Sitting of 16 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. SPRING Rice, to continue, for a time to be limited, an Act of the 54th of King George 3rd, for rendering the Payment of Creditors more equal and expeditious in Scotland:—By Mr. CRAMPTON, to effectuate the Service of Process issuing from the Courts of Chancery, and Exchequer in England and Ireland respectively.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. MAURICE O'CONNELL, Copies of the Orders in Council of 20th February and 5th March, 1831, for the Administration of Justice in British Guiana, Trinidad and St. Lucia.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from certain Solicitors of Cork, in favour of the Equity Process, Ireland Bill:—By Mr. LAMB, from the Inhabitants of Dungarvon, for the Repeal of all Tolls on the line of Road from Waterford to Cork:—By Mr. HEYWOOD, from 735 Operatives at Salford, and Persons employed in Mills at Stafford, against the Bill for Limiting the Hours of Labour of Children employed in Factories.

EDUCATION (IRELAND.)
Mr. Shawrose to present a Petition from the county of Cork, signed by upwards of 4,000 of the Nobility, Gentry, and all the most influential men in the county, against the proposed system of Education in Ireland. He also held in his hand three other petitions of the same character, one of them signed by one Archbishop, seventeen Bishops and above 13,000 of the most respectable Protestant Clergy and laymen of every denomination in Ireland. He was prepared to contend that the right hon. Secretary and the Solicitor General had misunderstood the opposition of the petitioners to this measure. It was stated, by those hon. Gentlemen, that they opposed the use of extracts from the Bible in schools. This was not the case; they did not object to the use of extracts as extracts, but they would not consent to their substitution for the whole. The allegation of the petitioners was, that "the substitution of any part for the entire Word of God was, in their judgment, inconsistent with their principles and obligations as Christians and Protestants;" and this was at once the answer to all the arguments of the other side, founded upon the Reports of former Commissions, composed of any of the friends of scriptural education—that though they might admit

321
of extracts, they never for a moment contemplated their substitution for the whole Bible; they had no objection to extracts joined with other books of religious, moral, and literary instruction being, as it were, a part of the superstructure of education, but they would resolutely maintain that its foundation must be laid in the pure, the simple, the entire Word of God. The proof that this was no fanciful distinction was, that what the right hon. Secretary, in his official letter, designated "the vital defect of the former system," and announced as the ground on which parliamentary aid was withdrawn from the Society was, that the Bible was required to be admitted into the schools, and the point of distinction, which he relied upon as the essential excellence of his own system, was, that the Bible should be excluded. Again it was said, that the opponents of this measure charged the Government with having had for their object to deprive the children of Protestants of the Bible. He never heard imputed to the professors of any religion, or to those who professed no religion, with the exception of the Roman Catholic persuasion, that they were anxious to keep the Bible from the people; and he rejoiced to think that the time had come when that doctrine could not justly be attributed even to all Roman Catholics, inasmuch as a large proportion of their laity would not longer submit to the spiritual bondage of being deprived of that gift, the dearest birthright of all Christian men. The Government was not charged with the desire of taking away the Bible, but with being indifferent as to whether or not that should be the result of their measure. The Ministers were willing to sacrifice that which should be the principle of every Protestant and Christian Government to a low expediency, hoping to satisfy the unreasonable clamour of one party, and greatly miscalculating the feelings of the other. The great mistake of the Ministers was as he had heard it said, that "they measured the Protestantism of Great Britain by their own." It was this fatal course of his Majesty's Ministers which justified the expression he had used elsewhere, though it had been cavilled at in the House; that the same principles which bound them to "obey their rulers in all things lawful" would also induce them, when a sense of paramount duty obliged them, to oppose them even though only to oppose them lawfully. There was but one quality
322
in the whole system proposed, which he could regard with satisfaction, and that was, that it carried within itself the seeds of its own destruction. The right hon. Gentleman called it but an experiment, and it had already failed: in the proof of this, he (Mr. Shaw) need only refer to two points in the right hon. Gentleman's letter—the first, in which he stated that the object of the Government was to promote a "combined" education—the second, that the Board would invariably require as a condition not to be departed from, that local funds should be raised, upon which any aid from the public would be dependent. Without inquiring whether the opponents of the plan were right or wrong, must it not be plain, even to Ministers themselves, that in these two respects the plan must fail? Could they expect a united education, when the Protestants of Ireland were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the scheme, or that local funds would be raised to support a system against which at least nineteen-twentieths of those who had heretofore contributed local funds for the purposes of the education of the poor, had already protested? Of the Irish Bishops seventeen had recorded their opinions against it, and not one in its favour, except that distinguished Prelate, who was nominated a Member of the Board, of whom, personally, he desired to speak with every respect, whose silent acquiescence might almost be accounted for on personal grounds. The Presbyterian member of the new Commission was the solitary exception to the determined opposition of the whole Synod of Ulster, and not one Protestant minister of religion in Ireland had raised his voice in support of the Government plan, save those whom the Government themselves had selected to put in the enviable situation of being opposed to all the friends with whom they had hitherto been in the habit of co-operating. He denied that there was anything political in the character of the opposition made to this heterogeneous system: witness the two noble Lords opposite (Lord Sandon and Lord Robert Grosvenor), supporters of his Majesty's Government, who were on that night charged with the presentation of petitions similar in their prayer to those he had presented. He would appeal to the members for the county of Cork, who sat on the same side of the House, whether, in that county, this ques-

323
tion had not united persons who on no political subject were ever found to agree; and he would unhesitatingly declare that, among 200,000 signatures attached to petitions which he had now submitted to the consideration of the House, there would be found Protestants of all denominations, and persons of all political parties, having united upon this occasion, on no ground of worldly policy, but, in their own words, "desiring to express a dutiful submission, as Christians, to all measures of merely temporal interest, which the wisdom of the Legislature might adopt; but, feeling that when any measures were proposed directly at variance with the principles of their religion and their duty to their God, they were bound by an authority superior to all human wisdom, and all human power, not to acquiesce in them."
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he might, perhaps be allowed to call the attention of the House to the petition of the Archbishop, Bishops, Protestant clergy, and Protestant laymen of Ireland, which had just been presented by the hon. and learned member for Dublin; and the very importance of the subject which it embraced, he should have thought would have commanded the fullest attendance of hon. Members. He did not complain of no Member of his Majesty's Cabinet being present; but seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman in his place, who was the Representative of his Majesty's Government, so far as Ireland was concerned, he certainly wished to call his serious attention to the prayer of these petitions of the clergy of Ireland which had just been laid on the Table, because he felt that he (Mr. Crampton) was the person whom the House had a right to look to for some information upon the subject now before them. As a general principle, he objected to entering into discussions upon the presentations of petitions; but he regarded this as a case not only deserving of an exception from the general rule, but as one which demanded the immediate attention of the House; for he apprehended that, if at any time, and upon any subject, it were fitting that the discussion should be taken upon this great question, it was then. It was more especially requisite that this should be done, when it was remembered that his hon. and learned friend gave notice of his intention to present these petitions some time since, and that that notice had been renewed from day to day for a consider-
324
able period. There were circumstances which induced him to occupy the House for a very short time, and there was one point particularly to which he meant to refer, and upon which no answer whatever had been received. It had been alleged as the great objection to the plan of education recently introduced into Ireland, that the Bible was excluded from the schools. This objection had, on the other hand, been met by a denial on the part of those who supported the present system. He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, if, upon any of the four days devoted to the general education of the children, any boy, or master, or teacher should introduce the Bible into the school, whether such a circumstance would not be considered as a violation of the rules of the school, and, consequently, involve the individual in an offence against the principle upon which the schools were established? The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed his dissent significantly, though not by words; therefore he would, perhaps, state how far the Bible might be introduced into the schools by any master, whether he were an Episcopalian, a Roman Catholic, or a Presbyterian, without its being a violation of the rules of the schools. There was a second point, with respect to the general question, the consideration of which he should reserve for another opportunity, as he did not see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland in his place: it was this (and he wished to call the attention of the House to the matter)—it was maintained by many persons that the Bible was not excluded; allowing this for the sake of argument. But for whom was the exclusion of the Scriptures, admitting it to be only partial, intended? To conciliate whom was it thought necessary to do this? Did not the right hon. Gentleman see that it was done to serve, not the interests of the Protestants, but those of another class of his Majesty's subjects. Whatever might be said of the exclusion of the Bible, or of the system of adopting extracts from it, this was quite clear, that no Protestant could gain any thing by either the one mode or the other. He would learn nothing from extracts only, selected under the sanction of a few persons who were connected with the present board. A great deal had been said in that House, and in other places, with reference to this plan, in connexion with the Fourteenth Report of the Commis-

325
sioners. But it must be remembered that what that Report proposed, was something supplementary only. It did not disturb existing regulations—it left them all as it found them. Let it be remembered, also, that the number of schools in Ireland had very nearly doubled; therefore, there was no longer any need of the supplementary schools to which the Report referred. Some of the most distinguished persons, Prelates of our Church, were known to have signed this Report; and they were now charged with inconsistency in petitioning against the new plan of education. He hoped he should be able to show they had not been guilty of inconsistency. They never anticipated any attempt to disturb the existing state of things; and the distinction to be drawn between the present system and that recommended by the Report, which was purely of a supplementary character, was obviously great. By that Report, it was left to the discretion of every master to take his pupils to the places of worship of their respective religions; and the distinction in the present case was, that instead of this being done, they were educated in common, and extracts only were made from the Bible, in order to meet the opinions of the Roman Catholics. And was this a system which the House was to be called upon to support? Was it to be tolerated that a system like this should be established, from which, upon the implied acknowledgment of the Solicitor General for Ireland, the Bible was to be excluded. As Christians, the Legislature could not sanction such a system. He trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would not press the measure, but let it quietly drop.
Mr. Cramptonhoped that the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, would not consider him wanting in courtesy if he declined making any observations upon the present occasion. The subject had been already fully discussed, and any hon. Member who wished for another formal debate might, if he thought proper, bring it forward by a motion; but on petitions he declined saying anything.
Mr. Leaderadmitted the respectability of the petitioners; but contended that in the county in which he resided, Kilkenny, as well as in most parts of Ireland, a large proportion of the most intelligent and influential Protestants were decidedly opposed to the Kildare-street plan of education in Ireland, and approved of that proposed to be substituted.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the right hon. Gentleman to whom the credit of devising this plan was ascribed, had mistaken the means for the end. How could he expect a combined system of education from a plan which precluded the clergy of every Protestant denomination from taking any part in it? He concluded from the silence of the Government that they did not mean to proceed with the measure.
Lord Sandonwould take that opportunity to say, that he had to present a similar petition from Liverpool, signed by 1,300 persons of different sects. They prayed that the House would not sanction the new system of education which his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland had proposed to establish as a national system for that country; and here he would observe that the principal point in which he differed from the petitioners was, in the regret which they expressed at the abandonment of the Kildare-street Association, as an object of national support. By professing to teach the Scriptures without note or comment, that Association aimed at a system of conciliation by means of compromise, which he could never look upon as wise or sound. The Scriptures were converted into something little better than a school-book, inasmuch as each party sacrificed the rights of explanation and interpretation, without which the mere reading of the Scriptures could be made but little profitable to the infant mind. It was, besides, distasteful to the great mass of the religious instructors of the Catholic part of the Irish population, and whatever opinion might be formed of the justness of the objections entertained by these parties, he considered the mere fact of their existence sufficient to extinguish any claim to the title of a national system, and as such to national support. If the objections entertained by the Catholic clergy were in his mind amply sufficient reason for withdrawing the aid of national funds from one system, common justice and consistency compelled him to admit that the strong repugnance to the new system felt and loudly expressed by the Protestant clergy and laity of Ireland, was entitled to equal consideration at their hands. No scheme could be fairly called national to which the great body of the clergy of either of the two great persuasions, between which Ireland was divided, had a decided objection; and of the strength of this objection sufficient evidence was given in the decal-

327
rations of the Synod of Ulster, as well as of nearly the whole Bench of Irish Bishops, in the petitions of clergy as well as laity, and of Presbyterian as well as Episcopalian of either class. Against such a fact it was idle to contend; whether good or bad the scheme could not work. By disputing the reasonableness of that feeling, this new system could no more be forced in repugnance to it, than the system of the Kildare-street Association by the same process, in repugnance to the feeling of the Catholic priesthood. If it might be permitted to treat for a moment with levity so serious a subject, he would say of this scheme, as of harlequin's horse in the old story: it might have excellent qualities, its colour might be beautiful, its form might be perfect, in every respect a most excellent animal it might be—but, unfortunately, the horse was dead. So of this scheme, it was virtually dead; it wanted to constitute it a national system of education, the living qualities of the assent and attachment, nay more, it had the aversion of one great division of the Irish population. Under such circumstances he could have no apprehension of its passing into a law, it had already failed. But as he had said before with respect to the Kildare-street Association, he could not consider the attempt at conciliation by compromise in such a question as national education, to be more wise or sound than practicable. Each party must, to obtain this object, sacrifice something which it considered valuable and important—prejudices, which were often near allied to principles, must be made to give way, and with the prejudice there was danger that some of the principle might go too; at least the sacrifice of the one prepared the way for the sacrifice of the other. If the Protestant thought, that in excluding the Bible from daily use in education, he was making a sacrifice of principle, it would be doing mischief to induce him to make it. If the Catholic thought he was making a sacrifice of principle in admitting the Bible for the same purpose, it was doing equal mischief to induce him to do so. Besides, as a christian, he was not quite satisfied with any scheme which had the appearance of recognizing the separation of morality from religion: as a Protestant he was not quite satisfied with any scheme of national education which, in the minds of many, wore the appearance of recognizing nationally the exclusion of the Holy
328
Scriptures. He would not, however, sit down without expressing his regret, and indignation, at the motives which, in too many places, had been imputed to the promoters of this measure. He should have thought that in the minds of men of any fairness, the public, as well as personal, character of his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, would have been a sufficient protection against such an imputation—that the recommendations of several successive sets of Committees and Commissioners, consisting of men of undoubted attachment to the Protestant faith, given in favour of schemes, though not identical with, yet nearly similar to, the scheme of his right hon. friend, might have been a natural explanation of the motives which induced him to propose that which was now before the House. But he was much afraid that political, as well as religious feeling, had had much to do with the reception which this measure had met with in Ireland. Indeed, such was the unhappy state of that country, that he did not think he ever saw an instance of either feeling unmixed. He believed that the measure was impracticable in the present state of Ireland; he believed, looking at the state of feeling both in Scotland and Ireland, that it must be given up, and he should feel it his duty to vote against any grant of money for the support of the scheme.
Lord Robert Grosvenorsaid, he could confirm the noble Lord's opinion as to the growing unpopularity of the measure in the north of England, as he had a similar petition to present against it.
Mr. W. Peelsaid, that the measure was introduced to the House as an experiment, and he believed that the experiment had already failed. Consequently, he begged leave to advise Ministers that, as the Kildare-street grant had been withdrawn, no other grant such as that should be made, but that Protestants and Catholics should each provide for the education of their own poor.
Mr. James Grattanwished that the experiment should be given at least a full, fair, and impartial trial, before it was condemned. For his part, he believed, if adopted and persevered in, it would confer great benefits upon Ireland.
Lord Ingestriewas desirous to see the poor of every denomination educated. But in this plan favour was shown to the Catholic at the expense of the Protestant poor, who could not be expected to give

329
up their own feelings and consent to a mutilation of the Holy Scriptures, which they had been accustomed to receive entire.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was of essential importance to the country that the Estimates should be proceeded with. He, therefore, suggested to hon. Members the impolicy of such discussions as the present at such a moment. It was understood that the Committee of Supply was to close at half-past eight o'clock.
Mr. J. E. Gordonsaid, he had intended to offer some remarks upon the subject, but after what had fallen from the noble Lord he would not then detain the House.
Mr. Jonessaid, he disapproved of the Ministerial plan on religious grounds.
Petitions to be printed.
Lord Althorpmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

EARL OF BELMORE.
Mr. Burgewished to take that opportunity to press the noble Lord opposite to answer a question which he put to him on a former evening, namely, whether the instructions for the recall of the Earl of Belmore were sent out before Government received intelligence of the late insurrection at Jamaica? He wished for an answer to that question, because most unfounded impressions prevailed in some quarters that the noble Earl's recall was connected with the rebellion.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had not the least idea that a suspicion of the nature existed. He would state explicitly that, the instructions for the recall of Earl of Belmore were sent out before the Government knew anything of the insurrection.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Mr. Herries, before going into Committee wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to a point connected with the new financial system which he proposed to introduce. The votes now to be passed were, to extend to the 31st of March, 1833, being four quarters. One quarter for this year had been already voted, making five quarters' supply; and, as there was one quarter's supply left in the Treasury from the grant of last year, over and above what was expended for the year, six quarters' supply would be actually placed at the disposal of the Treasury.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was true, that the
330
votes passed in the year ending the 5th of January had hitherto been actually applied to carry on the service to April, but, though, they had been granted for that quarter, they were not legally applicable to its expenses. The Ministers, therefore, had thought it necessary to come to the House to vote a supply for the first quarter separately, intending afterwards to come for a vote for the year commencing the 1st of April, 1832, and ending the 31st of March 1833. The financial year being thus altered, the irregularity which had hitherto occurred, of applying to the first quarter of a year, part of the money which had been voted by Parliament specifically for the expenses of the preceding year, would be avoided. Such being the case, he did not see how the right hon. Gentleman could assert that six quarters' supply had been placed at the disposal of the Government.
The House resolved itself into a Committee.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Sir Jas. Grahamsaid, that having very recently had occasion to state to the House an outline of the Navy Estimates, he should not then feel it necessary to detain the Committee for inure than a very short time. In the outset, however, he begged to remind the Committee, that it was to the effective portion of the service alone, he was about to apply his observations. The sum which had been voted previously for that service was 4,278,000 l., which himself and his colleagues had diligently applied themselves to reduce; accordingly, in almost every item in the Estimates he was about to move there was a reduction, as compared to the Estimates of former years. Upon the whole there was a reduction of about 983,000 l., as compared with the Estimates of 1831. He would not occupy the time of the Committee by going through the whole of the various items upon which a reduction had been effected, but content himself with alluding to the most important. In the number of men to be employed there was a material reduction: the number of seamen was reduced 4,000, and that of marines 7,000. The next important item was timber and materials; and the third was provisions. Those were the three leading branches of the service in which reductions had been effected; but as he had before stated, upon every item, with the exception of

331
three, some saving was made. Upon those excepted items there was an increase, which he should be happy to explain when they came particularly before the Committee. The whole amount of the reductions was about twenty-two per cent upon the effective branches of the naval service. He, therefore, begged leave to move" that 27,000 men, including 9,000 marines, be employed for the thirteen calendar months next following March, 1832."
Sir George Clerksaid, if the items in which the alleged reductions were made were examined, it would be ascertained that the savings could only be considered at the best but temporary, and got up for effect. Of those reductions no less a sum than 562,000 l. was made in the Store and Provision Departments, which must be ultimately replaced. The right hon. Baronet, too, had compared the Estimate of the present year with that for the last, and such a comparison made the reductions appear far greater than they really were, for it was well known that the Estimate of last year exhibited a considerable increase as compared with the Estimate of 1830. The total actual expenditure of 1830 had been ascertained to amount to 5,309,000 l., while the Estimate for 1831 was 5,870,000 l., exhibiting an increase upon 1830 of 561,000 l. Then the right hon. Baronet had calculated the expenditure as for the new financial year, it would have been right and fair to calculate it for the actual year 1832, if a correct statement was to be laid before the House, of the naval Estimates. Following the old plan, he had ascertained, that during the quarter already nearly expired, there would be an expenditure of 1,423,000 l., and that, added to the Estimates for the other three quarters, would give a total of 5,104,000. Therefore, the estimated expenditure for 1832 would be only lower than the actual expenditure for 1830 by 205,000 l., and that difference in the naval charge was apparent rather than real, and easily to be accounted for. It was occasioned, not by reduction, but by transfer. The Coast Guard on the coasts of Kent and Sussex had been transferred from the Admiralty to the Customs, and the charge upon account of it in 1830 amounted to upwards of 200,000 l. Looking at these facts, he must say, that, although he was quite ready to give the present Government credit for a sincere desire to effect retrenchment? he could
332
not understand how the right hon. Baronet made out his asserted reductions, deducting the increase in the non-effective service of 22,000 l., to be 961,000 l. He was aware that many curtailments had been made in the civil establishments; but he could not, from anything before Parliament, see how the projected arrangements respecting the Victualling and Navy Boards would cause a saving of 49,000 l., as had been stated by the right hon. Baronet. Certainly the right hon. Baronet read to the House a statement of the offices which were to be abolished, and which, he believed, amounted to that sum; but that statement had never been laid regularly upon the Table of the House, although a copy of it, or something very closely resembling it, had appeared, he supposed from authority, in the public prints. He repeated, that he desired to have that list regularly before the House; for he found that many offices which were abolished in 1831 were restored in the present Estimates. The Marine Pay Office was said to be abolished, but he found that the Estimates on account of it still amounted to 1,300 l. Much credit had been taken for the abolition of the office of Paymaster of the Marines. True, that office had been abolished, but another was created, called Inspector General of Marines, with precisely the same salary, and held by the same gentleman. Again, in the dock-yards there was a great reduction made in 1831, but he found very many of the offices restored in the present Estimates. In as far as the documents before the House illustrated the subject, he should say that the whole of the reductions in the various departments, excepting the Stores and Victualling, would not exceed 24,000 l. or 26,000 l. That being the case, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would lay before the House the statement which made the reductions amount to 49,000 l. With respect to the particular vote before the Committee, he would only say, he was glad that the prospect of affairs appeared to justify the Ministers in reducing the effective Navy to the extent of 5,000 men. He hoped the view taken would prove accurate. He now begged to call the attention of the Committee to the transfer of the Coast Blockade from the Admiralty to the Customs which had been effected under the auspices of the present Government; he for one regretted this change, because it took from the Admiralty a valuable corps of

333
reserve, which had been found extremely useful on various occasions, and the revenue would not be so well protected by the new arrangements. Nor was it a saving—he meant looking at the expense per man. In 1830 there were 2,700 persons employed for the protection of the revenue by the Admiralty, and the expense was 180,000 l. At present there were about 1,.500 men employed for the same purpose by the Customs, 1,200 on shore and the rest in cruisers, and the total expense was 97,148 l. But the expense was not the only point to be considered. How was the revenue protected? How would the Chancellor of the Exchequer answer that question? No one could doubt there had been a great increase in smuggling. The public prints daily gave proof of that being the fact; and they also gave proofs—for instance, a statement of that day—that the Coast Guard was so inefficient as to be actually overpowered by the smugglers. From the opening of the Medway round to Chichester there was but one opinion, and that was, that smuggling had increased to a frightful extent. Indeed so numerous and daring had the smugglers become, that the property in the neighbourhood of the coast was infested and injured by them. It might be said, that the amount of seizures had not varied much, but that was no criterion of the extent of smuggling, for the same means were not now used to effect seizures which had been used in 1830. The Government, however, had furnished a strong proof of the strength and courage of the smugglers and the inadequacy of the Coast Guard employed to put them down, for it had sent a large party of Dragoons, and a body of the Rifle Brigade, to assist in that duty. It had been said, that putting down smuggling was a bad school for sailors, but surely it was even worse for soldiers. The right hon. Baronet had said, that the expense of the present Coast Guard was 97,000 l., but he thought that must be erroneous. There were ninety-nine naval officers employed, and those officers were set down at 73 l. each. That could not be correct. A Lieutenant in the Navy used to be allowed 73 l. a-year in addition to his half-pay when employed in the coast blockade service, but since 1828 no naval officer had been allowed to receive any half-pay while he held any other situation in his Majesty's service. He considered that a Lieutenant employed in the coast blockade service could not receive
334
less than 160 l. a-year, for no officer would undertake so troublesome a duty unless he obtained some actual addition to the amount of his half-pay, so that in one item alone there must be an error of 10,000 l. If that sum was not considered as part of the expense of the Coast Guard it must be looked for in the half-pay list. He bad next to complain of the returns which had been made from the Treasurer of the Navy. They were full of errors; indeed he had never before seen returns so faulty. They were signed for the right hon. C. P. Thomson, by C. Aylmer. On the union of the offices of Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and the Treasurer of the Navy in the person of the right hon. Gentleman opposite he had expressed his opinion of the impossibility of the right hon. Gentleman being able to devote a suitable portion of his time to the duties of the latter. The returns of which he now complained, and which proceeded from the department of the Treasurer of the Navy, fully justified his anticipation. The first return was respecting the naval officers on half-pay who held civil offices, and it was as inaccurate as it could be. The return contained names which had no business there at all, and omitted names which it ought to contain, and the information which it had given respecting others was inaccurate. The names of Captain Anson, Sir George Cockburn, and others who sat on that side of the House were inserted, although they had retired from office and, therefore received no civil salary, and the names of Captain Elliott, the Secretary of the Admiralty omitted, and the word "unknown" attached to the name of Sir Thomas Hardy as to his civil emoluments, although he was one of the Lords of the Admiralty. Others were in the same situation. He did not point out the errors and absurdities of the return, for the purpose of throwing blame upon the individual, but to expose the badness of the system. There ought to be a responsible Treasurer of the Navy. He solicited attention to that point, for it afforded a valuable lesson as to what might be expected from the proposed abolition of the Navy and Victualling Boards. The hon. Baronet said, he had alluded to the returns respecting the total expense incurred upon account of the coast blockade. They, however, were very inaccurate, and altogether unsatisfactory. Experience had only confirmed the opinion he had before expressed upon

335
the transfer of the guard for the protection of the revenue from the Admiralty to the Customs. Under the new plan the cost was greater per man, and the service less efficiently performed. When they came to the detail of the other items he should offer some remarks respecting this.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that if the hon. Baronet would give notice of any motion, he should be ready to defend himself, but it certainly was something of a novelty in that House to hear an Opposition Member bringing a charge of too great economy against a Minister of the Crown. As to the Paymaster of the Marines, he did not deny that in his place existed an Inspector of Marines; but there was this difference between them—that the one was a military officer and the other a civil officer; and, therefore, he contended that he had a full right to take credit for having reduced one civil office in the Paymastership of the Marines. In consequence of the alteration in the Coast service, referred to by the hon. Baronet, he had been enabled to keep a large number of men on board the guard-ship. The consequence of this was, that he had been able to keep two three-deckers, and three two-deckers fully manned; and two of these ships were now in the Tagus, protecting the property of British subjects. Instead of the Navy, therefore, having been injured by the change, it had promoted the efficiency and availableness of that great branch of the national service. He had the authority of the Commissioners of the Customs for saying, that smuggling had not increased by the new arrangements as to the Coast-guard. With respect to the Return alluded to by the hon. Baronet, he could say that there was no Treasurer of the Navy who had ever done so much, or paid such severe attention to the duties of his office, as the present Treasurer of the Navy. His right hon. friend attended to these duties in person, and not by deputy; and he was sure the more his right hon. friend's conduct was examined, the more praiseworthy it would be found. Since 1829, in consequence of a regulation then made, all the officers employed on the coast service had not been able to take the usual affidavit; and had not, therefore, received their half-pay The officers appointed before that period received their half-pay.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhoped the Committee would not, on the faith of the few trivial errors which had been shown to
336
exist in the Returns alluded to by the hon. Baronet opposite, agree in the sweeping condemnation which that hon. Baronet had passed upon his conduct. He was ready to admit that the name of Sir George Cockburn had been inserted into these Returns by mistake; but the name and salary of Captain Elliot would be found in a subsequent page. With regard to Sir Thomas Hardy, when the Return was made out, his affidavit relating to his half-pay and civil allowances had not been received; but admitting those errors he contended that the accounts were otherwise correct.
Sir George Clerksaid, he thought the right hon. Baronet had admitted when he acknowledged that he had created a military office with the same salary as that of a civil office which he claimed to have abolished, that some subterfuge had been had recourse to in making up the pretended amount of reductions, and, he believed, there were other cases of the same nature. The master bricklayer at Woolwich was said to have been reduced, but another officer had been appointed under another name. So at Chatham, the master rigger and master painter were said to be reduced, although in fact they had virtually been replaced. He believed that the new offices created would cost 4,000 l. a-year, and that sum must, therefore, be deducted from the 49,000 l. which the right hon. Baronet claimed to have saved.
Sir James Grahamsaid, the master rigger and the master painter were really reduced, because they were no longer salaried officers. He allowed, however, that they were retained as superior workmen, but a considerable saving had thereby been effected.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet, that the Return was most imperfect, and that it might be improved. There ought to be no such Returns as "unknown," for a correct account ought to be required from every person previous to the paper being laid on the Table. But he wholly objected to the principle of mixing up half-pay with civil salaries, as that practice afforded facilities for making false Returns. He had no objection to half-pay officers being employed in civil situations, but then he wished the remuneration due for the services should be paid out of one fund. He concurred in the reductions made by the right hon. Baronet, but he thought that they might have been carried a great

337
deal further, and that it was possible to bring the charges down to the standard of 1792. The sums which had been expended since the year 1816, on the building of ships, was nearly thirty millions, and he would undertake to build the whole navy for six millions. Whilst a new species of force was growing up, he considered every farthing that was expended on the building line-of-battle ships on the old principle, as so much money thrown away. He knew it was unpleasant to discharge persons from employment, but individual interests must give way to that of the public, and that feeling must be overcome by men in office. It would be better to keep up a small establishment of well-paid and well-employed artizans, than have such a numerous body as 7,000 men in the public dockyards, who were only half employed and very ill paid. The consequence of having so many half-employed workmen was, in some instances, that ships had been torn to pieces in order to be repaired again. Then the expense of taking care of the stores was equal to the amount they cost. Again, on the subject of superannuations, the Government made much too liberal use of its power in that respect; for while he was on the Finance Committee, he recollected seeing one person examined—he alluded to Mr. Thompson, the Accountant General of the Navy, who was superannuated, but who was no more fit to be superannuated than he himself was; and he did not suppose that any body would turn him out of the House for not being an efficient man. He contended, on the whole, that, notwithstanding the reductions which the First Lord of the Admiralty had already made in these Estimates, greater reductions might still be made in them, in the instances to which he had referred, as well as in the pay-office, which he thought might be abolished altogether. He called the particular attention of the noble Lord opposite to the charge for superannuations: if something were not done to reduce it, he should be compelled to bring on the motion for a revision of the Act, of which he had already given notice.
Sir George Cockburnsaid, he would first notice a remark made by the hon. Member who had just sat down, relating to the salaries of half-pay officers employed in the civil service being paid out of one fund. He had no objection to that plan, provided they were paid the full amount
338
due for their exertions, but the public received a considerable benefit from the present arrangements, far beyond any frauds that might be occasionally committed, because the public obtained the services of such persons at a cheaper rate, in consequence of their being on the half-pay list, for it must be remembered their half-pay must be paid to them if they were wholly unemployed by the public. Now, with regard to the question before the House, he, when a member of Government, had always maintained that the Administration were the best judges of the number of men required for the defence and protection of the country; and, now that he was in the Opposition, he saw no ground to change his opinion; but there might be differences of opinion as to the description of force to be employed. In this view of the case he objected to some of the reductions proposed by the right hon. Baronet, more particularly as referred to that force with the value of which he was so well acquainted—namely, the Marines. A Marine was the snore valuable, because he was of a class which could not be created at pleasure. He had witnessed the inconvenience resulting from employing soldiers on board our ships, who for months were uselessly lying about the ship sick and unfit for service. He thought this force as capable of doing garrison duty, or colonial duty, as the army itself. The Marines should be sent to Gibraltar, Bermuda, and other Marine stations, where they would afford relief to the military, but would be ready for service in case of a war requiring the equipment of a fleet. The best way, in his opinion, to effect these economical objects would be, to reduce a proportionate number of the military, retaining the full complement of Marines, which ought never to be less than 10,000 men. With respect to another alteration that had been made, he must contend that the coast blockade was of great service in providing experienced sailors for his Majesty's ships, when it was necessary that they should be instantly manned to meet any sudden emergency. As to their value in that respect he could quote the testimony of several eminent naval officers to prove that the coast blockade men were found efficient sailors at once, and that they could hit a target better even than the men of the Marine Artillery. Nor could he believe that the naval interests of the country could be protected by five guard-

339
ships instead of twelve. No Government could say with safety that the state of Europe was so perfectly secure or pacific that the force now to be kept on foot would be sufficient, in cases of emergency to place our Navy in that efficient state of equipment which our condition as a nation demanded.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that he conceived the present discussion owed its origin in a great degree to the Returns which he himself had moved for in October last, when he took an opportunity of complaining that the officers on the half-pay of the Army were not permitted to hold civil offices of emolument also—a boon which had been extended to officers of the Navy also in the receipt of half-pay. He appealed to the House whether the case of the army had not been materially altered, and he was of opinion it was an important point for the House, in the year 1832, not to legislate differently with respect to the army to the course pursued by Parliament in 1820, when the services of the army were fresh on the minds and memories of the country and of Parliament, and he hoped the same boon would be extended to the officers of the one service as was proposed for those of the other. It appeared, from the Customs and the Coastguard Returns, that since the year 1828 no less than ninety-nine naval officers had been appointed to civil situations without losing their half-pay, and yet an officer of the army could not hold the one without the surrender of the other. He would not then trespass upon the attention of the House, as it was his intention to bring the matter before Parliament on the occasion of the Army Estimates, or on the Appropriation Act.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that the appointments to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded, and of which he had complained, were made previous to the Order of Council, dated the 1st of January, 1829, and it should be borne in mind that the army half-pay was regulated by the Appropriation Act, while the half-pay of the Navy was regulated by Order of Council. Of course as long as those laws were in existence he was bound by them, but as the hon. Baronet had expressed his intention to bring the matter before the House, he should reserve what he had to a y until that occasion.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that allusion having been made to the service with
340
which he had the honour to be connected, he felt himself bound to state, that, notwithstanding his having been a long or short time in office, he never would desert the interests of the army, or those of the public—interests which he was sure would not be found to be at variance.
Sir George Murraycould never give his consent to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Admiral, for substituting Marines for the regular forces for garrison duty, as he considered nothing could be more injurious to the service. He was quite prepared to vote the force which Government demanded, on a conviction that it was necessary for the protection of the country.
Captain Yorkeobjected to the very extensive reduction of the Marines recommended by the right hon. Baronet. From his own experience of their effectiveness in preserving the discipline of ships of war, he was certain they were the last class of his Majesty's forces that ought to be put on a reduced establishment. With regard to the Victualling Department he hoped whatever reductions were to be made that the utmost care would be taken to provide an ample supply of good provisions for the use of the fleet, for nothing would so quickly generate dissatisfaction among the seamen as any neglect on that head. It was stated that the present Admiralty had five line-of-battle-ships ready for service, but the former Administration had twelve, which could have been prepared at a very short notice, and he was of opinion that the efficiency of the men was better kept up by employment on the coast blockade service than by lying idle in full manned ships of war either in Portsmouth harbour or elsewhere.
Vote agreed to.
As was a vote of 851,175 l. for wages for 27,000 men for the thirteen lunar months ending the 31st of March, 1833, at 2l. 7s. per man per month.
The House resumed, and Report brought up.

FACTORIES' REGULATION BILL.
Mr. Sadler: Sir—In rising to move the second reading of the Bill which I have had the honour of introducing into Parliament, for regulating the labour of children, and young persons, not being free agents, employed in our mills and factories of whatever description, I beg leave to remind the House that, consulting the con-

341
venience of that branch of his Majesty's Government whose more especial duty it is to attend to subjects of this nature, I postponed the discussion upon the principle of the measure to this stage of its progress, and that I have, also, from the same motive, deferred, from time to time, the opportunity of moving the second reading of the Bill, for which I have anxiously waited until the present evening. In now proceeding to discharge, as well as I am able, the task I have undertaken, I shall, as far as I can, consistently with the importance of the subject, and the great and general interest which it has excited throughout the entire community, compress the arguments and facts upon which I found the main proposition of this measure. Hence, though I have been long acquainted with the question, still I shall less present my own views and impressions regarding it than those of other and far higher authorities. Nor shall I misapply many moments of the time to which I shall attempt, on this occasion, to limit myself, by any allusion personal to myself, however much I may have been provoked to such a course. In bringing forward this measure I make no pretensions to a degree of humanity beyond that which I share with the people at large; still less am I influenced by any views adverse to the prosperity and extension of our manufactures and commerce: least of all can I be governed by feelings otherwise than cordial to those engaged in these great concerns. On the contrary, in pursuing my present course, I am acting under the impression, at least, that the measure which I propose will advance the true and permanent interests of the manufacturers, the cordial encouragement and support of many of the most humane, wealthy, and best informed of whom, I regard as the strongest proof of the necessity of the measure, and the surest pledge of its success. As to the imputations of those who wish to defeat this attempt as they have defeated preceding ones of a like nature, not only by thwarting the designs, but by maligning the motives, of those who make them; and who, therefore, accuse me of being instigated by a mere desire of popularity in now bringing forward a measure which some of them know well enough, that I had advocated as strongly long before I was in Parliament, as I can do on the present occasion—I say, as to their imputations, I should have passed
342
them over in silence, only that they afforded me an opportunity, which I will not neglect, of proving, even from the mouths of its opponents, that the measure is highly popular—in the fullest and best sense of the term—and the House, I think, has seen that its popularity is founded upon the steadfast principles and sober feelings of the British community, and that those who resist it must reckon on their just contempt and honest indignation. This is no personal question, nor, to the honour of this House, as has been already seen, is it a political question: it is supported by the wise and the good of all parties and of every persuasion, and must finally triumph. Sir, the Bill which I now proceed to implore the House to sanction by its authority, has, for its purpose, to liberate children and other young persons employed in the mills and factories of the kingdom, from that over exertion and confinement which common sense, as well as long experience has shown to be utterly inconsistent with the improvement of their minds, the preservation of their morals, or the protection of their health: in a word, to rescue them from a state of suffering and degradation which, it is conceived, the children of the industrious classes in hardly any other country endure, or ever have experienced, and which cannot be much longer tolerated. Sir, I am aware that some Gentlemen profess, upon principle, a great reluctance to legislate upon these matters, holding such interference to be an evil. So, I reply, is all legislation—upon whatever subject—an evil only to be tolerated for the purpose of preventing some greater evil; and I shall, therefore, content myself with meeting this objection, common as it is, by simply challenging those who urge it to show us a case which has stronger claims for the interposition of the law, whether we regard the evil to be abated in regard to the suffering individuals, to society at large, to posterity, or to the utter helplessness of those on whose behalf we are called on to interfere; or, lastly, the fact—which experience has left no longer in doubt—that if the law does not, there is no other power that can or will adequately protect them. But, I apprehend, the strongest objection that will be offered on this occasion will be grounded upon the pretence that the very principle of the Bill is an improper interference between the employer and the employed, and an attempt

343
to regulate by law the market of labour. Were that market supplied by free agents, properly so denominated, I should fully participate in those objections. Theoretically, indeed, such is the case, but practically, I fear the fact is far otherwise, even regarding those who are of mature age; and the boasted freedom of our labourers in many pursuits will, on a just view of their condition, be found little more than nominal. Those who argue the question upon mere abstract principles seem, in my apprehension, too much to forget the condition of society, the unequal division of property, or rather its total monopoly by the few, leaving the many nothing whatever but what they can obtain from their daily labour; which very labour cannot become available for the purpose of daily subsistence, without the consent of those who own the property of the community, all the materials, elements, call them what you please, on which labour is to be bestowed, being in their possession. Hence it is clear that, excepting in a state of things where the demand for labour fully equals the supply (which it would be absurdly false to say exists in this country), the employer and the employed do not meet on equal terms in the market of labour; on the contrary, the latter, whatever be his age, and call him as free as you please, is often almost entirely at the mercy of the former: he would be wholly so were it not for the operation of the Poor-laws, which are a palpable interference with the market of labour, and condemned as such by their opponents. Hence is it, that labour is so imperfectly distributed, and so inadequately remunerated, that one part of the community is over-worked, while another is wholly without employment; evils which operate reciprocally upon each other, till a country which might afford a sufficiency of moderate employment for all, exhibits at one and the same time part of its inhabitants reduced to the condition of slaves by over exertion, and another to that of paupers by involuntary idleness. In a word, wealth, still more than knowledge, is power, and power, liable to abuse whenever vested, is least of all free from tyrannical exercise, when it owes its existence to a sordid source. Hence have all laws, human or divine, attempted to protect the labourer from the injustice and cruelty which are too often practised upon him. Our Statute-book contains many proofs of
344
this, and especially in its provision for the poor.
The Anti-Truck Bill of last year is an instance of the same benevolent interposition. Above all, that sacred institution which has been adopted and legally enforced, as far as the limits of civilization extends, and which justifies its claim to its divine origin by its humanity and mercy—the institution of the Sabbath, is a constantly recurring interference between the employer and the employed, solely and avowedly in favour of the latter. For myself I cannot help regretting, that almost every other red-letter day is now blotted out from the dark calendar of labouring poverty, whose holidays are now too "few and far between," to cheer the spirits, or recruit the health of our industrious population. Nor has the introduction of machinery redressed this great and growing evil. It was promised, indeed, and might have been hoped, that the great inventions of recent times would have restored some of these; would have abridged human labour somewhat in its duration, and abated its intensity: and it is only by effectuating this that machinery can justify its very appellation, as consisting of inventions to shorten human labour. As now applied, it has too often the contrary effect. Sir, I look forward to the period when machinery will really vindicate its pretensions, and surpass, in its beneficial effects, all that its most sanguine advocates have anticipated: when those inventions, whether so complicate and minute as almost to supplant the human hand, or so stupendous as to tame the very elements, and yoke them to the triumphal car of human industry, shall outstrip our boldest expectations, not so much, indeed, by still further augmenting the superfluities of the rich, as by increasing the comforts and diminishing the labour of the poor; thereby restoring to the mass of our fellow beings those physical enjoyments, that degree of leisure, those means of moral and mental improvement, which alone can advance them to that state of happiness and dignity to which, I trust, it is their destiny to attain. Hitherto, however, I repeat, the effect has been far different. The condition of the operative manufacturer has been rendered more and more dependent and precarious: the labour of those of them that are employed is, in many cases, so increased, as to be utterly irreconcileable with the preservation of either health

345
or life: infancy itself is forced into the market of labour, where it becomes the unresisting victim of cruelty and oppression; while, as might be expected from such an unnatural state of things, the remuneration for this increasing and excessive degree of' toil is regularly diminishing, till at length multitudes among us are reduced, in their physical condition at least, below the level of the slave or the brute. In proof that this is no singular or overcharged view of the present effects, or, at all events, of the inevitable consequences of this dreadful system, I shall appeal to the language of a benevolent and enlightened individual, formerly a Member of this House, and an ornament to it and the country—I mean the late Sir Robert Peel. His deliberate judgment upon this important subject is recorded in a document which he delivered to the Committee on this Bill in 1816:—
"Such indiscriminate and unlimited employment of the poor (says that distinguished individual) consisting of a great proportion of the inhabitants of the trading districts will be attended with effects to the rising generation so serious and alarming, that I cannot contemplate them without dismay; and thus that great effort of British ingenuity, whereby the machinery of our manufactures has been brought to such perfection, instead of being a blessing will be converted into its bitterest curse."
Neither in quoting this passage, nor in making the few observations which introduced it, would I be understood to recommend any interference with the efforts of human ingenuity, or with the market of labour, as applied by free agents. In shewing, however, how far even adults are from being free agents, in the proper meaning of the term, but, on the contrary, how dependent they often are for their employment and their daily bread upon the will of others, I think I have prepared the way for the conclusion, that children, at all events, are not to be regarded as free labourers; and that it is the duty of this House to protect them from that system of cruelty and oppression to which I shall—waiving many observations that here present themselves—presently advert. As for the common-place objection urged against the necessity of a legislative protection being extended to these children, that their parents are free agents, and that the children, therefore, ought to be regarded as such, I apprehend that it has but little force in any point of view. The
346
argument, however, is so often and so confidently urged, that I shall be excused in giving it a moment's attention.
Sir, the parents who surrender their children to this infantile slavery may be separated into two classes. The first of these, and, I trust, by far the most numerous, consists of those who are obliged, by extreme indigence, so to act, but who do so with great reluctance and with bitter regret: themselves, perhaps, out of employment, or working at very low wages, and their families, therefore, in a state of great destitution, what can they do? The Overseer, as is in evidence, refuses relief if they have children capable of working in factories whom they refuse to send there. They choose, therefore, what they deem, perhaps, the lesser evil, and reluctantly resign their offspring to the captivity and the pollution of the mill: they rouse them in the winter morning, which, as the poor father says before the Lords' Committee, they "feel very sorry" to do—they receive them fatigued and exhausted, many a weary hour after the day has closed—they see them droop and sicken, and, in many cases, become cripples and die, before they reach their prime: and they do all this, because they must otherwise suffer unrelieved, and starve, like Ugolino, amidst their starving children. It is mockery to contend that these parents have a choice; that they can dictate to, or even parley with the employer, as to the number of hours their child shall be tasked, or the treatment it shall be subject to in his mill; and it is an insult to the parental breast to say, that they resign it voluntarily—no, Sir,
"Their poverty, and not their will consents." Consents, indeed! but often with tears, as Dr. Ashton, a physician familiar with the whole system, informed the Committee; a noble Member of which, indeed, observed to one of the poor parents then examined, who was speaking of the successive fate of several of his children, which he had been obliged to send to the factory—" You can hardly speak of them without crying?" The answer was "No!" and few, I should suppose, refrained from sympathizing with him. Free agents! To suppose that parents are free agents while dooming their own flesh and blood to this fate, is to believe them monsters! But, Sir, there are such monsters: unknown, indeed, in the brute creation, they belong to our own kind, and are found in our own country;

347
and they are generated by the very system which I am attacking. They have been long known and often described, as constituting the remaining one of the classes of parents to which I adverted. Dead to the instincts of nature, and reversing the order of society, instead of providing for their own offspring, they make their offspring provide for them: provide—not for their necessities alone, but for their intemperance and profligacy. They purchase idleness by the sweat of their infants, and spend the price of their happiness, health, and life, in the haunts of profligacy and corruption. Thus, at the very same hour of the night that the father is at his guilty orgies, the child is panting in the factory. Such count upon their children as upon their cattle—nay, to so disgusting a state of degradation does the system lead, that they make the certainty of having an offspring, the indispensable condition of marriage, that they may breed a generation of slaves. These, then, are some of the free agents, without the storgé of the beast, or the feelings of the man, to whom the advocates of the mill-system assure us we ought to intrust the labour of little children. One of these free agents, a witness against the late Sir Robert Peel's Bill, confessed, before the Committee, that he had pushed his own child down and broken her arm, because she did not do as he thought proper, while in the mill. The Lords refused to hear the wretch another word. And shall we listen to those who urge us to commit little children to such guardianship? Sir, we have heard, in a late memorable case, a dictum, uncontradicted I believe in any quarter, stating that, by the Constitution of England, the first law officer of the Crown, representing the Sovereign, is the guardian of all children, of whatever rank, improperly treated by their parents; but that that Court was limited in its interference by the circumstance of there being property under its control. Will it be contended, then, that in these extreme cases of cruelty and oppression (for such I shall call them), where protection is far more imperatively demanded, that poverty should be a bar against the course of British justice? If so, let us boast no longer of the impartiality of our laws! Why, Sir, if in a solitary instance a parent were to confine his child, or a master his apprentice, in a heated room, and keep him at his labour more hours than nature could sustain, and
348
at length the victim were to die under the tyrannous oppression, and a Coroner's inquest were to return a verdict of murder upon the occasion, what would be the result? And are the multiplication of such lingering murders, and the effrontery with which they are perpetrated, to become their expiation? if not, it is high time that the Legislature should interfere and rescue from the conspiracy of such fathers, and such factory-masters instigated by kindred feelings, these innocent victims of cruelty and oppression.
There are other descriptions of children, also, whom I should be glad to know how the objectors to whom I am alluding make out to be free agents. I mean poor orphan children—a class which the system is a very efficient instrument in multiplying: very few adult spinners, as it is often alleged, and as I shall prove, surviving the age of forty; in many instances, therefore, leaving their children fatherless at a very early period of life. Indeed, so numerous are these, that a physician, examined on the occasion to which I have so often alluded, was painfully struck with the proportion. Are these orphans free agents? Again, there are in all manufacturing towns a great number of illegitimate children, and these, also, are greatly increased by the system in question. I am aware that a celebrated authority has said, these are, comparatively speaking, of no value to society—others would supply their place—yet still I cannot but regard these as objects of the deepest compassion. To this list of free agents I might also add the little children who are still apprenticed out in considerable numbers, often, I fear, by the too ready sanction of the Magistrates whose hard treatment has been the subject of many recent communications which I have received from individuals of the highest credit and respectability. But, as the objectors to legislative protection for the factory-children can make it out to be unnecessary, because their parents are free vents for them, when they have any surviving, so also it is quite as clear, probably, in their apprehension, that the parish officer is as good a free agent for the poor orphan, the illegitimate, or the friendless little apprentice, who may be under his special protection.
But I will proceed no further with these objections. The idea of treating children, and especially the children of the poor—

349
and, above all, the children of the poor imprisoned in factories—as free agents, is too absurd to justify the attention I have paid to it. Sir, the fact is, that the protection of poor children and young persons from those hardships and cruelties to which their age and condition have always rendered them liable, has ever been held one of the first and most important duties of every Christian Legislature. Our own has not been, entirely deficient in this respect; and it is mainly owing to the change of circumstances that many of its humane provisions have been rendered inoperative, and that the present measure has become necessary. I had meant to take a short review of these various efforts down to the time of the benevolent Hanway; but interesting as the subject is, and applicable to the present discussion, I must forbear, in respect to the time it would occupy. I shall, therefore, just notice that the introduction of Sir Richard Arkwright's invention revolutionized the entire system of our national industry. Previously to that period, the incipient manufactures of the country were carried on in the villages and around the domestic hearth that invention transferred them principally to the great towns, and confined them to what are now called factories. Thus was it that children became the principal operatives; and they no longer performed their tasks, as before, under the parental eye, and had them affectionately and considerately apportioned, according to their health and capacities, but one universal rule of labour was prescribed to all ages, to both sexes, and to every state and constitution. Such a rule, therefore, it might have been hoped and expected, would have been calculated upon what the young, the delicate, and especially the female, labourers could bear. But no speak it with shame, with horror—it was stretched, in many cases—I had nearly said in almost all—beyond what the most athletic and robust of our own sex, in the prime and vigour of life, can with impunity sustain; to the ultimate destruction, in a vast plurality of instances, of the health, happiness, and life of the miserable victims. Sir, our ancestors could not have supposed it possible—posterity will not believe it true—it will be placed among the historic doubts of some future antiquary—that a generation of Englishmen could exist, and had existed, that would task lisping infancy, of a few summers old re-
350
gardless alike of its smiles or tears, and unmoved by its unresisting weakness, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, sixteen hours a-day, and through the weary night also, till, in the dewy morn of existence, the bud of youth faded, and fell ere it was unfolded. "Oh, cursed lust of gold!" Oh, the guilt England was contracting in the kindling eye of Heaven, when nothing but exultations were heard about the perfection of her machinery, the march of her manufactures, and the rapid increase of her wealth and prosperity!
Early, however, in this century, the late Sir Robert Peel, knowing well the enormities of the factory system, and finding, from his own experience, that nothing but a legislative enactment could remove them, obtained the first Act for the protection of poor children employed in cotton factories. About fifteen or sixteen years afterwards, he carried another measure of a similar but more comprehensive nature. Lastly, the right hon. member for Westminster obtained another Act last Session, having the same benevolent object in view. But on all these occasions, the attempt by whomsoever made, or whatever was its character, was met with the same strenuous, or as I might well call it, vehement opposition. Whether it was proposed to limit the labour of infants and young persons, beside the time necessary for their meals and refreshments to ten, eleven, or even twelve hours a-day, it was all one, the proposal was scouted and resisted. The motives and conduct of those engaged in attempting to obtain this protection were maligned. The universal humanity of all those engaged in every pursuit, whose power over those children was unrestrained, was boldly asserted; the superior health, happiness, and even longevity of those employed were always maintained. Whatever was the nature or duration of the employment which these young persons, whether daily or nightly pursued, it was contended that no injury, but abundance of good was done to them. On every occasion this opposition has so far triumphed, as to defeat the original intentions of those who have proposed these measures. It has succeeded in lengthening the time of infantine labour—in limiting every act to one particular branch of business—in introducing provisions which have rendered them liable to constant evasions—and it is well known, that the whole of them are

351
evaded and rendered little better than a dead letter. The very same opposition that has so long and so often triumphed over justice and humanity is again organized and actively at work.
A Committee of Inquiry is now again demanded, and I fear in order to postpone, if not finally to defeat, the measure. The nature of the evidence that will be then brought forward is perfectly familiar to those acquainted at all with the subject. Certificates and declarations will be obtained in abundance from divines and doctors as to the morality and health which the present system promotes and secures. Sir, I cannot refrain from giving a sample of what may be expected in this line, and I think it will prepare us for, and arm us against, whatever may be advanced in favour of so unnatural and oppressive a system. I mean not to impeach the veracity or the learning of the witnesses who appeared in its favour, and whose evidence cuts a very conspicuous figure in these ponderous reports; it only furnishes another proof of the strange things that may be perhaps conscientiously believed and asserted, when the mind is under a particular bias. They said, that the children who were worked without any regulation, and, consequently, according to their employers sole will and pleasure, were not only equally, but more healthy, and better instructed, than those not so occupied; that night labour was in no way prejudicial, but actually preferred; that the artificial heat of the rooms was really advantageous, and quite pleasant; that, so far from being fatigued with, for example, twelve hour's labour, the children perform the last hour's work with greater interest and spirit than any of the rest. What a pity the term is not lengthened!—in a few more hours they would be worked up into a perfect ecstacy of delight! A doctor, who is produced, will not pronounce without examination that it could be prejudicial. I must quote a few of his assertions, or rather answers to certain queries. "Should you not think (he is asked) that, generally speaking, keeping a child, eight years old, standing twelve hours in the day would be injurious?" The doctor reverses, perhaps by mistake, the figures, but his answer terminates—" I believe it is not." "Supposing (it is again asked) I were to ask you whether you thought it injurious to a child to be kept standing three-and-twenty hours out of the four-and-twenty,
352
should you not think it must be necessarily injurious to the health, withou any fact to rest upon—as a simple proposition put to a gentleman of the medical profession?" "Before I answer that question," the doctor replies, "I should wish to have an examination to see how the case stood, and if there were such an extravagant thing to take place, and it should appear that the person was not injured by having stood three-and-twenty hours, I should then say it was not inconsistent with the health of the person so employed." "As you doubted," says a noble Lord," whether a child could work for twenty-three hours without suffering, would you extend your doubts to twenty-four hours?" "That was put to me as an extreme case," says the doctor;" my answer only went to this effect, that it was not in my power to assign any limits." The same authority will not say whether it would be injurious to a child to be kept working during the time it gets its meals. Another medical gentleman "is totally unable to give an answer" whether "children from six to twelve years of age, being employed from thirteen to fifteen hours in a cotton factory, in an erect position, and in a temperature of about 80°, is consistent with safety to their constitution." Another boldly asserts, that he does not see it necessary that young persons should have any recreation or amusement, nor that the constant inspiration of particles of cotton is at all injurious to the lungs. Reports of the state of certain mills were also given, but the reporters seem to have totally forgotten that they had examined a body of persons constantly recruited, from which the severely sick, and those that had retired to die, were necessarily absent; and not to have suspected that many of these mills were also previously and carefully prepared for such inspection. Still, I observe, that it is allowed that "many of them" (the children) "were pale, and apparently of a delicate complexion," but "without any decided symptoms of disease." Why, what did that paleness and delicacy in the rosy morning of life indicate? That disease, though not decided as to its symptoms, was decidedly fastening with mortal grasp upon its victims; that early labour and confinement had, "like a worm i'the bud, fed on their damask cheek;" that the murderous system was then about its secret, but certain, and deadly work. In corroboration, however,

353
of all that these learned persons advanced, and in full proof of the excellency of the entire system, bills of mortality of certain places and works were adduced; in some of which, it was made to appear that, in a mean number of 888 persons employed, the mortality had, during eight years, averaged 3–875–1000th only, or one in 229. This sort of evidence suggests many ludicrous ideas, which, however, as unsuitable to the subject, I shall suppress; it will, doubtless, be again adduced in great abundance before another select Committee. Physicians, divines, and others, would be found to testify to the same effects. I will show the true value of all such certificates before I sit down. Parliament, indeed, did not regard these champions of the factory-system on the former occasion, for the Bill was passed in spite of their opposition; and, after what I shall advance, I hope the House will not again trouble them.
Without attending any further to this species of opposition, I now proceed to show the necessity of a general measure for regulating the labour of children and young persons employed in mills and factories, of whatever description, the protective Acts already obtained, having been confined in their operation to one branch of manufacture only, and in that, almost entirely defeated as to their original intention and design. I need not inform the House, that the great invention of Sir Richard Arkwright, originally used for the spinning of cotton, has at length been applied, with the necessary adaptations, to a similar process in almost all our manufactures. Now, the fact that Parliament has several times, notwithstanding the severest opposition, seen it necessary to regulate the labour of children in the former pursuit, proves the same necessity to exist regarding those other factories, now so numerous, which have been hitherto entirely exempted from all such control. It would be the grossest injustice, as well as insult, to argue that those engaged in the cotton trade were one whit less humane and considerate, and, consequently, required legislative interference one whit more than those engaged in spinning any other material. And if it be contended, that the labour of the latter is in many cases either unhealthy or less immoderate than that of the former, I meet the assertion with a direct negative.
And, first, in reference to one descrip-
354
tion of spinners, from some of whom I am now meeting with opposition of every kind, I mean the spinners of flax—I would seriously ask any Gentleman who has himself gone through a modern flax-mill, whether he can entertain the slightest doubt, that the occupation, as now pursued, must, in many cases, be injurious to health and destructive of life? In many departments of those mills, the dust is great, and known to be highly injurious. In those in which fine spinning has been introduced, the air has to be heated, as in certain of the cotton mills; the flax has also, in one of its processes, to be passed through water heated, I am told, to a high temperature, into which the children have constantly to plunge their arms. In the heckling rooms, in which children are now principally employed, the dust is excessive. The rooms are generally low, lighted by gas, and heated in these cases by steam; altogether exhibiting a state of human endurance which I will not trust myself to describe. I will appeal to a higher authority on these subjects. I hold in my hand a treatise, by a medical man of great intelligence—Mr. Thackrah of Leeds, who, in his work "On the Effects of Arts and Trades on Health and Longevity," thus speaks of this pursuit, especially of the dusty parts in it:—"A large proportion of men in this department die young."—" We find, indeed, comparatively speaking, few old persons in any of the departments of the flax mills." "On inquiry at one of the largest establishments in this neighbourhood, we found that, of 1,079 persons employed, there were only nine who had attained the age of fifty, and besides these only twenty-two who had reached forty." It may, however, perhaps, be here remarked, that this factory census does not exhibit the rate of mortality, but merely indicates that few adults are required in these establishments. If so, then another enormous abuse comes into view, namely, that this unregulated system over-labours the child, and deserts the adult, thus reversing the natural period of toil, and leaving numbers without employment, or the knowledge how to pursue it if they had, just at the period of life when they ought to commence active exertions. Why, Sir, this is to realize, in regard of these poor victims of premature labour, the fate of the poor little chimney-sweeper, whose lot, once commiserated so deeply, is now, I think, too much forgotten, and whose

355
principal hardship is not so much that his business is of a degraded kind, as that, when he has learned his business, he has outgrown it, and is turned upon society to learn some occupation late in life, and to seek an employment for which he is unqualified. So far, therefore, this unrestricted factory-system perpetrates the deepest injury, not only on individuals, but upon society at large.
But, to return to Mr. Thackrah: He says, "that a visitor cannot remain many minutes in certain rooms without being sensibly affected in his respiration;" also, that "a suffocating sensation is often produced by the tubes which convey steam for heating the rooms." He examined, by the stethoscope, several individuals so employed, and found "the lungs or air tube considerably diseased" in all of them. He adds, that the coughs of the persons waiting to be examined were so troublesome as continually to interrupt and confuse the exploration by that instrument. He says, "that though the wages for this labour are by no means great, still the time of labour in the flax mills is excessive; the people are now (November, 1830) working from half-past six in the morning until eight at night, and are allowed only an interval of forty minutes in all that time." Thus human beings are kept in an atmosphere of flax dust nearly thirteen hours in the day for six days in the week. "No man of humanity," he observes, "can reflect without distress on the state of thousands of children, many from six to seven years of age, roused from their beds at an early hour, hurried to the mills and kept there, with an interval of only forty minutes, to a late hour at night, kept, moreover, in an atmosphere loaded with noxious dust." "Health," he exclaims, "cleanliness, mental improvement, how are they regarded! Recreation is out of the question. There is scarcely time for meals. The very period of sleep, so necessary to the young, is too often abridged. Nay, children are sometimes waked even in the night. Human beings thus decay before they arrive at the term of maturity. "He observed elsewhere" that this system has grown up by a series of encroachments upon the poor children, that the benevolent masters are not able to rectify these abuses. A legislative enactment is the only remedy for this, as well as the other great opprobrium of our manufactures, the improper employment
356
of children." Such, Sir, are the opinions of this medical gentleman on the subject, written long before the present Bill was before the House, and founded upon daily observation and experience.
I might add the opinion of another very excellent practitioner of the same place, Mr. Smith, respecting the cruelty of the present system, and the misery and decrepitude which it inflicts upon its victims; but his opinions, given with great force and ability, have, I think, been already widely disseminated by means of the press. The other surgeons of the General Infirmary, all men of great professional eminence, entertain, I believe, precisely similar opinions. One of them, Mr. Hey, a name that must, on being mentioned, command the highest respect in every medical society, whether of England, or, indeed, of Europe, presided, as Mayor of Leeds, at an immensely numerous meeting of the inhabitants of that borough, when the petition presented from that place in favour of the Bill, signed by between 18,000 and 20,000 names, was unanimously agreed to.
In silk and worsted mills, and especially in the former, the nature of the employment may be less prejudicial in itself; but then its duration is often more protracted, and it falls in a larger proportion upon females and young children. In many spun-silk mills, in which a different operation from that of silk throwing, and one conducted upon Arkwright's principle is carried on, the practice of working children at a very tender age, and often all night, prevails. In one of these, I am informed, they commence at one o'clock on the Monday morning, and leave off at eleven on Saturday night; thus delicately avoiding the Sabbath, indeed, but rendering its profitable observance, either for improvement, instruction, or worship, an utter impossibility.
In the worsted mills the greatest irregularities have, in this respect, existed; and, therefore, occasional oppression has long prevailed. Let the following extract suffice, from a document drawn up by a gentleman in this branch of business, Mr. Wood, to mention whose name is to kindle up at once the most enthusiastic feelings in the bosoms of the honest operatives of the north, and to whom is due the honour of originating and supporting this attempt, and who, while he has conducted his manufacture with

357
the greatest humanity and kindness, has still earnestly sought to ameliorate the general condition of the labouring poor. This gentleman gives the ages of 475 persons, principally females, employed at a worsted mill, which, it appears, average about twelve years and a half. He says, "Children of these years are obliged to be at the factory, winter and summer, by six o'clock in the morning, and to remain in it till seven in the evening, with but one brief interval of thirty minutes, every day except Saturday, ceasing work on that day, in some factories, at half-past five, in others at six or seven pm. Not unfrequently this labour is extended till eight or nine at night, fifteen hours—having but the same interval for meals, rest, or recreation; nay, such is the steady growth of this over-working system, that children have been confined in the factory from six in the morning till eight at night, fourteen hours continually, without any time being allowed for meals, rest, or recreation—the meals to be taken while attending the machines; and this the practice of years." This picture, sufficiently appalling, has also to be darkened by the addition of frequent night labour. Sir, this is the practice at Bradford and the neighbourhood.
But, to show that the evils are confined to no particular neighbourhood, but that they prevail wherever children are the principal labourers of the community, I shall next advert to their usage in the principality of Wales, in the flannel manufacture. I quote the following account, which I have received from the most respectable quarter. With certain fluctuations in the degree of labour, resulting from the difference in the demand of the manufactured goods, the children work twenty-four hours every other day, out of which they are allowed three hours only for meals, &c. When trade is particularly brisk, the elder children work from six in the morning till seven in the evening—two hours allowed for meals, &c,—and every other night all night, which is still a more severe case. For this additional night labour they receive 5d. There is another lamentable circumstance attending the employment of these poor children, which is, that they are left the whole of the night alone—the sexes indiscriminately mixed together—consequently you may imagine that the depravity of our work-people is indeed very great. The adults
358
are employed in feeding the engines. Independent of moral considerations, the accidents that occur to these poor little creatures are really dreadful—the number of mutilated and amputated limbs to be met with are quite distressing, and ever must be, till some better regulation is carried into effect. There is not a single place of charitable education for 8,000 children beyond a Sunday school.—As to woollen mills, certain departments in these, especially since the introduction of the French machines, are injurious to health, but, generally speaking, otherwise. But here I might argue that the reason usually given against the necessity of regulating the excessive labour of children employed in factories no longer holds, as the labour in woollen mills is, in general, much more strenuous than that in most of the before-mentioned factories. But, Sir, I disdain to avail myself of an argument, however plausible, which I believe to be fallacious. It is not so much the degree of labour which is injurious to these workchildren—(how revolting the compound sounds; it is not yet admitted, I think, into our language; I trust it will never be familiarised to our feelings). I say it is not so much the degree, as the duration, of their labour that is so cruel and destructive to these poor work-children. It is the wearisome uniformity of the employment, the constrained positions in which it is pursued, and, above all, the constant and close confinement, which are more fatiguing to the body as well as mind than more varied and voluntary, though far stronger, exertion. Sir, I dwell upon this point with more emphasis, because it is the sole possible plea for the long and imprisoning hours of the present laborious system; though, when properly considered, it is one of the strongest arguments against it. Light labour, Sir, is the labour of holding a pen, and of writing with it strenuously; and yet, ask a clerk in any of the public offices, or in any private counting-house, whether when he has been at his employment some half-dozen hours in the day less than one of these children, he does not think that he has had enough of this light labour—to say nothing of the holidays, of which he has many, and the child none. Ask the recruit recent from the plough, whether an hour of his light exertion is not more fatiguing than any three he ever endured in the field. Ask his veteran offi-

359
cer, how long he can subject even the old soldier to this sort of slight but constrained exertion in the open air with impunity. I might appeal to the Chair, whether the lingering hours which have to be endured here, though unaccompanied with any bodily exertion whatever, are no "weariness to the flesh." But what would be the feelings of the most active individual among us, if we were compelled to pace that table, for instance, engaged in some minute and anxious employment, stunned with the noise of revolving wheels, suffocated with the heat and stench of a low, crowded, and gas-lighted apartment, bathed in sweat, and still stimulated by the scourge of an inexorable task-master: I say, what would be his ideas of the light labour of twelve or fourteen hours in such a pursuit, and when the night also was added to such a day once or twice in every week? And how would be feel if long years of such light labour lay before him. Let him, if he be a parent, imagine the child of his bosom in that situation, and then judge concerning the children of thousands of others, who are as dear to the Universal Parent as are his own. Let him think of his own childhood, and he will then remember that this light labour is the fatigue of youth, and that strenuous exertion, when the buoyant spirits exercise the entire frame, is its sport.
Sir, I might quote authorities on this subject, but it were unnecessary so to do. Common sense and common feeling at once decide the point; and dispose of this plea of tyranny for this slavish captivity of our infants and our youth. Hence the late Sir Robert Peel, in bringing forward his last measure, emphatically observed, that it was not so much the hardship as the duration of labour, which had caused the mischievous effects on the rising generation. But, if hon. Members choose to argue the question on different grounds, and wish to establish a variation in the duration of the labour of children in mills and factories, in reference to the difference in the nature of the employment, be it so. Confident in my own mind that the Bill proposes the utmost limit which the youthful constitution can safely bear in any pursuit, I can have no particular objection that that period should be abridged in the more pernicious and strenuous employments of the country. But, of this limitation, more hereafter.
I shall not attempt at present to give
360
any precise account of the length of labour generally undergone in different mills and factories. It varies according to the humanity of the employer, and the demand for his goods at particular seasons. But let me here remark, that these variations constitute one of the main reasons for a legislative protection, otherwise the humane masters will be driven out of the trade; for these, it is quite clear, cannot control others less humanely disposed. They are, indeed, in the present state of things, as little free agents as the children whom they employ. And, moreover, the want of a due regulation throws the effects of those fluctuations to which trade and manufactures are subject in an undue and distressing degree upon those who are the least able to sustain their effects. Thus if the demand and profit of the employer increase, the labour of the operatives, most of whom are children, augments, till many of them are literally worked to death; if that demand diminish, the children are thrown partially or wholly out of employment. Were their labour averaged throughout the year, as some mill owners, I perceive, have calculated its duration, it might not, perhaps, appear so excessive; for, Sir, at the very moment that a strenuous opposition is being made against the curtailment of infantile labour, in certain flax mills in the north, I find that the masters themselves have curtailed it to some purpose, having diminished the employment in some mills, and, if I am not misinformed, shut up others entirely; and I have no doubt, but at this particular moment, abundance of evidence might be adduced, before a Select Committee, to show that the hours mentioned in the Bill are observed, and, indeed, more than observed. But, then, if it be right that the owners should be allowed to throw out of employment all these children at a day's notice, is it proper that they should be permitted to work them for an unlimited number of hours the moment it suits their purpose so to do? Sir, if the effects of this Bill were, in some measure, to equalize the labour of these poor children, and thereby prevent those fluctuations which are so distressing in both extremes, it would so far accomplish a most beneficial object. I might, I think transfer, a little of the fluctuation from the factory to the stock-room, with great advantage to the operatives, and consequently to the public at large. As I am unable to give any

361
general and uniform account of the hours of labour now endured in these factories by little children, I am unwilling to present to the House extreme cases, although it is the bounden duty of Parliament to provide against such; as it does, for example, with respect to atrocious, crimes, which, I trust, are still extreme cases in civilized society. I shall, therefore, only give one instance, which I have from good authority, of the extent of oppression to which the system is occasionally carried.
The following were the hours of labour imposed upon the children and young persons employed in a certain establishment last summer. Monday morning commence work at six o'clock; at nine, half an hour for breakfast; begin again at half-past nine, and work till twelve. Dinner one hour; work from one till half-past four. Drinking (afternoon meal), half an hour; work from five till eight, rest half an hour; work from half-past eight till twelve (midnight), an hour's rest. One in the morning till five, work; half an hour's rest, half-past five till nine; breakfast; half-past nine till twelve. Dinner; work from one till half-past four. Again, from five till nine o'clock on the Tuesday evening, when the labour concluded, and the gang of adult and infant slaves was dismissed for the night, after having toiled thirty-nine hours, with nine intervals for refreshment (but none for bed), amounting to six hours only in the whole. Wednesday and Thursday, day work only. On Friday morning till Saturday night, the same labour repeated, with the same intermissions, as endured on Monday, Monday night, and Tuesday; only the labour of the last day closed at five, when the poor wretches were dismissed. The ensuing day, Sunday, must, under such circumstances, he a day of stupor, to rouse the children from which would often only be to continue their physical sufferings without the possibility of compensating them with any moral good. And clergymen, Sunday schoolmasters, and other benevolent persons, are beginning to see and feel this to be the case: parents, wishful as they are that their offspring shall have some little instruction, are yet more anxious that they should have rest. Sunday schools have long been rendered absolutely necessary by the manufacturing system, which has necessarily emptied the day-schools for the poor, wherever it prevails; but, not content with monopolizing
362
the whole week with protracted labour, it has now anticipated the Sabbath itself, and rendered it a day of languor and exhaustion, in which it is impossible that due instruction can be received, or the solemn duties of the day duly performed—in fact, a mere fallow of the worn-out frame, that it may produce another exhausting crop of human labour. If some limits, therefore, are not prescribed to these constant and cruel encroachments, the results may be easily predicted—our labouring population will be ere long imbruted with ignorance, as well as enslaved by excessive toil.
I now proceed to show the consequences of this dreadful system, physical and moral; and as on this important part of the subject I am aware that I shall be at issue with its supporters and apologists, I shall appeal to authorities which none will be disposed lightly to dispute, but, above all, to facts, decisive, as I think, of the whole question—facts which I shall challenge them to controvert or evade. Sir, the authority to which I allude is that of such men as the late Dr. Baillie, Sir Astley Cooper, Sir Gilbert Blane, Dr. Pemberton, Sir Anthony Carlisle, Sir George Tuthill, and many other physicians and surgeons of the highest eminence and celebrity throughout the profession, especially so for their physiological science. Sir, the deliberate opinions of these distinguished persons on the subject under our consideration are contained in these volumes. I cannot read them, nor even select parts from them. Let it suffice for me to say, that they are strong and unanimous against the system of the early and protracted labour of children and young persons. I appeal to the whole of them in favour of this Bill, or rather, indeed, of a limitation far beyond what that Bill secures; so that, when I advert to their deliberate and recorded opinions, I feel a growing dissatisfaction every time I reflect upon its provisions. Sir, many of these distinguished persons still survive. If you institute new Committees of Inquiry, you must again appeal to them; and do you suppose they will contradict their former opinions? Other medical authorities of great eminence have since then appeared, whose views I know in many instances to be, if possible, still more marked and decided upon this important point; and can it be a question, I would ask the House, whether we ought to tolerate a degree of infantile labour which our most eminent

363
medical authorities assure us the human frame is utterly incapable of sustaining with impunity?
If it be objected that these individuals, however great and distinguished, have no practical knowledge of the factory-system and its effects, I will next turn to another description of evidence, namely, to that of professional gentlemen practically acquainted with it, and long residing in its very seat and centre—Manchester. The first is a name equally dear to philosophy and philanthropy, and long without a rival in his profession, in that part of the empire—Dr. Percival. He saw the rise, progress, and effects of the system; and, surrounded as he was by, and connected with, many who were making rapid and vast fortunes by it, still he expressed himself upon it, both as a professional man and a patriot, in terms of the strongest indignation. I regret that time will not permit me to quote his remarks; but who, that is acquainted with general literature, can be ignorant of the writings of Percival of Manchester? I will refer the House to another authority, belonging to a different branch of the same profession, and scarcely a less celebrated one—I mean the late Mr. Simmons. After nearly thirty years' experience in the General Infirmary of Manchester, and being also at the head of other charitable institutions in that town connected with his profession, few men, I should conceive, were more competent to speak as to the effects produced by the factory-system than himself. I must again deeply regret that I cannot quote his opinions at length: his description of the consequences of this species of over-exertion is most appalling; and he adds these emphatic words—"I am convinced that the hours of employment are too long to be endured at any age." Speaking of the evils of the system, he says—"I shudder at contemplating them. I might multiply these authentic and affecting testimonies to almost any extent." I will, however, present, in as few words as possible, the general effects, as described by medical men, of these long hours of confinement, without sufficient intervals for food, recreation, and rest, and continued often through the night in rooms artificially heated, lighted by gas, in which the atmosphere is also otherwise so polluted and offensive as to render it, as it is stated, by respiration even for a few moments, painful. They attribute to this system of labour, in many
364
cases—first, languor, debility, sickness, loss of appetite; pulmonary complaints, such as difficulty of breathing, coughs, asthmas, and consumptions; struma, so common in factories, and other chronic diseases; while, if these more distressing consequences are not produced, the muscular power is lessened, the growth impeded, and life greatly shortened. Deformity is also a common and distressing result of this overstrained and too early labour. The bones—in which the animal, in contradistinction to the earthy matter, is known to prevail in early life—are then pliable, and often cannot sustain the superincumbent weight of the body for so many hours without injury. Hence those of the leg become bent; the arch of the foot, which is composed of several of those of a wedge-like form, is pressed down, and its elasticity destroyed, from which arises that disease of the foot only lately described, but common in factory districts. The spine, also, is often greatly affected, and its processes irregularly protruded, by which also great deformity is occasioned. The tendons also fail, by over-pressure and tension. Hence the hinge-joints, such as those of the knee and the allele, are overstrained, producing the deformity called knock knees and lame ancles, so exceedingly common in mills. Thus are numbers of children distorted and crippled in early life, and frequently rendered incapable of any business whatever. Again, the overworking of these children and others occasions a wearisomeness and lethargy, which it is impossible always to resist; hence, drowsy and exhausted, the poor creatures fall too often among the machinery, which is not always sufficiently sheathed, when their muscles are lacerated, their bones broken, or their limbs torn off, in which case they are sent to the infirmaries to be cured, and, if crippled for life, they are turned out and maintained at the public cost; or they are sometimes killed upon the spot, when, of course, they are burthensome neither to themselves nor the public any longer. I have myself known, in more instances than one, the arm torn off, in one horrible case, both arms were forced away from the body; and a poor girl now exists upon a charitable subscription, who met with that dreadful accident at one of the flax-mills in my neighbourhood. In another factory, and that recently, the mangled limbs of a poor boy were sent home to his mother, unpre-

365
pared for the appalling spectacle. I will not describe the result. It is true that a great majority of these accidents are of a less serious nature; but the books of the infirmaries, in any manufacturing district, will show the number, as will also their accounts, the expense of buying irons to support the bending legs of the young children who become crippled by long standing in mills. Dr. Ashton and Surgeon Graham, who examined six mills in Stockport, in which 824 persons were employed, principally children, have reported the result individually, and a more melancholy list few hospitals, I think, could furnish. The particulars would deeply affect the House, but I must only give the totals. They are as follows:—Of these 824, 183 only are pronounced healthy, 240 are stated to be delicate, 258 unhealthy, 43 very much stunted, 100 with enlarged ancles and knees, and among them were 37 cases of distortion. The accidents, I believe, are not noticed; but I find that Dr. Winstanley, one of the physicians of the Manchester Infirmary, on examining 106 children in a Sunday-school, found that no less than 47 of them had suffered accidents from this one cause; and, Sir, I have this morning received a letter from one of the most eminent surgeons in this metropolis, and, consequently, in the world, in which he informs me, that, on making a tour through the manufacturing districts some years ago, he was painfully struck with the numerous cases of mutilation which he observed, and which he attributed to this too long and wearying labour in mills and factories.
Of the mortality which this system occasions I shall speak hereafter. Can any thing, then, darken the picture which I have hastily drawn, or rather which others infinitely more competent to the task have strikingly pourtrayed? Yes: and that which remains to be added renders it the most disgusting, as well as distressing system, which ever put human feelings to the utmost test of endurance. It has the universally recognized brand and test of barbarism, as well as cruelty, upon it. Sir, it is the feebler sex principally on which this enormous wrong is perpetrated. Female children must be laboured to the utmost extent of their physical powers, and, indeed, frequently beyond them. Need I state the disgusting cruelty, the peculiar hardships which this involves? I speak not, poor things, of the loss of their
366
beauty—of the greater sufferings to which their sex exposes them. But, again taking with me the highest medical authorities, I refer to those consequences of early and immoderate labour which are felt when they become mothers, for which, I fear, their previous pursuits have but poorly qualified them. It is in evidence that long standing has a known tendency—how shall I express it—contrahere et minuere pelvem—and thereby to increase greatly the danger and difficulty of parturition, and render embryotomy, one of the most distressing operations which a surgeon has ever to perform, frequently necessary. I have more than once had communication upon this subject with persons of the highest respectability, and of great professional experience. I confess, therefore, that I feel my indignation roused when I see papers put forth in which it is stated as a recommendation, forsooth, of the present system, and as a reason why it should by no means be regulated, that in certain mills girls are principally employed. This is a matter of exultation! I would ask those who so regard it, in the language of the poet, "Art thou of woman born, and feel'st no shame?"
Nor are the mental, any more than the physical, sufferings of these poor young creatures to be overlooked. In the very morning of life, when their hearts yawn within them for some little relaxation and amusement, to be thus taken captive, and debarred the sports of youth, is almost as great, nay, a greater cruelty than to inflict upon them thus early the toil of advanced life. Their fate, alas, reverses the patriarch's pathetic exclamation, and their infant days are labour and sorrow.
But, Sir, some may be tempted to suspect the accuracy of certain of the foregoing statements, from their improbable character. It may be thought almost impossible that children should be assembled thus early, and dismissed thus late, and still kept through the whole period in a state of active exertion. I will attempt to explain these facts. First, then, this early and punctual attendance is enforced by fines, as are many other regulations of a very severe character; so that a child may lose a considerable part of its wages by being a few minutes too late in a morning that they should not leave too soon is very sufficiently provided against. Now this extreme punctuality is no slight aggravation of the sufferings of the child. It is

367
not one time in ten, perhaps, that the parent has a clock, and if not, as nature is not very wakeful in a short night's rest after a long day's labour, the child, to ensure punctuality, must be often roused much too early. Hence, whoever has lived in a manufacturing town must have heard, if he happened to be awake, many hours before light on a winter's morning, the patter of little pattens on the pavement, continuing, perhaps, for half an hour together, though the time of assembling was the same. And then, Sir, the child is not always safe, however punctual; for in some mills two descriptions of clocks are kept, and it is easy to guess, therefore, how they are occasionally managed. So much for the system of fining: by which, I am told, some mill-owners have boasted that they have made large sums annually.
Then, for the purpose of keeping the children awake till late in the evening, or during the night, as the case might be, and in order to stimulate their exertion, means are made use of, to which I shall now advert, as a last instance of the degradation to which the system has reduced the manufacturing operatives of this country. Sir, children are beaten with thongs prepared for the purpose, and wielded by certain of the overseers. Yes, the females of this country, no matter whether children or grown up—I hardly know which is the more disgusting outrage—are beaten upon their face, arms, and bosoms—beaten in your free market of labour, as you term it, like slaves. These are the instruments. [Here the hon. Member exhibited some black and heavy leather thongs, one of them fixed in a sort of handle.] They are quite equal to breaking an arm, only the bones of the young are, as I have before said, pliant. The marks, however, of the thong, are long visible; and the poor wretch is flogged before its companions—flogged, I say, like a dog, by the tyrant overlooker. Sir, we talk of the cart-whip of the West Indies, but let us see, this night, an equal feeling rise against the factory-thong of England. Is it necessary that we should inquire, by means of a Select Committee, whether this practice is to be put down? Sir, I should wish to propose a clause in this Bill, enacting that the overseer that dares to lay it on the almost naked body of a child, shall tread the wheel for a month; and it would be only right if the master who, knowingly tolerates the infliction of this cruelty on
368
abused infancy, this insult upon parental feeling, should bear him company. But the entire system, as now conducted, has not merely its defenders, but its eulogists. Hence, in a celebrated review, in which its rise and progress are discussed, we find this opinion delivered with the utmost confidence. "We scruple not to say, that the health, morals, and intelligence of the population have all gained by the establishment of the present system." That this ought to have been the result, I have already said; that it will be so, I confidently hope: but it can only become so by adopting regulations of the nature now proposed. Health, morals, and mental improvement can never consist with constant confinement, and excessive labour imposed upon any class of the community, much less upon its youth. That the general intelligence has increased, I fully believe; so it would have done under any system; so it has in almost any country, whether manufacturing or otherwise. And I claim this increasing intelligence in favour of the regulation which I propose, for it has declared in favour of this measure with a force and unanimity rarely known on any other subject.
As to public morals, alas, what has been gained by this excessive slavery of the juvenile part of the manufacturing population? It is during the present century, as the article in question shows, that the system has so greatly increased. The number of the criminal committals has been annually furnished since the year 1805; let us then turn to those important facts for proof upon this subject. In the metropolitan county, including London, in which, if any where, one, of course, expects to find the number excessive, and the increase great, we see that the average of the three first years was 1,192, that of the three last years 3,491 nearly threefold! But in Lancashire (including its rural hundreds) the average of the same years has increased from 369 to 2,088 nearly sixfold. The average proportion of the committals of England, exclusive of these two counties being near almost one in 1,255; those of Lancashire one in about 550 annually. Where is this to end? As to that species of immorality not cognizable by law, I fear that had we equally precise information, we should find that it would afford us as little ground for exultation. Not to mention minor offences, the practice of tippling and drunkenness has astonish-

369
ingly increased, and has been accompanied by an indecency not formerly known among us; women and children publicly indulge in this vice: such are the degrading effects of the system. As to debauchery of another kind, it would be absurd to deny, I never did hear it denied, that the mills, at least those in which night-working is pursued, are in this respect, so many brothels. Yes, Sir, the science of human physiology has been, I may say, disgustingly advanced, and has been able to demonstrate how extremely near the confines of actual childhood the human female may become a mother, from the disgraceful facts which have occurred in certain of these mills and factories. Indeed, it is in evidence, on the authority of medical men conversant with that state of society, that the period of puberty is unnaturally anticipated, and those early marriages contracted which are in every point of view indecent and disgraceful. But these early marriages are, nevertheless, in such a state of things, the best alternative for the parties and the public. Thus we find for instance, that where the same system prevails in France, namely, at Rouen, without the same effect in regard to early marriage, that to every seventy-six legitimate births, there are twenty-four illegitimate ones, a state of immorality only exceeded by the capital of that country always amazingly profligate in that respect.
But, not to dwell upon this revolting part of the subject, I will, lastly, advert to the alleged improvement in the health of the people thus engaged. I shall determine this important point by referring to the principal seat of the system, Manchester, especially as the surprising longevity of that town has been over and over again asserted, in proof of the incalculable advantage of the factory system as now conducted in every possible point of view. Speaking of the general health of that town, I, of course, refer to that of the operatives, and not of the higher and more opulent ranks—and, in determining this, I shall still refer to medical authority, and statistical facts, and not to loose and unfounded opinions. I take, then, this tract, just published, entitled, "Remarks on the Health of English Manufacturers, and on the Need which exists for establishing for them Convalescent Retreats." It is written by Mr. Robertson, a gentleman well known in the medical world, and author of previous
370
works of deserved celebrity. He rebuts Mr. Senior's assumption as to the great improvement which has taken place in our manufacturing population, founded on a series of gross mistakes; and says of these so much improved operatives that "the nature of their present employment renders existence itself, in thousands of instances, in every great town, one long disease." He states, regarding Manchester, that during the last year, (1830) the patients admitted at the four great dispensaries amounted to 22,626, independently of those assisted by the other charitable institutions, such as the infirmary, &c., amounting in all to at least 10,000 more. To this he adds other calculations, which bring him to the conclusion that "not fewer perhaps than three-fourths of the inhabitants of Manchester annually are, or fancy they are, under the necessity of submitting to medical treatment." He describes at some length, and with great force and feeling, the evils of the factory-system, and attributes to it what he describes as the astounding inebriety of the population, who have recourse, after long and exhausting toil, to that means of kindling a temporary sense of vigour and comfort. He states the lamentable effects, in other points of view, which are thus produced, and the want of moral and mental improvement with which it is necessarily accompanied. He says that the present manufacturing system "has not produced a healthy population; neither one well instructed and provident; but one, on the contrary, where there exists always considerable and sometimes general poverty, and an extraordinary amount of petty crime: that in several respects they are in a less healthy and worse condition than at any period within the last two centuries." I will give an appalling proof of this general misery and degradation. It appears that, during the last year, there were delivered by the lying-in charity of Manchester, no less than 4,562 poor married women, or, far more than half the mothers of Manchester are assisted by public charities—in a word, that nearly three-fifths of the children of that town are thus branded with the stigma of pauperism at their very birth. If it be supposed that the institution referred to is too indiscriminate in its charity, I will quote in reply the authority of the same individual: "An overwhelming majority," he asserts "of the persons so relieved are in a state

371
of incredible destitution!" So far this judicious and humane writer. I proceed to prove his assertions by still stronger facts.
The main, and, as it has hitherto been held, triumphant defence of the present system of excessive infantile labour, has been placed upon the assumed longevity of Manchester. And had what has been asserted in this respect been true, or at all approaching to the truth, the argument would have been doubtless settled in its favour. Thus we find it stated over and over again that the mortality, which had kept diminishing for half a century, had in 1811 fallen as low as one in seventy-four; and that the proportion in 1821 was still smaller. It is asserted, I see, in a petition from Keighley, against this Bill, that this proportion is one in fifty-eight. It is true, that every community to which large numbers of emigrants, principally in the active periods of life, are constantly added, will exhibit a diminished proportion of deaths, without that circumstance at all proving any real increase in the general health and longevity of the place. But the above proportions were, nevertheless, so extravagant, and the argument founded upon them so important, that I determined to give the subject the most careful and impartial examination. I have done so, and these are the results. Taking the whole parish of Manchester, and so far therefore doing great injustice to my argument, as that parish contains, I think, nearly thirty townships, some of which are principally agricultural; but taking the whole parish, I find that in the Collegiate Church there, and in six other Churches; in the two Churches of Salford; in those of Chorton-row, now part of the town; and ill the eleven chapelries, including the interments in the Roman Catholic and other dissenting burial grounds, there were interred between the years 1821 and 1830 inclusive, 59,377 individuals. The mean population of the whole parish (i. e. the geometric mean, in order to be as exact as possible) was, during the same period, 228,951. Now the burials are defective, one Church, (that of St. Peter's) being omitted, and, I think, other burial grounds also—but does the numbers actually returned give a proportion of one in seventy-four? No, Sir, they give a proportion of one in thirty-seven, nine-tenths as the annual mortality of the entire parish of Manchester, In Salford the number of
372
deaths, during the same term, was 9,966—the mean population having been 32,421, or one death in every thirty-two and a half! And this in a population, let me again repeat, increasing immensely by emigration. But a vast super-proportion of this mortality, we may be assured, rests upon the poor; for nobody disputes that the longevity of the wealthier classes has, in the mean time, greatly improved. Thus in Paris, a large and unhealthy city, where the mortality, however, is, I think, less than one in forty-two. Dr. Villerine found that in the first arrondissement where the wealthier inhabitants principally reside, only one in fifty died annually; while in the twelfth, principally inhabited by the poor, the proportion was as great as one in twenty-four. Apply this reasoning, or rather fact, to the mortality of Manchester, and then let us hear what can be said concerning the poor manufacturers of that place. Sir, it proves to the very letter all that has been advanced concerning the effects of infantile and long protracted labour, which not only enfeebles, but sweeps to their untimely fate, so vast a proportion of the population.
But, on a point of such paramount importance, and so entirely decisive of the argument, no species of evidence ought to be wanting. I have, therefore, examined the forthcoming census of Manchester with great care—I mean that part of it in which the registered burials are given, together with the ages of the interred; and I have compared the proportion of those buried under the age of forty, and those buried above that age, with the corresponding interments of the immensely larger cities of London and Paris, taking the ten years in the former instance, and one intermediate year in the two latter, without any selection whatsoever: these are the results:—to every 100,000 interments in each of these places under forty, there would be above that age, in London, 63,666; in Paris, 65,109; in Manchester, 47,291 only; in other words, 16,375 fewer would have survived that period in Manchester than in London; and 17,818 fewer than in Paris. Can anything, then, be truer than the complaint of the operatives of that place, that few of them survive forty; and where is the man that dares to oppose the effectual regulation of so murderous a system?
In the census of 1821, the population of England was generally given according to

373
the different ages of the people. Manchester, however, furnished no such information; otherwise, I am persuaded, another argument might have been adduced demonstrative of the same melancholy fact. But I have examined the censuses of the hundreds of Salford, of Macclesfield, which includes the towns of Macclesfield and Stockport, containing, therefore, a great number of mills also, and I have compared them with other places; and calculating upon the number of children under five, the proportion which arrived at the different divisions, and especially at the more advanced periods of life, I find that wherever the present system prevails, the most melancholy waste of human existence is clearly demonstrated. These calculations I hold in my hand, but I will not weary the House with giving them in detail.
I cannot, however, refrain from giving the results of one of these, as it disposes of the confident assertion as to the supposed improvement of the manufacturing community. In 1780, the celebrated Dr. Heysham enumerated the population of Carlisle with great care, and divided them into classes according to their ages. In 1821 a similar enumeration took place. In the meantime, the great discovery of vaccination had been made, of such immense importance in these calculations. But what is even that, and all the acknowledged improvements in medical science, compared with the effect of our manufacturing system as at present pursued? Let the following facts answer that question. Calculating on the first division of the population at each period, namely, that under five, and assuming the women to be 1,000, there were, in 1780, from five to twenty years old, 2,229; in 1821, 2,107; between twenty and forty, in the former period, 2,143; in the latter, 1904; above forty, in 1780, 2,084; in 1821, 1,455 only.
Again, between the years 1779 and 1787 inclusive, Dr. Heysham gives the number of interments in Carlisle, which amounted to 1,840, of which 1,164 were of persons under forty years of age, and the remaining 676 above that period of life. On examining the census about to be published I find that, between the years 1821 and 1830 inclusive, there have been buried in the same place 3,025 under forty, and 1,273 above. Now, in the former period, therefore, there would be to
374
every 10,000 deaths under the age of forty 5,808 above that age; whereas, in the latter, the proportion has been 4,208 only. The only way to evade the conclusion to which these facts conduct us is, to suppose that the population has advanced with far greater rapidity since the former period then previously to it; but this supposition would imply gross ignorance of the facts. The population of Carlisle was enumerated in 1764, and it is clear that it had been increasing more rapidly before 1780 than it has done since. But in Carlisle, as everywhere else, the greatest proportion of mortality falls upon the poor; the extension of life, as far as regards the upper classes of society, has evidently increased. What, then, becomes of the statements of the great improvement among our manufacturing poor, with facts like these before our eyes?
I could multiply these proofs of the effects of the system to a great extent. I have them here [showing his papers], but time will not permit me to avail myself of them: nor can it be necessary. I have taken up the challenge regarding the effects of the system as now pursued, as given by its eulogists, and have contested the cause of humanity, as I trust I may call it, in the very arena, and with the weapons which themselves have chosen—the prosperity, health, and longevity of the operatives of Manchester. I have shown that the same results accompany the same system wherever pursued, namely, slavery, profligacy, crime, disease, and death! Transfer the system to the whole country, and then contemplate its effects: those effects are seen rapidly developing themselves as it advances. Infantile labour leads to immature marriage, which crowds the generations upon each other, and, together with the great discoveries in medicine, may have increased the numbers of the people; but, as far as the system has prevailed, it has diminished the athletic and active proportion of them, and given us in their stead a weak, stunted, and degenerate race, and so lessened the relative proportion of those who have to bear the general burthen, and fight the battles of the country. On this latter point I could offer some instructing facts as to the difficulty of passing recruits wherever this system prevails, were such evidence necessary; but I would rather point at its more obvious and general effects, Look, then, I say, at the miserable

375
condition of the feeble beings which are at once its instruments and victims. Supposing that it has increased our numbers, in the emphatic language of the Sacred Volume, "It has multiplied the people, and not increased their joy." I invoke, therefore, the justice, the humanity, the patriotism of this House: the feelings of the country are already roused; I call upon Parliament to assist, by this measure, to lighten the load of an oppressed people, which bows them and their very children to the dust; I call upon it to break the bonds of infantile slavery, and snatch the scourge from the task-master of the country.
The principle features, then, of this Bill for regulating the labour of children and other young persons in mills and factories, are these:—First, the inhibiting of the labour of infants therein under the age of nine; the limitation of the hours of actual work of children from nine to eighteen years of age to ten hours, exclusively of time allowed for meals and refreshment, with an abatement of hours on the Saturday as a necessary preparation for the Sabbath; and the forbidding of all night work under the age of twenty-one. Sir, in this Bill I have left out many important provisions, important at least in my view of the subject, in order to obviate, if possible, multiplied objections, and secure the attainment of its main object. Thus I had drawn up a clause subjecting the mill-owner or occupier to a heavy fine when any serious accident occurred in consequence of any negligence in not properly sheathing or defending the machinery. I had meant to have proposed a remission of an hour of each day's labour for children under fourteen, or otherwise six hours on one day in every week, for the purpose of affording those who are thus early and strangely forced into the market of labour some opportunity of receiving the rudiments of instruction and education, the expense of which upon the modern system would have been nothing, especially if shared between the mill-owner and the parish; above all, I contemplated a clause putting down night labour, at whatever age, at once and altogether. And none of these, I think, are half so extravagant, if duly considered, as the demands now made upon youthful labour, involving as they do the sacrifice of pleasure, health, improvement, and life itself. But, Sir, in order, I repeat, not to endanger the main object
376
I have in view, and feeling assured that the present attempt is only the commencement of a series of beneficent measures on behalf of the industrious classes, all I propose to the House on the present occasion is, the remission of infant and youthful labour to the extent already explained.
And, first, as to the period of life at which the Bill permits children to be laboured in factories, viz., nine years old. I will spend but little time in defending this provision. I will only observe, that our ancient statutes, not always peculiarly favouring the condition of poverty, have not been neglectful of this matter. The 23rd of Edward 3d, if I mistake not, assumes that a male child under fourteen, is non potens in corpore; and the same of a female child under twelve. In the 5th of Eliz., however, I think that period was fixed at twelve years for both sexes, previously to which they were deemed non potentes in corpore. And I may further observe, that another humane provision of certain of these statutes was, the hiring of these young persons by the year, so that they might not be turned adrift, even in sickness, at the pleasure or convenience of their employers. But, to return; the late Sir Robert Peel's Bill originally fixed upon the age of ten, which was ultimately reduced to that of nine, where the present measure leaves it. And where is the individual, if disinterested and humane, that will contend that this is not early enough for these poor creatures to commence their miserable career of labour and sorrow? Then, as to the daily duration of their labour before they arrive at years of discretion, namely, these ten long hours, which, with the necessary intervals, stretch the term to at least twelve. Is not this sufficiently severe? Sir, it is the very extent contemplated for the same class, and about the same age, by the late Sir Robert Peel; and at a period when the professions of humanity are so much louder than formerly, when the penal code of crime has been revised so much, and mitigated so often, that there should be no amelioration proposed in the penal code (for such, I am sure, I may term it) of infantile labour seems indeed strange. The term proposed, I repeat, is that fixed upon by the truly benevolent and enlightened individual just alluded to. His words, on introducing his last measure in 1815, (I quote from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates of that

377
period) are these:—'What he,' Sir Robert Peel, 'was disposed to recommend was, a regulation that no children should be so employed under the age of ten years, either as apprentices or otherwise, and the duration of their labour be limited to twelve hours and a half per diem, including the time for education and meals, which would leave ten hours for laborious employment;' * arguing, that it was not so much the hardship as the duration of labour that was so injurious. I think it would be almost an insult to the House to appeal to authorities in proof that this is enough labour for any age to endure—abundantly sufficient for infancy and youth. A few medical authorities, however, I will quote, who delivered their opinions before Sir Robert Peel's Committee.
Dr. Jones, a physician of much experience, asserts, that "eight or nine hours are the longest period that he could sanction." Dr. Winstanley, physician of the Manchester Infirmary, affirms that eleven hours could not be endured without injury. Mr. Bautflower, an eminent surgeon of the same place, says, that "ten hours are amply sufficient." Mr. Ogle, another experienced individual of the same profession, says, that eight or nine hours are sufficient. Mr. Simmons, the senior surgeon of the Manchester Infirmary, declared, in reference to the employment under consideration, that the hours of working of a person under sixteen, exclusive of the time allowed for meals, ought not to exceed nine hours in winter, and ten in summer; and he adds that to which I call the attention of the House: "It may become a question," says this eminent and experienced person, "whether, with impunity, the strength of adults is capable of much longer exertion than this." Sir Gilbert Blane says, that, under ten, he "should have no objection in sanctioning five or six hours, and, at a more mature age, ten hours, if not sedentary." I might multiply these authorities at pleasure, but I will close them with the opinion of a physician, after whom, I conceive, few could be quoted with advantage—I mean the late Dr. Baillie. He says, beyond ten hours a day, there ought to be no increase of labour. "I think," says he, "ten hours of confinement to labour, as far as I can judge, is as much as is compatible with the perfect wellbeing of any constitution."
* Vol. xxxi, p. 624.
378
But these appeals appear to me to be most affecting, whatever has been their result. Is there not, Sir, something inexpressibly cruel—most disgustingly selfish—in thus attempting to ascertain the utmost limits to which infant labour and fatigue may be carried, without their certainly occasioning misery and destruction—the full extent of profitable torture—and in appealing to learned and experienced doctors to fix the precise point beyond which it would be murder to proceed. Are we to treat innocent infancy, then, like the poor soldier, who receives his punishment under the eye of the regimental surgeon, lest he should expire beneath the lash? But, Sir, horrible to relate, these eminent men have stood over fainting infancy, and have long since forbade the infliction, which has, nevertheless, been continued, till scores of thousands have expired under it. They discharged their duty; they said ten hours a-day were fully sufficient. That term has been exceeded, and I have shown the fatal consequences.
If it be still necessary to sanction the term of labour they have fixed, I will appeal to general experience, which, after all, on a point like this, is better than all authority. Hence, in every other description of labour, (excepting, perhaps, some particular branches, identified with the very system under consideration) twelve hours a-day, deducting at least the intervals this Bill also prescribes, is the utmost duration of labour that the master dreams of demanding, or the workman of enduring. Such is the case in agriculture. Look at the county reports, and you will find, that these are the utmost limits in summer, excepting during a few weeks in harvest, and that they are diminished in winter, so as to correspond with the shortening day, averaging, perhaps, throughout the year, not more than eight or nine hours of actual work. The same rule obtains among all those workmen and artisans whose pursuits are most essential to human existence, such as masons, carpenters, bricklayers, and others. Nor is it either humane or patriotic, as an eminent medical writer has remarked, to tempt them to those protracted exertions, which are often endured at the expense of health, and bring on premature decay. And, Sir, this natural regulation prevails every where, and has been observed in all ages. Thus, if we open the most ancient

379
volumes, we shall find that twelve hours still, including the necessary intervals, constitute the longest day of human labour, which is still curtailed as the natural day shortens, and as this limitation is dictated by the law of nature, so also is it affirmed by the law of God. Hear, then, the divine institution in this matter. "Thou shalt not oppress an hired servant that is poor and needy, whether he be of thy brethren, or of thy stranger that is in thy land within thy gates. At his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it, for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it, lest he cry against thee unto the Lord, and it be sin unto thee." "Are there not twelve hours in the day? The night cometh when no man can work," is reiterated by still higher authority. Yet, though man cannot—will not—yet, says this system, children shall. I ask, however, whether it be right to work weak and helpless children in this country longer than adult labourers and artizans in the prime of life, in any age or country, have consented to endure?
Sir, I make a second appeal in behalf of these children. I appeal to the utmost labour imposed upon criminals and felons, sentenced to expiate their offences—often of an atrocious character, and almost always perpetrated by the daring and powerful in the prime of life—in the gaols, houses of correction, bridewells, or other places of confinement and punishment in this kingdom. Sir, the law even regarding these provides, that justice shall not degenerate into cruelty, and, therefore, limits the power of its own ministers thus: "Every prisoner sentenced to hard labour shall, unless prevented by sickness, be employed so many hours a day, not exceeding ten, exclusive of the time allowed for meals, as shall be directed by the rules and regulations to be made under this Act," excepting on Sundays and other holidays which it enumerates. Sir, I have examined the whole of these regulations, and find that the average labour imposed falls far short of the limits prescribed by this Bill. Even the convicts at the hulks, I am informed, are only worked, in winter, from eight in the morning as long as daylight lasts; and, in summer, from seven in the morning till six in the evening; from which, time is allowed, in both seasons, about an hour and a half for meals, making, therefore,
380
the duration of their actual labour, in summer, nine hours and a half, and in winter, perhaps, two hours less. But the law, I repeat, limits that which is to be their punishment, their labour, to ten hours at most. Secondly, then, I ask whether it is right thus to give a premium to crime, and to punish innocence by labouring children longer than the law permits adult criminals and felons, whose labour constitutes their punishment.
Lastly, Sir, I appeal in behalf of these children to the protection afforded to the slaves of our West-India colonies. By the Orders in Council, bearing date the 2nd of November last, the labour of the slaves, by whomsoever owned, in all the Crown colonies of England, is regulated as follows: First, by section 90 of those Orders, no slave, of whatever age, is to be worked in any agricultural, or manufacturing labour in the night, but only between six o'clock in the morning, and six o'clock in the evening. By section 91, all such slaves are "entitled to an entire intermission and cessation of every description of work and labour, from the hour of eight till the hour of nine in the morning, and from the hour of twelve till the hour of two in the afternoon of each and every day throughout the year." Hence no slaves can be wrought more than nine hours in any one day. So much for the adult slaves. But, by the succeeding section, 92, it is ordered that "no slave under the age of fourteen, or above the age of sixty, shall be compelled or required to engage in or perform, any agricultural work or labour, in any tithe said colonies, during more than six hours in the whole in any one day."
Passing over many other beneficent regulations, I can hardly restrain my indignation within due bounds while I lastly appeal to the regulations regarding these slaves, and advert to those proposed in favour of British children, which are, nevertheless, vehemently opposed. I compare not the English child with the African child, but I ask this House and his Majesty's Government, whether it would not be right and becoming to consider the English child as favourably as the African adult. You have limited the labour of the black to nine hours, but when I propose that the labour of the young white slave shall not exceed ten, why the proposition is deemed monstrous.
Sir, I might lastly appeal to our treat-

381
ment of the brutes. Acts of Parliament have indeed protected these from cruelty infinitely less than that which we tolerate this system in constantly inflicting. But selfishness in this instance acts as the guardian of the animal creation, and renders such laws almost unnecessary. The gentleman will not ride his hunter before he is full grown, nor does the farmer yoke his yearling foal to the plough, and scourge it forwards as many hours, and even more, than the full-grown colt would bear. No; it is the factory-child alone that is thus treated. But I contend that, even as regards the being esteemed so utterly worthless, it is detrimental to the mere interests of the employer to pursue so cruel a course. Beyond certain limits human industry and attention cannot be profitably stimulated. When those limits are passed what remains, but that imperfect service, equally distressing to the employed anti unprofitable to the employer; and the oppressor may be well addressed in the words of the poet—
"Thou canst not take what nature will not yield,
Nor reap the harvest tho' thou spoil the field."
But, in the sober language of prose, I can assure this House, that manufacturers have often confessed, that this excessive labour of their people has been rarely profitable, though they have been urged on to such a course by the rivalry and competition which the system creates. If, however, this practice were ever so profitable, no gains, however ample, no prosperity, however permanent, could justify so cruel and destructive a practice.
Sir, I have not time to enter upon those arguments which the advocates of the present system advance in its favour, nor to refute the objections which they perpetually urge against its proper regulation. They are precisely the same as those put forth by the planters in the Crown colonies against the amelioration of the condition of the blacks and their children, already referred to. In both instances, the capital engaged—the competition to be feared—the irritation which will be produced—the superior condition of those to be protected, are, in both cases, assumed. The capability of children above a certain age to endure long labour, as well as adults, is equally asserted; and, above all, the coincidence of the request from both quarters for a Select Committee is also remarkable. But how have Government met this proposition in each case? Most
382
dissimilarly. As regards the slave, they have declared that inquiries have been pursued long enough, and that they need no further information to enable them to legislate on "the eternal obligations which religion founds upon the law of God." Such are the words of the noble Secretary for the Colonies. Would to God this reasoning and feeling were transferred to these poor oppressed children, slaves in all but name, who now demand our protection. I conceive that, then the eternal obligation which religion founds upon the law of God would suffice to teach us our duty, without committing our consciences to the keeping of a Select Committee.
Sir, another objection of some of the opposing mill-owners I will briefly notice. They cannot consent, forsooth, to an abridgement of the long and slavish hours of infant labour, because of the Corn-laws. Why, these individuals, some of them, not originally, perhaps, of the most opulent class of the community, have, during the operation of these laws, rapidly amassed enormous fortunes; yet, during the whole period they have never found an opportunity, either of increasing the wages or diminishing the toil of these little labourers, to whom they owe every farthing they possess; they have constantly done the reverse—and they talk of Corn-laws as their apology. "This is too bad." Can any man be fool enough to suppose that, were the Corn-laws abolished tomorrow, and every grain we consume grown and ground in foreign parts, that such individuals would cease to" grind the faces of the poor?"
I had meant to have noticed the attempts made to excite the fears of the working classes, regarding the diminution which it is asserted will take place in their wages if the excessive labour of themselves or their children be abated; but time does not admit—we may safely leave that point to be settled by their intelligence and experience. They know what their slavish toil has led to, and they have far less to dread, even in this respect, from over production than from a natural supply of the articles which their industry alone produces. But their opposition to this measure, it seems is grounded on philanthropic considerations, alone. The loss say they, will fall upon the poor whose wages will be diminished just in proportion as their extravagant labour was

383
moderated, I rather doubt this assertion; on the contrary I have often heard from great authorities upon political economy; and were they threatened (as indeed they now were) that their wages will be diminished, and their means of subsistence still more abridged, that severe as are their present distresses, the furnace of their affliction should be heated one seven times more than it was wont to be heated; they have taken their firm resolve they will not bow down to the Golden Image, they will not sacrifice their children to Moloch, and where is the father, the patriot, the Christian, that does not glory in that resolve, and what doubt can exist, that if this House is constituted of such, their cause will triumph?
I must apologize to this House for having so long occupied its time and attention. I owe, however, a deeper apology to those whose cause I have attempted to advocate, for having nevertheless left, wholly untouched many important considerations which they have earnestly pressed upon my attention. If honourable Members, however, will consult their own bosoms, they will find them there. We are about to deal with the strongest instinct and the holiest feeling of the human heart. The happiness and tranquillity of the present generation, and the hopes of posterity depend in no slight degree on ourselves. The industrious classes are looking with intense interest to the proceedings of this night, and are demanding protection for themselves and their children. Thousands of maternal bosoms are beating with the deepest anxiety regarding the future fate of their long-oppressed, and degraded offspring. Nay, their children are made aware of the importance of your present decision, and look towards this House for succour. I wish I could bring a little ragged group of these, of both sexes, to that Bar: I am sure their silent appearance would plead louder than anything I have been able to utter in their behalf. I shall not soon forget their affecting presence on one of those recent occasions, when many thousands of the people of the north were assembled in their cause, when in those intervals of the loud and general acclamations, which rent the air, while their great and unrivalled champion, Richard Oastler, (whose name is now lisped by thousands of them, and will be handed down to posterity with undiminished gratitude and affection)—I say, when this friend of the
384
factory-children was pleading their cause, the repeated cheers of a number of shrill voices were heard, which sounded like echoes to our own, and on looking around, we saw several knots of little factory-children, grouped together amidst the croud, who raised their voices in the fervor of hope and exultation, while they heard their humble state commiserated, and, as they believed, about to be redressed.
Sir, I thought then, and I still hope, that their righteous cause will prevail. But I have seen enough to mingle apprehension with my hopes. I perceive the rich and the powerful again leaguing against them, and wielding that wealth which these children, or such as they, have created, against their cause. I have long seen the powerful efforts that are made to keep them in bondage, and have been deeply affected at their continued success; so that I can hardly refrain exclaiming with one of old—"I returned and considered all the oppressions that are done under the sun, and beheld the tears of such as were oppressed; and on the side of the oppressors there was power, but they had no comforter." I trust, however, that this House, whose peculiar duty it is to defend the weak, and redress the injured, will interpose, and extend that protection to these defenceless children, equally demanded by the principles of justice, mercy, and policy. Many have been the struggles made in their behalf, but hitherto they have been defeated; the laws passed in their behalf have been hitherto without any practical effect but to legalise cruelty and suffering. Even, at this moment, while I am thus speaking in behalf of these oppressed children, what numbers of them are still at their toil, confined in heated rooms, bathed in perspiration, stunned with the roar of revolving wheels, poisoned with the noxious effluvia of grease and gas, till at last, weary and exhausted, they turn out almost naked, plunge into the inclement air, and creep shivering to beds from which a relay of their young work-fellows have just arisen;—and such is the fate of many of them at the best, while in numbers of instances, they are diseased, stunted, crippled, depraved, destroyed. Sir, let the dreadful pestilence which no longer walketh in darkness among us, but destroyeth at noon-day once seize upon our manufacturing population, and dreadful will be the consequences. A fast is to be solemnized on

385
the occasion; and it is well; let it be one which the Deity himself has chosen, let us undo the heavy burthens, and let the oppressed go free.
Sir, I have shown the suffering, the crime, the mortality, which attends this system—consequences which, I trust, Parliament will at length arrest. I earnestly wish that I could have prevailed upon this House and his Majesty's Government to adopt the proposed measure, without the delay which will attend a further, and, as I shall ever maintain, an unnecessary inquiry. Would to God we might have come to a resolution as to the hours innocent and helpless children are henceforth to be laboured in these pursuits, so as to render the preservation of their health and life probable, and the due improvement of their minds and morals, possible. Would to God we had decided as we could wish others to decide regarding our own children under like circumstances, or as we shall wish we had done when the Universal Parent shall call us to a strict account for our conduct to one of the least of these little ones. As the case, however, is otherwise—as we are, it seems, still to inquire and delay—I will now move the second reading of the Bill, in doing which I believe I shall not be opposed, and then proceed to propose such a Committee as I hope will assist in carrying into effect the principle of a measure so important to the prosperity and happiness of the country.
Mr. Huntseconded the Motion.
Lord Althorpdid not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, as he was ready to admit that the hon. Member had stated the strongest grounds for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry; but he did not think that he had applied his facts to the particular Bill before the House. Undoubtedly, if the statements made by the hon. Member were true, some regulation on the subject was necessary; but, without intending to impute to the hon. Member any disposition to misrepresent, he must say, that some of his statements appeared to be absolutely incredible. The hon. Gentleman had described the employment of children in factories as being productive of much ill health. He was not disposed to contradict the statement of the hon. Member; but he would ask him whether it was probable that any sort of manufacturing occupation could be so healthy as agricultural labour. The hon. Member had described the evils resulting from the
386
existing system at very considerable length; but he had not alluded to the inconveniences which presented themselves on the other side of the question. If the House restricted the employment of children in factories, what would be the effect on the labouring classes, and on the children themselves? The necessary effect must be, that wages would be diminished, and, if the hon. Member's Bill were fully carried into operation, there would probably be no children employed in factories at all; and thus the benevolent intentions of the hon. Member would only tend to inflict greater injury, and create more distress among the labouring classes than they at present suffered. He did not agree with the hon. Member in thinking that a Committee was an improper tribunal for the examination of this subject. In his opinion, the matter could be much more satisfactorily investigated there than by summoning witnesses to the Bar of the House. He hoped alterations would be made in the Bill, for it was impossible for him to support it in its present shape. The subject was one of great importance, and he did not wish, whatever might be, the decision of the Committee, to pledge himself in any way to further the progress of the Bill.
Mr. John T. Hopefully appreciated the active benevolence and general philanthropy of the hon. member for Aldborough, who had undertaken to advocate the cause of the children employed in spinning manufactories: but, whilst he did not yield to the hon. Member in an earnest desire to promote the happiness and comfort of that class of the community, he doubted whether the end the hon. Member had in view could be attained by the means which he advised the House to adopt. He did not propose to enter into any discussion as to the propriety or impropriety of interference with free labour. He believed it was admitted, on both sides of the House, that such interference generally was unwarrantable. He was willing to admit that the labour of children must, in some degree, be considered of a compulsory nature; but he considered that those very circumstances, which give such labour the character of compulsory, carried also with them a remedy for the evil of which the hon. Member complained, in the protection of their parents. He could not comprehend how it was possible, by legislative enactments, to supply the place of parental

387
affections in behalf of the child. If these natural ties were unavailing, legislative enactments would prove equally useless and unavailing. He was, however, prepared to argue the question on more general grounds than these. He doubted, in the first place, whether a case of necessity for parliamentary interference was fairly made out. He admitted that many cases of great individual hardship occurred in manufactories. The hon. Member quoted many such cases; and, aided by his eloquence, they doubtless would produce a great effect upon the House. The hon. Member's general positions were, that children were worked greatly beyond their strength, and that the hours of labour were extended through the night; and that these circumstances combined produced a bad effect upon their morals and education—were injurious to their health, and in many instances occasioned premature death. To these general positions be intended to apply himself; and, therefore, begged to call the attention of the House to some facts contained in the Reports of a Committee of that House which sat in 1816, and of Committees of the Lords which sat in 1818 and 1819. The first point to which he would refer was, the age of the children. The hon. Member was entirely mistaken in supposing that a large portion of the children employed in factories was of a tender age. He found, by a return which was verified on oath, annexed to the Lords' Report of 1819, that, out of a body of work-people amounting to 12,461, employed in cotton factories in England, there were only 196 under nine years of age. From other returns in his possession, it appeared that, of the children employed in the manufactory at Kirkland, in Fifeshire, there were only one in seventeen under twelve years of age, and one in four under fourteen. From these facts he was entitled to say, that the argument, which the hon. Member had founded upon the assumption that a great portion of the children employed in cotton factories was of very tender age, was not entitled to much weight. With respect to the hours of employment, he found, from the returns annexed to the Lords' Report of 1818, that the average number of working hours in the week, taken from fifty-seven instances, was seventy-two; a number little exceeding that established by the Bill introduced by the right hon. Baronet, the secretary-at-War, last Session. The aver-
388
age number of hours per day on the total amount of hours and persons, deduced from the returns of 325 cotton factory establishments, from a table put in and proved upon oath, and inserted in the appendix to the evidence of 1819, was twelve and a fraction. It was material to look at the number of hours in which children were employed in other trades and manufactures. Children employed in the earthenware and porcelain manufactures worked from twelve to fifteen hours per day; file-cutters, nail-makers, forgers, and colliers, worked for twelve hours per day; those employed in the manufacture of hosiery, and in lace manufactories, worked for twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen hours per day; those engaged in calico printing worked for twelve, fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen hours per day; needle-makers, manufacturers of arms, and pin-makers, worked for thirteen and fourteen hours per day. He contended, therefore, that the children employed in cotton and other spinning factories were not subjected to greater labour than those employed in other manufactures, to whom no protection was to be afforded by this Bill. As to the effect on the education, morals, and health of the children, he had certificates from several clergymen residing in the neighbourhood of mills in the county of Fife, who certified, that the children and adults employed in those mills were as well conducted, in a moral point of view, as the agricultural population: The reverend Mr. Jones, of the parish of Holywell, who gave evidence before the Lords' Committee in 1819, stated, that such of his parishioners as were employed in the cotton factories were more orderly in their conduct, and better moral characters, than any others. With respect to education, it was in evidence, that all the persons engaged at Cupar in the cotton mills were able to read, and the greater part to write. Out of 891 persons employed in the mills in the parish of Catrene, in Ayrshire, there were very few who were not able to read. At Holywell it was stated that the children employed in cotton factories were better instructed than those engaged in other kinds of labour, on account of the opportunities afforded them of attending Sunday schools. As to the health of the children, it was but natural, as the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had observed, that persons engaged in

389
manufactures should not enjoy the same degree of health as those employed in agriculture. However, he should endeavour to show that the hon. Member had given too exaggerated an account of the ill health of the former. It appeared, from the evidence given before the Lords' Committee in 1819, that, out of 610 children employed in the Holywell mills, the average number of sick was six; whilst, in a regiment of infantry of 600 men, twenty to twenty-five was not considered a large proportion. In the factory of Mr. Bisley, where there were 549 children employed in the mills, the sick were one in seventy: in Pendleton mills, where there were 531 employed, the average number of sick was eight. It appeared, by the evidence of Mr. Lee, in the Commons' Report of 1816, page 341, that there was in his factory at Manchester a sick fund, supported by one two-hundredth part of the wages of children; and the books of this institution showed that the sick were, on the average, only as one in a hundred. But the evidence from the records of the Infirmary in that town was of a still more convincing nature. It appeared, from the statements produced by Dr. Home before the Lords' Committee, 1818, that, whilst the population engaged in spinning-mills formed one-sixth of the total population of Manchester, the proportion of cotton-spinners relieved was in the following ratio to persons engaged in other occupations: in the home patients, as one in twenty-three, or four; amongst the in-patients, as one in fourteen; in the fever hospital, as one in twelve; and in the out-patients of this last establishment, as one in twenty-three. He would now state some facts connected with parish relief. The hon. member for Aldborough had mentioned, as a proof of the poverty which prevailed generally in Manchester, the large number of females who had been admitted to the Lying-in Hospital; but he did not inform the House of the proportion of spinners' wives to those of persons engaged in other occupations—the only true criterion of their comparative health. It appeared in the evidence of the Lords' Committee in 1818, that, out of 1797 persons who applied for parish relief in Manchester, only twenty-eight were cotton-spinners. The other applicants were 576 weavers, and 221 persons engaged in other trades. From the same evidence it appeared that, out of 582 who received parish relief at
390
Preston, there was not one cotton-spinner. He now came to the question of mortality. The hon. Member threw great discredit on a statement, given in evidence before the Lords' Committee, that, out of 866 spinners, the deaths in ten years did not exceed fifty-seven. From the exact coincidence in the figures with a calculation which he had extracted from that evidence, he was disposed to conclude that the witness to whom he alluded was Mr. Buchanan. Now, he could take upon himself to declare, that this gentleman was a person every way worthy of credit in himself, and that his statements were confirmed by the clergyman of the parish of Lorn, in Ayrshire, in which the factory was situated; and that the letter of this reverend gentleman was printed in the appendix to the Report. By the evidence of Mr. Houldsworth before the Commons' Committee, 1816, it appeared, that, out of 10,000 persons employed in factories, there died in the same space of time thirty-seven, whilst of 3,224 persons employed in other trades there died fifteen persons—being a proportion of thirty-seven to forty-eight in favour of factories. In the parish of Holywell the proportion of deaths in factories was stated to be one in 217—in the whole parish one in fifty-eight, on an average of three years. He would now refer to a more general statement, which bore out these particular facts. By a table compiled from the sworn evidence before the Lords' Committee, it appeared that, if 100 families were selected who were employed, both parents and children, in factories, that, in a given time, there were 527 children born, and thirty-eight died out of each 100 born: whilst in 100 families, of which neither parents nor children were employed in factories, 517 children were born, and forty-three children died out of each 100 born. The proportion in Scotland was nearly the same, giving a result of a greater number of births and a smaller number of deaths in favour of persons employed in factories. He would conclude this part of the subject with some general statements drawn from the population returns. Before he did so, however, it was right to state, that the Returns referred to in drawing up these tables were those of 1811; but this circumstance, as the calculations rested on comparison, would not affect their correctness, as applied to a later date. In the population of the four agricultural counties of Red-

391
ford, Bucks, Berks, and Cambridge, the proportion of deaths to 100 births was 64·3; the number of persons in proportion to whom one was buried, 51·1: whereas, in the population of the manufacturing county of Lancaster, the proportion of deaths to 100 births was fifty-nine, and the number of persons in proportion to whom one was buried, fifty-one. Taking again the population of all England, as compared with the parishes of Manchester, Salford, and Wigan, the, respective results were—all England, deaths to 100 births, 64·8; numbers in proportion to one buried, 52·3: Manchester, &c., deaths in 100, 56·71; numbers in proportion to whom one was buried 49·5. From which it appeared that, whether they compared the county of Lancaster with agricultural counties, or the spinning districts with those counties, or with all England, there was a less degree of mortality amongst persons engaged in spinning factories. He would now state shortly a Return of the height of the militia, from a Return given in to the Adjutant General's office, with respect to the growth of persons engaged in these factories. He had selected the militia of the agricultural counties before referred to, and compared them with regiments raised in counties where factories were generally established; and he found the average heights to be—of Bedford, 66·5; of Bucks, 66·4; of Cambridge, 66·7; of Berwick, 66·8: Of Lancashire, 69·02; of West York, 67·37; of Cheshire, 67·01; of Lanark, 68·03;—spewing, both in England and Scotland, a result in favour of the spinning population. The fact was not, perhaps, very material; but, as the hon. Member referred to the stunted appearance of persons engaged in the cotton manufacture as a proof of the necessity of subjecting the factories to some regulations, he might appeal to it to show how necessary it was, that the most accurate information should be obtained before they passed the Bill. He would now proceed to call the attention of the House to another part of the question, namely, the inexpediency, in a national and commercial point of view, with regard to the interests of the master manufacturers, and even of the children themselves. In the first place, it was an objection to the hon. Member's Bill that it pressed unequally on different kinds of mills. In steam mills the works could be carried on at any period, but in water-mills the times of
392
working were uncertain and fluctuating—the mills being impeded both by droughts and by floods. By the provisions of this Bill, the proprietors of water-mills would have no opportunity of regaining the time which they might lose by these casualties. If, therefore, this Bill should pass, the consequence would be, that all persons who had embarked their capital in the machinery of water-mills, would be obliged to remove to great towns. This would be attended with unfortunate results; for water-mills were generally established in agricultural districts, and were productive of the greatest benefit by affording employment to a considerable portion of the population. It was obvious, that if they limited the hours of labour, they would, to nearly the same extent, reduce the profits of the capital on which the labour was employed. Under these circumstances, the manufacturers must either raise the price of the manufactured article, or diminish the wages of their workmen. If they increased the price of the article, the foreigner would enter into competition with them. He need not remind the House of the immense capital which was embarked in the cotton manufacture, amounting to about 50,000,000 l., or of the great quantity of cotton manufactures exported to foreign countries. He was informed that the foreign cotton manufacturers, and particularly the Americans, trod closely upon the heels of our manufacturers. If the latter were obliged to raise the price of their articles, the foreign markets would in a great measure be closed against them, and the increased price would also decrease the demand in the home market. To avoid these ruinous consequences the manufacturers would, in all cases where it was possible to dispense with their labour, cease to employ children at all, and employ a greater number of adults than before. The hon. member for Aldborough seemed to consider this an advantageous course; but he could not concur with that opinion, because the labour of children was a great resource to their parents and a great benefit to themselves. But he understood, that, in some branches of the cotton manufacture it was impossible to separate the labour of children from that of adults. If, therefore, the manufacturers complied with the provisions of the Bill now before the House, they must in some instances reduce the labour and conse-

393
quently the wages of adults in the same proportion as those of children. He was of opinion, however, that the manufacturers would endeavour to evade the provisions of the Bill by employing two sets of children to relieve each other alternately, they would of course pay them but half the wages they at present earned, and the masters would accordingly be put to no additional expense. Moreover, it might be calculated upon that the workmen who commonly hired their own piecers, would exchange the children from one mill to another so that they might by such means be constantly employed, and, of course they could derive no benefit from the hon. Member's Bill. A result which was the more to be apprehended, if the doctrine of the hon. Member was correct, that the parental affection of the lower classes was not sufficiently powerful to protect their own offspring. It was, therefore, on these grounds, because, he doubted in the first place, whether Parliament could protect children as effectually as their parents; secondly, that he did not think a case for parliamentary interference had been made out; and thirdly, because he believed, the Bill would be productive of great inconvenience, not only to persons who had embarked large capital in the cotton manufacture, but even to workmen and children themselves, that he should feel it his duty to oppose the measure.
Lord Morpethexpressed his pleasure that the Bill had experienced no opposition in the present stage, but was to be referred to a Committee. He accordingly advised the friends of the measure to reserve their strength until it should be necessary to exert themselves in support of it.
Mr. Jamesdid not doubt the benevolent intentions of the hon. member for Aldborough, but he doubted whether he would attain his object by that Bill. Undoubtedly it was a great evil to employ children in factories, but he was very much afraid that it was only a choice of two evils—either the people must work as at present, or be exposed to starvation. It was impossible that we could contend with countries in which there were no restrictions on the food of the people. If the provisions of this Bill were carried into execution, the only effect it would have, would be to drive English capital to foreign countries. He deprecated these measures of interference between masters and labourers. He con-
394
sidered them to be only efforts to patch up our overgrown system of taxation. It would be better to lessen the taxes, and particularly the tax on corn. They might rest satisfied that if the workmen could obtain a sufficiency of food for their families, they would not allow their children to labour in these factories.
Mr. Schonswarfelt himself called upon to give his best support to the Bill, for if only a hundredth part of what the hon. Member for Aldborough had stated were true, such a system ought not to be allowed to continue. He knew there was a strong feeling in the minds of many of his constituents in favour of the measure. Indeed every man must feel for the situation of those helpless children, and, he trusted, the efforts of those who advocated their cause would be successful.
Mr. Mackenziesaid, he did not consider that the hon. member for Aldborough had made out a case to prove that children under nine years of age had been exposed to cruel treatment. The manufacturers wished every inquiry to be made into the case. From 1802 to the present moment, attempts had been made to regulate cotton factories by parliamentary enactments, but they had all failed; and he did not imagine that the present Bill would be more successful than former efforts.
Lord William Lennoxhad great pleasure in supporting the Bill of the hon. member for Aldborough, as he felt it to be the imperative duty of every well-wisher to society to use his utmost influence to put an end to the injurious practices now so justly and so loudly complained of, not only with a view of promoting the great cause of humanity, but also of removing from the country the stigma that must be necessarily attached to it by an encouragement of such a nefarious system—a system that was a disgrace to a civilized community—a system which, instead of laying the basis for health, strength, cheerfulness, industry, longevity, independence of parochial aid, was calculated to bring human beings to a premature grave, or to doom them to a protracted life of disease, mental and bodily; bringing pauperism and misery upon themselves, and making them a burthen to society. He wanted no evidence to tell him that the system now carried on was as pernicious to the health of the children as it was destructive to their morals. In order to bring to full maturity the faculties of

395
the body and mind, time must be afforded for meals, exercise, inhaling pure air, recreation, rest, and sleep; and how could that be accomplished when, in many manufactories children laboured seventy-nine hours per week, had an hour for their meals, and perhaps only six or seven for rest. In 1825, it was stated in this House, that, in the evidence furnished before a Committee in 1816, a medical gentleman, was asked, whether, he thought, a child could keep standing on her legs without prejudice to her health, twenty-three hours successively? He answered; the question was one of very great doubt. Another said, the inhaling of cotton fumes was not injurious to the health, as the effect was taken away by constant expectoration. When asked whether expectoration was not injurious? that, replied the medical gentleman, depends upon a variety of facts. He, in conclusion, did not wish to think the master manufacturers were devoid of all feeling—he could not bring himself to believe, that the claim of' humanity was not superior to any mercenary consideration; he, therefore, thought, they would hail this Bill with pleasure—a Bill that went to extirpate English slavery. He would call it by no other name, for, could the annals of West-India slavery produce a case of more persecuted suffering, more pathetically affecting, than the one of the little girl lately published in the newspapers. The child, remembering the severe punishment that would, he inflicted, if she slept too long, was afraid to trust her eyes to repose; deprived of needful rest, she dragged on a miserable existence, badly fed, badly clad, she sank into an early grave, a victim of cruel, slavery. Let the House, then, show by their votes, that, whilst they all wish to ameliorate the state of the foreign slave, they are not wholly unmindful of the condition of their own.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, that, without professing any overstrained or exaggerated humanity, he felt bound to vote for the Motion. He thought that, at the present time, when manufacturers were driven by the state of the laws to resort to every mode of cheapening their productions, in order to compete with foreigners, this was the very moment for throwing the shield of British law around the children employed in factories, and who were hereafter to be the defenders of those laws and of the empire. But, although he looked
396
upon the principle of the Bill as already granted, yet he thought its details required very close and cautious examination, which he hoped it would receive in Committee. He should gladly support any measure which would give the weak a due protection against the strong.
Mr. Lennardsaid; he trusted that the appointment of the proposed Committee would not create such delay as to prevent the passing of the Bill during the present Session. The public felt a deep interest on the subject, and justly so; and he considered that what was stated in the preamble, and what, therefore, must have been proved up stairs, was sufficient to induce the House to give the Bill a cordial support. The statement that, in many cases, children were employed during the whole night in these manufactories, was quite enough to make it imperative on the House to interfere on their behalf. He could not think that any one could fairly complain that the Bill went too far, when it allowed children to be worked as many hours as a felon condemned to hard labour was allowed to be worked in our gaols. But, it was not only on the ground of humanity that he supported the Bill of the hon. Gentleman opposite. He thought that the children of all classes, and more especially in our crowded towns, should have some leisure for mental improvement. This could not be, where they were liable to be worked fourteen, or sixteen, or eighteen hours out of the twenty-four. It had been said, that former Acts on this subject had been evaded. He hoped this would be guarded against by his hon. friend; and, if this object could not be otherwise secured, he hoped that the Bill, when it should come again before the House, would enact that the mills should cease to work after a certain hour. This would be a sure means of accomplishing the object which he had in view.
Mr. Heywoodsaid, he should support the second reading of the Bill, because he cordially approved of its object; but he must say, it appeared to him that its provisions were directly at variance with its object. He feared that, as the Bill at present stood, it must either be inoperative, as former Bills of the same kind had been, or that, if its provisions were carried into execution, they must produce great distress to the trade, and great consequent suffering amongst the operatives. Every

397
means would be taken to evade the enactment, therefore it would be most necessary to have the whole subject thoroughly examined before a Committee. He knew that an association bad been formed in Lancashire to enforce the former Acts on this subject, but the members saw the transgression of the law without the power to carry the purposes of the association into effect, The present Bill afforded no better security, as it stood, for its observance, than the Acts of former years, and it would offer an immense temptation, both to masters and workmen, to take advantage of its defects, by its diminution of the profits of the former, and of the wages of the latter. He made these observations to show the propriety of extreme caution in this enactment, for it was incumbent on the House to take care, while it cured one evil, not to create a greater. If its provisions were strictly enforced, the effect of them would be, to cause a great reduction of wages, and miserable privation would ensue among the workmen. Food was as necessary as air and exercise, and they should take care that, while they gave the operatives the latter, they did not deprive them of the former.
Mr. P. Howardconceived the hon. Mover had made out a strong case for the restriction of the hours of labour of children under twelve or fourteen years of age; but, at the same time, with every respect for his motives, he must say, that his zeal, as a philanthropist, had exceeded his discretion as a legislator, and those two offices, with an enlightened regard to the interests of the community, could never be severed. With reference to what had fallen from his hon. colleague (Mr. James), he must observe, that a reduction in the price of corn would inevitably be accompanied by a decrease of wages; and though he thought savings might be effected, yet, with a due regard to the public creditor, upon which the security of the poor man's savings and the rich man's capital alike depended, no material reduction in the public expenditure could take place, and he trusted the people would not build too much on that hope of relief. In an altered form, he (Mr. Howard) felt the Bill which bad that night been introduced might serve the country.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, as information bad been received that the mills at Manchester were working from twelve to sixteen
398
hours a day, the House could not proceed too rapidly to put a stop to that practice. He hoped, however, that the penalties, which, he understood, were provided for working beyond a certain period, would not be made too severe, as he feared that would diminish the efficacy of the Bill, and tend to make it inoperative.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the question was not one of pounds, shillings, and pence, but whether the English people were to be worked beyond their powers of endurance. If any Gentleman would walk into any of the cotton factories, and see the state of the workshops, no evidence of medical men, and no sophistry, would ever convince him that such labour was not destructive of the happiness and comfort of the miserable beings employed in it. It would be a libel upon cannibals, or the worst savages of the human race, to suppose that they would voluntarily suffer their children to be so treated. It would be a libel even upon the beasts of the forest to say that they would consent to treat their young as the children of the poor of this country were treated. It was the necessities of the poor which compelled them to submit to such degradation. An hon. Member had expressed a hope, that the penalties to be inflicted by the Bill would not be heavy. Now, he hoped that they would be as severe as possible, and that one-half would be given to the informer.
Mr. Kearsleythought, that he was acting as one of the best friends of the labouring classes in opposing this measure, which he considered would be productive of great injury to them. He lived in a manufacturing district, and he knew that what he stated was also the opinion of workmen themselves. He had not the least doubt that the statements of the hon. Member for Aldborough were very much exaggerated.
Lord Nugentsaid, that hon. Members had unnecessarily been discussing the principle of the Bill which was sanctioned by the House.
Mr. Blamireobserved, that the population in agricultural districts was more immoral than that employed in manufactures, at least so far as the number of illegitimate children was a criterion.
Bill read a second time, and a Committee appointed, to whom it was referred.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SEFTON, from 2,000 Inhabitants of Clerkenwell, for a Limitation of the Number of Hours of Employing Children in Factories:—By Lord KENYON, from the Inhabitants of Waterford, against the proposed System of Education for Ireland, and by Viscount LORTON, from the Inhabitants of Drumlease to the same effect:—By the Earl of RODEN, from nine Peers, and 4,100 of the Gentry, Clergy, and other Inhabitants of the County of Cork, against the Repeal of the Union, against the Reform Bill, and calling upon the House to support the Protestant Interest in Ireland:—By Lord KING, from the Freeholders, Landholders, and other Inhabitants of Donegore, Kilbride, Ballyeaston, and Nekeen, from the Reform Society, and other Inhabitants of Belfast, the Inhabitants of the Barony of Forth, Termonfechin, Clogher, and Mayne, for the Abolition of the Tithe System, and in favour of the New System of Education proposed for Ireland.

REMEDIES AGAINST THE HUNDRED.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the second reading of a short Bill brought in to amend the Act granting remedies in case of outrage against the Hundred. The Bill was introduced chiefly to supply the words
298
"threshing machines," which were omitted inadvertently in Mr. Peel's Act.
Lord Ellenboroughrecommended that the whole of the law on this subject should be reviewed. He hoped the noble Duke would not confine himself to the correction of one error—the omission of the words "threshing machines"—but take the present very defective law into consideration.
Viscount Melbournesaid, there was some misunderstanding on the subject. So far as he could say, the words alluded to were not left out by inadvertence.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, the noble Duke and the noble Viscount were at utter variance in their account of the present Act; the one insisting that the words "threshing machines" were left out by inadvertence, while the other maintained that they were designedly omitted. As the noble Lords appeared to be so ignorant of the Bill, he hoped some noble Lord would move an amendment in the second stage.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing that he and his noble friend were at variance. He did not refer to any measure of the present Ministry, but to a Bill introduced by Mr. Peel, where the words referred to were inadvertently left out.
Lord Ellenborough, then, thought that it was full time to correct this inadvertence, and the sooner a bill was brought in to make perfect the whole Act, the better.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that a revision of the law was most necessary. As the case now stood, any person, whose windows were demolished by a mob, had no remedy against the Hundred. He had suffered in that respect himself, and bad consulted Counsel on the subject; but he was informed that he could have no remedy against the hundred, and he was compelled to put up with the demolition of his property. He submitted, therefore, as it was quite possible that riots might be again renewed, that the law should be altered, so that innocent parties might be enabled to obtain redress.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that this question should not be taken up as affecting only persons in high stations; for people in the middling classes were just as liable to have their shop or house windows broken by a mob as richer individuals were. So far as he and his noble friend were concerned, they were able to get

299
their windows repaired, if they were broken during the progress of a riot; but those persons who could not so well afford to bear the loss should not be left without a remedy. They and their property had a right to a specific and precise protection.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he had no objection to extend the protection of the law to "threshing machines," though he believed they were not left out inadvertently in the former Bill. He would not propose any alteration of the principle of Sir Robert Peel's Bill, as he thought that the qualification of making the breaking felonious, as well as by violence, was necessary. He had great doubts of the prudence of giving an easy remedy against the Hundred, inasmuch as it tended to diminish the stimulus which every man should feel to protect his own property. He believed, if the idea had not prevailed, previous to a late occasion, that remedies against the Hundred were easily sustained, that more care would have been taken in not exposing windows to the violence of the mob.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, the noble Viscount made the necessity of protection being afforded more evident than ever. What he proposed tended to anything but the preservation of the public peace, and might lead to the loss of lives. He hoped the noble Lord would consider the subject well, and recollect, that outrages of this description proceeded from the most disgusting motives, and were committed by the most cowardly persons. If the noble Viscount was not induced to amend the law himself, he at least requested that he would give notice when the present Bill was to be committed, in order that other noble Lords might have the opportunity of considering whether it were desirable to propose remedies or not.
Viscount Melbournesaid, he could not see in what manner the proposed Amendment would answer the purpose intended by the noble Baron. It could not tend to repress any tumult: it merely was calculated to provide, that those who lived in the district, and had no means of preventing the riot, yet were to be called upon to pay for whatever damage chanced to be done.
Bill read a second time.

ZEMINDAR OF NOZEED.
Lord Ellenboroughasked the noble Lord at the head of the Administration, whether he had
300
made up his mind as to the giving the consent of the Crown to the Bill before the House, relative to the claims of the Zemindar of Nozeed on the East-India Company?
Earl Greyreplied, that he did not think that there was any occasion for the consent of the Crown in this case. The Bill had passed the Commons without any such consent having been given or called for there, and there was no occasion for it here. If there had been occasion for it, he should have been rather disposed to recommend its being given, on the principle that an opportunity should be afforded for a full and fair statement of the case. He had no objection to the noble Lord's Motion, that the Company should be heard by Counsel against it.
Lord Ellenboroughwas still of opinion, that the King's consent was needful. He thought that matters of such importance as were contained in this Bill should not be introduced in the shape of a private Bill. He begged leave to refer to "Hatsel's Precedents," to show that, according to a standing Order of the Commons, the consent of the Crown was required in cases of this kind. He hoped, however, the House would have no objection to hear the Counsel of the East-India-Company against the Bill, on its second reading; and he therefore moved, that they be heard on Wednesday next.
Earl Greysaid, there would be no objection to hearing Counsel at the Bar against the second reading of the Bill: but, with regard to the other point, he believed that Hatsell referred to petitions from individuals praying for public money; and if the noble Lord thought that they should have a similar Standing Order in this House, he might move for it on another occasion.
Lord Ellenboroughthought it highly expedient that there should be such an Order, but felt some hesitation in moving for it, without being, pretty sure of a majority of their Lordships in its favour, lest there should be a decision against it. He had sat for some time at the Board of Control, and knew that there was a great deal of jobbing speculations of this kind, in order to get an undue advantage of the Company.
Lord Teynhamobjected to any undue protection being given to a rich Company against the claims of individuals.
Lord Wharncliffesuggested, that every

301
case of this kind should rest on its own merits; and, as his noble friend had mentioned a system of jobbing, he wished to enter a caveat against that statement, operating as a prejudice against this particular claim.
Lord Ellenhoroughagreed in what his noble friend had said, and thanked him for the caution.
East India Company to be heard by Counsel against the Bill.

PLURALITIES.
Lord Suffieldstated, that he had several amendments to propose in the Pluralities Bill, which stood for this evening. It was usual, in the other House of Parliament, to allow proposed amendments of this kind to be printed, so that they might come fully and fairly before the House in Committee, at the same time with the Bill. He should propose, therefore, that the committal of the Bill, which stood for to-night, should be postponed; and that the Amendments should be printed in the meantime.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that it was not according to the order of that House to have amendments printed before they were regularly proposed in the Committee.
Earl Greysaid, the practice in the Commons, when amendments of a very material description were to be proposed, was, to commit the Bill pro formâ, and then to deliver in the amendments, on an understanding that they were to be printed without any motion being made to that effect, so as to come before the House in Committee at the same time with the Bill. But he did not understand that such was the order and practice of that House.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that it was not the order of that House; and he should recommend that the usual course of business should be followed.
The Archbishop of Canterburydid not mean to impute to the noble Lord (Suffield) any want of courtesy, but he took him completely by surprise. He did not know what his Amendments were, but he could not consent to postpone the Committee. The Bill had been lost last Session, after having gone to the Commons. The present Session was considerably advanced, and he was apprehensive of further delay.
The Bishop of Londondid not think that the case called for the adoption of any unusual course. The noble Baron might
302
propose his Amendments in the Committee, and then, if they should be thought worthy of further consideration, they might be printed; but he did not think that the committal of the Bill ought to be postponed.
Lord Suffieldthought it his imperative duty to persist in endeavouring to have those Amendments printed; and, since his suggestion was not agreed to, he would, on Monday next, introduce a separate Bill, having for its object to effect that in reality, which the present Bill, as it stood, only professed to do.
Motion not pressed.

BELGIAN AFFAIRS.
The Duke of Wellingtonrose, pursuant to notice, to call for certain documents, with a view to prove the inaccuracy of some statements in the late exposition of M. Perier, in the Chamber of Deputies, relative to the settlement of the affairs of Belgium after the late revolution. If these statements had appeared in the shape of ordinary newspaper representations or remarks, he should not have thought such a ground sufficient for giving their Lordships any trouble on the subject. But this was not an ordinary newspaper statement. It was an elaborate speech and exposition, delivered by the high authority of the French President of the Council, containing an account of the proceedings of the French and other governments relative to the settlement of the affairs of Belgium; and he felt himself bound to say, that in that exposition there were some erroneous, and even false, representations, in which the Government of this country was nearly concerned. He thought it due to the honour of the Government of his Majesty, and to that of the governments of his Allies, to address a few words to their Lordships on the subject, and to call for documents which would show whether the imputations of M. Perier were deserved or not. He would begin by calling their Lordships' attention to some passages of the speech on which he meant to comment; and the first was as follows:—
"The revolution of Belgium broke out at the close of September, 1830; but such was, at that moment, the general conviction of all persons as to the advantages of maintaining peace, and, consequently, the respect due to treaties, that no one, at first, thought of seizing that revolution as an advanced position against the European system, nor of making use of it as an arm, menacing alike peace and the treaties on which it is based. Perhaps the French

303
government could then discover some embarrassment. But the rapid march of events, and the sympathies suddenly awakened in favour of Belgium, the considerations of neighbourhood, and the interests of frontiers, decided the government of the king to support the Belgian revolution, always by laying aside previously all idea of ambition, and, consequently avoiding all grounds of collision with the other powers. This was the means of rendering this protection efficacious to Belgium; it was an opportunity of explaining fairly to Europe the true spirit of the revolution of July in its exterior relations. France of July was about to establish her diplomacy; upon this first step depended the nature of her relations with the other governments and people; in this was comprehended her futurity of peace or war. Well, then, gentlemen, the conduct of government at that epoch, in affording a pacific but efficacious support to the Belgians, was approved of by the country, salutary for Belgium, and decisive for the system of peace. Let us not lose sight of this point of departure, since the policy of government has had a continual reference to it, and because it could not, at the present moment, be consistently reproached for its fidelity to principles which had been unanimously recognized. Such was the well-understood interest of the revolution of July, in its material as well as its moral relations; for if a war party had existed at that time, which—regardless of the horror of a revolution, whose moderation was its force—should have called for invasion and conquest, what could it have required, what would it have been able to accomplish, in the then military situation of France, after the dissolution of the royal guard, the dismissal of the Swiss, the division of our forces in Algiers and in Greece, and, lastly, the desertion organized by the spirit of party, and the employment of extraordinary troops in the west and south? The most declared advocates of war would then have been compelled to acknowledge (all other considerations out of the question) that the state of the army rendered this line of conduct absolutely necessary, even though a more enlightened policy had not pointed out the prudence of it. But, as it was, the government did not hesitate to declare, that it would regard as an act of hostility against itself the entry of foreign troops into Belgium. The promptitude of this declaration, and the firmness with which the established principle was defended, have been, I affirm without hesitation, the salvation of Belgium, and the foundation of her independence."
No man could read through that speech, nor, indeed, read any part of it, without seeing that, although M. Perier was, perhaps, deserving of the applause which was bestowed upon him, as being anxious to stay the revolutionary doctrines propagated by other French governments, yet it was calculated to promote that morbid
304
desire of conquest and aggrandizement, which, for the last forty years, had been so characteristic a feature of the history of France. There could be no other inference drawn from it; and the disclaimer of the noble Earl of all design, on the part of France, to violate peace, could not weaken its impression, strengthened as it was by the passage which was intended as an apology for the expedition to Ancona, and still more by the tone in which M. Perier spoke of the close union between the French and English Governments. That union was spoken of as a matter of "necessity" to England, as a mere question of "efficacy" to France; and that, too, in the teeth of the emphatic language of the noble Earl opposite, as to the mutual conviction of the two nations of the necessity of this friendly understanding. Now, he entertained as strong an opinion as the noble Earl himself of the advantages, nay, necessity, of a close union between the English and French governments, in order to maintain the general peace; but this conviction was second to his anxiety to preserve the honour and interests of England untarnished. While he told the noble Earl that his anxiety for a good understanding between the two countries was second only to his anxiety for the honour of the King's Government, he would also tell him that if he hoped to preserve the peace of Europe by the cordial co-operation of France, he must not unite himself to that country singly, but in participation with the other great Powers of the continent. Let him take warning and counsel from the Ancona affair, which was but a comparatively trifling instance of a spirit evinced more and more by the events of every day, which was pregnant with disadvantage, if not dishonour, to this country. When he said that M. Perier's speech tended to promote the morbid desire of the French for conquest and aggrandizement, he begged it clearly to be understood that no man was more anxious than he was to promote peace and union between France and England—that no man entertained a higher estimate of the immense resources, whether for peace or war, of the French people—that no man thought higher of their ability to avail themselves of their immense resources—that, in a word, no man was more ready to testify to the fact, that perhaps no nation on the earth excelled, if, indeed, it equalled,

305
France, in the possession of those virtues, talents, and resources, which were calculated to render a people truly great and prosperous at home, and formidable and respected abroad. In these qualities, he repeated, France was, perhaps, more favoured than any other country on the earth: but because she was so, he thought it the more bounden duty of an English Minister to preserve with jealous care the honour and interests of this country from French encroachment. Having made these general observations to prevent misunderstanding as to the motives with which he brought forward his Motion, he would at once proceed to call their attention to the objectionable paragraph of M. Perier's speech which he had just read to them. He had stated that from that speech it would appear that the revolution of Belgium was the work of the French government. A simple statement of facts would show that this was not the case. The revolution of France occurred, as they all knew, in July, 1830. As soon as its consequence was duly announced to the British Government, of which he was then a member, no time was lost in recognizing Louis Phillippe as king of the French—that is, in recognizing the principle of the revolution, and of preserving the friendly understanding between the two countries entire. The change of the dynasty was fully and promptly acknowledged, and Louis Phillippe was admitted fully into all the treaties in force between the two countries, as also a party to all the treaties between this country and the other States of Europe. England took the lead among the other Powers in recommending the adoption of this friendly policy, and under the auspices of this Government, the French government of Louis Phillippe was recognized as a party to every existing obligation. This was important to bear in mind, for Louis Phillippe being admitted a party to these treaties, was necessarily bound by them; so that if, by his subsequent conduct, it appeared that there was any departure from their provisions, it followed that he had violated the terms on which his sovereignty was recognized. Now, he contended, that if M. Perier's version of the conduct of the French government with respect to Belgium were the true one, Louis Phillippe had violated a condition of his recognition; for among the treaties to which he was admitted, and by which he was bound, was one preserv-
306
ing the integrity of the kingdom of the Netherlands. He need hardly remind them, that by the Treaty of Peace of 1814, Belgium was made over to the king of Holland, and he need hardly remind them also that the king of France was an important party to that treaty. The man, therefore, who represented the king of the French as "encouraging and promoting" the Revolution of Belgium represented that monarch as a violator of a solemn compact. He admitted that the king of the French had not violated that compact; but he appealed to their Lordships whether the statement which he had read did not in so many words represent him to have broken it. He repeated that the words of M. Perier were neither more nor less than a charge against his master of having violated a treaty to which he was a party; but he again repeated, that the error was M. Perier's only. The papers for which he would move, would place this beyond a doubt, for they would make it evident that from the first moment of the breaking out of the Belgian Revolution in August, 1830, to the last moment of his quitting office, the French government had faithfully observed the treaty to which the five great Powers were parties, and which amalgamated Holland and Belgium, and that it had, in fact, acted the very reverse of what M. Perier had represented. One of these papers would show that the French Foreign Secretary had, at the very outset, disclaimed all interference with the affairs of Belgium; so far from interfering or promoting the Belgian Revolution, the French government, on three different occasions, voluntarily, without the remotest solicitation on the part of the British Government, declared their willingness to co-operate in preventing its consequences. First, when the Prince of Orange entered Brussels; they repeated their declaration when that prince left that place; and, last of all, when Prince Frederick made that attack on Brussels, in which he unfortunately failed. Indeed, the French government of the time rendered itself obnoxious to the mouvement party by their conduct towards their brother revolutionists in the Netherlands, and, in the words of M. Perier, felt itself consequently much embarrassed. Nor was this all, The French government not only did not encourage the Belgian Revolution, but zealously offered to co-operate with the other Powers in preventing the separation

307
of Belgium from the sovereignty of the House of Orange. It expressed its anxiety to devise some means or another by which Belgium could be restored to the king of Holland, and was among the last of the parties to the Treaty of 1814, to despair of being able to effect that object. He spoke confidently on this head, having been then himself in office; and he had reason to know, that even after he had left office, the French government had expressed to the British Minister its anxiety to attempt again the restoration of the sovereignty of the House of Orange. There was to this effect a letter, of which the noble Earl and the French Ambassador could not be ignorant, written as well as he recollected, in the month of February. Without it, however, there were sufficient documents to prove that the allegations of M. Perier were wholly unfounded, and that France, so far from encouraging the Belgian Revolution, had done its utmost to avert its consequences. He was aware that the independence of Belgium was assumed as a preliminary condition, under the Conferences held for the settlement of the affairs of the Netherlands, under the direction of his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but this was not until the failure of Prince Frederick's attack on Brussels had demonstrated the impossibility of preserving the union of Belgium and Holland. It was true—and this was the only transaction which could afford the slightest colouring to M. Perier's statement—that at that Conference the French Ambassador represented his government as opposed to all foreign interference by means of force, in the settlement of the Belgian question; and it was also true, that this communication was made before a despatch from the Hague requested our military aid to effect the reconquest of the Belgian provinces by the king of the Netherlands. That aid the British Government at once refused, convinced that the peace of Europe could not he preserved, if other nations interfered with arms in the affairs of Belgium. But, in stating this, he most distinctly denied the assumption of M. Perier—namely, that other nations had evinced an intention of interfering by force. The British Government had no such intention, nor had any of the other Powers; and he would add, that the French Government knew that such was the fact. There was another cir-
308
cumstance which he considered very material in reference to these transactions, and one which, in a remarkable degree, evinced the feeling of the French government throughout the transaction—namely, that the French Minister admitted at once that Luxembourg stood on a different footing, inasmuch as it was part of the German Confederation; and while he objected to the sending of troops into Belgium, he did not resist the despatch of an expedition to Luxembourg, should it be deemed necessary. It was known that the restoration of the House of Orange by a military force was impracticable, after the Dutch troops had been driven from Brussels. With these facts before their Lordships, he thought they must be of opinion that this was a case into which Parliament ought to inquire, by calling for the production of papers; and as a precedent for his Motion, he begged to refer the noble Earl to a proceeding of the same kind, in which he was himself concerned, when he procured the production of a document to set right the conduct of this country in relation to a passage in the speech of the king of the French. He only required that that precedent should be followed in the present instance. He trusted he had succeeded in making evident to their Lordships the positions for which he had been contending—namely, that the existing government of France was bound by the treaties into which former governments had entered: that under the influence of such a consideration, the king of the French had, during the time he had specified, avoided any encouragement of the Belgian Revolution, and that the conduct of the then Government of this country was in perfect conformity with the principles it professed. For the better and more indisputable establishment of these truths, he hoped the noble Earl would agree to the production of the papers which he now wished to be produced; he would move, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to request his Majesty to give directions that the following papers may be laid before this House:—
"Copies or Extracts of the following despatches from the Earl of Aberdeen to Lord. Stuart de Rothsay, G.C.B., his Majesty's Ambassador at Paris:—

Dated Sept. 5,

1830. No.

50

Sept. 28

53, with the inclosures.

Oct. 3

55

309

Oct. 15

58

Oct. 22

61, with 4 inclosures.

Oct. 22

62

Oct. 24

63

Oct. 26

65, with 2 inclosures."

"Copies or Extracts of the following despatches from Lord Stuart de Rothsay, G.C. B., to the Earl of Aberdeen:—

Dated Aug. 30,

1830 No. 456

Aug. 31

462

Sept. 3

467, extract.

Sept. 6

476

Sept. 10

486

Sept. 13

482

Sept. 17

497, extract.

Sept. 20

508

Sept. 24

518

Oct. 1

527

Oct. 4

533

Oct. 8

540

Oct. 11

545

Oct. 15

552, extract.

Oct. 19

566

Oct. 25

576

Oct. 25

579

Oct. 25

580, extract.

Oct. 29

583

Nov. 6

609

Nov. 8

612

Nov. 8

613"

Earl Greytrusted that his objecting to the Motion of the noble Duke would not lead to the conclusion to which the noble Duke's observations tended,—namely, that the honour and interests of the country had been compromised by the statement of the French minister. He did not object to the statement which the noble Duke had made of the conduct of his Administration with respect to the settlement of Belgium,—on the contrary, he did not hesitate to bear his testimony in confirmation of it; and he trusted that the correctness of that statement being thus admitted by him, the noble Duke would not press his Motion, as the papers to which he had referred could not be produced at this moment without detriment to the public service. He had heard much of the noble Duke's speech with satisfaction, and to the principle laid down by the noble Duke as that which should regulate the general policy of this country towards France, he gave his ready assent. The noble Duke had acknowledged the necessity of a good understanding between the two countries to the preservation of the peace of Europe. He entirely concurred with him, and he also agreed with him that that good understanding should ever be strictly consistent with the honour and
310
interest of this country. It had been his (Earl Grey's) language on many occasions in that House, that the first object of an English Minister was the careful guardianship of the hopes and interests of England, and in repeating that sentiment then, he would add, that it was on it he based the necessity of a close union between France and this country. If it could be shown that his official conduct at all compromised the honour and interests of the country, he would (but not till then) acknowledge himself obnoxious to the censure of Parliament and the public. He was confident that such was not the case, and that the warnings of the noble Duke—which he received in good part—were unnecessary. The noble Duke warned him against the consequences of attempting to preserve the peace of Europe by a separate union with France. He agreed with the noble Duke, and had only to observe, that all the other powers of Europe were parties and participators in the friendly understanding between the English and French Governments. With respect to the specific ground on which the noble Duke had founded his Motion, he begged leave to remind the noble Duke, that, while he admitted with him the high authority of M. Perier, and the consequent importance of his views and opinions on political transactions affecting the peace of Europe, it was irregular to found any Motion on any alleged statement of those views and opinions which might appear in the public prints, and which had not been officially communicated to the King's Government. If every statement made in either Chamber were thus to be adopted as the ground of a discussion on its subject matter, it was evident that great inconvenience, if not actually unpleasant consequences, must be the result. The probable accuracy or inaccuracy of the alleged report formed no part of the question. The noble Duke had indulged in some severe remarks on a newspaper version of M. Perier's sentiments. He could not be expected to follow the noble Duke, for, supposing that he entirely agreed with the noble Duke as to the justice of his censures, he stood in that singular position relative to M. Perier, that he could not, consistently with courtesy and the usages of office, indulge in harsh comments. But he would admit to the noble Duke, that a careful examination of the correspondence; to which he had referred warranted the

311
noble Duke's interpretation of the actual conduct of the French government with reference to Belgium; and, as a consequence, he would admit that the interpretation of M. Perier was not correct. This was delicate ground, and he would not trench further upon it, the rather as he had no official reason to presume that the sentiments attributed to M. Perier in a newspaper speech were those of the French government. If the French government declared that it had provoked and encouraged the Belgian revolution, there could be no doubt that the noble Duke's' inference was unanswerable, namely, that, in doing so, the French government had violated a solemn treaty. But he doubted whether the words attributed to M. Perier warranted such an interpretation, and he was inclined to believe that all the speaker meant was, that the French government had acted on the principle of preventing the armed interference of other powers. Be that as it might, he implicitly subscribed to the statement of facts given by the noble Duke. The French government, as the noble Duke had stated, so far from encouraging the Belgian revolution, had expressly disclaimed all interference in it, and had co-operated with the other powers in endeavouring to effect a re-union of Holland and Belgium. The conduct of the British Government at the time—if it was not presumption in him to offer his testimony to the noble Duke,—was entitled to his fullest approbation. The noble Duke could not be more anxious than he was to disclaim interference on the part, not only of this country but of France, in exciting the Belgian revolution, and in denying that any statement on the part of the French government to the other powers was a threat against an intended interference by force on their part. No such interference was intended—no such threat was therefore warranted. Throughout the whole of the correspondence, although a strong dislike of foreign interference had been expressed, there had been nothing which would warrant the term "menace" being applied to any part of the conduct of the British Government. Under these circumstances, and having thus done justice to the course which had been pursued, he trusted that some alteration would be made in the Motion of the noble Duke with respect to the papers he had moved for. In addition to this, he must observe, that the statement of the French minister
312
had been extremely general, and that it went solely to this—that the prompt and energetic interposition of the French government had effectually prevented any thing like foreign interference. It would be admitted, he thought, that if there had been a war in Belgium, it would have been scarcely possible for France to avoid becoming a party in it. He would then put this case merely hypothetically—namely, it might have been possible that representations had been made to other powers on the continent of the impossibility which the French government felt themselves under of remaining indifferent, in case of the occupation of Belgium by any one of these powers, and that this representation might have been attended with the effect stated by the French minister. He put this case totally as a hypothetic one, but also as one which, if correct, would be an additional argument against the necessity of the present Motion, as the declaration of the French minister, if intended against this country particularly, was not such as could be so understood in any assembly. Were this Motion, then, to be persevered in, it was probable that still further disclosures would be required with respect to other powers. With regard to the particular papers required by the noble Duke, he, in consequence of the noble Duke's application, had looked through the whole of the papers connected with this correspondence, and he would repeat, that the noble Duke was borne out by that correspondence in his statement of every thing which had occurred while he was at the head of his Majesty's Government. He hoped that this would satisfy the noble Duke; but, besides this, he must say, that, in the production of these papers there was much to create danger, and he (Earl Grey) was also sure that there were many papers amongst them which the noble Duke would not desire to see made public. In fact, this was proved by the noble Duke's not asking for all the papers, but, instead of them desiring extracts, thereby admitting that there were some which ought not to be made public. Some of them affected individuals, whose names or whose conduct could not be touched upon. Furthermore, although the Motion was only directed to what had occurred during the period the noble Duke had been in office, it should be borne in mind that what had taken place then, was only the commencement of a long and

313
arduous course of negotiation, which had not as yet been brought to a conclusion, and with respect to which, under all the circumstances, no disclosures could with safety be made; nor, indeed, had any Government, in any similar case, been ever called upon to make disclosures. These were shortly his reasons for not wishing to accede to the present Motion. But the noble Duke had said, that he (Earl Grey) had adopted a similar course on the occasion of the speech of the king of the French, by coming down with a statement of what had occurred. Upon that occasion, he (Earl Grey) had taken his Majesty's pleasure, and had laid before the House the convention which had been entered into, and the protocols of the Plenipotentiaries. That, however, was a case totally different from the present. The speech was not that of a minister in one of the Chambers, but an authentic document, being the speech of the French king from the throne, and made not merely to France, but to all Europe. On that occasion, he (Earl Grey) had thought it fitting that such a statement so made should be set right in the eye of the public. That also referred but to one circumstance, whereas the present Motion had reference to a detailed correspondence which it would be inconvenient to lay before the public. He would also say, that this speech of the French minister did not need such a Motion as the present, and there was a precedent in his (Earl Grey's) own conduct which would show how he had acted. For instance, a statement had been made by a French minister, in the Chamber of Deputies, of what he (Earl Grey) had said in that House, which was in direct contradiction of what he actually did say. This alone ought to be a proof of the inconvenience of resorting to such motions as the present. He had said in that House, in the course of his speech, that it would have been the desire of this country to replace the House of Orange on the throne of Belgium, as being most conducive at the time to the peace of Europe. But he (Earl Grey) did not feel it necessary, on account of the misrepresentation in the Chamber of Deputies, to come down and make it the subject of a motion or even an explanation. He had done this too, on the authority of the noble Duke himself, when a noble Earl (Earl Vane) at the Table had attacked him in his usual strain, with reference to some
314
expressions used by General Sebastiani. The noble Duke had then supported him, (Earl Grey) by saying, that reference should never be made to speeches, but to authentic documents, by which alone governments were to be judged. The noble Duke, then, he thought, might be satisfied with this acknowledgment, and he might be sure that the character of his Government was maintained, as there was now the distinct declaration that no armed intervention, or other proceeding, inconsistent with professions of non-interference, had been projected by the Government of this country during the noble Duke's Government. Having said thus much, he trusted that the noble Duke would not feel it necessary to press his Motion any further.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that if he were not satisfied, which he was, he assured the noble Earl that his declaration that to produce these papers would be inconvenient to his Majesty's Government, would alone be enough to induce him to withdraw his Motion, and he would, therefore, with the leave of the House, do so. At the same time he must address a few words to the House. It was certainly true, that the speech to which he had alluded, was but the speech of a minister in one of the chambers, but it was also true, that it had appeared in a manner and in a shape in which no speech of any Minister of this country had ever before been circulated. When the noble Earl had come down with the documents respecting the French king's speech, it was true he had done so by the King's command, but there was also another answer to that speech in a letter written by the Prince of Orange, on his leaving this country in the month of January. Having said thus much as to the documents, he would now say one word as to any threat having been held out in any quarter. On looking over all the correspondence of the time, it would be seen that this Government had been not only on terms of friendship with the French ministry, but also with the ministers of all the Allies in Europe; and if there had been any intention hostile to France, or any jealousy felt in France of such an intention, the Government here must have known it. But he (the Duke of Wellington) had no recollection of any intention on the part of any of the Powers to interfere in the Belgian revolution, or of any intention, or intimation of an inten-

315
tion, on the part of France, to resist them. He would only add, that he was pleased at what had taken place during the discussion, and he begged leave to withdraw his Motion.

PLURALITIES BILL.
The Archbishop of Canterburymoved, that their Lordships should go into Committee on the Pluralities Bill.
Lord Suffieldobserved, that there were several points of this Bill to which he entertained objections. He did not wish to see the privilege taken away which the chaplaincy to the peerage conferred, and which he knew to be useful in many respects. He thought the Bill would be a great injury to individual rights, and would be no benefit to the Church. He thought it would not be a benefit to the poorer clergy, nor would it be so destructive of pluralities as it was generally believed. The Bill, in his opinion, did not do what it professed to do, and it did that which it ought not to do, so that he could call it (and he used the expression without the slightest wish to offend the most reverend Prelate) nothing but the grossest delusion. It was far from his wish to attribute to the most reverend Prelate the desire to render it so. Who were the advisers of the most reverend Prelate who had framed the Bill he could not possibly tell, but certainly they had led the most reverend Prelate into producing what, he must repeat, appeared to him a gross delusion. The provision against the power of the Bishop of Norwich to erect small pluralities was highly objectionable, because in that diocess most of the parishes did not exceed 1,000 acres, and did not produce more than from 80 l. to 100 l. a year; and the churches were so close, that a clergyman could with ease officiate in more than one, and thus obtain what would be a decent provision. No man was more friendly to the Church than he was, and church property, he conceived, ought to be preserved and devoted to religious purposes. But this Bill passed over the abuse of the union of large livings, while it limited that of small ones. The principle on which he wished to go, was that of value, and he would give to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as head of the church, and to the other Bishops, particularly to the Bishop of Norwich, large discretionary powers, as to the granting of pluralities; but he would restrain all these pluralities within certain
316
limits as to the exercise of their power. He would not allow them to grant pluralities of a greater amount than 300 l. a year, but he would have a strict return of all higher benefices. He did not make these observations in hostility to the Church, for he was one of its most zealous friends.
The Earl of Eldonsaid, that the Bill was of an important character, and he was extremely desirous of stating his opinions upon it; it contained many provisions which were very objectionable. These might perhaps be obviated in the Committee, and he would therefore wish for time, in order to the full understanding of the measure. He hoped there would be no objection to postpone the Committee for two or three days, as he had been in that House on judicial matters since ten that morning, and he was not capable now of entering upon the Bill.
Lord Hollandwas surprised to hear the request of the noble and learned Lord, for the last time the subject was under discussion, he declared he would take no more cognizance of it, but leave the Church to take care of itself; and now the noble and learned Lord asked for two or three days, because he could not attend the Committee that evening.
The Earl of Eldondid not object to the noble Lord's wit at his expense, as he was happy to find the noble Lord would, upon any terms, recognize so humble a being as himself in that House.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, that he stood in a very difficult situation, for on the one hand he had the highest authority for doing what he did, while on the other he was told that his Bill was a gross delusion. That assertion threw discredit on the author of the Bill. At least it threw discredit on his understanding, that he should adopt the labours of men who only wished to practice a gross delusion. It was said that the Bill would operate badly upon the interests of the poorer clergy, and particularly on the poorer clergy of the diocese of Norwich. The noble Lord was mistaken as to the intentions and provisions of the Bill, with regard to the clergy of Norwich. The Bishop of that diocese, had with pleasure given up his right, and expressed his satisfaction at the provisions of the Bill, while the noble Lord (Lord Suffield) held an opinion quite the reverse. He had not heard any of the noble Lord's objections before to night, and he did licit precisely

317
comprehend them now. The noble Lord's observations were a little confused on this subject; and as he did not enter into any particulars of the plan he wished to propose, it was impossible to answer his objections. Whatever course noble Lords might desire to pursue, in order to discuss this measure, he should be prepared to agree to. It was his (the Archbishop's) wish to hear every objection that might be entertained, and his desire was, consistently with the rules of the House, to afford an opportunity for this being done. He apprehended, the Committee was the best stage for the purpose, and intended himself to propose one or two Amendments, and afterwards a day might be fixed for the discussion of the whole subject.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that if he had fallen into any confusion, it was owing to the want of ability, and not inclination. He should at a future stage endeavour to make his objections intelligible to their Lordships. His wish was to go into Committee to have the whole subject discussed.
The Bishop of Londonrose merely for the purpose of correcting an erroneous impression which had gone abroad, that the holders of small benefices would be injured by the Bill. In his opinion it would have the contrary effect; inasmuch as it would enable the poor clergyman to hold two livings without a dispensation, the expense of procuring which was now considerable. At the same time he must say, that he felt some objections to the Bill, but these might be obviated in Committee. He did not think that the noble Lord ought to be censured for his objections, for when noble Lords suggested objections of this sort, it should be taken for granted that they did so for the advantage of the Church. He gave the noble Lord the credit. Of having done so in the present instance. He only regretted that an earlier opportunity had not been taken to state these objections, so that they might be discussed in time to allow the Bill to pass in the present Session; for if a measure of this kind was brought in—was suffered to be several weeks before the House—but was not passed through Parliament, and that course was pursued from year to year, the public would believe that they were in a conspiracy to defeat the real intention of the Bill, which was to restrain, if not to abolish, pluralities of benefices.
Lord Ellenboroughthought, that in
318
justice to the right reverend Prelate, who had taken so much trouble with this Bill, some day ought to be fixed upon when it might be brought forward for discussion, and he hoped their Lordships would fix the day, and that there should be no disappointment.
Lord Kingagreed with his noble friend, that the standard of value ought to be taken in preference to the standard of distance, so that two or more rich livings should not be held together by the same individual. For instance, Stanhope and Winwick, in Lincolnshire, of 7,000 l. a year, might both be held under this Bill, as in fact they were at present. If the standard of distance alone were taken, a clergyman who looked to a private patron might be utterly unable to obtain two livings from that patron, whose estates might lie scattered all over the country, while a clergyman who looked to the patronage of the Bishops would be sure to obtain that advantage, as almost all the patronage of a Bishop lay within the limits of his own diocese, and both these livings, if the standard of value was not adopted, might be rich livings.
The Archbishop of Canterburybegged to be permitted to say one word as to the possibility of holding large livings under this Bill. The noble Lord who had spoken of this had made no allusion to the power vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who under the Bill was to have the power of giving a dispensation, or a licence for the holding of more than one living. By the Bill his powers, hitherto doubtful, would be settled; and when he accepted this power under the Bill, he did so under a responsibility, which it was not at all likely he would violate.
Lord Suffieldmeant no discourtesy, nor had he an opportunity before to-night of stating his sentiments respecting this measure; but unless the standard of value were adopted, it would be quite possible under this Bill for the same person to hold the Bishopric of Winchester, the Deanery of Durham, the Rectory of Stanhope, and the Rectory of Winwick, the richest living in England.
Lord Kenyonsaid, that with all due deference and respect for the right rev. Prelate he must object to the discretion which was given by this Bill to him in respect of the dispensing, power. What he anxiously wished for was, that a better provision should be made for the poorer

319
clergy, who were laborious and exemplary characters. At the same time he must express his surprise at the eagerness displayed by the right rev. Prelate opposite (the Bishop of London) in supporting a measure of this description, which went to prevent in future others from holding pluralities, when he had himself held at the same time a large living in London, and another in a distant part of the country.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, he regretted that his noble friend who had just spoken had fallen into the error of thinking that this Bill would not improve the condition of the poorer clergy, but he regretted still more the allusion to his right rev. friend, which he thought was most ungenerous. He could take upon himself to say, from personal observation, that if the duties of all the pluralities of England were as well performed as the two parishes alluded to, there could be no objection made as to pluralities.
Lord Kenyonwished to explain. He did not mean to assert that the discretion vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury would be abused. Nothing was further from his intention than to question the manner in which the duties of the two parishes had been performed whilst the right rev. Prelate had been the incumbent. He, however, thought it strange that the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) should now be so eager to prevent the union of small livings, When he recollected that the right rev. Prelate had himself been the possessor of a large union.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that before he had accepted the Rectory of Bishops-gate, he had laid out more upon the Rectory of Chesterford than would have purchased the advowson of it. He had kept one curate at that parish, and had two in his London parish, whether he was in town or not. Under these circumstances, he had not had much scruple of conscience in accepting both livings; but even if he had been wrong, that did not afford a reason why he should wish the same erroneous system to be continued. He was in favour of the present Bill, because it was a step towards the restraint of pluralities, and because the line it adopted was in conformity with the ancient canons of the Church. He could not conceive upon what ground he was charged with an eager support of this Bill; as yet he had not shown any, and what hereafter
320
he might manifest, must necessarily be disinterested, as the Bill went to limit his own patronage. He begged at the same time to observe, that the number of episcopal was very small, compared with the number of lay pluralists.
Bill committed pro forma, to be recommitted on a future day.