A^-'^Ri^ /6 PUBLICATIONS OF THE NATIONAL UNION.— No. VI. CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATION FOR THE WORKING CLASSES. No. I.— MINES AND FACTORIES. BY A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL OF "THE NATIONAL UNION." THIRD EDITION. PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL UNION OF CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL ASSOCIATIONS, ST. Stephen's chambers, Westminster. MARCH, 1882. CONSERVATIVE LEaiSLATION FOR THE WORKING CLASSES. I.— MINES AND FACTORIES. Mr. Gladstone, in his manifesto at Ormskirk prior to his first accessioa to power, challenged Mr. Disraeli and the Conservative party generally to produce the names of 32 measures, " the 32 measures which had done so much good in the country in these last years, which had all of them been supported by the party with which Mr. Disraeli was associated, and had been strongly, even bitterly, opposed by other quarters of the House." We accepted Mr. Gladstone's challenge, and passed first in review the Acts (then nineteen in number) relative to Mines and Factories. The number of these Acts is now increased to twenty-eight, and it has become necessary to supplement our former review by fresh particulars. What is Mr. Gladstone's first appearance as a legislator in connection with these Acts ? In the division lists of the House of Commons, silently obstructing the third reading of the Bill " to prohibit the employment of women and gu'ls in mines and colheries, and to regulate the employment of boys " (5 and 6 Vict., cap. 99), introduced m 1842 by the present Earl of Shaftesbury — then Lord Ashley, (i) " To the great cause of Factory Legislation the Earl of Shaftesbury has sacrificed his whole political life. (2)" Yes, this nobleman, so distinguished in the House of Commons as the Conserva- tive Lord Ashley, has for more than fifty years (^) consecrated his time and talents to the amelioration of the condition of the humbler classes of his countrymen. In 1832-3, numerously-signed petitions "for the abolition of Infant Slavery in factories " were presented to Parliament from the working classes, who were then, as now, " anxious to reap the substantial fruits of reform." {^) (1) See the Division lists in " i^ansar^'s Parliamentary Debates," 3rd Series, vol. 64, p. 937. The name of the late Earl of Derby— then Lord Stanley— appears amongst Lord Shaftes- bury's supporters. (2) Hansard, ;jrd Series, vol. 189, p. 1212, per Lord Harrowby. See p. 13, infra. (3) In 1828, he was pleading for " Pauper Lunatics." Hansard, New Series, vol. 18, p. 583. (4) See Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 1.5, p. 1293, from Bradford ; Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 16, p. 878, from Leeds; Hansard, .3rd Series, vol. 18, p. 447, from Carlisle. *' The subject of the limitation of the hours of labour in factories," writes the historian of the French Kevolution, *'a most important one, and loudly calling for the interference of the Legislature, was brought before Parliament by Lord Ashley, who had long devoted the ardour of a philanthropic mind to the subject." (^) That nobleman was in a position to say that "the operatives had entrusted their case into his hands," and that "he was as much their representative as any member of the House of Commons was the representative of his constituency." (^) How did Radical M.P.s then express themselves with reference to factory legislation ? Mr. Cobbett said that " whenever a Government or whenever a Legislature attempted to interfere in the regulation of labour, to make laws between master and servant, it ahvays failed " {^) Mr. Fiyer, M.P. for Wolverhampton, " was satisfied that the Factories Bill would prove nothing but a delusion." A repeal of the Corn Laws was the " only relief that could be afforded to a manufacturing population." (^) Mr. Mark Philips, M.P. for Manchester, said that "if the Bill of Lord Ashley were to pass for two years, or even for one year, at the end of that time the trade would be wholly gone from this country, and would be in the hands of foreigners." (^) Mr. Potter, M.P. for Wigan, *' must repeat what he had said on a previous night, that if such a Bill were to pass into law, a blow would be inflicted on the cotton trade from which it never could recover." (i^) The "party of stupidity," in this case, at least, was, ^;rtc^ Mr. Mill, the Radical party. The provisions of this Bill, as ultimately carried, are thus summarised by the historian : " That the labour of children in factories, under thirteen years of age, should be limited to eight hours a day ; that children under nine years of age should be prevented from working at all ; that persons under eighteen years of age should never be obliged to work more than twelve hours on any one day, or sixty-nine hours in the week. Factory inspectors also were appointed, which was a very great improve- ment, to enforce the due observance of the law, and provision was made for the establishment of a system of education for children in the manu- facturing districts." (^^) This Bill, the fii'st important one upon the subject, received the Royal assent on the 29th of August, 1833 ; and appears in our Statute-book as the 3 and 4 Will. 4, cap. 103 : "An Act to Regulate the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom." The next important Act is the 5 and 6 Yict., cap. 99, already referi'ed to, which received the Royal Assent on the 10th of August, 1842. If some inquiring mind is seeking an answer to the question, " Cui bono the Lords Spiritual — the first estate of the realm ?" he may, perhaps, find some clue to it in the noble protests of the Episcopal (5) Alison's History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852, vol. 6, p. 438. (6) Hansard, Srd Series, vol. 18, pp. 307, 308. (7) Vol. 15. p. 1294. (8) Hansard, Srd Series, vol. 16, p. 879. (9) Vol. 16, p. 1001. (10) Vol. 16, p. 1001. (11) See (5). Bench against the white slavery of our infant and female miners in 1842. (12) How different the language of " Liberals " in the Lower House ! Mr. Ainsworth, M.P. for Bolton, said that '* the effect of Lord Ashley's Bill would be to deteriorate the condition of the children, and to aggravate the distress which already existed among the working classes." He contended that the children were well fed, comfortably clad, and healthy. " By this Bill they would be reduced to a state of pri- vation and suffering." (i^) Mr. Stansfield, M.P. for Huddersfield, " thought that if the restrictive clauses of this Bill were put into operation, the trade in coals would be altogether annihilated." (i*) " If they were to go on in this way every class would soon have its enactment. Really, they should consider what these children were to do on the days they made them idle by Act of Parliament ! They did not pro- vide education for them, and yet they refused to let them earn an honest livelihood." (^^) Yes, earning " an honest livelihood," ** chained," as the Bishop of Norwich pointed out, "to their labour of dragging small vehicles loaded with coal through narrow passages, in which they were obliged to crawl upon their hands and knees, their garments drenched with water!" (i^) Let anyone who wishes to obtain further information on this subject read the reports of the Children's Employment Commission in 1842-3, which Alison justly characterises as " startling and horrible ;" (i^) or, if he has not leisure for that purpose, let him read the speech of Lord Ashley, when asking leave to introduce the Bill, (1^) and we feel persuaded that he will agree with the Bishop of Gloucester that it was the duty of the Legislature "to enforce morality by legislation ;"(i^) but yet never once in the course of the debates on this Bill did Mr. Gladstone lift up his voice in furtherance of that legislation ! The effect of the Bill, as ultimately carried, is briefly stated by the historian : " The employment of females in mines was absolutely prohibited in all cases ; that of boys was limited to 10 years of age and upwards ; and inspectors were appointed to see the Act carried out into full execution." (^o) "Encouraged," continues Alison, (1843) "by this success, Lord Ashley brought forward a motion for an address to the Queen for a general system of religious education for the working classes, and this was followed by a Bill, introduced by Sir James Graham, for the better regulation and education of factory children. By this Bill it was proposed that no children between the ages of 6 and 13 should work more than 6^ hours ; that they should be obliged to attend schools (12 See Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 63, p. 196, and vol. 61, p. 1166 (Bishop of Norwich); vol. 65. p. 101 (Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury); p. 122 (Bishop of Gloucester). (13) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 64, pp. 1000-1. (14) P. 936. (15) PP. 1006-7. (16) Vol. 63, p. 196. (17) History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852 : vol. 7, p. 79. Appointed, in answer to an address of the "House of Commons, moved by Lord Ashley, Aug. 4th, 1840; see Hansard, '6vd Series, vol. 55, pp. 1260-1279. (18) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 63, pp. 1320-1352. (19) Vol. 65, p. 122. (20) Alison's History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852: vol. 7, p. 79. appointed for the purpose ; and that the children of Roman Catholics and Dissenters should be committed for so many hours in each week to reli- gious teachers, according to the creed of their respective parents. The measure was to include pauper children at factories, and the children of all persons, whether paupers or not, whom their parents chose to send to the school, whether they were factory children or not. There were to be seven trustees to each school under the Act, three of whom were to be the clergyman of the district and two of his churchwardens ; the other four to be elected by the ratepayers. The Bill, which was evidently founded on the right principles on the subject, met with very general support in the House of Commons ; and the Queen's reply to the address presented to her on the subject was very cordial. But difficult in the extreme are all attempts at beneficent legislation in matters where sectarian zeal deems itself interested. The Dissenters took fright at the composition of the boards of parish trustees, even though the larger proportion of them were to be elected by the ratepayers ; and such was the clamour raised on the subject, and the multitude of petitions which flowed in from the efi'orts of the Dissenters, that Sir James Graham, with expressions of extreme regret, was obliged to withdraw, first, the educational clauses, and, at last, the whole Bill." (21) " On the part of the Church," said Sir James Graham, " there has been exhibited willingness to make a considerable sacrifice ;" but he pointed out that it had not been met in a corresponding spirit. (22) Mr. Gaily Knight uttered a prophecy during these debates, which was only too fully verified. He expressed a hope that the Dissenting body would lake the modifications (proposed by Sir James Graham) into con- sideration, '* and not take upon themselves the fearful responsibility of defeating this plan. If they did succeed (in defeating it) no other plan could be attempted." (^3) " I see the Church," said Lord Ashley, " prepared to make concessions for the sake of conciliation and peace ; and, on the other hand, I see the great body of Dissenters rejoicing that they have been successful in theu" efi'orts to defeat the measure. The real sufi'ering party," he added, "are the vast body of neglected children who are now consigned to an eternity of ignorance." (^^) In view of these facts, how can Churchmen or Conservatives, with any show of reason or justice, be charged with conspiring to withhold the key of knowledge from the working classes ? The next enactment which claims our attention is the statute 7 and 8 Vict., cap. 15 : "An Act to amend the laws relating to labour in factories " which received the Royal assent on the 6th of June, 1844. At the head of a list of " noes " on the question that the Bill should pass, we find the now well-known name of " Bright, J." (25). Mr. Bright had been elected a few months previously for the city of Durham, and he thus (21) History of Europe, from 1815 to 1852: vol. 7, pp. 79,80. (22) See Hansard, Srd Series, vol.69, p. 1567. (23) Hansard, Srd Series, vol. 68, p. 1127. (24) Vol. 70, p. 94. (25) Vol. 74, p. 1108. displayed his zeal for the interest of the working classes during the debates on Lord Ashley's Ten Hours Clause, and his deference to their opinions : " On the one side, they had a document prepared by persons who called themselves delegates of the operative classes of the North of England, and signed by then' chairman ; and they had, on the other side, a paper put forward on the authority of eight mill-owners, who were admitted to be the most respectable members of their class, whether regarded with respect to intelligence, to wealth, or to general character. . . He would ask whether the returns made from such a number of mill-owners, belonging to all shades of politics, were not more to he relied on than either the statement of the noble lord (Ashley), or his friends, the opera- tive delegates?" (26) How different was the language of the true friends of the operative — Mr. Ferrand, for example, "speaking," as he did, " the sentiments of hundreds and of thousands of his fellow-countrymen belonging to the work- ing classes!" "It is a question," he said, "which belongs solely to the working classes of the manufacturing districts. . . . It is a ques- tion for which the working classes have contended for twelve years, and which they are determined to stand by and struggle for by every constitutional means. . . There is a unanimous feeling among the working classes that they have been reduced to the most abject state of misery and slavery, and that there are no means of rescuing them but the Ten Hours Bill. . . I implore the House to do justice to the working classes. This House has been accused of legislating for the rich and not for the poor ; but now, when it has triumphantly asserted that it will legislate upon principles of humanity and of justice and protection to the working classes, fancy not that you can by a side wind to-ni^t, or by unfair means, debar the working classes of their just rights The working classes have a desire to endure and suffer without complaint, but you may try their patience too long ; and if you refuse this measure, the day will come when you will deeply regret it, and when the working classes will exact it from your unwilling hands." (^7) Mr. Bright not only treated the operatives with contempt — he attacked the principle of the Bill. " It was admitted," said Mr. Bright, "on all hands that the noble lord's proposition violated principle — that it would reduce wages, and interfere, as many believed, with the foreign trade. When proceeding in the direction of a bad principle, too gi'eat caution could not be exercised." Mr. Bright concluded an eloquent peroration by characterising the Bill as " miserable legislation on principles false and mischievous." (^s) These attacks secured the rejection of Lord Ashley's clause to restrict the labour of young persons in factories to eleven hours per diem, or sixty -four hours per week, for three years, and at the end of that time to ten hours per diem, or fifty-eight hours per week. {2id) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 74, pp. 1063, 1064, 1066. (27) PF.969,970, 972, 975. (28) PP. 1070. 1071. 8 Mr. Gladstone's name will be found in the division lists (not in the debates). In the division in which Lord Ashley carried his ten hours clause and the house by storm, Mr. Gladstone's name will be found in the list of the minority. (2^) When Lord Ashley was defeated, Mr. Gladstone's name will be found in the list of the majority. (^^) We need scarcely say that Mr. Bright's name will be found in both division lists side by side with Mr. Gladstone's, in opposition to Lord Ashley. Those of the Marquis of Blandford (now Duke of Marlborough), Mr. Adderley (now Lord Norton), Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Henley, Lord John Manners, and other distinguished Tories, will be found supporting Lord Ashley in his clause, (^i) And what was this measure which drew down the anathema of Mr. Bright ? It enacted that females above eighteen years of age should not be employed for a longer time than *' young persons" in factories, (^^) i.e., for twelve hours on any one day, or sixty-nine hours in one week ; (•"^) that no child under eight should be employed in any factory ; (3^) that no child under thirteen should be employed more than six hours and a half in any one day, {^^) except on three alternate days in the week, when he might be employed for ten hours ; {^^) that the parent or other person having the direct benefit from the wages of any child employed in a factory should, under a penalty for neglect, {^'^) cause the child to attend school ; (-^8) and that the occupier of the factory should, also under a penalty for neglect, (^^) obtain a certificate of attendance from the schoolmaster, (^^j The state of things before this enactment may be realised from the following extracts from the ofiicial reports : — "M. S. (single) leaves home at five; returns at nine. Her mother states that she knows nothing but mill and bed ; can neither read, write, knit, nor sew." " H. W. has three children; leaves home at five on Monday, does not return until Saturday at seven ; has then so much to do for her children that she cannot go to bed before three o'clock on Sunday morning." (^i) Women, in some cases, were obliged to work from six a.m. till midnight — eighteen hours out of the twenty-four ; in other cases they worked in a temperature of from 70 to 80 degrees all night long. (^^) If grown-up women sufi'ered from this inhuman system, what must have been the condition of the young children ? The medical witnesses bear testimony to the excessive fatigue, privation of sleep, pain in various parts of the body, swelling of the feet, and, above all, the scrofulous diseases experienced by the young workers. (^^) And this is the system over which Mr. Bright spread his sheltering aegis, denouncing, in eloquent terms, any attempt to reform it ! (29) Hansard, 3id Series, vol. 73, p. 1264. (30) Vol . 74, p. 1106. (31) P. 1104. ^ (32) S. 32. (.33) 3 and 4 Wm. IV. c. 103, S.2. (34) S. 29. (35) S. 30. (36) S. 31. (37) S. 57. (38) S. S8. (39) S. .56. (40) Ss. 31 & .39. (41) Cited by Lord Ashley. Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 73, p. 1094. (42) P. 1092. (43) P. 1081. On the 8th of June, 1874, the Royal assent was given to "An Act to Limit the Hours of Labour of Young Persons and Females in Factories " (10 & 11 Viet., cap. 29). "A question," writes Alison, "of pressing interest to a large and interesting portion of the community was happily brought to a close during this Session of Parliament — the Factory Question." (^4) The Ten Hours Bill, introduced by Mr. Fielden and Mr. Ferrand, reduced the number of hours for which females and young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen were to be employed in mills and factories to sixty-three hours per week (eleven hours of actual work per day for five days in the week and eight hours on Saturdays), till the 1st of May, 1848 ; and from that date, to fifty-eight hours per week (ten hours of actual work per day for five days in the week and eight hours on Saturdays). " I ask for the change," said Mr. Fielden, " because the people employed in factories have long wished for it, and petitioned the Legislature to concede it to them, and because the ministers of religion, medical practitioners, and, indeed, all classes who have opportunities of observing the consequences of the present system, deprecate it as destructive to the moral and physical condition of a vast and most important class of the community. It is a question which involves the very existence of thousands, who are, I am afraid, annually sacrificed." (^5) Leave was given to introduce the Bill, but on a subsequent day, when Mr. Fielden moved the second reading, {^^) Mr. Hume, the well-known Radical, delivered a long speech against it, on the ground that it was opposed to political economy, and moved that it be read a second time that day six months. (^'^) Mr. Bright again displayed his zeal on behalf of the operatives in the course of the debate on this motion. (*^) *' When the agitation first commenced, it was on the principle of protec- tion for infants. Young children were then the objects of solicitude with these patriotic individuals ; and at length a Minister of the Crown brought in a Bill some years ago, which took all the care of these infants that their greatest friends could desire. . . . But the friends, so called, of the infants still pressed on, and they now asked for the interference of the Legislature, and for a display of their sympathies, in favour of young persons from 13 to 18 years of age and on behalf of women of all ages." {^^) This satirical tone peculiarly befitted a " tribune of the people," when speaking of the " white slavery " of women and young persons, " the results of which, in disease, sufiering, and death, exceeded the horrors of war." (^^) But it must be remembered that these white slaves were only operatives. " He would tell the House that if they went on, at the bidding of the tcorkimj classes, to legislate (44) Hist, of Europe, from 1815 to 1852, vol. 7, p. 315. (45) Ibid and Hansard, 3rd Series, vol, 89, p. 487. (46) Hansard, 3rd Series, p. 1073. (47) P. 1074. (48) PP. 1136, 1137. (49) "Instances were not wanting, before the Legislature interposed, of parents' bread having been earned by children only three years of age !"— Alison's Hist, of Europe, from 1815 to 1852, vol. 7. p. 322, citing Mr. Eoebuck. (50j Eegistrar-General's " Table of Deaths," cited by Alison, Hist, of Europe, from 1815 to 1852, vol. 7, p. 317; see also Hansard, Srd Series, vol. 89, p. 488. 10 against the capitalists, they would find a very different feeling engendered amongst the latter towards the operatives from that which they now exhibited. . . . He would warn the House that if they now armed the workmen against the capitalists by fixing by law ten hours, or any other number of hours, for the duration of labour, and thus interfered with the established custom of the kingdom, he beheved it would be impossible that the feeling which hitherto existed on the part of the manufacturers towards the operatives would continue, should the ivorJanen think that by coming to that House, they could fix the time of work and the amount of wages. He thought, if such a result took place, that it would be the duty of the manufacturers — ^nay, that it would be absolutely necessary for them — to take such steps as would prevent the ruin from coming upon them which must result from the passing of this measure. The hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Muutz) stated that he (Mr. Bright) had signed a petition in favour of a Ten Hours Bill. . . . He confessed that at one time he did get up a petition in favour of such a Bill, but then it was one of the acts of his boyhood, and he regretted extremely that the follies of his boyhood appeared to attach themselves to the mature age of the honourable member for Birmingham (Mi\ Muntz). A proposition had been made that, if this Bill went into committee, they should have an eleven hours clause substituted for the present ten hours clause. He believed nothing could be more unwise. . If they passed an eleven hours Bill, the woy^hnen u'ho asked for ten hours would . . . come with double force to ask for a ten hours bill hereafter. . . Believing, as he did in his heart, that the Bill was most injurious and destructive of the best interests of the country — believing that it was contrary to all principles of sound legislation — that it was a delusion practised upon the working classes — that it was advocated by those who had no knowledge of the economy of manufacturers — believing that it was one of the worst measures ever passed in the shape of an Act of the Legislature, and that, if it were now made law, the necessities of trade and the demands alike of the workmen and the masters would comjyel them to retrace the ste2:>s which they had taken, he felt compelled to give the motion for the second reading of this Bill his most strenuous opposition. "(^i) The debate was adjourned, and at its resumption "Petitions were pre- sented by a great many hon. members from an immense number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill." (^2) Notwithstanding Mr. Bright's threats and denunciations, the Bill passed a second reading by a majority of more than 2 to 1, the numbers being 195 to 87. (^^) Amongst the majority will be found the names of Mr. Disraeli, Lord John Manners, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Henley, Sir John Pakington (afterwards Lord Hampton), and Mr. Newdegate : amongst the minority, Mr. John Bright, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. (now Lord) Cardwell, and Sir John Trelawny (who objected to the Bill because he "considered it a distinct invasion of the rights (53) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 89, pp. 11446—118. (52) Vol. 90, p. 126 (minutes). (53) P. 175. 11 of property)." (54 j Previous to the division on the second reading an obstructive motion for the adjournment of the debate was interposed, and Mr. John Bright seconded it and acted as one of the tellers ! (J'^) Another division took place on going into committee, the numbers being — ayes 190, noes 100; majority 90. Mr. Bright was one of the tellers of the minority.(5^) The House went into committee, and Mr. Bright declared that he *' felt bound at every stage to vote against the clauses of the Bill." (^7) He had again threatened the House with ' ' such a formidable combination of the owners of capital, that the House could not successfully legislate against it ; " (^s) but the threat was of no avail. There was, as Mr. Hume lamented, (^9) " a determination to carry the Bill through the House." Lord John Russell, however, suddenly went over to Mr. Bright, and declared that he should "vote that the clause limiting the jjeriod to ten hours he omitted altogether.'' {^^) Lord John put about as quickly on this as on other questions of more recent date. This new ally, however, did not much improve the position of the Radicals. They were beaten by more than two to one, the numbers being 144 to QQ — majority 78. Whigs like Sir C. Wood and Sir G. Grey followed Lord John into the division lobby. Mr. John Bright again acted as teller for the minority. {^^) The Bill was reported, and on the question that the amendments be agi-eed to, Mr. Hume moved that the report be taken into further con- sideration that day six months. (^^) The tactics of the Radicals were denounced by one of themselves. Mr. Sharman Crawford declared it to be his opinion that " if ever an unfair and vexatious opposition had been offered to any measure in its passage through that House, it was the opposition offered to this Bill. In every stage an unworthy attempt had been made to defeat it by manoeuvre against the loudly-efpressed sense of the House." (63) The Conservatives once more voted for the Bill, and the Radicals against it. Lord John Russell, trimming his sails as usual, steered back again and voted with the majority of more than 2 to 1 in favour of the Bill (104 to 46), carrying his faithful lieutenant, Sir G. Grey, back with him. Mr. Roebuck attacked Lord John vehemently for his " faltering and wavering, and, he would not say, unstatesmanlikc conduct. "(*^'^) Lord John Manners assured the House that the Conservatives had consistently sup- ported the Bill," from an earnest conviction of its only being an act of justice to the factory operatives" (^•5). And so the Bill was read a third time (^^), but not without a final ineffectual attempt on the part of the Radicals to snatch a (54) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 90, p. 168. (55) PP. 173, 175. (.56) PP. 819-821. (57) Vol. 91, p. 142. (.58) P. 125. (59) P. 142. (60) P. 144. (61) PP. 146, 147. (62) PP. 1122, 1123. (63) P. 1124. (64) P. 1130. (65) P. 1138. (66) Vol. 92, pp. 311-313. 12 victory. We need scarcely say that the name of Mr. Disraeli appears in the list of the majority. Mr. John Bright's name, which has hitherto appeared on every division, disappears from the final encounter ; possibly he foresaw that, after all, his dismal prophecies might not be realised. Mr. Gladstone's name does not appear in any debate upon this Bill, nor in any of the numerous divisions. Thus, when a measure of vital moment to the working classes was carried through Parliament, Mr. John Bright bitterly opposed it, Lord John^ Russell voted sometimes for it and some- times against it, and Mr. Gladstone did not vote at all ! Scarcely a year has passed since then without some successful ejBfort to extend the principles of factory legislation. A list of no less than twenty- eight Factory Acts will be found in the Appendix. Mr. Bright, and the Radicals generally, have been undergoing a salutary process of education, and have gradually come round to the side of the working men and the Conservative party. Thus Mr. Fawcett, Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge (now Postmaster- General), a Radical, speaking on the " Factory Acts Exten- sion Bill, 1867," introduced by the then Conservative Home Secretary (Mr. Walpole), went so far as to deny that the Factory Acts contravened " the principle of economy." " Those who in the first instance," he said, " had opposed the Factory Acts were now the first to come forward and say that the legislation which had taken place had produced the most satisfactory results. With respect to the working classes, his own experience among them had been that the working men were glad to welcome this kind of legislation. There ivas 710 subject upou which he had ever addressed a meeting of working men that excited more enthusiasm than that of the intended extension to other trades of the same legisla- tion." (67) Mr. Akroyd, worsted manufacturer, Chairman of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, a Liberal, said that " his experience might possibly have some weight with those who had not the same opportunities of witnessing the beneficial results of factory legislation. . . . Having at first opposed the Act, he wished now joyfully to ofi'er his testimony to its beneficial results. In his ovni neighbourhood a squalid population was succeeded by a healthy one. The operation of the Act had changed the aspect of many a once wretched district, and brought upon the scene scores of happy chubby-faced children, full of health and activity, who, but for the interference of the Legislature, would have been wearing away their young lives with premature toil. . . . The extension of the Factory Acts to mines and collieries, bleaching works, the lace works of Nottingham, and the potteries of Staff'ord shire, aided the work of educa- tion. . . . He was bound to admit the benefits which the country gentlemen had conferred upon the manufacturing interest by determinedly pressing the Act upon them." (^8) Sir Francis Crossley, carpet manufacturer, a Radical, said that (67) Hansard, Srd Series, vol. 189, p. 481. 68) Vol. 185, pp. 1071, 1072. 13 " he agreed with Mr. Akroyd in what he had stated with respect to the short-time system in factories. . . . The children were not only much healthier, but were more attentive at school, from having to work three days a week, and ynore industrious in the factory, from having a change of occupation at school. It was quite the exception in the factory districts to find boys and girls unable to read and write. . . . The Factory Acts had operated, therefore, very beneficially. Since that time the prin- ciple of those Acts had been applied to many other trades, and he was not aware of a single failure. Beneficial results had invariably followed. . In the manufacturing districts the children were now receiving as much for short time as they [formerly] did for full time.'' (^^) Mr. Edmund Potter, a calico printer, a Radical, said he " knew not which most to admire, Mr. Walpole's talents or his industry, (70)" with reference to this question. All quarters of the House were now prepared to applaud to the echo Mr. Walpole's eloquent peroration, when introducing the Factory Extension Bill, *'I believe that future generations will look back with pleasure upon this reign — this beneficent reign — in which many good things have been done — but none more gracious or just than throwing the protection of wise and considerate legis- lation over the women and children of this country." (7i) On the motion for the second reading of the Bill in the Upper House, Lord Harrowby paid a well-merited tribute of praise to Lord Shaftesbury. "It is now," he said, " some thirty or forty years ago since I had the pleasure of co-operating in a very small degree with my noble friend in those early struggles on the subject of factory legislation, when he had enormous difiiculties to contend with. . . . To this great cause niy noble friend has sacrificed his whole political life ; he has from time to time resisted solicitations to public employments that he might devote himself entirely to this great cause, and I hope that in the gratitude of the country, and the approval of a good conscience, my noble friend will find an ample reward for the exertions and sacrifices which he has made." [^^) We challenge Mr. Gladstone to show that more beneficent results have flowed from any Liberal measure than those which Lord Shaftesbury pointed to as having flowed from Conservative legislation with respect to Mines and Factories : — "The masters engaged in textile manufactures, and the heads of great establishments, all, without exception, testified to the great social, physical, and moral blessings which had been the result of Factory legislation. I believe that we may ascribe in no small degree to that legislation the noble conduct of the Lancashire operatives during the cotton famine, who, supported by the feeling that they were really cared for by the Legislature, endured with unparalleled heroism the sufiering to which they were sub- jected. . . I have been informed that in every instance, whether of textile (69) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 185, p. 1078. (70) P. 1281. (71) P. 1279. (72) Vol. 189, p. 1212. 14 fabrics, potteries, or fustian cutting, the work clone is both greater in quantiUj and improved in quality, because tbe employed bring untired limbs and minds to their work ; while, simultaneously, wages have risen without any loss to the employers. ... By showing this interest in the welfare of the people, and by endeavouring in this way to advance their moral, social, and physical improvement, you will be doing more for their happiness than even by the great measure of reform which you are now passing to enfranchise the great mass of the people, and you will make that reform more easy and more successful in its operation." C^^) The nine hours movement was set at rest by " The Factory Act, 1874 " (37 and 38 Vict., c. 44), the statesmanlike measure of the then Conser- vative Home Secretary, Mr. (now Sir Richard) Cross. Mr. Baxter, the Radical member for Montrose, characterised that measure as "wise, safe, and well-considered," and as " conferring incalculable benefits on the operative class in this country." (^^) The Earl of Shaftesbury, on the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, said : "I pre- sume to thank Her Majesty's Government (Lord Beaconsfield's) for the bold and manly way in which they have come forward and settled a dispute which might have become serious. . . It has been reserved to the present Government to give a reduction of the number of hours, and we find ourselves at last, after 41 years of exertion, in possession of what we prayed for at the first — a Ten Hours Bill." (7^) The edifice was crowned in 1878 by " The Factory and Workshops Act " of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, introduced and carried by the Home Secretary, Sir Richard Cross, which consolidated and amended factory legislation. On the third reading of the Bill in the House of Commons, the late Mr. Alexander Macdonald, the well-known miners' representative, said he " was glad the right hon. gentleman (Sir R. Cross) had brought in and carried that Bill, a fact which would redound to his honour and credit as a statesman." ('^^) The Earl of Shaftesbury, on the second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords, said : "I am lost in wonder at the amount of toil, of close investigation, and of perseverance which the Home Secretary must have brought to bear in the preparation of this Bill. The right hon. gentleman had to deal with 45 Acts, extending o\er a period of 50 years. . . . By this Bill the whole of this scattered legislation will be brought into one lucid and harmonious whole. ... I believe that 2,000,000 of people of this country will bless the day when Mr. Cross was invited to become Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment." (77) (73) PP. 1210, 1211. (74) Hansard, 3rd Series, vol. 219, p. 1439. (75) Vol. 220, p. 1330. (76) Vol. 239, p. 266. (77) P. 947. APPENDIX. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 103 (29th Aug., 1833). An Act to regulate the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom. 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 1 (2nd Feb., 1834). An Act to explain and amend an Act of the last Session of Parlia ment for regulating the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the Mills and Factories of the United K ingdom. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 99 (10th Aug., 1842). An Act to prohibit the Employment of Women and Girls in Mines and Collieries ; to regulate the Employment of Boys, and to make other Provisions relating to Persons working therein. 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15 (6th June, 1844). An Act to amend the Laws relating to Labour in Factories. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 29 (30th June, 1845). An Act to regulate the Labour of Children, Young Persons, and Children in Print Works. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 29 (8th June, 1847). An Act to limit the Hours of Labour of Young Persons and Females in Factories. 10 & 11 Vict. c. 70. An Act to amend the Law as to the School Attendance of Children employed in Print Works (22nd July, 1847). 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54 (5th August, 1850).^ An Act to amend the Acts relating to Labour in Factories. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 104 (20th August, 1853). An Act to further regulate the Employment of Children in Factories. 19 & 20 Vict. c. 38 (30th June, 1856). An Act for further Amendment of the Laws relating to Labour in Factories. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 78 (6th August, 1860). An Act to place the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Bleaching Works and Dyeing Works under the Regulations of Factories Acts. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 151 (27th August, 1860). An Act for the Regulation and Inspection of Mines. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 117 (6th August, 1861). An Act to place the Employment of Women, Young Persons, Youths, and Children in Lace Factories under the Regulations of the Factories Acts. 16 25 & 26 Vict. c. 8 (11th April, 1862). An Act to prevent tlie Employment of Women and Children during the Night in certain Operations connected with Bleaching by the Open-air Process. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 79 (7th August, 1862). An Act to amend the Law Relating to Coal Mines. 26 & 27 Vict. c. 38 (29th June, 1863). An Act to amend the Act 23 & 24 Vict., c. 78, for placing the Employ- ment of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Bleaching Works and Dyeing Works under the Regulations of the Factories Acts. 27 & 28 Vict. c. 48 (25th July, 1864). An Act for the Extension of the Factory Acts. 27 & 28 Vict. c. 98 (29th July, 1864). An Act for Extending the Provisions of the " Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act, 1860." 30 & 31 Vict. c. 103 (15th August, 1867). An Act for the Extension of the Factory Acts. 30 & 31 Vict. c. 146 (21st August, 1867). An Act for regulating the Hours of Labour for Children, Young Persons, and Women employed in Workshops, and for other Purposes relating 1^ nPTPTO 33 & 34 Vict. c. 62 (9th August, 1870). An Act to amend and extend the Acts relating to Factories and Workshops. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 19 (25th May, 1871). An Act for exempting Jews from Penalties in respect of Jewish Young Persons and Females working on Sundays. 34 & 35 Vict. c. 104 (21st August, 1871). An Act to amend the Acts relating to Factories and Workshops. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 76 (10th August, 1872). An Act to consolidate and amend the Acts relating to the Regulation of Coal Mines and certain other Mines. 35 & 36 Vict. c. 77 (10th August, 1872). An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Metalliferous Mines. 37 & 38 Vict. c. 44 (3rd July, 1874). An Act to make better Provision for Improving the Health of Women, Young Persons, and Children employed in Manufactures, and the education of such Children, and otherwise to amend the Factory 38 & 39 Vict. c. 39 (19th July, 1875). An Act to amend the provisions of the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act, 1872. 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16 (27th May, 1878). An Act to consolidate and amend the Law relating to Factories and Work- shops. HOME OFFICE, WHITEHALL. S.W. / §)a %>'t. '. te imi' -m W :^ fj^r -^vi A Smi^, i^l y '^/ T*j;:*«is -,^!VKf ^v^ ^, m ' •% V m * ,y^ '-■^ikf-; » "