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): e ... the period of employment for women and young persons And further, to meet recurring periods of work at 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. 6 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 t 1 8 the consideration has decided weight. In numerous cases they recommend that the Home Secretary should proceed by regulation, not by order. The difference is that before a regulation is made objections are heard, and in certain circumstances a public inquiry is held. After this, any regulation that is made must be laid before Parliament for forty days, so that the manufacturers concerned have ample notice, whereas under the draft Bill, the National Union observes that 'the manufacturer will never be sure from one day to another what sudden demand will be made on him by the Factory Inspectorate.' They further complain of the conditions leading to a public inquiry, which require a majority of the manufacturers affected to object, that the Home Office itself is the sole judge of what constitutes a majority and how it is ascertained. This organisation of employers has raised many other objections to the Bill, some serious, others trivial. They have evidently gone through it very carefully with the object of finding as much fault with it as possible; and one cannot help feeling that they would have done better to confine attention to the more serious points. What will happen is uncertain, but it seems probable that the Bill will be mentioned in the King's speech. The Home Secretary is keen about it and has devoted time and trouble to considering the objections and recommendations made. The weak feature of the manufacturers' case is that similar complaints have been made in the past and have not been justified by the effects. Its real object is to bring all industrial concerns up to the standard fixed by modern knowledge and the practice adopted in the better class of establishment. But at the same time it is subject to limitations. No one can deny that the present conditions are abnormal or that the weight of social service presses heavily on industrial employers. It is not a time to add considerably to the burden; and any clauses, of which it can be shown that they would have that effect, should be revised. In any case the Bill seems likely to entail enlargement of the Factory Department of the Home Office, which is a thing to be considered, when the cry of public economy is so loudly raised. ARTHUR SHADWELL. |