The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-07 00:00:00

IMPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, May 6.
Their Lordships met at the usual hour.
A Message from the House of Commons brought up the
Turnpike Roads (Ireland) Bill, the Exchequer Bills (9,500,0001.)
Bill, the Punishment of Death Bill, the Victoria Park Bill,
the Dublin Police Bill, the Kensington and Knightsbridge
Openings Bill, the Equitable Gas Company Bill, the South-
wark Improvement Bill, the Stanhope and Tyne Railway Bill,
the Greenwich Harbour Bill, and several other private Bills.
NATIONAL EDUCATION.
The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from a parish
in the county of Wicklow, in favour of the Church Education
Society.

CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.
Lord , CAMOYS presented petitions complaining of the
grievances to which Catholics arc subjected, in prisons, in mili-
tary service, and in Union-houses, from the following places :
Bungay, in Suffolk, Staffordshire, Durham, Warwick, Lan-
caster, Norfolk, and Chepstow.
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN COLLIERIES.
'The Bishop of NORWICH presented five petitions from
several mining districts, complaining of the employment of
children, and especially of females, in mines. He stated on the
authority of the Report of the Commissioners. that the female
children were exposed not only to the most painful toil, but to the
most degrading profligacy from infancy to womanhood, and
that operatives in other branches of labour will not marry the
women brought up in the mines.
Lord FITZWILLIANI agreed that it would be impossible
to exaggerate the evils of which the petitioners complained. But
considering the danger of interfering with any of their fellow-
subjects, as to the way in which they might choose to employ
their labour, if the House should think it necessary to
legislate in this case, it was highly important, before they did so,
carefully to consider the facts set forth in the Report to which
the flight Rev. Prelate had referred. They should also consi-
der whether there was not equal degradation and depravity in
the employment of females in other departments of labour. He
thought, however, that there were matters complained of in the
petition which it came within the province of legislation to for-
bid. But he was certain that those practices did not prevail
generally in all the mining districts of England. He could even
give his own evidence that they did not generaly prevail in the
districts from which the petition came. If any one by chance
should read the speech of the Right Rev. Prelate, he would
suppose that in the generality of collieries the seams were so
thin as to make it necessary for them to work in places not
more than 18 or 20 inches in height. Now that was by ne
means the case in the generality of mines in this country from
whence coals were extracted; but if their Lordships wished to
protect all children from what might be considered beyond
their powers, they should go much farther than legislating
upon the subject of collieries. He did hope before their Lord-
ships proceeded to legislate upon the employment of children
in this one branch of industry, that they would take a compre-
hensive view of the employment in every branch of trade.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he thought it ra-
ther strange that the Right Rev. Prelate should have pro-
ceeded to this subject without giving any notice to the House
that he meant to do so. He rose to protest on the part of the
eoalowners in the nort of England, more especially those on
the Tyne and Wear, against that part of the Right Rev. Pre-
late's assertion, which stated that females and children were
chained to waggons ; he did rise to protest against that on the
part of the owners of collieries in the north. The Right Rev.
Prelate had presented petitions from the interior of England ;
what the state of things might be there he (the Marquis of
Londonderry) did notknow ; but there, he was sure, women
never had been chained in the north.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of NORWICH explained that he had not re-
ferred at all to the collieries in the north ; he only spoke of
those whence his petitions came; and with regard to the chains
he must say that he spoke upon the authority of the persons
who gave him the petitions.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY expressed his satisfac-
faction at the explanation of the Right Rev. Prelate.
The Marquis of NORMANBY said that it would be full
time for their Lordships hereafter to determine whether or no
they would undertake to legislate on the subject ; but he
thought that some good might be done by an exposure of the
abuses.
Earl FITZWILLIAM said that as it might happen that the
Reverend Prelate's speech would be read out of that House,
'he thought it right to explain with regard to the chains to
which the Right Rev. Prelate had referred. Now these
females were not chained. If they were so, they could not
work. The fact was that the chains were fastened to the wag-
'ions, and by means of them the females drew them along;
that was the whole and sole use that was made of the chains. -
-(hear, hear.) What sense was there in restricting the in-
quiries to manufactures? Why not extend it to agriculture ?
A PXEE—That is ahealthy employment.
Lord FITZWILLIANI was not quite sure of that. He
believed tat the boy who was employed in a mine with his
father, rsceivng wages enough to give him a bellyfull, was in
abetter condition for the maintenance of his health than the
boy who worked with his father in the fields, having Is. or Ss.
a week for the maintenance of a family of seven or eight.
The Bishop of NORWICH explained. He said that the
girls, when let down into the mine, were chained to the ma-
chine in which the coals were to be drawn out.
The Earl of WICKLOW would be very glad if the in-
quiry were extended to agriculture and it would be seen how
superior was the condition of children in that department of la-
bour. He then presented a petition from Sittingbourne, in
Kent, to the same effect as the petitions presented by the Bishop
of Norwich.
Earl FITZWILLIAM wondered what the agricultural la-
bourers of Kent could know of the state of the miners of the
north. He had seen much of both the agricultural and manu-
facturing people, and he was convinced that there was not the
slightest superiority of morals amongst the agricultural, above
the manufacturing population. In some respects, especially
with regard to their children, the advantage was on the side of
the manufacturers, especially the colliers.—(Hear, hear. )
The Marquis of NORMANBY said, if there had been any
erroneous opinions on the subject of the children employed in
mines and factories, the late Government had taken the best
course for removing them, by issuing the Commission.
The Bishop of LONDON thought that the people of Sit-
tingbourne, who were able to read, were as well able to judge
of the great evils which attended on the
_present factory sys-
tem; and he was surpri'ed to hear the Noble Lord say that
the condition of the children in factories and mines, was not
inferior to that of the children employed in agriculture. Feel-
ing strongly as he did on the subject of the cruelty to children,
he could not he led away by the statement of the Noble Earl,
and he must believe that the condition of the children in the
agricultural districts was, by many degrees, better than that of
those in the manufacturing districts,
Earl FITZWILLIAM said, that if the moral and spiritual
condition of the children in these colliories were worse than
that of children employed in agriculture, it was because the
former children had not the advantages which the others pos-
sessed. If they both had the same advantages, he believed their
conditions would be equal. He strongly denied that there was
anything in agricultural employment which could of itself
breathe a spirit of purity through those engaged in it, any more
than there was in manufacturing employment.
After a few words from the Bishop of LONDON and the Earl
of WINCHELSEA, the petition was laid upon the table.
QUEEN'S PRISON BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
PARISH PROPERTY BILL.
The House then went into Committee, and the Bill for regu-
lating the sale of parish property passed through.
SOAP DUTIES' BILL.
The House then resumed, and this Bill was read a third time
and passed.