The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-05-21 00:00:00

Empertalliament.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-AIONDAY.

Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of the
Criminal Laws Consolidation Bill.'.ae object of which is
to effect a complete digest, not
only of the statute laws,
but also of the common I: ,
..‘T reducing it to written prin-
ciples, so that the.sholemight form a certain criminal
code easily -,,,nderstood and easily carried into execution.
LORD CHANCELLOR said the subject was a most
important one , and upon the propriety of the first part
of the bill—that relating to the consolidation of the sta-
tute law—a doubt could scarcely be entertained. Upon
the second part, however, he felt so much doubt as to in-
duce him to pause. He therefore recommended to his
noble friend to have the bill read a second time that night,
and thus to pledge their lordships to the principle of his
measure, after which he ought to take no further step this
session, but to give time for inquiry and re-introduce it
in the next session of Parliament. In the meantime the
government would take up the matter in conjunction with
his noble friend, and every effort would then be made to
render the measure as effective as possible. It might
also be adviseable immediately to repeal a number of dor-
mant statutes, the revival of which might lead to incon-
venience. .

E3Ti;DEN:kIANI and CAMPBELL concurred in the pro-
priety of this course of proceeding.
Lord BROUGHAM assented, and the bill was read a
second time. Their lordships then adjourned.

. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAY.
ITr• lT m*TNEs resumed the adjourned debate on the
• for lon- -

Tacieft Bill, designating the lauu..
white slavery of this country, and Contending that we
should be ready to make as great sacrifices to check it as
we had done already for the emancipation of the slaves in
our,colonies.
Mr. WARD said, as it had been shown, that the factory
labourer was better off than any other class of workpeo-
ple, there was no pretence of any interference with them.
By the adoption of the principles of free trade, he felt
confident they would cause the demand for the ten-hours
limitation of labour to cease altogether.
Mr. M'GEACIIY said the operatives were of opinion
that the additional wages paid for the long hours went
into the pocket of the doctor and not into their own, and
that they were willing to submit to a restriction of wages
for the sake of mental improvement and recreation.
Mr. BRIGHT opposed the motion, contending that Lord
Ashley was proceeding upon incorrect information, and
that a gross delusion had been practised upon the opera-
tives.
Mr. F. Swv said he had upon all the divisions which
Lad taken place on this qnestion voted with Lord Ashley,
and he had heard no argument of sufficient weight to in-
duce him to think he was in error in the course he had
pursued. At the hazard, therefore, of breaking up the
government he should vote for the motion of the noble
lord.

Sir R. PEEL said it might have been wrong on the part
of the Government to limit the hours of labour to twelve
in the day, but that error was no apology for thest who
proposed to limit them to ten. The right hon. baronet
entered into a series of calculations, in order to show the
immense mischief which he contended would be effected
by the reduction of the hours of labour from twelve to
ten. In England, the hours of labour were already con-
siderably less than in any other country in Europe or the
United States. If the house thought, after all that had
been said, that they should prrsevere to enforce the res-
triction to ten hours, they muit do so under other guides,
for he could not consent to hold office for the purpose of
carrying out a policy which he believed to be so very in-
jurious (Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL thought it not right to mix up this
great question with a ministerial question of confidence,
for there was an end to argument it' it was converted into
such a question in a house in which the Government must
have so large a majority.
Sir R. INGLIS and Mr. COLLET addressed the house,
which then divided, and the motion of Lord Ashley was
defeated by a majority of 297 to 159.
On the question that the bill do pass the motion was
agreed to by a majority of 136 to 7.