DEFINITIONS, SAVINGS, APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND AND IRELAND, AND REPEAL. (Hansard, 28 February 1878)

§ Mr. PARNELL
directed the attention of the Committee to that portion of the clause under which workshops were to be exempted from its operation where no children, young persons, or women were employed. On looking over the Bill, he found a great many clauses, such as the 3rd, which provided that workshops should be kept in a cleanly state—the 31st, the 32nd, and 33rd, which related to accidents and the making of special regulations for the promotion of health—which, in his opinion, might very properly be extended to the case of workshops in which men only were employed. He found that Clause 34, which provided for the keeping clean of the interior of bakehouses, was rendered practically inoperative, because it only applied to places of that description in which 481 women, young persons, or children were employed. The same objection could be taken to Clause 35, which referred to the provision of clean sleeping places near to bakehouses, and to Clause 36, which provided for proper ventilation, and so on. Clause 76, also, which imposed a fine for not keeping a factory or workshop in conformity with the Act, and Clause 77, which provided for compensation to persons injured through the want of fences to machinery, would both be nugatory unless women, or children, or young persons were employed in the factory or workshop. He therefore, thought the Committee would do well to adopt his Amendment, which was as follows:—To insert after the word "Act" in line 18, page 44, the words "with the exception of sections 3, 7, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 76, and 77."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
did not want to take any technical objection to the Amendment; but he would point out that it would be very inconvenient to refer to sections of the Act as proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Of course, there was a great deal primâ facie in favour of the Amendment; but, in the first place, as regarded Section 3, by the Amendment, which had been made in the Public Health Act, all factories and workshops were now placed under the control of the sanitary authority of the district. Formerly there was a limit to the power of the sanitary authority, but that was now done away with. With reference to Clause 7, as it at present stood, it only related to places where children and young persons were employed. Then, as regarded Clauses 31 and 32, it would be found that in Clause 59, it was specially stated that those clauses should not apply to workshops not employing children or young persons therein. As to Clause 33, it was thought that the local authority might very fairly be left to say whether a factory or workshop were properly cleansed. He granted that when they came to Clauses 34 and 35, which dealt with bakehouses, a case was made out for the Amendment; but it was by a pure accident that bakehouses employing men were omitted, and for the sake of the public health, they would be included in the Bill at a later stage; but the question whether they should be put under the supervision 482 of Factory Inspectors or of the local authority would have to be considered. With regard to Clause 36, which contained a provision as to ventilation by fans in factories and workshops, wherever there was machinery—no doubt there would be a good deal of dust; but in smaller places, where there was no machinery, he did not think sufficient dust would be accumulated to call for official interference. As to Clauses 76 and 77, they only applied to places where young persons where employed. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with this explanation, and would withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. PARNELL
thought that, as the previous Acts were so entirely limited to women and children, it would be better to leave the Bill as it stood in this respect, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. HIBBERT
said, that before the Home Secretary answered the hon, Member for Tipperary's Question, with reference to schools, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the work carried on in laundries. He thought it would be a very great advantage if that part of the Schedule which dealt with those places could be omitted from the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
, in reply to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), said, that with regard to schools established for gain, the question would have to be looked at very carefully. As to the public laundries, he would have something to say about them when the Committee came to the Schedule; but he was bound to admit that difficulties had occurred in carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, such as he did not think could have been in their minds when they reported; and he would be quite ready to listen to any arguments that might be used in favour of striking public laundries out of the Bill altogether.

§ MR. TENNANT
called attention to the definition of a "child" which was said to mean "a person under the age of 14 years." He thought 13 years might be the age at which the description "young person" might begin to apply, and he recommended that the question should be considered before the Report.

§ MR. GRAY
said, the expression "certified school" in Ireland only applied to national schools; but in England there were two classes of schools which a child might attend under this Bill—namely, "recognized official schools" and "certified official schools." There were a great many schools in Ireland which were efficient, but which were not 484 national schools. For instance, there were the Church Education Society's Schools, The Christian Brothers' and the Nuns' Schools—with reference to the last named of which, Mr. Richmond, the Inspector, had stated that he found a marked difference between the behaviour of girls attending those schools compared with that of other girls of the the class. The time of attendance at school in Ireland, was from 10 to 3, and it was impossible, therefore, to get two attendances of three hours each in one day. Certificates of attendance were, however, given, and the school master reconciled it to his conscience by counting the whole time that a child was away from the factory for the purpose of attending school. The hon. Member then moved an Amendment to insert the following words after the word "school," in page 50, line 5:— And any school which the Lord Lieutenant in Council has not refused to recognize as a school affording efficient means of elementary education; Provided, that if attended by children, in accordance with this Act, such school shall be open, with the teachers in regular attendance, for the period of one full attendance before half-past Twelve, and for the period of one full attendance after half-past One in the afternoon of each day. By this Amendment there were two points raised—first, to allow all schools giving a fair education to be recognized by the Act; and, secondly, to secure for the "half-timers" three hours school in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, so that the attendance should be a reality and not a sham.

§ MR. PARNELL
hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment, as he felt sure it would give satisfaction to all classes in Ireland; and, unless some such Amendment were passed, he was convinced that they would have very great difficulty in dealing with both Catholic and Protestant children in regard to the school question. In his own county—Meath—there were the Erasmus Smith Schools, which were attended by Protestant children, but which would not be recognized in the clause as it stood, and the children attending such schools would not reap the advantages which would be accorded to children attending the national 'schools. The Catholics also had excellent schools, which were preferred by many parents to those which the Act would recognize. This Bill itself afforded a very good 485 precedent for the adoption of the Amendment, for Section 23 provided that where there was no certified school within a distance of two miles from the residence of the child, attendance at a school not a recognized and efficient school should count as attendance at a recognized and efficient school until such school was established. He could not conceive any objection to the Amendment, if the Lord Lieutenant in Council had power to state that any school of which he did not approve should not be certified.

§ MR. D. TAYLOR
hoped that if any additional schools were to be included in the definition of certified schools very great care would be taken before that was done to test the qualifications of the teachers.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
believed that the majority of hon. Members did not know or understand the position of certified teachers in many parts of Ireland. A large number of female children were educated in convent schools, which aimed at giving—and in most instances did give—a superior kind of elementary instruction to that afforded in national schools. Now, if they excluded from the benefits of the clause all schools whose teachers were not certified, they would shut out every one of these convent schools in Ireland. In the county of Kerry, the nuns had no objection to pass the examination necessary to obtain the Government certificate, and a large number did pass it in order to obtain the national grant; but the schools provided by the nuns of Kerry represented only one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of the total number of schools in Ireland. This state of things did not arise from any inferiority on the part of the teacher, as was proved by the fact of those teachers being strong advocates of the system of payment by results. By the rules of the Board these convents would, if classed as national schools, obtain £50 or £60 a-year for every 100 pupils, whereas they now only received £20. They were, therefore, already at a great disadvantage in point of money; and, if they were to be further handicapped, a great injustice would be done them. The same argument applied to the smaller schools, such as those carried on by the Christian Brothers, which provided for the education of the children of the poor, but which were not certified because the teachers would not pass the 486 prescribed examinations. As to the question of time, it was desirable to point out that in many of the smaller towns the hours were regulated by the habits of the country, and that the schools did not keep open as late as half-past 4. Under those circumstances, he thought that, if the Attorney General would adopt the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would confer a very valuable benefit on the school system in Ireland.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
, who failed to see the urgency of the Amendment, asked why, if there was to be no qualification, it should not be generally provided that, all schools within a specified distance of any place of employment should be included? The Committee ought not to be called upon to proclaim that the national system of education in Ireland, which cost them so much, was insufficient for the needs of the country, and not to be relied upon for providing instruction within a reasonable distance of the site of employment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
, whilst not prepared to accept the Amendment in the shape in which it had been brought forward, admitted that it might be not unreasonable in the case of Ireland to recognize other than certified schools. He was, however, disposed to believe that although the hours in some of the schools in Ireland were not sufficiently long, yet it would not be desirable to adopt the whole of the Amendment. In regard to the substantial question, it might be better, perhaps, to adopt the words of the 23rd section—"Schools that had been recognized by the Factory Inspector as giving efficient elementary education." As the Amendment had been rather hurriedly prepared by the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would suggest that it should be now withdrawn, and the question raised again on the Report. In the meantime, he would consult with the Home Secretary on the point.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
was quite willing to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend. The Education Department in England passed a number of schools which were not certified elementary schools, but which were included under the head of "other recognized schools;" and he confessed 487 that he thought some provision of the sort might be extended to Ireland.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
thought that if the Amendment were withdrawn the Government should consent to add these words— "or any schools which receive money from the Commissioners of National Education." This was necessary from the fact that many of the convent schools received money, hut only as payment for results. The point had, no doubt, been overlooked by those who drafted the Bill, owing to their want of knowledge of the intricacies of the education question in Ireland. The speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) really meant that Parliament supplied a certain number of national schools for Ireland, and, if the people did not choose to send their children to them, they were to be legislated against on every possible occasion.

§ MR. ORR EWING
suggested that the expression "certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Government inspection.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
quite agreed that some change in the phraseology of the clause was necessary, and was ready to insert after "any national school," some words which would include any recognized certified school.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary was at present before the Committee, and it would be better to dispose of it before discussing another proposition.

§ MR. BIGGAR
, believing that English and Scotch Members did not know the real facts of the case, wished to explain the position of things as regarded education in Ireland. What occurred in the national schools was this. It was a common practice for a building, such as a hay-loft, to be hired, for windows to be put in, and teachers who had passed the National Board to be brought there. The teachers were paid by results, and got a fixed payment from the National Board. Even if they had no class at all, they got paid.

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
Will the hon. Gentleman name those schools?

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, he knew an instance in which a Presbyterian clergyman had gone round to all sorts of people collecting money for education, which was really applied to proselytizing and 488 Presbyterian purposes. This was but one glaring and vicious example of what was done under the guise of a National Board of Education. The children of Ireland got their education in other schools not kept by the National Board, and the teachers in which had no Government test to undergo much better than in the national schools. In the case he had referred to a gentleman collected money from the public, and he was not aware whether any account was given as to how it was expended.

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
rose to Order.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
also rose to Order, remarking that no personal allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan until the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Johnston) had called out "Name?" It was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to decline to give the name of the person he referred to.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, it was entirely a matter of discretion with the hon. Member whether he gave the name of a person outside the House whom he had referred to.

§ MR. BIGGAR
had not intended to refer specially to the gentleman; but the thing was notorious, and it was a positive fact that that was the way in which money granted for educational purposes was spent. The result of the system was that the Government was subsidizing national school teachers, who were really active agents of Presbyterian clergymen. That was not a desirable state of things, and what hon. Gentlemen did not think they were doing when they granted money for educational purposes in Ireland. He had said, perpaps, more than he had intended to say at starting; but it was essential that hon. Members granting public money should know how it was spent.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
expressed a hope that in any Amendment the Government accepted on this part of the Bill relating to Ireland, they would abide by the same principles which guided the action of the law and their own conduct with respect to England and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) had suggested that the expression "any certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Governmental inspection. Under a recent Act of Parliament no school in England was considered efficient that was not inspected; and he 489 hoped that the Government would not extend the advantage of teaching half-timers, which was an advantage to every school, to schools in Ireland not under Governmental inspection. He did not think the Government would be justified in conceding the privilege of teaching half-timers to any school, as to the internal regulations of which they had not adequate information.

§ MR. O'REILLY
felt assured that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wished to act fairly towards Ireland in respect to this Bill. The conditions of education differed in the two countries, and in Ireland an inspected school would be another name for a national school. What was wanted was that the other class of efficient schools should be included in the Bill.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
hoped that the Committee would be satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General for Ireland to deal with the question on Report, and not waste further time over the discussion.

MR. SULLIVAN
wished to know if he had understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to say that he desired the Government to apply the same principles to public schools in Ireland as existed in regard to those in England and Scotland? If he had correctly understood the hon. Gentleman, he would be content to take him at his word; he would ask him to have the courage to be consistent, and to vote for the same legislation for Ireland as for England in educational matters; for then denominational schools would be brought in Ireland under the public school system. Because Ireland had forced upon it a purely secular system of education, the House could not expect Irish Members to submit to any attempt to exclude scholars attending other schools from the advantages of the Bill. Such a suggestion was not to be tolerated.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to mention one fact as regarded education in Ireland —that, unhappily, the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church opposed the national system of education. Fortunately, in England— ["Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN
reminded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that as the Amendment before the Committee was as to the definition of a certified efficient school, the subject of religious 490 education in Ireland could not be brought into the discussion.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
apologized; but remarked that he had only been replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He was only observing that it was no fault of the Legislature if the same system of law with respect to education that applied in England, did not apply equally to Ireland.

§ MR. A. M'ARTHUR
maintained that when the Irish system of education was first established by the late Earl of Derby (then Lord Stanley), it was by no means a secular system, as under it there was the reading of Scripture extracts, hyms were sung, and prayers said.

THE CHAIRMAN
pointed out that this reference was out of Order.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER
said, the difficulty was that in certain parts of Ireland, owing to religious feeling and influences, the national system of education was not made use of to the fullest extent, because parents objected to it. Wherever the Catholics were in a majority the local education would probably be in the hands of a Catholic priest, and the Protestants objected to send their children to a school under such control. The contrary happened in a Protestant district, and the Catholics, having no confidence in the local schools, established schools of their own. Therefore, the Committee was not discussing a Roman Catholic grievance, but one which applied to Catholics and Protestants alike. An Amendment had been proposed to meet the difficulty, and he regretted that the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland had not accepted it. This was no question of the respective merits of systems of education; but the point was simply this—that a large number of the youth of Ireland were educated in schools which did not come under the definition already contained in the Bill, and the Irish Members desired to introduce some provision which would place those schools on an equal footing with the national schools when it had been proved that they were capable of giving an equally good education.

§ MR. HIBBERT
wished, as far as possible, to support the desire of the Irish Members to make the expression "efficient school" comprehend some- 491 thing larger than the national school system. He thought it was the intention of the Government that it should mean something more than national schools, and hoped that after the promises of the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, the Amendment would be withdrawn.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, if the Government would promise that the Amendment on Report should be sufficiently comprehensive to include within its scope any school which was efficient, in an educational point of view, Protestant as well as Catholic, he would be willing to withdraw his opposition.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar in character to that of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and he would be glad to have some explicit declaration from the Government as to what they proposed to do when this question came up on the Report of the Bill. As the Bill stood at present, its limitation to national schools was of a most mischievous character, though it followed up the old principle which had actuated the Government in matters of education—that of forcing children into the schools they deemed it most desirable for them to attend. He could not imagine that at this time the Irish Members would submit to such an imposition as the clause in its present form proposed; but if the Government would only indicate the principle of their Amendment, he would withdraw his opposition. All the Irish Members desired to see was, that schools in Ireland capable of giving a good education to children, no matter to what religion they belonged, should be recognized as efficient schools under the Act.

§ MR. GREENE
failed to understand why hon. Members opposite objected to the same treatment as that extended to England and Scotland. In Scotland a certified efficient school meant any public or elementary school under Government inspection, and he was at a loss to know why the Irish Members objected to Government inspection.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
said, if the hon. Member had been in the House during the last three-quarters of an hour, he would have known all about it; but it was not calculated to further the business of the Committee for an hon. Member to intervene in so naive a way.

§ MR. GREENE
rose to Order. He had been in the House during the whole of the discussion.

§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA
So much the worse. The hon. Member had evidently not been attending to what had been going on; for if one thing had been made more clear than another it was what they wanted. It was admitted very frankly by the Government that the clause as it stood would not carry out the principle at which they aimed. However, he should be perfectly content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as they had promised to bring up a clause on the Report which would satisfy those reasonable and legitimate wants on the part of the Irish Members which had been expressed to-night. He would not pay any hon. Member the bad compliment of supposing that he did not know what the Irish Members wanted, as it had been already explained.

§ MR. A. M'ARTHUR
was perfectly willing to give Ireland every facility possessed by England, but Members from Ireland wished for a great deal more. The schools in England were subject to Government inspection—without that inspection they could not get any money; and he could not understand how any Government could be expected to give support to schools over which they had no control, and with regard to which they had no legitimate information. The proposal to leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to say what schools were efficient, and what inefficient, was objectionable; because it would place his Excellency in a very invidious position, and pressure would be brought to bear upon him on all sides. If hon. Members would be willing to submit that every school should be subject to inspection, and paid by results, then their proposal might be agreed to.

MR. SULLIVAN
said, no Irish Member had suggested that any school in Ireland, Protestant or Roman Catholic, should receive a farthing from public funds without rendering itself liable to public inspection. The Government should indicate the principle they had in their mind. He did not ask them for details, but he wanted to know the principle which would govern the arrangement of this matter; and, unless they knew exactly the principle, they 493 had better discuss the matter fully now instead of waiting for the Report. He should like to know from the Home Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland whether they had any objection to extend this clause to any and every public school in Ireland, the educational efficiency of which should be approved by a Government authority? That was the principle they wanted, and let them understand each other about it.

§ MR. MUNTZ
thought the offer of the Government was sufficient. [An hon. MEMBER: What is the offer?] Why, to bring up a clause on Report, in which an endeavour would be made to meet the wishes of the Irish Members. This was a complicated question, and it was not right for hon. Gentlemen to imagine that a clause could be drawn up all at once.

§ DR. WARD
considered what they asked for was fair. They did not object to defer this clause; but they did object to defer it without knowing the lines of the principle upon which the Government were to act. As far as he could understand the Attorney General, the Government were going to do exactly the opposite of what the Irish Members wanted.

§ MR. FAWCETT
considered the request of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) a very reasonable one. Nothing was more frequent, when a Bill was in Committee and a difficulty occurred, than for somebody to get up and suggest that it should be postponed until the Report, as they would be in exactly the same position as when in Committee. Now, anybody acquainted with the Forms of the House, knew very well that it was a very different thing to discuss a clause in Committee and to discuss it on Report. They had a much better chance of getting what they wanted in Committee than on Report, because on Report, if an hon. Member only said three words, his further right to speak was gone. This was not a question of a Government grant to Irish education, nor was it a question of voting public money under certain circumstances. As far as he understood this question it was this—this Bill proposed, as a condition of employment, that a child should receive education at an efficient school; and the test of the efficiency of a school was necessarily Government inspection, and that Go- 494 vernment inspection ought to be applied alike to England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, what was here asked was, that children should not by a side-wind be forced into schools, in order to obtain a right to labour in Ireland, to which schools they might have conscientious objections. What was asked was, that if a child was attending a school which was certified by some kind of Government inspection, such as existed in England and in Scotland as efficient, then no barrier should be placed in the way of the child obtaining employment. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was, that he would accept the postponement of the question until the Report, only on the distinct understanding that the Government would say that they would bring up a clause based on the principle that an efficient school, so far as the right to labour was concerned, should be a school which was certified to be efficient by Government inspection. They did not ask for the words of the clause now, they only asked that the Government would state what should be its principle. It was so perfectly reasonable that he hoped the Government would at once make this declaration.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
thought that they were all pretty much agreed upon what was required; and the request of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was a reasonable one. He understood him to say that he would be satisfied, provided the Government would, on Report, bring up a clause which would secure that any child attending a school which had been certified by any Government authority as efficient, should be entitled to take advantage of the Act. On Report, he would undertake to bring up such a clause.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
was in rather an unpleasant position. In his district there were several schools, whose requirements would not be met by the proposition of the Chief Secretary. He alluded to the district of Tuam, where there were schools which had no Government inspection at all. If the Chief Secretary would, therefore, say any school known to be efficient, the case of those schools would be met, and he should be content.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, it was the intention of the Government that all efficient schools should be included.

§ MR. PARNELL
moved, in page 50, after sub-section (1), to insert the following sub-section:— In lieu of any four half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every person employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March and fifteenth day of August; Provided, That, when either of these dates falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date. He might at once say, for the benefit of the English and Scotch Members, that the 17th of March was St. Patrick's Day, and that the 15th of August was Lady Day, and both days were of very great importance in Ireland, and were universally observed as holidays. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to this proposal. If the Government desired it, he would leave out the words "every person," and insert "every child, young person, or woman."

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
said, there was, of course, a great deal in the observations of the hon. Member, and he should be prepared to agree to the proposal if the 12th July and 5th of November were also added.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)
said, so far as this proposal related to St. Patrick's Day, there was no doubt it would receive sympathy; but he was disposed to think that in Ireland, as well as in England, the selection of holidays was pretty fairly arrived at between the employers and the employed, and the masters generally tried to meet the views of those they employed by selecting the best periods of the year. As to young children and women, he thought it better they should have eight half-holidays than four whole-ones, and, certainly, as regarded St. Patrick's Day, some employers might think it was an advantage to the work-people only to have a half-holiday instead of the whole day. From an Irish point of view, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said about St. Patrick's Day; and, on the whole, although he thought it might be better to leave the arrangement to the people themselves, instead of fixing it in an Act of Parliament, he would not oppose that part of the Amendment. The 15th of August, however, stood on quite a different footing, and making it a holiday by Statute might lead to difficulties and complications.

MR. SULLIVAN
understood the Attorney General to suggest that only one actual day should be named in the clause, and that St. Patrick's Day. He would point out that already in the 98th clause of the Bill there was one holiday actually legislated for in Scotland. The clause said— Any two days, one of which shall be the day set apart by the Church of Scotland for the observance of the Sacramental fast, in the parish in which the factory or workshop is situate. He would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should confine his clause to naming St. Patrick's Day, and he thanked the Attorney General for the recognition he had given of the national holiday of Ireland.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the fast day referred to in this Bill was already created by law, and it was not made a holiday for the first time by this Bill. All shops were closed and business suspended on that day, very much as if it were Sunday.

§ MR. PARNELL
desired to read the clause, as he was prepared to amend it— In lieu of any two half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every child, young person, or woman, employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March; Provided, That, when this date falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date.

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. A large majority of the people employed in factories and workshops in Belfast did not want a holiday on the 17th of March.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
was glad the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had withdrawn that portion of his Amendment which related to the 15th of August. He thought, however, it would be generally admitted that St. Patrick's Day was a national holiday in Ireland.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said, it was an entirely new principle in a Bill of this description to select a day which was a secular holiday, so to speak; for all the other holidays appointed for England and Scotland were days of religious observance, though whether they were religiously observed or not was another matter. For example, the two days in England were Good Friday and Christ- 497 mas Day, and the day for Scotland was the Sacramental Fast Day, which was a religious holiday.

MR. SULLIVAN
had seen how Good Friday was observed as a religious holiday in the Tower Hamlets, and certainly he had always found that St. Patrick's Day was better kept in Ireland.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
had always thought that St. Patrick was claimed alike by Catholics and Protestants. There was a song, often heard in the North of Ireland, commencing—"St. Patrick was a Protestant."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that before proposing the new clauses which were on the Paper, he wished to make a statement to the Committee concerning a new clause which he had drawn up. Although the Committee had apparently agreed with him that it was absolutely necessary to retain some hold over private workshops, yet he thought they also held the same opinion he himself entertained, that every care should be taken to prevent abuse of the power of entry. He would move, therefore, the insertion of a new clause, which was not on the Paper, to the effect that where an Inspector had reason to believe that work was being carried on in a dwelling-house, contrary to the provisions of the Act, he should not have power to go into that house without either getting a warrant in writing from the Secretary of State, or going before a justice of the peace to ask him to grant a warrant to enter the house. In the case of a warrant granted by a justice of the peace, he thought it necessary that the warrant should not be available for one day only, because, if an Inspector believed that work was going on in a particular house, he might not know the day. Therefore, he would propose that the warrant should be in force for a month. The right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to carry out the object he had described.

§ MR. WHITBREAD
inquired whether the warrant would be granted on a sworn information?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
replied in the affirmative.

§ MR. MUNTZ
thought the warrant ought to be granted by two justices.

MR. GORST
wished to know whether there was any precedent for houses of persons in this country being entered upon a Secretary of State's warrant, and also whether there would be a sworn information laid before the Secretary of State, or some other safeguard provided for the protection of individuals?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
remarked that the Secretary of State was the Chief Magistrate.

§ SIR SYDNEY WATERLOW
thought the Committee ought to be much obliged to the Secretary of State for proposing this clause. He should withdraw the new clause standing in his name to the same effect. As the right hon. Gentleman had now said that the sacredness of private homes should not be interfered with except on the order of a magistrate or the Secretary of State, he thought it quite right that, under such circumstances, an investigation should be made with a view to ascertain whether children and young persons were being overworked. He had had a great deal of experience among the poor in Bethnal Green, where cabinet-work and shoe-work was done in homes, and many of the people there were amazed at the idea that their homes were to be interfered with under the circumstances which might have been brought about but for the clause which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
joined in thanking the Home Secretary for introducing the clause, which certainly would protect the liberty of the subject to a very great extent.

§ MR. FIELDEN
thought a warrant, granted by a magistrate on a sworn information was a very proper thing, but he objected strongly to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State. It was a further extension of centralization against which he must protest.

§ SIR HENRY JAMES
was of opinion that the power given to the Secretary of State was a very valuable one. Possibly in some districts magistrates might take a different view of the Act from that taken by the Legislature; and, of course, the power of the Secretary of State 499 would only be used in exceptional cases. He thought a Proviso that the warrant should be granted by two magistrates would be invidious and objectionable. All informations relating to the liberty of the subject were sworn before one magistrate.

§ MR. PARNELL
also acknowledged the value of the clause. The Secretary of State had done all he possibly could to remove the objections to the original proposal.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
moved the following new Clause:— (Exemption of certain home-work.) The exercise in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour for the purposes of gain in or incidental to some of the purposes in this Act in that behalf mentioned, shall not of itself constitute such house or room a workshop, where the labour is exercised at irregular intervals, and does not furnish the whole or principal means of living to such family.

§ SIR HENRY JACKSON
said, he had been induced by the strong desire of some of his own constituents, and of other manufacturers similarly situated, to propose that workers in certain light textile manufactures should be allowed to work in spells of five hours during the winter months, so that they might take break- 500 fast and set their houses in order before commencing work. This proposal was, in substance, recommended by the Report of the Commissioners, and if it were accepted it would be received as a great boon by the workpeople as well as by the employers. He had introduced a deputation to the Home Secretary, who had received them courteously, and he hoped had satisfied himself as to the propriety, if not the necessity, of what he asked for. He therefore moved to insert after Clause 47 the following clause:— (Continuous employment of young persons women, and children in certain cases.) In any of the textile factories to which this exception applies, if the period of employment for young persons and women as fixed by the occupier and specified in the notice begins at the hour of seven in the morning, and the whole time between that hour and eight o'clock is allowed for meals, the regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women shall not prevent a child, young person, or woman, between the first day of November and the last day of March next following, being employed continuously, without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal, for the same period as if the factory were a non-textile factory. This exception applies to the textile factories specified in Part Seven of the Third Schedule to this Act.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
wished to make it quite clear what was proposed. This question had been fully considered by the Royal Commissioners. The Statute of 1874 enacted that in all textile factories four-and-a-half hours should be the extent of a spell, and this length of a spell had been confirmed by the present Committee in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Nothing, therefore, would induce him to depart from that four-and-a-half hours' spell in the case of heavy textile work. It was clearly necessary for the protection of persons so employed that they should not work for more than four-and-a-half hours at a time. But the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) urged that in the case of certain lighter trades, which were discussed by the Royal Commissioners, the same argument did not apply. The fact was, no doubt, that formerly the people engaged in those trades were accustomed in the winter months to have breakfast before they went to their work; and it was also true that they could not now follow that system in the winter months without 501 great inconvenience, owing to the provision contained in the Act of 1874. He had not the slightest intention of departing from the clauses they had already passed, because he was quite sure that he ought to uphold the decision arrived at by the Royal Commission. They also came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to enforce this rule in the non-textile factories, and that in those lighter trades the relaxation was not so necessary. He should have no objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) if the Committee thought the alteration should be made, because the application came not from the masters, but from the workpeople themselves. He knew this to be the case, and could vouch for it, because a deputation from them had waited on him in reference to this subject. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), and include all factories in this relaxation.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
considered that the Home Secretary was precluded by the Report of the Royal Commissioners from going any further. He perfectly agreed with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and only regretted that he could not also support the hon. Member for Stroud.

§ MR. STANTON
said, after the remarks of the Home Secretary, it was not much use persevering with the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It must be remembered that, though the Royal Commissioners did not actually recommend the abolition of the system— four-and-a-half hours between meals— they did recommend that it should not be extended; and that they also reported that great complaint was made from Stroud, and the surrounding districts, of the inconvenience caused by the new system. The workpeople in that district felt they were much better off in the old times, when they were left to settle these matters with their employers, than they were now that Government had taken them under its care.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
was very glad the Home Secretary had made this concession. He had always been of opinion that in winter 7 to 7 were better hours than 6 to 6. This system was adopted on his own premises—with the consent 502 of the Factory Inspector, for 10 or 12 years—beginning in October, and ending in April, and working from 8 till 7. The result was, that they came in the morning, having had their breakfasts, and found the rooms comfortable and machinery warm, instead of coming a little earlier to find the rooms cold and uncomfortable, the machinery not ready, and to go home afterwards to breakfast. The whole question was really one of the habits of the people. If this concession was offered to the operatives of the North they would refuse it, while in the Midlands and the South they would accept it very gladly. He did not see why each district should not be allowed its free choice in the matter.

§ MR. TENNANT
asked whether the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) meant that there should only be half-an-hour allowed for meals between the spells, because that was the effect of the clause as it was now worded? Again, on Saturday, was there to be one spell, beginning at 8 and ending at 1?

§ SIR HENRY JACKSON
said, that would be practical effect on Saturday. As to the half-hour, the hands might work from 8 till 1, and from 2 till 7, or from 1.30 to 6.30, as they chose. Perhaps, in the winter months, the latter would be more comfortable for. both parties.

§ MR. TENNANT
said, his objection was not that too much was given, but too little. He certainly thought there should be at least an hour between meals.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, the interval between the spells should be at least an hour.

§ MR. MARLING
said, the people of Stroud had always been in the habit of having their meals in the winter months in the morning before they began work. It was only during the winter that the alteration in the rules was required; and he was satisfied that it was a very great grievance with them that their habits should be interfered with in this way. Until the Act came into operation, the workpeople always breakfasted before going to work, and he hoped the Home Secretary would yet see his way to granting the boon asked for this district.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
moved to omit the word "half-an-hour" and insert the word "hour."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
entirely agreed that there should be at least an hour between the spells; but this particular Amendment would not, if properly understood, disturb that. They were dealing here with restrictions. Some words must, if necessary, be inserted in the clause, and he would see the matter was put right on the Report.

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
moved to insert, after Clause 59, the following new clause:— (Exception for certain descriptions of flax scutch mills from certain provisions of Act.) The regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the provisions of this Act which are declared not to apply to a workshop which is conducted on the system of not employing children or young persons therein, shall not apply to flax scutch mills which are conducted on the system of not employing children therein, and which are worked intermittently and for periods only which do not exceed in the whole six months in any year. The object of the clause was to exempt scutching mills from the operation of the Bill. Children were not employed in them, and he asked for the alteration because scutching in Ireland, at any rate, was rather an agricultural than a farming operation. The flax was grown by small farmers, and scutched at little mills in each district, the farmers paying so much per stone for the work. The people engaged in the mills were employed in agriculture all the rest of the year. If any obstacle were put in the way of the growth of flax in Ireland the farmers would cease its cultivation, and the only manufacture which had ever taken root in that country would be destroyed.

§ MR. PARNELL
asked why young persons in flax mills were to be exempted from the operation of this measure?

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, there was no such exemption. The clause only 504 applied to mills in which young persons were not employed.

§ MR. BIGGAR
thought this was wrong. If they once allowed young people to be employed in these mills—["No, no!"] —Well, the clause was so badly drawn that either it could not be understood, or young people were exempted from its operation.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, his Paper of Amendments contained the words "children or young persons." The hon. Member was reading from a later edition of the Amendment Paper, which he had not seen.

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
said, he only intended to exempt factories in which children were not employed from the operation of this clause.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, from what he knew of scutching mills, children should not be employed in them at all. It was one of the worst employments for children they could possibly imagine. He knew from experience that men working as flax dressers were very liable to consumption and other diseases of the lungs. No doubt these linen merchants in the North of Ireland were very honest and very enterprizing persons; but they wanted to make the most they could from their businesses, and to encourage people to throw flax, no matter what the result to their health. They had laid down the principle that young people were not to be engaged in unhealthy employments, and yet they were about to exempt a trade which, he knew from experience, was as unhealthy as glass-grinding or steel-running. What this proposition really amounted to was, that the Government should give especial encouragement to the growth of flax; and though these linen manufacturers were very enterprizing and very useful persons, he was decidedly of opinion that the Government should not give way, but should hold firm by the Bill as originally drawn.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, if these scutch mills were declared not to be factories, it must be remembered that the provisions as to fencing machinery would not apply. He understood that the machinery used in this work was very dangerous.

§ MR. MACDONALD
entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the unhealthiness of scutching. The hon. Member who in- 505 troduced the clause (Mr. Mullholland) said this was an agricultural operation; but machinery was largely employed in it, and it was no more really what it was said to be than the manufacture of cotton; besides, he could speak from knowledge that it was a most unhealthy occupation. In a minute those that were employed at it were covered with stubble and dust. They often had to close their mouths not to inhale the foul air. He hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the clause.

§ MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY
was of opinion that this work could only be said to be agricultural because it drew people from agriculture during six months of the year. As to the arguments that had been used, they were exactly the same as those that had been used in vain on behalf of English manufactures. In his constituency there was a large scutching mill, employing a great number of hands, belonging to the Messrs. Russell. They were most benevolent and careful employers; but it was a notable fact that, notwithstanding all the precautions taken by them, the women deteriorated more rapidly than in any other employment in the district. There was not a single argument that had been brought forward in support of this proposition which did not equally apply to other employments.

§ MR. D. TAYLOR
said, a great majority of these scutching mills were very small affairs, employing a few hands. The clause was said to be for the interest of the manufacturers; but that was not so. It was the growers who would benefit, because the scutching was done by them. Indeed, in a great part of Londonderry, the flax was scutched at home, and was known as handscutched flax. As to its being unhealthy work, he had never heard that said before of the operations of growing and steeping, while the scutching in many parts of the country he knew best was carried on by the people in their own houses. This was really the staple manufacture of the North of Ireland, and therefore he thought it deserved some consideration.

§ MR. ANDERSON
said, the Bill did not deal with hand-scutched flax, but with that scutched in mills and factories. The process did bear a certain relation to agriculture, but only the relation 506 which thrashing did to wheat. He knew the process thoroughly. It was about the dirtiest and most dangerous that could well be, while the more it was done by machinery the more dangerous did it become. When the process of breaking was done by machinery the danger was still further increased. To his mind, there was no really good reason for making the exception.

§ MR. MULHOLLAND
said, hon. Members had spoken of the unhealthiness of flax-dressing; but this had nothing to do with scutching. It was only in Ireland that flax was scutched by machinery. In France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany, it was done by the peasants in their own homes; but in Ireland it was done, and much better done, by water or steam-power. He believed the farming classes in Ireland, who owned scutch mills, if they were put under the operation of the Act, and obliged to make returns and submit to inspection, would give up scutching, the profit from which was very slight. In that case, farmers would be unable to grow flax; but this was the basis of the staple manufacture of Ireland, and, if hampered, that trade would suffer. Therefore, he did beseech the Committee not hastily to take a step the results of which might prove to be most disastrous.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the objection of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was provided for, because these places were not exempted from the clauses in the Bill which required machinery to be fenced.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, if the Home Secretary intended to support the clause, he should have some further objections to offer. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) drew a great distinction between flax-dressing and flax-scutching, and a distinction there was—that the latter was immeasurably more unwholesome than the former. Scutching was the first operation after the flax had been steeped, for clearing off the rubbish; and it was impossible to imagine a more unhealthy employment, for the dust got down the workers' throats, and injured their lungs. As to the assertion that this was not a manufacture, it was ridiculous. These people built mills on the streams and let them out, or dressed the flax at so much per stone—and, if that was not a manufac- 507 ture, he did not know what was. This attempt to obtain protection for the manufactures of a particular part of Ireland should not be listened to, and he did hope the Government would set their faces against this worthless clause.

§ MR. MACDONALD
denied that scutch mills were only to be found in the North of Ireland, and remembered that they had been in operation for many years in the North of England. They were also to be found in Scotland. It was nonsense to talk of the health that was in the North of Ireland—it was apart from the scutch mill. No method of dealing with the raw material could be more dangerous to the employers than that pursued in a scutch mill.