The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-06 00:00:00

THE EDUCATION BILL.

Mr. LIDDELL begged to ask Loi d J. Russell whether
it was the intentirn of her Majesty's Government to pro-
ceed with the Education Bill in the coarse of the present
session ?
Lori J. RUSSELL—What I propose to do is this, to
move at all events the second reading of the bill some time
hence, but I cannot now say on what day.
Mr. BRIGHT—The noble lord said he intended to move
the second reading—that was not a specific answer to the
question, which went to inquire whether the bill was to
be passed this session. A great many persons took a great
interest and a great deal of trouble with regard to the
bill,rand it would be very convenient if the noble lord

would state that he did not intend to carry it further than
the second reading.

Lord J. RUSSELL—That was what I intended to con-
vey. I mean to read the bill a second time, but not to
proceed further with it.. (Hear, hear.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND.)
Mr. Sezjeant SHEE begged to ask the Secretary for
Ireland if ho had any objection to lay-upon.-the table of
the house, and to have printed for the use of members, a
paper on the Roman and foreign laws, considered with
reference to the relations between landlord and tenant in
Ireland, lately communicated by him to the members of
the committee on the Irish Land Bills.

Sir J. YOUNG—There would be no objection.

RETURNS ORDERED.
Mr. DAVISON moved for returns of all the turnpike
acts now in force in Ireland, specifying in the case of each
trust the date when it was originally established, and the
number of years for which it was to continue ; also the
several renewals thereof, whether by private or general
act, and the (late at which it is to terminate, for the last
twelve years from each existing trust ; of the amount of
the tolls collected in each year, where the collection was
made under the management of the trustees, distinguishing
the sums received from inivato contracts ; of the amount
realised by the trustees in each year that the tolls were
sold or farmed to contractors, distinguishing, when prac-
ticable, the receipts from private agreements ; of the
amounts received in each year from county presentments,
or from any other source, in aid of tolls, and of the total
amount of debts and liabilities on each trust; of the sums
paid in each year to collectors, treasurers, secretary, sur-
veyor, labourers, or other officer or servant respectively,
by way of salary or compensation ; of the sums paid in
each Tear for rent of offices, toll houses, &c.; of the amount
paid in each year for printing, advertising, stationery, and
other contingent expenses ; of the sums expended in each
year for ordinary repairs, distinguishing the amounts paid
for labour and materials • and, of the sums expended in
each year on building walls or fences, in making side or
footpaths, or other permanent improvements, distinguish-
ing under this and the previous heads, when practicable,
the amounts expended within each barony or half barony.
Mr. BASS moved an account of the total number of
quarters of malt made between the sth day of July, 1851,
and the sth day of July, 1852, in the United Kingdom,
distinguishing the quantity made in each country, and the
quantity used by brewers, and by victuallers, and by re-
tail brewers. (Continuation of Parliamentary Paper 222 of
the present session.) Also, a similar return for the year
ending the sth of July, 1853.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. COLLIER moved for leave to bring in a bill to
transfer the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical
Courts to the Courts of Common Law and the County
Courts. After sketching what he had done on a previous
occasion, and referring to the promises of Government, he
proceeded to say that though he had no hope of carrying
his bill this session, he now felt it to be his duty to intro-
duce it. Ho had no more to do with the subject of abuses
but would deal with remedies alone; and he remarked that
he addressed himself only to the testamentary jurisdiction
of tho courts, for as to their other jurisdictions, the only
mode of treatment which would be satisfactory to the
country would he the abolishing of every ecclesiastical
court in the kingdom. His proposal differed from that of
the Solicitor-General, inasmuch as the latter designed to
do away with all but the diocesan courts, whereas he
would do away with all. He would abolish altogether the
testamentary jurisdiction of the county courts. Ho pro-
posed that all wills about which there was no dispute
should be proved in those courts. He would create county
districts, corresponding to the circuits of the county court
judges. The undisputed will of any man should be proved
in the circuit in which he dwelt at the time of his death,
and thus he would get rid of the legal difficulty of bona
notabilia. He would establish a system of registration ;
every will should be registered in the county courts, and
transmitted to a registrar-general in London. Each
county court judge should appoint a registrar out of the
present ecclesiastical courts, whereby men of experience
would be gained, and compensation be saved. The juris-
diction of the county courts should extend over real and
personal property. Where a dispute arose, it should, where
the cause in dispute was under 3001., be tried in the locality
where it occurred, and he would give the county courts an
equitable jurisdiction. He considered the technical difficul-
ties of testamentary questions to be over-stated, and ho re-
ferred to the old historical character of the county courts
in proof of the efficiency they had possessed. He would give
jurisdiction in higher cases, and also appeals, to the superior
courts of common law, which should retain their power
over real property, to which jurisdiction should be added
that of the ecclesiastical courts as regarded personality.
He would appoint an officer, to be called the clerk of pro-
bates, to each of the superior courts. The jurisdiction
should be concentrated into one court. Compensation
should be given to those who were deprived of offices, but
not to practitioners ; and proctors should be admitted to
practise as attorneys in all the superior courts. Dwelling
upon the necessity of the same sweeping reform in the law
which had been adopted in other institutions, he urged the
subject on the consideration of the government.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

Lord PALMERSTON supported the motion with great
pleasure, and complimented the ability which had been
displayed by Mr. Collier in dealing with the subject. But
he dwelt upon the complicated and difficult nature of the
question, and, after stating that the government were quite
aware of the necessity of practical remedies, said that they
had not felt that they should be justified in legislating
without great deliberation. Ho had said that government
had intended to bring in a bill on the subject, but, regard-
ing the hopelessness of passing it this session, and the de-
sirability of having the report of the commission now
sitting, they had thought it better to delay introducing
their measure until the early part of next session.
Mr. HADFIELD would have liked a more specific
explanation from the government as to the promised re-
form.

Sir B. HALL urged that the admitted difficulty of the
question was the reason why government should not have
left legislation to an independentmember, and he instanced
various cases of ecclesiastical abuse in proof that remedy
was imperatively demanded.

The -ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that all parties
were agreed in the necessity of reform, but urged that
no one could blame the government for waiting for
the report of the commission, after which it would
ho their immediate duty to prepare a measure on the
subject.
After some observations from Mr. DUNLOP and Mr.
PELLATT,
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
THE HOURS OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.

Mr. COBBETT then rose to move for leave to bring in
a bill to limit the hours of labour of women, young persons,
and children, in the factories of the United Kingdom, and to
provide for a more perfect inspection of the said factories.
The hours of women and children were to be restricted to
ten hours on five days of the week, and to seven and a-half
hours on the Saturday. This would have the effect of re-
storing the Ten Hours Bill of 1847, and of including in
that bill the children of eight years of age. Ho had been
strongly urged by a large number of his own constituents
and others in the factory districts, to bring in a bill to
shorten the hours of labour in these factories. He then
explained the state of the law as it now existed on this
subject, and gave a retrospective glance at the progress o
legislation in connection with factory labour. In 1833 an
act was passed which made the factory day 15 hours, viz.,
from half-past five to half-past eight. In 1844 another act
was passed, by which the labour of young persons, between
and 18, and of women, was restriciel to 12 hours in tho
day, but it permitted children from 8 to 13 to work
hours a day, so that there were employed two sets every
day ; and there were, in point of fact, by this means, two
factory days • 1847 an act was passed, limiting the period
of labour to ten hours a day in the case of women and
young persons ; but as children could work 6 hours under
the act of 1844, and thus two sets could be employed every
day, the millowners were thus able to keep their factories
going 12 or 14 hours in the day. This led to the adoption
of what was called the " shift" system, the millowncrs
availing themselves of the letter of clause 26 of the act of

1833, which did not particularly define that the labour of
a women or young person should be taken in ten "conse-
cutive" hours. By this means the act was successfully
evaded. Tho larger body of millownei s chose to adhere to
the evident meaning of the act, and were thus subject to
great disadvantage iu competing with those who pursued au
opposite course. Much dissatisfaction ensued, and the result
was au appeal to the Barons of the Court of Exchequer, who
decided that although there wean° doubt as to the intention of
the act, that those who extended the hours came within the
literal meaning of the enactment. There was,consequently,a
great desire on the part of those interested, to reform the
law in this respect. The hon. gentleman then referred to
a great meeting which had been held, April 14, 1849, on
which occasion the hon. gentleman, the member for Ash-
ton-under-Lyne, had made a speech to the delegates then
assembled, to confer as to what should be done after the
foregoing legal decision. The delegates repudiated the as-
sertion as to the alleged evil consequences which were said
to have arisen from the shortening of the hours of labour.
(Hear.) He was satisfied that if hon. members examined
the reports which had been made by the different inspec-
tors on the subject, they would be convinced of the utter
hopelessness of securing the benefit of a Ton Hours' Act,
unless by some such measure as that which he now pro-
posed. They would feel that some such alteration WM
absolutely necessary, in order to prevent the daring and
systematic violations.of the Ten Hours' Act which were now
going on every day. (Hear.) The hon. member then re-
ferred to the evidence given before the Factory Commis-
sioners of 1836, by Mr. Cheetham, the member for Lanca-
shire. who laid stress on the necessity of imposing a re-
striction on the motive power, in order to secure the effici-
ency of the ten hours' system, and also to the bill intro-
duced in 1835 by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brotherton, with
the view of restricting the hours of labour in factories.
The third clause of that bill proposed to limit the hours
of labour for all persons under 21, to ten hours a day; and
the 4th clause provided, that the hours of the working of
the machinery should be the same as those fixed for the
labour of the children. There could be no doubt that a
restriction on the motive power was necessary, to carry
out the intention of the ten hours' system. (Hear.) This
question was now making a great stir in the manufactur-
ing districts, and had met with the cordial support, not
only of the workmen, the managers, and the overlookers
of these factories, but also of many master manufacturers
of great consequence and opulence. Numerous petitions
had been presented in favour of the measure from
nhtese
different classes, but not one had been as yet prese
against it. None of the unfavourable prodictionsel
whichi
litel been made respecting the system had ever
real-
ised, but the' work which had been turned outi inttuhne shorter
period period had equalled that which wasel)rreed ce4 d
longer periods which were allowedv.bestheearned introduction
it•ohteuwcotirokn.
of the Tea Hours' Act, and the w.
great, and ill many instances higher
men had been quite as
(Hear, bear.) Some alteration was proposed by the
bill to be made both in the amount of the fines and the
mode of recovery. Ho believed that the fines which he re-
commended -would not be considered unreasonable, when
they considered the imperative necessity of preventing the
recurrence of these offences, by inflicting a penalty which
was commensurate to the crime. The hon. member, bay-
ing referred to some statistics showing the injurious effects
of the prolonged hours of labour in factories on the health
of the work-people, concluded by moving that leave should
be given to bring in a bill of the nature he had described.
Mr. FIELDEN had much pleasure ill seconding the
motion of his hon. and learned friend the member for Old-
ham. He was himself extensively engaged as a manufac-
turer ; he had 1,300 or 1,400 men in his employment, and
felt a very deep interest iu the question before the house.
He believed the suggestions which had been made that
evening, with respect to the limitation of the hours of
labour in our factories, by his hon. friend, were of a cha-
racter precisely similar to those which had been made in
the report of Mr. Horner, and in the propriety of carrying
out these suggestions he (Mr. Fielden) entirely coneurred.
Mr. WILKINSON thought it desirable that those who
were engaged in our manufactures should not work for so
many hours in the day as was the case at present; but he
shOuld by no means like to interfere in the matter by. ny
,