The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-11 00:00:00

oritiitg

LONDON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 1847

The House of Commons met to-day at twelve o'clock.
After the presentation of various petitions, the adjourned
debate on the Ten Hours' Bill was resumed by
Mr. HumE, who opposed the second reading of the
Bill on the ground that it was contrary to all the re-
viewed maxims of political economy, and that any
attempt at Legislative interference between the em
ployer and the employed, must end in disappointment.
The Hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the amendment.

Sir GEORGE GREY having paid a high compliment to
Mr. HumE for his consistency, confessed that he would
rather this question should have been settled by a volun-
tary agreement between the employers and the em-
ployed; but, seeing that there was no chance of such
agreement, he should, as an individual Member of Par-
liament vote for the second reading of the Bill, with the
intention in Committee, so to modify it, as to make an
Eleven Hours, instead of a Ten Hours' Bill.
Mr. BANKES supported the motion for the second
reading of the Bill, and said that those who support d
i: would not accept of an Eleven instead of a Ten Hours'
Bill. The Hon. Gentleman then attacked Mr. BRIGHT
for his opposition to a Ten Hours Bill.

Lord J. MANNERS gave a detailed history of the agi.

tation in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill, and concluded by
giving his hearty support to the measure of the Hon.
Member for Oldham.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would support
a measure for limiting the time of the labour of children,
but he would not interfere with adults. The workmen
were, in general, in favour of long hours and more wages,
and as the advocate of the interests of the working
classes he felt found to oppose the measure.
The Marquis of GRANBY supported the Bill.
Dr. BOWRING, as the advocate of the working man,
opposed this measure, which would deprive the work-
, man of one sixth-part of his earnings. He was con-
vinced that it would be of no practical utility to the
poor.

Mr. P. HOWARD supported the measure.
Mr. Mut= said that during an average of years the
mills had not worked more than tea hours a day—to
, work beyond would affect the health of the work-people;
and he had never given a vote with more honesty of
feeling than the vote he was about to give in support
of the present measure.

Mr. BRIGHT said that the principles on which the
agitation for this Bill had been conducted were unsound
and rotten. He contended that the labour of women
employed in factories was not laborious. The experi
ments in France proved this, and it should
be remembered that factory labourers were shel-
tered from the weather, and bad plenty of light.
It should be remembered that up to thirteen years
of age children were exempt from the system
now complained of, and he himself was an
example that education was not necessary much after
that age, for be never went to school after he was ;
fifteen. He was as much the friend of the poor as any
man, for he would give them votes to send representatives'
to that House, but he considered it a wicked delusion to
represent to poor persons that they could get the same
wages for ten hours' work that they could for twelve
hums' labour. Wages were always reduced in the
same proportion as time was reduced, and the reduction
of time proposed would make a difference of 7,000,000/.
in the revenue annually. If the Bill passed, the
manufacturers would be obliged to combine in self de-
fence, and that would do away with the gcod feeling
between employers and employed. With regard to an
Eleven Hours' Bill, he considered it a cowardly shrink-
ing from principle. If the petitioners in favour of the
Bill were right, their demand should be granted, if they
were wrong, it should be rejected altogether. He was
astonished that the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment should have left this an open question.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, in reply to the attack of Mr.
BRIGHT, said that the question of ten or eleven hours,
was a question of principle : it was a question of degree
only. 'I he question of the limitation of the hours of
labour had been carried out by several old statutes.
Neither was it a question of principle, for the old law
protected apprentices against masters. To be consistent'
the lion. Member for Durham should propose the
repeal of these laws. As it was not a question
of principle, the Government was justified in
leasing it an open question. For himself, he con-
sidered that young persons of thirteen years of age
working for 12, 13, or 14 hours a day were overtaxed,
because the bodily frame was not sufficiently matured to
stand such severe labour and that a short period would
give them more time for healthful recreation, and for
intellectual improvement.

On the motion of Sir A. LEITH HAY the debate was
adjourned, and the House rose at Six o'clock.

Legislation is so entirely based upon contingencies,
`hat there is a beneficent principle in the British

Constitution to the effect that one Parliament cannot

definitively bind another. As in medicine the dis-
covery of a panacea for all diseases indiscriminately
is hopeless, and as the researches after that discovery
are as chimerical as the dreamings of the alchymist,
so in the government of a people the fabrication of a
code applicable at all times and under all circum-
stances, is an impossibility. The main sagacity of a
Legislature is exhibited in the timely modification of
existing enactments, or in their total abrogation,
whenever they are found to be either antiquated and
injurious. In these are comprised the principal duties

evolving upon the ImperliaalwPsaarcltiampree
jnut.dicSiahlloyulduptohne
operation of any ancient .
the interests of the community,nsationit wbeictohmouetsaiffnocrudmin
any adequate compensation, incumbent
ni tt
upon: tohre
to
adapt representativestil
e m t
oo f
thet:h eapl
alterations
0. ton.s abolish
which thosehave
been effected in society since their original construc-
tion. Should there be any suspicion, again, that the
d
enactments made by our ancestors are not calculated
at e
to benefit the nation, it becomes equally incumbent
upon our representatives to examine into the matter
thoroughly, and to shape their course according to
the conclusions arrived at during their inquiries.
What we have here observed is directly applicable
to the navigation-laws. A suspicion does exist that
the operation of those laws is to the material dis-
advantage of the population of the United Kingdoms.
And, in obedience to the principle of justice which
we have already expressed, it is the bounden duty of
Parliament to countenance a rigid_ investigation of
the subject. Supposing the result of that investiga-
tion be the demonstration of the accuracy of the
suspicion, then, in Heaven's name, let the navigation-
laws be modified, or even expungedfrom our maritime

code. Civilisation has made such extraordinary pro-
gress that the perpetual preservation of any substan-
tial stumbling-block is altogether hopeless. If, there-
fore, the laws affecting navigation are, in point of
fact, injurious to the people at large and beneficial
only to a single class, any attempt on the part
of that class to prevent the abrogation of those
laws, and even to quash a motion for an in-
quiry into their operation, is both futile and
criminal. It is not our intention at this moment to
enter into any discussion as to the merits or demerits
of the navigation-laws : our purpose just now is
simply to insist upon the necessity which exists for
the permission of some such an inquiry as the one
demanded from Parliament by the Hon. Gentleman,
the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent. The endeavour
made by Lord G. BENTINCS. and his brethren of
the ragged-bannner of Protection, to reject the
motion of Mr. RICARDO, was as mistaken as it
was impotent. Allow, for the sake of argument, that
the abrogation of the navigation-laws would seriously
affect the interests ofour shipowners, ofour shipbuilders,
and even of our naval service itself. What then ? Mr.
RICARDO tells us, as plainly as language can express
his meaning, " I do not move fora repeal of those laws,
1 only ask for an inquiry." Supposing, therefore, that
it was clearly demonstrable (as the Protectionists
maintain it to be) that the restrictions still
made against the importation of foreign merchan-
dize in foreign vessels were directly to the emolu-
ment and safety of the empire, the inquiry would
only strengthen their cause and remove a large
amount of odium from the existing system. Nay,
even presuming that the navigation-laws were shown
to be advantageous to the naval service of Great Bri-
tain, and at the same time were proved to militate
against the interests of the nation, we are satisfied
that there would be no anxiety to sacrifice our wooden
walls for the sake of a few copper pieces upon
sugar or barley. The empire has to look as much to
its defence as to its nourishment. In the event,
again, of the facts adduced before the Committee of
Inquiry demonstrating that a mere class (say the
shipowners) were the only gainers by the exclusion
of foreign vessels from our harbours, whilst the vast
majority of the population (the consumers) were the
losers by the restriction—then, say we, blow the na-
vigation-laws to the wind. Well none of them.
This is, most certainly, not the hour to expound the
evil consequences resulting from a one-sided system
of protection. The effulgent dawning of free trade
is not the most favourable light for the revival of the
old goblins of monopoly. The artificial nature of
those goblins is now so palpable, that what was in-
tended to inspire us with awe and affright
only fills us with sentiments of contempt
and indignation. It is but reasonable to
conceive that a code of laws dating their
rise as far back as 1651 should require some re-
examination to adapt them to modern circumstances,
and especially to the extraordinary circumstances
attendant upon the establishment of free trade. The
transformation of the Navigation Act of 1651 into
the Act of CHARLES 11., the subsequent re-
laxation of the law in 1815 with reference to
Portugal and the United States, the amendments in-
troduced by Mr. WALLACE in 1822, and the memo-
rable Reciprocity Acts of Mr. HuslossoN in 1824,
may have modified the bad effects of the original
enactment to a eonsiderable extent, but it is prepos-
terous to imagine that the navigation-laws have been
therefore perfected. The principle of free trade
must be rendered universally applicable in all depart-
ments of our native commerce, while, at the same
time, the naval force of Great Britain must be in no
particular weakened.

An interesting discussion turned last evening in
;he House of Commons upon a return, moved for by

Mr. HuME, of the corporal punishment inflicted on
board her MAJESTY'S ships for the last three years,
the nature of the offences, and the names of the com-
manders, &c., to be fully specified. The Secretary
of the Admiralty Agreed to the principle of the
motion, on the ground that a similar return had been
granted during the last session with respect to the
army, and that publicity operated as a wholesome check
upon the indiscreet use of the power of flogging
vested in naval officers ; but be objected to making a
return of a retrospective character, conceiving that it
would not be fair towards officers who had never been

warned that such a return would be required by the

House of Commons. This was eertainly not a very
judicious reason for supporting his objection, and was
felt to be of an invidious tendency by both naval and

other members. Assuming it to be true that corporal
punishment is essential to .the maintenance of disci-
pline in the navy, that would be a very unwise pro-
ceeding which should be calculated to influence
officers either in punishing or pardoning offences
from a dread of the returns that might be annually
submitted to the Legislature. It should be distinctly
understood that they are amenable alone for their
conduct to the Board of Admiralty, upon whom
should rest the sole responsibility of administering,
with efficiency and benevolence combined, the naval
affairs of this country. This responsibility is consti-
tutionally limited to the Crown, an implicit and
sworn obedience to which is incumbent upon the
Lords of the Admiralty. Indirectly, however, the
latter, like other branches of the Executive, are ren-
dered responsible to the House of Commons, which
can alone scrupulously test their official capacity, or
best capacitate them for enacting improved regula-
tions, when necessary, by calling for and obtaining the
fullest returns, in every particular, relating to any
point of the service which may be considered open
to amendment. This view was yesterday strongly
advocated by many influential Members in Parlia-
ment. Mr. Fox MAULS, Secretary-at-War, boldly
declared the punishment ought to be submitted to
the test of public opinion, in which Sir R. PEEL
entirely concurred, and at the same time in the propriety
and expediency of making the returns retrospec.
tive. He likewise observed that when an officer
was proved to be disposed to carry punishment to
excess, the Admiralty should mark its disapprobation
by withholding its confidence from him in future.
The Premier, with the concurrence of the Fiist Lord
of the Admiralty, spoke in the same vein, indicating
the wrongful deductions frequently engendered in the
public mind where mystery was resorted to, and
avowed that he " was not a friend to concealment."
His Lordship, however, expressed himself disinclined
to give " the names of all commanders in whose ships
corporal punishment had not been inflicted "—which
was a portion of Mr. Humes motion—conceiving
that the effect of a return in that shape might be to
confer praise upon some officers at the expense of
others, who had been obliged, under trying circum-
stances—springing, perhaps, from an ill-disciplined
crew, over which it was their misfortune to have been
appointed —to resort to punishment, and without
which, it might be alleged by competent judges, the
preservation of orderly conduct would have been
seriously compromised. For ourselvei, we care little
as to the past, whether the names of officers be pub-
lished or not. In fact, if the names of the ships be
given it is easily ascertainable who commanded them.
The public have no vindictive feelings to gratify ; their
sole care is as to the future. We hold, therefore, that
hereafter the names of the officers should not be with-
held. If they do their duty, not suffering their mode
of discipline to override the feelings of humanity,
nor the latter to trench upon the due maintenance of
the former, the closest inquiry into their conduct
need give them no apprehension. On the other hand,
wherever the despotic power lodged in their hands
shall have been allowed to degenerate into cruelty, it
is right the public should know who they are that
have brought discredit upon the service.

Madrid papers of the 2d have arrived.
The Duke of SOTOMAYOZ had on the day pre-
ceding presented to the Chambers the programme
of his Cabinet, which, inasmuch as it made
no mention whatever of the two most important
subjects at present occupying the public attention
of Spain—viz., the amnesty and the liberty of the
press was considered as very unsatisfactory. The
Clamor Publico, and the other Progressista jour-
nals, have, in consequence, declared war against the new
Ministers, whom they attack in the most bitter language.
The Marquis of MIRAFLORES, in the course of the
sitting, addressed the Chamber for the purpose of recti-
fying some mis-statements of the French Minister rela-
tive to the royal marriages. The Marquis asserts
that no official overtures have taken place on this
subject, but that a conference, simply of a friendly
nature, had been held between himself and the French
Ambassador. The Noble Marquis, at the same time,