The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1878-03-02 00:00:00

SATURDAY, MARCH 2, 1878.

Mr. L. Starkey moved the omission of all the words after
the word "workshop " to the end of the clauee, his object
being to prevent manufacturers from being liable to fine in
cases in which women, children, and young persons remain
in a room to take their meals while a continuous process,
although not one in which they were engaged, was going on.
It was, he thought, a hardship that a fine should be impo.md
under such circumstances.

Mr. Ritchie thought if children were allowed to remain
during meal times in a room in which the process of manu-
facturing was going on it would be impossible for the
Inspector to say whether the law was being complied with
in the factory or not,

Mr. Cross opposed the amendment, observing that the
Bill, if it were to be operative and not a sham, must pre-
clude the possibility of children and young persons being
allowed to take their meals in rooms where the process of
manufacturing was being carried on.

Mr. Knowles having expressed his opinion that it would
be better to let the clause remain as it stood, the amend-
ment was withdrawn and the clause was agreed to, as were
also Clauses IS and 19.

On Clause 20, which provides that a child under 10 years
of age shall not be employed in a factory or workshop, Mr.
MTaren moved to add the words " and shall not be employed
for gain on the streets of towns in which there are School
Boards during school hours."
The Chairman ruled that the amendment was without the
purview ot the Bill and therefore could not be moved in
Committee. He reminded the hon member, however, that
amendments might be moved on the repoq which could not
be moved in Committee. The amendment was withdrawn,
and the clause was agreed to. Clause 21 was also agreed to.

On Clause 22, which provides for certain holidays and half
holidays for "children, young persons, and women," Mr.
Parnell moved to leave out "children, young persons, and
women," and insert "persons," his object, as be said, being
to extend the holidays to men as well.
Mr. Tennant could not assent to the amendment because
it was sometimes on the holidays in question that " hands "
were most needed. _

Mr. Ribbert opposed it on the broader ground that it was
Impolitic to legislate for men, and in this Mr. Cross quite
concurred. The amendment was negatived.
Mr. L. Starkey moved the omission of the word" either,"
in order to make Good Friday a holiday, but Mr. CI oss
quoted the opinion of the Select Committee to the effect
tkat Good Friday was an inconvenient day for a legal boil-
day.—The amendment was accordingly negatived,
Mr. Parnell moved an amendment that £2O, instead of £5
should be the limit of the fine to be imposed on factory
owners for omitting to put up notices with regard to holi-
days.
Mr. Cross thought the amendment was unnecessary.
The Committee divided, and the numbers were—For the
amendment, 7; against, 208: majority, 201. The clause, as
amended, was ordered to stand part of the lull.

Clauses up to 46, were then discussed, and agreed to.
On Clause 47 (employment in Turkey-red dyeing on Satur-
day up to 4 30 p.m.),
Mr. Tennant moved to insert after the word "afternoon,"
at the end of the clause, the following words :

"But the additioLal number of hours so worked shall be
computed as part of the week's limit of work, which shall in
no case be exceeded."

Mr. E. Jenkins asked why this trade should be treated
exceptionally.
Mr. Cross, in explanation, read an extract from the report
of the Royal Commission of last year to the effect that
Turkey-red dyeing was peculiar; it required a certain num-
ber of hours in a continuous process, which went on from
day to day.
Mr. Orr-Ewing said they did not work in the trade more
than 60 hours any one week. Though they worked on
Saturday sometimes to half-past 4, they otten stopped at
3or at 2. They work three hours less per week than
other trades.
After a few words from Mr. Monk and Mr. Fielden,
Lord F. Cavendish suggested that the weekly limit of 60
hours should be inserted in the clause. (Hear.)
Mr. Orr-Ewing had no objection that the weekly limit of
60 hours should be stated in the clause.
111 r Cross moved that the words be inserted—" that such
time shall he so computed that the week's employment shall
in no case exceed 60 hours."
Sir E. Watkin observed that the Turkeyored trade was a
very peculiar one, and if too much restriction were placed
en it it would leave the country.
Sir S. Waterlow hoped the hon. member for Leeds would
withdraw his amendment in order that words might be in-
serted limiting the week's work to 56i hours.
Mr. Mundella moved the insertion of words to that effect,
but the amendment was afterwards withdrawn, and the
proviso of the clause ultimately stood as follows—" pro-
vided that the weekly number of hours shall in no case be
exceeded" The clause was then agreed to; as was also
Clause 48.
On Clause 49, relating to the employment of persons by
Jewish occupiers of factories, Mr. Birley moved an amend-
ment permitting the substitution of two holidays in lieu of
Christmas Day and Good Friday. The amendment was
agreed to, and also the clause as amended.
On Clause 50, relating to the employment of Jews by Jews
on Sundays, and providing that where an occupier avails him-
self of certain exceptions the Act shall apply to the factory
or workshop in like manner "as if Sunday were Saturday
and the Saturday were Sunday," Mr. Birley proposed to add
"or, at his option, as if Friday were Saturday, Saturday
were Sunday, and Sunday were Monday." (Laughter.)

_
Mr. Cross said that, while approving the object of the
amendment, he did not like the words—(laughter)—but
would consider the matter before the report.

Mr. Hardcastle thought it would be desirable to intro-
duce words to prevent proselytism of the kind indicated
when the Universities Bill was under discussion, and when
it was suggested that the concessions of privileges to Dis-
senters would cause many young Churchmen to profess
themselves Dissenters. What was to prevent persons who
were not Jews declaring themselves of the Jewish per-
suasion?

Mr. Cross said the legislation was not new.
The amendment was withdrawn, and this clause and the
next ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The various Clauses up to 65 then underwent discussion,
and were agreed to. During the discussion of the latter
Clause apprehensions were expressed that some monas-
tic and conventual institutions where there are laun-
dries, needle-work schools, and similar quasi-workshops
in operation, would be subject to inspection; and after the
division a proviso was moved by Mr. Gray exemptiag them
from the clause. There was a prolonged conversation en
this point, but ultimately it was agreed to raise it to a more
general form.
Progress was then reported.
Some other business was disposed of, and the House ad-
journed at a quarter to two o'clock.

In the HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 26, the Public Parks (Scot-
land) Bill passed through Committee.
Lord De La ;Warr asked Lord Derby whether he could,
without inconvenience, give any information with reference
to the terms of the Treaty of Peace to be concluded between
Russia and Turkey, especially as regards the proposed
limits of Bulgaria, and the war indemnity claimed by Russia.
He wished to know whether Bulgaria was to be so enlarged as
practically to annihilate Turkey, and whether a large portion
to Turkey in Europe was practically to fall more or less under
the influence and power of Russia. He also desired to be in-
formed whether the indemnity demanded of Turkey was so
heavy as to render it almost impossible for Turkey to pay it.
As regards Asia it was said that not merely forts, but several
ports were to be given up to Russia, and thus Turkey in
Asia would be placed very much in the hands of Russia. He
hoped Lord Derby would be able to state whether or not the
Treaty of Peace was signed.
The Earl of Derby, in reply, said: My lords, I quite sym-
pathize with the anxiety which my noble friend expresses
as being felt in respect of the terms of the treaty which is
about to be concluded between Russia and Turkey. I say
about to be concluded, because although we understood
from previous statements that the signatures were to have
been affixed yesterday, yet up to the time at which I left the
Foreign Office this afternoon no information had reached
there to thl effect that the signatures had been actually
affixed. I regret therefore, that I am not able to satisfytmy
noble friend's natural and reasonable anxiety for information
on this matter—not because of any unwillingness on my part to
give it, but because I do not possess it in a correct and
authentic form. I have seen two or three versions of what
are stated to be the terms of neace ; but though there is
a general agreement between them, they differ in some
very important details, and I am not in a position
to say which of the conflicting versieus which I have
seen is most entitled to the credit of accuracy. I think,
however, it may be taken as a matter beyond dis-
pute that it is intended to constitute a very large province
of Bulgaria, extending far to the soisth of the Balkans,
and to within a short distance of the ./Egean Sea. Whether
Salonica is to be included within the proposed province,
as my noble friend suggests, is one of those points on
which the accounts differ. And so, again, with regard to the
Important question of the war indemnity, the accounts do
not agree. I have seen in the newspapers a statement that
an enormous—l may say fabulous—slim is intended to be de-
manded—something between 150 and 200 millions sterling.
Well, my lords, the improbability of such demand is ap-
parent, because it is perfectly obvious that under no cir-
cumstances could such a suns be paid by Turkey.
A statement that I have seen speaks of a demand
of something like forty millions sterling, which, as
I understand, is to be independent of the demand
for a cession of territory; but I cannot guarantee the accu-
racy of that statement. Those, I think, are the points on
which my noble friend asked for information. It is quite
clear, I think, that there cannot be a more important or a
fittter subject of discussion in this House and elsewhere
than the conditions of peace when we are in a position to
discuss them; but I think your lordships will perceive
that it would be wasting your lordships' time to discus
those terms of peace when in reality we do not know with
any degree of accuracy what they are. (Hear, hear.)
Their lordships then adjourned.
In the HOUSE OF COMMONS, Sir H. Havelock asked the
Secretary of state for War whether, now that a vote of six
millions had been granted for increasing the efficiency of
naval and military services he would take steps to com-
plete the First and Second Army Corps with transport
carriages, ambulance and ammunition trains, so as to place
some portion of the army on a footing of readiness for ser-
vice at short notice. The question, he added, was not put
in view of the position of affairs in the East of Europe, but
in reference to a permanent want in the army.
Mr. Hardy, in reply, said :—I can inform the hon. and
gallant member that the points to which he refers have not
been neglected. Everything is ready for the First Army
Corps, and a good deal has been got ready for the Second.
I am using every exertion to attain the end which the hon.
and gallant gentleman describes. (Cheers.)
Mr. W. E. Forster inquired whether any information
had been received by the Government as to the terms of
peace.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was sorry to say
they were still without official information. With regard to
the reports that the terms of peace woald be signed that
day he could only say it might be so, but the Government
had received no information on the subject. (Hear, hear.)
Captain Pim gave notice that on Thursday he would
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any assurance
had been obtained that the balance of power in Europe
should not be disturbed by the acquisition of territory or by
the seizure of the Turkish fleet by Russia, and whether any
other guarantee existed than the word of Russia that no
advance should be made upon the lines of Gallipoli and that
freedom of movement should be secured to the British
flt et.
Mr. Hubbard called attention to the incidence and the
assessment of the Income-tax, the inequalities and incon-
sistencies of which he set forth in detail; and, contending
that the tax must now be regarded as a permanent part of
the revenue of the country, he moved a resolution calling
for a speedy adjustment of all anomalies in its levy. He
suggested, too, that the subject should be referred to the
head of the Inland Revenue and to the Local Government
Department.
- • -

Dr. Benealy moved an amendment in favour of exempt-
ing from the tax all incomes except those arising from land
or funded property, but it found no seconder, and conse-
quently was not put.

Sir W. Barttelot pointed out the injustice done to landed
property by the present mode of assessment, and advised Mr.
Hubbard not to press his motion to a divisiou at the present
moment. .

Mr. Dodson dissenting from Mr. Hubbard'i views, main-
tained that there would be great difficulty in establishing a
system of exemptions and graduations without producing
still greater unfairness and irregularity than at present
existed, instancing particularly the injustice which must
ultimately fall on the fundholder. While not denying the
possibility of putting the tax on a more satisfactory footing,
he advised the House not to commit itself to a general re-
solution, but to insist on having a specific plan before it.
Mr. thadwick supported the resolution and indicated
various improvements which, in his opinion, might be made
In the administration of the tax, particularly in regard to
the special commissioners, who he did not think occupied a
position adequate for their functions.

Sir
G. Campbell approved the Income-tax as a means of
equalizing the taxation of the rich and poor, and made some
suggestions for a graduated system, against which Sir J.
Lubbock protested. Mr. Wheelhouse and Mr. Muntz made
some observations, and

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of a brief
reply, commented on the variety of opinions offered, and ex-
pressed a general concurrence in the expediency of making
the tax as equal as possible. Mr. Hubbard then withdrew his
motion.
Mr. Goldney was calling attention to the constitution, &c.,
of Heralds' College, when the HOMO Was COunted on,t at 2$
winates past sewn o'clock.

in tale HOME OP COMMOITS, Feb. 21, petitions in favour of
the Colonial Marriages Bill from colonial merehants and

others in London were presented by Mr. Knatchbull-
Hugessen, who then formally moved the second reading of
the Bill.

Mr. Gregory moved the rejection of the Bill, and Mr.
Ileygate also opposed it.

Mr. B..xter supported the second reading of the Bill, and
remarked that he believed they would hear a great deal
more of the feelings of the colonists upon it.
After some observations from Sir 11. Holland, who op-
posed the Bill, Mr. Osborne Morgan, who supported it,
Earl Percy, Mr. Forsyth, and other hon. members,

-
The Solicitor-General in justifying his opposition to the
Bill, pointed to the absence of any great demand from the
colonies for any such legislation. The Aet of Parliament
which this Bill sought to alter was a modern one, and those
persons who had contracted these marriages did so with
their eyes open. Under the circumstances, he felt compelled
to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Serjeant Simon, Sir J. Mlienna, and Mr. Alderman
Cotton supported the Bill, which was opposed by Mr.
Marten.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in discussing this
matter they must first consider whether there was any ne-
cessity for the Bill, and next they must consider the senti-
mental grievance. The Bill was entitled an Act to Legalise
Certain Colonial Marriages, but on examination it appeared
to be only directed to an alteration of the law of succession
to real property. That put the sentimental question very
much in the background, and they were reduced to
consider the matter on the ground of practical conveni-
ence. He was of opinion that the balance of convenience
was against the passing of this Bill. Ile objected to
subordinating the law of this country to the law of the
colonies, and pointed out that if that principle were
affirmed it would naturally lead to more frequent vetoes by
the Crown, and to much greater restriction being put upon
colonial legislation. It would undermine the relations be-
tween the colonies and the mother country, and would dis-
turb the excellent principle of self-government in the
colonies. On that ground alone he was prepared to offer
his opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen replied on behalf of the Bill,
and Sir Q. Bowyer opposed it.

The House divided -For the second reading, 182 ; against,
161; majority, 21.

The Bill was therefore, amidst cheers and counter cheers,
ordered to be read a second time.

The other orders having been disposed of, the House
adjourned.