Lords Sitting of 6 May 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLE.Public—1a Civil Bill Decrees (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Exchequer Bills; Punishment of Death (Ireland); Victoria Park; Dublin Police; Knightsbridge and Kensington Openings; Bribery at Elections.
Reported.—Parish Property.
3aand passed:—Soap Duties Drawback; Timber Ships; Queen's Prison.
Private.— 1a. Equitable Gas; Southwark Improvement (No. 2); Great North of England Railway; Northern Union (Newcastle and Darlington Junction) Railway; Bristol Floating Dock; Greenock Harbours; Kington Roads; Ellesmere and Chester Canal; Christopher's (or Manners) Estate; Pilkington's Estate.
2a. St. Philip's Bridge (Bristol); Liverpool Paving and Sewerage; Great Torrington Market.
Reported.—Northern Coal Mining Company; Granton Pier (No. 2); Saundersfoot Railway; Great North of England (Clarence and Hartlepool) Railway; Sir John Cass's Charity (Shaw's) Estate; Cottenham Drainage.
3a. and passed:—Buckland Inclosure; Weston-super-Mare Improvement; Cheltenham and Great Western Union Railway; Sheffield, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway; Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road; Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Wicklow, from Dunganston, for the Encouragement of Schools in connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).— From Hinckley, Cobridge, Lichfield, Tichbourne, Bromsgrove, Bungay, Durham, Warwick, Lancaster, Chepstow, and other places, for the adoption of a measure the better to secure Religious Instruction to the Roman Catholics serving in the Army and Navy.—From Lees, Oldham, Fairbotham, Pendleton, Manchester, Paynton Worth, Hazel Grove, and other places, for the Suppression of the practice of employing Females in Mines—From Sit-
196
tingbourne, for Limiting the Hours of Attendance of Children in the Factories, and that their Religious Instruction may be properly attended to.—From Broughton, Warkton, and Cransley, for Repeal of the Com and Provision Laws.—From the Mayors, Aldermen, and Corporations of Leeds, and York, for an Alteration of the Law respecting the Levying and Collecting of Local Rates in Corporate Cities and Boroughs in England and Wales.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN COLLIERIES.
The Bishop of Norwich,in presenting five petitions from Oldham, Chester, Pendleton, near Manchester, Leeds, and Lancaster, praying the House to take measures to prevent the employ of females in coal mines, begged leave to call the attention of their Lordships to the report of the commissioners for inquiring into the labour of children in mines, and the description it gave of the treatment to which women and children were subject in the mines of the north, where they were chained, according to the report, to their labour of 'dragging small vehicles loaded with coal through narrow apertures or passages, in which they were obliged to crawl upon their hands and knees, their garments drenched with water. It was not, however, to the physical labour alone to which he desired to call their Lordships' attention, but to the moral degradation to which these females from early years were exposed, associated as they were with the lowest profligacy and grossest sensuality. These petitions were, he believed, the first that had been presented upon the subject, and he hoped they would be followed by more, and that the degraded condition of these females would meet with their Lordships' sympathy.
Earl Fitzwilliamagreed with the right rev. Prelate as to the importance of the subject, but he thought also their Lordships would agree with him that restrictions upon the right of the subject to labour in any way he might wish, were not to be lightly imposed. He hoped their Lordships would maturely consider the important report alluded to, but that they would not legislate hastily. He thought, too, that before adopting any such legislation, they should take a view of the employment of females in other branches of labour. Was it clear there was no other labour in which females were employed to which similar objections might not be made. There were certainly practices set forth in the report which it would not be beyond the province of the Legislature to prohibit, but at the same time he was inclined to believe that those prac-

197
tices were very local, and did not extend generally to the collieries of England. He could himself give evidence that they did not generally prevail even in that part of the country to which his right rev. Friend had alluded. If they wished to protect children against labour. they ought not to confine their inquiries to the collieries, but to take a comprehensive view of the effect of labour upon those engaged in other branches of industry.
The Marquess of Londonderrythought, that the right rev. Prelate should have given notice of his intention to bring the subject forward. He protested on the part of the coal owners of the north of England, particularly those on the banks of the Tyne and the Wear, against the exaggerations of the right rev. Prelate, that females were chained and dragged in those channels or passages of communication in the mines. The right rev. Prelate had presented petitions from Old-ham, Manchester, Leeds, and Chester. He did not pretend to speak of those districts, but with respect to Durham he could state, that the allegations were not correct. He did not deny, that boys were employed in the coal mines, but they were well used and carefully provided for.
The Bishop of Norwichexplained, that he had merely alluded to those collieries to which the petitions referred, and in respect to those he had evidence that chains were attached to the females employed.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas gratified to hear the explanation of the right rev. Prelate.
The Marquess of Normanby,to prevent misapprehension, begged to state that the commission had been appointed to inquire generally into the condition of children employed in manufactures, mines, &c. This was only the first part of their report.
Earl Fitzwilliamfeared if the right rev. Prelate's speech should go forth to the public, the impression would arise that girls worked in chains in the collieries, which would be entirely erroneous. The chain was merely used to draw the vehicle containing the coals. Certainly the use of the chain was improper, and ought to be prohibited; but still the fact should be properly understood. Why should the inquiry be limited to children engaged in manufactures? Why not extend it to those employed in
198
agriculture? [A noble Lord: That is a healthy occupation.] He might be disposed to question that. He believed that a boy engaged in a colliery, who had his belly full morning, noon, and night, might, perhaps, be more healthy than the boy who was the son of an agricultural labourer, and whose father earned no more than 7s. a-week, as was the case in some parts of the country, and who had no means whatever of instruction. If the inquiry were instituted in the one case, it ought to be in the other.
The Bishop of Norwichexplained that the manner in which the chain was fastened on the persons of the females, was round the waist, which passing between the legs through a belt, they drew th corve through a narrow aperture on their hands and knees.
The Earl of Winchilseawas surprised to hear the doubt expressed by the noble Earl as to the relative healthiness of employment in agriculture and manufactures. If the noble Earl were to breathe the air of a cotton factory for sixteen hours, he would not have a very good appetite for his dinner. Let any one compare the situation of a boy engaged in a factory and one engaged in agriculture. Thousands and tens of thousands of children had been destroyed, in consequence of their being compelled thus to breathe an atmosphere unfit for respiration. The noble Lord, in conclusion, begged leave to present a petition from Sittingbourne, in the county of Kent, praying for a legislative measure to limit the period of time during which it should be lawful to employ children in factories. Should such a measure arrive from the other House, he, for one, was fully prepared to give it his support.
Earl Fitzwilliamrepeated, that his own experience warranted him in saying, that there was not the slightest superiority, moral or other, in the agricultural over the manufacturing population. It was impossible for the people of Sittingbourne to have any but very vague ideas of the condition of the people in the manufacturing districts.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, it was very possible that the people of Sittingbourne might have very erroneous opinions on the subject, but, if so, it was the more desirable that a commission should have been appointed, composed of persons competent to inquire into the subject.
The Bishop of Londonconfessed he had listened with astonishment to the noble Earl's statement, that the condition of children in agricultural districts was not superior to what it was in manufacturing districts. There was no need of the publication of any additional reports to show what the condition was of the poor children employed in factories; the inhabitants of Sittingbourne, if they were able to read, had opportunities of forming quite as accurate an opinion on the subject as any of their Lordships; and he had hoped that no one would be deterred, by anything that might be said in either House of Parliament, from raising his voice against a system which was eating into the very vitals of the country. All the statistical returns connected with this subject went to show that the mortality was greater among those employed in manufactures than among those employed in agriculture. Whatever evils might exist among the labouring classes engaged in agriculture, those evils were fearfully aggravated among the manufacturing population; though he doubted whether their Lordships could form a very accurate estimate of the condition of classes from whom they were so far removed. The Legislature; however, was not only at liberty to step in and endeavour to remedy these evils, but was bound to do so.
Earl Fitzwilliammust still maintain his opinion that, with the exception of some benevolent individuals among them, who might have inquired into the subject, the inhabitants of Sittingbourne were not qualified to judge of the state of the manufacturing districts. If the poor, either agricultural or manufacturing, did not receive proper moral instruction, the church ought to be held accountable for the neglect.
Petitions laid on the Table.

ELECTION PETITIONS.
Lord Broughamsaid, he rose to call the attention of their Lordships to a matter of the highest importance. It appeared from the proceedings as they were recorded in the votes of the other House of Parliament, that the time had now arrived when it was his duty to bring forward the great question to which he had invited their attention towards the close of the last Session; the time had come for him to redeem the pledge which he had then given, that he would call their attention to the corrupt,
200
illegal, and unconstitutional practices that prevailed, and that but too generally, in the election of Members of Parliament. As a preparatory step for moving for the appointment of a committee to undertake this important inquiry, he would now present a bill for furthering inquiry into bribery, corruption, and intimidation, at the election of Members to serve in Parliament; which, when passed into a law, would enable the committee to prosecute the inquiry; and if the bill were not passed, either in the shape in which it was now presented, or in some similar form, it was his clear and decided opinion, it would be wholly in vain to expect any good results from the labours of such a committee. He should have an opportunity of entering more fully into this subject when he came to move the second reading of the bill. Their Lordships would find, that the provisions of this bill went somewhat beyond those of similar measures. He proposed, not only to give protection to witnesses, and to persons who might have evidence to give on the subject, but he proposed to give a discretionary power to the committee to ensure to witnesses an absolute and unqualified indemnity, without which it would be impossible to carry any inquiry to a satisfactory result.
Bill read a first time.

CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES.
Lord Clifford,of Chudleigh, said, he had some petitions to present from various Roman Catholic congregations, but it was his intention simply to lay those petitions on the Table, though a misapprehension had gone abroad that he intended to make them the basis of a motion. The noble Lord then presented petitions from the Roman Catholics frequenting the chapel of Grafton Bromsgrove, in Worcestershire, with 150 signatures, complaining of certain grievances under which they laboured, and praying for redress. His Lordship presented similar petitions from Great Eccleston, in Lancashire; from Totness, in Devonshire; from Colport, in Staffordshire; from Tamworth, in Staffordshire; and from a place the name of which did not reach us. The noble Lord said, that there had appeared in the public papers an error of some importance. It was stated, on the authority of what had taken place in the other House, that 11,000 l. were voted for the religious instruction of the army, and that of these 11,000 l.,

201
7,000 l. were devoted to the Roman Catholics. This statement, the petitioners said, was erroneous, as only 700 l were thus appropriated to the use of the Roman Catholics. With respect to the motion of which he had given notice, it was not his wish to provoke a discussion that might in the most remote degree shake the public confidence in her Majesty's Government in India, and it was, therefore, not his intention to make the motion, except at such a time as the noble Duke opposite might not deem inconvenient.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Lord might suit his own convenience, and he had not the least doubt that the House would give its patient attention to the noble Lord, whenever he might think proper to bring his motion forward.
Lord Cliffordwould then fix his motion for the following Tuesday.
Petition laid on the Table.

MAGISTRATES OF SUNDERLAND.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he had waited till the last moment, before the adjournment of the House, to put a question to the noble Marquess at the Table. He could not have imagined that party feelings could have so completely deadened the feelings of the noble Marquess as to induce him, after having made an accusation, containing foul imputations on the character of certain Gentlemen, and after having received from them assurances —as he knew the noble Marquess had —denying the charge brought against them, not to have taken, as the noble Marquess had in a proper and respectful manner been requested to do, the earliest opportunity of acknowledging his error. As the noble Marquess had not thought proper to take that course, he would not pursue the subject further, as the House was just about to adjourn, but would give notice of his intention of calling the attention of the noble Marquess and the House to the matter on Monday. He had received a copy of the communication which had been forwarded to the noble Marquess. It would be recollected that on a former evening the noble Marquess accused the magistrates of Sunderland of having refused public-house licences to every person whose political opinions did not coincide with their own. That was the statement made by the noble Marquess in his hearing, and since the noble Marquess had not thought proper to ori-
202
ginate any explanation upon the subject, he gave notice that he would bring the matter before the House on Monday.
The Marquess of Londonderryfelt no little surprise that after the melancholy exhibition which the noble Marquess had already made relative to the question of the municipal magistracy, he should endeavour to revive discussion on the subject, particularly after what had passed in another place last night.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to say, that he did not intend to revive the discussion upon the general question. He meant merely to call the attention of the House to an emphatic and explicit denial which had been given by the magistrates of Sunderland to a statement made by the noble Marquess on a former evening. Whatever terms the noble Marquess might be pleased to employ towards him, he might rest assured that nothing the noble Marquess could say would prevent him from discharging his duty.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that what he meant was this, that the noble Marquess could not bring forward the statement which he, like himself, had received, without going into details respecting the magistracy of the boroughs which he had before animadverted upon— namely, Gateshead and Sunderland. It was perfectly true that six Whig magistrates of Sunderland had, in the absence of their Conservative brethren, drawn up certain resolutions, and called upon him to declare to them whether such and such a statement, which they had seen attributed to him in the Morning Chronicle, was correct. If it were the pleasure of the House, he would go into the matter, and he thought he would be able to prove that everything which he had stated to their Lordships was borne out by information in his possession; but he had yet to learn,-and perhaps the noble Marquess, who had filled the office of a Secretary of State, would inform him, whether he, as Lord-lieutenant of the county, was bound to acquaint these six Gentlemen that a report of what he had stated in his place in Parliament, was or was not correct? He had come down to the House to answer, in his place, any question which the noble Marquess might think fit to put to him; and as the noble Marquess had given a notice on the subject for Monday, he would readily and cheerfully meet him; but he would not answer to the mayor

203
and six Whig Members of the corporation of Sunderland for anything which he had said in his place as a Peer of Parliament. It would lead to great inconvenience if he were to set the example of complying with such a proposition. Those were the reasons why he did not think he would be justified in taking the initiative in any explanation which might be considered necessary. The noble Marquess had thought proper to say, that he was not acting as became a generous man. Now, he would tell the noble Marquess, that if he believed the statement he had made to be incorrect, he would be generous enough to admit it immediately, but he was firmly convinced that it was correct. He was ready to give any explanation which might be called for by a Peer of Parliament, but he would not reply to the six Whig magistrates; and he would like to know whether the noble Marquess would not act in the same manner if he were in his situation.
The Marquess of Normanbyrose to address the House, when
Lord Wharnclifferose to order. The noble Marquess, in giving notice of his intention to bring forward the question on Monday, had chosen to remark in a particular manner upon the conduct of his noble Friend. His noble Friend, naturally enough, had replied to the noble Marquess's observations. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Marquess would allow the matter to rest where it was till Monday,
The Marquess of Normanbyfelt it impossible to allow forty-eight hours to pass over without making a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had stated that the communication he had received was signed by only six magistrates, whereas it was signed by all the magistrates who were accused by the noble Marquess, with the exception of the mayor, who was at present in London. They denied the allegation of the noble Marquess, and put the noble Marquess in possession of facts which must have convinced him that his statement was incorrect. He really thought it would be better to proceed with the matter now, and would do so. The noble Marquess said, he would not answer for what appeared in a newspaper. Did the noble Marquess deny the words which were attributed to him?
The Earl of Haddingtonrose to order.
204
The noble Marquess's course of proceeding was most irregular. The noble Marquess, not content with giving notice of his intention to put a question to his noble Friend on Monday, had commented with some severity upon his noble Friend's conduct. His noble Friend, finding himself attacked, naturally enough replied, and now the noble Marquess purposed to go at once into the matter instead of waiting till Monday next.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that having had an opportunity of denying, on the part of the Gentlemen accused, the truth of the noble Marquess's allegation, he had no objection to let the matter stand over till Monday. He must again express his surprise that the noble Marquess, after having received a denial of a statement affecting the character of persons who were not present to defend themselves, had not taken the earliest opportunity of either maintaining his allegation, or acknowledging that it was incorrect.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that this disorderly discussion was the consequence of the noble Marquess having made some observations on the conduct of his noble Friend in not having, at the instance of certain persons, explained what had fallen from him in a debate a few nights since. Now, with submission to the noble Marquess, it appeared to him, that if his noble Friend had done that, he would have acted most disorderly. His noble Friend had been called upon by persons out of doors to explain what he had stated in his place in Parliament. They had not yet arrived at such a state of things as that in their Lordships' House. The noble Marquess, or any other Peer, might call upon his noble Friend for an explanation. That was the regular course of proceeding; but the noble Marquess, in blaming his noble Friend for not, answering persons out of doors, was going beyond the practice of their Lordships.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that what had passed had convinced him, that it was absolutely necessary either to adhere more strictly to such rules for preserving order as their Lordships already possessed, or to frame new ones.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that although he was not an old Member of the House, he could not fail to observe that their Lordships' proceedings were much more disorderly than when he first took his seat.
Subject dropped.—Adjourned.