Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

a proposal intended to save expense, the operation of the Act as to attendance and therefore he was inclined to assent at school who were already receiving to the Amendment in so far as another instruction on the half-time system, person appointed by the board was con- under the Factory Act, from the age of cerned that was to say, the board was 6 to 13; but it also applied to children to be at liberty to appoint a proper per- working in mines where the age was 12 son other than the Procurator Fiscal to years. He questioned whether exempprosecute under this clause. But he tion from the operation of the Act should was inclined to be more tenacious of the be provided in the latter case. He hoped sheriff's jurisdiction, of whom they had the Amendment would not be pressed. enough in Scotland to perform this duty, which, particularly at the commencement, would be of a somewhat difficult and delicate character.

MR. M'LAREN said, he was satisfied with the concession made by the Lord Advocate, and would not press his other Amendment with regard to the justices of the peace.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SCOURFIELD moved, in page 29, line 16, to leave out "three" and insert "six," the object being to allow legal proceedings to be repeated against defaulting parents at intervals of not less than six months, instead of three.

Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 16, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "six,"-(Mr. Scourfield,)

-instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Bill."

MR. CRAUFURD opposed the Amend

ment.

THE LORD ADVOCATE also intimated that he could not assent to the proposed change.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. F. S. POWELL moved, in page 29, line 17, after the word "fund" to insert the words

"No requirement in this section contained shall be held or construed to apply to any child employed in any kind of labour, and receiving instruction in conformity with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any Act in force at the time being for regulating the education of children employed in labour or in any industrial occupation above ground or in mines."

The hon. Gentleman said that the
Amendment was copied, with slight
alteration, from the by-laws used in
England.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. BRUCE understood the object of the clause was to exempt children from The Lord Advocate

MR. TREVELYAN strongly objected to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman. This Bill represented the Scotch opinion as regards the obligation of parents towards children in 1872, and he did not think the measure should be hampered by provisions which represented the English feeling with regard to education in years now long gone by. The provisions of the Factory Acts were not meant to represent the maximum of education and exemption from labour-on the contrary, they represented the minimum; and it was important, now that school boards were being established over the whole of Scotland, that they should not be burdened with any conditions except those which were imposed by their own feelings as to the amount of education the children should have. It was most

important that this Bill in its entirety should represent the feeling of Scotland. The addition of the words proposed simply brought them back to other times, and to the opinion of another country, and it was therefore desirable that they should not be inserted.

MR. J. LOWTHER was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman use the expression "another country." That the country commonly called England should be spoken of in that House 66 as another country," must surely gladden the heart of every ardent "Home Ruler."

MR. ANDERSON asked if the hon. Member who proposed the Amendment was aware that the half-time system had taken no hold in Scotland, and that the teaching under it was of the worst possible description? Having had experience of it, he would not be surprised if the school boards thought the educacharacter that they would not take it tion under it was of so insufficient a as an excuse under the provisions of the Bill.

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he could not assent to the Amendment. The purpose of the hon. Gentleman, as

23, to leave out the word "forty," and Amendment proposed, in page 29, line insert the word "five,"-(Mr. McLaren,)

-instead thereof.

THE LORD ADVOCATE reminded the hon. Member for Edinburgh that the fine of 58. provided for in the English Bill could be imposed every 24 hours; whereas the fine of 408. sanctioned by the Bill now before the House could only be imposed once in three months. The sum of 408. was the maximum, and there might be cases in which the expenses of witnesses amounted to that sum; but he thought that in the majority of cases the expenses would be trifling.

MR. J. LOWTHER supported the Amendment, and hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh would divide the House.

he understood it, was to make it reason- | expenses of the prosecution against him, ably certain that the parents of a child and pointed out that under the English who was employed, and was at the same Bill the penalty for the breach of any time receiving instruction in conformity by-law should not exceed 58. with the provisions of the Factory Act, should not be prosecuted as a parent who had grossly neglected his duty to his child. If the words proposed, or any others, were necessary to the attainment of that object, he should not oppose the Amendment, but he trusted his hon Friend would find that it was not so. It was declared by Clause 67 that it should be the duty of every parent to provide elementary education for his children, and if he was unable, from poverty, to discharge that duty, then it was put upon the school board to provide instruction for him, and upon the parochial board to pay for it. Clause 68 provided for the case of defaulting parents who were neglecting their duty, and neglecting it grossly and without reasonable excuse. The hon. Member would perceive that it was only after the school board had called the defaulting parent before them and given him an opportunity of explaining why his children were not at school, and being dissatisfied with his explanation, that they were to certify in writing that he had been and was grossly and without reasonable excuse failing in the discharge of his duty in providing elementary education for his children, and that prosecution was to take place. No school board would, in the first instance, MR. ORR EWING remarked that certify that a parent was grossly neg-law was very cheap in Scotland, and lecting his duty to provide elementary that the Amendment might conveniently education for his children who was pro- be adopted. viding them employment and instruction under an Act of Parliament; or, if they did so certify, there was no sheriff who would convict in such a case. Any such procedure would be an outrage on common sense. He therefore trusted the hon. Member would not press this Amendment.

MR. ORR EWING recommended the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 69 (Method of procedure). MR. M'LAREN moved an Amendment reducing the amount of expenses in which offending parents are proposed to be mulcted from 408. to 58. The hon. Gentleman argued that it was cruel to require a poor man to pay 40s. for the

SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHER said, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would remember that they were dealing with Scotland. The penalty had been fixed at 58. in England, because public opinion in England was not prepared to go higher, and 408. had been determined upon in Scotland, because they were prepared to go higher. They had made up their minds in Scotland that every child should be educated.

SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE said, that he had seen a good deal of sheriffs law, and had no respect for it. As the proposal of the Government placed large power in the hands of the sheriffs, he should support the Amendment if his hon. Friend went to a division.

MR. CANDLISH urged the Government to accept the Amendment. The Act would work more smoothly with moderate and lenient penalties, and though the English Act did not limit the frequency of prosecutions, they could not reasonably be instituted oftener than once in three months.

MR. GLADSTONE said, there was a certain point beyond which if they reduced the scope of the penal clauses they weakened law. If compulsory education were introduced at all it must be

backed by such provisions as would make | were not of strong intellect or of strong it effectual. He thought 58. too low a bodily frame. It would be improper to limit; but there was no limit to the fre- compel such children to attend school, quency with which it might be exacted, and he therefore suggested that words as it might be renewed from day to day. should be inserted in the clause proThere was a provision in the Scotch Act viding that any child should be exempted which might make the maximum inflic- from attendance who obtained a medical tion reach the sum of 88. four times in certificate of inability to attend. the year. In the English Act the amount was limited to 58.; but there was no reason why it should not be imposed 100 or even 200 times in the course of

a year, and the possible severity of the one case was an equivalent for the higher figure in the other. If the hon. Member moved that the amount should be reduced to 58. in the case of Scotland, in common consistency he must move that the limit of three months which had been

fixed should also be further limited.

SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN said, SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN said, when the interval between which the summons could take place was reduced from six to three months, the amount of the fine was reduced from £5 to 408.; and in the same way he now thought it might be desirable to make a similar reduction as regarded the 408. expenses. He ventured to suggest that the sum should be fixed at 108.

MR. ANDERSON thought 408. too high and 58. too low. If 58. was fixed, it might prove insufficient, and the school board would have to pay the difference, and thus be discouraged in taking action. He thought 208. would be a fair sum.

MR. M LAREN said, if Her Majesty's Government would accept 208., he had no objection to withdraw his proposal.

[ocr errors]

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, that Clause 68 would satisfactorily meet the case put by the hon. and gallant Baronet. Clause 72 (Copy of list of defaulting parents, &c.)

MR. F. S. POWELL moved to leave

out the clause. Clause 68 enacted that
should be made. But this clause went
a list of parents who were in default
further. It enacted that that list, in
which the names of parents were to be
placed without their being heard, and
without an opportunity being given to
them to show cause why their names
should be erased, should be sent to the
country in order to be entered in a re-
various police authorities throughout the
cord. One of the ways to make a law
unpopular was to make the penalties it
imposed unnecessarily severe.
To em-
ploy the police at every turn in carrying
out a law would make it unpopular.

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, so much objection had been urged against the retention of this clause by those whose opinion he valued, that he did not feel disposed to fight for its retention.

MR. GREENE said, it was necessary to watch Her Majesty's Government very closely with regard to the penalties. They were in every Bill, and, in fact, this might be called "a penalty Go

Question, "That the word forty' stand part of the Bill," put, and nega-vernment." tived.

Question, "That the word 'five' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, to insert the word "twenty," (The Lord Advocate,) -instead thereof.

Question, "That the word 'twenty' be inserted, instead thereof," put, and agreed to.

SIR JOHN HAY pointed out that Clause 71 enabled certain children who were very proficient to be exempted from attendance under the Inspector's certificate; but there was another class of children who ought to be exempted from attendance also, but who were not so exempted; he meant children who Mr. Gladstone

Clause struck out.

Clause 77 (Repeal of Acts at variance with this Act).

On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, the words "at variance," in page 31, line 26, were struck out, and the word

"inconsistent" inserted.

THE LORD ADVOCATE moved to

add the following words to the end of

the clause :

schoolmaster prior to the passing of this Act, "And provided, That any sum payable to a under the Act of the first and second years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chapter eightyseven, shall continue to be paid to him so long as he holds the office of schoolmaster on account of thereafter be paid to the School Board of the which such sum was payable to him, and shall parish in which he held such office, for the purposes of the school fund."

MR. M'LAREN said, he had been told, on good authority, that in some of the Highland districts the schools had fallen into desuetude, and though the schoolmasters continued to receive their salaries and their schoolhouses, there were no scholars attending them. It could never be the intention of the Treasury to pay salaries to those schoolmasters who did not perform any duties; and therefore to meet the cases to which he had referred, he moved to insert the words "and performs the duties" after the words "holds the office of school

master."

THE LORD ADVOCATE said, he could not consent to accept the Amendment. The office of schoolmaster was statutory. [Mr. M'LAREN: And so were the duties.] He (the Lord Advocate) had never heard of any such cases as those to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Amendment negatived. Bill to be read the third time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

MINES (COAL) REGULATION (re-committed)
BILL.-[BILL 150.]

(Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. Winterbotham.)
COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st June.]
Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

PART I.

Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children.

Clause 11 (Employment of women, young persons, and children above ground about mines).

MR. BRUEN, who had an Amendment on the Paper to omit from the clause the provision of a Saturday halfholiday to such persons so employed, said he did not intend to proceed with it; but there were some coal workings in Ireland where such a provision was unnecessary; and he would therefore move the insertion of the following words at the end of the clause :

"The provisions of the clause as to the employment of women, young persons, and children after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, shall not apply in the case of any mine exempted in writing by the Secretary of State."

That would give to the Home Secretary the power to exempt from the operation of the half-holiday any part of the coun

try to which the provisions of the clause were not applicable.

MR. BRUCE said, he had received no objection to the clause as regarded Great Britain. No doubt in Ireland many feast days and festivals were observed and interfered with the regularity of labour. Workmen in Ireland would often themselves object to leave off work at 2 o'clock on Saturdays. Therefore, the Secretary of State might properly have the power of exempting mines in Ireland from the operation of the clause; but the Amendment ought to be strictly limited to Ireland.

MR. BRUEN then moved the insertion of the words "in Ireland." Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 (Register of boys and male young persons employed in mines).

than the owner, agent, or manager,

on

MR. PEASE moved, in page 5, line 40, after " employer," insert "other the ground that they were often not responsible for the keeping of the register, and that the responsibility should rest on the manager. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, as a colliery owner, might become responsible in this way, though he and other owners might seldom go near their mines.

MR. BRUCE thought it essential that the owner and agent should be responsible for proper compliance with the Act. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Employment of young persons under 18 about engines).

MR. FOTHERGILL asked why the driver of an animal which worked the engine should be restricted to a boy or male person, and why a woman should not be employed in this capacity? He knew of works in South Wales which had been stopped, and their stoppage was generally supposed to be due to legislation with regard to female labour. He visited the works when they were in operation, and they were pretty well manned with women. Several engines were worked by women; there were none but women throwing coal on and looking after the horses. He did not want to compel women to be drivers, but if they liked the occupation, he did not see why they should not follow it.

In conclusion, he moved the substitution | law in utter ignorance. The men enof the word "person" for "male."

[blocks in formation]

Clause 14 (Penalty for employment of persons contrary to Act).

MR. STAVELEY HILL moved the insertion of the words "knowingly and wilfully," to save an employer from being punished for a misrepresentation as to a boy's age. The words were recognized legal terms, introduced into most Acts, and their meaning was well understood.

Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 21, after the words "with or," to insert the words "knowingly or wilfully."(Mr. Staveley Hill.)

gaged in mines admitted themselves that the insertion of the proposed words was only a matter of justice.

MR. BRUCE stated that he wished on the part of the Government to say that, while he would listen with the greatest respect to the representations of persons interested in legislation on this subject, it was contrary to a proper sense of responsibility on the part of any Government to be bound by any compromise come to by persons out-of-doors; and it was his business to see that the law proposed by the Government should be

effective. In this case he did not think that the act of the owner, simply because he was ignorant, was an innocent act. It was the owner's duty to take proper precautions against the infringement of the law, and there were instances where proper precautions were not taken.

MR. MUNDELLA observed that though it was maintained to be unjust to inflict penalties on persons who had no intention to violate the law, yet the Factory Acts made individuals liable for negligence, and they could not plead ignorance in extenuation, for, if they were allowed to do so, the Factory Acts would

become a dead letter.

MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN mentioned

Question proposed, "That those words that the owner of a factory passed fre

be there inserted."

MR. BRUCE said, so far from the words being introduced into all previous legislation and their omission being a novelty, they did not occur in the Factory Acts, under which many Members of the House conducted their works. The policy of the Act was to require that they and their agents should keep a sharp look out as to the ages of the children they employed. The latter part of the clause sufficiently protected an agent or owner who was misled by a false representation. MR. RODEN regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not accepted the Amendment. At a large meeting of miners which had recently been held it was unanimously agreed that the word "knowingly" ought to be adopted, and he thought such an expression of opinion ought to be respected by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. LIDDELL hoped that the Government would assent to the Amendment, which was simply founded on justice. It would not be fair to inflict penalties on persons who infringed the Mr. Fothergill

quently through his factory, and had many opportunities of seeing and judging of the age of the persons employed; whereas the owner of a coal mine was very rarely in it, and seldom saw the persons employed underground, and to make him criminally responsible, as proposed by the Bill, seemed to be an extreme proposition.

LORD ELCHO regretted that the Home Secretary would not accede to the Amendment. He admitted the soundness of the principle that the Government could not consider themselves bound by any decision come to by any body of men out of the House; but when persons who were the most interested in the operation of this Bill agreed upon any point in connection with it, that might be taken as prima facie evidence in its favour. Seeing that the workmen wished the proposed words to be introduced, he would certainly vote for the Amendment if it were pressed to a division.

MR. AKROYD, as a factory owner, could not allow the distinction drawn between factory owners and mine owners.

« ZurückWeiter »