§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)must really appeal to his hon. Friend to withdraw the Motion to report Progress. This Bill had been seriously considered by both sides of the House, and there was the name of a gentleman of high standing on the other side of the House on the back of the Bill. [Cries of "Name!"] The name was that of Sir Richard Paget. The Bill had been submitted and re-cast by the Home Office, and it was introduced for the benefit of a most deserving class. The chimney sweepers, irrespective of politics—both Conservative and Liberal chimney sweepers—were most anxious for the Bill to pass.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he had no desire to obstruct the Bill, but there was this to be said—that hon. Members never vouchsafed the slightest information as to what a Bill contained.
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, this Bill was brought in last year and the 1367 year before by Sir John Colomb, who then had a seat in the House. His (Mr. Bartley's) name was on the back of the Bill then, and it was now. The measure was a harmless one; it was greatly desired by the trade, and he hoped it would be allowed to pass.
§ MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham)could not agree that this Bill was, at any rate, unanimously desired by the trade. He himself had an interview with two members of the trade in the House of Commons, and they particularly asked him to vote against it.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that some sweeps, like other people, desired to get more than it was possible to give them. This Bill went a long way on the path they wished to tread, and he should like to see it carried; but they could only give them half a cake instead of a whole one.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLI withdraw my objection.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.