The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-05-09 00:00:00

the Bill would have been more repaid than that
which must follow from the delay insisted on by the
Noble Earl. He wished it first to be considered,
whether, after the evidence which had been heard by
the Committee of the other House, and the minutes
of which were now before their Lordship., any far.
Cher investigation could be necessary. If, after
perusing that evidence, their Lordships should be of
opinion that they ought to have more information on
the subject, they would doubtless call for it ; hut it
was not requite to agree to hear further evidence,
until they should find what they poisoned was insuf-
ficient. He should therefore wish the Committee It.
be filed for an earlier day, subject to postpone', rill,
if it should be thought fit to hear Counsel sad evi-
deuce.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE had already mode
every concession that could reasonably be expected.
Ile bad, in the first place. agreed not to oppose the
second reading, though the evidence on which the
Bill was said to be founded bad not yet been read by
their Lordships. In the second place, he had con.
tented to go on with the second reading without bear-
ing Counsel against the principle of the Bill, though
there was a Petition presented for that very object.
The Noble Lord, however, wished the House to
decide on evidence ea the table, which none of their
Lordships had yet had time to peruse—on evidence
taken before a Committee of the other House of Par-
liament in the year 1816, and which was in the opi-
nion of many of tbe most distinguished Members of
that Committee, perfectly • unfit for being made the
foundation of any legislative proceeding. He wished
to know whether their Lordships were prepared to
encroach epon that great principle of political econo-
my, that labour ought to be left free, and without
taking upon themselves the trouble of investigating
the subject. He moved that the Bill be committed
on Monday se'neight.—Ordered.
The Earl of HARROWBY thought it proper to I
observe, lest the Noble Earl, or any other Noble
Lord, shoeld go away with the impression that evi-
dence must necessarily be heard against the Bill in
the Committee, that the erdei which bad been made
implied no each thing. He, for his part, could see
no evidence which could be brought against the Bill,
unless the Noble Earl-meent to say that he would
prove that children, compelled to labour 16 hours a
day, were not over-worked, which was impossible.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE. observed, that the
only evidence upon the subject before the House(and
that not yet in the bands of their Lordships, not be.
ing yet printed), was that taken before a Committee
of the Neese of Commons, in 1816, and not upon.l
oath. Ile was net aware that there wes arty evidence
at all, to prove that children in those Factories wets
worked for 16 heen• day, bet at any rate the evi-
dence in 1816 did not apply to the present Bill. It
would, bolsterer, be sack better; if it was determined
not to bear evidence, so to decide at the present mo-
ment, than to leave these Petitioners to iecer the ea-
pence of bringing up witnesses, who sight not after
all he examined.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL witesorilk miens to