Sitting of 28 February 1878

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Irish Land Act, 1870, Colonel Taylor and Mr. Fay added.
PUBLIC BILLS — Ordered —First Reading — Grand Jury Law Amendment (Ireland)*[120]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000)* [121].
Second Reading—Judicature Acts Amendment*[91], debate adjourned.
Select Committee—Merchant Seamen*[79], Mr. Dalrymple and Mr. O'Shaughnessy added.
Committee—Factories and Workshops [3]—R.P.
Considered as amended—Matrimonial Causes Acts Amendment* [117].

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—ROYAL NAVAL ARTILLERY VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. T. BRASSEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House any Reports which have been received as to the conduct and efficiency of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers at drill, and when embarked in Her Majesty's ships and gun vessels?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, he had called for a Report as to the conduct and efficiency of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers from the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves, which he should be very happy to produce if his hon. Friend would move for it.

  NAVY—THE REPORT OF THE BOILER COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
  MR. T. BRASSEY, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the final Report from the Admiralty Committee on Boilers will be presented?
  MR. W. H. SMITH, in reply, said, the third, and probably, the final, Report of the present Boiler Committee would be issued in about three weeks' time. It was a voluminous document. It had been delayed in consequence of the difficulties in obtaining certain photographs that were to accompany the Report. The Committee terminated with the financial year; but their operations would be carried on by a small Committee of Departmental officers.

PARLIAMENT—THE MUTINY BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the lateness of Easter this Session, he will introduce the Mutiny Bill in time to afford full opportunities of discussing the principle and details of that measure before the Easter Recess?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: I have to inform the hon. Member that I have no option in the matter. The Act expires on the 25th of April, and I must bring the Bill under discussion before that time.

  PARLIAMENT—THE MARINE MUTINY BILL.—QUESTION.
  MR. PARNELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will cause the Marine Mutiny Bill to be printed before its Second Reading?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: There will be no alterations, so far as I am aware, in the Marine Mutiny Bill this year, and the Bill will therefore be a reprint of last year's Act. Under those circumstances, I trust the hon. Gentleman will not object to the Bill being proceeded with even if it should not be printed before the second reading.

  COAL MINES—THE BLANTYRE COL- LIERY EXPLOSION.—QUESTION.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the Commissioners' Report on the Blantyre Colliery Explosion; whether in view of the fears expressed by the Commissioners in it, he has given any direction so as to obviate the dangers the Commissioners point out; and, whether Government has directed, or is about to direct, any prosecution against anyone whose neglect has in any degree led to that calamity?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, of course my attention has been directed to this very serious question. In regard to the second part of the Question, I have already directed that a copy of the Commissioners' Report shall be sent to every colliery-holder in the district, because there is a paragraph at the end of it to which I think their attention requires to be specially drawn, and their attention has therefore been called to it. I have also instructed the Inspector to call together a meeting of colliery-owners, to consult with them as to the best means to be adopted to prevent accidents in the working of this particular seam of coal, which appears to be a very dangerous one. With regard to the last part of the Question, I agree with the Commissioners that it would not have been desirable to have sued any person in regard to this accident for any small penalty. I, therefore, laid the whole matter before the Law Officers of Scotland, in order to see if any person ought to be proceeded against criminally in this matter. After consideration, the
  448
  advice I have received is that no criminal proceedings, other than the trival one I have alluded to, could have had a successful issue; and, therefore, I do not propose to take any proceedings at all.

ARMY—THE AUXILIARY FORCES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NAGHTENasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that some officers and men of the Reserve Forces, holding appointments in one regiment, are returned as efficient in other regiments?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, that he was not aware that officers or men were returned as efficients in two regiments; but with respect to certain officers in the Militia and the Yeomanry, under special circumstances and special regulations, they were sometimes permitted to act as commandants and field officers in Volunteer regiments.

  MALAY PENINSULA—EXPENSES OF THE EXPEDITION.—QUESTION.
  MR. ERNEST NOELasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the expenses of the expedition to the Malay Peninsula, in December 1875, have been adjusted between the Home and the Indian Governments; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament, during the present Session, to vote any portion of such expenses?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I regret to say that no final adjustment of the accounts of the Malay Expedition in 1875 has as yet been arrived at. The Colonial Government has, I believe, furnished a complete account; but the apportionment of the remaining expenditure has not yet been settled between the other Departments concerned and the Treasury. I fear it is extremely doubtful whether any Vote can be asked for this Session.

  PRISONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1877—CELL ACCOMMODATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in carrying out "The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877," under which the character of the "cell accommodation" which must be pro-

  449
  vided by prison authorities is in the discretion of the Secretary of State, he will exact cells of a better description than is required in England, where the "cell accommodation" is determined by the statute of 1865; and whether, to prevent unnecessary outlays, he will state that he will accept cells which have been legalized by the Secretary of State in 1868 and 1872?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I was very anxious when the Scotch Act was passed last year to have laid down definite provisions in the Act itself stating what the space should be; but the Representatives from Scotland entirely declined to have that provision inserted in the Bill. There is no intention of exacting in Scotland anything that is not exacted in England; and, without binding ourselves to say what the cell accommodation shall be in Scotland, I can say that those in Scotch prisons shall be treated with the utmost fairness, as they have been in English prisons. I cannot allow one word in the last part of the Question to pass unnoticed, because no cells can be said to have been "legalized" by the Secretary of State. Some cells have been allowed, but they have been allowed under protest, and I cannot accept that as a standard.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION — RUSSIA AND TURKEY—THE TERMS OF PEACE.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN PIMasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give an assurance that the British Government will not allow Russia to disturb the "balance of power" in her own favour, either by the seizure of lands in Armenia or the transfer of the Turkish fleet, or by any interference with the Dardanelles; and, whether he can inform the House if any guarantee has been obtained against the occupation of the isthmus of Gallipoli, so as to insure the freedom of movement of the British fleet?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: With reference to the first Question, I am afraid that the House will be as tired of hearing as I am tired of explaining that we have not yet received any authentic information as to the terms of peace which are being negotiated; and until those terms are
  450
  known to us, any Question of the character of that asked by my hon. and gallant Friend must necessarily be of a hypothetical character, and, therefore, ought not to be answered. If it should appear that the terms of peace in any way injuriously affect the interests of this country, Her Majesty's Government will take the proper course to vindicate and protect those interests. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that the whole of the engagements that have been made connected with the occupation of the Isthmus of Gallipoli and that neighbourhood have already been laid upon the Table of the House.

INDIA—INDIAN TAXATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, since he has laid before this House the views of the Government of India in regard to the imposition of new taxation, he will also produce Papers showing the views on this subject of the Governments of Madras, Bombay, the North West Provinces, and the Punjab, and of the members of the Council of India at home?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: If the hon. Gentleman will move for the Papers he requires, I will then consult the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to whether or not those Papers can be laid on the Table of the House; but it is almost impossible for me to be aware what Papers he requires from the vagueness of the nature of his Question.

ARMY CLOTHING.—QUESTION.
MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of a Commission appointed by the "Lancet" to inquire into the risks attending the manufacture of Clothing supplied to the Army; and, whether it is not urgent to take other and more effective measures than those at present adopted to detect and prevent the contamination of uniforms, &c, made for the British troops by workpeople who are in contact, or live, with persons suffering from scarlet fever, small pox, or other infectious diseases?
MR. GATHORNE HARDY, in reply, said, on becoming acquainted with the article in The Lancet, his noble Friend the Surveyor General of Ordnance (Lord Eustace Cecil) inquired into the subject previous to the Question being placed upon the Paper. He was bound to say that there appeared to be no apprehension of danger from this cause. Great care was taken, so far as he could ascertain, that in any case where there were infectious diseases in the houses occupied by the workpeople, the clothes were discontinued from being made at those houses; and perhaps when he stated the results it would be seen that there was no great apprehension of danger. During the whole time that these stores had been deposited at Pimlico, among those employed in viewing, packing, and manipulating the clothing, there had only been one case, and that five years ago, of small-pox. In that case the man admitted that he came from a neighbourhood in which the disease was raging. Every care, therefore, appeared to be taken at present; but the medical men had instructions to use every exertion to prevent contact with infected persons.

NEWFOUNDLAND—APPOINTMENT OF MAGISTRATE.—QUESTION.
MR. A. M'ARTHURasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made any additional arrangements for the protection of life and property in the less settled parts of the coast of Newfoundland; and, if so, will he state what measures are in contemplation?
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in reply, said, a magistrate had been recently appointed on the west coast of Newfoundland, and, if necessary, a second magistrate would be stationed on that coast. A Vote would be proposed to defray the expense. The protection of life and property and the preventing of disputes among the fishermen would be left, as before, to the Naval Commander of the Station.

RAILWAYS—CONTINUOUS BRAKES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HEYGATEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay
  452
  upon the Table of the House any further Correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies' Association, showing the steps taken by them for the application of continuous brakes to Railway trains?
  SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY: I am daily expecting a long-promised communication on the subject from the Railway Association; and when I have it, and have had time to consider whether any further rejoinder from the Board of Trade is necessary, I will complete the presentation of the whole Correspondence on the Table of the House.

SPAIN—SEIZURE OF THE" OCTAVIA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made with reference to the claims against the Spanish Government for compensation on account of the seizure of the "Octavia?"
  MR. BOURKE: Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Madrid was instructed to present these claims to the Spanish Government in the beginning of December. We have not yet been informed of the answer which they have given to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires.

  BRITISH SUBJECTS AT CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
  MR. J. HOLMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the number of persons enrolled as British subjects in Constantinople in 1868 amounted to 459; and, if he will inform the House what the total number of enrolled British subjects was in 1876 and 1877, as well as for 1878, by the latest Returns?
  MR. BOURKE: The number of British subjects registered at Constantinople in 1858 was 459, as may be seen in a Parliamentary Paper, Consular No. 5, presented in 1875. In 1876 the number was 2,264; in 1877, 2,111; and in 1878, 2,620. I am informed that there are in each year at least 800 British subjects at Constantinople who are not registered.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—APPOINT- MENT OF LORD NAPIER AND SIR GARNET WOLSELEY TO COM- MANDS.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to state whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared, I believe, in all the newspapers this morning to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the Staff of an expeditionary force have been appointed; and, if so, whether those appointments have been recently made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is not correct to say that any appointment has been made. The two officers whose names are mentioned have been selected in case of an expeditionary force being required. They were selected, I think, about 10 or 12 days ago; and Lord Napier was summoned home from Gibraltar in order that he might be in consultation with the military authorities here, and be in readiness if required.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved—
  "That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Factories and Workshops Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Amendment of the Grand Jury Law in Ireland."
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, he had an appeal to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to one of the Orders which were to be postponed, of which he had given previous Notice to his right hon. Friend. He was the last person who would desire to offer any obstruction to Public Business, or to presume to interfere with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to arrange that Business. But, as one of the Orders of the Day which it was proposed to postpone was a Bill under his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) charge, a legitimate opportunity was afforded for his appeal. The Colonial Marriages Bill had been read a second time on the previous day by a
  454
  majority in a tolerably full House; but since the adoption by the House of what was called "the half-past 12" Rule, and the unsparing use made of that Rule by the opponents of any measure in the hands of a private Member, there was no chance of his measure being again discussed except by the assistance of the Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not answer his appeal by stating that the majority had been reduced from that of last year; for the Division Lists showed that so many had voted this year who had not voted last year, that it made a total of 485 Members of the present Parliament who had voted or paired upon the question, of whom 255 had voted for, and 205 against, it. Therefore, the majority of votes obtained in that House in favour of the Bill was 50. There was nothing of a Party character about the measure, yet the Government had upon each occasion earnestly opposed it; and he knew, as a fact, that a certain number of Members who would otherwise have supported it had abstained from voting in order that the Government might not be put in a minority, even upon a non-Party and non-political question. Moreover, in spite of this consideration, and the strong pressure brought to bear upon them, 50 of the habitual supporters of the Government had in that, and the previous year, recorded their votes in favour of the Bill. Now, when a measure which was regarded with considerable interest in the Colonies had twice passed its second reading by a large majority taken from both sides of the House, it was not respectful either to the House or the Colonies that there should be no opportunity given for its further discussion. Most of the objections to it really referred to Amendments which might be made in Committee; and, as owing to the way in which the Business of the House was conducted, it was almost impossible to make real progress with a Bill unless the Government afforded some facilities for it, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to give, at some early period, an opportunity for the further discussion of this measure. He would bow with submission to an adverse decision of the House, if upon further consideration such decision should be given: but he

  455
  protested against the message being allowed again to go out to the Colonies, that whilst the British House of Commons admitted by a majority that their grievance was a real one, they could not find time even to discuss the proposed remedy.
  MR. PARNELLwished to know whether the discussion on the Factories and Workshops Bill would be discontinued about 11 o'clock, so as to enable the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make his statement?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his object in making the Motion was that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary might make his statement at an hour when his remarks could be fully reported. He hoped, therefore, it would be commenced about 11 o'clock. With regard to the appeal of the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), he must say he admired the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, which he hoped might stand him in good stead in finding another day for his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made rather a bold demand when he based his request on the fact that they were asking on a Government night to postpone other Orders in order that a Government Motion might be brought forward. As the Colonial Marriages Bill was the 10th Order on the Paper, with five or six Government Bills before it, it would have had a small chance of being reached tonight. In the present state of Public Business he could not undertake to find an opportunity for its further discussion.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: With regard to the majority on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) prides himself, his Bill stands in a very peculiar position—namely, that it has been made the subject of a most abominable system of private canvassing of Members of Parliament by paid agents. Pressure of that kind was brought to bear on me; and I told the gentleman who canvassed me that, if I were doubtful about the matter before, his pressure would make me vote against the Bill, and I did vote against it.
  Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  (Mr. Assheton Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

  [BILL 3.] COMMITTEE.
  [Progress (Clause 66) 25th February.']
  Bill considered in Committee.

PART III.

  ADMINISTRATION, PENALTIES, AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
  (1.) Inspection.
  Clause 66 (Certificates of appointment of Inspectors).
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 33, line 9, to leave out "if required." The clause, said the hon. Member, provided that an Inspector, on applying for admission to any house or factory or workshop should, if required, produce to the occupier his certificate of appointment. It would, he thought, simplify matters very considerably if, in all cases, the Inspector's duty should be to produce his certificate or the warrant by virtue of which he claimed admission. The uniform adoption of such a course would save much trouble, inconvenience, and possibly opposition on the part of the occupiers of the houses sought to be inspected. The absolute knowledge that the visitors were Government officials would procure for them much greater freedom of access and fuller facilities for performing their duties than would otherwise be the case. The occupiers of private houses in poor localities might be inclined to resist unless the Inspector produced his authority as a matter of course.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSScontended that the Amendment was altogether unnecessary, although he admitted there was something in what the hon. Member for Meath had advanced. No one could wish less than he did to invade the privacy of private houses, and he should therefore be prepared to move the insertion in a later clause of words to provide that no Inspector should visit a private house without first obtaining a written authority from the Secretary of State, or a warrant from a magistrate obtained on a sworn information. This, he thought, would remove the whole

  457
  difficulty, as no magistrate would grant a warrant of entry without having been first satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for so doing—in other words, that there was reason to suspect the manner in which the business carried on in such houses was being conducted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  (2.) Certifying Surgeons.
  Clause 67 (Appointment of certifying surgeon).
  DR. WARDmoved, in page 33, line 29, after "workshop," to insert—
  "Provided always, that these shall not apply to the case of a person who is a shareholder in a public company."
  He thought it was a recognized principle with regard to all boards that persons should not be ineligible to sit upon them because they might happen to be interested in certain patented processes carried on by such boards, and which were the property of limited liability companies. For instance, if the clause were accepted as it stood in the Bill, many surgeons in the Midland and Northern manufacturing districts would be disqualified for acting as certifying surgeons because they were interested in the processes which had been patented by Mr. Bessemer and other patentees.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause would not prevent any surgeon from being appointed in the district in which he practised. It would only debar him from certifying in reference to children engaged in the particular factory in which he was himself personally interested.
  MR. GRAYsupported the Amendment on the ground that the clause was so widely drawn as to be easily susceptible of misinterpretation and abuse.
  MR. GORSTthought hon. Members opposite were unduly alarming themselves. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out, the effect of the clause would simply be to preclude a surgeon from certifying in reference to a factory in which he had a direct personal interest.
  MR. MACDONALDopposed the Amendment, remarking that the clause as drawn would act not only as a protection
  458
  to the public, but to the medical men themselves. He felt bound to state to the House that he only a few days ago thought the Medical Profession was hardly dealt with. From one of themselves he had the illusion fully dispelled; and he would, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLApointed out that a large proportion of the cotton mills in the North of England were in the hands of limited liability companies, and much jealousy would naturally be occasioned by a surgeon who was a shareholder certifying as to the fitness of "half-time" or "full-time" children employed in what was, to a certain extent, his own factory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LEWIS STARKEYsaid, he had no intention of moving an Amendment in the clause; but as it was the first one in the Bill which directly proposed to deal with the appointment of certifying surgeons, he wished to say a few words concerning it. He wished to guard himself against saying anything in opposition to the way in which the certifying surgeons had done their duty, because he was fully mindful of the great interest which they had taken in carrying out the provisions of the Factory Acts—an interest which had rendered the country deeply indebted to the Medical Profession as a body. His own opinion was that the certifying surgeons ought to be put on the same footing with Factory Inspectors, both with reference to their appointments and the remuneration attaching thereto. He wished them to be just as much Government officers as the Inspectors, and they ought to be treated in the same way. As the House well knew, the appointment of certifying surgeons was in the hands of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and he should be the last man to find fault with the way in which that official had administered the patronage he had to bestow; but he could not help thinking that the amount of such patronage was too large to be in the hands of any permament official, and he should much prefer to see it under the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The only excuse he could see for calling upon the factory owners, and to some extent upon the operatives, to defer the cost of the examinations and the con-

  459
  sequent certificates, was that such had been, the custom in times past. His own view of the payment so made was that it was an unjust tax, and that as the certificates were granted and required much more in the interest of the public than of the employers the public should bear the cost of them. He should not move an Amendment, because, cordially approving of the general principle and scope of the Bill, he understood that the principle contained in the clause was regarded by the Home Secretary as vital to the measure. He must, however, express his hope, which was also the hope of the manufacturing population in the North of England, and of the Associated Chambers of Commerce —as expressed at their meeting on the previous day—that the Home Secretary would speedily be able to see his way to removing what was practically a heavy tax upon the employers of labour, and upon the operatives themselves
  MR. HUTCHINSONpointed out that the duties of these certifying surgeons were of the nature of those performed by sanitary Inspectors. The surgeons were employed in the public service; and ought, therefore, to be paid out of the public funds, instead of by persons who did not ask for their appointment, and the payment by whom constituted a tax upon a particular and special section of the community. It was also worthy of remark that the appointments as now made took much of a political character. It was true that on paper there existed a power on the part of the millowners to obtain repayment from the parents of a proportion of the fees paid; but, as a matter of fact and experience, he could safely say that any attempt to obtain such repayment would inevitably result in their being withdrawn from work in that particular factory.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Regulations as to the grant of certificates of fitness).
  DR. CAMERONsaid, that whereas the existing law enacted, in order to prevent personation, that every child or young person taken to the house of a surgeon for examination should be accompanied by some responsible person, no such provision was contained in the present Bill.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he should move, as an Amendment to the clause, in page 34, line 1, to leave out "ten" and insert "five" as the number of children who must be taken for examination to the residence of a surgeon instead of being examined at the factory or in the workshop in which they were employed. Mr. Leonard Horner, who laid very largely the basis of the present system, was strongly opposed to examination away from the factories—on the ground, mainly, that it tended largely to personation, imposition, and the making of false statements, the falsehood of which could not be detected. Nevertheless, it was found, that there were many small factories in which a less number of children than five were employed, and it was provided that in such cases they might be taken to the residences of the certifying surgeons for examination. He had no objection to the law remaining in the same condition; but he strongly objected to the number being increased to 10. This would be a very serious innovation, and in some towns—Wolverhampton, for instance—would include from half to two-thirds of all the factories and workshops in the place. He would point out, further, that if the surgeon went to the factory in the discharge of his duty he received a small but reasonable fee of 2s. 6d. per child; but if the children were taken to him, he was only entitled to 6d. for each one examined. Did any hon. Member ever hear of such a fee for the services of a professional man? If he sent his horse or dog to be examined by a veterinary surgeon, he had to pay a fee ranging between 5s. and 10 s. 6d.; but a surgeon would, under the provisions of this Bill, have to examine a child and give a certificate for a miserable fee of 6d.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that 10 was the number recommended by the Royal Commission; but, after long and careful consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that five was a sufficiently extensive limit.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexpressed his regret that the Home Secretary had accepted the Amendment, because he scarcely thought that the House was aware of the heavy tax which it would impose on a large number of small employers. They must bear in mind that the new definition of a factory

  461
  would henceforth be any place where steam or water power was used, and there were few handicrafts or employments in which steam was not either in present use or would not be used in the course of a very few years. With the new definition of a factory it had become absolutely necessary to accept an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), to make dispensary and Poor Law doctors certifying surgeons throughout the country, as otherwise the burden that would be imposed would be found in a short time to be quite intolerable.
  MR. MUNDELLAconfessed that he, too, was surprised to hear the Home Secretary so readily assent to the Amendment. The examination of a child had been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as something similar to that of a horse or a dog by a veterinary surgeon, and he gave the cost in each case. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the circumstances of the two cases were altogether different, and that, in changing the age at which a child might be employed under this Bill, they had completely altered the duties of the certifying surgeon. Formerly, a child might be employed half-time in a mill at eight years of age, and the surgeon had then to certify whether that child was strong, and able, and fit, in all respects, to be employed to that extent. But the age had now been raised to 10 years, and all that the surgeon had to do was to certify that the general appearance presented was that of a child of 10 years, and that the child might go to work in a factory for half-time. Then, they had raised the age for full-timers from 13 to 14 where the child had not passed the educational standard. Further, by this Bill, they were prohibiting the employment of children at all in certain factories, so that, to some extent, the necessity for a surgical examination had entirely passed away. Let him mention a case that came under his notice very recently which bore upon this point. The certifying surgeon of the town of Sheffield died a few months ago. He had been accustomed to charge the grinders 6d. for going to their wheels and certifying the children there. When the post became vacant, some of the best medical officers of the town were
  462
  exceedingly anxious to obtain it; and this, he ventured to say, would always be the case if the clause were left as it was. He could explain why the whole of the large works of England contracted with the surgeons. A surgeon was paid so many guineas for calling round to see whether there were any children to be certified, and whether there were or not, he received his remuneration at the end of the year. But now every grinder in Sheffield—the man who only rented one wheel, and who had his boy to perform his errands or assist him in the shop, would be required to have a certificate, and so it would be in all the minor industries of England. The pressure of this Bill would fall upon the minor industriesif the certificate were made to stand at 2s. 6d., on the terms prescribed by the Bill, except the number stood at five, or, instead of 10, they extended the area of the measure and raised the ages. Therefore, he hoped that when they came to the next clause, fixing the rate of remuneration to the surgeon, the Home Secretary would not under any circumstances consent to omit "five." The observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) were directed more particularly to that clause. The right hon. Member argued that it was ridiculous to award 6d. for each person after the first five examined when the clerk of the peace received 1s. for a copy of a conviction. The clerk of the peace, however, had to turn over his books in order to ascertain the date of the conviction and make out his certificate. Butreally this was not a case where a surgeon prescribed for children; he merely took their general appearance. Having seen children examined for a number of years past, he could say that half-a-dozen children were examined and passed in almost as many minutes, and it was not at all the delicate and difficult business which his right hon. Friend had described, though he was willing to bear his testimony to the admirable manner in which the certifying surgeons performed their duty.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Bill was intended to comprise employment in small workshops, in which he had known children to have been employed so as very injuriously to affect their health. Therefore, he thought that if the Committee were disposed to interfere

  463
  further with the employment of labour, it was essential that it should do so on the ground of preserving the health of these young persons. The certificate should be one with respect to the health and bodily fitness of the children, or really it was not worth having, and the House should not insist upon such certificates unless the remuneration was adequate to the exercise of the professional skill required.
  DR. WARDreminded the Committee that the proper working of this Bill would depend very much upon the medical certificates to be granted under it. The House had already passed several Acts, amongst them being the Irish Sanitary Act, which depended greatly upon the manner in which the medical work was performed. But the House had never settled, or tried to settle, anything like a fair remuneration for those upon whom depended the proper carrying out of the intention of Parliament. And what was the fact? That the Irish Sanitary Act, owing to the want of fair remuneration having been provided, was becoming a dead letter. That was exactly what was likely to occur in this instance. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had made the most extraordinary statement that he had ever heard made in that House. Almost in one breath he had told them that the doctors performed their work in a most perfunctory manner—["No, no!"]—the hon. Member had told them that doctors passed half-a-dozen children in as many minutes, and yet the next moment he thanked them for the admirable manner in which they performed their duties. But that was the way in which he (Dr. Ward) believed that this work would be done. Medical men could not, any more than the members of any other Profession, afford to do work without being paid a fair remuneration. The noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had expressed his regret that the Home Secretary had acceded to the Amendment; but the fact was, that although it might bear hard in some cases, he was told by surgeons, who had had a large experience of factories, that if the word "ten" were adhered to, three-fourths of the factories at present under inspection would be practically excluded, that all manner of personation would be resorted to, and that, in fact, the Act
  464
  would become a nullity so far as the protection of the children was concerned. If a medical man did his duty fairly under this Bill, particularly as regarded children of the age of 13, who were to be allowed to work full-time, he would have to devote both time and skill to it. For these reasons, he hoped that the Home Secretary would persevere in the intention which he had announced.
  MR. FIELDENwas very glad that his right hon. Friend had agreed to the Amendment. What they should aim at was to get as certifying surgeons the best surgeons in a district, and he did not believe that they would secure them if they raised the number from five to 10, because it must be disagreeable to the most eminent medical man in a place to have these children coming to his house. Moreover, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it was important that children should be certified at the factories.
  MR. LEWIS STARKEYcould not agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He must express his extreme regret that the Home Secretary had yielded on this point. He had consented to withdraw an Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, thinking that, perhaps, as far as the certificates were concerned, it was unjust and might prove inconvenient if the certifying surgeons were compelled to examine young persons and children at their surgeries or houses without some restriction as to number. But so much had been said by his right hon. Friend about the inexpediency of altering the Bill, that he certainly was led to believe that he would not consent to the number 10 being struck, out and five inserted. He should most strenuously oppose the raising of the fee when they came to the next clause, which might, to some extent, meet the case. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) and other hon. Gentlemen, he wished to say that although the fee paid to the surgeon might appear small, yet there were many advantages connected with this office. They were, for example, brought in contact with a variety of people, which frequently brought them private practice that they would not otherwise obtain.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask the Home Secretary a Question. He did not see in the case of a certifying surgeon refusing to grant a certificate, and his reasons for so doing being deemed unsatisfactory, any mode by which his decision might be appealed against on behalf of the child. He did not wish to cast any doubt on the anxiety of the majority of medical men to do their duty; but it was possible that it might be done capriciously in some instances, and that it might have a very vexatious effect on a child's after interests. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it was not possible to afford some ready means of appeal to an Inspector or other officer?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied that there was no appeal except to the Secretary of State, who had authority over the certifying surgeon, and who might nullify his appointment if he saw good grounds for doing so.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 69 (Fees of certifying surgeons for examination of children and young persons).
  DR. CAMERONmoved, in page 34, line 16, to leave out "five" and insert "person." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to leave the fees of the certifying surgeons as they were at present. He did not propose any increase, nor, as far as he was aware, was any increase in the fee of the medical gentlemen proposed by the Amendment last before the Committee. In the Act of 1844 provision was made that the certifying surgeons and the occupiers might agree as to the amount of the fees; and in the event of their failing to arrive at such agreement, the occupier was empowered to apply to the Inspector of Factories to recommend the fee—a table of fees being laid down in the Act. The same thing occurred in the Act of 1845. But in the Act of 1867 no provision of this sort was made, and the consequence was that a number of certifying surgeons took advantage of the opening thereby afforded to charge exorbitant fees. Although under the Act of 1867 no power was given to the Inspector of Factories to regulate these fees, or to state what the
  466
  maximum fee should be, the then Inspectors were so frequently appealed to that they issued a Circular which had had, he believed, throughout the greatest portion of the country, the effect of law ever since. In that Circular they explained that, under the circumstances which he had described, being very frequently appealed to, they would recommend a scale of fees which they said would be fair to all parties—namely, for one certificate 2s. 6d., and 6d. for each certificate in addition when more than one was granted. His Amendment, if carried, would leave matters standing as they were under this regulation of the Factory Inspectors. If the Bill should pass in its present form, its effect would be materially to cut down these fees. He thought that there could be no dispute about wages having vastly increased since 1844 in all departments of life; and after a number of gentlemen had made an arrangement on the faith of the continuance of a bargain, sanctioned, if not by the law, at least by the officers who administered the law, he thought it would be an unjustifiable interference with what he might call vested rights if the fees of those gentlemen were now to be remodelled in a manner adverse to them without any reason being given for such a course. He was perfectly certain that if they were dealing with publicans instead of professional men such a proposal would not be supported for one moment. He understood that he should be told that in certain portions of the country—in Lancashire and Yorkshire— the fees contained in this Bill had all along been adopted; but the fact that they had been voluntarily adopted in a small portion of the country was no reason why they should now be imposed over the entire of the United Kingdom.
  Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 16, to leave out the word "five," in order to insert the word "person."— (Dr. Cameron.)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' five ' stand part of the clause."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he must object to the Circular of the Inspectors being referred to; because, although it was quite true that such a Circular was issued in some parts of the country, it certainly created no vested

  467
  interest anywhere. The real fact was that the occupier of a factory made his bargain with the certifying surgeon, and there was no vested interest. And he was bound to say that, under this Bill, certifying surgeons would probably receive more fees, because the word "factory" was now very much extended, and persons who had never hitherto presented themselves to a certifying surgeon would now have to do so. Therefore, he would receive under this Bill many more fees than he ever received before. He was also bound to say that, although he had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of certifying surgeon, yet so many people had written to him asking for the post that he was quite sure there was a very great desire for some reason or other on the part of medical men to hold this office. He found that there was no necessity to raise the fees in order to get gentlemen to fill the appointment, and, therefore, he hoped that the Committee would refuse to agree to the Amendment.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRthought that before the Committee decided against the Amendment they ought to consider it a little, because it was exceedingly important. They were told that this was chiefly a Consolidation Bill intended to keep the law as it was. The present law admitted that any doctor might go and make a contract with the occupier just as he wished. That was to remain; but the Amendment had reference to cases in which the occupier did not do so—cases, for instance, in which there might be fewer children, and the occupier would not think it worth while to make a contract. The Home Secretary had said that these were appointments which were very largely sought after, and no doubt the best of them were. He found that 167 certifying surgeons just now received sums ranging from £50 to £500 a-year from this occupation. There were 445 certifying surgeons who made not more than £20 a-year by this branch of their Profession; and by far the larger portion of the whole Profession so engaged made very small amounts by certifying children engaged in factories. All he wished to impress upon the Committee was, that by accepting the number of five, they were for the first time establishing a 6d. fee, to be paid to surgeons; for 2s. 6d. for five examined was really 6d. for one; while the existing
  468
  law was to pay 2s. 6d. for the first, and 6d. for each case after the first. It was clear, therefore, that the Committee was asked, by means of a Bill said to have been introduced mainly with a view to consolidation, to make a radical change in an existing law which had worked very well.
  MR. MUNDELLAhoped the Home Secretary would stand firmly by his proposal as it stood in Bill—in the first place, because the fees proposed to be paid were those originally fixed by the Acts of 1844 and 1868; and, in the second, because the burden of the payment would fall chiefly upon individual workmen and small manufacturers. Instead of complaining, the surgeons ought gladly to accept the proposal of the Government, inasmuch, as by causing many more children to be examined than heretofore, the fees received by the surgeons would be increased. The post of certifying surgeon was not only an honourable one, but it was far from being an honorary post; and it was, at all events, one which surgeons of high position in their Profession aspired to. The change, if made, would not affect the manufacturers who employed large numbers of children, because they contracted with the surgeons to conduct the examinations. It would only injuriously affect those small manufacturers who employed, say, half-a-dozen children.
  DR. WARDsaid, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) must be labouring under some mistaken notion. The proposal contained in the Bill was a distinct alteration of the laws laid down by the Government Inspectors themselves, and was by no means a keeping up of the old system. If the custom to which the hon. Member referred was practised in Sheffield, it was not in other parts of the country. He had in his possession a Circular issued by Messrs. Redgrave and Baker, Her Majesty's Inspectors, fixing the fees on a scale totally different from, and considerably higher than, that set forth in the Bill. On the scale which was laid down by the Inspectors, the surgeon would receive 2s. 6d. for the first child examined and certified, and 6d. for each succeeding one, or 4s. 6d. for the examination of five children, and not 2s. 6d., as was now proposed. Notwithstanding this fact, the hon. Member for Sheffield maintained that the fees were to remain the

  469
  same. If the Bill was passed in its present form, as far as this particular branch of it was concerned, what had been hitherto a fairly lucrative employment for surgeons in the large towns, would cease to be so, and a very inferior class of men would consequently be found applying for the appointments. The proposal was neither more nor less than an attempt to take away fees now paid in many parts of the country, and paid in the spirit of the Acts of which the present Bill was said to be a mere consolidation.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, it was quite true that the Inspectors had a right to fix the fees in some of the country districts, where the cases were comparatively few; but the Inspectors could alter such special rates whenever they pleased. The Circular which had been referred to was issued at a time when it was found difficult to put some of the surgeons on the same footing they had occupied for years and years before.
  MR. W. HOLMSsupported the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), believing that no necessity existed for altering the law from its present form. Under existing circumstances, the certifying surgeons were fairly well, but not extravagantly, paid. There was a time when the appointments were eagerly sought after by leading men in the Medical Profession; but that time had, to a great extent, passed away, by reason of the fact that large districts had been very much subdivided, and so the competition which formerly existed had to a large extent ceased in the great centres of industry. Medical men did not seek these offices so much on account of the emoluments they directly derived from them as for the connection they brought, and the private patients that were thereby added to their lists.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was, doubtless, true, as had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair), that a considerable number of certifying surgeons, as such, only made but small incomes; but it was equally true that they did very little work, as the payments made were calculated and based upon results.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, the low fee of 6d. might be perfectly fair in large factories or in cases where the manufacturers contracted for examina-
  470
  tion and certification; but it was manifestly unfair and very hard where a district was wide, and the number of children employed was small.
  MR. GORSThoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He was inclined, he said, before hearing what had been said on the subject, to give a very liberal interpretation to the wishes of the surgeons; but when he heard that surgeons of high standing were found eagerly competing for the appointments on the terms contained in the Bill, he could not see that Parliament had any right to tax either employers or employed more highly in order to pay more than plenty of professional men were ready to do the work for. The 5th sub-section of the clause empowered the Home Secretary, from time to time, if he thought it expedient, to alter the scale of fees; and he had no doubt that the power so given would be used in country districts where the factories were small, and the sums to be earned were therefore very low, in order to secure the services of efficient and proper officers.
  DR. BRADYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) must know perfectly well that there was not an officer in the State, from that of the Prime Minister downwards, that would not be eagerly taken by someone or other at a much lower rate of pay than at present attached to it. But the question important to be considered was as to the fitness of the persons seeking election. With regard to the Medical Profession, the mistake had always been made of fixing the fees at too low a rate. When the Bill for compulsory vaccination was passed a majority in that House were in favour of the payment of low fees, and what was the result? Vaccination failed, and became highly unpopular in consequence, and it became necessary to pay larger fees in order to get the vaccination properly performed. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) seemed to know very little about the subject, and to be lamentably ignorant as to the qualifications necessary to be possessed by a competent surgeon. It was necessary, in the first place, that they should be Licentiates of the Apothecaries Company, and so fitted properly to dispense medicines; they must also pass a strict examination at the College of Surgeons; and, in addition to this, many of them were voluntarily

  471
  graduates of one of the Universities. And yet these were the men whom it was proposed to pay by 6d. fees. He thought the wisest course for the Home Secretary to take would be rather to increase than to diminish the fees paid, and so to secure the health and well-being of the younger children employed in factories.
  MR. HERMONthought the certifying surgeons should be content to take the rough with the smooth in matters of payment and profit as other persons had to do. Those who asked that the fees should be raised were met by the unanswerable argument of the Secretary of State, that the services of some of the best men in the Profession could be secured for the rate of payment laid down in the Bill.
  MR. MUNTZcould not understand why the Amendment had been moved, except it was purely and simply for the benefit of the Medical Profession. The duties of certifying surgeons were not heavy if the pay was not large. A surgeon had five or six children brought before him, and he passsd them almost en bloc. If any of the children struck him as being small and delicate, he examined them a little more closely; but, as a general rule, the examination was very superficial.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKpointed out that while the Bill provided penalties for employers and parents who did not get the children examined, there was no penalty laid down for the surgeon in case he failed to perform the duty enjoined upon him by the Bill. He thought this required seeing to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he thought the surgeons would take it as a matter of absolute duty affecting their credit to carry out the provisions of the Act. If they did not do so the Secretary of State would have power of instant dismissal, and an occurrence of the kind could not fail materially to injure a surgeon's reputation among the people of the neighbourhood in which he practised.
  MR. MACDONALDsupported the Bill, remarking that the present moment was very inopportune for raising by law the salaries or fees of any branch of State officials, inasmuch as the wages of the working classes were going steadily downwards, while their expenses were proceeding in an inverse ratio. He was
  472
  informed that they could pass 30 children in half-an-hour. Were this so they were well paid and should let well alone.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsupported the Amendment. His main reason for doing this was in order that the medical officers should be induced not to conduct their examinations in the perfunctory manner which almost inevitably resulted from the payment of a mean and inadequate fee. A good deal had been said about first-class men applying for these appointments, but he did not attach much importance to the fact. He thought that for duties of the kind contemplated by the Bill, they were likely to get better work out of young men who were just struggling and rising in their Profession, than from men who were at the top of the tree, or who had grown so old in the Profession as to have lost much of their vigour.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should vote against the Amendment. Medical men were much the same as lawyers. When questions of fees arose in the House the lawyers stood up for their class, and the doctors for the members of their own order. He knew doctors in very great practice who acted as certifying surgeons in the Belfast factories, and he saw no reason why the fees should be increased as long as they could get the services of thoroughly good men for the fees offered. No doubt medical men had to get diplomas at the outset of their professional career; but it was also equally beyond doubt, that many men forgot much of what they had learned, and became practically useless, notwithstanding their many diplomas.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWsaw no reason for adopting the Amendment which had been proposed. He thought a 2s. 6d. fee for the first child, with an additional 6d. for each subsequent one examined was ample; but, as he understood the matter, it was proposed to exact a fee of 2s. 6d. for each one.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He did not propose to alter the amount of the fees paid, but to leave them as fixed after the Act of 1871.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 54: Majority 169.—(Div. List, No. 36.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought some limit ought to be put to the distance which a surgeon must charge for travelling for the purpose of examining and certifying children. As the clause stood, it would enact that the surgeon might charge an extra 6d. for each half-mile completed beyond a certain limit. This might become a very heavy charge in some districts where, for instance, a surgeon might have to travel 10 or 12 miles to examine the children employed in a remote mill driven by the water of a mountain stream.
  SIR ANDREW DUSKagreed in principle with the noble Lord, and moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "half-mile" in order to insert "mile."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Amendment would not then be pressed, as on the Report he should be prepared to propose a limit.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  DR. WARDthought some protest ought to be entered in regard to the payment of surgeon's fees, and moved, as an Amendment, that "one shilling" be substituted for "sixpence" in the sub-section. He had been assured by practical men of large experience that in many cases the surgeons preferred to do the work for nothing rather than take so mean a fee. He could not see why the House should consent to fix the fee at so contemptible a rate that no respectable practitioner would accept it.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped the Amendment would not be accepted; but did not think it necessary, after what had been said, to go again over the whole ground of the fees to be paid.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRhoped his hon. Friend would not divide upon his Amendment. It had been said that the fee was so mean few surgeons would accept it; but, on the other hand, very few of them were asked to do so; because, owing to the inconvenience attaching to it, very few children were taken to the houses of the surgeons. Practically, the matter was one more of sentiment than of real grievance, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
  MR. KNOWLESsaid, that as far as his experience went, he seldom knew the 6d. to be refused; it was not only
  474
  expected, but paid and received. The advantage gained by these certifying surgeons was not direct, but indirect and extensive. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had contrasted the charge for examining a horse or a dog with that for examining a factory child, but the cases were not parallel. The man who certified the child got introduced to other business; horses and dogs could not introduce patients to the veterinary surgeons who examined them.
  MR. NEWDEGATEthought it scarcely fair, in calculating a scale of fees, to consider the nature of the indirect advantage which a surgeon might or might not gain from holding a particular appointment. The proper course to take was to pay the gentleman what his services were really worth.
  DR. CAMERONhoped the hon. Member (Dr. Ward) would not divide, although there was something to be said in favour of his proposal. It might, for instance, be useful to raise the fee from 6d. to 1s., in order to check the practice of sending children to the residences of the surgeons, and so opening the door to personation, imposition, and falsehood.
  MR. M'LARENremarked that if a surgeon advertised, as he must advertise, that he would be at home once a-week or once a-fortnight, it was scarcely conceivable that only one child would come. If five, or 10, or 20, there would be 6d. each for them. The first fee was 2s. 6d., but if a second child was examined, the fee was 3s.; so that, in reality, he thought a fee of 6d. was not likely to occur once in three months.
  DR. WARDsaid, that in deference to the feeling of the Committee, he would not press his Amendment; but so many men were ready to take these situations, on account of the good things they would bring them, that he feared they might neglect their duties.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had been asked to move an Amendment in favour of surgeons, and of their payment for attendance in court for examination as witnesses, as he was told that in some cases payment was refused by the tribunal. His proposal was, that when medical men were called upon to attend

  475
  a court of justice, they should be entitled to a fee of 10s. for attendance, together with the expense of travelling, such fees to be considered as costs in the cause. The practical result of the uncertainty in respect of fees was that in a great many cases medical men neglected to attend courts of justice, and the effect was that a miscarriage took place, and justice was not administered as it ought to be. The fee he proposed was not an extravagant one, but would be a reasonable offer. In other cases a medical man could make his own time; but when he was in court as a witness, he must make his other arrangements suitable to the time at which he had to appear. So he thought the sum he had named was not an unreasonably large one, and should be agreed to by the Committee. One pound, instead of 10 s., would be only reasonable.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, the hon. Member could scarcely have had before him the true state of the law. The law said at present that for proper attendance in court a medical man was entitled to certain fees; and the Amendment, instead of being in favour of, would be against, medical men. There was no such thing as "costs in the cause." Such a phrase had no meaning as applicable to a criminal case. The hon. Member had mixed up two things. In the present state of the law, if a medical man was properly there, he was entitled to his fees. The officer of the court made out what the medical man was there for, and apportioned the proper amount of fee.
  MR. BIGGARobserved that certainly the law had been administered in such a way that the medical officers could not get the fees to which the Solicitor General said they were entitled. He did not dispute that the medical men were entitled to these fees; but in some cases they had not got their fees. This had probably happened when they had been subpoenaed as witnesses by the Inspectors, who had no authority to ask for their expenses. He knew, of his own knowledge, that some medical men in the past refused, as far as possible, to go into a court of justice at all, simply because it was uncertain whether they would get any fee for their services. Now, he thought it was fair that medical men should have a reasonable fee.
  476
  Whether it should be a fixed sum or not he did not mean to argue.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKpointed out that medical men had not to serve on juries in any way as many other men had to do; besides, all of them had to do a great many things for which they were not paid. He would advise the hon. Member not to press this Amendment, because many things with reference to exemption might be brought to light.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENremarked that the Solicitor General had asserted that a medical gentleman would be paid for if wanted in a court of justice; but the hon. and learned Member had not stated that if a subpoena was served on a medical gentleman he must attend; and, if he followed the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be for the surgeon to say whether he was likely to be wanted or not. A surgeon received a subpoena, and was not informed exactly of the evidence he had to give. He was brought a considerable distance away from his patients; and then, when it was found by the proper officer that his evidence was not requisite, he was not to be paid, forsooth, because his services were not required. Perhaps he might afterwards be told that the evidence he would have given was not germane to the indictment. If this doctrine were correct, it was the witness who was to be the judge as to whether he was obliged to obey the subpoena. He trusted such an opinion would not be uttered by a legal Gentleman in that House again.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD): I never meant to say that it depended on the cogency of his evidence. It depended on his being there under legal process.
  DR. CAMERONtrusted the hon. Member would not substitute "ten shillings" for "one pound." If he did, the effect would be to cut down by one-half the fees paid to these witnesses.
  Amendment negatived.
  In reply to Mr. FRESHFIELD,
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that due care should be taken on the Report that the surgeons should be properly paid for the examinations they made.
  MR. MEREWETHERdid not think any question could arise as to that, because it was already provided that 2s. 6d,

  477
  should be paid for each visit, and 6d. for each person examined.
  Clause agreed to.
  (3.) Miscellaneous.
  Clause 70 (Notice of factory to be given to inspector).
  MR. M'LARENpointed out that it was complained in Glasgow that the Inspectors there were invisible. They purposely concealed their residences, and no one could get to them. Some words should be inserted to the effect that the Inspectors should give their addresses, in order that the public might know where to find them.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 71 (Regulation of hours by public clock) agreed to.
  Clause 72 (Registers to be kept in a factory or workshop) agreed to.
  Clause 73 (Affixing in factory or workshop of abstract of Act and notices) agreed to.
  Clause 74 (Printing or writing and service of notices and documents, &c.) agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Inspection of weights and measures used in factories and workshops) agreed to.
  (4.) Fines.
  Clause 76 (Fine for not keeping factory or workshop in conformity with Act) agreed to.
  Clause 77 (Penal compensation to person injured by want of fence to machinery).
  MR. BRISTOWEsaid, that the clause did not provide for the fencing of mill-gearing.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: That has been provided for in the earlier part of the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 78 (Pine for employing children, young persons, and women contrary to the Act) agreed to.
  Clause 79 (Fine on parent for allowing child to be employed contrary to the Act, or neglecting to cause child to attend school) agreed to.
  Clause 80 (Forgery of certificates, false entries, and declarations).
  MR. MACDONALDmoved, in page 38, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "knowingly;" in lines 19, 23, and 25, to leave out "wilfully," because words of this description were unnecessarily applied to well-known offences. These words were used in every Act they had been put in to weaken the force of the Statutes —they were in the interest of law, breakers, not of those that wanted to obey the law. He hoped the Home Secretary would assent to the omission of a word which, in his opinion, would injuriously restrict the operation of the clause.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)said, it was a mistake to suppose that the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" were not to be found in Statutes relating to criminal offences. They were, he thought, very essential words in such a clause as that under discussion; for, if they were struck out, the most innocent person might be brought within the purview of the Bill, and a monstrous injustice might thus be done to one who was entirely guiltless of any real offence.
  MR. BIGGARargued in favour of the Amendment. If the word "knowingly" were allowed to remain in the clause, the onus of proof that the signer of a certificate actually knew the statements which it contained to be false would lie upon those who prosecuted; and the clause would, in consequence, be rendered almost completely inoperative, for in the vast majority of cases it would be impossible to furnish such proof.
  MR. M'LARENthought the answer of the Solicitor General was conclusive as to the use of the word "knowingly" in the case of the person by whom a certificate was signed; but it would be well, in his opinion, if it were struck out in the 14th line of the clause, because anyone holding a certificate must be aware whether he was really entitled to use it or not.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the discussion appeared to him very much on the distinction which he had heard made between a want of veracity and a want of truth. A want of veracity was explained to be the making of an assertion which was not true by a person who believed it to be true; while a want of truth was defined as the making of a statement

  479
  with the knowledge that it was untrue. It was that distinction which the framers of the clause would appear to have in view.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDthought that, though it might be well that some penalty should be attached to mere negligence in the signing of a certificate, it would be unwise of the Committee to assent to the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make what amounted simply to a mistake punishable in the same manner as the grave offence of forgery. It would be a great injustice that a person who negligently signed a certificate, believing that the statements which it contained were true, should be subjected to such severe penalties as those which might be inflicted under the operation of the clause.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKopposed the Amendment, adding that, in his opinion, the fine of £20 imposed by the clause was too large, and that it would be better if the amount were fixed at £10.
  MR. ANDERSONtook exception to the peculiar distinction between a want of veracity and a want of truth which had been drawn by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). If there was such a distinction, it certainly did not exist in Scotland; it might possibly be English, but the probability was, he thought, that it was confined exclusively to Ireland.
  MR. PARNELLreplied, that the distinction was not his, but that of the Rev. Mr. Robertson, who was a Scotchman.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he should prefer leaving the clause as it stood to amending it as was proposed; while he was quite prepared to admit that a person who "knowingly" uttered a false certificate deserved the punishment which, under the clause, might be inflicted upon him.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he would not press his Amendment in opposition to what appeared to be the general feeling of the Committee, though he could not help thinking the Committee was greatly in error in the matter.
  MR. BIGGARthought the clause was badly drawn, inasmuch as it contained no provision imposing a penalty on culpable negligence. It proceeded upon the assumption that a person giving a false certificate must do so intentionally; but the person who did so through gross carelessness might go entirely un-
  480
  punished. He hoped the Government would take care, before the Report, to have the clause amended in that respect.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 81 (Fine on person committing offence for which occupier is liable) agreed to.
  Clause 82 (Power of occupier to exempt himself from fine on conviction of the actual offender) agreed to.
  Clause 83 (Restraint on cumulative fines) agreed to.
  (5.) Legal Proceedings.
  Clause 84 (Prosecution of offences and recovery and application of fines) agreed to.
  Clause 85 (Appeal to quarter sessions) agreed to.
  Clause 86 (Limitation of time and general provisions as to summary proceedings) agreed to.
  Clause 87 (Evidence in summary proceedings) agreed to.

PART IV.

  DEFINITIONS, SAVINGS, APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND AND IRELAND, AND REPEAL.
  (1.)Definitions.
  Clause 88 (Factories and workshops to which Act applies).
  Mr. PARNELLdirected the attention of the Committee to that portion of the clause under which workshops were to be exempted from its operation where no children, young persons, or women were employed. On looking over the Bill, he found a great many clauses, such as the 3rd, which provided that workshops should be kept in a cleanly state—the 31st, the 32nd, and 33rd, which related to accidents and the making of special regulations for the promotion of health—which, in his opinion, might very properly be extended to the case of workshops in which men only were employed. He found that Clause 34, which provided for the keeping clean of the interior of bakehouses, was rendered practically inoperative, because it only applied to places of that description in which

  481
  women, young persons, or children were employed. The same objection could be taken to Clause 35, which referred to the provision of clean sleeping places near to bakehouses, and to Clause 36, which provided for proper ventilation, and so on. Clause 76, also, which imposed a fine for not keeping a factory or workshop in conformity with the Act, and Clause 77, which provided for compensation to persons injured through the want of fences to machinery, would both be nugatory unless women, or children, or young persons were employed in the factory or workshop. He therefore, thought the Committee would do well to adopt his Amendment, which was as follows:—To insert after the word "Act" in line 18, page 44, the words "with the exception of sections 3, 7, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 76, and 77."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSdid not want to take any technical objection to the Amendment; but he would point out that it would be very inconvenient to refer to sections of the Act as proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Of course, there was a great deal primâ facie in favour of the Amendment; but, in the first place, as regarded Section 3, by the Amendment, which had been made in the Public Health Act, all factories and workshops were now placed under the control of the sanitary authority of the district. Formerly there was a limit to the power of the sanitary authority, but that was now done away with. With reference to Clause 7, as it at present stood, it only related to places where children and young persons were employed. Then, as regarded Clauses 31 and 32, it would be found that in Clause 59, it was specially stated that those clauses should not apply to workshops not employing children or young persons therein. As to Clause 33, it was thought that the local authority might very fairly be left to say whether a factory or workshop were properly cleansed. He granted that when they came to Clauses 34 and 35, which dealt with bakehouses, a case was made out for the Amendment; but it was by a pure accident that bakehouses employing men were omitted, and for the sake of the public health, they would be included in the Bill at a later stage; but the question whether they should be put under the supervision
  482
  of Factory Inspectors or of the local authority would have to be considered. With regard to Clause 36, which contained a provision as to ventilation by fans in factories and workshops, wherever there was machinery—no doubt there would be a good deal of dust; but in smaller places, where there was no machinery, he did not think sufficient dust would be accumulated to call for official interference. As to Clauses 76 and 77, they only applied to places where young persons where employed. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with this explanation, and would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLthought that, as the previous Acts were so entirely limited to women and children, it would be better to leave the Bill as it stood in this respect, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, that before the Home Secretary answered the hon, Member for Tipperary's Question, with reference to schools, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the work carried on in laundries. He thought it would be a very great advantage if that part of the Schedule which dealt with those places could be omitted from the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), said, that with regard to schools established for gain, the question would have to be looked at very carefully. As to the public laundries, he would have something to say about them when the Committee came to the Schedule; but he was bound to admit that difficulties had occurred in carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, such as he did not think could have been in their minds when they reported; and he would be quite ready to listen to any arguments that might be used in favour of striking public laundries out of the Bill altogether.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 89 (Definition of employment, and working for hire) agreed to.
  Clause 90 (Definition of certified efficient school) agreed to.
  Clause 91 (General Definitions. "Child." "Young person." "Woman." "Parent." "Treasury." "Secretary of State." "Education Department." "Sanitary Authority." "Person." "Week." "Night." "Prescribed." "Summary Jurisdiction Acts." "Court of Summary Jurisdiction." "Mill-gearing.")
  MR. TENNANTcalled attention to the definition of a "child" which was said to mean "a person under the age of 14 years." He thought 13 years might be the age at which the description "young person" might begin to apply, and he recommended that the question should be considered before the Report.
  Clause agreed to.
  (2.) Savings.
  Clause 92 (Saving as to liability of hirer of machine where not occupier) agreed to.
  Clause 93 (Saving for persons employed in repair of machinery or of factory or workshop) agreed to.
  Clause 94 (Application to factories and workshops of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55) agreed to.
  Clause 95 (Construction of enactments referring to Factory or Workshop Acts) agreed to.
  (3.) Application of Act to Scotland and Ireland. Clause 96 (Temporary saving for employment of children under 10 and children over 13 in Scotland and Ireland) agreed to.
  Clause 97 (Certificate of birth for purposes of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 98 (Application of Act to Scotland) agreed to.
  Clause 99 (Application of Act to Ireland).
  MR. GRAYsaid, the expression "certified school" in Ireland only applied to national schools; but in England there were two classes of schools which a child might attend under this Bill—namely, "recognized official schools" and "certified official schools." There were a great many schools in Ireland which were efficient, but which were not
  484
  national schools. For instance, there were the Church Education Society's Schools, The Christian Brothers' and the Nuns' Schools—with reference to the last named of which, Mr. Richmond, the Inspector, had stated that he found a marked difference between the behaviour of girls attending those schools compared with that of other girls of the the class. The time of attendance at school in Ireland, was from 10 to 3, and it was impossible, therefore, to get two attendances of three hours each in one day. Certificates of attendance were, however, given, and the school master reconciled it to his conscience by counting the whole time that a child was away from the factory for the purpose of attending school. The hon. Member then moved an Amendment to insert the following words after the word "school," in page 50, line 5:—
  "And any school which the Lord Lieutenant in Council has not refused to recognize as a school affording efficient means of elementary education; Provided, that if attended by children, in accordance with this Act, such school shall be open, with the teachers in regular attendance, for the period of one full attendance before half-past Twelve, and for the period of one full attendance after half-past One in the afternoon of each day."
  By this Amendment there were two points raised—first, to allow all schools giving a fair education to be recognized by the Act; and, secondly, to secure for the "half-timers" three hours school in the morning and three hours in the afternoon, so that the attendance should be a reality and not a sham.
  MR. PARNELLhoped the Government would agree to the Amendment, as he felt sure it would give satisfaction to all classes in Ireland; and, unless some such Amendment were passed, he was convinced that they would have very great difficulty in dealing with both Catholic and Protestant children in regard to the school question. In his own county—Meath—there were the Erasmus Smith Schools, which were attended by Protestant children, but which would not be recognized in the clause as it stood, and the children attending such schools would not reap the advantages which would be accorded to children attending the national 'schools. The Catholics also had excellent schools, which were preferred by many parents to those which the Act would recognize. This Bill itself afforded a very good

  485
  precedent for the adoption of the Amendment, for Section 23 provided that where there was no certified school within a distance of two miles from the residence of the child, attendance at a school not a recognized and efficient school should count as attendance at a recognized and efficient school until such school was established. He could not conceive any objection to the Amendment, if the Lord Lieutenant in Council had power to state that any school of which he did not approve should not be certified.
  MR. D. TAYLORhoped that if any additional schools were to be included in the definition of certified schools very great care would be taken before that was done to test the qualifications of the teachers.
  MAJOR NOLANbelieved that the majority of hon. Members did not know or understand the position of certified teachers in many parts of Ireland. A large number of female children were educated in convent schools, which aimed at giving—and in most instances did give—a superior kind of elementary instruction to that afforded in national schools. Now, if they excluded from the benefits of the clause all schools whose teachers were not certified, they would shut out every one of these convent schools in Ireland. In the county of Kerry, the nuns had no objection to pass the examination necessary to obtain the Government certificate, and a large number did pass it in order to obtain the national grant; but the schools provided by the nuns of Kerry represented only one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of the total number of schools in Ireland. This state of things did not arise from any inferiority on the part of the teacher, as was proved by the fact of those teachers being strong advocates of the system of payment by results. By the rules of the Board these convents would, if classed as national schools, obtain £50 or £60 a-year for every 100 pupils, whereas they now only received £20. They were, therefore, already at a great disadvantage in point of money; and, if they were to be further handicapped, a great injustice would be done them. The same argument applied to the smaller schools, such as those carried on by the Christian Brothers, which provided for the education of the children of the poor, but which were not certified because the teachers would not pass the
  486
  prescribed examinations. As to the question of time, it was desirable to point out that in many of the smaller towns the hours were regulated by the habits of the country, and that the schools did not keep open as late as half-past 4. Under those circumstances, he thought that, if the Attorney General would adopt the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would confer a very valuable benefit on the school system in Ireland.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, who failed to see the urgency of the Amendment, asked why, if there was to be no qualification, it should not be generally provided that, all schools within a specified distance of any place of employment should be included? The Committee ought not to be called upon to proclaim that the national system of education in Ireland, which cost them so much, was insufficient for the needs of the country, and not to be relied upon for providing instruction within a reasonable distance of the site of employment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON), whilst not prepared to accept the Amendment in the shape in which it had been brought forward, admitted that it might be not unreasonable in the case of Ireland to recognize other than certified schools. He was, however, disposed to believe that although the hours in some of the schools in Ireland were not sufficiently long, yet it would not be desirable to adopt the whole of the Amendment. In regard to the substantial question, it might be better, perhaps, to adopt the words of the 23rd section—"Schools that had been recognized by the Factory Inspector as giving efficient elementary education." As the Amendment had been rather hurriedly prepared by the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would suggest that it should be now withdrawn, and the question raised again on the Report. In the meantime, he would consult with the Home Secretary on the point.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwas quite willing to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend. The Education Department in England passed a number of schools which were not certified elementary schools, but which were included under the head of "other recognized schools;" and he confessed

  487
  that he thought some provision of the sort might be extended to Ireland.
  MAJOR NOLANthought that if the Amendment were withdrawn the Government should consent to add these words— "or any schools which receive money from the Commissioners of National Education." This was necessary from the fact that many of the convent schools received money, hut only as payment for results. The point had, no doubt, been overlooked by those who drafted the Bill, owing to their want of knowledge of the intricacies of the education question in Ireland. The speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) really meant that Parliament supplied a certain number of national schools for Ireland, and, if the people did not choose to send their children to them, they were to be legislated against on every possible occasion.
  MR. ORR EWINGsuggested that the expression "certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Government inspection.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)quite agreed that some change in the phraseology of the clause was necessary, and was ready to insert after "any national school," some words which would include any recognized certified school.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary was at present before the Committee, and it would be better to dispose of it before discussing another proposition.
  MR. BIGGAR, believing that English and Scotch Members did not know the real facts of the case, wished to explain the position of things as regarded education in Ireland. What occurred in the national schools was this. It was a common practice for a building, such as a hay-loft, to be hired, for windows to be put in, and teachers who had passed the National Board to be brought there. The teachers were paid by results, and got a fixed payment from the National Board. Even if they had no class at all, they got paid.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman name those schools?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he knew an instance in which a Presbyterian clergyman had gone round to all sorts of people collecting money for education, which was really applied to proselytizing and
  488
  Presbyterian purposes. This was but one glaring and vicious example of what was done under the guise of a National Board of Education. The children of Ireland got their education in other schools not kept by the National Board, and the teachers in which had no Government test to undergo much better than in the national schools. In the case he had referred to a gentleman collected money from the public, and he was not aware whether any account was given as to how it was expended.
  MR. W. JOHNSTONrose to Order.
  MAJOR NOLANalso rose to Order, remarking that no personal allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan until the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Johnston) had called out "Name?" It was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to decline to give the name of the person he referred to.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it was entirely a matter of discretion with the hon. Member whether he gave the name of a person outside the House whom he had referred to.
  MR. BIGGARhad not intended to refer specially to the gentleman; but the thing was notorious, and it was a positive fact that that was the way in which money granted for educational purposes was spent. The result of the system was that the Government was subsidizing national school teachers, who were really active agents of Presbyterian clergymen. That was not a desirable state of things, and what hon. Gentlemen did not think they were doing when they granted money for educational purposes in Ireland. He had said, perpaps, more than he had intended to say at starting; but it was essential that hon. Members granting public money should know how it was spent.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed a hope that in any Amendment the Government accepted on this part of the Bill relating to Ireland, they would abide by the same principles which guided the action of the law and their own conduct with respect to England and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) had suggested that the expression "any certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Governmental inspection. Under a recent Act of Parliament no school in England was considered efficient that was not inspected; and he

  489
  hoped that the Government would not extend the advantage of teaching half-timers, which was an advantage to every school, to schools in Ireland not under Governmental inspection. He did not think the Government would be justified in conceding the privilege of teaching half-timers to any school, as to the internal regulations of which they had not adequate information.
  MR. O'REILLYfelt assured that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wished to act fairly towards Ireland in respect to this Bill. The conditions of education differed in the two countries, and in Ireland an inspected school would be another name for a national school. What was wanted was that the other class of efficient schools should be included in the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSShoped that the Committee would be satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General for Ireland to deal with the question on Report, and not waste further time over the discussion.
  MR. SULLIVANwished to know if he had understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to say that he desired the Government to apply the same principles to public schools in Ireland as existed in regard to those in England and Scotland? If he had correctly understood the hon. Gentleman, he would be content to take him at his word; he would ask him to have the courage to be consistent, and to vote for the same legislation for Ireland as for England in educational matters; for then denominational schools would be brought in Ireland under the public school system. Because Ireland had forced upon it a purely secular system of education, the House could not expect Irish Members to submit to any attempt to exclude scholars attending other schools from the advantages of the Bill. Such a suggestion was not to be tolerated.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to mention one fact as regarded education in Ireland —that, unhappily, the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church opposed the national system of education. Fortunately, in England— ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that as the Amendment before the Committee was as to the definition of a certified efficient school, the subject of religious
  490
  education in Ireland could not be brought into the discussion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEapologized; but remarked that he had only been replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He was only observing that it was no fault of the Legislature if the same system of law with respect to education that applied in England, did not apply equally to Ireland.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURmaintained that when the Irish system of education was first established by the late Earl of Derby (then Lord Stanley), it was by no means a secular system, as under it there was the reading of Scripture extracts, hyms were sung, and prayers said.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this reference was out of Order.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, the difficulty was that in certain parts of Ireland, owing to religious feeling and influences, the national system of education was not made use of to the fullest extent, because parents objected to it. Wherever the Catholics were in a majority the local education would probably be in the hands of a Catholic priest, and the Protestants objected to send their children to a school under such control. The contrary happened in a Protestant district, and the Catholics, having no confidence in the local schools, established schools of their own. Therefore, the Committee was not discussing a Roman Catholic grievance, but one which applied to Catholics and Protestants alike. An Amendment had been proposed to meet the difficulty, and he regretted that the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland had not accepted it. This was no question of the respective merits of systems of education; but the point was simply this—that a large number of the youth of Ireland were educated in schools which did not come under the definition already contained in the Bill, and the Irish Members desired to introduce some provision which would place those schools on an equal footing with the national schools when it had been proved that they were capable of giving an equally good education.
  MR. HIBBERTwished, as far as possible, to support the desire of the Irish Members to make the expression "efficient school" comprehend some-

  491
  thing larger than the national school system. He thought it was the intention of the Government that it should mean something more than national schools, and hoped that after the promises of the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, if the Government would promise that the Amendment on Report should be sufficiently comprehensive to include within its scope any school which was efficient, in an educational point of view, Protestant as well as Catholic, he would be willing to withdraw his opposition.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar in character to that of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and he would be glad to have some explicit declaration from the Government as to what they proposed to do when this question came up on the Report of the Bill. As the Bill stood at present, its limitation to national schools was of a most mischievous character, though it followed up the old principle which had actuated the Government in matters of education—that of forcing children into the schools they deemed it most desirable for them to attend. He could not imagine that at this time the Irish Members would submit to such an imposition as the clause in its present form proposed; but if the Government would only indicate the principle of their Amendment, he would withdraw his opposition. All the Irish Members desired to see was, that schools in Ireland capable of giving a good education to children, no matter to what religion they belonged, should be recognized as efficient schools under the Act.
  MR. GREENEfailed to understand why hon. Members opposite objected to the same treatment as that extended to England and Scotland. In Scotland a certified efficient school meant any public or elementary school under Government inspection, and he was at a loss to know why the Irish Members objected to Government inspection.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, if the hon. Member had been in the House during the last three-quarters of an hour, he would have known all about it; but it was not calculated to further the business of the Committee for an hon. Member to intervene in so naive a way.
  MR. GREENErose to Order. He had been in the House during the whole of the discussion.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: So much the worse. The hon. Member had evidently not been attending to what had been going on; for if one thing had been made more clear than another it was what they wanted. It was admitted very frankly by the Government that the clause as it stood would not carry out the principle at which they aimed. However, he should be perfectly content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as they had promised to bring up a clause on the Report which would satisfy those reasonable and legitimate wants on the part of the Irish Members which had been expressed to-night. He would not pay any hon. Member the bad compliment of supposing that he did not know what the Irish Members wanted, as it had been already explained.
  MR. A. M'ARTHURwas perfectly willing to give Ireland every facility possessed by England, but Members from Ireland wished for a great deal more. The schools in England were subject to Government inspection—without that inspection they could not get any money; and he could not understand how any Government could be expected to give support to schools over which they had no control, and with regard to which they had no legitimate information. The proposal to leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to say what schools were efficient, and what inefficient, was objectionable; because it would place his Excellency in a very invidious position, and pressure would be brought to bear upon him on all sides. If hon. Members would be willing to submit that every school should be subject to inspection, and paid by results, then their proposal might be agreed to.
  MR. SULLIVANsaid, no Irish Member had suggested that any school in Ireland, Protestant or Roman Catholic, should receive a farthing from public funds without rendering itself liable to public inspection. The Government should indicate the principle they had in their mind. He did not ask them for details, but he wanted to know the principle which would govern the arrangement of this matter; and, unless they knew exactly the principle, they

  493
  had better discuss the matter fully now instead of waiting for the Report. He should like to know from the Home Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland whether they had any objection to extend this clause to any and every public school in Ireland, the educational efficiency of which should be approved by a Government authority? That was the principle they wanted, and let them understand each other about it.
  MR. MUNTZthought the offer of the Government was sufficient. [An hon. MEMBER: What is the offer?] Why, to bring up a clause on Report, in which an endeavour would be made to meet the wishes of the Irish Members. This was a complicated question, and it was not right for hon. Gentlemen to imagine that a clause could be drawn up all at once.
  DR. WARDconsidered what they asked for was fair. They did not object to defer this clause; but they did object to defer it without knowing the lines of the principle upon which the Government were to act. As far as he could understand the Attorney General, the Government were going to do exactly the opposite of what the Irish Members wanted.
  MR. FAWCETTconsidered the request of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) a very reasonable one. Nothing was more frequent, when a Bill was in Committee and a difficulty occurred, than for somebody to get up and suggest that it should be postponed until the Report, as they would be in exactly the same position as when in Committee. Now, anybody acquainted with the Forms of the House, knew very well that it was a very different thing to discuss a clause in Committee and to discuss it on Report. They had a much better chance of getting what they wanted in Committee than on Report, because on Report, if an hon. Member only said three words, his further right to speak was gone. This was not a question of a Government grant to Irish education, nor was it a question of voting public money under certain circumstances. As far as he understood this question it was this—this Bill proposed, as a condition of employment, that a child should receive education at an efficient school; and the test of the efficiency of a school was necessarily Government inspection, and that Go-
  494
  vernment inspection ought to be applied alike to England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, what was here asked was, that children should not by a side-wind be forced into schools, in order to obtain a right to labour in Ireland, to which schools they might have conscientious objections. What was asked was, that if a child was attending a school which was certified by some kind of Government inspection, such as existed in England and in Scotland as efficient, then no barrier should be placed in the way of the child obtaining employment. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was, that he would accept the postponement of the question until the Report, only on the distinct understanding that the Government would say that they would bring up a clause based on the principle that an efficient school, so far as the right to labour was concerned, should be a school which was certified to be efficient by Government inspection. They did not ask for the words of the clause now, they only asked that the Government would state what should be its principle. It was so perfectly reasonable that he hoped the Government would at once make this declaration.
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought that they were all pretty much agreed upon what was required; and the request of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was a reasonable one. He understood him to say that he would be satisfied, provided the Government would, on Report, bring up a clause which would secure that any child attending a school which had been certified by any Government authority as efficient, should be entitled to take advantage of the Act. On Report, he would undertake to bring up such a clause.
  MAJOR NOLANwas in rather an unpleasant position. In his district there were several schools, whose requirements would not be met by the proposition of the Chief Secretary. He alluded to the district of Tuam, where there were schools which had no Government inspection at all. If the Chief Secretary would, therefore, say any school known to be efficient, the case of those schools would be met, and he should be content.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, it was the intention of the Government that all efficient schools should be included.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. PARNELLmoved, in page 50, after sub-section (1), to insert the following sub-section:—
  "In lieu of any four half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every person employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March and fifteenth day of August; Provided, That, when either of these dates falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date."
  He might at once say, for the benefit of the English and Scotch Members, that the 17th of March was St. Patrick's Day, and that the 15th of August was Lady Day, and both days were of very great importance in Ireland, and were universally observed as holidays. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to this proposal. If the Government desired it, he would leave out the words "every person," and insert "every child, young person, or woman."
  MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, there was, of course, a great deal in the observations of the hon. Member, and he should be prepared to agree to the proposal if the 12th July and 5th of November were also added.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)said, so far as this proposal related to St. Patrick's Day, there was no doubt it would receive sympathy; but he was disposed to think that in Ireland, as well as in England, the selection of holidays was pretty fairly arrived at between the employers and the employed, and the masters generally tried to meet the views of those they employed by selecting the best periods of the year. As to young children and women, he thought it better they should have eight half-holidays than four whole-ones, and, certainly, as regarded St. Patrick's Day, some employers might think it was an advantage to the work-people only to have a half-holiday instead of the whole day. From an Irish point of view, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said about St. Patrick's Day; and, on the whole, although he thought it might be better to leave the arrangement to the people themselves, instead of fixing it in an Act of Parliament, he would not oppose that part of the Amendment. The 15th of August, however, stood on quite a different footing, and making it a holiday by Statute might lead to difficulties and complications.
  MR. SULLIVANunderstood the Attorney General to suggest that only one actual day should be named in the clause, and that St. Patrick's Day. He would point out that already in the 98th clause of the Bill there was one holiday actually legislated for in Scotland. The clause said—
  "Any two days, one of which shall be the day set apart by the Church of Scotland for the observance of the Sacramental fast, in the parish in which the factory or workshop is situate."
  He would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should confine his clause to naming St. Patrick's Day, and he thanked the Attorney General for the recognition he had given of the national holiday of Ireland.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, the fast day referred to in this Bill was already created by law, and it was not made a holiday for the first time by this Bill. All shops were closed and business suspended on that day, very much as if it were Sunday.
  MR. PARNELLdesired to read the clause, as he was prepared to amend it—
  "In lieu of any two half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every child, young person, or woman, employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March; Provided, That, when this date falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date."
  MR. W. JOHNSTONhoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. A large majority of the people employed in factories and workshops in Belfast did not want a holiday on the 17th of March.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwas glad the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had withdrawn that portion of his Amendment which related to the 15th of August. He thought, however, it would be generally admitted that St. Patrick's Day was a national holiday in Ireland.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid, it was an entirely new principle in a Bill of this description to select a day which was a secular holiday, so to speak; for all the other holidays appointed for England and Scotland were days of religious observance, though whether they were religiously observed or not was another matter. For example, the two days in England were Good Friday and Christ-

  497
  mas Day, and the day for Scotland was the Sacramental Fast Day, which was a religious holiday.
  MR. SULLIVANhad seen how Good Friday was observed as a religious holiday in the Tower Hamlets, and certainly he had always found that St. Patrick's Day was better kept in Ireland.
  MAJOR NOLANhad always thought that St. Patrick was claimed alike by Catholics and Protestants. There was a song, often heard in the North of Ireland, commencing—"St. Patrick was a Protestant."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  (4.) Repeal.
  Clause 100 (Repeal of Acts) agreed to.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that before proposing the new clauses which were on the Paper, he wished to make a statement to the Committee concerning a new clause which he had drawn up. Although the Committee had apparently agreed with him that it was absolutely necessary to retain some hold over private workshops, yet he thought they also held the same opinion he himself entertained, that every care should be taken to prevent abuse of the power of entry. He would move, therefore, the insertion of a new clause, which was not on the Paper, to the effect that where an Inspector had reason to believe that work was being carried on in a dwelling-house, contrary to the provisions of the Act, he should not have power to go into that house without either getting a warrant in writing from the Secretary of State, or going before a justice of the peace to ask him to grant a warrant to enter the house. In the case of a warrant granted by a justice of the peace, he thought it necessary that the warrant should not be available for one day only, because, if an Inspector believed that work was going on in a particular house, he might not know the day. Therefore, he would propose that the warrant should be in force for a month. The right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to carry out the object he had described.
  MR. WHITBREADinquired whether the warrant would be granted on a sworn information?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSreplied in the affirmative.
  MR. MUNTZthought the warrant ought to be granted by two justices.
  MR. GORSTwished to know whether there was any precedent for houses of persons in this country being entered upon a Secretary of State's warrant, and also whether there would be a sworn information laid before the Secretary of State, or some other safeguard provided for the protection of individuals?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSremarked that the Secretary of State was the Chief Magistrate.
  SIR SYDNEY WATERLOWthought the Committee ought to be much obliged to the Secretary of State for proposing this clause. He should withdraw the new clause standing in his name to the same effect. As the right hon. Gentleman had now said that the sacredness of private homes should not be interfered with except on the order of a magistrate or the Secretary of State, he thought it quite right that, under such circumstances, an investigation should be made with a view to ascertain whether children and young persons were being overworked. He had had a great deal of experience among the poor in Bethnal Green, where cabinet-work and shoe-work was done in homes, and many of the people there were amazed at the idea that their homes were to be interfered with under the circumstances which might have been brought about but for the clause which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed.
  MR. HOPWOODjoined in thanking the Home Secretary for introducing the clause, which certainly would protect the liberty of the subject to a very great extent.
  MR. FIELDENthought a warrant, granted by a magistrate on a sworn information was a very proper thing, but he objected strongly to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State. It was a further extension of centralization against which he must protest.
  SIR HENRY JAMESwas of opinion that the power given to the Secretary of State was a very valuable one. Possibly in some districts magistrates might take a different view of the Act from that taken by the Legislature; and, of course, the power of the Secretary of State

  499
  would only be used in exceptional cases. He thought a Proviso that the warrant should be granted by two magistrates would be invidious and objectionable. All informations relating to the liberty of the subject were sworn before one magistrate.
  MR. PARNELLalso acknowledged the value of the clause. The Secretary of State had done all he possibly could to remove the objections to the original proposal.
  Clause agreed to, and aided to the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS next moved to insert, after Clause 91, the following Clauses:—
  Special Exemption of certain Trades.
  (Exemption of handicrafts in Schedule in private houses.)
  "The exercise in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour by way of trade or for purposes of gain in or incidental to any of the handicrafts specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act, shall not of itself constitute such house or room a workshop within the meaning of this Act.
  "When it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State that by reason of the light character of the handicraft carried on in any private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, it is expedient to extend this section to that handicraft, he may by Order extend the same.
  "The Order shall be made in manner provided by Part Two of this Act, and that part shall apply so far as circumstances admit, as if the order were an order extending an exception."
  Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSmoved the following new Clause:—
  (Exemption of certain home-work.)
  "The exercise in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour for the purposes of gain in or incidental to some of the purposes in this Act in that behalf mentioned, shall not of itself constitute such house or room a workshop, where the labour is exercised at irregular intervals, and does not furnish the whole or principal means of living to such family."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, he had been induced by the strong desire of some of his own constituents, and of other manufacturers similarly situated, to propose that workers in certain light textile manufactures should be allowed to work in spells of five hours during the winter months, so that they might take break-
  500
  fast and set their houses in order before commencing work. This proposal was, in substance, recommended by the Report of the Commissioners, and if it were accepted it would be received as a great boon by the workpeople as well as by the employers. He had introduced a deputation to the Home Secretary, who had received them courteously, and he hoped had satisfied himself as to the propriety, if not the necessity, of what he asked for. He therefore moved to insert after Clause 47 the following clause:—
  (Continuous employment of young persons women, and children in certain cases.)
  "In any of the textile factories to which this exception applies, if the period of employment for young persons and women as fixed by the occupier and specified in the notice begins at the hour of seven in the morning, and the whole time between that hour and eight o'clock is allowed for meals, the regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women shall not prevent a child, young person, or woman, between the first day of November and the last day of March next following, being employed continuously, without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal, for the same period as if the factory were a non-textile factory.
  "This exception applies to the textile factories specified in Part Seven of the Third Schedule to this Act."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSwished to make it quite clear what was proposed. This question had been fully considered by the Royal Commissioners. The Statute of 1874 enacted that in all textile factories four-and-a-half hours should be the extent of a spell, and this length of a spell had been confirmed by the present Committee in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Nothing, therefore, would induce him to depart from that four-and-a-half hours' spell in the case of heavy textile work. It was clearly necessary for the protection of persons so employed that they should not work for more than four-and-a-half hours at a time. But the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) urged that in the case of certain lighter trades, which were discussed by the Royal Commissioners, the same argument did not apply. The fact was, no doubt, that formerly the people engaged in those trades were accustomed in the winter months to have breakfast before they went to their work; and it was also true that they could not now follow that system in the winter months without

  501
  great inconvenience, owing to the provision contained in the Act of 1874. He had not the slightest intention of departing from the clauses they had already passed, because he was quite sure that he ought to uphold the decision arrived at by the Royal Commission. They also came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to enforce this rule in the non-textile factories, and that in those lighter trades the relaxation was not so necessary. He should have no objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) if the Committee thought the alteration should be made, because the application came not from the masters, but from the workpeople themselves. He knew this to be the case, and could vouch for it, because a deputation from them had waited on him in reference to this subject. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), and include all factories in this relaxation.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHconsidered that the Home Secretary was precluded by the Report of the Royal Commissioners from going any further. He perfectly agreed with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and only regretted that he could not also support the hon. Member for Stroud.
  MR. STANTONsaid, after the remarks of the Home Secretary, it was not much use persevering with the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It must be remembered that, though the Royal Commissioners did not actually recommend the abolition of the system— four-and-a-half hours between meals— they did recommend that it should not be extended; and that they also reported that great complaint was made from Stroud, and the surrounding districts, of the inconvenience caused by the new system. The workpeople in that district felt they were much better off in the old times, when they were left to settle these matters with their employers, than they were now that Government had taken them under its care.
  MR. MUNDELLAwas very glad the Home Secretary had made this concession. He had always been of opinion that in winter 7 to 7 were better hours than 6 to 6. This system was adopted on his own premises—with the consent
  502
  of the Factory Inspector, for 10 or 12 years—beginning in October, and ending in April, and working from 8 till 7. The result was, that they came in the morning, having had their breakfasts, and found the rooms comfortable and machinery warm, instead of coming a little earlier to find the rooms cold and uncomfortable, the machinery not ready, and to go home afterwards to breakfast. The whole question was really one of the habits of the people. If this concession was offered to the operatives of the North they would refuse it, while in the Midlands and the South they would accept it very gladly. He did not see why each district should not be allowed its free choice in the matter.
  MR. TENNANTasked whether the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) meant that there should only be half-an-hour allowed for meals between the spells, because that was the effect of the clause as it was now worded? Again, on Saturday, was there to be one spell, beginning at 8 and ending at 1?
  SIR HENRY JACKSONsaid, that would be practical effect on Saturday. As to the half-hour, the hands might work from 8 till 1, and from 2 till 7, or from 1.30 to 6.30, as they chose. Perhaps, in the winter months, the latter would be more comfortable for. both parties.
  MR. TENNANTsaid, his objection was not that too much was given, but too little. He certainly thought there should be at least an hour between meals.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the interval between the spells should be at least an hour.
  MR. MARLINGsaid, the people of Stroud had always been in the habit of having their meals in the winter months in the morning before they began work. It was only during the winter that the alteration in the rules was required; and he was satisfied that it was a very great grievance with them that their habits should be interfered with in this way. Until the Act came into operation, the workpeople always breakfasted before going to work, and he hoped the Home Secretary would yet see his way to granting the boon asked for this district.
  Clause read a second time.
  MR. MUNDELLAmoved to omit the word "half-an-hour" and insert the word "hour."
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSentirely agreed that there should be at least an hour between the spells; but this particular Amendment would not, if properly understood, disturb that. They were dealing here with restrictions. Some words must, if necessary, be inserted in the clause, and he would see the matter was put right on the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  MR. MULHOLLANDmoved to insert, after Clause 59, the following new clause:—
  (Exception for certain descriptions of flax scutch mills from certain provisions of Act.)
  "The regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the provisions of this Act which are declared not to apply to a workshop which is conducted on the system of not employing children or young persons therein, shall not apply to flax scutch mills which are conducted on the system of not employing children therein, and which are worked intermittently and for periods only which do not exceed in the whole six months in any year."
  The object of the clause was to exempt scutching mills from the operation of the Bill. Children were not employed in them, and he asked for the alteration because scutching in Ireland, at any rate, was rather an agricultural than a farming operation. The flax was grown by small farmers, and scutched at little mills in each district, the farmers paying so much per stone for the work. The people engaged in the mills were employed in agriculture all the rest of the year. If any obstacle were put in the way of the growth of flax in Ireland the farmers would cease its cultivation, and the only manufacture which had ever taken root in that country would be destroyed.
  Clause read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. PARNELLasked why young persons in flax mills were to be exempted from the operation of this measure?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, there was no such exemption. The clause only
  504
  applied to mills in which young persons were not employed.
  MR. BIGGARthought this was wrong. If they once allowed young people to be employed in these mills—["No, no!"] —Well, the clause was so badly drawn that either it could not be understood, or young people were exempted from its operation.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, his Paper of Amendments contained the words "children or young persons." The hon. Member was reading from a later edition of the Amendment Paper, which he had not seen.
  MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, he only intended to exempt factories in which children were not employed from the operation of this clause.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, from what he knew of scutching mills, children should not be employed in them at all. It was one of the worst employments for children they could possibly imagine. He knew from experience that men working as flax dressers were very liable to consumption and other diseases of the lungs. No doubt these linen merchants in the North of Ireland were very honest and very enterprizing persons; but they wanted to make the most they could from their businesses, and to encourage people to throw flax, no matter what the result to their health. They had laid down the principle that young people were not to be engaged in unhealthy employments, and yet they were about to exempt a trade which, he knew from experience, was as unhealthy as glass-grinding or steel-running. What this proposition really amounted to was, that the Government should give especial encouragement to the growth of flax; and though these linen manufacturers were very enterprizing and very useful persons, he was decidedly of opinion that the Government should not give way, but should hold firm by the Bill as originally drawn.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if these scutch mills were declared not to be factories, it must be remembered that the provisions as to fencing machinery would not apply. He understood that the machinery used in this work was very dangerous.
  MR. MACDONALDentirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the unhealthiness of scutching. The hon. Member who in-

  505
  troduced the clause (Mr. Mullholland) said this was an agricultural operation; but machinery was largely employed in it, and it was no more really what it was said to be than the manufacture of cotton; besides, he could speak from knowledge that it was a most unhealthy occupation. In a minute those that were employed at it were covered with stubble and dust. They often had to close their mouths not to inhale the foul air. He hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the clause.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYwas of opinion that this work could only be said to be agricultural because it drew people from agriculture during six months of the year. As to the arguments that had been used, they were exactly the same as those that had been used in vain on behalf of English manufactures. In his constituency there was a large scutching mill, employing a great number of hands, belonging to the Messrs. Russell. They were most benevolent and careful employers; but it was a notable fact that, notwithstanding all the precautions taken by them, the women deteriorated more rapidly than in any other employment in the district. There was not a single argument that had been brought forward in support of this proposition which did not equally apply to other employments.
  MR. D. TAYLORsaid, a great majority of these scutching mills were very small affairs, employing a few hands. The clause was said to be for the interest of the manufacturers; but that was not so. It was the growers who would benefit, because the scutching was done by them. Indeed, in a great part of Londonderry, the flax was scutched at home, and was known as handscutched flax. As to its being unhealthy work, he had never heard that said before of the operations of growing and steeping, while the scutching in many parts of the country he knew best was carried on by the people in their own houses. This was really the staple manufacture of the North of Ireland, and therefore he thought it deserved some consideration.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, the Bill did not deal with hand-scutched flax, but with that scutched in mills and factories. The process did bear a certain relation to agriculture, but only the relation
  506
  which thrashing did to wheat. He knew the process thoroughly. It was about the dirtiest and most dangerous that could well be, while the more it was done by machinery the more dangerous did it become. When the process of breaking was done by machinery the danger was still further increased. To his mind, there was no really good reason for making the exception.
  MR. MULHOLLANDsaid, hon. Members had spoken of the unhealthiness of flax-dressing; but this had nothing to do with scutching. It was only in Ireland that flax was scutched by machinery. In France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany, it was done by the peasants in their own homes; but in Ireland it was done, and much better done, by water or steam-power. He believed the farming classes in Ireland, who owned scutch mills, if they were put under the operation of the Act, and obliged to make returns and submit to inspection, would give up scutching, the profit from which was very slight. In that case, farmers would be unable to grow flax; but this was the basis of the staple manufacture of Ireland, and, if hampered, that trade would suffer. Therefore, he did beseech the Committee not hastily to take a step the results of which might prove to be most disastrous.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, the objection of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was provided for, because these places were not exempted from the clauses in the Bill which required machinery to be fenced.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, if the Home Secretary intended to support the clause, he should have some further objections to offer. The hon. Member for Downpatrick (Mr. Mulholland) drew a great distinction between flax-dressing and flax-scutching, and a distinction there was—that the latter was immeasurably more unwholesome than the former. Scutching was the first operation after the flax had been steeped, for clearing off the rubbish; and it was impossible to imagine a more unhealthy employment, for the dust got down the workers' throats, and injured their lungs. As to the assertion that this was not a manufacture, it was ridiculous. These people built mills on the streams and let them out, or dressed the flax at so much per stone—and, if that was not a manufac-

  507
  ture, he did not know what was. This attempt to obtain protection for the manufactures of a particular part of Ireland should not be listened to, and he did hope the Government would set their faces against this worthless clause.
  MR. MACDONALDdenied that scutch mills were only to be found in the North of Ireland, and remembered that they had been in operation for many years in the North of England. They were also to be found in Scotland. It was nonsense to talk of the health that was in the North of Ireland—it was apart from the scutch mill. No method of dealing with the raw material could be more dangerous to the employers than that pursued in a scutch mill.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

GRAND JURY LAW AMENDMENT (IRE- LAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST HEADING.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, on rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to Amend the Law relating to Grand Juries and Presentment Sessions in Ireland, said: Sir, it is hardly necessary that I should detain the House with any arguments as to the necessity of such a measure, seeing that the subject has been frequently discussed at considerable length in the House, and has formed the subject of the deliberations of a Select Committee in recent years. The general objection has been universally admitted that the existing system is not sufficiently representative in its character, and in order to make myself intelligible to the mass of the House, it will be necessary to describe the system now in force. As that system requires general amendment and alteration, the Government have had to consider whether they should abolish the entire machinery of the present system, and adopt an entirely new one of their own creation; or whether they should endeavour to adopt the existing machinery they found to their hand, with modifications and alterations to suit the exigencies of the times. In order to clearly explain the points which I desire to bring before the House, it will be necessary to enter briefly into some details regarding the existing system— details which will, of course, be very familiar to hon. Members representing
  508
  Irish constituencies. It consists of the baronial presentment sessions, the county-at-large presentment sessions, and the Grand Jury. The baronial presentment sessions consists, in part, of justices and associated cesspayers. The justices are any justices of the county, whether connected with the particular barony or not, who may choose to attend at such sessions. The cesspayers are nominated in this way — the Grand Jury at each Assizes select a number, which must not be more than 12, nor fewer than five; in practice, I believe, the number is usually about six, but the number nominated by the Grand Jury from among the associated cesspayers constitute what may be regarded as the representative element in the baronial presentment sessions. The manner in which the Grand Jurors nominate these cesspayers is one that has been subject to some considerable criticism. It is effected in this way—The Grand Jury select double the number, whatever it may be, which is to be apportioned to each barony, and that double number is submitted to the baronial presentment sessions, who select by ballot the half that is required by law. The baronial sessions meet twice every half-year. A justice of the peace presides, and the functions of that body consist mainly in superintending contracts for new baronial roads and bridges and the repair of existing ones, and various other matters I might mention; and they have to investigate claims for compensation for malicious injuries, but they do not determine the amount of the compensation, which is referred by them to the Grand Jury, with whom the decision rests. This brings me to the next body, the county-at-large presentment sessions, which is constituted in the first instance of any justice of the peace of the county who may choose to attend, in addition to one of the associated cesspayers who may be appointed from each barony. This appointment is made, not by selection, as in the case of the baronial presentment sessions, but by the general body of cesspayers themselves at each baronial session, and constitutes, no doubt, a representative element. The functions of the body are principally confined to voting supplies for certain county-at-large purposes, such as the maintenance of asylums, infirmaries, and other buildings of that description. It also super-

  509
  intends the management of contracts for the maintenance of mail roads, which differ from baronial roads, inasmuch as a moiety of the cost of their maintenance is chargeable upon the county at large, and consequently brought under the notice of the county-at-large sessions, and the other moiety upon baronial funds. As to the Grand Juries, the third element in the existing system, as at present constituted, they are a body nominated by the sheriff. There is a qualification which, however, is merely nominal, being only a freehold of the annual value of £50, or a leasehold of the annual value of £100. I believe that qualification is not usually insisted on; in fact, it is generally ignored, and I think the obligation imposed on the sheriff to summon one representative from each barony, is equally ignored, as they are summoned indiscriminately from any part of the barony. The functions of the Grand Jury are to discuss all the presentments which emanate from the baronial sessions and from the county-at-large sessions, and in regard to those its duty is confined to the acceptance or the rejection en bloc of the presentments, and it possesses no power, either to originate or amend them. In fact, their position in regard to the other bodies is somewhat analogous to the relative position of the two Houses of Lords and Commons. They have, however, other powers which may be mentioned—originating powers. They have the power, for instance, of origination in fixing the amount of compensation to be paid under the Peace Preservation Acts to relatives of murdered or injured persons, and imperative presentments as to debts and pensions for prison officers. I hope I have now made the existing system tolerably clear, and that the House can gather from what I have said how it stands with respect to county government at large. The main objections which have been urged against that system are—first, that it is not sufficiently representative in character; and that with regard to Grand Juries, they exercise considerable control, while there is no local proprietary or cesspaying qualification. Then as to baronial presentment sessions, it is objected that the justices have no connection whatever with the land, and are not contributors, either directly or indirectly, to its taxation. The associated cess-payers are nominated in the first in-
  510
  stance by the Grand Jury, and upon a system which I think can hardly be considered satisfactory; because, of the double number to which I have referred, only half can eventually be selected. This is one of the evils complained of. They find out who are not likely to be selected, and they are sent away, but a considerable number of gentlemen, at any rate, are compelled to attend. It has also been urged as a great evil in the present Grand Jury system that it is wanting in continuity. The Grand Jury terminates with the termination of assizes, and that has been felt to be so great an evil that it has been recommended by the Select Committee that there should be a permanent committee of justices sitting between assizes. This shows there is a strong feeling existing as to the insufficiency of a continuity with regard to the Grand Jury system. That being the case with regard to the law as it stands, Her Majesty's Government approached this subject with this question before them—Were they entirely to abolish the system which they found in existence, but which undoubtedly was in many respects imperfect, and to substitute another; or were they to endeavour to adapt the existing system, with alterations and modifications, to the requirements of the moment? We have chosen the latter alternative, and the Bill which I am about to ask leave to introduce is framed upon the principle of selecting what is desirable in the existing system, improving it as far as practicable and adapting it to the requirements of the present day. Now, the main provisions of the Bill are intended to establish, or rather to confirm, in the first instance, baronial presentment sessions. These baronial presentment sessions will differ from the existing body to a very considerable extent, but their duties will remain in substance exactly as they are. We propose that the baronial presentment sessions shall consist of an equal number of nominated and elected members. The nominated members are to be chosen by the Grand Jury from those justices who have a property qualification in the barony; But failing a sufficient number of justices in the barony possessing the necessary qualification, the Grand Jury will be entitled to fill up the number required from the ranks of the cess-payers within the barony. At one mo-

  511
  merit it appeared possible to evade the difficulty which was felt in the matter, by allowing all the justices possessing a qualification to attend; but it was found that in some counties there would be a great preponderance of justices, while in other counties it would be difficult to find a sufficient number to counterbalance the elected members. It is, therefore, proposed that the number of nominated and of elected members shall be equal, as I before stated, and that the elected members shall be taken from the Guardians of the poor chosen by the ratepayers of each electoral division within the barony. They will vary in number in different counties; and in the same way, the number of justices to be elected will vary in proportion. The duties of these baronial presentment sessions will, as I have said, be substantially what they are now, and the presiding officer, it is proposed, shall be, as now, a justice. I come next to the body I propose to call the county board, which, speaking roughly, will be a substitute for the county-at-large sessions. Its duties will comprehend those now discharged by the county-at-large sessions and some others in addition. It is proposed that this county board shall consist of an equal number of members selected respectively out of either body by the nominated and elected members of the baronial presentment sessions. We do not, however, propose to restrict the area of their powers; in other words, the justices, if they think fit, may elect one or more cesspayers, and the cess-payers may elect one or more of the justices. The numbers of the representatives from the different baronies will be four for each barony, with the exceptions of the counties Cork, Galway, and Meath, where each barony, it is proposed, shall elect two. Their duties will be clearly defined; the minor proceedings of the body will be regulated by a Schedule, and its other powers by a clause of the Bill. The clause which deals with that subject, among other matters, provides that the county board shall have the charge of maintaining roads and bridges, footpaths, and so forth. They will also have to make provision for asylums and other accommodation for lunatics. They will have charge of county infirmaries, industrial and reformatory schools, militia storehouses, inquests, settling coroners' fees, appointing, removing, and
  512
  paying the salaries of the county analysts, the levying of county cess, whether for barony or county at large, and other duties, hitherto discharged by the Grand Jury respecting presentments from baronial sessions, in addition to duties hitherto performed by the county-at-large sessions, which will cease to exist. I now come to the Grand Jury, which, relieved of the duties above mentioned, will still continue to hold the position they now occupy, and will retain the imperative presentments, such as pre-payment of Government advances for prisons and asylums; presentments for constabulary, courthouses, and other charges relating to the administration of justice; and presentments under Peace Preservation Acts for deaths and injuries. I should like now to place before the House what I consider will be the general result. The county boards will, on an average, amount to 30 or 40, and the baronial presentment sessions will, speaking generally, average 30. That will not be too large nor too small to afford a fair representation. Where the baronies are too large they will be divided in half to be more workable, and, on the other hand, some small baronies will be united with others. All these details will be specified in a Schedule, so as to bring it under the control of Parliament. I may now refer to one or two supplementary details. County boards will be constituted a body corporate. That is a matter of some importance, as they will have the power of holding land in perpetual succession, and that will meet the objection to a great extent, which has been urged to Grand Juries —namely, that there is no continuity, and that there is no body to represent the county. Then there is that which forms an essential portion of the existing system—namely, the traverses which are tried before the Judge—a system which is peculiar to Ireland, and which has, on the whole, worked well. The Bill proposes that, with one important modification, which will be generally admitted to be an improvement, that system shall remain. The traverse is now triable by a Judge of Assize before a common jury only; but it is now proposed that at the option of either contending party, a special jury may be demanded. The traverse will extend to such matters as the utility of proposed

  513
  works and other improvements which are referable to those tribunals. With regard to changes in officers and establishments, governors of lunatic asylums having been hitherto nominated by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, it is proposed that two-thirds of the governors in each district shall be nominated by the county board, the remaining third being retained on account of Imperial contributions rendering it necessary that the Executive should have a voice in the matter. Among the officers there is the secretary to the Grand Jury; being nominated by the Grand Jury he is now styled as such; but, under the Bill, he is designated county secretary. The vested interests of these gentlemen will be found strictly guarded in the Bill. No alterations are proposed with regard to the salaries of the gentlemen who now occupy office; but, in the event of subsequent appointments, the patronage will be transferred from the Grand Jury to the county board, and it will be settled according to the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1868. Instead of going into the officer's pockets, fees will be paid by stamps to be affixed to documents and contracts, and placed to the credit of the county, and the salary, which will be fixed, will be determined upon an average of five years' receipts. It is further proposed that county surveyors should be nominated by the county boards, and that their salaries, which are now fixed at a maximum of £80, shall be raised, under certain circumstances, to £120, at discretion. The coroner—an important officer—will be appointed by the county board, instead of the existing costly and unsatisfactory election by freeholders. With respect to other functionaries, I will only allude to the collectors of county cess. In this, as in other respects, vested interests will be duly regarded. No alteration is contemplated in their status so long as the present holders occupy their posts. They are now appointed half-yearly, although a great number of them have held office for many years, almost practically during good behaviour. No alteration is proposed in regard to existing appointments; but it is intended, on the occurrence of vacancies, that the office of collector of cess shall be united with that of collector of poor rates. That will remove the only charge of extravagance which had been proved to the satisfaction of
  514
  the Committee of 1868 against the Grand Jury system. I am afraid I have very inadequately explained the Bill; but I have desired, as far as possible, to avoid detaining the House by going into details. On Monday I hope the Bill will be in the hands of hon. Members; and I will now conclude by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Grand Juries and Presentment Sessions in Ireland."—(Mr. James Lowther.)
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, nothing could be more lucid or clear than the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had explained the Bill; indeed, he (Major Nolan) felt convinced that if he had read the Bill, it would not have given him a better idea of what the Government proposed than had the right hon. Gentleman's speech. That was something to say; because he believed the experience of hon. Gentlemen generally was, that a speech on the first reading of the Bill gave, as a rule, an imperfect idea of its provisions. He was afraid that he was not equally well satisfied with the Bill itself. One of the great objections to the English measure was, that it gave too much power to the magistrates and too little to the ratepayers, and he found the same objections intensified in the Irish measure. He altogether objected to the relative importance assigned to the baronial sessions and the Grand Juries. The Chief Secretary had described the baronial sessions as occupying the position of the House of Commons, and the Grand Juries as filling that of the House of Lords; but that comparison, which had often been made before, was a most deceptive one. The unit of area, of which so much had been said in the English Bill, was, in this instance, equally objectionable; and the Poor Law area would have been much better for the purposes of convenience. That, however, was not a point of very great importance. As he understood the Bill, the baronial presentment sessions was to consist of one half of magistrates and the other half of Poor Law Guardians. In many districts the guardianship of the poor was practically in the hands of the landed proprietors,

  515
  and the Guardians as representatives of the poor would be liable to be outvoted. The old Grand Jury was evidently still to continue at the root of the whole matter; for, under the Bill, the magistrates who would constitute part of the baronial sessions were to be nominated by the Grand Jury, who would therefore have a controlling power in that body. He now came to the provisions referring to the county board, which were much more important than those he had previously referred to. In the first place, there was the same objection to be found to the Irish proposal as was contained in the English Bill—the principle of indirect representation. The ratepayers were not to elect the representatives of the county boards, but were to appoint the Guardians, who in turn elected members to the baronial sessions, from whom again the county board was to be elected. That was very different to direct election, and would give still more power to the proprietors and magistrates than they already possessed. The Irish Bill would embody all the evils of the English measure, with a few others in addition. Part of the county board would be elected from the magistrates forming the baronial sessions, so that the system would he most complicated and worse than that proposed for England. A certain number of magistrates were to be nominated to serve on the baronial sessions by the Grand Jury. The Grand Jury would elect their own magistrates for the baronial sessions, and if the latter did not choose for the county board those representatives whom the Grand Jury favoured, the Grand Jury would take care not to elect them next time. The Grand Jury, therefore, really held the key of the situation, though, nominally it was taken away from them. The power was left in the hands of the Grand Jury, but it had been ingeniously wrapped up. He thought the asylums ought to be in the hands of the county board, who had the control of the fiscal interests of the county. There were some good points in the Bill—the arrangements as to cess collectors appeared to be a very fair provision—and there might be others; but he objected to the Bill generally on the ground that it had all the faults of the English Bill, and because of the extraordinary provision in it by which the key to the election of one-half the members of the board still
  516
  remained in the hands of the Grand Jury.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYasked why a unit of area had not been created for all purposes, this being an improvement to which he had certainly looked forward after the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland last year? He regretted that no single step was taken in the Bill towards unity, simplification, and economy. The electoral division was retained for Poor Law purposes, and the baronial body for the purposes of the county; and while this was the case, there must be unnecessary expense and complication. If anything could show the lack of necessity for the two areas, it was the fact that the representation of one was taken from the representation of the other. The only good feature in the Bill was the new body to be created and called a county board, and, perhaps, in course of time, that would be improved into something useful. But, according to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, the county board was a representative body to a lesser extent than the proposed board for the English counties. One-half the persons on the new boards were to be magistrates chosen, not on any principle that would be a guarantee for their possessing the confidence of the county or sufficient intelligence, but chosen on the discretion of a single man, and the other moiety consisted of persons appointed by the elected Guardians. The latter would not go lower than themselves in their selection, and they might go higher and elect the magistrates. What was the character of the elected Guardians? Everyone knew that in consequence of the system of voting they were anything but a representative body, and that to a very large extent they had the same sentiments and feelings as those magistrates who sat beside them at the Boards. Then they were offered the system of cross election; but that would not work well, nor introduce popular representation, but would only strengthen the aristocratic or Grand Jury element on the county board. He regretted to find that the question of malicious injuries was still left to the Grand Juries. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that those bodies had something like a judicial function, but they had nothing of the kind, and retaining to them this power as to inju-

  517
  ries would only have the effect of preserving to them an invidious distinction. If the Government desired to gain the confidence of the people in these county boards, and give them a popular aspect, let them not refuse to give the new representative body the great and important trust involved in this question of malicious injuries. With regard to the asylums, the Bill would take away the small amount of representative control still left over them. The only good point in the Bill was, that it furnished a nucleus which might in time develop into a real representative county board. He hoped that the financial affairs of the county would be entrusted to the new board. If the Bill were read a second time, an effort would be made to improve it, so that it would give something more like a representative assembly; but he confessed he did not approach the attempt with much hope of success. He should be very sorry to throw anything like despair upon the prospects of the Bill, because there were few things in this world incapable of improvement, and he did not say this Bill was not capable of improvement; but it would take a great deal of time and a great deal of concession on the part of the Government, and also of hon. Members sitting behind the Treasury benches. They knew very well that all Governments, whether Conservative or Liberal, would be willing to deal with these Irish matters in a more liberal spirit, but they were hampered by Representatives from the North of Ireland and elsewhere who sat behind them. Therefore, it would require considerable firmness on the part of the Government to resist the position taken up by these hon. Gentlemen.
  MR. O'REILLYhad heard the statement of the Chief Secretary with considerable regret. He had hoped for something better, especially after the expressions that had fallen from the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He did not wish to enter into the details of the Bill on the present occasion; he only wished to point out to English Members two grave objections to its general scope and tendency, which they would understand on reference to the English Bill. One was the smallness of the area from which the selection was to be made, and the other objection was to the predominance given to the magistrates. He
  518
  would suggest to the Government and the House that, if they wished to represent the landed interest in the sense of the owners and proprietors of land in Ireland, they should not take the justices of the peace as the representatives of that class. Speaking for himself, he would rather, instead of this indirect way of giving representation to the landed interest, give elective representatives to the occupiers of land, and also a fair amount of direct representation to the owners of land. Another matter to which he would call attention was this— The Grand Jury being selected by the Sheriff, when it became known there was to be a nomination on the county board, he would decide it by the selection he would make of the Grand Jury panel. In this way, the Sheriff would, hold the key of the county board in his hand.
  DR. BRADYhad been considerably disappointed at the statement of the Chief Secretary, and his regret in a great measure arose from the fact that, as regarded the Grand Jury, he left one great blot. He gave them a power which they ought never to possess, and which he knew of his own knowledge led to much abuse. He alluded to their powers under the Malicious Injuries Act, under which Act they had power to grant compensation for certain injuries which might be done, or which might be trumped up for the purpose of getting money. He had known many instances of cases being brought forward of alleged malicious injury, which had completely failed because they could not be proved. The working of that Act tended greatly to demoralize the people, inasmuch as it induced them to bring forward claims for supposed injuries, when, in reality, the evidence they brought forward to justify their case would not be received in any Court in the country. If these powers were to be continued to the Grand Jury, he was quite sure it would be adverse to the wishes of the majority of the people of Ireland.
  MR. MACARTNEYsaid, an assertion had just been made that, although both Conservative and Liberal Governments were desirous of doing justice to Ireland in this matter, they were prevented from doing so by those who sat behind them, and particularly by hon. Members from the North of Ireland. Now, for his own part, he entirely repudiated this state-

  519
  ment. He was as anxious to see a fair Grand Jury Bill passed as any hon. Gentleman sitting on the other side of the House. It seemed most fair that those who had property should have the power of putting taxation on a district. The owners of property had a right to have, at least, as much authority in that matter as the occupiers. He greatly preferred that magistrates should elect their own representatives than that they should be appointed by Grand Jurors. He believed the English Bill acted on that principle, and he did not see why it should not be applied to Ireland. He understood that the fiscal business was to be done by the county board, and that the criminal and other business would be transactedby the Grand Jurors. That, he thought, was perfectly fair. But that the Grand Jurors should have the power of nominating the members of the county board he thought rather objectionable, because the Sheriff could select any person he chose on the Grand Jury. In this respect he considered the Bill would have to be improved. On the whole, however, he looked upon the Bill as a step in the right direction, and he was glad the Government had brought it in; and he believed, when it came out of Committee, hon. Gentlemen would not be able to point to it as a measure granted in any grudging spirit.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he could not share in the belief that when this Bill came out of Committee it would be satisfactory to the people of Ireland, because it was an attempt to perpetuate the old Grand Jury system when, for fiscal purposes, it could be shown there was no reason for doing so. It created, in the first place, two taxing bodies in the same area, bodies taxing the same individuals in the same area. The right hon. Gentleman must have been driven by stress of circumstances to do this to prop up the Grand Jury system of Ireland. Why should not the county board levy the taxation? Was there any pretence for saying they would not levy it? If they would abolish the absurdity of having two taxing bodies, they would do away with the roundabout machinery which they had for the maintenance of the Grand Jury for fiscal purposes. The scheme of the Government appeared to him to be artificial in its very essence; and if they could not arrive at what was the feeling on that
  520
  side of the House, and give some real and direct representation to those who paid the money, they had better take the English Bill for their motto. He had not much fancy for the English Bill; but it created a central board of some kind, which they might improve hereafter, and introduce the popular element into it. But what did they do for Ireland? They did not give them a real county board, but they perpetuated the Grand Jury system. Were this Bill founded upon some comprehensive system capable of improvement hereafter, Members on his side of the House might accept it as an instalment of justice, and hope for better things to come; but when the Government started on the principle of having two taxing bodies for the purpose of perpetuating the Grand Jury for fiscal purposes, which had no right to exist at all, he did not see how they could accept the Bill. Unless, therefore, radical changes were made in the Bill, he thought it would be the duty of hon. Members on that side of the House to resist it to the utmost. The Grand Jury Bill for Ireland would not have been introduced, in all probability, if Irish Members had not criticized the English Bill. It was an unpleasant position for Irish Members to assume—that, if they wanted to carry a measure for Ireland, they must endeavour to attain that object by working indirectly through the measure for England. They would not have got improvements in the former, if they had not striven to obtain improvements in the latter. Irish Members being only a small minority in the House, that was the only course they could adopt, in order to secure the end they desired. Unless they saw more improvements introduced in this Bill for Ireland, he, for one, would think it to be his duty to oppose the English measure to the utmost of his power.
  MR. PARNELLthought the Chief Secretary for Ireland had begun to find that he had undertaken a thankless task, when, on the very threshold of his new career-—having taken pains to deal with an intricate county system, and having explained so fully the measure which he wished the House to pass —he heard that measure denounced on the night of its introduction by the Members for the benefit of whose constituencies the Bill was proposed. He

  521
  was sorry, for his own part, that he could not offer the Chief Secretary any comfort; because, as far as he could form an opinion upon the Bill, it seemed thoroughly vicious in principle, and thoroughly vicious in detail. If there was anything good in the English Bill, it had not been put in the Irish Bill. Certainly, he thought the former might suit England—at all events, for a time; because it appeared, from the testimony of English Members, that although the system of county government was imperfect in principle, yet it was one which worked well on the whole; and, consequently, any improvements in that system must be for the benefit of England. But in Ireland the case was different. There the system of county government was bad, and it had been very imperfectly carried out. Therefore, Irish Members could have but very little hope from the Bill which the Chief Secretary now asked leave to introduce. Of course, it was useless to criticise the Bill at that stage. He might, however, suggest that, as the Bill, at the very outset, had met with so much disfavour, the Chief Secretary might think it well to come to the conclusion, in order to save time, not to press forward the measure. The Chief Secretary had copied into this Bill the imperfections of the English one as regarded indirect representation—he had given to Poor Law Guardians, elected for totally different purposes—from areas which could not be called county areas— the right to elect from among themselves, or from among the magistrates, representatives to serve on the county board. That would be a representation of the most shadowy description. In reality, at least half of them were nominees of the landlords, and those who were not nominees of the landlords were, to a great extent, under their power—men mostly in a humble position in life— namely, the tenants of the landlords. For his own part, he should prefer to give the magistrates three-fourths of the representation on the county board, so that the remaining one-fourth might be secured for the direct representation of the ratepayers. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland had only adopted a system like that, it would have been regarded as founded on a right principle, and no doubt it would have worked well for a few years, at least until Ireland became more stable, and the people more inde-
  522
  pendent. Then they would have a greater feeling of responsibility as regarded the management of county affairs. When the barriers, separating class from class, were removed—as he hoped in a few years they would be removed—the principle of representation might fairly be extended, and the ratepayers could have a more direct control over county management. But the prospect afforded by this Bill was a hopeless prospect; and he cordially agreed with the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray) that they should work on the English Bill, and endeavour, by amending that, to improve this for Ireland. Still, he thought it was a hopeless task to endeavour to make the Bill a satisfactory measure; and he thought that the Government, who had brought it forward, would find it advisable to save the time of the House by withdrawing a Bill which had met with so much disfavour.
  MR. RATHBONE, as a Member of the Committee on Local Government which had sat laboriously for two Sessions, observed that nothing had struck him more, throughout its deliberations, than the fact that Ireland was a vastly better field, and afforded easier scope, for dealing with matters of local government than was presented by England. In the first place, the perplexities as to areas were less; and, in the second place, he remarked the great anxiety there was on the part, not only of the Irish Members, but of all Members of the Committee, that besides property being represented, the owners of property should take an active and constant share in local government. The great fault of the present local government system, elicited by cross-examination, was that a sufficiently good set of men was not. obtained to work out the system; and the great want present to the minds of the Committee, was the desirableness of having areas sufficiently large, and also objects sufficiently important, to engage the services of the best men. Not only so, but in Ireland there was the greatest facility offered for obtaining the object desired, by the way in which taxation was levied. As an hon. Member had remarked, the principle of rating in Ireland was, to a great extent, this—the owner paid one part of the rate, and the occupier the other part. In that principle, they had a most admirable basis for a representation of property, for a

  523
  representation of persons, and of the interests of property. With so simple, sound, and in every way a Conservative foundation to proceed upon, he could not conceive why the Government should not be able to make of this Bill a measure which would weld together every class in Ireland—namely, the owners of property, the occupiers of property, and the ratepayers generally. It was to him a disappointment that the Government had not taken advantage of areas so little complex as were those in Ireland, and of a foundation for representation so simple, sound, and Conservative, and upon such bases constructed a more complete Bill for the amendment of the Grand Jury Law in Ireland.
  MR. O'DONNELLquite agreed that the reception given to the Bill by hon. Members sitting on that side of the House might seem to be a little ungracious; but certainly none of those hon. Members blamed the Chief Secretary for the kind of Bill which he had brought over from Ireland. For his part, he (Mr. O'Donnell) considered that the Bill was singularly inappropriate, and equally uncalled-for. It spoke volumes for the company which the Chief Secretary had been keeping on the other side of the Irish sea. A constant evil, arising from English Representatives dealing with Irish affairs, was that, instead of consulting the Representatives of Ireland, or of that part of it which they knew very well would grow stronger and more numerous every Election, they persisted in being guided, or rather misguided, by a Party which, in every new Parliament, was becoming fewer by degrees, and beautifully insignificant. For a little while—so long as a certain artificial system of franchise was kept up in Ireland—perhaps no more than half of them would disappear at the next Election; but as soon as the franchise really became popular in Ireland, if they did not become as extinct as the dodo, they would become very small indeed, in all probability. Was it for the sake of conciliating a number of hon. Gentlemen, who did not really represent the Irish people, that this Bill was brought over from Ireland? Let the House consider the logic of the Chief Secretary. In this Bill there were only two sets of people to whom power would be entrusted—the justices and the elected Guardians. Who were the justices?
  524
  They were the ex-officio Guardians; and the elected members from the baronial representative sessions would be Guardians of the poor, elected from the various electoral divisions within the county. Therefore, it was not the Poor Law area that was to be chosen, but another area, which, though of some importance a few centuries ago, was of no significance now, excepting an artificial significance whose purpose was to foist, for a few years more, upon the public an injurious sham. Between the present time and the passing of the Bill through its final stages, he hoped the Government would seriously lay to heart the propriety of listening to the voice of the Representatives of the Irish people, at least in regard to non-political matters —such as county administration. The Government might question the propriety of Home Rule; they might raise a great cry about the disintegration of the Empire; but in a matter of pounds, shillings and pence, and of good administration, they might surely trust the men represented by electors who had an interest in economy and good management. Any Government, whether Conservative or Liberal, ought to have an equal interest at any rate in matters of this kind, and should see that they were properly attended to. All he could say to the Government of the day was that, if they persisted in following the old beaten track of listening to Members who had practically no influence in Ireland, though they might possess a magnificent majority, gained by their spirit of foreign policy in England, they would continue to deserve the hearty distrust of a vast majority of the Irish people.
  MR. STORERthought the reception the Chief Secretary for Ireland had met with in his first attempt to benefit the Irish ratepayers was hardly such as to encourage him to farther efforts in that direction. Some allusion had been made in the course of this discussion to the English Bill, upon which he had not had an opportunity of saying a word in the House, although for some years he had brought the subject of it before Chambers of Agriculture in the country, who, he believed, had originally suggested the idea of the measure. He considered not only that the English Bill was a measure of extreme justice to the ratepayers, and one which fully met the

  525
  views of the parties who desired it to be passed into law, but the Irish Gentlemen opposite were, he believed, well satisfied that the present Bill, of which they had heard a sketch, would do an equal act of justice to the ratepayers of Ireland. It was, of course, impossible for hon. Members on that side of the House on which he sat to pretend to understand Irish Business; but, as far as an ordinary observer might judge, the few alterations suggested on that side were, he thought, calculated fairly to represent both the landlords and tenants of Ireland. He was quite sure that the Bill for England, introduced by the President of the Local Government Board, had those virtues. Although there were points in it on which they might not altogether agree, yet, in the main, he belived they might be easily adjusted, and that they would find the measure was one which would answer every expectation that had been formed of it, and would become the nucleus around which would ultimately gather the conflicting areas and administrations of county boards — as poor, highways, drainage, sanitation, &c., and would conduce to the efficiency, uniformity, and economy of county administration.
  MR. O'CLERYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, seemed to be under the impression that the Government had given the people of Ireland a very great boon, and that they were very sensible of the kindness of the Government for, granting this measure. So far from appreciating their action, he, for one, as Representative of a large county (Wexford), regarded the introduction of a measure of this kind only as further evidence of a contemptuous indifference to the wishes of the Irish people—wishes which had been declared by their Representatives, from time to time, in that House. This question of Grand Jury reform had been presented to the House during the last four Sessions by Members of the Party with whom he had the honour of acting, and notably in a Bill, of a comprehensive character, introduced by the Leader of that Party—the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt). The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) had also introduced a Bill relating to county boards; and both those measures, in point of fact, aimed directly at supplanting the present per-
  526
  nicious system of Grand Jury in Ireland. The measure introduced that night by the Chief Secretary, sought to perpetuate that system. If the Bill became law, what would be the effect of it? They would have to contend with one of the greatest evils in any public system— namely, a dual system for counties. Surely, such a system would not be tolerated in Ireland; but, forsooth, anything would do for Ireland, and the Chief Secretary appeared to think that Ireland ought to be content with it, and that as the people had not petitioned against it, therefore they did not seem to feel it to be a grievance. For his part, he could only say that the people of Ireland ought to be tired of sending Petitions to that House on every conceivable subject; because, whether they petitioned for or against this dual system, which was to be set up in Ireland, he thought their wishes would be disregarded by the majority of hon. Members in that House. However, he must inform hon. Gentlemen that in the county of Wexford, which he represented, if there was one subject more than another which the tenant-farmers appeared to have set their hearts upon, it was a fair and sound measure of reform of the Grand Jury law in Ireland. This measure did not grapple with the difficulty in the manner approved by his constituents; and, at that initial stage of the Bill, he felt it to be his duty to give it every opposition in his power; because he believed it would do more harm than good by standing in the way of a really sound measure which the people of Ireland deserved.
  MR. D. TAYLORobserved that Irish Members on that—the Opposition—side of the House appeared to be of opinion that the Bill was one which they could not adopt or approve. But what they really had to consider was this—the Bill dealt with a very difficult and very important subject; and might they not accept it for the present, and afterwards try to improve it in Committee in such a way as would make it acceptable to the people of Ireland? He thought, as the Chief Secretary had gone so far as to leave very little power in the hands of the Grand Juries, it was scarcely worth while to leave them the little which would still remain to them. He believed the Grand Juries would not regard it as a serious deprivation, if they should be relieved of the powers they had exercised for

  527
  many years of approving the various presentments that were levied, that the remaining powers left in their hands should be taken from them. But there was one objection which he regarded as fatal to the Bill, and which he hoped the Chief Secretary would consider before the second reading, and that was the appointment of the justices by the Grand Jury. It was impossible for the nomination to give satisfaction, so long as the Grand Jury was selected by the sheriff, without the slightest control, as to whether the persons put on the Grand Jury lived in or outside the county, or as to whether they had property in it or not. That was a point well worthy of the consideration of the Chief Secretary. As long as the Union districts continued, the Guardians would represent the ratepayers in those districts, and he could see great difficulty in changing the area of baronial districts to that of Union districts; for it was for county purposes that all these rates were levied, and in Ireland the Unions had little or no regard for the boundaries of the baronial districts. In regard to that part of the Bill, if it were found that the baronies were too small, it would, he suggested, be very easy to join one or more baronies together; but, considering that all these rates and levies had reference always to divisions of counties, it would be unwise to change those divisions. He believed the system would be found to work wonderfully well if the persons representing the justices at the baronial sessions were elected by the justices living in the district, and if, in addition to being a justice of the peace, a property qualification were required, either as owner of property or as a large ratepayer. But if these justices were nominated by the Grand Juries of the counties satisfaction would not be given. If the Chief Secretary would consult with those hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him who came from Ireland, and plainly represent to them the amount of power which would be taken from them with regard to the fiscal matters of the county, in all probability not one of them would wish to have the balance of power left in their hands. Certainly, it would be a most invidious and untenable position that two bodies should exist in the same county, each having a separate power of levying taxes. After considering these objections, it was to be hoped that the
  528
  Chief Secretary would be prepared, on the second reading, to announce his intention of so altering the Bill in Committee as to make it generally acceptable to Irish Members; but hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House must not expect a Conservative Government to do all that was required of them; and if that Government had shown a willingness to meet the views of the Irish people generally, there should be no unreasonable action on the part of Irish Members to prevent this attempt to deal with the Grand Juries. He hoped that before the Session was over, a measure would be passed which would do a great amount of good.
  MR. J. LOWTHER, in reply, said, he did not complain in any way of the very candid manner in which the Bill had been criticized by hon. Gentlemen opposite. His experience of Bills in that House had been that those which were most complimented on their introduction had not infrequently met with a somewhat unenviable fate; and he was, therefore, not by any means disposed to despair of hon. Members opposite eventually finding, on a re-consideration of its provisions, that there was much more to recommend the Bill than, at the present moment, they seemed to think. It had been observed by several hon. Members that, in proposing to continue, even to a limited extent, the functions of the Grand Juries in respect of fiscal matters, the Government were running deliberately counter to the often-expressed opinions of the great masses of the people of Ireland. He was not aware in what form that deliberate expression of opinion had been conveyed to the House and the Government. He knew of one expression of opinion on the part of Representatives of Ireland— namely, in the Report of the Select Committee appointed by the House in 1868, presided over by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the 0'Conor Don); and in that Report he found the recommendation that the authority of the Grand Jury in the fiscal matters of the county should not be done away with. He certainly thought the Government had gone a long way towards curtailing the excessive powers possessed by the Grand Juries, and therefore a long way beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee. An hon. Member had referred to the retention of the baronies as the area,

  529
  and had suggested that the area of the Poor Law Unions should be adopted instead. In the course of this discussion it was mentioned that boundaries in many cases overlapped. Now, under the provisions of existing Statutes, a power existed to remedy, to a great extent, that defect, and it was the intention of the Government to remedy it, and to establish, as far as possible, uniformity of boundaries. He hoped upon consideration of these matters in the Bill, which he trusted would be in the hands of hon. Members by Monday, more favourable opinions would be entertained.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. JAMES LOWTHER and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 120.]

  PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL REGIS- TRATION BILL.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee have power to consolidate the three Bills referred to that Committee, namely, the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Bill, the Parliamentary Electors Registration Bill, and the Borough Voters Bill.—(iff. Marten.)
WAYS AND MEANS.

  EXCHEQUER BONDS (£1,000,000) BILL.
  Resolutions [February 27] reported, and agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RAIKES, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Colonel STANLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 121.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Glebe Loans (Ireland)*(32).
Second Heading —House Occupiers Disqualification Removal (Scotland) (29).

THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE TURKISH FLEET.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which I have given him private Notice. I need, not disclaim any intention to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, for I think they are sufficiently disposed to embarrass themselves and the country. But the state of tension of public feeling and opinion is such that I think your Lordships and the public have a right to be informed as to what has occurred in the recent negotiations with Russia, and I am sure that there is no intention upon the part of any Member of your Lordships' House to occasion any embarrassment by desiring to know what are the future intentions of the Government. In rising to put this Question, I wish to call attention to the manner in which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary is in the habit of replying to Questions put by humble individuals sitting upon the Opposition—and, indeed, on the Ministerial—side of the House. Upon the 7th February I called attention to what, from my knowledge of the Russian character and of the action Russia has often before pursued, not in this only, but in the past, I believed might possibly be a fact—although one which, I believe, is unparalleled in the history of the wars that have been waged between civilized States. I refer to the advance of the Russian Army after the armistice had been agreed upon. There may be some noble and learned Lords in this House, and hon. and learned Gentlemen in "another place," who can tell us exactly the legal position of the matter, and
  442
  may be able to explain what is the distinction between doing an act after an armistice is signed, and before it is declared; and doing it after the latter formality has been accomplished; but it does seem inexplicable to those who hold, as an Englishman does, that his word of honour is as good as his bond. I wish the same could be said of certain other nations. The evidence of the act to which I referred on the 7th February— this advance of the Russians after the armistice had been signed—was in the possession of your Lordships 12 hours after, and in that of the noble Earl 12 hours before I put the Question in your Lordships' House. Her Majesty's Government is supported by a large majority of the Opposition, not only in this House, but in "another place," and will be so supported in all their acts which tend to maintain the honour and dignity of the country, and its position among European and civilized nations; but I think I have a right to complain that, when the noble Earl was in possession of the information on the evening of the 6th of February, he did not reply to my Question as to the armistice, which I put on the 7th of February. When I repeated the Question subsequently, the noble Earl answered it by reading Papers, to which I shall not now refer, though I shall be happy to hand them over to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for his information as a Member of the Cabinet, if he should not be disposed to study the Parliamentary Papers as fully as many humble individuals in your Lordships' House are in the habit of studying them. Before putting the Question of which I have given the noble Earl Notice, I shall state what I believe to be a fact—that, with the exception of a very small portion of the public, the noble Earl at the head of the Government will find himself thoroughly supported; that he will find many supporters on both sides of this and the other House; and that he will find supporters in every street and almost every house in the country, so long as he upholds the dignity of the country in the manner in which Liberal Prime Ministers have done before him. I beg to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of information as to the position of the iron-clad Fleet of the Turkish Empire; and, if so,

  443
  whether he can, without inconvenience to the public service, communicate the same?
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the noble Lord (Lord Dorchester) has put to me a Question of which, as he has said, he gave me private Notice; but he has exceeded the limits of his Notice by prefacing his Question by a complaint to your Lordships of the manner in which I answered, or did not answer, Questions put to me by him on previous occasions. The noble Lord -will excuse me for saying that I do not admit that there are grounds for his complaint, and that I am not aware that I have been wanting in respect in answering any Question coming from any Member of your Lordships' House. I may add, that I do not see any very close connection between the Question with which he concluded and the remarks by which he preceded it. With regard to those remarks I am in your Lordships' hands, and I must appeal to your Lordships as to whether I or my Colleagues on this bench have been backward in giving information so far as we could do so without inconvenience to the public service. My impression is that it has very seldom happened on occasions like the present that the Government have been so ready and forward to place before Parliament, and consequently before the public, all the information with which they were provided, and all the materials that would enable them to form a judgment on the position of affairs. Now, I must point out further that the noble Lord has answered his own complaint. He says he asked me for information about a fortnight ago, and that I declined to give it, and that he found it in a Parliamentary Paper presented two or three days afterwards. In that case, I do not think the noble Lord has any reason to complain that he did not get the intelligence he desired to have. What I understood the noble Lord to ask was something which I did not feel in a position to answer. His Question referred, not to a matter of fact, but to a matter of inference—namely, whether certain movements alleged to have been made by the Russian Army subsequent to the conclusion of an armistice had violated the conditions of that armistice. I told him at the time that I did not feel in a position to give your Lordships a precise opinion respecting that matter on the
  444
  information before me. The noble Lord subsequently pointed to a passage in a public despatch which he thinks is confirmatory of his view. I cannot say that it is not so. The matter is one of opinion and argument, and not of fact; and, being a matter of opinion, the noble Lord had precisely the same material on which to form an opinion respecting it that I have. Now, with reference to the Question with which the noble Lord concluded his remarks, I can answer it to a certain extent. I am in possession of information which I believe to be accurate as to the present position of the greater part of the Turkish Fleet; but I do not think it desirable that I should state it to the House. I will tell your Lordships why. In the first place, it is hardly our business to answer Questions as to the movements of foreign Fleets. In the next place, we have not heard that the terms of peace are signed. The condition of affairs is one of suspended hostilities-—it is a condition which we hope will lead to peace; but the war is not at an end, and it is possible that hostilities may be renewed; and in that case I think the noble Lord will be of opinion that he would not have done service to that cause which he is so anxious to promote—the cause of the Turks—if he had induced me to disclose to all Europe, and therefore to those who may be their opponents, the precise position of the Turkish Naval Forces.
  LORD DORCHESTER: The noble Earl has, I think, misapprehended me. The Question I put on the 7th was whether the Russian Armies had advanced after the signature of the armistice? The Papers issued show that on February 6 the noble Earl received a telegram from Mr. Layard, stating that the Russian Army had advanced, notwithstanding the protest of the Turkish commanders. I knew nothing of that— as a private Member, I could know nothing of it. My Question was a chance shot, if I may say so—not directed at the noble Earl or Her Majesty's Government, but at the action of a Power whose ambition, whose arrogance, and whose overwhelming autocracy I am anxious to check—["Order!"]—and I must repudiate at once and altogether the suggestion that I am anxious to stand up for the Turkish authorities. [Loud cries of" Order!"]

  HOUSE OCCUPIERS DISQUALIFICA- TION REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (Earl Stanhope.)

  (NO. 29.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that like a similar one recently passed for England, its object was to prevent the disqualification of voters merely on the ground of their having let their houses for a portion of the year. The one clause of which the Bill consisted provided that after the passing of the Act every man should be entitled to be registered and to vote under the provisions of the 3rd section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, notwithstanding that during part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months he should by letting or otherwise have permitted the qualifying premises to be occupied as a furnished house by some other person.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.