The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-01 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF Lt,itllS, May 31.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition
from Newbury, praying for an extension of the Great
Western Railway to the town of Newbury.
On the motion of the Earl of RIPON, the Courts-
martial (East Indie-9 Bill was read a first time.
Lord LURGAN presented petitions from Ireland
against tha Dissenters' Chapels Bill ; also petitions
praying their Lordships to legalise Presbyterian mar-
riages in Ireland.
Lord CAMPBELL presented twelve petitions from
Ireland to the same effect ; also a petition from Cole-
raine against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
THE LATE MONAGHAN ASSIZES.
The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to call their Lord-
ships' attention to the circumstances which had occurred
at the last Monaghan assizes. A general impression existed
in that part of the country that there had been a want of
sincerity in the intentions of the Government in
carrying out the directions which were contained
in a circular to the Attorney-General Brady, with
respect to the custom of challenging jurors.
His Noble Friend opposite on that occasion had read a
letter from the Crown solicitor, Mr. Hamilton, stating
his reasons for striking those persons off the jury. He
stated that he had struck off John Hughes because he
had been servant to a ribbonman.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE—Son-in-law to a ribbonman.
The Marquis of NORMANBY had understood his
Noble Friend to say servant. The fact was that Hughes
had eloped with the daughter of his hither-in-law,
many years since, but he had had no communication with
her family since. With respect to Colfield, it was said
that he had attended a faction meeting, and Edward
Mackinlay had been struck off for the same offence.
Now, with respect to Mackinlay, he was a person of
considerable property, who had never been charged
with ribbonism, or indicted, or convicted for
any offence. Colfield, also, was a respectable person,
who had never been convicted of any offence.
and who had frequently before served on juries. Mr.
Hamilton should have taken pains to have informed
himself accurately, before he had brought such charges
against these respectable persons. He was anxious to
hear what information his Noble Friend could give of
these circumstances.
• Lord WHARNCLIFFB considered that no imputa-
tion had been cast by -his Noble Friend upon the cha-
racter of Mr. Hamilton. The seven persons who
had been struck off the jury were Roman Catholics, but
then it should be recollected that the offence of ribbonism,
of which the prisoner had been accused, wan confined
almost exclusively to Roman Catholics. If Mr. Ha-
milton believed those statements to be true, he
was perfectly justified in striking those persons off.
The verdict of the jury was a discriminating one.
—convicting some and acquitting others.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM—And, therefore, because it
was exclusively confined to Catholics, it ought to be
tried exclusively by Protestants! Such was the reasoning
Of his Noble Friend. According to his (Lord Fitz-
william's) understanding of the theory of trial by jury
that was a reason why Catholics should be on the jury.
Would his Noble Friend reverse the case, and have
offences committed exclusively by Protestants tried by
an exclusively Catholic jury ?—(Cheers.)
Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that he had said that
all Catholics should he excluded from juries empanelled
for the trial of ribbonism ; he had only said that under
the circumstances Mr. Hamilton was justified in chal-
lenging these parties.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said he had heard
nothing that induced him to believe that ribbonism was
confined, to Catholics. Ile believed that the Roman
Catholic priesthood were among the most active in put-
ting it down. He had thrown no imputation on the
jury; on the contrary, he had said that they had done
their duty. He therefore regretted that the moral effect
of the prosecution had been lost by the exclusion of Ca-
tholics from the jury.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE referred the Noble Marquis
to the evidence taken on the Committee he had referred
to, where it was stated that ribbonism was confined al-
most exclusively to Roman Catholics.
The subject then dropped.
FACTORIES BILL.
Their Lordships then went into Committee on this
Bill.

Lord KINNAIRD said though he was opposed on
principle to all legislative interference with labour, either
with the produce of labour, or with labour itself,
yet, as the principle of this Bill had been the
law of the land for years, he should not oppose its pass-
ing. But there was one clause in the Bill which intro-
duced an entirely new principle. The clause would
certainly be quite inoperative, and lie wished therefore
- to know why it had been introduced into the Bill at all ?
When they came to the 323 clause he should move that
it be expunged.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive were also agreed to.
On clause 9 being proposed,
Lord TEYNIIAM said he thought sonic provision
ought to be made in this Bill, with respect to children
who had been absent from a factory in consequence of
ill health. He thought a clause ought to be introduced
into the Bill, requiring that no child who had been ab •
sent, in consequence of ill health, should be allowed to
go back to the factory until a certificate had been ob-
tained from a surgeon. that the child was in a fit state to
go back.
Lord WTI ARNCLIFFE thought the Bill already pro-
vided for this.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 were agreed to.
On clause 12 being proposed,
Lord BEAUMONT 'sieved that that part of the clause
which provided that the cost of the surgeon's certificate
should be defrayed out of the wages of the children, be
struck out.
Lord IVIIARNCLIFFE said the certificates were for
the benefit of the children, and it was but right that they
s.hould bear a portion of the expense.
The amendment was negatived without a division, and
the clause was then agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive were agreed to.
Oa clause Vs being proposed,
Lord BROUGHAM said he had carefully gone over
this Bill, and he must say that he was not much pre-
possessed in its favour. One clause provided that a
factory record office should be established, and that
a suitable building should be erected for that purpose.
He protested against such meddling, officious, dabbling
legislation. If any foreigner was to look at this legis-
lation, he would think it was an Act of the year 844,
and not of the year 1844. But in the 18th clause of
this Bill, they had exceeded themselves. This clause
enacted that, in all eases in which the tops and sides of
rooms were not painted with oil they should be lime-
washed at least occe in fourteen months, wherever chil-
dren and young persons were employed in those rooms.
Now, young persons meant women of from sixty to
seventy years of age—most interesting young persons
they were—and where the walls were painted with oil,
they should be every 14 months washed with soap and
water, It certainly was a great omission that the Bill
did not state the exact degree of the heat of the water
that was to be used.—(A laueli.) Now he hoped that
before long, equal care would•be taken of the comfort of
• the peasantry. He expected to see a Bill ordering
the cottages of the peasantry to be whitewashed, and
enacting that all chinks through which draughts of wind.
• or snow, or rain, er hail, might pass, should be stopped
up with chopped hay, or straw, or plaster, and that the
• persons living in cottages should be provided with a suffi-
• cieticy cf warm elething, of course at the expense of
their landlords and employers—(Laughter)—and that a
sufficiency of feel should be provided for them, and that
no dunghills, or pigetyes should be allowed near their
dwellings, fur nothing could be more hijurieus to health
than dunghills and pigstyee. They might have a sche-
dule relating to cases in which cow- houses might be per
witted.—(A laugh.) lie was perfectly disgusted with
this meddling, officious, dabbling system of legislation.
—(The Noble and Learned Lord then threw the Bill
across the table, and resumed his seat, amidst cheers and
• laughter.)
• Lord WEIATINCLIFFE said that the clause was only
a renewal of the one in the old Bill.
The clause was then passed.
Clauses from 19 to 23 were passed without discussion.
On clause 29 being proposed,
Earl FITZWILLIA 3.1 said it appeared that every-
body was in favour of this Bill—(" No, no," from Lord
Rinnaird)—that was, speaking abstractedly. The
Government was for it—the Tories were for it—the
Whigs were for it—the political economists were for it ;
but these were not quite . satisfied with it—they were
disposed to carry it a little further. The clause under
consideration proved that there was some little return of
common sense beginning to be shown on the subject.
The clause substituted "eight years" instead of' nine as
the age at which children could go to work in factories.
He hoped to see a similar return of good sense to the
children employed in mines ; but he could not compre-
hend why all this extraordinary philanthropy exhibited
for those employed in factories should not be carried a
little further, and why there was such neglect of the
moral and physical evils in the social condition of other
classes of the community. The landed interest had taken
this Bill especially under its protection, but he could not
comprehend why it neglected the interest of those with
whom it was particularly connected. Those employed
in mines and factories enjoyed, at all events, a warm
and equal temperature, which was not so injurious as
exposure in a cold open field for many hours during the
da, which was the case with children in the agricultu-
. rat districts who were employed in " scaring" birds,
• and other field occupations. He thought that
the only cases of interference with labour should be
in those where the morals of the people were affected.
They were interfering with the rights of the working
classes, and preventini them from earning as much as
they could. If they did this, they ought, at the same
time, to give them the means of obtaining food.-
- ((heers.) If they cramped industry, they ought to feed
the people. If the Legislature were to do this, it would
• act consistently. He wondered how Parliament would
receive a Bill which provided that a load of bay should
• not be carried after six o'clock in the evening?—(Hear,
hear.) Yet this would not be worse than the present
Bill. This Bill was one-sided legislation, and he could
not, therefore, give it his support.
The Marquis of NORMANDY denied that there was
any retrogression in this Bill. He thought no compari-
• son could be instituted between the condition of the
- agricultural and manufacturing labourer. The force of
' nature protected the agricultural labourer, but the factory
labourer had no such protection. He wished to maintain
the. Bill in its present integrity. With regard to the •
• argument that the last hour was the manufacturer's only
profit, why, the same thing had been stated twenty
years ago, when the late Sir Robert Peel had proposed
to reduce the hours of labour from sixteen hours. With
regard to the provisions for enforcing cleanliness, there
could be no doubt of the necessity for those provisions
• Where - large. numbers_ of persons were congregated
do ether.
The Bishop of RIPON rejoiced at the limitation of