Lords Sitting of 8 July 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—.1a. Perth Prison; Charitable Pawn Offices (Ireland); District Courts and Prisons; Primrose Hill.
2a Stock in Trade; Railways; British Possessions Abroad.
3a and passed:—Customs' Acts.
Private—Reported.— Milton's Estate; Crawfurd's Estate;
Leeds Burial Ground.
3° and passed:—Leeds Improvement; Ross and Cromarty Court House; Blackburn and Chorley Road; Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage (No. 2).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishop of Norwich, from Coal Miners of Huddersfield, Horbury, Almondbury, Glland, Lofthouse; by Earl Stanhope, from Kirkbeaton, Alverthorp, Stanley, Wentworth, and Elsean, in Favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill. —By Lord Strafford, from the Masters of Adwalter Colliery; by Lord Monteagle, Lord Denman, and the Earl of Cardigan, from several Colliery Owners, against part of the Bill, and Praying for Inquiry,—By the Earl of Mountcashell, from York, St. John's and St. Andrew's, New Brunswick, against any Alteration of the Duty on Wood Goods.—By the Lord Chancellor, from Merchants, Bankers, and Traders of London, for the Amendment of the Law respecting Debtor and Creditor.—From the Bakers of Belfast, for the Better Regulation of their Trade.—From the Royal Burgh of Rothesay, and the Parish of Echt, in the county of Aberdeen, for the Repeal of the Law of Patronage.— By Earl Stanhope, from the Inhabitants of London, com plaining that the Provisions of the Anatomy Act have not been carried out, and for Inquiry; and from Prisoners in the Queen's Bench Prison, for the Alteration of certain Parts Of the Queen's Prison Act.—From the Widow of Sir Samuel Bentham, to be heard against the National Floating Breakwater Company Bill.—From John Wall-
1166
worth, of Manchester, to be heard against the Imperial Bank of England Bill.— By Earl Stanhope, from Rational Socialists, for Inquiry into the System.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
The Bishop of Norwichpresented eight petitions from miners and others employed in collieries and mines in the neighbourhood of Wentwick and other places. Those petitions were very numerously signed. They were got up by the workmen themselves, and spoke in their own simple yet forcible language the sense they entertained of the shameful, disgusting, and disgraceful scenes to which they were witnesses, from the employment of young females and boys of tender ages in the mines. The statements of the petitioners were fully borne out by the reports of the commissioners who had examined the state of the persons employed in pits. The wretched condition of the people in the pits where women were employed, contrasted strongly with the better state of the people in pits in Ireland and in some places in England where no females and few young boys were employed. The petitioners prayed that a measure might be passed excluding all females and boys under thirteen years of age from employment in mines (one petition limited the age of employment of boys to ten years). He cordially concurred in the prayer of the petition, and hoped the measure which had been introduced on the subject would receive the sanction of their Lordships.
Lord Hathertonwould not, on the presentation of a petition, enter into a subject which must come on for full discussion at a future day. He did not deny that the collieries of South Staffordshire had been very badly managed some thirty or thirty-five years ago; but it was now admitted on all hands that the complaints as to bad management did not now apply to them, for that a great improvement had taken place with respect to them all. When these improvements had been brought about without the aid of such restrictions as were proposed in the Mines and Collieries Bill, he thought it would be unjust to press it. Great excitement had arisen amongst the owners of Mines and Collieries in consequence of the very exaggerated and overcharged statements which had gone forth with respect to the condition of persons employed in them. Some of those statements he could contradict from his own knowledge. Many

1167
of them were the most unjust, the most partial, which had ever been submitted to Parliament as the ground of any legislative measure. He thought that before any legislation took place on the subject, the masters, who had been infamously calumniated, ought to have an opportunity of bringing forward evidence.
The Duke of Richmondreminded their Lordships that by the 108th standing order it was provided, that any bill altering the regulations of any trade, or altering the law of apprenticeship, could not be read a second time unless it had been referred to a select committee to inquire as to the expediency or inexpediency of the proposed change, and until the committee had reported to the House.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that a great impression had been made upon his mind by a perusal of the volumes which had been printed and laid upon the Table. But he thought it desirable that their Lordships should examine a little into the mode in which the evidence had been taken. The noble Lord who, by virtue of his office, had appointed the commission, was not present; but he observed, on reading the report and the commission under which the report was framed, that a certain number of commissioners was appointed, with power to administer oaths and to examine on oath —that was, a certain number of them were so empowered by the words of the commission. At the same time, a certain number of sub-commissioners were appointed by the Secretary of State, and employed under this commission, and these sub-commissioners were the persons who had been employed to take this evidence. Now, it was a very different thing for evidence to be taken by persons appointed under the commission and by sub-commissioners, and therefore it was very desirable that the House should take this circumstance into its consideration before it appointed a select committee to consider this bill; and that it should decide whether or not it was desirable to inquire in what manner the evidence was taken under the powers of the commission, and what was the nature of the evidence; whether it was taken according to the terms of the commission; whether the commissioners examined the witnesses themselves, or had trusted to the report of the sub-commissioners. The measure involved important considerations, and he wished their Lordships might be
1168
enabled to pass it; but he thought it desirable that they should know exactly how the matter stood, and he wished his noble Friend would defer the subject till the noble Lord who appointed the commission was present.
Lord Broughamwished their Lordships might be enabled to pass the bill this Session; but, unless great expedition were used, it could not be done. Some parts of the bill were not matters of controversy at all. Two courses were open—either to examine evidence before the select committee, or for the select committee to report (if so advised) in favour of their Lordships entertaining the bill; and then a question might arise whether, with reference to the mode in which the evidence had been taken by the commissioners, it would be more satisfactory to take the evidence themselves.
Viscount Melbournesaid, the only question for the select committee was to consider whether the bill was fit to be read a second time, and he thought, as expedition was desirable, that a committee might be appointed now.
Select committee appointed.

CUSTOMS' ACTS—THE TARIFF.
The Earl of Ripon The Earl of Ripon moved the third reading of the Customs' Bill.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, although he had voted for the second reading of the bill, he should say "not content," as the bill in his opinion did not go far enough; it did many things it ought not to do, and omitted many things which ought to be done.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 9: Majority 43.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES

Stanhope

Richmond

Beaumont

Buckingham

LORDS.

Cleveland

Kinnaird

EARLS

Boston

Radnor

De Freyne

Bill passed.
The following Protest was entered. DISSENTIENT.—

1. Because, fully admitting the necessity of a revision of the Customs' duties, and the soundness of the principles on which, in most respects, that revision is professed to have been made, I find that this bill carries out those principles very imperfectly, and falls lamentably short of what the necessities of the times require.

1169

2. Because it expressly excepts from its operation the duties on the importation of corn, grain, meal or flour, sugar, and molasses, and omits all modification of the duties on butter and cheese imported from foreign countries, and thus will fail to afford, with respect to these essential articles, any alleviation to the present sufferings of the people.

3. Because, in consequence of these omissions, the distress of many persons, who will he thrown out of employment by the alteration of the duties on certain manufactured articles, will be greatly increased.

4. Because I believe that by this bill no one differential duty, now existing, is removed; but I find several new ones imposed, and the difference in many old ones increased; and it was argued in debate, by Ministers, that the principle of differential duties as applied to colonies was a fair one, and admitted, by them, that the new schedule of duties imposed by this bill was in many respects framed in conformity with that opinion; whereas I hold all differential duties to be both inconsistent with every sound principle of financial legislation, (whether enacted for the purpose of revenue, or with the view of giving aid or showing favour to colonies or foreign states,) and injurious both to the state which imposes them, (as thus laying burdens on its own subjects, without any advantage to its exchequer, for the benefit of foreigners,) and to the country supposed to be favoured, by holding out to its people inducements to divert capital from its natural and therefore its most useful and profitable, to other less advantageous, employment

RADNOR.
KINNAIRD AND ROSSIE.

ANATOMY ACT.
Lord Stanhopepresented a petition from certain inhabitants of London, complaining that the provisions of the Anatomy Act had not been complied with, and praying for inquiry. The noble Earl complained that no report had been yet presented to the House on this subject.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was hardly possible that the allegations in the petition could be true; and the petition, as the noble Earl would see, was not consistent with the act of Parliament. Persons had been appointed to inquire into the execution of the act by the former Government and by his right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State. He was not aware of the reason why a report from the first commissioners had not been made; but the report of the persons recently appointed was not at present in a state fit to present to Parliament; when it was, it should be laid before the House. He assured his noble Friend that it was the determination of the Government to
1170
carry the law into effect. Comparing the words of the petition with others that had been presented by an individual to the other House of Parliament, he could not but consider that they originated in the complaints of Mr. Roberts in reference to an invention of Mr. Roberts, which those who had been appointed to investigate into it thought was not likely to answer the purpose expected from it by that gentleman and the petitioners.
Petition laid upon the Table.
Adjourned.