The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-23 00:00:00

EDUCATION IN SCOTLAND.

Mr. H. JOHNSTON presented a petition from the Ge-
neral Assembly of the Church of Scotland, complaining of
the defective state of religious education in Scotland, and
praying for assistance from the Legislature. In moving that
the petition he brought up, the Hon. Member said that it ex-
pressed the unanimous opinion of the General Assembly of the
Church of Scotlaad.
The SPEAKER wished to call the attention of the House
to an expression used in this petition—" to take care that in
any measure to provide additional means of religious instruc-
tion in Scotland, an adequate grant may be included for the
supply of the spiritual wants of the town as well as of the
rural population." Was that a money prayer or not ?
Mr. HUME apprehended that it required the sanction of
her Majesty's Ministers.
Lord STANLEY contended that the petition did not pray
for money, but that an adequate provision should be made for
the religious detitution of the towns, as well as rural districts.
Sir ROBERT PEEL having read the terms of the
petition, observed, that, at a previous period of the
Session, expectations were held out that some provi-
vision would be made for the religious instruction of the
people of Scotland, and that that would involve a grant of
money, not from the Treasury, but from pecuniary funds at
the disposal of the Government. He apprehended the present
petition referred to it, and did not come within the rule to
which the Speaker had alluded.
The SPEAKER was of opinion that the wording of the
petition was objectionable.
Lord J. RUSSELL had personally no objection to the
reception of the petition, but he thought it improperly worded.
It appeared to him that it prayed for an adequate grant, which
must imply a grant of money.
Mr. G O ULB URN thought the prayer of the petition refer-
red tothe statement made by the Government at the commence-
ment of the session, and not to any grant from the Treasury.
Sir R. PE EL apprehended that all the petitioner asked
was, that in case a certain sum should be appropriated to the
purposes to which the petition adverted, the town population
should have their share of it.
Mr. HUME would venture to say that if the Dissenters
had presented such a petition for the endowment of their
Churches, it would not be listened to. He thought that the
House ought to deal equally between all parties.
Sir R. INGLIS said the petition was not for a grant ab-
solutely, but in case a grant was made, that the town popula-
tion should be considered.

Lcrd JOHN RUSSELL said that if the petition
had been couched in the terms that his Hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for the University of Oxford had statel there cou!d not
well have beon an objecion to it.
Mr. HARVEY protested against the analogy of his
Honourable Friend the Member for Kilkenny. He begged
kayo to state to him that the Dissenters would not make such
au application. They would be ashamed of doing so.—
(Cheers.) They supported their own church, and they
wished that the members of other churches should do the
same.

Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE trusted that the Noble, Lord
would not think it necessary to reject the petition.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the hest course
to adopt would be for the Hon. Member to withdarw tue peti-
tion for the p,rp-,se of amending it.
Mr. H. JOHNSTONE did not sce how the error was to be
rectified, inasmuch as the General As3erribly was dissolved.—

(Cries of " Divide.")
Mr. /I UAIE thought that if there were my doubt upon the
present case the solution of that doubt ought to be solved by the
Chair. He could not see any necessity for a division.
Mr. O'CONNELL said the House ought always to be
anxious to receive petitions, and if the Chair was of opinion
that the present petition did not trench upon its prerogatives,
it would receive it.

Mr. H AWES said that the Quebec petition, which was
similar to the present, was not received.
Mr. H. JOHNSTONE begged to state that the whole of
the petition pr seceded upon the supposition that a grant of
money was to be made by the Government, and only prayed
that it might he distributed in a different way.
The SPEAKER said, speaking in a Parliamentary sense,
it was impossible that the General Assembly could know any
thing of what, passed in that House with respect either to that
subject or any other.
Mr. F. FRENCH said when he wished to present a peti-
Con praying for a grant of money fur the improvement of the
Shennon, he was obliged to withdraw it foe want of the consent
of the Crown to its reception.
Sir G. SINCL AIR—A deputation from the Church of
Scotland bad been in town, and had had interviews with her
Majesty's Government upon the subject, and it was from that
source the Assembly had become aware of the intention to
grant money.
The SPEAKER—If the Assembly had been made ac•
quainted with the fact in such a manner as to have made it
necessarily known not only to the whole llouse, but to the
public generally, then the House might probably receive the
petition. —( Hear, hear.)
Sir G. CLERK—Considering all the circumstances in
which they were placed with respect to the petition, it
was with deep regret that he observed that the Noble
Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government in that
House did not get up upon an occasion of such deep
importance, and gives his assent to its reception, which would
have removed alt technical difficulty.—( Cheers.) The re-
fusal of the Noble Lord, he could assure him, would reflect
very great disgrace upon him in Scotland.
Mr. F. NIA ULE could not allow the observations of
the Honourable Baronet to peas unnoticed.—( Hear, hear. )
The refusal would not reflect any disgrace at all upon that
Noble Lord, nor could it. He (Mr. F. M.) could not see
how it was possible for the Noble Lord to give his sanction to
the petition, as it was well known that the Assembly proposed
to distribute the money in a totally different manner from that
proposed by the Government.
Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE—If the Noble Lord would
not give his consent to the reception of the petition, after the
strong opinion expressed from the Chair, he would withdraw
the petition.—( Cheers.)
The petition was then withdrawn.
Sir R. PEEL said it would be in the recollection of the
House, that he had put a question to the Noble Lord, whether
it was the intention of the Government to make any proposi-
tion with regard to Church accommodation in Scotland, and
the Noble Lord's expression was, that it was the intention of
the Government to make a proposition on the subject, but he
did not think he should be able to propose any vote before
Easter. He (Sir R. Peel) was most desirous of bringing for-
ward this subject, viz., the Report of the Commissioners
of Ecclesiastical Inquiry in Scotland, so far as it related to
religious destitution in Edinburgh and Glasgow; and he had
had reason to hope the Noble Lord would have offorded him
that opportunity by brining forward the motion of which he
had given notice. If the Noble Lord still persevered
in bringing forward that motion, he ( Sir R. Peel) should
avail himself of that opportunity to draw the attention of the
House to the state of religious destitution in Edinburgh and
Glasgow. He therefore begged. to ask the Noble Lord whe-
ther it was his intention in the course of the present Session
of Parliament to take the sense of the House on the measure
relating to the Church in Scotland.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL acknowledged that he had stated
what the Right Hon. Gentleman had mentioned, but he had
now to state in answer to the question of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, that from various circumstances, some con-
nected with the business of the House, and some connected with
what had occurred in Scotland, it was not the intention of the
Government to make any proposition to the House this session.
At the same time he begged to state that with regard to any
measure the Government might introduce hereafter, it would
be a measure confined to the strict outline of what he had stated
to the House on a former occasion.

Sir R. PEEL was quite sure the House would feel, that
when the Noble Lord had stated he feared he should not be
able to propose any vote before Easter, that he had a right to
assume the Noble Lord did intend to propose a vote be-
fore the termination of the Session. That would, therefore,
account for his not asking the Noble Lord previously to
Easter for any more detailed information, as he had
a fair right to presume it was the Noble Lord's intention
to propose a vote subsequently. It became, therefore, neces-
sary for him ( Sir R. Peel) to decide what course he should
take ; and on the whole, considering the advanced period of
the session, and considering that the Noble Lord had
stared it was not his intention to call the attention of
Pa.•liament to this most important subject this session, he
had come to the conclusion, but with very great reluctance,
that on the whole he was best consulting the interests of the

question by not bringing it forward for discussion this session.
At the same time I think it necessary that I should announce,
on this occasion, that, in the course of next Session—indepen-
dently of any course which the Noble Lord may think fit to
pursue—l shall call the attention of the House to the subject
of this petition.—( Tory cheers.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Of course I cannot now make
an objection to the course which the Right Honourable
Gentleman might choose to pursue in the next session ;
but I hope the House will allow me to ofnr an explanation
as to my saying that 16,could not bring forward any measure
on the subject before Easter ; and I beg to call the attention
of the House to this circumstance, that there arc but two days
of the week on which I can bring forward a measure of this
kind. Now, Sir, three or four months of the Session have
been occupied on those days with two Bills, the Plurality of
Benefices' Bill, and the Irish Poor-law Bill. Under these
circumstances I could not have brought the measure in since
Easter.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that at this period of the
session Gentlemen were willing to make sacrifices, in with-
drawing Bills which there was no chance of passing, and
perhaps the Noble Lord would make a similar concession by
withdrawing those Bills which he knew there was no chance
of passing this Session.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. GOULBURN thought that the Noble Lord could
withdraw some Bills without detriment, and if he did so, other
Gentlemen would do the same.
Mr. HUME thought that the Sabbath Day Bill, which
occupied so much time, might be withdrawn without detri-
ment.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to say that he
had given up the County Rates Bill, and he asked would the
Right Hon. Baronet persevere with his Controverted Elec-
tions Bill on the 4th of July ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that unless he saw a chance
of carrying the measure, he would not bring it in. If, on
the other hand, he saw that he should have a chance of carry-
ing it through in this session he would persevere. But he
hoped the Noble Lord would allow him to suspend his answer
for the present.
Mr. WARBURTON said he had before the House the
Qualification of Members Bill. He could not at present say
whether he should continue it or not, but if he withdrew
it, he should certainly introduce it again at the beginning
of the next Session. Although the Honourable Member
for Cambridge had given a recommendation to Honourable
Members to abandon those Bills which they had no chance of
carrying, he and his friends persevered in endeavouring to
carry the Sabbath Day Bill—a Bill more likely to be opposed
than any one before the House.—(Cries of " Question!" from
the Tories.)
The SPEAKER said that probably as there was no ques-
tion before the House it would be better for Hon. Members
to confine themselves to saying what course they would take.
Mr. HA WE S said he had one Bill in charge, the Steam
Vessels Bill, and he should follow the advice of the Right Hon.
Baronet, and not proceed with it. When lie introduced it he
understood itrhad the concurrence of all parties, but there
were great, difficulties thrown in the way, and he should now
withdraw it.

Captain WOOD asked whether the Noble Lord wished
the experiment of the County Courts Bill to be tried in the.
Middlesex County Courts Bill. He thought the labours of
the Committee would be useless without the assistance of
Government in framing the Bill.
Lord J. RUSSELL was ready to afford any assistance in
his power, and said it was desirable the experiment should be
tried in the manner suggested.
Lord TEIGNMOUTH said great pains had been taken
with this Bill by the Committee, several of the Members
of which were gentlemen of considerable experience.
The Honourable Member for Middlesex had asked permission
of the House for a further extension of time to the
6th July, and that extension had been granted ; and yet he
now came forward, perfectly unjustified by the Committee, to
throw a damp on its proceedings, and call on the Government
to take the Bill into its own hands.--(Hear, hear.) He must
decidedly protest against this course.—(Hear, hear, from the
_Ministerial side.)
Mr. PLUMPTRE gave notice that his Hon. Colleague
( Sir E. Knatchbuil) would move for a Select Committee to en-
quire into all the circumstances connected with the discharge
of John Nicholl Thom, alias Sir W. Courtenay.—(Cries
of " Oh" from the Ministerial side of the House.)
Mr. WALLACE gave notice that he should call the atten-
tion of the House to the defects of the present mode of distri-
buting papers printed by order of the House.
Mr. HUME gave notice that, on Monday, he should move
for certain returns connected with promotions in the Army.
Mr. NICHOLS gave notice that if the House met to-
morrow he should bring forward the Vestries and Churches'
Bill.

Mr. HUME said the Bill was one of very great importance
to the country, and it would be desirable to know whether
Ministers meant to support it or not, otherwise they would ba
only losing time. He believed the measure would be produc-
tive of unlimited expense.
Lord J. RUSSELL had given no promise to support the
Bill,and if it appeared to him an improper or injurious measure,F e
should certainly oppose it; but he could neither pledge himself
to support it, ;;or could he pledge himself that the House
would sit to-morrow.
OCCUPATION OF ALGIERS.

Mr. NPLE AN gave notice that on Monday he should call
attmtion of the House to the subject of the occupation of
Algiers by the French.
Sir R. BATE SON begged to ask the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Ireland when the Irish business would be
brought foruard ?
Lord MORPETH could not give the lion. Member the
information he required.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS (IRELAND.)
Mr. MORGAN J. O'CONNELL begged to ask the
Noble Lcrd whether it was his intention to renew the Turn-
pike Trusts (Ireland) Act.
Lord MORPETH said it was his intention to renew them
for one year.

THE CORONATION.
Mr. HUME begged to ask the Noble Lord, what adjourn-
ment of the House would take place for the Coronation ?
Lcrd JOHN RUSSELL said the adjournment wculd le
only for the day.
The NOBLE- Lona then moved the Order of the Day for the
seCond iritriing of the Tithes (Ireland)
FACTORIES.
Lord ASHLEY begged to move, in oppostion to the Noble
Lard's motion, the, ,Orcrer of the Day for the second reading of the
Factories Regulatiou Bill. He was ready to admit the importance
of the Noble Lord's motion; at the same time he believed that
his ( Lord Ashley's) was of as much importance as any
others. It was absolutely necessary for him to bring for-
ward the question now, as no other opportunity would be
aff rded him 0' calling the attention of the House to the subject.
What he asked of the House was to give him permission to
make a statement of the law and its operation, so that they
might consider the propriety of abolishing the system or not.
He himself had been deluded and mocked in the most unvver-
raztable manner.—( Cries of hear, hear.) In 1836 the Go-
vernment had given its solemn pledge, in words and writing,
that they would °acre° every provision of the Factory Act.
But no sooner was that Act passed than it was violated.
When Parliament met in 1837 he ( Lord Ashley) gave notice
that on the 6th of April he would bring in a Bill to regulate
the Factory Act. On the 9th of March he also gave notice,
in consequence of the neglect of the Secretary of State in
attending to a memorial on the subject, that on the 17th of
that month, he (Lord Ashley) should move an Address to
the Crown paaying his Majesty to direct an enforcement of the
provisions of that Act. Ile gave that notice, intending to bring
before the consideration of the House the whole of those laws.
Two or three days before that motion, he received a letter
from the Secretary of State, requesting him to with-
draw it. He did withdraw it, trusting that he should in a few
days have a full opportunity of discussion. His original mo-
tion stood fer the 6th of April, and on the sth, he had a con-
versation with the President of the Board of Trade, who as-
sured him that it was the intention of the Government to bring
in a measure for the better regulation of the Factory Bill ;
upon which assurance he (Lord Ashley) consented not to
press his motion the next day. But the Bill made no further
progress that Session, and the Government would in vain urge
the demise of his late Majesty as their excuse, for he was net
taken ill until June, and nothing had been done up to that
time. In the present Session, he (Lord Ashley) lost no time
in asking the Noble Lord what was his intention with regard
to the Bill. The Noble Lord promised that it should be in
progress as soon as possible. Having been again urged, he
said at last that it should be brought in before Easter. It
was at length brought in, and the second reading was fixed for
the 7th of May. On the 7th it was adjourned to the 14th,
and he would beg to ask the Noble Lerd if he had not detere
mined on the 7th that the Bill should make no further pro-
gress ? On the 14th it was deferred to the 18th ; on the 18th
it was put off to the 25th ; and on the 25th it was adjourned
to the 22d of June, that evening. And on the other night,
when the question was put, the answer given was, that the
Session was now so far advanced, that it was intended to pro-
ceed no further. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that
the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Factories
Regulation Bill be taken into consideration.
Lord JO HN RUSSELL thought that if there was any
delusion in the matter it rested with the Noble Lord himself.
There was an Act of Parliament already in operation; that
(LordAet
J.
was
R carriedusse intobr
brought
tt
in
ns farwas asa B lßill possible,
for
the more clearly and the Bill he
defining the operations of the Act already in existence, not to
change the general principles of it.—( Hear, hear.) In the
report of the last quarter of 1837, Mr. Horner says ‘, That
no very gross cases of the violation of the Act occurred," and
Mr. Howell remarks "that the law in the great majority of
instances had been obeyed, although many prosecutions had
taken place." Many difficulties were placed in the way of
the due operation of the existing law by the short-sighted
interest of parents and factory owners. One point of great
difficulty was the age of the children, which was defeated in
one wav by means of the Clergy. It was his intention to have
carried forward the Biil which stood upon the Order List,
and it was not till two days before the Noble Lord had asked
him the question in that House that he had determined to
give it up for the present session. If the Noble Lord had
asked the question he would have had the information neces-
sary—at all events, he would have been told that it was not
the intention of the Government to press the Bill on the
House during the present session of Parliament. The Noble
Lord thought it a matter of ease to carry the Bill, but he very
much deluded himself again. No law which could be passed
between this and the next session would have the effect of
essentially bettering the condition of the factory children, and
he would, therefore, put it to the Noble Lord whether such
an urgent necessity existed of giving the subject a precedence
over all other measures. He trusted that the House would not
agree to the amendment of the Noble Lord.
Mr. GO ULB URN said that the complaint of his (Mr.
Goulburn's) Noble Friend was, that the Factory Act had been

violated. That fact was undeniable ; for it had not alone been
admitted in the reports of all the Inspectors, but had been ad-
mitted by the Government themselves. That admission was
ms de by their bringing in the Bill before the House, which was,
at the same time, an admission also that the state of things com-
plained of were capable of a remedy. The reports of the Inspec-
tors all agreed in stating that up to the present moment children
were worked under age, by means of false certificates of age. He
(Mr. Goulburn) was very much surprised to hear the Noble
Lord opposite allege that that arose from the disinclination of
Clergymen to give certificates. But the Noble Lord should
know that a certificate was not absolutely required by the
law, the appearance of the child was the principal test which
it empowered the inspectors to go by. The Noble Lord had
declined to undertake a Bill on the subject of the amendment
of this state of things, for fear of a difficult contest with the
masters and manufacturers, as well as the advocates of the
' short time system. But did his (,Mr. Goulburn's) Noble
Friend ask him to do so ? He did not. All he desired was
that he might be permitted to impose the task of doing so on
himself. The Noble Lord and her Majesty's Government,
however, had prevented him ; and, in doing so, they had taken
anything but a manly course.
Mr. P. THOMSON had listened with the utmost astonish-
ment to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, fur a more
complete misstatement of the facts of the case it had never
before been his fortune to hear. He did not know whether
the views of the Right Hon. Gentleman coincided with those
of the Noble Lord, but he did happen to know from a con-
versation with the Noble Lord in 1837 that his views were
for the imposition of restrictions in regard to time upon the
labour of all persons employed in factories, adults as well as
children.
Lord ASHLEY was understood to deny the fact of wishing
to impose restrictions on all labour in factories.
Mr. P. THOMSON would refer the Right Hon. Gentle-
man to that conversation for a proof that the Government did
nut oppose the intreduction of the Noble Lord's Bill, and that
they meant to introduce one of their own. The Noble Lord
stated that he was deluded this Session in respect of the Bill
of the Government. He (Mr. Thomson) denied that also.
A Bill had been prepared with great care—it had been intro-
duced to the House—and the Government had always urged
it or,, instead of postponing it from day to day. But why was
it postponed, it might be asked ? Because of the state of pub-
lic business before the House. But the Noble Lord said he
was deluded. Now it was some time since the Noble Lord
the Home Secretary had decided that the Bill should not be
gone on with this Session, and since that decision had been
communicated to the Noble Lord, which it was at the very
earliest opportunity, it was argued that to carry a measure of
the kind through Parliament would be an easy matter; but
the Right Hon. Gentleman who used that argument was
Secretary of State himself.
Mr. GO UL B URN—For three months. —( Laughter. )
Mr. P. THOMSON—And on an occasion of a measure of
.
a similar he held very different language—turning, in fact, a
deaf ear to the representations of parties interested in the
amendment of the law respecting factory children. He did not
blame the Right Hon. Gentleman for doing so. He merely
mentioned it in support of his case, that the difficulty to be
contended with was a very great one. Under these circum-
stances he thought the Right Hon. Gentleman should have
spared his accusation against the Government for not persever-
ing in the Bill. The Right Honourable Gentleman had fur-
ther-charged the Government that it was remiss in carrying
the existing law into effect. He (Mr. P. Thomson) denied
it altogether. He had introduced a Bill to amend the law
two years since ; and instructions were issued by his Noble
Friend (Lord John Russell) to all the factory inspectors that
they should carry out the spirit of the Act to its fullest extent,
and that every precaution should be taken that the child's age
was ascertained as satisfactorily as possible. So far from the
Government not having- exerted themselves to carry out the
law, the testimony of Mr. Horner proved that the inspectors
had received the most positive directions not to grant a certi-
ficate to any child who had not attained the age of thirteen,
howsoever appearances might be to the contrary. He hoped
the House would not suffer the subject to be hurried for-
ward as the Noble Lord proposed. It was only in due
time and on deep consideration that it could be at all satis-
factorily settled.

Sir n.. PEEL—I do appeal to the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman's own judgment, as well as to the House, whether the
speech he has just delivered is not decisive in favour of im-
mediately settling the question.—( Cheers.) lam no advocate
for the plan of the Noble Lord ( Ashley.) I never took the
popular view of the subject. I saw it with other eyes than
those who support the Ten Hours Bill of my Noble Friend,
and therefore I cannot be suspected of partial advocacy of a
settlement; but this I feel, if there be any foundation for
wh. t the Right Hon. Gentleman has just asserted, if his argu-
ments be conclusive with himself, that if there one subject be-
yond all others to which the attention of the House should be
at once and without delay directed, it is this. If the question
can be solved by the Government let it be solved at once ; but
I warn them that they will find all temporary substitutes for a
solution unavailing. Especially will they find- a postponement
of it from session to session of. no service, but, on-the contrary,
of great and manifold_ injury. If, on the other hand, they
feel that the difficulties which surround the question are in-
soluble and inseparable from it, then, as a Government, let
them manfully come forward and acknowledge it. My Noble
Friend (Lord Ashley) has told us that the question has been
now three years before the House, and yet the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite deprecates hasty legislation on it. Can
the Right Hon. Gentleman, with any face, repeat his objec-
tion on that score ? If, I say, the.dithiculty of the case cannot
be got over without an exposure of the country to greater
danger titan at present exists, then the Government should,
unhesitatingly and at once abandon all legislation on the sub-
ject----7(Cheers)—and not alone that, but they should state
• their '.intention of opposing it on the part of all individual
Members of this House. f the Government cannot settle
it, or if they are unwilling to take the risk of doing so on
themsek es, let them then permit some Hon. Member, in his
individual capacity, to bring forward a Bill on the subject.—
(Cheers.) At all oven's, I entreat, I implore the ILuse,
whatever is done, to let the question be settled at once.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no clause
in the present Bill which was not already in being—it con-
tained no new enactment. It was, therefore, a question of
expediency and priority of claim between that and the other
more important measures which stood f,;r consideration. The
prosecution of that Bill would not affect at all the hours of la-
bour in factories.
Sr R. PEE L—Amendments might be inserted in it to
that .effect.

The SOLICITOR.-GENERALwouId then put it to the
House whether it should be permitted to take precedence of
the Bid for the settlement of the Irish Tithe question ; or
whether that important measure should be put off that the
Factory Act might be more clearly explained. He hoped that
the House would show its good sense and information by giving
that important Bill, Irish Tithes, the precedence of the B:11 in
question, notwithstanding all that had been said on the subject
by Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Sir R. PEEL said if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
chooses to siy that the Bill is unimportant, why, then, that is
an additional argument in my favour. Let us, if that be the
Case, pass to its consideration at once, and avoid any further
delusion on the subject.—( Cheers. )
Mr. FRE SH FIE LD was prepared to prove that a number
of children were working (as stated in the certificate of the
partners in a certain mill) between the ages of nine and thir-
teen, while the same children were, in another certificate,
signed by the same partners, and countersigned by the same
magistrates, as working between the ages of 13 and 18.—
( Loud cries of " Divide," " Question.")
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to inform the House that the
Factory Bill was totally inoperative in Glasgow. It was quite
neglected by every one, and virtually repealed in practice.
In Manchester it was still partially observed, but working
very ill for the cotton-spinners, who were in the habit of pav-
ing the piece-workers, and were now obliged, from the diffi-
culty of obtaining children of the age allowed, to pay 4s. 6d.
for as much piecework as they heretofore obtained for 2s.
Thus while they legislated in favour of the children, they pro-
portionally injured the parents, for they had to pay the diffe-
rence out of their own earnings. lie really thought no good
could result by interfering in this way between the employers
and the employed.—( Divide.)
After a few words from Mr. F. MAULS, Mr. BAINES, and
Mr. VILLIERS,
The House divided, and there appeared—
For the original motion
For the amendment ..

119
111

dajority for the 2d reading of the Irish Tithe Bill -8
The Bill vas read a second time accordingly, and then (we
understood) amidst the confusion which attends the settling
after a division,
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Bill be committed,
and the Chairman report progress that day fortnight.
The question (we were told) was put and carried in the
affirmative without opposition, and on the gallery being thrown
open we found that the greater part of the Members present
were leaving the House, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exche-
quer on his legs moving the further consideration of the Re-
port on the