, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that this was the first occasion on which the House of Commons had an opportunity of discussing the question of preventing, by beneficent legislation, the wanton destruction of infant life, which was a reproach to our modern civilization, and it would be hardly respectful to the House if he did not preface the discussion by a few preliminary observations. It would be in the recollection of the House that he introduced last year a similar Bill, which he withdrew in deference to objections which had been raised to it by the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Jacob Bright) and by the Government, and subsequently on his Motion a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the subject. The Committee sat for 13 days, and examined 20 witnesses, chiefly scientific men, who had for years studied the subject, or persons who had a practical knowledge of the system of criminal baby farming, or of putting out children to nurse for hire in its innocent form; and he ventured to say that their evidence, and the papers which they handed in, formed one of the most valuable Blue Books ever presented to Parliament. Hon. Members would find in it an inexhaustible repertory of information upon this interesting subject. The hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Dr. Lyon Playfair) introduced a Bill at the latter end of last Session for the compulsory registration of births and deaths, embodying one of the recommendations of the Committtee, and only withdrew it on the understanding that the Government intended to take the matter into their own hands; and he had reason to believe that at the present moment Her Majesty's Government were investigating the question, with the view to the introduction of such a measure. It might surprise many hon. Members to learn that at present there was no compulsory registration of births and deaths in this country, and the Registrar General for Scotland, where a compulsory system was in force, not unnaturally complained that the rate of the births of illegitimate children appeared larger in consequence in that country than in England. The Committee further recommended that there should be a registration and inspection of secret lying-in establishments; but after a careful consideration it had been found that so much difficulty existed in framing provisions for that purpose, that it had been determined not to embody that recommendation in the Bill, but to leave the matter in the hands of the Government—more especially as the Public Health Department, which would have to undertake the duty of inspection, was at present undergoing a complete reconstruction. The criticisms of the Press upon the Bill were in general very favourable. The only complaint was that the Bill was not sufficiently stringent—that it omitted inspection; that it passed by day nurseries altogether; and that it did not include within its scope persons who took in only one child at a time to nurse for hire. The Bill of last Session included all of these provisions. The framers of the Bill of this Session had made concessions in order to secure unanimity, and the wisdom of that course was proved by the total absence of opposition to the Bill to-day. The hon. Member for Manchester objected to legislating for day nurseries, as an unwarrantable interference with the liberty of the subject: the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) objected to legislating for persons who only took in one infant at a time to nurse for hire. The framers of the Bill had the less reluctance in parting for the present with the scheme of inspection, as the Public Health Department was in a transition state, and until it was reconstructed the question of inspection could not be satisfactorily dealt with. The Bill now before the House provided that every person who for a money consideration placed himself inloco parentis toward two or more infants under one year of age for a longer period than a day should be required to prove the fitness of himself and his house for the trade in which he had embarked by producing a certificate under the hand of a registered medical practitioner, of a minister of religion, or of a justice of the peace, and on the production of such certificate a justice of the peace might grant him a licence to endure for a year, but revocable in case it was found that the infants were being neglected. Together with the licence, the applicant was to receive a book for the registration of infants, which was to be kept privately and not to be open to inspection without an order under the hand of a justice of the peace, and the falsification of such register was to be an offence under the Bill. Within 24 hours after the death of an infant so placed out, notice was to be given by the person licensed to the coroner of the district, who would hold an inquest on the body, unless he received a certificate under the hand of a registered medical practitioner that the death arose from natural causes; and no burial of the body of such an infant was to take place without a certificate under the hand of the coroner authorizing it. The penalties for offences under the Bill had, with the view to make them as light as possible, considering the enormity of the crimes that had led to legislation, been limited to six months' imprisonment. Relatives and guardians of infants, and also persons taking care of infants whose parents were resident abroad, would be excepted from the operation of the measure, as well as infant homes like that established in Great Coram Street, public orphanages like the Foundling Hospital, and pauper children boarded out under the regulations of the Local Government Board. Unlike the Bill of last year, the present measure asked for no public money. The plan of inspection having been for the present abandoned, it was unnecessary to ask for public money to maintain a staff of Inspectors. The fee for licensing had also been omitted, on the ground that this might deprive poor women of many little luxuries. The public were familiar with the case of Margaret Waters, the Brixton baby-farmer. The justice of her sentence had been questioned; but if ever the extreme penalty was necessary for the sake of example it was so in her case, and he was informed by the police that the severity of her sentence had had the effect of breaking up many criminal establishments in the metropolis. At the last Manchester Assizes another severe and well-deserved punishment was inflicted, Mr. Baron Martin sentencing Ellen Rogers to 20 years' penal servitude for attempting to murder a child by starving it. The Bill did not profess to be a complete remedy for infanticide. The Committee of the Infant Life Protection Society were as sensible as the hon. Member for Manchester of the necessity of amending the bastardy laws, and had actually prepared a Bill amending them; but any amendment of those laws, would merely transfer the payment for children put out to nurse for hire from the mother to the father, and would not touch criminal baby farming. Public opinion, tired of party politics, demanded that a large portion of the present Session should be devoted to the consideration of social and sanitary reform. The apathy which political questions had encountered this Session was an accurate reflex of the state of feeling out-of-doors. It was in harmony with public opinion that he asked the House to read a second time this measure of social and sanitary reform; and he ventured to say that there were few measures more deserving of their consideration, as Christians, philanthropists, and legislators, than the question of preventing, by beneficent legislation, the wanton destruction of infant life.

said, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but to point out what he considered some of its main defects. In the first place, the Bill did not extend its operation to the persons who entrusted children to baby farmers. It proposed to make the keeper of these establishments liable to the criminal law; but it made no provision that persons who placed their children in these establishments should also, under certain circumstances, be liable to the criminal law. It ought to be made an offence for a mother or guardian to place a child in an unlicensed establishment, for it was too notorious that in many cases infants were placed with these people to be got rid of. They must bear in mind that they had to deal with mothers who had lost the best instincts of human nature, and with persons who took in the children for the purpose of getting rid of them; and it was idle, therefore, to suppose that persons of this character would not evade the provisions of the Bill, if possible. Private lying-in establishments should also be licensed and subjected to registration of persons received there, otherwise the stringency of the law might lead to the perpetration of the crime in those establishments, instead of the baby-farming houses. Entries in the register should be required to be made immediately on the admission of a child, and provision was needed for putting inspection in force, as also for making the annual renewal of the licence obligatory. The "other particulars" to be registered together with the name should be defined, and the responsibility of holding an inquest or not in case of death should continue to devolve on the coroner, instead of being thrown on the "registered medical practitioner." The latter should state the cause of death, and not merely assign it to "natural causes," and the coroner should hold an inquest unless actually satisfied that this was unnecessary. Many of these defects might, no doubt, be amended in Committee. There should also be a provision in the Bill, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee, that the houses as well as the persons who kept them should be proper and fit for the purpose for which they were intended, or else the infants taken by registered persons might be consigned to a cellar, and in that way be got rid of. The Bill was so loosely drawn, that every clause could be easily evaded.

, as a Member of the Select Committee, thanked the hon. and learned Member for having introduced the Bill. It might have been made more stringent; but in the hands of a private Member it would then have run the risk of serious opposition, and it was best to proceed tentatively. People did not like rapid changes, and the principle once recognized, it would be easy to make the provisions hereafter more stringent—though he did not believe the Bill would be so inoperative as was feared by the hon. and learned Member for Horsham (Mr. Hurst).

said, it would be a great pity if the House did not accept the Bill; but with the distinct understanding that it would be materially strengthened either in Committee or in a subsequent Session. In early life he observed in a large union connected with the metropolis the wholesale massacre of infant life, and more recently he had witnessed in infant hospitals in London and elsewhere the painful results of cupidity and mismanagement. He thought that restrictions should be placed on the terms of payment made to persons who took charge of infant children, and that the payment of a lump sum should be made illegal, for this almost certainly implied the death of the child, whereas a monthly or weekly payment involved its being kept alive and in decent condition. The registration of lying-in establishments had been omitted, through fear of interference with institutions of high character; but this might be avoided by excepting institutions already registered or incorporated by charter; but it was necessary to take cognizance of those illegal and vicious establishments where the fruits of vice and crime were concealed and rarely came out alive. There was another species of infanticide, which he trusted was not indigenous, but had come from across the Channel or the Atlantic. He should not allude to it more pointedly than by saying he feared there were institutions in which the infant never saw the light alive, and he would urge the Government to take steps to bring this class of offenders to condign punishment. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Horsham (Mr. Hurst) that the provision as to inquests required strengthening. Children intrusted to baby-farmers usually died through insufficient nourishment or drugging; but there were "gallipot" names for the results of such treatment—deaths resulting from insufficiency of food or small doses of opiates were often returned as due to "natural causes." The disease ought, therefore, to be certified, and in the case of these diseases the coroner ought to hold an inquest to elicit all the circumstances. He accepted the Bill as an instalment.

would remind the hon. Member for Horsham that to proceed against a parent for putting out her child to nurse would in many, he hoped in the majority of cases, be unjust and unwarrantable. A number of helpless persons were, from their poverty and from their being compelled to go out to service, forced to entrust their children to others to nurse. It had come out in evidence at the Committee, that many to whom these poor women had given their children up to be nursed treated such little charges with tenderness and truly maternal affection—more still, with a fair amount of motherly supervision. It was a mistake, he thought, to conclude that the majority did not live above the law, and those for whom the restraints of the Act were provided, it must be admitted, were persons who receiving only one child might be as dangerous as those charged with several infants, for it might be their interest to get rid of one child at a time with facility, and without exciting suspicion. There would be a difficulty, however, in dealing with this class. Many innocent persons were glad to take a single child to nurse from poverty, and there was a strong feeling entertained by a number of benevolent ladies who were associated that care must be taken in the proposed legislation not to interfere with this class of nurses. On the other hand, there were instances in which women who took in one child at a time had lost them with such rapidity as to alarm the medical practitioners of the district and the clergymen. It was impossible, in the first instance, to frame such a Bill as would satisfy all the views of those who had turned attention to the subject. The promotors of the Bill had not overlooked the importance of the registration and inspection of lying-in establishments; but he thought that was rather a matter for the consideration of the Home Secretary than for private Members, and he hoped the Government would turn their attention to the point—taking care not to make it so inquisitorial as to be oppressive. Periodical inspection was of great importance, and he hoped that public opinion would ultimately sanction it. What influenced the Committee in limiting the scope of the Bill was the fear that stringent provisions would lead to an increase of infanticide by the mothers themselves. On this ground they had abstained from making persons sending children to baby-farmers criminally responsible. The remedy must be sought rather in education than in criminal punishment. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hurst) was mistaken in stating that the fitness of the premises was not provided for; the licence would have to show that the baby-farmer could give "proper food and lodging" to children intrusted to her. As to the payment of a lump sum, it was no doubt a serious temptation, and persons accepting an insufficient amount evinced a criminal intention; but the practice, though to be discouraged, could not absolutely be forbidden, or a baby-farmer would have no security for payment in the event of its guardian going abroad or to a distance. It was not necessary to stigmatize with criminal motives those to whom the care of infants was committed; it was sufficient to show that the fear of ill-treatment in a certain number of cases was a reasonable one, and the reports of the police as to the number of dropped children in dust-heaps, areas, and open, unfrequented spaces, the exposures at the Courts of Justice, the evidence of medical men and clergymen adequately proved this; and, if so, considering the human infant as the most helpless and defenceless of the community, it was eminently fitting the Legislature should step in for its protection; but the promoters of the Bill had ample warning that legislation in the matter should proceed tentatively:—they did not want to go beyond the necessity of the case in any legislation that was proposed on the subject.

thought that some of the criticisms made upon the Bill deserved the consideration of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Charley) when the Bill got into Committee. As to the provisions regarding registration of children put out to nurse, it appeared to him that they might be easily evaded. There was certainly a little more stringency required in order to carry out effectually the objects of his hon. and learned Friend, who deserved the thanks of that House and the country for the valuable services he had rendered in this direction, and for the great zeal he had manifested in his efforts to provide a remedy for the dreadful evils complained of. It had been proved by evidence that the loss of infant life, even under the most favourable circumstances, was very great, being about 15 or 16 per cent. That loss was doubled the moment infants were transferred from the hand of the mother to those of strange nurses. Among children that were illegitimate, the loss of life, even in comparatively good homes, amounted to 40 or 50 percent; and when transferred to homes of a worse character the loss of life rose to about 80 or even 90 per cent. In the presence then of such facts he submitted that much more was required than the proposed provisions for registration. The root of the evil would not be reached unless the neglect which these unfortunate children encountered from their very birth, and their transfer from lying-in establishments to baby farms, on the payment of lump sums or miserable allowances, were dealt with. This Bill, made somewhat more stringent, might meet the simpler class of cases; but he would urge the Government to bear in mind the necessity of passing some measure making registration compulsory both as to births and deaths, so that those children might be traced from the hands from which they originally came to the latest homes in which they were received, and in the event of their being made away with the crime brought home to the really guilty parties. He admitted that the sanitary and social part of the question was met by this Bill; but unless it was supplemented by much more stringent provisions than any it contained, he did not think that the great object which his hon. and learned Friend had in view—the criminal part of the case—would be reached.

said, that having an important engagement, he intended to leave his hon. Friend (Mr. Winter-botham), as a Member of the Committee, to speak on this Bill; but before leaving the House he wished to state that the Local Government Board was considering the subject of registration, and hoped to introduce a Bill in the course of the Session. As to strengthening the effect of the Bill by introducing more stringent provisions, the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) would receive the consideration of the Government before the next stage of the Bill.

said, he was willing to give full credit to the Gentlemen who promoted this Bill for the most amiable and best intentions; but he concurred with his right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Walpole) in thinking that this measure did not go to the root of the evil. He (Mr. Henley) much misgave that this Bill, however good the intentions of the authors, instead of protecting infant life, would rather tend to make it more insecure. His reason for thinking so was this. All Bills of this sort must necessarily increase the charge on the wretched women who had the misfortune to have one or two illegitimate children. The position of such a woman was difficult enough already. Her character lost, she could only obtain employment at a very low pay by persons who consented to receive her under her unfortunate circumstances; and, therefore, everything tended to increase her difficulty in getting her child properly provided for. He thought it probable, therefore, that this kind of legislation might have the effect of causing many more of these children to be put away, and that, instead of saving human life, it would have the opposite result. The position of those unhappy women who had illegitimate children was rendered more sad from the operation of the law, which compelled their husbands, if they should subsequently get married, to maintain those children. He was afraid that that was a frequent stimulant to parties to make away with them. Everything which had been done in the way of legislation on the subject during the last 40 years tended to make the position of such women worse than it had been before; and so long as they increased the burden of that class of persons, unless human nature became much improved, they offered a premium for the commission of those crimes which they all so much deplored. He believed that, unless they went to the root of the evil, they would never succeed in lessening the amount of that destruction of human life which now, unfortunately, existed.

said, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) that this Bill would not wholly meet, nor was it intended to meet, the causes which produced infant mortality. The primary causes of the enormous mortality among illegitimate children had roots deeper than this Bill would penetrate. The law relating to seduction and bastardy were among these ultimate causes, and were not dealt with by this Bill. But when effects were notoriously evil and dangerous, it was often right to remove them, even before they tried to extirpate the causes which produced them. The mortality among all infants was great, but that among illegitimate infants enormous. If it were true that there were some 50,000 illegitimates annually born in this country, the evidence before the Committee showed that 30,000 of them perished in the first year of their existence. This enormous mortality, amounting to about 60 per cent. was mainly due to two causes—criminal negligence and ignorant negligence. He was happy to believe that the latter was a far more frequent cause of mortality than the former. Illegitimate infants had, to a large extent, to be brought up by hand, and the artificial feeding of infants required an amount of knowledge rarely possessed by parents or nurses even of the upper classes. The natural aliment of an infant was milk, every part of which being soluble was easily digested and assimilated by the infant. But when they came to hand-feeding, kinds of food suitable enough for adults were wholly useless and positively pernicious to the child, because its digestive organs could not render them soluble. Thus, if they gave, as nurses for hire very often did give, oatmeal gruel to a child, they might as well keep it without food at all, for the child was starved, though under circumstances which a coroner's jury would be loath to describe as starvation. And then when the poor starved irritable child fretted, opiates were largely given to soothe it and dull its pain. It was now more than a quarter of a century since, in his capacity as a Royal Commissioner, he laid before that House a Report on the terrible effects produced upon children by the indiscriminate use of opiates, and then adduced the evidence of three druggists who, in a poor locality, sold nine gallons of opiates weekly in doses which did not exceed a teaspoonful for each child, and he drew attention to the fact that infantile mortality diminished largely as pauperism increased, because the parents, from want of employment, stayed at home and nursed their own children, and had not money to buy opiates to keep them quiet—a quietness which so often ended in death. In that Report he also drew attention to the excessive mortality among infants insured in burial clubs. Since that time he had anxiously waited to see the Legislature take steps to mitigate these crimes against society, and if he said only a few words to-day in support of the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Salford, it was because the time for action had come, and the time for speaking was passed. The Bill did not root out the causes of infant mortality, nor would it extinguish their effects, but it would contribute much to mitigate them. Only such nurses as made nursing a trade and vocation would be continued on the register when they showed that they were acting honestly, and with a fair amount of success. If a succession of coroners' inquests were held on a particular nursing establishment, public attention would soon be drawn to it, and an unskilled and ignorant woman would lose her vocation. The Bill would therefore lead indirectly to only capable women following the practice of nursing as a trade. It would also induce a large number of respectable women to follow an occupation which they rejected now because of its association with criminal baby-farming. After the explanations of his hon. and learned Friend, he need not enlarge upon this as a disgraceful practice, far more prevalent than even he, who had watched the subject for 27 years, had any conception of. When they advertised for a nurse to adopt an infant for life at a premium of from £5 to £10, and got some 300 answers to their advertisement, as witnesses had stated to be the case before the Committee, no one could attribute the motives for those prompt and overwhelming replies to benevolence, but must ascribe them to love of gain. And how was a child to be nurtured, clothed, and educated for the whole of life for £10? Clearly, because the speculators in adoption knew that the value of the life in their hands was so uncommonly small, calculated not by the Carlisle tables of mortality, but by the experienced risks of baby-farming, which made gain to the nurses a surety. Unquestionably actual criminality occurred, or they would not have 276 dead bodies of infants picked up in the streets of the metropolis in a single year; but it was less to substantive acts of crime, than to negative neglects of a nurse's duty, that the mortality even of baby farms was due. They could not be surprised, then, that respectable women would not enter a vocation eminently suitable to women of tender sympathies, when the whole system was stained by criminality and by motives of negligence closely hovering on the brink of crime. One of the chief merits of this Bill, then, in his eyes, was, that while it would entirely stop criminal baby-farming, it would render nursing an honourable occupation, which might be followed without discredit by respectable women. No doubt, the Bill did not go so far as its promoters would have wished. The Association for the Protection of Infant Life, of which they who backed the Bill were mere representatives, and reaped the fruits of their disinterested labours, had desired to go much further, and had advocated inspection of all nursing establishments. They were justified in that demand, for if it were right to inspect helpless lunatics, who rarely recovered so as to become useful and productive citizens, it would be surely right to inspect the upbringing of helpless children brought up for hire by strangers, and who by neglect might become so weak and stunted in frame that they would fill our hospitals and workhouses in future life, and yet who by care might be so nurtured as to become healthy and useful members of society; but they felt, however desirable inspection might be, that they could not have carried through this Bill when weighted with inspection clauses, and therefore they had unwillingly omitted them. If no other legislation were to follow this Bill, it would certainly not meet all the evils. It would perhaps be useless to pass it unless they were assured that a law would be brought before them for the compulsory registration of births, and for the better verification of deaths. The House allowed him to introduce a Bill last year for that purpose, and it was backed by leading Members on both sides of the House; they withdrew it because the Government gave them a promise that they would not allow this Session to pass without carrying through such a measure; and they looked with anxiety for the fulfilment of that promise; but that Bill was not yet even introduced. The Bill of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, relating to the protection of young women, would be another step in the removal of causes which laid at the root of the evils that they were trying to remedy. But no one of those measures would obviate the necessity for a careful revision of the bastardy laws, which now pressed with such severity on women as compared with men. These subsequent measures, however, did not in any degree render unnecessary the Bill before them, for it was simple and direct in its application, and would largely mitigate the effects of evils, though it did not profess to eradicate them. He trusted, then, that the House would give to it a second reading, in order that they might soon extend the protection of the law to infants deserted or neglected by their natural protectors. Experience had taught them that strangers who nursed infants for hire allowed a large portion of them to perish in their infancy, or managed them so unskilfully and ignorantly that they remained weak and sickly grafts on society, which had too long ignored that it was its interest as well as its duty to aid in their protection.

said, although the Government would offer no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, yet he should be going too far if he said he had very much faith in its sufficiency to remove or materially diminish this evil. This Bill differed greatly from the Bill of last Session. He felt strongly the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), as to the danger of producing greater evils, or intensifying existing evils, by this effort to remedy them. He was not very sanguine that the Bill would materially affect the criminal branch of this evil. The Bill would drive the criminal class of nurses to greater secrecy, and, perhaps, give them stronger motives for crime. The penalties proposed were rough. Six months' imprisonment, under the summary jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, was, in his opinion, a severe penalty for what might be a mere accidental infringement of the law. He very much feared that one of the great causes of non-criminal neglect of children was the poverty of those who had to provide for them. How could that state of things be met unless suitable nourishment and adequate remuneration were provided? He saw no means in the Bill of removing that difficulty. However, that, and the penalties for infringing this measure, would be matters for the consideration of hon. Gentlemen in Committee.

rejoiced that such unanimity had prevailed in the discussion on the measure—the only objection to it being similar to that raised out of doors—namely, that its provisions were not sufficiently stringent.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, its object was to provide for the education of a class of children who, though they had a special claim to consideration, had hitherto suffered neglect. England was the only civilized country which had not, in some way or other, made provision for the education of blind and deaf mute children, whose parents were too poor to make the provision themselves. It was true that the Poor Law Acts contained a few clauses in reference to the care of such children; but they were dealt with under those Acts in a very perfunctory manner at best. What he now sought to do was to make the Government responsible, and to undertake a wider duty than that indicated in the Poor Law Acts. The existing benevolent institutions had the care of but 10 or 12 per cent of these children; so that as many as 90 per cent received no education whatever. The case of these unfortunate children was the one omission of our recent legislation for national education; but when the Education Act of 1870 was passed, the Government said it was to provide for the education of every child in the kingdom. All, therefore, that he now asked them to do was to carry the announcement into complete effect by passing this supplemental measure. And he maintained that he had a good case; for if it was right to provide for the education of children who were neither deaf nor dumb, how much more ought they to provide for those who suffered from those infirmities, and who, without education, were but mere waifs and strays? The principal clause of the Bill made it compulsory upon either the Poor Law guardians or the school boards, on the application of the parents of any deaf-mute or blind child, to send such child to any fitting school, and to defray the expense of its maintenance, clothing, and education; or in case of no such application, the guardians or school boards were empowered to do so at their discretion. The power was thus mildly expressed, since it was not desired to deprive the child of its every reasonable chance of maintenance and instruction at the hands of its national guardians. The objection would probably be raised that a burden would thus be thrown upon the ratepayers, which they ought not to bear. That was easily disposed of; for, except in large towns, the number of such children belonging to poor parents would be comparatively small, and their maintenance would incur a cost so slight that scarcely a single ratepayer would think it worth while to raise any objection. The Bill also provided that wherever a parent or friend was willing to pay a part of the expense of such children, the institution, the guardians, or school board may defray the residue. There were also provisions for the appointment of Inspectors—which perhaps the managers of existing institutions might not approve; but they were necessary measures, which he hoped the House would agree to. With regard to the Government taking charge of the Bill, he should be only too happy to give it up to them, if they would but consent to carry out the principle it embodied. He hoped, indeed, the day would come when the Government would feel it their duty to deal with these unfortunate children as children of the State. He did not claim entire credit for having first introduced this question. Several years ago, a noble Lord in the other House induced the Government of the day to enable the Poor Law Board to exercise a power, which they however appeared reluctant to use. He hoped that the Government would, at least, not oppose the Bill going into Committee, as they were likely to obtain a vast amount of statistical information on the subject, which would astonish many hon. Gentlemen in that House.

said, it had been his duty last year to oppose a similar Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, and he felt it his duty to pursue the same course with reference to the present Bill. He sympathised very much with the object of the promoter of the Bill, that education should be given to deaf-mute and blind children; but, at the same time, he could not but see that the plan which his hon. Friend had submitted to the House was open to grave objections, for it would introduce into our Poor Law administration an entirely new principle—that of maintaining and educating out of the rates persons who were not paupers. If the principle for which the hon. Gentleman contended with regard to the blind and to deaf-mutes were sound, why should it not be extended to other unfortunate classes of children, such as idiots, cripples, and lunatics, who were quite as much entitled to commiseration? He asked the House, then, to reject the Bill, as being based on a new principle. The 1st clause of the Bill proposed to make it compulsory on the guardians to send these poor children to school; and this he objected to. It would not be safe to compel the guardians or the school boards to enter on the large field proposed by the 1st clause, and the 2nd was as objectionable, inasmuch as it actually proposed to give them power to take away from its parent any blind or deaf-mute child and send it to one of their schools. This was another new principle to which he could by no means give his assent. However desirable it might be to assist the education of those unfortunate children, he did not think that the proper mode of doing it had been proposed. So long back as 1862 an Act, the 25 & 26 Vict., c. 43, was passed, which provided that guardians might secure education and maintenance for poor children by sending them to certified schools; but there was a limitation that the expense should not exceed the cost of maintaining the children in the workhouse for the same period. In 1867 another Act enabled the guardians to make a like provision for blind or idiotic children. The provisions of these Acts were extended by the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1868, so as to meet the wants of all poor persons. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wheelhouse) also proposed that the children sent to the school should not in consequence be regarded as paupers. In all other cases at present relief pauperised the recipients. Although he sympathized very much in the object which the Bill had in view, he could not see that the Bill proposed any advantage, nor could he see that it could be far improved in Committee. On those grounds he moved that it be read a second time that day six months.

wished to point out that, although the Bill purported to extend to the whole United Kingdom, it would be inapplicable in Ireland, owing to the absence of school boards in that country; and he would suggest the propriety of striking Ireland out of the Bill. The Bill was not in harmony with our institutions. Making provision for the deaf-mute and the blind without converting them into paupers was contrary to the principles hitherto adopted, and would tend to introduce the mischievous practice of parents who were not paupers shifting the charge of their children from themselves to the State. He thought that the hon. Gentleman had sufficiently discharged his duties to his clients by bringing the subject before the notice of the House.

said, there were two principles involved in this Bill—one was that blind children and deaf-mutes should be educated by the State and local rates, in the same manner as children who had not those misfortunes; the other was that those children should be fed and clad and educated in all respects by the State, irrespective of the condition of the parents. On the first principle he was entirely in favour of the Bill; on the second he was entirely against it. The largest school in the United Kingdom for the blind existed in the city which he had the honour to represent—the largest and the most successful in training and educating blind persons; and it had been found that the plan of maintaining them in the home was not advantageous, and it had been abandoned. When the Education Bill was passing through that House, he put on the Paper an Amendment providing for the education of those children, and the Vice President of the Council said he would consider the question, and look at Clause 8, and see whether it was not sufficient for the purpose; and, if not, he would endeavour to make it so. When Clause 8 came to be discussed, he said he had considered it, and was satisfied that the words did cover the education of the blind and of deaf-mutes. If that were so, it would be satisfactory to know how far that object had been carried out by the various local authorities and by the schools. The mere words of an Act of Parliament were of no value unless they were acted on; and he should like to ask what had been done by the Privy Council in directing the local authorities to carry this portion of the Act into effect? He desired to mention another thing in connection with the institution to which he had referred. It had been found that blind children being sent to ordinary schools was the best way of educating them. They gave the teacher of an ordinary school perhaps £5 a-year for educating a blind child, and he kept that blind child perhaps half-an-hour or so after the ordinary school hours. The teacher took a great deal of trouble to teach him; and the child, by associating with other children, was sharpened up—he learnt more rapidly, and it was found that he was educated more quickly and more efficiently than by being sent to an institution exclusively for the education of the blind. It would be useful to inquire what steps, if any, the Privy Council had taken to establish a system of that kind. It would not be an expensive system. He hoped that the Vice President of the Council would favour them with his views, and would inform them whether anything had been done to carry into operation the clause which he stated two years ago was sufficient for the purpose.

said, he was afraid he could not say that the Committee of Council had taken action on this question. His hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) had rather misunderstood what he had said two years ago. In answer to an indefinite Question whether the Act would enable school boards to provide for the education of these poor children, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) said that he believed it did: but when he was now asked whether the Department had taken steps to insist on the school boards carrying out these powers he could only say that in reference to no question whatever had the Department adopted, or prescribed to the school boards in what particular manner to discharge their functions. It would, he thought, have been establishing a very dangerous precedent if they had prescribed the manner in which these classes of children should be dealt with or the expenditure that should be incurred. The difficulty in the present case was this—that the education of these unfortunate children cost much more than the education of ordinary children. His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) said that in Scotland it frequently happened that such a child was sent to an ordinary school, a special fee being given to the schoolmaster. That arrangement might work well in many cases, but he feared that to be thoroughly successful it would be necessary that the schoolmaster should possess exceptional abilities and patience; and he should require a good deal more information upon the point before he could recommend the adoption of that course throughout the country. There was nothing in the Elementary Education Act to prevent the school boards from increasing the special cost of educating these children if they thought it proper to do so; but he did not consider that the Department ought to force that action upon them. The House most naturally sympathized heartily with the object of his hon. Friend who introduced this Bill (Mr. Wheelhouse), who had shown not a mere Parliamentary interest in the subject, for it was one in which he had actively and practically worked for many years; but his proposal to enforce the payment of public money for the purposes contemplated by the Bill was a serious one. At the present moment authority was given sanctioning such expenditure where deemed necessary, and farther than that he thought it would not be advisable to go.

said, that he objected to the Bill on principle, because the leading clause in it would enable the authorities to take any deaf-mute, whoever it might belong to, and send it to a special school, whether the parents were rich or poor, and whether they wished it to be done or not. Now, it was his own opinion that for such unhappy children education with others who could see and speak was the best education that could be given to them. Another section in the Bill proposed that in case of any dispute respecting the religion of the child it should be decided by the Board of Guardians. It struck him that such a provision would be the occasion of a good deal of religious difficulty and discord. It reminded him of an anecdote illustrative of the times when it was supposed that persons applying for admission to the workhouse were better or worse treated according as to whether their religion did not agree with that of the majority of the guardians; so once, when Pat came before the board to apply for an order, and a Roman Catholic member said to him, "Sure you're a Catholic?" he replied, "May be there's better than them;" and when a Protestant member, making sure he belonged to his faith, said, "Ah, you're a Protestant," he answered, "Sure there's worse than them." The result would be that the board rooms would become the arena of polemical strife, in the course of which the child would be torn to pieces before the question was satisfactorily settled.

, in reply, said, that there seemed to be in the mind of the hon. Member for Dublin some confusion between the Boards of Guardians, as local administrators, and the Poor Law Board, or, as it was now termed, the Local Government Board, and that the section referring to the action of the latter in the event of there being a difficulty as to the religion of the child, was almost a verbal copy of a clause in an existing Act passed nine years ago and which had worked extremely well. He should not object to omit Ireland from the operation of the Bill if it was so desired. As for the cost of educating these poor children, it must be remembered that their number was extremely small in proportion to the whole population, and what he wanted was, that they should be taught to earn their own living while children, so that they might not, when adults, come upon the public funds or be dependent on their friends for their support. Much as he regretted that the Government opposed this Bill, he hoped they would agree that it should be sent to a Select Committee, in order to settle once for all whether the administration of the country was to take upon itself the instruction of these children, who would not otherwise be educated, and whose wants the provisions of the Poor Law most inadequately met. If the Government would give him the necessary funds he would in 10 years time secure to every one of these children a complete and thorough education.

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was pleased to be able to observe that the subject had grown much in popular favour since people had begun to recognize the fact that it was not proposed to interfere with the practices of trade, but merely to put a stop to the adulteration of food by the mixture of articles poisonous or injurious to health. If anyone chose to mix beans with coffee, or water with milk, no one under this Act could say anything; but if any baker adulterated his bread with brick-dust, poison of any sort, or with plaster of Paris, the clauses of this Bill would render him liable to severe punishment. The Legislature of New Zealand had recently passed a law punishing such offences with imprisonment without the option of a fine. He was glad, however, to perceive that some of the clauses of this Bill had been incorporated in the Public Health Bill, and the further progress of his measure would, therefore, be rendered unnecessary, provided that Bill were passed. He would now, therefore, merely ask the House to allow the Bill to be read pro formâ a second time, and he intended to fix the Committee at such a date as would give ample time for the discussion of the Government Bill on the understanding that if that Bill passed he would move that the order for Committee on this Bill should be discharged.

said, that his hon. Friend deserved the greatest credit for his exertions in keeping this matter alive, and was glad that since he had first introduced the subject, some three years since, it had gained such ground as to be recognized in the Public Health Bill. The Bill which his hon. Friend had introduced was, in his opinion, not perfect, because it was too permissive in its character, and not sufficiently stringent. He was glad that a measure dealing as this one must with the interests of the poorer inhabitants of our larger towns would be brought in by the Government, and he should be prepared, in conjunction with his hon. Friend, to move at the proper time any clauses which it might be thought necessary to introduce.

hoped that adulteration would be defined to mean either substance added to or subtracted from the articles sold, whether they were injurious or not. If a pint of water were put into a gallon of milk, that was as much adulteration as if anything more injurious had been added. As a Commissioner to inquire into the lunatic asylums of Ireland, he found that there was deterioration in the health of the inmates in consequence of the guardians taking low contracts for the supply of skim milk, from which the cream had been subtracted. This was as much an adulteration as if some deleterious matter had been added, and this should be borne in mind when they came to consider the definitions.

hoped the Public Health Bill of the Government would be compulsory, otherwise it would be ineffectual for its purpose.

trusted the second reading would be agreed to. He did not fear friendly rivalry, and readily gave his assurance that all suggestions for the improvement of the Public Health Bill would be thankfully received from all quarters. He only hoped hon. Members would not retard its progress by encumbering the Paper with unnecessary Amendments, so as to render it impracticable to pass the Bill this Session.

, in moving that the Bill he now read the second time, said, its object was to be the extension of the principle of superannuation to the municipal officers of various large towns throughout the country. The Bill, he added, was merely permissive, and had been approved by such places as Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Brighton, Dover, and Exeter. He had been told by a town councillor in the provinces that an officer who held his post after being unfit for duty had by his mistakes cost the municipality somewhere between £300,000 and £400,000. The superannuation allowances were intended for those who from illness or old age might have become incapacitated for the discharge of their duties, and the proposal, if acceded to, would, he believed, conduce to both efficiency and economy.

seconded the Motion.

, in seconding the Amendment, said, that the system pursued by the London and North-Western Company was a very simple and correct one—that of deducting 2½ per cent from the pay of their officials, and providing that the claim to a pension should not exceed a certain amount. What was the particular ground on which the present application to Parliament was founded? Here was a certain class of men who undertook a distinct service for a certain amount of pay; and when they got old it was proposed to pay a certain sum to get rid of them. In a case which occurred in Queen Anne's Bounty Office, an official had engaged a well-paid officer for a considerable number of years, as he would not retire without what he considered sufficient payment, and it was found necessary to pass an Act for the purpose. He did not see why there should be any difference between the mode of dealing with persons in the public service and those who were employed by private individuals. Working men and artificers got no pensions from their employers, but were told that they must themselves lay by for the time of old age; and why should not the same rule be applied to a higher class of people? When men who were unfit for their work would not leave their situations, what could have a worse moral effect than to give something to get rid of them; for such a system tended to discourage habits of thrift on the part of the employed. He hoped before long that the House would take into consideration the whole question of superannuations and pensions, and see whether some better plan could not be adopted.

said, that the object of the Bill, the Motion for the second reading of which he had seconded, was to remedy a grave practical inconvenience. There was a great inducement at the present time to create offices which were unnecessary, in order to provide for old and faithful servants who were unable to discharge their duties efficiently, or to retain them in the offices to which they had been appointed. It had been said that corporations ought to act like private establishments, which had no arrangements of this kind. Now, he disputed that statement. In many, probably in most private establishments, old servants were pensioned at the discretion of the employers. In the case of municipal corporations the matter was entirely different; and he believed it would be for the interests of the ratepayers for the House to read the Bill a second time, so as to ensure more efficiency in the duties which the officers were called upon to discharge. A good deal had been said about the abuse of superannuation allowances. He had no doubt that many abuses existed; but he was not prepared to argue from the abuse against the use of pensions altogether; and he believed that the power of granting superannuation allowances, moderately exercised, would be highly beneficial to the ratepayers in such places as Liverpool and Manchester, who exercised a beneficial influence over their corporations. He did not think the corporations promoting this Bill were so much under the influence of their officers as had been suggested. A system of compulsory retirement would not be affirmed by the country. This Bill met another suggestion, by giving powers to provide superannuation funds from the contributions of the corporation officials; but that scheme could not, of course, come into operation for some years. The promoters of the Bill would gladly cooperate with others in introducing into it proper safeguards; and he therefore hoped the Government and the House would concur in reading the measure a second time.

supported the Bill. Such large and important bodies as the Corporations of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol ought to be placed in the same position in regard to their servants as that occupied by the Commissioners of Police, the Metropolitan Vestries, the Ecclesiastical Commission, the Commissioners of Prisons, and other public bodies. The municipal corporations were responsible to the ratepayers for the exercise of the powers intrusted to them, and it would be better for them to give a retiring pension to an old servant than to create a new officer in order that he might be assisted in the discharge of his duties. There needed to be no apprehension of the abuse of the power now proposed to be granted, for there were always two parties in every corporation, and each was ever ready to denounce anything in the nature of a job perpetrated by the other.

regarded the Bill of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) as merely a protest against the general principle of pensions and superannuations. The Bill had been introduced after anxious consideration on the part of one or two leading corporations, in order to make the administration of their own affairs more efficient. It was found in practice that when an old servant came to a certain age, and the work was too much for his powers, the sympathy which was felt for a servant who had acted on their behalf for a number of years induced them still to retain him in a situation of trust, and it was felt that if superannuations were allowed younger and more effective men might be placed in the situations at lower salaries. This was merely a permissive Bill, and he thought that in so simple a matter the House would scarcely consider it a fitting opportunity to enter upon the consideration of the whole question of superannuations and pensions.

said, the Bill raised the question of superannuation on account of age to superannuation on account of infirmity and incapacity. He thought a very wide distinction must be drawn between the two, because pensions on account of old age were of certain definition, and must come to an end within a reasonable period; whereas with respect to infirmity everyone knew how easy it was to get a medical certificate in that respect. The greatest jobberies were perpetrated under that denomination; and that part of the Bill dealing with infirmity ought to be carefully guarded. It was very doubtful whether in any case the public should be called upon to pension persons whose infirmity had not been caused by discharging the duties of their office. Again, no pension should be allowed for 10 years' service; and the age at which superannuation might take place ought to be definitely fixed for a period beyond middle life. These were doubtless matters for Committee; but as the Bill was in the hands of private Members, and not in the care of persons responsible to the country, it was necessary to draw attention to these points, in the hope that more stringent regulations would be introduced into the Bill.

said, that the question was whether the Governing Bodies of great corporations such as those of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and other places should have the power of managing their own affairs in a manner most conducive to their interests, and of giving to their servants such allowances as they deemed the services which had been rendered were worthy of when those services became no longer available on account of infirmity or old age. The matter under consideration had no reference to the granting of pensions by the State. By putting any definite limit of age into the Bill its object would be defeated, because it would then be impossible to remove any servant who had not reached the age named. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands) would sweep away all pensions, and leave a man when misfortunes befell him to beg from his friends, or go to the workhouse. But it would be impossible to carry on the public service on such a plan, and therefore he hoped the Amendment would be rejected.

intended to vote for the Amendment, because he felt that if they were ever to strike at the growing habit of granting pensions they must prevent the evil from increasing. Railway companies would not be allowed by their shareholders to adopt such a principle as that which was contained in this Bill. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company were introducing a system of deducting small sums from wages to form a superannuation fund for their servants; and, although they to some extent supplemented the amount, they merely adopted that course in order to encourage the men to save. This Bill would introduce a new principle into the system of local government, and if the House affirmed it he could not see how they could prevent an intolerable burden being placed upon the ratepayers of the country. It should also be remembered that when public bodies acted in that way they did not merely expend their own money, but they took the money out of the pockets of the great mass of the labouring people of this country, who could ill afford this tax on their hard earnings, and who were themselves as much entitled to a superannuation allowance as these officials.

said, he feared that if this power were granted to municipal corporations they could not refuse the same powers to the numerous local boards which were springing up throughout the country, and there would be no end to superannuations. One evil arising from a system of superannuation was, that it tended to decrease the amount of the wages which were paid. For these reasons he should vote against the Bill.

observed that having listened attentively to all the arguments upon this matter, he had failed to discover any reason why the system of superannuation, which had been found to work well in the civil service and under other circumstances, should be forbidden in the case of the municipal corporations of the country. No one could say that the corporations did not manage their business with great skill; and with their constantly extending duties there arose a greater necessity for an efficient set of officers. He asked the House how they could refuse to the great municipal corporations in England such powers as had already been granted in Ireland? It was no doubt true there was in Ireland a safeguard to the exercise of the power in its being necessary to obtain the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant, and it might be necessary to introduce some such safeguards into this Bill. There was, how-ever, this to be said for the greater English corporations, that they were already under the supervision of public opinion and the public Press, which was in itself a great safeguard. Another point was, whether the minimum of service required—namely, 10 years, was sufficient. The Irish Act required that before superannuation there should be 20 years of service, and further, that the persons superannuated should have bestowed their whole time upon the duties of their appointment. Some such provisions as these might be considered in reference to the present measure. These were, however, all matters of detail, and he could see no just principle upon which this House, which had already sanctioned superannuation allowances in several instances, should refuse the power to grant such allowances to municipal corporations.