The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-24 00:00:00

THE REVISED CODE.

Lord R. CECIL asked the vice-president of the com-
mittee of council whether the committee of council held
that they were discharged of all liability to the pupil teach-
ers under article 54 of the revised code by paying, is ac-
e2rdanee with paragraph 36 of the instructions, to the
managers..a.,_' the amount of the pupil teachers' stipends and
1r„01:, ; or whether, in the case of manager declining to
er the money as received, the committee would feel
theraselvee bound to see the pupil teachers paid in full.
ther,
bar of Childrettl:trlluiring. the managers to report the num-
terms of article 4 ir schools who did not some under the
of the revised eode,as "children belong-
ing to the classes
who
supported themselves by manual
labour," the committee sticitofurnished either managers or
inspectors with a definitio
Mr. LOWE said the nobleflthe words
to
his
laboured under a strange
"manual labour."
misapprehentLn in regard
ee, namely, that sums
narni)tttlieeion:f council to rnana-
of money advanced by the en
gers of schools were in danger of b
shoui,daned he thought
em-
bezzled. He (Mr. Lowe) knew of no "R
titsaPPlied and
it was a great pity that such a thing
the case of so respectable a body as the inauabf...e,6:ggested in
However, to answer the question more directly, he ach°°lB.
would
say that the Committee of Privy Council no body in
the schools but the managers; and when they had had paid
the looney voted by Parliament to the managers, the com-
mittee stood discharged of all liability. In all cases, not
excluding the very improbable one supposed by the noble
lord, the pupil teachers would be without a remedy against
the committee of council. With regard to the noble
lord's second question, as to whether the committee hal
made tiny definition of the term "manual labour" with
a view of excluding the children of certain parents from
the schools, the noble lord was quite mistaken in sup•
posing that the committee had made a regulation exclud-
ing the children of such parents. What the committee
had done was to order that the children of such parents
should be entered in a separate column from the others,
in order that the parents should be made to contribute
towards their education. The committee had not sup-
plied any definition of the term "manual labour ;" but no
doubt, when they had had experience of the classes of per-
sons who sent their children to the schools, they should be
able to frame a more satisfactory definition of the class in-
tended to be described as living by manual labour.
Lord E. CECIL said he had no desire whatever to accuse

managers of embezzlement, but, at the same time, it was
quite possible they might retain money through misappre-
hension, which ought to be paid over to the pup i ;eachers.
Well, then, in the case of such misapprehension. he desired
to know whether the committee of council wird d give any
further validity to the promises made to thi pupil teachers.
Mr. LOWE said the question answered itself. If mana-
gers declined to pay money over after their attention had
been called to the matter, they could not be said to do so
under misapprehension. (Hear, hear.) In such case, all
that the committee Of council could do would be to strike a
school off the list of those entitled to share in the great.
THE CASE OF MARY ANNE WALKLEY.

Mr. BAGWELL—I beg to ask the right hon. gentleman
the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his at-
tention has been called to the inquest on Mary Anne Walk-
ley, a workwoman in the employment of Madame Elise,
described as a court dressmaker, of 170, Regent-street, the
verdict at which stated that the deceased died of apoplexy ?
if the Government have any intention to take measures for
the registration and inspection of workrooms; and if a pro-
secution is to be instituted in this case ?

Sir G. GREY—Sir, I know nothing of this case except
from the reports of the newspapers, and from the find-
ing of the jury. But there is no doubt that if the evi-
dence has been correctly reported, the finding of the jury
was amply justified; and that it is certain the death of
the poor girl was accelerated through long hours of work
and insufficient ventilation. There can be no question
but that it wculd be very desirable, if possible, to esta-
blish by law regulations that might prevent the occurrence
of such evils as this case brought to light. But lam not
prepared to say that it would be possible to establish a ge-
neral system of registration and inspection with respect to
such employments; they being frequently carried on in pri-
vate houses. In regard to the last question of the hon.
member, most probably, in putting it, he has in view the
act by which masters and mistresses are compelled to pro-
vide adequate focd, clothing, and lodging for their appren-
tices, and under which they are liable to heavy penalties
should they be convicted of having wilfully omitted to do so,
and thereby causing danger to life. lam not sure, how-
ever, whether that law is applicable to this case, as I doubt
whether the young woman was an apprentice. I think she
was only a hired workwoman. •
THE TRIAL OF JESSIE lI‘LACHLAN.

•
In reply.to Sir M. S. STEWART,
Sir G. GREY said he had no doubt that Lord Deas bad
been correctly reported to have decided at the Nl'Lachlan
trial that the prisoner's declarations were to be read; but
no report of the trial, authorised by the judge, had been
received.