Lords Sitting of 29 June 1891

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 201.)
TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT (1860) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 162.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, this is an Irish Bill. It proposes to amend the Tramways (Ireland) Act (1860). Tramway Companies in Ireland, as your Lordships are aware, are constituted by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, confirmed afterwards by an Act of Parliament. The Order defines the undertaking, and prescribes the amount of capital; and the Act of 1860 requires that the whole of the capital shall be devoted exclusively to the purposes of the Order. Then, in a subsequent section, the Act contemplates that it may be proper and expedient that the tramway should be extended; and it gives the Lord Lieutenant power to approve of such an extension, but it gives him no power to amend the original Order or to authorise the company to increase their capital. The result, therefore, is that existing Tramway Companies in Ireland can obtain the necessary sanction to extend their tramways, but are powerless to increase their capital to enable them to do so. That, of course, was a slip in the Act of 1860, and this Bill proposes to correct it. It also proposes to remove some difficulties which have been found to arise with regard to the Board of Works. The Bill has passed the other House, and was supported by the Attorney General. I beg to move the Bill be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

EPISCOPAL FEES AND CHARGES.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTONrose to move, according to order—
1678
"For a Return of all charges, fees, first fruits and tenths, and other payments of all kind, whatever, which have been paid by every person who has succeeded to an Archbishopric or a Bishopric since the 1st January, 1885; indicating in each case to whom the payment is made."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before the noble Lord makes his Motion I should like to call his attention to the language of it. I think it must have been written in some mistake. Of course what he means is to ask for a Return of payments by way of charges, fees, and so on, which have been made by any person upon his succession to an Archbishopric or Bishopric in that capacity; but from the language used here the Return might comprise his butcher's and baker's bills, or anything else that can be conceived. I do not think that could have been what is meant, and if the noble Lord will accept my suggestion, he will alter the language of his Motion.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg you will understand in the first place that I am by no means leading a crusade for the abolition of fees. My only intention in putting this question in your Lordships' House was to ask what the fees were, in consequence of the grossly exaggerated statements which have recently been made in regard to them. Had I known at the beginning of the month as much as I do now, I think that in all probability I should not have put the question on the Notice Paper; and, further than that, having put it down, I should have withdrawn it had it not been for the words which fell on the first occasion, I think, on the 8th of this month, from the noble Marquess at the head of the Government, who stated, I believe, that he thought the charges were far too severe. I think those were his words. Besides that, we have had statements since from the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and also from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Grimthorpe). The cause of my putting this question on the Notice Paper was from speaking casually about what the expenses of Archbishops and Bishops might be on appointment and translation. I was told, on authority which I thought was at least approximately right, that in the case of the late Archbishop of York, whose loss to this House and the

1679
country, both as a Churchman and as an orator, I am sure we all most deeply regret, the expenses on his appointment amounted to something like £7,000. Well, that, from subsequent statements, I should think was probably nearly correct, but what was very incorrect was the statement that "more than half" of those expenses consisted of fees. When a man talks about more than half of £7,000, I should presume he means not less than £4,000. Now, that was a most gross exaggeration, and nothing of the sort, I understand, exists. We must recollect that Bishops were once curates, and we do not consider curates generally as being possessed of very large worldly means; and even though a man, through his own talents, may rise to the rank of Bishop or Archbishhop, it does not follow at all that he may have had any great opportunity of laying money by, and the expenses he will then have to meet will probably have to be secured by life assurance, and that, if a man is of an advanced age, must prove extremely expensive. I think the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle told us that his expenses amounted to about £400. I do not quite understand that. I think your Lordships must have seen a statement made in one of the weekly papers, I think it was in last week's Truth, professing to give the whole of the fees and charges which a Bishop is put to on appointment, and they amount to the sum of £424, I think, in round numbers. But they go through, I think, something like 34 or 35 different hands—the money being divided into that number of fees. Since the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle was appointed, certain fees which he alluded to in regard to the Petty Bag Office were abolished, I think in 1874; and, therefore, one would have thought his fees would have been somewhat larger at that time than those which are mentioned as coming to £424. Then we had from the Vicar General the Chancellor of York (Lord Grimthorpe) a statement of certain offices and ceremonies he had to perform, which, he said, were totally useless, and which cost the Bishop something like £80, Well, £80 is a consideration, and if these fees could be reduced by even £80 I do not see why it should not be done. But I think, for convenience, one might divide the ex-
1680
penses of a Bishop on appointment or translation into three heads: the first head will be the expenses of moving, and would probably consist of painting, papering, furnishing, and various things of that kind. Those would, no doubt, be expenses which would be very considerable, but with which this House would not probably trouble itself at all, being after all a private matter to suit the tastes of the particular Bishop. Then the second head would be the dilapidations on leaving his last residence. One certainly could not drop the charges for dilapidations. I have known an instance where an incumbent has gone on for 20 or 30 years perhaps, laying out next to nothing on his house, and at the end of his occupation, when he died or resigned, his family have had to pay a very large sum for dilapidations. But there is no necessity for those dilapidations to occur, and if a man properly keeps up the building in which he resides I believe he may get an indemnity for five years from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and during those five years, should he end his occupation or die, there would be no dilapidations occurring. It does appear to me, from a suggestion that has been made to me, that there is very much force and virtue in the idea of transferring these dilapidations from the incumbent or from the Bishop to the Ecclessiastical Commisssioners; that they should make some yearly charge—I do do not know what it might be—some 6 or 7 per cent., and that that should be the charge for keeping the building in order. If this came out of the revenues of the incumbency I think it would be probably less distressing to clergymen than having at a later date to draw a cheque for a very considerable sum. Then comes the question of the fees. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government thinks that the fees are too large, and that they can be reduced. I think it would be a very good thing if they could, but no harm can come from the question I have put, and from light being thrown and information given upon a question which certainly hitherto has been involved in very considerable obscurity. I think that the publication of these Papers would enable the public to realise what the incidence and distribu-

1681
tion of these fees and charges may be, and enable them to arrive at their own conclusion on the subject.
Moved," That there be laid before the House Return of all charges, fees, first fruits, and tenths, and other payments of all kinds whatever, which every person who has succeeded to an Archbishopric or a Bishopric since the 1st July, 1885, has paid thereupon; indicating in each case to whom the payment is made."—(The Lord Shute [V. Barrington])."
THEPRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): The noble Lord has rather appealed to me——
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I think every one of your Lordships must be desirous that the late Archbishop of York should not suffer by having accepted so late as he did the Archbishopric——
THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND: I beg to move that the Marquess of Salisbury be heard.
On Question, agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord having rather appealed to me, I venture to follow him immediately. I think it is very desirable we should have all the information on this subject we can get. I do not for a moment say that the reports which have been current are not exaggerated. I believe the contrary; but still, I believe the fees are heavier than they should be; and what is more, I think they represent a false policy altogether in the mode of paying a public servant. It may be that Bishops on their apointment do not contribute more than is necessary for the payment of the various persons to whom their fees may go, but even if that be true, which I will not admit without further examination, it is a most unwise and thriftless mode of obtaining salary. Our ancestors had a passion for uncertain payments. The Kings were paid whenever somebody came of age; copyholders, who were the great proprietors in those days, were in the same position; they were paid on death or on transmission; and our Colleges, instead of taking rents every year, took fines when people came into possession as their tenants. I do not know what the cause of that extraordinary love of uncertain incomes which appears to have animated our
1682
ancestors was; but it certainly is contrary to the whole ideas of the present day. It is certainly better that what a man has to receive and pay should be ascertained with tolerable accuracy, so that he can frame his mode of life accordingly. I am glad the noble Lord has moved for this Return, for it seems to me very desirable to know exactly what is paid, and to see whether it is possible to modify the existing system in a manner which will prevent the continuance of the abuses I have indicated. I think the severe literary criticism of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack must be attended to, and I would suggest that, instead of the Motion being for a Return of
"all charges, fees, and other payments of all' kinds whatever,"
it should be all
"charges, fees," and so on, "which every person who has succeeded to an Archbishopric or a Bishopric since January the 1st, 1885, has paid thereupon."
The word "thereupon" will exclude the butchers and bakers.
*LORD GRIMTHORPE: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to supplement the figures which have been given by the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Viscount Barrington) by one or two of my own, because what I can give you will illustrate distinctly the difference between the two classes of proceedings which Bishops have to go through. The first figures given to me substantially agree with those of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, and it may be taken that, disregarding fractions, the expense of getting into a Bishopric, which involves election and confirmation, is probably about £400. He gave, I think, £420. Then I have two others of £403 and £386. Perhaps with those figures your Lordships would like to contrast the expense of getting into a Bishopric where there is no election and confirmation, and the absence is startling. The fees paid upon the last admission at Truro, before it had acquired a Dean and Chapter, were £212; so that the possession of the Dean and Chapter, which does no particular good to the Bishopric, means the infliction upon the Bishop of nearly double the expense he would be at if there was no Dean and Chapter, the difference being due to election and confirmation. I wish

1683
to correct the noble Lord upon one point. I said the other day I believed the expenses on confirmation alone were £80. I know they were £80 one occasion: whether they have been reduced or not since I do not know; but, whatever they are, I take leave to say they are totally unnecessary. I will not repeat what possibly some of your Lordships may have read elsewhere, but I may say I have the means of knowing that the Vicar General of the Southern Province, who does more of this kind of business than I do, is of the same opinion. I am told he agrees with every word I have said upon that subject. I have only one other matter to give your Lordships, which is really of interest at this moment, because it is the total of the fees which were paid by the last Archbishop of York on his induction. I use the word "induction" to comprise all the ceremonies. Those fees were £553, contrasted with £400, the expenses thrown upon an ordinary Bishop. Upon that I will make no remark. Upon the subject of dilapidations, and Bishops being exempted from them, I would make this observation. In the abstract I should entirely agree with the noble Lord on the Cross Benches, but I think there would be great complaint among clergymen, and with better reason than they sometimes display in their complaints, if Bishops were relieved from dilapidations while the clergy remain liable to them.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: That is certainly not what I wished to say. What I desired to say was that they should all be on the same footing.
*LORD GRIMTHORPE: It is much the same thing in the end; for whatever the Ecclesiastical Commissioners pay is taken away from the small livings throughout England, as I had to remark when the Bishopric of Truro tried to get £3,000 a year from those funds for what they called the Cathedral Fund, If they are applied in that way either one of two things must happen' Either the funds of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners will be seriously diminished at the expense of the small livings by all dilapidations being paid, or else there will be tremendous dissatisfaction at the Bishops being allowed to have their dilapidations paid out of the Ecclesi-
1684
astical funds, while ordinary clergymen are not. Bat really that is an independent question which ought not to be mixed up with this question of fees at all. It should not be forgotten that the Dilapidations Act of 1870–71 was once referred to a Committee of the House of Commons, and they came to the conclusion that the Act was a great mistake. It had been passed, as I pointed out long ago, in entire ignorance or forgetfulness of an Act of Elizabeth, which provides means for Bishops of having dilapidation expenses properly laid out upon the buildings. The complaints made were on two grounds by the persons who introduced that Bill. I pointed out to the Archbishop of York, with regard to one of them, that there was that Act of Elizabeth in existence. Another complaint was that people sometimes died insolvent, and I took the liberty of asking by what means he was going to prevent clergymen dying insolvent. Even that great and able man could not give me an answer. The noble Lord says he believes that by means of some process clergymen can be freed from dilapidations for five years. Well, they can be freed from the cost of dilapidations by doing the work, but not otherwise. If they choose to call in the Diocesan Surveyor, and to pay his fees, which are very heavy, and will let him order what he likes to be done, no doubt they can be free for five years, but I do not think that is a very judicious mode of proceeding. A house may be burnt down, or a great many things may happen to it, and then the innocent incoming tenant suffers. I really think the old way was very much better before the Act was brought in for dealing with it; but that is a distinct question entirely from this question of fees. One cannot always be answering newspapers; but of my speech the other day, or rather of the misreported version of it, confounding confirmation with consecration, the newspapers of a particular class made merry. They said it was a shame I should be the man to say what I did seeing that I got the lion's share of the fees for consecration. I really forget what I did receive on consecrations; but I find from my papers (unless the Registrar's list of them is wrong) I got absolutely nothing for it. The small fee that I do get when I

1685
myself confirm a Bishop is the very thing I want to abolish.
On Question, agreed to.

BILLS OF SALE ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 159.)
House in Committee (according to order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.-(No. 160.)
House in Committee (according to order.)
LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, there have been one or two Amendments suggested to this Bill, but as they are purely matters of detail I think they will be better dealt with in Grand Committee than here.
Bill reported without Amendment and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 195.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD DE RAMSEY: My Lords, I have the honour and privilege of introducing to your Lordships' notice an important Bill. I wish, indeed, that it could have fallen upon more capable and broader shoulders than my own, because it is a measure full of complication, full of difficulty to those who are not altogether acquainted with our very voluminous legislation on factories and workshops; but I claim your Lordships indulgence if, as clearly and as concisely as possible, not unduly trespassing on your time, I endeavour to explain the present Factories and Workshops Bill. I have divided the measure by way of making it as comprehensive and as easily intelligible as possible, into three heads; and I have omitted a considerable number of miscellaneous Amendments of the Factory and Workshops legislation with which on a Second Reading it is hardly necessary to trouble your Lordships. The three heads into which I propose to divide this Bill are, first of all, provisions for the safety of the operative; secondly, provisions re-
  1686
  lating to the recommendations of the Sweating Committee of your Lordships' House; and, thirdly, provisions relating to the Resolutions of the Berlin Conference. First, the provisions for the safety of the operative. New and important provisions have been inserted in the Bill with a view to secure the safety of the worker; there are provisions against fire; hoists and teagles to be fenced; all dangerous machinery to be fenced just as if it were mill gearing; the occupier of the factory or workshop is to be called upon, or may be called upon, subject to arbitration, to submit to special rules and special requirements where such may be found necessary in any particular trade or district in cases where any machinery or any process may be supposed to be fatal or injurious to life or limb. Those words are quite large enough to ensure attention to faulty structure of buildings, as well as to bad ventilation, and to excess of dust. These two last are matters of such importance that they are specially mentioned in the Bill. The law is amended also with regard to notices in case of accidents, and provisions are made so that inquiries before the Coroners may be facilitated in cases of fatal accidents. I have now mentioned to your Lordships the chief provisions that we ask this House to agree to with regard to the safety of the operative. I now come to the provisions relating to the recommendations of the Sweating Committee, and I cannot but regret to say, and especially (as I am told from domestic affliction) that the noble Earl who takes such interest in this question, and who was at one time Chairman of the Sweating Committee, is not present here to-night. The heads of the provisions under this matter which I have now to put before your Lordships relating to those recommendations of your Lordships' Committee include sanitation, hours of labour in women's workshops, and overtime. It will be seen from the remarks that I am going to make to your Lordships that the recommendation of that Committee which took such an infinity of trouble, and on whose deliberations we have had more than one Debate in this House, have received the very greatest and most serious deliberation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. It is difficult to give your Lordships any

  1687
  true definition of the word "sweating." Certainly, as far as my own opinion goes, from what I can read, and from what I can hear, sweating does not entail the presence of the middleman. Sweating is chiefly meant, I think, by this: industries which are depressed, and the workers in which industries are unable to combine together for their own protection, and therefore work in unsanitary work-places, they work unduly long hours, and they work for unduly low wages. Wages is a matter which your Lordships will not touch, and I do not think any Legislature will touch; and upon this point the Report of the Sweating Committee was silent. But what, it may be asked, does your Bill do against these sweaters in the improvement of their insanitary work-places and in the enforcement of proper hours of labour? Sweating exists, I may say, hardly at all in factories. To a very slight extent it exists in workshops proper, and I would just take this opportunity of defining the word "workshop" proper. It is a place where men and women, young persons and children, are employed. But sweating is found in women's workshops, in men's workshops, in domestic workshops, and in places which are not workshops. "Domestic workshops" is a new title introduced into this Bill. I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time by going into any portion of the existing law, but I propose to go at once to what the Bill proposes to do to amend, and we hope improve the existing law. The existing law is, as we hope, to be amended to this extent. First of all, I will put it to your Lordships in this way. I will state what we do not propose to do; and then what we do propose to carry out. In factories we propose no change at all. Sanitation there is now, as before, regulated by the special sanitary provisions of the Factory Acts and administered by the Factory Inspectors. In men's workshops, women's workshops, domestic workshops, and places not being workshops we also propose to make no change. Sanitation, as now, is to be regulated by the special sanitary provisions of the Public Health Act, and is to be administered by the Local Sanitary Inspectors. But we do propose to make a change, and a very considerable change in workshops proper, the definition of which I have already
  1688
  put before your Lordships. In the workshops proper we propose that the sanitation, instead of being subject as heretofore to the special sanitary provisions of the Factory Acts as administered by the Factory Inspectors, should be in future relegated to the special sanitary provisions of the Public Health Acts as administered by the Local Sanitary Inspectors. It may be objected—why transfer this power to an authority which has already shown itself remiss, and sometimes decidedly in default—why not rather transfer these powers to the Factory Inspectors? The answer is in numbers. There are 54 Factory Inspectors for the whole of the United Kingdom, but there are more than 1,600 Sanitary Inspectors in England alone. There are 60,000 factories—more than enough for those 54 Factory Inspectors to attend to. The number of workshops is not actually known, but probably their number amounts to nearly 180,000, and that number does not include the men's workshops or a vast number of those places which are not workshops. Those are quite innumerable. The idea that the Factory Inspectors could undertake such an enormous task as that could not be thought of. Unless they were raised to a perfect army—those 54 Factory Inspectors—it would be perfectly impossible to put the whole of this enormous number of workplaces and workshops under their inspection. The Bill provides, however, for strengthening the powers that I have already mentioned to your Lordships in two ways. It first of all provides for an enforcement of the law through the Factory Inspectors supplementing the local Sanitary Inspectors. In any individual case where the Factory Inspector detects any breach of the law he is authorised to report it himself to the local Sanitary Authority, to tell him that he has observed this breach of the law, and he is empowered to take upon himself, in the event of the Sanitary Authority disregarding that notice, to take the action which I will presently mention to your Lordships. Under the existing Act I should like to mention that, having given this notice, he becomes functus officio, and has no more power. But now I come to what is almost a drastic and despotic power which, by Section 1 of the Bill, we

  1689
  propose to vest in the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Under this clause it is proposed that if there is any reason to believe that the special sanitary provisions of the Public Health Act are not efficiently and properly administered in any trade or in any district—that is to say, properly administered by the proper Local Sanitary Authority in any particular branch of a particular trade in a particular district—he may by order authorise the Factory Inspector to enforce the provisions of this Act in that trade and in that district for such time as he, the Secretary of State, may deem necessary. Those are very drastic, and I hope your Lordships will think very proper, powers to give to a Minister of the Crown. That strengthens the hands of the Inspector in exercising the power which I have read to your Lordships just before this Clause I, and we do hope that by this, being a temporary and a local proceeding, the Factory Inspectors may feel strengthened by knowing that there is this tremendous power behind them to drive them if necessary to see to the sanitation and safety of the operatives. I now come to the recommendations of the Sweating Committee of this House, and it is a matter of gratification that I am able to say many of them have been acceded to, either in toto or partially. It was my duty last year in a Debate to be obliged to give an answer which amounted almost to a non possumus; but at that time we were engaged in drawing up the measure which I have now the honour to lay before you, a measure which requires, as you may well imagine, a great deal of deliberation and forethought. The Sweating Committee's recommendations are these, which I will now read out to your Lordships, and which are agreed to as far as the Government is concerned. The provisions, first of all, level up the sanitary provisions of the Public Health Act to those of the Factory Acts, especially in the matter of lime washing, thus giving effect to one Resolution. The Bill also facilitates the enforcement of the law by the Factory Inspectors and by the Local Sanitary Authority. It also adopts the recommendation of the Committee by providing for notice to be given of the opening of every workshop as it is now required in the case of a
  1690
  factory. This notice is sent in, in the first instance, to the Factory Inspector, but it will be his duty to forward a copy to the Local Sanitary Authority as soon as possible. That also was recommended by the Committee of this House. The Bill provides for a register to be kept in each workshop and factory of the outworkers, and then this list is to be put in a place where the operatives themselves can see it, and where the Factory Inspector also can keep an eye upon it; and in accordance with another recommendation of the Committee, an enactment in the Factory Act restraining Inspectors from proceeding at once, by providing for their applying to Justices of the Peace before they can proceed, is withdrawn, thereby facilitating the action of those Inspectors. Then, also, in addition to that, minimum penalties have been enacted for repeated offences committed, that is, in case of those offences committed, with the idea of gain in trade being obtained. I now come to the hours of labour. On this subject the Report of the Sweating Committee is silent. The Bill does not, any more than its predecessors, deal with hours of adult males, and the normal hours of factories and workshops proper do not call, in our opinion, for any modification. But we do make an alteration in the hours of labour in women's workshops. The existing law now says that they may work 12 hours out of the 15, beginning at 6 a.m., and ending at 9 p.m., deducting 4½ hours for rest and meals. This law, for reasons that are very palpable, has been really more or less disregarded. It has been found almost impossible to enforce it properly, and the alteration that we propose is that, first of all, the 12 hours shall be fixed between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., instead of 9 p.m.—that the 12 hours are to be stated during which the women will work, deducting 1½ hours for rest and meals. That alteration has been proposed. First of all, the hour has been changed to 10 o'clock at night, instead of 9, because it has been found to be for the convenience of the women that they should attend to their household duties up to 10 in the morning. Your Lordships will easily see that it is much easier to detect and to know what the 12 hours are, and whether the law is evaded or not, when the 12 hours are stated

  1691
  between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the evening. Under the present arrangement the Inspector could not possibly tell during which hours the women were working or not. I would also like to add that the exemptions which the Act of 1878, called the principal Act, had allowed to women's workshops from certain regulations, are now withdrawn, and, therefore, those workshops will have to be conducted as regularly and strictly as workshops can be. With regard to the matter of overtime, in a similar spirit this Bill, whilst retaining the existing provisions for overtime, which seem, as we think, to give elasticity to the system which trade may at certain times require, yet furnishes safeguards that the power to work overtime shall not be improperly used. Every day that overtime is worked the occupier is to send notice to the Inspector before 8 p.m. the same evening, and full particulars of what overtime is worked have to be posted up, so that they can be seen by the workers themselves, and so that they can see for themselves what overtime is worked, and also whether the law is kept up to or evaded. The provisions as regards women's labour in workshops and work places as to overtime will also, we hope, be of service generally; but we also hope that they will hit specially hard at those industries where we believe sweating is most rife. My third and last head to which I wish to ask your Lordships' attention for a very few more moments is one on which I feel that your Lordships' interest, as well as, I believe, the interest of the country generally, has been well centred, in one part of it, at all events—namely, the half-time hours of labour. It is not disputed—it is not denied in any way—that the Government authorised the British delegates at the Berlin Conference to support the Resolution in favour of children not being employed in industrial establishments before 12 years of age. It has been much discussed whether those Resolutions impose an obligation on the British Government to act up to the very letter of them. No one can suppose that an absolute obligation rested on the British Government to at once proceed to initiate legislation embodying the whole of these Resolutions, and quite irrespective of the wants and necessities of Great Britain. But, as far as I can ascertain,
  1692
  other countries have not as yet carried out the Resolutions of the Berlin Conference. It is true that Germany in this matter of half-time labour has legislated, and, in fact, she has gone beyond the limit that was suggested at the Conference; but in other important matters, such as Sunday labour, women's overtime, and other matters which in this country create a good deal of interest, she has not legislated. But it is not to be supposed for an instant that the British Government sent delegates to the Berlin Conference, and then that the Resolutions come to there should be a dead letter, or should be taken as pious opinions. On the contrary, I think the truth, as usual, actually lies between the two extremes. There is no absolute obligation on Great Britain to do what is not absolutely the best thing for her manufacturing interests. Now, I cannot conceal from your Lordships that immense trouble has been taken to elicit the opinions of all those who were most able to give opinions on this matter, and the Secretary of State having, with his colleagues, decided that this Factory and Workshop Bill, which I now bring before your Lordships, should include some provisions as regards this half-time labour question, they took steps one after another, as I shall show your Lordships presently, to find out what was really the opinion of the commercial interest generally. On all sides the Secretary of State was met with an objection to raise the half-time age from 10 to 12. He was met with the obvious objection that the age, if raised, should be raised by an Education Bill, and not by a Factory Bill. He was appealed to by the employers of labour, and by those employed in the Counties of Lancashire., Yorkshire, and Cheshire, who represented their own views, and those views were decidedly against raising the age. The strongest objections were made to it by the operatives themselves, and it was pointed out that the loss to the family till was a great consideration and a matter of very serious importance to the operatives themselves. It was pointed out that the health of the half-timers at 10 had not suffered, and that by the admixture of work at a trade with the schooling the technical education which is so much desired was brought into the

  1693
  life of those children. It was pointed out by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories, who called upon the Inspectors of Factories for their Reports, and who got Reports from the most experienced of them, that the present system, as it was then, of fixing the age at 10 years for half-timers, in their opinion was not bad for the children, and that the children were certainly in good health. The certifying surgeons were not so unanimous. Some of them were inclined to say that they thought it would be better if the age of the children were raised, but they would none of them go to the extent of advocating the extreme measure of raising the age for child labour to 12, because they were afraid that the influence on the family purse would re-act very materially in the clothing and feeding of the children themselves. The Secretary of State then went a step further, and having taken evidence which might be considered partial—I do not say it was—from the operatives and employers, he took impartial evidence from the Inspectors of Factories and the certifying surgeons, and he then went and got information from the Education Department. It is very easily understood that in regard to the Education Department, at all events, the local schoolmasters would not be so much in favour of this half-time as the Inspectors of Factories and certifying surgeons were, and it stands to reason that their objection is very intelligible, because, having two classes, half-timers at labour, and full timers in the schools, there might be some difficulty in the teaching. But I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the figures which, I think, bear upon this point. They are these: They say—
  "The hours of instruction for half-timers are, on the average, 28 per week of those employed in textile factories, and 30 hours per week in non-textile factories and workshops,"
  and that they are much shorter than the hours of children in workshops on the Continent. Then we come to the passes, and what do we find about them? The Education Department—and when I say the Education Department I mean the statistics that I have been able to get—show this: that the result as regards the half-timers was
  1694
  from 10 to 12 per cent. fewer passes than fell to the full-time scholars—not a serious inferiority this. But it was also shown that although the presence in the schools of the two different classes of children might be prejudicial to that particular class of school, the same result does not follow in the case of schools where there are half-timers only, as to which all the Reports were most satisfactory, both as to the condition and the learning of those children. Since then an Education Bill has been brought in that does not enact any provisions on this matter, and I do not suppose your Lordships will think it was possible at this time to weight an important Education Bill with any substantial alteration, such as I have mentioned, that Education Bill is a purely financial measure. In the other House of Parliament Mr. Sydney Buxton carried an Amendment to raise the age of half-timers from 10 to 11. The Government propose to accept that decision of the other House, and to ask your Lordships not to alter that decision. I would point out that the very fact of there being no attempt in the other House of Parliament on the Factories and Workshops Bill to carry out the recommendations of the Berlin Conference, and to raise the age to 12, is a guide to us. At all events, I think it is a signpost of public opinion that we need go no further than 11, and that the country does not impose upon the Government the obligation of adhering to the age of 12 as a positive pledge given by our Representatives at Berlin. Now, my Lords, in conclusion, I have to say that this Bill is certainly most distinctly and most positively a Bill for the operatives. I would call your attention for one instant to the proceedings before the Royal Labour Commission on Friday and Saturday. It has been suggested outside these walls that the very fact of the Government adhering to the age of 10, shows that they were desirous to curry favour with the employers of labour, who it might be thought would get labour cheaper at the age of 10 or 11. No greater fiction was ever invented; and on last Friday and Saturday the representatives of labour most decidedly go in for a low age, and they say that child labour should be employed as early as

  1695
  possible. I think when we have the I operatives' reprentatives themselves before the Labour Commission stating such views as that, we need not be afraid that we are not doing right in adhering to what has been passed in the other House. It has also been said that this measure is too mild; that perhaps there is too much of the soda and too little of the whisky. All I can say is that I think you will agree that our factory legislation is an honour and a glory to this country, and if I may say so in his presence, I would say that a large portion of the honour belongs to the noble Viscount the Secretary of State for India for his very complete measure of 1878. This measure is but an extension of that Act, though I hope it may prove, in one or two points, to be an improvement upon it. But, with perhaps pardonable British vanity, I think I may say that I think our factory legislation is so good that if there is an alteration made in it, it must be of a very small and slight character, and that whatever is done must be done with due regard to the health and safety of the operative, without putting him in a worse position by injuring trade, or doing anything by which his trade may be driven away. I thank your Lorships very heartily and sincerely for having listened to me so patiently on a matter which I could not help making a little dull and complicated, and I now beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"
  *THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, this is a Bill which really consists entirely of details, and does not in the main raise any question of principle, because I suppose that on the general principle that the regulation of factories and workshops is desirable, every one in this country is agreed. With regard to the provisions at the commencement of the Bill, for ensuring that better sanitary arrangements are made in factories and workshops, I do not think anyone would be disposed to raise any objection, but, on the contrary, would desire that efficient provisions for that purpose should be introduced. I think the noble Lord gave quite a sufficient defence of the transfer of those powers from the Factory Inspectors throughout the country, in consequence
  1696
  of the real impossibility of creating such a number of them as would be able to do the work required. We must hope that the Sanitary Authorities will not be lax in the performance of their duties, and, if they are, I understand that in the first provision of the Bill a power is reserved to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to send the Inspector of Factories to see that the sanitary regulations are complied with. There are other provisions in the Bill for properly insuring the safety of operatives. I have been informed that many of our factories are now so admirably constructed, that in regard both to these provisions for sanitary regulations, and for safety of operatives, really the provisions will not have to be enforced, because proper means and appliances already exist in them; but of course we must not think in these matters of the best of our factories only; our Factory Acts are directed against those which are imperfect in those respects and unsatisfactory. No one can doubt that there are factories in which deficiencies exist, and still more is that the case in the workshops now brought under this Bill. In them there is much to be desired. If this Bill should have indirectly the effect which the noble Lord seems to anticipate, of diminishing the evils of sweating, that also will, I am sure, be a matter of great satisfaction to us all. The noble Lord devoted, as was very natural, a great part of his speech to a defence of the course which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the fixing the age of children, half-timers; and I must say—he will, perhaps, forgive me for saying it, from the inherent weakness of his case—that I do not think his defence of the Government was very complete. The circumstances of the case are these: Her Majesty's Government sent, and, I think, very rightly sent, representatives to the Berlin Conference. That was an Assembly of very grave importance indeed. Every one must feel it is deeply in the interest of the operatives of this country that similar restrictions as to the employment of women and children, and as to their hours of labour, should exist on the Continent among our competitors in the trade as exist here, and I think the interest of this country in promoting the extension of

  1697
  these humane regulations, entirely justified the Government in sending representatives to that Assembly. But when the noble Lord gives us, as he does, a long array of reasons why, upon this question of the age of half-timers, the recommendations of the Berlin Conference should not be followed, I cannot help saying I think it would have been much better if the Government had made these inquiries before they sent their representatives to the Berlin Conference, and before they gave their sanction to the resolutions on this subject, which were agreed to there, than after the event, when they certainly lay themselves open to the charge that they have thrown over their representatives and departed from the resolutions which they then sanctioned. I think it is very unfortunate that, when we have agreed with other nations, to impose fresh restrictions, and when we are vaunting, and with reason, the general excellence of our factory legislation, that a Resolution on the subject of these half-timers, which, I understand, was sanctioned by direct instructions from the Government at home, should not afterwards be acted upon when legislation of this kind is brought before Parliament. The noble Lord also said that what was carried out in the Bill was in the nature of a compromise; and he spoke in praise of it; but the original proposal of Her Majesty's Government was not a compromise at all, because not only did they propose that the age of 12 should not be the age, but that the age should continue to be fixed at 10 years, and the difference between 10 and 12 is, I think, rather startling, when we know what took place at the Conference. Of course, there are arguments both ways; everyone knows there is a considerable feeling on the part of the operatives that the age at which their children can begin to contribute towards the earnings of their parents should not be placed so high as to deprive them of the earnings they have hitherto enjoyed, and it is an argument which I am by no means insensible to, that whatever may be the advantages of school education, the education of the children for their work afterwards in life is not a matter to be altogether treated lightly. I have myself no personal acquaintance with the work of
  1698
  factories, but I should think, as in all other things, that those who begin early are more likely to become proficient in the industry in which they are engaged than those who begin late. But these are all matters of degree, and if I had to give a vote on the subject, I should certainly be compelled myself to vote for the age of 12 years. As the matter now stands I rejoice extremely that Her Majesty's Government were beaten on the proposition for the adoption of the 11 years' limit, and I rejoice still more to find that they accept the decision which was so given, and that the age of 11 is to remain in the Bill. Apart from the fact that I regret they should have gone back from the age of 12, I do not deny there is some reason for proceeding cautiously in these matters. I do not think if Her Majesty's Government had originally proposed 11, much objection could have been made if they had stated that though they approved in principle of the 12 years' limit acting with the caution which they found necessary, they would be wiling, to adopt the age of 11. However, we must take the matter as we find it. I am very glad that the age of 11 has found its way into the Bill. I think it is very desirable that the children who are to form the population of our large towns should not be stunted in their growth by being made to work at too early an age in these textile employments, and the whole course of our legislation on this subject, the original credit of which, I believe, belongs to the Conservative Party, has shown the benefits resulting from restrictions such as these. We have been able to introduce a large number of very salutary restrictions upon the employment of women and children, in regard to the construction of our workshops and factories, and in regulations of different kinds providing for the health and safety of the operatives and for seeing that those regulations are duly observed, and yet in spite of the vaticinations which many of us have heard, that we should injure the great industries of this country by those restrictions, our industries have since prospered on the whole more than they have ever prospered before, and we have now the great satisfaction of seeing that other nations have become alive to the necessity

  1699
  of imposing similar regulations and introducing similar restrictions in their own countries. There is only one other point which I desire to advert to, and it is this. I cannot help feeling that there must be some uncomfortable feeling on the part of the noble Viscount opposite, the Secretary of State for India, when he reflects that he has been pressing in India for additional restrictions upon labour there, upon the ground of the decisions of the Berlin Conference, while here, on account of the objections which have been raised to one of the principal resolutions passed at that Conference, the Government have not thought it necessary to act upon it. I do not think that you can very well blow hot and blow cold, and if the Berlin Conference is good argument in India, I think the Berlin Conference is an equally good argument at home. However, I will not press that further; but taking the Bill generally, I believe it to be a useful and salutary piece of legislation, and I hope your Lordships will pass it into law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I did not know, although this matter was raised in the House of Commons, that it would be alluded to this afternoon, or I should have brought down with me the documents with regard to the Berlin Conference which would have been necessary to refresh my memory. But it appears to me that in the speech of the noble Lord he omitted an essential point. Our difficulty was that at the Berlin Conference we had to make a decision and arrive at it very rapidly. The authorities who had the conduct of matters at the Berlin Conference would not have delayed it, and the decision had to be taken. My own view of the general question is that, all things being equal, and certainly if you are to interfere with the half-time system, 12, the age fixed at the Conference, is a good limit to fix it at. At all events, the arguments lean in that direction; but, on the whole, it seems to me to be of still more importance that we should carry with us the opinion of the employers and the operatives; and where the employers and the operatives over a large district of the country have an opposite opinion, I think it is a mistake to press hardly your own opinion—even if your own
  1700
  opinion be the best—and that it is wiser to wait for some time in order that the change when made may be made with their full assent, and heartily carried out. Now, that being the case, what happened at the Berlin Conference, as far as my recollection carries me, was this—that at first it was proposed to impose a stringent obligation on the Government to adopt resolutions which were come to. But, in face of this question and of our ignorance—which was inevitable ignorance under the circumstances—of the mode in which the matter would be looked at by those principally concerned, we thought that the clearest and plainest way of dealing with it was to use a form of words which should not pledge us absolutely, though it indicated the direction in which our preference would go. That, I believe, is the result, the effect, of the refusal of diplomatic language which was given, and the acceptance of other diplomatic language which was subsequently sanctioned. Of course, I am not certain whether this view is correct, after the opposite view taken by so many high anthorities in the House of Commons; but that was distinctly my own view at the time—that, though we were compelled by the circumstances to act with some rapidity, we did not desire to pledge ourselves as to the manner and time and conditions, but we desired to leave ourselves that freedom which it seems to me you ought always to possess, and ought always to avail yourselves of, when you are dealing with the customs, the feelings, and the interest of large bodies of men whose industry and whose very sustenance are affected and compromised by the decision to which you may come. I do not think the argument in favour of raising the age is very strong. I think, on the whole, it prevails; but I agree, and I was glad to see that the noble Lord also agreed, that there is a great deal also to be said for the early introduction of those who have to earn their living to the art by which that living has afterwards to be gained, and who have to obtain facility in that art. In that way there is an actual compensation obtained for the absence of mere book-learning which is involved. However, that is not a question we propose to raise. I think the noble Lord will be disposed to agree with us that, having

  1701
  before us the decision which the House of Commons arrived at after a fair discussion, there is no reason for asking this House to reverse that decision. I always observed that on Imperial questions this House is inclined to vote in favour of proposals from the Conservative side, but on questions of philanthropy it has on more than one occasion taken an opposite view. Therefore, I am not at all prepared to say that, even if we asked the House of Lords to reverse that decision of the House of Commons, they would be prepared to do it in this case. I think, on the whole, it would be unwise to do so, especially as the House of Commons has restricted itself to the age of 11, which, with whatever reserve we may hold, was taken to be a compromise, to which we can without any doubt or hesitation assent. I am sorry I have not the Papers here. If I had them I could state the precise words which were used at the Berlin Conference, but I think the answer to the point which was raised by the noble Lord in his speech is that, as it was necessary to proceed with rapidity, we had to adopt that language, that being the only way in which, at that time, we could deal with the question.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, my recollection of the language used at the Berlin Conference entirely agrees with that of the noble Marquess, that care was taken to use language which did not compel the Government to any immediate legislation in the direction of those resolutions, but that every care was taken to safeguard the action of the Government in that respect. But I cannot help thinking it is to be regretted, even if a speedy decision were pressed for, that such a resolution was agreed to without first ascertaining what would be the views of people in this country with regard to it, because I think it would have been bettor to have declined to assent to the resolution at all, or to have guarded the matter in some way; and for this reason, that I cannot but feel that an agreement to a resolution of that description come to at an International Conference is supposed by other Powers to represent not merely the personal views of the Government of the day; I imagine it would be understood as representing the views which the Government of the day thought the
  1702
  country would be behind them in being prepared to carry out and give effect to, and not merely treat it, as the noble Marquess has suggested to-day, as a "pious opinion"—their own impression on the subject—that is to say, not what they thought simply, but what would be generally thought by the country, and might, therefore, be carried into effect. I cannot assent, therefore, to what I must consider an entirely erroneous view. There may be Conferences hereafter of the same kind, and it is a very undesirable thing if such a pledge should be given, because it seems to me, at least, to pledge us to more than the noble Marquess intended it to pledge us to. As the result has proved, subsequent inquiry has shown that the resolution was not in accordance with the general feelings of those who are engaged in trade in this country, and, therefore, that this was not legislation for which the country was prepared. If so, it seems to me a pity rather that we, who have taken part in the Conference through our representatives, should have allowed others to take part with us in recommending a course which afterwards we were not prepared to adopt.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, there is one clause which I am very glad to see in this Bill, which carries out one of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference, and which was supported by our delegates. I refer to the 17th clause, and I wish to ask Her Majesty's Government if they will take into consideration the extension of the time with regard to childbirth, so that it shall apply, not only to the immediate period after birth, but that the provision should operate during some time previously. I have not seen any medical opinion upon the subject, but last year, I may say, I saw an opinion of an hon. Gentleman formerly representing some part of Lancashire, who thought that women ought to be prevented working in mills for a certain time before as well as after childbirth. I do not see why there should not be some such provision as that for various districts, because there is a vast difference, even in this country. For instance, there is a great difference between

  1703
  Manchester and Bradford, because the temperature in the Manchester cotton mills is very different from that of the woollen mills in Bradford. I thought it right to mention that now, because in Committee it would be too late, perhaps, to call attention to the point.
  LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, agreeing as I do with what has fallen from noble Lords to-day, I will not add anything; but I should like to give notice that at a later stage I, or some noble Lord who is interested in this matter, will move an amendment in Committee with regard to laundresses similar to that which was moved in the House of Commons.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 13th of July next.

FORGED TRANSFERS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 147.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, this is a Bill which has passed the other House, having for its object to empower railway companies and other public companies, for it is merely an empowering Bill, to make compensation to those who have wrongly been put upon the register of shareholders by means of forged transfers. Cases of very considerable hardship have arisen, in which persons who have purchased railway shares and taken a transfer of them, have been put upon the register, and have received a certificate from the company giving authentic recognition to the transfer, and therefore believing themselves to be, undoubtedly shareholders, but who have afterwards found that, owing to a forgery, some other person was put upon the register, replacing them. The railway companies believe it would be to their interest and to the interest of the public at large that they should be able to make compensation, because it is obvious that anything which clogs the transfer of shares and renders their transfer a less easy matter is, to a certain extent, calculated to diminish their value, and is found to do so. Therefore,
  1704
  the Railway Companies concur in asking for the powers which this Bill proposes to give them, because at present, however willing they might be to make compensation, and however much to their interest it might be to do so, they cannot legally do it. This Bill is intended to give them that legal power, and I apprehend your Lordships will find no difficulty in giving it a second reading.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

CORK (COUNTY AND CITY) COURT HOUSES BILL.—(No. 194.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Earl Cadogan): My Lords, this is a Bill which has for its object to expedite the rebuilding of the Cork Courthouses which were destroyed by fire in March last. It appoints Commissioners for that purpose, and gives them all the requisite powers. There is nothing further to remark upon the Bill, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed forthwith.

COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 123.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to read this Bill a second time. It merely extends in a very modified way some provisions of the Oaths Act, 1889.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

SLANDER OF WOMEN BILL.—(No. 111.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD MACNAGHTEN: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to remove what many eminent persons have considered a reproach to the administration of justice in England. As the law now

  1705
  stands, spoken words imputing un-chastity to a woman are not actionable unless it can be shown that the slander has resulted in some temporal loss. Loss of reputation, loss of friends, loss of health, exclusion from society are not regarded, and a woman who is assailed by an attack on her chastity by spoken words, however gross the slander may be, cannot appeal to the law to vindicate her character unless she can prove that she has sustained some pecuniary damage, or some loss of that kind. As regards written words the law is different. In that case an action is maintainable without proof of special damage. Eminent judges have over and over again found fault with this state of the law, and in this House, sitting in its judicial capacity, it has been described as unsatisfactory, and it has been denounced as barbarous. The late Lord Chief Justice and many other Judges, some of whom are still living, have observed that it is a very cruel state of the law, and have expressed a hope that the law may be amended in that respect. Under those circumstances this Bill was brought into the other House by Mr. Milvain, and it passed through all its stages in that House without objection. I see there are several noble and learned Lords present who are very much more familiar with this branch of the law than I am, and in their presence I will not do more than ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Macnaghten)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess I am placed in a position of very considerable embarrassment by the motion of my noble and learned Friend. He says that this Bill has gone through all the stages in the other House. Of course it has, or it would not be here, coming before your Lordships. But the noble and learned Lord did not tell us whether there had been any discussion upon this Bill in the other House. I should like to know very much whether there was any discussion upon it. I have not been able to find that a single word has been uttered on the subject of this Bill in the other House, and, certainly, to repeal a law which is coeval with the law of England, without any discussion, is a
  1706
  proceeding which is rather startling. I believe that the power for bringing actions for words spoken has been the subject of the greatest possible abuse, and every tribunal, I believe, and every judge at every period of history has said the same thing. One finds traces of it everywhere, and probably the most absurd decisions in cases of that kind, in which judges have been induced to say that words were used in mitiori sensu, in order to avoid giving everybody the power of bringing such actions. In very early times, in the reign of James I., restrictions were placed on facilities for bringing such actions by rendering it necessary that a certain amount should be recovered, or that no costs should follow; and that the actions should be brought within a certain time, limitations which are not applicable to other causes of action. I confess I am at considerable embarrassment on this subject, because one does not like to take the responsibility of moving that a Bill be read a second time this day six months when it has gone through the House of Commons, as the noble and learned Lord says, without objection, and I hesitate to take that course now; but I must say when the Bill gets into Committee, I shall endeavour to place upon its passing and coming into operation, such restrictions as to costs and otherwise as will diminish what appears to me to be the serious danger which would result from opening a new field of litigation upon this subject of words spoken. I am quite aware that it is possible to put this matter theoretically, and to represent a principle of this sort as being very wrong and as doing a great deal of mischief; and to say that a woman ought to be able to defend her reputation by bringing an action in such cases. It is very easy to put that theoretically, but I doubt very much whether this form of action would assist one modest woman to maintain her reputation. Under the circumstances, as I have said, I shrink from the responsibility of moving that the Bill be read a second time this day six months; and with that warning to my noble and learned Friend as to what I shall do in Committee, I shall not move the rejection of the Bill.
  *LORD BRAMWELL: I do not share in the objections or in the dislike of

  1707
  the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to this Bill. It seems to me to be a most proper one. If a man or woman is called a thief, he or she can maintain an action for the injury, and most reasonably. Nobody will dispute that that is a reasonable thing, and that the law would be wrong if it did not permit it. But if an action can be maintained for that, surely an action ought to be maintainable for that which is quite as grievous an imputation, namely, impugning the chastity of a woman. Which of the charges is the worse? I am sure I do not know. I believe they are equally bad; and until the person who may be charged with the offence or delinquency has got a fresh character, why that person is practically banished from society, and is unable to get employment, or, in the case of a woman, what, as I should submit to your Lordships, has always been considered a most reasonable and desirable thing for a woman, unable to get a husband. Now, the noble and learned Lord says this will give rise to vexatious actions, and that costs will be increased. Well, I daresay it will be so—I suppose it will. I suppose, whenever you allow an action to be brought for anything, you open up a possibility of vexatious proceedings, and the only way for your Lordships to stop vexatious proceedings to a certainty is to stop all actions whatever, because as long as any are allowed there is a chance of vexatious actions being brought. With respect to costs, I am very glad to say the law now is, that there is a discretion in the judge whether costs shall be given, and they are often given against the plaintiff, even where he has got a nominal verdict for a farthing, or a few shillings. I do not, for my own part, apprehend that there will be any unreasonable or undue quantity of vexatious actions in consequence of this proposal of my noble and learned Friend. I shall not quote cases upon this subject at any length, but I think it might be some comfort to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, if I refer to some authorities so as to show that this is not a modern notion. I will not trouble your Lordships with any facts in the cases, but just refer to the decisions. Holt, Chief Justice, said—
  1708
  "For his part, whenever words tended to take away a man's reputation he would encourage actions for them, because so doing would contribute much to the preservation of the peace."
  That was the opinion of Chief Justice Holt with respect to words spoken, and as it is 200 years old, no doubt it will have the respect of my noble and learned Friend. Possibly your Lordships may have heard of cases, inasmuch as no action would lie where assault and battery was committed; but I have another case to bring before your Lordships. Justice Fortescue says this in a case in 8 Modern Reports, which is also 200 years old—"The rule of construction, in actions for words spoken, is very different from what it formerly used to be; the maxim for spoken words, in amitiori sensu, has for a good while been suspended."
  THELORD CHANCELLOR: Hear, hear!
  LORD BRAMWELL: I thought my noble and learned Friend said it was still in force. But Justice Fortescue says here, "It has been exploded." My noble and learned Friend said these actions would be too numerous, and the judges, in order to avoid them, had been compelled to construe words in amitiori sensu. Well, I can only say that was the opinion of those eminent judges 200 years ago. This learned judge says that the reason for expounding words in amitiori sensu has been for a great while exploded, and he adds—
  "For nearly 50 or 60 years,"
  that makes up two centuries and a half—
  "whenever words are disreputable they are actionable. It was a rule of Holt, C.J., to make words actionable whenever they sound to the disreputation of the person of whom they were spoken; and this was also Hales and Twisden's rule, and I think it a very good rule."
  That was the opinion of Justice Fortescue—not the one who lived in the reign of Henry VI., but the one who lived in the time of the Georges. I see it is 8 George I. I have quoted to your Lordships similar opinions in approbation by Holt, by Hales, and by Twisden. Now just one word more, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me, for this, perhaps, is more relevant to the matter in hand. This is in 6 Modern Reports, page 148. It was an

  1709
  action for words spoken of a woman, and the particular word used was of the most offensive character. I do not trouble your Lordships with what the particular word was—
  "If it were res nova, it were reasonable to make the first word actionable,"
  that is to say—using the particular word I have mentioned—
  "for no greater misfortune can befall a young woman, whoso well-being depends on having a good husband, than to be reputed a——,"
  and then comes the word which I need not repeat—
  "But the authorities are too many and great to run counter to them, and the reason of them is that fornication is a spiritual offence not punishable at Common Law; and an action would not be charging one with an offence of which the law takes no notice without special damage."
  The noble and learned Lord has said that subterfuges have been used in order to get rid of actions. Well, subterfuges have been used in order to maintain them, because if a woman could show she had lost two or three dinners, for instance, in consequence of words spoken, she is at liberty to maintain an action. "There was a time when heretics were put to death, yet it was never actionable to call a man a heretic." Well, I suppose that was also because it was a spiritual offence, like fornication. I hope these venerable authorities will incline my noble and learned Friend to look more favourably upon this Bill when it comes again before your Lordships. But I do declare that it is, to me, an outrageous thing that perhaps the most grievous charge—well, as grievous a charge as any that can be brought against a woman, may be brought against her, provided it is done by word of mouth without writing, with impunity, without a particle of justification for it.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am, perhaps, one of the last who would like to extend the law of slander, or the law of libel in most cases; but, the law in regard to this particular class of cases has always appeared to me to be a reproach to us. It is a matter as to which I have wondered that it could have remained as it is for so long. Surely it cannot be denied that a woman may suffer as much wrong by being accused of unchastity, or adultery,
  1710
  as a man can by being accused of a criminal offence. I should have thought that nobody could doubt it. Now, I quite admit that an action for words spoken and published may sometimes be brought when the facts do not justify it, and that you have not the same means of reducing the fact to a certainty in such cases as you have in the case of writing, and to that extent there is, perhaps, some reason for the distinction between slander and libel. But if you are not to allow an action for this particular kind of slander on that ground, why do you allow it in other cases in which it is allowed by law? I should have thought this particular case about the last in which a causeless action would be likely to be brought by a woman, because in order to bring it, she must come forward and tell the world that she has been accused of unchastity, or adultery, which I think the generality of women would not be likely to do, if the fact were not so. Therefore, I own, I can hardly imagine a case in which vexatious and groundless actions are less likely to be brought. At the same time, if my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack has any safeguards to propose, which he thinks should accompany this measure, I am sure they will receive, as they ought to receive, the most careful consideration.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hardly like to intervene in a purely legal discussion, but, perhaps, this is a matter upon which a layman may venture to form a judgment as well as lawyers. I would venture, therefore, to make a suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, who spoke last. He spoke of an imputation of unchastity against a woman as the greatest wrong that could be done to her. I should only accept that statement if I might accompany it with this reservation, namely, that I might be allowed to insert the word "modest." It is no doubt the greatest wrong that can be done to a modest woman, but it is very little wrong to one who is not. It seems to me a matter of very great doubt whether you ought to allow a woman to make a claim for damages, and to ask for defence against that charge, unless you allow countervailing evidence to

  1711
  be adduced that she is not a modest woman.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite agree.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I entirely agree with the noble Marquess opposite; but I would point out that that would be so under the present law.
  *THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not mean to say on that occasion, but that she had not been previously modest.
  LORD HERSCHELL: If a woman be of unchaste life, although not unchaste on the particular occasion, that would clearly be a matter to be considered in regard to damages. I should say that no such action would be likely to succeed. This Bill does not really alter the general law of slander and libel; it merely enables this particular thing to be a cause of action; but it leaves open all the other defences with regard to truth and other matters, which would be open at present in any libel or slander action—those defences would be open still.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make one observation, although I have no right to speak again. I have only one remark to make in reply to what my noble and learned Friend said, and I will put it in the form of a question. It is—Whether he would be prepared to lay down the law as now existing which he quotes from Justice Fortescue, who quotes from Lord Hales, and other high authorities, that whatever is disreputable in words is actionable?
  *LORD BRAMWELL: No.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought the noble and learned Lord would not say that.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

LAW AGENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL, now LAW AGENTS AND NOTARIES PUBLIC (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 198.)
Amendments reported (according to order); and Bill to be read 3a tomorrow.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2.) BILL.
Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
CORK (COUNTY AND CITY) COURT HOUSES BILL.—(No. 194.)
Reported without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Elgin (E. Elgin and Kincardine) and the Lord Hamilton of Dalzell to the Standing Committee for the consideration of the Local Authorities (Scotland) Loans Bill. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock