§ [Progress (New Clause) 28th February.]
§ Bill considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
§ New Clause—
§
(Exceptions for certain descriptions of flax scutch mills from certain provisions of Act.)"
The regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the provisions of this Act which are declared not to apply to a workshop which is conducted on the system of not employing children or young persons therein, shall not apply to flax scutch mills which are conducted on the system of not employing children therein, and which are worked intermittently and for periods only which do not exceed in the whole six months in any year."—(Mr. Mulholland.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not think that the hon. Member who had brought forward this clause, with the view of having it read a second time, would succeed in inducing the Committee to allow flax scutch mills to escape from the operation of the provisions of the Bill. It would, however, be necessary, as a matter of form, to allow the clause to be read a second time, in order that any Amendments it might be deemed necessary to make in its terms should be brought forward and discussed; but if the Committee preferred an alternative course, it would be competent for it to reject the clause as it stood.
§ DR. WARDasked whether the change suggested by the clause did not apply to women in the same way as to children? [Mr. ASSHETON GROSS: No.] It was unfortunate, because in this description of work large numbers of women were employed, and he certainly thought that it was not an occupation the nature of which, as applied to women, ought to escape the operation of the general provisions of the Bill. If that part of the clause to which he objected were not withdrawn, he should oppose the clause.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSIf the hon. Member who has just spoken will allow 590 the clause to be read a second time, he can move to alter the portion to which he objects. He is quite in Order in taking this objection.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the provisions of the Bill applied to three classes of persons—children, young persons, and women, and the clause as it stood proposed only to retain children under the protection of the Bill in the cases indicated. On the other hand, it was objected that children, women, and young persons should be removed from the protection intended to be given by the Bill. ["No!"] Well, it was objected that women and young persons should be removed from that protection. Now was the time to discuss the question whether the clause should be read a second time, in order that any alteration might be made in it. He understood that the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland) consented to strike out the exemption of young persons, and if the clause were road a second time, it would be upon this understanding.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, as he understood, also, that the hon. Member for Downpatrick assented to the withdrawal of the proposal to exempt young persons, the effect of the clause, so altered, would be only to exempt women from the operation of the Bill in the cases specified.
§ MR. PARNELLdid not see the necessity of reading the clause a second time if they were successful in their efforts to exempt women from the operation of the Bill. The work done in scutching mills was of a most dangerous and unhealthy character, the process filling the air with a number of minute particles, which got into the lungs of those who were employed in the mills, and was attended with injurious effects. The nature of the work caused women to become consumptive. He hoped the Home Secretary would consent to include women employed in these mills in the regulations made by the measure before the Committee; because, if it were necessary to protect them in other employments, so was it in this instance. The Home Secretary had introduced many provisions for the protection of women into the Bill, yet he now proposed to omit them from its operation in relation to an occupation which was often carried on 15 or 16 hours a day. It was said to 591 be necessary to carry it on for so many hours because the trade was only in operation during a short time in the year. During the season all the farmers were impatient to have their flax got ready for the market, and the utmost inducements were held out to the flax millowners to get through the work as speedily as possible. Where the employment was unhealthy and the hours long, surely there was reason for protecting the persons employed in it, if protection were necessary in any case. He might be told that the course he proposed would injure the factory owners; but if it could be shown that women were suffering in health by the employment, they ought to be protected. If it were necessary to carry on the work 15 or 16 hours every day, no reason existed why it should not be done in eight-hour shifts, in the same manner as work was performed in mines.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that, when the case of these scutch mills had been first brought before him, he had read the evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the subject. The mills were under the provisions of the existing laws relating to textile factories where more than 50 hands were employed; but in a large number of instances the mills employed less than that number, and they did not come under the Act, and to put them under this Bill would be imposing great restrictions upon them. He quite agreed that, as far as danger to those employed in the trade from machinery was concerned, nothing ought to take them out of the provisions of the law, and the same protection as regarded fencing machinery would apply to these scutch mills as to other mills. The only part of the Act which would not apply was the regulation as to hours worked by women. Therefore the Committee would be putting the scutch mills on very much the same footing as women were in places where there were no protected persons. He quite agreed that there was a great deal of dust in these scutch mills, and that, as far as children and young persons were concerned, they ought to be protected; but anyone who had read the evidence laid before the Royal Commission would see that there was a great distinction between the work in these and other mills, and that in many of them the work was more like 592 an agricultural operation than what was performed in many factories. The labourers could only work a certain number of months, and during the rest of the year they took up agricultural employment quite free from dust; so that they were entitled to be placed in the category of persons not working during the whole of a year in a factory.
§ MR. MACDONALDregretted to be compelled to differ from the Home Secretary, who failed to see that, in carrying out the views he had just expressed, he would be allowing women to work without protection at one of the most dangerous occupations carried on in the country. Scutch mills were said to exist principally in Ireland; but the Home Secretary must be aware that many of them were carried on in Yorkshire. In this case, it was proposed to exempt young women from the provisions of the Act—
§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, the exemption from that one provision allowed women to follow what he held to be a dangerous occupation, without protection. It was said that persons employed in the scutch mills only worked during a portion of the year; but he ventured to say that if they went on for a whole year, they would require at the end of it to take six months' rest to enable them to recover from the condition into which such an occupation, carried on for such a time, would bring them. The dust, fibre, and pieces of material flew about in these mills to such an extent that when, as a boy, he had pulled flax, he had seen persons standing with their mouths closed, and others at the door trying to get relief on account of the state of the atmosphere. If persons engaged in these mills were to be employed all the year round they would be destroyed in two years, and as it was they suffered from irritation in the bronchial tubes, and lung disease frequently set in. To exempt young women as proposed would make a most dangerous exception, and would lay down a ground-work for a possible agitation against one of the most excellent provisions of the measure. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would have the favour of the hon. Member for Hackney and a few others now that he had not had before. He would put it to him if the friendship of those were worth 593 having as compared to those who had stood by him in all his efforts of this kind. He hoped, therefore, that the Home Secretary would not be cajoled by a few Gentlemen from the North of Ireland to take a stop that would be fatal to the principle of a Bill which otherwise would redound so much to the right hon. Gentleman's credit.
§ MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, the people of the North of Ireland naturally felt interested in this matter because the manufacture referred to was almost entirely confined to that part of the country. Prom the remarks of some hon. Members, it would almost appear as if the manufacture of flax were so unhealthy and dusty that the plant ought not to be grown; but he believed that the health of the population of the North of Ireland where scutching was carried on would compare favourably with that of any people elsewhere. These scutch mills offered employment to the agricultural population during the winter months when there was no out-door employment, and many of them were going during only a short period of the year. They were scattered over the country, and 670 out of 800 of them employed less than six scutching hands. Children and young persons would still come under the provisions of the clause.
§ MR. E. COLLINSventured to dissent from the view put forward by many hon. Members on that side of the House. Scutching was not altogether a manufacturing, but partook much of an agricultural character, inasmuch as the process of preparing the flax was somewhat similar to the process of dealing with other descriptions of agricultural produce. If restrictions were put upon the manufacture it must necessarily increase the cost of preparing the article, and interfere seriously with the great trade of the North of Ireland. Nearly all the manufacturing industries of the country were dying out by degrees. The manufacture of cotton, which was at one period of considerable importance, had nearly ceased to exist. Shipbuilding was not long since a source of employment to many, and now the trade had all but disappeared — linen was one of the few left to the people, and he thought hon. Members should lend their hands to support, instead of seeking to interfere with, it. He was enabled by 594 statistics to compare the present state of the manufacture under discussion with its condition a few years since, and he found that in 1871 the number of scutching mills in the four Provinces of Ireland was 1,499; whereas five years later—the latest period to which he had been able to bring down his figures—the number was reduced to 1,250; therefore, there had been a decrease of 20 per cent in the number of these factories in Ireland during five years. If the same ratio of retrogression should continue for five years longer the number of these mills would be diminished to one-half, and it would require 15 years only to sweep them away altogether, and so extinguish this great industry. He hoped the process of reduction would not go on as it had done, and that many of his hon. Friends would not insist upon the views they had taken on this subject; but would be satisfied with the protection of children and young persons—which was a necessary measure—and leave women, who were pretty well able to control their own labour, to take their own course with regard to employment in scutching mills.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought the observations of the last speaker would apply to other clauses than that under discussion, and that if the Committee acceded to the principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman, they might have spared themselves the trouble of considering the Bill at all. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not consent to the clause being read a second time, and that his hon. Friends would not allow such a proposition to pass without a protest. It was urged that scutching was only carried on during six months of the year; but two or three months spent in close application to an injurious occupation would ruin anybody's health. The "walking postman" did not walk many days in the course of the year— certainly not for half the year—yet medical gentlemen would probably say that he imperilled his health by excessive labour during the time he did walk. The fact that a woman had no employment during six months of the year was no argument why she should over-do it during the time she was at work. He hoped that persons employed in factories of all kinds would have the general protection afforded to them by a Bill which 595 was a contribution to the cause of humanity and good government.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that when he visited some Irish scutching mills he could well have fancied himself in an English farmyard when threshing was going on. He did not think all the provisions of the Factory Acts ought to be applied to these mills; but the Royal Commission was in favour of carrying out the provisions in regard to fencing in machinery, and, as he understood the Amendment, all those regulations would be enforced.
§ DR. WARDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed that he should not press his opposition to the clause, but give it a second reading, and at first he had been inclined to do so; but he now saw that if the clause were passed on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, it would leave a loophole which would enable women to be employed in an unhealthy occupation. He opposed the second reading of the clause, on the ground that if the Factory Act should protect women at all, it should certainly include one of the most unhealthy of all occupations. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the evidence given before the Royal Commission to show the nature of the employment carried on in scutching mills; but it would be found that some of the witnesses regarded the work carried on in them as of a most unhealthy character. One of the medical witnesses was asked whether, apart from the question of accidents, there was any necessity for interference by legislation with the mills, and he replied that legislative interference was necessary, because the diseases which the operatives suffered from were the same as those of hecklers and others in spinning mills. The same witness stated that there was no limit to the hours of work at certain seasons of the year. The evidence amounted to this—that the work was most unhealthy, and that the women engaged at it worked 15 and 16 hours a-day. The usual mortality in a fairly healthy town like London, was something like 20 per 1,000 from all kinds of disease; but in those special processes the mortality from lung disease alone amounted, in some cases, to over 30 per 1,000. Then it was said that not many women were employed at this occupation, but in many cases they outnumbered the men.
§ MR. MUNDELLAwas generally reluctant to oppose any Amendment regarding factory legislation which was proposed by the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland), because no man had done more for manufactures in Ireland than he had, and everything which he suggested deserved the greatest consideration. Ireland had, unfortunately, too few manufacturing industries; and if there was anything in this Bill which would tend to restrict those manufactures, he, for one, should set his face against it. But he was bound to ask what were the reasons why this particular exemption should be granted? The hon. Gentleman said it was an intermittent employment, only extending over six months of the year; but he found from the Bill that for two consecutive months they might work every woman and child 14 hours a-day. What did they want more than this? There was no textile manufacture in the Kingdom which had any such privilege. If a case had been made out for this exemption, and it could have been shown that without it an injustice would be done to flax growing in Ireland, then he should not have opposed his new clause; but, under the circumstances, he thought the demand was unreasonable.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, having contended for the principle that it was unjust and inexpedient to interfere with the labour of adult women, he was anxious to express the great satisfaction he felt that at last the same conviction had come to the mind of the Home Secretary, and that he was now going to concede a principle he had hitherto constantly and persistently resisted. He should, give the second reading of this clause his cordial support, on the distinct ground that it was unjust to interfere with the labour of women; but, at the same time, he was bound to say that accepting this clause seemed to knock the very bottom out of the Bill, because from the trades enumerated in the Schedules of the Bill, from official documents, and from the evidence of the Royal Commission on these Acts, he could conclusively prove that women ought to be excluded from the operation of the Bill altogether, and not merely in the case of this particular industry. He, therefore, told the Home Secretary that full advantage would be taken of the principle he had now conceded, and on 597 the Report efforts would be made to extend it. As women were about to be exempted from the Bill as far as scutching mills were concerned, it would not be difficult to prove that there were plenty of other industries from which they ought equally to be exempted. It was not for him to inquire by what means the right hon. Gentleman had changed his mind. There were some who might say it was due to political influence. He would not indulge in such an insinuation, because he would have no justification for saying so; but he looked upon what the Home Secretary had done as a striking proof that it was always well in this House, for a minority however small to persistently and constantly contend for the principle they desired to see adopted. Here was a case where at the beginning of the Bill those who contended that adult labour should not be interfered with were again and again beaten by majorities of 3 to 1, and the Home Secretary had repeatedly said he could not for one one moment listen to their arguments. Now, when the Bill was just on the eve of being passed through Committee, they bad the great satisfaction of seeing the Home Secretary surrender, and accept that principle which he had at first resolutory opposed. Happily they would have another chance of raising this question of adult labour, and when that opportunity occurred on the Report, the concession the right hon. Gentleman had made to-night would not be lost sight of, and certainly by one Member it would not be forgotten.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI am sorry to deny the hon. Member any satisfaction he may feel; but I may tell him that I stick to my principle as much as ever, and say there is a great distinction between women who are only casually employed, and those who are regularly employed. Whenever the hon. Member chooses to raise the principle, I shall be ready to meet him.
§ MR. BIGGARcontended, that the work carried on in the scutch mills was exceedingly unwholesome. Large quantities of dust were about everywhere, even on the hedges in the neighbourhood, and altogether the mills presented a very different aspect from an English farm yard, to which they had been likened by the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish). Some of the dust which was about must 598 get down the throats of the workpeople, and this could not be looked upon as a very healthy thing. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to this clause, he did not see how he could contend that the Act should apply to women at all. If women were to have the privilege of working unlimited time in the scutch mills, they had no right to interfere with their continued employment in other in-dustries
§ MR. NEWDEGATEwas sensible of the injury which was inflicted upon many of the industries of the country by the limitation of the hours of labour, and he rejoiced that the Home Secretary had been induced in this particular case, to accept the necessity for exemption. He was quite sure they were restraining the productive power of the country by their factory legislation; and although he was as sternly determined as in 1844 to protect the interests of the young, he still thought the Legislature might push the restrictions on labour too far.
§ MR. PARNELLhad listened in vain for any consistent reason from the Home Secretary for the adoption of this Clause. It was not to be put in the Bill in the interests of the women employed in these mills, but in the interests of the mill owners. He should like to ask the Home Secretary, whether he had taken means to secure the fencing in of the machinery of the mills? It was said this occupation in the scutch mills was only an occasional one; but it was carried on for six months in the year, and conducted by long spells during that time. He considered the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had furnished the strongest argument in favour of the rejection of this clause. He had told them that the work of the scutch mills, as far as his personal experience extended, was so nearly kindred to agricultural employment, that he thought he was in an English farm yard, watching a steam threshing machine at work. Now, he should like to ask the noble Lord, whether he would approve of women being employed in feeding a threshing machine for 16 hours a-day during six months of the year? There had been a great deal of talk in this discussion about Irish industries. Formerly this House crushed Irish industries; and he believed it would do so again, if it was found necessary in the interests of Eng- 599 lish industries. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) had said, if they did not agree to this clause, they would crush an Irish home industry. He denied that they would do anything of the kind. If this clause was rejected, the only people who would he inconvenienced would be a certain number of the constituents of the hon. Member, who would not, in future, be able to make quite as much profit as they now did. They all knew that the North of Ireland Members in that House, were not often able to demonstrate their usefulness to their constituents; and having this remarkable chance, they had been asked to do a little job; and if they succeeded they would return home amidst the plaudits of a small section of their countrymen, who would hail them as having saved their country from having one of its home industries crushed.
§ MR. MULHOLLAND,said, he had listened patiently and carefully to the objections made to the clause by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he could say that they were altogether unprecedented by the evidence they had quoted. The real evidence was to the effect that there was now no legal limit of this kind that Scotch mills might work; but there was not a line of evidence that they did, in fact, work unreasonably long hours. There was no intention of extending the hours of labour of women employed in these mills, and if the clause were not adopted, the owners of them, rather than expose themselves to any risk of infringing the law, would close their mills altogether. What they objected to was vexatious interference and troublesome returns.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAthought that, after what had first fallen from the hon. Member for Downpatrick, there could be no difficulty in restricting the labour of women in these mills to 12 hours. At least they might be informed, whether there was any maximum number of hours' labour that would be accepted by the Government. He had supported the restriction of hours of labour in the Turkey red dye works, and he would now say, let them not have one principle in force in Dumbartonshire, and another in the North of Ireland.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved that it would be sufficient, in reference to the remarks 600 of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) to read the marginal note of his clause in the Bill, to which the proposed new clause related. It was as follows:—
Factories and workshops in which young persons and women may be allowed to work for 14 hours a-day, under certain restrictions, by reason of the material being liable to be spoiled by weather, or of press of work arising at recurring seasons, or of liability to sudden press of orders from unforeseen events.It was clear from that, that in seeking exemption from the provisions of the Bill in this respect, the promoters of this new clause desired that their hands should be allowed to work for more than 14 hours a-day.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 143; Noes 27: Majority 116.—(Div. List, No. 38.)
§ Amendments made to the Clause.
§ MR. PARNELLmoved to amend the clause by adding to it, at the end, a Proviso that the period of employment on any one day should not exceed 12 hours. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) said that the hours of work in those mills were not excessive; but he would admit that 12 hours were a good day's work, particularly in tending a machine such as had been described by the noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) as being similar to a straw - threshing machine. The hon. Member said there was no evidence showing that the hours of labour in those mills were excessive. On the contrary, he thought there was, and he would refer him to the printed evidence. He would find that one witness, who was examined with regard to the conditions under which the work was carried on in the smaller scutching mills, was asked whether the hands worked by artificial light, replied—"Yes, they do." Then he was asked whether they worked as long as they might, and he replied—"Yes, they work periodically as long as they can." Yet they were told such a system was necessary for the purposes of that manufacture.
§
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided always, That the period of em-
601
ployment in any one day in such mill shall not exceed 12 hours."—(Mr. Parnell.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought it would not be wise to attempt the limitation which the hon. Member's Proviso intended. These small scutching mills were scattered all over the country, and it would require an army of Inspectors to watch them. It would, be practically impossible to enforce it. If the Proviso were adopted, he was satisfied it would be inoperative, and therefore it would be of no use to insert it.
§ MR. ERNEST NOELobserved that, seeing that the hours allowed for work were not intended to be excessive, there could be no objection to this Proviso being inserted in the clause, in order to ensure that the working period should not exceed 12 hours.
§ MR. MACDONALDthought that the very argument used by the Home Secretary—namely, that it would require an army of Inspectors to watch these places—showed that he had no substantial reason for objecting to the proposal. Could these small mills require more watching than tailors' shops and other establishments? In those little scutching mills the employment of these persons beyond fixed hours could be easily observed and detected. They heard a good deal said about injuring the industries of Ireland. He did not wish to injure them. He wished, rather, to protect them; but not at the expense of the persons employed in them. He was extremely sorry the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the very line of argument which was used on the Benches opposite, and on this side of the House as well, for excluding women altogether from workshops.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he should like to know what protection there would be for the few factories employing women and children if there were to be no inspection? Those cases, however, were not the only ones in which it was important. It was an extremely unhealthy employment, and, as the hon. Member for Galway (Dr. Ward) had stated, there was more lung disease among persons employed in it than the average among the population of healthy towns. Under those circumstances, he asked whether scutching mills should be 602 excepted from the provisions contained in Part III. of the Bill, at page 56. Were the scutching mills to be excepted, and protection withheld from women under employers doing three-fourths of that description of work, and whose hands carried on their labours in most unhealthy places—were they to be left to the tender mercies of those manufacturers in the North of Ireland? Or, would those manufacturers be willing to accept any maximum limit of time whatever? Unless some protection were given to the workers for whom they were pleading, he said unhesitatingly that the whole benefit of the Bill was lost for Ireland in the quarter whore protection was most requisite, if needed at all.
§ MR. BIGGARwished to point out to the Committee that it was really not desirable that these mills should work by artificial light. With artificial light there was always a danger of fire, and it was usual enough in Ireland for scutching mills to be burnt down. Few offices would not give insurances on them at any rate offered. What happened was this? A mill was burnt, and a gentleman went to the presentment sessions and made a claim for compensation for malicious injury. He attended personally on the members, and the Grand Jury, who were his personal friends—
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is not in Order. The question before the Committee refers to the hours of labour.
§ MR. GRAYthought the Home Secretary could not mean to represent that an Inspector would be required in every mill. How did he propose to carry out his Bill at all? Would it not be by acting upon evidence? They did not mean to watch for a man's committing an offence, but reasonable evidence of his having committed one. The Committee, he thought, were placed in a most extraordinary position. What would be the effect of the discussion in Ireland? It would be said that the righthon. Gentleman had broken through the principle of his Bill to gratify a few of his supporters from the North of Ireland. There would be a suspicion, at least, that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of women being employed in these places for more than 12 hours a-day.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSobserved that in the consideration of this clause the great fact of which the Committee should take notice was this—that the women whose case they had been discussing were not employed in them during the whole of the year, but only for about half a year, and that during the remainder of it they were engaged at hop-picking, and in other ways. On that account, and not because of the character of their employment in the scutching mills, he should not oppose the clause.
§ MR. PARNELLcomplained of this exceptional clause as unfair to every other trade. If the proposed exemption were made in favour of a single industry, to the exclusion of every other kind of employment mentioned in the Bill, he feared that the people of Ireland would think it was made only in opposition to Irish Members on that of the House on which he sat.
§ MR. MUNDELLAclaimed to have been one of the best supporters of the Bill, and said if he could not vote for this clause, it was from an honest conviction that such a provision ought not to be passed. It had been said that either 12 hours was not a sufficiently long time for doing the work which had to be done in these mills, or that the exemption would be inoperative. But if the exemption would be inoperative, he would ask why did the Home Secretary introduce these scutch mills into the Bill in the first instance? Having so included them, the right hon. Gentleman could hardly be supposed to think that the exemption would be inoperative.
§ MR. FAWCETTunderstood that the Home Secretary did not now exempt women from the operation of this clause; because, from the right hon. Gentleman's silence, it appeared that he did not pretend to argue even for a moment, that scutching was an exceptional employment, as compared with other trades. What he understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean was, that he was not prepared to interfere with the labour of women in scutch mills, because it only lasted during six months of the year. That appeared to be the reason why the right hon. Gentleman supported the clause. If that was so, they could propose a clause, on the Report, carrying out the principle that the Bill should not apply to women in employments that did not occupy them more than six 604 months of the year. The Home Secretary would then have an opportunity of voting for the principle which he had laid down.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 36; Noes 107: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 39.)
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
DR. CAMERONmoved a new clause to follow Clause 66, providing for the establishment of local offices; but said he did not intend to press the clause, because the Home Secretary had intimated that he had instituted some administrative change which would ensure that the address of the Inspector would be made known to every person concerned. But the right hon. Gentleman had not stated distinctly whether he was going to make some provision for keeping a register of the names of the occupiers of factories and workshops in every district.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he saw no difficulty in the matter, so far as factories were concerned, but he did with regard to workshops. He was willing to do anything in his power to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. YEAMANmoved a new clause. The hon. Member explained that the clause did not extend to children, but applied only to young persons and women. The exception was claimed, not for factories worked by steam-power, but for those which, being driven by water-power, were liable to be stopped by drought or by flood. These were causes over which the employers had no control. With regard to flood, it was frequently caused by the drainage of the high gathering grounds coming down suddenly into the river which drove these water-mills; for when the drainage water rushed down in that way, it had the effect of stopping the mills. When a drought took place, the ground wanted that retentive power which was requisite to keep up a continuous supply of water. The owners of these mills had expended a large amount of money upon them, and they were now going to be deprived of a privilege which they had enjoyed up to the year 1874, without receiving any compensating advan- 605 tage. Perhaps, the Home Secretary would suggest that water-power might be supplemented by steam. But the fact was, that many of these mills were situated far from the seaport towns, from which they derived their raw material. This had to be sent, in some instances, a distance of 25 miles; and it was impossible that these factories driven by water could compete with those worked by steam, unless they made up for the loss sustained by drought and flood. The proprietors also complained that, unless they were enabled to give the operatives steady and regular employment, as well as full wages, the latter would go to towns where they might obtain better work. Not only had he himself received requisitions from the operatives of these mills, but a large requisition was sent, two years ago, to the Royal Commission, in favour of an extension of time, in order that they might reap the advantage of the full labour. Another reason for the clause was that, during the last three or four years, competition had been so great that many of these mills had been working at a loss to the owners. Jute mills and other factories had been springing up in France, Germany, and elsewhere, and these foreign manufactures would, when brought into the market, subject the home products to a very severe competition indeed. That fact alone was sufficient to justify the passing of the clause, without which one of the most important industries of this country would be fettered. He hoped that the Home Secretary would agree to the hours as specified in the clause, though the right hon. Gentleman might, if he thought fit, modify the wording in other respects.
§ Moved to insert the following new clause:—
§
(Exception for factories driven by water power.)
Where it appears to a Secretary of State that factories driven by water power are liable to be stopped by drought or flood, he may, by order made under this part of this Act, grant to such factories a special exception permitting the employment of young persons and women from six o'clock in the morning until seven o'clock in the afternoon, on such conditions as he may think proper, but so as that no person shall be employed more than eleven hours in any one day nor more than sixty-one hours in any one week, nor after two o'clock in the afternoon on Saturday, and that as regards factories liable to be stopped by drought, such
606
special exception shall only extend to the months of May and October and intervening months in each year, and as regards factories liable to be stopped by floods such special exception shall not extend to more than forty-eight days in any period of twelve months. This overtime shall not extend in any case beyond the time already lost."—(Mr. Yeaman.)
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHurged the Home Secretary to accept the principle of the clause allowing for lost time, for the position of these mill-owners was a hard one. When the Act of 1874 was passing through Committee, a provision was introduced, allowing for the recovery of lost time; but after the Act had been passed through Parliament, those persons who were concerned in that Provision found that it had been struck out without their knowledge, and that they were suddenly placed in a disadvantageous position. With regard to the character of the occupation, these water mills, being situated in country districts, the workpeople had all the advantages of pure air, and were healthy and strong; more so than those who were shut up in the factories of the large towns. The more regular work obtainable in the latter case would not counterbalance the advantages derived from fresh air and from living in country cottages. If these mills were deprived of the privilege of recovering for lost time, the employed, as well as the employers would suffer; because the former, on finding that they could earn more wages elsewhere, would move off to the steam factories, and these water-power mills would be wiped out. Many operatives would thus be left without employment. He did not think it was advisable that the Legislature should put obstacles in the way of the employers of water-power. This was not a matter of small importance, as a considerable proportion of the mechanical power, applied in textile factories, was worked by water. The principle of the clause was to apply to water-power mills, what had been already applied to other factories by this Bill. Overtime had been allowed for special work, which was done at uncertain seasons of the year; but the necessity in this case was stronger than in that.
COLONEL DRTTMMOND MORAYsaid, the clause was one which affected Perthshire, as there were water mills there, for which he claimed this privilege of recovering for loss of time. If it were not 607 granted in some degree to these factories the employés would be driven into the towns where they could get regular work. This was especially true of Perthshire, where there was considerable difficulty in obtaining steam-power. The work was far healthier in the country than in the towns, which were already overcrowded. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would grant some relaxation in favour of these mills.
§ MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as he had got the Amendment inserted which took away the special privileges which water-power mills had previously enjoyed, he desired to say that if it were now proposed to restore these, he would oppose it; but the concession now asked was a very moderate one. He thought the clause was fairly guarded, and he hoped the Home Secretary would accept it.
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in stating the reasons why he had not inserted in the Bill such a provision as that which this clause contained, said, the privilege of working overtime at the water-mills was allowed by law before the Act of 1874 was passed. The opinions of the Inspectors as to the working of that principle were certainly not of a discouraging character. Mr. Redgrave, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, had stated, with reference to the recovery of lost time in water-mills, that he did not think the Factory Act was ever intended to carry out that principle as a regular system; the whole object of the Legislature appeared to be to provide against cases of exceptional difficulty, and over which the mill-owners had no control, whether that difficulty arose from too much or from too little water. The same witness remarked that the Legislature evidently meant that these should be considered natural causes, and to that extent there seemed to be a grievance; so that those who worked their mills by water power ought to have some means of recovering the time lost by the intervention of such natural causes. That was the opinion of some of the Inspectors. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said that the exceptional provision, introduced in the Act of 1874, was struck out while the Bill was passing through Parliament, without the knowledge of the gentlemen concerned, and that they first became aware of it when the Bill had passed into law. That state- 608 ment was not in accordance with his own recollection of what actually occurred; for, if he was not mistaken, scarcely a single day passed without his seeing some gentleman, connected with water-power mills, who begged that the clause might be restored. The Royal Commission, no doubt, went fully into this question, and, in their opinion, some modifications might be made, probably such as were now suggested by the hon. Gentleman who introduced this clause. Formerly those persons who had mills that went by steam, were allowed to recover lost time when there was a breakdown of machinery; but the same Commission which reported against granting this privilege in favour of a breakdown of machinery, had reported in favour of mills worked by water-power. That was looked upon as a very great hardship, in 1874, by persons employed in factories. He did not know how many mills were worked by water-power; but he did know that a good many of them had got steam-power in order to assist them. That, he believed, was a growing practice, and one which would probably grow more and more. Although the Act had been in operation for upwards of four years, no doubt some persons had spent a good deal of money in that way, while others had gone on as they were, hoping that at some time or other the Act might be altered. The reason why he did not put a clause of this kind in the Bill now before the Committee was that he did not think the evils which existed in 1874 were sufficiently proved before the Commission. There was always great difficulty in finding out, with certainty, how much time was lost; because that must depend, in the first place, upon a register being kept accurately in the place where the business was carried on; and, in the next place, upon the Inspector's keeping a proper return of the time lost. Those were the reasons which induced him not to insert any clause on this subject in the Bill as originally framed.
§ MR. RATHBONEspoke of the healthiness of the employment carried on in these country mills. During the last four or five years, the Charity Organization Society at Liverpool, and the Board of Guardians there had sent from that town about 1,400 women and children into the factories. That large number of persons were bordering on pauperism 609 when they came under the notice of those two bodies, and their employment in those mills had saved them not only from approaching pauperism, but also from vice, the consequence too often of poverty. They were saved from that fate, and sent to good employment and healthy occupation. The country mills were by far the more favourite outlet for such labour. Anything that would diminish an outlet of that kind to such a population was very much to be regretted; and it seemed to him that this sort of legislation required to be justified by proof that it would confer the benefit of health upon those to whom it applied. In the present Bill, without a clause like that now proposed, the Government were weighting very heavily those manufacturers who, under great difficulties, were struggling in their competition with large towns. The tendency, at the present day, seemed to be an injurious indraft of the population into the large towns, and when the people from the country districts had once entered the large towns and become accustomed to the excitement which prevailed there, they could not induce them to go back to their work in the country. Therefore, by placing restrictions upon these mills, which were almost invariably in the country districts, he thought the Legislature would not benefit either the health or the morality of the persons employed there. On the contrary, it was putting a difficulty in the way of an employment, which was both more healthy and more conducive to virtue, than was to be found in the midst of a dense mass of population in the large towns.
§ MR. HARDCASTLEsupported the clause, on the grounds just urged-— namely, the real interest of the working people themselves. It did certainly appear to him most undesirable to discourage the kind of industry which the clause endeavoured to sustain. They all knew there was a natural tendency for the smaller factories, with less power, to succumb to the larger factories with greater. The inference, therefore, was this — that exceptional legislation was needed to meet that inequality. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the clause.
§ MR. MUNDELLAagreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Bath-bone), that it was desirable to encourage 610 water mills, and employment in rural districts, as far as possible. Ireland had plenty of water power, and if Irishmen had an equal amount of enterprize, they might soon vie with manufacturers in any part of the three Kingdoms. He would support the clause if only the Home Secretary took care that steam-power was supplementary to water-power at these mills, and that it was not abused.
§ MR. ORR EWINGexpressed a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the clause, as it would benefit many poor people in Ireland and Scotland. At the same time, his own opinion was that where there had been enterprize and wealth enough to provide steam-power as supplementary to the water-power, which was rendered necessary by the legislation of 1874, that they should be dealt with in the same way as those other manufacturers who had not erected supplementary steam-power.
§ MR. E. J. REEDlooked upon this question as one of some importance, since so large a number of woollen manufactories were driven by water-power. He should not have supported the clause if it had not been strictly limited to some compensation being provided for the interference of nature in the process of manufacture. It was different from the breaking down of machinery, which was more or less under the control of those who had the care of it. The clause was carefully guarded so as to be confined to the interference of droughts and floods; and he had heard nothing from the Home Secretary which discouraged him in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would assent to the clause, as it stood.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had already given the Committee the reasons why this clause had not been inserted in the Bill. This clause was different in its terms from the one shown to him some time ago. He would now accept the clause, upon the understanding that he should be allowed, on the Report, so to alter its language as to provide all the necessary safeguards.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ MR. FAWCETTmoved a new Clause to the effect that the provisions of the Bill should not apply to those cases where women were employed not more than 611 six months of the year, in any factory or workshop. The hon. Member explained that the object of the clause was simply to carry out the principle for which the Home Secretary had been contending, and which had induced the right hon. Gentleman to accept the clause of the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland).
§ MAJOR NOLAN,considering the importance of this proposal, moved that the Chairman be ordered to report Progress; because, at so late an hour as 10 minutes to 1, it was impossible for the Committee to discuss it properly.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—{Major Nolan.)
MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the Committee might dispose of this clause at once, as they had been discussing the subject of it so long. When they reached a disputed point connected with a Schedule of the Bill, he would be willing to allow Progress to be reported.
§ MR. MACDONALDsupported the Motion for reporting Progress.
§ MR. MUNDELLAdid not think his hon. Friend (Mr. Fawcett) was really in earnest in proposing this clause. It was too late to argue the whole question. If his hon. Friend was anxious to discuss it further, he would have an opportunity on the Report.
§ MR. MACDONALDremarked that the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forstor), who had an Amendment to propose on the 1st Schedule, had left the House under the impression that there was an understanding not to take the Schedules that night.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the clause offered a compromise upon this broad principle, that where the work of women only extended to six months of the year, no interference should take place. The Home Secretary had said this question had been discussed, and decided that evening. That was not exactly the case. This question had been discussed with reference to one industry, and one alone; and it had been decided so far as that industry was concerned. It had been applied to an industry which was attended with danger to health. But the question now raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Fawcett) was 612 a very broad one; its discussion would occupy a very long time, and if applied to all other branches it would be a most dangerous proposal, since they were not so detrimental to the human frame as the trade which had been under consideration earlier on in the evening.
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, he certainly was in earnest when he proposed this clause, and he had been in earnest throughout the consideration of this Bill. After his defeat on the question of excluding women from any new restriction, it was not his intention to place obstacles to the Bill. He accepted that defeat. He had been particularly anxious to get a distinct understanding on this point. If the Home Secretary had said that scutch mills were so exceptionally healthy that women might be employed in them on that ground, then no new principle had been introduced into the Bill; but he understood the right hon. Gentleman distinctly to assert that he had not infringed the principle of the Bill as originally introduced, and that his contention, with regard to women, was that their casual employment was no reason why it should be interfered with by the Bill. If that was the case with regard to scutch mills, this clause raised the distinct principle that the casual employment of women ought not to be interfered with in any other industries which were less detrimental to health than scutch mills were admitted to be. Therefore, it seemed to him, from the Home Secretary's own showing, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to accept the clause now proposed, or one similar to it in principle. The clause had a practical bearing on a very important point, for what would now be the position of women in any other employment compared with that carried on in scutch mills? With regard to scutch mills, the principle now laid down was this —because women were employed there for six months of the year, any manufacturer, if he liked to do so, might employ women, at any sacrifice to their health, for 16, 17, or even 24 hours a-day; for there was no limit whatever imposed. If an employer of labour, who was in the habit of engaging men, employed women for only one or two months of the year, he and his industry would be brought under the operation of this Bill. Hundreds and thousands of industries might come within the opera- 613 tion of the Bill in that way. If they were not going to act inconsistently with what they had already done, the Committee must accept this clause. Whether it should be discussed that night, or whether Progress should be reported, were questions which he left in the hands of the Committee to decide.
§ MR. BIGGARhoped the Government would admit the importance of this question, and not give hon. Members the trouble of dividing a number of times on the question of reporting Progress. There could be no attempt to pass the Bill entirely through Committee that night, and why there should be this question of reporting Progress he could not see.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwished to suggest one reason to the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Faw-cett) why he should withdraw his Amendment. He would ask him how it was possible that this Act should effect any amendment in the law if this clause were passed? A complete system of registration would be required to prove that any woman had ever been employed in a factory. He could quite understand those who objected to any interference whatever raising a clause of this kind; but if they were to have an Act at all they should not make it mere bye-play.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the Government had raised an entirely different principle from that of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, and if the hon. Member went to a division he should support him. If the hon. Member considered the Amendment necessary, and if he did act in the interests of women, he could only say that in previous clauses the principle raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary desired not to serve the interests of women but the interests of employers. What the Committee had to decide was whether they would, on the one hand, carry out the principle of serving the interests of employers or, on the other, the principle of supporting the interests of women.
§ MAJOR NOLANobserved that the hon. Member for Hackney had taken a very active interest in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had also watched the Bill very closely. The Bill ought, therefore, to be considered another time, and the Committee ought to protest against going further.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI hope the hon. Member will not press this question further. It has been already, as I distinctly pointed out, considered over and over again.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided: —Ayes 16; Noes 77: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 40.)
§ MR. FAWCETTsaid, that after the division that had taken place it was evident that the great majority of the Committee wished to go on with the Bill, and he should therefore ask leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.
§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 1.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. PARNELLI thought the right hon. Gentleman was not going on with the Schedules.
§ MR. PARNELLI think we are entitled to some explanation.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had an Amendment to Schedule 1 on the subject of "dry grinding" and "wet grinding."
§ MR. J. HOLMSI rise to Order. I think the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) has an Amendment before that.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.