Punch (68.1875)

142

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [April 3, 1875.

PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.

mised him—for
Committees.

aster is come; and the
Houses skedaddle,
And leave Paschal
eggs a lot—most of
them addle!

Good - bye, hoys—
Punch wishes you
all happy holidays.
Country air, country
pleasures, long
nights’ rests, and
jolly days!

they

But before
broke up:—

In the Lords (Fri-
day, March 19 th),
Lord Kimberley felt
exercised to know
why the Agricultural
Children’s Education
Act should fix eleven
for little Giles, while
the Towns’ Elemen-
tary Education Act
fixes thirteen for
young Gutterblood
of the hack-slums, as
the end of compulsory
school-days.

The Duke op Richmond admitted, but did not explain it. He would
not promise legislation, hut would “ watch the working of the Act.”
Punch sees a pretty picture: subject, The Puke matching the Working
of the Agricultural Children’s Act. Mr. Millais is welcome to it, with
the line for the Catalogue—

“ Abroad in the meadows to watch the young cram.”

Then their Lordships did the honours of First Reading to the Regimental
Exchanges Bill, and adjourned, much exhausted, for the Easter recess,
after a laborious night’s work, ending at the late hour of twenty-five
minutes to six !

In the Commons, miscellaneous Friday fire of question and answer, after
the Head-master had promised that, if the school would be good boys,
and get through their Peace-Preservation Bill on Tuesday, the Easter Holidays
should run from that night till the following Monday week ! Sir C. Dilke showed
up the weak parts in the Ballot Act machinery, which, in spite of the pains of . Sir
H. James and Mr. Forster, seems very shaky indeed. Sir Charles followed suit of
the Session by asking for a Select Committee, which ^the Attorney-General pro-
next Session. The fact is that, for this Session, there are neither members, rooms, nor clerks available for more Select

^Mr. P. A. Taylor moved for a free pardon of Luke Hills, a labourer, fined £5 and £3 18s. costs, or three months’ imprisonment,
for leaving a service which an employer swore was a hiring for a year, though Hills and his wife denied it, and there was no
written engagement. Sir H. James pointed out that that alone invalidated the contract, on complainant’s own showing; it was one to
commence at a future day, which by law requires writing. Mr. Cross fully admitted the hardship of the case, but explained, that
the Crown could not pardon, as the man was committed for non-payment of damages. Mr. P. Taylor deserves all credit for
bringing forward a really cruel act of magisterial oppression and an example of a statute put to ill-use. A few Members, to mark their
strong sense of this, have since subscribed to pay off the damages and costs for which Luke Hills was sent to gaol, and. the case has,
we have little doubt, driven the last nail in the coffin of the Masters and Servants Act of 1867, under which the alternative of fine or
imprisonment was open to the Bench.

. Ihen the House was treated to another grievance, joerhaps not quite so substantial as that of Luke Hills, though we don’t feel
quite sure as to that. Sir W. Fraser, in pathetic terms, complained of the cruel snub inflicted upon him by Mr. Cross,

when, the other night, he, a “humble and constant supporter of the Government,” having innocently asked whether it was right
that remanded prisoners should be made to scrub their own cells, Mr. Cross jumped up in a tiff, and protested that that was not the
°ii v. Question to put to a Home Secretary, and by look, manner, and matter, let loose a douche of derisive cheers from his minions
behind him on the head of the harmless and respectful questioner.

Mr. Disraeli hastened to apply one of his soft-sawder plasters to Sir W. Fraser’s raw. But Sir. W. has reason to feel sore.

• f cUeun was 1uite a proper one.. It is very hard that prisoners on remand, or waiting for bail, should be put on a level with con-
victed offenders, as to certain menial offices and personal indignities of the prison-house; and the Home Secretary might be much
worse employed than in getting the regulations overhauled, at least in the prisons under his authority.

Ihen the House went into Committee on the Artisans’ Dwellings Bill, attacking, in business-like fashion, the ten pages of Amend-
ments on the. paper. Mr. Cross was unusually stiff in the back, holding his own with rare tenacity. Mr. Fawcett was evidently out
of temper with the Bill, which he says has been turned into a paternally patronising one for providing dwellings for the Work-
ing Classes— which vexes me”—as Mr. Pepys would have said. “ What are ‘ Working Classes ?’ ” asks Mr. Fawcett. “ Does the
[fD? include Curates and Clerks on small salaries ? ” Altogether, the excellent and. strenuous Member for Hackney was, what the
Working Classes would call “ nasty,” and what Mammas and. Nurses call “fractious,” throughout the Committee, and finally
blocked tne Bill at half-past twelve.

Monday. Among the notices was one for which Mr. Plimsoll deserves the thanks of those who go down to, and sometimes in,
e sea in ships, tor calling the Board of Trade’s attention to the advisability of keeping a night Assistant-Secretary on the premises,
wi amthonty to answer nocturnal.telegrams from Surveyors at the outports. On an immediate answer to these may often depend
e detention of an unseaworthy ship, the lives of its crew, and safety of its cargo. Sir Charles Adderley, under office-prompting
UiUUm- iea ■ l/'°c,salrk> half to pooh-pooh the suggestion, but it is one that should be attended to. The Admiralty have a night-
ri JP6!? a nij'ht-Secretary for emergencies of nocturnal work on their premises, and why should not the Board of Trade ?
n the becond Reading of the Peace Preservation Bill, Lord R. Montagu supported a futile motion by a futile speech, after which