FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.

HC Deb 12 August 1901 vol 99 cc503-66

As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)

stated that there were some points on which he and those with whom he was acting were beaten in Committee, and they were quite prepared to accept the decisions of the Committee in most cases where they were beaten, provided that the same principle was observed in other directions when proposals were defeated in Committee. It would be very unfair, however, that they should not be allowed to re-open points, if all the points in which they succeeded in carrying the judgment of the Committee were to be again reviewed. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed— In page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word 'class' to the word 'factories,' in line 14, inclusive."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

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

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. RITCHIE,) Croydon

said it was quite impossible for him to give the right hon. Baronet a general undertaking that the points on which he and those with whom he was associated succeeded in Committee would be accepted now by the House. There were one or two points with which he would be bound to ask the House to disagree.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he did not expect any general undertaking on the matter. He was glad to hear that there were only one or two points on which the House would be asked to disagree with the decisions of the Committee. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. TEXNANT (Berwickshire)

, in moving the next Amendment, quoted from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories to show that the lady inspectors specially desired that the Secretary of State should have the power referred to.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 9, page 6, line 5, at end to insert, '(2) The Secretary of State shall, by special order, determine what is sufficient and suitable accommodation within the meaning of this section.'"—(Mr. Tennant.)

*SR CHARLES DILKE

moved an Amendment on Clause 12, in order to give greater safety to persons working; near machinery in motion. The Committee had substituted eighteen inches for twelve inches. He did not see that this was a necessary change, and, while he did not wish to divide the House, he begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,— In page 7, line 24, to leave out the word 'eighteen,' and insert the word 'twelve.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'eighteen' stand part of the Bill.

*MR. RITCHIE

said the right hon. Baronet placed him in an awkward position. He refrained from taking positive action in regard to a matter with which he was not content on the understanding that the proposal he now made would be accepted. He really wished the right hon. Baronet would allow the House to decide. In the original Bill the word was "twelve," but it was altered to eighteen because the argument was largely used on both sides that there was a portion of the frames of the machines included in the twelve inches which ought not to be included. It was stated that if the word "eighteen" were inserted in the Bill the work could be done without increasing the danger of the people engaged at the machines. Of course, if the right hon. Baronet moved the Amendment he would vote for "eighteen."

*SIR CHARLES DTLKE

said twelve was the space recommended by the factories inspector. He would not press the matter to a division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

moved the insertion of words in Clause 13 for the purpose of giving to young persons protection against accidents in certain circumstances where he considered they were not properly protected. He would not divide the House on this Amendment, but he called attention to the matter in order that they might know what they were doing.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 8, after the word 'child,' to insert the words 'or young person.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

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

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he would not press the Amendment, which was, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HARWOOD (Bolton)

moved an Amendment on Clause 13, modifying the provision which makes it illegal for any young person to clean under any portion of machinery in motion. He pointed out that machinery was in many instances so constructed that one part moved while another part did not. Operatives were agreed that there would be a great deal of hardship if cleaning was not allowed under large portions of the machines which did not move, and in connection with which there was no danger whatever.

Amendment proposed— In page 8, line 14, after the word 'power,' to insert the words, 'provided that the Secretary of State may, by special order, except any part of the machinery in a textile factory or any place under such machinery from the provisions of this sub-section.'"—(Mr. Harwood.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

said the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had only told the House what he proposed to do in regard to machinery which was not in motion. He had omitted to state that he proposed also to allow the cleaning of machinery in motion. Under the Bill there was no alteration of the law in regard to this point. The hon. Gentleman proposed to repeal what had been the law since 1895, or previous to that—he was not sure—and to allow the cleaning of moving machinery with the sanction of the Secretary of State. He was not desirous that the Secretary of State should be burdened with that responsibility. The Committee carefully considered this matter, and decided to retain the provision which the hon. Gentleman wished to repeal.

MR. HARWOOD

The law is broken.

*MR. RITCHIE

It is an undesirable thing that the law should be broken.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Romford)

said it was of importance that means of exit should be provided, but he thought the clause would be somewhat marred and an injustice would be done to owners if Sub-section 7 were retained in the Bill. If a man built a factory and spent money in making a large portion of it fire-proof to enable workpeople to get out of that special place where they were employed, he thought the occupier of that section of the factory should be equally as responsible as the owner in seeing that the means of exit were not barred by the placing of things on the staircase, and that he should be equally responsible to the factory inspector in case they did not comply with the Act. This was an admirable Bill, but he feared that in many cases there would be injustice, and, if he might say so, anomalies and hardships, on various tenants who worked under its provisions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the point, and that he would amend the clause so that the actual occupiers of fire-proof factories would be equally responsible with the owners.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (7) of Clause 14."—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

said it would be imposible to place on individual tenants a responsibility which must rest on the owner.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said a good deal of apprehension existed in regard to buildings not commenced before the commencement of the Act. It would be very unfair to put existing factories at the mercy of some of the bye-laws which might be adopted. Supposing the bye-laws insisted upon every factory providing an outside staircase for use in case of fire, in the case of some buildings it would be almost impossible to carry out this provision without buying the adjoining property. He thought that some opportunity should be given of the owner being heard against what might be arbitrary requirements.

Amendment proposed— In page 10, line 20, after the word 'workshop,' to insert the words 'the construction or rebuilding of which was not commenced before the commencement of this Act.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

I am sure my hon. friend will admit that whether a fire takes place in old or new buildings there ought to be some escape for the people inside those buildings. No doubt it would be a hardship if the local authorities were to make bye-laws involving great structural alterations in old buildings. There is, however, sufficient protection against action of this kind, because it is assumed that the local authority would be reasonable, and the Local Government Board, who have to confirm those bye-laws, would exercise some reasonable supervision over a matter of this kind. My hon. friend is mistaken in supposing that the local authorities are inclined to make bye-laws which would necessitate great structural alterations. Their bye-laws might provide in some cases for a moveable fire escape, which could easily be done. The one essential thing, however, is that in all factories there should be some means of escape.

*MR. TOMLINSON

said that after these explanations he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he did not know whether it was possible to make the amendment he desired at this stage, or whether the Government would undertake to make an alteration in another place. In order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of expressing his views upon the question he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 11, line 17, after the word 'is,' to insert the words 'so constructed or.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

I am not prepared to say whether there is anything in the particular point which the hon. Baronet has raised, but I will undertake to consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENSHAW (Renfrewshire, W.)

said his object in moving this alteration was that there had always seemed to him to be an enormous number of very trivial returns of accidents which could not be of any use to the office or any benefit to statisticians. The present law was that if any person was away for five hours in any one of the three days succeeding an accident, that accident had to be reported. A representative of the Home Office stated that as many as 80,000 accidents, under the provisions of the Factory Acts and the Mines Regulation Acts, were reported in one year. He remembered that upon one occasion they wanted particulars in regard to a certain class of accidents, but they were told that the great number of accidents sent in made it almost impossible to classify them. With the view of inviting the right hon. Gentleman to state his views upon this matter, he begged to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 2, to leave out from the word 'him,' to the word 'work,' in line 4, inclusive, in order to insert the words 'from being employed after the expiry of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said he hoped that the Home Secretary would adhere to the words of the Bill, because the present standard of accidents had been in operation now for many years, and both inspectors and medical officers had adapted themselves to it. The present standard was recognised to be a reasonable one, and a great compliment had been paid to that standard, because several Continental Governments had adopted it as a basis of calculation. In those days when they wanted a common standard it would be a great mistake to alter the practice and do away with the excellent work in statistical matters which the Home Office had shown itself so capable of doing.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

pointed out that the word "accident" did not cover explosions, however violent, where there was no actual damage or injury done to the persons employed. It often happened that there were serious acci- dents occurred, such as the recent accident with a torpedo, in which nobody was hurt, and which were not reported in consequence. He thought the word "accident" ought to cover instances where explosions took place of a very dangerous nature, although no person was hurt.

*MR. RITCHIE

My hon. friend who moved this Amendment has referred to the clause which was dropped in Committee. I admitted at the time that the law with regard to these accidents was not satisfactory, and I stated before that I should be very glad to see—and I hope that it may be my privilege to deal with it—some much more uniform system adopted. It would be better if we had some more uniform system of reporting accidents. There are accidents which occur in mines and quarries as to which there is no standard at all, and I am told that the present law is such that not more than one accident in ten is reported. This seems to me to call for an amendment of the law generally, and I think if we dealt with it partly by the clause in the Bill we might hamper ourselves when we had an opportunity of dealing with the matter more comprehensively. I hope my hon. friend will be content with the assurance that the matter is not likely to be lost sight of. Although I agree that the Amendment is a reasonable one, I would ask him not to press it, but to take my assurance that we hope to be able to deal with the matter in a more comprehensive way.

SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)

said there was evidence that many accidents happened in coal mines which did not cause loss of life or limb. The workpeople felt that those accidents ought to be reported, because, although perhaps no mischief might arise in any given case, a similar accident on another occasion might cause loss of life.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR

said the object of the Amendment he desired to move was to prevent accidents being hushed up by employers, and to ensure that the onus should not rest entirely on the occupiers. It was only reasonable that the person who employed labour should be the person to report injuries to workmen under his charge. It was absolutely necessary that he should give notice in order to prevent recurring accidents, because if notice of an accident was given it was to be hoped the inspector would have the cause thereof removed.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 6, after the word 'district,' to insert the words 'and such notice shall in all cases be given by the immediate employer of the injured person.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

This is an Amendment which cannot possibly be accepted. Under the existing law it is the occupier of the factory or workshop who is required to send in notice, and in my opinion it is essential to the working of the Factory Acts that that should continue to be so. If we were to adopt the proposal of my hon. friend it would mean in many factories that the workman who employed other people below him to do certain work would be the person responsible for reporting—a workman would have to make the report. I think the occupier ought to be the responsible person, and if you insert any other person you will greatly injure the working of the Acts.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR

said that, if machinery was not kept in proper and effective order, injury might be caused to the people working it. It was therefore absolutely necessary that the responsibility for having effective machines should lie upon the employer of labour, and that he should see that the place in which the machine was kept was fitted for the purpose. He begged to move the second part of the Amendment of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed— In page 12, line 26, after the Word pounds,' to insert as a new sub-clause, '(6) in case of any defective machinery or construc- tion in any building brought about either by decay or want of proper skilled attention, the person responsible shall be the immediate employer, and not the owner or occupier.'"—(Mr. Louis Sinclair.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

This is as bad as the other, if not worse. My hon. friend would now place on some subsidiary workman the responsibility for all the plant and machinery. That has only to be stated to show that it is quite impossible to accept the Amendment.

MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR

disclaimed any such object.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENSHAW

moved to omit the word "noon" in order to insert "one o'clock in the afternoon." This Amendment raised probably the most important question to be decided in the course of that night's proceedings. The proceedings in the Grand Committee on the day when this clause was amended were such as to warrant the House in reconsidering the decision then arrived at. The Committee had been sitting on Mondays and Thursdays, but, in order to get the Bill through, it was suggested the Committee should meet on Tuesday, 26th July. This was done, but unfortunately two other Committees, in which members interested in trade questions were concerned, were meeting at the same time, and a considerable number of members were prevented from attending the Grand Committee on Trade. Only about one-half of the members of the Committee were present, and the decision he now asked the House to reverse was arrived at by twenty-one votes against thirteen. Only half the members were present when the matter was under consideration, and the Amendment which the House was now asked to reconsider was only carried by a third of the members of the Grand Committee. It was represented, in the course of the short discussion which took place, by the hon. Member for Bolton, that there was considerable unanimity of opinion between employers and employed in Lancashire on the matter. But the petition he presented that day signed by 1,040 employers in Lancashire, representing an enormous number of spindles and looms, showed that that unanimity did not really exist. He would ask the House to consider whether in that matter it would be safe to take Lancashire as a guide for all the industries of the country, and whether it was right that a highly-prosperous trade carried on in one particular part of the country should be the criterion to be applied to all other trade and industries. Representations had been made to him and, he was sure, to many other hon. members showing how seriously particular trades would be affected by the Amendment which had been carried in the Grand Committee. He would refer particularly to the jute and flax trades. With reference to the jute trade, he had received a letter from one of the most important jute firms in Dundee—Messrs. Cox Brothers, Limited—of which the following was an extract— You are doubtless aware that India as well as the Continent has been for many years in keen competition with Dundee in the jute trade. With abundance of cheap labour the double shift system and the absence of time limits our competitors have been and still are extending their plant and increasing their trade all over the world. Moreover, this Amendment has at least in Scotland been sprung upon manufacturers so suddenly as to preclude opportunity for consideration or discussion, and in the absence of any definite movement by textile employees in favour of fewer hours. As large employers of labour, and having the common interest at heart, we must emphatically protest against this rash and superficially conceived Amendment. When India and the Continent legislate to bring hours of labour in textile factories parallel with ours, it will be quite time enough to consider further progress. When Britain was the workshop of the world such experiments were safe—conditions are now so modified that they may prove fatal. It might be urged that, after all, the difference made by the Amendment was a difference only of one hour a week; but that meant fifty-two hours a year, or practically a working week taken off the time in which a great industry was carried on, or a reduction of 2 per cent. in the productive capacity of the country. What was the particular time in which it was proposed to carry out a great change of that kind? The country had been called upon to respond, and had responded gladly, to an addition of some- thing like twenty-five millions of taxation. Was that a desirable time in which to introduce such a provision? He would also appeal to the Government on another ground. The Amendment was carried in the Grand Committee as recently as the 26th of July, and was not in the Bill as it was introduced and considered by the manufacturers throughout the length and breadth of the country. The manufacturers had had no notice of the change whatever. It had been sprung on them during the holiday season, and he ventured to say that it was not a matter which ought to have been sprung on the country. They could not tamper lightly with a great industrial occupation, and he would appeal to the House to make it perfectly clear that an alteration of that kind could only be carried at the instance of a responsible Government, and after full, ample, and due notice had been given to the people interested.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 19, to leave out the word; 'noon,' and insert the words 'one o'clock in the afternoon.'"—(Mr. Renshaw).

Question proposed, "That the word 'noon' stand part of the Bill."

MR. HARWOOD

said, as he had been responsible for the clause which had been inserted in the Grand Committee, he might be allowed to trouble the House with a few reasons as to why they should not go back on what the Committee had decided. As to the attendance at the Committee, he quite acknowledged that on that particular day, and on the vote on that particular Amendment, the number present was not quite equal to the average, although it was not very much lower. But he should like to remind the House, having gone into the matter, that the absent Members were about equally divided on the subject, and therefore he thought they should turn rather to the merits of the question than to the particular incident of the division. The hon. Member for Renfrew stated that he had said that there was practical unanimity. He did not remember having said anything of the kind. What he did say was that he was quite sure that if the change were effected it would soon be accepted with unanimity, and that he maintained. With reference to the petition, he happened to be present while it was being signed, and he could give the House some idea as to the value to be attached to it. As to springing the Amendment on the country, he would ask the House to excuse him if he dealt with that at some length. The alteration would directly affect nearly a million and a half operatives, and a large number of very important trades, and he agreed that the House should not adopt it in any hasty way. But if the House opened its eyes properly it would see that the change was fair and reasonable and ought to be made. No representations had been made to him with reference to the jute trade, but many hon. Members knew that in Lancashire it was a leading question at the last general election, and that it was discussed in Yorkshire in 1895, and was a burning question ever since. As to the general principle, the proposal was to cease work at twelve o'clock instead of at one o'clock. That would reduce the hours of work by one in fifty-six and a half. In the textile trades the hours of work had remained the same since 1874, but while the hours had remained the same it was undoubted that the intensity of labour had increased enormously. He was quite within the mark when he stated that the speed of machines was now 20 per cent. greater, and that the machines were much larger and more numerous than in 1874; and considering the increase in speed, the increase in the size of the machines, and the increase in their number, he was well within the mark when he stated that the productiveness of labour had increased 40 per cent. while the hours remained the same.

It was said that the sanitary and other conditions had improved, but the House should remember that there were essential conditions in the cotton trade which no change could affect. The temperature in which the cotton trade was carried on was from 80 degrees to 100 degrees, and was it unreasonable that the same conditions should be applied to that trade as to other trades, especially as for a quarter of a century there had been no reduction in the hours of work? During that period the engineers had reduced their hours from fifty-eight to fifty-three, and if the change proposed were made the factory hours would still be fifty-five and a half. He was speaking for women and children. In his own constituency 19,500 women and children would be affected by the change. Therefore, were they to say that men who could look after themselves should have a reduction of hours, but that helpless women and children should have no reduction?

What would be the effect on the trade? Would it be said that that trade alone could not afford any reduction whatever in the hours? Everyone knew that the working classes, when they were asked whether they would take out their share of the prosperity of an industry in higher wages or shorter hours, had invariably decided in favour of shorter hours. The employees in the cotton industry now asked in all humility for a reduction in the hours after a period of twenty-seven years, during which the strain and intensity of their work had greatly increased. There were particular reasons why a change was called for in the reduction of hours on Saturday. What was the position at present in many towns? The bulk of the men and boys worked in machine and engineering shops, while the women and girls worked in factories. Every machine and every engineering shop in Lancashire closed at 12 o'clock on Saturdays. The men insisted on that, and got it a long time ago. What was the effect on the home life? The men and boys returned at 12 o'clock, and the women and children at 1 o'clock. Could it not be easily understood what was happening to the Saturday dinner and to the home life on that particular day? That was a grievance which was felt every week. The movement to remove it started not from the top, but from the bottom, and it would go on, because it was a grievance which burned into the home life of the people every week. It should be remembered also that on Saturday in factories the period of employment between breakfast and stoppage was half an hour longer than on any other day of the week, and that four and a half hours, instead of four, were worked. Not only that, but the work was hardest on that day, as the cleaning had to be done, and consequently the women had to work hardest in the factories on the very day on which their home work was hardest also.

As to the reduction of 2 per cent. in productive capacity, put as the hon. Member put it, it seemed to be that way, but it was not so at all. It was not giving one hour out of fifty-six and a half, it was giving the worst hour of the whole week, the hour in which the employees worked in the slackest way. The change proposed would not cause a reduction of 2 per cent., nor a reduction of 1 per cent., and he ventured to say that in twelve months there would be no reduction at all. What was the result of our experience in the past? The last reduction in 1874 was three and a half hours, the previous reduction to that was also three and a half hours, but the quality of the labour increased more than the quantity diminished, and he had statistics which showed that in two years time there was practically no reduction whatever. Speaking on behalf of the operatives, he said they were quite prepared to give up their share of their wages if there was going to be any loss. If there was to be a reduction of one-fifty-sixth, there would be a reduction of one-fifty-sixth in wages, and the operatives—90 per cent. of whom were paid by the piece—were quite prepared to give up any proportion of their wages which the reduction of hours might involve. At the same time they were quite sure that ultimately there would be no loss at all to them or to their employers. Therefore it was unreasonable to resist the change. It was said that factories could not work overtime; but the engineers would not work after twelve o'clock on Saturday. It was true that the factories did not work overtime, but the total time worked in factories was longer than the total time worked in the engineers' shops, even with overtime. The engineers so much valued stopping at 12 o'clock on Saturday that nothing would induce them to work overtime on that day. His own interest was entirely wrapped up in the trade but he was not so chicken-hearted as to listen to a Jeremiah. They were told of foreign competition, but foreign competition was of two kinds. There was the foreign competition of States which did not mean to receive our products at any price, and no alteration in the cost of production would make the slightest difference as to that. When he heard melancholy statements about foreign competition in the cotton trade, he would say that where we had a free field our pre-eminence was as undoubted as ever it was. In India, and in all other countries where we could meet our competitors on equal terms, we were easily first. It was said that we now produced comparatively a small proportion of production, but positively we produced a great deal more than ever we did; and foreign competition had only taken from us certain countries which were determined to produce for themselves. It was absurd to suggest that a change of this kind would upset the commercial stability of the country. Might he appeal on another point? Parliament had taken under its care the textile trades. Why? Because Parliament said that it should look after those trades in order to protect the women and children. What was that protection worth if the result was that those trades were the only trades in which there had been no reduction of hours for a quarter of a century? Would not those trades very much question the advantage of parliamentary protection if they did not get what they certainly would have got had they not been a parliamentary trade? The question was a domestic question of the greatest importance. It was also a question of the physical condition of the people. It was not an easy thing for a Member to question in the House the physical pre-eminence of, his constituents, but everyone who knew the inhabitants of the cotton districts knew that they were physically inferior to the general population of the country. He believed that that was due to the strain put upon them and their forefathers, and he believed that the change now proposed would remove that strain on the day on which it was most intense, and give the people an opportunity of developing their physical condition. He believed it would also improve the supply of labour. In the cotton trade there was a great deficiency of boys. They all went into the engineering trade because the conditions were more favourable. He believed that the masters would benefit by having a larger supply of labour, and that that labour would be of a better quality. He begged the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to associate his name with a change which would not do any harm whatever, and which would be an enormous boon to thousands.

*MR. JAMES KENYON (Lancashire, Bury)

said he desired to associate himself with the hon. Member for Bolton in his remarks. In the textile factories, three-fourths of the workers were women and young persons, and it was a very serious matter in the home life of those people that they should have the confusion which resulted from their not being able to be at home at the same hour as other members of their families on Saturdays. The hon. Member for Bolton mentioned the engineers, but there were also the building trades—stonemasons, bricklayers, and their labourers—who stopped work at twelve o'clock, and therefore the families of those men were just as much interested as the engineers. Surely the working people of the country, having regard to the pressure under which they had been working for the last few years, deserved that additional hour on Saturdays. He believed it would be most beneficial to their health, as it would give them an opportunity of getting a holiday. In winter they had only about two hours on Saturdays before it was dark, and the additional hour would therefore be of very considerable benefit to them. There had been very considerable talk as to whether the cotton trade, could afford it. He had taken great interest in that trade, and during the years 1899 and 1900 twenty-two mills were put up in South-east Lancashire, not old-fashioned mills, but enormous concerns, with a working capital of over three millions. He begged to submit to the House that expenditure of that kind certainly did not show that the cotton trade was a decaying industry. When the workpeople saw new mills being put up in different parts of the country, they naturally concluded that the trade was prosperous, and they petitioned for one hour additional on Saturday as their fair share of that prosperity. With reference to the petition that had been presented, he knew some of the people who had the getting up of it, and one or two of them did not work at all on Saturday. They stopped on Friday night. He might point to the result of the Spinners' Combination, the chairman and vice-chairman of which were members of the House. Although adverse opinions were freely expressed by Jeremiahs at the time, ever since that great combination was formed, the shares, which had been issued at 20s., had been selling at 40s., and they were now about 36s. or 37s. He had pleasure in supporting the hon. Member for Bolton in the matter. He did not believe that the extra hour's holiday on Saturday would detrimentally affect the trade at all, but he believed it would be a boon and a blessing to the workpeople, and he thought the extra work which they would be able to do during the week would make up for any deficit which might take place.

COLONEL PILKINGTON (Lancashire, Newton)

said that some derogatory remarks had been made with reference to the petition which he had presented that afternoon, but there was no doubt that it was signed by 1,040 firms, many of them having 2,000 spindles and others over 3,000 spindles. It was all very well for hon. Members to shower contempt on a petition of that kind, but it was signed by, perhaps, all the greatest firms, and the great majority of all the firms in Lancashire. That was a strong indication of what the manufacturers thought of the proposal. It was all very well to entirely ignore the manufacturers, but who were the best judges as to whether the large factories would or would not be able to withstand competition? The manufacturers were the generals of industry, and they stood between the workpeople and their being able to get their weekly wages or not. They had conducted their business so that they had been able to provide wages for their workpeople, and in many respects the manufacturers and the workpeople were bound together in bonds of friendship and bonds of material welfare. The matter affected those two sets of people, and did not affect to any great extent anyone else. A large number of the manufacturers said that they were afraid that if this automatic rule as to twelve o'clock on Saturdays was made, it would seriously affect their prosperity, and then the prosperity of the workpeople would also be affected. That was the question they had to consider. The manufacturers risked their money, and directed their operations against foreign competitors, and it was on the successful direction of those operations that the wages of the operatives depended. It was a very serious thing to say that a certain set of operatives in a certain trade should stop at twelve o'clock instead of at one o'clock. If regulations of hours were to be made, they ought to be made, as far as possible, by common agreement between employer and employed, and not by law. What the manufacturers felt was that there ought to be some elasticity. If restrictions were put upon labour in prosperous times it might be very little felt; but what the manufacturers said was that they did not want any restrictions to which elasticity could not be applied, so that if times of great depression came, as no doubt they would, then the hours might be lengthened, not only in the interests of the workpeople themselves, but in the interests of the industrial supremacy of the country. With reference to the reduction of hours, it was far better that there should not be any reduction with regard to time, but that the number of hours of work of women and young persons should be limited to a certain number per week. Elasticity was wanted in every way in which it could be given. The great number of holidays now taken in the course of the year was not referred to. He believed it was a fact that operatives in Manchester in the textile trade took altogether something like two weeks in the course of the year. The hon. Member for Bolton spoke of foreign competition in a very jaunty way. He said that if the manufacturers were given a fair field they would be afraid of nothing. Given a fair field the English manufacturer was afraid of nothing; but was there a fair field? It was perfectly certain that in many countries there was not. America poured her goods into England, and last year only £7,000,000 of all kinds went back. Manufacturers who used to send thousands and thousands of pounds worth of goods to America did not now send sixpennyworth. The same applied to Germany. A large amount of English manufactured goods used to be sent to Germany, but the quantity was now restricted, and many firms did not now export to that country at all. Yet those two countries were able to dump down their goods in England, while English manufacturers were not able to compete with them in their home markets. The same applied to Belgium, France, Austria, and Russia; and therefore he could not join in the view of the hon. Member for Bolton with regard to the future of English trade. There was a cloud coming over it, and it would require all the experience, pluck, and capital of the British manufacturer to meet the trouble which was lying in front. The House should not interfere with an important industry in the manner proposed, against the opinion and wishes, not only of the manufacturers of Lancashire, but of the manufacturers of the north of Ireland and Scotland as well. He thought it would have been far better and wiser to have left the matter entirely alone. It was true, as his hon. friend stated, that a great many Members who took a very strong interest in the matter were absent from the Grand Committee. One of the members of the Committee referred repeatedly to "we." That was the hon. Member for Berwickshire, and an Irish member asked whom "we" meant.

*MR. TENNANT

said that on the occasion when the question was asked "we" meant his right hon. friend the Member for Forest of Dean, who was sitting next to him, and himself, and they were speaking at the moment for the textile trade of Yorkshire.

COLONEL PILKINGTON

said that, unfortunately, the power of "we" was felt with full force, and Members who thought differently were absent. It should also be remembered that the manufacturers read the Bill as it had been introduced, and that they had no notice of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bolton. He trusted, therefore, the Government would resist the change. It was unfair to manufacturers that they should have Amendments of this sort sprung upon them unexpectedly, and he trusted the House would treat that class with the consideration which every Member in his heart desired.

MR. TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)

said he could not agree with the hon. Member for Renfrewshire that the decision of the Grand Committee had been come to without sufficient discussion or that the majority was not a considerable one, while an examination of the names of the members who were absent on that occasion would show that there were among them as many in favour of the change to noon as there were against. The question was certainly not new to any Member who contested a seat in Lancashire at the last election; in fact, it was almost a test question. The operatives in Lancashire and Yorkshire were practically unanimous in their support of the change, believing it would conduce greatly to their comfort and benefit. These people had as perfect a right to their recreation as had those Members of the House who had disappeared to go grouse shooting in Scotland, and this single hour added to their Saturday afternoon would be a very valuable addition. He admitted there would be a slight loss in production, but he did not think that should be set against the improvement which would follow in the social amenities of the working classes. The loss of production would, he thought, not be quite as much as 2 per cent., but the fact that the wages of the operatives, who were asking for this reduction, would be reduced pro tanto, seeing that they were almost all pieceworkers, proved the genuineness of the demand. He admitted that foreign competition was no bogey, but the question of whether or not we kept our textile trade did not depend on this last most laborious hour. More than a quarter of a century had passed since the last reduction of hours. Meanwhile other trades had had their hours reduced, and it was not to be supposed that the textile workers would be content to remain as they were. Foreign competition would be met not by long hours, but by better methods, more science, and greater enterprise. The hon. Member for Newton had said that this was a matter not for legislation, but for mutual agreement between employers and employed. If such an agreement were likely to be arrived at that would be very well, but the employers class feared any reduction of hours whatever. The only other method by which workpeople could obtain a reduction was by means of a strike. It was difficult to believe that the employers could imagine that the result of a strike, even if they were successful, would be any gain to them during the next ten or twenty years, as compared with a peaceful settlement by legislation on the lines here proposed. He hoped the Home Secretary would allow the opinion of the House to be freely expressed, and that hon. Gentlemen on both sides would agree to give this boon to a large and deserving class.

*MR. RITCHIE

I do not imagine that any arguments either for or against this proposal are likely to alter the decision at which most Members have arrived as to the way in which they should vote on this question. I hope, therefore, it will not be necessary greatly to prolong the discussion on the Amendment, which, of course, is a very important one. There are a few considerations I wish to place before the House. I do not think anyone can complain at the House being asked to give a decision upon a question which came before the Grand Committee, and which was there decided against the views I then expressed. It is quite true the circumstances were somewhat peculiar. The day on which this decision was arrived at was not the usual day of meeting, and there were other Committees sitting, upon which many Members were specially engaged. It is not surprising, having regard to the importance attached to this question by those particularly interested—namely, the textile manufacturers, not of Lancashire and Yorkshire only, but throughout the country—that they should ask the House to revise the decision arrived at by the Committee. No doubt the cotton trade of Lancashire has of late been in a prosperous condition, and what may now be very lightly looked upon might be a much more serious matter if a condition of things arose such as that which existed some years ago when a great number of spindles were standing for want of work. Reference has been made to 2 per cent. being a somewhat insignificant figure. If it is true that this alteration would make a difference of 2 per cent.—and it is generally admitted it would be about that figure—it is not an insignificant amount at all, and I have known times when, in manufacturing operations, 2 per cent. made all the difference between standing and going on. It is naturally, therefore, under certain conditions of trade, a serious consideration. It has been admitted by the representatives of the workmen that this change if carried into operation would mean something like £120,000 or £130,000 a year in the cotton industry alone. We, therefore, cannot be surprised that the manufacturers should desire the House to express an opinion on the question, bearing in mind, also, the fact that they had no reason to expect that this matter would arise in connection with this Bill. They naturally supposed if there was to be any rearrangement of hours in connection with factories and workshops it would have formed part of the original Bill. I think they are justified in saying the matter has taken them by surprise, so that they are now only just beginning to raise their voices and to show the hardship this change would inflict upon them. What is the argument used in favour of the change? Is it that the women and young persons are overworked on Saturday? Surely it cannot be contended that to keep open the factories until one o'clock is a hardship upon the workers? It cannot be contended that there is not a good half-holiday after work ceases? But it is not really con tended that this change is advocated altogether in the interests of women and young people. Certain pastimes are very popular in Lancashire and Yorkshire on Saturdays, and I think I am using a phrase which is in everybody's mouth when I say that there is really a "football stop."

MR. HARWOOD

Is not the manner in which the working classes use their leisure their own business?

*MR. RITCHIE

I do not in the least dispute that. I am simply saying that this has been called a "football stop," and that it is more from that point of view than of women and young persons being overworked that the alteration is advocated. But this is much more than a Lancashire and Yorkshire question. I can quite understand that both employers and employed in many of our other manufacturing districts resent having to close their factories because this earlier closing is desired in Lancashire, and partially in Yorkshire. It must be remembered that it is rather a serious question for all piece-workers in textile factories throughout the country that they should, by enactment, be called on to earn an hour's wages less per week, simply because in certain districts this change is advocated. The matter must be regarded from the point of view, not of Lancashire only, but of its effect upon the whole textile industry of the country. It is stated that in Lancashire operatives and employers are practically agreed on this question. If that is so, why can they not come to an arrangement by which their factories could be closed an hour earlier? I am told that there are a considerable number of factories in Lancashire and Yorkshire which do so close, and I should have thought, seeing that this is a change keenly demanded in one particular portion of the country, and not asked for at all in others, that it was a matter much more for voluntary arrangement than for legislative enactment.

These are the views I placed before the Committee when the matter was there considered, and I do not know that I can add anything to them. I regard the decision at which the House is asked to arrive as a somewhat serious one in the interests of the trade of the country, and I earnestly trust, having regard to the large area which will come under the operation of the Act, that a demand coming from one section only of the manufacturing industry will not commend itself to the House as being one to be dealt with by legislative enactment. On these grounds I ask the House not to agree to the decision arrived at by the Committee, but to restore the Bill to its original condition.

SIR WILLIAM HOULDSWORTH (Manchester, N.W.)

regretted the Home Secretary was not more sympathetically inclined towards the proposed change, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman hardly understood the real position. If this had been merely a question of the reduction of hours in the textile industry, although there were many arguments in favour of such a reduction, he should not have been obliged, as he now was, to go against the right hon. Gentleman. This hour on Saturday, however, was a special question. It was not right to say that Lancashire was unanimous on the matter. This was a unanimous demand from the operatives, and he could not conceive how any operatives, not only in Lancashire and Yorkshire, but throughout the country, could do otherwise than support the alteration. The demand was really that the operatives might have the benefit of the Saturday half-holiday. He could not understand the Home Secretary taking such a serious view of the loss that would be caused by the reduction of this hour. In the textile trade Saturday was a broken day at best, and his own impression was that if this hour was conceded the production on Saturday would probably be even more than at present; he was certain it would if only the leaders of the operatives would help the manufacturers in the matter. A voluntary arrangement had been suggested, but those who made the suggestion apparently forgot that the main objection of the manufacturers who had signed the petition which had been presented was that a voluntary arrangement worked so unjustly between the manufacturers who paid attention to the wishes of their workpeople and those who were more harsh and careless in the treatment of their employees. He believed the opposition was to a great extent half-hearted. Whenever the operatives asked for a concession the manufacturers thought they ought to oppose it, even though they did not consider it an unreasonable or dangerous change; they usually appeared to be much

more militant than they really were. If the change were made he believed things would settle down, and in twelve months they would scarcely know there had been any alteration whatever. During the last few years much had been done to provide opportunities for the rest and recreation of the working classes, and the operatives should be enabled to take advantage of the opportunities which had been provided. In many cases this hour would make all the difference between a full Saturday afternoon and only half the afternoon; it would be a great boon to the working classes, and only a small concession on the part of the employers. Under those circumstances he had no hesitation in supporting this change in the hours of labour, because he thought it would be a great advantage to the working classes. This was a boon which the working classes had set their hearts upon, and he thought employers would be well advised not to oppose this proposal, even if they thought they would be successful in throwing it out. He had every reason to believe that this small concession by employers, which would be felt as a great boon to the working classes, would go far to stave off a much more serious question which was in the air—that of a reduction of hours all round of a very drastic nature. He had had the honour of presiding at a conference between employers and operatives, and the view he had just expressed was put forward very strongly.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 163; Noes, 141. (Division List No. 461.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Cawley, Frederick	Elibank, Master of
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Channing, Francis Allston	Emmott, Alfred
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud)	Clancy, John Joseph	Evans, Sir Erancis H. (Maidstone
Ambrose, Robert	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Cogan, Denis J.	Field, William
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Colville, John	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)	Condon, Thomas Joseph	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Crean, Eugene	Flavin, Michael Joseph
Bell, Richard	Crombie, John William	Flynn, James Christopher
Bignold, Arthur	Cullinan, J.	Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry
Boland, John	Daly, James	Gardner, Ernest
Boyle, James	Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Gilhooly, James
Broadhurst, Henry	Delany, William	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John
Burns, John	Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'r H'mlets
Caldwell, James	Dillon, John	Grant, Corrie
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Donelan, Captain A.	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Doogan, P. C.	Griffith, Ellis J.
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Duffy, William J.	Groves, James Grimble
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Moss, Samuel	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Haldane, Richard Burdon	Murnaghan, George	Rutherford, John
Hammond, John	Murphy, John	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Sadler, Col. S. Alexander
Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Sandys, Lt.-Col. T. Myles
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-	Norman, Henry	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Sinclair, Capt John (Forfarshire
Helme, Norval Watson	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Spear, John Ward
Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants
Holland, William Henry	O'Doherty, William	Strachey, Edward
Horniman, Frederick John	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Sullivan, Donal
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.
Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley	O'Dowd, John	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)	Tennant, Harold John
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower
Joyce, Michael	O'Malley, William	Thompson, Dr E C (Monaghan N
Lambton, Hon. Fred. Wm.	O'Mara, James	Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W.R.)
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Shee, James John	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Leamy, Edmund	Partington, Oswald	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Paulton, James Mellor	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Leigh, Sir Joseph	Peel, Hon. Wm. R. Wellesley	White, Luke (Yorks. E.R.)
Lough, Thomas	Pemberton, John S. G.	White, Patrick (Meath, North
Lundon, W.	Pierpoint, Robert	Whiteley, George (Yorks. W.R.
MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Power, Patrick Joseph	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
M'Fadden, Edward	Randles, John S.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
M'Govern, T.	Reddy, M.	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
M'Kenna, Reginald	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Redmond, William (Clare)
Mather, William	Rickett, J. Compton	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. James Kenyon and Mr. Harwood.
Mitchell, William	Rigg, Richard
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)
Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Roche, John
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Dickson, Charles Scott	Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hudson, George Biekersteth
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Arrol, Sir William	Duke, Henry Edward	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh)
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Keswick, William
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart	Law, Andrew Bonar
Balcarres, Lord	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Lawson, John Grant
Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald W (Leeds	Fisher, William Hayes	Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham
Banbury, Frederick George	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W.	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine
Bigwood, James	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Line.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Brassey, Albert	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Loyd, Archie Kirkman
Bull, William James	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)	Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Macdona, John Cumming
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wor'c	Hambro, Charles Eric	MacIver, David (Liverpool)
Chapman, Edward	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x	Maconochie, A. W.
Charrington, Spencer	Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)
Cog hill, Douglas Harry	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Harris, Frederick Leverton	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Majendie, James A. H.
Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Heaton, John Henniker	Milton, Viscount
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Henderson, Alexander	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Higginbottom, S. W.	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Cranborne, Viscount	Hogg, Lindsay	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Crossley, Sir Savile	Hoult, Joseph	Morgan, David J. (Walthamst'w
Cust, Henry John C.	Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.

Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Rentoul, James Alexander	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Mount, William Arthur	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge)	Thornton, Percy M.
Nicholson, William Graham	Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson	Tollemache, Henry James
Nicol, Donald Ninian	Robertson, H. (Hackney)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Round, James	Valentia, Viscount
Parker, Gilbert	Saunderson, Rt. Hon. Col. E. J.	Walker, Col. William Hall
Parkes, Ebenezer	Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Penn, John	Sharpe, William Edward T.	Wills, Sir Frederick
Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Pretyman, Ernest George	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Purvis, Robert	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir William Walrond and Mr. Anstruther.
Pym, C. Guy	Smith, Hon. W. E. D. (Strand)
Reid, James (Greenock)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Remnant, James Farquharson	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Renshaw, Charles Bine	Stirling- Maxwell, Sir John M.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

moved, "That this House do now adjourn"; but Mr. SPEAKER, being of opinion that the motion was an abuse of the rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.

MR. RENSHAW

said that he desired to ascertain whether this change of hours was to apply to all the textile industries of the country, or only to those of Lancashire, and for that purpose he would move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 15, line 30, after the word 'whatever,' to insert the words, 'Provided that these hours shall apply to employment in a cotton spinning mill or cotton cloth factory only.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he wished to speak on this point because it was one which was brought before the Committee at the express wish of the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding of Yorkshire. They had been told that this matter had been sprung upon the Committee and upon the country, but he would remind the House that he moved an Amendment on behalf of the woollen and worsted trades of the West Riding of Yorkshire in the year 1895. Ample notice had been given of the Amendment, which was first placed upon the Paper, and it had been fully discussed by every Chamber of Commerce throughout Yorkshire and Lancashire. The Member for Renfrewshire had told the House that this matter was only discussed in regard to the cotton industry, but in saying that the hon. Member could not have heard the admirable speech which had been just been delivered by the hon. Member for Manchester, who was himself one of the greatest cotton manufacturers in the world, and who spoke in the name of the textile industries generally. The matter had been discussed throughout the West Riding of Yorkshire, and although on several Chambers of Commerce a majority of the manufacturers were against the change, it was a majority of the kind which had been described by the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester. There were four leading manufacturers in Yorkshire strongly in favour of the change, and one Chamber of Commerce had carried a resolution unanimously in its favour. There was just as strong a feeling in Yorkshire as in Lancashire regarding this change in the law, and it would be a monstrous thing, after the House had so clearly shown its feeling on the subject, to attempt to dissociate Lancashire and Yorkshire.

*MR. RITCHIE

I think the House has given a very clear decision upon this matter, and I believe that in coming to this decision the House did not desire to confine itself to any one branch of the textile industry. As for the Government, we accept the decision as being applicable to the textile industry as a whole. (An IRISH MEMBER: Run away from your guns.] Under these circumstances, I appeal to my hon. friend not to press his Amendment. I know that he feels very strongly upon this point, especially in regard to textile manufacturers outside Lancashire, but having regard to the decision the House has just come to I do not think it would be wise to press this Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

The right hon. Gentleman has shown great resignation, but not the sort of resignation we want.

MR. RENSHAW

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*MR. TENNANT

said he was encouraged to move his Amendment by the result of the division which had just taken place. He asked for a half holiday for the non-textile workers of the country, not beginning at twelve or even at one o'clock, but at two o'clock. What sort of an afternoon off was a holiday which only began at four o'clock? His hon. friend the Member for Bolton made an appeal on behalf of the textile workers because they were employed on Saturdays for a longer spell than usual, a spell of four and a half hours, but the workpeople he was now appealing for were compelled to work for a spell of five hours at a time every day. This was a question which deserved more sympathy than the question which they had just been discussing. The people he was pleading for had no unions, and were a lowly and inarticulate class, whereas those people whom they hat-just given longer holidays to were the very aristocracy of labour. They had spoken about high pressure of work being applied, but the class he was now pleading for wore a class to whom the highest pressure of all had been applied, namely, sweating. He was pleading for the dressmakers and others of that class who were employed for a great

number of hours at a time. He sincerely trusted that the House would agree to this Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In page 17, line 12, to leave out from the word 'afternoon,' to the word 'afternoon,' in line 15, inclusive."—(Mr. Tennant.)

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

*MR. RITCHIE

This Amendment was rejected in Committee—

MR. TENNANT

Yes, by three votes.

*MR. RITCHIE

This Amendment stands in a totally different position to the Amendment which has just been accepted. With regard to the other Amendment, there has been a very strong agitation, but with regard to this proposal no such agitation has been raised.

MR. TENNANT

No, because they are not organised, and cannot express themselves.

*MR. RITCHIE

I am rather surprised to hear they are not in a position to express their views. We have no evidence that this demand is approved of by a large section of the population, and I hope the House will not accept this Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 176; Noes, 127. (Division List No. 462.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Crossley, Sir Savile
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Brassey, Albert	Cust, Henry John C.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bull, William James	Davenport, William Bromley-
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire	Dick son, Charles Scott
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Cawley, Frederick	Dorington, Sir John Edward
Arrol, Sir William	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r	Duke, Henry Edward
Balcarres, Lord	Chapman, Edward	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Charrington, Spencer	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Har
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward
Balfour, Rt. Hon. G.W. (Leeds)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.)	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Banbury, Frederick George	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Fisher, William Hayes
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Colston, Charles Edw. H Athole	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Bignold, Arthur	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.
Bigwood, James	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cranborne, Viscount	Gardner, Ernest
Godson, Sir Augustus Fred.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Rentoul, James Alexander
Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn	Lowther, Rt Hn J. W. (Cum, Pen	Ridley. Hn M. W. (Stalybridge)
Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Round, James
Goschen, Hon. George J.	Macartney, Rt. Hn. W G Ellison	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Macdona, John dimming	Rutherford, John
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)	Maconochie, A. W.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Groves, James Grimble	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Hambro, Charles Eric	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J
Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd.)	Majendie, James A. H.	Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm.	Milton, Viscount	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)	Mitchell, William	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Harris, Frederick Leverton	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Moore, Wm. (Antrim, N.)	Smith, H. C (North'mb, T'neside
Heaton, John Henniker	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks)
Henderson, Alexander	Morgan, David. J (Walthamstow	Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Higginbottom, S. W.	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F.	Spear, John Ward
Hogg, Lindsay	Morton, Arthur H. A (Deptford)	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Hope, J. F. (Sh'effield, Brightsd.	Mount, William Arthur	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Stirling-Max well, Sir John M.
Hoult, Joseph	Nicholson, William Graham	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J G (Oxf'd Univ.
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Thornton, Percy M.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Parker, Gilbert	Tollemache, Henry James
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Pemberton, John S. G.	Valentia, Viscount
Keswick, William	Penn, John	Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard	Walker, Col. William Hall
Law, Andrew Bonar	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne)
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth	Plummer, Walter R.	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Lawson, John Grant	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wills, Sir Frederick
Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)	Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward	Wodehouse, Rt Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Purvis, Robert	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Randles, John S.
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Reid, James (Greenock)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesh'm	Remnant, James Farquharson	Sir William Walrond and
Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.	Renshaw, Charles Bine	Mr. Anstruther.
NOES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Emmott, Alfred	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc. Stroud)	Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidst'ne	Lough, Thomas
Ambrose, Robert	Field, William	Lundon, W.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Flavin, Michael Joseph	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Flynn, James Christopher	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall
Bell, Richard	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	M'Fadden, Edward
Boland, John	Gilhooly, James	M'Govern, T.
Boyle, James	Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	M'Kenna, Reginald
Burns, John	Grant, Corrie	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Caldwell, James	Griffith, Ellis J.	Mather, William
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Haldane, Richard Bunion	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Hammond, John	Moss, Samuel
Channing, Francis Allston	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Murnaghan, George
Clancy, John Joseph	Harms worth, R. Leicester	Murphy, John
Cogan, Denis J.	Hayden, John Patrick	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Colville, John	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Chas. Seale-	Nolan, Col. John P (Galway, N.)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Crean, Eugene	Healy, Timothy Michael	Norman, Henry
Crombie, John William	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md
Cullinan, J.	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Daly, James	Holland, William Henry	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Horniman, Frederick John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Delany, William	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Doherty, William
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Jones, David Brynm'r (Swans'a	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Dillon, John	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Donelan, Captain A.	Joyce, Michael	O'Dowd, John
Doogan, P. C.	Layland-Barratt, Francis	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Duffy, William J.	Leamy, Edmund	O'Kelly, J. (Roscommon, N.)
Elibank, Master of	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	O'Malley, William

O'Mara, James	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh	White, Luke (Yorks. E. R.)
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	White, Patrick (Meath, N.)
O'Shee, James John	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.	Whiteley, George (Yorks. W. R.
Partington, Oswald	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R (Northants	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Paulton, James Mellor	Strachey, Edward	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Power, Patrick Joseph	Sullivan, Donal	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
Reddy, M.	Taylor, Theodore Cooke	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Thomas, J A (Glamorg'n, Gower	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf d
Redmond, Wm. (Clare)	Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N
Rickett, J. Compton	Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Rigg, Richard	Trevetyan, Charles Philips	Mr. Tennant and Mr. Broadhurst.
Roche, John	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

MR. RENSHAW

said the result of the Sub-section (4) as carried in Committee would be to prevent any woman or young person being employed outside the regular hours of a factory or workshop, so that if a woman had spent three or four hours in a workshop in the morning, and, having no other duties to discharge, was employed in selling goods in the shop at night, she would be contravening this sub-section. The provision would also have the extraordinary effect that if a young woman was employed in a workshop in the morning, and in the evening worked for another employer, the employer for whom she worked in the morning would be liable to the penalty for her employment at night. The clause as originally introduced was in precisely the same terms as the Amendment he now desired to move.

Amendment proposed— In page 20, line 17, to leave out subsection (4) of Clause 31, and insert the words, (4) 'If a woman or young person is employed by the occupier of a factory or workshop on the same day, both in the factory or workshop, and in a shop, then—

1. (a) the whole time during which that woman or young person is employed shall not exceed the number of hours permitted by this Act for her or his employment in the factory or workshop on that day; and
2. (b) if the woman or young person is employed in the shop, except during the period of employment fixed by the occupier, and specified in a notice affixed in the factory or workshop in pursuance of this Act, the occupier shall make the prescribed entry in the general register with regard to his or her employment."—(Mr. Renshaw.)

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

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said no reason had been given why the law should concern itself only with employment by the same employer. The Amend- ment carried in Committee followed the precedent of the Shop Hours Act. He had taken advice on the point raised in Committee as to the possibility of the wrong employer being penalised, and the opinion of the competent lawyer to whom he referred the matter was that it would be comparatively easy to detect the illegality, as the clause was now governed by the period of employment, and that a magistrate would dismiss a charge if wrongly brought against the first employer.

*MR. RITCHIE

There are two points in the Amendment—the period of employment, and double employment. With regard to the period of employment, the difference in the Bill as it stood and as my hon. friend wishes to restore it, is that originally the number of hours which could be worked by the individual under two employers was limited to the number of hours which could be worked under the Factory Acts. That is to say, if the period under the Acts was ten hours, the period of employment under the two employers would be ten hours and no more. As to the question of one employer or two employers, the difficulty about the Amendment, as proposed by the right hon. Baronet, is that it would be absolutely impossible for any inspector to know whether an individual who was working beyond a certain hour for one employer had been working for some other employer in the earlier portion of the day.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

That objection applies to the Shop Hours Act.

*MR. RITCHIE

Yes, but the Factory Act does not deal with the Shop Hours Act. I think it is a mistake to insert anything which cannot possibly be administered under the Factory Acts. These words would put upon the factory inspector a responsibility which he could not by any possibility discharge. Moreover, if a young person goes to a shopkeeper and asks for evening employment, how on earth is the shopkeeper to tell whether or not this young person has been in somebody else's employment earlier in the day?

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he was anxious to save time, and if the right hon. Gentleman intimated his intention of amending the proposed Amendment by accepting an Amendment lower on the Paper, he would not trouble the House with a division.

*MR. RITCHIE

I intend to support my hon. friend in the whole of his Amendment. Under our original proposal, if a woman or young person had worked, say; for an hour or two in the, morning, she might work for a few hours in the evening in a shop, although the period of employment might extend beyond the hour at which she would have to leave if employed in a factory; but under the clause as it now stands, if she had worked for two or three hours in the morning, although she did not, work at all in the middle of the day, she would have to leave off her work at the time she would have had to do if still working in the factory. That is the whole difference. I think, on the whole, the proposal of our Bill is the light one.

*MR. TENNANT

said he was very disappointed at the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought they had very good reason to complain of the course taken. The matter was thoroughly discussed in Committee, and the Amendment now embodied in the Bill was carried by twenty-one votes to eighteen.

*MR. RITCHIE

I was not at the Committee meeting when this decision was come to.

*MR. TENNANT

said it was a very unfortunate circumstance, and the Committee stage was a mere waste of time if everything adopted in Committee for the betterment of labour were to be overridden by the majority in that House. [Ministerial cries of "No."] That was what they were trying to do, but luckily the majority had hitherto been against such action. He resented very hotly the course the Home Secretary seemed inclined to take. If the law was amended as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire wished it, it would be impossible for the inspectors of factories to administer any law at all. He wanted these milliners and dressmakers all over London and Great Britain to be allowed to work at five or six o'clock in the morning and as late as eleven or twelve o'clock in the evening.

MR. RENSHAW

said the effect of his Amendment would be to limit the number of hours, but not to fix the period between which those hours might be worked.

*MR. TENNANT

contended that any proposal which had the effect of allowing a girl to work at five o'clock in the morning and eleven o'clock in the evening of the same day was one which Parliament ought not to sanction. Surely at a time when they were trying to make some forward step it was absolutely wrong for this House to pass such legislation.

MR. COHEN (Islington, E.)

said that this Amendment was moved in Committee in the absence of the Home Secretary, but the next time he attended the Committee after it had been adopted his right hon. friend stated that when the Bill came to this House he should feel it his duty to oppose the decision which the Committee had arrived at, and the right hon. Gentleman had then stated that the effect of this Amendment was to very seriously alter the terms of the Bill as it was originally introduced. The question they had to decide was what attitude they should take up with regard to this Amendment. He ventured to urge that this Amendment, which was opposed by those who posed as the friends of the working classes, was one passed in the truest interest of the workers, and was so regarded by the workpeople themselves. Over and over again many a youth and young woman had dated their preferment in their respective vocations from the fact that they had been able to occupy themselves in work in the evening different to that which they were engaged in during an earlier part of the day. These women were only too anxious to add to their earnings in the evening. He hoped the Amendment of his hon. friend the Member for Renfrewshire would be carried, for it would restore the Bill to the condition in which it was introduced in this House.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said he trusted the House would support the Bill as amended in Committee by a substantial majority. This was a very difficult matter to follow. Supposing the Factory Act allowed a young person or a young woman to be employed ten hours per day, from eight o'clock to six. If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was carried, if ten hours were exceeded the employer had to notify. If this Amendment was carried a girl could go to work at eight o'clock in the morning and work till twelve o'clock at noon for one employer, and she could work from four o'clock in the afternoon till ten o'clock in the evening for another employer, and yet would not exceed the ten hours allowed by the Factory Act. Did hon. Members wish to see that state of things? That meant that the girl had to get up at seven o'clock to start at eight o'clock, and work till twelve o'clock at noon, and then she had four hours doing nothing. She then started at four o'clock in the afternoon and worked till ten o'clock in the evening, and would probably take an hour to get home. That meant that she was away from home from seven o'clock in the morning until eleven o'clock at night. That was a condition of things which no just employer of labour would like to see, and it was not permitted even by the Shop Hours Act, and the Factory and Workshop Acts ought not to allow such a state of things. If they were going to insist that a girl should not work more than ten hours for two employers, look at the amount of inspection and spying that would be necessary to prevent this It was a condition of things that was preposterous and ridiculous, and it would make Factory Act administration a bye-word to subject these girls to such inspection. In cases where the girls had to go two or three miles to get to their homes, they would not be able to get back during the afternoon interval between their two employments, and they would probably hang about the streets three or four hours, probably to their physical and moral detriment, under conditions which they had no right to submit girls to. He appealed to the House to stand by the decision of the Committee.

SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL (Glasgow, College)

thought the right hon. Gentleman had not made out a very good case for restoring the Bill to its original condition. If the hours of labour were to be regulated at all it was reasonable that distinct limits should be imposed. The proposed alteration would have no practical effect, and he should support the Bill as it stood.

MR. BROADHURST (Leicester)

regretted the existence of a tendency to revise the findings of the Standing Committee. The Amendment was carried by a large majority after a full discussion of the subject. The Attorney General, who was then in charge, raised an objection to the Amendment, but, when it was carried against him, said, "Oh! never mind the work of this Committee; it is nothing; we will put the matter right when we get downstairs." That was not the sort of treatment Grand Committees expected. The Home Secretary had been incited to this unconstitutional proceeding by the extreme pressure of hon. Members behind him. Such action should not be supported, and he hoped the House would uphold the work of the Committee.

MR. TOMLINSON

said the clause as it left the Grand Committee was looked upon by a majority of the Members as being impracticable and unworkable.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said they had been given to understand that a man could not serve two masters, but the Amendment of the hon. Member seemed to suggest that a woman might be sweated by two mistresses. The mover of the Amendment contended that by some means—which had not been made plain—the person to be subjected to the legal penalty was made clear in his Amendment, whereas it was not clear in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean. It appeared to him, however, that from the legal point of view there was just as much difficulty in construing the Amendment now before the House. If a woman or young person was employed in a factory or shop, the whole time of employment must not exceed the number of hours permitted by the Act. But if, as a matter of fact, that number of hours was exceeded, who was to be punished?

*MR. RITCHIE

Surely the hon. Member must see that there is the greatest difference in the world between an offence being committed by one employer and it being divided between two employers.

MR. T. M. HEALY

My argument is that the offence is equally divided between two employers under the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite.

*MR. RITCHIE

No.

MR. T. M. HEALY

submitted that that was the case. If the period of employment permitted was ten hours, and a young person worked for five and a half hours for each of two employers, who was to be punished? Where was the certainty of procedure in the Amendment of the hon. Member?

MR. RENSHAW

said the words which limited the matter in the Amendment were in the first line—"If a woman or young person is employed by the occupier of a factory or workshop on the same day"—that was to say, by the same employer.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said it might be clear to the hon. Member, but, reading the words hurriedly, it did not appear to him that the magistrates would be relieved of the difficulty urged against the proposal of the right hon. Baronet. But it was a very small matter, and it was not worth the while of the Government to engage in this contention. Was it credible that, after employer No. 1 had wasted the energies of the young person in the heat of the day, employer No. 2 would take her fagged and worn out instrument and pay her wages for the evening? The thing was absurd.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

As the clause left the Committee there was protection given not only to the woman or young person who worked under one employer in two separate capacities, but to the woman or young person who worked under two separate employers in different capacities. Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to throw over the second class altogether, and to give no protection whatever to the woman or young person who serves two separate employers?

*MR. RITCHIE

I do not wish a young person to be unduly employed either by one employer or by two employers. My point is this in regard to the two employers: that it would be wholly impossible for the inspectors of the Home Office to see that the law was complied with. How on earth could an inspector, seeing a young person employed at a particular hour, know whether or not that person had been employed by somebody else earlier in the day? On the other hand, how is the shopkeeper who employs this young person in the evening to know whether or not she has been employed by another employer in the morning?

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

How does the Amendment help you?

*MR. RITCHIE

It is wholly a matter of machinery, and under the clause as it now stands it is wholly impracticable.

MR. HALDANE (Haddingtonshire)

asked whether the Home Secretary would object to the insertion, after "if a woman or young person is employed," of the words "by the same employer."

*MR. RITCHIE

I have stated before that I do not attach much importance to this matter, and I do not think that the question is a large one. I am not the mover of this Amendment, but as it has been moved I feel bound to support it.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 129; Noes, 162. (Division List No. 463.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Hammond, John	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Allen, Chas. P. (Glouc., Stroud	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)
Ambrose, Robert	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Malley, William
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-	O'Mara, James
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir A. D.	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Shee, James John
Bell, Richard	Helme, Norval Watson	Partington, Oswald
Boland, John	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Power, Patrick Joseph
Boyle, James	Holland, William Henry	Reddy, M.
Broadhurst, Henry	Horniman, Frederick John	Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)
Burns, John	Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Caldwell, James	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh'e	Rickett, J. Compton
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Joyce, Michael	Rigg, Richard
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Roche, John
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Leamy, Edmund	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cawley, Frederick	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Scott, Charles P. (Leigh)
Channing, Francis Allston	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Seely, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Charrington, Spencer	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Clancy, John Joseph	Lough, Thomas	Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire)
Cogan, Denis J.	Lundon, W.	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R (Northants)
Colville, John	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Strachey, Edward
Crean, Eugene	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sullivan, Donal
Crombie, John William	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Cullinan, J.	M'Fadden, Edward	Thomas, J A (Gl'morg'n, Gower)
Daly, James	M'Govern, T.	Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N
Delany, William	M'Kenna, Reginald	Thomson, F. W. (Yorks., W.R.
Dillon, John	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Donelan, Capt. A.	Mather, William	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Doogan, P. C.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Warner, Courtenay C. T.
Duffy, William J.	Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport)	White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Emmott, Alfred	Murnaghan, George	Whiteley, G. (Yorks., W. R.)
Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidst'ne	Murphy, John	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Field, William	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Williams, O. (Merioneth)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Wilson, F. W. (Norfolk, Mid)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipper'ry Mid	Wilson, H. J. (Yorks., W. R.)
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Gilhooly, James	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Gladstone, Rt Hn. Herbert John	O'Doherty, William	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Grant, Corrie	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)	Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Tennant.
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Dowd, John

NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Chamberlain, J Austen (Worc'r	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Chapman, Edward	Fisher, William Hayes
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond Univ
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick S. W.
Anstruther, H. T.	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gardner, Ernest
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.
Arrol, Sir William	Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready	Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Balcarres, Lord	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Gore, Hon S. F. Ormsby- (Line.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Cranborne, Viscount	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Crossley, Sir Savile	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Balfour, K. R. (Christchurch)	Davenport, William Bromley	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin	Dickson, Charles Scott	Groves, James Grimble
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hambro, Charles Eric
Bignold, Arthur	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Hamilton, Rt. Hn Lord G (Mid'x
Bigwood, James	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Hanbury, Rt Hon. Robert Wm.
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Duke, Henry Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Brassey, Albert	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Haslett, Sir James Horner
Bull, William James	Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart	Henderson, Alexander
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.	Higginbottom, S. W.
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J (Manch'r	Hogg, Lindsay
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Fielden, Edward Brocklehnrst	Hope, J F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Houldsworth, Sir Win. Henry	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles
Hoult, Joseph	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw J.
Howard, John (Kent, Favershm	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow.	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham)	Morris, Hon. Martin Henry F)	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Mount, William Arthur	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Johnston, William (Belfast)	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Smith, H C (North'mb Tyneside
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Nicholson, William Graham	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Keswick, William	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Spear, John Ward
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Law, Andrew Bonar	Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth)	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Pemberton, John S. G.	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ
Lawson, John Grant	Penn, John	Thornton, Percy M.
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard	Tollemache, Henry James
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)	Plummer, Walter R.	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Long, Rt. H. Walter (Bristol, S.	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Valentia, Viscount
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Pretyman, Ernest George	Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edw.	Walker, Col. William Hall
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Purvis, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Randles, John S.	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-u.-Lyne
Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Reid, James (Greenock)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Macdona, John Cumming	Rentoul, Junes Alexander	Wills, Sir Frederick
MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)
Maconochie, A. W.	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Round, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Majendie, James A. H.	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.
Milton, Viscount	Rutherford, John
Mitchell, William	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Sadler, Col. Samuel A.

Words inserted.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said the House ought to understand what it was doing in Clause 42. At present there was a complete exemption from, the Factory Acts of the assistants for gutting, salting, and packing fish, as regarded hours, and there was an exemption for four months in the year in regard to the fruit trade. He thought it was disgraceful on the part of the House of Commons to re-enact those exemptions, especially after the report which had been issued since the decision of the Committee. Without further discussing the question, he would move the omission of words to confine the exemption to full-grown women, and he confidently asked the House to reverse the decision of the Committee on this point.

Amendment proposed— In page 26, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words 'young persons and."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

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

MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

appealed to the Home Secretary to accept the Amendment, in favour of which there was a very strong case, especially in regard to young persons employed in the jam trade. In practically all well-conducted factories the excessive hours were not required, so that the provision would really only apply to inferior factories conditions which other factories applied to themselves.

*SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth)

on behalf of the fish trade, begged the Home Secretary not to accept the Amendment. The report to which the right hon. Baronet had referred might be the report of a very good inspector, but not of a practical person who knew anything about the matter. He strongly protested against the use of such words as "disgusted" in this connection, and he hoped the Home Secretary would not give way.

MR. BROADHURST

contended that the report to which reference had been made presented a strong case for the Amendment, and he hoped it would be accepted.

*MR. RITCHIE

It would hardly be imagined from the remarks which have been made that an alteration of the law in regard to the conditions under which this trade is carried on has been made by this clause, which, to a large extent remedies the state of things to which reference has been made. Under the law as it now stands, during certain periods of the year these operations are taken completely out of the scope of the Factories Acts, as regards both hours and sanitary conditions. It is because the conditions under which these people work are so insanitary at present that the remarks in the report of the inspector were made. We are now bringing these operations under the sanitary provisions of the Acts, so that the inspectors will be able to insist on all the operations in connection with both of these trades being carried on under proper sanitary conditions. It is quite true that as regards hours these trades are to a certain extent exempted from the Bill, but anybody who knows the conditions under which the fish have to be cured at once, in order to preserve a valuable article of food for the people, will recognise that it is imperative there should be no restriction of hours such as there would be if the operations were brought under the Factory Acts. By the alteration we propose to make, I think we shall remove all grounds of complaint.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should certainly support the Government.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I rise, not to enter into this discussion, but to take advantage of the question before the House to ask the Government how long they intend to go on to-night, and what their intentions are in regard to business. After this point which we are now discussing there are one or two other matters of secondary importance, and then we get to the question of overtime and of laundries, the latter being a very large and thorny subject. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will choose some favourable opportunity to state what he proposes shall be taken. The House might then take up the next Order, which is the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors to Children Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] His Majesty's Government have starred that measure, and it is somewhat in decent for hon. Gentlemen opposite to receive my suggestion in this manner. That is an arrangement which I think would lead to the proper procedure of our business, and I do not think there would be any disposition on the part of my hon. friends to prolong unnecessarily the discussion of this Bill or the other. There has been a little inducement for opposition by the measure of success which we have attained to-night, but even that will not turn the heads of my hon. friends if some arrangement, such as I have suggested, is made.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I think that in regard to the Bill we are now discussing the two main points are, firstly, the question of overtime; and, secondly, the question of the laundries. I think we ought to deal with overtime before we part with this Bill to-night, and I also agree that it would be unreasonable to deal with the question of laundries, which I propose to defer until to-morrow. As regards the Children's Bill, it will be almost too late to ask the House to take up that measure to-night. I do not, however, think that the delay will imperil the future progress of the measure.

*SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

When will it be proceeded with? [An HON. MEMBER: Not at all.]

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know which of my hon. friends used that expression, but I shall put the Bill down for to-morrow.

SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that as there was a division of opinion as to whether it would be wise to divide the House he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said he would move his Amendment to Clause 46 in order to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman his view as to what the effect of this clause would be.

Amendment proposed— In page 28, line 3, to leave out Clause 46."(Sir Charles Dilke.)

*MR. RITCHIE

There may arise certain cases in which possibly something of this kind might happen, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it can only be put in force by a special rule laid before Parliament.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RENSHAW

said that the Amendment he wished to move dealt with the overtime question. It was a very simple question, and for the purpose of making it clear he wished to point out that the omission of the word "two" and the insertion of "three" had reference to the number of days in one week in which they might work overtime in certain regulated trades scheduled in the Act of 1878. He thought that in the opinion of all those who had had representations made to them upon overtime the question of working a larger number of days in any particular week was more important than the total number of days which were permitted for overtime. The reason for that was because the overtime arrangement at present sanctioned was important, in consequence of the great pressure of orders at certain seasons of the year. That was pre-eminently so in certain trades.

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 14, to leave out the word 'two' and insert the word 'three.'"—(Mr. Renshaw.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Bill."

SIR HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

supported the Amendment. He said his colleague and himself had received a very large number of protests against the proposal of the Bill from the women workers in the silver-plating trade of Sheffield. They were trades which exactly corresponded to the description given by his hon. friend. They received a great pressure of orders about Christmas time, and there had been no demand whatever by the women workers in the silver-plating trade for this restriction upon their earning power. He knew that the Federated Trades Council of Sheffield had sent a petition in favour of the Bill as it stood, but they did not appear to have called any meeting of the workers, and he had received no letter from them on the subject. He desired most strongly to support the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. friend.

*MR. TENNANT

said this proposal was one which he was responsible for having carried in the Grand Committee on Trade. The House might like to hear a little story in connection with this matter. The hon. Member for the Hallam Division, in whose name the Amendment stood, wrote a letter to his Sheffield friends stating that there was no demand for this proposal, and that unless they received a demonstration of some kind they would know that there was no demand for it at all. The Trades Council passed a resolution declaring that overtime amongst the women in the silver-plating trade was unnecessary and was injurious to them physically and morally, and they further stated that to diminish the number of days would cause neither the employers nor the women workers any inconvenience. That council represented 20,000 members, which included every branch of the silver-plating trade. Anyone who had studied this question at all knew that for the last twenty years the inspectors had been clamouring, if not for total abolition, at least for a reduction of the number of hours which were possible for overtime. Everybody who knew anything about the subject must know that overtime was merely a question of arrangement. Many of the best manufacturers throughout the country had arrived at an arrangement by which they were able to do without overtime. The commercial supremacy of the country did not depend on working the amount of overtime represented by the difference between two or three days in the week, and he hoped the hon. Member would not succeed in obtaining a reversal of the decision of the Committee.

*MR. RITCHIE

I think it right to inform the House that since this Amendment was inserted in the Bill we have received at the Home Office very important representations in regard to this matter. We are told that in many places if the overtime is reduced from three to two days a week it will seriously interfere with business. The annual value of the Amendment carried in the Committee amounts to a reduction from thirty to twenty-five days, and if the representations which have come to me from different districts are to be relied on—as I believe they are—I do not think such a reduction is worth the inconvenience and loss which will be inflicted on the trades concerned.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

regretted the right hon. Gentleman had come to such a decision, which he was afraid would have an evil effect on the Bill, as they would now have to divide upon all the overtime clauses. If there was one subject with regard to which the working classes were more unanimous than another it was the abolition of overtime. ["No."] During the whole of the time trades union congresses had existed—["Oh!"] Did hon. Members really believe that the trades unions did not represent the working classes? ["Yes."] Then he pitied them, because there had not been a single question of this kind for years past upon which a general opinion had been expressed in regard to which the trades unionists had not been shown to have spoken virtually the unanimous opinion of the working classes. The trades unions throughout the country objected to overtime in toto. In the Committee the total abolition of overtime was defeated by only one vote, and the milder Amendment of the hon. Member for Berwickshire was carried by twenty-nine against thirteen. In every Factory Act up to the present the amount of overtime allowed had been reduced, but now it was proposed that on the present occasion it should not be touched. Every trade in the country had its "seasons," and almost every trade could manage to meet the extra demand at that time if it chose without overtime.

*COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, Ince)

thought the right hon. Baronet underrated the necessity for overtime, especially in the aerated water trade, in regard to which there was a very great over-demand in the summer and an under-demand in the winter. No doubt excessive overtime was a very bad thing, but it was necessary in some special trades, and the Home Secretary would make a great mistake if he paid too much attention to the desire for its abolition.

MR. HALDANE

thought this was a question on which the decision of the Grand Committee ought to carry much weight, as it was a matter of detail for experts. The Home Secretary was refusing to carry on the progressive curtailment of overtime, and permitting the decision of the Grand Committee to be overruled, simply because it was urged that two trades would materially suffer. Surely the aerated water and the biscuit trades were in no worse position than the average season trade? Both were articles which could to some extent be made in advance. ["No."] In any case, these detailed matters could be treated as special exceptions, so that the principle embodied in the clause would not be infringed. Rather than have these constant departures and yieldings, he for one would prefer to defer legislation in the direction of the amendment of the Factory Acts until Parliament was more in the mind to grapple with admitted evils.

MR. TAYLOR

said the House were really discussing two totally different questions—the increase of the days per week on which overtime could be worked, and the total number of days' overtime in the year. He suggested as a compromise that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire should be accepted if the Home Secretary would agree to keep the Bill as it came from the Grand Committee in regard to the total number of days overtime in the year.

MR. JOHN BURNS

wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman desired this Bill to have that easy and safe passage through the House which many of them were anxious to give it. If the Home Secretary was continually going to accept Amendments from the hon. Member for Renfrewshire the House had better know, and then the closure could be applied and the Bill got through just as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire desired to see it. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would disregard the advice of the hon. Member and conduct his Bill with the same spirit of reasonableness which he displayed in Grand Committee. It was not likely that much support would be given to the Bill if the concessions were to be all on one side, and he rose to protest against "three" being substituted for "two." He wished to say a few words upon the question of overtime. In regard to mineral waters, he wanted to see that industry grow, but when the pressure came upon the mineral water industry, instead of working the women overtime, a well-organised mineral water manufacturer frequently employed double shifts and left the women and young persons out altogether. He should say that the making and the wearing of cotton goods was as much a season trade as the manufacture and the drinking of mineral waters. For something like seventy years the Lancashire textile trades had been able to do without overtime, and no one could say that this had been a disadvantage. Even the Government factories had found it not only advantageous but profitable to dispense with overtime altogether except in case of a national emergency. What had given England in recent years her present grip on the world-wide market? It was due to the fact that they had systematised their production and made regular what in other countries was casual and precarious. Through the regular employment of capital and labour without overtime they had been able to supply the world's market more regularly than any other nation. With regard to the manufacture of jam and biscuits and the preservation of fish and meat, the same conditions did not apply as applied ten or fifteen years ago. The introduction of the refrigerator had destroyed the necessity for overtime in those trades, and he did appeal to the Home Secretary not to allow the hon. Member for Renfrewshire to destroy the Bill and take the guts out of it. If this whittling down process went on the Bill would be useless. He was convinced that the nation which worked the most overtime was the nation which had most to fear in the world's competition. If they removed overtime altogether they cheapened the cost of production and improved the health of their workmen. During the last few years in the engineering trade the efforts of employers had systematically tended to reduce overtime, and in that trade they had now a normal nine-hour day and in some cases eight and a half hours, and it was gradually coming down to eight hours. By abolishing overtime in the engineering trade they had lengthened the average life of the operative engineer from the age of forty-two years to fifty-four, and that had been accomplished in less than forty years. To add ten or twelve years to the working life of an engineer was a great thing to have done by the abolition of overtime. If this could be done with engineers, why not with unskilled workmen and, above all, in the case of unorganised women and children and young persons? He appealed to the Home Secretary not to adopt the policy put forward by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire.

MR. RENSHAW

said his Amendment did not apply to young persons or children, and it only applied to women.

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought the right hon. Gentleman should have further time to consider what Amendments he would move in Committee, for there were very few Amendments indeed in the name of the Home Secretary.

MR. BELL (Derby)

protested against this Amendment, and said that for a great number of years he had advocated the abolition of all overtime. Probably because the hon. Member for Renfrewshire was interested in a trade in which the people worked longer hours he would like to see the hours increased in other trades. He accepted the Amendments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire with a great deal of suspicion, and he had noticed that the hon. Member on the debates upon various measures generally had the greatest number of Amendments on the Paper. As a representative of the trades unionists of the country, he protested against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member to increase the overtime.

MR. EMMOTT (Oldham)

was bitterly disappointed at the action of the Home Secretary on this question of overtime. The alteration was carried in the Grant Committee by twenty-two against thirteen, and six of the twenty-two were Unionists. After such a decisive division it was rather hard that the House should be called upon to reverse that decision.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 138. (Division List No. 464.)

AYES.
Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Allen, Charles P (Glouc., Stroud	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Ambrose, Robert	Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-	O'Malley, William
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	O'Mara, James
Harry, E. (Cork, S.	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Shee, James John
Boland, John	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.
Boyle, James	Holland, William Henry	Power, Patrick Joseph
Broadhurst, Henry	Horniman, Frederick John	Reddy, M.
Caldwell, James	Jones, David B. (Swansea)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Redmond, William (Clare)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Joyce, Michael	Rigg, Richard
Channing, Francis Allston	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Clancy, John Joseph	Leamy, Edmund	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cogan, Denis J.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crean, Eugene	Lundon, W.	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Crossley, Sir Savile	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Spencer, Rt Hn C R. (Northants)
Cullinan, J.	MacNeill, John Cordon Swift	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Daly, James	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall	Sullivan, Donal
Delany, William	M'Fadden, Edward
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Govern, T.	Talbot, Rt. Hn J. G. (Oxf'd Univ
Dillon, John	M'Kenna, Reginald	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Donelan, Captain A.	Mansfield, Horace Rendall	Tennant, Harold John
Doogan, P. C.	Mather, William	Thomas, J A Glamorgan, Gower
Duffy, William J.	Morton, Edw. J.C. (Devonport	Thompson, Dr E. C. (Monag'n N.
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Thomson, F. W. (Yorks. W. R.)
Emmott, Alfred	Murnaghan, George	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Field, William	Murphy, John
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Nannetti, Joseph P.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	White, Luke (Yorks., E. R.)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	White, Patrick (Meath, North
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Md	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Gilhooly, James	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Grant, Corrie	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfold, Mid
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Doherty, William	Wilson, Henry J. (Yorks. W. R.)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Hammond, John	O'Dowd, John	Mr. John Burns and Mr. Bell.
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F.	Charrington, Spencer	Godson Sir Augustus Fredk.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)
Anstruther, H. T.	Colomb Sir John Charles Ready	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Arrol, Sir William	Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge	Groves, James Grimble
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Cranborne, Viscount	Hambro, Charles Eric
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r	Davenport, W. Bromley-	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Mid'x
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Dickson, Charles Scott	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robert Wm.
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Hardy. Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Dorington, Sir John Edward	Harris, Frederick Leverton
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Higginbottom, S. W.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside
Bigwood, Arthur	Duke, Henry Edward	Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	Hoult, Joseph
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Howard, John (Kent Faversh.
Bull, William James	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Hozier, H on. James Henry Cecil
Cavendish, V C W (Derbyshire)	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	Hudson, George Bickersteth
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Fisher, William Hayes	Johnston, William (Belfast)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S W	Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.	Gardner, Ernest	Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.
Law, Andrew Bonar	Morris, Hn. Martin Henry F.	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Lawson, John Grant	Mount, William Arthur	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Legge, Col. Hn. Heneage	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Leveson-Gower, Fredck. N. S.	Nicholson, William Graham	Smith, H C (North'mb. Tyneside
Loder, Gerald W. Erskine	Nicol, Donald Ninian	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Spear, John Ward
Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Pemberton, John S. G.	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft	Penn, John	Thornton, Percy M.
Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richd.	Tollemache, Henry James
Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Macdona, John Cumming	Plummer, Walter R.	Valentia, Viscount
MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Pretyman, Ernest George	Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield
Maconochie, A. W.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Walker, Col. William Hall
M'Arthur, Chas. (Liverpool)	Purvis, Robert	Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. H.
M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.	Randles, John S.	Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne
M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Reid, James (Greenock)	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Majendie, James A. H.	Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge	Wills, Sir Frederick
Milton, Viscount	Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. Thomson	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath
Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Moore, William (Antrim, N.)	Round, James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
More, Robt. Jas. (Shropshire)	Royds, Clement Molyneux	Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.
Morgan, David J. (Walthamst.)	Rutherford, John

Question put, "That the word 'three' I be there inserted."

The House divided:—Ayes, 138; Noes, 108. (Division List No. 465.)

AYES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F	Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Gordon, Hn. J E. (Elgin & Nairn	Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.	More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Gore, Hn. S.F. Ormsby-(Line.)	Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)
Anstruther, H. T.	Goulding, Edward Alfred	Morris Hon. Martin Henry F.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)	Morton, Arthur H A. (Deptford)
Arrol, Sir William	Groves, James Grimble	Mount, William Arthur
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Hambro, Charles Eric	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Balfour, Rt Hon. A. J. (Manch.)	Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Lord G. (Mid	Nicol, Donald Ninian
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Robt. W.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd	Parkes, Ebenezer
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.	Harris, Frederick Leverton	Peel, Hn Wm Robert Wellesley
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin	Haslett, Sir James Horner	Pemberton, John S. G.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Higginbottom, S. W.	Penn, John
Bignold, Arthur	Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Br'ghtsde	Pilkington, Lieut.-Col Richard
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Houlds Worth, Sir Win. Henry	Platt-Higgins, Frederick
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Hoult, Joseph	Plummer, Walter R.
Bull, William James	Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham	Pretyman, Ernest George
Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)	Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Hudson, George Bickersteth	Purvis, Robert
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.	Johnston, William (Belfast)	Randles, John S.
Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc r	Kenyon. Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Reid, James (Greenock)
Charrington, Spencer	Lambton, Hon. Frederick W.	Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge
Clare, Octavius Leigh	Law, Andrew Bonar	Ritchie, Rt. Hon Chas Thomson
Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Lawson, John Grant	Round, James
Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready	Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole	Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.	Rutherford, John
Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Cranborne, Viscount	Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)	Sadler, Col. Sameul Alexander
Crossley, Sir Savile	Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Davenport, W. Bromley-	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)
Dickson, Charles Scott	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Smith, H C (North'mb. T'neside
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth	Spear, John Ward
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. E.	Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk
Duke, Henry Edward	Macdona, John Cumming	Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward	Maconochie, A. W.	Thornton, Percy M.
Fielden, Edward Brockleburst	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Tollemache, Henry James
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne	M'Calmont, Col. J. (Antrim, E.	Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray
Fisher, William Hayes	M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire	Valentia, Viscount
Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW.	Majendie, James A. H.	Vincent. Col-Sir CEH (Sheffield
Gardner, Ernest	Milton, Viscount	Walker, Col. William Hall
Walrond. Rt. Hn. Sir William H	Wills, Sir Frederick	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Whiteley, H. (Asliton-u.-Lyne)	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath	Mr. Renshaw and Mr. Banbury.
Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.	Hammond, John	O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Allen, Charles P. (Glouc. Stroud	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	O'Dowd, John
Ambrose, Robert	Hayden, John Patrick	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	O'Malley, William
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)	Healy, Timothy Michael	O'Mara, James
Boland, John	Helme, Norval Watson	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Boyle, James	Holland, William Henry	O'Shee, James John
Broadhurst, Henry	Horniman, Frederick John	Power, Patrick Joseph
Caldwell, James	Jones, David Brynmor (Swans'a	Reddy, M.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)	Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton	Joyce. Michael	Redmond, William (Clare)
Channing, Francis Allston	Layland-Barratt, Francis	Rigg, Richard
Clancy, John Joseph	Leamy, Edmund	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)
Cogan, Denis J.	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Leigh, Sir Joseph	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Crean, Eugene	Lundon, W.	Sinclair, Capt. John (Forfarsh.)
Cullinan, J.	MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.	Spencer, Rt Hn C. R. (Northants
Daly, James	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift	Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Delany, William	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)	Sullivan, Donal
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	M'Fadden, Edward	Taylor, Theodore Cooke
Dillon, John	M'Govern, T.	Tennant, Harold John
Donelan, Captain A.	M'Kenna, Reginald	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gow'r
Doogan, P. C.	Mansfield, Horace Kendall	Thompson, Dr E C (Monagh'n, N
Duffy, William J.	Morton, Edw. J. C. (Devonport)	Thomson, F. W. (York. W.R.)
Elibank, Master of	Moss, Samuel	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Emmott, Alfred	Murnaghan, George	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Field, William	Murphy, John	White, Luke (York. E. R.)
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Nannetti, Joseph P.	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Flavin, Michael Joseph	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Flynn, James Christopher	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'rary Mid	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Gilhooly, James	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid
Grant, Corrie	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary N.)	Wilson, Henry J. (York. W. R.)
Griffith, Ellis J.	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	O'Doherty, William	Mr. John Burns and Mr. Bell.
Haldane, Richard Burdon	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

Amendment proposed— In page 29, line 16, to leave out the word 'twenty five,' and insert the word 'thirty.'"—(Mr Renshaw.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'twenty-five' stand part of the clause."

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said this was a case of the reversal of the opinion of the Committee upon a point of great importance, and he did not think the opposition ought to give way upon it, because the Government had not tried to meet them.

*MR. RITCHIE

I wish to remind the right hon. Baronet that these matters formed no part of the original Bill, and they wore never contemplated by me in preparing this Bill. I admit that there were a vast number of questions which required reforming in the factory laws, and which have received my attention. I do not think that the right hon. Baronet is justified in saying that the Government have not tried to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will, however, make a further proposal. I propose to ask my hon. friend not to move his Amendment in the case of perishable articles, because, as a matter of fact, overtime in these trades is very rare, and I propose to allow this provision to stand as it is.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said the right hon. Gentleman's statement showed how desirable it was that the Government should propound their own Amendments. The Home Secretary gave away his case when he said that the Government did not contemplate these matters in draw- ing up the Bill as it now stood. Therefore it was the duty of the Government to put down their own Amendments. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, without a word of explanation, moved this Amendment in the style of an Attorney General. At this hour of the morning that was not the usual way to deal with a question of this kind. He suggested to the Government that they should now postpone this clause and proceed with some less contentious business.

*MR. RITCHIE

We cannot postpone this clause.

MR. T. M. HEALY

thought they should insist upon the Government putting down their own Amendment, because they had been Renshawed enough for one night.

MR. JOHN BURNS

suggested that the right hon. Baronet should accept the offer of the Home Secretary and agree to the two Amendments of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire on condition that they had no more from the hon. Member. If that was the view of the Home Secretary, there was no reason why the House should not reach Clause 80 before they adjourned, provided the hon. Member for Renfrewshire would pair with him and they both went home.

*SIR CHARLES DILKE

said that, as far as be was concerned, he thought they ought to accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman, because, although it reversed the decision of the Committee on one point, it still showed that the tendency of the House was to reduce the number of hours.

MR. RENSHAW

said he was willing to withdraw the other Amendments, but he wished it to be clearly understood that, in placing his Amendments on the Paper, he had had no consultation with the Government whatever.

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

*MR. RITCHIE

The object of the next Amendments standing on the Paper in my name is to make it clear that all underground bakehouses which are in existence at the time of the passing of the Bill may obtain a certificate of sanitary fitness if they can show themselves to be fit. Of course, after the date no new underground bakehouse will be allowed at all.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 101, page 54, line 19, to leave out 'A place underground,' and insert 'An underground bakehouse.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 101, page 54, line 20, to leave out 'on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six,' and insert' at the passing of this Act.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MR. T. M. HEALY

suggested that the Amendment, instead of reading "after the passing of this Act," should set forth some definite date in 1901 or 1902.

*MR. RITCHIE

said that he had adopted the ordinary phraseology, and would prefer to adhere to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 101, page 54, line 22, at beginning, to insert 'Subject to the foregoing provision.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)

MR. TENNANT

inquired the object of the Amendment.

*MR. RITCHIE

I have already stated the object of all three Amendments. The House will remember that I undertook when the clause was under consideration in the Grand Committee to make it perfectly clear that no underground bakehouse could be built after the passing of the Act, and the Amendments are simply to carry out that undertaking.

MR. JOHN BURNS

asked whether the Amendments would impair what the Government had originally put in the Bill.

*MR. RITCHIE

Certainly not. It strengthens it very materially.

Amendment agreed to.

*MR. THORNTON (Battersea, Clapham)

explained that the Amendments he had placed on the Paper would, if carried, allow the machinery and engines connected with steam bakeries to remain in their present position. Moreover, these Amendments would permit rooms below the surface being utilised for the purpose of storing eggs and milk, which are necessary adjuncts to baking and need a cool temperature for preservation. As for the engines which drive the steam bakeries, they would have to be removed in a vast majority of cases unless these Amendments were accepted. He had been asked to bring the matter up by the master bakers of London, and therefore he hoped the Mouse would accept this and the next Amendment.

Amendment proposed— In clause 101, page 54, line 26, after the word 'any' to insert the word 'baking.'"(Mr. Thornton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'baking' be there inserted."

*MR. RITCHIE

The object of the Amendment, which I think is a perfectly right one, is to make it clear that the term "baking room" includes any room in which any process incidental to baking is carried on—that is to say, there can be no underground apartment connected with baking, but there may be an engine room.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said that was not what the hon. Member for Clapham wished. What he wanted was that eggs and other things necessary for the making of bread and confectionery should be allowed to be stored underground. It did seem to him (Mr. Burns) that if an underground bakehouse was not to be allowed, then surely the reason which had induced the Government to take that step applied also to the storage of milk and eggs in underground apartments. He advised the Home Secretary not to allow food to be stored in places in which he would not allow bread to be baked.

*MR. RITCHIE

No one can be keener in this matter of bakehouses than I am; but surely the hon. Gentleman is going a little too far when he says that eggs or milk cannot be safely stored in an underground apartment. I should have thought that both eggs and milk were better if kept underground.

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

MR. COHEN

moved the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Hackney, providing that where the occupier applied to a court of summary jurisdiction, under the Act, for an order concerning the expense, or apportionment of the expense, of so altering premises as to enable them to obtain a certificate of fitness, the court may either make such order. "or in the alternative may, at the request of the occupier, determine the lease." He explained that he bad himself placed an Amendment on the Paper, but that of his hon. and learned friend better carried out the object which he had in view.

Amendment proposed— In Clause 101, page 55, line 13, at end to insert 'or in the alternative the court may, at the request of the occupier, determine the lease.'"—(Mr. Cohen.)

Amendment agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

Further Proceedings on Consideration, as amended (by the Standing Committee), deferred till to-morrow.

c566
1. LIGHT RAILWAYS [SALARY]. 54 words
c566
2. EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL. 9 words