HC Deb 21 March 1860 vol 157 cc991-1005

Order for Second Reading read.

MR. CROOK moved the second reading of this Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed—"That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. TURNER

thought that any hon. Member who proposed to introduce a measure materially interfering with the operations of an important branch of industry, and who sought to meddle with the relations between masters and operatives in any particular trade, was hound to show a clear case for the necessity of legislation; but he had not heard such a case made out in the present instance. The subject had been referred to a Select Committee, who reported against any legislation on the subject. He contended that if the circumstances which caused the Committee in 1858 to report against legislation had in any way changed, the change had been in the direction to render it still less expedient now that any legislation should take place. The Bill proposed to place blenching and dyeing works under the operation of the Factories Act; but he maintained that there was no analogy between the operations carried on in those works and the operations carried on in factories. The owners of factories had a very great advantage not possessed by the owners of bleaching works in the circumstance that they worked with their own property, whereas the bleacher or dyer did not work with his own property, but was merely the servant of the public, and employed himself on such work as was committed to his charge. The factory owner could go into the market and obtain as much of his raw material as he desired, and work every minute of the time allowed by law; but the bleacher or dyer depended for the supply of his raw material on fluctuating circumstances, such as orders from home or foreign correspondents, and his capability to work depended on seasons and a proper supply of water. Consequently, the work was slack occasionally, and at times, when vessels sailed for distant markets, there was a push of work. [The hon. Member here quoted evidence given to this effect before the Committee of 1858 by Mr. Barbour, Mr. Scott of the firm of Jones Brothers, and Mr. Hardcastle.] He would mention another circumstance, showing that the owners of factories and the owners of bleaching and dyeing works were very differently situated. In cotton mills the machinery could at any moment be stopped, and operations resumed next day at the very point at which the work stopped; but in bleaching and dyeing works very critical chemical operations had to be performed, the favourable result of which depended on a certain amount of time being continuously occupied in them. If the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Crook) succeeded in his legislative attempt he would disarrange very seriously the operations of an important trade without accomplishing his object. Women and children, with few exceptions, were not employed in bleaching and dyeing, but only adult men; women and children were employed to a limited extent only in the operations of finishing, making up, and sorting the goods after the bleaching and dyeing were completed. The hon. Member in consistency ought to extend the operation of his Bill to calendering and packing establishments, and must not stop even there, but go on until he included within the measure laundresses and washerwomen. The hon. Member for Bolton, when he gave his evidence before the Committee, did not appear to be aware of the notorious fact that the leading bleachers and dyers took especial care for the education of their workpeople, and accordingly the preamble of the present Bill stated that legislation was necessary in order that the children might be educated. The Report of the Committee recommended that some amicable arrangement should be come to between masters and workmen, in order as far as possible to lessen the hours of work. He had made inquiries with respect to nearly all the large bleaching establishments in Lancashire, and one owner with whom he communicated stated that he employed 127 persons, but only nine under thirteen years of age: that the earnings of the men were 4s. 6d. a day, and of the women 1s. 10d. a day; and that during the year 1859 the average daily duration of employment was less than eight hours and a half. Messrs. Brideson, of Bolton, stated that they had made all practicable exertions in conformity with the Report of the Committee. In Messrs. Ridgeway's establishment the hours during 1859 had not exceeded ten hours and a half. Messrs. Sykes and Co., of Stockport, employed 121 persons in bleaching, finishing, and making up, of whom 37 were men, whose hours in 1859 averaged nine; 46 boys whose average was the same; and 38 women add girls, who worked on the average eight hours a day. The hon. Gentleman quoted other instances to the same effect, the longest day's work which he had on record being one of fourteen hours, and the lowest three, four, and five hours. If an hon. Member were making his hay he would occasionally want his hands to work rather longer than usual, and so it was in the bleaching trade. In the immediate neighbourhood of bleaching works cotton mills existed, where the hours of work were limited to 10½ per day; but, while the factory operatives were desirous of exchanging their employment for the clean and pleasant labour of bleaching, there was not a single instance in which those employed in bleaching establishments wished to go into factories. Surely, the operatives must be the best judges of their own comfort and advantage. Much had been said about the health of those employed in bleaching. Now, he had obtained from the Halliwell Church Sunday School Sick Fund Society a return, which showed that they had in the school 68 bleaching operatives, of whom 27 were boys and 41 girls, and the number of these who had become chargeable to the sick fund during 1859 was only five, or rather more than 7 per cent; while out of 211 operatives employed in cotton mills, who were also upon the school list, comprising 48 boys and 163 girls, there had been 59 sick during the year, or 27 per cent. From personal experience he could say that he never saw a more healthy and thriving set of operatives than those in the bleaching works of Lancashire. The men were strong and athletic, the boys hardy, and the women generally robust and healthy, looking very different from the wan sempstresses and milliners' assistants of London, respecting whom no appeal had been made to Parliament to limit their hours of labour or improve their condition. Believing the Bill to be a piece of meddling and of useless legislation, he should move as an Amendment that it be read a second time that day six months.

MR. RICHARDSON

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

MR. ROEBUCK

Sir, I am about to speak on this question under somewhat peculiar circumstances. Very early in my Parliamentary career Lord Ashley, now the Earl of Shaftesbury, introduced a Bill of this description. I, being an ardent political economist, as I am now, opposed the measure, and drew a distinction, which I draw now, between women and children and men. Women and children I hold not to be sui juris; they are not masters of themselves, but are under the control of other people. I would not interfere between men and those with whom they make contracts for employment, but I would certainly interfere between women and children and their employers. However, I opposed Lord Ashley at that time, and was very much influenced in my opposition by what the gentlemen of Lancashire said. They declared then that it was the last half-hour of the work performed by their operatives which made all their profits, and that if we took away that last half-hour we should ruin the manufacturers of England. I listened to that statement, and trembled for the manufacturers of England. But Lord Ashley persevered; Parliament listened to him and passed the Bill which be brought in; and from that time down to the present the factories of this country have been under State control, and I appeal to this House whether the manufacturers of England have suffered by this legislation? But the hon. Member for Manchester still, I find, makes the same objection. He gets up and prophecies all sorts of evil if we interfere now; but he has kept out of view the evils for the prevention of which we are now about to interfere. He has not told us what was laid before the Committee, and what Mr. Tremenheere describes in the course of his investigation. But I will read some facts from Mr. Tremenheere's Report, and will then appeal to the House of Commons, to the fathers and the brothers of English women and children, if they will not interfere to put down this tremendous evil. There are some sentences in the book now in my hand which make my blood creep, and when the hon. Member gets up and tells me that the Manchester manufacturers are likely to suffer, I say, let them suffer. I, at least, will not be a party to the perpetuation of any such atrocities as I find recorded, and I do hope that the gentlemen of England will not be parties to them either. Says the hon. Member, "The bleachers are servants to the public; the demand for work conies upon them at uncertain times, and there is no analogy between the case of factories and of bleaching and dyeing works." Now, I do not care a straw whether or not there is any analogy in this respect, but I am sure there is an analogy in the suffering; and, if so, the interference of the House is as necessary now as it was then, whether the bleachers are servants of the public or their own masters. They inflict misery upon the people they employ. That is the question; and having prevented this misery in the one case, let us interfere to prevent it in the other. I will now quote a few passages from Mr. Tremenheere's Report Here is the statement of John Hamer, finisher:— I have been fourteen years in the bleaching trade. I was employed at Messrs. Hollins's, Tootle-bridge, Bolton. … One morning we went to work at five o'clock and worked till six the morning after (twenty-five hours). All the sets were working the same hours (the young with the adults). … I have been so tired, though I am a strong and healthy man, that I have often to sit at my bed-side when I get up of a morning, and my fingers are so stiff and sore that I cannot dress myself. If I feel thus tired, what must the young girls and boys feel? Let hon. Gentlemen remember that this is an inquiry made only a year and a half ago. Here is the statement of Ann Simpson, fourteen years old, Elizabeth Hilton, fifteen, and Sarah Higson, sixteen:— We came to work last Friday morning at half-past six (at Mr. Ridgway Bridson's bleach-works, Bolton). We worked all Friday night till half-past five on Saturday morning (twenty-three hours). We did not sleep any time in the night, except on Saturday morning at half-past five we laid down to sleep on the hooking-box, and slept till a little after seven (less than two hours' sleep, and with the clothes still on, after twenty-three hours' work); then we went to breakfast for half an hour, and then came and worked till ten minutes past eleven. We complain bitterly of the hours of this House, and if we come at four with liberty to go away and dine at seven, and then do not go home till two in the morning, we say, "What a terrible night's work we have had!" Well, then, think of the poor child between thirteen and fourteen, or between ten and eleven, not able to go away and get a good dinner, not sitting while at work upon these soft cushions, but standing upon her poor, tired, little legs for hours and hours together. Think of her, and compare her work with ours! We complain of the labours which we undergo, but, as compared with our life, hers is the life of the damned. Phithian Monks says:— I am foreman of the dyeing and making-up room. I worked last Friday till Saturday morning with those three girls, and what they have said is correct. William Crompton.—I am seventeen. I have been four years and a-half (that is, since he was twelve and a-half years old) in the dressing shop. We go on till different hours, sometimes early, sometimes late. T worked once three days and three nights, and not long since I began work on Friday morning at four and worked till five on Saturday night (thirty-seven hours). I mostly slept at meal-times, and only stopped one hour for meals; the rest I ate while I was working. Now, I ask you, the gentlemen of England, if you will bear this. I hear great talk of humanity—he humanity!—about the American slave. No man can view with more indignation than I do the horrible condition of the black in America; but I cannot help regarding with at least equal indignation the condition of the white slave in England. I recollect hearing a story which to me appeared a touching one, and fraught with a pregnant lesson. Mr. Oastler was walking with the late Sir Robert Peel up his splendid picture gallery. Mr. Oastler, as we know, strongly advocated the shortening of the hours of labour in factories. Sir Robert Peel, on the other hand, as we also know, was a great political economist, and was arguing with his companion upon the impolicy of State interference. In passing along the gallery they came to a beautiful picture, I think by Landseer, which most of us probably have seen—a portrait of one of the daughters of Sir Robert Peel; and Mr. Oastler, stopping suddenly, said, "My God, Sir Robert! and she might have been a factory girl!" Yes,, any one of our daughters might have been a factory girl, and is there a man present with any feeling for his child who could think of her working almost without cessation for thirty-seven hours? Think of her tender years, think of her delicate little hands! I have it in this book that childrens' hands are often blistered, and the skin torn off their feet, and yet they are thus obliged to work, the persons who overlook them being sometimes forced to keep them awake by heating on the table with large boards. For God's sake, then, I say, do not let us listen to the hon. Gentleman! I do not want to weary the House, but I appeal to you as men, I appeal to you as fathers, I appeal to you as brothers, and I ask you for God's sake not to be participants in this horrible cruelty. The hon. Member says he is sure you will not go into Committee on this Bill. I, on the contrary, feel certain that if I know anything of my countrymen we shall go into Committee; that the measure will be carried by a triumphant majority, and that we shall not lay our heads upon our pillows to-night, saying, "We have deserted those whom God has placed under our charge—the weak, the helpless, the distressed; we think only of ourselves, of the wealthy, and of the great." The weak and the miserable appeal to you now for compassion and for aid, and I, their humble advocate, also appeal to you in perfect confidence that you will listen to their prayer, and will pass this measure for then-relief.

MR. COBBETT

said, that as he had been identified with this question from the first moment he had the honour of a seat in the House, he trusted he should be allowed to make a few observations. In 1853 he moved for a Committee of inquiry into the condition of bleachers and dyers. His Motion was met by considerable opposition, and instead of a Committee, a Commission was issued. The Report of that Commission made in 1855, contrary to the expectation of its advocates, was in favour of the proposition now made by the hon. Member for Bolton. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) subsequently brought in a Bill to deal with the evils complained of. That Bill was opposed and the result was the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. Of this Committee the hon. Member for Youghal, the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Packe), and he (Mr. Cobbett) were members. The hon. Member for Youghal was obliged to absent himself from the Committee, and he (Mr. Cobbett) was also compelled to retire from its sittings in consequence of having to serve upon a private Committee. A similar reason subsequently compelled the withdrawal from it of the hon. Member for Leicestershire. The consequence was that ultimately the Committee consisted of the opponents of all legislation upon the matter—the Committee in fact resolved itself into a Bleachers' and Manufacturers' Committee. He was requested as a point of form to draw up the Report. He accordingly framed a report in brief terms, anticipating the manner in which the subject would be treated by the remainder of the Committee. The very first Resolution taken by those Gentlemen was that the Report of the Chairman should not be taken into consideration, and another Report, framed by the Manchester bleachers, was adopted instead. The hon. Member for Bolton afterwards brought in his Bill, but the Report of the Committee had its due weight with the House. That Report stated that it was not advisable to enact any legislation upon the subject, it was compelled to admit that it was desirable the masters should adopt a shorter scale of daily labour for those in their employment. It was now clearly shown that no alteration of the time of labour had been made by the masters notwithstanding that suggestion of the Report. Under such circumstances, he hoped that the House would assent to the second reading of this Bill, in order to compel the adoption of a more humane arrangement. He admitted that the House ought to be very cautious in this matter; but who would say now that the Ten Hours Factory Act ought not to be the law of the land? He could assure the House, from a personal knowledge of those establishments in his part of the country, that an immense improvement had taken place both in the health, the morals, and the education of the operatives in those factories where the Ten Hours Bill had been enacted. It was no doubt said that if they shortened the hours of labour they would strike off the Chancellor of the Exchequer's right arm, and England would be gone. He would allow that was very poetical, but it had not proved to be true. He would just observe that the hon. Member for Manchester and himself had recently waited upon the Secretary for the Home Department for the purpose of asking him to appoint more Inspectors of factories in consequence of the immense increase in the factory population, and therefore why should the hon. Member object so strongly to Inspectors being appointed for bleaching and dyeing works? He held in his hand a memorial which he intended to present to-morrow to the Secretary of State, which was signed by a number both of employers and employed, praying the appointment of a gentleman as Inspector in the room of the late Mr. Leonard Horner, and they were in favour of the appointment of the gentleman in question because he had done so much to see that the Factories Act was obeyed. Twelve years ago the masters and the operatives did not approach each other, but now they were acting in concert on this question. The hon. Member for Manchester said that bleaching and dye works stood upon a different footing from the cotton and woollen manufacture, and he said that the bleacher was a person who worked material which he had to get from some one else, and he was not therefore his own master in that respect. The master bleacher received his goods to bleach and dye from a merchant or a manufacturer, who had either bought them or made them, and they were often sent to the bleacher in great haste, with instructions that they must be got ready to be sent by a ship which was to sail in a few days. The consequence was that the bleacher was obliged to keep his workpeople at work long hours in order to get the work done by the stated time. He (Mr. Cobbett) went to Glasgow on purpose to hear what the masters and operatives had to say on this matter. He did not confine his inquiries to the operatives, but he attended meetings at which masters presided, and those masters told him that they wanted a Bleachers' Bill as much as the operatives. In the Report on the employment of women and children in 1853, it was stated "that many of these gentlemen would gladly welcome some restriction as to the hours of work, which would furnish them with a valid plea for resisting the pressure of their employers without the fear of giving offence." If hon. Members were to go among them they would find that to be the case. He had not the slightest doubt that a large portion of the Scotch bleachers were in favour of the Bill, on the ground that it would compel the merchants to come to them sooner with the work, so that they would not have to do it in so short a time. Another point made by the hon. Member for Manchester was the processes. He said the Inspector might interrupt the cotton spinner without doing harm to his goods, but that was not the case with the bleacher. Now, bleaching and dyeing consisted of various processes. He went into some bleaching works at Salford belonging to Mr. Hayward. It was a large establishment, and the foreman went with him through the whole of the works. He spent a considerable time there, and noted down every one of the processes, and when he got to the end of one, he said to the foreman, "Could you leave off here, and begin again to-morrow?" and the foreman replied; "Yes, at any time." And that he said of all the processes. If it were really true that they would spoil any of the processes, that was a matter for consideration, but he did not believe that that was so. The hon. Member for Manchester would have the House suppose that although long hours for work were formerly used, yet that was a state of things that had passed long ago. Now he (Mr. Cobbett) wrote to Scotland for information to place before the House respecting this point, and he had received a reply that morning, containing a note of the time of females and young persons, for the fortnight ending the 17th March, i860, at the works of John Sandieman, Esq., in the dyeing department:—Monday, the 5th March, 17½ hours; Tuesday, the 6th, 15½ hours; Wednesday, the 7th, 15½ hours; Thursday, the 8th, 15½ hours; Friday the 9th, 15 hours; and Saturday, the 10th, 7 hours. The next week the hours of work were as follow:—Monday, the 12th, 17½ hours; Tuesday, the 13th, 15½ hours; Wednesday, the 14th, 13 hours; Thursday, the 15th, 15½ hours; Friday, the 16th, 15½ hours; and Saturday, the 17th, 7½ hours. There were also notes of the work at several other establishments, but he would not detain the House by reading them. This showed that the recommendation of the Committee of 1857 had not been attended to by the masters. The hon. Member for Manchester said he took the average of the whole year, and found that hours of labour were ten and a half; and a manufacturer who came before the Committee said they were acting unfairly in taking the worst times, and that they should take the whole year. But who would work his horse twenty hours a day, and then let him rest a day, and then work him twenty hours a day for two or three days? The horse would die of exhaustion; and it would be no answer to say that he had only been worked an average of eleven or twelve hours a day. He prayed the House to read this Bill a second time, and if it could be shown that there was anything impracticable in its provisions it could be amended in Committee. Let not the House suffer this anomaly to continue—let them not suffer women and children to be worked in a manner that any man on earth would be ashamed to work his horse.

LORD JOHN MANNERS

said, the speech they had just heard from the hon. and learned Member for Oldham would, he thought, convince the House that they might safely read this Bill a second time. He sat on the Committee, and he felt so far hound by the Report that he thought it only proper that a certain time should elapse to enable the manufacturers to adopt the recommendations of the Committee. Three years had now elapsed, and there was no reason to believe that any of these recommendations had been carried into effect. He, therefore, thought the Committee were absolved, and he for one should heartily support the second reading of the Bill.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

was bound to say that, so far as the bleaching works in England were concerned, the facts stated in the Report were of the most startling description, and warranted the observations made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield; but there was another kind of bleaching works—he meant those for the bleaching for linen, a process which was carried on mainly, if not exclusively, in the north of Ireland, and which was as different as possible from that used in the bleaching of cotton. Mr. Tremenheere visited the works in the north of Ireland, and admitted that he could not specify one heart-rending case such as were stated in reference to England and Scotland, but he reported that he did not think it right to except Ireland, because they differed only in degree from the works in England, and that cases of hardship might occur any day in Ireland. He (Sir H. Cairns) had gone through several bleaching works, in order to ascertain whether there was any foundation for such charges against them, and he believed there was only one process as to the wholesomeness of which there was any doubt, and that was in one particular room, called the finishing room, in which a small number of persons were employed, and it was kept up to a high heat in order to finish cambric handkerchiefs; but there was hardly any exertion required from the persons employed, and the ventilation was carefully attended to. The other processes were carried on out of doors, and the hours from six to six, with two, or two and a half hours off for meals. This Bill proposed to bring all these works under inspectors, and required that returns should be made and books kept of the most irksome kind, and unless there was some fair reason for it this ought not to be required. The proprietors of bleaching works told them they were quite ready to do without women and children, and would do so rather than be brought under inspection. The consequence of passing this Bill would, therefore, be to deprive women and children of that employment which was the most agreeable to them next to domestic employment. He deprecated such a result for the sake of those persons. If the Bill passed it would throw out of employment in the north of Ireland at least 1,500 women and young persons. He asked the promoters of the Bill whether they would exempt Ireland? If they would he would support the second reading, otherwise he should vote against it.

MR. RICHARDSON

contended that it was most unreasonable that an attempt should be made to bring Ireland, against which no charge had been made, within the scope of this measure. The Irish bleaching operations were known to be of the most healthy character; they were principally located in the country; and neither the masters nor operatives connected with them had expressed any desire for the proposed legislation.

MR. CONOLLY

said he was sorry to oppose a Bill of this kind, but it was impossible for any hon. Member representing a constituency in the north of Ireland to give any other vote than a decided negative to it, for the whole population engaged in the bleaching works there were opposed to any interference with the freedom of their labour.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, after hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Cobbett), he could not in his conscience take any other course than to vote for the Motion for the second reading of the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 226; 39: Majority 187.

Main Question put, and agreed to; Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday, 9th May.

House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.