Sitting of 11 June 1834

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES WOOD, for Wexford County, in the room of ROBERT SHAPLAND CAREW, Esq., now Lord CAREW.
Bill. Read a second time:—Friendly Societies.—Read a third time:—Sale of Hay.
Petitions presented. By Lord STORMONT, and Mr. WYNN, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters. —By Mr. HARDY, from Bradford, for the Repeal of the Duty on Olive Oil.—By Mr. MADOX, from Rhuabon, for Protection to the Established Church.—By Mr. BOWES, from several Places, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. HANDLEY, and Mr. BRISCOE, from several Places,—against the Proposed Measure of Church Rates.—By the Earl of KERRY, Lord DALMENY, Viscount MILTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. SHEPHERD, Mr. MILES, and Mr. SCOTT, from a Number of Places,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Perth, against the Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland; from two Places, against the Poor Law Amendment Bill—By the same, and Lord MILTON,—in favour of the Lord's Day Observance Bill.—By Mr. FREDERICK SHAW, from the Fishermen of Carrickfergus, for Relief.—By Lord DALMENY, from Gangunnock, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Earl of KERRY, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, from several Places,—against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Tavistock, in favour of the Religious Assemblies Bill.—By Sir ROBERT PEEL, from several Places, for Protection to the Established Church.—By Mr. CLAY, from two Metropolitan Parishes, for Amending the Sale of Beer Act.— By Mr. HALIBURTON, from the Handloom Linen Weavers of Cupar, &c., for a Board of Trade; from Brechin; and by Sir ROBERT PEEL, from Dunblane, for an increased Stipend to Parochial Schoolmasters.—By Lord ACHESON, from Medical Practitioners in Armagh, against certain Monopolies; from Clare, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By the same, and Mr. HALIBURTON, from several Places,—against Drunkenness. —By Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. MILES, and Mr. METHUEN, from several Places,—against the Universities' Admission Bill.—By Lord DUDLEY STUART, Sir RALPH LOPEZ, Mr. COLLIER, and Mr. LOCKE, from several Places, against the Proposed Measure of Church Rates.

VIEWS OF THE DISSENTERS.
Sir Robert Peel,on presenting a number of Petitions, praying the House not to pass the Bill to give Dissenters a right to admission into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which were also all unanimous in their prayer, that the House would give its sanction to no measure that would tend to the subversion or injury of the Established Church,—observed, that he had heard with great pleasure the manly declaration that had been made that morning by the hon. member for Frome, with respect to the Dissenters. The hon. Gentleman had stated, that he had, on a former occasion, given his vote in favour of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities; but that, in conse-

355
quence of the subsequent declarations which had been made by the Dissenters with respect to the real objects at which they were aiming, he was induced to declare, that he felt it to be his duty to withhold from them the support he had promised. He thought the hon. Gentleman had properly and justly retracted his promise. He begged to call the attention of the House to a declaration published in the newspapers, which had been put forth on Monday last, of a meeting of the representatives of the united committee of Dissenters. This declaration, the House must consider, had not been made hastily in the heat of debate, or without consideration, but was deliberately put forth at a meeting specially convened by a body of Dissenters, forming the united committee, delegated by the Dissenters generally, and, of course, representing the sentiments of that body. They stated, that their object in putting forth the declaration was, to rescue themselves from imputations which had been made against them of an attempt to overthrow the Established Church. The charge against them was, that they designed the total destruction of the episcopal form of worship, and that they were desirous to enjoy the secular advantages that would result from a separation of the Church from the State. Those Dissenters positively denied the assertion. They did not wish to overthrow the Church, or to interfere with the episcopal form of worship, nor did they desire that the emoluments of the Church should be appropriated for the purposes of their own religion; but they did declare, that they wished to withhold from the Established Church the support it received from the State, and to apply the revenues of the Church to secular purposes. They did not wish it to be given to them—true, but they wished it to be taken from the Established Church, which was nothing less than a separation of Church and State. All they disclaimed was, any interference with the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church; but as they (the Established Church) had never expressed any desire to interfere, or attempted any interference, with the form of worship adopted by the Dissenters, much gratitude was not due to them for that disclaimer. The Dissenters prayed, that there might be a total severance of the alliance between Church and State, which amounted to a declara-
356
tion that there should be no Established Church within these realms. After that declaration, which had been put forth so lately as Monday last, it became the duty, as it was the undoubted right, of every hon. Gentleman in that House, to consider the questions that were pending in that House, with respect to the Church, not on their abstract or isolated merits, but how they bore upon the avowed objects of the great body of Dissenters. Entertaining such views, he thought the hon. member for Frome was perfectly justified in retracting the promises he had given to the Dissenters. He must also give the Dissenters credit for having acted an honest and manly part in refusing to receive the advantages which had been intended for their own relief, without boldly declaring what their ultimate object was. To the petition which he presented he gave his cordial support. When these manifestations of public opinion were daily taking place, he considered it the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to take an early opportunity to explain candidly, and without reserve, what were the views they entertained on the subject.
Mr. Baineshad not seen the declaration alluded to, until it was shown to him by the right hon. Baronet opposite. He believed the principles of the Dissenters were unchanged, and to be embodied in the resolution alluded to by the right hon. Baronet. If the principles of dissent were properly understood, the very circumstance of a man being a Dissenter was a declaration that he could not agree to the union between Church and State. ["No"] He was as well acquainted with the principles of the Dissenters as hon. Members who cried "No," and that sentiment, he believed, was entertained by them. He did not deny the right of the Church to hold that union, and to cultivate it by all possible means; but every Dissenter, if consistent with his principles, must be opposed to the alliance. With respect to the appropriation of the revenues of the Church, the right hon. Baronet had supposed, that the Dissenters desired to participate in them.
Sir Robert Peelhad not so stated. What he said was, that the Dissenters did not desire to interfere with the ecclesiastical discipline of the Church, and as the Church of England had not attempted any interference with the free exercise of the form of worship adopted by the Dis-

357
senters, he thought the disclaimer was of no great importance.
Mr. Baineshad understood the right hon. Baronet also to have intimated, that a desire existed among the Dissenters to participate in the revenues of the Church establishment. ["No," from Sir Robert Peel.] It could not be said there was any thing selfish in the applications of the Dissenters: they did not come to the House and say, "Here are large revenues appropriated to the support of the Church, we wish to partake of those revenues;" but they said, "We hold these revenues to be public property." They did not wish them to be appropriated among themselves; if they were applied to any other purposes than those of the Established Church, they distinctly stated that they wished them devoted to those purposes in which they, as a sect of Christians, possessed no individual interest. He saw a smile on the faces of hon. Members, as if they doubted that expression of disinterestedness. If an examination were made into the manner in which these revenues originated, it would be found that one party had as much right to them as the other, and they belonged as much to one denomination of Christians being his Majesty's subjects, as to another. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable for the Dissenters to say, that "whereas at one time you, the Church of England, were no more entitled to these revenues than we; therefore, now that there is a difference in our form of worship, we do not think we shall be asking anything unfair, when we seek to partake of those revenues;" but they asked no such thing. With regard to the Universities, they considered the Church of England exclusively held these fountains of knowledge, and that the Dissenters were equally entitled to the advantages of those institutions for the education of their youth. He believed, with respect to the other grievances of Dissenters—such as the celebration of marriages, the burial of their dead, and a system of registration of their own—that no member of the Church seriously objected to them. The Dissenters looked for the hostility of those who supported the connexion between Church and State, considering it conducive to their interests and the interests of the religion they professed. If the time should ever arrive when the people of England should think the objects of religion would be better
358
advanced by a separation of Church and State, than by the Church remaining an integral part of the State, then, and not till then, should a separation take place. The Dissenters ought never to carry their point, except by the progress of public opinion, and supported by public justice.
Mr. Shawcomplimented the hon. Member for the candour of his avowal. He had stated, that the Dissenters desired a separation of Church and State, but that they wished the revenues of the Church not to be appropriated to their own purposes, but to some secular purposes. The hon. Member had also stated in that House, that the object of the Dissenters in endeavouring to obtain admission into the Universities, was not confined to taking degrees morely, but that they also sought to participate in all the advantages the members of the Episcopal Church enjoyed with respect to fellowships and other benefits arising out of the Universities; but he was sure the hon. Member would not contend, that if the Universities were once opened to Dissenters in the manner he desired, it would be impossible to preserve the ecclesiastical mode of education at present adopted at those institutions. He concurred in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, that at the present important crisis, it was most important the House and the country should be made fully acquainted with the views which were entertained on the subject by his Majesty's Ministers. He believed it had now come to the simple question of whether there should be a Church or no Church, and he thought, as that was the case, it was most desirable the Government should not entertain one opinion in that House and a different opinion in another; but should distinctly state what opinion his Majesty's Ministers, as a Government, entertained with regard to the Church.
Mr. Lockewas one of those who had said "No," when the hon. member for Leeds stated that the Dissenters all desired a separation of Church and State. He did so, because he had that morning presented a petition from the Dissenters of Devizes, in which they stated they had no desire to interfere with the connexion of Church and State. He had supported the petition on that very ground.
Mr. Methuenregretted he had not been present to give that petition his support. The right hon. Baronet seemed to say that the Dissenters generally desired a separa-

359
tion of Church and State. For his own part, he did not think so. The hon. member for Leeds was not justified in answering for the Dissenters in every part of the kingdom, because he was acquainted with the opinions of those of a small portion. The hon. member for the University of Dublin had talked of the danger in which the Church stood. The great danger to the establishment was from those who were termed its friends—from those who upheld pluralities and non-residence—from those who were making the country ring from one end to the other with the cry of "the Church is in danger." As a representative of the people, and a real friend to the Established Church, he felt, that he should not discharge his duty, if he did not call on the people of England not to be misled by these miserable party attempts — for such in his conscience he believed them to be—which were not so much intended for the support of the Church as the support of that party who thought they upheld the Church by upholding its abuses. It was for the support of that party, who were the worst enemies of the Church of England, of civil order, and good government, and he should be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if he did not warn the people against their misrepresentations. The observations of the right hon. Baronet on the conduct of the Ministry, who were liberal, honest, and candid in their views, were uncalled for. It was to the present Government that, in the temper of the times, the country must look for the completion of those salutary measures of reform which had been so beneficially commenced. He thought the House was bound to support them in carrying into effect those reforms, now that the Cabinet had purified itself from that which was a clog to its progress, and he had no doubt that the country and that House, to which such an appeal had been made, would look up to them with increased confidence.
Mr. Finnthought the House ought to see what the Government intended to do before its confidence was extended to them. He must see what they meant to do with the Church of Ireland. There were twenty parishes in the county he had the honour to represent, in which not a single Protestant was to be found. Sinecures in the state were much to be reprobated, but what could be so disgraceful as sinecures in the Church?
Mr. Finchsaid, the Government, who ought to stand forward as the bulwark of the Church, were now endeavouring, by a number of measures, to conciliate the Dissenters. The cause of religion was too sacred to be affected by the agitation of the present times, but it was nevertheless the duty of every friend of the establishment to stand forward in her support.
The Marquess of Chandossaid, that, having presented many petitions to that House from Dissenters who did not desire a separation of Church and State, he felt it to be but justice to them to state, that neither the assertion of the hon. member for Leeds, nor the declaration read by the right hon. Baronet, applied to all the Dissenters. He thought that those Members who had retired from the Government, considered in their own minds that they had purified themselves by the secession. They had retired with great credit to themselves, and the country would justly appreciate the motives by which they were animated.
Earl Jermynsaid, the evidence of every day proved it was the imperious duty of the Government, to declare the views they entertained toward the Church and the Dissenters. A new writ had yesterday been moved for, in the case of a gentleman recently appointed a member of the Cabinet, (Mr. Abercromby), who when he was called upon to give his opinion on the subject of a separation of Church and State, said, that it was a new question, and one that required very serious consideration. He thought, that not only the individual opinions of the members of the Government should be stated, but also what were the views of the Government, of which Mr. Abercromby was now a member.
The Petitions were laid on the Table.

RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES.
Mr. Hardy Mr. Hardy moved the third reading of the Religious Assemblies Bill.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that having already expressed his disapprobation of this measure, he would not trouble the House by repeating his objections to it at length. The Bill would enable any person to preach, without having received licence to do so from the clergyman of the parish, or from the Bishop of the diocess. Now, to such an enactment he had great objections, for he thought that the members of the Church of England were bound to

361
conform to the discipline of that Church. If this Bill passed, individuals representing themselves to be clergymen of the Church of England might, if they chose, preach doctrines directly at variance with the doctrines of the establishment.
Mr. Hardythought the Bill would prevent the evil anticipated by the hon. Gentleman. It was only designed to allow lay members of the Established Church, in situations where they were destitute of the means of public worship, to read a portion of the Liturgy, and perhaps a sermon, in their houses, or in the servants' halls, and to allow the presence of their poor neighbours. According to the 71st Canon of the Ecclesiastical Law, no licence could be granted in such a case without a licence for the performance of the whole Church service. He only wished to secure to members of the Church of England the same privilege that Dissenters enjoyed. He did not see why the privilege should apply to Dissenters only. Undoubtedly, an equal privilege ought to be extended to the members of the Established Church. The latter, undoubtedly, might meet and read a chapter out of the Bible; but the moment they attempted to explain the importance of it, or to address themselves to the Almighty in prayer, they were bound to ascertain, that there were not more than twenty of them assembled together. The members of the Church of England laboured under an inconvenience in this respect. There were not Churches calculated to accommodate more than a fifth part of the population of the members of the Church of England; and why should not a gentleman, a member of that Church, be at liberty to assemble his servants and neighbours in his hall for the purpose of social worship? He was quite sure, that if the right hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House was only made once properly aware of the nature of the proposed plan, he would no longer object to it. It was a plan proposed upon the suggestions of many clergymen, all of whom were anxious that every facility should be afforded to it. They were persuaded, that it would strengthen the Church of England, and not draw members away from it. Neither they nor he advocated the encouragement of fanaticism. This Bill would have no such effect; and he did hope it would be allowed to pass, that the country might know the House approved of its principle.
Mr. O'Connellwould not detain the House many minutes. He thought, that the more they were assembled together to worship their God the better, whilst they did not interfere with others. They could not create a riot, as the Bill contemplated worship in private houses; and why people should not pray as much as they liked, or why that House should discourage prayer by making it a crime, he could not understand. It was against all principle. Persons were allowed to lecture upon astrology, theology, every art and science, and even upon materialism; but the moment they prayed to the Deity, if more than twenty were present, their conduct became criminal. Such an absurdity ought not so long to have remained on the Statute-book, and the sooner it was expunged the better. It was their duty to make conscience free, for true piety and genuine religion could only prosper by having the utmost latitude. The more families attended upon private worship, the more it would be a means of bringing down God's blessing upon the country.
Mr. Halcombethought, that the privileges of domestic religion were already sufficiently extensive. By the present law, any gentleman might assemble a congregation of friends in his house to the number of twenty, exclusive of his family and servants, for the purposes of private worship. If it passed, any person who disliked his clergyman, could set up a preaching place in his own private dwelling; and there would be as many chapels as there were different grades of opinion. He should give it his most strenuous opposition.
Sir Daniel Sandfordsupported the Bill, for the reason the hon. Member opposed it. When clergymen were not favourites, he believed they would meet with some rivalry, which would be a good method to make them attend to their duty.
Mr. Wilksconsidered, that every individual in the country ought to be allowed, either in his own house or the contiguous premises, to assemble his friends for religious worship. Persons were permitted to assemble to any number for any other purposes, without any licence; and he did not see why they should not be allowed to assemble for religious worship.
Mr. Plumptrehoped, that the Bill would be allowed to pass. He was not ashamed to say, that he had himself, at his own house in the country, often

363
assembled a number of persons for the purpose of religious worship; although, as the law stood, he was subject to a penalty for so doing; and if he could not do so in future according to law, he feared he should be disposed to violate the law again. He really should wish to see every law of this nature erased altogether from the Statute-book, as they were a disgrace to the country. He hoped the House would support the Bill.
Sir Matthew White Ridleysaid, that although he was the friend of religious liberty and toleration to as extended a degree as most Members of that House, yet he could not give his consent to the passing of this Bill, chiefly because it would have the effect of converting Members of that House, if they so pleased, into preachers. The hon. member for Cambridge had lately introduced a Bill to turn preachers into Members of Parliament; and the object of the present Bill, seemed to be to turn Members of Parliament into preachers. He did not wish to make religion a mere by-word in the mouths of those who were not immediately connected with its Ministry; and on these grounds, therefore, he should move, that the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Sir E. Knatchbullseconded the Motion.
Mr. Stricklandwas anxious that the Bill should pass; but he should be glad to have the protection that was intended to be given to rooms or other places attached to private houses more satisfactorily explained than it was in the Bill.
Mr. Humecould not at all see why Members of Parliament, if they happened to be properly qualified for the duty, should be prevented from being teachers of religion any more than other persons. He should be very glad to see the system of granting licences done away with altogether, as far as it extended to religious instruction. It was one of the last remnants of intolerance, and ought to be abolished. He should give his cordial support to the Bill.
Sir George Greysaid, that he thought the time had passed away for continuing an Act of Pains and Penalties such as the Conventicle Act. That Act was designed to prevent meetings for seditious purposes under the pretence of religious instruction; and, as there existed no longer any dread of seditious meetings, the law was no longer called for. He should give his support to the Bill.
Mr. Fleetwoodhoped, that this Bill would receive the support of the House, as it certainly should his own most cordially. He particularly called for the support of the Irish and Scotch Members on this occasion, as they had ample opportunity of seeing in those two countries the advantages that arose from unrestricted religious institutions. The Bill only went to establish religious toleration; and he hoped there were not many Members in that House who would object to that principle at the present day.
Earl Jermynobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it would trench upon the fundamental principles and regulations of the Established Church. He should wish to have the discussion on the Bill adjourned until some of his Majesty's Ministers should be present, as he was very desirous of hearing what their sentiments were on a subject of such importance to the religious instruction of the country, and to the Church of England Establishment. He should like very much to hear what the Attorney General thought of the Bill. He should support the Amendment that had been moved by the hon. member for Newcastle.
The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 33; Noes 88—Majority 55. The Bill read a third time and passed.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Evans, W.

Agnew, Sir A.

Ewing, J.

Attwood, T.

Faithfull, G.

Baines, E.

Fenton, J.

Balfour, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Baring, F. T.

Fielden, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Finch, G.

Beauclerk, Major

Forster, C.

Bellew, R. M.

Gaskell, D.

Bernal, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Bish, T.

Gisborne, T.

Blamire, J.

Godson, R.

Bowes, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Briggs, R.

Gronow, Capt.

Briscoe, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Brotherton, J.

Hornby, E. G.

Buller, C.

Howard, P. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Langdale, Hon. C.

Chapman, M. L.

Lefevre, C. S.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Childers, J. W.

Littleton, Rt. Hon. E.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Lloyd, J. H.

Curteis, H. B.

Methuen, P.

Davies, Col.

Morpeth, Viscount

Denison, J. E.

Morrison, J.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Murray, J. A.

Dunlop, Capt. J.

O'Callaghan, C.

Elliott, Captain

O'Connell, D.

365

O'Connell, M.

Staunton, Sir G.

Oswald, R. A.

Staveley, T. K.

Parker, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Pease, J.

Tennent, J. E.

Phillpotts, J.

Thomson, P. B. R.

Plumptre, J. P.

Todd, R.

Poulter, J.

Torrens, Col.

Price, Sir R.

Tracy, C. H.

Pryme, G.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Richards, J.

Walker, R.

Rotch, B.

Warburton, H.

Sandford, Sir D.

Wilks, J.

Scholefield, J.

TELLERS.

Sheil, R. L.

Hardy, J.

Stanley, E. J.

Fleetwood, H.

List of the AYES.

Astley, Sir J.

Lushington, Dr.

Barham, J.

Mangles, J.

Biddulph, R.

Miles, W.

Blamire, W.

Mullins, F. W.

Colborne, R.

O'Reilly, W.

Conolly, Col.

Palmer, C. F.

Durham, Sir P. H.

Ramsden, J. C.

Fancourt, Major

Sandon, Lord

Gaskell, J. M.

Smith, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Stormont, Viscount

Graham, Sir J.

Tyrell, C.

Halcombe, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Halse, J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Henniker, Lord

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Hornby, E. G.

Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.

Houldsworth, T.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

THE HAND-LOOM WEAVERS—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Mr. Maxwell Mr. Maxwell moved that the Order of the Day for the resumption of the Adjourned Debate be read.*
Mr. Gillonhad hoped, that the very reasonable Motion of the hon. member for Lanarkshire would have been at once acceded to. It was the imperative duty of this House to inquire into the distress of any portion of their fellow-subjects, and to endeavour to devise a remedy for it; and the more that distress was confined to a particular class, the more reason was there to examine the peculiar causes of hardship which bore upon them. After all the facts which had been repeatedly brought forward in this and the last Session, it was scarcely necessary to prove the existence of that distress; but as certain statements had been put forth at the opening of the Session of a great improvement having taken place in the condition of the hand-loom weavers, it was his duty to inform the House that these statements were utterly fallacious, and that the hon. Member who made them had been grossly
* See (third series) vol. Xxiii. p. 1090.
366
imposed on by his informant. It had been stated, that the distress of the hand-loom weavers had nearly passed away—that a rise of ten to twelve per cent had taken place on their wages, and that they were not obliged to put their children to the loom at an early age, as they found other employment for them. He had formerly shown what a rise of ten to twelve per cent in the wages of this class of persons would be: that as it had been clearly made out last year that the hand-loom weavers at plain fabrics could not earn more on an average of clear wages than 4s. 5d. per week, a rise of twelve per cent on this sum amounted only to 6¼d., making in all about 5s. per week for the entire maintenance of themselves and families. The truth, however, was, that this rise of twelve per cent had taken place only in very peculiar circumstances in the finer fabrics, or with those weavers who resided in Glasgow, and who were in immediate contact with their employers; in the coarser fabrics, and in country places, the rise did not amount to more than six per cent; and he had in his possession a letter from Biggar, a very remote part of the country, stating that there they had experienced no rise at all. The fact was, the manufacturers, that is, the unprincipled portion of them, who wished to increase their own fortunes on the absolute starvation of the poor weavers, took advantage of those who lived in remote places, and who had not the means of obtaining early or accurate information. The very correspondents of the hon. member for Ipswich, the House of Bannatyne and Moira, at the time they were imposing upon him by those fallacious statements, had not, as he was informed, in different districts of the country, raised their wages at all. If, instead of six, or even twelve, per cent, a rise of 100 per cent had taken place, their wages would not then have nearly equalled those of many other classes of artisans. As to the weavers being able to put their children to other work, he should like to be informed to what work they were to put them? It was altogether a delusion, as it was well known they were compelled by dire necessity to place them at the loom at from eight to ten years of age, before either their bodies or their minds had received the necessary formation, in order to eke out the miserable pittance which their parents were able to earn. So much for the comparative prosperity of the weavers. Then it was a peculiar feature in the case of the hand-

367
loom weavers, that when work had become more abundant, wages had not risen in any almost perceptible degree, and that whereas at the present moment there was more than enough of work for every person engaged in that species of labour, their wages continued at the low rate at which he had mentioned, while in other branches of trade, where work was not so plentiful, wages were much higher. Why did a weaver, who had constant work, earn only 5s. or 6s. per week, while a warper, a tailor, or a shoemaker, who had only occasional employment, had a five-times higher rate of wages? The fall of wages was not caused, as was alleged, by over-production, for every weaver could find work to keep him employed from fifteen to sixteen hours a-day. The reason was obvious. The latter classes to whom he had referred were in contact with their employers, from this it was to be supposed that some kindly feeling was generated between them, or in the absence of this, they might combine to effect a rise of wages. This was not the case with the hand-loom weavers, who were scattered in small towns and villages all over the country; most of them never saw their employers, who cared nothing for the condition or sufferings of men with whom they had no intercourse; and they were too much divided by distance, and too much under the pressure of immediate want, to be able to combine in their own defence. Again, it was said that the low rate of wages was caused by foreign competition. So far was it from being true, that these low wages were necessary to enable the manufacturers to compete with those abroad, that the fact was, that the price in most instances fell in the foreign markets from the introduction of British goods. It was home competition which was the root of the evil, which reduced the price of the commodities in the foreign markets, and tended only to enable certain unprincipled speculators to go on by means of the starvation of the weavers. If prices were raised here, they would be raised abroad also, as the system of combinations among workmen was just as well known there as with us; and if the House acceded to the proposition now before them, they would have the prospect of conferring a benefit not only on their own poor starving countrymen, but of improving the condition of a portion of the labouring classes all over the world. Let it also be considered what a favourable effect would be produced on the market were the condition of this
368
large class of the population materially improved, and they were enabled to become larger consumers both of their own produce, and of that of other branches of industry. He did not mean to discuss the propriety of appointing Boards of Trade—though that would, no doubt, be a subject to be discussed in Committee—but he could assure the House that the operatives were far too intelligent a class to desire to interfere in any way with the foreign market, which they knew must necessarily re-act upon themselves. They asked to be permitted to state their case to a Committee of this House, to point out the causes which had produced such a state of things, and the means that might be adopted for its removal, and he was convinced they understood these matters much better than most hon. Members. Were these men to appeal in vain to this House for redress? What deadly sin had they committed, that they were to be put without the pale of the Constitution as outcasts and aliens? Their distress they had borne with a patience which is not only commendable, but almost incredible. Much had been said of the forbearance exercised by the agricultural classes as entitling them to the consideration of the House. He was far from denying this; he only wished, that the same reasoning should be applied in the present case. Not one outrage had characterized the proceedings of the hand-loom weavers, while borne to the earth by sufferings at which the heart of humanity shuddered. They disavowed all secret associations; they united, as they were not only entitled, but bound to do, for their own protection; but all their proceedings were open and avowed. Why was the labour of these poor men, which was their only property, but the more important as being the source of all other property, to be unprotected? Was the fruit of our commercial system to be the starvation and degradation of our people? If so, better it were for ever banished from our shores. Were these petitioners to be permitted to starve in the midst of a plenty of their own creation? Were these respectable and industrious individuals to be permitted to want, while the money of the country was lavished on pensioners and sinecurists—on a band of titled paupers, the true refuse of society? He was happy to observe, that the case of the hand-loom weavers had been taken up by other classes. Petitions had been presented by the hon. member for Bolton from the Ma-

369
gistrates, Clergy, &c., of that town, praying that the House would take into its consideration the case of the hand-loom weavers; and he had himself presented a similar petition from the wrights, masons, and slaters, of Airdrie. But it was said it was too late in the Session to go into this investigation. This was not the fault of the hon. member for Lanarkshire, by whom the Motion had been brought forward. He had been prevented from bringing forward his Motion on the day he had originally fixed, owing to an adjourned debate, and he had not been allowed by the Government a subsequent day on which to discuss the subject. There was a full muster to defend the abominations of the Pension-list, but when the happiness, nay the very existence, of half a million of industrious fellow-creatures was to be discussed, an attempt was made to stifle the inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman, then Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had said, he would not be indisposed in the next Session that a Committee should be appointed to consider the subject of wages in general. If he was authorised by the Government to pledge himself to this, and that the very inadequate wages of the hand-loom weavers should form a particular subject of inquiry, long as they had already waited without redress, he would undertake on their part to say, that they would accede to this further delay; but unless the House received from the right hon. Gentleman so distinct a pledge as this, he hoped the hon. member for Lanarkshire would persevere in his Motion; and the time of hon. Members could not be better employed at any season of the year than in investigating a case of distress so unjust as that now before them. If the House refused to listen to the complaints of those men—if it refused to extend to them its protection—as protection ceased on the one part, so must allegiance on the other—society must resolve itself into its first elements.
Admiral Adamregretted the distress of the hand-loom weavers, and should be glad if a remedy could be discovered, but he had heard nothing as yet which he could look upon in the light of a remedy. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had promised, that an inquiry should take place into the case of the hand-loom weavers next Session, and he thought that, under all circumstances, they should not at present proceed in the matter.
Mr. Humewould be glad, if time and
370
the state of the other business of the House would permit, that the proposed inquiry should be gone into, but not on the grounds anticipated. He wished for the inquiry because he believed, that it would serve to convince the petitioners themselves that the relief they sought for could not be obtained by a Committee. He had always held that wages would regulate themselves according to the wants of the public in any trade. To attempt to raise them by any other means than the fair increase of the demand for labour would be absurd, and would always fail. He felt for the distresses of the hand-loom weavers, but he did not see how it was possible that the Legislature could assist them in the way they sought. Suppose a Bill were brought in to regulate the wages of any particular trade, it would have the effect of sending the best men in that trade out of the country. This was fully and fatally experienced in the case of the Spitalfields weavers. Their wages were at one time fixed by Parliament, by their own desire; and what had become of the trade of that district since? The Spitalfields weavers found their error when it was too late, and so would any body of men who thought that the fixing of a price for their labour by the Legislature would assist them.
Sir Daniel Sandfordsaid, it was admitted that the hand-loom weavers had suffered the most unparalleled distress with the most exemplary patience; and no class was less likely to resort to violent measures, or to press their advocates into an extreme course of conduct. He had been amongst them in times both of excitement and tranquillity: but, even when a political canvass had been going on, and other classes had shown themselves ready to impose extreme political doctrines upon candidates, he had never found the hand-loom weavers, notwithstanding their numbers, and the influence they might in a mass exercise upon an election, otherwise than sober, rational, and constitutional. Their prayer had constantly been for an inquiry, and he had heard them give the most sensible and conclusive answers to objections such as those which had been urged by the hon. member for Middlesex. No one had attempted to impugn the case of distress advanced on the part of these unfortunate persons. No prosperity witness, no prosperity statement, no prosperity doctrines, had been brought forward here, as they were on the recent debate connected with the shipping interest. He was

371
relieved, therefore, from the necessity of painting to that House scenes of misery more frightful and appalling than any which ever fell beneath his notice, and which he could not describe without calling up images and using language that might harrow the feelings of the House. He could assure the House, that words were too feeble to give a fair impression of the wretchedness of this too-long-neglected class. But, the distress being allowed, and the claim to inquiry—at least as far as a modest and constitutional deportment can confer a claim—being admitted, it was said, that the result could lead to no practical measure of relief. To that proposition he demurred. From what he had seen and heard from the sagacious people themselves, he thought, that local Boards of Trade, composed partly of masters and partly of workmen, who should adjust, not a fixed minimum of wages, but who should, from time to time, regulate the price of labour according to the demand in the market for its produce, and other circumstances necessary to be considered, would tend to the advantage of both parties. In the important and populous town he had the honour to represent, in which a great part of the population consisted of hand-loom weavers, the system had been to a certain extent adopted, and produced the most beneficial effects. It appeared, by a letter which he held in his hand, that the Board at Paisley was established in 1829 to prevent the effects of speculation, caused by the lowness of wages:—'Some manufacturers, said the writer, finding that this continual reduction hurt the stock on hand, and kept the weavers in misery, called a meeting of the manufacturers, when it was agreed, that a minimum price should be named for two or three things most generally manufactured, to serve as a standard for the rest of the work. The signature of every manufacturer was obtained to this arrangement, and a Committee appointed so see that it was complied with. In the spring of 1830, the manufacturers raised the minimum. A meeting of the manufacturers was called in June, 1833, when it was agreed that the table should be continued for another year; but no signature was asked anew, and consequently the table has no existence, except in the public mind.' The Paisley Board, then, was a voluntary arrangement; and yet it had turned out to be a humane and beneficent system. One argument, drawn from
372
experience like that, told more in favour of the proposed plan than twenty theoretical propositions against it. He might be told, that such a system was against all the axioms of political economy; but, however much it might prejudice him in the minds of some Gentlemen, he must say, that the more dictum of any professor of political economy never had any weight with him. But there were, in political economy, some marked exceptions to general rules. Thus the general rule was, that wages would adjust themselves to the demand for labour; but, in the case of the hand-loom weavers, the price of their produce had risen in the market without producing a corresponding rise in their wages. Their case was, therefore, an exception to the rules by which it was proposed to judge it. Their labour had often not been competent to meet the demand, and yet their wages had not risen. That was a fact by which the general doctrines of political economy were combated. Nor was it difficult to explain the fact. The weavers suffered from the want of concert and combination. They did not congregate together: they lived in scattered hamlets, and pursued their labours in solitary, noisome, and miserable cottages—where the father of the family plied his tedious task fourteen hours out of the twenty-four, and obtained scarcely sufficient to keep his wife and children from starving. They were without the means of co-operation, and could not organize themselves to stand their ground against the natural and inherent power of the owners of capital, who were thus enabled to beat down the wages of labour. Such being their situation, what injury might not be the result of turning a deaf ear to their prayers? They must then contrive some method of mutual concert and assistance; and, when their wants were most pressing, and their passions most inflamed, they might enter upon dangerous designs and practices. They must imitate the example of those trades' combinations which had recently prevailed to so great and alarming an extent. Indeed, in some parts of Scotland, they had already begun; and the last advices he had from Dundee informed him, that the hand-loom weavers of that vicinity were beginning to do what the cotton-spinners, the calico-printers, the engineers, and other classes, had already done in other quarters. He did not defend that injurious system of combination, though he believed that the Legislature could do nothing by penal enactments to

373
put an end to them. But there was one mode of mitigating the evils of that injurious contest between labour and capital, which bore a strong analogy to the plan for the regulation of their trade now sought for by these unfortunate weavers. They said, why not meet the mischievous combinations of the present day by calling back into life those ancient guilds—corporate bodies to mediate between the two parties, and determine measures for the advantage of both? He did not know whether this plan could be adopted on a great scale; but he would say, allow the experiment to be tried on a small scale; and, if it succeeded, establish by law throughout the kingdom what had voluntarily been done at Paisley. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that the principle of Boards for the regulation of wages had been tried in the silk trade, and that it had completely failed. But the principle proposed to be acted upon in this Act was different from that which was adopted in the Spitalfields' Act, so that the hon. Member's argument did not apply to the present proposition. The provisions of that Act determined that the price of labour should be settled from time to time by the Magistrates at their option. An arbitrary remuneration, then, was decreed by persons who might be entirely ignorant of the trade over which they were set in authority, and careless whether it prospered or decayed. But the Boards now proposed would consist of parties conversant with every circumstance affecting the market—aware of the exact state of the trade—alive to the actual condition of the manufacturer as well as of the operative—and seeking to establish, not a fixed and arbitrary price, but a fluctuating minimum to vary from time to time according to the demand for the produce of labour, and other causes affecting the interests of those engaged in the manufacture. They would protect the labourer from an unjust depression of his wages; but they would not interfere with the natural and necessary fluctuations of wages. But, it was said, why not trust to the voluntary principle? True, a modification of the voluntary system had worked well at Paisley; but it could not be expected that every master manufacturer throughout the country would be as benevolent and careful of the welfare and interests of those whom they employed, as the master manufacturers of Paisley were. Let the first establishment of these Boards be voluntary; but, wher-
374
ever they were established, let it be under the authority of a legal sanction. He would have them composed partly of masters and partly of men, who from time to time should arrange between themselves the rate of wages, and to counteract any difficulty which might arise from a disagreement between these two parties. He would, also, have upon the Board a certain number of persons not connected with the manufacture, whose voices, in case of a dispute, would go with the master or the man according as justice and reason should dictate. These were the arguments which had struck him in favour of Local Boards, in the establishment of which he hoped that the appointment of this Committee of Inquiry might end. If they went into the Committee, he at least should endeavour to bring about that result.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that after the description which they had heard of the distress of the people of Paisley, he trusted, that he should never again hear the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, say, that he hoped in God his country would become the great manufacturing shop of the world. He trusted, too, that they would no longer hear the hon. member for Middlesex eulogise the operation of the Scotch Poor-laws, as an example for this country to follow in amending its own system of Poor-laws. That hon. Member had expressed a fear, that if the House should interfere in this matter of wages, it might drive valuable branches of manufactures from the country. Drive them from the country! Ay, drive them from the world, he would say; drive them down to the infernal regions, rather than that they should produce such misery. He wished not England to become the manufacturing shop of the world; on the contrary, if manufactures were to produce such distress as had been described, if they were to be followed by such a harvest of misery, he should like to see them driven not only from this country, but from the earth. He was not a judge of the measures that might be necessary to relieve the distress of those suffering manufacturers; but he would certainly vote for a Committee of Inquiry to see what could be done for them. They had plenty of Committees on other subjects; why not, then, grant a Committee on this? They had a Committee to inquire into the causes of drunkenness, though every human being knew beforehand that it arose from the use of beer and gin. They had a Committee appointed nevertheless, and sitting,

375
with its chairman, and all the other rigmarole, to inquire into that which all knew to be the effect of beer and gin. They had also a Committee appointed to inquire into the best mode of educating the people. The complaints made by the people to that House were, that their bellies were empty, and that their backs were bare, and a Committee was appointed to see how their heads were furnished, and whether any addition could be made to the lumber already there. It was food and raiment that the people of Paisley called for and wanted, and the House in its wisdom would give them little books to satisfy them. It was food and raiment that the people wanted, and not those little papers which the House was for circulating amongst them. The appointment of the Committee would do no harm, and it might possibly do a great deal of good.
Sir Daniel Sandfordsaid, that his observations had applied to the distress existing in Glasgow, and not in Paisley.
Mr. Cobbetthad been in Paisley, and had seen enough of it to know that great distress existed there also. There were several streets in it in which a knife and fork were not to be found.
Mr. Ewingfeared, that the sufferings which had been endured by this patient and deserving body of men were beyond the power of the Legislature to remedy, arising as they did in some degree from foreign competition, and next, from the introduction of power-looms. The only remedy, he believed, for such sufferings, was to proportion the labour to the demand for it in the market. As, however, the hand-loom weavers had suffered so long and so patiently, he was in favour of appointing a Committee of Inquiry on the subject; but he feared that it would be too late to expect any good from such a step this Session. He trusted, however, that, for the satisfaction of the petitioners, the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would hold out the hope that such a Committee would be appointed next Session.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhad formerly stated, that it was too late in the Session to enter into such an inquiry, and that he objected to any inquiry based upon the principles stated in the speech of the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion. Those principles had been again candidly avowed that night by the hon. member for Paisley; and he (Mr. Poulett Thomson) must therefore decidedly object to the in-
376
stitution of an inquiry based on such principles, as in his opinion no good, but much mischief, would be occasioned by the establishment of local Boards of Trade. He therefore trusted, that the House would not go into an inquiry founded on a principle that would only tend to delude the people as to the causes of their distress. He had as much at heart the interests of those manufactures as any hon. Member, and it was for that reason that he would resist such a Motion as this. He begged at the same time to state, that he thought the House might, with great propriety, enter upon a future occasion, in the next Session of Parliament, into an inquiry into the subject of wages generally, with regard to which he knew that many Members were anxious to obtain information. When such a Committee was appointed, the hand-loom weavers would then come before it with their case divested of any delusion, such as that of the establishment of local Boards of Trade, for which the petitioners, and those hon. Members who supported the Motion for Inquiry, asked on this occasion.
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodsaid, that as there had already been Committees appointed this Session on individual cases, it was the bounden duty of the House to grant a Committee when 800,000 people were plunged in the greatest distress. He should vote for a Committee, without pledging himself to any ulterior measures whatever.
Colonel Torrenssupported the Motion for the appointment of a Committee, and could not concur in the reasons assigned by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, for refusing the prayer of the petitioners. It was not correct to state, that the petitioners asked for local Boards of Trade. The petitions of the hand-loom weavers of Bolton, and of other parts of Lancashire, prayed for a Parliamentary inquiry into the causes of their distress, and into the means by which that distress might be relieved, whether by local Boards of Trade or otherwise. The Committee which had been moved for, was a Committee of Inquiry, and as such he should support it. But the right hon. Gentleman contended, that granting this Committee would excite unreasonable expectations. An inquiry, he thought, would have a contrary effect, and would dispel unfounded expectations. The most sanguine expectations were now entertained by the hand-loom weavers, that local Boards of Trade would relieve their distress. If this

377
were an unfounded expectation (and he was not prepared to say it was not unfounded), the only means by which the truth could be ascertained, and the delusion dispelled, was to inquire into the facts of the case. The hand-loom weavers were a very intelligent body, and would urge no claim that could be shown to be unreasonable or mischievous. He could state from his own personal acquaintance with them, that they possessed a very surprising degree of knowledge, and scientific knowledge too, upon the principles of commercial policy, and they would not press any demand the granting of which could be shown to be injurious to the permanent trade and prosperity of the country. He did not think that local Boards of Trade were calculated to remove the distress under which the hand-loom weavers suffered. On this point, his opinion did not vary very much from that of the right hon. Gentleman; but the difference between them was this:—The right hon. Gentleman, having formed an opinion that local Boards would prove abortive and pernicious, seemed to close his mind against further information. He, on the contrary, was for receiving further information, and for inquiring into all the facts, and examining all the arguments which the weavers had to advance in support of their case. He was open to conviction. If the opinion he now entertained were shown to be erroneous, he was perfectly ready to relinquish it, and he was confident, that in a Committee of Inquiry he should either be convinced of his own error, or be able to convince the petitioners of theirs. The truth would be established either on one side or on the other. But it was stated by those who had prejudged the question, and were determined to hear no further evidence, "Boards of Trade cannot by possibility relieve the distress; what good, therefore, can result from the Committee?" He would reply, this good would result—the people would be satisfied. If the result of the inquiry should prove, that Boards of Trade could not relieve the distress, the sufferers would at least feel that justice was not denied them, and that their sufferings did not arise from the neglect of the Legislature. Even on the supposition that the Legislature could afford no relief, the inquiry would be attended by these advantages. But he denied that the Legislature could not afford relief. When the introduction of new machinery increased production and augmented the wealth of the country, the country was
378
bound, in some shape or other, to afford assistance to those classes who were reduced to destitution by the change. The case of the hand-loom weavers, working with inferior machinery, was precisely analogous to that of those who worked with the inferior machinery called bad land. When a free trade in corn was demanded, the answer was, all those who were employed upon inferior land would be plunged in distress, and the Legislature must therefore protect the inferior machine called bad land. The power-loom acted upon the hand-loom weavers just as a free trade in corn would act upon the cultivators of bad land. Would not the Legislature deal out equal justice to all classes? Would it deny to the hand-loom weaver that inquiry into the causes of his distress which it had so repeatedly granted to the landed proprietor and the farmer? He trusted that equal justice would be done, and that this inquiry would be granted. He would trouble the House with one other observation. The working classes were not directly represented. In what way were they to be reconciled to this exclusion, and prevented from desiring more extensively organic changes? Only by that House acting on the principles of impartial justice, and legislating for the working classes in the same spirit in which they would be legislated for, if they themselves held the elective franchise. Now, it could not admit of doubt, that were the working classes directly represented in that House, the inquiry now prayed for would be immediately granted. The House, as at present constituted, should not hesitate to do the same. This was the way to give satisfaction, and to attach the people to the existing order of things. For these reasons he should support the Motion of his hon. friend, and vote for the appointment of the Committee.
Mr. O'Reillythought, that the House should grant an inquiry for the satisfaction and contentment of those suffering and patient people.
Viscount Palmerstonwould oppose the Motion for the reasons stated by his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade. He was as conscious as any hon. Member of the distress which existed amongst the petitioners—he was as anxious that a full and satisfactory inquiry should be instituted into the pressure under which they were labouring; but surely it would be impossible to institute such an inquiry with any advantage at this advanced period of the Session. He thought it would be far better

379
for the petitioners to defer this subject until the general and comprehensive Committee of Inquiry, to which his right hon. friend had referred, was appointed next Session, and which would be a more satisfactory one for all purposes. He trusted, that the description which the hon. member for Oldham had given of the distressed condition of Paisley was exaggerated, and that there were not streets there in which a knife and fork were not to be found. That hon. Member's remedy for the distress of those manufacturers was to send them all to the infernal regions. [Mr. Cobbett.—No, no; I said the trade, not the manufacturers.]—Well, if the hon. Member was for sending the trade to the infernal regions, he might as well send the manufacturers after it, as that would shorten the sufferings they would have to endure in the way to their destination. The hon. member for Oldham was, by way of relieving the manufacturers, for sending the manufactures out of the country altogether. He rather thought that the petitioners, and those hon. Members who supported the Motion, would not accept of a Committee on such terms. In his opinion, the interests of the petitioners, as well as of the manufacturing classes generally, would be most beneficially consulted by reserving all inquiry for the general Committee that would be appointed next Session.
Mr. Hardysaid, that if there happened to be, and it was probable there were, any hand-loom weavers in the gallery while the noble Lord was speaking, they might well say "It may be sport to you, but it is death to us." When they had petitions from this class of manufacturers complaining of distress, both in Scotland and England, he thought that it became the duty of Government to grant inquiry. He would implore the Government to grant the inquiry which was now sought, and which would be calculated to remove much of the delusion under which the people laboured. After the evidence had been heard, it would open some means for the adoption of the House to relieve these petitioners from their present state of overwhelming distress. He would vote for the Committee of Inquiry, even though it should push the duration of the Session beyond the usual limits. He could not agree in the opinion expressed by the hon. and gallant member for Bolton, that the labouring classes were unrepresented in that House; for he was sure, that the majority of the House was anxious to do justice to that
380
portion of the subjects of the realm (he meant the labouring population) which was the main strength and support of the nation.
Mr. Prymes thought the establishment of Local Boards of Trade would only increase the evils to which the hand-loom weavers were at present exposed, for he understood one of the objects of these Boards would be to raise wages, by doing which the expenses of manufacture would be increased, and consequently any trade which still remained to these petitioners would leave them and be carried to a cheaper market of manufacture, Another strong argument against the present Motion was the late period of the Session, which precluded the possibility of entering with any chance of utility upon an inquiry so extensive as that sought would necessarily be. Believing, also, that the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, would, as he had stated, institute an inquiry next Session, not only into this, but other important commercial subjects, he should vote against the Motion for the appointment now of a Committee.
Mr. Lloyddeprecated any endeavour to enter upon so important and intricate an inquiry at this late period of the Session. Indeed, it would be hopeless to expect, that such an inquiry could be treated with the attention which it deserved between this and the breaking up of Parliament; and, therefore, although he agreed that inquiry should take place, if it were only to convince the petitioners of the fallacy of their views, he should vote against the present Motion, on the understanding that the subject was to be brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, early in the next Session.
Mr. Bollingthought they should agree to the Motion if it were only to satisfy the petitioners and the labouring classes generally, that the Members of that House would not turn their backs on men who adopted a constitutional and proper means of complaining of the grievances which they laboured under.
Mr. Fieldenadmitted, that distress existed among the operatives in several parts of the country, but he denied that this distress had been occasioned by the power-looms. Much of the distress that prevailed in particular places arose from an unequal distribution of trade; and, instead of laying it to the account of foreign competition, it was almost solely the result of the compe-

381
tition at home. Now, a Board of Trade would rectify this evil; it would confer equal advantages on the master as on the man; and, this being his opinion, he certainly should give his support to the proposition for the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry.
Mr. George Wood,although persuaded that the inquiry, even if acceded to, would not afford the relief which the petitioners seemed to expect from it, yet, thinking that the grievances complained of by this class of persons ought not to be passed over without inquiry, he should give his vote for the appointment of a Committee. These petitioners alleged that they were suffering great distress, and surely it was incumbent on the Legislature to ascertain whether their complaints were well founded or not. It was on this ground that he should vote for inquiry now rather than wait for the ensuing Session.
Mr. Huttsaid, that no man could be more desirous than he was, to inquire into the distresses of the labouring classes; but, believing that the present Motion, even if adopted, could not lead to any advantageous results, he should vote with the Government.
Mr. Richardssaid, that it was a mere delusion to imagine even that the use of machinery could be dispensed with. If an attempt to do without it were made in this country would it not still be resorted to by the foreign manufacturer? And, that being the case, how was it possible, if it were desired to compete with the manufacturer of other nations, for the home manufacturer to refrain from employing machinery? It could not be done; it was altogether impracticable. But, notwithstanding that was the case, they were bound to show that they sympathised with the labouring classes, by granting an inquiry with a view to explain to them how just the principles were on which the present system was based. Such an inquiry, he was satisfied, could only produce a happy effect, and, therefore, he should vote for the Committee.
Mr. Dunlopobjected to the Motion for the Committee only because he feared at that late period of the Session it could lead to no practical result.
Mr. Maxwellbriefly replied. It was incumbent on them, if they would not lose the confidence of the people altogether, to grant their request, and inquire into their complaints.
The House divided: Ayes 70; Noes 42 —Majority 28.
The Committee was appointed.

COUNTY CORONERS' BILL.
On the Motion of Mr. Cripps, the County Coroners' Bill was recommitted.
On Clause 6th being proposed, which increases the allowance for an inquest to 30 s., and the mileage to 1s. 6d. per mile.
Colonel Daviesopposed the clause. There was no occasion for any increase in the allowances, as under the present system there were plenty of candidates for the office of Coroner.
Sir George Stricklandattached great importance to the due support of the office of Coroner, and said, that for many years it had been felt that the remuneration was insufficient. Many years ago, a Bill had passed that House to give a much larger remuneration than was proposed by this Bill. The clause had his cordial support, as absolutely necessary, in order to secure the services of just and proper men.
Mr. Crippssaid, the Bill was based on the evidence of highly respectable witnesses examined before a Committee. Many respectable Coroners declared they would resign, if the salary were not increased.
The Committee divided: Ayes 68; Noes 47—Majority 21.
On the Clause allowing Coroners 1s. 6d. travelling expenses, or mileage,
Colonel Davies proposed, that the blank of the clause should be filled up by 9d. per mile.
The Committee again divided: Ayes 87; Noes 51—Majority 36.
Colonel Davies then proposed that the blank should be filled tip by ls. a mile.
The Committee divided on the original Question: Ayes 79; Noes 55—Majority 24.
Mr Brotherton proposed the insertion of 1s. 3d. per mile.
The Committee again divided on the original Question: Ayes 75; Noes 53— Majority 22.
The Clause, allowing of 1s. 6d. per mile, agreed to.
The other Clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.
Mr. Robert Grant Mr. Robert Grant moved, that the Jewish Civil Disabilities Bill be read a third time.
Mr. Shawthought that the right hon. Gentleman had done sufficient in presenting a petition in favour of the Bill without proceeding with it to-night. The right hon. Gentleman must be fully aware that

383
at that late hour many hon. Gentlemen were absent who were opposed to the Bill. He knew that the hon. Baronet, the member for the University of Oxford, was anxious to state his objections to it.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that he was in the hands of the House, but was most anxious to go on. He had stated to the hon. member for the University of Oxford that he could not consent to postpone the third reading of the Bill. Ample opportunity had been afforded for discussing it, and he did not recollect any measure of importance having gone through the House with so little opposition.
Mr. Humeput it to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Shaw) whether it was probable, after the discussions that had taken place, that there was any probability of offering anything like a successful opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Cumming Brucehad always been opposed to a Bill of this nature, and had divided the House upon it more than once. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was acting unfairly in persisting in the third reading at that late hour. He (Mr. Bruce) thought the Bill of so much importance that he would put in practice the mode of proceeding suggested by the hon. member for Middlesex on another Bill in the early part of the evening, and persist in dividing the House on the Question. The hon. Member moved, that the House do adjourn.
The House divided: Ayes 14; Noes 50 —Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Heniker, Lord

Bethell, R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Calcraft, J. H.

Mandeville, Lord

Finch, G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Forster, C. S.

Shaw, F.

Gladstone, W.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Hay, Sir J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hawkes, E.

Bruce, C.

The Bill was read a third time and passed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord HOWARD OF EFFINGHAM, from Sheffield, for Freedom of Religious
354
Worship.—By the Earl of COURTOWN, and Lord BEXLEY, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Kibworth, against the Claims of Dissenters.