said, that, before proceeding to move the second reading of the Bill, he felt that he could not approach the subject without saying a word with regard to one who in "another place" was about, a few days ago, to stand in a position similar to that which he now occupied. A short time since those who were interested in the question were waiting anxiously to hear Lord Vernon move the second reading of his Bill on the subject of agricultural holdings. It was with deep regret that they found that Lord Vernon was not in his place when the Order was called, and it was with still deeper regret that they heard that his work had been stopped by the hand of death. As a Staffordshire man and a neighbour of Lord Vernon, as one who had seen his work in agriculture, as one who had seen how deeply he was interested in the matter now before the House, as one who had seen him acting as a member of the Chamber of Agriculture, and even carrying his labours into a foreign land, where he did such good work among those French farmers ruined by a devastating war, he felt that he could not approach his task that day without, on behalf of many in the Midland Counties who knew Lord Vernon as an active and intelligent landlord, of persons abroad who had known his energy on their behalf, and of the very many who knew how deeply he was interested in agriculture, first venturing to lay upon his newly-closed grave this tribute of admiration and deep respect. In submitting this Bill for a second reading, it might be well to say a few words upon the condition of things that existed before and the condition that was brought about by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. Before that Act was passed, and when an inquiry was about to take place, or was taking place, with regard to the compensation that should be paid by the incoming to the out-going tenant, those upon whom had been laid the burden of an arbitration had, where there was no written agreement, to make an inquiry first of all as to what was the custom of the part of the country in which the holding was situated; and, having found that out, to settle and award compensation. Attention having been directed to the subject, the result was to lay down, instead of the vague custom, a scheme upon which compensation should be awarded. That which was uncertain and undefined was made clear, and persons claiming had now, as under an agreement, a scheme of compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. That Act, however, was not made compulsory, and it was in the power of the landlord and the tenant to agree together not to adopt the Act or certain parts of it. There were many who at the time thought it would have been better to make that Act compulsory, but perhaps no one put that view into words more clearly than did the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), who told them that when the next General Election came on they would be pressed to make the Act compulsory. And most rightly did the hon. Member prophesy, for the Act had not been in operation more than a year or two before they were most of them pressed upon the matter, and certainly when the General Election came on in 1880, four or five years after the passing of the Act, the subject was brought prominently before them by their constituents. He (Mr. Staveley Hill) having thought carefully over the matter, undertook at the General Election to do his best to repeal those clauses of the Act which enabled landlords and tenants to contract themselves out of it and so to make the Act compulsory. Upon the meeting of Parliament in 1880 three Bills were brought before the House for that purpose, one by himself, another by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire and several Gentlemen associated with him, and a third by the Members for Bedfordshire and Banbury. Those three Bills were dropped after the first reading, none of them having come to a second reading. In 1881 practically the same three Bills were brought forward again, though two of them had adopted the title of Tenants' Compensation Bills. Some of these were read a second time. In 1882 the three Bills were brought forward again under similar titles. Some were read a second time and one went into Committee but all were eventually dropped. This Session there were again three Bills before the House, the one he now brought forward for second reading, another proposed under the same name as two of the Bills of last Session by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the third introduced by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). It would be contrary to the Rules of the House for him in any way to discuss the provisions of the two other Bills, either by proceeding to dilate upon what he might think superfluous in them or by differentiating them from his own and indicating what he considered deficiencies in them. It would be possible perhaps for him to discuss them as measures that had been brought forward in past Sessions, but he did not desire so far to trespass upon the Rules of the House. He, therefore, merely said with regard to them that they were measures which were far more in the landlords' interest than the tenants', and scarcely so considerate of the tenants' interest as his own Bill. Instead of proposing the simple rules of reference under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875, they introduced a more complicated system of valuation, and there was one difference especially which they had from his—namely, that whereas they referred only to future tenancies, this Bill dealt with all tenancies, whether leasehold or from year to year, and whether existing or future. He did not think there was any point which, either in regard to his own or the Government Bill to be introduced to-morrow, he should press more earnestly on the part of the tenants than that all tenancies, whether existing or future, should be dealt with. He failed to see why a contract of tenancy entered into under other circumstances, but now existing, should not be dealt with in precisely the same way as future tenancies and have the same advantages that they would have. The principle he had adopted in this Bill was to alter as little as might be the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. He had only altered it upon points upon which he should have a word to say when he came to speak more particularly of the details. The main point upon which the Bill was introduced was that with regard to present and future tenancies, the power given to the parties of contracting them- selves out of the Act should be taken away unless there was existing between the landlord and the tenant an agreement giving compensation equal to that which the tenant would be entitled to under the Act of 1875. So far as the principal provisions went, there was but slight alteration in the present Bill from that which he brought forward in 1880. But since 1880 there had appeared a strong piece of evidence in its favour. In 1882 the Agricultural Commission reported, and in a Report signed by the whole of the Commissioners it was said—

"Frequent reference has been made to the effect of the Agricultural Holdings Act, and the expediency has been generally suggested of making compulsory the clauses of the Act which relate to compensation in all cases where compensation is not absolutely secured by custom or by agreement."

Those words were an exact recommendation of this Bill. Lord Vernon had made a separate Report, in the first clause of which he said—

"You must secure compensation to the tenant, because unless you do the maximum fertility of the soil of the country cannot be uninterruptedly maintained."

That put the reason for the Bill on the very strongest ground upon which legislative interference with contract could be placed, for it was the duty of the Legislature in dealing with the question of Agriculture to attain the maximum fertility of the soil. Lord Vernon said that that result could only be accomplished by securing compensation to the tenant, though he went on to say with reference to future agreements—

"Although every out-going tenant is in my opinion entitled to be compensated for the beneficial value of the improvements which he may leave upon his farm of which he has not reaped the entire fruit, landlords and tenants should be left perfectly free to make such arrangements as regards compensation as may seem to them to be desirable."

Further on he said—

"In the absence of any agreement by a landlord for compensation for certain feeding stuffs and manure, compensation should be secured to him by Act of Parliament."

This all pointed to a requirement that there should be a secured compensation to the tenants which might induce expenditure of energy and capital. As an effect of the Act of 1875, and as a reason why the power of contracting out of it—at any rate with regard to the terms of their existing tenancies—should not be left to the landlord and tenant, he would, with the permission of the House, quote from the Report of the Commissioners, which said—

"Upon many estates fresh agreements have been entered into in accordance with the spirit of the Act, adapted to local peculiarities and circumstances."

They had it, therefore, upon the authority of the Commissioners that to obtain the greatest amount of fertilization of the soil it was necessary to secure adequate compensation to the tenant, and that since the Act of 1875 the tenants upon many estates had had the full benefit of the Act, and that this should be extended to all tenants. Therefore, he said that their legislation should not proceed against those who obeyed the Act, but should rather seek by compulsory clauses to bring under it those, if any, who had set it at defiance. On all estates and in all cases an amount of compensation should be secured to the tenant which would insure his endeavouring to attain the maximum of fertility. The objection with which the promoters of this Bill were met was the old objection that they were doing away with the right of free contract; this had been discussed so fully last Session that it was not necessary to enlarge to any extent upon it now. A Society, which counted among its members several distinguished men, had in a pamphlet circulated that morning gibbeted together the promoters of all these Bills as persons who were interfering with the right of free contract and treating grown persons as babies. He ventured to submit that if there was any case in which the rights of free contract could ever be set aside it was that of the occupancy of land. The occupiers of land stood upon a very different footing to that which was taken by parties to other contracts. A man, if he took land in a good season, took it with a sanguine hope of success, and with perhaps a certain amount of carelessness. They all knew that when men took farms they did not always consider sufficiently what it was they were entering into. An agreement was put before them as the estate agreement, which they too readily signed, and it was of the utmost importance to the public that the cultivators of the soil should be secured that which would insure the greatest amount of fertility. Agreements for occupancy were of compara- tively modern date. He could not find any earlier than the middle of the last century, and he believed it was towards the close of the last and the beginning of the present century that agreements for occupancy with all their covenants, with all their rules and regulations with regard to compensation, came into force. They were, no doubt, the offspring of middle men and lawyers, all of whom, he was afraid, had been great incumbrances upon the land. These agreements bad certainly gone far to do away with the old practice, which only bound every man to farm according to the custom of the country in a good husbandman-like manner, and entitled him to claim his compensation from the incoming tenant according to the custom of the county. That was not by a string of clauses put forward by the landlord for his protection, or framed by a shrewd tenant to enable him to escape from his duty to the soil; but it had received the sanction of a long period of time, and long experience had shown it to be the best method of dealing as between the out-going and in-coming occupier of land. To come to the question of free tillage, his experience, both as a landlord and tenant, taught him that it would be far better to do away with all restrictions which hampered the cultivation of land. If a tenant was fit to be trusted with a farm he was fit to be trusted to farm it—and he had long thought that agreements which laid down hard-and-fast rules as to what a man should or should not do, without any provision as to the reason, had gone far to bring about the bad state of things which at present existed. This Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 were to be read as one, so that whatever the Bill did not contradict in the Act it confirmed. The principal clause in this Bill was the 3rd, which provided that—

"Notwithstanding anything in sections fifty-five, fifty-six, and fifty-seven of the principal Act, it shall not be competent for either a landlord or tenant to withdraw himself from the compensation provisions of the said Act contained in sections five to nineteen, inclusive of the said Act, unless there shall be provided under or by an agreement subsisting between them at the time of the termination of the tenancy a compensation to the tenant at least equal to that provided by the said Act; and for the purpose of determining whether the compensation provided by the agreement is of such equal amount, be it enacted that, notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement for tenancy, or any other agreement between him and his landlord, a tenant may give notice, in the manner provided by section twenty of the said Act, that he will proceed to make his claim either under that Act, or under the system of compensation contained in the Schedule annexed hereto as though no agreement were subsisting between them, and thereupon all the clauses contained in the said Act as to compensation, so far as they may be applicable to each case, shall apply between such landlord and tenant, and all questions as to compensation shall he settled in manner provided by the said Act, and the agreement for tenancy and any other agreement existing between the landlord and tenant shall, so far as any question in respect of compensation between such landlord and tenant is affected thereby, unless the tenant shall make his claim there under to the exclusion of either of the other systems of compensation mentioned herein, become and be wholly void and of no effect."

Under this clause the tenant would find no possible cause of complaint of want of compensation, either under his written agreement, or under the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1875, or under the system scheduled to this Bill—which was, of course, open to any amendment that might be suggested—as he might exact full repayment for all his outlay. The 4th clause was as follows:—

"Where under any of the provisions of any such subsisting agreement of tenancy the landlord has made any payment or outlay, or has given to the tenant any other valuable consideration in respect of the said tenancy, and the tenant shall, notwithstanding such agreement, give notice for compensation under either of the other systems mentioned herein, such landlord may give notice of counter-claim in respect of any such payment or outlay or other valuable consideration in the manner prescribed by section nineteen of the principal Act."

This fully protected the landlord against a tenant, who, after reaping the benefit of an agreement, might try to set it aside. The 5th clause provided that—

"No such claim for compensation or dilapidation in respect of any act done or omitted, or of any outlay incurred, before the giving or receiving of the notice to quit, shall be allowed unless the particulars thereof shall have been delivered before the expiry of six months from the giving and receiving of such notice to quit; but the party upon whom such claim shall be made shall have a farther month from the date of the delivery of such particulars for the making any counter-claim in respect of any such claim."

Under the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 notice of claim must be given within a month of the termination of the tenancy, and this Bill fixed six, although he rather preferred that the limit should be three months before the expiration of which the particulars of all claims for outlay then made must be banded in, so that the landlord in letting, and the in-coming tenant in taking, would know exactly the terms upon which they were dealing. The 6th clause dealt with what was called in the Act of 1875, "Improvements of the First Class," and he thought he should carry the House with him in the Amendment lie proposed in that respect. With regard to permanent improvements or other improvements of the first class, the Act provided that the tenant could not claim for them unless the work had been done with the written consent of the landlord. But the landlord, as they all knew, frequently gave his consent verbally, and if he lived that was sufficient in most cases; but tenancies were often terminated by the death of the landlord, and where there was no written consent the tenant under the existing law would have no claim. What he proposed was that it should not be necessary to produce the landlord's assent in writing to entitle the tenant to compensation if he could show to the satisfaction of the Court that the improvements were in fact made with the consent and approval of the landlord. By the Schedule he had introduced a system under which compensation might be claimed not only under Michaelmas holdings, but under Lady Day holdings also. As the result of experience and of advice, he had made some alterations in the Schedule; but these were matters to be dealt with in Committee. The Schedule contained allowances to the tenant on quitting his farm for half the cost of linseed cake, cotton cake, and rape cake which had been consumed on the farm during the last year of the tenancy, providing that the quantity allowed should not I exceed the average of the two next preceding years. The second paragraph of the Schedule provided an allowance for one-half of the cost of artificial manures used with the green crops on the farm during the last year of the tenancy, including the cost of carriage. With regard to under-draining, the Bill provided allowances on the 20 years' principle, and it also provided allowances for the cost of marling on a 10 years' principle instead of 14 years. The subject of dry bone manure was a very difficult one indeed, and one upon which there was considerable difference of opinion. Compensation was formerly made on the 14 years' principle, but he had put it at seven years. In the case of dissolved bones he had put the compensation on a four years' principle instead of five. These, however, were matters for discussion in Committee rather than at the present time, and he merely called attention to them now because it was not without considerable inquiry that he had put what seemed a reasonable term of years in the Schedule—a reasonable term of years amongst which the outlay should be divided. There was one point that he had not dealt with in scheduling the Bill, because it was too difficult to obtain anything like an approximate idea of what the compensation should be for laying down permanent pasturage. It was difficult because so much depended upon the way it was dealt with and cared for during the first 10 years. They all knew that during the first two years the grass was mown and no sheep fed over it, and if at the end of the third year fresh seed were thrown down, and afterwards careful attention were given to it, at the end of 10 years there would be really good old turf. Of course, it was a matter of impossibility to make with approximate accuracy anything like a calculation as to what should be paid. It was, in fact, matter that must be left for adjustment between the parties themselves. There was only one other point he had to refer to. In the other Bills which dealt with this subject they had seen that there had been other tribunals suggested, and other modes of arbitration for obtaining the amount of compensation suggested, than that which had been enacted under the Agricultural Holdings Act, and he trusted that whatever Bill might be brought before the House there would be no different tribunal provided to that which was given under that Act. It was an eminently satisfactory one; it was one which could be worked far more cheaply than any other tribunal that had been suggested; and he hoped that no attempt would be made to substitute for it any other tribunal to which agriculturists could resort for the adjustment of their grievances. He was obliged to the House for the kind attention they had given him, and trusted that they would give a second reading to the Bill, which he now begged to move.

said, that Members were placed at a disadvantage in being obliged to discuss this Bill without reference to their own measures; and it was a pity that the Bill of the Government could not be at once introduced. He could not agree to the second reading of this Bill, because it embodied one or two principles to which he had the strongest objections. It was said that the Bill would set up the Lincolnshire custom as an alternative to the Act of 1875; but he could not admit that the Schedules would in operation amount to the Lincolnshire custom. And, even if they did, he should require more argument to convince him of the desirability of setting up a hard-and-fast line, such as was laid down in the Schedule to the Bill. Difference of occupancy and soil and various other conditions made it impossible to put into an Act of Parliament the customs of different counties. With regard to the question of the consent of the landlord in the execution of improvements, he observed that on that point there need be little difficulty if landlords would only attend more to their business themselves, instead of leaving it to their agents. He believed half the difficulties that had arisen between landlords and tenants were due to the fact that landlords knew little of their tenants and estates, but left their management to agents. Difficulties arose because matters were left too much in the hands of agents, who raised rents and at the same time made promises which a change of circumstances made it difficult for them to redeem. He asked, however, could the House get any advantage from a prolonged discussion of this Bill, when to-morrow night they were promised the introduction of a Bill by Her Majesty's Government? He thought it would be better if the debate were adjourned until they saw what the provisions of the Government Bill were than that they should proceed now in a half-hearted manner, and utterly in the dark so far as the Bill of the Government was concerned, which had engaged the attention of some of the foremost statesmen of England. Therefore, with no wish to act in an unfriendly manner to his hon. and learned Friend, he would move the adjournment of the debate, in order to take the sense of the House on that question.

said, having for many years been honoured with the friendship of Lord Vernon, and associated with him in public matters, he also wished to express his sense of the loss which agriculture had sustained by the death of the noble Lord. As to the Bill, he considered it was an honest and straightforward attempt to deal with the question, and, although, it did not go far enough, under ordinary circumstances he should have been glad for it to be read a second time. But as on the following night an Aaron's rod would make its appearance which would swallow up all the other rods, he would second the Motion that the debate be adjourned.

said, he was of opinion that a continuance of the debate would have been of considerable importance for the information of the country, and it might also have had some influence on the Government measure which was to be introduced tomorrow. He thought the Bill now before the House was worth very considerable attention. He did not agree with the principles of the Bill; but, as he could not discuss it on the Motion now before the House, he confined himself to expressing regret that the debate should not be continued. He thought that further discussion would have been of considerable assistance in considering the Government measure, which they would not have an opportunity of discussing for some time, as it could not be expected that there would be a protracted discussion upon it to-morrow night.

said, that, under the circumstances, he was willing to agree to the adjourment, as he was satisfied with having brought the matter before the House.

said, in moving the second reading of this Bill, he would remind the House that a year ago he proposed a Motion on the subject of the dangers run by the public in London places of amusement, owing to the absence of any efficient system for the safety of theatrical audiences. In introducing that Motion, he produced a vast number of details which were probably in the mind of hon. Members, so that on this occasion he need only refer to them generally. He then showed, without contradiction, the great evils of the conflicting jurisdictions, and the great dangers, from the utter want of system, for the safety of the public that must necessarily exist when left to no less than six different authorities, with different views and guided by different motives. He showed how in London alone these different authorities—namely, the Crown, the Lord Chamberlain, the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the magistrates of London, Middlesex, and Surrey, with the occasional interference of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—held sway over 472 places of amusement, accommodating about 300,000 people, and with powers so ill-defined, and so little known and understood, even by themselves, that they constantly were overriding each other, and could be pitted successfully against one another by anyone whose interest made it worth his while to do so so. He showed how this matter was a very large one to Her Majesty's subjects, concerning nearly 1,500,000 of people weekly in London alone, many of whom were utterly ignorant of the risks they ran. He also showed how in most of the London theatres good fortune rather than caution had prevented the occurrence of calamities as disastrous as that of the Ring Theatre, at Vienna, or the Opera House, at Nice. The average life of a theatre was only 23 years, which of itself showed the absolute necessity for the adoption of measures to safeguard the lives of the 3,000,000 people who on an average weekly used such places of amusement in London. The only way to provide actual safety was by having a proper regard to exits. These should be large enough to enable the audience to escape easily, each part of the house being served by a separate staircase, so that no two streams of people could meet and cause a block; that all doors should open outwards; while every door should be used nightly in order to inspire confidence in case of accident. After a great accident, theatrical managers took certain precautions, but they were soon given up, as they were found trouble- some or inconvenient. He found that since the discussion on his Motion, very little had been done in the way of improving the arrangements for safety at theatres, and that those who complimented him when he brought forward his Motion were the first to oppose him when he embodied it in a Bill. The Home Secretary opposed the Bill, because he considered his Office had sufficient work to do already, and because, however much the public differed from him, he believed the Board of Works had sufficient power already. To show the way in which the Metropolitan Board dealt with the theatres, he might say that they had compelled a certain number of alterations at Drury Lane Theatre, which, though perhaps not absolutely safe, was one of the safest theatres, while they had let alone structures which were notoriously dangerous. The Metropolitan Board opposed the Bill, because they said it was an insult to them. His business was not to pay compliments to the Board of Works, but to try to protect the public, the safety of the people being of more importance than the susceptibility of the Board. Since he brought forward his Motion a year ago, no less than 28 theatres had been destroyed by fire, and amongst them the Alhambra, in Leicester Square. What was known with regard to that fire? He had taken great interest in that accident, and he had ascertained that the state of things existing at the Alhambra before the fire was most dangerous. Large quantities of old stage properties were stowed under the first circle seats; there were openings between the boards of the floor, and the fire in all probability arose from a match dropped by one of the audience into the place beneath them. If so, the fire had smouldered for some time before bursting into flame; but 10 minutes after it did so the whole theatre was in a blaze, and if it had been full at the time there must have been a tremendous loss of life. A timbered screen, covered with only one inch of plaster, had been erected 12 months previously by order of the Lord Chamberlain, to separate the stage from the auditorium, and this erection had been discussed by the Metropolitan Board of Works; but they had not power to prevent its erection. The whole back approaches to the stage were through and under old timbered houses separate from the theatre only by wood. One of those places were used as a common lodging-house, and the day after the fire the police had to remove 300 persons from the place. If the theatres were as defective as he believed them to be, many of them were little better than death traps. Now, if these things were not known to the Metropolitan Board, what was the use of their inspection; and, if they did know, what was the use of their power if they did not exercise it? If that state of things existed in one theatre, and was only found out after a fire, how did the House know that the same was not the case in many other theatres? He was afraid the Metropolitan Board knew that the danger existed, and were afraid to grapple with it, preferring that the public should run the risk. His Bill was an attempt to bring the regulation of the whole of the theatres and music halls, under a central authority, in the same way as mines and factories. There was another very strong point, and that was with regard to smoking. It was patent to all theatre goers that this practice had risen to a very alarming extent within the last few years. This was a subject that ought to be dealt with, and could only be dealt with, by a proper central authority. It was an absurd anomaly that on Ash Wednesday the theatres on one side of the Thames should be closed, and those on the other side open, and that fact alone showed the necessity of having one licensing authority. He might mention that the Middlesex magistrates had passed an unanimious resolution in favour of this Bill; and to show it was not crude, unconsidered legislation was shown by the fact that it virtually carried out what was recommended by a Select Committee of that House which sat in 1866. And he hoped that the House would permit it to go to a second reading. He was quite willing to do anything in Committee in the way of amending it that would really promote the objects he had in view.

, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he thought that a more crude or more unworkable Bill had never been brought before the House of Commons, He thought this a curiously inconvenient time to bring forward the Bill, when they were expecting the establishment of a great Municipality for the whole of London; and, moreover, he thought the House would be very reluctant, by passing this measure, to take away from that Municipality of the future one of the duties which most properly belonged to it. To say nothing of the fact that its drafting was careless and inaccurate, it would not establish one central authority, but would allow both the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Board to issue regulations, while the power of the Lord Chamberlain would remain untouched. Instead, therefore, of having the one grand central authority which it was the hon. Gentleman's wish to create, they would have throe authorities whose action would clash in all directions. Serious charges had been made against the Metropolitan Board; but he wholly denied that they had neglected their duty. They carefully considered the reports of their Surveyor, and of Captain Shaw, and whenever the proprietors of theatres refused to make the alterations required by the Board, the question was referred to arbitrators, who had, as a matter of fact, in each case enforced the majority of the recommendations of the Board. Both at; Co vent Garden Theatre and at the Royalty everything had been done that the Board had required. Nearly 180 music-halls had been inspected, and in them various improvements were being carried out. A serious indictment had been brought forward against the Metropolitan Board about the Alhambra Theatre. That theatre, however, had been thoroughly inspected before the fire, and the recommendations made by the Board were under the consideration of the Company, and in a short time the theatre would have been closed for the alterations had not the fire unfortunately broken out. The Board took the theatres in turn, and endeavoured to act in such a way that a number of people should not be suddenly deprived of their bread. The hon. Member had stated that 28 theatres had been burnt during the last year. Only one, however, had been burnt in London, and that, he contended, showed the great vigilance of the Board of Works. As a rule, he found the managers of theatres were quite willing to carry out all the improvements that were recommended by the Metropolitan Board of Works, and, therefore, he hoped the House would reject a Bill that was both unworkable and unnecessary.

said, he thought the best thing the House could do was to follow the hon. Member for Truro into the Lobby and vote for his Amendment against the second reading. So far as he could see, the Bill conferred a sort of jurisdiction over theatres, partly upon the Lord Chamberlain, partly upon the Metropolitan Board of Works, and partly upon the Home Secretary. But where there was divided responsibility they all knew what the result would be. It meant that nobody was responsible. They all knew the condition of theatres before 1878. They were undoubtedly in an exceedingly dangerous condition; but since the Metropolitan Board of Works had had powers he could assure hon. Gentlemen that if they supposed the proprietors of theatres were under the impression that the Metropolitan Board of Works had done nothing they were mistaken. In their opinion the Metropolitan Board of Works had done a great deal too much. They received reports from Captain Shaw; they had an Inspector to visit the theatres; they had got some theatres rebuilt, and others so altered as practically to be equal to rebuilding. There was, in his opinion, great exaggeration as to the danger of fires in theatres. When a theatre was burnt down in any part of the world there was at once a panic, and whatever the authorities might have done to avert danger, they were always blamed for not doing more. The danger did not arise from the fire, but from the panic; and the great object aimed at ought to be to have a large number of exits. Last year an Act was passed enabling the Metropolitan Board to require that the means of exit from theatres should be kept open. He would suggest to the Metropolitan Board of Works that every theatre should be required to be provided, not only with separate means of exit, but also with separate means of entrance.

said, that the new theatres had separate exits.

suggested that the hon. Baronet should look into the old theatres to see if it was not possible to make separate exits in them. Each crowd from the different parts of the theatre, instead of joining together on the way out, should have its own means of exit, and the way out should be the way by which it had entered. The Metropolitan Board of Works had made great progress since 1878, and he believed they had thoroughly and efficiently done their duty. It would, therefore, be a mistake to pass this Bill, and transfer the authority of the Board to the Lord Chamberlain and the Home Secretary pending the London Government Bill. He should vote that the Bill be read that day six months.

thought the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had proved the necessity for this Bill. His one argument, in fact, was that the Bill was unworkable; but the only error he could point out was a clerical error in putting "67" for "47" in Clause 1. The hon. Baronet's only objection was that there would be a conflict of three authorities—the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Home Secretary; but there was no real foundation for that objection. The question was whether the Metropolitan Board of Works had done their duty. That was answered by the simple fact that matters were just as they were three years ago. ["No!"] Not a single direction, by means of a finger or an arrow, was to be found in any theatre indicating the means of exit. With regard to the case of the Alhambra, mentioned by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon Hartland), had the fire at that house occurred a few hours earlier, some hundreds of lives would probably have been sacrificed. There was little prospect now of the London Government Bill being passed in this or in another Session, and he thought it too bad that the public should still be subject to the risk of fire in theatres when a Bill of four clauses would prevent it. He considered that the ipse dixit of the Home Secretary, that certain things must be done, was far preferable to the present red-tape system of the Metropolitan Board of Works. No reliance was to be placed on arbitration, which might go on till Doomsday. While the so-called arrangements were being made by the Board of Works some frightful catastrophe might take place. It was said that the Government intended to introduce a measure on the subject; but they had heard of a good many intentions of the Government which had not been fulfilled. As he desired to see the matter placed in the hands of a firm Home Secretary, who would give an immediate order that exits be provided, he should support the second reading of the Bill.

thought the present state of things most unsatisfactory. He would ask the hon. Baronet one question—whether it was the custom in theatres, when the ordinary seats were full, to place chairs in the gangways?

said, that was entirely contrary to the regulations of the Lord Chamberlain.

Then those regulations were not attended to. Was any punishment inflicted on the managers of the theatres in which there was a breach of those regulations? Nothing of the kind was attempted. If this blocking-up of the gangways were allowed to continue, there could be little doubt that some terrible catastrophe I would some day happen. What would the President of the Board of Trade say to the owner of an emigrant ship who, when he had let all the existing berths, proceeded to let the lifeboats? Yet these gangways were to a theatre what lifeboats were to a ship. He hoped to see the whole matter placed in the hands of the Home Secretary.

said, he should support the Bill, feeling that nothing could possibly be worse than the present arrangements in theatres. The hon. Member who brought it forward called attention to the state in which the Alhambra Theatre was immediately before the fire took place, and they had also had a statement from the Chairman of the Board of Works on the subject. He admitted that time was required to prepare plans for alterations in the Metropolitan theatres, but it would have taken little time to go over the theatres and music-halls generally. The first theatre to have been visited was surely the Alhambra, which throughout was in a most dangerous condition; but, although the Board of Works obtained powers in 1874, it was four years before they made any representations to the authorities of that theatre, although they had previously dealt with Drury Lane Theatre, which was in a far different position, and in a much safer condition, inasmuch as it possessed fireproof walls and facilities for quickly getting the people out. The Metropolitan Board of Works issued eight orders to the proprietors of Drury Lane Theatre as to alterations to be carried out; but it was shown that several of these alterations were quite unnecessary, and that a fire-proof wall would have to be taken down to carry them out. The matter was submitted to arbitration, the orders of the Metropolitan Board were set aside by the arbitrator, the authorities of the theatre made their objections good, and yet were made liable for the cost. Nothing could be worse or more unjust than such a course.

said, that it was part of the argument of the promoters of the Bill that the safety of the public was not sufficiently insured in the hands of the Metropolitan Board. In his opinion, during the last few years the Metropolitan Board had been doing its work extremely well. Out of a total number of 40 old theatres in London they had inspected more than half, and had carried out alterations in more than one-third; they had caused three theatres to be entirely rebuilt; one theatre had been closed by the action of the Board, and another by the action of the Company to whom it belonged because it could not fulfil the requirements necessary for the safety of the public. In the case of old theatres the Board had only power to direct such things to be done as could be effected at a reasonable cost. In the case of new theatres the Board now insisted that there should be exits on each different floor, and that there should be, as far as possible, separate entrances. He allowed that Drury Lane was the safest of the London theatres; but it should be remembered that that theatre had the greatest cubic capacity of all. The Bill proposed to place the jurisdiction in this matter entirely in the hands of the Home Secretary, without appeal. How would managers of theatres like this? It would confer a power exceeding that of the Star Chamber. The Metropolitan Board had to regard in this matter not only the safety of the audiences, but of all persons connected with the theatres, and that was one of the reasons why such stringent rules were brought forward in the Act of 1878. This Bill seemed to leave everything in a loose, haphazard state within the jurisdiction of the Home Secretary, and he should certainly oppose it.

said, he was surprised at the idea of doing its duty possessed by the Metropolitan Board of Works. In four years it had examined half the theatres, and then congratulated itself on doing its duty. But it was notorious that a great many things were done in theatres dangerous to public safety, such as filling gangways with chairs, without interference from the Metropolitan Board, or the managers being censured or proceeded against in any way. It was only by constant remonstrances in and out of the House that the Board had at last been induced to take some action. This Bill was an attempt to secure the safety of life by putting the power of interference somewhere, and he did not think it could be in better hands than those of the Home Secretary. He had no wish to see such another fire as that at the Alhambra while the House waited for the introduction of the Government Bill. The majority of the theatres were so full of defects that a remedy was urgently and immediately demanded. His experience of them was that the special exits to be used in case of fire were, as a rule, carefully blocked up with rubbish, or even so contrived as to converge in one narrow passage. That was the kind of precaution adopted by the proprietors of theatres at the instance of the Metropolitan Board. The Board certainly had interfered with some of the theatres; but they had shown their wisdom by interfering with the best built and safest houses in London. He should much prefer the simpler jurisdiction of the Home Office; but in the present state of Government Business everything was put off to a more convenient season.

said, he was disposed to vote for the second reading of the Bill, not because he joined in the censure of the Board of Works, but because it raised the question of the anomalous and arbitrary powers exercised by the Lord Chamberlain.

said, he should vote for the Bill if he thought it would insure the safety of the public in the enjoyment of their pastimes; but it seemed to him that to avail themselves of the facilities already provided it would be necessary to have a staff of drilled men to keep the audience in order. As far as he understood it, all the practical good the Bill would do would be to transfer to the Home Secretary the powers now possessed by the Metropolitan Board. That would not touch the real evil at all. The theatres were dangerous, not because they were under the jurisdiction of this or that authority, but because most of them were situated in crowded neighbourhoods, had not sufficient facilities of exit, and no open spaces round them. Besides, as long as crowds were liable to panic, perfect safety could not be secured. The mere transfer of authority would be useless; and he greatly doubted whether the Home Office, already overworked, or any other Department, would be more careful than the Metropolitan Board.

pronounced the Bill one of the most singular and despotic measures ever introduced into the House of Commons, as its main clause would give the Home Secretary authority over every place of amusement in the Three Kingdoms. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had praised his right hon. Friend's administration of the Home Office; but he feared that if the Bill were carried the country would probably lose the services of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend would certainly decline to be responsible for the administration of the provisions of the Bill; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) could hardly think that any responsible politician would undertake the duties thrown by it upon the Home Office. The principle of the Bill was no less objectionable than its practical results, for it would place in the hands of a Central Department powers that might more properly be exercised by a local authority. If the local authority had not the confidence of the public it might be changed; if its powers were not sufficient they might be increased; but reactionary legislation such as the present Bill involved should not be encouraged merely to meet a temporary inconvenience. It would certainly be reactionary legislation to place matters concerning the control of even Metropolitan places of amusement under a Government Department. The best people to control these places were the local authorities. If they had not the confidence of the people they might be changed; but let them not throw these powers over to a great Department of the State. He thought he was interpreting the hon. Member's desire if he took upon himself to limit the Bill to theatres and music-halls only. He had spoken of the wide scope of the Bill; but he gathered, both from the statement of the hon. Member for Evesham and from the whole discussion, that it was intended to apply to the Metropolitan theatres alone. If the Bill were limited as he suggested somewhat of what he had said fell to the ground; and they would have to discuss a new Bill. In London the existing powers were much stronger than many Members had assumed they were. On the 3rd of April, 1882, the Home Secretary said that the 11th section of the Act of 1878 armed the Metropolitan Board with adequate powers to insist on the application of such measures of precaution and safety as might be necessary. The Board were acting upon that opinion, and, as he believed, with great success. As to the inspection of theatres by the Board, it must be remembered that 41 theatres had been inspected and reported upon by Captain Shaw, than whom no one had had more experience in dealing with fires. The hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) asked where were his reports. It was not desirable to create a panic by publishing the reports; but they were shown to the managers. It was by no means promised that they should not be published, if it were necessary; but for the present they were held in terrorem over the heads of the managers who did not make the necessary improvements. If there should be unwillingness to do this the reports could be made public; but there would be hardship in publishing at once reports that might cause a falling off in the attendance at places of public entertainment, because a calamity had happened in another country. On receipt of the reports the Metropolitan Board of Works set to work, and they had been working steadily ever since. They had prevented danger in the new theatres that had been erected; and with regard to existing theatres they had done as much as could fairly be expected. They had taken the worst cases first and had dealt with them effectively. The proprietors of Covent Garden Theatre had spent £4,500 in carrying out to the full the requirements of the Board. The hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), as representing the late Government, had taken the same view of this question as the present Home Secretary as to the undesirability, from the public point of view, of transferring these extraordinary powers to the Home Office.

, in reply, said, at all events it was the discussion j of the subject that had prompted the Metropolitan Board of Works to action. He was quite willing that the Bill should apply only to London, and to theatres and music-halls. It aimed only at securing the public safety, and did not encroach at all on the province of the Lord Chamberlain. He believed there I were reasons why local authorities could not act so independently as the Home Office. As to the Reports of Captain Shaw, if the Metropolitan Board of Works had done their duty, there could be no objection to producing them, for they would show the great amount of good done by the Board; but if danger still existed it was only right that the public should know. If the Bill were read a second time, he should be quite willing to assent to modifications in Committee.

, in rising to move the second reading of this Bill said, he might at once state to the House that it contained no new or exceptional principle. Under the present Factory and Workshop Act a child or person under 18 might not be employed in silvering mirrors, making white lead, or melting or annealing glass, nor a girl under 16 in making or finishing bricks or tiles not being ornamental, nor a child under 14 in dipping lucifer matches, and so on. He submitted that the class of work he was now asking the House to prevent young girls under 14 years of age from being employed at was equally objectionable to any of the trades he had enumerated. The brick trade was heavy work for young females, and, indeed, also for grown women. The tile trade was not so heavy, and probably not so injurious to health; therefore, if the House had already prohibited young females under 14 years of age working at the manufacture of tiles and the making of bricks, it could not reasonably refuse to prevent their children being taught the trade of the blacksmith. His Bill would be much better understood if it had been termed a proposal to prevent young girls being taught the trade of the blacksmith. That really was its object. The objectionable nature of the business had been exposed by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories many years back, and they had submitted to their chief in London the desirability of grappling with the great evil which women and young females had to contend against in the Black Country. It was not the jealousy of trades unionists which had made the discovery of the objectionable character of this work for girls. It was thought that the increase of education would ultimately destroy that system; but the report of the Inspectors a few years back showed that the school accommodation of the district was very limited, and the means of education quite inadequate. The report declared that the moment the Inspector showed himself in the neighbourhood, the fact of his arrival was telegraphed so rapidly from one shop and one street to another, that all the young children and many of the objectionable scenes in the works disappeared. He had also the greatest difficulty in ascertaining the ages of the children or their school attendances. There was one case in which the schoolmistress certified that a child had attended school 512 times in one week, and when asked to explain how that could be she confessed she was not the best of scholars at writing figures, and that possibly mistakes had occurred. The Inspector went on to describe the nature of the work and its unsuitable character for women and young girls, and showed that the em- ployment of females in such trades was attended with the worst results, and that the men sought for girls as wives who were celebrated, not for the qualities which would make them good wives and mothers, but for the number of nails or the length of chain they could make in a day. The Inspector's report went on to show that wives were compelled by their husbands to work simply to provide them with money for drink; and it also spoke of the wretched and lifelong misery which lay before the women engaged in the nail and chain trades of South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire. The reasonable proposal which he now made to the House was that young female children under the age of 14 should no longer be permitted to be taken from the cradle into the blacksmith's shop and there taught to forge for the rest of their lives, at a wage which was a disgrace to the country and to the trade which flourished on such a condition of misery and starvation as was shown in the Inspector's report. He understood there was to be some opposition to the Bill; but he appealed to hon. Members to support it, not only in the interests of these poor people, but also in the interests of the country at large. The opposition to it was, no doubt dictated by the foggers and the truck shopkeepers who throve upon this class of labour; but he asked hon. Members to disregard their plea, and to listen to that of the poor mothers and little children. Mr. Redgrave, who, as the House was aware, was always most anxious that his reports should bear the test of the fullest criticism, summed up his annual report by saying, with reference to the report of his Sub-Inspector, Mr. Brewer, that that report was "undoubtedly sensational," and that he could not put into type what Mr. Brewer and others had said on the condition of the Black Country, but that he believed, from what he himself had seen, that the statements were true, and to the remedy he would respectfully leave the Royal Commissioners, before whom he laid Mr. Brewer's report. The Royal Commission had, however, done nothing, and the argument used on a former occasion by the hon. Baronet the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) was that this state of things would cure itself. He did not ask the House to prohibit female labour in the chain and nail and bolt-making trades altogether. He only asked that female children should not be allowed to be employed in them. One argument brought against his proposal was that if children of 14 were not allowed to commence they could not learn the business. That was not the case, for any intelligent woman of any age could readily learn it. It had been said that there were not many female children engaged in these trades, and that not more than 12 or 14 girls would come under the operation of the Bill; but it was also argued that the measure he proposed would cause a serious derangement of the trade. These arguments were inconsistent; but he thought it was nearer the truth to say that more young girls would come under the Bill than some hon. Members supposed. He would point out, however, that it would be difficult for well-dressed people to discover the real amount of young child labour engaged in the shops, for on the approach of strangers the girls would be sent from the place. Another argument was that the nail-making was not a laborious occupation, and was more of a pastime to keep the children out of mischief. But it was not a question of the labour involved in making a particular nail, but the weary working on for hours and days at that laborious occupation; and he had seen females of very tender years indeed engaged in making great spikes, four and five and six inches long, in which they had to bring to bear an immense amount not only of skill and quickness, but a very great amount of physical strength. They had to forge the iron bar in the fire, to take it out and cut it up into 6-inch lengths, put each piece into the place made in the anvil, hold the header and make the spike. Afterwards they had to point the spike. [The hon. Member illustrated the mode of nail-making with a small machine which he exhibited to the House.] He said that the girl while holding the nail with the tongs, had to use her foot to work a large hammer which did the work ordinarily done in blacksmiths' shops by the striker. This work was pursued 6 to 11 hours a-day by children of tender age. It was a disgrace to the country that it should be permitted. In one shop he had seen a woman of 25 working at chain-making. She was the mother of three children, two of three and four years of age, and one six or eight months old. She worked 10 hours a-day at chain-making, and during that time she was so occupied she had to engage a foster-mother to look after her children. Let her work as hard as she might her income amounted to only between 5s. and 6s. Out of that she had to pay subscriptions towards canning the chains to the buyer, for wear and tear of forge, for coal, and for the care of her baby during six days a-week. At the end of all her toil this poor woman earned the magnificent sum of 2s. 4d. and sometimes 2s. 6d. in wages. In addition to that, her work had to be done in a dirty shed with a stifling atmosphere, when it was not relieved by a strong draught blowing from square openings in the walls. There seemed to be an opinion that what was required to put an end to this state of things was only additional Factory Inspectors. The bodies with which he was connected had been continually asking for such appointments, but hitherto the staff had not been increased. As far as he could see, there was no hope of the appointment of fresh Inspectors sufficiently numerous to grapple with the evils he had mentioned; and, besides, no Factory Inspectors had power to prohibit the employment of young girls in this labour. The Bill dealt with a trade carried on not in factories and large workshops, but in little huts in the back gardens of nearly every cottage in the district, where effectual inspection was all but impossible. He earnestly begged the House to read the Bill a second time. No one need fear to destroy such an industry as this, or to let in foreign competition. Better a thousand times that there should be foreign competition in this trade than that its iniquities should continue, and that young girls and women should, so to speak, forge their lives away for a miserable profit of 2s. 6d. a-week.

, in rising to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, that the Bill was wholly unnecessary, mischievous in its provisions, and would be cruel in its operation. He believed he could show that it belonged to that class legislation destined for the benefit of the few rather than for the many. The Bill applied only to the nail shops, for, practically, screws, nuts, and bolts were manufactured where girls of this age were not employed. The hon. Member who moved the second reading was perfectly right in attributing to him the opinion that the best way of grappling with the subject was by extending the system of factory inspection, and with this view he had given notice of his intention on the Civil Service Estimates to call attention to the want of a sufficient number of Inspectors in this district. There was no doubt that irregularities did exist, but the only and best way to meet them was by carrying out the proposals of the existing Act. It seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke, and the speeches of those who acted with him in the country, all pointed to the same conclusion, that it was impossible to carry out the Factory and Workshops Act by an inspection such as was provided—in the Dudley district, for instance, where an Inspector and an assistant had to contend with 1,300 factories and over 6,000 workshops. The existing staff could not deal with such an extent. The hon. Member spent a great deal of his speech in denouncing the truck system; but that was simply putting up an evil to knock it down again, for there could not be two opinions about that system. All were opposed to the system, and, that being so, he need not trouble the Committee by dwelling upon it any further. It was almost the unanimous opinion of employers, of clergymen, of people who were able to form a judgment on the Bill and had seen it, that it would practically ruin the district, which was an exceptionally poor one, and where there was no other employment for those women to take to. The hon. Member said he did not wish to debar women from working in the nail shops; but, on the other hand, he could not help remembering a certain meeting of a trade's union committee, a deputation from which met several Members of Parliament and discussed the question; and the hon. Member then said that what they wanted was to eliminate female labour altogether. The House had always been particularly jealous of any interference with, or further restriction upon, female labour; and it had been thought a good thing by some persons to endeavour to stop this particular kind of girl labour, so that girls would be debarred from learn- ing the business, would seek employment elsewhere, and gradually be eliminated from the trade. But this district in question differed from others in that there was no other employment in the neighbourhood, no factories to work in, no want of domestic servants, and, moreover, there was no wish among the persons concerned for any further interference. The work was not so hard, in spite of what the hon. Member said. Olivers with 301b. force were not used by women, and the only heavy work in which young persons were employed was the spike nail trade. Now, he had taken the trouble to ascertain about this spike nail trade, and he found that although there were nearly 60 families engaged in it, only four of them were under age. If the Bill were only to deal with this particular trade there would be no objection to it—certainly none on his part; but they should not debar children from working at a trade which was certainly fitting for them. Under the Education Act children up to 14 years of age worked half-time, and with this Bill in force these children would be at home doing nothing. He had a letter from a man in the district having opportunity and means of forming an opinion, which stated that if children were debarred from working at the trade under 14 they would lose that suppleness of wrist which was essential to good work. The hon. Member spoke of the wages as a miserable pittance; but there was one thing he did not mention—that the women worked usually not more than four days, sometimes five days, a-week, and therefore the wages represented considerably more than would appear from the speech of the hon. Member. The whole spirit of the Bill came from outside, from the chain-makers in other districts, who thought that with woman labour eliminated from the trade their wages would increase. This was the whole gist of the question. He could claim knowledge of the district not inferior to that of the hon. Member, whose acquaintance with it was of three hours duration, in the course of which he asked the secretary of the association to show him some of the worst cases. If the Bill were carried, it would only have the effect of driving the trade out of the country; it would not improve the position of the men in this or other trades; it would debar young people from learning the rudiments of the trade, and the result would be a foreign supply or the manufacture by machinery. He had a great many letters from persons in the district, but he did not think it necessary to put them before the House. He hoped he had said enough to justify the contention with which he had started, that the Bill was unnecessary, would be mischievous and cruel in its operation, and unworthy of meeting its assumed object.

seconded the Amendment.

pointed out that, instead of affecting the labour of a limited number of children in Staffordshire and East Worcestershire, the Bill would put a stop to the employment of all girls under 14 years of age in any large factory where nails and screws were made. No doubt, such a result was not anticipated by the hon. Member for Stoke, and therefore he thought his hon. Friend might do well to bring in an amended measure on a subsequent occasion. There was already a considerable legislative interference with the labour of women and children. Women were not permitted to work in coal mines, and there were many restrictions in regard to the employment of children in factories. And it was a very grave matter that the House should be asked in a short Bill of this kind to make an alteration in the age at which children might be employed under the Factory Act. As he interpreted the sub-section to Clause 1 of this Bill, it would prohibit girls under 14 from being employed in the packing up of nails and screws and preparing them for sale in any factory where the manufacture of nails and screws was carried on. These were perfectly harm-loss occupations, and he was sure the House would never sanction such a provision.

failed to gather from the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke any definite information as to the number of persons whose sufferings called for legislation which would seriously interfere with the conditions of general employment. Young girls were already sufficiently protected by the Factor Acts, which required examinations by medical Inspectors. He considered that the plan of making children "half-timers," and so gradually introducing them to full work, was a much better mode of dealing with them than by keeping them from all work till the age of 14, and then letting them take their chance. So far from it being a disadvantage to children entering trade at an early age, it was often kinder to allow; them do so, as it enabled them to earn higher wages afterwards. He warned the House against depriving any portion of the poor people of the country of their employment, and he contended that the evils which might exist in Staffordshire and East Worcestershire could be remedied by the appointment of an additional number of Inspectors. For these reasons he should vote for the Amendment.

said, it had been his fortune very often to listen to the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. A. Arnold) instructing the House as to the construction of clauses of Bills, and he had scarcely ever known the hon. Member come within measurable distance of accuracy; but the hon. Member had never displayed a more lamentable incapacity to understand the English language than on the present occasion. The most extreme interpretation could not by any possibility bring the class referred to by the hon. Member for Salford within the scope of the Bill. The hon. Member for Salford had evidently misunderstood the provisions of the Bill, as it proposed to deal only with young girls who were employed in the rolling, forging, stamping, and hammering of iron, and did not touch those who were engaged in sorting and wrapping. His object in rising, however, was to say that he understood that his hon. Friend who moved the rejection of the Bill was prepared to support a measure for preventing young girls being employed in heavy work. If that were so, it was for the Government to consider whether it was not possible so to amend the Bill as to prevent even a few cases of hardship. He had no doubt that if the hon. Member for Stoke were to bring such a Bill before the House it would receive careful attention; but it was very necessary to watch over any measure so as not to brutalize women by allowing them to be engaged in degrading occupations. He was in favour of giving the Bill a second reading and modifying it in the direction suggested by his hon. Friend.

said, he had received a large number of communications on this subject from workpeople and employers in East Worcestershire, and found they were unanimously opposed to the Bill. He knew his own constituency well, and was not aware any ground existed for imputing insanitary conditions to the nail trade. The intentions of the hon. Member for Stoke were no doubt benevolent, but he seemed to know little of East Worcestershire. He (Mr. Hastings) wished the industrial condition of that county to be let alone, and should therefore vote against the Bill.

thought the House should not favour sweeping restrictions on the employment of girls under 14, for it was important that children should receive industrial training at an early age. As one who had taken great interest in the Factory Acts, he could not support the Bill. It was in many cases very important to their best interests that these children should obtain employment. He greatly regretted the low rate of wages so much complained of by the hon. Member for Stoke; but it was a direct result of the unequal and unfair foreign competition brought against English labour by the system of one-sided Free Trade, of which the hon. Member himself was understood to be a supporter.

said, that the Royal Commission appointed in 1876 to inquire into the Factory and Workshops Act had carefully considered this very question, and their Report on it was the longest they had made in connection with any particular trade. When he was Home Secretary and had to draw up the Bill of 1879, he was at first inclined to include the girls employed in the nail trade within its provisions; but after careful investigation he came to the same conclusion as the Commissioners had arrived at before him, and decided not so to include them. The question was fully discussed when the Bill of 1878 was in Committee, and the feeling against a proposal of this kind then made was so strong that it was not pressed to a division. He hoped the Government would not give way upon this matter; but there was a danger to be guarded against arising out of the wish of the men to stop the work of women for the purpose of keeping up their own wages. Children were generally employed in such work as blowing bellows, and not in hard toil; but there was nothing more degrading in a girl using a hammer than there was in her working a sewing machine.

said, that residing, as he did, where the works to which reference had been made were carried on very extensively, he had no hesitation in stating, without fear of contradiction, that a healthier, more robust, or more active class than the workpeople of the Black Country did not exist in the United Kingdom. This remark equally applied to the women. If in this age of such widespread competition this country had to compete successfully with other countries, it was absolutely necessary that our working-class population should begin at an early age to understand the nature of their work. As regarded these young girls, the law protected them from unfairness, and the work they had to do was comparatively light. It should be borne in mind, too, that all the children to whom reference had been made were only half-timers. By beginning early in life they were enabled later on to earn very much larger wages than they would otherwise do. Knowing the feeling on the subject among the working classes in his district, he should vote against the Bill.

said, he rose in order to put the House in possession of the facts as to the number of persons employed in these trades, for they had not yet been laid before the House. It appeared from the Reports that there were 896 shops in which the nail and chain trades were carried on. Of these, 364 were shops in which men only, or men with their wives, or women working as occupiers, and, consequently, exempted from inspection, were employed. There were 323 shops in which men and women, or women only, were employed, and were subject to modified inspection only; 183 in which young persons were employed; and 26 in which children were employed. And the Inspector further stated that in only nine workshops female children were employed, and these children numbered only nine altogether. The majority of the people employed in these workshops were women, but not young girls; and, as a matter of fact, the Bill would only affect the nine children. He thought the hon. Member for Salford was right in his view of the construction of the 1st clause of the Bill; but any doubt on that subject might be removed by a suitable Amendment. The question was, whether it was worth legislating for so small a class as nine persons? He himself did not think it desirable.

thought that any measure dealing with a long - established trade ought to be well considered; and he was, therefore, in favour of the Amendment.

said, he had no wish to stand between the House and a division; but, reference having been made to the Report of Mr. Brewer, regarding a district with which he (Mr. Staveley Hill) was acquainted, he wished to state, from his personal knowledge of the district, that the Report in question was absolutely unreliable and untrustworthy.