Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/152

 144] ENGLISH HISTOEY. [july

manufacturer and importer; whilst the consumer was alter- nately to be protected against spurious or adulterated articles, or to be deprived of inferior products which he was willing to purchase although aware that they were not genuine. The only incident of general interest in the course of the protracted proceedings was an effort made by Sir W. B. Foster (Ilkeston, Derbyshire) to substitute the Local Government Board as the authority for carrying out the measure in lieu of the Board of Agriculture (July 18) which was specially concerned in the articles chiefly in question.

In the House of Lords the bill met with even less attention than one for providing seats for shop assistants, of which the course afforded an interesting study in sentimental legislation. In the first instance a bill had been introduced early in the session, applicable only to Scotland. Originally endorsed by Scotch members of the Opposition, the Lord Advocate saw no reason to do more than introduce a clause defining the extent and fixing the commencement of the act. On reaching the House of Lords a distinct divergence of opinion between Scottish peers declared itself, the Earl of Lauderdale supporting and Lord Shand opposing the measure. The Marquess of Salisbury, whose contempt for faddists was well known, ridiculed the aim of the bill, and, in the interests of the employers as well as of the assistants themselves, urged that it was not right to make so great a breach in the principles of our legislation without more careful inquiry, and on this ground the second reading was postponed (May 4). Almost simultaneously a bill having the same object, but applicable to England and Ireland, was introduced (May 2) in the Commons' House, endorsed by mem- bers sitting on both sides. In the interval which elapsed before the second reading (May 31) a press campaign was noisily conducted by the sentimentalists, and the bill having been pushed through without debate or division in a marvellously short period, was promptly sent to the Lords (June 12). On the debate on the second reading (July 12) its supporters were lucky enough to obtain the help of the Duke of Westminster, a practical philanthropist, as well as of several bishops. Lord Salis- bury, however, unmoved by the pin-pricks of the press or the sighs of the sentimentalists, sturdily refused to admit this inter- ference with the liberty of employers who were not proved to have abused it. He asked the Duke of Westminster to withdraw the bill, and be content with a promise that the Government would do all they could to procure a thorough and searching inquiry. Having pointed out the various difficulties of putting such a law in force, he expressed his apprehension that the bill, so far from benefiting those in whose interest it claimed to be framed, might tend to diminish the markets for women's labour. The division, however, showed that these arguments had no avail, for the second reading was carried by 73 to 28 votes, and in the course of ten days the bill passed through