SECOND READING. (Hansard, 11 May 1875)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, it had been his sad duty to address their Lordships twice already on this painful subject—once in 1853, again in 1864, and now again in 1875. Although he was compelled, in the interest of his clients, to stand for a time that evening, between them and a larger question, they would not, he was sure, be averted by the apparent meanness of the cause—far from mean, in fact, since it concerned the temporal and eternal welfare of some thousands of children, the most oppressed, degraded, and tortured creatures on the face of the earth. It was through their Lordships' House, and by their aid, that he hoped to appeal finally and effectively to public opinion. This "Chamber of Horrors" had long been open before us. The earliest trace of interest he could find was in the year 1773, when the matter was in the hands of Mr. Jonas Hanway; and in 1788 a Bill was passed by both Houses for the protection of climbing boys. Thus this terrible system had now been before the public for more than 100 years, and for 85 had been the subject of legislation. And yet the evil, wherever it prevailed, was, and was of necessity, as great as ever. He need not trouble them with the several provisions of the successive Acts. It was sufficient to say that all were marked by timidity, though with kind intentions, and all were far short 438 of the necessity, proved by the character of the evidence, and the safety of the remedy proposed. Here were the stages of legislation:—The first Act was in 1788—the 28th of George III. It was a good Bill in many respects as passed by the Commons, but it was detrimentally altered in the House of Lords. It passed, however, into a law, and continued so until 1834. But matters had become so bad in 1817 that the House of Commons passed an amending Bill, which, though highly approved by the Select Committee, to which it had been referred, was lost on the third reading in the House of Lords. Then came the Act of 1834. This was repealed by the Act of 1840, brought in by Mr. Fox Maule, the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. This Act re-affirmed all the strictest provisions as to the structure of chimneys contained in the Act of 1834; it provided that no apprentices should be taken under 16 years of age, and it was the first that prohibited climbing boys altogether by enacting that none under 21 years of age should be allowed to ascend or descend flues. In 1853 he himself brought in a Bill to meet, if possible, the constant evasions of the Act; but this Bill was lost. In 1864 he brought in another Bill to remove some of those defects. It passed into a law, but, from a variety of reasons, had been inoperative in many parts of the Provinces. He would now call their attention to the evidence of oppression and suffering from 1773 to the present day. He again offered an apology for this drain on their time and patience; but they would see, he was sure, that this question was one of evidence and fact, and not simply one of appeal and argumentation. In 1788 there was no evidence taken before Parliamentary Committees, but the case must have been very clear and strong to move the two Houses to pass a restrictive measure when there was little or no force in public opinion, perhaps scarcely any existence of it, and when the Press had not attained the hundredth part of its present power. In 1817 there was abundant and frightful evidence taken before both Houses. He would give a sample of it, to show that the evil was the same now as then, and without any abatement. First, he would ask their Lordships to observe how great, compared with to-day, was the patronage extended to those children, and yet how 439 useless. In 1817 the society for their protection had the Prince of Wales as patron; the Duke of Bedford, Earl Grosvenor, Mr. William Wilberforce, Sir Francis Burdett, and a host of others as vice presidents. The Committee of the House of Commons, obtained by their efforts in that year, reported— Infants of the early age of four, five, and six years have been employed, it being the practice for parents to sell their children to this trade. The evidence went on— They are stolen from their parents and inveigled out of workhouses; that in order to conquer the natural repugnance of the infants to ascend the narrow and dangerous chimneys, blows are used; that pins are forced into their feet by the boy who follows up the chimney, in order to compel them to ascend it, and that lighted straw has been applied for that purpose; that the children are subject to sores, and bruises, and burns on their thighs, knees, and elbows; and that it will require many months before the extremities of the elbows and knees become sufficiently hard. Then after that statement, followed a long enumeration of the deformities, mutilations, cruelties, and diseases to which they were subjected, with the wretched moral and physical consequences; atrocious cases also of murder, treated as moderate manslaughter—and, to conclude, Richard Wright, a medical witness, stated the horrible character of the disease called "Chimney sweepers' cancer," which was confirmed by the eminent surgeon Mr. Cline, and before the Lords' Committee in the same year by Mr. Vincent and Sir William Blizard. The same witness added a frightful catalogue of diseases and mutilations to which they were subject through ill-treatment. All this was confirmed and intensified by evidence before the Lords in 1818. This year, too, was signalized by a stirring and fearful article in The Edinburgh Review, in which the Rev. Sydney Smith recorded all the horrors of the trade, and left the public without the possibility of a plea of ignorance Evidence was again taken in 1834, and in 1840 the Bill sent up by Mr. Fox Maule was referred to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. That evidence re-affirmed all the atrocities of the system, and satisfied the House of the necessity and safety of the proposed remedies. In 1853, also, much evidence was taken to show the violations of the Act. In 1864 we had the Report of a Royal 440 Commission, which had been issued two years before, to inquire into the employment of children and young persons. To this evidence, as it was so recent, he would now call their Lordships' attention. It must be, he feared, in many respects, a repetition of former statements; nevertheless the public and their Lordships might have forgotten them, and they would, he was sure, pardon the reproduction, for it was necessary, of evidence already given. Let them take first the ages at which they began to train up a child in the way he should go. It appeared from evidence taken in 1863 that the age at which training commenced was from six to eight, generally six—a "nice trainable age," said the masters. There were instances of five, and even of four-and-a-half. The hours of work in the smaller towns were eight to nine; in the larger, from 12 to 16, work beginning at 4 o'clock, 3, and even 2 in the morning. 63 witnesses were examined from all parts of England, 33 of whom were master sweeps. Then followed the mode of doing it. Of the training, Mr. Ruff, of Nottingham, a master sweep, said— No one knows the cruelty which a boy has to undergo in learning. The flesh must be hardened. This must be done by rubbing it, chiefly on the elbows and knees, with the strongest brine, close by a hot fire. You must stand over them with a cane, or coax them by a promise of a halfpenny if they will stand a few more rubs. At first they will come back from their work streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again. The following description," said the Commissioners, "is so painful, that we should hesitate to record it were it not amply confirmed:—'If, as often happens,' says a master sweep, 'a boy is gloomy or sleepy, or anywise "linty," and you have other jobs on at the same time, though I should be as kind as I could, you must ill-treat him somehow, either with the hand or brush, or something. It is remembering the cruelty which I have suffered which makes me so strong against boys being employed. I have the marks of it on my body now, and I believe the biggest part of the sweeps in the town have the same. That (showing a deep scar across the bottom of the calf of the leg) was made by a blow from my master with an ash-plant—i.e., a young ash tree that is supple and will not break—when I was six years old; it was cut to the bone, which had to be scraped to heal the wound. I have marks of nailed boots, &c, on other parts.' Mr. Stransfield, another master sweep, said— In learning a child you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it. I have gone 441 to bed with my knees and elbows scabbed and raw, and the inside of my thighs all scarified. Another said— At first they will come back from their work with their arms and knees streaming with blood, and the knees looking as if the caps had been pulled off. Then they must be rubbed with brine again, and perhaps go off at once to another chimney. In some boys I have heard that the flesh does not harden for years. One of the Commissioners stated— I found a boy of about eight, in the market, who had run away from some place. Part of his knee-caps got torn off, the gristle all showed white, and the guilders (tendons) all around were like white string, or an imitation of white cotton. His back was covered with sores all the way up. To harden his knees a lotion made of old "netting"—i.e., urine kept long for the purpose—simmered with hot cinders, was put on them. "It was like killing him," said the sweep, "and I had to stand by and see it all." "Why, I myself," says another— Have kept a lad four hours up a chimney, when he was so sore that he could scarcely move; but I would not let him come down till he had finished. It has often made my heart ache to hear them wail, even when I was what you may call a party to it. In learning a child," he goes on, "you can't be soft with him, you must use violence. I shudder now when I think of it. There, then, their Lordships might see what was the elementary education that a Christian people gave to its children! Here came in another form of suffering and death. In some cases children, said the Report, had been— Seriously burnt in consequence of having been compelled by their masters to ascend flues on fire. Mr. Michael Brown, Coroner for the borough of Nottingham, stated that he had held two inquests on climbing-boys; in one the fire was burning, and something was put over the still hot fireplace to enable the boy to rest his feet on at starting. According to Mr. Peacock, of Burslem, Mr. Herries, of Leicester, had collected 23 eases of boys who had been killed in chimnies by being stifled since 1840. Here was another form of suffering in the shape of a fearful disease—exactly as stated in 1817. Here came in some sanitary results. It was well known to surgeons that sweeps were liable to a peculiar disease—a most painful and fatal complaint, consisting of a peculiar form of cancer, arising from the exposure to soot. Among the men it was 442 known as the "sooty wart," or "sooty cancer." One master said he had known eight or nine sweeps lose their lives by that disease. All that was confirmative of the evidence before Parliament in 1817 and 1818. And now, for the necessary result in their moral condition, take the language of the Commissioners— The concurrent testimony of all the witnesses proves that the climbing-boys are greatly neglected, and constitute, in fact, one of the most degraded classes of the community. The very nature of the employment itself, independently of bad treatment and neglect, tends to lower the character of those children; it is, in truth, unsuitable to a human being; and with all these painful facts before us we regard the moral debasement inseparable from the use of climbing-boys, as the worst effect of the violation of the law. Then, in order to show the safe use of the machine, the Commissioners stated, on a calculation, that nearly two millions and a-half of flues in the metropolis were swept by it; and they concluded by adding— It is important to state, on evidence which cannot be controverted, that since the passing of the Act (1840), so far from fires caused by flues having increased in the metropolitan districts, they have proportionately diminished. The Commissioners then quoted from a very instructive "Table," as they termed it, by Captain Shaw of the Fire-engine Establishment; and that had been confirmed by a note he (Lord Shaftesbury) had himself received from that excellent public servant— I consider," he wrote, "the system of climbing-boys most barbarous, and, from my special point of view, wholly unnecessary. Now, he had given them but a sample of the atrocities perpetrated under this Satanic system. There were some far worse than those he had recorded; but the statement of them would be long, and he hoped unnecessary. What more could be required to produce conviction? But to show the needless cruelty and oppression of the system, he asked them to take these facts. He quoted the authority of architects and builders, who had in every stage, from 1773 to the present day, shown the safety and superiority of the machine, especially in the evidence of 1834 and 1840. Let them hear now the practical evidence, which was quite unanswerable. On London: Letter from Colonel Henderson to say that the inquiries of the police had not discovered a single climbing-boy in the whole metropolis with its four millions 443 of inhabitants. Glasgow: Letter from the Chief Constable to declare the system utterly extinct. Edinburgh: Letter from the Lord Provost to the same effect. From Stirling, Dumfries, Perth, Aberdeen, Ayr, Leicester, the evidence before the Commissioners was the same. Prom Paris, Lord Lyons wrote, on an official statement— The modern construction of chimneys admits the passage of a brush or machine. There is no law against the use of climbing-boys; but in consequence of such construction that mode of sweeping is becoming more and more rare, especially in Paris. New York: Letter from General Schenck, to whose kindness he was much indebted— Chimney-sweeps, climbing-boys, under twenty-one years of age, were many years ago employed in New York, and perhaps (though I think not) in some of the large American towns, but the practice has gone quite into disuse, and the work is now done altogether by brush or other machinery. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was, indeed, charged, a few years ago, by the American journals, with cruelty and inconsistency, for reviling American slavery, and yet permitting the practice of climbing boys. How then, and why then, it might be asked, was the Act so inoperative? First, said the reporters, the neglect of the sections in the several Acts, regulating the construction of chimneys, and especially the disinclination of householders to incur the expense of introducing "soot holes," as prescribed by the Acts; second, the want of efficient machinery for putting the Acts into operation; third, the disinclination of magistrates to convict. A large proportion, they said, of the public connived at or directly encouraged the employment of climbing-boys. Those feelings, the Commissioners observed, were not confined to the lower ranks of society, but were shared by noblemen, magistrates, and other individuals. Again, the police, as a rule, did not appear to have interfered, the enforcement of the law not having been deemed by them to be part of their duty, and, as Mr. Batten—a barrister engaged for the purpose, who made inquiries in 1873—added, because they knew that it would not be agreeable to the authorities—authorities, such as those in the cities of Liverpool and Bath, where the law was openly and systematically broken. In some instances, they stated, 444 proofs of the infringement of the law had been demanded by the magistrates, which it was difficult or impossible for the prosecutor to furnish. Their Lord-ships ought now to hear Mr. Michael Brown. This evidence, by reason of the position of the witness, was of singular importance— I am a solicitor," he stated, "and coroner for the borough of Nottingham. Another cause," said the witness, "which no doubt contributes to encourage the use of boys is that magistrates seem unwilling to convict on such a charge, knowing in some cases that boys are used in their own houses. He went on to say— I was present at the hearing of a case a few miles from Nottingham. It was proved that the sweep entered with a boy, and that a brush, not a machine, was seen put out of the top of the chimney. The boy was present, and apparently not more than nine or ten years old, but the Bench required the informant to produce strict proof of his age, refusing to assume that he was under 21. Let their Lordships consider that. A lad of 10 years old, and the magistrate demanding legal proof that he was under 21! A plain denial of justice. The sweep," continued the witness, "was acquitted. But the impression left upon my mind, and I believe on that of others in Court, was, that the magistrates were unwilling to convict if they could avoid it, and it was mentioned in the justice-room, as a fact, that the presiding magistrate had in his own house flues which would not admit of the use of the machine, and that boys were used instead. I am convinced," wrote Mr. Lord, one of the sub-commissioners, "that, in very many country districts, and in towns also, the occupiers both of private dwellings and of places of business, wink at the practice of sending boys up their chimneys. Two very estimable gentlemen, magistrates of their county, have said to me very significantly, 'We prefer not to ask how our chimneys are swept.' And that was the example of obedience to the laws set to the poorer sort by wealthy corporations, great Lords, and high magistrates! But here, in contrast to all that, he would quote something of a higher order. The Commissioners said— Can we do better, in conclusion, than to recite the forcible language of the late Lord Cockburn, when passing sentence on a man who had been convicted, in 1840, for employing a child, who lost his life in a chimney at Glasgow:—'It was not only a scandal to the law to allow the sweeping of chimneys by children, but it was a deep disgrace on society to perpetuate the trade, society being, in point of fact, art and part in the commission of the inhumanity.' Lord Cockburn proceeded—'It was, indeed, monstrous to allow any child to be employed in such a way, and if the trade was but once put 445 down, it would be looked upon with so much horror that it would he difficult to convince the next generation that it had ever existed in a country claiming to be Christian.' But here came another, and a sad contrast. In the present year and in the year 1873 two cases of deaths by climbing were tried at Assizes—only two cases, no doubt, out of many—one of a boy killed at Cambridge, and another at Gateshead. In both cases the jury brought in verdicts of manslaughter. But no such sentiments as those expressed by Lord Cockburn were heard from the English Judges, and the inadequate sentence was inflicted in each case of six months' imprisonment with hard labour. It was not for him to talk about the administration of justice; but he had a right to say, and he did say, that he wished they had men like the Scotch Judges on their own judicial Bench. All he had stated had been confirmed by the testimony of Mr. Batten, a barrister, who gave last year his valuable services by travelling from place to place making inquiries and sending reports. He begged their Lord-ships to observe that he proposed no new law, but simply a mode of making the present one effectively. He simply proposed, according to the advice of the Commissioners, that no person should be allowed to carry on the trade of chimney-sweeper until he had received a licence for such from competent authority. Our assistant Commissioner, Mr. Longe," say they, "who has visited Glasgow, attaches great importance to this plan of licensing, and we are of opinion that it should be made a part of the duty of the police to carry the Act into operation. The result, moreover, of many years' experience in Glasgow and Edinburgh proved the value of this regulation. It insured the observance of the law, and tended to raise the character of the master sweeps, who wherever the machine was used, were always elevated in the scale of society. Such was the case that he had to lay before their Lordships, and it only remained for him to ask what argument could be assigned, what facts adduced, against the simple proposition he had submitted to their judgment? Might he in a few words recapitulate the grounds of his appeal? He had shown that for more than 100 years that horrible system had been known to the public; that no one could in honesty plead ignorance of it; that it had occu- 446 pied the attention of individuals and of Parliament, who had endeavoured at various times and in various ways to restrict and suppress it. But the effect had only been partial. He had shown the long succession of disgusting and unsurpassed physical and moral cruelties which had been inflicted, and which were still being inflicted, on children of the tenderest years. He had shown that the law had been inoperative in many places—nay, had been wilfully and systematically disobeyed through the hostility of the magistrates, both unpaid and stipendiary, through the indifference of the public, and the obstinacy, recklessness, or parsimony of corporations and private gentlemen. He had shown that the humane and wise regulations for the construction of flues, enacted so early as 1834, had been, with very few exceptions, utterly disregarded; while the wretched children were still tormented under the plea of necessity, which necessity would be obviated by obedience to the law. He had shown the superior efficiency and safety of the machine. He had urged, and without possibility of refutation, that there existed not in the whole Kingdom a single flue which might not, with a trouble and cost unworthy of mention, be made sweepable by mechanical appliances. He had pressed on their Lordships' remembrance that among many of the millions of England, Scotland, and America the vile system was unknown, not that it was never known, but that being known it was banished as hateful and unnecessary. He had done what he could, and would their Lordships do the same? Surely they would now—he said it with all respect—they would, as apart of the Imperial Parliament, now emphatically declare that their laws were passed to be obeyed, and not to be systematically broken; that their beneficent statutes should not be set aside by high or low, rich or poor; and that, as all rule and authority came from above, they would exercise them in the spirit in which they had received them, the very least as feeling their care, and the greatest as not exempt from their power.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said, he was sure their Lordships had listened with much interest to the very able statement 447 of the noble Earl, for nobody was so competent to deal with the subject as the noble Earl. Everybody must admit it to be a disgrace that such a state of things should continue to exist; and, therefore, he was sure their Lordships would gladly give a second reading to the Bill, in order to show their anxiety to co-operate with the noble Earl in his endeavours to do away with the evils which he had so forcibly described. But would the measure, so ably advocated by the noble Earl, produce the good results he anticipated from it? On this, and former occasions, the noble Earl had expressed his opinion that the existing law was fully sufficient if put in force, and that the continuance of those evils was due to magistrates not enforcing the Act of Parliament—the real difficulty was to put the law in motion. Now, he must confess that, if this were so, and he had the noble Earl's word for it, he did not see how that evil was to be remedied by superadding to the existing law further provisions as to registration or licences, which magistrates would refrain from enforcing just as they did the present law. He thought that one effectual means for accomplishing what the noble Earl and all their Lordships desired was, by calling attention to the continued existence of this horrible scandal among us;—and that much would be effected by such speeches as that just delivered by the noble Earl. He believed that a speech which the noble Earl had delivered in their Lordships' House before Easter on the subject had done a great deal of good, and he ventured to anticipate that the speech he had delivered that evening would do still more. Another means was, by sending circulars to the police in various parts of the country, requiring a more stringent enforcement of the existing law—for he certainly did not see how the present Bill could operate to produce greater vigilance on the part of the police, or greater vigour on the part of the magistrates. Their Lordships must have heard with satisfaction the statement of the noble Earl, that in this great metropolis, and in other very large towns, the practice of sweeping chimneys by climbing boys was extinct. He thought that was no mean result to have followed from the exertions of the noble Earl, and those who worked with him, in this 448 cause. For the reasons he had already stated, he did not expect much from the Bill—he thought much greater results would flow from the influence of public opinion—but he would vote with the noble Earl, and the Government would support the second reading.

§ LORD ABERDARE
said, he did not differ very much from the noble Earl who had just spoken for the Government as to the results which might be expected from such appeals to public opinion as that made by the noble Earl who moved the second reading of this Bill; but, at the same time, the noble Earl had made so strong a case for the Bill, that he thought the House was bound to support him. He was disposed to think, however, that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Beauchamp) rather undervalued the probable effect of the system of licences proposed in the Bill. Licences had been enforced with good results in the case of other callings, and it might be expected that if chimney sweeps held a licence which could be revoked, they would be careful not to put in jeopardy their means of subsistence. He would suggest to the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill, whether the magistrates in Sessions would not be the best persons to issue the licences.

THE BISHOP OF LONDON
was understood to suggest that it should be made obligatory on persons employing sweeps to see that the latter held licences under the Bill.

§ EARL FORTESCUE
said, that the two great obstacles to the practical enforcement of the law were the indisposition of the magistrates to convict, and, consequently, of the police to act. Now, seeing what a large portion of the cost of the police of the country was paid out of the Imperial funds, the Government might put a pressure on the police to act against offending chimney sweepers, regardless of the feelings of magistrates, in at least bringing the cases before magistrates. He had very little fear but that the pressure of opinion which was sure to result from the harrowing statement made by the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would compel magistrates to act when cases in which they ought to do so were brought before them.