The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-31 00:00:00

THE SIITN

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 30.
Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
MAYN 00 TH.
Lord KENYON presented 130 petitions, signed by 9,742
persons, against the proposed grant to Maynooth ; and 62
petitions, signed by 6,523 persons, against the permanent en-
dowment of that College.
Lord FITZHARDING also presented petitions against the
grant.
The Bishop of SALISBURY presented a large number of
petitions to the same effect, and said he heartily concurred in
the prayer of the petitioners. The measure, he thought, would
have the effect of shaking the foundation of the connexion be-
tween the Church and the State.
The Marquis of CLEVER, ‘`,,ND presented a petition from the
Governors of Christ's Hospital, praying their exemption from
the effects of the Charitable Trusts Bill, at present before the
House.
The Duke of CAMBRIDGE presented a similar petition
from the Foundling Hospital, and supported its prayer.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from mem.
bers of the Free Church of Scotland against the grant to May-
nooth.
LORD CAMPBELL presented a petition from Dudley,
complaining of the working of the 20/. clause in the Debtors'
Bill, and praying its reconsideration.
LORD CL ARE presented a petition from Limerick in
favour of the grant to Alaynooth, and
LORD RODEN presented petitions from Armagh, Maiden-
head, Guernsey, Windsor, Gravesend, Belfast, the counties of
Down and Leitrim. and various other districts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR presented several petitions
from Ireland in favour of the grant to Maynooth.
Lord KENNA IRD presented a petition against the grant
from a body of persons who were opposed to State endowments.
The Bishop of St. DAVID'S presented petitions against the
grant, and regretted he could not agree with the prayer of the
petitioners.
The Earl of ELDON presented several petitions to the same
effect.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA presented forty-seven peti-
tions of a similar nature.
The Bishop of CASHEL presented petitions from severe
places in Ireland against the increased grant to Maynooth.
The Bishop of BANGOR also presented a petition against
the grant to Maynooth.
The Bishop of ST. ASAP EI presented a petit:on against
the union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.
Lord COTTENHAM presented a petition against the grant
to 'Maynooth.
The Bishop of LLANDAFF presented a petition against
the grant to Maynooth, and expressed his concurrence in the
prayer.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY and the Bishop of LoN-
DoN presented similar petitions from numerous places.
The Bishop of EXETER presented petitions from Clifton,
St. Clere, Kingsbridge, and various other towns in Cornwall
and Devon, against the grant to Maynooth.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented 168 petitions,
signed by 22,356 individuals, from various parts of England
and Scotland, against the grant to Maynooth.
The Earl of DE% ON presented several petitions from
Stockport, Bolton, Manchester, and other places in the north
of England, in favour of the Calico Print Works Bill.:
Lord PORTMAN presented a petition, praying the pro-
ceeds of the income-tax to be applied to the support of the

poor.
Lord DACRE brought in a Bill upon the game-laws, and
moved that the second reading be taken on Monday fortnight.
Lord BROUGHAM, in reply to a question from Lord Ash-
burton, said that he would take the second reading of the
Bill to amend the Insolvent Debtors' Act of last year, espe-
cially in respect to the 201. clause, now, and wait for a further
stage any discussion upon its merits.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that the Bill should
be read before any further proceedings were taken.
CALICO PRINT WORKS BILL.
The Duke of BUCKINGHAM moved the order of the day
for the second reading of the Calico Print Works Bill.
Lord BR OUG HA Mprotested against their proceeding, year
after year. to legislate in a wrong direction. They were doing
all they could, by their legislation, to injure the working
classes. They were treating them, in fact, with great cruelty,
under the guise, false garb, and outside of humanity. It was
held, by those in favour of the Bill, that if a man worked at
night he did not perform his task so well as if it were performed
during the day; it was, therefore, not intended so much to re-
lieve young persons, children, and females—which was a very
humane, reasonable, and judicious measure—as to make the
work in which they were engaged better—to make the patterns
better and more accurate than those produced in the ordinary
hours of work. He took the same objection to this Bill as ho
did to the former one. In the preamble, which set forth that
it was expedient to limit the hours of labour of children, young
persons, and children in factories, he would substitute for the
word expedient. "inexpedient," as he considered it inexpedient
to regulate the hours which thepeople should labour, and that it
would be better for the Legislature to regulate its own business
and to let other people's alone, especially where their inter-
ference was not justifiable. Labour was the capital of the
workmen, and it was contrary to justice and sound policy to
interfere with what ought to be left entirely free. It must not
be supposed that by preventing children working after nine
o'clock at night, they alone stopped the labour of the children,
both men and masters were equally retarded, and the greatest
abuses would be incurred. He objected to the Bill generally,
on principle, but the part which hr considered chiefly ob-
noxious was the interference with female labour. If humanity
were to be the order of the day, he would ask, why did they
allow painters to meddle with white lead, which reduced them
to paralytics—steel-workers to pursue a trade from which con-
sumption supervened—or horse-jockeys to lay up for them-
selves the most noxious diseases, in order to contribute to the
pleasures of those humanity-hunters. The Bill he considered
fallacious in principle, and, as snail, should protest against it.
The Marquis of NORMANBY thought every dictate of
humanity, morality, and experience contradicted the argu-
ments of his Noble Friend, who, with his accustomed ability,
had opposed the Bill. The testimony of both masters and
workmen had been satisfactorily evinced as unequivocally
favourable to the measure. Petitions had been laid on their
Lordships' table from every class of factory labourer and pro-
prietors, praying for the interposition of the Legislature, and to
confirm the views of these authotitative parties, he would refer
to the report of Mr. Tremelier, in which the benefits that had
accrued to the female colliery miners had been ably and satis-
factorily established.
The Earl of RADNOR concurred with his Learned Friend
(Lord Brougham) in protesting against the constant meddlinc,
of the Legislature with the private affairs of the people. The
system now to be interfered with had existed with advantage
to the factory population, and he foresaw nothing but evil in
attempting to change it.
Lord CAMPBELL agreed with the general principle of the
13i11, but considered the second clause as unnecessary, if not
prejudicial. There was no analogy between the cases of col-
liery female labourers and those working in factories. The
former custom was productive of immorality, but the latter of
industry. A woman of forty years of age, with a large family,
would, he conceived, devote the hours from which she was now
debarred, to the discharge of her duties as a wife and mother.
Nevertheless, he regarded the principle of the measure as
-ound, and its enactments beneficial, and should give it his
cor
The: I support.
,se of BUCCLEUCH wondered that the Noble Lord
Du-
'
Rro.ugham), after assenting to the preamble of
opposite (Lora _ should now enter his violent opposition
a similar Bill in 18..5:,
beard nothing in the course of the
to this measure. He has
.and should, therefore, move
discussion to change his views,
that the Bill be now committed.
greed
Lord BROUGHAM explained that in 1 g.. 13 he had a
to the general principle of the measure, apart froth the inter-
ference with female labour.
The Bill then went into Committee, and after receiving a
few verbal amendments was reported.
POST-OFFICL REGULATIONS.
On the'motion for the second reading of the Post-office Regu-
lations Bill,
Lord RADNOR expressed his entire concurrence in the prin-
ciple of the measure—a measure which had been rendered the
more necessary, by the unseemly. disclosures made last session
of a system as unjustifiable as it was disgraceful. Nobody
really knew what the law of the case was. Some thought the
right of stopping letters was vested in the Crown. But be
was never able to ascertain that it was any part of the preroga-
tive of the Crown to open the letters of individuals. If such
was the prerogative of the Crown it must have been a practice
as ancient as the establishment of the Post-office itself ; but be
never knew that it was authorised by any court of law. It was
a secret mode of proceeding, and tnerefore no one could set
about disputing it, for no one knew when it was practised. He
could not help also remarking on the immorality of the prac-
tice. He was not one of those who believed that the State had
a conscience, though there were some who kindly gave them
credit for one. It was, he contended, a betrayal of confidence.
They obliged the public to use the Post-office, and that being
the case, they should guarantee inviolability to anything com-
mitted to it. The copying of Mazzini's seals was most disreputable.
It was a farce to talk of the morality of the State after that.
But if anything was necessary to prove the danger and immo-
rality of the practice, it was the case of the letter-carriers, who
had merely copied the example which had been set them
by their betters, and had merely been dismissed without any
further punishment being inflicted. He spoke from the re-
ports only which he read in the newspapers of the circumstance,
but he believed they were correct. By a reference to the Acts,
the 9th of Queen Anne, and the Ist of her present Majesty, he
found that the power of issuing warrants for detaining and
opening letters was assumed as vested already, rather than
granted, to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and the Secretary
of State for England. The power of indemnifying the Post-
master-general for obeying these warrants was merely given
by the Acts ; but that was a very different thing from
giving authority to the Secretary of State to exercise
such powers. If the question were tried in a court of
law, he had no doubt but it would be found that no such
Power existed. Whether the mode new proposed to re•
medy this state of things met with the approval of
their Lordships it was not for him to say, but if they ac-
ceded to the main features of it, it would be very easy in Com-
mittee to regulate the details of the Bill. The Noble Lord
then read extracts from the reports of the Committees in both
Houses which had been appointed to inquire into the practice
of opening and detaining letters, and commented upon them
as he proceeded. There were two lists of warrants issued
from the Home-office. In the first list, embracing a period of
86 years, from 1712 to 1798, one hundred and one warrants
had been issued. In the other, from 1799 to 1844, comprising
a period of forty-five years, three hundred and seventy-two
warrants had been issued. Now, that was, he considered, very
remarkable. In the first period there had been an annual in-
crease of li per cent., and in the other of 8 per cent. Of
these eight, moreover, only two were warrants relating to sedi-
tion. The rest were criminal warrants, in respect to which
public feeling was not much enlisted as they presented the least
temptation to abuse.
Lord STANLEY felt it to be his public duty to oppose the
Bill. The Noble Earl had proposed to himself two offices.
The first was to define the law and define the conditions under
which the Secretary of State should have the power of opening
er detaining letters at the Post-office. .The second office was to
alter the law in such a manner as to impose new restrictions
upon the exercise of the power. Now, he would venture to
say that the Noble. Lord, when he attempted to define the law,
left the law just as undefined as he found it. He also imposed
restriction on the exercise of the power, which restriction ab-
solutely rendered the law itself imperative. Now there were
no political considerations connected with this question, it only
tended to modify, instead of abolishing the power; for all they
had to discuss was simply whether it was necessary to confer on
the Secretary of State the power of detaining or opening
letters at the Post-office. It was admitted by the Noble Earl
that the power, under certain circumstances, must still be left
in the hands of the Secretary of State, but they were now
called upon to inquire in what manner that power could be
amended or modified. Now he (Lord Stanley) would not
enter into a discussion as to the origin of this power, nor
would he venture to say that the power was one of the prero-
gatives of the Crown ; but this he did say, that the Act of
Anne was not the Act which gave the power to the Secretary
of State. The Act of Anne was the first Act which made it a
misdemeanour, and rendered persons liable to a penalty for
opening a letter passing through the Post-office,
without the warrant of one of her Majesty's prin-
cipal Secretaries of State. Previous to that Act
no criminal proceedings could be taken against any
person for detaining or opening any letter passing through the
Post-office, but that Act made it a punishable offence to open
any letiers without the person had a warrant from the Secre-
tary of State giving him full authority to do so. He had read
with great attention the Bill of the Noble Earl, and certainly
its provision appeared to him to be most unsatisfactory. The