The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-20 00:00:00

Vtirb ;baton

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

THE ENGLISH ARMY.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sla,—ln the Gazette of yesterday evening I find the fol-
low ing announcement :
,‘ ai3 Serene Highness Prince William Augustus Edward
eA of 8 e Wernar to be Ensign and Lieutenant in the Grena-
dier ards."
it me to ask some constitutional lawyer, through the
m of your columns, whether this admission of a fo
reign nto the army of Great Britain be not illegal, and a
violslton of the Act of Settlement ?
It may be supposed that the Prince of Saxe Weimar has
availed himself of Mr. Hutt's Act, and obtained from the
Secretary of State a certificate of naturalization. I appre-
hend, however, that the Prince has done no such thing. He
would hardly take a step which would involve the renuncia-
tion of his natural allegiance; nor would Sir James Graham
have granted him a certificate unless he were quite satisfied
that the Prince was living in the country with an intention
to abide here, according to the terms of Mr. llutt's Act.
I have no doubt that the Horse Guards has acted illegally
in granting a commission in the Queen's army to a foreigner.
It would not have mendsd the matter, in the opinion of the
great outhors of the Act of Settlement, to say that this
is nearly allied to a Sovereign Prince ; but it ap-
pears to me desirable that the relations of our illustrious
Queen should not be held up before the minds of the people
of this country as involved in any violation of its laws.
___
Lincoln's Inn, May 20. BRITA IsT N

TATTERSALL'S—THIS EVENING
Six o'CLocx.

DERBY.
9 to 2 agst Sir Tatton Sykes
7 to 1 apt Tom Tullock
10 to 1 agst Humdrum
10 to 1 agst Fancy Boy
12 to 1 agst Sting
20 to 1 agst Peri colt
25 to 1 agst Broeardo
40 to 1 agst The Premier
40 to 1 agst The Conjuror.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
LACE FACTORIES BILL.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM (in continuation from our After-
noon Edition) said—By far the greater of all the lace manu-
factures which was produced was not the results of ma-
chinery, worked by power, but the effect of hand-loom
weaving; and there existed a very marked difference be-
tween the lace and the cotton manufacture, the raw mate-
rial of the latter being in a great degree the produce of ma-
chinery wrought by power, whereas the other was almost all
produced by the hand. The hand-loom weaver was waging a
hopeless struggle against the untiring efforts of machinery,
but the Honourable Member, by 'this measure, ought still
more to fetter his exertions by denying him the liberty of
working at night. Then there was another striking differ-
ence between these manufactures, for while the one was con-
ducted in dwellings, where large numbers of persons were
congregated, the other was performed in small shops close to
the dwelling-houses, or more frequently in these very dwel-
hugs themselves, and if the lion. Member's measure were
carried out in the matter of inspectors, it would be
necessary to give them a power of entering their
houses at all hours of the night.—(Hear, hear.) Let
them look at the very great disproportion which existed
between the cost of the machinery employed in the one case
and in the other. The average cost of a power-loom was esti-
mated at 201., while the machinery required in the lace trade
ranged from 200/. to 1,0001. There was also this remarkable
fact to be considered with respect to the lace manufacture,
that the trade was dependent upon the caprice of fashion and
the fancies of the public, and this machinery, which in many
cases cost above 2,000/. might, in six or eight months
after its first purchase, require extensive alterations
which would involve a further and increased cost.--(Hear,
hear.) Then, again, with reference to the number of persons
employed in a power-loom factory : a girl of thirteen to
eighteen years of age could superintend three or four looms,
while in the silk trade one worker was required to be at-
tached to every loom. The lace trade, it was well known,
was dependent upon its foreign customers, but the Bill of
the Honourable Member would press severely upon the
manufacturer, who was already competing at a disadvan-
tage with the French manufacturer. He hoped that
arrangements would soon be completed which would give
him a fairer chance of coping with his continental rivals.—
(Hear, bear.) The Hon. Member had told them that the
physical condition of the labourers in the silk manufactories
was of a very low character ; but he could not see that any
improvement would be effected by a measure which would,
from its very character, involve a reduction of wages.
If this Bill wore passed into a law, the capital employed in
the lace manufacture of this country would fly away into
other hands, it would go into other countries where no such
restriction was enforced.—(Hear, hear.) The destruction of
that branch of our manufactures must be the inevitable re-
sult of such a law. He had already stated that his first
objection to this Bill was, that it proposed to interfere with
adult labour, though he felt that there was another grave
objection to it—an objection which the Hon. Member for
Finsbury felt also—which was this, that it was not expedient
that children should work from six in the morning till ten at
night. If this measure were passed it would be incumbent
on the Legislature to restrict the labour in the other four prin-
cipal branches of manufacture. It was impossible for them to
carry such a measure into effect in the way proposed.
It could only be enforced by a system of inspection or in-
formation on the part of fellow-workmen, which would not
be tolerated in this country. The Excise law would be per-
fect lenity compared with such a law as that proposed. It
would empower a body of men to enter constantly into the
bed-room of a family being the room in which the
hand-loom work was carried on. An industrious
man, who wished to earn a subsistence for his family
would be prevented from pursuing his trade after ten o'clock
at night. His rival would, no doubt, be tempted by the offer
of 10/., and give information against a man of an industrious
character employed in the manufacture of lace. But the fact
was, that the objections to this Bill were so insuperable, that
he felt satisfied that it would never be tolerated in
this country.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") He would, for
a moment, beg leave to call the attention of the
House to the effect of their recent interference with the rope-
makers of this country. Petitions from both wasters and
men in that branch of trade were continually being pre-
sented to the House, praying them to repeal the late law which
they passed with reference to the hours of work in that trade,
and it was now a subject for discussion whether they should
not comply with the prayer of those petitions. Both masters
and men had found that the recent law, which restricts the
hours of labour in their trade, was injurious to their interests,
and they asked the House to repeal that Act whose con-
tinuance they represent to be fatal to rope making in this
country—that that trade must in fact be abandoned if they
were not allowed to work free from all such supervision as that
law had introduced. Well the Legislature had now time
to coesider. They were, by this, called upon to interfere
directly with labour. They were called upon to extend the
system of inspection into the private workshops and dwellings
of this country. It was certainly one of the painful duties
attached to the office which he filled to be opposed very often
to the popular wishes, and he had almost said the popular
feeling, but, entertaining the strong opinion which he did that
this would be a fatal and a wrong step, he did not hesitate
for one moment to move an amendment, that the Bill be read
a second time that day six months.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel ROLLESTON said his name was endorsed on the
Bill, and he was of course bound to give his support to it-
After the fullest consideration which he had been enabled to
give to the Bill, and the circumstances attending its intro-
duction into the House, he felt it his bounden duty
to entreat the House to take into their serious con-
sideration the various provisions of this Bill.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") The parties whom it would effect
looked to the Legislature for relief, for they were unable to
rescue themselves from the bondage and slavery in which
they were under the present state of things. The hardship
which they had to endure was, if paralleled, certainly not
exceeded by any persons employed in the manufactures of
this country.— (Hear, hear.) Before he touched upon the
details of this measure he would briefly allude to an objec-
tion raised by the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State
for the Home Department, who had said that no
petitions had been presented by the operatives employed in
the manufacture of lace. Now the truth was, that it was
not many days ago, since he (Colonel Rolleston) presented
a numerously signed petition in favour of this measure from
those individuals. A petition had also been presented a few
nights ago, and at the head of the names attached to the
petition,_was that of Mr. Herbert, the Mayor of Nottingham,
the centre of this branch of manufactures. The petitioners
prayed the House to adopt speedily some measure whereby
the children employed in that manufacture should be released
from the bondage to which they were subjected at present.
The Right Hon. Baronet had said that the Legislature
should not interfere in the mode proposed by this Bill, because
there were not many children employed in the manufacture
of lace, but after travelling through four or
five volumes
that
of
v
the Commissioners' report upon the question,
the number of children so employed wase
siderable indeed, and that the effects were of eti7e
ss
ruinous character as regarded their health, morals,l
and education. (The Honourable Member then proceeded
to read several extracts from the report in question.)
He hoped the House then would allow this Bill to go.into
Committee,
'for in his opinion it was the only measure calcu-
lated to remedy all the evils complained of.— (Hear, hear.)
Another portion of the Bill had reference to adult
labourers; but he did not attach so much
importance to
this part as to those clauses and provisions which re-
lated to the employment of children in factories. Those
provisions, if agreed to by the House, would improve
the physical and moral condition of a multitude of children of
industry, and he entreated the House to let the Bill be read
a second time.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. STRUTT said the Hon. Member had quoted from
Hansard, which only gave a condensed summary of what
he (Mr. Strutt) said some few years ago upea a similar sub-
ject to the present, but he would, with the per-
mission of the House, read a more extended re-
port from the Mirror of Parliament," and it
would be seen that he was then, and be might add that he
was now, of opinion that such a Bill as the one before the
House would be ineffective unless it applied to mills worked
by power as well as by hand.—(Hear, hear.) Were they,
howeveof, prepared to go the length of saying that they would
not allow a poor lace worker to get up at four o'clock in the
morning and labour at his trade in his own room ?
And vet this Bill went to this extreme, and he for one said
the Bill would be committing a practical evil instead of
doing any good. Why, they might with as much justice
apply the same principle to the sailor, the shoemaker, or the
bricklayer; but be that as it might, he was sure, if they
pas e 1 this Bill in its present form, it would 'be made the
medium for committing acts of oppression and injustice on
poor and industrious persons who were anxious to improve
their condition by employing their leisure time or what they
treeted as leisure hours iu labour and industry. —( Hear, hear.)
He was sure, then, if the House passed this Bill, they would
be committing a great wrong on the manufacturing interest
of the country;while the Bill itself would only aggravate the
evil which it was intended to remedy.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE said he was an advocate for a Bill
defining the hours of labour for persons employed in large
public mills, but he certainly could not go the length of sup-
po,ting a Bill which applied generally to all mills
and all workshops, whether public or private, large
or small.—(Hear, hear.) He believed, too, the public
were not prepared to go this length ; for, in the petition he
had presented to the House upon this subject, he found they
applied to large public factories, and not to private work.
shops. The principle of this Bill was not to regulate the
hours at which children should be employed in fac-
tories, but to atop the night labour of adults, and
he for one must say he was not prepared to
support a Bill of this nature.—(Hear, hear.) It was
true that in 1821 he introduced a Bill restricting
the hours of labour in cotton factories, when an attempt was
made to include silk, flax, and lace manufactories Mit But
it,Wea IbOußh>i t 14 %la UAW. siul 07 tin opocAtiva

,
,

themselves, that as regarded those branches of manufacture,
the Bill would prove inoperative, if it did not result in aug-
menting instead .of diminishing the evil.—(Hear.) Again,
in 1827, he introeuced a similar Bill, and, again the same
attempt was made, and the same arguments and opinions
urged with success against it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
If the Hon. Gentleman would subject the children in the fac-
tories to the same regulations which were in existence with
regard to other factories in the country he should have his
(Sir J. Hobbouse's) support.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that 475 of the master ma-
nufacturers of the town of Nottingham had signed a petition
in favour of this Bill. If, therefore, the opinion of the master
manufacturers were to be taken as conclusive upon this mat-
ter, he thought the fact he had just stated was a sufficient
ground for passing this Bill. He had no doubt as
to the rectitude of the principle of interference. It had
been acknowledged over and over again in that House, and
he trusted that it would be supported by this Bill being
passed into a law. He should give his hearty support to the
second reading of this Bill, reserving to himself the right of
introducing amendments in Committee.
Mr. MUNTZ believed that those who overworked their
people did an injury to themselves. He worked his mills
at night as well as day, but he employed two sets of people.
The reason why people overworked themselves was that they
were badly paid for what they did. He believed that some
interference was necessary. These children were most severely
worked ; that arose from the extreme competition amongst
themselves. Now, he thought they ought
ve
obueglihettdo
tihnagtuiirnequiniryto
the cause of that competition, for he
was a most important one.

GISBORNE said that if the Noble Lord had searched
the county of Nottingham he would not find 475 master
manufacturers, those, he meant, who would be so considered
under the common acceptation of the word. The master
manufacturers did not object to the prohibition that children
under eight years of age were not to be admitted to work
in factories. His Hon. Friend proposed to lay a restriction
on machinery. The Hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr.
Muntz) had stated that he worked his machinery night and
day, and that the men were employed for twelve hours daily.
Mr. MUNTZ here interrupted the Hon. Gentleman, and
explained that his men worked only nine or ten hours a day,
which, in his opinion, was quite long enough for any man to
work.

Mr. GISBORNE resumed—Well, then, he was mistaken.
This Bill would only tend to create dissatisfaction
among the workpeople. No interference on the part of the
House would better their circumstances, unless the House
was prepared to do an impossibility. He was distinctly of
opinion that the operation of the Bill would work mischief
among the labouring classes, and he should, therefore, give
his strongest opposition to the second reading.
Mr. WAKLEY prefaced his speech with a few allusions to
the observations made by the Hon. Member, the proposer of
the Bill. He thought the people ought really to be allowed
to understand those questions in which they were so much
concerned. Some respect ought to be paid to their feelings, if
not to their judgment. In their petition they prayed the
House to do certain things, which, if attended with evil con-
sequences, they were quite willing to bear the penalty, and
relieve the House of all responsibility. He did not think the
Bill which he held in his hand had been prepared with any
degree of prudence or judgment, and if it were now before
the House for a third reading he should have felt it his duty
to oppose it. He had, however, no objection to vote for its
going into Committee, when there would be an opportunity
afforded of altering its present imperfect shape. The
question was, whether or not the House could interfere to
protect infants from a species of toil which was calculated
to injure their physical energies and destroy
their moral constitution.—(hear, hear.) It had been
argued that the labour was not of a severe nature. He had
heard many Hon. Members complain at times of the weari-
ness they felt at attending the House on long debates—what
then must be the feelings of infants, of eight years of age,
when subjected to similar watchings and late hours? The
House had interfered in regulating the hours of other species
of labour, which had been attended with advantage both to
the manufacturers and their workmen. Why, then, was
this species of labour to be exempted from the interference
of the Legislature ? He would not wish to interfere
with the late houree of adult labour, as any
change might be more productive of evil than of good.
If they began where were they to stop ?—(Hear, hear.) To
interfere with the labour of adults would be a tyranny
which should not be endured. As they had it in their
power to alter all objectionable clauses in Committee, for the
sake of the infant children who were compelled to work
clay and night, night and day, without holiday or intermis-
sion, from one year's end to another, he would vote for the
second reading.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was very much surprised, after the
speech of the Honourable Gentleman, that he should still
affirm the principle of the Bill by voting for its second read-
ing. There was nothing which the Hon. Member re-
pudiated more—nothing which he allowed to be more
radically unjust than to restrict the hours of adult labour.
If they once interfered with the labour of adults the next
demand would be to fix the minimum of wages and how
could they resist that demand ?—(Hear, hear.) The Bill (lid
not profess on the face of it to apply merely to children, it
professed to interfere with the labour of adults. The title of the
Bill was to regulate the hours of labour in all night fac-
tories. And see what would be the effect of an interference ;
why it would be a direct premium to increase the labour
in those places where their enactments could not reach.
Then, as the Hon. Gentleman had just said, how were they
to carry into effect that interference with labour? Why
they might take their choice between the common informer
and what were called domiciliary visits ; that meant, that
if, as was very natural, they shrunk from the
contamination of the common informer, then they must
establish these domiciliary visits throughout the whole of
the country, those visits to be carried into effect by a Go-
vernment officer. Thus, if a light were seen in any house
after ten o'clock, then they were liable to the infliction of a
visit from one of those officers—a domiciliary visit because a
man was suq)ected of labouring for his daily bread.—
(Cheers.) -Why this Bill made no provision for any cases
like those which the Factory Bill excepted. It
made no provision for a case of accident, such
as might happen from a derangement of machinery,
when the works would require to be suspended. If the
factory were turned by water-power, the stream might be
suspended, and the Bill very fairly and very wisely in such a
case allowed some extra labour. But this Bill con-
tained no such provision, and, therefore, no case was
provided in the event of a man being subject to
sickness for any period. Let them suppose him
to have had an accident—let them suppose him to
have been invalided for three days—(Hear, hear)—let them
suppose bins visited by sickness, prevented from making any
exertion on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, or at best
only working some five hours a day, and his wages reduced
in a corresponding degree. Suppose him not quite
recovered, but, for the subsistence of his family, he
determines to work some additional hours on the
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday—let it be remembered
that he worked within his own house. Why, was it pos-
sible, then, that because he said to himself, " I must repair
the misfortune of the earlier portion of the week, by extra-
ordinary labour at its close,' they should punish him, be-
cause he toiled till eleven or twelve o'clock at night, for the
laudable, the truly honourable purpose of providing sub-
sistence for his family ?—(Cheers.) What, did they mean
to sanction any measure that could punish a man
like this ?—(Cheers.) Would they sanction a law which
would subject this man to the annoyance of a domiciliary
visit ?—(Continued cheering.) But, then, the measure im-
posed a penalty. He (Sir R. Peel) should ike to see an in-
dictment framed against such a man.—(Hear, hear.) He
should like to see him after some •five or six persons
had been brought up for petty larceny, or crimes of
a similar character—he should then like to see
this man brought up before the magistrate to answer
the offence of working till eleven o'clock at night to provide
his family with food !—(Cheers)—and 50/. was the penalty
to be exacted for this offence—(Hear, hear)—an offence
charged by his next-door neighbour, perhaps, the
informer, being an idle, dissolute fellow, who ne-
glected his work, who envied, perhaps, this ho-
nest man because he was honest, who hated
him because he was industrious and succeeding in the world.
The informer said to himself, " He is my enemy, and I will
punish him. I want 10/. (the reward granted by this Bill).
I want to advance myself and to depress him. 1 am idle, I
am a vagabond; he is industrious and honest. I saw a light
in his house. I found. lairo. out. He was work-
ing for the maintenance of his family. I will
lay an information against him. I shall receive
10/., my reward for maintaining the law, while he should be
punished with a penalty of 501., or sent to prison for main-
taining his family."—(Cheers.) Was it likely that they
would be rewarded for inculcating morality like this?—
(Cheers.) Was it likely that they would be thanked for this
charitable interference?—(Cheers.) What answer could be
made by the framers of this Bill? None. No answer could be
given. The Bill was to regulate the hours of labour in all
factories. This was not a question of restricting the hours
of labour for children. It was not a mere measure for regu-
lating the hours of labour in factories only. It was a ques-
tion whether a man had a right to labour in his own house
after ten o'clock. But the Honourable Member said that
the benefits to children would compensate for the other
defects of the Bill. He would not go into that question, he
felt and acknowledged the evil of taxing the infant labourer
too severely. But what was this Bill ? Was it possible for
the House to consent to a measure which not only permitted
but sanctioned the employment of children above 8 years
of age to the extent of 16 hours a day. And yet the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) would, in his zeal for
factory children, sanction a Bill which permitted girls above
eight years of age to work.sixteen hours a day.—( Laughter
and cheers.) He thought that the artists who had framed
tasoellel have bestowed a little more pains upon it
br:etbanreathhave7.%
b.w. it to the House. Let them by every
not require them, by. - . and let Hon. Gentlemen
that girls above eight
_yeairsetylc'e=the principle,
sixteen hours a-day.—(Cheers.) a should, hate. worked
that the Hon. Member for Finsbury would, eueeee thoughtf.d
mitting the second reading, have been the fitat to have
re-
ceived the Bill with an indignant remonstrance.—(Hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY—I don't like it at all.—(Laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL—Then if this were the reason for the sup-
port that the Hon. Member forFinsbury gaveto the measure,
he (Sir R. Peel) could not say another word to such a
curious argument in its favour.—(Laughter.)
Mr. FERRAND could not but express deep regret that the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government should
turn into ridicule the arguments in favour of this Bill.—(No,
no.) It was a melancholy fact, that whenever an Hon.
Member in that House proposed to legislate for the welfare
of the working population of this country, he was always
met with the strongest opposition.—(Hear, hear.) The
working population for several years had appealed to that
House to take the peculiar circumsthaandcesalumnodsetr which they
in
laboured into consideration. They
aHI
ao
tui so en, to
look Mdesty's Government, as well
and he would ask her
vain, and they had now commenced to legislate for them-
selves,look for one instant to the m
as Honourable Members on both sides tphoep
the north of England. srgotect themselves
moment, into an alarming combination
They were entteorin , at this present
cdtetsi r ion;
strikes for wages
masters. Let the House look at the fearful
against what they called the tyranny and loppression of their
there
which had taken place in Manchester, Liverpool, and other
large towns in the north of England, and he thought
was there sufficient to induce that House to consider that it
was high time for Parliament to take into its most mature
and deliberate consideration the serious quarrels which had
from some causes been taking place between masters and their
servants. In the case now before the House, they found that_
the master manufacturers and their own workpeople had
united in a body to come before that House, to ask redress
for their grievances; and what had they witnessed that
afternoon? Ridicule cast upon this attempt to legislate on
their behalf, by the Hon. Member forFinsbury, and from both
sides of the House. They had asked for the secondreading of
this Bill, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if that
House refused the second reading of the Bill, it would be offering
to those working classes a direct insult, and would drive
them ultimately to their own resources, as he had before
said, to legislate on this matter, which they would do by
entering into one universal combination throughout this
country, and compel their masters to consent to protect them
and their interests, as Parliament had refused to interfere in
their behalf. He would Rot say one word about the question,
whether the manufacturers of this country were in favour of
the second reading of this Bill or not. The working classes
of this country were watching the tone and temper of that
House oh the present ecoeien—(Dear, hear) —and it WAP