EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT.

Evening Star, Issue 3940, 11 October 1875, Page 3

EMPLOYMENT OF FEMALES ACT.

To the Sditor. Sir, — I had no intention of replying to your courteous article of the 6th inat, con vinced as I was that, from your point of view, it would be impossible to successfully combat the arguments you used in .-upf-ort of the proposed amendment of the Factory Act. Mr Gdlies’s letter, however, induces me again to trouble you with my idea on the subject. I do not deny the soundness ot the arguments used by yourself and Mr Gillies if circumstances existed that would justify the conclusions you both arriv- at. The blindest opponent of the uoicndra-ni would mot assert that it was the duty of tin Government to appoint certain hours, and no others, when women should o eminence and end their daily labors- unless a palpable pab.ic evil would be prevented by such rn appointment. The veriest blockhead can, also, fee that a greater profit would accrue from the employment of machinery for six teen hours than could accrue from its employment for eight hours, provided the doable product could find as profitable s market as would the product of eight hours’ work But in admitting these self-evident facts, can anyone, therefore, arrive at the con. elusion that the present Factory Act ought u ' e amende:!? Two things must first be oroved —first, that no evil wnu’d result from the amendment; and second, that machinery must, be wo k d for sixteen hours -‘ally before it can become profitable. The rnre eentati'W of the people deer, eel that only certain hours should be lawful for the pu-cii employment of women and children. Why did they so decne? To prev<-..»t the con Muuons employment of women and children beyond a dai'y pern-d of nght hours. Now, 1 contend that if the present recognised hour* of labor b cxtendc.J, the eig t hair syslam c.m and will be evaded, for the very simple reason that its evasion must becom; almost i-.-.possibie of detec.um. Lest tha' shoukl happen, I (you say) ‘ would decree that maclrnery, as well as women am chi Oreo, should do no work.” Nothing o; the ku d, my ear ir. I deny the necessity for such a dire result. Rather would Ire commend the advisability .of mill owner, adapting the quantity and the nature of their machinery to the slate of the labor lawn and ! abor market of New Zealand. Mr MUies'i illustration of the rosu t of sixteen hours employment of machinery, as against ei hi hours, is plausible enough ; but why stop a: sixteen hours? Why not quadruple hiimaginary profits by working the machinery 'or thirty-two hours ? Putting out of sigh the extra wear and tear of the machinery, i' would become simply a question of sufficient, or over-production. A ill Mr Gi lies answer me this question—has the Mosgiel Factory hitherto disposed of its manufactures asrapidly as it has produced them? if not vcy all their agitation for extension of labo hours Another question I would also askhow is it Messrs Webbley Brothers, tw« e< D '.nufao'urers, of Nelson, can w< rk rheii uilla profitably under the existing Facto* let, while, it seems, the Mougiei Factory •.aunot do so ? To show you that my “ expre amns of ap prehension ” were well founded, let me giv. two extracts from one copy of the tab The first extract 1 shall takefrom Mr Gillies’ le.ter;—“ ... do the opponents O' the measure not see that by limiting the hours ot labor to eight hours, and extending the working of the machinery to twelv* hours, it will prac'icallv reduce the hours o; labor of women and children to six hours ? The other extract 1 take from your telegrams ; “lu committee, on the secon • clause, Mr Reid nought to amend the claus so as o enable women to work ten hoursday.” A r hat need *vc for any turHir*. witnou; Sir, as 1 wrote in my forme, lefctoc, the principle contained in tha am*.n 1 i ent is fai. enough in its if, but 1 again express my ap pr- hen ion that tin* amendment, if carried wih prove a poweriul in.-trumerit in tin ban i‘i of unscrupulous employers, to tie exaer on of cxcsjUvc labor fron

their women au 1 child r- ti cmp!-ij£ . V to who.**) interest it will be 10 evade ti eight hj or.i’ n strid ion. urciy than ;a dent enough If au emo oyer ca-« get 1.-i hourd labu- b>r eig it bouts’ toy. wil it uo hj 1 his interest to get them ? ! «rvd, tba tbe oj.ijioue! 18 o' he amendment >ra laci' in a difficult p'>i>ici.>u. but wui c th.-v canrm i shut their eyes to tbo theoretical truths ad ■ vanned by its suppum-rs, they, with aoun reason, dread its pmct'c. 1 efi’e t. .-vs f« myself, i not only dread the off; ct. but uiceny deny the necessity of iho amend meat. In conclusion, seeing that Mr Gilb -g dc : clares he tins no interest in tbe Mosgiel far tory permit me to withdraw ,ho ir.-inuatiu conveyed in my former letter as to his acfcin having been prompted by self-interest.— am. Ac., M ERCY. Duo din, Oot-b'T H