2. ECONOMIC AND INDUSTRIAL EFFECTS OF LEGISLATION. The foregoing brief summary of the law has naturally preceded the question as to how far legislation has affected women in these particular trades. When restrictions are imposed upon the labour of any class of wage-earners, their economic position must be altered for good or evil, unless the trade can so adjust itself as to meet exactly the requirements of these restrictions. If the worker is of great importance, an effort will be made to adapt the trade to the novel conditions; if another class of workers or machinery, free from all restrictions, can be as easily used, it is probable that the labour affected will be ousted. [Sidenote: Has legislation displaced women?] Is there, then, evidence to show that any material displacement of women or girls in these trades followed the enforcement of factory legislation? Instances of dismissal must obviously be sought for soon after the Act of 1867, as the employer then knew on what terms he engaged his staff, and, except in a few cases where deliberate evasions of the law might be attempted, the effect of legislation would be to deter him from employing women, rather than lead him to dismiss them. Owing to the lapse of time, it is difficult to find out from those in the trade the immediate consequences of this Act, nor does the Commission of 1876 give much assistance. Of 103 employers questioned by us, not half a dozen remembered dismissing women in consequence of the new enactment. One employer turned off ten or twelve women "folders" and introduced machinery, alleging as his reason the want of elasticity in the Factory Act. His ordinary hours were from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., but on certain days in the week it was necessary to begin work at 6 a.m. He made arrangements that the total number of hours should not exceed those sanctioned by the Act, but the variation was not allowed. If his women began work at 6 a.m. on any day, his hours had to be regularly 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., except in the case of thirty nights in the year when overtime was permitted. As this did not suit his business, he dismissed the women and had recourse to folding machines. Personally he gained, as the machinery proved an economy, but it told hardly on the women, whom otherwise he would have kept on as they were old hands. Another employer told a similar tale regarding the introduction of folding machinery, but stated that he had been obliged to dispense with female operatives by reason of the strict enforcement of the regulations regarding overtime only. In both these cases it is clear that the state of the trade was such that it required only a very slight disability on the part of the worker to make it worth while for the employer to use machinery.