The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-19 00:00:00

PETITIONS.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented several peti-
tions from factory workers complaining of a breach of
faith on the part of the Legislature with regard to the
Ten Hours Act. _

The Earl of YOWIS presented several petitions to the
same effect.

COAL MINES INSPECTION BILL

The Earl of CARLISLE moved theitlaird reading o

this Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM objected to this measure alto-
gether. He bad objected to Lord Ashley's Bill with re-
gard to factories, and he had entered his protest on the
journals against any interference between employers and
employed, and he considered this Bill was going a step
further, and was an unjustifiable interference with the
rights of property in land, and in mines, and in minerals.
The mere faet of authorizing an inquiry by inspectors was
a serious interference with the rights of owners of mines.
Those inspectors might be under the influence of secret
adversaries. Sir Samuel Romilly had objected to all
Factory Bills for regulating the labour of children as an
undue interference with the rights of parents; he did
not go so far as that, but he contended that it was absurd
to interfere by legislation to prevent a woman of fifty from
accepting what employment she might think proper.
This Bill even interfered with the manner in which
the owners of coal mines were to keep their ac-

counts. This was a step in the wrong direc-
tion ; but this sortigiof legislative interfering,
under the guise of humanity, between the employer and
the employed, was so popular that he found his opposi-
tion would be of no avail. No men had such in-
terest in preventing accidents as the owners of mines
themselves, not only for the purpose of avoid-
ing clamour, but because it was their pecu-
niary interest their interest as regarded pounds,
shillings, and pence —to prevent accidents, for the
works destroyed by these accidents cost them three or
four thousand pounds, and could it be their intention to
destroy this property ? The greater portion of these ac-
cidents were owing to the carelesuess of the miners
themselves, who smuked in the mines, and neglected louse
the Davy lamp,:and no inspection in the world could guard
against the carelessness of the working miners them-
selves. _ _ _ _ _ . .

The Earl of C ARLISLE defended the provisions of
the Bill. He feared that it would be fallacious to trust
to the pecuniary interests of the owners of mines fur
providing for the safety of the miners.:
The Earl of LONSDALE opposed the measure. It
had been introduced in accordance with the dictates of a

lactitious and got-up agitation, and was opposed to the
wishes alike of mine proprietors and of working miners.
The inspectors would be sure to find fault; all Govern-
ment inspectors of that nature always found fault, they
got their living by finding fault, their bread depended on
it, therefore they might rest assured that all Govern-
ment inspectors would find fault.
The Bill wai then read a third time and passed, after
the insertion of some additional clauses.
THE LIVERPOOL PETITION.

The Earl of EGLINTON moved that the parties
ordered to attend be discharged, and that M'Arthur and
others be ordered to attend at the bar on Monday next.
The Lord CHANCELLOR, thinking that it may be
necessary to prevent a failure of justice, to have other
persons called to the bar, had suggested to the Noble
Earl the propriety of postponing the motion until Mon-
day, in order to have persons called to prove the hand-
writing of the parties.
Lord BROUGHAM said it would not be necessary to
call witnesses to handwriting, because, if a party con.

fessed al the bar, the House proceeded on that confession.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that when there
was evidence, that evidence might be read, and the party
might be asked if he admitted it; but here the only
evidence against the party was his own.
The Earl of EGLINTON understood the Noble and
Learned Lord wished for further evidence. _ _ _

The LORD-CHANCELLOR thought it would be as
well to call evidence to the hand-writing.
Lord BROUGHAM said the parties had confessed
before a Committee. They could not alter the whole
course of their proceedings by calling witnesses to hand-
writing.
Lord BEAUMONT could not understand why they
should not at once proceed as two of the parties were in
attendanc.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the report of
the Committee was not so complete as to authorise the
House to proceed upon it with turther evidence. (The
Noble and Learned Lord here read the report.) That
report did not mention the name of a single individual.
Lord BROUGHAM considered that the report and
the evidence were sufficiently explicit to authorise their
Lordships to proceed without further evidence. He did
not object to the postponement, as one of the party was
absent, and it was better they should all be present.
The order was then discharged, and the parties were
ordered to attend on Monday at five o'clock.
(Lure SITTING.)