View report page

16
Forty-six establishments were visited against fifty-eight
of the previous year, and it was necessary to caution eighteen
of the owners against infringing the Act in future—while
thirteen were convicted—one being the manager of a model
establishment, superintended by a committee of ladies of
rank, leaving eleven against whom there were no grounds
for complaint. Two more convictions would have occurred,
had not the young women whose evidence I took been summarily
dismissed, in one case, on the day the summons was
taken out, so that, without knowing their addresses, they could
not be called as witnesses; and, in the other, the three witnesses
gave either false evidence to me, or committed perjury
afterwards in the Police Court, Marlborough-street. One
of them, however, did admit working beyond the legal
hours on a certain day, showing that in her there was a
particle of truth; but the charge naturally fell to the ground,
with such lying and evasion. I am sorry to record this
instance of failure on account of untruth; but, at the same
time, it is the only example that has come under my notice.
I can, therefore, testify to the general truth of the women,
who must be sometimes placed in very trying circumstances
from intimidation and threats of being dismissed by some of
their employers, unless they can be suborned to give false
evidence. Fortunately I have heard threats used but by
few of the employers, while the threatened have stood firm,
although risking the loss of their situations. A great many
of the employers in my district consider the Act to have
been very useful.
The following is a list of the thirteen persons convicted as
against 5 during tb e corresponding period of the previous year:—
1. Madame Armandine, dressmaker and milliner, New
Bond-street, April 21st, 1869, at Marlboroughstreet;
fined 40s.
2. Mrs. Huddart, dressmaker and milliner, of Grosvenor-square,
April 21st, 1869, at Marlboroughstreet,
fined 40s.