PART I.

HC Deb 25 February 1878 vol 238 cc302-30

(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 CROSS

said, 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- 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. FAWCETT

said, 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. RITCHIE

remarked, 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 FAWCETT

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

hoped 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 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 CROSS

said, 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. FAWCETT

moved, 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 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- 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 CROSS

said, 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 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. BIGGAR

said, 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. HOLMS

considered that the Amendment did not go far enough.

MR. RITCHIE

remarked, that Clause 59 excluded women when employed alone from regulations as regarded meals, so that the Amendment was unnecessary.

MR. HOPWOOD

contended 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. GRAY

thought 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. ANDERSON

said, 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 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. PARNELL

did 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'LAREN

protested 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. FAWCETT

asked 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 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 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. KNOWLES

remarked, 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 CROSS

said, 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. HOPWOOD

would 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. GORST

did 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. HOPWOOD

maintained 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. RITCHIE

said, 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. FAWCETT

said, 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 CROSS

said, 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 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 STARKEY

said, that after what had been said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PARNELL

said, 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 CAVENDISH

opposed 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. ANDERSON

moved, in page 10, line 32, after "workshop," to insert "nor in any casual employment."

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment did not come within the scope of the Bill.

MR. ANDERSON

thought 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 CHAIRMAN

ruled 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'LAREN

said, 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 CHAIRMAN

pointed 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. PARNELL

moved, in page 10, line 38, to leave out "child, young per- 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. TENNANT

opposed 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. HIBBERT

also 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 CROSS

agreed entirely with the hon. Member's (Mr. Hibbert's) remarks, and could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. LEWIS STARKEY

said, 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, and, therefore, moved, in page 10, line 40, the omission of the word "either."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, 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. PARNELL

moved 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. GORST

supported the Amendment.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

thought 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. PARNELL

accepted the proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words suggested by Mr. ASSHETON CROSS inserted.

MR. TENNANT

moved, 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 CAVENDISH

thought 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 earlier part of the day for the half-holiday.

MR. FIELDEN

pointed 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. PARKER

saw 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. MELLOR

did 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. PARNELL

moved, 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 CROSS

pointed 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 EWING

thought the penalty was quite heavy enough, inasmuch as there were very many more small fac- 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 POWER

suggested 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. BIGGAR

pointed 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. WHITBREAD

suggested 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. PARNELL

pointed 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. MUNDELLA

maintained that this provision, so far from depriving a 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. HOLMS

said, 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 CROSS

did 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 CAVENDISH

was 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. WHITWELL

expressed 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- 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. FIELDEN

held 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. TENNANT

said, that for the reasons given by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish), he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

MR. MUNDELLA

found 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. GORST

also 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. BRIGGS

hoped 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. GORST

said, 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 CROSS

said, he had never had the question brought under his notice, and was not prepared to accept the Amendment without consideration.

MR. GORST

said, 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. MUNDELLA

intimated 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 CAVENDISH

begged 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 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 CROSS

was 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 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. LUSH

said, 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 power of overlooking such persons in factories. Instead of diminishing the powers of the surgeon, he should like to see them much extended.

MR. KNOWLES

maintained 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 PLAYFAIR

opposed 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 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 PLAYFAIR

said, 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. ANDEESON

maintained 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. WHITBREAD

was 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. KENEALY

would 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 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 EWING

thought 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. ANDERSON

pointed 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 JACKSON

said, there was on the Notice Paper another Amendment standing in the name of the hon. 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'KENNA

was 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. RITCHIE

could 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 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. GRAY

moved 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 CROSS

said, 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. PARNELL

suggested 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. MUNDELLA

moved the omission of the words "when a child becomes a young person a fresh certificate of fitness must be obtained." The clause as it 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 STARKEY

also hoped the Home Secretary would give way, so that unnecessary multiplication of certificates might be avoided.

MR. GORST

supported 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. TENNANT

said, the regulations in the Bill applied to the whole, and not to a part, of a factory.

Mr. FIELDEN

said, 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 CROSS

thought 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. MUNDELLA

said, 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 PLAYFAIR

moved, in page 15, line 32, after "sent," to insert "to the inspector and."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. PARNELL

remarked, 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. TENNANT

moved, 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 PLAYFAIR

moved, in page 16, line 7, to leave out from "send," to "and," in line 8.

Amendment agreed to.

DR. WARD

proposed 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. GORST

said, the last part of the clause proposed that the surgeon should be paid for his investigation a fee of not more than 10s., 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 clause. He moved, in page 16, line 18, to leave out "not exceeding ten nor less than three shillings."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

failed to see the necessity for the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RITCHIE

expressed 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 CROSS

said, 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.