The Sun.
London, England, 1831-04-13 00:00:00

to int•'reac'e the market for labour, and to increase the com-
petition among the masters.

Mr. AIABERLY said that this Bill was contrary to all
the general principles of political economy. Why was it
confined to England? The whoie agricultural wages in
Scotland consisted in barter, and this Bill did not ex.
tend to Scotland. HC, for otie., we; for leaVing MEtniffac-
turers anci trade akonc. in hi§ 'opinion, the grand prin-
ciple was not to legislate at all for such niatters, but to let
every thing Pend p:rt!per level in the open market.
Mr. LITI'LETON said, that all he 'Wanted in bringing
forward this Bill was to ca'rry into effect the ekitting laws
on the subject. It appeared to him that Parliament should
either .tiepeal.th',4se .airs altogether, or not allow them to
lic eVit?,eti. He maintained that the measure in its present
shape would be perfectly effective for the object which it
had in view. There was a general call throughout the
country amongst those who were most interested it'L fief,
matter for such a measure, end hord the abuse would
at length cnnset*t to its ltdo'kitioli.
Mr. R. GOltb'ON. said, that his impression was, that
`chi Bill would be wholly ineffectual. He should certainly
oppose it, for it appeared to him to be a perfectly useless
and very absurd measure. Indeed, of all the absurd pieces
of legislation that had ever been introduced into the Bri-
tish Legislature, this was, in his opinion, the greatest.
He would only salt. for instance, why were Lincolnshire
and stveral other counties exempted from the operation of
this Bill? Why was such an absurd eietttption introduced
into it ?

Mr. Alderifiak WOOD had the same objection to urge
agai4.st the till, for he could not understand why Corn-
wall should have been exempted from its operation. As,
however, the Hon. Member for Staffordshire thought that
the Bill was calculated to prevent the truck system,
he
(Alderman Wood) would support it.
Mr. LITTLETON said that the reason why certain
counties had been exempted from the operation of the Bill
was that it had not linen proved that the truck system ex-
in those counties.
Mr. Hums:, Mr. GORDON, and Mr. LITTLETON, ex-
plained.
Mr. HUNT said, that although there might be some
difficulty in carrying the Act into effect, yet he hoped that
for the sake of t.e labouring poor, who suffered great
hardships, the Bill would pass.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
that those Hon. Members who had opposed this Bill had
argued upon a false foundation. They had assumed that
the labourers were always competent to make contracts,
whereas they were in every case-in debt to their masters,
and therefore it was impossible for them to resist the con-
troul of their masters, and they were obliged to take goods
from them at any rate. All this Bill did, was to enable
the labourers to know what were the bargains they aid
make. When this measure first came before him, he had
had some doubts of its policy ; but after a full conside-
ration of the facts, he felt it to he his duty to support it.
Lord G. SOMERSET opposed the Bill.
Mr. P. THOMPSON did not expect that such a law
could be perfect at once; but it was less likely to be
evaded, and was therefore a better law than the present.
After some observations fuom Mr. GORDON, Lord
SANDON, and Mr. TENNANT, the House divided—

The numbers were— .
For the amendment l5
Against it

Majority in favour of the Bill
Several amendments were then agreed to, after which
the House mimed. The report was then brought up,
and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Mon-
day, and the Bill as amended to be printed,
The Tobacco (Ireland) Bill went through a Committee,
and the report was ordered to he received to-morrow
(this d