MR. DAWSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mary Anne Walkley, deceased, and the wording of the verdict delivered by the Coronor's Inquest empannelled to investigate the circumstances of her death; and if it would not be desirable and humane to introduce legislation for the purposes of limiting and defining the hours of labour in Millinery and other establishments were Females are employed? He was perfectly aware that the right hon. Baronet had given the utmost consideration to this case, but his reply to the question which had been put 1433 to him the other evening had led to very general disappointment. He would therefore venture to ask the right hon. Baronet why these establishments should not be placed under proper regulations as to hours, and as to registration and inspection, as the law now provided in the case of Factories, Mines, and even of Bakehouses, with regard to which there was a Notice on the Paper that evening. He would further ask, whether, if the Government were not prepared to introduce legislation on this subject, they would give their sup port to a Bill for defining and limiting the hours of labour, and regulating and inspecting workrooms, alike in the interests of humanity as for the sake of sanitary precaution?
§ MR. BAGWELLsaid, before the right hon. Baronet replied, he would beg to observe that a letter had lately appeared in the newspapers from a Mr. Isaacson, who it seems is the husband of Madame Elise, in which it is stated that this unfortunate young woman was an apprentice. He would therefore beg to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Government are prepared to institute any proceedings with a view of punishing the guilty parties in this matter.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that the answer which he had given the other evening to a similar question was rather of an argumentative character, and he feared he must repeat it. He was asked to say whether it would not be possible to regulate establishments where the work was carried on in private buildings in the same manner as those in public buildings prepared for particular manufactures. Without expressing a positive opinion, he then stated, that however desirable it might be to take precautions for the prevention of evils such as had been disclosed in the present ease, he did not think it would be possible to establish a system of registration and inspection applicable to workrooms in private houses. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Dawson) now asked him whether the Government would support a Bill introduced by a private Member. Before answering that question it would be requisite that he should know what the provisions of the Bill were to be. If the hon. Gentleman himself asked leave to bring in a Bill, he would willingly acquiesce in its introduction. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Bagwell), he did not know whether the girl upon whom 1434 the inquest had been held was, as stated in the newspapers, an apprentice. But supposing such to have been the case, the question arose whether there was sufficient evidence to go before a jury with any likelihood of obtaining a conviction. The words of the Act declared, that if any master or mistress, being liable to provide food, clothing, or lodging for any servant or apprentice, willfully neglected to do so, and danger to life or permanent injury to health resulted from such omission, the master or mistress so offending would be subjected, upon conviction, to severe punishment. The matter here would be entirely one of evidence, and he was not sufficiently acquainted with the facts to say whether there was enough to go before a jury with any reasonable prospect of a conviction.
§ MR. BAGWELLWill the right hon. Gentleman inquire?