Page:The Factory Controversy - Martineau (1855).djvu/28

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
18
THE FACTORY CONTROVERSY.

method of fencing. Again, we find him declaring that there is no security from shafts under seven feet from the floor but in such permanent casing, and enquiring why, if some shafts are cased, all should not he so fenced. Again, he is found insisting that he is wronged in being charged with desiring casings, when hooks would do. And finally, we meet with his signature appended to a circular, which avows that the hooks, or other devices for catching the strap, are available against only a certain class of accidents; and that the millowners are required to obviate "all accidents." In one place, he declares himself to be entirely unable to imagine why the millowners do not obey requirements so easy and so important; and in another place, he answers his own question by an intimation that they want to save a few shillings. All this is in the face of the evidence of practical engineers and other experienced persons, that casings and hooks would increase the danger. The desire of the manufacturers,—very natural, apart from all considerations of humanity,—that there should be no accidents in their mills makes them hesitate in adopting, or refuse to adopt, questionable methods; and Mr. Horner immediately sets about enforcing what he assumes to be the law. This brings us to the next order of proceedings.

The provisions of the Acts which relate to the fencing of machinery, were, it may be remembered, left inoperative for nine years. The reason was that the provisions were impracticable; and the Secretaries of State during that period saw, on the showing of the mill occupiers, that they were so. The Act does not say, as the Inspectors quote it, that "all shafting must be securely fenced," but that "every part of the mill gearing shall be securely fenced." As there are parts of the mill gearing which cannot be fenced without stopping the works, the strict enforcement of the Act is impossible; and it is admitted by the Inspectors to be so. This difficulty, together with the ambiguity of the word "fenced," has given rise to the construction (as we shall presently see) that