§ [Progress 1st March.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Schedule 1.
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in section 1, line 9, after "lead" to insert "or scutching flax." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to exclude children and young persons from being employed in scutching flax mills. When they were discussing the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Down-patrick (Mr. Mulholland), and since added to the Bill, the Committee decided that they would except children and young persons from the operation of the clause, 878 and apply the restrictions imposed by the clause to women only. He (Mr. Parnell) proposed, as an Amendment, that the hours of labour in a scutching mill should not exceed 12; but the Home Secretary practically admitted that it was not intended to have any inspection of these scutching mills, because it would require an army of Inspectors to carry the law into effect. Seeing that the mills in question were scattered throughout all parts of the country, and that many of them were in the rural districts, which were not visited by the Factory Inspectors, he thought there ought to be a limit to the period during which children and young persons should be employed. If the Government were unable to provide that the mills should be properly inspected, it would almost follow as a logical sequence that children and young persons should be excluded from employment in them altogether. He, therefore, moved this Amendment in the interests of the children and young persons affected; but he only did so upon the supposition that it was not proposed to provide an efficient inspection.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Committee would not assent to the Amendment. Some time ago the Committee came to a resolution that they would not allow the Secretary of State to prohibit, of his own motion, children from working in any specific trade, on the ground that there ought to be a very strict inquiry before any attempt was made to limit labour of any sort or description. It was felt that if it was necessary to prevent children from working in particular mills, it ought only to be after full inquiry into the circumstances of the trade affected. So far as the question raised by the hon. Member was affected, it was investigated, although, perhaps, not thoroughly, and no recommendation was made by the Commissioners in the matter. Therefore, he did not think that the prohibition of the working of children and young persons should be objected to in this particular trade without every per-son connected with the trade being fully heard. The hon. Member had made a mistake in one matter. The clause inserted in the Bill the other day only affected those scutching mills where no children or young persons were employed; but, as far as regarded those in 879 which children were employed, he would take care that the duty of inspection was properly performed.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had omitted to state that the Royal Commission, in reporting upon the question, remarked that the tendency of the evidence was to show that scutching mills should be included in the operation of the Bill. He understood that the Home Secretary had only included them in deference to the evidence given before the Royal Commission. He included them in one part of the Bill; but subsequently, the right hon. Gentleman accepted the clause moved by the hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland), which practically excluded them. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that he would provide an efficient inspection for all the scutching mills, he (Mr. Parnell) would be perfectly satisfied. It was only in consequence of the doubt which the Home Secretary threw upon the possibility of providing adequate inspection that he (Mr. Parnell) had been induced to propose the Amendment, and, with anything in the shape of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw it.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would take care that scutching mills were inspected wherever children were employed.
§ MR. PARNELLremarked that a child might be employed upon one day and withdrawn the next.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that where the owner of a mill did not employ children, he was bound to give notice to that effect.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLmoved, in section 2, line 12, to leave out the word "female." The Home Secretary had already excluded children and young persons in mills where the heat was excessive, and the object of the Amendment was to exclude females entirely. Excessive heat was just as bad for a child and young person, whether boys or girls.
MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment. This part of the question was considered by the Commission, and the Bill had been drawn in conformity with their recommendations.
§ Amendment negatived.
880§ SIR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, he had now to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice, in page 53, sub-section 3, to add—"(c) The making and finishing of chains and nails." The object of this Amendment was to place these trades in the same category with regard to the employment of female labour as the brick, tile, and salt trades, in which no girl under the age of 16 years was permitted to be employed. It would not be necessary for him to detain the Committee at any length; because he thought he might almost let the case rest upon what was stated in the Report of the Royal Commission. Let the Committee listen to the following description of Cradley Heath, in the black country, under the influence of this kind of labour, compiled from a local newspaper, and given on page 82 of Mr. Brewer's Report. The correspondent says—
'I was a stranger come out of curiosity to see the chain-making country.' 'And a bad place you've come to,' said an old woman. 'It's the worst country God ever made. The women do all the work, and the men nearly nothing.' 'But they work sometimes,' I ventured to remark. 'Yes, they do, sometimes,' was the reply, 'but they always spend all they earn, and more too.'The Report went on to describe a row of some four or five chain-makers' shops in close proximity to some very offensive cess-pools. The fires of these workshops were all going, and none but the women were at work. It must not be supposed, however, that the men were absent—not a bit of it. The lords of the creation were there in full force, but they were not working. They were amusing themselves with skylarking, and courting the girls who were hammering away at the chains. At the bottom of Cradley was a pool close to the high road, where he saw men bathing and running about naked. Chain shops were close at hand, and a small brickyard, with young girls at work there. He would ask what must be the moral condition of a district where such scenes took place? Then as to the sanitary aspect of the question, he thought it was impossible to read the Reports on the subject without coming to the conclusion that the health of young females must be seriously jeopardized by this kind of labour. They heard a good deal, in the evidence taken before the Royal Commission, of an instrument called an "Oliver," used in welding the 881 links of the chain, whose weight was in proportion to the size of the links, some being heavier and more laborious to work than others. The evidence described the "oliver" as shaking the lower parts of the body, and, therefore, dangerous to women in child-bearing, and also apt, from excessive vibration, to produce cancer in the heart; and yet instances were given of these instruments being used by women within a week of their confinement. Was it, then, too much to ask that in trades requiring such an instrument, the labour of young females should be restricted in the manner which he proposed? But here the Committee must not lose sight of a most important consideration— namely, the deteriorating effect of this system upon the future population, for when these young females became mothers the danger was that they would give birth to an enfeebled and dwarfed progeny. But if, on moral and sanitary grounds, this labour was objectionable, it was not less so from an educational standpoint. The Committee would at once understand that so long as young girls were permitted to do the work of men at so early an age, the value of their work was a perpetual temptation to parents to keep their children from school by every kind of misrepresentation; and to this cause was to be attributed the great extension of the half-time system, which had so seriously interfered with the successful operation of the Elementary Education Act. Not to weary the Committee with too many extracts from the Reports on the subject, let him allude briefly to some two or three, which bore out strongly this argument. Mr. Brewer said—There are hundreds of children who evade the law, some by waiting for his coming, others by false representations as to age, while others prefer the risk of being found out.Mr. Abel, master of the Catshill school said—Trade being very good, many children are taken away, almost from nursing, and put to the nail block. By far the greater part of these children have never attended a day school.Mr. Hutchinson, the schoolmaster at Dudley Woods, a great seat of the nail trade, went still further, and said—I find the children attending, under the Act, very much below the average in proficiency; dull in intellect, and slow in comprehension, 882 which I attribute to the neglect of parents, who have placed every obstacle in the way of carrying out the Act.Commenting on this evidence, Mr. Brewer said—The remarks of Mr. Hutchinson are only too true. Most employers and parents send their children to school in the afternoon. They work them all the morning till dinner time. That meal over, then follows school from 2 till 4, and then the poor little wretches are set to work again till 8.What reply could be made to facts like these? He sincerely hoped that the Committee would be of opinion that he had made out a case for placing a moderate restriction upon female labour in the chain and nail trades. Before he sat down, he would remind his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had the honour of accompanying a deputation which waited upon him from the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades' Congress. They felt very much indebted to his right hon. Friend for the courtesy and attention with which he received them, and also for having met many points which they then urged upon him. But they had seen with very great regret that up to the present time no satisfactory solution of the question of female labour in these trades had been proposed. He trusted that the forbearance which they had hitherto shown might not be allowed to militate against the cause with which they were identified, and that his right hon. Friend would accept this Amendment, which he (Sir Charles Forster) believed was called for in the interest of the social and moral progress of these people.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that this was a question which apparently received a great deal of consideration at the hands of the Royal Commission. They went very fully into the matter and made a Report upon it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) seemed to think that the reasons for keeping in salt, bricks, and tiles, would equally apply to the present case. That was not quite so. If the hon. Baronet would refer to the Report of the Commissioners, he would find that they did not want girls to be employed on these matters; but, so far as this case was concerned, he had better read the paragraph with which the longish Re- 883 port of the Commissioners on this subject ended; and, having done so, the Committee would see at once that upon that Report he could not possibly put into the Schedule the words now proposed by the hon. Baronet. The Commissioner said—
The real question to be decided is whether the work in which some few women are engaged in this district is so injurious to their health, or degrading to their moral condition, as to justify Parliament in prohibiting them from working. Mr. Brewer stated in evidence that he could not say from his own experience that women employed in this trade were more unhealthy than women in the same class of life employed in other trades; and a member of the deputation of working men told us that he would sooner his daughter worked in the chain shop than 50 brickyards, as there was not a 'decenter' trade on record for females than that of small chain making.Then the hon. Member spoke of the weight of the chains; but he would see that that question was before the Commission also. They said—We are of opinion that the labour incident to the making of heavy nails and chains is too hard for women to undertake. But all the witnesses coincided in this opinion, though they did not agree as to the desirability of prohibiting the labour of adult women.And then they went on to say—After most careful consideration, we are unable to suggest a line defining the class of work which women shall be permitted to undertake, and we would sooner trust to their own good sense not to seek to do work too laborious for them, and to the feeling in the district against their being so employed, than to a prohibitory Act which may work a hardship.He thought that, undoubtedly, that would be the case. He believed that the Royal Commission came to a wise conclusion, and, therefore, he had left out these matters.
§ MR. PARNELLpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Baronet had reference to the employment of girls under the age of 16 years; whereas he thought that the extract from the Report of the Royal Commission which the right hon. Gentleman had read referred to women.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that if the Committee prohibited the employment of girls under the age of 16, they would do very much, indeed, to discourage female labour.
§ Amendment negatived.
884§ MR. MUNDELLAmoved, in page 53, section 4, sub-section (a), line 21, before "metal" to insert "dry." The clause, as it stood, would prohibit all children from being employed in metal grinding, while the intention of the Royal Commission was to exclude dry grinding, by which the health of children was affected. There was no objection at all to children being employed in wet grinding. The Amendment which he proposed would necessitate a slight alteration in the next clause, so as to bring the children employed in wet grinding under the restriction as to age.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment, provided words were inserted in the next clause, to the effect that children should not be employed under 11 years of age.
§ MR. HERMONpointed out that it was not at all clear what was exactly meant by dry grinding.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSapprehended that in cases where the wheel was kept so wet that the air was quite free from dust children might be employed.
§ MR. MUNTZtrusted that the Home Secretary would not give way in this matter. This was one of the most deadly trades in which children could be employed.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsuggested to the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that he should withdraw his Amendment for the present, and see before the Report whether it could not be put in such a form as to make it quite clear that where there was no dust a child might be employed, and that probably would satisfy the House.
§ MR. MUNDELLAurged that the intention of the Bill was that in dry grinding children should be excluded, but wet grinding was altogether a different work.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the objection raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Hermon) was that it was not quite clear what dry grinding was; and if the hon. Member for Sheffield would put the matter off till the Report, he (Mr. Cross) would, in the meanwhile, consult with him.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that it was well known that dry grinding was where no water or oil was used. He was, however, quite willing to put the matter off.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
885§ MR. PARNELLsaid, that after the decision that had been arrived at, he could not hope that the Committee would accept his proposal to limit the hours of labour of young persons employed in this particular class of mill labour. He should, therefore, withdraw the further Amendment to the Schedule standing in his name.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. PARNELLpointed out that section 5 of the Schedule limited the operation of fustian cutting to children under 11 years of age. This was exceedingly heavy work, and he had searched the Report of the Commissioners in vain for any indication of their views on the subject. He did not know how the age had been fixed upon; but he, for one, wished the children to have the full benefit of the legislation, and he should, therefore, have liked, if it had been possible, to see the section extended.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, that in order to bring the question before the Committee, he would move the omission of the words "under the age of 11."
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this particular trade had already occupied the attention of the Committee, and two special Acts of Parliament had been passed dealing with it. The age of 11 was fixed upon after considerable discussion, and after lengthened special inquiries had been made concerning it. The age of 11 was fixed on several grounds, one of which was that a considerable amount of "knack" was necessary for it, and it was advisable that children and young persons should acquire that knack as early in life as possible.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule 2.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEmoved, in page 54, after sub-section 4, to insert subsections 5 and 6, as follows:—
(5.) In the case of bricks and tiles (not being ornamental bricks or tiles) to any part where the like materials are used, as are employed in the processes of dipping and scouring, or to any place where blue bricks, tiles, or other earthenware in which swarf, breeze, ironstone, or other minerals are used in the process of sifting or manufacture.886(6.) In the case of sheds, kilns, or other workplaces whore the temperature exceeds 85 degrees (Fahrenheit).The children engaged in brickmaking— one of the most arduous occupations to which children could be put—were very liable, unless some restrictive system was adopted, to be overworked. There could be no doubt that consumption and almost every other disease of the respiratory organs was aggravated, if not actually caused, by the materials now used in making and glazing bricks; and that children engaged in the manufacture were, in many cases, seriously injured by being compelled to wheel and carry heavy weights of clay and bricks in open, unsheltered brickfields. No one could desire more strongly than he did to see the Bill pass through the House; but, at the same time, he fully saw the necessity of doing more than the Bill actually proposed for the protection of children and young persons employed in this and kindred occupations.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he quite sympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment; but he could not quite agree to accept the mode by means of which he proposed to attain his object. In the first place, the clauses and Schedules were intended mainly to consolidate and embody the existing law, and great care was necessary, therefore, before any attempt was made in a Consolidating Bill to materially alter the law which it was intended to consolidate. He would remind the Committee that under Clause 39 of the Bill the Secretary of State had power to extend the provisions of the Schedule under discussion to similar circumstances occurring in other trades; and it would, therefore, only be necessary for the Secretary of State to be asked to exercise the power with which he was armed, in case it could be proved to him that such exercise was necessary or advisable. The question of blue bricks came before the Commissioners, but it was not found possible to draw a distinction which should depend merely upon the colour of the bricks made.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEpointed out that the phrase "blue bricks," as he used it, had no necessary connection with the colour of the bricks made, and referred only to the nature of the deleterious materials used in that par- 887 ticular branch of the industry, distinguished by the name of "blue-brick making."
§ MR. HEYGATEcould see no reason why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, should refuse to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSEsaid, he only wished the protection to which his Amendment pointed to be afforded, and he was not particular as to how the work was done. If it could be accomplished by means of Orders issued by the Secretary of State, under the 39th clause, he was content.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that knowing, as he did, something about the manufacture of bricks, he thought the matter was one which might with safety be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Schedule 3.
§ SIR HENRY JACKSONmoved, in page 58, line 27, after Part Six, to insert the following Part—
§
(Part Seven.)
Continuous employment of children, young persons, and women for five hours in certain textile factories during the winter months, when the work does not begin until 8 a.m. and ends at 7 p.m.
The exception respecting the continuous employment in certain textile factories during the winter months of children, young persons, and women, without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal, for the same period as in a non-textile factory, applies to textile factories solely used for—
The hon. and learned Member said, this was for the purpose of giving effect to a new clause which was read the second time at the last sitting of the Committee. The exemption would only refer to certain light trades, which required a more careful manipulation of the fabrics than was consistent with the manipulators commencing work before breakfast on the cold mornings in winter.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had made inquiries in the districts that would be affected by the proposed Amendments, and he found that the proposal was viewed with favour alike by employers and employed.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had considered the matter carefully, and had determined to accede to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry; but he could not grant the same condition to the heavier textile factories.
§ MR. MUNDELLAwas sorry that the relaxation had not been allowed to go further. He could see no harm in extending it to other textile trades in which the number of "half-timers" employed was small.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. STANTONmoved, in page 58, Part Seven, after sub-section (c), to add—
or other textile factories, where the hours named in this Clause shall be adopted during the winter months.He might say that great dissatisfaction was felt in many parts of the country, in consequence of the determination of the Government to relax the restriction in favour of one branch only of textile manufacturers.
MR. ASSHETON CROSScould not accept the Amendment in the form in which it was proposed; but there was one way out of the difficulty—if difficulty it was—and that was that, although he could not accept the Amendment in its present shape, yet he freely admitted there might be special circumstances in particular parts of the country where the change proposed would be desirable; and if it was the wish of the Committee that power should rest in the Secretary of State to interfere where the health of women and children required it, he should be happy to consider the propriety of inserting a provision for that purpose, not in the Schedule, but in an ordinary clause.
§ MR. MARLINGwas certain if the right hon. Gentleman could see the comfort which was derived by a family, where they were permitted to stay at home and take breakfast together, instead of turning out at 6 o'clock in the morning, he would be convinced of the utility of this proposal.
§ MR. STANTONAfter what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. I only wish to thank him for the way in which he has met my proposal.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
889§ MR. ISAACsaid, that, in moving the next Amendment, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to introduce it into the Schedule of this Bill. The argument previously used would also apply to this Amendment. It was that the workpeople engaged in making hosiery should have the opportunity of taking a five hours' spell; and after the reasons which had been urged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, having admitted previous Amendments, would not exclude this one. It was in the interests of the working people themselves, and it was on their application that he pressed it. He was bound to believe that on consideration the right hon. Gentleman would allow his words to be added after the words of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson). The words he proposed to add wore, in page 58, Part Seven, after "trimming," insert"(d.) The making of hosiery."
§ MR. MUNDELLA,having been engaged in this industry as an employer, he might say for more than 30 years, was glad to observe that it had always been his practice during the winter months to write to the Chief Inspector of Factories for permission for his people to work between 8 o'clock in the morning and 7 in the evening. It was so much more comfortable to the women and children that they should go to their work after breakfast, and return home at 7 o'clock in the evening. They always looked forward to it as a great relief to them. Everyone must see what an advantage it was to have long hours of daylight. Some of the people lived two or three miles out, and before this change was made they had to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to get to work at 6. When the breakfast hour came, they were too far away from home to go to their breakfast, and they had to take cold things. Therefore, it was in the interests of humanity to accept the Amendment; but he should be quite content to leave it to the Home Secretary to act when cases were brought under his notice.
§ MR. A. M'ARTHURwished to add to what had been already said, an appeal from Leicester. It was said that on cold wet days it was extremely dis- 890 agreeable to the workpeople to go to their labour at an early hour in the morning.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI suppose the hon. Member will be quite satisfied to leave this matter to the Secretary of State under the general power. I have agreed to put in a provision on this matter, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that it shall receive early attention.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 4.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the 3rd paragraph on page 59 had, through a pure mistake of the draftsman, got into the first part of the Schedule instead of the second, and he (Mr. Cross) had been requested to got it altered.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. HIBBERTsaid, that as he did not the see hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) in his place, he would move the Amendment which stood in the hon. Member's name— namely, in page 61, line 1, leave out sub-section (24)"Public laundries." He did not think it was necessary to say much in favour of this proposal; and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cross) was quite ready to omit the words. The general feeling of the Committee, he believed, was that whenever it was possible to leave an interest out of the Bill they ought to do so; and, therefore, he thought it un-advisable that public laundries should be brought under this Act.
§ Loan FREDERICK CAVENDISHdid not rise for the purpose of opposing the Amendment, but he wished to state the reasons why the Royal Commission recommended that laundries should be included in the Bill. There were two reasons. One was that laundries connected with factories or workshops were subject to the Factory Acts. Secondly, he might say, that in London especially, the laundry trade was becoming more and more like a factory year by year, and in no occupation were longer hours kept.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSquite agreed that these reasons were very weighty, and therefore he had put laundries into the Bill; but full inquiry had convinced him that there were 891 difficulties in the matter, which he did not see his way to get over. Those difficulties were not placed before the Commission, and he thought it better to leave the laundries alone.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 5 agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
§ Fifth Schedule.
§ Special Exemptions.
§ (Light handicraft exempted when carried on in private house or room.)
§ Straw plaiting.
§ Pillow-lace making.
§ Glove making.
§ MR. MUNDELLA,before this Schedule was added to the Bill, wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he was not making a great hole in his Bill when he excluded glove-making? Glove-making was carried on in the North as well as in the West of England, and it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was making a great break in his Bill by this exclusion.
§ Schedule agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman report this Bill, as amended, to the House."
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONE,before this Motion was agreed to, wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the fact that, under the Local Government Board, female Inspectors had been appointed, as in the case of Mrs. Nassau Senior; and he would ask him whether it was possible under this Bill to appoint female Inspectors where it was absolutely necessary? There were many cases where the intelligence and tact of a woman might be of great service to employers and to those employed in factories; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would be able, at all events, to determine whether he could or could not appoint women Inspectors instead of men in cases where there could be no doubt their services would be of considerable value.
§ MR. GRAYasked permission to call the attention of the right hon. Gentle- 892 man to another matter congenial to the subject mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The majority of the people in some parts of Ireland were Catholic, and yet there was not, as he was informed, in all Ireland one single Catholic Inspector appointed under this Act. Nearly all the Inspectors were English, and nearly every one Protestant. Greater confidence would be given to the people if some Inspectors were appointed of their own religious persuasion.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not in the least aware of the fact. He had never inquired into what the religion of any Inspector was; he had always chosen those whom he thought were the best men. He would make inquiry; but he thought the matter of religion should be kept out, and they should endeavour to get the best man.
§ MR. MUNDELLAremarked that there was a Catholic Inspector in Sheffield; no doubt he was appointed without any regard to his religion, so that Inspectors had been appointed quite irrespective of creed, and of all questions in the world he believed this was the one with which religion had the least to do.
§ MR. PARNELLrose, and was proceeding to address the Committee, when—
THE CHAIRMANsaid: I may point out that this discussion is somewhat irregular. The hon. Baronet the Member for Scarborough (Sir Harcourt Johnstone) put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary; but it will not be in Order to renew the debate. The Question is, "That I report this Bill, as amended, to the House."
SIR ANDREW BUSKI think the right hon. Gentleman should answer the Question, whether he can hold out any hope for the appointment of female Inspectors?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI understood the hon. Baronet to say that although he wished to put the Question to me, he distinctly stated that he did not want an answer. The matter really never flashed across my mind for one moment. Now that the hon. Baronet has brought it to my mind, it will receive the consideration due to all matters brought there. I was not aware that female Inspectors were appointed under the Poor Law.
§ SIR HARCOURT JOHNSTONEreminded the right hon. Gentleman of the case of Mrs. Nassau Senior.
§ MR. PARNELLsaid, the matter was really rather different from what it appeared to those who said that it was of no consequence whether an Inspector was a Catholic or not. If hon. Gentlemen were more familiar with the circumstances that obtained in Ireland, they would see that it was desirable to inquire into the matter.
§ MR. GRAYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) would look into the Report of the Commission on Primary Schools in Ireland, he would see there was some reason for this Question.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 126.]