diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'factory/factory-utf8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | factory/factory-utf8.txt | 12105 |
1 files changed, 12105 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/factory/factory-utf8.txt b/factory/factory-utf8.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b35c2b --- /dev/null +++ b/factory/factory-utf8.txt @@ -0,0 +1,12105 @@ + + + + + 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. |