HL Deb 27 February 1902 vol 103 cc1239-56

[SECOND READING.]

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

*THE EARL OF LYTTON

My Lords, the subject of this Bill is one which has been under discussion for so many years, and which was brought into such prominence at the end of last session, that I must ask your Lordships to pardon me if, in the course of what I have to say this evening, I am obliged to cover a certain amount of ground which has been traversed in the past, and to deal with arguments with which your Lordships may, perhaps, be familiar. The general principles of this Bill, the main provisions of which are for the stricter regulation of the hours of work in commercial laundries, and the inclusion with in the Factory Act of laundries connected with charitable institutions, have already been accepted by the Government. I may remind your Lordships that these proposals were brought forward in the first instance as long ago its 1895 by a Liberal Home Secretary, but owing to the fact that every Liberal Government of modern times is dependent upon the Irish vote in the House of Commons, and that the proposals did not meet with the approval of the Irish Members, they had to be dropped. The same proposals were made last year by the present Home Secretary, who included them in his Factory and Workshop Bill; and the only reason why they are not now the law of the land is, not that the Government entertained any doubt as to the justice or need for this measure, or that the objections brought forward were insuperable, but because to attempt to pass them would have prolonged the session by three or four days, a consideration which, I need hardly say, weighed more with the legislators of this country than the actual justice of the law they were discussing. There is no need for indecent haste in the discussion on this occasion, and I venture most earnestly to hope that the Government will see their way to give their support to this Bill, to which they have already pledged their agreement, and to extend to it that fostering care without which it will die a lingering death from neglect.

Coming to the Bill itself, your Lordships will see that it is a very simple one. It contains only three clauses of any importance. The first clause provides that in future any laundry carried on by way of trade, or for the purpose of gain, shall be regarded as a factory if carried on by steam, or a workshop if no steam is used in its operations. Clause 2 deals with the hours of work and limitation of overtime. Both these clauses formed part of the Bill introduced by the Government last year, and the second clause received the unanimous acceptance of the Grand Committee on Trade: I may, perhaps, be allowed to remind your Lordships that the present system of regulating hours of work in commercial laundries has proved unworkable. The difficulty of enforcing the regulations was seen as soon as the Act came into operation. Writing in 1895, His Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories said— The very elastic nature of the restrictions as to hours of work and meal time will make the detection of illegal overtime exceedingly difficult. That prophecy was abundantly fulfilled in the working of the Act, and the difficulty of getting its provisions enforced has been pointed out and regretted in the Reports of every subsequent year. In the Report of 1900 six pages are devoted to this one subject. I will only quote one passage. Miss Deane writes— The difficulty of understanding the Act is a course of incessant complaint, and it is certainly true that the very elasticity of its provisions, instead of being a cause of gratitude, is more often than not treated as an excuse for misunderstanding and evading it, while it affords a plausible argument for the defendant in every prosecution. Finally, Mr. Ritchie has himself admitted that the irregularity in the working hours in laundries was unsatisfactory, for in the debate on the Second Reading of the Factory Bill last year he spoke of the "almost complete failure as regards the working of the Acts with respect to laundries." I need not press this point any further, because the urgent need for more regular hours is abundantly proved, and there seems to be general agreement on this point.

I now come to Clause 3, which deals with the laundries connected with religious and charitable institutions. I cannot help feeling that it is very difficult to approach this subject without the appearance of prejudice. I may say at once that I am fully aware of the class from which the inmates of these institutions are drawn, and the difficulty with which the Sisters have to contend in their work of reformation of character and no one has a greater respect and admiration for the work which they carry on than I have. I have myself had the privilege of knowing those connected with the management of the largest of these institutions — the chief house of the Good Shepherd Order in France, and the head of all the reformatory homes of that Order throughout the world; and I have the very deepest sympathy with the work in which they are engaged. But, my Lords, we are not discussing at the present moment the question of the inspection of these homes as reformatory institutions, but merely the laundry work which is done in them and the position which they hold in the laundry industry. From this point of view, I cannot help contending that their exemption from the provisions of the Factory Act constitutes a grave injustice to other laundry employers who are subject to the Act. I feel that the fear of the evil consequences which might result from their inclusion in the operation of the Act is in large measure due, partly to ignorance of the working of the Act, on the part of the Sisters, and partly to a very natural prejudice against any interference from outside, the exact extent and nature of which they are at present unable to calculate. Let me take the question of the injustice to other laundry employers, because it is frequently urged by those who take up the defence of the charitable institutions that they are not conducted for the purposes of gain, and cannot, therefore, be regarded in the strictest sense as competitors in the laundry industry. The question is not whether the main object for which the institutions exist is that of gain or reformation, nor whether the amount of their earnings is sufficiently in excess of the expenses to constitute an actual profit, but whether their earnings are sufficiently great to justify the use of the word competitor, and that this is so is shown by the figures given in the "Annual Charities Register."

From this Register I find that there are seventy-one homes in the three kingdoms which, by laundry work alone, earn £30,672 a year. Five or six make over £1,000 a year, and one of them, a Penitentiary Home in Edinburgh, makes £5,000 a year. I find, also, that one home—St. Mary's Painswick, Gloucester — which has only fifteen inmates, all of whom are either cripples or feebleminded, makes £580 a year by their laundry work. I will quote another instance which illustrates even more clearly that these institutions are real competitors. I refer to the House of Mercy at Clewer, which is in actual competition with a neighbouring laundry for the washing of Eton College. The returns of this home for the last three years are as follow:— 1899, £1,479; 1900, £1,686; 1901, £1,723. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that the trade of this home is increasing, and presumably increasing at the expense of the neighbouring commercial laundry. These facts speak for themselves, and show that the laundry industry is one in which very large profits can be made, and are made, by a number of religious institutions. I think, therefore, that the plea that these homes cannot be called competitors in the laundry industry, because they do not exist for purposes of gain, is untenable. I come to another point which is frequently brought forward by the defenders of these religious institutions. It is urged that there exists at the present moment no need for their inclusion in the Factory Acts and for their inspection by Government inspectors; and here I can only say again that I have no sympathy with those who have brought forward serious charges against many of the religious orders, both in this country and others, on the authority alone of the daily Press.

My object today is not to rake up scandals or to make any sensational disclosures. All that I wish to urge is that in all establishments in which labour is employed on a very large scale for the purposes of gain, there is a tendency on the part of the employers to think more of the actual work which is done than of the welfare of the workers engaged; and there is sufficient evidence to prove that some of these religious homes, at any rate, are not exceptions to this general rule. A very few instances will suffice to prove my assertion. In the Factory Inspector's Report for 1898 the Inspector says— Great complaint was made to me of a religious community, where workers were kept for nineteen hours at work at times, but of course, I had no power of entry and could do nothing. With regard to the home at Clewer, to which I referred just now, it has been admitted by the authorities of the institution themselves that they have on certain occasions been forced to work their inmates in the laundry overtime in order to meet the pressure of work which they had on hand. Miss Ella Pease, who is a manager of the Morpeth Home of Industry, writes— We have all felt how difficult it is to prevent matrons from over pressing girls, even when their Committees do all they can to prevent it, and when, as with us, there is plenty of money. I know, however, of one or two institutions where there is not much money, and where the Committees are at fault as well as the matrons, and a terrible lot of overwork goes on. Until there are women inspectors nothing will stop this continuing. Miss Pease adds, later, that she had actual knowledge of one girl who was kept working at a laundry in a Home till past midnight for three nights running. I may state, in this connection, on the authority of the Chief Government Inspector in France, that there were in 1899 in that country no less than 4,429 infractions of the law, 924 of which were relative to overwork. I will not dwell further on that point, because I do not wish to represent inspection as a philanthropic act on the part of the Government to the inmates. My only point is that homes which start with the advantage of having no wages to pay, and which are subsidised by the subscriptions of the charitable, should not be permitted to work longer hours than those allowed to commercial laundry employers.

Having been at some pains to discover the real reasons of objection to inspection, I find that they are all summed up in the fear lest discipline would be interfered with, and so far as I can gather all would be satisfied if their interests in this respect were safeguarded. The modifications demanded by those in charge of homes are relative—first, to the posting of notices as to hours of work; secondly, to holidays; and, thirdly, to a wider range of hours of employment. The modifications which are allowed on this Bill do not meet all these demands. They are only two, and refer to the notices relating to holidays and the appointment of a certifying surgeon. With regard to the posting of notices, it is not thought necessary to insert any special clause, because, by Section 128 of the existing Act, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has power to prescribe the form in which the notices shall be drawn up, and I have no doubt that any Home Secretary would be willing, so far as he was able, to meet the wishes of the managers of these homes in regard to this matter. I have heard that some of them would like to have their notices posted up in Latin, and many other innocent devices of this kind have been suggested to deceive the inmates in their own interests. I feel sure that the Home Secretary would have no objection whatever to giving every facility in this matter, and that he would also be careful to give explicit instructions to the factory inspectors that they should in no way interfere with the discipline of the institutions. If that were done, I cannot see that an occasional visit from an inspector to the laundry of an institution could in any way affect the discipline carried on there.

With regard to the demand for a wider limit of hours, I can only say that the limit allowed by this Bill is already in excess of that which is allowed in any other trade except trades connected with the packing and sorting of perishable articles such as fruit and vegetables. Overtime to the extent of thirteen hours a day is allowed on sixty days in the year, and I gather that that limit is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the homes themselves. I would like to quote the opinion of one in charge of a very large institution. The matron of the Magdalen Home at Streatham, who has had considerable experience, says— Working before 6.30 a.m. and after 8.30 p.m. ought to be forbidden. I cannot help thinking that any demand for longer hours than are allowed to commercial laundries comes very ill from those whose work is purely charitable.

I now come to the last point with which the Bill deals. Your Lordships will see that the exemption of smaller laundries, where not more than two outsiders are employed, does not appear in this Bill, and therefore if it becomes law, all laundries which are carried on for purposes of trade will be included, with the exception of domestic ones in which the persons employed are members of the same family. For the exemption of the smaller laundries in the past there is no precedent whatever in any other trade. It was a purely arbitrary distinction. Abuses have been found to exist in connection with them, and it is necessary to include them. It has become the custom for many employers, in order to evade the law, to only employ two persons on their own premises, and to send other employees with the work of the laundry to the public wash-houses, where it is carried on at the expense of the ratepayers. In view of this unjust state of affairs and the fact that grave instances of the overworking of children have been found to exist in the smaller laundries which have been exempted from inspection in the past, it is now proposed to include all except those purely domestic, which will be exempted by Clause 3 of the Main Act.

I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships the scope and object of the Bill, and to put forward the chief reasons for reform. It only remains for me to ask your Lordships to give it your favourable consideration. When the Home Secretary (Mr. Ritchie) abandoned this clause from his Bill last year he gave a very vague promise that the matter should not be allowed to drop. His words were— I hope, without undue delay, to return to this subject, and, by some agreement which, while not giving everybody all that they desire, will meet some of the objections raised, to find a solution for this difficult problem. I think that was perhaps the most cautious promise ever uttered by a Cabinet Minister. But when my noble friend Lord Windsor brought this matter up in your Lordships' House he elicited from Lord James of Hereford a most explicit promise that the Government would return to the subject at the earliest practical opportunity.† On that assurance my noble friend refrained from pressing a division which might have prevented the Bill from becoming law. I do not know if the present opportunity is a practical one, but I do feel that this measure satisfies in some respects the requirements of the Home Secretary, for it will not, at all events, give everybody all they desire. It would be a heaven-sent piece of legislation which succeeded in doing that. It will not meet all the objections that have been raised, but it will meet some of them, and if the Government extends its patronage to the measure and it passes into law, it will afford a solution of a difficult problem. On these grounds, and out of consideration for the action of Lord Windsor last year, I earnestly appeal to the Government to give the present measure their support.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Lytton.)

*THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, as one main purport of this Bill is to deal with laundries connected with religious institutions, it is, perhaps, as well that some of us who are personally associated with the management and control of such institutions, should say a few words with regard to the measure. I think all of your Lordships, who are interested in this subject, must be exceedingly glad that we are now able to consider it unencumbered by the bigger matters with which it was associated when it was last before the House. The question was not then allowed to be considered on its merits, because we were told that if any Amendment was insisted upon, the Bill would be imperilled. Your Lordships will all remember the earnestness and pathos of the appeal made to us on behalf of the Government not to endanger the Bill, and the promise which was added to that appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord James of Hereford, in answer to a † (See) Debates, lxcix., 4875–877. question whether the Government would themselves take the matter in hand, said— I cannot say we will do so next session, but at the earliest practical opportunity open to us. I think that justifies us in anticipating from His Majesty's Government tonight a favourable reception for this Bill. Once the subject is considered on its merits, there is seen to be a far greater degree of unanimity as to what should be done than might be expected in any controversial matter of this kind. Those interested as experts—factory inspectors, and the like—are unanimous in their desire that a Bill of this kind should become law as speedily as possible, and, more important still, the heads of the religious institutions belonging to the Church of England with which laundries are connected, are, so far as I have been able to ascertain, practically unanimous in desiring something of this kind. I have been in communication with not a few of them, and although, of course, I have no authority to speak for them all, I can say that up to the present I have not found one single case in which there has been any real objection to what is proposed in this Bill, though there may be suggestions as to Amendments on some points of detail which may be considered in Committee.

The only serious objection we have evidence of comes from one section, not from the whole, of the Roman Catholic Church, and this, I believe, is largely based upon a misapprehension. For it must be remembered that we are not proposing inspection of convents, sisterhoods, or other religious institutions, but simply inspection of the laundries attached to those institutions. Those in whose name I speak, desire, on every ground, to court the fullest investigation into what they are trying to do in institutions with which laundries are connected. We believe that, by thus welcoming a wise and reasonable inspection, we shall at once enlist the fullest confidence in the work we are carrying on, and ensure the better doing of it, and the more efficient working in all its details of such industrial organisations as may be attached to our institutions. There was one remark made by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, to which I feel bound to take exception. He spoke of these institution laundries as "existing for the purposes of gain." Now, so far as my knowledge goes, and my experience in this matter is extensive, no single one of these laundries exists for the purpose of gain, using the word gain in the sense of profit. The institutions exist simply and solely for the purpose of helping their inmates to reform and restart their lives. With a view to the training of those women and girls, laundries are attached to the homes, and to a certain extent they thus enter into competition with persons whose laundries are carried on solely for the purpose of gain, and to that degree they are liable, and ought to be in every fair and reasonable way subjected to the same restraints and conditions which are laid by law upon those who are working for a purely commercial end. But when "competition" is spoken of, it ought to be borne in mind that these Institutions are handicapped in the most trying way as compared with commercial laundries. The women and girls are, from the very nature of the case, the most difficult, the most untrained, and the most unmanageable of workers, and instead of the authorities being able simply to dismiss a bad or idle worker they set themselves, the worse she is, to do the more for her reformation and her help towards better things. Within the last few days some of us have had an opportunity of conferring with a large number of ladies who are specially engaged in this most difficult but noble work of charity, and we find as soon as the matter is explained, the readiest response as to their willingness to submit to inspection. Although they do not deny that the provisions requiring notices, and tables of hours, and a good many other things, would be irksome in many ways, they are ready to submit to the inconvenience in order to secure for the work-girls who are outside their walls, and for whom they have the greatest sympathy, a series of provisions which would protect them from harsh or unreasonable treatment. Therefore, speaking, so far as I am empowered to speak, on behalf of a very large body of Church of England institutions of the kind, I desire to say that they welcome inspection, although there may be certain details as to the manner of it about which they may have something to say when the Bill comes to the Committee stage.

A new departure has recently been made by His Majesty's Government in regard to this question. A circular has been issued from the Home Office to the managers of all the religious or charitable institutions doing laundry work which are known to exist. The managers are asked in this circular to say whether or not they would like to submit voluntarily to inspection by the Government inspector, and if their answer is in the affirmative, they are asked to say further whether they would like the inspector to be a man or a woman. I have no doubt that the circular was issued with the best possible intentions, and I am not prepared to say, if we cannot get anything better, that it will not do a great deal of good. But it is obviously fraught with very great peril. For who are the people who will be likely to refuse to submit voluntarily to Government inspection? Exactly the people who need inspection most. And, again, what is to prevent some paltry and perhaps in-sanitary or even spurious little "charitable" laundry from proclaiming that it is "under Government inspection," merely because it has invited the visit of an inspector who possesses no power of enforcing his orders, and who may be disregarded with impunity once his visit has been paid? No. what we want is the compulsory power this Bill gives, and I hope your Lordships will assent to the Second Reading of the measure. There is one other point on which I ought to say a word. The present law exempts from all inspection any laundry "workshop" in which not more than two hired women are employed. The Bill would remove this exemption, and to my mind most fairly and wholesomely. You do not allow a dressmaker or a match-box maker to escape inspection, because she has only two or even one paid assistant. Why should you allow a laundress the privilege of over-working her dependents when you don't allow it in any single other trade? I earnestly hope your Lordships will, in that respect, pass the Bill as it now stands.

*LORD WINDSOR

My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, and I do so in consequence of the part which I took in the discussion of this matter during the closing days of last session. Your Lordships may remember that before the laundry clause was dropped in another place, an Amendment was placed on the Paper by Mr. Talbot for the purpose, I believe, of effecting some sort of compromise. The effect of that Amendment was to give the Secretary of State the power, if he thought fit, to modify certain regulations to meet the requirements of different institutions; but it was stated, on behalf of the Government, that that might give the Secretary of State a great deal of trouble, that it might be very difficult to work satisfactorily, and that it would be more practicable to remove, as far as possible, the objections which these institutions raised by inserting a clause defining the particular directions in which they should not be subject to the regulations. Hence Clause 3 in the present Bill. I prefer the Bill in its present shape to the provision in last year's measure. When this matter was discussed by your Lordships last session, the House was practically unanimous in thinking that such a clause as is embodied in this Bill should have been part of the Bill of last year; and it is only on the ground of expediency that His Majesty's Government appealed to us not to press the point. An important pledge was given by the Government that they would deal with the matter at the earliest opportunity, and I believe it was in consequence of the reply which was given to the noble Earl who leads the Opposition, to the effect that His Majesty's Government could not see their way to introduce a Bill themselves this year, that my noble friend has brought forward this measure himself. I congratulate him on having introduced it, and trust that the Government will see their way to give him such support as will enable the Bill to become law this year.

LORD BELPER

My Lords, after the very interesting debate that has just taken place, I think your Lordships will at all events agree in one thing, that there is a very real and practical interest taken in this question by the Members of this House. I assume that the unanimity referred to by more than one noble Lord is not so much a unanimity in favour of the exact provisions of this Bill as in favour of some reasonable solution of the question so as not only to secure the inclusion of laundries, entirely under the Factories Act, but to enable these institutions to be carried on under satisfactory conditions. Let me say at once that, looking at the Bill in this spirit, and in view of the well-known desire of the Home Secretary to settle the question, the Government will accept the Second Reading of this Bill. In saying that, I should like to state that I do not think the points which the Bill raises are quite so easy as some noble Lords suppose. There are several difficulties which will have to receive very careful consideration, for if the Bill goes forward in its present shape it will be likely to meet with as vehement opposition as that which the Government proposal encountered last year. I wish to refer to what took place in regard to the Bill of last year. I do not think full justice has been done to the difficulties in which the Government were then placed. The Bill was a very large one. It had been introduced and read a second time in the other House and then went to the Standing Committee. While in the Standing Committee, it was proposed to consolidate the law so as to simplify the statutes and show the whole of the law with regard to factories and workshops in one Act. With regard to the institutions proposed to be included, it was well known that many of the managers entertained strongly the opinion that inspection, if carried on in certain ways, would materially interfere with discipline. The Home Secretary endeavoured, as far as possible, to meet, I will not say the natural, but at all events, what some people might call the not unreasonable objections of those managers; but at the last moment the arrangement broke down, and at a very late period of the session he had to decide whether it would be possible, and if it were possible, whether it would be desirable; to press the clauses as they stood with regard to these institutions in the face of the strenuous opposition which they encountered. Under these circumstances he not unnaturally took the course of deferring the further consideration of the question. When the Bill came up to your Lordships' House the hope was expressed that even at that late period of the session it would have been possible to reinsert the Laundry Clause. I do not think it was merely a question of Parliament sitting a few days longer, as was stated by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading, because it would have been impossible to force the Clause, in the face of the very strong opposition, without ample time being given for the discussion of this delicate matter. That was the position of the Government. Mr. Ritchie, on being asked, explained what his wishes and desires were, and promised to see at the earliest opportunity whether he could not find a reasonable solution.

What has taken place since the question was discussed last year? The Home Office certainly has not been idle. As the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Winchester stated in the course of his speech, they have issued a circular to all these institutions, pointing out that the object aimed at by those who advocate inspection is the securing of reasonable hours and healthy conditions of employment. I think it is clear that a solution of the question can only be arrived at after some consultation with the parties immediately concerned. I can assure the right rev. Prelate that there was not the slightest intention that the circular should take the place of legislation. Its object was to clear the ground, and to get the general impression of those who are interested; and the answers received here have not been altogether as unsatisfactory as might have been supposed. About 160 circulars were sent out to England, Scotland, and Wales, and others have since been dispatched to Ireland, but there has not yet been time for the latter to be answered. Something like sixty answers have been received to those sent out to England, Scotland, and Wales, and about half, including several Roman Catholic institutions, have expressed a willingness to receive visits from the factory inspectors. So far from this circular being likely to put the question back in any way when fuller information is received, it will tend to throw such light upon the subject as will enable a satisfactory solution to be arrived at.

I desire to say one word on the question of the smaller laundries. Though this Bill professes to be exactly on the lines of the Bill of the Home Secretary, it will, in reality, make an important change, for it will bring within its provisions all the small laundries. I have listened with interest to the remarks that have been made on this question, and I admit that a very strong case may be made out for the inclusion of some of the small laundries which purposely employ only two outside hands in order to evade the provisions of the Act, and be independent of inspection. But I would ask your Lordships to consider the case of a large number of other small laundries, carried on, possibly in country villages, by widows whose sole means of livelihood they constitute, and to which this accusation does not apply. Of course it may be possible to include the one and exclude the other; but at present the Home Secretary has not discovered any way of getting over the difficulties connected with this question, and is not prepared to include all the small laundries in the Bill. I have frankly pointed out to the House what the position of the Government is; they are anxious to carry out their pledges and to find a satisfactory solution of the question. But in giving their assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, the Government are not prepared to give any facilities for pressing it forward in the other House, as it is obvious that the Bill will meet with the same vehement opposition there as it met with last year.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

My Lords, I should have thought we might have hoped, after the noble Lord's statement, that satisfactory replies to the Home Office circular had been received from Ireland, that there was a good chance of the Bill being accepted—

LORD BELPER

I said satisfactory replies had been received from Roman Catholics. Very few have been received from Ireland, and all, except one, have refused inspection.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER

Now that the Government have assented to the Second Reading of the Bill, I only desire to point to a very happy feature in the present debate—namely, that there has been no attack on religious institutions or their working, and no tendency, on the other hand, to resist the Bill on the ground that harm would be done by it to such institutions. The fact that these institutions are not attacked seems to me to throw all the more responsibility on those of us who are connected with them in any way, to be forward in saying that we desire to meet inspection, and, indeed, rejoice in it. The habit and the necessity of exercising authority in these homes may, perhaps, here and there, lead to that authority being used a little thoughtlessly; on the other hand, there is a special absence in such institutions of the guarantees of liberty. I do not think even the noble Earl on the Cross Benches (Lord Wemyss) would oppose this Bill on the ground that the inmates should be allowed the liberty of working any number of hours they wished. The fact is, they are trained in habits of submissiveness; that being so, there must be a danger, here and there, of abuses creeping in, no matter to what religious body the institutions are connected. In the working of inspection, there may be details which may be a little inconvenient and irksome. The noble Earl has taken pains in the Bill to provide for some of these inconveniences, and others may be provided for on Committee or in the administration of the law. But, even if there still remains some small disadvantage, I think it is better to submit to it than to have any suspicion resting upon us that we are doing, in the name of religion, something which ought not to be done or that, coming into competition with other forms of labour, we should seem to obtain any unfair advantage.

EARL SPENCER

My Lords, I rise to heartily support the Second Reading of this Bill. I have listened with great care to the debate, and I heard with satisfaction that His Majesty's Government did not intend to oppose the Second Reading. But I confess I heard with dismay the statement of Lord Belper that the Government would not give any facilities in another place for carrying the Bill into law. I deeply regret that. The Government might almost as well have refused the Second Reading, for they alone can regulate the procedure in connection with Bills of this sort in the House of Commons. I had thought, in view of the pledge given last year by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Duchy, that a Bill on the subject would be introduced at the earliest practical opportunity, that the Government would consent to carry this measure through the House of Commons, and under the circumstances I have risen to enter an emphatic protest against the course the Government propose to follow.

On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, on Thursday the 13th of March next.