Page:The Factory Controversy - Martineau (1855).djvu/38

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
28
THE FACTORY CONTROVERSY.

effects, find gave the required authority to commence an action. Messrs. Wild had already sent down to offer to pay the expenses of the funeral; but received for answer, that the £7 due from the sick club would meet that expense. Messrs. Wild refused the rent brought by the mother, and desired the family to remain as long as they liked in the rent-free house; and, moreover, expressed their intention of aiding the widow, when a method of arrangement should he fixed upon. Early in February, Mr. Patrick, in visiting the mill, informed one of the managers that the firm would hear something about the death of James Ashworth; whereupon the partners wrote to him to say that they had throughout expressed their intention to do what was right for the widow, and that there was no occasion to go to law when an arbitration would satisfy all the needs of the case. They were willing to abide by the award of an arbitrator to be mutually agreed upon, and had every desire to avoid a suit at law. Mr. Patrick desired them to make their proposal in writing, which he would deposit with Mr. Horner, who would forward it to Government or not, as he thought proper. Messrs. Wild acted on this suggestion, and in three days after were informed that their proposal was declined.

The day before the date of this reply, Messrs. Wild were served with a writ issued by the Solicitors to the Treasury; an incident which showed them that they had the Government to deal with, under the name of Widow Ashworth. There was no application for compensation, no alternative from prosecution proposed; and the usual courtesy of asking the defendant to name an attorney to accept service for him was omitted. In the course of Messrs. Wild's attempt to avoid legal proceedings, the Solicitors employed in London heard from the Solicitors of the Treasury that the action was brought, under the direction of Lord Palmerston, for an infraction of the Factory Act. Again the defendants' agents inquired whether they could not settle matters with the widow without the interference of Government;