HL Deb 29 June 1891 vol 354 cc1685-703

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- 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.