COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 July 1874)

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, that under the existing law a water-mill owner had power to make up for lost time when water was deficient; but when an engine broke down, there was no power to make up for lost time, and he did not see why any distinction should be drawn; and considering the present stage of factory legislation, he thought the time had arrived when all distinctions of this sort should be put an end to. However, such was the law at present. The other House had abolished the distinction in Committee, and consequently without notice to the water-mill owners, who complained of what had been done. It was therefore proposed to grant some indulgence, and to postpone the operation of the clause till the 1st January, 1876, and he thought that that would meet the justice of the case, and give these mill-owners time to provide a storage of water.

§ LORD ABERDARE
said, that the clause, if agreed to, would not prevent some mills from making up lost time; 1618 indeed, there was an immense number of trades which would remain under the present law. The clause was not in the Bill originally. It was introduced in Committee of the other House, and the first notice some of the manufacturers had of its introduction was through the reports in the newspapers. As the Home Secretary had announced his intention to ask for a Select Committee to consider the whole question, with a view of dealing with all manufacturing processes, he saw no reason why the clause under consideration should not be omitted from the Bill, until the Government was prepared to complete and consolidate factory legislation. If the Bill was allowed to remain in its present form it would create a sense of injustice, because it involved a sudden and violent change in the existing law.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, there was certainly no desire on the part of the Government to act hardly towards these millowners, as was shown by this proposal to give them an indulgence of a year and a half. The present Bill only proposed to deal with the manufacture of textile fabrics, and the Amendment he proposed was drawn in order to meet the case of such manufactures. At some future time, when it was proposed to deal with other businesses, provisions suitable to them would be brought forward. The question between himself and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Aberdare) was merely one of degree, and as the noble Lord admitted that the matter was one which ought to be dealt with, he saw no reason why the clause with the Amendment he proposed should not be adopted. In the majority of cases the want of water which created the necessity for "the recovery of lost time" mentioned in the clause, was the result of a want of prevision on the part of the millowners. He saw no reason why Parliament should interfere to protect millowners from their own want of care and foresight.

§ LORD WAVENEY
pointed out that in many cases manufacturers were unable to provide themselves with sufficient storage room to enable them to secure sufficient water to meet emergencies and consequently were unable to prevent lost time in their mills.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
said, the Bill was framed in order to provide for several matters other than the health of 1619 the persons engaged in manufactures, and, therefore, if the suggestion of the noble Lord was adopted the objects of the Bill would be to a certain extent defeated. He thought the Amendment met the difficulties of the case fairly.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, there was a disposition to push this factory legislation too far, and to interfere unduly with the commerce and manufactures of the country. There could be no doubt that, as had been suggested, many cases existed in which it was impossible for many reasons for the mill-owners to store a sufficient quantity of water to insure them against losing time which it was necessary afterwards to make up.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, the clause as it stood in the Bill had been inserted by the other House—and he did not know whether his noble Friend (Lord Aberdare) desired to get rid of it or not. He thought that if they did get rid of it, and millowners in retired localities, where the Inspector was not so frequently seen, were allowed the unrestricted power of employing their hands at overwork in order to make up lost time, enormous intolerable abuses would spring up. A great meeting of Irish operatives had been held in Belfast, and they had come to a decided resolution that the whole of the Bill was to be supported as being the great charter of their liberties. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would preserve the principle of the Bill entire.

§ LORD ABERDARE
denied that the provision in question was any part of the principle of the Bill. It was not in the measure when it was read the first time in the House of Commons or when it was read a second time. It was first heard of in Committee, when it was inserted without notice to the parties interested. He was sure his noble Friend would not force upon the manufacturers a provision of which they had had no notice.

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
observed that, whenever and wherever it was inserted, it was an excellent enactment. He thanked the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, and the House of Commons who accepted it, and he hoped he would have to thank their Lordships for adopting it.

§ LORD ABERDARE
then proposed to insert after Clause 12 the following clause:— Attendance at a school which is not recognized by the Education Department or by the Scotch Education Department as giving efficient elementary education shall not be accepted as satisfying any of the requirements of this Act in respect of the education of children employed in labour in England and Wales or Scotland. He had, he said, abundant evidence before him that the schools to which the great majority of factory children were now sent were not efficient schools. That fact would be admitted by all who had read the Reports of the Inspectors on the subject. When the Factory Act was passed there were no means of compelling local authorities to provide proper schools. The Act of 1871, however, had put an end to that state of things; but a clause like that which he submitted was necessary to insure a good elementary education for factory children.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he could not accept the clause in its present form; but if the noble Lord would allow the matter to stand over he would undertake to bring up a clause on the Report to carry out the object the noble Lord had in view. There could, of course, be only one wish on the part of their Lordships on the subject—namely, to secure an efficient education for the children.

THE MARQUESS OF BATH
said, the clause should be so framed as to make it clear whether attendance at a school which had been inspected and passed as an efficient school, but which was not in connection with the Education Department, would satisfy the requirements of the Act. In agricultural districts questions sometimes arose in regard to the education of the children, and the Boards of Guardians were not always able to meet the requirements of the Department.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
agreed with the noble Marquess that the clause should specify whether attendance was necessary in schools having certificated masters or mistresses, or whether attendance at an inspected school would be sufficient. He agreed that there was much difficulty in dealing with schools in the agricultural districts, as some of them were not efficient.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
believed that attendance at an inspected 1621 school was sufficient under the Agricultural Children's Act. The question now raised was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The object in view was that from 1876, or other given time to be named in the Bill, the children should be compelled to attend at some school to be approved by the Education Department, so as to secure their attendance at some efficient school. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his clause at this moment, as it was the wish of his noble Friend (Earl Beauchamp) to frame a clause which would enable the Education Department to require the attendance of children at the most efficient school in their district—that was to say, at a school where there was a certificated teacher.

§ LORD ABERDARE
withdrew his clause, being quite satisfied with the statement of the noble Duke.
The Report of the Amendment to be received on Monday next.