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

HAMBURGH MAIL.

HANUURGH, JULY 15.—We learn, from good authority,
that among the measures voted on by the Congress of
the Customs' •'Union at StutEiard, is en -aug-mentation of
the import duty on some oracles, as the G=lon manu-
facturers must absolutely have this protection. In ganeral
there is a great despondency, as a commercial crisis is
inevitable.

BERLIN, JULY 17.—The Archbishop of Posen and
Gencgen has arrived here from Persia.

- - .
HANOVER, JULY 19.—T0-day the Hanover Gazette
mentions, for the first time, the intended marriage of the
Crown Prince to tile Princess Mary of Saxe ltonburg.
ScliwEniN, 19.—The Ceurt has gone into
mourning- f)r six weeks, on occasion of the death of
the Duke of Orleans.

ELststoitE.—The number of ships that entered the
sound in 1842 was 1,991, viz., 1,115 from the north
Sea and 836 from the Baltic i. 219 from the North Sea.
and 208 from the Baltic ; in all 527 were - English.
Iluniburghl'apers"hly '22.
BELGIAN tUNES— BRUMELS, Jun' ".3.
Actual Lentzs per Cent. • 524
ttothschild's Lean, S per Ccnt 10156
Loan 01 Thirty Millions, 4 per Cent. 91%
Sper Cent. —.
...------.....
(lAA) lt 2
Loan of City, 1..32,.4 per Cent i1374
Society si Cumin.- ice, 4%per Cent RS
Bank of Belgium, 5 par Cent 73
National Sticiety
Exenange en Louden (thnkt) ... —
—Brussels Papers, July g 3.
AUSTRIAN FUNM.—VIEriNA, JCLY 15
r iseper Cr•nts. Dletalliques • . 1C9%
Fear per Cents
Three p.r Cents.
bank shares .... ..... I(W

Thirty.svver

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS, July 25.
MINES AND COLLIERIES' BILL.

The Earl of DEVON.moved the re-committal cf this
Bill.

• After some lengthened observations from several Noble
Lords,
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and their
Lordship's divided on the question or going into Com-
mittee, when there appeared--
ConuMts
Non-Contents
Majority in favour of going into Committee —46
Their Lordships then resolved themselves into Com 4
mittee on the Bill.

49

To the clause prohibiting females being in mines,
Lord CAMPBELL moved the addition of the words
" fir the purpose of working." Unless some such words
were added, ladies going into mine out of curiosity, or
-women going to visit their husbands, ‘rho might have
met with accidents, would he liable to penalties.
The additionyas agreed to. . .

Lord BEAUMONT moved the omission of the clause
which enacted that within three months after the passing
of the Act, all girls under 18 years of age should come
out of the mines ; that would be throwing them out of
employ just ut the commencement of the winter, if it
were omitted all the women would mute out of the mines
together on the Ist of March.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE opposed the omis-
sion ; if any alteration was made it ought to be to
shorten the duration of female labour in mines rather
than to lengthen it.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought that if
the words " six Months" wcre inserted, instead of the words
" three months," it would meet the justice of the case. He
should propose that as an amendment.
The amendment of the Marquis of Londonderry was
then put and negatived.
:Some vernal amendments were then , proposed and
agreed to, after which Lord Beaumont's motion for the
omission of all that part of the clause relating to females
under the age of eighteen, was put and negatived with-
out a division.

Lord LYTTELTON proposed, as an amendment,
that the Ist of May should be the day for the women
leaving the mines, instead of the Ist of March. It would
be a more favourable time of year fier the women to
leave the mines than the month of March.
_Although,
in the form in which the Bill had first come up, be had
entertained serious objections to it, yet, after the alte-
rations which had been made, he felt he could not
oppose it.
The Earl of DEVON opposed the amendment.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said it was evi-
dent to hint that it was determined not a day should
pass without turning these females adrift. The females
would not thank their Lordshipaior what they were doing.
Lord Lytteiton's amendment was then put and nega-
tived, without a division.

Lord DUNMORE thought it. a great defect in the Bill
that •no compensation was given to the lessees of mines,
and no means taken to procure employment for these
women when they should be taken from the mines. He
a ould, therefore, suggest that unmarried women, above
twenty-one years of age, now at work in mines, night
be.permitted to continue to work in mines, and he wuuld
move an amendment in the clause to that effect.
The Earl of DEVON could not consent to the amen&
ment.

Lord CAMPBELL said such. an amendment would
be tantamount to rejecting the clause altogether. Re
trusted their Lordships would lose no time in rescuing
these females from the degradation in which they were
placed. The practice of employing females in mines was,
it appeared, us unprofitable as it was immoral.

`ll-i:! Earl of GALLOWAY said no injury could ac-
crue to the lessee of the mine, for the rent was paid in
proportion to the produce.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY supported the
amendment. Any change introduced ought to be gradual;
'Lord HATHERTON doubted the right of the Legis-
lature •to preve'ut, any pet-Sims-of years from earn-
ing their livelihood in any way they might think: fit;' but
that was not the proposition ofthe Noble Earl, he proposed'
to give the right to the girl, butt to take it away from the
widow. Under these circumstances he could not sup-
portthe amendment.. . -

„. .
- The amendment was then negatived without a division.
Lord SKELI%IERSDALE proposed a proviso enabling
females above forty years of age, now employed in
collieries, to make a declaration of her age, and her
desire to be employed in a colliery, before a Magistrate,
before the Ist of March next, in which case she might
be permitted to be employed in a colliery. Women of
that age who . had been engaged for so many years in
earning an honest, though a dirty livelihood, were utterly
unable to earn a living in any other way, and if they
were turned out of the 'nines, they would starve.
. .

The Earl of RIVON felt himself under thu necessity
of objecting to the proviso.
Lord COLCHESTER Was sorry to hear that the
Noble Earl objected to the amendment. It was very
hard to refuse the relief sought to be I.,iven to this class
of persons. The working of these women in mines could
not he objected to on the score of morality.
The Earl of
.11101i.NTCASHEL thought the amend-
ment struck at the principle of the Bill, and should there-
fore vote against it.

The Earl of ELDON supported the. amendment.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the pre;
sent the most favourable opportunity for substituting
male labour for female labour in the mines.
The Earl of CLANCARTY thought the declaration
required was a sufficient safeguard, and therefore he
should vote for the proviso.
The Earl of WICKLOW admitted that a stronger
case had been made out for this proviso than had been
made out for any of the previously-proposed alterations,
but the proviso militated against the principle of the Bill,
and therefore he must oppose it.
ho Bishop of NORWICH had presented a petition
from several operatives out of employment who were de-
sirous that the B►ll might pass, and who would imme-
diately set out for the coal mines, in order to be em-
ployed in the pits.