Sitting of 3 July 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the Clock.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
IRISH POOR LAW EXPENDITURE.
Return [presented 2nd July] to be printed. [No. 366.]
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of General Abstracts showing the Acreage under Crops, also the Number and Description of Live Stock in each County and Province in 1894–95 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
CRIMINAL AND JUDICIAL STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Criminal and Judicial Statistics of Ireland for the year 1894, with tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-first Annual Report of the Registrar General (Ireland) for the year 1894 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BANKING, RAILWAY, AND SHIPPING STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report for the half year ended 30th June, 1895 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PUBLIC RECORDS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Twenty-seventh Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
IRISH LAND COMMISSION.
Copy presented of Report of the Commissioners for the period from 1st April 1894 to 31st March 1895 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LUNACY (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Forty-fourth Report (with appendices) of the Inspectors of Lunatics for Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Thirty-third Report of the Inspector of the Reformatory and Industrial Schools of Ireland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PRISONS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Seventeenth Report of the General Prisons Board for Ireland 1894–95 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUEEN'S COLLEGE (BELFAST).
Copy presented of Report of the President for the Session 1894–95 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE UNIONS.
Copy presented of Seventh Annual Report by the Chief Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on Trade Unions (1893), with Statistical Tables [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

GAS AND WATER ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Copy ordered,
"Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 367.]

GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.
Copy ordered,
"Of Memorandum stating the nature of the proposals contained in the Provisional Orders included in the Gas Orders Confirmation Bill."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 368.]

RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
Report from the Select Committee with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and read [Inquiry not completed].
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 369.]

LONDON WATER (TRANSFER) BILLS.
Special Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read.
Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Read the first time; to be read the second time To-morrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 337.]
QUESTIONS.

  EXTRADITION BILL.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the exact nature of the obligations incurred with the French Government, in pursuance of which the Extradition Bill has been introduced; and by what means were such obligations contracted?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,)said, that he had not yet had an opportunity of communicating on the subject with the Home Secretary, who was not a Member of the House at the present time. He asked his hon. Friend to put the question down for to-morrow.
  SIR A. ROLLITasked the right hon. Gentleman if he proposed to take the Bill which was on the Paper for that day? He believed this Bill had not been printed and circulated.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that if there was any objection made to the Bill he would put it down for the next day.
  SIR A. ROLLITobjected.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Mr. SEYMOUR KEAYasked under whose direction the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill would be, now that it had come down from the other House. Lord Tweed-mouth originally brought in this Bill, but he did not think any Member of the late Government would pilot it through the House.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYreminded the House of what he had previously said, that the Bill might pass during the present Session if it was unopposed. If objected to by any hon. Member it could not pass.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,)said, that the Second Reading of the Bill had been moved on Tuesday from that Bench, and he proposed to take charge of the Bill in its subsequent stages.
  DR. CLARKasked if the right hon. Gentleman intended to make any Amendment in the measure.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was afraid, under existing circumstances, this would be fatal to the Bill, which, although it was not now in the terms in which it was introduced, still contained valuable provisions.
  SIR A. ROLLITasked the First Lord of the Treasury if he would object to an Amendment to the Bill which should make it perfectly clear that English and foreign fishermen would be treated in exactly the same manner.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsuggested that this point might be raised in Committee.

  GENERAL ELECTION.
  MR. W. P. BYLESasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the

  129
  Election Writs issuing on Monday, it would be possible to have pollings on the following Saturday.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, he was informed there would be no difficulty about the pollings taking place on Saturday if the Writs were issued on Monday.

  CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES ACT (1883) AMENDMENT BILL.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid that the previous day he had made an omission with regard to this Bill. He was informed that it was a Bill universally approved of on all sides of the House, and, if that was so, he would star it and put it down for to-morrow.

  LAND VALUATION (SCOTLAND) CTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  SIR J. CARMICHAELasked if this Bill would be proceeded with. All those who had put down Amendments to the measure had now withdrawn them.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, the House should be cautious against overloading itself with work at the present juncture, but he would consult about the matter.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  REPORT OF SUPPLY.
  SUPPLY [2nd JULY].
  Resolutions reported—

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPART MENT, 1895–6 (THIRD VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  On the first Resolution:—
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £3,525,100, he granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896,"
  DR. CLARKasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intended to take any legislative action
  130
  to relieve trustees of the difficulties in which they were now placed in regard to the reduction of crofters' rents in the north of Scotland. He regretted that the Secretary for Scotland was not a Member of that House; he had nothing to say against the Gentleman who held that office, but it was a most unsatisfactory arrangement. The present condition of things in regard to the crofters' rents in the North of Scotland was becoming an intolerable one. By the Scotch law the Secretary for Scotland had a right to bring troops or policemen from other parts of Scotland to maintain and enforce the law. It was admitted by everybody that these unfortunate leaseholders were being compelled to pay impossible rents, and public feeling amongst the landlords was so strong that they would not allow the evictions and orders of the Court to be carried out, Before the present Parliament came to a close something ought to be done to relieve these trustees from the position in which they were placed, and to alter the present intolerable state of things. He hoped, therefore, that the First Lord of the Treasury would be able to state what the intentions of the Government were in regard to this matter.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had exercised his undoubted right in asking a question in connection with one of the Votes; but it was impossible for him to give a detailed account of the steps which his noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland would take in connection with the difficulties in Sutherlandshire to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. As he understood, those difficulties arose out of the fact that the trustees in certain estates in which there were leaseholders did not feel enabled to reduce the rents to what the hon. Gentleman regarded as a fair amount, and that in consequence of the incapacity of the trustees there was great difficulty in enforcing payment of rent. He could not believe there was any legal difficulty in a trustee making such reductions of rent as the owner in fee would make if he was the manager of the estate. According to his views, the duty of a trustee, and certainly the duty of the trustees the hon. Gentleman referred to, was to exercise the power of

  131
  reducing the rents if they ought to be reduced. The system of leasing was absolutely universal over the whole of South Scotland. Would the hon. Gentlemen tell him that a trustee of an estate in the South of Scotland would not feel himself justified, while facing the hard times which agriculture had gone through during the last three years, in making reductions of rents which all the neighbouring proprietors would make. No trustee who understood his duty would, in his opinion, hesitate for a moment to make reductions, should they be required, by expediency and justice, therefore he was reluctant to believe without much further inquiry that these trustees in the North of Scotland laboured under the incapacity which the hon. Gentleman said they did. However, he only interjected these observations in the general policy to be pursued. With regard to that policy the Secretary for Scotland would be responsible, and he had hardly yet had time to make himself acquainted with the state of affairs.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Subsequent Resolutions agreed to

  WAYS AND MEANS [2nd JULY].
  Resolution reported:—
  "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March 1896 the sum of £14,534,875 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution agreed to: Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.
  "To apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March One thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time Tomorrow.

  FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
  This Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee) was considered.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMAN SIR ALFRED HICKMAN (Wolverhampton, W.) moved the following new clause:—
  "Part six of the third Schedule of the principal Act shall be read iron and iron tube mills."
  By this section, he said, boys over 14 years of age were permitted to work in iron mills at night, and the same permission was reserved in the present Bill. But in iron-tube mills, where the conditions of labour were exactly the same, they were not so permitted. This class of mills was omitted from the enumeration of the Act of 1878, and it was that omission that the Amendment intended to supply. The work was light and was carried on under healthy conditions, and was also well paid for; but the reason why these mills were not included in the Act of 1878 was that at that time work was not usually carried on in them at night. Since then foreign competition had entered into the trade, and, under stress of circumstances, the mills had been obliged to take to night work and to carry on the work continuously while the furnaces were hot. In 1878 the trade could stand the waste of fuel in keeping up the furnaces at night, but at the present time the conditions of the trade had been altogether altered through foreign competition. The result was that boys were practically excluded from the work because it was impossible to find men who would work at night in order that the boys might be employed during the day. This work, therefore, was prohibited to boys, because the existing regulations meant that when a lad had finished his education at fourteen he had either to find work in other trades or to spend two years in comparative idleness before he could find employment in this local industry where boys were required. In fact, this had been found to be a great inconvenience in the trade, and it was an inconvenience that would be at once removed by the adoption of the Amendment. Iron tube making was one of the chief industries of the South Staffordshire district, and Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsall, and Wednesbury were all largely interested in the trade, and he appealed to

  133
  the late Home Secretary, in whose charge the Bill remained, to accept the Amendment because it would make the Bill popular in those districts and would nowhere meet with opposition. It might be said that the Amendment should have been introduced in the Standing Committee. He did raise the question there, but it came before the Committee with other new clauses at the end of a long sitting, on the last day on which the Committee sat, and when half the Members had gone. Under those circumstances he did not think it worth while to press the matter to a Division in the Committee. This could not be described as a reactionary proposal, as it only proposed to remove a restriction which did not apply to similar trades in the districts he had mentioned.
  MR. H. H. ASQUITHhoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this new clause, because it opened up a question about which there was very much dispute. Since the passing of the Act of 1878 there had been four trades in which the exceptional privilege of allowing boys to work at night had existed, but these particular mills not being included among the privileged trades had remained under a disability. He might point out, however, that the Secretary of State had power, if special circumstances required, to permit night work being performed by boys. No doubt there was some force in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the convenience of the arrangements he proposed, but on the other hand those arrangements were regarded with great disfavour and suspicion by many people, so much so that the clause might be regarded as a highly contentious one. A large number of clauses were withdrawn during the last stage of the Committee, clauses proposing to modify the Bill in other directions, but they were withdrawn he might point out on the understanding that there should be a general self-denying ordinance, it being felt that any further additions would render the Bill a more controversial one than it already was. Under those circumstances, and without disputing that the hon. Gentleman might have good and plausible arguments to advance in support of his clause, he would appeal to him to withdraw it until later on, perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, when it would
  134
  be necessary to supplement the Bill in certain particulars, and to consolidate the law on the subject.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)said, he had a great deal of sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend, and knowing something of the circumstances of the trade in question, thought the present arrangements in it were rather inconsistent—that was that facilities which had been given to iron mills should also be given to the iron tube mills. But the circumstances were exceptional. He agreed with what had fallen from the late Home Secretary—and he wished to take the opportunity of conveying a tribute to the most admirable and courteous way in which he conducted the Bill in the Grand Committee—in thinking that there was a sort of general arrangement that they should accept the Bill as it stood as a compromise without attempting to extend it. Under those circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5:—

  PENALTY FOR EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONS IN PLACES INJURIOUS TO HEALTH.
  "(1.) If an inspector gives notice in writing to the occupier of a factory or workshop, or to any contractor employed by any such occupier, that any place in which work is carried on for the purpose of or in connection with the business of the factory or workshop is injurious or dangerous to the health of the persons employed therein, then, if the occupier or contractor after the expiration of one month from receipt of the notice gives out work to be done in that place, and the place is found to be so injurious or dangerous, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.
  (2.) This section shall apply in the case of the occupier of any place from which any work is given out, as if that place were a workshop.
  (3.) Provided that this section shall not apply except in the case of persons employed in such classes of work, and in the case of persons giving out employment and employed within such areas, as may from time to time be specified by the Secretary of State by order made in accordance with Section Sixty-five of the principal Act."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved:—In line 8, after "found," to insert" by the Court having cognisance of the case."
  Amendment agreed to
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved:—In line 10, to leave out "20," and insert "10." It had, lie explained, been agreed in Grand Committee that the penalty imposed by the section was too high.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved at the end of the clause to add—
  "and no such order shall be made except with respect to an area where, by reason of the number and distribution of the population and the conditions under which work is carried on, there are special risks of injury or danger to the health of the persons employed and of the district."
  He explained that he moved these words in pursuance of a pledge given in the Standing Committee, in order that it might be made clear that the somewhat drastic powers given to the Secretary of State should not be exercised in respect of those industries which were strictly cottage or rural industries. In view of the separation of the people from one another, it was thought that there was no necessity for dealing with them in the stringent way that was necessary in the case of the workers in towns. The Amendment was supported by some of the Members from Great Britain, and he had come to the conclusion that the words upon the Paper without impairing the efficiency of the clause, would make it quite clear that the provisions of the clause were not to be applied to these cottage industries.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE, while agreeing that the late Home Secretary had given a pledge to the hon. Member for Kerry to insert such words as those now proposed, said that it was admitted on all hands that there were many districts which were not populous districts, to which the clause should apply. He had yet so worded his Amendment as to bring in the question of population. He submitted that it would be better to omit "the number and distribution of the population and," so that the suggestion should not remain that it was the population that was to be considered in this case. If the late Home Secretary did not see his way to make that concession, he would suggest that a considerable change would be effected by changing the word "and" for the word "or" in line 3 of the Amendment.
  MR. ASQUITHintimated that he would accept the latter suggestion, which
  SIR CHARLES DILKEthereupon moved, and
  The Amendment, thus amended, was agreed to.
  Clause 6:—

  PENALTY FOR ALLOWING WEARING APPAREL TO BE MADE IN PLACE WHERE THERE IS INFECTIOUS DISEASE.
  "If any occupier of a factory or workshop or of any place from which any work is given out, or any contractor employed by any such occupier, causes or allows wearing apparel to be made, cleaned, or repaired in any dwelling-house or building occupied therewith, whilst my inmate of the dwelling-house is suffering from scarlet-fever or small-pox, then, unless he proves that he was not aware of the existence of the illness in the dwelling-house, and could not reasonably have been expected to become aware of it, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, as consequential Amendments to the changes made in the Standing Committee—
  Clause 6, page 3, line 19, after "workshop" insert "or laundry," and Clause 6, page 3, line 27, leave out "twenty" and insert "ten."
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 8:—

  AMENDMENT OF 41 AND 42 VICT. C. 16, S. 9, AS TO RESTRICTION ON CLEAN ING OF MACHINERY IN MOTION.
  "The first paragraph of Section 9 of the principal Act (which relates to the cleaning of machinery) shall apply, so far as the dangerous parts of machinery are concerned, to young persons in like manner as it applies to children, and for this purpose such parts of the machinery shall be presumed to be dangerous as are so notified by an inspector to the occupier of a factory."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in line 1, page 4, after "machinery, shall," to insert "unless the contrary is proved," and explained that he made this proposal for the protection of the occupier.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. M. OLDROYD*MR. M. OLDROYD (Dewsbury) moved to leave out from "the," in line 3,

  137
  to "factory," in line 4, and insert "in a factory erected after the commencement of this Act the traversing carriage of any self-acting machine." This Amendment was, he said, not controversial. There was no provision in the clause for the erection of any additional machinery in factories. This clause would apply to woollen and worsted industries among others, and he thought it important that provision should be made for an increment of machinery in existing factories, the construction of which precluded conformity with the regulation in the new clause. He therefore asked the House to make the clause only apply to factories erected after the passing of the present measure. Unless this were done, the clause would inflict considerable hardship upon owners and occupiers of woollen factories. In every change of fashion there was involved a considerable change in the amount of spinning required, or it might be, in other branches of the trade, and the clause, if passed in its present shape, would act as a restriction upon the woollen and worsted industries particularly. He trusted that the House would see the fairness of this Amendment, and would agree to the restriction of the clause to those factories which should be erected after the passing of this Bill.
  MR. R. G. C. MOWBRAYseconded the Amendment, which he considered to be most desirable.
  SIR W. H. HOULDSWORTHsaid, he should like to see this Amendment accepted. In the case of any machine taken out of a factory, the new machine substituted for it was, to a great extent, necessarily a different machine. He thought that the words as they now stood in the clause were undesirable.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that he thought there was a considerable weight of authority in support of this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] In Grand Committee he understood that in the cotton trade no great hardship would be caused by the clause, but, in regard to the woollen and worsted trades, he had since been satisfied that the clause, as it now stood, would prevent the elastic adaptation of existing mills to meet changing requirements. He was, therefore, willing to
  138
  accept the Amendment. This would involve the omission of the proviso. ["Hear, hear!]
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13:—

  EXTENSION OF 41 & 42 VICT., C. 16, S. 82, TO DEATH OR INJURY CAUSED BY NEGLECT OF ACT OR SPECIAL RULES.
  "Section 82 of the principal Act, which provides penal compensation to persons injured by neglect to fence machinery, shall extend to any death or bodily injury, or injury to health, in consequence of the occupier of a factory or workshop having neglected to observe any provision of the Factory Acts or any special rule or requirement made in pursuance of the Act of 1891. Provided that in the case of injury to health, the occupier shall not be liable under this Section unless the injury was caused solely by such neglect."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in Page 6, Line 6, to leave out "solely," and insert "directly."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14:—

  RESTRICTION OF OVERTIME EMPLOYMENT.
  "(1.) A young person shall not be employed overtime in pursuance of Section 53 of the principal Art.
  "(2.) A woman shall not be employed overtime in pursuance of Section 53 of the principal Act for more than three days in any one week, or for more than 30 days in any 12 months, and shall not be employed overtime in pursuance of Section 56 of the principal Act for more than 60 days in any 12 months; and accordingly, in Section 53 the words 'three days' and 'thirty days' shall be substituted for the words 'five days' and 'forty-eight days,' and in Section 56 the words 'sixty days' shall be substituted for the words 'ninety-six days.'
  "(3.) Section 58 of the principal Act shall apply only to male young persons of 14 years of age or upwards, and the powers of the Secretary of State under Section 63 of the principal Act shall extend to making orders as to the total number of hours of employment in each week, the periods of employment, and the intervals between such periods, which are to be conditions of the employment of young persons at night, and to rescinding such orders.
  "(4.) Section 58 of the principal Act shall not authorise in any factory specified in Part 6 of the Third Schedule to the principal Act, the employment during the night of young persons in any process other than a process incidental to the business of the factory as described in Part 1 of the Fourth Schedule to that Act.
  "(5.) Section 60 of the principal Act shall apply only to male young persons of 14 years of age and upwards, and nothing in that section shall be construed as authorising the employment of any person on Sunday.
  "(6.) For paragraph (4) of the said Section 60, shall be substituted the following Subsection:—
  "'(4.) Such young person shall not be employed continuously for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal.'
  '(7.) Nothing in the Factory Acts shall be construed as authorising work during overtime on Saturday, or on any day substituted for Saturday as a half holiday, but work in accordance with Section 50 of the principal Act shall not be deemed work during overtime."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in page 6, line 20 after "shall" to insert "from and after the 1st day of January 1897." He thought that this met the point raised as to the employment of young people.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in the same clause, to insert after Subsection 4 the following:—
  "(5.) A young person shall not, in pursuance of Section 59 of the principal Act, be employed more than 12 hours continuously."
  This Amendment also, he said, was in conformity with a promise given in Committee not to employ young persons beyond a certain number of hours. He hoped the House would agree to it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in the same clause, page 6, line 33 after "shall" to insert "from and after the 1st January, 1897."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16:—

  RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYMENT INSIDE AND OUTSIDE FACTORY OR WORKSHOP ON THE SAME DAY.
  "(1.) A child shall not, except during the period of employment, be employed in the business of a factory or workshop outside the factory or workshop on any day during which the child is employed in the factory or workshop.
  "(2.) A young person or woman shall not, except during the period of employment, be employed in the business of a factory or workshop outside the factory or workshop on any day
  140
  during which the young person or woman is employed in the factory or workshop both before and after the dinner hour.
  "(3.) For the purposes of this section a child, young person, or woman to or for whom any work is given out, or who is allowed to take out any work to be done by him or her outside a factory or workshop, shall be deemed to be employed outside the factory or workshop on the day on which the work is so given or taken out.
  "(4.) If a young person or woman is employed by the same employer on the same day both in a factory or workshop and in a chop, the whole period of employment of that young person or woman shall not exceed the number of hours permitted by the Factory Acts for his or her employment in the factory or workshop.
  "(5.) The principal Act shall apply as if any child, young person, or woman employed in contravention of this section were employed in a factory or workshop contrary to the provisions of that Act."
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.) moved in page 7, line 22, to add the following:—
  "(6.) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the customs or exigencies of the trade carried on in any class of non-textile factories or workshops, or parts thereof, either generally or situate in any particular locality, require that such trade should be exempted from the operation of this section, he may by order grant to such class of factories or workshops, of parts thereof, such special exemption as may be necessary."
  The object of the subsection, which he hoped would be agreed to, as it was in no way contentious, was to meet a felt want in the linen workers' trade in Ulster. If this Bill passed in its present form the 16th clause would interfere prejudicially with the wage-earning powers of a very considerable class in that part of Ireland with which he was connected. The class to which he referred was one of the most law-abiding sections of the population there. He had no doubt if the Amendment which he proposed were adopted it would prove very beneficial to a large wage-earning class—a class which, in fact, received in wages,£ 200,000 a year. He was anxious that nothing in this Bill should tend to destroy or interfere with this industry, and therefore he moved to add this subsection.
  SIR E. HARLANDseconded the Amendment.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,)suggested that the Amendment was too restrictive.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, he was about to make that remark, for as it stood the Amendment would be absolutely inoperative. He suggested that the Amendment should be amended by leaving out "non-textile."
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, he was not going into the point raised, but he was very much afraid of the word "customs." There were cases where the word covered a good deal, particularly in the case of female workers in the printing trade, where the women were employed at night, after printing all day, to wheel to other places, and there to fold, the stuff printed by them.
  Amendment, with the words "non-textile," struck out, agreed to.
  Clause 18:—

  NOTICES OF ACCIDENTS.
  "For section thirty-one of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted—namely:

  (1.) Where there occurs in a factory or workshop any accident which either—

  (a) causes loss of life to a person employed in the factory or in the workshop: or

  (b) causes to any person employed in the factory or workshop such bodily injury as to prevent him on any one of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident from being employed for five hours on his ordinary work,

  written notice shall forthwith be sent to the Inspector for the district.

  (2.) If the accident causes loss of life, or is produced either by machinery moved by steam, water, or other mechanical power, or through a vat, pan, or other structure filled with hot liquid or molten metal or other substance, or by explosion or escape of gas, steam, or metal, then, unless notice thereof is required by section sixty-three of the Explosives Act, 1875, to be sent to a Government Inspector, notice thereof shall forthwith be sent to the certifying surgeon of the district.

  (3.) The notice shall state the residence of the person killed or injured, and the place to which he has been removed.

  (4.) If any notice required by this section to be sent with respect to an accident in a factory or workshop is not so sent, the occupier of the factory or workshop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

  (5.) If any accident to which this section applies occurs to a person employed in an iron mill or blast furnace, or other factory or workshop, where the occupier is not the actual employer of the person killed or injured, the actual employer shall immediately report the same to the occupier, and in default shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

  142

  (6.) This section shall apply to workshops conducted on the system of not employing any child, young person, or woman therein."

  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved to leave out on page 8, line 37 "apply" and to insert "extend."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21.

  POWER TO DIRECT FORMAL INVESTIGATION.
  "(1.) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a formal investigation of any accident occurring in a factory or workshop and its causes and circumstances is expedient, the Secretary of State may direct that such an investigation be held, and with respect to any such investigation the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, shall have effect, except that references to the said Act in the said Section 45 shall be construed as references to the Factory Acts.
  (2.) This section shall apply to workshops conducted on the system of not employing any child, young person, or woman therein."
  MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON MR. W. E. M. TOMLINSON (Preston) moved in line 24, after the word "the" to insert "following," his object being to quote the sections of the Coal Mines Regulations Act with regard to the power of directing formal investigation instead of by reference to the Act and chapter.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that this clause, in the form in which it now stood, was an illustration of the modern system of drafting by reference, imposed on the draughtsmen by the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure and the shortness of Parliamentary time. Every party in the State was guilty of the same offence, and they must all bear the blame. Until, therefore, the time of the House was increased, they must go on making these references to legislation. He acknowledged that the system was an inconvenient one as a whole, and, personally, he should be glad to see some Amendment incorporated in the Bill. He trusted that whoever was responsible for the conduct of Parliamentary business in the future would make some attempt to consolidate those Acts, and, as a part of that consolidation it would be desirable to make the change suggested.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause 18.

  NOTICES OF ACCIDENTS.
  "For Section thirty-one of the principal Act the following section shall be substituted, namely,—

  (1.) Where there occurs in a factory or workshop any accident which either—

  (a) causes loss of life to a person employed in the factory or in the workshop; or

  (b) causes to any person employed in the factory or workshop such bodily injury as to prevent him on any one of the three working days next after the occurrence of the accident from being employed for five hours on his ordinary work,

  written notice shall forthwith be sent to the inspector for the district.

  (2.) If the accident causes loss of life, or is produced either by machinery moved by steam, water, or other mechanical power, or through a vat, pan, or other structure filled with hot liquid or molten metal or other substance, or by explosion or escape of gas, steam, or metal, then, unless notice thereof is required by section sixty-three of the Explosives Act, 1875, to be sent to a Government inspector, notice thereof shall forthwith be sent to the certifying surgeon of the district.

  (3.) The notice shall state the residence of the person killed or injured, and the place to which he has been removed.

  (4.) If any notice required by this section to be sent with respect to an accident in a factory or workshop is not so sent, the occupier of the factory or workshop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

  (5.) If any accident to which this section applies occurs to a person employed in an iron mill or blast furnace, or other factory or workshop, where the occupier is not the actual employer of the person killed or injured, the actual employer shall immediately report the same to the occupier, and in default shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

  (6.) This section shall apply to workshops conducted on the system of not employing any child, young person, or woman therein."

  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved an Amendment providing that the section should "extend" (instead of "apply") to workshops conducted on the system of not employing any children, young persons or women therein.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley) moved an Amendment raising the number of persons engaged from the outside to assist in domestic laundries from two to four. He contended that as the Bill
  144
  now stood the clause would inflict great hardship on many thousands of poor persons who were obtaining their living by taking in washing and who carried on their work with the aid of their families and a little outside assistance. If these poor persons were to receive the aid of assistants, no matter for how short a time, they would come under the provisions of the Bill. Widows, for example, had to rely largely on ouside aid; married daughters, and daughters-in-law came in to assist for a short time in the course of the week, and very often these poor widows had to employ some one to take home and deliver the washing. They had often to employ a man to turn the mangle, perhaps only for an hour or two a week; but the cases were not rare when such persons had to employ at some time or other in the course of the week more assistance than could be given by two persons. In Committee he had moved an Amendment to substitute six instead of two; but as the number two was carried he had no subsequent opportunity to move the substitution of "four," though it was his intention to have done so. He had reason to think, from the feeling expressed by the Committee, that they would have accepted "four" if there had been an opportunity to consider it. He trusted that the late Home Secretary would see his way to accept the Amendment. Many thousands of poor people would be interfered with and harrassed by this legislation, while he feared that if the Bill passed in its present form it would be to the interest of the large steam laundries to shut up as many of the small industries as possible, because if the poor people transgressed the law by employing more than two outside persons they would be informed against.
  MR. B. COHENalso appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. For the first time laundries were being brought under the operation of this legislation, and it would only be just and merciful to treat them somewhat liberally, and not to enforce the extreme limits which it might otherwise be found necessary to enact. The object in factory legislation ought to be to abolish scandal, and not to make factory legislation oppressive

  145
  to an industry like this, especially an industry engaged in by persons in humble circumstances.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, that, looking to the peculiar circumstances in which the Bill appeared before the House, he thought that the appeal just made was inconsistent and very unreasonable. The object of the clause originally drafted was the protection of domestic industries, and the numbers engaged in them were to be confined to one family. The question as between two and six was discussed in the Committee, and two was carried. Who was to be included in the family—the uncle, the cousin, or the aunt? They had not stated this in the Bill. Generally speaking, the kind of people who took in washing—and he ought to know something about the subject, because his mother had been a washerwoman—consisted generally of a mother, two or three daughters, sometimes two or three sons—in all from five to seven or eight persons. This Bill would enable them to have two outsiders to help; and he contended that a domestic industry, however small, with from seven to ten persons engaged in it, ought to be subject to sanitary and factory laws. The Committee decided against the right hon. Member's proposal to increase two to six by a large majority, and then the right hon. Gentleman had not the Parliamentary courage to propose four instead of two. There was an understanding that all contentious Amendments should be thrown over, and he hoped this Amendment would be rejected.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that he must acknowledge that the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division spoke with peculiar authority on this subject, and, if any reliance could be placed on what was in the newspapers, he could congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he would soon be able to bring his practical knowledge to the working of this Act. But he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment. In the Bill as originally drawn only domestic laundries—those which were worked by members of the same family living under the same roof—were excepted from the Bill. A long and admirable discussion
  146
  in Committee made him realise the reasonableness of the contention that laundries which could practically be treated as domestic laundries ought not to be excluded from the exemption because they now and then employed outside help. The question of degree was no doubt difficult to determine, but the general opinion of the Committee was that two outside workers would be sufficient to limit the exemption. As had been pointed out in Committee, the outside workers need not be the same persons. Different persons might be employed on every day of the week, provided that not more than two were employed at any one time. If experience showed that this limitation was too severe and inelastic it could be altered later. But for the present he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be content with the arrangement arrived at in Committee.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINpressed his right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. The arrangement which had been arrived at was in the nature of a compromise, and, although it did not satisfy him any more than his right hon. Friend, under the circumstances he thought the House was bound to accept it. But he must enter a gentle protest against the language of the hon. Member for Battersea, which was not very courteous to the right hon. Member for Bordesley, and which was not very necessary. The hon. Member had accused his right hon. Friend of want of Parliamentary courage because he did not propose an Amendment which would have been altogether out of order; and then the hon. Member sneered at the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with a class of people whose interests the right hon. Gentleman had always undertaken to defend, and with conspicuous success and sincerity. The decision of the Committee on this point was to be regretted, because it would throw great responsibility on the Home Office; and it would lead either to a considerable evasion of the law or to the appointment of a large additional staff of inspectors to look after these really domestic laundries. This limitation had been pressed in the interests of the large laundries, which were really to be classed among the large manufacturing industries,

  147
  and which were everywhere tending to supplant the small domestic industries.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22:—

  SPECIAL RULES AND REQUIREMENTS. APPLICATION OF FACTORY ACTS TO LAUNDRIES.
  "(1.) In any laundry carried on by way of trade, or for purpose of gain, the following provisions shall apply:—

  (i.) The period of employment, exclusive of meal hours and absence from work, shall not exceed—for children, ten hours, for young persons, twelve hours, for women, fourteen hours, in any consecutive twenty-four hours; nor a total for children of thirty hours, for young persons and women of sixty hours, in any one week, in addition to such overtime as may be allowed in the case of women.

  (ii.) A child or young person or woman shall not be employed continuously for more than five hours without an interval of at least half an hour for a meal.

  (iii.) Children, young persons, and women employed in laundries shall have allowed to them the same holidays as are allowed to children, young persons, and women employed in a factory or workshop under the Factories and Workshops Acts, 1878 to 1895.

  (iv.) So far as regards sanitary provisions, safety, accidents, the affixing of notices and abstracts, and the matters to be specified in such notices (so far as they apply to laundries), notice of occupation of a factory or workshop, powers of inspectors, fines, and legal proceedings for any failure to comply with the provisions of this section, and education of children, the Factory Acts shall have effect as if every laundry in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used in aid of the laundry process were a factory, and every other laundry were a workshop; and as if every occupier of a laundry were the occupier of a factory or of a workshop.

  (v.) The notice to be affixed in each laundry shall specify the period of employment and the times for meals, but the period and times so specified may be varied before the beginning of employment on any day.

  (vi.) Sections seventeen and eighteen of the Act of 1891 shall apply to laundries in like manner as to factories or workshops.

  (2.) In the case of every laundry worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power—

  (a) a fan or other means of a proper construction shall be provided, maintained, and used for regulating the temperature in every ironing-room, and for carrying
  148
  away the steam in every washhouse in the laundry; and

  (b) all stoves for heating irons shall be sufficiently separated from any ironing-room, and gas irons emitting any noxious fumes shall not be used; and

  (c) the floors shall be kept in good condition and drained in such manner as will allow the water to flow off freely.

  A laundry in which these provisions are contravened shall be deemed to be a factory not kept in conformity with the principal Act.
  (3.) Nothing in this section shall apply to any laundry in which the only persons employed are—

  (a) inmates of any prison, reformatory, or industrial school, or other institution for the time being subject to inspection under any Act other than the Factory Acts; or

  (b) inmates of an institution conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes; or

  (c) members of the same family dwelling there, or in which not more than two persons dwelling elsewhere are employed.

  (5.) The exception created by section fifty-three of the principal Act with respect to overtime shall apply to laundries."
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved to omit Subsection 4 in order to insert the following words:—
  "(4) Women employed in laundries may work overtime, subject to the following conditions—(a) No woman shall work more than 14 hours in any day; (b) the overtime worked shall not exceed two hours in any day; (c) overtime shall not be worked on more than three days in any week or than 30 days in any year; (d) the requirements of Section 66 of the principal Act and of Section 14 of the Act of 1891 with respect to notices shall be observed."
  He said that he moved the Amendment because there were no fixed hours for the beginning and for the ending of the work in laundries; and therefore special provisions were more applicable to the case.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 23:—

  EXTENSION TO DOCKS, &c., OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF FACTORY ACTS.
  "The following provisions—namely:

  (i.) Section eighty-two of the principal Act;

  (ii.) The provisions of the Factory Acts with respect to accidents;

  (iii.) Section sixty-eight of the principal Act with respect to the power of inspectors;

  149

  (iv.) Sections eight to twelve of the Act of 1891 with respect to special rules for dangerous employment; and

  (v.) The provisions of this Act with respect to the power to make orders as to dangerous machines shall have effect as if—

  (a) every dock, wharf, quay, and warehouse, and, so far as relates to the process of loading or unloading, every vessel which is lying alongside of a wharf or quay; and

  (b) any premises on which machinery worked by steam, water, or other mechanical power, is temporarily used for the purpose of the construction of a building or any structural work in connection with a building,

  were included in the word factory, and the purpose for which the machinery is used were a manufacturing process, and as if the person who by himself, his agents, or workmen temporarily uses any such machinery for the before-mentioned purpose were the occupier of the said premises; and for the purpose of the enforcement of those sections the person having the actual use or occupation of a dock, wharf, quay, or warehouse, or of any premises within the same or forming part thereof, and the master of a vessel, and the person so using any such machinery, shall be deemed to be the occupier of a factory.

  The provisions of this Act with respect to notice of accidents and the formal investigation of accidents shall have effect as if—

  (a) any building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and which is being constructed or repaired by means of a scaffolding; and

  (b) any building which exceeds thirty feet in height, and in which more than twenty persons not being domestic servants, are employed for wages;

  were included in the word 'factory,' and as if, in the first case, the employer of the persons engaged in such construction or repair, and, in the second case, the occupier of the building, were the occupier of a factory."
  MR. A. B. FORWOOD MR. A. B. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk) moved to omit the words which applied the provisions of the Bill with respect to the power to make orders as to dangerous machines, "to the process of loading or unloading every vessel which is lying alongside a wharf or quay." He said that it would be admitted that the shipowners, on whose behalf he spoke, were as anxious for the protection of the life and limb of the men in their employment as any other class of employers. Moreover, there was no industry in the country which was so hedged round with inspection as the shipping industry; and there were special circumstances in connection with
  150
  the introduction and passing of this Bill through Committee which demanded the attention of the House. When the Bill was introduced and when it came for Second Reading not a word was said of any proposal to include ships. It was impossible to deal with shipping by the same clauses which applied to employment on shore. The capital invested in the shipping industry was probably unequalled by that in any other, and it was an investment which more than any other tended to promote the wealth and prestige of the country. Therefore, the shipping interest claimed some consideration at the hands of the House. No mention was made of shipping on the Second Reading Debate, and as the Bill was referred to a Grand Committee the House as a whole had had no opportunity of considering this clause affecting shipping. In appointing the Members of the Grand Committee the Committee of Selection, no doubt, had regard to the character of the Bill, and there was only one Member who could be regarded as a practical shipowner. Further, it was impossible for those who did not attend the Committee to know what arguments were used in favour of this clause. It was now proposed to regard a ship as in the same position as a factory or work-ship. But the fact was not to be forgotten that from the day when a ship was proposed to be laid down to the day when the ship made its first trip the owner was under the survey of Government authority. The engines could not be designed nor the boilers constructed until all the plans and particulars had been laid before the Board of Trade; a crew could not be engaged except in the presence of a Board of Trade official; and the provisions must be approved by a Board of Trade surveyor. The Bill now proposed to add another army of inspectors to that of the Board of Trade. The Home Office Inspector, who was accustomed to textile factories and ironworks, was now to be empowered to visit the ship, and, perhaps, to alter the very things which had been approved by the surveyor of the Board of Trade. [Cheers.] The Bill suggested the conundrum, "When is a ship not a ship?" The answer was, "When she is alongside the wharf;" but the truth was, there was much more danger attending the loading

  151
  or unloading of a ship when she was lying in midstream than when she was lying alongside the wharf. He defied any practical man to explain the meaning of the words—
  "and, so far as relates to the process of loading or unloading, every vessel which is lying alongside of a wharf or quay."
  What was meant by the process of loading and unloading? Did the words mean the suspension of the goods in the air, or the lowering of them into the ship's hold, or did they mean the process of stowing the cargo away in the hold? Did the words mean that the surveyor was to go on board, examine the donkey boiler, the steam winch, the hatches, and order, if he chose, alterations, although the ship had been built under the control and subject to the survey of the Board of Trade? He feared the words he had quoted would lead to trouble and probably to litigation, because they were unintelligible. There were something like 10,000,000 tons of shipping in this country. That shipping had been constructed according to rules and regulations approved by the Board of Trade. Were the owners of that shipping to be condemned to make such alterations as some chance or £150-a-year-Home-Office Inspector chose to order when he went down to the dockside? It was strictly unfair that a Grand Committee should be allowed to extend the Bill in the way in question, without the shipping industry having a single opportunity of putting their case either to the Committee or to the House.
  SIR E. HARLANDhad much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. It was most unfair that shipping, the case of which was not mentioned in the Second Reading Debate, should have been introduced in the Bill in Grand Committee. It was very probable that many of the ordinary factory or workshop inspectors would lose their lives whilst inspecting ships already passed by the Board of Trade surveyors. Take the simple case of the ladders into the hold. He doubted very much whether one factory surveyor in 10 would venture to go down those ladders, yet such ladders were peculiarly suited to ships. Take the case of winches or other appliances for loading and unloading the cargo. They were all suitable for ships,
  152
  and yet it was conceivable that an in spector might object to them on the ground that they were not protected from the weather. It looked as though ships would be inspected out of existence.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONthought the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken were needlessly alarmed in regard to this proposal. They seemed to think the desire was to bring the whole shipping industry under the Factory Act. That was by no means the case. The proposal which had been inserted in the Bill was really one which was consequential on the acceptance of a previous portion of the clause affecting docks. He trusted sincerely that the House would not reverse the decision of the Committee, because the Committee attached great importance to the clause as involving the interest of a very considerable number of men who were engaged in a somewhat perilous industry. But the matter was not of such great scope as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orms-kirk had endeavoured to make out, because, if the House agreed to the inclusion of docks and quays in the operation of the Factory Acts as regarded accidents and other matters, the operation of loading and unloading was clearly intended to be included in the other operations. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by the particular operations which were being brought under the operations of the Factory Acts by means of this clause. They were not now dealing with the question of ships, because they had specifically excluded the inspection of ships by Home Office inspectors.
  MR. FORWOOD: Is it stated in the Bill that ships are not to be inspected by Home Office inspectors?
  MR. BUXTONsaid, the only way in which the authority of the Home Office came in was in connection with loading and unloading. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that the object of the clause was to protect the dock labourer; it was not to interfere with the operations and machinery of the ship itself. The clause did not extend to the ship as a whole, but merely to those particular operations in respect to which the ship really formed, for the time being, part of the land.

  153
  The portion of the clause relating to docks and quays could not be carried out if the jurisdiction of the Home Office ceased at the edge of the quay. When the same machinery and gear were used simultaneously on a ship it should be brought under the operation of the Factory Act. In their opinion, even if the words were omitted, that would be still so. But, at the same time, they desired that the matter should be made clear and that the words should remain in the Bill. Let him point out to the hon. Gentleman that certain portions of the principal Act intended to apply to docks had been excluded. The advantage of this, especially in regard to loading and unloading, would be that greater elasticity would be given to the clause and to the Home Secretary in drawing up rules for the protection of the dock labourers and stevedores. He himself hoped the Committee would not refuse the benefit of the dock clause by rejecting the words proposed, but would see that what was proposed was only the logical conclusion of the acceptance of the dock clause. Further, under Clause 8 of the principal Act applied to docks there would be ample opportunity for the Secretary of State so to frame his rules that they would not harshly affect the shipping interest itself.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made the matter worse, because he told the Committee that not only were the regulations imposed by the Bill liable to be imposed on vessels in dock, but also any new regulations which the Secretary of State might make. He would point out, not as a shipbuilder or owner, but as representing a constituency which consisted largely of docks, that the Committee was dealing with a subject which they were told and believed would be specifically excluded from the Bill. The hon. Member who had just spoken had shown that no proper discussion took place in
  154
  Committee on the subject. ["Hear, hear," and "No, no."] Had he known that vessels would be included, he should have objected to the Second Beading. All matters which referred to shipping, and especially Governmental regulations with regard to it, should be contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, and not this Act. As showing that the matter was not sufficiently discussed in Committee, although the hon. Gentleman said he could not draw a line as to loading and unloading, yet in this Bill the Government drew a line between loading and unloading when a vessel was attached to a quay and not to a buoy. Loading and unloading were not the only two processes in which life and limb should be protected. To his mind the question was too large to be placed by a side wind in an Act which dealt with factories and workshops and not with ships. The matter was not properly discussed in Committee, because the Committee was not constituted to discuss ships, and had not sufficient technical experience or knowledge to discuss shipping matters competently. He hoped his right hon. Friend would adhere to his Amendment, if only as a protest against the introduction of ships into an Act which dealt with factories and workshops.
  MR. JOHN BURNSchallenged the statement of the last speaker that the subject did not receive adequate discussion in the Grand Committee. There were shipowners and men with technical knowledge of shipping on the Committee. The hon. Members for Sunderland and Middlesbrough were as much connected with shipping as the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that as far as accidents at sea or in harbour were concerned they should be dealt with by the Merchant Shipping Act, but in the case of distinctly industrial accidents occurring in loading and unloading it was better to give the Home Office the power over a ship alongside which it exercised in nine-tenths of the operations on the quay,

  155
  in the warehouses, and about the docks. The hon. Member who spoke last said Home Office Inspectors would imperil their lives by inspecting ships, and they were not fitted for the work. If this statement were true, it implied that the conditions under which the men worked on ships were dangerous, and they ought not to be made more dangerous by exempting cranes, winches, and ordinary gear from inspection on board ship which they would be subjected to at the quay. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Amendment would stick to the Bill, and he appealed to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who had taken, on the whole, a sympathetic interest in the protection of life on board ship and given specific consideration to this branch of industrial accidents, to bring the docker and stevedore engaged in loading and unloading within the protection of the law. If the Amendment was carried, one of the most valuable provisions of the Factory Act would be sacrificed in a way he did not think it should be after an honourable understanding had been made on both sides that a non-contentious clause should be introduced.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member who has just spoken for his tribute to the interest I have always taken in all those who go down to the sea in ships, and I am perfectly willing to extend that sympathy to the dockers, stevedores, and the class of workers in whom he himself takes so much interest. I cannot help thinking, however, that he a little exaggerates the magnitude of the question with which we have to deal, and he spoke of the proposal as though it was a sort of new gospel for this sort of working people. I do not think that is the case, and I do not think it will have so great an effect as he seems to imagine. The proposed Amendment stands in a totally different position from those we have hitherto considered, and we must bear in mind the circumstances under which this
  156
  provision was introduced. It did not appear in the original Bill. The hon. Member for Poplar said the promoters of the Bill were under the impression that what they were aiming at would be included in the word "dock"; but it was perfectly certain from what happened that it did not appear to be included in the view of those who had the fixing of the Grand Committee. There were 15 Members of the House to be added to the Committee as originally constituted to represent the interests involved; and there could be no doubt whatever that, if there had been the slightest idea that the great shipping interest was going to be included in the provisions of the Bill, a very much larger represention of that interest would have been placed upon the Committee. Although the name of one representative of that interest had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea, it was certain that the representation of the shipping interest was altogether inadequate to enable the Committee to estimate fully what the effect of this new interference might be with that great industry. The hon. Member for Poplar said that this proposal dealt only with loading and unloading; but if that was the case the Bill was drawn very badly for its purpose. This was one of the consequences of attempting hastily to deal with a matter of such extraordinary complexity. Let him point out what possibilities there were under the clause as it stood so far as regarded docks, wharves, quays, warehouses and buildings. Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act provided that an inspector might enter, inspect and examine, at any reasonable time, by day and night, any factory or workshop or any part thereof, where he had reason to believe that any person was employed in contravention of the Act; he might take with him a constable; he might require the production of certificates of ages; he might make any inspection necessary to ascertain whether the

  157
  enactments relating to the public health wore complied with; and he might, either alone or in the presence of any other person examine every person employed there. It was certain the late, Home Secretary did nut mean that all these minute provisions should be applied to ships merely in order to protect persons employed in loading and unloading. If that alone were the object it might be accomplished by some other and simpler provision directed to that particular object. He admitted that good cause had been shown for securing adequate protection for the whole process of loading and unloading instead of for part of it only; but he was convinced that this clause did not provide the proper way of doing it. Perhaps it might be done by some Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act; but, if it was to be done in connection with the Factory Act, it ought not to be done in this extremely harrassing way, which it was evident was strongly opposed by the shipping interest. It ought to be done by a clause specially directed to the purpose; and, if this would give satisfaction, he was prepared to undertake, on behalf of the Government, if they continued to occupy their present position, that they would look carefully into the matter with the view of finding a way to remove the existing anomaly. As far as he was personally concerned he could not agree to the clause as it stood, because he thought it was defective and would involve needless difficulty.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had used words of promise; he had admitted that it was necessary to inspect ships as regarded loading and unloading, with which the Board of Trade had no power to deal at present. If this was to be put under the Board of Trade, that would create fresh anomaly and difficulty.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not pledge himself; he only spoke of what might be done.
  SIR C. DILKEsaid, that was the whole point; if the matter was not to be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act, and so brought under the Board of Trade, why should they not accept this proposal? He did not believe any of the difficulties suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would arise under the operation, of the original clause, because the application was limited in the Bill by the words "for the purposes of loading and unloading." Nothing would be comprehended but what was included in those words. The hon. Member for Battersea had clearly stated the anomalies that might arise if the Bill were not extended to the processes of loading and unloading. Other illustrations might be taken from accidents that frequently occurred in the lifting of heavy bales of tobacco; a lever would break and a man would be crushed by the falling bale. There was no adequate inspection of the implements used in getting these heavy hogsheads on shore; and the anomaly was that the risk could be, dealt with only on the quay and not on or across the stage that connected it with the vessel. They would only get into further difficulty if they dealt with the matter in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact that it was proposed to deal with the question was known beforehand to a larger extent than hon. Members seemed willing to admit. Many weeks ago, before the matter came on for discussion in Parliament, the Government received a deputation from the Dockers' Union, and there was published a full report of the proceedings, in which it was distinctly stated that the Government were considering a concession in this direction, that they thought the matter was covered by the Bill, and they were considering what words could be introduced to attain the desired object. Therefore the shipping interest must have been fully aware of the proposal it was intended to make. The matter was also fully debated upon in Committee; it

  159
  was divided upon; and the proposal, as it stood, was carried by 29 to 13. Every Liberal Member voted in the majority; but it was by no means a Party majority; because the majority included six eminent Members sitting on the other side of the House. Then, they were now pressing what was supported, after full consideration by a majority of the Committee far exceeding a Party majority.
  SIR E. HILLsaid, the alarm caused by this clause was shared by the whole shipping interest. He had received a communication from the Central Chamber of Shipping urging that a great interest like the shipping interest should not be included sideways in a Bill intended for land purposes. Nobody dreamed that the Bill would apply to shipping, or that a Home Office inspector would be regarded as a proper person to inspect shipping gear. If the matter was to be dealt with by an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, it should be taken up in the interests of sailors as well as dockers, and, if gear, winches and discharging apparatus required further inspection that inspection should apply to a vessel, whether at home or abroad, whether in stream or alongside a quay. Then you would have the greatest amount of protection for the lives of sailors and dockers, whose safety was always a matter of solicitude with shipowners.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, it was desirable that they should, if possible, arrive at a general understanding on this point, which he did not think ought to be a subject of acute controversy, certainly not between the two sides of the House or even between different interests. He took note of two admissions which had been made. The first was that it was an unreasonable thing that, if the process of loading required to be superintended in the interest of the dockers, the supervision should arbitrarily cease at the stage connecting the quay with the vessel, although the same machine necessarily lifted goods both over the vessel and over the quay. To draw an arbitrary line was really to make inspection and supervision nugatory, and to deprive dock labourers of a measure of protection which every section of the House desired to give them.
  160
  On the other hand, the counter admission was made that it was more undesirable to bring ships, qua ships, within the purview of Home Office inspection. The Board of Trade inspection was mainly, if not exclusively, directed to seeing that the equipment of a ship was such as to make her a seaworthy vessel. He quite agreed that it would be undesirable to bring ships, as ships, within the scope of the Factory Act; still, it was desirable that the processes of loading should be subject to Government inspection. Might it not be possible so to modify the language of the sub-section as to remove the apprehensions of gentlemen who represented the shipping interest, and, on the other hand, to carry out the object of giving effective protection to dock labourers? He threw out the suggestion that all that was required might be gained by modifying the sub-section and making it read like this:—
  "Every dock, wharf, quay, and warehouse, and so far as relates to the process of loading or unloading, all the machinery and plant used in that process."
  Thus the machinery and plant actually used in the process would come within the provisions of the Act, but the vessel would be entirely outside it. There would have to be a further consequential Amendment—namely, to omit the words, "and the master of a vessel." He thought that suggestion would meet the objection of his hon. Friend opposite. In that way they would exclude from the clause any mention of a ship, and at the same time give protection to the dock labourer.
  MR. FORWOODwished, by leave of the House, to say one word in acknowledgment of the handsome way in which the late Home Secretary had met this matter. He was at one with the right hon. Gentleman, in holding that proper and secure appliances should be used for the transfer of the cargo from a vessel to the quay or from the quay into the hold of a vessel. He wished to point out the great difficulty of applying the provisions as to the fencing of machinery on board ships. There were certain parts of the machinery on board a ship which it would be impossible to fence.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that in the clause as originally drawn it was sought to apply these provisions, but, in deference to representations made, they were omitted, and power was given to the Secretary of State to make rules as to dangerous machinery.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved to leave out all the words from "unloading" to "quay," and insert "therefrom or thereto, all the machinery and plant used in that process."
  Amendment agreed to, and on the Motion of Mr. ASQUITH, the words, "and the master of a vessel," in the latter part of the clause, were struck out.
  MR. ASQUITH MR. ASQUITH moved, in Clause 29, Subsection 3, which requires written notice of every case of lead, phosphorous or other poisoning or anthrax occurring in a workshop, and provides for the application to such cases of Sections 3 and 32 of the Principal Act and Section 22 of the Act of 1891, to leave out "Sections 31 and 32 of the principal Act and Section 22 of the Act of 1891," and to insert "the provisions of the Factory Acts with respect to accidents."
  MR. ASQUITHalso moved, in that part of Schedule 1, which provides that no grindstone shall be run before any fire-place or in front of another grindstone, to insert "except in pursuance of a special exemption granted by the Secretary of State.'' He said, he moved the Amendment in consequence of a report made to him by the Inspector of Factories in Sheffield, who had pointed out that in certain classes of grindstones this section would not apply.
  MR. J. BURNSasked whether an emery wheel would come within the section. There was a great distinction between grindstones worked with water and emery wheels worked dry.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, that if grindstones included emery wheels, then an emery wheel would prima facie fall within the regulation.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITHfurther moved, in Schedule 3, "to insert Section 31 as well
  162
  as Section 42 of the principal Act as repealed," and again in the same Schedule, ''to insert Subsection 2 of Section 22 of the Act of 1891 as repealed, as well as Subsection 1."
  Amendments agreed to.
  MR. ASQUITHthen said, he hoped it might be in accordance with the general wish of the House that the Third Reading of the Bill should be taken at once.
  MR. H. SETON-KARRsaid, he did not desire to postpone the Dissolution, but he wished to say he gave a most unwilling consent to this Bill. He objected to a Bill of this importance being rushed through the House with such indecent haste. On the last day on which the Committee sat something like 25 clauses of the Bill were passed in as many minutes. He thought the Bill was worthy of a whole Session's work, and it was being passed at a time when the House was demoralised by an impending Dissolution. For these reasons he gave a most unwilling consent to the Bill. He was particularly concerned in the clause dealing with the glass trade. He was quite aware that the late Home Secretary had made some very important concessions, but he would like to say that had the Bill been passed in its original form, he believed the glass trade would have been absolutely ruined. There was one harrassing restriction still remaining in the Bill, and he did not think the House was aware what a harrassing restriction it was. The hon. Member for Battersea and his friends seemed utterly regardless of the fact that their trade was leaving the country. The hon. Member and his friends had endeavoured to endow the Home Office as a kind of arbitrary tribunal with the power of dictating to every manufacturer and shipowner how he should carry on his business. He protested that they were doing a hasty and ill-considered thing in passing this harassing legislation. In the Grand Committee, towards the end of the proceedings, 25 clauses were disposed of in 25 minutes. The responsibility for this measure rested with the late Administration, and he should be careful to explain that to his constituents.
  MR. BURNSdenied that the Chairman of the Grand Committee had allowed the work in Committee to be scamped. He wished to thank the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) for his conduct in the Chair, and to record his admiration of the brilliant manner in which the late Home Secretary had piloted the measure through its different stages.
  Bill read 3° and Passed.

  SUMMARY JURISDICTION (MARRIED WOMEN) BILL.
  As amended (by the Standing Committe) considered; read the third time, and Passed.

  TRUSTS ADMINISTRATION BILL.
  On Motion for Second Reading of this Bill,
  MR. TOMLINSONobserved that officials concerned in the administration of justice had not had sufficient time in which to consider the provisions of the Bill.
  SIR ROBERT REIDsaid, that he was most anxious to see this Bill pass into law. Not being aware, however, that the Government intended to proceed with it that day, he informed an hon. Member who was interested in the measure that it would not be brought on. He regretted having misled the hon. Member.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINobserved that the Leader of the House had said, in mentioning this and certain other Bills, that if any objection were taken to them they would be withdrawn. If, therefore, this Bill were objected to in any way he would withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading.
  SIR R. REIDexplained that he did not object, and suggested that the Order might be deferred until To-morrow.
  Order for the Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (SCOT LAND). [SALARY, &c.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved,—That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the Salary of the Scientific Superintendent and of the personal and travelling expenses of the Members of the Fishery Board, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for the better regulation of Scottish Sea Fisheries.—(Mr. Mellor.)
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read a second time and committed for to-morrow.
  COLONIAL BOUNDARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  LANDS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  In answer to Sir J. CARMICHAEL,
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURYsaid, that the Government would not oppose this Bill if, in Committee, Amendments standing in the name of the late Lord Advocate were accepted. He doubted, however, whether, in the time at their disposal, the Bill could be passed through the remaining stages. In any case, the Bill could not be proceeded with now, as he had undertaken to move the adjournment of the House as soon as the Government Orders of the Day should have been disposed of.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn "—(Mr. Bal-four)—put and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes before Three o' Clock.