Aug.
The decision of the Government to apply the Factory Law to China in certain modified, forms during the present month gives special value to the import-Jant document which has recent-been issued in London, Two, years ago the Government appointed a Royal Commission, uneer the chairmanship of the Rt. Hon. John Henry Whitley, formerly Speaker of the House of Commons, and the godfather of the Whitley Councils, to. inquire into the labour conditions in British India. This Commission, composed most authoritatively of; representatives of employers and employed, of Englishmen and Indians, of officials and nonofficials, has most exhaustively studied its subject after two long visits to India and has} issued a remarkable Report, details of which have already appeared in the news columns of this paper. The Report as a whole has now reached Shanghai, and it is at once of interest to know certain conclusions at which the Commission arrived in regard to factory legislation. It will not be pretended that there is an equal parallel between conditions in India and conditions in China, but obviously in many respects the views of such a body as thi Royal Commission on the application of Wester1 gulations to Oriental practice must be of some value to the public here.
India may be said very gradually to have adopted the principle of factory inspection. Twenty years ago the factory inspector in most up-country places was ex-officio the civil surgeon, which meant, of course, that the official in question could not give his full time to the duties of his secondary office. A new Factory: Law was passed in 1911 and three other measures were passed after that. On these four Acts the} present law is based. The Commission found much to criticise in the factories in the large industrial centres and they, made very valuable recommendations, especially with the idea of bringing what are now known as unregulated factories within the scope of legislation. 'They have also made suggestions for improving the conditions under which women and children are working. 'The point to remember, however, is that factory' legislation has been in force in India for twenty years-at least, if it be agreed to regard the legislation before 1911 as inadequate accordiffg to modern ideas. The Commission find that the) history of Factory Law in India has been one of steady advance. Each successive Act has covered wider field than the ast aid brought within its orbit classes of workers or establishments which the spread of industrialism has shown tobe in need of protection or regulation, It will bbe seen, therefore, that although it would be absurd to pretend that conditions in India have at eny time approached those obtaining in England or America, there has been at work, both on the part of the Government and on the part of public opinion, a definite drive for the institution of effective, measures of factory, regulation. "It must be remenibered, too, that Lancashire at an carly stage took- an interest in this question of factory regula tion in India, for reasons which the orities of Lancashire will say, Were not entirely disinterested, Now, in spite of this star factory legislation and in spite of their conviction that there is the Commission are firmly of the much room for improvement, opinion that the policy gradualness which " underlies their proposals for legislation should also influence its enforcement. They point out that the adoption of their recommenda tions would bring under control for the first time a Jarge number of establishments owned in many cases by proprietors of limited education. Except where the question of the employment of children is concerned, they hope that the aim of the Government should be the gradual raise a Of standards rather than immediate this method is put Into practice, enforcement of any ideal. If ithe Commission are convinced that the criticism that reform of the livelihood of the many can be obviated, "It may be noted, indeed, that Sir Victor Sassoon, who appends a dissenting note to the Report, is in favour of an even more conservative policy while disclaiming any desire t prevent the worker from rai ing his standard of living, The Commission donot endorse Sir Vietor's plea for a special drag jon reform.
They recognise the authority with which he writes, but they point out that they are not attempting to saddle the East with the undiluted practice of the West. They—stoutly maintain that their advocacy of the principle of gradualness does not and would not preclude India from using the results of experience elsewhere instead of having to gather the experience by experimenting on her own" ground, The Commission further point out, while acknowledging the voluntary efforts of employers in the past, that there are certain matters in which abolition must be applied if reform is to be achieved. This Report is well worth examination because was clearly summoned to arrive at the happy mean between an idealistic attempt to enforce a completely modern system of reulation on an India unprepared for it, and the despairing policy of doing nothing without complete and almost impossible proof that it could be put into force. In other words, the commendations provide a useful blend of healthy empiricism and practical caution, And that, seems to be the recipe which would be most useful in China at the moment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.