The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-22 00:00:00

SWEEPSTAKES.

Quarantine , ..

SWEEPSTAKES.

Annan
Watersprite

2

Four ran.
GRANGE PARK STAKES.

Copernicus
Blisworth ..
Matilda colt

Six ran.
QUEEN'S PLATE.

Predictor ..
Gaspard ..
Clydesdale
Eight ran. Dead heat between Predictor and Gaspard.
Predictor walked over, and the stakes were divided.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LDRDS—(THIS EVENING.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Milford Haven Railway and Docks, the Maccles-
field Gas, the London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail-
way (deviations and new lines) Bills were read a second
time.
The following bills were read a third time and passed :
The Edgbaston Road ; Bolton and St. Helen's Road ;
Leeds Township ; Stockport, Disley, end Whal ey Bridge ;
Newcastle-upon .Tyne and Carlisle Railway; Port Carlisle
and Silloth Bay Railway and Docks ; and Mid Wales
Railway.

LAW OF EQUITY BILL.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the time had
now arrived when their lordships would have to determine
what course was to bo adopted with regard to this bill. It was
a mea-nre of the greatest importance, and had been read a
second time without a division. His own opinion was that
the best course to adopt was that the bill should be consi-
dered by the law lords more particularly ; but he
should be highly delighted if the lay lords would
give the bill their earnest attention. The object of the
bill was to give the julges in the Court of Common
Law power to dispose of points of equity that incidentally
arose during the progress of a cause. He thought it would
tend to greatly lessen the expense of suitors, who, as the
law at present stood, were compelled to employ
two distinct sets of legal advisers before the mat-
ter in dispute could be finally brought to a conclusion.
The noble and learned lord cited at great length a
number of cases to show the hardships and inconvenience
that at present existed, and concluded by moving that the
bill be referred to a select committee.

Lord LYNDHURST advised their lordships to accede
;0 the motion of the noble and learned lord.
[LEFT SITTING.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(THIS DAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The North British and Peebles and Jedburgh Rail-
way Companies Bill and the Sovereign Lifo 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 Broughton Railway;
Hayling Railways; Mid Sussex and Midhurst Junction
Railway Deviation ; and Petersfield Railway.
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
ho had heard, he was induced not to adhere to that term of
employment. He 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 employed in mines had
been already affirmed, though the number of hours of em-
Floyment 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. CLIVE 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, and it
must be remembeied 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 4
were 0 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 sallies
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 6l
Against
Majority.. —lB
The amendment was accordingly negatived.
Lord LOVAINE moved an amendment to the effect that
for the first six mouths after the let 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 tie 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.
ccpetedrdo
bpoy proposed,
ethdNo
coal
a tg ownersrdo
but
ground,
he trusted
m dt t
,ar
utws
sofihtreesdnet
inconveniencennmt
woi gfohuttlhdbe
not
alteration
e
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
hour 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 operations
might be productive of very serious consequences. The
hon, member quoted a report in reference to factories to