Commons Sitting of 29 March 1844

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Factories (No. 2) Bill; County Courts; Bailiffs of Inferior Courts.
Private.—2o. Wells Harbour and Quay; Wells Lighting and Improvement; Hythe Landing Place; Middle Level Drainage and Navigation; Swansea Harbour; South ampton Marsh Improvement; Taff Vale Railway; Ness Fisheries; Metropolitan Buildings.
Reported.—Birkenhead Improvement; Midland Railways Consolidation; Durham County Coal Company; Newquay Harbour and Railway; Hartlepool West Harbour and Dock; South Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate, and Margate Railway.
3°. and passed:—Brandes Burton Inclosure; Guildford Junction Railway: Norwich and Brandon Railway; York and Scarborough Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. J. A. Smith, from Chichester, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Lefroy, from Cork, against the Municipal Boroughs (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. Fuller, from Llanfaethlie, and other places, against the Union of the Sees of St. Asaph and Bangor.—By Lords Howick and Ashley, and by Messrs. McGeachy, C. Buller, Hindley, Ainsworth, and Fielder, from a great number of places, in favour, by Sir J. Graham, from Manchester, and by Messrs. Estcourt, and Egerton, from Trowbridge, against, the Ten Hours Clause in Factories Bill.—By Mr. Vivian, from H. G. Drewe, for Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt.

NAVAL FORCE—POOR RATES (IRELAND).
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that seeing the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton in his place, he begged to make some explanation relative to a statement which he had made in the discussion on the Navy Estimates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked him whether a naval force had been employed in the collection of Poor Rates in Ireland. He then stated that he knew nothing of any such transaction, and that although Naval Officers had certainly been employed to support the Magistrates, they could have only had a moral influence upon the people as respected paying Poor Rates. Since then he had thought it right to look over the reports made to the Admiralty upon the subject, which exactly confirmed him in what he had before stated. The hon. and gallant Officer read several reports from Naval Officers stationed on the coast of Ireland, to the general effect that the appearance of war-steamers had been productive of the best moral effect, and in many instances probably prevented a collision between the people and the military. The steamers were sent to assist the civil authorities and to maintain peace.
Captain Pechellsaid, that on the Navy Estimates he had pointed out that one, if not two, war-steamers, were employed in the collection of Poor Rates in Ireland. The bon, and gallant Gentleman opposite

1617
(Sir George Cockburn) denied the statement, and said he was not aware of any such circumstance. He subsequently produced his authority for his statement, and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department made an apology for the hon. and gallant Officer, and he was satisfied with the apology. But since the hon. and gallant Gentleman had chosen to come down and vindicate his own case, he must say that his opinion was not altered. In fact, the hon. and gallant Gentleman acknowledged that ships of war were sent to aid the civil power, so that the Poor Rates were actually collected under the guns of the steamers. The difference between him and the hon. Gentleman was, that the latter said, he had no cognizance of the fact of the steamers being so employed, and he added that the Officers of those vessels had received no instructions from the Admiralty to collect the Poor Rates, but merely to aid the civil power; whereas he (Captain Pechell) inferred that those ships of war were kept on that coast in order that the police and officers of Government might the better insure the collection of Poor Rates. One of the steamers was, in fact, converted into a sort of Somerset Douse. He thought, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had made the matter worse, for it clearly appeared that Poor Rates had been collected under the guns of ships of war.

HOURS OF LABOUR IN FACTORIES.
On the Motion of Sir J. Graham, that the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Factories Bill, for the purpose of its being discharged, be read,
Mr. B. Cochrane,before this Bill was withdrawn, wished to say he believed that it was generally supposed by those hon. Members who had supported the Noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire (Lord Ashley) that the noble Lord had fully made up his mind as to the course he should pursue on this Bill, and that he had looked beforehand not only into every probable but also into every possible circumstance that might arise; and that the noble Lord was prepared to overstep all those obstacles which a Government might be expected to throw in his way. Under these impressions he had certainly the honour of voting with the noble Lord. He, however, did expect that upon this question of a withdrawal of the Bill—after the energetic
1618
manner in which the noble Lord had expressed himself the other night, that the noble Lord would be prepared to carry out his views to the fullest extent. He would say upon this question that he considered the conduct of the Government infinitely more sincere—indeed, he would not be guilty of throwing any doubt upon the sincerity of the noble Lord, but he must say that he considered the conduct of the Government upon this question more apparently in earnest than that of the noble Lord. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was defeated on Monday upon his proposition of twelve hours labour. He, however, again brought the question before the House, which, though an unusual course, was, he believed, under the circumstances, a justifiable one; and the right hon. Gentleman was again defeated upon the twelve hours proposition; and on the same occasion the ten hour proposition of the noble Lord was also defeated by a small majority. The right hon. Gentleman then asked for a further delay, so as to enable him to decide upon what course, under the circumstances, he should pursue. The right hon. Baronet subsequently said that he would enter into no compromise or concession upon the point in dispute; and he (Mr. Cochrane) concurred with him so far,—that if the principle for which he was contending was worth anything, he should not submit to any compromise or concession. Though some hon. Members might have thought that an eleven hours Clause might have been a fair question for the right hon. Gentleman to have substituted, he had refused to entertain such a question, and preferred the withdrawing of the Bill altogether. He wanted to know why the noble Lord did not carry out the principle which he advocated so warmly, and object altogether to the withdrawal of the Bill. What was the present state of the House in reference to this Bill? The very same Bill, out of which the twelve hours Clause had been already struck, was again to be introduced to them for their consideration and adoption. What was the object to be gained by this delay? Why, it must be obvious to every person in this House, that the object in view was simply to gain time. It had been said, that the greatest policy of a Statesman was to gain time. Would it be a matter of greater possibility to carry the ten hours Clause after Easter, than at the present time? The noble Lord

1619
might no doubt say, that it was an unusual course of proceeding to object to the withdrawal of a Bill. It might be so; but had not the right hon. Baronet adopted an unusual course of proceeding no the subject? He thought that in a question of this nature, if a man had once put his hand upon the plough, he should never be induced to look back again. The noble Lord might again say, that the Government had declared this to be a party question, and that under the circumstances he did not wish to offer any opposition to the Government in moving for the withdrawal of their Bill, But he should recollect that the question would be equally a party one after Easter, as it was before it. Did not the noble Lord "keep his promise to the ear, and break it to the hope?" Was there a moral probability of the ten hours Clause being carried after Easter, if it were defeated before it? No doubt the fourteen days which should intervene before the reassembling of Parliament would afford a great opportunity for agitating this question. He believed that the noble Lord said the noble Viscount the Member for Sunderland had concurred with him in the propriety of not opposing the discharge of this order. The noble Viscount might delight in agitation outside; indeed he understood that it was the intention of the noble Viscount to go down into the different districts for the purpose of agitating the question. This he would say, in respect to any agitation, he had supported the noble Lord on this question up to the present time, bet he objected to all agitation out of doors, either on corn law repeal, or factory labour. This was a question which should be discussed calmly, dispassionately, and solemnly in this House. He thought that if this measure were only to be carried by the continued display of excitement out of doors, it would be almost better to give it up altogether. There was one point he wished to allude to in reference to what the noble Lord said the other night. He never was more astonished in his life than when he heard the noble Lord state that this Bill, in his opinion, would reduce wages. He (Mr. Cochrane) would have nothing to do with it if he thought it would have that effect. As he had supported the Bill, he should continue his support to the ten hours proposition; and be did not think that the result of such a measure would be to reduce wages. Permit him to state his reasons for saying so.
1620
He considered that in most cases it could not reduce wages much, for in most of the manufacturing towns they had already arrived at the minimum of wages. He would say that the manufacturers would be amply compensated for this reduction of labour, and in a short time they would find that for the two hours' lose they would sustain by the adoption of such a proposition as this, they would be fully compensated by the addition of energy and nerve which would he thrown into the morning's work. "A fair day's wages for a fair day's work," was a good and wholesome maxim. He, therefore, believed that, the proposition they were contending for, would not ultimately have the effect of reducing wages. If the noble Lord, however, thought that wages would be thus reduced, the noble Lord should have followed up his ten hours Clause with a measure like that of Mr. Whitbread, who, in 1793, brought in a Bill for regulating wages. He had thus far ventured to make these few remarks as to the position in which they were now placed in reference to this subject. He was afraid that this question would not now have the result which the noble Lord's party desired. He was afraid that much of the time of the House had been lost. He would only ask every unprejudiced person to look at the state of the House—what it is, and what it was. The noble Lord had, the other night, appealed in terms almost unusual in this House, to those hon. Members who had supported him in his proposition. In the most solemn manner the noble Lord asked them not to give way one inch. Hon. Members were thus kept in town for the purpose of supporting the noble Lord upon this field of battle. But then they found the noble Lord coming forward, and telling them that after Easter he would decide upon what course he would pursue. The country had been agitated to little purpose, and the time of the House had been taken up on this subject, without any object whatsoever being gained. This had been occasioned, not from any want of sincerity on the part of the noble Lord, for no person could accuse him of that, but earnestness of resolution in all relations of life was absolutely necessary to ensure success.
Mr. T. Duncombe: I am sure the House will excuse me for standing between the explanation of the noble Lord and the observations of the hon. Member for

1621
Bridport, inasmuch as I mean to move an Amendment on the Motion of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, which may also call for some remarks from the noble Lord. Had it been the pleasure of the Government to have made a House yesterday, it was my intention to have given notice of the Amendment which I now mean to propose. I participate most fully in the great disappointment and surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Bridport, at the course which the noble Lord has pursued. Like the hon. Member for Bridport, I followed and fought with the noble Lord in those ranks, which to the last I thought the noble Lord would have commanded, and more particularly as I believed we had arrived at the hour of victory; and I am sure that no circumstance ever occurred which caused greater regret in the country than the noble Lord's decision in reference to the postponement of the discussion until after Easter. Now, Sir, the Amendment I am about to propose will, at least, rescue those who vote for it, from what I consider the well-merited charge of abandoning those principles which they twice recorded, and of surrendering the advantages of which they are at present in possession. It is, after the words, "the Order of the Day, &c., be discharged," to insert these words—
"With a view not only of carrying into effect, in any future measure, the recorded decisions, of this House, that the labour to be performed by young parsons and females should be less than twelve hours a day, but also with a view of maintaining good faith with those whose confidence in the integrity of the votes of this House is indispensable to its character and its existence as a deliberative and representative Assembly."
Now, how stands the case at the present moment? The House has told you, in three divisions, that twelve hours labour was too m twit for females and young persons employed in factories; and the Government, not being able to convince this House (as they, I believe, never will be) that twelve hours is not an unnatural tune for the labour of such persons, have abandoned their Bill, with the assurance from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, "You must take this Bill, or something similar, or you can't get any at all." The noble Lord made a solemn appeal to us, on Friday, to stand by our recorded verdict, and to uphold
1622
our own solemn decision. We owe it to ourselves, that in some shape or other, we should give a pledge to the country, that the Amendment which has been carried, will be introduced on a future occasion. I say, we owe it to the dignity of the House, and to the people, that we should put on record some such sentiment. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department dwelt, on Monday night, on the three courses which Ministers had to pursue. I think it might have suggested itself to him, and if it did not, I beg leave to remind him now, that there was a fourth course they might have taken, and that was, that instead of withdrawing the Bill, they might have withdrawn themselves. So far from such a step being at all impracticable, or causing any regret, nothing would have given greater satisfaction to the country. Instead of that, we are told, the Cabinet have solemnly deliberated and determined on this course, to reverse a solemn decision arrived at three times. The right hon. Gentleman tells us, moreover, that he can boll out no hope of introducing anything short of twelve hours; and vet this House, calling itself a reformed House of Commons, and a deliberative Assembly, suffers the Bill to be withdrawn, and does not place on record any opinions as to the conduct of the Government, and gives no pledge as to their future course. We are to take this Bill, or something like it, or none at all. The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of a captain of a merchantman, who freighted his ship to the West Indies with dry stones and cheese. When the ship arrived the cheese was in great request, but there was no demand for the dry stones. Finding this, the captain said, "If you take my cheese, you must also take my dry stones. I will not part with the one without the other." So the right hon. Gentleman comes with his Factory Regulation Bill in one hand, and his twelve hour dry stones in the other; and he says, if you don't please to take the latter, you shall have neither one nor the other. I think the right hon. Gentleman bids fair, like the West Indian captain, to have the whole freight left on his hands; for, I trust, the House will never allow him to pass a Bill with the twelve hours Clause in it. We, who support the Amendment, are accused, I will not say of improper motives, but here and elsewhere charges are brought against us

1623
which are wholly unjustifiable. The right hon. Gentleman found fault the other evening with the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, because he said, in our new social state, a new system had been pursued. Why, can any one doubt that we have arrived at a new social state, particularly in the manufacturing districts? Look at the appalling distress and discontent that exist: look at the state of our working population, whether agricultural or manufacturing, and look at the increase of crime. Our population, we know, has increased within the last ten years 12 or 13 per cent. And what is the increase of crime? 15 to 18 per cent. annually. Read the charge of Justice Creswell, at the last summer assizes at York. He says, that in Yorkshire and Lancashire, crime has increased twofold within the last seven years. Read Sir A. Henniker's address in Suffolk. Does he not say the labouring population is in a state of discontent, and that it behoves the country gentlemen to remove their grievances? Well, then, is it not true that a change has taken place in our social system, that requires the vigilant care of this House? We are told by certain political economists, on our side, that our attempt to regulate the hours of labour is absurd, and that the grand panacea for all our evils is the repeal of the Corn Laws. Now, I believe, if the Corn Laws were repealed to-morrow, the due limitation of the hours of labour would be more than ever necessary. I have seen with much regret the course taken by the Gentlemen of the Anti-Corn Law League on this subject. I am sorry they have not shown that they, the master manufacturers, are prepared to make sacrifices for the benefit of the people. If they had done so, I think they would have been in a better position to appeal to the landed interest, and call on them to make a sacrifice too by the repeal of the Corn Laws. It is quite clear that the working classes cannot, by possibility, submit to further sacrifices; and that sacrifices must be made by those who are better able to bear them. The whole question now turns on this—is the House prepared, when a new Bill is introduced, to stultify itself, and to become a laughing stock in the eyes of the country? I, for one, do not intend to be dragged through the mire with the noble Lord, or with any right hon. or hon. Gentleman. I shall feel it my duty to place on record my opi-
1624
nion. I have been requested by large bodies of the working classes to state their views; and I shall conclude almost in the words of the solemn appeal made to us the other night, to stand by your solemn and recorded verdict, and not to allow yourselves to be dictated to by Her Majesty's Ministers, or sacrifice your consistency, because the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) may find it inconvenient to oppose the rescinding of the Order of the Day. Neither do I wish to oppose that Motion; but I take this course on the express understanding that the views of the majority of this House shall be sanctioned in any new Bill that is introduced.
The hon. Member concluded by moving the Amendment above announced.
Lord Ashley: Not having had the advantage of hearing the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Bridport, I must be content to rest under any imputations thrown out in the course of it; but he appears to have confounded my views (and to this I do not object, quite the reverse) with those of my noble Friend the Member for Sunderland; so that much of what he has said against me should have been directed against my noble Friend, and much charged upon my noble Friend I have to answer for. But one of his allegations was distinct enough, and that was that I admitted that a ten hours Bill would cause a reduction of wages. Now, what I did say was, "Suppose, for the sake of argument, my proposal would lead to a reduction of wages, the operatives are perfectly ready to meet that reduction," and I stated to the House what were the arrangements by which they could meet the reduction in their wages. Let me now explain to the House in a very few words the grounds of the course I have taken with reference to the present Motion. I began by doing that which it appears the hon. Member for Bridport had not done—I took the advice of those capable of giving it. When the right hon. Gentleman made his statement I confess I was taken by surprise, and so was the House. The House required a certain time to deliberate before it came to a decision. During that interval I consulted many who voted with me, not quite confined to this side, and supposed to have a sympathy with the Government, but a great many on the other side, who gave me that advice which they thought best for the promotion of the question we all had at heart, totally irrespective of consequences to any party. Just see what would have

1625
been the result if I had taken any other course than that I chose. It is quite true that by the vote on the second Clause we had obtained virtually a ten hours Bill, but on the eighth there was an actual decision that the House would have no such thing. The Bill then presented, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a mass of contradictions. It was quite impossible to proceed, and the Government suggested, by way of extricating themselves from the difficulties by which they were surrounded, that they should be allowed to withdraw their Bill on the promise (a very important matter), that another should be substituted for it. My own impression was, that I should yield to that suggestion; but I was confirmed in that view by men of the greatest experience at both sides. Now, observe the effect of my saying "you shall not withdraw your Bill, but you shall try the effect of another debate and division." In the first place I should be compelled to do that which, during eleven years, I have ever avoided—to take a debate and a division on mere technicalities and points of order. I invariably pursued the course—and up to the present time it has prospered—of never taking a debate except on great and intelligible issues. If I put the question on an issue which could lead to no satisfactory result, in any case success was absolutely impossible. I will venture to say, instead of having a majority only of seven against me, as I had on the ten hours Amendment, I should have had 70 or 80, or 100. What position would the question have then been in? Would it not have been taken, if not by the country, most assuredly by the great body of the operatives whom I represented, as a decided expression on the part of this House of hostility to the great object which they so long and so anxiously sought? That was the reason why I took the step I did; but when I was confirmed in that view by men of the greatest experience, and, as I said before, by men not having any sort of sympathy for those at this side, I felt the course I determined upon to be by far the best with reference to this very question. Do not let it be said—for something like it has been insinuated—that I endeavoured to reconcile the interests of those whom I represented with the continuance in office of my political friends. I am not in the habit spargere votes in vulgum ambiguas; and, as I said before I say again, the course I have determined on I shall pursue, irrespective of consequences to any Government
1626
that exists, or that can possibly be formed. The hon. Gentleman says, I compelled him to come down, and then I cannot tell him what course I mean to pursue. Why, I announced on Wednesday how I should act, and the hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot complain of being taken by surprise. But not only he says have I taken him by surprise, but that I asked to be allowed time until after Easter to make up my mind. I said no such thing. If the new Bill were now before us, I should give a positive declaration as to the course I meant to take; but surely I cannot be expected to state that until I see the new Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. If I see the Bill on Monday morning, I shall, if the House wish it, declare what course I shall pursue immediately after the recess. I am very unwilling to discuss comments on my own conduct. I do not know what may be the result of Gentlemen rising to attack me in all directions; but this I will say, I believe I have maintained my tranquillity up to this time; and I can assure the House that tranquillity was not external, but internal, for I have not felt in the least degree angry or exasperated in consequence of the remarks of any one opposed to me; and really if I had, I should have been most unreasonable and ungrateful, for I am sure of this, no one ever received from all sides of the House so many marks of constant and unmerited kindness and courtesy. But allow me to say again, whatever may be the insinuations against me for having used the phrase, I solemnly adjure you to stand by your recorded decision, and I declare, for myself, no earthly consideration shall turn me from the course I have endeavoured to pursue; and, so far as I am concerned, I care not what personal consequences may fall on my own head.
Mr. B. Cochrane: The noble Lord's absence from the House during my remarks does not warrant him in misrepresenting me. I did not charge against the noble Lord that there was an understanding between him and the Government. I said I thought the noble Lord perfectly sincere. I repeated it again and again. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will prove that frankness which characterises him, and of which he boasted to-night, by withdrawing an expression which was not warranted by anything I said. I am not in the habit of dealing in "insinuation." If I thought him guilty of any connivance with Government I should not make the

1627
charge without good grounds, and I should then make it openly and above board. What I did say was, I believed him to be perfectly sincere, though he had, in my opinion, committed an error of judgment.
Lord Ashley: I earl assure the hon. Gentleman I have no hesitation in withdrawing any expression of which he complains. So fat as I gathered from report, I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman said I was unwilling to press my Amendment, lest I should disturb the Ministers ill their places. As he disclaims having said that, I withdraw everything that could have given him the least offence.
Viscount Howick: As I expressed a very strong opinion on the Withdrawal of this Bill, I with to say a few words, particularly as my noble Friend (Lord Ashley) truly said, that I assented to the course which he meant to take. The simple reason on which I agreed to the proposal of my noble Friend was this—that two evenings ago he informed me he had ascertained what was the feeling of his supporters, and he found if he resisted the withdrawal of this Bill, he should lose so large a proportion of his supporters, that he Mud he left in a small minority. I said to him, if that was so, I was quite ready to waive my opinion. I still think, that for those who entertain dear opining, the right and judioious course Would be to resist the Withdrawal of the Bill; but if those who concur in our views object to such a coarse, then it is quite clear it would prejudice our case to have it announced that it was supported but by a small minority, and that I am persuaded thy noble Friend was bound, as is every man having charge of a great subject, to defer in a certain degree to the opinions of his supporters. I further said to my noble Friend—from whom I never for a moment thought of taking the lead on this subject—that if he found that the feeling was against a division on the withdrawal of the Bill, I Would not be the person to divide the tanks of those in favour of a further restriction of the hoots of labour by persevering in the course which, according to my judgment, was the bests But I Still say, that under the very extraordinary circumstances under which we were placed by the course taken by the Government—a coarse anything but respectful to this House and to the majority who voted on a former evening—it would have been better if all acted together to resist the withdrawal of this Bill. Because, what is it we are now called on to do?
1628
Her Majesty's Government have described their course to be this—they are about to obtain the consent of the House to discharge the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this Bill, and, having done so, they mean to introduce a new Bill, which will, it is true, have a different title—which will be called a Bill for Amending the Existing Law as to Factory Labour, instead of a Bill to Repeal the Existing Law, and to Regulate the Labour of Young persons and Women in Factories, but which, in substance and effect, will be precisely the same. Like that Bill, it will for the first time introduce a system of relays in the employment of children; it Will have new regulations as to education; it will impose restrictions on the labour of grown-up women, and like that Bill, and unlike the determination of the House, it will make that restriction twelve hours, and not eleven or ten. I presume that so introduced it will, as a matter of course, be read a first and second time. In the Committee my noble Friend will move precisely the same Amendment he did before; therefore the effect of the course of the Government will ho, that without any division, and with the tacit consent of the parties to the Amendment, our former decision will be reversed. If the Government had determined to do this on the bringing up the Report, or on moving the recommittal of the Bill, we should be in the advantageous position of having already made alterations in the measure, in accordance with our views; but instead of that, they take the indirect and unusual course of virtually defeating the decision of the majority, and placing us after all our debates and but four divisions, exactly where we began. Now, I must say, that this is a most extraordinary course. If the Government were of opinion that they could induce the House to reconsider their judgment, the proper and straightforward proposal would be to move the recommittal of the Bill, in order to go back to the first Clause and consider each Clause ab initio. But in order to gain some temporary advantage, to gain, what they have certainly succeeded in gaining, the advantage of throwing the ranks of the supporters of the Amendment into confusion, and inducing them to surrender, before they were aware of it, aft advantageous position, they have brought things to that pass, that we shall find ourselves in the position in which we were before the discussions and divisions began. I cannot help, then, expressing my regret, that

1629
those who supported my noble Friend did not go along with him in resisting the discharge of the Order of the Day. Suppose that the Amendment of my noble Friend be carried, on coming to the Clause to which it refers in the new Bill, that Measure must be persevered in contrary to the wishes of the Government, or, with a majority in favour of our views, we must acknowledge ourselves defeated, and allow the Government to pass the Measure in any shape they think proper. As to the inconsistency of the two Amendments moved in the present Bill, I think that of no consequence. It is perfectly true there is a technical inconsistency between the first Clause and that amended by my noble Friend; but if either of the propositions to which the House agreed had been settled definitively, the difficulty would have vanished. I understand the meaning of the two decisions to which the House came, to be this—that they desired a compromise. Having rejected the proposal of twelve hours and that of ten, it was clear the majority was in favour of an eleven hours Bill. Now, I think it would have been far better if Government had acceded to that view. Surely they must have a low opinion, indeed, of the energy and enterprise of our manufacturing population, if they supposed that the diminution of an hour in the labour of women and young persons rendered the continuance of our manufacturing superiority impossible. I, for one, do not for one moment entertain such an apprehension. Practically, the workmen and masters would then have found the effect of the reduction, of time, and we should have seen whether there would have been a reduction of wages. In my opinion there would, A less reduction, I doubt not, than there would have been according to the view stated by the Secretary for the Home Department; but still a reduction of wages. The hon. Member for Bridport made a remarkable speech, going over ail the old clap traps of the opponents of the Clause of which he is nominally a supporter, and said he could not at all understand how any one could vote for the Clause with the belief that it would effect a reduction of wages, Now, I think it is quite possible, on the grounds my noble Friend has stated, to support the Clause in that belief. No doubt, a reduction of wages is, in itself, an evil; but this is a question of two evils; which is the least—a reduction of wages, to no very great extent as I believe, or a system of
1630
labour which, we are informed, on the best authority, breaks down the health and strength of those subjected to it? [No, No.] I can only say, that it is the opinion of those best qualified to judge. Of course, I can give no opinion of my own; but I am adducing that of the Inspectors of Factories, whose judgment Her Majesty's Ministers have followed in great part of this Bill; and it is grounded on facts they quote On the authority of medical officers, I am not speaking of men; but for women and children I believe that twelve hours' labour in a day is too much. All I wish to do at present is simply to explain the grounds on which, though I still adhere to the opinion I expressed on a former evening, that the right course for the advocates of a greater reduction of the hours of labour, than that recommended by Her Majesty's Government Was, to resist the withdrawal of the Bill, I have thought it my duty, wishing to do as much as I could in support of the Clause, to waive my own individual opinion, and yield to the judgment of my noble Friend and those with whom he is acting. I can only say, that having made this selection, it is impossible for me to vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. I shall await, during the progress of the Bill, after it has been brought in, a further opportunity of discussing the principle on which the Amendment of my noble Friend is founded.
Sir R. Inglissaid, the only fault he could find with the speech of his noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, was one of omission—that he had not stated with sufficient distinctness, although doubtless it had appeared by implication, what line he meant to take in respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Finsbury. But he had every reason to believe and to know that his noble Friend intended to give a decided negative to that proposition—a course which he, individually, certainly meant to follow. He wished he could have followed in another matter the example of his noble friend; he wished he could have said, as his noble Friend had said, and as the Whole House admitted he was justified in saying, that he had never introduced into that discussion anything like excitement of temper. He regretted that he could not say this, but there were certainly difficulties in dealing with these subjects which, though met of a party character, were, nevertheless, exciting; and, indeed, involved feelings of a higher kind;

1631
still this did not justify such excitement when it led to any breach of Christian charity. He knew his noble friend could say, and the House admitted the correctness of the appeal, that in the discussion of subjects of this high moral character he had never permitted himself any feeling or expression of this kind. He trusted the example set by the noble Lord would be followed; and in the negative he now desired to give to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he was not actuated by any principle of party warfare. He believed he only expressed the feelings of all parties when he declared his regret that such an apple of discord had been thrown in among them by the hon. Member. It might not be inconsistent on the part of the hon. Member, but it was inconsistent with the understanding which his noble Friend expressed two or three evenings ago, that Government should be permitted to withdraw the Bill of which they had charge, while his noble Friend should reserve to himself the unfettered right of exercising his own judgment in respect to the Bill that was to be brought in. When it came before the House it would be competent for any Gentleman to interpose any Amendment that would best carry out the noble principle which they wished to see adopted; but his noble Friend would also be prepared to bring forward his views in that substantive form which the rules of the House might render most available for his success. He believed his noble Friend could not have dealt with the Bill if it had been left in his hands by Government; he would have been defeated on every stage, by delay, if by nothing else; and, therefore, his noble Friend had exercised a sound discretion in the course he had adopted. One word as to an hon. Member who was not present; the hon. Member for Bridport did not insinuate anything against his noble Friend, but he did state this—that, admitting the sincerity of Her Majesty's ministers, they had acted on their views with consistency; and that while no one could doubt the sincerity of his noble Friend (and he was sure no one who had observed his noble Friend, whether in or out of the House, could doubt it), he, at least, had, not carried out his principles with such sternness as Her Majesty's Ministers. This, to his apprehension, was the effect of that statement. He said this because his noble Friend was not in the House at the time, and might have received an erroneous impression.
Mr. Aclandrose with feelings of great embarrassment to endeavour to express the view he took on this question. He was one of those who, feeling a very great responsibility which attached, not merely to those in office, but to every individual Member of Parliament, had made up his mind in the course of the debate, and had voted with his noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire. He did so, not from a feeling that a question like this was to be dealt with by looking exclusively to humane or commercial considerations, for he believed that the question was essentially composed of considerations of both kinds; but he hoped he should not be supposed to say anything at all offensive if he did say what was the fact, that he was much inclined to vote as he had done by some of the speeches which fell from that (the Ministerial) side of the House, against the noble Lord. He did think that, in the earlier speeches delivered on this question, there was a too rigid and exclusive application of abstract principles of political economy. He did not mean, in that House, to use any common-place taunts against political economy; but there were two ways of dealing with the question, and it appeared to him that abstract principles were too strongly urged, and that the practical effect of those arguments was to go against a Factory Bill altogether. It was under the influence of that feeling that he had given his vote for a ten hours Clause. He had been greatly disappointed, (the judgment of the House having been expressed for a compromise, by a decision for something less than twelve hours, and yet, by the refusal to take the whole responsibility of the ten hours system,) that some middle point in this question had not been found. When he read the contemptuous statements directed against those Members who had voted against twelve hours in one division, and against ten in the other, he confessed he could not see what common sense there was in such arguments. After the statements of the hon. Member for Leeds, as well as of Members on the other side of the House, that it was a common practice with millowners to work only for eleven hours, and that this was really the best course that could be adopted, it was surely open to them to embrace that practical amendment, by which they would have obtained an eleven hours Bill. He had endeavoured to form an honest and sincere opinion on this question; the noble Lord, arguing in a different sense, had, far

1633
better than he could, also expressed his feelings as to the situation in which the House was placed. He could only say, if the House was prepared to see some one in the Home-office who would execute as well as carry a ten hours Bill, it might be well to stand out for that Bill; those who thought so, would act on their conviction, and take a course which might be attended with that effect; but he confessed he was not prepared for this, he was not one of those who thought it would be on the whole best to take that course. But those who were not prepared to take that course were not acting wisely or for the honour of the House in determining to adhere to the ten hours clause, without intending to carry it, like those who stepped up to the breach, and then shrunk from mounting the walls. He thought it better to pause in time. Independent Members on both sides had come forward and taken a very great responsibility, they had expressed an independent and honest opinion; having done so, if they meant only to protest, they had done enough—if they wished for a change of Government, let them carry out their opinions. He meant to protest in favour of the principle of protection for labour, and that principle he hoped to see carried out eventually. He did not mean, however, to insist on a ten hours Bill during the present Session; it appeared to him impossible; or, if possible, he was not prepared to say it would be worth so high a price. [Cheers.] Well, Gentlemen opposite might cheer; he knew such remarks on a change of Government were always laughed at. He must allude once more to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Lancashire (Lord Stanley); he was of opinion that those who voted as he did on the two first divisions ought to be most thankful to the noble Lord for placing the position of the question so clearly before them. It was not a question of principle; the principle of protection to labourers was admitted; but the question was, whether they were prepared at all risks to carry a ten hours' clause at present, or to accept as much protection as they could carry with the consent and concurrence of her Majesty's Government, and of a very large proportion, nay a very great majority, of the manufacturers interested in the question. He would rather accept this alternative. He preferred such a change as would be agreeable to the great body of the manufacturers: he thought it desirable, too, that those who carried a ten hours
1634
Bill should also be those who were to work it. It appeared to him impossible that a ten hours' clause should be carried against the Government, and that they should be obliged afterwards to execute it. He hoped he had not now put himself forward in a position which some might think unseemly. With respect to the course of the Government, they did not yet know what the Bill about to be brought in was to be. He would only say, that the confidence he placed in the Government, on most occasions, would be much impaired if they were now to turn round and say they were prepared at once to carry a ten hours Bill. He retained the right of taking a perfectly free course as to the details of the clauses. The noble Lord's proposal would not give a ten hours clause in less than two years and a half. During that time he trusted the principle of protection to labour would he cleared from some of the asperities and difficulties by which it was surrounded; and the Government would find some reason to moderate somewhat the harsh principles they had applied to this question, and to yield to the increasing public opinion in favour of that mitigation of the horrors of the factory system advocated by the noble Lord.
Lord J. Russell: It appears to me, Sir, that the speech just delivered by the hon. Member has somewhat changed the position of this question as it affects the House. But, before I allude to anything which that hon. Gentleman said, I wish to make some remarks on the difficulties of the position in which the noble Lord who was the mover of the question, and the House, are placed. I cannot but think, I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion, that the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman now makes, coupled with the intimation as to the nature of the Bill he proposes to introduce, cannot fail to be a blow to the authority of this House. That course, no doubt, is the west convenient which the Government could adopt for itself; but with respect to this House, I fear its authority must suffer by their proceedings in this matter. Whet is the state in which it now stands? There have been no less than four divisions on this subject. I certainly had understood, from the statement of my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, that he had come to some understanding with the Government that the question with respect to ten hours or twelve hours should be taken, not on the eighth, but on the second Clause

1635
of the Bill, and that upon the Amendment he was then to propose, the question between those two different periods of labour was to be decided. The House decided on two separate divisions after two nights' debate, separated by the Saturday and Sunday, in a full House, with an opportunity for every person to attend who chose to be present at the discussion, in favour of the noble Lord's proposition. The right hon. Gentleman then declared that he would take—not accepting the decision come to by the House on the second Clause—a discussion and division upon the eighth Clause. On a subsequent night there were two divisions on the eighth Clause; in the first of these the House again put its negative on the period of twelve hours; in the second, on the period of ten. Therefore, the result of the deliberations of the House was, that there had been three divisions against the period of twelve hours, and one against that of ten hours. If the Bill had gone on, either in the hands of Government or in those of the noble Lord, it would have been necessary for the House to come to some decision, either avowedly reversing its former decisions in favour of ten hours, or adopting the middle course of eleven hours. But the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the House should now, by withdrawing the Bill, consent to frustrate altogether the three separate divisions by which the House decided that they would not consent to the time of twelve hours, and that the House should consent to the introduction of a Bill which should contain, as part of its provisions, twelve hours labour for those persons who, by the decision on the second Clause, were to be restricted to ten. Sir, it is impossible that that can be done, and done in this way, without a complete reversal of the decision of the House, shaking the opinion of the country generally as to its consistency. Why, then, was that course not pursued by the noble Lord? I think on grounds very sufficient, which, while they leave the mischief of injuring the authority of the House, must yet be paramount to him, as refers to the question itself, with respect to which, for so many years, he has shown so much perseverance. I cannot but think, with my noble Friend near me, and others, that if it had been made a question in this House whether Government should be permitted to withdraw the Bill they had themselves brought forward, there would then have been an opportunity for repre-
1636
senting to their supporters, whether friendly to the noble Lord or not, that, in refusing to allow the Bill brought in by Government to be withdrawn, they were not behaving with that due regard, respect, and reverence which the Executive Government has a right to expect. The question then would have been changed, and that mischief which my noble Friend has always wished to avoid would have been incurred. Instead of arguing simply on the question to twelve hours or ten hours labour, it would have been confounded with the degree of confidence and support which the House wishes to give to the Government of the day; and my noble Friend would have had a defeat on the legislative question while, in fact, the question was rather one as to the grounds and the degree of support to be given to the Ministers of the Crown—there being also many of my Friends near me who take the same views as the Government on this subject. Therefore, I entirely concur with my noble Friend that there would have been a considerable majority against him on this question, and he would have prejudiced the cause of those whom he defends; and I differ entirely from the hon. Member for Finsbury as to the charge which the hon. Member brought against my noble Friend, of deserting those whose cause he has undertaken. I think, as respects that, my noble Friend has taken the wisest and most judicious course. At the same time, I did not attempt to influence the noble Lord's decision; and if he had come to the opposite determination, that it was wise to oppose the withdrawal of the Bill, I certainly should have appeared here to have given my vote with him against that withdrawal. I come now to a very different question, which is, the mode in which my noble Friend, suffering under the disadvantages he has to encounter, is to treat the Bill which it is proposed to bring in. The Government, as I have already said, getting rid of the whole of the decisions of the House by a course which, though convenient to them, is the least fair they could have chosen, it remains for the noble Lord to consider what course he is to take, so as to bring this question as simply, clearly, and fairly as possible to issue on the point on which he wishes it to be tried; and he will do it, I have no doubt, in such a way that it will be properly a question of legislation which it is competent for this House peculiarly to decide

1637
on its own merits. Because, let us recollect, after the doctrines we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman when in opposition—doctrines which it now appears in office they are following out consistently—Acts of Parliament are passsd by the Queen's Majesty, not with the advice and consent of Her Majesty's confidential advisers of Her Majesty's Cabinet Council, but with the advice and consent of her Lords and Commons in Parliament assembled—so that what we have to consider with respect to any Bills brought forward, which are hereafter to be enacted into laws, is whether we can take on ourselves the responsibility of passing the law with these provisions—looking at it as it may, in its consequences, affect the great body of the people of this country. I do not think that any gentleman has a right to escape from that responsibility which belongs to him as a Member of Parliament, by saying "I think it very cruel, and a great hardship, that young persons of thirteen or fourteen years of age should be kept for twelve hours in a factory; but it is a question between their submitting to that labour, or bringing about a change of Government." Neither do I think that Government have a right to make it a question on which their influence as a Government is to be exerted to the utmost, nor that any one has a right to escape from his responsibility by saying, "I shut my eyes to the merits of the question; I will not look into them; but I have great confidence and trust in the Executive, and as they have declared they will not submit to this change, I will not vote for it." I must declare this, because I see that this question is undergoing a great change, from the manner in which it is placed before us. I certainly had understood at first that Government, having done what was properly their duty in this matter, by considering the subject with the best attention they could give it, and its bearings on the interests of those who were to be affected by it, had placed it before the House of Commons as a legislative body, to affirm or deny the propositions contained in that which was hereafter to be an Act of the Legislature. But it appears, according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, that, we are hereafter to have an entirely different question to consider, and that Government are disposed to say, "We think it will be so detrimental to our views, so injurious to our interests, if
1638
the opinion of the House is against ours, that all our influence is to be exerted in the question; and therefore we call on our supporters, and not as they are convinced by the merits of the question itself, nor as they are prompted by the statements we shall make to them, but as they wish the Government to be maintained, and no change to take place—to vote for twelve hours." I fear that such an opinion, and it is one which seems to prevail on the Benches opposite, will produce a change, and a very detrimental change, even in the constitution of the country. I do not think it will be for the advantage of the country, if a Government is to consider itself bound to carry every Measure in this House exactly in the shape they propose it. I have heard that doctrine stated, especially I believe, by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, when they were sitting on these (the Opposition) Benches. Perhaps then they were disposed to require more than could properly be assented to; I would much rather see them change their views on this subject, and disposed to take counsel of the House. If this House were to come to any vote which really shows any want of confidence in them as an Executive, they might then consider it as a proof that the House could no longer put trust in them. But with respect to these large questions of legislation, affecting the whole body of the people, of whose feelings many Members from the places they represent must be cognizant, I do hope that this House is to retain some of its legislative authority, and that the Members are not merely to vote as puppets, according to their party purposes or opinions.
Sir R. Peel: I quite admit the just distinction which the noble Lord has drawn between the functions and responsibility of an individual Member of the House of Commons, and those of a Member of the Executive Government. The noble Lord has justly said the Members of the Executive are responsible to the Sovereign for the advice they give; that they stand in a different relation to the Sovereign from that in which Members of the House of Commons stand; and that it is incumbent on Members of this House, acting in their capacity as legislators, well to weigh the merits of every question, and to consider whether or not they are ready to become

1639
responsible for the particular consequences of their legislation. With respect to the last, the noble Lord will admit that the Members of the Executive Government, although they stand in a certain relation towards the Sovereign, have the same privileges as other Members of Parliament, and are bound by the same obligations; and that it is necessary that they, in their legislative capacity, should consider whether they will become responsible for the consequences of any acts of legislation. If they doubt the policy of them, it is their duty and their privilege to consider those acts as Members, and give their advice to Parliament as to how they may affect the public interests. The noble Lord says, and says truly, that with respect to many great measures the sense of the Legislature ought to prevail; that if no great principle be involved, and very dangerous consequences are not expected to result, then Government ought not to declare to Parliament that they stake their existence as a Government on any particular measure, but are bound, on certain occasions, to pay proper deference to the expressed opinions of their supporters. The noble Lord, however, is not always willing to act on these principles, because when we have had to make concessions to the apparent weight of the majority, on matters not involving principle, or any very important consequence, the noble Lord, and some of his friends, have taunted us with yielding our own opinions, and adopting those of a majority. I take, for instance, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill. [Lord J. Russell: The majority was on the other side.] I beg pardon, the opinion of the House on that Bill was very decisively expressed; and we were told, there would be no hope whatever of proceeding into a Committee on the Bill. I quite agree with the noble Lord, it is not on every occasion that this menace is to be held out, and I am not aware, that in the course of the discussions on this measure, any unseemly menace was held out by Government. We have felt it to be our duty to deliberate, not to act hastily; we have felt that measures of great importance should not be carried by very small majorities, when an opportunity might be afforded, by delay, to consider the consequences. We thought the constitutional practice of this House was, to permit opportunities of frequent deliberation on legislative mea-
1640
sures. The noble Lord is prepared to say, that one decision or two, carried by a small majority, ought to be conclusive. If that be so, let us at once reduce the number of stages through which a Bill must necessarily pass, which number has been expressly provided in order that when opinions appear much divided, or nearly balanced, opportunity may be given for re-considering the decision. There is nothing inconsistent with constitutional usage, or Parliamentary propriety, in taking the sense of the House again on the very same question which has been involved before. Why have we taken this course? On the first night, Gentlemen on the opposite side, as well as on this side of the House, who came to different conclusions from our own, expressly stated that it was a matter of great doubt. If I recollect right, the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, stated, that he had great difficulty in making up his mind: the noble Lord, the Member for London, himself admitted, that it was a matter of the greatest difficulty. We found that, with respect to this Measure, those responsible for its execution, and for the commercial interests of this country, had always contended against a further limitation of labour than twelve hours. When the Bill was introduced by our predecessors, that was the principle laid down. I say not a word against the noble Lord for the change of his opinions; such changes, when produced by subsequent consideration, a public man is not only entitled to, but called upon to avow. I concede, at once, that this change of opinion was the consequence of mature deliberation, and new light thrown upon the subject. But the noble Lord will admit to me, that if I found his Government, when responsible for the consequences, insisting upon the course we are inclined to take, though it entitles me to throw no reflection upon him, it at least offers an element in the decision of the Government, whether they shall give more time to consider. And do I not know how much pain the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the late President of the Board of Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, men holding situations which gave them peculiar authority to speak upon this subject, must have felt when they were compelled to dissent from the noble Lord opposite—dissenting from him, but adhering

1641
to the opinions they had formerly expressed—dissenting, as I do now, reluctantly and with pain, from those with whom I have generally acted. And is not that again a justification of the present Government for entreating the House to pause, and calmly and deliberately to consider the consequence of the present course? It is said, why do you not admit a compromise? It is true there are many cases in which I think a compromise may be the natural solution of a difficulty. In ordinary cases, a Government would be justified in resorting to a compromise. But the policy of admitting a compromise must always depend upon circumstances, and upon the nature of the question. Having deliberately considered this subject for two years, we approached it with the strongest conviction upon our minds, that it was not advisable to propose, or to accede to, a further limitation of the hours of labour, excepting only in one case which we thought grew naturally out of past legislation upon the subject. We found upon the Statute Book an Act which imposed upon the labour of young persons a restriction to twelve ours—we found the existing state of the law to be this—that no person between the age of thirteen and eighteen, should be allowed to work more than twelve hours. The consequence is, that adult women perform the work of young persons; the result of that step in Legislation is, that you encourage the employment of women above the age of eighteen. Now, it might not be wise to interfere if there had not been legislation before; but as you have restricted the time of the labour of young persons to twelve hours, you injuriously affect the position of adult females, by giving an encouragement to the employment of them. Now, all we said was this: we will place adult females upon precisely the same footing upon which the Legislature has placed young persons. If we are wrong, the remedy appears to be, to omit the Clause in the Bill relating to this point. But the lesson to be taught by this is, the danger of further interference. The consequence which interference entails, is the necessity for further interference, for the purpose of redressing the inconveniences arising from the past legislation. The lesson, then, we ought to learn from interference is, rather to avoid than to sanction it. But it is by no means a legitimate argument
1642
to say, "You are yourselves interfering with labour, and therefore we will not admit of your new enactment, but require you to carry out your principle here." If you object to our Act, on the ground of it being a new interference, correct it by omitting the Clause; but it is no logical consequence to contend that interference ought therefore to be carried further. Still it might have been possible for the Government to propose a compromise. If we had proposed eleven hours, we should, I have no doubt, have had a majority; but unless we were convinced that that compromise was a wise one—unless we were convinced that that compromise was a practical and permanent adjustment of the question—I must contend that it was our duty, as responsible Ministers of the Crown, not to consent to relieve ourselves from present difficulties at the expense of causing permanent evils. Of this I am sure. No man can more deeply regret when circumstances place me in opposition to the wishes and opinions of Friends who give such constant and regular support to the Government; but there are occasions, as I before remarked, when if a Government does discharge the duty of responsible advisers of the Crown, they must set themselves in opposition to the wishes and feelings of their friends, and by apparent hostility give effect to their conscientious intentions. The way to secure lasting confidence and respect is to act upon principle. Three months hence the country and my hon. Friends themselves will hold us in higher confidence and estimation for being determined, so far as we can, to act upon our principles and not to yield to those of others. But why do we refuse the compromise of eleven hours? First, let me say, that I will not enter upon the merits of the question of eleven hours now. Subsequent deliberation and communications addressed to me from different parts of the country prove to me that the country was taken by surprise; and when we come to the discussion of the question itself, I shall be enabled to show that a further limitation of the time of labour than a limitation to twelve hours would be productive of most injurious consequences to the manufactures and commerce of this country; but, above all, it would be productive of most signal injury to the labourers of this country. I will net, as I have said, now prejudge the question, but I do believe it will be possible to clearly

1643
demonstrate this position at the proper time. As regards this question being one of principle or one of degree, the question is this—whether you will impose a further limitation practically to the hours of labour? It is not, in one sense, a question of principle. We are imposing no maximum or minimum of labour; we impose a maximum, but we leave it open to the parties concerned, by agreement among themselves, to work for a period as much less as they may think proper. It has been said, that in many great towns the operatives do practically work for only eleven hours a-day. When you say that, can you better show the merit, practically, of the principle we are adhering to than by showing that by voluntary agreement parties are actually working for a less time, although we propose to protect them from the imposition of a greater. But I will revert to the question—what was the objection to accepting eleven hours as a compromise? If a compromise was to be made, it would have been more satisfactory to the Government and more congenial to their feelings, to have acceded to the wishes of nay noble Friend upon this point, than any man in this House. To say nothing of personal feelings of respect, my noble Friend has a right to be looked upon as a leader in this cause. My noble Friend knows very well that the disagreement between us is one of opinion, and that it was solely on account of his conscientious adherence to his own, that he is not now a Member of Her Majesty's Government. That fact only shows that Her Majesty's Government maturely considered this question two years ago, and nothing but the strongest conviction of its propriety and justice could induce them to forego the assistance of my noble Friend. Therefore, if a compromise was to have been made, I would rather have taken the proposal of my noble Friend for ten hours, because I know that eleven hours never could have been satisfactory to my noble Friend and those who think with him on this subject; not, indeed, because they have pledged themselves to ten hours, but because the argument went to show this, that if you adopted ten hours instead of twelve, there would be a possibility of making those domestic arrangements which have been dwelt upon in regard to the comfort of the home of the operative; that there would be a saving of time, and that the means would be afforded of preparing
1644
meals at home, which would compensate to the families for the reduction of wages. But that argument does not apply to the reduction of the time to eleven hours; and to have consented to that would, therefore, have been a concession of our own opinions, but without those countervailing advantages which my noble Friend has represented as resulting from the proposal he has submitted. Not, then, from a mere obstinate adhesion to our own opinions has it been that we have not entertained this compromise of eleven hours, but from the conviction that we should thereby weaken our position, and that without gaining those corresponding advantages which we might possibly obtain from consenting to the proposal for ten hours; so that we should not, by consenting to the eleven hours, give to the working-classes that which it has been represented would be regarded by them as a compensation for that reduction in wages which, if there be truth in the figures of arithmetic, or in the first principles of commercial calculation, must inevitably attend a reduction of the time of labouring. These, then, are the general principles for which we must contend. We have not adopted lately nor hastily the opinions we have avowed. I had hoped that the opportunities for deliberation which have occurred would have induced the House to take a different view of the case. However, Her Majesty's Government have felt that there is no alternative but to steadily persevere in their own opinions, and they strongly and confidently hope that, in the result, the calm and deliberate judgment of the House will be found to be with them.
Mr. C. Woodwished to say a few words, as the representative of a large manufacturing community, and as he had not had an opportunity of taking any part in the discussions which had already taken place upon the Factories' Bill. Though he could not conceal from himself that the position in which the question now stood, would tend to stimulate the agitation which existed, though it might disappoint the hopes, and alienate from the Legislature the confidence of the people, yet he comforted himself, and estimated these evils far more lightly than others, because he believed that a very small number of the working men themselves really wished for shortening the hours of labour, except under the belief—a belief which had been

1645
expressed by the hon. Member for Bridport—that the shortness of time would not reduce the amount of their wages. He wished, on this occasion, simply to state one fact. Representing, as he did, a large manufacturing town, the entire neighbourhood of which was studded with mills, and occupied by a large population which would be affected by this Bill, he had not, up to this hour, from any body or set of men, or from any individual in that neighbourhood, received a representation on the subject, or a request to vote in favour of the short-time Clause. Was it possible that this would have been the case, if there existed, as had been so frequently stated, a universal and general feeling in favour of that Measure. Placed in the difficulty in which the Government had been, be thought that they had adopted a prudent and proper course. Though some mischief might arise from the disappointment of the hopes which had been excited by the vote of the House, yet, he thought if these hopes had been realised, and that the time had been shortened to the extent advocated by the noble Lord, the Member for Dorsetshire, or even if eleven hours, which would not satisfy the country, had been adopted, a more serious blow would have been given to the commercial prosperity of the country, and a more serious injury would have been inflicted upon the prosperity and well-being of the labourers themselves. He thought it right to this extent to express his opinion on this occasion; not that he was presumptuous enough to suppose any weight would attach to his individual opinion, but believing it to be in perfect accordance with the feelings of the large constituency he represented. He hoped this opinion would have some weight, coming from thousands of labourers who would be affected for good or evil by legislation on this subject.
Viscount Palmerstonwas not about to enter upon the general subject, or even state the grounds upon which he had given his hearty support to his noble Friend; but he must say, if the right hon. Baronet imagined the country had been taken by surprise by the votes that had been given, the right hon. Gentleman must suppose that the country was more easily surprised than roused. Seeing that the question had been so frequently and repeatedly discussed, there was no ground upon which the country could feel surprise at
1646
the decision which had been arrived at. That Government had been surprised he could believe; but it arose from their not being sufficiently aware of the feelings of Gentlemen on their own side. It was perfectly true, as the right hon. Baronet had said, that if the Government were convinced that the proposal they had made was essential to the interests of the country, they were quite justified in not being satisfied with one or two divisions upon it. But it did appear to be an unusual course that they should not only take the sense of the House repeatedly upon the Bill before them, but that they should withdraw that Bill as they were about to do, and then by another Act to replace the House in the same position as when the Bill was first brought in. He agreed that his noble Friend, Lord Ashley, had no choice but to submit to that course, and he was not prepared to make an objection to that course. He was willing to submit to it with other Gentlemen; but at the same time, it was his intention, if his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury should press his Amendment to a division, to vote with him; because, although, he was willing, from inability to make a successful resistance, to acquiesce in the course the Government intended to pursue, he yet thought that it would be expedient that the House should, in consenting to the withdrawal of the Bill, state at the same time that they did not do so from any intention of abandoning the decision they had previously come to, so that it might be carried into effect in the progress of the Bill about to be brought in. He regretted that the Government, whatever might be the preference that they entertained for the period of twelve hours labour, should not, after such repeated expressions of the opinion of that House in favour of the period of ten hours, have been prepared to accept the compromise that might have been made of eleven hours. He could not deem the reasons against it which he had heard to be satisfactory, when he remarked that the Government was not standing upon a principle, but simply a question of degree. They themselves, as the right hon. Baronet had admitted, had extended the principle to a class of persons to which it had not before been applied. In reducing the hours of labour of families, therefore, the question whether the whole of that labour should be reduced to eleven instead of twelve hours, was a question of degree,

1647
and not of principle; and he thought the Government might have yielded to what appeared to be the sense of a majority of that House.
Mr. W. Williamsrequested the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Amendment. Although he agreed in the principle, he saw no good to result from a division.
Amendment negatived. Main question agreed to. Order for committing the Bill discharged. Bill withdrawn.

IMPORT DUTIES.
Upon the Motion that the Order of the Day for the House to go into a Committee of Supply be read,
Mr. Ewartsaid, it was with sincere reluctance that he rose to bring forward, on the question of going into a Committee of Supply, the important subject of which he had given notice; he, however, felt justified in doing so, because the matter had not received on a former occasion, that due attention which its importance ought to ensure from Her Majesty's Government. The House had now for some hours been occupied in discussing the hours of employment of the operatives of the country. He now proposed to bring under consideration the means of employment afforded to those operatives. The Motion which he was about to submit to the House embraced three divisions; first, the Import Duties imposed upon raw materials of manufactures; the second division has reference to the Duties upon articles of subsistence; and the last to the Duties on those articles in which the smuggling trade was concerned. In a manufacturing country like this nothing was more important than the supply of what was called "the raw material," in order that the machinery of the mills and factories should be kept employed, and the most important was the supply of the raw materials upon which the cotton and woollen trades of the country depended. The importation of the article of raw cotton was loaded with a duty of 2s. 11 d. per cwt., a duty which was most oppressive to the manufacturers of this country. It had almost now become a trite axiom of political economy that the raw material ought not to be taxed, and that principle had been adopted by the right hon. Baronet opposite in his tariff, but only in reference to some petty articles such as drugs, dyes, and other similar articles, which were only subsidiary or ancillary to manufactories. The real way
1648
to have begun would have been to have taken off the duties on the raw materials of the cotton and woollen trade. If the right hon. Baronet had begun with the centre, instead of touching the circumference of trade, he would have effected one of the greatest possible benefits and improvements to the commerce and manufactures of this country. Every day there was an increased demand for manufactures, and every day the oppressiveness of the duty on raw cotton became more severely felt. Again, it was rendered more oppressive in consequence of the competition with foreign nations to which this country was exposed. France had done away with the duty on raw cotton, America had the raw material grown within herself, and the German Commercial Union had no duty whatever upon the raw material of the cotton manufactures. He begged to refer to the statements made by the President of the United States, and by the Secretary of the Treasury, in their late addresses to Congress on this subject. The President, in his message of December, 1843, said, "The German Zollverein will admit our cotton free of duty," and the Secretary of the Treasury stated, "the basis of a commercial convention had just been agreed upon with the Zollverein, which, if sanctioned, admits our cotton free of all duty." Therefore, as this immense confederation of Commercial Germany admitted cotton free, could this country long stand the competition, if she did not adopt a similar course? He felt justified in calling upon the House to follow an example so worthy of imitation. He was satisfied that if the duty were taken off, Liverpool would become the market or emporium of raw cotton for all the world. On a former occasion he had alluded to the Duties on sheep's wool; that duty formed the second section of his present Motion. At present an Import Duty of ½d. per lb. was levied on all sheep's wool which was of less value than ls. per lb. and a duty of 1d. per lb. on all sheep's wool, the value of which exceeded 1s. per lb. Both these duties were, he maintained, extremely oppressive, and the more so because the latter wools, being derived from Germany, had to pay an export duty on leaving the Prussian dominions of ¾d. per 1b. This afforded an additional reason why the Import Duty on this country should be taken off. With respect to the duty on the cheaper wools, it was every day

1649
becoming more and more inconvenient to commerce. Upon this article, like the last, France, America, and Germany, had no duties, and it was most unfair to the manufacturers of the country that they should be placed in competition with them with the impost of those Duties. It had, he believed, been understood as arranged when the export Duties had been taken off British wool, the Import Duties on foreign wool should be taken off too; and good faith, as well as good policy, required that this arrangement should be carried into effect. The next division of the subject of which he wished to treat was the policy of lowering the duties on tea, sugar, and coffee. The altered habits of the people of the country, whether arising from Temperance Societies, or whatever cause, called upon Parliament to adopt some steps which would give them these articles, almost of existence, at a lower rate. The duties of which he complained did not fall heavily on the wealthier classes; but, on the contrary, the poor were the chief sufferers. There was, however, one way in which the whole commercial interest would be great sufferers, and it was this:—the Chinese would not continue long to take our manufactures, if they were, in all time to come, obliged to pay for them in silver or gold. If we did not take their goods more freely in exchange, we could not long continue to preserve a commercial intercourse with them. He felt very strongly the evils of the existing system, and he was the more impelled to raise up his voice against it, seeing the extent to which it interfered with the corn-forts of the poorer classes; for they were the chief sufferers from the adulteration of tea, sugar, and coffee, and that fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew as well as he did. He knew that, in urging these considerations, he was addressing himself to an unwilling House; but, though hon. Members did not attend to those subjects, the people did, and they had a right to call upon their Representatives to alter the laws. The other evening, when addressing the House on this subject, he referred to articles the high duties on which had a tendency to encourage smuggling. He would ask hon. Members, did any man in the country think that the continuance of such duties could be favourable to the morality of the people? He brought these topics before the House actuated by none ether than a conscientious feeling that it
1650
was his duty so to do; and if hon. Members opposite came down there to while away an hour in private conversation, they might do so if they pleased; he should treat their interruptions with the most entire indifference. He then proceeded to observe, that while England was slumbering, other nations were doing all in their power to reduce their Import Duties. The Report even of the Excise Commissioners showed that, however late, we ought to follow that example. It was well known that when Mr. Pitt was Minister he greatly increased the actual amount of the revenue by diminishing the Import Duties; for increased consumption more than made up the difference. With respect to silks, there could not be a doubt that the Duty on their Import ought to be reduced to 10 or 15 per cent., and if that had been the rate of duty for some time past, the late frauds in the Customs department would never have been committed. Had the duties been low, no temptation to commit fraud would have existed. The hon. Member then went on to notice the conversation which at this time was going forward at the other side of the House, and to say he did not know whether it was intended by that manifestation of indifference to insult a Member who had felt it to be his duty to bring a Motion like the present under the consideration of Parliament. [Lord Stanley: "Not in the least."] The manner of the noble Lord was considered by hon. Members near him to indicate a feeling of which it was thought he had a right to complain. [On the Motion of Mr. Hume the House was counted, but there being upwards of forty Members present, the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) continued.]—He thought the most politic course would be to adopt a general scheme, not to reduce seriatim, not to make alterations one by one, but rather to adopt a comprehensive system whereby the gain on one article would be made to compensate for the loss upon another. In conclusion, he would tell the House that the object of his Motion was to extend employment for the people, to cheapen the articles which they consumed, and to remove the temptations to smuggling. He felt that in making this Motion he was not so much addressing the House as he was addressing the public, through the press; and, though Members opposite might interrupt him, yet he did hope that he should nevertheless be supported in a manner

1651
such as the occasion merited. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an Amendment, that—
"It is indispensable to the maintenance and extension of the trade of this country that those duties he repealed which press on the raw materials of manufacture, especially the raw materials of the woollen and cotton trade. That it is expedient also that those duties be greatly reduced which press on articles of interchange in return for our manufactures; especially such articles of interchange as, at the same time, concern the subsistence of the people; being (besides corn, which is the subject of superior and separate consideration) such articles as tea, sugar, coffee, bacon, butter, and cheese. That it is expedient that those duties also be greatly reduced which, by their amount, encourage smuggling; being at once injurious to the revenue and dangerous to the morality of the country; such as the duties on tobacco, silk goods, and foreign spirits. That whatever temporary deficiency of revenue be caused by such reduction, ought, until the revenue regain its former amount, to be sustained by the property, and not by the trade and labour of the country."
Mr. Humewho seconded the Motion, complained that his hon. Friend, when he brought forward a Motion calculated to relieve that distress, was met with nothing but interruptions, and Members did not think it worth their while to attend in sufficient numbers to make what is called a House. Such was now the distressed and demoralized condition of the people, that the Legislature found it necessary to take charge of the children of the poor; for the English people had sunk into a condition so savage that they could not be intrusted with the care of their own offspring. Such were the effects produced by bad Legislation, and by the practical working of monopolies, class interests combined with other causes to extract nothing but evil from the proceedings of the House of Commons. It was most lamentable that the Government would not be prevailed upon to look into the origin of the present distress. What his hon. Friend had said of the prevalence of discontent, was perfeetly true; but he need not resort to the authority of his hon. Friend, the Magistrates could bear witness to it, and the reeking corn-stacks throughout the country, were evidence of it. He found in a newspaper of that morning the following remarks:—
"Since the observations of Sir J. Graham and Lord Henniker in the House of Commons on Friday last, relative to the spread of incen-
1652
diarism in Suffolk, we have received accounts of some very alarming fires in this county (Suffolk). On Saturday night we witnessed an awful conflagration at Capel, which was visible from Ipswich; and in the previous evening a fire occurred at Hitcham. A fact which we have just learned in connexion with the last-mentioned fire, goes some way to explain the cause of these lamentable events, and fully sustains the views so well laid before the Grand Jury by the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions, in the Shire-hall, in this town, a few days ago. At this moment no less than forty labourers are without employment in the parish of Hitcham, where work is difficult to be obtained, and numbers are unable to procure it: wages generally tend downward; so that we find two powerful causes of discontent in operation among our rural population,—low wages and want of employment. It is idle to conceal the fact too, that these are greatly augmented by the severity of the Poor Law, which indeed is built on the theory that the labourers should be forced to obtain work, which work, it is improperly assumed, can be obtained by every honest and able-bodied man."
It was true that that law was constructed on the idea that every labourer should provide himself with work, yet Legislation prevented him getting work, or getting food. Nevertheless his hon. Friend on that the second occasion on which he had brought forward the subject of diminishing the burthens which pressed upon industry, was not listened to by the House of Commons. The House had heard many tales of distress: were they aware how much of that distress arose from causes which his hon. Friend, by his propositions sought to remove? He must say, he felt it was disgraceful to a reformed House of Commons not to listen to the practical suggestions of his hon. Friend. In a few minutes the House would go into a Committee of Supply, where they would be called on to vote away hundreds of thousands of pounds, and on these occasions there were seldom present more than forty or fifty Members of that House, which ought to be the guardian of the public purse. That was discreditable to the House of Commons. He was sorry to say, that the electors did not seem to him to have the wisdom or the knowledge to prevent this kind of legislation. He must repeat, that in the present state of the country, he thought it was not creditable to the House not to have listened to his hon. Friend. The House of Commons, he fully believed, had the power of removing the evils with which the country was afflicted—the mi-

1653
sery, the fires, and the destitution which was going on owing to a course of bad Legislation.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion, had indulged in an attack upon the House of Commons generally, rather than addressed himself to the subject before them. To that charge he as a Member of the House, felt that he was not justly subject, and he should not reply to it further than to say that if the hon. Gentleman who made this Motion had been interrupted in the course of his proceedings on this question, those interruptions had taken place rather from the opinion entertained by the House, and especially by those hon. Gentlemen who sat on the same side of it with the hon. Gentleman, that the mode the hon. Member had adopted with respect to the question, was rather calculated to bring forward his individual opinion than to secure the concurrence of a majority of the House. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) must recollect, that, if the hon. Gentleman had been interrupted, the interruption on two several occasions had proceeded from hon. Gentlemen on the hon. Member's own side of the House; for, on the former occasion the hon. Member for Cheltenham, and on this, the hon. Gentleman himself, had moved that the House be counted, so little did the hon. Member think it for the advantage of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ewart's) views that he should proceed in addressing the House. Now, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had great confidence in the judgment of the hon. Member for Montrose on such occasions; the hon. Member had had much experience. He thought that the hon. Member's judgment with respect to the Motion, was to be gathered far more from his Motion for putting a stop to the speech of his hon. Friend than from the philippic which he had since pronounced on the House, and with which he had occupied his speech, not being able to say any thing in favour of the Motion. He must repeat, that he thought the hon. Gentleman must have made this Motion rather with a view of expounding his own principles with respect to taxation than with any expectation of obtaining the concurrence of the House to his propositions, or producing any practical result; for, of course, no man on the one side of the House or the other, whether a Member of the Go-
1654
vernment or the Opposition, could doubt the general principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman—that all taxes were evils in themselves; that taxes on raw materials were disadvantageous to manufactures; that it was not desirable to tax raw materials; and that it was not desirable to impose taxes to a greater amount than could be readily collected. These principles every hon. Member would be prepared to admit; but there were nevertheless grave and serious objections to placing upon the Journals a proposition of this kind. What was the hon. Gentleman's first proposition? "That it is indispensable to the maintenance and extension of the trade of this country that those duties be repealed which press upon the raw materials of manufacture, especially the raw materials of the woollen and cotton trade." This was the general proposition of the hon. Gentleman; but had the hon. Gentleman, he wished to ask, considered how far the principle he there laid down tallied with the papers on the Table respecting the cotton and woollen trade? those papers showed this—that, notwithstanding the duties which related to those trades still subject as they were to that pressure as the hon. Gentleman described it, they were not so much affected by them as to afford any pretence for saying that it was indispensable that such duties should be removed From the returns on the Table, it appeared that in 1842 there were imported 4,200,000 cwt. of cotton wool. In 1843 there were 5,200,000 cwt. imported; making Fan increase of 1,000,000 cwt. in one year, under the pressure of that duty, which the hon. Gentleman said it was indispensable for the maintenance and extension of the trade should be removed. Again, what was the value of the exports of cotton goods? In 1842 the value of the cotton exports was 21,740,000 l.; in 1843, it was 23,440,000 l.; being an increase of 1,700,000 l. in the year. Therefore the records on the Table showed that as regarded the cotton trade at the present moment the taxes levied on the raw material, so far from impeding importation or shackling the extension of the trade, had not even checked the increase of it. With respect to the woollen trade, the imports at present were 4,000,000lb. weight of wool, and the value of the exported manufactured articles amounted to 1,600,000 l. How then could the House

1655
with these facts before them, say that it was "indispensable to the maintenance and extension of these trades," that the duties on the raw materials should be repealed. To affirm such a proposition would involve the House in an absurdity which he did not think the hon. Gentleman contemplated, and which had infinitely better be avoided. But it would be an additional objection to affirming these propositions that they committed the House to an expression of opinions which would go forth to the country, and which the country would expect the House to act upon. The hon. Gentleman he thought, scarcely knew how far his plan went; his propositions would affect an amount of revenue very little short of 30,000,000 l. sterling. Under these circumstances to affirm these propositions, would be neither more nor less than to throw the interests mentioned into the greatest confusion; they would be at a loss to know how to act; and the House and the country would lose all the advantages at present arising from a belief that public credit was in a flourishing condition. When he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) said he did not mean to say one word at present on those taxes to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the House he hoped, would take notice that he also wished to state that the time would come when the Government would state what they thought it to be their duty to do on the subject, and if he were then to go into the question of which of these taxes ought to be repealed and which maintained, he should not be doing his duty to the country; but the hon. Gentleman, after having effected this large reduction of revenue by the changes he proposed, wished to make up the deficiency by a Property-tax. The hon. Gentleman, if he mistook not, had voted in opposition to the proposal of a Property Tax by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel); but he was now become a convert, and like all converts, not content with effecting his views with all convenient speed, he proposed to repeal no less than 30,000,000 l. of taxes. [Mr. Ewart: No; only to affect.] At any rate the hon. Gentleman's propositions would affect 30,000,000 l. sterling of taxes, and the hon. Gentleman proposed to make up the deficiency, whatever it was, by a Property Tax. Now he thought he was consulting the feelings of both sides of the House in not going further into the sub-
1656
ject. He was not opposed to any beneficial expression of general principles; but his objections to the hon. Gentleman's propositions were that it would be useless to send forth for the people to meditate upon these propositions, which, however good in themselves, must be impracticable, and tend to throw into confusion the trade of the country without answering any of those good ends, which he believed the hon. Gentleman sincerely aimed at. He therefore should support the original Motion.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had confessed there was something not quite defensible in those duties on raw materials, and he thought, therefore, that something was obtained for that (the Oppostion) side of the House. His hon. Friend and many hon. Members near him thought that, on a question of this importance it was not becoming that so few Members should be present, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had moved the counting of the House, not in order to get rid of the Motion, as the hon. Gentleman had assumed, but to show the country how little the subject was being attended to at the moment he called upon the Speaker to count the House. He thought that this ought to be known to the country: it was a case of very frequent occurrence; and he thought it would be found from the divisions on such subjects that the great majority who voted had not heard the debates. If, instead of interfering between the Master and the Labourer, the House would show the same anxiety to remove the restrictions and duties which pressed upon industry, he thought they would do a much greater service to the popular interests. He knew of no grievance more intolerable than this of the duties which pressed upon labour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that 30,000,000 l. of taxes would be affected by the Motion of his hon. Friend. Was it not distressing to think that these taxes were levied on the working classes, a very small proportion being in fact borne by the opulent, the bulk falling on those who worked from the rising to the setting of the sun to enable them to maintain their families? He thought that his hon. Friend, and any hon. Member who reiterated the necessity of altering our fiscal legislation deserved well of the House and the country. His hon. Friend wished to reduce those duties which en-

1657
couraged smuggling. The fact was, the Government in their controversy with the smuggler, were again and again defeated. He did their work better for the people. But not only under the existing rules of taxation were the Government defeated, but an enormous mass of depravity and misery was created. For his part, he thought his hon. Friend had established every point he had brought forward; his arguments were irresistible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted they were irresistible; and he must say, that considering the importance of the subject, and the moderate way in which his hon. Friend advocated his views, he thought it discreditable that he got so mall and unwilling an audience.
Mr. F. T. Baringhad voted a good many years ago for a Motion of his late noble Friend (Lord Sydenham) to a somewhat similar effect as this Motion of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman, however, could hardly expect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would vote with him as the Motion now stood. In his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, the Motion did not go far enough. The hon. Gentleman had not taken the comprehensive view of the subject which had been taken by Lord Sydenham. If they were prepared, and thought it advisable under the present state of their finances, to change their system of taxation altogether, let them do so, and take off those taxes which pressed most on the productive industry of the country. They ought to look at other subjects besides those contained in the Resolution moved by the hon. Member. Look at their Excise Duties—duties which pressed heavily on the productive industry of the country. There was the Soap Tax, which was a tax on cleanliness and on the comforts of the people; there was the tax on paper, which used to be called a tax on the raw material of knowledge; there was the tax on glass, and other taxes connected with the Excise, which, if it were possible for them to take a general review of their taxation, ought not to be omitted from consideration. There was the tax on windows, and the tax on insurance,—as it used to be called, a tax upon prudence—all these taxes ought to be taken off if they were prepared to make a great alteration in their system of taxation. They ought not, like His hon. Friend, to confine themselves to some one branch of taxation. It had been
1658
stated that the taxes mentioned were taxes which fell on the poor. If his hon. Friend could find any tax which did not ultimately fall on the poor he should be very glad to know what it was. It was a remark of Mr. Cobbett's, that "if they wanted to get millions they must tax the millions." Let them lay on what tax they pleased, it must fall on the poor, if any man could find a tax which did not so fall on the poor, in his opinion he would have found the philosopher's stone in taxation. He had never read or heard of, or been able to put his finger on, any tax which would not affect the poor. When the hon. Member came forward to propose reductions in certain duties, anti to impose others in their stead, he ought to state the loss that would be occasioned by the change, and the sum that would have to be raised to counterbalance that loss. The proposed reductions involved a question of about 30,000,000 l. but his hon. Friend did not state to the House what loss his Resolutions might involve. Take the loss at half this amount. His hon. Friend calculated that the Government would be able to get rid of the coast-guard by these reductions; still, however, the duty on tobacco, if reduced to Is., would be a duty of 250 per cent. on the cost of he article; and could they suppose that, with this duty imposed,they could do without their Coast-guard? His hon. Friend's proposal would induce the necessity of imposing taxes to the amount of 16 or 17 per cent. on property; and did any hon. Member suppose that, capital would remain in this country and be taxed at the rate of 17 per cent? He was sorry, for these reasons, tha the could not vote for the Resolutions.
Mr. Williamssaid, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly thought it necessary to make any observations on the Motion, and had stated that his hon. Friend merely thought it necessary to bring it forward to exemplify his own opinion. Nothing but the greatest necessity could justify the imposition for one day of import duties on cotton and wool. The right hon. Gentleman had brought forward his statistics to show that there had been an increase in the trade in these articles. Happily for the right hon. Gentleman and for the country, a change for the better had taken place in the trade in these articles; otherwise what would have been the condition of the Exchequer

1659
and the state of the country? What had produced that change they perfectly well knew, namely, the excitement ever produced in commercial affairs by a vast increase in the paper circulation of the country. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but if he referred to the amount of the paper circulation of the Bank of England, he would find there had recently been an increase of 50 per cent. For the last eighteen months there had been little more in circulation than 22,000,000 l.; but the last return which he had seen exceeded 33,000,000 l. The increase in the importation of cotton advanced in precisely the same proportion as the increase in the circulation. When the question had been introduced last year by the hon. Member for Halifax, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the duties on cotton and wool ought not to be maintained except on the ground of absolute necessity. The finances of the country were placed now in a condition to afford the reduction of these taxes, and they ought not to be continued one day. If the right hon. Gentleman calculated on the continuance of the present activity in commerce he would be disappointed. The warehousing system, rendered necessary by the imposition of these duties, entailed a cost of 25 per cent, more than the ordinary warehouseing, which, on the article of cotton, amounted to more than the amount of the duty itself. The duty on raw cotton was 7½ to 8 per cent. The dread of foreign competition, held forth in every form, had induced many votes to be given against the reduction of the hours of labour of factory children; and yet they continued the impolitic course of taxing the raw material imported for the purpose of manufacture—a course not pursued by any other country in the world. If they took off this tax they might safely entertain the proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset-shire for reducing the hours of labour in factories. The produce of the tax on raw cotton for the four years from 1839 to 1843, inclusive, was 541,000 l., on sheep's wool, 124,000 l., making a total of 665,000 l. together. As a financial question, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no ground for refusing to entertain the proposition of the hon. Member for Dumfries. If great reductions were made in these duties the revenue would not suffer. Next to these taxes on the raw material for manufacture,
1660
his hon. Friend pointed out the tax upon tea. How did that tax operate on the great body of the people? The tea consumed by the Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury bench did not pay one-fourth so much tax as the tea consumed by the poor. Did they call that justice? The tax on tea sold at 11 d. a pound was 2s. 2d.; on tea sold at 4s. and 5s. a pound the same duty was imposed. Was this justice? The next article pointed out was sugar. Just the same tax was paid upon the finest refined sugar that was paid upon the coarsest brown sugar. The next article was coffee; and on this article the same duty was paid on the coarsest as on the best, making a difference in favour of the richer classes of 100 to 150 per cent. The next article was tobacco. Hon. Members taxed their own cigars 125 per cent., and the poor man's tobacco 800 per cent. He hoped that some pressure out of doors would force the Government to do what was right.
Mr. P. Howardhad always said, that they must make up their minds between the continuance of this tax and the maintenance of the Property Tax. If the hours of labour in factories were restricted it would be still more necessary to secure an unrestricted importation of the raw material. He trusted that the Government would take the repeal of this tax into consideration. He could not, upon the whole, however, say that in the present state of the House his hon. Friend would exercise a sound discretion in dividing upon his amendment, because he thought that at that moment the House would present no criterion of public opinion. At the same time, he thanked his hon. Friend for bringing forward this Motion, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, as soon as the finances of the country would permit, repeal this tax.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 88; Noes 24: Majority 64.

List of the AYES.

Allix, John Peter

Broadley, H.

Arkwright, G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Buckley, E.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Blackburne, J. I.

Clive, Viscount

Boldero, H. G.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Borthwick, P.

Corry, right hon. H.

Botfield, B.

Cripps, W.

1661

Damer, hon. Col.

McGeachy, F. A.

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, T.

Denison, E. B.

McNeil, D.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mainwaring, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Manners, Lord J.

Dnffield, T.

March, Earl of

Egerton, W. T.

Martin, C. W.

Eliot, Lord

Masterman, J.

Escott, B.

Meynell, Capt.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Munday, E. M.

Flower, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

French, F.

Norreys, Lord

Fuller, A. E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Paget, Col.

Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.

Packington, J. S.

Goulburn. right hon. H.

Patten, J. W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Greene, T.

Peel, J.

Gregory, W. H.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Polhill, F.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Pringle, A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Rendlesham, Lord

Heneage, G.H. Walker

Round, J.

Hodgson, R.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Hogg, J. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hope, hon. C.

Stanley, Lord

Hope, G. W.

Stuart, H.

Hornby, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Jermyn, Earl

Wellesley, Lord C.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Wood, Col. T.

Kemble, H.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Knatchbull, rt.hn. Sir E.

Young, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Lawson, A.

TELLERS.

Lincoln, Earl of

Freemantle, Sir T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Bright, J.

Scholefield, J.

Brotherton, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Duncan, G.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Trelawny, J. S.

Forster, M.

Walker, R.

Gibson, T. M.

Warburton, H.

Hutt, W,

Ward, H. G.

Johnston, A.

Williams, W.

Mitcalfe, H.

Yorke, H. R.

Mitchell, T. A.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Napier, Sir C.

Ewart, W.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hume, J.

Main question agreed to.

SUPPLY—THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
House in Committee of Supply.
On the question that 37,987 l. be granted for the British Museum,
Mr. Bernalcalled the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the case of Mr. José, who was intrusted with the management of the engraving and print department of the Museum, and had a salary of only 350 l.
1662
per annum, and no apartment in the building.
Sir R. Peelwas well aware of the merits and qualifications of Mr. José, but recommended the House to leave the appropriation of the salaries to the Trustees of the Museum who fully understood the matter and were responsible for their proceedings.
Mr. Humeobjected to the constitution of the Board of Trustees, and wished to know to whom they were responsible? He objected to the exclusion of the public from the different collections. He observed among the Votes, "salaries of officers of the ordinary establishment, 5,900 l.; salaries of assistants, 3,500 l.; and salaries and wages of attendants and servants, 5,400 l." He thought the Committee should have a detailed list of the salaries of individuals. He recommended that the British Museum should be thrown open to the public on Sunday, in order that the many trades people and others who could not visit it during the week might be able to avail themselves of the instruction which it afforded. He complained that facilities were not afforded to the thousands who visited the Museum, and deprecated the practice of requiring persons to sign their names in a book on entering, as causing unnecessary delay. Children were not excluded from Hampton Court or the National Gallery, and he saw no necessity for excluding them from the Museum. He did not think the Trustees would adopt these regulations if they were responsible to the public.
Sir R. Peelquestioned whether the hon. Member's complaints were well-founded or reasonable. The Trustees were not responsible for the Estimates, but the Treasury was, and instituted the closest inquiry into each particular item, and into the merits of the several officers connected with the Museum. The Government did not wish to encumber the House with information, but to give it that which was really useful; if, however, the hon. Member desired to have more information respecting every officer in the Institution, he was most welcome to it. He gave the hon. Member credit for thinking that no public money was better expended than that which was voted for this Institution; but he would ask him, was there an Institution in Great Britain so accessible? [Mr. Hume: You may make it more so.] Make it more so, if you like, but that was at least a primâ facie case in

1663
its favour; and the Returns of the number of visitors confirmed it. The number who visited the Museum in the year ending Christmas, 1840, was 247,000; and in 1843, 517,000. He really wished to give the public every possible opportunity of acquiring information: but there must be a limit as regarded age, for if children of too tender an age were admitted, incapable of deriving instruction themselves, they would greatly impede others in endeavouring to obtain it. There was a time when infant schools were admitted, and when 300 young children were at once ushered into the King's Library, but he could assure the hon. Member that the necessities which they relieved were not the necessities of acquiring knowledge. Respecting additional facilities and conveniences which the hon. Member recommended, he had only to observe that this subject had not escaped the attention of the Trustees, but of course the details could not be discussed in that House.
Mr. Protheroehoped the right hon. Baronet still bore in mind an observation which he made in a former year, that he looked forward to the time when a noble palace of art would be erected in one of the parks of the metropolis. He did not agree with his hon. Friend respecting the admission of very young children to the Museum, for in Hampton Court, where they were admitted, they rather detracted from the pleasure of others, without benefiting themselves.
Mr. Bernalexpressed his regret at the total want of anything like a national museum in this country. It was, perhaps, the only country that had not a museum of the history and arts of the Middle Ages. The British Museum abounded in Egyptian mummies and South Sea Island curiosities, but everything appertaining to the early history of Europe and England was wanting.
Sir R. Peelhad to state with the greatest pleasure that only last week the Treasury had authorized the expenditure of 2,000 l.; one-half in the purchase of the zoological collection of the Antarctic voyage, and the other in completing a botanical collection, after communicating with a gentleman whose unobtrusive merits were not sufficiently known—he meant Mr. Brown, who was the companion of Sir Joseph Banks, and whose exertions entitled him to the highest commendation.
Mr. Humeinsisted on the necessity of
1664
additional public conveniences at the Museum. He also thought that the admission of young persons might be permitted under the care of their parents. He had heard no good reason assigned why the Museum should not be opened after morning service on Sundays. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), himself, he believe visited the Museum on Sunday, and why should not the public as well?
Mr. Borthwickthought the hon. Member for Montrose somewhat unreasonable in complaining of the answers which he had received from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government to the questions put in the former part of his speech. He thought those answers had been abundantly explicit and satisfactory. With reference to the latter observations of the hon. Member, those, namely, which referred to the opening of the British Museum on Sundays, he wished to observe that he agreed in principle with the hon. Gentleman, though he doubted whether the feelings of the people themselves were in unison with his upon the subject. If the public mind was not ripe for this change, however desirable in itself, more evil than good might possibly result from its adoption. There were buildings which ought to be open for the reception of the people, both on Sundays and on other days, which it was most painful to find shut against them, or open only upon payment of money. He referred to the cathedrals and other churches of the metropolis. St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey were on Sundays even less accessible than on week days—for, with the exception of of the short hours of public worship, they could not on Sundays be entered even by payment of money. This ought to be reformed altogether. He believed if the Church had the control of its own affairs, these abuses would cease to exist. The hon. Member for Weymouth had very judiciously recommended the preservation of the monuments of the Middle Ages. Since modern habits and innovations had shut the cathedrals against the people, they had become the receptacles of monuments of no age at all. You might see sprawling over and defacing their graceful and splendid proportions, figures which might be worshipped without any breach of the commandment; for they were like nothing "that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, or in the waters under the earth." And indeed, if hon.

1665
Members were to read, as he had done, the legends appended to those things they would find, that the persons in whose memory they had been erected must have been as great monsters of virtue as these figures were of art. Those indecencies should not be allowed to desecrate walls so holy, and he hoped the day was approaching when those noble buildings would be appropriated to their right use.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—ARMY COMMISSARIAT.
Sir G. Clerkin proposing the vote for Commissariat Services observed, that there was a considerable apparent increase in the sum required this year; but it arose from a large sum that formerly appeared in the Army and Ordnance Estimates being transferred for the first time to this department. The Commissariat Department always supplied rations, forage, fuel, and light to the troops on foreign stations, and the funds for that purpose were partly voted under the Army, Ordnance, and Commissariat Estimates. But this led to great complication of accounts, and it was considered much better that the department having the charge of providing those articles should also have the funds voted under a general head. In consequence of this there would appear a vote in the present estimate of 270,000 l. on account of rations, forage, and fuel, but there was an actual saving in the whole Estimate of 8,000 l. Another item which now had been introduced into the Estimate was that of the profit upon bills, which heretofore had been otherwise accounted for. He moved a vote of 436,000 l. for the Commissariat.
Mr. Humesaw that the accounts had been much simplified and improved by bringing into operation the principle which should be applied also to the general accounts of the country, not allowing each department to deduct from its receipts its own expellees before remitting into the Exchequer, but bringing all the national resources primarily into one general receipt. He desired very much to have statements of the contract prices at which the different articles of provisions had been supplied, so that the prices paid in different parts of the country might be seen.
Dr. Bowringstrongly urged the practical adoption of the principle respecting accounts recommended by a Committee of that House, with the concurrent sanction of the right hon. Members for Portsmouth
1666
and Dorchester—the principle of the Exchequer receiving, in the first place, the entire of our taxation, and allowing payments only on the authority of Parliament and the Executive.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.

THE NEW FACTORIES BILL.
Sir J. Grahamin rising to move for leave to bring in the New Factories Bill said,—The House will remember that in the earlier part of the evening the Bill which I had the honour of introducing at a firmer period of the Session was, by permission of the House, withdrawn; and I understand that the feeling was pretty general in the House that leave should be given to introduce another Bill. Something, however, which fell from the hon. Member for Finsbury led me to suppose there would be some opposition, but I trust that I shall be allowed to introduce it unopposed on the present occasion. At the same time, it is right that I should state to the House the precise nature of the Bill which I now ask for leave to bring in. The Bill which was withdrawn was a Bill repealing all former Acts with regard to employment in factories. The Bill which I now ask leave to introduce does not repeal any other former laws but introduces certain Amendments into the existing law. Speaking generally, the Amendments I seek to introduce are Amendments recommended by the Committee which sat in 1840. In fact only one Amendment which I ask to introduce is not included in that recommendation. First, with respect to the Amendments recommended by the Committee. I seek by the Bill which I now ask leave to introduce to provide that children shall not work in any factory employed in the manufacture of silk, flax, woollen, and cotton, longer than six hours and a half, between the age of eight and eleven in silk, and eight and thirteen in flax, woollen and cotton, and, that they shall in no case work both in the forenoon and afternoon of the same day. I propose also to introduce another provision. In some factories the labour is not extended beyond ten hours each day. Where that is the case, for the convenience of manufacturers, I would propose (although it is not included in the recommendations of the Committee) that children may work for ten hours in a day, provided they work on alternate days only. I propose also to introduce an important alteration in the existing law, with respect to certificates. As the law now stands, the

1667
surgeon can only grant his certificate on the appearance of the child as to his age. I propose to extend that bower, and to give the surgeon the power of certifying whether the health and strength of the child are sufficient to justify his recommendation that he may be employed even for the limited number of hours; and I also propose to allow evidence to be adduced as to the actual age of the child. I propose also, in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee, that such machinery as shall be specified in the Bill as being of a dangerous character shall be guarded for the purpose of preventing accidents; that it shall be "boxed off," as it is termed, and surrounded with guards for the protection of the persons employed. I also propose to enact, for the first time, that all accidents, without reference to age, in each factory, shall be recorded as they occur, and reported to the inspector; and I further propose to give to the Secretary of State the power, on the report of the inspector, of ordering prosecutions to be instituted, and actions to be brought against the owner of the factory for damages for accidents that may occur by reason of a neglect to "box off," or guard the machinery, pursuant to the other provisions of the Bill. I further propose, with respect to the damages that may be recovered in such actions, that it shall be competent to the Executive Government to pay over such damages to the parties who may have received the injury, or, if they should be infants, then to their natural guardians. I also propose, for the first time, and not in conformity with the recommendations of the Committee, as I stated in answer to the question put to me by my noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire, to provide that females shall not be permitted to work in factories for a longer time than is by law allowed to young persons, that is to say, for the limited time of twelve hours. I think, Sir, I have now gone through the principal alterations in the law which I propose to make by the Bill I ask leave to introduce; and having stated succinctly, but fully, all the alterations I propose, I now ask leave to introduce the Bill.
Mr. T. Duncombe: The right hon. Baronet might have saved the House the trouble of his statement, if he had said that his new Bill was precisely the same as the one withdrawn, save and except the Repealing of all former Acts. The former Bill did Repeal all former Acts. This new Bill left them the same. Therefore, he repeated, the right hon. Gentleman
1668
might have made a statement which might have been much shorter and equally satisfactory to the House. How far this new Bill would be satisfactory to the public in general he must leave to time to prove. Whether it would be satisfactory to that House time also must prove. It was quite clear that those who had opposed the right hon. Baronet one night supported him the next. But the people of England must no longer be deluded. The advantage which had been gained on a former evening had been wholly lost. There was an end of all the gain as to the limitation of the hours of work for females, and there was to be another twelve hours Bill. Three times had that House told the men of England that their wives and Young children should not be worked more than ten hours a clay; that to work beyond hat time was a state of slavery which they ought not to submit to. The right hon. Baronet by his Bill was about to perpetuate that slavery. That being the case, he did hope the people of England would no longer be deluded. They must trust now entirely to themselves—that was clear. Three times had the House decided in their favour, and yet the Ministers had reversed the decision. The question now lay with the people to agitate. It must be left to The Times Newspaper and to the energies of the people to carry that which he did believe was the object of the greater portion of the labouring classes at the present moment. In due time they would have other sham movements; but no man in that House could ever expect that the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire would be able to collect again the force he had once got together. The right hon. Baronet would carry his Bill. The ten hours principle was gone. The eleven hours was gone. And now the poor females would have to work the twelve hours. He wished the right hon. Baronet joy of the triumph he had achieved; but at the same time he did most cordially condole with those unfortunate persons who would have hereafter to toil, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might be retained in office.
Mr. Borthwickprotested against its being said that hon. Gentlemen were now supported by those who opposed them before. The Government were compelled to take the course they had done. The opponents of the Government measure had been denounced in another place as

1669
"hypocrites," by an individual who was certainly illustrious for his talent, but who was the Jack Cade of all Jack Cades. In 1837, when the West India apprenticeship system was brought forward by that noble Lord and carried, what was his course with regard to the widows and orphans who possessed property in their fellow men? His motto then was, "Fiat justitia, ruat cœlum:" but now that noble Lord would guard the accumulation of manufacturing wealth against the dangerous inroads of women and children. He hoped the House would take care that they did not commit themselves by affirming propositions which they were not prepared to carry out in detail through all the provisions of the new Bill.
Mr. Humethought the Government had pursued a proper course in withdrawing the Bill which had lately been the subject of discussion; but, at the same time, he thought they were acting improperly in introducing the Measure which had just been laid upon the Table. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was, he conceived, violating all former precedent in proposing such an interference with labour. The right hon. Gentleman was attempting, now, to interfere with adult labour; and he (Mr. Hume) considered the step so dangerous, that he sincerely hoped this Bill would not be allowed to pass into a law. He agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) that persons who were obliged to labour for so long a time as these factory operatives were literally slaves; but were there no other slaves in this country but factory slaves? Did not the same system of excessive labour exist throughout all classes of the community? He would advise the right hon. Baronet to direct his attention to the causes of the present distress. He believed that those who were most anxious to carry a ten hours Bill had been led away, in a great degree, by misrepresentation; and he conceived it was the duty of the Government, after the information they had received to-day, to inquire whether the representations which led to this attempted encroachment on the liberty of labour were or were not correct. He believed also that if the right hon. Baronet would appoint a Committee to hear evidence, and go into details, he would be convinced of the impropriety of the course he had taken, and would at once withdraw this Bill. They ought to look to the
1670
root of the evil, and remove the impediments to labour.
Mr. B. Hawessaid, it was his intention to support the proposal of the noble Lord (Lord Ashley.) The former Factories 13i11 proceeded from a Government who were generally in favour of relieving trade from the many restrictions which now pressed upon it. He believed that in 1833 the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) was a colleague in the Ministry with the late Lord Sydenham, who was anxious to relieve the trade of the country from its present restrictions. He inferred, therefore, that at that time the right hon. Baronet himself was a friend to free-trade. At that time a Factory Bill, restricting the hours of labour in the case of young persons, was adopted; and he had no objection to such a measure, proceeding as it did from a Government favourable to the relief and extension of trade. But the case was widely different now, and the Government were introducing a new principle—that of restricting adult labour. It was well known that nearly one-half the operatives in the factory districts were females; the Government were, therefore, proposing a restriction which would operate upon half the adult labour. The consequences of our present restrictive system were most injurious to this country; our foreign trade was placed in jeopardy; and capitalists, in order to realize the profits adequate, had recourse to the excessive toil of factory labour. He contended, then, that while they maintained a restrictive system which induced such excessive labour, they ought in justice to impose some limit upon that toil. Upon this ground, then, and also on the authority of the Reports of the Factory Inspectors, which stated that under existing circumstances the hours of labour might be safely reduced, it was his intention to support the Amendment of the noble Member for Dorsetshire. He might refer the House especially to the Reports of Mr. Horner, and of Mr. Saunders. One of those gentlemen stated that he thought eleven hours was a period of labour which might safely be fixed upon; and the other observed that there was great danger in forming a population, the whole of whose time was occupied between work and their natural rest, and who were consequently in it state of extreme ignorance. If that House was determined to uphold restrictions upon trade he would endeavour to

1671
surround the labourer with greater protection. When those restrictions were removed, the operatives might be safely left to go into the labour-market unfettered, for he believed that they would then, without any excessive amount of labour, be able to obtain an ample supply of the necessaries of life. When, therefore, the noble Lord again moved his Amendment, he would give it his support.
Sir C. Napierhoped that, after Easter, they would find all hon. Gentlemen who had before taken part on this question against the Bill as sturdy as the hon. Member for Evesham, and that while they supported the ten hours Amendment, they would give their unqualified opposition to the twelve hours Bill. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), in the course of his very persuasive speech to-night, turned round to an hon. Gentleman near hire, and said he was satisfied that, three months hence, they would have a better opinion of him (Sir J. Graham) for having maintained his position than they would have entertained had he given way on this question. He thought they need not take three months to consider that. He would give them till the Easter holydays were over. He feared, however, that some hon Gentlemen would go down home, and read over all the speeches that had been made on this subject—the right hon. Baronet's as well as others, and then they would return to town with a fixed determination to prevent the present Government from going out of office. The right hon. Baronet only had to say to his Friends, "Gentlemen, if I lose this Bill I shall not remain in office; take your choice of me or the hon. Gentlemen opposite," this would be effectual in bringing round all the right hon. Gentleman's wavering Friends.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.

COUNTY COURTS.
Sir James Grahamrose to ask for leave to bring in "A Bill for the more easy Recovery of Small Demands in the County Courts of England." The House was well aware, that among the most ancient Courts in the Realm, were the County Courts. There had been, however, one great defect in the constitution of that Court. By a Writ of Justicies, there was no limit placed to the extent to which a personal action could be brought. If a case was to be removed from that
1672
County Court to Westminster Hall, by a Writ of Justicies, it was provided that the party should give security for the costs. There was another defect. These County Courts retained all the old cumbrous machinery unchanged, whereas in the Superior Courts, the machinery had been remodelled, in conformity with the recommendations of the Committees of 1839, which were incorporated in all the local Acts establishing such Courts, which had passed since 1839. From the inquiry which he had made respecting the expense of working these new Courts, he thought that their general adoption would be followed by the most beneficial results. The Bill which he proposed to bring in, would enable Her Majesty in Council, to form districts throughout the country, and to bring this Act for the establishment of County Courts into operation in certain localities in which the establishment of such tribunals appeared to be required. The Bill would not interfere with any of those improved systems of jurisdiction which had been brought into operation since 1839. The Barristers and Judges appointed would be paid by salaries, and the Clerks also paid by salaries instead of fees, and were not to have compensation. He now came to the extent of the jurisdiction. By the Bill of 1837, the Court of Requests was limited to 10 l. His proposition was, that these County Courts' jurisdiction should extend to the sum of 15 l. As to the subject-matter of jurisdiction, it would refer to simple cases of contract debt—damages for a breach of the peace—for unlawful holding of property rendering the party liable to an action of trover. With regard to actions for the recovery of small debts, the summons must be issued seven days prior to the trial coming on. If the defendant should go out of the district the plaintiff would have the option of suing in the County Courts, or in one of the superior Courts of Law. The party, if he required it, might have the benefit of a Jury. The Grand Jury need not consist of a larger number than five persons. The Court would have the power of making an order for the payment of the debt by instalments. The party would have the power of taking out an execution against the body or goods of the person against whom a debt was proved. With regard to the power of removing the case to a superior Court, the party would have the power of doing so upon moving for a new trial, and giving proper securities for the costs. The jurisdiction with refer-

1673
ence to the rights of ejectment, would be transferred from the two Magistrates to the Judge of the Court. This Bill introduced no new experiment. The Courts of Request had been found to work beneficially. It was Courts similar to those which it was proposed to extend. He felt confident, if the House gave its consent to the Bill which he was then proposing, it would effect a great improvement, and render cheap the administration of the law. It was his purpose to introduce this measure for the recovery of small debts gradually, according to the wants and demands of certain localities, without incurring any great increase of expense.
Mr. Haweshoped the large fees to which persons proceeded against for small debts had been subjected would be reduced. He hoped that those local Acts, which granted so many days to liquidate a debt would be taken into consideration, as he was quite sure it would not only effect a saving in the county-rates, but also put an end to the enormous misery so frequently suffered by families being broken up in consequence of the imprisonment of the head.
Mr. Shawsaid, the right hon. Baronet, (Sir J. Graham) would obtain a good guide in legislating on the subject, by a reference to the practice of the Civil Bill Courts in Ireland. Of those Courts he had never heard a complaint, and he believed they worked well and satisfactorily in every part of that country.
Mr. Warburtonhoped his right hon. Friend would persist in retaining the power of examining both parties in the suit. This was done in the Court of Bankruptcy, which dealt with property to any amount, and he did not see why it should not be permitted in the inferior Courts.
Mr. Crippsobserved, that he did not think that practically any great danger was to be apprehended if there was no appeal at all. At the same time, it was a dangerous principle to say there should be no appeal. With regard to the examination of the parties themselves, according to the Law of Evidence Bill, parties were prevented being examined in great causes, and, therefore, it would be inconsistent to permit their examination in small suits.
Sir Grahamremarked, that there were 120 Local Courts created by Act of Parliament in England; 40 of those 120 had been created since the year 1839, and with respect to those 40, the general limit of the debt to be recovered in them was 15 l.; and he had taken this limitation
1674
which had been established in 1839, in the most important localities, comprising large and important cities, and towns, and containing dense populations. He must also further observe, that since 1839, and in conformity with the recommendation of the Select Committee to which reference had already been made, power was given to examine the parties to a suit in forty important local Acts, exactly as he proposed to examine them in suits of debt. From the adoption of that principle, in the instances he had stated, no had effects had ensued. He proposed to give execution generally against the person. If to have credit was advantageous to the poor (of which he was not quite convinced,) he was very much afraid that unless there was a remedy against the person, credit would be stopped.
Leave given.
Bill brought in and read a first time.
House Adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.