Miss Hutchins and Miss Harrison deal fully with the ten hours' question. They show that so far back as 1784 the Manchester magistrates adopted that limit for parish apprentices as part of their administration. They passed a resolution of refusal to allow indentures binding poor law apprentices to any mill or factory in which children were employed in night work or for more than ten hours a day. In 1815 Sir R. Peel brought forward a Bill to limit the hours of work to ten for the same class in cotton mills. Later a systematic agitation was started and carried on continuously in favour of the ten hours' day for all children. It was begun in Yorkshire by John Wood, a large manufacturer, and by Richard Oastler, and was taken up by many supporters irrespective of party, but including prominent Tories and manufacturers. Short time committees were formed in the Yorkshire and Lancashire textile districts. The Parliamentary leader of the campaign was Michael Sadler, who undertook to introduce a Ten Hours' Bill, but in 1833 lost his seat and was succeeded by Lord Ashley, who took charge of the Bill. It came to nothing in view of the Government Bill of that year; but the campaign went on, and in 1844 had virtually won the political battle. An amendment to the Bill of 1844, relating to night work, but involving recognition of the ten hour day was moved by Lord Ashley and accepted by Parliament. In 1847 the Ten Hour Bill, being reintroduced by John Fielden, a manufacturer, had a majority of 108 on the second reading, and passed quickly.

We have dwelt at some length on the early history of factory legislation, because the main question of statutory interference with private enterprise was then decided, and on looking back it is clearly seen to have been inevitable. All the arguments for and against, that are liable to be used to-day, were brought up and hammered out; and opponents were proved to be wrong by the results. The successive steps, which were to cause ruin, had no such effect, but the contrary. The improved health and vigour of the protected persons reacted to the benefit of industry by increasing their efficiency. To most economists and manufacturers it appeared selfevident that the longer they ran the machinery and kept people at work the greater the output. They argued,

indeed, that it was in the last hours that profit was made, and thereby probably provided Marx with his formula of surplus value. But there were other manufacturers who were not satisfied with this, but who studied the problem by observation and came to the opposite conclusion. One of them was Mr Thomason, of Bolton, who thought that by reason of the exhaustion and listlessness of the workers the probability was that the twelfth hour produced more spoiled work than any two hours in the day. Another was Robert Gardner, of Preston, who observing that a machine did not tire, but that a horse did, tried the experiment at his own mill and found, to his surprise, that he got the same output with ten hours as with twelve, and sometimes more. Nor did these men stand alone. Lord Ashley in 1844 mentioned a whole string of manufacturers in favour of the ten hour day. In effect humanity and good business were found to go together.

So it has gone on gradually with the extension of industry. In 1878 a consolidating and amending Act was passed and another in 1901, the former by Lord Beaconsfield's, the latter by Lord Salisbury's, Administration. It is, therefore, eminently fitting that a new Act of the same character should be undertaken by the present Government. But it must be admitted that the existing circumstances are abnormal. It would not do to admit changes which would increase the already intolerable burdens on industry without improving efficiency in any perceptible degree, and consequently all the more important new provisions need careful scrutiny. What are they?

The Bill has been examined by an organisation of employers, and by one of employed-namely the National Union of Manufacturers and the United Textile Factory Workers' Association. Each has drawn up a list of objections and proposed amendments. The recommendations of the National Union of Manufacturers extend to no less than sixty-two clauses, or nearly half the total number; and they are still more numerous, since in certain cases several suggestions are made; but many of them are not important. In a preliminary statement the Union states that if the Bill were confined to a mere consolidation no objection could possibly be taken to it,

but in its present form its scope and extent are such as to cause the greatest anxiety to manufacturers upon whom it would impose financial burdens which, in the present state of industry, they could not possibly carry.' If that is indeed the case, then the offending clauses need amendment. The United Textile Workers' Association only make about a score of recommendations, which are apparently arranged in the order of relative importance; they do not go systematically through the Bill, as the National Union has done. They naturally want more to be done, not less; and they begin by insisting on the forty-eight hours' week as a maximum. This is provided in Clause 66, but subject to overtime, dealt with in Clause 67, and to exceptions. Now the National Union also deals at considerable length with these clauses, and since Clause 66 is in keeping with the Washington Convention, which the Labour Party has taken up, they will probably be the most controversial in the whole Bill. We may therefore devote some attention to them.

The question is complicated by the fact that the new Bill completely alters the present law by abolishing the distinction between textile and non-textile factories, domestic factories and workshops, which have different hours, and placing them all together as simply factories. The wording of the Bill is as follows:

The total hours worked, exclusive of intervals allowed for meals and rest, shall not exceed ten in any day or forty-eight in any week,

This applies only to women and young persons. The employers' Union recommends the deletion of the words 'or forty-eight in any week.' They argue that a voluntary agreement, which already limits the week to forty-seven or forty-eight hours, is comparatively elastic and quite a different thing from statutory limitation, which must be complied with in all circumstances. The Textile

Workers, on the other, not only support the forty-eight hours, but they ask that the hours of labour shall not exceed nine a day. This is apparently intended to be a step in the general direction of shorter hours, as there appears to be no evidence of injury to health from ten hours. It is unlikely to be granted. With regard to overtime the Bill says this (Clause 67):

the period of employment for women and young persons may... be extended by means of overtime not exceeding 100 hours in any period of twelve months or six hours in any week.

And further, to meet recurring periods of work at certain seasons or sudden pressure of orders from unforeseen events, the Secretary of State may make a special order

allowing the period of employment for women and young persons over sixteen years of age engaged in that class of employment to be further extended by means of additional overtime in excess of the overtime allowed under the last preceding subsection, so, however, that the additional overtime shall not exceed fifty hours in any period of twelve months or three hours in any week.

The employers' union have not much to say about this provision of overtime, but the Textile Workers flatly condemn the whole thing. They believe overtime to be both unnecessary and undesirable when applied to women and young persons, and regard the provisions of this clause to be reactionary.' They ask for its deletion. They also want the deletion of Clause 74, which permits the Secretary of State to authorise the shift system for women and young persons over sixteen. They then go back to the Health clauses, which form the first part of the Bill, and require alteration affecting temperature, ventilation and the removal of dust, lighting and unsuitable rooms. With regard to temperature the Bill makes provision for a reasonable temperature,' and lays down 60 deg. as a standard after the first hour in every room where a substantial proportion of the work is done sitting; they want these distinctions removed and the standard of 60 deg. ordered for all rooms all the time. The employers prefer the 1901 Act, which prescribes a reasonable temperature without naming any standard. On ventilation a similar difference occurs. The employers ask for the 1901 wording, while the Textile Workers would tighten up the draft provision. Lighting is a wholly new provision. The Bill provides for 'sufficient and suitable lighting in every part of the factory in which persons are working or passing,' and gives the Home Secretary power to prescribe a standard. The Vol. 250.-No. 495.

G

employers consider that this gives the Home Office too much power, while the Textile Workers ask for light throughout the factory, and want rooms that need artificial light all day to be declared 'unsuitable.'

After some further, but minor, differences we come to the Welfare clauses, which are quite new to the Act of 1901, but take the form of Welfare orders in the existing law. The Textile Workers say that under these clauses provision should be made for the adequate supply of drinking water, hot water, cooking arrangements for meals, washing facilities, first-aid boxes, seats, the care and drying of clothes, and for any other thing necessary to health and welfare,' without any charge to the workers. The draft Bill does not exactly do this; it provides drinking water, first-aid boxes, seats and protective clothing, and arranges for the provision of the other things, and also for supervision of persons employed,' by order. The employers maintain that the provision of seats should be optional, that the existing law should be maintained for protective clothing, and that with regard to the other things the Home Office should proceed by regulation, not by order; they further demand the deletion of the provision for supervision of persons employed' and several other sub-clauses designed to ensure that the things are really wanted, providing for joint management and for objections to a proposed order.

The Textile Workers further ask for hand-threaded shuttles (to avoid shuttle-kissing'), the abolition of humidification in weaving sheds, and the prohibition of fines and deductions from wages. Finally, they demand that the Particulars clause-providing that piece-workers shall know the rates of wages-shall be so amended as to provide for the efficient inspection of the particulars supplied, by the inspector, as well as by a representative of the work-people, with prosecution by the Department of any employer who pays less than the correct wage. This seems to drag in the Department on a wage question. The employers would prefer the existing law. That is their attitude on several other disputed points. Their chief fear appears to be that the draft Bill gives the Home Office too much power; and with the possibility of a Socialist Government in view