CONSIDERATION, AS AMENDED. (Hansard, 19 June 1882)

§ MR. ARMITAGE
moved, as an Amendment, in Clause 38, page 20, line 26, after the word "child," to insert the words— 1576 Under the age of ten years shall he employed in any casual employment within the city and no child who is above the age of ten years hut. He was aware that it was an unusual course to seek to modify or add to the terms of a Bill after it had received the careful attention of a Select Committee; but he hoped it would be felt that he was justified in attempting to do so on the present occasion, when he reminded the right hon. Gentleman who presided over the Select Committee (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and his Colleagues, and the House itself, of the groat interest taken in this question by the public of Manchester, and also the neighbouring Borough of Salford, which he (Mr. Armitage) represented, and of the disappointment which was felt on learning that certain words in a clause of this Bill, which were considered to be most essential, were in danger of being excluded. Among a great variety of questions which were included in this very comprehensive and useful Bill of the Manchester Corporation, there was one which dealt with the seriously growing evil of the employment in the streets of young children of what was commonly called the "Street Arab class." To make the House more fully familiar with the case, he might explain that children over 14 years of age would not be at all affected by the proposed Bill, for they were free from any obligation to attend school, and were not liable to any regulations in respect to the Factory Act. There remained, then, the children under 14 years of age, who were proposed by the Bill promoted by the Manchester Corporation to be divided into two classes, and dealt with as follows:—First, the children between 10 and 14 years of age were to be allowed to follow the employment referred to till 7 o'clock in the winter months—say, from October 1st until April 1st, and until 9 o'clock in the summer months—say, from April 1st until October 1st, without any conditions at all. But to entitle them to exceed these hours, and to work until any hour at night they pleased, it would be necessary that they should pass a certain educational test. This portion of the clause the Select Committee had agreed to. Secondly, it was sought to forbid children of more tender age—namely, of less than 10 years—from following this street employment altogether; and 1577 it was because the Select Committee had struck out this portion of the clause that he proposed to move an Amendment to reinstate the conditions in the Bill. The elimination of these words from the clause would allow these young children, who were often, as a matter of fact, as young as seven or eight years, to continue to follow this mischievous practice on precisely the same conditions as children of more advanced age. He took this to be a very great hardship upon children of tender age themselves. Perhaps it was considered that it would serve as a sufficient hindrance to the employment of the younger children if they were required to pass such an examination as applied to the elder ones; but, if even that were so, they were free to be so employed until 7 o'clock in the winter, and 9 o'clock in the summer months, under any circumstances. He rested his case, however, in respect to these younger children, not on the ground of their being able to pass an educational test, which he found some were able to do, but simply on the ground of their being so very young. He held that it was only right that they should be subject to the same beneficent regulations as applied to employment in factories and workshops. In reply to the argument that the earnings of the children might be required for the maintenance of themselves, or of other members of the family, he was able to state, on the authority of Dr. John Watts, the Chairman of the Industrial Schools Committee of the Manchester School Board, that, having investigated the circumstances of a large number of children who were following this street employment, it was found that only one-third of them belonged to families who were below the poverty scale of the School Board. That proved that two-thirds of the parents of these children were comparatively independent, and were, therefore, unnecessarily subjecting their children to this very great hardship. Rather than do this in instances where the family was exceedingly poor, he would prefer to relieve them out of the public rates. It should be remembered that the children were not learning any suitable and profitable employment that would be useful to them in later years; but, surrounded as they were by evil associations, they were acquiring habits which would, in all probability, bring them ultimately 1578 into the hands of the magistrate and the gaoler. Factory legislation was found to be necessary to guard children against the frequent cupidity and cruelty of parents. He was himself connected with a large manufacturing industry, and he could speak from his own personal knowledge of the number of cases which continually came under his notice, where the parents of the children represented them of an older age than they actually were, in order that they might pass the factory inspection, and be qualified to work in the mills. If legislation were necessary and needful for the protection of children who worked in the mills, where they were sheltered and cared for by Government inspection, how much more was it needful in the case of children who were exposed to the vicissitudes of the weather, and the degradation of street life and evil associations? The experience which had been gained by the various benevolent societies of the town during several years had so guided and matured public opinion, and the authorities had on several occasions addressed the late and present Government, both by memorials and deputations, on the subject, urging upon Her Majesty's Ministers that nothing less than legislation in the matter would suffice. The representations made were to the effect that the offence did not come within the province of any existing law, and, therefore, could not be prevented by any present means. In March, 1880, a deputation waited upon the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and reminded him of the memorials which had been previously presented, asking for legislation. The deputation consisted of members of the Corporations of Manchester and Salford, and was supported by Magistrates, Guardians of the Poor, officers of the School Board, and persons connected with various benevolent societies. It had also the support and approval of the whole of the Members for Manchester and Salford, and no hon. Member had taken up the question more warmly than the hon. Member who sat on the other side of the House (Mr. Birley), who introduced the deputation to the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. He (Mr. Armitage) only mentioned this circumstance to show that there was no Party feeling in the matter, but an absolute agreement of 1579 opinion. Two years ago a town meeting was held to take into consideration the treatment of juvenile offenders, and there was an entire concurrence in the views expressed that the very mischievous practice of sending them to prison should, as far as possible, cease. A resolution to that effect was passed, because it was felt that Industrial Schools and Reformatories for the constantly growing crop of juvenile offenders were the only alternative. This, however, -would not entirely stay the growth of the evil, which arose, in a great measure, from the prevalence of street hawking. It was shown that last year more than one-half of the young persons who were admitted into the Industrial Schools of the Manchester School Board had been so employed, and only 17 per cent had come from families of good repute. This proved clearly that the close connection between the employment now complained of and the increase of crime could not be ignored. It should be borne in mind that an Act of the same kind was at present in force in Glasgow, and they had a report from the police authorities of Glasgow of the beneficial results arising from its operation in that city. He would conclude by expressing his thanks for the attention and patience with which a large portion of the House had listened to his remarks, and by moving to reinstate the words in the clause as they originally stood in the Bill of the Manchester Corporation. He invited the approval and support of the House.

§ MR. JACOB BRIGHT,
in seconding the Amendment, said, he had no wish to detain the House further than to corroborate the statement of his hon. Friend (Mr. Armitage) as to the overwhelming strength of opinion in Manchester in favour of the Amendment—namely, that young children under the age of 10 years should not be allowed to be employed in the streets. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) said that was the general law already. If it were the general law, it would not do much harm to introduce it into this Bill. Men of every creed and Party in Manchester were anxious to have the Amendment made, and the hon. Members who represented Manchester in that House would be glad if the House could see its way to accept the Amendment.

§ MR. SCLATER-BOOTH
said, ho was quite aware, and the Select Committee was equally aware, of the great desire which prevailed in certain quarters of Manchester that this clause, in its full integrity, should have been incorporated in the Bill. But he could assure his hon. Friend (Mr. Armitage) and the House that the Committee felt so strongly on the subject that they would have preferred to strike out the whole clause rather than sanction it in the form in which it was originally proposed to be inserted in the Bill. No doubt, the clause was copied from a Scotch Act; but if the House was of opinion that a further restriction should be placed upon juvenile labour to this extent, then let it be made applicable to the whole of England, as well as to Scotland; but let the provision be a general one. There did not appear to be any desire that this particular restriction on the labour of children under 10 years of age—children employed in selling newspapers in the streets—should be applied to London, or to the large towns generally. It was only in Manchester that there was any feeling in the matter. The Select Committee had supported the clause in so far as it dealt with children who ought to be at school; but they thought it was not desirable to assent to any further restriction. It was quite sufficient to provide that when children were under school age, they should not be allowed to engage in this casual employment after certain hours in the evening. As he had already stated, the clause, as originally proposed by the Corporation of Manchester, was taken from a Scotch Act; but he must say that the evidence adduced before the Committee as to the working of the provision in Scotland was of the most meagre description. The clause appeared to have been confined to Glasgow; and in regard to its working in Glasgow there was very little evidence indeed. He might remind the House that the whole of this matter could be reconsidered in "another place;" and he did not think the 1581 present was a proper time for going into it. A very strong objection was entertained against the clause, as it originally stood; and he believed the Bill, in its present form, contained all that could reasonably be demanded from Parliament. Indeed, as the clause now stood in the Bill, the Committee had felt a great deal of hesitation in passing it. What was now proposed would take away the means of livelihood from a large class. It would be better to strike out the whole clause than to accept the Amendment. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not assent to the Amendment.