CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 15 July 1887 vol 317 cc1071-101

Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, resumed.

MR. KELLY (Camberwell, N.)

I desire to detain the House but a very short time in moving a new clause prohibiting the payment of any part of wages in intoxicating liquor. The real point I have to put before the House is, why should farmers be the only persons in England allowed to pay their labourers in anything but money? Why should not a farmer's labourer have a fair day's wage in money for his work? I suppose it is generally known that a custom has grown up in many parts of the country to pay labourers in harvest time partly in money and partly in in- toxicating liquor. In some counties it is the practice to pay a man, say, £1 4s. a-week and allow him a certain quantity of common, beer a-day, and in other counties cider is allowed. I speak more particularly of beer. However temperate a man is inclined to be, he has to choose between accepting a wage much less than he is entitled to, or taking part of it in intoxicating liquor, and I maintain that this is an alternative to which no man ought to be subjected; it is a practice monstrously unjust. Take the case of a man who is a teetotaller. You place him in this position—that because he is a temperate man and cannot consume the drink, he receives 5s. less payment than if he was drunken and disreputable. That, I think, is the strongest possible argument in favour of this clause. And now I wish to remove a total misconception that seems to exist as to the feeling of farmers themselves on this point. It is a slander on farmers to say that they wish to continue the system. Some six months ago a meeting of farmers was held in a county where the practice of giving the men cider largely prevails, I mean Somerset. A hundred farmers present, representing the farming of 25,000 acres, passed a resolution— That, in the opinion of this Conference, it is desirable, in the interests of masters and men, that the practice of supplying beer and cider to men in the harvest field should be discontinued, and that all work should be paid for entirely in money. The Conference was held at Yeovil, on the 11th February. Further proof of what I say that it is a slander to say that farmers are in favour of the system, will be found in the journal of the Royal Agricultural Society, vol. 20, p. 515. There will be found the report of three well-known agriculturists, appointed judges of the best cultivated farm of the year, and these practical men, after giving careful consideration to the subject, recommend that farmers should give up a custom which, in their opinion, was more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and in the interest of all concerned should make their payments entirely in money. I am happy to say the custom is by no means general throughout the United Kingdom. It is almost unknown in the West and North of Scotland, and it is far from being general in Ireland. Even in Norfolk, and other counties where the custom obtains, it is far from being universal, and the payment of a lump sum in lieu of drink is often substituted. I may further support my case with the opinion of one who was long a Member of this House, and whose opinion in relation to agricultural subjects is entitled to great respect, Mr. Clare Sewell Read. He said— The reason why I did not give my labourers beer at harvest time was because I did not wish it to be said that I encouraged men and taught boys to drink. I give them money in lieu of beer or cider. I know that objection to the clause will be raised. I know that the hon. and learned Attorney General will say that I have raised the question in the very worst form; but I say I have raised it in the most direct and only form I could—I put it in a definite way. This House has given a decision on the subject; but it was then put in a negative form only, and I say it should be put in a positive form, and I trust the House will decide in the way I suggest. The Attorney General will, I know, raise a number of other objections—

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

The hon. Member is referring to a private conversation.

MR. KELLY

I am sorry that I mentioned this, and I will say no more about it except this. If it should be said that the Bill as it now stands would prevent that which I seek to prevent by my clause, I can only say that it is difficult to find it out, and I can see no harm in putting in so many words as will make plain to farmers the penalties they incur if they supply men with drink. I do not address the House as an advocate of temperance, but I do ask the House to consider the full effect of forcing drink upon the labouring classes, inducing men, and even mere boys, to contract habits of intemperance.

New Clause (to be inserted after Clause 3)— (Wages not to be in intoxicating liquor.) No servant in husbandry shall be paid any part of his wages in intoxicating liquor, and any employer or agent of the employer of such servant paying or agreeing so to pay any part of such wages shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section 9 of the principal Act, as if he had been guilty of such an offence as in that section mentioned,"—(Mr. Kelly,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

If it should become a practice to refer to preliminary and private conversations, it will be impossible to discuss any matter before it becomes the subject of debate. I regret that the hon. Member should have thought it right to advert to what took place in private conversation. It is impossible to accept the clause he has proposed. The decision of the House has been already inserted in the Bill, and the section will make it clear, and to pick out one particular industry in this way will add nothing to its force. By Clause 2 of the Truck Act of 1831, any contract by which wages are to be partly paid in liquor is made illegal. But this did not extend to servants in husbandry; and by a clause in the present Bill this clause of the principal Act is made applicable to all workmen as defined by the Employers' and Workmen Acts, and that brings within the Truck Act servants in husbandry, the consequence being that the combined effect of the Truck Act and this Bill when passed will be that no contract can be made by which a servant shall be partly paid in liquor under penalties set forth. Instead of dealing with all trades, the hon. Member would pick out one trade for special legislation. He does not deal with the question of contract, or the penalties for entering into one, but simply lays down an absolute proposition that if a man has had beer supplied him, the master shall not take payment for that beer from his wages. The House, by decision in Committee, has proceeded on the basis that there should be no contract by which wages should be paid in liquor, and it would serve no useful purpose, and prove mischievous to tack on this clause. I hope the House will reject it without prolonged discussion.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I also trust the House will reject the clause. It does not touch the evil the hon. Member has pointed out. Where the farmer gives anything in addition to wages, it does not touch that at all. As the Bill stands, it will, as the Attorney General says, apply to all industries, and prevent beer being given as part wages, and this clause would only bring confusion into the operation of the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. A. E. PEASE (York)

The clause which I shall ask the House to insert, after Clause 6, has reference to the appointment of a medical man to mines. The practice at present, in mining districts, is for the owners to contribute towards the payment of a medical officer, and the workmen contribute another part which is deducted from their wages, and in return they are entitled to the services of this medical officer. The clause which I ask the House to insert proposes to give the initiative in the appointment of the medical man to the owners of the mine, but provides also that in case the men shall not be satisfied with the appointment so made, they shall have power to appoint another man such as they desire. I see there is an Amendment standing next to mine on the Paper that seeks to give the initiative to the workmen, instead of the employer or mine owner. An objection to this, in the first place, is, that the mine owner must have a medical officer in attendance on the miner3 employed, and if he has not the initiative in the appointment, it would in many instances be difficult to make an arrangement while the workmen are debating or disputing as to who should be appointed. Another objection to giving the men the initiative is, that at present there are, in many cases, hospitals in connection with the mines supported by firms in combination, and a medical officer from the hospital is attached to the mine, and if the workmen were to appoint the doctor, it would tend to bring into the mining district an unnecessary number of medical practitioners, instead of one well-qualified man from the hospital. The present system works very well, I believe the Amendment I propose will maintain that system, but will also bring in ample protection for the miners. I trust the House will accept the clause I now move.

Clause (to be inserted after Clause 6)— (Appointment of medical man.) The medical man appointed to attend on the workmen of any mine shall be appointed by the owners of such mine, but, in case of any dissatisfaction as to the medical man so appointed a second medical man shall be appointed by the majority of the workmen who take part in such appointment, and the moneys deducted from the wages of any workman for medical attendance shall he paid to either of the two medical men as the said workmen may select," —(Mr. Alfred Pease,) —brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I hope the House will not be induced to enter into a discussion of these medical clauses. The more we hear on the subject and the more I learn from communications made to me, the more impossible it appears that we can make any alteration without a very great deal of discussion not germane to a Truck Bill. This Amendment of the hon. Member is an instance. He proposes after a man has been appointed by the owner, that, in case of any dissatisfaction, a second man shall be appointed by those dissatisfied. But, first of all, what is to be understood by dissatisfaction? How is it to be expressed and by how many men? We have not attempted to deal with this question from any particular point of view; we have adopted the system as it exists, and if we attempt to alter it now I fear that in this particular we shall make the Bill unworkable. In the interest of the Bill which has now reached a stage when we may hope it will be finally disposed of, I would appeal to hon. Members who have put down clauses dealing with medical assistance not to attempt to codify the regulations that should be left to be dealt with, if necessary, independently.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I would join in an appeal to the hon. Member not to insist on his Amendment. Great pains were taken to ascertain the views of the men, and more and more our inquiries were pressed they disclosed great differences of opinion. After all, the matter forms no part or parcel of a Truck Bill, and need not be dealt with here.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I trust the House will not give heed to the preposterous proposal of the Attorney General and the hon. Member for Northampton, that we should relinquish any attempt to deal with this important matter as if it were foreign to a Truck Bill. Let me recall the intention of the Bill; it is to amend the Truck Act of 1831. The structure of the Act of 1831 is exceedingly simple; it provides, first, that wages shall be paid in coin of the Realm, and then, to that rule, it makes two or three specific exceptions—that is to say, that part of the wages may be withheld for two or three specified purposes, and one of these specified purposes is medical attendance. The complaint of the workmen is that the sums so deducted are not properly controlled by them, and not properly applied. Now, I ask the House how is it possible that any point can be more strictly germane to the subject before us than these deductions for medical attendance; how is it possible that any Bill that could be devised would more properly deal with the subject than a Truck Bill? It is lamentable that there should be this anxiety to press on for the sake of passing a skeleton Bill that will contain next to nothing for the benefit of the workmen of the conntry. Why, after sitting up night after night, should we shelve a substantial grievance that workmen complain of? The Government have received ample acknowledgment from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) for their courtesy in regard to this Bill; for my part I trust they may drop a little of the vacillation and indifference with which they have met every useful and practical suggestion, now that we have reached this point, upon which with very little discussion we might agree. The Inspector, who some months ago reported on this subject, said that the men did not object to the amount of the deductions for the purpose, which was usually 3d. a-week; but they did object to the deductions being made over to the employers without the men having any influence whatever in the appointment of the medical man, who was solely the nominee of the employer. They contend they should have a voice in the disposal of the fund provided by themselves, and where is the difficulty in carrying out their desire? Why should it not be done if the Government are serious in proposing by this Bill to improve the condition of the workmen? Before I say more, Sir, I wish to obtain your ruling on a point of Order. The hon. Member for York (Mr. A. E. Pease) proposes this clause, and it is immediately followed by the Notice of a clause I wish to propose myself. he proposes that the medical man shall, in the first instance, be appointed by the owners; I that the appointment shall be by the men, or by the men in conjunction with the owners. Am I right in supposing that if the clause of the hon. Member for York should be negatived, that will not exclude the moving of mine?

MR. SPEAKER

If the clause now before the House is negatived, that will not prevent the hon. Member from moving that of which he has given Notice.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I have nothing to add to what I have said already, and move the new clause in reference to deductions for medical attendance.

Clause (to be inserted after Clause 7)—

(Appointment of medical man.)

"Where any deduction is made for medical attendance or medicine from the wages of workmen in the employment of any employer, such workmen may from time to time by a majority of their number appoint a person, being a legally qualified medical practitioner, to be their medical attendant and to supply them with medicine, and such deductions shall be paid to the person so appointed.

"Provided that it shall be lawful for such workmen, by a majority of their number, to make an agreement with the employer that, in consideration of his contributing a certain amount or proportion of the remuneration of the medical attendant, he shall have a voice and share in his appointment to such extent as may be agreed on,"—(Mr. Donald Crawford,)—

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

This is rather an important matter to a large number of miners, and I hope the Government will allow it to be a matter germane to the Bill. Workmen complain very much of being compelled to have a sum deducted from their wages and of having no voice at all in the expenditure. The medical man might neglect his duty and send an unqualified assistant; but the men would have to go on paying in the same way, not having in return the attendance of a duly qualified medical practitioner, but the attendance of a young student who, by experiments on the bodies of the miners, gained information for practice upon other people. As the miners pay for a medical man they ought to have the right of determining who should attend them, and of dismissing that attendant if he did not do his work properly. I think the proposal in the clause is a wise one. Where the entire sum is paid by the men the men should have the right of appointment; but where the master pays part of the charge, then the master should have a proportionate voice in determining the appointment. The clause is reasonable, and would do no harm to any medical practitioner, while it would remedy a great grievance of the men who, paying for duly qualified medical assistance, do not get it—but the attendance of a person in whom they have no confidence.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

Again I ask the House not to enter into the discussion of these medical clauses; the same objections apply to both. It is not quite correct to say that there is general complaint of the medical attendance; on the contrary, complaints are few and far between, and most of them are such as the men by their own organization can redress.

MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)

I join in saying that this is a matter in which serious difficulties do arise between employers and men in collieries. Also, I must say that it does not appear to me to be just, if these medical men are to be paid out of deductions made from the wages of the men, that the men should not have a voice in appointing the medical man who is to attend them. There seems to me only two alternatives in the matter; either you must make it illegal to have these deductions at all, and leave the miners to shift for themselves in regard to medical attendance like other persons—

MR. BRADLAUGH

Will the hon. Member allow me to explain? Under the principal Act, no deductions can be made, except on agreement signed by the men.

MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE

No doubt that is true; but, at the same time, I think the hon. Member will acknowledge that where a system of deductions has once been introduced, it is exceedingly hard for the men to get rid of it, and especially for a minority among the men to give effect to their dissatisfaction with the existing arrangement. Therefore I shall continue what I was saying, there are only two alternatives, either to prohibit deductions altogether, and leave the men to shift for themselves, in regard to their medical attendance, a change that might answer very well in populous places, where there are numerous doctors in the neighbourhood; but possibly would not be so satisfactory in sparsely populated districts; or else the difficulty can only be met in one other way—that is, by giving the men a recognized voice in the selection of their medical attendant. This last is the principle upon which the clause is framed, and I shall cordially support it if it is carried to a Division.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I do not agree at all with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I think this clause comes very well into the discussion of a Truck Bill, and I also disagree with his statement that complaints are few and far between, for they are very numerous in Lanarkshire. As proof, I may refer to a case that recently occurred. Some three months ago the workmen at a colliery being dissatisfied with their medical attendant, held a meeting and decided by majority that another medical man ought to be substituted. The manager resisted this decision, and invited a ballot which the men accepted, with the result that there was a majority of five to one in favour of the change. But the reply of the manager was, that any man who refused to pay for the old medical officer could leave his employment. This was reported to the Homo Office, and the reply was that the Secretary of State had caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances and found there was "no ground for his interference." This was conclusive. But we wish to give him ground for interference in connection with an important question. I think the clause is most appropriate to the Bill, and I hope it will be inserted.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I do not agree with the strictures upon the method in which medical work is done by members of my own profession. I think the tendency to allow work to be done by unqualified assistants is rapidly dying out, and I know that many assistants, far from being ignorant experimentalists, are often very skilful surgeons. They do their work thoroughly, and have no necessity to make experiments upon the bodies of the miners whom they attend. At the same time, I think the clause contains a principle the House ought to recognize. I do not see why a miner who contributes to the payment of his doctor should not have an equal voice in his choice or dismissal, as any Member of this House has in regard to his medical attendant. I think there is a little too much tendency on the part of mine owners to regard the doctor as part and parcel of their establishment and belonging to the mine. This tendency ought to be resisted, therefore I prefer this clause to that of the hon. Member for York (Mr. A. E. Pease). We want the medical man to have the confidence of the workmen, for then the work will be done better, and will give more satisfaction. On this account I think this clause is likely to be useful; it will conduce to better work by virtue of establishing more cordial relations between the medical man and the workmen.

MR. HALDANE (Haddington)

I think nothing of the argument that these agreements can only be made in writing according to the principal Act; the question is, is the Amendment of any value? The hon. Member for North East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) has proposed Amendments not only in connection with this Bill, but in the new Mines Regulation Bill, and I must say that it has struck me, I am sure it has not been done intentionally—that he has not been treated with the courtesy and attention he deserves. My hon. Friend represents a great Scotch mining constituency, and I speak within my own experience when I say he probably knows more about these matters, and has given more time and attention to them than any other Member of this House, and I do not exclude the Labour Representatives. Yet he was never invited to the conferences of which we have heard so much upon this Bill and the Mines Bill—

MR. BRADLAUGH

The hon. Member will pardon me; but I think there must be some mistake. I have met the hon. Gentleman in consultation with the Attorney General myself.

MR. HALDANE

He has not received that attention from the Government he is fairly entitled to upon this and the other Bill.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

Allow me to say that, far from there being any want of attention to the experience of the hon. Member for Lanark, he has himself attended the conferences.

MR. HALDANE

The hon. Member has repeatedly proposed Amendments on this and other Bills, and. I repeat, has not received the attention he is entitled to from his position by being invited to these conferences. I shall certainly support the clause, for it seems to me a right and proper one, and also because it is supported by Members whom I consider the best authorities on the question.

MR. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness)

I represent a good many miners, and I employ a good many more in the mining districts of West Cumberland and North Lancashire, and, so far as I know, there is no grievance whatever arising out of the appointment of medical men. I do not believe there is any need to legislate on this subject, which had much better be left to be settled, as it now is, between the employers and the men. If any change is made, and you wish to insert it in the Bill, it would be much better to make the change in the direction of the custom we have in West Cumberland and North Lancashire, where we allow each man to choose his own medical adviser, we collect the money, and pay to each qualified medical adviser the amount he claims for attendance. But it would be wiser, I think, to leave matters as they are, and not attempt to introduce a clause on the subject.

MR. A. E. PEASE (York)

I regret that the Government will not take this opportunity of regulating the appointment of the medical adviser and protecting the workmen from grievances that do arise in regard to these deductions from their wages. At the same time, I have great objection to the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Donald Crawford), because it would throw into confusion the whole of the present system, and strike a serious blow at the system of miners' hospitals that exists in the North. I wish my hon. Friend had put his Amendment in a different form; in the form in which it now stands, I must, if he goes to a Division, oppose it.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness tells us he employs a good many more miners than he represents, a statement with which we have no desire to disagree. We have been told by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) that an agreement in writing must be entered into by the workmen before deductions for the payment for medical attendance can be permitted. But I do not think anything of that. I think the whole principle of the Truck Act has been—that contracts that have the result of compelling workmen to accept payment otherwise than by money should be prevented. No doubt, exceptions have been made; but the question is, is it proper there should be such? It is difficult to defend them on principle. No doubt, it is desirable that, to a certain extent, a man should have the advantage of medical attendance by this means; but it seems to me an extraordinary system that enables the master to dictate to a man the precise medical man he shall employ. I do not see how you can defend the system, or, if you allow it at all, why it should not be extended to dictation as to where a man should buy his boots, his clothes, or food. Now, workmen do not require to be told where they can best invest their money, and I do not see why there should be this grandmotherly system by which a man accepts what the master thinks fit for him. I can conceive that, from the master's point of view, it might be desirable he should retain this patronage; but that is not the principle of a Truck Act. This Bill extends the principle to Ireland; and, therefore, I have a right to speak upon it. I confess I do not know in Ireland any case where employers do dictate in this matter, and I have no desire to see such a system introduced under the name of an Act intended to prevent these improper contracts. It is a distinct falsification of the whole principle of the Act, and I trust the House will pass this necessary and proper Amendment.

MR. SINCLAIR (Falkirk, & c.)

I do not think there would be any difficulty in carrying into effect, under the proposed Amendment, if accepted, the system referred to by the hon. Member for Barrow. I think the clause ought to be accepted. I know that in Lanark there is a strong feeling that the workmen ought, at least, to have a share in the decision who is to be their medical attendant, and any objection that could possibly arise, is removed by the Proviso that in cases where employers supplement the fund, they shall have a proportionate influence in the decision.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

—[Cries of "Spoken!"]: Will the House indulge me with a word or two of explanation? The hon. Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) has made a personal reference to me in kindly terms. I wish to explain that on this Bill I have had conferences with the Attorney General in his room, and have no complaint to make. I presume my hon. Friend referred to the fact that neither I nor any other Members representing mining constituencies were invited to attend those miniature Parliaments summoned by the Home Secretary in reference to the Mines Regulation Bill. As the opinion of these miniature Parliaments has been referred to by the Leader of the House as if it carried great weight, it is perhaps unfortunate that a Member like myself, probably representing the largest mining constituency, should not be admitted. But that will not, I am sure, detract from the influence of arguments here which will be considered on their own merits. This Amendment is, I believe, one that employers throughout the country will not object to. I am sorry the hon. Member for the Town District of Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) is not here; he would have explained how necessary such a clause is in South Wales. I hope the House will accept the clause.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 115: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 306.)

[1.5 A.M.]

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I rise to move a clause for the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating drink. Under a former Amendment it was proposed that no employer should have the power to sell drink, food, or clothing, but that was opposed on the ground that it introduced unnecessary interference with the action of an employer who, being proprietor of a store, might undertake the sale of goods to the workmen. It was felt that the sale of food and clothing was not likely to lead to abuse. But there is a distinction in the case of intoxicating drink, a distinction that the Bill recognizes in the clause dealing with servants in husbandry. The object of the clause I propose is to protect the workmen against the influence of the. master which might be exercised to effect sale of drink, upon which we know profits are larger than on anything else. It is open to the workmen to obtain his spirituous liquors whenever he thinks fit, but this provides that the employer shall not contract for the sale to him. It might be said that this is an interference with freedom of contract; but then the whole essence and principle of the Bill is that interference to some extent is necessary, and I hope the clause will commend itself as quite in accordance with the principle of the Bill.

Clause (to be inserted after Clause 8)— (Prohibition of sale of intoxicating drink.) No intoxicating drink shall be sold by any employer or agent of any employer to a workman in the employment of such employer. Every sale made in contravention of this section shall be illegal and void, whilst every employer who by himself or his agent acts in contravention of this section shall be liable to the penalties imposed by Section nine of the principal Act, as if he had been guilty of such an offence as in that section mentioned,"—(Mr. Caldwell,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I must ask the House to reject this clause, and for the reason that it is no part of a Truck Act at all. The object of the Truck Act is to insure that the wages agreed upon to be paid shall be paid in money, and not to regulate other transactions between employer and employed.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

I hope the House will not consent to read this clause a second time. It would be attended with great injustice towards the farmers of Herefordshire, and an interference with those private arrangements by which employers undertake to supply their workmen with cider, by which the latter are supplied with, a wholesome drink and are not tempted to go to the public-house. This clause would affect not farmers only, but others, as a publican holding a few acres of land could not soil a glass of beer to his workmen, and I would point out it would prevent a brewer selling a moderate quantity of beer to a man in his employ; it would prevent a grocer selling a bottle of wine to one of his men. In a great many other instances it would be an unconscionable interference with the rights of trade, and on behalf of my Hereford constituents I protest against it.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

The clause I now propose is to provide that the workmen shall have some control over the deductions that are made from their wages. At present, the employer has the power to make deductions for certain purposes, but the workmen complain that they do not know what becomes of the deductions so made; whether the whole of the fund is employed or not. After the Truck Commission reported in 1872, a Bill was introduced by Mr. Secretary Bruce, now Lord Aberdare, dealing with the subject, and this question of audit formed a leading clause in that Bill. I may say I have altered this clause considerably from the shape it had when the Bill was in Committee, when it was opposed by hon. Members who, I am sure, were most anxious to do everything that was just and fair towards the workmen. It was then pointed out that the clause might cover deductions for defective workmanship, as to which it would be impossible to go back for an audit. My clause is now directed strictly towards deductions made for medical attendance, education, and other matters proper to a Truck Bill. I think the Attorney General stated in Committee that he would be prepared to accept a clause of this kind, and I trust it is not necessary for me to say more.

Clause (to be inserted after Clause 8)—

(Audit of deduction.)

"Where deductions are made from the wages of any workman for the education of children or in respect of medicine, medical attendance, or tools, once at least in every year the employer or employer's agent who makes such deductions shall make out a correct account of the receipts and expenditure in respect of such deductions, and submit the same to be audited by two auditors appointed by the said workmen, and shall produce to the auditors all such books, vouchers, and documents, and afford them all such facilities as are required for such audit."—(Mr. Donald Crawford,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

The House will, I hope, see that this is quite impracticable. When the deductions are made from the wages, then is the time for the workman to ascertain the correctness of the deductions. One of the subjects for which this elaborate audit is to be provided is the deductions for education of children, and that clearly is a service no employer would undertake, except he were actuated by a desire to benefit his workmen, and it would be an outrageous thing to put the employer to the cost of keeping elaborate books of account for the satisfaction of auditors. What would be the consequence? Suppose the auditors, who may be any persons the workmen choose to appoint, come to the conclusion that all the deductions are not accounted for, the employer will be surcharged with the amount, and the door is opened for interminable disputes. I really cannot imagine that any employer would undertake to make these deductions on such terms, and the cause of education would be greatly injured.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

I understand the objection is, that the workman should make his objection at the time the deductions are made from his wages, if he has got anything to say. But at that time a workman would not be in a position to enter into a question of accompting with his master. As giving the men an opportunity of seeing how the fund is disposed of, the clause seems to me, on its merits, a reasonable proposal.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

When the Audit Clause was proposed in Committee, it assumed a very different shape, and I then said I would endeavour to see if I could get a form of words to meet the objections raised to the clause as it then stood. It is represented to me—I do not say that my own opinion is worth anything—that the effect would be the keeping open the accounts for the period of a year, and that it is not necessary to do this. The matter ought to be arranged, as between master and workmen, to have a proper inquiry, in the ordinary course, without a statutory provision. It seems unncessary that there should be legislation for the purpose of an audit, and that is why I have not put down words for such a clause.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

May I ask you, Sir, if this clause should be defeated, what will be my position in reference to an Amendment that stands in my name at the foot of the page? It contains the same principle embodied in the clause now under consideration; but it covers more ground, and is more comprehensive. What will be my position, if this clause is rejected?

MR. SPEAKER

The whole principle is involved in the Amendment of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark; and if that falls, then the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman will fall with it.

MR. CREMER

I do not know if the Attorney General is aware that, in many instances, workmen have had reason to mistrust the mode in which these funds have been distributed. The clause I have put upon the Paper is intended to compel employers who now withhold accounts, to which clearly workmen have a right, to submit to an annual audit. I hope, if the Attorney General and the Government object to the principle contained in the clause now under consideration, and in the still more comprehensive clause of which I have given Notice, they will take care that some clause is drafted and inserted in the Bill, which shall give to workmen some protection against dishonest employers. I use the word advisedly. The majority are animated by the best of motives towards their workmen; but there are others of whom that cannot be said, and the course pursued tends to encourage those who deduct amounts from wages, small or large, and never, under any circumstances, render an account to the workmen of the amount received, and how it is disposed of. It is shameful that this practice should be allowed to continue. I hope, in the interest of the working classes—a large number of whom are compelled to suffer under this disadvantage—that the Attorney General, if he will not accept either of these clauses, will insert some provision to prevent these fraudulent practices on the part of unprincipled employers.

MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)

I must ask leave to point out to the hon. and learned Attorney General that if his objection to this clause is merely that it would keep accounts open for a whole year, I think he has omitted to notice the words "once at least in every year." Therefore, arrangements could be made for the employer to make up the accounts as often as he desired. I cannot also help remarking upon the extraordinary speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). Let the House consider what these deductions are. A certain sum is taken from the wages of each man; a fund is thereby created to be applied to certain purposes. The hon. and learned Member for Preston says it is outrageous that the workman should ask for an account showing how the money has been spent. Seeing that the fund is created out of money taken from their wages, it seems to me eminently reasonable that a clear account should be given them showing how it is used. I believe that in almost every case the fund is properly applied; but the very fact that no clear account is given to the men gives rise to doubts in their minds which are very disagreeable, and tend to embitter relations between employers and employed. For these reasons, I think this clause is decidedly needed and perfectly just.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

While I am not quite free from hesitation in reference to the matter, I think, on the balance, I will venture to ask the House to accept this clause. The employers take the money in the shape of deductions, and I fancy there can he no reasonable objection to giving an account of its application.

MR. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness)

I see no objection to this clause. The objects for which the deductions are made are extremely simple.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

The question is, whether it is necessary? Sometimes there are stoppages from the workmen's wages at the end of their time of payment which do not create any fund at all. If a fund is created and remains in the hand of the employer, it would be a proper thing, no doubt, that it should be examined by a chartered accountant once a year.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Will the hon. and gallant Member permit me to point out that payments to a permanent relief fund would be stated under that head?

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

The clause does not cover the entire ground. The one which I drafted—and I trust the House will not think me egotistical in saying so—goes a great deal further. I propose to introduce, after the word "tools," the words "or any other purposes." As it reads at present, the clause does not provide for auditing the deductions from wages for a provident fund.

Amendment proposed, in line 3 of the Clause, after the word "tools," to insert the words "or any other purpose."—(Mr. Cremer.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BRADLAUGH

I cannot ask the House to agree to that; it raises the whole question of deductions for fines and other contentious matters.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CREMER

Very well; in lieu of the words I moved to insert, I will substitute "or provident fund," to follow after the word "tools."

Amendment proposed, after the word "tools," to insert the words "or provident fund."—(Mr. Cremer.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

I hope that the House will not agree to those words.

MR. CREMER

Why?

MR. TOMLINSON

Because if an employer seeks to give facilities to his workmen to invest their money in a provident society by undertaking the task of collecting it and paying it over, it is rather hard to call on him to be compelled to keep an account in a separate book and take the trouble of having it audited.

MR. BRADLAUGH

It is impossible to accept these words. There are some provident funds—of which we have had evidence—in which, in consideration of the sum paid, the employer accepts the responsibility of paying sums in case of accident or death. There are others in which the whole fund is controlled by a joint committee, of which the employer may not even be a member. I trust that the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has omitted the word "or," in a pre- vious line, and, therefore, it is necessary something should be inserted.

MR. SPEAKER

It is quite immaterial whether the word "or" stands in or not.

MR. O. V. MORGAN (Battersea)

I am satisfied, from my experience, that most employers would be only too glad to give information in these matters. It is certainly desirable that in all these things the greatest confidence possible should exist between masters and men. I, therefore, hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division on his proposal.

MR. BURT (Morpeth)

The difficulty that I have in supporting the Amendment is that in many cases the money is kept at the request and for the convenience of the working classes; and, therefore, it seems rather stern to request the employer to do this, and to put him under the obligation of issuing a balance sheet. Balance sheets are issued by the men themselves. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his Amendment apply only to cases where the working men do not issue balance sheets. If he does that I will support him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 107: Majority 71.—(Div. List, No. 307.)

[1.40 A.M.]

Amendment negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I have to propose another clause; but I suppose it is in vain, as I can hardly hope to induce the House to accept it. I doubt very much if any clause is likely to meet with acceptance under the peculiar conditions in which we seem to be placed; but I submit that this is a most important clause. It provides that where deductions are made from the wages of any working man for contributions towards any provident or other fund, any such workman who has contributed to such fund for any period not less than three calendar months shall be entitled at the expiration of the hiring to a fair compensation from the funds to which he has contributed. I pointed out on a former occasion that it not unfrequently happens that a workman subscribes for six, 12, or 18 months, or two, three, or four years to a fund out of which he receives not one farthing, and then, either from slackness of trade or some other cause, he is discharged, and rendered no longer entitled to any benefit from the fund. The principle embodied in this clause is, I believe, recognized by some honourable employers here and there, and I think the London and North-Western Railway Company grant their employés some compensation when they are discharged under the circumstances referred to in this clause. I think the equity and justice of this clause will recommend it to all honourably-minded Members of this House. Without any further observation—for I have not the slightest desire to delay the progress of this Bill—I beg to move the clause which stands in my name.

Clause—

(Workman to have the right of compensation from funds to which he has contributed.)

"Whenever deductions are made from the wages of any workman for contribution towards any provident or any other fund, any such workman who has contributed to such fund for any period not less than three calendar months shall be entitled at the expiration of the hiring to a fair compensation from the funds to which he has contributed, the amount of compensation to be determined by the employer or his agent and the workman claiming compensation.

"In any case where the employer or his agent and the workman claiming compensation under this Clause are unable to agree upon the amount to be paid for compensation, the disputants may select one or more persons to act as arbitrators; and the decision of the persona so selected shall be final and binding upon the disputants,"—(Mr. Cremer,)

—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

It is quite impossible for the House to accept this clause, and it would not have been moved by anyone having any knowledge of working men's clubs. The bulk of the funds in many associations pass into the hands of persons who are neither the employers nor employed, and to propose to get them back from the employers who have no control even of the moneys is to make a proposition which is an absurdity.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes, 111: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 308.)

[1.55 A.M.]

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I will be very brief in moving the next Amend- ment. A very serious evil in the North of Scotland—in the granite pavement and slate quarries—is the habit of paying the men only once in every three months, and having a month after that to make up the books, so that a man must be four months in the employment before he gets his first wages. The managers of the quarries are not paid any wages. They are paid by being allowed to keep stores, to which the men are compelled to go and buy on credit. This clause does not touch any cases where the men are employed by contract; but where they are employed by the week they will get their money at the end of the second week. The House has already decided in favour of a clause exactly similar in the case of Ireland, only providing that the payments shall be weekly. This makes the payments fortnightly, or less than that if they like to make it so by contract. I beg to move the following Clause:—

(Workmen in Scotch quarries to be paid fortnightly.)

"Where a workman is employed in the slate, pavement, or granite quarries of Scotland for wages calculated by time, the period of the payment of such wages shall be fortnightly, or at such less intervals of time as may be provided by the contract."

Clause (Workmen in Scotch quarries to be paid fortnightly,)—(Dr. Clark,)— brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I do not know whether the House will be inclined to follow in relation to Scotland what they have done in regard to Ireland. Certainly, the habit of deferring payment of wages constitutes a great evil in Scotland. I have here an instance in which payment of wages has been deferred for 32 weeks. If the House is disposed to accept the clause I shall not oppose it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added.

Amendments made.

MR. C. W. GRAY (Essex, Maldon)

, in moving an Amendment in Clause 4, page 2, line 10, to leave out "not being intoxicating," said: Some hon. Members may be present to-night who were not here on the occasion on which the three words I ask you now to take away from his clause were added to it. They were carried by a very narrow majority, there being 112 for their inclusion in the Bill, and 101 against. I would point out to the House that these words forming part of the clause will upset—I think I may say in a very vexatious manner—long-standing customs between farmers and their men. We have heard to-night, from, I think, the hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Kelly), that farmers are in the habit of giving their men 25s. a-week, and then taking away 5s. for beer; and should such a remark have made any impression on hon. Members I wish to state that I have no experience —I am sorry to say—of agricultural labourers getting 25s. a-week, or anything like it. My experience among farmers and labourers is large, and I certainly have had no experience of cases in which farmers have tried by any means we can imagine to take away any portion of a labourer's wages, after once he has contracted with him to give him a certain amount. I have always understood that the intention of the Truck Act was to prevent employers of labour from cheating their men, as it were, out of the wages which they had contracted to give them; but this clause, as now drawn, would prevent the labourers in the Eastern Counties from getting an occasional pint of beer for extra work. And I can assure hon. Members that up to the present they have not succeeded in making these men think that an occasional extra pint of beer, when the work has been very hard or the day hot, does them any harm. I have no objection whatever to hon. Members who advocate temperance principles going down to the Eastern Counties to make as many converts as possible; but I do object to their making use of a Bill of this sort as a peg on which to hang those principles. No one dislikes intemperance among farm labourers more than I do, but I assure hon. Members that the words I ask to have omitted from the clause have nothing whatever to do with the Truck Act; and as I understand matters in the Eastern Counties, if they are not omitted the result would be, not that the men would have less beer, but that they would be driven to the public-house for it, and have to carry it about in the hot sun with them all day long, instead of getting it fresh and cool from the farmers' cellars. I maintain, Sir, it is much better for the men to have their beer fresh and cool. What would hon. Members think if they had to carry their beer about with them during their shooting on a hot autumnal day? "Would they like that? [Cries of "Divide !"] I shall be only too happy to let the Division take place. I have no wish to unduly detain the House; but I do most earnestly resent what I consider is a gross libel on the farmers of England—namely, the assertion that they try to force beer or any other intoxicating drink whatever upon their employés. I am sure no one can produce any evidence that such a thing has been done.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

I should not have intervened in this debate, except that I mean to give a vote to-night which I think is contradictory to my vote on the last occasion. When this clause was moved by the hon. Member who represents one of the Divisions of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). I stated that I did not think the House then had sufficient information to enable hon. Members to give a decision upon it. I, therefore, voted against the insertion of the words. Since then I have received from all parts of the country a very large mass of information which satisfies me that the words will not have the effect attributed to them. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Mr. C. W. Gray) what this clause does. Originally, under the Truck Act, all contracts except those paid in money were illegal. It was then pointed out to us that in regard to services in husbandry it was customary to provide the men with cottages and other things. This, too, raised the question of intoxicating liquors. As the clause now stands you can contract to give the labourers wages and food, and a cottage if you please, but not intoxicating liquors. The only thing prohibited is a contract whereby as part of the remuneration for service intoxicating liquors are to be given. The clause does not prevent a workman going to his master and making arrangements for fresh and cool beer to be sent out to him; it only prevents the master forcing on the labourer a contract whereby, as part of remuneration for his services, he is to receive intoxicating liquors. We want to do this. Supposing a farmer says—"I will give you 14s. a-week and a quart of beer a-day;" and the labourer replies—"I do not want the beer," we want the man to be able to say he will have more than 14s. a-week, and not allow the master to say—"If you do not take the beer you shall only have 14s. a-week." We do not want to prevent the workman obtaining from his master intoxicating liquor; that would be a separate contract. It seems to me that the mischief alleged by my hon. Friend behind me does not exist.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Newington, W.)

I am sorry to have to intervene in this debate, because I must differ from the hon. and. learned Gentleman the Attorney General, who, in my humble judgment, has given very insufficient reasons for his change of opinion. The hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he wishes to prevent the employer of labour saying to a man—"I will give you so much as wages, say, 14s. a-week, and so much drink; but if you will not have the drink, I will not give you any more money." He wishes the labourer to be able to say—"No; I will have 15s. a-week without the drink." He thinks that this clause will enable the labourer to get that 15s. from the farmer. Will he allow me to point out that it will not prevent the farmer saying —"Well. I will have in your place some person who will take 14s. a-week with the drink." The supply of labour depends on the demand for it; and whether a labourer can make a good bargain with a farmer or not depends, not upon this drink question, but whether there are more or fewer labourers asking for employment in the district. This Bill does not touch that at all. I object to the introduction, of these three words on the very grounds alleged by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh), who has told us to-day, in regard to every Amendment which he has asked the House to reject, that he does so because they form no part necessarily of a Truck Bill. Is this then a case, I ask him, of truck, or is it not? Sir, I submit that it is not a case of truck—it is simply a case of temperance. Section 4 excepts from the operation of the Truck Act persons engaged in husbandry; and if farmers, instead of producing—as in the district in which I farm—cider, produced, say, barley-water, there would be no question such as is raised by these three words, It is simply because cider is supposed to be intoxicating that these words have been inserted in this clause. It should not be forgotten that I speak for a considerable interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has told us he has changed his opinions, because he has received a number of letters expressing certain views on the subject in agreement with those which he now holds. But he did not show us those letters; he did not tell us who his correspondents were. But, Sir, I am able to give the House some information on this subject recently obtained from the best sources. I spoke only last Tuesday at a meeting composed of farmers and labourers, and I mentioned to them what had been done by the House in reference to this matter, and a general opinion was expressed that it was against the interest of the farming community. I do not know whether the Amendment will be supported by hon. Members on this side of the House to-day. When they go down to the country they sometimes pose as the friends of the farmers, and say that the agricultural interest is the cause of the Conservative Party. Now, the real desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite in regard to this clause is not to prevent any evil arising from truck, but to smuggle into the Bill something that may assist in promoting another cause, which has nothing whatever to do with track, and with the merits of which we are not now concerned. I am sorry at this time of the morning to detain the House; but the persons on whose behalf I speak, though they are not Bishops, or Bishops' daughters, happen to be agricultural labourers who, for hundreds of years, have been accustomed to this system—[Laughter]—they and their predecessors, and find it suits them. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot, I think, know the full extent of the interests involved. I wonder if the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) could tell us the quantity of orcharding that exists in his county, and in the five principal cider counties? It is really much more extensive than people suppose. From the Agricultural Returns for last year the total area under orcharding in those counties appears to be 112,000 acres. The fruit in these orchards is chiefly cider fruit. Then most of the farmers have mills, large cellars—[An hon. MEMBER: And buyers.] Yes, they have buyers as well; and it is to prevent them from having buyers in future for the produce of their orchards that these three words I wish struck out have been inserted. All this represents a large amount of capital invested, and a large amount of trade carried on; and the result of inserting these three words, which I now ask the House to omit, will be to interfere with this trade without any previous intimation whatever to the persons engaged in it. I will venture to give the House the opinion, not of anonymous letter writers, but of a person who, I think, is a competent judge of the matter—my own farm bailiff—a thoroughly practical man, who belongs to a class that ought to secure attention from hon. Gentlemen opposite, for he has risen to his present responsible position from that of plough-boy—

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is dealing very irrelevantly with the Amendment.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

I only proposed, Sir, to give the opinion, with which I will conclude, of a competent person familiar with the cider districts of Herefordshire, and I hope that may be considered germane to the subject. I informed him in outline of what had been done in this Bill; and his answer was—"They send a most anyone to Parliament, don't they, Sir, now?" I then stated to him the action of the House as affecting the cider trade, on which I give his opinion in his own homely language—"It's the biggest foolishness as ever was. One would think they was folks as never know'd the nature of life." In this opinion I concur.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 47: Majority 31.—(Div. List, No. 309.)

[2.35 A.M.]

MR. R. PRESTON BRUCE (Fifeshire, W.)

I propose to move the Amendment of which I have given Notice as far as the word "made." If the House desires it, I will state the object.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 7, page 2, line 37, to leave out from "wages" to end of Clause, and insert—"For education, any workman sending his child to any State inspected school shall be entitled to have the school fees of his child paid therefrom, at the same rate and to the same extent as the other workmen from whose wages such deduction is made."—(Mr. R. Preston Bruce.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

I cannot help thinking there is a little ambiguity in the Amendment as now proposed, though I am sure it is not intended. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be no security, so far as I see, that a workman is entitled to send Ms child to any school of his own selection.

THE ATTOENEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

The words "selected by the parent" are in the clause already.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I thought it was proposed to leave that part out.

Question put, and negatived; words left out.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

I think it will be necessary to add the words "selected by the parent or guardian" in the proposed Amendment, after the words "State-inspected schools."

Amendment proposed, to amend the proposed Amendment, by adding, after the word "school," in the second line, the words "selected by the parent or guardian."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

Then it is just as well I called the attention of the House to this.

Question put, and agreed to; words inserted.

Question, "That the Amendment, as amended, be added to the Clause," put, and agreed to.

SIR RICHARD WEBSTER

The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) being out of Order, the second of the two following Amendments will, I think, best carry out the wishes of those who desire the Amendment.

On the Motion of Mr. AINSILE (Lancashire, N., Lonsdale) the following Amendment made:—Clause 8, page 3, at end, add—"Except by agreement not forming part of the condition of hiring."

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL the following Amendment made:— In Clause 11, page 3, line 30, after the word "employer," to add the words "or agent, as the case may be."

Schedule.

On the Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, the following Amendment made:—In page 6, line 3, at beginning of line, insert—

12Geo. 1, c. 34.

"An Act to prevent unlawful combinations of workmen employed in the woollen manufactures, and for better payment of their wages."

Section three, and so much of section eight as applies to section three.

22 Geo. 2, c. 27.

"An Act, the title of which begins with' An Act for the more effectual preventing of frauds, 'and ends with the words 'and for the better payment of their wages.'"

So much of section twelve as applies to any enactment repealed by this Act.

30 Geo. 2, c. 12.

"An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to amend an Act,' and ends with the words 'payment of the workmen's wages in any other manner than in money.'"

Sections two and three.

57 Geo. 3, c. 115.

"An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to extend the provisions of an Act,' and ends with the words 'articles of cutlery.'"

The whole Act.

57 Geo. 3, c. 122.

"An Act, the title of which begins with the words 'An Act to extend the provisions,' and ends with the words 'extending the provisions of the said Acts to Scotland and Ireland.'"

The whole Act.

Page 6, line 4, after "jury," insert "inclusive;" and in page 6, line 12, after "agreement," insert "inclusive."

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I hope the House will now allow the third reading to be taken.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now road the third time."—(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

I object to that, and propose to defer the third reading to Monday.

MR. BRADLAUGH

If the hon. Member opposes it I will not press the Motion; but I am sorry he carries his opposition to that extent.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.