The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-15 00:00:00

count of the provision which it contained, that all the
persons inside a carriage should be asked whether they
would be locked in or not, so that if the majority

thought that precaution necessary to their safety, one
passenger, like the one juror, might overrule the
sounder judgment of all the rest.
After some further conversation their Lordships
divided. The numbers were—

For the clause
Against it
Majority against the clause —4
Messengers from the Commons brought up the
Bill for the better protection of her Majesty's person,

the Irish Rivers Bill, and other Bills. -
PROTECTION OF HER MAJESTY.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first
reading of the Bill for the better protection of her
Majesty's person, that the Bill be printed, and read a
second time to-morrow, and that the Standing
Orders be suspended, in order that the Bill should
pass through its other stages.
Lord CAMPBELL cordially supported the motion,
but suggested that it might be necessary to introduce
a clause, providing for the punishment of individuals
who might be found with any pistols or other weapons
in their possession, and making any attack on her Ma-
jesty by other means than those stated in the Bill.
lhe LORD CHANCELLOR said he would take the

suggestion of his Noble and Learned Friend into his
consideration. and he had no doubt the Bill would be
re-framed so as to meet the concurrence of all their Lord-
ships. He was not aware that alterations had been made
in the Bill in Committee.
LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.
The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the first read-
ing of the London Bridge Approaches Bill.
MINES AND COLLIERIES BILL.
The Bishop of LONDON presented two petitions in
favour of the restricting clauses in the Mines and Col-

Honks Bill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented a
petition to the same effect.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a peti-
tion from Bradford, in Yorkshire, praying the House not
to prohibit the employment of children above eight years
of age. He complained that the Bill had been hurried
through the other House of Parliament, under an ex-
cited state of mistaken humanity, and denied what had
been stated, that the Bill had received the assent of the
coal-owners of the North. The Committee at Newcastle
had prayed the House to defer the Bill, at least, till next
session. He protested most solemnly against the Bill
in all its stages, and if he had the power to influence
their decision, he would most certainly vote for its re-

jection.
The Earl of CLANRICARDE would not go into the
general question of the Bill at present. But as the Noble
Marquis had again referred to the letter of Mr. Buddle,
he would read a letter which had been received by Lord
Ashley from a coal-owner, (whose name we understood
to be Mr. Lambton), who was present at the Conference
between the deputation and Lord Ashley, of which
Nobleman it was not necessary for him to give any eulogy.
The Noble Marquis then read a letter from Mr. Lambton,
expressing surprise that Mr. Buddle, who was the agent
of the Marquis of Londonderry, should have written that
Noble Marquis the private letter read by him in the
House of Lords on a former night, and denying that he
had consented to the compromise. His letter from Mr.
Lambton contradicted those parts of Mr. Buddle's letter
which disclaimed any consent to the compromise.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY was proceeding to
defend Mr. Buddle, when he gave way to laughter and
cries of " Question."
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition against the
Bill from miners in the Newtharket Colliery in the West
Riding of Yorkshire.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a number of peti-
tions against the Bill.
Viscount MELBOURNE presented three petitions to
the same effect.
The Duke of BUCCLEUCH presented a petition from
West Lothian, to the effect that the time allowed by the
Bill for discontinuing the labour of women in. mines was
too short. He did not agree with the petitioners.
The Earl of DEVON presented a petition in favour
of the Bill, from places in Yorkshire and elsewhere.
The Noble Earl then proceeded to move the second
reading of the Bill. In doing so he would not call their
Lordships' attention to anything that occurred at public
or private meetings, or any compromise that had been
entered into, but would lay it before them to be judged
of by its own merits. The Noble Earl went through the
history of the Commission which was appointed in con-
sequence of an address to the Crown from the other
House of Parliament, and on the Report of which the Bill
was founded. He had read that evidence most care-
fully. and he was convinced that any of their Lordships
who had done so, must agree with him as to the neces-
sity of some such enactment. When he undertook the
charge of the. Bill in that House, he told his Noble Friend
that he could not expect that all its clauses would be
passed. But after a full examination of all the evidence
in their Lordships' Committee, he was induced to hope
that they would pass every one of them. It was impossible
to deny the abominations arising out of the system
of employing women under ground, where there was no
control over the conduct of the men with whom they
worked. He read from the Report of the Commissioners
several details of the monstrous evils belonging to the
system. The men and women worked together at the
same -Irma ‘,r lILDC.Tur
women naked down to the.waist. The women who were
examined by the Commissioners testified to the demo-
ralizing effect of suck a mode of life upon all the females
engaged in it, from the age of six years upwards. He
would not read.the more disgusting and deplorable parts
of the Report, but would leave it to their Lordships to
judge what the rest' must be from what he had read.
He must at the same time say that there were many
collieries in which those disgusting, indecent, and abo-
minable practices were not allowed—as, for instance,
those of the Duke of Buccleuch. He would
not further waste their Lordships' time on
this part of the subject, but would proceed to state the
alterations he proposed. The Bill provided that the em-
ployment of females in mines should cease in six months
after the passing of the Act. He proposed to extend
the time to the 13th of March next, when there would
be an opportunity of further legislation if it should be
found neces,sary. He was urged to disallow the employ-
ment of boVs, under the age of 13 years ; but from
that be had heard, he thought it would not be unreason-
able to forbid that they should be employed under ten
years. It was desitable that some of the young people
should be brought up to the employment, from an early,
age, to enable them to fill, afterwards, some of the more
difficult parts of the work. These were the two princi-
pal clauses of the Bill. The third clause, related
to the regulation of the number of hours, during which
the children should be employed. He found that it
would be very difficult to enforce such a regulation ;
but he thought it very desirable that boys
under thirteen years of age should have three days
for the purpose of receiving instruction, and for recrea-
tion. He did not, however, mean to ptess this clause.
The next clause, which provided for inspection, he was
disposed to press, but it would be for their Lordships to
confirm or reject it when the Bill came into Committee
to-morr. w. The next clause related to apprenticeship,
which he proposed should terminate at eighteen years of
age. The clauses to the 9th he would pass over for the
present. But the 9th clause was important. It provided
that no person under twenty-one years of age should be
employed to manage an engine. He had, however, been
informed that there were persons under that age who
were by use perfectly competent to take care of the
engine, and, therefore, he would not object to an inquiry
into this particular. These were the principal points to
which he had now to direct their Lordships' attention.
He proposed to make the alterations he had stated, in
the Committee to-morrow. The Noble Lord concluded
by moving the second reading.
Lord HATHERTON said, that after the manner in
which the Noble Earl had performed his very difficult
task, he would not press the motion of which he had
given notice, for a Select Committee, and which he would
have felt it his duty to require from their Lordships, if
the alterations now proposed by the Noble Earl had not
been made. The effect of the law, if it had passed in
the way which was at first proposed, would be to put a
stop to the raising of minerals in the country. He
was not one who opposed that part of the Bill which pre-
vented the employment of women in mines ; but he
thought the clause might undergo advantageously some
alteration. For instance, cases of women of mature
age, and widows with families, who had been ac-
customed to the work all their lives, might be excepted.
With respect to the employment of boys only on the alter-
nate days, he never could consent to that, and he was glad
his Noble Friend did not mean to press it. Indeed if it were
practicable it was not necessary. The employment of the
boys when in the mines was not continuous, as they had
only to attend upon the colliers, and there was no pos-
sibility of limiting their stay in the mines to ten hours
a-day. As to the alternate days, they were imprac-
ticable, but at the same time the clause was not neces-
sary for the purpose of promoting the employment of
boys every day of the week ; for it was a fact that, in no
case, in high wages or low wages, did the colliers work
more than three or at the utmost four days a-week.
The alterations proposed by the Noble Earl were very
valuable, and in the name of the Delegates he thanked
them for the attention with which they had received
their representations. One suggestion he wished to
offer, which was, that a clause should be introduced to
prevent the payment of wages in public houses, which
was the universal practice, and was attended with the
worst consequences.
The Earl of RADNOR also approved of the altera-
tions, as far as they went, but he set his face against
legislating on this subject. Moral dutiei could not be
enforced by law. To enforce them was the duty of the
clergy, and the Noble Lord who spoke last had shown
that the clergy could do much in that way, for he had
told the House, that by the influence of the Bishop, the
masters in his district had given up the very ,bad prac-
tice of paying their men on Saturday night. That was
enforcing a inoial duty by the legitimate means. The
Noble Earl then read extracts from the Report, to show
that in several mining districts, through the influence of
the clergy, the employment of married women in
mines had been discontinued, so that, without any
law, the immoral practice was on the de-
crease. It appeared, too, that great immorality was
occasioned by the construction of the cottages, the father
and mother and whole family, children, and grown-up
boys and girls, sleeping in one room. Now, this was
said to be as much a source of immorality as the women
going into the mines. Well, why did they not legislate
against that ? Why did they not make a law that they
should not sleep in one room ? He begged them to con-
sider whether, whilst intending to do good, they might not
do great harm; as they would certainly throw thousands
out of employment. He thought that as the Bill was not
to come into operation until March next, the House would
do well to allow it to stand over, and, in the mean time,
leave it to the Poor-law Commissioners to inquire into
its probable effects.