The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-20 00:00:00

PE TITIONS.

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 POWIS presented several petitions to the
same effect.

COAL MINES INSPECTION BILL.

The Earl of CARLISLE moved the third reading of
this Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to this measure alto-
gether. He had 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 laud, and in mines, and in minerals.
The mere fact of authorizing an inquiry by inspectors was
a serious interference with the rights of owners of mines.
Those inspectors might be tinder tho 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 dii
nut 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 sort of 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 carelesness of the miners
themselves, who smoked in the mines, and neglected to use
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 for
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
factitious 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 eon.
fessed at 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 Esrl 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 handwriting.
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 uaderstind why they
should not at once proceed as two of the parties were in
attendance.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the report of
the Committee was not so complete as to authorise the
Home to proceed upon it without further evidence. (The
Noble and Learned Lord here re.d the report.) That
report did rot mention the name of a single
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 parties 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.
'COUNTY COURTS EXTENSION BILL.

On the motion cf Lord BEAUMONT, the report on
this Bill v‘as received, and the third reading was fixed
for Monday.
The Vestries and Vestry Clerks Bill passed
through Committee.
FACTORIES BILL.

Earl GRANVILLE moved the third reading of this
Bill, and did not feel called upon to enter again into the
arguments which had been £o often repeated in the
former stages of the Bill._ _

The Luke of RICHMOND moved that it be read a
third time that day six months. He was at a loss to
comprehend the conduct of those Noble Lords who op-
posed him, and who, although they admitted that the
operation of the existing Act, while it had been in force,
had been productive of the greatest possible benefit,
still were for altering it so as to lengthen the hours of
lalsour. Under the Bill as it then stood the dinner
hour of the operatives should be deferred, and the
consequence of that. would be, he fcered, that they
would be driven to the beer•Lhops for a stimulus.
Their Lordships must know by experience that it
was not very agreeable to have people's dinner hour
put off, and he always perceived that a greater number
of peers left the House at half-past seven o'clock than
at any other time.—(A laugh). On a former occasion
he had thought it his duty to oppose the proposal of his
Noble Friend on the cross benches (the Earl of nar-
rowly) for extending the operation of the measure to
children, because the adoption of that proposal would be
equivalent to the introduction of an entirely new prin-
ciple, and would interfere with the relay system. But
he wished to give notice that at the commencement of
the next session he would move for a Committee to in-
quire how the relay system had worked. He wished to
enter his protest against the Bill as it then stood, and
he should for that purpose move that it be read a third
time that day six months. Bat as many of those Noble
Lords who agreed with him upon that point were then
absent from the House, be should not press his motion
to a
division,
at
elser
aisx majority
month,ha
jpd
oorsitayi t
httr
might gilv
that to
whicher
they
M jes t y ' s
nhad
te r agr
e ob-
tainedo on a former evening. Under these circumstances
Le
begged leave to move that the Bill be road a third
time that
i
haitdialsN
the operative classes was not so decidedly
measure as some persons appeared to i
Le believed that the feeling of
lieved that the operatives would havetie amendment of thes
l om
a og pi
seriousnpeo.t e
gdiriot
eou
brti the
for complaint upon the subject if
s(the Earl of Harrowby)
Noble Earl on the cross benches
were adopted.

The Duke of RICHMOND said he believed that 99
out of every 100 operatives were opposel to the Bill as it
then stood.

Lord REDESDALE said it had been alleged that that
Bill had been framed as a compromise; but he hadheard
no answer given to the question which had been put the
other evening—namely, as to who had been the parties
to that compromise. He ehould certainly like to receive
same information upon that point from her Majesty's
Ministers. It certainly would appear from the petitions
which had been presented to Parliament that a majority
both of the manu lecturers and of the operatives were op-
posed t. the Bill as it then stood.
Earl GRANVILLE said he had never stated that the

Bill was a compromise. All he contended for was that it
was the most practicable mode of settling a very difficult
question.
The Bill was then read a third time.
The Earl of HARR° W.BY then moved an amend-
ment, the purport of which was teat female children
should not be worked after six o'clock in the evening
any more than females and young persons. He confessed
that he felt most anxious t) provide against the possi-
bility of those chii,fren being detained' in factcries for
hours after their female relatives and other young per-
sons should have left them. Ha did not wish to put an
end to the relay system; and he thought that a most
satisfactory arrangement might be come to upon that
point by the employment of female children in the morn-
ings, and the employment of male children in the even-
ings. But he certainly thought it most desirable that
femele children should be able to leave the mills in the
company of their female relatives. The Noble Lord
conciuded by moving the insertion of certain words for
the purpose of carrying out the object of his amendment.
The Earl of DARNLEY said he thought that if it
were at all desirable to introduce a provision of that
description, it should be brought forward in a separate
Bill. He hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would
not support the amendment.
Earl GRANVILLE said he believed that if they
were to introduce a provision of that description there
would be considerable danger that the Bill could not be
passed in the course of the present session. The Noble
Earl had said that certain evils might arise from their
allowing female Children to be employed in mills after
the hour of six o'clock in the evening. But those evils
were merely hypothetical, and there was no evidence to
show that there was any serious danger of their occur-
rence. He believed that it was much better that they
should confine the operation of the Bill to the specific ob-
ject for which it had been brought forward.
Lord KINNAIRD said he believed that if they were
to adopt the proposal of the Noble Earl, they would be
removing the only subject of complaint upon which the
agitation of that question could henceforth be continued
in the manufacturing districts. In his opinion it would
be much better that they should at once come to a com-
plete and satisfactory settlement upon the matter.
The Bishop of MANCHESTER supported the amend-
ment. It was said that the present was not a favour-
able opportunity of pressing that proposal. But it was
because he believed that that measure would for a long
time continue as a settlement of the question that he
wished to see Parliament pass it in the most satisfac-
tory shape. • The Noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said
that the evils of leaving female children in factories
after their female relatives should have left them were
merely hypothetical. But he (the Bishop of Manchester)
begged leave to differ altogether from that statement.
As the Bill then stood, mills might be open from half-
pest five in the morning until half-past eight in the
evening. Now, the result of that arrangement would
be that female children would be compelled to return
home, unaccompanied by their mothers or other female
relatives, and would be left to the care of adult males,
those adult males being any persons over the
age of eighteen. He contended that such a sys-
tem might be productive of great evil; and
he should further say that the comfort and happiness of
mothers and of other members of families must to a
great extent be destroyed by the knowledge that they
had left behind them in the mills female children, who
would have to return home at an advanced hour of the
evening without their proLction. He implored their
Lordships to adopt an amendment which, he believed,
would greatly conduce to the happiness of families en-
gaged in factory labour.—(Hear.)
Lord MONTEAGLE said, that although he had voted
the other evening against the proposal of the Noble
Earl upon that subject, he could not resist the. impres-
sive appeal which had just been made to them by the
Right Rev. Prelate; and he should, therefore, vote for the
amendment. He believed it to be wise and expedient
that they should adopt the amendment, and by that
means remove what might hereafter become a dangerous
topic for agitation.
Lord GRANVILLE having briefly explained,
Their Lordships then divided. Tho numbers were—
Contents ... ... 14
Non-contents
Msj erity —l6
against Lord liarrowhy's motion.
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
The Earl GRANVILLE then moved the second
reading of the fellowing Bills, which were agreed to
without discussiou :—lncorporatioa of Boroughs Confir-
mation (No. 2) Bill; Militia Ballot Suspension Bill; Po-
pulation Bill; Population (Ireland) Bill; Lean Societies
Bi;I; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Bill; Linen, &c., Manu-
factures (Ireland) Bill.
Several other Bills on their Lordship? table were ad-
vanced a stage.
Lord MONTEAGLE gave notice that on Thursday
next he should move an address for the issuing of a
Commission to inquire into the state of the law between
landlord and tenant in England and Ireland.
Their Lordships then adjourned at Twenty-five mi-
nutes to Eight o'clock.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 19.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL.

The louse then resolved itself into Committee on the
Mercantile Marine (No. 2) Bill, Mr. BERNAL in
the chair.

Clause 70 was agreed to after a short discussion.
Clause 71 was struck out on the motion of Mr. LA-
BOLTCHERE.
On clause 72,

At the suggestion of Mr. HENLEY,
Mr. LABOLTCIIERE agreed to the reconsideration of
this cause. and it was accordingly postponed.
Clause 73 was also postponed, on the motion of Mr.
BAINES.

Clause 74, which provides that a sailor shall not be
entitled to wages during any neglect of duty, was agreed
to after a short conversation.

Clause 75, providing for courts to be held in foreign
ports on masters or men accused of misconduct in mer-
chant ships, gave rise to considerable discussion, but
was ultimately postponed.

On clause 76,
Mr. HENLEY objected to the terms of the clause.
Mr. BAINES thought the clause might be dispensed
with altogether.
The cisme was accordingly struck out.
Clause 77 was agreed to with amendments, as were
also clauses 78, 79, 80 and 81.
Some discussion arose upon clause 82 as to the
meaning of the word coasting trade, but it was cut
short by Mr. LABOUCHEIIE stating that it would be
explained in the interpretation clause, and the clause was
agreed to.
Clause 83 was struck out.
Clauses 84, 85, S 6, b 7, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93 were
agreed to with some slight ierbal amendments.

—On clause 94,
Mr. HENLEY observed that this Bill would autho-
rise the Board of Trade to deal with large sums of money
the property of private individuals. Now, he bad no
confidence in the Board of Trade; as a body it might
disappear to-morrow;
.and he wanted to know if this.
money would be deposited, with some party or parties,
give security 13r its safe custody?
whB7Irs.hLouAIdBOUCHER,E said some arrangement might
be made with the Treasury for the safe custody of the
meney, but he would take time to consider the point.
Mr. CARDWELL remarked that under this Bill the
shipping master would pay the sailors, and his receipt
f
aggregate
ewags to be paid to the crow of a ship
wouldot discharge to the owner. Now what
security
bt?4gufilen
did
the Bill give the sailor against fraud or de-
for tale b e
falcations on the part of the agent?
Mr. LABOUCHERE said securities would be taken
from the agent, but he would consider the matter before
the report was brought up.
The clause was then agreed to, as was also clause 93.
On clause 96,

Mr. CARDWELL said this clause forced the master
of a ship to give his crew characters at the end of a
voyage. Would not this provision lead to considerable
difficulties and much litigation in C 1 S2B whore the
character given was bad?
Mr. LABOUCIIERE did not laink any such diffi-
culties would arise, and as he attached much importance
ito this clause, believing that t. woull have the effect of
improving the reputation of the inercantile navy, he
must press it.

Mr: FOX MAULE reminded t!3e House what was
the practice with respect to soldiers who have left the
army. In the printed certicate of ts soldier's discharge,
a blank was lett to be filled np with a description
of his character on leaving the army. If the
soldier had a good character that blank was filled
up with the word " gocd ;" but if his charac-
ter was bad the blank was filled tap, of course, with
the word " bad," and in the latter case all that the
soldier had to do was to tear the °I./noxious word from
the certificate.—(Laughter.)
Mr. HENLEY thought that the clause as it stood was
so objectionable that It was deserving of reconsideration,
and he moved that it should be postponed.
Mr. CARDWELL objected to :the clause on the
ground that it tended to delegate penal powers to the
Iloard of Trade, to which he was strongly opposed.
Mr. LABOUCEIERE eventually consented that the
clause should be postponed.
On the 97th clause, which empowers the shipping
master to call for the production of evidence, such as the
log-book, &c., in the cases of dispt:ted claims, being
read.

Mr. WAWN proposed the omis3lon of the clause
altogether.
The gallery was cloarcd for a division, but none took
place, Mr. Wawn having withdrawn lo:is amendment, and
the clause was ordered to stand part cp:f. the Bill.
The 93th clause, as slightly amendad,,was agreed to.
Clause 99 was struck out.

It being ❑ow three o'clock,
Tile CHAIRMAN, 011 the motion of Mr. WAWN, re-
ported progress and asked leave to agai❑ on Monday
next.

Tho House resumtd, and then immediately afterwards
adjourned until Five: o'clock.

The House resumed at Five o'clock..
PETITIONS.

Mr. HENRY presented d petition, complaining of the
operation of the 9th clause of the riendly Societies
Act.

Lord HARRY VANE presented a 'petition from Dar-
lington, against certain provisions of the Savings Bank
Bill.
supplied to
tthhee
e in
veot.r_ep((ic lihs e,
Mr. LACY presented a petition from Mr. Ross, a
surgeon, complaining cf the adulteration of the milk
e rai nadn dPl°ag iunt:
and Scarborough against thedmi vision of Jews into
e
Parliamnt.Ong out
Mr. HAMILTON presented petiti c ns from Preston
a a mode of
Mr. BRIGHT presented a . •
petitiona froth
f a place in
Gloucestershire against church-rates.
Mr. C. PEARSON presented a 'petition from the
vestry
c 4 Lambeth, complainiarr that 1 he petitioners were
grievously and unjutly treated by 1 aro Commissioners

of Sewers, in that they had been assessed to the extent
of 25,000/. during the last y(-ar in the matter of tie wer a ge,
of which a very small sum hA been expended, and that
there yet remained 18,000 feet oc open sewers in Lambeth,
which required to be closed. The lion. Member said it
was his intention to move that the petition be printed.
and that he would call the attention of the mewbere of
that Government to it on Monday next.
Mr. B. OSBORNE preil-ited a petition from M. Wm.
Yates, of Cornliiii, and Mr. Robert Ford, of Batters.m,
praying that the House would promote steam communi-
cation between this country and our colonial posseisions.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE
PATEN 1' LAW.

Mc. MILNER GIBSON asked the Noble Lord, the
First Lord of the Treasury, whether, on the appoint-
ment of tl,e new Attorney-Genera!, there had been any
new understanding that the emoluments of that office,
arising out of the procuration of patents, would not be
considered as standing in the way of the reform of the
patent
law, which was highly desirable? He did not
presume to say that the Attorney-General had any
vested interest in those fees; but ho thought such a
change could not be introduced withont some such un-
derstanding with that Gentleman.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said his ion. and Learned
Friend the Attorney-General would be perfectly willing
to a=sent to a relinquishment of his fees, arising from
that source.—(Loud cheers.)
WILLIAIII'S-TOWN IRELAND.
_ _ ,

Lord DUNCAN complained that a report, whit`► be
moved for three months ago, respecting the improve-
ment of William's-town, in Ireland, had never been pro-
duccd and laid on the table.

k Lord SEYMOUR, said he had frequently written to
Ireland for the report, but had never been able to get it.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Mr. ANSTEY asked the First Lord of the Treasury
whether the Government would consent to the present
session being prolonged until the Parliamentary Oaths
Bill had received the decision of Parliament?—(Oh, oh,
and laughter.)
Lord J. RUSSELL believed the only answer he could
give was to repeat what he stated last night, namely
that he should declare on Monday the course he in•
tended to pursue with respect to that Bill.—(Laughter.)
LIGHTHOUSE ON THE GALI TA ISLAND.
Mr. HUME asked the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty whether, after the dreadful loss of the Avenger,
any steps had been taken to erect a lighthouse on Galita
Island or the Agluglia Rocks; or, what would be a
still more important boon to the navigation of the Me-
diterrannean (and especially to vessels bound to Malta),
on the Sherki Rocks, on which another lamentable
wreck took place, the Athenian, 64, in the year 1806.
All the surrounding nations would probably join in such
' a noble enterprise, difficult perhaps, but by no means
impracticable.

Sir F. BARING said the Admiralty could not erect
a lighthouse on a foreign territory without the consent
of the Sovereign to which it belonged. He was not
aware that any correspondence had pvised through the
Foreign-office with respect to the erection of a light-
house on the island in question.