Sitting of 19 June 1889

CHURCH SITES (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL. (No. 36.)
Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL.
Ordered—
Address for Return showing for each County and Borough County in Wales and Monmouthshire—1. The number of Grammar Schools; the income from Endowment; the number of Scholars; the date of the Schemes under which they are managed. 2. The number and income of Charities with Endowments above £30 a year. 3. The Population, Ratable Value, and Amount which would accrue from a Halfpenny Rate.—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
MR. DILLWYN: The Committee on the Intermediate Education (Wales) Bill is on the Paper for to-day. May I ask if it is intended to take that stage of the measure?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): As the Bill is not a Government measure it is not for me to say whether it will be taken or not. I hope that it will not be taken, because we are not yet prepared with our Amendments.

ARMY CONTAGIOUS DISEASES.
Ordered—
Address for Return showing the ratio of admission into Hospital for Syphilis per 1,000 of strength of the Troops at certain large Stations in the United Kingdom (formerly under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases Acts) during each of the years 1881 to 1888.—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck.)

MOTION.

  COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: There is a notice on the Paper in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury for the suspension of the Standing Orders in favour of the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill. I cannot help thinking that it is a somewhat extraordinary thing to suspend the Standing Orders without notice and without explanation in favour of any Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I rise for the purpose of moving,
  "That the Motions relating to the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill may be taken this day, at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted at half-past Five or Six o'clock. But as soon as the said Motions, and any subsequent unopposed business, are disposed of, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."
  The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has made some observations as to the inconvenience and inexpediency of moving the suspension of the Standing Orders without previous notice. The Government had had some hope that the Motion of the hon. Baronet opposite, the Member for Barnard Castle (Sir. J. Pease) would have been reached last night before twelve o'clock, but as this hope was disappointed, I felt it my duty, looking to the urgency of the matter, to place on the Paper for this morning the present Motion. I may remind the House that the Bill to which it relates was read a second time before the holidays, after a short and interesting debate, when the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Courtney), having pointed out the inconvenience of reading a Bill of this

  215
  character without examination by a properly constituted Committee of the House, I and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, agreed that the Bill should be read a second time on the distinct understanding, to which the hon. Baronet acceded, that it should be referred to a hybrid Committee, which it is usual to appoint under circumstances of this character. That course was assented to by the hon. Baronet, and the Government now ask the House to afford the requisite facilities for such a consideration of the Bill before passing it into law. To be effective, the Bill must pass the House before the end of the first week in July, if not, rights might be exercised which might be exceedingly injurious to the whole of the Metropolis. Therefore, looking at the important interests involved the Government think it right to ask the House to give facilities for the considertion of the Motion of the hon. Baronet which stands on the Paper for to-day. If the Motion were allowed to stand over from day to day, the measure would be defeated altogether, and under these circumstances, much as I regret the necessity of asking the House to suspend the Standing Orders, that appears to me to be the only method by which we can obtain a due consideration of the question by a Select Committee. Under these circumstances I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Motions relating to the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill may be taken, this day, at any hour, though opposed, and the proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted at half-past Five or Six o'clock. But as soon as the said Motions, and any subsequent unopposed business, are disposed of, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. STUART: I shall certainly divide the House against the proposal to suspend the Standing Orders in the manner which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. No public notice has been given to the House in any way. We only discovered the notice on the Paper this morning. On a Wednesday many hon. Members are absent from the House, and those who came down this morning did so -without in the least suspecting that any
  216
  such Motion as this would be pushed forward in this way. I do not think that the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman is at all adequate, because fair notice might have been given, and the Motion for suspending the Standing Orders might be made to-morrow. I and those who are acting with me do not oppose the Bill of the hon. Baronet. We are in favour of the Bill and voted for the Second Reading, and we shall be glad to see it passed because we entirely object to the dues which are levied in the Metropolis at this moment. But we do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Bill is not passed within the time stated the City of London will have a free hand in the matter. The Corporation have, no doubt, some doors they can lock, but there are other doors that are open. It would be quite out of place to discuss the merits of the Bill now, but I oppose the Motion because I feel that the House ought not to be called on to deal with the matter in the hurried manner proposed, and to pass a Resolution whereby the City of London will practically be enabled for a certain number of years to levy a rate on the whole of the Metropolis. If the Corporation have liabilities to meet, let them be met by a rate levied within the City area. I have no desire to detain the House, but I certainly must enter my strong protest against the course proposed. The House is practically taken by surprise in the matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in the Motion.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I intend to oppose the Motion for reasons somewhat different from those put forward by my hon. Friend. I object to make a precedent of the kind proposed, although I agree that the Bill ought not to be defeated by the matter being put off from day to day, as has been the case since the Second Reading. I would suggest that a simpler and better method than suspending the Standing Orders to the detriment of private Members would be for the Government to allow the question to be put on the Paper as the first business for to-morrow or Friday. The Government have already taken away nearly the whole of the time of private Members, and it is rather too much when Members who

  217
  work hard in this House have made arrangements on the supposition that en a Wednesday they will be free at six o'clock to attend to other business for the Government to ask them to suspend the Standing Orders, so that the Motion of a private Member may be taken out of its regular order. The Government say that this is the only method of doing it. That is not so, because they have themselves provided in the new Rules for exactly this contingency. They have provided that they themselves shall have control over all of the business of the House except on Friday evening, and they can therefore put this matter down as the first order for any day they choose. I shall certainly vote against this kind of precedent being created. I say nothing about the merits of the Bill. I am in favour of abolishing these dues entirely, and I voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. On behalf of private Members generally I protest against the proposed suspension of the Standing Orders, and I would suggest that the First Lord of the Treasury should put down the Motion as the first order for to-morrow in which case there will be no interference with the arrangements of private Members either here or elsewhere.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: As I have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and as an Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper will be affected by this proposal, I desire to say a few words. The First Lord of the Treasury, no doubt unintentionally, has misrepresented the understanding which was come to previous to the Second Reading of the Bill. What was stated was that there were certain alleged rights existing by charter which the Bill would affect, and that it was in accordance with precedent to appoint a Select Committee to investigate what would be the legal position of the Corporation under the circumstances which the Bill would create. This understanding I am willing to see carried out, and the Amendment which I have put down will allow the Select Committee to investigate thoroughly the legal position of the Corporation. But the Motion before the House goes beyond that, for it refers to a matter that ought not to be sent to the Committee—namely, whether
  218
  the Corporation of London shall be allowed to continue the tax on coal.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the question before the House, and is now discussing the subject matter of the instruction itself.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I was only following the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman. At any rate the question resolves itself into whether the whole question which has been already settled by the ratepayers of London shall be referred to a Committee of the House, and to this proposition I am distinctly opposed. Not recognising the suitability of the proposal I gave notice of the Amendment. The Motion now made is of a most extraordinary character. We are familiar with the suspension of the Standing Orders for the purpose of advancing public business, but it is a new departure to suspend the Standing Orders in order to advance the Bill of a private Member. If that is to be done in one case, why not in all? Certainly the hon. Baronet has not as good a claim as hon. Members who sit on the other side of the House. I think it ime possible not to suppose that some occult influence has been at work, the real object being to do a good turn for that fast Friend of the Government, the Corporation of the City of London.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I also feel bound to protest against the highhanded proceedings proposed to be taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that any explanation has been offered which can possibly justify the act. If the right hon. Gentleman could have said that urgent circumstances have occurred which render this extraordinary proceeding necessary, we might not have objected to the Motion, although we certainly should not have liked it. The instruction to the Committee which has been placed on the Paper by the hon. Baronet in my opinion goes far beyond the understanding arrived at on the Second Reading of the Bill. Hon. Members on this side of the House displayed the earnestness with which they desire the abolition of the Coal Dues long before the hon. Baronet himself, or any other person interested in the coal trade, took the matter up. We have no desire in any way to prevent the abolition of the Coal

  219
  Dues, but what we do want is to prevent that which we see to be coming—namely, that the Corporation of London shall be enabled to re-enact the dues for a time. We have seen the agents of the Corporation in the Lobby within the last few days in consultation with the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Fowler), and I hold in my hand a copy of a whip delivered this morning for this Motion and signed by two hon. Members of this House, showing that certain hon. Members were informed of what was going to be done, while others were kept in the dark. I think that the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle ought to explain to the House why it is he has been made use of in regard to this Motion. Our action in the matter is not only in the interest of a right understanding of the question itself, but of the fair conduct of the business of the House. I would recommend hon. Members opposite if they have any wish to preserve their own rights as private Members hereafter to vote with us on this occasion against the suspension of the Standing Orders. The time may come when they may find themselves placed in a position similar to that which we now occupy either by their own friends or by a Government from this side of the House. I do not think it is possible for any private Member to express himself too strongly on this occasion as to the conduct of the Leader of the House in robbing them of the privileges to which they are justly entitled.
  SIR J. PEASE: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to me and my connection with the Bill. When the Bill passed the Second Reading stage by a large majority, I entered into stipulations with the First Lord of the Treasury in almost the words dictated by the Chairman of Ways and Means. It was not until a late hour last evening that I received a message from the right hon. Gentleman stating that he would afford facilities for discussing the measure in the manner now provided by the Motion. I arranged very late in the evening that a whip should be sent out on the condition that it was sent to every Member of the House. [Cries of "No whip has been received."] Well, I received none my-
  220
  self; but I am told that it was sent this morning to every hon. Member. The-question is one which deserves the early consideration of the House, and that is the reason why I urge hon. Members to accept the Motion. On the 5th of July next the old City privileges will revive. On that day the City will have the privilege of levying 8d. per ton on all the coals brought into the Thames, and to some extent the railway-borne coal also. The greatest possible confusion exists in the coal trade in London at the present moment, because dealers will not make contracts owing to the uncertainty which prevails. The Committee will have a free hand in the matter, and the question is so mixed up with the whole trade of the Metropolis and the North of England and the Midland counties that it behoves the House to take the earliest possible opportunity to remedy a state of things which tends to produce utter confusion in an important branch of industry.
  MR. BAUMANN: Before we vote for the Motion I think we are entitled to know from the hon. Baronet at what stage of the proceedings, supposing the Motion of the Government to be carried, will the Motion of the hon. Baronet be made; whether, if business permits, before half-past five or six o'clock? I acknowledge that on the Second Reading of the Bill an understanding was arrived at that such a Committee should be appointed; and although I am hostile to the passing of the Bill itself, yet I think if it is to pass it is well to place on record what are the statutory and chartered rights of the Corporation. I believe that a full and free inquiry into this subject will result ultimately in the re-enactment of the dues in relief of the rates of the Metropolis. I shall therefore support the Motion.
  MR. CAUSTON: I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion. If it is carried to a division and passed, an undesirable advantage will be taken of private Members, and the Government will create a precedent which will be applied to other measures at other times. Besides, it is not wise for the Government to make such a Motion applying to a Wednesday sitting. It

  221
  dislocates all the evening arrangements of hon. Members. In addition to this many London Members are absent from town, not knowing that this question was likely to come up for consideration. I should like to see the First Lord of the Treasury act in such a way as to show that he has no desire to take an unfair advantage of the House. I therefore trust that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Motion.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member. If time permitted I should have been glad to do so. But a few days only have to elapse before the rights of the Corporation of the City revive. If the Bill which is to deal with those rights is to pass, it must be passed through all the remaining stages in this House and in the other House in order to avert the confusion in trade which has been referred to. Nothing but the extreme urgency of the case would have induced me to take the course I have now taken; and in that connection I may take this opportunity of publicly expressing my regret that I inadvertently failed to give notice of this Motion at the close of business last night. It is, however, absolutely necessary if the Bill is to pass, that this Motion should be adopted in order to admit of the measure being considered by a Select Committee.
  MR. HOWELL: I think the House will see that something has occurred in regard to this matter, which is not altogether fair to the Members of the House. So far as I can understand, not a single London Liberal Member received a copy of the whip which was sent out. The very limited number of Members who have received it shows, in my opinion, that something has occurred which we ought to condemn. What could be the object of this failure to send such a document to the London Liberal Members? The Motion is a most unfair one, and I think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he withdrew it now and brought it forward some other day. I am sure that such a course would facilitate the business of the House, not only in this matter, but on other questions. I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned." —(Mr. Howell.)
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I trust that the First Lord of the Treasury will agree that hon. Members have a real ground of complaint in this instance, and that he will accede to the suggestion. The difficulty would be easily settled by putting the Motion down for to-morrow or some other early day. I am one of those who are in the position of having received no whip. I never speak for the mere purpose of obstruction, but I feel strong on this matter, and I would join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to put us to the trouble of a division.
  MR. COURTNEY: I must point out that the hon. Member, by moving the adjournment of the debate, has stopped our mouths on this question. I hope the hon. Member will withdraw the Motion.
  MR. HOWELL: I have no objection to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. COURTNEY: I am quite sure that no one, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman, can view with satisfaction the proposal to suspend the Standing Orders, because it is certain that he will be moved to take similar action in the case of other Bills. It is suggested that this question should be put down as the first Order of the Day to-morrow. But that would consume a great deal of time; indeed, a considerable portion of to-morrow might be taken up with the discussion. There are, however, several practical reasons in favour of the present course. If the Bill is to be passed at all, it must be got through the House before an early day in July, and if it does not pass a great deal of confusion will arise. I do not think that hon. Members can realize what will happen. The Bill was read a second time on the understanding that a Committee should ascertain whether the City has a moral right to recoup outstanding liabilities. This being the case, I suggested the reference to a Committee in order to hear what the City has to say. The Bill was read a second time on the understanding that it should be referred to a hybrid Committee, and now when

  223
  we have got to the point of referring it to the Committee, in spite of that understanding this opposition is raised. It was natural to expect, after what occurred on the Second Reading, that the discussion of the proposal to refer the Bill to a Committee would occupy a very short time. It would not have been a breach of duty to their constituents on the part of the Metropolitan Members to have allowed this Motion to go without discussion. I fail to see how hon. Gentlemen can say there has been a breach of the understanding, looking at the terms of that understanding. Those terms were proposed by myself, and this is what I said—
  "I would suggest to the House that instead of refusing to read the Bill a second time, it would agree to the Second Reading, and refer the measure to a Committee which should have full power to hear what the Corporation has to say, to examine into the debt, the purposes for which it was contracted, and the balance outstanding, and see how far the debt is connected with this particular revenue, and what kind of treatment of the debt is necessary, in honour and good faith, in order to satisfy the first claims of the City of London in respect of the revenue. I would suggest that this course could be followed with perfect justice to all parties, and without raising the questions which have been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary."
  That went very much further than a proposal for an inquiry into the legal rights of the Corporation of the City of London. There is something more than the historical right of the City to these dues that the Committee has to inquire into; they have to inquire into the moral right of the Corporation to levy the dues, and to see whether it can make good its claims in relation to the Holborn Valley improvements. That understanding having been arrived at, I think there is no moral objection to this Motion.
  MR. PICTON: Many of us feel as strong an objection as we can express to this most irregular proceeding. After the acknowledgment of the Leader of the House that he regrets that he failed to give notice last night, the very least compensation that can be made is to put off the Motion until tomorrow. The Chairman of Committees says that if that were done a considerable amount of Government time would be consumed, but let the 12 o'clock rule be suspended. We are quite used to that now. Certainly, in the way I
  224
  suggest, the Government could recoup themselves for giving up the point now. But if the kind of thing now proposed is to be done, life in this House would become absolutely unendurable. We are only able to survive by the security we possess that business in which we are interested will not be brought on without notice. It is true that the Standing Orders have often been suspended for Government business, but it has always been after due notice given. Few of us have had any notice of the present Motion, and I would urge hon. Members by considerations of what may happen to themselves when they are in a minority not to be collusive in this matter. I cannot imagine anything more prejudicial to the conduct of business than the establishment of bad precedents, and the springing of Motions of this kind upon the House.
  MR. KELLY: I see no reason why the Motion should not be put down for to-morrow. I myself should have had no notice of this Motion if an hon. Member opposite had not informed me of the fact. L received no whip from the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnard Castle, and I think very few Members did. Many Members who are now absent would have been here if they had known that the Motion was to come on. I share the view of the hon. Member for Northampton that this Motion is establishing a most dangerous precedent. It is not a discussion of half an hour but of hours which will be required at half past five o'clock. Personally I am in favour of these Coal Dues, but I can well understand that some hon. Members opposite would not lose an. opportunity of saying a good deal in opposition to the retention of these dues by a corrupt body like the Corporation of the City of London. What will the constituencies of Metropolitan Members think if they find us voting to bolster up the Corporation? I deeply regret that I shall feel bound to oppose this Motion as strongly as I can. The effect of accepting the Amendment would merely be to relegate to the consideration of the Committee the real or imaginary rights of the Corporation.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I would point out that the Motion for the Committee has always been prevented from

  225
  coming on after 12 o'clock by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green. The hon. Baronet having appealed to the hon. Member, and having failed, was bound to to appeal to the Government, and as the question of the dues must be settled in a little more than a fortnight, it is essential that the Motion should be disposed of at once.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I bitterly regret that I was misled by Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench into voting for giving Tuesdays to the Government, now that they propose to take Wednesday evening. It would be much better that the 12 o'clock rule should be suspended than the half-past five o'clock rule on Wednesdays. But if the Amendment to the instruction is accepted it is likely that the Committee may be appointed without opposition and without any long debate.
  MR. WEBSTER: I, like all other private Members, object to the Government taking the time of private Members, but this is a question of great urgency, and it is desirable that the people of London and those interested in the coal trade should know how we are placed after July 5. Therefore I do not think it is the fact as stated by the hon. Member for Camberwell that in voting for the Government we are voting for the City of London. We are voting simply that if the City of London has rights, those rights shall be cleared up. I think that under the circumstances the Government have done the best they could.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I hope the Motion will not be withdrawn. A great deal of time has been occupied with it to-day, and if it is withdrawn a great deal of time will be occupied with it to-morrow. As one of the few Metropolitan Conservative Members who voted for the Bill, I am bound to say that in that course I was greatly influenced by the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Liskeard on the Second Reading, and I hope we shall now have an opportunity of carrying out the understanding which was arrived at on that occasion.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I must say it is rather disappointing for those who come down to the House with the idea of making progress with the business on the Paper, to find on reaching
  226
  the House, that time has been wasted in the discussion of a Motion of which no notice had been given. It is very much to be regretted that no notice was given. The Government say it would be disadvantageous to postpone the Bill, but I believe there are means of obviating the disadvantage, and in order to give the Government time to consider those means, I move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. A. O'Connor).
  The House divided: Ayes 63; Noes 113.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
  Original Question put.
  The House divided: — Ayes 115; Noes 63.—(Div. List, No. 144.)
  Ordered, That the Motions relating to the Coal Duties (London) Abolition Bill may be taken, this day, at any hour though opposed, and the Proceedings thereon shall not be interrupted at half-past Five or Six o'clock. But as soon as the said Motions, and any subsequent Unopposed Business, are disposed of, the Speaker shall adjourn the House without Question put.

  IRELAND—THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN AT WEXFORD.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I wish to ask a question of the Solicitor General for Ireland or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member wishes to repeat the question which was not replied to at an earlier period.
  MR. REDMOND: Yes.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): Will the hon. Member kindly postpone the question until to-morrow?
  MR. REDMOND: I gave notice of the question; there has been time to telegraph for the information, and I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not in a position to give an answer.

ORDERS OF TEE DAY.

  MASTERS AND SERVANTS BILL. (No. 205.)
  Order for consideration of Bill, as amended, read.
  MR. G. HOWELL: I understand that there is an

  227
  arrangement to accept the Amendments I have on the Paper.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move?
  MR. G. HOWELLsignified assent.
  Amendment proposed, Schedule, page 8, at end, add—2 Geo. 1, c. 17, Irish; 25 Geo. 2, c. 8, Irish; 29 Geo. 2, c. 8, Irish; 29 Geo. 2, c. 12, Irish, Sections 9, 10, 11, and 12; 14 and 15 Vic. c. 92, Section 16, Sub-section 4.—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  MR. MADDEN: I have carefully gone through the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member for North Longford. The 29th Geo. II., c. 12, is, I think, entirely obsolete and may usefully be repealed. The most important of the provisions in question is the sub-section of 14 and 15 Vic., c. 92, but I find that the sub-section in question has been already repealed by 38 and 39 Vic., c. 86, Section 17. There are certain sections of the Statutes of 2 Geo. I. and 25th Geo. II. that are not obsolete. They are in force, and some of them useful, and I could not assent to the repeal of these statutes in toto. If the hon. Member will put the Amendment in the form in which I have put it, I will agree to it.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member accept it?
  MR. G. HOWELLsignified assent.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 87.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,): In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, it is desirable I should say a word or two with reference to the Amendments which I have upon the Paper. I need scarcely say that not only I, but Her Majesty's Government, sympathise most warmly with any proposals for legislation which will put a stop to, and punish people for, inflicting any acts of cruelty upon children. In so far as this Bill does propose to deal with acts of cruelty
  228
  committed upon children, we most warmly support the measure. At the same time, we have to be most careful that we do not interfere with the legitimate conduct of parents and guardians with regard to children. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who takes so much interest in the Bill, would be very sorry indeed, under cover of any Bill of the kind, to interfere with the proper and legitimate control of the parent over the child, and certainly to interfere with anything like the reasonable earnings of children assisting their parents. I have put upon the Paper such Amendments as I thought would prevent the Bill from operating in any way in a harsh manner. I do not pretend that the Amendments will satisfy every one, nor do they indicate that Her Majesty's Government in any way express a definite opinion with regard to the Bill, or that they either directly or indirectly seek to influence the judgment of any hon. Member in this matter. So far as this Bill seeks to prevent acts of cruelty upon children, I am as anxious as anyone to assist in that work, and Her Majesty's Government most heartily endorses any legislation in that direction. Some may say that I have not gone far enough, and others that I have gone too far, but I hope that there will be a fair discussion of any Amendments that may arise. I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, leave out from the beginning of line 5 to "sixteen years," in line 8, and insert—
  (1) "Any person who, having the custody, control, or charge of a child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years, or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, wilfully illtreats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: In rising to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General, I wish at the same time to make my acknowledgments to him in this House, as I have done elsewhere publicly, of the very considerable attention he has given to the whole question, and of his willingness to meet all the reasonable demands of those who desire to prevent cruelty to children and their excessive suffering and overwork. I can assure the hon. and learned Gen-

  229
  tleman that I am as anxious as any Member of Her Majesty's Government not to make these provisions go beyond the reasonable requirements of the case. I feel that it is impossible by any Bills we pass in this House to cover all cases. It is impossible that we can meet every case that may arise of cruelty; but I believe the Attorney General has gone, I was going to say, to the extreme limit of making provisions against any such cases. I think by his Amendments he has taken very good care to protect what in this country we call parental rights. Children have very few rights in England, and by this Bill I am really only anxious that we should give them almost the same protection that we give under the Cruelty to Animals Act and the Contagious Diseases Act for domestic animals. I may be allowed to say, although we are in Committee, that the first promoter of this Bill was the late Lord Iddesleigh, who took intense interest in this subject, and who had a stronger measure in his pocket at the very moment of his death. The Bill has been watered down since that time, and I trust now that with the Amendments of the Attorney General, which the promoters are prepared to accept, we shall make a useful and working measure. I do not think the House has the smallest conception of the appalling cruelties that are practiced upon children, and the hardships they have to suffer. I do hope we shall discuss this matter in the spirit which the Attorney General has indicated. I trust the Amendment will be passed without debate.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN KELLY, who had an Amendment on the Paper—Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "person" insert "of full age," said: I have not the least wish to see any children taken before the Magistrate. No doubt acts of cruelty will unfortunately occur among children; but if the words of the clause were adopted without any qualification, it would apply to the case of a child carrying another child and inflicting some cruelty upon it, for which act, under the terms of the Bill, it would be liable to be dragged before a Magistrate. I take it the object of the promoters is not to prevent cruelty by
  230
  children, which, of course, is very wrong, but cruelty by parents and guardians and people who have charge and control of children. If the Amendment in my name is not accepted, at least that which is down in the name of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire might be adopted. The Bill has been badly drafted, and certainly could never have been intended to apply to such a case as a child carrying a child or persons guilty of innocent acts for which they would be liable to be brought before the Magistrate.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?
  MR. KELLY: I do not move my Amendment.
  MR. WALTER M'LARENsubmitted the following:—Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "person," insert "over 16 years of age." I should have moved the Amendment over 18 years of age, but I understand my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) prefers 16 years of age as the limit. I will not attempt unduly to press my view on the House, and, of course, I will gladly accept any modification that the right hon. Gentleman may personally think desirable. As a matter of form, I beg to move my Amendment, "over 16 years of age." I think it is desirable there should be some limit. As the Bill stands it is absolutely without any limit of age.
  Amendment proposed, to amend the words proposed to be inserted by inserting the words, "any persons over 16 years of age."
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it is not necessary for me to follow the hon. Member for Camberwell in his criticisms, and I do not think there is any great cause of complaint against the way in which the Bill has been drafted. But I think he touched the point when he says that the Bill would enable one child, say of 12 years of age, carrying another child, and inflicting some cruelty upon it to its injury, to be made the subject of a criminal prosecution. The real question to consider is, what is the proper age? No doubt a lad of 16 or 17 years is capable of inflicting cruelty. Well-

  231
  grown girls also are constantly sent out in charge of other children; and it occurred to me that the age of 16 would be a fair compromise of the matter. I would suggest that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division should be accepted—"any person over 16 years of age."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I accept the Amendment, although there have been very serious cases of cruelty by persons under 16 years — such as burning a child against the bars of the fire, and conflicting unheard of cruelties.
  MR. PICTON: I should like to know whether any clause can be inserted by which the parent of the child could ultimately be made responsible?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the hon. Member has not had time to look at the clause which provides for persons who ill-treat, neglect or abandon or expose a child. We could not go further than that we could not have constructive crime; there must be a criminal intention, that is to say, wilfully doing some act which will cause the child to be injured.
  MR. BRUNNER: Are the cases of girls or boys under 16 years when guilty of cruelty provided for in any other way?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly; it would be an aggravated assault.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Other Amendments made.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN*MR. WALTER M'LAREN moved—Clause 1, page 1, leave out "in a manner likely to cause," and insert "in such a manner as to have caused." The reason I do this is that the subsection is the most vital part of the Bill. It is the one which inflicts the heaviest penalties—six months' imprisonment or a possible fine of £100. It is not merely the punishment that follows directly as the result of neglect; but I believe the Attorney General has an Amendment to Clause 3, which one must take in connection with this part of the Bill, Clause 3 giving the penalty attaching to Clause 1. It is to the effect that if any one over the age of 16 years wilfully exposes, neglects, or abandons a child in such a manner as is likely to cause unnecessary suffering, the child may be taken away from that person and
  232
  handed over to some near relative, or whatever person the Court may think suitable. That person shall continue to have control over the child, notwithstanding it may be claimed by its parents. And having taken the child away from its parents, the Court may order the parents to maintain it, although the child is given to the charge by the Court to another person. These are most tremendous powers. They are powers only to be exercised when there is evidence of the injury actually having been done. I really think this House is not likely to agree to any such extreme breach of parental rights. We ought to have it perfectly established, not merely that there are some acts which "are likely to cause unnecessary suffering," but acts committed "in such a manner as to have caused." It is really too much to say that the child is to be taken away from the control of the parents, and given to some stranger, merely because some other person, some elder brother or sister over 16 years of age, treated it in such a way as likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. I cannot really conceive that the House desires to see such a law as that. I beg to move this Amendment, and I earnestly hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accepting it.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out "in a manner likely to cause," and insert "in such a manner as to be caused."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it is not desirable on this clause to discuss the principle of how far the guardianship of the child should be interfered with. That is a matter, when we come to-the clause dealing with it, which will require very careful consideration on its merits. I agree that it is desirable that you should see there is substantial evidence of the offence before it is made the ground of a criminal prosecution. But I think the Amendment goes too far, because "in such a manner as to have caused," implies some injury to the child. I also think that word "likely" rather vague, and I would suggest "in such a manner as to cause." That would be a fair compromise.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I could not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend because this Bill is one to prevent cruelty to children, whereas according to this Amendment the Act need not come into operation until the act of cruelty had been done. Now, the Attorney General suggests words which, he thinks, would meet the case. I have great respect for anything that comes from him on a legal question, but the clause was drawn having reference to the very words of our Act, the Act of 31st and 32nd Vic.
  MR. M'LAREN: I should be glad to accept the suggestion of the Attorney General. It is quite impossible to my mind to dissociate the proposed penalty from the proposed offence, and to say that the child shall be taken away from its parents altogether. I will therefore gladly accept the modification proposed by the Attorney General.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: According to the Amendment crime must be actually committed before any punishment can be imposed. The Bill contemplates prevention of the crime, and surely our desire should be to prevent the improper treatment of children without waiting first to see if the child will be injured by that treatment.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think I can accept the Amendment. Possibly it would be better to leave the matter as it stands, and I will consider it between this and the Report stage; unless indeed some hon. Member is prepared at once to suggest a form of words which will meet the difficulty.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am much obliged to the Attorney General for his suggestion, and I hope my hon. Friend will consent to let the matter stand over. I find in another Act the words used are "Likely to be permanently injured."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: But I think you will find in that case that there are some words preceding which limit the operation.
  MR. M'LAREN: I withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be considered between this and the Report stage.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out "unnecessary," and insert "unjustifiable."
  MR. KELLY: I propose by this Amendment to alter the word "unnecessary." I cannot disguise from myself the fact that this Bill when it becomes law, as I hope it may do shortly, will have to be interpreted all over the country, and the interpretation in different parts will vary considerably Now I think it would be better to substitute the word "unjustifiable" for "unnecessary." Everybody would understand that word, and without further preface I will move the Amendment to that effect.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Surely the very-fact of showing that the suffering is unnecessary will make it unjustifiable.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the word "unjustifiable" would be an unfortunate one to introduce, and seeing that the clause is aimed at the offence of wilfully ill-treating and abandoning or exposing a child I think the insertion of the word "unjustifiable" would almost stultify it.
  MR. KELLY: Although I shall not press my Amendment I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not possible to substitute some other word for "unnecessary," in order to ensure that the object of the section is carried out.
  MR. BRUNNER: The use of the word "unnecessary" in the Cruelty to Animals Act is obviously proper, because we put animals to death for our own benefit. We do not do that with children.
  MR. PICTON: When a child has a tooth pulled out that is necessary pain.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KELLY: I have next to move to insert in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "health," insert—
  "or who, having the charge or care of a child and being in a state of intoxication, treats such child in a manner likely to cause such child grievous bodily harm, or confines or imprisons such child in a manner likely to injuriously affect the health of such child."
  Often a poor wretched woman is seen staggering along the street with a little child in her arms, and unless she is either hopelessly or helplessly intoxicated the position of the police is a difficult one. If he takes her

  235
  into custody, and the act has a sobering effect upon her, he gets a rap over the knuckles from his inspector, whereas if she is drunk he probably gets a rap over the knuckles from the magistrate the next morning. It therefore is a most difficult thing for him to decide whether or not he should arrest a woman for being drunk and incapable. The cases in which women reel about the streets with children a few weeks or a few months old in their arms are very difficult to deal with, and I therefore urge on the Committee to accept the Amendment which stands in my name, and which, I think, will meet this difficulty. Again, there is also the case of shutting a child up in a room. It may be provided with plenty of food, and yet, I submit, that the very act of keeping it incarcerated for a lengthened period would be treating it in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering and injurious to its health. I do not think unnecessary suffering should refer only to physical suffering. A child incarcerated, as I have pointed out, would undergo considerable mental suffering, and therefore I propose to make such detention an offence under this clause.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not think I can accept the Amendment, at any sate as it is drawn. I cannot see, in fact, why the question of the father or mother being in a state of intoxication when in charge of a child should be introduced at all. I do not think that the fact of being intoxicated would be any answer to a charge, supposing it could be shown that the ill-treatment was wilful. Of course, there may be cases in which the unfortunate woman was in such an advanced state of intoxication that it would be impossible to prove wilful intention; but, at the same time, I think it is undesirable to make what I may call a separate offence dependent upon a state of intoxication. With regard to the second part, I admit that undue confinement is likely to injuriously affect the health of a child, but I think the words of the clause are already sufficiently wide to meet such a case.
  MR. BRUNNER: Are we to understand that the case of intoxication is covered by the clause as it stands?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have no doubt of that. I do not think that a person
  236
  guilty of cruelty under the earlier part of the section would not be able to escape punishment by pleading intoxication.
  MR. H. S. CROSS: But supposing that the child actually died from the effects of ill-treatment, caused by a person while under the influence of drink, would not that person be chargeable with the offence of wilful murder?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I should think that if it were proved the child had died, and there was evidence of wilful ill-treatment, intoxication would not be an answer. As I have said before, I can imagine such a case of intoxication as would make it difficult to prove wilful ill-treatment.
  MR. KELLY: I think it would be better if the Amendment were accepted. I cannot see how wilful ill-treatment, including abandoning or exposing a child, can be wholly excluded from the clauses, and then there is the case of shutting up a child in a room although it may be properly supplied with food. What I believe to be a not uncommon case is for a stepmother or a person of that character to entertain particular dislike or hatred towards a particular child, and to shut it up week after week, and month after month, in a room entirely by itself. Now, I fear that this first sub-section would not touch such a case as that, and for that reason, therefore, I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept it. Under the circumstances, I have no choice but to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have to move, in Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out "or who," and insert—
  "Shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof on indictment shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with, or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both; and being convicted thereof by a Court of summary jurisdiction, in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months, or to both. Provided, That, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a person so convicted on indictment was interested in any sum of money accruable or payable in the event of the death of the child, the Court may, in their

  237
  discretion, increase the amount of the said fine so that the fine shall not exceed two hundred pounds."
  MR. KELLY: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that under this Amendment it will be possible to punish persons doubly, and therefore I intend to move the omission of the words "or to both." I invite the Attorney General to explain to the House why he proposes to take this course. I think that in the graver cases there should be no fine at all. If a man is fined £50, and also receives three months' imprisonment, surely it would be unreasonable to impose the fine and yet have no power of enforcing the payment of it. Yet the only means of enforcing it would be by prolonging the imprisonment.
  Amendment proposed, that the words "or to both" be omitted.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is it possible to limit the term of imprisonment in the event of the fine not being paid? Supposing you impose a fine of £50 in addition to a term of three months' imprisonment, it does seem hard that the man should be kept in prison another two years if he is unable to pay the fine.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I will consider that point.
  MR. KELLY: As my hon. and learned Friend undertakes to do that, I will withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. BRUNNER: I wish, before coming to the point with which the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) was dealing, to address a few words to the Committee with regard to the matter of punishment. I should like to convince the Committee, if I could, that the infliction of a punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is about the most awful thing a Judge can do. My study of the matter has led me to the conclusion that two years' imprisonment with hard labour is a sentence which will break down the strongest man and permanently injure his health. It seems unwise of us to inflict a punishment which shall limit a man's or a woman's power of earning a living for the rest of his or her life; and in order
  238
  to bring the matter directly under the notice of the Attorney General, I beg to move the omission of the words "two years" in line 4 of the proposed Amendment, and to substitute the words "one year."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 4, leave out "two years" and insert "one year."—(Mr. Brunner.)
  Question proposed, "That the words two years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. MATTHEWS: I apprehend that the punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is only intended for offences on the verge of manslaughter But do not let the Committee suppose that the old impression with regard to two years' imprisonment is confirmed by modern experience. The hon. Gentleman will find from the last Report of the Prison Commissioners that it is quite a mistake to suppose that under modern prison discipline a sentence of two years' hard labour is dangerous to health and one under which prisoners break down.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: It is quite evident that such a sentence would only be inflicted in very extreme cases, and certainly in such cases there is very little room for consideration for the offender.
  MR. BRUNNER: I know it requires a little courage to move such an Amendment as this, because it exposes one for the moment to the suspicion that he has some tender feeling for those who inflict punishment on children. Having heard from the Home Secretary that under the modern conditions of discipline the sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is no longer so severe as to break down a man for life, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  MR. WHARTON: Having had frequently to inflict the punishment in question, perhaps I may inform the hon. Member that whenever a man shows any sign whatever of breaking down under it, it is the duty of the prison authorities—of the surgeon of the gaol—to report that such is the case, and the man is immediately taken off hard labour. I quite agree that the sentence is very severe; it is one which very few can undergo. Yet I can conceive cases under this Bill where the treatment of a

  239
  child would be most brutal, and where the man or woman inflicting the injury would be strong enough to bear this punishment. In such cases it would be a wrong if such sentences were not inflicted.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "child," insert "and had knowledge that such money was accruing or becoming payable."—(Mr. Kelly.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the matter might well be left to the discretion of the Committee; but if the Committee wish it, I will raise no objection to the insertion of those words.
  MR. MUNDELLA: How can knowledge be proved?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: To prove the scienter, it might be necessary to produce deeds and other documents. To do that there might be great difficulty; indeed, proof of scienter is generally a difficult point.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: I think it is quite desirable in the interest of parents that there should be some limitation such as is proposed.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move the omission of the words "two hundred" in line 14 of the Amendment, in order to insert, "such sum proved to be so accruing and payable." I presume it is intended to take away from the person accused of the crime the pecuniary inducement which is supposed to lead to the crime, by holding out over his head a fear of having committed a crime. We had the other day before a Committee upstairs an alleged case of cruelty to a child in which the interest of the person accused on the death of the child was alleged to be the sum of £2,000. If it be wise to impose a fine at all, I cannot see the wisdom of limiting it to £200.
  Amendment proposed, to omit the words "two hundred pounds," in order to substitute "such sum proved to be so accruing and payable."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I must suggest to the Committee that they should not accept the Amendment. I have the
  240
  authority of many of the Judges for saying that there is no matter which gives them greater anxiety than the decisions they have to come to as to the sentences to be inflicted. The case contemplated by the section is a case where the child is not dead. It seems to me that the Committee should make up its mind as to what is the proper maximum penalty for the Judge to inflict. I think it would be a very serious thing to leave this to the discretion of the Judge. It might possibly involve the taking of an account to see what interest was coming to the child.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not quite understand a portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. He points out that this is a case in which the child has not died. That is so, but the proviso clearly is a proviso with reference to an attempt to cause the death of the child by a person interested in a sum of money accruing on the death of the child. The object of the proviso is to prevent crime by telling the intending criminal—"Although you are entitled, on the death of the child you are charged with ill-treating, to the sum of £2,000, you will gain nothing by your cruelty, because you may be fined the whole amount, and, therefore, honesty is the best policy."
  MR. M'LAREN: I would suggest that instead of leaving out £200, my hon. Friend should add "or such sum as may be proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will do that.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I now move to insert after £200 "or such sum proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, after "£200," to insert "or such sum proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: That cannot be accepted. It seems to me that we ought to make up our minds as to what is a sufficient amount, and not enter into this kind of discussion. The Committee ought to decide, in my opinion, what is the maximum penalty.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Of course, if the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill

  241
  think that these words would cause embarrassment, I will not insist on them.
  MR. DE LISLE: Would it not be possible to insert words providing that in case of the child dying the fine should be imposed?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In that case it might be a much more serious offence.
  MR. KELLY: I think that a man who is interested in the death of a child and behaves cruelly in consequence ought to have some much more severe punishment.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: It seems to me that a fixed money penalty would be very unequal in its operation. This maximum penalty of £200 would, no doubt, be sufficient to take away the temptation to poor people to insure their children's lives, and then treat them with such cruelty as to lead to their death, but it would be no deterrent at all to a person who had insured a child's life for, say, £2,000. Unless, therefore, you are going to say that this most unusual and most terrible crime is confined to the poor, this clause would not meet the case.
  MR. MUNDELLA: My hon. Friend seems to forget that in addition to the fine there is the imprisonment, and that the imprisonment marks the gravity of the offence as well as the fine. I wish at once to say, as the point has been raised, that these offences are not confined to the poor by any means. Some of the very worst cases which have been brought to light have been among the middle classes and among people of wealth.
  MR. M'LAREN: I think after the statement just made by my right hon. Friend we ought to press this matter. If rich people are trying to kill their children for the sake of the money, we had better fine them the whole amount, which they hope to receive on the desired death of their children.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: There is one ground which has not been alluded to and on which I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, and that is that too heavy penalties are apt to defeat their own purpose. If the penalty attaching to the offence were £2,000 in any case, I think the prisoner would too frequently get the benefit of a doubt, and there would consequently be fewer convictions.
  MR. ROWNTREE: I trust the view will not be taken that a fine of £200 is a sort of equivalent for a punishment of two years' imprisonment. That would certainly be a very wrong impression to convey to the country.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: There seems to be a strong feeling on the part of many hon. Members that the sense of the Committee should be taken on this Amendment, and I shall, therefore, go to a division upon it.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided.
  Ayes 78; Noes 135.—(Div. List, No. 145.)
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: I take it the object of this section is simply to meet the case of a man who sends his child out to beg, and I do not understand why you insert the words "actually or under pretence." I may point out that in every case a magistrate to convict must find there has been actual begging or receiving of alms. I cannot but think these words I desire to omit are wholly unnecessary. Even with the omission the sub-section may do an actual injustice, as, for instance, when a child sent out to sell flowers or what not may receive assistance from a person who will not take the article offered for sale. Is that to be an offence for which a parent is to be liable to be dragged through the streets by a policeman; is no consideration to be shown for such a case? As the clause stands no distinction is made between a casual action and conduct that may be considered habitually criminal. I therefore move the omission of the words from "either" to "pretence," and I am not at all certain that in this amended form the clause will not go a great deal further than hon. Members desire.
  Amendment proposed, line 15, to leave out from "either" to "pretence," in line 16.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Nothing is more common in vagrancy that the taking of children into the streets for the purpose of singing, taking part in a performance, or selling some small article, but this being merely a cover for begging. Nothing is more deplorable than to

  243
  see around railway stations, and other parts of our great towns, a number of young children kept out far into the night under the pretence of selling things, and those who have not paid attention to evidence on the point cannot conceive the cruelty with which these children are treated. Only last week, at Nottingham, the Town Clerk remarked how valuable such a measure of this kind would be to check the practice of sending children out begging under the pretence of selling matches and such things, and who are cruelly beaten if they do not bring home a certain amount of money. It is to meet such cases as these that the words are inserted. I hope the Committee will stand by the words as they are. In some boroughs there are special statutes to deal with these things, and Local Authorities are empowered to make regulations to prevent these things being done. Under the recommendations of the Committee of 1882 on Police and Sanitary Clauses this power was given, and every Session clauses carrying out this object are inserted in local Acts. There are such cases as this I heard of at Nottingham, where a brutal drunken father lived upon the money obtained by his three children in this way. Driven from one town—where a clause such as I speak of was in operation—the drunken, worthless father would proceed to another town where there was no such clause in operation, and continue to live on the proceeds of his children obtained under pretext of selling small articles. One of the boys was a cripple, and carried on the shoulders of the other two proved the most useful member of the family in procuring alms.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I would submit to the Committee that though the Amendment cannot be accepted in this form there is a concession the right hon. Gentleman in charge might fairly make in relation to the age of the children. There are many lads of 12 or 13 who, by selling newspapers in the streets, are able to earn a livelihood, and the clause would stop that. But what I especially desire is to address a question to the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella). In 1873 a law was passed by the Italian Parliament forbidding the employment of children in vagrant professions, and
  244
  without troubling the Committee by reading a translation of this law, which I have in my hand, I would ask the Attorney General whether the words of this sub-section prohibiting the employment of any boy under 14 or girl under 16, would touch the case of the Italian padrones in this country? It is clear from the evidence taken last year—I am afraid I may not refer to this year's evidence—that a very large number of children are brought over here from Italy by the padrones. When the law was passed, the Italian Government suggested that if we would co-operate with them they would be able to stop this white slave traffic, as it has been called. They say it is most mischievous to their country, and I have no doubt it is. The Attorney General, no doubt, is aware that some little time after the passing of the law of 1873, there was a correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Italian Government, and the Italian Government made a suggestion that a similar law should be passed here.. The evidence is that these unfortunates, if they do not get ruined entirely, which very often happens, never settle down to any industrial occupation; but when they become sufficiently well off, those who were themselves stolen set themselves to steal other children. I would suggest to the Attorney General that he should look at this Italian Law, and consider how far it is possible to avail ourselves of this Bill, and to introduce a clause to meet the case. The difficulty I suggest is this. First, there is the probability of the procuring being provable against the padrone in this country. I am not sure how far evidence of acts done in Italy could be gone into, but it is certain that it would be difficult to get evidence. It might be difficult to touch the padrone who reaps the profit under the words as they stand; but if the Attorney General thinks them sufficient, I would not suggest an Amendment that would impede the Bill, but would suggest to the right hon. Member for Sheffield and the Attorney General that now we have a Bill of this character before us, it would be well to meet an evil which has been recognized by both the Government of Italy and the Government of this country, and which is the cause of many crimes and of much demoralization. I would press on the Attorney

  245
  General not to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as it would take away the only part of the Bill of service; and next I would press on him whether the whole question could not be considered between this and Report.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton affords a strong argument against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell; but before I deal with that I would say that the hon. Member seems to have overlooked the words "causes and procures." If the padrone remained in Italy and merely sent the children over here, he would not come under the English Criminal Law at all.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I refer to the padrone resident sent here.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: He may have procured the children in Italy; but the word "causes" would cover the continuous act of obtaining the child in Italy and sending him into the street in this country. If there are cases such as those the hon. Member speaks of there is a strong argument for keeping the words in the Bill. If a man procures children for money from their parents and sends them out under colourable employment begging the words should remain as they are. If they are still considered insufficient I will look into the matter before Report.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The children are collected not by the padrone but by others, and the padrone lodges them and provides them with instruments, which are falsely called "musical," which they use in the streets. But there is no evidence to be obtained from any one but the children to prove that the padrone induces them to go into the streets. The children seem to like this life, as they obtain money more easily than they do in their own country. It is a little doubtful whether it comes within the clause at all.
  MR. WHARTON: Might not the words be so construed by a well-intentioned magistrate as really to defeat some of the principal objects that the framers of the Bill have in view? It appears to me that the words of the section are dangerous. A child may go into the street with newspapers or something else to sell
  246
  with the most honest intention. If it become a misdemeanour on the part of the parent to allow such a thing it may be a great hardship. I know that such is not the intention of the framers of the Bill, and I want the hon. and learned Attorney General to see that the words are so altered as to prevent this injustice.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: If I thought the clause open to the construction put upon it by the hon. Member for Ripon I should oppose it as strongly as possible. I have already expressed an opinion very strongly on the question of children being allowed to sell, and I did not expect the present question to be raised at this point. I knew that a substantial discussion on the subject would arise on the next sub-section. I understand the clause to deal with the case of a child in the street actually begging or receiving alms, and doing so under the pretence of selling things. The cases put by the right hon. Gentleman ought to be considered, such as those of children outside stations pretending to sell matches, or something else, but begging all the time. Of course, if hon. Members can suggest any phrase that will make the matter clearer I shall be glad.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I put the same construction on the subsection as the hon. and learned Attorney General. The evil which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wharton) wants to guard against seems to me to be entirely dealt with under Sub-section 3. I am not prepared to say that artistically the words are very happily chosen, but I take it that begging or receiving alms governs the whole thing. The hon. Member asks what was the meaning of begging or gathering alms. He is a very experienced magistrate, and I am sure that for many years he has been administering the Vagrancy Act, which contains these words.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think we shall be able to make some improvement in the wording of the clause even before Report. The words "either actually or" seem to me to be awkward, and I would suggest that the clause should be amended so as to read "causes or procures any child, &., to be in any street for the purpose of begging or receiving alms whether under the pretence of singing," &c.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I at once accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  MR. WHARTON: I do not think you will find that in the Vagrancy Act begging or receiving alms is coupled with actually offering for sale. What I call attention to is that here we have offering for sale, which is a legal act, made a penal act.
  MR. M'LAREN: There is this further difficulty—that even under the Amendment of the Attorney General it does not follow that the child would be begging. The child might be bonâ fide offering things for sale, and yet it might be the opinion of the magistrates that it was sent out with the intention of begging. We ought, I think, to guard against leaving it to the magistrates to say what the intention of the parents was, and merely let them decide what the child was actually doing. It would be well to insert after the word sale, the words "while actually begging." This would protect children really selling.
  MR. KELLY: I withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I move to leave out "either actually or" and to insert "whether."
  Amendment to leave out "either actually or," in page 1, line 16, and insert "whether," put, and agreed to.
  MR. M'LAREN: I beg to move the omission of the words "offering anything for sale." As the clause at present stands a policeman might say that although the child was merely offering for sale, he was convinced from what he knew of its parents that it was sent out for the purpose of begging.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out "offering for sale."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think we ought not to anticipate the discussion of Subsection 3. I do not think the hon. Member need be under any misapprehension on this point.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section 2, to insert the words "or otherwise," instead of" or other pretence."
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to move to leave out from "or offering," in line 23, to "profit," in line 24. Unless it was intended to drive hundreds of poor people into the workhouse or the gaol I cannot understand how this sub-section was framed in this way. It provides that any person or persons who procures or procure a child to be in any street between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., during the six winter months, for the purpose of offering anything for sale or for any other purpose, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. I cannot help remarking that those who framed this sub-section can know very little of the poor. To prohibit children between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. in summer, and between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. in winter, from offering things for sale would be a cruel blow to the honest poor and an advantage to the bad poor. The sub-section would prevent poor people from getting a drop of milk for their breakfasts. The milkman has to send his boys out as early as 5.30 for delivery to his customers, and it would be monstrous to send the father or mother of such boys to prison for six months for doing what the necessities of the business requires. It is hard on a father or on a poor widow who has made every sacrifice for her boy till he is 13, to be deprived of his help in eking out a scanty livelihood. A boy would not be able to sell newspapers in the streets after 7 o'clock under this Bill. I will read you part of a letter written to a Member of this House by a woman who, I am sorry to say, is a bitter Radical, but who, at any rate, has some knowledge of this sort of thing. This is what the writer says:—
  "I am 31 years of age, and commenced to work on September 9, 1868, being in the streets to fetch the papers I sold as often as early as 5.30, and as late as 10 p.m. But it was necessary I should so work; for although, like thousands of poor women, my mother herself worked 15, 16, and sometimes 18 hours daily, her earnings were not sufficient to keep our home together, and so far from feeling I was hardly dealt with, I felt very proud when on Saturday evenings I used to stand in front of our little four-roomed cottage and know that it was my earnings that made it our home."
  This is no uncommon case. In the poorer districts of Walworth and the East of London there are scores of cases in which boys, by their work in the streets in the mornings and evenings, are keeping their homes together. There

  249
  is in this neighbourhood a poor little cripple who is a shoe-black. It is about the only occupation the poor lad could follow. On what principle is he and are others like him to be prevented from working? I hesitate to believe that the House can ever think of passing a clause of this character, which would be of the greatest possible advantage to the bad poor and of the greatest disadvantage to the honest poor. Let me give another instance. I will take the case of a costermonger. I know a good many costermongers—in fact, I represent them. It is true that they have no homes, but they have votes. I know something of their habits; they may be rough and sometimes drunken fellows, but they are not bad on the whole, and I would ask how does this clause affect the man who writes:—
  "My boy has passed the Sixth Standard; I want nothing of him except one night in the week, when it is necessary that I should have him."
  Does any hon. Member here know the habits of the costermonger, the better class of whom is the man who sells flowers and fruit in a cart or barrow, and who has an animal—perhaps a donkey, or, it may be a pony—to draw it about, it being necessary that there should be some one to look after the animal while he is selling his wares. It is requisite that he should have a boy to lead the animal about, and for this purpose he only needs assistance one or two days in the week. Again, let us take the case of the lower class of costermongers—the man who does not hawk his goods about, but has a stationary barrow. This man cannot get on without help, and it may be that while his boy of 13 is selling papers, his girl stands and solicits passers by to purchase vegetables, and the mother is at the back preparing the vegetables for sale. Why should it be assumed that this sort of light labour does so much harm to the children? Can it be such a terrible thing for a boy to be kept up until 11 or 12 for one night in the week? If this were habitual, it would doubtless be worse for young people and their morals; but I venture to think that a girl of 15 might be out in the streets at night under more dangerous circumstances than when assisting her parents to earn the family living. Indeed, so far from
  250
  its being any hardship for the children to help their parents on a Saturday night up to a late hour, it is one of the greatest pleasures of their lives. I do not wish to overload the case I have made out on behalf of my Amendment, which is that the words "offering anything for sale, or any other purpose of profit," be omitted from the clause. Hon. Members will notice that the clause refers to "any street," and there is a definition of the word "street" in the 8th clause, so that it is obvious that by keeping out of any street a man may keep his children out selling goods to a very late hour. Therefore, if any one will let a boy or girl stand inside any place along the street the clause may be easily evaded. To my mind there is no question that under this clause as it stands the greatest injustice would be done to the honest and hard-working poor, the meaning of the words I propose to omit being that not only will a boy under 14 be prevented from selling anything in the streets before seven, but according to the phrase, "or any other purpose of profit," he would not be allowed even to black a pair of boots where payment was involved. I beg, Mr. Courtney, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words from the word "profit" to the word "between," in line 24.—(Mr. John Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or offering anything' stand part of the clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: After the speech just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will only detain the House for two or three minutes by the reply I shall offer. The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the position of the poor, and has insinuated that if I and other hon. Members of this House were better acquainted with the habits and occupations of the poor we should have more sympathy with them, and, therefore, would not support this clause, Now, although I do not like to obtrude my own experiences too much upon the House, I very much doubt whether there is any hon. Member who began work as early as I did, my labour having been commenced at the age of nine and a half years; consequently, I think, there are very few who can have the

  251
  same acquaintance with the necessities of the poor in regard to the employment of their children. I may also say that I should be the very last Member of this House to put any limitation on the training of the children of the poor to habits of industry, and the duty of assisting their parents to the utmost of their power; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to this clause and says it will drive boys from their employment, and fill the workhouses, and prevent milk being delivered before seven o'clock in the morning, I am surprised that a Member of the learned profession should have made such a mistake. The clause will not prevent the delivery of any article before seven in the morning; but it will prevent hawking and offering for sale before that hour.
  MR. KELLY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the poor order their milk?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The milk is delivered. I would point out that the Attorney General proposes to extend the hours in which children may be employed, and I am to some extent prepared to meet him. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know that there are local Acts authorizing the very same powers as are here proposed in various boroughs throughout the country. In the year 1882 a Committee of this House presided over by Lord Basing—then Mr. Sclater-Booth—considered the matter, and reported that the clause for the protection of children against being sent out to hawk newspapers and other things in the streets was taken from the Scotch Education Act, and was working well in Scotland, where it is in operation now, and the Committee drew a model clause which they recommended should be inserted in the Bills applicable to the different boroughs throughout the country. The result has been that during this Session, Swansea, Norwich, Stockton-on-Tees, Cheltenham, and other boroughs have adopted these powers. In the Swansea Bill it is enacted that no child of the age of 13 shall be employed in any casual employment before eight in the morning and after six at night in the summer, or between eight at night and six in the morning in the winter months, casual employment being defined as "any purpose of gain, or vending or exposing for sale
  252
  any article." It also defines employment by enacting that parents sending children into the streets for purposes of gain shall be deemed to have taken such children into their employment. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how does he account for the fact that 86 of the principal boroughs in the United Kingdom have petitioned in favour of this Bill, and that a number of Corporations, that of my own constituency included, are most anxious that it should be passed? The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that children under 14 would be deprived of employment——
  MR. KELLY: I would begin at 12.
  MR. MUNDELLA: It would be better to begin at 13. Under the Workshops and Factories Act the employment of children is limited, and if this is so in workshops and factories why is it that the hours from six in the morning till 9 or 10 at night are not sufficient for children selling articles in the streets. I am certain of this—that there is not a shadow of pretence for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about interference with the poor. In Newcastle there are more than 700 children employed in the streets, every one of whom has been traced to his home, the result being to prove that it is not poverty—not honest poverty—which exposes them from five in the morning till 10 or 11 o'clock at night, but in 99 cases out of 100 rather the drunkenness and depravity of the parents. It is to save these children from the cruel consequences of moral evil and physical disease, and from, being brought up in a weak and miserable condition, because cruel and unnatural parents are allowed to live by their exposure, that we ask for this Bill. Is there any reason why children should be kept up selling daily papers in the streets after nine at night? Is not that hour late enough? But the Attorney General proposes that it should be 10 o'clock; and I put it to the House, do hon. Members think that children of tender age should be exposed in the streets after 10 at night? I do not care so much about the morning; if seven is not early enough in winter begin at six, and if six is not early enough in summer make it five; but with regard to the night time, it is not only the evil done to the boys, but it

  253
  is the temptation to the girls that has to be guarded against. It is strange, ii the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that so many boroughs should be asking for these powers and obtaining them it special improvement Acts. What is wanted is uniformity of the law. Why should these powers be given in some cases and not in others? As it is, there is an inducement for parents to take their children from towns where these powers exist to others where they are not in force, and therefore it would be for the general benefit of the country to make them uniform. They have been in operation throughout Scotland for the last 10 or 11 years, and every year lately we have passed a number of Acts conferring such powers on different localities; and I trust that in consequence of the fervid and imaginative appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has not had the experience I have had, this House will not hesitate in endorsing what this Bill proposes for the benefit of the rising generation. I constantly hear both from foreigners and Englishmen who have been travelling abroad that they are utterly ashamed of the exceptional degradation of children to be witnessed in the large towns of England; and I could, if necessary, quote statutes which are in force in all parts of Europe, under the operation of which anything so bad as is to be found in our English towns is entirely prevented.
  MR. GEDGE: I am not in favour of the Amendment before the Committee, and I hope the clause will be passed with the Attorney General's Amendments. I think the Committee has been unintentionally misled as to the effect of the model orders referred to and the Act already in operation, for these make exceptions in favour of children under 14 who have obtained certificates that they can read and write and have an elementary knowledge of arithmetic.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The model clauses which were at first drawn restricted the employment of children to those under 14 or who had passed the 5th Standard, and the Scotch law provides that no child shall be employed at the hours named until he has passed that standard, or attained the age of 14; but the model clauses have since been amended.
  MR. H. J. WILSONI should like to point out that the enactments to which the right hon. Member (Mr. Mundella) has referred, deal with casual employment only, and apply to much younger children. But we are now asked to forbid regular work, if in the street, for any purpose of profit. The definition clause says a "street" is a highway. This strikes at vary many proper employments. For instance, it will prevent a farmer's boy from driving a cow on the road before seven in the morning. I should be glad of some explanation on this subject, as I think there must be some misunderstanding upon it, or I have entirely misread the clause.
  MR. PICTON: I think there must be some misunderstanding as to the precise meaning of this clause. We are not now discussing any matter of detail, but the omission of a whole passage, and I hope the Committee will not agree to so sweeping an Amendment as this. I hope, however, the clause may be amended by provisions as to particular times of the day, and also with regard to public streets. In ten of our largest towns of England—namely, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hull, and Swansea, there were recently in operation bylaws containing powers very similar to those provided by this clause. It is true the ages are slightly different, but the general scope of the by-laws is precisely similar to what is here proposed. In Liverpool no child under the age of nine years might sell or offer for sale any article whatever in any of the streets or other places, and no child under 13 might offer goods for sale between nine in the evening and sunrise of the following day. There was a case raised in the higher Courts of Law in 1887, in which it was ruled that the powers given to these boroughs of which I have spoken were conferred only for the regulation of the street traffic, and that these by-laws were therefore ultra vires. But the existence of these by-laws for some time showed that they were supported by public opinion. I believe that the only inconvenience created by the exercise of such powers is that which is felt by those who ought to suffer inconvenience,—namely, the dissolute parents who seek

  255
  to live by the work of their children. This House ought to be careful not to encourage such a subversion of the relations between parents and children as this. We continually hear of appeals made to magistrates to allow men and women thus to take advantage of the labour of their children; and although there may be differences of opinion as to the age at which children may be employed, this House ought, at all events, to lay down the rule that it is the parents who should maintain their children, and not the children who should maintain the parents.
  MR. J. MACLEAN: I think there is a danger which this House incurs—namely that out of mere tenderheartedness, when measures of this kind are brought before us by well meaning Members, we may be induced to agree to legislation which will inflict greater cruelty on children than the legislation is intended to suppress. It has struck me as singular that no one—not even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—has suggested what is to become of the children now employed in the streets when they are cleared out of the public thoroughfares and prevented from earning what little money they now obtain. Suppose the parents are frightened by this Bill, if it become law, and should not send their children into the streets during the prohibited hours, the result will be that the children will be kept at home, and the idle and dissolute parents who will not be receiving money from them will treat them more cruelly than is the case now. It is, generally speaking, only on account of the money they earn that they receive any kind treatment at all, and as a rule the children are much better off in the streets, where many of them show that they are honestly disposed by the diligence with which they try to earn money, than they would be in the wretchedness and squalor of their parents' home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) has told us that he himself began to work very early as a child and that he worked very hard, and the right hon. Gentleman is not a bad example of the results of such a training; but it is impossible to disguise the fact that there is a great deal of danger to be apprehended from the overstrain-
  256
  ing of philanthropic sentiment which we see in so many measures that are brought before this House. For my part, I shall vote not only for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, but against the clause altogether, as it seems to me to be a perfectly unnecessary interference with freedom of trade and with individualism in this country.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I only rise to point out that the Amendment is unfortunately framed. I think, however, that this clause requires careful consideration, because as it stands it would not effect the object desired. The words "or for any other purpose of profit" ought to be considered separately. At present I do not see what useful purpose those words can serve. With regard to offering for sale, we ought to consider whether there is a necessity for children being employed between 10 at night and 5 in the morning. If there is a necessity, I do not think we ought to take away the power at present possessed by parents. My own opinion is that there is no such necessity. It might be, however, that this matter is one which must be considered locally.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think that this Amendment raises a question of principle as well as a question of detail, and we must not confuse one with the other. We must not mix up our objections to the principle by looking into the details of the proposal. The Attorney General asked us whether there was any grave necessity for prohibiting children selling at this time of night. I think the best proof we have of this is that a large number of the principal towns of England have passed bye-laws prohibiting sales by children in the streets during certain hours. These bye-laws were held to be ultra vires, and then, when various municipalities came to Parliament to ask for powers to enforce them a Committee, under the presidency of a gentleman who would not be led away by sentimental opinions, and who is, a thoroughly sound and practical statesman, of great experience in the administration of the Poor Law—I refer to Mr. Sclater-Booth, now Lord Basing—recommended that towns should be allowed to insert prohibitory clauses against the casual employment of children. As a rule, the casual employ-

  257
  ment of children is prohibited between the hours of ten at night and six in the morning in summer, and eight at night and six in the morning in winter. Now, I should like at once to point out the question of principle which is involved in this matter. I deny the right of any parent to live upon his child. I deny the right of any father or mother to live upon the earnings of a little child, whatever the consequences to the individual or to the community, and that the community has a higher interest to be gained by putting down the existing system. It is not the industrious parent who will be affected by this Bill, it is the worthless, drunken, dissolute parents who live upon the earnings of their little children. Some people object to the ages which it is proposed to fix. Now that is a question of detail, and I am not prepared to express any opinion upon details. But the principle is that no parent should be allowed to live on the earnings of his child. I say that this House has for a long succession of years claimed for itself the right to limit the hours of labour of children. I do not know whether hon. Members have read their newspapers this morning, but if they will look at them they will find a letter written by a distinguished Member of the Government, in which he claims for the party to which he belongs that they advocated restrictions in regard to the labour of children which were embodied in the Factory Acts. If you limit the labour of children in factories to 10 hours why should not you also limit the labour of children hawking in the streets to 14 hours? My right hon. Friend tells us he is prepared to accept the Amendment that a child shall not work more than 14 hours a day in one portion of the year and more than 12 during another portion. If you admit the principle—a principle which I hope you never will admit—that parents have a right to live upon the earnings of their children, surely 12 hours a day is ample for the children to labour. I hope my hon. Friends who especially represent the interest of labour in this House will defend the interest of the labour of little children. The hon. Member who spoke just now drew a delightful picture of a family party working in the
  258
  streets; of the children cutting up the greens at the back of the stall and the parents selling them, and he told us that these little children found these Saturday night sales of vegetables to be the happiest periods of their lives. There may be some truth in that, but it is an exceptional case. What we really want to deal with is the case of those wretched little children who are sent out into the streets in rain, snow, and cold, at late hours of night, to sell newspapers and matches, and, in fact, to appeal to the humanity of the passersby, who buy of the children because they are fearful that they will be subject to brutal punishment if they go home without having earned a sufficient amount of money to satisfy their dishonest and brutal parents. The thing is how to put a stop to these practices; the hon. Member opposite says it is better for these children to take something home than to be subjected to the cruelty to which they are liable. Perhaps in individual cases that is so; but what we want to do is to strike at the root of the evil, and to put it out of the power of parents to be able to send their children out in order to obtain this money. I reserve entirely my opinion as to details, but I do appeal to the House to lay down the sound principle in this matter, and I quite agree with the suggestion of the Attorney General that it would be unwise to make this a matter of local legislation. Remember that 86 boroughs have petitioned in favour of this legislation. There is no case in which any municipality has petitioned against. If a child is to be protected in Birmingham it should also be protected in Manchester, and if it is to be protected in Manchester it has an equal right to be protected in Sheffield.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I may say at once that I shall be prepared to omit the words "or for any other purpose of profit," as they seem to have a rather ambiguous meaning. When we come to the question of ages and hours I shall be quite prepared to discuss the Amendment of the Attorney General and to debate the point as to whether there should be any prohibition of employment other than the restriction preventing children from working between the hours of ten at night and five in the

  259
  morning. What we desire is that children should not be allowed to work during late hours of night.
  MR. LEES: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton tells us that we are going to divide on a question of principle. Now let us understand what that question of principle is. I believe here presents a great industrial constituency and that thousands of his constituents send little children out to work half time. Are we going to stop this being done? That is exactly the principle involved.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I said that the principle upon which we were going to divide was that of the restriction of the hours of labour for children.
  MR. LEES: I think that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly denied that any parent had the right to live on the earnings of his children. If the right hon. Gentleman means that no parent has the right, providing he is in good health, to be entirely sustained by his child I heartily agree with him. But that is not the principle which the right hon. Gentleman is laying down. If the parent be a drunken dissolute man, he should certainly be prevented from sending out his child in order to obtain money on which the family may live. But I think a great hardship would be inflicted in the case of a man who is doing his best to maintain his family if he is prevented sending out, say a strapping lad of 13 who has passed the School Board Standard, to help to contribute to the weekly wages.
  SIR. R. TEMPLE: I think I ought to say a word or two on this subject of street sales by children. The House may be aware that the children of London are now earning thousands, aye, tens of thousands of pounds every year by a little work done out of school hours, and the School Board of London is now encouraging these children to put their earnings into savings banks. Indeed, these banks have some tens of thousands of pounds earned by children and deposited in this way. The real question is that they should not pursue this calling too late at night or too early in the morning. I submit to the House that under the clause of the Bill now under discussion a fair allowance of that kind is given. Under this clause a child may, on leaving school, take his little tea—
  260
  though I fear he seldom gets such refreshment—and then work for two or three hours, and then take supper before he goes to bed. Again, he may work for two or three hours in the morning before going to school at nine. That is as much as a child ought to do out of school hours consistently with a fair share of rest at night. And therefore the only question is whether the hours of restriction should be, say from eight at night to five in the morning, or nine at night to six in the morning, with an average of nine hours for rest. I must say I think there is great force in what has been said by the right hon. Mover of the Bill (Mr. Mundella). He said these children had better work early 'in the morning than late at night. If it is thought desirable that children should be up between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning, then the hours beyond which they should be restricted from selling in the streets should be from 7 to 8 in the evening. These are, of course, matters more or less of detail, and I do not for my own part see why such matters should not be settled by bye-laws fixed by the localities in which the law will operate. At the same time, with due regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the one hand, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham on the other hand, I desire to give a general support to the principles so ably explained and so eloquently enforced by the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill.
  MR. WALTER JAMES: I should like to ask why premises licensed according to law for public entertainments have been omitted from the operation of the clause. For unless children——
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. W. A. HUNTER: I wish to raise the question already alluded to by my right bon. Friend the Member for Sheffield with reference to the law as it now exists in Scotland. The existing law in Scotland was settled very carefully after much consideration in the year 1878; and, I believe, the public will be surprised to learn that acts which are expressly authorized by the Scotch Act of 1878 would, if committed under this Bill, constitute misdemeanour, punishable by six months'

  261
  imprisonment. The Scotch Act differs in several important particulars from this Bill, and I shall have great difficulty in voting with the right hon. Gentleman unless I receive an assurance that he will limit the application of the Bill within the four corners of the Act of 1878. Now, this Act places absolute limitation on the employment of children under 10 years of age; between the ages of 10 and 14 there is no limitation with respect to the occasional employment of children who hold the certificate of elementary education. The Bill of my right hon. Friend entirely does away with that most important provision, and I cannot vote for it, unless I receive an assurance that he will be prepared to limit the operation of the Bill in a manner consistently with the Act of 1878. If he is not prepared to do that, I am afraid the Scotch Members will be obliged to oppose the Bill. There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. In the Scotch Bill there is no provision made with regard to the hour of labour in the morning, and I think it is quite sufficient that the provision should be confined to fixing the hour, after which children shall not be allowed to labour at night.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite raises the question of whether there shall be any restriction at all, and that is a point on which we are about to divide. Now I am strongly in favour of making a restriction within certain degrees upon hours, therefore I shall vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member. It is very difficult indeed to fix hours which are suitable for all places, and I would ask the right bon. Gentleman and the Attorney General to consider whether it might not be possible having determined that the sales shall be limited to certain hours to give the Local Authorities power to fix the hours within their respective districts. It would be possible to introduce into the clause such a provision, and to add a definition clause describing what the Local Authority is to be in particular places.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I may point out that it would be somewhat difficult to insert in this Bill a provision giving Local Authorities such powers
  262
  as are suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, for it would require that the Bill should be re-cast and that might endanger its being carried into law this Session. But if the House agree that the hours of labour should be restricted and that children should not be allowed to work between the hours of 10 at night and five in the morning it might be possible to insert in the Bill a proviso to enable the Local Authorities to extend these words if necessary, and that would meet exceptional cases.
  MR. BARTLEY: The right hon. Gentleman said that we were going to divide on the Question whether or not we shall restrict the hours of labour which children may work in the streets. I venture to say that this is not the case. The real fact is, that the children assist their parents in the streets of an evening, and especially on Saturday nights during the few hours when the poorer classes especially do their trade. If you restrict them to any particular hour you do away with a source of employment to the parents in the street during the only time when they can earn money. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield that the early morning is a better time for working than the evening. But we find unfortunately that the poorer classes do their shopping in the evening, and if we prevent children from being employed after 10 on Saturday night, I fear you will inflict a great hardship on the poorer parents. The evil is shopping at late hours; but still the fact remains, however much it is to be regretted. And I repeat that, if you suddenly or unreasonably interfere with the habits of the people, you will lay a great hardship on a number of them.
  MR. AMBROSE: I think the issue before the House is not so much whether or not restrictions should be placed on the employment of children, but whether the parents of the children, who might be employed during prohibited hours, are to be converted into criminals; because offences against the Act will be punishable with a heavy fine or long imprisonment. I accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that no man has a right to live on his child; but on the other hand, if the child is able to earn a little

  263
  money he should have the right to do so if he chose.
  MR. W. H. JAMES: I think it is exceedingly difficult to define the principle on which we are going to vote. You have excluded from the operation of this clause children not employed in the streets, but, for my part, I think there are many painful exhibitions in which children are engaged in places of public amusement in our large towns, and I think their case requires dealing with. Now, I represent one of the most prolific boroughs in the North of England. You find philanthropic and kindly people are horrified by these poor children scantily clad selling in the streets these small articles. I think it is better that these mothers should be dealt with by local legislation rather than by one general statute.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: The prohibition which the Committee is about to pass will be a total prohibition of children offering things for sale during certain hours.
  MR. MUNDELLA: During the night.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: But there are many cases in which a child's labour is really necessary for the support of the family. It is not a question, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says, whether the child is to support the parent, but whether the work of the child in selling in the street is necessary to help the father in case, for instance, of sickness. What I wish to see done is to stop dissolute parents from using their children to beg and sell for them, but not to interfere with those genuine cases where a child's labour in the streets is really needed to keep up a home.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 146.)
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The object of the Amendment I now move is to fix the prohibited hours at from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. in the summer and 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. in winter, instead of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. in summer and 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. in winter as they stand in the Bill. Assuming that the Committee are disposed to accept the Amendment, I will undertake that there shall be a proviso inserted, giving power to Local Authorities to alter the hours within those limits
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 24, leave out 9, and insert 10.—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That '9' stand part of the Bill."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I readily assent to the Amendment on the understanding that some proviso is drawn up subsequently which shall allow the Local Authorities to work within the limits specified.
  MR. KELLY: Do I understand that we shall have clauses inserted in the Bill which will give Local Authorities absolute power to work within the limits of these hours or to work irrespective of these hours? Ten o'clock in London on a Saturday night, for instance, is not sufficiently late. If it is a wet night, I venture to say that children sell far more after 10 o'clock than before. We have no wish that the poor children should work a long number of hours. We should be very glad if you limited the number of hours worked to four or five, but we think children should have liberty to work at the particular time when their work is most profitable. If I am to understand that a hard-and-fast limit is to be made, my only course will be to move the rejection of the clause. It is not for me to say what is the utmost the poor people require; I do not profess to have exact knowledge of the poor; but I want the Local Authorities to have power to vary the hours according to the varying circumstances of localities, and nothing more nor less will satisfy the requirements of the poor. It is most lamentable that the people of London have got in the habit that they cannot go out and buy their goods at a reasonable hour. In such neighbourhoods as Walworth and Old Kent Road the main part of the buying and selling by the poor people is unfortunately done on a Saturday night after 10 o'clock, and therefore do not let us have a cast-iron rule which will prevent a child working one minute after that particular hour.
  MR. ISAACS: Following up the argument of my hon. Friend, I would suggest the desirability of postponing the further consideration of this clause until we see the proviso it is proposed to insert. I cannot help thinking that if the Bill passes without some reference to the special localities in

  265
  which these trades are carried on, a large amount of hardship will be inflicted. It is only due to the Committee they should have all the facts in their possession before they are asked to legislate. I regard this clause as the crux of the Bill, and accordingly I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  MR. MUNDELLA: At this hour (5.20) I cannot oppose the Motion to report Progress, but I think we might put in the hours and bring up the proviso afterwards.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: As the Amendments I have proposed are in favour of limiting the hours, we could not do any harm by accepting them. Certainly the discussion on the proviso would not be prejudiced by the acceptance of the Amendment.
  SIR R. LETHBRIDGE: Before we proceed to decide this point I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, if the hours he has proposed be adopted, it would be possible to extend the hours on a Saturday, for instance, from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock, in any given locality. In my own borough there is a considerable market held in a very important street till 12 o'clock every Saturday night. A great deal of selling and buying goes on between the hours of 10 and 12. I am undoubtedly in favour generally of the opinions that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). I think restrictions are necessary, but there are exceptional cases in which I should like to see exceptional rules laid down.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I am in favour of the general principle of this Bill, but I feel there is considerable force in the suggestions that have been made with reference to some extension of the hours. I would urge upon the Attorney General that power should be taken to extend the hours on Saturday in London, and on market days in provincial towns.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I desire that ample opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of the proposed proviso. All we are doing at the present
  266
  time is to limit the hours in favour of the views of hon. Gentlemen. It could not affect the discussion of the proviso to accept these amendments.
  MR. ISAACS: The explanation of my hon. and learned Friend does not satisfy me, and I am sure it will not be regarded as satisfactory by the Representatives of Metropolitan constituencies. I, therefore, regret I am not in a position to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: On one point I particularly wish to have a clear understanding with the Attorney General. Would it be possible, if we agree how to fix the hours as a general rule, to insert a proviso to the effect that the hours may be extended on any particular day?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 4.)
  Order read, and Question proposed, "That the Committee on this Bill be deferred to Wednesday next."
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I hope I may be allowed, in the absence of my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill, to express a hope that the Amendments the Government desire to make to this Bill may be set down in time to allow of the discussion being taken on Wednesday. The Bill has already been five weeks before the House.
  SIR W. HART DYKEassented.
  Committee deferred to Wednesday next.

  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS BILL. (No. 37.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and. discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 102.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and. discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS [SALARIES, &.]. (No. 188.)
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Salaries or Remuneration to, and of the expenses incurred by, the Boundary Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, Secretary, Officers, and persons appointed under any Act of the present Session to make Supplementary Provisions for amending the Laws relating to Local Government in Scotland."
  Resolution agreed to.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT [REMUNERATION]. (No. 199.)
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Remuneration to any person who may be directed by the Commissioners in Lunacy to visit a single patient under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Acts relating to Lunatics."
  Resolution agreed to.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (SALARIES, &) (No. 22.)
  Resolution reported:
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a salary of £2,000 a year to the President of the Board of Agriculture, and of such 'Salaries and Remuneration, as the Treasury may determine, to the Secretary, Officers, and Servants of the said Board, and of all expenses incurred by the said Board under any Act of the present Session for establishing a Board of Agriculture for Great Britain."
  Resolution agreed to.

  RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND).
  Ordered, That the Select Committee be reappointed to consider the law relating to the Rating and Valuation of the various kinds of Property subject to Assessment in Scotland, and to report what amendments may be necessary therein.
  Ordered, That the Committee on Rating and Valuation (Scotland) do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of—Mr. Baird, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. Barbour, Mr. Joseph Bolton, Mr. Caldwell, Dr. Cameron, Sir Archibald Campbell, Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. Hugh Elliott, Sir Archibald Orr Ewing, Mr. Hunter, Colonel Malcolm, Mr. M 'Ewan, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Shaw-Stewart, Mr. Mark Stewart, and Mr. Edmund Robertson.
  Ordered, That five be the quorum.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)

  COAL DUTIES (LONDON) ABOLITION BILL. (No. 5.)
  Committee to consist of seven Members; four to be appointed by the House, and three by the Committee of Selection:—Sir Richard Temple, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Lawson, and Mr. Baumann nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records, and in their discretion to hear Counsel on behalf of such persons or Corportions as they decide should appear before them.
  Ordered, That three be the quorum of the Committee.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: In the course of the discussion which took place upon my right hon. Friend's Motion for the suspension of the Standing Order, the hon. and learned Member for Bethnal Green thought that I had not thoroughly fulfilled the pledge I gave to the House on the occasion when the Coal Duties Abolition Bill was read the second time on the 22nd May. Let me call the attention of the House to what actually took place on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of Ways and Means, suggested to the House that instead of refusing the Bill a Second Reading, we should agree to the Second Reading, and then refer the Bill to a Committee which should have "full power to hear what the Corporation has to say, to examine into the debt, and see how far the debt is connected with this particular revenue, and what kind of treatment of the debt is necessary, in honour and good faith, in order to satisfy the first claims of the City of London in respect of the revenue." The right hon. Gentleman suggested that "this course could be followed with perfect justice to all parties, and without raising the questions which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary." At the close of the debate the Leader of the House appealed to me to accept a Committee on the terms laid down, and after I had taken counsel with the right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench in front of me, and my hon. Friends around who supported the Second Reading, I accepted the suggestion, and subsequently drew up the reference to the Committee, carefully adhering, as much as was possible, to the language of the Chairman of Ways and Means. The ques-

  269
  tions embraced in the Resolution are really, what will be the powers of the City of London in the event of the Coal Duties statutory ceasing, as the\ will by the expiration of the public statute on July 5th? It would be the duty of the Committee to consider the manner in which money has been expended, what money has been borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements; and what amount still remains unpaid; and the last point is whether any and what provision should be made in respect to the balance of this debt. I know there is a controversy between hon. Members who represent the outskirts of the City and the representatives of the City itself, as to whether the Corporation are really entitled to anything of the kind, but this is the very question I undertook to refer to the Committee, and upon which undertaking the Second Reading of the Bill was granted. Now the hon. Member for Bethnal Green proposes to limit the Reference to the Committee to the first point of inquiry. I am, as I have said before, most anxious that the Bill should pass into law with the least possible delay, for the present position of things is highly detrimental to the coal trade of the Metropolis. [Cries of "Agreed."] I do not wish to detain the House a single moment longer than necessary. I am advised that the rights that will accrue to the Corporation include 8d. per ton on all coal coming into the Metropolis by the river, and 1s. 3d. per ton upon a great proportion of that coming by rail. So the question we have to decide now is whether these claims of the Corporation should be decided in the House and at once, that, in fact, we should pass the Bill, as suggested by my right hon. Friend behind me, without reference of this subject to the Committee, or whether it should be submitted to the Committee for investigation. I have the honour to move at once the Resolution, the terms of which I have placed on the Paper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire into the amount and character of any Duties in respect of coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London, on the expiration of the Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament; the manner in which the 4d. per ton allocated
  270
  to the Corporation of the City of London by Statute for the Holborn Valley Improvements has been expended; how far any sums of money that were borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements still remain unpaid; and whether, in consequence of the abolition of the said Duties, there should be any, and, if so, what, provision made in the Bill in respect of such debt, if any existing, on the primary security of such Duties."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The Bill to which the Resolution just read refers consists mainly of recitals, the operative part is exceedingly brief. On and from the 5th July next it takes away all rights which the Corporation of the City of London claim to have to tax coal brought into the Metropolis. It has always been the practice when rights are about to be taken away by legislation that there should be an inquiry, by Committee or otherwise, into the nature and extent of those rights; that is a practice founded on reason and equity, and I have no desire to run counter to it. The hon. Baronet and myself are agreed that the Bill may properly and in accordance with precedent be referred to a Committee, but then, obviously, there arises the question, what shall be the Reference? That is an essential matter, although earlier in the day I thought the hon. Baronet endeavoured, rather improperly, to minimise the importance of the difference between us. Obviously the terms of the Reference are important, because you may have a tribunal admirably adapted to decide one question, yet totally unfit to decide another. On one point you may have implicit confidence in that tribunal, and on another point you may have no confidence at all. If there is any objection to be raised it is essential to raise it at the outset, because if persons submit without protest to the arbitrament of a particular tribunal they cannot, when the award has been given, with any decency express their dissent from it. Now, what are the instructions I would propose to give to the Committee?
  "That the Committee have power to inquire into the amount and character of any Duties in respect of Coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London on the expiration of The Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4. c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament."
  Now, can anything be more in accord-

  271
  ance with the previous practice of the House or more fair to the claims put forth on behalf of the Corporation? A little while ago it was vouched for upon legal opinion that on the 5th July the Corporation would be entitled to levy a tax of eightpence per ton upon half of all coal brought into the metropolis by railway. Well, that is a very large order. But what I want to point out is that my Reference will not preclude the Corporation, through their counsel, from putting forward that claim and having it considered by the Committee, or any claim of a similar description. It would be the duty of the Committee to investigate all such claims and make their Report to the House thereon. My proposal is, I believe, strictly in accordance with precedent and equity, and if it errs at all it is on the side of being rather too indulgent towards the Corporation. But the hon. Baronet proposes to empower the Committee to inquire into the manner in which the fourpence per ton allocated to the Corporation for the Holborn Valley Improvement has been expended. Now, I object altogether to the introduction of that topic as being entirely irrelevant to the present question. It is very likely that an inquiry into the expenditure of any department of the Corporation would be interesting and, perhaps, not unfruitful. Through the intervention of my hon. Colleague in the representation of Bethnal Green such an inquiry was made a little while ago; and of the Report that resulted, I will simply say this—that it would be exceedingly amusing if it were not for the discreditable state of affairs disclosed. At the proper time a proposal to inquire into the expenditure of any funds at the disposal of the Corporation would have my warm approval. I daresay there would be some extraordinary revelations even under this head of expenditure. It would be shown, at all events, in connection with the Holborn Valley Improvement, that the Corporation cleared large sites of poor populations then occupying them, and that they allowed these sites to grow green before any use whatever was made of them. Indeed, I do not know whether or not some portions of the lands are even yet unused. But such an inquiry is not relevant to our present
  272
  purpose. Then the hon. Baronet proposes that the Committee should be empowered to consider whether there is any debt now remaining due on account of the Holborn Valley Improvement. Now, I say that we have nothing to do with that debt. The understanding was perfectly clear when provision was made in 1868 that the Coal Duties would absolutely cease and determine this year. It was most distinctly understood that such security as was given by the London Coal Duties would cease on the 5th July next. During the interval the Corporation have enjoyed the honour and glory of having carried out a great undertaking. They have also had what I daresay the Corporation prizes more highly than honour and glory, the management of the funds. If the Corporation have exceeded the amount which was at their disposal, and which they knew to be at their disposal, then the responsibility rests with the Corporation, and the debt resulting must be a charge on the estate of the Corporation; we have nothing to do with it on the present occasion. And now I come to the last part of the Resolution, to which I object even more than to anything that goes before. This part of the Instruction should be read in the light of the Resolution as it originally stood, when the hon. Baronet proposed that inquiry should be directed as to whether the fourpence per ton should be continued for the purpose of the reduction of the debt, and, if so, for what period. These last words were altered by the hon. Baronet with a view to arriving at a compromise of the difference between us, but I think the House will see that substantially the Instruction remains the same as before. What is the vice of these Instructions looked at from the point of view of those who represent the Metropolis in this part of the House? The vice is this—We are asked to refer to a Committee of seven Members of this House the question whether or not the coal of the Metropolis should continue to be taxed by the Corporation. I protest altogether against the re-opening of that question. It has already been decided by the people of the Metropolis through their accredited representatives, the London County Council. If hon. Members opposite will only carry their minds back a few weeks, they will re-

  273
  member that the hon. Baronet, in speaking in support of his Bill, put in the forefront of his speech the fact that the County Council for London had decided against the continuance of the Coal Dues by a majority of 74 to 34. Well, that is a very substantial majority, and a perfectly satisfactory majority, to my mind, and I say this—that this question has been decided by a proper tribunal. I call it a proper tribunal, and I have a warrant for insisting on the word proper for this reason. The question of the taxation of Metropolitan coal, as the House well knows, has been raised repeatedly during the last four, five, or six years, and various Governments—not one Government in particular, not a Conservative Government, or a Liberal Government, but Governments of both complexions of politics—have been urged to pronounce a decided opinion on the question one way or the other. And what has been the invariable reply, both of Liberal and of Conservative Governments? Their reply has been this:—"It is not for us to decide this question. We are bound to wait before doing so, for at present the metropolis has not a representative body through which it can speak. We will not decide the question, but we will wait until Local Government has been given to London, and when Local Government has given to the Metropolis a voice, then we will attend to what that voice says and will act upon it." Is not that substantially the position which has been taken up by successive Governments? Well, Mr. Speaker, we are now in the happy position which that statement looked forward to. We have got a representative body in the metropolis. That representative body has been consulted on this very question, and by a majority of 74 to 34 has decided upon it. I rest upon that decision, and I object entirely to the re-opening of the question. I have something more to add. This proposition of the hon. Baronet not only re-opens the question which has been decided, but besides doing that it refers it to a tribunal, which is, perhaps, of all tribunals the most unsuited to decide the question. I have every respect, and I have no doubt every Member of this House has, for Select Committees for suitable purposes. You
  274
  cannot have a better tribunal in order to investigate legal claims. I doubt whether you can have a fairer or more intelligent tribunal than a Committee of this House; therefore, so far as legal claims of the Corporation are concerned, they might perfectly well be submitted to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard goes beyond that, and talks about the moral claims of the City, and he wishes to submit to a Hybrid Committee of seven persons, not only the legal, but also the moral claims of the Corporation. Well, Sir, perhaps the term "moral claims of the Corporation of the City of London" is a rather contradictory term. At all events, I do protest against the idea that a Hybrid Committee of this House is the proper tribunal to which to submit the moral claims (so called) of the Corporation of the City of London. I said a few months ago it was extremely important if a protest of this kind is to be made that it should be made at the outset, and therefore I make it before this Committee is set up, in order that it may not be said afterwards—"You were willing to take the chance of a favourable decision from this Committee; but now that the Tribunal to which you appealed has given a decision unfavourable to you, you turn upon it, and revile it." I say then, I object altogether in this matter—and I speak with the authority of my hon. Friends, the Representatives for London who sit on this side of the House—we object altogether to what is proposed to be done, and we protest against referring this matter to a tribunal composed of a Select Committee of this House. May I read a line or two on this subject from a letter written by my hon. Friend below me, and published in the Daily News a little while ago, in which he stated the case for the Bill. The passage to which I refer is as follows:—
  "If anything is due to the City, surely it would be wise on the part of those who, like myself, strongly object to the Coal and Wine Dues to secure through the action of a Committee, if not the immediate, at any rate the early termination of these obnoxious duties. The very Reference to the Committee confines its consideration to the sum of fourpence per ton to be charged in lieu of the thirteenpence now levied… Should the Committee recom-

  275
  mend any alteration of my Bill which is in favour of a total and immediate repeal, the hon. Member would be at liberty to defend the Bill as altered, or he could move its rejection on the Third Reading. Certainly it would be open to himself or any of his Colleagues to move such an Amendment, or to propose the rejection of the Bill."
  Quite so. But, Sir, how should we be met? We should be met with the authority of the recommendation of the Select Committee. If you refer this matter to a Select Committee it necessarily follows almost invariably that you mean to be bound by the decision of the Committee. As a rule, of course that is a proper and a reasonable thing; and I say that when we propose this Amendment we shall be met with all the weight and authority of the recommendation made by the Select Committee, and even I, an inexperienced Member of this House, have observed what great authority the House always attaches to the recommendation of such Committees. I can remember within my experience very few occasions—indeed, I do not know whether there have been more than one or two—upon which the House has refused to be guided by the recommendations of a Select Committee. Very well then. I say I meet the hon. Baronet's suggestion by the remark that if we do not make our protest now we shall lose our opportunity, because when we propose to insert any alteration such as the hon. Baronet suggests we might be able to do, we shall be met by the authority of the Select Committee; and I venture to say that the Government, of which Lord Salisbury is the head, would be only too glad to do a good turn for the Corporation of the City of London, under the cover and under the recommendation of a Select Committee of this House. Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to call attention for a minute or two to another remark by the hon. Baronet and to what he has said as to the Holborn Valley Improvement. He stated in the debate on the Bill, "I personally have rather a warm side towards the City of London." We can perfectly understand the position of the hon. Baronet; we can perfectly understand he has a somewhat warm side towards the Corporation of the City of London; and it is because we feel that he must have a warm side that we are now somewhat suspicious of the course which he is taking. We may be
  276
  misjudging his action in this matter; but some people think that the hon. Baronet has acted as a sort of bonnet for the Corporation. I personally do not make that charge; but I remember that when this Bill was before the House for the Second Reading my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundee, who is a high authority on this subject, said he was sorry that this Bill had been brought forward at all. There was really no necessity for it, and it would have been far better to have let sleeping dogs lie. At the time I somewhat dissented from that opinion, and accordingly I voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill. But if we are to have this Bill referred to the Committee with the Instruction to which I am objecting, then I say it would have been infinitely better if this Bill had not been brought forward at all. The hon. Baronet—and this is the last point I shall touch upon.—frightens us, or endeavours to do so, with the legal rights to tax coal of the Corporation, which will accrue after the 5th July. Well, now, Sir, what are those legal rights? On the showing of the hon. Baronet himself they are these:—That the Corporation of the City of London has a right to levy a duty of 15d. per ton on coal which is brought into London by some railways; whereas there is no right at all to levy a tax upon coal which is brought into London by other railways. Mr. Speaker, I think the absurdity of such a position is obvious the moment it is stated, and I should like to see the Corporation of the City of London trying to put a tax upon coal which is brought in—say, for example —by the Midland Company, while they have no power to tax coal brought in by, say, the Great Northern or the North-Western Companies. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is only necessary to state the legal position of the Corporation as it is put before us by the hon. Baronet to show that it would be absolutely impossible for the Corporation of the City of London to act upon those rights which are stated to belong to it. If it attempted to do so, whatever the fate of the duty might be in such a case, I have no doubt whatever as to what the fate of the Corporation itself would be. Fifty years ago [Cries of "Oh!"]—I think hon. Members opposite might hear the conclusion of my sentence. Fifty years

  277
  ago the Corporation of the City of London might have played such pranks as this; but the Corporation of the City of London, if a giant at all, is at present only a toothless giant, and I think I might say it is a moribund giant. I am sorry that this discussion has to take place under circumstances of difficulty which are obviously unsuited for the discussion of the issue, which, to my mind, and to the minds of many of my Colleagues, is so important, but we in this quarter of the House are not responsible for that. The responsibility rests on the Government of the day, and is the result of the Motion which they made at an earlier period in the afternoon. I will not say that they have been guilty of sharp practice, because perhaps sharp practice is not a Parliamentary expression; but I may be permitted to say that the action which they have taken this afternoon is not calculated to promote courteous relations between themselves and hon. Members who sit in this quarter of the House. At all events, I, for one—and I am authorised to speak on behalf of London Members who sit here—I, for one, protest against submitting this question in the form proposed by the hon. Baronet to a Select Committee of this House, on the ground that the question has been already settled by a tribunal to which, by the common consent of Liberal and Conservative Governments, it was to be referred—namely, by a representative body of the whole Metropolis. I protest, therefore, in the first place, against reopening the question at all; and, in the second place, I protest against referring it for decision to a tribunal which has not a single qualification which is proper for the determination of it. Now, owing to the circumstances to which I have referred, I am afraid we shall be beaten to-night, but we shall, at all events, have the satisfaction of feeling that we have made our protest; while the division which will be taken will have this effect—satisfactory, I venture to think, to us who sit in this quarter of the House, both now and hereafter—that it will show who of the Metropolitan Members are on the side of the old and effete Corporation of the City of London, and who are on the side of the body of coal consumers of the Metro-
  278
  polis. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Parliament," in line 5, to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Pickersgill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. FIRTH: I think the position in which the House is placed by this instruction, is one somewhat difficult to understand, and I have been trying to arrive at a conclusion as to where we now are. Remember that during the debate on the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill the measure met with severe, incisive, vigorous, and determined opposition on the part of the City of London, and on the part of some Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House. Since then there has come over the scene a complete transformation. They might very easily have stopped the Bill to which they were so bitterly opposed, but, curiously enough, I find that there is no effort whatever to block it on the part either of the City of hon. Gentlemen opposite who opposed it so strongly during the Second Reading debate. In that state of things we are led of necessity to look somewhat closely into what can possibly be the cause of this complete change of front, and I think the cause is to be found in this instruction. I do not absolutely suggest that the hon. Baronet has gone into the camp, of what I may, without offence, call the enemy, for his instruction; but, looking at the language, I certainly should not be astonished to find that it was drafted in a City office.
  SIR J. PEASE: No, no. I drafted it myself.
  MR. FIRTH: Of course I accept the hon. Baronet's disclaimer, but there are peculiarities about the instruction which are very remarkable. My hon. Friend who last spoke has pointed out that the latter part of the instruction has no reference to the Bill at all, but is quite irrelevant to it. What is the object of

  279
  the Bill? It is to abolish the rights given by two charters — the second charter is not mentioned—the rights given by the first and third charters, of James I., and any prescriptive rights upon which those charters were based. Now, this fourpence per ton, allocated to the City by statute, has nothing whatever to do with that, because the Act of 1868—or the Act which gave power to continue the fourpenny dues for twenty years—for the Holborn Valley Improvement, said nothing about the prescriptive duties, and it does not deal with them. And I do not see how that question can now be brought into the discussion unless, indeed, there is a hidden idea that out of the action of this Committee the Statutory Coal Dues, which have been condemned by every Government for the last 15 years, will once again for some reason be reenacted, and perhaps in that is to be found the reason for this remarkable abstention from opposition on the part of those who recently so vigorously opposed it. I am endeavouring to ascertain what the situation is in order to decide what course should be taken. I venture to say that the question of how far any sums borrowed for the purposes of the Holborn Valley Improvement still remain unpaid, has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, unless indeed the money was borrowed on the strength of the dues enforced by the Bill. Does anybody believe—is there the slightest evidence to show—and since my hon. Friend's Bill was introduced we have had an opportunity of going into the matter—that anybody advanced money in connection with the Holborn Valley Improvement on the strength of the charter rights exercised before the Statutory Coal Dues were imposed. Now this Instruction may refer either to the prescriptive or charter duties, or it may mean the statutory duties, but we have no evidence at any rate that any money was borrowed on the primary security of those duties which the Bill deals with. I should, therefore, think that the correct Instruction in connection with the Bill would have been with respect
  280
  to the dues which the Bill proposes to abolish. It is quite true that I said on a former occasion, I thought it would have been better if my hon. Friend had let sleeping dogs lie. It could not be expected that the House would abolish any really valuable existing right without dealing with the question of compensation, and if this Instruction had simply been to refer the matter to a Committee to consider whether any and what compensation should be given for the abolition of the duties, this difficulty would not have arisen. But at the same time, we should have had the other difficulty to which my hon. Friend draws attention—namely, this tribunal is not one which, with all respect for it, may be properly considered as able to deal with an extremely difficult and intricate question of law, such as arises under it. I should be perfectly content if we had left the City to have exercised whatever rights they thought fit on the 5th July next, and I will just point out before sitting down what the position of the London Council will be with respect to it. I think the Reference to the Committee says that the Committee may give consent to persons to appear by counsel, but I apprehend that the London County Council will have no right to appear. We should not be appearing to oppose the Bill, and whether we could appear to support it, having regard to this Instruction, is a very doubtful question. If you refer to this Committee what is practically a power of inserting in the Bill a clause renewing the coal tax, you would do so without allowing us to appear, or enabling us to appear on behalf of those people who may have to pay the tax. I submit that that is not a position in which you ought to place a responsible body, and, above all, it is not a position in which you ought to place this body which represents the whole of the London area. Supposing that it is inserted in your Bill, and supposing that it is decided that the coal tax shall be renewed, and that a Bill brought in to abolish the Charter Dues should renew the statutory tax, the question which you have before you as to the Coal Dues, does not arise, and the people will simply have to pay and pay without being heard. I should have thought that the matter

  281
  might have been left where it was, and it might have been left with the tribunal best fitted to decide it—namely, a Court of Law, and if it were necessary to refer it to a Committee, I certainly think that the deliberations of that Committee ought to have been confined to matters directly germane to the scope of the inquiry, leaving a Court of Law to decide all legal points. Under these circumstances I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green should receive support.
  MR. J. STUART: The main point for us to consider at this moment is that the City of London is going by this Special or Select Committee to have the power given to it to tax the whole Metropolis for the sake of one square mile, and to raise money on a necessary of life used in an area of 700 square miles. I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, and I believe many hon. Members would not have voted for the Second Reading had they known what were to be the terms of the Reference. I feel confident that if this Bill does not pass now it will pass before very long, and I do not think it right to interfere between the realization of the clearly expressed desire of the body representing London by a Select Committee most irregularly thrust upon us.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I desire strongly to support the position taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green. I think we have a just right to complain of the very peculiar position in which the Members for London have been placed this afternoon by the action of the Government. But they know they have a case which will not bear discussing, and that the more publicity that is given to it the weaker will it appear to be before the people of London. At any rate we are waiting anxiously to see how hon. Members for London sitting on the Government side of the House intend to vote. If the Committee report favourably on this proposal it means that the people of Greater London will have to contribute
  282
  a large sum of money which will be utilized by the people of only one square mile in the City of London. It may be asserted that the improvement which the City made was not a City improvement pure and simple, but was made on behalf of the whole of London. It is, however, in the recollection of those who have gone into the question that the City chose to take that improvement as one for itself. It was not asked to do so, and it was very jealous that anyone should interfere in that improvement. Having taken it over under the conditions under which they did, I say the Corporation ought not to have any further moneys out of the people at large outside their own area. With regard to whether the charters of James or William and Mary could be utilized, and 1s. 3d. per ton levied on coal borne by the London and North Western or the Great Western Railway Company or sea borne to the City of London, those of us who know London best smile at such a suggestion. I should only like to see the City of London attempt to carry out a charter of the kind after an expression of opinion from the people of London. I should pity all those connected with the City of London who after that cared to solicit the confidence of the people of London or any part of it. They no more dare to revive these obsolete rights than they dare to revive any more charters they may have stored away in some of the obsolete pigeon-holes of the Guildhall. What is the feeling in London with regard to the City? Is the City the most popular institution? Is it so popular that the people of London will let it put 1s. 3d. per ton on their coal under some old charter which is simply revived because there could not be found a Government of either Party in the country that would enable the City to get its Coal Dues by statute, and because the representatives of the City of London itself have expressed a decided opinion against the Coal Dues? I think that our friends in the North of England have raised for themselves a difficulty which they will undoubtedly suffer under. If this reference is carried and the Committee report favourably on the portion of the Reference that we disagree with, what will be the result? Instead of the whole of the Coal Dues ceasing

  283
  in London on and after the 5th of July, as we thought would have been the case, you will have a Report from the Committee that the Bill of the hon. Member shall be amended, or some other Bill passed for the purpose of giving the City power to levy these Coal Dues in order that they may pay certain debts they may have. Instead of having the Coal Dues abolished at once in London we shall have them reenacted for a purpose which will not be for the benefit of the masses of the people. To attempt to say anything in favour of the Coal Dues seems to me absurd when you look through the Parliamentary proceedings in connection with them. Fifty odd years ago a Committee of this House reported against them, and it has only been through the occult influences which the City exercises in the Lobby by means of its paid official that they have been able to get these Bills continually passed. We had all hoped that on the 5th of next month the whole of these Coal Dues would have ceased to be, instead of which we are confronted with this reference part of which, as has just been pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Firth), has no reference whatever to the Bill of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pease). We cannot help seeing that the hon. Baronet has unknowingly allowed himself to be used by the City. It is no wonder that the friends of the City were so ready to get the Government to suspend the Standing Orders of the House under peculiar circumstances, the reason being that the City Corporation are going to get more power to wring more money from the people, that they may have the opportunity of spending it as they want. If they are hard up for cash let them suspend their dining operations for twelve months. They would not be able to entertain so many of my hon. Friends as formerly, but some of us who do not go to the City dinners would not mind that much. We have had the opportunity of going. To attempt by this sidewind to again burden the people of London with these Coal Dues is a thing we must protest against most strongly. We have the satisfaction of knowing that our action in this House will be endorsed by the constituencies outside. We know what a strong feel-
  284
  ing there is outside; we know that the people of London are dead against a tax of this description on one of what may be called the necessaries of life. I should like to have heard some attempt to justify the latter part of this reference from hon. Members of the House who believe in it. Instead of any such justification, however, we have had three speeches from hon. Members in this quarter of the House all unanswered. I must say I think it shows a great amount of wisdom on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are going to support this reference to remain silent, because they would have found it rather difficult to say anything in justification of their vote. Perhaps a silent vote is the best thing they can give under the circumstances, but we on our part are determined not only to press the Amendment now, but if the Committee reports as we think it may, we will fight the Bill when it again comes before us, because we are convinced that it is impossible to-day for the City to interfere, as it desires to do, with the industries of the Metropolis and with the great industries of the North of England. Discussing the question with a Member of this House to-day I said, "You have the Midland and the Great Northern Railways capable of pouring into London as much coal as they like entirely free of this tax, and do you think the City, under these circumstances, would dare to put this tax on the coal of other companies?" And the reply was, "That is our weakness they might do so, and we shall be handicapped against them." But the City is not omnipotent. True, you have the collieries that can send coal by the Midland and Great Northern Companies, but you have to consider the influence of the coal owners who could send by other companies, and whom the City of London, it is said, would handicap. What is the position of those who support the latter part of this Reference? Why, they have to face the fact that if the City took the course they suggest they would raise up against themselves an enormously powerful interest—that of the coal owners and the working classes. Those people who would be handicapped in the struggle would necessarily speak out—the coal owners and the artizans

  285
  of London. Suppose the artizan classes did find themselves handicapped, and that it was impossible for the Midland and Great Northern companies to send enough coal into London to keep up the supply to meet the demand, necessarily the prices would go up. What would be the position of the City of London then, with a rise in the price of coal? Ask yourselves for one moment what would be the position of the City? Why there is nothing which would enable it to face the storm of wrath and indignation which would arise, and I do not think that even the hon. Baronet who represents the occult influence of the City Remembrancer would be able to suggest a means of successfully resisting the tempest. The City would have to be backed by the Government itself. If this Bill ever becomes an Act that is the position you will be in—that the City may, if it likes, revise some old charters to enable them to charge 8d. or 1s. 3d. a ton on certain railway and certain water-borne coal. We are not afraid of the prospect in London. We know the City dare not do it, and I tell the friends of the City on this side of the House that those who are interested in the industries of the North of England and of the Metropolis are not afraid of the revival of these old charters. The City of London has not the moral power to do what it did years ago. It is crippled to-day; it is only a portion of London. It no longer has the power to stop Acts of Parliament from being passed. It has tried to do it, and we all know in what a glaring light its conduct was exhibited by a Committee upstairs. I do not think it is necessary for me to take up the time of the House any longer. Hon. Gentlemen seem anxious to come to a division. This is a question of the most important description to the people of London. I can understand hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have followed their whip, being impatient for a division and anxious to have their legitimate time on a Wednesday, but they must remember that we are fighting for something and are prepared to make any sacrifice of our time and comfort in order, if possible, to check this obnoxious Reference and prevent it from passing. As I have said, I do not wish to take up the time of the House any
  286
  longer. I do intend to give my strongest opposition to this Reference. I wish to put on record my opinion as to the effect I believe that the passing of this Reference will have in the future upon the abolition of the Coal Dues in London, unless we are fortunate enough by this discussion to have shown so strong an opposition on the floor of this House on the part of one portion of the representatives of London that when the Reference gets upstairs it will to a large extent be killed by this debate. I cannot help feeling that this discussion will have a good effect on the Committee upstairs. I beg to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green, and though we may not be successful on this occasion I do not think it will be long before we shall be successful, and I hope that this Reference and this debate will only be another nail in the Conservative coffin of the City of London.
  MR. HOWELL: Another reason why we should not force on a division on this question is the conspiracy of silence maintained by the other side. We have to complain of this debate being forced on us at this hour by a combination of forces on this side and the other side of the House. We feel very strongly in the matter, and I can only reiterate what has been said by those who have preceded me, that we have no fear of the City attempting to revive these old charters. It would be a great sight to see the Midland and Great Northern companies with their directors and shareholders fighting with the London and North Western and Great Western Companies. The companies would settle the matter amongst themselves. The people of London would get their coals cheaper than they would do or can do if these duties are revived, as they would be revived, after the Reference of this Bill in the terms proposed to the Select Committee. We shall be in a worse position by the revival of these duties, after the Bill has been referred to a Select Committee, than we should be under the existing

  287
  charters. If these charters are worth anything at all, which I very much doubt, the fact that the Bill will give to the City certain statutory rights—and the position mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee strongly accentuates this—the Corporation representing a small area will be able to he represented before the Committee, while the large body of the ratepayers will not be able to be represented. It appears—and we have it on the authority of one who is perhaps the most capable of speaking on the subject—namely, the hon. Member for Dundee—that the London County Council would not be able to appear by counsel before the Committee. Well, having regard to the formation of the Committee itself and having a vivid remembrance of the powerful advocates that the City is always well able to call to its aid upstairs, one can understand that the eloquence of the learned counsel may be able to influence the Committee in their recommendation, so that quite apart from the evidence itself the Report may bear a complexion not very desirable to those of us who sit on this side of the House. I have some kind of remembrance of what has been done in this way by a Reference upstairs to which my hon. Colleague has already referred. I venture to say that in that particular instance the Report of the Committee did not bear out the evidence. No fact stated in this House in reference to that matter was called in question, every fact was borne out before the Committee, but the Report did not go the length we had a right to expect. In regard to this Reference, if it ends where it is proposed by my hon. Colleague that it should end the City will have no right to complain. They will have every opportunity of bringing before the Committee any rightful dues that may belong to them, and I can well understand that the Committee itself would not be likely to recommend any course of conduct which would be disadvantageous to the City. Quite apart altogether from the recommendations of the Committee I think hon. Members will agree that it has always been the practice in this House, not only with regard to a body like the London Corporation, but with regard to much smaller bodies—with
  288
  regard to individuals in fact—whenever they have been touched in any of their privileges, to afford compensation. Surely the Corporation of the City of London, and the friends of the Corporation might well leave that matter to the Committee upstairs, and to this House when the Report of the Committee appears. There would be no fear whatever of any injustice being done to the Corporation. The greatest fear of all will be that injustice will be done to the great mass of the ratepayers of London. Therefore I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Instruction."
  The House divided:—Ayes 101; Noes 46.—(Div. List, No. 147.)
  Main Question put.
  Ordered—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to inquire into the amount and character of any duties in respect of coals which would accrue to the Corporation of the City of London on the expiration of 'The Coal and Wine Duties Continuance Act, 1868,' under the provisions contained in 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 76, and any subsequent Acts of Parliament; the manner in which the 4d. per ton allocated to the Corporation of the City of London by statute for the Holborn Valley Improvements has been expended; how far any sums of money that were borrowed for the Holborn Valley Improvements still remain unpaid; and whether, in consequence of the abolition of the said duties, there should be any, and, if so, what, provision made in the Bill in respect of such debt, if any existing, on the primary security of such duties."

  TRUST FUNDS INVESTMENT BILL. (No. 6.)
  Reported from the Select Committee, with Minutes of evidence.
  Report, with Minutes of evidence, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 200.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 280.]
  MR. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of this day, adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock.