I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the exact nature of the obligations incurred with the French Government, in pursuance of which the Extradition Bill has been introduced; and by what means were such obligations contracted?

said, that he had not yet had an opportunity of communicating on the subject with the Home Secretary, who was not a Member of the House at the present time. He asked his hon. Friend to put the question down for to-morrow.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he proposed to take the Bill which was on the Paper for that day? He believed this Bill had not been printed and circulated.

said, that if there was any objection made to the Bill he would put it down for the next day.

objected.

asked under whose direction the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill would be, now that it had come down from the other House. Lord Tweed-mouth originally brought in this Bill, but he did not think any Member of the late Government would pilot it through the House.

reminded the House of what he had previously said, that the Bill might pass during the present Session if it was unopposed. If objected to by any hon. Member it could not pass.

said, that the Second Reading of the Bill had been moved on Tuesday from that Bench, and he proposed to take charge of the Bill in its subsequent stages.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman intended to make any Amendment in the measure.

said, he was afraid, under existing circumstances, this would be fatal to the Bill, which, although it was not now in the terms in which it was introduced, still contained valuable provisions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he would object to an Amendment to the Bill which should make it perfectly clear that English and foreign fishermen would be treated in exactly the same manner.

suggested that this point might be raised in Committee.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Election Writs issuing on Monday, it would be possible to have pollings on the following Saturday.

said, he was informed there would be no difficulty about the pollings taking place on Saturday if the Writs were issued on Monday.

said that the previous day he had made an omission with regard to this Bill. He was informed that it was a Bill universally approved of on all sides of the House, and, if that was so, he would star it and put it down for to-morrow.

asked if this Bill would be proceeded with. All those who had put down Amendments to the measure had now withdrawn them.

said, the House should be cautious against overloading itself with work at the present juncture, but he would consult about the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intended to take any legislative action to relieve trustees of the difficulties in which they were now placed in regard to the reduction of crofters' rents in the north of Scotland. He regretted that the Secretary for Scotland was not a Member of that House; he had nothing to say against the Gentleman who held that office, but it was a most unsatisfactory arrangement. The present condition of things in regard to the crofters' rents in the North of Scotland was becoming an intolerable one. By the Scotch law the Secretary for Scotland had a right to bring troops or policemen from other parts of Scotland to maintain and enforce the law. It was admitted by everybody that these unfortunate leaseholders were being compelled to pay impossible rents, and public feeling amongst the landlords was so strong that they would not allow the evictions and orders of the Court to be carried out, Before the present Parliament came to a close something ought to be done to relieve these trustees from the position in which they were placed, and to alter the present intolerable state of things. He hoped, therefore, that the First Lord of the Treasury would be able to state what the intentions of the Government were in regard to this matter.

said, that the hon. Gentleman had exercised his undoubted right in asking a question in connection with one of the Votes; but it was impossible for him to give a detailed account of the steps which his noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland would take in connection with the difficulties in Sutherlandshire to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. As he understood, those difficulties arose out of the fact that the trustees in certain estates in which there were leaseholders did not feel enabled to reduce the rents to what the hon. Gentleman regarded as a fair amount, and that in consequence of the incapacity of the trustees there was great difficulty in enforcing payment of rent. He could not believe there was any legal difficulty in a trustee making such reductions of rent as the owner in fee would make if he was the manager of the estate. According to his views, the duty of a trustee, and certainly the duty of the trustees the hon. Gentleman referred to, was to exercise the power of reducing the rents if they ought to be reduced. The system of leasing was absolutely universal over the whole of South Scotland. Would the hon. Gentlemen tell him that a trustee of an estate in the South of Scotland would not feel himself justified, while facing the hard times which agriculture had gone through during the last three years, in making reductions of rents which all the neighbouring proprietors would make. No trustee who understood his duty would, in his opinion, hesitate for a moment to make reductions, should they be required, by expediency and justice, therefore he was reluctant to believe without much further inquiry that these trustees in the North of Scotland laboured under the incapacity which the hon. Gentleman said they did. However, he only interjected these observations in the general policy to be pursued. With regard to that policy the Secretary for Scotland would be responsible, and he had hardly yet had time to make himself acquainted with the state of affairs.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press this new clause, because it opened up a question about which there was very much dispute. Since the passing of the Act of 1878 there had been four trades in which the exceptional privilege of allowing boys to work at night had existed, but these particular mills not being included among the privileged trades had remained under a disability. He might point out, however, that the Secretary of State had power, if special circumstances required, to permit night work being performed by boys. No doubt there was some force in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the convenience of the arrangements he proposed, but on the other hand those arrangements were regarded with great disfavour and suspicion by many people, so much so that the clause might be regarded as a highly contentious one. A large number of clauses were withdrawn during the last stage of the Committee, clauses proposing to modify the Bill in other directions, but they were withdrawn he might point out on the understanding that there should be a general self-denying ordinance, it being felt that any further additions would render the Bill a more controversial one than it already was. Under those circumstances, and without disputing that the hon. Gentleman might have good and plausible arguments to advance in support of his clause, he would appeal to him to withdraw it until later on, perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, when it would be necessary to supplement the Bill in certain particulars, and to consolidate the law on the subject.

said, he had a great deal of sympathy with the object of his hon. Friend, and knowing something of the circumstances of the trade in question, thought the present arrangements in it were rather inconsistent—that was that facilities which had been given to iron mills should also be given to the iron tube mills. But the circumstances were exceptional. He agreed with what had fallen from the late Home Secretary—and he wished to take the opportunity of conveying a tribute to the most admirable and courteous way in which he conducted the Bill in the Grand Committee—in thinking that there was a sort of general arrangement that they should accept the Bill as it stood as a compromise without attempting to extend it. Under those circumstances he hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

, while agreeing that the late Home Secretary had given a pledge to the hon. Member for Kerry to insert such words as those now proposed, said that it was admitted on all hands that there were many districts which were not populous districts, to which the clause should apply. He had yet so worded his Amendment as to bring in the question of population. He submitted that it would be better to omit "the number and distribution of the population and," so that the suggestion should not remain that it was the population that was to be considered in this case. If the late Home Secretary did not see his way to make that concession, he would suggest that a considerable change would be effected by changing the word "and" for the word "or" in line 3 of the Amendment.

intimated that he would accept the latter suggestion, which

thereupon moved, and

seconded the Amendment, which he considered to be most desirable.

said, he should like to see this Amendment accepted. In the case of any machine taken out of a factory, the new machine substituted for it was, to a great extent, necessarily a different machine. He thought that the words as they now stood in the clause were undesirable.

said, that he thought there was a considerable weight of authority in support of this Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"] In Grand Committee he understood that in the cotton trade no great hardship would be caused by the clause, but, in regard to the woollen and worsted trades, he had since been satisfied that the clause, as it now stood, would prevent the elastic adaptation of existing mills to meet changing requirements. He was, therefore, willing to accept the Amendment. This would involve the omission of the proviso. ["Hear, hear!]

seconded the Amendment.

suggested that the Amendment was too restrictive.

said, he was about to make that remark, for as it stood the Amendment would be absolutely inoperative. He suggested that the Amendment should be amended by leaving out "non-textile."

said, he was not going into the point raised, but he was very much afraid of the word "customs." There were cases where the word covered a good deal, particularly in the case of female workers in the printing trade, where the women were employed at night, after printing all day, to wheel to other places, and there to fold, the stuff printed by them.

said, that this clause, in the form in which it now stood, was an illustration of the modern system of drafting by reference, imposed on the draughtsmen by the exigencies of Parliamentary procedure and the shortness of Parliamentary time. Every party in the State was guilty of the same offence, and they must all bear the blame. Until, therefore, the time of the House was increased, they must go on making these references to legislation. He acknowledged that the system was an inconvenient one as a whole, and, personally, he should be glad to see some Amendment incorporated in the Bill. He trusted that whoever was responsible for the conduct of Parliamentary business in the future would make some attempt to consolidate those Acts, and, as a part of that consolidation it would be desirable to make the change suggested.

also appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. For the first time laundries were being brought under the operation of this legislation, and it would only be just and merciful to treat them somewhat liberally, and not to enforce the extreme limits which it might otherwise be found necessary to enact. The object in factory legislation ought to be to abolish scandal, and not to make factory legislation oppressive to an industry like this, especially an industry engaged in by persons in humble circumstances.

said, that, looking to the peculiar circumstances in which the Bill appeared before the House, he thought that the appeal just made was inconsistent and very unreasonable. The object of the clause originally drafted was the protection of domestic industries, and the numbers engaged in them were to be confined to one family. The question as between two and six was discussed in the Committee, and two was carried. Who was to be included in the family—the uncle, the cousin, or the aunt? They had not stated this in the Bill. Generally speaking, the kind of people who took in washing—and he ought to know something about the subject, because his mother had been a washerwoman—consisted generally of a mother, two or three daughters, sometimes two or three sons—in all from five to seven or eight persons. This Bill would enable them to have two outsiders to help; and he contended that a domestic industry, however small, with from seven to ten persons engaged in it, ought to be subject to sanitary and factory laws. The Committee decided against the right hon. Member's proposal to increase two to six by a large majority, and then the right hon. Gentleman had not the Parliamentary courage to propose four instead of two. There was an understanding that all contentious Amendments should be thrown over, and he hoped this Amendment would be rejected.

said, that he must acknowledge that the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division spoke with peculiar authority on this subject, and, if any reliance could be placed on what was in the newspapers, he could congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he would soon be able to bring his practical knowledge to the working of this Act. But he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment. In the Bill as originally drawn only domestic laundries—those which were worked by members of the same family living under the same roof—were excepted from the Bill. A long and admirable discussion in Committee made him realise the reasonableness of the contention that laundries which could practically be treated as domestic laundries ought not to be excluded from the exemption because they now and then employed outside help. The question of degree was no doubt difficult to determine, but the general opinion of the Committee was that two outside workers would be sufficient to limit the exemption. As had been pointed out in Committee, the outside workers need not be the same persons. Different persons might be employed on every day of the week, provided that not more than two were employed at any one time. If experience showed that this limitation was too severe and inelastic it could be altered later. But for the present he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be content with the arrangement arrived at in Committee.

pressed his right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment. The arrangement which had been arrived at was in the nature of a compromise, and, although it did not satisfy him any more than his right hon. Friend, under the circumstances he thought the House was bound to accept it. But he must enter a gentle protest against the language of the hon. Member for Battersea, which was not very courteous to the right hon. Member for Bordesley, and which was not very necessary. The hon. Member had accused his right hon. Friend of want of Parliamentary courage because he did not propose an Amendment which would have been altogether out of order; and then the hon. Member sneered at the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy with a class of people whose interests the right hon. Gentleman had always undertaken to defend, and with conspicuous success and sincerity. The decision of the Committee on this point was to be regretted, because it would throw great responsibility on the Home Office; and it would lead either to a considerable evasion of the law or to the appointment of a large additional staff of inspectors to look after these really domestic laundries. This limitation had been pressed in the interests of the large laundries, which were really to be classed among the large manufacturing industries, and which were everywhere tending to supplant the small domestic industries.

had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of his right hon. Friend. It was most unfair that shipping, the case of which was not mentioned in the Second Reading Debate, should have been introduced in the Bill in Grand Committee. It was very probable that many of the ordinary factory or workshop inspectors would lose their lives whilst inspecting ships already passed by the Board of Trade surveyors. Take the simple case of the ladders into the hold. He doubted very much whether one factory surveyor in 10 would venture to go down those ladders, yet such ladders were peculiarly suited to ships. Take the case of winches or other appliances for loading and unloading the cargo. They were all suitable for ships, and yet it was conceivable that an in spector might object to them on the ground that they were not protected from the weather. It looked as though ships would be inspected out of existence.

thought the hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken were needlessly alarmed in regard to this proposal. They seemed to think the desire was to bring the whole shipping industry under the Factory Act. That was by no means the case. The proposal which had been inserted in the Bill was really one which was consequential on the acceptance of a previous portion of the clause affecting docks. He trusted sincerely that the House would not reverse the decision of the Committee, because the Committee attached great importance to the clause as involving the interest of a very considerable number of men who were engaged in a somewhat perilous industry. But the matter was not of such great scope as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orms-kirk had endeavoured to make out, because, if the House agreed to the inclusion of docks and quays in the operation of the Factory Acts as regarded accidents and other matters, the operation of loading and unloading was clearly intended to be included in the other operations. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was meant by the particular operations which were being brought under the operations of the Factory Acts by means of this clause. They were not now dealing with the question of ships, because they had specifically excluded the inspection of ships by Home Office inspectors.

Is it stated in the Bill that ships are not to be inspected by Home Office inspectors?

said, the only way in which the authority of the Home Office came in was in connection with loading and unloading. The right hon. Gentleman would remember that the object of the clause was to protect the dock labourer; it was not to interfere with the operations and machinery of the ship itself. The clause did not extend to the ship as a whole, but merely to those particular operations in respect to which the ship really formed, for the time being, part of the land. The portion of the clause relating to docks and quays could not be carried out if the jurisdiction of the Home Office ceased at the edge of the quay. When the same machinery and gear were used simultaneously on a ship it should be brought under the operation of the Factory Act. In their opinion, even if the words were omitted, that would be still so. But, at the same time, they desired that the matter should be made clear and that the words should remain in the Bill. Let him point out to the hon. Gentleman that certain portions of the principal Act intended to apply to docks had been excluded. The advantage of this, especially in regard to loading and unloading, would be that greater elasticity would be given to the clause and to the Home Secretary in drawing up rules for the protection of the dock labourers and stevedores. He himself hoped the Committee would not refuse the benefit of the dock clause by rejecting the words proposed, but would see that what was proposed was only the logical conclusion of the acceptance of the dock clause. Further, under Clause 8 of the principal Act applied to docks there would be ample opportunity for the Secretary of State so to frame his rules that they would not harshly affect the shipping interest itself.

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made the matter worse, because he told the Committee that not only were the regulations imposed by the Bill liable to be imposed on vessels in dock, but also any new regulations which the Secretary of State might make. He would point out, not as a shipbuilder or owner, but as representing a constituency which consisted largely of docks, that the Committee was dealing with a subject which they were told and believed would be specifically excluded from the Bill. The hon. Member who had just spoken had shown that no proper discussion took place in Committee on the subject. ["Hear, hear," and "No, no."] Had he known that vessels would be included, he should have objected to the Second Beading. All matters which referred to shipping, and especially Governmental regulations with regard to it, should be contained in the Merchant Shipping Act, and not this Act. As showing that the matter was not sufficiently discussed in Committee, although the hon. Gentleman said he could not draw a line as to loading and unloading, yet in this Bill the Government drew a line between loading and unloading when a vessel was attached to a quay and not to a buoy. Loading and unloading were not the only two processes in which life and limb should be protected. To his mind the question was too large to be placed by a side wind in an Act which dealt with factories and workshops and not with ships. The matter was not properly discussed in Committee, because the Committee was not constituted to discuss ships, and had not sufficient technical experience or knowledge to discuss shipping matters competently. He hoped his right hon. Friend would adhere to his Amendment, if only as a protest against the introduction of ships into an Act which dealt with factories and workshops.

challenged the statement of the last speaker that the subject did not receive adequate discussion in the Grand Committee. There were shipowners and men with technical knowledge of shipping on the Committee. The hon. Members for Sunderland and Middlesbrough were as much connected with shipping as the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that as far as accidents at sea or in harbour were concerned they should be dealt with by the Merchant Shipping Act, but in the case of distinctly industrial accidents occurring in loading and unloading it was better to give the Home Office the power over a ship alongside which it exercised in nine-tenths of the operations on the quay, in the warehouses, and about the docks. The hon. Member who spoke last said Home Office Inspectors would imperil their lives by inspecting ships, and they were not fitted for the work. If this statement were true, it implied that the conditions under which the men worked on ships were dangerous, and they ought not to be made more dangerous by exempting cranes, winches, and ordinary gear from inspection on board ship which they would be subjected to at the quay. He hoped the hon. Member who had charge of the Amendment would stick to the Bill, and he appealed to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who had taken, on the whole, a sympathetic interest in the protection of life on board ship and given specific consideration to this branch of industrial accidents, to bring the docker and stevedore engaged in loading and unloading within the protection of the law. If the Amendment was carried, one of the most valuable provisions of the Factory Act would be sacrificed in a way he did not think it should be after an honourable understanding had been made on both sides that a non-contentious clause should be introduced.

I am obliged to the hon. Member who has just spoken for his tribute to the interest I have always taken in all those who go down to the sea in ships, and I am perfectly willing to extend that sympathy to the dockers, stevedores, and the class of workers in whom he himself takes so much interest. I cannot help thinking, however, that he a little exaggerates the magnitude of the question with which we have to deal, and he spoke of the proposal as though it was a sort of new gospel for this sort of working people. I do not think that is the case, and I do not think it will have so great an effect as he seems to imagine. The proposed Amendment stands in a totally different position from those we have hitherto considered, and we must bear in mind the circumstances under which this provision was introduced. It did not appear in the original Bill. The hon. Member for Poplar said the promoters of the Bill were under the impression that what they were aiming at would be included in the word "dock"; but it was perfectly certain from what happened that it did not appear to be included in the view of those who had the fixing of the Grand Committee. There were 15 Members of the House to be added to the Committee as originally constituted to represent the interests involved; and there could be no doubt whatever that, if there had been the slightest idea that the great shipping interest was going to be included in the provisions of the Bill, a very much larger represention of that interest would have been placed upon the Committee. Although the name of one representative of that interest had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Battersea, it was certain that the representation of the shipping interest was altogether inadequate to enable the Committee to estimate fully what the effect of this new interference might be with that great industry. The hon. Member for Poplar said that this proposal dealt only with loading and unloading; but if that was the case the Bill was drawn very badly for its purpose. This was one of the consequences of attempting hastily to deal with a matter of such extraordinary complexity. Let him point out what possibilities there were under the clause as it stood so far as regarded docks, wharves, quays, warehouses and buildings. Section 68 of the Merchant Shipping Act provided that an inspector might enter, inspect and examine, at any reasonable time, by day and night, any factory or workshop or any part thereof, where he had reason to believe that any person was employed in contravention of the Act; he might take with him a constable; he might require the production of certificates of ages; he might make any inspection necessary to ascertain whether the enactments relating to the public health wore complied with; and he might, either alone or in the presence of any other person examine every person employed there. It was certain the late, Home Secretary did nut mean that all these minute provisions should be applied to ships merely in order to protect persons employed in loading and unloading. If that alone were the object it might be accomplished by some other and simpler provision directed to that particular object. He admitted that good cause had been shown for securing adequate protection for the whole process of loading and unloading instead of for part of it only; but he was convinced that this clause did not provide the proper way of doing it. Perhaps it might be done by some Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act; but, if it was to be done in connection with the Factory Act, it ought not to be done in this extremely harrassing way, which it was evident was strongly opposed by the shipping interest. It ought to be done by a clause specially directed to the purpose; and, if this would give satisfaction, he was prepared to undertake, on behalf of the Government, if they continued to occupy their present position, that they would look carefully into the matter with the view of finding a way to remove the existing anomaly. As far as he was personally concerned he could not agree to the clause as it stood, because he thought it was defective and would involve needless difficulty.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had used words of promise; he had admitted that it was necessary to inspect ships as regarded loading and unloading, with which the Board of Trade had no power to deal at present. If this was to be put under the Board of Trade, that would create fresh anomaly and difficulty.

said, he did not pledge himself; he only spoke of what might be done.

said, that was the whole point; if the matter was not to be dealt with under the Merchant Shipping Act, and so brought under the Board of Trade, why should they not accept this proposal? He did not believe any of the difficulties suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would arise under the operation, of the original clause, because the application was limited in the Bill by the words "for the purposes of loading and unloading." Nothing would be comprehended but what was included in those words. The hon. Member for Battersea had clearly stated the anomalies that might arise if the Bill were not extended to the processes of loading and unloading. Other illustrations might be taken from accidents that frequently occurred in the lifting of heavy bales of tobacco; a lever would break and a man would be crushed by the falling bale. There was no adequate inspection of the implements used in getting these heavy hogsheads on shore; and the anomaly was that the risk could be, dealt with only on the quay and not on or across the stage that connected it with the vessel. They would only get into further difficulty if they dealt with the matter in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. The fact that it was proposed to deal with the question was known beforehand to a larger extent than hon. Members seemed willing to admit. Many weeks ago, before the matter came on for discussion in Parliament, the Government received a deputation from the Dockers' Union, and there was published a full report of the proceedings, in which it was distinctly stated that the Government were considering a concession in this direction, that they thought the matter was covered by the Bill, and they were considering what words could be introduced to attain the desired object. Therefore the shipping interest must have been fully aware of the proposal it was intended to make. The matter was also fully debated upon in Committee; it was divided upon; and the proposal, as it stood, was carried by 29 to 13. Every Liberal Member voted in the majority; but it was by no means a Party majority; because the majority included six eminent Members sitting on the other side of the House. Then, they were now pressing what was supported, after full consideration by a majority of the Committee far exceeding a Party majority.

said, the alarm caused by this clause was shared by the whole shipping interest. He had received a communication from the Central Chamber of Shipping urging that a great interest like the shipping interest should not be included sideways in a Bill intended for land purposes. Nobody dreamed that the Bill would apply to shipping, or that a Home Office inspector would be regarded as a proper person to inspect shipping gear. If the matter was to be dealt with by an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, it should be taken up in the interests of sailors as well as dockers, and, if gear, winches and discharging apparatus required further inspection that inspection should apply to a vessel, whether at home or abroad, whether in stream or alongside a quay. Then you would have the greatest amount of protection for the lives of sailors and dockers, whose safety was always a matter of solicitude with shipowners.

said, it was desirable that they should, if possible, arrive at a general understanding on this point, which he did not think ought to be a subject of acute controversy, certainly not between the two sides of the House or even between different interests. He took note of two admissions which had been made. The first was that it was an unreasonable thing that, if the process of loading required to be superintended in the interest of the dockers, the supervision should arbitrarily cease at the stage connecting the quay with the vessel, although the same machine necessarily lifted goods both over the vessel and over the quay. To draw an arbitrary line was really to make inspection and supervision nugatory, and to deprive dock labourers of a measure of protection which every section of the House desired to give them. On the other hand, the counter admission was made that it was more undesirable to bring ships, qua ships, within the purview of Home Office inspection. The Board of Trade inspection was mainly, if not exclusively, directed to seeing that the equipment of a ship was such as to make her a seaworthy vessel. He quite agreed that it would be undesirable to bring ships, as ships, within the scope of the Factory Act; still, it was desirable that the processes of loading should be subject to Government inspection. Might it not be possible so to modify the language of the sub-section as to remove the apprehensions of gentlemen who represented the shipping interest, and, on the other hand, to carry out the object of giving effective protection to dock labourers? He threw out the suggestion that all that was required might be gained by modifying the sub-section and making it read like this:—

"Every dock, wharf, quay, and warehouse, and so far as relates to the process of loading or unloading, all the machinery and plant used in that process."

wished, by leave of the House, to say one word in acknowledgment of the handsome way in which the late Home Secretary had met this matter. He was at one with the right hon. Gentleman, in holding that proper and secure appliances should be used for the transfer of the cargo from a vessel to the quay or from the quay into the hold of a vessel. He wished to point out the great difficulty of applying the provisions as to the fencing of machinery on board ships. There were certain parts of the machinery on board a ship which it would be impossible to fence.

said, that in the clause as originally drawn it was sought to apply these provisions, but, in deference to representations made, they were omitted, and power was given to the Secretary of State to make rules as to dangerous machinery.

also moved, in that part of Schedule 1, which provides that no grindstone shall be run before any fire-place or in front of another grindstone, to insert "except in pursuance of a special exemption granted by the Secretary of State.'' He said, he moved the Amendment in consequence of a report made to him by the Inspector of Factories in Sheffield, who had pointed out that in certain classes of grindstones this section would not apply.

asked whether an emery wheel would come within the section. There was a great distinction between grindstones worked with water and emery wheels worked dry.

said, that if grindstones included emery wheels, then an emery wheel would prima facie fall within the regulation.

further moved, in Schedule 3, "to insert Section 31 as well as Section 42 of the principal Act as repealed," and again in the same Schedule, ''to insert Subsection 2 of Section 22 of the Act of 1891 as repealed, as well as Subsection 1."

then said, he hoped it might be in accordance with the general wish of the House that the Third Reading of the Bill should be taken at once.

said, he did not desire to postpone the Dissolution, but he wished to say he gave a most unwilling consent to this Bill. He objected to a Bill of this importance being rushed through the House with such indecent haste. On the last day on which the Committee sat something like 25 clauses of the Bill were passed in as many minutes. He thought the Bill was worthy of a whole Session's work, and it was being passed at a time when the House was demoralised by an impending Dissolution. For these reasons he gave a most unwilling consent to the Bill. He was particularly concerned in the clause dealing with the glass trade. He was quite aware that the late Home Secretary had made some very important concessions, but he would like to say that had the Bill been passed in its original form, he believed the glass trade would have been absolutely ruined. There was one harrassing restriction still remaining in the Bill, and he did not think the House was aware what a harrassing restriction it was. The hon. Member for Battersea and his friends seemed utterly regardless of the fact that their trade was leaving the country. The hon. Member and his friends had endeavoured to endow the Home Office as a kind of arbitrary tribunal with the power of dictating to every manufacturer and shipowner how he should carry on his business. He protested that they were doing a hasty and ill-considered thing in passing this harassing legislation. In the Grand Committee, towards the end of the proceedings, 25 clauses were disposed of in 25 minutes. The responsibility for this measure rested with the late Administration, and he should be careful to explain that to his constituents.

denied that the Chairman of the Grand Committee had allowed the work in Committee to be scamped. He wished to thank the hon. Member (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) for his conduct in the Chair, and to record his admiration of the brilliant manner in which the late Home Secretary had piloted the measure through its different stages.

observed that officials concerned in the administration of justice had not had sufficient time in which to consider the provisions of the Bill.

said, that he was most anxious to see this Bill pass into law. Not being aware, however, that the Government intended to proceed with it that day, he informed an hon. Member who was interested in the measure that it would not be brought on. He regretted having misled the hon. Member.

observed that the Leader of the House had said, in mentioning this and certain other Bills, that if any objection were taken to them they would be withdrawn. If, therefore, this Bill were objected to in any way he would withdraw the Motion for the Second Reading.

explained that he did not object, and suggested that the Order might be deferred until To-morrow.

said, that the Government would not oppose this Bill if, in Committee, Amendments standing in the name of the late Lord Advocate were accepted. He doubted, however, whether, in the time at their disposal, the Bill could be passed through the remaining stages. In any case, the Bill could not be proceeded with now, as he had undertaken to move the adjournment of the House as soon as the Government Orders of the Day should have been disposed of.