{202} men, women, and children, was managed according to the will and
judgment of the owner, unless in the rare cases where the demand for
labor far exceeded the supply. In most places the supply exceeded the
demand, and the master was therefore free to make any conditions he
pleased with his workers. If the master were a humane man, a just man,
or even a far-seeing man, he took care that those who worked for him
should be fairly treated, and should not be compelled to work under
conditions dangerous to their health and destructive of their comfort.
But if he were a selfish man, or a careless man, the workers were used
merely as instruments of profit by him, or by those immediately under
him; and it did not matter how soon they were used up, for there could
always be found numbers enough who were eager to take their places, and
were willing to undertake any task on any terms, for the sake of
securing a bare living. Lord Ashley raised the whole question in the
House of Commons, and brought forward a motion which ended in the
appointment of a commission to inquire into the condition of the men,
women, and children who worked in the factories. The commission was
not long in collecting a vast amount of information as to the evils,
moral and physical, brought about by the overworking of women and
children in the factories. The general concurrence of public opinion,
even among those who supported Lord Ashley's movement, did not seem to
go beyond the protection of women and children. The adult male, it was
considered, might perhaps safely be left to make the best terms he
could for himself; but the inquiries of the commission left little
doubt among unprejudiced minds that something must be done to secure
women and children from the evils of overwork. Lord Ashley succeeded
in forcing the whole question on the attention of Parliament, and an
Act was passed in 1833 which did not indeed go nearly as far as Lord
Ashley would have carried his principle, but which at least established
the right of legislative interference for the protection of children
and young persons of both sexes. The Act limited the work of children
to eight hours a day and {203} that of young persons under eighteen to
sixty-nine hours a week. This Act may be regarded as the beginning of
that legislative interference which has gone on advancing beneficially
from that time down to our own, and is likely still to keep on its
forward movement.

[Sidenote: