diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'factory/factory-utf8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | factory/factory-utf8.txt | 12105 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 12105 deletions
diff --git a/factory/factory-utf8.txt b/factory/factory-utf8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 1b35c2b..0000000 --- a/factory/factory-utf8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,12105 +0,0 @@ - - - - - WOMEN IN THE FACTORY - - - _All rights reserved._ - - - - - WOMEN IN THE FACTORY - AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADVENTURE, 1893 TO 1921 - - - BY ADELAIDE MARY ANDERSON - D.B.E., M.A. - - FORMERLY HIS MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL LADY INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, HOME - OFFICE - - - FOREWORD BY THE - - RIGHT HON. THE VISCOUNT CAVE, G.C.M.G. - - LORD OF APPEAL; FORMERLY HIS MAJESTY’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR - THE HOME DEPARTMENT - - “Thou, O God, dost sell us all good things at the price of labour.” - - LEONARDO DA VINCI. - - - NEW YORK - - E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY - - 1922 - - - PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY - BILLING AND SONS, LTD., GUILDFORD AND ESHER - - - DEDICATED TO - - ALL WOMEN WORKERS - - OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND - - - - - FOREWORD - - -This book tells the story of the Woman Inspectorate of Factories and -Workshops from its beginning in 1893, when the first Women Inspectors -(Miss May Abraham and Miss Mary Paterson) made their first inspection, -until the year 1921, when thirty Women Inspectors saw the fruits of the -work of their branch, not only in greatly developed protection for the -woman worker, but also in her own increased capacity to help herself. - -It was a story worth the telling, for it is a chronicle of a steady and -dogged campaign, of few defeats and many victories. The adversaries to -be met were all the ills which threaten the “factory girl”—poisoning by -lead or phosphorus or arsenic or mercury, insanitary or unventilated -rooms, accidents from unsafe machinery, phthisis, anthrax, overstrain, -truck and sweating, and more besides. Readers who like a “thrill” will -perhaps begin with the chapters on “Dangerous Trades” and on the War; -and if their imagination serves them, they may read between the lines of -those brief records stories of suffering, of endurance, and of rescue, -which will set them wondering why our predecessors so long grudged to -the woman worker the help which only a woman can give. - -But the whole book, with its documented record of steady grinding effort -and hard-won success, is well worth reading. - -Dame Adelaide Anderson went through it all, and for twenty-four out of -the twenty-eight years with which the volume is concerned filled the -responsible position of Chief Woman Inspector with untiring devotion and -conspicuous success. It was plainly “up to” her to write the history of -the struggle; and all will like to read it who honour our working women -for their work and value their welfare. - - (_Signed_) CAVE. - - RICHMOND, - _March 30, 1922_. - - - - - AUTHOR’S PREFACE - - -The writing of the following story of what Women Inspectors did for -women and girl workers under the Factory Acts and Truck Acts was -undertaken in response to the wish of friends and colleagues that it -should be told, while memory was fresh, by one who had seen the largest -part of the conditions and immediate effects of the work—a work carried -on under aims and organisation that are now undergoing change. - -The aims and the starting-point of the past organisation are shown in -the Introduction, and the outcome, down to 1921, is unfolded in the -following chapters. - -The material available in official reports for those who wish to study -the facts more closely is so full of incident that, with the best will -to be brief, it has been difficult to tell the tale shortly. Keeping -entirely to published official records the whole could be told over -again with fresh illustrations. And yet much that was significant and -enlightening can only be seen in innumerable notices in the daily and -weekly press and monthly reviews of the period; a fairly full collection -of these exists, but they could only be quoted occasionally in these -pages. Their correspondence in general tendency with the outlook shown -in Parliamentary Debates—of which an account is given in Chapter VI.—is -noteworthy. - -Next to the breadth of the field of action of the Women Inspectorate, -and the variety of their contacts with local administration and the -courts, as well as with industry, the smallness of their numbers from -1893 to 1914 strikes the mind. The strength of the impulse that -sustained and carried them through their years of labour may be traced -to conditions summed up in words spoken to one of them by a woman -toiling at a heavy task, “Is it right that I should have to do this work -and only have eight shillings a week for it?” - -There was a dominating impulse towards relieving the hardships and -sufferings of working women that drew all the women who entered the -Factory Department into a real unity of endeavour—whatever their social -or political outlook before entering. - -It is in the same spirit that they have lent me indispensable help in -the completing of this little book. I wish gratefully to acknowledge the -time and thought freely given to it by those who have long worked with -me. Miss Martindale has critically read through all the typed -manuscript, Miss Squire the chapter on Wages and the Truck Acts. Miss -Squire has also most kindly revised the Appendix I. on Special -Regulations for Dangerous Trades, written in 1913, and brought the -details up to the present time. Miss Escreet supplied me with most -helpful summaries from the mass of material in Annual Reports on child -labour, heavy weights, and religious and charitable institutions. Miss -Maura Brooke-Gwynne has devoted much time and skill to a literary -criticism of the text. Miss Paterson and Mrs. Drury have kindly written -special contributions, the former on mothers and child labour—subjects -of special appeal to Women Inspectors—the latter on a stirring day in -the life of a Factory Inspector. Finally, I wish to thank Mr. Gerald -Bellhouse for some figures in the Introduction, and Dr. Legge for kindly -reading through the chapter on Dangerous Trades, for his helpful -comments, and for the tabulation of reported cases of industrial -poisoning. They are in no way responsible, however, for my facts or -opinions. - - A. M. A. - - UNIVERSITY WOMEN’S CLUB, - 2, AUDLEY SQUARE, W. - _April 2, 1922_. - - - - - CONTENTS - - - CHAPTER PAGE - I. INTRODUCTION: HOW WOMEN INSPECTORS CAME, AND WHAT THEY - CAME TO DO 1 - II. THE WOMEN WORKERS AND THEIR APPEAL; EXCESSIVE HOURS, - INSANITATION, AND OTHER UNCIVILISED CONDITIONS 22 - III. WOMEN’S WAGES AND THE TRUCK ACTS; THE PIECEWORKER AND HER - PAY 58 - IV. DANGEROUS AND INJURIOUS TRADES; ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY 94 - V. EMPLOYMENT OF MOTHERS; CHILD LABOUR; CHARITABLE - INSTITUTIONS 149 - VI. THE LIFE OF THE INSPECTOR AND ITS INFLUENCE ON - LEGISLATION; EXPERIENCES IN COURTS 190 - VII. THE WAR AND WOMEN “SUBSTITUTES”; NEW LIGHT ON HOURS, - LABOUR-SAVING, FATIGUE, FOOD, AND EFFICIENCY 224 - VIII. DEVELOPMENT OF FACTORY WELFARE AND ITS RECOGNITION BY - PARLIAMENT; WORKS’ COMMITTEES AND WELFARE MANAGEMENT 250 - APPENDIX I. SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR DANGEROUS TRADES 287 - APPENDIX II. REPORTED CASES OF INDUSTRIAL POISONING AND ANTHRAX 306 - INDEX 308 - - - - - WOMEN IN THE FACTORY - - - - - CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION: HOW WOMEN INSPECTORS CAME, AND WHAT THEY CAME TO DO - - -This book aims at giving some account of an enterprise that is felt by -the Women Officers who lived through it to have been a great experience -and a great adventure in the service of the State and Nation—an account -that must be somewhat less and yet more than a chronicle. - -It is hoped, with the aid of outstanding facts and features recorded in -many Blue-books and other documents issued during the time, to give a -picture of the undertakings and experiences of these women, both at the -outset and through the experimental development of their administration -of Acts and regulations for women in industry, and to trace changes that -have followed in conditions of factory life in a period of little over a -quarter of a century. - -Personality and the idealising powers of youth (our average age at the -beginning was twenty-seven years), embarking on a calling that involved -conduct of legal proceedings and much other technical knowledge of an -entirely novel kind for women of that day, counted for much. We had also -liberal, kindly direction and encouragements behind our efforts from the -higher authorities responsible for sanctioning and carrying out the -decision to appoint us. Yet the main impetus came from without, in the -needs of the women workers who had persistently called—from 1878 -onwards—for the personal aid and understanding of “Women Inspectors,” -armed with authority and powers to enquire into and enforce remedies for -wrong conditions, or to persuade sympathetic employers to provide -amenities that the law could not enforce. - -Much that seemed novel then has, through the publicity of our work and -the spontaneous lively interest taken in Parliament and elsewhere in our -published reports, become part of the natural order of things. Yet in -those days the first appearance of a Woman Inspector in her proper field -of work, whether inside a factory or workshop[1] or on the solicitors’ -bench in the police courts, was liable to cause a sensation of surprise, -sometimes very favourable to the new-comer. - -“Are _you_ the lady inspector? Why, I expected to see a woman six feet -high and a perfect virago;” or, “Girls, it is a lady this time, come and -tell her everything she wants to know;” or (in Ireland), “We had a -gentleman inspector here last month, and he said we must take dinner at -the same hour every day: now a lady like you will know _that_ is -impossible!” In police courts it was not unknown for waiting solicitors -to enter with keen interest into the merits of our cases and even try to -offer professional hints in support of our amateur efforts. Yet the -following is a typical press comment of early years: “A small sensation -was caused in K—— Police Court when for the first time a lady advocate -appeared.... She made her statement with as much clearness and ease as -any more accustomed advocate, and as the facts and laws were alike -indisputable, conviction necessarily followed.” - -When this story begins, in great industrial communities of Europe, and -pre-eminently in Great Britain, women’s labour in industry had for more -than a hundred years fundamentally depended, without control by women, -on such organisation as was furnished by capitalist and middlemen -employers, in a factory system that had been completely severed from -domestic life. Trade union organisation for women was generally a small, -young, and fragile plant where it existed at all. In textile factories -for upwards of fifty years Factory Inspectors had applied certain -outstanding statutory limits and requirements in matters of hours of -labour, elementary sanitation, and safety; and for a much shorter time -in many non-textile factories. Glamour had been lent to these questions -of regulation by movements for reform led by such outstanding -personalities as Robert Owen, Shaftesbury, Peel, Oastler, Sadler. The -fact remained, however, as official witnesses assured the Royal -Commission on Labour in 1891–92, that women workers themselves tendered -practically none of the complaints that the Inspectors were there to -remedy and to which they looked for clues in exercising their protective -functions.[2] - -Apart from the few industries where women had in some degree carried -their traditional skill over from the domestic system of industry into -certain factory processes—I have to write in few words of a many-sided, -unevenly-moving change—the entry and ever-extending rule of the power- -engine had brought “lower grade work and diminished industrial self- -respect”[3] for women workers in a wide field. The loss also of -leadership and supervision by fellow-women of better education in the -“making of things” (such as soap, candles, and the many other articles -formerly made at home) that obtained under the domestic system—that is, -by women more habituated than workers to exercise of direction—brought a -new social cleavage between them and working women. This meant an -incalculable loss to both classes of women. Yet it meant still more for -the whole community—the elimination, for a dark period, of the guiding -ideas of women in regard to conditions essential for a good industrial -life of both women and men. - -Thus, the factory system of the nineteenth century, “unsuited as we now -know it to have been to men, was far more unsuited to women.”[4] For the -worker it emptied more than half the meaning from the ancient symbol of -a social order when _master_ meant _master of craft_, “As the eyes of -servants look unto the hands of their masters and the eyes of a maiden -unto the hand of her mistress.” It wholly removed into the realms of -mythology classic pictures of the days when women’s industries were -entirely home industries—of Nausicaa and her maiden laundresses on the -seashore of Corcyra, or of Penelope weaving in the days when “Pallas -taught the texture of the loom.” - -While mechanical power mainly ruled, instead of serving, in the factory, -the intervention of State regulation merely prevented the greatest -abuses. Even constructive and efficient application of scientific -standards to human conditions of manual work was almost unthought of, -and the withdrawal of the poet from the arena of industry proclaimed the -essential barbarity of its character. - -And yet the official life that was lived by the Women Inspectors in -those early days of infinite surprises and appeals was a most lovable -and enthralling one, of great movement and happiness. We escaped all -fear of “venturing the hand into the spinning cog-wheels of the huge, -implacable machine.” How much we owed to the fact that—in a wonderful -ignorance of ordinary official method and tradition—we were sent out -into a wide world to find our tasks; sent with powers that could and did -effect changes, having eyes and hearts ready and anxious to read the -meaning of the system under which a million and a half of our fellow- -country women made the things needed to clothe and feed the body and to -furnish and equip the home! Understanding of the basis from which we set -out can hardly be attained without a brief survey of the stages in the -movement that led to our appointment. - -On February 19, 1891, Miss Emily Faithful, after an interview with the -Home Secretary, Lord Aberdare, about the working of the Factory Act, -wrote a letter to _The Times_. She said that as long ago as 1872 the -information she received from various sources strengthened her -conviction that Women Inspectors were necessary if certain evils were to -be redressed and rules enforced in places where women were employed. The -first effectual advocacy of the appointment of women as Inspectors came, -however, from a leader in Women’s Trade Union Organisation, Mrs. Emma -Ann Paterson, wife of Thomas Paterson, “a man of genius and of -remarkable range of knowledge belonging to the ranks of labour.” Working -women owe to her, said Mr. Hodgson Pratt, in an obituary notice, “an -eternal debt for her wise, practical, and incessant labours. She founded -in 1874 and conducted the Women’s Protective and Provident League.[5] It -was not easy to teach ill-paid, overworked women that by association -among themselves they could raise their position ... and combine for a -demand of fair treatment by employers. Women accustomed to think -themselves too weak and dependent, too ‘inferior,’ women isolated and -struggling for bare life ... how could they combine or do anything? Emma -Paterson has taught hundreds of them—bookbinders, upholstresses, -dressmakers, machinists, tailoresses, and others—that they can do all -this. She has given them a new life, shown them the noble idea of mutual -help and service ... and given them the power of organisation and self- -government.”[6] Mrs. Paterson and another member of the league were -deputed in 1875 to represent two of the London Women’s Unions at the -Trade Union Congress in Glasgow, and there and in various other -industrial centres of Great Britain, she extended her activities for -trade union organisation of women. - -In the year 1878—the year of the first great consolidation of numerous -Factory Acts—at the Bristol Meeting of Trade Union Congress Mrs. -Paterson moved to include “women” in a resolution urging upon the -Government the appointment of “practical working men” as Inspectors -under the Factory Act. This was carried, and in 1881 she arranged for a -conference, at which Lord Shaftesbury presided, to advocate the -appointment of women as Factory Inspectors. She did not live to see the -reform, as she died in December, 1886. - -Although Trade Union Congress never failed to pass the amendment in -favour of appointment of working women as Inspectors, brought up year -after year by successors to Mrs. Paterson, Parliamentary Committee was -either unfavourable or lukewarm. “Oh, pass it,” one great person is -reported to have said; “it don’t matter, they will never get it.” Fresh -factors were needed to bring the administrative reform into being. - -In 1899, when a doubt had been expressed by Mr. Matthews, Home -Secretary, whether he had power to appoint a woman, and even whether -there would be enough work for her to do if he had, the Fabian Society -inserted a clause (eventually proved unnecessary) in an Eight Hours -Bill, expressly declaring that women were eligible for the Inspectorate. -Year after year the pressure grew stronger from various sides, and was -in no way lessened by the appointment between 1881 and 1890 of a -considerable number of “practical working men” as Inspectors. - -As the agitation grew, the burden on women of ever severer speeding-up -of machinery and the so-called “driving system” in cotton mills, of -excessively long hours and overtime in the dress and clothing trades, of -“sweated” wages in various low-grade industries and outwork, and of the -increasingly-felt evils of bad sanitation, fines, and deductions from -uncertain wages, all gave point and urgency to this claim. While wages -for men were rising, for women, on the whole, they were stationary or -falling. Enquiries into the sweating system had shown its worst features -to be low wages, long hours, and insanitary surroundings. In spite of -the long years since Hood wrote his “Song of the Shirt,” these adverse -conditions continued to affect women. Middle and upper class women’s -political organisations began to move energetically. The Women’s Liberal -Association and Women’s Liberal Federation had this question, annually -on their agenda, discussed, and resolutions passed from 1890 onwards. - -As Miss I. O. Ford wrote in 1896: “The idea that it was not right, that -it was unjust and sometimes even cruel, for women to have no one but men -to whom they could appeal against any sort of abuse, had been steadily -growing in people’s minds. It was an idea that appealed to everyone, -both rich and poor.” Miss Ford had already spoken repeatedly in this -sense, notably in 1892 at the Bristol meeting of the National Council of -Women Workers. - -At last, between 1891 and 1893, the turning-point in the movement came, -with the appointment and work of the Royal Commission on Labour. Four -Women Assistant Commissioners were appointed at an early stage in the -proceedings. One, Miss May Abraham, Secretary to Lady Dilke (better -known as Mrs. H. J. Tennant, C.H.), became in the spring of 1893 one of -the two first Women Factory Inspectors under the Home Office, the other -being Miss Mary Paterson, with valuable experience of Labour questions -in Scotland. Another Assistant Commissioner, Miss Clara Collett, became -special correspondent for women’s industrial conditions to the -Statistical Department of the Board of Trade. The report of the Women -Assistant Commissioners, the first official women investigators of -industrial conditions, received high praise and conclusively supported -the demand for appointment of Women Inspectors. One of the two -Secretaries of the Commission, Mr. Geoffrey Drage, furthered the -movement by employing University women and giving them opportunity and -training as clerks to the Commission. After the appointment of Miss Lucy -Deane in April, 1894, two of his staff were added to the Inspectorate, -Miss A. M. Anderson (July, 1894), and Miss A. Tracey (1897), bringing -additional experience in précis-writing and knowledge of foreign -reports, especially of French, German, and Austrian industrial codes. -Miss R. E. Squire, appointed in December, 1895, brought, like Miss -Deane, fresh and good experience as a Sanitary Inspector. These first -five Inspectors have all, in time, passed to other tasks and -responsibilities. - -The comparative survey of international Labour questions in the chief -industrial countries that was undertaken by the Royal Commission on -Labour followed soon after the work of the International Conference on -regulation of conditions of work in factories and mines, held in Berlin -in March, 1890, at the invitation of the German Emperor. That conference -was followed in England by the passing of the Factory Act of 1891. This -limited the employment of women after childbirth, raised the age of -admission and employment of a child, and provided for regulation of -dangerous and injurious trades. It is now of peculiar interest that that -“forerunner” of the Labour Convention under the Peace Treaty of 1919 -should be in a manner linked with the first effectual employment of -women as Factory Inspectors. - -At a political meeting of the National Liberal Federation in January, -1893, Mr. Asquith spoke as Home Secretary, among other subjects, on -Administration of Factory Laws, promising extension of the Inspectorate, -and adding: “I hope I may be able at the same time to do something—it -will not be much—to gratify the desires of our lady friends for female -inspection.” He did far more; he gave them their liberal starting-point -and wide field of activity. Opportunities were maintained and extended -by Sir Matthew White Ridley and a long succession of Home Secretaries. -Permanent Under-Secretaries, too, furthered the work in its earliest -stages by carefully planned instructions; Sir Godfrey Lushington was the -first, and Sir Kenelm Digby succeeded him in January, 1895, and largely -guided our legal work through nine eventful years. Sir Mackenzie -Chalmers followed him, until he in turn was succeeded, in 1908, by Sir -Edward Troup. It was the last who gave evidence to the Royal Commission -on the Civil Service in 1913 that the work of the Women Inspectors, -expressly organised as it was on parallel lines with the men’s, was -comparable with and as good as theirs. - -The quality of the earliest Women Inspectors did much to decide the -official status of women in the Inspectorate. Between some of the -official witnesses to the Labour Commission, who urged that the -appointments—admitted to be inevitable—should be solely as subordinate -assistants, “never to be called on to discharge the higher duties of the -office,” and outside claimants, who pressed for their full appointment -to _all_ the powers and duties of an Inspector, there stood a middle -party with moderating views. From them, led by Lady Dilke, came the -advice that women should enter as a special class of officers to serve -in trades in which women were employed. Somewhere between the extreme -limits proposed the higher official decision was made. It was there, in -women’s trades, the field at that time of women’s greatest need, that -the new Inspectors found their practically limitless work. And by the -decision they were saved, first, from a hampering necessity of working -entirely under conditions and according to standards already prescribed -before they entered with their new instinctive understanding of -complaints made to them by working women. Secondly, they were saved from -losing themselves in an overpowering mass of technical requirements, -such as elaborate fencing of machinery[7] primarily affecting men, -where—presumably—Men Inspectors were sufficient without women’s aid. At -the beginning their instructions allowed them to take up any questions -affecting women and girls, including fencing. For a time, and at their -own instance, they referred all fencing to the Men Inspectors, while -they turned almost exclusively to questions of general hygiene -(cleanliness, ventilation, temperature, sanitary conveniences, etc.), -hours, excessive overtime, fines and deductions from wages, payment in -kind in various parts of the United Kingdom, dangerous and injurious -processes, industrial poisoning, employment of young workers, and of -women after childbirth; and to the encouragement of employers making -voluntary welfare arrangements in the factories. Later, from 1901 -onwards, they took up special questions of fencing affecting women in -laundries and clothing factories, and there they succeeded in -standardising methods. - -The Women Inspectors were, in fact, free under the early official -instructions to devote the concentrated energy of heart and mind, in -enthusiastic “team-work,” to enquiry and action on these most urgent -problems. Happily they entered just when public opinion, as distinct -from specialised knowledge, was awakening to the immense extent of -injury and loss and to the great need for constructive reforms in -industrial life. Their first Chief (under the Home Secretary, who had -initiated this addition to the Inspectorate), was Mr. R. E. Sprague -Oram, C.B. During his administration the important new provisions of the -Factory Act of 1891 were applied and the preparatory enquiries for the -yet more important Act of 1895 were begun. This Act furnished new -starting-points and made provision for more exact knowledge, in -requiring regular returns of persons employed in a factory or workshop -with particulars as to age and sex, and notification by medical -practitioners and employers of cases of industrial poisoning, together -with other provisions for regulation of dangerous trades. These were -carried to far greater developments under our second Chief, Sir Arthur -Whitelegge, K.C.B., M.D., in what may be considered the culminating -period of Factory Act administration. - -Before the retirement of Mr. Oram in 1896, the five Women Inspectors -were, in harmony with their own wish, formally constituted a branch of -the Factory Department, under immediate superintendence of Miss May -Abraham, subject of course, as all branches were, to control by the -Chief Inspector. Miss Abraham retired from the Inspectorate in May, -1897, a year after marriage, and the branch continued from that year -until August 1, 1921, under direction of the writer of this book. From -1896 the reports of the women were, until 1914 inclusive, issued over -the signature of this head of the branch, as a separate section in the -Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, thus giving a clear history of the -progress of their work. Staff Committees to enquire into and make -recommendations on organisation came and went at intervals of a few -years, but the only important changes affecting organisation of the -Women Inspectors’ work that came before 1921 were in 1899 and in 1908. -In 1899 came the useful devolution, never extended beyond two districts, -of special district charge of certain women’s industries into the Women -Inspectors’ hands. In the later year came the creating of new group -centres in the chief industrial cities (Glasgow, Manchester, Birmingham, -etc.), where the Women Inspectors, under charge of a senior woman, -carried on their routine general inspection and enquiries into -complaints in factories employing women and girls, but with newly -defined duties, investigating notified cases of industrial poisoning, -accidents, and other matters specially affecting women. All this work, -however, was subject to the central direction at the Home Office through -the Principal Woman Inspector, and was carried on in definitely -regulated co-operation with their colleagues, the Men Inspectors in -charge of Districts, as well as the Medical and Engineering Inspectors. - -The number of Women Inspectors grew, from five in 1897, to twenty-one -just before the Great War in 1914, increasing by temporary additions -during the War to a maximum of thirty. From this point, further and -adequate extension in numbers of the women’s branch was admittedly -impracticable without reorganisation of a fundamental character. To -prevent cumbrous dual inspection of factories largely employing women it -was necessary to have either well-defined sharing and division of the -whole work of inspection as between men and women, with interchange of -Inspectors as regards any factories not employing men or women -exclusively; or a fusion more or less complete of men and women for -_all_ duties and responsibilities. This assumes that broadly they are -alike effective, whether for enforcing safety of men and boys in -shipbuilding, docks, blast furnaces, foundries, engineering works, etc., -or for securing health and safety of women and girls in fruit preserving -and confectionery works, laundries, corset factories, millinery, mantle -and shirt and collar factories, textile factories. - -Fusion was the line of development chosen by the Home Office, under a -scheme that allowed in 1921 for 42 Women and 195 Men Inspectors; this -could not then be fully carried out as to numbers. - -It is impossible to state exactly the present proportionate number of -men and women in factories and workshops for purposes of comparison with -the earliest systematic figures, which were published by the Factory -Department in 1896. At that time there were in the United Kingdom -144,000 factories and workshops in which 1,403,568 women and girls and -2,699,917 men and boys were employed. These figures had risen by 1907 to -1,852,241 women and girls and 3,274,868 men and boys. When the War broke -out there were nearly 2,000,000 women and girls employed in factories -and workshops. By the end of the War there were 3,000,000 women and -girls industrially employed, and in 1919 the women and girls still -numbered over 2,000,000 in a total of over 6,000,000 male and female. -The rise and fall of “substitution” during the War and of unemployment -in 1920 to 1921, makes more recent exact comparison difficult. At the -outside the ratio of female to all workers can hardly exceed 35 per -cent. - -While the reorganisation of the Inspectorate that began in August, 1921, -rounds off a well-marked epoch in Factory Act administration, giving -point to the choice of period covered by this book, it is well to -remember that in industry itself there remains, for the present, small -change in the division of occupations between men and women workers. - -The hopes of a substantial widening of women workers’ activities, to -follow after the great work of their substitution for men in factories -during the War, have not been fulfilled, and in some processes women -have been excluded by the unions with increased stringency since the -War. The ratio of men and women in industry probably remains somewhere -near that in 1907. Thus the greater numbers of men with their immense -problems of safety and accident prevention provide the largest call on -the time of the whole Inspectorate. And Women Inspectors are now bound -to take a considerable share of this work. - -A great gain may be achieved by developing fuller mutual interchange of -special knowledge and special experience between Men and Women -Inspectors as regards hygiene, safety, and welfare of all the workers at -a time when Inspectors are becoming less and less corrective, and more -and more constructive, in their functions. It was a matter of common -regret among the earlier Women Inspectors that they could do so little, -even indirectly, to further much-needed reform in conditions of health -and welfare for men and boy workers. “Let the Women Inspectors come into -our shops,” said a bold and advanced male trade union worker at a -meeting, early in the twentieth century, at which the writer explained -dangerous trades regulations; “they seem to be able to frighten -employers into doing things!” - -Any change of organisation can, however, in the long run, be weighed and -judged only by the result in increased effectiveness and fineness of -inspection, not by greater official convenience, nor by a theory of -equality of men and women. We have yet to learn whether in face of the -actualities of industrial life complete fusion of the functions and -activities of Men and Women Inspectors can serve the many distinct needs -of men and women in factories and workshops better than some degree of -specialisation and co-ordination. - -In order to secure permanent, equal eligibility of men and women for -future appointments and promotions in the department, some equivalence -in numbers is necessary. A minority which is no more than approximately -a fifth of the whole has small chance of putting up as many able -candidates for promotion as the larger majority. As a general rule the -minority has, further, the extra handicap of compulsory retirement on -marriage. Thus some approximation of the number of Women Inspectors to -at least the relative proportion of women in industry is a necessary -corollary of “fusion” of the Inspectorate. The value of the special -contribution brought by Women Factory Inspectors to the regulation of -factory life for women and girls is too well and authoritatively -established to be, as it were, accidentally lost. - -The testimony of the Women’s Employment Committee under the Ministry of -Reconstruction, in 1919, as to the great “administrative success” of the -work of the Women Inspectors is strong.[8] It can be tried and tested by -a careful study of the range of subjects the Women Inspectors covered, -and of the records of their actions, in the Annual Reports of the Chief -Inspector issued by the Home Office from 1894 to 1914; by the testimony -of working women; by the official reports of Parliamentary Debates on -Home Office Administration, and on amending Factory Acts embodying -recommendations which they had been emboldened to make. More arresting -and convincing, however, for the general reader may be observations from -a distinguished onlooker outside official ranks. - -Listen to the voice of Canon Scott Holland, speaking in July, 1896, in -the Editorial Notes of the _Commonwealth_, on the new light that was -appearing in the dark places of factory industry: - - “What used to be one of the most depressing and uninforming of Annual - Blue-books is now (issue for 1895) one of the most interesting and - valuable.... I take from my shelf the starved-looking report of the - ‘eighties’ and early ‘nineties’ and lay it out by the side of the two - stout volumes just issued, and wish that the people who are losing - heart ... all the wise people who have seen so many things in their - time that they can never believe in an upright and vigilant - officialdom, would come and turn over the leaves with me.... It is the - report of crusaders; it brims with suggestions of reform.... You feel - that to be a Factory Inspector is to be something splendid and - stirring and effective; that these men and women are the missionaries - of order and health, and that they bring hope with them where they go. - - “The state of things is in many ways disgracefully bad, but it is - something to see the State itself exposing the evil and casting about - for a cure. Since 1892 the staff has been increased by 50 per cent.... - - “The joint report (of the Women Inspectors) is a record of tremendous - work, accomplished with courage and judgment. - - “The work of levelling up as to safety and health goes on apace.... It - is cheering to see that many manufacturers are becoming alive to the - effects of industry on health.... - - “The report has a special interest on account of its being the - valedictory message of Mr. Sprague Oram, H.M. Chief Inspector, who - retires after half a century of public service.... It is no secret - that much of the go-ahead work of the last few years has been due to - his enthusiasm, initiative, and devotion.... He hands over his duties - to Dr. Whitelegge, a distinguished authority on public health, who - should be a tower of strength ... in the work of making every factory - and workshop fit for human beings to work in.” - -The entering of a breath of new life, obvious as it becomes in the -Annual Reports of 1895, 1896, and onwards, is not, and must not be, -attributed disproportionately to the entry and work of the small band of -Women Inspectors—for that itself sprang from a wider movement affecting -the whole department. None the less, it was a powerful new factor that -gained in effectiveness as time went on. And it preceded in time even -the highly significant and essential addition of Medical Inspectors -considered in Chapter IV. If we do not speak here in detail of the fine -work done by Men Inspectors, it is because that lies outside the scope -of this brief survey. They have had great pioneering days in the early -battles for Factory Act regulation. Their service when Women Inspectors -entered with a new task before them had yet to be fully developed in the -light of scientific knowledge and method. - -If these pages in any true measure picture, for twentieth-century -workers and employers, certain conditions in industry during the twenty- -eight years under review; if they can put any clues into the hands of -legislators and administrators regarding women’s share and needs in -industry, they will fulfil their aim. They are designed to serve as a -finger-post to the original documents. By imaginative study of them -alone can the growth and change of this profoundly interesting period be -seen. During its course, after about ninety years of tentative, -experimental Factory Acts, something like civilisation began to dawn -inside industry. Out of it there emerges, from about the year 1918, -glimpses of the possibility of a new order, when—instead of intervention -by the State between diverging interests of workers and employers— -regulation can partly spring from within industry itself, by Joint -Councils and Works’ Committees, as well as by representative Trade -Boards. Factory Inspectors may then become mainly technical and expert -advisers and counsellors in factories that are developing a life of co- -operation between manual workers and employers as co-organisers of -production. - - NOTE.—The terms “factory” and “workshop” are defined in Section 149 of - the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. - - Broadly they apply to any workplace where the manufacture of any - article is carried on by way of trade or for purpose of gain and any - person is working under a contract of employment. If mechanical power - is used in aid of the process, the place is a factory; if not, as a - rule it is a workshop; but certain workplaces—_e.g._, tobacco works - and potteries—are factories, even if there be no power applied. - - - - - CHAPTER II - THE WOMEN WORKERS AND THEIR APPEAL; EXCESSIVE HOURS, INSANITATION, AND - OTHER UNCIVILISED CONDITIONS - - “‘It’s gey handy to have the likes o’ you,’ a Scottish mother said - when consulting Miss Vines on the effects of employment on her - daughter’s health.”[9] - - -The outstanding characteristics of the working women of our country that -immediately appealed to the Women Factory Inspectors were their courage -and their endurance, their ready trustfulness, and their loyalty. -Instances of timidity, or fear of losing employment—hard to get and -easily lost—by evidence necessary to establish infringements of the law, -these did but throw up, in high relief, the dominating traits of the -majority. The exceptions were only natural in the days of severe -competition for poorly paid work, especially before the organisation in -1898 of the Industrial Law Indemnity Fund[10] for aiding workers -dismissed by employers after giving evidence that led to proof of -breaches of industrial laws. - -A few months after my appointment to the Factory Department I went into -a factory just as a girl of fourteen years had been carried to the local -infirmary suffering from a compound fracture of her leg and other -injuries. “She had been at work at a card[11] for several weeks and was -esteemed as a careful, clever, and good worker. In the endeavour to keep -her card in good order by steady cleaning, her skirt had been caught in -the driving band and the mischief was done.... She had kept perfectly -clear and conscious, and had been chiefly concerned that no one should -alarm her mother, who was ill at home.”[12] The managing foreman was -much moved as he told me of this Lancashire girl’s serenity and -unselfishness under the sudden shock and suffering. Instances as strong -and stronger could be given by any Inspector of the way that a high and -fine spirit predominates when accidents and casualties occur in a -factory. Other examples in 1913, eighteen years later, may be compared -with that one. “Of a girl partially scalped,” Miss Martindale says: “Her -pluck and bravery were noteworthy; in fact, the qualities show -themselves in a remarkable degree in working girls when they meet a -severe physical shock;” of another, whose hand had to be amputated after -vain attempts to save it, she says that the girl mastered her -disappointment, and in two or three days after the operation began to -practise writing with her left hand, and in a month had become almost as -proficient as with the right. Or again, Miss Tracey says of fifteen -cases of serious lead poisoning among women employed in a workshop, -where they were “heading” yarn (dyed with a chromate of lead dye), “I -visited these workers at their homes and found them in different stages -of illness and convalescence. Their pluck will always remain fixed in my -mind; although many of them were unable to put into words the suffering -they had gone through, yet not one of them but was eagerly wishing to be -well enough to go back to work.”[13] - -This is a spirit that is one with that we saw in the innumerable -“substitute” women and munition workers in the War. And before that -movement had well begun, an American employer in London had said in my -hearing that British women’s labour was the “best in the world,” -versatile, patient, and uncomplaining. - -What were the characteristic features in the earlier days that the -Inspectors saw—drilling and testing the women? _First_, a mute sense of -industrial inferiority, outside the great textile industries, though -even of them a “mill girl” could write: “Mill girls need a sensible and -educated woman to further their cause.... How many of our women are -there that have to spend most of their lives in unhealthy, badly -ventilated and unsanitary mills, and must go on and tolerate the -condition of things silently, not daring to complain, and even if they -have courage they shrink from telling a man. A Woman Inspector would -often see irregularities without being told. Her own instinct would -enlighten her: I think that is one thing in her favour.... In cases -where the law had no power to enforce alterations, frequently the Woman -Inspector has by gentle arguments and reasoning caused the employer to -see that it was to his own advantage as well as the workers’ comfort to -effectuate the improvement.”[14] _Secondly_, an absence in the great -majority of factories of any woman in a position of authority. -_Thirdly_, in spite of protective laws, a working day and week in which -the standard hours worked by women frequently exceeded those for which -men, in certain great trades, had by means of trade unions secured -recognition from employers. _Fourthly_, a frequent lack of suitable or -even decent and sufficient sanitary accommodation, of cleanliness of a -domestic nature, and of other hygienic requirements, sometimes -injuriously affecting conduct and morals. _Fifthly_, not only low -average and individual wages, but on the part of pieceworkers an -intolerable uncertainty as to what their rates really were; and, for -all, a liability to arbitrary deductions for fines and alleged damages -to work, which often brought earnings below subsistence level. - -These are all evils that specially and peculiarly weighed upon women, in -a haphazardly evolved factory system over which they had absolutely no -control. They shared with their fellow-men other frequent, though -certainly not universal, ills: excessive heat in active, and cold in -sedentary, occupations; exposure to inadequately controlled dust, steam, -fumes; badly drained or damp floors; handling of dangerous or injurious -materials; often poor and sometimes very bad general ventilation; lack -of washing conveniences, and means of preparing and taking meals. The -great matters in which men’s risks far exceeded women’s lay in injury by -accidents from dangerous machinery, explosion, and other causes, and -these remain still the largest risks to be reduced by guidance of a -thoroughly skilled Inspectorate, combined with safety control through -workers and employers. - -A single illustration may bring home the roughness and irresponsibility -of supervision of girl workers, sometimes associated in the nineties -with all the hardness of factory life. The circumstances were in some -features exceptional, but by no means solitary, in roughness and even -barbarity, as will appear in later pages of this book. It was found, on -investigation of a complaint from an onlooker, that in a large textile -factory an incompetent managing foreman had, nominally as a means of -discipline, turned a great fire-hose on to a large group of young -tenters and weavers. The water, drawn from the mill pond and filthy, was -directed over a partition upon them while they were jammed in a narrow -vestibule in which they took refuge. The girls (of whom forty were -examined by the Inspector) were then turned out on a cold March day, -dripping, to walk in some cases several miles to their homes. The whole -matter was outside the Acts and nothing could be done by the Factory -Department beyond visiting the head office of the mills and drawing -attention to the circumstances.[15] A reprimand to the foreman and his -apology was so far satisfactory, but many years passed by before the -idea of supervision by a woman was considered in textile mills at all. -It required the shock of the Great War to secure provision in a broader -way, as through the Act of 1916, which first brought welfare supervision -and conditions of welfare within administrative control. - -The great majority of the earlier complaints related, year after year, -to hours of work and sanitary matters; the former predominated, -especially in the London area, and until the year 1912 complaints of -legal and illegal overtime led in numbers. Complaints relating to -uncertain wages under the Truck Acts and lack of piece-rate particulars -steadily mounted, but this distinct subject merits a separate chapter, -as do also the employment of mothers and dangerous trades. The totals of -all kinds of recorded written complaints (in addition to many verbal -that we received annually) rose from 381 in 1896, to 729 five years -later, and to 2,025 in a further ten years. Confidence grew steadily and -rapidly, until in 1919 a woman organiser could say that women working in -factories of every kind of industry, in the north as in the south, -strongly and “passionately” call for visits of Lady Inspectors. - -Long hours of work, then, at the outset of our career were the greatest -trial for working women—with home duties claiming much of their strength -in most instances. The ordinary working day generally took what the -Factory Acts allowed, and in the main still allow, although for at least -the past ten years hours of employment have fallen to reasonable limits, -not through amendment of the law, but through movement of public -opinion, growing strength of women’s organisation, and commonsense of -many employers. In textile factories for young persons and women these -hours were, from Monday to Friday, ten, and on Saturday six and a half. -In non-textile factories the hours might be respectively ten and a half, -and seven and a half on Saturday.[16] A spell of work in textile -factories could not exceed four and a half hours, and in non-textile -factories five hours, without at least half an hour for a meal. In the -latter case firms often found it convenient to work two five-hour spells -with a break at midday of one hour, and on Saturday an unbroken spell of -five hours. The heavy burden of labour on this basis was a perennial -source of complaint from women and girls for which there was no remedy -in the Factory Acts, and was a cause of anxiety and regret to the Women -Inspectors, until the pressure of wartime production proved its -ineffectiveness for increasing output. - -We must also bear in mind that the legal hours in unorganised industries -were frequently and widely exceeded. - -A liberal allowance was made in the Acts for overtime in many non- -textile industries and processes.[17] In such cases overtime could, if -notified to the Inspector, be used on forty-eight occasions in the year -(reduced in 1901 to thirty occasions) for an additional two hours. This -applied, until amended by the Act of 1895, to young persons as well as -women. From 1896 onwards, the scandalous length of a fourteen-hours’ day -on forty-eight days in the year no longer legally overtaxed young -workers of fourteen years and upwards.[18] Elasticity in the law for the -causes allowed appeared reasonable at first sight, but what was -authorised as an exception became under stress of competition a -principle, and one has sympathy with the young woman who said, with a -chorus of approval from her fellow-workers, to the first Woman -Inspector, “The overtime exception just spoils the Factory Act!” Equally -readily did a fellow-feeling rise for the workgirl who asked, “What sort -of half-holiday it was that began at four o’clock in the afternoon?” In -_illegal_ overtime the bad habit was continued for years, and many raids -and devices were necessary to overcome it. Dual employment of women in a -combined retail shop and workshop was for long a source of excessive -hours. Thus, when they had finished the legal day in the workshop, they -might have to serve in the shop until late at night. This dual -employment was not limited to the normal daily period lawful in a -workshop for women until after the passing of the Act of 1901. -Inspectors had to watch overstrain of this kind helplessly for years— -where they could not move an employer to see the harm it was doing. The -case of the little thirteen and fourteen-year-old “matchers” in -dressmaking establishments had to wait for effectual remedy from another -source. - -A complaint we received in 1903 brought to light extreme, but by no -means unprecedented, overstrain of a little girl of fourteen, legally a -young person. She “was engaged to clean and sweep the workrooms, run -errands, match ribbon and silks at shops, and generally do work required -of young apprentices in the trade; in addition, however, she cooked the -occupiers’ meals, including supper; did the work of the house; arriving -at the workshop first in the morning to light fires and ‘tidy up,’ she -did not leave till 11 p.m., and appeared utterly worn out.”[19] - -In the early years the impetus of our endeavours to repress excessive -hours was, at times, almost checked by a possible consequence. Portable -articles of manufacture could easily be, and often were, sent home with -the worker at the close of the legal day, and all the more easily in -trades and quarters where there was legal and legitimate “outwork” by -non-factory workers. This evil grew to considerable proportions, until -the law was strengthened so as to make this evasion more difficult. It -was really rooted in starvation wages, and eventually the advent of -Trade Boards removed most of the incentive to this insidious mode of -“sweating.”[20] It was often extremely difficult for the wage earner on -a narrow margin to risk losing an immediate addition to her wage (even -if earned by excessively long hours), through co-operating with the -Inspector by giving evidence as to long hours at home. This co-operation -was essential, as the Inspector’s entry into the home did not rest on -the same powers as entry into the factory. Yet many successful -prosecutions were taken in serious cases. For example, in 1911, a girl -of fifteen, working for a feather manufacturer, after working 8.30 a.m. -to 7 p.m. in the workshop, took work home, and worked 8 p.m. to 11 p.m.; -or a girl knotted “lancer” feathers, taken home, from 7 p.m. to 1 a.m., -and from 5 a.m. next morning until she went for her day in the -factory.[21] Here and in many other places the girl was compelled to do -extra work in order to earn enough to live. - -In certain processes (making preserves from fruit, preserving or curing -fish, making condensed milk) overtime was legal to the extent of a -fourteen-hours’ day on no less than ninety-six days in the year, until -the Act of 1895 reduced the figure to sixty days. The “gutting, salting, -and packing of fish immediately on arrival in the fishing-boats” was -altogether outside regulation by the Acts, whether for hours or -sanitation—for all workers, not excepting children. By the Act of 1901 -children received the protection of the Acts as regards hours of -employment in this industry as in others. In 1910 at Lowestoft some -women attempted a revolt against late night hours, but without success. -Again, at Grimsby in 1911, a group of very young women struck against -hours that were usually sixteen in the twenty-four. They were obliged to -return to work, as the employer, who also employed them at other -stations on the East Coast, pointed out that they had broken their -contract and could claim neither wages nor return fares to their homes. -At length, when a record catch of herring at Yarmouth had brought the -workers’ endurance to an end, a limit of daily and weekly hours was -negotiated by the Factory Inspectors and voluntarily agreed to by the -leading fish-curers. This has, since 1913, lessened the trials of the -hardy fish-curing girls and men. The hours, unlimited during the summer -months—June to September, of workers engaged in the “process of cleaning -and preparing fruit, so far as necessary to prevent the spoiling of the -fruit,” have also been brought within a certain degree of legal control -by an Order of the Secretary of State.[22] - -Regulation of hours in laundries followed a tangled course too long to -be told fully here. There was, in 1895, within and without that trade, -great opposition to any control whatsoever on account of the special -character of the work and its relation to the community, only half- -developed as it was from domestic to factory status, and closely -dependent on conservative household arrangements. This led to a loose -and ineffective form of limitation of hours in the Act of 1895. The -elasticity of the governing section immediately appeared to give -sanction to the late hours and long days of work, “hitherto regarded as -unnecessary evils tolerated in an unregulated industry.... The fourteen- -hours’ day met with outbursts of indignation from women, who would ‘like -to see how men would stand fourteen-hours of this work in heat and -steam.’”[23] Packers and sorters alone benefited by a net reduction in a -weekly total of hours that had for them often exceeded seventy hours. -Sixty hours became the normal legal period, augmented, however, in -seasons of pressure by permissible overtime to sixty-six hours. And -these hours might be compressed into five instead of six days in the -week, and could even extend, on a single day, from 8 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. -The amending and consolidating Act of 1901 made no improvement in these -hours, but in 1903 I was able to give the first account of a new and -hopeful feature, in the “steady growth of a strong section of employers -who have set their minds on inaugurating a more rational system of -employment in conformity with ordinary factory hours.”[24] This alone, -the employers claimed, in views ably expressed in a new periodical, _The -Power Laundry_, would raise the standards of work and workers. Very -considerable improvement followed from the Act of 1907. Thus, in -laundries, as in textile factories a hundred years earlier, the first -determined efforts towards reform sprang from an enlightened section of -employers—in this instance, however, encouraged by the Inspectors. In -1899 and 1900 they gave much time to discussing these problems with -directors at the head offices of multiple laundries, run by companies. -Efficient management has no doubt found that it could in course of time -compete successfully on shorter hours with less efficient management -working the full legal hours. There has been high social value in the -experiments in hygiene and welfare made by leaders in industry fitted by -their position to secure an effective trial—in the interests not only of -the worker, but also of the whole community. - -Without more study of details, so much may suffice to indicate the -public outlook in past days, as expressed in the law so hard to amend, -on the working capacity of human beings in manufacturing industry; and -it may serve to measure the change that has come about in ideas and -habits in these matters. - -The movement within industry itself has almost sufficed to bring the -whole problem of hours out of the region of compulsory regulation into -that of a reasonable, voluntary control that ought to be the natural -birthright of workers in a factory system possessing unlimited capacity -for large-scale production by applied power. Christian, after much -suffering with his friend Hopeful in the dungeon of Giant Despair, -remembered the key in his bosom that “could open any lock in Doubting -Castle.” And so they came out to “The King’s Highway” and fared on to -the Shepherds of the Delectable Mountains, whose names were “Knowledge, -Experience, Watchful and Sincere.” - -While the illusory belief in a need for exceedingly long hours lasted, -it bore most severely on the weakest manual workers—women and girls. -Although the best hours for any kind of industry can only be reached by -skilled scientific study, the rough-and-ready, if slow, method of -amendment by complaint has had effect. After the Acts of 1891 and 1895 -had increased the means of control of illegal overtime, and when an -increased Inspectorate came into activity, the first step was to enforce -the legal limits. Nowhere can a more vivid account be read of the -immense evil of excessive illegal employment, and of the protean forms -of evasion of law, with connivance of intimidated “sweated” workers, -than in the pages by Mr. Lakeman, in the Annual Reports of 1893 and -1894—published at the very time that the tide of complaints began to -flow to Women Inspectors. They also said much to substantiate Mr. -Lakeman’s contentions that “overtime is an evil, socially, morally, -commercially,” weighing upon “a vast aggregation of people slavishly -earning a poor living from hard taskmasters,” particularly in the East -End tailoring trade, where one sweating employer oppressed another below -him, and the worker at the lowest end of the scale was utterly helpless. -The Women Inspectors were the first to be free of a certain handicap in -dealing with the evasion and obstruction that led to concealment of girl -and women workers in lavatories and bedrooms, and they were the first to -be able to unravel tangled threads of evidence by confidential visits to -the women’s own homes. Even in a very extreme case of evasion by locking -of outer gates and darkly shaded windows, a Woman Inspector has been -known to enter the premises before closing time and wait in a dark -corner of the yard, in order to arrive in the workrooms at a suitable -moment for a complete personal observation of the extent of overtime. - -So marked was the gain in detection of hidden evils that a proposal was -made in 1895 by some Members of Parliament to bring bedrooms in the same -building with a workshop, used by women or girls, within the scope of -the Factory Acts, and to give the Woman Inspector special power of entry -and inspection. Fortunately, however, the proposal was not accepted, and -peculiar power was not allotted to the Woman Inspector. She was able by -quick observation and action, and use of the Inspectors’ ordinary powers -of entry and investigation, to achieve what was needful in such cases of -concealment; exceptional powers would have been fatal to that -intangible, yet potent, personal influence of an Inspector, which rests -largely on having no more distinction from the ordinary citizen than is -just necessary to effect the work required. Inspectors have always been -able to investigate matters not strictly breaches of the law and yet -needing regulation. In tentatively sending a complaint of such matters, -the Secretary[25] of the Women’s Industrial Council once wrote: “I know -how very much can be done by the tact and personal influence of an -Inspector, and even if the Inspector effects no change, her visit does -afford the workers a sense of protection which is very soothing when -they are feeling aggrieved.” - -In manifold ways similar testimony was afforded by communications from -officers of the Women’s Trade Union League, the Legal Advice Bureau for -Working Women, the Industrial Law Committee, and, above all, by the late -Miss Mary MacArthur. - -As the work grew in publicity through press reports of prosecutions, -confiding supporters sprang up in many unexpected directions. They -appeared among customers of dressmaking businesses, clergy and district -visitors, club leaders, schoolmistresses of half-time child workers, -doctors, and many others, not to speak of parents anxious to save a -daughter’s health without risking loss of her employment. One of our -longest and most tangled enquiries sprang from a communication from a -casual reader of the _Star_ newspaper. - -“Immediately on receipt of a complaint”—from one or other of such -sources, once wrote one Inspector to another—“we made a raid on Saturday -afternoon between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.,[26] and had a splendid catch, three -rooms full. The man set in the yard to watch for the Inspector _offered_ -to let us in ‘to see the housekeeper’; I merely remarked that ‘that -would do very nicely for us,’ and he did not realise his mistake until -we were half-way up the narrow staircase!” The Inspector momentarily -“felt a pang” for the watchman—but a prosecution followed in due course, -and the firm, of European and Transatlantic reputation as modistes and -furriers, were convicted. - -The theatrical costume industry, though not large, was one that for many -years exercised the ingenuity and taxed the vigilance of Women -Inspectors—complaints being perennial. Excessive hours, Sunday -employment, illegal homework, overcrowded workrooms, and obstruction of -the Inspector, were reported in 1902–03[27] and at intervals in a -succession of years. In 1911 there was evidence of a deliberate and -organised breaking of the law in the matter of overtime that did not -appear in any other industry. One London occupier, who was prosecuted -twelve times in ten years, was found on three separate occasions in 1911 -seriously contravening the law, a typical instance of long hours being: -Friday, 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, followed by 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday, -with some Sunday employment following. Penalties of £20 and costs on -conviction were evidently not deterrent.[28] In the great majority of -their concentrated attacks upon illegal hours of employment in other -industries Inspectors found that most occupiers tended to capitulate, in -the end, to firmness and persistence in enforcing the legal limits. - -Seaside laundries, busy in the summer season, offering residential -employment to laundry girls from inland towns, presented another serious -problem in suppression of evasions of the law. - -Suppression of “time-cribbing” (that is, exceeding legal limits by small -instalments)—during prescribed pauses for meals and just before 6 a.m.— -in many textile mills in the North was a task of a detective character, -on a large scale, beyond the small numbers of Women Inspectors, but one -in which they at least took their proportionate share with their men -colleagues. Undoubtedly women’s services in bringing home to the -employer contraventions of legal limits were more peculiarly needed -where proof turned not so much on the exact moment of starting a huge -engine driving machinery in a large mill, but rather on patient -examination of witnesses in their homes as well as the workplace. - -By the year 1912 an increasing number of complaints showed a growing -determination on the part of women workers to secure such limitation of -hours as was enforceable under the Factory Acts. One complaint of -excessive hours in a fancy stationery factory disclosed quite an -ordinary, and _legal_, state of affairs: “Fifty girls over eighteen -years of age had been working weekly from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. on three -days, from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on two days, and from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on -Saturday, as they were expected to do for from six to eight weeks in the -busy season.” For young pieceworkers the resulting fatigue can easily be -imagined.[29] - -In our earlier years of service, complaints of defects in general -sanitation in the factory and workshop were, as already said, fewer than -complaints of excessive or illegal hours of employment. Later on, -especially after voluntary improvement in hours had begun, the workers’ -help in matters of general sanitation in the workplace grew in volume -and understanding. The value of these complaints, in bringing the -Inspector to the spot for observation of the concrete facts, was more -direct and immediate than in complaints of hours where evidence was -requisite from the workers. Even a vague complaint such as: “Please I -would like you to call and see what sort of a place the women have to -work in, as it is in an awful condition,” was good, provided the correct -address of the shop was given. - -There were many and increasing complaints of lack of messrooms, -wholesome drinking water, seats, cloakrooms, and washing conveniences, -which were outside the Act until 1916. Underground and ill-lighted -workrooms were also the subject of complaint, and these still, in 1921, -await full hygienic control by the Factory Acts. Until the year 1901 -even general ventilation of such places could not be secured, and the -result may be seen in a description in 1900 of a low underground -workroom, packed with machinery, the narrow window slits at street level -being the sole means of ventilation, admitting dust from the street, -just where the gas engine was placed. “In the back part, where pallid -women stand at the machines, gas light is always burning. Here again we -are powerless to order means for introduction of tolerable air.”[30] - -Ill-ventilated, badly drained, uncleanly or otherwise defective -workrooms, were the subjects of many complaints on hygiene of the -workplace, yet complaints on defects in sanitary accommodation[31] and -extremes of temperature were even more numerous. Lack of means of -heating or failure to use means of heating was increasingly a subject of -complaint down to 1914. Many recalled the words quoted by Miss Abraham -in the Annual Report of 1894: “Is it not possible to compel Mrs. —— to -give her workgirls a fire?... It may really mean death to some of the -girls. I do not know what it will be like to-day, when they get there -with their skirts and feet wet after the snow.” The problem shifted, in -that as in other matters of health, after successive amendments of the -Act had given Inspectors power to intervene more effectually. Increased -stringency of the Acts appeared to extend the number of employers -anxious to improve the conditions of factory life beyond the statutory -minimum. It was not only the employer, but, sometimes even more rapidly, -the workers who found enlightenment in seeing standards improved or -strengthened by legal requirements. At first all the weight and mass of -complaints helping our administration came from the most elementary -needs. And, even there, too many workers were mute, until awakened by -proof that improvement was _possible_. It was only later that the -natural intelligence of the worker could co-operate in building up -larger and more specialised conditions of welfare. Speaking of a great -step onwards in sanitation, Miss Paterson wrote, in 1902, that the -indifference of the employer had resulted in a corresponding -indifference on the part of the worker, who, “acquiescing at first in -conditions which she feels powerless to improve, gradually ceases to -feel them an offence to her. There is no doubt one loses sensitiveness -to indecent arrangements just as surely as to impure air, but the moral -effect in the one case is much the same as the physical effect in the -other.”[32] - -Ten years earlier some working men representatives of the Yorkshire -textile industries gave it in evidence before the Royal Commission on -Labour that mill life under the then existing conditions and -organisation of work was “not conducive to ideas of propriety, -gentleness, and nobility.” Against such conditions the Women Inspectors -never ceased to strive, by varied and vigorous attack on insanitary -conditions that blunted perceptions of suitability, and by friendly -appeals to employers that sometimes met with excellent response. -Sometimes, again, action had to be taken against indescribably bad -conditions that were obviously a legacy from mediæval standards, by the -indirect method of laying an information against the occupier of the -factory for effluvia in hot spinning rooms, before the law provided for -direct attack on the ground of the unsuitability of the provision made. -In a case that I took, in 1896, against a Limited Liability Company in -Lancashire, after repeated written warning to the management, one of the -directors appeared in court to say they had not realised the state of -affairs in the mill. After a long hearing, the magistrates asked me to -meet the directors out of court, with their solicitor, which I did (the -Inspector in charge of the district accompanying me), in the gilded -council chamber of the municipal authority. The dignified group of -directors asked me then to “take the chair,” and we rapidly came to a -conclusion, as to the necessary constructive work, that satisfied the -local sanitary authority as well as myself. - -Sometimes a local authority would act vigorously on receipt of notice of -such defects from a Factory Inspector, one asking for more -notifications, another inviting conference as to other mills, and they -were most ready to move where they had not themselves to take the -primary initiative against fellowtownsmen. A single illustration may be -given in the case (by no means the worst of its kind) of a large old -textile mill, where local authorities, acting on our notice, took up -such matters with increasing thoroughness. “Dark, unventilated -conveniences, used indiscriminately by men and women, opened directly -off hot spinning rooms.... No attempt to secure privacy was made, the -doors were without fastenings ... the whole connected, not with a drain, -but a huge cesspool—a state of things more injurious to morals and -health can scarcely be imagined. The amount of accommodation was -seriously inadequate, besides being unsuitable and unhealthy.”[33] There -was an element of hope in spite of the overwhelming amount of work to be -done, in that most of the very worst conditions of this kind were found -in the oldest industries and factories, such as Lancashire, Yorkshire, -Staffordshire Potteries, and the Black Country, where the blunting of -perceptions had been longest at work. This factor checked our occasional -feeling of despondency at often finding the most barbarous conditions -where trade union organisation was at its highest strength. Incidentally -it at once confirmed the Women Inspectors in thinking that they really -had a new mission as well as a more enduring place in the guardianship -of women in industry. Even although this matter of sanitary conveniences -was but an elementary one, yet it was fundamental, and the Women -Inspectors were only too anxious to clear the way for their more -progressive and difficult work in respect of health and physical fitness -of the women and girls expressly allotted by the Home Office to their -care. - -The legal provisions for the sanitation of the workplace are complex; -the meagre basis of law on which we had to build at first, and a few of -the results secured, can only be slightly indicated. - -When we began our work there was no definition in the law of what -constituted overcrowding of a workroom, and only on proof (a difficult -matter) of actual danger or injury to health of the persons employed -could any abatement of overcrowding be enforced. Some of the worst -examples were found in country towns and in attic workrooms, often used -as bedrooms. Miss Paterson cited a case in 1894 where only 91 cubic feet -of space was allowed per person in a room with a roof 6 feet 4 inches in -height. Overcrowding was always rare in factories, however, and -complaints chiefly led us to cases of crowded floor space, not -definitely illegal. For general _ventilation_, as distinct from -mechanical exhaust for dust, gases, vapours, and other impurities -generated by the work, there was no legal provision before 1901, and to -this question in its connection with lighting, heating, and cleanliness -I will presently revert. There was no provision at all touching -maintenance of a _reasonable temperature_ before the Act of 1895. The -provision then made was quickly found defective, and we had to wait -until 1901 for powers to enforce means of heating that did not interfere -with purity of the air. _Drainage_ of workroom floors liable to become -wet could not (except under a special clause in the Act of 1895 -affecting laundries only) be enforced before the Act of 1901. Power to -determine what was _sufficient and suitable sanitary accommodation_ by -an order of the Secretary of State was first provided for by the Act of -1901. This had no legal force where local sanitary authorities—with -widely varying standards—had adopted certain powers to regulate the -matter under the Public Health Acts. In 1903 such an order was first -made, based on the experience and recommendations of the Women -Inspectors. This order gradually set the standard frequently adopted by -local authorities, but still, in 1921, this remains merely a voluntary -matter in the majority of sanitary districts outside Scotland. “The new -rules are just coming into force here,” said one working woman -correspondent to an Inspector, in 1903; “they give us just what we -need.”[34] In the previous years “a rain of resolutions and petitions” -reached my office from organised working women, which demonstrated that -working women were, to use their own words, “most ardently favourable in -respect of the draft order of the Home Secretary” just referred to, “so -that decent and satisfactory arrangements may be completed and the hands -of Inspectors strengthened in the discharge of duty.”[35] As regards -_cleanliness_ of the workplace, that universal need, there has been -since 1878 an absolute requirement in the forefront of the Act that -every factory shall be “kept in a cleanly state.” The duty of periodical -cleansing by lime-washing (or other prescribed methods) of walls, -ceilings, etc., has too often been read as covering the whole ground, -and methodical and regular cleansing of floors and benches, by moist as -well as dry methods, has always been a subject to which Women Inspectors -have had largely to devote their powers of persuasion. - -The provision of _drinking water_—a fundamental need of human beings -engaged in physical labour, and a subject of frequent complaint from -1894 onwards—was left solely to regulation by local sanitary -authorities, until an order was made in 1917, under powers given by the -Factories and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1916. This secured, at -last, that an order requiring a conveniently accessible supply of -wholesome drinking water could be enforced in every factory or workshop -employing twenty-five or more workers. The _lighting_ of factories and -workshops, whether natural or artificial, has never yet been generally -regulated by any of the Acts from 1878 to 1916, although there are many -references to it in our published reports from 1897 onwards. In 1911 the -special Report on “Illumination in Factories,” by Mr. D. R. Wilson,[36] -ultimately brought the matter under general review, and in January, -1913, a Committee was appointed by the Home Secretary; this was to -enquire into and report on the conditions necessary for the adequate and -suitable lighting (natural and artificial) of factories and workshops, -having regard to the nature of the work carried on, protection of the -eyesight of workers employed, and the various forms of illumination.[37] -Miss Squire, who had given much attention and study to defective -lighting and its remedies in factories, was made a member of this -Committee in November, 1920.[38] The bearing of this problem of lighting -on safety and accident prevention as well as on health has been long in -receiving the attention that it deserved from the British legislature. -In 1897, I drew attention to its recognition by French, Belgian, German, -and Austrian legislatures. That the workers felt an intense need of -skilled attention to the question is evident from a letter of complaint -in 1909 which besought an Inspector to “give a call unawares and see the -black holes of workrooms we have to try and work in, with scarcely any -light.... Please say nothing about receiving this letter, but act on its -contents, and do for us what we need in the way of proper light and -ventilation.” - -Probably the most important of the early contributions of Women -Inspectors to improved sanitation in the factory lay in their -insistence, year after year, on the close relation between good general -ventilation, cleanliness (including freedom from dirt, dust, effluvia, -and organic impurities), lighting and temperature, and on the value of -exact tests and standards in these matters. Time after time phthisis was -found to be rampant in particular factories where anæmic, poorly -nourished girls worked long hours, in light sedentary work, and at -dainty white work, under combined defects in cleanliness, ventilation, -lighting, heating. In such places, before the days when canteens and -playing-fields were considered suitable adjuncts to factory life, the -steady undermining of health that went on was really greater than in -many a factory under special rules for dangerous processes, or supplied -with good exhaust ventilation for injurious dust. In such instances the -co-operation of local Medical Officers of Health under the Public Health -Authorities, both directly and in their reports, was invaluable. As Dr. -Niven in his Annual Report for Manchester in 1902 observed: “Unless the -workshop is free from dust no mode of ventilation can be quite -satisfactory. The first requisite, then, is cleansing, carried out in a -proper manner. Ventilation must be considered in reference to each -individual case, but cleansing is a universal requirement as to which -definite rules can be laid down ... it is imperative in the interests of -health that cleansing should be by wet sweeping.” - -The extra need of fresh, pure air for maintenance of their efficiency at -work is a marked constitutional feature in women and girls, and their -sensitiveness to cold and draughts is proportionate also to the -sedentary character of much of their work. The Women Inspectors were -thus rapidly brought up against the interdependent problems of -artificial lighting and heating. Fine garment-making and embroidery call -both for good lighting and for freedom from presence of coal-dirt and -smuts in the air, whether admitted by open windows or by combustion -inside the workroom. When we began our inspection, closed windows and -absence of fire in the grates was the rough-and-ready way of securing -“clean” air for delicate fabrics, while warmth had to be secured chiefly -by using gaslight burners of the bat’s-wing type, as a means of -maintaining a temperature in which nimble fingers could carry on their -skilled work. Later, from January 1, 1896, the unhooded gas stoves—some -of the crudest type—fitted in many workshops and smaller factories in -consequence of the first legal requirement in the Act of 1895 that -“adequate measures shall be taken for securing and maintaining a -reasonable temperature in each room in which any person is employed” -constituted strong new arguments for powers to require good general -ventilation. Even so dangerous a gas as carbon monoxide, produced in -appreciable quantities by some of these stoves, not being an impurity -“generated in the course of the manufacturing process,” could not be -held legally subject to the provision for exhaust ventilation.[39] Nor -was there any legal remedy until the Act of 1901 embodied a requirement -that the measures taken for securing a reasonable temperature should not -interfere with the purity of the air. - -A great deal of work by the Women Inspectors in support of cleanliness -has directly furthered maintenance of good natural light in workplaces. -Not only have they pressed for regular cleansing by wet methods of -floors, but also for the same treatment of windows and skylights; and -the attention of occupiers was constantly drawn to the value of such -aids as reflectors, luxfer prisms, and the like, in mitigating darkness -or prolonging natural light in underground workrooms. Innumerable -confidential complaints from workers furthered our activity in this -direction. “In all the rooms of one badly lighted factory the windows -were so dirty that ... artificial light had to be used during the -day.... The gas with old flickering bat’s-wing burners being always in -use, large numbers of the girls complained of headache and weariness. -This they attributed to the bad light more than to the impure air.”[40] -It was about 1903, after the amended provisions regarding temperature -and ventilation had had time to work, that women began to send -increasingly definite complaints: “Nearly all the workers suffer from -colds ... now the present gas fire, whenever there is a down draught, -drives into the workroom poisonous carbonic acid gas.” - -The discomfort of low temperatures was intensified in some occupations, -such as aerated water works, where floors, usually of concrete or stone, -are liable to be very wet, and bottles and siphons alike cold to handle. -Bottle washers got some comfort where the water was hot, but liability -to soaked garments aggravated suffering from cold rooms in wet places. - -Extremes of temperature in the workplace at the other end of the scale, -rising to 100° F. or 110° F., or even higher, are specially connected as -a rule with the nature of the processes, and sometimes increase the -risks of dangerous and injurious industries, especially where lead is -present, as in certain pottery processes. There the problem is to limit -the heat without injuring the process. In other cases the heat results -from the work, and can be mitigated without injuring it. In laundries, -for example, as a mother once put it, young girls can get “all faded” -through unregulated heat and laborious work; and sometimes sunlight -streaming through inadequately shielded skylights, say, in pressing- -rooms of clothing factories, or in jam factories, causes temperatures of -96° F. and numerous cases of fainting amongst the girls. Painting or -whitewashing of such skylights, where blinds are not practicable, was -advised in mitigation of the discomfort. - -It is mournful to contemplate the amount of slow injury to the human -system, insidiously at work and showing its effects in disturbed -physiological functions and malnutrition, sometimes with resultant -desire for stimulants. This must have long handicapped not only the -workers—vainly appealing for removal of half-understood defects—but also -the efficiency in industry and the prosperity of manufacturers. The old -British neglect of scientific control of ordinary hygiene in the -workplace has to answer for much. Even when the nation was apprised of -the relation of disease to dirt, in environment, including air, and lack -of means for maintaining personal cleanliness—how slow-moving was action -to apply the knowledge effectively, through laws for protection of the -health of the industrial workers! The relation of disease and accidental -injury to darkness and to unnecessary use of defective artificial -lighting, an old problem, is only beginning to come into serious -consideration at the close of the period covered by this book. - -Along with recent advance in these matters we have to reckon the -benefits accruing from the recent rational reduction in hours, and from -development of other fundamentals of welfare—before all, the means of -partaking of good food in many works. - -It was significant that the Women Inspectors, as a branch of the Factory -Department specially charged with the duty of interpreting and -responding to the needs of women workers, received throughout their -service certain appeals and complaints on questions of conduct, or -conditions in the factory essentially affecting morals. These appeals on -matters not directly under the Factory Acts were never numerous, though -markedly increasing in the last few years before the War, when women -workers were growing bolder in self-expression and self-help. The -relative smallness in their number was balanced by their intensity. - -From about 1896 onwards, the mere possibility of the visit to any -factory of a Woman Inspector coming from headquarters in Whitehall— -strongly bent on sanitary reforms connected with increased cleanliness, -fresh air, light in the factory, physical fitness of the worker, -suitability in lavatory arrangements—had a wide and marked effect. She -gave a new meaning to the technical requirements of the law by her -steady insistence on the value of responsible superintendence of working -conditions. The very concentration of the Women Inspectors in a team- -work that could be applied in any area or centre, or to any particular -problem in any industry, tended to co-ordinate the work of the whole -Department in these technical things, as well as to unify the outlook. -Employers, sympathetic to advance, were helped to come into contact, -sometimes at their own express wish being put in communication with each -other. Undoubtedly this whole movement, linked as it was with a little -united band of enthusiasts, moving up and down the very dusty ways of -industrial life, did much to hasten improvement also in things affecting -manners and morals. - -“Why have I never had a visit from a Lady Inspector before?” was a -question from an employer that indicates a sentiment expressed more and -more frequently as the Women Inspectors increased in weight of -experience. Nothing, however, excelled in importance the confidence -engendered between the woman worker and the woman Factory Inspector -through the successful steady rooting out of abuses. In 1902 a girl, who -had given evidence for Miss Squire two years earlier in a prosecution -for illegal employment, wrote to her of a criminal assault made on her -by a fellow-workman on a dark winter morning in the factory, and she got -help and advice, though not under the Factory Act. At such wide -intervals as 1900, 1904, 1907, 1912, I see in our published reports -records of complaints of brutal conduct by managers, foremen, -overlookers, towards young girls. Even an employer in a spinning mill -was implicated in one of the earliest of these. “It seems scarcely -credible that nowadays (1900) little doffers should be knocked down by -grown men, violently struck on head and shoulders ... yet there was -evidence of little half-starved, undersized creatures who had suffered -at the hands of a burly overlooker and a tall imposing member of the -firm ... too strong to be doubted. When tackled with such conduct and -warned, neither denied the charge.” Another complaint, in 1912, -disclosed similar conditions. The visiting Inspector, again Miss Squire, -chanced while half-screened by a pillar in a workshed, to witness an -example of such brutality, when a foreman seized, shook, and flung from -him a young girl. She brought this, with various serious contraventions -of the Act that she found in the factory,[41] before the managers, and -“shamed them into taking action to bring about real improvement in the -conditions.” Cases of drunkenness and abusive language and complaints of -immorality were similarly dealt with and improvements secured. In some -cases the police, investigating immorality of an employer towards -workgirls, sought our aid. In other directions, employers would seek our -guidance in controlling moral risks. All such occasions afforded a -welcome opportunity to the Inspector for giving information to the -occupier about the well-attested gain of wisely chosen, trained women’s -superintendence in matters of hygiene and welfare in the factory. In one -noteworthy instance the discovery by Miss Martindale of some oppressive -treatment of little half-timers in a great textile mill in Belfast led -the active-minded manager to ask her whether he could find a trained -woman to carry on, daily, in the mill such work as she had done at a -single visit. The woman was found, and she did much for the health and -welfare of men, women, and children there. - -In 1896 it was first recorded that letters of thanks from workers for -improvements effected by the Inspectors were coming in, sometimes -without any clue to the writers. And an Inspector would be stopped in -the street by a group of girls, who had previously complained verbally -during an inspection, to say how much better things were going since -“fining had been reduced”; or a railway porter lifting an official bag -into the train would give a word of thanks on behalf of a sister or -friend whose overtime had been reduced. Or one workgirl confiding a -hardship in her workplace to another girl casually met outside, would be -told to “come along to the Lady Inspector who helped me a year ago,” -and, investigation and prosecution following, would set in train a -similar series of remedial activities. - -Ireland had, as in so many other things, special ways of her own in -appealing to and thanking the Inspector for aid needed and rendered: -“Please ... would you kindly see to the heating of our Room ... the -stitching department is not ventilated, it is terrible fusty you would -never want a headache if you had to work in it ... thanking you in -anticipation. We have proved your worth before, every worker knows you -are a lady.” Another hopeful set of complainants, who wrote of lack of -any means of heating in a draughty finishing loft, signed themselves, -“Yours expectant,” and the Inspector, Miss Martindale, on her arrival -was greeted with: “Thank God, you’ve come.” Or, again, another wrote -thanks and pled for continuance of her watchfulness: “Thank you, mem, -for coming to X. They are doing what is right since you were here if you -only knew how much good you done ... please mem be sure and watch -them.”[42] - -In England the expression of such thanks was generally more impersonal, -but not less grateful and confident. One letter I received stands out in -my memory always, in its prompt response to investigation of a complaint -of overtime by Miss Paterson. “It is no use to send an Inspector to ask -the girls questions, for they depend on their living and dare not say -much; but I must say that the lady sent was just the sort of friend a -dressmaker requires.”[43] Miss Tuckwell wrote in 1897, as Honorary -Secretary of the Women’s Trade Union League, that the confidence of the -factory women was “based on the fact that their representations are -received and distributed by a woman, and by women enquired into and -redressed”; “Our Women Inspectorate has adapted itself exactly to -English needs, and, as a Yorkshire workgirl remarked, ‘We are well -suited by the Lady Inspectors.’”[44] - -In all this part of the history of administration of the Factory Acts -one sees conclusive evidence of the very great need there was of -intuitive insight and extraordinary persistence in probing or tracking -down ills peculiarly affecting industrial women and girls that, as a -whole, were never laid bare until the women had access to a woman in -authority armed with legal powers to initiate the remedies. These ills -afflicting women formed in some respects a parallel to the earlier -though grosser abuse of child labour at the opening of the nineteenth -century, and recall the words of Mr. Cooke-Taylor: - -“It is of great and increasing importance that that story be kept in -memory; that it should never be suffered to become extinct; as a -pitiful ... warning against the preposterous doctrine ... that human -affairs can be entrusted to impulses of mere cupidity without shocking -and degrading consequences.”[45] It is difficult now, even for the Women -Inspectors, to reconstruct in the mind the barbarous and grinding -conditions that they were called to disclose and to help to transform. -The woman worker was “subject to” mechanical power, and it needed a -labour of love to help her to free herself. - -In nothing does this appear more clearly than in the sphere of wages, -touched on in the following chapter. - - - - - CHAPTER III - WOMEN’S WAGES AND THE TRUCK ACTS; THE PIECEWORKER AND HER PAY - - “Tell me what shall thy wages be?” - - -Long before the beginnings of the modern factory system, and centuries -before the idea of applying standard requirements for health, safety, or -limitation of hours in factories and workshops had arisen, Parliament -had recognised the need and right of the worker to receive full payment -of the wages he had agreed to work for, in current coin of the realm—“in -true and lawful money.”[46] It also recognised his right to spend those -wages as and where it best suited him. - -The law relating to Truck[47] was consolidated quite early in the growth -of the factory system by the Act of 1831. This Act, and the Act of 1887, -which first brought in the very necessary aid of the Factory Inspector -to enforce its provisions and strengthened the law,[48] are still in -force, together with the Act of 1896, which first regulated fines and -various deductions from wages, making them illegal unless in pursuance -of a definite agreement or “contract” with every worker affected. - -In 1908 a Departmental Committee, appointed by the Home Secretary, -reported on the great need, then generally recognised, for amending and -consolidating these Acts, and a minority of the Committee recommended -entire prohibition of fines and deductions regulated by the Act of 1896. - -In the same year there was more than usual activity, with markedly -successful results, on the part of the Women Inspectors in investigating -and prosecuting for contraventions of the Acts. From about 1897 onwards -they had gradually acquired a unique acquaintance throughout the United -Kingdom with the human results of uncertain and low wages, peculiarly -oppressive to women and girls, by their investigation of complaints, by -long-drawn-out legal proceedings, by special enquiries into homework, -and into payments of wages in overvalued groceries and other goods -instead of money. Of a packet of tea given in place of hard-earned coin, -the outworker would say: “And the tea indeed it is not good, it is not -worth putting water on.” “A pair of thin elastic-sided boots which -constituted the ‘wages’ paid to a worker, who, according to the practice -of the country-side (Donegal, 1897), generally went barefoot, were -objects of longing” to the Inspector as “articles of evidence.”[49] - -The Women Inspectors have also had carried to the High Courts of England -and Ireland five out of the six appeals, on points of law under the -Truck Acts, taken at the instance of the Factory Department since -1896.[50] Facts and details that came out at their prosecutions in -police and sheriff courts passed into the public press. There, and -through published official reports, it became well known in Parliament -and elsewhere that wages below subsistence level afflicted women in many -factories, as well as in homework. Various voluntary committees pressed -the matter forward, and the Inspectors’ evidence, published year after -year in Annual Reports, strengthened the Anti-Sweating Movement from -about 1904 to 1906. Public opinion was stirred afresh by the Sweated -Industries Exhibition of 1906, and eyes were opened to evils almost -forgotten since the work and report of the Select Committee of the House -of Lords in 1888–90. - -The evidence of the Women Inspectors given to the 1908 Committee on -Truck was extensive as to the evils affecting women and conclusive as to -the need of amendment of the law. In the same year the Select Committee -on Homework referred repeatedly to the assistance they had obtained from -“so experienced and competent an observer as Miss Squire, of the Home -Office.”[51] The passing of the Trade Boards Act of 1909 followed very -shortly on their Report. It provided for payment by employers of a -minimum rate of wages “clear of all deductions” in certain industries -specified in a schedule to the Act, and in others to be brought in by -Provisional Order where the “rate of wages prevailing ... is -exceptionally low”; and Trade Boards were set up for the fixing of such -minimum rates. This Act provided for minimum time rates and for general -minimum piece rates, and, on the whole, has secured as solid a general -assent from the community as did the Elizabethan provision in earlier -times for protection of the poorest labourer from starvation pay “both -in times of scarcity and in times of plenty.” - -The Act was administered, not by the Factory Department (as was proposed -in 1908 by the Select Committee on Homework), but by the Board of Trade -(later by the Ministry of Labour). It thus only enters into the scope of -this study because so closely linked with the pioneering work of the -Women Inspectors when they really _tested_ the Truck Acts and the -Section in the Factory Act for securing to women pieceworkers (in non- -textile industries) the protection of written “particulars” of their -work and wages. It also had a striking effect in steadily sweeping away -many of the deductions from low wages with which we were specially -concerned. The beneficial movement was carried decisively forward by the -special wages conditions administratively enforced for women during the -War. - -The fundamental elements in wages problems are in some ways simpler and -homelier for everyone than problems of scientific hygiene in the -factory. Most of us realise very well how much our freedom and happiness -depend on having, in our recompense for labour, a margin for spending, -above what is just necessary to keep us going, and on being able to -compute definitely from week to week what the recompense will be. We do -not need technical knowledge to develop insight for that. We can all -readily grasp the truth in those words of Adam Smith: “The property -which every man has in his own labour, as it is the original foundation -of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable,” and “no -society can surely be flourishing and happy of which the greater part of -the members are poor and miserable.” And thus, when the miseries of -fraudulent payment in goods or of excessive and uncertain deductions -from wages, or of sweated wages, are brought out, it is clear to -everyone that regulation must be attempted with the least possible -delay. - -As regards the grosser abuses of payment in goods, the law had become -generally effective for the principal wage earners in organised factory -industry before 1893. For women outside the factory system, these forms -of Truck were then and much later to be found in certain homework -industries in directions to be considered presently. And in the least -organised factory industries enforced purchase and raffling of articles -“damaged” in process of manufacture, and many oppressive forms of -deductions and charges on slender wages, were widespread. - -Although, fortunately, laws relating to wages—that is, Truck Acts, -Particulars Clause, Trade Boards Act—were and are applicable to men and -women alike, it is evident that, until strengthened by help from -Inspectors of their own sex in the Factory and Trade Boards Departments, -and by recent development of their own powers through leading women -organisers, women have proved but poor bargainers for themselves, and -weak in securing their own welfare in matters of wages. This weakness -was, no doubt, closely linked with their artificial exclusion from many -well-paid industries and processes suitable for them, which intensified -their competition for available employment. The published reports of the -Women Factory Inspectors down to 1914 remain an historical record of the -depredations on their wages that the women suffered, and of the pitiful -smallness of their average earnings—the details being, as viewed from -the standpoint of later improvements, almost staggering. Their “property -in their own labour,” outside a few well-organised industries and often -even in fine-looking factories was, when we began, neither “sacred” nor -“inviolable,” and, indeed, in many places, barely existed. Although the -Women Inspectors were at work to track out and deal with contraventions -in “hard cases,” yet the range of area, processes, and numbers dealt -with by them in factories, workshops, and among outworkers is so wide, -and the figures were so carefully compared with those given by -manufacturers themselves, that their reports make a decisive addition to -the evidence contained in the Board of Trade Wage Census of 1886 and -1906. The wage levels for women in their chief industries, given in this -census, low as they were, were undoubtedly somewhat higher than in fact, -and only covered returns from the firms responding to an invitation to -disclose information in their wage books. Even if the average wage per -week for women over eighteen years of age in non-textile industries was, -as indicated by the wage census, about 12s. 11d.,[52] those of an -immense number of women employed inside the factory did not rise above -7s. to 8s., out of which came deductions for disciplinary fines, charges -for cotton, needles, etc., use of power, standing-room, cleaning of the -factory, damage, or purchase of damaged articles, hospitals, supply of -hot water for tea; so that for many young women 5s. to 6s. a week was -nearer the mark. To such numerous workers information that an average of -12s. to 14s. was paid to women in their industry would have meant -nothing. It was their own individual daily or weekly wage that was the -reality to them. The Act of 1896 required, as already said, that a -definite contract must be made by any employer with his workers before -deductions could be made from wages; other terms could be specified in a -notice affixed in the workplace. Among other conditions the deductions -had to be fair and reasonable, the acts or omissions which entailed a -deduction had to be specified in the contract, and particulars of any -deduction actually imposed had to be given to the worker at the time. -Even when the Inspector had severely pruned the contract, deductions for -such things as gas, needles, sweeping, sick clubs, made a serious -inroad; a rate of 6s. 6d. would emerge as 5s. 5d., of 7s. 6d. as 6s. -5d., of 12s. as 9s. 9d. for a week’s work that might legally be sixty -hours.[53] - -“Girls’ wages are as a rule so pitiably low as to leave no margin,” said -Miss Squire in 1898, “for making good any damage to work entrusted to -them, while the rapidity necessary in order to reach the standard -required of workers—paid by the quantity turned out—increases the risk -of damage.” - -In that year a letter reached me from the Leader of a Factory Girls’ -Club in London about one of its members, employed in decorated sheet -metal work, who “looked thoroughly miserable and overworked.” The girl -had been set to work, at 8s. a week, on a heavy “grooving” machine in -place of a man paid 28s. a week. A visit from the Inspectors was -desired, and the girl said they would find “plenty things to find fault -with.” Although attention was promptly and closely applied to these -other things, I had to explain to the Club Leader that the Factory -Inspector was not concerned with even the slenderest wages, except in so -far as touched by the Truck Acts, unless the pieceworkers should desire -to submit a claim for extension to them of the Particulars Clause in the -Factory Act. - -In the same year an instance of deductions for short quantity from girls -soldering tins containing perishable goods, being engaged, not on -piecework, but on a fixed weekly wage, again illustrates both the -smallness of wages and the subjection to heavy pressure. Here the girls -rarely (some never) received full wage, 1d. being deducted for every ten -trays (twenty-four tins on each) short of the total required daily, -which was 190 trays containing 4,560 tins. The girls complained that -this total exceeded what their best efforts could produce. “It is -slavery. We do not dawdle. We are all for scrambling for fear of losing -our money.” Miss Squire examined the books for eleven workers during -five weeks, and none reached the total required, although two once came -within two trays of it. Rewards were given for care and good work and -were set off against “short quantity.” Thus from a wage of 8s. 9d., 300 -trays being declared short, 2s. 6d. was deducted, and 1s. added for good -work, resulting in a net wage of 7s. 3d. The Inspector found in another -factory under the same company a woman whose wages were raised for good -work, who ordinarily sealed 120 to 140 trays daily, and could do 170 -trays at a push. Thus the deductions in the first factory were -manifestly unfair and they were refunded after the investigation. The -manager subsequently informed the Inspector that there was no falling -off in number of tins sealed by the girls.[54] In a biscuit factory -labellers, putting labels on four sides and the top of a tin, were paid -at the rate of 1d. for twelve tins; for any one label damaged, 1d. was -deducted, so that twelve tins would then be labelled for nothing.[55] - -The Women Inspectors were driven to realise by such experiences that not -merely was starvation pay for women and girls prevalent in many -instances, but that the whole outlook of many employers on their -standard and maximum wages for women was darkened, and these employers -had almost uncontrolled power to fix and alter rates for unorganised -workers. As late as the middle of 1914 Miss Whitworth (Mrs. Drury), -taking evidence for a prosecution, found that a pieceworker, without the -required written particulars, was actually paid for some work in the -week of enquiry, without notice, less than she was paid in the previous -week for the same work. The foreman’s explanation was: “What can one do, -when a girl is earning as much as 15s. a week, but lower the piece -rate.”[56] This was a not unusual attitude throughout our experience up -to the war period. The fact of its existence and the consequences on the -output of the workgirl—faced with the alternatives of earning the same -sum whether on a higher or a lower piece rate, and naturally choosing -the former—may be well seen in Mr. R. H. Tawney’s “Minimum Rates in the -Tailoring Trade.”[57] - -Of wholesale clothing factories in Colchester, in 1908, a local leading -manufacturer told an Inspector that he thought 7s. to 8s. would be the -average wage of the girls employed, and her “own observations confirmed -this. Board and lodging cost 7s. a week at the lowest, so it is -obviously impossible for a girl to live unless she is at home.”[58] It -is noteworthy how often this average appeared to rule in various parts -of the country, as one turns over many Annual Reports. - -The remarkable thing about this low and limited view of the value of a -woman’s work, which ruled so generally as seriously to depress her own -estimate of its value, was that a sudden alteration in the valuation -occurred immediately there was any failure in punctuality of attendance, -or quantity and quality of output. And yet, sometimes, outside public -opinion, as reflected in the decision of a police court magistrate or a -sheriff, supported the two apparently incompatible estimates. - -In a case taken into court in South London, where the contract for -deductions for time lost rendered the worker liable to a fine of 1d. a -minute lost, the information was dismissed on the ground that the -contract was not in general unfairly enforced, although it was shown -that one worker earning 6s. a week was fined 6d. for five minutes lost -and another 4d. for four minutes lost. While the girls were at work the -service was valued at 1½d. an hour, in a week of sixty hours’ work.[59] -In a South London factory, where fining was at the rate of 1d. for any -time lost up to five minutes, and 2d. for more than five minutes, 276 -girls out of 500 were fined sums from 4d. to 8d., and the total amount -collected by the firm in this way was £156 in a year. Incidentally -punctuality was not secured here by docking the low and hardly earned -wages of the girls. In many cases the attention drawn to the matter by -Inspectors induced employers to refund deductions that should never have -been made. Heads of firms often gave far too little personal care and -attention to safeguarding their own employees from injustice.[60] In -numerous instances where, after careful investigation in a factory by -the Inspector of the whole effects of the fining system, the matter was -once fully brought to the knowledge of the head of a firm, voluntary -abolition of the system followed. Where it was abandoned in favour of -better methods of discipline, return to the system was unknown. The gain -in efficiency of management was well attested by such employers in their -evidence to the Committee on Truck in 1908.[61] - -A contrast appeared frequently between the estimate of value put into an -article by labour expended on it, and of the worker’s share in -responsibility for loss occasioned by any accidental slip of the fast- -moving fingers. In a rubber tyre factory, for example, where the outer -case of the rubber tyre was trimmed—_i.e._, cut neatly along the edges— -by girls, at the rate of 1¼d. a dozen cases, a fine of 1d. was imposed -for each case damaged by the edge being unevenly cut or snipped. The -loss to the employer was indeed reckoned as 2s. 6d.; the loss to the -worker, although only 1d., equalled four-fifths of what she could earn -in an hour’s work.[62] In a safety-pin factory in the West of England, -where only good work was paid for and some waste unavoidable—material -being “weighed out” in lots of 100 gross or 50 gross, and weighed again -when brought in—some exceptionally bad deductions were found. A girl who -had to cap 50 gross of pins for 1s. 3d. was told when she brought the -lot in that she was ¾ pound short, and 2s. 3½d. was deducted from her -weekly wage of 5s. 7d. A married woman bringing in 84 gross of good pins -out of 100 gross booked to her, was charged 2s. for 21 pounds short in -the metal, and instead of receiving 1s. 11½d. for the 84 gross pins, -admittedly well capped, received her pay envelope empty—with a note on -it that she owed ½d. Here the firm, aroused by the miserable conditions -brought to light by the Inspector, voluntarily returned all deductions, -exceeding 5 per cent. off any weekly wage to the workers for the whole -year, and arranged for piecework books with careful entries and for -regular “check-weighing” by the workers. - -The number of instances is astounding where, by the aid of the records -required by the Truck Act of 1896, Inspectors were able to track out -preposterous, long-standing “debts” of workgirls to their employers for -“damages” which they could not test or verify themselves, in shirt and -collar and other clothing trades, in pen factories, and other small -metal works; the burden of the system can only be grasped by a careful -study of details in numerous Annual Reports. The difficulties of -successful prosecutions in many bad cases are touched on in Chapter VI. -on legal work. “There were cases in which the worker had remained in -debt for as long as eighteen months on a single batch of collars -machined, gradually paying off by such instalments as her weekly wage of -7s. to 10s. would bear.”[63] - -In an Irish linen-weaving factory that I visited with Miss Martindale in -1911 in the course of long negotiations with the Manufacturers’ -Association, carried on in the hope of securing voluntary improvements -in harsh contracts regarding damaged work, we found that 65·76 per cent. -of the weavers were fined an average of 8¾d. in one recent week, and -60·5 per cent., an average of 7½d., in another week, six months earlier. -The highest gross average wage was 7s. 2¾d., and the average net wage, -including a so-called time bonus, was 5s. 8½d. The mill was making -little or no profit, and, as I observed at the time, I “never had so -strong an illustration of the truth that thriving manufacture cannot be -built up on the labour of depressed and half-starved workers.” In spite -of warning, the percentage of workers fined there rose yet higher, and -the firm was told that unless there was immediate reform proceedings -must follow. Here and elsewhere I pressed for the institution of method -and application of skill in training the workers, and in this case it -was effectually established with results most satisfactory to the -management, while the number of workers fined fell to 6·9 per cent. In -another weaving shed, where 33 per cent. were fined weekly for cloth -faults, after an Inspector’s visit all fines were abolished “as an -experiment.” The manager in due course wrote that it was an unqualified -success, but that he did not wish his competitors to know, as it gave -him an advantage in getting good weavers.[64] - -A great evil, particularly in connection with clothing factories, -developed out of charges for damaged work, in “raffling” in order to -escape the burden of practically enforced purchase by the workers of -garments that they were alleged to have damaged. Even in 1898 factories -were found where this practice had been reduced to a regular system. In -one factory every worker was required or expected to pay 1d. a week to -the foreman towards a fund for paying back to the employee the amount -deducted from her wages for damaged work, receiving in return a ticket -for the raffle by which damaged articles were disposed of week by week. -Three successful prosecutions, taken by Miss Squire in 1905, did -something to check the growth of this practice in Leeds. In each case -the magistrate severely censured the defendants.[65] In 1906 it was -found to be extensively prevalent in Manchester “making-up” factories. -“Leaving aside,” said Miss Paterson, “... the effect on character of -gambling even to so slight an extent, I think it tends to make workers -careless in their work; to make foremen and employers careless about -training good workers, and indifferent to fairness when they assess -damage.”[66] Although compulsory purchase by the worker of damaged work, -illegal as it was, decreased, it was far more difficult to repress the -insidious practice of “giving” the worker or “allowing her” to take -damaged work, for which she had a deduction made from her wages. The -better employers agreed with the Inspector in prohibiting anything of -the kind in their works. - -This old evil, of compulsory purchase by the worker of damaged products -of her industry, the damage being due, not only to lack of care, but -sometimes to accident, sometimes to defective material or implements, -sometimes to overpressure or defective training of the worker, appeared -in even the highly organised and relatively well-paid cotton trade, -which had at its own instance been exempted from the scope of the Truck -Act of 1896. Some girls of fourteen and sixteen years left a cotton -factory in 1901 owing to heavy fines for faults in the cloth. On -claiming arrears of wages due, they were each shown a piece of cloth and -told they must take the damaged pieces in lieu of wages. “... Finding -they could make no other terms, they said they would take time to -consider,” and meanwhile wrote to the Inspector, Miss Squire. She -accompanied them in the following week to the factory office, “and the -wages were paid over in coin, the employer finding that the Truck Act, -1831, was not to be lightly set aside.”[67] - -Deductions for motive power, used in the manufacturing process, were -often found in our earlier years of inspection, but they had already -begun to die out, and, I think, have long since done so generally. They -were mainly a survival from the time of transition from handicraft to -power-driven industry, and sometimes reflected the hardness of those -days—as when they covered not only cost of fuel and repairs, but wages -also of the man who attended the engine. I made a calculation in the -case of some Lancashire clothing factories in 1897–98 that payment by -the worker of 1d. in the 1s. earned, or 1s. weekly if wages rose above -9s., brought in enough to run the whole power at the workers’ expense, -ownership of the engine remaining with the occupier. Charges or -deductions for cleaning the factory, or parts of it, such as lavatories, -were also a survival from other days when the worker worked in his own -domestic workshop; severe scrutiny by the Inspector of many wage -contracts, and of local practices that were unrecorded in any formal -notice, was necessary to free the worker from the burden of carrying the -occupier’s legal responsibility for keeping his factory in a cleanly -condition. Levies of 1d. a week on every worker in a large factory would -sometimes produce more than the wage of a good charwoman in places where -there was not much evidence of her activity. Even in 1901 the -prosecution of a firm for employing women in the dinner hour gave -publicity, during the hearing, to the details of how women and girls -supplied gratis, the labour, cloths, buckets, etc., necessary to enable -the occupiers of a world-famed textile factory to keep it in the cleanly -state required by the Acts. The conviction did much to “shift the burden -on to the right shoulders.”[68] - -The odd topsy-turvy way in which law and administration reacted in the -difficult work of applying the Truck Act was seen by Miss Martindale in -a procession of workers who paraded the streets of Belfast in 1911 -carrying boards on which stood in large letters the words: “Down with -the Truck Acts.” This followed our long negotiations with the -Association of Manufacturers (already referred to) in an endeavour to -secure milder contracts regarding deductions for damage. The meagre -results had been embodied, with other rules over which we had no -control, in a notice (drafted by the lawyers to the Association), a copy -of which was handed to each worker. The notices were headed by the -words: “The Truck Act, 1896, requires that a copy of the following terms -and conditions should be handed to every worker.” The “other rules” -included such conditions as instant dismissal of a worker when, in the -opinion of the employer, manager, or overlooker, she had been guilty of -certain acts or defaults, and discharge of workers in any department -without notice or compensation if any of the workers in the factory -strike or decline to work. This blending of incompatible terms could not -be prevented by legal process without amendment of the Act. - -Up to the time of the passing of the Truck Act, 1887, and even later, a -common opinion held that deductions from wages in respect of fines were -rendered illegal by the Act of 1831, through its provision that the -entire wages were to be paid in coin. The important decision in -_Redgrave_ v. _Kelly_ (1889), however, established a different -conclusion, and left it so that the question of the reasonableness of -fines could not be raised under that Act. It was chiefly against -uncertainty and unreasonableness in such fines that the Act of 1896 was -aimed. Among the reactions from the very considerable, though -incomplete, degree of control introduced by this Act came the -development, especially in Irish textile factories, of a so-called -“bonus” system, the real meaning of which was in many instances a desire -to “keep clear” of that Act. It appeared in amounts varying from 5 to 20 -per cent. of the wage in many and subtle forms; for timekeeping, for -output and equality of piecework, and for amount of wages earned in the -week. Although the bonus seldom seemed to raise the average wage above -the local level, it was treated by the employer as a kind of gift, over -and above wages, and the whole or part was liable to be withheld, in -addition to imposing any specific fine mentioned in the contract or a -deduction for time lost. In a case carried from Petty Sessions to the -High Court in Ireland, _Deane_ v. _Wilson_, a weaver lost 2s. 4d. out of -a weekly wage of 10s. for a single small unpunctuality. Arriving thus at -the mill a few minutes late, she was locked out for a quarter of the day -and forfeited her “bonus” of 2s. in addition to the quarter time lost, -reckoned as 4d. The High Court confirmed the decision of the magistrates -to dismiss the summons, on the ground that the 2s. bonus could not be -computed as wages, and that therefore no fine was inflicted. - -The Committee on Truck, 1908, decided that the bonus system was open to -grave abuse, and on the evidence placed before them believed that it was -abused. They made certain recommendations for its control through -empowering a court “after considering all the circumstances of the case -to decide whether the bonus is used by the employer as a means of -evading the requirements of the statute, and, in the event of deciding -that it is so used, to convict the employer.”[69] I confess that it -appears to me that if such a clause had stood in the Act it would not -have altered the decision in _Deane_ v. _Wilson_. Magistrates and Judges -alike arrived at the conclusion that the Truck Act did not provide a -remedy for a reduction by 2s. 4d. of a gross payment of 10s. for a -week’s skilled work (which 10s. was regularly given to the wage earner -if no unpunctuality occurred). The reduction left the wage earner with -7s. 8d. net for a week in which she only lost a few minutes by her own -lateness. The recommendation of the Minority Report of the Truck -Committee “that the bonus system should be prohibited by law” would -hardly solve the difficulty. Extra rewards to workers for good work -could never be effectually prohibited by law. The real problem is to -assure to the worker a secure, net minimum wage, and to defeat evasion -by unreasonable or unjust employers.[70] - -The charges upon wages above considered have been taken first—although -not the earliest form of Truck—because they were characteristic of the -factory system and specially harassing to large numbers of women in the -period from 1893 to 1914, before great changes were brought by the War. - -Payment in “unprofitable wares” instead of in “lawful money” mainly -troubled unorganised factory operatives during the transition from -handicraft industry to mass production. Truck—that is, in its original -sense—survived in our official experience, and called for our -intensified enquiry and action among outworkers in rural districts: in -Cornwall and Somerset, over wide areas in Ireland, and among knitters in -Shetland. From these directions complaints flowed in upon the Women -Inspectors, keeping them absorbed for many months in activities that -made them, for the time, almost anything but Factory Inspectors. They -led us into almost incredible experiences[71] until eventually various -legal decisions made it plain that any outworker who was not under an -express contract personally to execute the manual work, however poor or -however clearly in need of protection, was outside the Truck Acts. - -Two ancient forms of oppressive “agreement ... understanding ... or -arrangement ... direct or indirect” prohibited by law,[72] continued, -however, in our time to trouble ill-organised factory workers, irregular -charges for rent, and compulsory expenditure of wages at an employer’s -shop. - -“The people say it was a charity for you to stop the checks, but it -would be a greater charity if you would stop the rents being kept off -the workers.” “If the Inspector would look after shopkeepers giving out -work and making the workers take goods instead of money, I think she -would be doing a service to the poor.” Both these complaints have the -vivid, Irish ring, but they expressed the sore needs of many a worker, -and not only in Great Britain and Ireland. As regards deductions for -rent, without a shadow of a legal right, no reported instance is worse -than that in a lucifer match factory in England in 1898, followed by -prosecution and fine, where, in absence of any contract, the employer -was taking nearly the whole earnings of a half-starved young girl worker -for accumulated and unrecorded rent, unpaid by her father during a long -epidemic of smallpox.[73] Another instance nearly as bad was found in a -factory in a great textile district where, without rent-book or any form -of contract (which in any case could not have been legalised), any wife -or daughter engaged on piecework was liable to receive her earnings -reduced by quite undefined amounts, said to be rent due from husband or -father. The mere fact that the mill was sometimes “standing” added to -the uncertainty of the position; in one case successfully taken into -court, the employer’s ledger showed 17s. 1½d. deducted for rent in six -weeks for a cottage rented at 2s. a week.[74] The Irish complainant -(living in a house owned by his employer) was, however, concerned far -more with insecurity of tenure and with the feature that “if you get -dismissed out of your employment they won’t give you any money (wages) -till the house is empty.” Uncertainty about the poorest roof over his -head, being his home, was to the Irish peasant yet worse than insecurity -of employment. - -Miss Martindale sometimes found dressmakers employed in Irish country -towns who “lived-in,” receiving their wages only once a year, who were -obliged to obtain articles on credit from their employers, getting -seriously in debt to them. She also found hand-spinners and weavers in -the tweed industry paid in exorbitantly priced draperies and groceries; -a complainant, telling how a girl’s wages were pledged by her father to -a rich shopkeeper for five years for the paying off of his debts, -described the girl as “sold” to her employer. The remark made to Miss -Martindale by a man who had very special opportunities of knowing the -poorer country districts of Ireland, that “the people are born in debt, -die in debt, and live in bondage,” struck her in the year 1907 as -“undoubtedly only too true.”[75] - -In few places could the framework of bondage be more complete than in a -certain “townland,” where the owner of the principal shop and public- -house was also the owner of the flax fields and flax scutch mill, and -employer of many of the inhabitants. The women working for wages in the -mill seldom received coin; one girl, whose father and sister were -dependent on the same employer, received none during a whole winter. -Dealing at the shop was practically a condition of employment.[76] A -successful prosecution in 1907, upheld on appeal against conviction to -Quarter Sessions, brought in many communications of similar cases to -Miss Martindale, as did the well-known earlier prosecution by Miss Deane -at Ardara in 1898, and several more by Miss Squire in Dungloe and -neighbouring districts, which led in 1900 to her hard-fought appeals to -the High Court, touched on in Chapter VI. These ladies were indeed all -the “petticoated Inspectors” of whom a well-known Irish Q.C. declared at -the hearing of an appeal in June, 1900, that there was “an army squatted -around Dungloe, watching every little industry and striving to throttle -them.”[77] - -Many of the difficulties that the Inspectors had to encounter in remote -country districts, in their endeavour to scotch or root out the habit of -paying in kind or in tickets usable instead of coin at a particular -shop, were not of legal interpretation. They were largely of local -circumstances. A fortnight’s residence in 1899 in a lovely district of -county Donegal enabled me, beyond my expectations, to gauge the -character of these practices. The open friendliness shown by the peasant -woman and car-drivers to an English visitor showed me some of the -essential factors of the situation. There was a manifest sense of -security among the law-breakers, on the alert to conceal all traces of -their methods of payment since the £44 penalty secured against a -shopkeeping middlewoman by Miss Deane in 1898. In their shops, their -inns, their ownership of cars, they represented the wealth and carrying -power of the local community; in their connections through marriage with -the priests’ and magistrates’ families, and sometimes even their -position as magistrates, they represented the order of the community. It -was possible for me to ascertain, beyond doubt, that not only -outworkers, but also masons and roadworkers, were being paid for their -work mainly (and sometimes wholly) in goods estimated above their real -value; it was a long work of patient skill to establish particular cases -in court, and to Miss Squire I left this part of our task. I could see -carts laden with yarn and groceries that drove out for miles round the -country and that brought back knitted hose; the difficulty was to be on -a spot out in the country, or in a shop, at the exact moment to see the -transactions. “To be an eye-witness,” said Miss Squire, “of such payment -is almost impossible, for that it is illegal is well known; and -immediately a stranger enters a shop all transactions cease. Baffled -frequently, I succeeded on one occasion, by a carefully planned -stratagem ... and saw the socks handed over the counter, yarn for fresh -socks given out, and packets of tea and sugar given in payment. Except -in this one case I had, in undertaking prosecutions, to rely entirely -upon the workers, and even those who beforehand appeared most staunch -managed to evade service of summons, disappeared from their homes in a -wonderful manner, and were with difficulty brought to the court. Once -there and put on oath, the truth is told and conviction of the employers -followed in each case, the maximum penalty being obtained in one case -and £5 in each of the others.... The immediate effect of the proceedings -is that money is handed now to workers by the agents, but a close watch -will have to be kept lest ... the practice is continued in another and -more hidden form.”[78] This was a prophetic utterance, as instances of -struggles in later legal proceedings showed, especially in two distinct -appeals, _Squire_ v. _Sweeney_ in 1900.[79] In many ways, by letter and -by word and gesture, the grateful women showed the gallant Inspectors, -Miss Squire and her successor, Miss Martindale, how highly their -adventurous efforts were valued. At this time it came out clearly that -some local country agents of manufacturers of the big centres suffered -from miserably low commissions. One told Miss Squire that he had no -commission at all, that he had ceased to pay in goods since her -prosecution showed him it was illegal, and he asked her if she could -help him to find a commission-paying employer. Special care was taken to -bring home to the head firms in the North and West of Ireland the grave -responsibility they bore in this matter. - -In the following year, not only in Ireland but also in Cornwall, amongst -guernsey knitters, and in Somerset amongst kid-glove makers, Miss Squire -carried forward this endeavour to secure respect for the right of the -worker to “free control of her own earnings unhampered by any condition -as to where and how they should be spent.” - -“Only by a daily intercourse with cottagers in remote villages and the -fishing folk of little seaside towns ... can the real nature of their -business transactions be fathomed. The information so obtained and -pieced together disclosed a state of such widespread defiance of the law -and contempt of the rights of the wage earner as it seems incredible -could exist in England at the present time.” In the same year the -Superintending Inspector for the Northern Division noted that there -existed “a considerable amount of the old system of Truck,” in the -Shetland shawl, the Harris tweeds, and the fishing industries of -Scotland. He thought it hardly “remediable under the Acts by the -Inspectorate.” The features he indicated were just those against which -Miss Squire’s carefully devised campaign was directed in Ireland and -South-West England. Unquestionably, new and unconventional methods of -exploration of the trouble had to be tried. The Cornish women excelled -in their knitting of yachtsmen’s guernseys for which the nominal payment -was 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. each, but the payment was in drapery goods from -the employer’s shop “at whatever price and of whatever quality the -employer chooses to supply”; a poor cripple woman was found in great -distress with a man’s coat on her hands, when she sorely needed money -for her rent. In Somersetshire villages the kid-glove makers were being -paid in goods from the grocery shop of an agent who fetched the work -from factories, distributed it to the cottages, collected it again, and -returned it to the factories. The ten cases successfully prosecuted -against five drapers and grocers, who were contractors in these -counties, had an immediate good effect that lasted for some time, and -some manufacturers were moved to open a depôt in Yeovil where they gave -out the work and paid the outworkers in coin through their own -clerk.[80] A recrudescence of the system was found by Miss Slocock in -1907 in Somersetshire after the English High Court decision in _Squire_ -v. _Midland Lace Company_. This, like the Irish decision in _Squire_ v. -_Sweeney_, practically withdrew the protection of the Truck Acts, 1831 -to 1887, from the English outworker.[81] - -These Acts have awaited amendment all these years from 1908 to 1921, and -meantime the scope of wages problems for women has widened and changed, -in Great Britain at least. The War went far towards establishing for -women a legal claim to a reasonable minimum wage; first, temporarily, -when they were employed as substitutes in great organised men’s -engineering industries, and then through Trade Boards gradually set up -in trades where no adequate machinery of organisation existed for the -effective regulation of wages. Women’s own great industrial services to -the nation during the War, fostered and encouraged by specialised -training, of course altered the outlook fundamentally. It was no longer -a favour conferred on them merely to employ them; their work and their -special aptitudes and skill were seen in a new light as a service to the -community. - -Yet even before these new motives came in sight, things had not stood -still, for the Factory Act of 1895 had made secure the claim of the -pieceworker to a definite contract as to her prospective earnings on any -given piece of work. That Act directly extended to all pieceworkers in -textile trades the right to _written_ particulars of work and wages, in -a section[82] which was declared by Mr. Birtwistle—first Inspector of -Textile Particulars—to be “without doubt the most popular section of any -Act of Parliament ever passed in the interest of labour.”[83] The strong -organisation of the textile trades, especially the Lancashire cotton -trade, had secured the beginnings of this protection to some textile -pieceworkers in the Act of 1891.[84] It was suggested possibly by a -similar provision for handicraft silk weavers in an Act of 1845. - -It was so immediately successful in setting these workers free from the -torment of insecurity in calculating prospective earnings on intricate -piece rates, liable to frequent alterations, that other pieceworkers -soon called for its aid. This was provided for by the power taken in -1895 to apply the benefit of the provision by Order of the Secretary of -State “to any class of non-textile factories or to any class of -workshops ... subject to such modifications as may in his opinion be -necessary for adapting those provisions to the circumstances of the -case.”[85] - -This just and simple measure, really indispensable for intricate -piecework in mass production, was valuable, not only for collective -bargaining between employers and employed, but also for enabling -individual workers to understand and discuss the basis of piecework -earnings. It was happily applied further, by the Act of 1901, to -outworkers on prescribed lists kept by the occupier of a factory or -workshop and by contractors.[86] - -With the aid of many confidential complaints from women workers, the -Women Inspectors were enabled to make a long series of effective -investigations in many non-textile industries as to the inability of -pieceworkers to calculate what their earnings would be at any given -piece of work, and as to their consequent bitter feeling of grievance in -the matter. In 1896 Miss Deane reported to the Home Office on the need -for application of the clause to workers in blouse, apron, and -handkerchief trades. I reported similarly in that year on the workers’ -desire for, and great need of, this provision in the wholesale clothing -trade in the North of England, and I completed this enquiry for the -remainder of the great centres of the industry in England and Scotland -in 1897–98. It was at once found that the practice of giving particulars -to pieceworkers was already in existence in fair-dealing factories, and -that the best manufacturers held that “the only business-like system is -to have a clear contract with the workers, such contract to hold good -until the question of a new one has been fully considered and threshed -out.” In 1898 I reported that the general need of outworkers who then -stood outside the section for the protection afforded by the section was -even greater than the need of the factory worker.[87] The needs of -pieceworkers in pen-making, hand fustian cutting, underclothing, shirt -and collar industries were investigated and reported on in quick -succession chiefly by Miss Squire, and in 1899 our first cases under an -Order for written particulars were successfully taken into court by her. -This advertisement of the possibility of applying a remedy to one of -their greatest handicaps and grievances—lack of power to calculate -earnings—brought a decided increase in complaints about wages from women -and girls. - -The 1900 Order for particulars to pieceworkers in the pen-making trade— -where long and intricate investigation into the conditions of -calculating and paying wages had been necessary in this industry of many -minute, successive hand-tool operations[88]—brought strikingly good -results in a remarkably short time. The results were not only material -in wages to the worker, but, still more, moral in engendering confidence -between workers and employers. In 1898 there was much lack of -confidence, workers asserting that their “lots” of pens were frequently -larger than the nominal amount, and employers were more or less -resentful of investigation. In March, 1901, Miss Squire reported that -the occupiers of the twelve pen factories—all situated in Birmingham—had -set to work in a “highly commendable way” to supply the prescribed -particulars. I doubt if any change in methods of stating and fulfilling -wage contracts was ever more quietly and rapidly effected. The employers -seemed to understand thoroughly the spirit of the Order, and they -expressly recognised that Inspectors, manufacturers, and workers had to -work out the details of the new requirement together in a harmonious -way. Here, and in various other trades, the complexity and mass of -detail that had to be mastered in developing the various Orders for -piecework particulars led to continual interchange of information and -help between the District Inspectors and the floating staff of Women -Inspectors. The work done then and later by the whole Factory Department -must certainly have smoothed the way for introduction of Trade Board -minimum wage scales. The Orders for locks, latches, and keys, cables, -chains, and cart gear, of 1902, specially operated in this direction. - -In some industries, and strangely in wholesale fustian clothing -factories situated in textile districts where the idea of written -particulars had first prevailed, there was much patient work to be done -by the Inspectorate in overcoming a stubborn adherence to defective -methods of giving particulars, such as chalk marks on garments, use of -symbols, and their refusal even to give particulars at all. - -Early in 1903 came the first and very important extension of this -protection to outworkers in the wholesale tailoring trade. Their need -could not be expressed in the same clear, organised way as by the -factory workers. It was none the less surely to be discovered by -research among them, as Miss Squire found when she investigated, -directly or through visits to firms, the needs of over 6,000 outworkers. -Her account of the variety in systems of giving out work in the four -great centres—Leeds, London, Colchester, Bristol—and the risks of the -bag-woman or carrier system in the last two districts, must be read to -acquire an adequate idea of the needs of the women: - - “The bag-woman or carrier system is open to much abuse, especially - where these are really contractors receiving the outwork price - themselves and giving what proportion they think fit to those to whom - they pass on the work. Sometimes they keep the grocery shop of the - village, and if they are sharp enough not actually to infringe the - letter of the Truck Act, sail very near the wind and obtain an - injurious control over their customers, dependent as these are upon - them for both work and grocery. The prices paid to outworkers for - either making or finishing are incredibly low at the best; at the - worst, the ‘slop clothing’ rate, they are cruel. With all the sad - experience one has gained in many trades of the amount of work a woman - will do for a penny, one still marvels how anyone, however poor, can - be found to accept the rate given for some classes of work, as, for - example, elevenpence a dozen for finishing (that is, all but the - stitching of the seams) men’s trousers. When the rate of wages is so - low, it is of great moment to the worker to know exactly what the - price is; she wants to be absolutely sure that she has not been misled - by some symbol into putting ‘A’ quality work, which takes more time, - into a ‘B’ quality garment, for which she will receive a halfpenny - less, or to run the risk of being told when she takes the work back to - the factory that she was mistaken if she thought the price would be - eightpence, as it had been lowered to sixpence. - - “That there is a real need for the outworker to have ... the written - statement of the price the employer contracts to pay was abundantly - proved. In the absence of such written particulars the homeworker is, - at best, uncertain as to the price she will receive, and is at times - in complete ignorance, so that the door is open for fraud on the part - of ‘passer,’ or carrier, or messenger.”[89] - -The need of written particulars for outworkers was voluntarily -recognised by some employers, but not being enforceable had been often -fitfully and carelessly carried out by their agents. It was pre- -eminently a case where law should step in to bring up general practice -to the level admitted by public opinion to be the least that was due -from employer to employed. - -At the end of 1903 the Order for particulars to pieceworkers in the -shirt, collar, linen underwear, corset, and other wearing apparel trades -widely extended this safeguard to cover unorganised women—to their -immense satisfaction. “Mrs. A., employed in a chiffon and straw hat -workshop, informed the Inspector how pleased she had been to read in the -political news of _Lloyd’s_ about the new Order. Formerly she never knew -until Saturday night when her job was done, what she would receive for -it.... Miss D., belt and tie maker, ... recently did fifty dozen, -expecting 2d. more a dozen than she received.”[90] - -The work of enquiry, followed by extension of the principle of supplying -written particulars to pieceworkers, went on apace. Seventeen or more -trades were added in 1907 by composite Orders, and more in later years. -Every effort was made to give administrative effect to all these Orders -as fast as possible. The Inspectors acquired, as it were automatically, -a wide and detailed acquaintance with prevalent wage rates, and were -again and again struck by the tendency of employers to lower rates -“directly girls get quick and earn too much.” “It appears to be useless -to point out that this is a very short-sighted policy, and that all -incentive to quick, good work is crushed out.”[91] - -The time was evidently getting ripe for application of the principle of -minimum wage regulation. - -And yet a word may here be added on the valuable help, in ratio of work -to wages, that sometimes could be brought, through the Factory Act and -the Factory Inspector, to a most helpless class of workers, those in -low-paid industries who were practically compelled to take work home at -the close of the legal day in the factory in order to keep body and soul -together. A striking example of an old-standing breach of Section 31 of -the Factory Act of 1901 (restricting employment inside and outside the -factory or workshop on the same day), with a sinister effect on the -wages of the girls, was brought to light by Miss Escreet in Birmingham -in 1913: - - “Workers in the warehouses of a pen factory had been regularly taking - home cards to thread with elastic for the reception of pens, - compasses, india-rubber, etc. The workers, who mostly lived some way - from the factory, arrived at their homes about 7.15 p.m., and in - nearly every case worked steadily for three nights in the week for - three hours or more. Many of the girls with large quantities of cards - to do received help from their relations; even where this was given, - their leisure was encroached on to the extent of one and a half to two - hours, and where it was lacking entirely, work sometimes went on till - midnight, or spread to four or five evenings in the week. Ample - evidence was at hand to explain the continuance of this ‘voluntary - work’: the system had been long virtually used to economise on the - wages bill, for ‘cards’ were given out and their quantity increased at - regular intervals, when girls would normally be receiving a rise. That - the economy was a successful one may be seen from the fact that the - average weekly warehouse wage of six adult workers, taken at random, - was 10s. 1d., which they increased to an average of 13s. 5½d. by doing - ‘cards.’ This system enabled the employer to economise in his - insurance contributions as well as in wages, for, without the card- - money, he would have been liable for an increased contribution. The - girls were shrewd enough to appreciate the unfairness of the system, - and welcomed its abolition, in spite of the fact that their net wages - have dropped. An increase has been given at the factory, but not to - the extent of the weekly cards. Nevertheless, I was told in one case - by the sister of a worker that they had had ‘the happiest week for - twelve years.’ And a grateful Jewish mother wished me ‘a long life, - and God bless you’ over and over again.” - - - - - CHAPTER IV - DANGEROUS AND INJURIOUS PROCESSES; ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY - - “’Tis a sordid profit that’s accompanied with the destruction of - health.”—B. RAMAZZINI, 1678. - - -Let us turn now from general conditions affecting women and girls in -factory life to special dangers due to “any manufacture, machinery, -plant, process, or description of manual labour.”[92] Here the aid given -by Women Inspectors, though extensive and indispensable, has hitherto -been ancillary rather than primary in character. They have not before -1921 been brought into the Factory Department expressly in the capacity -of medical, engineering, or chemical experts. And yet their early -research into many imperfectly explored causes of injury to health and -safety of women and young workers was so steadfast, and their evidence -in Annual Reports so freely read and quoted in Parliament and the Press, -that they stirred public opinion to a new outlook on women’s needs in -these matters. As time went on the Department was able to draw in an -increasing number of women candidates with good degrees in science, and -with considerable experience in research or in work of an administrative -character. The steady pooling of knowledge and experience that went on -in the Women’s Branch yielded good fruit. - -The Women Inspectors were immediately called on by the Chief Inspector -of 1893 to 1895 to share both in enforcing new “special rules” for -dangerous and injurious processes,[93] and in conducting enquiries with -a view to strengthening these rules. They came into the service -practically at the beginning of the new movement for _applying_ -scientific knowledge in these matters; knowledge of some of the ills had -existed before, but it had not been applied and was therefore -incomplete. They entered the Department five years before a Medical -Inspectors’ Branch was set up, and three years before the momentous -requirement was made that medical practitioners should notify certain -diseases (lead, phosphorus, etc., arsenical poisoning or anthrax), -contracted in a factory or workshop, to the Chief Inspector. - -Before the entry of the Medical Inspectorate, the long-established -institution of part-time certifying surgeons[94] had brought some -medical observation, largely unco-ordinated, to bear on industrial -conditions. From their private practice among industrial workers the -certifying surgeons often gathered important records of individual cases -of industrial poisoning, respiratory and other diseases, arising from -injurious conditions of manufacture. These records could be and were -fully utilised by the Medical Inspectors in due course—as may be well -seen in the reports and other writings by Dr. T. M. Legge and Dr. E. L. -Collis. - -Not until after the War (in 1921) was a medical Woman Inspector -appointed to the Medical Branch—Dr. E. M. Hewitt. During all the earlier -years from 1893 reliance was placed on the initiative of the Women’s -Branch of the Department for the highly necessary observation by women -of conditions and habits of women and girl workers. An outstanding -obstacle to obtaining exact knowledge of industrial mortality and -disease amongst women arose from the omission to enter in mortality and -hospital records the occupation of married women, whether occupied prior -to or during married life. This entailed a closer individual -investigation among women than among men for clues to industrial disease -and careful following up of their cases outside the factory as well as -inside. When information was needed on grave injury and early deaths -among, for example, asbestos workers or china scourers, in cases of lead -poisoning or phosphorus necrosis, or mercurial poisoning in the days -before notification was compulsory, indispensable contributions were -made by the investigations of Women Inspectors in many directions, and -especially as to the effects of lead processes on maternal functions. - -The earlier tentative “special rules” for safeguarding the workers -against “dangerous and unhealthy incidents of employment” had been made -in 1892 and 1893, under the new powers of the Factory Act of 1891 -suggested by the special rules under the Mines Acts. The special rules -were made on the proposal of the Chief Inspector to the occupier of the -factory after the process, machinery, or manual labour in question had -been scheduled by the Secretary of State as being, in his opinion, -“dangerous or injurious to health, or dangerous to life or limb, either -generally or in the case of women, children, or any other class of -persons.” Each occupier had a right of objection to the rules proposed, -and provision was made for arbitration. In the absence before 1896 of -any medical experts on the staff or of any substantial statistical -evidence of cases of industrial poisoning and disease, the earliest -special rules could only be few, simple, and experimental in character. -Gradually, under the direction of the first Medical Chief Inspector, Sir -Arthur Whitelegge, and the very slowly added medical staff, beginning -with Dr. T. M. Legge in July, 1898, knowledge and vigour of regulation -grew. Administrative methods of establishing regulation were greatly -improved, and the uncertainties of arbitration in such highly expert -questions were removed by the Act of 1901. The early years of the -twentieth century saw what was unquestionably the most remarkable -development that had ever yet been attempted in any age or country in -applying scientific knowledge and care to the protection of workers from -industrial disease and injury. At last the reproach made by many medical -observers (and, particularly in our country, by Medical Officers to the -Privy Council in 1860) began to be lightened; the reproach that “the -canker of industrial diseases gnaws at the very root of our national -strength,” that “the sufferers are not few or insignificant, ...” that -“the magnitude of the evil is most imperfectly appreciated,” whether by -the authorities or by the “slowly suffering artisans themselves”—and -that all this was going on for lack of expert advice and the -administrative application of scientific methods to the problems -involved.[95] It was so long before the idea of industrial labour as a -social service began to gain ground that only a few enlightened -manufacturers, here and there, could attempt to try remedies. - -It was not only medical knowledge that was needed to trace effects on -the human frame of poisons (such as lead, arsenic, white phosphorus, -mercury, etc.); of anthrax and tetanus germs; of gaseous and acid fumes; -of injurious and excessive dust; of excessive moisture or heat; of -muscular or nerve overstrain and impure air. The work of experts in -engineering, physics, chemistry, and, not least, in patient observation -of the habits, working conditions, ways and circumstances of the workers -affected, was equally indispensable. This had been to some extent -provided for in the reorganisation of the Inspectorate that followed the -Consolidating Act of 1878. The Acts of 1883 and 1889 to regulate white -lead and cotton cloth factories carried this matter further by -exploration of some of the most injurious conditions. Thus, in the ranks -of the general Inspectorate knowledge was available for technical work -in some of these directions. - -It must be remembered that the principal Act had long provided for the -great safeguard of exhaust ventilation for removal of dangerous and -injurious dusts, fumes, or other impurities generated in the processes -or handicrafts carried on—though its full preventive scope was only -gradually realised. Its significance was explicitly and repeatedly -emphasised in later days by the Senior Medical Inspector, Dr. Legge,[96] -and the pioneer work of such leaders as the late Mr. E. H. Osborn, H.M. -Superintending Inspector of Factories, and the late Mr. C. R. Pendock, -H.M. Inspector, in the application of engineering knowledge to these -matters, should always be specially remembered. Their work was carried -forward in due succession by Mr. Sydney Smith and Mr. Stevenson Taylor. - -Under the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889,[97] administered by Mr. E. -H. Osborn and by Mr. Williams, now Superintending Inspector, exact -standards of ventilation and hygrometers were first introduced in -dealing with the dangers to health from excessive humidity of the -atmosphere and high temperature in the workshops. Out of these -experiences came recognition of methodical tests of chemical purity of -the air of workrooms. Later, scientific emphasis was laid—by Dr. Leonard -Hill, F.R.S.—on the truth that it is rather the physical than the -“chemical conditions of confined atmospheres which influence health and -happiness” of the worker. Before it was laid down as a truth that -“overheated and still air decrease the activity of the body furnace and -so lead to lessened resistance of disease,” Women Inspectors were -steadily bringing persuasive pressure to bear on occupiers for -introduction of mechanical ventilation to ease the visible strain they -saw in industrial work in the stagnant heat of many a factory or -workshed. - -When Departmental Committees were set up, from 1892 onwards, for enquiry -into various dangerous trades, outside medical experts were appointed as -members before the advent of the Medical Inspectorate. In 1893 the -precedent was first set of appointing a Woman Inspector, Miss Abraham, -to such Committees where employment of women in the industries made this -specially desirable. Miss Abraham also served on the main Dangerous -Trades Committee, 1895 to 1899, on whose recommendations various codes -of special rules followed. With Dr. Legge I served in the enquiry into -Enamelling and Tinning of Metals, begun in 1901, and reported on for -each section separately in 1903 and 1907 respectively. Less than ten -years’ application of the first special rules of 1892 for these -processes had sufficed to show their inadequacy for controlling the -risks of lead poisoning. Separate regulations of the entirely distinct -sources of danger in vitreous enamelling and in tinning of metals was -not at first seen to be necessary; the obscurity of the sources in the -latter led us to a point where our need of chemical assistance was -evident, and this was provided when the services of Mr. G. Elmhirst -Duckering, H.M. Inspector of Factories and a skilled chemist, were lent -to us. A difference of method in the tinning of hollow ware and of the -tinning of terne plates had given us a clue. His long studies and exact -measurements of the degree of contamination of the air by fumes from the -tinning bath, and from the surface of the tinned hollow ware article as -it emerged from the tinning bath, led to definite conclusions as to the -presence of lead chloride in the fumes breathed by the worker. And so—at -last—we reached the possibility of obtaining effectual measures of -control.[98] The number of cases of poisoning began to fall in the -period 1909–11, and in 1920 only two were reported (both women), and -these from a factory where there had been a breakdown in exhaust -ventilation. Meanwhile, methods of manufacture had become less dangerous -as well as methods of exhaust generally more effectual.[99] - -From this experience and from the parallel activities of Inspectors, -chemists, manufacturers in the far greater earthenware and china -industry, came new methods of determination of dust and poisons in the -air of workrooms. There came also re-enforced activity in anemometer -tests of mechanical exhaust for poisonous fumes and dusts; amendment of -construction of exhaust apparatus, and other detailed progress in what -Mr. Pendock well described as “means of cleaning the atmosphere: the -science of _air purification_, and a highly important science it -is.”[100] - -The extent of the work that was waiting, almost untouched, in the last -decade of the nineteenth century, to be overtaken by persistent, -meticulous application of this science to protection of the health of -the industrial worker, may be partly realised by a backward glance at -some of the appalling records as to disease and premature death in -certain dusty processes. It must be remembered in considering the early -figures that they were gathered before the discovery and recognition of -the ubiquitous tubercle bacillus. - -Let us take, first, flax preparation and carding, where women workers -were in the majority: - - “Dr. Purdon, in 1872, states the mortality as 31 per 1,000, and Dr. - Whitaker in his report on the health of Belfast, 1892, says the - carder’s average length of life is only 16·8 years of work. If a girl - gets a card at eighteen her life is generally terminated at thirty. - The preparer’s average is 28·7 years of work. The ‘rougher’ and the - ‘sorter,’ said Mr. Osborn, work in a continual cloud of dust composed - of particles of the fibre ‘which is inhaled, and irritates and dries - the throat and gradually finds its way into the lungs, producing - chronic inflammation of the lining membrane, which soon manifests its - presence by the worker being attacked each morning with a paroxysm of - dyspnœa and coughing. A worker suffering thus is said to be ‘poucey’ - (pouce=dust=_poussière_) ... some roughing rooms have no ventilation - but windows opening at the upper part, and the workers face the wall, - which, of course, reverberates the dust upon them.”[101] - -Far higher was the mortality per thousand among “china scourers”—a few -hundred women exposed to fine flint dust in the china industry. This -flint dust also severely affected men in china biscuit-placing shops, in -saggar emptying, and other operations.[102] China scouring is a dry -process, of which the word is descriptive, to which the ware is -subjected after it has been fired in the kiln. Before firing each piece -is buried in a bed of fine flint dust in a receptacle known as a saggar, -in which it is placed in the kiln, so that it may not adhere to the -saggar or other pieces of ware during firing. On coming out of the kiln -it is necessary to free each piece from adhering particles of the flint -dust by friction of three kinds: scrubbing with a stiff brush moved by -hand or by power, rubbing with stiff flannel, and with sand-paper. The -extent of the injury from the process was found after patient research -by Miss Deane and Miss Paterson in 1898. Rediscovered, one might more -precisely say, for the enquiries of the Royal Commission of 1841 on -Employment of Children and Young Persons had made it clear that the air -of the rooms in which china scouring was carried on was filled with -finely pulverised flint, the inhalation of which was “nearly as fatal as -that of the grinding stones of Sheffield.” In these 57 years nothing had -changed essentially. “Not many scourers live long; we all feel -overloaded upon the chest and cough very much; I cannot lie down all -night” (Commission of 1841). “Against the danger of this occupation -scarcely any provision has been made” (Sir John Simon to the Privy -Council in 1860). In their preparation of some evidence for an -arbitration in Stoke-on-Trent in 1898 on revised special rules chiefly -concerning lead in earthenware and china, the Women Inspectors -discovered a remarkable weakness in the rule controlling flint dust. -Whereas the stronger rule for elimination of dust by a positive -requirement of fans, applied to “towing” of earthenware (i.e., rubbing -soft clay dust off the pots with tow), the far more dangerous flint dust -of china scouring was controlled only by a rule requiring removal of -dust “_as far as practicable_,” by mechanical or other efficient means. -With energy they set to work to complete the evidence as to the -mortality of this occupation—by examination of all death certificates, -during two and a half years, of women between fifteen and seventy years -who had died in Longton, the chief china town, from respiratory diseases -and phthisis, and by visiting the homes of the persons. Comparing deaths -per thousand among all women in Longton attributed by the certificates -to these diseases with those, similarly, among women who had worked -regularly at china scouring, they found that these deaths per thousand -in the two years immediately preceding the enquiry had been nearly -fifteen times as great among china scourers as among other women in -Longton. The figures were given in detail in the Annual Report for 1898. -The Inspectors referred several cases of advanced fibroid phthisis that -came under their notice to the newly appointed Medical Inspector, who -attributed the physical signs in the lungs to inhalation of flint dust; -three of these died within the year.[103] - -The Inspectors visited all the factories where china scouring was -carried on and found that, whereas efficient fan extraction had been -installed in a few, yet generally full advantage had been taken of the -permissive character of the rule regarding mechanical extraction of dust -by omitting it. Some of the smaller china factories were wholly or in -part unfitted for use as workplaces. The rule was amended as from -January 1, 1899, with marked results in improved mechanical methods and -in reduction of the disease by degrees. I found, by a comparative -enquiry, ten years later, that the high mortality from respiratory -disease and phthisis was reduced to less than half among china scourers, -but this was still far too high a rate, and many extremely sad cases -showed the need of strengthened provisions.[104] This information I gave -with much other evidence to the Departmental Committee appointed in 1908 -by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, since Lord Gladstone, to enquire into dangers -from use of lead and injury to health from dust in china and earthenware -and incidental processes.[105] The chairman was Sir Ernest Hatch, Bart., -and the able secretary, Mr. E. A. R. Werner, a skilled chemist. - -To the work of this committee reference must presently be made in -dealing with lead poisoning in potteries; here we must recognise the -immense advance in control of the dust problem in these works that -followed on the adoption of the recommendations of the committee. The -age of inactivity on proven ills had passed. Undoubtedly the presence on -the committee of leading manufacturers and workers largely conduced to -the practical thoroughness with which the problems were handled. - -Many other dusty processes affecting women that were not under special -rules also engaged the close attention of Women Inspectors, of which the -following examples may be given: - -(_a_) Asbestos sifting, mixing, and carding; an industry singularly -little considered until complaints from the girls employed came in to us -year by year, from 1898 onwards. The sharp, jagged edge of the insoluble -mineral dust has undoubtedly occasioned much illness, and death, from -respiratory diseases. The first asbestos factory I entered was entirely -without applied exhaust, one of the dustiest processes being carried on -in a cellar. In another, revisited in 1906, on a complaint thoroughly -justified by the thick, fog-like atmosphere in the carding room, -ineffectual fan extraction had been introduced, but not applied to the -points of production of dust. By this date there were good examples of -well installed mechanical exhaust in large asbestos factories, and -progress could be secured in the smaller works. In 1911 Miss Whitlock, -M.B., an Inspector in the Women’s Branch, made careful study for us of -this industry, and found a considerable amount of phthisical, bronchial, -and gastric trouble still present. The least defect in the working of -the applied ventilation was dangerous. - -(_b_) Silk waste carding and spinning gave rise to woeful complaints of -dust from women, from 1898 onwards. Increased injuriousness of the -excessive dust in preparatory processes coincided with the introduction -of an inferior quality of silk. Dr. Legge found, in samples referred to -him by Miss Squire, débris of silkworms containing “an enormous number -of hook-like structures, probably portions of the thoracic and abdominal -segments of the pupa case.” This gave support to the apparently strange -opinion of the workers expressed to Miss Squire that they were coughing -up not silk but silkworms; and it led us back to Ramazzini’s account, in -1678, of the effect on silk workers of the combing of “grosser -filaments, which have parts of the bodies of silkworms mixed with them,” -that they were troubled with “a vehement cough and great difficulty of -breathing ... and few of them live to an old age.”[106] Again and again -the need for scientifically applied exhaust had to be pressed for in -this side of the silk industry, something inadequate was repeatedly -tried, and choked-up ducts to fans even led to the beating back of dust -on the workers. Eventually the introduction of machinery for cleaning -the material before carding—steadily urged on the occupiers—helped to -solve the problem of efficient extraction of dust.[107] - -(_c_) Teazle brushing in hosiery factories, a finishing process for -smaller articles in Leicester and Nottingham, produced excessive dust of -broken powdery wool and cotton fibre, causing great discomfort in eyes, -and choking sensations in throat and chest. The trouble was removed and -valuable surplus dust for reselling was saved by applying exhaust with -closely fitting cover to the machine and also a patent delivery roller -at the back. Excellent results were reported in the following year, to -the satisfaction not only of workers, but also manufacturers and -foremen.[108] - -(_d_) Mercerised cotton yarn dust was first noticed in 1902 as giving -rise to what was known as “mercerised fever,” shivering and sickness -with cough and oppression in the chest. It was attributed to strong -caustic soda in the cotton fibre, which was irritating to the bronchial -and nasal passages. The trouble was removed by requiring exhaust -ventilation.[109] - -(_e_) Miss Squire and her staff, when localised in Manchester from 1908, -had their attention drawn (by complaints) to excessive dust in the -making-up warehouses in which girls were employed in “hooking and -lapping” heavily “sized” grey shirting and stiffened muslin. “Stuffed- -up” chests and throat trouble and sickness were the results, and great -discomfort was felt even by the Inspectors on their visits. They -systematically served notice on the occupiers to provide localised -exhaust ventilation, which removed the trouble.[110] - -(_f_) Buffing of plated articles—_i.e._, mechanical friction with Trent -sand sometimes mixed with lime—in Sheffield electro-plate works was the -subject of a careful study by Miss Whitlock, M.B., to whose interesting -report reference may be made by those desirous of following up the -subject.[111] In the majority of buffing shops the women stayed in for -their meals, and application of exhaust ventilation was only found in -one shop. She found that the cases of phthisis among them were more than -double the rate per thousand of those amongst women over fifteen years -in the town, and that anæmia was prevalent. - -(_g_) Dust as well as other injurious features in little scattered -country flax scutch mills was specially followed up by Miss Martindale -from 1907 onwards in North Ireland. Ineffective fans were fixed in many -of these mills, and described by the workers as “a pest and a torment,” -through their alternative capacity for stirring up the injurious dust -and for getting choked up with fibre! In 1914 I took part in a -conference in Belfast between representatives of the Factory Department -and the Irish Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction with the -aim of concerted action as regards mechanical ventilation of the scutch -mills. These mills, being mostly situated near flax fields for the first -stages of preparation of the dried fibrous material for manufacture, -concerned both Departments. The War intervened, and these problems have -there fallen to the charge of a new administration. The question was -again raised for the Factory Department during the War, when flax -growing and scutching was initiated by Government action in various -parts of England. - -Many other dusty processes and the health of women in them engaged our -attention; in rag and refuse sorting, fur-pulling, in hatters’ furriers’ -factories and horsehair factories, in starch rooms of confectionery -works, hemp-rope works, sackmending, cotton waste works, india-rubber -works, eiderdown and kapok-filling factories, clay pipe scouring, -embossed paper lace-making, etc. In a lace-tinting business for -dressmakers we called in Dr. Collis’s aid for investigation of marked -injury to health of all the workers; he not only found the soreness of -nostrils and pharynx associated with inhalation of dust, but also -phthisical results from the finely divided dust shaken out by hand from -the lace. Here the occupier at great expense provided efficient exhaust, -drawing off dust from the lace without this shaking by hand. Improved -methods of working were in our experience a frequent consequence of our -demands for extraction of dust. - -In connection with an enquiry in Sheffield into the association of -phthisis and dusty trades Miss Whitlock found that the system of -compulsory notification of consumption already in practice there in -1911, combined as it was with enquiry into occupation of the patient, -greatly facilitated her work. - -Bronzing,[112] whether by hand or machine, of all kinds of paper -programmes, showcards, prospectuses, Christmas cards, etc., in -lithographic works or departments of works, affected workers in ways -that almost perennially commanded our attention. Dust from bronzing was -on the border line between those that are simply mechanical in action on -the respiratory passages and those that are either irritant or -poisonous. In the earlier years the work itself was generally -intermittent, not continuous. Although the Dangerous Trades Committee in -1896 made recommendations in their first interim report for control of -risks in this process by special rules, the apparent absence of -permanent injury to health among those engaged in it led in the first -place to the application by the Home Office of voluntary, not -compulsory, rules for protection of the workers. Our activities, -conjointly with District Inspectors, in pressing questions of dust -extraction, means of maintaining personal cleanliness, overalls, supply -of milk, examination of workers by the certifying surgeon, and so on, -fortunately led to improvement in bronzing machines with vacuum -arrangements for dust. Probably they led also in part to the -concentration of the work in the hands of a few occupiers that followed; -finally, special regulations were made compulsory in April, 1912. - -In 1911 an important step was taken for more systematic work by Women -Inspectors in the field of dangerously dusty processes. In conference -with Mr. Pendock, as District Inspector and ventilating expert, -arrangements were made by Miss Lovibond (Mrs. Moorcroft) for the taking -of records, on tabular cards, of anemometer tests at hoods connected -with mechanical exhaust ventilation, so as to bring steady pressure to -bear on occupiers of factories for testing and maintaining efficiency in -their installations. As I said then: “There can be no question that -supervision of the provision of really efficient exhaust, and steady -maintenance of it, when provided, in thorough working order is the -supremely important task of the Inspectorate in all dusty trades where -dust is of a kind inhaled, whether the dust is simply mechanical or -irritant or poisonous in contact with the mucous membrane or respiratory -tracts.”[113] The taking of these records, of which copies were supplied -to occupiers, fortunately aroused much interest, and among workers as -well as employers. In the next year about 1,000 records were made in the -Potteries alone, including all places where workers, reported for lead -poisoning, were working at or near the exhaust ventilation. Miss -Whitlock took over this work at the close of that year and added an -invaluable enquiry into nearly all the reported lead cases among women -in potteries in 1913, giving us careful studies of the conditions and -ways of workers, with suggestions for future prevention. Early in 1914 -we lost her increasingly valuable aid in medical questions concerning -women through her transference to the Industrial and Reformatory Schools -Department. Then the great upheaval of the War turned us away from -quiet, fruitful, concentrated activities of this nature to the many -problems arising from the intensified industrial production by women for -national needs. - -I have been here led from point to point by following up one kind of -protection, which is a fundamental one, against risks in industry from -the various types of dust and from lead fumes. This will suggest, -perhaps, as well as any other method of approach, something of our share -as Women Inspectors on behalf of women workers in the immense work that -was carried on by the Factory Department during the years 1893 to 1914 -in striving to lessen the special risks of injurious and dangerous -processes. It is impossible, except by devoting a whole book to it, to -do more than give samples of our service in this side of Factory Act -administration. - -Some notion of the magnitude and complexity of dangers to be regulated -and injuries to be prevented, with the chief preventive measures -embodied in “special regulations,” can be gathered from Appendix I.—a -tabular summary that I made in 1913 (and which has been brought up to -the present date by Miss Squire, O.B.E.), giving these details in -alphabetical order for all the trades, processes, and descriptions of -manual labour, that are certified by the Secretary of State as -“dangerous or injurious to health or dangerous to life or limb.” - -In addition to the research needed before regulations were made, to the -giving of evidence to Committees, Arbitrators, and Commissioners -appointed by the Secretary of State, when objections to draft -regulations had to be reviewed—besides instruction to occupiers and -workers, and prosecution when necessary—we gave a great deal of -attention to another side: the exclusion, or proposed exclusion, from -very dangerous processes of classes of persons whose age or sex made -them specially susceptible to poison or other risks. The special -interest of the whole community in protection of maternity and health of -young workers, for example, was the chief point on which we had -influence in developing regulations for the white lead industry, in -which the extraordinarily dangerous character of the main processes had -led to special control years before Women Inspectors entered the Factory -Department. Those who desire to follow out the history of regulation in -this industry, originally the foremost among “occupations injurious to -health,” might begin with the account in the Annual Report of the Chief -Inspector for 1879, when it was already illegal to employ in it any -person under eighteen years of age; and might further consult a complete -concise account of the various processes, their dangers and prevention, -in “Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption,” by Dr. T. M. Legge and Dr. K. -W. Goadby, Chapter XVI.[114] On and after July 1, 1899, it became -illegal under special rules to employ a woman in the peculiarly -dangerous processes in white beds, stoves, etc. And, so far as _this_ -industry is concerned,[115] most of the effect of the Women and Young -Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Act, 1920, passed in pursuance of -the Washington Convention of 1919, had been long ago attained in our -country. - -Other dangerous lead processes, originally highly serious for young -women workers, are found in the electric accumulator industry. Here -again our evidence supported the exclusion of these workers from such -risks, and since 1903 “no woman, young person, or child” may be employed -“in the manipulation of dry compounds of lead or in pasting.”[116] - -Although it was not until 1908 that the primary investigation by an -Inspector of reported cases of industrial poisoning or anthrax cases -affecting women and girls was assigned by the Home Office to the Women -Inspectors, we had always used these reports for supplementary -enquiries. We had already, before 1900, a wide knowledge of the -conditions under which lead, phosphorus, and mercurial poisoning had -occurred, and had brought to light unreported cases, particularly of -lead and phosphorus necrosis, and some secondary effects of lead -poisoning in women. - -The latter point was strongly exemplified in some information that I -presented in the Annual Report for 1897, gathered by Miss Paterson and -Miss Deane during that year. They enquired into seventy-seven reported -cases of plumbism amongst married women employed in lead processes in -the Potteries of Staffordshire, where the most injurious lead processes— -_e.g._, colour dusting, ware-cleaning—fell to women. They found among -these a high degree of childlessness, stillbirths, and miscarriages; -that thirty-six only had had living children averaging three each, and -of the total number of children two-fifths had died, the majority -succumbing to convulsions in infancy. Two sample cases gave a tragic -warning as to the social as well as individual physical effects of -employment in lead processes on maternity: “A.B., aged twenty-nine, -married seven years, had worked in lead ten years, had three -miscarriages, five stillborn children, and one child alive who died in -convulsions when a few weeks old. C.D., aged twenty-five, married seven -years, began to work in lead in her seventeenth year, had had four -miscarriages and three stillborn children; her one living child was born -after she was absent from her work.”[117] - -Other cases as sad and sadder were found first by Miss Martindale, then -by Miss Vines, during their successive and systematic work in the -Potteries from 1903 to 1908. The latter visited practically all women -reported for lead poisoning, and a striking example was the case of Mrs. -B., colour duster and paintress, aged thirty-eight, married fifteen -years, who had nine miscarriages and one living child, ill all the three -years of its life; was herself disabled with wrist drop of both hands. -She had to take her case into court to obtain compensation due to -her.[118] - -Although such enquiries dealt with a grave evil to some extent -understood before, the subject gives a good example of ways, arresting -to the general onlooker, in which women investigators seized on features -or consequences of industrial employment of women that concerned the -nation. Their consequent action and recommendations emphasised the need -of steady investigation by qualified women of absenteeism among women -workers in lead processes, and the extremely unsuitable conditions of -publicity under which medical examination in these early days sometimes -took place in the factory. “This led, not infrequently,” said Miss -Deane, “to failure in detecting the very evils which it is the object of -the examination to find out and eliminate.”[119] It appeared in 1900, -when I took some prosecutions against leading employers for neglect of -duties regarding medical examination, that there was a strong tendency -for girls who felt ill to leave a pottery without the suspension by the -certifying surgeon provided for in the special rules of 1899. Poverty, -dread of loss of employment without compensation—which was later made -available for them in such cases by the voluntary action of the -manufacturers themselves—seemed to me the strongest cause of that -tendency. Records of poignant individual cases accumulated by the -Inspectors made this factor very clear. - -In the remarkable Pottery Code of Regulations, 1913, which followed on -the general lines of drastic recommendations made by the Departmental -Committee under Sir Ernest Hatch,[120] careful requirement was made that -a private room should be provided for the examination of workers by the -certifying surgeon, and other safeguards of privacy were laid down. Some -other provisions needed to secure effectual use by the workers of -safeguards provided for them followed the lines indicated by complaints -of women workers to the Women Inspectors. On these they had accumulated -evidence, sometimes with the aid of information given by officials of -the “Potteries Fund,” a voluntary fund for assistance of women and girls -suffering from lead poisoning in this industry. For example, separate -washing conveniences were now required for the sexes; women had -explained to me in detail how they could not use the same conveniences -as men coming from hot and dusty processes such as “glost placing,” in -which a large proportion of the men and boys were employed. New detailed -care was given in the regulations to provision and maintenance of -protective clothing and messroom arrangements; suppression of dust by -methods and means additional to those of exhaust ventilation; better -control of temperature; control of heavy weight carrying by young -workers, cleaning of floors, boards, and benches; new limitation of -hours for men as well as women in dangerous processes; exclusion of -women and young workers from certain processes. These and other matters, -particularly rules against heavy weight carrying, and for better methods -of cleaning floors, boards, etc., which were strongly supported by the -evidence arising out of our long researches, were remarkably thoroughly -dealt with in the code. An entirely fresh stimulus was applied to the -sense of responsibility in the occupiers of potteries by a requirement -that the occupier himself should appoint a competent person to carry out -systematic inspection of the working of all the regulations, and to keep -records of the inspection. This was truly a novel requirement in so -ancient an industry, relying as it too long had done on traditional -methods. How much it was needed may be seen in a sample prosecution by -Miss Martindale in 1913. She had found that, so far, the tendency had -been to note and record only breaches of the code by workers. She said: -“Undoubtedly this is salutary, but not, I take it, all that regulation -27 was intended to do. I revisited with Miss Whitlock a factory in which -in October she had noted not less than twenty-six breaches of the -regulations. The record of self-inspection showed no irregularities -since July.... The Works Inspector stated that he ‘had not observed -any,’ although the irregularities were such palpable ones as: not -providing milk, not affixing thermometers and placards, not painting -boards red.”[121] Conviction and heavy penalties followed the taking of -proceedings. - -In addition to the industries above touched on, where women and girls -have run risk of lead poisoning, litho transfer making for decoration of -earthenware china gave us much thought in the past owing to the exposure -of young, anæmic girls to finely powdered dust containing lead. -Inclusion of the process under the stringent Pottery Regulations, and -improved methods of dust extraction, have greatly reduced the risks. The -glazing of bricks with lead in the glaze, later shown to be unnecessary, -was found by Miss Squire in 1898 to be causing fits among the girls who -were scraping the edges of the bricks. These attacks had been -thoughtlessly attributed to hysteria until brought under medical -observation. Heading of yarn dyed by lead chromate and painting of -perambulators still take prominent place amongst other industries from -which lead cases affecting female workers are notified. This may be seen -in the Table given below in Appendix II., which is included in order to -enable readers to appreciate the reductions in industrial poisoning that -have followed the changes indicated since 1900. The interesting -liability of lead to turn up in miscellaneous industries, in quite -unexpected ways and places, and especially in the great range of small -metal industries in the Midlands, is too wide a subject for further -consideration here. Sample cases and a long list of industries may be -seen in the Annual Report for 1913.[122] - -The great general fall in number of reported lead cases, particularly in -potteries, that had come about by 1914 (see Appendix II.), and is still -more marked in later years, is no doubt due in the main to the -preventive measures I have so briefly indicated. Foremost of all came -improved methods of exhaust ventilation, but very important also were -cleanliness and reduction in hours of work. Until trade is quite normal, -however, the true effect of these measures and of the great aid given -first by legal compensation and then by National Health Insurance—which -enable workers to obtain treatment and rest from work at an early stage -of illness—cannot be fully known. The detailed, thorough investigation -done among the women exposed to lead by Women Inspectors (and -particularly in 1912 to 1914 by Miss Whitlock), which culminated in a -series of prosecutions for numerous contraventions of the new -regulations affecting them in potteries, no doubt led to a fresh start -for them. Of industrial poisoning Miss Whitlock wrote in 1913: “Poverty -with its attendant worry and lack of nourishment appears to be a -predisposing cause in many cases. The youth of many of the workers is -noticeable.... Apart from the painful character of the illness, the -length of time the cases last is a serious matter.... I often came -across cases which had been over a year on compensation.” “A woman in a -warehouse told me that she had been over three years at work after three -years on compensation and still suffered from pains in her limbs, and -was obliged sometimes to absent herself from work.” Of cases of serious -illness among women heading yarn dyed in lead chromate, Miss Tracey -observed: “Without home visits it would have been impossible to gauge -the extent and severity of the illness.”[123] Unquestionably specialist -work by Women Inspectors still remains to be done for women workers in -dangerous trades, even though the figures of poisoning seem to show them -to be now in a much safer position than men. The figures alone do not -disclose the whole matter. Much may yet be learned by following up -“absent” or “left” women workers, as well as by seeing reported cases in -their homes. A marked mobility of women’s labour in lead processes in -potteries was found in 1911 by Miss Sadler. In sixty-eight potteries at -the time of inspection (between January and September) no less than 258 -were marked in the special register as “absent” or “left,” apart from -suspensions and reported cases. Out of forty cases diagnosed as lead, -she found twenty-four still suffering and in receipt of compensation; -and also that the majority were under thirty years and not suffering -from accumulated effect of bygone conditions.[124] When compulsory -compensation began to take effect it was gratifying to watch the growth -of realisation among manufacturers of the poverty caused by plumbism. In -the past much had been hidden in obscurity by the tendency of the poor -to suffer in silence. Manufacturers showed increasing recognition of the -importance of utilising compensation to the best advantage for the -individual cases. - -From time to time, though rarely, mention was made in Annual Reports of -the appointment of a medical woman by employers to supervise the health -of women and girls in a large factory. This movement passed into a new -phase during the War, when national munition factories set the example -of appointing whole-time women medical officers. In 1920 we learned that -in “a growing number of factories medical women are appointed to -supervise health of women and girls.”[125] In the same year the first -appointment of a woman as certifying surgeon was made by the Chief -Inspector—in West London. - -These developments in drawing medical women into official contact with -industry, and particularly the appointment of a woman as one of the -Medical Inspectors of Factories, have a greater significance for future -protection of the health of women workers since the absorption of the -Women Inspectorate, from August 1, 1921, onwards, into the general -district work of the whole country. Instead of concentrating enquiries -and action on behalf of working women, the Women Inspectors must -necessarily give their time largely to men and boy workers, male workers -being not less than 65 per cent. of all persons employed in factories -and workshops. - -Meanwhile the whole pottery industry, the matchmaking industry, and -others with features that concerned the health and safety of women in a -special degree, have reorganised themselves on lines recommended by the -Whitley Report. Their Councils have happily immediately concerned -themselves with improving conditions of health and welfare. When one -sees, as I have, the admirable detailed work done for health and safety -in a factory with the aid of workers on a works’ committee in an -industry with a National Council—particularly in a factory with an -experienced welfare superintendent working harmoniously with the works’ -committee—one realises what a long way has been travelled since 1893. -Each year, since 1919, has seen contact of the Factory Department with -new Councils, in questions relating to health, safety, and welfare—a -matter to which we may revert in Chapter VIII. - -The pursuit of certain salient developments in control of foremost -industries responsible for lead poisoning where women are concerned has -led me so far to pass by absorbingly interesting work of Women -Inspectors on varied risks and injuries during the twenty-seven years -under review, thus only (as in the question of control of dust and fume -by mechanical means) could I, in so enormous a subject, sketch some kind -of picture, that might remain, of the women’s claim and our lines of -response. - -It is necessary, however, in order to have any true picture of the work -of the Women Inspectors to sketch rapidly some other of its less closely -interwoven features. The effects of bisulphide of carbon as a solvent in -the making of rubber articles; of white phosphorus for the dipping paste -in matchmaking, producing phosphorus necrosis, called, with a sinister -familiarity, “phossy jaw”; of a solution of mercury to assist felting in -hatters’ and furriers, causing varying degrees of mercurial poisoning; -these took even more of our time and thought in early years than did -many of the injurious dusts already mentioned. As for white phosphorus, -considerable as was our share in tracking down hidden cases of necrosis -and other ill-health in lucifer match girls, and in helping to build up -special rules against the horrible risk of painful and disfiguring -disease, yet all that is now only of historical interest, for statutory -prohibition of the deadly ingredient in matches, whether manufactured in -our country or imported, came in 1908 by an Act which took effect from -January 1, 1910. And the active Joint Council of this reformed industry -and intelligent works’ committees in some factories, with their highly -developed mechanical methods, fittingly bear moral responsibility for -seeing that no such risks ever arise again. Our last reference to any -cases of necrosis was in the Report for 1909, when three young women -were (all from one factory) under treatment in a local hospital—one for -her first operation on the jaw, another for her fourth, while the third, -seen at home, had had two operations. All had suffered much. Some cases -arose during the War among men employed in manufacture of phosphorus. In -india-rubber works of recent years we have seen and dealt more with the -effects of naphtha fumes, dust, lead, great heat, and heavy weights, -than with bisulphide of carbon covered by special rules. The last bad -case we had was in 1911, from a factory where press of work led to -employment of girls for a longer consecutive spell than the two and a -half hours permissible under special rules. Hysteria, bordering on -insanity, followed, and the poor girl was summarily dismissed for -“insobriety and rowdyism.” She recovered quickly on separation from the -work, and was restored to her usual quiet self-control.[126] In the -following year we had some cases of mercurial poisoning in a hatters’ -furriers’ workshop due to particles of dust from rabbit fur previously -brushed with a solution of mercury, the process being known as -“carotting.” These were attributed to a failure to maintain, in good -repair and efficiency, the otherwise excellent system of exhaust -ventilation, and to the use of an extra strong solution of mercury to -assist the felting property of inferior fur.[127] - -As for anthrax, owing to the supreme importance of bacteriological -research and technical remedies requiring specialists in this industrial -disease, such services as we were able to render, in investigation of -the circumstances in reported cases affecting women, although far from -negligible as regards conditions in factories, were entirely subsidiary -to the work of the medical branch. Sometimes, too, we disclosed hidden -risks to women, engaged at home in cleaning and mending of a husband’s -clothing when he was employed in handling hides or other infective -material. Two out of six cases affecting women in 1914 occurred amongst -women not working in industry, one the wife of a tanner. The prosecution -of a brush manufacturer for breach of regulations in his factory brought -out the fact that one of his outworkers, who had suffered from an attack -of anthrax, was not covered by protective regulations. The obscure -origin of some cases, even among factory workers, appeared in a case -affecting a cotton spinner engaged in cotton that had been shipped from -Alexandria, and in various cases among women sorting or mending sacks -that had conveyed bone dust.[128] - -Carbonic oxide poisoning, particularly in laundries, traceable to escape -of gas through defective fittings of ironing machinery, was a subject -that repeatedly engaged the attention of Women Inspectors receiving -complaints of illness among the girls employed on this work. In one -laundry, which had escaped inspection through failure of the occupier to -notify its existence, girls were found to have been gravely ill with -severe symptoms of this form of poisoning. Proceedings instituted -against the occupier for the failure to notify occupation and for using -a gas iron emitting noxious fumes led not only to conviction, but to a -special penalty (on account of the injury to health due to his neglect -of provisions of the Act), which was applied to the benefit of the -injured worker.[129] - -The use of bichromate of potassium, causing “chrome holes” in the hands -of workers taking a very long time to heal, in dye works and in -wholesale photography works, was also brought under our observation. - -In these kinds of risks, in cases of illness in tobacco works attributed -to nicotine poisoning, and in numerous cases and varieties of trade -eczema (inflammation of the skin or dermatitis), we brought much -information to the Senior Medical Inspector, and received his help in -taking action to secure remedies. Among the trades and processes in -which we gathered or discovered instances of dermatitis—some severe and -obstinate, others quickly yielding to treatment—were lime-juice -manufacture, fancy biscuit finishing in confectionery works, electro- -plating with use of potash, mercurial processes in electric meter -fitting, enamel dipping in metal hollow ware works, use of oil in -tobacco twist rolling, spinning and “batching” with use of shale oil for -softening the fibre in jute works, use of naphtha as a solvent for paint -on the hands, lacquering in brass foundries, claret bottling, gut -preparing at salt machines. In fish curing, where salt sores from the -brine have been an affliction for centuries for the workers engaged in -pickling herring, we did but turn fresh powers of observation on to a -well-known industrial ill; and in this seasonal calling the making of a -Home Office Welfare Order providing for first-aid as well as rest rooms -and other amenities, has brought remedies that should be thoroughly -effective in Yarmouth and Lowestoft. - -At the outbreak of the War the whole position as regards the control of -dangerous and injurious trades and processes stood in complete contrast -to the almost stagnant conditions of legislation for hours of labour. -Just when a new stage was set for new risks as well as new experiments, -the Factory Department held the great advantage-point secured by the -long scientific work, described above, in many different kinds of -dangerous and injurious occupations. A markedly successful reduction in -industrial poisoning had been achieved. Having this body of knowledge -and experience it was a comparatively simple matter to supply the same -methods of control, when serious new kinds of industrial poisoning -appeared during the War, in connection with the rapid development of -aircraft and explosives manufacture. Cases of “toxic jaundice,” -popularly known as “dope poisoning,” which occurred in the varnishing of -the wings of aeroplanes by means of a solution containing -tetrachlorethane and, later, in the manufacture and use of -trinitrotoluene for high explosive known as T.N.T., could be quickly -studied and the causes regulated. In the varnishing of wings of -aeroplanes the ingredients of the solution were ultimately changed.[130] -In the case of T.N.T. poisoning, resulting also in toxic jaundice, the -Factory Department were able to supply to the Ministry of Munitions and -Explosives Supply Department a sufficient body of evidence and the -example of special regulations, for them to develop their own necessary -safeguards in the national and the controlled factories. In the national -and some of the controlled factories medical officers were specially -appointed at the works,[131] and the whole of the evidence was reviewed -both by Dr. Legge, Senior Medical Inspector at the Home Office, and the -Medical Officers at the Ministry of Munitions. The remarkable reduction -in cases of toxic jaundice may be seen in Appendix II. - -Let us turn from disease or injury, the causes of which—such as dust, -poison, germs, irritants, or a combination of any of these—could be -definitely ascertained and controlled, and let us glance at more general -features and conditions of work that tend to impair the strength or -diminish the resisting capacity of the worker. Under this category the -items on which the Women Inspectors concentrated energy and action, with -marked results, were many. Some I have already dealt with, such as -excessive hours, bad general sanitation, extremes of temperature, -uncertain and low wages (leading to grave insufficiency of food and -other necessaries). Foremost among those with which I have not yet dealt -were heavy weight lifting, carrying or moving, beyond the physical -strength or growth of the worker; long hours of unnecessary standing; -heavy treadling or other undesirable use or strain of parts of the body -in processes where adapted appliances should be substituted; excessive -vibration from heavy machinery; excessively monotonous specialised parts -of processes that could not be carried on for long without nervous -strain; excessively wet or humid conditions of work; lack of means of -preparing or taking food at the works, or of maintaining personal -cleanliness in dirty or offensive processes (by suitable washing -appliances and protective clothing). - -It is impossible to enlarge on the study and action of the Inspectors in -all these directions. The questions of messrooms and food, washing -conveniences, cloakrooms, protective clothing, and seats are touched on -in the last two chapters of this book. A few words may be said here on -heavy weights which—in their great strain on children and adolescent -girls and on mothers—made a special appeal to the Women Inspectors, and -on undesirable use of parts of the body for certain processes. - -In 1897 I first reported on investigation of complaints of an injurious -pressure upon girls and women in factories to lift or carry heavy -weights. I had to point to the fact that such complaints must be -classified as “outside the scope of the Factory Acts,” and that our -“action has been confined to noting the conditions, and, where it -appeared possible or likely to lead to good results, we have drawn the -attention of the employer to them.” I suggested that the system of -preliminary examination as to physical fitness for the work to be done -should be a possible way of partly meeting the difficulty in the care of -young workers.[132] In the Factory Act of 1901 a provision was included -empowering the certifying surgeon to qualify his certificate of fitness -of young workers entering a factory by conditions as to the work on -which a child or young person under sixteen is fit to be employed. At -the suggestion of the Factory Inspectors this power was frequently used -by certifying surgeons in many different industries to limit the weight -that might be lifted, moved, or carried by these young workers—and with -great effect in the Staffordshire Potteries.[133] - -It was in 1900 that I quoted a view, expressed with some prescience by -Miss Squire, on the probable effect of introduction into the English law -of a requirement (such as there was then in the French law) specifically -limiting the weights that might be lifted, carried, or moved by young -workers and women. It has special interest in view of wartime -experience, in national factories, of State control of labour-saving -appliances to prevent overstrain of women and girls. - - “We should probably see,” she said, “a speedy increase in mechanical - means of lifting and carrying in factories and workshops, such as - hoists and cranes, trollies, endless bands, and other contrivances, - now so conspicuous by their absence.... The introduction of such - apparatus would not mean displacing of women and girls, it would only - increase their remunerative work, for most of these affected are - pieceworkers, and the time now taken up by journeys to and fro, - fetching and carrying their materials or work, would be occupied in - manufacture, and increase both their wages and the output of their - departments. - - “It is pitiable to see young growing girls employed as beasts of - burden, staggering under loads that men hesitate to lift—yet in some - trades this is an ordinary sight.... In brick-making, in tinplate - works, in iron hollow ware, and in warehouses in hardware trades, I - have found girls aged thirteen to seventeen carrying loads which - weighed from 30 pounds to 111 pounds in the ordinary course of their - employment. Many are the complaints of weariness and overstrain made - to me by girls and young women—some of them mothers—who are too poor - or too unskilled to leave an employment which is making too great a - demand on their physical powers, and which in some instances has - caused serious injury.”[134] - -I myself saw in a hollow ware works, and had weighed on the spot, a -weight of upwards of 50 pounds, consisting of piled-up galvanised iron -buckets, that a young girl had carried across a yard and up a steep -ladder steps without handrail. Yet even that seemed to me less serious -than the heavy loads of damp clay carried by thirteen-year-old boys in -Staffordshire Potteries, with strained looks and beads of perspiration -on their brows. This matter has been carefully regulated, thirteen years -later, by the special regulations for potteries. - -In tinplate works girls of fourteen and fifteen years were found to be -carrying loads of sharp-edged plates, weighing 100 pounds and over: one -particularly small and slight girl of fourteen years was carrying 107 -pounds with difficulty. Complaints were made of pains in the side and of -swellings and bruises from the heavy weight on the hip. In one tinplate -works boys with trollies were fetching and carrying the loads for the -girls, a measure said to be impossible in other tinplate works. - - “Women are very much at the mercy of their foremen and of the men with - whom they work in such matters ... girls in a wire-bound hose factory - were slowly heaving up large coils of iron wire weighing 108 pounds - from stair to stair up a steep ladder staircase, resting at intervals - to take breath, while the foreman stood by and the rope for elevating - the coils to the girls’ machine-room hung idle.... The employer gave a - sharp reprimand when he was made aware of it.... An obligation not to - ‘allow’ the lifting and carrying by young persons and women of weights - above a certain standard would probably best effect ... the adjusting - of work or the wages, the increased vigilance to protect the weak from - being imposed upon, or the provision of labour-saving appliances ... - required to remove the evil.”[135] - -Remarkable examples were given by Miss Martindale between 1902 and 1904 -of weights, and aggregate material, handled or moved in a day, in -potteries and brickworks—_e.g._, quarry bricks weighing 50 pounds each -were carried by a woman or girl to the kiln and handed up to a man to -place; girls wheeled barrows containing forty bricks weighing 9 pounds -each; a girl handled 55 tons of clay a day in lifting bricks from a -machine;[136] a boy of fourteen years weighing 77 pounds fetched clay -for a moulder who worked in a shop up a steep flight of stairs, the -weight of the piece of clay he was carrying was 69 pounds;[137] a -delicate girl of fourteen years fetched on an average three to five -lumps of clay an hour for the moulder, and was found carrying 67 pounds; -a girl of seventeen fetched clay for eleven moulders, bringing them each -four lumps a day, each lump weighing ½ cwt. The mother remarked to the -Inspector on the exhausted state in which her daughter returned home -after doing “men’s work”;[138] a boy of thirteen years was found -struggling up a steep flight of stairs carrying clay weighing 78 pounds. - -Patient observations of this kind went on in numerous industries year -after year, and the mass of material in the published Annual Reports is -great. Ventilation of the question led to its inclusion in various Home -Office Orders of Regulations (_e.g._, fruit preserving works in 1907, -potteries in 1913). The most important step, however, was the passing of -Clause 3 (4) in the Employment of Children Act, 1903: “A child shall not -be employed to lift, carry, or move anything so heavy as to be likely to -cause injury to the child,” and “child” was defined as a person under -the age of fourteen years. In due course the Factory Inspectors took -cases into court under this clause, and penalties were obtained. Public -opinion awakened to the evil, and much good was done by the Inspectors -when they simply called the attention of many employers to the need of -limiting weights lifted and carried by young growing workers. When Miss -Lovibond, for example, drew the attention of employers in Burnley to -heavy cloth carrying by children, they made no objection to -discontinuing the practice. In 1909 in the glass factories of Sunderland -women were working in pairs carrying large iron trays piled with flint -glass dishes weighing up to 120 pounds, cumbersome as well as heavy to -carry. “The difficulty could be overcome by suitable mechanical means, -and it is satisfactory that in these cases the danger had only to be -pointed out to have it remedied, although we were told that for forty -years the women had thus been beasts of burden.”[139] In 1912 in the -Staffordshire Potteries the employment of men instead of boys for -carrying, together with the increased use of trollies, is mentioned as a -consequence of the action of the Inspectors in drawing attention to the -subject of injurious weight carrying, and particularly to the -prohibition in the Employment of Children Act, 1903. In Manchester -“making-up” warehouses many instances were found of girls and women -carrying pieces of cotton cloth weighing from 60 to 70 pounds, a great -strain and a continual grievance; serious cases of overstrain resulting -in absences from work, unnoticed by employer, were traced by Women -Inspectors visiting their homes. In answer to the employers’ plea that -the women were themselves to blame, the Inspectors pointed to the -systematic laying of pieces weighing 70 pounds by men on the shoulders -of women (slight, city and slum dwellers, and undeveloped girls), who -filed past the men to receive the cloth delivered by a chute from a room -above. Similar and greater overstrain was found by Miss Squire and her -staff in Lancashire among weavers lifting loom weights at the back of -their looms. The injury caused is “often not noticed until later in -life.”[140] Improvements in both these classes of cases were reported in -1913. - -Of all the various ways of using a part of the human body in a -disproportionate or unsuitable manner to perform an industrial operation -for which a mechanical contrivance should be used, I may mention here -the one that appears most frequently in my Annual Reports. The “licking -of labels” by girls or boys instead of moistening the gum on the labels -by pads or a machine was brought to my notice by a thoughtful employer -in a country thread mill, in the first year of my service with the -Factory Department, as a very undesirable practice specially injurious -to the health of young workers. I investigated this practice, and -finding it in fact frequent, and associated with signs such as swollen -glands in the neck, I reported the matter for further enquiry by the -Dangerous Trades Committee. They found that this was a practice not only -in thread mills, but also in silk and aerated water industries, and -probably in other trades also, and that in a large Lancashire thread -mill the tickets for bobbins were almost entirely moistened by twelve -full-time young workers, licking up to fifty gross labels, and thirty- -five half-timers, licking up to twenty-five gross labels a day, while a -woman managed to lick forty-five gross a day. As the firms concerned -abandoned the practice in favour of a damper when attention was drawn to -the subject, no regulation was recommended, and the Committee merely -laid stress on their opinion that such a practice could not but be -prejudicial to health, particularly at an age when growth is active and -the system requires all its digestive secretions, even if the gum used -were perfectly pure. More serious injury might be done if infective -organic material or poisons were present on the labels.[141] - -Many years’ pursuit of this subject by the Inspectors showed that the -effective cause of the continuance of the undesirable, and sometimes -injurious, practice was the pressure for rapid output; under a system of -piecework remuneration a young worker could, by use of tongue and -saliva, acquire a rapidity exceeding the speed obtained from the use of -any available hand-damper. By persistent work the Women Inspectors -tracked down factory after factory where the method continued, and got -the practice stopped. The last bad instances reported on were by Miss -Whitlock, M.B., in 1912, in an Irish mill, where she found girls fixing -blue labels to a bronze band wrapped round balls of thread. They had to -lick the whole surface of the blue label, and although not continuously -engaged on the work, a girl would label as many as 960 balls in a day. -They suffered from soreness of lips and tongue and bad taste in the -mouth, while a mother seen at home said her daughter had lost her -appetite and “failed terribly” while at this work. She took her away -from it, and the girl had quite recovered her health when employed as a -spinner. Not only did the manager abolish the licking by providing and -enforcing use of dampers, he also raised the labellers’ piece rates by -one-third. It is a valuable example, for it is not seldom that -introduction of improved methods of working may cost the workers more in -immediate loss of wages than it is possible for them to afford.[142] -Among the industries other than thread-spooling where licking was -checked by the Inspectors, were packeting of sweets (in gelatine bags -closed by licking), siphon-labelling, tin-labelling, and cigar-banding. -In 1903 I was able to give an account of a good power-driven machine for -punching labels and pasting them on to thread-spools which I had seen -that year at work in silk mills in the Grand Duchy of Baden, a health -and time-saving machine doing the work very efficiently.[143] - -Accidents causing bodily injury or loss of life, and problems of safety -connected with fencing of machinery[144] moved by mechanical power, and -other special safeguards against explosion, escape of steam, falls, -etc., involve highly technical questions. In factory industry as a whole -they affect male workers in a far higher degree than female workers; in -1920 there were more than thirty times as many fatal accidents to men as -to women, and more than nine times as many accidents non-fatal as well -as fatal to men as to women.[145] Thus the first concern of the Women -Inspectors, lacking as they did at the beginning knowledge and -experience in these matters, was to refer risks of accident, observed by -them in connection with unfenced machinery, to Men Inspectors in charge -of districts. These then took the action or gave the instruction to the -occupiers, and we were thus left free for concentration on the urgent -questions already touched on, to which we could bring new and -indispensable contributions. - -The Women Inspectors, however, took great interest in complaints made to -them by the women of dangers and of accidents actually occurring. They -soon gathered useful facts by their own observation, and the interest -rapidly grew as they began to see the close connection of accidents with -conditions of labour—other than fencing of danger points—including -pressure for output, long hours, and very low rates of pay under the -piecework system, as well as methods of lighting the factory. - -It soon appeared to them probable that the effectual prevention of -accidents rested not only on skill in fencing, but on detailed study of -conditions, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, on responsible -supervision of all conditions by good management in the factories and -workshops. The knowledge they steadily acquired, through following up -complaints, of the immense suffering and loss to individual workers and -through them to national production, by preventible maiming and injury, -led them to give increasing time to study of the subject.[146] - -The important amendment of the code governing notice of accidents in the -workplace and their investigation by the Inspectorate, that came into -operation on January 1, 1896, brought them new opportunities of -acquiring information. It became compulsory for every occupier to keep a -register of the accidents occurring in the factory or workshop of which -notice had to be sent to the Inspector for the district, and to enter -particulars in the register regarding such accidents within a week of -their occurrence. Immediate access to this register certainly increased -the value of an inspection. It acted as a finger-post to special causes -of accidental injury to workers in the particular workplace. Much more -important, however, for practical knowledge of broad means of preventing -accidents was access to a general review of dominating risks in an -industry as a whole. This opportunity came to me and my staff as an -unforeseen consequence of the devolution in 1898 upon a Woman Inspector -of district charge of a “special” district containing a particularly -large number of all kinds of power-driven and hand laundries,[147] as -well as factories and workshops in which the making of wearing apparel -was carried on. It was soon discovered that, so far as practical -prevention of accidents went, the Inspector in charge of the special -district, by receipt of notices of accidents, by thorough investigation -of their circumstances and of the complaints of the workers, by -conferences with laundry and other engineers and study of safety -appliances, largely made up for her initial lack of training as an -engineer. Lack of engineering training was not confined to Women -Inspectors; and, as laundries first came under the Factory Act after the -Women Inspectors were appointed, a special opportunity arose for them of -acquiring useful new knowledge which was then available for the whole -Factory Department. This opportunity was seized, the sympathies of a -considerable number of laundry occupiers and engineers were aroused, and -fruitful experiments were rapidly begun in this small special district -in development of guards for the prevention of extremely painful and -frequently maiming accidents—chiefly to fingers, hands, and arms, and -largely to young workers—on ironing machinery, wringers, hydro- -extractors—in fact, on the most dangerous machines in laundry plant. The -comparatively recent development of specialised power-driven machinery -in laundries, and the incidence of the most painful accidents on young -girl workers, tended to melt away opposition (on the part of occupiers) -to the Inspectors’ zeal for encouraging early trial of automatically -acting guards for preventing such accidents. An ingrained habit of -regarding accidents as somewhat unavoidable was not, in laundries, a -legacy from the past, nor had it been acquired by the industry, and the -presence of women as manageresses and owners (as well as their being the -great majority of the workers) led to a ready acceptance of a Woman -Inspector as one likely to know something about the subject. The -systematic tabulation of classified causes of all serious accidents in -laundries soon brought to their notice, further helped to a reasonable -outlook on the problems of fencing. - -During the first two years of responsibility for this special district, -with so many laundries in it, we studied the conditions, the machines, -the time, and other circumstances in the occurrence of the accidents, -but I soon felt that a wider body of statistical information, from all -over the country, was needed to strengthen our demand for use of good -guards on the dangerous machines.[148] I therefore examined every report -by a certifying surgeon to the Chief Inspector on an accident in a -laundry from every part of the United Kingdom, and tabulated these -according to source or causation of the injury and according to age and -sex of the workers. The results were published in the Annual Report for -1902, and the work of tabulation was thereafter carried on for me by -Miss Tracey down to 1914. At first the reporting of the accidents was -incomplete, and the total annual number gradually rose from 289 in 1901 -to 435 in 1908, after which, in spite of great increase of employment in -factory laundries, and in use of dangerous power-driven ironing -machinery, the total number of accidents in the industry annually on the -whole declined, the average for the five years 1909 to 1913 being 391·4. -In all these years the classification of sources of accidents was -unchanged, the material risks had been rightly inferred at the outset -from close examination of the machines and from investigation of -individual accidents. The stress we laid on the value of automatic -guards for stopping indrawing rollers (risk arising from feeding all -kinds of articles in between the rollers) was justified by the -proportionate decline in number and severity of these accidents. -Probably in few other industries were accidents so predominantly caused -by definite danger points in power-driven machines. Out of a total -during twelve years of 4,235 accidents reported on by certifying -surgeons (including scalds and burns, which numbered 379), 2,648 were -caused by indrawing rollers of ironing and wringing machines, and an -abnormally high proportion affected girls under eighteen years of age— -who were so largely employed in machine-ironing.[149] These facts were -brought out at a conference of the Department with the laundry trade in -1910, at an interesting exhibition of laundry machinery, where the -latest developments in machinery and guards could be studied. After this -conference a memorandum standardising fencing of laundry machinery was -issued to the trade.[150] Definite steps in this direction had been made -possible by the concentrated work of the Women Inspectors on the -industry, first when they were definitely instructed to follow up -fencing in laundries throughout the kingdom, and secondly when, from -1908, all accidents affecting women and girls in laundries were referred -to the Senior Women Inspectors in the various divisions for -investigation and the necessary action. - -The industry was not one in which the general risks of accident were -high; the total accidents and the accident rate were small compared with -those of other industries. Without such concentrated team-work on the -question, the predominant risks would probably long have escaped -effective observation and control, and the painful and maiming accidents -to many young girls would have been obscured by the greater roll of -accidents in other industries; they would have failed to receive the -effectual check that they in fact did receive in consequence of the -assignment to this branch of the Inspectorate of a special opportunity -and responsibility in relation to the trade. It is an interesting -illustration of the value of special work on selected trades, and raises -the question whether such special work is not an adjunct that is -indispensable for efficiency in a system of administration by area or -territorial districts. - -Important prosecutions were taken from time to time, and repeatedly -penal compensation was obtained and applied to the benefit of workers -injured through neglect of the occupier to provide or maintain good -guards. In 1913 an unusually interesting prosecution, of importance for -Scottish laundry workers, was taken by the late Miss Vines in the -Edinburgh Sheriff Court, for a failure to fence securely the intake of a -calender in consequence of which neglect a young girl had lost the use -of her hand.[151] It was keenly contested, and Miss Vines’s account of -the hearing may well be remembered here: - - “A plea of ‘not guilty’ was tendered, and evidence was led at - considerable length—I had eleven witnesses—as to the question of - secure fencing. At the time of the accident the feed of the calender - was fenced only by a fixed bar guard, while our contention was as to - the necessity of the provision of an automatic guard. We had expert - evidence from two witnesses, one the member of a large firm of laundry - engineers, the other Miss Perry, whose evidence, owing to her - university degree in engineering, carried considerable weight. The - advocate for the respondents also had two expert witnesses. In my - argument I referred to the case of Schofield v. Schunk (1855) 24 L. T. - (o.s.), 253, in which it is laid down that the machinery must be - fenced according to the best method known at the time, not merely in - the manner usual in the best regulated factories in the district. - After a hearing of some hours the Sheriff convicted, saying that he - thought it clear from the evidence that the fence consisting of a - fixed bar was not of a satisfactory nature, and that an improved type - was now largely used.” - -A similar responsibility and opportunity arose in the wholesale clothing -trades, but the accident risks were far smaller and chiefly due to -“transmission machinery”—_e.g._, shafting, driving bands and pulleys to -sewing machines, found also in many other trades—these risks being -already well known. The one really new contribution there made by the -studies of the Women Inspectors lay in needle-puncturing accidents with -septic results, from the use of power-driven sewing machines driven at a -very high speed, 2,000 to 3,000 stitches a minute. Analysis of reported -accidents showed that in 1907 35 per cent. of the total accidents to -women and girls in clothing factories arose from this cause, and of -these not far short of one-fifth resulted in septic poisoning and -consequent great loss of time. Often the needle has to be removed -surgically, and sometimes X-rays applied. A needle may enter the finger -several times before the hand can be withdrawn, and serious injury -sometimes results. So far no guard had been devised to prevent these -accidents. Next year over 40 per cent. of the accidents to women and -girls in clothing factories were due to this cause, and in relation to -these and other injuries the importance of skilled first-aid was brought -out. In 1909 again the very great loss of working time and health -through these accidents, at first classed as “slight,” was illustrated, -and the extra urgency of first-aid where invention of preventive -safeguards against the accidents was still lacking was further pressed -home. In one large clothing factory seven out of twelve accidents were -of this nature, and in even the slightest of them the workers had been -absent from work several weeks.[152] Enquiry of a systematic kind was -made into the arrangements provided by the employers for rendering -first-aid at the works from this time on by the Women Inspectors—not -only when investigating these, but all kinds of accidents. It was found -that the very enquiry and the recording of results on the point -stimulated employers already doing good work in this direction, and that -it aroused others to a new interest in the matter. Miss Whitlock’s -investigations showed how greatly lack of knowledge of first-aid -increased suffering to the injured person. For example, “a child’s head -was badly scalded with boiling starch, and the wound made worse by the -forewoman immediately bathing it in cold water. When a young woman was -scalped in a clothing factory, time was lost in getting her attended to, -for no one knew the quickest way in which to get in touch with the -ambulance authorities; neither did anyone think of removing the scalp -from the overhead shafting until an hour after the accident, so that by -the time it arrived at the infirmary it was too cold to treat in the -usual way in such cases.”[153] - -Tin cutting, pen-making, metallic capsule making, bottle washing, and -many other processes furnished for our observation cases of septic -poisoning, following relatively slight accidents, which strengthened our -appeal for systematic development of first-aid in industry. It was -wartime pressure for output that ultimately clinched our argument as to -its value from the standpoint of production as well as of humanity. - -One example out of many may be cited to illustrate how guards preventing -accidents were secured systematically on a machine when its danger was -brought to our notice. Teazle-brushing machines in hosiery factories -thus arrested the attention of Miss Squire and Miss Tracey almost -simultaneously. Miss Squire was interested in complaints of dust, Miss -Tracey was engaged in tabulating accidents affecting women and girls in -the hosiery trade for my information. The former saw the points of -danger apparent in the machine which was new to her, and heard of severe -accidents from the indrawing teazle-covered rollers for the brushing of -hosiery. Miss Tracey presented the fact that seven out of the fourteen -reported accidents from this machine in 1906 were “severe.” Guards were -asked for through the District Inspector, and in 1909 I was glad to see -that accidents had been consequently reduced to three for the year.[154] - - - - - CHAPTER V - EMPLOYMENT OF MOTHERS; YOUNG WORKERS; CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS - - “Every wise woman buildeth her house.” - - “Give your women economic freedom, assure them access to the sources - of culture and you can safely leave eugenic experimentation to them” - (“Interpretations and Forecasts,” by Victor Branford, 1914). - - -Hitherto this survey of women’s life in the factory and workshop has -simply accepted the fact of productive labour by women and its clear -social and economic necessity. While admitting the existence of -differences and handicaps, physiological and social, that in part -distinguish them from male industrial workers, we have only, in one -instance, touched on the influence of marriage and maternity on their -employment. The sinister secondary effects of lead poisoning on maternal -functions inevitably raised question of factors that, in a civilised -community, must place certain limits or conditions on complete liberty -of women’s employment in factory production as hitherto carried on. -This, already long recognised in the United Kingdom in regulations -excluding women and young persons from some of the most dangerous lead -processes, has been followed or extended in other industrial countries -since the Washington Convention. - -No one will deny, said the Report of the Women’s Employment Committee, -1919, that “woman should be guarded from strain, from accident and -racial poison, to a greater degree than man is guarded,” and that report -fairly indicated standards and tests of suitability in occupations for -women. - -In this present chapter we pass from the general human considerations -controlling industrial conditions over to special groups of persons, -where the “human machine” to be safeguarded can least of all be regarded -simply as an economic, producing unit. Here the interest of the -community as well as of the individual requires consideration from a new -angle of vision. - -Children, the earliest objects of humanitarian aims in the factory -system, came first under a Factory Act in 1802 in certain textile -factories; adult women first in 1844. Not until 1891 (after the Berlin -Conference in 1890) was any provision whatever made in this country for -obviating the necessity of employment of a woman too early after -childbirth—in a factory system such as that we have been considering in -previous chapters. And then it came only in the form of a prohibition of -employment: “An occupier of a factory or workshop shall not knowingly -allow a woman to be employed therein within four weeks after she has -given birth to a child.”[155] Effects, not causes, seem alone to have -been held in view; what was to become of the woman, without other -resources, seeking employment at such a time, was left to be -sufficiently disclosed by the Women Factory Inspectors, who from 1896 -onwards tried to give effect to the prohibition by warnings and -prosecutions of the occupier so far as he could be shown to be legally -responsible for infringements. - -Inmates of charitable and reformatory institutions, engaged in -production or manual labour of the nature covered by the Factory Acts -and not already under Government inspection (as in workhouses, prisons, -certified homes, etc.), first seem to have come, somewhat accidentally, -under serious consideration in connection with these Acts through -proposals to include laundries within their scope. For laundry work was -by far the most general industrial occupation in charitable and -reformatory institutions—where the work was done not for the institution -itself but for outside clients, although not carried on by way of trade, -and where the inmates were not working under a contract of service or -apprenticeship. Occupiers of ordinary commercial laundries were willing -to be included within the Act only if these institutions were also -included. The opposition of the institutions was, however, sufficient to -secure their exclusion from the Act of 1895, which in some degree -covered commercial laundries; they remained outside until partially -brought in by the Act of 1907, after we had for some years inspected -convent laundries on a voluntary basis. Opposition of the managers -melted away steadily, as the advantages of friendly advisory inspections -were experienced. - -For all but the last of these three classes of specially protected -workers, the legal or the administrative position has substantially -changed at the close of the period 1893 to 1921. And most of all has it -changed in the care of child-bearing women employed in industry, who -were before 1911 completely dependent on the Woman Factory Inspector for -disclosure of evidence on their position. The change in the -administrative point of view is most quickly realised when one recalls -the fact that responsibility for applying the prohibition of employment -in factories and workshops of women after childbirth has in 1921 been -transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Health by Order of -His Majesty in Council. It is thus formally recognised as a “matter -affecting and incidental to the health of the people.” - -The cases of employment within four weeks of childbirth were frequent in -our experience. As it was generally extreme poverty or desertion or -illness of the husband that drove mothers back to work, and the -prohibition was well known (being included in the official abstract of -the Acts affixed in the workplace), they would in some way conceal the -date of birth from the occupier or manager, or sometimes change the -place of employment. Thus in comparatively few instances could any legal -action be taken at all; even where it could, the painful dilemma of the -suffering woman became evident. - -The first case taken into court under Section 17 of 1891 was in the year -1897, by Miss Squire. It was a clear case for testing the effect of the -section, and it revealed much. The mother, working in a textile mill, -had been sent for by the foreman, who was short of workers, on the ninth -day after her confinement, although he had been informed of the reason -of her absence on the day she left. Although she made some attempt to -screen her employers when called as a witness, she was dismissed from -their employment, after they had been convicted and fined. She obtained -employment from one of the magistrates soon after he had heard the case, -and this relieved her immediate need. The effect of this dismissal on -the minds of the other workers remained.[156] - -In 1898 old and new difficulties attending the application of this -section again made action difficult or impossible. A laundry visited on -a complaint of infringement of the section yielded only the information -that the woman was at home, the regulation well known, and “as soon as -it was permissible she would return to work.” The Inspector, wishing to -make sure of all the facts, “went straightway to see the woman in her -home, and found her in the act of doing heavy washing for the laundry in -question.” The occupier was only legally responsible for knowingly -employing the woman in his laundry within four weeks of childbirth, -accordingly he had “sent the work to be done in the home. The laundry -was clean and the surroundings ... in point of fatigue-saving appliances -incomparably superior” to those in which the woman was found. “Her -husband was a labourer, she had four living children, and the entire -family inhabited two rooms; the woman was washing over a tub raised on -two stools in one of the rooms, a small paved and drained yard lay at -the back; it was a rainy day, and she had pulled the tub into the room -to be under cover from the wet; she dragged it into the yard to empty -when needful.”[157] More often the difficulty of taking action turned on -the impossibility of proving knowledge of facts on the part of the -occupier, a knowledge which in such a matter it was only natural he -should avoid. In any case it was shortly discovered that a young mother -of sixteen or seventeen was not covered by the section, being not a -“woman,” as defined in the Act (_i.e._, a person of eighteen years and -over), but a “young person.” These enquiries soon drew my attention to -the high rate of infant mortality in districts where women were largely -employed in heavy labouring work, such as brick-making in the -Stourbridge area, and the galvanised bucket industry in the Lye -district, and some enquiries were made to learn how far such work -affected infant life. - -In 1902 a conviction, with penalty, was again secured in one of the -instances of re-employment of a woman within four weeks of childbirth. -In another case of re-employment—this time within a fortnight of -childbirth—in a wholesale clothing factory, although a deplorable state -of affairs was disclosed, action was impossible owing to the entire lack -of evidence of responsibility for supervision anywhere in the place. The -Inspector took occasion to press home the need of superintendence by a -competent woman, which in this case was promised by the employer. She -found that young single women going to the workhouse for a confinement -were usually discharged at the end of a fortnight if their state of -health made it possible, with the result that their re-employment within -three weeks was practically unavoidable. - -The whole position was, as Miss Squire put it in 1897, that “Section 17 -of 1891, although of so great importance to the community no less than -the individual, must remain for the most part a dead letter owing to the -difficulty of proving the employer’s knowledge of all the circumstances, -as well as for other obvious reasons.”[158] - -A welcome opportunity for wider dissemination of knowledge and -understanding of the whole problem of employment of mothers arose -through the appointment of the inter-Departmental Committee on Physical -Deterioration in September, 1903. An invitation was extended to me to -give oral evidence on the effects of factory and workshop employment on -the health of women and girls, which I did at some length. Fuller -information was sought by the Committee on the effect of industrial -employment of mothers both on themselves and their infants. By the help -of my colleagues, I set intensive study of the matter on foot in three -separate and distinctive industrial centres for women’s employment: in -Dundee (jute trade), in Lancashire, in Preston, Burnley, and Blackburn -(cotton trade), in the Staffordshire Potteries, in Hanley and Longton -(earthenware and china trade). Two of these towns, Dundee and Preston, -were particularly characterised by an absence of employment for men of -the same class as the women so largely employed. In all the centres of -study infantile mortality was high, although not higher than rates to be -found elsewhere—_e.g._, in mining centres where mothers are not -industrially employed. Widely varying conditions in local sanitation and -housing obtained in these towns. Wide variation also was present in -nature of the industrial work done by the women, speed and pressure of -work, length of daily hours, presence of dust or lead in the processes, -and other circumstances. - -The main effect of this enquiry, with the following up of many cases of -re-employment of mothers after childbirth, was to establish more clearly -than ever before that such re-employment was not, as had hitherto been -often alleged, largely caused by the women’s preference for factory over -domestic life, but by the pressure of poverty, or actual want, on the -mothers. Much help was given by officers of the local health authorities -in making the enquiry. - -In 1904 I presented to the Committee a memorandum on “Employment of -Mothers in Factories and Workshops,” containing full details, and what -the Committee described as a “wealth of information” from the three -Inspectors, Miss Paterson, Miss Squire, and Miss Martindale, who had -carried out my scheme of enquiry. The Committee gave full publicity to -the results in the memorandum, including it as an appendix in their -report, besides favourably commenting on its conclusions. They further -definitely recommended fuller investigation, on the lines suggested, -into infant mortality rates; locally, for particular areas in industrial -towns, and into general infant mortality rates for selected industries -throughout the country, and the specifying of the occupation of all -mothers (married or unmarried) in the Registrar-General’s records. They -also recommended a strengthening of the prohibition of employment within -four weeks, either by throwing onus of proof on the employer or by -requiring a medical certificate from the mother. - -The Committee attached great importance to observations of the -Inspectors in the memorandum on the stress and strain involved, through -many existing conditions in factory life, “in the employment of women -from girlhood, all through married life, and through child-bearing”; -they specially noted the fact that when decreasing physical capacity -brought the prospective mother “at least some relief at the hands of the -manager of the mill and she is sent away,” it is often only “to take up -the equally unsuitable occupation of charwoman or scrubber.” No general -notion had then arisen, or at least it had not been publicly expressed, -that national responsibility for release of child-bearing women from -wage-paid employment should be recognised by the provision of some form -of maintenance at the time of their greatest need. The Committee, on -this financial point, only included in their recommendations a -suggestion that “charitable efforts in manufacturing towns might be -directed towards endowing and maintaining insurance organisations to -which employees, assisted by voluntary subscriptions, could contribute -while in work, and from which they might receive assistance during a -confinement and afterwards.” I had pointed, in my memorandum, to the -experience at Mulhouse in Alsace that organisation of a maternity fund -by manufacturers, to which both employer and employed contributed, had -resulted in a reduction of infant mortality by half. I had also -suggested that “whether by local trade effort, or larger national -effort, provident insurance of the kind might be expected in time to -eliminate the cases where infant lives are lost ... and needless -suffering caused to hard-working, valuable mothers by total absence of -skilled attendance.” I had also laid stress on the need for fundamental -reorganisation of antiquated charities, in harmony “with increased -scientific knowledge,” and with the “changed economic conditions of -women’s lives.” - -On this side the earliest help that came was, of course, through the -National Health Insurance Act of 1911. In 1904, and onwards down to -1913, Women Factory Inspectors continued to gather and to present -information on this subject, which never seemed to them less poignant in -the details, though it took seven years to issue in any provision for -the sufferers. A summary of all that we learned, as Miss H. F. Cohen -said when she prepared such a summary from my Annual Reports for the -Women’s Employment Committee in 1919, “gives only a faint idea of the -state of things—it is only the cumulative effect of instance after -instance which enables one to realise the impotence of the law.” - -In 1904, in twenty-one cases of employment within four weeks of -childbirth investigated in Scotland by two Women Inspectors, only three -were found suitable for proceedings, and a conviction was recorded in -only one. “The others were dismissed, one without trial, on the ground -that a Limited Liability Company could not be charged with the offence; -the other on the ground that the woman was not “knowingly” employed, -although it was proved that the reason for leaving the mill was known to -the foreman, who re-engaged her without enquiry. In the majority of -cases the woman did not return to the same factory as that in which she -worked before confinement.” In a very bad case of re-employment at one -and the same works the woman, working under a contractor, was employed -in very laborious work, the setting and drawing of kilns. The manager of -the works ordered the contractor to send her home, as she was obviously -not in a fit condition to do the work. Ten days after the child’s birth -she was re-engaged by the manager who had ordered her to be sent home, -and employed at the same place in loading wheelbarrows at the canal bank -and other work. “Sixteen days after its birth the child died.... The -occupier, who goes daily to the works, endeavoured to shift the legal -responsibility on to the manager, the latter on to the contractor. Until -the Woman Inspector put the matter before them in what was evidently a -new light, it had not occurred to anyone that it was worth -consideration, or that even a legal, let alone a moral responsibility, -rested on anyone.”[159] In Lancashire, in the same year, one out of many -cases of too early re-employment was taken into court. The fact that the -mother was back at her loom fourteen days after the birth of the child -was proved; it was also proved that the manager and tackler, as well as -her fellow-workers, knew the reason for the weaver’s absence, but the -case was dismissed (after long and earnest deliberation by the -magistrate), because the manager had not had the simple enquiry made as -to the age of the child, and therefore did not “knowingly” allow her to -be employed. In this case the reason for the return was poverty, the -husband being out of work, and the woman had been alone and untended at -the birth of her child. The futility of the unamended law for the -protection of industrial mothers against pressure of either poverty or -negligence was more than established. - - “Some of the most pathetic incidents came to one’s knowledge,” says - Miss Paterson, in some notes written at my request for this book, “in - the administration of the section which requires absence of mothers - from work for the short period of four weeks after the birth of a - child, for the poverty or the fear of permanent loss of employment - which drives her to cut short her time for recovery generally means - that she is indeed in straits. Customs vary in different parts of the - country, and it is Scotland that is in my mind chiefly when the figure - comes before me of the work-worn woman who appeared to have a choice - to make whether she would go out to work or stay at home and work, but - who had in reality no alternative but to earn, at once, what she - could. ‘If he could bring in a pound a week constant,’ said the wife - of an unskilled labourer to me, ‘I would never think of going out,’ - and I believe this represents the feeling of the Scottish married - women, though they would not all put their minimum at so modest a - figure.” - -In the returns of persons employed in factories and workshops for 1907 -the first attempt was made to obtain official figures to show the extent -of employment of married women in industry. The information could only -be obtained by voluntary returns, which were in many cases not -forthcoming. On the figures so obtained it appeared that in textile -factories 24·1 per cent. were married, 71·8 per cent. unmarried, and 4·1 -per cent. widowed; in non-textile factories 16·3 per cent. were married, -79·3 per cent. unmarried, and 4·4 per cent. widowed. A high proportion -of power-driven laundries made the return, and in these 28 per cent. of -the women were married. - -The worst cases of too early employment of mothers did not, however, -necessarily appear in the industries that were most characteristically -women’s, but rather in poor or underpaid industries and in towns or -districts where women were largely employed without a sufficient balance -of men’s staple industries to enable the husband and father to be the -main breadwinner of the family. Any high degree of unemployment for the -latter, of course, immediately affected the security of the mother’s -support at the time of child-bearing. Many of the worst examples of too -early employment after childbirth came primarily from that cause. - - “I know,” wrote Miss Paterson in 1907, “of no more tragic figure than - that of the toil-worn woman striving ... to do the work of two persons - with, as her background, the unemployed or insufficiently employed - man ... desolate and oppressed are the words which seem then to - describe her the best.”[160] - -Some of the very worst examples came to our knowledge in the five years -preceding the modest relief that came for maternity through the National -Health Insurance Act of 1911. In that year, at the Congress of the Royal -Sanitary Institute at Belfast, Miss Martindale gave an address on -Hygiene and Industrial Employment, in which she stated that in that city -she had “come across women returning to work of a hard manual nature, -entailing hours of standing, within ten days, and even four days of -their confinement.” She was convinced that “no woman would return to -work within the month if it were not poverty which compelled her to do -so. As one poor tired woman remarked, ‘Could I remain away from work for -more than a fortnight with five children under six years of age starving -at home?’” The emigration of men in Ireland often threw the burden of -breadwinning on to the women. - -To those who wish to understand, even partially, the extent of suffering -and injury endured by poor working mothers before any national attempt -was made to help them at the time of childbirth, I can only say that the -subject must be further studied in the section of my Annual Reports from -1907 to 1911 dealing with employment of women before and after -childbirth.[161] The monotonous recital, year after year, of facts -revealed by complaints investigated can alone give any idea of the -matter. One characteristic example must close the recital here. The -occupier of the factory had not “knowingly” re-employed the mother -within the four weeks’ limit; the woman’s husband, a carter, had been -out of work seven weeks before the confinement, and the Guardians gave -relief in money and kind for fourteen days after the birth. The third -week they refused an application for continuance of the relief, and the -woman returned to her employment—her husband being still workless. The -Inspector asked the health visitor to interest herself in the matter and -secure assistance if possible for the woman. Section 61 of the Act of -1901 only took effect generally by bringing to our knowledge facts that -might otherwise be overlooked, and prevented inconsiderate employers -from directly requiring women to return to work too soon after the birth -of a child.[162] Ultimately, when due care has been secured for the -poorest child-bearing woman, the tale of their past suffering and -neglect will seem a terrible and incredible thing. - -Let us now turn to the young worker in industry. Strong though the -appeal of this subject was to the Women Inspectors—taking much of their -time and thought—in a sense it lies outside the limits of this book, and -it is far too great for adequate notice in a fraction of a chapter. A -few illustrations of ways in which we came in touch with industrial -employment of children must suffice. “Children in the factory” is a -thought that irresistibly carries memory back to tragic past wrongdoing, -in cruel overstrain and misuse of children’s forces that no one of our -race or nationality can cheerfully recall to mind. Yet we are bidden by -the foremost historian of the factory system, Mr. Whately Cooke-Taylor, -never to suffer the story to be forgotten lest its pitiful warnings -against the blinding power of false doctrine should also die out.[163] - -The earliest legal remedies for the worst evils of child labour under -the factory system were threshed out in the first half of the nineteenth -century by English men themselves, long before it was imaginable that -women might enter the Civil Service and help as Factory Inspectors to -apply these remedies. It was, indeed, through the sufferings of little -children that the whole humanitarian movement for reform of factory life -by law and administrative action began, and that it found its chance to -grow against many and powerful adversaries, as may be seen in the life -of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury. - -The sacrifice of the young workers made the first opening through the -outer framework or crust of society, built up as it had been in the -nineteenth century on a basis of “machinery and steam.”[164] The -children had been drawn, as the children were drawn by the Pied Piper, - - “A wondrous portal opened wide - As if a cavern were suddenly hollowed; - And the Piper advanced and the children followed.” - -They had been drawn into the factories as helpless dependents of the -machine for the purely economic reasons that were then generally deemed -valid and all-sufficient. In turn, they furnished the most unanswerable -argument against the doctrine of _laissez faire_, and thus involuntarily -helped to bring about its discredit. - -The main provisions in the Factory Acts for protection of the young -worker had been framed, and the very worst evils repressed, when Women -Inspectors entered the service in the last decade of the “economic” -century. Yet much remained to be done, as has already been seen in -certain examples of hardness and barbarity, particularly in Chapter II. -The very institution of the “half-time system,” which first came as an -enlightened practical remedy for excessively long daily hours, and as -the original provision for compulsory elementary education, had in our -early official days begun to be more than suspected as an evil in itself -among reformers. It lingered until the close of the War, for its -prestige had been great; it had grown into the very structure of textile -industries; and it had secured at least that whatever schooling a -factory child had was given to it in the daytime. Many pages scattered -through Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector record the injurious -effects on health (as observed by Women Inspectors) following on the -attendance of young workers at night school permitted by some education -authorities in cases of family poverty, as a condition of allowing the -young worker of thirteen and fourteen to work full time during the day. - -This latter point came out so markedly because of the close attention -that was given by myself and my staff to applying the provisions for -securing a reasonable degree of physical fitness in young workers in -factories. We did all in our power to bring home to parents as well as -employers that examination by the certifying surgeon of the child for -half-time or young person for full time employment, as to their physical -fitness for “working daily for the time allowed by law in the factory,” -was a serious, not a merely formal, matter. We freely used our powers as -Inspectors to suspend a child or young person for re-examination, -wherever it appeared to us that she was unfit by “disease or bodily -infirmity” for the daily work during the legal hours. Out of this came -the evidence that led to strengthening of the law by giving to the -certifying surgeon power to examine any process, and to qualify the -certificate by conditions as to the work on which a child or young -person is to be employed. The younger the child the greater our concern -for all this, and from the first we worked in close contact with the -teachers in the schools attended by half-timers, whose age or delicacy -called for our enquiry. Incredibly small and baby-like were some of the -eleven-year-old children still lawfully employed in factories up to the -year 1899. A few ten-year-old children were still lawfully employed in -1893 when the first Women Inspectors began their work.[165] In some -notes sent me by Miss Paterson at the close of 1921, written for this -book, she says: - - “Amongst the changes in the law during my official service few were so - completely satisfactory as those which have contributed to the passing - of the half-timers. Each advance of a year in the age for entering on - employment was accompanied by gloomy forebodings of the result to - industry of preventing a child from acquiring facility while its - fingers were still supple—as if a non-wage-earning child sat with - hands folded in inaction—and (by some people) of the effects on - character of too much leisure in youth. A well-known sheriff added to - his reluctant convictions of several firms for illegal employment of - children an exhortation to me to consider carefully what I was doing - before bringing more such cases to this court. In his opinion I was - doing much to fill the place with young criminals who would have me to - thank to some extent for their ruin.” - -Some remarkably enlightening information came out of enquiries made by -Miss Paterson in order to find an answer to the question, “What becomes -of young workers rejected by the certifying surgeon in a factory as -physically unfit for the work?” It was carried on, as much of our work -was, in co-operation with the certifying surgeon. In 1900 79 cases of -rejection were followed up to the child’s home, 56 having been rejected -as under age, 11 for weakness or disease of the eyes, 6 for skin -disease, 1 for deficient intelligence, and 5 for personation of another -older child. It became clear that the children did not go back to -school, that they tended to go either into casual employment outside the -factory system, or into a workshop where the certificates were not -required and where a register need not be kept, that the work they went -to was as hard as, or harder than, that for which they were rejected, -and that the children lived under pressure of circumstances impossible -for them to combat—sometimes selfishness, oftener the extreme poverty of -parents, sometimes carelessness or indifference of employers. This -information was embodied in evidence I gave to the Departmental -Committee on Employment of School Children in 1901,[166] and thus -fortunately became promptly utilised. The interest of the general -community in the matter became evident, and not only from the standpoint -of future efficiency of the child; for example, it was ascertained in -one case that a child rejected for a contagious skin disease went into a -process not under the Factory Act—namely, the picking and cleaning of -fruit for making preserves. The close enquiry into the reasons for -rejection brought out again very clearly what I had pressed forward -several years earlier, the unsatisfactoriness of the conditions of -publicity, noise, etc., under which the certifying surgeons had to make -their examination of the young worker in the factory and the handicap -they felt in trying to make it sufficiently thorough.[167] The -uselessness of a perfunctory examination became the clearer as one saw -more of the wide range of possible occupations in a large factory. It -was recommended on the results of this enquiry that better arrangements -should be made for the examination, that the surgeon should have power -to qualify his certificate, and that enquiry should be systematically -made as to what became of a rejected young worker. Miss Squire had two -years earlier laid bare, in vivid words, the narrow basis on which a -surgeon then had power to reject. - - “The certificates must by law be granted if the child or young person - is of the proper age, and is not ‘incapacitated by disease or bodily - infirmity for working daily for the time allowed by law in the factory - named.’ The number of girls and boys so incapacitated is small; is the - number of those physically unfit for the employment to which they are - set also small? Certainly appearances in the factories are often - against such a conclusion. Many a factory is a town in itself; the - processes of manufacture carried on within its walls are as different - in character and conditions as they can be; a boy or girl is certified - as physically fit for them all. Yet it is conceivable that a child or - young person may be physically fit for one department or process and - physically unfit for another; quite fit, for example, in a silk mill - for winding, quite unfit for the intense heat of the gassing room; - quite fit in steel pen works for sorting or stamping, quite unfit for - the strained position and dust-laden atmosphere of the grinding shop; - quite fit in fancy box factories for pasting on the paper, quite unfit - for waiting on the glue room by carrying up and down heavy pails; or - physically strong for rough work, but with eyes unfit for strained - attention on work requiring close application. Could not certifying - surgeons have power to exclude from a certificate a specified - department or process, or to name in the certificate one department or - process only, and for this purpose have power of entry to factories in - order to see the work in relation to the child? In a district known to - me where both these powers are, with the co-operation of occupiers, - exercised, no one regards a certificate of fitness as an empty form; a - dead system has been galvanised into life. - - “I have often thought whether the doctor who saw the little, delicate, - narrow-chested girl in the office, and was ‘satisfied that she was not - incapacitated by disease or bodily infirmity for working’ for the - legal time, were to see her as I see her in the stress and strain of - work toiling up flights of stairs with a load I cannot lift, streaming - with perspiration in steam and heat, bent double straining over minute - work, he would have been able to certify her as physically fit for - such employment had such a certificate been requisite. Having regard - to eyesight alone, what misery entailed by impaired vision might not - be spared by the exercise of a judicious control over the kind of - employment permitted to boys and girls with defective eyes.” - -Frequently, when it was necessary for an Inspector to suspend a child or -young person from work until re-examined by the certifying surgeon, or -to prosecute an employer for neglect to obtain a certificate for the -young worker, it was found that the occupation itself had increased some -constitutional delicacy or weakness.[168] In such cases the young worker -had to be sent for medical treatment. Many prosecutions were taken for -entire failure to obtain the certificate, but so frequent was the -neglect that most of them were taken into court only after warning, and -on account of unhygienic conditions to which the young workers were -exposed. Heavy weight carrying and other kinds of injury have been dealt -with as regards workers generally in the chapter on dangerous trades. -Here I must record the strong impression early made on the Women -Inspectors by the liability of children to suffer overstrain of many -kinds in the factory, simply because of the general lack of sufficient -superintendence by someone whose duty it was to protect them, and -because of their own eagerness and readiness for effort. It was, as Miss -Paterson said, “almost incredible the extent to which details connected -with employment are allowed to be nobody’s business.” - - “The use of heavy irons, carrying or dragging of heavy loads, - continuous strain of one kind or another, is just as often as not the - result of that want of thought on the part of responsible persons - which occasions, in all circumstances of life, so much misery, and - which it is so hard to overcome.... It was my duty early in the year - to take proceedings against a firm in whose factory I found a little - girl engaged in work for which she appeared to me to be physically - unfit. I served a notice on the firm requiring them to discontinue her - employment unless the certifying surgeon, on a re-examination, found - that she was fit for it. On a revisit I found her still there, neither - dismissed nor re-examined. It would have been easy for the firm to - have replaced her ten times over from the immediate vicinity of the - factory, so that there was no reason for the disregard of the - instructions except carelessness and indifference.”[169] - -As time went on, and especially after the certifying surgeons had the -power given by the Factory Act of 1901 to attach conditions to -certificates of fitness for individual girls and boys, interest grew -among employers and managers in setting the young workers on to more -suitable work under more favourable circumstances. They realised the -possibilities for good in the examination as they had not done under the -past more formal methods. In cases where young persons were employed in -very dusty processes—bronzing in printing factories, shaking up and -cleaning feathers in quilt and cushion works—those who complained of ill -effects were found to be “mouth-breathers” on account of nasal -obstruction, and by arrangement with the occupiers these were removed to -non-dusty processes.[170] In potteries where a good many prosecutions -had to be taken for neglect to obtain certificates of fitness—so -necessary for the heavy work to be done there by young workers—good -effects were particularly seen in new potteries. At one, notices were -distributed by the occupier at intervals to all the sub-employers in the -different departments[171] reminding them of their duty immediately to -report the engagement of workers under eighteen; in another a clerk was -set in official charge of the general register and health register with -the duty of regularly ascertaining whether the prescribed examination -had been carefully carried out. Enquiries were systematically made into -reasons for and results of rejection, and an extensive report on such -activities may be read in the Annual Report for 1905. Official visits to -medical officers of health as well as conferences with certifying -surgeons in the special question of rejections for uncleanliness led to -development of co-operation between the different authorities. By 1913 -co-operation with education authorities and the juvenile labour exchange -was added. Great advance in the care of children was then brought about -by co-operation between the school medical officer and the certifying -surgeon. When a child, known to have a physical defect or weakness, goes -from school to the factory, the certifying surgeon is notified, and he -subjects the child to a searching examination. - -Careful investigation in earlier years of the certificates of school -attendance of half-timers showed the attendance to be good. The -possibility of securing a labour certificate at thirteen years of age -for full-time employment had a good deal to do with this in places where -the certificate was granted on a high standard of attendance. This -meant, said Miss Paterson: - - “Hard work at school in the years before the child is twelve years of - age ... and between school work and factory work the Lancashire full- - timer is often pitifully small, thin, and nervous. In a Scotch cotton - mill I noticed a little girl, twelve years old, exempted from day - school on condition of attending a night school, and working full time - in the mill on the ground that her work was not employment within the - Act. She had been examined by the certifying surgeon and passed for - ‘messages only, not to work in the mill,’ and carrying messages - upstairs and downstairs from one department to another was her work - from 6 a.m. till 6 p.m. Her home was not far from the mill, but the - night school which she attended from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. was a mile from - her home, and altogether her day’s work was one that few people double - her age would willingly undertake.”[172] - -And yet, in spite of much serious, heedless overstrain of children and -of deplorable illegal employment in Great Britain in our time, Ireland, -and particularly Belfast, exceeded all other parts of the United Kingdom -in what must be described as exploitation of child labour. Economic and -political conditions there, accompanied by backwardness in education, no -doubt retarded a general improvement in public appreciation of the vital -interest of the community in conservation of the strength and care of -the natural development of the child. And it was the additional -misfortune of the Irish child that the conditions of the chief industry— -flax—in its many dusty and humid processes, inevitably contained much -that was undesirable for the physical well-being of the young growing -worker. - - “Public opinion,” said Miss Martindale in 1908, “on this subject of - child labour in Ireland lags far behind that in Great Britain.[173] I - have never so vividly realised this as when I prosecuted a firm on - behalf of five little girls who had been employed full time in fairly - strenuous work. Three of them were twelve years of age, and had been - employed full time since they were nine or ten years of age. It is - impossible to describe the antagonism aroused in the whole district by - this prosecution ... and the case was dismissed on a small technical - point.... Several cases of illegal employment ... could not have - occurred except for public opinion in that district.... In a flax - scutching mill one morning I found a little girl aged twelve years - ‘stricking’ flax with a rapidity and dexterity which showed - considerable practice. My enquiries met with the most bare-faced - untruths.... I was told that the child was at the mill for no other - purpose than bringing tea to the workers. On visiting the school ... I - was told that this little girl and her sister, aged ten and a half - years, worked alternate weeks at the scutching mill, and were employed - there from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on every week day, including Saturday. I - could not hear of any steps having been taken by the teacher or - managers to stop this obviously illegal employment. In another factory - I found a little girl of thirteen years working full time with a - certificate which showed clearly she was only in Standard IV., and of - the illegality of the employment the teacher must have been - aware.”[174] - -It was evident from the Report of the Belfast Health Commission, -published in 1908, that very adverse circumstances affected the health -of adolescent workers in Belfast, though housing conditions and -unhygienic conditions of schoolrooms may have been answerable as much as -working conditions. Although the infant under five years of age had a -better chance of life in Belfast than in Manchester, not so the young -persons aged fifteen to twenty years; in that age-group the mortality -was found to be double that for the same age-group in Manchester. - - “It needs,” said Miss Martindale, “little power of imagination to - realise the pain and wretchedness which must have preceded these - deaths, and as the death-rate is a sign of the standard of health, it - is not difficult to picture the number of children who are living on, - but who are robbed of that health which brings vigour, buoyancy, and - light-heartedness. Mrs. Dickie, the Local Government Board Inspector - of boarded-out children, who has had many years’ experience of work - amongst Irish children, has, I think, put her finger on one factor in - the cause of the high death-rate when she says of half-timers: - ‘Commencing as they do just at the time when all their physical powers - are needed for the merging of childhood into adolescence, the strain - of the long day in the hot, noisy mill or factory leaves them without - the reserve of strength necessary to support growth of mind and - body.’”[175] - -In a wonderful degree the publication of the reports I received from -Miss Martindale on such considerations, and on many details and aspects -of the employment of children in Ireland, arrested attention there, and -aroused true sympathy for the cause of child protection. Not only were -the reports, and her very words, widely quoted in the daily Press, but -regularly there were leading articles to drive her points home when the -Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories annually appeared. In June, -1909, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed the -following resolution: - - “That the assembly feeling deeply the obligation for the safeguarding - of child-life, especially in manufacturing districts, recommends - ministers of this Church to study official documents bearing upon the - question of child labour, and to endeavour to arouse public opinion in - favour of enforcing the law with a view to the protection both of the - children and of the law-abiding employer.” - -In the counties of Antrim and Down, out of 50,686 persons employed in -textile factories at that time, not less than 13,691 were under eighteen -years of age, and of these 4,144 were half-timers. Thus the question was -not a small one for these districts, having regard to the heavy and -debilitating atmosphere of dust or humidity, in which so much of the -work was done. Miss Martindale felt that a spinner was right when she -said, pointing to a group of half-timers, “Ah! indeed, they are hard -enough wrought.” It was not surprising that the Belfast half-timer was -undersized and delicate. A little girl aged twelve (one of many of the -same size) she had weighed in a factory in 1906. Her weight was 58 -pounds, instead of the 76 pounds that might have been expected for her -age.[176] - -The total number of young lives in factories and workshops under some -degree of protection by the Factory Acts in the United Kingdom in the -first decade of the twentieth century was approximately 1,099,841 -persons under eighteen years of age, and of these 459,698 were under -sixteen years of age; of the latter, 37,129 were half-timers, the -majority, 19,211, being girls. The lowest age-limit of admission had -been established and duly observed without difficulty over the greater -part of the kingdom, but in Ireland we had many attempts at evasion to -contend with—generally from the side of the parents; both Miss -Martindale and her successor, Miss Slocock, frequently had to follow up -falsified certificates, and prosecution of a father was repeatedly -necessary.[177] - -A great deal of valuable work was done in Lancashire and Yorkshire -textile districts by Miss Squire and her staff, and by Miss Vines in -Scottish textile districts, not only in giving effect to the actual -requirements of the law, but in watching over details of employment that -seriously strained the young worker, such as bobbin carrying up and down -stairs, weft carrying by the tenter in the weaving shed (“the tenter has -always a tired look”). Conditions affecting them in Dundee jute, hemp, -and flax factories were in many ways quite as bad as conditions in -Belfast factories. - -It is impossible to give here more than this bare idea of the scope of -our activities in the matter of child labour, and I can merely refer to -the fresh care that had to be devoted to the question during the -pressure of wartime. At that time the eagerness of children to help -again led to much illegal employment before the legal age of admission, -or to full time when only half-time was permissible, to employment in -school holidays, and at all kinds of illegal hours in many miscellaneous -industries. Many prosecutions had to be taken in London, Birmingham, and -the North of England, and in Scotland. Increasing support was given by -magistrates and sheriffs in repressing this evil. In 1917, in one case -taken by Miss Vines, where very young girls had been employed for -excessive hours, and a defence was set up that the pressure of work had -led the management to overlook the youth of the workers, the sheriff -severely observed that “no one could be so busy that he could not see a -girl of thirteen was not eighteen.” In Birmingham, Miss Martindale in -the same year prosecuted nineteen firms and five parents for illegal -employment of children, and in Coventry she prosecuted a firm for -employing a child of ten years in a bakehouse. In an outstanding case in -the North-Western Division a fruit preserving company was prosecuted by -Miss Tracey for employing little girls of eight to ten years, mostly in -the intervals between school, in preparing fruit for bottling, two of -them being in poor health and absent from school. There was found to be -great and special need during the later years of the War for -watchfulness by the Inspectors against serious overloading of young -workers or their employment near dangerous machinery.[178] - -We have already seen above that certain religious and charitable -institutions first came within the purview of the Factory Acts in 1907 -as regards industrial work of their inmates, and the question of their -inclusion or exclusion had long been a subject of controversy—in fact, -ever since the Act of 1895 had partly regulated commercial laundries. It -is somewhat surprising, in view of the long discussions and the fear -frequently expressed by ordinary laundries of unfair competition from -the side of institutional laundries, when one learns that the total -number of working inmates of institutions under Section 5 of the Act of -1907 never exceeded round about 9,550, of whom 9,417 were engaged in -laundry work for persons outside the institution, 4,068 of these inmates -being engaged in laundry work aided by power-driven machinery. In -commercial laundries fully regulated by the Act of 1907, the last -returns to the Factory Department—published in 1911—showed that 103,635 -women and girls were employed, besides 11,466 men and boys, and that -75,774 of the women and girls worked in power-driven or “factory” -laundries. When it is further remembered that even the largest -institutional laundries are relatively small compared with very many -large commercial laundries, it is evident that the question of their -competition with these laundries barely arises, and that the -administrative question of chief importance in the institutional -laundries always has been, What was the form of regulation most likely -in the special circumstances to aid in securing the well-being of the -inmates? The latter are mostly brought into the institution for -charitable aid or reform, or special training or special protection -against their own weakness, and generally they lack the self-protecting -habits of normal industrial workers. The Factory Acts were in no way -devised for controlling, nor competent to regulate, either the domestic -conditions in the lives of these inmates or their training or education. -The aim of inclusion under the Factory Act was simply to secure that, -when they were actually engaged on industrial work (for purposes outside -the institution itself, even if not by ordinary way of trade), they -might be assured of conditions of work, health, and safety, not less -favourable in their circumstances than those enforceable for a worker -employed in a factory or workshop. - -It was about the year 1899 that we began, as a branch Inspectorate, to -come in touch with certain convent or religious institution industries; -first, through the complaints of the ordinary trader that they were in -an unfairly favoured position, and, secondly, through the research of -Miss Deane and Miss Squire in Ireland, into convent industries really -carried on by way of ordinary trade. Here the workers were definitely -employed under a contract of employment in lace making, knitting by hand -or machine, embroidery, shirt making, laundry work, and weaving of -flannel, tweeds, and linen. Some of these were inspected for the first -time in 1900 by Miss Squire. She and the instructions she gave under the -Act were well received by the Superiors. The successful example and high -standard set by the Rev. Mother Superior of Foxford Convent, county -Mayo, where a woollen factory with dye works had long been carried on -(with profit to the peasants of the district as well as the convent), -inclined other convents, attempting to carry on small manufactures, to -welcome the visit of a Woman Inspector. These were not places for -reformatory or protective occupation of girls and women—not so-called -penitentiaries—but real productive establishments. In no such place -previously uninspected did Miss Squire find any objection to her -official visits; a hope was, however, expressed that the Inspector might -always be a woman; she came to the conclusion that occasional friendly -inspections were all that was necessary to secure that the spirit and -intentions of the Acts would be complied with. When I had the pleasure -of visiting them myself later on, beginning with the interesting Foxford -Factory, where the nuns managed the business and supervised the work in -the worksheds, I found the same spirit, and in that particular factory -an attractive combination of successful management with picturesque -charm. - -The discussions in Press and Parliament in 1900 and 1901 on the problem -of regulating the other type of religious institution workplaces, of a -reformatory or charitable character—largely for derelict women and -girls—when the Act of 1901 was passing into law, led me to enquire into -comparative methods of regulating such places in the chief industrial -countries of Europe. My enquiries of the officials of sister Factory -Departments in France, Belgium, and Germany led to my receiving warm -invitations from the Inspectorates of these countries to visit them and -see their method of administration. The invitations were accepted, and -this was altogether a happy experience; details may be read in the -Annual Reports for 1901 and 1902.[179] - -It was not only the friendly, helpful reception that was gratifying, it -was the discovery that in these countries, and most completely in France -and Germany, the general hygienic and safety provisions of their -industrial laws applied to the religious, charitable, and reformatory -workplaces equally with ordinary industrial establishments, and were -enforced by the same administrative methods. In France the Inspector had -“not to enquire whether a charitable institution works for gain or the -technical instruction of its workers; it sufficed that there is manual -labour for the law to apply.” Regulation was the more necessary in that -there were no less than 1,472 religious or charitable establishments -employing 48,432 workers, of whom the majority were under eighteen years -of age. The long time, over twenty years, during which regulation of the -hygiene and safety of these institutional workplaces, including -laundries, had been carried on under the ordinary safeguards of the law, -gave me a helpful object lesson in France. Commercial laundries had, -moreover, been regulated as other factories and workshops had been, and -for the same length of time. Thus I saw in them a higher standard of -cleanliness, ventilation, and fencing of dangerous machines than had yet -been obtained under our more recent regulation of laundries in England. -In Germany, where I was received in the Grand Duchy of Baden as a -colleague, and accorded the privilege of attending a staff conference of -the Inspectorate, under the late Dr. Wörishoffer, their learned chief, I -was interested to find how strict was their protection of young workers -against risks of severe accident or dangerous machinery, and how much -less they were employed in factory work than with us. - -After this experience followed our regular voluntary inspection for -several years of a considerable proportion of charitable and religious -institution workshops and factories (chiefly laundries), which had -submitted themselves to such inspection at the invitation of the Home -Office. In Ireland, where the institutional laundries were larger and -more numerous than in England, I made some personal visits in 1905 to -representative institutional laundries and other workplaces possessing -varied characteristics and aims, and began a study of similar English -institutions. A few were found to be entirely willing to receive and act -on advice from Inspectors in the carrying out of standards laid down for -commercial workplaces as to hours, sanitation, safety; others were -willing to comply in part. Objections to compliance were sometimes on -the score of expense in providing safeguards to machinery, screens, and -ironing stoves and so on; sometimes on the ground that great care in -supervision obviated need for other safeguards; sometimes that precise -limits in hours or fixed mealtimes, or affixing notices and abstracts of -the law interfered with discipline; the last-named, and the possibility -of an Inspector speaking to a worker, were the measures of protection -for the working inmates that were most frequently opposed. Explanations -tended, on the whole, to smooth away obstacles, yet in an undue -proportion of the institutions nothing was changed under “voluntary” -inspection, and in these cases, finally, the only course was to refuse -to continue the inspection. Full reports on the results of inspection on -such lines, by Miss Deane and Miss Martindale in Ireland, and by Miss -Paterson and Miss Tracey and other Inspectors in England and Scotland, -appeared in Annual Reports for 1905, 1906, and 1907. Remoteness from -ordinary life in the atmosphere of these workplaces, too strong a -tendency to place production for profit before thorough training of the -workers, and too close a dependence on laundry work alone instead of -experimenting with varied occupations—in preparation for life outside -the institution—were among the defects most frequently commented on by -the Inspectorate. Lack of understanding of elements of personal hygiene -for the worker as well as of hygiene of the workplace was widely found, -and, even after the law and compulsory inspection applied, striking -illustrations of resultant ill-health among the inmates were repeatedly -reported. At the same time illustrations of good and understanding care -(always found in some places) grew in number and greatly developed in -enlightened ideas as time went on. Some of the extraordinary risks found -in certain places—_e.g._, an unfenced power wringer fed by a feeble- -minded girl; an uncovered hydro with friction cones and driving belt -totally uncovered fed by a girl of sixteen with long, loose hair; -newcomers set to feed an unguarded calender, for the greater part -apparently without accident—tended to suggest that leisurely methods and -care in supervision did to some extent lessen risks. In an orphanage -laundry with an uncleanly wash-house and very long hours of work, little -girls were found with sore eyes, and some cases were also seen among -inmates who were domestic workers. The Sister said they had had a great -many cases lately, and that it seemed “almost as if the children -infected each other”![180] Poor feeding of inmates often came to the -knowledge of the Inspectors through uninvited communications from the -managers or Sisters, and records of accounts in printed reports of the -institutions showed a very low average expenditure per head on this -item—_e.g._, 2s. 1Od. per inmate weekly in one Scottish institution—many -inmates being young, undeveloped girls, and here the hours were 8 a.m. -to 7 p.m., with one and a half hours’ intervals for meals; in another -the report stated that the average cost of dieting superintendents and -inmates was 3s. 11d. per week, and average cost of clothing inmates £1 -10s. per year. After application of the Act of 1907 to these -institutional workplaces we occasionally learned of serious outbreaks of -ill-health among working inmates, and invariably we called in the -services of the local medical officer of health, or the certifying -surgeon, or both—improvements following. In one case escape of sewer gas -into the house; in another defective management of working conditions, -with dreary routine and absence of play or outdoor exercise for growing -girls; in yet another pressure for output, with long hours of work, was -found to be the immediate cause of cases of illness occurring. In very -many institutions, however, the inmates are of poor constitution to -begin with, and not equal to standard industrial hours until after some -care for the building up of their health. At first we had many places to -inspect where inmates were more or less feeble-minded, but gradually -these have passed under care of the Board of Control for the Mentally -Deficient. - -In 1907 the last of the “voluntary” inspections were specially welcomed -by managers, who increasingly applied for advice and information. In -1908 compulsory inspection was generally cordially welcomed and -Inspectors were often pressed to return. Conferences on aims and method -of conducting the institutions increased among associations of managers. -Educational and character-forming occupations were in a few places added -to laundry work or substituted for it, and attempts were here and there -made to try and suit the special needs of individuals. For example, a -woman who made nothing of laundry work or needlework took whole- -heartedly to the printing of programmes and notices. One began to see -hope of the passing of the listless, lifeless condition of many inmate -workers, and of the coming of something of the vital, “alive,” and -frequently graceful movements of the “factory girl.” It is not -impossible even with laundry work as the chief occupation of the -institutional workers to find happy activity among them—when the Sister -Superior or manageress is sufficiently young in spirit to develop -“hobbies” in recreation, and to encourage in the girls a sense of -responsibility. I know of one institution where the Sister Superior aims -at self-government in the best spirit of a “public school.” And here, -when charming baskets made by the laundry girls were brought out for my -inspection, they asked eagerly that I might also “see Sister’s work.” -Still, it must not be supposed that there was not very much to be done -to secure compliance with the letter and spirit of the Act of 1907 -during the seven years following its coming into force. - -Although desire of exceptional treatment in the matter of hours -declined, still, on the whole, the total extent of hours spent at work -is more nearly drawn out to the full permissible limits than is recently -customary in commercial workplaces. Safety of the machinery and -sanitation of the workplace were gradually secured, but it was a slow -and tedious process to develop any enlightenment as to the value of -shortened spells and hours. In a few cases there was obstinate -resistance to instructions in the requirements of the Act, and reform -was not secured until the Home Office had exercised the power of -withdrawing all privileges allowed under the Act. The last reported case -of that kind was one in 1914. Yet “in the great majority of homes under -Section 5 of 1907 there continues to be faithful observance of the -law.”[181] The War brought reverberations into these workplaces as well -as into all others. New ideas were aroused among managers by the varied -experiments in special workrooms for unemployed women, during the first -few months of the War, under Queen Mary’s Fund.[182] The great general -demand for women’s and girls’ labour altered the whole position for any -of them willing to retrieve themselves by service to the nation, and it -was interesting to learn that the numbers in the Homes markedly -declined. After the War, girl inmates began to show their new powers of -initiative by writing to the Senior Lady Inspector, thus showing the -value of abstracts and notices with names and addresses affixed in the -workplace. - -In one such place a complaint was seriously justified by the -investigation that followed. Long hours of work for very young girls, -total absence of outdoor games, with poor dietary, had resulted in much -sickness. I visited the head of the Sisterhood, of which this -institution was a branch work, with the Senior Lady Inspector, and we -found her open to the reception of new ideas. A change in management -followed, with happy results. We received, some months later, direct -from the girls and their new Sister Superior, a hearty and welcome -invitation to attend their annual festivity. - - - - - CHAPTER VI -THE LIFE OF THE INSPECTOR AND ITS INFLUENCE ON LEGISLATION; EXPERIENCES - IN COURTS - - “I doubt very much whether the office of Factory Inspector is one - suitable for women.... It is seldom necessary to put a single question - to a female.... Possibly some details, here and there, might be - superintended by a female Inspector, but looking at what is required - at the hands of an Inspector, I fail to see advantages likely to arise - from her ministrations in a factory ... so opposite to the sphere of - her good work in the hospital, the school, or the home.”—_Chief - Inspector of Factories_, October 31, 1879.[183] - - “The men’s and women’s sides of the Inspectorate ... will be - amalgamated into a single organisation. Women Inspectors will be - regarded as eligible for all posts. While the complete fusion, which - is the ultimate aim, can only be brought about gradually, the main - principles will be put into effect from the commencement.”—_Chief - Inspector of Factories_, June 8, 1921.[184] - - -While we await the development of the later of these two extremes in -official views on the possibilities of employment of Women Factory -Inspectors, there is ample material in the intervening Annual Reports of -the Chief Inspector, and in comments and conclusions in Parliamentary -Debates upon them, for grasping the realities in the life and activity -of the Inspectors. - -In the reports it is clear that they were engaged all the time on work -that really mattered in its immediate effect on the life and conditions -of women as workers in the factory and workshop, as outworkers, as -mothers, and as industrial inmates of charitable institutions; and that -the Inspectors brought new light, health, and safety into working -conditions for adolescent girls and children. Their work was not formal, -nor simply a question of detail, but constructive for the nation in the -things that most needed new thought and perception. The fact that they -never instructed occupiers of factories about “fencing” of dangerous -machinery[185] that was operated solely by men did not lighten their -work. It simply set them free to concentrate on immense human problems -needing their special attention. Women workers had also to be drawn to -confide in the Inspectorate, and to co-operate intelligently in -transforming factory conditions from within. Growth of the spirit of -self-help in the women was noticeable in details of Annual Reports from -1896. I was able expressly to point to its growth in 1901 and onwards. - -As regards “a great many provisions” in the Factory Act of 1895, Mr. -Asquith, speaking in the House of Commons on July 31, 1896, said he was -“quite satisfied from recent experience, that these provisions could not -be satisfactorily enforced except by female inspection.” And Sir Matthew -White Ridley, then Home Secretary in succession to Mr. Asquith, replied -that “much good had been done in the interest of female workers of the -country by the appointment of these Lady Inspectors.” - -In 1904 Mr. Asquith, in pressing on another Home Secretary, Mr. Akers- -Douglas, the need of really sufficient additions to the number of Women -Inspectors (then numbering twelve), did so for the reason “that the -girls and women of the country might be more efficiently protected.” -This had followed many annually repeated pleas in the House by various -members, foremost Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. H. J. Tennant, for more -liberal development of the work of the Women Inspectorate, and -suggestions were made for placing them in district charge in centres of -many women’s industries—_e.g._, in potteries, in Ireland—and -commendation was expressed of an experiment of this kind in the West -London Special District. - -Mr. Theodore Taylor, speaking as a factory owner in the debate on Home -Office Estimates on August 4, 1904, desired “to acknowledge the very -great debt of gratitude which employers generally were under to the -Women Inspectors. There were very many abuses which employers were not -aware of until they were brought to light by the Women Inspectors ... he -joined in the strong request that the number should be largely -increased ... the adoption of this course would tend to the efficiency -of factory labour.” Mr. John Burns held that “their work had to do with -matters which no average man could understand,” echoing a point made in -earlier debates by Mr. Asquith, that the Women Inspectors could “bring -themselves into close contact with the workers and obtain from them with -greater spontaneity actual facts of the real duties of their lives and -work,” and that this freedom of communication resulted in much better -administration of the law.[186] Mr. Akers-Douglas, replying in 1904 to -the demand for increase in the Women’s Branch of the Inspectorate, “had -been very much struck by the unanimous opinion expressed that day,” as -he had been also, he said, by “reading the very valuable report” of that -year on the work of the Women Inspectors. - -Members of Parliament, indeed, showed throughout that they were entirely -convinced that efficiency and economy followed on the spontaneous -character of the work of the Women Inspectors’ Branch, and that the -confidence reposed in them by the workers, for whose aid they were -appointed, was appreciated. As Mr. McKenna said on March 8, 1898: “We -know the very high favour with which they are looked upon by the working -classes.” The only definite exception that I can find to this general -commendation is in a complaint by Mr. Jesse Collings on June 29, 1903, -that they went beyond their province of seeing that the laws were obeyed -by doing “missionary work.” This complaint seems to refer to their -steady endeavours to encourage employers to go beyond the law in -promotion of welfare conditions—an aim which came into wider public -consideration during the Great War. - -There are many passages in the Debates to show that it was not only the -direct work of applying the Acts and Orders, but even more the faculty -of acting both as an intelligence branch and as a missionary arm of the -Department that was valued by the country in the work of the Women -Inspectorate. Not only was the extension of localised administration, by -women for women, in great centres of women’s industry urged over and -over again from 1899 onwards; Sir Charles Dilke also led many members, -particularly in 1906, in emphasising the value of their special -enquiries and reports on such questions as employment of women after -childbirth; the need of after-care of young persons rejected for -physical unfitness in the factory and thereupon employed in less -regulated occupations and workshops; industrial disease and poisoning -among women and girls; observance of special regulations peculiarly -affecting women and girls; fines and deductions from wages; sanitary -arrangements; and other matters in which the needs of women workers -necessarily vary from those of men. “The great organised trades,” he -said, “are to some extent able to protect themselves, but women workers -depend,” to a great extent, on legislation and enforcement of the law, -and “on the Women Inspectors especially falls the duty of enforcing the -law,” “where the inspection is most necessary.” - -In July, 1908, Mr. Herbert Gladstone, speaking as Home Secretary, and -alluding to a 40 per cent. increase in numbers of the Women’s Branch -(which brought them to eighteen), said: “The time has come when the -demands of the country for more Lady Inspectors cannot be resisted,” and -he declared that the “increase would be gradual in the future,” and that -there would be “no change in the character of the excellent work” done -by them. At this figure, eighteen, the numbers remained for several -years. Then in 1911 we find Lord Henry Cavendish Bentinck asking for -more, and expressing disappointment in finding that the numbers “remain -the same”; in 1912 he and Mr. Alfred Lyttelton referred again to the -subject, and the former pointed to the valuable concentrated “experiment -in the way of fencing machinery” that was going on in laundries in the -special West London district, under a Woman Inspector, with resultant -decline in number of accidents. He referred also appreciatively to their -work throughout the country under the Truck Act. - -The lively interest that members took in reading the published reports -of the Women’s Branch, with their “vivid and humane representation of -the facts of our factory system,” was emphasised by Mr. Morrell and Mr. -Ramsay Macdonald in July, 1913, and Mr. Hills and Lord Henry Cavendish -Bentinck returned to the old charge, that, for the sides of the work -affecting women and young workers, efficient administration could be -secured only by setting the Women Inspectorate to do it. “It is quite -true that it is the duty of the male Inspectors as well as of the female -Inspectors to look after those women and children,” but for these Mr. -Morrell urged “the work cannot be effectively done except by women.” - -This, then, was the Parliamentary mirror of the toils and adventures of -the Women Inspectorate. There is, however, a word to be said on an -aspect that appears to be neglected. Undoubtedly it was helpful to the -Women Inspectors on the one side to know, during so many years of -difficult and heavy work, that Parliament grasped the extent of their -task and the nature of the work that they were reaching out to achieve -in response to the appeal made to them by the industrial womanhood of -the nation. Yet, on another larger side, there was much pain also in the -feeling that this repeated emphasis tended to obscure any general -perception of the highly urgent need that required strong support, for -Men Inspectors in dealing with preventable accident and injury, and far -too rough and unhygienic conditions for the manhood of industry, in -places where women were little employed or not employed at all. - -As far back as 1898 my own belief was that effective reorganisation of -staff involved not only concentration of experienced Women Inspectors on -the main conditions affecting women workers, but, even more, a -lightening of the cares of Men Inspectors on this side to allow of their -greater concentration on prevention of accidents and on very dangerous -trades where women may not enter as workers. In 1920 accidents affecting -male workers numbered 124,580, of which 1,363 were fatal, as compared -with 14,122 affecting female workers, of which 41 were fatal.[187] -Examples of the great accident producing industries are extraction and -conversion of metals, shipbuilding, docks, construction of buildings, -foundries, locomotive, and other large engineering works. In Parliament -the conclusion has invariably been reached that, in health and safety -problems for women and girl workers, Women Inspectors are primâ faciê -the more competent. Is it not in the great safety problems for men and -boys that a field of specialisation lies for Men Inspectors of a nature -as absorbing as that which enthralled the Women Inspectorate during the -last twenty-five years? The fusion of the men’s and women’s sides of the -Inspectorate, while avoiding some old problems of administration, raises -up new ones, not less large. A solution appears clearly within reach, -but discussion of it is outside the scope of this survey. - -On neither side—men’s safety problems nor women’s health problems—is -skilled enquiry by the Inspectorate or experimental development of -regulation finished. The difference of potential or actual maternity -alone (without consideration of claims on girls and women as the -homemakers of the nation), according to Dr. Janet Campbell in her -memorandum to the War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry,[188] -absolutely prevents equal competition of women with men in industry. She -lays stress on the need of further investigation into the physical -effects of employment in industry upon adolescent girls as well as adult -women, and this view supports the considerable enquiry made in the past -by Women Inspectors into heavy work done by girls. The persistent call -of Women Inspectors during many years for welfare conditions saw both -its justification and its fruit in the industrial warwork of women. The -extensive employment by the Ministry of Munitions of Women Dilution -Officers, to strengthen and promote employment of women dilutees in -engineering trades, ran also in harmony with the idea of specialisation -rather than fusion of function. Dr. Josefa Joteyko, in her “Science of -Labour,”[189] deals with experiments she had made showing the differing -modes of expenditure of energy in industry by man and woman. She says: -“Each represents a distinct function,” although each form of energy is -equally necessary to industry for its own purposes. While her -experiments established endurance as a characteristic in the feminine -sex requiring a slow and gradual expenditure of energy to avoid fatigue, -muscular force or strength with a power to act instantaneously under a -stimulating impulse are shown to be characteristic of the masculine sex, -and to be accompanied by ability to recover rapidly from fatigue. “Most -careful selection of working women with regard to their muscular -powers,” she considers, is necessary for successful industrial labour. - -Whatever the issue of these various considerations, Parliamentary and -medical, on women’s work, it is well for the general community to -understand the ways in which the Women Factory Inspectors actually -worked during the past quarter of a century. During this period, says a -writer in the _Women’s Industrial News_ of January, 1915, the “direct -influence” of Women Inspectors on “enactments affecting women and young -people is very great, and they also helped to raise the standard of -legal regulation in the British Isles by study of foreign industrial -legislation.”[190] She traced out the questions in which their work had -affected development of the Acts and Orders from 1895 to 1907, and -mentioned among others the following: overcrowding, insufficient or -unsuitable means of heating workrooms, defective and unsuitable sanitary -accommodation for women, dangers from locked doors in fire or panic, -excessive overtime, need of power to qualify certificates of fitness for -young workers by specification of the class of work to be done, -insufficient general ventilation, need of inspection of institutional -laundries, regulation of fines and deductions, etc. “The social progress -of recent years,” she said, “has been the result of an unprecedented -attention to matters of detail. Investigation and administration have -begun to go hand in hand, and the scientific spirit which has been so -long in coming to its own in matters social may now be said to have -arrived ... the great advance which the Women Inspectors have been able -to bring about in factory legislation has been largely due to the -sympathetic insight which has made them virtually representative of the -people.”[191] - -During the whole period 1893–1921 these Inspectors were, by official -instructions, directed especially to enquire, report, and take action in -behalf of women and girls; a task to which they addressed themselves -with hearty loyalty and intense interest.[192] They had Inspectors’ full -powers of action, and worked under their own women officers from 1896 to -1921. It was from 1902 onwards that they directly instructed occupiers -on fencing and prevention of accidents in the clothing and laundry -industries, of which they had made special study. Earlier in the same -year full authority was entrusted to me, as head of the branch, for the -sanctioning of their prosecutions, a power hitherto exercised subject to -approval by the Chief Inspector. Except for slight variations in the -early stages, co-ordination of their special work with the general work -of the male District Inspectors followed a steadfast prescribed course -from 1898 to 1921. - -The very boundaries set to the work of the women officers led, as things -were, to what may be called their “higher education” in the nature of -the representative and judicial administration of their country. The -thorough general knowledge they acquired, all over the British Isles, of -conditions in every productive or manufacturing industry employing women -and girls, sprang also from their concentration as a branch on this -aspect of industrial employment. They made close acquaintance with local -as well as central methods of administration by daily dealings with -health and education authorities and their officers, as well as with -magistrates, sheriffs, and their clerks. They had to act for themselves— -most fortunately, for “power to do comes of doing”—in courts of summary -jurisdiction, learning procedure and something of the “law of evidence” -as they went along, and gaining an understanding of the details and -principles of the Truck Acts and Factory Acts, that could only be -acquired by personally testing them in the courts. - -Probably in nothing did we owe so much to the first tentative efforts of -Miss May Abraham and Miss Mary Paterson as in their adventurous -readiness from the outset to try their powers in police and sheriff -court proceedings. I may confess that my own first feelings were chiefly -of consternation on learning that I had, a few weeks after entering the -Department, personally to prosecute an occupier for illegal employment -of girls—never having previously entered a police court. I suggested to -the District Inspector that he might conduct the first one, just “to -show how it was done,” but fortunately and wisely he declined. It was -not very long before I found a new interest in methods of -administration, through my discovery of a clause in the Factory Act -under which I might ask the magistrates to “make an order in addition to -imposing a penalty on an occupier for failure to keep his factory in -conformity with the Act”[193]—the magistrates actually complying with -the request, on condition that the terms of the order were drawn up by -the local medical officer of health and myself. This discovery was -indeed crowned when, in a great mill employing about a thousand workers, -it resulted in the closing of ancient and insanitary conveniences -pouring effluvia into heated spinning rooms, to the erection of passable -temporary sanitary conveniences, and, finally, to completed construction -of a modernised water-carriage system of conveniences. - -It was not only in courts of summary jurisdiction that our education was -carried on. Between 1894 and 1916 we had sixteen appeals on points of -law to the High Courts of England, Scotland, and Ireland issuing from -cases taken by Women Inspectors in the Courts of first instance. Through -these we learned something about interpretation and the bearing of -“decided cases,” as well as the thoroughness with which trained lawyers -prepared a case; we also came in contact with legal advisers, law -officers, Queen’s and King’s Counsel, Treasury solicitors, Procurators -Fiscal, Sessional Crown solicitors, and so forth. Appeals to Quarter -Sessions on matters of fact occasionally gave us further enlightenment, -and, after a while, subpœnas served on Inspectors to give evidence in -civil claims of workers against their employers opened up for us new -chapters in the law of the land. - -Without warning an Inspector would find herself when in a police court -arguing her case not merely with an experienced solicitor acting for the -defendant, but sometimes with a well known Q.C. (or K.C.). Our armour on -such occasions was a thorough acquaintance with the facts and -circumstances, and with the scope of the Acts which we were trying to -enforce. Much of the professional point of view and technique had -rapidly to be caught up not only on these occasions, but also during the -hazards of passing cases over to the Treasury, or to the Sessional Crown -solicitor in preparation for an appeal. The range of subjects that we -sent up was sufficient to introduce us to not a little of the lighter -and more humorous sides of legal proceedings, as well as to the tedium -of delays. In our record year for participation in appeals on points of -law—the year 1901, when Miss Squire was concerned in three appeals and -Miss Deane in one—there was some entertainment in spite of more serious -elements. Three of these appeals seem to deserve rescue from oblivion -for other than purely legal reasons. In _Deane_ v. _Hulbert Beach_ we -learned that the section (of which we had hoped much in the way of -remedy for workrooms either cruelly cold or stuffy because unprovided -with any proper heating apparatus), providing that “adequate measures -shall be taken for securing and maintaining a reasonable temperature in -each room in which any person is employed,” secured nothing whatever but -a reasonable altitude of mercury in the thermometer, however improper -the “measures.” In this instance these measures were described in the -Court of Appeal by counsel as “stuffing the room with a number of women, -heating with gas jets, stuffing up chimneys, and so on.” He argued, -first, that the “legislature must have meant that it shall be reasonable -having regard to the object in view—namely, the health of the person -employed,” but when asked by one of the Judges, “When you say ‘it,’ what -do you mean by ‘it’?” his reply was, “The warmth or temperature.” A -moment or two later he admitted, “It is a slip in the Act,” and the -Judge replied, “They ought to have used the word ‘ventilation’—adequate -ventilation.” On which counsel remarked, “Yes, that is the short point. -It has been brought up with a view to amending the Act this -session.”[194] In _Fullers, Ltd._ v. _Squire_ there was an appeal by a -defendant employer against a conviction and penalty for employing young -women through the night, on Saturday afternoons, and on Sundays in -packing and decorating wicker hampers and ornamental boxes, and filling -them with bonbons and sweetmeats in fancy patterns, tying up with bows -of ribbon and the like. The argument for appeal was, substantially, that -the work was incidental to sale, not production, and that the place was -a shop, not a workshop. No legal argument was verbally attempted by -counsel for the respondent (the same counsel as in the previous case), -but sample boxes, as packed and decorated with bright ribbon bows by the -young women, were shown to the Judges and made a fine splash of colour -in court. The appeal was dismissed, the Judges declining to interfere -with the discretion of the magistrate in deciding the individual case on -the facts before him. In _Squire_ v. _Bayer & Co._ there was, from an -Inspectors’ point of view, more tragedy than entertainment in the -decision, but the whole case is a very good measure of the distance that -has been travelled in our industrial and social standards since the year -1901. A case had been brought before the magistrates in order to test -the legality, under the Truck Act, of a rule posted up in the -defendant’s factory, that “all workers shall observe good order and -decorum while in the factory, and shall not do anything which may -interfere with the proper and orderly conduct of the business thereof, -or of any department thereof ... a fine of 6d. (or less at the -discretion of the manager) shall be paid by each worker who shall be -guilty of any infringement of this rule.” Under this rule numerous fines -had been imposed upon young girls for speaking, laughing, sneezing, -etc., and they could not know beforehand what “acts or omissions” on -their part would render them liable. The intention of the Act had -apparently been to secure such knowledge to the workers before they were -liable to a fine. The Inspector selected for her test case two girls -who, among others, had been fined for amusing themselves in the dinner -hour by singing and dancing to a small harp in the workroom where they -were allowed to remain, no mealroom being provided on the premises. The -High Court held that the case was not free from difficulty, but that -they could not say that the justices had come to a wrong conclusion in -finding that the fines were imposed under a lawful contract. “It would -be going too far to say that the language prescribing a fine for breach -of good order and decorum is necessarily too general.” The appeal was -dismissed. In these later days, since the War, the girls would not only -have a legal claim to take home their minimum wage clear of all -deductions, but employers very often think it natural and proper to -provide a messroom, and sometimes even a recreation room and a piano; -dancing in the dinner hour is occasionally not only encouraged, but -teaching also given at the employer’s expense. - -In the year 1900 a case was decided in the High Court (_Tracey_ v. -_Pretty_) which brought us an experience extending over nearly two -years, that can have fallen to but few, if any, other litigants. It -arose in our endeavour to test the powers of the Factory Department to -act in default of a sanitary authority for securing conformity to some -standard of sufficiency and suitability in the provision of sanitary -conveniences. The case had been heard three times, first by two Judges -who differed, then by three Judges, one being the Lord Chief Justice, -Lord Russell of Killowen, who reserved judgment, but died before giving -the decision. It was heard for the third time by his successor, Lord -Alverstone, and the decision defined for the first time what was meant -by the “proceedings” open in England and Wales (outside London) to an -Inspector whose duty it was to act in default of the local authority. -The Inspector assumed all the powers of the authority, acting on the -advice of their surveyor, and could serve a notice under the Public -Health Acts on the occupier of the factory, the magistrate having no -authority or duty except to enquire whether the notice was properly -served and, if so, to convict. Appeal on the reasonableness of the -notice could be made to Quarter Sessions.[195] - -In 1901, our interest having been thoroughly aroused as to the -possibility of increasing capacity for the legal side of the work and of -improving methods in conducting prosecutions, an invitation was given by -the Women Inspectors, through Mrs. H. J. Tennant, to Mr. R. B. Haldane, -K.C., M.P., since Lord Haldane, to address us on the “Conduct of Cases -under the Factory Acts.” To this he made a generous response, and both -Men and Women Inspectors had the great advantage of listening to a -distinguished advocate on the subject, at a gathering at Mrs. Tennant’s -house on April 18, 1901. Starting from the standpoint, familiar to a -Factory Inspector, that the Crown does not fight a case unless it -believes itself in the right, nor until satisfied of the truth of the -matter in question, he gave new meaning to some of our experience in -preparing and prosecuting a case, and need of readiness to meet -unforeseen contingencies; he also gave us new points for handling -evidence and witnesses. We were cheered by the stress he laid on “the -assurance, which is a very real one, that every case you lose brings -with it fresh experience, perhaps more than the case you gain,” and that -it is “only continual practice and dogged perseverance that makes people -grow in this as in other respects.” This same assurance was given me -personally by my own early experience, but yet more by watching the -growth in power, in this field, of colleagues working under my -direction. Of one of them I had the gratification of once reading the -opinion of a lawyer well qualified to judge, who was in court at the -time she was conducting a difficult Truck case, that it “could not have -been better done.” Sometimes words of praise for prosecuting Inspectors -would appear in a local paper. A single instance may suffice; in 1905, -when a presiding magistrate was reported to have said of two Women -Inspectors, concerned in a lively case of obstruction (of the Inspector) -and illegal employment (of women) before him, that “His Majesty was to -be congratulated on the possession of two Inspectors who did their duty -so conscientiously and well.” The one, he said, had “very ably and -properly conducted her own case”; the other (who had pursued retreating -workers in the factory down a trap-door into a dark cellar) “seemed to -have behaved with great pluck and activity.” - -On this side of their work, in patience, resourcefulness, and -persistence, and in the high percentage of success in results, the -record does appear somewhat remarkable. Taking only the years from 1898 -to 1914, the Women Inspectors brought 4,962 cases into court against -1,974 occupiers, and secured convictions in 4,715 cases. And the average -penalty imposed by magistrates rose, on the whole. The years of greatest -activity in the courts were between 1901 and 1911. Though many -interesting cases came in earlier and in later years, the tendency -increased, after 1911, to place more reliance on conference with or -persuasion of occupiers. The nature of infringements of the law has -largely appeared in preceding chapters, and the proportion of cases was -(as in complaints): first, illegal employment; secondly, defects in -sanitation and infraction of health regulations; thirdly, irregularity -in payment of wages. - -It seems very natural that a high proportion of our younger Women -Inspectors have been impelled to read for the Bar in 1920–21 so soon as -such a step was open to them. Long after some of them have been called -to and are successfully practising at the Bar, it may touch them to read -of early experiences of Women Factory Inspectors during the arduous -battles they fought on behalf of many extremely poor and hard-driven -women workers. The life they led can only be given by fragments. - -Here is a little extract from a diary, the flotsam of time: - - “_Midnight ... December 31_ ... we are at L——, cold, miserable. Came - here to see ... Sessional Crown Solicitor about case to be stated _re_ - order of D—— magistrates in the case of X——. - - “_January 1._—We listened to the clock striking the new year while - making copies of draft-stated case which we had drawn up ourselves and - which ... Sessional Crown Solicitor had approved (we are very proud of - this draft). At 8.30 a.m. we started in a wagonette with two horses, - one of which had no shoe, with snow on the ground.... Arrived D—— 6.30 - p.m., found Sessional Crown Solicitor and two resident magistrates, - had long conference, read them our stated case, which they adopted _in - toto_. - - “_January 2._—Conference all day long and attendance in court, when J. - P. signed stated case with exception of.... Sat up till 2 a.m. copying - stated case ready for service next day. Atmosphere very damp, also - cold.... Slept under nine thicknesses of blankets and two - counterpanes. - - “_January 3._—All day trying to get stated case signed by outstanding - magistrate, who flatly refused, saying, ‘I know X—— was in the wrong, - but it’s making too much of it to take the case to Dublin.’ - - “_January 4._—At 4 a.m. we started for our fifteen-mile drive to - nearest railway-station, bright starlight, lovely sunrise, nearly - choked with clothing and hot bottles, and sat nursing our best hats on - our knees.” - -For “peripatetic” Inspectors the difficulty was a real one; the fitting -in of visits of special enquiry, general routine visits of inspection, -visits on extremely varied kinds of complaints, with the successful -prosecution of prolonged legal activities in widely scattered places. -Yet I know of no case where action failed through omission by an -Inspector to serve a notice or complete any legal formality or be at the -necessary spot at the prescribed time. There was a flame burning within -that seemed to consume obstacles by the way, and rendered innocuous even -very adverse climatic and other conditions. Long cross-country drives in -Ireland (undertaken at times simply to carry out a formal act) would -sometimes last all day in an open car in pouring rain, or a day in a -tiny, stuffy police court might have to be preceded by a drive beginning -before daylight on a stormy winter morning to fetch intimidated -witnesses for the case. In Lancashire a start might have to be made at -4.30 a.m. from a hotel (with the aid of knocking-up by the night -porter), to reach a distant country mill, unobserved, by a new route, in -order to detect time-cribbing before 6 a.m. Tussles with manageresses to -obtain the luxury of clean sheets on the hotel beds, and struggles to -secure amendments in conditions of uncleanliness (about which “Lord X—— -Y——, here last week, had not complained”), were much more against the -grain. Yet all seemed small in comparison with such conclusions as that -of the _X—— Sentinel_ that the Lady Factory Inspector had “emerged -triumphant” from her case; that the “Truck Act has a living force for -the protection of a worker as far away as Altnagapple”; and that “the -publicity given to these prosecutions is likely to have a beneficial -effect throughout the county.” Or, again, the comments of the _Daily C—— -_ on the prosecution of a firm employing a number of young girls in -processes scheduled as “dangerous” was enlivening. A certain town which -was “famous for its magistrates in Shakespeare’s time yesterday let off -notable offenders lightly. For employing four young girls without the -certificate of the doctor which the law requires a fine of 10s. in each -case was enforced—this being positively the first offence of the sort; -and for an incredibly mean breach of the Truck Act, by means of which a -girl had her wages stopped for two whole years to pay her father’s rent, -the firm had to pay three guineas. Grinding the faces of the poor is -cheap down in ——, and but for the Woman Inspector who found out what was -going on it would cost nothing at all.” - -Consolation sometimes came swiftly to the Inspector on a refusal of -magistrates to convict in a closely contested case for, for instance, -heavy deductions from the girls’ small wages, or for waste in -production. In such a case, the firm, before leaving court, offered to -meet the Inspector’s views by lowering the scale of deductions for the -future to figures that, if yielded at an earlier stage, would have -obviated the need for prosecution. Publicity in such things was ever our -most potent helper. Something of the “setting” of this case, in the -court, may be brought up from the past by means of a stray leaf of a -letter, come back to me from the colleague to whom I wrote it in 1899: - - “The firm had arranged quite a dramatic scene for us—no less than - three barristers, with wigs and all. Mr. Y——, Q.C., defended, with the - help of his friend, Mr. S——, and another friend of theirs who came in - from the Assize Court to enjoy himself. All the four partners were - there, and their solicitor. It would take too long to tell the whole - story now, but ... it was worth while fighting, and we were in court - until 3 p.m. I had breakfasted at 6.30 a.m. in London, so you will - believe that I was glad when lunch-time came. The stipendiary and the - magistrate’s clerk listened with the greatest interest to Miss - Squire’s clear exposition ... but, alas! our witnesses were not nearly - good enough. One of them was like wax in the hands of Mr. Y——, who, as - one of the sergeants of the court confided to me, ‘was not one of your - bullying sort, but quite gentlemanly.’ The stipendiary could not make - up his mind, however, and is going to think it over and give his - decision on Tuesday.” - -His decision then was to dismiss the case on the evidence before him, -but not as a precedent to govern other cases. The deductions had been so -large, in relation to the wages of the girls, that they could only be -levied by small weekly instalments, extending over months.[196] - -Two Inspectors in the same year had an almost incredible series of -experiences in Donegal (details of which can be seen in the Blue-books) -when trying to limit very long hours of employment of women in -“kippering” processes on an island, and to secure payment in coin for -outworkers on the mainland engaged in knitting. A study of legal -procedure was involved that proved enlightening to the Inspectors, while -one of them most deeply engaged in the latter of these cases lived for -the most part practically under police protection. She was “much cheered -by the sympathy and gratitude of the peasants,” on whose behalf she -doggedly prosecuted the case against local agents giving out the work. -In the “kippering” case there were two hearings. At the first, there was -equal division of the magistrates, ending in its being “dismissed -without prejudice.” At the second, there were five magistrates, and the -case was dismissed by a majority of three on the ground of exemption of -the processes from the Act. The hearing was largely “occupied by the -elaborate speech of the solicitor for the defence.... The climax of his -oration was reached when he appealed to the magistrates not to allow” -the Inspector “to hie herself back to the Home Office bedecked with the -plumes of victory.” The case which was stated for appeal “never reached -a hearing, owing to a failure to observe a legal requirement” on the -part of the legal agent, to whom it was entrusted when it passed out of -the hands of the Inspectors.[197] - -It would require a separate book of some size to tell of many more of -our memorable experiences in the courts, and of the wonderful, varied -play of human circumstances and character there. It may be, as one of -the Women Inspectors once observed to me, the most difficult thing in -the world to tell—or to secure the telling of—“the truth, the whole -truth, and nothing but the truth.” Yet the first business in a Court of -Justice, however summary, is to secure the presentation or unfolding of -truth, and truth being always near the mainspring of life, this is -perhaps the reason why so much entertainment, interest, and strange -attractiveness is to be found there. Possibly we had far too many cases -in which the size of penalty for serious contraventions seemed not at -all deterrent. And yet all the time a process was going on—of which we -saw glimpses now and again—in the recognition by employers of the thing -that really mattered, their moral, as distinct from their legal, -responsibility in matters affecting health and well-being of the workers -in the factories and workshops. And memory lingers on a case in which -deterrent penalties were obtained in circumstances where every interest -of the locality appeared to be against an impartial hearing: - - “The employment of the women from 8.30 a.m. of one day until 5 a.m. on - the next was on a mourning order for the magistrate’s clerk. The - magistrate, before whom the informations were brought, at first - refused to sign them, and only did so on the recommendation of the - magistrate’s clerk. The active partner in the business is a - magistrate. The Mayor (in the chair) is the other workshop employer, - who was cautioned for illegal employment of a child. At the hearing of - the case a strong opinion was expressed by some of the Bench that the - offence was merely technical, and that the Factory Acts were hardly - intended to apply to such country towns. Under these circumstances ... - all concerned are to be congratulated ... on the fact that sufficient - penalties were imposed to mark the offence as more than merely - technical.”[198] - -In this chapter I have, so far, mainly considered the side of the -Inspectors’ work that followed from the need of enforcing observance of -the standards in the Acts, a need which was greatest in the earlier -years. Routine daily inspection of factories and workshops at all times -took a large place and increasingly so, until it was far the largest -part of the life of the Woman Inspector. It was, of course, vital that -she should visit as many as possible of the tens of thousands of places -where female workers were employed, to give both employers and workers -all that can be given and that they desired from such routine -inspection. It has already been seen how new light was thrown on many -questions of health, safety, and welfare, how fresh attention was -aroused to the importance of many sections in the various Acts, and how -the Women Inspectors, by special concentration of attention on these in -the workplace, amassed fresh material for advance in legislation and -administration. In an ordinary year, let us take 1913, they would -effectively inspect between 6,000 and 7,000 factories, between 3,000 and -4,000 workshops, visit many outworkers, factory workers at their homes, -besides hospitals, local authorities, and the courts. They would -investigate many reported cases of industrial poisoning, between 600 and -700 accidents to women and girls in laundries and wearing apparel -industries. Contravention notices to occupiers would number 9,000 or -more; prosecutions in 1913 numbered 373 against 142 occupiers. It is -evident that the direct action of the Woman Inspector stretched far -beyond the investigation of specific complaints (of which 2,014 were -received in 1913), or the following up of contraventions serious enough -for prosecution. - -Seeing that over 10,000 workplaces could be inspected by the women -officers in the year, and that in each one the name and address of the -local Senior Lady Inspector was affixed on the abstract of the Acts, a -great deal was gradually done to give the women workers that access to a -Woman Inspector that they so earnestly desire. Much more than is -generally realised was added by the fact that these officers of the -Department systematically sent a letter of advice, instruction, or -caution—as the case required—to the occupier after an inspection, and -that this had incomparably more attention from him than a merely formal -notice of contravention ever had. A large part of the effect of an -inspection is missed when a necessary instruction is given on a form -instead of in a written letter. The latter not only secured, for -example, better fencing and better ventilation, heating, and welfare, -but it also stimulated reflection and aroused a new sympathy for the -aims and objects of the Acts which bore sometimes surprising fruit. -Replies of thanks from the employers asking for more help came in -increasing numbers, and it was very pleasing during the war period to be -told how heads of firms sometimes specially appreciated visits from -married Women Inspectors, who were employed at that time by the -Department in a temporary capacity. The influx, then, of many women -employees, as dilutees or otherwise, into many factories, which had -never previously employed a woman or girl in process work, awakened a -good many employers to the special problems of supervision and welfare -that arise in organising joint industrial employment of men and women, -boys and girls. - -As soon as the number of Women Inspectors grew beyond the small figure -necessary to cope with the appeals and complaints of the women workers -themselves, my own endeavour was to allot their services, as far as -practicable, to the various main women’s industries over the whole -country, in a scale proportioned to the numbers of girls and women -employed. When the statistics of those employed in each trade became -available, one could find the necessary clue. Textiles absorbed over 43 -per cent. of the women and girls, clothing trades over 26·5 per cent., -laundries 5·4 per cent., food preserving 4·6 per cent., warehouses, -calendering, and finishing 2·2 per cent., earthenware and china works -nearly 2 per cent. Other determining factors of course came in, such as -special risks, questions of Truck or piecework wages, excessive seasonal -overtime employment, and so on, but where these, or the women’s own -complaints, did not compel our concentrated attention, relative -allotment of routine inspection was more or less governed by the -proportional extent of women’s employment.[199] - - “While we can see,” I said in 1913, “a great number and variety of - deplorable contraventions of the actual requirements and spirit of the - law and ... apparently preventible suffering and overstrain and injury - to life, limb, and health that is grievous to dwell upon (except for - action in the way of removal), we can see also most clearly signs of - improvement and the promise of much more. The promise lies in the fact - that the movement to secure better conditions is not confined to any - one class or group. The women and girls at last begin to press their - claims for a better life ... not only by increasing appeals to - Inspectors ... but also by criticism of the limitations of the law and - by fresh courage in organising and voicing their needs to the - employers. Employers are initiating reforms not only as outstanding - individuals and firms, but are beginning to do so, at last, by - associated action and effort.”[200] - -Mrs. Drury (Miss Whitworth), formerly an Inspector of Factories working -under a Senior in a division, sends me the following memory sketch of a -characteristic special day—any day that had to be withdrawn from routine -work in order to cope with a variety of miscellaneous claims needing -prompt attention. It might have happened in 1912 or 1913: - - “Many days were very full, all were interesting.... Let me suppose I - was first off to investigate an accident in a laundry. With the - prescribed report from employer and certifying surgeon in my hand, I - knew that a girl of fourteen had had her arm drawn in between the hot - rollers of a collar polishing machine. There was first the examination - of the machinery to see if a proper guard was provided and maintained, - then the examining of workers to find out the usual way in which the - rollers were cleaned, and whether sufficient instruction had been - given by those in authority about use of this dangerous machine; in - short, why the accident had happened and how similar ones could be - prevented. If a serious breach was found it was necessary to take - sufficient evidence in support of possible legal proceedings—a general - inspection of the whole laundry followed and notes would be carefully - made as one went along. Finally, one would see the manager and discuss - each point and instruct as necessary. A visit to the patient followed, - probably in hospital, and her story would be heard. Light was then - thrown on what it is difficult to realise without quietly seeing the - workers alone. Help as to how to set about getting compensation was - often asked for, and the worker could then be referred to the Working - Women’s Legal Advice Bureau. If there was any defect in the machine, - so that risk of accident in cleaning it was high, a visit to the - makers of the machine or their agents might be made, then or later, to - try to persuade them to do their part—an educative proceeding even if - fruit was slow in showing. - - “It would by now be lunch-time, and one learnt to sometimes take the - meal in odd places: it is not to be wondered at that when ‘on leave’ - an Inspector enjoys a nice comfortable meal at home and is not a lover - of picnics. The meal was usually soon over, and timed, perhaps, so as - to be at the police court at 2 p.m. to lay informations against a - firm, before the magistrate, a formal ceremony soon over. The next - thing might be a visit to a large biscuit factory to investigate a - complaint that a certain workroom was hot and unventilated. After - taking the outside temperature I remember going to the manager’s - office, handing in my official card saying I was going at once to the - factory. The representative knew his obligation, and I went straight - to the block complained of.... Before it was time to send in my report - two letters reached the Chief Inspector, one from the employer to say - I had hurried into the factory, without even waiting to announce who I - was, the other from a trade union official to say I had been quite - half an hour talking to the manager in his office, so that, of course, - the workroom was well ventilated by the time I arrived, and my visit - useless. An Inspector has all eyes on her; she may well go about her - work warily and keep her eye on the ball. - - “After such a day’s work I once found a wire waiting for me at home - from my Senior, ‘Meet me Aldgate East Station midnight for overtime - inspection.’ This was thrilling, the Junior Inspector is always ready - for an expedition of that kind ... and I went to the appointed spot. - We then walked to a tailor’s house in a street full of these - workshops, having a borrowed lamp.... I went to the basement with my - lamp, and my Senior went upstairs to an empty dark workroom, then we - met together in the sitting-room, where there was a mass of unfinished - coats and trousers evidently thrown down in a hurry; then in the - bedroom we found, in bed, fully dressed, a little girl of fourteen I - had seen before.... Proceedings followed, but these entailed more - days’ work, for the employer disappeared, and was traced with much - difficulty.... It was 2.30 a.m. before we reached home that night, but - what play could give more insight into some of the ways of man than a - good day’s inspection?” - -Such days and nights of work of a Junior Woman Inspector, working in a -division as part of a well-organised staff under a Senior, show the -unity that lived on in the branch from its earliest years. The chief -difference that came with the years was in getting to closer, more -detailed, grips with the mass of work to be done. Perhaps pioneering -risks became less evident, but initiative in devising methods remained a -strong need, and variety and human interest continued equally present. - -The thoroughness that persisted in investigation of complaints and in -special enquiries is roughly but picturesquely expressed by the remark -of a trade union secretary to a Woman Inspector: “I know you; you belong -to the same lot as Miss ——. I remember when she came down to our place, -long ago, like a ferret in a rat ‘ole, she were.” It was of the same -Inspector that a girl in a factory once said to the deaconess of the -parish, “I am glad when she comes to our factory, she makes me feel so -safe.” - -To another Inspector, a Senior in her office, once came seventy or more -mill girls, in shawls, straight from their mill, bent on redress of a -complaint; twelve came into her room, the rest were on the stairs and -extended down into the street. It was not often so many arrived at once, -but peace of some degree in the factory generally followed on -deputations of this kind. - -When it became known that my work was nearly finished, and retirement -imminent, a trade union organiser came to see me at the Home Office. It -was to bring farewell messages from the workers, and I said how very -much I was touched by such messages when I had personally seen so far -less of them in recent years in the factories than I could have wished. -“They knew you from the Women Inspectors whom they did see,” was the -instant reply. - -“There is nothing you cannot ask and expect of the British worker, man -or woman—they have ability for anything,” an employer said to me in the -year following the War when I talked with him about the women’s wartime -work during his convalescence from severe illness due to overwork on -munitions in his foundry. - -Ability, loyalty, and an understanding heart—what a foundation this -country has, in its workers, led by such employers, on which to build up -beautiful industries in the future! - - - - - CHAPTER VII - THE WAR AND WOMEN SUBSTITUTES; NEW LIGHT ON HOURS, LABOUR-SAVING, - FATIGUE, FOOD, AND EFFICIENCY - - “Lo, strength is of the plain root virtues born: - Strength shall ye gain by service, prove in scorn, - Train by endurance, by devotion shape. - It is the offspring of the modest years.” - - -Those who have had patience to go with me so far, in gathering -illustrations of the conditions under which women worked in factories -down to the eve of the War, and who agree with my conclusions as to the -spirit and character of the women themselves, will perhaps follow on -with me in applying the words of George Meredith to their achievements -in the years from 1914 to the close of 1918. - -Unless one turns back to the very numerous documents, official and -unofficial, relating to women’s industrial war work, it is not easy, at -the close of the year 1921, to recall the full measure of pride -expressed by the nation in what the women did for it in time of need. -Almost immediately after the Armistice all the munition workers poured -out of the factories and the substitute women followed gradually, as the -demobilised men returned to their industrial occupations. A tide of -industrial activity then rose and re-absorbed practically all available -industrial women in their own normal trades. The tide turned suddenly in -June, 1920, and increasing unemployment in 1921 has dimmed the memory of -their achievements. - -Many a non-official observer, unfamiliar with the great extent and -variety of skilled manufacturing work, or with the heaviness and -roughness of much of the less skilled work, done by women and girl -industrial workers before the War, was astounded by the ability with -which women turned to the new kinds of work. “Not only,” said one such -observer, “has the War provided an incentive to women’s work on a scale -never dreamt of in times of peace, it has caused women, more -particularly those engaged in new occupations, to realise as they have -never done before their own capacity.”[201] The old barriers against -their employment on work suited to them and valuable to the community -were, for the time, steadily and firmly removed one after another, and -with surprising rapidity when guidance of State officials was applied to -this removal. Women in the factory realised—some with astonishment—that -they were entitled to high praise, and to hold a new confidence in -themselves through the natural capacity and zeal shown by them; first, -in intensified production in their own old industries[202] of unheard-of -quantities of cloth, articles of equipment, rations, and so on, for the -Army and Navy; secondly (and later), in speeding up the supply of -munitions of war. The emphasis on their merits as industrial war-workers -was greater than had ever been explicitly laid on their ordinary life- -preserving activities as homemakers and mothers. Nevertheless a new -impetus was given, through this enhanced valuation of women, to public -health work for mothers and infants and care of the child—or maternity, -infant and child welfare, as it became customary to call such work. - -To return to women as “substitutes,” a new generation of adolescent -girls had time to come into this form of industrial occupation for -female workers—while the scope of “munitions of war” grew until they -nearly engulfed ordinary peacetime kinds of production. These girls had -never known anything but wartime manufacture. They also had what very -few British girls before them had had under the factory system, -opportunities for training by intensive instruction, and they laid hold -of these opportunities with remarkable power. - -A new version of an old couplet came into my mind on thinking over an -incident in a remote rural district when, one evening in the fourth year -of the War, a friend of mine spoke to a village girl on her way to a -meeting at the lately founded Women’s Institute: - - “‘Where are you going to, my pretty maid?’ - ‘To hear of substitute women,’ she said.” - -The girl spoke as if it were a subject of lively interest to herself, -and one that would of course interest any intelligent human being. -“Women substitutes!” What could anyone have made of such a term before -A.D. 1915? Of butter or leather “substitutes” we had heard, but not of -women “substitutes.” And yet many books were written about them in the -last three years of war. Books that will be studied by historians of the -future seeking to explain the extraordinary growth during a critical -stage of the War—when millions of men had been taken away from the -possibility of production—in the supply of shells and guns to the -waiting artillery batteries; in the inexhaustible production of -aeroplanes; in the fitting and refitting of the Army with its boots, its -razors, its surgical dressings, its millions of tins of preserved -rations, its millions of smoke helmets; and in the gigantic supplies of -the hundreds of other kinds of “munitions” all ceaselessly mounting in -quantity.[203] - -It is impracticable, and it is indeed unnecessary, to re-tell in detail -here the story of the growth in production and in supplies, or to -estimate exactly the share that women and girls took in making the -expansion possible. Those who have not access to the literature can by a -visit to the National War Museum put themselves in possession of the -principal facts. Our concern is with the health conditions and the -attendant circumstances of the women’s employment. It helps, however, to -a true impression to sum up shortly the main stages of their entry into -new forms of work. - -When men first trooped in their hundreds of thousands, voluntarily, to -the colours in 1914, industrial women found their outlet for the same -impulse to serve the nation in intensified and extended work at their -own more or less customary callings. They found it at the sewing -machine, knitting machine, weaving loom, boot-upper stitching machine, -tin-cutting power press, soldering bench, at tinning of meat, fruit and -vegetable preserves for rations, and so on. Even with this added -intensity of their work and the lengthened hours of employment factory -women could do “a bit of knitting for the soldiers and sailors”—so that -some of them could say, “We never seems to get any rest, but if we did -not do it, no one else could.”[204] They had to play an indispensable, -and, in some cases, a predominant part in supplying the Services with -textile materials, clothing, blankets, mattress covers, with various -kinds of bodily equipment, such as haversacks, bandoliers, light -leather, and miscellaneous small metal articles, and with tents, and all -kinds of general equipment, some time before their share in the -production of “munitions of war” in the form of ordnance, ammunition, -aircraft, chemicals, etc., was even thought of. And claims for women’s -aid in the general service of the home community, in transport, -distribution, clerical and commercial work, were strongly pressed before -the great part they were to play (chiefly by aid of dilution of labour) -in engineering and the larger metal trades came in sight. - -A second phase in the industrial wartime employment of women came with -the first thoughts of the “substitution” of women to release men for -military service in the less essential manufacturing industries, next in -industries essential for national needs, and in those where important -export trade could (it was then believed) be developed or maintained. - -At the request of the Army Council, the Home Office and Board of Trade -began a series of conferences with associations of employers and workers -to consider what reorganisation of work might be necessary to free as -many men as possible. This work, requiring some diplomacy, was largely -under the guidance of Factory Inspectors, men and women, and it was -necessary to negotiate temporary suspensions of recognised trade union -rules, at the same time providing safe and suitable conditions for the -women employed in processes that were new to them, and heretofore -arranged to suit men’s different ways of working. Agreements were -secured in a number of trades, including hosiery and other textiles, -boot and shoe manufacture, leather tanning, woodworking, baking, -earthenware and china manufacture, printing, and glove making.[205] -These agreements aimed both at preventing misunderstandings and -dislocations at a critical time, and at getting security for future -maintenance of the established standard of the life of industrial -workers. - -Orders, known as “Emergency Orders,”[206] were made by the Home Office, -allowing relaxations of the law relating to hours and times of work of -women and young persons, both in munitions and non-munitions industries, -to meet the exceptional circumstances of the time. Certain fresh -safeguards for health or safety were embodied in these Orders, of which -foremost was an obligation laid on the employer to provide means for -preparing and taking meals at the works, and next supervision by -competent women to maintain good conditions. - -There were certain large and heavy trades where no agreements between -employers and workers could be arranged owing to lack of organisation on -one side or the other, either of employers or of workers, and here the -Inspectors closely guided the course of replacement of men and -substitution of women—_e.g._, in flour milling, rubber manufacture, oil -and seed crushing, soap making, sugar refining, paper making, cement -making, and in gasworks. In all these “non-munition” industries—which -tended more and more to provide material of war, and thus to become -technically “munitions” as the War progressed—they advised employers on -the necessary modification and reorganisation of processes, as well as -on good conditions for production. In the factories, where women had not -before been employed in process work, a noticeable solicitude was -frequently shown by the employers and managers for protection of the -health and safety of the women, and all paid tribute to their -adaptability and natural quickness, as well as to their fine spirit. - -It was in a large shell factory, early in 1915, before the immense -development of the Ministry of Munitions, that a foreman said to me as -we stood watching the then novel and arresting sight of numerous women -and girls intent upon their work at lathes, “There is more in this than -people think; women have been too much kept back.” Several Inspectors -said that the cotton workers, set free by unemployment in their own -great trade, particularly enjoyed their new work in shell making, and -found it less heavy, and conditions better, than in the textile -factories. Munition factories in Birmingham profited early in 1915 by a -temporary depression in the Staffordshire Potteries, receiving -contingents of intelligent women from gilding and painting shops—high- -grade labour—for the new work. In Lancashire one heard of young women -proud to have learnt how to grind tools and set machines. In wire- -drawing and engineering trades an Inspector said it was remarkable, -considering the half-heartedness of the initial experiment of employing -women, how general was the satisfaction over its success. It was an -everyday occurrence to be told frankly by foremen that “the women are -doing very well indeed, much better than I ever thought they could.” - -Then came the third and, technically, the greatest experiment in women’s -employment during the War, under the organisation of the Ministry of -Munitions—their concentration on engineering and munitions supplies with -much dilution and with highly specialised training in processes. It was -this stage that led not only to the immense additional power in -repetitive production, but also to the discovery in engineering, by -enthusiastic “dilution” officers, of certain processes requiring manual -dexterity and delicacy of touch, in which women could do better than -men, and some even which women alone could do.[207] This phase can only -be fairly studied in published documents, catalogues, and illustrations -issued by the Ministry of Munitions, and at the National War Museum. It -was under the Ministry of Munitions that the first systematic attempt -was made to superimpose personal conditions of welfare—an essential for -good output—on the general hygiene of environment in the factory already -required by the Factory Act. And one of the earliest steps taken by Mr. -Seebohm Rowntree, the Director of Welfare, appointed in the close of -1915 for “controlled” munition factories, was to obtain through me from -my staff of Women Inspectors a detailed survey of conditions actually -obtaining in each large “controlled” and national factory, with our -recommendations on the arrangements desirable for the welfare of the -women and girls.[208] This work was carried out in 1916 and 1917, and it -is touched on in my next and last chapter. - -The fourth and final new experience for industrial women, during the -War, came with the urgent need in 1917 and 1918 of trying to substitute -them for men, not only in process work that was likely to be suitable -for them, but also in many processes and manual work heavier than had -yet been attempted—for example, in the forging of bullet-proof plates, -in driving overhead cranes, in certain heavy foundry processes, in a few -operations in shipbuilding yards, in retort-house work, in internal -scaling of boilers, in ferro-concrete pile making, and in new varieties -of heavy labouring work. None of these (surviving the experimental -stages),[209] except possibly scaling of boilers, appear to be heavier -or more laborious, however, than work done long years before by women in -tinplate works, in fireproof brick works, in timber yards, or -galvanising works; and certainly none surpassed in dirt or -disagreeableness the old work of women in such processes as gut -scraping, rag sorting, or “breeze sifting.” - -It was chiefly in these last two years of the War that development of -women’s employment took place in chemical works, heavy metal works, and -in gasworks. Some really interesting developments took place. In forge -work—for example, in one factory making heavy tank parts—the whole of -the process work was done by women, numbering 300; men, numbering six, -being employed solely in keeping machines in running order. “The women -work the furnaces, moulding presses, and do the grinding, besides -trolleying, stacking, loading on to wagons, and women ‘chemists’ also -take the temperatures.”[210] Here close investigation (made by one of -the “first-aid” Inspectors) showed that there were no signs of serious -injury amongst the women. The same conclusion was reached by her as -regards women drivers of large overhead cranes—a dangerous occupation, -however, in which some women met with fatal accidents. A cement works in -Scotland was run almost entirely by women’s labour, and their employment -in this heavy work had been made successful by the aid of mechanical -appliances, the only men being rotary kiln men—doing very heavy and hot -work, needing considerable training—besides foremen and engineers. At a -large steel works in Yorkshire, where the managers were of opinion in -1916 that women would be useless to them, there were, in 1917, 300 -employed to their satisfaction in yard work, painting, labelling, and -crane driving. “Loading and unloading of ore is heavy, and can only be -done by the women without injury if they take the work slowly and -quietly.”[211] Inspectors found that some women, either from the natural -but dangerous desire to show their strength or to get through their work -quickly, lifted weights far too heavy for them. A foreman, however, in -charge of construction work at a blast furnace who had trained women -under him, “spoke exceedingly highly of them, and said he would be -willing to undertake any ferro-concrete work with women only.” They had -made over 1,000 piles 31 feet in length; they were bending and preparing -all the steelwork used in the construction of the wharf, bridges, etc.; -they worked the stone-crushing machines and concrete mixer, stacked the -piles when made, and discharged stone, iron, etc., from railway trucks. -Managers of gasworks expressed surprise at the good class of women found -willing to undertake this hot, heavy, and rather dirty work. In the -severe winter of 1916–17, when women were first being tried in heavy -processes in gasworks, a manager, praising their grit and pluck, said, -“If they stick this, they will stick anything.” - -In such places good protective clothing and specially adapted -implements, such as light barrows and shovels, automatic weight-lifting -appliances, and other labour and fatigue-saving plant and machinery, -played an immensely important part in enabling the women to do the work. -Inspectors unanimously held that at no time had legislative protection -for women, and competent inspection, been more needed than in these -final years of the War, when women were eagerly pressing into processes -and heavy labour of a kind new to them. There was generally an ample -supply of women available, and the only places where one heard of -shortage were in some of their old factory occupations, where conditions -often remained at a lower level than in the new occupations, and where -wages did not rise until later to meet the increased cost of living. - -In 1917 and 1918 also, some marked development of women’s employment -took place in relatively light processes, both skilled and semi-skilled, -in certain non-munition industries, which were perfectly suited to their -physical ability, and for which some intensive training was open to them -in technical colleges. The most interesting examples, I think, were -scientific instrument making, in which industry, by March, 1918, -substitution of women had become general in some processes and frequent -in others; and in leather-case making and fancy leather work. Especially -in the former of these industries new openings appeared for women as -works’ chemists or in laboratory research at the factory, as well as in -the manufacture of glass prisms, lenses, thermometers, and many metal -processes. As regards the future, the Home Office Memorandum on -Substitution of Women declared in 1919 that there were “good prospects -for women in this industry.”[212] Early in 1920, however, “the steady -withdrawal of women from employment in men’s industries that began after -the Armistice was almost completed.” And I was obliged to conclude at -the end of the year that there was “as yet no fulfilment of the -expectations that after the War a body of industries and operations -offering a hopeful field of fresh employment would be open to women -where their War experience could be turned to account. On the contrary, -an automatically operating force has closed all these expected new -avenues.”[213] - -As the number of Men Inspectors decreased during the early part of the -War, through claims of military duty and other national service where -their technical knowledge and experience was invaluable, the number of -Women Inspectors gradually increased, but only to a total of thirty. -Much of the almost incredible amount of work they managed to get through -was done by conference with, and information and advice to, other bodies -of workers—the Women Welfare Officers and Dilution Officers of the -Ministry of Munitions, the Superintendents of Women’s Labour in munition -works, and the Local Advisory Committees (under the Ministry of Labour), -concerned with the welfare outside the factories of the immense -aggregations of workers who were drawn away from their homes into great -centres for production of munitions of war. Some of them served also on -various Central Committees, of which the two foremost were the Health of -Munition Workers Committee and the Women’s Employment Committee under -the Ministry of Reconstruction. When the Ministry of National Service -was set up, the main lines of the great task of fitting substitute women -into men’s industrial work were already planned, and much of the -substitution was already carried into effect under the guidance of the -whole Factory Inspectorate in co-operation with the Employment -Department, Ministry of Labour; and when several of the Men Inspectors -were “seconded” to the Ministry of National Service the work continued -by co-operation between the Departments. - -Much had to be done in bringing factories, and whole industries, up to -the same standard in making the necessary substitution. In some -factories the advance was more rapid than in others—far more reliance -being shown in putting women into positions of real responsibility. For -example, in only one malting house was it found that a forewoman was in -complete charge of the women’s work, with technical responsibility for -regulating the temperature of the kiln and judging the right time for -“turning” the floors. And in an exceptional fruit-preserving factory -output was doubled and engineers’ repairs reduced by half for the -season, when a forewoman was put in complete control, a control which -included not only the jam-making department, but also the maintenance in -good working order of machinery, boiler, and engine.[214] - -Inspectors sometimes expressed disappointment at the limited confidence -shown by employers in substituting women in the higher posts of -industry, but enough was done to “suggest a fair promise of future -development of women’s natural aptitude for organising.” The difficulty -lay even more in that direction than in process work, through lack of -sufficient opportunity for women to obtain broad and sound technical -training in the short time available. In large munition works, however, -in two ways useful examples were given of technical control by women; -women “charge-hands,” having gone through intensive training in -processes, controlled the operations of small groups of workers, -sometimes men and boys as well as women and girls; and in the work of -Women Welfare Superintendents there was a tendency to develop their -responsibility in the direction of carrying out some of the functions of -a manager.[215] - -Although a large number of women came for the first time, from domestic -work and from home life, into industry during the years of strongest -demand for substitutes and munition workers,[216] a considerable -proportion of the increase in these two classes came from the return to -the factories of former industrial workers, and by their transfer from -the less essential trades. The highest proportion of those entering from -domestic work or home life was usually found in factories situated in -localities where other industries were not present. For example, in two -chemical works in the country it was found that half the women came from -home life, one-quarter from domestic service, and the remainder from -other factories. In a Manchester flour mill one-third came from home -life, a few from domestic service, and many from miscellaneous -factories. - -It was in such places as these, where the substitute women were -unfamiliar with factory life and with the safeguards provided by Factory -Acts and Orders, that protection by a trained Inspectorate was found to -be most needed. Two points of considerable interest came out in the -complaints from women themselves. In the years 1914–15, when long and -exceptional hours (whether entirely illegal or else sanctioned by -Emergency Orders) were at their highest point, the women worked -willingly; and they complained only rarely and in extreme cases. On the -whole, there was a great proportionate rise, on the other hand, in the -complaints relating to matters of sanitation and safety, 63·1 per cent. -of the whole in 1917, as compared with 47·3 per cent. in 1913. - -The working of excessive and irregular hours, a natural outcome of the -confused haste for enormous production at the beginning of the War, -seemed to bring new light to many employers on the uselessness of long -hours and long, unbroken spells for continued large output, however -great the generally prevalent willingness of the workers to help to -their utmost. Already before the War, as we have seen in Chapter II., it -was a commonplace in Inspectors’ reports that the strain of the legal -twelve-hours’ day of absence from home[217] was too great, having regard -to the home duties of most women, who had frequently also a long -distance to travel to and from work. In the first year of the War the -Inspectors showed that the main resistance to excessive overtime came -more from the employers’ side (in spite of exceptions among them) than -from the workers. In a Crown factory the experience was “that any -lengthening of the day, beyond 6 p.m. and a total of eight and a half -hours’ work daily, exhausts the workers, and is of no advantage in -increasing output.... A well-known wholesale clothier employing a -thousand women on Government contracts gave it as his well-considered -opinion that the full period allowed under the Factory Act ... is -sufficient, and any work beyond this is useless: it exhausts the workers -and does not pay.... The manager of a powder-bag factory ... found, -after some weeks’ experience, that the pieceworkers were making less -during overtime than during the normal period of employment.... A -cardboard box manufacturer told me he had put his workers on shorter -hours only to find that their output and earnings were equal to those on -the full factory day.”[218] The interesting and very valuable researches -made by scientific investigators for the Health of Munition Workers -Committee and for the Home Office regarding fatigue, did but amplify and -give scientific confirmation to the commonsense reasonings and -conclusions of many manufacturers about hours of work. Nevertheless, at -the beginning of the wartime pressure, it was clear that some deviation -from the fixed Factory Act limits was necessary to counterbalance delays -in getting out contracts, dislocations in movement of supplies of -materials, and other interferences with a continuous run of work in -making up articles. The Emergency Orders granted to numerous individual -firms at the beginning were unquestionably necessary. Later, as -experience grew, it was possible to standardise these for whole -industries and groups of industries, greatly to reduce night work and -overtime, nearly to abolish Sunday work, and ultimately to prohibit the -night work for young girls under sixteen and for boys under fourteen -years, that had been temporarily permitted at the outset of the national -emergency. The new evidence gathered by scientific investigators gave -increased strength to older humanitarian arguments, as well as fresh -point to the conclusions of certain practical managers that excessive -hours without regular intervals defeat their purpose of speeding up -production. The experiments that were made, under Home Office orders in -various shift systems,[219] showed how increased output might, in times -of pressure, be obtained from limited plant and machines without -exceeding the working powers of the delicate “human machine.” The -finding of the Health of Munition Workers Committee in 1915, that the -strain of long hours had not, so far, “caused any serious breakdown -among workers, though many statements indicative of fatigue had been -received,” was confirmed by reports of Factory Inspectors coming from -all parts of the country. No marked increase in sickness rates could be -found, yet among foremen and managers, who were less able than workers -to take time off, and among individual older men and women, there were -cases where health certainly suffered from the strain. After the War was -over an experienced Welfare Superintendent told me of great lassitude -amongst girls under her care, and she said that it had been necessary to -send a high proportion of them to holiday homes before they quite -recovered their natural elasticity and capacity for a full ordinary -day’s work. - -Women’s weekly and daily totals in the stress of the earlier years of -War, long and fatiguing as they were, rarely rose (apart from special -aberrations which successful prosecutions did much to check) to the -extremes too commonly reached by men munition workers. Forewomen and -women superintendents were more often employed in the later than the -earlier years, and thus were spared some of the excessive overstrain -that at first fell on foremen and managers. In factories where the long -double twelve-hour shift system with alternate weeks of night and day -work for each shift obtained, evidence of absenteeism and poor -timekeeping made it highly probable that accumulating fatigue and -overstrain had been partly averted by the natural tendency of the -workers to take an occasional day or halfday off. It was truly -fortunate, however, for the ultimate health of the people that as -strictness of discipline, in controlled factories, in enforcing regular -attendance of the worker under penalty grew, some reasonable -standardisation of shift systems and considerable development of -canteens and other welfare arrangements had been secured. - -By the end of 1917 it was evident that for whatever reason, probably -through better wages, providing much better food than formerly, and -through increased personal care of the workers in the factories, -sickness among the women was not increasing, but rather -diminishing.[220] The evidence given before the Health of Munition -Workers Committee was that sickness benefit was lessening, and I learned -by special enquiry that an almoner’s records in a large general hospital -in a great munition area showed that as few as thirty women and girl -munition workers had attended as out-patients in six months. - -Even though much detail as regards the best daily and weekly period and -spells of hours remains to be worked out by practical experimentation -for different types of factory work with differing kinds and degrees of -effort and strain involved, the large-scale demonstrations regarding -conditions and output in wartime have both added to our knowledge and -also popularly spread that knowledge. It may be doubted whether the full -potential strength of the social motive in industry—the sentiment of -national service—has been at all fairly grasped in its bearing on true -success in industrial production. Yet the leaven is there, its workings -can be seen, and it is the one unalloyed gain that came from the -stupendous and terrible effort of production for “munitions of war.” The -new lights that this effort brought on the dependence of good output and -efficiency on right adjustment of hours, labour-saving appliances, -fatigue prevention, food, have but a limited value for the commonwealth -if the aims of industry continue to be “merely material production of -wealth and things unrelated to spiritual values” or social ends.[221] -Women’s extended entry into industry from 1915 to 1918 did indeed bring -social considerations into the conditions of work, and some of these -things remain. Yet they can hardly last if they do not lead to “the -ordering, the comforting, and the beautiful adornment of the State” in -its organised industrial capacity. - -During the time of the greatest zeal for introduction of women as -“substitutes” into men’s industries, and well on into 1919, it seemed -almost at times to be forgotten how essentially noneconomic and -temporary both basis and framework of the introduction were. Except as -regards some extensions within women’s own traditional industries, women -were in reality in these new places simply as “substitutes,” and, in -nearly all, under a solemn covenant that it was solely for the duration -of the War. An entirely new peacetime departure is needed for -application of women’s freshly proven powers to new industrial -developments. In the future women will surely attain their better -industrial status not as “substitutes,” not as secondary men, but in -their own fields (with aid of better training), and also in other -carefully chosen fields, as joint labourers with men. The War emphasised -a very true and natural interchangeability of men and women for many -emergencies. The new “Science of Labour” has perhaps come at the very -time of most need, with insistence on the essential complementariness of -the industrial aptitudes of men and women.[222] There at least—in -industrial labour—their complete fusion would mean an economic and -social loss. - -While the hopeful expansion in industry following very soon after the -War lasted, there was a remarkable, though temporary, re-absorption of -women into their own former occupations. They took with them certain -great gains from their recent experiences. They brought into their old -industrial environment new ideas of fellowship as well as knowledge of -fresh processes and of better rates of pay; they brought strengthened -capacity for trade union organisation as well as new ideas of the value -of intensive training. Not least, they brought a new demand for better -means at the works of preparing and taking sufficient food, which is the -material foundation of all efficient labour. - -We may here sum up the possible permanent gains to industry as well as -to women themselves, brought from their wartime experiences in -factories, ready for the time when expansion of trade again begins. - -It has been seen that in many ways women have far greater powers of -endurance, activity, and enterprise—quite apart from new forms of skill— -than was formerly admitted or expected of them. We know that they gain -in health by fresh kinds of outdoor and labouring work not previously -customary for them. We have seen conclusive evidence of their capacity -to quickly become proficient at engineering tasks—with the aid of semi- -automatic machinery that is often intricate—and of their powers of -sustained interest in such work under great pressure for output. - -The enquiries and valuable memoranda of the Health of Munition Workers -Committee[223] brought out, more completely than any previous official -reports had done, the practical importance of selective care in setting -women and young workers on to work, as well as the need for the improved -personal conditions and skilled supervision by women, that are -considered in the next chapter. - -In addition to the gain of a higher standard in women’s own expectation -as regards their conditions, there is a new atmosphere in the factories, -traceable to the women’s increased self-reliance engendered by the -appreciation that has been expressed for their work and capacity. No one -can realise this more thoroughly than Women Factory Inspectors, meeting -it as they do on the spot, and there comparing past and present. In a -factory where formerly a woman worker would not have disclosed the fact -that she belonged to a trade union, there is a woman shop steward ready -to come forward and show the Inspector round, the manager expecting her -to do so.[224] - -There is a new outlook on the possibility of applying science as well as -humanitarian motives to use and care of labour. To no workers is this -more important than to women, with the dual claims on them of home cares -and breadwinning. The studies of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board -have a special significance in their application to women in industry. - -Another gain from War experiences peculiarly affecting women—although it -has also a much wider bearing—is the very considerable testing of the -practical value of well-designed appliances, adapted machinery and -lifting tackle, for saving human labour, quite apart from its power to -lessen cost of production. The aim of lessening human toil for its own -sake, not merely for commercial reasons, has a new interest. - -Before the War there was for women and girls in industry, outside one or -two ancient skilled occupations (such as weaving, high-class -dressmaking), so little arrangement for training that it was negligible. -During the War, by special organisation of training for women -substitutes and dilutees in technical schools and colleges and in -instructional factories, women’s technical and personal capacity was -publicly measured. And for the first time national resources were -applied, under the kind of direction that suited women, to adaptation of -the means of technical training in process work to the results best -obtainable from them. At last, there was a demonstration on a scale -sufficiently large to make the truth incontrovertible, that women -workers are not necessarily the less valuable for production to meet the -nation’s daily need because their pace and natural ways of working -differ from those suited to men. - -And with all these new lights came also the political enfranchisement of -women, which enables them to survey with new eyes the too passive and -subordinate position that they have in the main hitherto held in -industry. Though from time to time a set-back may occur, they are surely -summoned to take their full share in the building up of a better -industrial life for the people—as fellow-producers with men, but with -their “other” point of view as guardians of the home. - - - - - CHAPTER VIII -FACTORY WELFARE AND ITS RECOGNITION BY PARLIAMENT; WORKS’ COMMITTEES AND - WELFARE MANAGEMENT - - “The sweat of industry would dry and dye but for the end it workes - too.” - - -“The sweat of industry!” It was in a factory where excessively hot, -heavy, and humid work, in which women bore their share, was carried on -that a foreman once said to a Woman Factory Inspector: “We are told that -man should earn his bread in the sweat of his brow, but here we earn it -in the sweat of the whole body.” The saying implied a sense of the need -of a new standard of control. It is with a new social way of control -that this final chapter is concerned, and we were only at the beginning -of seeing what it might achieve when the period covered by this book -closes. - -Labour of a sustained kind, bodily or mental, is, as it always has been, -the lot of the greater part of civilised mankind, and on the wealth it -produces depends the possibility of any means of ordinary welfare for -the community. Since the dawn of history energy, and the sustained -capacity for the essentially human function of work,[225] have been the -test of racial quality, and the power of a people to survive and develop -has depended on power in some measure to socialise the use of that -function. And yet, until the idea lately arose of analysing the -psychological and physiological capacity of the human agent in industry, -and of studying the rhythm of fatigue and rest, custom and instinct were -the main, and sometimes the only, safeguards of the natural pleasure of -exercising this function. Among the great majority of consumers of -articles produced by the factory system there was, even more fixedly -than among employers, a blind acceptance of the fact that: - - “... for them many a weary hand did swelt, - In torched mines and noisy factories....” - -They had little means of knowing definitely, however, what it all -involved, and it was a great encouragement to the Inspectors to see, as -the facts came out gradually, through the publication of Annual Reports -of the Chief Inspector and of police court proceedings, the growth of -various societies for the help of the workers. - -The overstrain, the overloading, and occasionally the misuse of the -delicate human motor that has persistently characterised much of our -factory production even by young workers, can, in some measure, be -gathered from facts touched on in Chapter IV. The frequent lack of -simple conditions and appliances conducive to energy and preventive of -unnecessary onset of fatigue has been seen in Chapter II. And yet, in -spite of all, the marvellous capacity for much contentment, sometimes -even joy, in work never perished. “Weaving is a wonderful art, you are -never done learning,” was a saying, expressing the enlightening power of -thought, by a Yorkshire textile trade unionist, but the pride with which -a woman weaver will inform you that she has been reckoned “a champion -weaver” tells the same tale of the power that the exercise of skill in -the old trades had over workers’ minds (and thus over their bodies). And -the spirit appears in far humbler workers, sometimes on apparently -monotonous work; even more strikingly did it appear in the new processes -opened up for women in the War. - -That “created man is made to create, from the poet to the potter”[226] -is an idea that in some degree, however inadequately, has always been -implicitly accepted for men with their special aptitudes in exercise of -energy. As for women with their dual service in social life, in the home -as well as in productive work, realisation of the essential part that -they played in industry was slow in coming, even after the development -in the early part of the nineteenth century of textile industries on a -great scale by aid of women and children. It needed the second great -“industrial revolution,” referred to in the last chapter, to make it -plain to the whole community that a great deal of women’s pre-War -industrial work was either more skilled or heavier than had yet been -generally admitted, and that, whether skilled or heavy, it was -indispensable to the success and welfare of the trades into which it -entered. During that testing time the share that women workers held in -the racial reserve endowments of endurance, adaptability, and capacity -for labour also came out clearly. - -While it was the unprecedented part played by massed factory production -in the Great War that brought the essentially social service rendered by -industrial labour into public recognition, it was the prominence of -women’s share in it that finally made legal provision for “welfare” -possible. - -The injurious manner and extent of employment of children in the -beginning of the factory system had, as we have seen,[227] first made -possible any effective Parliamentary intervention to secure elementary -conditions of health and safety in factories and workshops. The -experience and its lessons were not forgotten, and it was almost common -ground between employers and the State in 1916 that rapidly extended -employment of women and girls must be accompanied with measures for -their welfare and safety to prevent injurious consequences for society. - -Voluntary welfare, with here and there a little co-operation from -science, had grown up into a conscious “movement” in industrial life in -our country during the twenty years preceding the War. In its principles -it differed little from those of which Robert Owen reminded his fellow- -manufacturers in 1813 when he showed them that, just as power-driven -machinery was improved by being carefully tended, kept clean, and well -lubricated, so the far more delicate living human motor could be -benefited if carefully studied and well cared for. Yet the only possible -basis on which the movement could grow vigorously in such a factory -system as that of the nineteenth century was first laid when State -administration began effectually to enforce on all employers alike -national standards in hours, health, safety, defence against industrial -diseases, and finally against sweated wages. - -Those reformers and administrators who wrought ceaselessly between 1892 -and 1914 to give effect to new safeguards of health in the factory -surroundings of the worker were laying foundations, better than they -knew, for social aims in factory administration. The Women Inspectors, -indeed, as we have seen, had persistently invited employers to pass on -from hygiene in the factory to better care of the welfare of the -workers, but they never doubted that completion of the former was the -indispensable groundwork of voluntary welfare. - -A new stage and a new opportunity for the factory system in Great -Britain began when, in 1916, Parliament first made provision for -“securing the welfare of the workers,”[228] and when (almost at the same -moment) statesmen and administrators called for the aid, in many ways, -of joint industrial councils of employers and workers who could follow -up welfare provisions and help to make them correspond to the needs of -the workers. The legal provision by itself could carry “welfare” only a -little way: development of the means of co-operation between workers and -employers, and between both of them and the Factory Inspectors and -scientific investigators, was an indispensable adjunct in this new -enterprise. The very unrest and suspicion that met some of the first -systematic attempts of managers at welfare supervision, in controlled -munition factories lacking representative works’ committees, made that -plain. - -The legal provisions in the Act of 1916 were framed, of course, for the -welfare of both men and women workers, but it was the large-scale -introduction of women substitutes and dilutees into men’s trades, and -their migration by tens of thousands to centres of munitions production, -that, in fact, had made the starting-point for the new socialising -measure. And so, at last, in factory production we had come full circle, -and “the guiding ideas of women in regard to conditions essential for a -good industrial life of both men and women” could begin to influence -industrial life, openly and unofficially, as well as through Inspectors -and a few enlightened employers. Scientific aid from many investigators -could also be brought to bear effectively on the task of civilising -working conditions when a true social structure in factory production -had once begun. - -In England, work of a scientific kind for the reform of the factory -system had been hitherto occupied chiefly in the directions shown in the -chapter on dangerous processes. From the Continent of Europe[229] came -the earliest direct researches of physiologists and psychologists into -causes and prevention of industrial fatigue and into the possibilities -of vocational selection of workers; while from America came “motion -study” and the work of the efficiency expert. True to the humanitarian -bent as a whole of her factory legislation, it was Great Britain that -first planned a statutory basis for promoting the welfare of industrial -workers. It is open to one to wonder whether this factor was not -decisive in leading to the great place given in the Peace Treaty to -constructive work by the League of Nations for the social welfare of -labour. - -Before attempting to sketch the legal and administrative position in -promotion of the welfare of the factory worker in Great Britain between -1916 and 1921, the completing of the outline of the story told in this -book requires a backward glance at some of the experiences of the -Inspectors while voluntary welfare grew up. Without the pioneer work of -employers by works’ welfare committees and other agencies encouraged by -the sympathy and advice of the Inspectors, and without the long -succession of Inspectors’ Reports recording that work, the legislative -step would have been difficult if not impracticable. - -We can neither here treat the subject of factory welfare systematically, -nor attempt to cover ground now being gradually covered by textbooks and -pamphlets. We are concerned simply with the voluntary growth of -attention to the matter before 1916 in an economic system that was built -up on a theory adverse to its implications, and with the immediate -outcome of the new legal experiment.[230] When the great pressure came -for munitions and all the indispensable commodities in the field of war, -the voluntary movement had gained so much experience that it was -possible to make strikingly rapid application of measures and means for -canteens, first-aid and ambulance work, cloakrooms and washing -conveniences, suitable protective clothing for very varied processes, -rest rooms, recreation for the large new aggregations of workers in -crowded centres, some trained welfare supervision—in fact, for all the -specific subjects that were included in Section 7 of the Act of 1916 as -primâ faciê necessary to the health and welfare of the workers. -Selection of workers for particular types of operations and some -increased care for prevention of unnecessary fatigue naturally followed. -The scattered efforts and examples, all over the country and in every -kind of industry, were rapidly wrought up into an officially guided -movement by the combined efforts of Departments concerned, under the -Home Office, the Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of Labour, and -last, but not least, by the Canteen Committee of the Board of Control -(Liquor Traffic), and by the non-executive Committee above-mentioned, -the Health of Munitions Workers Committee, with all its important -published memoranda. - -Before all else in the welfare movement it was the work for canteens, -for access by the hard-pressed munition workers to something like -adequate food decently cooked and conveniently served, that was the -decisive factor in enabling them to sustain their intense fatigue. The -great need in many places for tolerable means of preparing and taking -food at or near the works had been the earliest and most strongly -expressed of all the demands of the woman worker for elementary means of -welfare. For years the most frequent of the complaints I had to classify -in my annual reports as “outside the Acts” was that messrooms (or food -and drinking water) were not accessible or not well maintained; and many -workers found it hard to understand or believe that the law did not -intervene in this matter except where dangerous processes came under -special regulations or where poisonous materials were handled. - -The success of the movement for canteens in those years of war strain -has effected a completely changed outlook on the question in the -factories themselves, that makes the past conditions remembered by the -Factory Inspectors—especially between the years from 1893 to 1903—seem -now well nigh incredible. For no workers was this change more greatly -needed than for the poorly fed women and girl workers. The first time, -however, that I specifically used the word “welfare” in an annual report -in connection with lack of means for the personal well-being of the -workers was, not as regards either food or rest, but as regards the -incomprehensible general failure to supply means of maintaining personal -cleanliness, which came especially to the front in 1899 in the early -pressure of preparing soldiers’ rations in another war. The failure to -include the matter in the English Factory Acts was the more difficult to -understand when one saw how carefully access to washing conveniences was -provided for in French and German codes. “Employers,” I said, “who have -sufficient ... interest in such matters to make the experiment, quickly -find their profit in provision for the welfare of their work-women, in -particular those which tend to raise the whole standard of self-respect -among them.” And again: “The need for washing appliances, increasingly -felt among the women and girls, has a moral and social value as well as -a strictly hygienic aspect. It is a matter for surprise how frequently -the effort is made in the most unlikely and difficult circumstances by -working women to turn homeward with a neat and cleanly appearance.”[231] -On the moral and social side, the right and claim of the woman worker to -have her conditions of work supervised by competent women appeared to -the Woman Inspector, from the outset, the only effective remedy for many -kinds of complaints that, like the lack of canteens, were “outside the -Acts.” - -And trained women’s superintendence was also conceded during the Great -War, not only in the controlled and national factories, but in the -factories where the Home Office granted exceptional hours under an -Emergency Order or urged the substitution of women to secure the release -of men. It was contended by a workers’ delegate, in 1917, at an inter- -city conference in Sheffield of local advisory committees, that -“welfare” is an ethical and spiritual matter more than it is a material -one; she was sure that working women would always press for the former -elements. However strongly one sees that both material and spiritual or -ethical elements are inherent in the very meaning of “welfare,”[232] one -must pay tribute to the prominence of the latter element in the -complaints from factory womanhood. - -In 1900 I was able to quote, from the Inspectors, testimony to the -growth of instances of welfare supervision in factories, where women of -intelligence, refinement, and kindliness are placed as superintendents -or forewomen and exercise a wonderful influence for good over the -workers whom they control.[233] At the same time instances were shown of -very great need for such control, and in various subsequent years it -appeared that it was frequently from such places that serious complaints -came. In great food-producing, sugar, confectionery, and other -factories, the names of manufacturers of world-fame are well known as -pioneers in this movement, but in the older and greater textile -industries employers were slower in taking a definite share in it. When, -in 1907, some striking examples were given of introduction into large -textile mills of _trained_ women superintendents (the first note of a -professional stamp in such appointments), the aim was specifically given -as “an experiment ... to bring about a higher standard of civilisation.” -The manager explained that he was of the opinion that “a woman’s -influence was needed in his mill and that he proposed to appoint a woman -whose duty it would be to supervise health conditions ... ventilation, -temperature, humidity, cleanliness, the registration of all Home Office -requirements, the passing of the children by the certifying surgeon, the -supervision of dining-room and catering arrangements, and occasional -visiting of cases of distress.” A doctor was also appointed, -arrangements were made for special access of the children to public -baths, for good meals for the half-timers; and various other amenities -followed.[234] It was frequently the motive of improving the standard of -health that caused thoughtful employers to embark on these schemes, and -always in such cases efforts were made to provide access to wholesome -food at prices within the reach of the workers. The other side of the -picture may be seen in the following words from Miss Whitworth in the -same year: - - “Young girls of fourteen frequently go to work with only three- - halfpence or twopence with which to provide their dinner in Poplar and - Hackney; this kind of worker is greatly in need of some place like the - ‘Welcome Institute’ (Isle of Dogs), where she can get a proper meal - for that price. Although some employers have dining-rooms provided - with ovens and women employed to cater for the workers, there are - places where the girls have not even seats that they can use in the - mealtime, and they take their food sitting on the floor, in paper- - sorting works, in laundries, in rope works, and others; cloakrooms are - almost unknown. One finds hats and coats bundled together in passages, - under tables, and along the walls of workrooms and anywhere except in - properly warmed cloakrooms. When girls come a long way to work they do - need to have somewhere to dry their clothes and boots on wet - mornings.”[235] - -For years, and perhaps most pressingly from 1906 to 1913, the Inspectors -had emphasised the importance of these and allied matters, and the -urgent need for reform. Their communications, as far back as 1902, -aroused outside sympathies as well as the attention of employers: the -Christian Social Union Research Committee made independent enquiry into -it, and this stimulated among various social workers a movement for -opening simple dining-rooms in localities where there were many -workgirls employed in factories or workshops far from their homes, and -in these some of the help and comfort of a club was provided. The evils -of lack of any care, supervision, or comfort at mealtime pauses was -strikingly obvious where workers were legally bound to be excluded from -workrooms during mealtimes because of the presence of dust, acid, or -other matter in the manufacture, making the place unsuited for the -consumption of food. - -It would take too long to quote from records of our earlier work in this -connection. The evil was sufficiently brought out through the enquiry in -1911 (already referred to) by Miss Whitlock, M.B., into dusty processes -in the Midlands. She said then: - - “Absence of a messroom or of proper washing accommodation was the rule - in the Sheffield buffing shops, and quite common in the Birmingham - ones. The rule forbidding the taking of meals in these shops was - absolutely neglected, and the conditions under which the women ate - their meals were sometimes appalling. In combined asbestos and rubber - works, where the dust of some rooms and the naphtha fumes in others - might certainly suggest the desirability of a messroom, this was not - infrequently wanting. It is, of course, quite common to find wet - spinning rooms with numbers of workers sitting on cloths on the wet - floor to take their dinner—and upturned tins in carding rooms—because - seats or tables for the occasion, even where a messroom is provided, - cleanliness, proper heating, and a cheerful appearance, are by no - means common. At one factory the messroom was known amongst the girls - as the ‘dead house,’ and certainly the resemblance to a mortuary was - not imaginary. At another I found shortly before the dinner a - temperature of 40°F., and was informed that the heating apparatus had - been out of order for some time.”[236] - -The formation of two dinner clubs by an association of factory girls in -Sheffield followed on the Inspector’s systematic instructions to -occupiers that the section enjoining exclusion from dusty workrooms -during mealtimes must be obeyed. Similar results followed the same kind -of concentrated work in other towns. Employers gave some help to the -movement, and it developed into greater local activity during the great -production of munitions. - -Many interesting examples reported in the years 1908 to 1912, both of -good and careful provision, and its total absence, drove home the -importance of direct endeavour by manufacturers to promote conditions of -ordinary human welfare in their factories for the workers who spend so -many hours in them. One Inspector would comment on the “pathetic -gratitude” of rag-sorters for a decent mealroom in districts where any -provision at all was rare: - - “The subject is one of the utmost importance for workers, who often - leave home at 5.30 a.m., or earlier, and have nearly an hour’s walk. - They have to take their food with them, and the only means of warming - it is the steam-heated sink in the yard.... I counted nine - confectioners’ and fried-fish shops in three-quarters of a mile in a - main road all besieged by workers during the dinner hour.” - -Another Inspector would urge that nothing could exceed the discomfort in -which meals were often taken, the food on the edge of a workbench -covered with work that must not suffer from contact; the worker seated -on the most unrestful kind of stool.[237] In 1909 and 1910 Miss Escreet -repeated the special requests of cardboard box makers for seats to -obviate (as they said) the necessity for sitting either on the table or -the floor at mealtimes—their work being mostly done standing, and -messrooms and cloakrooms being then almost unknown luxuries in that -industry. “In the large places gas-cooking stoves are provided and a -woman is kept who serves the workers in various ways, warming their -meals, heating their glue, etc., but for these benefits the workers -generally pay at least in part.” - -Just as the question of proper canteens and messroom arrangements was -bound up with organisation and good welfare superintendence, so also did -other items appear to be associated with it in the Inspector’s reports— -_e.g._, suitable protective clothing for those engaged in dusty or dirty -processes, in excessively wet or excessively hot processes, in use of -acid or caustic liquids, or in working about dangerous machines. -Cloakroom arrangements and their care were specially closely bound up -with the possibility of securing responsible supervision—and for years -in many places the difficulty of getting any adequate attention to -seating arrangements proved on the whole one of the most intractable -problems that the Inspector had to deal with, so long as seats remained -a matter “outside the Acts.” Complaints continued year after year of the -strain of standing occupations, of disciplinary refusal by foremen to -allow workers to sit down at all during spells of work, of vibration -jarring the nervous system through ordinary chairs or while standing. -Seats remained in this category down to 1916, and great must have been -the loss to industry as well as to individual workers through the long -years when conservation of strength by reasonably good seating -arrangements was widely neglected and sometimes ignorantly opposed by -managers. - -In 1907, for example, repeated complaints were received of lack of -seats, and some could not be remedied through unwillingness of employers -to accept advice on the subject. In a factory where in the previous year -the injury to health to girls had been shown and advice tendered, it was -found in 1907 that stools had been provided for only thirty-seven out of -three hundred little girls, most of them being between thirteen and -fifteen years of age. - -“Many looked delicate and weary, and said they got very tired before the -end of the morning and afternoon spells of work, standing as they did -for five hours at a time ... some seemed to be suffering from swollen -legs and feet or from debility.... Reference was made to the certifying -surgeon, who suspended one from employment and urged the employer to -provide seats for the others. After much persuasion the employer -undertook to increase the seating accommodation, yet when the surgeon -attempted to qualify his certificate with the proviso that the girl must -be provided with a seat this employer said that any girl whose -certificate was so qualified should be discharged.” In such ways did the -need for simple direct regulation of these matters become abundantly -evident. In a spinning factory where seats had been provided for the -preparers, one woman told the Inspector that she had left a factory -where she was earning sixpence a week more in order to work at this -factory where she would have a seat, and “now she was ready for another -day’s work every evening.”[238] - -“The custom of employing half-time children on their feet ‘buttoning’ at -shirt factories in Lancashire, on the alternate day system, so that they -stood for ten hours on the alternate days, was found by the Women -Inspectors to be most unsatisfactory. In a few factories seats were -provided at their request by the occupiers, but in some places -persuasion failed: the children worked rapidly, and it was said they -could not get through the same amount if they sat at tables.”[239] - -One felt how closely all this was allied to the overstrain touched on -above in Chapter IV. in weight lifting and carrying, and through -overpressure in various ways. In its many manifestations overstrain of -young workers seemed elusive of direct prohibition, and more amenable to -control by well-developed welfare superintendence in touch with a -department thoroughly versed in prevention of industrial fatigue. -Constructive work starting from a rational basis apparently becomes -inevitable for administration after the first stage of prevention of -gross abuse has been passed. - -First-aid and ambulance work in the factory system was clearly a -foremost point in welfare work, and has already been touched on in the -chapter on dangerous processes and accidents. Development of Workmen’s -Compensation Acts greatly strengthened the argument for it among -enlightened managers, and in many large Midland factories a well- -equipped ambulance room, with a fully trained nurse, had afforded -considerable experience before the War came, bringing new developments -of this safeguard of health and life as well as of limbs. Even in 1911 a -Factory Inspector wrote: - - “On visiting a large factory recently I was interested to find a rest - room in which there were four couches. Two of them were occupied by - girls who were sleeping soundly. I was informed that this room was - often used by girls not feeling well or tired, and that the renewed - vigour with which the workers returned to work after a few hours’ rest - soon made up for the loss of time.”[240] - -In 1912 a large factory in Coventry, where hundreds of young girls were -employed, was reported on by Miss Whitlock. A nurse was employed by the -firm whose sole duty was to look after the health of the workers, and -she had a small surgery at which she attended to any slight injuries—of -which there were forty-nine on the day of this inspection. A doctor -called daily and could be consulted by the workers without charge. -Messrooms, where dinners could be cheaply obtained, and an open-air -swimming bath were provided. In a large surgical-dressings factory the -plan was adopted of having a social welfare secretary to care for the -health and welfare of the two to three hundred girls, and here a rest -room was part of the equipment. The cleanliness of the workrooms was -itself a lesson in hygiene. In the same year there were again examples -given by the Women Inspectors, showing the boundless room for growth of -general welfare work and of the more pressing safeguard of supervision -of girls’ labour by trained women superintendents. In a large printing -works in a small provincial town, where 120 women worked among 600 men, -an Inspector found no foreman and no women in charge. There had been a -complaint of behaviour to the Inspector, and she found the manager -anxious about the tone of his factory and ready to welcome her visit. -She urged the appointment of women overseers, and this was -promised.[241] - -In the year 1909 a step of some consequence to the movement was taken in -the convening at Bournville, Birmingham, by Mr. Cadbury, of the first -general conference of social secretaries, welfare superintendents, and -manageresses, to consider the aims and results of their work.[242] At -this conference some very practical and helpful papers were read. By -invitation I spoke on the basis existing in the national standards laid -down in the Factory Acts, for the working out in individual factories of -the personal health and welfare of the workers, and I asked them to look -into and consider fatigue and its prevention. Discussion arose on the -means, legal and voluntary, for improving both the conditions in -factories and the physical and industrial fitness of the workers. There -was a marked gain in such meetings and discussions, leading as they did -to the clearing up of ideas, that at that stage were bound to be a -little vague, on the main objects of welfare superintendence and their -relationship to the production of wealth. The majority of welfare -supervisors present at the conference in 1909 would have been surprised -if they could have heard the high estimate of their calling to be -expressed in 1918 by Professor Urwick. “This is a skilled job,” he said, -“so skilled that it is beyond the scope of anyone who has not made a -careful study of the conditions of it ... it requires essentially -detachment as well as knowledge.” However high the estimate was to be, -there was certainly room throughout for ancillary welfare workers as -well, and these early conferences strengthened the professional spirit -in the calling. Partly from them and also from the interest shown by -leading employers came a new movement in the provincial Universities— -following an older one within the London University[243]—to provide some -training for such social workers by hygiene and social welfare courses -and diplomas. This growth led again, in 1917 and also in 1920, through -the war conditions of industry to conferences on training, officially -convened at the Home Office, between representatives of Universities, -employers, leading welfare managers, and the Factory Department. - -Perusal of the pages, concerned with the increase of welfare work in the -experience of the Women Inspectors in the Annual Report for 1913,[244] -published but a few months before the great industrial upheaval of the -War, gives a strong impression of growth in the employers’ interest in -welfare, and of the vitality of a desire among an increasing number of -them to secure for employees much better conditions of work than can be -laid down in an Act of Parliament. The value of this growth lay not only -in the details of work done by the social secretary or superintendent in -organising medical, dental, or nursing facilities for care of the health -of the workers, methods of cleansing workrooms, organising messing -arrangements, bathing and washing conveniences, suitable protective -clothing, restful seating arrangements. Behind and above it all was the -possibility of making the “social helper most important to the workers -and a real help to the carrying out of the spirit of the Factory and -Workshop Act. An Inspector may remind an occupier that his factory must -be kept in a cleanly state, but unless there is some woman permanently -on the premises who will organise and look into the details of the -cleansing, and suggest contrivances for the purpose, it is seldom -properly done. Four firms visited in 1913 had arranged classes for their -work-people and ... for technical training ... most social workers had -the initiation of social clubs in their charge ... clubs for sports as -well as gardening.”[245] - -In 1914 we passed from peaceful promotion of welfare to warfare, and a -new note had to be struck immediately. “How greatly,” said Miss Squire, -“the army of industrial workers need a commissariat department to cater -for them during their days of active service will perhaps be better -realised now that the public attention has been rivetted on the -victualling of our soldiers in camp and on the front. If ‘an army fights -on its stomach’ is it not also true that a factory works on it?” The -answer came promptly to this and to similar questions that had long been -asked, apparently vainly, by the Inspectors about the needs of -industrial workers. In an East End social restaurant, where the midday -meal was served daily to a hundred workers from a neighbouring factory, -the superintendent and her helpers had for years deplored the -insufficiency of the dinner purchased by the young girls under sixteen, -and they could scarcely refrain from supplying more than was paid for. -“One day soon after the War broke out there was such a run on meat-and- -vegetable dinners that the supply was not equal to the demand ... the -wages had that day been raised voluntarily by the occupier to the -proposed Trade Board rate; the effect was immediate and continued ... a -striking answer to those who cling to the theory that an increase in -wages is of no substantial value to a girl.”[246] - -By the close of 1915 an entirely new position and outlook had been -opened for girls and women in industry. In demand for their labour, in -wages, in conditions, and in the possibilities of their output, the -situation had led to a “systematic introduction of hygienic safeguards -that Factory Inspectors had advocated for many years ... supervision of -women by women, provision of means of personal cleanliness, proper meal -and rest rooms and qualified nurses” in the factories. There was a “new -general awakening to the dependance of sufficient output on the welfare -of the human agent.”[247] - -This awakening was strikingly expressed in the formation of the Welfare -Department by the Minister of Munitions, for promoting the means of such -welfare in controlled and national factories. This department had as its -first Director an employer experienced in the successful promotion of -industrial welfare experiments in his own factories, Mr. Seebohm -Rowntree. At his wish I supplied him with detailed surveys of the -munition factories, made by the Women Inspectors. Before the end of 1916 -he was supplied with 1,396 surveys relating to the welfare conditions of -nearly 200,000 women and girls, classified according to the degree of -urgency for his attention: 31 per cent. of the factories were in the -first and best class, 49 per cent. in the second, and 20 per cent. in -the third class. In the second and third classes were placed factories -lacking in varying degrees and combinations, means for preparing and -taking food, cloakrooms and washing conveniences, first-aid or rest -rooms, seats, and suitable supervision. One must remember that in many -instances the workers travelled daily long distances with only defective -means of transport, and most were working twelve-hour (day and night) -shifts. Great progress was made during the year in so transforming the -conditions in many of the factories as to qualify them for advance to a -higher class. A great stimulus was given to supply of welfare -superintendents by the forming of a panel of likely persons and by -giving them access to intensive training. While mistakes were -unavoidably made in the rush to supply the need, employers being free to -make their own choice, a remarkable proportion of capable and a few -highly distinguished welfare administrators were put up by the movement. -Medical women, moreover, had, and made good use of, a new and important -channel for experience as medical officers of great national factories. - -The supply of surveys and reports from the Factory Department to the -Welfare Department, Ministry of Munitions, continued, while co-operation -with dilution officers also developed until well on into 1917. One of -the Medical Inspectors of Factories, Dr. Collis, then succeeded Mr. -Rowntree in charge of the Welfare Department, and early in 1918 Miss -Squire, Deputy Principal Lady Inspector of Factories, passed into charge -of the Women’s Welfare in that Department. Thus a kind of fusion of the -emergency wartime department with the peacetime department for -industrial welfare preceded the end of the War and the rapid closing of -the munition factories that followed. The making of Welfare Orders by -the Secretary of State had, however, begun in October, 1917, under the -powers given by the Act of 1916. - -In “The School Child” that Act was pleasantly described as a “little -Police Act,” by which “the Home Secretary obtained large powers to -compel the provisions of many measures for the welfare of the workers in -factories and workshops.” It was there also truly designated as “in -fact, a large extension of the Factory Acts,” dependent in some degree -on the reception given to it by the workers. The prompt issue of a -summary of the operative clause of the Act, in “School Child Leaflet No. -14,” is one of the many straws then floating about that one can gather -up now, showing that a new wind of the spirit was blowing in the -industrial affairs of the nation. As I said, however, at the Birmingham -Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute in 1920: - - “Only after the Great War was it generally realised how largely the - personal welfare and health of manual labourers rest on their own co- - operation in ... demand for, and use of all the new means placed by - development of science and advancing humanitarian and Christian ideals - at the disposal of industry, and how important it is to have trained - technical assistance in developing the full use of all these means in - each workplace.” - -A skilled workman in a large factory, president of his union (a craft -union), and taking a leading part both on the works’ committee and the -district committee of the joint industrial council of his trade, said to -me in the summer of 1920 that he believed that the workers had it in -their power (if they could only see it), in co-operation with the -employers, to do no less than recreate their work and surroundings. - -At the time of the passing of the “little Police Act,”[248] in 1916, -there was some apprehension amongst the few workers’ leaders who took -any notice of it that it might mean no more (at the worst) than some new -kind of efficiency engineering or possibly (less objectionably) a mere -revival of philanthropy by employers. Employers themselves appeared to -be too busy to take notice of the Act before it was passed, and it -quickly and quietly became law, the only amendments being such as to -strengthen the provision for initiative by the workers in working out -details. - -The Act provided that, “where it appears to the Secretary of State that -the conditions and circumstances of employment or the nature of the -processes carried on in any factory or workshop are such as to require -special provision to be made at the factory or workshop for securing the -welfare of the workers or any class of workers employed therein in -relation to the matters to which this section applies, he may by order -require the occupier to make such reasonable provision therefor as may -be specified in the order, and if the occupier fails to comply with the -requirements of the order or any of them, the factory or workshop shall -be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Factory Act, 1901.” -Meals, drinking water, protective clothing, ambulance and first-aid, -seats, facilities for washing, accommodation for clothing, and -supervision were the subjects particularly specified as covered by the -section, but power was given to the Secretary of State to extend it to -other matters, and rest rooms have since been added.[249] - -“Orders may be made for a particular factory or workshop, or for -factories or workshops of any class or group or description.” The first -order, dated October 5, 1917, provided for simple welfare arrangements -for workers in tinplate factories, with their rough and heavy processes -in which women have been employed for many years.[250] The second order -of the same date provided for a wholesome supply of drinking water at -convenient points with suitable drinking vessels in all factories and -workshops in which twenty-five or more persons are employed. The third -order, dated October 12, 1917, was of great significance, providing in -detail for first-aid and ambulance arrangements in large groups of metal -factories, where the greatest number of accidents, fatal and non-fatal, -are reported (including blast furnaces, copper mills, iron mills, -foundries, and metal works). The same provisions were applied, in an -order of November 8, 1918, to sawmills and factories in which articles -of wood are manufactured, the next greatest accident producing group of -works. First-aid was, however, also required in various other classes of -works, for which general welfare orders were made; for example, works in -which bichromate of potassium is used in dyeing, March 22, 1918; oilcake -mills, July 21, 1919; laundries, April 23, 1920; gut scraping, July 28, -1920; gutting, salting, and packing herring in Norfolk and Suffolk, -September 9, 1920. By the beginning of March, 1921, fifteen orders had -been made, of which ten made various requirements for particular -industries. The interesting progress made in development of these -general welfare orders may be followed in the chapters on welfare in the -Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector from 1918 onwards.[251] - -The Act further provided that “orders may be made contingent in respect -of particular requirements upon application being made by a specified -number or proportion of the workers concerned, and may prescribe the -manner in which the views of the workers are to be ascertained,” and may -“provide for the workers concerned being associated in the management of -the arrangements, accommodation, or other facilities for which provision -is made where a proportion of the cost is contributed by the workers; -but no contribution shall be required from the workers in any factory or -workshop, except for the purpose of providing additional or special -benefits which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, could not -reasonably be required to be provided by the employer alone, and unless -two-thirds at least of the workers affected in that factory or workshop, -on their views being obtained in the prescribed manner, assent.” - -Under these latter provisions no order had been made before the close of -1921, but the way is clearly open for a new initiative by the workers, -and in many factories a share in management of welfare arrangements by -workers through works’ welfare committees had indeed begun before the -War. This share was further developed during the War and has blossomed -out in many new ways since 1918. In 1916, in a large national factory, I -found a workers’ welfare committee, elected on their own initiative, -fully developed with an income of £50 a week. The committee members were -nearly equally men and women, representing every branch of work, one -member representing the management. The funds were raised by agreed -deductions from wages, no other collections being allowed in the -factory. Regular subscriptions were made to local hospitals, -dispensaries, and to prisoner-of-war funds. Newspapers were provided -daily in the canteen and concerts arranged twice weekly. “Whatever we -want we can have,” said a member of the committee to me in describing -the activities of his committee.[252] In a printing works in 1918 a shop -committee, consisting of eleven members, two representing the employers -and nine the workers (four the women and five the men), looked after all -the welfare arrangements, including management of the canteen, -alterations in hours, and wages questions. When the Factory Inspector -found the five hours’ spell being exceeded, the alterations necessary in -arrangements of work were made by the shop committee. In a northern -tailoring factory employing many women there was, in 1917, and still -flourishing in 1921, a “Workers’ Trustees Council” on which workers of -over ten years’ standing in the factory served. Their special function -was to consider and report to the firm suggestions made by the workers, -and some of the most fundamental, with regard to hours, have been -carried into effect. In a large stationery factory—where a Whitley Works -Council dealt with employment, wages, and staff questions—a specially -elected committee dealt with the canteen and sports questions, and -special education and health officers with continuation classes and -sanitation and health questions; the whole welfare organisation was -known as the “Personal Service Department.” In a woollen factory with -representative committees and with well-developed canteen, rest, and -recreation rooms and other provisions for health and welfare, the works’ -welfare magazine took the name _Service_, and its first editorial, May, -1919, said: “We want to prove to the world that the primary function of -industry is service.” - -Examples could be multiplied from the experience of the Inspectorate of -various types of works’ committees with practical co-operation of -workers and management. These committees, building on a basis of -fairness in wages and other fundamentals, showed that a very good cement -had been found in joint work for welfare, for the building up of -peaceful industrial relationships, even before the formal development of -joint councils of the Whitley type had begun. It has been one of the -great satisfactions for the Inspectorate, when preparing by systematic -enquiry for welfare orders or for the making of welfare pamphlets, to -come upon long, modest, almost unnoticed, histories of welfare -institutions in old-fashioned mills and factories. There is, as Prince -Kropotkin pointed out in his “Fields, Factories, and Workshops,” a -survival all over England of smaller factories and industries helping to -keep alive an older social atmosphere than that of the “factory system.” -Something has certainly lived on in our country that partly accounts for -the definite experience, that representative works’ committees can -revive or replace the more personal relationships formerly existing -between management and workers in manufactures. - -Returning for a moment to the legal and official provision for the -workers’ share in welfare activities, the sudden falling away of -employment in the summer of 1920 limited the developments in this -direction, so far as individual factories are concerned, for the -remainder of the period with which this book deals. In the larger matter -of consultation with joint councils for trades, when draft orders were -considered for welfare and for regulation of dangerous processes or -other matters, great progress has been made—_e.g._, in the furniture, -laundry, pottery, building, and silk trades. The Home Office steadily -proceeded with the making of welfare orders, which were generally -received with enthusiasm by workers and by many employers as instalments -of reforms long overdue; also with the helpful series of welfare -pamphlets[253] designed to spread a requisite knowledge of successful -experiments on which good hygienic and welfare arrangements can be built -up in factories and workshops. - -At the onset of the almost catastrophic degree of unemployment in 1920— -at the moment when industry appeared to be in full flow of life and -energy—the interest of the community swung round inevitably from the -evolution of a better order within industry to the primary problem of -restoration of that ebbing life and energy. Never could the mutual -interdependence of aims for successful application of material and -labour in industry and for health and welfare of the human agent in -production be more conclusively shown. Nor could the social and economic -value of institutions making for harmonious co-operation between -organisers of industry and the manual workers, in constructive self- -government within the factory system, be more dramatically demonstrated. - -It had been a splendid and cheering experience at the brief time of -activity, when the women and girl munitioners and substitutes for men -were being re-absorbed in their old occupations, in 1919 to 1920, to -learn from the Inspectors who were revisiting textile and clothing -factories, laundries, potteries, ropeworks, and other peacetime -industries of women, of the new demands for improved conditions that the -women were making and with good effect. It was the more cheering because -the women had behaved very well in the unselfish spirit in which they -had gone out from their interesting temporary occupations. They left new -welfare behind them for the returning men, and they spoke to the -Inspectors with pride and dignity of the new amenities growing up in -their own old workplaces. Large numbers of women munition workers had -been recruited from the old-time industries with unreformed conditions -of personal hygiene, and they rightly showed a marked reluctance to -accept the old bad standards. Alert young managers, back from the field -of war, quickly took the hint and moved their old directors into the new -and right direction. “We have seen the impossible undertaken and -accomplished, and we want to carry on here too,” was the keynote struck -by some of them. New standards had, of course, been tried and their -value proven in production for the nation; yet there was something -greater than the realisation by employers of the possibility of more -harmonious relations and the higher efficiency to be gained by better -conditions of work. There was a widened outlook and a new spirit of -comradeship for the workers in many young employers lately returned from -the War, and a readiness to put responsibility on to workers’ -representatives. Managers would “speak with enthusiasm of the general -interest and communal responsibility that has resulted” from the -activities of representative works’ committees, and would praise the -“eminently practical” nature of their proposals.[254] In socially -backward, rough industries, where even elementary requirements of the -Factory Act had still to be forced on the attention of occupiers, the -Inspectors hoped for an awakening through the application to them of the -new stimulus of a welfare order. In the trades that were little -organised from the workers’ side enquiries began to come from individual -workers—a hopeful sign—as to when an order might be expected in their -particular trade. - -The effect in some factories with old-established welfare institutions -of the introduction of representative works’ committees has been -remarkable in the advance of the workers in self-reliance and interest -in their work, and in initiative in developing better conditions. Most -striking in their activities are some of the works’ committees in -industries where the constitution of the committee has been approved by -the Joint Council for the trade. In one such factory the accomplished -welfare superintendent has been enrolled a member of the trade union. -She is secretary of the works’ committee, and the elections of the -committee are carried out under the care of the trade union secretary. -Here the careful supervision of the health and safety sub-committee of -the works’ committee is evident in the excellence of the fire drill and -other arrangements and the good, coloured “safety first” notices at the -machines. The note of authority that is apparent in the rules drawn up -by the committee reflects the representative basis of the government of -daily life in the factory. An extensive, well-chosen library is an -outstanding feature of the social arrangements. - -The immense advantage for future control of many risks and -inconveniences, as well as promotion of constructive welfare work in -industry, that may be reaped from the vigilance of workers, practised in -methods of self-government, is so obvious after seeing some of their -earlier achievements that one can only marvel that it has taken so long -for the “captains of industry” to begin to make the discovery. The -position of influence over the minds of workers held in the old-time -craft industries by the “master” craftsman can, it appears, in a new -way, be regained in modern factories with their specialised production. -The whole organisation of great industry is necessarily so intricate and -complicated that with the added machinery of internal factory -government, by committees, a “master organiser” is certainly necessary -to the success of the undertaking. This will become increasingly clear -to all workers capable of entering into the meaning of their -surroundings, when their share in self-government grows and their -contact with the organiser becomes closer. Already eloquent tributes may -be heard from individual workers to the “wonderful” organising gifts of -the employer or manager where the boon of representation has been -conceded to them. - -Notwithstanding all the wonderful discoveries and inventions multiplying -power to increase wealth that could have been turned to the social -welfare and happiness of the worker, the factory system of the -nineteenth century failed portentously on this social side. It failed -through its blind and too often barbarous neglect of the really great -part that can be played both in workmanship and in organisation by the -spiritually endowed human agent of production. Man, woman, young worker, -or child, with their varying needs and capacities, they were all alike -“hands.” Their moral claims to a secure share in the good things—the -wealth and the welfare—that their labour helped to buy for the whole -people were not the only things denied to them. They have only won -through to the possibilities of the new position that lies ahead (when -industry can be revived), through sufferings and trials that are -difficult now to imagine, but of the story of which no responsible -thinker or leader in the nation’s affairs should ever be allowed to -remain ignorant. - -“In the struggle for life to which industrial undertakings are subject,” -said the Belgian Vandevelde many years ago, “the final victory is -reserved for those who know how to meet their rivals not only with the -most perfect machinery, but yet more with the best human material, the -most solid array of moral and intellectual forces.” - -That was a warning that need not have fallen on deaf ears, even in an -avowedly competitive society, and that might have been understood by the -factory organisers of the nineteenth century. It is a new world that has -to be faced now, and although we should not forget that saying, we may -better dwell on the thought that harmony in industrial relationships -promises to be the natural outcome of associated human effort for the -sound, plentiful production that mankind so greatly needs and that may -minister to a reviving desire for fitness and beauty in the world. - - - - - APPENDIX I - DANGEROUS AND UNHEALTHY INDUSTRIES - - REGULATIONS MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PROCESSES CERTIFIED AS - DANGEROUS UNDER SECTION 79, FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACT, 1901. - - - ┌─────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┐ - │ 1. │ 2. │ 3. │ - │ _Date of_ │ _Class of │ _Kind of │ - │ │ Manufacture, │ Risks._ │ - │ │ Machinery, │ │ - │ │Plant, Process │ │ - │ │or Description │ │ - │ │ of Manual │ │ - │ │ Labour._ │ │ - ├──────────────┬──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │_Certificate._│_Regulations._│ „ │ „ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=1.= Feb. 24, │Dec. 19, 1921.│1. =Aerated │Accidents from│ - │ 1921. │ │Water.=— │bursting │ - │ │ │Manufacture of,│bottles. │ - │ │ │and processes │Exposure to │ - │ │ │incidental │wet. │ - │ │ │thereto. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=2.= May 9, │ │2. =Arsenic.=— │Poisonous │ - │ 1892. │ │Extraction and │dust. │ - │ │ │use of. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=3.= Aug. 26, │Dec. 30, 1908.│[255]3. │Poisonous │ - │ 1907. │ │=Benzine.=— │fumes and │ - │ │ │Manufacture of │dust. │ - │ │ │nitro and amido│ │ - │ │ │derivatives of │ │ - │ │ │and of │ │ - │ │ │explosives with│ │ - │ │ │dinitrobenzol │ │ - │ │ │or │ │ - │ │ │dinitrotoluol. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=4.= June 6, │June 26, 1908.│4. =Brass.=— │Injurious │ - │ 1907. │ │Casting of, or │fumes. │ - │ │ │any alloy of, │ │ - │ │ │copper with │ │ - │ │ │zinc. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=5.= Oct. 29, │ │5. │Injurious │ - │ 1910. │ │=Briquettes.=— │dust. │ - │ │ │Manufacture of │ │ - │ │ │patent fuel │ │ - │ │ │with addition │ │ - │ │ │of pitch. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=6.= March 7, │ April 16, │6. =Bronzing= │Injurious │ - │ 1911. │ 1912. │with dry │dust. │ - │ │ │metallic │ │ - │ │ │powders in │ │ - │ │ │letterpress │ │ - │ │ │printing, │ │ - │ │ │lithographic │ │ - │ │ │printing, and │ │ - │ │ │coating metal │ │ - │ │ │sheets. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=7.= Oct. 6, │ │7. =Buildings= │Accidents from│ - │ 1921. │ │in course of │falls or │ - │ │ │construction, │falling bodies│ - │ │ │alteration, │or from │ - │ │ │repair, or │machinery. │ - │ │ │demolition. │Plumbism │ - │ │ │ │(painters and │ - │ │ │ │plumbers). │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=8.= April 24,│Nov. 28, 1921.│8. │Fire (highly │ - │ 1914. │ │=Celluloid.=— │inflammable │ - │ │ │Manufacture, │material). │ - │ │ │manipulation, │ │ - │ │ │and storage of.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=9.= Dec. 14, │ │[256]9. │Caustic │ - │ 1920. │ │=Chemicals.=— │liquids in │ - │ │ │Manufacture and│vats, etc. │ - │ │ │processes │Poisonous │ - │ │ │incidental │gases. │ - │ │ │thereto carried│Injurious │ - │ │ │on in “Chemical│dust. │ - │ │ │Works” (as │Explosions and│ - │ │ │defined in the │fire. │ - │ │ │Schedule). │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=10.= June 27,│Aug. 15, 1913.│[256]10. │Injurious dust│ - │ 1913. │ │=Chromate= and │and fumes. │ - │ │ │Bichromate of │ │ - │ │ │Potassium, │ │ - │ │ │Sodium, │ │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=11.= │Dec. 21, 1911.│11. =Cotton │Humidity. │ - │ │ │Cloth Weaving.=│High │ - │ │ │ │temperatures. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=12.= Sept. │Oct. 28, 1904.│12. =Docks, │Risks to life │ - │ 30, 1902. │ │Wharves,= =and │and limb from │ - │ │ │Quays=, loading│dangerous │ - │ │ │and unloading │machinery and │ - │ │ │at, and │appliances, │ - │ │ │loading, │and ladders │ - │ │ │unloading or │and corners, │ - │ │ │coaling any │and lack of │ - │ │ │ships in any │fencing for │ - │ │ │dock, harbour, │dangerous │ - │ │ │or canal. │hatchways, │ - │ │ │ │etc. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=13.= │ │13. │ │ - │ │ │=Earthenware │ │ - │ │ │and= =China.= │ │ - │ │ │(See under │ │ - │ │ │=Potteries=, │ │ - │ │ │No. 32.) │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=14.= Aug. 3, │Nov. 24, 1903.│14. =Electric │Poisonous dust│ - │ 1903. │ │Accumulators=, │and fumes │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│(lead). │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=15.= Aug. 9, │Jan. 1, 1909. │15. │Danger to │ - │ 1907. │ │=Electricity.=—│health or to │ - │ │ │Generation, │life and limb │ - │ │ │transformation,│from shock, or│ - │ │ │distribution, │burns, or │ - │ │ │and use of. │fire. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=16.= Sept. │Dec. 22, 1908.│16. │Poisonous │ - │ 21, 1908. │ │=Enamelling=, │dust. │ - │ │ │vitreous, of │ │ - │ │ │metals or │ │ - │ │ │glass. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=17.= June 6, │Aug. 19, 1902.│17. =Felt │Fire and │ - │ 1902. │ │Hats=, │explosions. │ - │ │ │manufacture of,│ │ - │ │ │where │ │ - │ │ │inflammable │ │ - │ │ │solvent is │ │ - │ │ │used. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=18.= Sept. │June 23, 1903.│18. =File │Metallic lead │ - │ 22, 1902. │ │Cutting= by │dust. │ - │ │ │hand. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=19.= May 11, │Feb. 26, 1906.│19. =Flax and │Irritant dust,│ - │ 1905. │ │Tow=, spinning │artificial │ - │ │ │and weaving of.│humidification│ - │ │ │ │and high │ - │ │ │ │temperatures. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=20.= Oct. 14,│Oct. 15, 1909.│20. =Grinding │Irritant dust │ - │ 1908. │ │of= Metals and │(silica and │ - │ │ │Racing of │gritty │ - │ │ │Grindstones. │particles, │ - │ │ │ │also steel and│ - │ │ │ │iron powder). │ - │ │ │ │Accidents. │ - │ │ │ │Moisture. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=21.= Jan. │Aug. 28, 1907.│21. =Hemp and │Vegetable │ - │ 29, 1907. │ │Jute= spinning │dust. │ - │ │ │and weaving. │Liability to │ - │ │ │ │tetanus in │ - │ │ │ │case of │ - │ │ │ │lesions of the│ - │ │ │ │skin. │ - │ │ │ │High │ - │ │ │ │temperature in│ - │ │ │ │spinning and │ - │ │ │ │humidity. │ - │ │ │ │Cold and │ - │ │ │ │draughts in │ - │ │ │ │preparatory │ - │ │ │ │process. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=22.= Oct. │Dec 29, 1921. │22. =Hides and │Anthrax spores│ - │ 15, 1920. │ │Skins.=[257]— │in the │ - │ │ │Dry or dry- │material. │ - │ │ │salted, │ │ - │ │ │imported from │ │ - │ │ │Africa │ │ - │ │ │(including or │ │ - │ │ │Asia (including│ │ - │ │ │Japan and Malay│ │ - │ │ │Archipelago), │ │ - │ │ │handling of. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=23.= May 23,│Dec. 20, 1907.│23. =Horsehair │Anthrax spores│ - │ 1907. │ │from= =China, │in the │ - │ │ │Siberia,= =and │material. │ - │ │ │Russia=, use │ │ - │ │ │of. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=24.= Dec. 21,│Mar. 31, 1922.│24. =India- │Poisonous dust│ - │ 1920. │ │rubber.=— │(lead). │ - │ │ │Certain │Injury to │ - │ │ │processes │health from │ - │ │ │incidental to │volatile │ - │ │ │the manufacture│vapour. │ - │ │ │of, and of │Accident from │ - │ │ │articles and │inflammable │ - │ │ │goods made │vapour. │ - │ │ │wholly or │ │ - │ │ │partially of │ │ - │ │ │india-rubber. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=25.= Sept. 3,│Aug. 23, 1921.│25. │Poisonous dust│ - │ 1920. │ │=Lead=,[258] │and fumes │ - │ │ │compounds of, │(lead │ - │ │ │including │compounds). │ - │ │ │carbonate, │ │ - │ │ │sulphate, │ │ - │ │ │nitrate, and │ │ - │ │ │acetate of │ │ - │ │ │lead, │ │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=26.= Dec. 13,│ Aug. 12, │26. │Poisonous dust│ - │ 1910. │ 1911. │=Lead.=[258]— │and fumes lead│ - │ │ │Smelting of │compounds). │ - │ │ │materials │ │ - │ │ │containing │ │ - │ │ │manufacture of │ │ - │ │ │red or orange │ │ - │ │ │lead and of │ │ - │ │ │flaked │ │ - │ │ │litharge. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=27.= Aug. │ May 2, 1905. │27. │Accidents from│ - │ 24, 1906. │ │=Locomotives │locomotives, │ - │ │ │and= =Waggons=,│etc., in │ - │ │ │use of, on │motion by │ - │ │ │lines and │mechanical │ - │ │ │sidings in or │power. │ - │ │ │used in │ │ - │ │ │connection with│ │ - │ │ │premises under │ │ - │ │ │the Factory │ │ - │ │ │Acts. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=28.= June 2,│ │28. =Lucifer │Phosphorus │ - │ 1892. │ │Matches=, │necrosis. │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=29.= Oct. │Nov. 7, 1904. │29. =Mules, │Accidents. │ - │ 17, 1905. │ │Self-Acting=, │ │ - │ │ │spinning by │ │ - │ │ │means of. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=30.= Dec. 1,│Jan. 25, 1907.│30. =Paints and│Poisonous dust│ - │ 1906. │ │Colours=, │(lead). │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=31.= Oct. │ │31. =Patent │ │ - │ 29, 1910. │ │Fuel=, │ │ - │ │ │manufacture of.│ │ - │ │ │(See under │ │ - │ │ │=Briquettes=, │ │ - │ │ │No. 5.) │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=32.= Aug. │Jan. 2, 1913. │32. =Pottery.=—│Poisonous dust│ - │ 25, 1911. │ │Manufacture or │(lead). │ - │ │ │decoration of, │Silica and │ - │ │ │or any process │other dust, │ - │ │ │incidental │heat, and │ - │ │ │thereto, and │humidity. │ - │ │ │the making of │Heavy weights.│ - │ │ │lithographic │ │ - │ │ │transfers, │ │ - │ │ │frits, or │ │ - │ │ │glazes for use │ │ - │ │ │in such │ │ - │ │ │manufacture or │ │ - │ │ │decorations or │ │ - │ │ │processes. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=33.= Mar. │ April 26, │33. =Refractory│Silica dust. │ - │ 22, 1918. │ 1919. │Materials.=— │ │ - │ │ │Crushing, │ │ - │ │ │grinding, │ │ - │ │ │sieving, and │ │ - │ │ │other processes│ │ - │ │ │involving the │ │ - │ │ │manipulation of│ │ - │ │ │such materials.│ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=34.= Aug. 5,│April 4, 1914.│34. =Ships, │Accidents. │ - │ 1913. │ │Construction= │ │ - │ │ │=and Repair= │ │ - │ │ │=of=, in │ │ - │ │ │shipbuilding │ │ - │ │ │yards. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=35.= Sept. │June 30, 1909.│35. =Tinning of│Poisonous │ - │ 25, 1908. │ │Metal= =Hollow-│fumes (lead). │ - │ │ │ware=, =Iron │ │ - │ │ │Drums=, and │ │ - │ │ │harness │ │ - │ │ │furniture. │ │ - │ │ │(Coating of │ │ - │ │ │metal articles │ │ - │ │ │with a mixture │ │ - │ │ │of lead and tin│ │ - │ │ │and lead │ │ - │ │ │alone.) │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┴──────────────┤ - │=36.= │ │36. =White Lead.= (See under =│ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┬──────────────┤ - │=37.= June │Dec. 18, 1908.│37. =Wool, East│Anthrax spores│ - │ 17, 1905. │ │Indian=, use │in the │ - │ │ │of.[259] │material. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=38.= June │Dec. 12, 1905.│38. =Wool- │Anthrax spores│ - │ 17, 1905. │ │Sorting=, │in the │ - │ │ │willeying, │material. │ - │ │ │washing, │ │ - │ │ │combing, and │ │ - │ │ │carding, and of│ │ - │ │ │goat hair, │ │ - │ │ │camel hair, and│ │ - │ │ │processes │ │ - │ │ │incidental │ │ - │ │ │thereto.[259] │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=39.= Aug. │ │39. │Accidents from│ - │ 10, 1920. │ │=Woodworking │dangerous │ - │ │ │Machinery=, use│machinery. │ - │ │ │of. │Injurious │ - │ │ │ │dust. │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┤ - │=40.= June 1,│Aug. 6, 1907. │40. =Yarn=, │Poisonous dust│ - │ 1907. │ │heading of │(lead). │ - │ │ │dyed, by means │ │ - │ │ │of a lead │ │ - │ │ │compound. │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - └──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┘ - - ┌─────────────────────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┐ - │ 1. │ 4. │ 5. │ 6. │ - │ _Date of_ │ _Nature of │ _Chief │ _Remarks._ │ - │ │Injuries to be │ Preventive │ │ - │ │ Prevented._ │ Measures │ │ - │ │ │Imposed by the│ │ - │ │ │Regulations._ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┬──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │_Certificate._│_Regulations._│ „ │ „ │ „ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=1.= Feb. 24, │Dec. 19, 1921.│Injury to life │(_a_) Machines│First certified│ - │ 1921. │ │and limb from │to be so │Sept., 1896. │ - │ │ │fragments of │constructed, │Special rules │ - │ │ │bursting │placed, and │dated Aug., │ - │ │ │bottles. │fenced as to │1897, were │ - │ │ │Injury to │prevent │superseded by │ - │ │ │health from │accident from │these │ - │ │ │wet. │bursting │Regulations, │ - │ │ │ │bottles. │1921. │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Face and│ │ - │ │ │ │eye guards, │ │ - │ │ │ │hand and arm │ │ - │ │ │ │guards, to be │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied to │ │ - │ │ │ │the workers │ │ - │ │ │ │and worn by │ │ - │ │ │ │them. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Waterproof │ │ - │ │ │ │aprons, boots,│ │ - │ │ │ │and clogs to │ │ - │ │ │ │be supplied. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=2.= May 9, │ │Eczematous │_Note._—There │Formerly │ - │ 1892. │ │eruptions. │are no │included in │ - │ │ │Gastro- │regulations at│Special Rules │ - │ │ │intestinal │present, but │for Paints and │ - │ │ │symptoms. │under Factory │Colours, which │ - │ │ │ │and Workshop │were revised in│ - │ │ │ │Act, 1901, │1907 for Lead │ - │ │ │ │Sects. 74 and │risks only. │ - │ │ │ │75, mechanical│(See No. 30.) │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │must be │ │ - │ │ │ │provided to │ │ - │ │ │ │prevent │ │ - │ │ │ │inhalation of │ │ - │ │ │ │injurious │ │ - │ │ │ │dust, vapour, │ │ - │ │ │ │etc., and │ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │conveniences │ │ - │ │ │ │must be │ │ - │ │ │ │provided; and │ │ - │ │ │ │persons are │ │ - │ │ │ │excluded from │ │ - │ │ │ │workroom where│ │ - │ │ │ │arsenic gives │ │ - │ │ │ │rise to dust, │ │ - │ │ │ │and provision │ │ - │ │ │ │for meals must│ │ - │ │ │ │be made │ │ - │ │ │ │elsewhere. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=3.= Aug. 26, │Dec. 30, 1908.│Profound │(_a_) Removal │Special Rules, │ - │ 1907. │ │changes in the │or prevention │1908, rendered │ - │ │ │condition of │of fumes or │obsolete by │ - │ │ │the blood. │dust. │Chemicals, No. │ - │ │ │Muscular and │(_b_) │9. │ - │ │ │nerve │Effective │ │ - │ │ │affections; eye│ventilation. │ │ - │ │ │affections. │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Overalls, │ │ - │ │ │ │gloves, clogs,│ │ - │ │ │ │supplied to │ │ - │ │ │ │workers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Lavatories, │ │ - │ │ │ │baths, and │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibition of│ │ - │ │ │ │meals in │ │ - │ │ │ │workrooms. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │and power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=4.= June 6, │June 26, 1908.│Brass casters’ │(_a_) │First certified│ - │ 1907. │ │ague or fever. │Exclusion of │July 10, 1896. │ - │ │ │ │female workers│Special Rules, │ - │ │ │ │from casting │dated 1896, │ - │ │ │ │shop. │were rendered │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │obsolete by │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │these │ - │ │ │ │for removal of│Regulations, │ - │ │ │ │fumes at │1908. │ - │ │ │ │points of │ │ - │ │ │ │origin. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=5.= Oct. 29, │ │Ulceration of │_Note._— │Draft │ - │ 1910. │ │skin. │Precautions │Regulations │ - │ │ │Epitheliomatous│voluntarily │withdrawn, │ - │ │ │cancer. │adopted by │1913, after │ - │ │ │Eye troubles. │employers, │Public Enquiry │ - │ │ │ │_i.e._— │and on the │ - │ │ │ │(_a_) │voluntary │ - │ │ │ │Prevention of │adoption by │ - │ │ │ │escape of dust│occupiers of │ - │ │ │ │by boxing-in │precautions in │ - │ │ │ │elevators. │Column 5. │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │for removal of│ │ - │ │ │ │dust. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing; │ │ - │ │ │ │goggles. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=6.= March 7, │ April 16, │Respiratory │(_a_) Exhaust │ │ - │ 1911. │ 1912. │irritation. │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │Gastric │and appliances│ │ - │ │ │disturbance. │to prevent │ │ - │ │ │ │escape of dust│ │ - │ │ │ │into the air │ │ - │ │ │ │of the room. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied to │ │ - │ │ │ │workers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation │ │ - │ │ │ │and place for │ │ - │ │ │ │outdoor │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=7.= Oct. 6, │ │Injury to life │(_a_) │In draft June, │ - │ 1921. │ │or limb. │Provision and │1922. │ - │ │ │Plumbism. │maintenance of│ │ - │ │ │ │suitable │ │ - │ │ │ │scaffolding of│ │ - │ │ │ │sound │ │ - │ │ │ │material. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Efficient │ │ - │ │ │ │lighting of │ │ - │ │ │ │working places│ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │approaches. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Special │ │ - │ │ │ │safeguards for│ │ - │ │ │ │working on │ │ - │ │ │ │roofs. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Safeguards for│ │ - │ │ │ │use of │ │ - │ │ │ │hoisting │ │ - │ │ │ │appliances, │ │ - │ │ │ │cranes, etc. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Fencing │ │ - │ │ │ │of machinery │ │ - │ │ │ │and safety │ │ - │ │ │ │provisions for│ │ - │ │ │ │boilers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision for │ │ - │ │ │ │painters and │ │ - │ │ │ │plumbers of │ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities; │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibition of│ │ - │ │ │ │taking meals │ │ - │ │ │ │and of │ │ - │ │ │ │depositing │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing in │ │ - │ │ │ │workshop; │ │ - │ │ │ │moist method │ │ - │ │ │ │to be adopted │ │ - │ │ │ │for rubbing │ │ - │ │ │ │down or │ │ - │ │ │ │scraping │ │ - │ │ │ │painted │ │ - │ │ │ │surfaces │ │ - │ │ │ │containing │ │ - │ │ │ │lead. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=8.= April 24,│Nov. 28, 1921.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1914. │ │or health from │Limitation of │ │ - │ │ │fire. │the amount of │ │ - │ │ │ │material or of│ │ - │ │ │ │finished │ │ - │ │ │ │articles │ │ - │ │ │ │allowed in │ │ - │ │ │ │workrooms or │ │ - │ │ │ │on the │ │ - │ │ │ │premises. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Method │ │ - │ │ │ │of storage │ │ - │ │ │ │prescribed. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Precautions │ │ - │ │ │ │respecting │ │ - │ │ │ │lights, │ │ - │ │ │ │stoves, │ │ - │ │ │ │smoking, use │ │ - │ │ │ │of sealing │ │ - │ │ │ │wax. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Means of│ │ - │ │ │ │escape and of │ │ - │ │ │ │extinguishing │ │ - │ │ │ │fire. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Competent │ │ - │ │ │ │person to │ │ - │ │ │ │supervise and │ │ - │ │ │ │enforce the │ │ - │ │ │ │regulations. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=9.= Dec. 14, │ │Burns, etc., by│(_a_) Fencing │In draft June, │ - │ 1920. │ │falling into │of vats and │1922. │ - │ │ │vats, etc., of │gangways, etc.│First certified│ - │ │ │acid. │(_b_) Adequate│April 24, 1892.│ - │ │ │“Gassing.” │lighting. │Special Rules │ - │ │ │Respiratory │(_c_) │to be │ - │ │ │affections from│Breathing │superseded by │ - │ │ │irritant dust. │apparatus, │these │ - │ │ │Inflammation of│oxygen, etc., │Regulations. │ - │ │ │eyes and other │for rescue in │ │ - │ │ │eye injuries. │case of │ │ - │ │ │Injuries due to│“gassing.” │ │ - │ │ │explosions. │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied to │ │ - │ │ │ │workers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │and prevention│ │ - │ │ │ │of escape of │ │ - │ │ │ │dust from │ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │machines. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=10.= June 27,│Aug. 15, 1913.│Peculiar │(_a_) │Special Rules, │ - │ 1913. │ │lesions, │Exclusion of │1900, were │ - │ │ │erosion of │persons under │superseded by │ - │ │ │septum of the │18. │these │ - │ │ │nose, and │(_b_) Removal │Regulations, │ - │ │ │chronic │or prevention │1913, and these│ - │ │ │ulceration of │of steam and │to be revoked │ - │ │ │the skin. │dust. │by Chemical │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Lighting│Regulations. │ - │ │ │ │and fencing of│(See No. 9.) │ - │ │ │ │vats, etc. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │lavatory, │ │ - │ │ │ │baths, │ │ - │ │ │ │provided. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) Medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │and power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) First- │ │ - │ │ │ │aid for │ │ - │ │ │ │treatment of │ │ - │ │ │ │small ulcers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) Daily │ │ - │ │ │ │cleaning │ │ - │ │ │ │floors, │ │ - │ │ │ │stairs, etc. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=11.= │Dec. 21, 1911.│Ill health and │(_a_) │These │ - │ │ │discomfort. │Hygrometrical │Regulations │ - │ │ │ │control. │were made under│ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Humidity│the Cotton │ - │ │ │ │tables and │Cloth Factories│ - │ │ │ │temperature │Act, 1911. │ - │ │ │ │limit. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Chemical│ │ - │ │ │ │and volume │ │ - │ │ │ │standard of │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Purification │ │ - │ │ │ │of water for │ │ - │ │ │ │steam. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=12.= Sept. │Oct. 28, 1904.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │ - │ 30, 1902. │ │and limb by │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │accident from │boys under 16 │ │ - │ │ │machinery, etc.│under certain │ │ - │ │ │Drowning, │conditions. │ │ - │ │ │falls, etc. │(_b_) Fencing │ │ - │ │ │ │of dangerous │ │ - │ │ │ │parts, of │ │ - │ │ │ │footways, │ │ - │ │ │ │gearing, │ │ - │ │ │ │motors, etc., │ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibition of│ │ - │ │ │ │interferences │ │ - │ │ │ │by │ │ - │ │ │ │unauthorised │ │ - │ │ │ │persons. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Lighting│ │ - │ │ │ │of dangerous │ │ - │ │ │ │places at │ │ - │ │ │ │night. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision of │ │ - │ │ │ │gangways; │ │ - │ │ │ │slippery │ │ - │ │ │ │stages to be │ │ - │ │ │ │sanded. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Testing │ │ - │ │ │ │of chains, │ │ - │ │ │ │gear, etc. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision for │ │ - │ │ │ │rescue from │ │ - │ │ │ │drowning. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=13.= │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=14.= Aug. 3, │Nov. 24, 1903.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1903. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 18 and │ │ - │ │ │ │women from │ │ - │ │ │ │manipulation │ │ - │ │ │ │of dry │ │ - │ │ │ │compounds of │ │ - │ │ │ │lead and from │ │ - │ │ │ │pasting. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Prevention, or│ │ - │ │ │ │removal by │ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation, │ │ - │ │ │ │of dust and │ │ - │ │ │ │fumes. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) General │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │and ample │ │ - │ │ │ │cubic space. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │cloakroom. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=15.= Aug. 9, │Jan. 1, 1909. │Deep and │(_a_) Highly │ │ - │ 1907. │ │inflamed burns │technical │ │ - │ │ │and destruction│safeguards for│ │ - │ │ │of tissue from │construction, │ │ - │ │ │continuous │installation, │ │ - │ │ │currents. │protection and│ │ - │ │ │Sudden arrests │working of │ │ - │ │ │of heart’s │apparatus, │ │ - │ │ │action or of │conductors, │ │ - │ │ │respiration, │motors, │ │ - │ │ │violent │switches, etc.│ │ - │ │ │muscular │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │contraction │Provision for │ │ - │ │ │chiefly from │earthing, │ │ - │ │ │alternating │insulating │ │ - │ │ │currents. │stands, │ │ - │ │ │ │adequate │ │ - │ │ │ │space. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Technical │ │ - │ │ │ │qualifications│ │ - │ │ │ │for operators,│ │ - │ │ │ │avoidance of │ │ - │ │ │ │solitary │ │ - │ │ │ │working. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Instructions │ │ - │ │ │ │for treatment │ │ - │ │ │ │of the injured│ │ - │ │ │ │to be affixed.│ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=16.= Sept. │Dec. 22, 1908.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 21, 1908. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 16 years│ │ - │ │ │ │of age. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Ample │ │ - │ │ │ │cubic space. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Efficient │ │ - │ │ │ │lighting. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Good │ │ - │ │ │ │condition of │ │ - │ │ │ │floors and │ │ - │ │ │ │cleaning of │ │ - │ │ │ │same. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Prevention of │ │ - │ │ │ │or removal by │ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation of│ │ - │ │ │ │dust, spray, │ │ - │ │ │ │or fumes. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=17.= June 6, │Aug. 19, 1902.│Burns and │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1902. │ │shock. │Ventilation of│ │ - │ │ │ │proofing, and │ │ - │ │ │ │stove and │ │ - │ │ │ │drying rooms. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Restriction on│ │ - │ │ │ │the number of │ │ - │ │ │ │wet spirit- │ │ - │ │ │ │proofed hats │ │ - │ │ │ │per cubic feet│ │ - │ │ │ │of air space │ │ - │ │ │ │in workroom. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Spirit- │ │ - │ │ │ │proofed hats │ │ - │ │ │ │to be opened │ │ - │ │ │ │out singly and│ │ - │ │ │ │exposed before│ │ - │ │ │ │placing in │ │ - │ │ │ │stoves. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=18.= Sept. │June 23, 1903.│Plumbism. │(_a_) Cubic │ │ - │ 22, 1902. │ │ │space and │ │ - │ │ │ │floor space │ │ - │ │ │ │prescribed per│ │ - │ │ │ │“stock.” │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Flooring│ │ - │ │ │ │to be │ │ - │ │ │ │substantial, │ │ - │ │ │ │washable, and │ │ - │ │ │ │in good │ │ - │ │ │ │repair. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Good │ │ - │ │ │ │general │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing to be│ │ - │ │ │ │worn. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=19.= May 11, │Feb. 26, 1906.│Phthisis with │(_a_) │First certified│ - │ 1905. │ │dyspnœa and │Maintenance of│Jan. 3, 1894. A│ - │ │ │other │prescribed │Departmental │ - │ │ │respiratory │standard of │Committee which│ - │ │ │trouble. │purity of the │was appointed, │ - │ │ │Circulatory and│air. │1911, to │ - │ │ │cardiac │(_b_) Exhaust │consider the │ - │ │ │oppression from│ventilation │amendment to │ - │ │ │moist heat. │for removal of│these │ - │ │ │Skin troubles, │dust. │Regulations │ - │ │ │eczema, and │(_c_) │reported 1914, │ - │ │ │folliculitis. │Hygrometrical │and their │ - │ │ │ │control of │recommendations│ - │ │ │ │humidity and │were issued as │ - │ │ │ │temperature. │an informal │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Purity │draft of │ - │ │ │ │of water for │amended │ - │ │ │ │humidifying. │Regulation. │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │Further steps │ - │ │ │ │Efficient │have not yet │ - │ │ │ │splash-boards │been taken. │ - │ │ │ │in wet │ │ - │ │ │ │spinning. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators to│ │ - │ │ │ │be provided. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) Sound │ │ - │ │ │ │condition of │ │ - │ │ │ │floors and │ │ - │ │ │ │drainage. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=20.= Oct. 14,│Oct. 15, 1909.│Fibroid │(_a_) Removal │ │ - │ 1908. │ │phthisis, │of dust by │ │ - │ │ │asthma, and │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │other │ventilation, │ │ - │ │ │respiratory │etc. │ │ - │ │ │troubles │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │(excessive │Separation of │ │ - │ │ │mortality among│“racing” from │ │ - │ │ │grinders). │other │ │ - │ │ │Later stages, │processes. │ │ - │ │ │frequently │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │tubercular. │Respirators to│ │ - │ │ │Eye injuries │be worn while │ │ - │ │ │from flying │“racing.” │ │ - │ │ │motes and │(_d_) Special │ │ - │ │ │sometimes │cleansing of │ │ - │ │ │further │floors, belt │ │ - │ │ │accidents from │races, and │ │ - │ │ │dimmed vision. │walls, │ │ - │ │ │ │ceilings, and │ │ - │ │ │ │windows. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=21.= Jan. │Aug. 28, 1907.│Respiratory │(_a_) │ │ - │ 29, 1907. │ │troubles. │Maintenance of│ │ - │ │ │Tetanus likely │prescribed │ │ - │ │ │to follow. │standard of │ │ - │ │ │Accidents from │purity of the │ │ - │ │ │machinery. │air. │ │ - │ │ │Rheumatism │(_b_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │common. │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │for removal of│ │ - │ │ │ │dust. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Minimum │ │ - │ │ │ │temperature in│ │ - │ │ │ │certain rooms.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Hygrometrical │ │ - │ │ │ │control of │ │ - │ │ │ │humidity and │ │ - │ │ │ │high │ │ - │ │ │ │temperature in│ │ - │ │ │ │other rooms. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Respirators to│ │ - │ │ │ │be provided in│ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │processes. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=22.= Oct. │Dec 29, 1921. │Anthrax │(_a_) First- │First certified│ - │ 15, 1920. │ │infection │aid equipment.│June, 1903. The│ - │ │ │through │(_b_) │Special Rules, │ - │ │ │abrasion of the│Cautionary │1902, were │ - │ │ │skin or by │notice │converted into │ - │ │ │inhalation of │respecting │Regulations, │ - │ │ │infected dust. │anthrax to be │1921. │ - │ │ │ │affixed. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │ - │ │ │ │messroom │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision for │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfection │ │ - │ │ │ │or destruction│ │ - │ │ │ │of wrappers in│ │ - │ │ │ │which hides │ │ - │ │ │ │and skins have│ │ - │ │ │ │been packed │ │ - │ │ │ │(in tanneries │ │ - │ │ │ │only). │ │ - │ │ │ │_Note._—The │ │ - │ │ │ │Regulations │ │ - │ │ │ │(_a_) and │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) above │ │ - │ │ │ │apply to │ │ - │ │ │ │docks, │ │ - │ │ │ │warehouses, │ │ - │ │ │ │and quays, as │ │ - │ │ │ │well as │ │ - │ │ │ │factories. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=23.= May 23,│Dec. 20, 1907.│Anthrax. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1907. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │persons under │ │ - │ │ │ │18 from │ │ - │ │ │ │employment on │ │ - │ │ │ │material not │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfected. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Register│ │ - │ │ │ │of prescribed │ │ - │ │ │ │particulars of│ │ - │ │ │ │disinfection. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Material│ │ - │ │ │ │not │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfected to│ │ - │ │ │ │be stored │ │ - │ │ │ │separately, │ │ - │ │ │ │and opened and│ │ - │ │ │ │sorted │ │ - │ │ │ │separately, │ │ - │ │ │ │and in │ │ - │ │ │ │connection │ │ - │ │ │ │with exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) All │ │ - │ │ │ │manipulation │ │ - │ │ │ │subsequent to │ │ - │ │ │ │opening and │ │ - │ │ │ │sorting │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibited │ │ - │ │ │ │until material│ │ - │ │ │ │has been │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfected. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Willowing and │ │ - │ │ │ │dust- │ │ - │ │ │ │extracting │ │ - │ │ │ │machines to be│ │ - │ │ │ │provided with │ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) All dust│ │ - │ │ │ │to be │ │ - │ │ │ │intercepted │ │ - │ │ │ │and burnt. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing to be│ │ - │ │ │ │provided and │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │meal rooms, │ │ - │ │ │ │and washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_i_) First- │ │ - │ │ │ │aid │ │ - │ │ │ │requisites. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_j_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Prohibition of│ │ - │ │ │ │work on │ │ - │ │ │ │material not │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfected if│ │ - │ │ │ │having open │ │ - │ │ │ │cut or sore. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_k_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cautionary │ │ - │ │ │ │notice │ │ - │ │ │ │respecting │ │ - │ │ │ │anthrax to be │ │ - │ │ │ │affixed. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=24.= Dec. 21,│Mar. 31, 1922.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│ - │ 1920. │ │Peripheral │Exclusion of │Dec., 1896. │ - │ │ │neuritis or │all young │Special rules │ - │ │ │inflammatory │persons under │for vulcanising│ - │ │ │condition of │18 and girls │india-rubber by│ - │ │ │nerves due to │under 18 from │means of │ - │ │ │effects of │any lead │bisulphide of │ - │ │ │bisulphide of │process, and │carbon, 1897, │ - │ │ │carbon. │of all young │converted into │ - │ │ │ │persons and │these │ - │ │ │ │women from │Regulations for│ - │ │ │ │mixing or │India-rubber, │ - │ │ │ │incorporating │1922. │ - │ │ │ │dry compound │ │ - │ │ │ │of lead with │ │ - │ │ │ │rubber. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 18 from │ │ - │ │ │ │fume process, │ │ - │ │ │ │and those │ │ - │ │ │ │under 16 from │ │ - │ │ │ │a room where │ │ - │ │ │ │such process │ │ - │ │ │ │is carried on.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Limitation of │ │ - │ │ │ │employment in │ │ - │ │ │ │fume process │ │ - │ │ │ │of any person │ │ - │ │ │ │for more than │ │ - │ │ │ │5 hours a day │ │ - │ │ │ │and more than │ │ - │ │ │ │2½ hours at a │ │ - │ │ │ │time without │ │ - │ │ │ │at least 1 │ │ - │ │ │ │hour’s │ │ - │ │ │ │interval. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Removal │ │ - │ │ │ │of dust and │ │ - │ │ │ │fumes by │ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation, │ │ - │ │ │ │and prevention│ │ - │ │ │ │of escape of │ │ - │ │ │ │fumes from │ │ - │ │ │ │vulcanising │ │ - │ │ │ │machines and │ │ - │ │ │ │troughs. (_e_)│ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing to be│ │ - │ │ │ │provided and │ │ - │ │ │ │worn. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │ - │ │ │ │messroom │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │and power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=25.= Sept. 3,│Aug. 23, 1921.│Plumbism. │(_a_) Methods │First certified│ - │ 1920. │ │ │of controlling│as dangerous, │ - │ │ │ │lead dust │May 9, 1892. │ - │ │ │ │prescribed by │These │ - │ │ │ │damping, by │Regulations │ - │ │ │ │ventilation, │supersede the │ - │ │ │ │by careful │Special Rules │ - │ │ │ │handling of │for White Lead │ - │ │ │ │the materials.│dated June, │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │1899. │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │for removing │ │ - │ │ │ │fumes or means│ │ - │ │ │ │of preventing │ │ - │ │ │ │their escape │ │ - │ │ │ │into workroom.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │and power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │provided and │ │ - │ │ │ │arrangements │ │ - │ │ │ │for washing │ │ - │ │ │ │same. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Respirators to│ │ - │ │ │ │be supplied. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │messroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=26.= Dec. 13,│ Aug. 12, │Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1910. │ 1911. │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 16 and │ │ - │ │ │ │women from any│ │ - │ │ │ │lead process. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Suppression or│ │ - │ │ │ │removal of │ │ - │ │ │ │dust or fumes │ │ - │ │ │ │by exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation, │ │ - │ │ │ │damping, etc. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision of │ │ - │ │ │ │protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators in│ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │processes. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │persons from │ │ - │ │ │ │furnaces until│ │ - │ │ │ │ventilated. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Restriction of│ │ - │ │ │ │duration of │ │ - │ │ │ │work to 3 │ │ - │ │ │ │hours in dry │ │ - │ │ │ │flues or │ │ - │ │ │ │condensing │ │ - │ │ │ │chambers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision of │ │ - │ │ │ │mealroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing, and │ │ - │ │ │ │overall │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation,│ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities, │ │ - │ │ │ │and baths. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=27.= Aug. │ May 2, 1905. │Injuries to │(_a_) │ │ - │ 24, 1906. │ │life and limb. │Technical │ │ - │ │ │ │provisions as │ │ - │ │ │ │to position, │ │ - │ │ │ │and use of │ │ - │ │ │ │point rods, │ │ - │ │ │ │signal wires, │ │ - │ │ │ │condition and │ │ - │ │ │ │use of rails, │ │ - │ │ │ │supply of │ │ - │ │ │ │coupling │ │ - │ │ │ │poles, etc. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provisions │ │ - │ │ │ │respecting │ │ - │ │ │ │movements of │ │ - │ │ │ │persons and of│ │ - │ │ │ │locomotives │ │ - │ │ │ │and waggons. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Efficient │ │ - │ │ │ │lighting after│ │ - │ │ │ │dark. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 18 from │ │ - │ │ │ │employment on │ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │capstans and │ │ - │ │ │ │as locomotive │ │ - │ │ │ │drivers, or as│ │ - │ │ │ │a shunter. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protection of │ │ - │ │ │ │water gauges │ │ - │ │ │ │on boilers │ │ - │ │ │ │whether on │ │ - │ │ │ │locomotives or│ │ - │ │ │ │stationary. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=28.= June 2,│ │_Note._—The │Special Rules,│ │ - │ 1892. │ │White │March 31, │ │ - │ │ │Phosphorus │1900, now │ │ - │ │ │Prohibition │obsolete, as │ │ - │ │ │Act, 1908, │white │ │ - │ │ │forbids the use│phosphorus is │ │ - │ │ │of white │no longer │ │ - │ │ │phosphorus in │allowed in the│ │ - │ │ │the manufacture│manufacture. │ │ - │ │ │of matches and │ │ │ - │ │ │also the sale │ │ │ - │ │ │of matches made│ │ │ - │ │ │with the same. │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=29.= Oct. │Nov. 7, 1904. │Injuries to │(_a_) Special │ │ - │ 17, 1905. │ │life and limb │fencing of │ │ - │ │ │from machines │machines and │ │ - │ │ │in motion. │accessory │ │ - │ │ │ │gearing. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Duty │ │ - │ │ │ │laid on │ │ - │ │ │ │“minder” to │ │ - │ │ │ │ensure that no│ │ - │ │ │ │child cleans │ │ - │ │ │ │any part of │ │ - │ │ │ │the mule in │ │ - │ │ │ │motion; that │ │ - │ │ │ │no woman, │ │ - │ │ │ │young person, │ │ - │ │ │ │or child works│ │ - │ │ │ │between the │ │ - │ │ │ │fixed and │ │ - │ │ │ │traversing │ │ - │ │ │ │parts of the │ │ - │ │ │ │mule; and that│ │ - │ │ │ │no person is │ │ - │ │ │ │between those │ │ - │ │ │ │parts unless │ │ - │ │ │ │the moving │ │ - │ │ │ │part is │ │ - │ │ │ │stopped on the│ │ - │ │ │ │outward run. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) “Minder”│ │ - │ │ │ │responsible │ │ - │ │ │ │for the │ │ - │ │ │ │starting of │ │ - │ │ │ │the mule. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=30.= Dec. 1,│Jan. 25, 1907.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│ - │ 1906. │ │ │Exclusion of │1892. │ - │ │ │ │young persons │Special Rules, │ - │ │ │ │and women. │1894, │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Periodic│superseded by │ - │ │ │ │medical │these │ - │ │ │ │examination, │Regulations. │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation to│ │ - │ │ │ │remove dust. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │messroom, │ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=31.= Oct. │ │ │ │ │ - │ 29, 1910. │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=32.= Aug. │Jan. 2, 1913. │Plumbism. │(_a_) │Earthenware and│ - │ 25, 1911. │ │Phthisis or │Exclusion of │china │ - │ │ │other │women, young │manufacturing. │ - │ │ │respiratory │persons, and │First certified│ - │ │ │disease or │children from │Dec. 24, 1892. │ - │ │ │injury to │certain │Special Rules │ - │ │ │health from │processes in │were │ - │ │ │inhalation of │the │established, │ - │ │ │silica or other│preparation of│1894, amended │ - │ │ │dust. │lead glaze, │in 1898, and │ - │ │ │Injury to │etc., and from│again in 1903; │ - │ │ │health from │cleaning in │after │ - │ │ │excessive heat │dipping house,│arbitration │ - │ │ │or humidity. │and as regards│these Rules │ - │ │ │Strain from │a young person│were in turn │ - │ │ │lifting and │and child from│superseded by │ - │ │ │carrying │employment as │the present │ - │ │ │weights. │a dipper. │Regulations, │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │1913. │ - │ │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │women, young │ │ - │ │ │ │persons and │ │ - │ │ │ │children from │ │ - │ │ │ │certain heavy │ │ - │ │ │ │work and work │ │ - │ │ │ │involving │ │ - │ │ │ │strain without│ │ - │ │ │ │a certificate │ │ - │ │ │ │of “permission│ │ - │ │ │ │to work”; and │ │ - │ │ │ │total │ │ - │ │ │ │exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │and children │ │ - │ │ │ │from │ │ - │ │ │ │employment in │ │ - │ │ │ │wedging of │ │ - │ │ │ │clay, and of │ │ - │ │ │ │females from │ │ - │ │ │ │carrying │ │ - │ │ │ │saggars full │ │ - │ │ │ │of ware. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing to be│ │ - │ │ │ │supplied, │ │ - │ │ │ │washed, │ │ - │ │ │ │repaired, and │ │ - │ │ │ │kept in proper│ │ - │ │ │ │custody. │ │ - │ │ │ │Respirators to│ │ - │ │ │ │be supplied in│ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │processes. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │facilities, │ │ - │ │ │ │cloakroom, and│ │ - │ │ │ │mealroom to be│ │ - │ │ │ │provided. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) Milk or │ │ - │ │ │ │cocoa to be │ │ - │ │ │ │provided for │ │ - │ │ │ │all women and │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │if working │ │ - │ │ │ │before 9 a.m. │ │ - │ │ │ │in certain │ │ - │ │ │ │processes. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │for all │ │ - │ │ │ │processes │ │ - │ │ │ │giving rise to│ │ - │ │ │ │dust (lead or │ │ - │ │ │ │flint, etc.), │ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation of│ │ - │ │ │ │all rooms and │ │ - │ │ │ │of drying │ │ - │ │ │ │stoves. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) Means │ │ - │ │ │ │for preventing│ │ - │ │ │ │excessive heat│ │ - │ │ │ │and humidity │ │ - │ │ │ │in workrooms │ │ - │ │ │ │and in ovens. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_i_) Special │ │ - │ │ │ │means for │ │ - │ │ │ │cleaning │ │ - │ │ │ │floors, │ │ - │ │ │ │benches, │ │ - │ │ │ │boards, etc., │ │ - │ │ │ │where lead │ │ - │ │ │ │glaze is used.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_j_) Special │ │ - │ │ │ │precautions as│ │ - │ │ │ │regards lead │ │ - │ │ │ │dust and │ │ - │ │ │ │splashing of │ │ - │ │ │ │lead glaze in │ │ - │ │ │ │majolica │ │ - │ │ │ │painting, │ │ - │ │ │ │aerographing, │ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │lithographic │ │ - │ │ │ │transfers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_k_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Limitation of │ │ - │ │ │ │hours of men │ │ - │ │ │ │as well as │ │ - │ │ │ │women in │ │ - │ │ │ │dipping and │ │ - │ │ │ │some other │ │ - │ │ │ │lead processes│ │ - │ │ │ │to 48 hours │ │ - │ │ │ │per week. │ │ - │ │ │ │Intervals │ │ - │ │ │ │prescribed in │ │ - │ │ │ │certain lead │ │ - │ │ │ │processes of ½│ │ - │ │ │ │hour every 4 │ │ - │ │ │ │hours or 4¾ │ │ - │ │ │ │hours for │ │ - │ │ │ │every person. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_l_) Power │ │ - │ │ │ │given to │ │ - │ │ │ │inspector to │ │ - │ │ │ │take samples │ │ - │ │ │ │of any │ │ - │ │ │ │material for │ │ - │ │ │ │analysis. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_m_) Works │ │ - │ │ │ │Inspector to │ │ - │ │ │ │supervise │ │ - │ │ │ │observance of │ │ - │ │ │ │regulations. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=33.= Mar. │ April 26, │Injury to lungs│(_a_) │ │ - │ 22, 1918. │ 1919. │from the │Prescribed │ │ - │ │ │inhalation of │methods of │ │ - │ │ │silica dust. │controlling │ │ - │ │ │Tuberculosis. │and removing │ │ - │ │ │Silicosis. │dust by │ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation, │ │ - │ │ │ │damping, etc.,│ │ - │ │ │ │and by │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibition of│ │ - │ │ │ │certain │ │ - │ │ │ │methods of │ │ - │ │ │ │work. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision of │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=34.= Aug. 5,│April 4, 1914.│Injury to life │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1913. │ │and limb from │Sufficient │ │ - │ │ │falls and │supply of good│ │ - │ │ │falling bodies.│materials for │ │ - │ │ │ │stages. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Construction │ │ - │ │ │ │of stages to │ │ - │ │ │ │be of sound │ │ - │ │ │ │material, │ │ - │ │ │ │secure, and │ │ - │ │ │ │erected by │ │ - │ │ │ │competent │ │ - │ │ │ │persons. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Gangways│ │ - │ │ │ │to be fenced, │ │ - │ │ │ │also openings │ │ - │ │ │ │in decks to be│ │ - │ │ │ │provided with │ │ - │ │ │ │covers. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Adequate│ │ - │ │ │ │lighting while│ │ - │ │ │ │work is in │ │ - │ │ │ │progress. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Ambulance and │ │ - │ │ │ │first-aid │ │ - │ │ │ │provision. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Competent │ │ - │ │ │ │person to │ │ - │ │ │ │supervise and │ │ - │ │ │ │enforce │ │ - │ │ │ │observance of │ │ - │ │ │ │regulations. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=35.= Sept. │June 30, 1909.│Plumbism. │(_a_) │First certified│ - │ 25, 1908. │ │ │Exclusion of │Jan. 1894. │ - │ │ │ │persons under │Special Rules │ - │ │ │ │16 from │superseded by │ - │ │ │ │tinning. │these │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │Regulations, │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │1909. │ - │ │ │ │for removal of│ │ - │ │ │ │dust and fumes│ │ - │ │ │ │over dipping │ │ - │ │ │ │and wiping, │ │ - │ │ │ │and over │ │ - │ │ │ │skimmings │ │ - │ │ │ │until their │ │ - │ │ │ │removal in a │ │ - │ │ │ │covered │ │ - │ │ │ │receptacle. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Removal │ │ - │ │ │ │of dust and │ │ - │ │ │ │refuse from │ │ - │ │ │ │workrooms. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │cloakroom for │ │ - │ │ │ │women. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Meal- │ │ - │ │ │ │room and │ │ - │ │ │ │washing │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┤ - │=36.= │ Lead Compounds=, No. 25.) │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┤ - │=37.= June │Dec. 18, 1908.│Anthrax. │(_a_) Dust- │ │ - │ 17, 1905. │ │ │extracting │ │ - │ │ │ │machines to be│ │ - │ │ │ │covered over │ │ - │ │ │ │and cover │ │ - │ │ │ │connected with│ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust fan so│ │ - │ │ │ │as to │ │ - │ │ │ │discharge dust│ │ - │ │ │ │into a furnace│ │ - │ │ │ │or │ │ - │ │ │ │intercepting │ │ - │ │ │ │chamber. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing and │ │ - │ │ │ │respirators to│ │ - │ │ │ │be supplied │ │ - │ │ │ │for persons │ │ - │ │ │ │who collect │ │ - │ │ │ │and remove the│ │ - │ │ │ │dust. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=38.= June │Dec. 12, 1905.│Anthrax. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 17, 1905. │ │ │Scheduled wool│ │ - │ │ │ │or hair to be │ │ - │ │ │ │opened by │ │ - │ │ │ │skilled men │ │ - │ │ │ │only, and to │ │ - │ │ │ │be steeped in │ │ - │ │ │ │water or │ │ - │ │ │ │alternatively │ │ - │ │ │ │opened over a │ │ - │ │ │ │screen with an│ │ - │ │ │ │exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │according to │ │ - │ │ │ │the Schedule. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Sorting │ │ - │ │ │ │boards must be│ │ - │ │ │ │as prescribed │ │ - │ │ │ │and also │ │ - │ │ │ │willowing │ │ - │ │ │ │machines. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Storage │ │ - │ │ │ │of wool or │ │ - │ │ │ │hair │ │ - │ │ │ │prohibited in │ │ - │ │ │ │sorting and │ │ - │ │ │ │willeying │ │ - │ │ │ │room. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Provision for │ │ - │ │ │ │collection and│ │ - │ │ │ │removal of │ │ - │ │ │ │dust and │ │ - │ │ │ │refuse. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) Floors │ │ - │ │ │ │to be │ │ - │ │ │ │sprinkled and │ │ - │ │ │ │swept daily. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied and │ │ - │ │ │ │not removed │ │ - │ │ │ │unless │ │ - │ │ │ │disinfected or│ │ - │ │ │ │boiled. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_g_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │and mealroom │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - │ │ │ │(_h_) First- │ │ - │ │ │ │aid requisites│ │ - │ │ │ │duty laid on │ │ - │ │ │ │workers to │ │ - │ │ │ │report any │ │ - │ │ │ │open sore or │ │ - │ │ │ │cut. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_i_) Power of│ │ - │ │ │ │inspectors to │ │ - │ │ │ │take samples │ │ - │ │ │ │of material. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=39.= Aug. │ │Injury to life │(_a_) │In draft June, │ - │ 10, 1920. │ │and limb. │Provision of │1922. │ - │ │ │Injury to │efficient │ │ - │ │ │health— │stopping and │ │ - │ │ │respiratory │starting gear │ │ - │ │ │troubles. │on every │ │ - │ │ │ │woodworking │ │ - │ │ │ │machine. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Special │ │ - │ │ │ │fencing of │ │ - │ │ │ │machinery, │ │ - │ │ │ │particularly │ │ - │ │ │ │circular saws │ │ - │ │ │ │and planing │ │ - │ │ │ │machines. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Spacing │ │ - │ │ │ │of machines, │ │ - │ │ │ │and │ │ - │ │ │ │maintenance of│ │ - │ │ │ │surrounding │ │ - │ │ │ │floors in good│ │ - │ │ │ │condition and │ │ - │ │ │ │free from │ │ - │ │ │ │obstruction. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) Adequate│ │ - │ │ │ │lighting, both│ │ - │ │ │ │daylight and │ │ - │ │ │ │artificial │ │ - │ │ │ │light. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Artificial │ │ - │ │ │ │warming of │ │ - │ │ │ │workrooms in │ │ - │ │ │ │cold weather. │ │ - ├──────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┤ - │=40.= June 1,│Aug. 6, 1907. │Plumbism. │(_a_) │ │ - │ 1907. │ │ │Exclusion of │ │ - │ │ │ │young persons │ │ - │ │ │ │under 16. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_b_) Exhaust │ │ - │ │ │ │ventilation │ │ - │ │ │ │for removal of│ │ - │ │ │ │dust draught │ │ - │ │ │ │to be tested │ │ - │ │ │ │and recorded │ │ - │ │ │ │quarterly. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_c_) Periodic│ │ - │ │ │ │medical │ │ - │ │ │ │examination │ │ - │ │ │ │with power of │ │ - │ │ │ │suspension. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_d_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Protective │ │ - │ │ │ │clothing │ │ - │ │ │ │supplied. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_e_) │ │ - │ │ │ │Cloakroom and │ │ - │ │ │ │mealroom, if │ │ - │ │ │ │required in │ │ - │ │ │ │writing by │ │ - │ │ │ │chief │ │ - │ │ │ │inspector. │ │ - │ │ │ │(_f_) Washing │ │ - │ │ │ │accommodation.│ │ - └──────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┘ - - - - - APPENDIX II -TABLE OF REPORTED CASES OF INDUSTRIAL POISONING AND ANTHRAX (SECTION 73 - OF THE FACTORY ACT, 1901). - - (_Small figures at right-hand corner of larger figures indicate fatal - cases, included in totals_). - - - ┌────────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────┐ - │ │ 1921 │ 1920 │ 1919 │ 1918 │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - ├────────────────┼────────┬───────┼────────┬────┼────────┬────┼────────┬────┤ - │ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ - ├────────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────┼────────┼────┼────────┼────┤ - │LEAD │194^{21}│ 36^2│222^{20}│21^3│187^{26}│ 20│124^{11}│ 20│ - │ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Tinning of │ │ 1│ │ 2│ │ 2│ 1│ 1│ - │ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │White lead │ 13^1│ │ 17│ │ 10│ │ │ │ - │China and │ 21^9│ 13^2│ 16^{11}│ 8^2│ 13^8│ 8│ 5^1│ 6│ - │ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Litho-transfers │ │ 1│ │ 1│ │ │ │ │ - │Vitreous │ 7│ 1│ 1│ 1│ 1│ │ │ │ - │ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Coach │ 14^1│ 6│ 12│ 1│ 10^3│ 1│ 12^3│ │ - │ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ other │ 12│ │ 7^1│ 3│ 7^3│ 2│ 12│ 3│ - │ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Other industries│ 20^2│10[262]│ 32^2│ │ 24^1│ 1│ 19^1│ 4│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │MERCURY │ │ │ 4│ 1│ 5│ 2│ 8│ 1│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │PHOSPHORUS │ │ │ │ │ 1│ │ 3│ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ARSENIC │ 1│ │ 3│ │ 4│ │ 3^1│ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ANTHRAX │ 21^5│ 4^1│ 42^{10}│ 6^1│ 46^6│11^3│ 46^5│26^3│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │TOXIC JAUNDICE │ 1^1│ │ 6^3│ │ 2^2│ 1^1│ 7^2│27^8│ - └────────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────┴────────┴────┴────────┴────┘ - - ┌────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬───────────┐ - │ │ 1917 │ 1916 │ 1915 │ - │ │ │ │ │ - ├────────────────┼────────┬────────┼────────┬────────┼────────┬──┤ - │ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │F.│ - ├────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──┤ - │LEAD │272^{19}│ 45^2│318^{20}│ 30^1│356^{21}│25│ - │ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Tinning of │ 2│ │ 3│ 1│ 2│ 1│ - │ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │White lead │ 15│ 2│ 16^1│ 2│ 36│ 4│ - │China and │ 8^5│ 7^2│ 15^6│ 8^1│ 13^5│13│ - │ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Litho-transfers │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Vitreous │ 1│ │ 5│ │ 5^1│ │ - │ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Coach │ 20^2│ 1│ 33│ │ 39^5│ │ - │ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ other │ 17^1│ 3│ 18│ 2│ 16^2│ │ - │ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Other industries│ 57^4│ 19[263]│ 50^3│ 11│ 47^1│ 7│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │MERCURY │ 6│ 11│ 11│ 7│ 6│ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │PHOSPHORUS │ 3│ │ 2│ │ 3^1│ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ARSENIC │ 0^5│ │ │ │ 3│ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ANTHRAX │ 71^{11}│ 22^1│ 77^{14}│ 28^2│ 45^7│ 5│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │TOXIC JAUNDICE │ 45^2│145^{42}│ 84^{23}│122^{34}│ │ │ - └────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴──┘ - - ┌────────────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬────────────────┐ - │ │ _Average_ │ _Average_ │ _Average_ │ - │ │ 1912–14 │ 1909–11 │ 1906–08 │ - ├────────────────┼────────┬───────┼────────┬────┼────────┬───────┤ - │ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ - ├────────────────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────┼────────┼───────┤ - │LEAD │468^{32}│ 55^1│512^{32}│63^3│524^{28}│ 95^2│ - │ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Tinning of │ 10│ 1│ 13│ 4│ 10│ 8│ - │ metals │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │White lead │ 24^1│ 3│ 34^1│ 2│ 83^3│ 3│ - │China and │ 33^10│ 23^1│ 38^4│38^3│ 52^6│ 57^2│ - │ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Litho-transfers │ 1│ │ 1│ 1│ 5│ 1│ - │Vitreous │ 8│ │ 12│ 1│ 5│ 1│ - │ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Coach │ 70^4│ 1│ 89^6│ │ 74^4│ 1│ - │ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ other │ 42^2│ 4│ 45^1│ 4│ 39^2│ 5│ - │ industries │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │Other industries│ 63^2│14[264]│ 56^3│ 8│ 57^3│10[265]│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │MERCURY │ 13│ 1│ 10│ │ 5│ 2│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │PHOSPHORUS │ │ │ 1│ │ │ │ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ARSENIC │ 4│ │ 5│ 2│ 11^1│ 1│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ANTHRAX │ 50^6│ 7│ 48^9│ 9^2│ 44^{11}│ 13^3│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - │TOXIC JAUNDICE │ │ │ │ │ │ │ - └────────────────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────┴────────┴───────┘ - - ┌────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐ - │ │ _Average_ │ 1900 │ - │ │ 1903–05 │ │ - ├────────────────┼────────┬─────┼────────┬─────┤ - │ „ │ M. │ F. │ M. │ F. │ - ├────────────────┼────────┼─────┼────────┼─────┤ - │LEAD │501^{22}│100^1│884^{33}│174^5│ - │ POISONING[260]│ │ │ │ │ - │Tinning of │ 9│ 4│ 2│ 3│ - │ metals │ │ │ │ │ - │White lead │ 100^1│ 5^1│ 325^5│ 53^1│ - │China and │ 39^3│ 56│ 95^4│105^4│ - │ earthenware │ │ │ │ │ - │Litho-transfers │ 2│ 7│ 3│ │ - │Vitreous │ 1│ 2│ 8│ 3│ - │ enamelling │ │ │ │ │ - │Coach │ 60^4│ │ 70^5│ │ - │ painting[261] │ │ │ │ │ - │Paints used in │ │ │ │ │ - │ other │ 36^2│ 4│ 50^5│ │ - │ industries │ │ │ │ │ - │Other industries│ 42^1│ 12│ 68^4│ 18│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │MERCURY │ 6│ │ 7│ 2│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │PHOSPHORUS │ 1│ 1^1│ 1│ 2│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ARSENIC │ 4│ │ 15^3│ 7│ - │ POISONING │ │ │ │ │ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │ANTHRAX │ 43^{11}│ 9^2│ 28^5│ 9^2│ - │ │ │ │ │ │ - │TOXIC JAUNDICE │ │ │ │ │ - └────────────────┴────────┴─────┴────────┴─────┘ - - - - - INDEX - - - Aberdare, Lord, Home Secretary, 6 - - Abraham, Miss May, Inspector of Factories, vii, 9, 40, 201; - secretary to Lady Dilke, 9; - retirement, 13; - marriage, 13; - member of the Dangerous Trades Committee, 100. - _See_ Tennant - - Accidents in factories, 139, 140; - in laundries, 141–146; - treatment, 147; - number, 196 - - Aerated water, 288 - - Aeroplanes, varnishing the wings, 129 - - Akers-Douglas, Rt. Hon. (Lord Chilston), Home Secretary, 192; - on Women Inspectors, 193 - - Alverstone, Lord, 207 - - America, “motion study,” 256 - - Anderson, Adelaide Mary, Inspector of Factories, 9 - - Anthrax, cases of, 95, 98, 115, 126, 306 - - Anti-Sweating Movement, 60 - - Antrim, 177 - - Ardara, 80 - - Arsenic, 95, 98, 288, 306 - - Asbestos industry, 96, 106 - - Asquith, Rt. Hon. H. H., on Factory Laws, 10; - on Women Inspectors, 191, 192 - - - Baden, Grand Duchy of, silk mills, 139 - - Bag-woman or carrier system, 90 - - _Beacon_, the, 252 _note_ - - Bedford College for Women, 270 _note_ - - Belfast, textile mill, case of half-timers, 55; - procession of workers, 75; - conference in, 109; - Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute, 162, 268 _note_; - Health Commission, 175 - - Belgium, reformatory institutions, 182; - prevention of industrial fatigue, 255 - - Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish, on the work of Women Inspectors, 195 - - Benzine, 288 - - Berlin, conference in, 10, 150 - - Bichromate of potassium, result of, 127, 290 - - Birmingham, prosecutions, 179; - munition factories, 231; - Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute, 274 - - Birtwistle, Mr., Inspector of Textile Particulars, 85 - - Black Country factories, 43 - - Blackburn, 155 - - Board of Trade Wage Census, 63 - - Bonus system, 76 - - Bournville, conference at, 269 - - Branford, Victor, _Interpretations and Forecasts_, 149 - - Brass, 288 - - Bricks, glazing of, 120 - - Brickworks, 134 - - Briquettes, 288 - - Bristol, 80; - Women Workers, meeting, 9 - - Bronzing, dust from, 111, 288 - - Brooke-Gwynne, Maura, xi - - Buffing of plated articles, 109 - - Burnley, 135, 155 - - Burns, Rt. Hon. John, on the work of Women Inspectors, 192 - - - Cadbury, Mr., conference at Bournville, 269 - - Campbell, Dr. Janet, on Health of Women in Industry, 123 _note_; - _War Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry_, 197 - - Canteens, result of, 257 - - Carbonic oxide poisoning, 127 - - Carotting, process of, 126 - - Celluloid, 290 - - Cement works, in Scotland, employment of women, 234 - - Chalmers, Sir Mackenzie, 11 - - Chapman, S. J., _Labour and Capital after the War_, 64 _note_, 227 - _note_, 232 _note_ - - Chemical works, employment of women, 233 - - Chemicals, 290 - - Children, employment in factories, 131, 163–179; - result of lifting heavy weights, 131–135, 171; - examinations, 166, 168–174; - half-time system, 165, 177; - cases of rejection, 167; - in Ireland, 174–177; - number of, 177, 180 - - China scourers, 96; - mortality, 103–105 - - Christian Social Union Research Committee, 262 - - Chromate, lead, 120, 121, 290 - - Chrome holes, 127 - - Cleanliness of workshops, 45, 47, 48, 258 - - Clothing factories, wages, 67; - accidents, 146; - employment of mothers, 154; - number employed, 218, 225 _note_ - - Cohen, Miss H. F., 158 - - Colchester, clothing factories, 89; - rate of wages, 67 - - Collett, Miss Clara, Assistant Commissioner on Labour, 9 - - Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse, criticism on the work of Women Inspectors, - 193 - - Collis, Dr. E. L., 96, 110; - Director of the Welfare Department, 274 - - _Commonwealth_, the, 18 - - Consumption, compulsory notification, 110 - - Cooke-Taylor, Whateley, 164; - _The Modern Factory System_, 57 - - Cornwall, 78, 83 - - Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889, 99 - - Cotton mills, driving system, 8; - fines, 73 - - Coventry, factories in, 179, 268 - - - Dangerous Trades Committee 100, 111, 137 - - Deane, Miss Lucy, Inspector of Factories, 9, 80, 81, 87, 103, 116, 117, - 181, 185 - - _Deane_ v. _Hulbert Beach_, 203; - v. _Wilson_, 76, 77 - - Dermatitis or inflammation of the skin, case of, 127, 128 - - Dickie, Mrs., Inspector, 176 - - Digby, Sir Kenelm, 11 - - Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles, on the work of Women Inspectors, 192, 194 - - Dilke, Lady, 9, 11 - - Dilution Officers of Munitions, 237 - - Donegal, experiences of Inspectors in, 213 - - _Donegal Vindicator_, 81 _note_ - - Dope poisoning, 129 - - Down, 177 - - Drage, Mr. Geoffrey, Secretary of the Labour Commission, 9 - - Drinking water, supply of, 46 - - Driving system, in cotton mills, 8 - - Drury, Mrs., Inspector, xi, 67; - sketch of a day’s work, 219–221. - _See_ Whitworth - - Duckering, G. Elmhirst, Inspector of Factories, 101 - - Dundee, 155, 178 - - Dungloe, 81 - - Dust, dangers of, 102–112, 288 - - - Edward IV., King, statute of, 58 _note_ - - Eight Hours Bill, 8 - - Electric accumulator industry, 115, 292 - - Electro-plate works, Sheffield, 109 - - Elementary Education Act, 166 _note_ - - Emergency Orders, 230, 239, 241 - - Employment of Children, Royal Commission of 1841, 103; - Act, 135, 136; - Committee on, in 1901, 168 - - “Employment of Mothers,” 156 - - Enamelling of metals, 100, 101, 292 - - Escreet, Miss, Inspector of Factories, xi, 92, 264 - - - Fabian Society, 8 - - Factories, Women Inspectors, vii, ix, 1, 5, 7, 9; - number of, 15; - their work, 19; - evils of the system, 24–27; - hours of work, 27–34, 39, 239–244; - evils of overtime, 35–39; - defective sanitation, 39–44; - supply of drinking water, 46; - lighting, 46–50; - system of fines, 68–72; - practice of raffling, 72; - bonus system, 76; - dangerous processes, 94; - special rules, 95–98, 113; - mechanical ventilation, 100; - records, 112; - Women Medical Inspectors, 122; - accidents in, 139; - register of, 140; - employment of mothers, 150–163; - number of, 161, 180, 225 _note_; - employment of children, 163–179; - number of, 177; - half-time system, 165, 177; - daily visits of inspection, 216; - substitution of women, 233–239, 245; - welfare movement, 253–272; - women superintendents, 260, 268; - provision for meals, 261–264, 271; - neglect of seats, 265–267; - weight lifting, 267; - first-aid and ambulance work, 267; - hygienic safeguards, 272; - surveys, 273; - orders for welfare condition, 276–278; - committees, 278–281, 284; - series of welfare pamphlets, 281; - improved conditions, 282–285 - - Factories and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1916, 46 - - Factory Act of 1802, 150; - of 1878, 6, 7, 28 _note_, 49 _note_, 202; - of 1891, 10, 13, 97, 150, 166 _note_; - of 1895, 13, 31, 32, 49, 85, 191; - of 1901, 29, 30 _note_, 31, 33, 45, 49, 92, 94, 97, 127 _note_, 131, - 166 _note_, 171, 182, 202, 230 _note_; - of 1907, 33, 186 - - Factory system, 4; - a workers’ welfare committee in a national factory, 278 - - Faithful, Miss Emily, letter to _The Times_, 6 - - Fencing of machinery, the term, 12; - accidents from, 139, 144 - - Fines, system of, 68–72 - - Fish-curing industry, 31, 128, 276 _note_; - number employed, 225 _note_ - - Flax preparation and carding, mortality, 102, 294 - - Flax scutch mills, 109 - - Ford, Miss I. O., 8 - - Foxford Convent, Mayo, 181 - - France, reformatory institutions, 182, 183; - industrial legislation, 199 _note_, 255 - - Fruit industry, 32; - number employed, 225 _note_ - - _Fullers, Ltd._ v. _Squire_, 204 - - Fustian clothing factories, 89 - - - Gas stoves, unhooded, 49 - - Gasworks, employment of women, 235 - - George I., King, statute of, 58 _note_ - - Germany, reformatory institutions, 182, 183; - industrial legislation, 199 _note_, 255 - - Gladstone, Viscount, Departmental Committee, 105, 118 _note_; - on the increase of Women Inspectors, 194 - - Glasgow Trade Union Congress, 7 - - Glass factories of Sunderland, 135 - - Goadby, Dr. Kenneth W., _Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption_, 99, 112 - _note_, 114 - - Goods, payment in, evils of, 59, 62, 78, 80–85 - - Grimsby, 31 - - - Haldane, Viscount, address to Factory Inspectors, 207 - - Half-time system, 165, 177 - - Hanley, 155 - - Hatch, Sir Ernest, Departmental Committee, 106, 118 - - Haynes, Miss Dorothy, 200 _note_ - - Heading yarn dyed in lead chromate, cases of poisoning, 120, 121, 304 - - Health Commission, in Belfast, Report of the, 175 - - Health Insurance, National, 121, 158, 162 - - Health, Ministry of, 152 - - Health of Munition Workers Committee, 237, 241, 242, 244, 247, 256 - _note_, 257 _note_ - - Hewitt, Dr. E. M., 96 - - Hill, Dr. Leonard, 99 - - Hills, Mr., 195 - - Holland, Canon Scott, on the work of Factory Inspectors, 18 - - Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women, 229 _note_, 236 - - Homework, Select Committee on, 60 - - Hood, Thomas, _Song of the Shirt_, 8 - - Hosiery factories, teazle brushing, 108 - - Hours of work, 27–34, 39, 239–244; - reduction, 52 - - Hygiene and Industrial Employment, address on, 162 - - - _Illumination in Factories_, 46 - - India-rubber works, 125, 298 - - Industrial Fatigue Research Board, 248 - - Industrial Law Indemnity Fund, 22 - - Industries, dangerous and unhealthy, 94, 287; - preventive measures, 288–305 - - Infant mortality, high rate of, 154 - - Institutions, reformatory or charitable, method of administration, 151, - 182–189 - - Ireland, letters of thanks to Inspectors, 55; - wages of dressmakers, 80; - payment in goods, 80–83; - prosecutions, 82; - employment of children, 174–177; - convent industries, 181; - institutional laundries, 184 - - Italy, prevention of industrial fatigue, 255 - - - Joteyko, Dr. Josefa, _Science of Labour_, 198, 246 - - - Kent, Prof. Stanley, 255 _note_ - - Kid-glove makers, payment of, 84 - - Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement, _Women and Industrial Changes_, 225 _note_ - - Kippering industry case, 213 - - Kropotkin, Prince, _Fields, Factories and Workshops_, 280 - - - Labels, injurious practice of licking, 137–139 - - _Labour and Capital after the War_, 245 _note_ - - Labour Convention of 1919, 10 - - Labour, International Conference, at Berlin, 10 - - Labour, Ministry of, 237 - - Labour, Royal Commission on, 3, 9, 42 - - Lace-tinting industry, 110 - - Lakeman, Mr., on the evils of working overtime, 35 - - Lancashire, Limited Liability Company, case against, 42; - employment of mothers, 159 - - Laundries, hours of work, 32–34; - seaside, 38; - carbonic oxide poisoning, 127; - accidents in, 141–146; - remedies against, 142; - number, 143; - prosecutions, 145; - employment of mothers, 151–154; - institutional, 151, 184–188; - women employed, 180, 218, 225 _note_ - - Lead chromate, 120, 121, 290 - - Lead poisoning, 96, 100, 298, 304, 306 - - Leeds, factories, 89; - practice of raffling goods, 72 - - Legge, Dr. T. M., Senior Medical Inspector, xi, 96, 97, 107, 129; - Occupational Diseases, 99 _note_; - Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption, 99 _note_, 112 _note_, 114 - - Lighting of factories and workshops, 46–50; - Committee on, 47 - - Linen-weaving factory, system of fines, 71 - - London, factories, 89; - School of Economics, 270 _note_ - - Longton, 104, 155 - - Lovibond, Miss, 112, 135. - _See_ Moorcroft - - Lowestoft, fishing industry, 31, 276 _note_ - - Lucifer match factory, case of, 79 - - Lushington, Sir Godfrey, 11 - - Lye, bucket industry, 154 - - Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred, 195 - - - MacArthur, Miss Mary, 37 - - Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay, 195 - - Machinery, fencing of, 12; - accidents from, 139 - - Manchester, practice of raffling goods, 72; - “making-up” warehouses, 136 - - Manufacturers, Association of, 71, 75 - - Martindale, Miss Hilda, x, 23, 55, 56, 71, 80, 83, 109, 116, 119, 134, - 156, 174, 176, 179, 185; - _Hygiene and Industrial Employment_, 162, 268 _note_ - - Mary, H.M. Queen, Fund, 188 - - Match-making industry, 124 - - Matthews, Rt. Hon. Henry, Home Secretary, 7 - - McKenna, Rt. Hon. R., on the work of Women Inspectors, 193 - - Meals, provision for, in factories, 261–264, 271 - - Medical Inspectors, 20, 95 - - Men, number employed in factories, 15, 16; - Inspectors, work of the, 20, 196; - number, 15 - - Mercerised cotton yarn dust, 108 - - Mercurial poisoning, cases of, 124–126, 306 - - Meredith, George, 224 - - Messrooms, 258, 262 - - Metals, enamelling and tinning of, 100, 101 _note_, 292, 304 - - Mill gearing, 12 _note_ - - Mill girls, deputation of, 222 - - Mines Acts, 97 - - Moorcroft, Mrs., 112. - _See_ Lovibond - - Morrell, Mr., 195 - - Mothers, employment of, 150–163; - maternity fund, 157; - cases of, 158–162; - number, 161 - - Mulhouse, maternity fund, 157 - - Munition workers, number of, 228, 239; - long hours, 239–244 - - - National Liberal Federation, meeting, 10 - - National Service, Ministry of, 237 - - Necrosis, cases of, 125 - - Needle-puncturing accidents, 146 - - Nicotine poisoning, 127 - - Niven, Dr., on the cleanliness of workshops, 48 - - - Oastler, Richard, 3 - - Oram, Mr. R. E. Sprague, H.M. Chief Inspector, 13, 19; - retirement, 13, 19 - - Osborn, Mr. E. H., H.M. Superintending Inspector of Factories, 99, 102 - - Outwork, evil of, 30 - - Overtime, working, 28; - evils of, 35–39 - - Owen, Robert, 3, 253 - - - Papworth, Miss Wyatt, Secretary of the Women’s Industrial Council, 36 - - Paterson, Mrs. Emma Ann, founds the Women’s Protective League, 6 - - Paterson, Miss Mary, Inspector of Factories, vii, xi, 9, 56, 72, 103, - 115, 156, 160, 161, 166, 167, 171, 173, 185, 201; - on insanitary conditions, 41; - case of overcrowding, 44 - - Paterson, Mr. Thomas, 6 - - Peace Treaty of 1919, 10 - - Peel, Sir R., 3 - - Pendock, Mr. C. R., Inspector of Factories, 99, 101; - _Observations on Ventilation of Potteries and Removal of Dust_, 102 - _note_ - - Pen-making trade, 88, 92; - system of “cards,” 93 - - Peripatetic Inspectors, 210 - - Perry, Miss, 145 - - Phosphorus necrosis, 124, 306 - - Physical Deterioration, Committee on, 155 - - Piecework, payment of, 85–93 - - Plumbism, cases of, 116, 290 - - Poisoning, cases of, 98, 306 - - Police Act, the little, 274–278 - - Police, Factories, etc., Act, 254 _note_ - - Potteries, records, 112; - Fund, 118 - - Pottery Code of Regulations, 117 - - _Power Laundry, The_, 33 - - Pratt, Mr. Hodgson, 6 - - Presbyterian Church, General Assembly of the, on child labour, 177 - - Preston, 155 - - Public Health Acts, 45, 207 - - Purdon, Dr., 102 - - - Rabbit skins, dust from, 126, 170 _note_ - - Raffling, practice of, 72 - - Reconstruction, Ministry of, 237 - - _Redgrave_ v. _Kelly_, case of, 75 - - Reformatory institutions, administration, 151, 182–189 - - Religious institutions, workers, 181 - - Rent, deductions for, 79 - - Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir Matthew White, Home Secretary, 10; - on Women Factory Inspectors, 191 - - Rowntree, Mr. Seebohm, Director of the Welfare Department, 232, 273 - - Royal Sanitary Institute, Congress at Belfast, 162 - - Rubber articles, 124, 125 - - Rubber tyre factory, system of fines, 69 - - Russell, Lord, of Killowen, 207 - - - Sadler, Michael, 3 - - Sadler, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 114 _note_, 122 - - Safety-pin factory, system of deductions, 69 - - Sanitation, defective, in factories and workshops, 39–44 - - _Schofield_ v. _Schunk_, 146 - - School Child Leaflet, 274 - - Scientific instrument making, 236 - - Scotland, cement works, employment of women, 234 - - Seats, lack of, in factories, 265–267 - - _Service Magazine_, 280 - - Shaftesbury, Earl of, 3, 7, 164 - - Sheffield, electro-plate works, 109; - conference in, 259; - dinner clubs, 263 - - Shell factory, 251 - - Shetland, 78 - - Shift systems, 242 - - Silk waste carding and spinning, 107 - - Simon, Sir John, 104 - - Slocock, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 85, 178 - - Smith, Adam, 62 - - Smith, Sydney, 99 - - Somerset, 78, 83 - - Squire, Miss R. E., Inspector of Factories, x, 10, 60, 72, 73, 81, 82, - 87, 88, 107, 108, 113, 120, 132, 136, 148, 152, 155, 156, 169, 178, - 181, 199 _note_, 203, 271; - member of a Committee on Lighting in Factories, 47; - cases, 53, 54; - on the wages of girls, 65; - in charge of the Women’s Welfare Department, 274 - - _Squire_ v. _Boyer & Co._, 205; - v. _Midland Lace Company_, 85; - v. _Sweeney_, 83, 85 - - Staffordshire Potteries, 43, 116, 131, 133, 136, 155 - - Star, the, 37 - - Steel works in Yorkshire, employment of women, 234 - - Stoke-on-Trent, 104 - - Stourbridge, brick-making, 154 - - Stuart, Prof. William, _Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century_, 164 - _note_; - _Substitution of Women in Industry_, 229 _note_ - - Substitutes, women as. _See_ Women Workers - - Sunderland, glass factories, 135 - - Sweated Industries, Exhibition of 1906, 60 - - Sweating system, 8 - - - Tailoring trade, 89 - - Tawney, Mr. R. H., _Minimum Rates in the Tailoring Trade_, 67 - - Taylor, Mr. Stevenson, Inspector of Factories, 99 - - Taylor, Mr. Theodore, tribute to the work of Women Inspectors, 192 - - Teazle-brushing machines, guards for, 108, 148 - - Temperature of workrooms, 44, 50 - - Tennant, Mrs. H. J., 9, 192, 207; - Chairman of the Industrial Law Indemnity Fund, 22. - _See_ Abraham - - Textile factories, number employed, 218, 225 _note_ - - Theatrical costume industry, 37; - cases of overtime, 38 - - Time-cribbing, suppression of, 38 - - Tinning of metals, 100, 101, 304 - - Tinplate works, loads, 132, 133 - - Tobacco works, cases of poisoning, 127 - - Toxic jaundice, cases of, 129, 306 - - Tracey, Miss A., Inspector of Factories, 9, 23, 121, 143, 148, 185 - - _Tracey_ v. _Pretty_, 206 - - Trade Boards Act of 1909, 60 - - Trade Union Congress, Bristol, 7; - Glasgow, 7; - organisation for women, 3 - - Troup, Sir Edward, 11 - - Truck, meaning of the word, 58; - committee on, 60, 69, 76 - - Truck Acts, 27, 78; of 1831, 58, 73, 75, 85; - of 1887, 58, 75, 85; - of 1896, 58, 70, 73, 75 - - Tuckwell, Miss Gertrude, Hon. Sec. of the Women’s Trade Union League, - 56; - _The Jeopardy of a Department_, 57 _note_ - - - Unemployment, 281 - - Urwick, Prof., 269 - - - Vandevelde, Mr., the Belgian, 286 - - Varley, Miss Julia, article in the _Yorkshire Factory Times_, 25 _note_ - - Ventilation of workrooms, 40, 44, 47, 100 - - Vines, Miss, Inspector of Factories, 116, 134 _note_, 145, 178, 179 - - - Wage Census of 1886 and 1906, 63 - - Wages of women, 59, 63–68; - payment in goods, 59, 62, 78, 80–85; - deductions, 64–66, 68–72; - system of fines, 68–72 - - War, the Great, 14, 16, 27, 85, 113, 128, 178, 188, 253; - women’s work in the, 224, 226–236; - tributes to, 231 - - War, munitions of, production, 228 - - War Museum, National, 227, 232 - - Weaving, art of, 251 - - Weights, heavy, lifting, 130–136, 267, 302 - - Welfare Department, 272; - movement in factories, 253–272; - trained women superintendents, 260, 268 - - Werner, Mr. E. A. R., Inspector of Factories, 106 - - Whitaker, Dr., 102 - - White lead industry, cases of poisoning, 114–117, 120–122, 149, 298, - 304; - regulations, 118; - preventive measures, 120 - - Whitelegge, Sir Arthur, M.D., Chief Inspector of Factories, 13, 19, 97 - - Whitley Report, 123 - - Whitlock, Miss, M.B., 106, 109, 110, 138, 147, 262, 268; - reports on lead cases, 112, 119, 121; - transferred to the Industrial Schools Department, 113 - - Whitworth, Miss, 67, 261. - _See_ Drury - - Williams, Mr., Superintending Inspector, 99 - - Wilson, Mr. D. R., _Illumination in Factories_, 46 - - Women Assistant Commissioners on Labour, 9 - - Women Dilution Officers, employment of, 198 - - Women Inspectors, vii, ix, 1, 5; - appointment, 7, 9; - official status, 11; - work, 11–14, 78, 124, 191, 198–223, 270; - number, 14, 192, 218, 237; - testimony to, 18; - detection of cases of overtime, 35–39; - value of their visits, 52; - relations with the workers, 53–55; - letters of thanks, 55; - evidence on the result of low wages, 59, 63; - cases, 80–82, 202, 209; - reports on payment of piecework, 87; - inquiries into dangerous processes, 95; - taking of records, 112; - tributes to their work, 191–195, 222; - study of foreign industrial legislation, 199; - higher education, 201; - prosecutions, 202–210; - address from Lord Haldane, 207; - reading for the Bar, 209; - peripatetic, 210; - experiences in the courts, 214; - daily visits of inspection, 216; - inspection of munitions factories, 235, 239; - reports on the result of long hours of work, 240–244 - - Women Medical Inspectors, 122 - - Women superintendents in factories, 260, 268 - - Women Welfare Officers, 237 - - Women Workers, National Council of, meeting at Bristol, 9; - number employed in factories, 15, 16, 225 _note_; - characteristics, 22; - courage, 22–24; - evils of the system, 24–27; - hours of work, 27–34, 39; - relations with the Inspectors, 53; - complaints against managers, 53–55; - wages, 59, 63–68; - dangerous processes, 94; - rules for safeguarding, 95–98, 113; - injuries from lead processes on maternity, 116, 149; - result of lifting heavy weights, 132–136, 267; - number employed in laundries, 180; - work in the War, 224, 226–236; - substitutes, 227, 233–239, 245; - tributes to, 231; - in engineering, chemical and gasworks, 231, 233–235; - result of their wartime experiences, 246–249 - - Women and Young Persons Act, 1920, 115 - - Women’s Employment Committee, Report, 4, 18, 150, 158, 237 - - Women’s Industrial Council, 36 - - _Women’s Industrial News_, 198, 200 - - Women’s Institute, founded, 226 - - Women’s Liberal Association, 8 - - Women’s Protective and Provident League, founded, 6 - - Women’s Trade Union League, 6, 56 - - _Women’s Union Journal_, extract from, 7 - - _Women’s War Work_, 232 _note_ - - Wörishoffer, Dr., 183 - - Work, function of, 250 - - Workers’ Trustees Council, 279 - - Workers’ Welfare Committee, 278 - - Working men appointed Inspectors, 7, 8 - - Workshops, number of, 15; - defective sanitation, 39–44; - ventilation, 40, 44, 47; - lack of heating, 40; - overcrowding, 44; - temperature, 44, 50, 99; - drainage, 45; - cleanliness, 45, 47; - supply of drinking water, 46; - lighting, 46–50 - - - Yarmouth, fish-curing industry, 32, 276 - - Yarn, heading, dyed in lead chromate, 120, 121, 304 - - Yeovil, 84 - - Yorkshire factories, 43, 234 - - _Yorkshire Factory Times_, 25 _note_ - ------ - -Footnote 1: - - See Note, p. 21. - -Footnote 2: - - Minutes of Evidence, Group C, Vol. I. Questions 4638 and 6830. - -Footnote 3: - - Report of Women’s Employment Committee, Ministry of Reconstruction, - 1919, Cd. 9239, p. 60. - -Footnote 4: - - _Ibid._ - -Footnote 5: - - Afterwards the Women’s Trade Union League. - -Footnote 6: - - From an obituary notice by Hodgson Pratt in the _Women’s Union - Journal_, in December, 1886. - -Footnote 7: - - “Fencing” is a term used but not defined in the Factory Act, in - Section 10 of 1901. Under this section, guards, automatic as well as - fixed, are required for dangerous machinery. Other dangerous parts— - _e.g._, “mill gearing”—if not safe by position must be securely - fenced. - -Footnote 8: - - Report quoted Cd. 9239, p. 61. - -Footnote 9: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 113. - -Footnote 10: - - Under the chairmanship of Mrs. H. J. Tennant. - -Footnote 11: - - A carding engine in a cotton mill. - -Footnote 12: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1895, p. 112. - -Footnote 13: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 70, 89. - -Footnote 14: - - _Yorkshire Factory Times_, September 11, 1896. Article by Julia - Varley. - -Footnote 15: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1895, p. 119. - -Footnote 16: - - _I.e._, in textile factories from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 7 a.m. to 7 - p.m., with two hours, which must be specified, taken off for meals; - and on Saturdays 6 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., with an hour for a meal. In non- - textile factories a period, 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., was also permissible. - -Footnote 17: - - Act of 1878, sect. 53, and third schedule, part three; amended by Act - of 1895, sect. 14, and Act of 1901, sect. 49, second schedule. - -Footnote 18: - - And even thirteen-year-old workers, when they were qualified by an - educational certificate to rank as a young person. - -Footnote 19: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1903, p. 223. - -Footnote 20: - - _Ibid._, 1910, p. 155. Section 31 of the Factory Act, 1901, - restricting employment inside and outside the factory or workshop on - the same day, had but a limited effect. - -Footnote 21: - - _Ibid._, 1914, p. 54. - -Footnote 22: - - See Special Order, dated September 11, 1907. - -Footnote 23: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 67. - -Footnote 24: - - _Ibid._, 1903, p. 223. - -Footnote 25: - - The late Miss Wyatt Papworth, whose constant help I desire gratefully - to record. - -Footnote 26: - - The legal period closed at 4 p.m. - -Footnote 27: - - Annual Report, 1902, p. 153; 1903, p. 224. - -Footnote 28: - - _Ibid._, 1911, p. 152. - -Footnote 29: - - _Ibid._, 1912, pp. 142, 145. - -Footnote 30: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 367. - -Footnote 31: - - Unsuitable, insanitary, not separate for the sexes, or totally - lacking. - -Footnote 32: - - Annual Report, 1902, p. 154. - -Footnote 33: - - Annual Report, 1903, p. 203. - -Footnote 34: - - Annual Report, 1903, p. 203. - -Footnote 35: - - _Ibid._, 1902, p. 154. - -Footnote 36: - - Included in Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 239. - -Footnote 37: - - Departmental (Home Office) Committee on Lighting in Factories and - Workshops, 1915, Cd. 8000; 1921, Cd. 118. - -Footnote 38: - - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1920, chap. ix., for a - résumé by Miss Squire of the recent advances and parallel delays, in - progress, in this vital matter in factories. - -Footnote 39: - - Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, sects. 3 and 36. - -Footnote 40: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 136. - -Footnote 41: - - For example, neglect to present seventeen little girls for examination - as to physical fitness by the certifying surgeon, of whom five were - subsequently rejected by him and sent for medical treatment; sanitary - conveniences not separate for boys and girls. - -Footnote 42: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 121. - -Footnote 43: - - _Ibid._, 1902, p. 153. - -Footnote 44: - - “The Jeopardy of a Department,” by Gertrude M. Tuckwell. Published by - the Women’s Trade Union League, 1897, p. 7. - -Footnote 45: - - “The Modern Factory System,” by Whateley Cooke-Taylor, late His - Majesty’s Superintending Inspector of Factories. - -Footnote 46: - - These words are in a statute of Edward IV. - -Footnote 47: - - A Franco-Scottish word meaning _barter_ that appeared in a statute of - George I., after the Act of Union. The Act of 1831 was “to prohibit - the payment, in certain trades, of wages in goods or otherwise than in - current coin of the realm.” - -Footnote 48: - - Extended at this date to Ireland also. - -Footnote 49: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 109. - -Footnote 50: - - Report of Committee on Truck, 1908, vol. i., appendix iv., Cd. 4442. - -Footnote 51: - - Report from the Select Committee on Homework ordered by the House of - Commons to be printed July 22, 1908. - -Footnote 52: - - Compare figures given in “Labour and Capital after the War,” edited by - S. J. Chapman, C.B.E., iv., p. 80. London, John Murray, 1918. - -Footnote 53: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 185. - -Footnote 54: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 112. - -Footnote 55: - - _Ibid._, 1901, p. 190. - -Footnote 56: - - _Ibid._, 1914, p. 49. - -Footnote 57: - - _Op. cit._ (1915, G. Bell and Sons), p. 127. - -Footnote 58: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 155. - -Footnote 59: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 161. - -Footnote 60: - - _Ibid._, 1912, p. 157. - -Footnote 61: - - Report of the Committee on Truck, 1908, Cd. 4442. QQ. 7716–8, 8192, - 8204, 8234, 17892, etc., and Report, vol. i., p. 25. - -Footnote 62: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 185. - -Footnote 63: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1902, p. 190. - -Footnote 64: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 162; and 1914, p. 50. - -Footnote 65: - - _Ibid._, 1905, p. 328. - -Footnote 66: - - _Ibid._, 1906, p. 239. - -Footnote 67: - - _Ibid._, 1901, p. 191. - -Footnote 68: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 190. - -Footnote 69: - - Report of the Committee on Truck, 1908, vol. i., pp. 28, 89. - -Footnote 70: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 110; 1906, p. 240; 1908, p. - 160. - -Footnote 71: - - See below, Chapter VI. - -Footnote 72: - - Truck Act, 1831, sect. 25. - -Footnote 73: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 182. - -Footnote 74: - - _Ibid._, 1902, p. 191. - -Footnote 75: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 200. - -Footnote 76: - - _Ibid._, 1907, p. 200. - -Footnote 77: - - The _Donegal Vindicator_, June 29, 1900. - -Footnote 78: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, pp. 275–7. - -Footnote 79: - - _Ibid._, 1900, pp. 29–30. - -Footnote 80: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, pp. 352, 359, 404. - -Footnote 81: - - _Ibid._, 1907, p. 196. - -Footnote 82: - - Factory Act, 1895, sect. 40. - -Footnote 83: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 74. - -Footnote 84: - - Act of 1891, sect. 24. - -Footnote 85: - - _Ibid._, 1895, sect. 40 (6). - -Footnote 86: - - _Ibid._, 1901, sects. 114 and 116. - -Footnote 87: - - Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 182. - -Footnote 88: - - _E.g._, cutting, piercing, marking, raising, grinding, bending, - polishing, etc. - -Footnote 89: - - Annual Report, 1902, p. 189. - -Footnote 90: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1904, p. 279. - -Footnote 91: - - Miss Slocock in Annual Report, 1907, p. 193. - -Footnote 92: - - Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, sect. 79. - -Footnote 93: - - Such as white lead manufacture, lucifer match making, paint and colour - making, hollow ware enamelling. - -Footnote 94: - - For examination of children and young persons under sixteen years as - to physical fitness for working in a factory, and enquiry into certain - grave and fatal accidents. - -Footnote 95: - - See especially Fourth Report of the Medical Officer to the Privy - Council, 1861, pp. 29, 31, etc. - -Footnote 96: - - In “Occupational Diseases,” by T. M. Legge, C.B.E., M.D., etc., p. 68, - and in “Lead Poisoning and Lead Absorption,” by T. M. Legge and - Kenneth W. Goadby, 1912, pp. 98–102. - -Footnote 97: - - Later amended and in 1911 developed into special regulations under the - Principal Act of 1901. - -Footnote 98: - - Reports on Enamelling of Metals, 1903 (Cd. 1610), and on Tinning of - Metals, 1907 (Cd. 3793), especially pp. 23 and following. - -Footnote 99: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 53. - -Footnote 100: - - “Observations on Ventilation of Potteries and Removal of Dust,” by C. - R. Pendock, 1913, Stoke-on-Trent. - -Footnote 101: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1893, pp. 194–5. - -Footnote 102: - - _Ibid._, 1898, pp. 162–4. See also Annual Reports, 1919 and 1920. - -Footnote 103: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, pp. 135 and 163. - -Footnote 104: - - _Ibid._, 1908, p. 144. - -Footnote 105: - - The Committee reported in 1910, Cd. 5219, Cd. 5278, and Cd. 5385. - -Footnote 106: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, pp. 135, 171–2. - -Footnote 107: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1906, p. 220, and 1920, p. 75. - -Footnote 108: - - _Ibid._, 1906, p. 221; 1907, p. 173. - -Footnote 109: - - _Ibid._, 1902, pp. 171–2. - -Footnote 110: - - _Ibid._, 1909, p. 146. - -Footnote 111: - - _Ibid._, 1910, p. 129. - -Footnote 112: - - Which produces the effect of gilding by application of very finely - divided metallic dust (copper, zinc, tin, antimony, being various - ingredients). - -Footnote 113: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, pp. 150–7. The form of card - record used can be seen on p. 219 of “Lead Poisoning and Lead - Absorption,” by Drs. Legge and Goadby. - -Footnote 114: - - A vivid description of women’s work in blue beds before conversion - into white lead was given by Miss Sadler in the Annual Report for - 1913. - -Footnote 115: - - Comprising twenty-one factories registered in 1920, as compared with - 639 for pottery manufacture and decoration. - -Footnote 116: - - Regulations for Manufacture of Electric Accumulators, 1903, No. 1004. - -Footnote 117: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 101. - -Footnote 118: - - _Ibid._, 1906, p. 214. - -Footnote 119: - - _Ibid._, 1900, p. 369. - -Footnote 120: - - Appointed 1908 by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, reported 1910, Cd. 5219, Cd. - 5278, and Cd. 5385. - -Footnote 121: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 89. - -Footnote 122: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 137–8. - -Footnote 123: - - _Ibid._, 1913, pp. 88, 89. - -Footnote 124: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 145. - -Footnote 125: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 84, and Report of War - Cabinet Committee on Women in Industry, 1919; Memorandum by Dr. Janet - Campbell on Health of Women in Industry, p. 293, regarding urgent need - for Women Medical Inspectors of Factories. - -Footnote 126: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1911, p. 147. The old Special Rules - have been converted into more modern Regulations in 1921. - -Footnote 127: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 138. - -Footnote 128: - - _Ibid._, 1913, p. 87. - -Footnote 129: - - _Ibid._, 1902, p. 168; and Factory Act, 1901, sect. 136. - -Footnote 130: - - The varnishing was to make the wings impervious to moisture and air. - For the interesting story of the changed methods, see Annual Report of - the Chief Inspector for 1914, chapter xii., and further, regarding - methods of ventilation, the Annual Report for 1917, pp. 18–20. - -Footnote 131: - - See Medical Research Committee Annual Report for 1916 and 1917 for - experiments in laboratories and studies in factories. - -Footnote 132: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, p. 104. - -Footnote 133: - - _Ibid._, 1910, p. 130. - -Footnote 134: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 375. - -Footnote 135: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 175. - -Footnote 136: - - _Ibid._, 1902, p. 173. - -Footnote 137: - - A small boy was once found by Miss Vines carrying a weight greater - than his own weight. - -Footnote 138: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1903, pp. 221–2. - -Footnote 139: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 147. - -Footnote 140: - - _Ibid._, 1909, p. 147. - -Footnote 141: - - Final Report of the Departmental Committee on Dangerous Trades, 1899, - pp. 31–3 (Cd. 9509). - -Footnote 142: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, p. 142, and for 1913, p. 90. - -Footnote 143: - - _Ibid._, 1903, pp. 222–3. - -Footnote 144: - - See explanation in Introduction, p. 12. - -Footnote 145: - - The figures are given below in Chapter VI., p. 196. - -Footnote 146: - - Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 66; 1900, p. 377; - 1901, p. 170, etc. - -Footnote 147: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, pp. 377–9. - -Footnote 148: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1902, pp. 162–7. - -Footnote 149: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 82–3. - -Footnote 150: - - Published as Form 414, price 1d.: “Memorandum on Fencing of Machinery - and Prevention of Accidents in Laundries.” Second edition issued in - 1913. No revision has been found necessary since that date. - -Footnote 151: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, pp. 84 and 110. - -Footnote 152: - - By 1911 the attention directed to the matter at last produced “an - apparently satisfactory finger guard for the needle,” and in 1912 two - more guards were devised. Such guards had their main effect where - young machinists were trained to their use from the beginning. For - adult trained workers their effectiveness was slight. - -Footnote 153: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 142. - -Footnote 154: - - _Ibid._, 1906, pp. 207–8, and 1909, p. 140. - -Footnote 155: - - Factory Act, 1891, sect. 17; later sect. 61 of the Act of 1901. - -Footnote 156: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1897, pp. 96 and 107. - -Footnote 157: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1898, p. 181. - -Footnote 158: - - _Ibid._, 1897, p. 107. - -Footnote 159: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1904, pp. 273–4. - -Footnote 160: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 184. - -Footnote 161: - - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for the years named. - -Footnote 162: - - See Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1909, p. 159. - -Footnote 163: - - See above, Chapter II., p. 57. - -Footnote 164: - - “Economic Annals of the Nineteenth Century,” by Professor William - Stuart, 1910, Preface, p. vii. - -Footnote 165: - - The Factory Act, 1891, sect. 18, raised the age of entry from ten to - eleven years, but the change took effect only in January, 1893, and - even then not for any children lawfully employed before January 1. The - age was raised to twelve by the Elementary Education Act Amendment - Act, 1899, in England and Wales. The Act of 1901 made the obligation - general. - -Footnote 166: - - Cd. 849. - -Footnote 167: - - Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1896, p. 69; for 1900, p. 396; for - 1902, p. 184. - -Footnote 168: - - Such as delicate eyes of girls of twelve and fourteen becoming - inflamed and suffering from conjunctivitis when exposed to dust from - rabbit skins dressed with mercury solution in fur-pulling works. See - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, pp. 273–4. - -Footnote 169: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, pp. 186–7. - -Footnote 170: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, pp. 319–20. - -Footnote 171: - - In this ancient industry the feature of sub-employment by working - potters obtained, and gave a distinctive quality to the workplace as - compared with that of other more modern industries. - -Footnote 172: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, p. 314. - -Footnote 173: - - She had been working there and presenting living pictures of - conditions in industry for several years, and the accompanying Annual - Report for 1906 should be specially studied to see what she did. - -Footnote 174: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, pp. 154–5. - -Footnote 175: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 154. - -Footnote 176: - - _Ibid._, 1906, pp. 230–1. - -Footnote 177: - - See Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1911, pp. 156–7; 1912, p. 149; - 1913, p. 98. - -Footnote 178: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 16. - -Footnote 179: - - Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 152, and 1902, pp. 147 and - 194–205. - -Footnote 180: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1905, p. 258. - -Footnote 181: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 94. - -Footnote 182: - - _Ibid._, 1914, pp. 46–7. - -Footnote 183: - - Annual Reports of Chief Inspector, 1879, p. 98. - -Footnote 184: - - _Ibid._, 1921, pp. 9 and 10. - -Footnote 185: - - See footnote, Introduction, p. 12. - -Footnote 186: - - Debates on Home Office Estimates, August 5, 1901, and June 29, 1903. - -Footnote 187: - - In 1910 the figures were: Males, 118,822 (fatal 1,049); females 10,728 - (fatal 31). The rates of the two do not vary widely. - -Footnote 188: - - Report published 1919, Cmd. 135. See especially pp. 170 and 253. - -Footnote 189: - - “Science of Labour,” by Dr. Josefa Joteyko. George Routledge and Sons, - Ltd., 1919. - -Footnote 190: - - This assertion appears to be supported by the summaries I made for the - Annual Reports for 1894, pp. 33–4, on French laws and orders, and for - 1895, pp. 136–219, on German and Austrian industrial codes, and in - various other places, before public interest in comparative labour - legislation had been awakened. - - References by Women Inspectors, and particularly by Miss Squire to law - and administration in other industrial countries, appear in my Annual - Reports over and over again, generally where our laws were inadequate - to remedy complaints. For instance, complaints on defective light in - the factory, lack of washing conveniences, on heavy weight carrying - and dangerous processes (see Annual Reports of Chief Inspector for - 1897, pp. 103–5; 1898, p. 169; 1899, p. 239; 1904, p. 243). - - I also visited continental countries to inspect factories with the - Inspectors of the country, and to study their office methods (see - Annual Reports, 1899, 1901, and 1902), and to take part in Congresses - and International Exhibitions (see Annual Reports, 1903, 1911, and - 1920). - - I began to study fatigue prevention after conferring with Dr. Josefa - Joteyko in Brussels in 1903. - -Footnote 191: - - _Women’s Industrial News_, January, 1915; article by Dorothy Haynes, - p. 313. - -Footnote 192: - - In a few instances, where men and boys were jointly concerned with - women in contraventions—_e.g._, in Truck cases, fencing of machinery - in laundries, or illegal employment of children—a Woman Inspector - would take proceedings for both. - -Footnote 193: - - Factory Act, 1878, sect. 81; later Factory Act, 1901, sect. 135 (2). - -Footnote 194: - - From shorthand notes of the case quoted in Annual Report of the Chief - Inspector for 1901, pp. 278–9. - -Footnote 195: - - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1900, pp. 360 and 363. - -Footnote 196: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, p. 249. - -Footnote 197: - - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1899, p. 247. - -Footnote 198: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1901, p. 161. - -Footnote 199: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, pp. 142–4. - -Footnote 200: - - _Ibid._, 1913, pp. 70–3, 100–1. - -Footnote 201: - - Article on “Women and Industrial Changes,” by Sir Clement Kinloch- - Cooke, M.P., in the _Nineteenth Century and After_, for December, - 1915, p. 1405. - -Footnote 202: - - In 1907, _textiles_ employed 690,834 women and girls and 410,743 men - and boys; _clothing_ employed 487,167 women and girls and 181,862 men - and boys; _laundries_ employed 103,635 women and girls and 11,466 men - and boys; _fish curing_ and _fruit preserving_ 29,677 women and girls - and 11,440 men and boys. - -Footnote 203: - - See Memorandum on War Office Contracts, Cd. 8447, and “Labour and - Capital after the War,” by S. J. Chapman, C.B.E., pp. 73–6. - -Footnote 204: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, p. 45. - -Footnote 205: - - See Annual Reports of Chief Inspector for 1915, 1916, and 1917; - collection of Pamphlets on “Substitution of Women in Industry,” 1917, - and Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women in non-Munition - Factories, 1919. - -Footnote 206: - - These were made under Section 150 of the Act of 1901, providing for - public emergency. - -Footnote 207: - - See “Labour and Capital after the War,” by S. J. Chapman, C.B.E., - 1919; “Women’s War Work,” issued by the War Office, Chiswick Press; - and Various Reports on Dilution issued by the Ministry of Munitions. - -Footnote 208: - - See Annual Reports of the Chief Inspector for 1916, p. 9, and for - 1918, p. 31. - -Footnote 209: - - “Rightly unsuccessful are some experiments in unsuitable - directions ... in operating the tilting furnaces in brass casting ... - it was too exhausting even for short spells, and very few men coming - fresh to the work can stand it for long at a time.”—Annual Report of - Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 12. - -Footnote 210: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, p. 12. - -Footnote 211: - - _Ibid._, 1917, p. 13. - -Footnote 212: - - Home Office Memorandum on Substitution of Women, 1919, pp. 7 and 48. - -Footnote 213: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, p. 16, and the Restoration of - Pre-War Practice in Industry Act, 1919. - -Footnote 214: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1917, pp. 11 and 14. - -Footnote 215: - - _Ibid._, pp. 9 and 13. - -Footnote 216: - - Who increased until they numbered 900,000 women and girls. - -Footnote 217: - - Ten and a half hours net and sixty hours weekly maximum. - -Footnote 218: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, pp. 40–41. - -Footnote 219: - - Such as two daily 8-hour shifts, three 8-hour shifts in the twenty- - four hours, and two 10 or 10½-hour shifts in the twenty-four hours. - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector for 1915, p. 9; for 1917, p. - 7; and 1918, pp. 2–12. - -Footnote 220: - - In 1915 a woman working daily in a munition factory from 7 a.m. to - 8.30 p.m., on Saturdays from 7 a.m. to 8.45 p.m., and Sundays from 8 - a.m. to 5 p.m., besides spending two hours daily in transit to and - from her work, informed an Inspector that she was able to work these - long hours chiefly because of the good food she was able to obtain as - the result of increased wages. She had an invalid husband and six - children under twelve years to support. Although she paid a woman 8s. - a week to mind her children and spent 2s. 6d. on tram fares weekly, - still her wages allowed her to feed better than she had ever done - before. - -Footnote 221: - - See “Labour and Capital after the War,” already cited, p. 85. - -Footnote 222: - - See above, p. 198, and “Science of Labour,” by Dr. Josefa Joteyko, - 1919 (G. Routledge and Sons, Ltd.). - -Footnote 223: - - Appointed in the summer of 1915 “to consider and advise on questions - of industrial fatigue, hours of labour, and other matters affecting - the permanent health and physical efficiency of workers in munition - factories.” - -Footnote 224: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1919, p. 10. - -Footnote 225: - - The word “work” appears to be the root in the diverse words “energy,” - “liturgy.” - -Footnote 226: - - See the Sayings of the Vicar of Morwenstowe in the first number of the - _Beacon_. - -Footnote 227: - - See Chapter IV., p. 94. - -Footnote 228: - - Police Factories, etc., (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916, sect. 7 - (1). - -Footnote 229: - - From France, Belgium, Italy, and Germany; see Annual Report of Chief - Inspector, 1903. In 1913 the Home Office appointed Professor Stanley - Kent to make physiological investigation into fatigue in industry. - -Footnote 230: - - For textbooks and pamphlets it may suffice to refer readers to the - “Health of the Munition Worker,” a handbook prepared by the Health of - Munition Workers Committee, published in 1917, and to the “Welfare” - pamphlet series issued by the Home Office, 1917–21. - -Footnote 231: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1899, p. 258, and for 1904, p. 243. - -Footnote 232: - - As may be seen in the literary use of the word by Chaucer and in the - Authorized Version. - -Footnote 233: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1900, p. 356. - -Footnote 234: - - _Ibid._, 1907, p. 188. - -Footnote 235: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 161. - -Footnote 236: - - _Ibid._, 1911, pp. 138–9. - -Footnote 237: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1908, p. 134. - -Footnote 238: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1907, p. 173. - -Footnote 239: - - _Ibid._, 1909, p. 148. - -Footnote 240: - - “Hygiene and Industrial Employment,” by Hilda Martindale. Address read - at the Congress of the Royal Sanitary Institute in Belfast, January, - 1911. - -Footnote 241: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1912, pp. 150–1. - -Footnote 242: - - _Ibid._, 1909, p. 122. - -Footnote 243: - - At Bedford College for Women and the London School of Economics. - -Footnote 244: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1913, p. 100. - -Footnote 245: - - _Ibid._, 1913, p. 101. - -Footnote 246: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1914, p. 52. - -Footnote 247: - - _Ibid._, 1915, p. 15. - -Footnote 248: - - 6 & 7 Geo. V., c. 31, A.D. 1916. - -Footnote 249: - - And have with great benefit to the workers been made compulsory in the - fish-curing industry in Yarmouth and Lowestoft. - -Footnote 250: - - The provisions were for suitable protective clothing, accommodation - for clothing of women and girls under charge of a responsible person, - a suitable messroom separate from the cloakroom, furnished with - sufficient tables and seats with back rests, adequate means of warming - food and boiling water and washing facilities, and the messroom has to - be sufficiently warmed for use during meals and to be placed under the - charge of a responsible person and be kept clean. - -Footnote 251: - - Since August, 1921, an order has been made regarding welfare - conditions in an individual factory. - -Footnote 252: - - Annual Report of Chief Inspector for 1916, p. 10. The following and - many more examples can be seen in subsequent Annual Reports, and in an - account of works’ committees issued by the Ministry of Labour, and in - the organ of the Welfare Workers’ Institute. - -Footnote 253: - - Published by H.M. Stationery Office: (1) Protective Clothing; (2) - Messrooms and Canteens; (3) Welfare Supervision; (4) First-Aid and - Ambulance; (5) Ventilation; (6) Seats for Workers; (7) Lighting in - Factories and Workshops; (8) Cloakrooms, Washing Facilities, Drinking - Water, and Sanitary Accommodation. - -Footnote 254: - - See Annual Report of the Chief Inspector, 1919, chapter viii., and - Annual Report of Chief Inspector, 1920, chapter vi. - -Footnote 255: - - See footnote to p. 290. - -Footnote 256: - - These Chemical Regulations were confirmed on July 11, 1922, and in - consequence the Benzine (No. 3) and Chromate (No. 10) Regulations were - revoked. - -Footnote 257: - - Under the Anthrax Prevention Act, 1919, provision has been made and of - all wool and animal hair from Egypt. (See also Nos. 37 and 38.) - -Footnote 258: - - The Women and Young Persons (Employment in Lead Processes) Act, 1920, - prohibits altogether their employment in certain processes connected - with lead manufacture and in any process involving the use of lead - compounds and causing dust and fumes, or in which the workers are - liable to be splashed with a lead compound, subject to medical - examination, provision of exhaust ventilation to remove dust or fumes, - protective clothing, messroom and cloakroom, and cleanliness of tools, - apparatus, and workrooms. - -Footnote 259: - - See footnote, p. 296. - -Footnote 260: - - Total cases in factory and workshop. - -Footnote 261: - - All the female cases in coach painting were due to painting - perambulators, except the one in 1917. - -Footnote 262: - - All due to heading of yarn. - -Footnote 263: - - Of these cases four were due to heading of yarn and twelve to bullet - and shrapnel making. - -Footnote 264: - - In 1913 eighteen cases among women were due to heading of yarn. - -Footnote 265: - - In 1908 seven cases among women were due to heading of yarn. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - - TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES - - - Page Changed from Changed to - - 27 grew steadily and rapidly, until grew steadily and rapidly, until - in 1819 a in 1919 a - - 124 of mercury to assist felting in of mercury to assist felting in - hatters’ furriers hatters’ and furriers - - 297 for the disinfection, on arrival [This line was removed because - in Great Britain, of goat hair there is no related content on - from India, this page or on the pages - immediately before or after it.] - - ● Fixed typos; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. - ● Renumbered footnotes and moved them all to the end of the final - chapter. - ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. - ● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=. - ● The caret (^) is used to indicate superscript, whether applied to a - single character (as in 2^d) or to an entire expression (as in - 1^{st}). - ● Subscripts are shown using an underscore (_) with curly braces { }, - as in H_{2}O. - ● Images without captions use HTML alt text. |