The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-26 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 26, 1842.

amongst the starving millions, and they could not delay
to obtain paper constitutions. This was a question
fitted to awake the energies of the English people.
History showed that all their revolutions and insurree7
lions arose from the pressure of unjust taxation. The
system of benevolences had procured Magna Charta ;
head-money produced Watt Tyler, and ship-money
evoked John Ilamptlen. '['hey must succeed by perse-
verance, by not receding from the high ground on which
they took their stand, and concentrating public opinion
upon the question. The bread-taxing thousands must
give way before the patient perseverance of the
bread-taxed millions.- - The progress of the Corn-
law question showed this. When Mr. Hume, in 1829,
moved a resolution in favour of a 20s. duty instead of
the then existing law, he could get but 12 persons to
support him. But the question progressed, and now
they had near 300 who recorded their votes against
those laws.—(Cheers.) Be had himself watehtd the
progress of this question in the House of Commons.
le recollected when first brought before the House
by Mr. Villiers, it was the signal for a
general rush to dinner ; and when Honourable
Members came back about eleven o'clock, noises
more discordant titan ever proceeded from a menagerie
issued forth, and thus the question was brought to a con-
elusion. But bow different was the scene on Friday
night ? The able and eloquent speech of Mr. Gilmon, the
manly and indignant address of Sir. Villiers, the straight-
forward and English appeal of Mr. Fielden, and the bold
and hearty denunciations of Mr. Cobden were listened
to in silence by the country gentlemen ; and, beaten in
argument and in facts, they must soon relinquish their
hold of the Corn-laws, anit allow the people to eat un-
taxed bread.—(hear, hear.)
Mr. LEWIS hoped the excellent address they had just
heard would be printed in a pamphlet form for distribu-
tion.—(Bear, hear.)
The Conference then adjourned till this day.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
IPSWICH.

The Committee re•assembled yesterday morning at
eleven o'clock, P. M. Stewart, Esq. in the chair.
William Blythe was the first witness examined. He
deposed to his having been paid 30s. for his expenses at
the election, he being an out voter. He was by trade a
shipwright, and had since been discharged from his situa-
tion fur voting " Blue."
Joseph Barron Warren, another ship carpenter, was
called and examined. He had a vote and voted at the
last borough election of Ipswich for Mr. Gladstone and
Lord Desert. They canvassed witness. He was intro-
duced to them in a public-house. After the election
witness received 30s. for his travelling expenses, &c.
Cross-examined by Mr. AUSTIN—When I came to
Ipswich I had made up my mind to vote for Blue.
By Mr. PHILLIPS—I have loted for Mr. Wason.
Emanuel Baxter deposed that he was an elector in
Ipswich. On Jic day of the nomination witness was at
the King's Arms, where he had breakfast, and in the
course of the day, something to drink, neither of which
he paid for. After the election, witness received 1/. for
his expenses. He spent more than 1/. He was told be-
fore the election that he would be paid his legal expenses.
Robert Nannton examined by Mr. KINGSLAKE—I am
the landlord of the Salutation public-house, in
Ipswich. On the nomination night I saw Mr.
Bristoe at my house. He called to ask if any body was
there. lie is my landlord. He said I was to shut, up
the house and let no one in. A number of perso:.s had
been drinking in the house that day. I will not swear
that they all paid for what they had. A man of the
name of Kersly ordered refreshments, and took them into
the room himself. It was my wife that supplied him. I
do not know what he ordered. A breakfast was held at
my house on the day of the election. Mr. Henry Bond
ordered it. He said it was for a few friends and neigh-
-hours. He told me that it was a private, concern of his
own, and he said he would pay me for it. I supposed it
was an election breakfast. I received the money at his
house the next morning. I supplied liquor at the time
of the election that is not paid for. Ido not expect that
I shall be paid, as people ordered beer without paying
for it.
Mr. PHILLIPS said the witness was looking across the
table at Mr. Bristoe, his landlord, and he wished the
Committee to notice the circumstance.
The CHAIRMAN—I have noticed that the Ipswich
authorities have frequently been drawn up in array oppo-
site the witness, and on the side of the Counsel for the
sitting Members. Ido not know how this operates upon
the witnesses.
Mr. Bristoe then withdrew.
The examination was continued.—l supplied beer and
bread to William Pack and his wife. I gave it him,
as he was a voter. I saw Mr. A. B. Cooke about the
time I gave Pack the refreshment. Mr. Cooke did not
order it, nor did he say. anything to me about it. Mr.
Cooke spoke to Pack, but I don't know whether he left
the house with him. I did not hire the band
at the last election. I recommended a man of
the name cf Creasy to Mr. Bianchi, who I under-
stood was to supply the band for the election. The
reason I asked Mr. Bristoe to employ Creasy was, that I
could not play myself. Mr. Bristoe said he could not
attend to it, and Mr. Bianchi was to go to Mr. Steward.
I accompanied Mr. Bianchi to Mr. Steward, at the Little
Carlton, and Mr. Bianchi then asked Mr. Steward to
give Creasy an engagement. I was not in the room at
the time, but I afterwards understood that Creasy had
been engaged. Ido not know how much was paid for
the band. I had none of the money myself. Creasy
gave me 30s. for playing at the chairing.' I was can-
vassed by Lord Desna.
Cross-examined by Mr. AUSTIN—I applied to Mr.
Bristoe, as there had been a dispute between Mr. Creasy
and another musician. Mr. Bond ordered breakfast for
more than sixteen or eighteen persons, and told me to
supply breakfast to the amount of 3s. each man. I have
no skimbla present against any person for refreshment.
By the CHAIRMAN—The members of the band were
not voters. A boy of the name of Gobbold played, whose
father is a voter.
Robert Matt, examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—He de-
posed that he was a shoemaker at Ipswich. Was door-
keeper at the " Little Carlton Rooms." Mr. Steward,
Mr. Cooke, Mr. Bristoe, Mr. Cobbald, and others fre-
quented the rooms, and gave witness orders. There
were eight other door-keepers, and they received 3/. to
divide between them.
Mr. Gee. Christopherson, examined by Mr. POWER—
Saw Mr. Cobbald and Mr. Bristoe canvassing with Mr.
Gladstone. Saw Mr. Cooke bring voters to the poll.
Witness canvassed on the part of Mr. Gisborne.
Mr. George Joycelyn examined by Mr. KitstosnaKE—
Is a resident in Ipswich. Takes an active part in elec-
tion proceedings. On the Monday previous to the elec
tion witness canvassed with Lord Desert, in company
with several other gentlemen. On Tuesday went with
Mr. Gladstone to canvas stwo voters, but did not accom-
pany him in his general canvass. Has no doubt that the
candidates were staying at the White Horse in Ipswich.
Knows the rooms called the " Little Carlton Rooms."
They have been called by that name for two years.
During the election saw Mr. Cooke, Mr. Steward, and
several other gentlemen there. Was at a dinner given
after the election. The dinner was given in honour of
the "triumph of principle."—(Laughter.) Mr. Brstoe
was there, and returned thanks. Mr. Cooke was also
there with Mr. Steward.
By Mr. AUSTIN—I called on Mr. Ridley with Mr.
Gladstone, to ask Mr. Ridley for his vote.
Mr. AUSTIN then proposed to ask the witness the fol-
lowing question,—" Did Mr. Gladstone, in answer to an
observation of Mr. Ridley, say, if money is spent at this
election, it will be contrary to the intention both of Lord
Desert and myself, as we came down with a full deter-
mination that such a course should not be adopted."
Mr. KINGSLAKE objected to the question, on the ground
that it was irregular.
Mr. AUSTIN having replied,
The Committee decided in favour of the question
being put.
Joycelyn—l introduced Mr. Gladstone to Mr.
Ridley, and Mr. Gladstone asked him to give him his
vote in conjunction with Lord Desert.
Mr. AUSTIN—Mr. Ridley formerly voted on the Libe-
ral side, I believe, and, at the last election, but one, he
did not vote at all ? Witness—Yes.

. Mr. Joycelyn—Mr. Ridley, in answer to Mr. Glad-
stone, said, he should certainly not vote on the opposite
side, but, in all probability, he should not vote at all.
Then he quite approved of the measures of Sir R. Fed.
He (Mr. Ridley) said a large sum of money was about to
be raised, and, he hoped, that money would be properly
appropriated by Sir R. Peel, and if so, at uny future
election, he (Mr. Ridley) would certainly- vote for
Mr. Gladstone and Lord Desert. Even on that occasion
he thought Sir Robert Peel required all the strength
he could get. He said he was no party man,
and he held himself perfectly aloof from the other
parties in the borough. He said he recollected
that en a previous occasion a large amount of money
was spent, and it must be the case at that election. Mr.

Gladstone, in reply, said, then Mr. Ridley, both Lord
Desart and myself will assuredly lose our election, for
we came down here with the express understanding that
were not in any way to sanction the expenditure of
money. Mr. Ridley did not, then promise his vote, but
he afterwards voted for Mr. Gladstone and Lord Desart.
James Hain deposed that while he was canvassing
for the Blue party he went with Mr. Cook, Mr. Cobbald,
and others engaged in canvassing for the Blue party.
Witness gave a number of 3s. tickets away. Perhaps
gave twenty away. The tickets included tea, coffee,
brandy, beer, meat, eggs, bread and butter, and any
thing else that a man wants for a breakfast.—(Laughter.)
Cross-examined by Mr. AUSTIN—The breakfast was
given to collect the voters together. Lord Desart would
not give a breakfast, and witness, with Mr. Churchman
and two or three other gentlemen, got up the breakfast at
their own expense. They had canvassed the voters two
or three days before the breakfast was thought of. They
will never be repaid by any person.
Mr. AUSTIN—It has been stated, Mr. Hain. that von
bribed a man named Bailie by giving him 51. Is that
true or false ?

Mr. Haill—lt is false ; and I wish I could have an
opportunity of bringintr an action against the person who
said so. Bailie is h'ghly i Idignant at the imputation,
and if you will only 1 eeit the inquiry open another week,
you w:11 see what the coosequence will be.
John-Brewer deposed that he was a voter at Ipswich.
Voted for Yellowat the last election. Mr.Bristoe canvassed

witness for Lord Desart and Mr. Gludstone:

Witnes3

said he should vote against them. Mr. Bristoe said,
" Cant we do anything with you this time," and witness
said they could not. On the day of election witness
called on a voter of the name of Taylor, and while he was
there Lord Desart and Mr. Bristoe called, and Lord De-

sart retired with the voter into another' roolnTihey
remained there an hour, and witness went away. Taylor
had previously promised the Yellows.
Robert Jopson Taylor was then called, but did not
answer.

Mr. IusroSLAKE read a letter from a Mr.Pilck, stating
that Mr. Pownall, an attorney of Ipswich, and an active
partizan on the part of the Blues, had advised Taylor
not to answer the summons, and he (Mr. Pownall) would
defend him in that course. This letter arrived express
from Ipswich, and at the time the letter left

there wns a postehaise waiting to. convey Taylor, but
he rs,fnsed to go. Taylor had refused, .on the advice
of Mr. Pownall, to take the summons, and it was re-
turned with the letter.

'The CHAIRMAN said, proof must be had of the service
of the summons, when the attendance of the witness
would be compelled.
Norbrock was then called: —I let out flies and
cabs. On the day of the- election at Ipswich, Mr.
Steward hired two flies to convey voters to the voting
place. Mr. Steward paid for them. lam not a voter.
It being tour o'clock, the Committee adjourned till
to-day at eleven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, July 25,
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY in the absence of the
Lord Chancellor in consequence of indisposition, took
his seat on the Woolsack at Five o'Clock.
The Earl of RIPON laid on the table certain
papers by command of her Majesty, and also pre-
sented a petition from Marylebone, praying that the
Mines and Collieries Bill as it came from the House
of Commons might pass into a law.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a similar peti-
tion from a place in Yorkshire.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented simi-
lar petitions from the West Riding of the county of
York.
CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.
WICKLOW HARBOUR BILL.
A Conference was held with the Commons, on the
Wicklow Harbour Bill.
On the return of the Conference, the Earl of
DEVON stated that the Commons had given in a
paper, stating their reasons for disagreeing with their
Lordships' amendments.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved that their
Lordships do not insist on their amendments.
Agreed to,

MAYNOOTH GRANT.
The Earl of CLANCARTY presented a petition,
praying for inquiry into the system of education pur-
sued at Maynooth ; and also praying their Lordships
not to consent to any further grant to that establish-
ment. In the latter prayer the Noble Earl stated that
he did not concur.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the
Manchester, Birmingham, and Bolton Police Bill,
and several other Bills, which were respectively read
a first time.
HEARING COUNSEL AT THE B.R.
Lord CAMPBELL postponed the motion, of which
he had given notice for this evening, relating to the
hearing of Counsel, being Members of the other House
of Parliament, at the Bar of their Lordships' House on
any Bill pending before their Lordships, to Thursday
next.
SUDBURY 'DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said that in con-
sequence of the absence of the Lord Chancellor, he
would postpone the second reading of this Bill
until Friday next, on which evening he hoped the Lord
Chancellor would he able to attend, and then he
thought it would he advisable that some morning
should be'fixed to hear counsel on the subject. He had
understood from the Lord Chancellor that it was his
Lordship's desire that some morning should be fixed for
the hearing of counsel ; he apprehended, therefore,
that on Friday their proceedings would not extend to
any great length, as counsel would be merely called
in to be informed what morning it would be convenient
to their Lordships to hear them.
Lord KENYON wished to know if the Noble and
Learned Lord (Campbell) intended to bring forward
his motion on Thursday.
Lord CAMPBELL certainly would bring forward
his motion on Thursday at the sitting of the House, if
the Lord Chancellor should then be present. The
Noble and Learned Lord also presented a petition
from the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland in
favour of free trade.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY gave notice
that on Monday next he would put a question to the
Noble Lord at the head of the Admiralty, relative to
a report that it was the intention of the Government
to make sonic alteration in the packet station between
Donaghadee and Portpatrick.
The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition
from some workers of mines in the neighbourhood of
Whitby, in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill.
The Bishop of LONDON presented a petition from
a gentleman named Turner, praying that in case any
grant should be made for the encouragement of vocal
music, it might not be confined to any particular persons
or system, but that equal encouragement should be given
to every system which warranted such an application
of public money. The Right Rev. Prelate said he
would take that opportunity of asking two questions
of the Noble Lord the President of the Council,
whose speech on the subject of education had
occasioned considerable sensation throughout the
country. There were only two points in that speech
respecting which he desired to give the Noble Lord
an opportunity of explanation. The first related to
the grants made to the two societies for pro-
moting education amongst children, the National
School Society and • the British and Fo-
reign School Society. The Noble Lord had
stated in rather strong terms that he should feel
his duty not to make any distinction between the
Church and the Dissenters on the subject of educa-
tion. The Noble Lord did not appear to state as an
abstract proposition that there was to be no difference
made between the Church and the Dissenters; had he
done so he wouldhave felt it hisduty both asa minister
and ruler of the Church to protest against such a principle.
With respect to the instruction in Exeter Hall of
vocal music, he entirely concurred with it ; he had
subscribed to it, and would give it his support. But
the Noble Lord had said other branches of instruc-
tion had been adopted with apparent success. Now
this excited in his mind some apprehension, because
from that it might be inferred that they
would have a Government Normal School without
any religious instruction. Against such a princi-
ple he had always, and must always, protest. Now,
the question he wished to ask was whether the Go-
vernment or the Committee of Privy Council had
any intention to erect a Government. Normal School ?
LordWHARNCLIFFE could assure the Right Rev.
Prelate that he had entirely mistaken all that he had
said ; in the course he had pointed out for himself, he
had adopted that pursued by his predecessors. He was
surprised that any jealousy should exist on that. subject.
He could assure the Right Rev. Prelate that there was
no intention or desire on the part of the Government to
adopt the principle of normal schools without religion.
All that they wished was, to give them the easiest and
most ready means of education.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented a petition
from certain electors of Sudbury, praying to be heard
by counsel against the Disfranchisement Bill.
MINES AND COLLIERIES' BILL.
The Earl of DEVON moved the re-committal of this
Bill.

Lord BROUGHAM believed that the cause for
passing a part of the Bill arose from their Lordships not
making inquiry into it themselves. .For his own
part, he must say that he should have looked more in
detail to the measure, but for his judicial duties. 111
hardly knew one Noble Lord who had perused any con-
siderable part of that evidence ; but, without further
inquiry, there might be some grounds for passing a great
portion of this Bill. Nothing was more natural, and
therefore nothing was more common, than when a thing
was disapproved of, to say, let us have a Bill to prohibit
it, or a proclamation denouncing it, or a standing order
to say that it shall no longer be. But they should recol-
lect that, as there was nothing so difficult as legislation,
so there was nothing that required greater circum-
spection and greater caution—caution, because it was
difficult, and circumspection because, as they coule
hardly see at all in one direction, it was right they
should look well around them in others. Because the
future was veiled from their sight, the more reason
there was that they should ponder upon the present
and the past ; and most emphatically was it their
duty to do so when they were called on to legislate on a
subject no less important, no less difficult, no less deli-
cate than the employment of the labouring classes. They
ought to avoid all compulsory enactments with respect
to the employment of the capital of the community, and
in the same manner they ought to refrain from inter
ference with the employment of labour. He was very,
far frOm saying that there were no exceptions. Excep-
tions there undoubtedly were. If any species of !npliiy
ment was criminal in itself, the Legislature certainly had
1;11
a right to interfere to prevent it. ulist,y,delay inter-
after inquiry
instituted, and delay, too long delay—
posed, the Legislature interfered to put a stop to that
which was called a trade, but which was in a fact a
robbery, the African slave trade. In the
same way, after lengthened inquiry, and after
interposition of another guilty delay, the Legis-
lature interfered to put an end to slavery,
having awarded a munificent compensation to those who
claimed a right of property in their fellow-men. If an
employment was immoral in itself, the Legislature had
a right to put it down; if it had a tendency to produce
immorality, provided that tendency was clear, distinct,
and evident, then the Legislature had a right to inter-
fere
to prevent it ; and on that ground the first part of
this Bill, With regard to which they were all agreed,
namely, that part which related to the employment of
female children, was fully justified. They ought in
legislating on such a subject, to be on their guard
against being led away by first appearances.. If they
considered any sort of employment wag prejudicial
to any class of the community, they should first consider
in what manner it was prejudicial to. the perso.n.
employed. If it was merely against his interest—it
they merely thought the labourer was wasting his time,
and that he might employ himself more profitably else-
where, that was not their affair. They had nothing to
do with that. They had no right to interfere. But it
might be said that if any employment should be found
to be prejudicial to the health of those engaged
in it, that the Legislature had a right to interfere. The
lot of man he feared was to live, not by the sweat of his
brow alone, but by the wear and tear of his constitution
also ; and if they were to inquire into the effects of
various employments on the health of those engaged in
them, he thought it would be found that the greater
portion of the labouring classes in every country in
the world were engaged in unhealthy occupations.
The subject was a painful one, but it was forced upon
him by the conviction that there were other measures

vh'cli lurked behind that, before the other House—
other employments with which Parliameat would be
called upon to interfere. How many avocations were
the working people of this country engaged in which
tended at once to paralyze their limbs. The manufac-
ture of white lead, or braziery work, directly tended to
produce paralytic complaints ; those who were engaged
in steel tiling were suNect to asthmatic and other com-
plainte. But let any man go even among the peasantry
of the country, and compare a, peasant who had toiled to
the age of five-and-forty with one of their Lordships of
the same age ; he (lid not hesitate to say that if the one
appeared to be five-and-forty the other would appear to
he seventy. But, then, he would be met, perhaps, with the
answer that these labourers had the management of
their own time, and that their fortunes were in their own
hand ; that if they, knowing that certain occupations
were unhealthy, chose to enter upon them, no oee could
prevent them. Butthen, it was said, in thecase of children,
it was different ; they required protection; they were nit
able to judge for themselves ; they were put, by the ava-
rice, or indifference, or advice of their parents, into those
lines of occupatien, in which their health was injured,
their education neglected, and their constitution ruined.
This would not lead them to the wished-for conclusion.
If it once granted that persons must be permitted to
enter upon the occupations to which he had adverted, and
which were notoriously unhealthy. then he was
anaid that another inference followed—viz., that
some younger persons must be allowed to enter on those
employments. suppose the case of apprenticeship. If
a person was to learn any trade at all, it must be begun
at a much earlier age than 21 ; the must be the case
unless they meant to say that, because of their un-
healthiness, certain trades must be abolished. That ar-
gument did not apply to children of a very tender age.
But, when under the guidance of certain principles and
certain humane and praiseworthy feelings, they were
entering upon this field of h-gislation, it was right that
they should settle in their own minds how far they
were prepared to proceed. Let him remind their
Lerdships, that they were then making laws to
control the, labouring classes of the people—laws
not to affect the rich, but the poor—not to affect the
powerful, but the weak ; and let them take care that
they did not subject themselves to the old and much too
well grounded imputation against all legislators, in all
ages, that they were very apt to forge fetters for the
weak, and to cast their gossamer only round the strong.
—(Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to females, nothing.
could possibly be worse than the picture lias had
been drawn with respect to the employment of
female children in mines, and nothing could be more
blameable than the conduct of many parents in
that respect. But it must be remembered that
miners and colliers were net the only persons whose
conduct as parents was open to blame. It was not a
much more unwholesome thing for a child of .eight, or
nine, or ten, to be carried into a coal-mine, and there to
crawl in a damp cavern for a greater number of hours
than his strength could support, and then to be taken out
tatigued and incapable of receiving any instruction ;
this, bad as it was, was greatly to be deplored ; but
perhaps it was not so bad as the cautious provision
which was made by some parents for stunting the grog th
of their child, for preventing him attaining a certain
stature, and gaining a proportionable strength, lest while
gaining that strength and stature he should also acquire
a certain weight.—(Hear, hear.) He could state, on
the authority of persons on whose information he could
rely, that those individuals nete.r by any chance reached
anything like old age, and that they were persons, ge-
nerally speaking, of unhealthy constitutions.—(Hear.)
But he must go a little younger than that—to the very
cradle. Was there anything more certain than that the
most wholesome of all nutriment for a child was that
with which nature had so bountifully supplied the
mother ? It was, naturally speaking, the bounden duty
of every mother to stickle her own child ; yet
did he blame that poor woman who handed
over her child to a foster-mother' in • order to
obtain a place as nurse for herself ? Very far
-from it ; he lamented without blaming it ; and he was
certain that if a Bill came from the other House for abe •
lishing the practice, it would be rejected by their Lord-
ships. Now it might occur to many how very ready
they were to pass laws in reference to practices in which
they themselves had no share, that they were great deal-
ers in cheap virtue—a commodity which, unlike all
others, was more in demand the less it costa—(Hear.)
le could not think that their Lordships would be in-
clined to deal very largely in that virtue. He
thought that consideration ought to have its
due weight in legislating on that subject.
Ile could not help observing that he was very jealous of
legislatorial interference between parents and children.
The great Maker and Preserver of mankind had wisely
implanted certain feelings in the breasts of parents with
re erence to their children ; if they rashly provided a
substitute for those feelings, and made an Act of Parlia-
ment more tenderly to cherish the child than the mother
was disposed to do, not only would that Act of Parlia-
ment oftentimes fail of enforcement, but they might rely
upon it that the substitution would deaden, and eerhaps
extirpate, the maternal feelings of the parent. He hoped
that this caution, which he humbly and respectfully ven-
tured to give to their Lordships, would be home in mind
when they were called upon to legislate in future on this
subject.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to know
in what situation his Noble Friend would be placed, if
the House of Commons rejected his amendment, which
he thought it was impossible they should accept? The
unanimous opinion of, the coal-owners in his district was
against the clause with respect to the appointment of in-
spectors. He thought agreeing to the Bill would be pro-
ceeding with measures at a railway pace. That was un-
worthy of that ifouse, and the dignity it ought to re:ain.
If they once began this sort of legislation, there was no
knowing where they would stop. In the other House,
the Secretary of State said the Government would ' cor-
dially support the Bill. In this House the President of
the Council said they were agreed on it ; but how were
they agreed? The Noble Lord had said that he did not
approve of the Bill. Now how were they agreed ?
He wanted to hear some opinion of the Government on
it. The President of the Board of Trade hat said
nothing on it. One Noble Lord opposite had thrown
him (the Marquis of Londonderry) over ; but the Noble
and Learned Lord who . had spoken that evening had
come to his rescue in one of the most statesman like
speeches ever delivered. The Bill would institute a 'sys-
tem of vicious espionage. He had received many com-
munications from persons who had been employed in
mines, denying that the employment of a miner was un-
healthy, and stating that the Bill would ruin thousands
in the mining districts. He regretted having been under
the painful necessity of intruding upon their Lordships,
and would conclude by moving as an amendment that
the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
The Earl of DEVON thought a great part of the
speech of his Noble and Learned Friend opposite was a
good argument in favour of the present Bill, for the ex-
ceptions introduced by his Noble and Learned Friend, to
the general rule of non-interference, distinctly applied
to the present Bill. Did not their Lordships see that
the state of things which consigned women of all ages to
work in collieries with men, almost in a state of nudity,
must have a direct and immediate tendency to promote
vice and immorality ? The employment of young chil-
dren, inasmuch as it precluded any attention being paid
to their education, also constituted' an exception to the
general rule of non-interference. It was the duty of the
Legislature to interfere to prevent the demoralization of
the rising generation. He had no wish to contravene
the principles of political economy, but there were
higher duties than any that political economy could
teach. They had to take care that none of
their institutions should be conducted so as to
destroy the mind of the infant child, and
it was of the utmost importance that children should he
so brought up' as that hereafter they might become good
citizens and good men, and to neglect to take measures
to secure this was to commit not only a great moral
:mime, but a great political mistake. He had naturally
expected that the Noble Marquis would have pointed out
those parts of the Bill on which he thought there was
any doubt, and on which, therefore, further inquiry
might be necessary ; but he would ask if there was any
fact on which this Bill was founded on which the Noble
Marquis had thrown the slightest doubt ? He (the Earl
of Devon) contended that he had not. There could be
no doubt but that women were employed in the mines,
and if they were thrown out of employment their places
would be supplied with men, who were more fit for that
sort of work. Unless the Noble Marquis could get rid
of. the fact that women and children were employed in
the mines he could do no good by referring this Bill to a
'Select Committee. He believed that he had not, by
altering the Bill, committed the suicidal part that the
Noble Marquis had supposed he had done in filtering the
Bill. On the contrary, he thought the Bill would be
well received elsewhere, and that the promoters of it
would be of opinion that he (the Earl of Devon) had ex-
ercised n sound discretion in introducing those altera-
tions. If a small increase in the price of ceal, or a smell
diminution in the profits of the coal-owner, should be
the result of this measure, it would be a cheap price to
pay for getting rid of so much misery. The House of
Commons had been accused of legislating hastily on this
Subject ; he thought
.the House of Commons had only
done its duty in bringing forward the measure in the
manner it had done, and lie trusted their Lordships would
reject the atnendment.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY explained.
Lord BROUGHAM had not argued this question on
the grounds of political economy at all, but on the
grounds of the injustice of interfering between the la-
bourer and the manner in which he might choose to
employ himself, and of interfering with the control
exercised by the parent over the child. He felt they
ought to be extremely temperate in their reprehension of
the labouring classes respecting the employment of their
children in various occupations and employments, when
they recollected the manner in which those classes were
iwhiced, and almost forced to do so.

Lord HATITERTON could not support the amend-
ment, for alt the parts to which he had objected in th
Bill had been either removed, or so considerably modified
that he felt he had no ground left for opposing the,Bill
further.

The Earl of GALLOWAY said that in many coal-
mines women had been prevented from r% orking, and
the most beneficial results had followed.
The Earl of RADNOR admitted that it would oe desir-
able- that women and young children should not be em-,
ployed in !nine% yet still he thought that it was impro-
per to legislate on the subject. It was an old practice
that was gradually growing into desuetude, and would
be got rid of without legislation. The popular fe4ling
that had been excited against it, had been on account of
the indecency of the thing. These practices were to be
put down as they would put down a disorderly house.
If they interfered, they must go further than prohibiting
the women going into mines—they must prevent the men,
women, and children, all sleeping in cue room in the cot-
tages. The evidence of several clergymen showed that !
these collier women. were not so criminal as the women I
employed in factories ; and one ch4.,gyman sail tha
mora:s of the coal districts were as g .od as those of the
agricultural districts, with the exception of drinking. It l
was unwise to take the management of the mules out 011