or measured out into coils of 36, 72, or 144 yards each. In this process women are employed. Some portions of such coils are sold or used up into skirts without undergoing any other process than has been above described; but other portions are previously wrapped or covered with cotton thread. This cotton thread is invariably purchased by the respondent from spinners or their agents in hanks or bundles, which on the respondent's premises undergo no further manufacturing process, but by means of steam-power are next wound or reeled upon bobbins of various sizes for more convenient application around or about the strips of steel. One process of such appli cation is effected by a machine called a wrapping-machine, which by steam-power turns the cotton thread in single file round and round the strips of steel. The other process or application of the cotton thread is effected by a machine called a plaiting-machine, which by steam-power effects a covering for the steel by the interlacing or plaiting of sixteen threads together around and over every part of the strips. In the process of covering the steel with cotton, as above described, by steam-power, women are employed. [*245 The whole of the rooms and premises are within one boundary or curtilage.

3. On the hearing of the complaint before the justices, the appellant proved that he was sub-inspector of factories for the district in which Sheffield is included; that, on the 26th of August last, in consequence of some information, he went to the works of the respondent, in Granville Street, Sheffield, between half-past six and quarter to seven o'clock in the evening; and, on going up stairs, he found in a first room a number of girls and young women standing in an opening in one side of the room, which he could best describe as resembling the bar of an inn; that the persons were in the act of delivering their work to a woman inside an apartment where the skirts are received after they are made; that Charlotte Roxburgh, named in the information, was at the bar delivering or passing over skirts; that he, the appellant, proceeded into a further room, and there, seated on benches by the side of long tables, he found a second and larger number of females occupied in making up crinoline skirts; that two male assistants of the respondent were present; that he, the appellant, pointed out to them what he conceived to be the illegality of the proceedings. in their being employed after 6 o'clock; that he, the appellant, had on previous occasions been in other parts of the respondent's premises; that there is machinery propelled by steam-power, and the process in such other parts carried on is the covering of steel with cotton by machinery which twists or winds the cotton round the steel; that the rooms in which the young women were working were within the outer gate and the boundary walls of the premises where the steam-power is applied; and that some of the young women were employed in inserting or securing the covered steel into skirts for garments called crinoline skirts.

[*246

4. On cross-examination by the respondent's attorney, the appellant stated that he saw no machinery in the two rooms; that the young women could have done the work they were upon just as well at their own homes; and that the respondent is what is termed a crinoline manufacturer.

C. B. N. S., VOL. XVIII.-11

5. The skirts referred to in the above evidence are composed of gores cut from pieces of calico, nets, or plain or coloured cloths of various kinds, and sewed together, into the folds or hems of which the strips of steel are run or inserted; and so the articles are formed into the female garment or appendage called a crinoline skirt.

6. On the above statement of facts and evidence, the justices were of opinion that the respondent's premises at Sheffield were not and could not be called or considered in the ordinary use of words a cotton-mill, and did not become a cotton-mill or factory within the intent of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, by reason of the application of steampower to machinery used therein for manufacturing steel and cotton thread and other materials into crinoline by the means and in the manner herein before described. They were also of opinion, that, on such premises, and for such a purpose, the process of wrapping or covering by machinery crinoline steel with cotton thread was not within the meaning of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 73, a process incident in any way to the manufacture of cotton, or to any fabric made thereof or mixed therewith, but was incident to the manufacture of crinoline, in like manner as the covering or wrapping of driving or riding whips (if effected by machines of the same character) with silk twist or strong linen thread and other materials, would not be a *247] process incident to the manufacture of silk or *linen, or to any fabric made thereof, but would be a process incident to the making of whips. They therefore dismissed the summons.

7. If the Court should be of opinion that their determination was correct, the same was to be confirmed: if otherwise, the Court was to make such order as to the Court might seem fit.

Hannen (with whom was The Solicitor-General), for the appellant. (a) —The question is whether the place described in the case is a "factory" within the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, or the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 73. By the 1st section of the former Act it is enacted, that, "no person under eighteen years of age shall be allowed to work in the night, that is to say, between the hours of half past 8 o'clock in the evening and half past 5 o'clock in the morning, except as hereinafter provided, in or about any cotton, woollen, worsted, hemp, flax, tow, linen, or silk mill or factory, wherein steam or water or any mechanical power is or shall be used to propel or work the machinery in such mill or factory, either in scutching, carding, roving, *248] spinning, piecing, twisting, winding, throwing, doubling, netting, making thread, dressing or weaving cotton, wool, worsted, hemp, flax, tow, or silk, either separately or mixed, in any such mill or factory situate in any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

(a) The points marked for argument on the part of the appellant were as follows:"1. That the premises of the respondent in Granville Street, Sheffield, in which by the aid of steam and other mechanical power be carried on the trade of a manufacturer of crinoline steel and crinoline skirts, were a cotton-mill' or factory' within the meaning of the 3 & 4 W. 4. c. 103, s. 1, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 73:

2. That the word 'winding' mentioned in the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, s. 1, includes the process arried on by the respondent at his premises in Sheffield, of winding or reeling cotton by steampower upon bobbins, as found in the case:

"3. That the word 'twisting' mentioned in the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, s. 1, includes the process carried on by the respondent at his premises in Sheffield, of interlacing or plaiting of sixteen threads together by steam-power round and over every part of the strips, as found in the case.”

Ireland." This Act was extended by the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, the 73d section of which defines "factory" as follows,-"The word 'factory,' notwithstanding any provision or exemption in the Factory Act, shall be taken to mean all buildings and premises situated within any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, wherein or within the close or curtilage of which steam, water, or any other mechanical power shall be used to move or work any machinery employed in preparing, manufacturing, or finishing, or in any process incident to the manufacture of cotton, wool, hair, silk, flax, hemp, jute, or tow, either separately or mixed together, or mixed with any other material, or any fabric made thereof; and any room situated within the outward gate or boundary of any factory wherein children or young persons are employed in any process incident to the manufac ture carried on in the factory shall be taken to be a part of the factory, although it may not contain any machinery; and any part of such factory may be taken to be a factory within the meaning of this Act; but this enactment shall not extend to any part of such factory used solely for the purposes of a dwelling-house, nor to any part used solely for the manufacture of goods made entirely of any other material than those herein enumerated, nor to any factory, or part of a factory used solely for the manufacture of lace, of hats, or of paper, or solely for bleaching, dyeing, printing, or calendering." Then comes the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54, s. 1, which, after reciting the two Acts above mentioned, and also the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 29, *enacts, that, "save as thereinafter mentioned, so much of the said Acts as restricts or [*249 limits the hours of the employment or labour of any young persons, and of females above the age of eighteen years, shall be repealed, and after the passing of this Act no young person, and no female above the age of eighteen years shall be employed in any factory before six of the clock in the morning, or after six of the clock in the evening of any day (save to recover lost time, as thereinafter provided), and no young person, and no female above the age of eighteen years shall be employed in any factory, either to recover lost time, or for any other purpose, on any Saturday after two of the clock in the afternoon." It is submitted that this is a "factory" within that definition, because steam-power is used therein in winding and twisting cotton, and not merely, as contended on the other side, in the manufacture of "crinoline steel" and "crinoline-skirts." The mischief intended by the Act to be guarded against will be equally effected by carrying on the process in combination with steel as without it. In Haydon, app., Taylor, resp., 33 Law J., M. C. 30, the respondent was the owner of premises in Mansfield Street, Leicester, in which he carried on the manufacture of cotton sewing-thread: he also had other premises in Leicester to which he was in the habit of sending the thread in hanks, and where it was wound by machinery moved by steam-power, first, on to cops, and secondly on to spools. No other process except this particular winding was carried on in the last-mentioned premises: and it was held that these latter premises were a mill or factory within the meaning of the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, s. 1. Wightman, J., in the course of the argument, said: "Probably the intention of the legisla ture was to protect the health of young children, and it makes no difference whether the child was employed in the earlier or the later

*250] processes; *it is clearly within the meaning of the statute." There are two windings here,-from the spools on which the cotton was brought into the respondent's premises, to other spools, and then round the strips of steel which are to form the skirts. Is it the less a manufacture because it is wound on and round the steel? The case of Taylor, app., Hickes, resp., 12 C. B. N. S. 152 (E. C. L. R. vol. 104), affords a good illustration of the meaning of the statute. There, the appellant was the occupier of premises in Birmingham in which steam-power was used to work machinery employed in manufacturing cotton and wool into "webbing," of which he made men's braces and horses' girths, by cutting the material into lengths, and sewing pieces of leather and buckles thereto. The buildings formed an enclosed square, entered from the street by a gateway: on the left was the building in which the steam-power was used, and the webbing manufactured: on the right, within the curtilage, the manufacture of braces and girths was carried on in rooms entered from the square. One Heeley, a child under 13, was engaged in the last-mentioned manufacture. His occupation was, the preparation of the pieces of leather for attaching to the webbing, by boring holes round the edges with an awl. No part of the webbing was ever placed in his hands or brought into the room; nor was there any machinery in the room where he was so employed. And it was held that this was an employment in a "factory," within the meaning of the Factory Acts.

Quain, for the respondent.-These statutes are of a highly penal character, and are not to be extended to a manufacture which does not come strictly within their provisions. The main object of the first Act, 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, was, to limit the hours of labour in factories. It recites that "it is necessary that the *hours of labour *251] of children and young persons employed in mills and factories should be regulated, inasmuch as there are great numbers of children and young persons now employed in mills and factories, and their hours of labour are longer than is desirable, due regard being had to their health and means of education." The 2d section enacts that no person under the age of eighteen years shall be employed in any such mill or factory, in such description of work as aforesaid, more than twelve hours in any one day, nor more than sixty-nine hours in any one week, except as thereinafter provided; and there is a further limitation of the number of hours for the employment of children under the respective ages of eleven, twelve, and thirteen years, in s. 8. [ERLE, C. J.-The statute 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54, assumes it to be a presumptio juris that young persons and females found working in a factory or mill after 6 o'clock in the evening, have been working since 6 o'clock in the morning. WILLIAMS, J.-I do not think the Act of Parliament is susceptible of your construction.] The object manifestly was, to limit the hours of working in the case of women and children. [ERLE, C. J.-The statute contemplates a maximum number of hours, and also prohibited hours. The words are very distinct.]

Then, this is not a factory within the meaning of the Acts. The legislature in the first Act restricting free labour,—the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103,-and in the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 73, evidently contemplated cotton-mills or factories strictly and properly so called. The informa

or

tion is founded upon the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 54, s. 1, and the penalty is imposed by the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, s. 56. The process here carried on was not the twisting and winding of cotton; neither was it a manufacture of a fabric composed of cotton and steel combined. The winding of cotton round the steel strips cannot be *called a pro- [*252 cess incidental to the manufacture of cotton." ERLE, C. J.— The 73d section of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15, contains the words " mixed with any other material." WILLES, J.-The article manufactured here is of cotton combined with steel. Is it the manufacture of an article of cotton mixed with steel ?] It is submitted not. ERLE, C. J.—A factory for the manufacture by steam or water power for the manufacture of articles of female attire composed of cotton and indiarubber, would clearly be within the Acts. KEATING, J.-Suppose the fabric for covering the steel alone was made on the respondent's premises, would not that constitute them a "factory" within the Acts?] That is supposing that which cannot be. Cole, app., Dickinson, resp., 16 C. B. N. S. 604 (E. C. L. R. vol. 111), is an authority to show that the statute is not to be extended. [ERLE, C. J.-In that case, the article made was to be used in the manufacture of paper; it was part of the process of paper-making; and that is a manufacture which is specially excepted out of the statute.] Haydon, app., Taylor, resp., 33 Law J., M. C. 30, does not govern this case. It was expressly found there that the respondent was the owner of a factory in which he carried on the manufacture of cotton thread.

Hannen, in reply.-The notion that a penal statute is to receive a different construction from that which is to be put upon any other class of statutes has been long exploded; and, if it were necessary, it might be contended that the statutes now under consideration are of a remedial character, and ought to be construed so as to suppress the evil, and to advance the remedy. As to the twelve hours, there can be no doubt. [WILLIAMS, J.-It is impossible to get over the plain words of the Act.] The statute 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, does not define what is a "factory:" but it enumerates a *variety of processes [*253

in the manufacture of cotton and certain other materials,including twisting and winding,-by means of machinery,, in which young persons are not to be employed within certain prohibited hours. Here, cotton is wound by machinery round strips of steel. For whatever purpose the manufacture of cotton is carried on, the place where it is carried on is a cotton-factory within the statute. Haydon, app., Taylor, resp., is precisely in point. The Court there held that winding cotton by means of machinery upon spools or reels, was a winding within the 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 103, as well as a "process" in the manufacture of cotton within the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 15. Is a fabric of cotton less a fabric of cotton because it is used in combination with something else? [ERLE, C. J.-For instance, the combination of a fabric of cotton with whalebone for the purpose of making stays.] Whether in combination with whalebone, or steel, or any other substance, can make no difference.

ERLE, C. J.-The question in this case has been, whether the premises of the respondent are, upon the facts stated, shown to be a factory wherein steam-power has been used to work any machinery employed in the manufacture, or in any process incidental to the