§ Order for Committee read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS (Lancashire, S. W., Newton)I only wish, Mr. Speaker, to ask one or two questions of the Secretary of State (Mr. Childers). I do not wish to make a Motion to delay the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Lubbock) who is in charge of this measure. I wish to ask how is this Bill to be worked, because we are imposing certain restrictions upon all shops named in the Bill, and though the Secretary of State has certain powers vested in him, he has no officers by whom the powers will be exercised? I want to know whether it is intended to send out the Factory Inspectors to work the Bill, or what it is that is really meant to be done? There is no reference to the Factory and Workshop Inspectors in the Bill. There are very stringent regulations about shop hours; but there is one particular clause—the 2nd clause, I think—where it provides that if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that in any parts 1786 of a shop it is necessary, owing to press of work, to grant relaxations, the Secretary of State may grant such relaxations. It is true that this is taken from the Factory and Workshop Act; but there the right hon. Gentleman had some vestige of a machinery provided by the Act, and I want to know how, under the Bill, is he to be guided in making a relaxation, or in enforcing it, because he is made responsible for the whole thing? Then I am quite sure that my hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) will excuse me for saying that I find great fault with the Bill on another ground. The Bill, as drawn, is to be in force in every shop throughout the whole of London and elsewhere; but when the shopkeeper has brought it for a halfpenny or a penny, and has got, as he thinks, the whole of it in his hands, he is referred to a very large measure which costs much more money, and has to pick out a series of clauses from the Act of 1868 to find out whether he comes under them or not. I do think it is a very great pity that those sections of the larger Act which are involved have not been put into the Schedule of this Bill, so that anyone who bought the Bill might see at once how he stood. I do not think the Bill can go through its final stages now; and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will take this into his consideration before to-morrow, and will, on Report, specify in the Schedule those sections of the Act of 1868 which are referred to. It would be much better if that were done. It would not take five minutes to draft the Schedule, and I hope the hon. Member will not object to give some assurance that he will consider that question, at all events, before the next stage to-morrow. I desire to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he means to work this Bill?
THE SECERTARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)Mr. Speaker, Sir, when the Bill was read a second time I pointed out this Proviso in the clause, and said that, although we thought very highly of the object aimed at by the Bill, I certainly would not assent to that Proviso, because I saw that it was absolutely unworkable, and was one which would require the appointment of an army of Inspectors, and a very efficient machinery. That, I think, 1787 will be apparent to the House, if the whole of the shops are subject to inspection. What I will propose, therefore, is this. The Proviso in the 3rd clause is absolutely unworkable, and I should propose to omit it altogether, and to insert instead certain of the clauses in the Factory and Workshop Act. I think the suggestion to put the clauses in the Schedule might be done by tomorrow, and would do no harm. Then, Sir, I propose to adopt one or two of the Amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. F. S. Powell), who defines, I think, more accurately than is here done, what the employment should be. In the Bill, the wording of the definition of the persons affected by the Act is—"Any person employed in or about or in connection with a shop." I am afraid that the words "in connection with a shop" are too wide, and might include a number whom we never intended should be included. I therefore propose to alter these words. The only other change I should propose that my hon. Friend should make is in the clause of all others to which I alluded on the second reading, the clause which would practically exclude public-houses from the operation of the Bill, and which would enable young people under 18 to be employed for an indefinite time in such establishments. In opposing that clause, I do so because I think we are justified in protecting all classes of young people in this matter. Therefore, in Clause 8, I shall propose to insert words which shall not exclude, as now, places where drink is sold on the premises. These are the only Amendments I would propose, and these, I think, will bring the Bill into workable shape. I am afraid I cannot assent to the additional clauses put on the Paper by my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock). They would affect the entire Bill, and it would be impossible to pass a law compelling shopkeepers to shut their shops against their will at a particular hour; therefore I could not assent to that proposal of my hon. Friend. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), I think that persons coming within the operation of the Act must be left to the protection usually afforded to everyone against evil treatment. I certainly cannot for a moment consent to make the 1788 Home Office responsible for the inspection, or for the carrying out of every provision in this Bill. With these explanations I hope the House will agree to the Motion to go into Committee.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)I will consider the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and, in the meantime, I shall be very glad if the House will allow the Bill to pass through Committee to-night.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)I thought, when my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) rose, that he was going to object to our proceeding with this Bill altogether at this stage, and as he has not done so, and as my right hon. Friend who was to have done so (Sir James Fergusson) is not present, I intend to do so now. It seems to me that to legislate on this subject, at this period of the Session when the House is in extremis, is a positive absurdity. I do not intend to discuss the merits of the Bill at all. I believe the merits of the Bill to be extremely small; and so far as I am acquainted with the views of tradesmen in that part of England which I have the honour to represent, they are decidedly against this Bill. It does not apply in any way to those tradesmen who are in the habit of serving the upper classes; but it does apply to those tradesmen who serve a humbler class, and places these tyrannical, these absurd, restrictions upon them. It is almost incredible that anyone calling himself a Liberal, or a Member of the Liberal Party, should support these proposals in any shape whatever. Now, I said I was not going to take up the time of the House discussing the merits of the Bill. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Very well, Sir, "Hear, hear!" But it is high time you did consider its merits, because it is such a Bill as should never have been brought before the House at all. It has been referred to a Select Committee, and I do not know that hon. Members opposite have ever read one word of the evidence taken by that Committee. The principal objection to the Bill has been stated by my right hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) and by the Home Secretary. What did they say? The Home Secretary admitted that the subject was encompassed with difficulties. My right 1789 hon. Friend (Sir R. Assheton Cross) made certain suggestions to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary answered, these in a speech of such a confused nature, that I am quite sure no one could understand it. First of all, there was the question of Inspectors, and whether Inspectors were to be employed or not. The Home Secretary, who is a principal Leader of the Party of the "shirk and surrender" policy—[Cries of "Oh!"] Well, I did not give the Party that name. It was given to that Party by a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party—a late Member of this House—the Hon. Mr. Brett. It was he who gave the name of "shirk and surrender" to the policy pursued by the present Government. Well, on the suggestion being made, that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman immediately granted the Committee. The Bill was sent to the Committee, and witnesses were examined, and a Report was presented to the House which is now on the Table. And what does the right hon. Gentleman now say? He made a number of suggestions which he said he was about to carry out in Amendments to the Bill. But as we see these Amendments before us, how are we ever, now, at this late period, when the second reading of the Appropriation Bill has been before the House, and when I see hardly more hon. Members present than constitute a quorum, how are we ever now to decide on a question of this important nature, and particularly in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson), whose claims and demands on his time he could not resist? Sir, I say it is an unfair advantage which the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) has taken, in bringing on this Bill at this time, and at this hour, when it is already five minutes to 12. I say it is an abuse of the Forms of this House that we should be asked to consider a question of this importance now. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Manchester—"That this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee."
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)seconded the Motion.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck,)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)I had hoped we might have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) some observations which would show that, in his belief at any rate, the Bill would have the benevolent effect which he anticipated when he introduced it to the House. Now, Sir, I do not go as far as my right hon. and learned Friend below the Gangway (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in his denunciation of this Bill—
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKI do not denounce the Bill; I only deounce the inopportune time of bringing it no.
§ SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI beg pardon; I misunderstood my right hon. and learned Friend. But the hon. Member for the University of London introduced the Bill with an object with which all of us would agree—namely, that of rendering the work of assistants in shops, and especially of young persons, more in accordance with the dictates of humanity. Now, this Bill was read a second time, because the House was certainly in agreement with that principle, and desired as far as was possible to see it carried into effect. It has since been referred to a Select Committee, which Select Committee has taken a good deal of evidence on the subject; and so far as I can gather from the Report of that Select Committee, and from the speech of the Home Secretary, this Bill is now reduced merely to a kind of "counsel of perfection," which is to be put in force if the public opinion of those interested agrees that it shall be put in force. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has very properly said that it is not possible, seeing that this Bill applies practically to all shops all over the country, to appoint an army of Inspectors to see that its provisions are carried out. As that is not contemplated, the provisions of the Bill 1791 are practically left to be carried out by the goodwill of two sets of persons—because there will be no common informers—the shopkeepers and those employed by them. If the shopkeeper be cruel enough to transgress the provisions of the Bill, certainly he will not inform against himself; and if the shop assistant desired to do so, he dare not inform. And why? Because if he did he would be dismissed. Therefore, Sir, the benevolent object, as I fully admit it to be, of the hon. Member for the University of London will, I fear, be defeated, for the simple reason that there will be no one to see to the provisions of the Bill being carried out. Now, I do not wish to stop the progress of this Bill, and I should not advise my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) to divide against it; but I must say that I think that considerable responsibility rests with the Government of the day in this matter. The Bill in its principle, as I have said, is a good Bill; but can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say that he has any real belief that its provisions will be carried out? If he has not, is it not the business of the Government, or of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) in charge of the Bill, to propose some means by which to ensure that these provisions will be carried out? If no such provisions are in the Bill, and if such provisions cannot be devised, is it not getting Parliament to legislate for a matter with which it really cannot deal, and leading the people to believe in the utility of a law with a most beneficent object, but which will not be carried into effect? That does not seem to me a satisfactory position in which to leave the question, and I should hope that the Home Secretary may be able to state to the House that it is not to be left as he seemed to leave it in his speech, and that there is some better reason to believe that the Bill will be carried into effect than the hope that the shopkeepers will inform against themselves, or that the assistants, at the peril of discharge, will inform.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKMr. Speaker—Sir, I do not propose inspection, or the appointment of an army of Government Inspectors. But I think we may look to the Early Closing Associations, and that we may partly rely upon the great competition among shopkeepers themselves, 1792 and that they may be expected to keep an eye upon one another. The great majority of shopkeepers regret very much that a small minority keep open, and thus compel them to keep open also, very much longer than they would themselves desire; and the opinion expressed by witness after witness before the Select Committee was that the shopkeepers who closed early would themselves see that the others conformed to the law. At present, there are many cases in which young persons are apprenticed to shopkeepers, who then keep them working for a great number of hours. Now, as the law stands, the parent has no power of interfering in these cases; but this Bill would give him that power, and there was a general opinion that the very existence of an Act of this kind would, like the Bank Holiday and some other Acts, have a considerable effect on public opinion. The result of the whole evidence was summed up by the Committee to be that, while admitting there would be a certain amount of difficulty, still the Bill would have a beneficial effect. With the single exception of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester (Sir James Fergusson), who admitted the evil, but was afraid that the Bill would not have the whole effect which the Committee desired, the whole of the rest of the Committee agreed in their Report, in which they stated that the Bill would have a considerable effect. I trust, Sir, that under these circumstances the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) will withdraw his opposition.
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)Sir, I oppose proceeding with this Bill on two or three grounds; and, first, I do so on the ground stated by my right hon. and learned Friend below me (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck). In all my experience of the practice of this House it is entirely without precedent that the course now pursued should have been taken by the Government on this occasion. In the first instance, they have laid down a self-denying ordinance absolutely necessary in the present circumstances of the House—namely, that they would not only not press any contentious legislation of their own, but would discourage contentious legislation on the part of non-official Members. It is an à fortiori case. If it be wrong for the Government 1793 to force contentious Business on the House, Business which is only partly completed, it is still less decent for any private Member to do so. It is not right, under our present difficult circumstances, that those who remain here to assist in carrying out Parliamentary duties during the few remaining days or hours of the Session, should be asked to consider contentious measures brought forward by non-official Members. We find that although the House has been crowded until a few days ago, we have now a very sparse attendance. It is already past 12 o'clock, and yet, in these circumstances, at the close of this Parliament, we are called upon to push this very curious Bill through the House. It seems to me that the ground my right hon. and learned Friend took up was very much amplified and fortified by what was said from the Front Bench opposite, for the Home Secretary gave us the most abounding reasons why this Bill, above all other Bills, ought not to be taken into consideration. I shall have to draw the attention of the House to the ridiculous position in which the Bill would be placed if the suggestions of the Home Secretary were carried out. What did it come to? It came to this—that this is one of those well-meant, humanitarian pieces of legislation, very good if successful, but needlessly irritating if unsuccessful. Well, it seems to me that this Bill is one which should be in the charge and responsible care of the Government. We should hesitate before we consent to any extension of what is becoming a perfect nuisance—namely, interference with individual action, interference in private trade and private affairs—in fact, that grandmotherly legislation which for years has been increasing the expenses of the country and the cost of the Civil Service, and which has added enormously to the number of Inspectors and officials which the Government have from time to time had to appoint. It is another species of that legislation which begins by interfering with this and that action of a man's life, and which goes on to look into his whole proceedings whether as a private resident or as a trader. Now, as an illustration, Sir, of the sort of legislation which seems to me to be evinced by the character of this Bill, allow me to call attention to the 9th clause. It is not 1794 the only clause; but it appears to me to be very important to be referred to, because it is one that shows the extraordinary character of the legislation. The 9th clause says that—"Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home." According to this, it would seem as if those who framed this Bill thought that a cruel father should be allowed to work his children to death. That is a proposition which is embodied in this clause. If you have a cruel father or mother who are disposed to overwork their wretched children, this Bill is a protection to them. I do not suppose that is what is meant by those who promote this Bill; but it only shows the difficulties into which people will get when they set to work and propose to carry out legislative impossibilities. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: Will the hon. Member explain how it affects them?] My observation was this, that under this clause a cruel father or mother could oppress their children in a way they could not oppress strangers. It seems to me that this Act would not apply to parents in the case I have mentioned. But what is the gist of the clause? It is not to apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home—that is to say, members of the same family. But is not a servant in the same relation to her employer if she lives in the house, as a member of the family? Or is that case to be an exception? Is that the style of legislation we can approve? Surely it is a very loose way of drawing clauses that will affect various relations of life. It seems to me that this is really reductio ad absurdum legislation, and this measure abundantly proves that legislation of this kind ought not to be in the hands of a private Member, but should be in the hands of the Government who should have the responsibility of seeing that there are proper clauses. But let me ask the attention of the House to what the position would be supposing the suggestion of the Home Secretary were carried out. It would be that the Bill would be perfectly emasculated and worth nothing. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is this—that the whole of the Proviso in Clause 3 is to come out. Well, then, why was it ever put in? That is the first question. It was put in, because the proposers and supporters of 1795 this Bill, and the Committee that considered the Bill, knew that without some such Proviso, or some equivalent machinery to it, the Bill would be utterly worthless and would not be executed at all. Why should we have a clause of two and a-half lines, and a Proviso of 15, except that the Proviso is the more important part of the clause. The effect of the Proviso is that the Secretary of State shall have the responsibility put upon him of giving a dispensing ordinance to do away with the whole operations of this Act in a certain class of cases where it is necessary by reason of press of work arising at certain recurring seasons of the year. According to that definition, the press of work would require to be de anno in annum, so that if it were a press of work for one year only, the dispensation would not be granted. It must be a succession of years. But, for my part, I do not understand why there should be that distinction. If there is a bonâ fide exception in order to take a particular class of cases out of the Act, surely it would be good to make the exception when it arises in only one year as well as in three "recurring seasons of the year"—that is to say, a kind of annual epidemic of seasons. That was the first class of cases in which the Home Secretary was at liberty to interfere. Then we have the second, which is more quaint still, and if anybody can give a reasonable construction of it so as to justify the Home Secretary from a legal point of view, I shall be surprised. It is—"or by reason of the liability of the business to a sudden press of orders arising from unforeseen events." I suppose that means that if a Liberal or Conservative demonstration were got up at which a large display of fireworks were wanted which put a great stress on the firework makers, these firework makers would be allowed extra labour for a week or 14 days. That is the sort of legislation we are asked to adopt within a few days or hours before being sent about our business. Why was this Proviso put in? Why, it was because it was thought that, without it, the Bill would be so aggressive that it would be absolutely unworkable. Then, again, the promoters have to find a tribunal for giving this dispensing power. Is the Home Secretary to go and see whether a young person's health is being 1796 endangered, or to go personally and ascertain about the press of orders which the shopkeeper is not able to overtake? Is he to undertake that in person, and ascertain whether the "recurring season of the year" has arrived again, or when it is likely to happen again, so as to call for his intervention? No, of course not; but if the Home Secretary were ever asked to exercise this dispensing power, it would mean this—that Colonel This, or Captain That, or Mr. Barrister So-and-so, of some years' standing and without any practice, would have to be sent to inquire and report. Experience has shown that the Home Secretary will have no time to look about for cases under the Act, for on a late occasion when rioting was taking place in London he knew nothing about it. He will be unable to give time to inquire into the circumstances, to ascertain when he can give dispensations to allow children to be employed for a few hours more in a week, unless he has a staff of Inspectors; and how many is he to have for the business? He must have machinery with which to exercise interference with the operations of the Act. An hon. Friend reminds me that the common informer will be left to do his part. Are a race of common informers to make the shops of small tradesmen their field of operations for picking up a shilling or two out of cases arising under the Act? If there is to be this miserable interference with the details of business there should be some responsibility about it, not that worrying and tormenting of tradesmen which will arise from the action of the common informer. There is abundant reason why the Bill should not be allowed to be re-committed. I frequently hear of the unwillingness of the other House of the Legislature to do its work. All I can say is, that to send them a Bill such as this at the very end of the Session and then expect them do any good with it, is not fair play to the other House. No one has given a greater blow to the Bill than has the Home Secretary, for his suggestion has shown that the Bill is not justified, and the alteration he proposes will make the Bill unworkable in the best sense of the term. I shall support the Motion against the Bill, if a division is taken. The House is entitled to some further explanation as to what the Government 1797 mean to do; whether they think the Bill is workable with the Proviso in Clause 3 taken out, and whether Clause 9 is in such a shape as will justify the House in passing the Bill.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI will only intervene for a moment between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the House; but I must ask another question, in consequence of the reply which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the striking out of provisions which would entirely alter the character of the Bill. I have had practical experience of the working of the Factory and Workshop Act, and I know that to insert the provisions of that Act, without the means of working them, would render the Bill absolutely unworkable; and I am quite sure it will have to be repealed in 12 months. Without a staff, I do not see how the Secretary of State could work the provisions; but then, if the provisions are struck out, I do not see how the Bill can stand. I, therefore, strongly press upon the Government that they should take the matter into their own hands. The Bill will deal practically with the mode of living of a vast number of people, and with occupations that should not be interfered with until the Government have inquired into the matter, which it is clear from the answer of the Home Secretary has not been done. The Government should be responsible for legislation of this kind, and the proper course will be for them to say they will take the matter up, and bring it before the House upon their responsibility. The answer of the Home Secretary shows how difficult the subject is. The right hon. Gentleman said he was going to strike out one of the most vital points of the Bill, without which the Bill cannot possibly work; and I, therefore, think the Government ought to undertake the responsibility, in another Session, of giving the matter their consideration, in order to submit a Bill which they have convinced themselves would work. I wish to call attention for a moment to a clause which I know the Home Secretary objects to; but it only shows how far the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) is prepared to go. That hon. Member was going to propose a clause, to the effect that the Local Authorities may close all shops, whether carried on by members of a family or 1798 not, at a certain hour—8, or 10, or 12, or any other hour not named in the Bill.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKThat will only be in case two-thirds wish it.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSI do not care whether it is two-thirds or nine-tenths; it is an unwarrantable interference with the freedom of shopkeepers. If I were to open a shop I should expect to be allowed to work it night and day, as I might think it would afford the best chance of getting a livelihood, in my own way; and it is absolute tyranny to prevent it, or restrict the time of carrying on business. I only mention this as an illustration, to show how desirable it is that a responsible Government should undertake legislation of this kind, and I hope to hear a statement that the Government are prepared to take the matter into their own hands, and to bring forward a workable measure in another Session.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)I have no authority to make any statement of that kind. It is scarcely necessary to make any reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who has indulged himself in giving names to his political opponents——
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKI rise to Order. I called no names. I merely repeated a criticism on the Government passed by a Member of their Party.
MR. CHILDERSThat is merely an evasion; the right hon. and learned Gentleman did call names, and I regret that he should have gone out of his way to do so. But I do not desire to make any reference to that. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), they are in the nature of a performance which may be called "flogging a dead horse." I have said I cannot accept the clause inserted by the Committee; and, therefore, the lash of his criticism falls upon those who adopted the wording from another Act. I do not blame them; I think they were good; but I am not responsible for the words. The hon. Gentleman tried to show that this was a Party question, and that the Bill was due to the action of Members of the Liberal Party; but, on looking on the back of 1799 the Bill, I observe that it is supported by the names of two Conservative Members. The hon. Member repudiated the Bill as a monstrous piece of Liberal legislation; but it is nothing of the kind; it is a question in which Members on both sides take an interest, and, as such, I accept the Bill, not as a Party proposal. I have been asked whether, with the omissions proposed, the Bill will be a workable measure, and, in my humble judgment, it will. Of course, should an army of Inspectors be appointed, the working machinery will be more complete; but Inspectors will have to be appointed, not by the dozen, not by the hundred, but by the thousand, if they are to visit every shop in the country. The real fact is, the Bill is urged and strongly supported by the trading community. Small shopkeepers are themselves strongly in favour of the Bill, and they have not asked for inspection; without such provision, they say, it will be of great advantage to a large number of young persons. The mere passing of the Bill will do much to effect the desired object—the limitation of the long hours of employment; and the little shopkeepers in each town will see that those who offend against the Act shall, in due time, be brought to justice. Those are the grounds upon which the Committee reported that the passing of the Bill, without an army of Inspectors, would do a great deal of good; and, on that ground, I thought it my duty to support the Bill. But the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) also indulged in the exercise of "flogging a dead horse," in his criticism of the Amendment in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock), an Amendment to restrain people where there was no question of the employment of young persons under 18—to restrain adults from keeping their shops open certain hours. But that proposal is not in the Bill, and I have stated that I should object to it; and that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms. I hope now the House will go into Committee upon the clauses, when I will give reasons for the Amendments I propose to introduce.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered one question with regard to the provision struck out which allowed an extension 1800 of time for certain purposes. Will the Bill work under such circumstances? It seems to me, unless there is some power of dispensation, the Bill is too stringent.
MR. CHILDERSI would rather leave the Bill as it is, not allowing more than 74 hours, rather than leave an uncertain margin in some cases.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)The debate thus far has shown clearly to the House that the time is not ripe for passing a measure like this. No doubt, a large amount of information has been collected by the Committee, and I believe there is room for legislation in this direction; but the Bill does not adequately deal with the matter. The Home Secretary now proposes to strike out Clause 3, and I must, therefore, oppose the Bill. Without that provision, the Bill would be most tyrannical, and practically unworkable. If the Bill applied to retail shops exclusively, that would not be so much the case; but I observe, from Clause 8, that it includes wholesale shops and warehouses. In wholesale, trades, there are certain seasons when dealers find themselves full of an exceptionally heavy amount of business every year. In the seed trade, for instance, there are two months in which the traders find themselves flooded with orders; and if the House passes the Bill, checking the outflow of seed to meet requirements, farmers and others will be deprived of their supply at the very time they require it. Again, take the fruit trade, a very large trade in London. In November and December there is a very large demand for dried fruits—so great that, by force of business, wholesale dealers are compelled to keep their warehouses open to an unusually late hour for their employés to get ready the supplies. And the same thing happens in other trades. Now, if there is no relaxation, no latitude, no elbow-room for the wholesale trades, the business of the country will be stifled and almost destroyed. Clause 3 requires very careful consideration; and the Proviso therein should not hastily be struck out. Suppose it was not struck out, and an application to the Secretary of State was provided. The Secretary of State resides in London, but the Bill applies to the Three Kingdoms generally. Suppose an emergency arises, and a trader in Dublin, Belfast, or Glasgow, receives a large 1801 cargo of fruit, he will have to wait while he makes application to the Secretary of State for a relaxation of hours, before he can get his cargo handled and placed. He will, at a critical juncture, have to wait, perhaps, four or five days, with a considerable amount of annoyance and expense. Unless an authority is appointed in Ireland and Scotland to receive applications for relaxation of hours, the Bill will be practically unworkable, and an obstruction to the business of the country. Clause 4 is another illustration of the unworkable character of the measure. The clause requires that the hours within which young persons are to be employed shall be exhibited in the shop. What does it mean? The whole pressure of orders may come on at noon, and young persons may, perhaps, not be able to leave the warehouse until after the usual hour. The time cannot, in some instances, be put up in the morning; it will depend upon the time when the work is finished. This clause requires alteration, and, in fact, the whole Bill requires reconstruction; and I would respectfully suggest that it should be withdrawn, and, perhaps, in the next Session of Parliament, that it be re-introduced in such a form that, with the general assent of the House, it might be passed, without doing injury to the interests of the trade of the country.
§ MR. W. H. SMITH (Strand, Westminster)The observations which have fallen from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh are worthy of serious consideration. The withdrawal of the Proviso giving power to the Home Secretary does very materially affect the whole character of the Bill. It certainly will be impossible to carry out the Bill without some relaxing power. If it is to be set at naught altogether, if provision is made that no young person shall work longer than 74 hours, with the knowledge the whole time, that this provision will be set at naught, by reason that necessity will, in some cases, compel them to work longer, then it appears to me that licence will be given for a breach of the Act which will result in the Act being of no effect practically. There is another provision that seems to me to require very serious consideration. It is provided, by Section 4, that the hours within which young persons are to be employed in the shop or warehouse are to be conspicuously exhibited 1802 therein. I venture to think that anyone accustomed to the ways of business in London and in large towns will agree that such a rule is impracticable. There are in very many cases no hours within which young persons are regularly employed; they are employed according to the necessities of the trade or business carried on in the shop. In many cases, shops or warehouses will close at 6 o'clock in the evening; but it may be necessary to continue business to 7, 8, or 9 o'clock, and it will be necessary that a portion of those employed should remain to that hour, though the majority may leave earlier. Those who conduct such business do so with great regard to those young persons in their employ, and do continue to find a way to release them at the earlier hour; but the rules are made to accommodate business arrangements, and, as far as possible, for the advantage of those employed; but there is often no fixed hour for closing in a great many of the large and most important businesses in the Metropolis. Even in banks it is no uncommon thing for clerks to be detained to 7, 8, 9, or 10 o'clock at night, under circumstances of great pressure. I am afraid that the Bill is a well-meant attempt—an admirable attempt—to improve the conditions existing in offices and businesses in the Metropolis, but without fully realizing all the difficulties that have to be met in effecting the object. Certainly, if the Government refuse their assistance, it cannot be carried out generally or successfully. If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, it is to be left to rival shopkeepers to inform against each other, a condition of things will arise anything but satisfactory. Considering the period of the Session, and the fact that full consideration cannot be given to the Bill in "another place," it will be far better to withdraw the Bill now, and re-introduce it next Session, with the hope that by the support and assistance of the Government it will be carried through.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley)As a Member of the Committee upon this Bill, I can bear testimony to the fact that the Committee had submitted to them no evidence that was really against the Bill, except in one case. They had witnesses from all 1803 parts of the country—from London, and from Provincial towns—some were hostile to the measure, as originally proposed; but they did ultimately agree to the proposals in the Bill—
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSWith the Proviso?
§ MR. BROADHURSTYes.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSBut it is struck out.
§ MR. BROADHURSTI will come to that presently. I wish to call attention to the remarkable views expressed from the opposite Benches. From those it may be imagined that this House is, for the first time, legislating upon the hours of labour. But what the House is asked to do has been done by Parliament over and over again. As to the argument that the Bill should not be proceeded with in the last days of an expiring Parliament, I will say that I cannot imagine more humane, more proper work for Parliament to engage in, than that of giving relief to overworked young persons of both sexes.
§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSWill the Bill do that?
§ MR. BROADHURSTI believe it will. In the Factory and Workshop Act, the House declared that young persons and females shall not work more than 54 hours per week; but many shop assistants are employed under conditions of labour far more injurious to health than those in factories and workshops whom the Legislature has protected. Most distinctly that is borne out by evidence before the Committee. I sincerely hope the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) will not withdraw his Bill at this stage; but that, if necessary, he will take a division, and test the opinion of the House. With regard to the withdrawal of the Proviso, what does it amount to? Simply to this—not that adults should be prevented from disposing of extra business connected with the distribution of fruit and vegetables, and to meet all the requirements of seed time and harvest, as to which the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. John Wilson) was so alarmed—it simply amounts to saying that young children of either sex—
§ MR. BROADHURSTYoung persons under that age shall not be employed more than 74 hours in the week. 1804 Is there any Member of the House prepared to stand up and, on his responsibility, say that it is right, or just, or necessary, to the trade and commerce of the country, that mere children should be engaged in labour for an unlimited number of hours? Yet complaints are made of the withdrawal of the power of extension that will only apply to young persons under 18, which is tantamount to saying that it is right and necessary for young persons to work more than 74 hours in the week, while it has been agreed that, in factories and workshops, which are usually well-ventilated, and in a much more healthy state for work than are most retail shops and warehouses, work shall only occupy 54 hours. Where is the distinction that 70 or 80 hours shall be allowed in retail shops, and only 54 in factories and workshops? There is no logic in the position taken up by hon. Members opposite. I cannot imagine for a moment how any hon. Member who has agreed to the Factory and Workshop Act can now oppose a Bill, innocent in itself, that will cost the country nothing, and will enable people to protect themselves, giving power to shopkeepers they themselves asked for. I cannot imagine for a moment why they should hesitate to give this little power to these hard-worked people, a class of people who work longer hours for smaller wages and under greater difficulties than the members of any other working community in the Kingdom.
§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)The hon. Member has set up an imaginary argument for us on this side of the House for the purpose of knocking it down again. He says the proposition maintained here is that it is right and proper that young persons should be employed for a number of hours in the week exceeding 74. No such proposition has ever been put forward or contended for here. What we contend is that employers of labour and persons who wish to be employed should be able to do as they please, and make free contracts, and that in the severe industrial competition which is taking place between this and foreign countries, all these artificial restrictions on labour that we adopt are detrimental to us and advantageous to our rivals. We shall find ourselves distanced in the race, the real test of which will be who can get out the largest amount of work in the 1805 shortest time. That being the test, I maintain that to put restrictions in the way of the making of free contracts between employer and employed will be an impediment to work and to the well-being of the workpeople. The hon. Gentleman evoked a sentiment that all, I think, will concur in—a sentiment in favour of the protection of young people from over-work. On this matter I took a great deal of trouble to ascertain the opinion of my constituents—and I represent a constituency containing within its borders a population equal to those of five or six suburban towns put together. The hon. Baronet says the small shopkeepers are in favour of the Bill. I speak with great diffidence upon this matter, knowing the accuracy the hon. Baronet invariably brings to bear upon all questions that he touches, and it is with diffidence, also, that I criticize the Committee; but what I say, as the result of my inquiries, is that the small shopkeepers do not want any such Bill as this. The general opinion amongst these people is that it would be well to have all the shops closed at a certain hour; and many of them say—"We should be glad to close, but we cannot close unless all do the same." That is a different question; and what I ask is, if the shopkeepers are really in favour of limiting the hours of opening, do they want an Act of Parliament to enable them to do it? Why cannot they do it themselves without? A. deputation waited upon me from a Provincial town, in which I happen to have property interests, not long ago—a deputation consisting of persons taking a leading part in the trade of the town. They represented to me that this Bill would be inimical to the interests of the shopkeepers. They showed that large numbers of these people who work in shops are family servants and reside on the premises, and would not come under Clause 9, which says—
Nothing in this Act shall apply to shops where the only persons employed are at home, that is to say, are members of the same family dwelling there, or to members of the employers' family dwelling in a house to which the shop is attached.These person rise at 7, or half-past, and their business is to come down in the early morning and get the place into something like form by dusting, and so on. They then retire and put on their 1806 shop-dress; but there are no definite regulations by which it can be ascertained whether they make more or less than 74 hours work a-week. These young women, remain on the premises all day and all night, except during certain hours for recreation. I ask the hon. Baronet how he has devised in this Bill any mode of ascertaining the number of hours during which these young women are to be employed? He includes, and, I agree, very properly, the meal-times; but does he include the time they are engaged in laying shop windows and counters, dressing, and preparing for the work of the day? Is all that to be included? The thing is full of practical impossibilities. I submit that to be guided by the evidence of the shop attendants themselves is out of the question. The Report of the Select Committee has not yet reached me, so that I am not able to speak as to what this evidence is. It has not been laid before us, and I understand that it is not to be laid before us in the course of I this debate. But what will the evidence of these young people be, and what weight is to be attached to it? It seems to me that young people of 17 years of age are able to judge for themselves as to the labour they should or should not undertake. Bear in mind it is not the labour of the factories. The Bill does not apply to those places. In the case of factories, before the Factory Acts were passed, the young operatives could not help themselves. Very often the whole population of the town worked in a certain factory, and it was a matter of either taking the work or starving. There there was good cause for interfering. But the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Broadhurst) says—even if the Factory Acts do not form a sufficient precedent—that we have interfered with labour over and over again. Well, I venture to say that 20 blunders will not make one good Bill. What the shopkeepers tell me is this. They say—"If we are to have regulations as to the; hours during which we are to employ labour, that means that we shall be obliged to close our shops at certain hours whether we like it or not, and that will give an advantage to some trades over others. At least," they say, "if we are to have trade regulations set over us, let us agree to them ourselves." 1807 They do not want regulations of this kind forced down their throats whether they like them or not. The regulations which would please the trades would be voluntary; and I maintain that the opinion of tradesmen should be consulted in a matter so vitally affecting their interests, and that a Bill should not be forced on them to throw difficulties in the way of their earning their livelihoods, or properly maintaining and developing their businesses. I think the hon. Baronet would do well to consider whether he could not make the Bill a voluntary instead of a compulsory one.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 23: Majority 38.—(Div. List, No. 135.)
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3 (Hours of employment in shops).
§ On Motion of The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Childers) (Edinburgh, S), for Mr. F. S. POWELL (Wigan), the following Amendments made:—Page 1, line 13, after "in," insert "or;" line 26, leave out "the same," and insert "any one."
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)As the clause stands, it seems to me that an employer might be punished for an act unwittingly performed. Sub-section 2 says—
A young person shall not be employed in a shop who has been previously on the same day employed in any factory or workshop, as defined by the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878, for the number of hours permitted by the said Act, for a longer period than will complete such number of hours.It states, as a matter of fact, that a young person "shall not be employed in a shop who has been, &c," and does not say that a young person shall not be so employed "with the consent or knowledge" of the employer. So that a person might be committing an offence against the Act without knowing it, and might be fined for that of which he really had not been guilty. Something should be put in the clause to imply wilfulness, knowledge, or consent on the part of the employer. Before proposing anything myself, I shall wait to hear 1808 what the Government have to say in the matter, for apparently they have taken up the Bill. I assume they have taken it up by the fact of the Government Tellers telling in the division.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)The difficulty experienced by the hon. Gentleman is fully met by the provision which deals with the power of the occupier to exempt himself from fine on conviction of the offender.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)This provision the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) complains of is a very necessary one. We had much evidence before the Committee to show that a great many young persons were employed in factories and workshops as long as the law permitted, and when that time had expired were sent down into shops. Such a course as that is against the spirit of the Act, and should be stopped. I think, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General points out, the case the hon. Member has raised is sufficiently met in the 6th section.
§ MR. LEWISI do not think it is at all met. A tradesman should not be liable to be summoned for that which is no offence—for an imaginary offence.
§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)It must be remembered that Clause 6 will only give the employer relief on his proving that someone else is guilty of the offence.
§ MR. LEWISI move, after the words "shall not," and before the words "be employed," to insert "with the knowledge of his employer."
§ Amendment proposed, in page2, line 4, after the word "not," to insert the words "with the knowledge of his employer."—(Mr. Lewis.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 4, after "in," insert "or about."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 (Notice of hours to be given).
§ On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendment made:—Page 2, line 9, after "in," insert "or."
§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)The clause wants something at the end to 1809 make it clear what is meant. I do not know what is meant by the hours young persons are employed being "conspicuously exhibited therein."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)These are the words in the other Acts.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)The clause says—"The hours within which young persons are employed" are to be conspicuously exhibited. What hours? Is it the hours they have been employed to-day, or the hours they were employed yesterday? If it is to be the hours they are employed to-day, it will be impossible to define them in the early part of the forenoon.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)It will be possible to say whether it is intended to keep the shop open until 6, 8, or 9 o'clock in the evening.
§ MR. JOHN WILSONIt is sometimes impossible for the shopkeeper to indicate up to what hour he will keep open. In watering places, for instance, the shops are kept open longer some nights than others, owing to fine weather bringing an influx of visitors, or greater demands being made by the families who are served. How, I ask, in such cases, can the shopkeepers comply with the requirements of this Act unless their businesses are to be interrupted and orders left unattended to?
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)What is the ordinary incidence of business? We are not now dealing with factories where there are recognized hours for beginning and closing, and it seems to me that the confusion in the minds of those who framed the measure was in reference to this dealing with a totally different matter to the Factory Acts. You must not, under this Bill, employ a young person more than 74 hours a-week, but this is not to be equal days of service. It may be exigencies may suddenly arise which will require one or two persons to be kept in a shop later than usual. What is to be done in such a case as that? Is the shopkeeper to keep open his shop when the exigencies arise, or not? If the hours for a week should be from 10 to 8, is the shopkeeper to adhere strictly to those hours, whatever happens, and never on any day keep open later than 8? If that is not intended, it will be absolutely 1810 meaningless to require this notice to be stuck up. If you insert "ordinary" hours or "intended" hours, the thing will be much more reasonable. I must say that if we do not get from the Government some undertaking which will render this clause less objectionable, we shall have to move to report Progress. This sort of thing cannot be carried out—we cannot dragoon people in the case of their private businesses. Take the case of a book-keeper. It is obvious that on occasions it may be found necessary to keep him an hour or two longer at work than usual—an hour or two after 8 o'clock. Is the employer to be allowed to do that, or not? It may be necessary that it should be done even though the 74 hours are thereby exceeded. Unless we get some reasonable and practical solution of this matter from the hon. Baronet or the Government, we shall have to move to report Progress. If we report Progress, probably by to-morrow the hon. Baronet, having thought out the matter in the meantime, will be able to tell us the best course to take.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)Pressure must be exerted so as to get the work done by a certain hour in our shops. In this Bill 20 hours are allowed more than are permitted in the Factory Acts. We cannot employ women who are adults beyond the prescribed time under the Factory Acts; but under this Bill we cannot employ them under 18, and that is as it should be. No one can say that 74 hours a-week is not an outrageous length of time for young people to work. The requirement to put up a notice showing the hours may involve some difficulty, and I do not think the section is necessary for the working of the measure. The young people themselves, I think, will be careful to keep a record of the hours they are employed. The hours fixed for work have to be kept in the case of factories, and I do not imagine that much practical difficulty will be experienced in doing the same thing with regard to shops.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)I hope we shall be told what this 4th clause really does mean, for at the present moment no one seems to understand it. It seems to me absurd to stick up the hours, if it is likely to interfere with the course of business.
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)One is bound to get up to say a word in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Esalemont). Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to delight in charging upon us on this side of the House that we want to see 74 hours exceeded. Nothing of the kind has been suggested by us on this side. What I desire to see hon. Gentlemen appreciate is that this is a different thing from dealing with factories where there are stated hours which can be kept. In the case of retail shops it is impossible to know whether a man will be in a position to close his premises at 7, 8, or 9, or even later, because emergencies may arise which may render it necessary for him to keep one or two employés at work beyond the ordinary time. If emergencies of that kind do arise, what is to be done? Is the employer to shut at the stated hour or not? If he is, what is the good of this provision? And if he is not, I say that the clause is perfect tyranny. I venture to suggest that the Government ought to get the hon. Gentleman out of the difficulty. They know that this clause does not represent practical business experience; and unless they are prepared to put the measure into such a shape that they feel they can be responsible for it when it goes to "another place," I am afraid it will not proceed much further.
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley)This was altered in Committee upstairs to suit the wants and wishes of the retail traders.
§ MR. BROADHURSTBut I am giving the hon. Member information on the point, and am pointing out that there will be no difficulty in working the clause. The original draft provided that no young person should be employed in a shop for a longer period than 12 hours in one day, or 72 hours in a-week, but the present measure allows a total of 74 hours, in order to suit the requirements of different districts. Under this Bill, the shopkeeper who knows his late night is on Friday can work longer hours on that night and shorter hours on Saturday. The Bill gives the shopkeeper power to keep his shop open 8 hours on Monday, 12 on Tuesday, 1812 14 on Thursday, and so on, so long as in the aggregate he does not work the young persons more than 74 hours in the week. There will be no difficulty at all about his putting up a notice as required by this clause. The attention of the Committee upstairs was, of course, repeatedly drawn to the fact, say, that in Preston the market day is on Wednesday, in Burnley on Tuesday, in some other town on some other day, so that a uniform code of hours for all parts of the country would be inconvenient to all concerned—both to the purchaser and shopkeeper. There will be no difficulty in working this Bill out without inconvenience to anyone. As to the exhibition of notice, about which some hon. Members seem inclined to make a difficulty, there will be no difficulty at all in the matter. If the shopkeeper is engaged in a business in which there is more pressure on a certain day or on certain days than on others, he can work longer hours on his busiest days and shorter ones on the others. It cannot possibly be an inconvenience to him to put up the arrangement in the form of a notice in his window, or in some conspicuous place, in accordance with the requirements of the Bill. There will not, or need not, be the least difficulty in the world in it. I should like to point out one objection to the suggestion that has been made. It is suggested that a shopkeeper, instead of exhibiting the notice as required by the Bill, should keep a record of the number of hours worked, and that record should be open to inspection. Yes; but what would the shopkeeper say to that? You would be imposing upon him the intolerable burden of keeping a record of the number of hours worked each day by different young persons, to be totalled up at the end of the week. He would require an extra cashier or clerk to do the book-keeping or time-keeping. The Bill as originally drawn was altered to suit the convenience and desires of the shopkeepers, and I am sure that changes in the direction proposed would impose great trouble and annoyance upon these persons.
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Newington, W.)I am one of those who, far from wishing the hours of labour to be extended, would be glad to see them reduced. I should like to see the hours in this Bill reduced; therefore, when 1813 the hon. Gentleman opposite turns round on us and says—"You want to see the hours of labour extended," he must exclude me from the number of those he accuses. I say that to clear the situation. Well, I now wish to point out that this clause is inconsistent with Clause 3. That clause says that a young person—
Shall not be employed in, about, or in connection with a shop for a longer period than seventy-four hours, including meal times, in any one week.And it says that the hours per day may vary to suit the exigencies of certain businesses. The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department said that on Monday it might be eight hours' work, on Tuesday 12, and on Wednesday 14. Well, if the hours are varied in that way, according to the fluctuations of trade, it is clearly requisite that some record should be kept of the past employment of these young persons, so that the employer may know from time to time how much of the 74 hours is used up, The way to arrange the matter would be to insert in the section; some such words as these—The hours within which young persons are employed in, about, or in connection with any shop shall be conspicuously exhibited therein from day to day.That would imply that it must be exhibited day by day, so that from time to time those interested may know how much time is left.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Edinburgh, Central)I voted against the Committee stage, not because I objected to the measure on account of the 74 hours' principle, but because I was opposed to the exhibition of this notice. I have explained that at some seasons of the year the shopkeepers cannot tell at what hour their shops will close. I wish to know where this notice is to be exhibited? Is it not to be exhibited until the hour for closing? If so, what good can that do? If it is to be exhibited on the following day, will it be fair to a shopkeeper to have to advertize the fact to his customers—"I kept my people working 14 hours yesterday," and so on? Would it be fair to have him quoted in the newspapers, and pointed at as a tyrant who used his servants like slaves? I say the clause is unfair in its incidence, and it ought to be withdrawn.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)The criticism of the hon. Member is of a very minute character. As to adding at the end of the clause the words "from day to day," such an addition would be altogether unnecessary. The clause means as much already as it would after the alteration. The clause was not in the original Bill, but was inserted by the Committee.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)I voted for the hon. Baronet on the principle that 74 hours was quite long enough to ask these young persons to work. I must say I think the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Broadhurst), whose Department the Bill affects, explained the difficulties of it very well: As to this clause, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wilson) that it will be found nuworkable. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Broadhurst) says it would be a great inconvenience to keep a record of the number of hours worked; but I must say I cannot see the inconvenience of it myself. I think that 10 minutes at the end of the day would suffice to enable the employer to make up the list. No doubt, the inconvenience of having to put up a notice would be very great.
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)Would the hon. Baronet opposite mind putting in the words "from day to day?" If they were put in, it seems to me that the difficulty would be mot in nearly every case.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)I would suggest to the hon. Baronet that he would do well to accept these words, "from day to day."
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness)Would that mean the entire hours for a week, or the hours during each day?
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAEach day.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLThat they are going to be employed?
§ SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAYes.
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)That improves the clause, but does not dispose of the difficulty. What is the moaning of the words "are employed?" Do they refer to the future, or point to the past? It seems to me that the terms of the section are so ambiguous that an employer would be satisfying them if he put up a notice showing how many hours 1815 the young persons had been employed the day before. But there is another difficulty. The clause supposes that all the young persons—that is to say, under 18 years of age, whatever their department may be, or the character of the work they will have to do—will be sent out of the place at the same hour. We know that that is not done, according to our experience. Some have to go later, and some earlier. The hours in which young persons are employed will be conspicuously exhibited if this clause be satisfied—would it be satisfied by putting up a notice as to how many hours young persons under 18 had been employed in the course of the day?
§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)The words should be so framed as to cover such a case as when a customer gives shortly before closing time a special order, perhaps, for a wedding or some such occasion that does not admit of delay. Could not a tradesman take the order, if the execution of it necessitated keeping open somewhat longer, though in the aggregate the 74 hours in the week were not exceeded?
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)If it is provided that a register shall be kept of the hours in which each young person has been employed, that will meet the case.
§ MR. KIMBERTo make the Bill consistent with its professed objects, there should be a Proviso compelling the keeping of such a register.
§ Words "from day to day" added.
§ Motion made, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)I will now move that Progress be reported. The clause is worthless as it is, and there is no penalty if it is not observed. The Bill deals with matters of the greatest practical importance, and it is now a Government measure. The effect of the clause, as amended, is that there is no penalty for an offence if the hours are exceeded.
§ MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E.)I rise to Order. Is the hon. Member speaking to the adjournment?
§ MR. LEWISI have not yet made the Motion. The Government have undertaken the responsibility, and I desired to put a question as to the working of the clause. I will assume that a notice is fixed up on which the hours are 1816 mentioned. But if those hours are not kept it is not an offence under the clause.
§ MR. ESSLEMONTI rise to Order. What clause is the hon. Member speaking of? I understand the clause is settled.
§ THE CHAIRMANThe Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LEWISIf the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to the business upon which the Committee are engaged he would not raise these frivolous objections, and I must protest against these interruptions. I was pointing out that if the hours are exceeded, the effect of the clause, if passed in its present form, is that there is no suggestion that it is an offence under the Act. Unless the Attorney General can give a satisfactory answer, I shall move that Progress be reported.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)I hope that time will not be wasted with such a Motion.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)The hon. Member is perfectly right in saying the clause does not constitute an offence, because it does not state these were the hours of employment. All that is intended is that the sum of 74 hours in the week shall not be exceeded.
§ MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Nottingham, S.)Would it not be wise to amend the clause in the sense I have suggested?
§ THE LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir EDWARD REED) (Cardiff)The object is to insure that attention shall be drawn to any departure from an understanding arrived at, so that the sense of the community may be brought to bear against those disposed to overwork their employés.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)The object of the Bill is to prevent young people being worked more than 74 hours, and the Committee were of opinion that unless a record is kept it would be difficult to prove whether they were so employed or not. The Committee came to the conclusion that this was the form in which the record could be kept with the least inconvenience to those concerned.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes51; Noes 20: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
1817§ Clause 5 (Fine for employing persons contrary to the Act).
§ On Motion of Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, the following Amendments made:—Page 2, line 12, after "any," insert "young;" lines 5 and 6, leave out "or in connection with."
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
§ Clause 8 (Interpretation, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 16).
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, lines 40 and 41, to leave out "does not include," and insert "includes."—(Mr. Secretary Childers.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)I do not quite appreciate the alteration. As I understand the Amendment, it distinctly reverses the meaning of the clause.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)I explained my intention earlier, and understood it was accepted, that young persons employed in public-houses and refreshment-rooms shall not be excepted from the Bill.
§ MR. LEWISI should like to know from the hon. Baronet who had charge of the Bill originally on what grounds he consented to the complete reversal of his first proposal?
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)Certainly. I did not include them at first, thinking it was rather beyond the power of a private Member to do so.
§ MR. LEWISWhy should not they fall under the general description? Why should public-houses be specially in-eluded?
§ MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)Does it not strike the right hon. Gentleman that there are many public-houses and refreshment-rooms where the work is not continuous through the day, where the business comes only at particular periods of the day, and where, if the hands are detained an hour or two, it does not much matter?
MR. CHILDERSUnder the Factory Acts only 54 hours are allowed, and, in my view, to allow young persons to be 1818 employed for 20 hours more than that in public-houses is quite long enough.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)The evidence before the Committee strongly corroborated that view.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ On Motion of Mr. Secretary GUILDERS, the following Amendment made:—In page 2, line 41, leave out "or," and insert "and."
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)I should like to ask the Government if they have deliberately considered the limit of age? I should have thought that the limit of 18 is rather excessive.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS) (Edinburgh, S.)Yes; this has been well considered, and the age, I think, has been wisely fixed at 18.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORIn my opinion, 18 is an excessive limit. Soldiers are enlisted at 18 or 19—it used to be 18—and they are considered young men, and they are capable of doing a man's work. It is a great mistake to treat young men of 18 as children. A young fellow of 18 is as capable of performing a good day's work as a man of 23 or 24. The age might be drawn at a lower limit than 18, Young fellows are paid men's wages at that age.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)The limit of 18 for young persons was adopted from the Factory Acts for Young Persons, and I understand the point was considered by the Committee at some length, with the result that the almost unanimous decision was in favour of keeping to that limit.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 9 (Exemption of members of the same family).
§ MR. LEWIS (Londonderry)I will draw attention to the fact that many persons not actually members of the family are resident with, and to all intents and purposes treated as, members of the family. The clause appears a little defective on that point.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)The 1819 explanation seems to be that natural affection would be a better protection in those cases.
§ MR. LEWISNot much reliance can be placed on natural affection as a substitute, and I am afraid there has been singular instances to show that. But the Government have accepted the responsibility for the Bill.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. E., Holderness)There are many young persons not actually but practically members of the family. Will they come under the clause?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. BROADHURST) (Birmingham, Bordesley)There will be no real difficulty. It would be impossible to deal with every case of the kind, and it was felt by the Committee that there might be great hardship in making no exceptions.
§ MR. J. O'CONNORThere are some shopkeepers who obtain the aid of assistance by means of the Poor Law system, the assistants dining at the same board. Would they be considered members of the family? It would be hard if employers were obliged to treat boarders different to members of their own family. I am anxious to know whether the hon. Gentleman has investigated that part of the case? There are many instances in which children are adopted into families—many in which the adoption actually takes place by law. I may be answered by the hon. Baronet that in most of these cases the foster parents are allowed something for the maintenance of the children by the Boards of Guardians; still they are members of the family.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)Would it not be well to have a clear definition of the family, so that we may know what it consists of? I would ask the Attorney General whether you could have families consisting of nephews and neices and more distant relatives?
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL) (Hackney, S.)I should say that persons connected by ties of marriage are in blood relationship.
§ SIR ROBERT FOWLERFourth cousins?
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.