FACTORIES.

HC Deb 01 July 1839 vol 48 cc1063-94

Mr. F. Maule

moved, that the House resolve into a committee on the Factories' Regulation Bill,

Mr. Wilson Patten

rose not for the purpose of prolonging any discussion before the House went into Committee, but for the sake of obtaining information by which his opinion, and the opinions of many other hon. Members, he thought, would be influenced in respect to this bill. Those who had looked into it must have seen that extraordinary powers—greater powers than the local magistracy possessed—were to be given to persons holding very subordinate situations under the inspectors; and those powers, he was convinced, would tend very much to injure the bill in its operation. Now he wished to enquire of the hon. Gentleman what salary he intended to give under the new bill to each of the sub-inspectors, and whether be would consent to increase the number of inspectors, with a larger salary to each, and to do away with the sub-inspectors altogether? He was convinced that the roaster manufacturers, who considered themselves rather hardly dealt with by this bill, wished that the inspectors should be persons of such authority that they should be above suspicion of collusion with themselves or with any other party.

Lord Stanley

, before the hon. Gentleman answered the question proposed by his hon. Friend, perhaps might be allowed to say that he was satisfied that the Government would find this bill much facilitated if they gave a greater character of respectability—he did not mean mere personal respectability—but that which consisted in weight and authority also, to the inspectors rather than to adopt the plan of having sub-inspectors or superintendents. Setting aside the legislative powers to be given to the inspectors, for such they were, there were also great inquisitorial powers given to them, and such persons should be, as his hon. Friend had observed, above all suspicion, and they should be placed in that position, not only by their personal character, but by a proper salary. Not that he meant to say that an increase of salary would produce an increase of respectability, but he did not think that 350l. a-year to cover all travelling and incidental expenses, was an income sufficient to place men beyond the temptations of bribery and a collusion with manufacturers to which they might be exposed. The manufacturers complained, and with great justice, without saying one word of the manner in which the inspectors discharged their duty at present, that their visits were only periodical, and that they were made at remote intervals, and therefore the inspectors could not have that effective control over their districts, which ought to accompany personal observation. It would be much better then, rather than giving to non-resident superintendents large salaries, to increase the number of inspectors, and to increase their salaries, and to take such methods as would give them a greater control over the factories. He would remind the Government that the manufacturers were not the only persons against whom they had to take precaution; but the natural feeling of the parents of the children were against the measure, and they were bent upon evading the provisions of the Act, because they felt that the employment of the children enabled them to eke out their weekly earnings, and thus in a small measure to improve their incomes. If it was intended to provide against an evasion of the law by both parties, there was but one chance of success, which was, that while the operation of the law was made stringent and effectual as to the protection of the workpeople, care should be taken to carry with the law the goodwill of the manufacturers. This could only be done by providing that the law, though stringent, should not be vexatious, and that those who carried the law into operation should be persons of influence and station, and that the manufacturers should not be made subject to officers of a subordinate or inferior character. The answer given to these queries might have an effect on the temper and manner in which the friends of the manufacturers in that House would deal with the bill before them.

Sir G. Strickland

remarked, that the dissatisfaction he had heard expressed by the manufacturers was of a different character from that stated by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire. The noble Lord had stated, that the cause of dissatisfaction was, that the sub-inspectors were persons of inferior character; he had not heard this, but he had heard that the manufacturers complained of being made subject to inspectors' law; they said, "We will obey the laws made by the Legislature, but we do not like inspectors' law." He did not think with the noble Lord, that the proper remedy was giving higher salaries, for he was not of opinion that high salaries produced good work—on the contrary, they were productive of indolence and no work at all; in his judgment the House would better gratify the manufacturers by depriving the inspectors of the power of making laws, and by teaching them that their duty, as well as that of the masters was to obey, and not make, the law. To that part of the bill which enabled the inspectors to make regulations and rules that had the force of law he objected, and would take away that clause entirely.

Mr. M. Philips

thought the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down were well worthy the consideration of the House. Let the law be clearly laid down and defined in the act itself; for supposing the sub-inspectors had nothing more to do than to carry out the proposed law, still the manufacturers were exposed to their putting their own interpretation upon it. He believed that the master manufacturers in the district with which he was connected did not, by objecting to sub-inspectors, seek to free themselves from the vigilance which the law had imposed over them; but they did desire that they should not be intruded upon by persons of inferior stations, a circumstance which they, gentlemen of character and honour, had felt severely. That they were gentlemen of character and honour would, he believed, not be denied, and therefore the feelings of those gentlemen were entitled to the fair consideration of the House. He did not mean to cast the slightest imputation on the character of any individual now holding the office of superintendent or inspector; he only looked forward to the operation of the proposed bill, and he must say it was possible, nay probable, that under the proposed bill appointments night be made extremely obnoxious to the manufacturers whose works they might be appointed to visit. In the town with which he was connected it might happen that persons might be appointed who were practically acquainted with the details of the machinery and process of manufacturing, and might not such individuals take advantage of the improvements made in the machinery which in the course of their duty they had to inspect, and divulge those improvements afterwards to others? The Legislature, he thought, therefore, was called upon to take care that persons were not appointed who would be likely to betray the trust reposed in them. It would, in his judgment, be best to place the inspectors all on one footing, instead of a class of inspectors and a class of sub-inspectors; he thought, also, that in each district there ought to be one resident inspector, who could at all times present himself at the doors of the manufactories, where he was sure he would meet with every facility in the discharge of his duty. Approving of the views of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), he joined in the expression of the opinion as to the necessity of re-modelling the appointment of the inspectors.

Mr. F. Maule

said, that in consequence of what had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he thought he should do better if he waited until the House got into Committee before he entered upon the various details' which had been alluded to. With regard to the salaries of the sub-inspectors, it would be seen by a reference to the bill that it was not intended to touch upon them. There were many respectable persons in those offices, and it was not intended to come to Parliament for any fixed salaries for them. With respect to altering the proposition empowering the inspectors to make regulations, he was so perfectly convinced of the necessity of that power in order to procure the proper administration of the act, that he should be most unwilling to depart from the clause giving that power.

Lord Stanley

repeated, that the manufacturers objected to the inspectors having the power to appoint any number of sub-inspectors, every one of whom would have-the powers of inspectors. The manufacturers said, let there be in each district one resident inspector, whose duty it should be to visit at all times the factories in his district.

Mr. Brotherton

said, the existing law-had failed, owing to its complicated nature. He would recommend the Government to adopt such a bill as would meet the general interests and feeling of the people, and by so doing they would go far to render inspection and its attendant expense unnecessary.

Lord Ashley

was well aware that the regulations established by the inspectors under the act of 1833 had been the great cause of annoyance to the masters, and yet under this bill a new system of regulations by the same authority would be brought into operation. He agreed with his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Wilson Patten), that it was most desirable that the persons intrusted with the very high powers conferred on the inspectors by this bill should be persons of financial respectability. He had thought that the expenses of travelling were to be defrayed by way of mileage, for it was impossible that an inspector with 250l. or 300l. per year, could make the requisite number of visits within his district at his own expense, and out of that sum be left sufficient to repay him for his personal labour and trouble. He concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Salford; the system of inspection introduced by the bill of 1833 had failed in consequence of the complicated nature of that act. Under it there were two periods for labour fixed, and two certificates were required; but if that bill was simplified—if there was one fixed period for work, and if one certificate only was required, he was convinced the House might get rid of the system of sub-inspection altogether, and he had no doubt the bill would work better if the hours of labour were put on the same footing as under Sir John Hobhouse's Act. He should, however, have no objection that the inspectors should have very largely increased salaries, but if the sub-inspectors were got rid of, he trusted the number of inspectors would be increased to that of both those classes combined.

Mr. Hindley

observed in the votes notice of several amendments as to the number of hours children should be employed. He wished to ask the Government if it was intended to make any alteration as to the number of hours? It was his desire to make the bill as agreeable to all parties as possible, and he therefore hoped by his hon. Friends on both sides of the House, some compromise would be entered into.

Mr. F. Maule

said, it was not intended to make any alteration in the principle of the bill, either as regarded age or time.

On the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,"

Lord Ashley did not rise to oppose that motion, but to protest against the manner in which the bill had been delayed. The bill had been introduced on the 14th of February last, and had since been delayed by various adjournments until this first day of July—nay, it had been adjourned in such a manner, as he confessed, had induced him and others to believe it would not be discussed at all during the present session. The consequence was, that there was now a very scanty attendance of Members. Many on whom he relied for support on a division, and for assistance in debate, were not now able to attend, and thus, owing to the long delay, the noble Lord opposite had gained a great advantage—an advantage which would be apparent on a division.

Lord John Russell

would not detain the House by giving any answer to the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord.

Lord Ashley

was not aware that he had said anything at all uncourteous, or that he had conducted himself with any discourtesy towards the noble Lord. If he had done anything of that kind, he was quite ready, in the face of the House, to make an ample apology; but he did not think he deserved an answer in such a tone as that just spoken by the noble Lord.

The Speaker left the chair. House in Committee. On clause 1st,

Mr. Brotherton

said, that this was a matter of the utmost importance, as involving the interests of 400,000 persons employed in mills and factories. The object of the measure was no doubt to give protection to the children employed in the factories, and he gave Government full credit for its intentions, and the only difficulty with him was as to the means by which the end might be obtained, for he did not think that the provisions of that bill would effect the object in view as satisfactorily as other means which had been devised. The hon. Member then went into a review of the various Acts which had been passed on this subject since 1809, when the age of the persons brought within the operation of the Act was fixed. A similar bill passed in 1825, extending the enactments of the former bill; and in 1831, an act was passed, when the legislature fixed the age for, protection at eighteen, and declared the number of hours' work in a week should be fixed at 69. In 1833, the present Act was passed; by this, children under 13 were prevented working in factories for more than 48 hours a-week, or eight hours a-day; but above the age of 18, they might be employed any number of hours. It was also required that children, to be enabled to work in the factories, must produce certificates from their parents and surgeons; and provision was also made that they should go to school a certain number of hours in the week. These provisions, however, did not extend to silk-mills, for children of six years of age might be made to work in silk-mills twelve hours a-day; while, according to the Act, children of twelve years of age could not be made to work more than eight hours a-day in a cotton-mill. The details of the Act were so complicated, that they led to the commission of all sorts of frauds, and the consequence was, that the provisions of the bill had not been fairly carried into effect. It was a measure most objectionable to the masters, oppressive to the workmen, and did not afford protection to the children. The penalties paid under the bill last year amounted to 8,300l. and notwithstanding all their exertions; it was notorious that the inspectors could not prevent the children or young persons being overworked. Mr. Horner and other inspectors had admitted that it was impossible to prevent the law being invaded, and it was well known that in Nottingham and its neighbourhood, great numbers under the legal age were working sixteen hours a-day. It might be carried into effect apparently in some few places; but the truth was, that on an extensive scale it really did not afford protection to children under thirteen. It appeared, from the returns before the House, that in 1835 there were 56,700 children under the age of thirteen employed in factories, and the total number of children and young persons under the age of eighteen, was 354,384. The result of the return for last year was, that the total number employed was 413,465 persons, and of those 34,234 were under the age of thirteen. Thus it would appear, that the number of children employed under the age of thirteen, was as one in six at the first period, but last year, the number would be as one in twelve. In gross numbers, the difference in the number of children employed in 1835 and 1838 was upwards of 22,000. He would ask any hon. Gentleman acquainted with the subject, whether he be- lieved that anything like that number of children had been thrown out of work in the factories during these three years. Again, in Scotland, in 1835, the number of children under thirteen that were unemployed in the factories, was about one in seven, as compared with the total number of persons employed; but at present, according to the returns, the proportion was one in thirty-two. The great improvements that had been made in the machinery in the factories within the last few years had greatly diminished the amount of labour required of the adults, and he believed that he was not going beyond the mark when he stated, that in some branches of trade, the services of nearly one-half the number of adults had been dispensed with since 1831. Was it, however, expedient for the interests of the community, that any portion of the work people should be kept so long at labour in the factories as to prevent them obtaining any share in those humble enjoyments which were within their grasp. By the long confinement in close atmospheres these labourers were rendered almost incapable of enjoyment, and they had no means of cultivating their minds, or improving the slender education they might have received in childhood. The females, also, were not fit for their situations as wives and mothers, as they had no means of mental improvement. These evils were constantly increasing, and he believed that the only effective remedy that could be applied would be to prevent the factories being worked more than a certain number of hours a-day. What he should propose would be, that there should be an uniform time of working for all persons in factories, and that all ages should be placed on the same footing and the same principle applied to them. He also did not see why silk or lace mills should be exempted, and not be placed under the operation of the act. He had been told, that there were many of these mills where the persons employed in them were engaged fourteen or fifteen hours a day, and females went on at five o'clock at the morning, and were kept constantly at work there until nine o'clock at night, with the intermission of a few minutes for meals, which they were obliged to take within the walls of their factories. What he intended to propose in this clause was, that the age should be increased of the parties who were to come within the operation of the Act, namely, from eighteen to twenty-one. He was also most anxious that a ten hours' a-day system should be adopted for all the factories, as this was quite enough for man, woman, or child, and he thought that if it were made general, it might be done in a manner to prove satisfactory to the masters. He thought, that by proper regulations on this subject, the trade of the country could be carried on with advantage, and he had no doubt that, if the occupation was confined to ten hours a-day, the employment in factories would be found to be healthy instead of being unhealthy. He was not so alarmed for the situation of the country, that he would consent to sacrifice the interests of those persons because it was against one of the dogmas of political economy. He should conclude, with proposing, that the words "under the age of eighteen years," should be struck out; and the words "under the age of twenty-one years" be substituted.

Lord Ashley

supported the amendment, and begged to remind the House that a similar amendment had been proposed in the other House in the bill of 1833, but this House refused to agree to it. In all other cases, the interest of persons under the age of twenty-one years was protected, and he thought that the interest of those who had only their labour to depend upon should be so likewise.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, that the object of his hon. Friend evidently was to impose restrictions on the period of adult labour in factories, and that the period of work in mills should be ten hours. If such restrictions were allowed, the effect would be that those parties who were dependent on their labour would be deprived of so much of the means at their command. It might be said, that this was the principle of the bill; but in it the legislature proposed to protect the interests of those who could not protect themselves; but no one would say that, looking to the character of the working classes of this country, that those above the age of eighteen were not in a situation to protect themselves. He confessed, that he thought that one of the evils of the factory system was to make the children independent of their parents at too early an age. He hoped the House would not consent to this amendment.

Mr. O'Connell

thought, as a general principle, that it was inexpedient to interfere between the employer and employed. The only case that could justify such a proceeding was for the protection of the interests of children; this was the practice of the Court of Chancery on other matters, and he thought that they might act as chancellors for the time, and take the age of twenty-one years.

Mr. Mark Philips

thought, that if an amendment was adopted, it would have a great practical difficulty in the working of the bill. It would prevent any persons under the age of twenty-one attending in the factories at such times for the purpose of cleaning the machinery. This was necessary to be done two or three times a week, and was generally done during meal times by young men, by the mill-owner, or be liable to a heavy penalty if he employed any one under the age of twenty-one.

The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 87; Noes 44: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.
Ainsworth, Peter	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Baines, E.	Lister, E. C.
Baring, F. T.	Lockhart, A. M.
Barnard, E. G.	Lygon, hon. General
Bewes, T.	Macauley, T. B.
Bowes, J.	Marsland, H.
Broadley, H.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Bruges, W. H. L.	O'Brien, W. S.
Busfeild, W.	O'Ferrall, R. M.
Byng, right hon. G. S.	Palmer, G.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.	Parker, John
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Parker, R. T.
Childers, J. W.	Patten, J. W.
Craig, W. G.	Pease, Joseph
Currie, Mr. Sergeant	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Dalmeny, Lord	Philips, M.
Donkin, Sir R. S.	Philips, G. R.
Duff, James	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Dundas, Sir R.	Price, Sir R.
Egerton, W. T.	Price, R.
Ellis, John	Richards, R.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Gordon, Robert	Rundle, John
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Russell, Lord John
Greene, T. G.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Sheppard, T.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Slaney, R. A.
Hastie, Archibald	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Heathcoat, John	Stanley, Lord
Hinde, J. H.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hodgson, R.	Steuart, R.
Hope, G. W.	Stewart, J.
Houldsworth, T.	Surrey, Earl of
Hurt, F.	Teignmouth, Lord
Jackson, Mr. Sergeant	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
James, W.	Thornley, T.
Kemble, H.	Verner, Col.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Langdale, hon. C.	Wall, C. B.

Warburton, H.	Wood, C.
White, A.	Wood, G. W.
Wilbraham, G.	TELLERS.
Wilbraham, hon. B.	Maule, F.
Williams, W. A.	Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hughes, W.
Alsager, Captain	Hume, J.
Attwood, W.	Humphery, J.
Baring, H. B.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Blake, M. J.	Lincoln, Earl of
Corry, hon. H.	Maunsell, T. P.
D'Israeli, B.	Miles, W.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Norreys, Lord
Buncombe, hon. W.	O'Connell, D.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Packe, C. W.
Eliot, Lord	Pringle, A.
Estcourt, T.	Rushout, G.
Ewart, W.	Shirley, E. J.
Fielden, J.	Trench, Sir F.
Gaskell, J. M.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Grant, F. W.	Vigors, N. A.
Hale, R. B.	Waddington, H. S.
Halford, H.	Walker, R.
Harvey, D. W.	Wodehouse, E.
Heneage, G. W.	Yates, J.A.
Hepburn, Sir T.B.
Hindley, C.	TELLERS.
Hogg, J. W.	Ashley, Lord
Hope, hon. C.	Brotherton, J.

On the third clause,

Lord Ashley

proposed to strike out those words in the clause which excepted silk mills from the operation of the bill, as he had never seen any reason why children in silk mills should not receive the same advantages which the Factory Bill would confer on others. He was aware that he might be met with the objection that their work was lighter than that in other mills, but it should not be forgotten that it involved the necessity of their standing upon their legs for very many hours together. When he was at Macclesfield he had devoted much of his time both in the day and at night to seeing the children both at work and at their homes; and he had never before witnessed, and he hoped he should never again behold, so much bad health and deformity as had there been caused by this excess of toil. With respect to the education to be given to the children under the Factory Bill, the noble Lord here read an extract from a report made by a factory inspector, who had stated, that soon after the bill was passed in 1833 he had received a letter from the chairman of the Macclesfield Union informing him that much agitation prevailed there and at Manchester in consequence of the prevalence of an opinion said to have been expressed at Manchester under the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that it was not intended that the children of silk mills should be educated. Why, he asked, should not these children receive the same advantages as other children? Was there anything in the nature of their employment which did not entitle them to the same degree of protection; or could it be said that they did not require the same advantages of that moral and religious education which was to be given to the children in the cotton factories? The work in the silk mills and lace factories was not only very fine, but performed by gaslight, and he had been informed by some ladies connected with a Sunday school, that from these causes the eyesight of the children was so materially injured that they could not read either Bibles or Prayer-books unless they were printed in unusually large type. He would not detain the committee longer, but he did think that if the facts which he had stated were not overthrown, it was the duty of that House to extend to those children all the protection which this bill would afford. These were the grounds upon which he founded the amendment which he had proposed.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, that, as the silk mills were excluded from the bill of last year, the Government did not think themselves authorised to make the alteration in this bill which the noble Lord now proposed. He was willing to admit, that he could see no material reason why the silk mills should be excluded from the operation of this measure up to a certain point, and the reason why they were omitted last year was on account of the manufacture being young in this country, and because it seemed justified by other peculiar circumstances connected at that period with the silk trade. It should not be forgotten that employment in the silk mills was not as unhealthy as that in cotton mills. The temperature was much lower, but still, from what had been stated by the inspector, he was not inclined to oppose their being included in the present bill, so far as respected hours, but not as regarded age; for he thought there were good grounds for believing that children of nine years of age might be allowed to work in silk mills without any disadvantage to them. Ten was the age fixed upon with regard to cotton factories, but, considering that the process of silk manufacture required much more delicacy than that of cotton, it was absolutely necessary in order to their attaining the proper degree of skill that children should be admitted into the silk mills at an earlier period. His objection to including the lace factories proceeded upon a totally different ground. The parties affected by the proposition of the noble Lord were taken unawares, no notice having been given to them that the bill would apply to them, and thinking that they had a right to hare an opportunity of representing their own case to the House, he could not consent to this part of the motion of the noble Lord until further information had been obtained upon the Subject.

Mr. Heathcote

said, that even if the proposition of the noble Lord were adopted it would only apply to one-fifth of the lace factories in the kingdom, while the remaining four-firths would be wholly untouched by it. The factories to which the bill would apply were those which were best regulated, and, therefore, called for the least interference on the part of that House. He, however, should not object to having the whole of the lace factories placed under the provisions of this bill when proper information on the subject had been obtained, and, therefore, if the noble Lord would defer the matter for another year he would then be most happy to lend his assistance in carrying the object which the noble Lord had in view into effect.

Mr. Slaney

observed, that as the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade was willing to include the silk mills, the noble Lord ought to be satisfied, and not press his proposition with reference to the lace factories.

Mr. Poulelt

Thomson begged it to be understood that although he had no objection to have the silk mills included, so far as hours were concerned, he should object to any limitation of age.

Mr. T. Egerton

agreed that the nature of the employment rendered it necessary for children to be admitted into silk mills at an earlier age than into cotton mills.

Lord Stanley

said, that for his own part, he could see no delicacy or dexteity which could not be acquired by a child of ten yean of age equally as well as by one of nine. He, therefore, did think that his noble Friend was perfectly right in the course which he had taken.

Mr. Hume

did not think there was any evidence before them to warrant this alteration. The people wanted cheap bread, and not restrictions upon labour of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had assigned no sufficient reason for this alteration, and certainly such a course should not have been taken without proper information having been given to the parties interested in the change.

Lord Ashley

said, he had given notice months ago that he intended to move that both the silk and lace factories should be included in this measure.

Mr. Brotherton

said, that he should not bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice until that of the noble Lord had been disposed of.

Lord Stanley

thought, that his noble Friend intended to persevere in his proposition with respect to the lace factories.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, that if this were the case, for the reasons which he had already stated, he must vote against it if they came to a division.

Mr. S. O'Brien

contended, that nine was too early an age for permitting children to work either in silk or any other factories.

Mr. Villiers

said, that the proper way to better the condition of the poor was by affording them the necessaries of life at a cheap rate. The motion for the repeal of the corn-laws which he had made had this object in view, but the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now wished to appear so humane, by rejecting that motion, proved that when the factory children asked them for bread they would give them a stone.

Mr. Wilbraham

said, that he could see no inhumanity in allowing children of a tender age to work in silk or lace factories. He had visited many of those places and he could only say that the children whom he saw appeared both healthy and happy.

Mr. Heathcote

thought the information which the noble Lord had received on this subject was incorrect, and that if the matter were properly examined into he would see the necessity for waiving his present objection.

Mr. Slaney

said, there seemed to be a misunderstanding on this point, which he thought it right to explain away. The de- lay for which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade asked was not until next Session, but only until the bringing up of the report.

Mr. Darby

observed, that unless the Government undertook to communicate with the parties, it could not be expected that his noble Friend could ascertain their sentiments between now and the bringing up of the report.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, that all the delay he asked for was such as would enable him to communicate with the parties. Having had no notice of the noble Lord's proposition, it was only fair to give them an opportunity of expressing their views upon it.

Lord Ashley

said, that if the object were not to throw the matter over to another Session, he would not, of course, object to afford the right hon. Gentleman the time he required.

The Committee divided on the original question: Ayes 49; Noes 55; Majority 6.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral	Parrott, J.
Ainsworth, P.	Philips, M.
Baines, E.	Philips, G.
Bannerman A.	Pigot, D. R.
Barnard, E. G.	Price, Sir R.
Chapman, Sir M.L.C.	Rich, H.
Craig, W. G.	Rundle, J.
Donkin, Sir R. S.	Russell, Lord J.
Dundas, Sir R.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Egerton, W. T.	Stansfield, W. R.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Steuart, R.
Fenton, J.	Stewart, J.
Finch, F.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Hastie, A.	Thornely, T.
Heathcoat, J.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Walker, R.
Hoskins, K.	Warburton, H.
Howick, Viscount	Wilbraham, G.
Lister, E. C.	Williams, W. A.
Macleod, R.	Wood, Sir M.
M'Taggart, J.	Wood, George W.
Morpeth, Viscount	Yates, John A.
O'Ferrall, R. M.
Parker, J.	TELLERS.
Parker, R. T.	Maule, F.
Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.	Brocklehurst, Mr.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Cayley, E. S.
Aglionby, H. A.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Alsager, Captain	Courtenay, P.
Bewes, T.	Darby, G.
Brotherton, J.	Duncombe, hon. W.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Elliot, Lord
Butler, hon. Colonel	Ellis, J.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.	Ewart, W.
Cavendish, hon. H.	Fielden, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Pringle, A.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Pusey, P.
Halford, H.	Richards, R.
Hinde, J. H.	Round, J.
Hodges, T. L.	Sheppard, T.
Hodgson, R.	Slaney, S. B.
Hughes, W.B.	Stanley, Lord
Humphery, J.	Style, Sir C.
Jackson, Mr. Sergt.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Kemble, H.	Teignmouth, Lord
Langdale, hon. C.	Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Lockhart, A. M.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Marsland, H.	Vigors, N. A.
Morris, D.	Wakley, T.
Norreys, Lord	Wilbraham, hon. B.
O'Brien, W. S.	Williams, W.
Patten, J. W.
Pease, J.	TELLERS.
Plumptre, J. P.	Ashley, Lord
Polhill, F.	Hindley, Mr.

Clause as amended to stand part of the bill.

On the 9th Clause on the question that the blank be filled up with the words sixty nine,

Lord Ashley

said, that it was not his intention to detain the House at any great length, for he felt that at the present period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, it was almost impossible to sustain any long debate upon this question, nor could he hope to be supported by all those friends for whose assistance he might have looked under more favourable circumstances. Nevertheless he could not find it in his heart to let this opportunity go by without asserting the principles which he had so long contended for, and stating the opinions which he had so long entertained. It was no new principle that he asked for, because the House had already, in the year 1816, assented to a bill, which went through a first and second reading in which the hours of labour were limited to ten and a half hours. That bill was introduced by the father of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, and would have found its way to the House of Lords but for the sudden and unexpected termination of the Session. But if ten hours and a half were then thought sufficient, how much more requisite was it to fix that as the limit now, when it was notorious that labour had increased, and pressed with tenfold severity on the operative classes? He himself (Lord Ashley) had attempted to reassert the principle in 1832 and 1833. No change had yet been effected: the motives for introducing it now were doubly powerful, looking to the great mass of evidence which had been collected with respect to the moral and physical evils endured, exhibiting an increase of suffering and mortality unprecedented in any other country. The population employed in these mills amounted to 419,590, of which 242,296, or 57¾ per cent., were females. Between the age of thirteen and eighteen, the period to which his amendment extended, there were 98,174, of whom 56,792 were females. The age of thirteen for a female was very critical, and with respect to their mental and moral improvement, Mr. Inspector Homer said, "I restricted myself to children of thirteen and fourteen years of age, who by working twelve hours a-day could have no time for their mental and moral improvement." Unless therefore the House were prepared to maintain that after the age of thirteen young women had nothing further to acquire in the way of mental and moral improvement, they must agree to his proposition to shorten their hours of labour, so as to afford them some better opportutunity than they now enjoyed for attaining it. He had often in that House heard expressions of an anxiety to limit the period of labour provided they could do so with benefit to the working population; but the great obstacle to the limitation of labour in this country, it was constantly asserted, was the existence of the Corn-laws. The Corn-laws, it was said, necessarily gave rise to long hours of labour; but was it really so? Did they find shorter hours in other parts of the world where no Corn-laws existed? Quite the reverse. He held in his hand a series of returns, from which Ministers at least could not dissent, having been furnished by their own officers, exposing the whole question of the cotton manufacture in all parts of Europe as connected with the state of the hand-loom weavers in this country. The necessary inference from the data thus supplied was, that the abolition of the Corn-laws, so far from abridging, would rather extend the hours of labour. What were the hours on the continent where no Corn-laws existed? In Argovia the hours in the cotton mills were twelve and a half, no children under fourteen being admitted. In Zurich the hours of actual labour were thirteen per diem. In Austria they varied from fifteen to seventeen, and even in Mr. Kennedy's factories in the Tyrol from thirteen to fourteen hours a-day In Alsace thirteen to fourteen; Lyons twelve to fifteen; Normandy eighty to eighty-four per week; Elbeuf thirteen and a half hours actual work; and in Belgium, always quoted as our greatest and most formidable rival, the hours were generally thirteen daily, and at present—the report was dated March, 1839—they varied from fourteen to fifteen, the commissioners adding this most important statement, that cheapness of labour in Belgium is over stated, and that while combinations are on the increase among foreign workmen, the rate of wages, &c, is approximating to the English. In no one of those countries did Corn-laws exist, and therefore it was impossible to contend that there was any necessary connexion between the Corn-laws and long hours of labour. But there was another country always held up as a very formidable rival—Prussia; what was the course lately adopted there? That great and good Prince, who always took the lead in everything which affected the welfare of his people—the King of Prussia, had lately issued an ordinance, limiting the hours of labour in the factories throughout his dominions to the period for which he had contended during so many years of his life—ten hours a-day. And with credit be it spoken of the master manufacturers of Elberfield, the proposition first came from them in the shape of a petition to the King, who replied, that their prayer was so entirely in accordance with his own wish, that he should certainly grant it, adding however, that a thing so good should not be confined to one district, but should extend over the whole length and breadth of the kingdom. He did not wish to detain the House with details of this question; he contented himself with resting his motion on the assertion that labour by children and persons of tender years since 1816, when the House sanctioned the principle for which he contended, had greatly increased, bringing along with it a vast and alarming increase of suffering and mortality, holding himself ready, if called on, to prove the statement by most indubitable authorities. At present he would merely move as an amendment, that the blank in the clause be filled up by "58," instead of "69."

Mr. Ewart

would support the proposition of the noble Lord, but he could not give his assent to the noble Lord's reasoning with respect to the Corn-laws. Did the noble Lord mean to say that the manufacturers of this country would not be in a better condition to shorten the period of labour if the persons employed in the manufactories had cheaper food? It was quite evident that whatever country had the cheapest food was best able to reduce the hours of labour, and the fact of the hours not having been reduced upon the continent did not go to disprove that statement. He should vote with the noble Lord, but not upon those arguments which were founded upon the Corn-laws.

Mr. F. Maule

said, that the disease and mortality of manufacturing towns proceeded from many causes besides the hours at which the people were employed in the factories, and he therefore could not admit that argument. The noble Lord had told them that on the continent the hours were longer. Now would he say that the children in Britain were less robust or capable of sustaining exertion? He would remind them that whilst they imagined they were engaged solely in legislating, for the advantage of the children, they might be really legislating upon the moving powers of machinery. He objected to the amendment, and he trusted the Committee would not adopt it.

Mr. Villiers

said, that the noble Lord was under a misapprehension with respect to the Corn-laws, and he had also mentioned places where Corn-laws were in existence, such as Lyons. If the manufacturers in this country were allowed the advantage which would arise from the increased demand for their goods, that would be consequent upon an open trade in corn, the persons employed in the manufactories would receive a corresponding advantage. He believed if the Corn-laws were repealed, it would have a most beneficial effect in stimulating the manufacturers of the country, by the increased demand for our manufactures which it would produce. He believed the noble Lord to be perfectly sincere in his wish to benefit the manufacturing population; but he would ask the noble Lord to consider upon the question, would they receive the same amount of wages for a reduced number of hours which they at present receive? or was he prepared with a means of raising their wages?

Mr. Cayley

said, the real question was one of humanity, and had nothing to do with the Corn-laws.

Mr. Baines

said, that if a proposal were made to diminish the amount of agricul- tural labour, the landed interest would be in arms against it. He gave the noble Lord credit for being actuated by the best principles and the highest motives of humanity, but he believed that if his proposition were to be carried into effect it would be injurious to the manufacturing interest. If they reduced the term of labour, they must likewise reduce the amount of wages; so that, so far from benefiting the operative, it would be injurious to him.

Mr. Mark Philips

said, that the noble Lord could not have chosen a worse opportunity than the present for bringing forward his proposition, when the manufacturers of this country were exposed to so much active competition on the part of foreign countries. The injurious effect of this proposition would first be felt by the operatives themselves, for if a diminution took place in the hours of labour, they must make a corresponding reduction in the price of labour, for it would be impossible for the manufacturer to pay the same amount of wages for a diminished supply of labour. Whatever the noble Lord might think of the effect of foreign competition, he contended that it would be impossible for the manufacturer to resist that competition with diminished hours of labour. He did not mean to discuss the question as one of feeling or humanity, but as a question of existence. He spoke as a practical man, and he contended that the competition was so great that the manufacturers of this country would not be able to stand if they were compelled to adopt such an alteration as this. He did not speak thus from any want of feeling for those employed in factory labour, but, as a practical man, he must bow to circumstances over which he had no control.

Mr. Brotherton

said, that human nature was the same on the Continent as in the country, and that there as well as here there was a disposition to get rich as soon as possible. He contended that without legislative interference the children would be worked unmercifully. By a return made in 1819 it had been clearly shown that the average rate of time in factories was seventy-seven hours per week. In Nottingham and the neighbourhood they worked in the factories to the extent of thirteen, and in some instances, of fifteen hours per day. He would at once admit that if they reduced the term of labour they would thereby increase the cost of production. He was quite aware that if they could with difficulty stand against foreign competition whilst the term of labour was twelve hours, if they reduced the term to ten hours there must be a reduction of wages. It was impossible for the manufacturers of this country to contend with the competition of countries where food was so much cheaper, and the remedy would be found in an alteration of the Corn-laws. As he could not get at the right end by a repeal of those laws, he would, as an indirect means, vote for the proposition of he noble Lord, because he was sure it would have the effect of sooner bringing the question to an issue.

Mr. O'Connell

would have been very glad if the noble Lord had commenced his career of philanthropy by inducing his class to sacrifice their individual interests by giving the people cheaper bread. The Corn-laws were good for nothing to the landlords if they did not make bread dear. He had merely risen to protest against that part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he eulogised the King of Prussia as a man of the finest feelings. Now, would the noble Lord wish to see a King of this country lay hold of two archbishops, and how would the noble Lord relish it to see one of these imprisoned in a fortress for two years without trial or investigation? The noble Lord would not eulogise any sovereign of this country who should so treat the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. There was no occasion at all to have introduced this subject.

Lord Ashley

said that if the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had acted in the manner in which those other two bishops appeared to have acted, he thought they ought to be similarly treated.

Mr. O'Connell

said that their sole crime was being quite consistent with their principles, and maintaining that discipline which it was their duty to maintain. The conduct of the King of Prussia was, therefore, doubly tyrannical.

Lord J. Russell

begged to make one observation on the question itself. It seemed to him that the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had not answered the question put by his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) namely, whether, having reduced the hours of labour, the noble Lord could provide at the same time that the same remuneration should be given for the shortened hours of labour? Did the noble Lord mean to carry his principle to the extent of fixing wages by law, or did he not? If he did mean to do so, the Committee knew of course the impossibility of adopting such a course; and if he did not, the Committee must know that whatever shortened the hours of labour, and with the present high price of provisions reduced the rate of wages, instead of being a proposition of humanity, would be a proposition of the greatest inhumanity. Therefore as he thought the proposition, if carried into effect would be cruel in its operation, he must vote against it.

Lord Ashley

said that there was nothing in his proposition that went to the extent of defining the amount of wages. As to the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he must say that he did not entertain the same apprehensions as that hon. Gentleman; because in 1818 and 1819, when the hours of labour were limited, precisely the same arguments were used. It was then said that if they reduced the hours of labour they must reduce the amount of wages, and thus produce great consequent misery to the manufacturers. What was the result? The hours of labour were greatly reduced by the bill of 1819; but were the wages reduced? Not in any one single respect. They continued at the same amount for four years after, and were reduced from other causes. It was found also that the reduction of the hours did not lead to any diminution of production.

Mr. Pease

said that all practical men knew that when the hours of labour were shortened the children were over-worked and over-driven, and the exertions of the children were rendered much more intense and cruel. He employed a great many hands, and he must say, as a practical man, that if the hours of labour were abridged, he must, unless he submitted to torture and over-drive the children, inevitably close his manufactory.

The Committee divided on the original motion: Ayes 94: Noes 62—Majority 32

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral	Blackett, C.
Ainsworth, P.	Blair, J.
Alcock, T.	Busfeild, W.
Bailey, J.	Cavendish, hn. G. H.
Baines, E.	Chapman, Sir M. L. C.
Bannerman, A.	Craig, W. G.
Barnard, E. G.	Donkin, Sir R. S.
Bewes, T.	Douglas, Sir C. E.

Dundas, Sir R.	Philips, M.
Egerton, W. T.	Philips, G. R.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Pigot, D. R.
Ellis, W.	Price, Sir R.
Evans, W.	Rich, H.
Fenton, J.	Roche, W.
Ferguson, Sir rt. A.	Russell, Lord J.
Finch, F.	Russell, Lord C.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Greene, T.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Scrope, G. P.
Grote, G.	Seymour, Lord
Handley, H.	Slaney, R. A.
Hastie, A.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hawes, B.	Stanley, Lord
Heathcoat, J.	Stanley, W. O.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Stansfield, W. R.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Steuart, R.
Hoskins, K.	Stewart, J.
Howick, Visct.	Stock, Dr.
Hurt, F.	Surrey, Earl of
Knight, H. G.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Thornely, T.
Langdale, hon. C.	Turner, W.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Villiers, hon. C. P.
Lennox, Lord A.	Walker, R.
Lister, E. C.	Wallace, R.
Loch, J.	Warburton, H.
Macleod, R.	White, A.
Mactaggart, J.	Wilbraham, G.
Marsland, H.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Marton, G.	Williams, W. A.
Morpeth, Visct.	Winnington, T. E.
O'Brien, W. S.	Wood, C.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Wood, Sir M.
Parker, J.	Wood, G. W.
Parker, R. T.	Yates, J. A.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Parrott, J.	TELLERS.
Patten, J. W.	Maule, F.
Pease, J.	Brocklehurst, J.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Heneage, G. W.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hinde, J.H.
Alsager, Captain	Hodges, T. L.
Broadley, H.	Hope, hon. C.
Brotherton, J.	Hughes, W.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Jervis, S.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Kemble, H.
Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.	Knatchbull, r. h. Sir E.
Cayley, E. S.	Lockhart, A. M.
Courtenay, P.	Lowther, J. H.
Darby, G.	Lygon, hon. General
Dick, Q.	Maunsell, T. P.
Duncombe, hon. W.	Miles, W.
Du Pre, G.	Miles, P. W. S.
Eastnor, Visct.	Morris, D.
Eaton, R. J.	Noel, hon. W. M.
Eliot, Lord	O'Connell, D.
Ellis J.	O'Connell, J.
Ewart, W.	Owen, Sir J.
Gaskell, J. Milnes	Plumptre, J. P.
Grimsditch, T.	Polhill, F.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Pusey, P.
Halford, H.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Hall, Sir B.	Richards, R.

Round, C. G.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Round, J.	Vigors, N. A.
Sheppard, T.	Wakley, T.
Smith, A.	Welby, G. E.
Style, Sir. C.	Williams, W.
Talfourd, Sergeant	TELLERS.
Teignmouth, Lord	Ashley, Lord
Thompson, Alderman	Feilden, J.

Clause agreed to.

On clause 11, which proposes to enact that where the machinery is "wholly moved by the power of water," the time lost by the total stoppage of the water wheel from want of water, or from too much water, may be recovered,

Mr. Mark Philips

moved an amendment to have the words "or partially," inserted before the words "by the power of water."

The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 48: Noes 106—Majority 58.

List of the AYES.
Ainsworth, P.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Bailey, J.	Lennox, Lord A.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Lister, E. C.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Loch, J.
Busfeild, W.	Marsland, H.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Morris, D.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Parker, R.
Eastnor, Visct.	Patten, J. W.
Egerton, W. T.	Philips, G. R.
Ellis, J.	Pusey, P.
Ellis, W.	Round, C. G.
Fenton, J.	Rundle, J.
Finch, F.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Forester, hon. G.	Scrope, G. P.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Sheppard, T.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Stanley, Lord
Greene, T.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Grimsditch, T.	Turner, W.
Handley, H.	Walker, R.
Hastie, A.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Heathcoat, J.	Williams, W. A.
Hindley, C.	Yates, J. A.
Hope, hon. C.
Hope, G. W.	TELLERS.
Hoskins, K.	Philips, M.
Houstoun, G.	Wood, G.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Adam, Admiral	Burrell, Sir C.
Aglionby, H. A.	Chalmers, P.
Archdall, M.	Childers, J. W.
Ashley, Lord	Chute, W. L. W.
Baines, E.	Clay, W.
Bannerman, A.	Collins, W.
Barnard, E. G.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Blackstone, W. S.	Craig, W. G.
Blair, J.	Curry, Mr. Sergeant
Blake, W. J.	Davies, Colonel
Broadley, H.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Brotherton, J.	Duncombe, T.

Duncombe, hon. W.	Pattison, J.
Dundas, Sir R.	Pigot, D. R.
Eaton, R. J.	Plumptre, J. P.
Eliot, Lord	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Evans, W.	Power, J.
Ewart, W.	Price, Sir R.
Fielden, J.	Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Rich, H.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Gladstone, W. E.	Round, J.
Gordon, R.	Rushout, G.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Russell, Lord J.
Grosvenor, Lord R.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Grots, G.	Shirley, E. J.
Halford, H.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Hall, Sir B.	Slaney, R. A.
Hawes, B.	Smith, A.
Heneage, G. W.	Smith, R. V.
Hinde, J. H.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Stanley, W. O.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Steuart, R.
Hodges, T. L.	Stewart, J.
Hodgson, R.	Stock, Dr.
Hutt, W.	Style, Sir C.
Kemble, H.	Surrey, Earl of
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Langdale, hon. C.	Teignmouth, Lord
Lowther, J. H.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Macleod, R.	Thompson, Alderman
Mahon, Visct.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Marton, G.	Vivian, J. H.
Maule, hon. F.	Wakley, T.
Maunsell, T. P.	Wallace, R.
Mildmay, P. St. John	Warburton, H.
Miles, W.	Wilbraham, G.
O'Brien, W. S.	Williams, W.
O'Connell, D.	Winnington, T. E.
O'Connell, J.	Wood, Sir M.
Palmer, G.	Young, J.
Parker, J.	TELLERS.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.	O'Ferrall, M.
Parrott, J.	Seymour, Lord

On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill,

The committee divided: Ayes 112: Noes 40—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral	Clay, W.
Ainsworth, P.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Anson, hon. Col.	Davies, Col.
Attwood, T.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bailey, J.	Duncombe, T.
Baines, E.	Dundas, Sir R.
Bannerman, A.	Eastnor, Visct.
Barnard, E. G.	Egerton, W. T.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Ellis, W.
Blake, W. J.	Evans, W.
Broadley, H.	Fenton, J.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Buller, C.	Ferguson, R.
Busfeild, W.	Finch, F.
Cavendish, hn. G. H	Gordon, R.
Chalmers, P.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Childers, J. W.	Greene, T.
Chute, W. L. W.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Grimsditch, T.	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Grote, G.	Power, J.
Halford, H.	Price, Sir R.
Hastie, A.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Hawes, B.	Round, C. G.
Heathcoat, J.	Rundle, J.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Russell, Lord J.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Hodges, T. L.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Hope, hon. C.	Scrope, G. P.
Hope, G. W.	Sheppard, T.
Hoskins, K.	Slaney, R. A.
Houstoun, G.	Smith, J. A.
Hurt, F.	Smith, A.
Hutt, W.	Smith, R. V.
Ingestrie, Visct.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Jervis, J.	Stanley, Lord
Kemble, H.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Langdale, hon. C.	Steuart, R.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Stewart, J.
Lister, E. C.	Stock, Dr.
Loch, J.	Tancred, H. W.
Macleod, R.	Teignmouth, Lord
Marsland, H.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Marton, G.	Turner, W.
Mildmay, P. St. John	Vivian, J. H.
O'Connell, D.	Walker, R.
O'Connell, J.	Wallace, R.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Warburton, H.
Palmer, G.	White, A.
Parker, R. T.	Wilbraham, G.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Parrott, J.	Williams, W. A.
Patten, J. W.	Wood, G. W.
Pattison, J.	Yates, J. A.
Pease, J.
Philips, M.	TELLERS.
Philips, G. R.	Maule, F.
Pigot, D. R.	Parker, J.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Brien, W. S.
Archdall, M.	Plumptre, J. P.
Ashley, Lord	Pringle, A.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Pusey, P.
Blackstone, W. S.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Round, J.
Burrell, Sir C.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Darby, G.	Rushout, G.
Duncombe, hon. W.	Shirley, E. J.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Eliot, Lord	Style, Sir C.
Ellis, J.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Fielden, J.	Thomas, Colonel H.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Thompson, Alderman
Freshfield, J. W.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Heneage, G. W.	Williams, W.
Henniker, Lord	Wood, T.
Hindley, C.	Young, J.
Hodgson, R.
Lowther, J. H.	TELLERS.
Mahon, Visct.	Hinde, H.
Morris, D.	Wakley, T.

Clause agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Mr. Hindley

moved an amendment to the effect that the hour and a half for meal-times be at any time.

The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 46: Noes 109—Majority 63.

List of the AYES.
Archdall, M.	Lowther, J. H.
Bagge, W.	Mahon, Visct.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Morris, D.
Blackstone, W. S.	Plumptre, J. P.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Pringle, A.
Burrell, Sir C.	Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.
Chute, W. L. W.	Round, J.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Darby, G.	Rushout, G.
Duncorabe, hon. W.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Duncombe, hon. E.	Sheppard, T.
Eastnor, Visct.	Shirley, E. J.
Eliot, J.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Ellis, J.	Smith, A.
Farnham, E. B.	Style, Sir C.
Fielden, J.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Freshfield, J. W.	Thomas, Colonel H.
Gore, O. W.	Thompson, Alderman
Hall, Sir B.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Wakley, T.
Heneage, G. W.	Williams, W.
Henniker, Lord
Hinde, J. H.	TELLERS.
Ingestrie, Visct.	Ashley, Lord
Kemble, H.	Hindley, Mr.

List of the NOES.
Adam, Admiral	Grimsditch, T.
Aglionby, H. A.	Grote, G.
Ainsworth, P.	Hastie, A.
Anson, hon. Colonel	Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.
Attwood, T.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Bailey, J.	Hodges, T. L.
Baring, F. T.	Hodgson, R.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Hope, hon. C.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Hope, G. W.
Broadley, H.	Houstoun, G.
Brotherton, J.	Howard, Sir R.
Busfeild, W.	Hurt, F.
Byng, rt. hn. G. S.	Hutt, W.
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	James, W.
Chalmers, P.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Childers, J. W.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Clerk, Sir G.	Langdale, hon. C.
Davies, Colonel	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Lemon, Sir C.
Duncombe, T.	Lister, E. C.
Egerton, W. T.	Loch, J.
Ellis, W.	Macleod, R.
Evans, W.	Marsland, H.
Fenton, J.	Marton, G.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Maule, hon. F.
Ferguson, R.	Mildmay, P. St. John
Finch, F.	Moreton, hon. A. H.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Morpeth, Visct.
Gordon, B.	O'Brien, W. S.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	O'Connell, D.
Greene, T.	O'Connell, J.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	O'Ferrall, R. M.

Parker, J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Parker, R. T.	Steuart, R.
Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.	Stewart, J.
Parrott, J.	Stock, Dr.
Pattison, J.	Strickland, Sir G.
Pease, J.	Tancred, H. W.
Pigot, D. R.	Teignmouth, Lord
Ponsonby, hon. J.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Price, Sir R.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Pusey, P.	Turner, W.
Rich, H.	Vigors, N. A.
Rolfe, Sir R. M.	Wall, C. B.
Rundle, J.	Wallace, R.
Russell, Lord J.	Warburton, H.
Rutherford, rt. hn. A.	White, A.
Sanford, E. A.	Wilbraham, G.
Scarlett, hon. J. Y.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Scrope, G. P.	Williams, W. A.
Slaney, R. A.	Wood, C.
Smith, J. A.	Wood, G, W.
Smith, R. V.	Yates, J. A.
Stanley, hon. E. J.	TELLERS.
Stanley, Lord	Patten, W.
Stanley, hon. W. O.	Philips, M.

Amendment rejected.

Clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.

On Clause 14, which authorises a deduction of not more than three-pence in each week from the wages of the child towards the payment of the schooling of such child, and on the question that the blank be filled up with the words three-pence,

Lord Ashley

proposed that two-pence a-week be substituted as the amount of contribution.

The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 51; Noes 96: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.
Archbold, R.	Parker, R. T.
Baring, F.	Parrott, J.
Beamish, F. B.	Patten, J. W.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Pease, J.
Blake, W. J.	Pigot, D. R.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Ponsonby, hon. J.
Childers, J. W.	Power, J.
Evans, W.	Rich, H.
Fleetwood, Sir P.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Gordon, R.	Rundle, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Russell, Lord J.
Grote, G.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Hastie, A.	Sanford, E. A.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Scrope, G. P.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Smith, R. V.
Howard, Sir R.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hutt, W.	Steuart, R.
Lister, E. C.	Stuart, Lord J.
Marsland, H.	Stock, Dr.
Morpeth, Lord Visct.	Tancred, H. W.
O'Connell, J.	Thomson, rt hn. C. P.
O'Connell, M. J.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
O'Ferrall, R. M.	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Parker, J.	Williams, W. A.

Wood, C.	TELLERS.
Wood, G. W.	Philips, M.
Yates, J. A.	Maule, F.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	James, W.
Aglionby, H. A.	Langdale, hon. C.
Ainsworth, P.	Lascelles, hon. W. S.
Attwood, T.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Bagge, W.	Lowther, J. H.
Bailey, J.	Mahon, Lord Visct.
Bainbridge, E. T.	Morris, D.
Baines, E.	Packe, C.W.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Plumptre, J. P.
Blackstone, W. S.	Praed, W. T.
Broadley, H.	Price, Sir R.
Brotherton, J.	Pringle, A.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Pusey, P.
Burrell, Sir C.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Busfeild, W.	Redington, T. N.
Chalmers, P.	Round, J.
Chute, W. L. W.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Clerk, Sir G.	Rushout, G.
Clive, hon. R. H.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Darby, G.	Sheppard, T.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Shirley, E. J.
Duncombe, T.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Easthope, J.	Slaney, R. A.
Eastnor, Lord Visct.	Stanley, Lord
Egerton, W. T.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Eliot, Lord	Style, Sir Charles
Ewart, W.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Parnham, E. B.	Teignmouth, Lord
Fielden, J.	Thomas, Colonel H.
Freshfield, J. W.	Thompson, Mr. Aid.
Gore, O. W.	Thornely, T.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Turner, W.
Greene, T.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Grimsditch, T.	Vigors, N. A.
Hall, Sir B.	Waddington, H. S.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Wakley, T.
Henniker, Lord	Warburton, H.
Hinde, J. H.	White, A.
Hindley, C.	Wilbraham, G.
Hodgson, R.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Hope, hon. C.	Williams, W.
Hope, G. W.
Houstoun, G.	TELLERS.
Hurt, F.	Ashley, Lord
Ingestrie, Lord Visct.	O'Brien, W. S.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

On Clause 17, (Inspectors may declare schoolmasters incompetent,)

Mr. Colquhoun

moved that that part of the clause conferring the power upon the inspector to certify the incompetency of the schoolmaster, should be expunged.

Mr. F. Maule

thought that this was the only mode of regulating schools which could be adopted.

Lord Stanley

said a few words in support of the amendment, and suggested that it was giving the inspector too much power to say that he might ruin a school- master, merely upon the opinion which he might entertain of his competency.

Mr. C. P. Thomson

thought that the probability of the abuse of the powers conferred upon the inspectors would be nothing in comparison with the difficulty that might be produced by the omission of this part of the clause.

Mr. Grote

declared his opinion that this was one of the most salutary provisions in the bill, and that the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Knares-borough would create little change.

Mr. C. P. Thomson

requested the House to recollect, that under the present Act the inspectors had the effective power of disqualifying schoolmasters, for the salary of the schoolmaster or schoolmisstress was to be withheld whenever the inspector declared such person to be incompetent.

The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 67; Noes 53: Majority 14.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	O'Brien, W. S.
Ainsworth, P.	O'Connell, M. J.
Archbold, R.	Parker, J.
Baines, E.	Parrott, J.
Baring, F. T.	Pigot, D. R.
Beamish, F. B.	Price, Sir R.
Blake, W. J.	Redington, T. N.
Brocklehurst, J.	Rich, H.
Brotherton, J.	Rundle, J.
Busfeild, W.	Russell, Lord J.
Campbell, Sir J.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Chalmers, P.	Sanford, E. A.
Childers, J. W.	Scrape, G. P.
Duncombe, T.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Easthope, J.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Evans, W.	Stewart, J.
Ewart, W.	Stuart, Lord J.
Fenton, J.	Stock, Dr.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Style, Sir C.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.
Gordon, R.	Tancred, H. W.
Greene, T.	Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Thorneley, T.
Grote, G.	Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Hall, Sir B.	Vigors, N. A.
Hawes, B.	Wakley, T.
Heathcoat, J.	Warburton, H.
Hinde, J. H.	Westenra, hon. H. R.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Wilbraham, G.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Williams, W. A.
James, W.	Wood, C.
Lister, E. C.	Wood, G. W.
Macleod, R.	TELLERS.
Marsland, H.	Maule, F.
Morpeth, Lord Visct.	Solicitor-General, Mr.

List of the NOES.
Acland, T. D.	Ashley, Lord

Bagge, W.	Morris, D.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Packe, C. W.
Blackstone, W. S.	Parker, R. T.
Broadley, H.	Patten, J. W.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Pease, J.
Burrell, Sir C.	Plumptre, J. P.
Chute, W. L. W.	Praed, W. T.
Clerk, Sir G.	Pringle, A.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.
Egerton, W. T.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Farnham, E. B.	Rushout, G.
Fielden, J.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Fellowes, E.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Freshfield, J. W.	Shirley, E. J.
Gore, O. W.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Sinclair, Sir G.
Grimsditch, T.	Stanley, Lord
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.	Teignmouth, Lord
Henniker, Lord	Thompson, Alderman
Hodgson, R.	Turner, W.
Hope, hon. C.	Vere, Sir C. B.
Hope, G. W.	Waddington, H. S.
Houstoun, G.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Hurt, F.	Williams, W.
Ingestrie, Lord Visct.	TELLERS.
Lowther, J. H.	Colquhoun, J. L.
Mahon, Lord Visct.	Darby, G.

Mr. Redington

proposed that a proviso be inserted in the clause, declaring that in such case where the inspector declared a schoolmaster to be incompetent that he should give a copy in writing of his reasons for his belief in such incompetency on the part of such master or mistress.

Mr. Baines

thought that this would be giving a dangerous power to the inspector, as, by giving such reasons in writing, he might be brought within the operation of the law of libel, in a similar manner that the printer of that House had been.

Lord Stanley

admitted the force of the objection of the hon. Member, but it applied equally to the former part of the clause, by which the inspector had to make a declaration of the incompetency of the schoolmaster, &c.

The Attorney-General

did not think that even the Court of Queen's Bench would allow such a view to be taken of the subject, although he confessed, after what had taken place, that he felt great diffidence in giving an opinion.

Sir J. Graham

conceived that this would evidently be considered a privileged communication, directed to be made by Act of Parliament, and therefore was not open to such an objection.

The proviso adopted, and the clause agreed to.

On the next clause being put,

Mr. Darby

moved that the Chairman report progress.

Lord John Russell

trusted, that the Committee would proceed with the remaining clauses respecting education. He certainly should feel it to be his duty to resist the proposition of the hon. Member.

Lord Stanley

could not understand why his noble Friend could not as well consent to the Chairman's reporting progress now as after these clauses. The next clause would take some time to discuss, as several hon. Members had amendments to propose in it, and he believed the sense of the Committee would be taken on it. They had now been sitting in the Committee from half-past five o'clock to nearly one, and several Members had had no opportunity of procuring refreshment.

Lord John Russell

did not conceive that there would be any lengthened discussion on these clauses after the time the last clause had engaged their attention. If they then adjourned, the whole subject of education would be re-opened the next time they went into Committee.

Lord Ashley

could not understand why the noble Lord was so adverse to the discussion of the provisions of that bill. The noble Lord seemed to be very peppery on the subject of this bill. He should have some consideration for those sitting on the benches on that (the Opposition) side, as they had had no opportunity of getting any refreshment for several hours. He trusted that the motion for adjournment would be persisted in.

Lord John Russell

was anxious that that bill should pass, as the other measures that he had introduced; he thought, therefore, that it was not justifiable on the part of the noble Lord to insinuate that he was actuated by sinister motives with respect to the bill, and although he often had similar charges thrown out against him, it could hardly be expected that he could be indifferent to such accusations. He had also been constantly charged with not proceeding with the business of the country; but was it surprising that delay arose when such impediments were thrown in the way of public measures.

Lord Ashley

would remind the noble Lord, that the bill had been introduced on the 14th of February, and it was the 1st of July before they went into Committee on the bill.

The Committee divided, Ayes 34; Noes 49: Majority, 15.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Bentinck, Lord G.

Broadley, H.	Morris, D.
Brotherton, J.	Packe, C W.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Parker, R. T.
Burrell, Sir C.	Patten, J. W.
Clerk, Sir G.	Praed, W. T.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Pringle, A.
Egerton, W. T.	Rushbrooke, Colonel
Fielden, J.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Freshfield, J. W.	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Grimsditch, T.	Stanley, Lord
Henniker, Lord	Waddington, H. S.
Hodgson, R.	Wakley, T.
Hope, hon. C.	Wilbraham, hon. B.
Hope, G. W.
Ingestrie, Lord Visct.	TELLERS.
Lowther, J. H.	Ashley, Lord
Mahon, Lord Visct.	Darby, G.

List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Parker, J.
Ainsworth, P.	Parrott, J.
Baines, E.	Pease, J.
Baring, F. T.	Philips, M.
Beamish, F. B.	Pigot, D. R.
Blake, W. J.	Redington, T. N.
Brocklehurst, J.	Russell, Lord J.
Busfeild, W.	Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.
Campbell, Sir J.	Sandford, E. A.
Chalmers, P.	Scrope, G. P.
Childers, J. W.	Stanley, hon. E. J.
Duncombe, T.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Easthope, J.	Stewart, J.
Fenton, J.	Stock, Dr.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Style, Sir C.
Fleetwood, Sir P. H.	Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Thornely, T.
Grote, G.	Turner, W.
Hawes, B.	Vigors, N. A.
Heathcoat, J.	Walker, R.
Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.	Warburton, H.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Wilbraham, G.
Langdale, hon. C.	Williams, W. A.
Macleod, R.	TELLERS.
Morpeth, Lord Visct.	Maule, F.
O'Connell, M. J.	Solicitor-General, Mr.

The House resumed. Committee to sit again.