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

GOVERNMENT EDUCATION.

Mr BROADLEY presented a petition in favour of the
Government plan of education.

TEN HOURS' BILL.

Mr, BECKET presented a petition signed by
fifty-five firms, employing 3,400 persons, in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill. He also presented another petition from
firms employing 16,200 persons, to the same effect.
GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.

Capt PECIIELL presented several petitions from the
°minty of Suffolk against the Government plan.
Mr. MUNTZ 'presented several petitions from Birming-
ham and Warwick to the same effect.

Mr. GISBORN E presented several petitions from Derby,
with the same prayer.
SCOTCH REGISTRATION BILL

Mr. HUME presented a petition against this Bill.
TAXATION OF COSTS.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from certain parties in
Lancashire, the promoters of a private Bill, complaining :of
the costs, which had been 2,966/.
GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION.

Mr. B. DENISON presented a petition front Bradford,
Yorkshire, signed by 7,000 persons in favour of the education
plan of the Government.

-GLASGOW, BARRHEAD, AND NEILSTON DIRECT
RAILWAY, AND GLASGOW. KILMARNOCK, &c.,
RAILWAY (DEVIATIONS AND AMENDMENTS)
BILLS.

Mr. GREENE moved that it be an instruction to the
Select Committee on the Group No. 50 of Railway Bills,
that they have power to divide the Glasgow, Barrhead, and
Neilston Direct Railway Bill into two Bills, in order that
they may report the same from time to time, or so much of
the said Bill as they may determine upon, and proceed
separately with the consideration of the remainder thereof;
also, that it be an instruction to the Select Committee
on the Group No. 50 of Railway Bills, that they have
power to divide the Glasgow, Paisley, and Greenock
Railway (Amendment and Branches to the Glasgow,
Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, the Glasgow, Barr-
head, and Neilston, and the Glasgow, Strahaven, and Les-
mahagow Railways, and to Haugh Pits) Bill, into two Bills,
in order that they may report the same from time to time, or
so much of the said Bill as they may determine upon, and
proceed separately with the consideration of the remainder
thereof. Also that it be an instruction to the select com-
mittee on the Group No. 50, of Railway Bills, that they
have power to divide the Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ar-
drossan Railway (Amendment, Deviations, and Branches)
Bill, into two Bills, in order that they may report the same
from time to time, or so much of the said Bill as they may
determine upon, and proceed separately with the conside-
ration of the remainder thereof.—Agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS BILL.

The second reading of this Bill was postponed till Wed-
nesday next.
HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill
being read,
Mr. FIELDEN suggested the postponement of it, so as not
to interfere with the I actory Bill.
__„—

Sir HENRY HALFORls—though he had a groat objec-
tion to the postponement of the Bill, still, in deference to the
feeling of the House, he would consent to it.

Mr. B. ESCOTT wished to know whether the Hon. Bart.
really intended to go on with the Bill.
Sir H. HALFORD said he most certainly intended to go
on with the Bill.

Mr. FERRAND hoped the Hon. Baronet would go on
with his Bill, as it was much wanted, on account of the great
hardship uuder which the hosiery workers laboured. He
trusted it would be pushed forward, and it would receive all
the support in his power.
After a few words from Sir J. EASTHOPE, the Bill was
postponed till this day fortnight.
FACTORIES BILL.
On the erder of the day for receiving the Factories Bill
report being read,
Mr. B. ESCOTT presented two petitions from the county
of Suffolk against the Ten Hours' Bill. The manufacturers
stated that the sale of wool and cotton would be entirely
destroyed by the operation of the Bill, and they stated their
sincere conviction that it would introduce great misery and
distress.
The report was then received.

On the question whether the report be adopted,
Mr. TRELAIVNY said he would offer this Bill his most
determined opposition. The measure would not be as
beneficial as was represented, and it was a perfect
mockery to introduce such a measure without being
able to introduce a fixity of wages. If the hours of
labour were reduced, so would also the amount of
wages, and therefore the measure would really injure
rather than serve the working classes. The Bill was a real
interference with adult labour, and there was a case the
other day where a woman was actually punished for working
more than the permitted number of hours. The principle
should be carried further; it could never stop where they
desired, and if it was so extended the greatest evils would
arise. They were told that the labourers were prepared to
risk the chance. That was the expression. He would wish to
know, were the labourers the- Legislature? If the House
of Commons were to act as the labourers thought proper,
and if they had so high an opinion of their capability to
judge and legislate for themselves, why not extend the fran-
chise? He would give his vote against the measure.
Mr. HUME said that every hour the Bill was delayed
proved only to him the stronger the necessity of totally re-
jecting the measure. The distress which would occur by its
passing would be almost incalculable. Let them only reduce
the amount of cotton manufactured in the country by one-
tenth, and no man breathing could tell the misery which
would be produced. He blamed the Government
very much for not having set their faces completely
against the measure. They should have sent it
to a Committee up stairs, to receive evidence upon it, and
examine what would be its effects upon the country ; he re-
garded it as such a direct interference with the labour of the
country, that he would move that it be received that day six
months. It was his intention to divide the House upon his
amendment.

Mr. BROWNE seconded the amendment.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said that he could not allow the discus-
sion to go on without once more raising his voice against the
principle as well as the provision of the measure, which he be-
lieved to be fraught with misery and desolation. He warned
the House of hasty legislation ; and in this Bill were involved
the nicest and most delicate points respecting the welfare
of the country..
Mr. P. HOWARD said that he would give his steady sup-
port to the Member for Oldham. He did not think that the
commercial greatness of the country depended on the over-
exertion and over-working of women and children, but on,
the spirit of unity which existed in the country, on the be-
neficial manner in which the people of England employed
their time, which was not frittered away in useless or minute
accomplishments.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD said that if there was ever an unfair
and vexatious opposition offered to any measure, the present
was that one. There was no notice of the motion on the
paper, and it looked like an attempt to take the friends of
the measure by surprise. He did not wish to enter upon the
merits of the measure, but he considered that after the sense
of the House, already declared, the opposition was mosb
vexatious.

Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that he hoped the Hon. Member for
Rochdale would not think that the opponents to the measure
had a*tod unfairly or Toxatiourily: It had Mtn ittnitt4d

, that the course which had been pursued was that which ad-
vanced, rather than retarded, the progress of the measure.
Other measures were put off, in order that this measure
might be brought forward; therefore, he thought his Hon.
Friend the Member' for Rochdale was not justified in his
observations. There were circumstances which rendered
the position of the Bill in the House of Commons quite
different from former measures on this subject. The Noble
Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government admitted,
on the last debate on the subject, that it was a measure of
great influence on the interests of the country. The House
went into Committee, when a clause was proposed far eleven
hours of labour, in favour of which the Noble Lord
voted, but on which he was defeated. tie was quite sure
that Hon. Gentlemen would agree with him, that the Bill
was so changed as to have altogether lost its identity. It
was stated that the manufacturers had not come forward to
oppose this measure in a formidable way; and that there
were petitions from manufacturers in favour •f the Bill ;
that the Noble Lord himself had presented petitions in
favour of the NU signed by 300 or 400 manufacturers,
which was considered to be a most conclusive argument in
favour of the principle of this measure. If these petitions
were signed by persons who misrepresented themselves as
manufacturers, no one, he was sure, would be more ready to
admit the fast than the Noble Lord. But what was the
case? Why, he fouled that five of the signers in these
petitions could not spell the word by which they designated
themselves manufacturers. He thought there should be
further time afforded for those interested to express their
opinions, and he trusted that the Noble Lord would reject
this Bill.
Mr. FERRAND had attended the former debates on this
question, which differed very materially from that on
the present occasion. He regretted that anything
had fallen from his Hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale,
which could have offended anybody. He hoped that this
measure would be passed.
Mr. MUNTZ could not agree with the Hon. Member for
Rochdale. He considered that, though not a cotton mer-
chant, he was quite competent to judge of the question as a
merchant, and from all he had seen and heard on the sub-
ject, he felt it to be his duty to support the Bill.
Mr. TANCRED was quite opposed to the principle of this
Bill, and was quite satisfied that it would not effect the hopes
of its supporters. He believed that the effect of this mea-
sure would be to close up their manufactories altogether,
after it had been a short time in operation. He had always
followed the head of the Government with the greatest re-
spect bat on the present occasion he could not to do so, much
as he regretted it.
Sir DE LACY EVANS—The only argument that had
been used against this Bill was that it had a tendency to
restrict the labour of the poor, but those who took up that
position had totally failed in proving it. He considered
the arguments of the Noble Lord at the head of her Ma-
jesty's Government quite satisfactory, and therefore he telt
bound to give the measure his support.
(LEFT SITTING.)