THIRD READING. (Hansard, 21 July 1899)

§ THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTER
I think I need not trouble your Lordships with any observations in moving the Third Reading of this Bill. The Amendments which were inserted in the Standing Committee were of a verbal character, and did not affect the principle of the Bill.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
I would ask your Lordships' indulgence while I offer a few remarks upon this Bill, which, trifling as it may appear, seriously affects the character of our legislation, and the way in which it has been dealt with by your Lordships affects more or less the character of your Lordships' House. We have all seen, in our experience, that very of ten important questions are centred in matters which in themselves are trifling 1521 and unimportant, and a very important principle is centred in this so-called trifling Bill, the object of which is to find seats for shop girls. When I spoke upon the Bill the other day I ventured to describe it as a trifling and humanitarian, rather than a practical, measure, and I would apply this test to this kind of legislation. What would all the great Parliamentarians of the past, from Pitt down to Palmerston, have said if they had been told by any prophet of their time that the day would come when Parliament would take up such a question as this? I am sure they would have laughed in the face of any such prophet, and would have told him that he was libelling that Parliament of which they felt so proud. I contend that Parliament was not designed for legislation of this kind. In support of my statement that the way in which your Lordships have dealt with the Bill affects the character of this House, let me simply relate the story of the Bill. It was brought in affecting Scotland alone, having passed through the other House in the early hours of the morning without debate and without discussion. On its arrival in this House, Lord Shand made an excellent speech against it, and moved its rejection. The noble Marquess, the Prime Minister, also denounced the Bill, and said that if your Lordships did not take care this legislation would reach your own households. Your Lordships cast out the Bill, without a single Member, except the mover, raising a word in support of its principle. What happened next? The same Bill was again introduced into the other House by Sir John Lubbock, the only difference being that its principle was extended to England and Wales and not to Scotland. The House of Commons also passed that Bill almost without a word, and sent it direct to your Lordships' House. Will the noble Viscount (Viscount Cross), who seems in favour of this legislation by a little observation and cheer which he just let drop, deny that a measure thus cast out by your Lordships and sent back again directly from the Commons, in the mariner in which this Bill was returned, is a slap in the face? It is a slap in the face which I have never seen given to this House in my time. And who is it that inflicts this slap in the face upon your Lordships? My noble friend, the Duke of West-Minster. Why the noble Duke has taken 1522 this question up I do not know. He was one of my oldest and dearest friends, and nearly thirty years ago we lived together in a cave—we were Adullamites. My noble friend was at that time a sen—sible man; there was nothing hysterical or humanitarian about him, and he did not bring in Bills of this kind. Why this change? It may be that no w m noble friend no longer lives in a cave, but resides in a great house and is a ground' landlord, he thinks that he has certain seignorial duties. This Bill, which your Lordships had rejected six weeks ago with ignominy, was passed on the 11th of July by a majority of three to one. I contend that legislation of this kind is a degradation of Parliament, and it is a matter of great regret that it should have been treated in the way it has been by your Lordships. It will prove more hurtful than useful. What has been the result of the Workmen's Compensation Bill? Why, at the Barrow Works—I see the noble Duke present—no man is admitted over fifty years of age.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE)
That is not a fact.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
Then my noble friend should take care that no official paper is issued stating that no man is received over fifty. Has not the noble Duke seen it?

§ THE DUKE OP DEVONSHIRE
Yes; I have seen it. Have you got the paper?

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
I have read it.

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
Have you got the paper?

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
No; not in my pocket.

§ THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE
That is not the effect of the bill.

§ THE EARL OF WEMYSS
What is the effect? The belief is that perhaps it was found unpopular and has been altered. On the Second Reading, the Right Rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said it was all moonshine to say that this Bill would have the effect of diminishing wages and substituting men for women as 1523 shop assistants; but my noble friend the Prime Minister brought excellent facts and data before your Lordships, from men who know what they are talking about, proving that this will be the result. The Bill is full of inconsistency. It provides that in every shop' there shall be one seat to every three persons employed. Why is this to be done? Because it is said that it is hurtful to the health of shop assistants that they should be compelled to stand. The Bill will be worthless, as it does not provide that the assistants shall use the seats. That seems to me a great inconsistency in the Bill, and, as regards the health of the shop assistants, let me say that my house looks out on the Green Park, and I constantly see these girls, in the pouring rain, going to their work. Will anyone tell me that remaining in shops in wet clothes and wet shoes and stockings is not more hurtful to them than being compelled to stand? For everyone who is injured for want of a seat, there are dozens who die through wearing wet clothes and stockings. At the rate we are going on we shall have Viscount Cross, the Duke of Westminster, and the Bishops, with the grandmotherly help of Mr. Chamberlain in another place, bringing in a Shop Girls' Dry Shoes and Stockings Bill. And if not, why not? It is to the principle of this Bill that I object. This great mother of Parliaments was never designed to touch peddling legislation such as this, which should be left to the instincts of humanity and to the progress of public opinion. The action of your Lordships in rejecting the Bill with ignominy one day, and sanctioning it by a majority of three to one six weeks later, will not tend to raise your Lordships' House in the estimation of the public. It is of no use dividing upon this Bill, but as a matter of principle and for my own conscience I move that the Bill be read this day three months.