The Cotton Factory Times. — 1901-08-16 (Manchester, Greater Manchester, England)

PRICE ONZ PENNT. L c THE MUTED ITHODOIL  Government. Certainly the circumstances were extraordinary, and may not occur again for a generation, yet such a relaxation of the ordinary law should be jealously guarded, as it might lead to the establishment of a precedent which, iu the hands of a Home Secretary who is not particularly well-disposed towards labour, could easily be used to serve occasions which are not as pressing as the one in question. In a matter of this kind the Trades Congress and the Parliamentary Committee may be of much service.  There are other resolutions that I consider do not come properly within the province of the Wradee Congress. These run close on political lines, and therefore step beyond the bound of labour. While they may be of concern to the labouring man as a member of the community, they do not deal with his wages and labour and conditions of employment, ' and, therefore, ought to be regarded as ultra virtm. Then the old question of the Miners' Eight Hours Bill is down for consideration. %de I consi* that eight hours' work a day i snongh for anybody, especially a miner, if it can be so arranged, I think it is about time the miners settled this question among themselves, and when they have done so, thou they can command the attention of the Congress, and the assistance of the Parliamentary Committee, and claim that Parliament should pass such a bill into law. But first settle the quarrel among them. selves.  A statement having gone the rounds of the press that experiments were being made with French cards in Ashton weaving sheds, which entailed loss to the weavers, and that the union would claim a minimum day wage if the system continued, the Textile Alerea•-y chips in, and scouts the idea of recompensing the weavers; contending that improved methods always benefited the weaver in the leng run, even if they lost "a few hours" while they were being tried. Let employers adopt improved methods, by all insmins, but employers have no right to test them at the expense of their workers, for they don't introduce tbern for their benefit.  Extravagant language is objectionable, especially when seen in print. I have before me an extract from a railway journal dealing with the number of men killed and injured on the railway daring the past year. Everybody must deplore such casualties, however they may be caused, but who will agree with the extravagant statement that "almost every railway man sent to a violent death has been as surely, though unintentionally, murdered as any victim of the assassin's knife." I don't know what my readers think of it, but certainly I cannot approve of it. If the negligence or responsibility was wholly on one side—on that of the railway companies—then I say that Parliament should take action immediately and provide a remedy and make those in authority at the railway criminally responsible. But is this so? We all know how regulations are sometimes thoughtlessly disregarded. What of tbese cases? Such persons pay the penalty of their folly. Employment on the railway, especially that of shouters, is positively dangerous, and therefore it beoomes the duty of Parliament to do all it possibly can to protect the lives of these employee and to compel the railway com• panies to make ample provision in case of accident and death. But when all this is done there will surely be cases which will call for our sympathy and support.