Commons Sitting of 22 June 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1°.Charitable Pawn Office! (Ireland).
Committed.—Drainage (Ireland).
Reported.—Designs Copyright; Rivers (Ireland); Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts.
Private.—1°. Vere's Divorce; Coward's Divorce; Pater-son's Estate; Davidson's Estate.
2° Brewood School Estate; Manner's Estate.
Reported.—Reading Cemetery; Bathurst Estate.
3°. and passed:—Leicester Small Debts.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. S. Crawford, Mr. Hume, Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Thorneley, Mr. M. Phillips, Mr. Protheroe, Mr. Stuart Wortley, and Mr. Brotherton, from Haigh Moor Colliery, Farnley Tyas, Flockton, Wakefield, Andrew Hill Colliery, Bradford, Briggs, Morton, Thurstonland, and several other places, against the Mines and Collieries Bill.—From Coat Bridge, and Barnsley (three petitions), in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill.—From Limerick, for a fair and equal Taxation of all parts of the Borough according to the Valuation of the Poor Relief (Ireland) Act.—From Basford Union, for Alteration of the Poor-law Amendment Bill; and from Bristol, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Paisley, for Inquiry into Distress.—By Mr. Hume, from the House of Assembly of Prince Edward's Island, for measures settling the Rights of Land in that Island.—From Framlingham, for Rating Owners of Small Tenements in lieu of the Occupiers.—From the Hundreds of Tunstead, Walsham, West Flegg, Clavering, South Epingham. Blofield, and Happing, for Inquiry into the System of Education pursued at Maynooth College.—From New Buckenham, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—From the Attornies in the County of Oxford, for the Repeat of the Duty on their Certifi-eates.—From William Roberts, for Inquiry into the Working of the Anatomy Act—From Michael Drury, to Address her Majesty to Dismiss Lord Lyndhurst from the office of Lord Chancellor.—From Miners of Coat Bridge, to Alter the Mode of Weighing their Work.—From the Corporation of Limerick, to render valid the Election of the Mayor under the Municipal Corporations Act—By Mr. Redington, from Proprietors of Land on the Lake and River Corrib, against the Rivers (Ireland) Bill.

SILVER COINAGE.
Mr. Humebegged to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite respecting the currency. It appeared that there was so great a deficiency of silver in circulation as to produce extreme inconvenience to those who had workmen to pay. He could mention one instance in which a person having workmen to pay sent to the Bank of England for a quantity of silver, which they refused. Unless the Government took means before Saturday next to meet the evil, the greatest possible inconvenience and distress would be the result. He wished to know whether the Government would take any measures to have that want immediately supplied?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that representations had been made to him not quite three weeks ago by those most competent to judge,—namely, bankers and the Bank of England, that so excessive was the amount of silver in circulation, that they wished the Government would take some of it back. It was this representation which had led the Government to think that there was no deficiency in the supply of silver. He had been informed, however, that day, that there was a deficiency of silver, and he would therefore adopt every means in his power to procure at the earliest moment an adequate supply. He might also state, that an ample supply of gold coin was ready to replace that which would be taken out of circulation, and which might to some extent supersede the necessity of increasing very materially the silver coinage.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
Lord Ashleyhaving presented a petition in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill, said, he had a very interesting document which he would, with permission of the House, read. It was an address of thanks to the House for their prompt and humane interference for the relief of the oppressed children and females employed in mines, from the wives and daughters of the colliers of Barnsley and the neighbourhood. The petition proceeded entirely from a spontaneous impulse, and had been got up by no agency. He had been consulted relative to it, and had said, "Let it be entirely your own production." Not one of the petitioners, he regretted to say, could write, and the address was numerously signed with crosses.
The Speakersaid, it could not be received.
Lord Ashleythen said he had another address, the substance of which, if it could not be received, he hoped he might at least be permitted to state. It was signed on behalf of 500 miners, hardly any of whom could write. It was "The Address of the Colliers of Barnsley and the neighbourhood, adopted at a meeting held on the 18th inst., to the House of Commons." [The noble Lord read it. The noble Lord also read the substance of another address from the hand-loom weavers of Dodsworth.] He moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into committee on the bill.
Mr. R. Scoltcomplained of the statements of Dr. Mitchell, in the report of the committee of inquiry on mines, relative to the treatment of pauper children in the unions of Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley, and Stourbridge, who were said to be draughted out as apprentices into the collieries and subjected to all manner of ill-treatment. So far from this statement being true, it was the fact that during the years 1840, 1841, and 1842, as appeared from a return made by the clerk of the Walsall Union, there had been apprenticed from that union only one boy of the age of nine, another of the age of eleven, and a third of the age of fifteen and in all these cases the apprentices were bound to relatives of their own. With respect to that union, therefore, the charge made was clearly unfounded. In the Stourbridge Union, since its formation in 1837, only ten boys had been apprenticed to colliers; of these, only one of the age of nine years, five of ten, and the others of twelve, four, teen, fifteen, and sixteen years of age. Three of them were apprenticed with the consent of their fathers, and three more by consent of their widowed mothers. In the populous Union of West Bromwich in the years 1840, 1841, and 1842, only four boys have been so put out apprentice, no one of whom was under the age of ten years. With respect to the bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, he felt no hostility to its object, but if it passed into a law in its present shape it would have a most injurious effect on the whole mining district of South Staffordshire. He did not believe it would improve the moral or physical condition of the workmen. Throughout that district, he could inform the House, mining was generally looked upon as a healthy, cheerful, and pleasant occupation. The "jolly collier" was a proverbial expression all over the county. It was generally considered a remarkably pleasant and cheerful employment. It was observed that, when any accident happened to a collier, or he was attacked by any disease, he was cured in an incredibly short time. Their general health was much better than that of the rest of the labouring population. Every one must perfectly coincide in that part of the noble Lord's measure which prohibited the employment of females. He would suggest, however, that the bill was one of too much importance to be hurried through with so much rapidity,

425
and that it should be postponed till another Session, to allow time for an inquiry to be made into the evidence on which it was founded, and enable parties to see how it might affect their interests. He was convinced that course would be far better ultimately for the objects of the noble Lord. It was easy to pick out instances of oppression in every walk of employment, but he would ask, if they deprived numbers of the working classes of the means of earning their daily sustenance,—for one cause of children being set to work was the poverty of their parents, as stated by Dr. Mitchell,—if they reduced them to misery, how was it possible that their moral training and education, and their improvement in morals and religion, could be properly attended to? He would ask the noble Lord, whether children were not more likely to become good citizens by being brought up to industrious habits, than if they were allowed to wander about in idleness? It was generally supposed that no apprenticeship was necessary, and that nothing was to be taught or learned by mining; but the truth was that the art was one of great difficulty as well as of great importance. It was most important that boys should go into the mines at an early age, and if they did not they would never be able to work with skill or efficiency. He would suggest that the noble Lord should go on with that part of the bill which related to the employment of females immediately, as it was a matter which required an immediate remedy, and that he should postpone the other clauses of the measure, relating to engineers, apprentices, and others, to a future Session. The masters of the mining districts of Yorkshire had had only two or three days to consider the provisions of the bill, and perhaps the noble Lord would not object to allow ten days or a fortnight for that purpose. He did not differ from the principle of the bill generally, and admitted that the noble Lord was entitled to thanks for having introduced the measure.
Mr. Wardmust contradict the statement of the hon. Member, who had just spoken as to the masters not having had time to consider the bill. In that part of the West Riding with which he was connected they had fully considered its provisions, and agreed with them. They were grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the bill, and hoped that it would be speedily passed into law with a
426
few modications in the details. He did not see why they could not go into committee now as well as a few days hence. He would add, that in the part of the West Riding to which he had referred, most of the provisions of the bill had been long in practical operation.
Mr. Lambtonhoped the noble Lord would not consent to any delay. There had been plenty of time to consider the subject. A deputation from the northern mining district had had interviews with the noble Lord and the Secretary for the Home Department since the introduction of the bill, and he did not see why other districts might not have taken the same step if they chose.
House in committee.
On clause 2,
Lord Ashleystated, that he had had an interview with a deputation from the mining districts, and had come to an agreement with them respecting the age at which boys should be permitted to work. He proposed that none should be admitted for the future under the age of ten, and that up to the age of thirteen they should work only three days in the week, every alternate day, and for not more than twelve hours a day. He would propose to allow boys at present working, who had reached the age of nine, to continue. He trusted, that the time thus granted in boyhood would be devoted to the purpose of moral and religious improvement. He gratefully acknowledged the kindness and courtesy which had marked the demeanour of those who formed the deputation, and though he still retained the opinion, that thirteen would be the proper limit under which no boy should be employed, he cheerfully admitted, that these differences of opinion arose from the best motives, and he was thoroughly assured that they did not look to their own interests, but to the interests of those placed under their care. It was with great satisfaction, that he now proposed a clause to the effect he had stated, in substitution of that which now stood in the bill.
Mr. Ainsworthsaid, that they could not carry into effect any plan, such as the noble Lord proposed, without obtaining relays of boys. In the mines of which he had some knowledge the boys worked only nine hours a day for five days a week; therefore, the difference between that practice and the plan of the noble Lord was not very material. It was said,

427
that the children must be educated, but who was to pay for their education? The wages of the miners had been reduced to the lowest possible point; they were to be still further reduced by the limitations placed upon the working hours of children, and from what funds, then, were to be derived the means of educating those children?
Mr. Walkerobserved, that in Lancashire the children worked only eight hours a day, and he thought that better than the twelve hour system of the noble Lord, for this reason, that it left time enough each day for the business of education, without interfering with the regular operations of the mine.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that the children must remain as long in the mines as the adults; upon that ground he was favourable to the plan of the noble Lord. It appeared to him, that no general rule could be adopted so convenient for all parties and so just towards the children as that proposed by the noble Lord. Suitable rest for the children and fair opportunities of education could not be obtained without the indulgence of the alternate days.
Mr. V. Smithconsidered the regulation of appointing alternate days of rest and of labour a very great improvement, and a very requisite provision.
Lord Ashleysaid, that in introducing such a bill as that before the committee, he could not make exceptions in favour of each particular locality, or leave the children to the discretion of either their parents or masters. There could be no security unless the children were to be left one whole day at a time above ground—the days of rest alternating with those of labour. If they were to be allowed to remain in the mines for three days at a time, there was no saying what amount of labour might be imposed upon them. After the best consideration which he could give to what had been said on both sides, he must say, that he thought he ought to abide by the clause then in the hands of the chairman.
Mr. Vivianobserved, that in the mines with which he was connected no females were employed; there were Sunday-schools for the children; and, speaking generally, they were taken good care of.
Viscount Palmerstonwas favourable to the plan of the noble Lord. If there had been any doubt on the subject, he thought
428
that that doubt must at once have been removed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford. In his opinion there could be no useful education given to the children of miners on any of those days upon which they were engaged in the mines—the smallest quantity of the labour in which they were occupied would be incompatible with education; for these reasons he should support the clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 3, which provides that "persons are not to be apprenticed to work in mines or collieries," being proposed,
Mr. Villierswished to know why apprentices were not to be permitted to work in the usual way, as heretofore? The effect would be to cause much misery and destitution.
Lord Ashleywas understood to say, that the apprentices would be permitted to work as free labourers.
Mr. Scottread a letter from some proprietors of mines, in which they urged that the effect of not allowing apprentices to work in mines would be that the mining interest would be ruined in a very short time. It was quite necessary that lads should be instructed in working the mines, in order to make them skilful labourers.
Mr. Villiersinquired whether boys were to be taught the business or not? or did the noble Lord assume that there was no business to learn?
Mr. Bellobserved, that there were no apprentices either in Durham or Northumberland.
Lord Ashleysaid, the abuses of the present system were so enormous that the clause was absolutely necessary.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT.
On the question, that the report of the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill be brought up,
Mr. Blackstonesaid, that in a measure of this description, inflicting pains and penalties, the House ought to proceed with great caution. He would ask the House to re-commit the bill, in order to give the borough an opportunity to appear by counsel at the Bar of the House. He grounded his motion upon the justice of the case. It was a bill of pains and penalties, and everything should be done according to law. The notice to the late returning officer was clearly irregular; he

429
would therefore move that the bill should be re-committed.
Mr. Redingtonwas placed in a very awkward situation. The bill passed through committee in a very full House, at a time when the Leaders and Members of note of both parties were present; and it passed unopposed. Yet now, at that late period of the Session, he was asked upon a mere technicality to begin again, as it were. As to the informality said to have been committed, he was not aware of it till after the bill had gone through committee, and it was to be borne in mind, that there was no regulation or enactment which required that any notice whatever should be served. The objection ought to have been taken in time; of course he must bow to the decision of the House, but he saw no reason for acceding to the request made by the hon. Member.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellwould not impute any motives to the hon. Member for Wallingford, but if his intention was to throw the bill overboad he could not take a better course than the one he now pursued. Instead of re-committing the bill, why not allow the report to be brought up now, and the clauses he had to propose might be moved on the third reading, when the House could give them as fair a consideration as in committee.
Mr. Hodgsonsupported the recommittal of the bill, as in justice his hon. Friend, the Member for Wallingford, ought to have an opportunity of proposing the amendment of which he had given notice; but he gave his hon. Friend fair notice that he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. Bailey,jun., thought the hon. Member for Wallingford had made out a case in favour of his motion. He knew from experience that the elections at Sudbury could be and were pure when temptation was not thrown in their way.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 48; Noes 19;—Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Busfeild, W.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Christie, W. D.

Bernard, Visct.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Blake, ML J.

Courtenay, Lord

Bowring, Dr.

Cripps, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Dennistoun, J.

Brotherton, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Burroughs, H. N.

Eastnor, Visct.

430

Eliot, Lord

O'Connell, M. J.

Escott, B.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Evans, W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gill, T.

Protheroe, E.

Greene, T.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Hodgson, R.

Stock, Serjt.

Howard, P. H.

Thornely, J.

Lambton, H.

Villiers, hon. C.

Lefroy, A.

Wawn, J. T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Whitmore, T. C.

Maclean, D.

Wood, B.

Mainwaring, T.

Wyse, T.

Marsland, H.

Yorke, H. R.

Miles, P. W. S.

Miles, W.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Redington, T. N.

O'Brien, W. S.

Ward, H. G.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P

Hervey, Lord A.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Jackson, J. D.

Bailey, J. jun.

Lawson, A.

Baird, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Bradshaw, J.

Master, T. W. C.

Broadley, H.

Munday, E. M.

Darby, G.

Pringle, A.

Forbes, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Henley, J. W.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Report received. Bill to be read a third time.

RIVERS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, to take into further consideration the report of the Rivers Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Redingtonobjected to the bill, on the ground, that it gave too extensive powers to the commissioners, and that gross mismanagement had occurred with regard to a drainage company to which this bill related. He complained, that in several instances the funds of the company had been grossly misapplied, and he thought the conduct of the company had been such, that the House ought to pause before it sanctioned this measure. He objected to the retrospective powers which were given by the bill.
Lord Eliotsaid, it was required by act of Parliament, that a valuator should be appointed by the owners and occupiers of land. Those parties had refused to appoint a valuator, and the Government, therefore, wished to remedy the inconvenience to which the company were subjected. He did not think, that by adopting this bill they would be guilty of injustice to any parties.
House in committee,
On clause 10 being proposed, landlords, &c, to appoint a valuator.
Mr. Redingtonobjected to the powers which it conferred upon the company, and moved its rejection.
The committee divided on the question, that the clause as amended stand part of the bill:—Ayes 33; Noes 4;—Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Jackson, J. D.

Allix, J. P.

Lefroy, A.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bernard, Visct.

Mainwaring, T.

Broadley, H.

Masterman, J.

Brotherton, J.

Miles, P. W. S.

Charteris, hon. F.

Miles, W.

Colvile, C. R.

Mundy, E. M.

Courtenay, Lord

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cripps, W:

Plumptre, J. P.

Darby, G.

Rashleigh, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Eliot, Lord

Stuart, H.

Fuller, A. E.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Henley, J. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Pringle, A.

Hutt, W.

Young, J.

List of the NOES.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Connell, M. J.

TELLERS.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Blake, M.

Wyse, T.

Redington, T. N.

Clause agreed to.—Other clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned.