The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-07 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LOHDS.-FRIDAY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that their lordships
should resolves themselves into committee on the Dissen-
ters' Chapels Bill, the objects of which he stated, and the
principle of which he advocated in an able speech which
elicited cheers from both sides of the house.

The Bishop of LONDON opposed the motion, and con-
tended that the second clause went to legalise _the illegal
use of a great trust. It was an ex pose facto law to
legalise the use of chapels for purposes entirely contrary
to those for which they were founded. It proposed that
the application of the chapel for the last twenty years
should he decisive as to the intention of thefonnder ; but
surely it would be far better to take the application of it
for the first twenty years of its foundation. The right
reverend prelate moved as an amendment that the bill
should be committed that day six months.
. . . . .

Lord BROUGH AM supported the bill of which be entirely
approved. Its object was to prevent litigation by render-
ing it unnecessary to inquire into the peculiar tenets of
the founder where there was an actual possession for thirty
years. Besides it was a common thing for persons to
leave sums to found chapels where doctrines were taught
diametrically opposite to their own.
The Bishop of EXETER said that although he stood, he
believed, alone in his opposition to the first clause of the
bill, yet in the exercise of his duty he felt it necessary to
resist the legalising of bequests which were illegal ut the
time they were made, because of the illegality at that time
of the doctrines which they were intended to inculcate,
although these doctrines might have been since that pe-
riod legalised.
Lord COTTENHAM supported the bill, as did also Lord
CAMPBELL, after which
The Bishop of LONDON said he would not press his
amendment to a division, perceiving from the feeling of
the house that he had no chance of carrying it.
After some observations from Lord TEYN HAM, the bill
went through committee ; and their lordships then ad-
journed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—FRIDAY.
On the motion for the house resolving itseif into com-
mittee on the Factories Bill,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved as an amendment, "That it is
the opinion of this house that no interference with the
power of adult labourers in factories to make contracts
respecting the hours for which they shall be employed, be
sanctioned by this house." He contended that the fac-
tory labourer was better paid and did not work harder
than the agricultural and other labourers—indeed, the
worst feature of his condition was, its being meddled with
by the vice of legislation. He was anxious to emancipate
the labourer from the heavy weight of Lord Ashley's
humanity, and exceedingly regretted that Sir J. Graham
should have meddled with the question of interference.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that non-interference with adult
labour was the principle of the bill as well as of the ex-
isting law, and it only went to carry out the protection to
young persons, which was sanctioned by the legislature
in 1833. The only departure from the prit &pie of the
existing law was its interference with adult female labour,
and this interference was sanctioned by the great majority
of the manufacturers as a check upon the unfair opera-
tions of competing manufacturers. Females working in
factories were entitled to protection, and he took his
stand upon the necessity of limiting their toil to a period
which their constitutions might enable them to sustain.
Lord Howicx expressed his surprise that Sir J. Gra-
ham should call upon them to pass a bill which he admitted
to be a violation of principle. The bill before the house
was a feeble commencement, but it established the princi-
ple of interference, and if pasted it would he impossible
to draw back. If any evils Omni(' result they must re-
medy them by throwing down all artificial restraints and
commercial monopolies.
Sir H. PEEL, admitted that the moral and intellectual
improvement of the labouring population had been too
much neglected by the legislature, but he feared that if a
limitation to ten hours were adopted a struggle might fol-
low between wages and profits to the diminution of the-
comforts of the labourer, and thus the only consequence
of an attempt to promote mortality by law would be the
defeat of their own object. The interference aith female
labour was, no doubt, a deparure from principle, but it
was justified by the beneficial effects which were likely to
flow from it.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he was opposed to the amend-
ment of Mr. Roebuck, but thought interference should
be limited to persons under 21 years of age, and that the
ten hours principle should be gradually arrived at.
Lord ASHLEY vindicated his former statements re-
spectirg labour in factories from imputations cast upon
them by Mr. Roebuck. He declined discussing the ten
hours principle until it should come regularly before the
house upon the motion of which he had given notice
upon the third reading of the bill.
Afer a few observations from Mr. C, Wood, Mr. Ains-
worth, Mr. Fielden, Mr. M. Philips, and Mr. Parker,
the house divided, and Mr. Roebuck's amendment was
negatived by a majority of 282 to 76.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the house adjourned.

FATHERS,GUARD YOUR DAUGHTERS FROM INFIDELS.
—The Times gives a long account of the secret history of
the capture, &c. of the parties convicted in the late will
forgery cases. The article concludes with the following
history of the two females implicated :—" The mother of
Mrs. Dorey and Mrs. Saunders was the daughter of an
aged soldier of the name of Crene, a pensioner at Fal-
mouth, and their father (Win. Richards) was the steward
of a Lisbon government packet. On the proclamation of
peace, Mr. Richards went to Lisbon to establish himself
there, but he soon afterward died in embarrassed circum-
stances in that city. The daughters had been brought up
as nailiners, but on their father's death, the mother and
daughters opened a china shop at Falmouth, where they
remained a few years, when they removed to Biddlesham,
in Somersetshire, and at last to New Bond-street, Bath.
where they carried en the business of straw-bonnet
makers. In this street Sanders kept a fish shop, and thus
from the circumstance of neighbourhood, became ac-
quainted with Lydia, who played the part of Emma Slack,
and it is believed, led the unfr,rtunate n,an, with the aid
of her sister, into all •lie mischief and misery, to the de-
Oils of a hi. h the piii,Le have been so long accip.t rated.
Here, also, Mrs. 1) r, y, then Genrgiana Richards, lv-
c-,nne ai qithinted will, Ca lisle, on on;., of his visits to !hit
came, and to the blosplieo‘ous doctrine.
city, surf 10 this
et Carlisle, the whole of the _Mindy ascribe their lota.
ruin."