Sitting of 1 May 1901

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2).
  Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Londonderry and Kilkenny, and the Rural Districts of Cork, Ros-common, Boyle No. 1, and Mount-mellick No. 1, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Attorney General for Ireland and Mr. Wyndham.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the Urban Districts of Londonderry and Kilkenny, and the Rural Districts of Cork, Roscommon. Boyle No. 1, and Mount-mellick No. 1," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

  LONDON UNITED TRAMWAYS.
  Report [30th April] from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bull, Colonel Warde, and Mr. Goulding.

  LLANDRINDOD WELLS WATER BILL.
  Reported [Parties do not proceed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

  LLANDRINDOD WELLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL WATER BILL.
  MANSFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP H).
  Mr. ELLIOT reported from the Committee on Group H of Private Bills: That, to meet the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Friday, at half-past One of the clock.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Bermondsey, against re-enactment; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL.
  Petition from Hoyland Silkstone, against proposed Customs Export Duty; to lie upon the Table.
  COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Atherton; Hyde, and Pontefract; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  Petition from London, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against, from Salisbury; and Buxton; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Birmingham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Atherton; Cwmteg; Wyndham; Hyde; and Pontefract Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petitions in favour, from Coventry; Wakefield; Clitheroe; Appledore; Birmingham (two); Liverpool; Newcastle-on-Tyne; West Bridgford; J. W. Bradley and others; Salisbury; Pendleton; Wortham; Loughton; Moulton; Gailey (two); Streatham; Westgate; and Bristol; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Hereford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  Petitions in favour, from Ilfracombe; W. E. Perfect and another: Nelson (three); Earlestown; Finsbury; Derby; Ashton-on-Ribble; Motcombe; Huck-nall Torkard; Glasgow; Berrynarbor; Pendleton; and Marylebone; to lie upon the Table.

  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS TO CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; Ayton Castle; Ayton (fourteen); Cawdor; Farr; Mid-Calder; Leith; Inveresk; Yarrow; Galashiels; Dunlop; Kildonan; Falkirk; and Galgety; to lie upon the Table.
  STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BILLS).
  Petition from Bermondsey, against alteration in respect of contents in case of Tramway Bills; to lie upon the Table.
  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  Petition of the Mining Association of Great Britain, against; to lie upon the Table.
  HOUSE OF COMMONS ACCOMMODATION, ETC.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minute, of Evidence of the Select Committe on House of Commons Accommodation, Session, 1894, be referred to the Select Committee on House of Commons Accommodation.—(Mr. Akers Douglas.)
EDUCATION (YOUNG CHILDREN SCHOOL ATTENDANCE) (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. PIRIE: I feel sure that hon. Members who have been placed in the position I now happen to fill, that of moving the Second Reading of an important measure, will sympathise in the feelings of satisfaction I experienced this morning on finding no hostile Amendment on the Order Paper. I take that circumstance as a good omen for the success in all its stages of the measure I am about to lay before the House, and trust instead of an Amendment for the Second Reading to take place this day six months, that on this day eight months the measure may become the law of the land to which it refers. It is not, however, surprising that there should be no such opposition, seeing that the great reason which influenced me, having been fortunate in the ballot, in choosing this measure to bring before the the House was that it is essentially a non-party measure, and one the principle
  324
  of which was admitted by the House two years ago. The battle over the principle with which this Bill deals has been fought in this country, and, thanks to the Act initiated by my hon. friend the Member for South Shields in 1899, the victory won. All that remains now is to allow the principle to be extended to every part of the kingdom.
  The object of the Bill is to increase juvenile training by diminishing juvenile labour, and the only possible source of contention is the method by which such an object should be carried out. The promoters of the Bill approach the question of the method to be adopted with an absolutely open mind, and with not only a willingness but a desire in every way to meet the wishes of the Government. I trust, therefore, that the discussion on the measure may be a short one, and that the consideration of any necessary Amendments may be reserved for Committee. There are two alternative proposals for carrying out the object of the Bill, the first being that of raising the standard for exemption from attendance; and the second, that of raising the age. Both alternatives were purposely inserted. The Bill proposes to raise the standard for partial exemption from school attendance from the third to the fourth, and from the fifth to the sixth for total exemption. As regards the age limit, the Bill proposes that for casual employment—that is, employment other than in factories and workshops—it should be raised from ten to eleven years, and for factory or workshop employment from eleven to twelve years. Since these alternative schemes have been before the country opinion has ripened as to their comparative merits, and I have no hesitation in saying that the more I have studied the question, and the more I have heard the views of educational experts, the more I am in favour of the raising of the age limit. The drawbacks to the system of raising the standard are many. To my mind one of the prinicipal is to be found in the escape from school of the very child whom it is most necessary and imperative to retain, namely, the clever, sharp child who is able to pass the standard at an early age, and who would benefit most by further training. I also recognise fully that by the system

  325
  of standards it is impossible to obtain absolute uniformity of examinations, and besides that there is a very natural tendency amongst examiners to allow boys and girls to escape, so to speak, by the skin of their teeth. The most fatal objection to that system, however, is that it inculcates in the minds of parents an entirely false idea of the value of education, namely, the idea that when a child reaches a certain standard its education is terminated. To my mind, when this is so, education is a failure, for the chief object of all education should be to leave an impress on the mind of its non-finality, or that at least the only termination to it and to self-culture is the grave. The promoters of the Bill are therefore desirous of eliminating from the Bill the alternative of qualification by standards. The age limitation, however, is entirely free from these defects. It must come to all alike, and with absolute certainty. I would like to say that as regards raising the age from ten to eleven years for casual employment, there is a slight drafting error in the Bill in Clause 1. Sub-section 1, which leaves a loophole for boys and girls to escape from the regulations of the Bill between their tenth birthday and the age stated in the Bill, but that can be rectified in Committee, and I trust the House will overlook an error partly due to the complicated and uncodified state of the law. As to the age limit being fixed at eleven years, it is only on account of this being a private Member's Bill that this is proposed in the intention of not asking too much, but if it should be the wish of the House or of the Government to raise the age to twelve years, we should gladly have the utmost readiness to accept such a change. The age of twelve years would be carrying out the Government proposition to a great extent, because in Clause 14 of the Bill introduced in the House of Lords last year by the Secretary for Scotland, twelve is stated emphatically as the age under which no child should be employed. As regards the age for employment in factories or workshops being raised from eleven to twelve years, I cannot imagine there will be any discussion, because that is the age at present before the House in Clause 23 of the Factory
  326
  and Workshops Act (Amendment) Bill introduced recently by the Home Secretary.
  It now remains for me only to prove the necessity of this measure in Scotland. It is true that in the Memorandum of the Bill it is stated that the Bill would assimilate our law to that in England. This is a well-worn argument, and, I am afraid, very often a misplaced one. It is sometimes used as a primary reason for carrying a measure, to the disregard of the object sought to be secured. I would be the last to put it forward as a valid reason for carrying a Bill, for I hold that in Scotland we have our particular idiosyncrasies and characteristics, which require separate and special legislation. But in this case the argument is used for a very different reason. The main influence which obtained support for the Bill of my hon. friend the Member for South Shields was the feeling in the country that Great Britain was pledged to carry out the principle by the agreement entered into at the Berlin Conference in 1890. Scotland is a not unimportant part of Great Britain, and that pledge cannot be considered as fully carried out until this principle is applied to the whole of the country. I would also point to the state of education in foreign countries to show how necessary this Bill is. In France the age limit is twelve years; in Germany and Switzerland it is thirteen; and even countries of the educational standard of Russia and Portugal are ahead of us in this respect. Such a condition of affairs is absolutely alarming. In the present state of keen competition French and German statesmen are not likely to lose an opportunity of national development, and they are prepared to compete with us on every point except that of the employment of child labour. In that matter they leave this country, unhappily for us, without any rival at all. So far from their losing anything by doing so, I believe that the secret of the commercial supremacy of Germany is to be largely found in the fact that among all European nations she was about the first to devote great attention and care to the training of the youth of the nation.
  As regards the interests and needs of Scotland itself, I may say that this Bill has not, perhaps, excited a large amount

  327
  of comment. For that there are several reasons. In the first place, the public mind has this year been very much taken up by the Bill of my hon. friend the Member for Kincardineshire; secondly, the distance of Scotland from the seat of legislation makes it always more difficult to arouse public opinion; and thirdly, perhaps principally, the people of Scotland look with confidence to the result of this Bill coming before the House, and do not imagine that there is any need of public agitation to secure the satisfaction of demands, the justice of which is recognised on all sides. In spite of this, however, not only school boards, but trades councils and town councils have petitioned in favour of the Bill, and it is a most significant fact that the principal support has been secured in towns and places in which the greatest amount of child labour is employed. I might also say that in Scotland there is a special reason for being careful of our children. At the Berlin Conference the Southern States of Europe were exempted from the arrangement with regard to the raising the age, on the ground that the climate is milder and maturity more quickly reached. In Scotland, with our hard winters, it is more than ever necessary that young children should not have to turn out of their beds at, perhaps, half-past five in the morning, the necessity for care being greater than in the milder climate of England.
  The only other point to which I wish to refer is the increase of juvenile labour. As regards the number of children likely to be affected by this Bill, I can give only the number of half-timers, both in casual and factory employment. In 1897 there were no less than 6,500 who would be directly affected by the Bill. That number is gradually diminishing, and in 1900 the number of half-timers had come down to 5,500. But at this rate of decrease it would be practically a whole generation before the system died out, and I am sure the House would wish that it should cease long before that. But the number of half-timers is a very small portion of the actual number affected by the Bill. The larger number would be the children who are still at school, and yet employed in other occupations, and those who, having passed the fifth standard or obtained the merit certificate,
  328
  have left school, although under the legal age of thirteen. The number of these two classes in Scotland is unknown, but some estimate can perhaps be made from the fact that, according to a Return issued to the House, the number of children in England and Wales similarly situated is something like 150,000. The wage-earning capacity of children is such a terrible temptation that it is recognised that nothing short of actual prohibition will deal effectually with the, question. One bad feature is that it is not the needy and destitute parents, but the greedy and dissolute, who are the worst offenders. The evil was so great that public attention was drawn to it in Scotland three years ago by a meeting in Edinburgh of all the larger school boards. That School Board Conference was presided over by the Chairman of the Edinburgh School Board, who said—
  "The truth is, that the use of child labour has increased to an extent which demands serious attention. Except in strong cases of necessity, it should be discontinued, and even prohibited."
  Sir John Cuthbertson, Chairman of the Glasgow School Board, said—
  "I believe that juvenile labour has been very largely augmented of late."
  These statements show significantly the evils which have to be met. This Bill would meet these evils, and also, to a certain extent, remedy the deficiencies in our educational system. That system, at present, may be described as a series of gaps. There is the gap between the day school and the continuation school; there is the gap between the continuation school and the secondary school; and there is the gap between the secondary school and the technical school. By dealing with the first of these gaps the evil will be very greatly minimised. Teachers in the higher subjects acknowledge with dismay the detrimental effect of this system of gaps upon children. They say that when children begin the study of the higher subjects after a gap of a year, they sometimes have to be re-taught the multiplication table, while if there is a gap of two or three years the children frequently lose the power of reading and writing. The reason is that these subjects have been taught before the minds of the children are fully developed, and the impressions made are

  329
  not retained. Modern conditions of life demand the very reverse of the present system. We are living in an age of high pressure. Insanity is increasing; the urban population is increasing; the physical standard of the race is declining. It is, therefore, all the more necessary that we should do all we can to bring up the future generation in such a way as to give them every chance of becoming better and stronger men. I trust that the House and the Government will acquiesce in the Second Reading of this measure, for I believe that if it is passed it will relieve thousands of helpless children, and enable them to grow up in a greater hope of leading lives conducive to virtue and strength. Education should be looked upon as the paramount interest of families and of the State. All great truths are apt to grow trite, but let us never forget our obligation as a nation to regard education as the most important object of society, to be treated without stint and with utmost generosity. I cannot conclude with more striking words on this subject than those of a minister of the Gospel, whose beliefs and writings are as yet more known in the United States than here, unhappily to our disadvantage. I allude to Dr. William Channing, who, writing of his own ministry, says, much as we respect such ministry, "we believe that it even must yield in importance to the office of training the young." I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
  *SIR J. STIRLING-MAXWELL: I rise to second the motion. A Scotch debate, especially on a Wednesday afternoon, is always an inspiring scene, and to you, Sir, after the many hours of frivolous and noisy discussion of English and Irish affairs, the seriousness which distinguishes Scotch debates must be a welcome relief. It would not be necessary to say anything at all upon the Second Reading of this Bill were it not for the fact that some hon. Members, especially, I fear, on this side of the House, who were warmly disposed towards this measure at first, have, under some unaccountable and unfriendly influence, shown signs recently of becoming cold. Hon. Members who are uncertain in their own minds, and therefore inclined to be blown about by every wind of doctrine, have a great
  330
  deal to answer for in lengthening discussions in this House, because it is worth the while of anybody with a mouth to try to blow them back again. However, on this occasion I am inclined to think that the draught of doctrine is likely to be entirely in one direction, and that there is consequently not much to fear from that quarter. This Bill is an extremely-short one. Apart from the clause which limits its extent to Scotland, and that which endows it with a name by which it will never be known, it really consists of one clause, divided into two sub-sections, the second of which contains the kernel of the Bill, namely, the proposal to raise the age of half-timers from eleven years to twelve. It is quite unnecessary to enter into any discussion of the merits of that proposal, because it has received so recently the almost universal assent of the House. For the benefit of those who have weak knees I may say, however, that this proposal, in precisely the same form, was part of a Government measure last year, and met with no opposition, the measure being withdrawn for other reasons. When I turn back to the first sub-section, especially if I compare it with the proposal made with a similar object in the Bill of last year, my satisfaction is not quite so great. But this is a private Member's Bill, and every such Bill, if its promoter has any sincere wish to pass it into law, must be drafted in the simplest possible way, and make the smallest possible amendment of the existing law which will secure the object in view. This Bill is distinctly inferior in two particulars to the measure introduced by the Government last year. The system which this Bill proposes to apply to the exemption of children from school attendance is extremely rigid, and as the conditions become more exacting a rigid system becomes more tiresome, and the want of elasticity is more felt. The Government measure had the double advantage of being at once more rigorous and more elastic than the present proposal, and I say frankly that, though I should be glad to see the law amended by this Bill, I look forward to the Government proposal as the ideal which we may hope to reach hereafter. Another advantage of the Government proposal was that it got rid of the application of standards. I think all those who are promoting this Bill are in sympathy

  331
  with the desire of the Government and of the Education Department, that the use of standards should largely disappear, and they would be very glad to see their object effected without buttressing anew a system which they wish to see swept away. Having said that, there is little more to say. No one must interpret the introduction of this Bill as a criticism upon the conduct of the Scotch Education Department. Nothing is further from our minds. I do not suppose that that Department stands in any need of a testimonial from me, but I know of no public Department which conducts its business better than the Scotch Education Department, or more thoroughly understands the needs of those whom it looks after, or has more entirely gained their confidence. This Bill is introduced in the most friendly spirit to that Department, and we are ready to withdraw the measure at once if the Government will do on their own account that which we are seeking to do. I hope hon. Members will vote for the Bill, and that the Government will give it their support, so that the small, but not unimportant, proposal which it contains may be carried into law.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Pirie.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY, Buteshire): The hon. Member who moved the Second Beading of this Bill desired only a short discussion, and in order as far as possible to assist in the attainment of that desire, I rise at once to give the House the views of the Government in regard to the Bill. The Memorandum attached to the Bill contains four propositions or statements. The first is, on the face of it, an obvious one, namely, that the object of the Bill is—
  "to raise the standard for partial exemption from school attendance from the third to the fourth, and for total exemption from the fifth to the sixth."
  That could scarcely go very far wrong. The second statement is that the Bill—
  "provides that no child may be employed in any casual employment under the age of eleven, instead of ten as at present,"
  and no doubt that correctly expresses the wishes of the framers of the Bill.
  332
  The third statement, again, is no doubt true; but the fourth, that the Bill
  "would assimilate the law in Scotland to that which has been attained in England by Mr. Robson's Act,"
  is absolutely inaccurate. I shall refer to these matters when I come to the Bill in detail, but in the meantime I wish to examine what is the real idea which underlies this attempt at legislation. Here I must say at once that Mr. Bob-son's Act was commonly called "the Half-timers Act." but the half-timer question is really almost no question at all in Scotland. The system has not flourished there, although at one time it prevailed to a certain extent. At the present time it has practically disappeared, so that the half-timer question is not a question in which we in Scotland are really interested.
  But the question in which, I think, we are all interested is the educational question, and the views of educationalists upon this subject were very well brought out by the Conference which has been already referred to. There, undoubtedly, the unanimous testimony of those who are practically engaged in the work of Scotch education was that there was a most deplorable waste of educational opportunity by the fact that children were taken away from school at such an early age, that the impressions made upon their minds became only transitory instead of permanent, and that, therefore, they lost the advantage of the educational system in vogue. It was particularly emphasised that the system of exemption by means of examination takes from school the very children you wish most to benefit, because it is quite evident that a clever child will be able to pass any standard at a comparatively early age. In other words, the child who is most likely to benefit by education if kept at school is the very first to be put outside the educational door. There is another matter. Of course, this question of standards and examinations is a matter which must be taken along with the general policy of the Scotch Education Department, in regard to which I am glad that so generous testimony has been borne by the hon. Baronet the Member for the College Division of Glasgow. Hon. Members are well aware that during

  333
  the last few years it has been the studied policy of the Department to go rather by general efficiency than by individual results as shown in the examination of particular scholars. If, however, you are going to have exemption by means of examination, that examination must be an individual examination, and consequently, to a certain extent, you will come in conflict with the general policy of the Department.
  But there is something else which I think is even more important. I do not know that I have ever heard a word of disapproval in any educational debate in this House within the last few years of a system inaugurated by the Department, namely, that of granting merit certificates. The merit certificate has been looked upon as the goal of that stage of educational life. That merit certificate can be kept effective chiefly for the reason that there is nothing statutory in it, and, therefore, it is not liable to be whittled down in the way in which, according to the ordinary necessities of life, any statutory test is liable to be whittled down. It can be kept up to such a high standard of efficiency as general educational opinion will justify. Now, undoubtedly, if you have any other examination which at all approaches that for the merit certificate, and becomes, so to speak, a competitor with it, you will injure the merit certificate. It is a tendency of human nature that you cannot afford to disregard, that if there are two things which are looked upon in popular opinion as not having very very much difference between them, a great many of the lazier people will be content with the worse of the two. Therefore, one great disadvantage of attempting to deal with this subject by the method merely of raising the standard below which the exemption certificate will not be given, is that by so doing you would be very likely to do a great deal of harm to the merit certificate. But, even although you do raise the standard, you really will effect practically nothing. There would be very little practical difference between scraping through an examination for an exemption certificate, whether that standard was the fifth or the sixth. Accordingly, the view which the Education Department hold very strongly, and which, I
  334
  may say, is entirely borne out by the measured opinion of the Conference to which I have alluded, is that it is far better to deal with this matter by age than by standard. Hon. Members are aware that in the Government Bill of last year, which, unfortunately, there was not time to pass into law, we dealt very drastically with this subject, raising the age below which it would not be lawful for any person to be employed to twelve years, and practically abolishing the labour certificate altogether, and at the same time giving a certain amount of elasticity by granting certain dispensing powers to school boards. That, we think, is the best system in the educational interests of the country, and that is the system which we hope will very shortly become law. No doubt the condition of business in the House this session does not afford any material prospect of our being able to effect that object this year, but it may be taken that the Bill of last year embodies our settled policy, and that that Bill, or, at any rate, the portions of it dealing with this matter (which. I may say in passing, really met with no opposition), will be very shortly re-introduced.
  Having now given my views on that general point, I come to the Bill itself. As the hon. Member says, the subject is a little complicated. I do not want to be hard on the Memorandum, as the hon. Member is neither a draftsman nor a lawyer. But when I see among the names at the back of the Bill that of the distinguished lawyer sitting at the end of the Front Opposition Bench (the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs) I do really wonder at the mistakes which have been made. In order that the House may-understand the bearing this Bill has upon the present law, I think it is well to show exactly how both the English and the Scotch systems stand, because really they do not proceed upon quite the same lines. In regard to the English system, the matter began, so far as I am concerned, with the Elementary Education Act of 1870. By that Act it is made permissible for the school boards to frame bye-laws which shall direct that parents must give their children education between the ages of five and thirteen. These bye-laws must contain provisions for partial and total exemption to be

  335
  attainable upon passing some educational standard which the bye-laws themselves describe. There are two points to be noticed there. In the first place, it is done by the bye-laws of the school boards; and, in the second place, the particular standard is a standard fixed by the bye-law. In other words, the standard as provided by the Act of 1870 is not uniform: it may be one thing in one place, and another thing in another place. The House will notice that the only way, so far as the Education Act is concerned, in which the employment of children is touched is by the necessity for education; that is to say, a parent is compelled by the bye-law to give his child education; his employment is not actually prohibited. Of course the two things, to a certain extent, are incompatible, but the House doubtless sees what I mean. It does not act by direct prohibition. In 1893 the provision was altered by the raising of the age at which a partial or total exemption certificate could be obtained from ten to eleven years. Then, in 1899, by the Act which we call by the name of the hon. Member for South Shields, the Robson Act, the age was raised from eleven to twelve. There is also a provision for what is known as a "dunce's certificate," which is equivalent to what used to be known as a sort of charity remove; that is to say, if you could not get a remove by your own exertions, after being so long in a form you had to be put into the next form. So with the "dunce's certificate"; the scholar need never have passed in anything, but if he has been a certain amount of time in the place, and made so many school attendances, he is given exemption. What I want the House to notice is that Mr. Robson's Act does not touch the Factory Acts at all. The hon. Baronet who seconded the Second Reading said the really crucial part of the Bill was Sub-section 2 of Clause 1, and that it dealt with half-timers. Sub-section 2 does not deal with half-timers at all. It is a direct alteration of the Factory Acts. The sub-section may be right or it may be wrong, but it has no sponsor in Mr. Robson's Act, because Mr. Robson's Act does not deal with that subject at all. When we come to the Committee stage, I should suggest that it is a matter for consideration
  336
  whether, in what is purely an educational Bill, we should deal with what really is purely a factory matter, and whether we should not be content to deal with the educational interests dealt with in Mr. Robson's Act. That is how the matter stands in England.
  Now let us see how the matter stands in Scotland. In Scotland the beginning was the Act of 1872. Probably that Act was affected by the Elementary Education Act of 1870, and it originally went upon the lines of the Act of 1870. It did not prohibit the employment of children, but it placed upon the parent the duty of providing education between the ages of five and thirteen. The only way in which it dealt with the employer was that, under Section 72, any person who took into his employment a child under those ages was to be for the purposes of the Act in loco parentis, and have imposed upon him the same duty of providing education as was imposed upon the natural parent. Then in 1878, by one of the amending Education Acts, that method was departed from, and another principle adopted. By Section 5 of that Act it was provided that no person should, after the passing of the Act, take into his employment any child under the age of ten, or who, being of the age of ten and not more than fourteen, had not obtained a certificate that he could write and read. There seems to me to have been a little drafting slip in this sub-section, and the result of this Bill, if it is passed as it stands, will be somewhat contradictory, for an employer will be able to keep a person between the age of ten and eleven years for the whole time in employment without any restriction, and, after having enjoyed all the freedom of a British workman till eleven years of age, after passing that age that person will find himself under educational restriction again. The Act of 1883, which is the one we are under at the present time, altered partial exemption from mere reading and writing to the passing of Standard III., and it fixed the passing of Standard V. for total exemption. This Bill proposes to raise those standards, and I have already given to the House the reasons why I am entirely against that course; but I am not, on the other hand, against the question of raising the age. As the object of the

  337
  promoter of the Bill is evidently entirely honourable, though the methods by which he carries it out are not entirely effective, I do not think we ought to take up a non possumus attitude towards the Bill. I do not propose to divide against the measure myself, or to advise those behind me to do so. I hope the hon. Member will understand that by taking this attitude I am not making any promise to give the Bill particular facilities, although I can assure him that I shall put no obstacle in the path of the Bill. Under these circumstances, and upon this understanding, I am quite willing that the Bill may be now read a second time.
  SIR ROBERT REID: I feel that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate may have some ground for his criticism in regard to the Memorandum which is prefixed to this Bill. When I was very young I was advised that, whatever else I might deem it advisable to back, the thing I should avoid was backing my friend's Bill. I have now realised the danger of neglecting that advice. At the same time, although the Memorandum has been a fruitful source of merriment to the Lord Advocate, and has provided him with much excellent chaff, I do not think that there is much in it to find fault with. As regards the drafting of the Bill, he has certainly made one criticism which will be duly considered in Committee, and, as far as I have been able to follow him, it seems to me that the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman was well founded. But let me say here that it is the substance, after all, of the Bill in which the House is interested to-day. I think there is a pretty general concurrence of opinion in regard to the main object which the framers of this Bill have at heart, and I think it is the wish of the promoter of this Bill that it shall be assimilated as much as possible to the Government Bill of last year. I am certain that my hon. friend who has introduced this Bill has that wish. That is the purpose we have in view, and if the Second Reading is granted, as I trust it will be, it will be our desire in Committee to assimilate it as much as is practicable to the measure of the Government.
  338
  If this is so, I think the right hon. Gentleman, looking at the substance and not at the details of the Bill, will be disposed upon reflection to give the measure even more benevolent assistance than he has promised. Observe for a moment what the question is. The Lord Advocate has not concealed from the House the fact that this is a matter of real importance, and it is felt by everybody to be a matter greatly affecting Scotland. Last year a Bill was brought in by the Government, and it was by reason of want of time alone that that Bill was abandoned. It was not subjected to any hostile criticism, and the situation that arose last year was that, having a Bill of real importance educationally affecting Scotland, where we all take the deepest interest in education, and where we flatter ourselves that we set an example to other parts of the United Kingdom, we were, from want of time, unable to pass that Bill into law. Now the Lord Advocate tells us again that similar circumstances have arisen, and that there is no time this session to pass the Bill, which he himself is in favour of, and which represents the settled policy of the Government on this important question. There are circumstances which it would be foreign to the particular discussion on this Bill to go into which now arise, and which suggest various reflections with regard to the manner in which Scotch business has been treated, and must necessarily be treated, for some time. I do not intend to dwell upon this point, but I am sure hon. Members will feel that it is somewhat hard that we are not able to get what we want this year from the Government, for exactly the same reason which prevented us getting it last year. I do not want to import into this discussion anything calculated to retard the progress of this Bill, and I do not mean to enter upon the general question. It is the case that there is a considerable part of this Bill which is not controversial. That being so. I wish to make to the right hon. Gentleman a practical suggestion. If he cannot find time this year for the Government Bill to be brought forward. I think the Government ought to give us what assistance they can in carrying this Bill with the necessary Amendments.

  339
  That is the practical suggestion which I make. I am very glad to hear that the Lord Advocate is not going to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, but let him go further in his efforts, and induce the Government to give every facility for carrying this measure into law.
  *MR. TENNANT: I am glad that my learned friend has intervened in this debate. He has stated that there is really not very much upon which the Lord Advocate can found his rather merry strictures with regard to the Memorandum of this Bill. I am perfectly ready to make myself the scapegoat, for I am the person responsible for the Memorandum. I do not think there is much difference between saying the effect of our Bill would be to amend the Factory Acts by raising the age of half-timers and saying the effect of our Bill would be to keep children at school up to a certain age, and so keep them out of the factory. That is the whole difference between this Bill and the Bill of the hon. Member for South Shields, In spite of the statement of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, that the question of half time is not in dispute, I venture to intervene for a very few minutes in this debate in order to lay one or two considerations before the House. I think it is well to consider what are the grounds of the opposition to this class of legislation. Opposition, in some degree, there always is. It is often said that the poverty of the parent is the real reason why you should allow these children to work. Upon this point I would like to quote the opinion, of a gentleman who has had considerable experience of Dundee, which is a most important centre where these children are employed, a gentleman who earned the respect of all classes of the community—I allude to Mr. Wilson, the Inspector of Factories, who was five years at Dundee. The conclusion he came to about this question of poverty was this. He says, speaking of illegal employment of children—
  "Although dire poverty tempts certain parents to assist themselves through the illegal work of their children, the majority of the persons proceeded against are of the worst possible character. The case of the children is indeed
  340
  a pathetic one. They are taught deception from the very outset, get little or no education, are compelled to labour the full factory hours, and their hard-won earnings snatched from their hands as they emerge from the factory gates."
  The parents display inordinate greed, and utter disregard to the child's mental, moral, and physical welfare. We are asked to trust the judgment of parents of this sort, and we are told to listen to their cry of poverty. Then it is often stated that unless you train these children at the factory at an early age you will never teach them to earn their bread. I think my hon. friend will bear me out when I say that at every age at which it has been proposed to raise the age for work, it has been argued that unless they commence work at that particular age they will never learn anything. But do these children really learn a trade which they can follow when they get older? I shall leave this question for a moment, as I want to consider one much wider. I dissent from those who define education as being merely the industrial education of the child. A child should have something wider and broader upon which to found his future life.
  I am aware that there is a school of thought which considers that it is a mistake to educate children generously. They agree with the old gentleman who had bad language written upon his gateposts, and who grumbled that education had done nothing to improve the bad language, the only difference being that now it was correctly spelt. But that is not, I think, the frame of mind of most hon. Members. And those who dissent will probably feel with me that you cannot educate these children unless they are in good health. These Dundee children are employed in jute mills in the spinning and preparing departments. In the spinning department there is undue heat and moisture, and in the carding department there is a great deal of dust which it is difficult to get rid of. Mr. Wilson, to whom I have alluded, has come to the definite conclusion, after taking statistics of their weight and height, that the children employed in these mills are a more diminutive race than are to be found in any part of the country, and they are lower in physique than even the children in Lancashire. Mr. Wilson is a man of moderation, and he

  341
  began by stating that it would be possible, if you combined clean, light, and nice work for these children with kindly and considerate employers and decent workshops or factories, that those conditions might do no harm to the children. But those conditions are almost impossible to find together, and you never do get them, and the result is that the children lose flesh and colour, or put on little weight, and grow very slowly. Then to return to their industrial future. What is the actual prospect? They do not learn a trade which they can practise, when they grow up. They leave the factory at the age of fourteen, fifteen, or sixteen years, and they obtain employment as casual labourers, or they enter the ranks of the unemployed. A little later they marry the women who do the spinning, and become nothing but the professional husbands of the jute and flax spinners. This question, in its intimate association with the high rate of infant mortality, is receiving the attention of the manufacturers themselves, of the medical officer of health of Dundee, and I hope of the Town Council. The number of unemployed men who are living upon their wives has become an absolute bye-word. There is also an inordinate amount of infantile mortality owing to the long hours the women work, during which they neglect their children. They work to this extent largely because their husbands have learned no trade—men who in their youth were half-timers. I say that this is a situation which is full of gravity, and dangerous to the State; more especially to towns like Paisley and Dundee, and particularly to the latter, where there exists an economic condition of things which is so bad as to be almost beyond the dreams of degeneracy. I believe my hon. friend the Member for Dundee will bear me out in that.
  SIR JOHN LENG: No, no.
  *MR. TENNANT: What is the educational position? As far as the law goes we are behind England. The Superintending Inspector of Factories for Scotland, referring to the exclusion of Scot-land from the Bill of the hon. Member
  342
  for South Shields, used these words. He said—
  "This was no doubt an oversight, and will, I assume, be presently rectified, but the wider question of the general propriety of such labour in any form will still remain unanswered even when that is done.
  This question still remains unanswered, and many reforms of this kind remain to be carried out. The Government has done very little, and it is not long since the Vice-President of the Council on Education pointed to a most astonishing condition of child labour throughout the country. I claim for this Bill that it is modest and moderate; that it has been put forward by hon. Members in a moderate manner, and that it is long overdue. It is a measure which is demanded by a large majority of the middle and working classes, and it will remove a stigma under which the nation now rests; any step which Parliament takes to abolish the demoralising tendencies of child labour can only be a national gain.
  *MR. COCHRANE: I observe that the hon. Member who represents Dundee is rather inclined to quarrel with the statement of the hon. Member for Berwickshire as to the condition of things in Dundee. But I prefer to agree with the hon. Member who last addressed the House in regard to this matter. I think there is a great deal both in the social and political situation of Dundee which calls for improvement, and I hope that pari passu both this political and social condition will improve before many years have passed. I desire to congratulate the hon. Member who introduced this Bill, and also my hon. friend who seconded it. My hon. friend described those hon. Members of this House whose names appeared on the back of this Bill as being vacillating creatures blown about by every wind. [An HON. MEMBER: Not creatures. I Vacillating members—I apologise to the House. My name does not appear on the back of the Bill, and that entitles me to claim to be stalwart in its favour. I quite recognise the failings of the Memorandum explanatory of the Bill, and when I saw my right hon. friend the Member for Dumfries standing at the Table in a white sheet

  343
  apologising to the House for having so far misled the House as to the contents of this Bill, I really had a great deal of sympathy for him. But I do not think the particular point raised in regard to the Memorandum is incapable of being remedied. The learned Lord Advocate pointed out a hiatus which appears between the ages of ten and eleven, under which the child would be under no control whatever. That is obviously outside the intention of the promoters of the Bill, and I feel certain that my right hon. friend on the other side of the House will introduce some very simple Amendment to meet this difficulty.
  Now I come to a very misleading description in the Memorandum of the Bill, which says:—
  "This would assimilate the law in Scotland to that which had been attained in England by Mr. Robson's Act."
  I think that is entirely misleading, but it is perhaps a pardonable exaggeration to try and get some little political capital out of Mr. Robson's Act, which was passed with the general consent of both sides of the House, and it seems to be the desire to claim for this Bill some of the credit which justly appertains to Mr. Robson's Act. I think, apart altogether from that attempted connection, that this Bill has merits of its own. It aims at raising the age at which children can be employed, and it provides—
  "that no child may be employed in a factory or workshop under the age of twelve instead of eleven as at present."
  On this side of the House we are bound to support such a proposal as that, because an exactly similar clause appears in a Bill introduced in this House by the Home Secretary which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. That is one of the main provisions in this Bill, and I shall give it my cordial support. The evil of taking these children away from school before their education has had time to develop has been very well pointed out by the hon. Member opposite. The various chairmen of all the most important school boards of Scotland, at their meeting at Edinburgh to discuss this matter, gave their personal experience upon this question, and they told us how these children, some of them with
  344
  the quickest and best of intellects—who passed the highest standard at an early age—were the very children who, having left school for one or two years, their education passed away from them and their minds had become practically a blank; and after two years absence from school they had to pass down as low as Standard III., whereas before they left school they had no difficulty in passing Standards V. or VI. These facts appeal to me very strongly. This Bill may have its imperfections, but I believe it can be made to meet some of these evils. I communicated with all the chairmen of the school boards in the constituency which I represent, and several of their various school boards met and discussed this Bill; and although we have more half-timers in my constituency than I was aware of, all the school boards and large employers of labour who employ half-timers were persuaded that benefits to the children would accrue from raising the age limit, and with one exception they all gave their support to the principle of this Bill. The hon. Member opposite said that the half-time system was due to the greed of the parents, but I take exception to that statement. He said that the great inducement to the half-time system was the wage-earning capacity of the children. He knew that in Scotland parents were very often too ready to give way to the children's wish to leave school at the earliest possible age. The evils of taking young children away from school before their education has had time to have its due effect are very great. I do not feel that any further advocacy of this Bill is required, and I shall give it my support.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Like my hon. friend who has just sat down, I am one of the few Scotch Members whose name is not on the back of this Bill. I am not, therefore, equal to entering upon the controversy which rages over the Memorandum. For my part I never read—or if I read I never pay much attention to—Memorandums, for they have no legislative effect, and they need no more to be regarded than the signboard of a place of refreshment which, in a thirsty moment, one is about to enter. As to making party capital out of this, I could

  345
  not exactly follow the hon. Member opposite in regard to that statement. Those who support this Bill are about equally divided between the two sides of the House, and there is, and has been, no attempt that I am aware of to make party capital out of it. I venture to make an appeal to Scotch Members to fulfil their real function in this House, and that is to be a model and example to all other Members, upon an occasion like this when we are practically agreed. It is not a very profitable thing to take up the time of the House, and to go on discussing a measure which will go to a Standing Committee, where it will be properly considered and amended. Scotch Members, like the Scotch people, are all in favour of education. There is no section of Scotch representation which has any desire to be backward in respect to educational purposes and the advancement of the interests of education. This is a Bill which I am not surprised that the Government should have, in its main purpose, not only acquiesced in but welcomed; and after what the Lord Advocate has said I think we may very well look forward to the prospect of the Bill becoming law. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate will promise us his active assistance to the Bill, but from what he said I have no doubt he will do what he can to be something more than neutral towards this Bill in its future stages. There is perhaps one quarter in which a little further discussion or remonstrance may be expected. My hon. friend behind me, the Member for Berwickshire, whose zeal in these matters we all appreciate, has run amok upon the important city of Dundee. I feel a little indignation within me, because, although I am not a resident in Dundee, I hang upon the outskirts. I do not think my hon. friend the Member for Dundee will sit silent during this attack, upon his neighbours and his constituents, but on the general question I think we should do well to leave the matter as it stands, seeing that we are all practically agreed upon the main purposes of the Act.
  *SIR JOHN LENG: As a loyal follower of the right hon. Gentleman I desire to comply with his request, and I should
  346
  have given a silent vote on this occasion if remarks had not been made with regard to Dundee which really call for a brief reply. I regret that my hon. friend near me has introduced this thorny question of the half-time system. I am prepared to admit that, so far as it goes, and so far as the report of Mr. Wilson, the admirable Inspector of Factories, goes, all that has been said is true; but it is not the whole truth, for while one part of it is exceedingly dark, there are much brighter shades of the question which could be referred to. Upon general educational and national grounds I am a strong supporter of this Bill, although I hold in my hand a great amount of matter which is adverse to this Bill, more especially in regard to its dealings with the half-time system. But this mass of evidence has not convinced me and I lay it aside with great respect. I may mention that the Medical Officer of Dundee, who is an exceedingly intelligent man, while he is strongly in favour of the raising of the half-time age, holds views diametrically opposite, and he would have the half-time system applied to the whole of our youth. On the other hand, the chairman of our parish council is strongly in favour of the Bill. With regard to the half-time system in Dundee, it is gradually declining. We have two of the finest half-time schools in Dundee in the kingdom. They are connected with our largest works, and every condition in them is favourable to the half-time system, and yet the report of the Inspector of Factories shows that, taken as a whole, the half-time system under these circumstances is not in the interest of the general worker. I feel that I could not do less than to this extent vindicate the position of Dundee, but being anxious that this Bill should pass, and pass without delay, in the amended form to which the Lord Advocate has given his general assent, and hoping also that the Lord Advocate will not maintain a merely negative or neutral attitude, but will, with the ability he possesses, give this measure his support, I will say no more beyond stating that I am a strong supporter of this Bill.
  SIR MARK STEWART: The right hon. Gentleman

  347
  opposite had strongly appealed to the House to assent at once to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I shall not occupy more than one or two minutes in what I have got to say. The Lord Advocate has taken to pieces the weak parts of this Bill, and I think he has shown clearly that it is really not carrying out very much. I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill, and I should be very glad to see it passed into law, but there are many things which will require to be considered very carefully. I understand that the mover of this Bill offered to withdraw Sub-section 1 of Clause 1. Of course that will only leave Sub-section 2. I do appeal to the Government to bring in their Bill upon this question as early as possible. It would be far better for this House, and for Scotland as well, if we had the Government Bill promised last year laid upon the Table of the House, and, if the controversial matters have not been cleared up, let it be done at once. I think Scotch Members are united upon that point, and if the Government would only bring in the Bill which was introduced last year, we should get a great deal more than is contained in this Bill. We shall have to consider very carefully what effect the raising of the standards and the raising of the age limit will have upon agriculture. There is a great difficulty now in supplying the labour market, and these are matters which should be thoroughly considered. It the Government brought in their Bill at once, we should be in a far better condition to pass good legislation for Scotland than by merely sending this Bill upstairs to a Grand Committee.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I did not quite gather from the Lord Advocate whether, if the Second Reading is carried, he is prepared to agree that the Bill shall go to the Grand Committee on Law.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAY: I shall not oppose that course being taken.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time.
  MR. PIRIE: I beg to move that the Bill be committed to the Grand Com
  348
  mittee on Law. I am very glcd that it is proposed to send this Bill to the Grand Committee on Law, but I hope the Amendments will be put on the Paper as soon as possible, as it often happens that they are put down very late, and then they cannot be so fully considered.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: I most cordially agree with what has been said by the last speaker, and may I suggest to His Majestys Government that the Lord Advocate's Amendments should be put on the Paper early. My reason for suggesting this is that once the House sees the lines which the Government are prepared to take there is no doubt that the drafting of Amendments by other hon. Members will be unnecessary, and the labours of the Committee will be much lightened.
  Bill committed to the Standing Committee on Law, etc.

  STEAM ENGINES AND BOILERS (PERSONS IN CHARGE) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. JACOBY: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill for many reasons. The first reason is, that it has received a large amount of support in my constituency, and secondly I have confidence that it is a Bill which is in the direction of providing protection from dangers to a large number of the working classes of this country. This Bill is not new to Parliament. In 1895 a similar Bill was carried without a division, and it was referred to a Select Committee, but it was unfortunately lost. That action of referring it to a Select Committee was, however, of advantage to us in drafting the new Bill, because in our new Bill we have carried out the recommendations of that Select Committee. In 1897 this Bill was contested in this House. It was opposed officially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division, and notwithstanding that opposition, the Bill was carried by a majority of 66, but, alas! I am sorry to say that like so many private Members' Bills it was only carried to be thrown into the

  349
  political dust bin. We hope that on this occasion, if we are successful in carrying the Bill, and we get the assent of the House to refer it to a Select Committee the Government will so far assist us, and that it will be no longer a pious opinion of a Wednesday afternoon, but a real and useful measure in the interest of the working classes.
  What is the object of the Bill? The object of the Bill principally is to grant certificates to persons in charge of engines and boilers, but it does not apply generally. It does not apply—
  "to any boiler or engine used exclusively for domestic, agricultural, or farming purposes, or to any boiler or engine used in the service of His Majesty, or to any boiler or engine used by a railway company, or to any boiler or engine used on board a steamship having a certificate from the Board of Trade, or to any road traction engine or steam roller."
  These modifications have been put in the Bill as the result of the deliberations of the 1895 Committee. I am bound to say that I practically regard the Bill as a mining Bill. Of course, the action of the Bill will have more to do with the engines and boilers in connection with mines than in any other industry. The Hill chiefly applies to persons in charge of engines and boilers used for the winding of workmen or minerals at the shafts of mines. The persons in charge must hold certificates, and these are divided into two classes. A person taking charge of any boiler or engine is described in Clause 6—
  "(1) A person taking charge or control of any boiler or engine to which this Act applies, of five horse-power or upwards, or of any engine to which this Act applies, used for winding workmen or minerals up or down the shaft of a mine, must hold a first-class certificate or a special certificate of service under this Act. (2) A person taking charge or control of any other boiler or engine to which this Act applies must be the holder either of such a certificate as aforesaid or of a second-class certificate under this Act."
  An important part of this Bill is that with regard to the winding of men and minerals up and down mining shafts, and although this Bill is largely supported by all classes of labour, as represented at the Trades Union Congress, and although behind the Bill is the National Federation of Enginemen, which consists of over 23,600 members, there is a great fact in connection with the Bill that in every mining constituency there
  350
  is not only a strong desire for this Bill, but pressure is being put upon their representatives to come here and support the measure. We know that it is a matter of great importance to the 750,000 men who work our pits, and also to 580,000 men who work underground, and I would respectfully suggest to the House that in the interest of humanity, if for no other reason, no quibble or foolish obstruction should be indulged in, and that, at any rate, we may have an opportunity of taking the sense of the House upon this simple and important question.
  I would ask the House to follow me on one point, namely, that this Bill introduces no new principle, and that there is undoubted precedent in favour of the measure. In 1862 the House passed a Bill requiring that certificates should be granted to seagoing engineers, and Mr. Milner Gibson, who was in charge of the Bill, said that the engineers having important duties to perform with relation to the safety of the life and property entrusted to their care, it was desirable that there should be some test of qualification. In the course of the debate certain Members of the House thought that there would be some difficulty in securing a supply of sea-going engineers, on account of the certificates, but that was not found to be the case. I venture to say that if this Bill becomes law it will in no way harass mine-owners or others, because there will be no difficulty in finding men who will have to be certificated under the Act, and, on the contrary, it will be a great safeguard to the lives and limbs of workmen. This precedent having been adopted, and the Board of Trade—a Government Department—and Lloyd's having accepted the principle of granting these certificates to sea-going engineers, what is the objection to extending the principle, so that it may apply to land boilers and engines. I know that there are many more practical men in this House who will speak with far greater force on this subject than I can. I have only very briefly introduced the measure, but I consider it an exceedingly important one. My hon. friend the Member for Mid Durham, who takes an active interest in this question, will no doubt speak upon it. I feel that I have only done my duty to my constituency,

  351
  and I feel certain that every Member who votes for the measure will receive the thanks and gratitude of thousands of working men in this country, who go to their work with their lives in their hands. I beg to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Jacoby.)
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid the chief question the House had to consider was whether this Bill would or would not conduce to the additional safety of the men employed in taking charge of engines and boilers. He did not believe the Bill was going in the right direction to promote that object. Happily, at the present time we were living under conditions whereby the dangers arising from the working of engines and boilers were steadily diminishing. He found from the last issued Report in connection with the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts that only seven cases were attributed to ignorance or neglect on the part of the boiler attendants, and the report further stated that the figures for the last ten years seemed to indicate that a steady improvement had taken place. He was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill desired that it should be referred to a Select Committee if it passed the Second Reading. That was analogous to the course taken last year with reference to a Bill dealing in another manner with the possibility of reducing the number of accidents from boilers. The Report of that Committee had not much bearing on the questions raised by this Bill, but the Committee did report that boilers working in and about mines should not be the subject of further legislation, as those boilers fell under the Mines Act, and were already under inspection. The mover of the Second Reading had not made any suggestion that engines and boilers used in factories, workshops, and places of that kind were not properly looked after, or that if certificates were granted to the persons in charge any increase of safety would be obtained. From the Report of the Boiler Explosions Committee it appeared to him that the cause of the diminution of the
  352
  risks of explosions was the gradual discontinuance of old and obsolete forms of boilers. It was from these that explosions were most likely to arise. The Bill before the House was, as had been stated principally a mining Bill, but at present the certificated manager of a mine was, together with the owner and agent, under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, made criminally responsible for the employment of competent persons to take charge of the engines and boilers of the mine, and that was a greater security for safety than would be provided by the proposal in this Bill, which merely contemplated civil responsibility. In fact, there was a danger of a mine manager who now took care to satisfy himself as to the competency of the man he placed in charge of engines and boilers saying, if this Bill passed, that he had done his duty if he employed a man holding a certificate. He therefore submitted that the rules contained in the Coal Mines Regulation Act provided a better system for securing that competent persons should be employed than could be derived under this Bill. Supposing the Bill passed into law, and the certificated attendant was prevented by illness from proceeding to his work, the manager might not be able to find another certificated man to fill the vacancy for the time, although there might be more than one capable man in the employment who did not hold a certificate. The manager in that case would be unable to avail himself of the services of such a capable man, and he might be forced to take another who, although certificated, was not familiar with the particular boilers in use at the place.
  Clause 19 of the Bill which the Home Secretary was bringing forward followed existing legislation in providing for increased safety in connection with boilers in factories and workshops. That clause provided for the periodic inspection of boilers by a competent person, leaving upon the user the responsibility of selecting the inspector. By the Bill before the House the responsibility of providing the examination test of competency was thrown on the Home Secretary, and it was obvious if he made the standard too high there was a danger that there would not be enough men to manage the boilers throughout

  353
  the country, while, on the other hand, if the qualification was too low, what was the use of it? He did not think that much more could be done in the direction of bringing about greater safety than by following on the lines of existing precautions. Every mill and factory with which he was acquainted had some fit person to manage the engines and boilers. Surely it was rather an extraordinary thing for hon. Members to bring forward a Bill without showing first of all that a degree of danger existed which made it desirable to proceed on different lines than those on which they were going now. He regarded as a dangerous feature of the Bill the provisions which brought the Board of Trade into a department of work which at present was wholly under the Home Secretary. In matters affecting the safety of workmen it was better to leave the entire responsibility on one Department, rather than to split it up between two. It would be necessary to move the clause to provide the money for the purpose of enabling the Home Secretary to carry it out, because though Clause 15 provided that the Secretary of State should have the entire management and control of all such examinations, and should have power from time to time to make regulations, with respect to subjects, times, and places, the evidence to be given by applicants of physical ability, experience, and character, and other matters, and there were certain fees to be exacted from applicants, there was nothing to show that these fees would be adequate to meet the cost of the examinations. The objection to the test by examination was that it could only test certain qualifications and not the whole. The actual technical qualifications were necessarily very small. It would not be difficult for a person of ordinary intelligence to acquire the technical knowledge necessary to get a certificate. With regard to the physical qualifications, he did not know what the Home Secretary was to do. Was he to make a man run and jump about the room? No examination could test what was most essential for this kind of work—steadiness, presence of mind, and all those things which were so conspicuous in the British working man. Safety, so far as mines were concerned,
  354
  would arise from insisting on the carrying out of the regulations of the Home Office under the Mines Act. The scheme of second class certificates he regarded as wholly illusory and absurd. There could be no value in certificates granted by the Home Secretary on the recommendation of persons whom he did not know. He moved that the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: I rise to second the motion for the rejection of this Bill, on the ground that I do not think such legislation is required. In Clause 4 there are a very great number of exemptions. It states—
  "This Act does not apply to any boiler or engine used exclusively for domestic, agricultural, or fanning purposes."
  Now, with regard to boilers used in farming operations, this Bill should apply to them more than to any other class of boilers, because we know that agricultural labourers who have not been properly trained are frequently put in charge of these boilers, and their employers know as little about boilers as they do themselves. It is in connection with such boilers that accidents occur. This Bill has been before Parliament for many years, and it has been only by making these exemptions that it has received the support it has. Further, "any boiler or engine used by a railway company" is exempted, though I do not see why it should be. A large number of boilers are used by railway companies, and in exempting them a large percentage of the boilers throughout the country are struck out. Again, "any boiler or engine used on board a steamship, having a certificate from the Board of Trade," is exempted, thereby increasing the percentage struck out, and lastly, "any road traction engine or steam roller" is exempted. I should like to know whether the last-mentioned class includes motor cars, because if there is to be a skilled man on every motor car it will materially restrict the use of these vehicles. The only way the promoters of this Bill have been able to bring it forward without meeting with an opposition which would sweep it out of the House of Commons at once, has been by making

  355
  repeated exemptions which, I venture to say, are most undesirable. The employer is now responsible for the engine and boiler being properly cared for, and if an accident occurs he probably suffers as much as anyone. Therefore it is his businsss to see that a proper man is put in charge of his boiler. To establish a system of appointments, to be dependent upon the examination of a Secretary of State, appears to me not to be the way to encourage the right class of men to take care of boilers. Another matter which ought to be remembered in discussing this Bill is that most boilers are now insured in properly organised societies, and one of the duties of the societies is to see that not only are the boilers properly looked after, but that the proper class of men are in charge of them. That meets the object of the Bill to a great extent. The examination by a Secretary of State would, to my mind, be most unsatisfactory, and would result in the issue of certificates to men who have some technical knowledge but no experience. I therefore support the motion of my hon. friend, and trust that if the House passes the Second Reading it will insist on the details of the Bill being examined in Committee. I happened to be a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill in 1895, and the exemptions proposed at that time, although they were not as numerous as they are now, killed the Bill. I am convinced that the Bill will be a great hindrance to trade in this country if it is passed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed. "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. JOHN WILSON: With reference to one remark of the hon. Member opposite, I am quite willing, speaking for myself and others interested in this Bill, to allow the Bill to go through the House without further discussion, and to have it sent to a Select Committee where the opposition of hon. Gentlemen can be put to the test of
  356
  examination and cross-examination. If hon. Gentlemen would agree to that course the discussion might be very much shortened. But if hon. Gentlemen will not give any indication of assent, it then devolves on us to show reasons why this Bill should be passed. I am very much afraid that the mover and seconder of the motion for the rejection of this Bill have not read its clauses. For instance, the hon. Member who has just spoken turned a negative into an affirmative. He enumerated the exemptions, and then in order to controvert the position we have taken up, he asked how would it be if motor cars had to be driven by skilled men.
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: I asked whether motor cars would be exempted.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I do not see myself why a gentleman should not employ a qualified man to drive his motor car, just as he employs a skilled coachman to drive his horses. I do not see why motor cars should not be in the same category as traction engines. The hon. Gentleman, however, wants us, like the fable of the old man and his ass, to alter and modify our procedure until the Bill is destroyed altogether. The promoters of the Bill have had to meet various requests for exemptions, and have excluded certain things in order that we might get the general principle affirmed by the House—namely, that men in charge of engines shall have a certificate in order to show their competency by passing an examination. The hon. Member for Preston also spoke about the provisions of the Bill, but if he has read them he has missed one important provision. He asked what would happen in case of an emergency arising. Clause 7 provides for such cases, because it provides that any person may take charge of an engine "in case of a sudden emergency."
  MR. TOMLINSON: May I be allowed to say that I did not overlook that provision. What I should like to know is, who is to be the judge of a sudden emergency?
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I have been surprised at many things the hon.

  357
  Member has said in opposition to this Bill, but I think what he has just said is the climax. Who would be the person in any works to select a man to take charge of an engine should an emergency arise? It would not be a workman, but the foreman or the engineer of the works. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman's own business capabilities would have led him to know exactly who the person would be to select a man in such circumstances.
  MR. PENN: Would a strike come under the head of an emergency?
  MR. JOHN WILSON: If these interruptions continue, and if I have to define every word of the Bill, we shall require another day or two. I must leave it to hon. Members' own mental qualifications to ascertain what would come under the category of an emergency. I do not know if I could satisfy hon. Members by defining a strike, but meantime, I will leave the question to employers and employees. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Preston was really in earnest when he talked about the second-class certificate.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Yes, Sir, I was quite in earnest.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Then the hon. Member's power of imagination must be very vivid when it enables him to imagine that a man must come up to London to show his physical ability by leaping over chairs. I am not aware that leaping over chairs, or any other obstacles, is part of the training of an engineer. I am surprised that the employers of labour should raise any objection to the requirements of this Bill. It will not affect their position in the smallest iota. If I were in this House as long again as I have been, I would never give my sanction, to any Bill that contained the smallest particle of injustice to any employer. I have looked on this Bill from the employers' point of view, and if I were an employer I certainly would give it all the support I could. There are two main principles in, the Bill; one is that boilers should be under the charge of competent persons, and the other is that
  358
  engines should be in the charge of competent persons, who had shown their competency by passing an examination before such a tribunal as a Secretary of State might appoint. It has been said that there is no necessity for this Bill, that the loss of life is not great, and that the calamities are not sufficient to justify it. How many lives should be lost before hon. Gentlemen would be convinced that some steps should be taken—
  MR. TOMLINSON: I disclaim any such idea as loss of life in this matter. I oppose the Bill in the interests of safety just as much as the hon. Member supports it in the interests of safety. The argument I used was that it did not proceed on lines of safety.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Did the hon. Member suggest or not that there was no necessity for this Bill?
  MR. TOMLINSON: No, Sir. I did not say that there was no necessity for this Bill. I would take every precaution desirable for safety, but I contend that this Bill does not proceed along the lines of safety.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Did the hon. Gentleman say that explosions were less numerous now than previously?
  MR. TOMLTNSON: Yes, Sir. I said that to show that we are proceeding at present in the direction of safety.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: It is not profitable to lengthen this discussion, but I have in my hand the last Return, and I think it is now fitting I should quote from it. In Appendix D of the Report on Boiler Explosions for 1900, I find that there were thirteen explosions, resulting in the death of thirteen persons and injury to twenty-five persons. The marginal note states—
  "Loss of life and injuries. None of the explosions held to be accidents."
  It is further stated—
  "The causes of these explosions have been clearly ascertained, and in no case has an explosion been attributed to unavoidable accident."

  359
  It is also stated—
  "The Chairman pointed out that this explosion was not accidental and that it would not have happened if each furnace had been fitted with a fusible plug, or if the left hand water-gauge had not been shut off, or if both the upper and the lower cocks or right hand water-gauge had been opened and closed in a proper manner for the purpose of ascertaining that both cocks were clear."
  I submit, in the light of this statement, that if there had been a competent man, qualified to manage the boiler and to look after its technical construction, this explosion would not have happened, and I ask is it unreasonable that some steps should be taken to secure competent men for such work? Another marginal note is—
  "No periodical examination by competent persons."
  And the reference adds—
  "It may be assumed that these explosions would have been prevented by periodical examinations by competent persons."
  Then, in five cases of explosion it is stated that—
  "the boilers were worked for periods of 17, 7, 17, 20, and 8 years respectively without proper examination by competent persons."
  Again it is stated—
  "Many explosions are due to ignorance on the part of owners and users of boilers, ignorance which embraces not only want of knowledge of the properties of a boiler, but of the necessity for having it periodically examined by a competent person."
  I submit that the appendix contains ample evidence as to the necessity for taking steps for the protection of life and limb, especially around the great works of this country, where the population is becoming more and more congested.
  The first section of Clause 6 of this Bill provides that—
  "A person taking charge or control of any boiler or engine to which this Act applies, of five horse-power or upwards, or of any engine to which this Act applies, used for winding workmen or minerals up or down the shaft of a mine, must hold a first-class certificate or a special certificate of service under this Act."
  Let me ask hon. Gentlemen in this House, if they are in sympathy with anything in the shape of humanity, whether, if they were in a cage going down or coming up a shaft 600 feet deep or more, they would not feel safer in their minds if they knew there was a man at the engine who was thoroughly competent,
  360
  and had proved his competency by passing an examination. I speak as a miner who has ridden up and down shafts day after day, and I say I should feel far more assured myself if I knew the man at the handle was properly qualified, and every hon. Member would feel the same. It is not a case of a man having charge of a ship, but a man having charge of the winding engines of our collieries. It is no answer to say that the best man who can be found anywhere can be placed at the engines. How about the second class? They are the engineers shunting in our works and factories. All we say with regard to them is that they shall have the testimony of two respectable men—it may be, their employers—to their capacity. Where is the hardship? There is no hardship. I pass by the humour of the hon. Member for Preston. I think there is a large vein in him of Mark Twain in the way in which he sketched out the certificate; but I say this House ought not to form a judgment against this Bill because of a caricature of the certificate. I have said that the Bill will be beneficial to the employers; the hon. Member said it was not beneficial, that the employers now could have the best man to be got. But the real suggestion seems to be that the employers of labour shall have in their hands the power to employ any man they like in these delicate and dangerous positions.
  It has been said that it would limit the number of men to be obtained. I say that is against the experience of the country, and, in fact, in direct opposition to it; where an Act has been passed requiring men to be qualified for particular positions, the number of people seeking places is a direct contradiction to any such statement. I have referred to the Mines Act. In that Act there is a provision that men should be examined for "management." Such a thing was not required until the Act was passed, and I say now, coming from a county which, however small geographically, is large from an industrial point of view, that instead of the Act limiting the number of managers there are men enough in the county of Durham, holding certificates and working in the pits, to fill the position in every colliery in the country. If this Bill were to pass tomorrow, and men were forthwith to

  361
  require certificates, it would in no way limit the number of men who would qualify for the position. Let me point out a matter which is incidental to this question. There is a great deal of talk about educating the working-classes technically, that they may be better instructed in all the matters connected with their business. This is one way to that end. This Bill suggests that those who are connected with boilers should study mathematics. It is an incentive to men to technically educate themselves, and if we once enlarge the state of mind, and lead men into a line of thought, we add to their education and we increase their knowledge.
  Now, I want to say to the representative of the Home Office that the right hon. Gentleman is always willing to give what assistance he can, and, in the event of this Bill being passed to-day, we shall be willing for it to go to a Select Committee. The present Home Secretary, when President of the Board of Trade, received a deputation which by some mistake brought this Bill before him instead of another, and he took the opportunity to refer to it. This is what he said—
  "This is not in any shape or form a party question, as is clear by the fact that (though I was not present at the time) the House of Commons has given a sanction to the proposal put forward in your resolutions. And really the only difference, as far as I understand, between the Government and those who promoted the Kill which was read a second time last year, is whether or not this matter required careful consideration by a Committee of the House of Commons, where witnesses can be called."
  And then he concludes—and I would like the Secretary to the Home Office to follow this—
  "I do not doubt that if such a measure were introduced again, and the Home Secretary might deal with it, one of the conditions would be to investigate the matter of means of a Select Committee."
  I put that observation of the present Home Secretary before his representative in this House, and I conclude with the hope that the Government will give facilities for the passing of this Bill now, and for sending it to a Select Committee.
  *SIR ERANCIS POWELL: I hope the House will allow me to speak a few words upon this subject, which interests me very much, connected, as I
  362
  am, and have been all my life, with a mining and industrial district. I am not surprised that working men whose lives are exposed to danger every moment of their existence should look to this House to defend them against those dangers. I think the anxiety which they feel has been so fully and ably expressed by the hon. Member who spoke a few moments since that I need not deal with it, but I do not think the House would be acting justly if we were to peremptorily reject a Bill of this class. We have had for many years great anxiety felt as regards the legislation and inspection with regard to boilers. We have a Department which investigates this subject and reports year after year; but notwithstanding the periodical inspection and the annual report, the position of boilers was considered by a Select Committee last year. The arguments which led the House to appoint the Committee are now the considerations which have brought this Bill before the House. I do not think we should be acting justly if we did not allow the Bill to proceed, and I certainly hope that, whatever may be the future condition of the law, the Bill now before us, or any Bill following the same lines, will not apply to the coal mines. I do not think the collieries, which are subject to special legislation, should be subject to ordinary legislation when special Acts are brought in for their case; and although I do not agree with that part of this Bill, I do not think that is a sufficient reason to vote against it. I think the desire of the working men is such that the House cannot reject this Bill. I hope the result of the discussion will be an investigation, not fragmentary and incomplete, as it will be if it relates to boilers alone, but covering the whole ground of engines and boilers. Then we shall have all the facts of the case before us, and then I believe the House will be in a position to pass some legislation that will do justice to the interests of all concerned; which will not be hard upon capitalists, but which will relieve the workmen from that anxiety which they now certainly feel, and which ought to be terminated by the action of the House of Commons.
  *MR. EMMOTT: I have pledged myself to support the Second

  363 Reading of this Bill, because I was told it was required to prevent accidents which occur in winding men up and down colliery shafts. That was the reason that was given to me, and I shall vote for it with pleasure, because I desire to see the matter referred to a Select Committee. At the same time, having looked more carefully into this Bill since I pledged myself to support it, I may say it appears to me to cover a much wider ground than those who support it laid before the House. The hon. Member for Mid Derby, who moved the Second Reading, referred especially to mines, and the hon. Member for Mid Durham to engines and boilers, but neither made out any case in respect of the accidents that occur at the present time. Neither did they differentiate between engines and boilers, although we have had, under the Boilers Explosions Acts full records of boiler accidents for many years. The Select Committee which met to consider this subject on the 14th May, 1895, passed a resolution that no evidence should be taken in this Committee as to agricultural engines, locomotives, and steamship engines. Having excluded these they next came to the conclusion that there was no use calling evidence at all on the Bill. Such a Bill has never been considered by a Committee, and I desire that the subject should be considered by a Committee. The intention of this Bill is to preserve life and prevent accident among miners, but its general effect will be to make a specially-favoured, class of engineers and boiler hands in every trade. Having looked carefully into this Bill, I believe it is not required except in the case of collieries. I believe in that direction there is reason for greater care being exercised in winding, and that some of the labour is not sufficiently well paid in that department. That is a matter that might well be discussed and considered by a Select Committee. This Bill applies to steam-engines, and boilers, and with regard to engineers I certainly think some figures ought to be laid before the House before we pass a law which will affect the 100,000 or more engineers who are running engines in this country.
  With regard to boilers, we discussed the matter last year, and it was found
  364
  that the class of accidents which might be prevented if this Bill becomes law came for the most part under three categories—through the safety-valves being over weighted, or screwed down; through the pressure gauge being inaccurate, or stopped up; and through deficiency of water. With regard to the third, deficiency of water, I do not believe there is a boiler attendant in the country, however incompetent he may be, who does not know it is dangerous to have a deficiency of water. Only part of these explosions arise from a want of technical knowledge upon the part of the engineer; the rest are due to carelesness, neglect, or some mistake on the part of the attendant. Now I wish to make that point good, and I have analysed the returns of the explosions for the last three years. There are only fifty altogether which can be said to be due in any sense to mistakes, carelessness, or neglect of the attendant; fifty accidents, causing forty-two deaths and eighty-eight injuries. Of course that is an appalling number, and the House would be glad to see it remedied. There were three of them which caused most fatalities and did most damage. In those three explosions there were twenty-two deaths and thirty-three injuries. Those three explosions were not one of them due to anything that this Bill would rectify in any degree, though some of them were caused by want of attention on the part of the attendant. In one case, No. 1,173, where ten lives were lost and twenty-three people were injured, the explosion was caused through the safety-valve being screwed down, and the Report of the Board of Trade says that the man who screwed it down was qualified as a fitter for this kind of work. So that the explosion was not caused by any want of technical knowledge on the part of the man whose action clearly led to the explosion. No. 1204 was an explosion which occurred at Sheffield. It was due to the attendant being misled owing to the water gauge being choked up, and was not due to ignorance. What I wish to point out is that the most serious explosions which took place in these last five years have all been caused, not by want of technical knowledge on the part of the attendants, but by some carelessness

  365
  or mistake or misapprehension, and that this Bill would not do away with mistakes and miscalculations and carelessness. Faults of that kind depend far more on the character of the men than upon the technical training which they may have received. If this Bill were to become law the definition of a boiler would make it apply to every chapel or school or building which had a boiler—I am, of course, speaking of a 101b.-pressure boiler; I do not mean a mere heating boiler—and I think that is a somewhat serious matter. Then, again, the engines to which it is to apply are only engines worked by steam, the result of which would be the greater use about coalmines of gas-engines, which might be attended with quite as much danger as steam-engines in the matter of winding.
  The omissions from this Bill are also very extraordinary. Why should agricultural boilers and boilers used for farm purposes be excluded? That is a class of boiler which certainly ought to be brought within the scope of this Bill. Nor do I see why railway engines should be excluded, and if this Bill is to be passed I do not think they should be excluded. Altogether, I think there are serious objections to the Bill as it stands, but in regard to those objections I think they would be better considered when this Bill goes before a Select Committee. I shall therefore vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the lucid and powerful advocacy of the hon. Member for Oldham would have bad more weight if the foundation upon which his speech rested had been more accurately laid. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill, if passed, would cover such a wide range of boilers as to include those used in chapels and churches and public buildings.
  *MR. EMMOTTsaid he particularly said he did not refer to heating boilers. He had said boilers of 101b. steam pressure.
  SIR FORTESCUE FLANNERYsaid the hon. Gentleman certainly conveyed to him the impression that it would include boilers for heating purposes; and he was glad to hear the hon. Gentle
  366
  man's correction. He quite agreed that there were too many omissions from the Bill; the boilers, for instance, which were most likely to explode were agricultural boilers used in the farmyard. His principal object in rising, however, was to call attention to the penalty which existed as regarded certificates. It was a fact, which those who were acquainted with or had anything to do with shipping would recognise, that no steamship went to sea that was not in charge of one or more men who had a technical knowledge how to deal with the engines safely, and who held certificates, and he did not see why the principle of requiring persons in charge of boilers to hold certificates should not be extended to engines and boilers on land as well as at sea. Objection had been made as to the difficulty of holding examinations, but he believed the difficulty might easily be got over. At the present moment the responsibility rested on the employer that the man whom he selected should be capable, and if he made a mistake, and selected the wrong man, the burden lay upon him. If, on the other hand, examinations were held and certificates granted, the employers would be benefited to the extent that if they selected a man with a certificate the responsibility for that man's incompetence would rest upon the Government and not on the employers. It had been suggested that this was an idea to raise the wages, and done entirely in the interests of one class of employees, and that if the Bill passed there would not be a sufficiency of men; but that was not so. At the present time there was a sufficiency of men for any situation that offered, and there was no difficulty whatever. The hon. Member for Wigan had in his very valuable speech stated that it was only reasonable that men, anxious for their lives and limbs, should have this Bill fairly considered. He desired to point out to the House that it was not only the men who were driving the boilers who were in danger—the range was far wider than that, and it was in the wider interest of the general public, who were often injured in these explosions, that he supported the Bill.
  MR. CHARLES M'ARTHURsaid he would like to

  367
  ask a question of the promoters of the Bill. He gathered that it was intended that the scope of the Bill should be confined to land employment and should have no application to merchant shipping.
  *MR. JACOBYsaid it was the intention of the promoters that merchant shipping should be excepted from the Bill.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLANsaid that as one who had something to do with a similar Bill which passed its Second Reading by a great majority in 1895, he desired to offer a few remarks on the present occasion. This Bill did not in any way affect the employers; it was a progressive measure, and the idea was to get a more enlightened and better class of man—a more scientific class of man—to handle and work the engines and boilers. As an employer of men who attended to engines and boilers, nothing would give him greater satisfaction than to know that every one of them had certificates. He could not conceive why the mover and seconder of the rejection of the Bill should have taken up the position they had. They appeared to think the Bill was going to prejudice a class. He was old enough to remember the opposition that arose upon the certifying of steamship engineers. There was the usual bogey and the usual dream, but a better class of men were obtained to look after the ships, men who knew what an engine and a boiler was, men who could do the calculations of horse powers and consumption of fuel, and he was surprised to see employers of labour now standing up against that principle. It was against the spirit of the age that there should be employers of labour afraid to raise the standard of their men. The apprentices in his shops were attending the technical schools at night, for the purpose of obtaining certificates for engineering, and becoming better men, better engineers, and better citizens, and becoming of more value to the nation. They wanted to produce a better class of men for the management of their boilers and engines, and no opposition whatever ought to be offered in that House to any Bill which was calculated to give the working classes higher hopes and aspirations, and a better technical knowledge
  368
  of the work in which they were engaged. He would go even further. He would not have a man standing on the footboard of a locomotive who was not certificated. He knew many drivers in his own constituency, and hon. Members would be surprised if they were told of the attainments of these men, acquired through attending night and technical classes. Many men now running mail trains had a surprising knowledge of mathematics and engineering. They were the men who could be depended upon to run trains at sixty or seventy miles an hour; they were steady, and knew every part of the engine. Now this was a Bill to raise the status of working men in the country. We were always being told that Germany was far in advance of us in technical knowledge and education. He believed that that was true, for he had had examples of it in his own works. In face of that fact ought they to oppose the passing of a Bill which meant practically raising the status of this particular class of men? They could not do without these men. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the rejection of the Bill was an employer of labour in the north of England. Would he not be better satisfied if he knew that every engine-man in his works held a certificate of competency?
  SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON: I should certainly not be more satisfied because the engineers held the certificate of the Secretary of State for the Home Department than if employers were left free to make their own selection.
  MR. WILLIAM ALLAN, continuing, said five or six years had elapsed since a Bill of this nature was before the House. He recommended its adoption in the interests of the safety of human life, and that argument was justified by the startling figures he held in his hand in regard to explosions and their results, since the subject was last debated. In 1894–5 there were 114 explosions, causing death or injury to 112 persons; in 1896–7 the numbers were 80 and 102 respectively; in 1898–9, 68 and 103, and in 1899–1900, 59 and 89. Bearing in mind these figures, there ought surely not to be a word of opposition in any shape or form to the Second

  369
  Reading of the Bill. He sincerely hoped that the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Home Office would show the greatness of his sympathy by recommending that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee, where its details could be thoroughly examined, and any small defects swept away. The Bill could then be passed into law for the benefit of humanity.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU, asked the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if the promoters were willing to exclude steam motor-cars from its operation, seeing that they were now very largely used in this country.
  *MR. JACOBY: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I desire to say that we are quite prepared to exclude steam motor-cars from the Bill.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I am glad to hear that, and have no more to say.
  MR.UREsaid the concessions so readily made by the promoters of the Bill appeared to have disarmed all criticism. No one could have listened to the debate without having the fact brought home to his mind that the objections put forward might have had great force before a Select Committee, but had no value whatever as directed against the principle of the Bill. What was that principle? It was that Parliament should take additional precautions to ensure the competency and efficiency of the men in charge of the engines and boilers in our great factories and mines. He admitted that there was a precaution already in existence which was outside the range of Parliamentary action, and that was due to the self-interest and feeling of the employer. It was never to his interest to employ an incompetent or inefficient man. But if that argument were advanced in opposition to the Bill, there was a fatal answer which could be made to it. It proved too much. It was put forward with great force when the Mines Act was being debated, and when they were asked to ensure the safety of working men by insisting that the manager of the mine should be a certificated man. The objection was urged too when they were pasing the Merchant Shipping Act, which prescribed that
  370
  precautions should be taken to ensure that those in charge of ships and marine engine boilers should hold certificates of efficiency. But every argument of that kind proved too much, and was therefore valueless. It was true that a certificate from the Home Office would not necessarily secure efficiency and sufficiency all round. It must be conceded that no examination would ensure, for example, that a man's nerves would be steady in an emergency, and that he would be gifted with fertility of resource at such a time. But they could by means of examination and certificates ensure that a man had the requisite technical knowledge, and that he had proved to the Department his possession of such physical ability, experience, and character as justified his being placed in charge of an engine or boiler in a mine or in a large factory.
  A most extraordinary line of argument was taken by the hon. Members who moved and seconded the rejection of the Bill. They complained of its limited application and narrow scope. If that were really their main objection to it, why not let it go to a Select Committee, which could, if it chose, enlarge that scope? The very object in sending the measure to a Select Committee was to enable evidence to be taken which would instruct them as to what were the proper limits and scope of such a Bill. He was strongly in favour of the measure being made applicable to engines in mines. One hon. Member opposite had suggested that a Bill of this kind was not required in the case of mines, because the Mines Regulation Act and the Special Rules already gave quite sufficient protection. But he was familiar with the Mines Regulation Act and Special Rules, and he ventured to say that there was no provision either in the Act or in the Rules which struck at the mischief this Bill was intended to remedy. Hon. Members had taken objection to the Bill because it did not include domestic and agricultural engines and boilers. But if the measure were sent to a Select Committee the opportunity, as he had said before, would be afforded of either striking out objectional provisions or enlarging the scope of the measure. He took it that the promoters of the Bill, knowing the feeling of the House, had decided not

  371
  to be too ambitious. They had followed the line of least resistance, and had adopted the course which experience suggested was the only one likely to lead to a successful issue of the Bill. But he had not the slightest doubt that they would lend a willing ear to any proposal from hon. Members on either side of the House to enlarge the scope of their measure. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill laid great stress upon, and indeed made merry with regard to, the proposal for a Second-Class Certificate. Now, he was not in love with the Second-Class Certificate himself. But what was that certificate? It was to be given only to those who were in charge of very modest engines and boilers, engines of less than five horsepower, and boilers of something less than ten pounds pressure. It was quite possible there had not been any serious accidents in connection with engines and boilers of that kind, and, therefore, they might well sweep away that particular provision without touching the principle of the Bill, and without in the least degree impairing its efficiency. Since the speech of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, they had not had even a hint of objection to the principle of the measure, and he would therefore appeal to the House to allow it to go to a Second Beading with a view to its being considered by a Select Committee. He represented a mining constituency, and he had not heard a single word from a single miner there in opposition to the Bill. He had had on the contrary numerous communications and urgent messages from miners in favour of it. He was not amazed that they unanimously supported it, in view of their personal acquaintance with the terrible responsibility which rested upon those who were put in charge of the engines and boilers in our great mining enterprises. They naturally were anxious that the House should do all it could to mitigate the terrible results which followed from incompetent and inefficient men being placed in charge of engines and boilers. There were many instances in which such terrible results had followed. [AN HON. MEMBER: Name them.] A Second Reading debate was not the proper time for quoting statistics, but if the hon.
  372
  Member who had interrupted him would assist in sending the Bill to a Select Committee, he could promise him plenty of figures to justify the statement he had made.
  COLONEL PILKINGTONsaid he had listened with very-great interest to the discussion, and he had also listened in vain for any argument which proved the necessity for passing the measure. He wished to allude to the many exemptions which were being made from the operation of the Bill. The locomotive engine of the railway company was to be exempted from inspection. The hon. Member for Gateshead had spoken in terms of very high praise of the drivers of these locomotive engines, but the engines were not to be brought under the Bill, although the Member for Oldham had, as he thought, conclusively shown that if any class of engine ought to be subjected to examination it was the locomotive boiler. Then the domestic-boiler was to be left out. There was no inspection of that now, and one would have thought that in bringing a measure of this sort before Parliament the promoters would have suggested an inspection of boilers which at the present time escape it. Then there was the case of the agricultural boiler. He had the honour of sitting on the Committee on Boilers, and he thought it was pretty generally admitted that if there was any boiler which ought to be inspected it was the agricultural boiler. Yet it was not to be brought under this Bill! Exception was also to be made in the case of road traction engines and steam-rollers. His hon. friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool asked for the exemption of merchant shipping, and that was conceded almost before he had concluded his remarks. Another hon. friend asked for the exclusion of motor-cars from the Bill, and was at once assured that they would not be brought under its operation, although if anything was a source of danger it surely was the motorcar, which went flying about the roads and was as liable to explode and kill people as any other piece of machinery. What was to be inspected under the Bill The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading was a very fair man, and was thoroughly respected on both

  373
  sides of the House. He spoke, however, as if the present inspection of mines and factories was of a casual nature, and was not thoroughly done. But the House well knew that the inspection of boilers and engines and plant in mines throughout the country was of a most searching character; indeed the Committee who sat on Boilers stated in their Report that the boilers belonging to mine-owners of this country were already sufficiently inspected. Again, so far as factories were concerned, there was a whole army of most efficient inspectors, whose powers had been increased year by year. The Bill was, in fact, brought in to secure the inspection of boilers and engines which were already inspected up to the hilt, while it failed to deal with those engines and boilers which were at present subjected to no inspection, and were, consequently, a source of danger. He submitted that no case had been made out for the Bill, or for sending it to a Select Committee. He did not believe that small Bills of this sort wore in the best interests of the country, of working-men, or of owners of mines and factories. The Government, as it had done in the past, should undertake legislation of this nature, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would not read the Bill a second time.
  *MR. NORVALW. HELMEsaid he thought they were all agreed that the underlying principle of the Bill was to protect the lives and limbs of persons engaged in places or living near where boilers and engines were used, and he held therefore they ought to send it to a Select Committee, so that it might be examined in all its aspects. It seemed, on the face of it, to be a Bill specially needed in regard to mines and to factories, and he was satisfied that the owners of these industrial undertakings would not take exception to the provision, seeing that in places where boilers and engines of great power were required those, now placed in charge of them would be competent to pass such can examination as was indicated in the Bill. One of the main objects of the Bill was, however, to deal with those smaller concerns in which the necessary ability on the part of engine and boiler hands had not hitherto been secured. It appeared to
  374
  him that the Bill should go a step further, and render compulsory the inspection of all boilers. This was especially necessary in the case of boilers worked at high pressure. It was known that small employers often bought second-hand ones, and it was the inspection of these and old boilers that was specially desirable in the interest of public safety. There were a large number of cases in which engines were used in works in the north—in bleaching, dyeing and finishing, and printing and other industries—and it had been the custom in recent years to introduce machinery to which small engines were attached, so that the man in charge had only to turn the steam off and on when he needed it, instead of keeping the whole works under steam power when it was not needed. These were cases which showed that enquiry as to the exact wording of the clauses dealing with the number to be overlooked by one man, and he therefore hoped the Bill would be sent to a Select Committee. Thanks to the development of patent feeders, mechanical stoking was now largely resorted to, and to meet present-day requirements it would be sufficient to insist that a competent engineer should be placed at the head, in responsible charge, whilst the requisite number of labourers would do the mere manual work of wheeling the coal. He did not like a system of second-class certificates.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, Birmingham, Bordesley): I can assure my hon. friend who introduced this Bill that the Government yield to no one in their desire and anxiety to support any measure that would have the effect of improving the means of saving life. But we are bound carefully to examine the details of any Bill brought forward with that object. The hon. Member and those who followed him spoke of the Bill as being mainly a miners' Bill. If the Bill had been confined to winding engines it would have been a very different matter. But it goes much further than that; it covers an area which I think very few hon. Members realise. It takes in—with the exceptions which have already been pointed out by several speakers—all the boilers and engines of the United Kingdom, prob

  375
  ably 200,000 or more in number, and it would require the formation of a force of 300,000 certificated men to deal with them. This force has very fairly been described as a privileged class. That is the scope of the Bill as it stands, and it is a very curious fact, which I gathered in listening to the debate, that there is not a single feature of the Bill which has not been opposed by one or other of the supporters of it. The whole debate has shown that there is a great diversity of opinion even among the supporters of the measure. On the point as to what is the principle of the Bill, even they are not agreed. The Bill changes the principle on which we have hitherto gone, that principle being to cast the whole responsibility on the steam user or owner. That has been the principle acted upon in the past, and I think it is the very best principle. At present the responsibility rests upon the employer, but if you compel him only to employ a certificated man you at once shift the responsibility to the Government. Does any Member of the House wish that to be done? I think it would be a very bad thing for the working man if such a principle were adopted. This change has been repudiated by several Committees which have sat to consider the matter. There was a Committee in 1870–1871, the leading point in whose Report was that steam users should not be relieved of any responsibility, but that they should be left free to choose the best men they can obtain to look after their engines and boilers, it being felt that they would have the best knowledge of the character of the men they selected. The Committee which sat last year drove home that recommendation in their Report. They said it was of the greatest importance to maintain the responsibility of the owners of the boilers for their safety, and they did not recommend any further legislation with regard to mines, because they thought that they were already sufficiently provided for. The Committee, however, did recommend that there should be a periodical inspection and general examination of boilers, the want of which they held, and held rightly, are the main causes of accident.
  Although, if this Bill were passed, it would cause an enormous amount of inconvenience to the employer of
  376
  labour, by preventing him selecting, the man whom he believed to be most fit, the Government will not stand in its way, provided it can be shown that by its passing there is any prospect of securing a diminution in the number of accidents. The House is aware that every explosion which occurs in the United Kingdom has to be reported within twenty-four hours to the Board of Trade. Last year fifty-nine explosions were so reported, and all were inquired into. In some cases only a preliminary inquiry was needed, but in others there was a regular commission of inquiry, with full powers to call for Papers and to take evidence on oath. I have referred to the inconvenience likely to be caused to manufacturers. It is quite true that there is an emergency clause, but I think the hon. Member rather avoided dealing with that, and it struck me that if a strike were not declared an emergency, the whole trade of the country might be brought to a standstill within one hour. The hon. Member also referred to four or five explosions, but I venture to assert that not one of these he quoted would have been prevented if this Bill had been the law of the land.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: I have sent away my Papers. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly name the cases he refers to.?
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Let me say at once that I am not speaking in opposition to the object of the Bill. I am only showing that it will not, as framed, secure the object aimed at. We all agree that that object should, if possible, be attained. Now I come to the cases cited by the hon. Member. The first is overheating and want of attention to the water gauge. The next is over-heating with shortness of water, the attendant being probably deceived by the water gauge.
  MR. JOHN WILSON: Would not that be want of skill on the part of the man, if he could not tell by the gauge the amount of water?
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Overheating through shortness of water—surely, that was a case of neglect, not want of knowledge. Last year the Government acknowledged, or said, that this want of inspection was the reason for these acci

  377
  dents. It is the cause of nearly all the fifty-nine. They insisted on periodical and thorough inspection, and therefore I must refer hon. Members to Clause 19 of the Factories Inspection Bill recently introduced, which if it becomes law will provide a measure which will not only cover every one of the cases I have named, but prevent or be one of the best means of preventing every accident of a similar nature. I should not perhaps be in order ill doing more than to refer hon. Gentlemen to that clause.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Member would be quite in order in reading the clause with the view of showing that it covers the ground taken by the Bill.
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I am much obliged. It is shown that all these accidents occur from want of inspection or the water gauge being out of order, and Clause 19 of the Factories Inspection Bill makes provision for proper safety valves, steam and water gauges, and for periodical inspection, internal and external, of all steam boilers in factories and workshops. The inspector is not to examine, but he is to be responsible for seeing that these precautions are carried out. I think hon. Members will admit that that is a great advance, and will do away with accidents which are shown to be mainly the result of neglecting precautions, which will, if this Factories Bill passes, be enforced by law with severe penalties for neglecting them. So the Government cannot be accused of being lax in this matter. This does not include mines, the Report of the Select Committee whose recommendations have been adopted being that they thought mines sufficiently dealt with. My hon. friend knows that mine owners are compelled to appoint a competent person, and there is a compulsion clause in the Mines Act of 1897 which enforces heavy penalties if rules are not carried out. These points taken together render its application to mines unnecessary. The Member for Oldham, while supporting the Second Reading, seemed to me to show most conclusively that the whole Bill would be ineffective. I say it is a revolutionary measure effecting a change of principle. It takes all these responsibilities from the steam user, and practically places them on the Government, because the House
  378
  must bear in mind that the result of these inquiries which are instituted in the case of every accident is the imposition of a penalty more or less heavy upon the employer, even though he can show he is not personally responsible. If there is evidence of neglect or want of attention, if he was fined, would not he have a right to say, "You have prevented me selecting the best man for this employment, a man whom I knew to be careful and sober, and who had a level head, and you compelled me to get a certificated man whom I did not know." The question is whether we should not lessen the undoubted responsibility which now rests on the owner. I agree with all my hon. friend has said as to the accidents being reduced to the lowest possible number, but I am not prepared to say that he has conclusively shown, that they will be. It appears the promoter of the Bill is going to exclude from its operations the explosions on ships. If he does that twenty-five out of the fifty-nine explosions would be left untouched, and if he takes away much more there will not be anything left. By my statement I hope it will be understood that I am most desirous of promoting anything which is calculated to effect the end in view. The one point I wish to impress upon the House is that the provisions of the new Factories Inspection Bill do meet, will meet the majority, if not the whole, of the cases of accident. I must just say one word as to the examination for certificates. The Bill does not say what the Secretary of State has to do—what form the examination is to take, or what the cost of it is to be, or where it is to take place—and I must protest against the imposing on the Secretary of State the granting of a certificate upon, the recommendation of two men. Nothing would be more likely to get an unsatisfactory class of men than that. I think this Bill should be, most safely guarded. Under these circumstances the Government will not oppose the Bill.
  *MR. JACOBY: What about the Select Committee?
  *MR. JESSE COLLINGS: The Government will not oppose it. They are ready to meet the House as far as threshing this matter out, and no doubt the Committee will deal with this Bill

  379
  in a far more satisfactory manner than a Committee of this House.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the right hon. Gentleman had kept the House in expectation during the whole of his speech, and had now said the Government would not oppose the Bill. He congratulated the Government on the progress they had made since 1897, seeing that they had advanced to the extent of not opposing the measure; but he was rather surprised, having regard to the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's criticism, that he had arrived at the conclusion he had. The Bill was first brought forward in 1895, and the Second Reading was carried without a division. It came up again in 1897, and, in spite of the attitude of the Government, was carried by a large majority. It had since been demanded by an increasing number of those most affected, and whose lives were imperilled by the neglect of those who managed boilers, and the men employed in mines, who suffered from a want of care on the part of those at the winding engines. The demand had become so pressing that a deputation had two years previously waited upon the present Home Secretary, and he could not refuse a Commission. All the criticisms which had been heard to-night were criticisms directed to the details of the Bill, and particularly to the omission of certain kinds of engines and boilers used in certain employments, which might have been included—although if they had been included he was not prepared to say how much the House would have heard of persons who were in possession of motor cars and agricultural engines—or criticisms like that of the Under Secretary for Home Affairs, which might have equally been directed against the Factory Acts, and the Mining Acts, and the Merchant Shipping Acts, as against the Bill before the House.
  *MR. JESSE COLTJNGSsaid he had laid great stress on the fact that the Government, by their clause in the Factory Bill, had gone in the direction which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think he was deprecating.
  MR. BRYCEsaid he thought the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman
  380
  was inconsistent with the provision in the Factory Bill. This Bill would not relieve the employer of responsibility, but would greatly increase the number of competent and qualified men, and would be a stimulus to the men to improve their education. He was glad that the Government had arrived at the decision not to oppose the Bill. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time without a division, and would be at once referred to a Select Committee.
  SIR ALFRED HICKMANsaid lie would not oppose an inquiry which might lead to something which would lessen the risk to the lives and limbs of the workmen, and he would support the proposal to refer this Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. HELDERsaid his name was on the back of the Bill, and be looked upon it very much as a registration Bill for those in charge of engines and boilers. There were two classes who would be affected by it, those at present in charge of the engines and boilers and those who would come after them. With regard to those in charge at present, where they had attended to their business well they should be allowed certificates without examination. With regard to the others, who came afterwards, he believed with the march of education they would be able to obtain the certificates required when it became known that they would be required, and so become much more useful members of society.
  *MR. TOMLINSONsaid though he bad not changed his opinion he did not wish to stand in the way of an inquiry before a Select Committee. He therefore asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (IRELAND) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: I do not altogether despair of getting the Second Reading of this Bill, for this reason,

  381
  that though the Bill deals with a subject very important to Ireland the circumstance of its being merely an extension to Ireland of an Act of Parliament passed two years ago for Scotland furnishes an unanswerable argument why, at all events, it should get a Second Reading. The object of the Bill is to expedite and cheapen the procedure for private. Bill legislation in Ireland, and is framed on the model of the Scotch Act of 1899, which was passed after careful consideration by this House, and in order if possible to disarm opposition, I have not indulged in any originality, but have copied almost verbatim the Scotch Act and merely changed what is necessary for its application to Ireland. I can say it is verbatim the Scotch Act, mutatis mutandis. Last year a resolution was passed unanimously acknowledging the necessity for the extension of such an Act to Ireland, and I therefore feel that I can almost reckon, without opposition, upon the support of what I might call three of the units of which this House consists: the Scotch Members, who have succeeded in obtaining an Act for Scotland; the Welsh Members, because the hon. Member for Merthyr has brought in a Bill to extend the Scotch Act to Wales; and as to the English Members, I trust I may rely on the passive support of the Government for the present application; and of course, if the Second Reading passes, any improvements which the Government might make in the Bill will be at once adopted. I cannot say what attitude my lion, friends below the Gangway from Ireland will take with regard to this Bill, but I respectfully appeal to them at all events to give it a Second Reading, which will give them ample, time to consider whether from their point of view there is any possible objection to ii. It is wholly devoid of political complexion. If it could be said for a moment to in anyway retard the great desire of the Irish party for Home Rule I should be the last person in the world to introduce it, but so far from doing that I believe it will lend a helping baud to ultimately obtain the legislation so much desired—Home Rule. The Chambers of Commerce of Cork, Belfast, Dublin, and other places have unanimously passed resolutions pointing out the absolute necessity of having some such measure
  382
  to advance and develop the industries of Ireland. The Scotch Bill was based on a most elaborate Report of a Select Committee, and this question has been agitated for thirty or forty years, and the Lord Advocate in introducing the Scotch Act said that if that Bill was passed it would follow as a natural corollary that a similar measure would be extended to Ireland and Wales. The extent, if I might point out to hon. Members—
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: No, do not. We want to get the Bill passed.
  *MR. HEMPHILL: But I think it is necessary in so important a matter to show the grounds on which I rely. The state of things at present is almost intolerable. The object of this Bill is to enable the inquiries on private Bill legislation, which are now held in London, to be held in Ireland; while at the same time it is important to retain the control of such legislation in this House. It does not surrender the constitutional right of this House to be the ultimate arbiter of any Bill that ultimately becomes law. It reconciles the two things—local inquiry and Parliamentary control. Last year, I might mention, a Bill brought in by the Great Southern and Western Railway, the inquiry into which took twenty-seven days, cost the corporation £25,000 and the Midland Railway £9,000. And now, having regard to the hour, I will leave the matter in the hands of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Mr. Hemphill.)
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): On behalf of the Government, I am not opposed to the principle of the Bill: indeed, shall be glad to see the principle of the Bill affirmed. The measure, however, will require very careful consideration in the Committee stage. I do not at all accept the view that a Bill which suited the needs of Scotland necessarily suits those of Ireland. And I doubt whether it would be wise for the Chief Secretary for Ireland to take upon himself all the responsibilities conferred under the Scotch Bill. I would much: prefer, if it were possible, that some

  383
  panel should be formed which would be acceptable to all parties.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: The object which the right hon. Gentleman has in moving this Bill is one which is shared in by Irish Members on all sides of the House. The evil of the present system is simply monstrous. All it requires is for it to be stated to meet with universal condemnation. Under the present system it is impossible even for small unopposed Bills affecting small towns in Ireland to be passed into law without great expense. I will give one instance which I think will prove that more than many large illustrations which I might give. I had once to introduce and attempt to pilot through this House a little unopposed Bill dealing with a hospital in Waterford—my own constituency. It was a hospital founded by King John for the purpose of dealing with lepers. It had fallen into disuse, and the intention was to turn it into the city and county infirmary. In order to do that it was necessary to come here and get an Act passed, and the cost of doing that was £300—in fees. There were no funds for the purpose, and I had to go to two philanthropic gentlemen in my constituency to put their hands into their pockets. But the right hon. Gentleman has asked merely to extend to Ireland the Scotch Act exactly as it stands. The new Scotch system only came into operation this year, and we have had no opportunity of knowing whether even in Scotland the measure which has been passed has been found to be a useful one. It seems to me that a measure which may be satisfying to Scotland could not necessarily be applied with safety to Ireland. Under the circumstances, it is impossible for us to consent to the Second Reading of the Bill. We are thoroughly in agreement with the principle, and we hope the Government will find time to deal with this matter, but we do not think we should be asked after a quarter of an hour's debate to pass a measure which we know nothing about. So far as I understand the measure passed for Scotland, it would not, as it stands be at all suitable for Ireland. There are many portions which would be very injurious, one, for instance, which gives an unlimited right of appeal to this House. We know perfectly-well that in every case where large
  384
  interests are concerned one side or the other would be sure to appeal, and expense would be increased rather than diminished. I am quite sure that if the Irish Attorney-General and Chief Secretary would set themselves tin-task of endeavouring to frame a Bill—and they ought to frame it in consultation with the Irish Members on both sides of the House—they would be able to frame a measure which would meet with unanimous acceptation. Under these circumstances I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Debate adjourned till Wednesday next.

  CORONERS' INQUESTS (RAILWAY FATALITIES) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHANNINGmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. He asked the President of the Board of Trade to accept the Second Reading, and refer the measure to a Select Committee. The Bill represented the wishes of the trade unions and the railway men's organisations. It asked to have principles now recognised with regard to factories and mines applied to coroners' inquests in railway cases. Certain rights were conferred on relatives of a deceased person to be present at the inquiry, and some adequate expert representation of the Board of Trade was sought to be secured.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Channing.)
  MR. BAMBURYsaid that the course provided by the Bill would be a very inconvenient course of proceeding alike to the Board of Trade, the coroners, and the relatives of the unfortunate person who had been killed—
  It being half-past Five of the Clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday next.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six of the clock.