Page:The Factory Controversy - Martineau (1855).djvu/51

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
MISSTATEMENTS IN "HOUSEHOLD WORDS."
41

4."That the certifying surgeon shall, if they can manage it, be got into the power of the petty sessions of his district, and not remain responsible to the Inspector for his conduct.

5."That no shafts more than seven feet from the floor shall require fencing.

6."That nothing else shall be fenced, if arbitrators overthrow the opinion of the Inspector that it ought to be fenced.

7."And that no such protection of operatives shall be held necessary in the case of adult males; but only in the case of women, young persons, and children.

8."That the clause in the Factory Act which excludes a millowner from deciding upon points closely affecting his own money interests in dealings with the Operatives, ought to be repealed, indicating as it does 'an unwarrantable suspicion upon the honourable conduct of that portion of the magistracy who are engaged in manufactures.' Human nature is purely disinterested in the north,—witness the existence of this very National Association, by which the unwarrantable suspicion is, among other measures, for the taking care of Number One, cunningly spurned!

9."Finally, the representatives of this body—who would seem to go so far as to oppose everything that might tend to save an operative's life, for they 'beg to caution the trade against the adoption of any compromise, whether of hooks or otherwise,'—these gentlemen have arrived at the following conclusion: 'With these views, the deputation are of opinion that a fund of not less than five thousand pounds should be immediately raised; and they suggest that all cases of prosecution which the committee of management may be of opinion can be legitimately dealt with by the Association, shall be defended by, and the penalties or damages paid out of the funds of the Association.'

"Who, after this, can share the indignation of the cotton owners, when poor operatives strike—when they subscribe money to sustain each other in a combination against what they believe—though not always rightly—to be grievous wrong. The operative strikes against hunger; against what he thinks hard dealing on the part of his employers. The employer strikes against humanity, and shows how hardly he can deal, by subscribing to help and be helped in a struggle against the necessity of furnishing protection to the lives of his workpeople. The operative has a right to withhold his labour when he is not satisfied with its reward; the master has no right to leave his machinery unfenced, when the law orders him to fence it; and, in spite of the phrase 'cases that can be legitimately dealt with,' it is evident that he associates