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

his firm conviction that if Parliament would, by a more con-
ciliatory spirit, endeavour to mitigate the bad feeling which
existed between the employers and the employed of this
country on the present occasion, they would do more to put
a stop to the strikes in the north of England, and the mis-
understandings which were taking place between the em-
ployers and the employed than all the combinations which
could be formed either amongst masters or men.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. CRAWFORD did not deny that he entertained
objections to this Bill, he did not deny that he felt an ob-
jection to limit the hours of adult labour; but, at the same
time, he did not think they:were precluded from interfering
with infant labour, to prevent the younger portion of the
manufacturing classes of England from being overworked.
—(Hear, hear.) That was what he should desire to do—
(Hear, hear)—and he hoped to effect that object by voting
in favour of this Bill. The great question before the House
was whether the infantine labour of this country should be
protected from the oppression of the holders of capital.—
(Hear, hear.) The long hours which they were com-
pelled to work injured their health and morals,
and he, therefore, contended tin t, no matter whether this
Bill would injure the interests of the manufacturers or not,
the Legislature was bound to extend its protecting influence
to the hard-working children of England.—(Hear, hear.)
The hours of labour, which this Bill sought to restrict, were
more than human nature could endure. Taking that position,
he conceived it to be the duty of the House to pass some
such measure as this, whatever might be the effect on wages.
He should, therefore, give his hearty support to the second
reading of the Bill.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT wished to make one observation in answer
to the Hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand), who
had asked the House to interfere with labour on the ground
that certain strikes had taken place in the north of England.
He (Mr. Bright) begged to tell that Hon. Member
that those strikes existed only amongst those
trades which were not in any degree connected with
mills or factories—(Hear, hear)—and amongst a class of
workmen who never worked more than ten hours a-day—
(Hear, hear)—and respecting whom there was no proposi-
tion before the House. With respect to the feeling between
the employers and employed he should think that the
Honourable Member would have recollected that with the
exception ofYorkshire there had not for along period been any
disagreement or ill-feeling between the cotton manufacturers
and those in their employ, and that there never was a better
feeling between them than at this moment. He was sure
that with respect to the cotton trade there was less reason for
any vindictive feeling between the manufacturers and their
employed at this moment than at any period since he was
acquainted or connected with it. The feeling that had ex-
isted between masters and men during the last two years in
that trade was equally creditable to both parties con-
cerned.—(blear.) He was sure then,that all argument which
might be based upon the statement of the Hon. Member
was totally fallacious, and had no bearing whatever; upon
this question, and it was rather in favour of the present
state of things than the Bill at present before the House.
Mr. FERRAND said the Hon. Member fer Durham would
perhaps remember the strike that took place in 1841 in all
the cotton manufactories in Lancashire.
Mr. BRIGHT—In 1842.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the present Bill had
not been solely on the ground of its interference with the
labour of children, and it appeared to him to raise a perfectly
just principle that as they protected minors and all
other persons similarly situated who could not manage
their own affairs, the Legislature should interfere with
infantine labour. And if, therefore, that alone was the object
of the present Bill, he should think that the Bill ought to
be allowed to be considered in Committee. But there were
two objections to the present Bill, which seemed to him
to violate every principle of klegislation upon this subject.
In the first clause of the Bill night labour was prohibited, and
the labourer was required to work from a certain hour in the
morning to a certain hour at night. Now, if a man could
earn his living by no other means than engaging to work
eight or nine hours at night, ought they to legislate to pre.
vent him from earning his wages in that way—( Hear, hear)
ought his"means of subsistence to be endangered by a legis-
lative enactment.— (Hear) Were there not, in fact, cases w here
they could not prevent night labour ?—were there not instances
where men had no other means of subsistence except by
working at night, such as the driver of a stage coach,
the guard of a coach or a police-office, and various other
offices of business, which were carried on at night, and which
could not safely or conveniently be abolished, either for the
sake of the public, or of the parties themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
Another part of the Bill not only applied to the interference
of children, but sanctioned the interference of private houses,
and he, for one, thought the interference in the private houses,
whether through the instrumentalitity of the informer or do-
miciliary visitations, would be an act of tyranny which it
would be impossible ifor Parliament to sanction.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Member fur Rochdale had said
he wished to interfere to prevent capital tyrannising over
labour, but how could they interfere with a voluntary agree-
ment between a person in the possession of capital and a
person whose property consisted in his labour, without inter-
fering with respect t. the remuneration to be received by the
labourer.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore, as in his opinion the
Bill contained two principles of false legislation, he must give
his vote against it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS advised the Hon. Member for
Finsbury to withdraw his measure, and introduce another
Bill confining itself to infantine labour.—(Hear, hear.) At
all events he could not support the second reading of this
Bill, after so many practicable difficulties to its ope-
rations had been pointed out by the Right
Honourable Baronet at the head of the Government,
and the Noble Lord the leader of the Opposition.
He, would, therefore, advise the Hon. Member to withdraw
his Bill, as he saw himself that it was so full of inaccuracies.
If the question came to a division, he would be constrained
to vote against it.
Mr. BROTHERTON said, that for the last thirty years,
he had ever been an advocate for the restriction of the labour
of the working classes, but he considered that it was impos-
sible to meet the views of the Hon. Member for Finsbury,
by the present Bill. They would be interfering with the
hours of labour in private houses.—(Hear, hear.) It would
certainly be most advisable to check the hours of labour
allotted to children, but the present Bill would not effect such
an object.
Mr. COIVPER said that he wished his Hon. Friend would
introduce another Bill, which would have for its object the
sole interference with children. The principle of the Bill as
far as they were concerned was sound.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he should take the sense of the
House upon the question— (Hear, hear)—the case before the
House was, whether they would interfere or not in the lace
manufactures, he was the representative of four-fifths of the
capital employed in the lace manufactories, and he was there
representing their sentiments—petitions bad been presented to
the House in its favour signed by both masters and operatives.
Yet this was the Bill which was met with ridicule. The
principle of interference was admitted with respect to chil-
dren, well then, if they passed this Bill they would have an
opportunity of altering those portions of the Bill which
they thought proper. The House had to decide whether
protection was to be given to infants of eigth years of age.
He had wished to conceal nothing in his statement to the
House, and should be quite satisfied if he could obtain a
second reading for it. The Hon. Gentleman then read some
minutes of evidence from the report of the Factory Commit-
tee, from which it appeared that the machines worked by
hand as well as by steam power, and water could be brought
under the operation of the Factory Act. He did trust that
the House would allow the second reading of the Bill to take
place.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN wished to explain. He would
give his vote for the second reading if in Committee he could
distinctly be assured that any interference with adult labour
should not boeincluded.

Mr. DUNCOMBE—Most distinctly.
Mr. FIELDEN would vote for the second reading of the
Bill, because he thought it would be attended with advan-
tages to the labouring population engaged in the silk manu-
facture.

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l5l
Against 66
. . . _

Majority against the second reading ---85
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.

The House then went into Committee on the Roman Ca-
tholic Relief Bill.

Sir R. INGLIS said he left the House under the impres-
sion that the Bill should not come on, and appealed to several
Members if such were not the impression they laboured under ?
Mr. LAWSON said that if such were the feelings of the
Hon. Member, he would not press the Bill.
The Bill was accordingly adjourned until this day three
weeks.

ART UNIONS BILL.

This Bill was also postponed to this day fortnight.
CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES.

This Bill went uhrough the Committee pro forma, and was
ordered to be re-committed for the purpose of considering
an amendment proposed to be inserted by Mr. T. Duneombe.
VISCOUNT lIARDINGE'S ANNUITY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
LORD GOUGII'S ANNUITY BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
ART UNIONS.

Lord G. BENTINCK presented a petition in favour of Art
Unions.

THE WHITSUN HOLIDAYS.

Mr. REDHEAD l ORKE wished to know from the First
Lord of the Treasury to what period be was prepared to ad-
journ the House for the Whitsun holidays.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he did not know what business
was yet fixed. In the meantime, he would have no objection
to take the adjournment from Friday week till th Thursday
following.
METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS BILL.

In answer to a question from Mr. HAVES
Sir J. GRAHAM said that on Friday next he would state
what course the Government intended to pursue with re-
spect to the Metropolitan Improvements Act.
THE POISONING IN NORFOLK.
Mr. WAKLEY called the attention of the Right Hen.
Baronet the Home Department, to the case of poisoning six
members of a family in North Walsham, Norfolk. He
thought it was a case which called for the interference of the
Government.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Government were pre-
pargati ed
on. give every assistance in their power to the invee.
tito ry
The House then adjourned.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.
(THIS DAY.)

elicited at all
calculated to shake the
In the cross
HOUSE OF LORDS.
G 3RfrOUP I.
N
..(eCioLannltOi
inauaetndi 0 fi7r ooNtfn u AranclftubeitrtnYonooOnt
hitEi
aEdgi t i.,ovna
a)
*
evidence in chief.
At the conclusion of the cross-examination for the case of the
Eastern Counties,
Mr.
York TALBOT said he appeared
, Whose
Property
wouldfor his Grace the Archbishop of
Railway. be slice
teal by tke London and York
The cross-examination of Mr. C
The line would interfere ' übitt was then proceeded with—
•
with
divide the farm front the part of his Grace's farm ; it would
residence, and
garden. go dose to tke kitchen-
By Lord VIVIAN—It was not a residential
deviation the line could be carried out interference, and by a
this farm at all. without any interference with
By Mr. TALBOT—The line, as it at present stood
DU the plan, would
interfere with the kitchen-garden, but not so as to
merely touch the wall. The interference with thefarmiiure it ; it would
cer-
tainly separate it from his Grace's residence. Had had
aan interview
would
with his Grace upon the matter, and he informed witness
at
objection to the railway was not as regarded him etlhr but
hie
as it would affect the property of his successors to,
see. The line would not cut off the farm on a level.
There would be an embankment of seven or eight feet. ,h
e
distance at which they would cross from his Grace's Palace was,
as shown on the plan, about 24 chains, which was more than a
quarter of a mile, ' and there were walls and gardens and a turnpike-
road intervening.
By Lord 'Viva:l—His Grace did not come tothat an
deviationt for a
deviation, but he (witness) pointed out how would
leave the farm untouched.
Mr. B,AINEs said he appeared for the Cambridge and Lincoln Ex-
tension, on behalf of which he would put a few questions to the
witness.
Mr. sergeant WBANGHADI would object to his Learned Friend
fly state his reasonsMA meeting of the
appearing, and the would brie
shareholders in this undertaking had been held down in the country
very recently, at which meeting it was decided to abandon the line.
This he was able to state on the authority of one of the shareholders
who had attended the meeting, and who had written to the editor of
We Malting ileraki, avt Qui7 Nullillall* 4 l'OPQrt Of Pal UlOttin la