The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-15 00:00:00

POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

Mr. FERRAND wished to know from the Secretary
of State for the Home Department, whether, supposing
the Poor-law Amendment Bill should come down from
the other House with the clause struck out allowing
aged couples to be together in union workhouses, h•
would propose to reinsert that clause?

Sir G. GREY could not answer the question, but
assured the Hon. Mpmber that notice should be given
to him when the amendments of the Lords would be take*
into consideration.

Sir DE LACY EVANS gave notice of his intention.
in another session, on the bringing forward of the Ord-
nance Estimates, to call the attention of the House to
the claims of the family of the late General Shrapnel.
COLLIERIES BILL.

Mr. T DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of
this Bill. He was ready to make y alterations in the
measure that the House might think right.
Sir G. Gi;EY thought it would be most objecticnable
while the subject was under the consideration of the
Government, to pass the present Bill. He would there•
fore move that the Bill be read a second time that day
three months.

Mr. WILSON PATTEN trusted that the Hou.
Member for Finsbury would not persevere with this Bill
in the present session. He should be prepared in another
Parliament to support a similar measure if it was brought
forward by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. HUTT objected to the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. WAKLEY thought if the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Home Department would allow the
Bill to be read a second time it was probable his Hon.
Colleague would make such alterations in the Bill as
would be satisfactory to all parties. In voting against
the second reading of the Bill Members were declaring
that it was not necessary to legislate upon the subject.
Mr. LIDDELL did not consider the present Bill
necessary, and he should therefore op, ose it. While he
did so he begged to sta,e, on the part of the coal-
owners, that they were as anxious as any persons could
be to do all in their power to preserve the lives of their
colliers. The Bill, if passed, would be quite inoperative.
inasmuch as the clauses were too stringent to be carried
into effect.

Mr. BERNAL said that although he gave every credit
to the good motives which had actuated the Hon. Mem-
ber for Finsbury, still he could not give his consent to
the Bill as it stood, for some of the clauses were altoge-

Cher inoperative, and were partly admitted to be so by
the Hos. Member himself. However much, therefore,
he admired the principle of the Bill, he would recom-
mend his Hon. Friend to postpone it to another session.
Mr. HINDLEY was not prepared to go to the extra-
ordinary length which the Hon. Member for Finsbury
would recommend to the House. He had no objection
to any measure which would give protection to human
life, but he could not consent to a measure that would
be inflicting an injustice upon the coalowners, who were
most anxious that the Davy-lamps should be used in the
mines, but whose wishes were thwarted by the careless-
ness of the men themselves.

Mr. F ERRAND said that it had been attempted to be
denied that gross negligence v, as exhibited in the work-
ing of collieries, and that many and frightful acci-
dents had arisen in consequence. It was admitted
by the Right Honourable Baronet opposite that the
right of inspecting mines should be placed in the hands
of the Government, but he said that it was too late in
the session to adopt a Bill for the purpose. Were
they, because it was late in the session, to
permit these accidents still to continue. Let them
be assured that if they did so, the people would in the
course of the recess, exhibit by some illegal demonstra-
tion of strength, their sense of the neglect of the Legis-
ture. He should support his Hon. Friend if he went to
a division.

gpirvee,n,,nbi-iotnheo
accidents
Mr. REDHEAD YORKE said that after the distinct
furpledge te t lion.
in Baronetmines thata
nd a m e asu r
collieriese
should be brought in in
the early part of next session,
he (sir. R. Yorke) was not pr.-pared to give his assent
to the Bill of the lion. Member for Finsbury.
Mr. NEW DEG ATE said it would be impossible to
carry into effect the Bill of the Hon. Member for Fins-
bury. He would, therefere, rather wait for the measure
of the Government, knowing well that in the meantime
the Riaht Hon. Bar.(net was possessed of powers, which,
it put in practice, would (by a vigilant supervision in
the coal districts), go far to prevent the recurrence of
future accidents.
Mr. FOX MAULE said that little difference of
opinion seemed to prevail in the House with respect to
the objec:s sought to be attained by the Bill of the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, but however praiseworthy the in-
tention of the Hon. Member, he thought that a Bill of
any extensive character, which was intended to affect a
great mass of interests, should emanate from the Go-
vernment. He could not pass over without remark the
practice of the Hon. Member for Knaresborough of
holding up that House to the masses of the people as
being opposed to their interests.—(Hear, hear.) Such
a practice he thought far from fair—(lear. hear)—
especially when it was considered that in the face of
great opposition, the Government had passed the Ten
Hours Bill, a measure in which the great body of the
people were decidedly interested.
Mr. FERRAND—After thirty years' delay it was
effected by the pressure from without.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FOX NIAULE—He would, under all the circum-
stances, recommend the Hou. Member to withdraw his
Bill.

Mr. FORSTER said that this Bill was one of the
most absurd that had ever been laid upon the table of
that House, and he was astonished to find on the back
of the Bill, among other names, those of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Montrose (Mr. llume), and of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby ). He objected to this
mode of giving names, when the probabilitlyus
Bill. The Bill was not the Hon. Memberl rs, Fi
Attorney.
none of the Hon. Members had read one
focra_w_neabosufryth.se.
but the Bill of Mr. Roberts, the colliers'
up a strike
General—(Laughter)—he who had i
0 0001. He would give the
allayed after an expendi-
tureo"iion.
Bill his most strenuous opposition.
all interference between
ia th
et
o
North, which
public
eiochf
above
Mr. TRELAWNY opposedemployed,
because such invariably
the employers and withwages. He could not,
aosveo2nly
therefore,
led to interferenceot the Bill.
give his support to h .131
Mr. BOUVERIE said
that however mach he depre-
cated
i
some of the clauses in the Bill, still he should feel
himself bound to support the principles of it, and the
Hon. Member for Finsbury might therefore count upon
his assistance if he went to a division.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that the Bill he had intro-
duced was intended to protect in some degree the lives
of nearly half a million of the most industrious classes
in this country, and he thought it might have been, to
say the least of it, treated with a little more decency.
The Bill had been abused in no measured terms by the
Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Forster), who had gone out
of his way to abuse Mr. Roberts, a gentleman quite as
respectable as himself, and by the Hon. Member for
Ashton-under-Line, who was asleep at that moment.—
(Laughter.) The Hon. Member referred to the report
of the Committee formerly appointed to inquire into
accidents in mines and collieries ; and quoted trom thew
to show, that no time ought to be lost in introducing 11
Bill of this kind. He only asked the House to pa thisss
Bill for one year, in the hope that by that time a moretroduced.
comprehensive and lasting measure would b©
He knew, and was well
assurel, that too many of the
coal masters did not care a straw for
pockets.
r the lives of their
workmen, if they filled their ownac breechescidents were caused t 3
persons employed in
Lord HARRY VANE said,,
if
the wilful neglect of their
employers, they might
mines
by
recover compensation iu th©
He was told that in the north
present state of the law.
of England contracts for twelve months were
not entered into. Certainly since the late
strike the system of entering into such lengthy
contracts bad been abolished. As the Government
had promised to take the whole subject into considera-
tion, and to bring in a Bill on the subject next session,
he trusted the House would not assent to the second
reading of the Bill.
Mr. HINDLEY rose to make some observations, but
he was called to order.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said from 500 to 600 lives were an-
nually lost in collieries and mines, which showed that an
improved system of supervision was necessary.—(Hear.)
lie considered, however, that the Hon. Gentleman
should strike out the objectionable parts of the Bill, and
retain those provisions which the House approved of ;
if be did se the Bill might pais into a law this session.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading

Against it
Majority against the second reading "-53
The Bill is ceinequently lost.