The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-22 00:00:00

ironfidirnee than If it wive a bill restricting labour to eleven
hours, yet he did not find sufficient reasons for withholding
his support from it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he never heard any thing so
estraardinsry from any minister of the crown as that which
fell from the noble lord. The noble lord had great influence
over the votes of a large portion of the members 61 this house,
and he now came down, not ss a prime miniater,though using
all the influence of that position, which was very great, in
this house, and he was about to deal with what he meat ac-
knowledge to he one of the most Important interesbi goo-
fleeted with this country. How was he about 1,0 act ? H.
said that having no faith in the beneficial effects of the hill,
and having great doubts as to its being beneficial, and giving
no proper reason at all, that he would vote fora. His rea-
son was, that the working men in this country had not peti-
tioned against it. The aside lord must know that interested
parties had inculcated into the minds of the working classes
the notion that this bill would not lead ter a diminu-
tion of wages. They believed that, and, therefore,
the noble lord would support the bill. His support than was
based on error. When he saw him making experiments
with no anticipation of any benefit accruing from them, he
must say that it was a nos: strange and unstatesmanhke
mode of proceeding on the part of the noble lard. (Hear.)
Here th.re were many faltering supporters hesitating to
give their votes in favour of the experiment end the eider
and abettor, and prime mover in this experiment ou the
happiness sad welfare of millions was the noble lard at the
bead of her Majesty's government.
The house divided.—For receiving the report ... 104
Against it e.. 46-68
The report was then received.
Mr. BROWN moved the introduction of the followhag

that hi ail sae where, by reams of the webietiore by ULU set
fsemed.: w
and 7.H. the
erb. wore ktiliarl trueszszlier the
ye d
the ISWISIIR lower or ocesplen. of say sumhWrr
ei ale me Is. et any part thereof, or may Jews
then Mbe AMMO Is ht by law able to enjoy the MI Sli=
Arial mit et SW OMB sr water power contracted Ito r Ilred by
the lemur hidleoll tie the full WWI of time for width laws
or cesepieto terms wieutmew. geoid, but for tides* hese Yes
entitled • Ammo et the rest mile *me*
Nem me se sh•• be olds aid
ley NA tat tegia
Mid my ten Sr lir Nam of lee pm*
ham pewee to beer the penis Ned their reswiSes wham's, aid
to ememott them befote them, the geld puniest, for that purowe, wad
Really to adjodieete and determine In the premiers if the parties direr
small
. . . . _

By G. OEEY bad considered the clause, end haring had
the opinion of the law officers of the crowu on the subject, he
NM no reason to object to it.
Mr. T. EGERTON objected to the clause, the more par-
ticularly on account of the power which it would give to the
ustices.

Mr. FERRAND said no inch dam had beim i
eiben the corn laws were under consideration, butt c=
and tenant were allowed to settle matters between
themselves. He considered the clause quite unnecessary.
Kr. ROEBUCK regarded the bill as the offspring of
jealousy and spleen (in consequence of the repeal of the core
I laws) rather than of humanity. He had often heard it said
that it was to be placed on the shoulders of the manufac-
turers because of the repeal of those laws. The support
given to the bill by hon. gentlemen opposite bad hitherto
been a farce made by the landlords, but now that it had
become tragical, and the landed interest was likely to be
affected, they saw the value of their humanity.
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the clause, and asked the
hen. and learned member tor Bath what authority he had
la making such a statement.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought he could point to a speech of
the noble lord the member fur Newark (Lord .1. Manners).
Mr. AGLIONBY opposed the clause. In the construe-
!ion of law he thought it would be inoperative ; without any
great advantage it would entail litigation and disputes; and
great difficulty and heartburnings would arise in assessing
the damages between the lessor and lessee.
Sir G. GREY recommended the hon. member for. Len-
=Sire to withdraw the clause, as it appeared, en further
consideration, that there were great legal difficulties in
the way.
Mr. BROWN was about to withdraw it, when
Mr. M. PHILLIPS expressed • hope that he. would not
do so. The occupiers of mills were often placed in perilous
position., and he was anxious that there should be some
mode in which they could make an appeal. There would
be no difficulty in estimating the lose ; practical men would
be able to ascertain it easily. The clause, if adopted, would
clear away considerable difficulties, and he trusted the bon.
gentleman would not withdraw it.
Sir R. PEEL hoped the hon. gentleman would with-
draw it, otherwise he should be disposed to vote against it.
The clause proposed to introduce a very novel principle.
There might be some particular cases in which the rule
might be, that the lessee contracted with the lessor for the
supply of water for ten or twelve hours : if there were such
cams, they ought to be specified, and • general rule might
be applied to them; but he apprehended that,. generally,
the lessee took the whole supply of water from
the lessor, taking also his !ease, subject to any
regulation that might be made by 'medium nt. With resptct
to the limitation of the hours of labour, did the lessee claim
any compensation ? Restrictions had been impcned an the
hours of labour of children and adult women, but did it ever
occur to any one to call for an enactment which should enable
certain magtstratts to determine theamount of compensation
which the radiance was entitled to receive for such re-
duced time? Moreover, he could not cone, ire it Isolable to
dear-mine the amount of the injury sustained; and he
thought that the contracts entered into would always be
considered to he subject to such provisions at parliament
might make. It appeared to him that it would give rise to
endless difficulties and heart-burnings, and he therefore hoped
the hon. member would withdraw the clause.
Mr. BROWN then withdrew the clause.
Lord J. MANNERS had been informed thatderitur his
absence the hon. and learned member for Bath had said he
(Lord J. Manners) had stated that ha supported the bill be-
cause the manufacturers had obtained a repeal of the

laws : he bedded to say that he had ne4r made such •
thalleMent, either pnblidy or privately. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK bad mated that be had often beard
mid the bill before the house was to be placed on the
shoulden of the manufacturers because they had succeeded
in obtaining a repeal of the corn-laws; and when he was
asked upon what authority he made such a statement, he
certainly did say he believed he could point to • speech of
the noble lord's ; but since that, he had seen another speech
mate by the noble lord, which satisfied him that he wee
wrong. ( Hear, hear.)
Lord EBRINOTON then proposed the following dares:
1. Be it mantes, that nor at Use prodigals of thleie„ rearadsg
tee mined= site hewer Meer, shed dash is weir
Sr be I rather thee es pewee Oath the=
of die rt. Mappreel r sopekimant ef
re hi eat arty licered
ra be It herr eserst, the
*,asst
in
os appeletal Ai be thteredl sea regret tenpin eat tire to
der es the abler ImeM ef peers thretr, or any
wet le Os egerreolles, er t of the
*sr of web rich my WM arioyel them
eel ea themes= et ithimement sr
4. Wrier by the at 44 Oath d,e„ t Jerre woes directed to
rittee parr le delt rah, efiel berm rise To direct
litniften et ancli orallry regrodies as al agree re rink
peeper; er reran the sot 3 art 4 WEL 4, a. IA that the
redder elf the edit set with errs le dor eggersesto
not duly sere Ithe ear, sr dram reeler he
meet of tsepsrse rairsereek sr whereas the. stag
c. dorm the se Isaprofte e 11.., shed hail, year, la
thst ea
it le Erie ears tvgeldler eider se othered
by ee
l; ail set 3 sal 4 WM. TV., 110, erupt threirther err
dre re wirer in the eiffnmether dorm se ash rthery pro.
sedreled by third •Or lIL, thare rm.
aged f• led theraliee thribrplirt sr str-
=rati haw the are radar wed-
-Itheleeps obi* May dad Mak to ems el.
Nee r sos person each breath, se they er have with
te =death* try whir they may bun they to au'
WPM not put, for went of a seeondei.
liR LEADER then moved the following clause:
Mahe erra*hst eny sad dest happen toy& rteresgine,
sedeg
.ey.tertosaiphseeltyths spinacry
houret
rf meeelliry this set, di hoes near the tire so
lesthas• 1111•Wor arrr,thetY seermg: they dal or read re-
ar el ollgtheron. mg be emple4 ate beer ha ear ihey more Mae
the dor feria the artier, bra of errs, air young
pr eer
he ma were, reepectively, metered by law, until such ler
te
Mr.=ACK seconded it.
Mr. HINDLEY thought the clause would be exceedingly
injurious, and woaM almost prevent the honest operation of
the set. It would give occasion to fraud; some individual,
would be working longer than others, and when the in-
spector came, they would say there had been some break-
down in the machinery.
Mr. FERRAND opposed the clause.
Mr. BRIGHT was astonished at the statement of the hon.
member for Ashton (Mr. Hindley), who ought to know
more about working overtime than he (Mr. Bright) did,
because the hon. member was accustomed to work hie mills
longer than he did. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) • The pre
sent law affected the operatives very injuriously. Han acci-
dent happened, by whsch a mill was stopped for ea hour, the
mill-owner could not make up the lost time, ae if a leis
period than three hours was lost, the time so lost could not
he worked up. Consequently, if an accident happened
which would only cause an hoar s detention, a mill was often
stopped for three hours and the men were kept, lounging
about foe that time. There was certainly the possibility of
fraud being ' under the clause, but as it was eaten-
lated se y to advance the interests of the operative*, he
should su it, and on that ground only.
Mr. HUMEpport supported the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ opposed it. He thought if men *ere kept
lounging about for two or three hours, they might as well
be at work.
Mr. FIELDEN opposed the clause.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not support the
clause. As the law stood now, no time lost by accident in
any factory was allowed to be recovered. The porter had
keen given by the 7th Viet., but it had been found advisable
to take it away again.
Mr. LEADER, in reply said that lost time to the extent
of three hours could now be made up ; and now that the
hours of labour were to be restricted to ten, he only asked that
the manufacturers and workmen should be allowea to make up
lost time foe periods of lees than three hours ; and in doing
this he was not asking for anything new ; but when any
proportion was made by the manufacturers, it was always
said there mud be some fraud in it, or that it was opposed to
humanity. Now he had been 'talked by some manufacturers
in Scotland to propose this clause solely for the benefit of the
operatives—(hear, Itear)—and he should divide the house
upon it.
The hones divided.—For the elm* 3l
__

A it 94-63
Kr. FIELDEN proposed to Ix the third reading for
Friday.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that would be too early • day.
He considered that there should be • call of the house on so
important • question. (Oh, oh.) The boa. iesesba for
Bolton (Mr. Ainsworth) might maks that powsliar noise,
whiob was cue of the clumsy wespees used 11iy those who
had not wit enough to answer is, but still Ito thought
that more time should be allowed to elapse before the bill
was read a third time.