SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 June 1873)

§ MR. MUNDELLA
in moving, "That the Bill be now read the second time," said, it was practically the same as that framed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department last year. He regretted that at that late hour (four o'clock) he should have been called upon to address the House upon a question of much magnitude and importance when there was a chance of the Bill being "talked out." He trusted, however, that as the measure had been postponed until the present time, when there was no chance of fully considering it that day, both sides of the House would agree to the adjournment of the debate, and that the Government would exert their influence to assist him to procure a full and fair discussion of the subject during the present Session. The whole of the factory workers of the kingdom took a deep and 820 intense interest in the Bill; but it was not the workers only; a considerable number of the employers were anxious for that legislation. He knew that he was incurring a grave responsibility in promoting the measure, more especially as it affected one of the largest and most important branches of industry in England; but it was urgent that legislation should speedily take place in the interests of the great body of people who were employed in textile factories. This country, in its textile industry, occupied a pre-eminence over the whole world, and that pre-eminence she had maintained against all competition. With that branch of industry he had been employed, in one capacity and another, all his life, so that he necessarily took a deep interest in all connected with it. The industry with which the Bill dealt employed 1,000,000 of persons in spinning, weaving, and production, and that number was quite irrespective of those engaged in the subsidiary and auxiliary branches of finishing and preparing the article for sale. The exports alone of their textiles had risen to the enormous and unparalleled sum of £120,000,000 a-year, and there was in addition a home trade which, with the exception of America, was unsurpassed by any home trade in the world. He left the House to form some impression from those figures of the extent and magnitude of that giant industry. He had not undertaken the responsibility of introducing the Bill without entertaining the deepest conviction as to its urgent need. He believed that in the interest of the health, the education, and the improved social condition of the vast mass of women and children employed in the factories of this country, the proposed legislation was imperatively called for. He had not lost sight of the economic side of the question; and he had time after time refused to deal with the question, until he had assured himself by personal investigation, and by what had taken place in other countries, that they were in a position to concede what the female and children workers of this country had reasonably demanded. A deputation of mill-owners who waited on the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department last year declared that the agitation on the subject was the work of the overlookers, who were paid weekly wages, and who would have as much for 821 9 as for 10 hours; that the women and children were not overworked, and were contented; and they prayed for inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman told that deputation, that inquiry had already been commenced, and that whatever might be the effect upon their individual interests or upon trade, if it should be clearly shown that the health and educational condition of the workers required fresh legislation, the Government would deem it their duty to institute that legislation. It had been insinuated in other quarters that the Bill was the work of the trades unions, and that it arose out of a jealousy of female labour. Its object was, it had been stated, to place a serious obstacle in the way of the employment of women. He thought he should be able to satisfy the House that there was no foundation for that statement. In another rather influential quarter it had been said that this was a party move. That could hardly be, when the Bill was supported by some hon. Members opposite; and, he deeply regretted to say, opposed by some Friends of his on his own side of the House. He could only say that on social questions he owed no allegiance to any party, and that he would co-operate with any leader of party or any ally who was prepared to assist in promoting the social well-being and prosperity of those in whom he took a deep interest. He regretted, moreover, that on that question he was opposed to some of his Friends on the benches below the gangway; but he would continue to be opposed to them as long as they took the cold-blooded, economist views they did. The object of the Bill was, to use the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), in reference to a large body of their fellow-subjects, to "effect a reduction in the hours of labour, and to humanize their toil." There was no industry which demanded such ceaseless and restless energy on the part of its workers as the textile industry. They laboured continuously from morning until night, and through winter and summer; and it might be said there was no rest to the soles of their feet. The evils of factory labour had been growing for years, and though those evils had been greatly ameliorated by the Act of 1847, the press of competition had very much intensified since then, and a very cruel system had been 822 invented in many cases, under which over-lookers were paid upon the out-put, and a condition of things, little short of slave-driving, had resulted there from. Well, he had introduced a Bill which, as well as himself, had been subjected to a great deal of criticism. In the first place, the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester took the alarm, and Mr. Hugh Mason, a model employer, delivered two presidential addresses on the subject. But he would by-and-by call Mr. Mason into court, and show that he was his strongest ally. The Chambers of Commerce throughout the kingdom, moved by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, got an inquiry instituted, but were not satisfied with the result. The Professor of Political Economy at Oxford was very forcible in his condemnation of the Bill; so was the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), and the estimable lady who bore his name had written a letter on the subject, of which he would only say that it was altogether mistaken. What were the provisions of the Bill? The first proposed to shorten the hours of labour of children, young persons, and women from 60 hours a-week to 54. The second provision would make "half time" less of a misnomer than it was now. In some instances "half time" meant 39 or 40 hours a-week; he would make it 33. His next proposition was, that the hours of labour should be between 7 in the morning and 6 in the evening, so that the hour saved should be in the morning. By his fourth proposition he would raise the age of "half-timers" from 8 to 10. He was perfectly aware that this last proposition was a very weak one, but it was the best which he could frame. His fifth proposal would raise the age of full-timers to 14, with a certain exception. No child would be allowed to work full time until it had reached the age of 14, unless a certain standard of education had been reached. If the third standard was attained by a child of 13, he was content that it should work full time. His last proposition was to abolish an old exemption in an Act of William IV. with regard to silk mills. Through some sort of Parliamentary tactics, silk mills obtained a certain exemption when the Factory Acts passed through Parliament; children were allowed to enter them as half-timers at 8 years of age, and, if 11 years old, to work for 60 hours a-week. Statistics 823 showed that 557,377 women and girls were employed in mills, of whom 184,000 were mothers of families. The question was, were these women, children, and young persons to be left to the mercy of "free contract," or was the measure of 1847 to be made complete? All the provisions of his Bill were recommended by the Commission instituted by the Home Office; the Commissioners were most competent men, and in their Report they stated that they were prepared to recommend that a reduction in the hours of labour should be made. That Report, however, had been most hardly treated by employers of labour outside Parliament, who impugned the personal conduct of the Commissioners, because their Report was against them; but he (Mr. Mundella) trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would stand up and defend their representations. There was no better official in existence than Dr. Bridges, and he had no doubt that Dr. Holms was equally to be relied upon. The Commissioners, like fair men, gave all the arguments for and against the Bill; but what did the employers do? Having picked out all the arguments against the Bill, omitting those on the other side, they published them with their own comments. On the other side, Mr. Mason, who he had before referred to, and who had reduced the hours of labour in his mills from 60 to 58 hours a-week, gave his opinion that the time had come when the hours of labour for children and young persons should be a little reduced, and for doing so he was hunted off the Manchester Exchange; but he added that it could not be done without the intervention of Parliament, and that the reduction should be to halftime. Mr. Redgrave expressed similar opinions, but he knew that the House had its own views on this subject. Nothing that he could say would fairly describe the neglected and miserable condition of children of 11 who had to work in a silk mill 60 hours a-week, no time for meals being deducted, and had to be up at 5 in the morning; and he was sorry to be compelled to say, what he thought a disgraceful thing—how women had to come to the mills through pouring rain, being afraid to be five minutes late lest they should be fined, and had to work in their wet clothes throughout the day. What could be the state of such children 824 as regarded cleanliness, and what could they be expected to learn in an evening school after the labours of the day? He would ask hon. Members, however, how they would like one of their own children of 9 or 11 years of age to be forced to come to the mill at 6 in the morning? As to the poor factory children going to night schools it was of no use, as they only sat down by the fire and fell asleep. And that was the system which was said to be essential to our national prosperity. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] Yes, it was stated by a Macclesfield manufacturer the other day that the trade of the country was in jeopardy, and would be ruined if the hours of children's labour were curtailed. At the Huddersfield Institution, it was ascertained that half the young women and children could not read or write. At the sewing school, out of 900 women who passed the school, not 100 could read or write, and that might be taken as the general educational average of the factory schools. The hours for women's labour were too long, and the strain on their energies too great. It was painful to see them in the early morning hurrying to the "leaving shop" to leave their children, and then hurrying on to their work. The woman was away from home 12 hours, whilst the man was only nine. What must be the condition of that woman's home under such circumstances? The average death-rate of infants under one year was in England and Wales 17,731 in 100,000; but in Stockport, in 1870–71, it was 24,350; Macclesfield, 18,877; Bolton, 21,750; Ashton, 22,300, and so on. Of 100,000 women between 15 and 55 the average death-rate in England and Wales was 919. In Stockport it was 1,198, in Halifax 1,205, in Huddersfield 1,101, in Ashton 1,191, and in Preston 1,229. In fact, there were from 40 to 50 per cent more deaths of women in these towns than in "the Black Country." In addition to all these, it appeared from a Return of the Factory Inspectors that the number of accidents in mills causing death had largely increased, the number in 1870 being no fewer than 373, while accidents causing injuries had increased from 9,000 to 18,000. For that state of things there was no remedy but the interference of Parliament, and it was for that interference that both master and men waited. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. 825 Fawcett) objected to the limitation of the hours of women's labour as placing restrictions on the employment of women all over the country, but as a matter of fact, the Bill would only bring factory labour up to a level with the general labour of the country. The idea, therefore that the Bill would interfere with the employment of women was simply an impossibility. Men might strike work, but women and children would remain under the operation of the existing Acts. Two objections were urged against the Bill. First, it was said it would interfere with female labour. That objection was insisted upon in a letter which appeared in The Times of Monday last, bearing the signature of Mrs. Fawcett, in which the writer stated that the inevitable result of the Bill must be one of two things—either to impose a legislative limit to labour of nine hours a-day over all the country, or place the most serious restriction and impediment to the employment of women. Now, it should be remembered that nine hours was at present the ordinary limit of labour in many parts of the country. The writer added that if it were illegal to employ women in factories more than nine hours a-day it would lead to one of two alternatives—starvation or prostitution. Now, with every respect to this lady, he must say there never was a greater mistake made in this world. He believed in his conscience that if the Bill were enacted tomorrow, so far from limiting, it would increase the demand for the labour of women. He appealed to all their experience in factory legislation. Every child taken out of the factory must be re-placed by an upward movement of female labour. There was a great scarcity of women in Lancashire, and it was quite common when a married factory worker applied for employment to say—"We will employ you, but you must bring your wife with you." It was well known also that trades unions were subscribing to get wives having daughters to emigrate, because there was a scarcity of women. He was not going to interfere with the labour of women. If the Bill did anything it would increase the demand for them. That was the opinion of Miss Emily Faithfull, who had done so much to promote the employment of women. Women had signed the Petitions in favour of this Bill to a very 826 large extent, and they had raised by subscription not less than three-fourths of the funds to meet the expenses of this movement. The second objection to the Bill was urged on the ground of foreign competition. With regard to that point, Mr. Romaine Callender and Mr. Hugh Mason had both laughed at its dangers, and scouted it as a reason against the reduction of the hours of labour, and both gentlemen had adopted the principle of the Bill in their own factories. Besides, notwithstanding all that had been done in the way of foreign competition, our export of cotton had increased in three years from 1,000 millions to 3,000 millions of yards. He (Mr. Mundella) had no fear of foreign competition, and mainly because he knew that the Englishman was the best worker in the world. If we would only educate our people foreign competition would have no chance against us. The factory with which he was himself connected had adopted the nine hours system, and it had been found, from the greater freshness and vigour of the hands, that the diminution in the hours of labour made scarcely any difference in the production of the machinery. Germany recently, and France at the present moment, had imposed fresh restrictions on juvenile female labour in factories, and he might congratulate himself that he had the support of the principal manufacturers in that House in the same direction. The limit proposed by this Bill would economize fuel, gas, and wear and tear of machinery, and the result would be as much, if not more, work in the 54 than in the 60 hours. Tie was sorry to have talked out his own Bill; but he hoped the House would assist him to get the question fairly discussed, and he rejoiced to believe that in this as in all other cases the sufferings of the distressed would not appeal to the British House of Commons in vain. In conclusion, he begged to move the second reading of the Bill.

§ MR. FAWCETT,
who had a Notice of Motion on the Papers, to the effect— That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable to sanction a measure which would discourage the employment of women, by subjecting their labour to a new legislative restric- 827 tion to which it was not proposed to subject the labour of men, simply rose to say, in the few minutes which were left to him, that after the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), extending over an hour and three-quarters, containing such sweeping accusations against large classes in this country—accusations which must be answered in that House—he hoped the Government would give some facilities for the resumption of the debate. The hon. Member called the opponents of the Bill cold-blooded economists. Need he tell the hon. Member that there were men going to oppose this Bill who had won a proud position in this country for their philanthropy and generosity? What would he say to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Akroyd)? What right had the promoters of the Bill to arrogate to themselves a monopoly of humanity, generosity, and kindness towards the poor? Those who opposed the Bill were quite as anxious as its promoters, that the labouring population should not be overworked, and that their children should be properly educated; that the age of the children should be raised; and that factory inspection should become a reality. They believed, however, that the Bill was founded on a mistaken philanthropy; and there was nothing more mischievous than a meddlesome philanthropy. The Bill was a mixture emanating partly from trades unions who were jealous of women's labour, and an indirect and dishonest way of getting a Nine Hours Bill for all adults. He would substantiate both those positions on a future occasion.

§ MR. DISRAELI
asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to appoint a day for resuming the debate?

MR. BRUCE
said, it rested with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to fix his own day.

§ MR. DISRAELI
could not help thinking it would be convenient to the House to know to what day the debate would stand adjourned. The right hon. Gentleman said it was for the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) to name the day, but that was a ceremony which 828 they all felt at this time of the Session was not a very substantial privilege. He thought, after the presentation of so many Petitions, emanating from so many thousands of their fellow-country-men, and remembering that this question was brought forward last year, and submitted to the investigation of a Commission, it was most desirable, and would be appreciated by the country as a gracious act on the part of the Government, if they would, not with standing the state of Public Business, fix some day for the resumption of this very interesting and important debate.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, according to the Standing Orders of the House, the debate stood adjourned till to-morrow, when it would rest with the hon. Member for Sheffield to propose a day when it should be continued.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that being so, to-morrow he would ask the Government whether they were prepared to make any arrangement for the continuance of the debate.