The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-22 00:00:00

these scandals, if the bill passed, would still attend the
sale of the advowson, and since the bill interfered with
the rights of property, he thought that reason alone was
sufficient to induce the house to reject the bill. It would
have the effect of throwing all the patronage of the
Church into the hands of landed proprietors, to the de-
triment of the men of trade and commerce, who had
just as much right to get their sons into the
Church, if they so thought fit, as the aristocracy. But
it was said the wishes and interests of the parishioners
would be better attended to if the right of presentation
were entirely vested in the bishops. Why, the other
day an instance occurred where a bishop presented a
clergyman to a living in direct opposition to the wishes
and feelings of the parishioners, and therefore, so far as
that argument went, it was really good for nothing.
The trust would not be better administered by the clergy
themselves than by the laymen.
Mr. LIDDELL insisted that the bill would inflict
great injustice upon those who already purchased the
right to make the next presentation to livings, and on
that account he opposed it.
After a few words from Mr. WHITESIDE,
Mr. HILDYARD opposed the bill as an attached
member of the Church of England, believing that it
would certainly fall if ever it acquired the exclusive
character which this measure would give it.
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY, who did not
think there was any necessity for the bill, Mr, PHILLI-
MORE replied.
The house then divided when there appeared—
For the second reading 52
Against it
The bill was accordingly thrown out.
VESTRIES BILL.
Mr. EVELYN moved the second reading of this
bill, which was a declaratory measure to explain the
law relating to parish matters and the powers
of parish authorities. It would enable select
vestries to deal with all questions of local interest to
the parishioners and the public generally, such as
the repair of highways, building of bridges, lighting and
watching of the parish, and the removal of nuisances,
and would permit rural towns and parishes to divide
themselves into districts, for the purpose of raising the
rates and taxes necessary for carrying out local im-
provements.
Mr. FITZROY did not think that any case had been
made out for conferring such large and irresponsible
powers upon bodies like parish vestries. He, therefore,
moved as an amendment, that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS opposed the bill.
Mr. EVELYN, seeing that he would be over-
powered by numbers, had no alternative but to with-
draw the bill.
The amendment was accordingly agreed to without a
division, and the bill was thrown out.
PAYMENT OF WAGES (HOSIERY) BILL.
Sir H. SALFORD moved the second reading of this
bill, which he believed was advocated by all the frame-
worksknitters of Nottingham and Leicestershire. These
operatives worked at their own homes, with a hands
loom which could be purchased for a sum of money that
would be supposed to place it within the reach of the
workman himself, but it rarely happened that the ma-
chine belonged to him. (Hear.) It was invariably
hired from the employer, and the rent charged for
It was so excessive as to make it a virtual sys-
tem of truck in the hosiery districts. (Hear, hear.)
The men in fact were charged 201. a-year for the use of
machines that were not worth more than that sum, and
their weekly wages were greatly reduced by this rent.
The system acted alike prejudicially upon the interest
of the workman and the honest employer who paid full
wages in money, and some time ago an attempt was
made to abolish the system by getting a decision of a
court of law that it was prohibited by the Truck Act,
but the action broke down upon a technical objection.
The object of this bill was to prohibit the system by
direct legislation.
Sir W. CLAY moved an amendment, that the bill be
read a second time this day six months. The bill pro-
posed to prevent certain contracts now entered into be-
tween the masters and workmen. Those people worked
not in great factories, but at home in their houses, scat-
tered about the county round Nottingham and Leices-
ter, working at looms which were not their own,
but were the property of the masters, to whom
they paid so much for the use of the looms, and he
thought such an arrangement was most desirable, and
he considered that the relations of masters and workmen
rested on principles over which legislation had no con-
trol, but which was regulated mainly by the condition of
• the labour market. He was therefore certain that if
this bill should pass into a law it would become a dead
letter. The hon. baronet concluded by moving his
amendment.
Mr. WILKINSON seconded the amendment. He
held it to be quite impossible to regulate rates of wages
by act of Parliament ; and he opposed the bill also on the
ground that it would direct the attention of the work-
men themselves from what they should most rely upon
—their own good conduct, and lead them to believe Par-
liament could do everything for them.
Sir J. WALMSLEY supported the second reading
of the bill. The stocking-weavers were frequently en-
gaged 12 or 15 holirs a-day at hard work— for few de-
scriptions of work were more severe ; and at the end of
the week nearly the whole of their earnings, which were
only 125., or 145., or 15s. a-week, were taken
to pay for their frame-rent and charges ; and often,
when attacked by sickness, and laid up for weeks
without earning anything the hire for the looms went
on. He denied that the object of the bill was to enable
the men to dictate to their masters ; on the contrary, it
was only to enable the men to obtain their wages in cur-
rent coin of the realm, instead of by the present cruel
truck system.
Sir G. STRICKLAND thought this was a most im-
portant measure, and deserved the most serious consi-
deration of the house. He went the whole length with
the honourable baronet (Sir William Clay), that there
should be no interference between masters and em-
ployers, except in the cases of children working in fac-
tories, who, from their youth, were incapable of de-
fending themselves, but he thought that did not
apply to the present bill, because it would only affect
adult labourers, who were as capable of taking care of
themselves ac the masters were.
Mr. PACKE spoke in favour of the bill. The looms
which those hosiers ha .1 to hire they had frequently to
pay at the rate of 100 per cent. for ; those looms
in most cases, not b ing the property of the masters,
but of middlemen, who hired them out at enormous
profits, and to the oppression of the workpeople. He
contended that the hon. hart., the member for Preston
(Sir W. Clay) was mistaken in saying this bill would
affect adult labourers who could take care of them-
selves, for those workpeople must either submit to the
terms dictated by the masters, or starve. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought if this bill were to be
understood to be referred to a select committee, that
understanding would save the time of the house in now
discussing it. He considered the system of hiring out
the looms was most unjust and oppressive on the work-
people.
Mr. FITZROY said as there had been a committee
appointed on a somewhat similar system, the truck
system, and the Government had no objection to refer
this bill to that committee. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LABOUCHE RE was sorry to hear the intention
of the Government respecting this bill, being convinced
that any legislation between masters and men would only
have the effect of raising false hopes among the hosiers,
and end in disappointment.
After a short reply from Sir H. HALFOED,
Mr. BOUVERIE said it was distinctly stated by one
of the gentlemen whose names were on the back of the
bill that its object was to obtain a higher rate of wages
for the workmen, and he believed this was the first time
the British Parliament had been asked to do this. He
hoped the house would reject the bill.
Mr. PACKE explained that he did not mean to con-
vey the impression attributed to him by Mr. Bouverie
that it was a bill to obtain by aid of Parliament a higher
rate of wages for the hosiers than they now obtained.
Mr. COBBETT spoke in favour of at least referring
the bill to a select committee, although he did hardly
expect it would have the effect-expected by the framers
of it.
After a few remarks from Mr. BARROW and Mr. BASS,
The house divided, when the numbers were— •
For the second reading l2O
Against it ' 73-47
IRISH MAILS.

On the motion of Mr. R. KEATING, returns were
ordered respecting the hours of despatch of the mails
between Waterford and Dublin.
SLIGO ELECTION.

Sir F. BARING brought up the report of the
select committee in the case of the Sligo borough
election, which declared that John Sadlier, Eq.,
was duly returned at the last election. That
two voters were bribed by sums of money to vote for
Mr. Sadleir, or to abstain from voting, but that such
acts of bribery were committed without the knowledge
of Mr. Sadleir or his agents.
The other business on the paper was then disposed of,
and the house adjourned at six o'clock.