The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

FACTORIES BILL.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved the third reading of
this Bill. •

The Earl of RADNOR did not think that legislation
was required upon the subject of female labour in
factories.

The Duke of SUTHERLAND would not oppose the
Bill. He would, however, have supported a measure
limiting the hours of labour to a smaller number than
twelve hours. _ . .

Lord BROUGHAM thought legislation on this sub-
ject did a great deal more harm than it did good
Legislation upon this subject -must necessarily be
ignorant legislation, and therefore it must be bad. This
Bill could be nothing else than a Bill to cramp the in-
dustry of the working classes, and to cramp the powers
of the manufacturers. The working classes had already
the power in their own hands of working as long or as
short as they pleased. He was afraid this Bill would
not be the last, upon the subject ; Jew, he trusted that
the Government would not again lend itself to any fur-
ther attempt to cramp the energies of our manufacturers,
and to curb the industry of the working classes. Should
they do so, tl.ey would only be arming foreign manufac-
turers with fresh powers ‘o compete with this counfry.
The Marquis of NORMANBY would give his vote
in favour of this Bill, in the hope that it would lead to
further legislation on the subject. The Noble and
Learned Lord said they were legalising in ignorance
upon this snbject. Why, what did Mr. Baker, the fac-
tory inspectors say upon this matter? He said that the
manufacturers employed women while men were stand-
ing idle. With this fact before their eyes,
could any man for a moment say that they
were legislating in ignorance on this subject ?
Their L mdships must recollect that in the
manufacturing districts human labour was made a por-
tion of a power which never tired. The hours of labour
of the agricultural labourers were limited by the length
of day, but the working classes in the manufacturing
towns worked by a light which was never extinguished.
Ho was glad to hear that his Noble Friend behind him
(the Duke of Sutherland), entertained a similar opinion
to him upon this subject ; but bad he stood alone he
would have advanced the strong opinion with respect to
factory labour which he had just expressed to their
Lordships.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE admitted that a great por-
tion of the wealth of this country flowed from her
manufactures, but he also knew that we had paid a ter-
rible price fur that wealth. He was old enough to re-
member, that instead of high mills studding the country
in the West Riding of Yorkshire, every cottager worked
his own loom by means of his wife and children, and the
wife had sufficient time to attend to her domestic duties.
Now, however, the large mills were filled with women,
and these women knew absolutely nothing but how to
tie the knots and attend to the machinery in the mills.
This kind of labour was demoralising to these women.
In many mills in the country men were entirely ex-
cluded, and the consequence of this was, that the women
acquired the same habits as the men. They drank, and
instead of the wives having to fetch the husbands home,
the husbands had to fetch the wi wes home. Was such
a state of things to be allowed to exist without any at-
tempt being made to remedy it ?
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
On the motion of Lord DENMAN, 'Wilson's Estate
Bill was ordered to be postponed from to-morrow until
the report of the judges, to whom the Bill had been re-
ferred, had been presented to their Lordships.
NIGHT POACHING BILL.

The Earl of STRADBROKE moved the third reading
of this Bill.
The Earl of RADNOR opposed the Bill, on the
ground that the law at present in existence with respect
to poaching was quite strong enough. He believed that
the continuance of poaching was owing to the distress
existing in the country.
Earl FITZHARDINGE denied that the persons who
were in the habit of poaching were driven to the com-
mission of that offence by distress. Those persons were
generally idle and dissolute persons, and men who
passed the principal part of their time in the ale-house.
He must protest against its being put forth that the
majority of the persons charged with poaching had been
driven to that offence by the distressed circumstances
under which they were labouring.
Lord BROUGHAM complained of the slovenly
manner in which the Bill had been drawn up, inasmuch as
the preamble differed from the enacting parts of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL supported the Bill, which was to
meet cases of persons being found in a public road with
instruments for, and in the act of destroying game.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the Bill was
very defective in its construction' and contended that if
'
passed in its then state, it a ould be inoperative.
Lord BROUGHAM suggested that the further con-
sideration of the Bill had better be postponed for a
few days.
The Earl of STRADBROKE then postponed the Bill
till Monday next.

CUSTOMS BILL.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE moved the third reading
of this Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the abolition
of the duty on the article of wool, and contended that
it would have the effect of ruining many of the flock-
masters of the country. The object, it was stated,
of the reduction of the wool duty was to
benefit the manufacturing interest of the country.
Now, if this were the case, the foreigner would,
of course, in self defence, increase the duty
.on our ma-
nufactures. He believed, and in this opinion he was
borne out by the short-wool growers of the country,
that this measure was inexpedient aad ought not to
pass. He opposed the measure because he believed it to
be a step in the road to free trade, and he believed that
if free-trade principles were to be adopted by the Go-
vernment, it would ultimately lead to the ruin of
this country. He also objected to the reduction in the
duty on vinegar as being much too large. At present
the duty on vinegar was 18 guineas a ton, and it was
proposed to reduce it to fourguineas per.ton. He did
not think that was just to the vinegar manufacturer in
this country. Why did not the Government now try
their hands at taking off some of the burdens on agri-
culture ? He thought it was but fair to turn and turn
about. He could not give the measure his support.
Lord `YHARNCLIFFE•.defended the measure, and
contended that its effect would be to increase the demand
for home grown wool.
Lord BEAUMONT defended the measure.
The Bari of RADNOR expressed his regret that the
reduction in the duty on glass had not extended further.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE replied; and
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Stamp Duties Bill was read a second time, and
their Lordships then adjourned.

INUSS OF COMMONS, June 3.
The SVNAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to Four

NEW MEMBER:

Mr. ENTWISLE was introduced by Mr. BlackbUrn
and Mr. W. Patten, and took the oaths and his seat for
South Lancashire.
The further consideration of the Reports on the Ash-
ton and Stalelbridge Railway Bills was postponed till
to - orrow (this day.
e
r Slammannan junction Railway Bill was read a
thir)time and passed.
The Eastern Counties (Newport lieviations) Bill was
read a third time and passed. .
The Report upon the Wick Tree Roads Bill waa
brought up and received; as *as also the Report upon
Edward's Estate Bill.
EDUCATION IN IRELAND; •

4r. IfAMILTQS mipted a petition from Bandon,
§igng4 .by I.4.oFalitTclP3 cif 461141 C gf the 1144 K at
which it- was arced agrain§t 0:9 Resent 43qtern of
National Educatton in Ireland. The lion; Men her pre,
seated petitions from Carlow and 'other places to the
same effect.
PISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
4r. 44q4N p:. seated Ezvere. petitions against the
114, e dg.signizOn2 of were Rot heard
iu tigt gage. C.,Yr '
Lord hAniiiNGTON preti@nted pOtitigns •• flivonr
of the Bill.—(Hear, item) •
, , .k?
Caftan PECHELL pregnit44 petition um PM