The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-23 00:00:00

PREVENTION OF SMOKE.

Mr. lIINDLEY begged to ask the Hon. Member for
Lymington (Mr. Mackinnon), as. Chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed to inquire. respecting the nuisance of
smoke in-towns, whether it was intended to found any
measure upon the Report of that Committee?
Mr. MACKINNON said that the Committee's Report-
recommended that a Bill should be passed• on the subject,
but the Government declined to introduce such a mea-
sure; and, therefore, he;as Chairman of the Committee,
would feel it, his duty to propose a Bill. • •
THE ARRESTS IN. THE 76TH REGIMENT.

Mi. GILL rose, pursuant to notice, with a view to ob-
viate an erroneeus impression produced, by the state-
ment of the Secretary-at-War on the 12th instant, to call
the attention of the House to the detention of Captain
Brewster' of the 76th regiment, under arrest for' eight
months, without any charge being made against him, and
to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he had any ob-
jection to communicate to the House the other from the
Horse Guards for that officer's relief and admonition?
On a former occasion the Right Hon. and Gallant Officer
(Sir It Hardinge) was reported to have said as these
officers had violated their duty they had bees put under
arrest, and they would be kept .under, arrest for a
short time longer. That statement was incorrect
but he was sure the inaccuracy did -note attach'
to the Officer (Sir Henry Hardinge), whom
everybody in that House, and out of it, knew
to be 'incapable' of stating anything but what was fully
borne out by acts. The effect of such-inaccuracy might,
however, be" injurious to the.. character of Captain
Brewster, and he (Mr. Gill) therefore mentioned the sub-
ject, that, should any imputation rest upon him, it might
be removed. The' two officers .referred to were or-
dered under arrest by another officer, who was
present at some proceeding • which• had taken
place, and who had subsequently communicated to the
commanding 'officer what had' taken' 'place: • Now he
(Mr. Gill) found; by 'the articles of war, that no officer
was liable to arrest, except for an offence committed,
and that it was the duty of the party putting-an Officer
under' arrest immediately to take steps for instituting 'an
inquiry. When he stated to the House. that Captain
Brewster had not beep gUilty of any offence.
whatever, he thought he was not asking too much when
he tried to have' an imputation, removed from his cha-
racter. After being five months under arrest, Captain
Brewster wrote a letter to his commanding officer,
begging it might be forwarded to the Major-General in
command of the district, and which in!reated to know
under what charge he was labouring, and stated'
that if any offence had been committed by him, Ike'
would, cheerfully' submit to stick punishment as. the'
Commander-in-Chief might think fit. SubseqUenily two.
letters were written by General Brewster—one of them
to his Grace the Duke of -Wellington, 'and the other to
Lord Fitzroy. Somerset. . The Noble Duke, in his reply
to General Brewster, said he was aware his son was
under arrest, and as certain regulations Were being pre-
pared 'on the subject of duelling, itwasintended that
these officers . should be made subject to Ahem when
completed. Notwithstanding these letters, 'these, two
officers were continued under arrest three months longer.
He complained, on the part of these gentlemen,' of their
having suffered the* long arrest they had done, and that
arrest without some, explanation from the Right
Hon. Baronet might injure the character. of Captain
Brewster. Although the articles of war stated that no
officer should be kept under arrest for more than eight
days before he was tried, that course had not been adopted
in the present case. He thought the House would agree
with him 'that this severe punishment was uncalled for.
He wished to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet, had'
any objeCtion to' communicate to the loose a copy of the
order of the .Horse Guards for the liberation of theie
gentlemen, and the admonition given to them ?
Sir H. HARDINGE had a strong objection to produce
the papers—first, because it would form a bad precedent ;
and secondly, because the proceedings took place under
a private warrant. Captain Brewster had violated mi-
litary discipline, by immediately accepting a challenge
from a young and inexperienced officer. Be would
frankly confess, as to the other point, that there was .no ,
imputation on the character of Captain BreWster.

DROPPED ORISERS.
The dropped Orders of yesterdiy Were 'then disposedof.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

On the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself
into Committee on the Factories Bill being read,
Lord JOHN. RUSSELL suggested the propriety of
entering on the paper the Orders of the Day which were
to have precedence.
Sir R. PEEL agreed with the suggestion of 'the
Noble Lord, and would take care that it should be at-
tended to.

FACTORIES BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read fur the House
resolving itself into Committee on the Factories Bill,
Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented a petition signed
by twenty-twe of the principal firms of Preston, stating
that the -petitioners had heard with. the utmost alarm
that the House had come to a resolution limiting the
hours of labour to ten, and praying the Rouse not to'
consent to such an enactment.
Lord ASHLEY presented ninety-ong petitions from
various districts in the West Riding of Yorkshire, in
favour of A ten hours' dins°.
Mr. FIELDEN presented a petition in favour of
limiting the hours of labour.
The SPEAKER then left`the Chair, and the House re-
solved itseltinto Committee on the Bill.
On clause 2 being proposed,
Lord ASHLEY said that ho would postpone the
amendment of which he had given notice on this clause,
and would raise the discussion on the Bth clause, as it
would be more convenient.
Mr. T. EGEItTON then rime to move the omission
of the word " silk " from line 31. He said that those
who were engaged in the silk manufacture did not de-
sire to be exempt from legislation on the subject, but
they. did not wish to have their interests huddled
up
_in the legislation' which affected othr-

.iers. —e
The SPEAKER, accompanied by several Members, then read various tabular statements of the condition of the
proceeded to the other House. On his return, silk trade, and endeavoured to show that ft would be
The SPEAKER announced that the Royal Assent had necessary to establish' the relay system in this branch of
been given to several Bills, (for which.see Lords' report). manufacture, as- there was not a sufficient number of
Dr. DOW RING withdrew the motion which he had children in some places to supply the demand of the silk
on the paper for the 2d of April, relative to our treaty trade. .With respect to education, he was happy to say that
Of commerce with the Ottoman empire. • there existed throughout the various-districts a. great
Colonel WOOD gave notice that, on going into Com- disPoiition, .on. the pert of -tho Muter", .to 311444 facill.<

ties [for education, and an equally great desire on the
part of the children and their parents, to, avail them-
selves of those facilities. .
Sir J. GRAHAM said he could assure his Hon.
Friend that the caution which he had enjoined with
respect to dealing with these great 'manufacturing in-
terests, was a caution which, as far as he was
concerned, was altogether unnecessary ; for he
was anxious to give the best consideration. to
the subject under discussion. He admitted that
in past legislation silk had been treated differently from
any other branch of the staple manufactures. The mo-
tion of his Honourable Friend, as it now stood, would,
if .carried, take silk altogether • out. of 'the operation-
of the present Bill. It was necessary to call the atten-
tion of his Hon. Friend to- the portion of the children
employed in the ' silk manufacture. Ile thought that
that if any portion of this legislation was more de-
fensible than another, it was that which referred to the
children engaged 'in this manufacture. The po-
verty of. the , parents, notwithstanding' their natural
affections, led them to overwork their children, in order
to obtain the-largest possible amount from their labour.
The legislation on this subject at the commencement of
the present session was first confined to apprentices, but
was afterwards extended to young children. 'At
the present moment, in the silk trade generally, there
was no limitation whatever with respect to the age at
which children might be employed. They might be
employed as early as ,five, six, or seven years of age.
There was a limitation with respect to time ; they could
not be employed above ten-hours, between the time
when they first entered the factories and•thirteen years
of age. There was another distinctiOn, that the children
employed in silk did not require the certificate of
education- which was necessary •in other cases.
He thought it of great importance, with respect to both
these points, that 'the children employed in
the silk trade should be brought :under the_ ge-
neral operation of the . Act, - and this was the
opinion formed by the Committee which sat in 1841.
He (Sir J..Grahana) would now briefly state -the-course
he pro Posed to adopt with the portions of the Bill affect-
ing this portion of our industry. He must resist the
motion of his Rom' Friend, which would 'take the silk
trade entirely out of the operation of 'the Bill. 'ln the
75th clause were provisions which dealt particularly with
the silk, trade. In' legislating. this.subject,they,must
bear in mind- the large proportion which the children
employed' bore to the adults employed—it was no less
than.as four to one. He should propose to omit certain
parts in the clause referred to; nod then to enact thatilo
children from eight to eleven years old should be employed
in the silk manufacture more than six hours and a half ;
but that from eleven tOithirteen they might be employed
for ten honia-in Winding and throwing'; and then at the
- age of . thirteen, they should return Under
the general provisions of the Bill . as' it now
stood. By the arrangement which he proposed
to the House; they would, for the ' sio.tinp, impose a
limit in regard to children, and which he (Sir-J. Gra-
ham) certainly thought to. -he necessary. At the
present moment - there was no , such- limit. In
this • manner ' he was willing to - hope the
just demands of the people - engaged in 'the.
silk trade would be meta When they came to' the 75th
clause of the Bill he should propose to remit the limi-
tation as to children under, II years- of age, and intro-
duce' words to'carry.out 'the arrangement he-now sub-
mitted, ' which •he sincerely trusted' would, upon the
whole, be . considered satisfactory to the, various inte-
rests involved 'in this great and important branch of
our trade.
Mr: ;LABOUCHERE said: that he observed, with
some apprehension, i
the - Bill which had been n-
troduced by her Majesty's
'Government ~ on ' the
subject' of'. factories, 'beeause . he- --believed' that it
was 4he .first- time that the silk manufactUrers had
been put on the same footing as,-cotton manufacturers.
'These' cbiisfderations operated So Stronglr upon the late
GOvernment, that they brought in. tvvo•Bills-s-one with
respect to_ silk, and_ the other with respect to
cotton manufactures—and he- confessed upon the whole
that.-he thought it would facilitate .the progress of the
Bill if the Government . adopted a similar course. He'
thought, however; after •what the Right Ifonceira,ble
Baronet had' stated thtd-the. objection urged by the'silk
manufacttirers had been fairly met t and he believed.
: that his proposition would he satisfactory to 'the trade.
He hoped; therefore, that no °Wade would be thrown.
'in the.way,of the Government. It, was not.his wish to
see; the silk trade. excluded from the operation of a Fac-
tory Bill. , ; The - silk manufacturers had the _largest
amount of children employed in their factories.
Mr. GRIM,SDITCH thought that upon the whole the
plan of the Government would be satisfactory: •
Sir. G. STRICKLAND said that, 'in answer to those
who contended that it was ' iresiossible to. carry on the
silk-manufacture if-the hoPrs of labour were limited, he
Would observe that 'the same 'argument had been used
when it had been proposed to limit the hours, of labour
in the cotton manufactories.: Experience, ,however, had
taught them a different _lesson.. The hours of infant
labour had -been limited, andnone of the inconveniences
1 which bad .been foretold had 'occurred. "The, general
,'impression among . the Members of the Committee of
1841 Was, that the silklmafiefacturers• had made Out no
case for exemption from the operation saf the Bill.- Thsra
were more children employed in the. manufacture of silk
than in any other. branch of manufactures, and, there-
- fore, they 'stood in need of greater Protection. The
room's in which they Worked were hot, and the mature of
the labour was the. same as the labour in , the cottosi.
manufacture. Those children were standing on their
legs for fourteen hours a day, and many of them walked
twenty miles in the course of the day. He could not but
recollect.the evidence of a surgeon, who was against any
restrictions on labour ; he stated that he considered the
exercise they took was healthy. 'He was asked if he
had children of hisnsvn? He answered, yes. He was
then asked if he forced his own children to take such
exercise? llikanswer was that they were not labourers.
Why no human being could say that 'a child of fourteen
years of. age ought to be forced toperform such herculean
labour, and he was sorry that the .Right Hon. Baronet
had consented to do as he had done.- He was sorry
that he.oonfinedthe Mays, to ehildren between theages
.bf six and eleven. This was departing from the prin-
ciple Of-the Bill. --He strongly urged the COmmittee not
hastily to make a distinction between silk, and cotton,
and other manufactures. ' . ' '
. . ... -
Mr. BANKES said if the Hon. lleniber or Cheshire'
persisted in his amendnient he Would support it. , The
persons engaged in the manufacture of silk elaimed no
exemption from the protection given: to those engaged
in other Israttelies.• . But they said that the work in the
silk factories was so different from that in the cotton
and woollen mills, 'that the regulations' that'applied to
others would notapply to them. '
Mr. STRUTT said he' did. not think the Hon Ba-'
ronet could have much refreshed his memory by read-,
ing the 'report before. he spoke on the subject, so com-:
pletely 'had' he misrepresented the
.evidence.—(Hear,
bear.).t With regard to, 'the -temperature in the silk;• factories, so far from its being the case that it was very
"high in them, the fact was, that the work could not be
Litrriedi.on If the .temperature was not kept cool.—
(Hear, - hear.) The Hon. Baronet then alluded to what
had been said of a surgeon, who happened to be a con-•
stituent-of- his (Me Strutt's)nwn. It Was trite that he
had stated that the children ran from fifteen to twenty.
miles. But this occurred in the case Of working at!
sowing silk—a process in which there was no machinery
whatever, and which was something, like that of rope-
Making.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a ease -which .
could be reached by legislatien.--(Hear, hear.) .The
Hon. Baronet then said. that the children 'worked for
thirteen er fourteen hours; but in the town of• Derby
there Was not a single mill which worked' more than ten
hours.—(Bear, bear.) He believed that, on the whole,
some of the silk manufacturers would prefer being .left
out of the Bill altogether. But 'he thoughtthey would
be satisfied with the suggestion of the,Right Hon. Ba-
ronet, and he therefore hoped his Hon. Friend would.;
not preis his ameodment: • . : ~•
Mr. T. EGERTON said that, after the suggestion of
the Right Honourable Baronet, he would not press his
amendment. • . .
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the claw_*
agreed 'to. '
Clauses 3,4, 5, and 8, were agreed to without discus-
sion. On clause 7 being proposed,' . ,
, . Mr. ALDAN' ' said that the woollen mannfaetureis
. . , .
-objected to the seventh clause. • • '
Mr. SHEPHERD said he wished
,to. correct -a
mis-
representation which had occurred in reference to what
he had, said the other night. He wished now to state
that in the town of Dome; children were altogether ex-
cluded 'from the factories: The men and women and

young persons usually worked twelve hours, and it
would be very injurious to their interests if they were
prevented from so-d6ihg. '
Mr. VERNON mill' said the whole argument
really turned upon the words no fethile of any age,"
and, to these words, and to the principle embodied in
them, he entirely objected. He thought it was a very
dangerous principle to introduce that of restricting the
labeup.of adult males or females in manufactories. The
Souse had, on one or two occasions, decided on inter-

fering with the labour of, the helpless. They had inter-
fered between the parent and the child, but that was
because the •parents made use of ,the labour of their
children in 'alnanner• to seriously iejtire their, health,
and sometimes'eyen to destroy life. But he had' heard
no argument brotight forward why men and women
above the age of twenty-one years should not be all Owed
to work, as at present in factories.. He, had given his
vote with great_pleasure to the propositiOn of his.,Noble
Friend opposite (Lord Ashley), but they were now lay-
ing down a very impertant- principle--interfering with,
and ,restraining the labour of adults :in _'factories, and
which, if carried into operation, Might very seriously
prejudice the beSt. interests of this country; - If it were
persevered in, he should certainly divide the House on,
the subject.—,(Hear, hear.)Sir JAMES GRAHAM must frankly express his
concurrence in what had fallen frcrn the Right HOD:
Gentleman who had
.just sat down, regarding the im-
portance of the words of the clause alluded to by him;
and he further agreed with him in bel•eving that -the
present was the first time that restraint was sought-to be
imposed on adult labour in factories. But he was' under
-the impression that female labour, under, peculiar cir-
cumstances, required restraint.' For %dance, Married
women, under the control of their huSbands ;. children.
under the control of their rarents ; and. Wenieri in a de.'
licate condition. At present there , were frequent in-
stances, he believed, where the class of persons he. had
enumerated worked in a manner inconsistent with their
health, and it was necessary the Legislature should in-
terfere. He 'hoped the House would
,accede to the
proposition.
After a few words from. Sir W. CLAy7,,vilich.,irere
not audible, the clause wa,s agreed to.
On clause 8 being proposed, ,
lord ASHLEY rose to move as anT"aittendment,
'that th6).'Word " ten" be substituted .j, for the
word " twelve," and in the event "Of this a*ie.ndment
being carried, to add a prcirioo, to the effect that the
restriction of the hours of lab Our to On in the day shall
only take effect plc the lstof October, 111461:.and that,
draufthe lst of October nest until the Ist of October,