The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1847-04-27 00:00:00

J. Russell and

avail); before the house
Tha riPhata woe oriini

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-WEDNESDAY

On the motion of Mt
Factories Bill was received
On the motion that it be agreed to

FIELDEN the report on the

Mr. TRELAWNY gave it his most decided opposition,
on the ground that it was a perfect mockery to introduce
such a bill unless the house was also prepared to fix the
rate of wages and the price of provisions.
Mr. HUME blamed the government for giving any sanc-
tion to this measure. The encroachments already made

upon us by the manufacturers of America were so great
that it was nothing short of insanity to agree to it. He,
therefore, moved that the report be received on that day
six months.
Mr. BROWNE seconded the amendment.

After a few words from Mr. M. PHILIPS, against the bill,
Mr. P. HOWARD and Mr. S. CRAWFORD both sup-
ported it. The latter gentleman denounced the opposi-
tion to it as unfair and vexatious. No notice was on the
paper of the day, and yet an attempt was made to defeat
the bill by taking the friends of the measure by surprise.
Mr. B. ESCOTT denied that the opposition to this bill
had been unfair. He implored the house, in mercy to
the labouring classes, to reject the measure.
Mr. FERRAND taunted Mr. B. Escott with the incon-
sistency of his proceedings on this bill. Formerly he had
supported, now he opposed it. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

After a short conversation between Mr. Muntz, Mr.
Tancred, Mr. B. Escott, and Sir D. Lacy Evans,
Lord J. RUSSELL confessed that he would have pre-
ferred to have had the time in this bill limited to 11 in-
stead of 10 hours ; but, as a Ten Hours Bill had been
sanctioned by a large majority of the house, he felt him-
self justified in giving it his support.

Mr. Rosmicii denounced the conduct of Lord J. Rus-
sel, in supporting this measure, as weak, wavering, and
=statesmanlike.

The house then divided, when the numbers were, for
the amendment 46, and against it 104. The report was
in consequence agreed to.

Mr. B-RowN then proposed to add a clause to the bill ;
but, after some conversation, in which Sir G. Grey, Mr.
T. Egerton, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Aglionby, Mr. M. Philips, Sir R.
Peel, and Lord J. Manners joined, was induced to with-
draw it.

Lord EBRINGTON also proposed to add two clauses to
the bill ; but one of them was negatived without a divi-
sion, and the other did not even find a seconder.

On a clause proposed by Mr. LEADER, for the purpose
of enabling millowners to make up for lost time, in cases
where, from the derangement of the machinery, they had
been obliged to stop work, a division took place, when it
was negatived by a majority of 94 over 31 voices.
The bill was then ordered to be engrossed, and, after
some further conversation, it was ordered to be read a
third time on Friday next. There was, however, a gene-
ral understanding that this arrangement was only made
to enable the house to fix on that day another for the fur-
ther discussion of the measure.

The Life Insurances Bill was then read a second time

HOUSE OF LORDS.-THURSDAY

The Marquis of WESTMEATH rose TO-CO:Wain of the
reports which had appeared in The Times and Sun news-
papers respecting his motion for leave to bring in a bill
to restrain the waste of land in Ireland. The passage in
The Times ran thus, " The Marquis of WESTMEATH
complained of the ridicule with which his proposal had
been received." Now he had complained of no ridicule,
though he admitted that he had felt hurt by the way in
-which the Lord Chancellor had replied to his motion. If
this system of malicious misrepresentation, for he was
convinced that it was malicious, were permitted to pro-
ceed, it would end in the destruction of all liberty of dis-
cussion ; he should therefore move that the printers of
the two papers in question be called to the bar of the
house.

Lord BROUGHAM allowed that it was absolutely neces-
sary that the proceedings before their Lordships should
go forth to the world with fairness and accuracy, and
would agree with the Marquis of Westmeath that the
misrepresentation complained of was worthy of censure.
But he would advise the noble Marquis to follow on this
occasion the rule which he (Lord Brougham) had invari-
ably pursued for 30 years, and that was, not to interfere
needlessly in such a case. He putit to the house whether
the reports of their proceedings in 999 cases out of a 1000
given, not only with signal ability, but with the
most admirable impartiality ? No good had ever arisen
Rouse of Parliament from a needless contest
,ie press, and he trusted that the noble Marquis
would be satisfied with having called the attention of the
house to the matter, and that he would refrain from press-

were not

log his motion.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE also dissuaded the noble
Marquis from pressing his motion, and advised him to
give the papers complained of an opportunity of correct-
ing their report.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH again expressed his con-
-vietipn that the misrepresentation was deliberate and in-
tentional, but would not persist in his motion against the
oPlmen of the house.