The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 23, 1860.

liament. It was then a breach of privilege to publish the Powers of Europe shall be consulted is to be carried into

way Companies Bill and the Sovereign Life Assurance
Company Bill were considered and ordered for third read•

ing.

The following bills were read a third time and passed :
Auchterarder Common Muir; North British Insurance
Company; Portadown, Dungannon, and Omagh Junction
Railway ; Symington, Biggar, and Brough on Railway ;

Hayling Railways; Mid Sussex and Milurst Junction
Railway Deviation; and Petersfield Railw v.
MINES REGULATION AND INSPECTION BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill, and resumed

at clause 2.

Mr. KINNAIRD said that on the last occasion the bill
was discussed he proposed an amendment to reduce the
labour of children to eight hours, but from some statements
he had heard, he was induced not to adhere to that term of
employment. lie would therefore alter his amendment,
and move that in page 2, line 10, after " colliery," that
there be inserted " for any hours not exceeding 10 hours
per diem."
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that the principle of a limitation
of the hours of labour for children emplOyel in mines had
been already affirmed, though the number of hours of em-
ployment had not been determined. There were 12 inspec-
tors of mines, whose mission was to protect the public and
to regard with favourable eyes what related to the condition
of those employed in mines, and 11 out of these had re-
ported against an alteration in the present hours of labour.
Mr. LIDDELL considered that it would be impossible
to regulate the labour of boys in mines without affecting
injuriously the labour of adults. Juvenile labour in mines
was neither uninterrupted nor severe, and any interference
with it would be most prejudicial.
Mr. AYRTON said it had not been shown that the
alteration in the hours of labour was practically impossible,
and that term meant no more than that it might affect coal-
owners, for it was a mere question of money. The same
objections that had been advanced with reference to the
question had been fully discussed when the subject of
labour in factories was before the house. The same threats
and warnings that were then made were identical with
those now used, but experience had shown that these were
the idle fears arising out of the prejudices of mill owners,
who had been brought up under, and practised, a particular
system. No person had yet demonstrated that the labour
of children in mines could not be reduced to 10 hours, and
he called on the house, in the name of humanity, to agree
to the amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR supported the amendment.
Mr. PEASE followed on the same side, and accused the
hon. member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. A yrton) of not
being practically acquainted with the subject, and not
having paid attention to the facts developed in the course
of the debate on this bill.

Mr. CLI VE said, if he had been convinced by the argu-
ment of the hon. member (Mr. Ayrton), he would vote for
the amendment, but he considered that the report of the
inspectors of mines was conclusive on the subject, aid it
must be remembered that these inspectors were the friends
of the labouring class employed in mines.
Mr. J. LOCKE considered that the question had been
shirked by the opponents of the amendment, and contended
that the testimony of mine inspectors was not sufficient to
prove there was no inhumanity in compelling children of
tender years to work under ground for an indefinite num-
ber of hours day after day. He supported the amendment.
Sir H. VERNEY said that he felt bound to vote in favour
of the amendment.
Mr. CAYLEY said he was informed by a miner that in
the mine where he first worked there were 40 boys em-
ployed, not one of whom was now living, and in the second
mine, out of 37 boys there were only three living.
Mr. BRUCE asserted that the sanitary state of the mines
and these employed in them had been misrepresented, and
opposed the amendment.
Mr. KINNAIRD replied, and some further discussion
ensued. The house then divided, and the numbers were—

For the amendment
Against
Majority..
The amendment was accordingly negatived.
Lord LOVAINE moved an amendment to the effect that
for the first six months after the Ist of next year boys under
ten years of age should be admitted to work in mines with-
out a certificate of their ability to read or write.
After a few words from Sir G. C. LEWIS, the amend-
ment was withdrawn, with an understanding that the clause
would be altered in accordance with the wishes of the hon.
member.
Mr. PAGET moved the following amendment :—Leave
out lines 11 to 19 inclusive, and insert " In the second and
every subsequent week during which such boy is employed
in such mine or colliery, the owner shall obtain a certificate
under the hand of a competent schoolmaster that such boy
has attended school for not less than five hours in each of
two days (not being consecutive days, and on which he
shall not have worked in the mine or colliery), during the
week immediately preceding, between the hours of eight
o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the evening, ex-
clusive of any attendance on Sundays." He trusted that
the committee would assist him in establishing a rule that
two days in the week boys alternately should not enter the
mines under any circumstances. By his proposal the mine
owners could have double the command of labour they
would have under the provisions of the bill. Three boys
could do what two boys would do provided the latter
were continually employed. One boy could then
have schooling, and rest on Monday and Thurs-
day, another on Tuesday and Friday, and the
third on Wednesday and Saturday. No doubt some
inconvenience might be experienced by coal owners at first
in the adoption of the alteration proposed, but he trusted
the amendment would not be rejected on that ground, when
it was calculated to confer so much benefit on the boys em-
ployed in mines.
Mr. EVANS seconded the amendment.
Mr. CLIVE could not accede to the amendment. The
house had already reduced the number of persons employed in
mining, and they wanted now to reduce the amount of that
labour. The hon. member (Mr. Paget) seemed to consider
that the supply of labour for mines was indefinite, but that
was not the case, and any further interference in diminish-
ing the amount of labour applied to mining •perations
might be productive of very serious consequences. The
hon. member quoted a report in reference to factories to
show the difficulty that was experienced in obtaining an
adequate supply of labour in that department of indwery.
Mr. ADDERLEY considered that the hon. member
(Mr. Paget) should be content with one day in the week
appropriated to educational purposes for each boy, and he
would support the amendment if it were limited to that
extent.

Mr. INGHAM coincided with the suggestion of the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley).
Mr. JACKSON said that in Derbyshire several thou-
sands were expended in the erection and mainte-
nance of schools, and every opportunity was afforded
to children employed in mines in thqt district to
obtain education. He believed that the hours of labour in
mines were not on an average more than eight a day, and
ha believed also that for their own interest the coalowners
were in favour of the education of those in their employ
meat.

Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, in order to meet the views
of hon. members, he would consent to modify the clause to
the extent that for every subsequent week to that in which
the boy was employed any such boy must produce a certi-
ficate of attendance at school for five hours in one day
during such week, irrespective of attendance at schools on
Sundays.
Mr. PAGET, on that understanding, withdrew his
amendment.
Some discussion ensued, in the course of which Mr.
MONSELL moved the omission of certain portions of the
clause haying reference to the educational tests required of
children before their admission to work in mines.
Mr. NE WDEGATE considered that compulsory enact-
ments would not promote education, and the clause would be
practically inoperative so far as education was concerned.
In many cases parents were unable to provide education for
their children, and it was most arbitrary and unjust to re-
quire an educational test in order to enable children to get
employment. If they imposed that test they should pro-
vide free education, otherwise they would be depriving the
boy of the means not only of livelihood, but actually of ob-
taining education.
The house then divided and there appeared—
For the amendment
Against
Majority
On the motion that the amendment of Sir G. C. Lewis
stand part of the bill,
Mr. BRUCE moved that the words ° in one day" should
be omitted, so that the school hours might be spread over
five days.
The house again divided and the numbers were—
For the amendment of Sir G. C. Lewis 106
Against
Majority
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. Some
other clauses were also agreed to, and the chairman re-
ported progress.
The house suspended ifs sitting shortly before 4 o'clock.

The house resumed at 6 o'clock.
DEFECTIVE ACCOMMODATION IN THE LAW

COURTS.

Mr. E. JAMES gave notice that on that day week he
should call the attention of the First Commissioner of
Works to the defective state of the accommojation provided
for the administration of justice in the Courts in Westmin-
ster Hall.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether there would be any objection to the Minutes of
Proceedings of the House of Lords being laid daily on the
table of the house ; and to obtain the opportunity of making
a few observations, moved that the House at its rising ad-
journ to Monday next-. The production of those papers would
not only contribute to the more satisfactory despatch of busi-
ness, but would prevent a repetition of the absurd farce which
. took place about a month ago, when the noble lord moved the
appointment of a committee for the purpose of searching the
Journals of the House of Lords to see what had been done
in reference to the paper duty, when every man, woman,
and child in the kingdom knew four days before what had
taken place. It was formerly quite right that search should
be made in the Journals of the Lords at a time when mys-
tery surrounded the proceNings of the two Houses of Par-,

debates, whereas now the press was officially recognised in
that house, and reported the proceedings with an accuracy
expedition, and fidelity which were the envy and admiration
of surrounding nations. Strangers now were admitted to the
galleries, and were no longer removed during divisions. For-
merly the members did not leave the house, but di-
vided to right and left of the chair, and were counted
by two gentlemen, and it was a breach of privilege
to publish anything in relation to the division. But now
the votes and proceedings of the House of Commons

were published to the world, and the House of Lords had a

copy of those proceedings on their table, and openly referred
to them—(" hear, hear," from Mr. Bright)—and discussed
them in their debates. The House of Commons, or the
country, if they wished to know anything that bad taken
place in the other house, were obliged to appoint a commit-
tee to search their journals, tbough it was true the minutes
of the Lords' proceedings were in the library, where they
were of no use whatever. He thought it would tend mate-
rially to the despatch of public business if these were offi-
cially laid on the table of the house, and if bon. members
possessed the power of referring to them.
Lord PALMER S TON—My hon. friend will recollect that
there are two sources from which documents are received on

which any action by this house can take place. One of
these is from the Crown when papers are presented by com-
mand or are officially laid on the table; the other source is
when they are furnished in obedience to the order of this
house for the production of certain documents. The pro-
ceedings entered in the journals of the House of Lords are
not in the possession of the Crown, which has no more cog •
nisance of them than we have, and therefore cannot order
any responsible Minister to lay these papers on the table of
this house. I apprehend it would be contrary to all the re-
ciprocal usages and mutual privileges of the two houses for
either to order the other to furnish its proceedings. (Hear.)
Therefore, in neii her of these modes, which I imagine are
the only channels by which official records reach us, can
the proceedings of the House of Lords be laid on our table.
But my hon. friend is probably aware that by reciprocal
courtesy the minutes of each house are commu-
nicated to the other. About 16 copies of the proceed-
ings of the House of Lords are daily transmitted to this
house—one copy for the library and the others for distri-

bution to different officers, and it will be perfectly easy

if it should be thought more convenient to have one copy
laid upon the table, instead of in the library. (Hear, hear.)
It is quite true, as my hon. friend says, that the House of
Lords have founded resolutions of their own on the records
of this house, which were laid upon their table, and we might
undoubtedly pursue the same course. But, generally speak-
ing, I apprehend—and you, Mr. Speaker, will correct me if
I am wrong—it is not the habit of the House of Commons
to found proceedings except on documents that are officially
in our possession. (Hear, hear.) My hon. friend says the
proceedings of the House of Lords are well known to every-
body, from being reported in the newspapers, and that no
doubt can exist as to what has taken place. But that re-
mark applies much more extensively than to the proceedings
of the House of Lords. There are various matters of which
all of us have personal cognisance, events of public noto-
riety, which are recorded in the newspapers; but with re-
gard to these before any formal act of this house can be
taken we require to have some written document officially
and responsibly put on the table, either in answer to an ad-
dress from the Crown or by the order of the house, directed
to those persons who are bound to obey oar directions. I
therefore very much doubt—even if an arrangement could
be made by which one copy of the proceedings of the House
of Lords would be laid on our table, either indeed of or in
addition to that already in the library—whether the house
would be disposed to make it a foundation for any serious
measure. (Hear, hear.) I think it would be a departure
from our ordinary course, and I confess I do not quite per-
ceive the value of the difference which it would produce on
our proceedings. My hon. friend says we ought to dis-
pense with the formal appointment of a committee to
search the journals of the Lords. But that course is a very
easy one ; there is no difficulty in the way ; it is a question
merely of a short period of time, and I do not see that we
should -gain anything in point of expedition by sub-
stituting for the authentic report of the committee a copy
of the journals of the House of Lords. On the contrary, I
think the step would lose some portion of its weight ; for,
although everybody would know that the printed paper
was e-r accurate transcript of the minutes of proceedings in
the other house, yet, as a foundation for legislative action,
I think it would be more satisfactory to have the extract
taken from the journals themselves. Having stated what
the practice is, I apprehend, Mr. Speaker, there will be no
difficulty, under your directions, in having a copy of the
minutes of the House of Lords placed on the table of this
house, for the information of members, in addition to that
which may be consulted in the library. .I think the house,
probably, will be disposed to leave the matter in your hands,
and will feel that you will make such an arrangement as
may be satisfactory to all. (Hear.)
NEAPOLITAN CRUISERS.
Mr. D. GRIFFITH. asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether any account had been received of a
Neapolitan frigate having captured two vessels, presumed to
have been carrying reinforcements to Garibaldi, by hoisting
English colours, and offering to tow them into Palermo,
and, having got them in tow, she then hoisted Neapolitan
colours and steered for Gaeta ; and whether, if so, such use
of th.Ttritiah flag would be permitted to the Neapolitan
Government ?
NICE AND SAVOY.—MINISTERIAL POLICY.
Sir R. PEEL—Before the noble lord the Foreign Secre-
tary replies, I shall be very glad to have the opportunity of
putting a question to him; and, before doing so, I beg to
thank the noble lord for his kind consideration in being pre-
sent, so as to be able to return an answer; and I hope it is
an earnest that for the future the noble lord will
endeavour to be present in this house to defend
the policy which the Government are following with
respect to foreign affairs. I said last night, and I now take
the opportunity of reiterating in presence of the noble lord,
that in my belief there is a general opinion throughout the
country that the noble lord is endeavouring to shirk the re
sponsibility vested in him by the office which he has under-
taken. It may not be the case, but such is my impression.
We so seldom receive any information from the noble lord
with respect to foreign affairs that when any is obtained the
feeling of the house generally, I think, is rather one of
commiseration with the noble lord on being any longer un-
able to conceal the intelligence--(laughter)—than of grati-
fication at the tidings which he has been obliged to convey.
'Ye have had some experience of the policy of the noble lord
and I am sorry to say I conceive it to be far from satisfac-
tory. For many months the noble lord has had charge of
the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I am bound to de-
clare in my place in Parliament that I believe that policy to
be both weak and vacillating. I recollect the noble lord was
sometimes very indignant with other Ministers when they
did not pursue a straightforward policy. I remember per-
fectly well, when the noble lord sat on these benches, with
what indignation, and how, with the mein of an exasperated
patriot, he fulminated against my noble friend the Prime
Minister for what he called his mean and humiliating policy.
I do not know whether the noble lord recollects the expres-
sions which he then made use of against the Prime Minis-
ter—(a laugh)—but, if he does not, I will recall them to his
memory. The house will recollect that in 1858 the noble
lord now at the head of the Government introduced into
this house a measure kuown as the Conspiracy Bill, which
a large number of members, of whom I was one, from the
first resisted most strenuously. The noble lord the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs was then sitting on the back benches
and, in a spirit of strong indignation—he was then, no'
doubt, anxious to replace his noble friend—(a laugh)—de-
nounced the measure. The noble lord, on that occasion to
which I am alluding (Feb. 9, 1858), said-4er the noble
lord at that time was very violent against the Primo
Minister, although matters have since been made up between
them—(a laugh)—that the Government yielded to a demand
front France ; that it was not a strong Government ; that it
was about to introduce a bill which he should feel it a shame
and a degradation to support. " Let those who will support
it," said the noble lord, "in that humiliation I, for one, will
not share." Loud cheers followed that announcement, and of
course the noble lord obtained credit throughout the country
for being a very spirited and exasperated patriot. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) I must, however, say that I am afraid
the noble lord's present policy is very shameful and humi-
liating to the nation. The despatch which, if the newspapers
be correct, has just reached the Government from M. Thou-
venel I look upon as an insult to us and our councils in the
eyes of the nations of Europe, and as degrading to the pres-
tige and character of England. M. Thouvenel appeals to
the good faith of the policy of France, and says that,
although the Court of France asks Europe to sanction the
act of annexation which has just received its final consum-
mation, yet that the Court of the Tuileries will not consent
to any lessening of the Savoyard territory in favour of
Switzerland. Now, I regard this, after the repeated decla-
rations which have been made on the subject by the French
Emperor, as a most serious and dangerous position of affairs.
(Hear.) Upon three separate occasions—the 10th February,
the Ist March, and then on the Gth of the same month—
the Powers of Europe would be consulted before the con-
templated annexation was carried into effect. (Hear, hear.)
February
Secretary last w
for as
Foreign made Now, if any faith is to bo placed in the statements of public
by
Affairs, Lord
men, some importance ought to be attached to the report
Cwehwiclheyonte
tthhee
nloObtlhe oo er d eb
ther
-when he wrote as follows :
"I saw the Emperor yesterday, and bad some conversat ion
with him on the subject of the annexation of Savoy. The
Emperor entirely disclaimed all intention of proceeding to
make the annexation without consulting the great Powers.
(Hear, hear.) I asked his Majesty if I might repeat this
assurance to your lordship, and permission to do so was
most graciously and cordially given."
(Hear, hear.) Now, that word "cordially" seems to me
to possess a charming piquancy, because the Emperor of
the French must have known perfectly well that when he
gave the assurance in question he did not mean to act upon
it. (Hear.) There is also another despatch, No. 17 in the
books, in which Lord Cowley says that M. Thouvenel had
again assured him that the Emperor had intended to abide
by the statement which I have just mentioned. On the 6th
March the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
wrote to Lord Cowley in the following terms :
"I wish your lordship would ascertain from M. Thouvenel
in what manner the promise of the Emperor that the great

effect."
Now, I wish the house to bear in mind that from the date
of that despatch—the 6th of March—to the 21st of June,
no answer to that question, with respect to which the noble
lord expressed a wish an explanation should bo obtained by
Lord Cowley, has been returned. (Hear.) That is, I con-
tend, a very lax way of conducting the foreign affairs of
the country—(cheers)—particularly in reference to a ques-
tion affecting in so important a degree a State whose neu-
trality England as well as the six other great Powers of

Europe had guaranteed. (Hear, hear.) I will not at the

present moment enter into a full consideration of this ques-
tion, because I believe we shall at a future time be fur-
nished with an opportunity of having with respect to it
ample discussion. I cannot, however, allow this day to
pass without entering, in the name, I will not say of Swit-
zerland, but of every man who is desirous of seeing the
principles of honour observed in the conduct of public
affairs, my protest against the policy which the Emperor
of the French has in this matter pursued. (Hear, hear.)
Wo must recollect that not only was the neutrality of
Switzerland guaranteed by the great Powers, but that it
was distinctly laid down no troops whatever should enter
into the neutralised province of Savoy, whereas, under pre-

sent circumstances, not only are there troops at Chambery,
but the Pont Beauvoisin, St. Jean de Maurienne, Albert-
ville, and Moutiers will forthwith receive detachments.
(Hear.) On the other hand, troops are going to Annecy,
which is situated in the neutralised provinces. The garrison
of Annecy will furnish detachments to Thonoli and Evian,
on the Lake of Geneva, in the Chablais, at Bonneville in
Faucigny, end St. Julien in the Genevois, so that you will
have troops in that very district in which their maintenance
is strictly opposed to treaty engagements and inconsistent
with the due protection of Switzerland. (Cheers.) I would
ask the house, in dealing with this question, not to lose
sight of the important fact that the King of Sardinia, when
the treaty of Turin was framed, base and iniquitous as it
was on his part to sacrifice what I may call the berceau of
of his family, distinctly stated that, although he assented
to the cession of Savoy to France, yet Sardinia reserved to
Switzerland her co .operation in the steps to be taken on
the subject of the neutralised provinces. (Hear.) Now,
without entering more at length into the question, I main-