Sitting of 26 February 1891

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (IRE LAND) ACT, 1885, RAINEY SCHOOL, MAGHERAFELT.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL)THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Lord ARTHUR HILL) reported Her Majesty's Answer to the humble Address of the 4th December last, as followeth:—
  Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
  I have received your Address praying that I will withhold my Consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commissioners for the administration of the Endowment in Magherafelt, known as Rainey's School, in so far as the proposed composition of the Board of Governors is concerned.
  I have directed the Address to he submitted to the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to its being acted on in pursuance of the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act, 1885, Section 24.

  COAL, CINDERS, &c.
  Accounts ordered—
  "Of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel shipped at the several ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland, coastways, to other Ports of the United Kingdom, in the year 1890;
  "Of the quantities and declared value of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the several Ports of England, Scotland, and Ireland, to Foreign Countries and the British Possessions Abroad in the year 1890, distinguishing the Countries to which the same were sent;
  "Of the quantities of Coals, Cinders, and Patent Fuel exported from the United Kingdom in the year 1890;
  "Of the quantities of Coals and Patent Fuel brought coastways, by inland navigation, and by Railway, into the Port of London during the year 1890;
  1680
  "And of the quantities of Coal and Patent Fuel received coastways at the various Ports of the United Kingdom."—(Sir Henry Hussey Vivian.)

QUESTIONS.

  OPIUM SMOKING IN BURMA.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to a pamphlet by Mr. Maurice Gregory, describing the ravages of opium smoking in Burma, wherein he states that there are 1,000 opium dens in the Akyab district instead of a single one, as officially reported; that he has seen large numbers of Burmese smoking, and that, in fact, the great bulk of the opium was consumed by them, although it is stated in Government documents that opium is not sold to the Burmese, but only to the Chinese and natives of India resident at Burma; whether he is aware that opium smoking is forbidden by the ancient Burmese laws and by the Buddhist religion; and that whereas, in the time of the late King of Upper Burma, Chinese opium vendors when caught were flogged and imprisoned, they now travel in first-class railway carriages, and are on terms of friendship with the highest English officials; and whether the Government will ask for information from Burma about the truth of these charges?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the pamphlet. There is but one licensed opium shop in Akyab; and if information were given to the police of the others, they would be suppressed. Opium smoking was forbidden by former Burmese rulers, but the prohibition was much disregarded. Many of the statements in the pamphlet are, so far as the Secretary of State can test them, incorrect; but inquiry as to the facts alleged will be made from the Government of India.

  THE BELSIZE COURT ESTATE.
  MR. CRAVEN: I beg to to ask the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir J. Mowbray), whether it has been with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commis-

  1681
  sioners that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster, in granting leases on the Belsize Court estate, have inserted a clause prohibiting the erection of any chapel or meeting-house for any congregation dissenting from the Church of England as by law established, and also prohibiting the use of any tenement demised by such leases for any ecclesiastical or other purpose in connection with any church, sect, or body of people dissenting from the Church of England; whether it is the practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to insert such prohibitions in leases issued by them; and, if only in certain cases, what cases; and if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners insert such prohibitions in any of their leases, do they do so in virtue of any statutory authority, or on their own responsibility only?
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: The clause in question was found in the leases granted by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster previous to the surrender of their estates to the Commissioners. It will also be found in some leases granted by the Dean and Chapter, with consent of Commissioners, after the estates passed to the Commissioners. But in 1889 the existence of the clause having come to the knowledge of the Commissioners, they instructed their solicitors that no such clause should be inserted in future. It has not been the practice of the Commissioners to insert such prohibitions in leases issued by them.
  MR. LAWSON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commissioners continue to insist on the covenants in respect of the existing leases?
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: Whether they will enforce the penalty?
  MR. LAWSON: Yes.
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: I have no authority to speak for the Commissioners, but, seeing that the matter is one for their discretion, and that the enforcement of the covenant would be inconsistent with what has been done in regard to the leases of the last three years, I presume that they would not insist upon it.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Is there any clause in the leases prohibiting the erection of public-houses?
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: Yes, there are.
  SIR W. LAWSON: There are?
  SIR J. MOWBRAY: Yes, Sir.

  ROCHDALE HALF-TIMERS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that in the town and district of Rochdale, when children are taken from a Board School for employment as half-timers, it is frequently the practice of their employers to insist that the children shall be taken from the school preferred by the parents, and sent to some other school selected by the employer, and most commonly of a denominational character; and whether parents who send their children into employment as half-timers thereby lose the right to the free choice of a school; and, if not, whether he can take any means to prevent the infraction of this right in Rochdale and the neighbourhood?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: So far as I am aware no complaint of the kind suggested has reached the Department, and I do not know of any practice in the matter calling for inteference. It is obvious that a parent's right to select a school cannot be affected by the fact that a child attends as a half-timer, but it may be the case that a school is sometimes maintained in connection with a factory in which a child is at work, and the child is expected to attend that school as a matter of convenience.
  MR. PICTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny that a large firm, employing a considerable number of half-timers, is in the habit of insisting that they shall go to a particular school?
  Sir W. HART DYKE: The question of the hon. Gentleman is of too abstract a character. If he will put it more in the concrete, with the name of the firm and the school, I will make inquiry into the matter.

  WARDER SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. BEAUFOY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether warder schoolmasters were engaged on the distinct understanding that they

  1683
  were to be exempted from sleeping in prison; and whether that privilege has been withdrawn; and, if so, on what grounds?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: I am informed by the Chairman of the Prison Board that out of 71 School master warders all but two were engaged as ordinary warders, and have received extra pay for doing schoolmaster's duty. These warders have been exempted from their turn of night duty, because that unfitted them for their schooling duties next day. This exemption has not been withdrawn. There was nothing in the terms of their engagement or in the nature of their duties to exempt them from sleeping in prison in turn with other warders.
  MR. BEAUFOY: Is it not the fact that a fresh Order was issued on the 31st December, 1890, which practically abolished certain privileges which the warder schoolmasters used to enjoy?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I believe the fact is that some of the Governors of prisons misunderstood the Order, and in that respect there has been an alteration in the action of the Government.

  ETHER AS AN INTOXICANT.
  SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table, or supply to the Select Committee on British and Foreign Spirits, the Report made to the Government on the use of ether as an intoxicant in Ireland?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: There will be no objection to lay this Report on the Table.

  ALLEGED INADEQUATE PUNISHMENT.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Luke Cunningham, who was charged on Saturday at the Preston Police Court with a series of brutal assaults upon Bridget Connor, aged 13 years; whether he is aware that it was proved that he threw a poker at her, and it struck her on the forehead, causing a painful wound; that he fastened a strap round the girl's neck, and hung her up in the kitchen for several minutes
  1684
  to a nail in the ceiling; and that the prisoner was sent to gaol for three calendar months, with hard labour; and whether he will inquire of the Police Magistrate what were the reasons which led him to inflict so short a term of imprisonment for such an offence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Justices that Luke Cunningham was charged on Saturday at the Preston Police Court not with a series of assaults upon the girl Bridget Connor, but with one assault on the 14th inst., namely, having thrown a poker at the girl, aud struck her near the left eye, cansing, according to the evidence of the doctor, a small bruise and a contused wound of a superficial nature. No other charge than that of the 14th inst. was preferred by the girl, who was represented by a solicitor. In answer to inquiries of the Justices, the solicitor stated that about a week before Cunningham had put a strap round the girl's neck, and hung her to the ceiling. There were no marks on the girl's neck, and her mother stated that Cunningham only kept her up for a minute, and did it to frighten the girl for stopping out late at night. The mother also stated that Cunningham had been a good father to the children, that he had not intended to hit the girl with the poker, and that he was the worse for drink at the time. The Justices, who were unanimous in their decision, thought the ends of justice would be met by the sentence passed by them for the assault on the 14th inst.

  INTEMPERANCE IN WEST AFRICA.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Daily Graphic of February 11th, wherein a contrast is drawn between British rule in West Africa and French rule at Senegal, stating that the native population in Gambia and Sierra Leone is degraded through intemperance, and that since falling under British rule the people have sunk to such a depth of depravity that with many of them marriage rites have been given up; whether the prison is 43 times greater than that belonging to the French territory in St. Louis, which has a greater population than Freetown; and whether he will direct inquiry to be made as to the state of affairs?
  SIR J. GORST (for Baron H. de WORMS): The letter referred to contains serious misrepresentations, and is not worthy of credit. There has been a great decrease of crime at the Gambia and Sierra Leone during the past six years, and Her Majesty's Government have received no information indicating that there has been an abandonment of marriage rights. At the Gambia about one quarter, and at Sierra Leone about two-fifths only, of the population are Christians. As regards the second paragraph of the question, in a tropical climate the provision of a large amount of cubic space for each prisoner is not a defect in a gaol. As regards the last paragraph, Her Majesty's Government do not perceive any necessity for a special inquiry into these matters at the present time. The Local Government looks carefully after the welfare and order of the people.

  CROFTER FAIR RENTS.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that applications were sent in several years ago for the fixing of fair rents in the parishes of Saddell and Skipness, but no sitting of the Commission has been held in the district; whether one of the crofters applying from this district, has had his case taken to the Court of Session and remitted by that Court to the Commission; and whether the Secretary for Scotland will send a section of the Commission to this district at an early date?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): The Secretary for Scotland informs me that he understands that one application from the united parishes of Saddell and Skipness to have a fair rent fixed was received by the Crofter Commissioners in 1889, and was considered by them and dismissed in June of that year. No other applications have been received except ten, all of which have been lodged since February, 1890. None of these appear to be of a very urgent nature, and it is not proposed at present that the Commissioners should make an early visit to the parishes—other districts having a stronger claim on their attention. With regard to the second paragraph of the question, the Secretary for Scotland is not aware that any case from Saddell and Skipness has
  1686
  been remitted by the Court of Session to the Commission. The man whose application for a fair rent was dismissed in June, 1889, raised an action in the Court of Session against his landlord, but it was dismissed as irrelevant.

  THE CROFTERS' COMMISSION.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate when the Report of the Crofters' Commission will be in the hands of Members?
  MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: The Report is now, I am informed, in the printer's hands, so I hope it will be available for Members before very long. Considering, however, the nature of the Report, and the large amount of figures involved, it would be unwise to hasten its progress through the Press unduly.

  THE LATE DUKE OF BEDFORD.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether under "The Coroners' Act, 1887," upon being informed of such a death as that of the late Duke of Bedford, the Coroner's public duty was, as soon as practicable, to issue his warrant summoning a jury; whether, under the 19th section of this Act, a juror is liable to a fine of £5 for non-attendance, and if it is a general custom of London Coroners to issue their warrants so as to enable the summonses to be served upon the jurors as a rule the day before the inquest, and in all cases to give them ample notice; and whether he will ascertain from the Coroner and state the day and hour when and by whom the Coroner was informed of the death, the day, and hour of his issuing his warrant summoning a jury, and of the service of the summonses upon the jurors, and the number of summonses issued, and the name or names by which the deceased was described in such warrant and in such summonses, and by whom such name or names were furnished to him?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am informed by the Coroner that he is not aware that the general custom of the London Coroners is as stated. It is not the custom in his district. The death was reported to the Coroner between 10 and 11 p.m. on the 14th of January. The warrant to summon a jury was issued by him the next day as soon as he came

  1687
  to his office, between 11 and 12. The service of the summons on the jurors was during the same afternoon. The Coroner's officer made out 13 or 14 summonses, according to the usual practice. The case was reported by the doctors to the Coroner by the name of Francis Charles Hastings Russell, and by the title or occupation "Duke of Bedford." He gave the name and title to the officer next day. The form of warrant is signed by the Coroner, and filled up by the officer. The officer filled up the summonses in the name of Russell, giving the initial "F." The Coroner gave no directions to the officer as to the manner of filling up the warrant or the summonses, which was done in the usual way. The title and description of the deceased person has never been given in the warrant so far as the experience of the Coroner goes.
  MR. COBB: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that in the warrant the deceased was described by the name of Russell?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I so understand, from the Coroner's letter.

  TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION AT FRESSINGFIELD.
  MR. F.S.STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the serious inconvenience caused to the inhabitants of Fressingfield and the neighbouring parishes owing to the absence of telegraphic communication; whether he is aware that Fressingfield has a population of more than 1,200 inhabitants, that the adjoining parishes are also large, and the nearest telegraph offices are Harleston, which is 4½ miles from Fressingfield, and Stradbroke, which is situated at a distance of 4 miles; and whether he will consent to the establishment of a Telegraph Office at Fressingfield in conjunction with the existing Post Office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that certain of the inhabitants of Fressingfield have recently undertaken to enter into a guarantee for a Telegraph Office there; that the deed of arrangement is now in their hands for signature; and that if the deed be duly executed the
  1688
  extension can be carried out early nex financial year.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: This is the case of a large parish occupying an important position. Is it necessary to go through the formality of a guarantee before establishing a telegraph service?
  MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; that is the universal practice.

  TELEGRAPHISTS ON BANK HOLIDAYS.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is now a regulation of the Telegraph Department,
  "That all telegraphists who are called upon to work on the four Bank Holidays shall, if it e impossible to give them another holiday in lieu thereof, be entitled to receive their ordinary pay on each holiday, plus extra pay at the same rate for the work performed;"
  and whether he will say which are the four Bank Holidays contemplated by the regulation in its application to Scotland?
  MR. RAIKES: The regulation referred to by the hon. Member applies to Post Office servants generally (including telegraphists) in England and Wales. As the Statutory Bank Holidays in Scotland are different from those in England, I am considering to which days the regulation shall there be applied, so that the privilege accorded in Scotland may not be less than is enjoyed in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  THE TELEGRAPH SUPERVISING CLASSES.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the scheme of revised scales of pay in the telegraph supervising classes, which he intimated last year, has been put in operation at Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, and other places; and whether it is proposed to extend this scheme to Edinburgh at an early date; and, if so, whether the scheme will be ante-dated to the time when it was given effect to at the other large offices?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that the Treasury has sanctioned the scheme referred to at the places enumerated. Certain questions have, however, been raised in connection with the scheme,

  1689
  which have led to a delay in carrying it out at other offices. I trust I may be able to remove these difficulties and obtain authority to carry it into effect at every large office. The suggestion made by the hon. Member in the last paragraph of his question is rather one for the consideration of the Treasury.

  INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS IN EGYPT.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if steps are now being taken to continue for a further period the International Tribunals in Egypt; whether these tribunals have hitherto had authority, in every case in which a European wishes to sue a native, to cite that native from the most distant parts of the country to appear before these expensive tribunals at Cairo and Alexandria, and defend the suit there; and whether, in view of the recent arrangement for European supervision and control of the Egyptian Courts, Her Majesty's Government will now decline to continue to the International Courts an oppressive jurisdiction over natives which was always refused to Her Majesty's Supreme Courts in India?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: (1) No. The existing period does not expire till February 1, 1894. (2) Besides the Courts at Cairo and Alexandretta there is at Mansourah a "Délégation Judiciaire Permanente." The tribunals at those three places are the only Courts in Egypt for trying civil cases between natives and foreigners. (3) The native Courts could not try such cases without the consent of Foreign Powers, and if the system of the Mixed Tribunals came to an end Consular Jurisdiction under the Capitulations would revive.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Would the Consular Jurisdiction extend to the natives of the country?
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: I apprehend that it would in certain cases.

  THE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is the fact that in the Sayings Bank Department during the
  1690
  year 1890 the total amount of overtime performed by the male staff (numbering 531) was about 268,000 hours' work (overtime worked by the hour amounting to about 106,500 hours, and overtime worked by the piece amounting to a sum of about £6,740, equivalent to about 161,500 hours); whether 268,000 hours of overtime are equivalent to the normal working hours of a staff of about 129 men; whether permanent overtime is only necessary during the first three months of every year; whether overtime (including timework and piecework) performed during the last nine months of 1890 amounted to about 90,000 hours' work, which is equivalent to the normal working hours of an additional staff of about 65 men during that period; and whether he intends to increase the permanent staff of the Savings Bank Department?
  MR. RAIKES: The figures quoted by the noble Lord appear to be substantially correct. The difficult question of the mode of providing for the heavy pressure of work which occurs in the Savings Bank between the 1st January and the 1st May in each year is engaging my attention, and it will be my endeavour to make such arrangements for next year as will enable me to largely curtail the amount of extra duty to be performed. I am not prepared at present to make any statement as to the nature of the arrangement I may ultimately decide upon.
  EARL COMPTON: Is it likely that a decision will be arrived at before the Post Office Estimates are taken?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not quite sure when the Post Office Estimates will be taken, but I have no doubt that I shall be able to arrive at a conclusion after I have consulted the Treasury.

  FEMALE FACTORY INSPECTORS.
  MR.LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any power at present to appoint female Inspectors of factories and workshops; and, if not, whether he will consider the expediency of acquiring such power, in view of the Return issued by the Home Office in July last, showing that out of 1,084,361 persons employed in mills and factories in the United Kingdom as many as 656,549 are females; and there are

  1691
  important sanitary and other matters respecting which female workers would prefer to communicate withn Ispectors of their own sex?
  MR. MATTHEWS:: Yes, Sir; the existing Act gives me the power to appoint female Inspectors in factories and workshops, but there are strong objections to its exercise on the grounds of administration, economy, and practicability. I cannot in the space of an answer to a question explain these objections. I shall be happy to discuss the matter with the hon. Member, but I may may point out that by the Bill now, before the House the sanitary supervision of workshops will be made over to the Local Authorities.

  LIGHTS ON PUBLIC CARRIAGES.
  MR. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the powers and regulations of the police in the Metropolis, in respect to the carrying of lights after dark by public carriages, especially omnibuses; whether there are any in respect of private vehicles; and whether any special order is issued for the winter months or for foggy weather?
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: On the same subject I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the great increase of heavy vehicular traffic in the streets of the Metropolis, he will, for the protection of the public, procure, either by regulation or legislation, that every vehicle traversing the streets after dark, or in dark weather, shall, under penalty of a fine, be compelled to carry an external light; and whether he is aware that the Postmaster General has issued an order whereby all vehicles employed in the Post Office service are compelled to carry an external light after dark?
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the advisability of laying down a rule for the Metropolis that every vehicle after sunset and during a fog should be provided with a light in accordance with the invariable custom of other countries?
  MR. WILLIAM LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1692
  ment, whether there are now, or have been within the last 20 years, any police regulations obliging all vehicles, circulating in the streets of the Metropolis, to be supplied with lights after sunset?
  MR. MATTHEWS: In reply to these various questions, I have to say that Section 14 of 16 and 17 Vic., cap. 33, provides for lamps being placed inside metropolitan stage carriages by proprietors and kept lighted by conductors or drivers between sunset and sunrise. The Commissioner's Order as to this is as follows:—
  "The police are to observe and report all stage carriages travelling after dark without being lighted by a lamp inside."
  The Secretary of State has power, under 32 and 33 Vic., cap. 115, section 9, to prescribe the times during which hackney carriages when plying for hire shall be provided with a lamp. No order has ever been made under this section. The matter has been carefully considered by my predecessors on more than one occasion, and in their opinion cogent reasons have existed for not acting upon this Section. I beg to refer my hon. Friends to an answer given in this House by Mr. Secretary Bruce in 1870. I have, however, requested the Commissioner of Police to reconsider this question, together with the whole question of traffic regulation, upon which he is preparing suggestions. At present the police have no power to deal with private vehicles. Legislation would be necessary.
  MR. LAWSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay the Report of the Commissioner of Police upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir.

  STREET ACCIDENTS.
  MR. HULSE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a small Committee of this House might be appointed to consider the Report of the Chief Commissioner of Police on Street Accidents when presented, and to consider what rules and regulations might be laid down for the safety of the lives and limbs of the inhabitants of the Metropolis?
  MR. MATTHEWS: As I have before stated, the Commissioner of Police, should he find on inquiry that his existing powers are insufficient, will shortly lay before me suggestions for

  1693
  securing more safety to the public. If legislation is found to be necessary the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter fully in Committee of the whole House.

  THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the police before the Coroner of East London at the inquiry regarding the death of Frances Coles on Friday last, from which it appears that the man Sadler was left outside the dock gates in a state of intoxication, such as to be thought unable to go on board his ship; that he was struck down and severely bruised in presence of or without remonstrance on the part of the police; and whether, if the man was drunk as described, he was entitled to protection; or, if not, to be taken into custody by the police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Commissioner of Police informs me that he has only seen a newspaper account of the evidence, and there is nothing in that to bear out the allegation that Sadler was struck down and severely bruised in the presence of the police. The only constable who saw him at the dock gate considered that, although he had been drinking, he was not in such a state of intoxication as to warrant his being taken into custody.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that in the sworn evidence it is stated that this policeman was asked to turn away, and that he did go away 30 yards?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; I have not had a Report of such evidence, but I will make inquiry.

  THE DURHAM EVICTIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that certain persons who have been brought to the county of Durham by the Marquess of Londonderry to assist in the evictions now being carried on on his property, having refused to take part in the evictions, have been detained by the police; whether he is aware that the persons who were engaged to carry out the furniture of the evicted
  1694
  tenants were prevented by the police from leaving when they desired to do so, and that they were hindered when at their lodgings from communicating with individuals with whom they wished to speak; whether he is aware that the police expelled by force the inmates from houses from which their furniture had been or was being removed; and would he state on what authority the police acted in this manner?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a Report from the Chief Constable only as to the first paragraph of the question. He informs me that the persons in question have not been detained by the police, and that those who wished to go have left. I have asked the Chief Constable to supply me with the other information asked for bv the hon. Member.

  THE CAMBRIDGE "SPINNING HOUSE" CASE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the young person who was sentenced last week to 21 days' imprisonment at Cambridge, for leaving the "Spinning House," is still in confinement, or whether she has received a free pardon?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have communicated with the learned Judge, and he informs me that he sees no reason to doubt the propriety of the original committal to custody from which this girl escaped. Looking to the fact that her escape was mainly due to the negligence of the assistant matron, I have come to the conclusion that the remainder of her sentence may properly be remitted. I am in communication with persons of position at Cambridge, who will, I hope, do her real service and assist her to a different course of life.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Do I understand that this girl will be set at liberty at once?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The order for her release will be issued to-morrow.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Am I to understand that the liberty of the girl will not be dependent upon her entering into any conditions?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir.

  OCCUPATION OF TOKAR.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign

  1695
  Affairs whether the district of Tokar is situated in Egypt or in the Soudan; and if the latter, by what right the Egyptian Government claims authority over it, in view of the fact that it gave up absolutely all sovereignty over the whole of the Soudan with the exception of the Port of Suakin; and whether it is intended to organise a civil Egyptian Government in Tokar, and to maintain an Egyptian garrison there; and, if so, will he cause a map to be placed in the Tea Room, with the frontiers of the newly-annexed territory indicated thereon?
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: Tokar is in the Eastern Soudan. When Egypt, under the advice of Her Majesty's Government, withdrew its troops from the Soudan, it did not abandon the sovereignty of the country. An Egyptian garrison will be maintained in Tokar. There is no newly-annexed territory to be defined on a map.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Under secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government can lay Papers before Parliament containing the communications that have passed with the Government of the Khedive on the permanent occupation of Tokar and other places in the Soudan beyond Suakin?
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: Papers on the subject will be included in an early issue.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Has the permanent occupation of Tokar received the assent of Her Majesty's Government?
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: I stated the other night in answer to a question by the right hon. Gentleman that no final Resolution has been come to, but that there is every reason to believe that the occupation of Tokar will be permanent.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman stated the other night, in answer to a question from me, that nothing had yet been settled. All I want to know is whether a decision permanently to occupy Tokar has received the assent of Her Majesty's Government?
  Sir J. FERGUSSON: The matter stands in the same position now. No final decision has been come to, but the circumstances remain as they were then described.

  ALLOTMENTS
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he is aware that, under an enclosure award, 17 acres of land were vested in the churchwardens and overseers of the parish of St. Margaret's, Leicester, for the purpose of allotments, and that such land is now let to an allotments society; and whether the select vestry of the parish have decided to apply to Parliament for powers to sell the said land for building purposes; and, if so, whether, in any Bill giving such powers, the Government will take care that provisions are inserted to compel the vestry, in case of sale, to secure other land equal or more in quantity and suitable as regards quality and situation for the purpose of allotments?
  MR. PICTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the land in question is not charity land, but Corporate property, and that owing to the growth of manufactories around it the land is unfit for allotments? Is he aware that the land is intended to be sold not for ordinary building purposes, but for the erection of almshouses—on the principle of the greatest good of the greatest number?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,: In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say that the award referred to was not made under the Inclosure Acts, which are administered by the Board of Agriculture; and I am not aware of the circumstances relating to the allotment beyond what appears in a Bill which has been introduced in the House of Lords, under which powers are taken to sell the land in question for building purposes. The purposes for which it is intended to be sold are accurately described, I believe, by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I am quite in sympathy with the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division in his desire to maintain and promote the provision of allotments. The matter in question is not within the control of the Agricultural Department, but I will give it my attention with the view of securing that the advantages at present enjoyed by the inhabitants shall not be prejudiced by the Bill.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say in what Department rests the duty of securing the allotments which have been made under the award, and which have been enjoyed for a considerable number of years? Is there any security that such allotments may not be taken away for building purposes without granting an equivalent?
  MR. CHAPLIN: As the only danger with which the allotments in question are threatened appears to be from a Private Bill in the House of Lords, that is not a question, I think, which I can be expected to answer. It should be asked in another place.

  BACCARAT.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of "Jenks v. Turpin," in which Mr. Justice Hawkins made the following statement with regard to baccarat playing—
  "It is a game of cards. It is a game of chance, and though, as in other things, experience and judgment may make one player or banker more successful than another, it would be a perversion of words to say that it was in any sense a game of mere skill. It is, therefore, in my opinion an unlawful game within the meaning of the Statute;"
  and whether the Law Advisers of the Crown were aware of this case when they advised him that "baccarat" was not illegal?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon Member will read the judgment of Mr. Justice Hawkins in " Jenks v. Turpin," he will find that the Judge was careful to explain that playing at baccarat was an "unlawful gaming" within 17 and 18 Vict., 38, 4, because it was played in a house kept for playing at that game, and that was rendered illegal by statute. The casa is familiar to the Law officers.
  MR. MORTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is meant by a house kept for the purpose?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Gentleman will find that fully explained in the judgment.

  THE IMPERIAL DEFENCE ACT.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the
  Exchequer whether, upon the Budget, he will lay upon the Table a Return
  1698
  showing what sums of money have been expended in each year (including the current financial year) under "The Imperial Defence Act, 1888," "The Naval Defence Act, 1889," "The Barracks Act, 1890," and stating in what manner the moneys so expended have been provided; also showing how the sum of,£4,570,900, which was the estimated excess of the Army and Navy Expenditure for 1890–91 over the moneys which (as shown in Return, No. 200, 1890) has been provided, and how much debt is now outstanding in respect of moneys raised under the above-mentioned Acts; and also a statement of the sum which it is estimated will be required under the same Acts in the coming year, and the manner in which it is proposed to raise them?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, Sir, I will in due time, in connection with the Budget, lay a Return upon the Table, showing the amounts expended in each year under the Imperial Defence Act, the Naval Defence Act, and the Barracks Act, how the moneys have been provided, and how much debt is outstanding in respect of these amounts. I shall also be able to state the sums estimated to be required under the same Acts in the coming year. I am not prepared to tie my hands by pledging myself to the exact manner in which these sums will be raised, but I shall be able to indicate generally the alternatives. I shall also take an opportunity of showing how any part of the estimated excess on the Army and Navy expenditure for 1890–91 was actually provided for.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: As the right hon. Gentleman is in the habit, like his predecessors, of supplying a printed paper before the Budget Statement is made, will he supply this information on the morning or day before the Budget?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will consider the matter.

  TORPEDO GUNBOATS.
  MR. S. SMITH: In the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, I will postpone until Monday my question whether any of the seven torpedo gunboats of the Salamander class have yet succeeded in doing their trial speed of 21 knots;

  1699
  and whether the 18 torpedo gunboats, described as sister ships of the Salamander, and also stated to have a speed of 21 knots, are expected to realise that speed.

  HOUSE OF LORDS PAPERS.
  Sir. G. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the House of Lords would be willing to communicate to the authorities of this House the titles of Returns and Papers, relating to matters of public interest, which are printed by order of the House of Lords; and whether the titles of those Returns could be brought to the notice of Members of this House in the same manner as in the case of Returns printed by order of this House?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,): Arrangements are being made under which a file of Lords Papers will be kept in the Vote Office for the convenience of hon. Members desiring to consult them, and any hon. Member requiring a copy of any particular Paper can receive it on notifying his desire to the clerk in the Vote Office. It would be neither convenient nor consistent with the regulations affecting the printing and distribution of Lords Papers to place their titles on the pink papers circulated with the Votes and Proceedings of this Honourable House; but I hope the arrangement above described will be found to fulfil the object which the right hon. Baronet has in view.
  Sir G. TREVELYAN: I think that the utmost has been done by the Treasury to secure this object. Might I ask whether House of Lords Bills may be included in the scheme?
  Sir H. MAXWELL: I will consult the authorities.

  INFLAMMABLE LIQUIDS BILLS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in view of the fact that very considerable alarm is felt by the distributors of mineral oil in many parts of the country at the provisions of the Inflammable Liquids Bill, he will consent to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill being postponed for two or three weeks, in order to allow time for a fuller
  1700
  consideration of its terms by the very large class of tradesmen upon whose trade the proposed restrictions would be placed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My hon. Friend is probably not aware that I have already twice stated, in reply to questions in this House, that a reasonable time will be allowed to lapse before the Second Reading of this Bill. I may add that if the House is pleased to read the Bill a second time I should propose to refer it to a Select Committee, before which the trade can be fully heard.
  MR. J. KELLY: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a reasonable time, two or three weeks?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is the Bill likely to be taken before Easter?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury tells me it is doubtful.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before proceeding with the Inflammable Liquids Bill, he will lay before the House Colonel Majendie's Report, and any statistics showing the number of fires attributable to inflammable liquids, the subject of the said Bill, and how they were occasioned?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have already stated in the House that the fires due to inflammable liquids are not reported to the Home Office, and I have not the materials for supplying the statistics asked for. I presume the hon. member refers to Colonel Majendie's Report of April 28th, 1890. That has already been presented to the House (C. 6,059, 1890).

  TELEGRAPH IN THE ISLE OF SHEPPY.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will cause the electric telegraph to be extended from Sheerness to the parish of Eastchurch, in the Isle of Sheppy, Kent?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to say that I have arranged to have the telegraph extended to Eastchurch early in next financial year, as those who made application to me on the subject have already been

  1701
  informed. The extension cannot be carried out during the current financial year, as the whole of the money voted for works of this kind has been expended.

  POST OFFICE SORTERS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, since the result of the inquiry by the Departmental Committee last year showed that there were 351 vacancies on the staff of the first-class sorters in London, he will state when it is intended to fill up these vacancies; and whether, in view of the fact that most of the officers who have been performing the duties of the first class for a considerable period have done so without any additional remuneration, the appointments to the first-class vacancies will take effect from the 28th of July last?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member's question. I hope that the appointments will be filled shortly. The promotions cannot, in any case, take effect from the date mentioned, as the additional appointments were not created until several months later.

  SORTING CLERKS IN EDINBURGH AND DUBLIN.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the postal staffs of the offices in Edinburgh and Dublin are now on an equality, as regards pay, with the telegraphists of those offices; whether their official designation has been changed to that of "Sorting Clerks"; and will he state whether similar alterations are to be made in the London offices; and, if so, when?
  MR. RAIKES: To the first and second questions of the hon. Member the answer is in the affirmative. In reply to the third question, I have to state that it is not in contemplation to make similar alterations in London.

  THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will ascertain from the Lord Chancellor if he is aware that dissatisfaction and regret exists among the members of the legal profession and the public as to the manner in which one of the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division is able to
  1702
  perform his duties, and that attention is being called to this subject in the legal newspapers; and whether any change is contemplated at an early date in the constitution of the Bench in that Division?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. H. SMITH,: The Lord Chancellor thinks that it would be going altogether beyond any province assigned to him by law if he were to assume such a disciplinary attitude towards Her Majesty's Judges as appears to be suggested by the hon. Member's question. If there is any matter of fact within his jurisdiction in relation to the Supreme Court as to which the hon. Member desires information, the Lord Chancellor would be very happy to give it; but in this case the question states neither any fact nor any person in relation to whom such information is desired.
  MR. COBB: Am I to understand that the Lord Chancellor states that he is not aware that any dissatisfaction or regret exists amongst the members of the legal profession on the subject named in the question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think I am justified in saying that the Lord Chancellor has had no communication of the kind made to him.

  ROYAL COMMISSION ON CAPITAL AND LABOUR.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what provision is intended to be made in the constitution of the Royal Commission on the relations between employer and employed, and in the scope of the Inquiry, for taking cognisance of the special interests of Ireland?
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the proposed legislation with regard to Land Purchase in Ireland will seriously affect the position of agricultural labourers in Ireland and their relations to their employers in that portion of the United Kingdom, he will take steps to secure their effective representation on the proposed Royal Commission to inquire into the position of employers and employed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Sexton) asks me whether provision will be made, and, if so, what arrangements will be made in

  1703
  the constitution of the Royal Commission for taking cognisance of the special interests of Ireland. I can only assure him and my hon. Friend behind me that the interests of the inhabitants of Ireland will be considered as well as the interests of every portion of Her Majesty's subjects in the United Kingdom in the arrangements for the constitution of this Commission, and instructions will be given to that effect; but I am quite unable at present, as the hon. Member will see, to go into the details of the question.
  MR. CREMER: Is it intended that the Inquiry shall only be prospective, or that it shall take into consideration the present state of things?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is intended to consider the whole question, in order to ascertain whether legislation is necessary.
  COLONEL WARING: Will the scope of the Commission include agricultural labour?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not understand that there is any reason why it should not, if there is disturbance in the relations between capital and labour in agriculture.
  EARL COMPTON: Will the inquiry also include Government offices—for instance, the Post Office, where relations have been strained?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to say.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when he makes his promised statement to the House with regard to the Royal Commission on the Relations between Capital and Labour, he will be able to give an assurance that the scope of the Inquiry shall not be permitted to extend to, or in any way interfere with, the present legal rights and liberty of combination which the organised trades of the country possess?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is obvious that the Commission would not have the power to interfere with the present legal rights of combination of trades; but undoubtedly it will be the duty of the Commission to inquire into all the conditions under which the unfortunate disturbance of labour happened last year.
  In answer to Mr. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.),
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid: It is proposed to examine into the state of the facts and the conditions which exist; and, therefore, the Commission will consider whether any legislation may be wanted or not.

  THE R0YAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any money has been paid from the Constabulary Force Fund to defray the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary sports in Dublin; and, if so, to what amount; whether there was originally a special fund for the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which was wound up; and, if so, upon what grounds were the Royal Irish Constabulary officers allowed to share in the benefits of the Force Fund, which was specially established for the men; and if, in the case of a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary who joined the Force prior to 1883, the Force Fund allowance is stopped from his pay whether he consent or not?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The reply of the Constabulary authorities to the inquiry in the first paragraph of the question is in the negative. A private Friendly Society known as the Constabulary Officers' Widows Fund was at one time started by some of the officers, but not realising the expectations of its founders they wound it up. That fund was in no sense official, and had no connection with the Constabulary Force Fund. The latter fund was never confined to the men, but, on the contrary, the Acts of Parliament governing the fund made it imperative for the officers equally with the men to become subscribers to the fund, with the consequential right to receive grants therefrom. It is the case that all officers and men who joined the Force prior to 1883 are under statute obliged to be subscribers to the fund so long as they are actually serving with the Force. Upon retiring on pension the subscription becomes voluntary.

  TARBERT DEMOCRATIC LABOUR FEDERATION.
  MR. STACK: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why members of the Constabulary Force have watched for months past the meeting place of the Tarbert branch of the Irish Democratic Labour Federation, and for what reason, on Sunday the 1st instant, two men of the Force entered the room while the meeting was being held, refused to state their business or authority, declined to leave when called upon, challenged the members to put them out if they were able, and finally only left after having taken the names of all the members present; and whether these proceedings were authorised or are sanctioned by the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary authorities report that the two constables who were on duty had reason to suppose that an attempt was being made to hold a meeting of the late branch of the National League, which was suppressed in that district as an unlawful association; upon being told by the chairman that it was a meeting of the Labour Federation they left the room. The constables deny the remaining allegations in the Question.
  MR. SEXTON: If the only object was to take the names, why were they not taken without entering the room and disturbing the meeting?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I gather that that altogether is denied.
  MR. SEXTON: In what form does the right hon. Gentleman desire to receive proof?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: All I say is that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any further question he had better put it on the Paper.
  MR. SEXTON: I presume that the police have now ascertained that this was not a meeting of a suppressed branch of the National League?

  THE IST MANCHESTER REGIMENT AT TIPPERARY.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has received affidavits from John A. Drew, shopkeeper, Tipperary, John Tohy, and Henry John
  1706
  Lutman, declaring that on the evening of the 4th instant two private soldiers of the 1st Manchester Regiment, stationed at Tipperary, were ordered out of the house of John A. Drew by Sergeant O'Brien, and when at the door were placed under arrest and deprived of their belts by him; whether their offence was against a Regimental Order placing Mr. Carew's house "out of bounds;" has Mr. Carew's house been a well-conducted house, or have any charges ever been made against him for having broken the Licensing Law or any other law; and what is the reason for the above-mentioned Regimental Order?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,: The Secretary of State has received the affidavits referred to. The offence of the men was against a Regimental Order placing Mr. Carew's house out of bounds, but the officer commanding states that they were not arrested, but were marched away with the picket to avoid a crowd of civilians. As already stated, the Secretary of State has no knowledge as to the conduct by Mr. Carew of his house; and, as the matter is one of military discipline, he again declines to call for explanation of an order which the officer commanding was fully competent in his discretion to make.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to know whether a similar order has been given in the case of any other public house in Tipperary; and, if not, why the house of Mr. Carew has been singled out? I also desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that prosecutions have been entered into against persons for the offence known as boycotting in Tipperary?
  MR. BRODRICK: I am not aware that any person or persons have been picked out in the way suggested by the hon. Member, and I cannot tell the hon. Member whether any other houses have been dealt with in the same manner, but if he desires I will inquire.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will put a further question on the Paper, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary if he will be good enough to take the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary for War as a ground for putting the provisions of

  1707
  the Coercion Act into force against the colonel commanding this regiment, who has boycotted the house of Mr. Carew.

  BELFAST STREET TRAMWAYS.
  MR. DE COBAIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Resident Magistrates for the City of Belfast, the Local Justices of the Peace who are members of the City Corporation, and also the officers and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary have free passes, or in some cases passes at a merely nominal rate, for travelling by the Belfast Street Tram way Company's cars, although the Magistrates thus privileged adjudicate upon cases in which the Tram way Company are concerned, and whether Magistrates are permitted to accept free passes from companies over whom they have judicial jurisdiction; and if he could furnish a statement of the number of prosecutions brought by the police force of Belfast against the Belfast Street Tram ways Company for breaches of the city bye-laws before and since the privilege of free travelling has been granted to the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that neither the Resident Magistrates nor the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary have free passes from the Belfast Street Tram ways Company. They have the right of taking season tickets at the cost of one guinea a year. It appears that hitherto individual policemen, if travelling on the top of a tramcar, have not been charged. The Inspector General thinks this may be open to objection, and has ordered its discontinuance. I have no official information with regard to the Local Justices; but I understand that out of the 15 who are members of the Corporation, one only has a free pass, and that by reason of a courtesy shown by the Tram way Company to ex-Mayors. During the past five years the police have prosecuted tram way officials in 27 cases.

  SEED SUPPLY (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the provisions of the Seed Supply (Ireland) Act, that the Poor Law Guardians may not sell seed potatoes to
  1708
  labourers except upon the application of the occupying owner or the tenant, and upon his agreeing to pay the price of the seed so sold, is he aware that the strict enforcement of this provision will leave two-thirds of the labourers without any potato seed whatever; and will the Local Government Board, under these circumstances, issue instructions to Boards of Guardians to accept solvent security from the labourers for repayment of the price of seed? I also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can explain whether Colonel Spaight, in warning the Mallow Board of Guardians, on 20th instant, against any infringement of Section 5, Sub-section (2) of the Seed Supply (Ireland) Act, did so in his official capacity as Local Government Board Inspector; and can the Government suggest any course whereby the bulk of the agricultural labourers may be enabled to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act, so as to procure a supply of good seed in the coming Spring?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Local Government Board have no power to modify by any regulations that may issue the operations of an Act of Parliament. No doubt Colonel Spaight was acting in his official capacity in calling the attention of the Board of Guardians to the Act of Parliament under which they were proceeding. The Local Government Board have no authority to carry out the suggestion that solvent security should be accepted on behalf of labourers desirous of purchasing seed. But in cases where such security is offered, and when the fact is brought to my notice, I should most carefully consider the possibility of providing seed by other means than the Seed Supply Act.

  PROSECUTION OF AN EMERGENCY MAN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Crown intends proceeding with the prosecution of the emergency man, Alexander Fitzpatrick, who was charged at the Castlebellingham Petty Sessions in November last with shooting at Lawrence Reilly?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The man referred to is under bail for trial at next Assizes. Winter Assizes are intended for custody cases, and only under very

  1709
  exceptional circumstances would a bail case be tried there. There is nothing exceptional in the bail case now referred to.

  MESSRS. DILLON AND O'BRIEN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Messrs. William O'Brien and John Dillon, having surrendered to the authorities, the Government intends to estreat their recognisances?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; I believe so.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman on what principle the bails are to be estreated, the object of the bail having been secured by the voluntary surrender of the defendants?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can hardly think that the object of taking bail was secured. The object of the bail was that the defendants were bound to appear on a certain day. They did not appear on that day; they did not appear until some months afterwards; the object of the bail was, therefore, defeated.
  MR. SEXTON: Is not the substantial object of the bail secured now that the defendants are undergoing the sentence inflicted by the Court?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely, one of the objects was that they should come forward and stand their trial in the ordinary course. If you are going to allow every prisoner to appear exactly when and how he chooses, I think you will throw the whole course of judicial investigation into confusion.

  IRISH DISTRESS.
  MR. DEASY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that great distress prevails in the districts of Kilmovee and Kilkelly, in the Swinford Union, he will direct that relief works be at once opened?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Careful attention has been given to the condition of the Kilmovee and Kilkelly Electoral Divisions. It is not considered necessary at present to open relief works in either Division. Works are about to be opened, however, in the adjoining Divisions of Brackloon and Kilbeagh for the relief of such destitute
  1710
  persons as are unable to work on the railway. Any persons who may be similarly circumstanced in Kilmovee and Kilkelly will, doubtless, be eligible for employment. The railway works are, of course, giving a large amount of employment to able bodied labourers in Swinford Union.

  MOUNT JEROME CEMETERY.
  MR. MAHONY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will take steps to have the statue of Thomas Davis, by Hogan, at present suffering from exposure to the weather at Mount Jerome Cemetery, removed to the new Science and Art Buildings, Dublin; and whether he is aware that it is the earnest wish of the members of the family of the late Mr. Thomas Davies, and of the original subscribers to the statue, that it should be so removed?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): I made inquiry last year in answer to a question, and stated that the Science and Art Department were quite prepared to accept the statue. I will make further inquiry to see if there are any difficulties which can be overcome, and I will ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat the question on a later day.
  MR. MAHONY: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. JACKSON: I have no direct information; but I have seen a letter, which would indicate that it is the wish of the family that the statue should be removed.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the opinion of Mr. Cameron, for 15 years Inspector of Factories for Belfast, has been asked concerning the necessity of continuing the certifying surgeons under the Factories and Workshops Bill; and, if so, what is the opinion of the late Inspector?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; Mr. Cameron, who is still an Inspector, has not been asked for his opinion, and I am not in possession of his views.

  PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman private notice regarding the Scotch Private Bills Procedure Bill. It is whether, with a view to secure general agreement on the subject, Her Majesty's Government will be willing to re-consider their present proposals, and whether, instead of sending Scotch Bills to a Commission established in Scotland, they will be willing that such Bills should be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, with power to conduct an inquiry in Scotland; and further, whether, if that alternative is adopted, the necessity for legislation may not be avoided?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I have to say that the Government consider that the principle of the measure is that there should be a local inquiry with respect to those Bills. They have never attached importance to the constitution of the Commission, and I have already stated that they will be perfectly prepared to consider suggestions for a modification of the Commission, and there will be every disposition on the part of the Government to meet the views of the right hon. Gentleman, if it were practicable, that a Commission consisting of two Members of the House of Commons and two Members of the House of Lords should conduct this inquiry. But as to the further suggestion that the change might be effected by means of Standing Orders instead of by Bill, I am not satisfied that it would be practicable, and I have not had time to consider the suggestion which was made to me this morning. I will, however, communicate with the authorities of the other House and of this House as to the expediency of the course which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. But I am rather disposed to think that the better way would be to proceed by Bill.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not wish to suggest that it would be desirable to withdraw the Bill. I only desire to point out that if it is unnecessary to proceed by legislation there will be a saving of time to the Government and the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, proceed with the nomination of the Select Committee?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it is only reasonable that the nomination of the Committee should be postponed for a few days.

  FIGHTING IN CHILI.
  MR. E. SPENCER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any confirmatory news of the battle which the evening papers state to have been fought in Chili, on the 15th, 17th, and 18th inst., and of the fact also stated that no foreign residents have been killed, and that much loss of life and damage to property was avoided by the presence of the English warships Warspite, Espiègle, and Pheasant, under the command of Admiral Hotham?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The last official news received by Her Majesty's Government respecting Iquique is, I believe, up to the 20th inst., and is generally as regards affairs similar to those given in the paragraph which my hon. Friend showed to me. In the telegram which was from the naval Commander-in-Chief to the Admiralty there was no mention of the British or other foreign residents, from which I think it may be presumed that they have been unmolested. There has been also to-day a telegram from Her Majesty's Minister at Santiago, dated the 24th. The Commander-in-Chief will remain on the coast in the meantime for the protection of British interests.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL. (No. 206.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    (4.30.) THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not think it will be necessary to detain the House at any length—firstly, because the subject has been discussed already on the

    1713
    Bill of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James); and, secondly, because the changes made by the Bill are changes of detail, and do not need lengthy Second Reading discussion. I will deal, in the first place, with the question of the sanitary provisions of this Bill. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of provisions of this kind. There are three leading factors in the workman's life—his work, his wages, and his health. Unhappily, legislation can do but little with regard to the first two. It cannot alter or improve the quantity or the quality of the work, and it cannot otherwise than mischievously interfere with the question of wages. We have done much on the question of health, and we can do more. The question as to the sanitation of factories and workshops rests in a peculiar position. There have been for years provisions applicable, not merely to workshops and workplaces, but to houses and dwellings of every kind, and these are contained in the Public Health Act; and with the gradual improvement in that Act those provisions have been brought up to a higher level and improved from time to time. I think it is fair to say now that every house, whether workshop or not, factory or not, is tolerably secure from what I may call nuisances. There have been special provisions with regard to sanitation introduced in factories and workshops. Those provisions applied mainly to ventilation, to overcrowding, to cleanliness, to lime-washing, or the painting of the walls. The design and object of the Bill is to bring all workshops and all factories up to the same sanitary level, and to require the same conditions as to ventilation, overcrowding, lime-washing, and cleanliness to be applied to all kinds of workshops in which men alone, or women, children, and young persons, are employed, and with regard to which some, but not all, of what I may call the sanitary provisions apply. The Bill does not deal with what is commonly called domestic workshops. That is a point which does not, I know, satisfy some hon. members who take an interest in this subject; but there will be opportunity for discussion later. The President of the Local Government Board will before
    1714
    long lay before the House a Bill in which the public health provisions will be brought to a still higher level of improvement, and it occurs to me that the House may rest content with leaving what is called the domestic workshop—that is to say, the working man's home in which he works with the members of his family—subject to the provisions of the law of public health alone. It is obvious that in the domestic workshop you have not got the presence of the employer and the employé. You have the members of the same family, and, of course, it is possible that some ill-treatment may arise from a father to his child; but, I repeat, as far as the sanitary provisions are concerned, now that we are improving the law of public health, it seems to me that we may allow him and his family to work in a place which is sufficiently good, so far as sanitary conditions are concerned, for him and his family to live in. But that is a point which will be discussed in Committee. It is intended, therefore, to bring the law of public health as to workshops up to the level of the factory legislation. This is done by Clause 4, which enacts that every workshop, as defined by the principal Act (including any workshop conducted on the system of not employing any child, young person, or woman therein), shall be kept free from effluvia or other nuisance, and the Sanitary Authority is empowered, if it considers lime-washing, cleansing, or purifying necessary for the health of the persons employed, to give notice in writing to the owner or occupier to do it. If there is any failure on the part of the owner or occupier, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding 10s. for every day of default, and the Sanitary Authority may cause the workshop to be lime-washed, cleansed, or purified, and may recover the expenses incurred. The only other subject with regard to the sanitary provisions of the Act is the authority who has to enforce them. At the present time the factories and certain workshops are under the sanitary inspection, to some extent, of the Factory Inspector. On the other hand, the factory Inspector is obliged to call in the Local Authority in order to remedy anything that savours of a nuisance.

    1715
    By this Bill I propose to leave the factories as they are, entirely under the existing Inspectors. The system works well, and it has been found that the inspection of Factory Inspectors, although they are not skilled officers of health, has been on the whole satisfactory, and agreeable to public opinion. Now that we are extending the sanitary provisions of the Factory Act to all workshops throughout the country, of whatever kind they may be, except the domestic workshop, so that every cobbler's shop, every blacksmith's shop, every tailor's shop in towns in the country will come under the provisions of the Sanitary Law, it seems to me to be foolish not to take advantage of the existing machinery provided by the Local Authorities; and the enforcement of the sanitary provisions, so far as workshops are concerned, is by this Bill given to the Local Authorities. The Local Authorities are already abundantly equipped. They have an officer of health, an Inspector of Nuisances, under the surveillance of the Local Government Board, which has large powers of control. The Bill of the President of the Local Government Board would still further strengthen those powers of control; and in the event of its turning out, in spite of those precautions, that the Local Authorities fell short of what they ought to do, I have by the 1st and 2nd clauses of this Bill taken what I may call dictatorial power—that is, power to send to any workshops, or class of workshops, in a particular part of the country where the conditions of the law of public health and the provisions of the Sanitary Act have not been enforced, a Factory Inspector, or any number of Inspectors, in order that they may visit those workshops and, as it were, sweep the Augean stable clean, and do so swiftly, without power of appeal, and without interfering with the ordinary jurisdiction of the Local Authorities. Those powers are intended to be used in such districts as came before the notice of the Sweating Committee. There are some minor matters in which we have adopted the recommendations of the Sweating Committee of the House of Lords. The Bill requires that notice of the opening of workshops—of men's workshops as well as of others—shall be given; and that a list
    1716
    of out-workers in any factory shall be kept, so that it may be seen where the work of that factory is prepared, and care may be taken that the sanitary conditions are enforced in the places where the out-workers perform their duties. But these provisions do not exhaust the whole matter. Gases, vapour, and impurities in workshops are already provided for; but the condition of temperature in workshops, which may be dangerous to health, is not provided for. It was suggested that it might be left to the Factory. Inspectors to determine arbitrarily and finally what course should be adopted to remedy defective ventilation. I think that that is too arbitrary and despotic a power to give to the Factory Inspectors, who, though well-qualified men, are not men of science, and have not sufficient authority to determine such difficult questions as this. The machinery adopted by this Bill is contained in Clause 8, under which the Inspector has power, with regard to questions of ventilation, to suggest what he deems to be the proper requirements. But an appeal is given to a tribunal of arbitrators who are selected as specially competent to deal with the subject. This plan is not entirely new; but I have in Clause 8 considerably enlarged the scope of this scheme of arbitration with regard to sanitary requirements in a workshop. With regard to certain specific subjects, such as the proper fastening of grindstones and the fencing of vats in which hot liquids are contained, this system is adopted in the existing Factory Act; I think that an extension of this system is the most convenient course. The system is introduced on a large scale in the existing Coal Mine Regulations Act, where the most difficult questions of ventilation arise, and my experience at the Home Office teaches me that, on the whole, it works well. I have accordingly extended the provisions of Clause 8 not only to questions of ventilation, but also to any machinery or process used in a factory, and to the means of escape in case of fire. This is opening out a very large and considerable responsibility for the Executive in regard to the control of manufacturing and trade operations. I am not prepared to say myself that I am altogether in sympathy with legislation

    1717
    of that sort, though it has become of late more and more agreeable to this House. Such interference might possibly turn out mischievous, unless great discretion were used; but, on the other hand, in experience it has not been found to work unsatisfactorily in the very complicated industry of mining; and it may also be said that it is a far more convenient mode than that of constantly coming to Parliament for regulations in regard to a particular trade. Last year, or the year before, a very useful Act was passed with regard to steam-weaving in Lancashire, and to that Act a Schedule was appended laying down the temperature to be maintained in workshops. It may turn out that the provisions of that Schedule are unsatisfactory, and, if so, they can be set right by Clause 8 of this Bill, without any necessity for asking Parliament to pass a repealing Statute. I embark, however, upon this kind of legislation with some degree of hesitation and doubt; but I have introduced these provisions in the hope that they may be useful, and I hope that I have been frank with the House in stating the difficulties which I apprehend. I now pass to the very different subject of hours of employment. I make one change only to which I need draw the attention of the House. The House is aware that, at the present moment, in a workshop in which women only are employed, or in which women and men only are employed, the hours of labour for the women are 15, with 4½ hours taken out for meals, but with no other limitation. The effect of this provision is that it is impossible for the Inspector to tell whether or not the hours of employment for women are being enforced; and the change I introduce, though it seems simple, is practically a most effective one. It requires a specified period of 12 hours to be fixed by the employer, within which a specified hour and a half are to be allowed for meals; so that the hours of employment for women can at once be checked. But I have thought it better to allow the 12 hours to be taken in the same extended period as at present, because there are a great many women working in workshops of this sort, whose manner of life compels them to attend to their homes and families in the morning and to go to the workshop later in the day.
    1718
    I have thought it convenient, therefore, that they should be able to take their 12 hours at any time between 6 o'clock in the morning and 10 o'clock in the evening. Then as to the age at which employment may take place. I have observed allusions in connection with this Bill to the recommendations of the Berlin Conference. No doubt the recommendation of the bulk of the delegates at Berlin was in favour of raising the age at which employment should begin to 12 years, instead of leaving it at 10 as now. But anyone who looks at the deliberations of that Conference will see that what the delegates had in their minds was full employment in a factory such as exists in foreign countries. The only foreign country where our half-time system is known is, I believe, Denmark; and I find that the representative of Denmark, while this matter was under discussion at the Conference, pointed out the excellence of that system, and said that the age of full employment in Denmark did not arrive until 13 or 14 years. The law at present in this country is that a child can work only as a half-timer until he is 14, as a rule; but he can work full time at 13 if he obtains a certificate of proficiency under Section 26 of the existing factory Acts. The hours of work a week in textile factories are for children 28 and for women 56; and in non-textile factories, for children 30 and for women 60. In the intervening years between leaving school and working as a full-timer the half-time is spent in the school. I am told—and it is the unanimous opinion of the Inspectors—that the health of the children on the half-time system is as good as, if not better than, that of those who spend their whole time in school; and it is also found that the education of the children is better. They are sharper and more intelligent, and they make equal progress in school with the full-timers. This system is, in fact, a combination of the technical education, which so many people desire nowadays, with the scholastic or literary education, and the mixture of the two sharpens the child's wits. In the judgment of the Education Department the half-time system is for the benefit of the children themselves. My hon. Friend (Sir W. Hart Dyke) approves of it, and the

    1719
    parents are vehemently in favour of it. A large number of parents whose children are at this moment employed in the factories of the North are of opinion that it would be in every way a loss if this system were done away with. I would ask the House to observe that while there is nothing further from my desire than to fall short of even an implied undertaking which we may be supposed to have given at Berlin, our proposition is better than that put forward at Berlin, which was that full employment should begin at the age of 12, and the work to which children were to be admitted at the établissements industries would be of greater length than our full length of work in this country. For instance, in Belgium the number of hours of employment is 72 in the week; in Denmark, where the half-time system does prevail, the full period is 63 hours; in the Netherlands it is 66, and in Italy and Hungary 48. Therefore, if the recommendations of the Berlin delegates were followed to the letter, the consequence would be that a child of 12 might be employed in England to that number of hours without departing from the letter or the spirit of the recommendations of the delegates, whereas under our system he is at work a fewer number of hours up to the age of 13 or even 14. I may add that our delegates expressly reserved the half-time system. Mr. Scott said, when the proposal to fix 12 as the age for admission to industrial establishments was under discussion, that—
    "In the actual state of English legislation, which allows, under certain restrictions, the work of children between 10 and 12 years of age he gives his approval to the proposal ad referendum"—
    that is, subject to a reference to the Home Government. Sir, I have come very nearly to the end of that with which I need trouble the House. There is a small matter connected with holidays to which I may call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). He proposes that notice of the occasional or extra half-holiday should be given on the 1st of January. I suggest that that is not necessary to the convenience of the workpeople, and would be inconvenient to carry out in practice; all that is required is that the notice shall be given
    1720
    sufficiently long beforehand, so as to allow the workmen to enjoy that holiday completely. I have, therefore, suggested that a fortnight's notice should be given, or, if necessary, it might be made three weeks. There is one other subject about which I should like to say a word, and that is the question of the initial certificate of fitness for employment. I notice that pressure is being brought to bear upon the House by the ordinary means, and what may be described as an agitation is being initiated on the subject; but I have not come to the decision at which I have arrived without considerable reflection and inquiry. I have received deputations on the subject, and have listened to the representations made to me both from employers and operatives. Nothing is clearer to my mind than that the provisions requiring a certificate of fitness on the entry of a child into a manufactory—not at any subsequent period nor during the continuance of the work, but on entering into it for the first time—have become a purely unmeaning form. Since the establishment of the Education Act a species of inquisition has been held into the age of every child and the ages are set forth, so that the certificate of the surgeon is unnecessary. I propose, however, that the certificates of birth of children shall be obtained for a nominal sum—a sum lower than the fee now charged. Both employers and operatives have told me that such a thing as a child being rejected as unfit for employment has not been known for years, the certificate being an initial step, only guarding against initial incapacity and not supervening incapacity. During the course of his employment the child may get ill, and yet no certificate is required, while the present practice gives considerable annoyance to the parents, and is an expense to the employers which, if it is unnecessary, they ought to be spared, the fees amounting to from £20 to £30 or £40 a year in connection with these certificates. This certificate I hold to be unnecessary, and I will tell the House why I have come to this conclusion. I do not say that you may trust to parental affection, though that is one safeguard not to be left out of sight. The next safeguard is the interest of the employer himself, who is not likely to pay wages to a child

    1721
    who is unable to do his work. The third safeguard is that no one of these children can be employed unless he is daily going to school, and in this way we have a constant check, as the child would not be able to attend work unless he was well enough to go through his school attendance. Lastly, I propose to keep the check contained in Section 29 of the existing Act, which gives a valuable safeguard in that it empowers the Inspector at any moment to call in a surgeon to say whether a child whose fitness for work is doubtful is or not fit for work. I do not complain of the action of the certifying surgeons in this matter. On the contrary, I fully sympathise with their complaints against this proposal; and if they have any claim to compensation I would recognise it cheerfully, but I trust that we shall continue their services in the matter of accidents, and in other matters as to which they can be of use, and I hope to be able by an adjustment of the fees in these respects to make the proposed changes, which they seem to view in a serious light, of less consequence to them than they think they will be. There are some minor Amendments in the Bill to which I need hardly refer.
    SIR H. JAMES: The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the question of fire escape.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Act comes into operation on the 1st of January, 1892. With regard to existing factory buildings, I propose to deal with them under Clause 8, and the question of what the means of escape from fire should be will have to be decided by arrangement or arbitration. In future buildings a second staircase, independent of the ordinary entrance, is required. The point as to whether the clauses dealing with these matters should be imperative must be decided in Committee. I do not know that there is anything more with which I need trouble the House. This is essentially a Bill of details, but I believe I have now mentioned all the changes of any importance, and I ask the House, if it is pleased to read the Bill a second time, to refer it to the Committee on Trade. I have no doubt that the Committee of Selection will take care that it shall be considered by persons who are cognisant of all the great industries affected by it, and also
    1722
    by persons who are in touch with the operative class and understand their wishes and desires. I again repeat the suggestion I made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury, when his Bill was under consideration. I have not put into this Bill the clauses which he suggests and which we discussed the other day, because it was too late for me to do so, and I would much rather that he himself undertook the task of proposing in the way he may consider best the clauses with regard to particulars of work for the purpose of ascertaining wages and a clause with regard to a half-hour for cleaning. It seems to me that the safest course is to leave these matters to be decided by the Standing Committee. I would also appeal to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Sydney Buxton) to excuse me if I have not referred to his Bill in detail. I am conscious that he goes further than I do, but I would venture again to suggest that, though it is easy to devise clauses which are plausible and take the mind when you read them, and though the House is bound to extend its protection to the widest degree that real necessity demands when the health and welfare of children is in question, nothing can be more mischievous than to harass and hamper trade with minute regulations that are not imperatively necessary, and I have endeavoured to avoid that in this Bill. I beg now to move the Second Reading, and to express the hope that the measure may afterwards be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Matthews.)
    (5.15.) MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think I may say with regard to the Bill introduced the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, it was of a very limited scope, and dealt only with the aristocracy of labour, and entirely left out in the cold a large section of unskilled labour, which is less protected and less capable of protecting itself than any other labour. Now the Home Secretary presents a Bill which, although good as far as it goes, is guilty of many serious omissions, and I think, therefore, I am justified in rising to say a few words by way of criticism, though

    1723
    it is not my desire to unnecessarily prolong the Debate. The House will agree that the time is ripe for taking the whole question of the protection of the workers in hand, and a good job ought to be made of it, so that Parliament may not be called upon to tinker at this great question again in a few years. I am not going to delay the House by arguing the question as to whether a considerable reform such as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and proposed by other Members is necessary in the Factory and Workshops Act. I think the Report we had on Sweating, and the practical experience and knowledge of every Member of the House, will suffice to enable us to decide that the time has arrived when this question ought to be dealt with. We have seen in the past the great advantages that have sprung from the Factory Acts. It has raised the condition and improved the position of a vast number of workers in the Kingdom, and what we desire chiefly in regard to any Amendment of that Act is this: not only further to improve the position of those persons, but by further legislation to bring under registration, inspection, and regulation a vast amount of labour which at present is outside the law and practically unregulated and uninspected. I think that one very good reason exists for a great extension of the Factory Acts to workshops and home work. It was proved before the Royal Commission that the result of carrying factory and workshop regulation down to a certain point, and no further, has been, that, to a large extent, work has been driven out of the regulated establishments and into places unregulated and uninspected. Therefore, the fair employer, the regulated and inspected employer, is placed at a disadvantage as compared with the unfair employer, who escapes observation, and is, therefore, able in many cases unduly to compete. This should not be so. The other day the House by Resolution declared that in its opinion, in reference to the question of Government contracts, the fair employer ought to be placed on an equal footing with the unfair employer, and what I ask in reference to this question of the regulation of workshops is, that those employers who desire to act well by those in their employ should be
    1724
    placed on a fair footing with those who, at present, being unregulated, are able to a large extent to carry on their work under conditions of economical insanitation. We desire to enlarge the net and to make the meshes smaller, so that all these employers may be brought under the eye of the law. I have heard this Bill described as a milk-and-water Bill, and certainly in some parts I do think the milk is rather thin; nevertheless, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in having introduced the Bill as far as it goes. I hope that when it is discussed in the Grand Committee he may be able to insert some provisions which are necessary to render it more complete, and that the Home Secretary may receive in a friendly spirit the proposals made on this side of the House. With regard to the sanitary provisions of the Bill, I think the measure will be most satisfactory in working. In the first place, it brings under the provisions of the Sanitary Act those places where men alone work; and, moreover, it brings within the purview of the law those workshops where women, or women and men work, and where children and young persons are not employed. With reference to matters of cleanliness, ventilation, over-crowding, and so on, it is, to my mind, a scandal that for all these years such places should have been exempt from the provisions of the Factory Acts. I congratulate the Home Secretary on his proposal to strengthen the provisions of the law with regard to Local Authorities, by giving summary powers to the Home Office Inspectors to take action where the Local Authorities neglect their duties. I wish I could think with the Home Secretary that it is only in a few cases that duties in regard to sanitary matters have been neglected. I am afraid the Local Authorities neglect their duties in very many cases; and I think they will be more likely to perform their duties when they know that, if they neglect them, the Home office will have powers to enforce the regulations of the Act. I am pleased to see the improvements the right hon. Gentleman has introduced with regard to the employment of women, and which he has explained, but I regret that he should have thought it necessary to extend the limit of time up to 10 o'clock at night. I should

    1725
    have thought it would have been wise to have simplified the provisions of the law by making the hours in these workshops where women work the same as those now obtaining in non-textile factories; that is to say, the 12 hours to be either from 6 in the morning until 6 at night, or from 7 in the morning until 7 at night. There is another good point in the Bill to which the Home Secretary did not refer, namely, that for a period of four weeks after child-birth a woman should not be allowed to be employed in a factory. I am glad the Bill provides for the registration of workshops, although I do not think the provision in that respect is adequate, and I doubt whether the clause on the subject, unless amended, will have a very great effect. Finally, the Government propose a system of registration of outworkers. A proposal most excellent in itself, but falling far short in execution. And this is the first of those sins of omission that mark the Bill. The evidence given before the Lords' Committee on Sweating shows that domestic workshops and home work are at the bottom of the evils of the sweating system. The reason being that there is no responsible employer and no responsible owner of the premises; the work being done through a middleman, who has the unfortunate workmen entirely under his control without being responsible for the work they do. Now we do not desire to prohibit this home work; prohibition is not possible. But every one would desire, if possible, to restrict, to regulate, and to discourage it, for we believe it to be at the bottom of the sweating system. What we want chiefly is publicity, common knowledge as to where the work takes place, and who gives it out, and responsibility placed on the original employer. We want to trace out where the work goes to, and to make the employer a sort of sign-post in the matter, though he may be an unwilling signpost. The only way to do this is by an effective system of registration of the names and addresses of all persons to whom work is given out. The Government admit in principle that that is the right way of dealing with the matter, but I do not think
    1726
    the details of their proposal are sufficiently thorough or sufficiently stringent. As I understand the Bill a register is to be kept by the employer who gives out the work to be done in domestic workshops or at home, but this register is to be open only to the Inspectors or the Sanitary Authorities. Now it does seem to me that in order to have a check on the accuracy of this Return, that the workers themselves, at all events, ought to have access to this register; for if they do not, I do not see how anyone is to say whether the register is correct or not. I think also that the accredited representatives of the workpeople—the Trades Union officials and others—ought to have access to the register. The Home Secretary will agree that it will be impossible for Inspectors, overworked and undermanned as they are and will be, even though their number is increased, to look oat the addresses and inspect all the places where this work is carried on. If you are to attain success by this system of keeping a register, then undoubtedly you can best attain it by the aid of those vigilant watch dogs who represent the interests of the workers through the Trades Unions. The workmen themselves would make the best Inspectors to ascertain whether the premises are in a sanitary condition, whether there is any contagious disease in the district where the work is carried on, and whether there is compliance with the law. It seems tome no inconvenience would be caused, there would be no undue satisfying of curiosity simply, but information obtained that cannot be obtained in any other way. By throwing open the register to the workers and to their accredited representatives you would obtain the publicity you desire, and would be enabled to force employers if they would not do so on their own initiative, to have some regard to the conditions under which home work is carried on. But I understand the Home Secretary to say that be does not see his way, through the means of this register, to insist, so far as the Home Office is concerned, on these places being kept in a sanitary condition. I confess I should like to see the Bill go further, and declare that responsibility attaches to the employer who habitually gives out work, for the sanitary condition of

    1727
    the premises where the work is carried on, and provide a penalty against sending work to a place known to the employer to be in an insanitary condition. More important still. The employer should be prohibited, under penalty, from sending work to a place where a contagious disease—such as scarlet fever, for instance—is known to be raging. Nothing is more clear from the evidence given before the Lords' Committee than that the community, putting aside the risk to the individual workers, run the greatest risk from the spread of a contagious disease by means of home work being done in a place where disease is raging, the work going back to the factory, and thence to the consumer—the germs, of disease with it. Without attaching responsibility to the employer, and with it a penalty, I do not see how this register will become of practical value; and I fear it will become a dead letter, and this important provision become inoperative. There is a further serious omission from the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman entirely excludes domestic workshops from the provision of his Bill; but I am glad to hear he thinks that is a matter which may be discussed in Grand Committee, and that he is open to the friendly reception of arguments for bringing these workshops within the scope of the Bill. We believe that these domestic workshops where members of a family, or nominally members of a family, work together, should be brought under some sort of inspection and regulation; but, so far as I can judge, the Bill does not deal with these matters at all, but leaves them entirely to the Sanitary Authorities. I would have these matters included in the duties of the Home Office Inspectors. We are, I suppose, all in favour of decentralisation in regard to these matters, but unfortunately in London—and I am afraid I am speaking almost entirely from a London point of view—in London our Sanitary Authorities are unreformed, and in many cases uninterested, and unintelligent; while the areas are so small that they are often unable to afford to engage sufficient or efficient sanitary officers. We know, from experience how local sanitary matters are neglected. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the President of
    1728
    the Local Government Board is going to introduce reforms into this part of our local government; but we have waited long for District Councils in London, and I do not think that we should delay dealing with the evils of the sweating system until we get these District Boards. The suggestion on this point that I venture to throw out is one I put in the Bill which I have introduced, a Bill to which, of course, I must not now refer. Taking into account the vast number of small workshops in the East of London, would it not be possible to appoint a Special Commission to deal with this special part of the subject, which should undertake the office of searching into these matters and obtaining the registration of these domestic workshops and other places; and, having thus placed this matter on a proper basis, hand it over to the Home Office to be subsequently transferred to the Local Authority when reformed? Another point. I am very much surprised that the Home Secretary has not, in his Bill, dealt with the question of overcrowding. We could have wished that the Bill had contained some such provision as that to be found in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), for securing a minimum amount of cubical space for each individual worker in a factory or workshop. I know he said in the Debate upon the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman last week, that it is impossible to fix a hard and fast line to fit all circumstances, and nobody asks him to attempt to do that. But we have a minimum of cubical space fixed in relation to our elementary schools, for instance, and there is every reason why there should be a minimum in the case of factories and workshops. I believe there is already a non-official limit, recognised by the Home Office, of 250 cubic feet for each person with deductions for gas burners; why not have that inserted in an Act? I have, in reference to this Bill, endeavoured to show that, while the Bill does go a considerable way, there are considerable sins of omission. I have referred to the question of registration and inspection of home work and domestic workshops, overcrowding, and would add that there should be provision for greater publicity for those notices which are to be put in workshops. But there

    1729
    are two still more serious omissions, as to which I will only say a few words. I regret to find that the Home Secretary has not dealt in any way with the question of overtime. I refer not so much to the overtime in large factories, but to the overtime work in small factories and workshops. I think we all agree that it was not intended that this overtime was given in order to be so much work which the employer could take out of his workpeople; but it was given in order to render somewhat elastic the limit of the fixed hours of work. But it appears from the evidence before the Lords' Committee, that in too many cases this overtime is looked upon simply as so much additional time to be got out of the workers; and that is worked off day by day until the time allowed is expended, and is not used in the ordinary sense of overtime. I could have wished that the Home Secretary had seen his way to introduce some restriction, some regulation, so that the overtime should be used for a legitimate purpose, and not be simply so many hours added to the number of hours that may be worked in the year. But the final omission from the Bill is very astonishing, and the right hon. Gentleman himself alluded to it in an apologetic tone. He has not proposed anything to improve the conditions of the employment of children in factories and workshops. We certainly understood, not only from what happened at the Berlin Conference, but from the unanimous Report of the Royal Commission on Education, from the majority and the minority Reports, that the minimum age below which children may not be employed would be raised from 10 to 12, or at least from 10 to 11 years. The Home Secretary went into considerable detail upon this matter in his speech and endeavoured to prove two things: first, that the Berlin Conference did not know what they were talking about; and, secondly, that the system of sending children to work half time at 10 years of age was the very best possible thing for the children themselves. As to the last point, I rather wonder that, if he has satisfied himself of the enormous advantage of half time to the children, he did not propose to lower the limit of age to 8 or 9; for surely, if there is such a great advantage in 10 over 12, the advantage would be greater of 9 over 12.
    1730
    With regard to the proceedings at the Berlin Conference, I confess I could not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. We certainly understood that at the Conference, the Representatives of this country supported the proposition that 12 years should be the minimum limit for employment. The Resolution arrived at by the Conference in relation to the regulation of child labour is clear in its terms that every child of either sex should be excluded from employment in factory or workshop until the age of 12, except in certain Southern countries, where the limit was placed at 10 years; and I find among the signatures the names of John E. Gorst, Charles Scott, and W. H. Houldsworth. We naturally expected to see this Resolution given effect to when factory legislation was proposed, and are greatly disappointed to find no reference to the matter in the Government Bill. The Government are pledged by this Resolution of the Berlin Conference, but they have ignored this as they have ignored the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission on Education. I must apologise for having carried my remarks to such length, but many details are necessarily included in the Bill. The Home Secretary says he is prepared to accept practical proposals, but he does not wish to harass the trade of the country, and in that view we all agree. In any proposal we may have to make for improving the position of the working classes, especially those in certain parts of London, we shall be influenced by no intention to harass trade, but with the intention rather of fostering trade and improving production by elevating the condition of the people; by getting industry out of the rut of home work and domestic workshops, and transferring it to large workshops and factories where it can be carried on, as we believe, under conditions more healthy, as well as more economical, better for trade generally, and certainly better for the workers.
    MR. FIELDEN: Since this Bill was introduced I have had the advantage of a visit to Lancashire, where I have heard the views of those engaged in the Lancashire cotton trade in reference to the measure before us. I may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the

    1731
    manner in which it is received. It is declared to be a good Bill, though there are one or two objections entertained, and it may not be out of place if I just refer to these. Clause 1 deals with the same subject-matter as Clause 5 in the Bill introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), and I am advised that the latter clause is preferred as being more "understanded of the people" than Clause 1 in the Government Bill. This, I presume, is a matter of phraseology, pertinent to discussion in Committee. In reference to Clause 17—cessation from work—I am advised rightly or wrongly, I am myself unable to say—that one day is more than sufficient. Upon Clause 18—that a woman shall not be allowed to work at a factory within a month of giving birth to a child—I am strongly urged to support an Amendment making the period six weeks. There are other suggestions which have been made to me on points of detail, suggestions which no doubt are valuable as coming from practical men in the Lancashire cotton industry, and which may more properly be brought forward in Committee; but I may say that the feeling among both operatives and owners in my constituency is in favour of the Government measure.
    EARL COMPTON: In the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Buxton) most of the omissions from the Bill have been mentioned, and I agree with my hon. Friend in almost all that he said, except that I cannot join in congratulations to the Government upon their Bill. We had, in the evidence given before the Sweating Committee, a disclosure of some of the greatest evils that could exist in many branches of industry, and we had strong recommendations from that Committee. We waited many months—I do not say there was undue delay on the part of the Government, naturally they had to take some time for consideration—to find remedies proposed for the evils disclosed, and now we have in this Bill what I suppose, in the view of the Government, are the remedies to be provided by legislation. I am aware that the intention is that the Bill is to be submitted to a Standing Committee, and then the subject is to be threshed out; but again I assert that the Bill, as we have it before us,
    1732
    contains the view of Her Majesty's Government with regard to alterations in the Factory Act, to meet the evils brought before the Committee on "sweating." We have had from the Home Secretary a willingness expressed to look into any matter brought before the Standing Committee, and we shall have in the Bill, introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury a means at hand to strengthen the Bill of the Government; and we shall have, I hope, on that Committee men who will be prepared to proceed on the lines laid down by the hon. Member for Poplar, and still further strengthen this milk-and-water measure, upon which I cannot offer the Government any congratulations. The chief omission brought forward by my hon. Friend had reference to home work and domestic workshops, and as he spoke of the evils to be remedied I understand that some of our friends seemed to think that it would be unwise to attempt legislation affecting domestic workshops. But have they read the evidence given before the Committee? I will just mention three instances which scarcely need comment. In one room, 9ft. by 15ft., a man, his wife, and six children slept, and in the same room ten men worked; in another room ten men worked and a family of eight slept; in a third six people, men and women, slept and worked. Such cases as these will be left untouched by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. We shall have, no doubt, a better system of inspection under the Bill. We shall have, I suppose, a large number of Inspectors appointed to look into the state of factories and workshops. I understand from the Home Secretary that we are to have a system of registration so that Inspectors may trace the work to the places where it is sent. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that Inspectors will be able to follow up the work given out by employers; but when they do thus follow it up, when they arrive at these unhealthy places where men, women, and children live, and sleep, and work, what will the Inspectors be able to do? So far as I can see they will not be able to do more than they have done in the past. At all events, I understand the Home Secretary has excluded altogether from his Bill domestic workshops and home work,

    1733
    therefore I cannot see that Inspectors can do much in the matter. There will never be an adequate system of inspection until sub-Inspectors are appointed with trade training and knowledge. I believe that under Section 67 of the Act of 1878 the Secretary of State has power to appoint "clerks and servants" for the assistance of Inspectors. I do not know what "clerks and servants" means; I believe it refers to officials under the Inspector. I believe the Home Secretary has power to appoint, as well as Inspectors, men who have a practical knowledge of the trade to be inspected, and I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us that he intended to take some such course. The Sweating Committee doubted whether it was practicable to have a division of responsibility, but as long as you have Inspectors with a knowledge of the trade, the sub-Inspectors should be distinctly under the Inspectors. Personally, I think the best system would be that the Trades Unions should select two or three for the office, and that the Secretary of State should then make the selection. I had hoped, also, to hear something about women Inspectors, who are most necessary. I do not believe we shall have justice done to women workers who have been overworked to a horrible degree, particularly in London and other big towns, until we have women inspectors who are able to ferret out the true conditions under which they work. As to the horrible evils which exist in our large towns, I think the Home Secretary would do well to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poplar. London and Glasgow and perhaps one or two other centres should be taken separately, and dealt with in a more drastic way; and I believe that a large body of the working classes of this country would acknowledge that to be a just way. We know that in a great many of our large towns the employers have done all they possibly can to ensure that their employés shall work under sanitary conditions. Then I had hoped that we were going to have from the Secretary of State a hint as regards "the dictatorial authority," I think he calls it. One of the recommendations of the Sweating Committee was that the various Departments of the Government which had in
    1734
    one way or another to deal with labour questions should be brought into closer relation with each other. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing this Bill, would say that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to have a Minister to look after the labour question. I read the other day that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) recommended at a political meeting that working men should insist upon the Government having a separate Minister to look after labour questions. I thought that perhaps a hint would be thrown out as to the intention of the Government in this direction. Perhaps another occasion will be embraced, though I should have thought that this was a proper one. With the hon. Member for Poplar, I regret that the question of the age of children has been omitted, that the question of overtime has been omitted, and that other essentials have been omitted from the Bill. I confess that if there were no prospect of amending it in Committee, or of its being strengthened in the Standing Committee by the Bill of the right hon. Member for Bury, I should have been impelled to move its rejection. I hope the Home Secretary will give way on a good many points in Committee, and I hope also that by the time the Bill comes back to the House of Commons it will, instead of being a miserable and inadequate measure to meet the evils under which people have suffered for so long a time, be strong as well as fair for both employer and employed.
    MR. BAUMANN: Sir, as I drafted a Bill and introduced it to this House last year, containing several clauses which the Home Secretary has embodied without acknowledgment, and probably without consciousness, I hope I may be allowed to congratulate him upon the construction of this Bill, which will prevent some of the worst evils of the sweating system. It is, I think, a splendid Bill, reflecting great credit upon the Department from which it emanates, and it cannot fail to add to the reputation which the Home Secretary earned some years ago in connection with the Mines Regulation Act. Considering the complicated character of the principal Act, I think the drafters of this Bill deserve

    1735
    to be congratulated on the simplicity of its arrangement. It is divided into two branches—the sanitary provisions, and the periods of employment. The sanitary provisions are excellent. The infamous Clause 61 in the principal Act disappears, and is repealed by this Bill, which provides that all workshops, whether they employ young persons and children or not, must be kept clean, sweet, and wholesome. As by another clause, notice of occupation of a workshop must be given to the Inspector. I am not without hope that all workshops will be brought under some kind of control. But I was sorry to hear that the domestic workshops are to be excluded from the purview of the Inspector. Some of the worst cases of sweating have been found among the domestic workshops. I cannot for the life of me see why, if a man chooses to employ in a workshop his sisters and his cousins and his aunts, he is to be allowed to poison them with bad air and foul drains.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The Public Health Act can be applied to these shops.
    MR. BAUMANN: I shall be glad to learn that the Public Health Act will be sufficient, or that domestic workshops can be included in the operation of Clause 4. Then we come to the periods of employment and the hours of labour. I rejoice that under this Bill women are to be protected as women, and if it becomes law women employed in all workshops, except domestic workshops, will receive the protection of the 12 hours day, and I hope that will have the coincident effect of reducing the labour of men to 12 hours a day also. With regard to the employment of children, I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not given the coup de grâce to the alternate day system, which still lingers in some parts of the country. The alternate day system is not a good system even with the amount of rest that is allowed. For children to be at the disposal of their employers for 12 hours is too severe a strain on their young and tender frames, and moreover it must operate in such a way as to seriously intercept the course of their education. I, for one, should like to see all children made half-timers. But there is one other important branch of the subject
    1736
    with which I wish to deal. I allude to the question of overtime, which has already been touched upon by two hon. Gentlemen opposite. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has not dealt with that subject in a manner which we should all have been glad to have seen. It is true that he has introduced a very important; clause by which the employer is bound to post a notice that he intends to work overtime before 8 o'clock on the evening on which the overtime is to be worked. That I regard as a most important clause, because according to the evidence before the Lords Sweating Committee what used to happen was this: the Inspector would catch the workpeople working overtime, and would say to the employer, "Have you posted your notice that overtime is to be worked?" The answer was always, "No; I have not posted it yet: I was just going to do so when you came in;" the fact being that if the Inspector had not looked in no notice of overtime would have been posted at all. But there is a much larger question of overtime dealt with in the principal Act than this. As the House is probably aware, the employers in certain trades are allowed to work their hands overtime for a period of 14 hours for so many days in the year. These trades were such as dealt with articles liable to be spoilt by the weather, and those which are subject to a sudden press of orders arising from what is called the season pressure. Those which were liable to season pressure were allowed to work overtime 48 days in the year, while those which dealt with perishable articles were allowed to work overtime 96 days a year. But in addition to the trades specified in the Schedule of the Act of 1878 as entitled to this indulgence in regard to overtime, it is provided that the Home Secretary may, at his discretion, grant an order of overtime to any trade or firm in either category. Now, Sir, I know, as a matter of fact, that the law as regards overtime is greatly abused and systematically violated in London. There is an enormous amount of overtime worked in London—not only in the sweating dens of the East End, but also in the fashionable shops at the West End—not only in Whitechapel, but in Bond Street. An important safeguard which was intro-

    1737
    duced into that Act provides that before issuing his order the Home Secretary shall satisfy himself that overtime is necessary, and also that it will not be injurious to the employeés. Now, I want to know by what process of pre of the right hon. Gentleman satisfies himself that overtime is necessary, and that it will not injure the employeés, before he grants an overtime order? A well-known upholsterer in London told me that he always worked 96 days overtime in the year. I presume on the score that the chairs and other articles of furniture in his establishment are perishable articles. But I want to know by what process the Home Secretary satisfies himself that that upholsterer's chairs and tables are perishable articles, or that overtime would not be injurious to the employeés in that establishment? I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to abolish overtime altogether, although I am not one of those who believe in its necessity. Indeed, I believe that if people would only be a little more humane and considerate in giving their orders to the shopkeepers, and, if instead of rushing into a shop and saying "I want a frock," or "1 want a coat within three days" they would only order in the Autumn and Spring what they want for the Winter and Summer, what is called the season pressure might be avoided, and the work might be spread over a much larger portion of the year. What 1 want to impress on the Home Secretary, and what I intend, if necessary, to propose as an Amendment to the Bill, is that an annual Return should be laid on the Table of the House embodying the number and nature of the cases of overtime orders granted or current during the year, so that the House may see how many of them there are, and for what reason these overtime indulgences have been granted, and in order that my friend the upholsterer may not in future c aim a privilege which I am sure the law never intended him to have. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman had extended the operation of the Bill to domestic workshops; but 1 am sure that if he will accept my suggestion with regard to an annual Return of the overtime orders, the Bill will thereby be greatly improved and rendered much more effective. In that case
    1738
    I believe it would be one of the greatest and most beneficial of the long list of measures dealing with the health and labour of the working classes which the Conservative Party has, during the last 40 years, engrafted on the legislation of the county.
    SIR H. JAMES: While this Bill is before the House it may be convenient if I state what is the course which I and those who are interested in the promotion of the Bill on this subject, which was discussed last week, propose to ask the House to adopt. When our Bill was before the House last Wednesday there had been no sufficient opportunity for hon. Members to read, or, at any rate, to consider fully, the Bill of Her Majesty's Government. But while that Bill was before the House those who had taken part in its promotion, and the operatives who had displayed the greatest interest in its preparation, suggested that the course to be taken should be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir W. Houldsworth), and myself. It was thought right that we should lose no opportunity of having the Bill of the Government considered by the representatives of the operatives, and they have accordingly taken it into their consideration. I think I may say that there is an agreement on the part of my hon. Friends and myself and the representatives of the operatives that it would be much better if these attempts to legislate on this subject should result in the passing of one Act instead of two. It is thought that in the interests of those workpeople who are to be protected by the proposed legislation, as well as in the interests of the manufacturers who will also be brought under its provisions, it would be very undesirable to have two Acts of Parliament in the same Session dealing, to some extent at least, with the same subject-matter; and, therefore, what I propose to do is this. While I shall maintain for the present the position of the Bill which the House thought right to read a second time last Wednesday, and shall move, in pursuance of the notice I have given, to refer it to the Grand Committee on Trade—for I do not intend to part with it entirely—I shall,

    1739
    in the first instance, endeavour to amend the Government Bill, and shall accept the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and attempt to introduce the clauses of the Bill of last week into the Government measure. I cannot say that I quite agree in the term applied to the Government Bill by the hon. Member who has just sat down, when he characterised it as a "splendid" Bill, and I think that even the Home Secretary himself would not go so far as that. In fact, I feel some diffidence in expressing any opinion on the measure. I may, however, say that the Bill I submitted to the House last week was framed mainly in the interest of those who are employed in the manufacture of textile fabrics, and does not touch other workshops nor various matters included in the Government Bill. As far as the operatives have considered the Government measure, they do not call it a splendid Bill. They deem it a good Bill, and they wish to throw no opposition in the way of considering its details, which they think are worthy of the attention of this House. That being the case, I accept the invitation of the Home Secretary, and I will say, in regard to the much mooted matter as to the quantity of air to be admitted into the workrooms, that now the 600 feet proposal contained in Clause 8 of my Bill has been abandoned there is a fair opportunity of arriving at a satisfactory settlement on the subject of ventilation. There is, however, one subject on which I wish to say a word. I allude to the question of dust, which is one of some importance in the manufacture of textile fabrics. I am sorry that there is no proposal to deal with it in the Government measure. My desire is merely to extend to the textile factories a clause in regard to this important matter, without which it is impossible to deal satisfactorily with the question of ventilation. The Government Bill is, unfortunately, silent on this point; and I must say that I shall press upon the Grand Committee when dealing with my Bill the necessity of some provision in relation to this important subject. I do not take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman with regard to fire-escapes and I hope we may hereafter be able to deal with that matter in a more satisfactory manner than is proposed by the
    1740
    Government Bill. As to the time the machinery is to stand idle for cleaning, I do not think we need trouble much about that, as in the worsted and woollen trades, but little time is required for the cleaning of machinery; but I am delighted at the invitation of the Home Secretary to introduce clauses from the Bill of last week into the Government Bill, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will favourably consider the clause contained in the Bill of last week with regard to the cotton manufactures. As to the matter of certifying surgeons, I must ask the Government to keep an open mind, for this is a very grave question. Employer and employed may each, from his own point of view, think the certificate unnecessary; but this House must remember that it has to deal with another interest—the interest of children, who are not quite satisfactorily represented even by their own parents. There are many other minor matters, such as the subject of minimum penalties, and the interference of a Central Body instead of the Local Sanitary Authority, which are essentially questions for the Standing Committee, and I should not be wise in now expending the time of the House in dealing with them. I thank the Government for the way in which they have met my Bill. I accept, to a certain extent, the invitation given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to draft the clauses of that Bill into the Bill of the Government; but, for the present, I shall retain my Bill for the purpose of pressing it if necessary.
    MR.BROOKE ROBINSON: We have heard from hon. Members something of the operation of this Bill in the case of Lancashire and the East End of London, and I should like to say something, therefore, as to what its effect will be in Staffordshire, more especially in connection with those engaged in the nail and chain trades—persons who occupied a very considerable portion of time of the Parliamentary Committee presided over by Lord Dunraven, and in connection with whom there are several exceptional provisions in the Bills brought in by Lord Dunraven and Lord Thring dealing with this subject. It will be also difficult, I fear, to apply to these trades some of the provisions of this Bill; whilst, on the other hand,

    1741
    some of the provisions would fail to achieve the object they have in view. The nail trade in this district has existed for more than 400 years; and in the reign of Elizabeth the nailers employed in it were so poor that a Bill at that period was introduced into Parliament with the object of remedying their condition; and that this was the state of things at this period, we have the corroborate testimony of the eminent Nonconformist divine, Richard Baxter, who in his early youth was a schoolmaster in the town of Dudley, and records in his diary the poverty of the nailers. Such as the nailers were then, such they are to-day; and the attempts to bring the old customs of the trade into line with modern commercial life has brought about such a conglomeration of customs that no one can understand these industries who has not lived in the district, and certainly no one can do so by simply going there by a morning train and scampering back in the afternoon. These people are, however, all looking forward that some factory legislation may do something for them. But when you come to apply this legislation you have two difficulties to deal with. There is, first, the poverty of these people. Hon. Members have heard about the chain makers, but if the chain makers are badly off the nailers are still worse off. I believe myself there are no class of men, I was going to say upon God's earth, but certainly in this country, so badly off as the nailers, for I am not using the language of exaggeration when I say that let these people work as they do work, from the earliest hour of dawn to the latest hour of night, and they cannot earn more than from 8s. to 10s. a week. They are far worse off than the agricultural labourer, because not only have they more rent to pay, but the agricultural labourer has also gardens and allotments, whilst these people have to pay for everything they require. There is also the difficulty that these people are for the most part but poorly educated. At the last election my borough gained rather an. unenviable position, from the fact that out of a poll of about 12,000 more than 1,000 voted as illiterates; and it is therefore extremely difficult to bring men before Magistrates for not having given written technical notices if they plead that they lived in the days when
    1742
    education was not general, and are unable either to read or to write, and have no money to pay anyone to read or write for them. You must remember also that in these industries the employer lives not in the workshop, but in the warehouse, and that the workmen themselves are the owners of their workshops, carrying on their business as a domestic industry; but in a workshop which is a workshop without the word domestic. There must be three conditions laid down in any factory legislation dealing with these people. That all sanitary work must devolve upon the owner; that no unnecessarily harassing technical provisions must be applied to them, nor anything that will take one farthing out of their pockets; and, that they require protection quite as much against the employer in the warehouse as against the employer in the workshop. These are, however, matters for consideration in detail before the Grand Committee; and looking at the unfortunate position of these people, perhaps it is not too much to suggest that some Representative of Staffordshire or Worcestershire may be placed on this Committee, so that the condition of the nailers and chainmakers may be properly considered.
    MR. RANDELL: This Bill appears to me to be incomplete in several particulars. At present there is difficulty experienced in obtaining certificates for children between the ages of 13 and 14, arising in consequence of the Education Code of 1891. Formerly, children were examined separately, but now a class passes or fails en bloc. When children pass from Standard IV. to V. an employer of labour has great difficulty in obtaining from the education authorities the certificates of proficiency for labour. A school master is very anxious to retain grant-earning boys at school; and, therefore, he is not likely to offer facilities in giving certificates. He very naturally says, "I am not in a position to say whether a particular boy or a particular girl has passed the standard, because the class is passed en bloc." It is said the only way to get over the difficulty is for the child to make application to the inspector to be examined separately; but what child will willingly undergo such a trying ordeal?

    1743
    The point is an important one, and deserves the attention of the Home Secretary. As to the question of ventilation, I am very pleased the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury has abandoned his clause, because if his clause had stood as drawn, there would have been in the smaller factories more fan than factory. In regard to special rules as to fencing machinery, I think the Bill ought to go very much further; it should include steam locomotion, because in some districts, notably in South Wales—and I think, perhaps, too much attention has been paid to textile factories and too little to non-textile factories—the percentage of fatal accidents on railways and sidings which intersect many of the large non-textile factories is abnormally great. In 1889 one-third of the fatal accidents in South Wales occurred on railways and sidings; and I am informed that the percentage will be higher in the next Report. I hope special rules will also be framed, with a view to reduce the number of accidents due to explosions and burns in large steel factories. I cannot help regarding the proposal of the Government with respect to certifying surgeons as retrogressive. I certainly am of opinion that the existence of the certifying surgeons' certificates of fitness is a safeguard. I do not mention the matter in the interest of the certifying surgeons. No doubt they have been irritating and annoying to the Home Department. ["Oh, oh!"] Perhaps I have used too harsh a term, but at any rate they have made complaints. Again, at present the fee for the certificate of birth of young persons and children is far too high, it is 3s: 7d. I have brought in a Bill which reduces the fee to 6d. in the case of young persons between 14 and 16 years of age. That Bill is down for Second Reading to night and in view of the proposals of the Bill under discussion I trust it will be assented to. I think the Government might even reduce the fee to 3d. and offer greater facilities for obtaining the certificate. At present in many districts a working man has to walk many miles to a Superintendent Registrar's office to obtain the certificate. Such difficulty ought to be removed, and I suggest that certificates might be obtained at the Post Office
    1744
    of the district in which the child was born. Such an arrangement might easily be made and it would save many thousands of pounds to the working classes. As to the publication of the special rules I hops the Home Secretary will pay some respect to the wishes of the Welsh people. It is desired that an abstract of the Act, and also the Special Rules, should be published throughout the Principality in the Welsh language. Personally, I am of opinion that in factories where foreigners are employed the abstract of the Act, if not the rules, should be published in their language. Respecting the appointment of additional Inspectors, I trust that, as far as Wales is concerned, other considerations being equal, preference will be given to men who speak Welsh. I do not suppose my views upon the question of the limitation of the hours of labour will obtain much approval in the House, but I am satisfied they will gain considerable approval outside. This Bill proposes to deal with the period of the employment of women. I hope at a future stage, possibly on Report, to raise a far more important issue, namely, the limitation of the hours of labour of adult male workers. Having regard to the disturbed feeling in the country, to the conflicts between capital and labour, to the expressions of opinion on the part of the working classes, and to the resolution of the Liverpool Trades Congress, it is high time for an opportunity to be afforded for the discussion of this much-vexed question which has needlessly caused alarm to many employers. It is a great misfortune that the English representatives at the Berlin Conference were not permitted to discuss the question of the statutory limitation of hours, especially when it is remembered that the argument used against a statutory day is that of foreign competition. There is really no insuperable objection to the principle of State regulation of labour. A statutory enactment if it ever does come, and I believe it will come before many years are over, will not, as alleged, necessarily be an arbitrary measure which cannot be relaxed according to the exigences of the case or the pressure of emergency.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is rather departing from the subject of the Bill.
    MR. RANDELL: I was, Sir, dealing with the clause in the Bill limiting the working hours of women, and I thought I might be permitted to extend my remarks to male adult workers, but I accept your ruling, and I will pass on to the question of protection. I hope that the rules as to fencing will not be confined to driving gear, but extended to the operative part of machinery. If this were so, no hardships would be inflicted upon employers, for I find that now on laying down new plant and machinery manufacturers stipulate that machine makers shall provide safeguards or shields according to the requirements of the Inspectors of Factories. Lastly, I will refer shortly to the question of the administration of the Department. The supervision at the present time is very inadequate, for I believe there are only four or five superintending Inspectors, and they have to go over a very large area. What I think is needed is an increased staff of Sub Inspectors. It is impossible for the present staff to do their duty. Take the case of South Wales: one gentleman has to cover six counties and a part of Monmouthshire. When we remember the enormous development of industry in that part of the country it must occur to us that it is impossible for one Inspector to do his duty thoroughly and satisfactorily. I think it would be well to appoint a new grade of Inspectors, men taken from the ranks, and who thoroughly understand machinery. By a careful re-organisation of the Department the increase may be made without any additional expense. I have made these remarks in no hostile spirit, and I press them on the attention of the House in the mutual interest of employer and employed.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: As one of the representatives of the most important manufacturing centre in Ireland, I venture to offer a few observations principally in respect of Clause 19, which relates to certifying surgeons. Little has been said on the subject, and I do not think it is fair to a deserving body of men that the House should labour under the misapprehension that they are actuated by self-interested motives in performing their duties. It is right the House should bear in mind that the children who are most largely affected by the action of the certifying surgeons have few persons to
    1746
    speak for them. When hon. Members look back upon the history of the past, and remember all that has been done by Lord Ashley and others to emancipate children from cruelty and to mitigate their position in factories, I hope I shall be excused for intervening in the Debate. Of certifying surgeons, Inspector Cameron, concerning whose opinion I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary at Question time, stated before the Royal Commission that—
    "An able and willing certifying surgeon is of the greatest assistance to the inspector of his district, and can and does render most important aid in the carrying out of the Factory Act."
    This gentleman was for 15 years inspector of factories in Belfast. He worked most harmoniously with the employers of labour, and I think this testimony borne by him to the usefulness of certifying surgeons ought to have influence with the House. A letter has been written by Dr. F. H. Walmsley, in which he says—
    "I had to visit one of the finest and best-appointed factories in England, and there was presented to me a child 10 years old to be passed as a half-timer. I observed that he limped as he walked, and asked the cause. He replied that his foot had been scalded. 'How long ago?' 'A tidy time,' was the reply. On examining the foot I found two deep inflamed painful ulcers, which must have existed for some weeks. I refused to pass the boy."
    I hold in my hand a return by Dr. Charles F. Moore, an eminent Dublin certifying surgeon, concerning the Dublin factories for 1889 and 1890. The total number of certificates of fitness refused in the two years was 198, and I will not enter into the reasons for such refusals. Some were for general disease, some for diseases of the eye, and some for other forms of disease. A distinguished surgeon in Belfast states that at the beginning of an outbreak of smallpox in that City, he is fully occupied in watching that no one is employed who is suffering from that complaint. Often he says he has got delicate children put from one room to another place which is more healthy. I am glad this Bill has been introduced, but I trust the House will pause before it does away with Certifying surgeons.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman was about to sit down without explaining to us the reason for the with-

    1747
    drawal of the skilled protection of the young persons about to enter factory employment. But he did give us a few words of explanation. He based the withdrawal of that protection on these grounds: he thought that parental affection in itself is to be very much trusted, and that the interest of the employers will deter them from taking improper persons. Surely he knows perfectly well what the history of factory legislation has been. These two reasons of his were advanced against factory legislation in 1802; but it was then found that neither parental affection nor the interests of the employer was sufficient to prevent improper and disqualified persons from being exposed to the danger of labour for which they were unfitted. In 1833 you introduced a measure by which all persons who were too young, who were too diseased, who had infectious diseases, who were deformed, should not be allowed to go into factories until they had their fitness certified by a medical man. In 1878 you passed the existing Act, but before doing so the whole question was submitted to a Royal Commission, which inquired—first, as to whether an initial medical examination was necessary or not; and, secondly, as to the way in which the certifying surgeons had discharged their duty, That Royal Commission expressed its belief that the important share taken in the administration of the Factory Acts by the members of a profession distinguished by its scientific knowledge and intelligence, had contributed to the general acceptation of those Acts. A previous Home Secretary (Lord Cross), on the same political side as the right hon. Gentleman, has also spoken plainly enough, declaring his unwillingness to pass a law to abolish the certifying surgeons, and adding that they would do in the future its they had done in the past—namely, afford the greatest aid in carrying out the Factory Acts. With these facts against him, the Home Secretary ought to have told us why he is making such a, great change in the administration of the Factory Acts. But, that I am afraid of wearying the House, I could cite quotation after quotation from the opinions of Factory Inspectors against the present proposal. When the right hon. Gentleman sweeps away all the certifying surgeons, how is he going to replace them? He proposes to put practi-
    1748
    cally nothing in their room. The Inspectors will in future be expected to do the work now performed by the certifying surgeons, the proposal being to abolish the latter at one fell swoop so far as initial entry is concerned. The surgeon is only retained in cases of accidents, the duty in respect of which though important in itself is quite insignificant when compared with the other duties at present performed. A look at the figures shows that accidents at present constitute only one twenty-fifth part of the work performed by the certifying surgeons. I consider the proposal of the Government altogether retrogressive in factory legislation. The object of the Factory Acts is to protect those persons who cannot help themselves, and let us see how the certifying surgeons act. Their primary duty is to see that any young person going into a factory is of full age and physically fitted for the work. The certifying surgeon has to see if a child is physically fit to go to work; to see also that he does not convey contagious disease into the factory. Take the celebrated case at Accrington, where a child suffering from scarlet fever was admitted into a mill, with the result that there was a serious epidemic, which in a week or two resulted in large loss. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said—and I was surprised to hear it—that refusals were seldom or never given by certifying surgeons. I had expected to hear from him statistics on this subject. In the year 1888–9, in the Dublin district, there were 66 refusals on account of age, 84 on account of infectious disease and debility, 35 for diseases of the eye, and 13 on account of disease of the heart. The right hon. Gentleman may be right in saying the refusals are few; but I do not think he was right in bringing before the House such a sweeping change without producing proof that the certifying surgeons do not do their duty. Has he any Return to show that the refusals were either few or many? We have no official statement whatever on the subject. There is one reason why the refusals may be few in number, and that is that the system prevents cruel parents and factory owners who do care much about the health of those they take into their employment from bringing unfit children forward. Now, what does the Home

    1749
    Secretary propose to substitute for the system which has been in operation since 1883? The right hon. Gentleman says, in the first place, there is no necessity for the certificate of a surgeon with reference to age, because that can now be ascertained in other ways. That was perfectly true, for we now have compulsory certificates of birth, which we had not at the time the present system was started. But the opposition to the certificates which has induced him to propose this change is certainly not general throughout the country. It exists in Lancashire pretty strongly, but there is special reason for protecting the young in that county, seeing that 70 per cent of the employés in factories are women and children. In Yorkshire opposition comes from Keighley, but from Leeds and other centres, as well as in Scotland, the proposal to abandon the certificates is strongly disapproved. I can understand the objection to paying for these certificates. I think their unpopularity is partly due to the fact that the fee for obtaining a certificate of birth for children between 14 and 16 was 3s. 7d. It is now to be 6d. There are other matters for which protection is required. This change will by no means be an economical one, for a much larger number of ordinary Inspectors will be required. The certificates of birth and education are to be lodged at the factory, so that the Inspector may see them from time to time. But there are 134,000 factories and workshops registered, and the number of visits paid by the Inspectors is 114,000, or on an average less than one visit each per year. But even if the Inspectors pay a visit every three months, what real use will that be? How can they in their few visits in the course of the year find out the deformed or the diseased children who have been admitted to the factory? One of two things must happen—either the whole system of initial protection must be abandoned; or you must increase the number of Inspectors so largely that the cost upon general taxation will become very heavy. The fact is you are giving up altogether the protection enjoyed by the young under existing factory legislation; you will, under your new system, have no medical security, and until the right hon. Gentleman give us some proof that
    1750
    the present work of certifying is done badly, I think he would be well advised to make no change.
    SIR F. MILNER: I can assure the Home Secretary that this proposal in Clause 19, which has been dealt with by several hon. Members already has not only raised the opposition of all surgeons but also the indignation of the friends of that excellent organisation, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and of all interested in the welfare of the young. I have collected some statistics which I will produce in the Committee, and I think they will startle the House, for they show the working of the system which it is now proposed to abolish. I hope and trust that the Home Secretary will [re-consider his decision and not insist on this provision. When we consider that something like 70 per cent. of those employed in our textile factories are women and children, it does seem to me a retrogade movement to do away with one of the most important provisions of existing Factory Acts. Hon. Members on both sides desire to see the young protected, and it is useless to educate them unless you at the same time look to their bodily health. This proposal, if carried, will mar an otherwise excellent Bill, and I trust that when the right hon. Gentleman in charge sees the statistics I shall have to produce he will consider the advisability of withdrawing it.
    DR. R. MCDONALD: As a factory surgeon of 10 years' standing, I may be able to to give the House a little insight into the working of the Factory Acts. I join in thinking that it would be a retrograde step to abolish the certifying surgeon. There is considerable difficulty in preventing employment of children under the legal age in our factories. Many such cases of employment are reported to the Home Office, and no action is taken on them. When an Inspector goes into a factory he finds sometimes that those whom he is called upon to certify have been at work for months, although they are instructed to say only a few days, in order that the breach of the law (which fixes the time in which a certificate must be obtained at seven days) may not be discovered; again, in the shipbuilding industry a rivetter will often employ a young boy three or four days

    1751
    a week to assist him, and these lads are not presented for certificates simply because they have not been, seven days continuously at work. I am glad to see it is proposed that no child shall in the future be allowed to commence work until the birth certificate has been produced. Even these certificates have proved to be open to abuse in the past. In my own experience I have known one certificate to do duty for three different boys. One wants to be constantly watching to prevent the employment of boys under age. But what will be the use of an Inspector merely visiting a factory twice a year. There may be hundreds of children tinder age working there and he be none the wiser, for he may be told they have been so employed a day or two. If the Home Secretary does not retain these certifying surgeons he will find the expenditure under the Act increase enormously. The surgeon is now paid sixpence for every child he certifies, and of that sum the employer can recover one half from the boy certified. The State pays for nothing but attending to the injuries of people in the factories. Another reason why the certifying surgeon should not be abolished is that he is always on the spot and can see the condition of the machinery, whereas if his services be not retained it may happen in the future that after an accident a proper guard is put to the machinery before the arrival of the Factory Inspector. I can assure the House that this is an important point, for it is very difficult indeed to arrive at the real facts as to the condition of the machinery at the time of an accident. I think the certifying surgeons should have more powers vested in them, especially in regard to sanitary matters. Age, after all, is not a criterion of the fitness of a child for work, and a Factory Inspector certainly could not decide so well as a surgeon as to whether a boy should be admitted to work. Again, an employer often cannot tell whether or not a boy has been rejected. Many of the boys I have had to examine have come to me at my private surgery, and in cases I have refused certificates, but it does not follow that the employer was made acquainted with that refusal. He only knows of the rejections made when the examination takes place at his own factory. Supposing factory surgeons abolished, there still must be some means
    1752
    provided for inspecting factories one ea month at least, and as this work of inspection must be paid for by the State, I do not see that it can be done at less expense than under the present system.
    MR. ELLIOTT LEES: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir Lyon Playfair) has made a strong appeal in favour of the retention of certifying surgeons, and he asks if you abolish these what will be set up in their place. I may say that something has been set up in their place—the standard under the Education Act has been set up in their place. I understand that since the Education Act has come into operation the occupation of the certifying surgeon has practically become obsolete. So I am informed by those well qualified by experience to form a judgment, and this cannot be called a retrograde step if you abolish an office which in process of time has become of no value. My hon. Friend (Sir F. Milner) tells us that this particular provision is condemned on grounds of humanity, and that the Society for Preventing Cruelty to Children have taken up the question; but I would say to him and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, if they can show that the certifying surgeon has been of value in preventing unfit children being set to work in factories they will make out their case for the retention of the office. But I do say that this clause in the Bill gives expression to a general wish in Lancashire, and that the opinion is that there is no longer occupation for the certifying surgeon. None of us, of course, would wish to inflict any hardship upon children working in factories; and if it can be shown that the occupation of certifying surgeons still survives, and that there are still a large number of children who are prevented from undertaking work injurious to their health by the intervention of the certifying surgeon, I should certainly favour the retention of that officer. But, as I have said, it is believed in Lancashire that there is now nothing for the certifying surgeon to do.
    MR. BROADHURST: The redeeming part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was that in which he expressed his willingness to consider amendment, and I sympathise with the

    1753
    desire that in Committee the Bill may be strengthened in many of its details. If the right hon. Gentleman remains true to the opinions he has thus expressed, I think the Bill may be made a very useful measure, but as it now stands it is very empty, and requires a great deal of furnishing. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to increase the age for half-time employment of children, and on this point I think the general opinion is as strong as is that condemning the abolition of the certifying surgeon. I should like to say, in regard to Clause 8, which refers many new subjects to arbitration that are at present under the control of Factory Inspectors—I think I read the Bill aright in this—
    MR. MATTHEWS: A large class of subjects are submitted to arbitration under Clause 8, but I do not think that any subjects now under the direction of Inspectors are withdrawn.
    MR. BROADHURST: As I read the Bill, the subjects include the safety to women and children, protection from injury by machinery, the state of ventilation, and other matters are included. The safety of workpeople from machinery under the present Act, is now a matter for the Inspector, he can make an order which the employer is bound to obey.
    MR. MATTHEWS: If the hon. Member will look at Section 6 of the existing Act, he will find there arbitration applied to the fencing of machinery, and practically the proposal in the Bill is the same thing as exists now.
    MR. BROADHURST: It would be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman would give us a return showing the effect of this arbitration power in the Act of 1878. I think he will find it has been practically worthless and useless. At any rate, common sense will tell us that if an increased number of subjects are referred to arbitration, the Factory Inspector's influence will diminish greatly with proprietors, and if the power of the Inspector is diminished the welfare of the factory people will be seriously affected. Coming to the subject of the certifying surgeon, I admit that it is true that the Home Secretary has been assured by large numbers of workmen and employers that they would not oppose the abolition of that officer; but they have only consented to agree to the abolition on the condition
    1754
    that the number of Factory Inspectors should be largely increased. I remember when this subject was first discussed by the representatives of trades in Congress and by the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Congress, there was an agreement come to—rightly or wrongly I am not capable of saying for I have not had practical experience—but it was the opinion of a large number of workpeople that the certifying surgeon might be abolished, but on the condition that the number of Factory Inspectors should be largely increased. This was a condition always attached to the proposal, and there can be no mistake about this. The visits of certifying surgeons of factories for the purpose of granting certificates have been of the utmost value, for they have kept factory proprietors on the alert. The certifying surgeon's visit to a factory or workshop has to some extent the effect of the Inspector's visit. Therefore if we abolish the certifying surgeon we ought to increase the number of factory and workshop Inspectors. We have heard that some factories are only visited by the Inspector once a year: but there are many that are only visited once in three years, and still more that are visited only once in two years. The fact is, it is impossible for the present Staff of Inspectors to do more. We have been often promised that the Staff of Inspectors should be increased, and the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman expressed the willingness of the Home Office to make the increase if the Treasury would find the means. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is equally willing to agree to the increase if the Treasury sanctions it. The right hon. Gentleman gives ho indication of assent or dissent. I do not think he will find very considerable objection to the increase at the Home Office. This has been a matter for which the trades concerned have contended for years past, and yet we find that while the proposal is made for the abolition of certifying surgeons, whose duties are analogous to Inspectors, neither the Bill nor the speech of the right hon. Gentleman gives any indication of an intention to put anything in the place of the office to be abolished. I wish to know the intentions of the Government with reference to the strength of the Inspector's Staff, and unless the right hon. Gentleman is pre-

    1755
    pared to promise some increase in that Staff his legislation will probably be met with considerable opposition in quarters where otherwise it would meet with a friendly reception. I think those who have interested themselves in the welfare of our workpeople must be well pleased with the general expression of opinion on both sides of the House to-night and the desire for the protection of young children in factories and workshops. This proposition of the right hon. Gentleman to abolish certifying surgeons, if it has done no other service, has called forth this universal expression of opinion which should be a guidance to the Government and an encouragement to Ministers not to hesitate, when bringing forward Bills connected with the subject, to largely extend the legal protection to the children of our working population. The expression of opinion we have had here will, I am sure, find a response in all parts of the country, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman will, in connection with his proposal to abolish certifying surgeons, give us an assurance that the Staff of Inspectors shall be largely increased.
    MR. S. SMITH: My remarks will be limited to the question of the employment of children in factories. I am much disappointed that the Government have failed to make use of this excellent opportunity for embodying in legislation the resolutions arrived at by the Berlin Conference, and I cannot help thinking it is somewhat of a discredit to this country, which took a leading part in that Conference, which excited the attention of all Europe. It was the factory legislation of this country which formed the basis of the discussions which took place at the Berlin Conference last year. I am glad to see in his place my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India (Sir John Gorst), who took such a prominent part in that Conference. His interest in all labour questions is well known, and I appeal to him—was it not the case that there was practical unanimity at the Conference as to the necessity of raising the age of half-timers from 10 to 12, and some went so far as to advocate 13? I have gone over the Report of the proceedings at the Conference, and I must say that in my judgment it does not bear the construction put upon it by the Home Secretary. There was practical unanimity in in-
    1756
    sisting that the age should not be fixed lower than 12 years. In Switzerland I am told the age is fixed at 14, and in Germany the age is 14, though exceptions are made in some cases, and 12 is the lowest limit. It is highly discreditable to this country now that we have an opportunity, in a legitimate way, of reforming our factory legislation, that we do not give effect to the recommendations of our own delegates at Berlin. What will be the effect of our action in Europe? I understand that in most European Legislatures Bills are being introduced to give effect to the decisions of the Berlin Conference. What will be thought of England, the originator of this factory legislation, standing still and refusing to walk abreast with other nations? It is going counter to popular feeling which will in a short time force us to take up this subject afresh. But why defer it to a later period now that we have a fitting opportunity while we are revising the general factory legislation of the country? The recommendation of the Berlin Conference is most reasonable. All who have taken an interest in the subject will agree that 10 years is too early an age for children to enter the hot unhealthy atmosphere of a factory; their growth is thereby stunted, their physical development prevented, and the standard of the national physique is lowered. They are deprived of that fresh air and exercise essential to their age; and while being prematurely forced into labour the burden of education is at the same time doubled. I quite disagree with the Home Secretary in the idea that the half-time children make better progress in education, and a short time since Mr. Heller, one of the ablest members of the Teachers' Association, told me that it was the unanimous opinion among teachers that 10 is much too early an age for children to undertake factory work, and that their education is thereby much impeded. I say that children of 10 having been at work from 6 a.m. to 12 cannot go through the afternoon at school with advantage; the fatigue is too much for their tender frames, they are often worn out and can scarcely resist sleep. It is cruelty to expect that a young child after six hours' labour can give another three or four hours more to intellectual exertion, and I am glad to see there is a strong feeling evinced in the House and outside

    1757
    against a continuance of so harsh a system. The Royal Commission on the Education Acts recommended that the age should be raised to 11, but since then public opinion has progressed and I feel sure that a Commission sitting now would raise the age to 12. I do not believe there is any general feeling against raising the age. I never heard in Lancashire any great importance attached to the work of a child before 12 years of age. The only part of England in which much importance is attached to putting children early into factories is in some parts of Yorkshire; but national progress ought not to be arrested on account of such places which I am afraid are in a somewhat benighted condition. It might be possible to lay down the principle that 12 ought to be the age as a general rule, but that some temporary exceptions should be made in the case of a few districts. It is a cruel thing to allow children to be put too early to labour. I hope the working class representatives will give expression to the wish of their constituents in this matter, that they do not desire their children to be prematurely forced into labour.
    SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTH: I am not surprised that there are complaints that the Bill omits to provide for the raising of the age of children entering factories. I am not surprised that the proceedings of the Berlin Conference have been referred to; but I am not disposed to exclaim against the Government for not venturing on this occasion to make any proposal on the subject in question. It is no doubt true that the Berlin Conference came unanimously to the conclusion that the minimum age should be raised from 10 to 12, and that in that conclusion the English delegates concurred. I do not think that either the delegates or the Government will recede from that conclusion. But although the conclusions of the Berlin Conference ought to have great weight, and there is a moral obligation on the various Governments which joined in those conclusions to take steps gradually and, according to the circumstances of each country, to carry them out, it must be remembered that the delegates reserved to their Governments the discretion to determine for themselves when such steps should be taken, and admitted that local circumstances
    1758
    might make it impossible for all to follow in the same line. The raising of the minimum age is a question of principle, and I have no hesitation in saying that this country, along with other countries, should make a move in that direction. That being the case, the question is limited to the consideration whether this is the time to make that move, and whether the proposal ought to be embodied in the Bill of the Government. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last seemed to think that there was no difficulty whatever in adopting the proposal, though he admitted an exception might be necessary in certain places. Now, I venture to say, there is a very great difficulty indeed, but that difficulty will not come from the employers of labour, the real difficulty will come from the operatives themselves. Although the leaders of the operatives who joined in the delegation to Berlin supported, very much to their credit, the conclusion at which the Conference arrived, still they did very rightly impress upon their colleagues that very careful steps would have to be taken in this country to carry it out so that the hostility of the operatives would not be provoked, and they distinctly assured their colleagues that there would be a very large amount of opposition if that care were not taken. I think a little time would be well spent in allowing the subject to be discussed and considered by all classes of the community, especially those engaged in industries, whether employers or operatives. 1do not think sufficient prominence has yet been given to the subject. No doubt the decisions of the Berlin Conference are known in the industrial centres, but I do not think those decisions have become a burning question, carefully considered by the classes most interested. And the suggestion I have heard made by those as earnest as the hon. Member for Flintshire or any other Member is that the question of minimum age should be thus dealt with. Let the question first of all be ventilated throughout the country, let the objections be heard and listened to. Then if a Bill is at any time brought in and passed to carry out this proposition, let a little time be allowed before it comes into operation, the object being that the industries affected shall be able to accommodate themselves to what will be an enormous change in the management of these

    1759
    large industries. Then I think another thing will be necessary, and that is that the change should be effected by steps. I do not indicate these changes, but I think it would be a mistake to raise the age from 10 to 12 by one Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member who last spoke is aware of the proportions of the subject. We have 86,000 half-timers in this country. If we suddenly raised the age from 10 to 12 I do not know what proportion of that number would be affected, but I suspect it would be a very large one. We have also to remember that the parents of these children will be affected by the loss of weekly wages coming into their homes, and that the various industries will have to be regulated and managed in an entirely different way from the present; and, that being the case, it is quite evident that time must be given before any such operation as this can be taken in hand. I think it is an interesting fact, which can be taken as an argument for not hurrying this matter forward, that the number of half-timers has, without any legislation whatever, been gradually diminishing in this country. I find that it was 125,000 in 1875, and that now it is 86,000, so that there has been a reduction of 31 per cent. which I think we are all very pleased to see. If we compare it with the total number of workers, the half-timers, who in 1875 were 13 per cent. of the whole, are now only 8 per cent. by a gradual process of reduction. Every practical man knows that that has not been done without very great changes, indeed, in the means of doing work in the various industrial establishments, and how far the process can be carried on without diminishing the half-timers is a problem very difficult to guage, but certainly it is a question of time and of ingenuity on the part of the managers in those establishments. I, therefore, think the House will do well not to press this subject too hurriedly on, for I am afraid that if we do we shall find a strong reaction on the part of the operative classes themselves against an interference which, though it may ultimately benefit them, will, in the first instance, affect them by reducing their weekly income. Perhaps I may be allowed, passing from that subject, to say a word as to the certifying surgeon, which seems to be the only other burning question in the Bill.
    1760
    I think that some benefit arises from these surgeons passing children and examining into their fitness so far as they do it; but I am very sceptical indeed as to the extent to which it is done in this country. It is a remarkable thing that the only statement made by the certifying surgeons themselves about the number of children who are refused admittance into factories for other reasons than that of not being of the legal age has come from Ireland. No statement or Return has come from England or Scotland showing the number of refusals, although a certifying surgeon must know perfectly well how many he has refused. The absence of these statements confirms my own opinion that only to a very slight extent indeed have surgeons exercised their power of refusing children because of their unfitness. Probably one reason is that unfit children are not presented. The other day I inquired at one very large establishment, a typical one in every sense, and the statement made to me was that there had only been one case in the last 20 years in which the certifying surgeon had refused a child admission into a factory owing to unfitness. I am very glad to see that the Home Secretary has introduced minimum penalties into his Bill, because. I believe them of very great importance, and I hope we shall be able to extend their area. Not only are insufficient penalties given, and fines enforced against manufacturers and employers who persistently and wilfully disregard the law, but there is a very great injustice done at the present moment by the want of anything like uniformity in the penalties that are imposed. Curiously enough that applies not only to England, where it may be supposed that the benches of Magistrates in some districts may possibly deal leniently with cases when themselves connected directly or indirectly with the trade involved, but also to Scotland where the decisions are given by the Sheriffs. I hope that the Home Secretary will allow the minimum penalties to be extended in order that, and we are strengthening the Factory Laws for the benefit of the operatives without injury to trade, we may, at the same time, have taken all the steps we can to see that these laws are enforced and carried out, so that the people will have the full benefit intended by Parliament (8.13.)
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: In dealing with this important question we must remember what it was that has led to the introduction of this measure, and the evidence that was taken before the Sweating Committee of the House of Lords, which induced the public to suppose that something like a drastic attempt to deal with the condition of things then displayed would at least be attempted by Her Majesty's Government. Those who take the trouble to read through the evidence adduced before that Committee, and who have also read the Report and recommendations of that body, must naturally have felt that those recommendations would have been embodied in the Government Bill. But not only have we had before us the evidence taken by the Sweating Committee as to the terrible state of things which exists in London and other large towns in this country, but there have also been the expectations that were aroused by what took place at the Berlin Conference. In view of these two events we cannot but express our regret that the Government have not tried to do more than they have endeavoured to do by means of this Bill. We hope, however, that when this measure goes before the Grand Committee we shall be enabled to materially alter and enlarge the scope of this measure. I do not think it possible that its scope can be reduced, as it is so small already, but it might be materially enlarged with very great ad vantage. Of course, I welcome the extension by this Bill of the existing sanitary provisions applicable to factories and workshops. That is the least the Government could have suggested. Over and over again the Factory Inspectors, and other witnesses whose evidence could be relied upon, endeavoured to press upon the Committee the necessity of an entire alteration of the sanitary arrangements hitherto enforced. But, as has already been pointed out, the endeavour to deal with the state of things which has been revealed as existing in the sweating dens of London is hardly attempted in this Bill by Her Majesty's Government. I admit that what is proposed with regard to the registration of the outdoor workers is likely to prove beneficial; but, at the same time, that part of the Bill might be strengthened by
    1762
    the Grand Committee, so that there would be the means of getting at the middlemen who have undertaken contracts, sometimes unfortunately Government contracts, and who send out their work in parcels to the East End sweaters. If the addresses of those men can be registered, so that they may be overhauled by more than one set of persons, we may then be enabled to find out what is going on in the whole of these sweating dens, so that the responsible employers may be dealt with. There is one point which has not been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary upon which I think we ought to have from him a definite statement to-night, and that is as to the intention of the Government with regard to an increase in the number of Inspectors. In. my opinion, if the best possible Bill had been introduced and passed into law, it would be of little value unless an adequate staff of Inspectors and sub-Inspectors was also set up. The want of such a staff was very strongly brought out in the evidence given before the Lords Committee. I will not weary the House by reading that evidence; but if any hon. Member desires to know what an Inspector tries to do at the present time—I use the word tries advisedly, because it is impossible for him to do all he is called upon to do—let him turn to the evidence of Mr. Lakeman, one of the London Inspectors, and it will there be seen what that gentleman had to accomplish with the assistance of only one junior. Within the area of his district, which extends on the north of the Thames into several adjacent counties, there are no less than 4,000 factories and 10,000 workshops. I ask the House to consider whether it is possible for one Inspector, however hard he may work, and however zealous and industrious he may be, to visit so large a number of workplaces and inspect them, so as to assert the necessary control over what goes on within them? Unless the Government are prepared to ask the House to empower them to create an adequate staff of Inspectors, so that they may deal thoroughly and efficiently with the work before them, all the Factory Bills they may introduce and have discussed in this House are not worth the paper on which they may be printed. I therefore insist most emphatically on what is one of the most important points to be dealt with, and I

    1763
    hope we shall have at least a statement from the Government in regard to it. Another point to be considered by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Sanitary Clauses of the Bill is how far it may be possible to make the owners of the sweating dens responsible for letting unsanitary buildings as workshops. In the evidence before the Sweating Committee you will find it stated over and over again that the men who take these places are men of no substance and not easily to be got at. We know, however, that an excessive amount of rent is obtained by letting these premises, and we know also that they are not capable of being used as dwelling houses even by the very poorest families. They can only be used as workshops, and even for that purpose they are altogether unfitted. I therefore put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether steps cannot be taken in Committee on this Bill to make the owner, who obtains an inordinate rent from these establishments, responsible for the unsanitary condition in which they may be found. I now come to the omission of provisions for raising the age at which children can be employed in factories. I do not think any sufficient reason has been given for that omission. The hon. Baronet the Member for North-west Manchester endeavoured to palliate, to some extent, the conduct of the Government in not carrying out what was really a recommendation of the Berlin Conference. I agree with the hon. Baronet that what we are asking Her Majesty's Government to do is some what difficult. No one wishes that it should be done in such a drastic manner that you will turn all the operatives against you who happen to have children working at the lower age, but that it should be done in such a way as to win over those who might be otherwise against you. The hon. Baronet admitted distinctly that the principle is a good one, and that an attempt should be made to level up the age to 12 years instead of keeping it at 10. The only difference between us is, that he is afraid that the time is not yet arrived, while we regard this as a fitting opportunity to carry out the changes. The hon. Baronet said there were 86,000 half-timers at the present time, but that the number had decreased 30 per cent. since 1875. I contend that this decrease shows that parents are not so anxious to
    1764
    get their children to work at an early age as formerly, and that the Government would not meet with so much opposition from the parents as they think if they attempted to raise the age at which children can be employed. I remember, before the Education Act was passed, that if you advertised in your window for an errand boy, your doors were besieged, and the proverbial widow, rarely a widow at all, made her appearance in favour of her son's application for employment. Immediately after the Education Act was passed, and the School Board officers had opportunity of doing their work, the children in search of work were not so numerous. And I hold, that if the Go-vernment were now to insist that the age of children beginning to work in factories should be 12 and not 10, benefit would result to our race in the development of its men and women. The Home Secretary says that the "half-timers" are smarter than the children who go through the daily routine of school. No doubt work in the factory does brighten those children; but what we are fighting for is not that they shall cease to be half-timers, but at what age shall they begin work. By raising the age, more adult labour will be admitted to the market; and whenever the Government deals with this question it will be surrounded with difficulties, and the sooner, therefore, they begin with it, the better it will be. I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 18, Sub-section A, of this Bill, which, I think, wants a little amending. It says that women shall work 12 hours a day, and eight hours on Saturday. I do not think that carries out the intention of the draughtsman, because it is specific that the hours shall be 12 hours a day, and eight on Saturday. I think the clause is capable of modification. I regret that the Bill does not go further than it does, and that the intention of the Berlin Conference is not carried out. I hope that the measure will be amended in Committee, and that it will come back to this House strengthened and improved.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Representing as I do a constituency very largely interested in this question, I desire to express my sympathy with the objects of the Bill and to give the measure my support. I

    1765
    do not say that the Bill is a strong one— I do not know the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary himself would assert that—but with Amendments such as those suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury and by the hon. Member for Poplar, it may prove a very good one. As to its actual proposals, to all but one I give hearty support. That one exception I need hardly say is the abolition of the certifying surgeon. I confess I have objected to this from the first, but what has been said in to-night's Debate, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, has more than confirmed my view that these officers constitute an immortant link in the system by which protection is secured to young children under the existing Factory Act. I know that the late Lord Shaftesbury used to say that he regarded the institution of the medical officer as the most important feature of the policy which he carried out. He considered it more important in securing the protection of children than any other part of his policy. That being so, and in view of the prevailing tone of the Debate on this point, I would seriously suggest to the Home Secretary whether he will not do well to drop the proposal to abolish the certifying medical officer. I think it would be impossible to abolish that institution without providing some substitute for it. I do not, however, see any alternative plan proposed in the Bill. I think the only possible substitute would be a large increase in the number of Factory Inspectors. For my part, I am not strongly in favour of a large increase in the number of Inspectors, although to some extent, no doubt, an increase might be made with advantage. But the Home Office has already much to do in looking after the Inspectors, and if any material addition were made to their ranks, the question would be how to inspect the Inspectors. It is objected to the existing system that it is not fair that employers of labour should be made to contribute towards the cost of inspection. I should prefer that the Government should undertake whatever payment may be necessary in this direction rather than that we should do away with a protection which I believe to be of great value to the children of this country. I was very glad to hear the suggestion
    1766
    made by the Home Secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, that instead of proceeding with his Bill he should endeavour to engraft its provisions into the Government measure in Committee, and I was still more glad to hear my right hon. Friend assent to that suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very important concession to the woollen and worsted trades, which I think were not sufficiently considered in his Bill as first drafted, and by so doing he has got rid of a serious objection to his proposals, which now, I am happy to say, I shall be able to heartily support. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar has made some important suggestions, which I hope will be favourably considered by the Government. He has very properly pointed out that the provisions dealing with overcrowding are very inadequate. I agree with him that they must be amended and strengthened. Further, I hold with him that something requires to be done in the direction of inspecting domestic workshops, so as to enable us to cope with the evils of the sweating system, which a Committee of the House of Lords found recently to prevail to such a fearful extent. To the general proposal for extending the inspection to workshops now excluded under the present Factory Acts I give my hearty support. It has long been a scandal that so hard and fast a line should be drawn between factories and workshops which are subject to inspection and those which are not, for I cannot but think it is in a great measure due to this fact that the evils of sweating have grown up to the extent they have. But these are subjects more fit for discussion in Committee. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that our object should be not unduly to harass manufacturers, while securing greater protection for the life and health of the working classes.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I am quite prepared to recognise the good intentions of the Bill and their fulfilment to a certain extent. For instance, I thoroughly approve of the excellent sanitary provisions which it contains, but I must also protest, in common with others, against Clause 19, withdrawing from young children who may be introduced into factories the protection hitherto given by the factory surgeons. The able and comprehensive

    1767
    statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds has most completely exposed the objection to this proposal, and I shall do no more than adopt a phrase already used pretty freely in this Debate, and say it is a highly retrograde proposal. Many of the improvements which have been effected by the Factory Acts have been due to the operation of the Medical Authorities under those Acts, and to the operations of those surgeons who are now, at one stroke of the pen, to be disestablished and disendowed and abolished out of existence. Not only do the surgeons stop directly unfit cases, but they do more; they have a deterrent influence which prevents parents from bringing up children whom they know to be unfit or who are, perhaps, suffering from disorders which might otherwise have caused great and serious detriment to the health of those by whom they might be surrounded. I cannot agree with the assertion that the examination by the factory surgeons has become an unmeaning form. Evidence on all hands can be cited testifying to the admirable way in which they have done their work. Something has been said about parental affection—no doubt a very high and ennobling charactaristic, but I fear that self-interest occasionally prevails over it, and those who know human nature will agree as to the necessity of continuing to protect children against their parents. The whole current of the most recent legislation, such as the Cruelty to Children Acts, shows that strong though parental affection is, it is nevertheless necessary to protect children against the self-interest, the greed, the poverty, and frequently the ignorance of parents. I do not see that there is any less reason now to protect children from their parents than there was under the original Factory Acts 50 years ago. We are told employers will not employ children who are too weak to work. I should be sorry to say anything hard of employers; but they are not always able to detect physical infirmity—heart disease or incipient consumption, which are only patent to the skilled eye, but which certainly unfit a child for work. Even a parent might think a child fit for work when a medical man would detect in that child weakness or disease which rendered it quite unfit. It has been suggested that some of the doctors scamp their work. I do not believe it. Although
    1768
    there may, in some instances, be hurry owing to the numbers to be inspected, yet I believe that, on the whole, the factory doctors do their work fairly and well. It is said there are very few cases of rejection of children as physically unfit. The reason instances have not been forthcoming is that the surgeons have not had time to get up their case, owing to the Bill having been hurried forward. I will undertake, if a reasonable time is given, to show that the rejection of children as physically unfit is of frequent occurrence. I know of one surgeon in a large town in the North who rejects, on an average, two children a week. Instead of diminishing the powers of the medical men, I am in favour of largely increasing them. I think they should inspect the sanitary condition of the factories, and also from time to time see the children they have passed, to know whether the work is injuriously affecting them. I am bound to say that the remedy proposed by the Government is a very futile and ineffectual one. Age is a very inconclusive test of fitness, unless it is accompanied by a medical certificate that the person is of the development usual for that age. No doubt medical inspection is unpopular, but so are most other kinds of inspection which prevent a man from doing what he has a mind to. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to deprive a class of men of employment upon which many of them are entirely dependent for their livelihood, and I will ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do in the way of compensation for those men? It is hopeless for many of them to return to private practice, which they have entirely given up for many years. It is only right and proper that they should be compensated. Although I speak as a medical man for medical men, I believe I speak also in the interests of the poor and of the community at large. I am convinced that many ill-conditioned, weakly, and diseased children will pass Inspectors who, however worthy and conscientious, are not medical men. It is said the present system does not work well in Lancashire, but Lancashire is not the whole Kingdom; and, speaking best for that part which I know—Scotland—I believe the old system works extremely well, and the people there view with alarm the proposed change.
    MR. ABRAHAM: I have not risen to find fault with, the Bill as far as it goes, but I think it incomplete and disappointing. I am convinced that the vast majority of the working people of Wales are opposed to reducing the age of children for the purpose of getting employment. I have had good opportunities of learning their views on that point. With regard to the 19th clause, I may say I have received a letter from a factory doctor of 25 years' standing on this very subject He thought that I, as a Labour Representative, would favour the idea of reducing the age, and he therefore wrote to me to give me certain information before I committed myself to that view. He says—
    "I understand the Home Secretary has a Bill before the House, Clause 19 of which will abolish the medical certificate. After an experience of 25 years I am of opinion that this is a step backwards. I have rejected many young persons suffering from contagious and infectious disease, not omitting affections of the lung."
    That is the testimony of a factory doctor of long experience. Medical Members of this House have given similar evidence, and I therefore ask the Home Secretary to re-consider his decision to abolish the practice now existing. If he adheres to the clause I fear it will have a disastrous effect upon the young in our manufacturing towns. I have a word to say upon the question of safety. The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and myself was simply a difference of degree. I am prepared to recognise to the full the right hon. Gentleman's intention to improve the condition of the working classes. The Bill is a step in the right direction; but as to safety, it does not go far enough. Protection to life and limb is the very essence of industrial legislation; and, therefore, such protection should be afforded in no halting or hesitating manner. Unreasonable provisions would harass the employers, and possibly hamper trade: but the House will agree with me that it is possible to go much further in placing obligations upon employers to fence and safeguard machinery than is done in this Bill, and yet not be guilty of imposing what may be termed unreasonable restrictions upon them. I suggest that the Home Secretary should include in Clause 30 every integral part of the machinery likely to prove dangerous to
    1770
    the attendants upon the machinery. I would like the Home Secretary to provide that all the operative parts of machinery should be fenced so as to make it almost impossible for accidents such as occur now to happen. Some-may suppose that this fencing would cost a great deal. I, however, am informed upon very good authority that it would only entail a very trifling expense indeed. It is a well known fact that machine makers, when called upon to do so, send out machines fitted with shields and safeguards, and make no extra charge. I regret that there is no provision in the Bill in regard to the cleaning of machinery in motion. By the principal Act a young person is prohibited from oiling mill gearing in motion. Nothing can scarcely be a more prolific source of danger to life and limb than the oiling and cleaning of machinery when in motion. Therefore, I trust that in Committee the Government will be prepared to strengthen the Bill—this good Bill, I admit. I am anxious to see the Bill made better, and therefore I hope the Government will consent to strengthen it, in the interest of those whose daily duty involves constant attendance in close proximity to engines and machines, by prohibiting the cleaning of machinery when in motion. There is another omission, and it concerns administration. In view of what has been said by the Home Secretary and his predecessors, I am somewhat surprised to find that no reference is made in the measure to the means whereby a more effective administration of the Act can be secured. The South Wales district included 12 counties and a part of a 13th—Monmouthshire. Glamorganshire, which is one of the 12 counties, is the most populous county for its size in the United Kingdom. There is but one Factory Inspector, a good man, I admit. A better Inspector the Government never had; he works in season and out of season; does his duty to the Government and to the community at large to the very best of his ability. But it is ridiculous to have only one man for 12 counties in which there are 12,000 factories and workshops. Inspection has done wonders for the working people. Legislative interference has reduced the danger to life and limb to an extent which we can scarcely comprehend; still, if inspection in the South

    1771
    Wales district is to be thoroughly effectual the present Inspector must receive very material assistance. The Home Secretary can do nothing for which the people will be more grateful, than increase the number of Inspectors of factories and mines. There is another point I wish to press upon the right hon. Gentleman's attention, namely, to adopt in this Bill with respect to Wales, the same excellent principle as he applied in the Mines Act—to give the preference in the appointment of Inspectors to the man, all else being equal, who is conversant with the Welsh language. The right hon. Gentleman can scarcely comprehend the gratitude that is felt in the Principality at the concession he made on this point in the Mines Act, and I am sure the Welsh people will be grateful to him if he extends the principle a little further. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nods his assent to that proposition. I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consent to the publication of the special rules as well as the abstract of the Act in Wales. No doubt on many occasions it has come under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman himself that the Inspectors sometimes obtain considerable assistance from the men when they are making their inspection. If the men do not understand the language he speaks, oreven if some of them do, they may very well shelter themselves by saying: "I do not understand the English language, and therefore can give no evidence." If you appoint Inspectors who are conversant with the Welsh language, and if the rules are published in Welsh, it will be of material assistance to the officials in finding out true facts of the case. I may be allowed to say that from the West of Glamorganshire, through Carmarthenshire, and the Northern part of Pembrokeshire, and to Cardiganshire, the majority of the people, while they understand Welsh, are not able to read the English language. That at once proves the necessity of applying special rules to Wales, and if the right hon. Gentleman assents to my suggestions he will earn the thanks of a very grateful nation.
    MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken, that this is a good Bill, but my main object in rising is to assure the
    1772
    right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary that the disapproval which has been expressed in regard to the 19th clause is shared by many Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast has objected to the clause on behalf of Ireland, and I, also a supporter of the Government, must express my objection to it on behalf of Scotland. The objections to the existing system seem to have come exclusively from Lancashire and part of Yorkshire. I think it rather significant that no such objections have come from the rest of England or from Scotland or Ireland. Two years ago there was a demonstration in opposition to the present system on behalf of Lancashire factory owners, who stated that they represented the operatives as well. There has been no movement in Scotland or Ireland in support of that demonstration during the two years that have since elapsed. It is said there is a lack of evidence as to the amount of useful work done by certifying surgeons in refusing unfit applicants for employment. Well, it has been no part of the duty of the certifying surgeon to make a Report of the cases he deals with. The instance has, however, been quoted to-night of a Dublin certifying surgeon who, while he rejected in two years 66 children as being under age, rejected no fewer than 132, or exactly double the number, on account of physical unfitness. It has been justly said that the frequent visits of the certifying surgeons to the factory ensure the paying of greater attention to the general observance of the Factory Laws than would otherwise be paid, and that if he were to be dispensed with, we should be left without any sufficient security that the Factory Laws were regularly observed. The visits of Factory Inspectors are made at very rare intervals—once a year, if even once—and if we are to substitute for visits of the surgeons frequent visits from someone else, we shall require, not a few, but a whole army of additional Inspectors. For the whole of Scotland I find there are altogether only six Factory Inspectors, namely, one Superintending Inspector, no Inspector of the first-class, three of the second-class, and two junior Inspectors. That is the entire inspectorial staff for the whole of Scotland, while for the City of Glasgow alone there are seven certifying surgeons. I do not

    1773
    know how many surgeons there are for the whole of Scotland, but the number must be great; and if their visits to factories and workshops are to be discontinued, a very large staff of Inspectors will be required to take their place.
    SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: As I represent a district of Lancashire which is more interested in factory legislation than almost any other part of the country, and in which a very large number of half-time children are employed, I think the House will grant me its indulgence whilst I say a few words on this subject. I think the House is fortunate in having three Factory Bills before it, namely, that which has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), and that which has been prepared by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. S. Buxton). I cannot but hope that if the best parts of each of these measures were woven together, a very important statute might become law during the present Session. The hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester (Sir W. Houlds-worth) seemed to think that the Government do not deal with the question of the half-time age in any way in this Bill; but obviously, by removing the check of the certifying surgeons, they run the risk of lowering the age, and thus the question is dealt with practically if not directly. I regret that the hon. Baronet has not used his great influence to press on the Government that now is the time to take some steps with the view to carry out the decision of the Berlin Conference. It will be a thousand pities if this opportunity of taking a step in the direction of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference is lost. We in this country occupy a special and exceptional position on this question. We have taken the lead among the countries of the world in regard to factory legislation, thanks to the efforts of Lord Shaftesbury and others. I wish to ask whether we ought not to retain the lead? I think the Members who represented this country at the Berlin Conference are bound to impress on the Government the importance of dealing in reasonable time with the recom-
    1774
    mendations of the Conference. What is the good of sending a right hon. Member of the Government and other Members of this House to join in that Conference and its recommendations, if our Government is afterwards to introduce a Factory Bill which ignores them? There is no reason why too large a stride should be made in the first instance. When the half-time age was raised from 8 to 10, time was given before the Act came into operation. There can, I think, be no doubt that if we adopted the recommendations of the Berlin Conference we should take two bites at the cherry, first raising the age to 11, and afterwards further raising it to 12. I can assure my hon. Friend (Sir W. Houldsworth) that, so far as the part of Lancashire which I represent is concerned, I do not think there will be any great opposition on the part of the operatives to the raising of the age, if it is done, as the hon. Baronet himself suggested, with prudence, and if some little time is allowed before the Act is put into operation. In speaking of foreign competition, I think people are apt to overlook the fact that, unless we take every precaution that our working classes are as well instructed, and as well developed physically, as those in other parts of the world, we shall be heavily handicapped. We know that children are not allowed to go to work in Switzerland until they are 14 years of age, and in many other countries of Europe the age limit is higher than in England. The doctrine that half timers are taught more than full timers, was, I think, exploded long ago. My old friend Sir Edwin Chadwick was a great advocate of that doctrine, but I thought it was now entirely abandoned. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) to visit the part of Lancashire in which I have lived all my life and make the acquaintance of the school teachers. If he does so, I venture to say he will not find a single teacher, who has experience in teaching half-time scholars, who will bear out the view he has expressed. Teachers can only pass half timers through the standards by dint of great exertions, and those children who attend school full-time suffer from the attention which has to be bestowed on half-timers. The omission to alter the age is the more remarkable since the Royal Commission on Education, which

    1775
    was presided over by Lord Cross, a member of the present Cabinet, unanimously recommended that the half-time age should be raised to 11. I pass on to the question of certifying surgeons, and I must express my regret that a retrograde proposal on that subject has found its way into the Bill. I think it can be shown that certifying surgeons reject many children whom it is proposed to send to work, but who are not fit to enter the factory. My hon. Friend says that unfit children are not presented for employment in factories, but is not that because parents know that children will have to pass the examination of the certifying surgeon? Does not the existence of this official in itself provide an effective preventive, and check the employment of children who are unfit for the work to which parents might otherwise put them? My hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham and for Rhondda have both pressed upon the Home Secretary the importance of appointing an increased number of Inspectors. I believe that what is wanted is more Sub-Inspectors from that class from which the right hon. Gentleman told us the other day that he has lately been making appointments, from the ranks of the working classes—men familiar with the dangers of industrial occupations against which the system of inspection is to guard. In making their observations my hon. Friends represented not only the workmen with whom they are specially brought into contact, but also the opinion of the operatives in the district which I have the honour to represent. It is a strong conviction, founded on fact and personal experience, among these people, that it is absolutely necessary, if the Factory Acts are really to be carried out effectually, that the number of Sub-Inspectors must be considerably increased.
    MR.H. S.WRIGHT: I desire to urge upon the Government to reconsider their decision in reference to the certifying surgeons. Medical evidence is entirely against it, and it seems to me to be a concession to employers at the expense of the children employed. I hope the Government will not insist upon retaining this Clause 19 in their otherwise excellent Bill. I have a letter from a very competent certifying surgeon doing duty in my own constituency, and he confirms my own
    opinion
    1776
    that the parents among the working classes generally are grateful for the protection afforded by the certifying surgeon, and the owners of factories are, perhaps, still more grateful when that gentleman points out any danger of infection running through a factory, doing incalculable damage. We have the alternative of ending or mending, and I cannot see why, if there are faults in the system, these faults cannot be amended and certifying surgeons everywhere made to discharge their duty as well as I know they do in my constituency. If you take away this official you take away a safeguard against the spread of an infectious disease from factory children through a whole town. I, therefore, respectfully urge the Government to consider the withdrawal of this clause.
    SIR WALTER FOSTER: The introduction and passing of a Bill on this subject requires the greatest care, for it touches a statute which is one of the greatest glories of Parliament. I am anxious that the high standard of the past should be maintained in future factory legislation. The protection of life and health in our industrial occupations has been the object in all our Factory Acts, but in this Bill I do not see, I am sorry to say, that the same spirit is sufficiently displayed. I had hoped that there would have been a more determined endeavour to do away with the pernicious system of "sweating" in our large towns. I should have been glad to have seen the Bill follow more the lines of the Bill of the hon. Member for Poplar, but there is no indication of an adequate attempt to grapple with the evil. I hope we may yet persuade the right hon. Gentleman to accept Amendments which will give force to the Bill in the direction we desire. I am sorry that the sanitary aspect of the Factory Acts is not extended by this Bill. There is an opportunity in a measure of this kind for making the sanitary supervision of all places of industrial occupation much more effective than it is. We have an opportunity of taking care that all people shall be employed under the conditions least hurtful to health. It is the duty of the State to take the greatest care of the sanitary conditions under which Factory labour is carried on. Both employers and employed are insufficiently acquainted with this sub-

    1777
    ject and I doubt if the appointment of an increased number of Sub-Inspectors will meet the case. If the right hon. Gentleman were to appoint a large number of Inspectors from the ranks of the profession to which I have the honour to belong, he would obtain the kind of skill necessary for the sanitary improvements of workshops. I do not suppose that any such enlightened idea has entered the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and I am rather led to think so, because the factory surgeons seem to have incurred his displeasure in Clause 19. The question for the surgeon very often is not one of age, but of physical fitness for a particular occupation, and the medical officer alone, I maintain, has a sufficient insight into individual peculiarities to enable a right judgment to be arrived at on that matter. I hope from the general expression of opinion on both sides of the House that we shall have some alteration in the proposal to abolish certifying surgeons. The case of these surgeons has been stated again and again with considerable force, and I need not dwell upon it. I should be very sorry to see such a retrograde step taken in factory legislation as their abolition. I do not say that the present system cannot be improved, but I do say that we should not do away with the medical safeguards which the Factory Acts at present contain. The importance of this goes beyond particular trades, it is a matter of health and well-being to the population generally. Recently an hon. Friend of mine went down to Lancashire, on a sad occasion, to attend the funeral of Mr. John Bright. He had not had previous acquaintance with the physical aspect of the operatives in great Lancashire towns, and he told me on his return that he was painfully struck with the injurious affect of factory work upon the persons employed, and remarked upon the striking difference in physique between the men of the Lancashire manufacturing district and the men of the South and the Midlands. Well, his observation was just; and such a result can only be prevented in the future, by strengthening instead of weakening the check, by which certifying surgeons will keep oat the young, who are unfit for labour.
    MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to say a few words in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth). My constituency is in the same part of the county as his, and the occupation of the people similar in character; the conclusions at which I arrive, however, are not identical with those he has put before the House. I think the Government have done wisely not to introduce the recommendations of the Berlin Conference into this Bill, but have limited it to an Amendment of the Factory Acts. They could not, for example, raise the age for protection without dealing at the same time with the subject of education, because they would incur the risk of producing a condition in which the children would be no longer required to go to school, and yet would not be allowed to go to work. With reference to half-timers, I also have often conversed with the late Sir Edwin Chad wick, but I did not understand him to place the education of half-time children quite so high as the right hon. Gentleman supposes. I know he had a strong opinion in favour of the half-time system, but I do not believe he seriously maintained that half-timers learned more in their half days than other children with all their time at school. But if there was an "element of exaggeration" in Sir E. Chad wick's views as to the advantages of the half-time system, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman errs as much on the other side. The information I have received is that, though half-timers find it difficult quite to keep pace with the full-timers, they do very much more than half the proportion of work, but I believe it is generally understood that though they have only half-time at school, the children learn more than half as quickly. No doubt some extra exertion on the part of teachers is required to keep them abreast of their full-time schoolfellows, but if the 'standards were slightly eased in the case of half-timers, the teachers would say that they had no reason to complain. With regard to the question of certifying surgeons, there is no doubt that in my constituency opinion, both of employer and employed is strongly in favour of the Bill in its present form, and to the effect that the certifying surgeon's test

    1779
    is of very little good. Whether that opinion is well founded or not I do not know, but if it is so, I should regret it, because I think that the work of certifying surgeon ought to be so managed as to be of considerable use.
    MR. BURT: I have no intention of entering into the merits or demerits of the Bill. I have no doubt that some of the provisions relating to sanitary matters are improvements so far as they go, and I am very glad that the Factory Act is to be extended to workshops. I have risen, however, merely to express my deep disappointment that the Government have not raised the age at which children are to be employed. This country is in many respects in advance of nearly all other nations of the world, and some of our industrial legislation is, I think, the glory of our country and our Parliament. There is, however, one point in which we are behind Germany, Switzerland, and some nations in the North of Europe, and that is the age at which we allow our children to begin work. At the Berlin Conference there was a unanimous recommendation in favour of raising the age for work in mines to 14, and in all other employments to 12. The Home Secretary has said that the bulk of the delegates to that Conference agreed in that recommendation, but my belief is that the recommendation was unanimous; at all events, it was unanimous so far as the British representatives were concerned. I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chatham, who was to a large extent the spokesman of this country, and put forward his views with great ability, and with the very great sympathy which he has always evinced so far as industrial legislation is concerned. I suppose it would be inconsistent with party discipline and Government etiquette, but I wish that the right hon. Gentleman could have risen and answered the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has spoken of the difficulty of carrying out a change of this kind. No doubt there are always great difficulties in such a matter; there is the loss to the parents, and some of them may object. I do not say that we can view without consideration the feelings of parents, and, I believe that there are parents who, owing perhaps in a large measure to the necessities of their own
    1780
    circumstances, are not sufficiently considerate with regard to their children; but I think that it is the duty of Members of Parliament and of Governments in some cases to educate public opinion to the proper standard on matters of this kind. With regard to the Berlin Conference, I think that the cotton operatives of this country were very well represented; Mr. Birtwistle knows thoroughly what are their views and feelings. The Home Secretary has argued as if the half-time system relieves us of the necessity of carrying out that recommendation, but I do not think so. There may be educational advantages, I believe there are, in that system; but the recommendation is absolute not to allow any children to enter any employment before they are 12. The hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester says the delegates reserved to themselves the question of when this should be brought into operation, and he says it is a question of time and ingenuity and should be done by degrees. I entirely agree that it should be done by degrees; but what I complain of is that the Government are not taking a step in advance. The hon. Baronet says that parents, rather than employers, would object to the alteration. With regard to the parents, my opinion is that it will only be the less thrifty and careful of them that will object to a change of this kind, and I think that we should make such a change gradually. We had always done it in a very gradual way. When the law was altered as to the employment of boys in mines, those already employed were allowed to go on as before, and a year and ample time was allowed in order that the employers should adapt themselves to the change. Nobody will object to time being allowed, but the Government ought to have endeavoured to raise the standard of age, and thereby have effected a great improvement on the existing condition of things. No doubt Germany and some other countries on the Continent are influenced in the action they had taken very much by military consideration, but it is surely not less important for us as a great industrial country to care for the physical and mental development of our people. I should like to remind the Home Secretary of what took place two or three years ago

    1781
    with regard to the Mines Regulation Bill. As introduced it left the age at 10. I submitted an Amendment raising it to 12, and that Amendment was carried by an overwhelming majority. The question was again raised on Report, and it was again carried by a diminished majority, but still a very substantial one. But in the meantime we had representations from the employers and also from the men specially affected urging that we should maintain the age at 10. But I and my colleagues did not listen to those representations at all. We believed that they were dictated by narrow and selfish considerations. We believed the great mass of the miners would support us in our endeavour to raise the age of the half-timers; and for my part I quite believe that the same thing would happen with regard to the cotton trade, where the great majority of the operatives would also be in favour of raising the age. I am quite sure that the opinion of this House and the general opinion of the public outside will support Her Majesty's Government if they can only be induced to take a more courageous course in dealing with this matter. There is just one other point to which I should like to refer. I think that, considering that one of the difficulties we have to face in the foreign competition we are subjected to arises from the long hours and the low wages of the Continental workpeople, together with some other factors which I need not go into, we, having entered into the Berlin Conference, and having thereby become a party to the recommendation it made with regard to the limitation of age, are in honour bound to give effect to that recommendation. I ask Her Majesty's Government how they can expect other nations, who are behind us in. regard to many other subjects, to come up to our standard in those matters if we refuse to take a step in advance in some of those questions in which we are far behind them?
    COLONEL BLUNDELL: In regard to the question of age, to which reference has been made by the hon. Member for Morpeth, I may state that I saw some of the deputations of miners which came up to London to request that the Secretary of State might still permit boys to work in the thin
    1782
    seams at 10 years old, and that I gathered from them that the fathers wished their boys to work with them in the mines, because if they did not do this they would have to go further away and work in the mills. I am certainly of opinion that there should be a uniform age established for all the great industries throughout the country, and that that should be 12 years rather than 10.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: The tone in which this Bill has been received on both sides of the House is, I think, a matter congratulation for the Government, of Having myself been a manufacturer for a quarter of a century, I think I may say that we also should take credit in that there has been on this occasion nothing like the selfish opposition from employers which greeted the old Factory Acts when they were introduced. I have only three serious objections to advance against this Bill. The first is that it excludes the domestic workshops. That is a matter which I hope the Government will very carefully consider. It is a very grave and important matter, but it is one which only affects the large towns and. cities, for which special arrangements might easily be made. I think it would be a thousand pities if this Bill were passed without something being done to put a stop to the abominable sweating which takes place in workshops outside the ken and control of the Factory Inspector. Secondly, I want to add my word of protest about the half-timers; and here I endorse every word which fell from my hon. Friend when he urged that we should not lose this golden opportunity of raising the standard of age at which the children are permitted to work as half-timers. In the West of England—in Gloucester shire and Wiltshire—there are practically no half-timers. We do not employ children there until they have reached the age of 13 or 14, and I do not think there would be any opposition worth talking about on the part of the working classes if we were to raise the age to 12, as recommended by the Berlin Conference. I do not believe it would in the result hurt my brother manufacturers in the North, for I believe that the rising generation of industrial hands would by a development of technical and evening continuation schools be enabled to grow

    1783
    up far more capable than they are at present of maintaining the manufacturing supremacy of this country. My third objection is to Clause 13. I certainly think that to insert a 12 hours clause in an Act of Parliament as the recognised period of daily labour for women is a monstrous thing at this time of day. Of course, we shall in the Grand Committee have an opportunity of ventilating all these questions one by one; but I should have liked to have heard more expression of opinion from both sides of the House in reference to Clause 13, to the effect that the maximum number of hours during which women should be employed away from their homes should be 10 instead of 12. I have a word also to say as to Clause 7, relating to fire escapes. Although this is only a matter of detail, I cannot help making this protest, that if the lives of the operatives are so endangered that we ought to provide a second escape in case of fire, that it is quite as necessary in existing factories as in those which are to be erected after the year 1892. Either this second escape is necessary or it is not. If it is not necessary do not impose the obligation; if it be necessary, put upon us—the manufacturers—the obligation of providing it. I will only add a word about the doctors. After what has been said the Government will be obliged to give in. No one will be more surprised than the doctors themselves when they see the love and affection they inspire in hon. Members on both sides of this House. With regard to clause 17, as to the half day's holiday, I think a fourteen days' notice is too long, and that it will be well to reduce it to seven. In country districts the people sometimes do not know 14 days beforehand the occasion on which they may desire a half-holiday, and it would be better to require only a week's notice. As to the other details of the Bill I will not detain the House; I congratulate the Government on having brought in the Bill; it is a small but useful measure, and I congratulate the House that it has met with so much, approval on the part of the Representatives and employers of labour. I can only hope that when this and the other Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) have been considered by the Grand Committee upstairs, the
    1784
    result will be the passage of a measure that will do at least something to make the lives of those who work in our factories and workshops more happy and more wholesome.
    MR. HINCKES: I only desire to call the attention of the House to one point which I think is deserving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I know from my'own experience as an Inspector of private adventure schools that a large number of schools were started for the express purpose of enabling the certificates to be given by means of which the children are allowed to go to work. It has hitherto been found hardly possible to suppress these schools which practically serve no other purpose, because the Factory Inspectors have been in the habit of recognising the certificates obtained from them as sufficient authority for sending the children to work. I hope we shall be enabled to obtain some assurance from the Home Office, that in future the Inspectors will be instructed to inquire into-the character of these schools, and to refuse to recognise the certificates obtained from really worthless sources.
    MR. LENG: If the half - time system is a had system, then I represent one of the worst cities in the Kingdom; but if it be a good system then I represent one of the best cities, because I believe that in proportion to its manufacturing operations we have a larger number of half-timers in Dundee than are to be found in almost any other manufacturing town. The reason why I have risen to speak on this subject is that, on account of this large proportion of half-timers in Dundee, this question is a very serious one for my constituency. My own sympathies are all in favour of raising the statutory age at which children may be employed, but at the same time, I cannot but recognise the fact that if a sudden change were made, it might cause a serious derangement in the conditions under which the factory system is at present carried on. While. we have in Dundee so large a number of half-timers, the employers have been exceedingly liberal in the erection of half-time schools; these have been in existence for many years, and having been efficiently conducted have produced the best possible results. Therefore, I think

    1785
    the employers would object to any sudden change which would materially interfere with existing arrangements. I am aware, however, that outside the employers there is, especially among the Trades Union class, a general desire that the age should be raised. On the other hand, I am certain that if the parents generally were polled on the subject at the present moment, the majority would be found to object to this proposal. Therefore, I think, that in view of these varied interests it is desirable that while we should aim at raising the age, this should be done in the gradual manner which the hon. Member who represents one of the Manchester Divisions has recommended. I will only say one word upon the question of certifying surgeons. In connection with this half-time system, so eager are the parents, and so eager are the children to obtain employment at the earliest possible age, that there have been numerous cases in which the certificates have been transferred from those to whom they rightly belonged, to children of much younger years, who produced them, though really false certificates; and unless we have surgeons to check these certificates there is very little doubt that a very large number of children of much younger age than ought to be employed would be employed. I certainly agree that with these surgeons to attest the age of children there would be few children who would be employed at too young an age. I understood the Home Secretary in reply to my question to say that he has already the power to appoint women Inspectors, but that on grounds of nexpediecy, economy, and practicability, he did not see his way to exercise it. These reasons are generally advanced at the earlier stages of a new proposal. I can only say that feeling among the female operatives of Dundee is strongly in favour of the appointment of Inspectors of their own sex. A deputation of these female operatives waited upon me and my hon. Colleague,and they stated that they seldom if ever saw an Inspector, or if they did see him they had no opportunity of speaking to him. They added that there were numerous sanitary matters on which they would like to speak to Inspectors of their own sex which they could not well bring under the attention of a man. Of more than a
    1786
    million operatives engaged in factories, 700,000 are women, and yet there is not a single female Inspector. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman, who spoke of economy, could employ a large number of women as Inspectors at rates with which they would be perfectly satisfied—and lower than are paid to the male Inspectors. There is no doubt that if you are to have an efficient system of inspection, especially if you extend the Factory Act to workshops, you must add to the staff of Inspectors. A number of well educated and intelligent women could be employed as Inspectors. The deputation of female operatives said that frequently some of their number were injured by pieces of machinery, but they had no opportunity of gaining the attention of the Inspector, who was generally talked over by the mill foreman. I am sure this work of inspection would be appropriate for those ladies who are leaving our colleges and universities, and for whose abilities there is at present some difficulty in finding an outlet.
    MR. BYRON REED: Mr. Speaker, I should like to impress upon the Home Secretary the necessity of considering very seriously the position of the staff of Inspectors at the Home Office. It is at present wholly inadequate to perform the duties which devolve upon it, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to give some assurance to the House that, in the event of this Bill emerging from Committee in a form which will justify his acceptance of it, he will secure a sufficient staff to carry its provisions into effect. Considerable dissatisfaction exists among the working classes with the system under which Inspectors are at present appointed. The candidate for an inspectorship is called upon to pass an examination such as makes it generally impossible for a working man to become an Inspector.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that the scheme of examination has been revised with the very object of meeting the case of working men.
    MR. BYRON REED: I was not aware of that. Has it been placed before the House as a Parliamentary Paper?
    MR. MATTHEWS: No.
    MR. BYRON REED: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will lay it on

    1787
    the Table and let the House have an opportunity of examining it. I desire to give earnest support to this Bill, and I hope that its details will be threshed out upstairs, with the result that we shall speedily have an improvement in our system of factory inspection, and above all a definition of the duties and areas of Inspectors responsible to the Home Department.
    MR. BRYCE: The duties of Inspectors will be considerably increased by this Bill, and, seeing that the number of women employed in these factories exceeds the number of men, the right hon. Gentleman must no doubt be aware that there has been for a long time very much dissatisfaction among workwomen and among those interested in their condition, that there should not, among all the Inspectors, be one female Inspector. I can bear testimony to the interest which exists in this matter among a large number of workwomen. They feel that there are many matters connected with their well-being in workshops and factories which can only be inquired into by women. I believe frequent representations have been made on the subject by women's societies and trades' organisations, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear them in mind, and that if reasons exist in his mind against making this concession, he will state them to the House in order that we may be able to meet them. I certainly commend this matter of female Inspectors very earnestly to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, assuring him that it will give us great satisfaction if he can see his way to make this amendment.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am sure the Home Secretary must feel thoroughly satisfied with the discussion, and that it would have been a great mistake to have taken the Second Reading sub silentio. congratulate him and the House on the tone and temper of the discussion, which has been free from any Party feeling. There has been no desire on either side to minimise the benefits of the measure or to deprecate the efforts of the Home Secretary, or to condemn severely any defects that the measure may exhibit. I am very glad in that respect that the House of Commons has not followed the example of some hon. and right hon.
    1788
    Gentlemen who sit on the Treasury Bench, and who, since this measure has been introduced, have made Party speeches, which I very much deplore, and which, if made in this House, would have set a very bad example. This question is above Party, concerning, as it does, our industries, and the physical, moral, and mental wellbeing of the great mass of the population. Now, Sir, while there are many features in the Bill which I am very glad to see, I hope when we get it upstairs we shall be able to amend it in certain others of its features. I confess to a feeling of disappointment, when I opened it, at its shortcomings. There are many shortcomings in the Bill. It does not, for instance, contain adequate provisions for dealing with the Report of the Sweating Committee and the dreadful disclosures which were made during the progress of the inquiry by that Committee. The proposals of the Bill in regard to this matter are extremely meagre. In the matter of the age of children the proceedings of the Conference of Berlin have been entirely ignored. The right hon. Gentleman, with a wave of his hand, disposed of everything done by that Conference. I congratulated Her Majesty's Government the first moment I heard that, at the invitation of the Emperor of Germany, they intended to go into the Conference. It was the first opportunity that England had ever had of going into an International Conference upon the labour question, and no country will gain so much by international cooperation on the labour question as England. It is our interest to bring other nations up to our level of factory legislation, and it is our interest, where they have gone beyond us in the protection and education of children, to follow their legislation and to try to come up to their level I congratulate the Government, therefore, on what they did. But I must say, also, I congratulate them, and I did so from the first moment, on the persons they appointed to represent them at Berlin. I have read the Report of the Conference over and over again, and have saturated my mind with it, which I am afraid the Government have not done—the right hon. Gentleman has not got the whole of the facts. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chatham for the admirable manner in which

    1789
    he conducted his part of the proceedings, and to the hon. Member for Morpeth and the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester for the way in which they supported him. There is no more useful record on the labour question in modern times than is to be found within the limits of the Blue Book on the subject, and I wish that every Member of Parliament and every Minister on the Government Bench would inform, themselves thoroughly of its contents. According to the Home Secretary there is no moral obligation on the Government, from what happened at Berlin, to carry out the agreement signed by our representative. The right hon. Gentleman said that, so far from our being in any way bound, Mr. Scott only gave his consent to the proposal as to age ad referendum. But if the right hon. Gentleman had pursued the Report a little further he would have found that Mr. Scott only made that statement in Committee of the Conference. The Conference was divided up into subsections, and Mr. Scott was appointed member of that sub-committee which dealt with child labour, and when they came to the question of raising the age he said he could not agree to it except ad referendum, and it was raferred to Lord Salisbury. Sir J. Gorst, writing on the 13th of March, said that the subcommittee discussed the age of the admission of children to work in factories, and passed a resolution for the absolute limit of 12 years. There were eight votes in favour of the resolution, namely, those of Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Prance, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland, and no votes against it; but the representatives of England, Spain, and Italy abstained from voting. Sir John Gorst added—
    "We are all, including our experts, in favour of the above resolution, and shall be glad to receive instructions as to whether we shall be supported in plenary conference."
    Our Factory Inspector (Mr. Wimper) was in favour of it, as were also Mr. Birt-wistle, who represented the operatives of Lancashire, the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester, and Mr. Burnett, of the Board of Trade. Two days after, on the 15th of March, Lord Salisbury telegraphed that he approved the course proposed in the sub-committee. Sir J. Gorst wrote on the 25th of March that they understood they had his Lordship's
    1790
    authority to assent to three proposals which were in advance of our present law, namely, raising the minimum age of child labour to 12, raising the minimum age for underground labour to 14, and the cessation from labour for four weeks for a woman who had been confined. Lord Salisbury's answer was:—"Your attitude approved. You may consent to the proposals." Can anything be more explicit than that? There is no reservation about it. The right hon Gentleman has adopted in the Bill one of the proposals. He has adopted that relating to women, but he has not adopted that relating to children. Children have no votes, but their parents have; and 1 know the grounds of the right hon. Gentleman's action and have some sympathy with him. Twenty years ago I brought forward a Factory Bill. At that time children were employed in factories at the age of eight years, and in North of England towns—in Lancashire and Yorkshire—the sound of their little clogs could be heard passing through the street at half-past 5 in the morning, in order that the factory gates might be reached when the bell rang, and work might be commenced at 6 o'clock. I brought in a Bill to lower the hours of labour for women, and to raise the age of children. Some workpeople came to me and said that they needed the children's labour; and the employers also objected to the restriction. I told those people that it was at their request I had brought forward the Bill, and that I had inserted the clause which had been objected to on my own resolution; and I told them that if they opposed the clause raising the age of the children I would drop the entire Bill. I said "Take which you please." They allowed me to persevere, and I carried the Bill. The Government took the matter up in 1874—it became a test question at the elections, and we carried the Bill. How was it done? Precisely as you might carry this Bill, with provisions further restricting child labour. We did not do it rashly, proposing that the new provisions should take effect in a day or a year. What the right hon. Gentleman might now do is what Mr. Cross did when he was Home Secretary. The legislation was not sudden in its effect or retrospective. The children who were in the mills were allowed to remain

    1791
    there. After a year the age was raised to nine, and after two years to 10; and from that time to this there has not been a word of dissent uttered against the change. In the Bill the House is now discussing, as I have said, only one of the recommendations of the Berlin Conference has been adopted, although we are pledged to carry out those I have enumerated. What were the resolutions of the Conference as to child labour? They were seven—
    "Children of either sex not having reached a certain age not to work in factories, and the limit of age to be fixed at 12 years, except in southern countries, where the limit maybe 10."
    All our representatives at the Conference objected to this limitation in the case of southern countries, and they fought the question persistently. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Gorst) objected to anyone in southern countries employing children of 10 years of age—we shall see what you do in India by-and-by—
    "Children below 14 years of ago shall work neither at night nor on Sundays, and their work shall not exceed six hours a day, and shall be broken by a rest of at least half an hour; children shall be excluded from unhealthy and dangerous processes unless effective measures are taken for their protection."
    An hon. MEMBER: We are beyond them?
    MR. MUNDELLA: How are we beyond them? We commence working children at 10 years of age; they recommend 12, and 14 in the cases I am referring to. There is nothing more discreditable than the low standards, the passing of which enable children to work half-time. It is not the fault of the Education Department. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Sir W. Hart Dyke) is not in the Cabinet, and does not control the decisions of the Cabinet. I observe that the Vice President has not said a word in support of the Home Secretary's statement that half-time education is as good as whole-time education. He is far too shrewd a man. Now, what was the conclusion of the Conference after all the agreements .were signed? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Gorst) said—
    "We can pledge ourselves for Great Britain. Our Government, faithful to its action in the past, will conform resolutely in the future, even if it does not go beyond them, to the benevolent resolutions of the Conference."
    I wish the Government were willing to
    1792
    conform to the benevolent resolutions of the Conference. As it is an unpopular duty, I am quite prepared to have as much responsibility as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) pleases placed on the Opposition. We have already been instrumental in raising the age for factory work, and we are quite willing to take the responsibility of further action of the same kind. I want to know what is to be said about the effect of Royal Commissions? There is going to be a Royal Commission on Labour. Is it going to do anything, or is it to prevent anything being done? I hold in my hand the Report made by the Royal Commission on Education appointed by the Government in 1885. Lord Cross presided over it, and the Report was unanimously agreed to by every member of the Commission. The majority of that Commission were in favour of raising the minimum age of half-timers to 11 years. The minority would have been willing to go further, but in order to secure unanimity they agreed to that. Three years ago, then, a Commission reported that the half-time age should be raised to 11. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that? That is surely not too advanced a step for him. I hope he will allow that alteration to be made in Committee. I would like to give the right hon. Gentleman a little encouragement on the point. Some years ago I was the guest of the late Sir Titus Salt, who was one of the largest manufacturers of Bradford goods in the world, and he impressed on me that the time had come for raising the age to 12. Immediately after the Report of the Berlin Conference was circulated I met one of the largest employers in Lancashire, Mr. Thomas Ashton, of Manchester, and he said he was quite prepared to go to 12 for half-timers. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, need not be apprehensive of any great opposition if the alteration is made temperately and by steps. It was shown by the hon. Baronet opposite that the number of half-timers has decreased by nearly one-third during the last 10 or 12 years. That is because parents are now more in favour of education and are more considerate of their children. Surely the House ought to do what it can to educate public opinion, as was well said in the most manly and able speech of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and to

    1793
    encourage these temperate, wise, and thrifty parents by gradually raising the age at which children may be employed. The right hon. Gentleman said to-night that his desire was to bring all factories and workshops up to the same sanitary level. I wish that was likely to be the effect of the Bill, and I hope when the measure leaves the Committee that will be its effect. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us whether he thinks that Clause 19 is likely to raise the standard. I hold no brief for the certifying surgeons. I have paid their fees for the greater part of my life, and I believe they have earned them well and done excellent service to the country. Lord Shaftesbury, when I spoke to him about certifying surgeons, was always strenuous in maintaining that their services should be continued. There is abundant evidence not only that they frequently reject children, but that their work has acted as a great deterrent against the employment of sickly, weakly, and diseased children. Parents know now that it would be useless to take such children to the certifying surgeons. In many cases evidence has been placed in my hands that children suffering from scarlet fever and other infectious diseases have been presented to and rejected by the doctor and sent home to be cured. Surely this is most important in the interests of the health of the country. I think the right hon. Gentleman has made a great mistake in this attempt to abolish the office of certifying surgeons. I do not say these gentlemen have done all they might have done, but I think that, instead of abolishing their office, the right hon. Gentleman might turn them to very much better account. They ought not to be retained merely for certifying the fitness of children for work. They ought also to occasionally walk through the factories and report to Her Majesty's Inspectors if they find any child in an insanitary condition or suffering from infectious diseases. I feel very strongly on these questions, because when I read the excellent addresses delivered at the Berlin Conference by men like M. Jules Simon, whose life has been devoted to improving the condition of the children of his country, and the admirably sympathetic response of my right hon. Friend opposite (Sir J. Gorst), I feel sure that if we are to make
    1794
    the people of this country a vigorous, happy, moral, and intellectual population we must begin by taking care of the children. The responsibility rests with this House. What we do in the present will decide the conditions of the future and the sort of population that will ultimately carry on the government of this country.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): I think that before this Debate closes the House ought to know what was resolved at the Berlin Conference before it accepts the strictures of the right hon. Gentleman. It would appear from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that it was resolved at that Conference that until the age of 14 all whole-time work should be prohibited; but that was not the case. It was simply resolved that no child should be employed by night or on a Sunday, but except in that connection the age of 14 was not mentioned as the minimum age at all. The resolutions contemplated that children of 12 should have their hours of labour limited to 36 in the week, which is beyond the limit at present fixed by the law in England. Therefore, as regards children between the ages of 12 and 13, our law is better than that laid down at Berlin. At the age of 13, if a child cannot pass a given standard it may not be employed more than 28 hours a week in a textile factory, or 30 hours in a non-textile factory. But under the resolutions of the Berlin Conference any child between the age of 12 and 14 could be employed for 36 hours a week in any industry except mines. What, then, becomes of the reckless and indiscriminate charge that not one of the very important resolutions of the Berlin Conference has been given effect to? It is true that the first resolution—to the effect that children of either sex shall be excluded below the age of 12—is only partially carried out by the Government's Bill; but that is the only instance where the recommendations of the Berlin Conference are not fully realised. That Conference required that the children should satisfy the Local Authorities as to their education, and that those under 14 should not be employed at night. The Berlin Conference, too. fixed a higher maximum period of employment than this Bill, and it also

    1795
    prohibited the engagement of children in unhealthy occupations, but so, too, does the existing Factory Act. The Government have simply carried out the understanding of the Berlin Delegates that, in giving effect to the resolutions of the Conference, the different countries shall be able to pay some regard to special difficulties and circumstances. Therefore, we are entitled to look at this Bill from that point of view. Side by side with the remedies proposed the mischiefs which call for those remedies ought to be considered; and before making a revolutionary change in the industries of the North of England, the English Government have a right to demand that, in the numerous other matters of health and danger dealt with at the Conference, foreign legislation shall be more nearly brought up to English standards. It ought to be remembered that in, most of these matters foreign laws do not come up to our standard. The Government are ready to acknowledge the sympathetic spirit with which their sanitary provisions have been received, but it would have been fairer if hon. Members, when declaring the shortcomings of these resolutions, had specified what those shortcomings are. I venture to submit that they are very inconsiderable. The whole question of the sanitation of factories and workshops is almost inextricably complicated with the provisions of the health law. In the desire to get uniformity of administration the Government have been obliged to hand over the workshops entirely to the Local Authority, and in doing that they have revived and brought into operation a quantity of most important and valuable provisions which do not appear on the face of the Bill. It is only fair that this should be borne in mind. And now I come to matters of detail. With regard to the question of fire-escapes and the distinction between present buildings and future buildings, there is abundant precedent for it in the legislation of all times. Great structural alterations cannot be enforced in existing establishments without reasonable inquiry into the necessities of the case. No such consideration, however, will hinder action in the case of future buildings, all of which will have to conform to a fully sufficient minimum standard of provision against fire. The hon. Member for
    1796
    the Rhondda Division thinks there is not adequate provision for the fencing of machinery. But not only do we strengthen existing provisions in that respect, we also, by our Arbitration Clauses, deal with cases where for fencing purposes a great expenditure of capital may be necessary. As to overtime, it is only fair that the views of the public should be brought to our notice. It is undoubtedly necessary to provide against a standing increase in the hours of labour. The provision relating to certifying surgeons has not been put into the Bill by my right hon. Friend for his own amusement. It was urged upon his attention by the largest, most influential, most unanimous, and most widely representative deputation that I have ever seen—a deputation representing the employers and the employed in all the textile industries of the Kingdom. That deputation was introduced by the hon. Member for West Nottingham, and, remembering the speech delivered by the hon. Member this evening, I should like to know whether the hon. Member is still of opinion that these certificates are a meaningless form and a burden upon industry, and that they ought to be abolished.
    MR. BROADHURST: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: That, at any rate, was the view of the hon. Member when he introduced the deputation. Some hon. Members have talked as if the present use of the certificate system is an effective safeguard against disease and infection; but that is scarcely ever the case. I submit that the conduct of the Government in waiting until public opinion has unmistakably manifested itself with regard to the minimum age of employment is not unreasonable. But there is no doubt the question is one which the Government are willing shall be considered fairly in Committee. But we desire that the decision come to shall be such as public opinion in this country will support and the necessities, of our competition with foreign industries will justify.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I should like to make a suggestion with regard to the 19th clause. Could not the medical certificate be retained, and the charge for it be defrayed out of public funds? I

    1797
    think that would get rid of much of the objection to it. Also, I should like to know whether it would be in the purview of the Bill to move an Amendment bringing within its scope all engaged in sale shops. Such an extension would do away with the necessity for the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the London University.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade, &c."
    MR. BYRON REED: May I venture to suggest that it would be better to refer this Bill to a Select Committee? It deals largely with questions connected with the textile factories, and I have found that on the Standing Committee on Trade there are scarcely any representatives connected with those trades. I make these observations for the purpose of calling attention to this matter, in the hope that the Government will see their way to strengthening the representation of the textile trades on the Committee.
    MR. MATTHEWS: My hon. Friend may perhaps remember that the Committee of Selection have full powers to add members to the Grand Committee, and they will, no doubt, bear in mind the matter to which the hon. Member has referred.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question as to extending the provisions of the Bill to persons employed in sale shops?
    MR. MATTHEWS: It would not be within the scope of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.

    SUPPLY.
    Order read for going into Committee of Supply.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope the House will allow the first Vote to be taken to-night.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid I can hardly support that request of the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that on the previous occasion the Vote was under discussion for less than an hour, and, anxious as I am to assist in passing the Army Estimates, I do not think we are justified in hastily agreeing
    1798
    to a Vote involving an expenditure of £5,500,000.
    Committee deferred till to-morrow.

  ELECTORAL DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.—(No. 182.)

    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  ARCHDEACONRY OF CORNWALL BILL [LORDS.]—(No. 177.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    (11.53.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I hope the Government will proceed with this Bill. The arguments were fully developed when it was last before us.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that when he has spoken the arguments are fully developed. I can assure him there are many more arguments on this Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

    ASSESSMENT OF TAXES (REGULATION OF REMUNERATION) BILL.—(No. 221.)
    Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]. (No. 216.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I hope the House will permit this Bill to be read a second time. It consists of three clauses, and removes difficulties which ought to be got rid of in the interest of all sects and creeds. At the request of the hon. Member for North Belfast the Bill stood over from last Session, and he was good enough to intimate to me that during the interval

    1799
    it should be carefully considered to ascertain if there was any objection to it. I therefore hope the House will read the Bill a second time.
    MR. SEXTON: I think most of the objections to the Bill have disappeared, but the present is not a very favourable time for consultation between my colleagues and myself, and I therefore hope the Attorney General will allow the matter to stand over, on the understanding that there will be no factious opposition to the Bill.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Certainly.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  FACTORIES (CERTIFICATES OF BIRTH) FEES) (BILL.—(No. 188.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. D. Randell.)
    MR. STUART WORTLEY: As the hon. Member knows, the subject of this Bill has been embodied in the Bill discussed to-night. I understand that if the Second Reading is agreed to he will not proceed with the future stages of the measure.
    MR. D. RANDELL: I agree.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday next.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION BILL.— (No. 40.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir H. Roscoe.)
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I hope the hon. Gentleman will postpone the Motion for two or three days, when I hope to be in possession of information which it is essential to have in considering the measure.
    MR. C. T. D. ACLAND: Would it not be possible to take this stage to-night? The County Councils are anxiously awaiting the Bill.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I object.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

    FACTORY AND WORKSHOPS ACT (1878) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 2.)
    Order for Committee read, and discharged.
    Bill committed to the Committee on the Factories and Workshops Bill.

    SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON (SUPER ANNUATION) BILL.—(No. 49.)
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [10th February], "That Mr. Bartley be a Member of the Select Committee on the School Board for London (Superannuation) Bill."
    Question put, and agreed to
    Mr. Causton, Sir John Colomb, Mr. Duncan, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Howell, Colonel Hughes, Mr. John Kelly, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Tuite, and Sir Richard Temple nominated other Members of the Committee.
    Ordered, that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Richard Temple.)
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the whole question of the Superannuation of Elementary School Teachers in England and Wales.
    Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Eighteen Members.
    Ordered, That Mr. Talbot, Mr. Arthur Acland. Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Mather, and Mr. W. F. Lawrence be added to the Committee.— (Sir William Hart Dyke.)

    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND) LOANS BILL.—(No. 57.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 3rd June.

    PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to amend the laws relating to Public Health in London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 231.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to consolidate the laws relating to Public Health in London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Mr. Secretary Matthews, and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 232.]
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

COPYRIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Petition that the Bill may be referred to a Select Committee, and to be heard by counsel against; of the Stationers' Company; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY BILL (No. 38).

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for going into Committee, read.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, before the House resolves itself into Committee, I should like to ask a question of the Government, if they are able to answer it in the absence of the Prime Minister. There was a little conversation which went on across the Table between the Prime Minister and the Front Opposition Bench, during the discussion of this Bill on the last occasion, one of those conversations which are inaudible to many of the Members of the House, but which are not without importance. I understood the noble Marquess at the head of the Government to say that he intended that important Amendments should be discussed in your Lordships' Committee in full House, and that all other Amendments should be left to the Grand Committee to which this Bill is to be sent. I want to know what position we are in with regard to this Bill. Is there any definite line by which we may know whether an Amendment is important enough to be discussed in Committee of the whole House, or whether it is to be referred to the Grand Committee? I want to know whether the labours of the Grand Committee are to be restricted in any way. I do not think we ought to go on in a slipshod manner, not knowing whether we are to be debarred from discussing here anything that may be important, or whether the discussions are to take place upstairs. A great deal of valuable time will be wasted if we have to go into the matter again when the Bill comes back.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): As I understood the noble Marquess, what the noble Marquess meant—and I speak from recollection of what I heard, because I was no party to the conversation—was this: that the House itself would decide whether it would or would not take certain Amendments, and whether it would be advisable to go on discussing them here, but that certain Amendments which are more matters of draft and detail than of principle might very well be left for more careful consideration in the Grand Committee. As I understood, the point will be determined by the House itself, as it arises upon the various Amendments by the selection of the House.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I also quite understood it as the noble Lord has said. There was no limit intended or laid down as to what may be done in Committee of the whole House. Of course, when the Committee of the whole House has dealt with the clauses of the Bill the idea is that they may receive in greater detail more careful supervision subsequently. Of course, the Committee would not be limited in any way, as I understand, in going into the matter. It must be dealt with in Committee of the whole House, because, if not, the only result would be that the Bill would come back on Report from the Grand Committee, and the whole of its work might have to be done again.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  LORD BRAMWELL: My Lords, I do not know what description of Amendments your Lordships will deal with in this Committee, but certainly I should at some time or other like to have an opportunity of striking out what appears to me to be an erroneous and mischievous part of Clause 1 in the 1st section. I mean that which says that, notwithstanding any contract, the tithe rent-charge, as defined by this Act, issuing out of any lands, shall be payable by the owners of the lands, notwithstanding any contract to the contrary between the owner and the occupier. The words which I object to are, "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary between him and the occupier of such lands." No contract to the contrary between the

  1619
  owner and the occupier of such lands could in the least degree affect the rights of the tithe owner, and I think the suggestion that this clause makes that it could is a mischievous one, and that those words should therefore be omitted. Whether the House would think this is a case for having attention called to the matter here, or whether it should be done in the Grand Committee, I do not know.
  LORD BRABOURNE: While the noble Marquess is thinking how he will answer that question I should like to point out to your Lordships that this is the beginning of the difficulty to which I referred just now. You have got here a charge which is now payable by the owner of the land, but which may be payable at present under a contract through his tenant or otherwise. The noble and learned Lord opposite has said this appears to throw doubt upon the validity of the contract between the landlord and tenant. I, not being a lawyer, am anxious to know the legal bearing of those words. The Bill provides that the tithe rent-charge shall be payable by the owner, and what I want to know is whether it is not payable by the owner now. I should desire to be informed whether I am within my legal right when I make a covenant with my tenant, as I have done with several tenants before now, that he shall take his farm at a smaller rent upon his paying the tithe rent-charge for me. Am I in my right in making this proviso: that the tenant shall at the end of the year pay to the landlord a sum equivalent to the tithe rent-charge which the landlord has paid? I want to know whether this section affects that proviso. It has been said that this measure is necessary in order to avoid friction, but how do you get rid of the friction in that way? The tenant will have to pay, and whether it is paid through his hands or mine does not much signify. If there is any friction, that friction remains. I should like the legal luminaries of your Lordships' House to give us an explanation of this part of the section: whether, in the first place, the tithe rent-charge is not really payable by the owner; and, secondly, whether this section will have the effect of making the owner pay it directly with his own hand? Will it not
  1620
  be perfectly competent for me to make an arrangement with my tenant of this kind: "You shall send me a cheque for the rent, and I will send on a cheque to the clergyman?" It does not signify in the least whose cheque is sent. This, my Lords, is only a sample of the enormous difficulty you will have to surmount in dealing with this question and in attempting by legislation to correct a system which has grown up naturally.
  LORD BASING: There is a question arising anterior to this, which seems to me to require explanation, and that is who is the owner of the lands when they have been let for building purposes; whether, after land is built upon, it can be covered by one and the same definition? How would it operate in the event of the land being sub-divided for building purposes, as it is in many cases in regard to lands throughout the Kingdom, and especially round London? Most of this building has taken place since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, and I therefore apprehend it is hardly the intention that "owner" shall be taken in reference to the Tithe Act of 1836.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With reference to the point which has been made by my noble and learned Friend, there is no doubt an inaccuracy of language used in regard to this question of the payment of the tithes, but it is absolutely sanctioned by the expressions used in the Act of 1836. It speaks of the tenant being bound to pay the tithe. Now, strictly speaking, the tenant is not bound to pay the tithe except in the sense that the land may be distrained upon. But I would suggest this, whether it might not be better to alter the 1st sub-section in this way: that the
  "Tithe rent-charge as defined by this Act issuing out of any lands shall be recoverable only in manner provided by this Act."
  The 2nd section deals, to a certain extent, with the words "Notwithstanding any contract to the contrary," because it provides what is to be done in that case, and we might avoid all ambiguity by using a general expression of that sort, which I apprehend is what is intended. I would suggest that it might be better to alter the 1st sub-section by making it declare that the tithe should be recover-

  1621
  able only "in the manner provided by this Act."
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETART OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I do not know whether, as this is rather a drafting Amendment, it would not be better to reserve it for the consideration of the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think so.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite concur in the view that the noble and learned Lord takes, that that will be the most satisfactory way of dealing with the sub-section, which, as it stands, is scarcely sense. The words, "to the contrary," ought certainly to come out. Then, with regard to the definition of "owner," we took that given in the Act of 1836. That is a very wide and extensive definition. I shall be very glad to consider any alteration of it, but I do not think we shall be able to improve upon it.
  LORD BASING: The Act of 1836 certainly gives a very wide definition fo the word "owner."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: With regard to the definition of "owner," I think that will require to be most carefully considered. The definition of the word "owner" given in the Act of 1836 was for quite a different purpose. I apprehend that the Act of 1836, being an Act for dealing with the tithes, required that every person who, as owner, had any interest, large or small, in the land that was titheable, should have full opportunity of being heard before the authority dealing with the matter. Not being myself a lawyer, I must confess that I find myself totally unable to construe the half page of definition in the Act of 1836, and without in the least intending to say that that definition is not applicable to the present Bill, I think the noble Marquess will agree with me that as this measure is different, inasmuch as it places the direct burden upon the owner, it will require very careful consideration in Standing Committee to see that the definition does that which the Bill intends. I do not think it is possible to do that without further minute discussion of the clause.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: Under the Act of 1836 it did not signify to the tithe owner who the landowner was,
  1622
  because he could go on the land, and it remained with the tenant to find out who was owner, which, of course, he knew. But when there are two parties both interested in baffling the tithe owner, the question becomes entirely different. It is clearly something more than definition that requires attending to now.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I quite agree as to the necessity for being very careful in this matter, and I also agree that there is one purpose in view now, whereas there was another when the Act of 1836 was passed. The result of a careful study to my mind is, that the definition will not require substantial alteration, but that it will require some words of qualification to this effect: that as between landlord and tenant the landlord shall in all cases be treated as owner and not the tenant. The necessity for that, to my mind, arises chiefly out of the provisions of the Act of 1836 in reference to joint owners. Under the Act of 1836, if a lease is for more than 14 years, and the rent is not two-thirds of a rack-rent, he is made a joint owner; but it is clear, I think, that for the purpose of this Act, that ought not always to be the case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is inconvenient to discuss the sufficiency of a definition without some Amendment being moved upon it. You do not say that the definition is bad, and I do not know how we can discuss it unless somebody will point out the faults to be corrected.
  LORD BRABOURNE: I should be glad to have an answer to my question, which is, I think, rather an important one; that is, that if the tithe is payable by the owner already, how can you enact in this section that it shall be paid by him? If it is so now, what is the use of saying it shall be so hereafter? What I understand the noble Marquess wishes to do is to make the owners pay it direct, and I think if you are going to do that you had better do it in plain language.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not defend the language of this clause. I think it should be considerably modified not as a question of substance, but of drafting. Certainly I think, as the noble Lord points out, we should be re-enacting here what already exists. That is a very harmless practice, though I do

  1623
  not know that it can be said to be a useful one. At all events, I do not understand the noble Lord who raised this discussion to move any alteration in the 1st sub-section?
  LORD BRABOURNE: Not now.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then in line 11, page 1, I move to leave out the words after "but" down to "he" in line 12. That is in connection with another Amendment to leave out the word "that" in line 14, and, after "tithe rent-charge," to insert the words "which such occupier has contracted to pay," so that the clause will read—
  "Such sum as the owner has properly paid on account of tithe rent-charge that the occupier has contracted to pay."
  It is practically merely a drafting Amendment expressing the same thing as has been previously provided for.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HARSCHELL: At this point I wish to call attention to the words immediately following the part of the clause which has just been dealt with in regard to cases where the occupier is liable under any contract, that
  "Every receipt given for such sum shall state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."
  I gather that the object of those words is to earmark the payment as one which has been made on account of the tithe rent-charge, but there are two objections to those words which occur to me, assuming that intention. One is that the words are not clear, because the payment may have been undertaken by different persons in different ways. Some have thought that the receipt referred to is the receipt given by the tithe owner to the landlord, and some have supposed it is the receipt given by the landlord to the tenant. I think it will be seen on reading the words that it is by no means clear to which of those receipts this proviso applies. That is one objection to the words I have read. The other is this: that they do not provide any means for enforcing it. The clause says that every receipt shall expressly state that fact, but it does not say what is to follow if that is not done. Are we to suppose that the person who does not do it would be indictable for a misdemeanour? But there is nothing said as to what is to follow. I think it
  1624
  is a thing that is either meant to be enforced or not, and some provision ought to be made for that purpose, as, for instance, that "such receipt shall not be adducible in evidence" unless that is done. It is a question which I think is worth consideration, whether having regard to those two objections it is worth while keeping the provision. Some people object to its being retained, inasmuch as ear-marking the tithe rent-charge might have its disadvantages as well as its advantages.
  LORD BRAMWELL: It seemed to me to be open to the same objection, but I understood the noble Marquess that there was an objection to taking it here instead of in Grand Committee. I thought it was not to be considered there.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not the slightest objection.
  LORD BRABOURNE: It would be absurd to indict a man for the wording of a receipt; and if you are not going to impose a penalty of some kind, and if it is left in that way it will not be done, and the thing is not worth retaining.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It seems that the words "tithe rent-charge" there might point to some particular land. I understand the charge is payable in respect of particular pieces of ground, and not of the whole letting; and therefore the receipt would have to show, if necessary, that the money was paid for some particular piece of ground, and not for the whole of it. That would lead to considerable confusion, and I think we had better drop the words out of the clause that
  "Every receipt given for such sum shall expressly state that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."
  I have moved to omit those words subject to any resolution we may come to afterwards in respect of replacing them by others.
  Moved, to omit after "rent-charge," in line 16, the words
  "And every receipt given for such sum shall state expressly that the sum is paid in respect of that tithe rent-charge."—(The Marquess of Salisbury)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: On Thursday last the noble Marquess mentioned a good many differences between

  1625
  the Bill which is now before the House and the Bill of last year; but I think he omitted to mention, one portion which is of considerable importance, which makes the landowner liable and leaves him to recover the amount of tithe which the tenant has not paid, as tithe instead of as provided in the Bill of last year making it payable as rent. If this is retained in the Bill it will entirely neutralise the effect of the measure. It will keep alive the ill-feeling existing with regard to tithes, and will make necessary distraint for tithes. There is no explanation given why the Government should have departed from the course they took last year. I was informed by one of the noble Marquess's supporters that the reason was for the sake of novelty; but I have also been informed by one who is not a supporter of the noble Marquess that it was in consequence of a compact made in another place to remove obstruction. But, my Lords, you have nothing to do with obstruction. All you have to do with is to see that the Bill is a measure which is workable, fair, and just. As I have said, this will keep alive all the troubles with regard to tithe rent such as we have seen of late in Wales. Not only will it be an injustice to the landowners, but they will be unable in many cases to make agreements in time with their tenants. They will have paid possibly as much as four half-year's tithe, and it will be putting them to trouble and causing ill-will and making them quarrel with their tenants in order to distrain for tithes if their tenants refuse to pay. We have had an intimation in what has taken place elsewhere that this agitation is not to cease. It is also enacted that the landowners shall be subject to County Court procedure, and they will not be able to avail themselves of the County Courts for that which is a respectable debt, since the tenant has contracted to pay it. I think the noble Marquess must have been put in possession of the detailed objections from North Wales to this measure. It is possible that I see this matter from a different point of view, and that the noble Marquess is only thinking of those persons in the eastern part of the country who would, but cannot, pay their tithes; whilst many of these tithepayers who live in Wales could pay their tithes, but
  1626
  will not. The noble Marquess spoke the other night of the fluctuations of the tithe as being injurious to the tenants. Since 1874, or thereabouts, the fluctuation of the tithe has gone in favour of the tenant, and has been reduced from time to time until now it has come to nearly the lowest point. Though the lowering of the tithe did not, perhaps, keep pace with the lowering in the value of the produce, the tenant has now got the benefit of it. If the noble Marquess has so much sympathy with tenants why did he not abolish Schedule B at the time agriculture ceased to be so profitable. I think the Government ought to have done something when there were no longer any profits to be paid under Schedule B, by which relief should have been given to the tenants. I am afraid I must take the sense of the House on this Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 25, Sub-section 3, leave out all the words from the beginning of the sub-section down to ("provided") in line 27, and insert the following words (" (3.) Such sum shall be recoverable from the occupier in like manner as if it were rent in arrear."—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I quite agree with the object which the noble Lord who has just spoken has in view, but I confess I did not catch all his remarks. The object of this Bill was understood to be to put an end to the discreditable scenes which have been going on, and are going on, in Wales. But if this clause is to stand as it is it will settle nothing. The only effect will be to transfer the odium which now rests on the tithe owner to the landowner. I must say that the Government has shown considerable weakness in giving way upon this point to persons who are known to have ulterior objects in view, or they have failed to perceive what those ulterior objects were. The Amendment of the noble Lord will, I think, meet every legitimate object; but if it is too much to expect that his Amendment should be adopted, I would suggest that a provision should be inserted for dispensing with the necessity of notice of distraint being given. It appears that notice in case of distraint for tithes is necessary, where no notice is necessary

  1627
  in cases of distraint for rent. The only effect of notice being given in cases of unpaid tithe would be to give an opportunity for the removal of all goods and articles from the farm which might be subject to the distraint for tithe. It has been argued that it is unfair to put the tenant in a worse position than he was before; but I maintain that he would not be in a worse position than he was before, because, as this clause stands, it would be necessary for the tenant to undergo two processes of law, instead of one, if the tithe is not made recoverable with the rent. Besides that, it would prevent the landowner also from being subject to two processes when one would be sufficient. I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot myself quite follow the object of enforcing upon the landlord that he must proceed by way of distress. If the noble Lord had contined his Amendment to dropping out the words, "and not otherwise," I would certainly have recommended that that Amendment should be adopted. But even if you drop out the words "and not otherwise," I am disposed to think that that should be made the only mode in which it would be recovered. If the words were added, "as well as by the process provided under this Act," that would perhaps satisfy the noble Lord. I rather concur with my noble Friend that there is no reason why an actual distress should be enforced against the landlord; but if more modes of enforcing payment are open to him, I do not see any objection to the Amendment. I think, however, that the mode in which that should be done had better be left for consideration in the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not quite understand what the mode is to which the noble and learned Lord refers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That he should be sued under this Act. Upon the hypothesis the tenant would owe a debt to the landlord, and why should not the landlord be at liberty to sue for it?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think that would be expressly provided for.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then I quite agree.
  LORD BRAMWELL: If the landlord has agreed with the tenant to pay the
  1628
  tithe, he is subject to an action if he does not pay it. I think if the tenants knew that, there would not be much difficulty, and I submit that it is very desirable to make an alteration in this clause. I do not know that I pity very much the man who will not pay and who will have to be distrained upon; but he will be subject to two different distresses; that is to say, to the ordinary distress for rent, and then in respect of the tithe which he has not paid. He will be subject under the Tithes Commutation Act also. That is as I read it. So that this ridiculous consequence would result: That if he owes £50 for rent, and should have paid £10 for tithe, and he has paid £20 on account to his landlord, if the landlord can attribute that to the tithe, one distress would be enough; but if he must attribute it for the rent, there would he a distress for £30 for rent and another distress for tithe. It seems to me a most unreasonable thing to allow this clause to remain as it is when once it is understood what it really means.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should like, in answer to what has been said by the Lord Chancellor, to observe, that I think my noble and learned Friend over-looked the words at the beginning of the sub-section, which provides that he shall cease to be liable upon that part of his contract. If he ceases to be liable upon that part of his contract an action cannot be brought upon that part of his contract, but the remedy must be only what you expressly give him by this clause, so that, if no further attention is made, the omission of the words "and not otherwise" would make no difference.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: I should like to point out another absurdity, in having different processes. In regard to distraining for rent, you can distrain for one year only, but for tithe, you can distrain for two years' arrears.
  LORD BRABOURNE: One finds that it is never wise to be too simple and confiding. The noble Lord yesterday told me that he was going to move an Amendment which was equivalent to mine; but his Amendment is exactly the reverse of mine. My idea is that to permit two distresses would be very wrong, as well as inconvenient, and that you should give to the landlord the same remedy as you give to a parson. He

  1629
  would have a remedy which the parson has not unless the whole procedure has to be in the County Court, as far as the rent-charge is concerned.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If I understand the clause as it stands the words have been introduced for this reason: that it was contended that, you ought not to place upon the tenant any burden greater than he now bears. That was the idea. What I mean is that the tenant, in respect of the amount he at present pays for tithe, is liable only under the Tithe Acts, but now he is to be made liable in a different way; and all his property, including the goods and furniture in the farmhouse, would be liable. It is pointed out that under this Bill you should not put an additional burden upon the tenant; and that words should be introduced so that the tenant, in respect of that part of the rent which he formerly paid to the owner, should be put in the same position. But there are great difficulties in the way. I confess that I see now what I did not see before, what was the meaning of the ear-marking paragraph which has been struck out. It is quite obvious that whoever introduced that paragraph saw the difficulty which would arise if you treated the money which the tenant might pay on account of tithe as rent, because there are two different remedies; and unless you know for what the money is paid you do not know to what remedy there should be recourse. That is one difficulty, but there are a great many others, as I maintain, in it. I may say that I am not prepared myself with an Amendment now, but I think the matter is worthy a very careful consideration.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I think the noble and learned Lord (Earl Selborne) has not quits appreciated the words. It provides that the occupier shall cease to be liable under that part of his contract by which he is to pay the tithe rent-charge. He is not to be bound by that, but he is to be liable to pay to the owner such sum as the owner shall properly pay. Now, I venture to say that it is a well-known proposition of law that whenever a Statute gives a man a right, by implication he has an appropriate remedy; and if his right is to a sum of money, he can maintain an action to recover it. Therefore, I think
  1630
  the objection to the 3rd sub-section remains in full force.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is evident, after the discussion, we have heard, that these words are subject to the pitfalls of which my noble Friend spoke on the last occasion. At a later period it will be my duty to move that the clause immediately following be struck out; and I think, on the whole, it would be the most convenient plan to strike out Sub-section 3 of this clause altogether, though probably it would be necessary to put in some other words at a later stage. I do not see my way to framing a satisfactory formula across the Table, and, therefore, I think we had better do it in that way. I move that Sub-section. 3 be omitted.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: As I understand the noble Marquess, he has moved two things at once; that is to say, to omit Sub-section 3, the first part of which we object to, and also the concluding lines of the same clause, of which he has given notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: No, I have moved to omit the whole of Sub-section 3.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: That refers to the Amendment of Mr. Taylor, which the Government in another place thought would be reasonable. It seems to me that it would be offering a premium to tenants for dishonesty. For instance, a tenant could go out in September and take away with him all his goods, and when he was called upon to pay in January he might decline to pay, and say he was not liable; but the theory of the matter is that he is responsible for that half year's tithe. Taking the Act of 1836 that it is no longer an annual charge on produce, but on the land, still he has contracted with his landowner to pay for the three months, and yet he would escape. I object to the last part of the sub-section being struck out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have only to say that I do not imagine anybody could defend the justice of the proviso as it stands. It provides that—
  "The owner of the land may at any time during the last three months of the tenancy pay any instalment of the tithe rent-charge, that such occupier would but for this Act have been liable under his contract to pay, and may,

  1631
  notwithstanding such instalment not being yet due, recover the same from the occupier in manner as in this Act provided."
  It seems to me a proposition which cannot be defended.
  Amendment moved, to omit Subsection 3 of Clause 1,—(The Marquess of Salisbury,)—agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  LORD BRABOURNE: Now, my Lords, I have a very important Amendment to this clause, which I shall endeavour to explain in a few words to your Lordships. I wish, however, to amend the notice which I have given. It is to omit the words "whatever is the amount" in this proviso that the person entitled to the tithe rent-charge in arrear may apply to the County Court, and in their place to insert the words "Provided the sum exceeds £1 in amount." These are the words I propose to insert, "If the total amount due from the tithepayer in arrear exceed the amount of £1." That is to say, in broad language, I propose to exempt the small freeholders throughout the country from this burden of tithes. Of course, I know very well that the agriculturist is in a very unfortunate position just now. He has got on one side the friends of the Church, who exclaim against robbing the Church, and on the other side he has got the gentlemen who believe that tithes are national property, and who are determined that they shall not be depleted.; so that, like the ancient Britons of old, the agriculturists are between the deep sea and the barbarians—I will not say which is which in this case. The effect of the Amendment I move is this: that the small freeholders throughout the country possessed of five, six, or seven acres would be exempted from the very grinding burden which at present falls upon them. Already it is very difficult for them to keep going. They are a class which has been dying out for a considerable period on account of the legislation of Parliament. They are still, however, an important class, and the strange thing is, that while their complaints are not attended to, noble Lords and noble Gentlemen go all over the country declaring that their wish is to see them prosper, and that there shall be a great multiplica-
  1632
  tion of the small owners. Well, here is an opportunity of testing the sincerity of that wish in your Lordships' House. You cannot do a better thing than exempt from this payment this small struggling class. No large landowner will benefit by this legislation. It is only these small people who have got little pieces of land, with a tithe upon it of 4s. or 5s. an acre, who will benefit by it. I ask, where would the robbery be? There will be no robbery. I believe the Church will gain considerably, and when there comes the final battle, as sooner or later it will come, the Anglican Church will be all the stronger if she has got these people on her side instead of against her. I cannot help thinking that this great Church, one of the richest Churches in the world, and claiming to be the national Church of the richest nation in the world, having so much wealth belonging to her, and, with the exception of a few Catholics, counting the whole of the aristocracy and the greater part of the wealthy classes among her members, ought not to put her hand on these small people, but ought to be able to maintain her ministers without coming upon them in the way that is now done. I speak these words in the firm conviction that they are wise words. Do not let us make a mistake. There are great issues coming before the country before many years are passed; Establishments will be upon their trial; and if you wish to maintain the Established Church, you had better sweep away everything that can attach to her as a stigma. Do not let her be weighted by the stigma of putting her hand upon this, small and struggling class. What would be the loss? It would only be a few shillings or pounds here and there—a very little matter indeed to the Church, but of enormous importance to these poor people. It is entirely in their interest that I make this proposal. My belief is that it will be a wise thing to do. All through this Bill there is an attempt to set the interests of the Church against the interests of the people. I am not sure at all that it is a wise thing, this putting an end to the payment by the occupier. My noble Friend smiles at that, but a little straw sometime shows the way the wind plays, and I

  1633
  may mention that a farmer said to me the other day, "If this Bill passes and the occupier ceases to pay tithes we shall not have any tithe dinners, and there will no longer be any occasion on which the clergy and the people will be brought together. The only class that are affected by this provision, in my opinion, are the small people. They may not be so important a class in your Lordships' view as they are to the Members of the other House; but I may tell your Lordships that they are watching these Debates with keen anxiety, and if your Lordships will do them the kindness of exempting them from this burden they will be everlastingly grateful. I hope that the special representatives of the Church will be amongst the foremost to support this Amendment. They will, I am sure, see how advantageous to the small people this Amendment is, and I resume my seat thinking that, whatever support I may get or fail in getting, I shall at least have the enthusiastic support of the guardians of the Church.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 9, to omit the words "whatever is the amount," and to insert the words" if the total amount due from the tithepayer in arrear exceed the amount of £1," instead thereof.—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  LORD NORTHBOURNE: This Amendment appears to me to be contrary to all principles of taxation whatever. No doubt, for instance, the payers of the Income Tax who pay upon very small sums feel the burden very severely, but I ask your Lordships whether it would be possible upon that account to do away with all small Income Tax whatever. Is it to be supposed for a moment that because a person is a poor man he is not to pay according to his means towards the taxation of the country? I think if we were to go on the principle of the noble Lord we should be committed to a course of legislation which would be altogether absurd. With regard to this Bill, I have given my candid support to the noble Marquess upon it; because I think that the proceedings in Wales have been, as they have been very properly designated by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Bramwell), rather a disgrace to the
  1634
  country, and although I do believe that the tithe comes upon agriculturists in a manner and to an extent at the present moment which is very hard upon them, I think it is much better to submit to those two hardships in the matter of tithe than to do anything which would in the slightest degree risk the safety of property or lead to an inclination to tamper with the law. I do not know that I have much more to say upon this point, but I think also that some of the noble Lords who are warm supporters of this Bill, have not tried perhaps quite so much as they ought to have tried to alleviate the pressure of small burdens upon the farmers. I should like to ask the noble Marquess, for instance, whether any attempt has been made to provide for an investigation into the system of averages. There is a strong feeling among the tenant farmers of this country that they are paying their tithe upon an average which is far above what they realise for their corn. It must be well-known to your Lordships, who are most of you land-owners and many of you farmers too, that the farmer very frequently uses a great quantity of low-priced corn in his own farmyard. That corn not being fit to come into the market cannot be sold at all, and its value is very small. I contend that, according to any principle of ordinary justice, this corn ought to come into the average. It does not, and the farmer is obliged to pay the tithe upon an average which is very much larger than what he actually receives. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government can do anything in that matter. There are other matters with regard to this question of tithe average which I think your Lordships would do well to consider. I would suggest, also, that you should not consider merely the tithe owner, but the tithepayer. I know that in my own immediate neighbourhood there is a clergyman who hardly gets any tithe at all. I think the living is £300 a year, but I believe that gentleman has only realised for his total income between £30 and £40. Unquestionably that is a sad case for the clergyman. But, my Lords, it is highly desirable that in these matters we should hold a just balance between the two interests, and that we should, as far as we can, do what is just not only to the tithe owner, but also to the tithepayer.
  LORD BASING: My Lords, I think my noble and learned Friend's Amendment will require a little further amendment before it can be put to the House in order to secure the beneficent object which he has in view. Although it might be very well to excuse small holders on the ground that their payments would form but a small portion of the tithe, those insignificant portions may be very important to the owners of the rent-charge. I have received a letter from Lancashire in which a tithe owner tells me he has to collect about 190 tithe rent-charges, every one of them below 20s., and it is in reference to those cases of which I believe there are a great many that I would suggest that the word "owner" might be defined in the interest of such persons, seeing that under the operation of this Bill they might be placed in a very difficult position if they have to serve notice in every one of 190 cases in which tithe is due. The taking away from the owners these small tithe rent-charges would, in a vast number of cases, be of very great importance to them indeed.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, I think we ought to remember that the small owner in many cases in all probability bought his plot of land for less in the market because it was subject to the charge, it might be, of £1 per acre; and I do not see what right he has to take that £1 more than his neighbours. If you once adopt this principle that because a debt is small it ought to be remitted, I do not see where you are to stop; therefore, I do not think we should adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, though, of course, we should all be desirous to benefit small holders as far as possible.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: This is really a proposal to take away the property of the tithe owner when it happens to be very small in amount, and to give it to the landowner. I should have thought if the County Court was good for anything at all it would be good for the recovery of small debts. It seems to me these are cases in which the County Courts could most easily act. I am not sorry the noble Lord has raised a discussion upon the point, for this reason: that it gives me the opportunity of expressing my earnest hope that the question of the redemption, and it may be
  1636
  the compulsory redemption, of these small sums may be considered at an early period. The Commission over which my noble Friend Lord Basing presides will have a much larger subject to consider than this matter itself involves. I would venture to submit that if it were possible for the question of the redemption of these very small rent-charges to be taken in hand first, and made the subject of a special Report, we might hope to have early legislation upon that part (which is really a very important one) of the general question. I should not like to sit down without saying a word upon what my noble Friend (Lord Northbourne) said with regard to averages. I do not see how it is possible to go into that question now; or, if you did, that it would ever be possible to construct any system of averages which must not proceed upon the selling value of what is brought into the market, and is the subject of actual Statistical Returns. My noble Friend said that certain things were not brought into account; but a great many other things were not brought into account under the Commutation Act, particularly those things which have latterly been most profitable, the increase of cattle and live stock. I do not think it would be possible to go into that without disurbing the whole settlement.
  LORD BRABOURNE: Of course, the few words spoken by my noble Friend Lord Basing will have shown that this Amendment would have a much wider effect than I thought, and it will certainly want re-casting. I should not think, therefore, of asking the House to divide upon it as it stands; but I would make a few remarks, in reply to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Northbourne), before parting with it now. One is with regard to the small tithepayers being exempted. The practice has already been put in force with regard to small payers of Income Tax, and, therefore, this would not be a novelty. In the next place, as to relieving the small tithepayer, I would point out that the tithe owners have very greatly benefited; and my contention is, that this tithe being national property the Representatives of the nation could not do better than say that it shall be partly applied in relieving

  1637
  the small tithepayers. Under the circumstances, I propose to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: The noble Lord has mentioned the Income Tax as having a supposed analogy to tithes; but there is this difference: the Income Tax was a new imposition by the State for public necessities, whereas tithes are not a tax, but property almost as old as any in the Kingdom.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is also this point, that a certain amount of the tithe is in the hands of lay owners who have paid money for them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think, my Lords, it would be slaying the slain to further discuss the noble Lord's Amendment. I only rise to answer the noble and learned Lord opposite who spoke with regard to the inclusion of redemption clauses in this Bill. The objection to these clauses which were originally in the Bill is purely Parliamentary. This dealing with the question of redemption, as the Government proposes to deal with it, is exposed to very considerable difficulties, more particularly in another Assembly, where the time at their disposal is not quite equal to the work to be done. If a measure does little or nothing, it has a good chance of passing, because it is only opposed by those who want it to do more. If it does much, it likewise has a chance of passing, because the only people who oppose it are those who want it to do less. But if a Bill is a moderate measure, it is opposed by those who want it to do more and by those who want it to do little, and, therefore, the chances of its passing are less. The noble Lord denounced the Bill generally, because he said that its tendency would be to drive the occupier from the Church. I may suppose, then, that my noble Friend's definition of marriage would be that it is a relation in which one of the parties has a right to levy something on the other. That is a new definition of marriage and divorce, but I can hardly think the occupier will love the Church less because he has less to pay her.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have to make an observation upon Sub-section 2 of
  1638
  Clause 2. This sub-section gives to the officer the same powers of restraint under the County Court proceedings where the owner is in possession as were conferred before in respect of the tithe rent-charges. I will call the noble Marquess's attention to a matter to which my attention has been drawn. Section 84 of the Tithe Rent Act gives a greater power of distress in the case of Quakers than in the case of anybody else. As regards the rest of the world, you can only distrain on the land out of which the rent issues. In the case of Quakers, it is provided that you may distrain on the goods and chattels of such persons, whether on the premises or elsewhere, and consequently, as regards Quakers, you may distrain upon their goods anywhere in respect of tithes which are due anywhere. My attention has been called by some of the members of the body of Quakers to this fact, and I would suggest that when you are dealing with this remedy over again, you should not re-enact this provision relating to the Quakers, and which renders their position different from the rest of the world. They do not see why their goods should be liable to be distrained upon any more than the goods of the rest of the community. I only desire to call the noble Marquess's attention to the existence of that difference.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is very clear that a remedy ought to be applied for that, but I think we had better reserve it for the present.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I have four Amendments connected with Clause 2, and I believe that the first three will not be objected to on the part of the Government. I do not know how it may be with the last. With regard to the first, I will explain it in a few words. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, on the Second Reading, said he had received many representations to the effect that in cases where the lands were practically left waste, there might still be instances in which the remedy now provided by the Tithes Act of taking possession might be valuable as leading to the cultivation of the land in one way or another. I do not think myself, that, if we had to deal only with large cases, it would very often be for the benefit of the tithe owner to avail himself of that

  1639
  remedy; but I can conceive that in cases of small parcels of land, it might be a remedy which would operate as a considerable inducement to the person who ought to make the payment to do so: and even in other cases, it might operate to produce payment without being put into actual operation.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 23, insert at end of line, as a fresh sub-section—
  "Provided that if such officer satisfies the Court that there is no sufficient distress on the said lands, the Court may authorise the owner of the rent-charge to sue out a wait of habere facias possessionem in accordance with section eighty-two of the Tithe Act, 1836; and the owner of the rent-charge on obtaining possession shall, in accordance with the Tithe Acts, pay the surplus (if any) after payment of the tithe rent-charge and expenses, to the owner of the land, and shall, while in possession, be under the obligation not to permit or commit any waste."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt as to the reality of the grievance pointed out by the noble and learned Lord. The precise remedy to be afforded has been a matter of considerable discussion. There are two ways more or less imperfect of getting at the owner under those circumstances; but I think, on the whole, the one proposed by the noble and learned Lord is the one that is exposed to the least objection. I may say, in assenting to it that I will leave the advocacy of it in his hands.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With regard to the next Amendment, I think that needs no remark, as there will probably be no difference of opinion about it. It is to provide for the case where lands are held at one rent with other lands in a different parish; that in such cases the Court shall apportion the rent between those lands according to their rateable value. That is clearly necessary; and it is not at present provided for by the Bill.
  Amendment moved, in Sub-section 3, page 2, line 28, at end of line 28, insert—
  ("And where any of such lands are held at one rent together with other lands in another parish, the court shall apportion the rent between the said lands and the lands in the other parish in proportion to their rateable value.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I must say something on Sub-section 5, which I think needs consideration. It provides that, where the occupier of lands is liable under a contract to pay a tithe rent-charge, and is liable to pay the amount to the owner, steps are to be taken which will enable notice to be given to him. It is not any point of substance which I am desirous to raise any question about; it is only in order to carry that out—that before an order is made under this sub-section there shall be such service on the owner as may be prescribed. Now, supposing the landowner does not serve such notice on the tithe owner, there is no sanction to the contract; then the tithe rent-charge owner will, of course, have no evidence of the existence of any such contract on the part of the occupier, and that which has been done previously will have no effect; because the object here is that, where the occupier is the person liable under a contract, he shall have due notice of the proceedings, so that he may be able to raise any objection on the hearing. There is a provision that the landlord shall give that intimation to the tithe rent-charge owner, but you do not say what shall happen if he does not do it. The occupier, of course, will hear nothing about it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Does the noble and learned Lord propose any words to modify that?
  LORD HERSCHELL: No; I only wished to call attention to it. No doubt it will be considered by the Government draftsman. I thought it might be convenient to call attention to some of these points, because it gives an opportunity to those who draft the Bill of considering how they should be dealt with.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I was going to make an observation upon that clause. I suppose it was intended as a sort of third party clause under the Judicature Act; that is to say, where a man is interested in a litigation between two other persons, and is responsible for the ultimate decision, he shall have notice and be able to interfere. I suppose that is the object of the clause; and if that is so, there should be some specific provision made for binding the occupier.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN:I should like to point out to the noble Lord that his objection might be met in this way—if in Clause 1 Sub-section 2 where the occupier has been liable, and it is provided that he shall cease to be bound, and so on, words were inserted—
  "Provided that he should have received the notice he shall be liable to pay the amount to the owner;"
  that is to say, notice hereinafter referred to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have to propose another Amendment at the end of Sub-section 6. The Bill is framed in a peculiar manner in one respect. It does not fix a particular time for the Act coming into operation, otherwise than by saying in the 7th section that it shall extend to every sum on account of tithe rent-charge, which first becomes payable on or after the half-yearly day of payment of such tithe rent-charge which occurs next after the passing of the Act. Therefore the Act cannot operate upon any tithe rent-charge within a shorter period than three months, because the tithe rent-charge must be under the previous provision in arrear for three months; but, as far as appears, the Act may come into operation at or about the end of three months from the time of its passing. Now, the Act cannot possibly be brought into operation at any time until those matters are provided for which are attempted to be provided for by the Amendment which I now move. The 6th sub-section says that Rules of Court may be made on certain subjects, with the most pressing of which this Amendment deals. As the Bill stands, those rules will be made, like all other rules affecting County Courts, by a certain Committee of County Court Judges, who act for that purpose, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. I have great doubt whether it may not be desirable, though I have not proposed it at present, on account of the peculiarity and importance of this subject, that the rules should be made by the Lord Chancellor himself in a different way, with whatever assistance may be necessary. But, however they may be made, there is nothing in the Bill to cause their being made at all before the time at which the Act may
  1642
  come into operation: and, until they are made, it is necessary to provide for those points which are mentioned in my Amendment. All that Amendment does is, to give power to the Court in the meantime to do what in that state of things would be absolutely indispensable for the working of the Act. I propose to add words, as stated in my notice, which will enable the Court in such cases to proceed upon an application against an owner not named, and in such cases, and also in the cases of owners who are abroad, or whose place of residence is unknown, or who for any reason cannot be served in the ordinary manner, to direct what service shall be considered good service for the purpose of the Act. It has been suggested that no doubt rules will be made within the three months after which the Act may come into operation. I hope they may. I presume that there would be a sincere desire to make and publish them as soon as possible. But the rules will not be confined to these particular indispensable matters, they will extend also to other matters which will require a good deal of consideration and a good deal of deliberation; and if they are to be made by the County Court Rule Committee the members of that Committee are gentlemen whose ordinary duties may make it sometimes difficult for them to assemble, and they must afterwards be carefully considered by the Lord Chancellor. I think, therefore, that looking at the consequence of bringing the Act into operation before such rules are made, some security ought to be taken against the contingency which may happen of the rules not being made within the necessary time. I cannot conceive any objection to my proposal beyond this: that if the rules are made it will not be necessary; if so no harm will be done; but if they are not made it is a point which really requires to be provided for.
  Amendment moved,
  In sub-section (6), page 3, line 11, add at the end of the sub section ("In the meantime, and subject to such rules when made, the court may, in any such case as aforesaid, receive and proceed upon an application against an owner not named, and may, in every such case, and also in the case of an owner who is abroad, or whose place of residence is unknown, or who for any other reason cannot be served in the

  1643
  ordinary manner, direct what service shall be good service for the purposes of this Act.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  EARL STANHOPE: I trust this Amendment will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government, because, by a subsequent clause every Rule of Court made for the purpose of this Act is to be laid before Parliament within 40 days next after it is made, and thus a great deal of time is wasted. I quite see that what with the Easter Recess and other causes (though I sincerely hope the Act will come into operation at an early date), such a proposition as the noble and learned Earl proposes is necessary. A great deal of consideration will be required, and I suppose the Lord Chancellor will probably frame such rules as are necessary. They will be considered by the County Court Judges throughout the Kingdom. Many matters will have to be considered, and, taking all these objections into consideration, I trust some sort of provisional arrangement may be accepted by your Lordships which may bring this Bill into earlier operation than would otherwise be the case.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think what the noble Earl says is perfectly true. I do not deny that some provision is desirable; at the same time, I would suggest to him that I think a wider provision than this might be made, and I should be willing to undertake, on the part of the Government, to bring forward in Grand Committee something in substitution for it. I doubt very much whether this rule-making power is completely workable. There must be some alteration in that rule-making power, but how that may best be done is a matter for consideration afterwards. My noble and learned Friend is in error in supposing that all the County Court Judges in the Kingdom have to concur, It is only a Committee of five who have to concur in the rule. But what struck me about it is, that the language of the noble Earl's Amendment says that the Court may in any of those cases proceed on the application, and so on. That means the County Courts generally, and would apply to any one of the County Courts in the Kingdom. It might be extremely inconvenient, and might give rise to unpleasant consequences, particularly in Wales, and I think the
  1644
  Amendment might be open, therefore, to exception. However, I will undertake, on the part of the Government, to bring forward something on the point in Grand Committee. I should prefer to lay the proposals of the Government on the subject before the Grand Committee. I hope, therefore, the noble and learned Lord will not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am perfectly satisfied with what my learned and noble Friend has said. Of course, if he should not succeed, I should have an opportunity of proposing the same Amendment, or something else.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With regard to this rule-making power, I should certainly like to earmark this from the ordinary rule-making under the County Courts Act. The ordinary County Court rules deal with litigation, and I think the further removed you can make this procedure from the rule procedure, the better. The simpler you can make it, and the cheaper, the better it will be. When you have the ordinary rule-making powser, I do not think that is sufficiently impressed on the minds of those who have to make the rules. I think something might be done here to point that out, and also to make the rule-making authority the Lord Chancellor, in consultation with the rule-making Committee, so as to make it a distinct rule-making for the purposes of this Act.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee withdrawn, and Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I now beg to introduce a clause to meet those cases to which attention was called by the most rev. Primate, as well as by myself, on the Second Reading, that is to say, the cases in which the old remedy being taken away by the Bill, the new remedy might, if it were not provided against, be defeated or obstructed by arrangements between landlord and tenant. That, of course, cannot be the intention of the Bill. The Archbishop of Canterbury mentioned that subject as one of which the importance had been represented to him from several quarters. It has been represented to myself also, by more than one clergyman writing in a most reasonable spirit. The difficulty with which my Amend-

  1645
  ment deals might arise both when there was good faith on the part of the landlord and tenant, and still more, if there were any attempt to use their powers for the purpose of defeating or obstructing the tithe owner's right. Where from perfectly honest motives, beneficial leases, or family leases were granted rent free or at nominal rents, either for money paid down, or on some condition of service, or without any consideration at all, the effect of the Bill in all those cases, unless they were provided for, would be to take away the existing remedy, and give one which for a long time would be absolutely illusory and nugatory. And the same thing would happen, though perhaps for shorter periods of time, and to a more limited extent, in the more ordinary case of a tenancy rent free or at a low rent for one or more years, in consideration of some outlay to be made by the tenant upon the land. I have considered this whole matter as carefully as I could, and I put down first on the Notice Paper a clause on which the wording was not as good as it might be made. I have now put it down in the present improved form, which I hope the House will accept. The substance is, that in those cases where from any cause land is held without rent, or where it is held at a rent so inadequate that taking into account everything else which the receiver can realise it is by reason only of such mode of letting made insufficient to produce the amount recoverable under this Act by the owner of the tithe rent-charge the occupier is to the extent of the deficiency in any year to be treated as the owner, and the proceeding is to be the same as if he were the owner. I hope your Lordship will accept the clause, and I express that hope with the more confidence, because the noble Marquess opposite recognised the necessity of providing for these cases on the former occasion.
  Amendment moved, after Clause 2, and before proposed new Clause A, add new Clause B—
  "In any case in which a receiver of the rents and profits of any land shall have been appointed under the last preceding section, if it shall appear that the occupier holds under a landlord, either for the whole of his tenancy or for one or more year or years thereof, rent free or at a nominal rent, or at a rent so far below the annual value of the lands estimated as herein-1646
  after mentioned that by reason thereof the rent payable to the landlord during any years or year while there is such receiver shall be insufficient, after taking into account all sums recoverable in respect of the rents and profits of the other lands (if any) included in the receivership, to pay the amount recoverable during such years or year by the owner of the tithe rent-charge under this Act, then and in every such case, so far as may be necessary for the recovery of such amount, the occupier shall be deemed to be an owner under this Act, and the Court shall have power to order the receiver, for the purpose of recovering the amount of the deficiency so caused, to proceed in the same manner as is by this Act provided in the case of lands occupied by the owner thereof: Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled (subject to the provisions of Section 1 of this Act) to deduct from any sums at any time becoming due from him to the landlord under whom he holds, any amount which shall have been recovered from him under this section in respect of tithe rent-charge or coats."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I should like to ask my noble Friend before the noble Marquess replies, what he meant by "the annual value of the land as hereinafter mentioned." There is no figure mentioned in the clause. It may refer to Schedule B.
  THE EARL OF SELBOKNE: It refers to Clause 5, Schedule B, the valuation according to Schedule B.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If so, the reference is a good way off, and it may cause confusion.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: If that particular phrase seemed open to any misinterpretation, though I do not think it would be, it could be dealt with in Standing Committee.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: Before the noble Marquess replies, I should like to point out this: the landowner having to pay the tithe, a receiver is appointed, and the receiver having been appointed finds that the land is let at a peppercorn rent, or, at all events, below the amount of the tithe; there upon the clause provides that for the amount of the tithe rent-charge, for which the rent is insufficient, the receiver shall distrain upon the tenant, and that the tenant shall be able to recoup himself by deducting in future years from any increased rent or payment he has to make to the landlord, the amount he has been so called upon to advance in payment of a debt which was not his, but his landlord's. It is obvious that he may be kept out of that money for several years. He may have a lease

  1647
  for 21 years, and during the first seven years the rent may be a very low or nominal one, and he will not have the opportunity of making any deduction therefore for several years. It appears to me reasonable, and I think the House will think so, that he should have interest on that money. I should propose a moderate rate of interest, 4 per cent. per annum, on the amount which has been so taken from him for the landlord's debt. I will ask my noble and learned Friend whether he would be inclined to accept that?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have no objection.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am rather doubtful whether that would be a just demand. It seems to me, when the occupier is making his bargain with the owner, and makes such bargain, that no rent is payable. The two are practically dealing with money which does not belong to them; they are dealing with the tithe rent-charge, which is due to the tithe owner, and, therefore, he clearly would have no claim to be recouped for making the payment out of his own money within the contract made. However, I am in the hands of the House with regard to the proposed clause, and I do not venture to raise any great objection to this proposition. I am prepared to accept the proposal of the noble and learned Lord on the whole. After the matter has been enormously discussed in private, though no doubt it is surrounded with difficulties on every side, no remedy has been proposed that is entirely satisfactory. Although it is somewhat clumsy, and will operate rather by deterring the owner than by any effect of its own operation, still it will practically prevent that which we have reason to apprehend, namely, a collusive arrangement of the terms of occupancy for the purpose of evading payment of the tithe rent-charge. When my noble and learned Friend first brought this question before the House, I thought it was rather like the question of the Confessor who asked the groom "whether he ever greased the horses' teeth in order to prevent them from eating oats."—"No, but I will take care to do it next time," was the answer of the groom. I thought that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord was due rather to his own enormous ingenuity, and
  1648
  would rather have a tendency to raise in the minds of evil-thinking men some idea of evading the rent-charge by a method which they never would have thought of themselves. When the noble and learned Lord had once raised it he was certainly bound to find a remedy, and I think the remedy proposed would be satisfactory. The only alteration I would suggest would be that he should not rely on the words "as hereinafter mentioned" for indicating the kind of annual value on which he means to rely. It comes too far afterwards in the Act, and would I think be open to ambiguous interpretations. Otherwise I have nothing to say in objection to the clause. Unless I find the House is otherwise minded I should be indisposed to resist the clause proposed by the noble Lord as not being required.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: As to the legitimacy of the contract, of course if there was collusion between the owner and tenant that the land should be let at a nominal rent for the purpose of defeating the tithe owner's claim, it would be an illegitimate act on both sides. But in an ordinary case the illegitimacy of the letting, if there be any, would be, as it seems to me, on the part of the landowner, and not on the part of the tenant. It might be said it was the duty of the landowner not to let his land at such a rent that there would not be sufficient margin to meet the tithe owner's claim—not to let his land at too low a rent. But I think it might be rather hard to say the same of the tenant who took the land perhaps in ignorance that the rent would not meet the tithe.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I thoroughly sympathise with the object which the noble Lord has in view. I suppose no one would wish to countenance any arrangement between the owner and the tenant for the purpose of defrauding the tithe owner; but I must say I am a little alarmed at some of the statements which have been made, because it seems to me they assume that after this Act is passed every landowner is bound to provide sufficient rent on his land to meet every claim that may be made upon him. That is putting an entirely new restriction upon owners. At present if a man chooses to let his land in con-

  1649
  sideration of receiving a fore gift, as it is called, of, say, £100 down, he may do so; he may let his land for years at a peppercorn rent, and there are cases in which that may be a transaction which the landowner may find it convenient to resort to in order to obtain advances of money. He may be very glad to forego his rent for a number of years, and to receive it in that way in advance, but it appears to me that the Bill would lay down that the landowner is to be deprived of his discretion in dealing with his land because he is to be placed under the obligation to see that always upon his land there shall be a sufficient amount of rent to meet the demands under this Bill. That seems to be a serious difficulty arising from the difficulty of placing upon the owner the liability of paying the tithe; because if it is to be accompanied by this restriction upon an owner in dealing with his land in the most advantageous manner, then I think it is a restriction upon his rights, and that neither the Church nor anyone else has a right to take from the owner what is clearly part of his right and incident to his property. I agree that the question might not often arise, and so far I do not feel apprehensive; but I do feel apprehensive in regard to the doctrine being laid down that any landowner, after this Bill is passed, is to be liable for anything except to pay the tithe. He is to be liable to pay the tithe, but not to pay it in a particular manner, and if it is necessary to provide for cases in which the landowner has chosen, at his own convenience, to let the land in a particular way, it would be, I think, better to lay down in a plain and direct manner that where the owner has made such a contract he should be liable to see that the tithe is paid. I know it is difficult to pass such a clause, but I think that you should not restrict the powers of the owner over the letting of his land. There is another objection to the clause. It says at the end of the new clause—
  "Provided that any such occupier shall be entitled, subject to the provision of Section 1 of this Act,''
  to make deductions. It may be my own want of understanding, but I do not see how this clause is to be read in conjunction of Section 1 of this Act. I suppose it has some reference to the liability of the occupier to pay an addi-1650
  tional rent. I suppose that is the meaning of it; but I have considerable doubts as to the operation of it, and I think it would require to be considered, though I dare say my noble and learned Friend has a ready answer to my remarks.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble Friend somewhat misunderstands the clause. Section 1 applies only to existing contracts in force at the time the Act is passed, by which the tenants may have agreed to pay the tithe rent-charge. It merely provides for the case in which the tenant has agreed to do that. Section 1 says that the landlord paying the tithe rent-charge is to recover it from the tenant, and you will not want in that case the double operation—first of the tenant deducting from future rent and then the landlord making him pay over again. With regard to the other observation of my noble Friend, I cannot help thinking he was misled by an illustration that was used by a former speaker to take a view of this clause, which it will not at all bear. Your Lordships must recollect that as things now stand no landlord can do what is contemplated here, either in good faith or otherwise—either in the way of the most reasonable arrangement in the world with his tenant, or the most unreasonable, so as to defeat the tithe rent-charge, because the owner of the tithe rent-charge has always his remedy against the person in occupation. Well, let us distinguish the cases which may happen, and suppose, first of all, the case of a tenancy existing when the Act is passed. It is 10 to 1 that when a beneficial lease of this sort, either for the whole of the term or for part of it, has been given, the landlord has stipulated that the tenant shall pay the rent-charge, in which case it is clear that the operation of this clause will be in conformity with the tenant's contract. On the other hand, if we are to suppose a special covenant by the landlord to pay the tithe and to indemnify the occupier, that covenant would remain, and the clause would not take away the right of suit under it, but would give the additional remedy of retaining it oat of future rent. Then, in regard to all future contracts, they would have been made in view of this state of things:

  1651
  that if the tenant arranges so that he gets the whole usufruct of the land without paying anything, or so much of it as is measured by the difference between a full and a low rent, he will remain under the same liability as he would have been before this Act passed for the deficiency which the landlord does not pay, and will have his recourse over; the landlord being no longer able, by making a new contract, to arrange that the tenant shall pay the tithe.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I think it is rather inconvenient that we should be discussing this clause here, because in reality the purpose of this clause which is proposed to be inserted is to prevent a mischief which might arise under Section 5. Under that clause if the owner shows that the rent which he receives is so small that the tithe rent-charge will be twice as much (because that is what it comes to) as the remainder, then the tithe rent-charge is to be diminished in proportion to the rent received. In ordinary cases one can understand how that would work, but in such a case as that of a beneficial lease the freeholder will appear in Schedule B for Income Tax as only receiving this supposed peppercorn rent. Of course, I am under correction if that is not so, but in that case it would be entirely gone, and there is a great danger that the tithe rent-charge may disappear altogether. What I want to find out is this: there are properties in which the land will not appear in Schedule B at all, and the consequence will be that as there is nothing in Schedule B the tithe rent-charge will go under Clause 5 entirely. I think that ought to be provided for and I should very much have preferred that all these questions should have been discussed and considered in connection with Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I cannot agree with the right rev. Prelate. I do not propose by this clause to interfere at all with the operation of Claus' 5. Clause 5 does not proceed upon the actual rent but upon the annual value under the Income Tax Act, Schedule B, which provides that if the letting be not at a rack-rent, then you take the annual value at what the land might be fairly let for, and if, under Clause 5, there should be a remission allowed that would be a
  1652
  reduction under the Act. What the clause aims at is this: The sole remedy which you give, when the occupier is not also owner, is a receiver of rents and profits. Let me suppose, as an illustration, a lease for seven years at a peppercorn rent or at no rent at all; a receiver is put in; what is he to receive? He cannot turn the tenant out, because the tenant has got a seven years' lease, and I presume that, as between him and the tithe rent-charge owner, it is unimpeachable. In that case, unless it is provided for in the way that I propose, or in some other way equally effective, there is nothing whatever for the receiver to receive, and either the clergyman has to run up from year to year a charge against some future rent, which may have to be paid at a distance of time to the same or some other landlord, or else he is to be kept out of his money entirely, a ruinous, delay under any circumstances, and under some circumstances an absolute and total loss. Cases in which such might be the effect of arrangements between landlord and tenant must be provided for in some way, so as to prevent that consequence; and no injustice can arise from dealing with them as I propose: for, so far as the occupier has, by such an arrangement, a beneficial usufruct, he is in substance an owner; and this Amendment will impose upon him, at the most, the same liability to which he is now by law subject.
  LORD BRAMWELL: I cannot think that this clause will have the disastrous effect which the noble Lord (the Earl of Kimberley) anticipates from it. It would be a disaster if it were attended with such a consequence. There is a dilemma—either the tenant whose rent is not sufficient to satisfy the tithe rent-charge has. agreed with his landlord to pay it, which he may do, and then he cannot complain of this clause, or he has not agreed, and in that case, if he is distrained upon or compelled to pay it, he will have a remedy against his landlord not quâ landlord, but quâ a man who ought to have paid that debt which he has been compelled to pay. Every lawyer of us well knows that it has been repeatedly decided that if a man is compelled to pay a debt which is due by another and not due by him, he has a remedy over against the man who ought to have paid it.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think this question is one of considerable difficulty, though I do not object in principle to the proposal of my noble and learned Friend. I do not think there is any real difficulty where the land is held rent free or at a nominal rent, because where land is so held you might reasonably and properly define an "owner" to include any owner who shall hold. The definition would render liable a person who is letting at no rent at all or at a nominal rent. The difficulty, of course, arises when you have a letting which is simply a letting for an annual value. Of course, it may be a letting so far below the annual value that it is not what one may call the ordinary letting value of the land, the ordinary arrangement between landlord and tenant in which the payment of the rates is dealt with in the ordinary way; but the difficulty is where to draw the line, and I cannot help thinking that some difficulty would arise out of my noble and learned Friend's Amendment. I would suggest for his consideration whether for those purposes it might not be possible either to draw the line as to the proportion of the annual value, which shall cause a man to be regarded as the owner, and propably he might in that way include all, or almost all, the value. Or if he does not do that, then—the object of this Bill being to avoid a distraint upon the occupier—whether it might not be better in those cases where the owner has entered into a contract with the occupier different from the ordinary contract of letting, to make the owner directly and personally liable for the rent-charge. Of course it is an exceptional case which, under these circumstances, might be exceptionally dealt with; but I cannot do more now than call attention to some of the difficulties which arise on that portion of the clause which provides for cases where the rent is so far below the ordinary rent that it will not meet the tithe, because that might vary in different cases very materially. I thought that my noble and learned Friend might like to consider that question, though I do not myself feel any real difficulty about it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am told by those who are learned in the views of the other House that the particular remedy suggested by the noble and learned Lord, namely, to make the
  1654
  owner in such cases liable, is precisely what that House will not have. We are rather in an inverted order of things here. This House is usually considered to be one in which landowners are strong and their interests fully guarded, yet in this House I have had no difficulties in regard to this Bill; but in the other House they are exceedingly jealous of the rights of property in this matter, and I am not sure whether, if such a proposal as this were inserted, it would pass in the other House. It is rather for that reason than for any other that I prefer the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, which I think would be more readily accepted. If you wish to make the owner liable you have a simple way of doing it by stating that in those cases the owner shall be treated as a Quaker is under the principal Act.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should like to say, with reference to what the noble Marquess has stated, that I should be far from favouring any proposal to make the owner personally liable generally. What I threw out was with regard to the alterations which would make an exceptional case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Certainly.
  Amendment and Clause agreed to.
  Amendment moved, at the end of the new Clause last agreed to, to insert the words "With interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum."— (Lord Monk Bretton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, the Bill as it stands contains a sub-section to the effect that the sum ordered to be paid for costs shall not be personally recovered. I never saw such a clause before, and I cannot think it sound in principle even with regard to ordinary costs. Still, with regard to ordinary costs, as importance was attributed to it in the House of Commons, I am not disposed to create any difficulty. The words (in Sub-section 8) are these:—
  "Nothing in this Act shall impose or constitute any personal liability upon any occupier or owner of lands for the payment of any tithe rent-charge or any other sum recoverable or payable under this Act."
  As to the tithe rent-charge, there is no personal liability now, and it is not intended to create one; and in deference to

  1655
  the feeling of the House of Commons, I should not take exception to a provision that ordinary costs should follow the tithe rent-charge, and be recoverable in that way only. But, my Lords, it is possible that when persons are in litigation or litigiously disposed, and still more when the power of the purse is upon one side and not upon the other—and yet further, if to those circumstances is added some motive to defeat the right of the owner of the tithe rent-charge costs may be vexatiously and oppressively occasioned. I cannot think it was the intention of the House of Commons to exclude the power of the Court if it is specially found that costs had been so occasioned, to order them to be paid by the person who was acting vexatiously and oppressively in so causing them. I cannot help thinking that is a case which has been lost sight of, and, at all events, I am quite sure that justice does require that there should be power to order such costs to be paid in the ordinary manner.
  Amendment moved, to add, after the new Clause agreed to, the following new Clause:—
  "Costs Vexatiously Occasioned,—Notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the Court shall have power to order any costs which it shall find to have been vexatiously or oppressively occasioned to be paid and recovered in the same manner as in the case of an ordinary action in the Court."—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have nothing to say against the argument of the noble and learned Lord. I have only to repeat, in regard to this clause, the consideration which I employed just now—that I cannot forecast in what way this addition is likely to be received elsewhere, in view of the fact that the whole subject, as the noble and learned Lord is well aware, has been canvassed at considerable length and with considerable heat. But reserving to myself the right to form what opinion I may, if this clause should be altered or objected to elsewhere, I cannot say that I think I ought to advise the House to reject it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have now something of the same kind to move to insert. I move after Clause 2, page 3, to insert the following clause:—
  1656
  "An application to a County Court for an order under this Act may be made on behalf of the tithe owner by his agent, although not a solicitor, and on such application the costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed in any case where notice of defence has not been given, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor shall only be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice."
  I am not myself familiar with the technical proceedings, but I do not imagine that any hardship can arise under this clause, while on the other hand it will prevent poor tithe-payers being exposed to unnecessary costs.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection to the substance of this clause, but, as regards the wording, I do not think it should be "where notice of defence has not been given." That seems rather to encourage the notion of litigation, which I am very anxious to avoid as far as possible under this Bill. It will not be so where there is a defence, I suppose. The noble Marquess means probably notice of opposition to an order or something of that sort. I think it would be desirable to alter the wording in that respect so as not to encourage litigation.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The wording can be altered at another stage.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: The noble Lord will, no doubt, consider whether it should exclude necessary costs. The words are where notice of defence has not been given—
  "The costs either of a solicitor or of a witness shall not be allowed, and when such notice has been given the costs of a solicitor only shall be allowed for work done subsequent to the notice."
  The costs are given in ordinary cases where the money has not been paid upon proper application. This cuts off the first costs and throws them upon the owner. There may be reasons for doing that, but I think questions may arise in many cases where costs must be incurred. I do not say that in a very simple case it would be necessary to employ a lawyer, and then there would be no costs of this kind at all; but supposing the case is not so easy and one in which a prudent man would hardly do without a solicitor, it does seem a little hard in all such cases to throw the preliminary costs upon the tithe owner. The words disallow these preliminary costs in all cases; not only when notice of defence has not,

  1657
  but even when it has been given. I can well understand that there may be cases where there would be some presumption that there was no necessity to incur such costs; but I cannot understand why costs incurred previous to the notice should not be allowed as well as those incurred subsequently.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the noble Marquess will adhere to his clause. It is exceedingly desirable, when we are bringing in another kind of litigation for the first time, that every possible means should be taken to discourage the employment of solicitors, and to prevent the imposition of costs upon those who pay very small sums. I cannot help thinking the noble Marquess's benevolent intentions ought to have been persevered in in this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I quite appreciate the necessity of avoiding more than is necessary the employment of solicitors, and I think, on the whole, it is better to hold to the clause. It is impossible in framing clauses for the working of a new experiment to ensure absolutely that no hardship shall fall upon the tithe owner, but I think we must not omit to take into consideration the possibility of hardship upon the tithepayer too.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, there is a general feeling on the part of the clergy, and I may say that I have received a large number of letters upon the subject from them, that they are hardly dealt with in this rating clause. Of course I am aware that there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and certainly I have no desire to press any Amendment which appears to the House not to be reasonable. But the case is this: that in this respect the tithe owner is put to considerable disadvantage in comparison with all other ratepayers, and that, too, in a way which constitutes an entirely new departure as regards the rating of tithe rent-charges. The tithe owner is put in this position: that he may be called upon to pay a rate upon a tithe rent-charge which, nevertheless, he is not able to recover. He may be called upon to pay this rate, not only with the possibility of not recovering his tithe rent-
  1658
  charge, but he may be called upon to go into Court for it. The tithepayer has three months' time, but the tithe owner has no time allowed him at all, and he may be called into Court and required to pay his rate, although the tithepayer is meantime quite free for three months from the necessity of making the payment out of which the rate is to come. It seems to me it is only reasonable that you should give to the tithe owner the same limitation of time that you give to the tithepayer. If the tithepayer is to have three months' time let the tithe owner have just a little margin over that three months' in order that he may get his tithe in in those cases where there may be a little unwillingness, or possibly a very great unwillingness, to pay it. What I propose here would come very much to this: supposing a tithe rent-charge was due in January, and supposing the rate was made in the February or the March afterwards, I should say that the tithe owner ought to be allowed to pay his rate in the succeeding May. By that time the three months will have gone by. He will then be able to proceed against the tithepayer, who is the owner of the land, for his tithe, and then he is in a position to pay the rate. If the rate be made in such a case as that after the lapse of the four months, then of course he ought to pay directly if he is called upon to do so, and I should not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the demand that is made upon him. But it seems to me it is very hard indeed that the tithe owner should be placed in a different position as regards the debt due to him from that in which every other ratepayer is in, and yet that he should be subject to precisely the same liability as any other ratepayer. It is urged that they all ought to be upon an equality. If you put them both on an equality that would be reasonable; but you allow any other ratepayer to get in his money by an action, whereas you do not allow the tithe owner to recover by action, and you do not allow him to recover at all for the three months. That seems to be a very great hardship, and I propose to insert a new sub-section to remedy it. I will not answer for the wording, because in these cases the wording may require very careful consideration, so as to exactly convey what it is that is

  1659
  intended. I propose in page 4, line 2, to insert this new sub-section—that,
  "No rate assessed on a tithe rent-charge shall be recoverable until four months after the said tithe rent-charge shall have become due."
  I mean by that, that if the rate is made between the two times at which the tithe rent is payable and is paid it should not be recoverable until four months after the first of those two times. If the tithe rent-charge is due in January and July, then the rate should not be recoverable until May or November, whenever it is made between those months. If it is only made in May or November it would be recoverable, of course, without delay. If it were made in February, for instance, still it would not be recoverable until May, and so on, making the recovery of the rate depend upon the date at which the tithe rent-charge shall have become payable. In the vast majority of cases this will not interfere with the ordinary practice in the least, because in most cases they will probably go on just as they have done for a long time, since 1836 or almost since 1836. But there are extreme cases, as we perfectly well know, and there is now and then a strong animus, there may even be a desire to put the clergyman into difficulties, and I think what I am putting before your Lordships is no more than justice. The next Amendment which I have to propose goes a step further still; but in regard to this one, I hope that if the noble Marquess cannot accept it he will be willing to consider the matter, and see how justice might be done in this particular case of a property which is liable to rates, but which is not like any other property capable of being recovered in the ordinary manner. Perhaps if it cannot be done in this way it may possibly be done in some other manner.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 2, before sub-section insert new sub-section—
  "2a. No rate assessed on a tithe rent-charge shall he recoverable until four months after the said tithe rent-charge shall have become due."
  And, in line 3, leave out the words ("if the collector of the rate") down to (" owner of any tithe rent-charge") in line 5, and insert—
  1660
  ("If the owner of the tithe rent-charge shall certify to the rate collector that his tithe rent charge has not been paid, and that he has commenced proceedings in the County Court to recover it, the rate collector shall apply to the Court and.")—(The Bishop of London.)
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Before the noble Marquess answers that, I should like to say a few words in support generally of the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. The only point about which I feel doubt at present is whether four months may be necessary; but for a delay of three months I think the case is very strong. The present situation in point of law as to rates on tithe rent-charges is this. It was decided two years ago, in a litigated case which went to the Court of Appeal, that when the rates upon the tithe rent-charge were not paid by the owner of the tithe rent-charge the remedy by law is by distress against the occupier. So that, in point of fact, at present a distraint against the tithe owner's goods, such as will be given by this clause, is not law; he is not liable to it; and the rate is made by the present law a charge upon the present tithe recoverable in the same way as the tithe rent-charge itself, and therefore the tithe owner is not compelled to pay it except out of the tithe rent-charge. That is the present state of the law. This Bill postpones, in the case where the tithe rent-charge is not voluntarily paid, all practical remedy for its recovery until the tithe rent-charge is three months in arrear. A question may be raised as to what the effect of that will be. I own that I think it very likely it will be treated by land agents and others as making payment before that lapse of time unnecessary; and in many cases, at all events, the rent-charge will not be practically receivable even when paid voluntarily until the end of three months; and we know this has been and is felt rather strongly by many of the clergy as putting them to considerable disadvantage in comparison with the present state of the law, which gives them a right to recover in 21 days. I think they have done wisely, and that their friends have done wisely, in acquiescing in that; because some reasonable consideration must be given to the position and convenience of the owner when a change in the law of this kind is made,

  1661
  and I understood the noble Marquess to express the opinion that the landowner might reasonably want some such enlarged time as that which the Bill gives him. But all this tends to the conclusion that advantage may be taken of that provision in perfect good faith, and that the clergyman may not receive his tithe rent-charge for three months. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that it would be a very great injustice indeed if he could have his goods distrained upon in respect of the rates made on the rent-charge before he could in the ordinary course of things get the rent-charge in, certainly before he could have the legal right to recover it. I think the right rev. Prelate has spoken with undue modesty with regard to the framing of his Amendment; as I have myself received many letters pressing upon me this view of the case, and I must confess I do not think I could have prepared it better than it has been done by the right rev. Prelate, or by those who may have assisted him in preparing the Amendments. I think, whether the time given be four months or something else, that not less than three months ought to be given when you are altering the law in this way, and making the tithe owner liable in a way in which he has not been liable before. I do not see why he should not be proceeded against for rates like anybody else, but let it be upon property which he has received, or is at the time when the proceeding is taken in a position to receive. Perhaps it may not be inconvenient that the proposed Amendment should be considered in connection with the right rev. Prelate's other proposed Amendments. I presume the object of making the time four months instead of three was to give a margin within which it might be ascertained whether the owner would be driven to take proceedings in the County Court or not. I am not quite sure whether so large a margin is necessary. However, I think on principle, if he is kept out of his money and obliged to go to the Court, it would be most reasonable that in that case the rating authority should have power to recover through the means of the Court, so that whatever is recovered by the Court should through the Court pay the rate. That
  1662
  is the substance of the second proposition, that upon the existence of a litigation being certified the rate is, in substance, to be recovered through the Court out of the money upon which it is levied. For that there appears to be an additional reason to which I cannot myself see the answer at present. Under the 5th clause of this, Bill the Court may reduce the amount. The rate may have been made upon the whole rent-charge, which primâ facie the tithe owner is entitled to receive. Under the 5th clause of the Bill, when the case comes into Court, the tithe owner may claim a remission. Of course, until you know what will be the amount of the tithe rent-charge you do not know that the rate has not been imposed upon a larger amount than it ought to have been. The third Amendment provides for that in the proper place, and, upon the whole, I shall be disappointed if I do not hear that these Amendments are accepted in principle, and, as far as my judgment goes, I think they are quite rightly put forward.
  LORD MONK BRETTON: I should like to say a few words before the noble Marquess rises to reply, and they will be to urge that, notwithstanding the high authority of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, the House will very carefully consider what it is about to do. It seems to me a proposition of a most serious character. I think it conflicts with the principle on which our system of rating is based. The assessment is made upon the existing state of things, and the existing value may be arrived at by looking at what have been the recent receipts of any property. You never look forward to ascertain what are likely to be the receipts in the next half year in assessing property. You are not to make the assessment in prospect; you are not to listen to suggestions of what is likely to happen, but the question is what is the property to be assessed worth at the present moment. What has been received lately in respect of it? That is one piece of evidence, or may be so, of what the actual value is. You are to determine the existing amount, upon that a rate is fixed of so many shillings or pence in the £1, calculated to meet the immediate wants of the parish, and this rate is due from every one on a certain date. The

  1663
  proposition here is that in the case of one particular class of persons, the tithe owners; before the rate is paid the tithe owner may Wait till his next tithe comes in and see whether it comes up to what is estimated by the proprietor. Now that is entirely a new proposition, and I confess I can hardly see the difference between saying that you are to give the tithe owner four months in order that he may wait for the next receipt of tithe and see whether it comes up to expectation; and saying the same thing in the case of a landowner. The landowner might say, "I want to wait till I get my next half-year's rent in hand, or till I have realised my next half-year's profit, and then see whether it comes up to what I expect." The rate, your Lordships observe, is made, and is due on a certain day and ought to be paid. So much is that the case, that I believe I am correct in saying if a ratepayer appeals against his rate, and the appeal is still pending, yet he is called upon to pay the rate on the day on which it is due. If the appeal goes in his favour, and the rate is reduced, in some cases the difference will be refunded, but, I believe in general, it is credited to him in regard to the next rate. Then it is said that the tithe owner is being put in a different position, because formerly he received his tithe in 21 days, and now he will have to wait for it three months. In former cases the tithe might not have been received before his rate became due. He still would have to pay it. I would point this out, that though the tithe owner is by the present law entitled to his tithe in 21 days, he is more often nearly three months than three weeks in getting his tithe in, and, therefore, the change made in fixing a period of three months is not practically so great as has been supposed. Stress is laid upon this, that there might be an abatement made after the rate is paid. That may be so; but the rate he is called upon to pay is based upon past receipts of tithe, and if the next receipt is abated, his proper remedy will be to get his assessment reduced. This question appears to me to be so material as affecting the principle of rating that I should venture to hope that the Committee would be inclined to think this is a matter which should be very carefully inquired into
  1664
  and left for the consideration of the Standing Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wish to remark that I did not intend the three Amendments I put down to be bound up together of necessity. There is another one on Clause 5 which is quite distinct from what has been said against the first Amendment on Clause 3. The first Amendment on Clause 3 stands on quite a different footing from the last one. It may be quite true that on the mere principle of rating you ought to make the man pay the rate on that which he does not really receive, and I should be quite willing to bow to the authority of those who thoroughly understand the subject upon that point. But that does not apply to this allowance in respect of rate where the tithe is yet to be received, because the property is not yet in the man's hand. It is property out of which the rate is to come, but which he has not got, and he is put in a difficulty with regard to the sum he has not got which no other ratepayer is under. No other ratepayer is required to wait three months before the property belonging to him can be got in; he can go before the County Court the moment it is due, and, therefore, in that respect the injustice of this payment upon tithe seems to me to be plain. The payment of rate upon tithe appears to stand by itself in that respect. Then with regard to the difficulty of collecting the rate; the rate collector can go to the Court and get his money there. There is this difference between this particular class of ratepayers and every other ratepayer: Other ratepayers are assessed upon the visible property which they hold; it is theirs and in their possession, and it is seized, if necessary, by the rate collector from them; but here the property upon which the man has to pay the rate is not in his possession at all, and he cannot get it except through the Court. It is only reasonable, therefore, that what is the ultimate source—that is, the land from which the rate is to come, should be called upon to pay the rate as it is called upon to pay the tithe.
  LORD BASING: My Lords, I concur generally in the argument of my noble Friend against this proposition, which seems to me to proceed on a fallacious view of what rates are. They are not a

  1665
  charge on income or profits—they are a contribution in each parish towards the common funds. It does not follow that other occupiers in the parish have any independent fund which enables them to pay the rate. On the contrary, the occupier of a house has to pay the rent of his house, yet he is charged to the rates in respect of the value of that occupation. And so tithe owners, as well as other ratepayers in the parish, are assessed in respect of the value of their occupation. It does not follow that the rates should not be paid until the means have actually accrued and have passed into the pocket of the ratepayer. That is quite a new doctrine to me, and I cannot understand it. It is very true that the Bill proposes that a margin of three months shall elapse before the necessary payment shall be exacted; but three months' time is not only given now by tithe collectors, but six months, or even 12 months, elapse. Many, no doubt, ask for it as soon as they can get it, but that is very seldom within three months. On the other hand, it is a fallacy to suppose that rates are paid within as short a period as the three weeks now suggested. I do not know what may be the case in some parishes, but I have never certainly heard of a severe or peremptory remedy being taken for the payment of rates within that period. A few weeks' delay is not regarded as a very great matter by the rate collector. Then, again, it proceeds on the hypothesis that all the ratepayers in the parish have combined to withhold from the tithepayer the means of paying his rate. Supposing one tithepayer is in arrear, the tithe owner may have money coming in from other sources; and to assume that the whole body of tithepayers in the parish, who may be a large number of persons, are going to combine to withhold from the owner the means of paying his rates, seems to me the strangest and wildest supposition possible. I trust, therefore, the Government will not consent to this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My noble Friend has anticipated a good deal of what I was about to say. I think in the arguments hitherto the ratepayers have been entirely neglected, and you are bound to consider their interests. In any given parish or union
  1666
  all the ratepayers ought in justice to be on an equal footing, and it would be perfectly unjust that contributions should be obtained from one kind of property at one moment and that they should be postponed in regard to other kinds of property in other cases. The contributions ought to be levied equally and at the same time from every person who contributes in the parish, and that without reference to whether the property is tithe or of any other description. The ratepayers otherwise will be paying a portion of that rate which they have a right to look to to meet the expenses of the parish. I do not see how you can, with any justice, postpone by law the payment of the rate when the rate becomes due. Though I do not deny that there may be some hardship in this case upon the tithe owner, I think, as the noble Lord pointed out, it is not likely to be so great as seems to be anticipated under the provisions of this Bill, because I do not think the tithe owners get their tithes by any means punctually at present, nor do I think it is the custom to demand it the moment it becomes due. The tithe owners give a certain amount of law, as it is called, to the tithe payers, just as landowners do. Speaking from my own experience, I believe the time for the collection of tithe is generally a month after it becomes due. If it is necessary to make any special provision in this case it seems to me it is the owner you ought to look to, because in point of fact the property has accrued at the time when the tithe is demandable; that is to say, it is presumed that there is that value existing, though the payer for his own convenience does not pay for three months. Let me ask, is not there a very strong analogy between these cases and the position of the occupier who pays Income Tax under Schedule A? Under Schedule A every occupier of agricultural land is bound to pay the landlord's Income Tax levied under that Schedule, but he cannot escape one single penny of that until he produces the receipt. When the tenant pays his rent to his landlord the receipt is given for so much as the Income Tax amounts to. Supposing he does not pay his rent for a year he still cannot recover one shilling of the Income Tax, and the reason he cannot recover it is that he has not paid his rent; simply

  1667
  for his own convenience the rent is postponed, and until he does pay he cannot recover the Income Tax. Therefore, although I have not the slightest desire to increase the liabilities of owners under this Bill, partly perhaps because I am an owner myself, and partly because I believe on grounds of policy it is desirable not to increase them, it seems to me that if anything is to be done, the most obvious and just mode of doing it would be that the owner should pay the rates, and deduct them when he himself pays.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: That was practically what I meant by my proposition.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, this is not a lively subject, but it is a very difficult one. It seems more difficult to adjust it than any other point which has yet arisen. This clause in its wording certainly seems to go a great deal too far. It would enable the tithe owner to be in arrear with his rent for four months, even though he had received every penny of his tithe up to date. I think that must be dismissed at once as an unreasonable proposal. Then you must go next to the case where he does not receive the tithe until the full limit of three months. Ought he on that account to receive any law when the rate is levied some time before? Undoubtedly my noble Friend behind me (Lord Basing) and the noble Lord opposite (Earl Kimberley) are quite right in their reasoning upon the general principles by which rates are levied on property. If I possess and let a furnished house the rates may be levied four months before my rent comes in, but no law or consideration is given me on that account. But, then, that argument leaves out of sight the other peculiar circumstances of the case—that a personal liability is being put upon the tithe owner, to which he has never before been subjected, and that should be taken into consideration. I certainly think the position of the tithe owner is one deserving of consideration, because the money is levied on the rent-charge as it arises, so that by an automatic process in former times that very law was given him which is now being asked for him. But there is a third case in which his claim seems to be much stronger. A rate
  1668
  is not levied upon a man in respect of property which he does not possess. It is provided by this Bill that in certain instances the tithe owner shall not possess his property—that in certain cases the County Court shall come in and say that the land is not strong enough to pay, and therefore the tithe may be remitted. It does, therefore, seem somewhat hard upon the tithe owner that he should have to pay a rate on a tithe rent-charge which he will never receive. However, I should like to have further time to consider the matter; and if it is the view of the Committee, I should be inclined to accept the suggestion which has been made, but on the distinct understanding that the Government will not be bound in any way in regard to it, and that they will be at liberty to thresh the matter out in order to arrive at some arrangement, if possible, in Standing Committee.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope the noble Marquess will pursue that course, and allow this to be discussed in Standing Committee. I feel that there is some difficulty about it, and that it is quite open to some of the remarks that have been made. Therefore, I think if the right reverend Prelate would not press the clauses now, but will be satisfied to move them in Standing Committee, that would be sufficient.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As that is the view of the noble Lord opposite, I would recommend the right reverend Prelate to adopt that course.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I am quite content with what the noble Marquess said. I only want the case to be thoroughly sifted; and, provided it is fairly brought before the Standing Committee, I am quite content. I will, there withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  LORD BRABOURNE: My Lords, I have an Amendment upon Clause 5 of a very simple character, and I hope it is one that will commend itself to your Lordships. This clause enacts that when the total amount paid on account of the tithe rent-charge for 12 months pre-

  1669
  ceding the date on which the sum claimed becomes payable will exceed two-thirds of the annual value of the land, there shall be a deduction, or remission, of so much as is equal to the excess over the two-thirds. I do not know why this precise figure was fixed upon, nor do I feel quite sure that I have correctly read it; for really this is a Bill which it would require a skilled lawyer to understand and dissect in all its various clauses. Now, the annual value of land for the purpose of assessment under Schedule B seems to be rather an extraordinary thing. Schedule B, as I have always understood it, is Schedule A plus the tithe. Well, how would this work? Supposing you have a farm which is let for £100; under Schedule A there would be Income Tax payable. Now, two-thirds of that would be £66 13s. 4d. Under Schedule B on, say, £120, the amount would be £80. Now, what I want to know is, how muck do these gentlemen think they ought to have more than the tenth, which is the amount of the tithe? It appears to me if you have a rent of tithe £60, the tenth of which would be £6, the tithe owner will be doing pretty well if he gets five times the amount of that; that is to say, £30. If the amount of tithe rent-charge comes to half the annual value, is it not right that the deduction should begin then? Is it not a reasonable thing to say that the tithe owner shall be satisfied with a reduced amount of tithe rent-charge if it should be half the annual value of the land. The argument might be carried a very long way if one were to go into the whole history of tithe, and the purposes for which it was originally granted. In that case the argument would be interminable, and, after all, we should leave off very much where we commenced; but, in this case, I think your Lordships will agree with me that when these tithes were granted those who granted them never believed or supposed they were granting half the value of the land. I therefore put it to your Lordships whether, when it is half the value, it would not be a reasonable thing to allow it to go no higher?
  Amendment moved, to substitute in Clause 5, Sub-section 1, line 35, the words "one-half" for "two-thirds.—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I quite join in the noble Lord's indisposition to go back into the early history of tithes; but I think we may go back far enough to learn that tithe is a tenth part of the gross annual value of the land, and not of the annual rent. That is the basis of tithe. He has again and again complained that the tithe owner receives more than a tenth part of the rent. That has nothing to do with it, and I am quite sure that those primæval donors to whom he refers had no idea of annual value under Schedule B when they gave the tithe of the land. The calculation on which this proportion of two-thirds rests we have already discussed. Several noble Lords in this House feel rather strongly upon the subject of admitting any diminution from the value. The only thing to be said in that behalf is that the land is not as valuable to the tithe owner if he either takes it under process into his own hands or places it in the hands of a receiver, as it is to the occupier; and that both with respect to the burdens upon the land, and the difference in value in consequence of that change in cultivation, some allowance seems to be necessary if you intend to prevent the land going out of cultivation. I do not pretend to defend with any warmth the accuracy of this calculation of two-thirds; but it seems to me more near to what is just after the argument which I have heard than any other figure that can be suggested, and I certainly think the noble Lord's proposal to insert, instead of it, "one-half" would not afford a satisfactory substitute.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I would ask upon his clause a question on one matter which has been brought to my notice by a great many incumbents in the Midland Counties. I want to ask what would be the effect of Sub-section 4 of this clause? This sub-section provides for ascertaining the annual value of any lands which do not appear in Schedule B. What is represented to me is this: that in mining districts it is very often the case that a very large quantity of land is laid waste by mining operations, and that in consequence all the surface has gone as far as regards the purposes of cultivation. Those lands

  1671
  are waste lands, and they will not appear, therefore, in Scedule B at all as I understand. In that case I should like to know what would be the guide to the Commissioners in ascertaining the value of the land. Will the owner of the mine be considered as the owner of those lands, and will he be made liable under this sub-section for the payment of the tithe, or will it be the lessee who is liable? Unless there is some provision distinctly made for such cases, the clergy are afraid that whatever happens in that respect, at all events, the tithe rent-charge will altogether disappear under the application of this clause.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My answer to the question must be to refer the right rev. Prelate to the condition of the tithe owner before the Act of 1836 was passed. If the land was so laid waste by subterranean processes and produced nothing, it is obvious that the tithe owner would get nothing by distress upon the land, and his rights would disappear. You may say that would be hard upon him, but I do not see how you can bring into the value the land that is used in working mines which lie beneath its surface. Those mines are not in any sense titheable as I understand, and you would be departing from the whole principle of your Tithe Acts if you attempted to levy a tithe upon them. It is possible that the wording of Sub-section 4 may require revision, but I do not see my way to giving any tithe upon waste land, even though the land has not been laid waste with the consent of the tithe owner.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to point out to the noble Marquess that one of the operations of the Tithe Act was to exempt from loss of tithe any land which became no longer available for agricultural purposes. Before 1836 land occupied by buildings in the ordinary way ceased to be titheable; but that was changed as part of the legislation, and there are some cases in the Midland Counties where the operation of this clause would be simply to deprive the incumbents of the tithe they have enjoyed ever since 1836.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think there is a question upon this which will have to be considered, because it is not at all an uncommon case that land does not become absolutely waste by means of
  1672
  the mining operations carried on beneath, though it may nevertheless become of very little value agriculturally. It is very common in mining districts for the mining lessee to have considerable surface rights, and of course he can use the surface for spoil banks, for his pits, and for other purposes. As regards that land, I do not know whether in ascertaining the annual value under Subsection 4 the use of the land in that way would be taken into account. It is possible it might be, and it is possible that all those cases might be, excluded by reason of this section not applying to those lands or to any except such as are used solely for agricultural purposes. In such a case, though the power of distress would have been a remedy which might have produced nothing, you had prior to the passing of this measure the remedy of suing out a writ habere facias possessionem. So far as the land is regarded agriculturally, the value may be very low indeed, yet nevertheless the landowner does in many cases receive consideration for it. He gives this surface as part of the consideration which he receives for the mining rights the lessee obtains, although the agricultural value of it is very small. I think there should be some provision in those cases which would enable the tithe owner to recover against that rent.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think the noble Marquess in what he said addressed his mind rather too exclusively to the supposed rule of the whole rent-charge being claimed out of land lying absolutely waste. There might be a rent-charge due upon land which was only partially waste from this cause; and what is waste only because it is used in a way more beneficial to the owner than husbandry cannot justly be made the ground of a claim for remission under Clause 5. This particular kind of remission I cannot help thinking was intended for land under husbandry, and ought to be confined to such land. One reason for thinking that it could not be intended to apply to land occupied in connection with mines, to my mind, is this: The Income Tax Regulations are not very easy to understand, though by long practice they may possibly be understood by those who have to do with them. Under Schedules A and B, with one of which we are now

  1673
  concerned, provision is made for assessment upon the principle of annual value; but there are special cases, for which exceptional rules are made; and the case of mines in particular is subject, generally, to an average of five years. In the case of Schedule B there are introduced general words to the effect that the duties under Schedule A and B, except where other provisions are made for estimating particular properties, shall be estimated according to the general rules in the clause: those general rules being inapplicable to land used in connection with mines. I have no doubt myself that this remission clause here can only work under that general provision which applies to agricultural land, and that it was never meant to apply to land which is practically used in connection with mines. Those lands are not absolutely waste in the sense of not producing profit. I would submit for the consideration of the noble Marquess that it might be well to say that this clause is not applicable to cases which do not come under the general rules for assessing annual value for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is a difficulty which occurs to me in taking the course recommended by the noble and learned Lord precisely, and that is that the lands so diminished in value are not thereby taken out of the category of lands subject to husbandry. They may be, and often are, pasture lands—a certain amount of grass may still grow upon them, and, as far as my personal experience goes, that is the commonest case. In those cases the tenant asks for indemnification in consequence of the injury done to the land; but I think in this discussion we are going a little further than it is possible to go satisfactorily in dealing with the matter across this Table. It is a question, therefore, which I hope the right rev. Prelate will bring up at a future stage in the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is a point on this clause to which I should desire to call your Lordships' attention in a word or two. Subject to the technical knowledge which will be at the command of the Government, the test here is the assessment to the purposes of Schedule B. Under
  1674
  Schedule B there are certain provisions that the assessment shall be abated in any year, if owing to floods or other disaster the crops have been injured or destroyed. Notwithstanding the abatement of the assessment, of course it may happen that the rent has not been to anything like the same extent obtained as the amount to which the assessment goes. We will suppose the landlord gets his full rent. There will be no reason why, because of the abatement, the tithe owner should be deprived of his tithe. I do not know whether that abatement is actually entered in the book for that year, and whether then you go back to the old assessment, supposing that to be the case. But I think that would have to be looked into carefully to see whether you can apply to each year the particular assessment for that year, or whether it is not intended to be taken at the general assessment, which lasts, of course, for five years. I really do not know what is the practice followed. It may be there is nothing in the point, but I think it needs to be considered.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It may be that it is not very important, but there is a suggestion which occurs to me upon this clause—I may be wrong—which would remove any objection to the definition under the Commutation Act. The Tithe Commutation Act has stated shortly the definition of owner thus, that it includes "every person who shall be in the actual possession or receipt of the rents of profits of any lands except," and so on. Then the exceptions are, tenants for lives or years holding under lease or agreement on which a rent of not less than two-thirds of the clear yearly value is reserved, and all tenants whatsoever holding for less than 14 years, reckoned from the commencement of their term. Then it goes on to say that in the excepted cases, that is to say, of tenancies for more than 14 years, at less than two-thirds of the annual value of the land, the tenants and the landlords are to be joint owners. Now there is this difficulty arising upon that. If, for example, a lease of 21 years is granted at a reserved rent of two-thirds of the annual value, but an amount abundantly

  1675
  sufficient to pay the rent-charge, it cannot be intended that the remedy is to be against the lessee as well as the owner. What I would suggest for the purpose of removing the difficulty arising out of that part of the definition would be this, to add to the words at line 16, after the words "Tithe Act, 1836"—
  "And when the occupier is a tenant holding under a lease or agreement the landlord shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of this Act."
  I do not think it can be intended in those cases to make both the landlord and the tenant owners for the purpose of the Act, and yet they are made joint owners by the definition in the Act of 1836. If the noble Marquess thinks that is a matter which had better be reserved for the Standing Committee, I should entirely acquiesce.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: As this raises a very difficult question of construction I think it would be much better if the noble and learned Lord would bring it before the Standing Committee.
  THE EARL or SELBORNE: Then, my Lords, I have another Amendment, which, at all events, can do no harm.
  Amendment moved, in Sub-section 2, page 6, line 15, after ("cass") to insert ("unless the context otherwise requires.'') —(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD BRABOURNE: I do not know whether the noble Marquess will regard this Amendment of mine with more favour than the last. It is simply to this effect: that the payments to be made up to Michaelmas shall becarrted on under the present law until the next year's tithe begins. I move to substitute the words "11th day of October, 1891," for "passing of the Act." I think that would be a convenient time after Michaelmas Day when rent and tithe become due, and would give landlords and tenants, whose annual agreements had terminated at Michaelmas, the opportunity of making some arrangement with reference to the new law. It appears to me a reasonable Amendment, and I hope the noble Marquess will accept it. I will say no more.
  Amendment moved, in page 6, line 34, to leave out the words ("the passing of this Act"), in order to insert the words ("11th day of October, 1891.")—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that an Amendment postponing the operation of the Bill until a particular date is very reasonable, and I had that in my mind when I referred to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord opposite with regard to intermediate proceedings. Whether this particular date should be accepted is another matter; but I do think that it is necessary that the Bill should not come into operation the moment it is passed, and that some qualficatiion should be accepted.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: It would be absolutely necessary to enable the Rules to be made that the Bill should, for that purpose at all events, come into operation immediately. I think, speaking from what I have heard, it is not desirable that the time should be postponed for any period so long as that which the noble Lord opposite suggests. Those persons who are chiefly affected by the mischief which the Bill is intended to cure are desirous that it should come into operation as soon as possible; and if any time is fixed, I should be inclined to think that as soon after the Rules can be satisfactorily framed would be best; the earlier the time that can be fixed the batter.
  LORD BRABOURNE: That is not at all my view in moving the Amendment. What I mean is this: there are a vast number of agreements through the country from Michaelmas to Michaelmas. Why should you put people to a totally unnecessary inconvenience by altering their contracts which expire next Michaelmas? When rent becomes due tithe becomes due in most cases, and I think it is better to give the landlords the opportunity of arranging with their tenants, so that then they may be able to start afresh. How that can be effected by the necessity of certain Rules being adopted I do not understand. This Amendment is not directed against the Bill. I shall reserve what I have to say against the Bill itself for larger audiences and for those whose ecclesiastical sympathies are less developed than those of your Lordships.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think the Government should consider this point. Where you have a measure of this kind, by which you get rid of existing machinery and substitute an entirely new one, there will be a great tendency, if you postpone the day, on the part of certain persons to raise difficulties during the interval prior to the Bill coming into operation.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I hope the Government will give more time before insisting upon the operation of the Act after it has been passed. A great number of people will not have had time to make arrangements with their tenants. I would suggest that instead of putting the 11th day of October that the 12th or 13th of November should be substituted, as that is the time fixed for giving notice to quit in some parts of North Wales.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There seems to be a good deal of doubt on the subject. I do not know whether it ought to be fixed so soon after passing. When that will be must depend on the other House. I do not feel quite so sanguine about it as my noble and learned Friend, and I should feel inclined not to put in a precise date now, but to leave it to be fixed. I should deprecate its being fixed, seeing that the passing depends upon the state of business in the House of Commons. I think it would give rise to a considerable amount of discontent on the part of many if their rates were subjected to such a proviso.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am a little doubtful whether it is desirable to invite general negotiations between landlords and tenants throughout the country in reference to the particular date as proposed, the 11th October. I think many noble Lords might find themselves in a somewhat difficult position. At any time they like to make fresh contracts they can do so; but to fix the date of the 11th of October as the time when there shall be fresh agreements made throughout the country would be more likely to cause embarrassment than to facilitate what we all wish should be done.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: This is a Bill which will certainly alter the relative rights of a certain number of persons all over the country. Your
  1678
  Lordships may think there should be some kind of notice given as to when that is to take place, and that they should not have to wait for months until the date shall be fixed at which under the Bill their rights are to be turned upside down.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I would suggest that a date should be fixed when the Bill has reached the last stage in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: On Third Reading.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I wanted to ask a question which has been put to me by a great many clergymen with regard to the effect of the Bill in cases of tithe-rent issuing out of lands held by Railway Companies. They seem to think they will have no remedy in that case.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Lands held by Railway Companies are not generally the subject of agricultural interests, and I do not think land of that description is very often held otherwise than by the owner as occupier. Therefore that case seems to me not to require special provision.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: If there is no tithe rent-charge issuing out of such lands held by Railway Companies this question would be superfluous; but if there is, why should not they be subject to the ordinary law? I do not know what the state of the law is with regard to that exactly.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Railway Companies are in each case governed by certain Acts of Parliament. When those Acts were passed the lands were subject to tithe, and the clergymen may have been paid off, or there may have been a rent-charge reserved to them on the railway. If that is the case, you will, I think, get into some confusion if you include in the Bill a matter so contrary to the ordinary provisions.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 46.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.