Lords Sitting of 26 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Factories (Steam Whistles)* (252); General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Supplemental* (253); Law Officers (England) Fees* (254).
Second Reading—Adulteration of Food, Drugs, &c.* (243); Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint)* (247); Wild Birds Protection (248); Bastardy Law Amendment* (244); Judges' Salaries* (242.)
Committee—Mines (Coal) Regulation (224–255); Metalliferous Mines Regulation* (229–256).
Committee—Report—Masters and Workmen (Arbitration)* (234); Galashiels Jurisdiction Act Amendment* (226); Elementary Education (Elections) (No. 2)* (240).
Report—Inclosure Law Amendment (238), negatived; Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (212); Grand Juries, Middlesex* (235).
Third Reading—Grand Juries (Ireland)* (225), and passed.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS COMMISSIONERS— SCHEME FOR HUGHES' CHARITY, BEAUMARIS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE BISHOP OF BANGOR, having presented Petitions from the Feoffes and from Conference at Bangor against the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the better management of the Charity of David Hughes, founded in 1609 at Beaumaris, in the county of Anglesey, moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty to refuse Her assent to the scheme. The right rev. Prelate complained that whereas by the will of the founder the Bishop of the diocese for the time being was necessarily a trustee, the Endowed Schools Commissioners had omitted his name from amongst the ex-officio members. The Commissioners justified their action by the 17th section of the Act, which, however, merely provided that no person should be disqualified from being a member of a Governing Body on the ground of his religious faith; and he confessed he could not see how that could be construed to mean that the Bishop of the diocese on the instance of the parishioners was unfitted for the office. Another objection was to the removal of the school from Beaumaris; and a third was as to the sale of lands or portion of the endowment.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the better management of the Charity of David Hughes, founded A.D. 1609, at Beaumaris in the county of Anglesey.—(The Lord Bishop of Bangor.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that the Endowed Schools Commissioners were in no way to blame for leaving out the Bishop from among the ex-officio Governors. A doubt having arisen as to the meaning of the 17th and 19th clauses of the Act under which the Commis-
  1858
  sioners framed their scheme, the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was taken on the point last year, and they gave an opinion that it was not competent to the Commissioners to appoint an ecclesiastical corporation to be a trnstee. On that ground, and that ground alone, the name of the Bishop had been left out by the Commissioners, and he thought it furnished an ample justification for their conduct. As to the general question, he believed the right rev. Prelate admitted that the school had not been working satisfactorily; and it was on the invitation of a great many persons in the county of Anglesey that the Endowed Schools Commissioners had been induced to go out of their way to take up the foundation. The removal from Beaumaris, to which the right rev. Prelate had objected, had been decided on because there was a great preponderance of evidence in favour of the desirability on account of convenience to the inhabitants of the Isle of Anglesey, of having it in a more central part of the island than the town of Beaumaris; while, with regard to the last objection, what had been proposed was solely with a view to promote and extend the usefulness of the school as much as possible. He hoped their Lordships would not accede to the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, on the contrary, trusted the House would agree to the Motion, and would thus exercise that influence which the Act vested in it of stopping, if it thought fit, any of the schemes of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. He thought that the two Houses of Parliament ought to be satisfied with being the guardians of the spirit of the Act, leaving the guardianship of its letter to the Courts of Law. Judged by that rule, the scheme now under discussion was undoubtedly opposed to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Act, as it was understood in both Houses at the time of its passing. Now, it was well known that a great many founders in former times, anxious to leave their property for the promotion of religious education, indicated that desire, in the clearest possible manner, by appointing, as ex-officio trustees, various spiritual corporations, such as rectors, vicars, and Bishops. Well, when the Act passed, it was supposed that it would give effect in a broad manner to the wishes generally of the

  1859
  founders of the schools that might be dealt with; but it was never imagined that it would be made the instrument of a system of Dissenting raids upon the Church of England endowments. In an evil hour, however, the point now raised by this scheme was referred to the Law Officers of the Crown; and they, moved by one of those strange caprices that sometimes overtook the clearest intellects, determined that the clause which declared that you should not establish a test of religious opinion for trustees, excluded Bishops and vicars from being ex-officio trustees altogether. Such was certainly not the intention of either House when the Act passed; and however much it might be its letter, he felt certain it was not its spirit. The clause was only intended to exclude tests as directly applied; but it was not intended to make the Commissioners assume that because a man held a particular office he must hold particular opinions. In the present case the intention of the founder of the school was clear. He directed that the Bishop of the diocese should not only be a permanent trustee, but also gave him two votes in the election of the schoolmaster; yet the Bishop was now to be excluded altogether from the trust. The question raised by this scheme was not merely one turning on a point of law, nor was it only a dispute between the Church of England and Dissenters. The fact was, that the latter, in order to carry out their views, were obliged to fight in the uniform and under the banner of the friends of secular education, and if their Lordships approved of the course taken in this matter by the Commissioners at the instance of the Dissenters, the result would be this—not that ex-officio Dissenting trustees would take the place of ex-officio Church of England trustees, but that trustees would have to be appointed who had no connection with any spiritual office or body whatever. That appeared to him a retrograde system. He regretted that the time was passed when this point could have been made the subject of judicial interpretation.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, that this Session the Endowed Schools Commissioners had to acknowledge great forbearance—perhaps he should rather say neglect—on the part of Parliament. Only once—in the case of the Grammar School at Ripon—had there been an
  1860
  attempt to ask the opinion of the other House on their proceedings, and the present was the first occasion on which those proceedings had been in any way brought under the notice of their Lordships. However, the proverb—"It never rains but it pours," was likely to hold good in this instance, because there were no fewer than three cases in which objection was to be made this evening to schemes formed by the Commissioners. He could not say that out-of-doors matters had been quite equally smooth for him and his Colleagues. He had been called "a pedantic nobleman" one time, and "an amiable nobleman" another time; he hardly knew which was the worst. He had been compared to Mr. Ayrton, one of the Assistant Commissioners, and to Judas Iscariot. But still he believed that, especially since the issue of their Report—a Report which had been generally received in a tone of compassionate contempt—the result of their labours had been to give such an impetus to secular education in the direction of the principles of the Schools Inquiry Report, that if, to the general satisfaction of mankind, they were themselves to be swept from the earth to-morrow, what they had done would have produced lasting and substantial effects; and, in that case, all the invective and all the compassion might go to their own place. In the Beaumaris case the Commissioners were accused of something like sharp practice in having so timed the day of laying the scheme before Parliament that there was barely time for its consideration. With this, however, they had nothing whatever to do; it was wholly in the hands of the Education Department. That Department was well able to defend itself. He would only say that if they did mean sharp practice they chose an odd way of doing it, for the schemes were before Parliament on July 4, when it was quite doubtful if they would not have to stand over till next Session. As to the complaint about the removal of the school from Beaumaris, that step had not been decided on by the Commissioners without a full consideration of all the circumstances, and the most ample local inquiry. The people of Beaumaris no doubt objected, as everyone always did, to the withdrawal of any portion of the endowments which it possessed; but it was assuredly the duty of the Commis-

  1861
  sioners to take a broader view, including the whole of the district around, and in that view they were satisfied; and he asserted, without troubling the House with details—which, however, he was able to do if required—that the course actually proposed was the best even for Beaumaris itself, the county of Anglesey generally, and the adjacent parts of Wales. As to the legal point, he admitted—and it was only what they had said in their Report—that they did not agree in the opinion of the Law Officers. In fact, his former colleague, Mr. Hob-house, a most enlightened and liberal man, and anything but a Church partizan, looking at the matter as a highly-competent lawyer, said it never occurred to him to consider that, under Clause 17, they were debarred from appointing whoever they pleased as an ex-officio Governor. The marginal heading in the Act was of course no authority, but he quoted it as indicating what seemed the reasonable view—that if a man's social and official position indicated him—as was constantly the case, for instance, with respect to the incumbent of the parish—as a proper ex-officio Governor, his religious opinions should not disqualify him. He much wished that this point might be brought to judicial decision, about which he could not suppose there could be any serious difficulty. At present the Commissioners thought themselves bound to construe the 17th and 19th sections strictly; if they were wrong, they desired to be so informed by superior and competent authority. But he did hope that the House would not on this single and separate point, which might be afterwards dealt with, reject schemes which—especially the Felstead scheme—he believed would be very acceptable in the districts concerned.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he also hoped their Lordships would not adopt a course which would be in the highest degree inexpedient—namely, that of rejecting several schemes proposed by the Endowed Schools Commissioners upon a point of law arising in the construction of an Act of Parliament, when the House had no power, by mere Resolution, to determine what was the proper construction of the Act. The proper course was to put the point at issue—the appointment of spiritual persons as ex-officio Governors—in train for legal decision, He was not going to ex-
  1862
  press an opinion upon the construction of these two clauses, a point which might be argued by way of appeal before the Privy Council. The case was not clear. It was obvious that the marginal note had operated upon the mind of the right rev. Prelate; but it must be dismissed from consideration, because no Court of Law could take cognizance of a marginal note. The 19th clause simply provided for Church schemes and schemes for other religious denominations, and provided in the interest of religious instruction certain exemptions from the 17th clause, and the 17th section simply meant that, having regard to denominational schools, care should be taken that the religious opinions of a person appointed trustee should in no way affect his qualification. But when they said that a clergyman of the Established Church, a Roman Catholic priest, or a Jewish Rabbi might be ex-officio trustees, was it not thereby meant that they should so act as long as they remained a clergyman, a priest, or a Rabbi, and no longer? Suppose the clergyman were deprived of his incumbency or status in the Church for holding Roman Catholic or Unitarian views, was he to continue to hold the position of trustee, notwithstanding he had ceased to hold the religious opinions which had led to his appointment as trustee? The point was an arguable one, and ought to be decided not by a vote of this House, but by solemn argument and decision.
  LORD CAIRNS, in the first place, desired to call their Lordships' attention to the various and important points before the House. He was not going into local details, with regard to which he had no information; nor was he going to inquire whether it was wise to give facilities for the selling of land left in trust. He was, however, very much in favour of property being sold, and the purchase money invested, as he thought this course would be convenient for the charities. There was one point of the case which affected the present scheme. It was narrow and precise, but still an important and practical point. It was this—Was the Bishop or the incumbent of the parish to be the only person disqualified from filling the office of trustee? He thought the noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) had troubled himself unnecessarily in supposing that these Motions were directed in any way against the Endowed

  1863
  Schools Commissioners, who took the view that it was a hardship that they should be debarred by the restriction of the Act from appointing a Bishop or incumbent to be an ex-officio trustee. As he understood their meaning, it was that the Endowed Schools Commissioners should not be debarred from appointing a Bishop or rector as ex-officio trustee. What he maintained was this—that the Endowed Schools Commissioners might really feel that, irrespective of his opinions, the Bishop of a diocese or the rector of a parish was a fit and proper person for such appointment, and he should say the same in the like case of a Roman Catholic Bishop or parish priest. These were generally the most fitting persons in point of position, dignity, and permanency to be the trustees of these schools. The 17th clause had been referred to, but that clause said that in every scheme the Commissioners should provide that the religious opinions of any person should not in any way affect his qualification as one of the Governing Body. But was it not on the ground of his religious opinions that the Bishop was now excluded? Then, the result of the construction put upon the clause was that the Bishop was now one of the persons prevented from being a trustee of the school upon the ground of his religious opinions. He would not have said so much if he were sure that the question would be brought to a legal decision. His right rev. Friend knew very well from experience that the wording of the 39th clause was very peculiar and somewhat narrow. If, however, the Endowed School Commissioners appointed a Bishop, and somebody challenged the appointment on the ground of its illegality, the question might be tried. But if the Endowed School Commissioners felt themselves debarred from appointing a Bishop, he did not see how the question could be raised in a Court of Law. That being the state of the case, he trusted their Lordships would agree to the Address moved by the right rev. Prelate.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he should be sorry if the idea should go forth to the public that there had been any disrespect shown on the part of the Education Department to either that or the other House of Parliament. The scheme in this case was laid before this House on the very first day on which it
  1864
  could possibly be done. The scheme was sent into the Department on the 17th of April; a fortnight was usually given by the Department in order that representations might be made by parties concerned, but in this case there were two days less. The scheme was approved on the 29th of April, it was advertised on the 4th of May, and after the lapse of two months, upon the 4th of July, it was laid before the House.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 64; Not-Contents 50: Majority 14.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SCHOOL AT FELSTEAD.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Felstead in the county of Essex,—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.)
  Objected to; and, on question, agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

  SCHOOL AT TIDESWELL.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Tideswell in the county of Derby—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  Objected to; and, on question, agreed to.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)

(NO. 238.) REPORT OF AMENDMENT.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read.
Moved, That the said Report be now received.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in moving that the Report be received on that day three months, said, he did so on the ground that the Bill was an invasion of the rights of property in the case of lords of the manors.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now,") and insert ("this day three months.")—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that when the Bill was before the House on previous occasions, lords of manors jumped up right and left and declared that it would confiscate their rights. He (Lord Kinnaird), however, could not for the life of him make out what those rights were. The lords of manors were something like the dog in the manger; they could not inclose commons themselves, and they wished to prevent other people from inclosing. The poor, however, had extensive common rights, and, in his opinion, every exertion possible ought to be made to preserve those rights in a legitimate manner. Instead of that, he thought this Bill did not go far enough in the protection of those rights, but that it went too far in favour of the interests of lords of manors. After the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had endeavoured to meet the objections of noble Lords opposite, he was rather surprised that the noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland), who, he supposed, was one of the lords of manors, should rise up to oppose the reception of the Report.
EARL NELSONsaid, the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) had shown that he knew nothing of lords of manors or of their rights. Political economists said that all these inclosures were for the benefit of landlords, and not for the benefit of the people; but that, to say the least of it, was a great exaggeration. He believed these inclosures were greatly for the benefit of the people. These inclosures had brought more land into cultivation, and in that way tended to raise both the price of labour throughout the country and the productive power of the land. At present he had two parishes—one where everything had been inclosed, and the other about five miles off where there was a large common; and he was quite certain that the people in the inclosed parish were better off than the people in the other parish. Lords of the manor were willing to give sites for churches, chapels, and burial grounds, schools, recreation, and allotment grounds where they were required; but they objected to this being made a general rule, applicable to cases where such grants would serve no useful purpose. Instead of passing that crude Bill it would be better to refer the matter to a Select Committee next Session.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he would not deny that legislation on the subject might be desirable, but must urge that the Bill could not be properly considered by the House of Commons, which had more pressing business before it, and that Amendments made by that House could not be adequately discussed here, at the very end of the Session. The noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird), who had come forward as the advocate of donkeys and geese, might rest assured that their interests would be better served by the defeat of the Bill than by its passing.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that while he did not wish to complain of the opposition offered to the Bill at that stage, he thought the course pursued by noble Lords opposite somewhat illogical; for if they disapproved of the principle of the Bill, it should have been opposed on the second reading; and if they disapproved of its details they might have amended them in Committee. He denied that the Bill was crude; that it had been carelessly considered, or that it was carelessly drawn and a measure of confiscation, sanctioning the levying of black mail. The subject had been under the consideration of the other House during three years; it had been discussed by two Select Committees; and the fact that commons had remained uninclosed must have made known to those interested that legislation was pending, so that they could not complain of being taken by surprise. The Bill, moreover, had been severely criticised on six different occasion in that House; but, notwithstanding the severity of the ordeal to which it had been subjected, the portion of the Bill referring to suburban commons had hardly been touched upon, no substantial Amendment being made; and though as to rural commons, Amendments had been made, the main features of the measure had not been injured, remaining practically the same as when introduced into that House. It proceeded upon no new principle as alleged; but was, in fact, a supplementary measure to the Act of 1845, and if it was a measure of confiscation, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland), to be consistent, would have to move the repeal of previous Acts upon the subject. The fact was, Parliament did not wish to inclose commons; it merely facilitated inclosures when they were desired, and in return exacted certain,

1867
conditions. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) admitted that the State had a right to take a certain amount of land in return for the privileges which it granted; and the question in dispute between them was merely one of degree. The noble Marquess said one-tenth was too much; he (the Earl of Morley) said that the proportion settled by the Act of 1845—namely, 1 per cent, was obviously insufficient, and that the minimum of 10 per cent fixed by the Bill was a great improvement, and far from excessive. The question of facilitating the inclosure of commons was one of State policy; but he would remind their Lordships that there was a great and influential party in the country, not merely of one political complexion—and who, moreover, were constantly increasing in strength—who desired that commons should be kept open for public use. He ventured to ask their Lordships whether they, like the noble Marquess, trusted to the mutability of the human mind, in the hope of securing a better bargain than that offered by the Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say, on the occasion referred to, the mutability of the human mind, but the mutability of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, however that might be, many persons regarded the terms offered by the Bill as being far more favourable than they should be; and he would ask those who wished to keep open the commons to consider whether it would be wise to refuse that offer in the hope, based upon the mutability of the House of Commons, that at some future time they would obtain better terms. In conclusion, he must say he hoped the House would not accede to the proposal of the noble Duke.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, his reason for opposing the further progress of the Bill was the time of the Session. They ought, on no account, to send down a Bill to the other House when that House had already more business than they knew what to do with, and had slaughtered a great number of important Bills which they were unable to pass. If this measure were sent down to the House of Commons at so late a period of the Session, it would, on account of the Government having been defeated on some
1868
clauses and provisions of the Bill which they wished to retain, be returned to them with Amendments which they had already discussed and rejected. In the interests of legislation, therefore, their Lordships should not set the example of sending measures down to the other House at a period of the Session when it was impossible they could be properly discussed, and especially when they considered that they had a right to expect that measures would come up to them at a proper period of the Session. He wished to know why this Bill had not been introduced earlier. The subject had been under the consideration of two Select Committees of the House of Commons, and yet the noble Lord, having the whole matter fully before him before the commencement of the Session, had not thought proper to introduce this measure until the 21st of June, with the result that their Lordships were discussing in the fourth week in July the propriety of sending it down to the House of Commons. He thought that circumstance alone was sufficient to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but would tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale) why the Bill had not been introduced sooner. He (Earl Granville) had always done his best to get Bills introduced into the House at an early period, notwithstanding the great inconvenience and disadvantage which was generally acknowledged—and especially by Lord Grey—to be attendant upon bringing Bills first into that House. That objection, however, was felt to apply so strongly to this and other Bills, that he was not able to give their Lordships an opportunity of considering the measure at the beginning of the Session. He should not relax his efforts in future; but he was not sure that he should be strengthened by the course taken by their Lordships with regard to the Bill under discussion. They were asked on various grounds to reject the Bill. It was said that it would not be courteous to send down the Bill at so late a period; but he believed the other House would be glad to receive a Bill which retained in the main the provisions recommended by a Select Committee of their own House. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland) said the Bill interfered with

1869
the rights of property, and other arguments were urged against it; but it appeared to him that the course proposed to be pursued in rejecting it was most illogical. In the first Committee on the Bill, unexpectedly, there was a majority in favour of certain clauses; and he could understand the normal majority saying that as those clauses had been agreed to because they were away, they must stop the Bill in some other manner. But that was not done. The majority insisted that the Bill should be re-committed; and when it was re-committed, the majority carried out their views with regard to every point of the Bill; yet now they said that, as they had been so successful, they were bound to reject the Bill at this stage. A more unreasonable course he had never seen taken.
On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 65: Majority 12.
Resolved in the Negative; and Report to be received this day three months.

MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL.
(The Earl of Morley.)

(NO. 224.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order).
Preliminary.
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

PART I.
Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.
Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 21, to leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve"), said, it had not been his intention to move any Amendments in the Bill, having been prepared to accept it as it was, however imperfect he thought it; but yesterday he received, to his astonishment—and he might almost say to his dismay—a Paper entitled "Amendments suggested by Coal owners and Coal Mine proprietors," which seemed to him to strike at some of the main provisions of the measure. He confessed that he had hardly believed that there could be gentlemen in posses-
1870
sion of coal mines who were prepared to resist a measure of that character coming from the House of Commons. Nevertheless, he was determined to take the advice once given to him by the late Duke of Wellington, who said—"Depend upon it that no point is good for defence, unless it is equally good for attack;" and therefore, under the circumstances he had stated, he now meant to propose some Amendments of his own in the Bill, with a view to make it more after his own heart. He had not, however really believed that there was any serious intention of introducing such Amendments on the part of the coal owners as he had referred to; but he found from the Notice Paper that morning that an Amendment was to be proposed and supported by no less a person than the noble Duke the leader of the Conservative party in that House. Therefore, he now desired to substitute in clause under notice the words "12 years" for "10 years" in regard to the age of boys working in coal mines. When the Factory Acts were passed, children under 13 years of age were not to be exposed to a greater amount of labour than 5, or at most 5½ hours, under what was called the half-time system. In the present Bill, a principle totally the reverse of that was adopted; and children of the tender age of 10 years were to be called upon to sustain the amount of labour that was imposed on adults. The clause, indeed, said that no boy under the age of 10 should be employed, or allowed to be employed, belowground in any mine; he (the Earl of Shaftesbury), however, wished to raise the limit from 10 to 12, so that no boy under 12 should be allowed to descend a mine and be subjected to 54 hours in in the course of a week. He repeated that the half-time system under the Factory Acts applied to children under 13; but in this Bill there was no provision at all of that sort, and children between 10 and 12 years of age, if they descended the mine, were to be subjected to the same period of labour as adults. There was no doubt that the employment of children in factories was very arduous, because it required constant attention, was carried on in a heated atmosphere, and the children had to be continually on their legs; but let them contrast that with the labour they were going to impose on children of 10 years

1871
of age, and upwards, in coal mines. They were to descend at 7 o'clock in the morning into the solitude and darkness of the mine, and to remain in an atmosphere which was in most cases exceedingly oppressive; indeed, the children themselves described it as half-suffocating—and there was no doubt it was productive of great injury to their health. It would seem that no one had read the evidence taken on that subject in 1842 by the body of Commissioners sent out under a Royal Warrant. Mr. Austin, the Commissioner in North Lancashire, gave a most deplorable account of the children employed in mines—
"'I wish,' said one of the mothers, 'you could see them come in, tired as dogs, and throw themselves on the ground like dogs. We cannot get them to bed."
Mr. Franks, Commissioner for the East of Scotland, wrote—
"George Wright, aged 12, says—'Works with father, place wet; water comes up to my knees; work very distressing, being 300 fathoms from coal to pit bottom; makes me very sick.' Poor miserable object,"
says the Commissioner. Hundreds of similar instances might be quoted. [Earl GRANVILLE: That was 30 years ago.] But the system still prevailed exactly as it was then. True, they had removed the women and the girls; but the work now carried on by the boys was precisely what it was in former years, and the condition of the children was now precisely what it was in 1842. He only mentioned these things to show the kind of labour to which they were dooming children of tender age, and that it was the duty of Parliament not to suffer that children of tender years should be subjected to such heavy toil, until their strength enabled them better to bear it. It was pretended, as he understood, that in some mines the seams were so thin that they must have children only 10 years old to work them. That was just the old story that was urged in 1842; and he maintained that it was not a valid argument. Things might easily, he believed, be so managed as to admit of the seams being worked by persons of larger growth; but the coal owners would not do that, and left the thin seams as they were, saying they must be worked by these very young children. He had himself been down into some of those mines, and could tell their Lordships that nothing more
1872
miserable could be conceived than the conditions under which the children worked there. They never stood upright—everything was done on all-fours, or else lying on their backs. Was that a state of things to which they were to reduce boys of 10 years of age, and keep them 54 hour a-week at such intolerable labour? The Commisssoners in their Report in 1842 said—
"There is, however, one case of peculiar difficulty—namely, that in which all the subterranean roadways, and especially the side passages, are below a certain height. By the evidence collected under this Commission, it is proved that there are coal mines at present in which these passages are so small that even the youngest children cannot move along them without crawling on their hands and feet, in which unnatural and constrained posture they drag the loaded carriages after them; and yet, as it is impossible by any outlay compatible with a profitable return to render such coal mines—happily not numerous nor of great extent—fit for human beings to work in, they never will be placed in such a condition, and consequently they never can be worked without inflicting great and irreparable injury on the health of the children."
There were many things to be considered in that matter; but he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) maintained that the grand and paramount consideration was the lives, the health, the morality, and the welfare of those children; and if the mines could not be worked except by exposing such young children to such enormous suffering, the mines ought to be shut up. But let the law forbid the working of those children in that manner, and the employers would find some other means of working the mines. The desire for profit was so strong in the human heart that it would be easy to devise a hundred other modes of working those mines, other than by imposing such cruel tasks on boys of 10 years of age. But they were going further, and requiring that those children should have 20 hours of education per week, in addition to their intolerable toil. With regard to that he would give them the opinion of an Inspector of Schools. He said in one pit 27 collier boys attended night school out of 80—the whole number at school. Could they wonder if, after toiling so long during the day, under circumstances so disadvantageous, they had no spirit or strength left for receiving their education? And what were the comments of the Inspector in reference to the remarks of teachers as to the causes of ignorance and irregular attendance at school? In one case, he said the mining

1873
parents were regardless of the welfare of their children; and that the boys themselves had no relish for school after being confined as they were in the mines. In another case, the Inspector of Schools, in his Return, said—
"The boys attend badly; they are so drowsy after their work that it is difficult to gain their attention. When at school they are anxious to improve."
Why were these children to be treated differently from others employed in factories? He could conceive of no reason, and should therefore move the substitution of 12 for 10, merely surmising that if their Lordships resisted the Amendment, they would be standing in the way of the claims of humanity, and acting inconsistently with the spirit of modern legislation.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that the noble Earl opposite had referred to legislation which took place 30 years ago; but the state of things in 1842 was very different from what it was at present. He deprecated the personal allusions which the noble Earl had made to him and to the Amendments which were to be moved; and he thought it would have been well if the noble Earl had made himself more acquainted with them, for if he (the Duke of Richmond) understood the speech of the noble Earl aright, it was to the effect that the noble Earl moved his Amendment not because of anything contained in the Bill, but because of certain other Amendments given Notice of by the noble Duke himself dealing with other parts of the Bill. The reason was extraordinary, for the noble Earl seemed to infer that if these Amendments had not been placed on the Paper, he would not have concerned himself for the welfare of the children. As regards the Amendment, he (the Duke of Richmond) would refer to the assertion of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, who had had great experience in mining property, that the children employed in thin seam mines were not less developed than children employed in factories, and that the falls of coal were light and easily managed by children.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, no one would fail to sympathize with the object the noble Earl had in view, but he had utterly misunderstood the drift of the Bill. It was a mistake to suppose the Bill would allow 10 hours' work a-day and give 20 hours' instruction in the week beside.
1874
The noble Earl appeared to have taken no notice of Clause 5, which should be read with Clause 4; and, so read, provided that no child under 12 should be employed in mines, except under certain circumstances prescribed, by Clause 5, and subject to certain provisions for their education laid down in Clause 8. The exceptions referred to thin seam mines, which were few in number, in which the fall of coal was light, and where the work was not continuous. The subject had been much discussed in the other House; it had been the subject of a compromise between those interested; and he hoped the settlement come to would not be disturbed by the pressure of the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYprotested against the assumption made by the noble Lord opposite and noble Earl, that this was merely a question between the employers and the children. There was another important question which related to the consumers of coal. He had been informed by the manager of one of the largest collieries in the country, that the effect of this Bill would be to diminish the output of coal by 18 per cent—that was, it would increase the cost of coal by 18 per cent; and coal being now at 35 s. per ton the price would be raised to 42 s. when the Bill was passed. Surely, that was a sufficient reason for not weighting coal with any heavier weight, such as the restriction of the noble Earl would put upon it. He was afraid the noble Earl, in his wide philanthropy, had not sufficiently considered the probable sufferings of a large class—the poor people who would suffer from the high price of coal during the coming winter—a far larger class than the one he desired to benefit. It was desirable to impose reasonable limits on the labour of children, but such an end must be reached gradually, and we must not show a cruel kindness which would do more harm than good.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that the rise in the wages of miners recently had been only 10 d. per ton, but the masters had raised the price 5s.; and he observed that a large coal owner had declared—and he had heard it with some surprise—that the Bill would add to the expense of working coal, and the owners would take care that the consumers were made to pay for it. He hoped that the noble

1875
Earl would withdraw the Amendment. As the Bill was altogether a compromise between the employers of labour and the miners, he trusted no serious Amendment would be made upon it, though he did think it would be very desirable to raise the age from 12 to 13 years.
LORD DUNSANYreminded their Lordships that, though the rise of wages might have had little direct effect upon prices, it had a large indirect share in that increase, because it had made the colliers idle, many of them working eight days in a fortnight, instead of eleven.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, in reply to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury), that his Amendment would have hardly any effect upon the quantity of coal raised, the number of thin seam mines being very few. However anxious their Lordships might be to attend to the interests of the consumer, yet if it could be shown that the mental, moral, and physical welfare of children depended on a certain restriction, that restriction must be made, even though the mines were thereby closed altogether. He was confident, however, that means would in any case be found by the owners to work the mines. As the Bill was a tentative one, he would, however, withdraw his Amendment, merely premising that their Lordships would not expect him to pursue the same course with his other one.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 (Employment of boys in mines).
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYproposed, after Clause 5, to insert the following clause:—
"A boy under the age of thirteen shall not be employed or be allowed to be for the purposes of employment in any mine to which this Act applies below ground, unless a surgical certificate has been given by a person qualified to give surgical certificates for the purposes of the Factory Acts, to the effect that the boy has the ordinary strength and appearance of a boy of the age required under this Act, in the case of such mine, and that he is not incapacitated by disease or bodily infirmity from working for the times allowed under the provisions of this Act.
"The provisions of this Act as to the registration of school certificates, and as to the forging or counterfeiting of and other offences relating to school certificates, shall apply to a surgical certificate under this section."
1876
The noble Earl said, the provision would be some protection to the child, though it might be but a scanty one.
THE EARL OF MORLEYopposed the Amendment, on the ground that the proportion of boys employed under 12 would be infinitesimally small, and that there was no machinery in the Bill for carrying out the system of examination; and the certificates, even if obtained, were not very valuable.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYreplied that, though the certificates might be at fault in respect to the age, they would show whether there was any bodily infirmity to incapacitate a boy for going down into the mine.
Clause negatived.
Clause 6 (Employment of male young persons in mines).
THE EARL OF MORLEYin moving in page 2, line 11, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); in line 12, to leave out ("no") and insert ("a"); and in line 13, after ("shall"), to insert the word ("no"), said, the object was to make the lauguage of the clause as nearly as possible the same as that of a similar provision in the Metalliferous Mines Bill.
Amendments agreed to.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 2, line 15, to leave out ("fifty-four") and insert ("fifty-six"), as the maximum number of hours during which youths under the age of 16 should be allowed to work underground per week. He claimed the support of noble Lords opposite, on the ground that it was the original proposition of Her Majesty's Government. If 54 was retained this difficulty would arise—The number of hours per day was restricted to 10, which for five days would give 50 hours. Four hours, therefore, only would remain, and he was advised that it would be impossible to work a mine for so short a period. Thus the sixth day would be altogether lost. He therefore thought it right that 56 should be inserted in place of 54.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that it would be impossible for the Government to guarantee the acceptance of the Amendment by the other House of Parliament. Fifty-four hours a-week were nine hours a-day for six days, and it was notorious that now a great many men throughout England were working for that time. The clause, moreover, re-

1877
ferred to young persons under 16 working underground.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the great mass of the mining population were very anxious that 54 hours should be distributed over the six days of the week, which was nine hours a-day. The House of Commons had sent up to their Lordships a great remedial measure, and, beating the Government, had declared that 54 hours ought to be the limit of toil imposed upon children under 16. Would it be becoming, therefore, that their Lordships should stand out in opposition to the humane feeling of the House of Commons? Their Lordships would do more to create disaffection in the mining population by such a course than by any other which they could adopt. Two hours of toil, more or less, was a thing that should not be talked of lightly. He would say that the moral effect of this House declaring that it would go beyond the House of Commons in imposing an amount of toil upon the people of this country would be the worst possible.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, that this was not a question either of humanity or popularity, but simply of justice. It was not for noble Lords to urge upon their Lordships to take a popular view in a case in which the Members neither of that nor of the other House had the slightest interest. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) went on to talk of this House imposing two additional hours of work on the mining population. But that was not the way to look at the matter. The fact was, that their Lordships were asked to prevent these poor men from earning two additional hours' wages by means of their children's labour. By doing so they imposed a law upon the country which destroyed trade, and was subversive of liberty.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that this was not a question of the Members of their Lordships' House seeking to impose a maximum of work on the mining population; but that it was the duty of this House to do what was right. He doubted very much whether any of their Lordships had any personal interest in the matter, and thought the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was fond of assuming that he stood alone in the cause of humanity, and unless everyone agreed with him the moment he proposed any-
1878
thing, that they were oppressors, and that he was the sole guardian of the interests of the people. ["Hear, hear!"] It was no doubt right that young people should have as light a task as could possibly be assigned to them. But the case was this—They were giving the power of working these young persons for 10 a-day during the first part of the week, and it was stated that it was not worth while to open the pits for four hours' work. In fact, the pits could not be opened for the adults unless they were attended by the younger persons. Therefore, by retaining 54 hours their Lordships ran the risk of throwing impediments in the way of opening the mine at all on the sixth day of the week. He thought, however, his noble Friend would do well by not going to a division on this point, as the subject had not probably been so fully considered by their Lordships as it had by the other House.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns) had charged him with arrogating to himself a monopoly of humanity in that House, and he believed the noble and learned Lord said elsewhere also. He was sorry to hear that statement of the noble and learned Lord received with cheers by their Lordships. But the noble Lord was a lawyer, and he believed that a lawyer was entitled to say anything he liked, whether founded or unfounded. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) most solemnly declared that he had not arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity either in that House or elsewhere. He had seen a great deal that caused much suffering, and, by God's blessing, he had done his best to remove it; and he did not think that at the close of his life he should be told in the House of Lords by a distinguished Member of it that he arrogated to himself a monopoly of humanity.
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that no person admired more than himself the great efforts which had been made by the noble Earl on behalf of humanity. As to the charge which the noble Earl had made against lawyers, he did not think it necessary to make any defence.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 (Regulations as to employment of boys and male young persons).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 22, after ("of") to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys"); and in line 23, after ("of") to insert ("a signal, to be defined by the special rules of the mine, being given for"); and in same line after ("surface") insert ("after which signal the whole of the said group or shift shall cease work, and shall return to the surface without delay.") The noble Duke observed that by the Bill boys could be employed only a certain number of hours in the day; and by the clause, if a boy on returning to the surface from the pit should be delayed beyond the allotted time through coming up last the owner would be liable to a penalty. In some mines the distance from the bottom to the surface was very considerable. He therefore proposed, with the view of relieving the owner of a mine from penalties in the case of boys being detained in a mine beyond the time designated by the Bill during which they should be employed, that the boys employed in a mine should be counted in groups, so that the last who arrived in a group should, for the purpose of avoiding the penalties in question, be deemed to have arrived at the surface as early as the first of that group. He was decidedly of opinion that it would be impossible to carry out the clause as it stood.
Amendment moved, after ("of") line 22, to insert ("the first of any group or shift of boys.")—(The Duke of Richmond.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that in many mines there were no means of giving any such signal as that proposed in the Amendment. He admitted that the clause was not perfect. The average time should be taken; and mine owners would be protected by this—that proceedings could be taken against them only by Inspectors, with the sanction of the Home Secretary, so that proceedings would not be taken in any trivial case.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDthought that it was not right that mine owners should be exposed to the consequences of this highly penal clause at the option of a Secretary of State and the Inspector in a case where, perhaps, there was no real fault.
THE MARQUESS OF RIPONurged that the clause was sufficiently guarded.
LORD CAIRNSalso thought it objectionable to make a regulation which could not be strictly complied with, leaving it to the Home Secretary and Inspector to enforce the penalty or not. He suggested that the time might be reckoned from the hour of the first shift leaving the surface to the hour of the first shift returning to the surface, and that all the other shifts should stop work when the first shift was sent up.
THE EARL OF MORLEYcould not accept the suggestion, for it would not compel the manager to bring up all the shifts, and there would be no security for work being stopped.
On Question, Whether to insert? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 30: Majority 6.
Resolved in the Negative.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 12 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, in moving in line 36, to leave out ("six") and insert ("eight") said, he objected to the rule that women and children employed aboveground should be allowed one and a-half hours for refreshment during every period of labour exceeding six hours. The effect would be that in case of six and a-half hours' labour one and a-half hours would be deducted for meals, leaving only five hours' actual work. Such a rule could not be essential to health with regard to work aboveground.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwas willing to accept the Amendment modified, so as to afford to any woman and child half-an-hour's interval during every period of five hours' work, and one and a-half hours' interval for every period of eight hours' work.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved in page 7, line 5, after ("agent") to leave out ("and") and insert ("or"); in line 6, to leave out ("each"); in line 7, after ("if") to insert ("he shall");

1881
and in line 8, after ("had") to leave out ("taken all reasonable means by publication and enforcement of") and insert ("published and taken all reasonable means to enforce"). The noble Duke said, it seemed to him that the provisions therein embodied were of the most extraordinary character. He had always understood that every man was assumed to be innocent till it was proved before a competent tribunal that he was guilty; but in the clause the owner, agent, and the manager of the mine were selected for prosecution as guilty of an offence which somebody else might have committed. That was a subversion of the usual course of legislation, and rather a violent innovation. The possibility of making three different persons responsible was conferring too much latitude. If the noble Earl would turn to the Factory Acts he would find that the occupier was the only person proceeded against criminally.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the language objected to by the noble Duke had been introduced into the clause on the Motion of a former Colleague of the noble Lord. An accident might arise from the negligence, in different degrees, of the owner, the agent, and the manager; and it would be a great error if only one of those parties was held liable. He trusted that their Lordships would maintain the clause as it stood.
LORD CAIRNSsupported the Amendment, and pointed out that if the owner, agent, or manager were not found guilty constructively, they might go scot free. Their responsibility should be better defined. If an accident should take place from the violation or neglect of these rules, was the owner to be responsible if he found that the rules had been frustrated? Or how was he to prove that all reasonable precautions had been taken? In what method was the proof to be established? He would move the addition of certain words in order to remove difficulties that might otherwise occur in the working of the clause.
THE EARL OF MORLEYaccepted the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord, on the understanding that they should be subject, if necessary, to revision on the report.
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 51, inclusive, agreed to.

PART II.—RULES.
General Rules.
Clause 52 (General rules).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 28, line 5, after ("same") add—
("and the said report shall be kept according to the form in the Schedule annexed to this Act; and the owner or agent of every coal mine shall transmit to the inspector of the district at the beginning of each month a report for the preceding month in the above-named form.")
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the perusal of the Reports suggested by the noble Duke would impose an immense amount of additional work upon the Inspectors, and the Reports themselves would be of very little practical utility.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that some such Reports should be furnished, at a reasonable interval, say four times a-year, and these would impose no unreasonable amount of labour upon the Inspectors. Perhaps the noble Earl would think over the matter, and see whether he could not adopt the suggestion in some shape upon the Report.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwould be happy to consider the suggestion, but doubted whether it could be adopted.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.
Special Rules.
Clause 53 (Special rules).
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDpointed out that the clause exempted from penalties owners, agents, and managers who had taken all reasonable precautions against explosions, while the Proviso prevented the operation of the exemption. He moved the omission of such Proviso.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the managers of a railway company might lay down stringent rules with reference to the working of points and signals, but those rules might not be enforced, and a serious accident might happen in consequence; and yet, in any inquiry that followed, the railway company might try to shield themselves from responsibility by appealing to the stringent rules they had laid down. It was to prevent such a course of action as that that the provision had been inserted.
THE LORD CHANCELLORpointed out that the rules must not only be pub-

1883
listed but enforced in order to secure the advantage of the exemption.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, he was still of opinion that the words ought not to remain, and expressed his intention to adhere to his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MORLEYwould not press his objection.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 56, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 57 (Neglect to make special rules).
THE EARL OF MORLEY THE EARL OF MORLEY moved the omission of the word "manager" from the exempting Proviso of the clause. The object of the clause was to make provision for special rules, and the manager ought to be rendered absolutely liable if these rules were not made.
THE DUKE OF RICHMONDobjected to the Amendment. All through the Bill the three persons dealt with were the owner, agent, and manager, and none of them were held liable if they proved that they had taken all reasonable means for carrying out the provisions of the Act. Why, then, should the manager be struck out of this exempting Proviso?
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he would not press the Amendment.
Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.

PART III.—SUPPLEMENTAL.
Penalties.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 (Imprisonment for wilful neglect endangering life or limb).
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND THE DUKE OF RICHMOND moved, in page 37, line 18, after ("section") insert—
("or by which conviction the sum adjudged to be paid amounts to or exceeds half the maximum penalty.")
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Report of Amendments to be received on Tuesday next; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 255.)

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
(The Earl of Malmesbury.)

(NO. 248.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Malmesbury.)
LORD CAIRNSsaid, he could not understand why some wild birds were put in the Schedule of this Bill while others were excluded.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought the swallow, marten, swift, and skylark should be protected. He also favoured protecting the barn owl. He understood thrushes and blackbirds had been excluded on account of their being destructive to fruit.
LORD CAIRNSprotested against unnecessary legislation. He did not believe there was any wholesale destruction of swallows.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDsuggested the postponement of the Bill till next Session.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdid not believe there was a single insectivorous bird which was not useful to man. He did not see why all birds should not be protected during the breeding season.
THE LORD CHANCELLORfeared that many persons would incur penalties through ignorance, cockney sportsmen not knowing what birds they destroyed.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eleven o'clock to Monday next, Eleven o'clock