I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a consolidating, amending and extending Bill which, in some measure, will dovetail into the prospective Education Bill and also into the existing Factory and Insurance Acts. I am sure that the House will realise that the long series of enactments which have been passed in the last 100 years affecting young people and children has been beneficial not merely to the children themselves, but also to the country as a whole. It has made for a healthier, happier and wiser citizenship. Therefore, I am not surprised, but extremely gratified, to find that Members of all parties have already intimated their desire to support the Bill. It dates from a Departmental Committee which sat in 1912 and 1913 to consider the long hours that were worked by vanboys, messenger boys, and children of that description. In 1912, by the Shops Act of that year, young people lost such legislative protection as they had until then owing to the interpretation of the term shop assistant.

From that time till to-day there have been hundreds of thousands of young persons working hours which I can only describe as perfectly abominable. In 1921, the public control committee of the London County Council drew attention to the long hours of van boys, and in 1923 the then Member for one of the Nottingham Divisions introduced this Bill for the first time. In 1924, it was re-introduced, and passed the Second Reading and reached the Committee stage. Unfortunately, for more reasons than one, the Government of that day was dissolved, and so the Measure could not be proceeded with. In 1925, questions were asked by two Members, and in 1926 the Bill was introduced in another place, but withdrawn on the declaration of a Member of the Government that they would take the earliest opportunity of favourably and sympathetically con- sidering the Measure. Evidently, the noble Lord was dissatisfied with the subsequent course of events and reintroduced the Measure in 1927. The Bill, then, has already had an interesting history, both in this House and in another place.

The first, and in some ways the most important, enactment of the Bill refers to the long hours worked, not only by van and messenger boys, but by a whole host of young people in various trades. Although there are certain trades which, either by legislation or by trade agreements, have limited the hours worked by young people, it will, I am sure, surprise many Members to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of young people who are not covered either by trade agreements on the one hand or by legislation on the other. The various Factory and Workshop Acts and Education Acts, though undoubtedly they have done a great deal to assist the child life of the country, still leave the categories I have mentioned, and many others, outside their scope, and it is, therefore, particularly with those that I wish to deal. I trust that this will not be treated in any sense as a party or partisan Measure, but will be considered on grounds of humanity and the truest and highest patriotism.

Will the House allow me to give them a few figures. It is estimated in the census of 1921 that there are 2,854,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 18. Of that number, nearly 2,000,000 are employed in gainful occupation. Again, of that number 797,000 are between 14 and 16, and 1,140,000 between 16 and 18. The particular point in mentioning those figures lies here. Factory workers number, roughly, a third of that total, and transport workers 130,000, some of them protected but many not. Altogether, it is estimated by reliable authorities that something like 1,000,000 young people under 18 have no special protection either by law or by trade agreements. There are also over 35,000 young people under 16 employed in mines. Although in coal mines they have a large measure of protection, in the mines which have not been sunk for the purpose of procuring coal that protection is withheld. In the London area, it is estimated that 50,000 leave school every year at about the age of 14. The education committee of the London Council gave that estimate on the 21st October, 1925.

I am trying by quoting these figures to ascertain, if we can, the number of those who may be affected by the provisions of this Bill, particularly as far as London is concerned. Between the ages of 14 and 15, there are 30,000 boys engaged in transport work, of whom something like 15 per cent., or thereabouts, are messengers, porters, or errand boys of one kind or another. Between the ages of 16 and 17, there are 7,758 messengers, porters, and so forth in that particular category. This, I am quite sure, brings before the eyes of all hon. Members present that vast army of youngsters whom we see running round the streets of London sometimes when we leave this House, and sometimes when we are near our homes in the suburbs of this City. We never perhaps give them a kindly thought; we only give vent to an ejaculation of irritation if they happen to get in our way or we find them engaged in their past-time of fisticuffs up some side turning.

I speak rather feelingly in regard to these young people, these errand boys and messengers and so forth, because I have been one of them myself. When I left school at the age of 14 I entered, straight away, a factory not so very far from this House. There I was employed to work for 12 hours per day, from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night. On Saturdays, I was supposed to leave my work at 1 o'clock, but I well remember the first Saturday I was there breathing a sigh of relief at the end of the first weary week and looking forward to the open air and a game of football only to be told by the foreman to kneel down, not, as I discovered, to say my prayers, but to scrub the counting house floor.

My experience of the streets of London, which was, perhaps, not as bad as that of many of my comrades on these benches, did then and does still bring home very vividly the life, the burden, and the outlook of thousands of young boys who go trundling along the streets of this city with little care from those who ought to consider them as important assets of the community. I well remember wandering round the streets with a heavy sack of jewel cases on my back, sometimes so heavy that to begin with someone else had to help me to get it on to my back. That experience, I repeat, is not nearly so serious and not nearly so tragic either in its actual incidence or in its ultimate consequences as the experience of many hon. Members who are here, but it has brought the matter home to me very forcibly. If hon. Gentlemen will bear that fact in mind, I am quite sure they will realise that I am not speaking in an abstract way in regard to these statistics, but in a very human sense.

May I refer, very briefly, more particularly to this category of vanboys, many of whom we see at the tail end of the van delivering parcels and merchandise of one kind and another? It is estimated that of the total number of van-boys who are used in that way only 15 per cent. ultimately become drivers of the vans behind which at one time they worked. This means that 85 per cent. either find themselves drifting on to the streets or working for a while in dead-alley occupations, or even becoming those wastrels whom sometimes we foolishly condemn, not realising that they are to be more pitied than despised. It is essential to realise that many van-boys to-day still work 12, 13, and even 14 hours per day. One cannot expect lads working such terribly long hours per day to have any serious interest in the affairs of life, or to grow up dignified and able citizens in the way that we should like them to do. These tail-end boys in the end become tail-end citizens. I am quite sure that it is from that particular category that many of those who are more or less useless citizens to-day are recruited. It is true that they have a little rest sometimes, but even then their daily work is not less than 12 hours. Again, it is true that oftentimes they have a little leisure to read their "penny bloods" or to engage in the pastime to which I have already referred, but even that fact does not compensate them in any sense for the long hours which are bound to have an effect both on their bodies and, more particularly, on their minds.

We are told by employers of labour that these messengers and errand boys—these "grease-rags" of the industrial machine—are vital to industry and that without them the expenses of their con- cerns would increase enormously. If that be so, if they are so vitally important to the industrial machine, it is all the more reason why they should pay closer attention to them. We have all seen the milk and paper boys who deliver these respective commodities every day. Perhaps, again, we have rarely paid much attention to their conditions of labour. And, again, in regard to pageboys. In London, possibly in some of the hotels where occasionally we sleep for the night, after being kept here beyond a reasonable hour, there are pageboys who are working from 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning until 8 or 9 o'clock at night. The brass buttons on their tunics and the smart uniform which they wear do not compensate them in any sense for the hours that they have to work, very often under servile, or at least ignoble, conditions. I could mention other categories, but these alone I am sure will bring home the human aspect of the problem which in some measure may be solved if this Bill is passed into law. I need hardly weary the House by drawing attention to the effect on the health of the community, and of these lads in particular. There are still a number of young people and children who are adversely affected in industries which employ lead paint, and I am glad to feel that one of the Clauses in this Bill is the complete prohibition of young people from employment in those concerns, except under very drastic conditions regarding apprentices.

There is another Clause in this Bill which deals with the effect on young life of the lifting of weights that are altogether disproportionate to the size and strength of the young lads. The House will forgive me if I refer once again to my own personal experiences. I am convinced that I am suffering to-day from the effect caused by the heavy weights that I had to lift in those errand-boy days which now seem, happily, to be receding into the past. I am quite sure that there are no Members of this House who will not assent to a Clause which will insist that no young person in this country shall be forced to lift heavy weights either by the hand, or by the shoulder or on the back which have the effect of placing a strain upon some portion of their body or upon their internal organs. There are many citizens to-day, and I am sure that I am not the only one in this House, suffering in some way or other through having been strained by coercion—it can be called by no other name—in the early days of their youth. Again, night work, which is still experienced by a large number of young people and children in this country, has a most unfortunate effect on the health not only of the young life of to-day, but upon the life of the citizens of to-morrow. It was observed during the War that the young people employed on night work in munition factories and similar institutions undoubtedly suffered from loss of stamina. Obviously, they were the victims of lassitude and weakness. If that were true during the War, it cannot be less true to-day. There is a Clause in this Bill dealing with street trading. No one can doubt the ill effects, not only of exposure in inclement weather but a variety of other factors which day by day have their effect on the numerous street traders in this city and elsewhere. I will not speak of the moral danger to these young people; that, also, is provided for in this Bill. I am speaking for the moment of the ill effects on their bodily health. I hope that Hon. Members in all quarters of the House will realise that something ought to be done in that direction, and it can be done by bringing this Bill into law, including the Clause to which I have referred.

May I refer to another aspect of child life which is affected by this Bill? I refer to the employment of young people for theatrical entertainment. I am well aware, and I am sure that the House is well aware, that at the present time there are various provisions which protect young people in some measure, but they do not go nearly far enough, in my estimation. In numerous cinemas in London and elsewhere there are troupes of young people, not exclusively girls but sometimes boys, of tender age, who are trained by dancing mistresses and who provide turns at these cinemas, for which they get a certain remuneration. The remuneration is often simply in the form of a prize, but that is merely a disguise for actual payment, and they are engaged on those terms. There are many hon. Members who deplore the fact that young people and children, whose minds should, at least, be relatively innocent, are brought into an atmosphere which, while it may be quite appropriate to more sophisticated adults, is entirely foreign to the natural mind of young people from the ages of 13 to 14. There is thus imposed upon them what I can only call the Hollywood mind, which, in the course of time, poisons that child's mind which they should really possess. One does not wonder, therefore, that a large number of them are at a very early part of their careers saturated with banality, vulgarity and inanity.

I am not in any sense passing a reflection upon those of older years who like a certain kind of entertainment which may, perhaps, be characterised by the same terms. We know the world and, according to our tastes, our discernment, our education or our environment, we choose our entertainments. I am not, therefore, passing any reflection on the choice that we adults make. But what may be suitable for us, who know the world, cannot be suitable for our own children. I would not like my daughter or my son to be in the atmosphere which sometimes I have seen, and if that be so I am quite certain that all of us here would welcome the Clause in the Bill which in some measure does prevent childhood from becoming Hollywood. It seems to me that many children who are now engaged to give theatrical entertainment will, in the course of time, become graduates in the Hollywood University, with first-class honours in banality and vulgarity, a proceeding which none of us, surely, could welcome. The child mind should remain a fresh mind, a mind untouched by the sophisticated vulgarities of later life, a mind that is still sensitive to the clean, pure things of life. The artificial theatricality which, unfortunately, so often pervades the atmosphere in which some of these children perform, can in some measure be counteracted by carrying the enactments of this Bill into law.

May I deal with some of the points in the Bill? The Bill is a very long one. When I first saw it I grew rather apprehensive. A young Member with such a large child is apt to become rather timid. I shall not become venturesome by reading through the Clauses, or dilating upon them at any great length. In regard to the hours of labour, national regulations are foreshadowed to take the place of the piecemeal local enactments, which often are evaded, which sometimes are not imposed and which cause variations in the country which are bound to lead to confusion. A division is made between children and young people. Under the age of 16 they are still classed as children. That will not be very favourable to those of the age of 15 and under 16, but it is just at that period that many of them begin to feel that they are quite as old as their fathers and mothers, and they show in a hundred and one ways by outward signs that they are determined to follow in the footsteps of their fathers and mothers. For psychological purposes it will be agreed that under the age of 16 they should be classed as children, and that those between that age and 18 should be classed as young people.

The chief point of the Bill is that there should be no children under the age of 13 employed, except those who are lawfully employed when the Bill comes into operation. Between the ages of 13 and 16, the Bill provides that the total number of hours worked shall be 38, or eight hours per day. No child shall work before the close of school each day. Between the ages of 16 and 18, the total number of hours shall be 48, or nine hours per day. Under the age of 18 there shall be no Sunday work, and one half day per week shall be guaranteed to the children and young people of this country. That is not too much to expect. If it can be done in some trades it can be done in all. I cannot see any particular gain to any industrialist or employer in this country in requiring young people in his employment to remain until three or four o'clock. They could very well spare the two or three hours which are suggested by the Bill and allow the young people to go at one o'clock, so that they can pass into the open air, exercise their limbs, breathe the fresh air and in that way become stronger and more healthful servants of the community. It is suggested that a register must be kept by employers, so that it will be known who are under the ages to which I have referred.

The Bill provides that under the age of 16 no young people and no children shall be employed in the coal mines of this country, and that between the ages of 16 and 18 only those shall be so employed who have obtained a certificate of medical fitness. In regard to the conditions of labour here, again, there are several very useful and beneficial Clauses in the Bill. There is a prohibition against children and young people being employed where lead paint is used. Under the age of 16, it is enacted that none shall go in seagoing ships save those who are the children of parents in those vessels. Street trading is prohibited under the age of 16 for boys and under the age of 18 for girls, the distinction between the two being obviously necessary. Night work is prohibited for all young people under the age of 18 between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m.

With regard to children who are giving theatrical entertainments, there are certain provisions which will assist them in that particular profession and the regulations will have to be considerably extended if the Bill becomes law. Dangerous performances are absolutely prohibiting for all young people under the age of 18 years, but licenses for acrobatic and similar performances may be granted by the borough or county council for the area in which the performance takes place. The Bill will also assist us to grapple with a serious and sinister traffic which has been going on for many years. A large number of girls yearly pass from this country to other lands, ostensibly to give dramatic performances, but in the end they are either enticed or degenerate into the oldest profession in the world. There is a provision which will strengthen the law as it exists at present which will undoubtedly assist the girl-life of this country.

There is a great deal more that I could say in support of this Bill, but other hon. Members, I am sure, will want to speak, and it would be unfortunate if I extended my opening address too long to prevent them dealing with the Bill from their own particular point of view. In conclusion, let me say one or two general words in regard to the purport of the Measure and its effect on the child-life of the land. I anticipate that one of the objections against this Bill will be that it is a molly-coddling Bill. I am not quite sure exactly what is meant by that term. It may be merely a dummy put-up to be knocked down, but there is a tendency to scoff at all legislation which tries to assist and improve the life of the young people of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] They are often referred to as slackers because they get some legislative assistance. But I would ask hon. Members of this House whether they would place their own children between the ages of 13 and 18 years under the same conditions which hundreds and thousands of young people in the country have to work today? That surely is the test. I would not put my boys, when they reach the appropriate age, on to the tail end of a van to work for 12 or 14 hours a day. I would not have my boys become page boys in an hotel and live under the conditions I have described, and if I would not have my own children working under these conditions, surely other hon. Members would not allow theirs. In fact, none of us would like to see our children working under these conditions. Therefore the suggestion that this is a mollycoddling Bill will not stand investigation.

To-day we are not only realising the enormous importance of the child life of this country, but we are also realising that the adolescent stage between 13 years and 18 years is in many respects quite as important as the earlier years of infancy. The impressions a child gets at the age of 13 or 14 make or mar his life. May I refer to my own personal experience again, and it will be the last time that I shall do so. I well remember the shock, it was vague, but deep, because it has lasted until this moment, I received when, having left school where I had been taught the team spirit, to serve the school and live for the honour of the school, where I breathed a certain atmosphere which interpreted life to me in terms, not of things, but of values, I found myself no longer in an atmosphere which was drawing out all the latent resources of my soul, but in an atmosphere where I was treated just as a thing, where no concern was expressed for my personal well-being, where I realised myself to be of no more interest to the man who employed me than the glue-pot I used or the scrubbing brush I used.

Small wonder that many young boys and girls passing from one atmosphere like that to another subconsciously begin to feel cynical in regard to life and to the ideals and ideas which had been interpreted to them in their school days. I do not wonder that the Sunday schools are complaining to-day of the tremendous drift of young people of 13 and 14 years of age from those institutions. Young people of that age are noticing that their fathers and mothers do not go to church. They are recognising that they are living in a new world, in new circumstances, in a new atmosphere, and they say that what is good enough for father is good enough for them, and they clear out. They simply pass from one world to another, adjust themselves to the more cynical standards of life, and instead of growing up fine citizens, become saturated with a cynical attitude towards life. The right way is to consider this Bill as being from a common-sense standpoint of tremendous value to the country, because it will give opportunities for drawing out in some measure all the powers which young people cannot exercise if they are working long hours under depressing conditions, and will make them better citizens than they otherwise would become.

This Bill is my revenge, my sweet revenge, not of blood or murder, of arrogance or hatred; but a revenge for the experience I went through for a short time, which illuminated my own perception and knowledge to a degree which will never be erased. Although that time was a little hell to me I have never regretted that period because it makes me realise the lot of hundreds and thousands of young people at the present time. For their sake I present this Bill and I ask the House to join with me in securing my revenge. It will not hurt anyone, it will impose no suffering on a single soul, but it undoubtedly will release child life in many quarters to-day from the shadows which at the moment are falling upon them. There is much support for the Bill. Some 50 educational committees have indicated their support, including the Education Committee of the London County Council, and Members of all parties inside and outside this House, and educational societies of various descriptions, have also shown their sympathy. If that is so, I am certain that this House, which with all its party differences is a very human House, will not lag. behind the expression of opinion of those who are brought into contact with young life to-day. Once more I ask that my revenge shall be carried into effect, and I formally beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion.

It will not be necessary for me to go into any details of the Bill since they have been so admirably put before the House by the hon. Member for Leyton West (Mr. Sorensen). He has the special advantage of speaking with the experience of one of the children for whose sake this Bill is brought forward. He speaks out of his personal experience. May I, speaking from exactly the opposite experience, suggest to members of the House that those of them who have had a protected and prolonged childhood are the very ones who should be most ready to assist in getting this Bill on the Statute Book? They know what an enormous difference lies between the children of the protected classes and the children of the working classes. This Bill is in a sense an effort to give to all the children of the community reasonable protection against over-burdened adolescence. The Bill has the very special advantage, that it puts under national regulation the whole body of employed children and young persons. At the present time, as the last speaker has shown, there are many gaps in which our law does nothing—employments for which there is no regulation. This Bill has the great advantage that it proposes certain general regulations which will cover all of them.

While I think we would all agree that the Bill, in its passage through Committee, may have certain improvements made in it, that there may by discussion be advantages sought and clarity attained in certain points and so on, I think everyone will agree that national regulation in place of the present chaos with regard to young people would be an enormous advantage. It is especially an advantage with regard to the work of administration. At the present time certain provisions of the Employment of Women and Young Persons and Children Act of 1920, covering, for example, young persons employed in transport trades, are administered by the local education authority, but as there are a very small number of children the inspection has been treated as an unimportant job which anyone can take up from time to time. Put all the children under an authority, and it is bound to organise its inspection in a more orderly and effective way.

Let me give an example of the present state of things. Since the Act of 1920 has been in force two night inspections have taken place of the van boys and similar employés in the London County Council area. At one of these inspections no fewer than 40 infringements were discovered. So far as I know, beyond an intimation to the employers that the infringements have taken place there has been nothing done, and there is still no regular inspection. If this business of looking after the children was made part of the authority's duty for all children and young persons, it would be essential that a proper and regular inspection should be made. Under this Bill a register will have to be kept of all children and young persons employed, and it would be far easier to see that the law was being carried out with that full list registered duly by the employer. A national regulation which is specially important with regard to hours, is that under this Bill all night work for young persons under 18 would be abolished. At the present time there are many important exceptions. Practically all those would be abolished under this Clause. Further, the system under which young persons may work on the two-shift plan from very early in the morning or up to very late at night would also be abolished.

There are further important improvements suggested in regard to the medical fitness of children entering employment. It is proposed that with regard to the inspection under the Factory Acts the certified surgeon would have to give a definite certificate in some detail as to the fitness of a boy or girl to undertake the particular employment in which it was proposed to use him or her. If a certificate was given that the boy or girl was unfit he or she could not be employed until a further certificate had been given and remedial treatment had been undertaken successfully. The inspector would have the right of seeing, if some child or young person was doing work which appeared to be damaging his health, to insist that the child should no longer be so employed, or that a certificate should be obtained, on a re-examination, from a certifying surgeon that the child was now fit to undertake the work.

I must say that nationally these health provisions will not be complete until National Health Insurance covers the young person entering employment, so that there will not only be a possibility of an examination on their entering but the possibility of their getting immediate and effectual medical treatment to cure whatever they are found to be suffering from. But it is at least better to prevent children being taken into employment which will do definite damage to their health than, as at present, to have an extremely perfunctory examination which has become no more than a matter of mere form. The Bill further makes more careful regulations for children in unhealthy trades, and it does what I think is extremely important—it proposes that "young persons" shall not, as heretofore, be boys from the age of 14 to 18, but shall be divided into two groups, namely, children up to 16 and young persons from 16 to 18. That enables special regulations with regard to hours to be made for the younger children, which will not be quite so applicable to those between 16 and 18.

It is true that when the school age has been raised to 15 some of these children will come out of this Bill altogether, but it is right that up to the age of 16 they should be specially protected against long hours of employment. Under this Bill the hours up to 16 years of age are restricted to 38, and on at least one day of the week they cannot be employed after mid-day. If we turn to other countries we find that the most advanced industrial countries, such as the United States of America, very generally limit the hours of work of young persons to 48, while in some States they limit them to 44, but that includes all young persons up to the age of 18. In Australia some of the States have even better legislation than that. In Austria all young persons up to the age of 18 are restricted to 44 hours per week, ending at noon on Saturday; and in the United States there is an absolute prohibition of night work up to 16 or 18 years of age in most of the States—it varies a little between the two ages. In Austria there are no exceptions for young persons on night work.

I am sure that all hon. Members would like to see the hours and conditions of work for young persons regulated, but I know perfectly well that one of their claims will be that you cannot regulate the hours without increasing the expenses of industry. What this. House has to consider is whether it is a wise saving to save on the health and strength of the young people. Cheap boy and girl labour means inefficient maturity, and therefore inefficient adult labour. It may be said that we are to-day suffering very severely from competition, but I suggest to hon. Members that when they talk of the importance of the competition which we have to face, they ought not to propose that the burden of the competition should be placed upon the shoulders of the younger members of the community. We ask the House to give a Second Heading to this Bill because it seeks to protect young boys and girls so that they may become fine and healthy young men and women. We believe that the strength of this country, whether considered as an industrial nation or from any other point of view, must lie in bringing to maturity boys and girls who will make strong and healthy fathers and mothers and workers in industrial commercial and other occupations. This Bill seeks to do that and, therefore, we ask the House to give us the opportunity of discussing its details in Committee and working out a really effective charter for the protection of the young.

I feel it necessary in dealing with a Bill of this description to make one statement before I proceed with any further observations on the Measure, and I am led to do so by one expression which fell from the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) during the most admirable speech in which he moved the Motion for the Second Reading. He said that he had knowledge that there were people who scoffed at legislation of this description. I assure him most sincerely that I am not one of them and I am sure I can speak, not only for hon. Members on this side but for those in other parts of the House who will take part in this discussion, when I say that we are not in any sense disposed to scoff at legislation of this description.

May I be allowed to say that I was not alluding to Members of this House at all.

I am quite aware that probably the hon. Member was not referring to Members of this House, but a general reference was made to people who scoffed at proposals of this kind and I merely wish to assure him that, as far as those who take part in this discussion are concerned, we are not in that most undesirable category. Certainly I would not oppose any legislation which had for its object the protection of children or young persons and, as a matter of fact, the hon. Member mentioned certain categories which I myself believe ought to be given certain protection. Nor would I wish to encourage in any way the exploitation of child labour in occupations which are unsuitable, dangerous or unhealthy. But we must remember that there are cases in which we have to be careful that we do not prevent children entering occupations where it is necessary that they should go in young for the purposes of certain training which only the industry itself can give in the present position of things.

12 n.

These considerations do not prevent one from criticising this Bill with a freedom which, I feel sure, the hon. Member will be only too willing to concede. In the first place the Bill claims to be a consolidating Bill with amendments of the existing law. I will deal more fully with the amendments later on and will merely remark now that in many cases they are really New Clauses. As regards the claim that it is a consolidating Bill I would point out that it does not consolidate the whole of the legislation dealing with employment. It only seeks to deal with certain classes of children up to the age of 16 and of young persons up to the age of 18. While I am absolutely in favour of reasonable consolidation I think it very undesirable that we should consolidate by steps, dealing only with certain sections or classes of those employed in industry. I think consolidation ought to be complete, making it possible to have one measure dealing with the whole question. If we consolidate only as far as this Bill proposes, the child of 16 will only have to wait two years until he reaches the age of 18 and then he will come under some other enactment. The Bill also claims to repeal 19 previous Acts but, on looking into these, I find that the repeal is only complete in four cases, and in the other 15 cases only parts of the Acts are repealed. Therefore, the Bill is defective in that respect. As regards the Amendments to the existing law which are proposed, I think when one realises the time which is taken on the Floor of the House and in Committee in the enactment of legislation, one ought to pause before introducing Amendments or additions to Acts of Parliament.

We ought to be very careful in our proceeding in that respect and I wish to put one question, which I think is a very legitimate question, to the promoters of the Bill. What steps have they taken to consult with any local authorities or with any of the industries or professions before bringing these proposals before the House? These are very intricate provisions, which vary considerably just as they are applied to varying industries and trades. It is only just and it is certainly wise that the people in a trade, both employers and employed, should be consulted before any alterations of this kind are made. Then the Bill proposes to deal, not only with those in industry, but with those in non-industrial occupations. The hon. Member intimated that it deals with those employed in shops and, as far as I can see, it deals with domestic servants. What machinery is it proposed to set up for inspection in the case of these non-industrial occupations? That is a matter of great importance, because it is a bad thing to make a law which cannot be practically and well administered. If the Bill passes in its present form it will involve the setting up of a vast army of officials and inspectors to administer its provisions, particularly those which apply to non-industrial occupations.

I do not wish the House to think that I am introducing a trivial question, but in order to show how difficult it is, in a Bill of this description, to consider all the classes affected I would ask the hon. Member what is to be the position, for instance, with regard to choir boys? From what I can see, choir boys come under this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They are not specifically excluded. Clause 2 prohibits employment of a child or young person by night. When I refer to the definition Clause to find out what is meant by "night," I find that it means after 8 o'clock in the evening. I take it if a choir boy, who must not be employed at all if he is under 13, is employed after 8 o'clock, someone is liable, and consequently service must be over by 8 o'clock. There is one method of escape, and that is that you might have a licence for an entertainment, so that if you could get your service recognised as an entertainment, you could get exemption. [An HON. MEMBER: "Shorten the sermon."] I do not know that that is altogether possible, because some sermons are as difficult of curtailment as some of the speeches in this House. It might be said that choir boys are not employed, but I have gone again to the definition Clause to find out what employment is, and on page 50 of the Bill, in paragraph ( o ), I find the words "or for the purpose of gain."

It is common knowledge that some of these choirboys receive what is called attendance money, and there are some choristers who receive educational advantages by the fact of being choristers, and very probably you will find that some of those under 18 who would come under this Bill would be receiving a salary for being choristers. I do not want to labour the point, but it is as well to show what difficulties there might be under a Bill of this description. The definition Clause also shows that not only the chorister himself but "any other person" receiving gain is included. You might say that because you have a musical service the collection must not go to the clergyman, but we know that there are occasions, as at Easter time, when the clergyman does get the collection, and I take it that on those occasions he would have to be deprived of the help of a choir.

Clause 17 deals with salt works. I have in very close proximity to my own constituency three or four large salt works, and according to this Bill a girl under 18 must not be employed in the finishing of salt. We know to-day that the old idea of delivering salt in blocks is fast dying out, and that the great mass of the salt supplied to the public to-day is supplied in cartons or packages, which are made up by girls. Is this Clause going to preclude those girls from continuing in what I regard as not only a lawful but a very respectable occupation, just because the Clause says "finishing of salt" and does not define what it is? That is another difficulty to show that this Bill, as drafted, cannot possibly be accepted.

I understand that agriculture comes under the Bill. In the first place, let me say that, whether or not it is undesirable that young persons should go into some of the industries, I am one of those who believe that those young persons who go into agriculture at an early age benefit considerably. They benefit, for one thing, in their health. I have known many cases where delicate children have gone into the country and, through having been employed on farms for some considerable period, have later on, when unfortunately it may have been necessary for them to go into some other industry, had a far better chance of an active, happy, and remunerative life than they would have had if they had remained in a town or even gone to school. There is an old saying that if a parent could get his boy's feet under a farmer's table, it was the best thing he could do for him.

There are not many of them to-day who do take in boarders, as in the old days, but those who live in the country are nearer the sources of food supply, and undoubtedly, although wages are low, the amount of plain food which is available to those residing in country areas is very much greater and more easily available than in the case of those who live in the towns. They are nearer to all vegetable production and to milk production also. I think it is desirable for another reason that they should go into the country fairly young, and that is that there is such a thing as an open-air habit, and unless that habit is acquired fairly young, I am afraid it is not one which is so easily acquired later on.

Another reason why you should not bring agriculture under this Bill is this. We have already in the industry an Agricultural Wages Board, and I may tell the House that there are 47 different Committees throughout the country, upon which there is equal representation between workers and employers, with an independent chairman, and those 47 Committees have made very varying orders, simply for this reason, that agriculture is one of those industries which varies so much and so emphatically in the different districts that it is impossible to have one order applicable to and suitable for the whole country. Consequently, each of these Committees has the responsibility of considering the possibilities of the industry in its own particular area and of making regulations accordingly.

They have found it absolutely impossible to fix hours for the industry, and there are, as a matter of fact, no hours fixed for agriculture as an industry. It is true that these wages boards, when they fix a weekly wage, have in their minds weekly hours which they put down as being the normal. This normal working week is calculated, as a matter of fact, as on the average, in the winter-time, about 49 hours a week, and in the summer as about 51 hours; but in actual working the average hours —overtime, of course, is paid for extra—necessary in the industry are more like 60. That is not because those working in agriculture desire it, or that they are so fond of it that they like to work long hours. It is absolutely necessary for the convenience of those who live in the towns that milk should be obtained early in the morning, so as to be ready for use in the towns at an early hour; and those who have anything to do with stock know that irregular periods of milking will soon get them into the police court, because the quantity of fat in the milk varies so considerably with the hours of milking.

Again, where there is stock, that stock must be fed, especially when it is housed, and that necessitates hours of work of considerably greater length than in an ordinary industry. One does not want to say that the agricultural labourer is slow, but one does say that the speed at which he works is a very different speed from that worked in an industrial occupation. It is quite natural. As a matter of fact, you can easily see it for yourself. If you see a man who is used to working with plough-horses, and one used to working with hunters, you will see that the latter will out-walk the former in no time. Those working with nature and in agriculture must accommodate themselves to the speed of nature, and nature is slower than machinery. Consequently, the work in agriculture is slower, and the hours are necessarily longer.

If this Bill were to go through, it would be found that no boys under 13 could be employed. That is all right, because, as a matter of fact, the school age comes in there; but those under 16, who are termed children in this Bill, can only work for 38 hours and those under 18 for 48 hours. I have told the House what the hours of work under the wages boards are, and now I will point out the fallacy or the impossibility of applying those hours to these young people working in agriculture. If you take the first class, those under 16, who can only work 38 hours, you will also have to give them a half-holiday. I do not object to that. Most of them get a half-holiday now, and all my own men did. The real week for farm work is seven days, and people who live in the urban areas do not realise it until they go into the country. If you put in a half-holiday and no work on Sunday, that will reduce it to 5½ days, and the day will be brought down to one of seven hours. How is a boy going to learn and assist in milking if he works only that time? It is quite impossible.

Then take the case of the boy under the age of 18. A strong lad of 18 is often one of the best horsemen you can have. He is youthful and active, and I know cases of boys who have beaten older men. The boy under 18 with no Sunday work would work only 8½ hours, and, if you take out the time for feeding the horses, only 6½ hours remain. What agriculturist could make any profit out of the industry—he has very little hope of making it now—if he works his animals only 6½ hours a day? I give these points to show the fallacy of applying general principles to all industry, and that it is impossible to apply this Bill to agriculture. Clause 8 provides for a compulsory register. The farmer must register all his workers up to the age of 18 and give, not only the date of birth, but the date of entry into employment and the date of leaving employment. If he does not keep that register, he will, under this Bill, be liable to a fine of £5. He may have only one individual of that age, but he must nevertheless have a register, and, if he fails to keep it, he is liable to a penalty of £5.

Where in this Clause is there any reference to the agricultural industry as such? It definitely lays down that the registration is confined to certain wholesale warehouses and shops.

"Or in any other industrial undertaking."

That is the point about which I am asking information. If I can be assured that it does not apply to agriculture, it does away with my objection, but I cannot find that agriculture is not brought in. Dealing further with the question of the register, there is another penalty of £2 a day for misleading information. Suppose that a father or mother of a boy quite laudably wishes to get the boy employed in agriculture, and gives his age as a year older than he is. That is an inaccuracy in the information, and, although the father is not responsible, he is liable to a fine. We who sit on the bench know that when these cases are brought before us, the man often is not such an individual who can put his case forward in a way that might give him success. Under Clause 9, which I may again be told does not apply to agriculture, you have to notify the employment exchange when a boy enters and leaves his employment. At the present time, agriculture does not come under the employment exchange, and this Clause appears to anticipate something which may be done later on. At the moment, however, why is agriculture included? Under Sub-section (3) of Clause 9 there is reference to casuals, who are to be excluded. I cannot find anywhere in the Bill a definition of the words "casual labour," and that again shows that this Bill has not been as well considered as it ought to have been before it was introduced.

Clause 50 does apply to agriculture, because it says so. It refers to the employment of gangs, and says that a female young person and a child of either sex shall not be employed as a member of an agricultural gang. I am aware that when one refers to agricultural gangs, one is sometimes faced with the black pictures which are drawn about camps. All these camps, however, are not unsatisfactory, but, where they are unsatisfactory, there are other means of dealing with them which the local authorities ought to take, and it is not therefore necessary to bring them in this Bill. The work on which these gangs are employed is seasonal, and in such work time is a great factor. In such work as hop, fruit, vegetable, and potato picking, time is very valuable, because you can only get the crops in in good weather and within a certain time, or you will miss the market and damage the crops. Gangs seldom work in bad weather. There are considerable advantages to young people in accompanying their parents to these camps when the camps are suitable. It is far worse to leave a child at home without adequate supervision, or arrangements for its maintenance, than for the parents to go to the camps and take their children with them during good weather and under proper conditions. But they are not all camps. Some of these gangs are collected together to reside in their own homes, and the conditions are not at all what one would condemn; consequently, I can see no harm whatever in the children being employed under such conditions. Before I conclude—

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, would he mind looking at Clause 5, which gives the Government department power to vary the provisions.

But why vary the conditions in agriculture when we already have statutory committees set up to deal with these questions?

Not with regard to hours, only with regard to wages.

I explained earlier in my speech that they found it impossible to fix hours in agriculture.

The Clause says that the Government department may vary the provisions

"so, however, that the conditions of employment under any such order shall not on the whole be less favourable to the persons employed than they would have been if the order had not been made."

That seems to meet the point of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), for these provisions can be altered by a Government Department to meet any peculiarity of this particular case.

Then my point does come in. We have already a Committee to deal with this matter, and why set up other machinery when we have gone to so much trouble to provide machinery which, on the whole, is working so well. In conclusion, let me say, that this is undoubtedly not a subject for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading said this was a very large charge. I can assure him that that is a point upon which I absolutely agree with him. Here I am going to be Socialistic, if I may, for a short period. [ Interruption. ] I knew you would not much like it. I believe that one of the principles of Socialism is that when a child comes into the world it should be the care of the State.

May I ask for the authority on which the hon. Member makes that statement?

It is very difficult to find authorities for Socialism, because it varies so much with the individual. My point is that this is such a large child that it is one for the State only to deal with, and consequently I hope that the representative of the Home Office will get up to tell us what is the attitude of the Government towards this Bill. I repeat that the most serious charge against this Bill is that it is so large, so important, and so intricate in its ramifications that it is impossible for a private Member to handle it, however good his intentions may be.

There are just three other points. The Bill anticipates and prejudices legislation which has already been indicated by the Government; it raises the school age immediately—in effect; it also cuts across the Factory Bill, and it raises the age up to which employment is prohibited in certain industries. For these reasons I sincerely hope that the representative of the Government will not delay in giving us the opinion of the Government on this Bill, and that the Mover of the Second Reading will see the wisdom of withdrawing it and leaving matters of this importance to be dealt with by the Government, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would be only too willing to help the Government when they come forward with such a Bill by giving it full consideration.

I desire to congratulate my hon. Friends upon introducing a Bill of this importance, and I hope the Government will take over the Measure and see it through its stages. I do not see why that should not be done. While I have no desire to follow the hon Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), whom I respect very much, I would like to draw his attention to the point he raised respecting agricultural gangs. It struck me that I had heard before that argument that it is better for children and young persons to be with their parents in the fields rather than that the parents should be in the fields and the children left at home. I have heard that argument regarding labour in factories and coal mines in India. Industrialists in India argue in support of children going down the mines that if the father and mother are working in the mines it is much better that the children should be with them doing a little to keep themselves out of mischief.

Surely the hon. Member is not making a comparison between working down a coal mine in India and working on the land in England?

I am simply saying it is rather a curious kind of argument and one that I had heard applied before to different subjects. Surely anybody who has seen these agricultural gangs at work, anybody who has seen the bad conditions—[ Interruption. ] I beg the hon. Member's pardon, some of them. There are some good, as well as bad. The whole purpose of this Bill is not to deal with good employers and with good employment, but to deal with bad employers and to make it impossible for the children to get bad employment. I submit that the points raised by the hon. Member for Stone are mainly Committee points, and I would beg the House, in considering legislation affecting children, to try to see if we cannot find points of agreement. There are enough points of disagreement, and if we can find only ten points of agreement in this Bill which will be of value to the children and young persons of this country, the House of Commons will have done a good thing. Like my hon. Friend who introduced the Bill, I and many others on this side of the House can draw upon our recollections of our early experiences.

And on this side too.

Yes, and on that side too, but I venture to suggest there are more on this side. I can recall my experience of going to the mill as a half-timer at the age of 10 for 1s. 9d. a week. They used to stop 6d. for every quarter, and the first week I had four quarters off. My job then was one which I should like to see dealt with by this legislation. It was filling raw-hide tubs with worsted yarns. There was no question of whether I was strong enough to carry the tubs. Sometimes I had to climb into the skip in order to fill my tub, because I could not reach it from the outside. The hon. Member opposite knows it is perfectly true, because he has done it himself.

I have, but you are exaggerating.

I am not exaggerating at all. I know the hon. Member has done it. I am stating a fact. A chap is not very big at 10, and my hon. Friend knows that the raw-hide tubs they fill with yarn are rather big, and he knows very well that it is often much faster to get up the steps than to go by the hoist. There is no regulation of the weights which young persons may carry, and we ask that such regulations should be made. Would any hon. Member object to regulations governing the weights which may be carried by young persons and girls?

We say it is not being properly brought in.

What is the proper way in which to bring it in? It is only through the House of Commons that we can regulate the conditions under which young persons work. We have found a point of agreement, agreement number one, with my hon. Friend. I say it is the duty of the House of Commons to make regulations for those young persons for whom no regulations exist. If we can by such regulations make it better for our girls and children we shall have done remarkably good work. Let us see if we can find another point of agreement. Is it so very remarkable that in 1929 we should be asking for regulations which will prevent the employment of girls under 18 who are in an advanced state of pregnancy? May I suggest that we can find another point of agreement there? I regret that there are no regulations as to young persons under 18 taking meals while at work. I am going back 40 years. There are no regulations—I am speaking of the textile industry—except in factories where they handle dangerous materials which compel the employer to make provision for the workers taking their meals regularly. I am aware that such a provision was suggested on one occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), but it is a fact that in the whole of the West Riding of Yorkshire there is not a single factory where provision for the taking of meals has been made and it has not been done by the employers of their own free will. That is not the kind of employer whom we want to deal with. We want to provide regulations against the bad employer who does not make this provision.

I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to this Bill. I can understand criticism, and probably the Bill needs it. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has asked us to withdraw the Bill, but that is not criticism, it is obstruction. I think this Bill ought to have an opportunity of being considered by a Committee. I quite agree that it is a long Bill, and that there may be points of difference in regard to the details, but I do think, when we can find so many points of agreement, that is is advisable to deal with the points of difference in Committee. Who is prepared to deny that children up to the age of 18 should have an annual holiday? We have that privilege in Yorkshire, but it was not given to us, and we had to fight for it. Even now we do not get paid for holidays, and, although we have the holiday, it is frequently a holiday on short commons. I hope hon. Members will express their feelings against the Bill where it is wrong, but I most earnestly and seriously ask them, if they think that it will do good to the youth of the country, to give the Measure a Second Reading, allow it to go to a Committee upstairs, and then it may be taken up by the Government and passed into law.

This is a very complicated Bill, and it is really a large consolidation of the existing law on this question. The Bill incorporates many provisions which have been in every Factory Bill which has been drafted during the last ten years. It contains provisions which are to be found in every Government Measure which has been prepared in the course of the last three or four years. It also contains a number of entirely new questions which have never been put into any Government Bill before with official backing. Therefore, it is necessary that the House should have some guidance as to the extent to which these proposals are practical. This Measure raises the whole question of how far you can make general national regulations applicable to all industries. It also raises the question whether the attempt to get a national minimum may not set up a standard in certain industries, much below the standard for which those industries have been made responsible in the past.

The Bill also raises the whole question of how far you can do what both sides of the House would like to be done by negative legislation. This is negative legislation. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), in a very moving speech, asked the question: Will any parent of a child consider whether he would like his child to go into of those occupations? That is the question which we are considering. Would any parent who allows his child to go into these occupations do it if he had any alternative? We have to consider the positive work of providing an alternative. We have to consider educational alternatives, and the question of a better direction of juvenile employment. The positive side of the work is the only permanent remedy. The Bill raises the question whether, by putting restrictions on existing methods of employment, without providing alternative employment for the child, whether education or industrial, we can prevent the employment of children early in life which prevents them become efficient workers in the future. These question should be answered by a Member of the Government, and I hope we may receive the guidance of the Government, if possible, at the present moment.

A little earlier my intention was to listen to a few speeches before rising to announce the attitude of the Government on this Bill, but I readily respond to the suggestion that any statement which may be in our minds should be made now. I would like to associate myself with the tributes which have been paid to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) for the force and the very fine human feeling with which he addressed the House in submitting this Bill. It is, in fact, a very formidable and comprehensive Measure. It touches, or proposes to touch, the labour of children of varying ages and of both sexes employed on land and sea. It affects existing laws and existing administration very much indeed, and it imposes new lines and far-reaching measures of legislative action. The House has heard during this Debate, short as it has been, illustrations of the enormous change in the feeling of the House, and I am certain that that feeling here really reflects the feeling outside these walls.

An enormous change has taken place in recent years in regard to children in this country and the manner in which they may be employed. My hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton drew upon his own experience and explained to the House that he began work at the age of 14. If I might go back upon my own experiences, I would say that I feel the most intimate personal interest in the Clauses of this Bill, for the reason that I began work in a Lancashire cotton factory, not at the age of 14, but at the age of 10. The change which has taken place in the 50 years since I began work has been enormous. It is a change not merely in respect to the time when work is started, but a change in the conditions under which the work is performed, and an enormous change in the places in which the work is performed. A Lancashire cotton factory to-day is comparatively a palace in which to work, and has the finest hygienic conditions compared with the buildings that answered the term "Lancashire factory" some 70 or 80 years ago. Correspondingly there has been in most branches of industry a change for the better.

This is more than a consolidating Bill; it is an amending Bill in relation to both children and young persons. Its objects have evoked the keenest criticism from some of those who have already spoken, and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) has a good deal of sympathy in the criticisms which he offered as to the effect of the Bill with respect to the employment of children and young persons in agriculture. The attitude of the Government towards this Bill is one of the completest good will and sympathy with its purpose, but, as will be seen from what I shall have to say later, most of the ground covered by this Bill has already been covered by Bills introduced by the Government or by Bills which we intend to introduce, and I am bound to say that I share very much the opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) that it is extremely difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible to try, as it were, to sweep into one legislative net the whole of the complicated conditions of service attached to the innumerable branches of employment in this country. The Home Office is affected, the Board of Trade is affected, the Departments dealing with mines, shipping and agriculture are affected, and, indeed, it may be said that nearly every State Department in any way concerned with conditions of employment is affected by some provision or other of this Bill.

The plan of the Bill is to bring together in a single Measure all the provisions relating to the conditions of employment of children and young persons. It includes provisions contained in the Factory Acts regulating their employment in factories, mines and quarries; it includes provisions of the Education Acts regulating the employment of children of school age; it includes provisions relating to street trading by young persons, and to children employed abroad with respect to variety entertainments and other performances. Is this plan likely to be effective? We are with the promoters of this Bill in the most sincere sense, but we must reduce ourselves to practical terms and to conditions which are administratively possible; and I can imagine the bewilderment and the insurmountable difficulties with which my hon. Friend would be faced if he had to take charge of a Bill of this kind in Committee upstairs. To. take out of the Factory Acts questions of the employment of young persons in factories and to deal with them as a separate matter, would create difficulties both of legislation and administration, and it is open to the most serious objections. The same criticism applies to the employment of young persons in mines and quarries, and I should think also to the employment of young persons in ships. As to employment abroad, it is already known that the Government intend to deal with that question in a separate Bill, which has already been prepared.

The attitude of the Government, then, is that of asking the promoters of this Bill whether their purpose will not have been served by the Debate to-day and by trusting to the several separate Measures which the Government already either have introduced or have announced their intention to introduce. If this Bill were given a Second Reading and sent upstairs, I fear that the time of many Members of this House would be consumed in fruitless debate, for three-fourths at least of the ground covered by this Bill has already been covered by the other Bills to which I have referred. The suggestion has been made, and it is well worth serious consideration by the promoters, that the better course would be to withdraw this Bill and to rely upon the good will of the House and the desire of the House to carry these proposals as far as is practicable through the agency of the other Bills to which I have referred.

I would not like to make to my hon. Friend the suggestion that he ought to withdraw the Bill, but, at the same time, I submit that suggestion for his very serious consideration, and I express my own private view that that, after all, would be the better course, and that he will be losing nothing of his object by being content with the helpfulness of the discussion this afternoon. If that course is not taken, another is still open, namely, to move the adjournment of the Debate and keep the Bill in being, in order to see what are the consequences of the action of the Government with respect to the Bills which we intend to introduce. I shall, therefore, not detain the House by dealing further with the merits of the Bill, but I give an assurance that, whichever course the House may see fit to cake, we are in the completest sympathy with the promoters of the Bill, and will do our very best to attain the object in view.

I should like, if I may, to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. Besides the Factories Bill, there was, I think, in preparation in the Home Office during the last year or two a Children Bill, supplementary to the Factories Bill. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he hopes to introduce that Bill, or the version of it that the present Government decide to bring forward?

I could not say precisely when, but we are anxious to get ahead with that Bill as early as possible, and, when we see and know the course of public business on resuming after the Christmas holidays, I hope to be able to make some announcement about it.

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Government anticipate introducing legislation covering van boys, messenger boys, theatrical performers and street traders?

I am afraid that that is the part of the Bill, which I apportioned at about one-fourth, not covered by any Bill so far.

With regard to Clause 35, which abolishes the two-shift system so far as it relates to young persons, may I ask if that will be included in the new Factories Bill?

I can only say that that matter is now under consideration. As to the precise plans to be followed, an announcement will be made later.

Will the Government Bill deal with the employment of children in mines?

I cannot say that any Bill so far under consideration by the Government has to deal with children in mines.

I am sure that the House will have heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department with great satisfaction, because the sympathy of all quarters of the House is definitely with children and young persons; but we on this side who have had any experience of child workers, or of young workers in textile factories, recognise that the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), in bringing in this Bill, has taken on a colossal task, a task really beyond the competence of any private Member, and a task which could only be adequately discharged by means of the large experience and sympathetic help of the Government. The difficulty in which I am, with others of my hon. Friends, is that we recognise that, if this Bill were read a Second time and were referred to a Standing Committee, the amount of alteration which would have to be made in Committee would occupy the attention of the Committee for one, two, or perhaps three Sessions of Parliament. In a cursory examination only of the provisions of the Bill, I was able quite easily to find a very large number of anomalies, and of things which are absolutely impossible administratively or for other reasons; and, although the hon. Member for West Leyton and his backers may, if they withdraw the Bill or are content with an adjournment of it, feel a certain amount of regret that the Home Secretary has not been more favourable to their object, still if they have—as I know they have—the essential interests of children and young persons at heart, I am certain that they will agree that the course advised by the Home Secretary is best.

If I venture to refer to one or two points in the Bill which have already been referred to, I do it, not so much for the purpose of criticising it for the benefit of the promoters of the Bill, as in the hope that the criticisms may reach the State Departments, the Home Office particularly, so that when they do bring in their Factory Bill they will not fall into some of the errors into which the promoters of this Bill have fallen. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Mackinder), in a very human speech, a speech which was the result of years of experience of factory work, of factory legislation, and of people, referred particularly to weight lifting, and said what a shame it was that we had at the present time no legislation preventing the lifting of heavy weights by children and young persons; but, when we look at the Clause suggested in this Bill, it says: 70 of 80 of them, and I put the question to them, "What is your idea; what weight do you want?" and they had not the remotest idea. They did not know what test to employ. Fancy putting a thing like that into a proposed Act of Parliament!

1 p.m.

I am sure that very many hon. Members here during the course of their experience will have noticed, in hospitals or perhaps in their own homes, a slight, thin nurse lift or move with ease a heavy fat woman or man. Nurses are able to move with skill and care a patient whom no man could move, not by physical strength, but by some form of knack. You will find that one girl or boy will lift a weight with apparent ease, and the next girl or boy, perhaps bigger, fatter and stronger, will tackle it very clumsily. I say that it is impossible to put in a general provision like this Clause, which says that themselves. A husband is in the way at those times. He is apparently an awkward individual, and the ladies by their knack and by their great gift are able to do these strenuous things.

There is another Clause of this Bill to which I wish to draw the attention of the Home Secretary, particularly as it was referred to by the hon. Member for Shipley. He said: "What an awful thing it is that to-day we have no legislation to prevent a pregnant woman working in a mill"; and he led the House to suppose that that was the fault of the employer. That is not true. When I was a certifying surgeon, I took very great interest in these questions, and I tried over and over again to get women who were getting towards the end of their pregnancy to give up work. In some cases they said: "No, I cannot afford to do it," and that is a matter, of course, with which one must sympathise; but in many cases the woman said: "No, I should be miserable and mopy at home; I would rather be in the mill working, and be with my friends until the last moment"; and there it was the fault of the woman. I even went so far as to see secretaries of trade unions and ask whether they could do anything to prevent their women working during the last stages of pregnancy. They were very sympathetic, but they came back to me and told me that they could do nothing. They said: "The only way we could do it would be simply to take them from their work, give them a certain maintenance allowance, and penalise them under the Health Insurance Act if they insist on going to work." This Bill contains a Clause which is simply ridiculous and hopeless. It is Clause 23:

What is the position usually? A girl in a mill has got into trouble, as they term it in the mill districts; the girl is pregnant. What does that girl do? She does everything in her power to hide her pregnancy; and you will find that, owing to a certain natural formation, the shape of the pelvis, the size and position of the child, some women can so hide their pregnancy up to the very day of their confinement that their nearest friends and relatives do not know they are pregnant. Take the position of the employer in a case like that. The girl is in trouble. She does not want any of her friends or relations to know. Through certain circumstances, there are not outward evidences of her condition and this girl works until the very day her baby is born. What is the position of the employer? He is at once liable under the Bill to penalties because the girl has been working under his jurisdiction, and he has allowed her to work when he did not know of her condition.

It might be argued that it is for the employer to look after the condition of the girls and find if they are pregnant and ask questions. There are certain diseases, such as dropsy, tumours and things of that kind, which may, to the lay observer, convey the impression that the girl is pregnant. Suppose an employer went to a girl under 18 and said. I do not like your looks, I am a little suspicious that you are pregnant and you will have to stop work. She goes to her doctor and comes back with a certificate that she is suffering from dropsy or a tumour. The employer would be liable to prosecution for criminal libel. The result would be that you would have these cases where a woman, on the one hand, deliberately hides her condition and so makes the employer liable, and, on the other hand, the employer who tries to fulfil his duties, sees the woman has a certain shape and makes a charge against her which makes him liable to a criminal prosecution. It is an excessively difficult subject to tackle. I do not see how you can possibly do it by legislation unless you see that the woman who is to retire, say, in the 33rd week, is to receive maternity benefit until the baby is born. But, in doing that, you are interfering with the National Health Insurance Act, and this complicated Bill, instead of being an amending, consolidating and extending Bill, is really a patchwork touching important Acts of Parliament in every direction, which would be administratively impossible and would not bring forth the benefits the hon. Member desires. So I welcome the advice of the Home Secretary that he should be satisfied with having raised the subject. The right hon. Gentleman has sensed the feeling of the House.

The two suggestions I have made which will possibly have to be dealt with in the forthcoming Factory Bill, the question of weight-lifting and of women in pregnancy working, are extremely difficult questions to tackle to be fair to the employer and to the worker. But I can surely say for myself, and I think for most Members on our side of the House, that out desire is to see that the children and young women are looked after industrially in the best possible way, that their lives may be made happy, and their interests and their health well looked after, with the important proviso that there is the minimum adverse effect upon industry.

Many people depend upon industry for their livelihood, and, whatever the future of the country may be, as long as we are an exporting nation, we must not kill our industry, because if we do, we put people out of work. I, as a convinced Conservative and anti-Socialist, am prepared to go as far as I can to see that our women and children have the best possible industrial conditions and work under the happiest circumstances. At the same time, I am particularly anxious that we shall not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs and that the interests of the employers must be borne in mind.

May I give one reason for my opinion? At his particular deputation—I believe the Secretary of State for War was there —they wished to increase the space between certain looms, a natural and beneficial thing to do, but it was pointed out that they could not enlarge the weaving shed, and the only way would be to remove some of the looms, and that was the definite pronouncement to the deputation, that if they could not enlarge the mill they must take away some of the looms. "If you do that, it will throw people out of work." They replied, "That does not matter. We would rather throw some people out of work than go on under present conditions." That was silly from the point of view of the worker and of the employer. Make any regulations you like for future building and the arrangement of industry, but use a little common sense and fair play with buildings already in existence. Certain mills should be condemned. We will all agree there. But they are others that can be reconditioned and made decently possible for people to work in. I should like hon. Members opposite to bear in mind the difficulties of the employers in these cases and say, "We do not want to destroy your industry—it is not as good as we should like—but if you want to build a new mill or a new shed, we will make building regulations and hygienic regulations of the most perfect character, and we shall expect you to subscribe to that." I should agree with that every time, but do be fair. Do use—I was going to say a little common sense. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is asking too much."] I did not use the expression, because perhaps hon. Members might have thought it a little offensive. What I mean is, do not let your hearts run away with your heads. Be as idealistic as you like. Have the highest ideals, but let them be kept in check by a moderate sense of realism.

I rise because of the answer which we have had from the Home Secretary, that boys in mines are not to be included in his proposals. I want to ask that they should at some time be brought before the House. He spoke of the improved legislation that there had been between the time when children worked in cotton mills at the age of 10 and the present day. I wish I could say the same for the mines. I admit that the miners' hours are shorter —they have come down from 10 to 8—but I claim that the conditions now imposed upon the boys are arduous and dangerous. In a colliery that I know only too well, boys commence their shift at midnight and their work in the mine at one o'clock and they are there till 9. It is not right that such conditions should be imposed. It is sheer necessity that drives parents to send their boys under such conditions into the mines. It is lack of food and clothing and the need of the 10s. per week that is the cause of parents allowing their boys to work under such conditions. These boys have no men guiding them while they are doing their work. Very often they are left alone. They have often to bear heavy weights in order to keep going the work which is necessary to get the products of the pit to the pit top.

There are boys going into the mine at eight o'clock at night, and they have to remain there until four o'clock the next morning in order to earn the miserable pittance which they receive. Worse still, there are boys who go into the pit at 10 p.m. every night and have to stay there until half-past-six o'clock the next morning. These are the conditions under which boys in the mines are asked to work because of the necessity of the industry. Surely, it is time that something was done to alter the existing state of affairs. The boys at the pithead who have not such arduous labour to perform are protected inasmuch as no boy under sixteen can work after nine p.m. At nine o'clock he must be away from his work. Yet boys are compelled to descend the mine after this hour and are in the terrible position of having to face all the conditions to which I have referred.

Only the other day, a boy lost his life in a certain mine. I do not ask hon. Members to believe that it was not an accident. Of course, it was an accident. Having gone to work at midnight, this boy was doing his work when he sustained an accident through being jammed by a set of tubs which he was driving, and he died as the result of being crushed. When an inquiry was held, it was stated that probably the boy must have been dozing at his work. It is only natural for boys to doze at work when they are employed under these conditions at such hours of the night. All these things are terrible. I want the Home Secretary to take note of these things when he brings in a Government Bill so as to prevent inhumanity being practised upon boys who can have no say in these matters. It is the duty of this House in the interests of humanity to protect these boys, because they cannot protect themselves. It is the duty of this House to impress upon the Government the necessity of taking action in this matter.

On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if this Bill passed the Second Reading, it would block the legislation anticipated by the Government?

I understand that Mr. Speaker has ruled that that is so.

Then may I ask a question of the Home Secretary? If that be so, can he give me an assurance, if the categories which I suggest are not included in his prospective Bill, that they will be covered by legislation at an early date?

It is a fact that the primary conditions of that group of workers referred to by my hon. Friend have already been under consideration by the Government. Naturally, we do not want to overweight any particular Bill which we intend to introduce, but I can give him a friendly assurance that when we have disposed of the Factories Bill, which covers only those employed in factories as they are known, we are quite eager and ready to try and cover the remaining groups by a separate Bill which would be introduced as early as possible.

Under those circumstances, I do not wish to block Government legislation, and, in view of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"]

I do hope that the hon. Member will not get the hearing of the House in suggesting the withdrawal of the Bill at this stage. He has raised a whole series of most important subjects which appeal to us all, and to bring them before this House and then to desire to withdraw them in this way would be an absolute travesty of legislation. That cannot be allowed.

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but may I mention to the House that the suggestion for the withdrawal of the Bill came from the opposite side of the House.

Yes, Sir.

As perhaps I was the individual to whom reference has been made as making the first suggestion, may I say that I only suggested that that should be the ultimate result of the Debate. I do not want in any way to curtail the Debate, because I think it is very useful that all Members should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on this very grave matter with which many of us sympathise deeply.

That explains what I was going to say. It may be necessary to withdraw the Bill at a later stage, but, personally, I hope that the hon. Member will go through with it. I cannot understand why the hon. Member who introduced this Bill in such impassioned terms should be prepared to withdraw it when his Front Bench say that half of it is going to be incorporated in a Measure which has been promised not only this year but for the last five years. We have not yet seen it introduced in this House. The hon. Member is new to this House and, judging from the very excellent speech which he delivered this morning, a great addition to the House; but he probably does not know that those of us who are keen on factory legislation have been pressing for it for I cannot say how long.

The first Bill, which was prepared three Governments ago, was introduced with some changes by the last Socialist Government and was not proceeded with. Another one was introduced by the last Government and was not proceeded with. Again and again, those of us who are keen on factory reform have been burked by successive Governments or by the pressure on the time of the House and on Parliamentary business. Here, we have the present Front Bench taking the same line, and saying: "Oh, withdraw your Bill, as we are going to produce our Factory Bill in time." I am quite certain that the Home Secretary is serious when he says that it is going to be introduced, but so were our Front Bench when they said the same thing. I warn the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), that exactly the same thing will happen again unless he has the courage to press his Front Bench strongly, as I am afraid we had not the courage to press our Front Bench. Therefore, rather than he should withdraw the Bill, I would say to him: "Go through with it". Because with all the good intentions of the Government I do not yet believe, and I shall not believe, that we shall get factory and workshop amending legislation through until I see that it is through. Until that day arrives, I think that the more we can do to help it on and show the determination of the country to get improve- ments of this kind the better it will be, whatever Government is in power.

This appeals more specially to Members on our side. The other side represents, with all due respect, historically, a new party. It must be recognised that it was our party which started factory and workshop legislation. The actual idea of giving power to the State to protect young persons was started by Lord Addington in the first Factory Act of 1801. It was opposed by industrialists and by theoretical politicians, but the party carried it through. Again and again, all through the history of the last century it was to the credit of the Conservative and Unionist party in the House of Commons that steps were taken in this direction. Lord Ashley, afterwards the seventh Lord Shaftesbury, in the teeth of incessant opposition and endless obstacles all the way through, pressed and pressed for the ten-hours Bill, and it was not until he had worked for something like 15 years that the ten-hours Bill became law. Was it through the Liberal party? No, it was through the Conservative party that that Bill became law.

Will the hon and gallant Member read the records of this House as to why his party opposed the prohibition of children working at the age of eight?

If the hon. Member will read history he will find that it is exactly the contrary. Apparently, he has only read one bit of history, probably in Socialist pamphlets. I have written on the subject and if he will do me the honour of reading my book I shall be glad to send him a copy.

Hear, hear, I shall be glad to receive it.

It is obviously to the interests of our party to promote this kind of legislation. We are definitely founded upon a conservative policy. A conservative policy is not one of reaction but of conserving the assets of the nation to the utmost extent. Politics naturally divide themselves into two sides, one which wants to cure these evils by bringing in extreme legislation, and the other which wants to conserve the good that there is and to develop it to the utmost, hoping that the other evils will gradually be stemmed. That is the natural division. We stand for the positive side, and we say better the ills you know than those you know not of. We represent the constructive side, and we desire to conserve the assets of the nation. We are all agreed that of all capital human capital is the most precious. Therefore, to save this human capital and to make the utmost of it, we are in favour of the preventive measures which mainly stand to the credit of the Conservative and Unionist party in the last century.

It is a natural development of our policy. We have not come fully up to it, any more than any human party will ever come fully up to their ideals, but it is our policy to extend this principle as far as we can. So that we can make the utmost of our human assets and our human capital we turn to children and young persons, and just as we started with legislation for children and young persons in the first Factory Act of 1801, we have pursued it through the last century. Therefore we view with the utmost sympathy the objects of the Bill now before the House for the protection and employment of young persons and children. We were much impressed by the moving and informed speech of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill.

I speak now from the special medical point of view, and I would endorse the view of the hon. Member for Royton (Dr. Davies), who spoke with such great knowledge as an old factory surgeon and with such intimate experience that one can see the practical issues that are involved in the different Clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member for Royton dealt with two or three of the points with which I was prepared to deal, which is not necessary now. He brought before the House the question of Clause 23. This Clause is the acid test of the Bill. It affects the pregnant woman under 18. It is the crucial Clause on which the value of the Bill can be largely determined. The hon. Member for Royton pointed out the impracticability of dealing with this question by law. It is impossible to tell whether that woman comes under the heading of this Clause, therefore leaving the employer open as well as the other factory hands to profound difficulties and unpleasantness. There is a further point of view which I should like to discuss with my hon. Friend and other medical men outside, before the Committee stage of the Bill, if we are to have a Committee stage, on Clause 23. The information I have is that a very large majority of women approaching their first confinement are probably better for employment up to very near the date of their confinement, so long as it is not heavy employment.

The Bill does not distinguish between heavy and light work. I should agree probably in regard to the prohibition of heavy work, but with respect to light work I believe that it is better psychologically and physically for employment to be carried on, so long as the woman feels inclined to carry on that employment. As regards the position after confinement, the proposal in the Bill is that a woman shall be prohibited in every case from working for six weeks after confinement. The present law is four weeks, but it is impossible to get the law absolutely accurately carried out. Women who have been confined slip back into employment often after 3 weeks, and medical men tell me that they are none the worse for it. In other cases they might be the worse for it.

It is a very doubtful point.

In some cases there is no doubt at all. We all of us know in our own surroundings and from our own knowledge that it is of enormous value to some women to get back to work after three weeks, but others have a much greater length of period of disablement after their confinement. To put them all down to one level, and that the strict level of six weeks, is unnecessary. In many cases it would be deleterious to the women and certainly unacceptable to them, even to those women who are prepared to look after their health, and to put it first, and are in a position to be able to do so.

Why in connection with a Bill which is for the benefit of two million boys and girls is the hon. and gallant Member putting such a great amount of emphasis upon the position of the expectant mother under 18, which is very rare indeed?

I lay stress upon it, because this is the crucial Clause. The same kind of argument will apply to other limitations in other Clauses. This is the crucial point which has the general primâ-facie assent of everybody who wants to get a move on. The question of maternity is a most difficult one and we all sympathise with the efforts to improve matters. Here is a crucial test which shows that you may introduce these regulations limiting the amount of work which these people can do so as to cover practically all cases, but you are really going far outside the scope of the real dangers and risks to which the population are subjected. If you are going to deal with this matter by prohibitive general legislation you must have a wide margin in order to deal with the exceptional cases. The result of the provision to which I have referred will be an immense amount of dissatisfaction to those women to whom the six weeks' idleness before and after confinement is unnecessary. It will mean an immense amount of labour lost to these people, and also a loss of wages. How are you going to make up for that?

Then we come to another point of view —I do not want it to be suggested that it is the main point of view in my mind or in the mind of those who moved and supported the Second Reading of the Bill—in that we have in these days of industrial difficulties to bear in mind the unnecessary burdens that are laid upon industry, and which are an unnecessary burden on the family. Who is going to bear the cost of this burden? Is it to be the mother, or will there be any maintenance allowance? It is easy to show that a maintenance allowance would be considerable spread over the whole of the cases covered by the Bill; and I should like a calculation made as to what the total amount would be. If maintenance allowance is going to be given to all those who come under any of the prohibitions in this Bill what is going to be the cost to industry? That is obviously an important question, and one which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to deal with in due course.

The medical side of this Bill is extremely important, and I hope it will not be forgotten even if the Bill is with drawn. So far the discussion has been concerned with fitness in factories and workshops and in agriculture. As regards agriculture I should like to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). The promoters of the Bill are trying to meet some of these evils by prohibition, but in doing so they are doing a great injustice to certain sections of the population who may go in for agriculture. We want to keep up the recruits to agriculture—and the number is not being kept up at the moment. Hon. Members who represent urban constituencies do not realise the conditions in the country, and it may seem strange to them to say that there is a certain type of human being who is happiest under rural conditions and rural life, as well as most useful. Their training and outlook is best fitted for an agricultural life. They take the rough with the smooth and are able to endure rough weather which people in urban centres would think it-horrible to have to face. They face it as a matter of course, it does not trouble them, because they have been trained to the conditions of rural life from an early age. Even those of us who reside in the country are able to enjoy ourselves in bitter storms and weather which people who are accustomed to living in towns would find impossible to endure. But they must be trained to it young and` develop the liking for agricultural life at an early age. I maintain that an agricultural life is the best for the average individual. It is a natural existence. There are some people who have a love for animals and flowers, who delight in growing things. Young children love animals and flowers, and this tendency can be spread to farm animals and developed if they are trained to the life from an early age. Therefore, I do not think we want the prohibition that is at present in the Bill.

Clause 5, it is said, allows for exemptions. It only allows for exemptions to the first four Clauses of the Bill. It does not allow of exemptions to Clause 50, which deals with employment in agricultural gangs. I do not know what "agricultural gangs" are, but I presume it refers to such things as potato picking in the autumn. There is nothing better in the autumn, and the whole population, including the children, help to pick potatoes in the fields. It is a useful and healthy occupation. The same thing applies to hop picking, and anyone who has any knowledge of this industry knows what a splendid thing it is for a whole family to migrate for a fortnight or three weeks to the hop growing districts in order to pick hops. Obviously that kind of work should be allowed, but I do not think it is allowed under the provisions of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has said that the Bill is negative, and that we want to work from the positive point of view. Medical men realise the need and necessity for certain negatived and prohibitive Regulations, and I am glad to see that the Bill insists on a certificate of medical fitness for young people who go into industry; a certificate not simply of general fitness but fitness for the work they are to do. The hon. Member for Royton (Dr. V. Davies), as a factory surgeon, was not in a positon to give these certificates. Most medical men are in the same position because they do not go into the factories. They have to inspect a large number of men, tout they have no power to go into the factories and become acquainted with the work before issuing their certificate. They give a certificate on general grounds, and without knowing the details of the work which the individual has to perform.

There is a Clause in the Bill which deals with trades which have been neglected in our health services so far— the mercantile marine and mines. The late Government, after much hesitancy and delay, adopted some system of inquiry into the health of the mercantile marine and mines, and I am glad to see that this Bill deals with both. I hope it will enable the Government to do something more in that respect. In my opinion the positive method is better than the negative when you are dealing with these problems. Welfare methods which were established during the war are being spread throughout the country and adopted generally by good employers as being favourable to both sides in industry. Welfare methods are the only means by which you will be able to make the machinery fit the individual and the individual to fit the conditions. We want to make industry pliable and able to meet the case of all kinds of individuals. It is by a development of these positive methods of welfare work, by the coordination and mutual understanding of the different factors in industry, that you will be able to avoid many of the difficulties and dangers to young persons and children in industry. For Heaven's sake let us keep our system as pliable as we can and avoid in every way the Germanic and Teutonic conditions of prohibitive legislation.

I am sure that those on the Government benches who are supporting the Bill have welcomed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle). I wish that all the speeches from the other side of the House had been as enthusiastic in praise of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member suggested, however, that there is no guarantee whatever that three-quarters of this Bill would come to this House as a Government Measure in a Factories Bill. He has more knowledge of the House than I have, and he took a pessimistic view regarding the appearance of such a Bill. I would say to him, "Give to the winds thy fears." We believe that a Factories Bill will in due course appear, and if it does not I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to join with us in pressing the Government until the Bill does appear. May I break a lance with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on a historical point? It is true that judicially the Conservative party initiated factory legislation. I hope that in his book the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made that clear, but I hope also that he has brought his book up to date. Historically, everyone knows that the Conservative party introduced factory legislation because they were jealous of the industrialists who were all in the Liberal party.

I did bring the book up to date. The last amending Factories Act was that of Mr. Balfour, in 1901, and in the book I give the evidence offered on behalf of the President of the Trade Union Congress.

The hon. and gallant Member has proved the point. During the last 20 years the attitude of the Conservative Party in the main has been a discredit to the name of Lord Shaftesbury. I suggest to him that he has had evidence, in a speech from the Conservative Benches this morning, of the fact that there is no real sympathy with a Measure of this kind in a large part of the Conservative party as it exists to-day. Of course there has been a change in the character of the Conservative party. Instead of being an agricultural party jealous of the industrialists, it has become very largely a party financed by industrialists and therefore taking a purely industrialist point of view. Passing from that I want to say a word about an earlier speech to-day from a Member who was one of the chief critics of the Bill. I refer to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). He suggested that a Bill of this kind should have the backing of the local authorities. The reply to that statement is that already 50 local education authorities have endorsed the principles of the Bill. I believe there is no medical officer in this House who has not said quite frankly that he is speaking for his profession in welcoming many of the provisions of the Bill. I thought that the hon. Member for Stone was making a thin case in suggesting that a choir-boy would not be allowed to sing in a Cathedral choir if the Bill were passed. I cannot find any words in the Bill which would exclude a choir-boy from singing in a choir. The cognate words in the Bill are "any labour exercised by way of trade or for the purpose of gain."

What is the definition of the word "gain"?

If that is really a strong argument against the Bill, surely it is a point of detail which can be dealt with in Committee. After all, singing in a choir is not labour in the ordinary sense; it is a labour of love. Singing to the glory of God surely cannot be regarded as an occupation for gain. Some remarks have been made on the subject of agriculture. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans talked about "the rough and the smooth." A fortnight ago I had the privilege of introducing an Annual Holiday Bill into this House, and as a result I received a great number of letters from agricultural workers describing the actual conditions of their life. With the permission of the House I will read two or three brief sentences from a letter written to me by the wife of an agricultural labourer. This is what she says:

"In our home it is from bed to work and from work to bed. We live from hand to mouth, with not sufficient food to keep us healthy and fit. We want a brighter life and a better living for our children than we parents have been able to get, and there will not be so much of the clod-hopper about our boys in future if things are altered."

That is the reply to the hon. Member who said that agriculture would suffer and a great industry be imperilled if it became impossible under this Bill to employ young boys up to 18 years of age for seven days a week for all the hours that God sends. The hon. Member actually worked out the mathematical calculation that if the Bill were passed it would not be possible for a farmer to work a boy under 18 for more than 6½ or 7 hours a day. I say that in agricultural districts, as I know them—I live in an agricultural area and represent what is largely an agricultural area— the conditions under which the agricultural labourer lives are a disgrace to our common Christianity and civilisation, and that any Measure which would deliver the rising generation from the conditions under which their fathers and mothers have had to suffer ought to be welcomed from every side of the House. I hope that the House will accept the assurance of the Home Secretary that, although we may not get this Bill as drafted, three-quarters of its provisions will be given to us in a Factories Bill; and, as I understand the matter, all the remaining Clauses with regard to messengers and errand boys and tail-boys and all the rest of it, which are of a very valuable character, will be incorporated in a further Government measure. I appeal to the House not only to support the hon. Member who has asked leave to withdraw the Motion, but to join with us in pressing the Government until the full content of this Bill is on the Statute Book.

There are only two aspects of this Bill to which I wish to draw attention. I am not surprised to hear the view expressed by the Home Secretary that this is not a practicable Bill to deal with all the subject matter that it contains. The Bill relates to every class of employment in the whole country. To deal in one Bill with the young persons engaged in every form of industry of any sort or kind is to a person with some experience of legislation quite impossible. For example, the Bill includes domestic servants. I do not think any reference has been made in this discussion, so far, to the fact that any young girl going into domestic service, however light her duties and however small the service which she renders, is not, if she is under the age of 16, to be employed for more than 38 hours a week or eight hours a day. I should like it also to be thoroughly understood throughout the country that each household in which domestic servants are employed would be made subject to inspection and regulations and requirements as to keeping a register and that sort of thing—which in my opinion would need special legislation. Another Bill dealing with that question alone would be necessary before anything of the kind was attempted. I do not believe there is much hardship in the case of domestic service generally. There may be hardship in some particular cases, but I would urge on the House that it is quite impossible to deal with domestic service in a Measure affecting ordinary industrial occupations.

I think the Home Secretary is right in saying that it is essential to keep industrial and non-industrial occupations on a different footing and deal with them by a different procedure. So far, industrial occupations have been under the control of the Home Office, and rightly so, while, for good or evil, we have entrusted the care of our agricultural workers to the Ministry of Agriculture. In recent years we have established wages boards, to take into consideration all questions affecting employment in the agricultural industry. It seems to me a wrong system of legislation to take these matters out of the control of the wages boards and place them under the control of the Home Office as distinct from that of the particular bodies which were set up to deal with the agricultural industry. I agree in the main with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) as to the impracticability of this Measure in relation to agriculture. As to what was said by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton), I had some difficulty in recognising the present position of the agricultural workers in the words which he used. I would go as far as to say that in the past agricultural hours have been too long and that in some parts of the country to-day the conditions under which agricultural workers live are not all that they should be. Legislation has been passed to improve those conditions, and the system of agricultural wages boards for dealing with the agricultural workers is, I believe, on the whole working well.

2.0 p.m.

I will say this, and I challenge anyone to deny it, that our agricultural community is the healthiest part of our population and that our agricultural workers work under the most healthy conditions—conditions which would be very desirable in a great many urban occupations. If the hours worked by any of the young persons in agriculture are too long, it is to the wages boards that we ought to look. But if it is the case that their hours are too long or that they suffer under other hardships, surely that would be reflected in the general condition of their health. Surely it would show if they were unduly suffering from the conditions. The fact is however that the health of the children in our village schools and in our rural districts is excellent. The standard of health is as good as could possibly be desired. I think at a time when the agricultural industry is suffering from an inability to make ends meet, we should be particularly careful, before interfering with the conditions under which it is carried on. I would welcome any inquiries as to hardships which are considered to exist, or improvements which may be thought necessary, but my experience of many years satisfies me that agriculture is only suffering from one difficulty, namely that there is an insufficient return both in wages and profits and if we could only improve matters in that respect, I do not think anybody would have any fault to find with the hours or working conditions.

I should not have intervened in this Debate were it not that one Clause in this Measure interests me particularly. That is Clause 43 which prohibits the employment of children in mines. Having had some personal experience of the mines in Yorkshire, I say that to allow boys of 14 years of age to go down into the mines as they do to-day, is a terrible thing from every point of view. A boy leaving school at 14 years of age is at the most important stage of his career, as regards his mental, moral and physical development. Yet such boys are sent down some of the coal mines of this country, including what are known as "wet" mines, and have to work as trammers performing physical labour of the worst type, often having to push trams or trucks of coal sometimes weighing 5 or 6 cwts. through wet and dismal galleries perhaps only 30 inches in height. I suggest that such laborious, filthy and hideous work for boys of this age is something that a wealthy country like ours ought to have stopped generations ago. Hon. Members on the other side have repeatedly spoken recently about the demoralisation of children. If they are sincere, as we must suppose them to be, I suggest that although giving something for nothing may demoralise young children, there is no demoralisation equal to that caused to young people of 14, 15 or 16 years of age by having to work in a coal mine. If Hon. Members are concerned about demoralisation of character in the one case, I take it for granted they will be even more concerned about the demoralising effect of the conditions endured by young boys and girls in certain employments in this country.

Not only in Yorkshire, but in London have I seen examples of the demoralisation caused by the employment of children in unsuitable occupations. I represent one of the richest boroughs in this country. I think it is universally admitted that the Royal Borough of Kensington is a very rich neighbourhood. Yet in that part of Kensington I have seen, in some of the poor schools, boys of 14 leaving school, boys of undoubted ability, who have really done finely from the student's point of view, have to go out to work as coster boys, helping costers, licking labels on beer bottles, and doing work of that kind, boys who, if given a decent chance in life, would have proved to be of equal ability probably with the boys of any other class in this country. I suggest that already we have in England certainly a supply of labour equal to all our demands. In fact, there are many people who regard the problem of unemployment to-day as being one of having a surplus supply of labour. We find not too few, but far too many workers, and in view of that fact, I welcome this Bill because, in my judg- ment, it would curtail, though only perhaps in a small degree, the supply of labour and thus help to keep children at school, and would leave their work for people who are older and physically better adapted to do it. I hope for these reasons that every hon. Member will support this Bill.

May I say what pleasure it gives me to have an opportunity of discussing this extremely important question? I agree that it is a somewhat technical Bill, and I am sure I shall be excused if I do not deal with the technical points with the same amount of experience as that possessed by some other hon. Members. I want to deal first with some of the arguments used by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winter-ton), who referred to the record of the Conservative party, and the one thing that I have regretted in this debate has been that there were jeers on the other side when the record of the Conservative party in the past was referred to. I want to answer that most emphatically. One of the most important reasons why I am a Conservative is because of our record, particularly in relation to the question of young children.

I may say that I committed a very serious Parliamentary blunder last night by missing several divisions, because I was reading the "Life of Lord Shaftesbury," whom I admire almost more than anyone else for the work that he did. I learned there a statement of his to the effect that

I agree that there are many bad conditions for children which should be remedied to-day, but when the hon. Member for Loughborough said that never since 1901 had the Conservative party taken the slightest interest in factory legislation for children, he was somewhat exaggerating, and I think it is right that someone on these benches should reply to him as shortly as possible. Let the hon. Member reflect that for a very great period after that date, until the war, it was not the Conservative party which was in power, but the Liberal party, and that during the war naturally the question did not get that publicity and attention which it might have done, but that immediately after the war, in 1920, the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act was passed, in which Conservative Members had a very definite share, and that since then two very definite Bills have been drafted, one in 1923 and the other in 1926, by the party with which I am associated to deal with these very important questions.

May I remind the hon. Member that the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act was a retrograde step, and that it allowed them to be employed from six in the morning till ten at night?

If the hon. Member will look, he will see that there are a good many Clauses in this Bill which actually renew some of the provisions of that Act. For instance, Clause 13 is an actual re-enactment of a provision in that Act. Perhaps the fact that I missed one or two divisions in studying this Bill last night has been of good service to me in enabling me thus to answer the hon. Member.

The 1920 Act to which the hon. Member refers allows women and young persons to be employed, in two shifts, from six a.m. until ten p.m., so that that could not be cited as an Act which has done good. It has been a retrograde step.

There must have been Sections in that Act which did a very great deal of good, and if the hon. Member will study this Bill, he will see, as I have said, that Clause 13 is taken bodily out of the Act of 1920 and has been included in this Bill, which is being supported by Members of his own party; and if I had more opportunity, I believe I could cite other Clauses in this Bill which have actually come out of the Act of 1920 for re-enactment here. Therefore, I claim that there were many Sections in the Act of 1920 which very definitely benefited the condition of children and young persons in employment. I think the argument of the hon. Member to whom I have referred that we, on this side, had not taken an interest in this subject recently because we had come to ally ourselves with the industrial element in the country is as base a calumny as that which was directed against Lord Shaftesbury, when he was accused of trying to alienate the interests in the countryside and in the towns; and I am sure the result of that calumny will be exactly the same now as when it was directed against Lord Shaftesbury.

Was not Lord Shaftesbury opposed by all the Tories in his time?

If the hon. Member consults history, I think that will be a satisfactory answer to him, and any history book will enlighten him better than my modest powers would allow me to do. My opinion about this Bill is that it is a very great pity to try and mix up legislation for children and factory legislation in two separate compartments. I think we should be very much better if we surveyed the whole realm of factory legislation and did not differentiate for children and young persons specially. I believe that to be a fact particularly in regard to the very difficult transitional age of 18. If you try and legislate, as in this Bill, for people up to the age of 18, and then stop short, you are not going to do as much good to young persons as if you included these provisions in a Factory Act and let the provisions carry all through that transition period. If you study this Bill as closely as I have endeavoured to do, you will see a great many little questions of drafting in relation to the ages in the various Clauses which make the principle of the Bill, which I understand we have to discuss on Second Reading, to be fundamentally very difficult to follow.

In Clause 23, about pregnancy, which has been referred to, exception was taken by an hon. Lady opposite because it was brought up as being fundamentally unimportant in connection with the rest of the Measure. I think the reply from this side was that it was one of the most vital Clauses in the Bill, and I personally agree. I believe that that Clause would be very much more powerful if it could be included in a Factory Act and did not have to stop short at the age of 18, because it is fundamentally unimportant in this Measure, as there are so few cases, but it would be one of the most important Clauses in a Factory Act if it could be included there. It seems to be a great pity to have to stop short at that particular age. There is only one observation on that Clause to make, and that is that presumably it would affect young women having their first child and that therefore we should, I think, need a great deal more questioning on the part of medical men as to whether the 33rd week mentioned in the Clause is the correct week for women having their first child. I am unable to give an opinion on that subject, but it is a subject which would have to be gone into very much more closely before that Clause could be allowed to go through. References have been made to the discrepancies in ages in the Bill. The main definition is that a child is under 16 years of age, and a young person between 16 and 18. There are at least ten different cases in this Bill in various Clauses in which the age is changed. An hon. Member referred to the oldest profession in the world, and I am sorry that so much reference should be made to the young women of this country wishing to enter the oldest profession. It surprises me that the subject should be so frequently raised on the opposite side of the House; it is a matter of opinion, and it is not a point of view which is universally held. I would point out that, in the Clause relating to employment abroad, there is no special provision that the age should be extended to 21. I can see no logical principle which defines the various ages in the Bill, and in this Clause I should like to see it extended to 21. The age in the Clause which deals with chimney sweepers, is extended to 21. Last night I studied the question of chimney sweepers and climbing boys, about which so much was heard during last century, and I find that the main difficulty with regard to climbing boys was that they had to be genuine boys. I looked up the particular cases of two boys, George Brewster and Charles Drummond, in 1875; the age of one was 7½ and of the other 14. In this Clause you raise the age of a young person from 18 to 21, but in the Clause relating to young girls going abroad you do not raise the age, but keep it at 18. I hope that, at any rate, the Clause referring to chimney sweepers is an anachronism, because very few children and young persons are sent up chimneys at this stage of our civilisation. It seems a pity to make special provisions for raising the age from 18 to 21, because it would be impossible for any man of 21 to get up some of our flues, whereas in the case of a young girl going abroad it is important that the adolescent age of 18 should be raised to 21. I can therefore see no logical basis for the definition of the ages of children and young persons in this Bill; they are altered from Clause to Clause, and in the most important Clauses the alterations are false.

I want to deal with some further definitions. Clause 54 says that the Secretary of State may define the line which separates industry from agriculture and agriculture from commerce. In Clause 8, there is some discussion as to what is an industrial undertaking, and, as reference has been made to it in Clause 5, there is great misunderstanding as to whether agriculture generally conies into the provisions of this Bill or not. It seems that the Clause to attack is 54, which provides that the Secretary of State may lay down the line that separates agriculture from industry and industry from commerce. It is a surprising fact that in this country there is not some more satisfactory way of defining the difference between agriculture and industry, and industry and commerce, and that it should be laid upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State in this year 1929 to define. He will find it a difficult task; but, whether he does or not, it is not a question that ought to be left entirely to the discretion of a Minister, for it should be defined in the Bill. That is not the only thing which should be defined. There is Clause 36 which, again, gives the Secretary of State power to define a dangerous occupation, and no attempt is made in the Bill to define such an occupation.

These are questions of principle in drafting which deserve further consideration before the Bill can reasonably be given a Second reading. I would like to ask some questions in regard to the relationship of agriculture to industry, because they very much affect the area which I represent. Are we to consider that a beet-sugar factory is an industry or part of agriculture? Is the glasshouse industry in the production of flowers or vegetables agriculture or industry? I was very sorry to hear the hon. Member to whom I have frequently referred associate himself, in speaking of the agricultural labourer, with the idea of them not wanting their children to be clodhoppers like themselves. That is an attitude which we on this side of the House would emphatically condemn. I feel more strongly on this subject than on any other in party politics, and especially on the growing tendency on the other side of the House to believe that there must be in the minds of the young people the idea of drudgery in industry. It was used in a very unfortunate phrase of the Minister of Education, when he said that we should keep children out of the drudgery of industry. If we are to bring up our children on the idea that they are only going to be clodhoppers, and, if that is supported by speeches on the other side, it will be extremely dangerous for the young people of this country. It is most important that we should maintain in the minds of our children the idea that their work is worth doing.

It is a very dangerous aspect of this Bill that there are certain things in it which would stop excellent employment for our children which they do not mind and which would do them good. If agricultural labourers and their wives are to prevent their young people being employed on certain perfectly legitimate work because a general Act sweeps right through agriculture, they will find it very difficult to carry on. There are many small tasks which a child does, particularly in agriculture, which bring him a little money, which positively improves the health of the child, adds to the family budget, and adds a positive pleasure to those concerned in the em- ployment of the child and to the mother and father. There are certain to be many cases which will be upset by the provisions of this Bill coming into law.

There is a technical point, to which I want to refer, with reference to the attitude of the local authorities. This Bill has not taken into sufficient account the attitude of the local authorities, and it is unfair to them. A question was asked, whether local authorities had been consulted before this Bill was brought forward, and there has been no answer. I am tempted to think that they have not been universally consulted. Two Clauses, 56 and 57, definitely withdraw from local authorities powers which they have had in the past, in relation to street trading, and to work out of school hours. In the past, these provisions have worked extremely well, and I do not know why at this juncture these excellent powers should be removed from local authorities, when, in certain parts of the Bill, such as in Clauses 33 and 60, definite powers are left to the local authorities. As in the question of definitions and in the question of ages, so in the question of local authorities, there is no principle underlying this Bill.

I maintain that this is much too important a subject to be dealt with by such a Bill. There are the difficulties with regard to the transition age of 18, and there are the objections to the drafting to which I have referred, and, altogether, I think this is much too important a subject to be dealt with in a Bill of this kind. I am speaking on it with great feeling, because it is a subject which interests me more than anything else, in particular from the point of view that young children have towards what is going to be the work of their life. I do not want them to be deprived by this Bill of doing the work they like, and although the Bill may deal with certain anomalies I would rather see the proposals embodied in a Government Measure dealing with the whole of our factory legislation and satisfactorily defining the relationships of agriculture and industry.

I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

I do so in view of the offer of the Mover of the Second Reading to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to second the Motion.

I object to the Motion being put to the House at this juncture, because I, like many other hon. Members, have some observations to make on the Bill, particularly in view of certain opinions expressed by the hon. Member who moved it and by the seconder. We shall be deprived of the opportunity of refuting some of the statements which in our opinion are not accurate. I submit that to move the Adjournment of this Debate at 2.30 in the afternoon is very unfair to private Members who wish to discuss the Bill. If you will allow me, I should like to make a few observations on the Bill.

As the Adjournment of the Debate has been moved and that Motion has been accepted, discussion must be confined to that proposal.

The reason I do not desire that this Debate should be adjourned is that we have not had sufficient discussion on this important Bill. We have been told by the Home Secretary that the Government intend to bring forward legislation dealing with matters included in this Bill, but, if we stifle discussion this afternoon it will make it very difficult for the Government, when they bring forward their proposals, to get the House to consider them in a reasonable space of time. We have heard many speeches this afternoon, some of them very informative, and some of them from Members who have had actual experience, but some of those speeches have not been quite to the point, and I submit that some of us who have had practical experience from the factory point of view, from the shop point of view, and from the point of view of the juveniles of the country, should have an opportunity of expressing our views. I am one who has taken an active interest in juvenile employment Committees from their first formation, before they were statutory committees and when they were voluntary agencies, and I claim to know something about the subject.

I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). I never like to see private Members deprived of the opportunity of discussion, but I would like to remind the House that there are others who were lucky in the Ballot besides the hon. Member who got the opportunity to move this Bill, and as this Bill is to be withdrawn those of us who are interested in the Second Bill on the Order Paper ought to be able to enjoy our hardly won fortune in the Ballot. Therefore I have great pleasure in supporting the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate.

This is one of the most extraordinary Motions I have ever known. An hon. Member opposite has luck in the Ballot and introduces a most important Bill. He speaks on it in moving terms. The Home Secretary points out that the Government intend to introduce legislation dealing with three-quarters of the points contained in this Bill, but that as regards the remaining quarter, including the question of van boys, theatrical employment and boys in mines, there is no Measure which has yet been drafted by the Government, at any rate, which will carry out the objects of the supporters of the Bill. The Home Secretary thought that in view of that situation hon. Members should be content with a discussion on this Bill. May I ask, Are we too not to have any discussion on the Bill? Are we not even to discuss the questions with which the Government do not propose to deal in their own legislation? The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) suggests that another hon. Member who wants to introduce a Bill should have the chance of doing so. Is that Bill more important than this one?

At the moment, yes.

Is it more important that the question of the employment of van boys, the employment of boys in mines and the question of children in theatrical employment, which have been spoken about so ardently to-day? Why should we not only determine that the Bill cannot go forward, but that there must be as little discussion as possible about it? Are we to have no discussion on those parts of the Bill which we shall not have a chance of discussing otherwise, because the Government can give no assurance of introducing a Measure to carry them out? Hon. Members opposite and hon. Members below the Gangway have often criticised the Conservative party for not having carried through legislation to deal with these matters. If that criticism be sincere, let us have an opportunity of discussing these questions. Why should hon. Members opposite be so anxious to stifle discussion?

I think the House will agree that there has been nothing remotely approaching frivolous or delaying discussion. We have been debating the real substance of the Bill, and I ask hon. Members opposite to withdraw this very extraordinary Motion and let us get on with the discussion of subjects about which hon. Members behind me, as well as hon. Members in front, feel so strongly. I do not think this Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate is worthy of the party opposite.

The right hon. Gentleman has really made a very strong speech in favour of carrying the Motion which is now before the House. I do not want to engage in any discussion of the relative values of the Bill which we have been considering and the other Bill which hon. Members would like to bring forward. The difference between the two is this— that the subjects with which this Bill is concerned can only be dealt with by other processes, whereas the Bill which stands second on the Order Paper deals with one specific matter on which the House might very well express some opinion, and on which a Committee upstairs could probably reach a decision. At an earlier stage of the proceedings a suggestion was made from the opposite side that this Bill might very well be withdrawn, and in response to that suggestion an offer was made to withdraw it, and thereupon it was said, "Do not let us withdraw the Bill now; let us have a little more discussion." We have had further discussion, very many speeches have been made, and I think it would be helpful if we decided now to adjourn the Debate on this Bill and give the House an opportunity to reach the second Measure, a small one, but very important.

There are a number of very important considerations which we ought to be allowed to discuss before this Debate is adjourned. The next Bill on the Order Paper does not deal with a very considerable number of important considerations which are dealt with in this Bill. I think we have a right to press upon the Home Secretary the necessity of allowing hon. Members to discuss these important matters.

I am afraid the noble lady was not in the House when I referred to the second Bill on the Order Paper.

Am I to understand that the Home Secretary has given an undertaking that he will introduce a Bill dealing with the further regulations of the employment of van-boys, children engaged in theatrical performances, and boys employed in mines.

I can make no definite promise with regard to mines, but I have undertaken to deal with the other matters in a separate Bill, and I have the van-boys specially in mind.

I think the time which has been taken up by those sitting on the front benches in discussing this Measure is sufficient justification for hon. Members refusing to support the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate. There are many other reasons why hon. Members should vote against this Motion, and one is that on a grave matter such as this which deals with the welfare of the whole population we naturally expect to have a representative opinion from every section of the House. We have heard speeches from hon. Gentilemen opposite and from hon. Members sitting on the Conservative benches, but we have not had a single speech from those who profess from time to time that they, and they alone, are perfect. I refer to hon. Members sitting below the Gangway. We are discussing a Bill of immense value to every section of the community. It is all very well to say that this Bill should be sent to a Committee upstairs. That is a matter of opinion. The Home Secretary says that it is not likely that this Measure will get much further, but that is no reason why we should agree with him. I do not care two hoots for the Home Secretary or any other Minister. Why should we stand on one side at the bidding of the Home Secretary and do nothing at all? As far as I am concerned, I think it is a monstrous proposition that a Member of the Socialist party should, without giving any adequate reasons, ask us to adjourn this Debate.

If this Bill goes to a Division, is the hon. and gallant Member prepared to support it?

If this Measure goes to a Division, I am perfectly willing, after hearing the opinion of all sections of the House, to give my decision. I have not yet had an opportunity of hearing what hon. Members on the Liberal Benches have to say on this Measure. When I have heard their opinion, as well as the opinion of others on the Front Benches, I shall then be prepared to give my decision. A great deal of time has been taken up in this Debate by the Home Secretary, but his speech had nothing whatever to do with the advancement of the Bill, and he put forward what I can only describe as a lot of shuffling excuses. There are quite a number of reasons why we should not carry this Motion to adjourn the debate. A good many of those reasons were put forward in the able speech by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). I am sure hon. Members appreciated his opening remarks, and more particularly the hon. Member's reference to blind-alley occupations.

There are other points of view which have not been discussed. There is the important question of the apprenticeship system which has hardly been referred to. There is also the question of linking up juvenile employment with our educational system. Why should hon. Members be denied the opportunity of discussing all those points? There are other sections of this Bill in which I am very much interested, and I want to discuss them. If this Motion is carried, I shall be prevented from discussing points which affect my constituents very closely. Why should I be denied that opportunity? Why should I not have the right to discuss how this Bill affects the industries which I represent, such as the fishing industry, and the men employed in sea-faring. The Home Secretary said that these things cannot be done, but why should I bow my knee to the Home Secretary? As long as I have power to lift up my voice, I am not going to bow to any Member sitting on the Front Bench, and I am not going to be dictated to.

There are some other points which probably are not so important. [An HON. MEMBER: "Divide!"] I notice that the hon. Member cries out "Divide" when those on his own side are catching it. It is not right that only one part of this Measure should be discussed, and it is wrong that on a most important Bill like this we should be denied the opportunity of hearing the Welsh point of view from the Leader of the Liberal party. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is he?"] At any rate, we know that he has the funds if nothing else. We have heard absolutely nothing from that wonderful part of Great Britain North of the Tweed. We have not heard, for instance, the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) telling us what Scotland thinks; we have not heard the Clydeside view; even the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has been absolutely silent.

I have been listening, though.

The hon. Member says he has been listening. I do not know what I should say about his listening, but I only hope it is as effective as some of his interventions are. I have mentioned various parts of the country, but I happen to represent another district. I represent the west country, and no west countryman has been allowed to intervene in this Debate. We are more important than Scotland and Wales put together—far more important. We do know our job, we know the people, and some of us have lived there for generations upon generations. [ Interruption. ] I was rather wondering whether that would penetrate the minds of hon. Members.

On a point of Order. May I ask when we are going to collect the Entertainments Duty?

The hon. Member has paid me a great compliment. I have been accused many times of making dull speeches, and I appreciate most sincerely the compliment that he has paid me. I am not standing here to-day for any purpose except to endeavour to bring the House back to the serious business of this Bill, my aim and object being to pile up one after another various bits of information and various arguments to show why we. should not accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate, and why we should not be driven away by some very innocent and kindly feeling on the part of a back bench Member prompted by a. Front Bench Minister. All of us who have been in the House of Commons for some years understand that kind of thing. I remember, on an occasion like this when I first came into the House, being asked to do a thing which seemed awfully innocent, but, after having been bitten once or twice, I knew better. Can any of us to-day, in regard to a Bill of the size of this one, honestly go back to our constituencies this week-end and say that we have given it fair and adequate discussion? Many speeches have been delivered, several of them excellent speeches, and at any rate those of us whose speeches may not have been quite so good have done our best, and nothing more can be done by anyone. I only hope that we shall go to a Division on this matter, because it would be perfectly monstrous if we did not go on with this Bill, which has much that is good in it and which a committee upstairs could get through if they meant to do so. It is no good waiting for what the Home Secretary might do. Other Home Secretaries have come and gone, and there has been a lot of waiting in this matter. I urge the House to reject this Motion and then go on and pass the Bill, letting it go upstairs and be discussed. Even if much of it has to be thrown overboard, there is, I believe, much that is good in it. For that reason I oppose the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.

I rise also to oppose the Motion which is now before the House. This Bill raises very large questions which affect the constituencies of many Members on this side of the House, and on the opposite side also, and yet we are now asked to stifle the whole discussion. I have sat here since 11 o'clock this morning on purpose to raise a point which has particular reference to the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and yet, if this Motion be carried, I shall be denied the right of raising that point, which is of supreme importance to my constituency. In the exchange of question and answer between the noble Lady the Member for Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) and the Home Secretary as to what the problematical Bill which he may introduce would or would not contain, there was no reference whatever, nor can I find any specific reference in this Bill, to the paramount industry in my constituency, that is to say to the position of those lads who are jockeys or apprentices in racing stables. I am to be denied the opportunity of discussing their case, and the view of the Member for their constituency, which is a racing one, is not to be allowed to be expressed in this House. Therefore, I protest against this Motion being carried. I think that the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded it might well reconsider their position and withdraw the Motion, in order to enable the House to have a proper opportunity of discussing the many points raised by this Bill.

I should like to add my protest against this Motion. I have been here since. 11 o'clock for the express purpose of showing how this Bill would operate upon two or three industries in which I am interested. In regard, for instance, to the hotel industry, the Bill raises questions of very serious importance. Wholly misleading things have been said about page-boys, based on inaccurate information. Again, in the hosiery and shirt-making industry, there are in my constituency several very substantial concerns. One of them employs 800 young girls under conditions which are perfectly good and absolutely satisfactory, but this Bill would restrict that. In the manufacture of automatic scales also, a number of young girls are employed under very advantageous conditions, and there again the limitations of this Bill would do a great deal of harm. I should have thought that these proposals were proposals of just that kind on which the House ought to have as much information as possible. No one person can know how the Bill affects every industry, but Members of this House can all give some first-hand information about some industries, and I should have thought that, the more the matter was discussed and the more information that was put before the House, the better, whether the Bill is to be withdrawn or not. That information would be useful even for the legislation which the Home Secretary is contemplating. I urge the House to let us have the next hour in which to put forward more accurate information on these very vital matters.

I should like to add my voice to those of others who have asked that this Motion may be withdrawn. We have here an opportunity, which probably will not occur again, of discussing a most interesting example of Socialistic private enterprise. I have listened to most of the speeches that have been made this morning, and every one of them, even including that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Torquay (Commander Williams), has been extremely interesting. The Home Secretary advanced, as a reason for adjourning the Debate, the fact that Measures would be introduced by him which cover most of the points raised in this Bill and most of the classes of workers that would be covered by this Bill, but, as has been shown in the speeches which have just been made, there are several classes of workers that will not be covered by the Bill which the Home Secretary intends to introduce. I would ask the hon. Member who has moved the adjournment of the Debate to withdraw the Motion, and allow the discussion on this very interesting Bill to go forward. For instance, we want to continue the discussion of the position, under this Bill, of agricultural workers and various other classes of workers. I hope the Motion for the Adjournment will not be pressed.

I should like to appeal to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. Strauss) to be good enough to withdraw his Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, because I think it may truly be said that this Debate has been of a nature appropriate to the Council of State for which the Prime Minister recently pleaded. We know that the Home Secretary is about to introduce a Factory Bill, and we find that this Bill contains some of the things comprised in the Factories Bill of 1924. The Bill of 1924 was a Socialist Measure, and the

possibility is that on that basis the proposed new Factories Bill may be brought in by the present Government. I think we may fairly say that during the course of the Debate certain difficulties have been prominently brought to the attention of the Home Secretary. I would refer to weight lifting, the law as to pregnancy, the difficulties of agriculture, and others. It is the hope of hon. Members on this side of the House that those criticisms may be of great value to the Home Secretary, and that, having gathered the general opinion of the House, given in a non-party manner, and with a sincere desire to help the children and young workers of this country, he may, when he brings in his Factories Bill, whenever it may be, be able, as the result of this Debate, to avoid certain of the difficulties, anomalies, and improbabilities which he might otherwise introduce. I venture to suggest that this discussion, which has been of value to hon. Members of this House, should be of equal value to the Home Secretary himself, and that when he does introduce into this House his Factories Bill, that Bill will be such as will receive unanimous and generous support from all parts of the House.

May I have the privilege of saying that I put several questions to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and to the Home Secretary which have not been answered. Would it be possible for them to be answered before the Debate is adjourned?

Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned".

The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 45.

Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 13th December.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill has been introduced on two or three occasions. It was introduced in July, 1928, by one of the Members for Middlesbrough, who did not have an opportunity of proceeding further with it. It was introduced again in December, 1928, under the Ten Minutes Rule, but never got any further. It is a one Clause Bill dealing with a matter that we used to think was in operation in the early days of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I was a trade union secretary when that Act came into operation in 1897 and, when a man was in receipt of compensation for an accident and the doctor declared that he was fit for light employment, we only had to approach the employer, who invariably found him light employment, paying wages equivalent to those paid prior to the accident. When he was able to follow his ordinary employment, the colliery companies of whom I am speaking, because I was mostly interested in the mining industry, allowed him to go back to his work.

I had no trouble for a great many years in getting these people back to work, but now, either through some fault in the Act or something that has been introduced into it, or possibly because employers are not as humane as they used to be, we are reduced to coming to the House and asking to get Section 9 (4) altered. I think, if the House knew the complaints that could be made by people who have been reduced to distress through not being found employment, Members of all parties would agree to this alteration of the law. Perhaps it would be as well to read it, as this is only a one Clause Bill. the Bill has been before the House on two different occasions and that we have not yet had an opportunity of taking the Division which we expected.

I beg to second the Motion.

This one Clause Bill is a very human document so far as some of us are concerned. Like my hon. Friend, I have had many years of responsibility for the workmen at the colliery where I was engaged. From the inception of the Compensation Act I have been responsible for dealing with these cases. In looking back over these many years, I can corroborate what, my hon. Friend has said, namely, that for many years after the Compensation Act came into operation little difficulty was experienced by the employers in providing men with light work when these men were certified by the medical man as being fit for light work. I believe that all that has gone. If I were able to give you the details in Yorkshire alone as far as the mining industry is concerned —and it must always be remembered that this applies to all industries—I think the figures would be very startling.

There is no greater tragedy amongst all the tragedies of unemployment that that of the man who is certified by a medical man to be fit for light employment. The judge reduces his compensation and the employer refuses to find him work. He becomes like driftwood among the unemployed. Against strong, healthy, able-bodied men seeking employment, this man is at a great disadvantage. When the young and strong are unable to get work and this man who has been refused by his former employer light and suitable work applies to any other employer, the first thing that is said to him is: "Why does not your own employer who employed you when you were injured, find you work? "When we speak from the human point of view in this Assembly, we are apt to be charged with indulging in—I think one of the terms used is "eyewash"; but those of us who have been dealing with this question and have seen these people for years and have known their cases know that there is no greater tragedy than the man who has been ordered light work. The continuous refusal of other employers to find him work is to some extent justifiable, because in fairness and justice the employer who employed the man when he met with his injury ought to find him suitable work, or compensate him until suitable work can be found.

There are many hon. Members who have been for many years engaged in public life before they had the honour of being elected to represent a particular Division in this House. I was for 20 years a member of a Corporation and for 28 years a member of an education authority. I mention those facts not in the way of egotism but to illustrate my point. How often have people asked us in our public capacity if we could help them to find some kind of work. I have not the figures affecting Yorkshire; if I had, I should only be able to speak of the mining cases, whereas this question affects every industry. I once raised a similar question in this House, and I asked the Poor Law Guardians of Rotherham Union, where I live, what was the cost per month to the Poor Law Guardians in relieving compensation cases which had received inadequate compensation, and it was a sum of £1,000 per year, at least, that they had to pay. Therefore, the liability in respect to the man who is injured is spread over the community, instead of being put upon those employers who employed him when the injury occurred. This Clause is a simple act of justice. I know that something will be wrong with the drafting of it. I have been in this House for 11 years, and I have never mastered the drafting of an Act of Parliament and I do not suppose that I shall succeed in that direction even if I remain a Member for another eleven years. I remember an hon. Member on the Liberal benches reading out a Section from an Act and we had a reply from a learned and legal hon. Member—

And that was wrong.

I do not think it could be right in any circumstances. To me this is an act of common justice. I do not want to prolong the discussion; I want to give other hon. Members a chance and I want, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. G. Hirst) to have a character for making short speeches so that when we desire an opportunity to speak Mr. Speaker will always give us a kindly glance. This is a human question. If the drafting is not right that defect can be remedied in Committee if the House will give it a Second reading. The real substance of the Bill is that if a man has met with an injury and cannot obtain light work at his own industry or in any other that at least his employers should be responsible for paying him for total incapacity so long as he is unable to get work. That is the real gist of the Measure. I do not want to see a little Bill like this delayed or hampered on the question of drafting, and I beg of this House to give it a Second reading. There is, I think, a unanimous feeling that something ought to be done in fairness to these men.

Perhaps I may be allowed as the grandfather of this Bill to give it my blessing from that position. I first introduced it in July 1928, and I put it on the Order Paper within 24 hours of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Bevan v. Nixon's Navigation Co. Ltd. That is the decision which has rendered this Bill necessary. Up to that time it had been taken for granted by most people that if there had been total incapacity and there had been recovery of health which did not in fact, lead to a recovery of work that the man was still, for the purposes of his employment, totally incapacitated and should be treated as such. Then came the decision in the House of Lords. It was the adverse decision of a majority, and was based on the decision in an earlier case, Cardiff Corporation v. Hall, which the majority of the House of Lords thought had been standing for so long that it could not be disturbed. The minority in the House of Lords was important, and included Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Blanesburgh, and they expressed the strong opinion that the decision of the other Lords really defeated the main intention of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I submit that to any legal hon. Member who may be in any doubt. On the question of the drafting, to which the seconder of the Motion so charmingly referred, let me say that when I introduced my Bill it contained words which are not now in this Bill. It contained these words that:

"In the circumstances indicated his failure to obtain such employment shall be deemed to be a consequence of the injury."

The then Under Secretary of State for the Home Office, Sir Vivian Henderson, who is no longer in the House, indicated that the Government were in complete sympathy with my proposal but that these particular words were dangerous and might leave the door too open. What is the position now? Hon. Members opposite very wisely have left these words out and from the point of view of the previous Government this Bill does not contain the defect which my Bill contained. Therefore, there is a very strong reason for supposing that the drafting of this Bill is not open to any serious criticism at all. If there be anything wrong, there is always the Committee stage and it will be a simple matter to put things right. It is really a matter of simple human justice that a man should not be deprived of part of his compensation when the real fact of the matter is that as a result of his injury and for no other reason he is not able to earn wages at all. As long as that condition continues he ought to be compensated on that basis. This question affects thousands of people, among the miners particularly. I would urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to let any defects in it be considered in Committee.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now" and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."

I feel sure that the effect of this Bill is not as freely understood as it ought to be, and that if it were really appreciated the House would see that the Bill would be inflicting an injustice upon the employer and would put upon him an obligation which ought to be incorporated in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The laws dealing with Workmen's Compensation put upon, and rightly put upon, employers a duty where a man is injured and his incapacity is due to an accident. If the incapacity or inability to get work is not due to an accident, if the incapacity has been recovered from and if the inability to get work is not directly due to the accident, it seems to me that it passes into another realm of insurance, and that is Unemployment Insurance, and that there should not be imposed on the employer for all time the obligation to find work for the workman. Under the Act of 1925 there are often very difficult cases to be decided. I ask hon. Members not to think that I am approaching the subject from any want of sympathy. I think workmen ought to be covered. The whole question is in which direction, whether by the employer under the Compensation Act system or by the Unemployment Insurance Act?

The law at present, as contained in the Act of 1925, is this: Suppose that a man has recovered from an accident, as far as he can possibly recover, but is unfit for his old work and is fit definitely for some other employment, and suppose that he cannot get this other employment, and that this is due to the fact of the accident and because perhaps employers are nervous about employing him, then the employer is still bound to compensate, and it can be treated as a case of complete incapacity. But if the fact of a man having had an accident has nothing to do with the fact that he cannot get employment, the present law is that he cannot get an increase of his award and cannot get it treated as a case of total incapacity. Stated in that way it would seem quite fair. If a man is fit for certain work and his inability to get that work has nothing to do with the accident, one cannot see on what principle of justice the employer should be made to ensure employment in such a case. Let us notice the wording in the Bill:

A man lost an eye while working in a great industrial establishment. He was a very hefty chap and did not want to hang about doing nothing. He was perfectly fit to do work of any kind except work requiring the use of both eyes, but the work at which is was previously engaged was technical and dangerous and required the use of both eyes. The firm was willing to keep him on, but he was advised that he would be running a serious risk, and might meet with another accident if he returned to his former work. Therefore, he abandoned his former employment and there was the usual declaration of liability by the firm, and for two or three years he was able to get work, first under the local corporation on the roads and then other work of the same kind, which he was perfectly well able to do, and at which he was able to earn up to £4 a week. He was as well off, if not better off than before.

In a case like that supposing something happens which puts an end to this work, and the man is unable to get work of the kind for which he is fit, because there is an over-supply of such workers in the neighbourhood, or for some other reason of that kind, on what principle of justice can he go back to his old employers and say "Although for two or three years I have been proving my fitness to do work which has brought me in as much as or more than I got when I was with you, I am no longer able to get that work, and, as I had an accident while in your employment two or three years ago, and as there is a declaration of liability, I now call upon you to treat me as a person suffering from total incapacity for work."? It seems amazing that we should make a law which would have that effect. One can of course think of cases in which the accident would be the real cause of the man's inability to get work, and those cases are dealt with. But in cases like that which I have instanced where the loss of the eye has not stood in a man's way at all, but because of market conditions he is unable to get the work which he is able to do, can anyone suggest that it is fair to go to the employer and say "Because I have not been able to get the work of the kind I can do, you must pay me on the basis of complete incapacity."?

I cannot help feeling that if the House appreciated all the cases which would be covered by this Clause, they would hesitate to give it a Second Reading. The Clause is based on the premises that a man, whose inability to get employment has nothing in the wide world to do with the accident—because, if it had, his case would already be dealt with— is to be treated as that which he is not, namely, as somebody suffering from total incapacity. That I suggest would be very bad law and very unjust to the employer, and I say that the proper method in a case of that sort is to deal with the man under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. If those Acts do not cover him, then that is the law to amend, and not the Workmen's Compensation Acts. After all, the Workmen's Compensation Acts were passed for a particular purpose—to see that the injured man should get compensation so long as his injury prevented him from getting work. Once you get away from that, once the injury ceases to be the cause preventing the man from getting work, it cannot be fair to say that you will treat him as totally incapacitated, because he is unable to get work of the kind which he admits he is able to do. I feel so strongly about this Bill and the fact that it seems to be amending the wrong law that I move the postponement of the Second Reading.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so because I believe this Bill does not fulfil the objects which are in the minds of both the Mover and Seconder of the Motion for the Second Reading. I have read the Bill very carefully, and I took out from the previous Act exactly the words which are omitted by the Bill, and those words are: injuries—of course, there may be some— but, on the other hand, I am sure the very large majority of employers always have done and still do everything they can to find employment for anyone who is unfortunately injured in the course of work in their employment.

I know of such cases myself, and I do not think it helps the case for the Bill for any hon. Member to make a sweeping statement such as that the day of employers giving light work to men who have had accidents has gone for ever, or words to that effect. The fact is that that statement is not true, and I know of several cases to the contrary within my own information, and I feel sure that if hon. Members would admit it, they must know this is so. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) spoke of a previous Bill, but he did not give us any details showing how this particular Amendment of it would affect the claims that have been made and that have been referred to on the other side. On the face of it, to the ordinary common sense person, the law as it stands is perfectly clear. If a man suffers and cannot get employment, and it is a fact that it is because of his injury that he cannot get it, he is covered under the present law. The only point in this Bill, apparently, is that a man may be able to show that he cannot get any employment at all, and that, although it may be clear that for some reason or other it is not because of the original injury, but because of something which has happened afterwards, he is still to get compensation on the basis of total incapacity.

I think the hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension. Surely he cannot say that the position is reasonably clear when there is a division in the House of Lords on the subject, and the question which this Bill seeks to deal with is the case where a man has originally been injured under circumstances which admittedly create a total incapacity and liability to pay, but recovers in such a sense that he can do some kind of work, but his recovery is no use to him because in that particular trade there is no work available. In these circumstances, in the view of those learned Lords, it was defeating the whole object of the Workmen's Compensation Acts to say that his partial recovery should deprive him of part of his compensation when it did not give him employment at all and when, if he had not been injured originally, he would still be doing his old work.

I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I had not the slightest intention, as I am sure he has not, to set myself up as being able to interpret the law better than or in the same way as the authorities whom he has mentioned. But it is very difficult to see that in reality the man he has referred to suffers in any way under the original Act. If it be that it is clear that there is a difficulty under the present Act, and that a man who has suffered and who cannot get employment because of the injury does not get compensation under the present law, then I should be the last to vote against this Bill. That is not my intention, but I suggest that it is extremely difficult for the layman to say that the meaning of these words is going to do anything but possibly open the door to some objectionable claim, while not in any way helping those which are perfectly legitimate.

An important point was raised by may hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson). There are no doubt cases of people who have been injured, and who have been offered employment in the same works, but for some reason have not taken that employment, and have gone away to other places for a number of years; and this Bill possibly opens the door to a certain number of claims which may be put forward years after the original injury. This is really not a question of employers and employed at all. It is well known that employers are all insured against such claims, or most of them are, and it is not a question which affects them very much. I do not know whether or not there might be some fractional extra premium because of this Bill but I doubt it, and in any case that is not a matter of serious consideration. It comes to a question whether this is an amendment which will put right something which is wrong at the present moment. If it is, I am not going to vote against this Bill, but I am bound to say that this is not a matter for amendment in Committee, but a matter of principle, and as I see it at present, this Bill will open the door possibly to a few fictitious or extra- vagant claims, and will not necessarily help the man who is making a perfectly legitimate claim for compensation, or will in any way improve his position.

I very much hope that the House will give this Bill a Second reading, despite the short time that has been allowed for its discussion. I cannot follow the two hon. Members who have just addressed the House on the purely legal point, but I might very well, in reference to the closing words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson), ask that the House should consider the intentions of Parliament when the Act of Parliament was passed. The intentions of Parliament have been reviewed by the proper body, and that proper body is very much divided as to what the Act means, or what the law really is and ought to be; but, in spite of that division, a decision has been given which puts in a position of great disadvantage a large number of injured persons, and the purpose of the Bill is to correct that decision, and to restore the intentions of Parliament. As has been admitted, the employers of labour would not be placed in any worse position, because of the custom of insurance, and, indeed, it is on balance no disadvantage to employers to have to pay through a compensation fund rather than to have to pay through the Unemployment Insurance Fund. They must pay to both.

I know my two hon. friends who moved and seconded this Bill, and I know them above all else as men who never do anything scarcely except on their experience. They are men who have been close up to the bitter disappointments of innumerable instances of workmen who have suffered the greatest hardships because of the position of the law, as it now is. In face, therefore, of these inequalities I trust that this Bill will be given a Second Reading. These instances, though they may not be numerous in relation to the total number of casualties in industry, are perhaps all the more important because there is not a very large number of them. I suggest that the House might very well give this Bill a Second Reading, but let me say that I am advised that the words in the Bill may not, indeed would not, safely and surely cover the intentions behind the promoters. But that I submit is a matter for Committee. If we can agree about the principle, I suggest that the promoters of the Bill should consult with the Home Office, or with those who are competent to advise, and let us see whether in Committee we cannot find a set of words that will carry out their intention.

May I say one word about this Bill as two of my hon. Friends have moved and seconded its rejection? I think there is no doubt that the existing law, as now interpreted, needs to be changed. I do not think I can agree with my hon. and learned Friend that it is not the Workmen's Compensation Act but the Unemployment Insurance Act which needs change. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1925 does certainly need amendment. The Home Office has, I think, been trying, ever since that judgment to which the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. Griffith) referred to find a form of words which would put the thing right. The whole difficulty is to find a right form of words, and it is quite obvious that this Bill does not provide that form of words, or anything like it. Quite briefly, what we want to do is this: A skilled hewer in a mine is injured but recovers sufficiently to be able to undertake light surface work. We want to ensure that if there is work underground, which he cannot do, but there is no work above ground, which he can do, he shall be regarded as totally incapacitated. What we want to see, also, is that if for an interval the mine closes down completely and there is employment neither underground nor on the surface he should not be regarded as totally incapacitated; that while all the others are on unemployment benefit he is on workmen's compensation. I do not think that is justifiable. I want to know whether we may rely on the Home Secretary to advise the Committee upstairs and if necessary to bring forward Amendments which will make this Bill workable. I do not want to be left upstairs with no guidance, because this is a purely legal drafting point. If he will undertake to make this Bill watertight by Amendments introduced upstairs, I would strongly advise my hon. Friends behind me not to persist in their opposition.

I shall be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman the fullest assurance that I will do my very best to meet him in what he is asking.

I do not want to take up the time of the House for more than one minute, but as an employer I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading. My experience of the employment exchanges and as an employer has shown me that some of the very saddest cases occur when a man is looking around for light work. It is just like the ex-service man with a pension of about 15s. a week who is recommended to find light labour. He pursues his weary journey day after day trying to find that light labour which is not to be got. Therefore, I shall vote for the Second Reading, and I think that the Clause may be so amended as to remove every objection.

Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.