The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-09 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition from the
compositors of London in favour of the Health of Towns
Bill.

Mr. SPOONER prasented a petition against the Bill

Mr. OSBORNE said that he wished particularly to
know when the motion of the Hon. Nfember for Montrose
upon this subject was to be brought forward. It had
been fixed upon for to-morrow, and then again post-
poned. It was, as he had heard, postponed in conse-
quence of there being a Queen's ball upon Friday
evening. It had been said that " wretches hang
that jurymen may dine ;" he would, however, para-
phrase the line and say, " patriots die that se-
nators rosy dance."—(Laughter.) He wished to know
whether the motion was to come on on Friday.
Mr. HUME said that the delay had taken place in
consequence of the absence of certain papers which
would be produced upon Friday. The motion, would
therefore, in the event of the production of these papers,
come forward on Friday evening.
Mr. BANKES wished to know why they had not
been produced before.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the delay
had taken place in consequence of the time taken in
printing them, and they would certainly be in the pos-
session of the House on Friday evening.
Mr. OSBORNE said that the censure which had been
applied to the Hon. Member for Montrose was not de-
served, for he had done all in his power to bring forward
this subject. He thought that a most unaccountable
and unnecessary delay had taken place in the production
of the papers moved for.
Sir H. INGLIS said that he thought the less excite-
ment that was created on the subject the better, as the
matter wHa
Os
st to comeß
yon Friday.
MANUFACTURE BILL.
The adjournedesdebate on the second reading of this
Bill
wasrunied.
Mr. M. GIBSON said thathethfiesltittefobrebhyisredfuetry.
of
to oppose the second reading Bill,
ring the matter to a Select Committee, which they
would have to do, they would be pledging themselves
that the Legislature had a right to interfere with and
regulate labour. He thought the measure which had
received the sanction of Parliament last year
could not be brought forward as an argument in
favour of the present Bill. If they interfered
and increased the cost of the production of hosiery,
how could they show that it would not have a most
injurious effect upon the working man? How could it
I be supposed that that House could know the manu-
facture of the article as well as those engaged
in the trade? But let that be as it might, how could
they show that any saving that might be effected
would go into the pocket of the labouring man?
Were they not, on the contrary, justified, if they
adopted the statements that had been made as
to the conduct of employers, of arriving at
the very opposite conclusion? It was shown from the
testimony of those who had investigated the subject that
the distress that existed among those employed in the
hosiery trade arose from the increase in their number; and
that could not be well prevented from the very nature of
the employment itself, in which competing was easily ob-
tained, and to which that vast number continually
employed in this country would naturally turn
themselves. The Committee asked fur by the Ho-
nourable Baronet was not one that was to
consider the merits of the measure, but merely to go
through the details of a Bill the principle of which had
already been sanctioned. He objected to the provi-
sion which did not allow any person who was
not a hosier manufacturer to employ any person
in the hosiery trade ; in fact, a middleman could not
employ his own child. He believed that it was
necessary that some person should intervene between
the employer and the workman. He would, therefore,
give his opposition to the proposition of the Honourable
Baronet ; it would be open to evasion, and he consi-
dered it was most objectionable to pass measures
which it was possible to evade. It was against
all principle to interfere and by legislative
enactment to prevent hiring out of machines. lie
could not conceive a more legitimate investment for pro-
perty than in machinery. If they adopted this principle,
it might be extended to ali classes of property. He
hoped that the House would never give its consent to a
measure fraught with so many evils, and which he felt
convinced would bring great ruin upon the hosiery
manufacture.
Mr. PACKE said that the present Bill was founded on
the facts and evidence taken before Mr. Mugr,grldge, who
sent down as a Commissioner to int:mire into the
speech of the Right Honourable Gentleman who
spoke last would have led the House to suppose the
Bill was a crude and visionary scheme, which had
only found its advocate in the Hon. Baronet who intro-
duced the Bill. These machines only cost about 51 a
piece, and the owners used to let them out at the rate of
a shilling a week, which was more than fifty per cc at.
Now this was a tyranny which was most unbearable,
and as long as he bad a seat in that House he would
raise his voice against such cruelty, in favour of his poor
.neighbours,—(Hear, hear)—and he would therefore give
his decided support to the second reading of the Bill.
He was sorry to be any party to divide the House upon
such an absurdity, but he felt it to be his duty to oppose
the Bill.
Sir J. EASTHOPE said that he did not conceive that
by supporting the Bill he was becoming a party to any
such an absurdity as that which had just been represented.
Unquestionably, if this Bill were to be carried out strictly
in accordance with its present provisions, he would aban-
don its support and repudiate its principles. What was he
asked to do? Why, not to go up stairs into a vain in-
quiry, which would protract the provisions of this Bill,
but to ascertain its merits and obviate its defects. He
had no reason to doubt that this Bill might be so mo-
dified as to become greatly altered, and unquestionably
useful, after it came out of Committee, and seeing that
it proposed to affect the interests of from 50,000 to
60,000 individuals, he was certainly inclined to give
every facility to the working of its principle. There
was no greater evil than that of middlemen, and no-
where was that evil more severely felt than in the case
of those who were now suffering so severely from frame
rents. And further, he was the more induced to desire
the success of the Bill, because he was aware that the
men who were suffering from the evils complained of had
acted in the most admirable manner. They had not lent
themselves to chartism ; they had in no way evinced un-
easiness or impatience; but had waited with remarkable
forbearance till they obtained relief through the aid of
Parliament. He repeated that the Bill in its present
shape was a crude, imperfect piece of legislation, with
which he would have nothing to do; but he be-
lieved it might be very greatly amended in Com-
mittee, and therefore ho should vote for the
means by which the advantages of it might
be obtained, and the inconveniences avoided. He re-
collected that the same objection had been made to the
Bill for the abolition of the truck system, and yet he
believed that his Right lion. Friend the President of
the Board of Control had taken an active part in carry-
ing out that Bill ; and he trusted, therefore, that no
serious opposition would be offered to the Committee,
whose labours would enable the House to test the state-
ments in the report which, with all its bulkiness, had
been placed in the hands of the Members of the House,
and he should, therefore, vote for the Committee.
Colonel ROLLESTON said, that having lived for a
eteataber of years in the locality, he had had every means
of knowing the condition of the workmen, and to ascer-
tain the extent of the evils of which they complained,
anti he could say with truth that the representations had
in no way been exaggerated. A more orderly set of
me n never existed ; they had been parties to no dis-
turbance, but had patiently made their appeal to the
reg ularly constituted authorities, and only corn-
pia; wed of a hardship which no power but that of Parlia-
met at could mitigate. He knew, from the most authentic
sou rces that many of the most excellent workmen were
at else present moment subsisting on the wages of ss. a
I Peek.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE said that really the only argu-
mei st that had been advanced in favour of this Bill was
that it was a very bad Bill, and ought to be amended ;
an .d he must acknowledge that he never heard a mere
cuai ous reason than this for proceeding with what
his Honourable Friend behind him justly characterised
as a crude, imperfect piece of legislation. From his own
knoa ledge of the locality he could say that the masters
of tl le hosiery district were as anxious as any men to
alley iate the distresses of their workmen, and both they
and he were quite ready to allow the distresses to which
thoss a men had been subjected. He, indeed, himself
woui dbe deaf to the complaints of the people if he
were not sensible of the evils which those men endured.