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

After a few wor 's from Lord COLCHESTER,
Lord SKELMERSDALE replied.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the proviso
Against it 29
Majority against the proviso —l4

The clause was then-agreed to.
On thi, clause regulating the age of children to be em-
ployed in mines being put,
The Earl of IMOUNTCASHEL proposed that the
word "twelve" should be substituted for the word "ten,"
in the clause. Children of ten years old were of too
tender an age to be employed in mines, and the effect of
his amendment would be to prevent children under
twelve years of age being employed in mines.
Lord LYTTELTON opposed the amendment.
The Earl Of. DEVON would be very glad that no
boys should gO down into the mines under twelve years
of age, but knowing what he did as tq,the feeling exist-
ing on the subject, he was not bold enough to support
the :amendment. .
Lord lIATHERTON said that tb-c coal owners had
all been of opinion that nine ought to have been- the
age, and that the Noble Earl bad had great difficulty in.
getting their consent to ten being the age..;
The Earl of GALLOWAY would vote for the Original
clause. rather than jeopirdiz, the Bill l but he -Wished
thirteen years of age had beini Insisted ,on. • -
The Bishop of NORWICif thought the two years
from ten to twelve the most valuable of a child's life for
the purposes of education, and he regretted exceedingly
that thirteen years of age had not been fixed on as the
.

The tiniendMent was then put and negatived Without
a division, and the. clause, was agreed to with some ver-
bal amendments.

.....
On the clause relative to the appointment of inspectors
being put,
The Earl of DEVON said there was no intention of
appointing a permanent body of inspectors ; all that was
intended was to give the Secretary of State power to ap-
point an inspector pio kw vice, as it were, to see whether
in any particular case the provisions of the Act had been
carried out.

.....
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said it was pro-
posed to inflict the same curse upon the colleries that they
had already inflicted upon the factories. lie would move,
as an amendment, that all the inspectors should report
upon should be whether the provisions of the Act were
carried out, and that they should have nothing to say as
to the state of the mine or the miners.
Lord WIIARNCLIFEE objected to the clause as it
was drawn up, inasmuch as it would give an inspector a
right to inquire into matters with which he had no con-
cern. lie would propose to substitute the word " such
for " any," confining the power of the Secretary of
State to sending an inspector to a colliery against which a
complaint may have been made ; and he would also
propose to confine the authority of the inspector to re-
porting as to the state of the mines and the labourers.
Lord SKELMERSDA LE supported the amendment
of Lord Wharnclifli.
The • Marquis of LONDONDERRY withdrew his
amendment, and the amendment of Lord Whaencliffe
was agreed to.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. .
On dame 4 (the apprenticeship clause) being proposed,
The Earl of GALLOWAY expressed his regret that
the apprenticeship system had not been entirely abolished.
Lord LYTTELTON defended the clause, which was
anything but favourable to the coalOwn.erS of South Staf-
fordshire. The Sub-Commissioner, Dr. Mitchell, finding
nothing to find fault with in the mines of South Stafford-
shire,- vented all his wrath on the system of apprentice-
ship, but the evidence did not bear out Dr. Mitchell in
I his Invectives. _ -

The Bishop of NORWICH reprobated the system of
apprenticeship.
Lord HATHERTON said that Dr. Mitchell had been
greatly 'misled. Nothing could he more unjust than the
clause had been, as originally introduced by Lord Ashley.
Tne Earl of MOUNVASHEL could not understand
the necessity of apprenticing boys to mining for eight
years. He would -move that the term be for seven years
Instead of eight.
The Earl of DEVON thought the House would do
well to adopt the clause as originally proposed ; if the
I louse should not accede to it. he could not oppose the
claims of the South Staffordshire coal.-owners to be
heard. •

Lord CAMPBELL supported the clause.
The amendment was _negatived.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved that the
Chairman do report progress.—(Cries of "Go on.") He
world not press his motion, hut protested against the

rapid legislation.
. Lord REDESDALE protested against abandoning a
Committee at such an early hour as half= past ten o'clock.
The clause as amended was then agreed.to.
Clause 5 wasp agreed to, after a few observations from
the Marquis of LONDONDERRY.
Clauses 6 and 7 were agreed to without observation.
Clause 8, after a few observations from Lord Wharn-
cliffe, Lord Hatherton, the Earl of Galloway, and the
Earl of Devon, was agreed to.
The remaining clauses were agreed to, the House re-
sumed, and the Report was ordered td be received to-
morrow. The third reading of the Bill was fixed for
Friday.
EXCHEQUER BILLS PREPARATION BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON the
Exchequer Bills Preparation Bill was read a second time.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).

The Earl of CLANCARTY gave notice that, to-
morrow he should put a question to the Noble Duke
on the subject of National Education in Ireland.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned at Eleven o'Clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 25.
THE CHARTIST LECTURERS.

Sir J. GRAHAM, after briefly commenting on the
observations of the - Hon. Member for Montrose,
said he would shortly advert to .the..speech of the
lion. Member for Finsbury, and in the first place
1 if he had committed any error he thought he might
claim pardon on the part of the House, there having
been 4,000 cases of committals referred to him in his
capacity of Secretary of. State. But when this case
had come before him upon an application --on the part
of several prisoners, the firSt of whom was not John
Mason, but Thomas "Caswell, he had. merelylooked
at the memorial, but he afterwards found the verdict
of the Jury was for the conviction of Mason only for
an unlawful assembling, and he saw no reason to alter
the sentence of the Court, and he refused
the application. . All the circumstances of
-the trial were brought under his notice, and he
thought that the Honourable Gentleman took
very stringent steps in seeking to constitute
the House a 'tribunal of appeal from a
verdict of a jury, and a competent jurisdiction. He
would not go into the question as to ‘vhether the assem-
bly was illegal or not. The Hon. Gentleman stated that
the constable exceeded his duty in apprehending the
persons committed, but he (Sir J. Graham) had yet to
learn that it was not the duty of a constable, when he saw
an assembly tending ti a breach of the peace, and heard
language of an exciting nature addressed to a multitude,
to apprehend the party so offending. It was true he did
so at his own peril.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. Hawes.) He
(Sir J. Graham) was not a high legal authority on mat-
ters of this description, but there were Hon. and Learned
Gentlemen near him who would inform the Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite, what was the state of the law
on the subject, and he (Sir J. Graham) would repeat
his own opinion, that he conceived it to be competent to
a constable to apprehend the party exciting to a breach
of the peace, though he believed, if he exceeded his
duty, he was liable to an action.—(Hear, hear.) That
was the question submitted to the jary, and the Hon.
Gentleman would hardly contend that they were not
competent to bring in the verdict they did. All the cir-
cumstances were fully detailed in the evidence given be-
fore the jury, and the accused had the benefit of coun-
sel. The Bight lion. Gentleman then read a letter from
one of the Magistrates, stating that neither he, nor
any of the other Magistrates who -acted with hint,
ever gave any expression to political opinions to show
that they were influenced by political feelings with re-
spect to the case. The Hon. Gentleman relied much
upon the signature of the counsel for the prisoners.
Now he (Sir J. Graham) was told that the language was
of, the most exciting description, and of a political cha-
racter, but he would repeat, as far as Government Was
concerned, the apprehension of Mason Was not ordered
by them. l'hat -_prisoner had been convicted upon two
counts, one being fur an unlawful assembly, and the
other for a riot, and the heaviest punishMent was inflicted
uponbim, and justly so in his opinion, because it was his
language which constituted the illegality of the meeting,
the others being only present. God turbid that they
should now arrive at the time, when the. people should
not be allowed lawfullyaUti peacefully to discuss griev--
anus and petition rarliament. But the real question
in. this ease was, whether they did really meet lawfully,
'and peaceably,' and twelve .men. upon- their-oaths -. had
declared. that they did not, and the impartiality-of their
deeisimecould not be impugned. It had been said that
the JurY:conversed with the Chairman. Now the trial
commenced at nine o'clock in the morning," and had not
terminated until four. The Chairman then retired from
the Court, and two of the jurymen also requested to retire,
which they did in the custody of an officer. They hap-
pened to go outiol the Court by the same door as the Chair-
man, who pointed out the passage to them, and that, he,
believed, was the only conversation they. had. Under
these circumstances, he should oppose the motion of the
lion. Gentleman-for the production of the papers.
Mr. E. BULLER said, that with regard to the charge
against the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of having
tampered with the Jury, he could state as he had been
present at the trial, that the charge was altogether un-
founded. He believed that the Chairman had accidentally
ma two-of the Jurymen in a passage ; ' but he neither
knew those Jurymen, n.,r had he spoken to them in
any way. He should further say that the high cha-
racter of the Chairillallof the Quarter Sessions, at which
the prisoners had been tried, would place that gentleman
among. all parties to whom he was known above the
suspicion of having discharged his duty so improperly
as it had been alleged. For his (Mr. E Buller's) ittrt, he
knew no gentlemen in whose impartiality and jeuginent
he should place greater confidence than in those of the
gentleman in question.
Mr. AGLION BY said that he was not prepared to
give an opinion as to the facts of the case w lids had
been brought befere the House ; but he rose for the
purpose of expressing his total descent from a doctrine
laid down by the Right Honourable Baronet,
the Secretary for the home Department. In
his . (Mr. Aglionhy's) opinion, the present subject
was one %%hich unquestionably came within the
jurisdiction of that House, as the Supreme Court of the
nation. There was nothing, he thought, unconstitutional
n the course pursued by his Hon. Friend the Member
or Finsbury, in moving for these depositions. He (lid not
mean to say that a Member would be justifiel in moving