§ (1.) Special Provisions for Health in certain Factories and Workshops.
§ Clause 33 (Limewashing and washing of the interior of factories and workshops) agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Limewashing, painting, and washing of the interior of bakehouses) agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Provision as to sleeping places near bakehouses) agreed to.
§ Clause 36 (Provision as to ventilation by fan in factories and workshops) agreed to.
§ Clause 37 (Protection of workers in wet spinning).
§ MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 18, line 9, after "tow," to insert "or other fibrous material."
§ MR. RITCHIEthought it would be better to leave out "flax, hemp, jute, and tow," and leave the words "wet spinning" to cover the whole. He proposed to move an Amendment in accordance with that view.
The CHAIRMANsaid, it could not be done unless the hon. Member's (Mr. Tennant's) Amendment were withdrawn.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas hardly prepared to say that it would be safe to leave the words "wet spinning" by themselves, and thought the term itself rather vague.
§ MR. RITCHIEconsidered that the term was sufficiently inclusive, as it would apply to any spinning done under a wet process.
MR. GORSThoped the clause would be allowed to stand in its original form, because if "wet spinning" stood alone, the justices, who had to administer the Act, might experience some difficulty in construing its exact meaning.
§ SIR HENRY JACKSONagreed that the words proposed ought to remain; a long list of particular things followed by general words were a fertile source of difficulty among lawyers.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) would withdraw his Amendment, he would take legal advice as to whether "wet spinning" would cover all that was necessary, and if it were found that they would not meet the case, then he would consider what other words would best apply.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BRISTOWEhoped that special attention would be given to the clause, because it was so worded at present that it was most difficult to understand. What, for instance, was meant by the words "and where hot water is used, for preventing the escape of steam into the room occupied by the workers?"
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause had been in operation since the year 1844, and there had not been the slightest difficulty experienced in construing it.
§ MR. A. M'ARTHURsuggested that the escape of steam should be prevented "as far as practicable."
§ MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of the words "and where hot water is used, for preventing the escape of steam into the room occupied by the workers." He failed to see how, if hot water were in a room, it would be possible in all cases to prevent steam es- 332 caping into the open air. Perhaps the clause had been framed at a time when the properties of steam were not well understood. How could the escape of steam in a laundry be prevented?
MR. GORSTthought the clause did not apply to laundries at all, but to a very limited class of factories.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 38 (Prohibition of employment of children and young persons in certain factories or workshops).
§ MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 18, at end, to add—
Where it appears to a Secretary of State that by reason of the nature of the process in any class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof, not named in the said Schedule, the work carried on therein is specially injurious to health, he may, if he think fit, by order made under this part of this Act, extend the prohibition in this section to the said class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof. If the prohibition in this section is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State to be no longer necessary for the protection of the health of children, young persons, or women, in any class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof, to which the prohibition has been extended by an order, he may, by an order made under this part of this Act, rescind the order of extension, without prejudice, nevertheless to the subsequent making of another order.There were many trades not mentioned in the Schedule, which were injurious to the health of children and young persons—such for example, as were connected with grinding, certain operations in the manufacture of pottery, earthenware, or in bleaching works; and injurious trades might spring up at any time which could be dealt with so far as the employment of children, young persons, and women, was concerned, if a discretionary power were placed in the hands of the Home Secretary.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was a great deal to be urged in favour of this provision, because with increasing knowledge new manufactures must develop, some of which might require supervision. Therefore, he had nothing to say if the Committee imposed this duty on the Home Secretary. He had not inserted such a provision in the Bill, 333 because he had thought the wisest course would be, that when any dangerous trade sprung up, Parliament should be consulted on the propriety of its being brought under legislation.
§ MR. FIELDENsaid, the Amendment would give very large powers to the Home Secretary, and any new restrictions should be submitted for the approval of Parliament in the usual way. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. ORE EWINGthought that such changes as those proposed ought to be effected by means of legislation when necessary.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKconsidered that the Home Secretary had taken a wise course in saying that he had secured as much power in the Bill as he considered necessary.
§ MR. TENNANTsaid, he could produce ample evidence from the Reports of Inspectors that restrictions on other trades than those mentioned in the Schedules were necessary, and that a power of prohibition should be given to the Secretary of State. He would withdraw the Amendment, and include certain trades in the Schedule when it came under discussion.
§ MR. PARNELLcould not help feeling aghast at the attempt made by the Home Secretary to provide for everything, and believed it would have been much better if some power had been given to the local authorities to deal with many questions included in the Bill.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 39 (Prohibition of taking meals in certain parts of factories and workshops).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 18, to leave out from commencement of clause to "not," inclusive, and insert "no person shall be." The language of the clause and the 2nd Schedule taken together appeared to appoint to especial and particular dangers in the trades specified. In some places where they were carried on, the air would, during meal-times, probably be full of dust or gritty particles, and as the trades specified were so few in number, it would be well to extend the provisions of the clause to all persons working at the dangerous branches of those occupations.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his objection to this Amendment was the same as he had taken to others; that Parliament did not legislate for men. With regard to the special occupations mentioned in the 2nd Schedule, they had not been picked out by him nor selected by mere caprice, but were trades upon which legislation had already taken place. Those trades had been the subject of minute inquiry by a Royal Commission, upon whose recommendations several Acts had been founded and passed.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 40 (In print works, and bleaching and dyeing works, period of employment and time allowed for meals).
§ MR. J. K. CROSSasked why the hours were reduced in these particular works to the same hours as in textile factories, when they were not reduced in many other industries more detrimental to the health of the workers? It was shown before the Royal Commission that in dye and print works the number of protected persons was only 32½ per cent, while in cotton factories it was over 70 per cent. Many trades much more detrimental to health than dyeing and bleaching were passed over altogether. In percussion cap - making, book-binding, paper-making, and staining, more young persons were employed than in the trades referred to in the
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had simply adhered to the recommendation of the Royal Commission. The actual Report upon this very subject occupied four pages, and contained everything he could say of the evil effects of longer hours. The conclusion the Commissioners came to was, that the hours might be reduced without serious inconvenience to the employers. He did not think he would be justified in reading the Report unless the Committee wished it, and he would only say that the reasons which were there so fully stated he had adopted as his own.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 41 (Power to require certificates of fitness for employment of children and young persons under 16 in certain workshops) agreed to.
335§ (3.) Special Exceptions relating to General Law in certain Factories and Workshops.
§ Clause 42 (Period of employment between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. in certain cases) agreed to.
§ Clause 43 (Power to Secretary of State to allow period of employment between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. in certain cases) agreed to.
§ Clause 44 (Power of working male young persons above 16 in lace factories) agreed to.
§ Clause 45 (Power of working male young persons above 16 in bakehouses) agreed to.
§ Clause 46 (Substitution by Secretary of State of another half holiday for Saturday) agreed to.
§ Clause 47 (Employment in Turkey red dyeing on Saturday up to 4 30 p. m.).
§ MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 22, line 33, after "afternoon," to insert—
But the additional number of hours so worked shall be computed as a part of the week's limit of work, which shall in no case be exceeded.
§ MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that Commissioners bad twice been appointed to inquire into the question of the number of hours worked in Turkey-red dyeing. The Commission of 1854 reported in 1855, that no legislation was necessary; and the Commission of 1866, which reported in 1869, concurred in that opinion.
§ MR. E. JENKINSasked why the trade of Turkey-red dyeing was to have a special advantage over every other?
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that this trade had been examined into several times, and it had not been found that any mischief resulted from the manner in which it was conducted. With regard to the particular exception which stood in this clause, the Royal Commission of last year reported that they had found it necessary to again inquire into the question of the Saturday half-holiday in the case of the Turkey-red dyeing trade which had, by a series of modifications, been placed to a great extent outside the restrictions imposed by the law upon other trades. It had been represented to them that the trade was 336 altogether a peculiar one; there were no less than 24 processes, each occupying at least a day, through which it was necessary to pass the material; and it was urged that to give a half-holiday on Saturday would cause serious interference with the work, although it was found that practically it was finished between 2 and 3 on Saturday afternoon. The hon. Member would therefore see that the process of Turkey-red dyeing was very peculiar, requiring a certain number of hours each day, and involving the necessity of going on from day to day. Seeing that the Commissioners had not recommended a change, he (Mr. Cross) certainly could not sanction any without further inquiry.
§ MR. TENNANTdid not mean by the Amendment to interfere with the process at all. If it could be carried through by half-past 4, there was no reason why the week's limit should be exceeded. He would certainly divide the Committee unless some arrangement were come to that that should not be done.
§ MR. ORR EWINGsaid, the trade did not work more than 60 hours in any one week. On Saturdays they very seldom worked after 3, or half-past 2. He was sure they worked less hours per week than other trades.
§ MR. MONKsaid, what it was desired to affirm was that women and young children should not be forced to work more than a certain number of hours a-week. Asit seemed necessary that there should not be a limit to 2 o'clock on Saturdays, but that they should be allowed to work till half-past 4, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ MR. FIELDENthought that under no circumstances ought the statutory number of hours per week to be exceeded.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsuggested that all difficulty would be obviated if words were inserted in the clause providing that 60 hours a-week should not be exceeded.
§ MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that there was a general feeling in Scotland that those engaged in this trade should not be permitted to work more hours than those employed in other trades.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSintimated his willingness to accept the Amendment if the words "be exceeded" were substituted by the words "exceed 60 hours."
§ MR. MUNDELLApointed out that 60 hours were more than the bleachers and dyers had to work.
§ MR. ORR EWINGwould assent to the shortening of the hours not to exceed 60 in the week, so as to allow the work to be continued till half-past 4 on Saturday if necessary.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought the Committee were of one mind. They did not object to allowing till half-past 4 on Saturday, but they did not see any reason for giving more hours per week.
§ MR. KNOWLESpointed out that the Commissioners who had gone over these works had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to give till half-past 4 on Saturday.
§ SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, the Turkey-red dyeing trade was brought from Switzerland, and if too many restrictions were placed upon it, it would be impossible to carry it on in this country.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they were not discussing the Saturday question at all. The only question between the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) and the Committee was whether the number of hours per week should be 60 or 56½.
§ MR. KNOWLESobserved that the other dyers and bleachers throughout the Kingdom said they did not work more than other textile trades; but they required 60 hours a-week. The question was whether the Committee would allow Turkey-red dyers 60 hours, and other dyers only 56½ hours per week.
§ SIR ANDERW LUSKdid not think the hon. Member for Dumbarton had been accorded fair play in this discussion. The Royal Commssion were of opinion that these works required the extra time, and therefore he (Sir Andrew Lusk) considered they ought to have it.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked whether they were to give a draw-back of 3½ hours a-week in favour of those who chose to consume Turkey-red dyes, as compared with those who consumed fabrics dyed any other colour?
§ MR. ORR EWINGunderstood the Home Secretary to say he would accept the Amendment if there were an addition to it, stating that the time during the week should in no case exceed 60 hours.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSShad made the suggestion that that limit should be inserted in the Amendment; but it had not been accepted on either side of the House, and therefore he had regarded it as withdrawn.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsuggested that the Amendment should state that the number of hours should not exceed 56½ per week. He thought they were all agreed upon that point.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, they did not use much dye in Ireland. Irish ladies, for instance, were perfectly satisfied with natural colours. As far as he understood it, if they left the clause as it was, it would give the Turkey-red dyers 60 hours a-week. What the Committee wanted to do was to give them till half-past 4 on Saturday, and at the same time only to give them 56½ hours per week.
§ MR. MUNDELLAmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "be exceeded," and inserting the words "exceed 56½ hours per week."
§ MR. TENNANTsaid, the Amendment was unnecessary, as all dye works were included under the Textile Fabrics Act.
§ MR. MUNDELLAwould withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary would assure him that these works came under that Act.
§ Amendment (Mr. Mundella) agreed to.
§ Amendment [Mr. Tennant), as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 48 (Giving half holidays and holidays on different days to different sets of children, young persons, and women) agreed to.
§ Clause 49 (Employment of young persons and women by Jewish occupiers of factories or workshops).
§ MR. BIRLEYmoved, in page 23, after line 17, to add the following subsection:—
(3.) From specifying in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop, as hereinbefore provided any two public holidays under 'The Holidays Extension Act, 1875,' in lieu of Christmas Day and Good Friday: Provided always, That such factory or workshop shall not be open for traffic on Christmas Day or Good Friday, and 339 that this exception shall apply only to factories or workshops in which the young persons and women employed are of the Jewish religion.It would not be necessary, he observed, for him to explain the Amendment at any length, because, under Clause 22 of the Bill, there was an analogous provision.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 50 (Employment of Jews by Jews on Sunday).
§ MR. BIRLEYmoved, in page 23, line 31, after "Sunday," to insert—
or, at his option, as if Friday were Saturday, Saturday were Sunday, and Sunday were Monday. The days so substituted shall be specified in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop.The Jewish Sabbath began at sunset on Friday, and it was of great importance, therefore, to a Jewish employer, who had only Jewish workpeople, that he should be allowed to give them what was equivalent to our Saturday half-holiday.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as far as the principle was concerned, he saw no objection whatever to the Amendment; but although he believed that Jewish employers would strictly carry out the meaning and intention of his hon. Friend, he did not like the words which it was proposed to add.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEthought it might be desirable to introduce some words for the prevention of proselytism of the kind indicated when the Universities Bill was under discussion, and when it was suggested that the concession of privileges to Dissenters, in regard to attendance at the College Chapels, might cause many young Churchmen to profess themselves Dissenters. He did not see anything in this clause to prevent young persons who were not Jews declaring from themselves to be of the Jewish persuasion.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that this was not new legislation. The matter was first dealt with, he believed, by the Act of 31 & 31 Vict. c. 103, 10 or 11 years ago.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
340§ (b.) Meal Hows.
§ Clause 51 (Exception as to meal times being simultaneous, and as to employment or remaining in rooms where manufacturing process is carried on during meal times) agreed to.
§ (c.) Overtime.
§ Clause 52 (Power to employ young persons and women for 14 hours a day).
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in order to meet the case of women in London who objected to leave their homes before 9 o'clock in the morning, moved, in page 24, line 19, after "evening," to insert—"or beginning at nine o'clock in the morning, and ending at ten o'clock in the evening."
§ MR. WHITWELLregretted to find that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to add another exemption to those already granted. He could not support the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 53 (Power to employ for half an hour after end of work, where process is in an incomplete state) agreed to.
§ Clause 54 (Employment of young persons and women in Turkey-red dyeing, and open-air bleaching, to prevent damage).
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, this clause affected, to a certain extent, the decision at which the Committee had already arrived. It provided that if it became necessary by any damage likely to arise from spontaneous combustion in the process of Turkey-red dyeing, young persons and women might be employed as long as was necessary in order to prevent such spontaneous combustion.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this was merely an extract from 33 & 34 Vict. c. 62. Turkey-red was extremely liable to spontaneous combustion, and for that reason, when the subject was carefully investigated in 1870, this provision was introduced into the Act of Parliament. As, however, the hon. Member had called attention to the point, he would see how far this clause was connected with the decision which the Committee had already come to.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwas of opinion that this stood on an entirely 341 different basis from the provision they had already considered, and hoped the restriction which he had supported would not be applied to this clause.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 55 (Employment of women for 14 hours a day to preserve perishable articles) agreed to.
§ (d.) Night Work.
§ Clause 56 (Employment of male young persons at night) agreed to.
§ Clause 57 (Employment in certain letterpress printing works of male young persons over 16 at night) agreed to.
§ Clause 58 (Employment of male young persons at night, &c. in glass works) agreed to.
§ (4.) Special Exception for Domestic Factories and Workshops, and certain other Workshops.
§ Clause 59 (Exception of domestic and certain other factories and workshops from provisions of the Act) agreed to.
§ (5.) Supplemental as to Special Provisions.
§ Clause 60 (Requirement of sanitary provisions as condition of special exceptions).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 28, line 41, after "cleanliness," insert "warning." An hon. Gentleman opposite had said that workmen objected to ventilation, and sometimes stopped up the ventilators with their caps. He had heard of the same kind of thing being done in prisons. This proved, however, not that there was too much ventilation, but rather that there was too little warmth; and, he thought, a provision was necessary in order to add to the warmth of factories and workshops in such cases.
§ MR. TENNANTthought it would be practically impossible to carry out the proposal embodied in the Amendment.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsuggested that if the word "temperature" were used instead of "warmth," the whole case would be met.
§ MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if this question were to be discussed at all, it ought to be discussed on another part of the Bill, because the Committee were now only applying what the former portion of the Bill contained. He should 342 have thought that in factories and workshops cooling was much more necessary than warming. He did not think the State could undertake to regulate the temperature in which persons were to work.
§ MR. PARNELLhad always understood that ventilation answered the purpose of cooling to a very great extent. As far as cooling could take place, it would be effected by ventilation. Hon. Members often had experience of this in the House of Commons. Last Session, during the late Sittings, on several very hot nights, due means were taken to ventilate the House, and of course to cool it at the same time. But, although a room might be cooled by ventilation, it could not be warmed by ventilation. He intended again to call attention to this matter on the Report, and he would now ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 61 (Power to rescind order granting or extending exceptions) agreed to.
§ Clause 62 (Provisions as to order of Secretary of State under Part Two of Act) agreed to.
§ Clause 63 (Provisions as to occupier availing himself of special exceptions and registry of work under them) agreed to.