§ (1.) Inspection.
§ Clause 66 (Certificates of appointment of Inspectors).
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 33, line 9, to leave out "if required." The clause, said the hon. Member, provided that an Inspector, on applying for admission to any house or factory or workshop should, if required, produce to the occupier his certificate of appointment. It would, he thought, simplify matters very considerably if, in all cases, the Inspector's duty should be to produce his certificate or the warrant by virtue of which he claimed admission. The uniform adoption of such a course would save much trouble, inconvenience, and possibly opposition on the part of the occupiers of the houses sought to be inspected. The absolute knowledge that the visitors were Government officials would procure for them much greater freedom of access and fuller facilities for performing their duties than would otherwise be the case. The occupiers of private houses in poor localities might be inclined to resist unless the Inspector produced his authority as a matter of course.
MR. ASSHETON CROSScontended that the Amendment was altogether unnecessary, although he admitted there was something in what the hon. Member for Meath had advanced. No one could wish less than he did to invade the privacy of private houses, and he should therefore be prepared to move the insertion in a later clause of words to provide that no Inspector should visit a private house without first obtaining a written authority from the Secretary of State, or a warrant from a magistrate obtained on a sworn information. This, he thought, would remove the whole 457 difficulty, as no magistrate would grant a warrant of entry without having been first satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for so doing—in other words, that there was reason to suspect the manner in which the business carried on in such houses was being conducted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ (2.) Certifying Surgeons.
§ Clause 67 (Appointment of certifying surgeon).
§ DR. WARDmoved, in page 33, line 29, after "workshop," to insert—
Provided always, that these shall not apply to the case of a person who is a shareholder in a public company.He thought it was a recognized principle with regard to all boards that persons should not be ineligible to sit upon them because they might happen to be interested in certain patented processes carried on by such boards, and which were the property of limited liability companies. For instance, if the clause were accepted as it stood in the Bill, many surgeons in the Midland and Northern manufacturing districts would be disqualified for acting as certifying surgeons because they were interested in the processes which had been patented by Mr. Bessemer and other patentees.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause would not prevent any surgeon from being appointed in the district in which he practised. It would only debar him from certifying in reference to children engaged in the particular factory in which he was himself personally interested.
§ MR. GRAYsupported the Amendment on the ground that the clause was so widely drawn as to be easily susceptible of misinterpretation and abuse.
MR. GORSTthought hon. Members opposite were unduly alarming themselves. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out, the effect of the clause would simply be to preclude a surgeon from certifying in reference to a factory in which he had a direct personal interest.
§ MR. MACDONALDopposed the Amendment, remarking that the clause as drawn would act not only as a protection 458 to the public, but to the medical men themselves. He felt bound to state to the House that he only a few days ago thought the Medical Profession was hardly dealt with. From one of themselves he had the illusion fully dispelled; and he would, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. MUNDELLApointed out that a large proportion of the cotton mills in the North of England were in the hands of limited liability companies, and much jealousy would naturally be occasioned by a surgeon who was a shareholder certifying as to the fitness of "half-time" or "full-time" children employed in what was, to a certain extent, his own factory.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LEWIS STARKEYsaid, he had no intention of moving an Amendment in the clause; but as it was the first one in the Bill which directly proposed to deal with the appointment of certifying surgeons, he wished to say a few words concerning it. He wished to guard himself against saying anything in opposition to the way in which the certifying surgeons had done their duty, because he was fully mindful of the great interest which they had taken in carrying out the provisions of the Factory Acts—an interest which had rendered the country deeply indebted to the Medical Profession as a body. His own opinion was that the certifying surgeons ought to be put on the same footing with Factory Inspectors, both with reference to their appointments and the remuneration attaching thereto. He wished them to be just as much Government officers as the Inspectors, and they ought to be treated in the same way. As the House well knew, the appointment of certifying surgeons was in the hands of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and he should be the last man to find fault with the way in which that official had administered the patronage he had to bestow; but he could not help thinking that the amount of such patronage was too large to be in the hands of any permament official, and he should much prefer to see it under the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The only excuse he could see for calling upon the factory owners, and to some extent upon the operatives, to defer the cost of the examinations and the con- 459 sequent certificates, was that such had been, the custom in times past. His own view of the payment so made was that it was an unjust tax, and that as the certificates were granted and required much more in the interest of the public than of the employers the public should bear the cost of them. He should not move an Amendment, because, cordially approving of the general principle and scope of the Bill, he understood that the principle contained in the clause was regarded by the Home Secretary as vital to the measure. He must, however, express his hope, which was also the hope of the manufacturing population in the North of England, and of the Associated Chambers of Commerce —as expressed at their meeting on the previous day—that the Home Secretary would speedily be able to see his way to removing what was practically a heavy tax upon the employers of labour, and upon the operatives themselves
§ MR. HUTCHINSONpointed out that the duties of these certifying surgeons were of the nature of those performed by sanitary Inspectors. The surgeons were employed in the public service; and ought, therefore, to be paid out of the public funds, instead of by persons who did not ask for their appointment, and the payment by whom constituted a tax upon a particular and special section of the community. It was also worthy of remark that the appointments as now made took much of a political character. It was true that on paper there existed a power on the part of the millowners to obtain repayment from the parents of a proportion of the fees paid; but, as a matter of fact and experience, he could safely say that any attempt to obtain such repayment would inevitably result in their being withdrawn from work in that particular factory.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 68 (Regulations as to the grant of certificates of fitness).
DR. CAMERONsaid, that whereas the existing law enacted, in order to prevent personation, that every child or young person taken to the house of a surgeon for examination should be accompanied by some responsible person, no such provision was contained in the present Bill.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he should move, as an Amendment to the clause, in page 34, line 1, to leave out "ten" and insert "five" as the number of children who must be taken for examination to the residence of a surgeon instead of being examined at the factory or in the workshop in which they were employed. Mr. Leonard Horner, who laid very largely the basis of the present system, was strongly opposed to examination away from the factories—on the ground, mainly, that it tended largely to personation, imposition, and the making of false statements, the falsehood of which could not be detected. Nevertheless, it was found, that there were many small factories in which a less number of children than five were employed, and it was provided that in such cases they might be taken to the residences of the certifying surgeons for examination. He had no objection to the law remaining in the same condition; but he strongly objected to the number being increased to 10. This would be a very serious innovation, and in some towns—Wolverhampton, for instance—would include from half to two-thirds of all the factories and workshops in the place. He would point out, further, that if the surgeon went to the factory in the discharge of his duty he received a small but reasonable fee of 2s. 6d. per child; but if the children were taken to him, he was only entitled to 6d. for each one examined. Did any hon. Member ever hear of such a fee for the services of a professional man? If he sent his horse or dog to be examined by a veterinary surgeon, he had to pay a fee ranging between 5s. and 10s. 6d.; but a surgeon would, under the provisions of this Bill, have to examine a child and give a certificate for a miserable fee of 6d.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that 10 was the number recommended by the Royal Commission; but, after long and careful consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that five was a sufficiently extensive limit.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexpressed his regret that the Home Secretary had accepted the Amendment, because he scarcely thought that the House was aware of the heavy tax which it would impose on a large number of small employers. They must bear in mind that the new definition of a factory 461 would henceforth be any place where steam or water power was used, and there were few handicrafts or employments in which steam was not either in present use or would not be used in the course of a very few years. With the new definition of a factory it had become absolutely necessary to accept an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), to make dispensary and Poor Law doctors certifying surgeons throughout the country, as otherwise the burden that would be imposed would be found in a short time to be quite intolerable.
§ MR. MUNDELLAconfessed that he, too, was surprised to hear the Home Secretary so readily assent to the Amendment. The examination of a child had been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as something similar to that of a horse or a dog by a veterinary surgeon, and he gave the cost in each case. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the circumstances of the two cases were altogether different, and that, in changing the age at which a child might be employed under this Bill, they had completely altered the duties of the certifying surgeon. Formerly, a child might be employed half-time in a mill at eight years of age, and the surgeon had then to certify whether that child was strong, and able, and fit, in all respects, to be employed to that extent. But the age had now been raised to 10 years, and all that the surgeon had to do was to certify that the general appearance presented was that of a child of 10 years, and that the child might go to work in a factory for half-time. Then, they had raised the age for full-timers from 13 to 14 where the child had not passed the educational standard. Further, by this Bill, they were prohibiting the employment of children at all in certain factories, so that, to some extent, the necessity for a surgical examination had entirely passed away. Let him mention a case that came under his notice very recently which bore upon this point. The certifying surgeon of the town of Sheffield died a few months ago. He had been accustomed to charge the grinders 6d. for going to their wheels and certifying the children there. When the post became vacant, some of the best medical officers of the town were 462 exceedingly anxious to obtain it; and this, he ventured to say, would always be the case if the clause were left as it was. He could explain why the whole of the large works of England contracted with the surgeons. A surgeon was paid so many guineas for calling round to see whether there were any children to be certified, and whether there were or not, he received his remuneration at the end of the year. But now every grinder in Sheffield—the man who only rented one wheel, and who had his boy to perform his errands or assist him in the shop, would be required to have a certificate, and so it would be in all the minor industries of England. The pressure of this Bill would fall upon the minor industriesif the certificate were made to stand at 2s. 6d., on the terms prescribed by the Bill, except the number stood at five, or, instead of 10, they extended the area of the measure and raised the ages. Therefore, he hoped that when they came to the next clause, fixing the rate of remuneration to the surgeon, the Home Secretary would not under any circumstances consent to omit "five." The observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) were directed more particularly to that clause. The right hon. Member argued that it was ridiculous to award 6d. for each person after the first five examined when the clerk of the peace received 1s. for a copy of a conviction. The clerk of the peace, however, had to turn over his books in order to ascertain the date of the conviction and make out his certificate. Butreally this was not a case where a surgeon prescribed for children; he merely took their general appearance. Having seen children examined for a number of years past, he could say that half-a-dozen children were examined and passed in almost as many minutes, and it was not at all the delicate and difficult business which his right hon. Friend had described, though he was willing to bear his testimony to the admirable manner in which the certifying surgeons performed their duty.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Bill was intended to comprise employment in small workshops, in which he had known children to have been employed so as very injuriously to affect their health. Therefore, he thought that if the Committee were disposed to interfere 463 further with the employment of labour, it was essential that it should do so on the ground of preserving the health of these young persons. The certificate should be one with respect to the health and bodily fitness of the children, or really it was not worth having, and the House should not insist upon such certificates unless the remuneration was adequate to the exercise of the professional skill required.
§ DR. WARDreminded the Committee that the proper working of this Bill would depend very much upon the medical certificates to be granted under it. The House had already passed several Acts, amongst them being the Irish Sanitary Act, which depended greatly upon the manner in which the medical work was performed. But the House had never settled, or tried to settle, anything like a fair remuneration for those upon whom depended the proper carrying out of the intention of Parliament. And what was the fact? That the Irish Sanitary Act, owing to the want of fair remuneration having been provided, was becoming a dead letter. That was exactly what was likely to occur in this instance. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had made the most extraordinary statement that he had ever heard made in that House. Almost in one breath he had told them that the doctors performed their work in a most perfunctory manner—["No, no!"]—the hon. Member had told them that doctors passed half-a-dozen children in as many minutes, and yet the next moment he thanked them for the admirable manner in which they performed their duties. But that was the way in which he (Dr. Ward) believed that this work would be done. Medical men could not, any more than the members of any other Profession, afford to do work without being paid a fair remuneration. The noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had expressed his regret that the Home Secretary had acceded to the Amendment; but the fact was, that although it might bear hard in some cases, he was told by surgeons, who had had a large experience of factories, that if the word "ten" were adhered to, three-fourths of the factories at present under inspection would be practically excluded, that all manner of personation would be resorted to, and that, in fact, the Act 464 would become a nullity so far as the protection of the children was concerned. If a medical man did his duty fairly under this Bill, particularly as regarded children of the age of 13, who were to be allowed to work full-time, he would have to devote both time and skill to it. For these reasons, he hoped that the Home Secretary would persevere in the intention which he had announced.
§ MR. FIELDENwas very glad that his right hon. Friend had agreed to the Amendment. What they should aim at was to get as certifying surgeons the best surgeons in a district, and he did not believe that they would secure them if they raised the number from five to 10, because it must be disagreeable to the most eminent medical man in a place to have these children coming to his house. Moreover, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it was important that children should be certified at the factories.
§ MR. LEWIS STARKEYcould not agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He must express his extreme regret that the Home Secretary had yielded on this point. He had consented to withdraw an Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, thinking that, perhaps, as far as the certificates were concerned, it was unjust and might prove inconvenient if the certifying surgeons were compelled to examine young persons and children at their surgeries or houses without some restriction as to number. But so much had been said by his right hon. Friend about the inexpediency of altering the Bill, that he certainly was led to believe that he would not consent to the number 10 being struck, out and five inserted. He should most strenuously oppose the raising of the fee when they came to the next clause, which might, to some extent, meet the case. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) and other hon. Gentlemen, he wished to say that although the fee paid to the surgeon might appear small, yet there were many advantages connected with this office. They were, for example, brought in contact with a variety of people, which frequently brought them private practice that they would not otherwise obtain.
§ Amendment agreed to.
465§ On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
§ MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask the Home Secretary a Question. He did not see in the case of a certifying surgeon refusing to grant a certificate, and his reasons for so doing being deemed unsatisfactory, any mode by which his decision might be appealed against on behalf of the child. He did not wish to cast any doubt on the anxiety of the majority of medical men to do their duty; but it was possible that it might be done capriciously in some instances, and that it might have a very vexatious effect on a child's after interests. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it was not possible to afford some ready means of appeal to an Inspector or other officer?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied that there was no appeal except to the Secretary of State, who had authority over the certifying surgeon, and who might nullify his appointment if he saw good grounds for doing so.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 69 (Fees of certifying surgeons for examination of children and young persons).
DR. CAMERONmoved, in page 34, line 16, to leave out "five" and insert "person." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to leave the fees of the certifying surgeons as they were at present. He did not propose any increase, nor, as far as he was aware, was any increase in the fee of the medical gentlemen proposed by the Amendment last before the Committee. In the Act of 1844 provision was made that the certifying surgeons and the occupiers might agree as to the amount of the fees; and in the event of their failing to arrive at such agreement, the occupier was empowered to apply to the Inspector of Factories to recommend the fee—a table of fees being laid down in the Act. The same thing occurred in the Act of 1845. But in the Act of 1867 no provision of this sort was made, and the consequence was that a number of certifying surgeons took advantage of the opening thereby afforded to charge exorbitant fees. Although under the Act of 1867 no power was given to the Inspector of Factories to regulate these fees, or to state what the 466 maximum fee should be, the then Inspectors were so frequently appealed to that they issued a Circular which had had, he believed, throughout the greatest portion of the country, the effect of law ever since. In that Circular they explained that, under the circumstances which he had described, being very frequently appealed to, they would recommend a scale of fees which they said would be fair to all parties—namely, for one certificate 2s. 6d., and 6d. for each certificate in addition when more than one was granted. His Amendment, if carried, would leave matters standing as they were under this regulation of the Factory Inspectors. If the Bill should pass in its present form, its effect would be materially to cut down these fees. He thought that there could be no dispute about wages having vastly increased since 1844 in all departments of life; and after a number of gentlemen had made an arrangement on the faith of the continuance of a bargain, sanctioned, if not by the law, at least by the officers who administered the law, he thought it would be an unjustifiable interference with what he might call vested rights if the fees of those gentlemen were now to be remodelled in a manner adverse to them without any reason being given for such a course. He was perfectly certain that if they were dealing with publicans instead of professional men such a proposal would not be supported for one moment. He understood that he should be told that in certain portions of the country—in Lancashire and Yorkshire— the fees contained in this Bill had all along been adopted; but the fact that they had been voluntarily adopted in a small portion of the country was no reason why they should now be imposed over the entire of the United Kingdom.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 16, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "person."— (Dr. Cameron.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word ' five ' stand part of the clause."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must object to the Circular of the Inspectors being referred to; because, although it was quite true that such a Circular was issued in some parts of the country, it certainly created no vested 467 interest anywhere. The real fact was that the occupier of a factory made his bargain with the certifying surgeon, and there was no vested interest. And he was bound to say that, under this Bill, certifying surgeons would probably receive more fees, because the word "factory" was now very much extended, and persons who had never hitherto presented themselves to a certifying surgeon would now have to do so. Therefore, he would receive under this Bill many more fees than he ever received before. He was also bound to say that, although he had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of certifying surgeon, yet so many people had written to him asking for the post that he was quite sure there was a very great desire for some reason or other on the part of medical men to hold this office. He found that there was no necessity to raise the fees in order to get gentlemen to fill the appointment, and, therefore, he hoped that the Committee would refuse to agree to the Amendment.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought that before the Committee decided against the Amendment they ought to consider it a little, because it was exceedingly important. They were told that this was chiefly a Consolidation Bill intended to keep the law as it was. The present law admitted that any doctor might go and make a contract with the occupier just as he wished. That was to remain; but the Amendment had reference to cases in which the occupier did not do so—cases, for instance, in which there might be fewer children, and the occupier would not think it worth while to make a contract. The Home Secretary had said that these were appointments which were very largely sought after, and no doubt the best of them were. He found that 167 certifying surgeons just now received sums ranging from £50 to £500 a-year from this occupation. There were 445 certifying surgeons who made not more than £20 a-year by this branch of their Profession; and by far the larger portion of the whole Profession so engaged made very small amounts by certifying children engaged in factories. All he wished to impress upon the Committee was, that by accepting the number of five, they were for the first time establishing a 6d. fee, to be paid to surgeons; for 2s. 6d. for five examined was really 6d. for one; while the existing 468 law was to pay 2s. 6d. for the first, and 6d. for each case after the first. It was clear, therefore, that the Committee was asked, by means of a Bill said to have been introduced mainly with a view to consolidation, to make a radical change in an existing law which had worked very well.
§ MR. MUNDELLAhoped the Home Secretary would stand firmly by his proposal as it stood in Bill—in the first place, because the fees proposed to be paid were those originally fixed by the Acts of 1844 and 1868; and, in the second, because the burden of the payment would fall chiefly upon individual workmen and small manufacturers. Instead of complaining, the surgeons ought gladly to accept the proposal of the Government, inasmuch, as by causing many more children to be examined than heretofore, the fees received by the surgeons would be increased. The post of certifying surgeon was not only an honourable one, but it was far from being an honorary post; and it was, at all events, one which surgeons of high position in their Profession aspired to. The change, if made, would not affect the manufacturers who employed large numbers of children, because they contracted with the surgeons to conduct the examinations. It would only injuriously affect those small manufacturers who employed, say, half-a-dozen children.
§ DR. WARDsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) must be labouring under some mistaken notion. The proposal contained in the Bill was a distinct alteration of the laws laid down by the Government Inspectors themselves, and was by no means a keeping up of the old system. If the custom to which the hon. Member referred was practised in Sheffield, it was not in other parts of the country. He had in his possession a Circular issued by Messrs. Redgrave and Baker, Her Majesty's Inspectors, fixing the fees on a scale totally different from, and considerably higher than, that set forth in the Bill. On the scale which was laid down by the Inspectors, the surgeon would receive 2s. 6d. for the first child examined and certified, and 6d. for each succeeding one, or 4s. 6d. for the examination of five children, and not 2s. 6d., as was now proposed. Notwithstanding this fact, the hon. Member for Sheffield maintained that the fees were to remain the 469 same. If the Bill was passed in its present form, as far as this particular branch of it was concerned, what had been hitherto a fairly lucrative employment for surgeons in the large towns, would cease to be so, and a very inferior class of men would consequently be found applying for the appointments. The proposal was neither more nor less than an attempt to take away fees now paid in many parts of the country, and paid in the spirit of the Acts of which the present Bill was said to be a mere consolidation.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was quite true that the Inspectors had a right to fix the fees in some of the country districts, where the cases were comparatively few; but the Inspectors could alter such special rates whenever they pleased. The Circular which had been referred to was issued at a time when it was found difficult to put some of the surgeons on the same footing they had occupied for years and years before.
§ MR. W. HOLMSsupported the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), believing that no necessity existed for altering the law from its present form. Under existing circumstances, the certifying surgeons were fairly well, but not extravagantly, paid. There was a time when the appointments were eagerly sought after by leading men in the Medical Profession; but that time had, to a great extent, passed away, by reason of the fact that large districts had been very much subdivided, and so the competition which formerly existed had to a large extent ceased in the great centres of industry. Medical men did not seek these offices so much on account of the emoluments they directly derived from them as for the connection they brought, and the private patients that were thereby added to their lists.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was, doubtless, true, as had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair), that a considerable number of certifying surgeons, as such, only made but small incomes; but it was equally true that they did very little work, as the payments made were calculated and based upon results.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the low fee of 6d. might be perfectly fair in large factories or in cases where the manufacturers contracted for examina- 470 tion and certification; but it was manifestly unfair and very hard where a district was wide, and the number of children employed was small.
MR. GORSThoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He was inclined, he said, before hearing what had been said on the subject, to give a very liberal interpretation to the wishes of the surgeons; but when he heard that surgeons of high standing were found eagerly competing for the appointments on the terms contained in the Bill, he could not see that Parliament had any right to tax either employers or employed more highly in order to pay more than plenty of professional men were ready to do the work for. The 5th sub-section of the clause empowered the Home Secretary, from time to time, if he thought it expedient, to alter the scale of fees; and he had no doubt that the power so given would be used in country districts where the factories were small, and the sums to be earned were therefore very low, in order to secure the services of efficient and proper officers.
§ DR. BRADYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) must know perfectly well that there was not an officer in the State, from that of the Prime Minister downwards, that would not be eagerly taken by someone or other at a much lower rate of pay than at present attached to it. But the question important to be considered was as to the fitness of the persons seeking election. With regard to the Medical Profession, the mistake had always been made of fixing the fees at too low a rate. When the Bill for compulsory vaccination was passed a majority in that House were in favour of the payment of low fees, and what was the result? Vaccination failed, and became highly unpopular in consequence, and it became necessary to pay larger fees in order to get the vaccination properly performed. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) seemed to know very little about the subject, and to be lamentably ignorant as to the qualifications necessary to be possessed by a competent surgeon. It was necessary, in the first place, that they should be Licentiates of the Apothecaries Company, and so fitted properly to dispense medicines; they must also pass a strict examination at the College of Surgeons; and, in addition to this, many of them were voluntarily 471 graduates of one of the Universities. And yet these were the men whom it was proposed to pay by 6d. fees. He thought the wisest course for the Home Secretary to take would be rather to increase than to diminish the fees paid, and so to secure the health and well-being of the younger children employed in factories.
§ MR. HERMONthought the certifying surgeons should be content to take the rough with the smooth in matters of payment and profit as other persons had to do. Those who asked that the fees should be raised were met by the unanswerable argument of the Secretary of State, that the services of some of the best men in the Profession could be secured for the rate of payment laid down in the Bill.
§ MR. MUNTZcould not understand why the Amendment had been moved, except it was purely and simply for the benefit of the Medical Profession. The duties of certifying surgeons were not heavy if the pay was not large. A surgeon had five or six children brought before him, and he passsd them almost en bloc. If any of the children struck him as being small and delicate, he examined them a little more closely; but, as a general rule, the examination was very superficial.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKpointed out that while the Bill provided penalties for employers and parents who did not get the children examined, there was no penalty laid down for the surgeon in case he failed to perform the duty enjoined upon him by the Bill. He thought this required seeing to.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the surgeons would take it as a matter of absolute duty affecting their credit to carry out the provisions of the Act. If they did not do so the Secretary of State would have power of instant dismissal, and an occurrence of the kind could not fail materially to injure a surgeon's reputation among the people of the neighbourhood in which he practised.
§ MR. MACDONALDsupported the Bill, remarking that the present moment was very inopportune for raising by law the salaries or fees of any branch of State officials, inasmuch as the wages of the working classes were going steadily downwards, while their expenses were proceeding in an inverse ratio. He was 472 informed that they could pass 30 children in half-an-hour. Were this so they were well paid and should let well alone.
§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsupported the Amendment. His main reason for doing this was in order that the medical officers should be induced not to conduct their examinations in the perfunctory manner which almost inevitably resulted from the payment of a mean and inadequate fee. A good deal had been said about first-class men applying for these appointments, but he did not attach much importance to the fact. He thought that for duties of the kind contemplated by the Bill, they were likely to get better work out of young men who were just struggling and rising in their Profession, than from men who were at the top of the tree, or who had grown so old in the Profession as to have lost much of their vigour.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he should vote against the Amendment. Medical men were much the same as lawyers. When questions of fees arose in the House the lawyers stood up for their class, and the doctors for the members of their own order. He knew doctors in very great practice who acted as certifying surgeons in the Belfast factories, and he saw no reason why the fees should be increased as long as they could get the services of thoroughly good men for the fees offered. No doubt medical men had to get diplomas at the outset of their professional career; but it was also equally beyond doubt, that many men forgot much of what they had learned, and became practically useless, notwithstanding their many diplomas.
§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaw no reason for adopting the Amendment which had been proposed. He thought a 2s. 6d. fee for the first child, with an additional 6d. for each subsequent one examined was ample; but, as he understood the matter, it was proposed to exact a fee of 2s. 6d. for each one.
DR. CAMERONsaid, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He did not propose to alter the amount of the fees paid, but to leave them as fixed after the Act of 1871.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 54: Majority 169.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
473§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought some limit ought to be put to the distance which a surgeon must charge for travelling for the purpose of examining and certifying children. As the clause stood, it would enact that the surgeon might charge an extra 6d. for each half-mile completed beyond a certain limit. This might become a very heavy charge in some districts where, for instance, a surgeon might have to travel 10 or 12 miles to examine the children employed in a remote mill driven by the water of a mountain stream.
SIR ANDREW DUSKagreed in principle with the noble Lord, and moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "half-mile" in order to insert "mile."
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Amendment would not then be pressed, as on the Report he should be prepared to propose a limit.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ DR. WARDthought some protest ought to be entered in regard to the payment of surgeon's fees, and moved, as an Amendment, that "one shilling" be substituted for "sixpence" in the sub-section. He had been assured by practical men of large experience that in many cases the surgeons preferred to do the work for nothing rather than take so mean a fee. He could not see why the House should consent to fix the fee at so contemptible a rate that no respectable practitioner would accept it.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Amendment would not be accepted; but did not think it necessary, after what had been said, to go again over the whole ground of the fees to be paid.
§ MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhoped his hon. Friend would not divide upon his Amendment. It had been said that the fee was so mean few surgeons would accept it; but, on the other hand, very few of them were asked to do so; because, owing to the inconvenience attaching to it, very few children were taken to the houses of the surgeons. Practically, the matter was one more of sentiment than of real grievance, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. KNOWLESsaid, that as far as his experience went, he seldom knew the 6d. to be refused; it was not only 474 expected, but paid and received. The advantage gained by these certifying surgeons was not direct, but indirect and extensive. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had contrasted the charge for examining a horse or a dog with that for examining a factory child, but the cases were not parallel. The man who certified the child got introduced to other business; horses and dogs could not introduce patients to the veterinary surgeons who examined them.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEthought it scarcely fair, in calculating a scale of fees, to consider the nature of the indirect advantage which a surgeon might or might not gain from holding a particular appointment. The proper course to take was to pay the gentleman what his services were really worth.
DR. CAMERONhoped the hon. Member (Dr. Ward) would not divide, although there was something to be said in favour of his proposal. It might, for instance, be useful to raise the fee from 6d. to 1s., in order to check the practice of sending children to the residences of the surgeons, and so opening the door to personation, imposition, and falsehood.
§ MR. M'LARENremarked that if a surgeon advertised, as he must advertise, that he would be at home once a-week or once a-fortnight, it was scarcely conceivable that only one child would come. If five, or 10, or 20, there would be 6d. each for them. The first fee was 2s. 6d., but if a second child was examined, the fee was 3s.; so that, in reality, he thought a fee of 6d. was not likely to occur once in three months.
§ DR. WARDsaid, that in deference to the feeling of the Committee, he would not press his Amendment; but so many men were ready to take these situations, on account of the good things they would bring them, that he feared they might neglect their duties.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BIGGARsaid, he had been asked to move an Amendment in favour of surgeons, and of their payment for attendance in court for examination as witnesses, as he was told that in some cases payment was refused by the tribunal. His proposal was, that when medical men were called upon to attend 475 a court of justice, they should be entitled to a fee of 10s. for attendance, together with the expense of travelling, such fees to be considered as costs in the cause. The practical result of the uncertainty in respect of fees was that in a great many cases medical men neglected to attend courts of justice, and the effect was that a miscarriage took place, and justice was not administered as it ought to be. The fee he proposed was not an extravagant one, but would be a reasonable offer. In other cases a medical man could make his own time; but when he was in court as a witness, he must make his other arrangements suitable to the time at which he had to appear. So he thought the sum he had named was not an unreasonably large one, and should be agreed to by the Committee. One pound, instead of 10s., would be only reasonable.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, the hon. Member could scarcely have had before him the true state of the law. The law said at present that for proper attendance in court a medical man was entitled to certain fees; and the Amendment, instead of being in favour of, would be against, medical men. There was no such thing as "costs in the cause." Such a phrase had no meaning as applicable to a criminal case. The hon. Member had mixed up two things. In the present state of the law, if a medical man was properly there, he was entitled to his fees. The officer of the court made out what the medical man was there for, and apportioned the proper amount of fee.
§ MR. BIGGARobserved that certainly the law had been administered in such a way that the medical officers could not get the fees to which the Solicitor General said they were entitled. He did not dispute that the medical men were entitled to these fees; but in some cases they had not got their fees. This had probably happened when they had been subpoenaed as witnesses by the Inspectors, who had no authority to ask for their expenses. He knew, of his own knowledge, that some medical men in the past refused, as far as possible, to go into a court of justice at all, simply because it was uncertain whether they would get any fee for their services. Now, he thought it was fair that medical men should have a reasonable fee. 476 Whether it should be a fixed sum or not he did not mean to argue.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKpointed out that medical men had not to serve on juries in any way as many other men had to do; besides, all of them had to do a great many things for which they were not paid. He would advise the hon. Member not to press this Amendment, because many things with reference to exemption might be brought to light.
§ SIR PATRICK O'BRIENremarked that the Solicitor General had asserted that a medical gentleman would be paid for if wanted in a court of justice; but the hon. and learned Member had not stated that if a subpoena was served on a medical gentleman he must attend; and, if he followed the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be for the surgeon to say whether he was likely to be wanted or not. A surgeon received a subpoena, and was not informed exactly of the evidence he had to give. He was brought a considerable distance away from his patients; and then, when it was found by the proper officer that his evidence was not requisite, he was not to be paid, forsooth, because his services were not required. Perhaps he might afterwards be told that the evidence he would have given was not germane to the indictment. If this doctrine were correct, it was the witness who was to be the judge as to whether he was obliged to obey the subpoena. He trusted such an opinion would not be uttered by a legal Gentleman in that House again.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)I never meant to say that it depended on the cogency of his evidence. It depended on his being there under legal process.
DR. CAMERONtrusted the hon. Member would not substitute "ten shillings" for "one pound." If he did, the effect would be to cut down by one-half the fees paid to these witnesses.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ In reply to Mr. FRESHFIELD,
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that due care should be taken on the Report that the surgeons should be properly paid for the examinations they made.
§ MR. MEREWETHERdid not think any question could arise as to that, because it was already provided that 2s. 6d, 477 should be paid for each visit, and 6d. for each person examined.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ (3.) Miscellaneous.
§ Clause 70 (Notice of factory to be given to inspector).
§ MR. M'LARENpointed out that it was complained in Glasgow that the Inspectors there were invisible. They purposely concealed their residences, and no one could get to them. Some words should be inserted to the effect that the Inspectors should give their addresses, in order that the public might know where to find them.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 71 (Regulation of hours by public clock) agreed to.
§ Clause 72 (Registers to be kept in a factory or workshop) agreed to.
§ Clause 73 (Affixing in factory or workshop of abstract of Act and notices) agreed to.
§ Clause 74 (Printing or writing and service of notices and documents, &c.) agreed to.
§ Clause 75 (Inspection of weights and measures used in factories and workshops) agreed to.
§ (4.) Fines.
§ Clause 76 (Fine for not keeping factory or workshop in conformity with Act) agreed to.
§ Clause 77 (Penal compensation to person injured by want of fence to machinery).
§ MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that the clause did not provide for the fencing of mill-gearing.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 78 (Pine for employing children, young persons, and women contrary to the Act) agreed to.
§ Clause 79 (Fine on parent for allowing child to be employed contrary to the Act, or neglecting to cause child to attend school) agreed to.
478§ Clause 80 (Forgery of certificates, false entries, and declarations).
§ MR. MACDONALDmoved, in page 38, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "knowingly;" in lines 19, 23, and 25, to leave out "wilfully," because words of this description were unnecessarily applied to well-known offences. These words were used in every Act they had been put in to weaken the force of the Statutes —they were in the interest of law, breakers, not of those that wanted to obey the law. He hoped the Home Secretary would assent to the omission of a word which, in his opinion, would injuriously restrict the operation of the clause.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, it was a mistake to suppose that the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" were not to be found in Statutes relating to criminal offences. They were, he thought, very essential words in such a clause as that under discussion; for, if they were struck out, the most innocent person might be brought within the purview of the Bill, and a monstrous injustice might thus be done to one who was entirely guiltless of any real offence.
§ MR. BIGGARargued in favour of the Amendment. If the word "knowingly" were allowed to remain in the clause, the onus of proof that the signer of a certificate actually knew the statements which it contained to be false would lie upon those who prosecuted; and the clause would, in consequence, be rendered almost completely inoperative, for in the vast majority of cases it would be impossible to furnish such proof.
§ MR. M'LARENthought the answer of the Solicitor General was conclusive as to the use of the word "knowingly" in the case of the person by whom a certificate was signed; but it would be well, in his opinion, if it were struck out in the 14th line of the clause, because anyone holding a certificate must be aware whether he was really entitled to use it or not.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the discussion appeared to him very much on the distinction which he had heard made between a want of veracity and a want of truth. A want of veracity was explained to be the making of an assertion which was not true by a person who believed it to be true; while a want of truth was defined as the making of a statement 479 with the knowledge that it was untrue. It was that distinction which the framers of the clause would appear to have in view.
§ MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought that, though it might be well that some penalty should be attached to mere negligence in the signing of a certificate, it would be unwise of the Committee to assent to the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make what amounted simply to a mistake punishable in the same manner as the grave offence of forgery. It would be a great injustice that a person who negligently signed a certificate, believing that the statements which it contained were true, should be subjected to such severe penalties as those which might be inflicted under the operation of the clause.
§ SIR ANDREW LUSKopposed the Amendment, adding that, in his opinion, the fine of £20 imposed by the clause was too large, and that it would be better if the amount were fixed at £10.
§ MR. ANDERSONtook exception to the peculiar distinction between a want of veracity and a want of truth which had been drawn by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). If there was such a distinction, it certainly did not exist in Scotland; it might possibly be English, but the probability was, he thought, that it was confined exclusively to Ireland.
§ MR. PARNELLreplied, that the distinction was not his, but that of the Rev. Mr. Robertson, who was a Scotchman.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should prefer leaving the clause as it stood to amending it as was proposed; while he was quite prepared to admit that a person who "knowingly" uttered a false certificate deserved the punishment which, under the clause, might be inflicted upon him.
§ MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would not press his Amendment in opposition to what appeared to be the general feeling of the Committee, though he could not help thinking the Committee was greatly in error in the matter.
§ MR. BIGGARthought the clause was badly drawn, inasmuch as it contained no provision imposing a penalty on culpable negligence. It proceeded upon the assumption that a person giving a false certificate must do so intentionally; but the person who did so through gross carelessness might go entirely un- 480 punished. He hoped the Government would take care, before the Report, to have the clause amended in that respect.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 81 (Fine on person committing offence for which occupier is liable) agreed to.
§ Clause 82 (Power of occupier to exempt himself from fine on conviction of the actual offender) agreed to.
§ Clause 83 (Restraint on cumulative fines) agreed to.
§ (5.) Legal Proceedings.
§ Clause 84 (Prosecution of offences and recovery and application of fines) agreed to.
§ Clause 85 (Appeal to quarter sessions) agreed to.
§ Clause 86 (Limitation of time and general provisions as to summary proceedings) agreed to.
§ Clause 87 (Evidence in summary proceedings) agreed to.