The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-21 00:00:00

think proper; and whereas the Act 3 and 4 William IV.,
c. 103, states that the provisions of the said Act with relation
to these appointments were not duly carried into effect,
and therefore provides for the appointment of inspectors
and sub-inspectors ; and whereas tke Act 7 and 8 Vic.,
c. 14, declares, that no inspector of factories shall
have power, in that capacity, to make rules, regu-
lations, and orders, as authorised by the said Act 3 and
4 Will. IV., c. 103, except as thereinafter mentioned; and
whereas in the subsequent clauses no such sanatory provi-
sions as were autho-rised by the Act 42 Geo. 111., c. 73, are
mentioned.' Be it therefore further enacted, that inspectors
and sub-inspectors shall have the same powers, with respect
to defective ventilation or drainage, which they shall deem
likely to cause bodily ill health to any person employed in
such factory, as they now have with respect to unguarded ma-
chinery which they may deem likely to cause bodily injury."
The Noble Lord then proceeded to state the reasons why the
clauses were necessary. Their object was to ensure a healthy
atmosphere for the operatives in the factories, and to have
such inspectors appointed as would efficiently attend to these
points. At present such matters were very imperfectly at-
tended to.
The clauses not being seconded, were negatived.
Mr. LEADER then moved the following clause :—"And be
it enacted, that if any accident happen to the steam-
engine, water-wheel, or mill-gearing in any factory,
whereby any part of the manufacturing machinery
shall be stopped during the usual hours of work allowed
by this Act, it shall be lawful to recover the time so
lost, in the following manner, that is to say :—Any child or
young person, or any woman, may be employed one hour in
each day more than the time to which the ordinary daily
labour of children and young persons and women respec-
tively is restricted by law, until such lost time be recovered."
Mr. BRIGHT seconded the clause.
Mr. HINDLEY believed that such a clause would be
extremely injurious; it would lead to fraud, for when the
inspector came round the master would say that they
had had some great break down.
Mr. FERRAND supported the clause. If a slight accident
happened, if the mill stopped far an hour, there was no op-
portunity to get up the loss. At the present time, if such an
accident happened the mill-owner stopped his mill for three
hours, because when he did so he was allowed by law
to make up the time at the rate of one hour a day. It
would be no advantage one way or the other.
Mr. HUME said that it had been represented to him that
there was great inconvenience suffered by the present
an angement ; he would therefore support the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the men were kept lounging about
the mill for the three hours; now that was a very serious
consideration, for if they were so kept they might as well be
allowed to work.
Mr. FIELDEN said the working people were quite satisfied
with the la A, as it stood, without any introduction of a clause
of the kind proposed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the clause, as it
would open a door to fraud.
Mr. LEADER said that it was his intention to divide the
House upon the question. He could not understand the oppo-
sition which the clause met; it would not introduce any-
thingnovel into the Bill; it would benefit the manufacturers,
but it would also benefit the work people in a greater degree.
It was really too bad, when any proposition emanated from
the manufacturers that it was received with suspicion. The
clause was a most just one, and had the benefit of the work
ing classes in view, and not that of the manufacturers.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause..
Against it

... 94
Majority
Mr. ESCOTT suggested that there should be a postpone-
ment of the decision of the House on the question.
Mr. BRIGHT conceived that time ought to be afforded the
Members who were unavoidably absent to express their
opinion on this question.
Mr. HUME thought the earliest day that could be named
was the best, but at all events a day should be fixed.
Mr. FERRAND—There was a rumour that Parliament
would be prorogued early in June. Jf that were the case,
and if there were any lengthened delay, there would be little
chance of the measure being carried this session.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought that Friday next would,
perhaps, meet the views of all parties to have the question
further considered.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that a day should be fixed. He
should be very unwilling to impede the Government, but he
thought there was nothing that could be decided on next
Friday that they were not competent then to determine upon.
He hoped that when the present question came on it would
not interfere with the measures of Government.
Sir A. LEITH HAY said that one thing appeared to him
important, which was, that if the Bill be tixed for Friday it
should not come on on that day.—(Laughter.)
The third reading was then fixed for Friday, with the
understanding that a day should then be fixed when the
third reading should take place.
NAVAL PRISONS BILL.
On the motion that the House do go into Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the Bill, as it placed the
sailor in a worse condition than he was before. The
sailor of this country was subjected to cruelty such as
no nation under the sun ever endured. To show this he
would only state a case which occurred the other day at
Portsmouth, when a marine was tried, under Sir Wiliam
Parker, for striking his sergeant, and the man was sentenced
to be hung at the yard-arm. A similar crime was coms
milted by a soldier in the Guards a short time since,
and the sentence was twelve months' imprisonment. The
sentence of the marine was afterwards commuted to seven
years' transportation, but these and other cases of a similar
nature showed the inconsistency of the law in both services.
He thought that the powers given to the captains were too
extensive to be entrusted to the hands of young men, inex-
perienced in the world, and commanding men old enough to
be their fathers, and well versed in all their duties as sailors.
He called upon the House not to sanction any Act which
would permit a sailor to be sent to prison for 28 days, with-
out even a trial by court-martial, for the slightest possible
offence.
Mr. WARD said that this Bill was kindly brought in by
the Admiralty, and with the sanction of every gentleman in
the House had progressed through two stages without any
discussion. He thought that although it was understood that
the discussion of the Bill would be taken to-day, yet
that his Honourable Friend had taken this opportunity,
most unfairly, to make a general attack upon the service at
the moment when the Admiralty were taking means to
remedy the very evils which he had so glowingly
described. His Honourable Friend had taken a wrong
view of the whole object of the Bill, for, instead of being in-
tended to oppress the sailor, it was meant to benefit him, by
substituting in some cases a period of imprisonment instead
of a corporal punishment. Some stringent measures were
absolutely necessary to keep up the discipline which was es-
sential on board her Majesty's vessels, and yet it was the de-
sire of the Admiralty to save the sailors themselves from un-
necessary and too severe punishment. There were quarterly
returns made of all the punishments inflicted in the navy
and these returns were jealously scrutinised by the Admi-
ralty, and in cases were that punishment appeared to be too
severe, an immediate reprimand followed. By this Bill he
only wished to substitute imprisonment, without court
martial for corporal punishment, without at all increasing
the means of severity now placed in the hands of captains.
With these observations he might safely leave the Bill in the
hands of the House, confident that it would receive its
sanction.
After a few words from Colonel Thomas Wood, Admiral
Dundas, and Captain Plumridge,
Captain PECFIELL said that these punishments properly
carried out would in some time entirely cease. It was
really impossible to carry out discipline on board
ship without the power which the Government placed
in the hands of the authorities. He was serving
off Toulon at the very time which was referred to, and when
he considered how badly fed and clothed the sailors were, he
was not surprised that there should be mutiny ; he only
wondered how patiently the men bore their privations.
But the time was now very different ; the sailors were bet-
ter taken care of, and, by a proper exertion on the part of
the officers, no such circumstances as those alluded to would
again occur.
Captain FITZROY wished to bear his testimony to the
zeal shown by the Admiralty to raise the condition of the
men in the service. He was perfectly willing to assist in
carrying out the measure, as he believed it was framed
as much as possible to do away with corporal punishment.
He only begged that those in authority would take due pre-
caution lest the discipline of the navy should be destroyed.
They had only to go slowly in order to go securely.
Captain BERKELEY said that desertion had become very
common, and the Admiralty, in order to put it down, had
in two instances ordered court menials, the sentences of
which were more severe than usually would have been in-
flicted by the captain of the vessel.
Mr. HOWARD said that the frequency of desertion arose
from the circumstance of the pay in the American service
being much higher than in the English, and he hoped that
no false delicacy would prevent the Government from
taking the question of pay into consideration.
Mr. WILLIAMS had no objection to the Bill if they
would strike out the first part of the preamble.
Mr. WARD said it was not possible for him to strike out
the paragraph inserted. No one could doubt but that, as
declared by the preamble, the authorities of the Admiralty
had had hitherto the power to inflict corporal punishments.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER agreed with the Hon. Member
for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley) as to the superior treat-
ment of the American seamen. The sailors in the Ame-
rican navy were much better paid than those in the
British service ; the consequence of which was,
from 40,000 to 50,000 British sailors were in the
American service. If they could not increase the pay of the
sailors at present, they ought at least to increase the pay of
the petty officers, beginning with those officers of the first
class. He thanked the Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the
Admiralty for the present Bill, as it would be a substitute
for corporal punishment, which he had long seen the evil
of. It was a measure which was much required. He quite
agreed with the preamble and the first clause. With regard
to the 9th clause, he called the attention of the
Admiralty to it, in order that better measures
might be taken to prevent desertion. He could
not agree that the power of punishing a deserter should be
left to the captain of the ship; but the deserter should be
left to be tried by a court-martial.
Admiral DUNDAS thought the clause ought to stand as
it was, as it was more practicable than any other
arrangement.
SirCHARLES NAPIER could not agree in that conclusion.
Mr. HUME believed that one of the greatest defects in
situ vrchouald system
be
ste
the systeill was that there was not an equality between the
army and the navy with respect to rewards. By an order
rift theh er tObradnnpaunrihmceisCouennct, Council it appeared that 48 lashes could
still be inflicted ; but should the question come to be raised
ent was against law.
He thought the system that had for its object encouragement,
shown
opwr env at ihl ea dt it would
aurnbmiesyh ; foundfor
instance
a umore,co
sergeantss ffi cien t.
received rewards for good conduct and for activity in the dis-
charge of their duty; but he would wish to know what
encouragement was given to officers of the same rank in the
navy? He did think that some reward ought to be
held out to them ; and he would wish to see an increase
in the pay of the petty officers, which might act as
an inducement to those who were placed beneath them.
He trusted that the House would well consider a measure in
the execution of which there was no law except the will of
the captain, who might, perhaps, be rather too warm upon
some trifling offence.
Mr. WARD wished to remind his Hon. Friend, in bring-
ing forward this question, that a ;plan for the proper pro-
vision 4nd rewards to-petty dicers in the marine
at present rider consideration, by which these effacersic
service
be most materially benefited, so as entirely to disarm the ob-
jections of his Hon. Friend.
Captain HARRIS wished to know whether
attendant upon the operation of the Bill
Omi. or 50,0001.?
pay of the petty officers would be about 40 ,Ou
b.-cr the
easeioxgpetnhsee
Mr. WARD—Not so much.
Captain HARRIS said that if theßill
an addition of so small a sum, he could
not
see only
any
that the law
ob-
jection to its introduction. He thought
regulating the punishments mentioned in this Bill
wouldcauseought to be read to these officers at least once a month.
He thought that the officers in her Majesty's service would

receive !hi, Bill with p',:ts,tr,, r'
any other persona in the country for the reduction of punish •

ment.

Captain PECLIELL said that the time was getting very
short, and he hoped that there would be an opportunity