The Sun.
London, England, 1847-05-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 5.
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BRIGHT said he rose for the purpose of calling
the attention of the House for one moment to the
statements which were made on moving for this Com-
mittee by the Hon. Member for Warwickshire. It was
stated that choice was made in serving these objections
to persons whose votes were been known to be legal, and
who resided at the greatest distance from the courts. The
report of the Committee did not bear out this statement.
There were 400 different definitions of copyhold tenants,
250 of leasehold, 50 of occupying, and 576 of free-
holders, making a total of 1,276 different definitions of
these voters; and therefore, when such a state of:things
existed, it was absolutely necessary to have great freedom
allowed for the making of objections.—(Hear, hear.)
He had the same objection, however, as the Hon. Gentle-
man—namely, to increase the number of voters, and
although he did not approve of the whole of the
Pleasure, he should be happy to aid the Honourable
Gentleman or any one else in placing properly qualified
persons upon the register. He considered that the
Anti-Corn-law League had acted fairly and openly in
Warwickshire.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Committee appointed
to consider the existing state of registration, in accord-
ance with whose recommendations this Bill had been
framed, consisted of members of all shades of political
opinions. He contended that the charges were true,
which he had on a former occasion brought against
Mr. Wilson, the Chairman of the Anti-Corn-law League,
with respect to his proceedings relating to the regis-
tration in Warwickshire, Staffordshire, and other coun-
ties, and quoted registration returns to show that the
League had improperly interfered with the registration,
In proof of this, he stated that fifty persons claimed to
be registered in Barnsley for a few houses, called
e‘ Bright's Buildings," the whole value of which was not
more than 1,5901.
Mr. V. SMITH should vote in favour of the Bill, but
he considered that the Bill did not make sufficient pro•
vision for preventing persons who had had their names
properly placed on the register from being harassed by
frivolous objections to their votes year after year. He
trusted, therefore, that the Bill would be considered in
Committee.
After a few words from Mr. ADDERLEY in favour
of the Bill,
Mr. G. HEATHCOTE said he considered that
parties sustaining objections, and persons objected to,
who sustained their votes, should be entitled to costs for
the trouble to which they were put.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER dwelt
upon the fact that the Committee from whom the Bill
emanated represented all shades of political opinion, and
that they were unanimous in all their recommendations.
Mr. GISBORNE thought that by one of the pro-
visions of the Bill there was a limitation of the franchise;
in other points he thought the measure unobjectionable.
The Bill was then read a second time. To be com-
mitted on Wedne.day next.
HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL.
On the order of the day for the second reading of this
Bill being read,
Sir H. HALFORD presented a petition from his con
•
stituency in favour of the Bill, and praying that it might
be passed into law as soon as possible. Two other peti-
tions were presented in favour of the
BilL
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition from Leicester
against the Bill.
Sir H. HALFORD felt bound to move the second
reading of this Bill. In 1844 a Commission was ap
pointed to inquire into the distress that prevailed,
which produced a most able report, and from
which he would beg to read to the House some
extracts. (The Hon. Member read from this document
several passages, which stated that there was a gralaal
redaction in the wages of those employed in the
hosiery trade, from 1814 down to the atne at
which the inquiry was instituted, and that the
general appearance of the frame-workers was extremely
wretched, while demoralization kept pace with the misery
of this class of the community. The report also
stated that the increase in the demand for
labour led to no increase in the wages, and that
the parents were totally incapable of affording
their children, not only education, but the actual means
of existence. Such having been the result of this Com-
mission, he would ask the House whether they should
refuse to redress these evils. He believed the provisions
of this Bill would meet the circumstances of this case,
but in order that it might be rendered as effective
as possible, if the House would grant him the second
rea,ling he would move that the Bill be referred
to a Select Committee. What was the case with re-
spect to the artisans of other countries? In Saxony,
in 1843, the same trade, that of hosiery, was
carried on, and it was three times as great as that
of any other part of the world.—(The lion. Member
here read the evidence of Mr. Widscombe in support of
this assertion, in which it was stated that the condition
of the people of Saxony engaged in the stocking trade
was far superior to the people of this country.) He
had received a letter from a gentleman opposed to
the Bill, himself a frame-owner, conscientious of great evils
in the 13 stem, who acknowledged that it was a scandal
and shame that it should exist.—(The Hon. Member
then read a number of extracts from the evidence before
the House, contained in the blue book, that the frame-
work system was most pernicious.)—(Hear, hear.) The
objects of the Bill were to do away with the siab-contrac •
tors, to prevent any contract being made with any one
who was not himself a manufacturer; also to do away
with the frame rent. He was well aware how incompe-
tent he was to bring such a subject as the present under
the consideration of that House, but be sincerely hoped
the Hence would not refuse the inquiry he demanded,
and that it would give a second reading to this Bill.
Mr. WYNN ELLIS said that it was so seldom that
he troubled the House with any observations that he
hop d that it would listen to the few remarks
he had to offer to their notice. The accounts
given by the Honourable Baronet of the distress and
misery which existed were by no means exaggerated,
and in his opinion it arose from the want of knowledge
on the part of those weavers, and their want of sufficient
energy to try to avoid bringing up their children in the
same misery as themselves. There had been a gradual,
bil t certain diminution in the export trade for many
years, and d urme that time the supply of labour greatly
exceed-d the demand. The consequence was a fall in the
value of that labour, and the present existing distress.
The existence of this distress and the causes and con-
sequences of it had been amply set forth in the report of
a Commission upon this subject, but no remedy had
been applied. The Hon. Gentleman had, about two
years ago, brought in a Bill upon this subject, but owing
to the incorrect construction of the principal clause it
became inoperative. That Bill in the first instance con•
templa:ed the removal of what was called " middle men"
and suckan Act would be most injurious. The evils arising
from that system were much less than was really stated,
and considerable good was effected by it. (The Hon.
Member then proceeded to quote at some length the evi-
dence of Mr. Biggs, as given before the Commission.)
This branch of trade furnished another instance of the
evils of protection, for had the corn-laws not existed,
they would not have found the d stitution that existed
amongst this class of artizans. From the authorities on
this question it appeared that in foreign countries
there was a better state of things. Fur instance,
in Saxony the stocking-workers were much better
off than they were at present in England.—(Hear.)
Ile felt convinced that great evils would result from
sending the Bill to a Committee up stairs. In the pre-
sent state of trade it would produce an ill-feel-
ing, which would be most pernicious, if it
would not produce a stagnation of trade. Upon
these grounds. therefore, he would vote against the Bill,
but he also objected to it on principle, for he would like
to know on what grounds the Hon. Gentleman desired
to interfere with the frame rent.
Mr. GISBORNE said this Bill was a corollary on the
Factories Bill ; it was founded on the principle
of a fair day's wages for a fair day's work.
He would have been glad to see the First Lord
of the Treasury in his seat, and the Home
Secretary. They had entered into a course which
they could not carry out. He believed that no
exaggeration of the distresses of these manufac-
turers had been made, but he contended such
measures as these would not remedy the evil.
They alone in this country carried on a struggle which
was no longer attempted in the United States or in
France. In these repeated attempts to destroy the sel f-
reliance of the working-classes, though they had struggled
m eifully, he saw much to apprehend. It was a dan-
gerous experiment that was being made in this inter-
ference with the working classes. The Honourable
Baronet wanted to persuade the House that it
was a most profitable thing to be a pos-
sessor of these frames ; but the fact was
that the contrary was quite the case.—(Hear.)
The whole principle that had been acted upon, was
founded upon the assumption that the hosiers were the
most destructive and worst class in the country. He had
often told that class of persons that from this House they
could not expect that redress which they required. He
contended that those who supported the Factory Bill
were bound to look to this matter.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON suggested that the Bill
should not be proceeded further with that day, as it
would interfere with the other business of the House.
After some conversation as to what day the debate
should he resumed, to-morrow was fixed for that purpose.
MEDICAL REGISTRATION AND MEDICAL
e- Mr. WAKLLtoYf (lEL
the
second
Bill
postponementthis till Monday, and he would,
after its second reading, propose that it should be re-
ferred to a Select
be Committee, when any alterations that
sad ht be required might introduced.
After a few words from Sir GEORGE GREY and
Mr. HUME,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that, before voting,
re voting, as
was proposed by the Hon. Member'
fur
a Select Committee, it should be rememberedo for
eitpr for
at it
Membere
would depend upon whether the Hon. mm
Finsbury would take the chair and the Hon.
for Montrose would attend.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HUME said he would do his best in the matter.
Mr. WAKLEY said he could not engage to attend
at the Committee in question till the differences of the
profession were settled, for he would hhavet f the
sit there
till one. day after the day of judgment; Com-
mittee 'were granted he would du what was in his power
to carry out the Bill he had introduced.
The second reading of the Bill was then postponed
till Monday next.
TENANTS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD postponed the
Tenants (Ireland) Bill till to-morrow (Thursday).
COUNTY BUILDINGS ACT.
.—is Bill went through Committee and was ordered
fo'be rAported to-morrow:
The -House then resumed.

NAVAL SERVICE OF BOYS BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered to
in reported on Friday.