Lords Sitting of 15 August 1901

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. considered (according to Order) and suspended for the remainder of the session.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  PAISLEY DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  DEVONPORT CORPORATION (GAS) BILL.
  LOCH LEVEN WATER POWER BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TRAMWAYS AND STREET WIDENINGS) BILL.
  SOUTHAMPTON AND WINCHESTER GREAT WESTERN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  EDUCATION BOARD PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered, (according to Order), and agreed to.
  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4.) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order); Amendments made; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  BIRTHS, DEATHS, AND MARRIAGES.
  Forty-fifth Detailed Annual Report of the Registrar General of Births, Deaths,
  862
  and Marriages in Scotland (Abstracts of 1899).

  AFRICA (No. 1) (1901).
  Report by His Majesty's Commissioner on the East African Protectorate.
  SHIPPING CASUALTIES.
  Abstract of the returns made to the Board of Trade of shipping casualties which occurred on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, from 1st July, 1899, to 30th June, 1900; and shipping casualties which occurred to British vessels elsewhere than on or near the coasts, or in rivers and harbours, of the United Kingdom, and to foreign vessels on or near the coasts, or in rivers or harbours, of British Possessions abroad, reported during the same period; with charts and appendices.
  BOARD OF TRADE (TRADE UNIONS).
  Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on Trade Unions in 1900.

  RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
  1 General report to the Board of Trade upon the accidents that have occurred on the railways of the United Kingdom during the year 1900.

  2. Returns of accidents and casualties as reported to the Board of Trade by the several railway companies in the United Kingdom during the three months ended 31st March, 1901, in pursuance of the Regulation of Railways Act (1871), 34th and 35th Victoria, chap. 78; together with reports of the inspecting officers of the Railway Department to the Board of Trade upon certain accidents which were inquired into.

  3. Similar Returns during the six months ended 30th June, 1901.

  FOREIGN IMPORT DUTIES.
  Statement of the rates of import duties levied in European countries, in the United States, and in Japan, upon the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom.

  BOARD OF TRADE (PROPOSED NEW-GERMAN TARIFF).
  Translation of the proposed new German Customs Tariff, with comparison, as far as possible, of the rates of Customs

  863
  duty contained in the proposed tariff, with the rates at present in force on imports into Germany from the United Kingdom.

  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 329, Malta (Report for 1900).
  SOUTH AFRICA.
  Proclamation issued by Lord Kitchener, as Administrator of the Transvaal, on 1st July, 1901, respecting payments under contracts to purchase or lease land or mining rights, etc., entered into prior to the war.

  NAVY.
  Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of navy rations, etc.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
  Additional and Amending General Orders for the regulation of proceedings under and in pursuance of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899.

  1. Reserve.—Further regulations relating to the Army Reserve.
  2. Militia.—Further regulations relating to the Militia.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF LANCASTER.)
  Order made by the county council of the county of Lancaster re-dividing the Eccles Parliamentary Division into con venient polling districts.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Four Orders relating to the foreign animals wharves at Deptford and Cardiff.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie upon the Table.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
  National Gallery (Purchase of Adjacent Land).
  The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  ROYAL TITLES BILL [H.L.].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to.

  MILITIA AND YEOMANRY BILL.
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.].
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.

  EARLY CLOSING OF SHOPS.
  BETTING.
  Message from the Commons for copies of the Reports, etc., from the Select Committees. Ordered to be communicated accordingly.
  EAST INDIA LOAN (GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY DEBENTURES) BILL.—(The Earl of Hardwicke.) (No. 205.)
  REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS BILL.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 206.)
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN.—(The Lord Bishop of Rochester.) (No. 207.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(The Lord Ashbourne.) (No. 208.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896, ETC., CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Denbigh, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill. The Congested

  865
  Districts Board, which was formed some years ago by Mr. Arthur Balfour, has from time to time needed amendments in its original constitution, and this short Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons, is, like the other Amendments that have been agreed to, designed to smooth the operations and facilitate the working of the Board. The first clause is introduced for the purpose of facilitating the management of land by the Congested Districts Board. The provision is safeguarded by the fact that its operation is in the hands of a public board, that three-fourths of the tenants in number and value must initiate what is to be done, and that full power is given to the County Courts to see that ample compensation in exchange or money is given for the farm taken. The other clauses of the Bill are also intended to improve the machinery of the Board, and in these circumstances I hope your Lordships will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Ashbourne.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  NATIONAL GALLERY (PURCHASE OF ADJACENT LAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to enable the Government to obtain some land adjacent to the National Gallery in order to make adequate provision against fire in that building. Only the other day a fire broke out in a house very close to the National Gallery, and the danger in that way is so great that a measure of this kind is necessary and advisable in the interest of the great works of art contained in the building. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dudley.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY): My Lords, before the Bill is read a second time I should like to call attention to the fact that it
  866
  is a Bill which enables land to be taken compulsorily. That is a very serious matter at this period of the session. I have, however, had a conversation with my right hon. friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, and I understand that he is prepared to omit the compulsory powers and that an Amendment to that effect will be moved in Committee. In these circumstances, although I am bound to say it is very late in the session for a Bill of this kind to be introduced, I do not think it right, having regard to the considerations which have been advanced by my noble friend, to oppose the Bill. But the taking of land compulsorily should not be allowed unless an opportunity is afforded to persons who may be injuriously affected to object.
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported, without amendment, and read 3a.
  THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I now beg to move an Amendment to carry out the suggestion made by the Chairman of Committees omitting the provision dealing with the compulsory powers of taking land.
  Amendment made.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS AMENDMENT AND CONSOLIDATION BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BELPER: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I do not think it will be necessary to inform your Lordships that the Bill has received very full and detailed discussion both in a Standing Committee of the other House and in the House itself. It is in no sense a contentious measure, and, although there have been considerable differences of opinion with regard to details, the discussions have been carried on on both sides of the House of Commons in a businesslike manner, and with a

  867
  desire to come to the most satisfactory conclusions possible, with regard to the details of this very large and complicated measure. Considerable Amendments have been embodied in the Bill, and it comes to your Lordships' House with the good wishes of all who desire to see it passed. No new principle is embodied in the measure. It carries out two objects; first, it amends the Factory and Workshop Act in several respects in which experience has shown that amendment is needed. I think it will be recognised by all that it will be an immense boon to all concerned to have the whole law consolidated in one Act, as is done in this Bill. Owing to the late period of the session at which the Bill comes before your Lordships, I do not think it will be considered necessary that I should address the House at any length on the subject, but I should like to call attention to one or two of the principal changes in the law which are brought about by this Bill, and to one or two of the most important points in the measure. The first important point to which I will refer is the question dealing with dangerous trades. Under the existing state of the law some inconvenience is found, and the Bill proposes that in any dangerous trade the Secretary of State shall have the power to draft the regulations which are to be enforced in factories where a dangerous trade is being carried on. There will be the fullest opportunity to those affected; they will have a hearing, before a competent person who will be appointed for the purpose, with regard to the regulations which have been made. After that hearing it will lie in the power of the Secretary of State to deal with the matter, and he will have the full responsibility subject to the control of Parliament. The Bill also deals with the regulation of work which is given out, as it is thought that places of this kind should be under proper inspection and control. The Bill deals with a number of other matters, such as ventilation, drainage, inspection of steam boilers, and also with the fish curing and fruit preserving industries. As those industries depend on perishable articles it is necessary that the stringent regulations with regard to hours should not be enforced, but at the same time it has been thought that there is no
  868
  reason why the other regulations with regard to factories should not obtain. Therefore the Bill proposes to extend those regulations to these two particular industries. These are the prominent features, and they are matters of detail and not of principle. As to the laundry question, when the Bill was considered it was thought desirable that the present law, which has not been found to work satisfactorily, should be amended, and therefore laundries were put into the Bill for the purpose of being regulated. In the Standing Committee there was a very full and long discussion on the matter, and very strong objection was taken by the Irish Members to any inspection of laundries carried on in conventual establishments. Finally the Bill went to the House with a clause in it dealing with laundries with the exception of this particular class which were not to be inspected. This was following a course of procedure which had been adopted on previous occasions when some objections were taken by the Irish Members. When the matter came before the whole House the Home Secretary was placed in a great difficulty. It was his desire to see the laundries continued in the Bill. At the same time he had to consider the Bill as a whole. There was the strongest objection to exempted laundries being in competition with other laundries, while on the other hand the Irish Members were determined, in any case, to prevent inspection, and the Home Secretary finally decided to omit the clause altogether. This was carried by an overwhelming majority. This is not the first time that pressure had been brought to bear, and certainly it is not the first time that at this late period of a session it has been found necessary to omit clauses owing to the exigencies of the moment. It will be admitted, I think, that if there ever was a Bill in which such a necessity might arise it is in the case of this large Bill, which contains no less than 162 clauses and covers over 100 pages of printed matter. It will be impossible for the Government to agree to any Amendment in your Lordships' House in opposition to the striking out of the clause, for that would endanger the passing of the Bill. Of course, the Government did not pledge themselves with regard to the future. The whole matter can be left open to be dealt with,

  869
  if thought desirable, on another occasion. One other point to which I wish to refer is the Saturday half-holiday. The Home Secretary resisted the proposal that it should commence at 12 o'clock instead of 1 o'clock, but the decision of the House was against the Government. My right hon. friend accepted that decision, and the Government cannot accept any Amendment on that matter. I hope I have said enough to induce your Lordships to pass the Bill without any substantial Amendments.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Belper.)
  *LORD WINDSOR: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy the time of the House with any remarks upon the Second Reading, because I have no objection to what is contained in the Bill, but to what is omitted. I think that some protest should be made with regard to the little opportunity we have had of examining this Bill, as it was not printed till this morning. I only rise now to intimate that in Committee I shall move a clause dealing with laundries, inserting the clause as amended in the other House, with the addition of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the noble Lord who has just spoken in protesting against the position in which the House of Lords is placed by having this long and important Bill brought forward on the last night but one of the session. I believe that I am the sole representative of the Opposition present, and the Government may blame the noble Lords who support me for not being present. But the practice is of long standing, and I find even the usually well filled benches opposite rather bare. I therefore most earnestly protest againt a Bill of this magnitude and importance being brought on at so late a period of the session. This Bill, as the noble Lord who introduced it said, consolidates the present law and enacts certain new clauses. I do not propose to discuss the general enactments of the Bill; they are no doubt of considerable importance, and I should be very sorry if they were not passed. At the same time I must refer to one grave omission from the Bill—the clause dealing with laundries. This question has been
  870
  before your Lordships on more than one occasion. When in 1891 the Government of the day introduced a Bill with regard to factories the question of laundries was prominently brought before your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Dunraven moved an Amendment, which met with considerable support, in favour of including laundries in the Act. In the Act of 1895, which was introduced by Lord Rosebery's Government and taken up by Lord Salisbury's Government, there was a clause referring to laundries, but it contained this important exception—
  "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are (a) inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school or other institution for the time being subject to inspection under any Act other than this Act; or (b) inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes. "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there, or in which the number of persons ordinarily employed (exclusive of such members, if any) does not exceed two."
  The noble Lord, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, admitted that the clauses of that Act which referred to laundries—I mean the laundries held for profit by private people—were ineffective and unsatisfactory. What did the Secretary of State himself say with regard to this not long ago? He said—
  "But the Committee [the Committee of 1895] to which the Bill was referred did not accept the proposal in its entirety, for although it was not the intention of the Committee to remove laundries from the operations of the sanitary provisions they thought that the nature of the operations carried on in laundries required some relaxation of the law with respect to the daily distribution of the hours of labour. However, the clause embodying the regulations approved by that Committee was drawn in so hazy a fashion that it did not carry out what I believe were the intentions of the Committee, and as a fact it has been found practically incapable of enforcement for many reasons."
  Therefore the Bill as it now stands, without any reference to laundries, will continue what has been found to be a great hardship with regard to those employed in laundries. As the noble Lord has stated, in the present Bill there was originally a clause dealing with laundries, and though exceptions were attached to it in Grand Committee, I would much rather have had the clause with the exceptions than no clause at all. I do not believe that a laundry which is

  871
  carried on under proper sanitary conditions would on that account be unable to compete with other laundries. As to the religious question, anyone who has been long in Ireland must have admiration for the great philanthropic work done by the nuns. They appear to object to inspection of the laundries attached to their convents, and I regret it exceedingly, because in the great majority of cases they conduct the laundries in a perfectly efficient and satisfactory manner, and they can have nothing to fear from inspection, while by refusing it they will, I am afraid, put themselves under suspicion. I noticed that in another place a well known member of the Roman Catholic faith approved of an Amendment which enabled inspection to be made, and that gives me some hope that even in Ireland an arrangement might be made whereby these regulations could be applied. I most strongly and earnestly protest against the omission of the laundry clause. There is no class which more requires protection than the laundry workers, who number, in London alone, something like 100,000; and it is lamentable that the Government should have surrendered the clause. Whether it was to placate the Irish or to prevent the holidays from being delayed for a few days, the Government have taken a very serious responsibility. The present Goveznment are in a very different position from the Government of 1895, for the former have an enormous majority and the later were dependent on the votes of the Irish. I trust that the Bill will become law; but I deeply regret that it does not deal with a hard-working class which has too long been neglected.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I rise with the greatest reluctance, but I feel compelled to join in the protest against the introduction of a Bill of this kind at this period of the session. We are on the eve of the holidays, and during the recess some of us may attend public meetings, and at these meetings the question is sometimes asked, "Is the House of Lords worth preserving?" What is the use of the House of Lords if a Bill of this magnitude and importance is to be presented at a time when it cannot be dis-
  872
  cussed, and when it is forced, practically, down our throats whether we like it or not? If ever there was a Bill which should be referred to the Standing Committee of your Lordships' House, it is the measure now before us; but yet so little regard have the Government to the functions of that Committee that they actually propose to pass the Bill without submitting it to the consideration and criticism of that Committee. My experience of the House is not large enough to entitle me to criticise its procedure, but the proposal of the Government appears to me so monstrous a proceeding that I trust I may be forgiven for raising my voice in protest against it.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
  House in Committee accordingly.

  Clauses 1 to 57 agreed to.

  Clause 58 amended, and agreed to.

  Clause 59 agreed to.

  Clause 60 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 61 to 81 agreed to.

  Clause 82 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.

  Clause 87 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 88 to 92 agreed to.

  Clause 93 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 94 and 95 agreed to.

  Clause 96 amended, and agreed to.

  Clauses 97 to 102 agreed to.

  LORD BELPER: I now have to move the insertion of a new clause after Clause 102. As the Laundry Clause has been struck out, it is necessary to insert this new clause, which is taken from the Act of 1895, so that it may be consolidated with the rest of the law.
  Amendment moved—
  "To insert as a new clause after Clause 102:—

  (1) In every laundry carried on by way of trade, or for purposes of gain, the following provisions shall apply:—

  (a) The period of employment, exclusive of meal hours and absence from work, shall not exceed, for women fourteen hours, for young persons twelve hours, and for children ten hours in any consecutive twenty-four hours; nor a total for women and young persons of sixty hours, and for children of thirty hours, in any one week, in addition to such overtime as may be allowed in the case of women.

  873

  (b) A woman, young person, or child must not be employed continuously for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal.

  (c) Women, young persons, and children employed in the laundry shall have allowed to them the same holidays as are allowed to women, young persons, and children employed in a factory or workshop under this Act.

  (d) So far as regards provisions with respect to health and safety, accidents, education of children, notice of occupation of a factory or workshop, the affixing of abstracts and notices and the matters to be specified in those notices (so far as they apply to laundries), powers of inspectors, fines, and legal proceedings for any failure to comply with the provisions of this section, this Act shall have effect as if every laundry in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used in aid of the laundry process were a factory, and every other laundry were a workshop, and as if every occupier of a laundry were the occupier of a factory or of a workshop.

  (e) The notice to be affixed in the laundry shall specify the period of employment and the times for meals, but the period and times so specified may be varied before the beginning of employment on any day.

  (f) The provisions of this Act prohibiting the employment of women within four weeks after childbirth, and of children under the age of twelve years, shall apply to the laundry in like manner as to a factory or workshop.

  (2) Women employed in laundries may work overtime, subject to the following conditions, namely:—

  (a) A woman must not work more than fourteen hours in any day; and

  (b) The overtime worked must not exceed two hours in any day; and

  (c) Overtime must not be worked on more than three days in any week or more than thirty days in any year; and

  (d) The requirements of section sixty of this Act with respect to notices must be observed.

  (3) In the case of every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power—

  (a) A fan or other means of a proper construction must be provided, maintained, and used for regulating the temperature in every ironing-room, and for carrying away the steam in every washhouse in the laundry; and

  (b) All stoves for heating irons must be sufficiently separated from any ironing-room, and gas irons emitting any noxious fumes must not be used; and

  (c) The floors must be kept in good condition and drained in such manner as will allow the water to flow off freely.

  A laundry in which these provisions are contravened shall be deemed to be a factory not kept in conformity with this Act.

  (4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are—

  (a) Inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school, or other institution for the
  874
  time being subject to inspection under any Act other than this Act; or

  (b) Inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious purposes; or

  (c) Members of the same family dwelling there,

  or in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed."—(Lord Belper).

  *LORD WINDSORmoved as an Amendment the insertion of the clause struck out of the Bill, modifying it, after the first three sub-sections, by the inclusion, as the fourth sub-section, of what was known as Mr. Talbot's Amendment—namely—
  "Where the only persons working in any laundry are the inmates of an institution of a reformatory character, and the managers of that institution represent in writing to the Secretary of State that any specified provisions of this Act cannot be carried out in that laundry without prejudicially affecting the discipline of that institution, the Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that this is the ease, by order, under Section 121 of this Act, modify the requirements of this Act in their application to that laundry."
  This Amendment, he said, appeared on the Notice Paper of the House of Commons, and, though it was not reached, he believed it had the approval of the Home Secretary. His Amendment, therefore, would consist of the first three sub-sections of the clause which had been struck out, Mr. Talbot's Amendment as the fourth sub-section, and the following as the fifth sub-section—
  "Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are members of the same family dwelling there."
  It was admitted in all parts of the House of Commons except one—namely, by certain representatives from Ireland—that it was desirable to include laundries of all kinds in the Bill. As to the argument that the Bill could only be saved by the sacrifice of the provision respecting laundries, he admitted that it would have carried great weight if the measure had been purely of an amending character. But this was a consolidating Bill, which was supposed to gather together the complicated strings of various other Acts of Parliament, and make the law on the subject definite and capable of being easily understood. The Government intended to introduce a clause which would leave the law respecting laundries as it was at this moment. That was extremely unsatisfactory. The Home Secretary himself had expressed the view

  875
  that the present state of the law with regard to laundries was unsatisfactory and confused. There was evidence that in many instances laundries under charitable institutions were conducted in a way which would not be allowed if Government inspectors had to report upon them. It was a great blot on this measure that laundries should be excluded from the benefit of the Act. If an Amendment were made by that House he ventured to think that it would not be impossible for the Government to press it and pass it in the other House, though perhaps it might involve the addition of a few days to the session.
  Amendment moved.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, there are so many topics dealt with in this Bill in which, during my parliamentary life, I have taken very great interest, that I trust your Lordships will allow me to deal with the critical situation which has now arisen. There is no member of the Government who does not admit that there is a great deal of force in the criticisms that have been made; it cannot be doubted that the position of this House in the exercise of its great and responsible duties with regard to this Bill is a very regrettable one. But it is necessary to treat this matter practically. It is useless for us to discuss upon whom the fault lies for the Bill being presented so late to this House; there have been circumstances of great difficulty connected with the action of Parliament during the present session, and I am sure the Home Secretary, who has shown the greatest interest in the measure, has done his best to produce it to your Lordships' House at the earliest moment.
  But I am sure your Lordships will agree that if fault lies with anyone, there is one class to whom it cannot attach, for surely the factory operatives, on whom the disaster of this Bill being rejected will fall, have committed no fault. I venture, therefore, to beg of you to consider whether it will be wise, because it is thought someone is at fault, to throw the burden of that fault on those who would otherwise receive great benefits under the Bill? The measure is, no doubt, to a great extent a consolidating Bill, but it also contains new and improved
  876
  legislation. I could point to clause after clause which will confer immense benefit on those employed in factories and others. These clauses can, with your Lordships' permission, become law; and surely it is not advisable, because the Bill is not quite complete, to wreck it altogether. Lord Windsor has termed this till almost a perfect Bill, and yet because one clause is absent it is sought to throw out a Bill so full of benefits affecting the lives of factory operatives. I ask noble Lords to consider what will be gained thereby. You will be in no better position with regard to laundries, and you will have denied to the working classes the hundred beneficent provisions of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Windsor was perfectly correct in saying that the Home Secretary had declared that the state of the law with-regard to laundries was most unsatisfactory. My right hon. friend still entertains that view, and he has pledged himself to do his utmost to bring about an amendment in the law. I therefore, ask your Lordships not to refuse this beneficent legislation on account of the absence of one clause.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the assumption which underlies the argument just addressed to the House is that it is quite impossible, if the Amendment is carried, to carry the Amendment also in the other House of Parliament. There is nothing to convince the House of that, except that the Government have been themselves convinced. I am not convinced at all that it is impossible. It is quite possible the Government may decline to undertake the labour of forcing the clause through the House of Commons, but that they have not the power to carry the Amendment through that House is a matter which I have not heard any argument sufficient to prove. Meanwhile it is proposed that a large section of women workers engaged in laundries who cannot protect themselves should be altogether excluded from the protection which is given to working women in every other industry. The position would be different if the Government said that they had the matter in their mind, and that they did intend to take it up, and not to leave the women employed in laundries outside the benefits

  877
  of the Bill. Am I to understand that that is the intention?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That, is exactly what I had hoped to say, if I did not say it.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Are we to understand that we may accept that as a distinct intention on the part of the Government to deal with the laundries in the next session of Parliament, or very soon afterwards?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I cannot say next session, but at the earliest practicable opportunity open to us.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The statement just made alters the position very considerably, and I hope the Government will bear in mind what is implied in such an announcement of their intention, and that we shall not see these poor women left out of consideration for any considerable period, because there is difficulty in obtaining proper protection for them in the present session.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I only wish to intervene for a moment in order to point out that the statement of the, noble Lord goes considerably beyond what the Secretary of State, said in the House of Commons. What the Secretary of State said was of the vaguest possible character. He said, if my recollection is clear, that he was not without hope that at some not remote period he might be able to deal with this question, possibly by an arrangement which he had hitherto failed to effect. That is very different from the promise which the most rev. Prelate has been given by the noble Lord.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTERclaimed justification for saying something on this subject, inasmuch as he was himself the executive head of two of the largest institutions connected with the Church of England for the care and reformation of young women of the class referred to, and he also for many years had a place on the council of a third. To praise the devotion of the ladies to whom these duties were entrusted was unnecessary. Their work was beyond praise, but, so far as the Church of England Homes were concerned, he was anxious to emphasise the fact that, quite
  878
  apart from their earnestness and devotion to what they rightly deemed to be religious duty, they constantly endeavoured so to arrange their work and to manage their institutions as to fall into line with every reasonable improvement or regulation laid down respecting laundries and factories that were under Government inspection. He did not know what the motives were of those in Ireland who advocated the exemption of laundries from inspection if they were connected with religious communities, but he did know that the institutions on this side of St. George's Channel which were connected with the Church of England were not only ready to be inspected, but desired and welcomed it on every ground. Therefore they ought to be relieved from the suspicion, utterly untrue, of having joined hands with those who had asked to be relieved from periodical and reasonable Government inspection. The suspicion that those who asked to be relieved did so because of something of which they were ashamed might be unfair, but at least it was a perfectly natural suspicion. The institutions for whom he spoke were lumped together with those who were objecting on the other side of the St. George's Channel. It was an utter mistake. They desired the fullest light thrown on everything they did, and they were more than ready to accept direction and advice on all such matters as sanitation, safety of workers, and hours work. The right rev. Prelate read a resolution which had been unanimously passed by the council of one of the largest of these institutions connected with the Church of England, namely, the great Magdalen Hospital at Streatham, declaring that the inspection of laundries connected with religious and charitable institutions ought to be welcomed, provided always that power was left with the Government or the inspector to sanction such deviation from or modification in the rules laid down for public laundries as should render those rules applicable to institutions in which the workers were resident inmates for whose moral good the institutions were being carried on. That was, he said, the general opinion of those responsible for the management of these large institutions in connection with the Church of England, and it would be most unfair to them if that were not said publicly to-day.
  LORD BELPER: I should like to say, on behalf of the Home Secretary, that my right hon. friend has repeatedly expressed himself in the strongest way as anxious to see legislation passed in regard to this matter. I ask your Lordships to consider whether or not the Government and the Members of the House of Commons are better judges of the possibility of passing a measure like this if the Amendment is accepted than the Members of your Lordships' House? I assure your Lordships that the Government are as anxious as anyone to see legislation passed on this subject, and the Home Secretary authorises me to say that, although he cannot pledge himself with regard to the date, or whether next session, he hopes at an early period to be able to deal with this question and to find a satisfactory solution for it. I do not think that your Lordships can expect anything more clear than that.
  EARL SPENCER: I have already stated my views clearly, and I strongly support my noble friend Lord Windsor. I desire to see the Bill passed, though the Government has put the House in a curious dilemma. In the event of a division I shall vote with my noble friend, and the Government must take the responsibility.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: No, you take the responsibility if you throw out the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I assure the noble Earl that those who are responsible to some extent for the Bill feel that if the Amendment is now carried it will inevitably result in the loss of the Bill. Noble Lords must be aware of the fact that at some periods of the session, particularly on the last day but one, it is almost impossible to procure a majority in matters in which there has been something in the nature of give and take in the House of Commons. I do not mean to say there has been any pledge; it does not amount to that. The theory was that it was agreed to let this question stand as it was, and the Bill has come up to your Lordships' House in that form. I hope that the question will not be pushed to a division. I have not calculated whether there are thirty Mem-
  880
  bers present, but, if there are not, then the debate is automatically adjourned until to-morrow. Is this a desirable position in which the House should be placed? I assure the noble Lord that, if the Bill is postponed over this evening, it will in all probability be lost.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I am very far from wishing to cast any doubts on the anxiety of noble Lords opposite with regard to this legislation, but I would point out that their zeal would have been better shown if they had not pinched the House in the last two days of the session to carry this Bill, and if they had brought it before the House of Commons at an earlier date than the last few days before the end of the session. If that is the example of flourishing zeal which the Government show in this question, I am at a loss to know what halfheartedness is in a matter of this kind. The noble and learned Lord has pointed out that, if the Government do not obtain a quorum, the Bill will be postponed until to-morrow, and it might, therefore, be lost. Whose fault will that be? Who possesses the whole confidence of this House? Who have the support of thirty Members behind them to form a quorum, and who can be summoned at an instant's notice? Yet the Government come to the House in the closing hours of the session, and, with a pistol at our heads, say that we must pass this Bill, or, if we do not, we shall show a want of zeal. I venture to think that this is playing with the House; it is deriding your Lordships; it is treating the House with less respect than it has a right to claim or expect. If the zeal of the Government is so great, where is the Prime Minister? The noble Marquess would at least be one of the quorum. Where are the other members of the Government—less conspicuous, but equally available for the purpose of a quorum? Before the responsibility is cast on noble Lords who insist upon a clause which they believe to be right, and still more on the Opposition, the House should have some clearer demonstration of the zeal of the Government than has been afforded with reference to their procedure this evening.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I regret that the noble Earl has intro-

  881
  duced a tone of party conflict into this debate. The noble Earl asks, "Where is the zeal of the Government? Where are their followers? "I would ask the noble Earl, "Where are his followers?"
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I have none.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I thought that, as the noble Earl spoke from the Table, he was speaking on behalf of others.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: The noble Lord forgets that I have a right to speak from that position as a Privy Councillor.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I can assure my noble friend that I will dispute nothing with him, but I hope he will let me say that I am sorry he was not in the House when I pointed out that there were probably some hundred beneficent provisions of this almost perfect Bill, which will tend to save human life and ameliorate the conditions of work in factories. If the Bill is thrown out noble Lords will not punish the Government so much as the people employed in factories anxiously hoping for the measure to pass.
  EARL SPENCER: The noble Lord surely feels that the responsibility rests with the Government in not having their supporters behind them.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: The responsibility rests with everyone. But the main consideration now is that every factory in Lancashire wishes this Bill to be passed; and I ask the House to consider the effect of saying "Yes" or "No" to the point under discussion. Surely as the present position, from whatever cause it has arisen, must be dealt with, the responsibility of throwing out the Bill will rest upon those who say "Not content" to the motion now before the Committee. Those who support the motion bear no share in the responsibility of rejecting the Bill.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTERhoped the question as to where the responsibility lay in this matter would not divert attention from the real point. He expressed the extreme dissatisfaction which many noble Lords felt at the
  882
  result which had been arrived at on the question of laundries. From the result of private inquiries carefully made he believed that if the attendance of Bishops had been larger and if a division were taken the Bench of Bishops would almost unanimously go into the lobby and affirm the proposition that the institutions which they represented desired and invited inspection. The Government had been obliged to come to terms with a force of opinion representing a particular religious body, but apparently not even the whole of that religious body. It was a religious body in one part of these kingdoms only. But surely if private institutions were to be allowed to come into the competitive field against ordinary traders, and to make the claim that their business should be conducted secretly, and that they should be allowed any amount of control over those in the institutions, a claim of that kind ought at least to be made unitedly. It ought not to come from one section of opinion, and if from one section it ought not to be respected and deferred to.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDsaid he must call attention to the extraordinary doctrines that had been enunciated. It was said that if a particuticular Amendment was carried the Bill must fail in the Commons. No doubt at this period of the session the Government majority was a doubtful factor; but the Government could try it. If the House of Commons refused to agree to the Amendment, the Bill would come back, and then, if the House of Lords persisted with the Amendment, there were other processes to arrive at an agreement. Lord James had said that this Bill had a hundred new points in it, and yet the House of Lords was told to take it or leave it, and, having had no opportunity of considering these new points, they were told that if they insisted on one Amendment the Government would not attempt to press the Bill. That was the way in which a Conservative Government supported the House of Lords.
  On Question, new clause moved by Lord Belper agreed to.
  Clause 103, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 104:
  EARL SPENCER: I should like to ask what the intention of this clause is, and whether it will apply to dockers.
  LORD BELPER: I understand that the point has been very carefully considered, and that dockers do come under the clause.
  Clause 104, and remaining clauses, agreed to, with drafting Amendments.
  Amendments reported.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  PACIFIC CABLE BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND) (No 2) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL SPENCER: This Bill has passed the House of Commons without any dissent, and I do not think there will be any opposition to it in your Lordships' House. It is a very short Bill, and amends the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1889. The Bill provides that that Act, as amended by any enactment, shall, subject to the provisions of this Bill, apply with the necessary modifications in the case of a tenant desirous of purchasing land, notwithstanding that the sale of his holding is not about to be made under the Land Purchase Act. Clause 2 enacts that where a tenant to whom an advance is made in pursuance of this Act is the proprietor of a holding charged with an annuity under the Land Purchase Acts, an account shall be taken of the amount outstanding in respect of the original advance, and the original holding, and any additional parcel of land purchased under this Act shall be deemed one holding, and shall be charged with a new annuity for the repayment of such outstanding amount, together with the amount of the advance made in respect
  884
  of such additional parcel, and shall be discharged from the annuity payable in respect of the original advance. An annuity payable in pursuance of this section will continue for such term of years as the Land Commission, on the application of the purchaser, may determine. The Bill will be very useful in Ireland to both landlords and tenants, and I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 21"—(Earl Spencer.)
  On Question, agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly.
  Committee negatived; then (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX and XLV. having been suspended) Bill read 3a, and passed.

  COLONIAL ACTS CONFIRMATION BILL.
  CUSTOMS DUTIES (ISLE OF MAN) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, this Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House last session, and passed through every stage, but on its reaching the House of Commons there was such opposition to one clause that the Government felt constrained to withdraw the Bill. That clause was what was termed the "whipping clause." Throughout the whole of my parliamentary life I have been an opponent of flogging as a punishment. I believe it amounts to torture, and has no good effect in the end, and I was therefore very much annoyed to find the Bill treated as a flogging Bill. Nothing was further from my mind. The object of the Bill was to prevent young children being sent to prison, and it was thought that in default of a fine being paid the child should not be sent to prison but should be whipped with a birch rod. Last year the number of children who

  885
  were sent to prison was 1,200. The object of this Bill, amongst others, is to lessen this number, and prevent young children from being contaminated by prison life. Under the Bill a court of sum nary jurisdiction, on remanding or committing for trial any child or young person, may, instead of committing him to prison, remand or commit him into the custody of any fit person named in the commitment who is willing to receive him, to be detained in that custody for the period for which he has been remanded, or until he is thence delivered by due course of law. The Bill also provides that where a child or young person is charged with any offence for the commission of which a fine, damages, or costs may be imposed upon him, and there is reason to believe that his parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of the alleged offence by wilful default or by habitually neglecting to exercise due care of him, the court may, on information, issue a summons against the parent or guardian of the child or young person charging him with so contributing to the commission of the offence, and when, after the hearing of the case, any fine, damages, or costs are imposed upon the child or young person, and the court is satisfied that his parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of the offence by wilful default, the court may order that the fine, etc., shall be paid by the parent or guardian. These provisions have already received the sanction of the House, and I trust there will be no objection to the Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord James of Hereford.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and (Standing Orders Nos. XXXIX. and XLV. having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith; Amendments made; Amendments reported; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  BURGH SEWERAGE, DRAINAGE, AND WATER SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH): This Bill deals with two domestic matters which were neglected to be dealt with in the Act of 1897. One refers to the method of procuring a water supply for burghs above a population of 5,000, which must now proceed by private Bill, and the other is connected with the assessments for sewerage and water supply. At present one is placed on the owners and the other on the occupiers, but by this Bill it is proposed that they should be equally divided between the two classes, as is the case with all other burgh assessments in Scotland.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  On Question, agreed to. Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.

  EX-PROFESSORS OF QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY IN IRELAND.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Irish Government and His Majesty's Treasury have considered the equitable as distinguished from the legal aspect of the case of the professors of the former Queen's University in Ireland after the erection of the Royal University; and whether the Government will lay on the Table of the House the correspondence which has passed between them and Professor Pye and other professors of the Queen's College as well as the colleges themselves on this question. I must ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I explain my reasons for asking this question. The House will recollect that a good many years ago an Act was passed creating a new university in Ireland, called the Royal University. That Act was passed in 1879, and it affected to a great extent the Queen's Colleges, and, of course, did away entirely with the Queen's University. The question has arisen as to how far the Act affected the various professors connected with the three Queen's Colleges in Ireland, and there was a correspondence upon the point whether the professors had any right to compensation

  887
  for the loss which they had sustained in consequence of the passing of the Act, for I think it is admitted that they have not had so many fees and the same chance of promotion as they might have had if that Act had not been passed. The matter was referred to the Irish Government more than once, and up to 1883 the answer had always been that there was no legal claim whatever on the part of the professors. One of the professors then appealed to the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, and that court decided that the Act which regulated these matters did not meet the case, and therefore did not apply or give a legal position to the professors. It is not merely a question of the strictly legal position; there is the equitable aspect of the case. When I was in Ireland one of these gentlemen—Professor Pye—wrote to the Irish Government and received a reply, which no doubt I sanctioned, in February, 1884, in which he was informed that the further consideration of the matter must be deferred until more experience had been gained. That does not deliberately state that were was an equitable claim, but I think it may be inferred from that there was, in the opinion of the Irish Government of that day, some claim for consideration. Later on there was a still stronger opinion expressed. Correspondence between the colleges and the Irish Government took place at various dates, and the colleges were referred to the reply which was given when I was Lord Lieutenant; but in January of 1886 a more direct answer was made. On 20th January, 1886, the Irish Government wrote—
  "His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has inquired into the case, and admits the hardship, but the present is not an opportune time to approach the Treasury."
  It is therefore evident that the Irish Government at that time thought there was a hardship, and that the Treasury ought properly to consider it; and when the Act of 1879 was introduced in this House by the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble and learned Lord used words which certainly may be quoted as favourable to this view. Lord Cairns said—
  "Our intention and anxiety has been not in any way to interfere with the Queen's Colleges,
  888
  and if there is any change whatever it is for their advantage, for they will be connected with a university larger and more extensive, and, I hope, stronger than ever the Queen's University has been."
  That certainly has not been the result, because, as I understand, several of these professors have been deprived of nearly half the salary which they received previous to the passing of the Act. I beg to ask the question standing in my name.
  *THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have myself no personal knowledge of this matter, but I have made inquiries into the subject, which is not a new one. It has been made the subject of departmental correspondence for many years, and as far back as November, 1887, when Professor Pye was informed that the claim put forward for compensation had been considered by the Treasury, and that they had arrived at the conclusion that the claim had not been substantiated. That did not satisfy Professor Pye, who, acting within his rights, appealed to the law. He instituted the proceedings referred to by the noble Lord, and the matter came before the Exchequer Division in Ireland, who arrived at the conclusion that, under the circumstances, no claim for compensation could be substantiated having regard to the University Education Act of 1879. The matter was afterwards brought forward in the House of Commons, and the Attorney General for Ireland (the present Mr. Justice Madden) stated that he had carefully examined the judgment of the Exchequer Division, and that it was quite clear that losses of the kind sustained by these professors could not form the basis of a claim to compensation under the Act of 1879. It was pointed out by the Treasury that the professors were not entitled to expect that no change would be made in the conditions affecting university education in Ireland during their tenure of their respective chairs, or, in the event of such a change, that the State would compensate them for any loss resulting therefrom. The Treasury have considered the matter in all its bearings, both legal and equitable, and have come to the conclusion that these, professors have ho

  889
  claim to condensation. I may say that Professor Pye, as recently as 15th March last, was informed by the Irish Government that this decision was final. Under the circumstances I cannot hold out any hope that the case will be reopened. With regard to the correspondence mentioned by the noble Earl, I am told by those responsible for the Departments that it is very voluminous, extending over many years, and it is not considered advisable or expedient to print it.

  ROYAL DECLARATION BILL.—PEERS' PROTESTS.
  LORD STANMORE: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend the Duke of Newcastle I beg to move the motion standing in my name. I am told by a high authority in your Lordships' House that this is practically a motion of form, and that the application which the noble Duke makes has in all similar circumstances been invariably granted.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXV. be dispensed with and that the Duke of Newcastle be at liberty to sign before the Prorogation of Parliament, the Protest entered against the Third Reading of the Bill, although he was not present when the question was put.—(Lord Stanmore.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): I for one cannot accept this motion. Standing Order XXXV. of your Lordships' House reads as follows—
  "Such Lords as shall make protestation or enter their dissents to any votes of this House, as they have a right to do without asking leave of the House, either with or without their reasons, shall cause their protestation or dissents to be entered into the Clerk's book the next sitting day of this House, before the hour of two o'clock, otherwise the same shall not be entered, and shall sign the same before the rising of the House the same day."…
  The Standing Orders have not been complied with in this case, and it seems to me that it would be stultifying all the reasons which we are in the habit of giving for adhering to our Standing Orders if we allow this motion.
  † The protests of early times are invariably prefaced by the memorandum that "before the putting of the Question" leave was asked and given to certain Lords to enter their dissents. The present Standing Order is (except as to the last fourteen words) identical with an Order made in 1641.—[ED.].
  LORD STANMORE: I was informed by the Clerk of Parliaments that this request had been invariably granted, and I remember perfectly well that a motion for the rejection of the Ecclesiastical Tithes Bill was moved by my father and a protest put in by him which was signed afterwards by several noble Lords who had not been able to be present.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: It is not a question of whether they were present when the question was put, but the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House provided a limit of time within which such a course as this proposed by the noble Lord should be taken.
  EARL SPENCER: I think the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is right in saying that we should adhere as far as possible, to our Standing Orders. My noble friend has not said whether his distinguished father complied with the regulations as read by the Lord Chancellor.
  LORD STANMORE: The Protest was put in and the names allowed to be added afterwards.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

  LUNACY (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (on motion), and agreed to.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Commons' Amendments considered (on motion).
  *LORD WINDSOR: Two Amendments have been made to this Bill in the House of Commons. One is a small drafting Amendment, and the other, I regret to say, is the omission of the libel clause to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had assented in this House. The law officers of the Crown, however, could not see their way to agree to it in the other House, and, as they gave me to understand that they could not assent to any clause which would have carried out the object I had in view, I was reluctantly obliged to drop the clause altogether.
  Moved, That this House agree with the House of Commons in their Amendments.—(Lord Windsor.)
  On Question, Commons' Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven of the clock, till to-morrow, a quarter past Four of the clock.