HC Deb 07 May 1891 vol 353 cc282-4
MR. MACLEAN (Oldham)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the assent given by Her Majesty's Government, in Lord Salisbury's telegram of 26th March, 1890, to the resolution of the Berlin Labour Conference, raising the minimum age of child labour to 12 years, was absolute and unconditional; or, whether it was subject, in the first place, to the general reservation of the right of this country, as stated in the Despatch of the right hon. Member for Chatham, from Berlin, of 22nd March, 1890, to make Bach exceptions as special local circumstances, the sentiments of particular classes of the population, and the necessities of special branches of industry, may from time to time require; and, secondly, to the special reservation made by the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech at the meeting of the Conference of 27th March, 1890, in favour of the half-time system which he said "had been followed by very good results for more than 40 years," and which the English people had "no wish to change without due consideration?"

MR. SUMMERS

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that the extract from the speech of Sir John Gorst, made by the hon. Member for Oldham, had no reference whatever to the question whether or not the age of half-timers should be raised from 10 to 12, but had reference to an entirely distinct and separate question, namely, whether, in addition to requiring that children should be 12 years of age before they were permitted to go to work in factories, the Conference should also require them to pass a certain educational test; and, further, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the speech from which this extract is taken is reported in the Parliamentary Paper entitled "Further Correspondence respecting the International Labour Conference at Berlin," p. 150, as commencing thus: Sir John Gorst, in the name of the Delegation of Great Britain, speaks as follows:— The delegates of Great Britain are of opinion that the Conference should not take on itself the responsibility of admitting that the limit of age for the work of children in southern countries be fixed at 10 years. The limit of 12 years has been generally adopted by the Conference in consideration of the demands of the physical, moral, and intellectual development of the children, and as ending with these words— We can pledge ourselves for Great Britain that our Government, faithful to its action in the past, will conform resolutely in the future, if it does not even go beyond them, to the benevolent principles of the Conference.

MR. BUCHANAN

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that on the 17th of February last a question was put to the First Lord of the Treasury by the hon. Member for Oldham on this subject, and that at that time there was no doubt suggested by the First Lord as to the adoption by Her Majesty's Government of the age limit fixed at Berlin, and the hon. Member asked if it was to be enforced upon India?

SIR J. FERGUSSON

In answer to the hon. Member for Oldham, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government assented to the proposal subject to the reservations mentioned in the question. I think that this answer covers the subsequent questions that have been put upon the Paper.

MR. SUMMERS

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question upon this subject, which is this: Whether he is aware that on May 3, 1890, Lord Salisbury wrote from the Foreign Office the following letter to Sir John Gorst:— The Marquess of Salisbury to Sir J. Gorst, M.P. Foreign Office, May 3, 1890. Sir,— I have to convey to you the approval of Her Majesty's Government of your proceedings at the recent Labour Conference at Berlin, and their appreciation of the important and valuable services rendered by you as one of Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries on that occasion. I am, &c. (Signed) SALISBURY.

SIR J. FERGUSSON

No doubt the facts are as the hon. Member says; but at the proper time I shall be prepared to show that there has been no inconsistency on the part of the Government.

MR. SUMMERS

I will put a further question to the First Lord of the Treasury on a future occasion.

MR. MACLEAN

May I ask whether the passages which have been cited from the speeches of the right hon. Member for Chatham by hon. Members opposite do not refer to full-timers, and not at all to half-timers; and whether it may not be taken for granted that Her Majesty's Government are under no obligation to foreign Powers with respect to children employed on the half time system?

SIR J. FERGUSSON

I think these questions go beyond the recognised limits.