Commons Sitting of 27 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Dealers in Marine Stores; Metropolitan Building Act (1855) Amendment.
3° Tramways (Scotland).

LABOURERS' COTTAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. W. EWARTexplained that the ob-

1051
ject of the Bill was to give facilities for the improvement of cottage accommodation in Scotland, which at present was in a very unsatisfactory state. This he proposed to do by extending the provisions of the Montgomery Act. By that Act the owner of entailed property was allowed to charge the estate with a portion of the money expended in improvements to the extent of three-fifths, on the principle of charging futurity with part of the cost of present improvements. That Act, and subsequent legislation in the same direction, did not, however, extend to the building of labourers' cottages, and the object of the Bill before the Committee was to remedy the omission.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he had no objection to the Bill, but he wished to have a recital introduced into the preamble setting forth that doubts were entertained that Montgomery's Act extended to labourers' cottages, which doubts should not be allowed to continue. He also proposed to make the Bill declaratory instead of en-active.
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Friday.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1 (Recited Acts to apply to bleaching and dyeing works).
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to move Amendments exempting from the operation of the Bill works in which the occupation of bleaching or dyeing linen, linen yarn, and cambric only were carried on.
Amendment proposed,
"In page 2, line 13, after the words 'Dyeing Works,' to insert the words 'except works in which the operation of bleaching linen, yarn or thread, linen cloth, unions, or cambric by the open air process is the only operation of bleaching carried on."
MR CROOKsaid, he felt himself unable to agree to the Amendment, the effect of which, if carried, would be to deprive the youth of Scotland and Ireland of the advantages of education, and women and young children of protection from too protracted labour. According to the Report of the Select Committee, women and young boys were frequently obliged to perform
1052
heavy night-work. In particular cases the temperature was as high as from 80 to 110 degrees, and in many instances women and men worked through the night in the same apartment. Several of the masters stated that they had done their best to obtain married people, or brothers and sisters, for this class of labour; but nothing save a legislative enactment would put a stop to the demoralization entailed by such a system. The cases referred to occurred not alone in Belfast and the north of Ireland, but at Perth, Dundee, and other centres of industry in Scotland. He therefore hoped the House would not consent to make the wholesale exceptions proposed by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
MR. DAWSONsaid, he was willing to give credit to the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Crook) and those who supported him, for the motives by which they had been actuated in introducing this Bill; but in his opinion the condition of Ireland and the circumstances of the bleaching trade in that country were wholly different from the other portions of the kingdom to which the measure was meant to apply. Owing to the humidity of the Irish climate the machinery of the bleaching works was driven almost exclusively by water, and as the supply only came down at uncertain times, and the millowners were not allowed to provide a reserve by detaining the stream from those below, advantage must be taken of the opportunity when it occurred, and it was consequently impossible to regulate by any fixed limits the hours at which work should be carried on. The greater portion of the operations, likewise, were conducted in the open air, and were liable to interruption from the weather, in which case they were performed in well-ventilated apartments. It was a recognized fact that the condition of the operatives in the north of Ireland was as healthy as that of persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, in proof of which he might advert to the total absence of complaint on the part of the working people. Those best acquainted with the province of Ulster held that on behalf of no class of the working community was legislative interference less required. It was true that women were employed in getting up and finishing cambric handkerchiefs; but this could not be said to be a demoralizing occupation. Boys were also employed, but scarcely any below fourteen years of age, and they were allowed long intervals of rest. In most

1053
establishments these lads received wages upon entrance, and at the age of eighteen had learnt their business, which the provisions of this Bill would render impossible. A gentleman of great experience, writing within the last few days, said he knew no linen establishment in which the hours of work were more than ten a day, while in many cases they were less; and he could with a clear conscience declare that the occupation was much lighter than that of ordinary labourers. The working classes in Ireland regarded this Bill as impolitic, uncalled-for, and ruinous to the interests of factories. One result would be that the employment of women and young children would be dispensed with wherever labour was cheap, for manufacturers would rather employ none but men than subject themselves to the annoyance of inspection and the vexatious obligations that would be imposed upon them.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was in profound darkness why the proposed exemption from a general principle should be admitted at all. It was admitted that too long hours of work did mischief in factories, and, as the House now thought, in bleaching works. Why did his hon. and learned Friend contend that they did no mischief in the linen trade? He did not see what the fact of its being an open-air process had to do with the question. It was not alleged that the bleaching process entailed upon the operatives very hard work; but what was complained of was, the length of time which the operatives were doomed to labour. That cause of complaint prevailed as well in the open air process as in the dyeing works.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he felt obliged to his hon. Friend for affording him the opportunity of renewing those explanations which he had given when the Bill six weeks ago had engaged the attention of the Committee. He then stated that to justify the interference of the Legislature it was necessary to show that the particular branch of trade was in itself an unhealthy process, or that the hours during which it was carried on were extravagant and improper. As regarded the first point, the Select Committee had declared in the strongest manner that the process of bleaching linen in the opean air was a healthy operation; and Mr. Tremenheere, the Commissioner, gave similar testimony. The hon. Member for Bolton had referred to some instances which he said showed that women and children were
1054
worked for an inordinate period on Irish bleach-greens; but he fell into the same error as Mr. Tremenheere in mistaking cotton bleach works for those in which the bleaching of linen was alone carried on. The Amendment which he had proposed was intended to apply to linen bleach works only. The opinion of the operatives themselves afforded a very good indication of the course which Parliament ought to adopt. But Mr. Tremenheere, when examined before the Committee, admitted that he had not thought it necessary to ask the opinion of the Irish operatives, having gone so fully into the question in England. The trades in the two countries, however, were entirely distinct; and Mr. Waring, who was sent over from England as a delegate to induce the working people in Ireland to adopt the same view, admitted that he found all the operatives there quite satisfied with the existing state of things. There were before the House petitions signed by upwards of 1,000 of those operatives begging that Parliament would not interfere in the matter, and for reasons very much affecting their own position. The open-air process in bleaching depended to a great extent on the state of the weather, and in winter, when the frost was severe, it could not very often be commenced before ten or twelve o'clock in the day, while if it were to cease at a fixed unyielding hour the chemical processes might be materially injured. It must be also remembered that the bleaching was carried on by water power, and if the works were stopped at a certain hour property to a certain extent was lost, for the water would run whether the bleach works were carried on or not. Then, the workmen were paid by the piece, and not by the day; so that they did not like interference. Most of the men employed in the works were heads of families, who were anxious that their wives and children should be employed with them. If not, the children must go to agricultural labour, which was less liked and much more severe. But if the Bill were passed women and children would be to a great extent dispensed with. The work performed at night was for the most part connected with the beetling work, where the parties employed had to change the position of the cloth every three hours, out of which they might have two hours and a half of sleep. It was, in fact, the lightest work of all, and was most coveted by the workpeople. As to the drying stoves, though the temperature was high the ventilation was perfect, and none of the people

1055
employed wished it to be interfered with. The reason given by Mr. Tremenheere for including these works in his restrictions was that as they were recommended for the English bleaching works it was urged on him that it would not be fair to exempt Scotch and Irish bleachers. This was quite right where the processes were the same, but it was a different thing where the processes were so different. He thought these statements would satisfy the Committee of the reasonableness of his Amendment, which did not ask the Committee to make an exception in favour of any part of the United Kingdom, but only with respect to a particular system of proceeding in conducting the operation of bleaching.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to call attention to an Amendment to be proposed by the hon. Member for Bolton, "that nothing in the Act should extend to or affect any person or persons when employed in the open air." The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman did not include cotton within its scope, whereas that of the hon. Member for Bolton contained no limitation. He did not, however, see that there was any substantial difference between the principle involved in the Amendment and that which the promoters of the Bill sought to carry into effect, and he should therefore vote for it.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he was prepared to admit that the process was a healthy process. All bleaching was a healthy process. The bleaching works he had seen were places where a man might pass his life very comfortably if he were doomed to labour there. He admitted that the master dyers desired as much as possible to alleviate the condition of labour. But the question was as to the length of labour, and why persons should be employed for a greater number of hours in bleaching linen than in bleaching cotton. He had a few days before been down in the bleaching districts, and he had asked a girl whom he had seen performing a certain operation, how long she worked? Her reply was from 6 in the morning until 10 at night, with two hours for meals. She added that the work was not exactly hard, but, using an expressive phrase, she said it was jading, and indeed so it must be, for he should look upon it as very jading work to sit for so long a time, even in that House. He could not under those circumstances, understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary gave his sanction to the Amendment.
1056
The necessities of trades were talked of as a reason why it should be adopted, and he recollected that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) at that time Secretary for the Home Department, yielding to the influence of such language, attempted to stop the passing of the Factory Act, which, however, was passed in spite of the doleful lamentations of the manufacturers, and which, instead of doing harm, had effected great good.
MR. BAXTERsaid, he was quite of the opinion that the experience of the working of the Factory Act demonstrated the soundness of the conclusions at which the hon. and learned Gentleman had arrived. He could not, however, at the same time, help thinking that the hon. and learned Gentleman had scarcely done justice to the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, who sought to draw a distinction between linen and cotton bleaching, inasmuch as the latter was conducted under cover, whereas the former was subjected to the open-air process. The linen bleaching occupied grounds extending from five to fifty acres, which were not in the slightest degree analagous to factories of any kind, the process being to all intents and purposes an agricultural occupation. The process was not dependent upon chemistry, but was dependent upon the winds and rain of heaven. That being so, some hon. Gentlemen appeared to be of opinion that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton met the case, but if the scope of the Bill were limited to operations in the open air it would not provide for those emergencies which, owing to the severity of the weather, bleaching operations had to be conducted in a shed. Those operations, then, could be effectually carried on, under all circumstances, only by exempting the whole process of bleaching in the way which the hon. and learned Member for Belfast proposed. Indeed it could no more be regulated by Act of Parliament than the labour of farm servants.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he preferred the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast to the proposal of the hon. Member for Bolton, because the former was clear and simple, and would not go one inch farther than was intended, whereas the latter was complicated, would be very difficult to work, and would lead to great evasions of the law. If the hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland were a little hurt because Ireland was included in the

1057
Bill, a better feeling might have been manifested by the Committee towards Ireland on the present occasion if the Irish Members who sat on the Select Committee on the subject had not opposed every proposal to legislate on behalf of the operatives in English bleach works.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it seemed, according to the language of the Amendment, that the exception would only apply to works in which the operation was carried on exclusively in the open air; but where the works were partly carried on in the open air and partly under cover he presumed the Amendment would not apply. If that were not so, it was very difficult to understand the exact meaning of the Amendment.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, the "open-air process" of bleaching was a technical description well-known in the trade as distinguished from the chemical process. It commenced with bleaching on the bleach-green, and was continued by steeping, folding, pressing, &c., the whole process being called the open-air process of bleaching linen.
MR. ROEBUCKinsisted that no answer had been given to his objection, which was, that although the Bill was directed against the employment of women and children over a certain number of hours, it was now proposed to exclude from its operation those employed in the open-air bleaching. It was no answer to say that the process was healthy.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he did not expect to give a very satisfactory answer to his hon. and learned Friend, for he was afraid he had already made up his mind on the subject. This, however, was not a Bill declaring that women and children should not be employed over a certain number of hours. It said, "You shall work between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M., and not any other hours, longer or shorter." Those hours, however, were not at all times suitable to bleaching by the open-air process.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he thought no answer was required to the objection of the lion, and learned Member for Sheffield. The labour in these bleaching grounds was not at all unhealthy, and if the processes were interfered with at the instigation of persons specially employed to make out a grievance, great injury would be done to the trade throughout the country. They might as well interfere with the agricultural labourer, who, it was well known, worked, as occasion required, all hours,
1058
day or night. It was perfectly idle to legislate in the spirit of this Bill for the labouring classes, who were able enough to protect themselves. If they did, they might as well bring in a general Act applicable to every class alike, including Members of Parliament.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he did not think the linen trade would be destroyed if the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend were not adopted, but assuredly the interests of the working people would be seriously injured, The mode in which bleaching-works were at present conducted would be entirely changed, and it would become necessary to employ adult labour only. This would occasion serious loss to a numerous class of the industrious population of Ireland, the linen bleaching process being almost peculiar to that part of the country.
MR. CROOKexplained, that the effect of rejecting the Amendment would be to declare it illegal to employ in these works women during all the night, or sixteen or seventeen hours a day, as was now the case; if the Amendment were adopted, it would give the sanction of law to the present practice.
MR. PACKEsaid, he felt bound to state that the feeling of the Committee was that the Bill should not be extended to the Irish bleachers.
MR. BUTTsaid, that having moved the appointment of the Committee he must say he was in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast, there being a clear distinction between open-air bleaching and the chemical process; and no case had been made out for interference with bleach works carried on in the open air.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he feared that even after the explanation of the hon. and learned Member for Belfast some slight misunderstanding might prevail, and it was important that the Committee should know distinctly on what they were about to divide. What he understood was this:—There was a certain class of bleaching operations, in which the process of bleaching, in the strict sense of the word—the conversion of brown linen into white—was exclusively carried on in the open air; but then there were some subsidiary operations necessary afterwards, which were carried on under cover. The Amendment only applied to the process carried on in the open air; was that so?
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he appre-

1059
hended that what he should call the conversion of the colour was effected in the open air, but it included the subsidiary processes which were afterwards necessary.
MR. DALGLISHexplained that in linen open-air bleaching the sun was used as the agent; whereas chloride of lime was used in the chemical process, the cloth not being exposed in the open air at all; but in either case the cloth must be finished in hot stoves, where it was placed generally by female labour; and it was to this latter part of the process that he thought their legislation should be directed. Any further interference would be most prejudicial to the workers themselves.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he felt the difficulty which had been stated by the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. He had no desire to interfere with the open-air operations; but he now understood that in the subsidiary processes, in the hot stoves, women and children were employed twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day. How would the Amendment affect these?
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he had been anxious that the Committee should not misunderstand him. He stated at the beginning that his Amendment was not confined to the actual process in the open air; that would be utterly nugatory and useless. It was confined to the process technically called open-air bleaching. That part of the process not carried on in the open air was, as Mr. Tremenheere informed them, conducted in well-ventilated and healthy places under cover. It had been conclusively proved by the evidence that there was nothing, either in that process under cover or in the length of the hours during which the workers were employed there, to justify the interference of the Legislature.
MR. BUTTexplained that it was not necessary to remain for several hours before a hot stove to complete the subsidiary process, when the previous bleaching, as in the case of linens, took place in the open air.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 48: Majority 142.
MR. A. F. EGERTONsaid, that the labour carried on in bleaching works was not hard or unhealthy, and there could be no doubt that the operatives so employed n Lancashire were superior in physical and mental condition to the persons engaged in cotton factories. These circum-
1060
stances ought to form an element in the consideration of the Legislature; and he believed it would be satisfactory both to the masters and men if the number of hours were fixed at a maximum of twelve per day. He would therefore move at page 2, clause 1, line 18, to leave out from "that" to the end of the clause, and insert the words of which he had given notice:—
Amendment proposed,
"In line 18, to leave out from the word 'that' to the end of the Clause, in order to add the words 'it shall be lawful to employ females and young persons in Bleaching and Dyeing Works as follows (that is to say); from six o'clock in the forenoon until eight of the clock in the afternoon on every working day except on Saturdays, and on Saturdays from six of the clock in the forenoon until half an hour after four of the clock in the afternoon: Provided, that there be allowed for meals half an hour at any time of the day between the hours of six and eleven of the clock in the forenoon, one hour between eleven of the clock in the forenoon and four of the clock in the afternoon, and (except on Saturdays) half an hour between the hours of four and eight of the clock in the afternoon."
MR. CROOKsaid, he felt bound to resist the Amendment, as diametrically opposed to the principles of the Factory Act, which limited the hours of labour to ten, and which the House had declared on the second reading should be extended to bleaching and dyeing works.
MR. W. EGERTONsaid, he should support the Amendment, believing it would not operate prejudicially to women and children. Twelve hours labour in bleaching and dyeing works would not, practically, be more severe than ten hours' labour in a cotton mill.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he hoped the House would not accede to the Amendment. It had been advocated on the plea that the labour carried on in these works was light and healthy, an assertion wholly at variance with all the evidence collected on the subject, and one which the House had distinctly negatived when it assented by an overwhelming majority to the second reading of this Bill. It had been argued over and over again in their discussions on factory labour that the appearance of the operatives was healthy, and that the mill girls looked rosy; but although hon. Gentlemen who had visited those establishments might not have witnessed with their own eyes the physical suffering which unduly protracted employment inflicted on those who were exposed to it, the House did not hesitate to apply a remedy to an undoubted evil. The present Amendment

1061
was palpably inconsistent with the title of the Bill, because the measure was intended to place the employmeut of women and young children in bleaching and dyeing works "under the regulations of the Factory Act." He therefore called upon the House to stand by its previous decisions.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, they had decided, after full debate and by an enormous majojority, that long hours were mischievous. Let hon. Gentlemen put themselves in the position of the women and young persons who went into bleaching works at six in the morning, and did not leave them, except for their food, till eight at night. It was all very well to talk of that being twelve hours' labour, it was not twelve hours but fourteen. He said at once, without any circumlocution, that rather than subject his countrywomen to that horrible atrocity, he would prefer to see bleaching works altogether disappear. The cry now raised about the injury which this legislation would inflict on this trade reminded him of the predictions that if they dared to pass the Factory Acts they would annihilate the manufacturers of England. Those Acts were, however, passed, and all the master manufacturers and all the operatives from whom he had made inquiries as to their operation assured him that their effect had been immensely to improve the physical, moral, and mental condition of the workpeople unaccompanied by any real detriment to their employers. In the pursuit of gain men were apt to forget all other considerations, and sooner than agree to the increase in the hours of labour proposed by this Amendment he would run all the risks threatened by these gloomy prophecies.
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, it did not follow from the Amendment that the labour in bleaching works should last for twelve hours every day. It merely provided that in no case should that number of hours be exceeded. Bleaching was an uncertain kind of occupation, and the masters, not having continuous work for their men, were obliged to regulate the time of employment by the work they had to do. He did not think a maximum of twelve hours would be injurious to women or young persons.
MAJOR CORNWALL LEGHsaid, the Committee were not asked to reverse any previous decision of the House, but simply to apply the principle of the Factory Acts to bleaching works, with a due regard to the peculiar circumstances of the trade. By such a proceeding they could meet the
1062
views of all parties, and obviate the objections to which any extreme measure would be liable.
MR. BUTTsaid, it had been established incontestably that young persons had been employed in bleaching works during eighteen hours per day for many days consecutively; and it was therefore idle to suppose, if they were allowed to be worked for twelve hours at a time, that that would form a mere maximum which would be enforced only occasionally. On the contrary, it would be followed up week after week until in practice it became the rule instead of the exception.
MR. COBBETTsaid, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had moved the adjournment of that House the previous night on the ground that it had been at work for thirteen hours. That Motion was acceded to, everybody feeling that that was a sufficiently long time to sit even upon their very comfortable cushions. How hard, then, must be the lot of the poor women and young children who had to stand or walk about in bleaching works for fourteen, sixteen, and even in some cases as much ns twenty-two hours a day! The masters in Scotland were very desirous that the limitation imposed by that Bill should be established, as many as twenty-three of the largest employers in that country having, at the request of their workpeople, given their assent to a document in favour of restricting the duration of labour to sixty hours per week, which had been placed in his hands. He would not trouble the Committee with details, but there could be no doubt that many of those children were worked for eighteen or twenty hours a day. He contended that to pass the Amendment would be a violation of the principle which the House sanctioned on the second reading of the Bill, that ten and a half hours was sufficient work for those persons. He might also remind the House that when negro emancipation was being gradually carried through by Parliament, a system of apprenticeship was introduced, by which the labour of the negro was fixed at only fifty-four hours per week; and, moreover, the reports of our prison inspectors showed that the number of hours' work exacted from persons sentenced to what was called "hard" labour—although, in most instances, it was really very light—did not exceed nine per day. In fixing the number of hours which these young children and women were to be required to work, the House ought surely to remember the

1063
consideration that was shown to the felon and the negro slave. If this Bill were his own, he would abandon it altogether sooner than agree to this Amendment, and would trust to his chance of passing it in its integrity in another Session.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it had lately been argued that the admission of an inferior class of voters would end in the return to that House of Members who represented nothing but "passion and poverty." He must assume, then, that the Members elected by the £10 householders represented nothing that could be called "passion," and that all their debates were entirely dispassionate. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), however, had a little sinned against that universal characteristic of their discussions, because his speech was hardly pervaded by pure reason. The hon. Gentleman quoted the case of children employed for eighteen hours a day, and used it as an argument against the present Amendment. It was quite clear that a limitation to twelve hours a day would effectually protect these persons against having to work eighteen.
MR. BUTTexplained that he had mentioned the fact of this work being now carried on for eighteen hours as some proof that, if the twelve hours' limit were adopted, it was likely to become something more than a maximum only occasionally enforced.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: As a general rule, it was inconvenient to re-open in Committee a question that had been decided on the second reading. They had already affirmed the principle that the Factory Act should be applied to the bleaching trade. The time allowed for working under the Factory Act was ten hours, and therefore by reading this Bill a second time the House had affirmed the applicability of the ten hours' principle to bleaching works. He did not deny that it might be desirable to make the transition to the new state of things less rapid than it would be under this measure as it now stood; but he could not assent to an Amendment the effect of which would be to turn a ten hours' Bill into a twelve hours' one.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, an objection raised to the Bill was, that dyeing and bleaching were only done to order, and that orders came in frequently at such a push as to compel the dyers and bleachers to make extra exertion. He maintained that that was the very reason why such a Bill should be passed, because the merchant frequently put off the purchase of goods until
1064
the very last moment, in order, perhaps, to get another month's credit, and then pushed the dyer and bleacher to get the goods done as quickly as possible, thereby forcing the workpeople to work unreasonable hours.
MR. TURNERsaid, he thought it very reasonable to limit the hours to twelve. The demands in the bleaching trade were so fluctuating that it would not be possible to keep the bleach works continually in operation for twelve hours a day. A twelve hours' Bill would not necessitate the working continuously for that length of time day after day, and he believed that for many months, or at least weeks, the average would not be more than six hours a day. In reply to the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Frank Crossley), he might observe that the practice of which he complained could not be avoided, because export merchants could not purchase goods until they received orders from their correspondents abroad. He must complain that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was nut in his place, and had not expressed his opinion upon this measure. The dyeing trade had another complaint to make against that Department, because it had not protested against Mr. Wilson having, in his Indian Budget, imposed upon bleached calico a duty of 2s. 9d. per piece beyond that charged upon unbleached; while the process of bleaching only increased the value of the goods 3d. per piece. If such legislation as that was to go on, the capital of the bleachers would soon be endangered, whether they worked for ten or twelve hours a day. He wished that the ladies who took so much interest in this question would, instead of meddling with healthy, rosy young women in Lancashire, turn their attention to the condition of the miserable creatures who frequently worked from fifteen to twenty hours a day preparing their dresses for fétes and balls.
MR. PACKEsaid, he could not understand how any one who had voted for the second reading of the Bill could support the Amendment. The object of the Bill, as expressed by its title, was to place the employment of women and children in bleaching and dyeing works under the Factory Act, The Amendment was entirely destructive of that object, and sought to negative the decision upon the second reading.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENdenied that those who voted for the second read-

1065
ing of the Bill were guilty of any inconsistency in supporting this Amendment. The argument that this was a ten hours' Bill was never used upon the second reading. All that its supporters then asked was, that the House would affirm the principle of shortening the hours of labour in these establishments. The affirmation of that principle was all that was decided by the second reading, and with that principle the Amendment was in no way inconsistent.
MR. WHALLEYcomplained that the measure would entirely destroy the trade of the flannel manufacturers in Wales, who did not know that any such Bill was hanging over their heads, and who could not even read it.
LORD ASHLEYasserted, that the ten hours' principle was patent upon the face of the Bill; indeed, it was its whole soul and spirit. It was possible that the supporters of the Bill might consent to some Amendments, but to the ten hours' principle they must stick through thick and thin.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, that allusion had been made to the unhappy sempstresses of London, but their condition was no argument against legislating on this subject. It was to be regretted that the unhappy sempstressess and shirt-makers lacked concentration in masses like the factory hands, because in that event they would soon get relief from the excessive toil and misery they had to suffer in obtaining a scanty subsistence. As they were situated, however, legislation with regard to them was impossible. The tendency of the remarks of hon. Members was, that children were merely things sent by Providence to be used up for the purpose of our manufactures, and all the objection the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley), who represented the Welsh flannel interest, could urge against the Bill, was that, in consequence of its not being in the Welsh language, the Welsh people would not be able to understand it. He (Mr. James) was at a loss to understand upon what principle hon. Members came to the opinion that these poor unhappy children were not to be educated and properly taken care of, but to be used up for the purposes of our manufactures. The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Turner), had referred to the "pushes" of business; but as the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Crossley) had argued, it was those pushes which furnished the great reason for legislation. Take it on the mere ground of cruelty to
1066
animals; if a man cruelly drove a horse fifteen or sixteen miles in an hour, it was no answer to a charge of cruelty for him to say that he was pushed for time.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, that in voting for the second reading of the Bill, he did not accept the ten hours' principle, but merely affirmed that some legislation was necessary. The subject was one which ought to be taken up and dealt with by the Board of Trade, and he therefore recommended the withdrawal of the Bill.
MR. A. F. EGERTONreplied, from his own personal inquiries he was led to believe that a particular number of hours occupied in labour by sempstresses was not equivalent to the same number of hours occupied in bleaching and dyeing works. He felt it his duty to press the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words 'during the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty one,' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 258; Noes 42: Majority 214.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he rose to move the addition of a provision exempting the process of Turkey-red dyeing from the operation of the Act. He regretted that he was obliged to propose such an Amendment, because in common justice he should have been saved the trouble by the promoters of the Bill. In a former Session a similar measure was referred to a Select Committee, and the Turkey-red dyers, being seriously affected by its provisions, stated the nature of their grievance and showed that their business would be entirely destroyed if the Bill were passed into law. But their evidence was not taken before the Committee for the simple reason that they were assured it was the intention of the Committee to exempt them from the operation of the Bill.
MR. CROOKstated, that he should not object to the exemption of Turkey-red dyers, but he thought the wording of the proviso might be improved, as in its present form it might give rise to evasions. Any manufacturer by setting up Turkey-red dyeworks might get rid of the Factory Act in his own case. However, he assented to the principle of the proviso, and the precise terms of it might be arranged at a future stage.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he did not think his proviso was liable to the objection stated, but after the assurance he had received from the hon. Member for Bolton, he would withdraw it in the meantime.
Proviso, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, he wished to add a proviso in favour of the fancy dyers. Many of the processes of fancy dyeing depended upon the chemical agencies, which must be carried on continuously or not at all. To expose such a branch of trade—in which, moreover, our manufacturers were successfully opposed by those of France—to the limitations of the Factory Act would be, in fact, to destroy it altogether. As the promoters of the Bill bad already agreed to exempt Turkey-red dyers, he did not see how they could refuse to make a like exemption in favour of fancy dyers.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the Committee could not accept the proviso unless they were prepared, which he did not believe they were, to strike out of the Bill everything relating to dyeing works.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsubmitted that the proviso was inconsistent with the title of the Bill, which included dyeing as well as bleaching works.
MR. BUCHANANremarked, that the title of the Bill might be altered.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, if, after the Bill had been gone through, dyeing works were found to be excluded from the operation of the Bill, the House could then decide upon an Amendment in its title.
MR. TURNERsaid, he would remind the Committee that last week they came to the conclusion that it was not wise to limit the hours of labour of children working in mines under ground; and yet it now appeared to be the opinion of the Committee that young persons ought not to be employed in a light and healthy occupation above ground beyond a limited period each day.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to know what the Government intended to do.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had not the knowledge requisite for forming an authoritative opinion upon the subject; but as far as he was informed, he was not disposed to agree to the Amendment.
MR. BUCHANANsaid, that seeing the feeling of the Committee was against his proviso he would withdraw it, reserving to himself the right to bring it forward upon the Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Females and young persons may be employed until half-past four of the clock on Saturday, and eight of the clock on other days, but not so as to ex-
1068
ceed in any period of six months, and part of another month the total number of hours allowed by this Act and the Factory Acts).
MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he would propose that the clause should be expunged, and that another should be substituted, enabling bleachers to work sixty hours per week, instead of ten per day, thus that the operatives might work sixty hours a week; that was allowing them to divide that time unequally each day if it were deemed more convenient.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he hoped the Committee would not accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. It would enable manufacturers to call upon the persons in their employment to work twenty hours in one day, and not to work at all on another. That was the very thing the promoters of the Bill wanted to prevent.
MR. CROOKstated that the object of the clause was to leave the hours of beginning and ceasing work at the option of the manufacturer, provided the time defined by the Factory Act were not exceeded in any one day.
MR. TURNERsaid, he could not see what objection there could be to require the labourers to work twelve hours each day, and to allow them a holiday on the Saturday.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he thought it was better to accept the clause as it stood.
Amendment withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 (Females and young persons who have not been previously employed in any Bleaching or Dyeing works, or who shall not have been employed at the same works during the three last months, may be employed in the same manner as the Females and young persons there already employed in the same works).
MR. TURNERsaid, that the clause was incomprehensible, and he wished the meaning to be explained.
MR. CROOKstated that the object of the clause was to enable bleachers to employ women and young persons (being fresh hands) at the same time when other women and young persons were at work. Without this clause, if a bleacher happened to be working twelve hours under a previous provision of the Bill, the new hands would not be able to work more than ten hours and a half.
MR. BUCHANANthought that the object ought to be more clearly expressed, and said he should vote for the omission of the clause.
LORD JOHN MANNERSobserved that the clause was intelligible, but that it wanted punctuation.
Clause agreed to, as was Clause 7.
MR. A. F. EGERTONproposed a clause exempting the process of royal blue dyeing from the operation of the Act.
MR. CROOKobjected to the proposed clause on the ground that it was not warranted by any evidence given either before the Committee or the Commission.
MR. TURNERsaid, he thought that such a clause would be a most unreasonable interference with free labour.
Question put, "That the clause be now read a second time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 109: Majority 54.
The House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.
House adjourned at two minutes before Six o'clock.