Schools Commissioners, who took the view that it was a hardship that they should be debarred by the restriction of the Act from appointing a Bishop or incumbent to be an ex-officio trustee. As he understood their meaning, it was that the Endowed Schools Commissioners should not be debarred from appointing a Bishop or rector as ex-officio trustee. What he maintained was this-that the Endowed Schools Commissioners might really feel that, irrespective of his opinions, the Bishop of a diocese or the rector of a parish was a fit and proper person for such appointment, and he should say the same in the like case of a Roman Catholic Bishop or parish priest. These were generally the most fitting persons in point of position, dignity, and permanency to be the trustees of these schools. The 17th clause had been referred to, but that clause said that in every scheme the Commissioners should provide that the religious opinions of any person should not in any way affect his qualification as one of the Governing Body. But was it not on the ground of his religious opinions that the Bishop was now excluded? Then, the result of the construction put upon the clause was that the Bishop was now one of the persons prevented from being a trustee of the school upon the ground of his religious opinions. He would not have said so much if he were sure that the question would be brought to a legal decision. His right rev. Friend knew very well from experience that the wording of the 39th clause was very peculiar and somewhat narrow. If, however, the Endowed School Commissioners appointed a Bishop, and somebody challenged the appointment on the ground of its illegality, the question might be tried. But if the Endowed School Commissioners felt themselves debarred from appointing a Bishop, he did not see how the question could be raised in a Court of Law. That being the state of the case, he trusted their Lordships would agree to the Address moved by the right rev. Prelate. could possibly be done. The scheme was sent into the Department on the 17th of April; a fortnight was usually given by the Department in order that representations might be made by parties concerned, but in this case there were two days less. The scheme was approved on the 29th of April, it was advertised on the 4th of May, and after the lapse of two months, upon the 4th of July, it was laid before the House. On Question? Their Lordships divided: -Contents 64; Not-Contents 50: Ma jority 14. Resolved in the Affirmative. Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves. SCHOOL AT FELSTEAD. Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Felstead in the county of Essex (The Lord Bishop of Rochester.) Objected to; and, on question, agreed to. Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves. Ordered, That the said Address be presented to SCHOOL AT TIDESWELL. Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to refuse her assent to the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners for the management of the school at Tideswell in the county of Derby -(The Marquess of Salisbury.) Objected to; and, on question, agreed to. Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves. Ordered, That the said Address be presented to INCLOSURE LAW AMENDMENT BILL. (The Earl of Morley.) (NO. 238.) REPORT OF AMENDMENT. Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendment, read. Moved, That the said Report be now received. THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND, in moving that the Report be received on that day three months, said, he did invasion of the rights of property in the so on the ground that the Bill was an case of lords of the manors. THE MARQUESS OF RIPON said, he should be sorry if the idea should go forth to the public that there had been any disrespect shown on the part of the Education Department to either that or Amendment moved, to leave out the other House of Parliament. The("now,") and insert ("this day three scheme in this case was laid before this months.")-(The Duke of NorthumberHouse on the very first day on which it land.) Lord Cairns LORD CAIRNS said, he would not deny that legislation on the subject might be desirable, but must urge that the Bill could not be properly considered by the House of Commons, which had more pressing business before it, and that Amendments made by that House could not be adequately discussed here, at the very end of the Session. The noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird), who had come forward as the advocate of donkeys and geese, might rest assured that their interests would be better served by the defeat of the Bill than by its passing. LORD KINNAIRD said, that when the Bill was before the House on previous occasions, lords of manors jumped up right and left and declared that it would confiscate their rights. He (Lord Kinnaird), however, could not for the life of him make out what those rights were. The lords of manors were something like the dog in the manger; they could not inclose commons themselves, and they wished to prevent other people from inclosing. The poor, however, had extensive common rights, and, in his opinion, every exertion possible ought to be made to preserve those rights in a legitimate manner. Instead of that, he thought this Bill did not go far enough in the protection of those rights, but that it went too far in favour of the interests of lords of manors. After the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had endeavoured to meet the objections of noble Lords opposite, he was rather surprised that the noble Duke (the Duke of Northumberland), who, he supposed, was one of the lords of manors, should rise up to oppose the reception of the Report. EARL NELSON said, the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) had shown that he knew nothing of lords of manors or of their rights. Political economists said that all these inclosures were for the benefit of landlords, and not for the benefit of the people; but that, to say the least of it, was a great exaggeration. He believed these inclosures were greatly for the benefit of the people. These inclosures had brought more land into cultivation, and in that way tended to raise both the price of labour throughout the country and the productive power of the land. At present he had two parishes-one where everything had been inclosed, and the other about five miles off where there was a large common; and he was quite certain that the people in the inclosed parish were better off than the people in the other parish. Lords of the manor were willing to give sites for churches, chapels, and burial grounds, schools, recreation, and allotment grounds where they were required; but they objected to this being made a general rule, applicable to cases where such grants would serve no useful purpose. Instead of passing that crude Bill it would be better to refer the matter to a Select Committee next Session. THE EARL OF MORLEY said, that while he did not wish to complain of the opposition offered to the Bill at that stage, he thought the course pursued by noble Lords opposite somewhat illogical; for if they disapproved of the principle of the Bill, it should have been opposed on the second reading; and if they disapproved of its details they might have amended them in Committee. He denied that the Bill was crude; that it had been carelessly considered, or that it was carelessly drawn and a measure of confiscation, sanctioning the levying of black mail. The subject had been under the consideration of the other House during three years; it had been discussed by two Select Committees; and the fact that commons had remained uninclosed must have made known to those interested that legislation was pending, so that they could not complain of being taken by surprise. The Bill, moreover, had been severely criticised on six different occasion in that House; but, notwithstanding the severity of the ordeal to which it had been subjected, the portion of the Bill referring to suburban commons had hardly been touched upon, no substantial Amendment being made; and though as to rural commons, Amendments had been made, the main features of the measure had not been injured, remaining practically the same as when introduced into that House. ceeded upon no new principle as alleged ; but was, in fact, a supplementary measure to the Act of 1845, and if it was a measure of confiscation, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland), to be consistent, would have to move the repeal of previous Acts upon the subject. The fact was, Parliament did not wish to inclose commons; it merely facilitated inclosures when they were desired, and in return exacted certain It pro conditions. The noble Marquess oppo- clauses and provisions of the Bill which site (the Marquess of Salisbury) ad- they wished to retain, be returned to mitted that the State had a right to them with Amendments which they had take a certain amount of land in return already discussed and rejected. In the for the privileges which it granted; and interests of legislation, therefore, their the question in dispute between them Lordships should not set the example of was merely one of degree. The noble sending measures down to the other Marquess said one-tenth was too much; House at a period of the Session when he (the Earl of Morley) said that the it was impossible they could be properly proportion settled by the Act of 1845- discussed, and especially when they connamely, 1 per cent, was obviously insuffi- sidered that they had a right to expect cient, and that the minimum of 10 per that measures would come up to them cent fixed by the Bill was a great im- at a proper period of the Session. He provement, and far from excessive. The wished to know why this Bill had not question of facilitating the inclosure of been introduced earlier. The subject commons was one of State policy; but had been under the consideration of two he would remind their Lordships that Select Committees of the House of Comthere was a great and influential party mons, and yet the noble Lord, having in the country, not merely of one poli- the whole matter fully before him before tical complexion-and who, moreover, the commencement of the Session, had were constantly increasing in strength- not thought proper to introduce this who desired that commons should be measure until the 21st of June, with the kept open for public use. He ventured result that their Lordships were discussto ask their Lordships whether they, like ing in the fourth week in July the prothe noble Marquess, trusted to the muta-priety of sending it down to the House bility of the human mind, in the hope of securing a better bargain than that offered by the Bill? THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say, on the occasion referred to, the mutability of the human mind, but the mutability of the House of Com mons. THE EARL OF MORLEY said, however that might be, many persons regarded the terms offered by the Bill as being far more favourable than they should be; and he would ask those who wished to keep open the commons to consider whether it would be wise to refuse that offer in the hope, based upon the mutability of the House of Commons, that at some future time they would obtain better terms. In conclusion, he must say he hoped the House would not accede to the proposal of the noble Duke. LORD REDESDALE said, his reason for opposing the further progress of the Bill was the time of the Session. They ought, on no account, to send down a Bill to the other House when that House had already more business than they knew what to do with, and had slaughtered a great number of important Bills which they were unable to pass. If this measure were sent down to the House of Commons at so late a period of the Session, it would, on account of the Government having been defeated on some The Earl of Morley of Commons. He thought that circumstance alone was sufficient to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill. EARL GRANVILLE said, he had no desire to prolong the debate, but would tell the noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale) why the Bill had not been introduced sooner. He (Earl Granville) had always done his best to get Bills introduced into the House at an early period, notwithstanding the great inconvenience and disadvantage which was generally acknowledged-and especially by Lord Grey-to be attendant upon bringing Bills first into that House. That objection, however, was felt to apply so strongly to this and other Bills, that he was not able to give their Lordships an opportunity of considering the measure at the beginning of the Session. He should not relax his efforts in future; but he was not sure that he should be strengthened by the course taken by their Lordships with regard to the Bill under discussion. They were asked on various grounds to reject the Bill. It was said that it would not be courteous to send down the Bill at so late a period; but he believed the other House would be glad to receive a Bill which retained in the main the provisions recommended by a Select Committee of their own House. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Northumberland) said the Bill interfered with the rights of property, and other arguments were urged against it; but it appeared to him that the course proposed to be pursued in rejecting it was most illogical. In the first Committee on the Bill, unexpectedly, there was a majority in favour of certain clauses; and he could understand the normal majority saying that as those clauses had been agreed to because they were away, they must stop the Bill in some other manner. But that was not done. The majority insisted that the Bill should be re-committed; and when it was recommitted, the majority carried out their views with regard to every point of the Bill; yet now they said that, as they had been so successful, they were bound to reject the Bill at this stage. A more unreasonable course he had never seen taken. On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Their Lordships divided:-Contents 53; Not-Contents 65: Majority 12. Resolved in the Negative; and Report to be received this day three months. MINES (COAL) REGULATION BILL. (The Earl of Morley.) (NO. 224.) COMMITTEE. sion of coal mines who were prepared to resist a measure of that character coming from the House of Commons. Nevertheless, he was determined to take the advice once given to him by the late Duke of Wellington, who said "Depend upon it that no point is good for defence, unless it is equally good for attack;" and therefore, under the circumstances he had stated, he now meant to propose some Amendments of his own in the Bill, with a view to make it more after his own heart. He had not, however really believed that there was any serious intention of introducing such Amendments on the part of the coal owners as he had referred to; but he found from the Notice Paper that morning that an Amendment was to be proposed and supported by no less a person than the noble Duke the leader of the Conservative party in that House. Therefore, he now desired to substitute in clause under notice the words "12 years" for "10 years" in regard to the age of boys working in coal mines. When the Factory Acts were passed, children under 13 years of age were not to be exposed to a greater amount of labour than 5, or at most 5 hours, under what was called the half-time system. In the present Bill, a principle totally the reverse of that was adopted; and children House in Committee (according to of the tender age of 10 years were to be Order). Preliminary. Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to. PART I. called upon to sustain the amount of labour that was imposed on adults. The clause, indeed, said that no boy under the age of 10 should be employed, or allowed to be employed, belowground Employment of Women, Young Persons, in any mine; he (the Earl of Shaftes and Children. Clause 4 (Employment of women and children in mines). THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY, in moving as an Amendment in page 1, line 21, to leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve "), said, it had not been his intention to move any Amendments in the Bill, having been prepared to accept it as it was, however imperfect he thought it; but yesterday he received, to his astonishment-and he might almost say to his dismay-a Paper entitled "Amendments suggested by Coal owners and Coal Mine proprietors," which seemed to him to strike at some of the main provisions of the measure. He confessed that he had hardly believed that there could be gentlemen in posses bury), however, wished to raise the limit from 10 to 12, so that no boy under 12 should be allowed to descend a mine and be subjected to 54 hours in in the course of a week. He repeated that the half-time system under the Factory Acts applied to children under 13; but in this Bill there was no provision at all of that sort, and children between 10 and 12 years of age, if they descended the mine, were to be subjected to the same period of labour as adults. There was no doubt that the employment of children in factories was very arduous, because it required constant attention, was carried on in a heated atmosphere, and the children had to be continually on their legs; but let them contrast that with the labour they were going to impose on children of 10 years of age, and upwards, in coal mines. They miserable could be conceived than the were to descend at 7 o'clock in the conditions under which the children morning into the solitude and darkness worked there. They never stood upright of the mine, and to remain in an atmo--everything was done on all-fours, or sphere which was in most cases exceed- else lying on their backs. Was that a ingly oppressive; indeed, the children state of things to which they were to themselves described it as half-suffoca- reduce boys of 10 years of age, and keep ting-and there was no doubt it was them 54 hour a-week at such intolerable productive of great injury to their labour? The Commisssoners in their health. It would seem that no one had Report in 1842 said— read the evidence taken on that subject in 1842 by the body of Commissioners sent out under a Royal Warrant. Mr. Austin, the Commissioner in North Lancashire, gave a most deplorable account of the children employed in mines— "I wish,' said one of the mothers, 'you could see them come in, tired as dogs, and throw themselves on the ground like dogs. We cannot get them to bed." Mr. Franks, Commissioner for the East of Scotland, wrote George Wright, aged 12, says 'Works with father, place wet; water comes up to my knees; work very distressing, being 300 fathoms from coal to pit bottom; makes me very sick.' Poor miserable object," "There is, however, one case of peculiar difficulty-namely, that in which all the subterranean roadways, and especially the side passages, are below a certain height. By the evidence collected under this Commission, it is proved that there are coal mines at present in which these passages are so small that even the youngest children cannot move along them without crawling on their hands and feet, in which unnatural and constrained posture they drag the loaded carriages after them; and yet, as it is impossible by any outlay compatible with a profitable return to render such coal mines-happily not numerous nor of great extent fit for human beings to work in, they never will be placed in such a condition, and consequently they never can be worked without inflicting great and irreparable injury on the health of the children." There were many things to be considered in that matter; but he (the Earl says the Commissioner. Hundreds of of Shaftesbury) maintained that the similar instances might be quoted. [Earl grand and paramount consideration was GRANVILLE: That was 30 years ago.] the lives, the health, the morality, and But the system still prevailed exactly as the welfare of those children; and if the it was then. True, they had removed mines could not be worked except by the women and the girls; but the work exposing such young children to such now carried on by the boys was precisely enormous suffering, the mines ought to what it was in former years, and the be shut up. But let the law forbid the condition of the children was now pre-working of those children in that mancisely what it was in 1842. He only ner, and the employers would find some mentioned these things to show the other means of working the mines. The kind of labour to which they were doom-desire for profit was so strong in the ing children of tender age, and that it was the duty of Parliament not to suffer that children of tender years should be subjected to such heavy toil, until their strength enabled them better to bear it. It was pretended, as he understood, that in some mines the seams were so thin that they must have children only 10 years old to work them. That was just the old story that was urged in 1842; and he maintained that it was not a valid argument. Things might easily, he believed, be so managed as to admit of the seams being worked by persons of larger growth; but the coal owners would not do that, and left the thin seams as they were, saying they must be worked by these very young children. He had himself been down into some of those mines, and could tell their Lordships that nothing more The Earl of Shaftesbury human heart that it would be easy to devise a hundred other modes of working those mines, other than by imposing such cruel tasks on boys of 10 years of age. But they were going further, and requiring that those children should have 20 hours of education per week, in addition to their intolerable toil. With regard to that he would give them the opinion of an Inspector of Schools. He said in one pit 27 collier boys attended night school out of 80-the whole number at school. Could they wonder if, after toiling so long during the day, under circumstances so disadvantageous, they had no spirit or strength left for receiving their education? And what were the comments of the Inspector in reference to the remarks of teachers as to the causes of ignorance and irregular attendance at school? In one case, he said the mining |