Commons Sitting of 11 February 1878

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.—Resolution [February 8] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£6,000,000, Exchequer Bonds, &c.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Factories and Workshops*[3]; Election of Aldermen (Cumulative Vote)*[71], [House counted out].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Parliamentary Electors Registration*[33]; Borough Voters* [68].

QUESTIONS.

  INDIA—INDIAN FINANCE—CIVIL EXPENDITURE.—QUESTION.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If there is any objection to lay upon the Table an approximate statement, with explanatory details, of the head of charges and amounts thereof, which will show, as Sir John Strachey states in his financial speech, that a net reduction of the net Civil Expenditure had been effected in the seven years from 1869 to 1876, amounting to no less than £1,500,000 a-year?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, there would be no objection to lay the Papers on the Table. The figures of Sir John Strachey were based on those of the last seven years.

CHINA—THE CHEFOO CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MARK STEWARTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the reply of the Indian Government with reference to the Cheefoo Convention has been received;
  1424
  and, whether there is any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House?
  MR. BOURKE,in reply, said, the answer of the Government of India had been received, and was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE—SELECT COMMITTEE, 1876–1877.—QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision on the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1876 and 1877 on the employment of soldiers and sailors in the Civil Service?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No decision has yet been arrived at, and the Treasury are in communication with other Departments of the Government on the subject.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE DARDANELLES—MOVEMENTS OF THE FLEET.—QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the very important statements in the newspapers this afternoon, Whether he can give us any information as to the passage of the Dardanelles by the Fleet?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-QUER: There has been delay in the Fleet going up to Constantinople, and I am not able at present conveniently to enter into the subject generally. Negotiations are going on; but there is no change in the intentions of the Government on the subject.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.

    THE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE.
    Resolution [8th February] reported.
    MR. C. S. PARKER,who was met with persistent interruptions, said, he had a few words to say which would not displease hon. Members opposite, being directed to what both sides of the House desired—that they should at the present juncture present a more united expression of opinion in Parlia-

    1425
    ment. He was not going to conclude with a Motion, and he was not going to offer any obstruction, nor should he detain the House more than a few minutes. The Vote of Credit had been carried in Committee by a large majority, and no doubt it would be carried in the House; but the vote of a majority, however large, was not the voice of a united Parliament, and it had been the general wish to arrive at entire unanimity. An overture for that purpose was made a few nights ago by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone); but it was not received on the other side—which was, perhaps, not to be wondered at—as it was intended. Upon this, most of the Leaders on the Opposition side of the House had abstained from voting; and a minority of 124 had recorded their votes against the demand of the Government. As a Member of that minority, he wished to take this opportunity of saying how far he went with the majority, and why he had felt bound to oppose the Vote. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Government, had undertaken to answer two Questions, one as to the policy to be pursued by Great Britain at the Conference, the other as to the use to be made of the £6,000,000. As to the policy, the assurances given by the right hon. Gentleman, without being altogether satisfactory, had so far relieved his apprehensions, that on this ground he would have seen no reason, at the present stage, and at this crisis of European politics, to refuse the Vote. But the answer to the second Question—what use was to be made of the £6,000,000?—was to the last degree scanty and vague. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the greater part of the amount might not be expended at all; the Secretary to the Treasury said it was possible that none of it, and probable that hardly any of it, would be spent; while the Secretary of State for War, evidently anxious to lay hands on it, said—"It is possible that we may not spend it all; but I may, I think, venture to say that we shall spend some of it." When the Chancellor of the Exchequer was further pressed as to how the Vote was to be spent, he indicated little else but "transport" and "boots and shoes." Now, transport to any large extent would not be required unless and until the Government were on the very verge of war.
    1426
    As to the other item, everyone knew what was meant by "boots and shoes." During the war with our American Colonies some Members of the House of Commons, being also members of the Society of Friends, objected to voting Supplies of warlike stores; but they did not object to voting money to be spent on "barley and other grain," which was wide enough to include gunpowder. No doubt, "boots and shoes" would be found to have an equally elastic meaning. However, being thus left without sufficient information, he had tried in vain, by studying the Army and Navy Estimates of former years, to learn how it was possible in little more than six weeks—for the Vote would lapse on the 31st of March—to spend in mere preparation for war so large a sum as £6,000,000. But without some such information he had not thought it right to vote the money. He could understand, though he much regretted, the curt refusal of the Government to accept the offer of the late Prime Minister, that instead of a money Vote, they should receive a Vote of Confidence in their proposed policy. For his own part, he had been prepared to vote as much money as was wanted for immediate use. But this would not satisfy the Government; though the House was sitting daily, they insisted on a vote of Credit, large enough to include not only what they wanted, but what they might or might not want. For this there was no precedent, and in financial proceedings beyond all others, the House of Commons was bound to reverence the invariable usage by which it had attained to its present position and power. Therefore, having regard to the responsibility of laying on the taxpayer what was in no way shown to be a necessary burden, and further to the serious mischief of creating a precedent, by voting a Credit of £6,000,000 in so loose a manner, he and others had felt themselves compelled to protest against such a Vote, thus presenting an appearance of disunion, which might have been avoided, had the Chancellor of the Exchequer only asked, in the usual form, for what he actually required, from time to time, for present use.
    MR. J. COWEN: I have not, during this or the previous Sessions, except for a few minutes on Thursday, taken any part in these Eastern debates. I would,

    1427
    however, be glad to be allowed the privilege, before the Vote passes its final stage, of making a few remarks. There is no duty appertaining to the office of a Representative that I approach with more hesitation, and undertake with greater reluctance, than that of appearing to interrupt the course of Business by troubling Members with any utterances of mine. I would not do so now if it had not been for some comments made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) on Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the observations I made the previous evening, and quite unintentionally, I am sure, misrepresented them. I was not present when he spoke, or I should have replied there and then. I do not profess to quote his precise words; but in effect he said I upheld the doctrine of allowing the Government of the day to have uncontrolled authority in foreign affairs—that while we might at all times fight over domestic politics, we had to accept implicitly, and without criticism, the action of any Party in power on foreign questions. I think I have correctly represented the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I do not think there is a Member in this House who will subscribe to such political gospel. It may flourish in the arbitrary atmosphere of the Russian Court, but it cannot live in England. I, at least, repudiate such a faith. I spoke on Thursday entirely without premeditation. I uttered the feelings and the thoughts that came unbidden to my lips on listening to the very grave statements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were only a poor reproduction of the world-old sentiment which a Whig statesman, historian, and poet has put into the mouth of a Roman minstrel, who, when mourning the memories of a heroic and vanished past, sung regretfully of the time
    "When none was for a Party,
    And all were for the State."
    A man speaking under strong emotions ought not to be made an offender for a word. If that rule were applied to the right hon. Gentleman, he would have a good deal to answer for. I claim no exemption, however, on that ground. The exact phrases I used did not bear, and certainly they were not intended to bear,
    1428
    the interpretation put upon them. I said that, while we might at all times discuss domestic questions fully and frankly, when national interests were imperilled—national existence possibly at stake—then we should close our ranks, forget that we are Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, remember only that we are Englishmen, and present a united front to the world. The time when, the circumstances under which, this effacement of Party landmarks was to take place, constituted all the point that was in my sentence. I did not say—I did not think—it would have been unpardonable presumption if I had—that everyone who agreed with me was a patriot, and everyone who disagreed with me was not. But what I did say was, that, in my judgment—it might not be the judgment of other people—patriotism and good sense required that the course I indicated should be followed. The general principles of national action—whether we are to try to put up a Monarchy in one country, or destroy a Republic in another—whether we are to be partizans in a strife or neutrals—must be decided by the people, and by them alone. But the policy having been assented to, its execution must be left to the Executive. If they blunder, you may censure them, dismiss them, or impeach them; but in a moment of national peril do not paralyze their movements by unnecessary complications. In our foreign relations, there are matters that it is undesirable to publish, and that cannot, with justice to other nations, be known outside the Foreign Office. The right hon. Gentleman himself admitted on Monday last that, when he asked for a Vote of £2,000,000 at the time of the Franco-German War, he did not state all, or even the chief grounds, for making that demand. To have done so in Parliament would, he said, at that time, have been attended with inconvenience, if not danger. Was it not possible that in the present crisis there were circumstances known only to Ministers that prevented them explaining fully the reasons for the course they were pursuing? The confidence that Parliament gave the late Government might be fairly granted to the present one on such an issue. We may always with advantage dilate on the broad principles, on the general issues that are at stake in foreign questions; but, when the time for action comes, it

    1429
    not unfrequently happens that the details of diplomacy, the whispers of State, supply the circumstances that determine the course of Cabinets. Reasonable politicians recognize the position of men weighted with such responsibility. I regret that so much feeling has been thrown into this dispute. Good, earnest, and devout men, both in and out of Parliament, sincerely desirous of serving what they believe to be the interests of their country and freedom, have manifested in the discussion a somewhat intolerant temper. I honour their motives, I respect their intentions; but I have not been able altogether to approve their attitude. While they have been keenly suspicious of our own Government, they have said, or insinuated, all manner of smooth things, and put the best interpretation on the doings of foreign rulers. The Czar and his Ministers have had their designs appraised by sympathizing admirers; but our own Government have been subjected to constant, and I must say, I think, undeserved innuendoes. There is no Member of this House, who, by training, instinct, and conviction is more anti-Tory than I am. There is no one who has voted more persistently against the policy of the Ministers—not even the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)—but I will trust my own countrymen, whatever their politics, before the statesmen of either Russia or Germany. I have more faith in British Ministers, whether Whig or Tory, than I have in the Chancellors of any Imperial despotism, however pretentiously pious. In considering questions of foreign policy, we often, in my judgment, form an inadequate and imperfect historical conception of the position and antecedents of this country. Some see only gold, and coal, and cotton through every national arrangement. Trade is with them the measure of every standard. Production and consumption are the end of being. I have no wish, certainly, to disparage commerce; but I do not believe in this extreme epicurean philosophy of barter. It takes a low and sordid conception of human life. Man is higher than the beast, and requires something better than a stall well littered and a trough well filled. I agree on this point with the spirit of the teachings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who has striven to lift the consideration of foreign
    1430
    politics to a higher level. The maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire which my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) declares to be an obsolete phrase, and to be ancient history, was for years, if not for generations, a settled principle of British politics. All Parties in the State acknowledged, accepted, and acted upon it. Twenty-four years ago we went to war, spent many millions of money, and sacrificed some thousands of lives to uphold it. At the conclusion of the war we entered into Treaties which guaranteed the right of Turkey to European existence, and bound this country, as one of the Great Powers, to defend that right. In 1871, the late Government re-endorsed the agreement, and, along with the other Powers, added to the contract a declaration that the arrangement should not be altered without general consent. No Government would have been warranted in reversing this uninterrupted current of national action without some mandate, direct or indirect, from the nation. I am not defending these Treaties. I am not saying that the Crimean War was either just or necessary; but what I do say is, that the maintenance of the independence of Turkey was as much a principle of our foreign, as the right of refuge is of our political, and as free trade is of our commercial, policy. The Government would not have been justified in changing this policy without some formal or informal expression of public opinion. No one can deny that an expression of opinion has been got. A man must be either blind, or deaf, or both, who does not see and hear that a great change has taken place in the minds of a considerable section of the people of this country on this subject. Many persons, and those highly influential, are averse to our former policy with respect to Turkey. Opinion is in a state of transition. It has manifested itself on this side of the House, where there are not two, but three times two Parties. It has been shown in the Ministerial Benches, and has produced its effect within the close precincts of the Cabinet. When we are in such a state of political chaos, I appeal to hon. Gentlemen on both sides whether it is either wise or desirable to be so intolerant with each other? Some have gone forward, others

    1431
    have gone back, and some have been stationary on this question. We shall best promote the interests of the nation by showing liberal consideration for each other's opinions and susceptibilities. The question before Europe is, is Turkey to be strangled; and, if so, has Russia to succeed to her possessions? We may hesitate to confront the inevitable issue, but we cannot either postpone or evade it. Are the Osmanli to be annihilated, by those who murder for the love of God, and are their places to be filled by the Muscovites and their satraps? That is the problem to which all this diplomacy leads up. There are hon. Gentlemen who will answer the interrogatory in the affirmative—who will declare that for its bad government Turkey's throat should be cut. I cannot go that length with them. I admit that the rule of the Porte in the past has combined every evil that can be covered by civil government. In times of peace it has been too weak or too apathetic to make its will respected. In times of excitement, it has enforced its edicts by a spasmodic exercise of authority—sometimes cruel, often capricious, and not unfrequently sanguinary. Industry has been discouraged; trade has been looked upon with contempt; taxation has been little better than legalized plunder; and the whole administration of the Pashas has been systematically and thievishly corrupt. Their procedure has been absolutely indefensible. But when all this has been said, it is only right to add that the Government of Turkey is no worse than that of other Asiatic and African States with whom we hold close if not cordial relations. The Governments of China and Persia are as bad; that of Egypt, which is propped up by English capitalists, is worse. Turkey has most of the vices common to all Oriental communities, and in her case those have been intensified by contact with a debased form of Christian civilization. When we remember the history—the black history—of American and West India slavery, when we recall the ferocity—for no other word will express it—with which Ireland was, and with which Poland is, ruled, we should manifest some moderation in our denunciation of the Turks. I repeat that there are Governments as venal, as tyrannical, as lawless, and as lazy who are our Allies, and with our own record in Ireland
    1432
    in the past, and in India more recently, English politicians should not be so ready to rush into hysterics over Turkish delinquencies. It is either sectarian or partizan bigotry, or imperfect historical knowledge that leads men to declare that every Mussulman is little better than a wild beast, an anti-human specimen of humanity, and that the Ottoman Empire is the foulest political organization in existence. Such exaggerations are born either of ignorance or religious rancour. It is true that the Christians in Turkey have been denied any participation in the civil administration, just as the Catholics and the Jews were in this country till recently, and as our Hindoo and Mahomedan fellow-subjects are in India to-day. But as a set-off to this exclusion, they have been relieved from the duty—the onerous duty—of bearing arms. No man is persecuted in Turkey because he is a Christian. There is there not only complete, but contemptuous, toleration. The Mussulmans look with pity upon the different sects into which Christians are divided; and while they refuse to treat them as civil equals, they scorn to persecute them as inferiors. The persistent cry about the material misery of Bulgaria has been exploded. It has been proved by a cloud of witnesses that the Bulgarian peasant is in a vastly superior position to the Russian farmer, and is the equal of the same class in this country. This fact has been so well attested that no one will attempt to gainsay it. It has been urged with force by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) and others, that even if this statement is correct, it is not an answer to the demand of the Christians for civil and political equality. It is not sufficient that they should be commercially prosperous and freed from all exclusion on the score of their religion. They require something further and more. I admit the justice of their claim. I grant the necessity for its immediate concession as completely as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. P. J. Smyth). On that ground I am entirely at one with these hon. Gentlemen. We are reminded that England sympathized with the Italians in their struggle for national existence, and we are asked, why refuse to Bulgaria what we rejoice has been conceded to the countrymen of Cavour and Garibaldi? The circum-

    1433
    stances are not analogous. In Italy there were broadly marked natural features and boundaries—the sea on the one side, the mountains on the other. The people, too, were homogeneous. They spoke the same language, held the same faith, shared the same glorious national memories. The same is the case with the Slavs in Montenegro and Servia, with the Latin races in Rou-mania, and with the Greeks; but it is not the case with the inhabitants of Turkey proper. One village there is Mahomedan, the next Christian, and the third partly Jewish. The people are dotted about in settlements like gipsies. Remove the Turkish rule entirely from Roumelia, and you simply substitute a Christian despotism for a Mahomedan. Slavs, Albanians, Greeks, adherents of the Latin Church, and of the Greek Church, Jews, Mussulmans, are all gathered together in indescribable and unhappy confusion. Heretofore, the Mahomedans in those districts have been the dominant race, because they have been the most numerous and the most tolerant. Supplant it by Christian ascendency, and you only replace one bad form of exclusive rule by another. You put the boot on the other leg. If the Mahomedans have hitherto persecuted the Christians—which, as Christians, I deny, but as citizens I admit—it is certain that the Christians would in the future persecute the Mahomedans. Remove the restraints, and the fierce fanatical passions of hostile classes will be let loose, and they will fly at each other's throats. We know how the Servians and the Roumanians persecute the Jews, how the adherents of the Greek Church persecute the followers of the Latin creed, how the Slav hates the Greek and the Greek hates the Slav. I do not say these difficulties ought to prevent the Christians from enjoying the freedom they are entitled to; but I cite the facts for the purpose of showing that the creation of a nationality amongst the heterogeneous and conflicting creeds, races, and tribes in Turkey proper is a very different thing to the creation of a nationality out of the homogeneous people of Hungary, Poland, and Italy. Persons well acquainted with the East—I do not endorse their opinion, but I give it for what it is worth—maintain that the rule of the Turk, with all its drawbacks, would, if reformed, in the
    1434
    districts where the Mahomedans predominate, be preferable to the constant struggle for mastery between the rival sects and races who hate each other more bitterly than any of them hate the Mussulman. The glowing but fictitious pictures that we have had recently drawn in this country of the magnanimous Montenegrins, the chivalrous Servians, and the meek Bulgarians, have been rudely blurred by this year's war. I fear an impartial historian will declare that the moral characteristics of the different races do not differ greatly. In a balance of virtues, the Mahomedan population—I do not mean the Pashas, or their military or their ecclesiastical leaders, but the Mussulman peasantry—are the equals, and in some respects the superiors, of their Christian neighbours. We have been often assured that they are dead or dying. But in the bloodstained spurs and passes of the Balkans they have recently given striking evidence that they live. Their courage and military skill were derided in this House last Session. It was declared, with wearying iteration, that Turkey consisted only of a ring of corrupt Pashas and a horde of semi-savage brigands from Asia. This war has shown that there is a Turkish nation beyond the denizens of the sumptuous palaces on the Bosphorus, and beyond the gathering grounds of the Bashi-Bazouks. The memorable struggle before Plevna will be associated in history with the sieges of Saragossa, Tournay, Londonderry, Antwerp, and Kars. The name of Osman will be linked with the foremost commanders of modern times. It was not the dinted, rusty scimitar of Mahomet that that gallant Moslem wielded. The skill that planned the fortifications, the dauntless courage that manned the deadly breach in face of such fearful odds—and when, the last crust consumed, the last cartridge gone, that led the final charge, was the brilliant, dazzling, fire of genuine patriotism. A people capable of such intense energy, such generous and complete obedience, such utter self-sacrifice, and such heroic devotion, have vindicated their right at least to live. The greatest want of the Turks has been their inability to adapt themselves to the constant changes and the incessant movement going on around. Their traditions, their training, and their creed have kept them stationary. While other

    1435
    nations have been persistently proselytising and progressing, the sons of Islam have stood still. They must move, or they will be swamped by the complex and competing forces that are surging around them. All intelligent Turks recognize this. And their honest efforts to improve their administration, to establish their Constitution, and their gallant struggle against their domineering enemies, ought to win for the remnants of the race another opportunity of assimilating themselves to the wants of modern life. The Turkish people are no worse to-day than when we fought for their independence in the Crimea, and the Turkish Government is better. All that has been said of their lust, cruelty, and oppression was as true in 1856, when we concluded two Treaties for their defence, or in 1871, when the late Government accentuated, endorsed, and confirmed that Treaty, as it is to-day. If Turkey is dying, there is no reason why Russia should slay her before her time. Let her die in peace. If she is dying, that is no justification for the Northern vulture to prey upon the yet quivering body of his stricken victim. If the Osmanli are driven to the other side of the Bosphorus, their dominions will become the spoil of their relentless enemies, whose fierce hussars are now streaming into Roumelia for the double purpose of a war of conquest and a religious crusade. I am not now speaking of British interests, I am not thinking of the danger Russia may be to our Indian Empire; but I ask English Liberals if they have ever seriously considered the political consequences of an Imperial despotism bestriding Europe—reaching, indeed, from the waters of the Neva to those of the Amour—of the Head of the Greek Church, the Eastern Pope, the master of so many legions, having one foot on the Baltic, planting the other on the Bosphorus. When icebergs float into Southern latitudes, they freeze the air for miles around. Will not this political iceberg, when it descends upon the genial shores of the Mediterranean, wither the young shoots of liberty that are springing up between the crevices of the worn-out fabrics of despotism? Is it the part of English Liberals to encourage these sanguinary apostles of Christianity—who are now swarming from Sarmatian swamps and Scythian wilds, in their raid into South-
    1436
    eastern Europe—to plead for this coarsest phantom of social and political life? The Russian people are an inoffensive, unaggressive, and kindly race—not educated, superstitious, and somewhat intemperate. It is certainly not of them that I am afraid; but there is a ring of Christian Pashas at St. Petersburg as corrupt and cruel as the ring of Mahomedan Pashas at Constantinople. They have always been the camp-followers of civilization—as merciless and unscrupulous as camp-followers usually are. They have the ferocity of barbarism with the duplicity of civilization. Their first word is gold, the second the sword, the third Siberia. Bribery, bayonets, banishment, are the triple pillars upon which their politico-military-ecclesiastical system stands. I have no wish to generate antipathies towards either the Russian or any other people. But, in the presence of existing circumstances, it is necessary that every man should speak the honest convictions of his mind; and I cannot regard this handing over of two-thirds or three-fourths of the Continent of Europe to an aggressive military, ecclesiastical autocracy, otherwise than as dangerous to human freedom, peace, and civil progress.
    MR. RATHBONEremarked that he had not spoken a word in the House on the Eastern Question either last year or this. He had abstained from speaking because he felt that the majority of the Government were sincerely anxious to preserve peace, and that they had no intention of fighting for the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey. He wished now, however, to notice some of the observations of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen), and he should speak as an Englishman, and not allude to either cotton or corn. The House and the Government ought to act in their collective capacity as Englishmen in the same way as they did as individual Englishmen. The other day he was speaking to a foreign diplomatist, who said—"England has lost to a great extent her influence in the affairs of the Continent because we cannot understand how Englishmen, who, as individuals, are so self-respecting and quiet in their demeanour, should, when dealing with public affairs, have been of late so violent, so riotous, and so nervous about their own position." He thought that, whether as individuals

    1437
    or as a nation, we ought to be guided by the rule—"In quietness and in confidence shall be our strength." It was because he thought the Government and individuals had not been guided of late by this rule that he ventured to make these few remarks. The hon. Member for Newcastle spoke—he thought with some justice—of the constant suspicions of our own Government that had been expressed; but, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman was wrong when he went on to call upon us to suspect every Government except our own and that of Turkey. Was it wise to go on with this constant policy of distrust? How did wise men act towards one another? If they were obliged to act with a man they could not always rely upon, did they go on treating him as a rogue? Certainly not Then why should they do it with foreign nations? Putting aside the past, it seemed to him that there were in Europe Governments whose interests, like our own, required the establishment of peace and good government and as much freedom as was possible for the Christians in the East. Why should we not consult with those Governments as to some basis on which we could act in the Conference? In his judgment, we did not rely sufficiently on the greatness of England. Englishmen in general, and perhaps the Government, did not recognize the increase in the power of England that had arisen from the changes which had occurred in navigation of late. When ships were propelled by sails or by steam, and had to rely upon coaling stations, a Fleet would often be delayed at Malta or Gibraltar for several days or even weeks: but now ships took their coal supply with them, and were directed in their movements by telegraph, and our preponderating naval power could be directed with rapidity and certainty on any point where it was needed. Under these circumstances we should not be so nervous; foreign nations knew that if they attacked any of England's vital interests they would have England on their back.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he cordially concurred in that part of the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), in which that hon. Gentleman said that it was the duty of Englishmen to combine for the protection of the interests of England as Englishmen. He (Mr. Parnell) simi-
    1438
    larly thought it was the special duty of Englishmen at that juncture to act in accordance with that invitation; but he would remind hon. Members that they were not all Englishmen in that House. There were in that Assembly some Irishmen, who were equally entitled to consider what their interests were. On that rule he had endeavoured to act from the very first with reference to this question. When the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) gave Notice of his Amendment, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that, as it was of a Party character, he, as an Irish Member, could have nothing to do with it. Therefore he drew up a resolution, which was accepted by the Party to which he belonged, to the effect that they would abstain from voting on that Amendment. But that Amendment having been subsequently withdrawn, he thought he might be permitted to carry out his policy of acting in the interests of Ireland in the further stages of the question; and, on the ground that Ireland would have to pay a portion of the £6,000,000, he had voted against the Vote of Credit. The interests of the English Empire were involved in this question to a very considerable extent. England had important interests in India, and if Russia took up a powerful position at Constantinople, or put herself in the way of obtaining it, there could be no doubt that the interests of a trading country like England would be threatened in the East; and if Russia were to find herself in such a position as to desire it, she could shut England, France, and Italy out of the Suez Canal, and arrogate to herself the right of trading with India alone. The question, however, to be considered was this—was Russia likely to be in this powerful position? Although that contingency was not very probable, yet there were other reasons which made it desirable that England should view with extreme jealousy any strengthening of Russia in the Mediterranean. England had always been unfair to Russia. England had always opposed Russian interests, and kept her back from enjoying her rights in that sea, and had endeavoured to cripple her in every way. England undertook the Crimean War against Russia, and spent a vast amount of blood and treasure. It was, therefore, natural that Russia should be

    1439
    jealous of England, and not look upon her as a friend. In his opinion, the policy of the Government, in so far as they had done anything to keep watch and guard over Russian intentions, had been a prudent and a just one, bearing in mind the statement of the hon. Member for Newcastle, that they were only to look at English interests in this matter. But, taking a wider view, considering that Turkey was not a European Power, that she occupied a position to which she was not entitled save by the strong hand, and that in a variety of ways she was regarded as a nuisance to Europe, then we might come to the conclusion that it was the duty of England to have adopted a wiser policy, and to have made Russia a friend. He might observe, however, that he was fully inclined to think that if England were placed in the same position as Turkey—if she were struggling for existence against a tremendous Power—the vengeance of England and Englishmen upon the innocent cause would not be less than the action which Turkey had taken with regard to the Bulgarians. It was true that there had been hangings at Adrianople after short trials; but the principal atrocities had been committed by the Bashi-Bazouks and other irregular forces. But when the American Colonists rose in revolt, Hessians and other mercenaries were let loose on the women of the American cities by the deliberate policy of the English Government. That was also the case in Ireland, in Wexford, when a portion of the people rebelled. We should not, therefore, blame the Turks so much for what they had done. The right hon. Member for Greenwich, in his speech at Oxford the other day, blamed the Irish Members for not marching shoulder to shoulder with the Liberal Party in support of freedom, and stated that the Bulgarians had suffered horrors a hundred times worse than Ireland had ever undergone. But if the right hon. Gentleman had carefully studied the history of Ireland, he would have discovered that Ireland had suffered more at the hands of the English Government than had the Bulgarians at the hands of Turkey. The poet Spenser had written of a part of Ireland, for the information of his Royal Mistress, that hardly one living thing was to be seen on the face of the earth, and that if the people
    1440
    could by chance get some green food like water cresses to eat, they used to creep forth from their hiding-places in the night to eat it, and that there was scarcely anything but corpses all over the land. But there were some Bulgarians left—a great many—but no attempt had been made by the Turkish Government to destroy the Bulgarian nationality in the way the English had done in Ireland. He denied that the wrongs of the Bulgarians were a hundred-fold greater than those suffered by the Irish people. The Irish nation was invited to join the English Party to fight shoulder to shoulder in the cause of freedom. The Irish people in times past had not been ashamed to fight for their own freedom. In that way they felt as much entitled to freedom as the Bulgarians. If, however, he was to join any Party in that House for the purpose of assisting the Bulgarians in fighting for freedom, he must first be sure that that Party would not at the first touch of steel throw down their arms and run away, as the front Opposition Bench did the other night. Looking back to the first moment when that Eastern Question arose, he could not help seeing that the Opposition had never been sincere in their action, and in enforcing those principles which they said they had at heart. Had he supported the Amendment, he would have been placed in a most difficult position by its withdrawal. Hence he thought it wise not to vote upon the question at all. Last Session, when the right hon. Member for Greenwich brought forward his Resolutions, the first thing was to "whittle them down;" the most important were withdrawn, and the fight that followed was of such a nature that it could only be called a sham battle. The other night, when he was walking out of the House on the first division, he was extremely horrified to find that the noble Lord the Leader on the front Opposition bench was following him. The Government, on the other hand, would do well to consider their real position. They had asked for £6,000,000, a sum which would be entirely inadequate if they had any warlike purpose in view. Although he believed there were many hon. Gentlemen opposite who desired to fight Russia—not to fight Russia themselves, but to send others to fight her with all speed—yet he did not believe

    1441
    that the Prime Minister ever intended to fight Russia, but by a policy of bluster and brag to frighten her and keep her away from Constantinople. If they really wished to intimidate Russia, they must tell her that they would fight her. In those speeches made by the Premier at the Guildhall and elsewhere, much was said as to what would be done did the Russians reach Constantinople, and now they had reached that city the most the Government did was to send the Fleet to the Dardanelles and ask for a Vote of £6,000,000. If nothing more was done, it was certain that the Russians would laugh at them, and they would be held in contempt by Irishmen and all the Continental nations. He could conceive one reason why the Vote was asked for. The Straits were narrow, and any Power that held them might easily prevent the Meet from coming back. Perhaps these £6,000,000 were to bribe the Russians to let the Fleet back again. If be thought that war was imminent, that the Government really intended to go to war—although he did not think such was the case—he should very seriously consider whether it would become his duty to vote for war or against it. On the one hand, the miseries which war entailed would influence him; and, on the other, he should be swayed by the fact that if England was at war, the Irish Representatives would have an opportunity of bringing forward various questions and getting them settled. The opinion of the Irish people, so far as England was concerned, was at present worth nothing. They might hold meetings in Dublin until they were black in the face, and England would take no heed. All Ireland might be united, but the English people cared nothing about it. A war with Russia would direct the attention of the Government to Irish evils, and influence them to redress them. If they were asked to vote for war, or against it, it would be the duty of every Irishman to balance carefully in his mind if he would vote for the interests of Ireland or for the cause of humanity generally.
    MR. ANDERSONsaid, it was not his intention to offer any reply to the speech to which the House had just listened, neither was it his intention to offer any further opposition to the Vote. He only wished to express, in a few words, the ex-
    1442
    treme pain with which he had listened to the speech, eloquent as it was, of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). He had himself been once or twice in the position of hearing the sentiments which he uttered loudly cheered from the opposite benches, while they were received in grim silence upon his own side, and he had never felt so doubtful of the correctness of his opinions as he did on these occasions. If other hon. Members felt like him in that respect, he was sure that the hon. Members for Pembroke, Hull, and Finsbury, and especially the hon. Member for Newcastle, must at the present have very uncomfortable feelings indeed. He had no doubt that when they came to reflect more calmly over the speeches they had made, they would regret the line they had taken in addressing speeches entirely to win the cheers of Members on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle claimed to have made a patriotic speech. It appeared to him (Mr. Anderson) that the speech of the hon. Member was not founded on true patriotism. Not only were the sentiments of that speech not truly patriotic, but they were very ill-timed. The hon. Gentleman appeared to have chosen for the delivery of a carefully-prepared oration in exaltation of the Turks the very day when, according to the news that had been received, the Turk had administered to this country something like a soufflet. Perhaps the news might be entirely untrue, like that which was received on Thursday, and which had frightened hon. Members opposite so very much, and some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition bench. But if the news of that day were true, it proved that the present position of affairs was a result which a year ago had been foreseen by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, who had, about that time, pointed out to the House that one of the greatest dangers of the position of isolation in which the Government were placing the country in regard to the other Powers of Europe was that Russia and Turkey might make a peace between themselves, without in the least consulting the wishes or interests of this country. That appeared to be exactly what had taken place, and, if so, it was a very ill-timed opportunity for the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen)

    1443
    to take to speak in exaltation of the Turk.
    MR. E. J. REEDsaid, he should not have addressed the House had it not been for the observation of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who seemed to have fallen into a muddle. Nothing could be more lowering in his (Mr. Reed's) belief to the character of hon. Members of that House than to make speeches for the purpose of being cheered on the opposite side of the House to that on which they usually sat. But it must happen in times of crisis and difficulty, when opinions were divided in a marked and striking manner, that hon. Members speaking on one side would elicit cheers from those to whom they were ordinarily opposed in politics. But he appealed to the House whether he did not seek to do most ample justice to the opinions which were held by the Opposition, and whether he did not go out of his way to rebuke what he considered the unfairness which had been often shown on the other side of the House to the greatest minds and the greatest men on his side. What he said the other night he still adhered to—that they ought to remove out of the way the mere money question, and discuss the proceedings of the Government on the principles of their policy. He thought great misapprehension existed upon the Opposition side of the House as to the patriotic course taken by Members of the front Bench. He thought the most patriotic course was to remove all difficulties out of the way of the Government, and to leave the responsibility with them. He fully sympathized with those who had committed themselves to the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford; but it was left to their own judgment to vote as they thought fit, and he thought the conduct of those who refused to vote showed a great amount of prudence. We were now in a position in which angry discussion and recrimination would be unwise. He doubted whether there was a single man who, viewing dispassionately the position, could question that the Government were placed in a position of the greatest possible difficulty, and that it behoved the Opposition to recognize that difficulty, which had been arrived at through the Government pursuing that policy of neutrality which Liberal Members had con-
    1444
    tinually urged upon them. It was their duty from that time forward to give the most hearty support to the Government in this their time of great difficulty and delicacy, and he, for one, believed that the more support they received from that side of the House the more likely would they be to steer clear of the very extraordinary dangers of the present time.
    MR. WADDYthought the time had passed when anything would be gained by discussing the errors of the Government. Whatever might have been their action up to the present time, they would all of them be of opinion that they were now in the presence of circumstances of the greatest possible gravity, and that nothing on earth could be so unwise as to indulge either, on the one side or the other, in personal recriminations, or in anything which partook of the character of violence and passion. He felt it to be his duty to vote against the Grant of £6,000,000, and having done that, he considered that the responsibility of taking the money and of spending it rested, not upon those who had voted against it, but on those who had voted the other way, and that it would not be patriotic on their part to place any further obstruction in the path of the Government. But he was bound to say that, considering what they had heard and the circumstances that had now arisen, it became more and more difficult for some of them to understand the propriety of some of the later acts of the Government. He had heard with some little surprise the statement that had been made by the right hon. Member for Greenwich, to the effect that he considered, under the circumstances revealed on Friday, that the Government were entirely warranted in instructing the Admiral to take a portion of the British Fleet to the Bosphorus. [Mr. GLADSTONE: With the permission of the Porte.] In any case he ventured to consider it a wrong, not a wise, step. He had no intention of discussing the question in an angry vein, but he desired to point out the radical fallacy underlying such a course of conduct. They were told it was to be sent to protect British subjects residing in Constantinople. How were they going to do that? Were these men-of-war to patrol the streets, or was it the intention to land men who would take upon themselves the duties of the police of Constanti-

    1445
    nople? What on earth was the Fleet to do when it got there? They were told that the Fleet was ordered to the Bosphorus to protect British subjects residing at Constantinople. That vague term sounded very well; but how were men-of-war to protect them, and against whom?—the Turkish Government or a mad mob? Was it proposed to land men from the men-of-war who should take upon themselves to some extent the duties of the police of Constantinople? But the Russians were as much entitled to be the police of Constantinople as we were, and if they did that, they would give great strength to the argument of Russia, that if England were going to approach Constantinople, and could not trust them—if England were going to approach it by sea, they would come and take possession of it from the other side. There was one point to which he wished to direct attention. One of the evil effects of asking for the Vote had already been seen. It had already been said that great numbers of people were in favour of it. He did not deny that there was a war Party in the country, and also in that House, and was of opinion that charges had been made which were neither becoming the dignity of the House or of the nation. He did not think any man in the House doubted the way in which the feeling which had prevailed at these meetings had been got up. Whatever might have been the intentions of the Government or their motives, there could be no doubt that they had misled a large portion of the people, and that going to war had been the object of many of the meetings which had taken place. And what had been the result? Language had been used in that House in reference to the Sovereign of a friendly Power which was altogether unworthy of its dignity, and he blushed for his country when he listened to such speeches as had been delivered by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hall) and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). If hon. Members differed from the policy of the Emperor of Russia, he hoped that in such an important crisis they would be able to moderate their tone and treat him with some amount of consideration. He was now charged with everything evil. He was called a breaker of Treaties, a man whose word was not to be taken, and he was even charged with the fate
    1446
    that had befallen Poland. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members who cheered seemed to have forgotten their history. The partition of Poland began in 1772, and was completed in 1791. The rebellion broke out in 1830, and 14 years later the Emperor Nicholas came to this country, and nothing was then thought too good for him. Long after, in 1874, the present Emperor of Russia came over to this country, and on the 19th of May these were the words addressed to him in the presence of many hon. Members whom he now saw present—
    "We recognize in your Majesty the enlightened Ruler of a great Empire, and we especially desire to call to remembrance on this occasion the great boon you have conferred on your people by the abolition of serfdom throughout your vast dominions; by which act, so consonant with the sympathies of Englishmen, the liberty and happiness of so many millions of your Majesty's subjects have been enhanced, as well as the national prosperity of your Empire. We fervently trust that the visit of your Majesty will tend to cement the friendly relations between the two countries, and we pray that your Majesty will long be spared to reign over your people."
    That was the way in which the Emperor was addressed before all the magnates of the land. [Cries of "Who did it?"] It was done, and at the Guildhall, and, as he was challenged, he would say who were present. There were the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Duke of Richmond, the right hon. Benjamin Disraeli, Sir Stafford North-cote, Mr. Cross, Lord Derby, Mr. Gathorne Hardy, the Marquess of Salisbury, Lord John Manners, the Judges, several of the Bishops, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and two personages even more powerful, Mr. Hart Dyke and Mr. Winn; also Mr. W. H. Smith, Captain Pim, and Sir H. Drummond Wolff. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: And the right hon. Member for Bradford.] All the personages he had named went on that occasion to meet that Potentate, and were pleased to behold him wearing the Ribbon of the Garter presented to him by the Queen on his breast, and yet now no language was too strong, or too violent, or too bitter to use towards him. He thought that in future it would be well if we endeavoured to treat Sovereigns who were still our Allies with greater courtesy and consideration.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I do not propose to add anything to this debate,

    1447
    so far as it has partaken of a controversial character, and, indeed, I am reluctant to occupy the time of the House for a single moment. My objections to the Vote, which is now reported, were of a character too strong to be satisfied by anything but a distinct and deliberate opposition both by speech and by vote. By the kindness of the House I enjoyed the fullest liberty of offering my observations to the House, and having done so I feel that my responsibility is at an end, and that it would not be becoming the dignity of the House or of hon. Members to attempt to worry, by repeated debates and divisions, a Government who are engaged in transactions undoubtedly of an anxious and difficult kind; and, therefore, Sir, I hope we may consider this question nearly at an end. But I wish to be permitted to say a word in reference to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen)—if I may still call him so—made with regard to a remark which I made upon a former speech of his. I have gathered very imperfectly the explanation of my hon. Friend; but, as far as I could gather it, I heard it with satisfaction. I certainly stated with all the accuracy I could what he appeared to me to have said, and he has stated with all the accuracy he could what I said. That, however, is not so important as the position in which our relative opinions are at present left; and taking the speech he has made to-day as the measure of his opinions, I do not see that there is, or can be in principle, much difference between us. My hon. Friend says Party ought to give way to patriotism, and undoubtedly that is so; but he admits, on the other hand, that patriotism may permit, and may require hon. Gentlemen, in matters of foreign policy, to question even proposals made by the Government of the day. If that be so, we are quite agreed on that principle; and the only question that can arise is as to the application of the principle to particular instances; wherein I suppose we must, as he says, practise tolerance one with another with regard to the conclusions at which we may arrive. My hon. Friend went on to question certain statements which he said I had made against the Turkish Government and the Turkish people, and which, if I understand him aright, were due either to gross ignorance or
    1448
    religious rancour. I naturally feel much indebted to my hon. Friend for the manner in which he has been pleased to take notice of anything that falls from me; but I am not going to reply to my hon. Friend. Until a very recent date I was perfectly ready to maintain in this House, and out of this House, everything that I have said, and everything I have written concerning the Turkish system and the Turkish Government; but I do not care to repeat those hard speeches now. It appears to me it would be singularly ill-judged in point of taste and feeling, if, simply because my hon. Friend accuses me of gross ignorance and religious rancour, I were to go back on accusations against the Turkish Government, which may have been, but are not now necessary, and which, in my view, it was necessary to urge when the Turkish was a great military Power, exercising that power for purposes which I thought disastrous to mankind; but which it would be most ungenerous and unmanly to dwell upon now, when Turkey lies prostrate and beaten. My hon. Friend may exult as much as he chooses in any censure of that kind, which he is quite welcome to multiply as much as he pleases without the smallest fear of any objection on my part. As to the speech of my hon. Friend in general, I do not know whether it was originally intended for this occasion, or whether it may not have been intended for some other occasion; but it is evident that it was thought better to produce it now than that such a valuable composition should blush unseen; and this I will say, that in my opinion it was not well adapted to the purpose to which I think all our speeches ought to be directed—namely, that of soothing excited feeling and softening animosities rather than exasperating them. I greatly doubt whether, if that speech becomes widely known beyond the walls of this House, it will tend to increase the confidence of Europe in the sobriety of the English mind. I hope that in this House that stability and that sobriety are not in danger. My hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Waddy) says that there is a war Party in this country—and certainly there are passions excited in no small degree in various quarters—but I trust that at least those who feel themselves impelled in that direction will keep their impulses under

    1449
    the government of their reason, and will ask themselves what are the purposes of any war into which they may desire to enter; what are to be the means by which it is to be carried on; and what are the conclusions they expect to arrive at from it. There was an ancient hero who described his position under particular circumstances in these words—
    "Arma amens capio, nec sat rationis in armis."
    Unhappily the case so represented is a case which, although one would suppose that the rational character of human nature would always preclude it, is one of the commonest cases in the history of the world. I am bound to say I have, however, the fullest confidence in the character of my countrymen, and I have not the least hesitation in saying, with regard to those I see opposite to me, that I feel sure that in this great and critical moment they will say nothing and do nothing to increase any tendency that may exist amongst them towards inflammatory feeling; but will do all in their power to keep sentiments of that nature within the guidance of reason and judgment.
    MR. MACDONALDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had made a very clever but a very mischievous speech. It contained principles which hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they came to consider them, would deeply regret having applauded. He would oppose the proposal by his vote and by every other means at his command. The hon. Member for Newcastle would do well to consider from whom he had those cheers that greeted him. He regretted that at a time when large numbers of our countrymen were suffering from want of employment the Government had asked for that Vote. They had not said a word to show there was-any necessity for it.
    MR. STORERsaid, it appeared to him that the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had been misinterpreted, as he did not understand that his hon. Friend had spoken with personal disrespect of the Emperor of Russia. Of course, the hon. Member had spoken of him as the Head of a system of tyranny the most despotic on the face of the earth; and as the Head of a Church, the most superstitious debased, and intolerant of any that disgraced the sacred name of Christianity.
    MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, he ventured to hope that now the Government were furnished with the resources which they had judged to be necessary for the maintenance of our Forces abroad, they would pursue a calm and moderate, but, at the same time, an independent policy in the negotiations in which they were engaged. He hoped that the people of this country would resume an attitude more tranquil and more dignified than had been displayed in many of the meetings which had taken place on this question. He would suggest to those who were engaged in getting up agitation out-of-doors upon the question that the conditions on which the neutrality of this country rested were conditions which it must be the aim of every Power interested in commerce and navigation in the East to maintain. The interests of England were those which belonged to her as a great maritime Power. Let the people of England, therefore, remember that if their merchant navy was more exposed to the attacks of privateers than the merchant navy of any other country, it at the same time furnished resources for the development of a fighting Navy, which, in the event of war, would not be rivalled by any other Power.
    DR. WARDsaid, he had been asked as a matter of justice to recur to a few words which had been used by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard). With regard to the deputation of medical students that had waited on the Secretary of State for the Home Department the other day, the right hon. Gentleman had said that he thought that the recent demonstration was "a most deplorable exhibition;" and he went on to say that the Home Secretary had been wrong in receiving those who were only looking forward for an opportunity of exercising their profession. In his (Dr. Ward's) opinion, that was a most unfair charge to bring against a number of young men, who, in their collective capacity, had thought it right in this grave crisis to express their confidence in Her Majesty's Government; and he had the authority of the persons who were so unjustly assailed, to say that the allegation of the right hon. Gentleman was quite unfounded. In reference to the general question, speaking as a Catholic, he asserted that the truth was that the

    1451
    Catholic subjects of Turkey had always been treated by that Power with the greatest tolerance, whereas the Catholic subjects of Russia had endured the grossest oppression. Was it wonderful, therefore, that the Irish Catholics should hesitate before they gave their vote in favour of Russian aggression? In his opinion, the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), and of a certain section of the Liberal Party who were so fond of the Greek Church, had helped Russia in her assault upon the liberties of Europe. We were not afraid of Turkey, but we had grave reason to fear Russia; because, wherever the latter placed her foot, she crushed down all that the Liberals of this country had been fighting for for years. It was a matter for the deepest regret that in the hour of their country's danger, the Liberal Party should have been found ranged upon the side of Russian oppression and despotism.
    MR. J. G. HUBBARDsaid, he had found no fault with the medical students for expressing their confidence in Her Majesty's Government; but what he had taken exception to was that they had passed a resolution, amid vociferous cheers, in favour of war with Russia. He regretted to see a band of young men belonging to such an admirable profession taking that position; but he approved their passing a Vote of Confidence in Her Majesty's Government, inasmuch as he had himself voted in their favour.
    MR. BIGGARconsidered that the question of whether the country should go to war or not was of the most serious importance. They were asked to vote this money as a Vote of Confidence in the Government. Now, he did not think that the Government was altogether unworthy of their confidence; but, at the same time, he did not think them worthy of the full confidence of that House. Much fault could not be found with the despatches of Lord Derby; but, unfortunately, other persons—especially Sir Henry Elliot and Mr. Layard—took the opportunity of telling the Turks that these despatches did not represent the opinions of the Cabinet, and that in the end England would come to their assistance. The effect of that was to lead the Turks to defy the Russians, and to refuse the reforms demanded of them.
    1452
    He, therefore, thought the Government were much to blame for not having disowned Mr. Layard and Sir Henry Elliot more emphatically. Then there were the speeches of Lord Beaconsfield, who had spoken slightingly of the Bulgarian atrocities and held up the Turks to admiration. Both in that House and in his speech at the Guildhall, the noble Lord had encouraged the Turks, and for that reason he could not give the Government unqualified confidence. However, they had now got the Vote, and the responsibility for its appropriation must rest with them. They had not yet explained, though they ought to have done it, how they intended to spend it. If the country did not go to war, they could not need it; and if it did go to war, it would be useless for the purposes of the Army; while the Navy would now, as in the Crimean War, be useless against Russia. They talked of fighting Russia. How were they going to do it? They would require far more than the 32,000 they had in the Crimea. Moreover, they were deficient in superior officers, and the troops were for the most part boys. In fact, before the country went to war, they should reconstruct their military system, or they would suffer the severest disaster, as, indeed, would have been the case in the Crimea, if it had not been for their Allies. He should recommend the Government to make peace on as moderate terms as they could, and then to apply themselves to the re-modelling of the military and naval system of the country in such a manner as might at some future time afford a fair chance of engaging in war with success.
    Resolution agreed to.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Moved, "That towards raising the Supply-granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury he authorized to raise any sum, not exceeding £6,000,000, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds, Exchequer Bills, or Treasury Bills."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he understood that the immediate effect of the Resolution would be to add £,6,000,000—or whatever portion of £6,000,000 it was found necessary to use—to the Debt

    1453
    of the country. What he wanted to know was, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to raise by taxation the amount which would have to be raised in consequence of that Vote? for he, for one, was very much opposed to leading the country into supporting what was called a "spirited foreign policy," without a full understanding that it would have to be paid for by taxation. It seemed a very simple thing for most people to support a "spirited foreign policy," when they had not to put their hands into their pockets to pay for it; and therefore, for his part, seeing that the House had determined to grant the money, he should contend that the Government should place the thing fairly before the country—that the means by which it was to be met was by taxation, so that it might be judged by the country in that shape.
    THE CHANOELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Nothing can be fairer than what my hon. Friend asks. I can assure him that I should be the last person to think of raising such a sum as that with which we are now dealing by making anything like a permanent addition to the National Debt. But I want the Committee to observe that we are now within six weeks or a little more of the close of the financial year, and that it is absolutely impossible for us to put on any new taxation that would be worth anything between this and the end of March. It is, therefore, necessary to make some temporary arrangement, especially as we do not know the amount that may be required; but, when I bring forward the Financial Statement for next year, I shall be prepared to state what we propose to do. I may say that, even in the event of the whole £6,000,000 being spent, we do not intend that the re-payment shall extend over more than three years at the outside, and that, of course, would leave the re-payment at £2,000,000 a-year.
    MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to learn that the re-payment of the bonds was not intended to extend over more than three years. He had also observed with satisfaction an alteration in the Resolution—that the £6,000,000 should be raised by Exchequer bonds, with the power added of raising them by bills.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the great mass of the people of the country were in a bad state, and the money ought,
    1454
    therefore, to be laid on the National Debt, as it was for a purpose which, if beneficial at all, would be beneficial to posterity.
    Motion agreed to.

    (1.) Resolved, That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise any sum, not exceeding £6,000,000, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds, Exchequer Bills, or Treasury Bills.

    (2.) Resolved, That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued shall be paid off at par at the expiration of any period not exceeding three years from the date of such Bonds.

    (3.) Resolved, That the interest of all such Exchequer Bonds shall be paid half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof.

    (4.) Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1878, the sum of £6,000,000 be granted, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

    Resolutions to be reported upon Wednesday;
    Committee to sit again upon Wednesday.

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
    (Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

    [BILL 3.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Assheton Cross.)
    MR. TENNANT,in rising to move—
    "That in any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, it is desirable, in the interests alike of employers and employed, that all trades and manufactures employing the same class of labour should he placed upon the same footing, and under the same protective and restrictive regulations,"
    said: I labour under great disadvantage in bringing forward this Motion after the exciting and engrossing discussion we have just had, and I feel, Sir, that I owe some apology to the House for venturing to bring it forward at all, for the subject itself is not an attractive one, and I am afraid I shall tax the patience of the House while I enter into those detailed statistics which are necessary to make my position intelligible; but I will not trespass longer than is unavoidable, and I trust that the importance of the subject, affecting, as it

    1455
    does, all our trades and manufactures, in which many hundred millions of capital are invested, and upon the prosperity of which the working classes depend either directly or indirectly for their livelihood, will be considered as some excuse for the course I am taking. I am told, Sir, that the form of procedure I have adopted may be considered as in some degree hostile or antagonistic to the measure. I beg distinctly to disclaim any such object or intention. I am too painfully conscious, from every day's practical experience, of the inconveniences and disadvantages resulting from the present law, not to welcome with satisfaction any remedial measure that may be proposed; and although this Bill does not, as the terms of my Motion imply, fully meet all that is required, it consolidates and simplifies the law almost beyond the possibility of misinterpretation, and removes and modifies several of the inequalities which now exist. It, however, leaves untouched many grievances which, in my opinion, operate most unfairly and unjustly; and it is to remedy these, and to place, as far as practicable, all manufacturing occupations upon the same footing, that is the sole object of my Motion. There are at present 15 Acts of Parliament in force regulating the manufacturing trades generally, in addition to several special Acts, such as the Agricultural Children Act, the Mines Regulation Act, the Metalliferous Mines Act, and others relating to particular industries. Under these 15 Acts the general trades may be divided into three classes—first, the textile, such as cotton, wool, flax, silk, and which are now regulated by the Factory Act of 1874; second, bleach and dye works, and other trades kindred to textile, iron works, paper works, and almost every other manufacture where more than 50 hands are employed, all of which are regulated by the Factory Extension and Workshops Acts, 1865 to 1870; and third, all handicraft trades employing less than 50 hands, which are governed by what is known as the Workshops Regulation Act, 1870. The total number of persons employed in the various trades under these three classes—men, women, and children—may be taken, according to the last reliable Census, at about 2,500,000, 1,000,000 of whom are under Class 1,
    1456
    and the remaining 1,500,000 under Classes 2 and 3. Of the 1,000,000, rather over two-thirds are women and children, and the rest are men. Of the 1,500,000, the proportions are very nearly reversed, there being but 500,000—or rather over one-third—women and children. There are, however, several trades in Classes 2 and 3 whore the proportions of women and children range as high, and in some classes higher, than in the textile trades—such as the manufacture of pottery, paper, tobacco, hats and caps, millinery, &c.—in some of which women and children comprise more than 90 per cent of the total number employed. So that no general deduction can be drawn from this classification of the proportions of the different persons employed in the various classes, and the discrepancies and anomalies which are created by the regulations and provisions under these Acts are many and various. They relate not only to the age, education, and employment of children, the hours of labour and limit of work, hours for meals and rest, and the number and times of holidays, but also to sanitary and protective provisions, which vary greatly in all the three classes; and I will, in a few sentences, shortly refer to each of these points of difference. Under the Act of 1874, which affects only the textile trades, no child is allowed to work under the age of 10, and then only for half-a-day, either in the morning or afternoon on alternate days, coupled in each case with a compulsory school attendance; and working full-time is forbidden until the age of 14, unless the child has attained a certain educational standard at the age of 13; whereas in the trades, under Classes 2 and 3, a child may begin work at the age of 8 years, and work full-time at 13, irrespective of any educational test. In coal mines, the child may work full-time at 12 years; and in agricultural labour, there is no limit of age at which the child may not work. As regards education, children employed under Classes 1 and 2 are under similar regulations. If the morning and afternoon system be adopted, the child must attend school the other half of the day for three hours. If the alternate system, it must attend every other day for five hours, and the school must be certified as efficient; whereas, under Class 3, education may be at any

    1457
    school, and 10 hours per week is the limit; in coal mining, 20 hours in a fortnight; but in metalliferous mining, and in all other trades, there does not appear to be any regulation whatever. No doubt the Education Act of 1876, which makes a certain standard of education, or a certain number of school attendances, a condition precedent to the employment of children in any manufacturing labour, and fixing the age at 10, will remedy the greatest of these anomalies; but it does not remedy the anomaly of half-time, which still affects certain industries, nor the requirement as to the educational test at the age of 13, and this requirement is most injuriously affecting the textile trade, without any corresponding advantages. It is found by practical experience that a great proportion of children of the age of 13 are not able to pass the examination prescribed, and the consequence in nearly all cases is not that they continue to attend school, and work half-time, as heretofore—for there is no such compulsory power—but they either idle about, doing nothing, or, if there are other trades in the immediate neighbourhood where this requirement is not in force, they generally work there—a system which operates greatly to the loss and disadvantage, not only of the employer—who has taught the child his trade and is then deprived of its labour, but also to the child itself—who is thus driven to learn another trade at the most critical period of its life. As an illustration of the actual working, at one of our largest manufacturing establishments in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where between 2,000 and 3,000 men, women, and children are employed, I may mention that the proportion of children who cannot pass the educational standard was last year equal to 62 per cent of the total children employed, and the loss in wages alone is between £11 and £12 a-year for each child. Now, this, Sir, is of serious consequence to the head of the family at all times, and more especially in these depressed times of short-time and lower wages. The absurdity, too, of this exceptional requisition is the more glaring when it is considered that the children under the half-time system must all have completed their full number of school attendances, and that generally the most stupid or careless child at school is often physi-
    1458
    cally the best fitted for, and the most capable of, work. As regards the hours of labour and for meals and rest, in the textile trade, under the Act of 1871, the limit of work is 10 hours per day, and six on Saturday, with half-an-hour extra for cleaning, making a total of 56½ hours per week. But there must be an interval of two hours each day for meals and rest, and there must be no continuous stretch of work beyond four hours at any time. Under Classes 2 and 3 the day's work is extended to 10½ hours, while the hours for meals and rest are diminished by half-an-hour, and the continuous stretch is extended to five hours in Class 2, and in Class 3 there is no limit at all. The period in which work can be carried on in all textile trades is 12 hours per day—between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M., or 7 A.M. and 7 P.M., and not later than two on Saturday; while in Classes 2 and 3 the period is extended indefinitely in certain oases to 17 hours between 5 A.M. and 10 P.M., and on Saturday till 4.30 P.M.; and in mining and some other trades there is no restriction at all, and work may be carried on continuously at all hours of the day and night. By this Bill several of these discrepancies are proposed to be done away with, but many are retained; and, curiously enough, it is proposed that bleaching dye works should be transferred into the textile class for certain purposes—the hours of work being limited to 10—but the stretch of work and other matters remaining the same as they are now. But why this particular industry should be specially singled out, and partly assimilated and partly not, and all other trades in Classes 2 and 3 be left in these respects as they are now, I am at a loss to conceive, and it will, I think, puzzle the Home Secretary to explain and justify them. With regard to holidays, the distinctions are still more fanciful and anomalous. In the textile trades, besides the Saturday half-holiday, there must be eight other half-holidays during the year, and two full-holidays—namely, Christmas Day and Good Friday; but, singularly enough, there is no regulation against working on Sunday. On the other hand, in Class 2, working on Sunday is specially prohibited, except at blast furnaces, or in works where masters and men are all Jews; but there is no holiday on Saturday until after 4.30 P.M., and four

    1459
    whole holidays may be substituted for the eight half-holidays. And in Class 3, and in all mining trades, there is no regulation whatever as to holidays, so that in these trades work may be carried on from day to day and week to week the whole year through, so far as legislation is concerned, without any break or cessation whatever. By this Bill the holidays in textile and non-textile trades are generally assimilated, except as to the Saturday half-holiday, which, in textile factories, must commence at 1.30, in non-textile at 2.0, and in workshops at 4.30; but the latter can scarcely be looked upon as a half-holiday at all. Sunday work is, however, done away with altogether, except at blast furnaces; and the Jews in future are not to be allowed to work on that day, but they may work till a late hour on Saturday night, or they may have two whole-holidays in succession, as they prefer. The sanitary, protective, and general provisions also vary greatly in the three classes, Class 1 being again singled out for special distinction. Textile factories have, under heavy penalties, to be lime-washed at fixed periods; machinery has to be fenced off; the gearing cannot be cleaned while in motion; meals may not be taken while at work, or even within the mill-rooms; inspection and reports by Factory Inspectors and Medical Officers have to be made periodically; certificates of age and physical fitness have to be obtained; accidents have to be reported; and a variety of other inquisitorial and expensive requirements are imposed, few of which apply to trades in Class 2, and none to trades in Class 3. Here, again, the Bill extends several of the textile provisions to non-textile trades, but not all, and very few of them are extended to workshops. Such, Sir, are some of the irregularities, anomalies, and absurdities in the law as it now stands, many of which will, as has been shown, remain if this Bill be passed in its present form. It is not easy to conjecture how they would have arisen except upon the assumption that the exigencies of the piecemeal legislation resorted to from time to time left no other course open; each Bill being introduced to remedy a special grievance, and being the subject of a special compromise. This being so, it is quite certain that if legislation had now to be begun de novo, few, if any, of these discrepancies would
    1460
    be introduced; and as this Consolidation and Amendment Bill affords a fitting opportunity for dealing with them, it is to be hoped that they will be entirely swept away, and the whole law assimilated. Any legislative interference with the carrying on of trade and the liberty of labour requires justification, and can only be justified on either social, educational, or sanitary grounds. As regards the two first, no one can possibly contend that those employed in the textile trades are entitled to social and educational privileges which those engaged in other trades are not equally entitled to, and it is, therefore, upon sanitary grounds alone that the justification for these distinctions—if justification there be—must be found. I, however, deny that the textile trades can, with any justice, be subjected to the sweeping condemnation which such exceptional legislation stamps them with. The various processes in those trades are not, taking them as a whole, specially unhealthy, nor do they place an undue continuous strain upon the system of the operative more than many processes in the non-textile trades. Taking individual manufactures, there are several in Class 2 and 3 which are quite as injurious to health, and tax the energies and attention of the workman quite as much, and, in some instances, in a far greater degree than in any of the textile processes. I will not attempt to excite the sympathy of this House by detailing any of the harrowing descriptions which the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) used periodically to bring forth on the annual production of his Nine Hours' Bill; but I will give a few plain quotations from the official reports of some of the Factory Inspectors. In bleach works, according to Mr. Redgrave, the Chief Inspector of Factories—
    "The work is carried on in a sort of oven. The women work barefooted and almost naked, at a temperature of 120 degrees."
    In the Turkey red dye works, the steam, according to Sub-Inspector Henderson
    "is so dense that he had to walk blindfold through the works, and to take hold of the coat tail of the manager to guide him."
    In salt works, the vapour is described as so thick that you cannot see half-a-yard before you; the men and women working together in the lightest possible

    1461
    clothing; one of the processes which they call "drawing" being carried on close to the pans filled with scalding water, into which there is nothing to prevent them falling—and all this in a place of almost utter darkness. In pottery making, there is one process where "fine dust is thrown off, which creates a disease of the lungs ending in a few years in death;" and the workshops of Birmingham are described by Mr. Baker as
    "a disgrace to the country—long, low, dirty, damp houses, like human rabbit-warrens, into which women and children have to burrow into their appointed holes, and anything more deadening to one's physical and moral energies than to work all their years in such places we could not conceive."
    In other trades, such as white lead making, silvering of glass, millstone cutting, nail and rivet making, lucifer match dipping, glass works, and many others, the circumstances are equally appalling and far more deleterious to health and morality than any of the textile processes. Now, Sir, I assert that in none of the textile trades are there any processes which can be stigmatized in such terms as these, and yet they are singled out for special restrictions as if they were the worst of all trades, and as if the persons employed in them required special care and. protection. As regards the continuous strain upon the energies and system of the workpeople—of which so much has been said and made—I may mention that in printing and bleach works, hand-loom weaving, pottery making, fustian cutting, nail manufacturing, and almost. all occupations connected with the metal trades, and a variety of other trades, the strain is far greater than in many of the textile processes; and if we turn from particular trades to the general health of the districts which may be said to be the special seats of the textile and other industries, and comparing the rates of mortality according to the last decimal period for 1861 to 1871, we find that, taking 15 of the principal textile towns—as Bolton, Bury, Halifax, Huddersfield, &c.—the average death rate is 25·34 per 1,000 of the population; while in 15 of the large non-textile manufacturing towns—such as Liverpool, Birmingham, Sheffield, Newcastle, Wolverhampton, &c.—the average death rate per 1,000 is 26·37;
    1462
    showing a positive balance in favour of the seats of textile trades. I maintain, therefore, that whether viewed as regards unhealthiness of the individual trades, the strain upon the system, or on the general mortality of the district, the textile trades bear a most favourable comparison; and that, at all events, they do not deserve the invidious distinction of being singled out for special and exceptional legislation on these grounds. In my opinion, the true and proper remedy, in case of special unhealthiness in any particular trades, is to enact and enforce more stringent provisions as to the carrying on of that trade by still further curtailing, if need be, the hours of labour and stretch of work, and absolutely prohibiting the employment of women and children in labour which is physically and morally unsuitable for them. And I am glad to observe that as regards some specified trades, in the Bill now before us, some such provisions are introduced. But in this respect the Bill falls short of what is required, and it should be made generally applicable to all processes which are specially unhealthy or unsuitable. Such, Sir, being the state of things now, and difficult of comprehension as their origin is, it is still more difficult to understand the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to retain in the Bill so many of these invidious and irritating distinctions. But the solution is no doubt to be found in the Report of the Factory and Workshops Commission, which was issued in 1876, for it is upon the lines of that Report that this Bill has evidently been constructed. Now, Sir, this Report is unquestionably entitled to great consideration; and though I do not altogether concur in its suggestions and conclusions, yet I join cordially in expressing my indebtedness to the Gentlemen who undertook the laborious duties and responsibilities of that Commission for the careful and impartial manner in which they conducted their inquiries, and for the able and exhaustive Report which they have given. I must confess, however, that upon the first announcement of the constitution of the Commission, I had some misgivings as to the result. I thought, in common with many others, that the absence of Members practically conversant with the working of the laws in relation to the manufactures affected, and to be affected,

    1463
    by the inquiry was a mistake, and that the Report would not inspire that confidence which would make it generally acceptable; and it is a curious fact that the only Member of the Commission who can be said to be connected with trade, in the sense of its being the business of his life—I need scarcely say that I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), whom I am glad to see in his place to-day, and the benefit of whose practical experience we shall, I hope, have the pleasure of hearing and receiving this evening—thought it his duty to make a separate Report, and, while agreeing with his Colleagues in their general recommendations, yet strongly and vigorously protested against their being applied to the particular trade with which he is connected and identified; and had there been on the Commission other Members practically conversant with the working of other trades, they, too, might have thought it their duty to have similarly protested and reported; and thus we should have had the extraordinary phenomenon of a series of separate Reports from practical men who, though agreeing generally with each other as regarded other trades, yet each exempted his own particular trade—thus presenting, in the aggregate, a Report which would have been against any opposition or extension whatever. Let us, Sir, however, see what are the views and opinions of the Factory Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, who, from their great practical experience and official position, are entitled to the greatest weight and consideration. First in importance is the evidence of Mr. Redgrave, the Chief Inspector, who says that—
    "The main difficulties as regards uniformity in the law, arise from the fact that the circumstances of the different trades vary. But," he adds, "the main restriction could he made fairly uniform without injury to the employers at all."
    And Mr. Baker—the other Chief Inspector—in reference to the unequal conditions of the law, empathically says, "I would equalize all;" and of the 43 assistant Sub-Inspectors, a very large proportion express themselves decidedly in favour of uniformity, many of them giving most cogent reasons in favour of it, and those who do not altogether concur are yet agreed in recommending a degree of uniformity beyond what the Bill proposes. But what are the reasons
    1464
    given by the Commissioners themselves in their Report against uniformity? To my mind they are most meagre and unsatisfactory. First, it is said there has been no general demand for it from other trades. To this argument I altogether demur. It is scarcely to be expected that masters will come forward and volunteer to be put under further restrictions; and as for the workpeople themselves, so far as we know their views—and, speaking for myself, I have had communications from associations and unions from all parts of the Kingdom—they are all strongly in favour of it. If we take the evidence given before the Commission, many masters expressed themselves either willing to come under the same law, or as indifferent to it, and those who objected did so on the ground that they had been interfered with quite enough already—a proposition from which we should none of us, I think, dissent—and the only operatives who expressed contrary views were some strong-minded females, accompanied by advocates of women's rights, who objected on the ground that they were perfectly competent to act and judge for themselves, and repudiated any thought of protection or interference, either by the law or from any other source. But surely, if the general feeling of employers and certain women were adverse, that is no reason why the great majority of women and children in these trades should be less cared for than those in textile trades. Another reason against the change assigned is the smaller proportion of women and children employed in the non-textile trades; but that, as we have seen from the statistics I before quoted, does not apply to all these trades; and, besides, there are, as we have also seen, upwards of 500,000 women and children employed in those trades; and though I do not admit mere numbers really affect the argument, yet surely 500,000 is a sufficient number to be worthy the attention of Parliament. A further reason is assigned that there is already great competition in those trades, and that to cripple trade further would be to cast a burden upon employers which, in the present state of things, they could not stand up against. But this is an argument against all factory legislation whatever, and as the textile trades are now subjected to quite as great, if not greater,

    1465
    competition, and at this moment are suffering under as heavy a depression as other trades, it is scarcely fair, not only to ignore this, but to handicap them still more by subjecting them to exceptional restrictions, as well as unfair competition, in the labour market. It surely cannot be contended that the Lancashire spinner or the Yorkshire woollen manufacturer is less entitled to the consideration of this House or of the country than the Birmingham button makers or the Sheffield steel manufacturers; nor that the wretched girl, so pathetically described by the hon. Member for Sheffield, as trudging to her work on "a cold winter's morning be drabbled up to the waist in wet," is less worthy of our pity and regard because she is tramping to a low, damp, cramped hovel of a workshop, than if she were going into the warm, comfortable, and well-ventilated rooms of the spinning mill or the weaving shed. And now I will add but a few words more, for I feel I have already trespassed too long, and I thank the House for the indulgence it has shown me. I do not ask the House to adopt my Amendment upon the grounds which the Commissioners, somewhat cynically, lay down in their Report—namely, for the sake of uniformity, or for the sake of elegance in the Statute Book, though the latter, if only as a Parliamentary novelty and as a precedent for future legislation, would be much to be desired; but I ask on the more solid and prosaic ground of common justice and common sense that employers and employed should, in all trades, be placed as nearly as possible on the same footing. There must, of course, be exceptions and exemptions. The varieties and exigencies of our various trades and manufactures necessitate this; but these exceptions should be made equally applicable to all trades and processes of manufacture, and to draw a hard-and-fast line between textile and non-textile trades is most unfair. The object of my Amendment might, no doubt, be effected by a modification of the Act of 1874; but that Act having passed so recently with the almost unanimous voice of the present Parliament, and with the general approval of the country, must be considered as a Parliamentary settlement of factory legislation for the present. I must, however, confess that my views as to the general policy of these Acts have been undergoing a great change, owing mainly
    1466
    to the severe competition we are suffering from our manufacturing rivals in other countries, whose freedom from all restrictions confers enormous advantages which it is almost impossible to contend against; and the time will come, and is not so far distant as many of us may imagine, when all these legislative restrictions on the freedom of labour, and all this Parliamentary interference with the right of contract between employer and employed will be swept from the Statute Book, and master and workman will be left unfettered to make their own arrangements in their own way. But that time is not yet. No one appreciates more highly than I do the many and great advantages which have resulted from the passing of the first Factory Act, now nearly half-a-century ago; but no one can contend that the monstrous evils and abuses that then existed would be tolerated for a moment in this present age of enlightenment of public opinion and spread of education, and as these influences make themselves more and more felt—as they are gradually but surely doing—relaxations of these restrictions will assuredly follow. But in the meantime, and so long as labour requires the protection of the State, let that protection be granted equally and universally; and I trust I shall not appeal in vain to the House, not, on the one hand, to subject certain classes of manufacture to invidious restrictions and unfair competition, nor, on the other hand, to withhold from large numbers of operatives those social, educational, and sanitary blessings which should alike be extended to all.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in any measure for the consolidation and amendment of the Law relating to Factories and Workshops, it is desirable, in the interests alike of employers and employed, that all trades and manufactures employing the same class of labour should be placed upon the same footing, and under the same protective and restrictive regulations,"—(Mr. Tennant,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    SIR CHARLES FORSTER,as the Representative of a working-class constituency, offered his warm congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman oppo-

    1467
    site (Mr. Cross) on the introduction of a valuable measure which well deserved their support; but desired to mention two points that were not sufficiently provided for. The first was the "sweating system," under which employers of labour, instead of providing proper workshops, gave the work out to their employés to be done at their own homes. Those homes were dark dwellings, defective in every way, and official Reports showed that their condition was deplorable. Through that system fevers were communicated to clothes, and they thus became the means of conveying disease to other districts. It was a fact that large bundles of clothes so made up were seen every Saturday night at a principal London railway station. He would suggest that a provision should be inserted in the Bill requiring all employers of labour to furnish a list of all those to whom they sent out work, and that all those who used houses for performing the work in should register the houses. A list, too, should be kept at the police stations, so that they might be inspected in the same manner as common lodging houses. The other point he wished to press upon the attention of the Home Secretary and the House was, the point brought before the right hon. Gentleman by a deputation from the Trades Council last year—the employment of women and children in the nail and chain trade. The Report of Mr. Baker revealed the evils connected with the employment of women, and in order that the matter might be fully considered, he would give notice that in Committee he would move that in nail and chain making the employment of women and children be done away with. The Reports of the Inspectors showed that the women earned wages which the men spent, while the public safety was imperilled by weak work and bad iron. In other respects the Bill would have his support. In his idea it was conceived in the spirit of the Artizans' Dwellings Act, and was an appropriate sequel to that excellent measure.
    MR. KNOWLESdesired to explain that he had protested against the inquiries of the Commission being extended to the coal trade simply because that trade was the subject of special legislation. With regard to the nail and chain trade, he, for one, thought Mr. Baker's Report exaggerated, for the Commission who had reported on the subject took a
    1468
    great deal of trouble in their inquiries, and they were agreeably surprised at the condition of the women and children. He (Mr. Knowles) employed women and children in agriculture cotton mills and in bleach works too, and he was certain that employment in the latter was very nice for women and children. What had been said about those industries by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) must have been quoted from Reports that were somewhat out of date, for the Commission were surprised to find the people employed in them in such a healthy condition. He thought they had gone far enough in handicapping the trades of this country, seeing the deplorable condition they were now in; but no one would dispute the desirability of consolidating the numerous Acts of Parliament—18 in number—which existed on the subject of labour, and affecting as they did several cognate trades, so as to obviate the discontent and jealousies that arose in some places, and particularly in Birmingham, because one manufacturer who employed 48 persons was under the Workshops Act and another who employed 50 was under the Factory Act. Then, again, the different arrangements which existed for the meal times and hours of going to business caused a heavier expense to be incurred by the father of a family and loss and inconvenience to the employer. It was impossible for the Inspectors to do their duty under the present system, and the consolidation would effect a benefit both to masters and men. What he desired was the consolidation of the existing Acts, and he believed that everyone would appreciate the Bill before the House. It was a wise and judicious measure to which he could give his hearty support, subject to a few alterations in matters of detail which could easily be made in Committee.
    MR. MUNDELLAwarmly supported the Bill, regarding it as most useful and valuable. The country had long felt the want of some measure of the kind, and he was particularly glad that it was proposed to put workshops and factories in the same category. Absolute uniformity being unattainable, the Bill did all that was possible in that direction. Apparently, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) did not wish to disturb the settlement effected by the Act of 1874, as he recognized the fact that every branch of industry, great and

    1469
    small, could not possibly come under its operation. Let them take the textile industries—76per cent of those employed in them were women and children; but in a workshop in another occupation there would be three or four boys and 100 men. It would be simply impossible to lay down an absolute rule for those boys as they might in so large an occupation as the textile industries. The law, however, as it stood, was in such an unsatisfactory state, that it was impossible for a parent to tell at what age his child might be employed in the different industries of the country. Some degree of elasticity was necessary, though the Bill did much to secure uniformity—as, for instance, with respect to age, which was fixed at 10 for all industries. The Educational Inspectors last year had spoken very highly of the Act, because it did not allow children up to 13 to work full-time unless they were in the Fourth Standard. At Keighley, the chairman of the school board had reported that out of more than 400 children examined for permission to work full-time no fewer than 340 were rejected. These facts showed that nothing could better stimulate parents to attend to the education of their children, and he was very glad that the Bill put every child under the Act of 1874. He would remind the House that the Bill rather equalized than increased the restrictions on labour; and it was noticeable that, whilst we had been discussing the question, factory legislation had been extended in all industrial countries with the sole exception of Belgium, where, in the branches of textile industry, in which young children were employed, no advance had been made. It was worthy of notice that in that country they dared not open their ports for fear of foreign competition. Switzerland would not benefit in the race of competition by any change which it had made in its factory legislation, for there an Act had been passed by the extremely democratic ad referendum process, by which a child was now forbidden to be a half-timer until it had passed its 13th year, while we began the half-time system at 10 years. The French Factory Act fixed that age at 11 years; while in Germany the age was fixed at 12 years; and children were not allowed to be full-timers till the age of 14, and then they must attend school so many hours a week until the age of 16. In that case
    1470
    it was clear that the Bill could not harm the interests of British labour. Neither did he think it would work any injustice to capitalists. He regarded the Bill as a whole as a very useful measure; but the effect of it, he was afraid, would be—in the Midland Counties, for instance, where there was a mixed agricultural and manufacturing population—that a child on attaining its 10th year would be sent to work full-time in some agricultural employment, and be employed full-time in manufacturing work when it was 14, and thus lose the advantages of receiving a good education altogether. The result, he might add, of so neglecting the education of agricultural children would be to fill the towns with the ignorance of the villages. That loophole he was sorry to see; but he trusted, however, that the provisions of the Bill would be carefully considered in Committee, and that hon. Members on both sides would unite in their efforts to render it a useful and practical measure as well as a valuable addition to our legislation on the subject.
    MR. FIELDENsaid, he could not allow a Bill affecting the hours of labour in factories to pass a second reading without some remark. This Bill had his entire approval, except in one or two minor points affecting its machinery. The Ten Hours' Bill was a household word in the family of his father; and when, in 1846, his father succeeded to the leadership of that question, it was with the greatest pain and distress that he found Sir Robert Peel throwing the whole force of his Government into the scale against the Bill. However, in the very next year, 1847, it became law, and he (Mr. Fielden) remembered the rejoicings by which the passing of that great measure was celebrated. He wished to point out to the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant), that when he proposed to put all classes of labour upon the same footing, he should remember that in all these matters of factory legislation, progress had been made by very slow steps, and that what the hon. Member now proposed had been discussed over and over again. In all its legislation upon the subject, Parliament had been guided by experience, and had gradually extended the operations of the Acts from one trade to another. It was so far back as 1816 that his father began to take that deep interest in factory labour which he never

    1471
    laid aside, and in 1847 he accomplished the great object of his life, the passing of the Ten Hours Bill, in spite of all opposition. The fact was, that, at this time, so great were the evils of over-working women and children employed in the textile manufactures of the Kingdom, that a great and overwhelming majority of all classes were in favour of restriction. After that other industries were brought under the operations of the Factory Acts; and the results were watched by masters and men with great anxiety, many of the former believing the trade would be ruined, and the latter fearing to lose the great benefits they had obtained. The result was that the effects of the Act were proved beyond doubt to be beneficial not only to the workpeople, but to the trade itself; and in later years the same principles had been legally extended to other branches of industry. The hon. Member for Leeds seemed from his Amendment to overlook the fact that in the application of restrictions on the employment of children, young persons, and women, in all the different branches of industry, the greatest care had been taken to deal fairly and justly and not oppressively with the interests of the masters, and to provide for the health of the women and children engaged in laborious occupations without interfering injuriously with trade. With regard to restricting the hours of labour, he trusted that the hon. Member for Leeds did not imply by what he had said that he hoped the time would come when all restrictions in that respect should come to an end. When the Acts affecting the employment of women and children had come before the House, persons who owned textile manufactories had over and over again protested against owners of bleach works, for instance, not being put on the same footing as owners of such manufactories. But it had been shown before Parliamentary Committees that the circumstances of the trade were such that a uniform rule could not be laid down. He (Mr. Fielden) felt certain that the present depression of trade had nothing to do with the restriction of the hours of labour. It had arisen from many other causes which it would not be fair or right to bring into the discussion on the present Bill. It had not arisen in any way from the legislation which had taken place with regard to the employment of women and children in factories. The fact was that
    1472
    since we began to restrict the hours of labour in this country, we had experienced more prosperous and profitable times—the masters having made larger profits, and the workmen having been better off, enjoying more leisure and better health and higher wages—than we had before. That was extremely gratifying, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for Leeds would pause before recommending such a course as his observations appeared to suggest, and that he would not ignore the great benefits which the restrictions in question had conferred both on employers and on employed. He (Mr. Fielden) was old enough to remember the miserable condition of the workpeople employed in the factories of Manchester and other large manufacturing towns prior to the passing of the Ten Hours' Bill, and he was ashamed to think that in free England, as it was called, such a state of things could have been allowed to exist. When he noticed the great improvement effected since then, he felt an honest pride that his father had accomplished the great work he did. With reference to the proposal that children might be employed at 13 years of age if they reached a certain Educational Standard, whereas otherwise they could not be employed till 14, he might make one remark. Weak children were often very proficient in brain work; and it frequently happened, on the other hand, that boys and girls who were physically strong were not so quick in the power of acquiring knowledge. The effect of such a clause, therefore, would be to allow weak and delicate children to be employed sooner than robust children. In conclusion, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for having introduced the Bill, which would be a most valuable one, and he hoped the Government would endeavour to pass it as quickly as the Forms of the House would permit.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYcalled the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the employment of juvenile labour in the streets, in selling newspapers, matches, and other small articles. It was very distressing, he was sure, to hon. Members to see some of these small boys, and also in many cases girls, employed in this labour; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to devise some provision for securing the education of the young persons employed in this sort of occupa-

    1473
    tion. He was aware there were great difficulties in this matter, but he thought the School Boards might be aided with such cases by insisting on the production of certificates of school attendance or other education from children employed in selling newspapers and other articles in the streets. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to consider a clause of this kind if it was brought forward, for no doubt abuses prevailed. It was proposed to put other trades under the Factories and Workshops Act as well as the textile manufactures. No doubt there was a great deal to be said for this, and no doubt the Act might be extended with great advantage; but what had already been done had been of great benefit not only in the largest spheres of labour, but in many other smaller trades as well. He quite agreed with the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Fielden) that the present depression of trade had not been caused by the legislation restricting the hours of labour. In the county which he represented, the last Factory Act was hailed by the manufacturers, with few exceptions, as a great boon. It established in the county one uniform set of rules and regulations, to which all the manufacturers, or a great majority of them, were ready to conform. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was conferring a great benefit on the employers of labour by consolidating the Factories and Workshops Acts, and he quite agreed with the hope expressed that the Bill might pass.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEbegged to add his voice to that of those hon. Gentlemen who had already expressed their satisfaction at seeing such a measure before the House. It was not, as some had stated, 18 or 19 Acts, but from 45 to 50 that were consolidated in this Bill. He was extremely anxious that, if possible, before the Bill went into Committee, the Home Secretary should add some provisions which would meet the case of those who took work from large workshops to their own homes. And there was another matter. In many cases old rags were collected in large quantities and taken to the mills to be worked up a second time into cloth by means of a machine called the "devil." From the way in which the materials were treated while being collected, and even, also, when undergoing that process, if there
    1474
    was one method more likely than another to disseminate fever and all kinds of epidemics through the length and breadth of the land, it was by allowing a process of that description to be carried on without some regulation. When either of those classes of materials were allowed to go to the houses of the poorer classes of workmen, they became the means of spreading disease in all our large towns. He also thought that a clause should be inserted in the Bill to arrange—if possible, without undue interference—the hours at which persons employed in factories should not only have their breakfasts and dinners supplied to them, so as to secure the greatest, and, therefore, the most com-fortable, domestic regulations praeticable. He did not think that the clauses which dealt with sleeping accommodation in the neighbourhood of bakehouses went far enough. He would be glad that where there was sleeping accommodation in connection with mills, factories, or workshops, it should be of the amplest possible description.
    MR. MACDONALDthanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cross) for introducing the Bill, which he believed would be a great improvement on the present legislation, and would be satisfactory in many respects; and he sincerely hoped that the time would not be far distant when agricultural labourers would also reap the advantages which it was proposed to confer on other classes by the measure, and would be subjected to a like restriction. He quite agreed with what the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) had said with reference to children who sold newspapers, and he trusted that a larger number of those who were employed in that trade and in selling matches would be included in the provisions of the Bill, so that it would be impossible for them to evade the Education Act as they did at present. Besides those, however, there were the children of those who went to sea, and he hoped, also, that the children of bleachers and dyers would be looked after; because he was sure that anything done in their behalf would meet with the approbation of the working classes throughout the country. He had heard that a deputation would wait upon the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow from the master bleachers of the United Kingdom, and that it would have the

    1475
    benefit of the influence of the Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles). He hoped, however, the right hon. Gentleman would not be seduced to depart from the lines laid down. He (Mr. Macdonald) was well acquainted with the operative bleachers, and he knew that they had agitated for a long time in favour of a measure such as the present. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the measure, and he again expressed his gratitude to him for doing so, and he could assure him that any aid he (Mr. Macdonald) could give him to pass it into law was at his disposal.
    THE O'CONOR DONsaid, he had been a Member of the Royal Commission on whose Report this Bill was mainly founded. He had differed from his Colleagues on certain important points—six in number—and as the right hon. Gentleman had adopted his views on four out of those six points, he certainly did not rise to offer any opposition to the Bill. At the same time, there were certain defects in it which he thought might with advantage be remedied. One principle for which he contended on the Royal Commission was that restriction upon the labour of adult women could only be justified by its being shown that the work in which they were engaged without restriction was injurious to their health, and that they should not, for mere uniformity sake, interfere with that work unless injury was proved. That he understood to be the principle adopted by the right hon. Gentleman when he introduced the Bill. But it was not carried out. The Bill proposed to place new restrictions on women's labour, when it was carried on in workshops in which young persons or children were employed, not, evidently, for the sake of the women, but for the sake of the young persons or children; and if this were fair, the same principle should be extended to men. Again, in Clause 16, which related to what was called domestic employment, it might be necessary to have rules with reference to work carried on in the homes of working people; but it would be extremely difficult to carry out such rules. He presumed that nothing would be done to prevent working people keeping their doors locked. At the time when an lnspector under this Bill knocked at the door the mother and children might be employed in stitching; but
    1476
    they could cease immediately on the knock being heard, and when the door was opened they would be found doing nothing. These provisions, therefore, regarding work in the homes of the people were likely to be of very little use, whilst most inquisitorial in their character; and he strongly deprecated placing any unnecessary restrictions on work in recognized workshops, which might have the effect of driving the work into the homes. He feared the result of the provision with regard to the education of children would be that in many instances they would receive less education than if the Bill never passed at all. For example, in straw-plaiting children were employed not for the value of the work they might do, but in order that they might learn the trade, which they must do at an early age. Mothers who were now in the habit of sending their children to school full-time every day, and of employing them a few hours in the evening at straw-plaiting would be seriously inconvenienced by the operation of the Bill, and would probably send their children to school only for half-time, and then employ them in the morning and in the afternoon every alternate week. With regard to the surgeons certificates, his right hon. Friend proposed that a certificate should be required in factories and not in workshops, and at every change of employment not under the same employer. He himself thought the surgeons' certificates were of very little use, and that the provision requiring them to be given at every change of employment ought not to be upheld. With regard to the nail and chain districts, the Commissioners had inquired very carefully into their condition, and they came to the conclusion that there was nothing in the employment of an unhealthy character. There were no stronger women to be found in England than were to be seen in these districts. He should, however, take another opportunity of calling attention to the various points of the Bill which, in his opinion, required amendment.
    MR. HIBBERT,as the Representative of a district (Oldham) which contained more factories than any other district in Lancashire or in the country, wished to thank the Home Secretary for bringing in this Bill. He believed it would be a boon to the persons employed in the

    1477
    cotton factories and in other modes of labour. It was important in dealing with this subject not to make the regulations more strict and difficult, but to consider the wants of the various trades and fix the hours of labour so as to make them, as far as possible, compatible with the requirements of the different trades and manufactories of the country. He could not give his support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant), for he regarded it as far more important that time should be regulated from an educational point of view than from the point of view of the actual working hours.
    SIR HENRY JACKSONregretted that the Home Secretary did not propose by his Bill to relax any of the restraints imposed by Sub-section 6 of Clause 11, which re-enacted a clause of the Act of 1874, to the effect that no young person or woman should be employed continuously for more than four-and-a-half hours without an interval of half-an-hour for meals. Instead of doing good, that enactment had, in certain light textile industries, done serious harm, and had caused great inconvenience. It imposed far greater fatigue on young persons than the old five-hours' system. In summer time it produced no inconvenience; but in winter time the young persons were compelled, under the four-and-a-half hours' limit, to leave their homes at an early hour, and to get a hurried meal in the factory; whereas, under the old system, they used to get their breakfasts at home, and went to their work refreshed. He hoped the Home Secretary would take this matter into consideration, as the proposal he now made was supported by the Report of the Royal Commissioners.
    MR. SHAWsaid, he could not vote for the Amendment. He had no sympathy with those who had wished to extend the operation of this Act. Instead of extending it, the Home Secretary should endeavour to lessen its restrictions. He could confirm what had been said by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and he thought the Bill would operate very injuriously on small industries. As it was legislation made by manufacturers, he supposed it would have the effect of promoting their interests. He was sorry to say that in
    1478
    Ireland they had very few extensive manufactories except in Belfast. There were, however, a good many small manufactories scattered throughout the country. In 1874, when the last Bill was before the House, a concession was made in their favour; but he thought that bringing them under the Act at all would be very injurious to their operations, especially in the South and Southwest of Ireland. In Committee he should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not except those industries from the Bill? A hard-and-fast line should not be drawn. There had been an exception in the case of mills worked by water power which he hoped would be respected. It would be an immense hardship that the inspection should be conducted by men who knew nothing of the business. A general principle should be laid down, and left as far as possible to the local authorities to be worked out. Adult women and children ought to be relieved from restrictions. He thought they could not go too far in extending sanitary arrangements as regarded factories.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that nothing could be further from his intention than to do anything which could tend to injure the manufactories of Ireland, and that he entirely agreed with him as to the expediency of not laying down a hard-and-fast line in legislation such as that now proposed. The Bill was, he admitted, a difficult one to understand; but if the hon. Gentleman had had time to master its provisions, he would find that one of its special principles was that no such line should be drawn. He did not think, he might add, that it imposed a single new restriction; indeed, any change which it might effect would be in the direction of greater freedom. In the case of certain scutch mills, to which reference had been made in the course of the discussion, it was under the consideration of the Government whether some regulations should not be introduced; but, in their case, also, there was no desire to have anything like a hard-and-fast line. As to water mills, the provisions of 1874 were simply reproduced. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson)—whose remarks, of course, applied more par-

    1479
    ticularly to the ribbon trade—the question raised by him, together with a similar suggestion from the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), with regard to the hosiery trade, might be considered in Committee; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that in reference to textile fabrics generally, he could not consent to do away with the four-and-a-half hours' limit. He felt it, in the next place, necessary to say a few words with regard to the Inspectors; and he need scarcely tell the House that his object was to secure the services of men in that capacity who would most heartily and efficiently perform their duties. In that respect the Government had been successful, and a body of men who more satisfactorily did their work he did not know. As to the observations of the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), he begged, before replying to them, to thank him and his fellow-Commissioners for the great labour which they had bestowed on their Report. No one could have wished for a more exhaustive Report, and, although the Government could not agree with all its recommendations, it had been of the greatest use to the Government in framing the Bill. He entirely concurred in the view which was taken by the hon. Gentleman with respect to the labour of adult women. The Legislature, he thought, ought to be extremely careful how it interfered with that labour. That view was embodied in the Bill, which contained a great many provisions in their favour. He had been very much struck, he might add, by a suggestion of the hon. Gentleman about drawing a distinction between day-work and piece-work; but, having paid considerable attention to the subject, he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to introduce any such legislative provision with respect to it as he advocated. As to what the hon. Member had said about domestic workshops, he would observe that in the Bill drawn last year only the word workshops had been used; but when the definition of factories came to be dealt with, it was found absolutely necessary to enumerate certain factories, in order to include which the clause in the Bill was drawn. As to education, the objection which had been raised as the Bill stood before was, that it was quite in the power of the parents to
    1480
    take care that their children never went to school until the afternoon, when they would probably be so tired that they would not receive the same advantages as if they had attended school in the morning. The sub-section was drawn, therefore, so as to make such a shift in the time that they might receive the benefit of education in the morning as well as the afternoon. As to the question of certificates, he held a strong opinion that they must be retained; and whilst not going the whole length of the views of the Commission, the Bill, to his mind, provided all that was necessary in this respect. An hon. Member had asked what was meant by a recognized school? There were certain schools which for ordinary practical purposes were real schools, though they did not come within the scope of the Education Act; and it was proposed that, in order to prevent children having too far to go to school, Inspectors should have power to recognize certain schools of that class for the children to go to. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) suggested that provision should be made for all working children in the country dining at the same time. That, he feared, would be a piece of tyranny which would scarcely be submitted to.
    MR. WHEELHOUSEexplained that what he meant was he should be glad that children who worked together should have dinner together whenever they conveniently could.
    MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad to hear his hon. and learned Friend's explanation, in which he quite concurred. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald), and he thought for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), too, spoke about the "sweating system." Now, that was a question that was taken into consideration, and, to a great extent, the real evils in that system had been met. All the deputations he had received had been satisfied with what he had laid before them. He did not much wonder at people not finding out what had been done, because the definition clause had been altered in one instance. He had also the half-time question before him, and it was quite true he had received a number of deputations with respect to it; but until a great many more good reasons had been given him for doing so, he could not alter his view

    1481
    of it. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) had also referred to the sleeping places in connection with bakehouses; but that provision had been introduced not for the sake of the people, but for the sake of the bread. The hon. Members for Forfar (Mr. Barclay) and Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) expressed a wish to see the educational provisions of the Bill extended to street children and agricultural children. Well, as to the latter, he hoped that under the recent Act, Boards of Guardians would look after them and see that they were educated. It would certainly be impossible to include all within the scope of the present Bill. They should, however, be content to proceed by steps. But, with regard to street children, he ventured to suggest that the school boards would really form a very great power, which, in the course of the next few years, would see that all children who worked in the streets were sent to school. He was much amused at hearing one day that a school board, desiring to ascertain whether all the children of a certain district attended school, sent there four or five men with "Punch" shows about midday, and with the result that the shows were surrounded by children who ought to have been at school. That, however, he thought was taking a rather unfair advantage of them. In regard to the remark of the hon. Member for Walsall, as to the chain and nail makers, he was bound to say, on reading the Report, that he agreed with the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) that they did not need any legislative protection. He would now briefly refer to the Resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant). He thanked his hon. Friend for the manner in which he had brought his Motion forward, but could not regard the proposition of his hon. Friend from the point of view he did. To introduce absolute uniformity would fatally interfere with the working of the Factory Acts, as had been clearly shown by his hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Fielden), the labours of whose father they all so entirely recognized, and whose memory would long continue to be regarded with reverence. His hon. Friend had accurately described how the system of Factory Acts had been worked up. It had, no doubt,
    1482
    been somewhat of a tentative system. Had the course now suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds been originally followed, the Factory Acts would have been found so oppressive that they would soon be inoperative. It came to this—that they should lower all trades to the same level, or raise every trade and bring them under the provisions of the Act of 1874—a fact which would work extreme hardship throughout the country. He could not, therefore, consent to the adoption of his hon. Friend's Resolution, and hoped it would not be pressed. He begged to thank hon. Members on both sides for the cordial reception they had given to the Bill, and trusted it would do one thing which was so essential in all those trades—namely, enable people who were under the law really to understand it. As the Acts now stood, he defied any person who was not a lawyer—and he defied most lawyers—to say as to any particular point what was absolutely the state of the law. There had been about 45 Acts to be dealt with, and he was bound to say that he received from the draftsman to whom the framing of the Bill was committed, and to whom it was a labour of love, the greatest possible assistance. He would conclude by expressing a hope that hon. Members who might have Amendments to propose would kindly consult with him before they placed them on the Paper. Nothing was more disheartening than 20 or 30 pages of Amendments; and if hon. Members took the course he ventured to suggest, their labours would, he trusted, be greatly lightened.
    MR. TENNANTsaid, that he had not expected that the Home Secretary would have accepted his Motion. He was, however, quite satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, and reserved to himself the right to propose such Amendments in Committee as would meet the principle laid down in his present Motion. He was quite willing to withdraw his Amendment upon the second reading.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question put, and agreed, to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday 21st February.

    ELECTION OF ALDERMEN (CUMULATIVE VOTE) BILL— [BILL 71.]
    (Mr. Wheelhouse, Mr. Isaac, Mr. Tennant.)

    SECOND READING,
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. WHEELHOUSE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, remarked that its object was to give a cumulative vote in the election of aldermen in boroughs, in order to secure the introduction upon the aldermanic bench of members who held different views to those entertained by the majority of the members of the town council in certain large boroughs. The hon. Member was proceeding to explain its provisions, when—
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Ten o'clock.