendance, and the overseers

would soon dismiss tenters who abandoned the care of their frames to

indulge in idle talk.

Though it was difficult to obtain information about the town mills, in the country

‘the returns show that seductions are of rare occurrence; that they usually take

place in the evenings after work when they do occur; and that, in nine cases out

of ten, the seducers do not belong to the same mill as the seduced.’

Others claimed

for the factory workers what Gaskell and Engels had claimed for the pre-

industrial agricultural and domestic workers, that they had their own moral code,

and that sexual intercourse took place mainly between couples with a tacit

understanding that marriage would precede the birth of a child.

Illegitimacy, it

was pointed out, was less frequent in Lancashire than in Cumberland, Norfolk,

and many other counties where factory work for women scarcely existed. An

M.P. in the Ten Hours debate in 1844 countered Ashley’s charges of profligacy

and vice by inquiring:

When the noble lord…asked for interference in the case of factory

labourers, had he enquired into the case of the female nailers, employed at

Sedgely and Birmingham, of whom his own Commissioners had said that

‘morality was nothing among them; in fact, that they had no morals at all’?

Look at the lacemaking by hand in Nottinghamshire and Bedfordshire,

look at the maids of all work in London and elsewhere.

And the Factory Commission of 1833 reported:

In regard to morals, we find that though statements and depositions of the

different witnesses…are to a considerable degree conflicting, yet there is

no evidence to show that vice and immorality are more prevalent amongst

these people considered as a class than amongst other portions of the

community in the same station.

They could, indeed, have added ‘or amongst other classes’, as the available

statistics of prostitutes, recruited chiefly from the working classes, predominantly

from amongst domestic servants, but patronized mainly by their ‘betters’, show.

Commission on…Factories, 1833, XXI. D1, pp. 707, 877, D2, p. 211; P.P., 1867, XVI,

Children’s Employment Commission, 6th Report, p. 93; G.W.Hastings, ‘Remarks on the

Industrial Employment of Women’, Trans. N.A.P.S.S., 1857, pp. 536–7; ‘English

Cookery’ and ‘A Good Plain Cook’, Household Words, 26 January 1856 and 27 April

1859, in M.Hewitt, Wives and Mothers in Victorian Industry (1958), pp. 74–5, 81–2.

W.Cooke Taylor, Factories and the Factory System (1844), p. 42.

Allen Clarke, The Effects of the Factory System (1913) p. 29; Hewitt, op. cit., p. 55; cf.

Gaskell, Manufacturing Population, p. 28, and Engels, op. cit., p. 11.

124 SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM

Modern research has shown that the pictures drawn by the two sides to the

controversy were both of them overdrawn and over-simplified.

On the one

hand, factory workers were no better and no worse as wives and mothers, at least

when they gave up work, than the vast majority of working-class women.

Domestic workers worked just as long hours and had as little time to cook, bake

and clean, and to train their daughters, as their factory sisters, and had the added

disadvantage of trying to make a home in the midst of the dirt and disorder of a

workshop. Agricultural labourers’ wives, as spinning, lace-making, straw-

plaiting and other by-employments ceased to be available, were increasingly

forced to work in the fields to make up the exiguous family income and, in the

south of England especially, could not afford the fuel to bake bread or even to

cook a hot meal more than once or twice a week. The wives of factory operatives

at least had the benefit of larger earnings by their husbands and children, if not of

their own, to rent and furnish somewhat better houses and buy the food and fuel

for cooking and baking if they so wished. Northern factory workers alive today

still remember their mothers, if not themselves, baking bread and brewing beer.

‘Shop bread’ in many mill towns and villages was looked on with contempt

down to the First World War.

If, as Kay-Shuttleworth remarked in 1838, ‘It is

exceedingly lamentable that a very slender acquaintance with domestic economy

is generally possessed among the poorer classes, not only in the manufacturing,

but also in the agricultural districts,’ this was neither new nor the product of

industrialism. ‘It is indeed difficult,’ Ivy Pinchbeck has commented, ‘to see how

this could have been otherwise, or how the standard could ever have been much

higher…. Not only factory women, but all women of the working classes were

handicapped by ignorance and the lack of any proper system of instruction, and

until some measure of education and training was placed within their reach, it

was unreasonable to expect any raising of the general standard of domestic skill

or intelligent use of resources.’

In the long run better homes and housewifery

were the product of higher living standards and education, and so directly and

indirectly of industrialism.

On the other hand, the employment in factories or anywhere else outside the

home—in workshops, mines, shops and markets, or in the fields—of the mothers

of babies and young children undoubtedly had a deleterious effect on their health

and survival. Margaret Hewitt has shown that whether the mothers of young

children worked in the mills of Lancashire, the Staffordshire potteries, or the

P.P., 1871, VII. 3605, S.C. on…Protecting Infants put out to Nurse, pp. 1907–8; Ward,

M.P., in House of Commons, Hansard, 1844, LXXXIV. 1033; Commission on…

Factories, 1833, XX. p. 36; Hewitt, op. cit., pp. 51–3, 57.

Cf. Mayhew, op. cit., III. 33f.; Faucher, op. cit., pp. 41–2; Steven Marcus, The Other

Victorians (New York, 1966); Brian Harrison, ‘Underneath the Victorians’, Victorian

Studies, 1967, X. 239f.

Cf. Pinchbeck, op. cit., and Hewitt, op. cit., to which a large part of this section is

indebted.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM 125

fields of Lincolnshire the infant mortality rate was markedly higher in their

families than in those of mothers who did not work. She has also shown that

during the Cotton Famine of the 1860’s the infant mortality rate in those areas

most affected actually fell, very nearly to the average for England and Wales in

1864, in spite of the poverty and privation of the operatives, thus demonstrating

the importance to infant survival of maternal care and, in an epoch ignorant of

hygienic and nutritious artificial feeding, of breast feeding. Day nursing by

amateur baby-minders, ‘infants’ preservatives’ containing narcotics to keep their

charges quiet, and, probably most prejudicial of all to survival, the too early

return of mothers to work after confinement, did raise infant mortality rates by as

much as fifty per cent or more. A public agitation in the 1860’s against this

‘sacrifice of infants’ and the ineffective Infant Life Protection Act of 1872 did

not solve the problem, which had to wait for the child welfare clinics, health

visitors and the National Health Insurance of the early twentieth century.

On the still more difficult question of the effect of industrialism on the

cohesion of the family Neil Smelser has shown in relation to the cotton industry

that the transition was not a simple, once-for-all change from the integration of

work, leisure, home-making and child-rearing in the domestic worker’s

household to the segregation of these activities within the factory operative’s

family, and between his home and the factory, the school, friendly society, club,

and so on. It was a long-drawn-out, syncopated process, proceeding in different

ways and at different speeds according to the labour requirements of the new

machinery, the social structure of the different types of factory, and the period of

their introduction.

In spinning, the introduction of the smaller, hand-operated

‘cottage’ jenny ‘increased the gains of the females in a family, and of the family

in general,’ and kept the family together.

Next, the introduction of the water-

frame took some women and children into the mill, but in these early days of

country mills and high earnings for domestic weavers these were more often the

wives and children of labourers and the like, who usually worked away from

home, and so the change was not felt to be revolutionary. Then the factory jenny

and the mule took the husband and father into the mill, but it was the normal

practice for these highly skilled spinners to hire their own piecers and scavengers

from amongst their own relatives, thus transferring the family functions of child-

rearing and moral education to the factory.

Cf. C.Stella Davies, North Country Bred (1963), p. 166; my aunt, Mrs. Ellen Fletcher of

Burslem, brewed her own beer down to the Second World War.

Pinchbeck, op. cit., pp. 309–10.

Hewitt, op. cit., chaps. viii-xi.

Smelser, op. cit., chaps. ix–xi.

D.Ramsbotham, Thoughts on the Use of Machines in the Cotton Manufacture

(Manchester, 1780), p. 15.

126 SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM

It was only with the longer mules and the self-acting mules of the 1820’s,

which required more piecers and scavengers than could normally be recruited

from the adult spinner’s own family—thus leading to the employment of children

without their parents, often directly by the factory owner—that the ‘break-up of

the family’ occurred, about half a century after the introduction of the first

spinning mills. In factory weaving, on the other hand, it occurred from the

beginning, with the general introduction of the power loom in the 1820’s and

1830’s, since most of the weavers were women and youths, with a few adult men

to supervise them. The crisis in the factory worker’s family, then, coincided with

the factory reform agitation of the 1830’s and 1840’s, to which it contributed

much of the emotional pressure and some of the more paradoxical of its tactical

twists and changes. The general aim of the movement from the operatives’ point

of view was not only to restrict the hours of work for children and, through them,

of all other factory workers, but to conserve the technological basis of the

existing family structure within the factory system. That is why the spinners

especially were incensed by the 1833 Act which restricted the children to eight

hours but by allowing them to work in relays broke up the family during working

time and required still larger numbers of ‘outside’ children. It also explains why

the operatives, to the chagrin of their aristocratic and middle-class leaders, were

willing to extend the hours of the children to twelve in 1835, reduced to ten in

1837, provided that all operatives worked the same hours. Only with the gradual

withdrawal of young children from the factories and the development of formal

education in the 1850’s and 1860’s to take over part of the traditional functions of

the family did the operatives come to accept the changed role of the family in the

new industrial society.

The new role of the family, which was not of course confined to factory

workers, was different from the old, but it was not necessarily worse or less

important. The migration of work outside the home—where, indeed, it had long

been for the large part of the population engaged in transport, mining, and

agricultural and general labouring—left the family free to concentrate on its

more fundamental functions of home-making, child-bearing and rearing, and the

emotional satisfaction of affection and companionship. Marx, who was both

more perceptive and less romantic than Engels, saw gain as well as loss in the

emancipation of the family from the tyranny of the pater-familias:

However terrible, however repulsive, the break-up of the old family system

within the organism of capitalist society may seem; none the less, large-

scale industry, by assigning to women and to young persons and children of

both sexes, a decisive role in the socially organized process of production,

and a role which has to be fulfilled outside the home, is building the new

Smelser, op. cit., pp. 184–5, 188–92.

Ibid., pp. 196–201, 239–41, 243–4, 298–303.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM 127

economic foundation for a higher form of the family and of the relations

between the sexes.

The emancipation of women was in fact one of the most important and

characteristic consequences of industrialism. It began first amongst the factory

operatives. A member of the Handloom Weavers’ Commission reported in 1840:

One of the greatest advantages resulting from the progress of

manufacturing industry, and from severe manual labour being superseded

by machinery, is its tendency to raise the condition of women. Education

only is wanting to place the women of Lancashire higher in the social scale

than in any other part of the world. The great drawback to female

happiness, among the middle and working classes, is, their complete

dependence and almost helplessness in securing the means of subsistence.

The want of other employment than the needle cheapens their labour, in

ordinary cases, until it is almost valueless. In Lancashire profitable

employment for females is abundant…. A young woman, prudent and

careful, and living with her parents, from the age of sixteen to twenty-five,

may, in that time, by factory employment, save  100 as a wedding portion.

I believe it to be to the interest of the community that every young woman

should have this in her power. She is not then driven into an early marriage

by the necessity of seeking a home; and a consciousness of independence

in being able to earn her own living, is favourable to the development of

her best moral energies.

The work itself was an agent of emancipation. The factory and workshop, a later

observer pointed out,

take the girl out of ‘the home’, cribbed, cabined, and confined as to space,

light, air, ideas and companions, mould her in habits of punctuality,

obedience, promptness, handiness, ‘gumption’, and sustained attention and

effort, spur her on to work well, bring out her capacities for comradeship

and social action, and train her in self-respect, self-reliance and courage.

Even in the most fundamental and intimate aspect of emancipation, liberation

from the debilitating, health-destroying, life-shortening burden of continuous

child-bearing, factory operatives led the way. Margaret Hewitt has shown that

textile workers, and not only those whose wives were working, were limiting

K.Marx, Capital (Everyman, 1942), I. 529.

P.P., 1840 (639), XXIV, Commission on…Handloom Weavers (W.E. Hickson’s

Report), p. 44.

128 SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM

their families as early as the 1850’s, and bore on average fewer children than any

social group except the professional and higher administrative.

No doubt, the example set by women industrial workers played some part in

the emancipation movement amongst middle-class women which, in spite of

individual advocates from the anonymous ‘Sophia’ in 1739 through Mary

Wollstonecroft in 1792 and William Thompson in 1825 to Harriet Taylor in

1851, can scarcely be said to have begun until the 1850’s.

But the connection

between industrialism and the emancipation of ‘ladies’ was more direct than

that. While the Industrial Revolution was providing more work for working-class

women both inside and outside the home, it was taking it away from their well-

to-do sisters. Just as domestic industry was a partnership in which the wife

assisted the husband, so too most businesses, professions and trades in the old

society were partnerships in which the husband and wife worked as a team.

Merchants’ and shopkeepers’ wives often managed the warehouse or shop, kept

accounts, and supervised the apprentices. Doctors’ and lawyers’ wives not only

acted as receptionists and clerks but would turn their hand to dispensing drugs or

inditing documents. Farmers’ wives took charge of the dairy and the smaller

animals, as well as catering perhaps for a house-full of farm servants. Widows

were usually capable of carrying on the business, with or without a new partner

selected from amongst the mature apprentices.

Rising living standards and increased specialization, however, undermined

these customs. Servants increasingly took over the household chores, and clerks

and assistants those of the business, the boarding of apprentices and farm

servants declined, social emulation of the gentry and aristocracy increasingly

demanded that wives and daughters should not only wear fine clothes and

practise ‘accomplishments’ such as music, drawing and decorative needlework

but should patently have the leisure to enjoy them. The result was the rise of the

‘perfect lady’, the Victorian ideal of the completely leisured, completely

ornamental, completely helpless and dependent middle-class wife or daughter,

with no function besides inspiring admiration and bearing children. Josephine

Butler’s aunt, Margaretta Grey, wrote in her diary in 1853:

It appears to me that, with an increase of wealth unequally distributed, and

a pressure of population, there has sprung up among us a spurious

refinement, that cramps the energy and circumscribes the usefulness of

women in the upper classes of society. A lady, to be such, must be a mere

Caroline Foley, in Ec.J., 1894, IV. 187; Pinchbeck, op. cit., p. 308.

Hewitt, op. cit., p. 87.

‘Sophia’, Woman not Inferior to Man (1739); Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication, of the

Rights of Women (1794); W.Thompson, The Appeal of One Half of the Human Race,

Women, against the Pretensions of the Other Half, Men (1825); Harriet Taylor,

‘Enfranchisement of Women’. West. Rev., 1851, LV. 289–311.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM 129

lady, and nothing else. She must not work for profit, or engage in any

occupation that money can command, lest she invade the rights of the

working classes, who live by their labour. Men in want of employment

have pressed their way into nearly all the shopping and retail businesses

that in my early years were managed, in whole or in part by women. The

conventional barrier that pronounces it ungenteel to be behind a counter, or

serving the public in any mercantile capacity, is greatly extended. The

same in household economy. Servants must be up to their several offices,

which is very well; but ladies, dismissed from the dairy, the confectionery,

the store-room, the still-room, the poultry-yard, the kitchen-garden, and the

orchard, have hardly yet found themselves a sphere equally useful and

important in the pursuits of trade and art to which to apply their too

abundant leisure.

It was against this life of genteel uselessness that ladies of character and

determination came to rebel. Rebellion did not always or at first take the form of

aggressive championship of women’s rights. More often it led to charitable

works as with Baroness Burdett-Coutts, didactic authorship as with Harriet

Martineau, or selfless service to a humane cause as with Florence Nightingale—

activities which might well exclude an interest in women’s emancipation: ‘I am

brutally indifferent to the wrongs or the rights of my sex,’ Nightingale wrote to

Martineau in 1858.

But sooner or later the frustrated energies of growing

numbers of able and intelligent women with nothing to do but brood on their

wrongs were bound to burst out in a concerted movement of protest. That

movement, as distinct from individual protests like that of Mrs. Caroline Norton

which made the first breach in the monstrous regiment of husbands with the

Infants’ Custody Act of 1839, began in 1855, when Barbara Bodichon got the

support of the Law Amendment Society and collected 26,000 signatures for a

Married Women’s Property Bill.

The Bill was not passed, but by way of

countering it Parliament did pass the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, which set

up the Divorce Court and, though unequal in its treatment of husbands and wives,

laid the foundations of modern family law. Though divorce on equal terms did

not come until 1923, the essential equality of women within marriage was

conferred by a series of Acts culminating in the Married Women’s Property Acts

of 1870, 1882, and 1893.

In this most important respect it was the Industrial

Revolution which, if only indirectly, brought about the emancipation of women.

Cf. Pinchbeck, op. cit., chap. xii.

Josephine Butler, Memoir of John Grey of Dilston (1874), p. 228n

130 SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM

URBANIZATION AND SOCIETY

Contemporaries were just as divided about the effects of industrialism on town

life as on living standards and the family.

The strictures of such anti-urban

pessimists as Cobbett and Ruskin apart, even optimistic supporters of

industrialism like Cooke Taylor and Joseph Fletcher, the school inspector and

moral statistician, were disturbed by the social problems of the rapidly growing

towns.

The latter, for example, thought that the concentration in large towns of

‘the masses employed in mining and manufacturing pursuits’ was responsible for

most of the social problems of the age:

Here, brought into close neighbourhood, and estranged from the influence

of superior example, they are subject to temptations, hazards, and

incitements far beyond those which approach the rural cottage; ignorant

and largely depraved, they are likewise capable of combination; and

combined, they form bodies little prepared to stoop to the exigencies of a

reeling alternation of prosperity and adversity; to say nothing of all the

evils which improvidence and heathenism pour out upon themselves.

Industrialism, with ‘its smoke, its dirt, its bustle, its deformation of the face of

nature, and the independent rudeness of its millions,’ its ‘neglected sanatory

police and bad domestic arrangements’, ‘the greatest amount of ignorance’, and

‘lost bonds of neighbourhood’, had made the towns ‘purely places in which to

work and make money, not to be at rest and enjoy it,’ and demanded a ‘higher

moral character among the people’ which had not been forthcoming.

Similar

views were expressed by horrified foreign visitors, from de Tocqueville, Faucher

and Engels to Hippolyte Taine and, pictorially, Gustave Dore.

On the other side, though admittedly rather later, after the first crushing wave

of industrial urban growth had passed, voices were heard extolling town life as

the source and centre of civilization and progress. Amongst the first of these was

Robert Vaughan, the Unitarian prophet of ‘the age of great cities’, who looked to

them to save the nation from moral and spiritual degeneracy and, one suspects,

from aristocracy and what Marx called ‘the idiocy of rural life’, though even

Vaughan compared the crowded capital to a large and intricate forest where

criminals and others seeking anonymity could find ‘the places of darkness and

C.Woodham-Smith, Florence Nightingale (1952), p. 256.

Josephine Kamm, Rapiers and Battleaxes: The Women’s Movement and its Aftermath

(1966), pp. 23–8, 89–91.

Erna Reiss, The Rights and Duties of Englishwomen (Manchester, 1934), chaps. ii, iii, v;

P.M.Bromley, Family Law (1957), pp. 377–9.

Cf. Asa Briggs, Victorian Cities (1963), to which much of this section is indebted.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM 131

concealment convenient for them.’

His optimism found, especially in the less

fearful and conflict-ridden mid-Victorian age, increasing echoes amongst men

like himself, born and bred in the cities with the same middle-class,

Nonconformist dislike and suspicion of the rural-based, anti-urban aristocracy,

men such as Edward Baines, editor of the Leeds Mercury, Joseph Chamberlain

of Birmingham, and Joseph Cowen, owner of the Newcastle Chronicle, who

wrote in 1877:

The gathering of men into crowds has some drawbacks, yet the

concentration of citizens, like the concentration of soldiers, is a source of

strength. The ancient boroughs were the arks and shrines of freedom.

Today, behind the dull roar of our machinery, the bellowing of our blast

furnaces, the panting of the locomotives and the gentle ticking of the

electric telegraph…we can hear the songs of children who are fed and clad,

and the acclaim of a world made free by these agencies. When people

declaim in doleful numbers against the noise and dirt of the busy centres of

population, they should remember the liberty we enjoy as a consequence of

the mental activity and enterprise which have been generated by the contact

of mind with mind brought together in great towns.

Both sides were right of course, in their different ways. The enormously rapid

growth not only of the new industrial but of most towns and cities during the

Industrial Revolution did create new social problems and aggravate and expand

the scale of old ones. Amongst the more important of these was the new problem

of insecurity created by fluctuations in employment amongst concentrated

masses of wage-earners without natural protectors to turn to in distress, to add to

the old problem of the chronically depressed and abandoned urban poor. Closely

connected with both was the vast increase in crime and prostitution which

occurred in the towns in the first half of the nineteenth century, and swelled to a

new peak in every economic slump. The home of these was in the slums, with

their squalid living conditions, overflowing privies, cess-pools and drains, foul

water supplies, and excessive disease and death rates for the people forced to

inhabit them. Finally, and connected with all these, there was the increasing

Cf. W.Cobbett, Rural Rides (Everyman, 1948), I. 43, 65–6, 226, II. 9, 18, 55–6, 80, 128,

226, amongst many other anti-urban references to ‘wens’; J.Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of

Architecture (1849), p. 359; W.Cooke Taylor, Notes of a Tour in the Manufacturing

Districts of Lancashire (1842), pp. 12–13; J.Fletcher, ‘Moral and Educational Statistics of

England and Wales’, Stat.J., 1847, X. 193f.

Fletcher, loc. cit., X. 198–200, 214.

A.de Tocqueville, Journeys to England and Ireland (ed. J.P.Mayer, 1958), pp. 104–8;

Faucher, op. cit., p. 19; Engels, op. cit., chap. iii; H.Taine, Notes on England (trans.

W.F.Rae, 1874), pp. 273–5, 283–5; G.Doré and W.B.Jerrold, London (1872).

R.Vaughan, The Age of Great Cities (1843), in Briggs, Victorian Cities, p. 61.

132 SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM

segregation of urban society into different streets, districts or suburbs according

to income and status, which broke it down into isolated and mutually hostile

classes.

On the other side it can be said that only the new or greatly enlarged and,

ultimately, far more efficiently organized communities of industrial society were

capable of solving the moral and physical problems of the towns and of

providing the conditions of a civilized social life for a majority of the population.

It is no accident that the critics of urbanization were in the ascendant in the first

half of the nineteenth century and its protagonists in the second. The problems

naturally came first, the solutions only in response to them. In this very brief and

inadequate sketch of them as they affected the structure of society we must try to

keep a balance between the undoubted enormity of the first and the equally

impressive achievement of the second.

We must also remember that neither the problems nor the need for reform

were confined to the new industrial towns. Some of the affected towns were old

communities of traditional social structure and few or no factories, such as

Bristol, Exeter or Edinburgh, while some industrial ones were thought by

contemporaries to be superior to them both socially and morally. Birmingham,

for example, was a by-word amongst politicians from Attwood through Cobden

to Chamberlain for harmony between its classes, while it was also the first town

to get a favourable mention in Chadwick’s Sanitary Report of 1842:

This town, it will be seen, is distinguished apparently by an immunity from

fever, and the general health of the population is high, although the

occupations are such as are elsewhere deemed prejudicial to health.

As for Manchester, the ‘shock city of the age’ as Asa Briggs has so rightly called

it,

Faucher, who was as uncompromising a critic of it as Engels, wrote in 1844:

The centres of industrialism are seats of corruption, in which the

population enjoy an atmosphere neither more salubrious nor moral, than in

those large towns, which are formed by political institutions, or by the

demands of commerce. Considered from this point of view, Manchester

appears almost on a level with London or Liverpool.

Indeed, as Faucher’s translator pointed out, Manchester at that very time was

giving a lead to the rest of the country, not only towards ‘the attainment of entire

FREEDOM OF TRADE’, but towards ‘a comprehensive system of SANATORY

REGULATION to secure healthfulness, cleanliness, and order in our vast urban

Ibid., pp. 64–5.

Chadwick. off. cit., p. 89.

Briggs, Victorian Cities, p. 92.

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALISM 133