Commons Sitting of 24 July 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For London City, v. the Right hon. John Russell, commonly called Lord John Russell, Manor of Northstead.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Marriages (Ireland); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act (1854) Continuance.
2° Lunacy Regulation; Episcopal and Capitular Estates Act Continuance, &c.; Newspapers,&c.; Revenue Departments Accounts.
3° Durham University; Passengers (Australian Colonies); Trustees (Scotland); Conjugal Rights (Scotland); Metropolitan Building Act Amendment.

CHURCH RATES—LAW AMENDMENT
  (No. 2) BILL— [MR. CROSS].

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CROSSsaid, that in rising to move the discharge of the order for the second reading of the Church Rates Law Amendment (No. 2) Bill, he had no wish to raise any discussion on the measure. He was anxious, however, to say a few words in explanation of the reasons which had induced him to bring forward the Bill and the reasons why he was about to withdraw it. It had not been brought in from any whim or fancy of his own, for he should very much mistrust his own judgment in bringing forward such a measure. The

    1421
    House would remember the tone in which the debate on the proposal to go into Committee on the Church Rates Abolition Bill was carried on, and it would also be remembered that the same tone was continued in Committee in the discussion of the Amendments which he had put upon the paper. It was in accordance with that tone that he had brought forward the Bill. He had frequently been asked why he had introduced the Bill when there was already one introduced in "another place" by the Duke of Marlborough, and one also in that House by the hon. Member for Bucking, ham (Mr. Hubbard). His answer was that the Bill of the Duke of Marlborough could never be discussed in that House; and as regarded the Bill of the hon. Member for Buckingham, so far as he could see in its then shape, it was impossible to hope that it would ever pass a second reading. The general tone in which his (Mr. Cross's) Amendments had been discussed, together with the expressed opinions of several hon. Gentlemen who had done him the honour to confer with him, had induced him to embody those Amendments and opinions in the Bill which stood in his name. That there might be exceptions to that Bill he thought would be gathered from the tone of the bench of Bishops in the discussion of the Bill of the Duke of Marlborough, and, perhaps, it would be viewed with alarm by extreme sections on both sides of the House. But he had introduced the Bill under advice, and, acting under the same advice that he withdrew it. The main reason for his decision was that at so late a period as the 24th July it would be impossible to get a House sufficiently large to discuss so important a measure. He must say he was one of those who thought the House of Commons was open to the rebuke that it was always willing to discuss the affairs of every nation under the sun, while it sometimes neglected the affairs of its own country. He was not sure that if the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary were asked some question as to the state of Madagascar or Lapland, there would not be a much more serious debate than there would be on a question as to church rates in this country. He withdrew the Bill against his own will, but, as he had said, acting under advice. A very serious question, however, remained. He hoped during the recess hon. Members would consider among themselves, and in consultation with their constituents, as to whether some wise and prudent measure
    1422
    could not be framed to settle the question. If a better measure than that he had proposed could be advised he should be glad to withdraw from the contest; but if nothing could be produced, then he should think it his duty to bring forward the Bill in the next Session. The conciliatory tone which had pervaded the debates on the church rate question during the Session was certainly encouraging, but a conciliatory tone only would not settle the question if the harmony was to be broken up whenever a proposal of any kind was put upon the papers. He hoped the Dissenters who wanted to see the question settled would be content with a measure which really took away the grievance of which they complained. On the other side he would ask hon. Members to consider whether the question in which they were interested, and in which he was himself deeply interested, namely, the maintenance of the national church, might not be assisted by such a Bill as that he had brought forward? The question was well put by the late Dr. Arnold in 1837, when he said the real problem was, how the grievances of Dissenters could be removed without at the same time destroying the nationality of the Church of England. And he added in 1837 what was almost enough to make them laugh in 1861—
    "I for one do not regret the postponement of this great question for one more year, because it seems to me that we ought not when the interests are so large to attempt rashly to settle the question in a manner which might turn out again to be mischievous."
    No one could accuse the House of Commons of having been rash in dealing with the question. Before he sat down he would remind the House that if they wished to preserve the nationality of the Church they must, as Dr. Arnold wisely expressed it, do all in their power to make it practically as well as nominally the Church of the nation at large. When church rates were first established the parish churches were open to all. Now, he would ask, who was to maintain the parish churches? At present the poor people of England were thrust into the farthest and darkest corners of the churches.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that the question before the House was the discharge of the order.
    MR. CROSSsaid, he would conclude by saying that if they desired to maintain the nationality of the Church the people ought to have the full use of the parish church

    1423
    He trusted that hon. Members would during the recess apply themselves to the subject in such a way that the question might he settled next Session.
    SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that he was not anxious to revive the discussion on the Bill, but he could not refrain from expressing his satisfaction that it had been withdrawn. Anything more objectionable could not be presented to the House than the Bill of the hon. Gentleman. It was infinitely worse than the present state of the law, either having regard to the Nonconformist community nor to the Church of England itself. It proposed the revival of church rates in all the large towns where they had been abolished, and to throw on the rates about 2,000 district churches which were at present sufficiently supported without them by voluntary contributions. In fact, there would be about 9,000,000 of people who were now exempt who would be brought within the meshes of the law by the Bill. The Bill would expose all the rural districts to social persecution. Every hon. Gentleman knew that there were but few men in those districts who were able to say what they wished in the matter without subjecting themselves to persecution, and the fact that they would have to send in a written notice of dissent every year was placing them on the horns of a dilemma more galling than the rates themselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department said the other day that it was a generally recognized principle in their discussions on the subject not to give the Church a stronger remedy than she had at present, but the Bill would do so. On the other hand he could not conceive that the national Church, if it were a national Church, approved of the Bill, because it would denationalize that Church and reduce it to the level of a sect. If the hon. Gentleman wished for the settlement of this question, and if he wished that member of the Church England alone should pay the rate he had simply to bring in a Bill of a few lines to exempt all persons who did not themselves desire to pay, and that would practically give the hon. Gentleman more money than the Church at present received. There was a practical example of that in Manchester, Rochdale, and other towns where the rate had been abolished. If the hon. Member and those who thought with him would take that course, they would do that which was most consistent with the character of the Church
    1424
    of England itself, she would retain all that she had of her national character, Dissenters would have nothing to complain of, and they would all have the happiness of acting together in a harmony which ought never to have been disturbed.
    SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he wished to remind the House that the Motion before them was a Motion for discharging the first of thirty-three orders that stood on the paper. The question of church rates had been amply discussed during the Session. He hoped, therefore, that desultory and profitless debate would not be carried on any further, and that they would not convert that House into a mere bebating society. He thought the question of church rates would be more profitably discussed in the newspapers during the recess, than by unpremeditated speeches in that House.
    MR. HENLEYsaid, there was much force in what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, but he wished to make a few remarks in consequence of what had been said by the two hon. Members who had gone before. His hon. Friend (Mr. Cross) recommended that all persons during the recess should carefully consider the subject, and put their views in writing, and then they would be able to see how they differed. He agreed with his hon. Friend that they would see how they differed, and he thought that the speech of the hon. Baronet opposite did not look very favourable as regarded a compromise.
    SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he wished to explain that he had never said, as had been misreported, that he was in favour of a compromise, but simply he thought it desirable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be allowed an opportunity of bringing forward their views. He denied that the withdrawal of the Bill of the hon. Member for Tavistock was owing to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. Member.
    MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped the Conservative, Members would not fall into the error of carrying matters with too high a hand, and insisting upon reaction on this question. There was some danger of their raising their biddings—that was the rock on which they were likely to split. He would not follow the Conservative party into any course which had merely for its object to defeat measures brought in on the other side of the House without introducing some really good and efficient measure of their own.

    1425
    For himself, he should refuse to follow the leaders of the Conservative party in any bigoted reaction on the subject, if such were attempted, as he believed that the time had come for a moderate and reasonable settlement of the question.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that although he did net agree with the hon. Baronet in his unqualified admiration of the voluntary system, yet it was his firm impression that that was the principle which must be adopted with respect to the large towns, but that its application to the Church of England in those towns should be guarded, so that it should not weaken the parochial system. He was decidedly of opinion that a totally different remedy was required for the rural districts and places where church rates were now maintained. He (Mr. Newdegate) regretted that it was totally impossible for him to express any approbation of the principle of the Bill before the House. As the House well knew, he had always maintained that the principle upon which the Church of England was based, that the only principle upon which the nationality of the Church, and her right to the property, which she held, could be maintained, was the principle of inclusion; that she is the Church of all who choose to accept her ministrations. The Bill of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Cross) was based on opposite principle, upon the principle of exclusion, and would operate to the destruction of the national character of the Church of England if passed into law. Taking the case of such a town as Birmingham, if the Bill became law, and if there was an attempt to enforce its provisions, it would do more to break up the growing good feeling which existed than any measure he could conceive; it would have this effect, that it would register the majority of the population of that town, including Dissenters, Nonconformists, those who had any personal difference with the clergy, those who merely objected to pay, and the poor, in a category which would be available for those who desired the subversion of the Church. The Bill would literally form in every parish of England a register for the use of those who desired to agitate against the Church, and that register would be formed at the expense of the Church itself. He would beg the friends of the Church of England to take that warning. He was convinced that the only safety for the Church of England was that she should adhere to the broad principle of her nationality, and that she should claim
    1426
    still to be by her constitution what she was by her principles, the Church of the poor. He begged the House to remember that if any ratepayer were poor he must claim the exemption from church rate tendered by the Bill, and he would then be excluded by the Bill from his common law right to a seat in his own parish church.
    Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

CHURCH RATES COMMUTATION BILL.— [MR. ALCOCK.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he was commissioned by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Alcock) to withdraw the Bill.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL.

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment on Second Reading [3rd July].
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he was favourable to the measure, but in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Walpole) he would move that the order be postponed until the following Wednesday. At the same time, he did not think it likely the Bill would pass during the present Session.
  Debate further adjourned till Wednesday next.

INDEMNITY BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he should oppose the Motion, on the ground that it was an Indemnity Bill for one class of Her Majesty's subjects, and not for all. For three consecutive years they had passed Bills of that nature, none of which had been printed. The right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, had said that those Bills were printed, but from inquiries which he had made he believed the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. [Mr. BOUVERIE handed the hon. Gentleman a printed copy of the Bill.] Well, he believed he might say that the Bill had never reached himself or hon. Members before. Why should it

1427
be rendered necessary to pass an indemnity Bill to protect persons omitting to make a declaration that was perfectly obsolete, useless, and ought to be blotted out of their statute book? He called the declaration which parties were called upon to make on taking certain offices a test, which had the effect in many instances of preventing men of fine mind from accepting office. The mere fact that it was necessary to pass an Indemnity Bill every year for protection of persons who did not make the declaration was a strong argument in favour of abolishing all tests of this description.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'this House, having, during each of thirty-one consecutive years, passed a Bill, which became Law, for indemnifying persons liable to make and subscribe, but who had not made and subscribed, the Declaration imposed by the Act of the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter seventeen, and having during each of three consecutive Sessions passed a Bill for abolishing such Declaration, will not be satisfied with any measure respecting such Declaration, except one for its abolition,"—instead thereof.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. Member had taken a very singular mode of benefiting the class whose cause he advocated, as his Motion, if carried would have the effect of rejecting the Indemnity Bill. He could not suppose that was his object, as the Bill indemnified persons who, by omitting to make the declarations required of officials and others, rendered themselves liable to penalties. He hoped the House would persist in the policy it had pursued for a number of years, and consent to go into Committee. The hon. Member really wished to engraft on this Bill that measure which he had passed through the House in the early part of the Session, but which had been rejected by the other House. It was a rule of the House that no Bill which it had passed could be re-introduced in the same Session, and the hon. Member, therefore, sought to evade that rule by the course he now adopted. His Bill was rejected in the Lords upon the second reading, by a majority of 49 to 38, and the more legitimate mode of proceeding would be to bring forward the same Bill in the next Session.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would remind the right hon. Baronet that the Test and Corporation Act was repealed upon the ground that, instead of passing annually an
1428
Indemnity Bill, as they had done time out of mind, to shield persons who did not take the declarations under that Act, they ought entirely to erase the Act from the statute book. He did not understand why, in the present case, the same argument should not apply to the wiping away entirely the test to which his hon. Colleague referred.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would strongly advise his hon. Friend (Mr. Hadfield) not to divide the House upon his Amendment. At the same time he would express a hope that the Government would take up in the next Session the Bill which had three times passed the House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there was a vast difference between the declarations formerly required by the Test and Corporation Act which were declarations of religious belief, and that imposed by the Act to which the hon. Member's Motion applied. The latter declaration was only to the effect that a person admitted to any corporate office should not use the power thus accruing to him for the purpose of attacking the Church of England. That was not a grievous restriction, and he could not participate in the objections which had been urged to it by the hon. Member. He trusted he would, therefore, not interrupt the passing of the Indemnity Bill, which be himself admitted was necessary in other cases.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
House in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Qualification of Persons),
MR. HADFIELDsaid, it was not his intention to move the other Amendment of which he had given notice, but if he took his seat in the House next year he would re-introduce his Bill.
Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

LUNACY REGULATION BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, be rose to move the second reading of the Bill. It was the same in substance as that which was read, pro forma, a second

  1429
  time by the House in 1858, and, on the Motion of the then Solicitor General, the hon. and learned Member for Belfast, referred to the Committee on Lunacy. That Committee made a report in July last year, and their recommendations had in some respects been followed in the present measure. The object of the measure was twofold—to provide for the more frequent visiting of lunatics under the care of the Court of Chancery, and to diminish the expense of the procedure. Upon one point the Bill did not adopt the recommendations of the Committee. It did not, as they suggested, propose to transfer the care of Chancery lunatics from the visitors in lunacy to the Lunacy Commissioners. There were under the care of the Court of Chancery 626 lunatics, and their aggregate incomes amounted to 7pound;333,000 per annum—a sum abundantly sufficient for defraying the expense of visitation by the present visitors; and it would be found that the duties cast upon those visitors were abundantly sufficient to occupy the whole of time at their disposal. It would be also found that the time of the Lunacy Commissioners was fully occupied. They had under their care at present 35,955 patients in asylums and public institutions; and those patients were to be visited at least twice, and in some instances four times yearly. The House ought, therefore, if they adopted the recommendation in the report, either to diminish the sphere of duty, or add to the number of the Commissioners; and under the circumstances it was deemed advisable to depart from the recommendation of the Committee on that particular point.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Government to postpone the Bill, at all events, for a week, until his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), the Chairman of the Committee, who was prevented by domestic affliction from attending that day, should be in his place and have an opportunity of stating his objections to it. For his own part, he doubted whether the Bill were an improvement on the existing system, It was a remarkable fact that less care was taken of the rich Chancery lunatics than of any other persons so afflicted. The pauper lunatics were visited once a month, and the patients in public and private asylums were visited at least six times in the year; but Chancery lunatics only re-
  1430
  ceived one visit in the year, and sometimes eighteen months elapsed between the visits of the Chancery visitors. He saw no proposition in the Bill to secure the Chancery lunatics in future from a state of things which could only exist under the Court of Chancery. It was stated in evidence that one of the visitors suggested a certain course of action which he thought would be beneficial to the lunatics; but when the recommendation came under the vigilant eyes of the Chancery official, he immediately said it was impertinent, and ought not to be put in the report. What might have proved a consolation to the lunatics was struck our, and never came before the Lord Chancellor at all. At present the Chancery visitors consisted of three persons—two doctors and one lawyer—but the Bill provided that in future the visitors should be one doctor and one lawyer. As there were 626 lunatics scattered all over the country they could hardly receive more than one visit each in the year from those gentlemen. There was certainly a provision that lunatics wore not to be seen less than twice in the year, but the only machinery by which it could be carried into effect was cut out of the Bill. He would not give much for visits that were to be made in such a hurried manner. It was provided that the doctor and lawyer need not visit the patients at the same time, but he could not see how the condition of a lunatic was to be improved by the visit of a lawyer. The provision of the Bill which gave a new power of dealing with the property of lunatics under a certain amount was as Important as any in the Bill. He deemed it a beneficial provision, but its advantage would be very much impaired if these unfortunate persons, seattered all over the country, were to he driven up to one of the Chancery offices in London to get the benefit of the proposed arrangement. There ought to be some machinery by which the benefit of that provision might be more easily obtainable over the length and breadth of the land. There was a clause in the Bill enabling pensions to be given to the present visitors, but he did not know on what principle they were supposed to be entitled to pensions at all. He would, therefore, move the postponement of the second reading for a week, in order that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University, who had devoted so much time and attention to the subject, might have an opportunity of urging whatever objections he entertained to the measure.

  1431
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Motion. He the (Attorney General) would not ask for the Committee till that day week, so that every object which the right hon. Gentleman who was absent (Mr. Walpole) had in view might be secured.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) to object to the second reading of the Bill at all.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he had come down to oppose the Bill. He could not but condemn the proposals for compensation in the Bill; and it was his strong opinion that, considering the amount of work to be done, it would be far better to appoint two medical men as visitors than one medical man and one lawyer.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) persisted in the Motion he had made, it would preclude the Bill from being gone on with that Session. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to go into Committee on that day week. The Bill was brought in with the approbation of the Lunacy Commissioners and the late Lord Chancellor. The present Lord Chancellor was also of opinion that some change was necessary, but he did not regard that Bill as a final arrangement. He believed the Lord Chancellor thought that the two visitors should both be medical men. He was much dissatisfied with the present arrangement, and he thought it better to make some such change as that now proposed, to provide that amount of supervision which was necessary for the safety of the patients.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that after the statement of the right hon. Baronet he would take the course suggested, on the understanding that his right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole), on that day week, should not be considered to take an improper course if, on going into Committee, he brought forward a Motion on the subject. He believed the great objection to the Bill was that it would stand in the way of a consolidation of the law relating to Chancery lunatics. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General would consider whether the Bill could not be limited as to time.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Wednesday.

LACE FACTORIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Recited Acts to apply to Lace Factories, and to the Employment of Females, young Persons, Youths, and Children therein),
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, if the Bill were what it pretended to be, he should have offered no objection to it. The Factory Act was generally admitted to have proved a blessing to the country at large. It was one of the best efforts of domestic legislation which had ever passed, but the Bill before the Committee was certainly a reversal of the policy adopted in that Act as regards women and children engaged in factories. That policy was that they should not be worked beyond their physical powers. Their hours of labour were restricted by the Factory Act to between six a.m. and six p.m., and on Saturdays to between six a.m. and two p.m., with an hour and a half for meals. No child was allowed by the Factory Act to work more than half a day up to the age of thirteen, the other half being spent at school; and no boy was permitted to do the work of a man till he was eighteen years of age. But what were the innovations proposed by this Bill, which, they were told, was mainly founded on the provisions of the Factory Act? The meal hours were entirely left to the arbitrary discretion of the masters. The hands were to be allowed to go to their meals irregularly. The age when boys were to act as men was reduced from eighteen to sixteen; and what was worse the age of children was reduced from thirteen to eleven. The hours of work were extended from two p.m. to half-past four on Saturdays, two hours and a half more than the Factory Act permitted. All these innovations, instead of being in favour of the women and children, were in favour of the masters; and he thought the House was bound to look with peculiar jealousy at any Bill which favoured the masters alone. It had been said that the Bill was founded on the Report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere; but it was not so. His recommendations were that from the 1st of August, 1862, the Factories Act should be applied to the lace factories, subject to two exceptions—one, that boys above the age of sixteen should be allowed to work between the hours of four a.m. and ten p.m., but

  1433
  not more than nine hours within that time; and the other, that the provisions of the Factories Act as to the fencing of the main shaft of machinery should not be required He (Mr. Bernal Osborne) did not intend to move anything against the Bill, because he thought Amendments might be made in it in Committee. He hoped the House would give him their support in moving those Amendments.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he hoped the Committee would give effect to the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. Gentleman. Two or three years ago a large number of petitions had been presented to the House, signed by something like 10,000 persons engaged in the lace manufacture in Nottingham and Manchester, praying for legislation on the subject; but in deference to the wishes of the masters an inquiry was instituted. A Commissioner was accordingly sent down into the district, and to the great surprise of the operatives, who had prepared a case disclosing the great hardships under which they suffered, they were met by the masters, who admitted that the alleged hardships did exist, that legislation was necessary, and that it should proceed on the basis of Mr. Grainger's Report presented twenty years ago. The Committee would, therefore, bear in mind, if there were no distinct cases of hardship embraced in Mr. Seymour Tremenheere's Report, it was not the fault of the operatives, who had no opportunity of bringing them forward.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to have some statement from his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether it was his intention to adhere to the policy of the Factory Act. In the absence of such a statement the better course would be to report Progress at once, and say whether they should go on with the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was quite prepared to discuss any Amendment that might be proposed in the Committee. Hon. Gentlemen who had read the Report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere would have seen that his object was to investigate the problem how far the provisions of the Acts regulating factories for the spinning of cotton and other textile fabrics could be applied to the peculiar case of the lace factories. It was admitted on all hands that there was a difference in the manufactures. Several proposals which were made in former years to extend the Factory Acts to lace manufactures were always resisted on the ground of the peculiar circumstances
  1434
  of the lace manufacture. Mr. Seymour Tremenheere examined the subject very carefully; he showed what were the distinctions between the two manufactures, and recommended some special regulations, no doubt, founded on the principle of the Factory Act, but different, for the reasons he assigned. He wished the Committee to understand that the Bill was entirely in conformity with the views of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, who had conducted a detailed investigation into the trade with great industry and success, and in a manner conciliatory both to the masters and men. The hon. Member for Nottingham, the chief seat of the lace manufacture, would be able to give more information on the subject; but, as no advantage would result from reporting Progress, he hoped the Committee would now proceed to discuss the different clauses of the Bill.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Bill, described it as one which there was no occasion to discuss, as it was founded on the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, which would be found to contain the substance and provisions of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman now repeated that the Bill was founded on the recommendations of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere. If it were so, he should have made no observations on this occasion; but, on the other hand, he felt bound to say the Bill seemed so adverse to the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere that the House ought to discuss that question before it went any further. His hon. Friend had not gone fully into the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, and he might, therefore, state that the Commissioner, having examined on the spot the masters and workmen, had divided them into two classes—Firstly, the opponents of legislation altogether; secondly, those adverse to legislation on such matters upon principle, but who thought that in this, as in the factory case, there was a necessity for legislation. That last class comprised a very large body of master manufacturers, to whose evidence he referred, and all of whom agreed more or less to that which lie reported—that a Bill should be brought in. He closed his statement with regard to this class of opponents by saying that the particular modifications they suggested were various. He then proceeded, "The conclusion I have come to, upon a careful consideration of the whole, is," &c. Here, then, was a gentleman, commissioned to

  1435
  examine into questions of this kind, and on whose reports to the Crown one or two Acts of Parliament had been passed. He had applied his mind to the examination of the subject, and, after due consideration, what did he say?—
  "I recommend that, from and after the 1st of August, 1862, the Factory Acts should he applied to the lace manufacture, subject to the following exceptions:—1. That youths above the age of sixteen should be permitted to work between the hours of four a.m. and ten p.m.; but not more than nine hours within those hours. 2. That the provisions of the Factory Acts, in regard to requiring machinery to be fenced off, should not extend to the lace manufacture."
  These were the only two exceptions. He did not attribute much importance to the latter exception of fencing off the machinery. The only real exception was that youths of the age of sixteen should be permitted to work between the hours of four a.m. and ten p.m., but not more than nine hours within those hours. How did that differ from the Factory Acts in existence? A young person at eighteen might be made to work the full factory hours, from six a.m. till six p.m.; or, being a male, to work in the night time; but that could scarcely be done. Were they, then, to go to the Commissioner? He must say on all these questions he was against employing a Commissioner to meet the masters on one side and the operatives on the other, and decide between the two. He would much rather have a Select Committee of that House for obtaining evidence on which to found an Act of Parliament; but, at any rate, they had got the report of Mr. Commissioner Tremenheere that the Factory Act should be extended to the lace manufacture, with the exception that they might take a boy of sixteen out of his bed at four a.m. and make him work till ten p.m., only employing him nine hours within that period. But the Bill was not framed in good faith, consistently with the Commissioner's report. The 4th Clause interfered with what was considered one of the most valuable parts of the Factory Acts—the half holiday, by extending the period of work from 2 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. Clause 5 extended the work of 101/2 hours from young persons of thirteen to children of eleven. The noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had given notice of an Amendment to that clause, and he should give it his support. When the age of thirteen was sought to be fixed by the Factory Act, the proposition met with the greatest opposition, and it was stated by the manu-
  1436
  facturers that the effect of such a provision would be that there would be 35,000 children thrown out of employment. The clause, however, was carried, and he believed that not even five children had been thrown out of employment by it. There was another most important clause—he referred to Clause 6, which dealt in the most insidious manner with the meal hours. The great necessity had been to fix the meal hours; without that, men, women, and children were obliged to remain in the mill, and consume, in an unwholesome atmosphere, their food as best they could. In fact, up to 1833 factory operatives had no meal time. The 3 & 4 Vict., c. 103, enacted that one hour and a half should, bona fide, be allowed for meals; but the mill did not stop, the machinery ran on, and that, gave rise to the shifting system. Finding their intentions frustrated, the Legislature in the 7th Victoria fixed the meal hours more definitively, and declared that the operative should not be allowed to remain during those hours in any room in which any manufacturing process was carried on. That rendered it almost impossible that there should be any evasion; but still evasion did occur, and, therefore, by the Earl of Shaftesbury's Act of 1846 it was provided that if any of the restricted persons should be found in a mill at a breakfast or dinner hour they should be taken to be employed, and the master was fineable there for. According to the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere these enactments ought not to be disturbed; but in the Bill there were special provisions to enable the masters to do that very thing towards the lace hands which the Legislature had so carefully provided masters should not do as regarded woollen and cotton spinners. The benefits given by the Factory Acts to the factory hands were specially excluded from the lace factories. The consequence would be that the breakfast and dinner hour would be virtually at the disposal of the master or overlooker. In short, the Bill was not a Factory or a Ten and Half Hours' Bill, but a Twelve Hours' Bill. He did not know who drew the Bill. It was said to be the Commissioner's Bill. If so they ought to have him before a Select Committee, to inquire why he had so far deviated from his own report. He hoped, at all events, the Committee would make the Bill conformable to Mr. Seymour Tremenheere's recommendations.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 2 (Youths between the Age of Sixteen and Eighteen may be employed between 4 a.m. and 10 p.m., but not more than Nine Hours between those Hours),
  MR. PAGETsaid, he wished to move to insert in line 22 after the word "day" the words
  "And provided also that it shall not be lawful to employ any youth both earlier than six of the clock in the morning and later than six of the clock in the evening of the same day, nor to employ any youth both later than six of the clock in the evening of any day and earlier than six of the clock in the morning of the next succeeding day."
  He was quite prepared to defend the clauses of the Bill, which were founded on the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere and the evidence he had collected with great ability and impartiality. Both masters and men agreed in their support of the Bill.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he could easily understand that no objections were taken to the provisions of the Bill by the masters or men; but he had spoken in the interest of women and children. He had carefully read the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, and he defied the right hon. Gentleman to prove that this Bill was founded on its recommendations. He should propose a proviso requiring that a youth of sixteen should not be employed as a man without a surgeon's certificate; that he was able for the work.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 3 was also agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Women, Young Persons, and Children may be employed until half past four o'clock on Saturdays),
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he should move the omission of the clause. It proposed to extend the hours during which women and children engaged in lace factories might be employed in labour from two o'clock on Saturday, as fixed in; the Factory Act, to four o'clock. He could see no reason for departing in the present case from the principle laid down in the Factory Act.
  MR. PAGETsaid, he should support the clause. Lace factories were in a peculiar position. Besides the omission of the clause would prove no benefit to the operatives. When two men worked together their hours of labour were not above nine hours a day each; and it would be a great loss to them—in fact it would be a robbery on them—if they were not allowed to work
  1438
  for a few hours on a Saturday afternoon, as they would not be if they could not have the services of the threaders and winders when the warp came off. There were no class of men in Her Majesty's dominions who worked a shorter time; and any one that knew Nottingham, the principal seat of the lace trade, would be aware that there were thousands of small gardens in the environs of that town which were cultivated by the workmen. The work of the winders and threaders was exceedingly light. Even when they were sixteen hours in the factory, the "shifts" were so arranged as to be only ten hours actually at work, and were allowed to go out to play in the intervals.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsuggested that the "shifts" might easily be arranged so as to allow the workpeople to have a half-holyday on Saturday. Besides the object of the measure was not for the benefit of the men, but for that of the women and children. In the first Factory Act the silk throwsters were exempted from the obligation placed upon cotton and woollen manufacturers to close at two o'clock on Saturday afternoons, but by a subsequent Act the silk throwsters were by their own request placed under the same rule.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEdenied that lace making was such a delightful business as the hon. Gentleman represented; on the contrary, he found it stated in the Report that the boys had pale and ghastly countenances, and did not seem to thrive. As to the argument that the men had gardens, the hon. Gentleman could not object to their being allowed two hours more a week to cultivate them.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISMsaid, if he were not misinformed the workpeople themselves did not object to this clause. The Committee would, therefore, act with perfect safety in assenting to it. The principle of the Bill was that the regulations of the Factory Acts were to be extended to the lace trade, with certain adaptations. The provision contained in the clause was one of those adaptations, and he had yet heard no good argument against it.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXstated that he had received letters from a great many operatives against the clause. The general feeling among the workpeople seemed to be that the clause should be omitted; but, at the same time, rather than endanger the Amendment of which he had given notice on the 5th Clause, they would consent to

  1439
  submit to what they considered an injustice.
  MR. COBBETTremarked that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Paget) were exactly the same as were employed against the Cotton Factories Act.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he saw no reason why the Committee should depart from the Factory Acts in the particular. It was for the moral as well as the physical advantage of the lace-workers that they should have a half-holyday on Saturdays.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give up the clause. Adam Smith had too truly said that his principles must lead to the degradation of the work-people unless those principles were held in check by higher considerations. It was said that though these unfortunate children were kept at the beck and call of their master for sixteen hours a day they were only worked ten. The truth was they could not work them sixteen hours, otherwise they undoubtedly would. He denied that factories or mines, or any other business could not be arranged with a due regard to decency and humanity.
  MR. PAGETremarked that, as Clause 1 stood, young persons could not be kept in lace factories for more than twelve hours a day. They could not, as he had already stated, be actually employed during the whole of that time. If he thought, with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that they could be confined for sixteen hours a day, he should at once agree to release them at two o'clock on Saturdays.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that workpeople of all kinds were extremely anxious to get a half-holyday on Saturdays, and he should be sorry to see any class of factory operatives deprived of so valuable a privilege.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as he read the Bill, he certainly understood that a boy of eleven, who to all intents and purposes was still a child, could be taken into a factory at six in the morning and kept till ten at night.
  MR. COLLINSstated that, in the manufacturing districts in the north, no portion of the Factory Acts had given so much satisfaction as those clauses which enabled the workpeople to have Saturday afternoon to themselves. He should, therefore, vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, "That Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 57: Majority 13.
  Clause 5 (Interpretation of Terms),
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he rose to move that in both places in which the word "eleven" occurred in the clause the word "thirteen" should be substituted for it. His object was to extend to the lace trade that provision of the Factory Acts which prohibited the employment of children for more than half-time until they reached the age of thirteen. One objection which had been stated to his Amendment was that the work to which children were put in lace factories was comparatively light and easy. He did not deny that part of the work was so; but Mr. Grainger had shown, in his valuable reports, that the threading of bobbins, if carried on for a certain number of hours, was highly injurious to the eye-sight. It should be recollected, moreover, that the lace children were confined in heated rooms, that their ears were stunned by the noise of machinery driven by steam, and that they were compelled to swallow every working-day of their lives innumerable particles of blacklead. Another objection to his Amendment was that, if carried, it would be an inducement to the masters to evade the Act by having the winding and threading done in their own houses. His reply was that all experience showed that the enormous advantages to be derived from the use of steam would be quite sufficient to prevent any evasion of the Act in the manner thus contemplated. If children were allowed to become full-timers at the age of eleven, the inevitable result would be that the masters would not employ them at all until they reached that age. There would be no half-timers, and in that way the masters would avoid the expense of educating any portion of their hands; whereas, if his Amendment were agreed to, the masters must either employ children before they were thirteen years of age, or consent to lose their services altogether, as parents could not afford to allow their children to go about idle for so long a period. It might be said that the existing system of education under the Factory Acts was so perfect that children were now as far advanced at eleven as they used to be at thirteen years of age. He admitted that considerable progress had been made during the last few years, but there was still ample room for improvement in the mode of conducting education under the Factory Acts. Mr. Baker, one of the factory inspectors, stated in a recently published report that the system of education might be improved in many respects, and he

  1441
  pointed out the great evils which existed in the silk-throwing trade owing to young persons being made full-timers at the age of eleven. The evidence appended to the report of Mr. Tremenheere contained statements to the same effect from masters and others. Mr. William Simkins, a lace agent in Nottingham, said he had often thought it strange that the Factory Acts were not applied to the lace trade. There were difficulties about it, he added, some years ago, but he did not see any material difficulty now. Mr. Alderman Felkin of Not tingham, who had always been opposed to legislation, said his opinion was that the labour of women and children ought, after a reasonable delay, to be restricted within factory hours. It would thus be seen that his Amendment was supported by high authority. The lace-workers did not claim any special exemption for themselves. All he asked on their behalf was that the same advantages should now be extended to them which they would have obtained had they been included, as they ought to have been included, in the Factory Acts.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 18, to leave out the word "eleven" and insert the word "thirteen."
  MR. PAGETsaid, that the number of children who were employed in these factories was small, and it would not be worth while for the factory owners to keep books and to make the necessary arrangements for carrying out the half-time system. Whatever age was fixed, no children under that age would would be employed. If, therefore, the Amendment was carried, children under thirteen would cease to be employed in lace factories; but, as there was a good deal of work which might be done in private houses, the effect would be to encourage contractors, who would get the children together in unwholesome and ill-ventilated houses, and watch them closely at their work lest a moment should be lost, because the profit of the contractors would be the difference between the cost of the labour to them and the price which they would obtain for it. The work in the lace factories was well known to be of the lightest description, with frequent intervals, during which children employed in them might go out of doors and play; and it differed materially from the work in cotton or woollen factories, where constant attendance had to be given to the machinery. He should be very sorry if the Bill were lost, because it would in a great measure prevent the miserable results which
  1442
  sometimes arose from girls being employed until late hours in the evening, and their parents not knowing for certain when to expect them home; but the adoption of the Amendment would either lead to the work being done in houses over which the inspectors would have no control, or to only those children being employed who were over thirteen years of age. He thought he should be acting inconsistently with his desire to promote the education of children if he were to support the Amendment. They could not expect parents to give up the advantage of their children's labour long after the time when they were physically able to earn wages; and it was stated by the Education Commissioners that the effect of the Factory Acts in many instances had been that parents neglected the education of their children in their earlier years, depending on the education which they would receive later under the Factory Acts. If a parent received full wages from a child between the ages of eleven and thirteen he could afford to allow the younger children to have an education before attaining the age of eleven; but if the law compelled him to give up half the wages of the elder child he would be very apt to put the younger children to work under some contractor in order to fill up the gap. It was not a question of serious moment to the masters, but it was greatly to the interest of the children that the clause should stand as it appeared in the Bill.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the Amendment was perfectly in accordance with Mr. Seymour Tremenheere's report. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Paget) had treated it as if it were merely a question of education, but a higher consideration even than education ought to have some weight—he meant health—and he asserted that no child of eleven years of age could be kept at work 101/2 hours daily without deterioration of its physical strength. He denied that the work would be sent to private houses, as the advantage of steam-power was so great that it would certainly be done where that power was available. Directly they had to deal with children working amid the whirl and whiz of machinery in a high temperature they were bound to follow out the provisions of the Factory Acts. Ho should support the Amendment—not to allow children to work full time until they were thirteen years of age.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere contained unanswer-

  1443
  able arguments in favour of the noble Lord, and any one who read it must be convinced of the justice of the Amendment. The report was right, and the Bill wrong. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would adopt the reasoning of the Commissioner, and not the arguments which his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham had felt it his duty to state to the Committee.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, his object had really been to mediate fairly between the interests concerned. It was not his object to give undue protection to the masters, or to withdraw from the workpeople any security which they might obtain under the strict provisions of the Factory Act. It was admitted on all hands that there was a considerable difference between lace and silk or cotton factories, and the existence of that difference had led to the postponement of legislation until that time. The question was whether the modifications which he proposed were unreasonable. It was said that he had not literally followed the report of the Commissioner. After the report was made it had become the subject of criticism and discussion. The Commissioner, having received representations on points of detail, had thought fit to modify his views, and the Government had thought it better to adapt the Bill to the altered convictions of the Commissioner rather than adhere to those which be originally entertained, because those altered convictions were the result of discussion and matured consideration. With regard to the question whether the age should be thirteen or eleven, he thought it would be more advantageous to the people to retain the clause as it stood, but if that opinion should turn out to be fallacious it would be very easy in a future Session to alter so small a detail. The Bill would put lace factories under the Factories Acts, and would do so very effectually, except in some small points like that. The danger was that if they screwed it up too tight the Bill would fail in its operation, either through its being evaded or the non-employment of the class of young persons whom it was intended to benefit. He could only judge from information which he received from persons who had investigated the subject; but he understood that there was a great difference between factory labour and lace labour, and that young persons were worked with much less severity in lace than in cotton factories. One great difference was that they could sit
  1444
  down, and there were greater intervals of rest during their work. As his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Paget) had pointed out, the masters might cease to employ children under the age of thirteen, and certain portions of the work might be taken to their homes, which were probably much more close and unwholesome than the factory. He would suggest that they should watch the operation of the Bill, and if thirteen or twelve should turn out to be a better age than eleven, they might amend it in a future Session. It was better to proceed cautiously, and not to take a leap in the dark. He should therefore, advise the Committee to agree to the clause as it stood.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that all the experience which they had had of the Factory Act proved that the age of thirteen years was an advantageous limit, and when be was advised to proceed cautiously he took it as a warning not wittingly to sanction any retrogression. If they established a different limit by this Act from that which had been found advantageous under the Factory Act they might be told that it was the limit which they ought to adopt in the Factory Act. The arguments in favour of a departure from the general principle now recognized were, in his opinion, inconclusive. He did not think it would be a great misfortune if children under thirteen were employed at their own homes; and as to the Bill affecting only a few children, that was a good reason for not making the limit of age in lace factories an exception to the general rule. If there was such a great difference between lace and other factories as the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department seemed to infer they ought not to apply the Factory Act at all to the lace factories; but if they determined to apply it, they should adhere to the limit which the Factory Act assigned. If that limit operated unfavourably it Would be time enough hereafter to amend the Act; but present experience was in favour of making the age of thirteen the limit, and he should, therefore, vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the difficulty which they had to contend with was the natural wish of parents to get as much as they could out of their children, and he thought great weight attached to the objection that if too great a limit of age was insisted upon, an alteration would be made in the system of manufacture by

  1445
  which the children would have to exchange I millwork under Government supervision for private work under the pressure of a hard taskmaster. If the mode of conducting the trade were once changed in that way it would not he easy to change it back again. Compromises rarely succeeded, but he would suggest twelve, instead of thirteen. They might begin at twelve, and, perhaps, they would get to thirteen in a year or two.
  MR. COLLINSremarked that he was rather inclined to think that twelve would be better than eleven or thirteen.
  Mr. COBBBTTobjected to tampering with the Factory Act. The proposed measure was a retrograde movement, or would lead to it, and Mr. Walker of Brad-ford, in a letter to him, after expressing ' that opinion, said he would rather see the Bill thrown out than have the 6th Clause remain unamended. The Amendment was perfectly in accordance with Mr. Seymour Tremenheere's report, and when it was said that Mr. Seymour Tremenheere had reconsidered the question it was well to remember two or three dates. Mr. Seymour Tremenheere received his instructions on the 23rd of November, and made his report on the 20th of March. Four months were occupied in making inquiries. The Bill was introduced on the 31st of May, so that it could scarcely be said that an opinion formed in the interval between the 20th of March and the 31st of May was more matured than the opinion over which it prevailed. The Committee had reported in favour of legislating for children in lace factories as for children in cotton and woollen factories, and the noble Lord would only be doing right in adhering to that proposition. As to children being thrown out of employment, that argument was used in 1836, and was proved by experience to be entirely fallacious. Children were employed because the master wanted them; and if masters employed older persons they would have to give higher wages.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought it a singular view to call the proposed clause retrograde legislation. At present there was no limit of age. He proposed to fix it at eleven; and because he did not fix it at thirteen it was said to be a retrograde step. If two people were walking, and one proposed to go eleven miles and the other thirteen, surely it could not be said that the one who went eleven miles went back, because he did not go thirteen?
  1446
  He did not wish to appear unreasonable and, therefore, if it met with the genera concurrence of the Committee, he would accept twelve instead of eleven.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, that Mr. Seymour Tremenheere deliberately fixed the age at thirteen years, and the object of his Amendment was simply to carry out that gentleman's recommendation. He should, therefore, adhere to his Amendment. It was, moreover, an error to suppose there was a great deal of leisure in lace factories, as by double sets of bobbins and carriages, which were now provided by more than one-third of the trade, the labour was rendered continuous.
  Question, "That the word 'Eleven' stand part of the clause, put, and negatived."
  LORD HENRY LENNOXmoved to insert "thirteen."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should; prefer "twelve."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there was a great demand for the labour of children, and they ought to be protected.
  MR. PAGETsaid, that with reference to what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Henry Lennox) it was quite a mistake to suppose that there was continuous labour where there was a double set of bobbin machines.
  Question put, "That the word 'thirteen' be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 56: Majority 4.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 6 (Time for Meals),
  MR. PAGETproposed that the words "five o'clock" should be substituted for "six o'clock" in the latter part of the clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he should oppose the clause. The object of the Factory Acts was to secure to the workpeople a bond fide time in which they might take their meals in the same comfort as was enjoyed by other classes; and he saw no reason why the workers in lace factories should be placed in a different position in this respect from the workers in cotton factories. When persons brought biscuits or other refreshments with them into the factory, it was found practically impossible to carry out the intention of the Legislature.
  MR. PAGETsaid, it was absolutely necessary that the system of working by shifts should be carried on in these factories if the English manufacturer was not

  1447
  to be placed at a serious disadvantage with his French and Belgian rivals, who already trod very close on his heels. It would, however, be impossible to work by shifts if a lace factory must be cleared of all the workpeople in the same manner as in the cotton and woollen-factories. The enormous capital required to furnish machinery for lace-making rendered it of the utmost importance that that machinery should not be forced to remain longer idle than was absolutely necessary. In the interests of the workpeople, as well as of the employers, he trusted that the clause would be retained.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that all through that discussion the Government had made a very faint opposition to the propositions emanating from the other side of the House. If the Committee were now legislating wrongly, it was all the Government's fault in not supplying full information on the subject. They had heard that the report of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere had been reconsidered. Had there been any reports since then? And why was not the report of Mr. Redgrave, Inspector of Lace Factories, produced? As to what the hon. Member for Nottingham had said about foreign competition, that was the old exploded argument they had so often heard used against the Factory Acts. According to the evidence of Mr. Cox, a large employer, our manufacturers were now in a much better position than they were in before, particularly with regard to France, in consequence of the new treaty. Before that treaty the importation of lace into France was totally prohibited. The Home Secretary had described the Bill as a walking match, in which the right hon. Gentleman wished to go eleven miles and his hon. Friend thirteen; but unless its title was to be a pure misnomer the clause must be struck out. All who had voted for making the measure conform to the Factory Acts, and to the recommendations of Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, were bound to support the hon. Member for Knares-borough in resisting the clause.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, that the omission from the Bill of the mealtime clause of the Factory Acts, which was framed with great care and circumspection, would have the practical effect of making the children work twelve hours a day. Say what they would, if the child was not to have his proper mealtimes away from the atmosphere of the factory, he must be held to be at continuous work from six to six. If the
  1448
  Commissioner had thought that the mealtime clause of the Factory Act would be destructive to the lace trade, he would surely have stated so in his report.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that as the report by Mr. Redgrave, to which the hon. Member for Liskeard had referred, had no existence, it was impossible to produce it. [Mr. B. Osborne: Is there no letter?] No letter. Mr. Redgrave might have written a private letter, but he had written no official document that could be produced to the House. As to the Commissioner not having reported on the subject of mealtimes, the difference between the labour in an ordinary factory and that carried on in a lace factory was so great that he supposed it could not have been conceived that anybody would propose to extend to the latter the restrictive regulations as to mealtimes now applicable to the former. He was unwilling to agree to the omission of the clause as it stood in the Bill; but he had no objection to add a proviso declaring that no woman, child, or young person should be employed in any manner during mealtimes.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman, whether it was not too late for such a Motion to be made, the question that the clause as amended stand part of the Bill having been previously put?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was too late.
  CAPTAIN STACPOOLEasked, whether the Bill would extend to Ireland?
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, would be good enough to reply to the question.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that before answering that question perhaps he would be permitted to put one in return, were there any lace factories in Ireland?
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Yes, in Limerick.
  Mr. HENNESSY: And the lace is the best that is made in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. CONINGHAMsaid, he should support the extension of the regulations of the Factory Acts relating to meal hours, upon sanitary grounds.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he must plead ignorance of the fact that there were any lace manufactories in Ireland. The existing Factory Acts extended to Ireland, and there was a factory inspector for that country. The United Kingdom was mentioned in the preamble of the Bill, and; therefore, he apprehended that the proposed extension of the provisions of the

  1449
  Factory Acts would apply both to Ireland and Scotland,
  Question put, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 59: Majority 10.
  The remaining Clauses and Schedules were agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

EPISCOPAL AND CAPITULAR ESTATES ACT CONTINUANCE, &c., BILL

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he would move that this Bill be read the second time.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that the measure would naturally have attracted extremely little attention but for the beautiful hieroglyphic "&c." attached to the end of its modest title. Nothing could be more objectionable than the introduction of matter of substance into a Continuance Bill, and he trusted that the House would not allow matter to be inserted in the proposed continuance measure which, although it had nothing on earth to do with its purport, might possibly have slipped through without observation or discussion. The Bill professed to be a Bill "to continue the Act concerning the management of Episcopal and Capitular Estates in England, and further to amend certain Acts relating to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England." In these last words they had the development of the "&c." The first clause did what was rather a wonderful thing in ecclesiastical legislation; it recited a provision out of another Act of Parliament—namely, that it should not be necessary for a dean to hold a canonry residentiary. It was something extraordinary to enact that a man could not he a dean without being something else besides; but, nevertheless, the fact was so. The clause went on to say that, in spite of not holding a canonry residentiary, the person in question should be permitted to share in those benefits which a canon residentiary might have shared. It then declared that, prior to the passing of an Act of the 5th of Victoria, the Dean of Hereford had invariably held one of the six canonries residentiary founded in that cathedral church. But it seemed that, it not being necessary to his deanery that he should hold one of those
  1450
  canonries, he did not now hold one. The logic of the clause was very curious. The provision proceeded to say that the Dean and Chapter of Hereford were trustees of a certain charity in Ledbury called the Hospital of St. Catherine, and that it had been settled by the Court of Exchequer that the warden of that hospital should be one of the canons residentiary of Hereford Cathedral. The clause went on to say that the Dean not being a canon residentiary, and the Court of Exchequer having decided that none but a canon residentiary could be warden, therefore, the Dean of Hereford should be the warden. Without giving any opinion as to the propriety of the clause, he would only remark that the Ecelesiastical Commissioners found deans to be awkward persons to deal with, and he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would find them less awkward. He hoped the Government would consent to strike out from the Bill all that was not strictly continuance.
  Sir GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not disposed to contest the point, especially at that period of the Session and that hour of the day; although ho thought the clause was unobjectionable and not without precedent. He admitted, however, that it was an inconvenient practice to introduce new matter into a continuance Bill, and as it was objected to, he would be prepared to strike out the two clauses referred to in Committee.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

PROSECUTIONS EXPENSES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISmoved the second reading of this Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that was a worse Bill than the last they had discussed. Up to the year 1846 the expenses of prosecutions were borne one-half by the Government, and the other half by counties or towns. After 1846 the Government took the whole payment into their own hands, and set to work to cut down the allowances, which he did not believe were too extensive before. By the Bill it was proposed to give to the magistrates the power of making a scale of payments in each county and town, which was

  1451
  to be sanctioned by the Secretary for the Home Department. Now, if the Home Secretary was to sanction such a scale, he should like to know why the Treasury should not make the payment? It was unjust not to do so. The Bill might he made a means of getting rid of the obligation altogether. The Treasury had nothing to do but diminish their own scale—and there was nothing to prevent them doing so—and the expense would, by degrees, be thrown upon the rateable property of the country, which would be most unjust. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he should be glad to withdraw the Bill if such a course would not be inconsistent with the engagements into which he had entered. There was a scale of allowances to witnesses, and the payments out of the Consolidated Fund were regulated according to that scale; but complaints were made in some counties that that scale was insufficient, and many representations of that nature had been made to him, especially from Yorkshire and Lancashire. The question he had to consider was whether he should be justified in recommending a general increase. But in many counties there was no complaint as to its sufficiency, and it would be a throwing away of the public money to make a general increase. Another plan was to alter the allowance in some counties, but he found it was not desirable to adopt that course. He had, therefore, suggested that a permissive power should be given to the magistrates to increase the allowances out of the county rate, and though they thought the whole amount should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund they reluctantly agreed to the proposal. It was in accordance with that engagement that he brought in the Bill. It must be remembered that the Bill was entirely permissive, and he thought the magistrates might very well be trusted with the power proposed. He, therefore, hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the measure.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTobserved that the question to be dealt with was very embarrassing, for it was alleged that there Was a failure of justice in consequence of the present low scale of allowances. He would suggest that as the insufficiency Of the present scale of allowances was mostly felt in Lancashire and Yorkshire it would be better to limit the operation of the Bill to those counties, and
  1452
  if it worked well there it could be extended afterwards.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, the dissatisfaction at the existing scale of allowances was more widely extended than his right hon. Friend seemed to think. The Commission which inquired into the subject two years ago, and of which he was a member, suggested some alterations, but certainly nothing like the provisions of the Bill, to give the Treasury power still further to reduce the scale of allowances. In one respect, at least, he hoped the Bill would be altered. If the justices sent in a new scale, and that scale was sanctioned by the Home Secretary it would become a permanent scale, while the charge upon the county-rate might afterwards be increased by a further reduction in the scale allowed by the Treasury.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, if the objection was to the Secretary of State fixing the fees he was prepared to transfer that power to the justices.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that arrangement would only tend to throw odium upon them. Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Six o'clock.