Commons Sitting of 22 May 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Sir William Fenwick Williams' Annuity; Annuities (No. 2). 2° Registration of Leases (Scotland).

METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS— QUESTION.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he would beg to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Works, whether his attention had been directed to the question of a proposed new opening from Piccadilly into Park Lane?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that the matter had been under the consideration of the Government, and proceedings would be taken for the formation of the opening, but it could not be effected without the introduction of a Bill, and of that due notice would be given.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to ask whether it was distinctly understood that no steps would be taken for the formation of the opening except by means of a Bill?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he could hot give any promise to that effect. It was always necessary, where private property was interfered with compulsorily, to obtain the powers of an Act of Parliament; but he apprehended that if the parties interested consented, there would be no necessity for a Bill, in order to effect the improvement in question.

HORSES IN THE CRIMEA—QUESTION.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he bad a question to put to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War. The answer given on a previous night to the question respecting the staff and cavalry horses was so far satisfactory, but he wished to know what was intended to be done with the artillery and bat horses.
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that the most valuable of the artillery horses would be brought home. The rest would be left in the East. [Sir DE L. EVANS: What about the hat horses?] He was unable to say what number would be left in the East.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE—QUESTION.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to know when the works at Westminster Bridge would be proceeded with, and also when it was expected the bridge would be completed. His constituents were anxious

551
about the matter, and wished no time to be lost.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he could only repeat the answer that he recently gave, that the whole subject of the New Westminster Bridge works was under the consideration of Mr. Rendel and Mr. Simpson, the eminent engineers; and their report would probably he ready in about ten days, when he would state to the House what course would be adopted with respect to the new bridge.

COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Control, whether any steps were being taken by the Indian Government to facilitate the establishment of a line of telegraphic and other communication between England and India through the Euphrates Valley.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he need hardly assure the noble Lord that the Indian Government took the deepest interest in any scheme intended to facilitate the communication with India. Two or three schemes had been submitted for the accomplishment of that object. One was to carry a railway from Seleucia to a place on the Euphrates, and so join with the navigation of that river. The other and the larger scheme was to continue the railway from Belgrade to Constantinople to cross Asiatic Turkey, and descend the valley of the Euphrates down to Bussorah. Both those schemes had been proposed for the favourable consideration of the Indian Government, and that favourable consideration would of course be given; but until the schemes were submitted in detail, it would be impossible to enter into them minutely. When the noble Lord spoke of facilitating the communication with India, it must be supposed he (Mr. V. Smith) apprehended that he meant facilitating it by means of pecuniary assistance or by a guarantee. Of course, however, that would not be done until the plans had been submitted in detail. With reference to the electric telegraph, that was in much the same position. A proposal had been made to carry on the telegraph from Alexandria to the Red Sea, and in that way across to India. The answer given by the Indian Government to this proposition was, that they could not give any opinion respecting it until the electric telegraph had actually reached Alexandria. The other scheme
552
was to carry the same line on from Seleucia to join the Euphrates, and descend the valley of that river to Bussorah. That scheme had been very much promoted by a gentleman of great celebrity, Dr. O'Shaughnessy, who had called the attention of the Indian Government to the advantages which this line possessed over the other he had mentioned. Both these plans, however, would receive every consideration, the object in view being, as he had previously stated, to favour as much as possible the communication with India.

POSTAL COMMUNICATION—AUSTRALIA —DUBLIN—QUESTION.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would beg to inquire of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury, whether any decision had been come to upon the tenders for contracts sent into the Treasury in March last, to convey the mails to the Australian colonies; and, if not, whether there was any prospect of some more satisfactory arrangement than existed at present for that purpose? And whether there had been any progress made towards tenders being made for contracts to improve the postal communication between London and Dublin, by performing the journey from capital to capital within twelve hours?
MR. WILSONreplied, that none of the tenders which had been sent in for the conveyance of the mails to Australia were such as the Government felt justified in entertaining, and they had consequently been rejected. He had, however, been in communication with some gentlemen interested in the colonies, and had nearly settled with them the best plan which was thought could be pursued, and the details of which would shortly appear in the public papers in the form of advertisements for tenders for the conveyance of the mails. With regard to the Irish mails, the conditions which the Government thought proper to impose for the performance of that service had been sent to the united companies, who were now considering the proposals which had been made by the Government. One of the conditions was, that the communication between London and Dublin should be effected in eleven hours.

THE FACTORY INSPECTORS—QUESTION.
MR. HARDYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Report of the Factory Inspectors for the six months ending the 30th day of April last would be in the

553
hands of Members; and whether any communications respecting the Bill "for the further amendment of the laws relating to Labour in Factories," as now proposed to be amended, had been made by the Factory Inspectors, or any of them, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to lay such communications on the table?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Reports of the Factory Inspectors were always laid before Parliament shortly after they were received at the Home Office. He found by inquiries yesterday, that the Reports for the last half year had been received, and as soon as a sufficient number of copies had been printed they would be laid before Parliament. He had received several communications from some of the Factory Inspectors regarding the Bill of the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten), but he did not think those communications were of a character to be laid before the House, unless they were accompanied by a great deal of explanatory correspondence. He did not know the opinion of the fourth, but three of the Inspectors of Factories did not concur in the expediency of the measure proposed by the hon. Member.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS— QUESTION.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreplied, that the present intention of the Government was to propose a continuance of that Act; but the experience they had had of its working had hardly been sufficiently extensive to lay the foundation of those improvements which the measure might require. At the same time, Government would be quite willing to consider any suggestions made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in Committee.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he would remind the noble Lord, that in 1854 several important provisions were lost in consequence of the late period of the Session at which they were introduced, he would therefore ask when it was the intention of the Government to introduce the measure for its renewal?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:On an early day.

HAMPSTEAD HEATH—QUESTION.
In answer to a question from Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR,
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that as yet no steps had been taken by the Government to purchase Hampstead Heath for the public, but representations on the subject had been made to the Metropolitan Board of Works, who possessed ample powers for that purpose. At least, that was his construction of the Act, however others might throw a doubt upon it. If Hampstead Heath was not purchased by that Board, it might be a matter of consideration whether it could not be purchased by other means, but not through a Vote of the House of Commons.

PRISONERS FOR DEBT—QUESTION.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as there were above 1,000 persons in England and Wales lying in prison for debt, 240 of which were under £6 (debts and costs), who might be restored to their families and occupations for the sum of about £1,500; and as there were a few confined for protracted periods, extending to forty years, the Government would recommend them to Her Majesty, and debtors under £10, to be included in the commemorative peace amnesty, so graciously extended to Frost, Williams, and Jones, and other political offenders?
SIR GEORGE GREYin reply, said, that the hon. Member did not seem to be aware of the difference which existed between persons suffering punishment as criminal offenders and those in custody for debt. With respect to the former, the Crown could, if so advised, exercise its prerogative of mercy; but it had no power to release prisoners for debt, which must be a matter of arrangement with their creditors. With respect to the allegation that some of those persons had been confined for protracted periods, he was informed that no persons were detained in custody so long, unless they wilfully declined to avail themselves of the humane provisions of the law for the relief of prisoners for debt.

SOUND DUES—QUESTION.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he would beg to inquire of the First Lord of the Treasury whether, as the Danish Government now make no charge equivalent to Sound dues on goods passing by the new rail-

555
way through its own country from Tonningen, in the North Sea, to Flensburg, in the Baltic, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to leave longer unsettled the general question of the Sound dues, to the great detriment of British shipping engaged in the direct trade to the Baltic?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the hon. Member had been misinformed upon the fact which formed the basis of his question. A toll was now charged upon goods passing along the railway, which was nearly equal—in some cases, indeed, larger—than the tolls levied in the Sound. Those tolls were paid by the railway companies, who included them in their charge to their customers. There was another passage to the Baltic through Sweden; and in that case, also, tolls were levied nearly equal to those levied at the Sound. With respect to the Sound dues, a correspondence had been going on for some time between the Danish Government and the other maritime Powers, but no final arrangements had been concluded. As far as the British Government was concerned, the matter was still under consideration.

ENGLISH OFFICERS IN THE TURKISH SERVICE—QUESTION.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he begged to ask a question of which he had not given notice, but which was one of much interest to the relatives of officers now connected with the Turkish Contingent. He wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War was acquainted with the intentions of the Turkish Government as to the destination and disposal of the Turkish Contingent?
MR. FREDERICK PEELreplied, that under the convention, the Turkish Contingent would be handed back to the Turkish Government, but he did not suppose that the services of the English officers would be retained.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he would repeat his question, when he hoped to obtain a more definite answer.

THE SARDINIAN LOAN—QUESTION.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, some misapprehension appeared to exist upon what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a former evening with respect to the intention of the Government concerning the Sardinian loan. It was supposed that the right hon.
556
Gentleman had stated that a Bill would be introduced in order to remove any doubts respecting the payment of the balance of the loan.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply said, that the apprehension described by the right hon. Gentleman was correct. As soon as the matter could be reduced to a Convention, or some formal shape, a Bill would be founded upon it, and introduced into the House as speedily as possible.

FACTORIES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. COBBETTsaid, he rose to move that the Committee be deferred for six months, for his objections to the amended Bill were quite as strong as they had been to the original measure. One part of the Bill proposed to extend protection only to young persons and children, whereas the present law applied equally to male and female adults. He also objected to the fourth clause, which provided that matters relating to the fencing of machinery should be referred to arbitration, not only in cases where the inspectors had certified danger, but even when danger had been proved to exist by the occurrence of fatal accidents. He was decidedly of opinion that such a case, wherein no doubt existed as to the danger of unfenced machinery, was not a matter for arbitration. By the existing law, a factory inspector went into a mill, and on discovering anything dangerous he gave notice of it to the millowner, who then had the right of claiming to refer the question to arbitration, whether the matter complained of was dangerous or not; but the law was so defective, that if the award were made that the works were dangerous, there was no mode of carrying that award into effect. By the proposed Bill it was made imperative on the factory owner, on receiving notice from the inspector, to have an arbitration. Now, what he contended was, that the law would be wholly inoperative, because the factories were so situated as to make it impossible to carry the law into effect. Many factories were situated in those parts of the kingdom where no persons skilled in machinery resided. Supposing two arbitrators and an umpire were appointed, were they to go to the Isle of I Skye or to Cornwall, and there demand

557
their ten guineas a day, besides expenses? He, therefore, maintained that the whole Bill would be utterly unworkable. Many hon. Members had expostulated with him for opposing the Bill; but he considered that it was a duty to his constituents, and particularly to the working part of them, to see that they were not damnified in any way by such a measure. He could never forget a woman who, at the time of his first election for Oldham, forced her way through the crowd, with a child in her arms, and said to him, "We are factory folk; this child is to go to the factory, and thou must not desert us." He would not desert that woman, and it was for her sake, and for those who belonged to her, that he now moved that the Bill be committed that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid it was only forty-eight hours ago that the hon. and learned Member for Oldham had given notice of his intention to move certain Amendments in the Bill, and it was not till that morning that the hon. Gentleman considered the better course to be to withdraw his Amendments and take his chance of defeating the Bill by objecting to go into Committee. After the time he had occupied the attention of the House on the second reading of the Bill, he was unwilling to trespass again on their patience, especially as the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman were not quite satisfactory. The object of the Bill was a very simple one. For several years past the manufacturers of the country had been subject to a law which caused them the greatest annoyance. The operation of the law was, in fact, not satisfactory to anybody. By a recent decision of Lord Campbell, in the Court of Queen's Bench, it was necessary that every portion of the machinery should be fenced off; but this was found to be wholly impracticable. He did not believe there was a single factory in the kingdom where the law either was, or could be, obeyed. His object, therefore, was to enact a law which could be obeyed. At present the enforcement of the law was left to a certain number of factory inspectors, but their decisions were so various and conflicting that no manufacturer knew whether he had obeyed the
558
law, or whether he was subject to a prosecution for not having obeyed it. It was cruelty on a respectable body of men to keep them in that position. He therefore hoped the House would not refuse going into Committee on the Bill.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett) to allow the Bill to go into Committee. It was a mere waste of time to divide the House on his Amendment.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the observations of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel W. Patten) might be perfectly correct, but he (Colonel Dunne) believed that it was not the real object which the promoters of the Bill had in view. The manufacturers desired to do away with all factory legislation. Upwards of fifty magistrates in the north, including twenty-six Members of that House, had petitioned to that effect. The interests of a large class of persons unrepresented in that House were involved in the question whether the Bill would deprive the factory workmen of their rightful protection. Why, there had been flagrant cruelties perpetrated in factories, and yet even the present law could not be enforced before benches of magistrates in the north. The proposed measure was one step in the removal of factory legislation, and should be resisted by all who desired to protect the workpeople. He should cordially support the opposition to the measure, which he considered most cruel, mischievous, and unjust.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would not repeat the remarks which he had made on a former occasion; but he must remind the House that of his suggestions the hon. and gallant Gentleman had adopted some, and printed them in the Bill; he would, under those circumstances, support the Motion for going into Committee.
MR. MUNTZsaid, if the question of bands only had been left to arbitration, he believed the Bill would have been satisfactory. [Colonel PATTEN: Bands are left to arbitration.] But it was bands, and something else; and, if he were a millowner, he should object himself to this sort of legislation. He would have the law remain as it stood, except as to bands. Another objectionable point in the Bill was, that the fourth clause was made to refer only to "children and young persons," whereas the persons most liable to accidents by machinery were women, whose clothes were more likely to be caught as they passed along.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 207; Noes 50: Majority 157.
Main Question put and agreed to.
House in Committee; Mr. FITZROY in the Chair.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 (Section Twenty-one to apply only to Mill-gearing, with which children and young persons are liable to come in contact).
MR. COBBETTsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that the words "children" and "young" be omitted, and the word "any" be substituted for them. It was the intention of the Factory Commissioners of 1833, and of the Select Committee of 1836, that adults as well as children should be protected from injury by machinery; and the decision of the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Coe v. Plait, where the question came before it on demurrer, was to the effect that, under the twenty-first clause of the Factory Act, the protection from injury was extended to all operatives. It was his wish that that protection should be continued to them, whereas the clause, as it at present stood, would deprive them of it, and confine it to children and young persons.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would not presume to argue a question of law with the hon. and learned Member, but he was sure he (Colonel Patten) was right. The clause in the Factory Act related to "children and young persons," and those words had been incorporated in the present Bill and nothing more; so that whatever was subject to arbitration under the Factory Act, would be subject to arbitration under the Bill now before the Committee. The hon. and learned Member was trying to steal a lawyer's march upon the Committee without any grounds for it.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBEESsaid, that he had also read the clause proposed to be inserted in the Bill, and he considered that it had been made to exclude the very words in the Factory Act, upon which the Court of Exchequer had solemnly decided in the case that had been referred to, that "all parts of the mill-gearing in the factory shall be securely fenced." The manufacturers argued that that clause must be read throughout as applying to children and young persons only, but the Court said, "No; the Act says all parts of the mill-gearing, no matter whether it affected
560
young children or not." The object of the fencing was to provide protection to the persons exposed to injury, and in that sense the workmen were just as helpless as children. But if the Committee looked at the Bill, they would find that grown-up persons were deprived of the protection they had under the old Factory Act. The very thing the Court of Exchequer had decided would now be entirely set aside.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the simple object proposed by the Bill of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel W. Patten) was to amend a clause in the Factory Act of 1844, which was found to be incapable of universal application. The legal disquisitions that had been given in the course of the discussions on the measure had confused a question that was otherwise perfectly simple. Acts of Parliament, notwithstanding the wisdom of both Houses, could not sometimes be carried into literal effect. That the clause in question could not be carried out was beyond doubt. Mr. Horner, one of the Factory Inspectors, had pronounced that you could not securely fence all mill-gearing, and the Judges had differed from each other as to what was meant by secure fencing. Under those circumstances, his hon. and gallant Friend, in his first Bill, proposed to apply to mill-gearing the same rule as was applied to machinery—namely, that when a question arose as to its being securely fenced, it should be referred to arbitration. Surely, if arbitration was good to protect the operatives from injury from machinery, it was equally efficacious to protect them as regarded mill-gearing. His hon. and gallant Friend then provided, that when an arbitration had taken place, and it was decided that particular mill-gearing should be fenced or boxed off, that arbitration should be compulsory. You had, therefore, in this Bill all that you had in the Bill of 1844, only it was put in a practicable and working form—in a form which had gained for it the support of the great body of the mill-owners and manufacturing population. He regarded the measure of his hon. and gallant Friend as a good one; its object was to carry out the original intentions of the Legislature; and he must deny that the object of those who promoted the Bill was in the smallest degree to lessen the protection which the operative now enjoyed. In the first Bill his hon. and gallant Friend proposed that arbitration should apply to all cases of mill-gearing as it now applied to machi-

561
nery, and that seemed to him a most reasonable proposition; but in the clause now under consideration, his hon. and gallant Friend provided that in all cases where children and young persons were likely to come in contact with mill-gearing, there secure fencing should be imperative, and arbitration should not be resorted to. He did hope that as the Bill was limited to one single point of this kind, and was brought in with a view to prevent litigation, they would not be drawn into a discussion of the whole principle of factory legislation. So far from it being the object of mill-owners in supporting this measure, to upset factory legislation, they desired that that legislation should be carried out in a perfectly bonâ fide spirit, and in the sense in which Parliament had intended.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he did not see the object of retaining the words "children and young persons." The commonsense view of the matter was, that if machinery was to be fenced, it ought to be fenced for the benefit of all.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he quite agreed with his noble Friend that if danger were likely to arise from mill-gearing, protection ought to be accorded to adult persons as well as to young children, and that would be the effect of the law if the Bill passed in its present shape. The forty-third clause, in point of fact, provided—excluding that part of the mill-gearing which stood at a great height from the floor—that all mill-gearing within a certain distance from the floor, and near to which adult persons as well as young children came in the course of their ordinary avocations, must absolutely be fenced. The Bill would afford the fullest protection to adults as well as to young persons and children, if a reference to arbitration should prove that danger existed. The existing law had not been literally enforced, simply because it was impossible to do so. A decision of a Court of Law rendering it compulsory under the Act upon mill-owners to fence all machinery, had rendered necessary the present measure, or some similar one. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham would defeat the very principle of the Bill, for if all mill-gearing were required to be fenced with which any person might come in contact, that enactment would apply to drums and pulleys, which it would be impossible to case without stopping the entire work of the mill.
MR. HARDYsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had discussed the principle of the Bill rather than the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, and had not met the case which had been put, that in certain places there were no young persons or children employed—only adults—therefore in such cases the whole mill-gearing would be left open to arbitration. He would suggest an alteration in the clause, making it obligatory that only those parts of the machines should be fenced which were less than seven feet from the floor.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he thought the Amendment would destroy the Bill. If it was enacted that all parts of mill-gearing with which any person might in the course of his occupation come in contact should be fenced, that would include all mill-gearing. It was said that no distinction should be made between the protection afforded to children and that given to adults; but he could not agree with that doctrine. He thought that from a skilled adult they had a right to expect a degree of caution that might not be looked for from a child. To others, protection would be given in any case where danger was proved to exist.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he regarded the present Bill as a just measure, affording proper protection to those employed in mills, without making impossible demands upon the mill-owners.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wanted to know how the Bill would remove any impossibility? Why was it more impossible to fence machines, which an inspector certified to be dangerous, than to do so upon the award of an arbitrator.
MR. BARROWsaid, he was anxious that the Committee should decide in favour of the clause without the Amendment proposed, which would, in his opinion, entirely nullify the object in view.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, he also thought that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman would entirely defeat the object of the Bill. That object was to give protection to all persons employed, but as to children, to make it absolute that all mill-gearing near which they had occasion to pass should be securely fenced, nothing, in his opinion, could be more reasonable than the mode in which this object was carried out—nothing was more likely to give protection to the operatives, and to do right as between them and their employers.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 33: Majority 136.
MR. HARDYsaid, he would now propose that after the words "young persons" the words "and women" should be inserted Women were always employed in factories where the children were; and he thought they ought to be as efficiently protected from accident.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he though the Amendment was superfluous, inasmuch as the women were never employed where the children were not, and therefore they would necessarily meet with the same protection.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he should support the Amendment, as he knew of factories where women were employed separately from the children.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he must inform the Committee that the number of factories in which women were employed in rooms separate from the children were very few.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not convinced of the fact stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett), because "young persons" included women under the age of eighteen years; and he presumed many under that age would appear to be adults. If, however, there were any factories in which only women above eighteen were employed, they were entitled to protection, and he should advise his hon. and gallant Friend to assent to the Amendment.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would agree to the insertion of the words.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he would now move to leave out the words "their ordinary occupation," and insert "in the course of their duty," because, when accidents occurred, the young persons injured were frequently doing something by the order of their superiors, not in their ordinary occupation, but in the course of their duty.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, if those words were introduced they would lead to endless confusion, and he should therefore oppose the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. HARDYsaid, he wished to move that a proviso be added to the clause, enacting that no mill-gearing should be fenced to a less height than seven feet from the floor.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, the object of the
564
clause was to secure a safe fence, but to say that the fence should not in any case be less than seven feet, was to make a provision that in many cases would be quite unnecessary. He should therefore oppose the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
MR. COBBETTsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of a clause which was suggested by Mr. Marshall, one of the greatest manufacturers in the kingdom, in 1841, having for its object to prevent accidents arising from the use of straps upon revolving wheels.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that by the present law these straps were made the subject of arbitration. He must oppose the clause, because it went in opposition to the principle of the Bill. It was making that compulsory which, at the present moment, was the subject of arbitration.
MR. KIRKsaid, he objected to the proposed clause, because he thought it afforded inadequate protection, compared with that given by arbitration. The strap-hooks were liable to break if not made of the very best material; in which case they would do more injury than if the machinery were not fenced at all.
MR. HARDYsaid, he hoped that the Committee would pass the clause, which had been recommended by Mr. James Marshall, of Leeds, one of the largest manufacturers in the country. Great numbers of accidents had arisen from revolving shafts above seven feet from the floor, and many of these caused immediate death and frightful mutilation. The clause would render arbitration unnecessary. He would admit that almost all the accidents which took place in mills arose from the carelessness of the workpeople; but still the Committee ought to endeavour to prevent all the accidents possible. He would defy any manufacturer to say that in any single instance an accident had happened where a rectangular hook was used, so long as it remained in an uninjured state. He believed that three-fourths of the mill-owners were adopting that precaution, and that the factory inspectors were favourable to the present clause. The feeling against the clause really arose from the dislike of the system of inspection and espionage. The clause was, however, necessary for the protection of the workpeople, and he considered that the Committee would consult the interests of the operatives in passing it.
MR. KIRKsaid, he wished to explain that he found that, had not the hooks employed in his mill been made of peculiarly good iron, they would have been liable to break and to fall upon the heads of the workpeople.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that the proviso in his opinion involved the whole principle of the Bill, which had been already discussed and decided upon, on the second reading, and also on the Motion for going into Committee. He, of course, had no wish to make the law, as far as the protection of operatives was concerned, less efficient than it was; but he apprehended that the plain principle upon which they were to act was to leave the matter in question to the arbitration of competent authorities, upon whose decisions the point would without doubt be satisfactorily settled. The Committee could not properly legislate upon this subject. They ought to leave the obligation of providing a remedy in general terms, as the apprehended danger involved a matter of detail with which, he apprehended, it was not competent for them to deal.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he hoped the Committee would act upon the advice of the noble Lord, and not take upon themselves to legislate as to the best mode by which complex machinery should be secured. He considered that the question was one for arbitration.
MR. CROSSLEYsaid, it was ridiculous to lay down a law as to how manufacturers were to carry out this system of fencing machinery. If there was any case in which arbitration was necessary, this was the very case.
MR. MUNTZsaid, that the point under consideration had nothing to do with fencing, but merely involved the necessity of a strap-hook. Many Members of that House, like the right hon. Member for Manchester, had expressed opinions upon a question which, he believed, they knew nothing whatever about. He thought that the protection required was applicable to all cases except to those of perpendicular shafts. Under such circumstances, he could not see any objection to the proviso proposed.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he objected to a particular remedy being prescribed by that House which might not meet all cases. He had himself seen several cases in which the strap-hook would not have afforded any protection; and it appeared to him absurd, therefore,
566
to lay down the rule that in all cases strap-hooks should be employed.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) in supporting the clause had advanced the strongest reason why the Committee should not assent to it. The hon. Gentleman thought that no Member of that House but one knew anything about the matter, and therefore it was no use discussing it. That might be true, but surely if non-acquaintance with the subject was a reason for not talking about it, it was a much stronger reason for not making an enactment with regard to it.
MR. CHEETHAMsaid, he should oppose the clause, because he thought that it would increase the danger instead of obviating it.
Clause negatived.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed; Bill reported, as amended.

REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS' BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
The clauses were agreed to.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had been in conversation with Mr. Morgan, the Government collector of payments from the parents of the children, and that gentleman, desirous of making his own duties easier in the matter of legal proof, had sent him certain clauses to which he had no objection. He should therefore now beg to move a clause making it imperative on the governor of any gaol, &c., to send the warrant with every child to the reformatory, and that a copy of the warrant should be evidence of the identity of the child. He also wished to move a second clause, making a copy of the certificate evidence of the school being a certified school, and evidence of the identity of the child.
Both clauses were agreed to.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would now move a third clause, giving the committing magistrate power to summon the parents before him at the time of the committal of the child, and to make an order upon them for the payment of any sum not exceeding 5s. a week for the support of the child.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, a similar provision was introduced into the Act of last year, but in that clause the power was

567
given to two justices of the peace. Yet tills clause did not repeal the old law.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it was a suggestion of Mr. Morgan, and he quite agreed with that gentleman in his view of this particular point. It had occurred, that a parent, if called upon at the time of the committal by the magistrate, would pay willingly, and accept the proposal to deal with the child in the reformatory as a good one; but a little delay often changed that disposition, and great difficulty was afterwards experienced in getting parents to obey the Act.
MR. PALKsaid, he looked upon this new movement, which was to give the criminal advantages of knowledge over the honest man's son, with great suspicion. He was not opposed to the principle so long as it was confined to voluntary contributions; but he thought that if they were to make the payment compulsory, they would, by impoverishing the parents, increase poverty, and thereby extend the source of crime.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he would suggest that the clause should be remodelled so as to make the parish as well as the parent liable for the support of the child.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he hoped the Committee would never sanction the principle that parents should be freed from the obligation of supporting their offspring.
Mr. BARROWsaid, he did not think the clause called for, as the present Act was working well.
Clause withdrawn.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he now had to move another clause to the effect, that the parent should pay for the whole term of sentence, unless in case of a regular discharge, or an order of exemption, signed by the Secretary of State.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, the clause evidently was to prevent vicious parents inducing their child to run away from the reformatories that they might escape the charge of maintaining them there.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was opposed to the frequent alteration of the law without strong cause being shown for it. The parent was at present made to pay for the support and maintenance of the child. That was the principle on which the charge was made, and he could not see how they could still make the charge after the support and maintenance ceased.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he must beg to explain that it was meant to apply in the
568
event of the child's being re-apprehended on the same charge and sent to prison.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that was an alteration in the criminal law of some importance, and required careful consideration.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the proposed alteration was made on the suggestion of Mr. Justice Coleridge.
MR. BAINESsaid, he was totally opposed to the principle that parents should be allowed to derive any premium, pecuniary or otherwise, from the criminality of their children, but he nevertheless thought the proposal was revolting to common sense. Besides, he saw some injustice in the probable working of the clause, for if a boy ran away from the reformatory against the parent's will, he was to be made to pay notwithstanding for his maintenance, on the fictitious supposition that the boy was still in the reformatory.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The State has the power to remit the payment.
LORD R. CECILsaid, that it appeared to him that all danger would be avoided by giving discretionary power to the Secretary of State. He must, however, protest against the course of argument on the opposite side—that it was useless to attempt to remove one blot on the Statute Book until a general measure for removing all blots was introduced.
MR. G. BUTTsaid, the difficulty and expense which in such a case would be imposed upon the poor man, in order to procure from the Secretary of State a reversal of the order, would be very great. He would recommend the hon. Baronet not to press this clause at the present moment.
Clause withdrawn.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would now beg to propose a clause inflicting a penalty of £5 upon any person who induced the children to abscond from these schools, or who knowingly concealed or harboured them and otherwise prevented their return.
MR. BAINESsaid, he thought the clause went a good deal further than was necessary. No doubt some kind of punishment ought to be inflicted on those who enticed boys from the reformatories; but if a poor widow gave a bed to her son upon his absconding, she, according to this clause, would be liable to fine or imprisonment. He would, therefore, suggest the omission of the words "who shall knowingly conceal or harbour."

569
The words objected to were struck out, and the clause was added to the Bill.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEthen proposed a clause providing for the publication in the Gazette of a list of all certified reformatory or industrial schools, after which magistrates might commit young persons to these schools.
Clause added to the Bill.
MR. GORDONsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of a clause to repeal so much of the former Act as provided that a youthful offender should not be sent to a reformatory until after the expiration of his sentence of imprisonment, and to enable any magistrate to send an offender direct to the reformatory without passing through a prison. If the clause were agreed to, it would not interfere with the power of the magistrates to inflict any certain period of punishment.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he could not agree to adopt the clause. The effect of it would be that a person who committed a crime would be in a much better condition than a person who committed no crime. The fallacy which prevailed in all these propositions was to consider only the child that was to be improved, and not to consider the effect of the law upon other classes of the community. No doubt it was better to send boys to school than to a gaol; but why did you send them to gaol? You did it that it might operate as an example to others. Although the improvement of the criminal was to be kept in view, that was not the paramount object of the law. The paramount object of all punishment was to deter others from crime. The number of committals in France had been far more numerous, in consequence of the law having regard to the moral improvement of the offenders, instead of considering the object of punishment to be that of deterring others from crime.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he regretted that stale fallacies such as those just enunciated by the hon. and learned Gentleman should be reproduced. There was a difference between a child and a hardened offender. And that was what the hon, and learned Gentleman in his argument entirely overlooked. It had been urged that committals in France had increased in consequence of the reformatory system of La Mettray being purely reformatory, and receiving offenders without their suffering previous punishment. But that system was only applied to offences
570
of a class not involving moral or criminal responsibility; such, for instance, as "vagabondage." It was essential that the magistrate should, in all cases, have the power of declaring a child a proper object of reformatory rather than penal treatment. Therefore he was strongly in favour of the clause.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, he thought, as this most important question must be decided sooner or later, it was advisable to do so at the earliest possible time. They must look not only to the interest of the child, but also to that of society, and must endeavour to take that course which should tend most to the repression of crime. But would they be doing so by compelling every poor child who should be admitted to reformatories to pass a prior apprenticeship in gaol? If the prospect of a lengthened maintenance and excellent education offered a temptation to crime, that temptation would not be diminished by a preliminary fourteen days Spent in prison. Such a requirement might have a deterring effect to some extent, but it would also have a demoralising effect. His hon. Friend's clause proposed to give magistrates a discretion, and if they should deem it advisable for the interests of society and of the child that a youthful offender should pass his time in a reformatory then such detention, with its attendant discipline, could only be regarded as a punishment. He hoped the Committee would concur in these views, and adopt the clause proposed by his hon. Friend.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, that in many gaols at present youthful offenders received very beneficial training from the chaplains and governors.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that if reformatories were not to be regarded as places of punishment, by adopting the clause they would be abolishing punishment, and placing in the hands of magistrates a dangerous discretion. One of the difficulties at Mettray, in consequence of that not being a place of punishment, was that many children were sent there by those who wished to place them under the guardianship of the State, and now it was proposed to do the same thing here.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the cases which occurred in France were chiefly those in which the departments sought to relieve themselves of the burden of supporting vagrant children, and imposing it upon the State.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, that if there was crime, punishment ought to follow, for the guilty child ought not to be placed in a better position than the innocent.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that the detention in a reformatory, and the strict rules of discipline which would be enforced in those institutions, would, in fact, be regarded as a punishment by those who were sent to them.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was of opinion that it would he better to adhere to the previous decision of the House in the existing Act, which provided that there should be a period of strictly penal imprisonment before the offender was sent to the reformatory.
MR. BLACKsaid, that boys of tender age were frequently sent to prison for offences which, like stealing a few peas or a turnip, implied very little guilt. If children once went into gaol their character was gone. He was quite prepared to vote for the clause.
Mr. BECKETT DENISONsaid, that an offender could not be sent to a reformatory without the consent of the owners of that reformatory. Did not that constitute a check?
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to lay it down as a rule, that every juvenile criminal, whatever might have been the nature of his offence, should undergo punishment previously to being drafted into reformatories? Surely there were exculpatory circumstances in many cases. At all events, he thought a discretion should be left in the hands of the magistrates.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not said that every child, however slight his offence, should undergo imprisonment. He had no desire to fetter the discretion of magistrates in cases where they thought that cases were of too trivial a character to be dealt with. What he contended for was, that it would be rash to depart from a rule by which approved offenders were subjected to punishment of a penal character for a limited period.
MR. HENLEYsaid, a clause had just been passed entitling parents to remove their children from one reformatory to another. Now that, he considered, was a very forward step, and it behoved the Committee to watch the consequences to which it might lead. He did not think
572
any fact had been adduced against the law as it now stood.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 80: Majority 23.
MR. MILESsaid, he would now beg to move the insertion of the clause of which he had given notice, which was to enable counties to make provision for the erection of reformatory schools. In submitting the clause for consideration, he must express his regret that a question of such magnitude had devolved upon a private Member. However, the demand for accommodation for juvenile offenders was so pressing that he had been forced to take the matter up. The Returns laid before Parliament for the present and the preceding year made it abundantly apparent how ridiculously small was the reformatory accommodation. He found that in the "certified schools" there was only accommodation for 420 children. That Return, however, did not include the school at Red Hill, which happened not to be certified, and where there was accommodation for 230 inmates. Besides that, there were two or three other establishments throughout the country, whose accommodation raised the number of children provided for at all the reformatories of the country to 840. Well, on the other hand, they had it on the testimony of Captain Williams's Returns, that upon an average of five years, the number of children up to seventeen convicted at assizes or summarily disposed of before magistrates, reached to 10,306 males and 1,725 females, altogether 12,031 persons. While taking those under fourteen years of age, he found that the annual number for England and Wales averaged 4,134. It was apparent, therefore, that the efforts of mere private benevolence was not adequate to meet the demands of juvenile reformation. He knew, from the instance of his own county (Somersetshire), that the counties generally did not require to be coerced into promoting the scheme of juvenile reformatories. And in proof of how inadequate the voluntary system was for maintaining the schools, he would mention that he himself had proposed to set on foot a subscription of £500 for three years, for the maintenance of a juvenile reformatory, but his applications met with little success. Indeed, such had been generally the difficulty of getting subscriptions for those reformatories during the last three years, that they were likely to

573
die a natural death for want of assistance. He did not think, either, that his proposal would at all interfere with the efforts of private benevolence; on the contrary, he thought it would rather stimulate them. At any rate, he hoped the Government would consent to try his proposal as an experiment, when it would be open to them next Session, or later, to introduce a comprehensive measure that he hoped would meet with general acquiescence.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he doubted whether the clause proposed by the hon. Member came within the title or the scope of the Bill. It referred to a subject which required to be dealt with by a Bill, and not by a single clause, which of itself would he inoperative.
MR. MILESsaid, he drew up the clause with the intention, if the Committee should adopt it, to follow it by others.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would advise the hon. Gentleman to postpone the subject for the present; he could not for himself see any valid objection to granting those powers, but it would be desirable to have more experience upon the subject.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he rejoiced to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject. There was a great and increasing desire in the country to use those institutions. He thought there was no fear of any injury to the voluntary cause accruing from the establishment of reformatories, as there was plenty of room for both.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he was so impressed with the conviction that these reformatory schools would decrease crime, that he intended to have brought in a Bill to enable the county of York to build a school of the kind for that county; but, unfortunately, he was too late, the Bill being considered a private one. The Bill he intended to propose was submitted to eighty-one magistrates, seventy-nine of whom were in favour of its provisions. The inhabitants of the two ridings consented that a rate should be levied on them for the maintenance of the establishment. Those reformatories could not be carried on successfully by private benevolence, and he hoped before long the Government would take the matter into their hands. He would, however, suggest the withdrawal of the clause.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, he was glad to hear that Government intended to take the question into consideration with a view to the establishment of such
574
schools. The Committee would, no doubt, be surprised to hear that till within the last few weeks there had not been an institution of the kind within the metropolitan districts. A private Bill had to be obtained for that purpose.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he was glad his hon. Friend the Member for East Somersetshire had raised the question by proposing the clause he had moved. He was convinced that it was impossible, by the system upon which they were now acting, to maintain those institutions to the extent which the requirements of the public rendered necessary. He trusted the several Bills on this subject would be consolidated. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether the requirements of the deputation which had waited upon him, asking for the Government allowance to be increased from 5s. per head to 7s. per head, would be complied with?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would make inquiries upon the cost per head, and intended to ask the deputation again to wait upon him.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to recal the attention of the Committee to the clause under consideration, and to point out that it was simply permissive in its nature.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he thought that the entire efficacy of reformatory schools rested upon their being supported by voluntary subscriptions.
Clause withdrawn.
House resumed.
Bill reported, as amended.

FORMATION, &c. OF PARISHES BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he objected to the Bill, inasmuch as by a side-wind it seemed to weaken the restrictions established by the Statutes of Mortmain. Besides, he considered it of too much importance to be taken into consideration at that late hour. He should move that the further consideration be postponed for a month.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day month, resolve itself into the said Committee," instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he trusted that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion, but allow the House to go into Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he would remind the House that the Bill had been considered by a Select Committee; it was therefore not a raw and crude measure, but one which had already been well-digested. If the House did not pass it forward a stage to-night, it might be thrown over for another Session.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to; House in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 (A district containing a church shall become a new parish on being constituted a separate district by Order in Council).
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Marquess whether this clause, in constituting separate parishes, would have the effect of conferring on those parishes the right of levying church rates?
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he could state positively that that would not be the effect of the clause. The parishes constituted would to all intents and purposes resemble those formed by Sir Robert Peel's Act, under which, as was known, no church rate could be levied.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 3.
Clause 4 (The provisions of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 37, sec. 22, shall apply to Ecclesiastical and Collegiate Corporations).
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to propose the following proviso:—
"Provided that all gifts and grants thereby authorised shall be made under and subject to the stipulations and restraints of the Act 2 Geo. II., c. 39."
He was not prepared to maintain that a Mortmain Act was required at all, but that Act ought either to be entirely repealed or not at all. There ought not, with regard to bequests of property for ecclesiastical purposes, to be one law for one class and a different law for another class, as would be the effect of this clause. All ought to be treated alike, and he would, therefore, propose to limit the operation of the clause in the manner indicated in his proviso.
THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORDsaid, he must oppose the Amendment, because
576
he considered that the clause introduced no new power, but merely extended a principle which had been long in existence.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he also must oppose the Amendment, on the ground that the clause gave no power of throwing into mortmain property which was not already in mortmain.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 5.
House resumed: Committee report progress.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.