asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House any Reports which have been received as to the conduct and efficiency of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers at drill, and when embarked in Her Majesty's ships and gun vessels?

, in reply, said, he had called for a Report as to the conduct and efficiency of the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers from the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves, which he should be very happy to produce if his hon. Friend would move for it.

, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, When the final Report from the Admiralty Committee on Boilers will be presented?

, in reply, said, the third, and probably, the final, Report of the present Boiler Committee would be issued in about three weeks' time. It was a voluminous document. It had been delayed in consequence of the difficulties in obtaining certain photographs that were to accompany the Report. The Committee terminated with the financial year; but their operations would be carried on by a small Committee of Departmental officers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the lateness of Easter this Session, he will introduce the Mutiny Bill in time to afford full opportunities of discussing the principle and details of that measure before the Easter Recess?

I have to inform the hon. Member that I have no option in the matter. The Act expires on the 25th of April, and I must bring the Bill under discussion before that time.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will cause the Marine Mutiny Bill to be printed before its Second Reading?

There will be no alterations, so far as I am aware, in the Marine Mutiny Bill this year, and the Bill will therefore be a reprint of last year's Act. Under those circumstances, I trust the hon. Gentleman will not object to the Bill being proceeded with even if it should not be printed before the second reading.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the Commissioners' Report on the Blantyre Colliery Explosion; whether in view of the fears expressed by the Commissioners in it, he has given any direction so as to obviate the dangers the Commissioners point out; and, whether Government has directed, or is about to direct, any prosecution against anyone whose neglect has in any degree led to that calamity?

Sir, of course my attention has been directed to this very serious question. In regard to the second part of the Question, I have already directed that a copy of the Commissioners' Report shall be sent to every colliery-holder in the district, because there is a paragraph at the end of it to which I think their attention requires to be specially drawn, and their attention has therefore been called to it. I have also instructed the Inspector to call together a meeting of colliery-owners, to consult with them as to the best means to be adopted to prevent accidents in the working of this particular seam of coal, which appears to be a very dangerous one. With regard to the last part of the Question, I agree with the Commissioners that it would not have been desirable to have sued any person in regard to this accident for any small penalty. I, therefore, laid the whole matter before the Law Officers of Scotland, in order to see if any person ought to be proceeded against criminally in this matter. After consideration, the advice I have received is that no criminal proceedings, other than the trival one I have alluded to, could have had a successful issue; and, therefore, I do not propose to take any proceedings at all.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that some officers and men of the Reserve Forces, holding appointments in one regiment, are returned as efficient in other regiments?

, in reply, said, that he was not aware that officers or men were returned as efficients in two regiments; but with respect to certain officers in the Militia and the Yeomanry, under special circumstances and special regulations, they were sometimes permitted to act as commandants and field officers in Volunteer regiments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the expenses of the expedition to the Malay Peninsula, in December 1875, have been adjusted between the Home and the Indian Governments; and, if so, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask Parliament, during the present Session, to vote any portion of such expenses?

I regret to say that no final adjustment of the accounts of the Malay Expedition in 1875 has as yet been arrived at. The Colonial Government has, I believe, furnished a complete account; but the apportionment of the remaining expenditure has not yet been settled between the other Departments concerned and the Treasury. I fear it is extremely doubtful whether any Vote can be asked for this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in carrying out "The Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1877," under which the character of the "cell accommodation" which must be pro- vided by prison authorities is in the discretion of the Secretary of State, he will exact cells of a better description than is required in England, where the "cell accommodation" is determined by the statute of 1865; and whether, to prevent unnecessary outlays, he will state that he will accept cells which have been legalized by the Secretary of State in 1868 and 1872?

Sir, I was very anxious when the Scotch Act was passed last year to have laid down definite provisions in the Act itself stating what the space should be; but the Representatives from Scotland entirely declined to have that provision inserted in the Bill. There is no intention of exacting in Scotland anything that is not exacted in England; and, without binding ourselves to say what the cell accommodation shall be in Scotland, I can say that those in Scotch prisons shall be treated with the utmost fairness, as they have been in English prisons. I cannot allow one word in the last part of the Question to pass unnoticed, because no cells can be said to have been "legalized" by the Secretary of State. Some cells have been allowed, but they have been allowed under protest, and I cannot accept that as a standard.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can give an assurance that the British Government will not allow Russia to disturb the "balance of power" in her own favour, either by the seizure of lands in Armenia or the transfer of the Turkish fleet, or by any interference with the Dardanelles; and, whether he can inform the House if any guarantee has been obtained against the occupation of the isthmus of Gallipoli, so as to insure the freedom of movement of the British fleet?

With reference to the first Question, I am afraid that the House will be as tired of hearing as I am tired of explaining that we have not yet received any authentic information as to the terms of peace which are being negotiated; and until those terms are known to us, any Question of the character of that asked by my hon. and gallant Friend must necessarily be of a hypothetical character, and, therefore, ought not to be answered. If it should appear that the terms of peace in any way injuriously affect the interests of this country, Her Majesty's Government will take the proper course to vindicate and protect those interests. With regard to the second Question, I can only say that the whole of the engagements that have been made connected with the occupation of the Isthmus of Gallipoli and that neighbourhood have already been laid upon the Table of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, since he has laid before this House the views of the Government of India in regard to the imposition of new taxation, he will also produce Papers showing the views on this subject of the Governments of Madras, Bombay, the North West Provinces, and the Punjab, and of the members of the Council of India at home?

If the hon. Gentleman will move for the Papers he requires, I will then consult the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Salisbury) as to whether or not those Papers can be laid on the Table of the House; but it is almost impossible for me to be aware what Papers he requires from the vagueness of the nature of his Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will lay upon the Table of the House any further Correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Railway Companies' Association, showing the steps taken by them for the application of continuous brakes to Railway trains?

I am daily expecting a long-promised communication on the subject from the Railway Association; and when I have it, and have had time to consider whether any further rejoinder from the Board of Trade is necessary, I will complete the presentation of the whole Correspondence on the Table of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made with reference to the claims against the Spanish Government for compensation on account of the seizure of the "Octavia?"

Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Madrid was instructed to present these claims to the Spanish Government in the beginning of December. We have not yet been informed of the answer which they have given to Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the number of persons enrolled as British subjects in Constantinople in 1868 amounted to 459; and, if he will inform the House what the total number of enrolled British subjects was in 1876 and 1877, as well as for 1878, by the latest Returns?

The number of British subjects registered at Constantinople in 1858 was 459, as may be seen in a Parliamentary Paper, Consular No. 5, presented in 1875. In 1876 the number was 2,264; in 1877, 2,111; and in 1878, 2,620. I am informed that there are in each year at least 800 British subjects at Constantinople who are not registered.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is able to state whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared, I believe, in all the newspapers this morning to the effect that the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the Staff of an expeditionary force have been appointed; and, if so, whether those appointments have been recently made?

It is not correct to say that any appointment has been made. The two officers whose names are mentioned have been selected in case of an expeditionary force being required. They were selected, I think, about 10 or 12 days ago; and Lord Napier was summoned home from Gibraltar in order that he might be in consultation with the military authorities here, and be in readiness if required.

moved—

"That the Orders of the Day subsequent to the Factories and Workshops Bill be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Amendment of the Grand Jury Law in Ireland."

said, he had an appeal to make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to one of the Orders which were to be postponed, of which he had given previous Notice to his right hon. Friend. He was the last person who would desire to offer any obstruction to Public Business, or to presume to interfere with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to arrange that Business. But, as one of the Orders of the Day which it was proposed to postpone was a Bill under his (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen's) charge, a legitimate opportunity was afforded for his appeal. The Colonial Marriages Bill had been read a second time on the previous day by a majority in a tolerably full House; but since the adoption by the House of what was called "the half-past 12" Rule, and the unsparing use made of that Rule by the opponents of any measure in the hands of a private Member, there was no chance of his measure being again discussed except by the assistance of the Government. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not answer his appeal by stating that the majority had been reduced from that of last year; for the Division Lists showed that so many had voted this year who had not voted last year, that it made a total of 485 Members of the present Parliament who had voted or paired upon the question, of whom 255 had voted for, and 205 against, it. Therefore, the majority of votes obtained in that House in favour of the Bill was 50. There was nothing of a Party character about the measure, yet the Government had upon each occasion earnestly opposed it; and he knew, as a fact, that a certain number of Members who would otherwise have supported it had abstained from voting in order that the Government might not be put in a minority, even upon a non-Party and non-political question. Moreover, in spite of this consideration, and the strong pressure brought to bear upon them, 50 of the habitual supporters of the Government had in that, and the previous year, recorded their votes in favour of the Bill. Now, when a measure which was regarded with considerable interest in the Colonies had twice passed its second reading by a large majority taken from both sides of the House, it was not respectful either to the House or the Colonies that there should be no opportunity given for its further discussion. Most of the objections to it really referred to Amendments which might be made in Committee; and, as owing to the way in which the Business of the House was conducted, it was almost impossible to make real progress with a Bill unless the Government afforded some facilities for it, he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to endeavour to give, at some early period, an opportunity for the further discussion of this measure. He would bow with submission to an adverse decision of the House, if upon further consideration such decision should be given: but he protested against the message being allowed again to go out to the Colonies, that whilst the British House of Commons admitted by a majority that their grievance was a real one, they could not find time even to discuss the proposed remedy.

wished to know whether the discussion on the Factories and Workshops Bill would be discontinued about 11 o'clock, so as to enable the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make his statement?

said, his object in making the Motion was that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary might make his statement at an hour when his remarks could be fully reported. He hoped, therefore, it would be commenced about 11 o'clock. With regard to the appeal of the right hon. Member for Sandwich (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen), he must say he admired the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman's calculations, which he hoped might stand him in good stead in finding another day for his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, however, made rather a bold demand when he based his request on the fact that they were asking on a Government night to postpone other Orders in order that a Government Motion might be brought forward. As the Colonial Marriages Bill was the 10th Order on the Paper, with five or six Government Bills before it, it would have had a small chance of being reached tonight. In the present state of Public Business he could not undertake to find an opportunity for its further discussion.

With regard to the majority on which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) prides himself, his Bill stands in a very peculiar position—namely, that it has been made the subject of a most abominable system of private canvassing of Members of Parliament by paid agents. Pressure of that kind was brought to bear on me; and I told the gentleman who canvassed me that, if I were doubtful about the matter before, his pressure would make me vote against the Bill, and I did vote against it.

moved, in page 33, line 9, to leave out "if required." The clause, said the hon. Member, provided that an Inspector, on applying for admission to any house or factory or workshop should, if required, produce to the occupier his certificate of appointment. It would, he thought, simplify matters very considerably if, in all cases, the Inspector's duty should be to produce his certificate or the warrant by virtue of which he claimed admission. The uniform adoption of such a course would save much trouble, inconvenience, and possibly opposition on the part of the occupiers of the houses sought to be inspected. The absolute knowledge that the visitors were Government officials would procure for them much greater freedom of access and fuller facilities for performing their duties than would otherwise be the case. The occupiers of private houses in poor localities might be inclined to resist unless the Inspector produced his authority as a matter of course.

contended that the Amendment was altogether unnecessary, although he admitted there was something in what the hon. Member for Meath had advanced. No one could wish less than he did to invade the privacy of private houses, and he should therefore be prepared to move the insertion in a later clause of words to provide that no Inspector should visit a private house without first obtaining a written authority from the Secretary of State, or a warrant from a magistrate obtained on a sworn information. This, he thought, would remove the whole difficulty, as no magistrate would grant a warrant of entry without having been first satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for so doing—in other words, that there was reason to suspect the manner in which the business carried on in such houses was being conducted.

moved, in page 33, line 29, after "workshop," to insert—

"Provided always, that these shall not apply to the case of a person who is a shareholder in a public company."

said, he could not accept the Amendment. The clause would not prevent any surgeon from being appointed in the district in which he practised. It would only debar him from certifying in reference to children engaged in the particular factory in which he was himself personally interested.

supported the Amendment on the ground that the clause was so widely drawn as to be easily susceptible of misinterpretation and abuse.

thought hon. Members opposite were unduly alarming themselves. As the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pointed out, the effect of the clause would simply be to preclude a surgeon from certifying in reference to a factory in which he had a direct personal interest.

opposed the Amendment, remarking that the clause as drawn would act not only as a protection to the public, but to the medical men themselves. He felt bound to state to the House that he only a few days ago thought the Medical Profession was hardly dealt with. From one of themselves he had the illusion fully dispelled; and he would, therefore, vote against the Amendment.

pointed out that a large proportion of the cotton mills in the North of England were in the hands of limited liability companies, and much jealousy would naturally be occasioned by a surgeon who was a shareholder certifying as to the fitness of "half-time" or "full-time" children employed in what was, to a certain extent, his own factory.

said, he had no intention of moving an Amendment in the clause; but as it was the first one in the Bill which directly proposed to deal with the appointment of certifying surgeons, he wished to say a few words concerning it. He wished to guard himself against saying anything in opposition to the way in which the certifying surgeons had done their duty, because he was fully mindful of the great interest which they had taken in carrying out the provisions of the Factory Acts—an interest which had rendered the country deeply indebted to the Medical Profession as a body. His own opinion was that the certifying surgeons ought to be put on the same footing with Factory Inspectors, both with reference to their appointments and the remuneration attaching thereto. He wished them to be just as much Government officers as the Inspectors, and they ought to be treated in the same way. As the House well knew, the appointment of certifying surgeons was in the hands of the Chief Inspector of Factories, and he should be the last man to find fault with the way in which that official had administered the patronage he had to bestow; but he could not help thinking that the amount of such patronage was too large to be in the hands of any permament official, and he should much prefer to see it under the control of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The only excuse he could see for calling upon the factory owners, and to some extent upon the operatives, to defer the cost of the examinations and the con- sequent certificates, was that such had been, the custom in times past. His own view of the payment so made was that it was an unjust tax, and that as the certificates were granted and required much more in the interest of the public than of the employers the public should bear the cost of them. He should not move an Amendment, because, cordially approving of the general principle and scope of the Bill, he understood that the principle contained in the clause was regarded by the Home Secretary as vital to the measure. He must, however, express his hope, which was also the hope of the manufacturing population in the North of England, and of the Associated Chambers of Commerce —as expressed at their meeting on the previous day—that the Home Secretary would speedily be able to see his way to removing what was practically a heavy tax upon the employers of labour, and upon the operatives themselves

pointed out that the duties of these certifying surgeons were of the nature of those performed by sanitary Inspectors. The surgeons were employed in the public service; and ought, therefore, to be paid out of the public funds, instead of by persons who did not ask for their appointment, and the payment by whom constituted a tax upon a particular and special section of the community. It was also worthy of remark that the appointments as now made took much of a political character. It was true that on paper there existed a power on the part of the millowners to obtain repayment from the parents of a proportion of the fees paid; but, as a matter of fact and experience, he could safely say that any attempt to obtain such repayment would inevitably result in their being withdrawn from work in that particular factory.

said, that whereas the existing law enacted, in order to prevent personation, that every child or young person taken to the house of a surgeon for examination should be accompanied by some responsible person, no such provision was contained in the present Bill.

said, he should move, as an Amendment to the clause, in page 34, line 1, to leave out "ten" and insert "five" as the number of children who must be taken for examination to the residence of a surgeon instead of being examined at the factory or in the workshop in which they were employed. Mr. Leonard Horner, who laid very largely the basis of the present system, was strongly opposed to examination away from the factories—on the ground, mainly, that it tended largely to personation, imposition, and the making of false statements, the falsehood of which could not be detected. Nevertheless, it was found, that there were many small factories in which a less number of children than five were employed, and it was provided that in such cases they might be taken to the residences of the certifying surgeons for examination. He had no objection to the law remaining in the same condition; but he strongly objected to the number being increased to 10. This would be a very serious innovation, and in some towns—Wolverhampton, for instance—would include from half to two-thirds of all the factories and workshops in the place. He would point out, further, that if the surgeon went to the factory in the discharge of his duty he received a small but reasonable fee of 2s. 6d. per child; but if the children were taken to him, he was only entitled to 6d. for each one examined. Did any hon. Member ever hear of such a fee for the services of a professional man? If he sent his horse or dog to be examined by a veterinary surgeon, he had to pay a fee ranging between 5s. and 10s. 6d.; but a surgeon would, under the provisions of this Bill, have to examine a child and give a certificate for a miserable fee of 6d.

said, that 10 was the number recommended by the Royal Commission; but, after long and careful consideration, he had arrived at the conclusion that five was a sufficiently extensive limit.

expressed his regret that the Home Secretary had accepted the Amendment, because he scarcely thought that the House was aware of the heavy tax which it would impose on a large number of small employers. They must bear in mind that the new definition of a factory would henceforth be any place where steam or water power was used, and there were few handicrafts or employments in which steam was not either in present use or would not be used in the course of a very few years. With the new definition of a factory it had become absolutely necessary to accept an Amendment, of which Notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), to make dispensary and Poor Law doctors certifying surgeons throughout the country, as otherwise the burden that would be imposed would be found in a short time to be quite intolerable.

confessed that he, too, was surprised to hear the Home Secretary so readily assent to the Amendment. The examination of a child had been described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) as something similar to that of a horse or a dog by a veterinary surgeon, and he gave the cost in each case. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the circumstances of the two cases were altogether different, and that, in changing the age at which a child might be employed under this Bill, they had completely altered the duties of the certifying surgeon. Formerly, a child might be employed half-time in a mill at eight years of age, and the surgeon had then to certify whether that child was strong, and able, and fit, in all respects, to be employed to that extent. But the age had now been raised to 10 years, and all that the surgeon had to do was to certify that the general appearance presented was that of a child of 10 years, and that the child might go to work in a factory for half-time. Then, they had raised the age for full-timers from 13 to 14 where the child had not passed the educational standard. Further, by this Bill, they were prohibiting the employment of children at all in certain factories, so that, to some extent, the necessity for a surgical examination had entirely passed away. Let him mention a case that came under his notice very recently which bore upon this point. The certifying surgeon of the town of Sheffield died a few months ago. He had been accustomed to charge the grinders 6d. for going to their wheels and certifying the children there. When the post became vacant, some of the best medical officers of the town were exceedingly anxious to obtain it; and this, he ventured to say, would always be the case if the clause were left as it was. He could explain why the whole of the large works of England contracted with the surgeons. A surgeon was paid so many guineas for calling round to see whether there were any children to be certified, and whether there were or not, he received his remuneration at the end of the year. But now every grinder in Sheffield—the man who only rented one wheel, and who had his boy to perform his errands or assist him in the shop, would be required to have a certificate, and so it would be in all the minor industries of England. The pressure of this Bill would fall upon the minor industriesif the certificate were made to stand at 2s. 6d., on the terms prescribed by the Bill, except the number stood at five, or, instead of 10, they extended the area of the measure and raised the ages. Therefore, he hoped that when they came to the next clause, fixing the rate of remuneration to the surgeon, the Home Secretary would not under any circumstances consent to omit "five." The observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) were directed more particularly to that clause. The right hon. Member argued that it was ridiculous to award 6d. for each person after the first five examined when the clerk of the peace received 1s. for a copy of a conviction. The clerk of the peace, however, had to turn over his books in order to ascertain the date of the conviction and make out his certificate. Butreally this was not a case where a surgeon prescribed for children; he merely took their general appearance. Having seen children examined for a number of years past, he could say that half-a-dozen children were examined and passed in almost as many minutes, and it was not at all the delicate and difficult business which his right hon. Friend had described, though he was willing to bear his testimony to the admirable manner in which the certifying surgeons performed their duty.

said, that the Bill was intended to comprise employment in small workshops, in which he had known children to have been employed so as very injuriously to affect their health. Therefore, he thought that if the Committee were disposed to interfere further with the employment of labour, it was essential that it should do so on the ground of preserving the health of these young persons. The certificate should be one with respect to the health and bodily fitness of the children, or really it was not worth having, and the House should not insist upon such certificates unless the remuneration was adequate to the exercise of the professional skill required.

reminded the Committee that the proper working of this Bill would depend very much upon the medical certificates to be granted under it. The House had already passed several Acts, amongst them being the Irish Sanitary Act, which depended greatly upon the manner in which the medical work was performed. But the House had never settled, or tried to settle, anything like a fair remuneration for those upon whom depended the proper carrying out of the intention of Parliament. And what was the fact? That the Irish Sanitary Act, owing to the want of fair remuneration having been provided, was becoming a dead letter. That was exactly what was likely to occur in this instance. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) had made the most extraordinary statement that he had ever heard made in that House. Almost in one breath he had told them that the doctors performed their work in a most perfunctory manner—["No, no!"]—the hon. Member had told them that doctors passed half-a-dozen children in as many minutes, and yet the next moment he thanked them for the admirable manner in which they performed their duties. But that was the way in which he (Dr. Ward) believed that this work would be done. Medical men could not, any more than the members of any other Profession, afford to do work without being paid a fair remuneration. The noble Lord the Member for Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had expressed his regret that the Home Secretary had acceded to the Amendment; but the fact was, that although it might bear hard in some cases, he was told by surgeons, who had had a large experience of factories, that if the word "ten" were adhered to, three-fourths of the factories at present under inspection would be practically excluded, that all manner of personation would be resorted to, and that, in fact, the Act would become a nullity so far as the protection of the children was concerned. If a medical man did his duty fairly under this Bill, particularly as regarded children of the age of 13, who were to be allowed to work full-time, he would have to devote both time and skill to it. For these reasons, he hoped that the Home Secretary would persevere in the intention which he had announced.

was very glad that his right hon. Friend had agreed to the Amendment. What they should aim at was to get as certifying surgeons the best surgeons in a district, and he did not believe that they would secure them if they raised the number from five to 10, because it must be disagreeable to the most eminent medical man in a place to have these children coming to his house. Moreover, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lyon Playfair) that it was important that children should be certified at the factories.

could not agree with his hon. Friend who had just sat down. He must express his extreme regret that the Home Secretary had yielded on this point. He had consented to withdraw an Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, thinking that, perhaps, as far as the certificates were concerned, it was unjust and might prove inconvenient if the certifying surgeons were compelled to examine young persons and children at their surgeries or houses without some restriction as to number. But so much had been said by his right hon. Friend about the inexpediency of altering the Bill, that he certainly was led to believe that he would not consent to the number 10 being struck, out and five inserted. He should most strenuously oppose the raising of the fee when they came to the next clause, which might, to some extent, meet the case. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Edinburgh University (Mr. Lyon Playfair) and other hon. Gentlemen, he wished to say that although the fee paid to the surgeon might appear small, yet there were many advantages connected with this office. They were, for example, brought in contact with a variety of people, which frequently brought them private practice that they would not otherwise obtain.

said, he wished to ask the Home Secretary a Question. He did not see in the case of a certifying surgeon refusing to grant a certificate, and his reasons for so doing being deemed unsatisfactory, any mode by which his decision might be appealed against on behalf of the child. He did not wish to cast any doubt on the anxiety of the majority of medical men to do their duty; but it was possible that it might be done capriciously in some instances, and that it might have a very vexatious effect on a child's after interests. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered whether it was not possible to afford some ready means of appeal to an Inspector or other officer?

replied that there was no appeal except to the Secretary of State, who had authority over the certifying surgeon, and who might nullify his appointment if he saw good grounds for doing so.

moved, in page 34, line 16, to leave out "five" and insert "person." He explained that the object of the Amendment was to leave the fees of the certifying surgeons as they were at present. He did not propose any increase, nor, as far as he was aware, was any increase in the fee of the medical gentlemen proposed by the Amendment last before the Committee. In the Act of 1844 provision was made that the certifying surgeons and the occupiers might agree as to the amount of the fees; and in the event of their failing to arrive at such agreement, the occupier was empowered to apply to the Inspector of Factories to recommend the fee—a table of fees being laid down in the Act. The same thing occurred in the Act of 1845. But in the Act of 1867 no provision of this sort was made, and the consequence was that a number of certifying surgeons took advantage of the opening thereby afforded to charge exorbitant fees. Although under the Act of 1867 no power was given to the Inspector of Factories to regulate these fees, or to state what the maximum fee should be, the then Inspectors were so frequently appealed to that they issued a Circular which had had, he believed, throughout the greatest portion of the country, the effect of law ever since. In that Circular they explained that, under the circumstances which he had described, being very frequently appealed to, they would recommend a scale of fees which they said would be fair to all parties—namely, for one certificate 2s. 6d., and 6d. for each certificate in addition when more than one was granted. His Amendment, if carried, would leave matters standing as they were under this regulation of the Factory Inspectors. If the Bill should pass in its present form, its effect would be materially to cut down these fees. He thought that there could be no dispute about wages having vastly increased since 1844 in all departments of life; and after a number of gentlemen had made an arrangement on the faith of the continuance of a bargain, sanctioned, if not by the law, at least by the officers who administered the law, he thought it would be an unjustifiable interference with what he might call vested rights if the fees of those gentlemen were now to be remodelled in a manner adverse to them without any reason being given for such a course. He was perfectly certain that if they were dealing with publicans instead of professional men such a proposal would not be supported for one moment. He understood that he should be told that in certain portions of the country—in Lancashire and Yorkshire— the fees contained in this Bill had all along been adopted; but the fact that they had been voluntarily adopted in a small portion of the country was no reason why they should now be imposed over the entire of the United Kingdom.

said, he must object to the Circular of the Inspectors being referred to; because, although it was quite true that such a Circular was issued in some parts of the country, it certainly created no vested interest anywhere. The real fact was that the occupier of a factory made his bargain with the certifying surgeon, and there was no vested interest. And he was bound to say that, under this Bill, certifying surgeons would probably receive more fees, because the word "factory" was now very much extended, and persons who had never hitherto presented themselves to a certifying surgeon would now have to do so. Therefore, he would receive under this Bill many more fees than he ever received before. He was also bound to say that, although he had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of certifying surgeon, yet so many people had written to him asking for the post that he was quite sure there was a very great desire for some reason or other on the part of medical men to hold this office. He found that there was no necessity to raise the fees in order to get gentlemen to fill the appointment, and, therefore, he hoped that the Committee would refuse to agree to the Amendment.

thought that before the Committee decided against the Amendment they ought to consider it a little, because it was exceedingly important. They were told that this was chiefly a Consolidation Bill intended to keep the law as it was. The present law admitted that any doctor might go and make a contract with the occupier just as he wished. That was to remain; but the Amendment had reference to cases in which the occupier did not do so—cases, for instance, in which there might be fewer children, and the occupier would not think it worth while to make a contract. The Home Secretary had said that these were appointments which were very largely sought after, and no doubt the best of them were. He found that 167 certifying surgeons just now received sums ranging from £50 to £500 a-year from this occupation. There were 445 certifying surgeons who made not more than £20 a-year by this branch of their Profession; and by far the larger portion of the whole Profession so engaged made very small amounts by certifying children engaged in factories. All he wished to impress upon the Committee was, that by accepting the number of five, they were for the first time establishing a 6d. fee, to be paid to surgeons; for 2s. 6d. for five examined was really 6d. for one; while the existing law was to pay 2s. 6d. for the first, and 6d. for each case after the first. It was clear, therefore, that the Committee was asked, by means of a Bill said to have been introduced mainly with a view to consolidation, to make a radical change in an existing law which had worked very well.

hoped the Home Secretary would stand firmly by his proposal as it stood in Bill—in the first place, because the fees proposed to be paid were those originally fixed by the Acts of 1844 and 1868; and, in the second, because the burden of the payment would fall chiefly upon individual workmen and small manufacturers. Instead of complaining, the surgeons ought gladly to accept the proposal of the Government, inasmuch, as by causing many more children to be examined than heretofore, the fees received by the surgeons would be increased. The post of certifying surgeon was not only an honourable one, but it was far from being an honorary post; and it was, at all events, one which surgeons of high position in their Profession aspired to. The change, if made, would not affect the manufacturers who employed large numbers of children, because they contracted with the surgeons to conduct the examinations. It would only injuriously affect those small manufacturers who employed, say, half-a-dozen children.

said, the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) must be labouring under some mistaken notion. The proposal contained in the Bill was a distinct alteration of the laws laid down by the Government Inspectors themselves, and was by no means a keeping up of the old system. If the custom to which the hon. Member referred was practised in Sheffield, it was not in other parts of the country. He had in his possession a Circular issued by Messrs. Redgrave and Baker, Her Majesty's Inspectors, fixing the fees on a scale totally different from, and considerably higher than, that set forth in the Bill. On the scale which was laid down by the Inspectors, the surgeon would receive 2s. 6d. for the first child examined and certified, and 6d. for each succeeding one, or 4s. 6d. for the examination of five children, and not 2s. 6d., as was now proposed. Notwithstanding this fact, the hon. Member for Sheffield maintained that the fees were to remain the same. If the Bill was passed in its present form, as far as this particular branch of it was concerned, what had been hitherto a fairly lucrative employment for surgeons in the large towns, would cease to be so, and a very inferior class of men would consequently be found applying for the appointments. The proposal was neither more nor less than an attempt to take away fees now paid in many parts of the country, and paid in the spirit of the Acts of which the present Bill was said to be a mere consolidation.

said, it was quite true that the Inspectors had a right to fix the fees in some of the country districts, where the cases were comparatively few; but the Inspectors could alter such special rates whenever they pleased. The Circular which had been referred to was issued at a time when it was found difficult to put some of the surgeons on the same footing they had occupied for years and years before.

supported the proposition of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), believing that no necessity existed for altering the law from its present form. Under existing circumstances, the certifying surgeons were fairly well, but not extravagantly, paid. There was a time when the appointments were eagerly sought after by leading men in the Medical Profession; but that time had, to a great extent, passed away, by reason of the fact that large districts had been very much subdivided, and so the competition which formerly existed had to a large extent ceased in the great centres of industry. Medical men did not seek these offices so much on account of the emoluments they directly derived from them as for the connection they brought, and the private patients that were thereby added to their lists.

said, it was, doubtless, true, as had been stated by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lyon Playfair), that a considerable number of certifying surgeons, as such, only made but small incomes; but it was equally true that they did very little work, as the payments made were calculated and based upon results.

said, the low fee of 6d. might be perfectly fair in large factories or in cases where the manufacturers contracted for examina- tion and certification; but it was manifestly unfair and very hard where a district was wide, and the number of children employed was small.

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. He was inclined, he said, before hearing what had been said on the subject, to give a very liberal interpretation to the wishes of the surgeons; but when he heard that surgeons of high standing were found eagerly competing for the appointments on the terms contained in the Bill, he could not see that Parliament had any right to tax either employers or employed more highly in order to pay more than plenty of professional men were ready to do the work for. The 5th sub-section of the clause empowered the Home Secretary, from time to time, if he thought it expedient, to alter the scale of fees; and he had no doubt that the power so given would be used in country districts where the factories were small, and the sums to be earned were therefore very low, in order to secure the services of efficient and proper officers.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) must know perfectly well that there was not an officer in the State, from that of the Prime Minister downwards, that would not be eagerly taken by someone or other at a much lower rate of pay than at present attached to it. But the question important to be considered was as to the fitness of the persons seeking election. With regard to the Medical Profession, the mistake had always been made of fixing the fees at too low a rate. When the Bill for compulsory vaccination was passed a majority in that House were in favour of the payment of low fees, and what was the result? Vaccination failed, and became highly unpopular in consequence, and it became necessary to pay larger fees in order to get the vaccination properly performed. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) seemed to know very little about the subject, and to be lamentably ignorant as to the qualifications necessary to be possessed by a competent surgeon. It was necessary, in the first place, that they should be Licentiates of the Apothecaries Company, and so fitted properly to dispense medicines; they must also pass a strict examination at the College of Surgeons; and, in addition to this, many of them were voluntarily graduates of one of the Universities. And yet these were the men whom it was proposed to pay by 6d. fees. He thought the wisest course for the Home Secretary to take would be rather to increase than to diminish the fees paid, and so to secure the health and well-being of the younger children employed in factories.

thought the certifying surgeons should be content to take the rough with the smooth in matters of payment and profit as other persons had to do. Those who asked that the fees should be raised were met by the unanswerable argument of the Secretary of State, that the services of some of the best men in the Profession could be secured for the rate of payment laid down in the Bill.

could not understand why the Amendment had been moved, except it was purely and simply for the benefit of the Medical Profession. The duties of certifying surgeons were not heavy if the pay was not large. A surgeon had five or six children brought before him, and he passsd them almost en bloc. If any of the children struck him as being small and delicate, he examined them a little more closely; but, as a general rule, the examination was very superficial.

pointed out that while the Bill provided penalties for employers and parents who did not get the children examined, there was no penalty laid down for the surgeon in case he failed to perform the duty enjoined upon him by the Bill. He thought this required seeing to.

said, he thought the surgeons would take it as a matter of absolute duty affecting their credit to carry out the provisions of the Act. If they did not do so the Secretary of State would have power of instant dismissal, and an occurrence of the kind could not fail materially to injure a surgeon's reputation among the people of the neighbourhood in which he practised.

supported the Bill, remarking that the present moment was very inopportune for raising by law the salaries or fees of any branch of State officials, inasmuch as the wages of the working classes were going steadily downwards, while their expenses were proceeding in an inverse ratio. He was informed that they could pass 30 children in half-an-hour. Were this so they were well paid and should let well alone.

supported the Amendment. His main reason for doing this was in order that the medical officers should be induced not to conduct their examinations in the perfunctory manner which almost inevitably resulted from the payment of a mean and inadequate fee. A good deal had been said about first-class men applying for these appointments, but he did not attach much importance to the fact. He thought that for duties of the kind contemplated by the Bill, they were likely to get better work out of young men who were just struggling and rising in their Profession, than from men who were at the top of the tree, or who had grown so old in the Profession as to have lost much of their vigour.

said, he should vote against the Amendment. Medical men were much the same as lawyers. When questions of fees arose in the House the lawyers stood up for their class, and the doctors for the members of their own order. He knew doctors in very great practice who acted as certifying surgeons in the Belfast factories, and he saw no reason why the fees should be increased as long as they could get the services of thoroughly good men for the fees offered. No doubt medical men had to get diplomas at the outset of their professional career; but it was also equally beyond doubt, that many men forgot much of what they had learned, and became practically useless, notwithstanding their many diplomas.

saw no reason for adopting the Amendment which had been proposed. He thought a 2s. 6d. fee for the first child, with an additional 6d. for each subsequent one examined was ample; but, as he understood the matter, it was proposed to exact a fee of 2s. 6d. for each one.

said, he could not withdraw his Amendment. He did not propose to alter the amount of the fees paid, but to leave them as fixed after the Act of 1871.

thought some limit ought to be put to the distance which a surgeon must charge for travelling for the purpose of examining and certifying children. As the clause stood, it would enact that the surgeon might charge an extra 6d. for each half-mile completed beyond a certain limit. This might become a very heavy charge in some districts where, for instance, a surgeon might have to travel 10 or 12 miles to examine the children employed in a remote mill driven by the water of a mountain stream.

agreed in principle with the noble Lord, and moved, as an Amendment, to leave out the words "half-mile" in order to insert "mile."

hoped the Amendment would not then be pressed, as on the Report he should be prepared to propose a limit.

thought some protest ought to be entered in regard to the payment of surgeon's fees, and moved, as an Amendment, that "one shilling" be substituted for "sixpence" in the sub-section. He had been assured by practical men of large experience that in many cases the surgeons preferred to do the work for nothing rather than take so mean a fee. He could not see why the House should consent to fix the fee at so contemptible a rate that no respectable practitioner would accept it.

hoped the Amendment would not be accepted; but did not think it necessary, after what had been said, to go again over the whole ground of the fees to be paid.

hoped his hon. Friend would not divide upon his Amendment. It had been said that the fee was so mean few surgeons would accept it; but, on the other hand, very few of them were asked to do so; because, owing to the inconvenience attaching to it, very few children were taken to the houses of the surgeons. Practically, the matter was one more of sentiment than of real grievance, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

said, that as far as his experience went, he seldom knew the 6d. to be refused; it was not only expected, but paid and received. The advantage gained by these certifying surgeons was not direct, but indirect and extensive. The right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had contrasted the charge for examining a horse or a dog with that for examining a factory child, but the cases were not parallel. The man who certified the child got introduced to other business; horses and dogs could not introduce patients to the veterinary surgeons who examined them.

thought it scarcely fair, in calculating a scale of fees, to consider the nature of the indirect advantage which a surgeon might or might not gain from holding a particular appointment. The proper course to take was to pay the gentleman what his services were really worth.

hoped the hon. Member (Dr. Ward) would not divide, although there was something to be said in favour of his proposal. It might, for instance, be useful to raise the fee from 6d. to 1s., in order to check the practice of sending children to the residences of the surgeons, and so opening the door to personation, imposition, and falsehood.

remarked that if a surgeon advertised, as he must advertise, that he would be at home once a-week or once a-fortnight, it was scarcely conceivable that only one child would come. If five, or 10, or 20, there would be 6d. each for them. The first fee was 2s. 6d., but if a second child was examined, the fee was 3s.; so that, in reality, he thought a fee of 6d. was not likely to occur once in three months.

said, that in deference to the feeling of the Committee, he would not press his Amendment; but so many men were ready to take these situations, on account of the good things they would bring them, that he feared they might neglect their duties.

said, he had been asked to move an Amendment in favour of surgeons, and of their payment for attendance in court for examination as witnesses, as he was told that in some cases payment was refused by the tribunal. His proposal was, that when medical men were called upon to attend a court of justice, they should be entitled to a fee of 10s. for attendance, together with the expense of travelling, such fees to be considered as costs in the cause. The practical result of the uncertainty in respect of fees was that in a great many cases medical men neglected to attend courts of justice, and the effect was that a miscarriage took place, and justice was not administered as it ought to be. The fee he proposed was not an extravagant one, but would be a reasonable offer. In other cases a medical man could make his own time; but when he was in court as a witness, he must make his other arrangements suitable to the time at which he had to appear. So he thought the sum he had named was not an unreasonably large one, and should be agreed to by the Committee. One pound, instead of 10s., would be only reasonable.

said, the hon. Member could scarcely have had before him the true state of the law. The law said at present that for proper attendance in court a medical man was entitled to certain fees; and the Amendment, instead of being in favour of, would be against, medical men. There was no such thing as "costs in the cause." Such a phrase had no meaning as applicable to a criminal case. The hon. Member had mixed up two things. In the present state of the law, if a medical man was properly there, he was entitled to his fees. The officer of the court made out what the medical man was there for, and apportioned the proper amount of fee.

observed that certainly the law had been administered in such a way that the medical officers could not get the fees to which the Solicitor General said they were entitled. He did not dispute that the medical men were entitled to these fees; but in some cases they had not got their fees. This had probably happened when they had been subpoenaed as witnesses by the Inspectors, who had no authority to ask for their expenses. He knew, of his own knowledge, that some medical men in the past refused, as far as possible, to go into a court of justice at all, simply because it was uncertain whether they would get any fee for their services. Now, he thought it was fair that medical men should have a reasonable fee. Whether it should be a fixed sum or not he did not mean to argue.

pointed out that medical men had not to serve on juries in any way as many other men had to do; besides, all of them had to do a great many things for which they were not paid. He would advise the hon. Member not to press this Amendment, because many things with reference to exemption might be brought to light.

remarked that the Solicitor General had asserted that a medical gentleman would be paid for if wanted in a court of justice; but the hon. and learned Member had not stated that if a subpoena was served on a medical gentleman he must attend; and, if he followed the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be for the surgeon to say whether he was likely to be wanted or not. A surgeon received a subpoena, and was not informed exactly of the evidence he had to give. He was brought a considerable distance away from his patients; and then, when it was found by the proper officer that his evidence was not requisite, he was not to be paid, forsooth, because his services were not required. Perhaps he might afterwards be told that the evidence he would have given was not germane to the indictment. If this doctrine were correct, it was the witness who was to be the judge as to whether he was obliged to obey the subpoena. He trusted such an opinion would not be uttered by a legal Gentleman in that House again.

I never meant to say that it depended on the cogency of his evidence. It depended on his being there under legal process.

trusted the hon. Member would not substitute "ten shillings" for "one pound." If he did, the effect would be to cut down by one-half the fees paid to these witnesses.

said, that due care should be taken on the Report that the surgeons should be properly paid for the examinations they made.

did not think any question could arise as to that, because it was already provided that 2s. 6d, should be paid for each visit, and 6d. for each person examined.

pointed out that it was complained in Glasgow that the Inspectors there were invisible. They purposely concealed their residences, and no one could get to them. Some words should be inserted to the effect that the Inspectors should give their addresses, in order that the public might know where to find them.

said, that the clause did not provide for the fencing of mill-gearing.

That has been provided for in the earlier part of the Bill.

moved, in page 38, lines 15 and 16, to leave out "knowingly;" in lines 19, 23, and 25, to leave out "wilfully," because words of this description were unnecessarily applied to well-known offences. These words were used in every Act they had been put in to weaken the force of the Statutes —they were in the interest of law, breakers, not of those that wanted to obey the law. He hoped the Home Secretary would assent to the omission of a word which, in his opinion, would injuriously restrict the operation of the clause.

said, it was a mistake to suppose that the words "knowingly" and "wilfully" were not to be found in Statutes relating to criminal offences. They were, he thought, very essential words in such a clause as that under discussion; for, if they were struck out, the most innocent person might be brought within the purview of the Bill, and a monstrous injustice might thus be done to one who was entirely guiltless of any real offence.

argued in favour of the Amendment. If the word "knowingly" were allowed to remain in the clause, the onus of proof that the signer of a certificate actually knew the statements which it contained to be false would lie upon those who prosecuted; and the clause would, in consequence, be rendered almost completely inoperative, for in the vast majority of cases it would be impossible to furnish such proof.

thought the answer of the Solicitor General was conclusive as to the use of the word "knowingly" in the case of the person by whom a certificate was signed; but it would be well, in his opinion, if it were struck out in the 14th line of the clause, because anyone holding a certificate must be aware whether he was really entitled to use it or not.

said, the discussion appeared to him very much on the distinction which he had heard made between a want of veracity and a want of truth. A want of veracity was explained to be the making of an assertion which was not true by a person who believed it to be true; while a want of truth was defined as the making of a statement with the knowledge that it was untrue. It was that distinction which the framers of the clause would appear to have in view.

thought that, though it might be well that some penalty should be attached to mere negligence in the signing of a certificate, it would be unwise of the Committee to assent to the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make what amounted simply to a mistake punishable in the same manner as the grave offence of forgery. It would be a great injustice that a person who negligently signed a certificate, believing that the statements which it contained were true, should be subjected to such severe penalties as those which might be inflicted under the operation of the clause.

opposed the Amendment, adding that, in his opinion, the fine of £20 imposed by the clause was too large, and that it would be better if the amount were fixed at £10.

took exception to the peculiar distinction between a want of veracity and a want of truth which had been drawn by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). If there was such a distinction, it certainly did not exist in Scotland; it might possibly be English, but the probability was, he thought, that it was confined exclusively to Ireland.

replied, that the distinction was not his, but that of the Rev. Mr. Robertson, who was a Scotchman.

said, he should prefer leaving the clause as it stood to amending it as was proposed; while he was quite prepared to admit that a person who "knowingly" uttered a false certificate deserved the punishment which, under the clause, might be inflicted upon him.

said, he would not press his Amendment in opposition to what appeared to be the general feeling of the Committee, though he could not help thinking the Committee was greatly in error in the matter.

thought the clause was badly drawn, inasmuch as it contained no provision imposing a penalty on culpable negligence. It proceeded upon the assumption that a person giving a false certificate must do so intentionally; but the person who did so through gross carelessness might go entirely un- punished. He hoped the Government would take care, before the Report, to have the clause amended in that respect.

directed the attention of the Committee to that portion of the clause under which workshops were to be exempted from its operation where no children, young persons, or women were employed. On looking over the Bill, he found a great many clauses, such as the 3rd, which provided that workshops should be kept in a cleanly state—the 31st, the 32nd, and 33rd, which related to accidents and the making of special regulations for the promotion of health—which, in his opinion, might very properly be extended to the case of workshops in which men only were employed. He found that Clause 34, which provided for the keeping clean of the interior of bakehouses, was rendered practically inoperative, because it only applied to places of that description in which women, young persons, or children were employed. The same objection could be taken to Clause 35, which referred to the provision of clean sleeping places near to bakehouses, and to Clause 36, which provided for proper ventilation, and so on. Clause 76, also, which imposed a fine for not keeping a factory or workshop in conformity with the Act, and Clause 77, which provided for compensation to persons injured through the want of fences to machinery, would both be nugatory unless women, or children, or young persons were employed in the factory or workshop. He therefore, thought the Committee would do well to adopt his Amendment, which was as follows:—To insert after the word "Act" in line 18, page 44, the words "with the exception of sections 3, 7, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 76, and 77."

did not want to take any technical objection to the Amendment; but he would point out that it would be very inconvenient to refer to sections of the Act as proposed by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell). Of course, there was a great deal primâ facie in favour of the Amendment; but, in the first place, as regarded Section 3, by the Amendment, which had been made in the Public Health Act, all factories and workshops were now placed under the control of the sanitary authority of the district. Formerly there was a limit to the power of the sanitary authority, but that was now done away with. With reference to Clause 7, as it at present stood, it only related to places where children and young persons were employed. Then, as regarded Clauses 31 and 32, it would be found that in Clause 59, it was specially stated that those clauses should not apply to workshops not employing children or young persons therein. As to Clause 33, it was thought that the local authority might very fairly be left to say whether a factory or workshop were properly cleansed. He granted that when they came to Clauses 34 and 35, which dealt with bakehouses, a case was made out for the Amendment; but it was by a pure accident that bakehouses employing men were omitted, and for the sake of the public health, they would be included in the Bill at a later stage; but the question whether they should be put under the supervision of Factory Inspectors or of the local authority would have to be considered. With regard to Clause 36, which contained a provision as to ventilation by fans in factories and workshops, wherever there was machinery—no doubt there would be a good deal of dust; but in smaller places, where there was no machinery, he did not think sufficient dust would be accumulated to call for official interference. As to Clauses 76 and 77, they only applied to places where young persons where employed. He hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied with this explanation, and would withdraw his Amendment.

thought that, as the previous Acts were so entirely limited to women and children, it would be better to leave the Bill as it stood in this respect, and he would, therefore, withdraw his Amendment.

said, that before the Home Secretary answered the hon, Member for Tipperary's Question, with reference to schools, he would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the work carried on in laundries. He thought it would be a very great advantage if that part of the Schedule which dealt with those places could be omitted from the Bill.

, in reply to the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), said, that with regard to schools established for gain, the question would have to be looked at very carefully. As to the public laundries, he would have something to say about them when the Committee came to the Schedule; but he was bound to admit that difficulties had occurred in carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, such as he did not think could have been in their minds when they reported; and he would be quite ready to listen to any arguments that might be used in favour of striking public laundries out of the Bill altogether.

called attention to the definition of a "child" which was said to mean "a person under the age of 14 years." He thought 13 years might be the age at which the description "young person" might begin to apply, and he recommended that the question should be considered before the Report.

said, the expression "certified school" in Ireland only applied to national schools; but in England there were two classes of schools which a child might attend under this Bill—namely, "recognized official schools" and "certified official schools." There were a great many schools in Ireland which were efficient, but which were not national schools. For instance, there were the Church Education Society's Schools, The Christian Brothers' and the Nuns' Schools—with reference to the last named of which, Mr. Richmond, the Inspector, had stated that he found a marked difference between the behaviour of girls attending those schools compared with that of other girls of the the class. The time of attendance at school in Ireland, was from 10 to 3, and it was impossible, therefore, to get two attendances of three hours each in one day. Certificates of attendance were, however, given, and the school master reconciled it to his conscience by counting the whole time that a child was away from the factory for the purpose of attending school. The hon. Member then moved an Amendment to insert the following words after the word "school," in page 50, line 5:—

"And any school which the Lord Lieutenant in Council has not refused to recognize as a school affording efficient means of elementary education; Provided, that if attended by children, in accordance with this Act, such school shall be open, with the teachers in regular attendance, for the period of one full attendance before half-past Twelve, and for the period of one full attendance after half-past One in the afternoon of each day."

hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment, as he felt sure it would give satisfaction to all classes in Ireland; and, unless some such Amendment were passed, he was convinced that they would have very great difficulty in dealing with both Catholic and Protestant children in regard to the school question. In his own county—Meath—there were the Erasmus Smith Schools, which were attended by Protestant children, but which would not be recognized in the clause as it stood, and the children attending such schools would not reap the advantages which would be accorded to children attending the national 'schools. The Catholics also had excellent schools, which were preferred by many parents to those which the Act would recognize. This Bill itself afforded a very good precedent for the adoption of the Amendment, for Section 23 provided that where there was no certified school within a distance of two miles from the residence of the child, attendance at a school not a recognized and efficient school should count as attendance at a recognized and efficient school until such school was established. He could not conceive any objection to the Amendment, if the Lord Lieutenant in Council had power to state that any school of which he did not approve should not be certified.

hoped that if any additional schools were to be included in the definition of certified schools very great care would be taken before that was done to test the qualifications of the teachers.

believed that the majority of hon. Members did not know or understand the position of certified teachers in many parts of Ireland. A large number of female children were educated in convent schools, which aimed at giving—and in most instances did give—a superior kind of elementary instruction to that afforded in national schools. Now, if they excluded from the benefits of the clause all schools whose teachers were not certified, they would shut out every one of these convent schools in Ireland. In the county of Kerry, the nuns had no objection to pass the examination necessary to obtain the Government certificate, and a large number did pass it in order to obtain the national grant; but the schools provided by the nuns of Kerry represented only one-thirtieth or one-fortieth of the total number of schools in Ireland. This state of things did not arise from any inferiority on the part of the teacher, as was proved by the fact of those teachers being strong advocates of the system of payment by results. By the rules of the Board these convents would, if classed as national schools, obtain £50 or £60 a-year for every 100 pupils, whereas they now only received £20. They were, therefore, already at a great disadvantage in point of money; and, if they were to be further handicapped, a great injustice would be done them. The same argument applied to the smaller schools, such as those carried on by the Christian Brothers, which provided for the education of the children of the poor, but which were not certified because the teachers would not pass the prescribed examinations. As to the question of time, it was desirable to point out that in many of the smaller towns the hours were regulated by the habits of the country, and that the schools did not keep open as late as half-past 4. Under those circumstances, he thought that, if the Attorney General would adopt the first part of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would confer a very valuable benefit on the school system in Ireland.

, who failed to see the urgency of the Amendment, asked why, if there was to be no qualification, it should not be generally provided that, all schools within a specified distance of any place of employment should be included? The Committee ought not to be called upon to proclaim that the national system of education in Ireland, which cost them so much, was insufficient for the needs of the country, and not to be relied upon for providing instruction within a reasonable distance of the site of employment.

, whilst not prepared to accept the Amendment in the shape in which it had been brought forward, admitted that it might be not unreasonable in the case of Ireland to recognize other than certified schools. He was, however, disposed to believe that although the hours in some of the schools in Ireland were not sufficiently long, yet it would not be desirable to adopt the whole of the Amendment. In regard to the substantial question, it might be better, perhaps, to adopt the words of the 23rd section—"Schools that had been recognized by the Factory Inspector as giving efficient elementary education." As the Amendment had been rather hurriedly prepared by the hon. Member for Tipperary, he would suggest that it should be now withdrawn, and the question raised again on the Report. In the meantime, he would consult with the Home Secretary on the point.

was quite willing to adopt the suggestion of his right hon. and learned Friend. The Education Department in England passed a number of schools which were not certified elementary schools, but which were included under the head of "other recognized schools;" and he confessed that he thought some provision of the sort might be extended to Ireland.

thought that if the Amendment were withdrawn the Government should consent to add these words— "or any schools which receive money from the Commissioners of National Education." This was necessary from the fact that many of the convent schools received money, hut only as payment for results. The point had, no doubt, been overlooked by those who drafted the Bill, owing to their want of knowledge of the intricacies of the education question in Ireland. The speech of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) really meant that Parliament supplied a certain number of national schools for Ireland, and, if the people did not choose to send their children to them, they were to be legislated against on every possible occasion.

suggested that the expression "certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Government inspection.

quite agreed that some change in the phraseology of the clause was necessary, and was ready to insert after "any national school," some words which would include any recognized certified school.

said, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary was at present before the Committee, and it would be better to dispose of it before discussing another proposition.

, believing that English and Scotch Members did not know the real facts of the case, wished to explain the position of things as regarded education in Ireland. What occurred in the national schools was this. It was a common practice for a building, such as a hay-loft, to be hired, for windows to be put in, and teachers who had passed the National Board to be brought there. The teachers were paid by results, and got a fixed payment from the National Board. Even if they had no class at all, they got paid.

Will the hon. Gentleman name those schools?

said, he knew an instance in which a Presbyterian clergyman had gone round to all sorts of people collecting money for education, which was really applied to proselytizing and Presbyterian purposes. This was but one glaring and vicious example of what was done under the guise of a National Board of Education. The children of Ireland got their education in other schools not kept by the National Board, and the teachers in which had no Government test to undergo much better than in the national schools. In the case he had referred to a gentleman collected money from the public, and he was not aware whether any account was given as to how it was expended.

rose to Order.

also rose to Order, remarking that no personal allusion had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan until the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Johnston) had called out "Name?" It was perfectly competent for the hon. Member to decline to give the name of the person he referred to.

said, it was entirely a matter of discretion with the hon. Member whether he gave the name of a person outside the House whom he had referred to.

had not intended to refer specially to the gentleman; but the thing was notorious, and it was a positive fact that that was the way in which money granted for educational purposes was spent. The result of the system was that the Government was subsidizing national school teachers, who were really active agents of Presbyterian clergymen. That was not a desirable state of things, and what hon. Gentlemen did not think they were doing when they granted money for educational purposes in Ireland. He had said, perpaps, more than he had intended to say at starting; but it was essential that hon. Members granting public money should know how it was spent.

expressed a hope that in any Amendment the Government accepted on this part of the Bill relating to Ireland, they would abide by the same principles which guided the action of the law and their own conduct with respect to England and Scotland. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Orr Ewing) had suggested that the expression "any certified efficient school" meant any public or any elementary school under Governmental inspection. Under a recent Act of Parliament no school in England was considered efficient that was not inspected; and he hoped that the Government would not extend the advantage of teaching half-timers, which was an advantage to every school, to schools in Ireland not under Governmental inspection. He did not think the Government would be justified in conceding the privilege of teaching half-timers to any school, as to the internal regulations of which they had not adequate information.

felt assured that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill wished to act fairly towards Ireland in respect to this Bill. The conditions of education differed in the two countries, and in Ireland an inspected school would be another name for a national school. What was wanted was that the other class of efficient schools should be included in the Bill.

hoped that the Committee would be satisfied with the assurance of the Attorney General for Ireland to deal with the question on Report, and not waste further time over the discussion.

wished to know if he had understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire to say that he desired the Government to apply the same principles to public schools in Ireland as existed in regard to those in England and Scotland? If he had correctly understood the hon. Gentleman, he would be content to take him at his word; he would ask him to have the courage to be consistent, and to vote for the same legislation for Ireland as for England in educational matters; for then denominational schools would be brought in Ireland under the public school system. Because Ireland had forced upon it a purely secular system of education, the House could not expect Irish Members to submit to any attempt to exclude scholars attending other schools from the advantages of the Bill. Such a suggestion was not to be tolerated.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had omitted to mention one fact as regarded education in Ireland —that, unhappily, the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church opposed the national system of education. Fortunately, in England— ["Order!"]

reminded the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that as the Amendment before the Committee was as to the definition of a certified efficient school, the subject of religious education in Ireland could not be brought into the discussion.

apologized; but remarked that he had only been replying to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan). He was only observing that it was no fault of the Legislature if the same system of law with respect to education that applied in England, did not apply equally to Ireland.

maintained that when the Irish system of education was first established by the late Earl of Derby (then Lord Stanley), it was by no means a secular system, as under it there was the reading of Scripture extracts, hyms were sung, and prayers said.

pointed out that this reference was out of Order.

said, the difficulty was that in certain parts of Ireland, owing to religious feeling and influences, the national system of education was not made use of to the fullest extent, because parents objected to it. Wherever the Catholics were in a majority the local education would probably be in the hands of a Catholic priest, and the Protestants objected to send their children to a school under such control. The contrary happened in a Protestant district, and the Catholics, having no confidence in the local schools, established schools of their own. Therefore, the Committee was not discussing a Roman Catholic grievance, but one which applied to Catholics and Protestants alike. An Amendment had been proposed to meet the difficulty, and he regretted that the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland had not accepted it. This was no question of the respective merits of systems of education; but the point was simply this—that a large number of the youth of Ireland were educated in schools which did not come under the definition already contained in the Bill, and the Irish Members desired to introduce some provision which would place those schools on an equal footing with the national schools when it had been proved that they were capable of giving an equally good education.

wished, as far as possible, to support the desire of the Irish Members to make the expression "efficient school" comprehend some- thing larger than the national school system. He thought it was the intention of the Government that it should mean something more than national schools, and hoped that after the promises of the Home Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, the Amendment would be withdrawn.

said, if the Government would promise that the Amendment on Report should be sufficiently comprehensive to include within its scope any school which was efficient, in an educational point of view, Protestant as well as Catholic, he would be willing to withdraw his opposition.

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper somewhat similar in character to that of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Gray), and he would be glad to have some explicit declaration from the Government as to what they proposed to do when this question came up on the Report of the Bill. As the Bill stood at present, its limitation to national schools was of a most mischievous character, though it followed up the old principle which had actuated the Government in matters of education—that of forcing children into the schools they deemed it most desirable for them to attend. He could not imagine that at this time the Irish Members would submit to such an imposition as the clause in its present form proposed; but if the Government would only indicate the principle of their Amendment, he would withdraw his opposition. All the Irish Members desired to see was, that schools in Ireland capable of giving a good education to children, no matter to what religion they belonged, should be recognized as efficient schools under the Act.

failed to understand why hon. Members opposite objected to the same treatment as that extended to England and Scotland. In Scotland a certified efficient school meant any public or elementary school under Government inspection, and he was at a loss to know why the Irish Members objected to Government inspection.

said, if the hon. Member had been in the House during the last three-quarters of an hour, he would have known all about it; but it was not calculated to further the business of the Committee for an hon. Member to intervene in so naive a way.

rose to Order. He had been in the House during the whole of the discussion.

So much the worse. The hon. Member had evidently not been attending to what had been going on; for if one thing had been made more clear than another it was what they wanted. It was admitted very frankly by the Government that the clause as it stood would not carry out the principle at which they aimed. However, he should be perfectly content to leave the matter in the hands of the Government, as they had promised to bring up a clause on the Report which would satisfy those reasonable and legitimate wants on the part of the Irish Members which had been expressed to-night. He would not pay any hon. Member the bad compliment of supposing that he did not know what the Irish Members wanted, as it had been already explained.

was perfectly willing to give Ireland every facility possessed by England, but Members from Ireland wished for a great deal more. The schools in England were subject to Government inspection—without that inspection they could not get any money; and he could not understand how any Government could be expected to give support to schools over which they had no control, and with regard to which they had no legitimate information. The proposal to leave it to the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant to say what schools were efficient, and what inefficient, was objectionable; because it would place his Excellency in a very invidious position, and pressure would be brought to bear upon him on all sides. If hon. Members would be willing to submit that every school should be subject to inspection, and paid by results, then their proposal might be agreed to.

said, no Irish Member had suggested that any school in Ireland, Protestant or Roman Catholic, should receive a farthing from public funds without rendering itself liable to public inspection. The Government should indicate the principle they had in their mind. He did not ask them for details, but he wanted to know the principle which would govern the arrangement of this matter; and, unless they knew exactly the principle, they had better discuss the matter fully now instead of waiting for the Report. He should like to know from the Home Secretary or the Attorney General for Ireland whether they had any objection to extend this clause to any and every public school in Ireland, the educational efficiency of which should be approved by a Government authority? That was the principle they wanted, and let them understand each other about it.

thought the offer of the Government was sufficient. [An hon. MEMBER: What is the offer?] Why, to bring up a clause on Report, in which an endeavour would be made to meet the wishes of the Irish Members. This was a complicated question, and it was not right for hon. Gentlemen to imagine that a clause could be drawn up all at once.

considered what they asked for was fair. They did not object to defer this clause; but they did object to defer it without knowing the lines of the principle upon which the Government were to act. As far as he could understand the Attorney General, the Government were going to do exactly the opposite of what the Irish Members wanted.

considered the request of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) a very reasonable one. Nothing was more frequent, when a Bill was in Committee and a difficulty occurred, than for somebody to get up and suggest that it should be postponed until the Report, as they would be in exactly the same position as when in Committee. Now, anybody acquainted with the Forms of the House, knew very well that it was a very different thing to discuss a clause in Committee and to discuss it on Report. They had a much better chance of getting what they wanted in Committee than on Report, because on Report, if an hon. Member only said three words, his further right to speak was gone. This was not a question of a Government grant to Irish education, nor was it a question of voting public money under certain circumstances. As far as he understood this question it was this—this Bill proposed, as a condition of employment, that a child should receive education at an efficient school; and the test of the efficiency of a school was necessarily Government inspection, and that Go- vernment inspection ought to be applied alike to England, Scotland, and Ireland. Now, what was here asked was, that children should not by a side-wind be forced into schools, in order to obtain a right to labour in Ireland, to which schools they might have conscientious objections. What was asked was, that if a child was attending a school which was certified by some kind of Government inspection, such as existed in England and in Scotland as efficient, then no barrier should be placed in the way of the child obtaining employment. The proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was, that he would accept the postponement of the question until the Report, only on the distinct understanding that the Government would say that they would bring up a clause based on the principle that an efficient school, so far as the right to labour was concerned, should be a school which was certified to be efficient by Government inspection. They did not ask for the words of the clause now, they only asked that the Government would state what should be its principle. It was so perfectly reasonable that he hoped the Government would at once make this declaration.

thought that they were all pretty much agreed upon what was required; and the request of the hon. and learned Member for Louth was a reasonable one. He understood him to say that he would be satisfied, provided the Government would, on Report, bring up a clause which would secure that any child attending a school which had been certified by any Government authority as efficient, should be entitled to take advantage of the Act. On Report, he would undertake to bring up such a clause.

was in rather an unpleasant position. In his district there were several schools, whose requirements would not be met by the proposition of the Chief Secretary. He alluded to the district of Tuam, where there were schools which had no Government inspection at all. If the Chief Secretary would, therefore, say any school known to be efficient, the case of those schools would be met, and he should be content.

said, it was the intention of the Government that all efficient schools should be included.

moved, in page 50, after sub-section (1), to insert the following sub-section:—

"In lieu of any four half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every person employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March and fifteenth day of August; Provided, That, when either of these dates falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date."

said, there was, of course, a great deal in the observations of the hon. Member, and he should be prepared to agree to the proposal if the 12th July and 5th of November were also added.

said, so far as this proposal related to St. Patrick's Day, there was no doubt it would receive sympathy; but he was disposed to think that in Ireland, as well as in England, the selection of holidays was pretty fairly arrived at between the employers and the employed, and the masters generally tried to meet the views of those they employed by selecting the best periods of the year. As to young children and women, he thought it better they should have eight half-holidays than four whole-ones, and, certainly, as regarded St. Patrick's Day, some employers might think it was an advantage to the work-people only to have a half-holiday instead of the whole day. From an Irish point of view, there was, no doubt, a great deal to be said about St. Patrick's Day; and, on the whole, although he thought it might be better to leave the arrangement to the people themselves, instead of fixing it in an Act of Parliament, he would not oppose that part of the Amendment. The 15th of August, however, stood on quite a different footing, and making it a holiday by Statute might lead to difficulties and complications.

understood the Attorney General to suggest that only one actual day should be named in the clause, and that St. Patrick's Day. He would point out that already in the 98th clause of the Bill there was one holiday actually legislated for in Scotland. The clause said—

"Any two days, one of which shall be the day set apart by the Church of Scotland for the observance of the Sacramental fast, in the parish in which the factory or workshop is situate."

said, the fast day referred to in this Bill was already created by law, and it was not made a holiday for the first time by this Bill. All shops were closed and business suspended on that day, very much as if it were Sunday.

desired to read the clause, as he was prepared to amend it—

"In lieu of any two half-holidays allowed under the provisions of sub-section (2), in section 22 of this Act, there shall be allowed, as a holiday, to every child, young person, or woman, employed in a factory or workshop, the whole of the seventeenth day of March; Provided, That, when this date falls on a Sunday, this sub-section shall have no effect as regards such date."

hoped the Government would not agree to the Amendment. A large majority of the people employed in factories and workshops in Belfast did not want a holiday on the 17th of March.

was glad the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had withdrawn that portion of his Amendment which related to the 15th of August. He thought, however, it would be generally admitted that St. Patrick's Day was a national holiday in Ireland.

said, it was an entirely new principle in a Bill of this description to select a day which was a secular holiday, so to speak; for all the other holidays appointed for England and Scotland were days of religious observance, though whether they were religiously observed or not was another matter. For example, the two days in England were Good Friday and Christ- mas Day, and the day for Scotland was the Sacramental Fast Day, which was a religious holiday.

had seen how Good Friday was observed as a religious holiday in the Tower Hamlets, and certainly he had always found that St. Patrick's Day was better kept in Ireland.

had always thought that St. Patrick was claimed alike by Catholics and Protestants. There was a song, often heard in the North of Ireland, commencing—"St. Patrick was a Protestant."

said, that before proposing the new clauses which were on the Paper, he wished to make a statement to the Committee concerning a new clause which he had drawn up. Although the Committee had apparently agreed with him that it was absolutely necessary to retain some hold over private workshops, yet he thought they also held the same opinion he himself entertained, that every care should be taken to prevent abuse of the power of entry. He would move, therefore, the insertion of a new clause, which was not on the Paper, to the effect that where an Inspector had reason to believe that work was being carried on in a dwelling-house, contrary to the provisions of the Act, he should not have power to go into that house without either getting a warrant in writing from the Secretary of State, or going before a justice of the peace to ask him to grant a warrant to enter the house. In the case of a warrant granted by a justice of the peace, he thought it necessary that the warrant should not be available for one day only, because, if an Inspector believed that work was going on in a particular house, he might not know the day. Therefore, he would propose that the warrant should be in force for a month. The right hon. Gentleman moved an Amendment to carry out the object he had described.

inquired whether the warrant would be granted on a sworn information?

replied in the affirmative.

thought the warrant ought to be granted by two justices.

wished to know whether there was any precedent for houses of persons in this country being entered upon a Secretary of State's warrant, and also whether there would be a sworn information laid before the Secretary of State, or some other safeguard provided for the protection of individuals?

remarked that the Secretary of State was the Chief Magistrate.

thought the Committee ought to be much obliged to the Secretary of State for proposing this clause. He should withdraw the new clause standing in his name to the same effect. As the right hon. Gentleman had now said that the sacredness of private homes should not be interfered with except on the order of a magistrate or the Secretary of State, he thought it quite right that, under such circumstances, an investigation should be made with a view to ascertain whether children and young persons were being overworked. He had had a great deal of experience among the poor in Bethnal Green, where cabinet-work and shoe-work was done in homes, and many of the people there were amazed at the idea that their homes were to be interfered with under the circumstances which might have been brought about but for the clause which the right hon. Gentleman had just proposed.

joined in thanking the Home Secretary for introducing the clause, which certainly would protect the liberty of the subject to a very great extent.

thought a warrant, granted by a magistrate on a sworn information was a very proper thing, but he objected strongly to the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State. It was a further extension of centralization against which he must protest.

was of opinion that the power given to the Secretary of State was a very valuable one. Possibly in some districts magistrates might take a different view of the Act from that taken by the Legislature; and, of course, the power of the Secretary of State would only be used in exceptional cases. He thought a Proviso that the warrant should be granted by two magistrates would be invidious and objectionable. All informations relating to the liberty of the subject were sworn before one magistrate.

also acknowledged the value of the clause. The Secretary of State had done all he possibly could to remove the objections to the original proposal.

moved the following new Clause:—

(Exemption of certain home-work.)

"The exercise in a private house or private room by the family dwelling therein, or by any of them, of manual labour for the purposes of gain in or incidental to some of the purposes in this Act in that behalf mentioned, shall not of itself constitute such house or room a workshop, where the labour is exercised at irregular intervals, and does not furnish the whole or principal means of living to such family."

said, he had been induced by the strong desire of some of his own constituents, and of other manufacturers similarly situated, to propose that workers in certain light textile manufactures should be allowed to work in spells of five hours during the winter months, so that they might take break- fast and set their houses in order before commencing work. This proposal was, in substance, recommended by the Report of the Commissioners, and if it were accepted it would be received as a great boon by the workpeople as well as by the employers. He had introduced a deputation to the Home Secretary, who had received them courteously, and he hoped had satisfied himself as to the propriety, if not the necessity, of what he asked for. He therefore moved to insert after Clause 47 the following clause:—

(Continuous employment of young persons women, and children in certain cases.)

"In any of the textile factories to which this exception applies, if the period of employment for young persons and women as fixed by the occupier and specified in the notice begins at the hour of seven in the morning, and the whole time between that hour and eight o'clock is allowed for meals, the regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women shall not prevent a child, young person, or woman, between the first day of November and the last day of March next following, being employed continuously, without an interval of at least half-an-hour for a meal, for the same period as if the factory were a non-textile factory.

"This exception applies to the textile factories specified in Part Seven of the Third Schedule to this Act."

wished to make it quite clear what was proposed. This question had been fully considered by the Royal Commissioners. The Statute of 1874 enacted that in all textile factories four-and-a-half hours should be the extent of a spell, and this length of a spell had been confirmed by the present Committee in the earlier clauses of the Bill. Nothing, therefore, would induce him to depart from that four-and-a-half hours' spell in the case of heavy textile work. It was clearly necessary for the protection of persons so employed that they should not work for more than four-and-a-half hours at a time. But the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) urged that in the case of certain lighter trades, which were discussed by the Royal Commissioners, the same argument did not apply. The fact was, no doubt, that formerly the people engaged in those trades were accustomed in the winter months to have breakfast before they went to their work; and it was also true that they could not now follow that system in the winter months without great inconvenience, owing to the provision contained in the Act of 1874. He had not the slightest intention of departing from the clauses they had already passed, because he was quite sure that he ought to uphold the decision arrived at by the Royal Commission. They also came to the conclusion that it was not necessary to enforce this rule in the non-textile factories, and that in those lighter trades the relaxation was not so necessary. He should have no objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson) if the Committee thought the alteration should be made, because the application came not from the masters, but from the workpeople themselves. He knew this to be the case, and could vouch for it, because a deputation from them had waited on him in reference to this subject. He could not assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Stanton), and include all factories in this relaxation.

considered that the Home Secretary was precluded by the Report of the Royal Commissioners from going any further. He perfectly agreed with the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Coventry (Sir Henry Jackson), and only regretted that he could not also support the hon. Member for Stroud.

said, after the remarks of the Home Secretary, it was not much use persevering with the Amendment of which he had given Notice. It must be remembered that, though the Royal Commissioners did not actually recommend the abolition of the system— four-and-a-half hours between meals— they did recommend that it should not be extended; and that they also reported that great complaint was made from Stroud, and the surrounding districts, of the inconvenience caused by the new system. The workpeople in that district felt they were much better off in the old times, when they were left to settle these matters with their employers, than they were now that Government had taken them under its care.

was very glad the Home Secretary had made this concession. He had always been of opinion that in winter 7 to 7 were better hours than 6 to 6. This system was adopted on his own premises—with the consent of the Factory Inspector, for 10 or 12 years—beginning in October, and ending in April, and working from 8 till 7. The result was, that they came in the morning, having had their breakfasts, and found the rooms comfortable and machinery warm, instead of coming a little earlier to find the rooms cold and uncomfortable, the machinery not ready, and to go home afterwards to breakfast. The whole question was really one of the habits of the people. If this concession was offered to the operatives of the North they would refuse it, while in the Midlands and the South they would accept it very gladly. He did not see why each district should not be allowed its free choice in the matter.

asked whether the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) meant that there should only be half-an-hour allowed for meals between the spells, because that was the effect of the clause as it was now worded? Again, on Saturday, was there to be one spell, beginning at 8 and ending at 1?

said, that would be practical effect on Saturday. As to the half-hour, the hands might work from 8 till 1, and from 2 till 7, or from 1.30 to 6.30, as they chose. Perhaps, in the winter months, the latter would be more comfortable for. both parties.

said, his objection was not that too much was given, but too little. He certainly thought there should be at least an hour between meals.

said, the interval between the spells should be at least an hour.

said, the people of Stroud had always been in the habit of having their meals in the winter months in the morning before they began work. It was only during the winter that the alteration in the rules was required; and he was satisfied that it was a very great grievance with them that their habits should be interfered with in this way. Until the Act came into operation, the workpeople always breakfasted before going to work, and he hoped the Home Secretary would yet see his way to granting the boon asked for this district.

moved to omit the word "half-an-hour" and insert the word "hour."

entirely agreed that there should be at least an hour between the spells; but this particular Amendment would not, if properly understood, disturb that. They were dealing here with restrictions. Some words must, if necessary, be inserted in the clause, and he would see the matter was put right on the Report.

moved to insert, after Clause 59, the following new clause:—

(Exception for certain descriptions of flax scutch mills from certain provisions of Act.)

"The regulations of this Act with respect to the employment of children, young persons, and women, and the provisions of this Act which are declared not to apply to a workshop which is conducted on the system of not employing children or young persons therein, shall not apply to flax scutch mills which are conducted on the system of not employing children therein, and which are worked intermittently and for periods only which do not exceed in the whole six months in any year."

asked why young persons in flax mills were to be exempted from the operation of this measure?

said, there was no such exemption. The clause only applied to mills in which young persons were not employed.

thought this was wrong. If they once allowed young people to be employed in these mills—["No, no!"] —Well, the clause was so badly drawn that either it could not be understood, or young people were exempted from its operation.

said, his Paper of Amendments contained the words "children or young persons." The hon. Member was reading from a later edition of the Amendment Paper, which he had not seen.

said, he only intended to exempt factories in which children were not employed from the operation of this clause.

said, from what he knew of scutching mills, children should not be employed in them at all. It was one of the worst employments for children they could possibly imagine. He knew from experience that men working as flax dressers were very liable to consumption and other diseases of the lungs. No doubt these linen merchants in the North of Ireland were very honest and very enterprizing persons; but they wanted to make the most they could from their businesses, and to encourage people to throw flax, no matter what the result to their health. They had laid down the principle that young people were not to be engaged in unhealthy employments, and yet they were about to exempt a trade which, he knew from experience, was as unhealthy as glass-grinding or steel-running. What this proposition really amounted to was, that the Government should give especial encouragement to the growth of flax; and though these linen manufacturers were very enterprizing and very useful persons, he was decidedly of opinion that the Government should not give way, but should hold firm by the Bill as originally drawn.

said, if these scutch mills were declared not to be factories, it must be remembered that the provisions as to fencing machinery would not apply. He understood that the machinery used in this work was very dangerous.

entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) as to the unhealthiness of scutching. The hon. Member who in- troduced the clause (Mr. Mullholland) said this was an agricultural operation; but machinery was largely employed in it, and it was no more really what it was said to be than the manufacture of cotton; besides, he could speak from knowledge that it was a most unhealthy occupation. In a minute those that were employed at it were covered with stubble and dust. They often had to close their mouths not to inhale the foul air. He hoped the Home Secretary would not accept the clause.

was of opinion that this work could only be said to be agricultural because it drew people from agriculture during six months of the year. As to the arguments that had been used, they were exactly the same as those that had been used in vain on behalf of English manufactures. In his constituency there was a large scutching mill, employing a great number of hands, belonging to the Messrs. Russell. They were most benevolent and careful employers; but it was a notable fact that, notwithstanding all the precautions taken by them, the women deteriorated more rapidly than in any other employment in the district. There was not a single argument that had been brought forward in support of this proposition which did not equally apply to other employments.

said, a great majority of these scutching mills were very small affairs, employing a few hands. The clause was said to be for the interest of the manufacturers; but that was not so. It was the growers who would benefit, because the scutching was done by them. Indeed, in a great part of Londonderry, the flax was scutched at home, and was known as handscutched flax. As to its being unhealthy work, he had never heard that said before of the operations of growing and steeping, while the scutching in many parts of the country he knew best was carried on by the people in their own houses. This was really the staple manufacture of the North of Ireland, and therefore he thought it deserved some consideration.

said, the Bill did not deal with hand-scutched flax, but with that scutched in mills and factories. The process did bear a certain relation to agriculture, but only the relation which thrashing did to wheat. He knew the process thoroughly. It was about the dirtiest and most dangerous that could well be, while the more it was done by machinery the more dangerous did it become. When the process of breaking was done by machinery the danger was still further increased. To his mind, there was no really good reason for making the exception.