The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-21 00:00:00

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 sanctiontd the intttferent.t itll private Louses,
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 for Parliament to sanction.—( Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Member for 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 to 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 wivocate 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. COWPER 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 had 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.lGentleman then read some
minutes of evidence from the report of the Factory Commis-
sioners, from which it appeared that the machines worked by
stcamhand, as well as by
,iie powera ni..s.7a)terlioeu
aldiabetrbusro, uLgiihaLt
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 be included.

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 would 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.