The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-21 00:00:00

to the certificate of Cie surgeon, many cases hart occurred In which
manufacturers•, being magisratt s, countersietlbd their certificates fee
their own factory children, and it was riot uncommon for litstites,
who were mill owners, to reciprocate this conduct, signing the cer-
tificates for each other." Cases had occurred of 3i.aglstratts deciding as to
their own sons, and tenants, and ',heir own 'Miller's; in every such case
the penalty nwarded being the very lowest authorized by the Act.
And now let the House b'ar in mind that this state of things had arisen

almost en!lrely from the practices introduced by this Act. He had be.

fare hir.t a case takrii from the report of convictions, and there were

tentir.men in the House who could contradict him if he were wrong.
On the 10th De, ember, 1536, an information was laid agaimt a certain
taillowner. Tne resistance to it, and the manner in which it was met
lay the magistrates, appeared to Mr. Horner to be so flagrant, that he
made it the subject of a special report. There were many charges
of which he had selected three. The first was that of em-

ploying 29 children for more than nine hours a day; the second

for employing children without Surgeons' certificates ; the third for em

Marine's'. The Noble Lord had, in imitation of the Honourable
Wainer fof Dublin, endeavoured to attradt their attention to ether
.e
S. kW tern it away fro in the main question, dreg from the sub-
,l digtlgOnn but he would not enter into Chase topics,
subies
jects really une.
-ertal4,, He would adhere to the stiteleet be-
fit' they were not of imp. ,
ttle sees nearly an insuperable difte
fore ihem. It had been said tie't ti
eent Chet from the nature of the
ctilty in legislating upon this question,
contracts, the ]Acv would be, to a certain extent, ieererative. His No-
ble Friend, and those who supported his motion, had tkeiutention of
going the length of interfering
between employers and adults ; those lat-
ter were able td take care of their own interests, they were at an C$e
sufficiently advarieed td prated thentseives ; but it was to the childrn
of a tender age, who were tinkle to Make any attempt at defending their
men fights, that they sought to haslet proteetion, ample protection,dex-
teneled,—(Heat, hear.) They wanted le prevent those young children
from being etrlplOyeet In Work which was be}'
their capacity,
Ito
taskssae•
them from the torture shed tabdur which the infliction of sue.niterte,e
necessarily produced. It Was elorrinetent for the House to
in this case—nay, more, they were t: Shed upon to do so. lie
ot(ii
r.
Goulburn) was not patting to them a case Moiled upon high-wr gedt
feelings of humanity. The feelings which actuate!'l
this motion were feelings which were participated in by those who had
,
hose that supporte
the superintendence of the practical details of the factory sys'tem, "n)
were acquainted with all its operations, and thoroughly conversant um
the manufactures and the manufacturing districts. Those evils which
were proved to exist by documents before the House, they were called
upon to alleviate. The Honourable Member for Salford had said that
the children required to be protected from the consequences of overwork.
ing. That would be concurred in by every Hon. Member in that House,
and as it was their duty to take such steps as would ensure this pro.
tection. Who first submitted the subject of the labour of children in
factories to the House? Sir Robert Peel, who stated with all the
clearness and ability which characterises him the circumstances
which called for their interference, in order to protect those who,
from their age and situation, were unable to protect themselves. Since
that period, when the Right Hon. Baronet had brought the case of
factory apprentices before the House, up to the present time, it had
been frequently admitted that there existed a pressing necessity for
legislation upon the subject, and those who were most forward in in-
teresting themselves to procure an amelioration of the condition in
which the children were placed were not deemed liable to the charge
of wishing to curb the advancement of machinery or the progress of
manufacturers. The question now was not solely whether they were
to extend protection to the defenceless children and obtain a termina-
tion of thenumerous evils resulting from their employment for a number
of hours exceeding that which in justice should be the limit of their
labour. There was another question, and as the case now stands a more
important one, namely, were they to allow the law which was now in
existence, having for its purpose the protection of these children, to
remain a dead letter, or were they to strengthen it in its operation by
the enactment of an additional law, which all those who had been
examined had proved was imperatively called for ? The present
law was inadequate. That had been admitted by the Noble
Lord the Secretary of State; its penalties were not sufficiently
high in amount to deter persons from offending against it.
Were they, then, to permit the law to remain inoperative, or to take
those measures which would secure its operation ? Was the law to be
permitted to remain a dead letter ? He had no hesitation in saying it
would be better they repealed it, than thus allow it to become obsolete.
Surely it was not unreasonable in those who asked for those measures
that would ensure its effectual operation. The Noble Lord opposite
had, however, said that the law would not be effectual in all cases ; that
there were circumstances when the breaches of the law or offences
against it could not be brought within its jurisdiction. That the game
laws, for instance, were not sufficient totally to effect their object, and
that offences against them were still common notwithstanding all their
legislation; that many other offences still continued in defiance of the
most strenuous efforts of legislation which was not able to effect
their total suppression. Was ever any thing so extraordinary
heard from any one? Would the Noble Lord tell the House, be-
cause the law had been violated in many instances that they were
therefore to abstain from strengthening and supporting it ? And was
this doctrine to come from the Secretary of State, who, above
all men, was understood to have the especial care of the administration
of the law ?—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He (Mr. Goulburn) was aware
that so far was that objection of the Noble Lord applied to the case
under discussion there were offences against the law to an enormous
extent; that there was a systematical opposition to it—that the law,
from its inefficiency, had in many cases defeated itself; but if he was
aware of all this, ittended to convince him how necessary it was to
adopt some additional measures to put an end to a systematised opposi-
tion to the law, a state of things which ought not to be permitted in
any country priding itself upon its legislation. They ought to get rid
of the law altogether, or add to it that support which it required. The
Government had said, indeed, that next session of Parliament they
would take up this subject, and he (Mr. Goulburn) would perhaps cre-
dit them had he not experience of what their former promises had been.
—(Cheers.) He cordially supported the motion of his Noble Friend,
because he felt that it was calculated to insure, next session, a mea-
sure which would have the effect of remedying the defects in the exist-
ing law.
Mr. HUME thought that if any doubt as to this being brought for.
ward for party purposes had existed previously, the speech of the Right
Honourable Gentleman would have the effect of completely removing it.
The Right Honourable Gentleman had, indeed, avowed as much. He
had admitted that he came forward to cast blame upon the Government.
He pitied them that they had no other means of annoying the Govern-
ment than the factory question. For his part be was glad when he as.
certained that the Bill had been dropped. He had opposed it at first.
He had told the Noble Lord that if it could be possibly carried, its effect
would be to ruin the manufacturing districts, and that instead of serving
it would have the effect of seriously oppressing the factory children. The
Hon. Member for Salford had truly said it was worse than useless. It
would be impossible to carry out the would be impracticable, if
they wished to allow the manufacturers to continue, or the labourers to
have bread to eat. The Noble Lord (Lord Ashley) appeared to think
that the Noble Lord at that side of the House (Lord John Russell) was
to blame for not having introduced and carried through the Bill; if that
were the fact, he had a greater right to blame him for not having brought
forward the County Courts Bill. Every tenth day since the Session had
commenced he had asked about it, and after all the promises of the Noble
Lord it had not as yet been passed. But the Right Hon. Baronet oppo-
site had himself evinced an anxiety to have other business postponed,
and other Bills dropped, although he was now so anxious to blame the
Government for a similar course upon this Bill. If it had been brought
on he should have opposed it, for he considered it opposed to the laws of
nature. He agreed with the Hon. Member for Dublin that the incen.
sistency of Hon. Gentiemen upon this subject was quite revolting.
—(Laughter.) It was a serious thing to interferere with the tender off.
spring of men or brutes.—(Great laughter.) It was a delicate matter
to interfere between children and their mothers. The real question
was the corn-laws, for they produced nearly all the evils that were attri-
buted to the factory system ; and if those gentlemen were anxious to
improve the condition of the people in the manufacturing districts they
should look to the corn-laws. It was the pressure of the corn.laws
which gentlemen opposite supported, that obliged persons to work in
English factories for twelve, thirteen, or fourteen hours, whilst in
similar establishments upon the Continent they only worked for ten
hours. The prices of corn on the Continent were far lower than in
England. In Berlin, and in Prussia, corn was much cheaper.—(Loud
and continued laughter.) Some Hon. Members appeared as if they did
not know where Berlin was situated, they were so ready to laugh. The
Hon. Member here read a return of the prices of corn at Berlin, Ham-
burg, Antwerp, Stettin, and Amsterdam, and continued to say, the
average price of corn on the Continent was 435. 4d., whilst the average
price in England was 70 shillings to 71 shillings and sixpence. It was by
removing the causes of this high price of corn that they would support
the interest of the manufacturers by enabling them to obtain cheap
bread. The best way to increase the power of this eountry, was by en-
couraging its manufactures. Poland was as fertile a country as Eng-
land, but she was not so great, because she had not manufactures. He
thought that the Bill, if introduced, would be injurious to the menu.
facturing interests, and as such he should oppose it. He was strongly
of opinion that this subject was brought forward for party purposes, and
he hoped the House would concur in opinion with him, and negative the
motion.
Mr. AGLIONBY would not advocate any interference between the
masters and the adults, but it was upon the part of the children they
were called upon to legislate; and a feeling of the necessity of affording
them protection, induced him to give the vote he intended. If the votes
in support of the motion were to be reckoned a vote of censure he could
not help it, for he felt bound in justice to support any motion calculated
to induce the enactment of a law which would be sufficient to render the
existing law effective.
Mr. FIELDEN, who was almost wholly inaudible in the gallery,
supported the motion. The Hon. Member was understood to say that
the Government did not dare to execute the law for the regulation
of factory labour for, fear of the master manufacturer's influence against
them. He also added, that if a Ten Hours' Bill had been originally
passed, the entire question would have been long since set at rest. It
was one of the strongest signs of the weakness which the Government
could exhibit to decline to entertain the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in reply to the charge of the Hon. Members that
the Government dared not execute the law in respect to the Factory
Regulation Act could tell him that he was quite mistaken ; and lie could
also assure him that they dared execute that or any other law which
existed in the statute books of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon.
Gentleman should also know that if threats were used against those in-
trusted with the execution of the laws, there were others in the House
who would protect them.—(Hear.)
Mr. FIELDEN argued that the Government dared not execute the
law, because, notwithstanding its repeated infringement, they had not
hitherto done so.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said that the interpretation put on the words of
the Noble Lord were not by any means fair or candid. The Noble Lord
had only justified the Government in not carrying the law in question
into effect, on the grounds that every other law was, in a greater or
lesser degree, infringed on likewise. An injustice had been also done
to his Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, when he
was taxed with countenancing a breach of duty on the part of the face
tory inspectors. He (Mr. Philips) should never be found attempting to
justify in the slightest degree the infringement of the factory Lew by the
masters; but he felt bound to say that the cupidity of parents was in
most cases as much to blame as the cupidity of the manufacturers. He
thought the present Session was not the best time for introducing any
measure on the subject, inasmuch as it necessarily involved many other
questions, such as national education, the Corn Laws, &c , before it
could be satisfactorily settled ; but he hoped that one would be intro-
duced in the next Session, and he should then give it his beat considera-
tion. The Noble Lord opposite had used very strong language in refe-
rence to the manufacturers— he had termed them" merciless," " grasp.
ing," "griping," and so on. Did the Noble Lord mean to apply those
terms generally to that large body of men ?
Lord ASH LEY—No, no.
Mr. PHILIPS—Or did he only mean to give them an individual ap-
plication ? There were as many honourable and high.minded men in
that class of° the community as in any other whatever ; and who, for
humanity and every other virtue, as little deserved the opprobrious
stigma cast upon them by the Noble Lord, as any men in the commu-
nity. With respect to the general question, there were a great many
difficulties to contend with, not the least of which was the anxiety of
parents to make their children older than they really were; and the
House should take them all into consideration before it pronounced upon
the subject, or acquiesced in the motion of the Noble Lord.
Sir C. KNIGIITLEY, in reference to the observations of the Hon.
Member for Kilkenny respecting the difference between the price of corn
at Hamburg!), and generally on the Continent and the price of corn in
England, begged to say that the comparison sought to be established by
the Honourable Member's inference was quite invidious. When the
Honourable Member was prepared to prove that the rate of wages in
England was not double the rate of wages in those countries, he (Sir C.
Knightley) should admit the force of his argument, but not until then.
If the Honourable Member succeeded in showing him that the rate of
wages in Ilarnburgh was equal to the rate of wages in England, while
in the latter country corn was double the price that it was in the former,
he (Sir C. Knightley) should do for once, in respect of the Corn-laws,
what he had never yet done in his life-time—vote with the lion. Member
for Kilkenny.—(Laughter.)
Sir C. GREY opposed the motion of the Noble Lord on the ground
that it was unprecedented—a perfect novelty to the Constitution, and
an infringement of the privileges of the House and the rights of indi-
vidual Members. On these grounds, without entering into the details
of the general question before the House, he should feel it his duty to
vote against it. •
Lord ASHLEY was aware that he was not, by the forms of debate,
entitled to a reply, but he craved the indulgence of the House to answer
one or two observations of the Noble Lord opposite. He understood,
for he was not present at the time, that the Noble Lord had said the
question had now become a party question, and that it had been brought
forward in a party spirit. Of course that involved a serious charge
against him (Lord Ashley) that he had suffered a great question i•
volving the rights of humanity to be perverted into an instrinnent to
work out a mere party purpose.—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Lord
Ashley) might be allowed to say that such assertions were more
easily preferred than proved—(Hear)—and to assme the Noble

Loyd flint he considered the ini.i)ect involved in the question of too high

rind too sacred a character to be made an instrument for the purposes
• -• _

, -
()fairy paity.—(llear, hear.) Ile jLord Ashley) had undertaken the
heavy' resoonsibility attaching to its charge from motives far higher
than thwe which actuated partisans ill }general; and those motives he
should adhere to while he had the pow er of urging the subject on
ftie Attention o( the Le:islature.—(Hear, hear.) And he might be
permitted further add, that no change which could by any possi-
bility whatever take piece in the position or the Noble Lord opposite
towards him and his friends, should have the effect of altering his fixed
and uniform course of proceeding in regard to this question.—(Hear.)
It had been objected to him that he used strong language in his advo-
cacy of the question—if he did, he applied it only to the actions and not
to the motives of those iso'ividuals to whom he %v.'s under the necessity
of alluding. The Noble Lo-d had charged him with making unfair se-
lections from the reports of Oe inspectors in support of his case; to
this lie (Lord Ashley) could on': answer that he took them as he found
them, and if they made against the `se who were charged with the exe.
cution of the law it was not his fault but theirs.
Mr. WALL ACE rose to order. ',"he Noble Lord had. taken a privi.
lege which had been more than once c'enied to him (Mr. Wallace) and
many other Hon. Members in simila..• circumstances--that of reply.
He, therefore, called on the Speaker to k-now by what right, or why, the
Noble Lori claimed and exercised that p rivilege ?
Lord ASHLEY would save the Speaker the trouble of pronouncing
oil the question by waiving the further ex, srcise of the permission which
the [louse had tacitly conceded to him. But he would stand on his
right to rcply to the question of the Hon. M,ernber for Manchester ? In
answer to that Hon. Member's intersogatory h e should say that in using
the words adverted to by him, he (Lord Aside) *) had no intention what.
ever of employing them generally. He did not by any means wish to
s only against whom
be understood to condemn the body of manufactu. rers, many of whom he
believed to be a blessing to the country, but Om
allegations had been specifically made, and distinct, ly proved in the re-
ports on the subject.
formed as to what
Rus-
Lord J. RUSSELL said the Noble Lord was milin
(Lord John
he (Lord J. Russell) had said respecting him. H.e
sell) had given the Noble Lord credit for the purest mo ti. . the mode in
ves of humanity
in bringing forward the question ; bat he said that, frc'm
one who
which it had been brought forward on a former occasion, Ito
ilea part y
looked at it could fail to conclude that it hid been ta
question.
The House then divided—
For the original motion l2l
Against it
Majority against the amendment -15
SUPPLY.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee cf Supply.
COMMISSIONS.
Colonel SIBTHORP then brought forward his motion for a Select
Committee to inquire into the various Commissions that have been
issued since 1830 to the present time or period at which the return
might be dated. The Hort. and Gallant Member said it was a question
of public justice, for that two millions of money had been squandered
away upon useless Commissions which not alone produced no good to
the country, but created, on the contrary, the greatest dissatisfaction.
All he asked for was a fair and impartial inquiry into the subject.
Mr. BERNAL begged leave to inform the Hon. Member that the
House was then in Committee, and that he could not put his motion.
The Hon. Member sat down.
Lord J. RUSSEEL rose and said that, as the Lords' Amendments
to the Irish Poor Law Bill were of considerable importance
he should propose to consider them on Tuesday, instead of delaying
them till Thursday, as was originally proposed. He propost'd to take
the subject of railways to-morrow, on Monday the Irish Tithe Bill,
and afterwards, if time permitted, the registration of elector!. 00
concluded by moving the third reading of the Public Roads Bill, which
was accordingly read a third time and passed.
Mr. STEWART brought up the report on the Customs Act, which

was unanimously agreed to.
SUPPLY—POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER proposed the further
consideration of a resolution (postponed on the 2d of July), grantlOS
24,2521. to defray the expences of the Poor-law Commission.
On the motion that the resolution be read a second time,
Mr. GRIMSDITCH opposed the grant on the ground of its extra-
vagance, and the perfect uselessness of many of the appointments. The
Commission was increasing every year, and he called attention to the
fact that three commissioners, three secretaries, all barristers, and
twenty-one assistant commissioners were allowed 40,0001. amongst
them ; that 5,000/. was expended for law, and 4,0001. for stationers' .
He thought it too bad that the commissioners should receive 7001.
year salary, and 800/. a year more in the shape of travelling expenses.
However, he would not now make any motion on the subject, but would
seriously recommend to the Right Hon. Gentleman to reflect on the ne."
cessity of economising on this head, considCring how signally the labours
of she commissioners had failed.
Colonel SIBTHORP declared his intention of resuming his opposi-
tion at a future stage.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEVCTER said, that as regarded
the question of expence, all he could say was, that the Government 110
done all in their power to diminish it. The nest unions rendered the
expence indispensable, but although this Commission cost 40,000/. s'
year, still it should not be forgotten that it had eat.4o:l a saving to She
public of two millions. The legal expences under the new system pen
nothing like so great as under the old.
Sir G. DOUGLAS submitted that such a discussion Ou.ght not to tare
place in so thin a House.
After a few words from Mr. GRIMSDITCH in reply, the resolntie°
was read a second time.
The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. t.
Mr. EMERSON TENNENT moved for leave to bring in a
Bid „-
continue the suspension of the operation of so much of an Act passed 1./
the sixth and seventh of William IV., as prohibits the holding
licenses for the sale of spirits by retail grocers in Ireland. the
Lord MORPETH said that he would not offer any opposition to
motion. te
The motion was agreed to, the Bill read a first time, and ordered
be read a second time on Monday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of. Adjourned
Half-past One o'Clock.

MARKET IN TELLIGENCE.