(No. 147.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 18 July 1867)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the subject had already undergone considerable discussion, but some persons thought it advisable that a Commission should make further inquiry into the state of the labourers in agricultural districts before any legislation on the subject took place. He, however, in common with many others, thought the subject was sufficiently ripe for legislation, more especially that part of it which related to the working of females in gangs. Entertaining that view, he had brought forward the present Bill, the provisions of which were very simple A great desire existed throughout the country that the principles of the Factory Acts should be applied to the agricultural districts—of course with such modifications as were demanded by the differing circumstances of the case. This, however, on consideration appeared to be quite impossible, the condition of society in the two cases being utterly different. There were however certain principles from which they need not depart, and which were equally applicable to 1662 both classes—such, for instance, as that with respect to the limitation of age. Under the Factory Acts no child under eight years of age was allowed to work at all, and no child under thirteen should work longer than a certain time. This Bill accordingly provided that no boy under the age of eight years, and that no girl under the age of thirteen years, should be employed in agricultural labour for hire. It also provided that no girl under the ago of eighteen years should be employed at all in a public gang. The next provision of the Bill related to the subject of education. The subject was, no doubt, one of great difficulty on account of the difference in the nature of the employment of agricultural children, Any attempt to apply to agricultural districts the half-day system, or the alternative day system, was found to be impossible, on account of the children working either singly, or in parties of only two or three, at a great distance from their homes, and because of the inconvenience which would result from the constant interruption of the work. Therefore he had adopted in the Bill the time system which was found to work tolerably well as established by the Print Works Act, which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had introduced some years ago, and which provided that the children should have in the course of the year so many hours for education. Dividing the year into two periods, he proposed that in the half year ending 31st March, 400 hours should be devoted to education, and 200 hours in the other half; the difference being drawn because in agricultural labour the greatest amount of leisure time was during winter and the long nights. He knew that, there was great difficulty in giving practical effect to this arrangement, as localities differed very much, not only in reference to the number of schools, but in the number of children, and, therefore, he left it to the magistrates at Quarter Sessions to make such regulations on this point as they might deem necessary, taking into account the circumstances of the various districts. The question of mortality among young persons, whether employed in manufactures or in agricultural labour, was one of great importance. On looking over the rates of mortality, he found that they exhibited the complete unfitness of the female constitution to be exposed to the vicissitudes of weather as well as to hard labour. He found in all agricultural 1663 districts—in Surrey, Kent (both extra-metropolitan), Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Huntingdonshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, and Dorsetshire—that the mortality of the girls at ten years of age and under fifteen years was greater than that of boys of the same age; while in the manufacturing districts of Cheshire, Lancashire, and the three Ridings of Yorkshire the mortality of the girls working in those districts under cover, and enjoying the warmth necessary for their constitution, was less than that of the boys at the same ages. With the view of ascertaining whether the result obtained from those mortality tables coincided with the judgment of medical men, he submitted to two very eminent physicians, specially experienced in diseases incident to the female sex, the following questions: 1. Are girls of the age of thirteen, and a year or two afterwards, in a peculiarly delicate condition as regards their health? 2. Are girls in those early ages less able than boys to bear hard field work? The answer from one, and confirmed by the other, was as follows:— I can answer both your questions in the affirmative. Thirteen, however, is earlier than the average age of female puberty, which in this country is fifteen and-a-half years. The only inference from this, however, would be that an age somewhat more advanced than thirteen requires even greater care. As to the generally less ability of girls and women than boys and men to bear rough out-of-door work in all weather, there can be no doubt whatever; and it may be stated absolutely, and without any qualification. This was the reason why he was anxious to exclude girls under thirteen years of age from the liability to work in agricultural labour for hire. But apart from the inferior strength of girls to bear out door labour and exposure, there were other reasons. Nothing tended so much to lower their character, and to prevent them from making in after life good wives, than their being taken away from their homes at an early age, and being brought up in ignorance of all domestic duties. The result of such a system was that the homes of the peasantry were rendered most uncomfortable and unhealthy, and the men were in consequence, likely to be driven to the public house. He knew that education in many parts of the agricultural districts was really given to a greater extent than many people supposed; but the difficulty 1664 was for the people to retain that education in after life. People sometimes talked of the agricultural labourers as if they were the greatest boors on the face of the earth. The agricultural labourer was called upon to do a kind of work, which was not only for his own benefit, but for that of the country at large. Let those who spoke so depreciatingly of the agricultural labourer, in comparison with the skilled artizan, go down and see him engaged in digging a trench and observe what skill he displayed; or in following the plough, and observe the intelligence, steadiness, calculation, and judgment with which he performed his work, and then say whether such a man did not fully deserve to be called a skilled labourer? He thought that every exertion ought to be made to give as much education as possible, especially when young, to those who were to be engaged in agricultural work. Evening schools were, doubtless, of very great use, where they could be rendered available, but the great distances which had to be traversed among a scattered population did much to detract from their usefulness. Again, he wished their Lordships to approve the principle of the Bill by giving it a second reading; and he trusted that earnest and persevering efforts would be made to give the children of agricultural classes such an education as would enable them to perform satisfactorily their duties in life, both as members of the community and as Christians.

THE EARL OF STRADBROKE
said, that a statement, which he had read with great surprise, had been put forth that the gang system prevailed in the eastern districts of Suffolk. The gang system, he believed, existed in a small district between Bury and Cambridgeshire, but it did not prevail in the county at large. He certainly never could sanction the system; and he believed the country would be fully prepared to carry out the noble Earl's Bill.

§ LORD LYVEDEN
, whilst admitting the soundness of the principle of the Bill, thought its details very ill-considered. He thought that the provision that no girl under thirteen should be employed in agriculture was too stringent, for if they were not employed in the open air they would be confined in small and ill-ventilated cottages. It was quite right to provide 1665 against boys of a tender age being overworked; but he thought that with the present deficiency of agricultural labourers they could not provide that boys should not be employed, unless educated, until they were thirteen. Again, to provide that boys should only be employed in the case of their being educated in accordance with bye-laws made by the justices, would be creating a new authority in interference with labour, and a great difficulty even in the way of education. They could not do this without compulsory education, or without parents being induced to send their children to schools of which they disapproved for the sake of procuring them employment. Then, who was to pay for their education? If there were no means for educating them, it would be utterly monstrous to say that they should not be employed under the age of thirteen. He hoped this part of the Bill would be more carefully attended to before it was allowed to go through the House. He agreed with the noble Earl as to the impropriety and immorality of gangs; but their Lordships should not be called upon to acknowledge a principle without knowing how it was to be carried out.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he could not agree that the Bill was an ill-considered one. The principle of the Bill, so far as the educational clauses were concerned, had been already adopted in the Factory Act; and the arguments which had been urged, happily without success, against those Acts, were the same as were now urged against this. The alleged hardship of compelling the attendance of children at school did not prevail in that instance, nor had the result of that legislation been unfavourable. The system applicable to factory labour could also be applied to work in the fields; and he thought the time had arrived when they might fairly consider whether the same principle should not be carried further. Probably the best mode in which this could be done would be by the adoption of the conditions now applicable to print works. No doubt, there were difficulties connected with the question. It would be clearly unjust to require that a child should have attended school as a condition of employment if there was no school within a moderate and convenient distance of his home; or where the only day school in the neighbourhood was one where the parents of the child could not conscien- 1666 tiously approve the religious instruction given in it. As to labouring in gangs, he thought the interference of Parliament was imperatively required, if his noble Friend who spoke last would read the Report carefully, he would find evidence to convince him that the proposed restriction on the employment of young women in agriculture would be most proper and beneficial, and that in many parts of the country a great desire was expressed that girls should not be so employed. It was most objectionable that girls should be employed in the field when they ought to be at school, or should be employed in labour which must degrade and brutalize them. The case was very different with regard to boys intended for agricultural labourers. They should begin early at the age of eight or nine, and thus become hardy and accustomed to the work. He had a strong opinion that it was a matter of urgent necessity to extend school instruction to all classes of the community. He should not allude to the question which would shortly come before that House further than to say that it had now become urgently important that the masses of the population should not be left without the means of attaining, at all events, elementary education. This question of educating the agricultural classes did not concern those classes alone, but affected the towns whose population was recruited from those classes. Under these circumstances, in order to render the lower classes as soon as possible fit for the exercise of the privileges about to be conferred upon them he hoped that immediate legislation would take place upon the subject. The evidence that had been taken by the Children's Commission revealed such facts as might well make any Englishman ashamed; and therefore, in order to mitigate the evils arising out of the gang system, he trusted that mixed gangs would be prohibited, that gang-masters would be licensed, and that means would be taken to prevent the employment of very young children. If these suggestions were adopted, the first step would have been taken towards a great and permanent improvement of the condition of the agricultural population of this country.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that, as no Member of Her Majesty's Government had deemed it necessary to express any opinion on the subject, he might be permitted to remind their Lordships of the inestimable benefit the system of 1667 coupling learning with labour had conferred upon the country during the lost thirty years. He trusted that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.