should, so to speak, "play the game." It is, of course, most important that the charitable work of rescue should not be subject to interference, and that the discipline of the establishments should be maintained, but it is hard to see why this should be incompatible with an occasional visit of a woman inspector to the laundry for the purpose of satisfying herself that the conditions are sanitary, the machinery properly fenced, and the hours of work not excessive. Nor can it be said that the conditions of work in these laundries are of such a nature as to render inspection unnecessary as well as undesirable.

“That there is need for inspection, in some cases, I have no doubt. Great complaint was made to me of a religious community, where workers were kept for 19 hours at work at times, but, of course, I had no power of entry, and could do nothing in the matter. The competition of such places, where even the laundry hours are exceeded, is a source of complaint to the law-abiding proprietors of laundries." (Annual Report of Chief Inspector of Factories, 1898.) Again, I must record that the exemption of the present domestic laundries and charitable institutions causes great dissatisfaction to the other laundry proprietors. They complain bitterly of the competition of places which are allowed to work all hours of the night,' and I must say I think they are fully justified in their complaint." (Annual Report of Chief Inspectors of Factories, 1900, p. 387.)

In addition to these statements of the Government officials, we have the testimony of the Rev. Arthur Brinckman, who was Assistant Chaplain at St. Andrew's Home, Edinburgh, Chaplain at St. Agnes Hospital for the Fallen, and Chairman of the Church Mission to the Fallen. He says that in some of the homes of his acquaintance the hours of work are

"irregular and long, especially in the laundry. I have known girls far advanced in consumption in the laundry working long after they ought to have been elsewhere, or in hospital. Self-supporting homes need extra inspection, the temptation being to overwork the girls.'

"After more than 30 years' close connection with hospitals, sisterhoods, homeand refuges, I feel the need of inspection most strongly. One objection that has been raised against inspection is that the girls would be unsettled for a day or two. It is made in all seriousness, but I think it is not worth considering."

At a meeting of managers of charitable institutions of a religious character, held at Westminster in 1902, State inspection of such laundries was generally approved, but they asked that men inspectors only should be employed. This suggestion must be negatived. Lady inspectors who have gained experience in inspecting commercial laundries are required.

Much may be learnt in this connection from the example of France, where inspection of religious houses has been enforced by the Government since 1892. The following are some of the evils which were reported by the inspector when the work was begun :—

“Children from seven to eight years old were kept at work from 5 a.m. to 5 p.m. Children over twelve years old worked till their task was finished. No instruction was given to the children, and owing to the division of labor, which kept them einployed in some such detail as the sewing of a button-hole, they were unable to become proficient even in the trade which they practised. Women frequently left the convents between the ages of twenty and thirty without being able to read or write, and incapable of earning their livelihood.' (Report of Industrial Law Committee Laundries.)

The need of inspection in France is proved by the fact that in 1899 there were 4,429 infractions of the law, 924 of which related to the duration of work. There has, however, been a great improvement since the introduction of Government supervision.

Exempted Smaller Laundries.*

"Why may clothes be washed under dirty conditions next door, where only two women are employed, while I, who employ three, must set my house in order and conform to regular hours? " and "Why may a man work his own children harder than other folks?" These are questions frequently put to the Factory Inspector, and are difficult to answer. The unhealthy state of certain of these small laundries has been described above, and the evils of insanitary conditions and excessive hours of labor are as great, if not greater, in these places as in any other class of laundries. The Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the employment of school children contains the following instructive passage: "Some of the very worst cases of overworking little girls of which we have heard occurred in the small laundries, which are exempt from the provisions of the Factory Acts." The exemption has led to an evasion of the law which bears unjustly not only on competitors but on ratepayers. It has become a common practice to keep only two workers on the premises, and to send the others with the "washing" into a public wash-house, thus competing at the expense of the ratepayers, and to the exclusion of those for whom the wash-house was intended, with those employers who are obliged to conform to the provisions of the Factory Acts.

How to Improve our Laundries.

We have seen that the chief evils connected with the present state of the laundry industry are-(1) Insanitary conditions; (2) Excessive and irregular hours of labor; (3) Exemption of institution laundries, and laundries in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed.

The insanitary conditions are, as a rule, dependent on the use of premises which were never intended for laundries. In the comparatively few cases where the laundry was built for laundry work the conditions are usually good; but where, as is generally the case, the laundry is a hastily converted dwelling-house or part of a house, the conditions are, as has been shown, often very bad. To remedy these conditions a more energetic administration of the present law is required, as well as fresh legislation to deal with special points.

The duty of enforcing sanitation rests upon the Factory Inspector if steam or other power be used in the laundry; otherwise it rests upon the local sanitary authority. The Inspector, however, may act in default of the sanitary authority should the latter neglect its duty. The staff of Factory Inspectors is, as is generally admitted, ridiculously inadequatet, and, without a material increase in the staff, improve* Laundries in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed. The total number of Factory Inspectors, including assistants, is 141. Only seven of these are women.

ments in the power-laundries will be but slowly secured. Women inspectors are particularly wanted for this work. The sanitary authorities in many districts have unfortunately not evinced any remarkable degree of zeal in carrying out their duties under the Factory Acts; but lately, and more particularly since the passing of the 1901 Act, greater activity has been displayed, and several authorities have appointed special workshop inspectors, male and female.

But though much more could be done under the existing law than actually is done, further legislative powers are required. A: present, the occupiers of a laundry where power is used can be com pelled to provide a fan or "other means of a proper construction" fo: regulating the temperature in every ironing room, and for carrying away steam in every wash-house in the laundry. He must sufficiently separate all stoves for heating irons from any ironing room, and must not use gas-irons that emit any noxious fumes. These provisions should be extended to hand-laundries. The bad effects of noxious fumes, a steam-laden atmosphere and an excessively high temperature do not depend upon the use of mechanical power, and there is no good reason why provisions for preventing these conditions should be confined to places where power is used. The 1895 Act has a special provision for floor-drainage in power-laundries; but section of the 1901 Act,* which applies to laundries, will probably be found more effective. It is more than doubtful, however, whether there is any statutory power at the present time to deal adequately with that fertile source of ill-health, the wet floor, that is so constant a feature in many, probably most, wash-houses. It is not sufficient to provide stands. When they are not fastened to the floor they are a source of danger, especially when machinery is near. The workers are liable to trip over them or catch their feet in broken pieces. Even when they are firmly fixed they are usually very slippery and offer a horrible nest for all the foul stuff which dirty water in a laundry collects. The Act should order that the floor should be constructed of proper material, that the fall and the means of drainage should be efficient, and, most important of all, that provision should be made for draining off the water at the spot where it is discharged (see page 3). The practice of drying clothes by hanging them out over cords suspended from the ceiling of the drying room is unhealthy and should be prohibited. Better provision should be made for cleanliness in hand-laundries. In power-laundries all walls and ceilings must be limewashed once at least every fourteen months, or, if painted, they must be washed down with soap and water. This provision should apply also to hand-laundries. Further, it is essential that the workers should not be allowed to eat their meals in laundries. The surroundings are worse than in many factories, and separate rooms for the consumption of meals should be provided.

This section provides that: "In every factory or workshop, or part thereof, in which any process is carried on which renders the floor liable to be wet to such a extent that the wet is capable of being removed by drainage, adequate means sha be provided for draining off the wet.'

Long Hours.

The simplest and most satisfactory method of obviating the long and irregular periods of employment is to extend the definition of factory" and "workshop" to include laundries. At present a laundry is a "factory" or a "workshop" (the distinction depending on the use of mechanical power) in so far as regards "sanitary provisions, safety, accident, the affixing of notices and abstracts, and the matters to be specified in such notices (so far as they apply to laundries), notice of occupation of a factory or workshop, powers of inspectors, fines, and legal proceedings for any failure to comply with the provisions of this section* and education of children." In all matters relating to hours of work, however, laundries are not factories or workshops, but are regulated by the special provisions quoted on page 5. The distinction is purely artificial and should be removed. Practically, laundries are as much factories or workshops as dye-works, and all that is wanted is to make them such technically by Act of Parliament. This course would at once bring into force the following provisions :

I. Prohibition of Sunday work.

2. Prohibition of night-work and overtime for young persons. 3. No child or young person would be employed without a medical certificate of fitness.

4. Definite times for meals would be specified.

5. Provision for a Saturday half-holiday.

6. Period of employment would be arranged on the round of the clock rule. This provision would make it an offence for the laundry to be kept at work after a certain fixed hour, and the working of illegal hours would be easy of detection, instead of, as at present, extremely difficult.

Another evil connected with the laundry trade is the excessive hours that collecting and delivering boys and girls are employed. It is quite a common thing for these boys and girls to be employed for ninety hours per week. The Factory Act provisions for non-textile factories would not, even if extended to laundries, afford any relief for this excessive employment. The hours under these provisions are limited only for those employed "in" a factory, and it would probably be held that such young persons are excluded. What is wanted is a clause defining these young persons and definitely including them in a limitation of hours.

Lastly, the provisions of the Factory Act should be made applicable to all laundries carried on for purposes of gain. In the case of the institution laundries this should be done with all due regard to their special conditions. For instance, inspections should only be made by women inspectors. But no laundry should remain exempt from the legislative regulations which experience has shown to be necessary to protect the health and well-being of the laundry workers. Several unsuccessful attempts have been made to secure these provisions for laundries. Trade opposition has been too strong for the

Sect. 103 of the 1901 Act; the section dealing with laundries.

Factory Act reformers. It has been urged that owing to the special conditions of the industry, it would be impossible for employers to work regular hours throughout the week. The "washing" does not arrive at the laundry, as a rule, till Monday afternoon, and must be returned on Friday. Hence the necessity of working young girls till 10, 11, or even 12 at night. This argument exalts a domestic custom to the dignity of a law of nature. There is nothing inherent in the constitution of the universe which demands that dirty linen should be collected on Monday, washed on Tuesday, dried on Wednesday, ironed on Thursday, and sent home clean on Friday. There is no reason in the nature of things why families with a normal supply of linen should not have their "washing" called for on a certain day of the week, and returned on the same day in the following week. Most of the large steam laundries in London adopt this rule, and there is no doubt that its general adoption would be welcomed by a considerable section of the trade. As a leading laundry proprietor has expressed it: "Why should the trade be disorganized for the sake of the one-shirt brigade?" As to the "uncertain" nature of the work, it must be remembered that the laundry industry has now reached in many places a high degree of organization.

"With the advent of machinery and subdivision of labor, the whole character of the industry has changed, the uncertainty' so much dwelt on as a peculiarity of laundry work practically disappears. The capacity' of each machine, and of the whole plant, is known to a fraction; the amount of work that can be dealt with per hour can be accurately calculated, often more so than in many other factories... This change in the economic conditions of the industry is of great importance from the point of view of legislative regulation. It is impossible not to be struck by the contrast afforded by the spectacle of the steam laundry full of labor-saving machinery engaged mainly on contract work, with every modern device for regulating and organizing the output,' the capacity of each machine and department of which is perfectly gauged, and that of the dressmaker or milliner employing only hand labor, often very highly skilled, dependent on mere passing whim or fancy of a fleeting season, struggling with uncertainties' and 'rushes' and other difficulties as great as any with which the laundry has to cope, and yet successfully complying with regulations which the factory (for such it practically is) could often more easily conform to."*

It is refreshing to note that the bogey of foreign competition, which has hitherto loomed large over all projects of factory reform, cannot be raised in this connection. However anxious the housewife may be to see her laundry basket brought home on Friday evening, she is not likely to send her dirty linen across the Channel to be washed. It is said, indeed, that the gilded youth of London can only be satisfied with a Paris-dressed shirt, and that his Parisian comrade repays the compliment, but this international reciprocity is a trivial matter.

It has been objected that increased regulation would drive the trade from the smaller laundries into the large factory laundry. A more correct statement is that it would tend to transfer the trade from the less capable to the more capable employers, and it has yet to be shown that this is a process to be regretted. Even the imperfect legislation of the past has had this effect. The Chairman of the

* Annual Report of H. M. Chief Inspector of Factories, 1900, p. 382.