Sitting of 22 June 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Peterhead Harbour of Refuge* (166); Intoxicating Liquors (Sale to Children) (176); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Public Works Loans* (188).
Second Reading discharged—Probation of First Offenders (51).
Committee—Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment * (162); Public Health Acts (Improvement Expenses) (143); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (165); Returning Officers' Charges (Scotland* (173–195); Tithe Rent-Charge (Extraordinary) Redemption (174–193); Westminster Abbey Restoration (183); Shop Hours Regulation* (186–199).
Committee discharged—Merchant Shipping (Fishing Boats) Acts Amendment (184).
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Married Women (Maintenance in Case of Desertion) (164), and passed.
Committee—Report—Customs* (175); Revising Barristers' Appointment* (179); Revising Barristers (Ireland)* (180); Metropolitan Board of Works (Money)* (181); Public Works Loans (Tramways Ireland) * (182).
Report—Medical Acts Amendment* (187).
Third Reading—Losses by Riot (Compensation)* (156); Terms of Removal (Scotland)* (157); Poor Law Loans and Relief (Scotland* (158–197); Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries* (159); Coal Mines* (160), and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Third Reading—Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Leith)* (150), and passed.

MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE IN CASE OF DESERTION) BILL.
(The Lord FitzGerald.)
MARRIED WOMEN (MAINTENANCE IN CASE OF DESERTION) BILL.

  (NO.164.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Amendments made.
  Moved, "That Standing Order No. XXXV. be suspended in order that the

  167
  Bill be read a third time."—(The Lord FitzGerald.)
  LORD DENMANsaid, he felt bound to vote against the suspension of the Standing Orders proposed in order to permit the Session to be wound up in a violent hurry, as was the case on July 10, 1884, when three measures in their Lordships' House were stopped, and one also in the House of Commons. That measure—the Law of Evidence Further Amendment Bill—was further postponed in December, 1884. Their Lordships might recollect that the Representation of the People Bill was delayed going into Committee by the intervention of the noble Marquess the then Leader of the Opposition for four days; and on December 4, that he (Lord Denman) had brought forward his Amendments, for which, including the extension of the franchise to women, he would have remained until December 19—a time in which a Parliament of Queen Elizabeth had been prorogued. It was said that this was a people's Dissolution; but he believed the people had no wish for it. The "People's Will," named in the Epistle Dedicatory to the Queen by Tennyson, and the will of the people, were very different, and it was the Prerogative of the Crown to dissolve Parliament. A Dissolution would interfere with the season in London, with trade, and with the harvest; and there was no intelligible issue before the country, as was the case in the House of Lords in 1713, as to the repeal of the Scotch Union; and in 1833, when Mr. O'Connell's Motion was rejected by 428 votes to 40; and in 1844, when Lord John Russell's Motion for an inquiry into the state of Ireland was rejected by a majority of 99. There were several questions which affected women and which ought not to pass till a Woman's Suffrage Bill was carried. The only objection made to it in their Lordships' House was that it had not been fully discussed, and no time remained for its discussion through the advice of the Ministry in advising a Dissolution.
  Motion agreed to.
  Standing Order No. XXXV. considered (according to order), and dispensed with: Amendments reported, and Bill read 3a with the amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord President.)
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 162.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  On Motion of The Marquess of SALISBURY, Clauses 2 to 6, inclusive, struck out.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Schedule struck out.
  The Report of the amendments to be received To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.
(The Earl of Jersey.)
PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (IMPROVEMENT EXPENSES) BILL.

  (NO. 143.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, he rose to propose the insertion of a new clause, the object of which was to protect Railway and Canal Companies in cases where speculative builders and others laid out new streets adjoining lines of railways or canals simply for the purpose of imposing upon the owners thereof the cost of half the street, although no access to the street could be made from the railway or canal. The proposed clause would not inflict any hardship upon owners of property, nor would it in any way affect the Local Authority or increase any expenses to be borne by the ratepayers. The only persons affected would be those who laid out streets alongside canals or railway embankments or cuttings; and they would know that if they did so they would have to bear the entire cost of the street from which they derived the sole benefit. It was submitted that the justice of the clause was obvious, because railways and canals were themselves a species of highway, and could derive no possible benefit from the construction of a street alongside of them; but, in case of circumstances hereafter changing so as to render the construction of a street a benefit to the Railway or Canal Com-

  169
  pany, the clause provided that in such a case the Railway or Canal Company should contribute, and their contribution should be divided among the then owners of the other lands charged with the construction of the street. It was also pointed out that the exemption only applied to such streets as were constructed alongside the actual lines of railway or canal, leaving the Companies in respect of their stations, depots, and other property in the same position as other landowners and liable to contribute towards the expenses of new streets.
  Moved, to insert the following new Clause:—
  "No Railway or Canal Company shall be deemed to be an owner liable to be charged with the expenses of executing any private street works in respect of any land of such Company upon which any street as defined in this Act shall wholly or partially front or abut, and which shall be used by such Company solely as a part of their line of railway, or sidings, or canal, and shall have no direct communication with such street, and the expenses incurred by the Sanitary Authority under the powers of this Act, which but for this provision such Railway or Canal Company would be liable to pay, shall be repaid to the Sanitary Authority by the owners of the other premises liable to be charged with such expenses, and in such proportion as shall be settled by the Surveyor in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act. And in the event of the Railway or Canal Company subsequently making a communication with such street they shall, notwithstanding such repayment as last aforesaid, pay to the Sanitary Authority the expenses which, but for the foregoing provision, such Railway or Canal Company would, in the first instance, have been liable to pay, and the Sanitary Authority shall divide among the owners for the time being of the premises originally charged with the expenses aforesaid the amount so paid by such Railway or Canal Company to the Sanitary Authority in such proportion as shall be settled by the Surveyor. But this section shall not apply to any street as defined in this Act existing at the date of the passing of this Act."—(The Lord Brabourne,)
  LORD SUDELEY (for the Local Government Board)said, he must oppose the clause on the ground that it gave special exemption to Railway Companies. It was quite possible a clause somewhat similar to this had been inserted in various Private Acts; but this was done in private measures on account of various local considerations, and the practice did not at all serve as a precedent for a General Act. In some of these cases only an exemption from a proportion of the expenses, and not the whole, would
  170
  be all that could properly be claimed. There were also other cases beside those of railways and canals in which it would be proper for a ratepayer to be relieved, in whole or in part, from the payment of such expenses; and it would be unfair to confer an absolute exemption in one class and not in others. Further, the Bill already provided, by Clause 7, that the degree of benefit to be derived by the premises from the improvements should be taken into consideration in making the apportionment. That such an appeal would be available in all these cases would be made still clearer than at present by the Amendment which would be made in Section 4, by the omission of the parenthesis in Sub-clause (d). The proposed Amendment also provided that if the Company at any time made a communication with the street, they should then pay the sum they would have had to pay, and that such sum should be distributed among the owners for the time being of the premises originally charged. This would be a very unsatisfactory method of redressing the original injustice, for many of the owners at the time might not be the same as those who originally paid for the works. The insertion of the proposed clause would, therefore, be opposed. If the provisions mentioned for the protection of the frontagers who derived little or no benefit from the improvements should not be found sufficient in practice to remove the Railway Companies' grievances, it would be proper to amend those provisions; but probably they would be found to afford a sufficient remedy already.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that if a new street was made in the neighbourhood of a railway, though it had no station there and might not stop there, he did not think that by reason of its neighbourhood it should be charged as being benefited by the street by its frontage. This Bill showed the inconvenience of dealing with complicated questions of local management at this period of the Session. Every precaution should be taken to see that private interests were not damaged.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, there were other cases besides railways and canals which stood in the same position. It was not fair to put railways and canals in an exceptionally favourable position as compared

  171
  with private owners. The 7th clause provided that in the rating the greater or less degree of benefit should be considered, and he thought this met the objection.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, the object of the Bill was not to rate the railways according to their frontage. If a street was made which would be of benefit to the railway, it was but fair that it should bear a part of the public burden, but not otherwise. The Bill provided opportunities for railway owners and others to have their case fairly settled before any work was begun. He hoped their Lordships would not accept the clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he held that the 7th clause made the frontage the main consideration in the rating.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, he should support the proposed clause.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, the clause as it stood was not shown to be unjust, and he objected to having special clauses introduced unless good reason could be shown for inserting them.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 82; Not-Contents 31: Majority 51.
  House resumed.
  THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid, that after the decision to which their Lordships had come the promoters of the Bill desired to withdraw it.
  Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
TITHE RENT-CHARGE (EXTRAORDINARY) REDEMPTION BILL.

  (NO. 174.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department) explained that there had been a meeting that morning at the Home Office, at which all the interests affected by the Bill were represented. Among others present were the Bishops of London and Peterborough, the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Lord Beauchamp, representatives of Queen
  172
  Anne's Bounty, of the Land Commissioners, of the promoters of the Bill, and Members of the Select Committee of the other House, to which the measure had been referred. The meeting had agreed to certain Amendments as constituting a fair compromise between those who differed as to the desirability of the original provisions of the Bill.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 193.)

WESTMINSTER ABBEY RESTORATION BILL.—(No. 183.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
WESTMINSTER ABBEY RESTORATION BILL.—(No. 183.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power of Dean and Chapter of Westminster to borrow and of Ecclesiastical Commissioners to lend for repair of Westminster Abbey).
  THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH (Dr. MAGEE),in moving the following Amendment:—
  "Provided that such repairs and restorations shall have been approved of by the said Commissioners,"
  said, had not the title of the Bill contained the word "restoration" he should not have troubled the House on the matter. But the word "restoration" was by no means so definite as "repairs." To the uninstructed mind it meant simply the restoring to the state in which the building had been before; but in the mind of an architect—and especially an eminent architect—restoration meant putting in something which the builders could, should, would, or might have done, and it was sometimes very startling and very exasperating to find what was done in the name of restoration. Objects of historical interest like cathedrals required to be guarded with the most jealous care, for if once "eminent architects" got their hands upon them they began to vivisect them according to their own inner consciousness. Most of their Lordships were acquainted with one of the most lovely cathedrals in the country—that of Salisbury; that

  173
  cathedral fell into the hands of the most eminent architect of his day—Wyatt—who pulled down the bell tower because he thought it interfered with the view. Then he shifted the holy table from its place, and finally took down all the monuments from their places and distributed them about the church wherever he thought they would look pretty. The consequence was that the whole interior history of the cathedral had vanished. It was not safe to intrust our cathedrals to any architect, however eminent, and the more eminent the more he was afraid of him. Deans and Chapters would scarcely dare to say a word in opposition to an eminent architect, who would thus be enabled to work his wicked will upon our cathedrals unrestrained by any consideration except that imposed by his own inner consciousness. In the smallest parish church not a door or window or pew could be altered without a faculty from the Bishop's Court; but no licence from the Bishop's Court was required for dealing with the cathedral, the most important architectural edifice in the diocese. The only other thing that would prevent them from pulling the cathedral down and leaving it there, or substituting for it a Grecian temple or a Chinese pagoda, was the difficulty of getting subscriptions for the purpose, or the fear that subscribers would seek to get them back if they were to be applied to other purposes than those they gave them for. Unless his Amendment were adopted, there would be no check on an architect doing anything he pleased under the name of restoration. That was not a safe state of things for our cathedrals, and by his Amendment he simply asked that over public money there should be some public check, and, in his opinion, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were the proper persons to exercise the power. They made the grant, and they had the additional advantage of having an architect of their own to advise them. He proposed this Amendment in no spirit of hostility to the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, but merely to insure that over the expenditure of public money there should be some public check.
  Moved, In page 1, line 19, after ("thereto") insert ("provided that such repairs and restorations shall have been approved of by the said Commissioners.")—(The Lord Bishop of Peterborough.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  On Motion of Lord SUDELEY, Amendment made, in page 1, line 21, by leaving out ("thirty") and inserting ("fifty"); line 23, by leaving out ("the rate of four per centum per annum") and inserting—
  ("Such rate as shall be agreed on between the said dean and chapter and the said Commissioners");
  also, after Clause 2, by inserting the following Clause:—
  "In case the Ecclesiastical Commission satisfy themselves that the revenues of the dean and chapter will not suffice to repay the principal or pay the interest as above named, the said Commissioners may make a grant for such portion of the aforesaid sum as shall be necessary for the preservation of the building."
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 194.)

MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 184.)
The Lord Sudeley.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 184.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  THE EAEL OF WEMYSSsaid, that he desired to enter his protest against a measure of this kind, which was intended to compel the skippers of small fishing boats to submit to the same Board of Trade examination that the commanders of large vessels were required to pass. This was an attempt on the part of the Board of Trade to get everybody into their net.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he had received a telegram from the Secretary of the Insurance Societies of Lowestoft, who were interested in the fishing trade, which stated that in their opinion this Bill, if passed into law, would ruin the fishing interest. He had not had time to inform himself of the case upon which that objection rested; but he thought it most unfortunate that legislation respecting an important industry should be hurried through with so much speed that the persons most concerned were not aware of the legislation which it was sought to impose upon them. They at least believed that they were to be ruined by it.
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Board of Trade) explained that the main object of the Bill was to extend to skippers of fishing boats the provisions of the Act of 1883. The complaints by the Lowestoft fishing interest were made under a misapprehension of the objects of this measure. Under Clause 10 it was proposed to extend inquiries to boat accidents similar to those which could be held upon accidents in ships. It was often found that very serious accidents occurred to boats under oars, especially in conveying fish to trawlers; but, unfortunately, owing to the construction of the Act of 1883, no inquiries could be held in such cases. Under Clause 11 owners of fishing boats were able to make rules and regulations, but they could not be carried out without the sanction of the Board of Trade; and it was quite clear that the fishing trade at Lowestoft were not aware that in the other House Sir Edward Birkbeck introduced a clause ordering all Rules to be laid on the Table of both Houses for a month before they could become law, thus removing their objection. The examination proposed under the Bill was of the simplest character, and would be held locally; and he believed the Bill had the approval of the fishing interest at all the large ports.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that so far as he could see the examination of the skippers of these boats would be as great as that of captains of merchant vessels, and that did not seem to be a very common-sense arrangement. As nobody on the Ministerial Bench, not even the First Lord of the Admiralty, appeared to have the slightest notion of what the Bill was intended to effect, it was hardly decent to proceed with the measure.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE for INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)confessed that he had no information on the subject upon which the Bill dealt, and considered it would be better to withdraw it.
  Order discharged.

PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No. 185.)
(The Earl of Belmore.)
PROBATION OF FIRST OFFENDERS BILL.—(No. 185.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the experiment proposed by that Bill had been tried with great success in America, and he also learned that the Government of two of our most important Colonies—Victoria and New Zealand—had come to a conclusion in favour of legislation of that kind. He understood that that Bill had passed through the House of Commons with universal assent and without any amendment; and also that the measure was approved by persons who took an interest in philanthropic enterprizes. The hon. Member who had charge of the Bill in the other House had received a letter from Mr. Hill, a gentleman who in the earlier part of his life had for 15 years held the office of Inspector of Prisons, and had thus gained much insight into the working of the Criminal Law in this country, stating that he felt sure that the Bill, if passed, would do much good. In conclusion, he hoped that their Lordships would pass the measure as readily as he understood that the House of Commons had done; and he now moved the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department) said, he hoped that their Lordships would not consent to the second reading of that Bill. There could be no doubt that if the measure was passed it would be absolutely necessary to have a very large increase of the Police Force throughout the Kingdom. It was not correct that the Bill was unanimously passed by the House of Commons. What happened in the other House was that the Bill was blocked, and that it passed through quite accidentally. The provisions proposed under the Bill involved very considerable alterations in working the Criminal Law; and it was quite evident that nothing of this kind should be done in a hurried manner. However good some of the provisions might be, it was due to the importance of the subject that close inquiry and investigation should take place before the Bill became law.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, he shared very much the desire that some provision of that character should pass into law; but it seemed to him that that Bill was absolutely unworkable and con-

  177
  tained no machinery by which it could be carried out. It would, he thought, be an evil example for their Lordships to assent to a Bill deeply affecting the Criminal Law under those circumstances.
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped that the noble Lord would withdraw that Bill, which he agreed in thinking would I be perfectly unworkable as it stood. If a well-considered measure which would carry out the same object was introduced in a future Session their Lordships would probably give it their support.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsympathized entirely with the object of that Bill, and thought it might readily be put in a shape which would obtain the support of that House. A Public Department specially charged to look after such legislation could have brought forward any technical objections they thought proper to the form of the measure, and then it could have come before their Lordships in a satisfactory shape. He trusted that in a future Session the matter would be dealt with in such a way as would remove all objections.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he concurred in thinking that it was impossible to pass that Bill in its present shape. He admitted it might be expedient in many cases to draw a sharp line between a first offence, as regarded the way in which it should be treated, and any subsequent offence. He was not himself in favour of limiting a measure of that description merely to the case of children; but if it was to be extended to adults at all, a great deal more guidance ought to be given to the tribunal than was to be found in that Bill. Clause 2 gave far too wide a discretion to all tribunals, because it applied to any Court of Summary Jurisdiction, which might impose such conditions as it thought right, having regard to the reformation of the offender—a very vague provision. If, as he hoped, the Bill was re-modelled and re-introduced on a subsequent occasion, it should contain greater guidance and more safeguards than were now included in it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that although the supervision of the police as exercised over prisoners sentenced to penal servitude formed a very useful part of our convict system, anyone who had paid attention to the subject knew that it was attended with considerable difficulties and some hardships.
  178
  He did not believe that general police supervision throughout the country over all classes of criminals could be worked with advantage, and he hoped they would not lightly adopt such a system.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he agreed in the observation as to police supervision, but was of opinion that it should be limited much more than it generally was to cases of the kind which had been alluded to. In the case of ordinary offences it did much more harm than good.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that after what had passed, he would not press the second reading.
  Order discharged.

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
(The Lord Sudeley.)
SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.

  (NO. 186.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Sudeley.)
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that the evidence which had been gathered relating to this subject had not been published, and their Lordships were not in a position to say whether the Bill had been founded on that evidence or not. The measure was an important one. It interfered to a great extent with the whole retail trade of the Kingdom, and would lead to the discharge of many employés. It fixed the hours during which persons were to be employed, but no machinery was provided by which its provisions could be carried out. When a measure of this kind was brought forward their Lordships ought to be in possession of the fullest information regarding its necessity. It was really indecent that a Bill of this importance should be shuffled through the House of Commons at the close of a Session and sent up to their Lordships without any means being afforded to judge of its necessity, and the evidence upon which it was based. He would not, however, oppose the Bill further on the present stage, but should move its rejection on the third reading.
  LORD SUDELEY(for the Home Department) said, that the noble Earl appeared to be entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill, which he thought

  179
  would interfere with the whole retail trade of the country. What this Bill really did was to carry still further the principle of the factory legislation amongst a class of workers who were not at present able to take care of themselves. So far as the retail trade was concerned the Bill had a very considerable support—not only amongst the employed, but the employers also. He would point out that a great many meetings had been held in favour of the Bill. The other day there was a great dinner given at which 600 shopkeepers supported the Bill. Their Lordships were aware that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wemyss) was President of the Liberty and Property Defence League. A Colleague of the noble Earl's in the League was the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), and perhaps the noble Earl was not aware that at a large meeting in favour of the Bill that noble and learned Lord had attended and stated that this measure was of great social importance and ought to be passed.
  THE EARL OF DERBYasked what machinery was to be provided in order to carry out the provisions of the Bill?
  LORD SUDELEYsaid, there was no system of inspection provided in the Bill; but it was considered by the promoters of the measure and the Home Office that the effect of its being passed into law would be to produce a strong moral effect, and would be likely to cure the evil to a great extent. It must also be remembered that a large number of shopkeepers would, in their own interests, from a competitive point of view, be determined to see the law carried out. An Association for this purpose was already in existence, and would take very good care that no unfair advantage was gained in this respect. There was also a considerable fine in the Bill for the evasion of the law, and this, of course, any policeman could be the means of putting in force.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. BENSON)said, he believed that the moral effect of the Bill would be considerable indeed. There was a large number of tradesmen who were cruel to the young people in their shops through carelessness and thoughtlessness. Owing to a lack of real concern for the welfare of their workpeople these employers pressed them on day after day. If it
  180
  were authoritatively put before these employers that they must not employ their young people more than 74 hours a-week, he believed that a very large number who now employed their servants longer would cease to do so. The class of persons in whose interests the Bill was promoted was probably the most defenceless class they had among them. They were most subject to the will and the caprices of those on whom they were wholly dependent for their bread. He was, however, able to bear witness to the fact that a large number of tradesmen in many of their great towns were eager for the passing of the Bill. Very many shopkeepers would employ their servants for a less length of time if they could, and they could if only they were free from the competition of those who would not consent to the same terms. He was sure that a majority of tradesmen were desirous to do this. He did not think that this was a case in which Inspectors were necessary. Experience of the working of the Act for a year or two would show what kind of machinery was needed; but it would be premature now to say that Inspectors were necessary. Inspection did not seem to him to be the right way of beginning. The pressure of each other's opinion backed by this law would call for the right machinery. It was not a matter affecting so much the retail trade of the country as the life and health and usefulness of a large number of human beings.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he sympathized with the tone of the most rev. Prelate. He believed the principle of this Bill in its broadest sense was sound—namely, that it was their duty to protect young people who could not protect themselves. That was a principle enshrined in their law, and was not, he should imagine, a subject of dispute. But he could not admit that the excellent object of the Bill was any excuse for the slovenly form in which the Bill had been brought before the House. It was a Bill which had no practical effect whatever. The most rev. Prelate represented the Bill as in the nature of a moral lesson. Moral lessons were the business of the most rev. Prelate, but were not the business of the two Houses of Parliament. He objected to the Bill because if any person was not inclined to look into it for a

  181
  moral lesson, but to take it as a law, he would be puzzled by it. When he was told that young persons should not be employed in or about a shop for more than 74 hours in the week, including meal times, he was inclined to ask what meal times did they mean to include? Were the meal times on Sunday to be deducted? With regard to the refreshment rooms at railway stations, the persons employed must be in or about them all the time because they lived at the stations. He did not think their Lordships ought to pass such a piece of slovenly workmanship. If the Government wished the Bill should pass they ought to have used some efforts to put it in a shape more suitable for passing into law.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLwished to take that opportunity of expressing a very emphatic approbation of the general principle of the Bill, which, as the noble Marquess had observed, had been enshrined for many years in the legislation of the country. That principle seemed perfectly clear—that when life, health, and morals were concerned Parliament had a right to interfere; and life, health, and morals were concerned where young persons were employed for an excessive number of hours. As to the objection on the score of the defective machinery of the Bill, it ought to be remembered that many shopkeepers had actually applied to Parliament to put them under universal compulsion, because as individuals they could not adopt it. If this Bill was passed, the result would be that there would be a large number of persons all over the country interested in seeing that the law was obeyed. He believed that by means of voluntary Associations, some of which had started and were in operation, the law would be carried into effect bettor than by police inspection. He hoped his noble Friend on the Cross Benches would not oppose the Bill on its further stages, and that it would pass their Lordships' House.
  Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Short title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he thought it would be well that they should see how the Bill worked after a few years,
  182
  and therefore he would move to add at the end of the clause the words—
  "To operate until the end of 1888 and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament."
  New Clause:—
  "This Bill shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-seven, or the end of the then next session of Parliament, and no longer."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD SUDELEY, on the part of the Government, said, there was no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed, to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Hours of employment in shops) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Notice of hours to be given).
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that it was absurd that a man should be required to stick up the number of hours in his window, and he would therefore move that the clause be struck out.
  Moved, "To strike out Clause 4."—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYasked whether it was such a dreadful thing that a man should be required to put up the number of hours?
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE (Dr. GOODWIN)said, it might serve a good purpose.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that there was some difficulty as to whether the words in the clause meant the time of day or the length of the hours allowed.
  LORD ABERDAREobserved, that the Factory Acts provided for the variation of hours, and he thought that it was reasonable that in this Bill there should be some rule providing for a similar variation in the business hours for shops.
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought that it would be better to invent a new section than to tinker at the present one. He would suggest a short section providing that a notice should be hung in the shop referring to the Act and its principal provisions, and, in particular, saying that employés should not have more than 74 hours a-week of work.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)remarked, that the Bill was not a Government measure, although the Government had given it benevolent assistance. He thought that, perhaps, a better course would be to introduce a

  183
  provision to the effect that in every shop there should be hung up a statement of the number of hours.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested that, as there seemed to be great uncertainty as to the meaning of this clause, it would be better to drop it.
  Clause (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Clauses 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Interpretation).
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he rose to move an Amendment to exclude licensed houses and places of refreshment from the scope of the Bill. Those interested in such establishments had had no reason to suppose that they were going to be included in the action of this Bill until it had reached a late stage, nor had they been among the witnesses examined before the Committee. Even if it were desirable to include them in this Bill, he thought that they ought to have an opportunity of being heard. He had received a letter from a gentleman who represented some of the largest hotels and refreshment places in London, stating that the effect of the passing of this Bill as it stood would be absolutely the dismissing of every young person under 18 in their employment. They all knew that a number of boys were employed in large hotels at all hours of the day, very often waiting to be sent on messages more than actually working, but who would, nevertheless, come under the operation of this clause, and would thus be cast out of a respectable employment. It was only owing to having had this matter thus put before him that he had ventured to propose this Amendment. He thought that the large industries affected by this clause had hardly been treated fairly. To leave out these establishments from the scope of the Bill did not materially affect the principle of the Bill, and it would be easy to deal with them in a separate Bill in the next Parliament after the persons concerned had had an opportunity of expressing their opinions.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 22, leave out ("and includes licensed public houses and refreshment houses of any kind.")—(The Earl of Limerick.)
  THE BISHOP OF TRURO (Dr. WILKINSON)said, he could not agree with what
  184
  had been urged by the noble Earl. He thought that they were especially bound to protect young persons under 18 years of age in licensed houses and places of refreshment. With reference to what had been said by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury), he would express a hope that moral lessons would not only be given by the Episcopal Members of the House, but also by the other Members. He thought their Lordships read a moral lesson to the House of Commons in the way in which they dealt with the Criminal Law Amendment Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not wish to be misunderstood. He certainly never meant to say that the House or its Members ought not to read moral lessons to any who might benefit by them; but Acts of Parliament and sermons were two different kinds of composition, and he objected to Acts of Parliament which read only a moral lesson.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that the argument that the Bill would lead to a number of young persons being thrown out of employment had been urged at the time of the Factory Acts; but experience showed that employers adapted their arrangements to the law.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICKsaid, he would press his Amendment to a division.
  On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause? Their Lordsips divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 5: Majority 15.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with: Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 199.)

INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 176.)
(The Marl of Milltown.)
INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SALE TO CHILDREN) BILL.—(No. 176.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD FITZGERALD, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that the object of the measure was to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors to children under 13 years of age for their own consumption.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." (The Lord FitzGerald.)
  LORD HARRISasked whether a publican who supplied liquor to a parent who gave it to his children would not be subject to the penalty?
  LORD FITZGERALDsaid, the Bill was only directed against the sale of drink to children for their own consumption.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the sale to children of cider as well as beer would be prohibited by this extraordinary legislation. He remembered, when 12 years of age, often pulling up the river to Surley Hall and committing what, in the case of boys under 13, would now become the enormity of drinking cider to quench his thirst. Although the measure was an extraordinary one, it was not worthy of serious opposition, because he did not suppose that anyone would pay any attention to it if it were passed.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow, and Standing Order No. XXXV. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.

POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—NIGHT MAIL ARRANGEMENTS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD (for the Earl of BELMORE)asked the Postmaster General, Whether he had considered the possibility of sending the night mails from Enniskillen to England, Scotland, Dublin, &c, by rail, instead of, as at present, by road viâ Omagh; and whether he could state what would be the additional cost?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord WOLVERTON)said, that he hoped to have been able to give the noble Earl a final answer to his Question; but the terms demanded by the Railway Company for the performance of the new service had hitherto been such as to preclude a favourable consideration of the arrangement. He had, however, made a counter offer to the Company, which he trusted the Directors would see their way to accept.

POST OFFICE—MAIL SERVICE TO CHINA BY CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked the Postmaster General, Whether any
186
decision had been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the proposal from Canada for a British mail service from Liverpool to China, Japan, and India, by the route of the Canadian Pacific Railway?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Lord WOLVERTON)said, that the question, which was one of great importance, had been under the consideration of an Inter-Departmental Committee, which had not, as yet, reported. He could not, therefore, answer the Question of the noble Earl.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER—VENTILATION OF THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. —QUESTION.
THE EARL OF LONGFORDasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether a design for the construction and ventilation of the sewers of the Houses of Parliament, submitted by Mr. H. R. Newton to Her Majesty's Government, had been brought under the notice of the authority in charge of the drainage arrangements?
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (The Earl of ELGIN), in reply, said, that he had received a very long letter from Mr. Newton with reference to the construction and ventilation of the sewers of the Houses, and that he would take its contents into consideration in conjunction with the suggestions of the Committee appointed by the other House to report upon the whole subject.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Three o'clock.