Commons Sitting of 25 February 1878

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Canterbury, v. Henry Alexander Munro Butler Johnstone, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Commons, nominated; Public Business, nominated.
PRIVATE BILL—Select Committee—Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power), nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Bankruptcy Law Amendment.
Committee—Factories and Workshops [3]—R.P.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  TRAMWAYS (USE OF MECHANICAL POWER) BILLS.
  Moved, "That Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. KNIGHT, Admiral EGER-TON, and Mr. MAURICE BROOKS be Members of the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills."—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.')
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wished before the Committee was appointed, to call attention to its proposed composition. The question of tramways was a very important one; and, in investigating the subject, the Committee would be called upon to deal with matters that were of the very greatest interest to the burghs in Scotland. He, therefore, thought it would be desirable, before they appointed the Members of the Committee who were to be selected by the House, to ascertain who were the Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. This course would enable the

  297
  House to see how every interest was likely to be represented, in the Committee.
  MR. RAIKESsaid, it had been decided by the House that the Select Committee on Tramways should be a hybrid one, and that it should consist of nine Members, five of whom were to be chosen by the House, and four to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. The Scotch Members would be adequately represented upon the Committee; indeed, he did not know how they could have enjoyed a better representation. They had had the good fortune to secure, among the Members the House was about to nominate, the services of a most experienced Scotch Member (Sir Graham Montgomery). The course which had been taken in the nomination of this Committee was the same as that pursued in the nomination of Hybrid Committees for many years past—that was to say, it would be partly chosen by the House and partly nominated by the Committee of Selection. He was quite certain that the interests of the Scotch burghs would be fully considered by that Committee.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. KNIGHT, Admiral EGERTON, and Mr. MAURICE BROOKS be Members of the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills.—{The Chairman of Ways and Means.)
  And, on Thursday, February 28, it was—
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of Evidence of the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) 1877, be referred to the Select Committee on Tramways (Use of Mechanical Power) Bills.—{Sir Charles Adderley.)

QUESTIONS.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—THE EDDYSTONE LIGHTHOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BECKETT-DENISONasked the President of the Board of Trade for information regarding the present condition of Eddystone Lighthouse, Whether it is finally determined to encase the present fabric, or to build a new lighthouse; and, what is the estimated cost of the work; on what fund will the cost be charged, and what time is required for its completion?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: Sir, the rock upon which the Eddystone Lighthouse has stood for nearly 120 years has become undermined by the sea, and the foundation of the lighthouse is very seriously weakened. Although there is not any immediate danger to be apprehended, the tower can no longer be considered safe. The Trinity House have, therefore, finally determined to build a new lighthouse on another rock about 40 yards from the present tower, the expense of which will, like other lighthouse works, be defrayed out of the Mercantile Marino Fund. Until the tenders, which have been, or are to be, invited, have been received, I am not in a position to state the estimated cost, or the time which will be required for completion.

THE METROPOLITAN FIRE BRIGADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Report of the Select Committee on the Metropolitan Eire Brigade; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject during the present Session?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, his attention had been directed to the Report of the Select Committee, and a very valuable Report it was; but he was afraid he could not hold out any hopes of being able to introduce a measure based upon it this Session. All he could say was that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment.

LICENSING—THE DEVONPORT WATCH COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
SIR WILERID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Inspector of Constabulary has reported that the Devonport Watch Committee continues the system of "investigating the charges" made against licensed houses, "and deciding which shall be allowed to be taken before the magistrates;" and, if this be so, whether he sees his way towards procuring any change in this system of interference with the action of the police?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, my attention has been directed to this Re-

299
port. I may inform the hon. baronet that a Committee is sitting in the other House of Parliament on this subject, and I have called the attention of that Committee specially to this Report. I know they are making inquiries on the subject, not only in connection with the town to which he refers, but also with reference to other towns throughout the Kingdom. I hope before long to be able to afford more satisfactory information upon the matter than I am at present able to give.

SPAIN—THE INSURRECTION IN CUBA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any information as to the alleged arrangement of terms of peace between the insurgents and the Captain General of Cuba?
  MR. BOURKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received information from Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Madrid that official news from Cuba has been received to the effect that bases of peace have been arranged between the Commander-in-Chief and the leader of the insurgents, and that there is every probability of the insurrection being brought to a conclusion before the end of the present month.

  THE MUTINY ACT—MILITARY LAW—SELECT COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes to move for the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into the Mutiny Act and the administration of Military Law, which last year, in reply to the late Sir Colman O'Loghlen, he held out hopes would be appointed this Session?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that he had not changed the intention which he held out last year, that there would be a Committee on this subject. The hon. and gallant Gentleman would remember that last year he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) proposed to bring in the Mutiny Bill, and then to appoint a Committee, and that was his present intention.

INDIA—MILITARY SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any arrangement had been come to for providing a sufficiency of seasoned and experienced soldiers for India, and especially with reference to the statement of the Inspector General that he has ceased to recruit men for long service, whether Her Majesty's Government have been advised that they can rely on volunteering alone to supply such soldiers for Indian service?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY,in reply, said, that no actual agreement had been come to between the Indian Government and the War Office, but negotiations had been going on for some time. Proposals and counter-proposals had been made, and he had a Committee sitting at this moment to consider those proposals. The question of volunteering had not been raised; but he had no doubt that a conclusion would be arrived at which would enable them to supply India with a sufficient number of seasoned soldiers.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLgave Notice that, on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, he would call attention to the imprudence of ceasing to enlist for long service until the question was settled.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the hon. Member seemed to suppose that long service had been given up; but it was quite the reverse. Instead of taking them at the beginning as long-service recruits, the men would be enlisted for six years, and the best seasoned men would be taken on for long service. This arrangement, it was calculated, would secure for the Government 25 per cent more men best fitted for continued service.

THE EASTERN QUESTION—RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE TERMS OF PEACE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, in regard to the terms of peace, which are stated in the newspapers to have been proposed by Russia to Turkey, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give the House any information as to the precise nature of those terms, and also whether

  301
  he can give the House any information with regard to the proposed Conference?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, the Government are very much in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. We have no official information on the subject of the terms of peace. We have a good deal of unofficial information from various quarters; but to some extent the information which we receive is not quite consistent with itself, and therefore I think it better not to state what really rests upon report. It seems to be certain that the Grand Duke Nicholas is now at San Stefano, which is about four miles from Constantinople, and that peace is likely to be concluded there. What the terms of peace are I am not yet officially informed. With regard to the Conference, I believe it has already been stated by my noble Friend (Lord Derby) that the Conference will take place at Baden-Baden. That is the place which has been selected for it, and I may mention that Lord Lyons has been chosen as the British Representative at the Conference. As to the time when it will take place, I am not able to give the House any information.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the time at which the signature of the terms of peace was to take place has been fixed? I ask the Question, because it is stated in this morning's papers that they were to be signed to-day.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We have no official information upon that point.

INDIA—THE JOWAKIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ONSLOWasked the Under Secretary of State for India a Question, of which lie had given him private Notice, Whether Her Majesty's Government had received information as to the accuracy of the statement which appeared in that morning's "Times," announcing the unconditional surrender of the Jowakis?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in reply, said, a telegram had been received that day from the Viceroy confirming the statement alluded to. It was satisfactory, not only as establishing peace on our Indian Frontier, but also because it successfully inaugurated a new and more civilized policy in dealing with outrages committed by the Native tribes.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
(Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress {Clause 17) 2lst February.]

  PART I.
  (3.) Employment and Meals.
  Clause 17 (Meal times to be simultaneous, and employment during meal times forbidden).
  MR. FAWCETT,in moving, in page 9, line 39, after "factory" to leave out "and workshop," the effect being to provide that the regulations established by the clause should apply to factories only, and not to workshops, said, he was anxious to put a Question to the Home Secretary, in order to find out whether his (Mr. Fawcett's) interpretation of the Bill and its purpose was correct. He had no doubt that the Home Secretary had the Workshops Act before him, and would be able readily to answer the Question he wished to put. It had been again and again asserted that the object of the Bill was to assimilate the law in regard to factories and workshops, and to relax existing restrictions rather than to impose any fresh ones. If the Home Secretary would turn to the Workshops Bill of 1867, he would find that the restrictions imposed in the present Bill upon the time and manner in which children and young persons could take their meals in workshops were altogether different from the restrictions imposed by Clause 6 of the Workshops Act of 1867. The provision that—
  "All children, young persons, and women employed in workshops should have the times allowed for meals at the same hour of the day; and that during the times allowed for meals they should not he employed or he allowed to remain in a room in which a manufacturing process or handicraft was being carried on,"
  was, as far as he could discover, entirely now. He wished to know whether his interpretation of the Bill was correct?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was no doubt that the intention of the Bill was to leave women as far as possible unrestricted, unless it was necessary, and it was further designed for the purpose of protecting children and young persons. The 59th clause excepted do-

  303
  mestic factories and workshops, and other workshops from certain provisions of the Bill, and among the exceptions were the regulations as to hours of meals. They might take their own choice where no child or young person was employed, but where children and young persons were employed it would be necessary to adopt those regulations in accordance with the clauses already passed. The Committee having settled that there should be special hours, it would be impossible to carry on the work satisfactorily—especially where steam-power was used—unless they placed a restriction on the meal hours.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, the clause had no reference to workshops in which steam-power was used, but applied strictly to places where the labour was entirely manual. So far as he read the clause, it would apply in this way. If, for instance, 50 persons were employed in a workshop—25 men and 25 women—say, in the manufacture of hats, and six of those women found they had a spare hour while they were waiting for materials—by this clause they would not be allowed to take their meals during that hour. The instant a piece of food was put into their mouths all the rest of the workpeople must stop work. He contended that a provision of that nature destroyed the Bill as a Consolidating Bill, because there was no such provision in the previous Workshops Act.
  MR. RITCHIEremarked, that one part of the Question put by the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) had not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman. He understood the hon. Member for Hackney to object to people being unable to take their meals while work was going on in the same place. Now, it seemed to him (Mr. Ritchie), that if they were going to have any regulation whatever as to meals, they must have some such regulation as that proposed in the Bill. The Inspector would never be able to make any inspection that would be satisfactory, if the meals were to go on at all hours.
  MR FAWCETTsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLhoped the Committee would recollect that this clause proposed to sanction the principle that there should be hours for meals set apart for young persons and women employed in factories
  304
  and workshops. It specified the interval of time that was to elapse between those hours in regard to factories which were not textile and factories which were textile. In one case, the limit allowed was not to be greater than four and a-half hours, and in the other, it was not to be more than five hours. Now, it appeared to him that four and a-half or five hours were quite long enough for anybody to go without meals. Of course, there were instances in which it might be necessary to go for a longer period without food. He proposed to amend the clause by leaving out "children, young persons, and women," and inserting "persons" only. He thought it would be a proper act of legislation if, while taking guarantees that no trade should be interfered with where irregularity of meals existed, they enacted that in future the meals in factories should be at one regular hour. He observed that power was reserved in regard to this and other matters, so far as certain factories and workshops which were mentioned in the Schedules annexed to the Bill, were concerned. The regularity of meal-times was precisely one of those things which the workpeople in many instances were careless about. When they were occupied with work, if left to themselves, they would frequently run on and exhaust themselves, being actually in a state of hunger at the time. The Bill provided that there should be no greater interval between meals in the case of children and women than four and a-half hours, and in the case of other persons of five hours. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, in page 9, line 41, to leave out "children, young persons and women," and insert "persons."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his objection to the Amendment was this—that it was contrary to the whole principle of the Factory Acts as they existed at present. By adopting the Amendment, the Committee would really be reversing the whole spirit of our existing legislation, which did not apply to the labour of man at all.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. FAWCETTmoved, in page 9, line 41, after "children" to insert "and;" in same line, after "persons," to leave out "and women." The object of the Amendment was to exempt

  305
  women from the operation of the clause, and to give more liberty to workshops and manufactories where women only, and no young persons and children, were employed. In factories, where young persons and children were employed, the machinery would have to be stopped in order to allow those children and young persons to have their meals while no work was being carried on. The regulation would indirectly apply in the same way to women; and the clause distinctly raised an important question of principle, and imposed new and continued restrictions with regard to women, many of whom would be unable to use their leisure time in taking their meals. It was said that there were no complaints from the women themselves, and that therefore no injustice would be done. That argument was by no means conclusive, for many other acts of injustice had been done without any complaints being raised. He would mention a striking case in point. Nine years ago he had opposed an Inclosure Bill, and the Liberal Government and one Minister after another expressed astonishment at his doing so, and said that for 20 years or more Inclosure Bills had been passed without any opposition, and without any subsequent complaints; therefore, it was urged, no harm had been done; though it was proved that during all those years there had been much injustice. The long continuance of injustice was, therefore, no argument. Moreover, he had letters in his possession in which women spoke in grievous tones of the wrong done to them. He had that morning received one from a working woman, complaining of the restrictions placed in her way; but the total amount of injustice done was really not ascertainable from such evidence. Suppose a man contemplated the employment of so many women, and hesitated whether or not to introduce female labour—one of the considerations immediately suggesting themselves to him would be that, if he employed only adult male labour, he would be free from Government Inspection; but if he also employed a few women, he would be harassed and troubled with all kinds of restrictions, as no single person would be allowed a mouthful of food if there happened to be any industry going on at the time in the workshop. Such a man did not say that he would not em-
  306
  ploy any women, but he would silently resolve not to be bothered about them; so that all those restrictions on the labour of women artificially reduced their remuneration by reducing the demand and not the supply. He believed that the difference between the value of the labour of men and women respectively increased year by year, and was largely due to the fact that persons employing adult women were subject to restrictions such as those contained in the Bill. He urged the Amendment, therefore, both on practical grounds, and also on the ground of the general principle of right, and asked what right they had to make such restrictions in the matter of female labour? In particular, the regulation with respect to meals was of a very oppressive kind, for where could meals be obtained, if not at the factories?—unless, indeed, women were to be driven to the public-house. It was no justification to say that women suffered, and had to be protected; for every particle of disadvantage resulting from over-work, there was ten times as much more from imprudent marriages, and yet none wished to make regulations on that point. Nor was it sufficient to say that an evil existed, and had to be remedied by the House; any doctor could give most harrowing details about the harm done to women by the gaieties of the London season, but they would think him mad if he proposed that no woman should sit up till 2 o'clock in the morning more than two nights a-week. If legislation ran any risk of interfering with an attempt on the part of women to gain an honest livelihood, he would, as a matter of principle, ask the House to exempt women from the operation of the clause.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 9, line 41, after the word "children" to insert the word "and;" and, in same line, after the word "persons" to leave out "and women."—(Mr. Fawcett.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'and' be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that the hon. Member had not argued the clause on its merits. He had forgotten to mention the clause at the end of the Bill, which provided that in all workshops where women only were employed they might take their meals when they

  307
  pleased, so that they were not interfered with except when they were employed together with children and young persons. The Committee had decided on a previous Amendment, that in those cases an indefinite meal-hour could not be permitted. A woman came to work, free to take her meals when she liked, as long as she laboured like a man; but the Committee had decided in favour of a special hour for meals where young persons and children were also employed.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that the hon. Member's argument came to this—that all persons would have to take their meals at one time, with the children and young persons. As far as he remembered the discussion on a previous occasion, the argument had been that children, young persons, and unmarried women were supposed not to be free agents, but that married women were so. He would suggest that the words "if married" should be added to the Amendment.
  MR. W. HOLMSconsidered that the Amendment did not go far enough.
  MR. RITCHIEremarked, that Clause 59 excluded women when employed alone from regulations as regarded meals, so that the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. HOPWOODcontended that the restrictions placed on women were vexatious, and he did not see how the Inspectors would be embarrassed in the discharge of their duty if those restrictions were not imposed. He assumed that whatever the dinner-hour, there would be some little confusion to this extent—the Inspector would have to say who was a woman, who a young person, and who a child; but the difficulty in the first case would be but slight, and in the case of children none could exist at all. He would support his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney.
  MR. GRAYthought that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman cut both ways. If, to prevent confusion, it was necessary to regulate the meal-time where women were employed, the argument held good in the case of men, who were placed under no such restrictions.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that as the Amendment originally stood, a good deal might be said in its favour, but the change had made it utterly unworkable; and if the hon. Member for Hackney knew anything about a factory, he would know that during meal-hours it was absolutely necessary frequently for men to
  308
  be employed in making smallrepairs that could not be made when the machinery was in motion, and to save delays and stoppages. The Amendment, therefore, as it now stood, was absurd.
  MR. PARNELLdid not think restrictions unnecessary, for labour was not able to take care of itself, and anything that tended to mitigate hardship would produce good relations between capital and labour. For that reason he had moved his last Amendment, thinking that the House, if it legislated for women, might as well legislate for men also. Some of the provisions of the Factory Acts for the last 30 years were, no doubt, very beneficial; but so many restrictions would place women in an unfair position. The general effect of the Amendment was to do away with regular hours for women, though they were not to be placed at a disadvantage; yet custom and habit already put their labour below that of men, and were unfair if not unbeneficial. He should support the Amendment, because it would remove an unfair restriction; and he only wished that exceptional legislation, if any were permitted, could lose some of its unfairness by being extended to men also.
  MR. M'LARENprotested against women being singled out, and told, that they must not do this, that, and the other thing, which men were at liberty to do. If there were any force in the argument in favour of this restriction being placed upon women during mealtime, it applied equally to men.
  MR. FAWCETTasked the attention of the Committee to the contention of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, by a subsequent clause, this regulation respecting meal-time was made not to apply to factories and workshops in which only men and women were employed, and that he had put women into this clause for the sake of the children and young persons. If that were the real reason why women had been put in, then it became absolutely necessary that the Home Secretary should insert "men." Suppose there were factories—and there were such factories—where children, and young persons, and no women, but men, were employed, what became of the argument of the Home Secretary? If, for the sake of the children and young persons in a factory where women were

  309
  employed, it was necessary to insert "women" in the Bill, â fortiori, it was equally necessary and equally obligatory on the right hon. Gentleman to insert "men," in order to meet the cases in which young persons and men were employed. With respect to what had been stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), who had described the Amendment as absurd, he wished to say that that description would be more properly applied to the legislation which enforced regularity upon factories when it was already secured by the nature of the work carried on in them. But the mistake which the hon. Member had made was in supposing that this legislation solely applied, to those huge factories in Glasgow with which he was familiar, whereas some of the smallest industrial workshops in England would become factories under the definition given in the Bill. He felt that he must ask the Committee to give its decision upon this point.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 198: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
  MR. LEWIS STARKEY,in moving, in page 10, line 3, to leave out from "or be allowed" to "carried on" in line 5, inclusive, said, he did so in consequence of representations which had been made to him by manufacturers that they could not work the clause satisfactorily; and the object he had in view was to prevent manufacturers from being liable to fine in cases in which women, children, and young persons remained in a room to take their meals while a continuous process—although not one in which they were engaged—was going on. Nothing was more common in small factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where three or four processes were carried on in one room, than to find one or more of these processes being carried on during the meal-hour, on account of what was called the continuous process, the young persons and children being allowed meanwhile to take their meals in the same room which they usually brought with them, owing to the distance at which they resided from the mill. It was thought a hardship that a manufacturer should be liable to a fine under such circumstances; and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would
  310
  agree to the omission of these words, or else introduce some modification or exemption into the Schedule of the Bill in reference to these cases.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it appeared to him that this Amendment was open to the same objection as that which had been urged against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). The objection to it was obvious. If young persons and children were allowed to remain in a factory where a manufacturing process was going on during meal-times, how would it be possible to tell whether they were being employed or not if an Inspector should go round to see whether the Act was being complied with?
  MR. KNOWLESremarked, that if the law were to be carried out at all, the words proposed to be omitted must be retained in the clause.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that was exactly the case. If the Act were to be operative, these words were necessary; if the Act were to be a sham, let them be struck out.
  MR. HOPWOODwould put this case—there was a man who employed a number of young women at sewing-machines, and these persons wanted to get their dinner in the middle of the day. This clause would compel all these women to turn out, it might be into the wet, because they could not stop where these sewing-machines were, which would, he apprehended, come within the definition of a "manufacturing process or handicraft." He really thought that Parliament ought to go further, and insist that they should be sent to bed at a certain time. It was going an extreme length to insist that in many cases on a wet day people should turn out of the only dry and warm place they could find in which to take their meals, simply because it was feared that in some way or other the Act might be evaded.
  MR. GORSTdid not think that the clause was open to the construction which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hopwood) had placed upon it. To speak of people being turned into the wet was a result that existed only in the imagination of the hon. and learned Gentleman. All that the clause said was that during the meal-hour the manufacturing process was to be stopped.
  MR. HOPWOODmaintained that his construction was that which a magistrate, before whom the question was raised, would be likely to place upon the words of the clause. "Is carried on," were words which merely described a workshop or factory, and could not be limited to mean only "during the hour for meals." He thought that when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) rose in his place and told them that they did not understand the English language, it was a trifle presumptuous; but he ventured to say that they could reason the matter out for themselves. He had instanced the familiar case of sewing-machines in order to show how vexatiously this legislation would work.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was evidently not aware that this restriction was already to be found in the existing Factory Acts; and it was perfectly well understood that work being carried on meant at the time during which these machines were in operation. There was nothing whatever, so far as he was aware, to prevent people having their meals in a workshop so long as the manufacturing process was not going on.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, that their contention was that this restriction had never before been imposed in workshops. No doubt the Home Secretary had a majority at his back; but he (Mr. Fawcett) thought that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to tell the Committee why an entirely new restriction was to be placed upon the labour of people employed in workshops. According to the Bill as it stood, its provisions would apply to a draper's shop, if it should happen that in the rear of the shop a woman was engaged, either with or without a sewing-machine, in making a lady's mantle. He thought it would be unjust to apply to a place of the kind the same restrictions which might be necessary or proper in the case of a factory or workshop in the strictly accurate sense of the words.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the Bill was framed in order to prevent any attempt to escape from proper restrictions. If a factory or a workshop were worked by means of steam or water-power, it was only necessary to shut off the steam or the water, and everything
  312
  came to a standstill. But in a workshop where power was not used, there would be nothing to show the Inspector that work was not going forward, unless some restrictions such as those proposed were in existence. The object was to secure to the workpeople the carrying out of the Committee's recommendation—that workshops should only go forward during certain hours in the day, and that a sufficient time should be set apart for meals. He could not conceive it to be a restriction that there should be a certain time granted for the taking of meals, any more than to say that there should be fixed hours for work.
  MR. LEWIS STARKEYsaid, that after what had been said, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he did not think it necessary to move the next Amendment which stood in his name; but he wished it to be distinctly understood that the sub-section (two) was only to apply at times when work was actually going on—that was to say, when the machinery was in motion. If this proposal were adopted, the sub-section would read as follows:—
  "A child, young person, or woman, shall not during any part of the time allowed for meals in the factory or workshop, he employed in the factory or workshop, or be allowed to remain in a room in which a manufacturing process or handicraft is being carried on 'actually at the time.'"
  MR. GORST and LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 18 (Regulations as to period of employment on Saturday of women employed only eight hours a day) agreed to.
  Clause 19 (Notice fixing period of employment, hours of meals, and mode of employment of children) agreed to.
  Clause 20 (Prohibition of employment of children under ten).
  MR. ANDERSONmoved, in page 10, line 32, after "workshop," to insert "nor in any casual employment."
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment did not come within the scope of the Bill.
  MR. ANDERSONthought the objection would be cured by the adoption of a subsequent Motion which he had upon the Paper to amend the title of the Bill, so as to provide that it should apply to the regulation not only of factories and workshops, but to the "casual employment of children." He would remind the House, also, that the Bill as drawn contained provisions with reference to the "incidental" employment of children, and he could not see in what such employment greatly differed from their "casual" employment.
  THE CHAIRMANruled that the proposal to alter the title of the Bill would be as wide a departure from the objects of the Bill as the first proposal of the hon. Member. If it had been intended to alter the title as proposed, an Instruction to the Committee should have been moved at an earlier stage. He would also remind the hon. Member that "casual" employment was very different from employment "incidental" to the ordinary avocations carried on in a factory.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he had on the Paper a somewhat similar Amendment, which he should be glad if the Home Secretary would consider and deal with if practicable on the Report. The Edinburgh School Board had found that needy or greedy parents frequently compelled their children to sell newspapers in the streets during hours when they ought to be at school; and they had passed a Resolution asking Parliament to forbid children under 10 years of age from engaging in this traffic during the school hours fixed by the Board.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was beyond the purview of the Bill. At the same time, there might be Amendments which could be moved on the Report, though not in Committee.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 21 (Prohibition of employment of children, young persons, and women on Sunday) agreed to.
  (4). Holidays.
  Clause 22 (Days to be observed as holidays and half-holidays to be allowed in factories and workshops).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 10, line 38, to leave out "child, young per-
  314
  son, and women, "and insert" person, "with the object of extending the operations of the clause to all the employés in factories and workshops. In many branches of industry it was found convenient to give half-holidays on Saturdays, and he was sure that if it only applied to the young women they would feel very lonely unless they had the young men to accompany them. There were, of course, certain trades to which this could not apply, and the Home Secretary could, without difficulty, provide for these in the Schedule of exceptions which would follow the clauses of the Bill. In the printing trade, for instance, it would be impossible to give whole-holidays to all the hands; and in many cases it would be very inconvenient to grant even half-holidays, for it would be out of the question to do without a newspaper on the day following Christmas Day. There were only eight half-holidays in the year, and the granting of them could not do much harm to the employers, while to the Legislature, which looked after the interest and pleasure of the workpeople, its result must be very beneficial.
  MR. TENNANTopposed the Amendment. It was, he said, on these very holidays that in most factories necessary repairs to the machinery had to be effected—repairs which would not be possible when the factories wore in full work.
  MR. HIBBERTalso opposed the Amendment, but on broader grounds. If Parliament was to commence by stating as to the holidays of adult males employed in factories, it would soon commence to state what their hours of work should be; and he thought few branches of the subject could involve greater danger than an attempt to interfere with the hours of adult male labour.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSagreed entirely with the hon. Member's (Mr. Hibbert's) remarks, and could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. LEWIS STARKEYsaid, the clause as it stood gave employers power to grant as a holiday "either" Good Friday or the next public holiday under the Holidays Extension Act 1875. He did not wish the discretionary power to be left in the hands of the employers,

  315
  and, therefore, moved, in page 10, line 40, the omission of the word "either."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause had been based upon the recommendation of the Select Committee which sat to inquire into the subject. The Committee said there were certain circumstances which rendered Friday an inconvenient day to be absolutely fixed by law as a holiday. At Easter, for instance, it would often result in no work being done before Tuesday or Wednesday in the following week, notwithstanding the fact that there might be a press of orders on hand. It was also mentioned that Good Friday was not a holiday of obligation with Roman Catholics, and, under all the circumstances, the Select Committee saw no reason for fixing it absolutely by law as a holiday.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. PARNELLmoved that the notice by the employer of his intention to grant an holiday should be given six days before the date intended instead of "on the last previous work day," as proposed by the Bill. His reason was that a day's notice would be too short for the people to arrange for the most pleasant way of enjoying their holiday.
  MR. GORSTsupported the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought a week's notice was more than employers could be expected to give; but expressed his willingness to accept the words "last work day but one" instead of "last work day."
  MR. PARNELLaccepted the proposal.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Words suggested by Mr. ASSHETON CROSS inserted.
  MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 11, sub-section 5, line 16, after "Saturday," to insert "and the half-holiday must be in the afternoon, except on a Saturday."
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought the proposal unnecessary. In order to give the half-holiday in the early part of the day, it would be necessary in the great majority of cases to completely alter the regular and accustomed hours of labour; while, in some few cases, it would conduce to the convenience of all concerned to take the
  316
  earlier part of the day for the half-holiday.
  MR. FIELDENpointed out, as a practical difficulty, that in many cases if a half-holiday was given in the morning, it would not be easy to get the hands to work in the afternoon.
  MR. C. S. PARKERsaw no reason why, in exceptional circumstances, the half-holiday should not be given early in the day, and objected to the Amendment, as tending too far in the direction of restriction.
  MR. MELLORdid not see how it was possible, except in very unfrequent cases, to give holidays to workpeople in the morning half of the day.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 11, line 30, to leave out "five" and insert "twenty" as the penalty for not posting up in the factories or workshops notice of the holidays to be granted. The clause would then run—
  "If in a factory or workship such whole holidays or half-holidays as required by this section are not fixed in conformity therewith, the occupier of the factory or workshop shall he liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
  In the case of owners of large factories, a fine of £5 would be a matter of so small amount that it would pay them remarkably well to forfeit the sum, and deprive their employés of the holidays which were guaranteed them by the Act, in order to secure a profit far beyond the amount of the fine paid.
  Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 30, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "twenty."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that the sub-section it was proposed to amend had nothing to do with the actual holidays; it only referred to the notice which employers should be bound to give of them. There was another distinct and much heavier set of penalties provided for employers who should deprive their workpeople of the holidays to be fixed by the Bill when it had become an Act of Parliament.
  MR. ORR EWINGthought the penalty was quite heavy enough, inasmuch as there were very many more small fac-

  317
  tories and workshops owned or occupied by comparatively poor men than there were large establishments tenanted by men to whom a £5 fine would be a mere flea-bite.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsuggested that the maximum penalty for a first offence should remain at £5; but that it should be raised for each subsequent infraction of the law.
  MR. BIGGARpointed out that the fine was not to exceed £5, and that the magistrates could apportion the amount in accordance with the size and value of the premises occupied by the person offending.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 7: Majority 201.—(Div. List, No. 30.)
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  (5.) Education of Children.
  Clause 23 (Attendance at school of children employed in a factory or workshop) agreed to.
  Clause 24 (Obtaining of school attendance certificate by occupier of factory or workshop) agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Payment by occupier on application of sums for schooling of child, and deduction of it from wages).
  MR. WHITBREADsuggested an Amendment relating to the stoppage of wages for school payments, but on consideration it was deferred until the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 26 (Employment as young person of child of 13 obtaining educational certificate).
  MR. PARNELLpointed out, that the provision allowing children who had attained proficiency in reading, writing, and arithmetic, to leave school before 13 years of age, would have the effect of removing from school the most intelligent and the brightest children, and would leave the dull ones to reap further advantages. He moved the omission of the clause, in order to give opportunity for explanation.
  MR. MUNDELLAmaintained that this provision, so far from depriving a
  318
  quick child of education, would have the reverse effect.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  (9.) Certificates of Fitness for Employment.
  Clause 27 (Certificate for fitness of employment of children and young persons under 16 in workshops).
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that by the clause as it stood, it was imperative on every factory employer to have a certificate of efficiency with every child or young person entering his employment. The line of demarcation between workshops and factories was a very delicate one, and it seemed an invidious thing that, as regarded workpeople employed in producing the same article, we should have two entirely different laws. He suggested that the clause should render it imperative for employers, whether owners of factories or workshops, to have certificates with those they employed. He moved to insert the words "or workshop."
  Amendment proposed, in page 13, line 37, after the word "factory," to insert the words "or workshop."—(Mr. William, Holms.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not agree with all that had fallen from the hon. Member. On the question of certificates of fitness, he believed they were a great safeguard. The Royal Commission stated that there was a monopoly in factories, but not in workshops; and there was now such distinction between the two, that he did not wish to mix them up.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHwas not able to support the Amendment, because he believed the system of surgical certificates, however good it might have been in the beginning, was now very nearly worked out. The school board regulations seemed to him to give a guarantee of the age of a child.
  MR. WHITWELLexpressed his surprise and regret that while the Bill professed to make the old system of factory and the new system of workshop regulation alike, it established an immense difference. The exemption under the new system for the workshops, as com-

  319
  pared with the textile factories, would be a great relief to the workshops. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS: Not relief.] It was understood all were to be under one law. This was not the case. Exemptions more numerous than any Act of Parliament had ever before established were introduced in favour, and as he contended in relief, of the labour conducted in workshops. Of this course he could not approve, for it established permanently different legislation for the same class of workers.
  MR. FIELDENheld it to be a most important thing that children should not only be of a certain age, but that the certifying surgeon should certify that each child had the appearance of a child of that age, and was not unequal to the work that he was called upon to perform.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, that for the reasons given by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish), he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. MUNDELLAfound some difficulty in refusing to support the Amendment. In cases where children were rejected at a factory by reason of incapacity or disease, they might go straight over to a shop and be employed. Such cases had happened, and the right hon. Gentleman would do well to see whether such cases could not be met.
  MR. GORSTalso found it difficult not to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), because he did not see why the same principle should not be applied to factories as to workshops. It seemed to him that they should provide as far as they could that children should not be sent by their parents to places for which they were unfit.
  MR. BRIGGShoped the Home Secretary would give way on this question. There seemed to be no occasion to draw any distinction between children employed in factories and those employed in workshops. The conditions under which children worked in large factories were decidedly better than those they worked under in small workshops. Ventilation was better, space was larger; and if medical examination was necessary, it was more necessary in the case of children in small workshops than in those employed in large factories.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 95: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
  MR. GORSTsaid, that under the present Bill, medical officers had duties to discharge which were much more properly those of a physician, and he hoped there would be no objection to describe them in the Bill as "factory medical officer," instead of "certified surgeon." He believed the change was one that was much desired by the Profession. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had never had the question brought under his notice, and was not prepared to accept the Amendment without consideration.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that the matter would be brought before the House on a future occasion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MUNDELLAintimated that the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don) had an Amendment to the effect that a child should not require a certificate every time it changed its employer.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHbegged to move the Amendment, of which Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Roscommon—namely, in page 14, line 1, after "that" insert "or any similar." This question of medical certificates and papers gave more trouble to the Commissioners than any other. He wished to explain why it was that it seemed to him impossible to maintain the law in its present position. The Re-port of the Commissioners said that the requiring of a certificate with every child and young person was the subject of very great complaint both by employers and employed. At the present time the burden fell chiefly on the employer, and if that burden had been felt in the past, how much more likely was it to be felt in future? Perhaps it might be said that 3s. or 4s. was not a great deal for a parent to pay. But changes might occur, and did occur, especially in the brick-fields, where they changed once a-year; and if every child so employed had to have a certificate

  321
  once every year, a family of four or five children would amount to a heavy tax on the parent. Had the existing system been so satisfactory in the past that we should wish to enforce it in the future? One thing struck the Commissioners, and that was the large number of half-time children found in the shops. A large number of children were passed by the surgeons as being 13, when they were very little over 10. The Commissioners reported that sometimes 15 to 20 certificates were cancelled for children who had been passed as of full-time. Was a system which depended entirely on the strictness, or otherwise, of the certifying surgeon, one which they should adopt in this new Act? He felt himself so doubtful that he would wish to abolish all distinction between workshops and factories. What were the dangers to be apprehended from the single certificate? First, there was the danger of personation. After the certificate was once given the surgeon did not interfere; and he did not see why change of employment rendered it more necessary for the surgeon to interfere than in the case of the child remaining in the same employment. He wished to minimize the hardship as much as possible, and therefore he begged to move the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon which would allow any child who had obtained a certificate to be employed in any factory where the work was of a similar nature.
  Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 1, after the word "that," to insert the words "or any similar."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas bound to say that great credit was due to the certifying surgeons for the large share they had taken in the working of the Factory Acts; in fact, the Factory Acts never would have accomplished what they had accomplished but for them. The Commissioners said they could not pass on without testifying to the interest many of the certifying surgeons took in their work. Therefore, he would be very unwilling to pass any law to take away the certifying surgeons. What they would do in the future would be what they had done in the past, and
  322
  they had afforded the greatest aid in carrying out these Acts of Parliament. That being so, he could not agree with the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish), that he should like these certifying surgeons to be done away with. Then came the question as to how this matter could be simplified to make it less oppressive than it was. In the first place, these certificates were obtained by the masters by contract. Of course, he did not say that for a person in health it was necessary that there should be a new certificate in going from one employment to another; but it was certainly a great safeguard, and he believed that in the absence of the existing practice there would be great danger of personation. As the elder child grew up the certificate would be handed over to the younger children, the brother, or some one else, and a great deal of personation would go on. Therefore, he should be sorry to do away with the present system, unless some more efficacious scheme could be put in its place. The Education Department had now issued to many children a small book, which would contain on the first page the date of his birth, and would thus become a sort of record. This plan had only been in force about a month; and at the present moment it had not had time to prove of much use. He did not object to the law as it stood, nor should he object to insert a clause in the Bill to carry out any plan for increasing the use of the certificate; but he certainly should not adopt that course unless he saw that it could be practically carried out.
  DR. LUSHsaid, he must say one word, which he was afraid would be in opposition to the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Lord Frederick Cavendish). The difficulty a surgeon had to deal with was in seeing that these children were not injured by illness or bodily disease. The noble Lord said that one inspection should be sufficient until they passed out of the category of young persons. He (Dr. Lush) felt there ought to be Some sort of supervision, to see that those persons did not return to their employment too soon after illness. Under existing Acts, if a girl of 16 was in a state of pregnancy, or had gone home and been delivered of a child, and went back the next day to work, there was nothing that gave the

  323
  power of overlooking such persons in factories. Instead of diminishing the powers of the surgeon, he should like to see them much extended.
  MR. KNOWLESmaintained that if one certificate was to be held permanently, it might go through the hands of 20 people before the fraud was detected. He was quite sure, therefore, that the noble Lord would not press an Amendment which he had only moved for the hon. Member for Roseommon (the O'Conor Don).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRopposed the Amendment as being contrary to the principle on which legislation had proceeded in analogous cases. If, he contended, a certificate of bodily health were to be of any use at all, it was desirable that the security which it afforded as to fitness for employment should not be any further relaxed.
  MR. MUNDELLA,while admitting that much good service had been done by means of factory inspection, pointed out that the clause, as it stood, would operate very prejudicially in the case of the smaller class of employers who would be brought under the provisions of the Factory Acts for the first time. He held in his hand a letter from one of his own constituents, who, after stating that he kept only one or two apprentices, complained that the clause would affect him very injuriously, inasmuch as he would have to pay 2s. or 2s. 6d. for a certificate each time a young person entered his employment; while employers on a large scale were able to contract with surgeons for certificates by paying a trifling sum for inspecting a considerable number together. He concurred in the opinion that a child should be obliged to obtain a certificate of bodily fitness when first entering a factory; but he could not see that it was necessary there should be a fresh certificate on every change of employment. It was argued that the clause was required in order to prevent personation; but if a fine were attached to any attempt of that kind, and the employer was allowed to keep the certificate in his own hands during the whole time a young person remained in his factory, delivering it up only when he or she was about to leave for some other employment, the difficulty as to personation would, he thought, be entirely removed. He hoped, at all events, that the Secretary
  324
  of State for the Home Department by adopting the Amendment—or some modification of it—would prevent thousands of small employers from being saddled with an expense which they could ill afford to bear.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, his hon. Friend would find that in Clause 68 the objection which he had raised as to employers who had only one or two apprentices having to pay the expenses of certificates was met by a proviso, limiting the operation of the Bill in that respect to workshops in which at least 10 children were engaged.
  MR. ANDEESONmaintained that the result of the adoption of the Amendment would be to give increased facilities for personation, especially in large towns like Glasgow, where numbers of young persons who came over from Ireland were constantly seeking employment. Indeed, he did not think it would be possible to identify children, if they were allowed to take away their certificate from place to place as was proposed, and the door would thus be opened to a great amount of fraud.
  MR. WHITBREADwas of opinion that there was by no means so much danger of personation now as formerly, as children were much better known to the authorities than was the case previous to the passing of the Act of 1874. If a certificate were wanted at all, it was, it seemed to him, as necessary that it should be renewed periodically in the case of children who continued in the same employment as of those who went from one employment to another. He wished, also, to point out that, to insist that a child should obtain a fresh certificate every time it changed its employment, would be to impose a penalty on that change, and in that way to restrict that freedom of choice which it was desirable should be maintained. Entertaining those views, he should vote for the Amendment.
  DR. KENEALYwould also feel it to be his duty to support the Amendment, if the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) pressed it to a division. He could fully corroborate what had fallen from the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) as to the dissatisfaction which was felt by a large number of small employers at the clause as it stood. Its effect would be to levy upon them an almost perpetual tax, inasmuch as not

  325
  being in the habit, like employers on a great scale, of contracting with surgeons for those inspections, they were obliged to pay separately for each child. He objected, he might add, to the check which the clause would impose on children in preventing them from leaving a particular workshop, which might suit neither their health nor their circumstances in a variety of ways. As to the alarm about personation, he, for one, did not share in it. The evil might, he thought, be altogether obviated by the imposition of a small penalty for personation on the parents of a child. It was an error, he believed, to suppose that a child was not compelled to pay for a certificate, for he found that by Clause 69 a small sum—3d.—might be deducted from its wages for the purpose.
  MR. ORR EWINGthought there was great force in the argument that the Amendment would operate injuriously—at all events in large towns—where there were such vast numbers of children seeking for employment that it would be impossible to identify them. Much, therefore, as he should like to see the object of the Amendment carried out, he considered it was a dangerous experiment to justify its acceptance by the Committee.
  MR. ANDERSONpointed out, in reply to the hon. Member for Bedford, that children might be known to the authorities in small places, but they could not be in large ones, especially where there was a constant Irish immigration, and he was wrong in speaking of the penalty inflicted; for although the employer was empowered to deduct 3d. from a child's wages to pay for a certificate, such deduction was practically never made, nor did he think it at all likely it would be under the present Bill.
  SIR ANDREW LUSK,as representing a borough in which great numbers of children were employed, should feel it his duty to support the Amendment. There was, in his opinion, considerable weight in the argument that the clause in its present shape would throw obstacles in the way of freedom of trade, while the hundreds of employers who only engaged one or two hands ought, he thought, to be considered as well as those who employed thousands.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, there was on the Notice Paper another Amendment standing in the name of the hon.
  326
  Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), empowering an employer to retain in his own hands the certificate of a child while it remained in his employment; and that, if that proposal, in addition to the Amendment under discussion, were adopted, he did not see how there could be much danger of personation. The only danger would be on the occasion of the first engagement. He did not mean to contend, after what hon. Members, and especially hon. Gentlemen representing Scotch constituencies, had said, that the fears of those who took a contrary view were altogether unfounded; but he could not help thinking that the chances of a fraud being successfully attempted were so small as by no means to outweigh the admitted inconvenience which it was intended by the Amendment to remove. Many of his constituents complained very strongly of the heavy tax which was imposed upon them by the present system of perpetually renewing these certificates, and urged that they should be granted by a public officer who should be paid for out of the rates instead of being allowed to fall upon employers and their workmen—a proposition which he thought reasonable—but which he did not think it right at present to submit to the House.
  MR. MUNDELLA,while observing that he did not at all wish to relax the stringency of the Factory Acts again, spoke strongly in favour of the adoption of the Amendment as being intended to do away with a burden which was found to be very oppressive by the small employers.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwas also of opinion that some relaxation on the stringency of the clause ought to be made in the interest of those employers, who were now in the habit of making the payment for the children, as well as in support of perfect freedom of trade for the children themselves, who ought to have right to seek fresh employment without having a difficulty thrown in their way.
  MR. RITCHIEcould state from his own personal knowledge, that the sums paid for certificates, neither directly or indirectly, came out of the wages of the children, in 99 cases out of 100. The identification of the children was, he contended, just as difficult now as at any former period, and the result of the

  327
  adoption of the Amendment would, he feared, be to open wide the door to personation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 72; Majority 8.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Certificate of fitness for employment of children and young persons under 16 in workshops) agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Power of Inspectors to require surgical certificate of capacity of child or young person under 16 for work).
  MR. GRAYmoved the omission, in page 14, line 26, of all the words after the word "continue," with the view of substituting for them words providing that the occupier might have notice served upon him to discontinue the working of a child or young person, within any number of days, not less than one or more than seven, named by the Inspector; the object of the Amendment being, that the discontinuance of work in the cases in question might take effect almost immediately after the notice was given, if deemed necessary, instead of waiting seven days.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment, and pointed out that the clause merely re-enacted the provisions of previous Acts, with respect to requiring the seven days' notice.
  MR. PARNELLsuggested that there might be good reasons why a child should not be asked to work for even a single day after the Inspector had given notice of its unfitness for work on account of bodily infirmity. The Inspector ought to be the best judge in such cases.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 30 (Supplemental provisions as to certificates of fitness for employment).
  Mr. MUNDELLAmoved the omission of the words "when a child becomes a young person a fresh certificate of fitness must be obtained." The clause as it
  328
  stood would, he contended, cause unnecessary expense and trouble.
  MR. RITCHIE,seeing no reason why a second certificate was necessary, hoped the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment.
  MR. LEWIS STARKEYalso hoped the Home Secretary would give way, so that unnecessary multiplication of certificates might be avoided.
  MR. GORSTsupported the clause in the interest of the child itself. He asked whether a young person could not be employed under circumstances where a child could not be set to work, and whether a young person could not take work which could not be given to a child? For instance, a child might be strong enough to work in the part of a lucifer match factory where dipping was not carried on; yet, on reaching the age of 13 or 14, he might still be utterly unfit to be taken into the dipping department; and if he could be so transferred without a fresh certificate being obtained, he might suffer seriously in health.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, the regulations in the Bill applied to the whole, and not to a part, of a factory.
  Mr. FIELDENsaid, the essential point was fitness. In practice, a person working full-time, was put to very different employment to that to which a child working half-time would be put. It was a very different thing to employ a person for 10 hours, and to allow him to labour for one-half of that period; so that it was most important that a surgeon's certificate should be given to show that a child was fit to become a "young person," and to do the extra work of those coming under that category. He hoped the Home Secretary would not give way.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSthought the Committee ought not to give way after what had been stated by the last speaker. More work was thrown upon a young person than upon a child, and the question was whether he would be able to undergo it, a point which a surgeon's certificate would settle. There was also the point that, when a child had passed a certain educational standard, it should be enabled to work as a young person at the age of 13, and it would be more satisfactory if it were compulsory to have a medical certificate of physical fitness. He hoped the Committee would retain the clause as it stood.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he would withdraw the Amendment, as the Home Secretary felt disinclined to accept it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  (2.) Accidents.
  Clause 31 (Notice of accidents causing death or bodily injury).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, in page 15, line 32, after "sent," to insert "to the inspector and."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLremarked, that the clause only provided that notice should be sent in cases where the bodily injury was produced either by machinery moved by steam, water, or other mechanical power, or by explosion, or by escape of gas, steam, or metal; and he suggested that the Home Secretary should consider whether the clause should, not be extended to all kinds of accidents occurring in factories.
  MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 15, line 38, after "furnace," to insert "or other factory or workshop where the occupier is not."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Investigation of and report on accidents by certifying surgeon).
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, in page 16, line 7, to leave out from "send," to "and," in line 8.
  Amendment agreed to.
  DR. WARDproposed the omission of words by which the certifying surgeon should send a report of his investigation as to the nature of the injury caused by the accident to the Inspector within 24 hours of making such an investigation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GORSTsaid, the last part of the clause proposed that the surgeon should be paid for his investigation a fee of not more than 10 s., nor less than 3s., as the Secretary of State considered reasonable. This was a restriction upon the discretion of the Secretary of State, who, he considered, should have larger powers than he had taken to himself under the
  330
  clause. He moved, in page 16, line 18, to leave out "not exceeding ten nor less than three shillings."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSfailed to see the necessity for the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RITCHIEexpressed some surprise that the Home Secretary had accepted the hon. Member's (Dr. Ward's) Amendment. It did not appear to him to be consequential, and if the Home Secretary were to re-consider it, he would probably see that it made a great change in the clause. A provision, by which a report as to the nature and cause of the death or injury resulting from the accident should be sent by the surgeon to the Inspector, ought to be retained in the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had assented to the Amendment under the impression that it was consequential; but he would re-consider the point before the Bill was reported.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

PART II.

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PARTICULAR CLASSES OF FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS.
  (1.) Special Provisions for Health in certain Factories and Workshops.
  Clause 33 (Limewashing and washing of the interior of factories and workshops) agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Limewashing, painting, and washing of the interior of bakehouses) agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Provision as to sleeping places near bakehouses) agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Provision as to ventilation by fan in factories and workshops) agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Protection of workers in wet spinning).
  MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 18, line 9, after "tow," to insert "or other fibrous material."
  MR. RITCHIEthought it would be better to leave out "flax, hemp, jute, and tow," and leave the words "wet spinning" to cover the whole. He proposed to move an Amendment in accordance with that view.
  The CHAIRMANsaid, it could not be done unless the hon. Member's (Mr. Tennant's) Amendment were withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas hardly prepared to say that it would be safe to leave the words "wet spinning" by themselves, and thought the term itself rather vague.
  MR. RITCHIEconsidered that the term was sufficiently inclusive, as it would apply to any spinning done under a wet process.
  MR. GORSThoped the clause would be allowed to stand in its original form, because if "wet spinning" stood alone, the justices, who had to administer the Act, might experience some difficulty in construing its exact meaning.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONagreed that the words proposed ought to remain; a long list of particular things followed by general words were a fertile source of difficulty among lawyers.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that if the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Tennant) would withdraw his Amendment, he would take legal advice as to whether "wet spinning" would cover all that was necessary, and if it were found that they would not meet the case, then he would consider what other words would best apply.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRISTOWEhoped that special attention would be given to the clause, because it was so worded at present that it was most difficult to understand. What, for instance, was meant by the words "and where hot water is used, for preventing the escape of steam into the room occupied by the workers?"
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the clause had been in operation since the year 1844, and there had not been the slightest difficulty experienced in construing it.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURsuggested that the escape of steam should be prevented "as far as practicable."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpromised to consider the point before the Report.
  MR. PARNELLmoved the omission of the words "and where hot water is used, for preventing the escape of steam into the room occupied by the workers." He failed to see how, if hot water were in a room, it would be possible in all cases to prevent steam es-
  332
  caping into the open air. Perhaps the clause had been framed at a time when the properties of steam were not well understood. How could the escape of steam in a laundry be prevented?
  DR. LUSHsaid, the distinction between steam and vapour did not appear to be understood.
  MR. GORSTthought the clause did not apply to laundries at all, but to a very limited class of factories.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Prohibition of employment of children and young persons in certain factories or workshops).
  MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 18, at end, to add—
  "Where it appears to a Secretary of State that by reason of the nature of the process in any class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof, not named in the said Schedule, the work carried on therein is specially injurious to health, he may, if he think fit, by order made under this part of this Act, extend the prohibition in this section to the said class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof. If the prohibition in this section is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State to be no longer necessary for the protection of the health of children, young persons, or women, in any class of factories or workshops, or parts thereof, to which the prohibition has been extended by an order, he may, by an order made under this part of this Act, rescind the order of extension, without prejudice, nevertheless to the subsequent making of another order."
  There were many trades not mentioned in the Schedule, which were injurious to the health of children and young persons—such for example, as were connected with grinding, certain operations in the manufacture of pottery, earthenware, or in bleaching works; and injurious trades might spring up at any time which could be dealt with so far as the employment of children, young persons, and women, was concerned, if a discretionary power were placed in the hands of the Home Secretary.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was a great deal to be urged in favour of this provision, because with increasing knowledge new manufactures must develop, some of which might require supervision. Therefore, he had nothing to say if the Committee imposed this duty on the Home Secretary. He had not inserted such a provision in the Bill,

  333
  because he had thought the wisest course would be, that when any dangerous trade sprung up, Parliament should be consulted on the propriety of its being brought under legislation.
  MR. FIELDENsaid, the Amendment would give very large powers to the Home Secretary, and any new restrictions should be submitted for the approval of Parliament in the usual way. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. ORE EWINGthought that such changes as those proposed ought to be effected by means of legislation when necessary.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKconsidered that the Home Secretary had taken a wise course in saying that he had secured as much power in the Bill as he considered necessary.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, he could produce ample evidence from the Reports of Inspectors that restrictions on other trades than those mentioned in the Schedules were necessary, and that a power of prohibition should be given to the Secretary of State. He would withdraw the Amendment, and include certain trades in the Schedule when it came under discussion.
  MR. PARNELLcould not help feeling aghast at the attempt made by the Home Secretary to provide for everything, and believed it would have been much better if some power had been given to the local authorities to deal with many questions included in the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Prohibition of taking meals in certain parts of factories and workshops).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 18, to leave out from commencement of clause to "not," inclusive, and insert "no person shall be." The language of the clause and the 2nd Schedule taken together appeared to appoint to especial and particular dangers in the trades specified. In some places where they were carried on, the air would, during meal-times, probably be full of dust or gritty particles, and as the trades specified were so few in number, it would be well to extend the provisions of the clause to all persons working at the dangerous branches of those occupations.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his objection to this Amendment was the same as he had taken to others; that Parliament did not legislate for men. With regard to the special occupations mentioned in the 2nd Schedule, they had not been picked out by him nor selected by mere caprice, but were trades upon which legislation had already taken place. Those trades had been the subject of minute inquiry by a Royal Commission, upon whose recommendations several Acts had been founded and passed.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 40 (In print works, and bleaching and dyeing works, period of employment and time allowed for meals).
  MR. J. K. CROSSasked why the hours were reduced in these particular works to the same hours as in textile factories, when they were not reduced in many other industries more detrimental to the health of the workers? It was shown before the Royal Commission that in dye and print works the number of protected persons was only 32½ per cent, while in cotton factories it was over 70 per cent. Many trades much more detrimental to health than dyeing and bleaching were passed over altogether. In percussion cap - making, book-binding, paper-making, and staining, more young persons were employed than in the trades referred to in the
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he had simply adhered to the recommendation of the Royal Commission. The actual Report upon this very subject occupied four pages, and contained everything he could say of the evil effects of longer hours. The conclusion the Commissioners came to was, that the hours might be reduced without serious inconvenience to the employers. He did not think he would be justified in reading the Report unless the Committee wished it, and he would only say that the reasons which were there so fully stated he had adopted as his own.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 41 (Power to require certificates of fitness for employment of children and young persons under 16 in certain workshops) agreed to.
  (3.) Special Exceptions relating to General Law in certain Factories and Workshops.
  Clause 42 (Period of employment between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 43 (Power to Secretary of State to allow period of employment between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. in certain cases) agreed to.
  Clause 44 (Power of working male young persons above 16 in lace factories) agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Power of working male young persons above 16 in bakehouses) agreed to.
  Clause 46 (Substitution by Secretary of State of another half holiday for Saturday) agreed to.
  Clause 47 (Employment in Turkey red dyeing on Saturday up to 4 30 p. m.).
  MR. TENNANTmoved, in page 22, line 33, after "afternoon," to insert—
  "But the additional number of hours so worked shall be computed as a part of the week's limit of work, which shall in no case be exceeded."
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that Commissioners bad twice been appointed to inquire into the question of the number of hours worked in Turkey-red dyeing. The Commission of 1854 reported in 1855, that no legislation was necessary; and the Commission of 1866, which reported in 1869, concurred in that opinion.
  MR. E. JENKINSasked why the trade of Turkey-red dyeing was to have a special advantage over every other?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied, that this trade had been examined into several times, and it had not been found that any mischief resulted from the manner in which it was conducted. With regard to the particular exception which stood in this clause, the Royal Commission of last year reported that they had found it necessary to again inquire into the question of the Saturday half-holiday in the case of the Turkey-red dyeing trade which had, by a series of modifications, been placed to a great extent outside the restrictions imposed by the law upon other trades. It had been represented to them that the trade was
  336
  altogether a peculiar one; there were no less than 24 processes, each occupying at least a day, through which it was necessary to pass the material; and it was urged that to give a half-holiday on Saturday would cause serious interference with the work, although it was found that practically it was finished between 2 and 3 on Saturday afternoon. The hon. Member would therefore see that the process of Turkey-red dyeing was very peculiar, requiring a certain number of hours each day, and involving the necessity of going on from day to day. Seeing that the Commissioners had not recommended a change, he (Mr. Cross) certainly could not sanction any without further inquiry.
  MR. TENNANTdid not mean by the Amendment to interfere with the process at all. If it could be carried through by half-past 4, there was no reason why the week's limit should be exceeded. He would certainly divide the Committee unless some arrangement were come to that that should not be done.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, the trade did not work more than 60 hours in any one week. On Saturdays they very seldom worked after 3, or half-past 2. He was sure they worked less hours per week than other trades.
  MR. MONKsaid, what it was desired to affirm was that women and young children should not be forced to work more than a certain number of hours a-week. Asit seemed necessary that there should not be a limit to 2 o'clock on Saturdays, but that they should be allowed to work till half-past 4, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. FIELDENthought that under no circumstances ought the statutory number of hours per week to be exceeded.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsuggested that all difficulty would be obviated if words were inserted in the clause providing that 60 hours a-week should not be exceeded.
  MR. W. HOLMSsaid, that there was a general feeling in Scotland that those engaged in this trade should not be permitted to work more hours than those employed in other trades.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSintimated his willingness to accept the Amendment if the words "be exceeded" were substituted by the words "exceed 60 hours."
  MR. MUNDELLApointed out that 60 hours were more than the bleachers and dyers had to work.
  MR. ORR EWINGwould assent to the shortening of the hours not to exceed 60 in the week, so as to allow the work to be continued till half-past 4 on Saturday if necessary.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought the Committee were of one mind. They did not object to allowing till half-past 4 on Saturday, but they did not see any reason for giving more hours per week.
  MR. KNOWLESpointed out that the Commissioners who had gone over these works had come to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to give till half-past 4 on Saturday.
  SIR EDWARD WATKINsaid, the Turkey-red dyeing trade was brought from Switzerland, and if too many restrictions were placed upon it, it would be impossible to carry it on in this country.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they were not discussing the Saturday question at all. The only question between the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) and the Committee was whether the number of hours per week should be 60 or 56½.
  MR. KNOWLESobserved that the other dyers and bleachers throughout the Kingdom said they did not work more than other textile trades; but they required 60 hours a-week. The question was whether the Committee would allow Turkey-red dyers 60 hours, and other dyers only 56½ hours per week.
  SIR ANDERW LUSKdid not think the hon. Member for Dumbarton had been accorded fair play in this discussion. The Royal Commssion were of opinion that these works required the extra time, and therefore he (Sir Andrew Lusk) considered they ought to have it.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked whether they were to give a draw-back of 3½ hours a-week in favour of those who chose to consume Turkey-red dyes, as compared with those who consumed fabrics dyed any other colour?
  MR. ORR EWINGunderstood the Home Secretary to say he would accept the Amendment if there were an addition to it, stating that the time during the week should in no case exceed 60 hours.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShad made the suggestion that that limit should be inserted in the Amendment; but it had not been accepted on either side of the House, and therefore he had regarded it as withdrawn.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsuggested that the Amendment should state that the number of hours should not exceed 56½ per week. He thought they were all agreed upon that point.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, they did not use much dye in Ireland. Irish ladies, for instance, were perfectly satisfied with natural colours. As far as he understood it, if they left the clause as it was, it would give the Turkey-red dyers 60 hours a-week. What the Committee wanted to do was to give them till half-past 4 on Saturday, and at the same time only to give them 56½ hours per week.
  MR. MUNDELLAmoved to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "be exceeded," and inserting the words "exceed 56½ hours per week."
  MR. TENNANTsaid, the Amendment was unnecessary, as all dye works were included under the Textile Fabrics Act.
  MR. MUNDELLAwould withdraw his Amendment if the Home Secretary would assure him that these works came under that Act.
  Amendment (Mr. Mundella) agreed to.
  Amendment [Mr. Tennant), as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Giving half holidays and holidays on different days to different sets of children, young persons, and women) agreed to.
  Clause 49 (Employment of young persons and women by Jewish occupiers of factories or workshops).
  MR. BIRLEYmoved, in page 23, after line 17, to add the following subsection:—
  "(3.) From specifying in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop, as hereinbefore provided any two public holidays under 'The Holidays Extension Act, 1875,' in lieu of Christmas Day and Good Friday: Provided always, That such factory or workshop shall not be open for traffic on Christmas Day or Good Friday, and

  339
  that this exception shall apply only to factories or workshops in which the young persons and women employed are of the Jewish religion."
  It would not be necessary, he observed, for him to explain the Amendment at any length, because, under Clause 22 of the Bill, there was an analogous provision.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Employment of Jews by Jews on Sunday).
  MR. BIRLEYmoved, in page 23, line 31, after "Sunday," to insert—
  "or, at his option, as if Friday were Saturday, Saturday were Sunday, and Sunday were Monday. The days so substituted shall be specified in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop."
  The Jewish Sabbath began at sunset on Friday, and it was of great importance, therefore, to a Jewish employer, who had only Jewish workpeople, that he should be allowed to give them what was equivalent to our Saturday half-holiday.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that as far as the principle was concerned, he saw no objection whatever to the Amendment; but although he believed that Jewish employers would strictly carry out the meaning and intention of his hon. Friend, he did not like the words which it was proposed to add.
  MR. HARDCASTLEthought it might be desirable to introduce some words for the prevention of proselytism of the kind indicated when the Universities Bill was under discussion, and when it was suggested that the concession of privileges to Dissenters, in regard to attendance at the College Chapels, might cause many young Churchmen to profess themselves Dissenters. He did not see anything in this clause to prevent young persons who were not Jews declaring from themselves to be of the Jewish persuasion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that this was not new legislation. The matter was first dealt with, he believed, by the Act of 31 & 31 Vict. c. 103, 10 or 11 years ago.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  (b.) Meal Hows.
  Clause 51 (Exception as to meal times being simultaneous, and as to employment or remaining in rooms where manufacturing process is carried on during meal times) agreed to.
  (c.) Overtime.
  Clause 52 (Power to employ young persons and women for 14 hours a day).
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in order to meet the case of women in London who objected to leave their homes before 9 o'clock in the morning, moved, in page 24, line 19, after "evening," to insert—"or beginning at nine o'clock in the morning, and ending at ten o'clock in the evening."
  MR. WHITWELLregretted to find that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to add another exemption to those already granted. He could not support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 (Power to employ for half an hour after end of work, where process is in an incomplete state) agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Employment of young persons and women in Turkey-red dyeing, and open-air bleaching, to prevent damage).
  MR. PARNELLsaid, this clause affected, to a certain extent, the decision at which the Committee had already arrived. It provided that if it became necessary by any damage likely to arise from spontaneous combustion in the process of Turkey-red dyeing, young persons and women might be employed as long as was necessary in order to prevent such spontaneous combustion.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, this was merely an extract from 33 & 34 Vict. c. 62. Turkey-red was extremely liable to spontaneous combustion, and for that reason, when the subject was carefully investigated in 1870, this provision was introduced into the Act of Parliament. As, however, the hon. Member had called attention to the point, he would see how far this clause was connected with the decision which the Committee had already come to.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAwas of opinion that this stood on an entirely

  341
  different basis from the provision they had already considered, and hoped the restriction which he had supported would not be applied to this clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Employment of women for 14 hours a day to preserve perishable articles) agreed to.
  (d.) Night Work.
  Clause 56 (Employment of male young persons at night) agreed to.
  Clause 57 (Employment in certain letterpress printing works of male young persons over 16 at night) agreed to.
  Clause 58 (Employment of male young persons at night, &c. in glass works) agreed to.
  (4.) Special Exception for Domestic Factories and Workshops, and certain other Workshops.
  Clause 59 (Exception of domestic and certain other factories and workshops from provisions of the Act) agreed to.
  (5.) Supplemental as to Special Provisions.
  Clause 60 (Requirement of sanitary provisions as condition of special exceptions).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 28, line 41, after "cleanliness," insert "warning." An hon. Gentleman opposite had said that workmen objected to ventilation, and sometimes stopped up the ventilators with their caps. He had heard of the same kind of thing being done in prisons. This proved, however, not that there was too much ventilation, but rather that there was too little warmth; and, he thought, a provision was necessary in order to add to the warmth of factories and workshops in such cases.
  MR. TENNANTthought it would be practically impossible to carry out the proposal embodied in the Amendment.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsuggested that if the word "temperature" were used instead of "warmth," the whole case would be met.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, if this question were to be discussed at all, it ought to be discussed on another part of the Bill, because the Committee were now only applying what the former portion of the Bill contained. He should
  342
  have thought that in factories and workshops cooling was much more necessary than warming. He did not think the State could undertake to regulate the temperature in which persons were to work.
  MR. PARNELLhad always understood that ventilation answered the purpose of cooling to a very great extent. As far as cooling could take place, it would be effected by ventilation. Hon. Members often had experience of this in the House of Commons. Last Session, during the late Sittings, on several very hot nights, due means were taken to ventilate the House, and of course to cool it at the same time. But, although a room might be cooled by ventilation, it could not be warmed by ventilation. He intended again to call attention to this matter on the Report, and he would now ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 61 (Power to rescind order granting or extending exceptions) agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Provisions as to order of Secretary of State under Part Two of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Provisions as to occupier availing himself of special exceptions and registry of work under them) agreed to.

PART III.

  ADMINISTRATION, PENALTIES, AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
  (1.) Inspectors.
  Clause 64 (Appointment, payment, &c. of inspectors of factories, and clerks and servants).
  DR. CAMERONdrew attention to the necessity of having offices in all large towns at which the sub-Inspectors of factories in the district could be found. In Glasgow the greatest difficulty had been experienced from the absence of any such address. He was told by the Glasgow School Board that in connection with the Education Act they wanted to find out the sub-Inspector of factories in the district, and they actually had to write to London for the address. On looking over, The Glasgow Directory, he found there was no address given of

  343
  the sub-Inspector of factories; and the same he found to be the case in the Directories of Liverpool and Manchester. The reason of this was very obvious. The sub-Inspectors were not very largely paid, and they were obliged to live at addresses which they did not care to parade before the public. In some cases, indeed, it was their custom to have their letters addressed to the Post Office. This ought not to be so, and therefore he would propose that words should be here inserted, which, in connection with a subsequent clause he would propose, should enact that in the chief town of each district, or in such other towns as the Secretary of State might direct, an office should be established, and a register of the factories and workshops within the district kept, which should be open to the inspection of the public at all reasonable hours. It might be objected that this would entail some additional expense, but the expense need not be very great. There were only 50 sub-Inspectors throughout the country, and, therefore, it would not cost much to provide office accommodation for the whole of them. If this were not done, however, the Home Secretary ought to insist upon offices being provided in the large towns, say of more than 25,000 and 50,000 inhabitants. He concluded by moving, in page 31, line 10, after "London," to insert "and sub-Inspectors with offices as hereinafter provided."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, to provide offices for all the Inspectors would be a very great expense, and a greater expense than he thought it was necessary to incur. He found, however, on inquiry, that he could do a great deal to meet the views of the hon. Member in another way, and he would take care that the names and addresses of the Inspectors in the whole of the towns should be fully known, and due notice given of any change. He could not, however, consent to ask the Treasury to go to the expense which would necessarily be involved in providing offices for all the Inspectors.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 65 (Powers of Inspectors).
  MR. HOPWOODmoved, in page 31, line 42, after "thereof," to insert "not being a private dwelling-house or room."
  344
  He wanted to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary powers placed in the hands of the Inspector under this Bill; because it was a style of legislation which he hoped they might check before it grew to an excessive indulgence, affecting, as it did, the rights of any man in his own house. He found that power was to be given to enter any factory or workshop at any period of the day or night. Now, the workshop might be a dwelling-house, and he wanted to prevent any such power being given in that case. A man in his own house ought not to be left at the mercy of the judgment of a public officer to enter it when he pleased. He also found it proposed that the Inspector might bring with him a certifying surgeon and a constable to assist him. He admitted this last proposal was about to be softened by an Amendment, to be proposed by the Home Secretary; though, as regarded the first matter to which he had referred, he should feel it his duty to test the opinion of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed, in page 31, line 42, after the word "thereof," to insert the words "not being a private dwelling house or room."—(Mr. Hopwood.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas sorry the hon. and learned Member had not placed his Amendment on the Paper, and he was also sorry that he had not quite mastered the effect of the Amendment of which he had himself given Notice. The Amendment which he had placed on the Paper was to strike out all the words in the paragraph from "him" to "and" in line 7, and to insert—
  "In either case a constable into a factory in which he has reasonable cause to apprehend any serious obstruction in the execution of his duty."
  So that would remove the constable altogether, except so far as a factory was concerned, and everything about a private dwelling-house had been excepted in an earlier part of the Bill, unless the dwelling-house was a workshop, and as regarded that, he proposed hereafter to move the following new clause:—
  "The exercise in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour by way of trade, or for purposes of gain, in or incidental to any of

  345
  the handicrafts as specified in the Fifth Schedule of this Act, shall not of itself constitute such house or room a workshop within the meaning of this Act."
  He hoped, with this explanation, the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERdid not think the statement of the Home Secretary set aside the argument of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) in favour of his Amendment. As he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was as anxious to exclude the Inspector from the private dwelling-house as he was to exclude the constable, because he looked upon the power proposed to be given to the Inspector as a dangerous power; and it was no answer to that for the Home Secretary to say he had saved the private dwelling from the dangers of the policeman.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the hon. Member had not read the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERhad heard the Home Secretary's explanation of it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, where a place was really and truly a private dwelling-house, then even the Inspector could not go into it.
  MR. PARNELLdid not think the new clause would contradict what was enacted in Clause 16.
  MR. WHITBREADwas as anxious as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood) was to exempt a private house from the operation of the Bill, where the private house was really the house of the family; and, as he understood the Amendment of the Home Secretary, the law would be this—where none but the members of the family laboured, then the private house would be exempt; but if, under the guise of a dwelling-house, people carried on work, at which other than the members of the family were employed, then surely it was reasonable the Inspector should have admission.
  MR. HOPWOODcomplained of the summary manner in which the Home Secretary had treated his Amendment; but he should not be deterred from doing his duty either by the indifference of the right hon. Gentleman or the laughter and jeers of his supporters. He contended that when the Home Secretary disposed of him in the summary way he did, he had no just right to do so. In the favourite new clause of the right hon. Gentleman, the
  346
  words occurred "where the labour is exercised at irregular intervals." Now, who was to decide what irregular intervals were. It appeared to him that a poor family might one week carry on one class of sewing work, and be subjected to the visit of the Inspector; while another week, if they carried on a different class of sewing work, they might not be subjected to a visit. He hoped, therefore, the Home Secretary would attend a little more to the suggestions coming from the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. GORSTsaid, hon. Gentlemen sitting on his side of the House were quite as anxious as those sitting opposite to see that justice was done in this matter; but, as the clause now stood, an Inspector could not enter a house at all, except it was a workshop, and it must be a real workshop. If he made a mistake, and entered a bonâ fide dwelling-house, then he would be a trespasser, and he would be liable to the penalties of a trespasser. Even if it were a workshop, he might only enter it if he had reasonable cause to believe there was some person being improperly employed there. There, again, if he made a mistake, he could be treated as a trespasser. He asked any hon. Gentleman if it was possible to carry out this Bill with less powers than those asked for by the Home Secretary.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsympathized with the object of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hopwood), but thought it would be better attained by waiting until they came to discuss the new clause of the Home Secretary. They had yet to decide what was really to be a workshop. He therefore asked the hon. and learned Member to withdraw his Amendment for the present.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERbelieved, from the discussion which had taken place, the Home Secretary would perhaps see the necessity of drawing up a special clause, which might be inserted afterwards on Report. He made this suggestion for this reason. The new clause, to which the right hon. Gentleman had directed attention, had been framed not for the protection and security of the character of the private dwelling-house, but its object was for the exemption of certain trades. The clause itself was headed "Exemption of Certain Trades." If the object of

  347
  the clause was to obtain protection for the private dwelling-house, why was it not so stated? Let the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring in a special clause later on, for the purpose of preserving the private part of any house which it might be the duty of an Inspector to visit. He could perform his duty by going through the workshop, and he need not have the liberty which was implied of going into the private parts of the house.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could assure hon. Gentlemen he was just as anxious as they were to preserve the private character of the house; and he had already stated, that so far as the constable was concerned, he had disapproved. As far as the Inspector was concerned, hon. Members must remember the great hardships which were inflicted before the Factory and Workshops Acts came into existence. There were a great many trades which were practically carried on by the family, and where the children were the feeders supplying the father and mother with the necessaries—where these things were so carried on, they were to all intents and purposes workshops, and ought so to be treated; but, on the other hand, where the home was carried on as an ordinary home, although the children might be employed in earning money, there nothing would induce him to sanction the principle of applying inspection in such a case.
  MR. HIBBERTthought some special provision ought to be made for the visits of the Inspectors to these domestic workshops. That, he thought, would meet the difficulty.
  MR. HERMONhad come to the conclusion, that he had never heard a debate where the interests of the employers of labour had been so sedulously cared for. Hon. Members opposite seemed to have mistaken the scope of this Bill. It was introduced for the benefit of those who were employed, and not for the benefit of the employer. Hon. Members seemed to think this Bill had been introduced entirely for the benefit of millowners—["No!"]—he knew the Bill had not that object, but hon. Members had been arguing very much as if it had. The Bill was to prevent overwork, and to see that the people had proper times for their meals, and for other purposes; and he protested against
  348
  the view of the measure taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. FAWCETTobserved, that they had been told that the intention of the clause was to prevent women being overworked, and that was a very good intention. He did not want to have them over-worked; but he also wanted to protect them against being under-paid. With regard to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend, he had listened carefully to the Home Secretary; and he did not seem to him to have answered the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport. According to the Bill, an Inspector would have a right to enter at any time a home in which father, mother, and children might be carrying on an honest industry. They were told that the Inspectors could not enter without having a reasonable excuse for so doing; but they could not leave the homes of England to such a risk as they would thus incur, since the reasonable excuse was to be left to the Inspector's own interpretation. He agreed with the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), therefore, that they required some new clause. They knew that light industries were to be exempted. Their case had been well argued; but they now wanted additional securities against the intrusion of the Inspector, and unless they received from the Home Secretary some concession in accordance with the views of the hon. Member for Oldham, he hoped the Committee would be divided upon the question.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maidstone (Sir Sydney Waterlow) would meet all objections. He understood the Home Secretary to say he did not accept it, but he was not quite sure that that was his meaning; and he, therefore, wished him to make clear to the Committee whether he did refuse to accept the Amendment.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he did not think it fair that he should be pressed at that point to state his view of the matter under discussion. What he had insisted on was, that where there was a bonâ fide reason for believing that children and young persons were being badly treated, it was necessary that the Inspector should have power to interfere to prevent it. In his opinion, they were not gaining time by that discussion, and it would be better to wait until

  349
  they came to his new clauses. He would only add that the Bill in this respect contained nothing new. What it proposed had, in fact, been in practice for some years.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONconsidered that the matter was one rather of phraseology and drafting. They were all agreed that homes were to be free from the Inspector's visits under all but exceptional circumstances. He thought, however, there was some ambiguity in the wording of the clause; because the clause as drawn suggested that though a perfectly legitimate industry might be carried on in a house, yet, if that industry were coupled with something else which was left undefined, the practical effect would be to turn that house into a workshop.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the Committee must have regard for the welfare of the children working in these homes. That this was necessary, was proved by what Mrs. Simcox had done for the persons engaged in the shirt trade. Unless this point was kept in view, the trade would drift away into those small sweating-rooms, where no care whatever was taken of them. A great quantity of work in the lace-drawing trade was done in small cottages, where some half-dozen little children worked under an old crone, who held a cane in her hand, and occasionally used it. He hoped the Committee would stand by the clause. He would stand up for the sanctity of homes and the rights of women as much as anyone; but he did not believe in the chivalry that left them at the mercy of careless hands in the places they were speaking of.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) divided, he should vote against the Amendment, because it would entirely protect these homes from the operation of the Act, which he thought would be highly undesirabele
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERobserved, that the matter was too serious a one to be disposed of by the simple mode of treatment applied to it by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) told them that if an Inspector entered a house improperly he would lay himself open to an action. They might be told in the same way that if a person was assaulted in the
  350
  street, he could bring an action against his assailant; but it was impossible to legislate satisfactorily on such a principle. What they wanted was a new clause to give security to those homes.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he did not see that religious and charitable institutions—such as convents—were protected. He did not say that such places should be more protected than others; but under this clause almost every convent would be a factory or a workshop, because washing and various other domestic operations were carried on in them, and also some industrial processes. If the clause passed as it stood, therefore, it would give power to the Inspector to enter every one of those places. In many of those institutions in Ireland, and also in England, industrial employments were carried on—not so much for the sake of gain, however, as to give instruction to the persons who were cared for in them, and whose work was sold. It appeared to him that those establishments would be constituted factories or workshops under the Bill. He should support the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLreminded the Committee that they were legislating for various classes of persons who were not represented in that House, and they should on that very account be especially cautious in the enactments they made. He knew that the new clauses of the Home Secretary struck out the private houses of hon. Members, for example; but they left to the operation of the Bill the houses of those poor persons who were obliged to work in their homes at the various industries by which they gained their livelihood. If the question were put to Members of that House in their own case, they would not give an Inspector power to enter their homes at any hour of the night. The Committee should, therefore, consider well what it was about before it sanctioned that to be done in the case of other people that which it would not tolerate in its own. He would suggest that a new clause should be brought up in the Report, providing that in all cases where an Inspector thought it necessary to search a house, he should first obtain a magistrate's warrant.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it certainly appeared to him that there was no adequate protection afforded for the cases in which it should

  351
  be given. Before the Committee sanctioned the proposal, he would strongly recommend them to read the Report of the Children's Employment Commission.
  MR. HOPWOODthought it was too much to say that, because there were some individual cases of hardship, therefore there should be a general loss of liberty. By the clause, as it stood, every place was made a workshop in which any person was supposed to be at work. The supporters of the clause said they had a right to urge what they were urging; but the Home Secretary admitted that the objections of his opponents on this point were well founded, and put on the Paper an Amendment to meet it. That Amendment, however, was altogether unsatisfactory, because it established another test, according to which the Inspector was to be guided in the exercise of his discretion, and failed to meet the substantial character of the complaint they made.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 161: Majority 107.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
  MR. GRAYmoved to insert the words—
  "Nothing in this clause shall authorize any Inspector to enter any convent, monastery, orphanage, or charitable institution."
  There were, he said, a number of these institutions which might, by the Bill, be brought under the definition of workshops; and he desired, by his Amendment, to raise specifically and distinctly the question of their exemption from the visits of Inspectors.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, there was a strong feeling amongst a large minority of the House, and a still stronger feeling pervading a vast number of the people of England and Scotland, that conventual and monastic institutions ought, on public grounds, to be inspected—that they ought to be inspected on the same grounds that prevailed in Germany, France, and other foreign countries. There was a proposal now before the Committee to recognize that conclusion, on the supposition that those institutions were used for the purposes of trade. It happened to be within his knowledge that in Belgium, and particularly in the city of Mechlin, the
  352
  trades carried on in those institutions operated in a most oppressive manner by the competition they brought to bear on ordinary workpeople not connected with them—their endowments being used as against the free labour of the artizans outside. He had never heard that the inmates of these conventual and monastic institutions were better or more leniently treated than the ordinary run of workpeople; on the contrary, he believed that the influence of the "houses" had been to impose upon them labour in a manner condemned by the Factory Acts and by the general law of this country. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not entertain the proposal of the hon. Member for Tipperary—the more so for the reason that they had at last an admission that these conventual and monastic institutions were not ordinary private houses, whilst hitherto the argument against their inspection had been that they were private houses. That admission was inconsistent with the general argument which had been used against the introduction into England of a law similar to that in force in Continental countries, and was inconsistent with the scope and intention of the Bill now before the Committee.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWER,as a Catholic Member, was indebted to the hon. Member for Tipperary for bringing forward his Amendment, the object of which had been entirely misapprehended by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was true that the ground upon which the inspection of convents and monasteries had hitherto been opposed was, that they were public institutions; but would the hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that it was now intended to oppose their inspection on the ground that they were also private houses? The argument by which it was sought to fix them upon the horns of a dilemma existed only in the heated imagination of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. This was a question, he thought, upon which they might safely appeal to the Secretary of State to say that no case had been made out in any of the Blue Books for dealing with these religious institutions under the Factories and Workshops Act. He hoped the Home Secretary would accept the Amendment, and thus save the Committee from the discussion of a very delicate question which the hon. Mem-

  353
  ber for North"Warwickshire would be only too glad to raise.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSpointed out that if these religious institutions—about which he knew nothing—came under the definition of private houses they would be exempt from inspection; if they partook of the character of workshops they would, he presumed, come under the operation of the Act.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that it was quite open to hon. Members to argue, on the one hand, that these institutions were industrial places, and on the other, that they were private houses; but they were generally regarded as religious and philanthropic communities formed for the purpose of finding employment for and reclaiming the vicious and the neglected. That being so, the subject was, to his mind, too important to be disposed of in a summary way; and therefore he should move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Joseph M'Kenna.)
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSasked if any of the institutions referred to had suffered the slightest hardship or injustice by the operation of the Acts up to the present time. The present Bill left the law precisely the same as before so far as the object of the Amendment was concerned.
  MR. GRAYdid not regard the remark of the right hon. Gentleman as in any way convincing. The necessity for the present Bill was the discovery that the law in some instances was inoperative; and in common sense it was only fair to assume that if the measure passed it would enforce more stringent regulations. If not, what was the good of discussing the Bill? His contention was that by the Bill institutions which were formerly private houses, would be converted into workshops—that the meaning of the term "workshop" had been strained so as to create an artificial definition within which those institutions might be included. Whatever abuses might exist in ordinary workshops, there were none which would justify the conversion of conventual institutions into factories or workshops for legal purposes. After the remarks of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire—whose state-
  354
  ments must always be taken cum grano—the rejection of the Amendment would be considered a distinct indignity by the Catholic Members; whilst, also, the Home Secretary must be regarded as endorsing those remarks.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexplained that what he intended to convey was, that certain influences were exercised and a certain discipline enforced in Mechlin and in other parts of Belgium and the Continent, which did not exist in ordinary private houses. The object of the Amendment was to obtain a special exemption, and to that special exemption he objected.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas ready to admit that in convents and religious institutions influences were exercised which did not prevail in some private houses; but they were influences for good. The question was one of considerable difficulty, complicated as it was by two points in direct opposition. First, there was the question of the convent with its absolute privacy, and the protection which its semi-sacred character always afforded it in the eyes of Catholics; and then there was the question of the factories or workshops attached to the convent which it might be sought to bring under the operation of the law. It was, however, quite possible that many factories could be conducted under the supervision of nuns and monks; also that many kinds of work could be encouraged by members of monastic and conventual corporations; and yet the inspection of factories and work of that kind might not in any way trench upon the privacy with which a monastery or a convent was conducted. He was sure that no one would recognize more readily than the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the danger that serious misunderstandings might arise if, by hasty legislation, they gave a loophole to zealots on either side to confound proper conventual work, which ought not to be inspected by State officials, with bonâ fide work, which, partaking of the character of factory work, might be all the better for such inspection. It might be considered that the ordinary stitching and sewing of the domestic household was a sort of factory work. It was for the Government to show some way by which those two subjects, which were liable to get entangled one with the other, could be distinctly separated;

  355
  and, unless the right hon. Gentleman could make that distinction clear to the Committee, he should support the Motion for reporting Progress, though his doing so might give rise to a certain suspicion based upon reminiscences of the past. Perhaps some hon. Member better acquainted with the Forms of the House than he was would be able to indicate how the matter might be fairly brought under consideration on a future day, in order that, on the one hand, the rights of the State to supervise all bonâ fide factory work might be maintained, and, on the other, the rights of conscience protected from unnecessary supervision, which would be an insult on conventual and monastic institutions. If they could not see their way to postpone the consideration of this question, he was afraid they had no alternative but to insist, so far as they could do so Constitutionally, upon carrying on their Motions for Progress, and so forth.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not think of accepting the Amendment for a moment, because it would apply to every charitable institution in the Kingdom. If, however, the hon. Member (Mr. Gray) wished to raise the question, his proper course would be to bring the subject before the Committee in a separate clause. If the hon. Gentleman assented to that suggestion, the Motion for reporting Progress might be withdrawn.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYjoined in the Motion for reporting Progress, because he agreed that it was absolutely necessary to make some provision for the protection of these institutions. But it seemed to him that, in order to bring private houses under inspection, the business there must be carried on by members of the same family dwelling therein. The Proviso in question enacting that was as follows:—
  "Where persons are employed at homo, that is to say, in a private house, room, or place which, though used as a dwelling, is by reason of the work carried on there a factory or workshop within the meaning of this Act, and in which neither steam, water, nor other mechanical power is used, and in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there."
  That evidently had reference to the danger of children being over-worked under the supervision of their parents; and therefore he thought it would apply
  356
  to industrial schools. The real danger to the institutions in question, if such danger existed, would arise under one of the sub-sections in Clause 88, which defined the class of houses which should be called workshops, and should be subjected to the provisions of the Act—namely,"any premises in which any manual labour was exercised by way of trade or for purposes of gain." These words were very large, and undoubtedly, as he contended, if operations carried on in conventual or monastic institutions, were for the purposes of maintaining those institutions, those would be "purposes of gain."
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, a very important question affecting institutions, which hon. Members on that side of the House wished to protect, had been raised, as it seemed, somewhat accidentally; but he desired to point out that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) was proposed in rather an awkward place, inasmuch as, if the proposed words were inserted there, they would, by the rules of construction, be excluded everywhere else. His better course would be to allow the present clause to pass, and later on introduce a Proviso to Clause 88—the Definition Clause—whereby he might prevent conventual institutions from being included within the expression "workshop." By adopting that course, the hon. Member would secure for himself and his Friends an opportunity of calmly considering the question in which they took an interest. To introduce the Amendment in the clause under consideration would really do more harm than good. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) might withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, the hon. Member for Tipperary his Amendment, and the whole question could be raised on the Definition Clause. In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, who no doubt desired to give hon. Members a fair opportunity for discussion, might ascertain from the draftsman the best form in which the Proviso could be prepared.
  MR. GRAYcomplained that he had been unable to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, though he had appealed to him two or three times before, any explanation bearing upon the subject. The absence of such

  357
  explanation led him to raise the question, as he had done, on a definite issue. The Committee had been a long time occupied with the Bill, and he would suggest as the most convenient course, that Progress be now reported, and the subject discussed, if necessary, at some future stage.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was quite clear that the Amendment ought to be discussed at a later stage, and not upon this clause. He would be willing to report Progress, as soon as the clause had been agreed to. He hoped, therefore, that both the Amendment and the Motion for Progress would be withdrawn.
  MR. GRAYexpressed his willingness to withdraw the Amendment and raise the question again, if the hon. Member for Youghal would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.
  Amendment (Mr. Gray), by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS (for The O'CONOR DON),moved, in page 32, line 43, at end, to add—
  "Provided always, That no one shall he required under this section to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to criminate himself."
  MR. E. JENKINSsaid, it seemed to him that the insertion of this Amendment would have the effect of neutralizing the preceding clause. He would however, like to have the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman on the point.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSexplained that the Amendment would not carry the law further than the existing provisions.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 33, line 6, at end of clause, to add—
  "And where an inspector is so ohstructed in a factory or workshop within the meaning of section sixteen of this Act, the occupier shall he liable to a fine not exceeding one, or where the offence is committed at night, five pounds."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

COMMONS.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Motion made, and Question, proposed, "That Mr. STEPHEN CAVE be nominated a Member of the Select Committee."—(Sir Henry Selwin-lbbetson.)
  MR. GOLDSMIDsaid, that on Friday, in the previous week, he had made some observations with regard to the selection of Members to serve on Committees, and he found that those observations had been acknowledged by being totally ignored. On the former occasion, he had pointed out that, however capable, and however able, some hon. Members might be, they had not yet accomplished the feat of being in two or three different places at the same time. There were in the House many hon. Members who, thought they election had been comparatively recent, were still men of ability and intelligence, and were anxious to bear their fair share in the Business of the House. That was a fact which the Government, in nominating Committees, ought to bear in mind, and he thought they should take care that upon every Committee, more or less, some few young Members were placed. But instead of that, he saw the changes were rung upon the same names over and over again; the willing horse was over-burdened; and Members, whom they all respected and admired, were put on more Committees than it was possible for them to attend. He did not make that assertion without some reason. Before mentioning the first name, he begged to say that he had spoken upon the subject to the hon. and gallant Member to whom he was about to refer. He had himself had a seat -in the House for nearly 11 years, but a much older Member than himself was the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot), one whom they all respected, and who had always taken an active part in the Business of the House. But if the House agreed to nominate the two Committees, which were to be proposed that night, he found that his hon. and gallant Friend would in that case be asked to attend, at the same time, no fewer than five Committees. Two of these were the Royal Artillery Engineers Officers (Arrears of Pay) Committee, which sat last year, and the termination of whose labours this Session had not been fixed;

  359
  and the Irish Land Act Committee, which had been re-appointed for the present Session, and which he was informed was not likely to be short in its deliberations. Besides these, his hon. and gallant Friend was an active and useful Member of the Committee on Public Accounts, which had constant work to do during the Session, involving the sacrifice, on the part of its Members, of a great deal of time, attention, and energy; and now it was proposed that the same hon. and gallant Gentleman's name should be placed on two of the most important Committees of the Session—namely, that upon Commons, and that upon Public Business. If appointed to these two last, the hon. and gallant Member would have to serve altogether upon five Committees sitting at the same time. There was another hon. Member of marked ability, whom they had known in that House for many years, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney), who, if elected as proposed, would also have to serve on five Committees. The hon. Member was already serving upon the Committee on the Lunacy Laws, the Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee on the Metropolis Management and Buildings Acts, and upon the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee. It was difficult to imagine how the hon. Gentleman could discharge such onerous duties. The hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), an active and zealous Representative, was a Member of the Irish Land Act Committee, the Public Works (East India) Committee, and the Local Taxation Committee. He could give the House several other instances, but he did not wish to weary hon. Members. Those he had already given, he thought, were sufficient to show that this manner of placing an hon. Member on several Committees, sitting at the same time, was not satisfactory. If he were asked to name some amongst the older Members to serve on Select Committees, who did not already serve upon them, he might mention the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). If they wanted a Member on the other side of the House, there was the hon. and gallant Admiral (Admiral Sir William Edmonstone) who sat behind the Ministerial Bench, and whose name was remarkable by its absence from the list of Select Committees. There were many new Members,
  360
  capable, and, he believed, willing to devote their time to public matters, and ready to learn the Business of the House. He had just said to one that he would mention his name to the House, who had begged him not to do so; he referred to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), a young Member who had shown an active and intelligent interest in the Business of the House. He could not find that Member's name on any Committees; and there were other young Members, perfectly competent to serve on Committees, whose names were never brought forward. What, therefore, he contended was, that the Government, in preparing these lists of Committees, ought not to overtax the experienced Members of the House, and ought not to put any one Member, however active and willing, to serve upon five Committees at the same time. They ought to select, in conjunction with the older Members, some few Members of less experience, who might learn the Business of the House, and hereafter make themselves as able and as useful as his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter Barttelot), who sat upon five Committees. Therefore, in order to give the Government a little time to consider the nomination of this Committee on Commons, and the one to follow on Public Business, he moved that the debate be adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Goldsmid.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexpressed a hope that the House would not think it necessary to adjourn the appointment of this Committee. He understood his hon. Friend (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) to move it in the nature almost of a standing Committee; because it was one to be appointed for the purpose of taking cognizance of any Bills which might be introduced under the description of Commons. For some time that Committee would not have much to do, and his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot) would be usefully employed in finishing up the business of the other Committees on which his name had been placed. With regard to the Public Accounts Committee, that, again, was one which, though it sat all the Session, only met once a week—namely, on Wednesdays, when hon. Gentlemen

  361
  were not usually engaged on other Committee business. It was perfectly true that there were several Gentlemen serving upon one, two, or more Committees; but generally those selections were made either because the Member had some special cognizance of the subject, or because it was necessary to get a Gentleman to serve whose attendance could be relied upon. His hon. and gallant Friend was one of those who were always ready to give the necessary attendance; and he believed his hon. and gallant Friend would not have undertaken to serve upon these Committees unless he felt he was competent to give his attention and attendance. Of course, no Gentleman was asked to serve, except with his consent; and from the fact that he had consented, it might be inferred that, if placed upon the Committee, he would do his duty as one of its Members. He trusted that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Goldsmid) would not think it necessary to adjourn the nomination of this Committee on Commons.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Remaining Members nominated other Members of the Committee:—Mr. LEVESON GOWER, Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Mr. FAWCETT, Mr. PELL, and Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, The Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. MOWBRAY and Mr. DODSON nominated Members of the Select Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. WHITBREAD be one other Member of the Committee."
  MR. E. JENKINSmoved that the debate be now adjourned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no information whatever in regard to the way in which this Committee had been organized. It was a Committee of the greatest importance, and one that that House might have a great deal to say upon, and the question ought to be brought forward at a time when the House could discuss it. So far as one could see from such hints as had been given,
  362
  the questions which had to be settled by this important Committee and the evidence which would be brought before this Committee were, in fact, as well known to the House now as they would be then. The Committee would call before it a few officials who were acquainted with this House who would give no more information than was already contained in the admirable handbooks, compiled by gentlemen for whom that House had the greatest possible respect. The reason for the appointment of this, Committee was in regard to the management of Business in consequence of what occurred last year. The House got on very well this year under existing rules, and it was now a question whether there was at that particular moment any necessity for appointing this particular Committee. He would not like at that late hour to enter into the number of objections there were to this Committee, and therefore he moved the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the House has already agreed to the appointment of the Committee, and the question now is that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) be now appointed.
  MR. GOLDSMIDdid not think the hon. Member need be afraid that this Committee would do very much. There were some names, like that of Mr. Henley, that were long known in that House, which of necessity did not appear in the list, though formerly they had always been included; but nearly all those proposed to be placed on the Committee were, as far as the Business of that House was concerned, of a Conservative character, and would propose very little change, if any at all. He did not think any Gentleman need be anxious as to what would occur. He wanted to point out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered at all the complaint he had previously made. His complaint was, that willing Members like his hon. Friend were asked to do more than was reasonable, and he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who represented the Government, ought to give instructions to those acting under him that they should select a small number of younger Members to learn the Business of that House by placing them on Committees. It was not satisfactory to see a Commit-

  363
  tee nominated as these had been; and if they saw the practice continued, they would be compelled to take active steps to oppose the appointment of Committees so chosen. He thought it was well the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be informed of their intention, in order that he might obviate the necessity of carrying it into effect.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Dundee oppose the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread)?
  MR. E. JENKINS: No, Sir. After what you have said, I do not.
  MR. PARNELLwould suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take action in time, and give such instructions as would meet the threatened obstruction of the hon. Member for Rochester.
  MR. ONSLOWthought it was the duty of any hon. Member if he objected to this Committee, that he should mention the name of the Gentleman to whom he objected. The names of the Gentlemen on the Committee were men of great experience in that House, and, with the addition of one new Member, they had all had experience of that House, and he trusted that when the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) met those Gentlemen, he would agree with those who had had wider experience than he had.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsympathized very much with the views of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid), and had himself intended to call attention to the constitution of this Committee, particularly in relation to Scotch Members. He observed only one Member from Scotland on the Committee, and that Gentleman was already upon three other Committees. The hon. Member for Peebles had also been placed that afternoon upon a Committee of considerable importance, and he would, if appointed now, thus be on five Committees. He had looked over the list of Committees for this Session, and he found there were 290 Members on the Committees, of whom 16 were Scotch nominations; but as one Gentleman was on four Committees, only the other 12 had any part in this division of Public Business. For his own part, he had no desire to be on the Committees; but he believed that it was a reflection on Scotch Members that more of them were not selected, and when these names came
  364
  up he intended to take the sense of the House on the question, and he trusted when this was done there would be more consideration shown to the interests of Scotland.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas sure the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) would be most desirous not only to reform himself, but to introduce many reforms into the Business of that House, and judging from the disposition he had already evinced, he was quite sure that it would be a labour of love to him to carry out the recommendation of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Onslow). What he would particularly recommend to the House was that young Members should have an opportunity of mixing with their elders in Committees of this description. He would further recommend that these much-respected pluralists should be asked to choose which Committee they would serve on. It could be no reflection on any Gentleman who was elected to serve on five Committees meeting at 1 o'clock to ask him which Committee he would sit on, and on what sort of business he wished to expend his talents. He candidly owned there was a great deal in the remark that on certain Committees of very great importance there should be a decided preponderance of senior Members. He might go so far as to say that these Committees should be composed of senior Members who had been three or four or five years in Parliament; but, even granting that, it did not bring the Government out of their difficulties. They did not put on all senior Members; they only put on a selected few. There was no disposition to make anything like factious opposition on this question, but still it was quite clear that an hon. Member could not attend four or five important Committees at the same time, and that was really all they had to suggest.
  MR. MONKwas glad the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called to the constitution of this Committee. He was perfectly aware of the difficulty there was in forming this Committee, and he quite agreed that the most experienced Members should serve upon it. The real objection was that the same Members who were serving on other Committees had been nominated to serve on this. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) was nominated for this Com-

  365
  mittee, just after he had been selected to serve on the Commons Committee. It was very possible the Commons Committee might sit on the same day. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend should be asked to choose which Committee he would sit on. On Friday last the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) was placed on the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Committee, and now it was proposed to nominate him on the Public Business Committee. It stood to reason that he could not serve efficiently on both Committees.
  DR. WARDsaid, he was sitting two Sessions on a Committee upstairs. One Member of that Committee was occupied with two other Committees. He would say—"There is a paragraph in the Report on Tramways; I must go." Then—"There is the Telegraph Committee;" and so on. It was quite impossible that the hon. Member could attend to the business of all these Committees.
  MR. GRAYsaid, the system of making the selections from all Committees from a limited number of Members, was made, it appeared to him, with a distinct purpose. The Government knew well what an effect it had in facilitating Business, for it confined the knowledge of the details on which future legislation was founded to those few Members. It might be noticed that nine-tenths of the Amendments to Bills were put on by Members who had been Members of previous Select Committees on the subjects with which the Bills dealt. Thus, the system of exclusion really facilitated Business in the Government sense—which meant the getting of Bills through as fast as possible—by keeping ordinary Members in ignorance.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that what had been pointed out in regard to the representation of Scotland on these Committees had a great deal of force in it. The hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter Barttelot), whom it was proposed to place on this Committee, was a Member of four or five other Committees. There were Scotch Members of great experience, who were available for this Committee. There was the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), and there was also his hon. Colleague in the representation of Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). They did not like to divide
  366
  against the hon. Baronet. At the same time, it was right that Scotland should be represented. He should move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. BIGGARseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Dr. Cameron.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not think they would gain much by adjourning the debate. There was a certain amount of force in the observations made, and he quite agreed that in training the Committees it was desirable to bring in young Members who had not yet had an opportunity of seeing Public Business. This was rather an exceptional Committee. It was a Committee which he hoped might not require any great length of sitting, because it would be in the recollection of the House that certain proposals were made by the Government, and probably the discussion that would be required would not be very long. Undoubtedly, such a Committee would work all the better for being composed in the main of Gentlemen who had great experience in the working of the House. There was, as it happened, several Gentlemen on it who were serving on other Committees. The fact was, those Gentlemen had been brought to serve on this Committee because of their experience in that House. Like the Committee on Public Accounts, this Committee was generally composed of Gentlemen who had been some time in the House, and understood the course of Business, and who discharged functions of that kind every day in the week. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) was a Member of that Committee, as also of the Commons Committee and others. These Gentlemen were selected for their special knowledge. However, he was quite content to add that it was desirable to pay as much attention as possible to the introduction of younger Members on Committees, and, so far as he could, he would endeavour to do so; but he hoped that with regard to this Committee, which was decided upon quite at the beginning of the Session, and had only stood over because there had been he time to attend to it, he felt convinced

  367
  the sooner it got to work the more convenient it would be to those Gentlemen who had other duties to take up later in the Session.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 72: Majority 55.—(Div. List, No. 309.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, in the early part of that day, he had taken some objection to the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir Graham Montgomery) appearing on the Tramways Committee. Apart altogether from the question of the fitness of the hon. Baronet, which he did not in the least dispute, he thought it desirable that some other Scotch Members should be appointed. The hon. Baronet had previously been appointed on three Committees, and this- made four. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that Members of experience should be appointed on these Committees. There was the right hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), formerly Secretary to the Treasury, who was well fitted, one might suppose, to appear on a Committee of Accounts; but there was not a single Scotch Member on that Committee, although the great proportion of them were not indifferent to accounts. He should prefer moving the adjournment of the debate, in order to give the Government an opportunity of re-considering this matter. It was the opinion of Members in that part of the House that the selection should be more general.
  MR. E. JENKINSseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEtrusted the House would proceed with the nomination of the Committee that night. Much had been said as to the formation of the Committees, and reference also had been made to those who were responsible for making them. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Goldsmid) was hardly aware of the difficulties hon. Members like himself were placed in in the formation of these Committees. As far as he
  368
  was concerned, he never had any other object in view than that the outcome of the deliberations of the Committees should be to bring credit on that House. There had been some error in placing the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter Barttelot) on so many Committees, and he would endeavour, in future, to prevent the repetition of things of that kind. With respect to this particular Committee, the defect might be obviated in this way. It was urged that Scotland was not sufficiently represented. It seemed to him that so long a period had elapsed since Notice of this Committee was given that it was hardly dignified to defer the appointment; but, if he might be allowed to consult with his right hon. Friend opposite, and ask him to select another Member of this Committee, and might ask, also, an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House to serve, it seemed to him they would come to a satisfactory arrangement.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the proposition of the hon. Baronet did not, in his opinion, meet the requirements of the case. The proposition to select a new Member from each side of the House might be a reasonable one, if the Irish were fully represented. Of course, they were exceedingly well represented by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell); but, if they were going to have two new Members, he should propose thatthe hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) should be added to the Committee.
  Motion, "That the Debate be now adjourned," by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. NEWDEGATE, Mr. KNATCHBULLHUGESSEN, Mr. BEEESPOED HOPE, Mr. RATHBONE, Mr. PLUNKET, Sir CHARLES DILKE, Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY, Mr. PARNELL, and Mr. GOLDNEY nominated other Members of the Committee:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.