The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS', May 1.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour..
Colonel CONOLLY presented a petition from a place
in Ireland against the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.
Mr. M. IfELL presented a petition from Yorkshire
against any alteration in the corn-laws.
Captain LAYARD presented a petition in favour of
a Ten Hours' Bill. , • .
Sir B. HALL presented a petition froruthe parish of •
St. Pancras against the Masters and Servants Bill; also
petitions from the same parish against the IsTew Poor-
law. . . .
Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from a place in
Yorkshire in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. - • ,
Mr. WILSON PAT TEN presented a -petition. rim
Chorley, praying for the abolition of the duty on cotton
wool.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD presented petitiGns
from Carrickfergus, Donaghadee, Glascar, Baloo, and
Winterton, in Ireland, praying that a law might be pissed
to render valid all marriages solemnised, or hereafter to
be solemnised, by Dissenting ministers between persons
of proper age and not within the prohibited degrees of
affinity. .
Mr. GISBORNE presented a petition against the
Masters and Servants Bill.
Mr. GLAI)STONE moved that Sir John Young be
added to the Committee on the Hull Docks Bill.
Mr. KEMBLE presented a petition from the inhabi-
tants of Wandsworth, Battersea, and the adjoining dis-
tricts, against the Common Lands Inclosur? Bill.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY presented a petition from se7
veral ministers and inhabitants of North Wales, praying
that the 10th clause might be expunged from the New
Poor-law Amendment Bill ; and that the poor might
be buried in consonance with the wishes of their relatives.
Mr. ALDAM presented petitions against the Mas-
ters and Servants Bill.
ARCHES BILL.
The Court of Arches Bill was postponed to this day
month.

MASTERS AND SERVANTS BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on- the' Mas-
ters and Servants Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented twenty-nine petitions
against the Bill.
On the motion that the SPEAKER do leave the chair, •
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose for the purpose of giving
effect, as far as it lay in his poser, to the petitions that
he had just presented to the House, and he must say . -
that, as far as it was in his power to adopt it, there was ,
no form of the House he would not use as a weapon to
defeat an enactment which had been truly designated in
some of these petitions as one of the most insidious, op-
pressive, arbitrary, and tyrannical attempts to oppress
the working classes that was ever made.—(A laugh.) It
might suit Hon. Gentleman to laugh at an attempt to
oppress the working classes—(" No, no")—but if the ,
House would give him its attention, he would prove to ,
it, and would satisfy the public, that this was the object—
and the sole object—of the Bill. He had reason to
complain that the Bill had arrived at this stage at all.
To the original Bill no one Could object ; it
had a humane object in view, and though it
increased the power of the justices, yet it was for
the purpose of facilitating the recovery of wages. Under
that belief, the House passed the Bill through its first
stages, but it was under false colours and false pretences.
It was then proposed to go into Committee to make cer-
tain alterations ; those alterations were made, and the Bill
came out of Committee without a single word, from the
first line of the preamble to the last line in it, referring
to that object. Therefore, it could not be said that the
Bill had been read either a first or second time.
The Bill had been brought to its present stage under
false colours and false pretences. Now, what was the
reason assigned for this measure ? When his Hon.
Friend, the Member for Lambeth, asked for some ex-
planation the other night, the Secretary of State for the
Home Department said he did not approve of the man-
ner in which the Bill was drawn, and he referred him
to the Hon. Member for Somersetshire. The Hon.
Member for Somersetshire said that the Bill was drawn
up by the desire of the Government.
Sir J. GRAHAM—The form of the Bill was ap-
proved by me, not the substance.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it was the substance of the
Bill which he had to deal with—he cared nothing about
the shadow.—(Laughter.) New, if he went to the
lion. Member for Somersetshire, and complained of the
provisions of the Bill, he said they were forced upon him
by the Government ; whereas the Right Hon. Gentle-
man said he was not responsible for them. The Hon.
Member for Berkshire said it was a totally different Bill
from what he approved, and the Hon. Member for Not-
tinghamshire expressed a similar opinion. Now he repeated
that this Bill had not been properly read a secend time.
Now what were the provisions of this Bill which were •
so objectionable? A new principle was introduced by
the Bill unknown to the Legislature of the countryse--
(Hear, hear.) The only legislation in reference to
labour which had heretofore taken place had been in yes ,
sect to persons hired for a certain term, and the Ma-
gistrates had power to fine or imprison persons who
had not fulfilled their contract. But this power° was
never given in cases of piece or job work.—(Hear,
hear.) They were now going to confer a power of
this kind on the Magistrates. By this Bill a person
would be liable to be sent to the House of
Correction for two months on the single oath of a fore-
man.—(Hear, hear.) If this were the case, could they
be surprised 'Mat they had petitions on the subject from
every species of trade in the kingdom. This Bill
would affect e‘ery species of labour. The Right
lion. Gentleman intended that the Bill slieJld only
affect labourers employed in husbandry. But as it
stood now it would affect those employed in factories.
They might be imprisoned for two months upon the
oath of the foreman or overseer if they were only five
minutes too late.—(Hear.) In order to carry out this Bill
they proposed to repeal six Acts, and it would be well
before this iniquitous Bill received the support of the
House, that Hon. Gentlemen should know what those
Acts were. The first Act which was proposed to he
repealed was the sth of Elizabeth, c. 4 ; but •
on referring to that Bill it would be found in the
preamble that the object of the statute was to protect
the labourer, and to secure to artisans wages of a
higher rate than were paid at the time, which both .
Houses of.Parlianient affirmed to be too small. He wished
to call the attention of those who were in favour of a
Ten Hours' Bill to the provisions of this Act, which was
now sought to be repealed. The Act of Elizabeth re=
gulated the hours of labour at fourteen hours,
from March to September, in thirty-two trades,
and ten hours from September to March. Be-
tween the months of September and Meech the time
was still more limited; they were allowed the same pe-
riod of time for their meals, and they were only to labour
from sunrise to sunset, and no one was- compelled to
work longer. Having limited • the hours of labour
and settled the wages of the labourers by law,
it was but right that the magistrates should have
the power of compelling parties to work, but
this Act was repealed, and nothing for the satisfac-
tion or security of the working classes enacted in ita place.
The 20th George, 11. was also to be repealed by that
Act, which was considered nearly obsolete. Any ser-
vants convicted of misconduct were liable to be corrected
and imprisoned. There was nothing in that Act relating
to piece or job work. The 27th George 11. merely
repealed a proviso of the last-mentioned Act ; and
the 31st George IL, which was passed in 1757, made
the law applicable to husbandry servants hired for a less
period than one year. The Act of 4th Geo. IV., passed
in 1823, said nothing of job work, but related to the
violation of contracts for service, and enacted either that
such contracts must be in writing, or else that the ser-
vant must have entered upon his hiring, which was to be
taken as evidence of the existence of a contract, in either
of which cases, if the servant violated his contract by
neglecting his work, he was liable to imprisonment. These.
were the Acts which it was now proposed to- reps!).
In this Bill it did not matter how much the master mis-
behaved himself, the punishment only related to the
servant.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Ferranti.) This
was nothing but a law for the rich and one for the per
—one for the employer and one for the employade•
called upon the House not to sanction
Augustus
which
was contained in this Bill. What had Sir
_fa__
Henniker said at the Suffolk Quarter Sessions !_ca
That if they sent down the whole maple of lt
quiet, unless
London they would not keep P
treeitotmen of them.
the principle
they materially altered in , their .
p on so great was the
Such was that gentleman's ) would advise them
care; and
dtcisctoankteent
that this feelingspread, that it did
did not .
manufacturing districts. The
he
not work its way into the
discussing the subject the limitation
other day -when Sir James Graham had said
of the hours of labour,
un;:bel.
to .those in the House favourable to limitation
that the working classes did not agree in
opinion with them—that they had forwarded no petition
in its favour—(Hear, hear.) Well, they would see new.
what .was the effect of petitioning, for against this Bill
nearly two hundred petitions had been presented.—
(Cheers.) lie (Mr. Duncombe) asked him (Sir
James Graham) where were his petitions in,
favour of it.—(Hear, hear.) Those petitions-
against the Bill represented nearly two millions.
of people asking the House not to pass this Bill. If the
House went into Committee upon it, he should feel it his
duty to read several extracts from these petitions ; but
he did hope he had made out such a case as would in-
duce the House to reject a Bill which would createmore
discontent than any Act that, or any former House had
ever been guilty of. Therefore, he trusted they Would
at once reject it, and so protect thousands, and hundreds
of thousands, who were not there to protect them-
selves.
Mr. P. HOWARD was understood tosecond the motion.
Mr. HUME, in the hope to put a mop. at once
to this Bill, would appeal to the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir James Graham) to allow the order for
Committee to be discharged, and either introduce
a new Bill, or send the matter to a Committee
and
then stairs, where it could be thoroughly n
examined,othe
then reported upon. The present Bill was not
new
Bill.
Bill
originally introduced—it was altogether
•was to make its
The only proper principle in such a Bill
provisions alike applicable to all, so that it might
master against the set, the
servant protect the rvan asho
servant against the master. This Bill
did
no
such thing ; and he could assure the Right
Honourable • Baronet that it had created the
greatest excitement amongst the labouring classes.
He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet would give them his
support, and not allow this Bill to go further. He did
not think that the House was in a condition to legislate
anew upon the subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM had not the least difficulty in as•
suring the House, that he had no desire to do anything
which wh'cli would interfere with the interests of the
working-c lasses. Ills impression of the existing law
was, • that operated injuriously to the workman.
and - too favourably to the employer. Under
the present law a labourer- might be commit-
ted - to • prison for three- months,' with bard %hour
at the discretion of a single magistrate upon the cesn'