GENERAL LAW RELATING TO FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.

HC Deb 21 February 1878 vol 238 cc85-128

(1.) Sanitary Provisions.

Clause 3 (Sanitary condition of factory and workshop).

MR. MACDONALD

moved, in page 1, line 25, after "harmless" to leave out to "all," on the ground that they were unnecessary, and that such words tended to make Acts of this nature inoperative. The words would give the owners an opportunity of escaping from the consequences of not complying with the provisions of the Act. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill would see his way to remove the words of which he complained. As a matter of course, he should not attempt to divide the House on the question; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether it really did not impede the force of the Bill if such a provision as that were allowed to be inserted. He felt confident that these words were put there not to strengthen the Bill, but the reverse.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, of course the object of the hon. Member was entirely the same as his own; but he would remind him that the words of which he complained actually had been in force for a long time. They appeared in the Act of 1864, and also in the Sanitary Act of 1866; and, he believed, had hitherto worked very well. But in a factory they could not do things which could be done in other places, and he did not see how he could accept the Amendment.

MR. PARNELL

asked the Homo Secretary, whether it would be the duty of the Inspectors who were appointed to see that the provisions of the clause were carried out?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

replied that it would be the duty of the Inspectors to see that that portion of the clause was carried out where there were structural works which required it.

Amendment negatived.

DR. KENEALY

wished to point out the necessity for some better definition of the provisions to be enforced for ventilation. As the clause stood, he feared it would be inoperative in that respect. Who was to define what was meant by ventilation?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would not be in Order in making any general observations now, unless he proposed to move an Amondment to the clause.

DR. KENEALY

replied that he did propose to move an Amendment. This was a matter of grave importance to the borough which he represented, in which many thousands of persons were engaged in the different departments of pottery, and he could show the Committee that the health of the operatives was seriously injured, and the mortality among them rendered excessive, from the want of proper ventilation and other sanitary arrangements in their workshops.

MR. ONSLOW

rose to Order. The hon. Member had announced his intention of moving an Amendment, but he had not stated what were its terms, and the Committee were quite in the dark as to the question before them.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that inasmuch as the hon. Member had declared his intention to conclude with an Amendment, he presumed his remarks were directed to the subject of that Amendment; but he must point out that it would be much more convenient to the Committee to have a definite proposal before them.

DR. KENEALY

replied that he had not drawn his Amendment, as he had wished before doing so to see what a discussion would elicit.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out, that unless the hon. Member had an Amendment to propose, he must defer his general observations on the clause till the Question was put that the clause stand part of the Bill.

DR. KENEALY

moved to add words to render imperative the use of smoke -consuming furnaces.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

remarked that he could not accede to the Amendment. The words of the clause were copied from existing Statutes, and no difficulty had ever arisen about their interpretation.

Amendment negatived.

On Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill?"

DR. KENEALY

said, that he was not by any means satisfied with the clause, because, as it seemed to him, the general word "ventilation" in it was too vague to secure the object desired. It was owing to want of ventilation that some of the most serious diseases befel the working classes. That was particularly so in the potting trade, in which he, as Member for Stoke, felt deeply interested. There were, in round numbers, 46,000 persons employed in pottery work in this country, of whom 30,000 were males and 16,000 were females. That was a very large number; and it behoved the House to consider well the language of an Act which concerned the happiness and health of so many individuals. In the Potteries which he represented, there were 13,000 males and 7,000 females engaged in this branch of industry, and it was on their behalf he now stood up. They were persons for whom all sympathy and respect should be felt—persons of cultivation and high artistic skill. They filled the mansions of Kings and Nobles with beautiful works, and brought beauty into the humblest home. Now, among these persons it had been proved that three diseases prevailed much—namely, scarlet fever, typhoid, and cholera—diseases in a great measure preventible; and which were owing also, in no slight degree, to want of proper ventilation. To these must be added scrofula, which was due to want of fresh and healthy air, as much as to any other cause. Now, he found that taking 100 as the average of deaths of males of all ages in England, who worked at employments, those of grocers ranged from 75 to 78, those of workers in wool and worsted from 100 to 126, publicans from 138 to 157, cabmen, &c, 143 to 150; the mortality among workers in earthenware rose from 138 and 154 to 192. That was a sad contrast to that presented in other callings, and well deserved public attention. These persons were, as a rule, properly fed, and they were not intemperate. Instances there were, no doubt, where many of them drank too much; but, as a rule, the persons engaged in potting were sober, regular, and temperate of life. There were among them two special diseases, which were traceable distinctly to that want of proper ventilation in the workshops for which he contended, and to which he specially directed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—and those diseases were "Potter's asthma" and pulmonary consumption. If the right hon. Gentleman could arrest the progress of these scourges, he would deserve well of mankind; nor did he doubt that the right hon. Gentleman had any wish to do so; for the Bill which he now brought forward was one, that like the admirable Artizans Dwellings Act of a year or two since, did honour not only to himself, but to the Ministry under whose auspices it was introduced. There was another disease called "lead paralysis," which could not be interfered with, indeed, by ventilation; but surely the right hon. Gentleman, surrounded as he was by the best counsel, might devise some means by which that dread calamity might, at all events, be made less frequent than it unhappily was. This was produced by the lead that was used in order to give a gloss to earthenware; and it would be a proud discovery if Science could find out some other material that would not be noxious, and Law could enforce the general use of that material in place of so powerful a poison as was contained in, and communicated by, lead. He invited the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this. The whole course of his legislation in that House indicated a warm sympathy in remedial and beneficial measures for the humbler classes of society. No sort of provision was contained in this Bill to meet this particular evil; nor was there any that could war against the diffusion of fine dust, which was the source of much disease. The following extract from The Journal of the Society of Arts, showed how great were the ravages produced; and great would be the honour of the framer of the Bill, if he could alleviate them:— The statistics on this part of the subject have been admirably worked out by Dr. Arlidge, who obtained every fact that was obtainable from the register of deaths in Stoke parish, and who declared that in that parish lung diseases and phthisis kill 13.41 per 1,000 living; in Longton, 24.20 per 1,000. Among 210 males at 10 and upwards who died from those diseases in Stoke, 83, or 40.47 per cent wore potters. Of 148 male potters, 46 or 31.08 per cent died from phthisis alone, and 85 or 57.43 per centfrom that malady and lung disease together. On comparing the mortality of male potters at 15 and upwards, from diseases of the lungs and phthisis combined, with that prevailing in England at the same ages, it is as 57 to 32 per cent of the deaths that take place. Among 100,000 adult males living aged 20 and upwards, there die in Stoke from diseases of the chest 505, and from consumption 505, whilst in all England the proportions are for diseases of the chest 339, and for phthisis 373. Adult females die in Stoke in the ratio of 323 from lung diseases, and 411 from consumption. In England 259 die from lung diseases, and 349 from consumption. Of children under 10 years old 22.61 per cent perish from diseases of the lungs and consumption together. Of individuals above 10, 41.52 are cut off from the same causes. Eighty-three out of 100 potters die before completing their 60th year. The mean age of adult male potters was 46. of adult men in all England 56 years. Among male potters themselves nearly 60 per cent die from diseases of the lungs.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

asked the hon. Member the date of the journal to which he referred?

DR. KENEALY

replied, that all the statistics would be found in The Journal of the Society of Arts for February, 1876. That it was possible to remedy the existing state of things, and save the operatives from the suffering and dangers to which they were now exposed, was clear enough. It was to the honour of the French people, that they made greater advances than ourselves in many of the arts which prolong human life, or mitigate human suffering; and it afforded him no slight pleasure to read the following extract from the same periodical:— In the course of the last few years, many improvements have been carried out in different factories where danger in previous times was imminent. At Amiens, M. Kuhlmann has devoted much attention to the process of fixing chemical vapours given off in various processes of chemical manufacture. He has invented a mill with wings by which vapours are carried into neutralizing solutions distributed in fine divisions almost like spray. In some aniline works in France the distinguished Chevalier has successfully exerted his ingenuity in constructing a special room for the manufacture of aniline, so arranged that exposure to the vapour is practically an impossibility, and is, indeed, placed out of the reach of the workman, be he even careless in the performance of his work. Surely we ought not to be behind the French in these beneficent improvements. There was another evil in the Potteries for which the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman did not furnish any remedy—that was the enormous quantity of smoke with which the atmosphere was filled. Upon this, he ventured to cite the words of a gentleman of high authority— There is," says Dr. Arlidge, "a constant belching forth of smoke into the atmosphere from scores of ovens in which the pottery is baking, from a multitude of slip-house chimneys, of chimneys of mines and iron works, and what is worse, from the blast furnaces of smelting iron; for the smoke from those last is loaded with poisonous gases, such as sulphurous acid, which tell the tale of their destructiveness on surrounding vegetation. Other sources of contamination are derived from the heaps of ironstone in process of calcining on the surface of the ground, and from the numerous flues of brick and tile ovens which emit a very dense, suffocating smoke. The right hon. Gentleman could almost, by the insertion of a line or two in his Bill, cheek this nuisance; he might render compulsory, in a more stringent way than at present existed, the consumption of smoke on the premises by the various manufacturers. That would be better than leaving it to the local authority, which was always slow to move in matters of this kind. Such an obligation introduced into this Bill would render it still more valuable than it was; and would help much to produce the sanitary reform which the right hon. Gentleman had at heart. Then they would no longer have the pain of reading such a description as that which Dr. Richardson gave of the working class, and with which he would conclude. That gentleman said— In plain, solemn fact, the whole of the industrial class of England, made up of 6,000,000 of living hearts, is sick at heart, is physically and therefore mentally unhealthy. It lives, as it were, in hospital, undergoing various treatment, but wanting the conditions, without which, if by some miracle it was for a moment cured, it could not continue to live in health of body and of mind.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the reason he had asked the date of the publication to which the hon. Member referred, was to see whether it had been written since or previous to the legislation of 1874—as, under the last Factory Act, the powers of the Inspectors had been much enlarged, and steps had been taken and improvements effected, which had already had very beneficial effects in the prolongation of life. He would point out that the excessive mortality in the Potteries was partly due to scarlet fever, typhoid, scrofula, and other diseases arising from defective drainage. If anything further could be done by the insertion of other words in the clause, to make its operation more effective, of course he would be very glad to insert them; but he had understood from the Inspectors that the terms of the clause as they stood were amply sufficient. All he could do would be to consult them on the subject again, and see if any alteration was necessary. With regard to smoke-consuming furnaces, which the hon. Member had remarked upon, he would remind him that that was a subject which the Government had already taken in hand. A Royal Commission had been sitting on the subject of noxious vapours for two years. Their Report was shortly expected, and when it was received, it would receive the most serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. C. CAMPBELL

wished, in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke (Dr. Kenealy), who complained of the defi- ciency of the ventilation in workshops and factories, and the consequent mortality among the operatives, to say that the evil, if it existed, was in no way due to the manufacturers, but rather to the determination of the workpeople not to make use of the means of ventilation which were placed within their reach. It was they themselves who, in 19 cases out of 20, kept the rooms in which they were employed at such a temperature that it was almost impossible to live in them. Provision was now made, he might add, that they should not take their meals in the workshops, and that they might be able to wash their faces and hands before sitting down to them—a supply of soap and water was at hand, at least, in his factories. Accidents, too, would not happen nearly so frequently if the work-people were only a little more thoughtful. As to volumes of smoke issuing from the furnaces, that was due to the neglect of the local authorities, whose duty it was to attend to such matters, rather than to any fault on the part of the employers. But although he believed it to be possible to reduce the quantity of smoke, it could not be done away with altogether in the process of manufactures which necessitated the burning of coal on a large scale. The clause as it stood went, he thought, very much to the root of the whole matter; and he felt quite satisfied that it was more to the interest of the masters than of the men—leaving the humanitarian argument altogether out of the question—that the workshops should be well ventilated and the health of the work-people as good as possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Notice by inspector to sanitary authority of sanitary defects in factory or workshop) agreed to.

(2.) Safety.

Clause 5 (Fencing of certain machinery).

MR. LEWIS STARKEY

moved, in page 2, line 22, after "fenced," to insert— save where such steam-engine and fly-wheel, or either of them, are or is contained in a house or room solely appropriated and used for them or its reception. The clause, as it stood, he contended, was unnecessarily stringent, inasmuch as it required every part of a steam engine to be fenced whether dangerous or not, and would impose a very large tax on manufacturers without securing any corresponding immunity from accident to the work-people.

MR. MUNDELLA

objected to the Amendment, observing that he had never seen a fly-wheel which was not fenced.

Mr. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Amendment was quite impracticable.

MR. WHITWELL

thought it would be better to leave the clause as it stood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Fencing of other dangerous machinery, of which notice is given by inspector).

MR. PARNELL

moved the omission of the word "fourteen" in order to substitute for it the word "seven." He was of opinion that in a matter of so much importance, seven days were ample time to allow the occupier to ask to have the question referred to arbitration.

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

pointed out the necessity which existed for providing that when a matter of the kind was referred to arbitration, it should be decided as speedily as possible. It had occurred to himself to have been appointed an arbitrator some four or five months ago, and not a single step had been taken since then to decide the question at issue in consequence of his co-arbitrator, who was an eminent engineer, not having time to attend to the business. It would be seen, therefore, that it would be in the power of the owner of a factory to delay arbitration for an indefinite period by appointing some person similarly situated.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS,

having expressed his readiness to assent to the substitution of the word "seven" for "fourteen" said, he had no objection to introduce some words into the Bill which would obviate the objection which was raised by the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Charles Lewis).

MR. CHARLES LEWIS

said, it might be met by providing that unless the arbitration were proceeded with within a certain time, any one of the arbitrators appointed might deal with the case on his own responsibility.

Amendment agreed to; word substituted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Fencing of dangerous vats or structures, of which notice is given by inspector) agreed to.

Clause 8 (Fixing of grindstones securely and replacing of faulty grindstones when notice is given by inspector) agreed to.

Clause 9 (Restriction on cleaning of machinery while in motion, or working between parts of self-acting machinery) agreed to.

(3.) Employment and Meals.

Clause 10 (Children, young persons, and women, to be employed only during period of employment).

MR. PARNELL

moved the omission, in page 5, line 1, of the word "woman" in order to substitute for it the words "married woman or woman under the age of 21 years." The clause, as it stood, he said, was one of a series whose object was to place women, children, and young persons in an exceptional position as to the hours during which they should be employed, as compared with the rest of the factory operatives. That seemed to him to be a very proper provision so far as children and young persons were concerned, and also married women, who, he thought, ought to be afforded an opportunity of attending to their household duties. The clause, as it stood, would, however, in his opinion, interfere unwarrantably with the rights of unmarried women over the age of 21 as members of the community, who were able to judge for themselves as to whether they should work during certain hours or not. He could not see, therefore, any good reason why they should not be allowed to make their own bargain with their employors.

MR. FIELDEN

expressed a hope that the Home Secretary would not agree to the Amendment, which would entirely reverse the policy of our legislation for many years past. Women over the age of 21 were very frequently no better able to make their own bargains than children or young persons, and protection ought to be secured, as it now was, to them by the law.

MR. MACDONALD

also spoke in opposition to the Amendment, contending that it would be a retrograde step, was in reality going back for the legislation of the last 40 years, and would lead to the infliction on women of considerable cruelty in many instances.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he thought the present was not an opportune moment for raising the question contained in the proposal before the Committee. It would be very dangerous to enact any special and particular legislation for unmarried as compared with married women. To do so would be to give a privilege to unmarried women, and that would be taking a step in the direction of inducing working men and women employed in factories and workshops to live together as man and wife without having gone through the ceremony of marriage.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, in order to shorten discussion, he must say that he could be no party to altering the settlement which was arrived at with regard to this branch of the question in 1874.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, he agreed in the main with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don); but he also sympathized with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). They were not now proposing for the first time to legislate for working women. There were as many women employed in textile factories as in non-textile factories, and these women were legislated for in the Act of 1874. Having proceeded thus far, he could not see how Parliament could now, with any show of consistency, abstain from making regulations for women employed in non-textile trades. Print works, bleaching and dyeing works, were very similar to works in which textile manufactures were carried on, and, having dealt with the one class, he failed to see how Parliament could refuse to deal with the other.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed at the present stage in the progress of the Bill. The Amendment would go a great deal further than they were called upon to go under present circumstances. He did not think any broad distinction could be made between married and unmarried women; but he thought that in a later clause some alteration, which, though slight, would, he thought, prove satisfactory, could be made.

MR. LEWIS STARKEY

agreed in the desirability of postponing this particular branch of the question until the later clause was reached.

MR. ANDERSON

thought some legislation was necessary alike in the interest of the health and morality of women employed in factories and workshops.

MR. WHITWELL

hoped the Home Secretary would remain firm in reference to this matter. There could be no doubt that women required more protection than men in reference to their hours of labour. They were more easily influenced than men through their feelings of affection and sympathy, and care should be taken that they should not be influenced into the attempting more severe work than they were at present engaged in.

MR. M'LAEEN

thought unmarried women were as able to take care of themselves as married women were, and could therefore see no reason for drawing a distinction between them. Among the working classes women were not only able to take care of themselves, but, in many cases, they had to take care of their husbands also. They were the stewards of the husbands' wages—or, at any rate, of as much of them as they did not themselves spend in the public-house—and, therefore, to regard the woman as a weaker vessel and a being requiring more protection than her husband, was altogether wrong in principle.

COLONEL MURE

said, that this question of the employment of women involved and revived a great principle which was thoroughly thrashed out in 1874, and he could not think it would be wise on the present occasion to enter upon a full discussion of the question. He, nevertheless, sympathized with what had been said about the freedom of women.

MR. PARNELL

said, he recognized the fact that this was not the clause on which to raise the question before the Committee; but he could not admit that it was logical to say that Parliament ought not to place unmarried women in an exceptional class as compared with married women. The entire law had always made a distinction between the two classes of women, and if the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) thought the law was faulty, his only logical course was to endeavour to bring about a repeal. He (Mr. Parnell) should have preferred to raise the discussion on a question as to whether, in the first place, all women of full age ought not to be put under restrictions; and, in the second place, whether the time had not come at which women, as a body, should be placed in some sort of independent position. He could not admit the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) that, because the question was "thrashed out" in 1874, it should not be re-discussed in 1878. He would, however, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 (Period of employment, time for meals, and length of continuous employment for young persons and women in a textile factory).

MR. PARNELL

said, his Amendment would have come in well at this point, as the clause dealt with textile manufactures; but as the form of his Amendment was objected to, and he had not another ready, he would simply ask the Home Secretary whether he would not consider the subject between the present time and the Report, with a view to putting women in a somewhat better position than they occupied at present?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that, having considered the question for some years, and having carried through the House the Bill of 1874, he should be doing wrong if he held out any hope of alteration in the sense suggested by the hon. Member. The present Bill, as far as it related to the particular question under consideration, was based on the lines of the Bill of 1874, and he saw no sufficient reason to depart from those lines.

MR. M'LAREN

said, one section of the clause ran as follows:— (3) A young person or woman shall not be employed continuously for more than four hours and a-half without any interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal. He moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "or woman." This Amendment would not disturb any other part of the Bill, and would, at the same time, apply a test to what had, not inaptly, been described as grandmotherly legislation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he had no doubt that the hon. Member for Edinburgh moved his Amendment from, very philanthropic motives; but he must know that all the employés in a factory must take their meals at the same time, or the work could not proceed, by reason of the fact that all the workers must be attending to their respective departments at the same moment. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it had been thought that four-and-a-half hours did not constitute too long a stretch for each spell of work to be completed by women and young persons.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, that the Royal Commission, of which he was a Member, found very little complaint in reference to the four-and-a-half hours' rule, in essentially textile districts; but there were objections raised in some other parts of the country, particularly in Coventry and other districts, where the ribbon trade was carried on. He would suggest that the Home Secretary should make some exception in the case of some peculiar textile manufactures.

MR. M'LAREN

pointed out that nothing was said in the clause about men. There were no factories of any kind in which men wore not employed; but there were many in which women and children were not employed, and, therefore, exceptional legislation was defended in certain cases. The clause would allow men and boys to work as many hours as they chose without taking meals, and the protection only came in for women and young persons. If the clause laid it clown that no person should be employed for more than four-and-a-half hours, the arguments in its favour would hold good; but he objected to it on the ground that women and young persons only should not work without food for a longer period than four-and-a-half hours.

COLONEL MURE

pointed out that, if the debate was to go on in its present form, the question would be raised over and over again whenever the word "woman" appeared in a clause. The point was one upon which the only serious debate arose in the progress of the Bill in 1874, and it was then thoroughly settled. He would, there- fore, suggest that a division should be at once taken upon the question, and that such division should be regarded as final, as far as the present Bill was concerned.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, there could be no doubt that the four-and-a-half hours' spell perfectly suited the textile manufactures; but, on the other hand, there was very strong evidence to show that it did not suit many other trades. Furthermore, it was a dangerous experiment to make a sudden change in the habits of a large number of persons employed in a particular calling.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should be quite willing to discuss the question when the Amendment of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) was before the Committee; but as far as purely textile manufactures were concerned, he could accept no proposal which would have the effect of changing the system fixed by the Act of 1874.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought the fact of the Act of 1874 having been passed ought not to interfere with the right of Parliament to re-open and re-discuss any provisions contained in that measure which bore upon the present Bill. He could not see why protection proposed to be accorded to children should be forced upon adult women. He should use every effort to relieve women from being placed under the false protection of a piece of what had been described as grandmotherly legislation.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

agreed in principle with the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), but thought that if the opinion of the Committee was to be challenged, it would be well to take a division at once. It must not be forgotten that the present measure was, to a great extent, a Consolidation Bill.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he saw great force in much that had been said, and should, in consequence, ask leave to withdraw his Amendment for the present. It could be resumed on Clause 13, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) would move an Amendment, and a division could then be taken.

MR. R. SMYTH

said, the Government proposal was something more than a mere Consolidation Bill, in that it contained provisions relating to certain trades carried on in the North of Ireland, which had not been dealt with before. The Bill might occasion great inconvenience in connection with the flax manufactures, and he hoped the Home Secretary would seriously consider the question in connection with the proposal of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. HOLMS

moved, in page 5, line 38, to leave out "four hours and a-half" and insert "five hours." He said, the four-and-a-half hours' rule, by making a distinction between textile and non-textile factories was inconvenient, particularly in places where there were industries of a mixed character. From his own experience as a mill-owner, he believed the four-and-a-half hours' regulation would be found to give considerable trouble; and, therefore, he wished to have five hours inserted instead of four-and-a-half hours, which would give uniformity in all factories, whether textile or non-textile.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 38, to leave out the words "four hours and a-half" in order to insert the words "five hours."—(Mr. William Holms.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he thought his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment would have been aware that there were no textile manufactures where the five hours' practice was in force. It was, he believed, the universal rule to work three or four hours, and that was found to be amply sufficient—namely, from 6 to 9, from 10 to 2, and from 3 to 6. He contended, from his own knowledge of the matter, that it was quite unnecessary to make the people in any textile factory work for more than four hours, or at the outside four-and-a-half. He hoped his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would not accept the Amendment, as it would entail a great hardship upon many trades, such as dyers, bleachers, printers, and those engaged in similar branches of manufacture.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

replied, that he had already stated, as far as the textile factories were concerned, that there was not the slightest desire among the workmen in any form or shape to change the present system; but when they came to deal with certain particular trades, that was another matter, as there were special circumstances connected with them. With regard to the winter months, for instance, special regulations might be made. The only argument, therefore, which the hon. Member brought forward to support his Amendment was that there should be absolute uniformity. But that was a ground which could not be taken up, for if they were to legislate on the principle of absolute uniformity, certain classes would obtain protection who did not require it, while they would be releasing women and young persons in other trades from that protection which was absolutely necessary for them.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, it should be optional for the employer to make a five hours, instead of a four-and-a-half hours spell of work between meals. He could give many cases where such an arrangement would be very convenient. It would be very convenient, for instance, in many mills in his own neighbourhood if, while working short time, the five hours' arrangement could be put into operation. Then work could begin at 9 o'clock, and go on until 2 o'clock, which was the usual dinner hour. He did not lay much stress on the matter of uniformity, and only referred to it because it appeared to him desirable that there should not be two arrangements of hours in works of a similar character. He could not conceive that there would be the slightest possible hardship to the work-people if the Amendment were adopted.

THE O'CONOR DON

pointed out that the Amendment would, of course, apply to young persons as well as to women. He did not believe it would be desirable in the regular textile trades to have young persons working the machines which were used for five hours continuously. He believed it would be found very injurious to them. While they were at work they could not for a moment relax; they must keep their minds and bodies at work during the whole time. That was very different from many kinds of employment which were carried on mechanically, and thus gave opportunities for resting.

MR. PARNELL

said, it seemed to him that if there was really any reason for limiting the hours to four-and-a-half between meals, that was a reason which should be applied to all trades. He admitted that perhaps it might be right for persons not to have more than four-and-a-half hours' work between their meals; but the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Orr-Ewing) said that, as a matter of fact, in the district with which he was acquainted, the men did not work longer hours.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he referred to spinners and weavers.

MR. PARNELL

asked if they were going to have one meal time for one set of workers, and another meal time for another set? It appeared to him that there must be a considerable amount of inconvenience in having different meal hours for different sets of workers in the same factory.

MR. ORR-EWING

said, he understood all workers at the same factory stopped at the same time.

MR. W. HOLMS

said, that in some of the non-textile factories, where the work was very arduous, it was surely as desirable that there should be a short interval between meals as in a textile factory.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, during the passing of the Act of 1874, he argued against the four-and-a-half hours' limit. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) that in some of the factories there was a strain on the young children who worked at machinery persistently, which required the closest attention of eye, of hand, and of energy; but he did think that there would be found a number of factories—a large proportion of industries—where some distinction should be made, and all that went to show that they could not have absolute uniformity.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 20: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 24.)

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 (Period of employment, time for meals, and length of continuous employment for young persons and women in non-textile factory, and for young persons in workshop).

MR. MUNTZ

moved, in page 6, line 33, to leave out "women." He confessed that this Amedment opened a wide field for discussion; but, while he maintained that every adult man and woman had a right to work as long as they liked, he was not inclined to disturb the existing law regarding textile manufactories. In small factories and workshops the conditions of labour were, however, so varied, that it was impossible to adopt any fixed principle; and for that reason, he thought it much better that women should be allowed to decide for themselves how long they should work, and what kind of work they should undertake. Parliament might very justly regulate the work of children, and might with great advantage lay down sanitary laws applying to workshops and factories; but he denied its right to restrict the labour of any adult. The clause, as it stood, would work most unjustly, and would cause the greatest inconvenience in many trades. Although he did not understand the textile manufactures, he was well acquainted with the trades of the town he represented, and also that of the surrounding towns; and he could assure hon. Members that in these places there would be the greatest possible difficulty in applying the clause under discussion. Certainly, the exemptions specified in Clause 59 were carefully drawn, for it was stated therein that the restriction should not apply to a private house, room, or place which, though used as a dwelling, was, by reason of the work carried on there, a factory or workshop within the meaning of the Act, and in which neither steam, water, nor other mechanical power was used, and in which the persons employed wore members of the same family or dwelling there. Now, it frequently happened that the steam power supplied by a single factory passed through two or three houses; but the fact of steam power being used would invalidate the exemptions under Clause 59, although no danger accrued to the women and children working under such conditions. He knew a case where a single manufactory supplied steam-power to 15 or 20 houses in which the inmates did the work on their own premises, merely utilizing the power so supplied to them. Frequently working men who had saved a few hundred pounds sot up these little factories, in conjunction with their wives, and became most respectable citizens—sometimes, indeed, amassing small fortunes. Well, the wife had her domestic duties to attend to, and it was not until the evening, on the return of her husband, that the couple were enabled to eke out their income by private industry. If the Inspector was allowed to place an embargo upon such houses it would put an end to half of the manufactures, and for that reason he was obliged, on behalf of his fellow-citizens, to oppose the proposed restriction, and to claim a total immunity for women. There were already complaints as to the working of the Workshops Act. Then, the restriction would operate most inconveniently as regarded laundries, and this inconvenience would be felt nowhere more than in London. Take the case of a gentleman living at an hotel, who was compelled to depart on Monday morning, and who expected his clothes to be delivered on Saturday evening. If the women employed in the large laundries were obliged to leave work at two o'clock on Saturday it might become impossible to comply with exigencies of that kind. He trusted that the Homo Secretary would see his way to meet the difficulties he had pointed out.

MR. MACDONALD

hoped that the Home Secretary would not yield to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Birmingham. The hon. Member had said that there were great complaints respecting the Workshops Act. Having travelled over many districts in the country, he (Mr. Macdonald) had never heard a complaint as to the working of that Act from a single man or woman. Would the hon. Member inform the House how many Petitions had been presented against the Act as it affected women? Until there was some such demonstration of dissatisfaction he would be unwilling to recognize that these were the views of the working people affected, and he was rather inclined to believe that the hon. Member was the spokesman of manufacturers and others, who troubled themselves much on this subject, and who were interested in female labour.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the labour of women had been regulated for many years, and he was not aware that there had been any complaints as to the manner in which the Act had been administered, or of any hardships inflicted by it. He himself endorsed the statement of the Commissioners that the Workshops Act had done a great deal of good, although, doubtless, much inconvenience might have been caused at first by its strict application. Much of that inconvenience had now been remedied, and he believed that all parties were becoming more and more reconciled to the Act. In the words of the Commissioners, he might add— The absence of all complaints of the manner in which the Inspectors have exercised the power thus entrusted to them proves that it is one which may be safely left in their hands. He thanked the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) for his approval of the drafting of the Bill, for the excellence of which he was chiefly indebted to the draftsman, who had given him valuable assistance. So far as domestic workshops were concerned the Bill did not affect female labour; and in no case, so far as females were concerned, had they sought to extend the existing law. After a good deal of discussion, to which the opinions of well-informed persons wore contributed, the Government had deemed it advisable to put on the Amendment Paper a relaxation so far as concerned domestic workshops. Difficulties might arise in giving effect to the exemptions in several trades. Take the case of straw-plaiting, pillow-lace weaving, and other light trades. Supposing the real business was, say, lace weaving—if they exempted it from the operation of the Bill, people might take advantage of the exemption to evade the Act, and the old workshops which they desired to cheek would be revived. But in the case of a domestic workshop, where the main business of the females was something else, and at odd hours they made certain things, there could be no such necessity for interfering, and no danger of the house being turned into a regular workshop, and therefore such cases might be omitted from the Bill. He thought, moreover, that with regard to such light trades as straw-plaiting, which children acquired at a very early age, and practised chiefly for recreation, the law might be allowed to continue as at present. But there was a distinction to be drawn where the parent required the child as a feeder; in that case, the position of the child was somewhat analogous to that of a steam-engine, and it might be worked beyond its strength. Where there was no danger of such a result the law might remain unchanged. He had no doubt that the difficulty in respect to laundries could easily be obviated. He hoped that the Committee would not go back from the principle which Parliament had laid down in its legislation now for many years, and which had worked so well for the protection of women and young persons.

MR. HOPWOOD

was of opinion that, respecting female labour, some trades had been introduced into the Bill for the first time. He maintained that the absence of Petitions could not be taken as an indication of satisfaction with the law, as the operatives affected by it waited quiescently for its amendment by the House. At the proper time he should be prepared to discuss the question of domestic factories with some vigour, as he thought the change proposed in the Bill was a monstrous one.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, it was not proposed to disturb existing legislation, as this was merely a Consolidation Bill. He had letters from many persons interested in the Bill, stating that they were prepared, if necessary, to petition in its favour. If anyone had proposed to reverse the existing legislation affecting women, every woman in Lancashire would have petitioned against such a change.

MR. FAWCETT

said, that when the Factory Bill was before the House in 1874, he distinctly raised the issue that it was unjust and inexpedient to interfere with the labour of women, and he obtained Petitions from thousands of women in support of the principle he was advocating. Again and again, under the pretext of Consolidation Bills, new regulations had been introduced. They proposed to interfere with the home of every Englishman and Englishwoman; because the Bill, as it stood, would give the Inspector the right to knock at his door to ascertain whether his wife and children were at work after 9 o'clock at night. Under the cloak of a Consolidation Bill a monstrous interference with individual liberty was proposed to be sanctioned. The clause embraced all work done for the purpose of earning money; the wife might be doing some needlework to sell at a bazaar, but the Inspector would be empowered to say that such work could not be continued after 9 o'clock. The question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) involved an important principle. That a bad principle had been sanctionod 30 years ago was no conclusive reason why, after the social, educational, and moral progress of the country since then, they should go on re-enacting that principle in successive Acts of Parliament. What right had Parliament to interfere with the labour of adult women any more than with the labour of adult men? There were hundreds of thousands of women in this country who had to earn their bread by daily toil, and Parliament had no right to place an impediment in the way of these women earning an honest livelihood. The only reason which would justify an interference with the labour of adult women was that women were tyrannized over and treated despotically and cruelly by the working men who happened to be their husbands, brothers, or fathers; but such a reason cast so grave a slur on the working men of this country, that he was astonished that those who called themselves the working man's friends should advance it. He, for one, was not prepared to admit such a charge unless it could be distinctly proved, and he maintained that if women wore not under the harsh, despotic, and cruel control of the men with whom they were connected, there was no reason whatever for such an interference with their labour as was proposed by the Bill. The case of children was, of course, a different one. They were not adults, and he was quite willing to claim the fullest security that they should be properly educated, and that their health should not be sacrificed; but the same reasons did not apply in the case of adult women, and he repeated that there was no more justification for interfering with their labour than there was for interfering with the labour of men. Such interference, if insisted on in these critical industrial times, was calculated to produce great mischief; for no one could doubt that, indirectly, an interference with the labour of adult women would place a limit in tens of thousands of cases upon the length of a day's work for men, and surely it would be most inexpedient to arrive at such a result as that. It would be far better for the Legislature to leave such questions to be settled between the employers and employed themselves, and not to insist on too much inter- meddling. If his hon. Friend divided the Committee on this question, he (Mr. Fawcett) should certainly support him.

MR. HIBBERT,

while agreeing with much that had been said by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), did not think this a proper occasion for pressing the Amendment. The best way of dealing with the question would be to raise it when they came to the Schedules.

THE O'CONOR DON

also concurred in the views advanced by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and believed that the Legislature ought not to interfere any more than it could help with the labour of adult women. At the same time, he did not think the question should be raised in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz); for, unless Parliament were prepared to reverse the whole of its legislation on the subject, it was hardly likely that the Amendment would be adopted. He (the O'Conor Don) had himself an Amendment to propose, which he thought would meet with the approval of the hon. Member for Hackney; but, at the same time, he thought it only right to point out that the proposed legislation of the Bill, with regard to domestic employment, was not, in reality, new. So far as that point was concerned, the Bill was only a Consolidating Bill. No doubt, it was an objectionable feature; but still there were certain Amendments, of which the Home Secretary had given Notice, which would, to some extent, remedy it.

MR. MUNTZ

explained that when he proposed his Amendment, he was unaware of the important and extensive Amendments to be proposed by the Home Secretary, with regard to private dwellings; which, though the principle of this part of the Bill was bad, undoubtedly removed the sting from it. Under those circumstances, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. At the same time, he might say that he had found a very strong feeling existing among the trade councils of his own town—Birmingham—that workmen's houses should not be interfered with by the Inspectors, unless the houses of the gentry were interfered with also.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. HOLMS

moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "and of young persons in a" and insert "or." The object of the Amendment was to place women who were employed in workshops in the same category as women employed in non-textile factories. If a uniform rule were not adopted for the two cases, the result would be that women employed in almost precisely the same occupations, would be placed under very different laws. It was very difficult to define what was a factory and what was a workshop. In the Act of 1867, one of the definitions was that a place employing less than 50 people was a workshop; and a place employing more than 50 people was a factory; so that this curious anomaly arose—that a brickyard employing 49 people was a workshop, and one employing 51 people was a factory. The Home Secretary had provided another definition—that a place where steam or other mechanical power was used should be considered a factory; but that, he thought, was not a satisfactory distinction, as it would embrace a good many places that ought not to be included. It would be very difficult to draw the line between a workshop and a non-textile factory in a large variety of trades, such as tailoring, millinery, shoemaking, and other industries connected with the manufacture of clothing, in which women were employed. Under the Home Secretary's definition, a largo millinery establishment, employing a number of women who worked sewing machines by their own physical power, would be a workshop; but the moment a steam-engine or other mechanical power was introduced to work—say, half-a-dozen out of perhaps a hundred machines, the place became a factory, notwithstanding that the introduction of steam-power for the hardest work made the labour easier instead of more difficult for the women. Non-textile factories were brought under the regulations of this Bill; but workshops practically escaped from many of them, as, under Clause 59, they were exempt from inspection in regard to cleanliness, over-crowding, ventilation, the affixing of notices as to the hours for meals, the length of time for employment, and so on. The only way in which women employed in workshops were dealt with was by fixing the period of employment at 12 hours—any time between 6 in the morning and 9 at night—and obliging the employer to give four-and-a-half hours for relaxation, absence from work, or meals. By such provisions the evils of the old system would be perpetuated, for the Inspector would find it utterly impossible to ascertain whether the women were working more or less than the prescribed time. It would be impossible for him to tell whether there had been four-and-a-half hours of relaxation—he could only tell whether work had been commenced before 6 or carried on after 9—and thus it would still continue, as it always had been, utterly impossible to enforce the regulations for the hours of employment in workshops. Then, if the Committee passed the clause as it stood at present, they would be giving a premium to hand-labour over machinery, by providing that where there was no mechanical power the regulations should be comparatively loose; but where propelling machinery of any kind was introduced, the place should be under all the stringent regulations of a non-textile factory. That would be a distinct discouragement to the introduction of machinery. The employment of children and young persons would also be discouraged by the clause; for a place where women worked, but where no child or young person was employed, would be deemed a workshop, but if one child or young person was introduced, the place would at once become a non-textile factory under all the stringent regulations of the Bill with reference to inspection, cleanliness, over-crowding, ventilation, &c. About half the workshops in London employed young persons and children, but a distinct inducement would be held out to employers by this clause to exclude them for the future.

Mr. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to place further restrictions on the employment of women; and, therefore, on that ground, if on no other, he must oppose it, for wherever he possibly could give relaxation to the regulations under which working women came he should do so. But the hon. Member (Mr. Holms) was in error as to the effect of the clause. Where women were working without children or protected persons in a workshop, they would not come under the 59th clause of the Bill, which only applied to domestic workshops or work at home. Where there were no protected persons there was no reason for inter- ference; but where women were employed in a workshop along with protected persons, of course, all the regulations must apply.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he had placed an almost similar Amendment on the Paper; but his object was exactly the opposite of that of his hon. Friend (Mr. Holms), as he had no desire to place new restrictions upon the labour of women. The effect of the Amendment now before the Committee would be to do away with the liberty given by the clause in workshops, and to compel women to work within a given limit of 12 hours—from 6 to 6, from 7 to 7, or from 8 to 8, whether working in a factory or workshop. Women themselves would strongly object to the restriction proposed by the hon. Member, and distinct evidence to that effect was given before the Commissioners. Women often liked to have an extra amount of leisure in the middle of the day, and frequently worked at piecework—being paid not by time but by the quantity of labour performed, in order to have more freedom in the matter of time. A married woman especially often found it convenient to go to work at one hour on one day and at another on another. Under these circumstances, he could not support the Amendment now before the Committee; but he had an Amendment of his own to propose in order to cure another restriction upon the labour of adult women which had been imposed by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, in the next clause but one, had done away with the adult woman's privilege of working at the hours she found most convenient if it happened that a young person was working with her, so that if a married women was employed with her daughter of 15, 16, or 17 years old, that employment of the daughter would subject the mother to restrictions to which she was not subject at present. He (the O'Conor Don) thought that Parliament ought not to go beyond the present restrictions, especially as the Pill before the Committee was in the main only a consolidating measure; and, therefore, when the clause to which he referred was arrived at, he should move an Amendment, the object of which would be to leave young persons and women working in workshops the same freedom they now possessed. In order to carry out this Amendment, it was necessary to omit all reference to young persons in the present clause, and to confine it exclusively to the regulations of non-textile factories. Experience had shown that no injurious result had arisen from the liberty which now existed in this respect, and as the Home Secretary had stated that he did not wish to place any new restriction on the labour of women, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to accept his Amendment.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

objected to the new distinction made by the Bill between factories and workshops; the definition which it was now proposed to give to a factory being a place where steam or other mechanical propelling power was used. It might or it might not be advisable to make the change proposed; but, at all events, this new distinction was a very important one, and the Committee ought to weigh well all the consequences which would flow from it before they finally adopted it. The distinction was not, perhaps, so very important as the Bill stood; but if the Amendment which the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) intended to move were accepted by the Government, that distinction would become very important indeed. A place where only human physical power was used would be a workshop, but the moment steam or other physical power was used it would become a factory. Such an arrangement seemed to place human physical power—the highest and most intelligent of all—at a disadvantage.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

Of course, I am only bound to treat the Bill as it stands. I am not bound to suggest anything else.

MR. KNOWLES

said, there were many trades that were not worked on the system pursued in workshops, but were almost domestic trades. The hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) would lay down no specific time at which persons should work. He contended that they would have no less work done by limiting the time, as it would conduce to greater regularity. There could be no doubt that this might be convenient for some people employed in certain trades that were not worked by steam-power or by water, but were worked just as convenient to the workers themselves. If this was the case, how wore Inspectors or school boards to know when they were at work? The clause as it now stood mot all the requirements of the Commissioners, and he should certainly vote for it in its present form.

MR. W. HOLMS

admitted that it was perfectly true that the object of the Amendment was to extend the restrictions to women; but if they could strike out women altogether he should be pleased. They had legislated for women as regarded textile factories; to be consistent, let them legislate for them as regarded both non-textile factories and workshops. It appeared to him rather a serious matter that they should say to an employer who employed a large number of women, that when their sewing-machines were driven by steam-power they should be placed under more severe restrictions than when worked by physical application. Therefore, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accept this Amendment.

THE O'CONOR DON

wished to say one word on what fell from the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) as to the comparative hardship that would devolve upon women where steam-power was employed. Let them consider what was the actual restriction involved in this clause. It was that the work should be carried on between certain fixed hours, either between 6 and 6, 7 and 7, or 8 and 8."Would the noble Lord maintain for a moment that whenever steam and mechanical power was employed, anyone could avoid working in that way? Any owner, where there was steam-power, must fix the hours at which his machinery was to be in motion. He could not have the work of two or three women in one part of the day, and two or three women in another. The owner of a mill with steam-power must have fixed hours. Therefore, he maintained it could be no hardship to put into their Bill what these hours were. But when they came to shops, whore no machinery was used, and where the hours depended on the will of the worker and not on the will of the employer, the case was wholly different, and he thought it but fair that the hours in such cases should be regulated on a more elastic principle.

MR. PAENELL

observed that the charge of inconsistency brought against the body of Members who sat near him early in the evening could be retorted with good effect. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) simply desired that women should not be compelled to work, and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary appeared to wish that women, when they could not be compelled to work, should not have the protection of this Bill. It was proposed that women employed in that metropolis might be compelled to work 15 hours a-day. ["No, no!"] The clause provided from 6 in the morning till 9 in the evening—that was 15 hours. In the definitions at the end of the Bill a workshop was defined as a place where no steam-power was employed. The consequence was that there might be work done now by a woman, such as making boots and shoes and driving a sewing-machine, where the period of employment might be 15 hours a-day. ["No, no!"] He knew there were hours for meals. For instance, if they took the working of the sewing-machine for making boots and shoes, that was undoubtedly very heavy work. Yet a woman might have to do that work, and not having the assistance of steam-power, would be deprived of the help the right hon. Gentleman gave to the women who had the benefit of steam. He, therefore, thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley was very important. The mere fact that four hours were given as meal hours in one day made very little difference.

MR. HIBBERT

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consent to the Amendment. It was objectionable, because it would place women in the position of young persons, and this had never been done up to the present time. He did not think it mattered what length of time women were allowed to be employed in these shops, because the women were adults, and were able to take care of themselves. Then, again, with respect to the distinction between a workshop and a factory, he thought there was very great distinction indeed between a place where steam-power was used and a place where steam-power was not used, and where persons might work just as they thought proper.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he was afraid he would have to take the same course as his hon. Friend, and withdraw his Amendment. He must point out that the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was under an entire misapprehension as to Sub-section 2, Clause 15, because that, instead of being a restriction, was exactly the opposite; but under it no woman or young person would be employed more than 10½ hours. It was true that the 10½ hours' work might be put in within a limit of 15 hours—that was to say, the workers or employers might select the exact hours of work within that limit; and that was the principle he sought by his Amendment for all adult women working in workshops, whether they worked with young persons or not. If he could get support, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice. ["Move, move!"]

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 34, to leave out the words "and of young persons in a workshop."—(The O'Conor Don.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. FAWCETT

remarked that they had gone through Bills of much less importance than this, and had spent nights over them, and he considered it essential that this clause should be discussed. He hoped the hon. Member would give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion; because if they went on the principle that they were not to divide because they would not be able to carry their proposition, then they would not have to divide till Christmas. He was in 120 divisions last year, and so far as he knew he was seldom in a majority. This Amendment seemed to him to be a very important one. This Bill was going to extend its restrictions far and wide; because, as he understood it, if a woman employed two children even in her own house, that would be a workshop. There would be some hundreds and thousands of these workshops in this metropolis, and it was idle to say that all these small rooms could be conducted in strict accordance with rule. What was required was to give greater elasticity to the clause. The Amendment did not say that women should have more work or less; but what it did say was, that if they worked 10 hours, they should be allowed greater consideration as to the time they should work those hours. When they considered how multitudinous were the other labours which women might have to do, to look after her children, to interrupt her work to cook the dinner, or something of that kind, it was certainly desirable that they should give to persons coming under these Acts the greatest facility or liberty as to the period of the day they should be allowed to work.

MR. MUNDELLA

must say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). The Committee could hardly realize from the speech made by the hon. Member that he was more responsible for this Bill than anyone else. In 1867 he was most anxious for every point in this Bill. He was a Member of the Committee in 1867 on the Workshops Act. There was not then the slightest intimation that this clause was an invasion of the domestic liberties of Englishmen, and the clause was not noticed in any way except in the way of recommendation. Now, there had been an amount of domestic labour taken out which was put in by his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett). In the discussions in 1867 the hon. Member was in favour of restrictions, and he must say it was too bad of him to appear in the form he did now, when he had over and over again thanked the Government in 1867 for having passed that Act. The Home Secretary must now stand by his Bill or fall by it. If he once let a single brick out of the walls, down would come the whole.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

I have not the slightest intention of taking out a brick.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 42: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 25.)

MR. W. HOLMS

moved, in page 6, to leave out from "excepted," inline 37, to "in," line 40, and insert— be a period not exceeding twelve hours, inclusive of meals hours, between six o'clock in the morning and eight o'clock. Under the clause, as it now stood, the employer might name a period of employment commencing at 6 in the morning and ending at 6 in the evening, or one commencing at 7 in the morning and ending at 7 in the evening. According to his proposal, the employer might fix any consecutive 12 hours, in- eluding meal hours, between 6 in the morning and 8 in the evening. His reason for making the proposal was, that he found that, under the 3rd schedule of the Bill, a large number of trades were allowed to work from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock in the evening; and that, according to figures published in the Report of the Royal Commission on Factories, nearly half of all the persons employed in non-textile factories and workshops were embraced in this schedule. He thought it would give greater elasticity to the system of employment in these places if they allowed the hours of working to be from 6 to 6, from 7 to 7, or from 8 to 8. What he proposed was that the employer should be allowed to fix any period, not exceeding 12 hours, he liked, between 6 in the morning and 8 in the evening, but he must strictly define the period he adopted.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he hoped the Committee would let the clause stand as it was, as it was well adapted to meet all requirements. In his opinion, the Commission had come to a wise resolution on the subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he was anxious to propose a small Amendment of which he had not given Notice. He thought it would be a great convenience, in many instances, if employés were allowed to work from half-past 6 to half-past 6, or from half-past 7 to half-past 7, taking in the half-hour, and he found that the Commissioners had made such a recommendation. Some of his own constituents were of that opinion, and had represented to him the great inconvenience of their being compelled to begin half-an-hour sooner or half-an-hour later than they otherwise did.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he should not like to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment without further consideration. He understood that there was practically no inconvenience in the arrangement which the clause provided. In most cases the day was taken to begin at 6, the first half-hour being allowed for breakfast, and the employed going back to work at half-past 6. That was done at many factories, as he understood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TENNANT,

who had on the Paper an Amendment for substituting four-and-a-half hours for five hours, as the limit of duration of continuous labour without a break of half-an-hour for meals, said, it was not his intention to press it, as he meant to meet his object by proposing to give the Home Secretary some discretionary power in the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Period of employment for children either in morning or afternoon sets, or on alternate days, and length of continuous employment in non-textile factory and workshop).

MR. TENNANT

moved, in page 7, sub-section 3, line 25, to leave out "one o'clock," and insert "half-past twelve." He thought it would be a better arrangement, and he did not anticipate for his proposal any objection in any quarter.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he understood that in some cases on Saturdays, though the persons employed had their dinner hours at 12, they came back to work at a quarter before 1. He did not see any particular objection to the Amendment; but he would suggest to the hon. Member that the Amendment should run "or at any hour later than half-past 12."

MR. TENNANT

said, he had no objection to the alteration.

Amendment, so amended, agreed to.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

said, he wished to move an Amendment in sub-section 4, with regard to children working alternately morning and evening. Such an arrangement, he believed, would work most inconveniently, and he had received some strong representations on the subject from the Trades Council of Leicester. He was informed that at Leicester, not only the regular workers would be affected by the arrangement, but the errand-boys, and young people going out with goods. He moved to omit the sub-section.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

The clause does not affect them at all.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

If the right hon. Gentleman says so, that is enough; but it is thought otherwise at Leicester, and the persons he referred to were persons working in factories.

MR. C. CAMPBELL

said, he had to apologize to the House for not having an Amendment ready on this matter, which he had intended submitting, but he would bring it up on the Report. He wished to support the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor). He entirely agreed with him in what he said, so far as regarded boys working alternately in morning and afternoon turns. What he should propose was, that the children employed in the morning one week, should in the next be employed in the afternoon, and vice versâ.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

pointed out that that was not the object of the hon. Member for Leicester, and if this subsection were struck out, the effect would be injurious to the education of the children. The object was to make school work succeed factory work in a manner favourable to education. The hon. Member for Leicester was, how-over, in error, in supposing that this provision would apply to errand-boys, and the Royal Commission recommended that they should not be touched.

MR. P. A. TAYLOR

I am told it will touch the winders, and those who take out the work.

MR. A. MARTHUR

observed that he, also, had received some strong representations from Leicester on this subject, and he was informed that the Bill would be very injurious to a large number of workers.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 15 (Period of employment, time for meals, and length of continuous employment for women in workshop).

THE O'CONOR DON

said, it was not his intention to move the first of the Amendments of which he had given Notice, with the object of extending to young persons the regulations for the employment of women in workshops, as it was a consequential Amendment upon that which the Committee had just negatived. But he now rose to move an Amendment that would cast out of the clause a sub-section that imposed a considerable and new restriction on the employment of women. His proposal was that the hours of work should not be tied up within the short limit of the 12 hours provided for in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to subject adult women to a new re- striction, by providing that in workshops in which both women and young persons were employed, the former should only be employed in the same period, and subject to the same restrictions, as if they were young persons. Employment would thus be restricted to the 12 hours, from 6 to 6, or from 7 to 7. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), in his evidence before the Royal Commission, said it would be impossible to interfere in this manner with the habits of the people and the trade of the country, and he went on to state that he did not propose to compress the period of a day's labour between stated hours. He thought he might, therefore, claim the support of his hon. Friend for his Amendment to strike out of the clause the sub-section which restricted the labour of adult women in workshops, when working with young persons. It was very important to consider what would be the effect of the clause, coupled with the other provisions in the Bill. If they placed further restrictions on the labour of adult women, and at the same time removed them from work done at home, the necessary result would be that they would drive work out of places which, as a rule, were well ventilated, to the homes of the workers themselves, where it would be carried on under the most disadvantageous circumstances. He thought, therefore, in view of every consideration which the right hon. Gentleman had before him in this Bill, it was most important that the Committee should consider whether it was wise, merely because young persons happened to be employed in these workshops, to place this restriction on the employment of adult female labour. Such persons mostly had domestic duties to attend to which deserved consideration, and he asked the Committee to reflect whether they were justified in making such a recommendation merely on the ground that they must have similarity. He begged, therefore, to propose the second of the Amendments which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 16, after the word "observed" to leave out to the word "persons" in line 26, inclusive.—(The O'Conor Don.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the Amendments which he proposed would not have the effect which the hon. Gentleman attached to them.

THE O'CONOR DON

wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill as it stood gave very great relaxation for work which was carried on by people in their homes. Similar relaxation was not made with regard to work carried on in workshops. It would, in his opinion, be a dangerous plan to pursue, to put further restrictions on the workshops, whilst relaxing them on work done at home, a relaxation which, he believed, was necessary.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 190; Noes 56: Majority 134.—(Div. List, No. 26.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Period of employment and time for meals for children, young persons, and women in domestic workshops).

THE O'CONOR DON

said, he had given Notice of an Amendment, the effect of which would be to take homes altogether out of the category of workshops. Since he gave Notice of the Amendment, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had placed on the Paper what went a great way towards meeting the object he had in view; but still he thought it was just as well that the Committee should have an opportunity of discussing the whole question upon this clause. Under the law as it at present stood, an Inspector might go into the home of any working man, bringing with him a policeman and a doctor, and might put questions as to the persons who were inhabiting that room, and. as to what they were doing. This law had never been carried into effect, because it would never be submitted to, and if an attempt were made to enforce it, it would cause a revolution. The Home Secretary proposed that the fact of work being carried on for the purpose of gain, in a private house or room where the family dwelt, should not in itself constitute such house or room a workshop within the meaning of the Bill, provided that the work was done at irregular intervals, and that it did not furnish the whole or the principal means of the living of the family. He thought this proposal would open almost as wide a door to work being done in the homes, as if the Amendment which he had put on the Paper were adopted. At all events, the principle involved in the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was very much the same. If the right hon. Gentleman had any preference for his own Amendment, he should not object to it; but he thought it right to give the Committee an opportunity of now discussing the matter, and therefore he moved the following Amendment in page 8, line 41, at commencement of clause, to insert— Save as hereinafter provided in regard to the education of children, the regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the powers of Inspectors, shall not apply.

MR. W. HOLMS

viewed with very great suspicion the passing of such a clause. The adoption of the proposal of the Home Secretary, while qualifying the clause, would not remove the difficulty. How, for instance, would it be possible to ascertain whether the work done at home furnished the whole or principal means of the living of the family? Other exemptions ought to be made besides those proposed by the Home Secretary. There were houses in the West End of London where ladies did work, of a decorative character, for first-class upholsterers. Were the Inspectors to enter such houses, and if not, where were they to draw the line? He thought it was dangerous to put in the Statute Book laws which could not be carried into effect.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, it appeared to him that the Amendments of the Homo Secretary showed that the right hon. Gentleman himself felt strongly pressed, either by the present state of the law, or by the state of the law as it would be created by this Bill. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman sought to obviate the strength of the objections which he himself felt in regard to this kind of legislation, and he did this by means of the qualifications embodied in the Amendments which he had placed on the Paper. The proposals of the right hon. Gentleman were various. They seemed rather obvious specimens of what the law was or should be, and they would have been still more so, but for the fact that this Bill and some parts of the Act of Parliament rendered them necessary. He would take the last of the amending proposals as a specimen. It provided that the exercise, in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour for the purposes of gain, should not constitute such house or room a workshop within the meaning of the Bill. That "went without saying," because it could not enter into the mind of any man, that such a house or home was a workshop, under any system of legislation applying to this country, where we had been accustomed to have the management of our own houses and our own business. Yet the subsequent words of the amending clause made this plain right depend upon whether the labour was at irregular intervals, or was wholly the subsistence of the family. How could an Inspector learn this, except by entering any house he pleased, which was most objectionable?

MR. MUNDELLA

pointed out that the question raised by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had long ago been investigated and disposed of. It was found that frequently children were driven out of workrooms and sent into private houses, in order to evade the regulations of the Act. Further, there was no case within his knowledge of a complaint on the part of an individual that his domestic privacy had been invaded. Altogether, the effect of the Home Secretary's measure was exaggerated. It was forgotten that his Bill was simply a consolidation of previous Acts. They were dealing with an old form of legislation, and not with a new one, as the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) seemed to think.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that the whole question raised by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had come before the Royal Commission, and had been carefully considered by them. They concluded that it was unquestionably necessary that some restriction should be placed on the employment of persons in private dwelling-houses. Nobody who read their Reports could fail to agree with them in this conclusion. The question for the Committee now was, whether any mischief had been found to result from the working of previous Acts. The Commissioners had inquired very carefully into the matter, and there had been a com- plete absence of any complaint as to the manner in which the Inspectors performed the duties entrusted to them. What would happen if the clauses now objected to were omitted? There would be the strongest temptation to transfer children from workshops to these private dwelling-places; and so an Act which was intended to consolidate previous Acts on the same subject, would have the effect of perpetuating the evils it purposed to prevent. He fully admitted the delicacy of the whole matter; and he would listen attentively at the proper time to whatever changes of a reasonable character hon. Members might wish to make.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

would ask those hon. Members who objected to the clause to reflect that the interference with private dwelling-houses would not have been sanctioned in the Act of 1867 if the gravest necessity for such interference had not been demonstrated. There was naturally the greatest repugnance to this form of legislation; but the Commissioners, composed of very efficient men, who had considered the question for years, had reported in its favour, and it was hard to resist the weight of such high authority.

THE O'CONOR DON

felt strongly the force of the arguments that had been advanced in defence of the clause. He was conscious of the evils that might exist in these dwelling-houses, especially in the tailoring trade. He was ready to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE O'CONOR DON

moved, in page 9, line 1, after "used" to insert "in aid of the manufacturing process carried on there."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

agreed to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FAWCETT

moved to leave the words "women and children" out of the clause. He said, he had been reproached with having changed his mind on this question. But he recollected much more startling changes in the minds of hon. Members opposite. He remembered the proposal to establish household suffrage being denounced by the Conservative Party. ["Question, question!"] That was the question, because they had cheered him when he said he had changed his mind. Household suffrage, which the Conservative Party had denounced, was carried within a year by the head of a Conservative Government. Therefore this taunt against him of having changed his mind was rather strange. With regard to the proposal in the clause, it seemed to be considered an absolutely conclusive argument in its favour that it had been proposed in the Act of 1867. But it was ridiculous to argue that they must accept in 1878 everything that had been done in 1867. What was the question raised by that clause? This clause said that in every house in England, whether it were the home of a rich or a poor person, where a woman carried on manual labour for the sake of money, labour could only be pursued under certain strict conditions, and could not, however severe the woman's necessities, be continued after 9 o'clock in the evening. It went farther. It gave the right to Government Inspectors, medical officers, and police, to enter every home, so as to see whether, in a humble garret or a drawing-room, any woman was working after 9 o'clock. The Home Secretary was said to contemplate the introduction of arrangements which would relax the severity of this clause. He was said to intend giving women the precious privilege of coming to him as suppliant mendicants to beg that they might be allowed to toil without these restrictions. The clause would establish an intricate system of Government interference with the whole domestic and internal life of England. They were asked to sanction a principle which it was absolutely impossible to carry out, and nothing could be more mischievous in legislation than to carry measures which could not be brought into practice. Could all the Home Secretaries that ever existed, and all the Government Inspectors in the world, put down the work done in the dwelling-houses—say, for example, among his constituents in the East End of London? How could they hope to establish a body of Inspectors bearing any proportion in their numbers to the work to be done? Sixty or eighty thousand children employed in agriculture required a larger number of Inspectors than Government could supply. What, then, would be the number of In- spectors wanted to see that in no house in court or alley, or even in country village, a woman was working more than nine hours? They would not, besides, be able to confine the operation of this Act to the homes of the poor. It was an undisputed fact that there were many persons in their own position in life—as, for instance, when a father had died, leaving behind a wife and children in a respectable position in society—in which women had to supplement the income of the family. They had to work in various ways—by painting porcelain, and the like—to make an addition to their means, in order that they might make a respectable appearance, or that the younger children might be educated. Under this clause, an Inspector, a medical officer, or a policeman, would have a right to come and knock at the door of such a lady and a daughter, and say—"You are working after 9 o'clock in the evening; you are contravening this Act; we will compel you to incriminate yourself"—for that could be done under the Act—"and we will inflict a fine upon you." It was argued that a workshop might be converted into a dwelling-house. That was an evil; but how small an evil in comparison with that of passing a law which could thus interfere with the right of a woman to work for her own livelihood in her own home.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, a fallacy which underlay the whole of the hon. Member's argument completely destroyed its force. The clause did not apply to a woman who was working for herself; such a woman was entirely free; she was not employed; she employed herself. The clause applied solely to those who employed others.

MR. FAWCETT

asked what would be the effect if the woman worked for her husband?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

replied, that, according to the best authorities, a woman could not be considered as an employé in that case.

MR. HIBBERT

suggested that the difficulty raised by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), and the counter-objection put forward by the Home Secretary, would be met if the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) would so amend his Amendment that children should be under inspection, and women in the position described by the hon. Member for Hackney should be ex- eluded. All women, however, should not be excepted, for then they would not have provided for the ease in which women were employed by women.

MR. PARNELL

asked if the Act applied to Ireland?

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

thought the hon. Member for Hackney had made out a case that required the consideration of the Home Secretary.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, the clause only affected the case where they were all the members of the same family. He had already stated that the mother of a family would not come under it. The only people that would be affected would be those members of a family who were above 18. It did not apply to younger persons.

MR. PAENELL

thought it would be monstrous to extend the application of this clause to Ireland. It really gave to the police exactly the same powers that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) had succeeded in eliminating from the Coercion Act for Ireland. The clause might suit England, whose cities were teeming with industry; but it would be utterly unsuitable for Ireland.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

pointed out that a similar Act had existed in Ireland since 1867, and not a single instance had ever occurred of its being abused. With regard to the objection raised against the power given to a policeman, he had introduced words in a subsequent clause which would allow the Inspector to take a constable only in such cases as he had cause to expect resistance in the discharge of his duty.

MR. BIGGAR

believed that the Act would be both useless and mischievous in Ireland. The effect of it would be that a person here and there would be summoned by the police, at a great deal of personal annoyance, but that the great mass of people would be left completely uncontrolled.

MR. PARNELL

assured the House that in Ireland the clause was practically a dead letter. He had been asked if he could mention a single instance in which the privacy of a family had been intruded upon by Inspectors. No, he could not, for the reason that if an officer were to attempt to make his way into an Irishman's house on such an inquisitorial mission, he would meet with considerable obstruction—and very justly so.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. PARNELL

moved to omit the clause.

Motion negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.