Sitting of 28 July 1835

MINUTES.
Bill Read a third'time:—Colonial Passengers: Exeter Waterworks.
Petitions presented. By Mr. JOHN MAXWELL, from the Handloom Weavers of Kirkintilloch, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By Mr. SINCLAIR, from Burntisland, against the Royal Burghs' (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. R. WALKER, from Haywood, against Drunkenness.—By Mr. D. ROCHE, from Limerick, for an Inquiry into the State of the Fisheries of Ireland.—By Mr. STEWART,, MACKENZIE, from the General Assembly, and from Leith for more Extensive Means of Education in Scotland.—By Mr. CHISHOLM, from the Moderator and Synod of Glenelg, against the Aberdeen Universities' Bill.—By Mr. GROTE, from the Shipwrights of the Port of London, and from a Public Meeting at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, for the Repeal of the Duty on Newspaper Stamps.—By Mr. FRESHFIELD, from Hitchin and other Places, proposed to be united under the Poor-Law Amendment Act, Against any Compulsory Union.—By Mr. EDENSON HEATHCOTE, from the Postmasters on the Road between London and Edinburgh, against the present System of farming the Post-Horse Duties.—By Lord CASTLEREAGH, Colonel WOOD and Messrs. PLUNKETT and LONGWOOD, from a Number of Places, against the Church of Ireland Bill.

THE BONDING SYSTEM.
Mr. Baynesreferred to the proceedings of last Session on a measure for extending the Bonding System to some of the principal inland towns, and inquired of the President of the Board of Trade if it had been abandoned, or if it were intended to follow it up.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonreplied, that last Session he had been obliged to abandon the measure; but he had stated his intention of bringing it on again this Session. Circumstances, which were well known, had prevented his doing so early in the Session in his official capacity, and too much business of a different kind had since been before the House to afford him an opportunity. He was not in a condition to give the honourable Member any pledge for next Session, because he had not only met with considerable resistance to the plan from the out-ports, but he had found, in the inland towns intended to be benefited, a degree of lukewarmness for which he had not been prepared. They wished for a more extended measure than was consistent with his views of the question. He must therefore wait to ascertain what was the opinion of those places regarding a measure of a more limited character, before he pledged himself either way.—Subject dropped.

HAND—LOOM WEAVERS.
Mr. John Maxwellbrought forward his Motion respecting Hand-loom Weavers, observing, that his object was, to make the House acquainted with the result of the inquiries upon this subject by Committees in two successive years. He had no wish to offer any obstruction to the business of the House, but he should be deserting his duty if he did not bring forward a subject which involved the interests and almost the existence of a million of people. He should argue this question as a practical question, and would at once proceed to the consideration of the effect produced on the condition of the Hand-loom Weavers by the present system. He would take as an example the case of a very intelligent Hand-loom Weaver, who was examined before the late Committee of the House, and who was well qualified to give information on the subject. In showing how the system operated on the wages of labour, he stated that in 1797 his wages amounted to 26 s. and 27 s. per week, with which he could command 281 pounds pf flour, be-

1153
sides all the other necessaries of life; whereas in 1834 his wages were reduced to 5s. 6d. a-week, notwithstanding he gave two hours additional labour a day, with which he could only command 81 pounds of flour, whilst all the other necessaries of life were burdened with an accumulation of taxes. This was the result of the two periods; and yet the price of corn was lower now than in 1797. A number of petitions had been presented from the Hand-loom Weavers on this question, in which they complained of bad masters, and of the effects of machinery. They stated that the present system was the result of a union between the middle and the wealthier classes at the expense of the working classes. Care was taken to protect the wealthy distiller against the importation of foreign spirits, but no protection was afforded to the weaver against the importation of foreign silk goods. The petitioners complained of the overgrown capitalists who go into the manufacturing districts, and advance money to the em-barrassed manufacturer, who, by disposing of his goods at a reduced profit, if compelled to give the working man not the fair marketable rate of wages, but the rate which the capitalists choose to fix. This wretched policy forced the poor manufacturer to carry on his trade by a system of peculation and theft; and reduced the working man to so destitute a condition, that for want of decent apparel he was not able to attend Divine Worship on the Sabbath-day, nor to send his children to school. Nay, such was the chilling and demoralizing effect of poverty on the morals of the labouring man, that with the loss of the ability to do this he almost lost the inclination. In calling, however, upon the Legislature to amend the system which heaped such accumulated evils upon them, the Hand-loom Weavers did not ask Parliament to sacrifice any of the other great interests in the State. They did not desire that the House should take away the protecting duties from the landowner, the farmer, or the master manufacturers; all they asked was, that the House would enable them to support existence, by giving to them the same degree of protection given to all other classes. It had been said, that the Hand-loom Weavers ought not to expect the Legislature to put a restraint on the application of machinery for the sake of securing to a small class a higher rate of wages from a
1154
less perfect system of manufacture; and they had been told that they ought to abandon their trade, and seek other sources for the application of their industry. But where were they to seek them? The agricultural classes were already too numerous, so that you were actually sending them out of the country. Look at what was taking place at this moment in Buckinghamshire. Then with regard to the other trades, was it not well known that unions were formed, having for one of their objects the preventing of the increase of their numbers, inasmuch as they already suffered greatly from the competition to which they were exposed. They say to the Hand-loom Weavers, "You shall not come to us; for though we pity you, we cannot give you employment; if, therefore, we were to allow you to join with us, the inevitable effect would be to bring us down to the same wretched condition in which you yourselves are." There was, then, no place to which they could carry their labour. Their situation, therefore, was a most melancholy one. Overburdened with taxation from which other nations were free, they were, nevertheless, for want of that legislative protection which other trades enjoyed, placed in competition with the foreign manufacturer, and also in competition with the power-loom machinery, which was capable of a four-fold production beyond the labour of the Hand-loom Weaver. When the Legislature saw all the evils produced by this peculiarly anomalous system—that of legislative protection extending itself to all classes except to that class among whom it was most required—the labouring poor—he thought it would appear to the Legislature as being only in consonance with justice and common sense, that the oppressed Hand-loom Weavers should be allowed to try the benefit of that system, the adoption of which they now sought. He was aware that his lion. Friend, opposite (Dr. Bowring) was opposed to this sort, of reasoning. But the views of his hon. Friend on this subject were in some degree derived from that extensive and benevolent feeling which embraced as its object the well-being of all mankind under the principle of an entire freedom of exchange. But until his hon. Friend could succeed in the removal of all those other obstructions to the full operation of that principle—such as the Corn-laws, and other protecting duties, to which he believed his hon.

1155
Friend was strongly opposed, he (Mr. Maxwell) thought that his hon. Friend was bound to give to this humble class of men the same protection which those duties afforded to the powerful and wealthy portions of the community; and whose wealth and power were chiefly created by that uncertainty of prices which was occasioned by the competition of capital that always pressed down the working man to a starvation point. The hon. Gentleman then quoted from a statement made by a person who had been a weaver for forty years. He stated that he formerly could earn 26 s. and 27 s. a-week, but that now he was not able, with the most strenuous exertions, to earn more than 5s. 6½d. and he looked forward to a period when he should fall under the operation of the New Poor-law system. This he felt he did not merit. He was a loyal man, and had always been strongly attached to his King and country; and he then exclaimed "England, with all thy faults, I love thee still!" Although these were the feelings of this person, was it not expecting too much that all should feel this respect for laws which so much oppressed them? The hon. Gentleman proceeded to quote several passages from the evidence given before the Committee, to shew that the Hand-loom Weavers were in a state of great distress; that this distress was caused by excessive taxation, and that, they were not all disposed quietly to submit to their privations. Adverting to the effect which poverty wrought on the minds and morals of the labouring classes, he observed, that it was not merely by providing new churches that they could reform the morals, or correct the habits of men, but it was by rendering them less dissatisfied with their condition, and inducing them to respect the laws, from a persuasion that they were protected and not oppressed by them. But the imposition of taxes on all the necessaries of life weaned the minds of the labouring classes from the Government and the laws. When a rise took place in wages in consequence of the increased price of provisions, the inevitable effect was, to put the Hand-loom Weaver out of employment by the introduction of machinery, in order that the manufacturer might avoid the payment of that increased rate of wages. According to a statement in the Edinburgh Review, no less than one-third of the revenue of the productive classes was swal-
1156
lowed up by taxation. What, therefore, with the terror and apprehension which the monied interest inspired, and from the inability to cope with the machinery, the small capitalists engaged in hand-loom weaving were gradually taking their capital out of the country. It was with the greatest difficulty at the present moment that those capitalists who still carried on that manufacture could realize the smallest rate of profit. If this were the fact, as he was assured it was, all the doctrines of the hon. Member for Middlesex about the accumulation of capital fell to the ground. You might accumulate capital to any extent, but if you could not give it profitable employment it was no advantage to the country in which that capital existed. Another evil arising from the destitution of so large a class of the people was the great increase of crime. Last year the House was called upon to increase the salary of the Scotch Judges, and one of the arguments used in support of that proposition was, that the Judges had a great deal more work to perform now than formerly. The Committee had recommended certain means of relief to be given to the Hand-loom Weavers, which, however, he should hereafter be able to prove was not at all adequate to remedy the distress that existed. He was aware that some persons looked with a degree of apprehension to a measure which had for its object the regulation of wages between the master manufacturer and the working man. They thought it was too great a change to introduce. They preferred leaving the matter to be adjusted by the parties who were more immediately interested, and said that a desire to stand well with their neighbours would induce the master manufacturers to act more liberally towards their workmen if they were left to themselves, than they would do if interfered with by the Legislature. But in opposition to those views of the subject he preferred relying on the Report of the Committee, upon which the Bill he wished to introduce was founded, and to the principle of which only four of the Members of that Committee objected. If the House would allow him to bring in this Bill, and ultimately pass it, they would be doing the greatest service to the poor man, and would be contributing to the safety, honour, and welfare of his Majesty and of his dominions, by creating and firmly cementing a union between the middle, up-

1157
per, and lower classes of this country. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Lord Dudley Stuarthad risen with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Renfrewshire, for the purpose of seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Lanark—a Motion which he was induced to hope would not meet with the opposition of his Majesty's Government. He had been anticipated in that satisfaction. He thought that when the Government and the House considered that the subject to which the Bill proposed by his hon. Friend had been referred by the House itself to a Select Committee, they would agree in thinking, that it would be very hard to refuse to sanction the introduction of a Bill founded upon the Report of that Committee. When it was also remembered that no less than 800,000 of his Majesty's subjects earned their scanty and miserable subsistence by the trade of weaving, and were in the distressed condition which had been proved, could the rejection of their petitions, praying that which the Select Committee by their Report had recommended, be justified. This suffering portion of the community deserved well of the Legislature, inasmuch as up to a certain period they had borne their deep privation with patience, and for a great many years conducted themselves under their sufferings with great propriety. Their morality had only suffered injury by the want of those means which could afford them physical strength, and which want in the weaving districts had produced the most squalid wretchedness. It was not enough, nor could it be consolatory to tell these suffering classes, that they themselves must continue to bear their present distresses, but that by reduction of taxation their grandchildren, or their great-grand-children, three generations hence, would be relieved, and that therefore the Legislature would be justified in leaving the miseries of those now living unmitigated and un-redressed. It was only by relieving their distresses that their respect could be secured to the laws and institutions of their country, for if they found that by those laws and institutions they were not protected, was it to be wondered at that they should be guilty of some transgressions? Was it, in short, surprising that when by honest industry, by work night and day, not excepting in some cases Sundays, they were unable to maintain themselves and
1158
families even in health, that they should resort to pilfering? For this state of things the Government had called for a remedy to be devised; the remedy had been devised, by the labours of a Select Committee appointed by the House itself, and he trusted that House would not, without consideration, prevent that measure being introduced. On the contrary, let the House consent to its introduction, and when it came before it, endeavour, if possible, to improve its principles or details. He would not undertake to say, that he should approve of all the details of the Bill, but he supported its introduction in the hope that it might prove a measure of amelioration to the wretched but deserving classes whose relief it contemplated. In ibis country the capital of the rich man was protected, and he was at a loss to know why the poor man's capital—his labour—should not also be equally protected. However correct might be the principles of theoretical advisers, the House was bound practically to afford such a measure of relief as that, now proposed. It was right that he should observe, that of all the numerous witnesses examined as against the principle of such a Bill, only two had expressed their dissent. In conclusion, he hoped the House would consent to the introduction of a measure, and to the Motion of his hon. Friend he gave his full and entire support.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncalled upon the House to reject the Bill of the hon. Member in its very first stage, principally for the sake of those whose interests were so loudly advocated on the other side. It was not because Government were disposed to underrate, the state of suffering in which, according to the Report of the Committee, these men were placed—it was not because Ministers were unwilling to do all they could to alleviate the distress of the weavers, that they would at once reject the Bill of the hon. Gentleman, but because they were satisfied that the sooner the delusion it was calculated to create was put an end to the better; and next, because, upon the hon. Gentleman's own showing, so far from his proposition being advantageous to the parties whose cause he advocated, they would be the very persons who would suffer most from it. If their distresses were heavy now, they would be aggravated in a tenfold degree, after the passing of the Bill, To the very

1159
principle of the Bill—the establishment of a minimum of wages—he had ever been opposed; and the principle was one which had been disavowed even by many Members of the Committee. The Committee—to the appointment of which he had been opposed—had examined a variety of witnesses, whose evidence filled three large volumes. Who had read them, or what effect had they produced? If the questions had been shorter, indeed, and the answers longer, they might have had some effect; but as it was, he could not help thinking that they had not proved very beneficial. In the Report, the Committee assigned five causes for the existing distress among the hand-loom weavers. 1. The increase of machinery. 2. The oppressive taxation occasioned by the war. 3. The increased pressure of taxation occasioned by the alteration of the currency in 1816, 1826, and 1829. 4. The exportation of British yarn, and the competition created thereby; and 5. The competition arising out of low profits. As a remedy for these various causes of distress, the Committee recommended fixing a minimum of wages. Why, how could the fixation of a minimum of wages by possibility act as a remedy for any one of them. Was it possible for the Government of the country to fix a rate of wages? Was it possible that the labour of man should not be free—that the capitalist, who wished to employ a labourer, should not be at liberty to make a bargain with him for money, which he could pay and the other receive? Was the labourer to resort to the Board of Trade, or to a tariff of prices for his remuneration? Giving every credit to the benevolent feelings of the Gentlemen who originated and supported the Motion, he thought it was a species of legislation, which—putting entirely aside the other results that must inevitably flow from it—would neither reflect credit upon its authors, nor confer benefit upon those for whose improvement it was introduced. The establishment of such a system would be an act of tyranny, inducing those who were rendered subservient to it, to break the law, and leading to results the extent of which no man could foresee. Did the hon. Member know on what dangerous ground he was proposing to legislate? Was he aware of the extent to which it might be carried; or had he forgotten that the principle of fixation of wages, if applied to one branch of trade, must ulti-
1160
mately extend to all? If they regulated the wages of labour, they must also regulate the price of every article sold.—[Mr Maxwell: "No!"]—Were they then to regulate the wages of labour, and not the price at which the article is to be sold? He would tell the hon. Gentleman his principle would be ten times more oppressive on the man who had labour to sell, than on him who had money to buy. Talk of philanthropy, and protecting the rights of the poor! Why, so far from the measure being a protection to the poor, it would rob them of the just and right fruits of their industry. These were his views of the measure proposed, and he had yet to hear any argument founded on the benefits which were likely to result from it. He had embraced with pleasure and eagerness, every opportunity of conversing with many of the Hand-loom Weavers themselves respecting this plan, and he had never found that where the matter was fairly argued, and where representations of the real state of the case were made to them, they had either refused to listen, or to own that their previous impression on the subject was erroneous. In calling on the House to oppose the proposition now offered to it, he was content to rest upon the grounds he had already stated. He was satisfied that, by acceding to it, they would continue a delusion which could not be too soon dispelled; and that they should certainly lose no time in determining the question whether Parliament would legislatively fix a rate of wages or not. Without troubling the House any further, he placed the matter in their hands. Without any disrespect towards his hon. Friend, the Member for Lanarkshire, and yielding to him, and those who thought with him, his tribute of praise to the benevolence and purity of their motives, he called upon the House to resist this first proposition, which had been made for a series of years, to interfere with the rate of wages, and by at once expressing a decided opinion against it, to put an end to all such attempts in future.
Mr. Gillonobserved, that the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman objected, had been appointed by the Reformed House of Commons, who, by arriving at that conclusion had evinced some feelings of sympathy and compassion for a large and distressed portion of the community. The right hon. Gentleman was unwilling that the question should

1161
be investigated. He talked of tyranny and an interference with the wages of labour. Why, did the right hon. Gentleman know that the course adopted by many employers at present, threw the labourers as much out of the free market of labour, as if they were the serfs of some feudal chieftain? And yet this was the state of things to which the right hon. Gentleman told them he was not disposed to apply a remedy.—[Mr. P. Thomson had not expressed an unwillingness to apply any remedy.]—Then what remedy would the right hon. Gentleman consent to? Would he come forward and suggest any other remedy? Would he support a grant of money to those individuals? They had voted away, two sessions ago, a sum of one million to the clergy of Ireland. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to tell him that this industrious and distressed class of men were not as worthy objects of a grant of money as the clergy of a sinecure Church? Parliament had voted a sum of twenty millions to the West-India proprietors to remove the obloquy of slavery. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman to propose a grant of twenty millions to the Hand-loom Weavers. He would be most happy to second the proposition. The right hon. Gentleman laboured under some misapprehension, in supposing that the present proposition was intended as an ultimate remedy for the distress complained of. He was not aware that such was the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire. It was only intended as a palliative of the evil. They must look to a commutation of the tuxes which pressed so unjustly and so unequally upon the labouring classes of the community, and prevented the manmachinery—to use the cant phraseology of the day—from coming into fair competition with the artificial machinery. They must do this—they must revise the whole system of taxation—they must reduce the debt before they could hope to relieve any extensive distress effectually. The object of his hon. Friend's Bill was to take the power of fixing the rate of wages out of the hands of those who were disposed to grind down the labourer to the last extreme, and to place it in the hands of respectable and opulent manufacturers. The plan now proposed, had been petitioned for by numerous members of the body who were now the objects of commiseration; it had been supported by a great many respect-
1162
able manufacturers themselves, who had stated that it was not only their inclination, but their interest to support it, as they had suffered material losses on their stock in trade by unprincipled individuals entering the market, who screwed down the labourers to the lowest minimum of wages, and produced their articles at the cheapest possible rate in consequence. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he talked of tyranny, whether it were possible that these unfortunate men could be exposed to any system of tyranny so heart-breaking and degrading as that to which they were now subjected? He had said, that by resisting that proposition he meant to protect a starving population. Really it appeared to him (Mr. Gillon) that all the protection the hon. Gentleman was disposed to afford them, was leave to starve as best they might. They might come to the parish, said the right hon. Gentleman. And supposing they did, would they be reduced to a worse condition than that in which they were at that moment placed? Numerous respectable witnesses had stated before the Committee, that in many instances these men worked fourteen or sixteen hours a day without earning half wages enough to keep them. He thought it much better that their labour should be equalized, and that, even if they obtained no greater amount of labour on the average of the year, they should work a smaller number of hours out of the four-and-twenty. The effect of the present system was, that the artisan by working a great number of hours at one time, and producing a good deal at one period, occasioned a glut in the market, and thus entailed upon himself the consequences of the acts of his cruel and mercenary employer. The property of the Hand-loom Weaver in his labour, was as worthy the protection of Parliament, as any other description of property. Of what value were the millions of the fund-holder, or the extensive machinery of the cotton spinner without this productive labour? The hon. Gentleman, with the view of showing the state of feeling among the Hand-loom Weavers themselves, proceeded to read a letter from one of them. The writer stated in effect, that when they found all their complaints and representations to the Legislature were unavailing, their spirits would sink, and their only consolation would be looking forward to the day of reckoning. He had a wife, and

1163
five children under eight years of age, with no hand to provide for them but his own; and many more among them were in the same situation. Now, he would ask the House, what claim the country possessed to the allegiance of these men, if the Government resolutely and obstinately refused to take their case into consideration? What gratitude could the Government expect, when it afforded them no protection? What reverence, when they were only reminded of its existence by penal statutes? What respect could they be supposed to have for fiscal regulations, the effect of which avowedly was, to increase the enormous wealth of the rich, and to extract the greatest possible amount from the poor? What allegiance could they be expected to bear to a country, which, instead of holding out to them the fostering hand of protection, like a kindly parent, arrogated to itself, like a cruel stepmother, the right of binding them down to misery and starvation? Was this a state of things which it was possible to perpetuate? If they were not to apply some remedy to such evils as had been complained of, let him ask the right hon. Gentleman, and let him ask the Members of that House, for what purpose were they assembled there? Was it that those walls should be made the arena, of a protracted party struggle, instead of being a spot where the means of promoting the comfort, the happiness, and the welfare of the people should be always studied. Were they sent there by their constituents for the purpose of party ascendancy?—or, were they not rather returned to Parliament for the noble and benevolent purpose of protecting, fostering, and promoting the best interest of the industrious classes of the people? Rather than that such a state of things should continue, it would be better that the House should discontinue to meet—that the Speaker should leave the Chair—than that they should continue to practise such a miserable delusion upon the people, as that of meeting there under pretence of providing for the general interest and good of the country, and allow such a crying grievance as that suffered by the Hand-loom Weavers to go unredressed.
Mr. Clayopposed the measure, because it was absurd that the House should be called upon to protect men against themselves, which was the whole meaning of the hon. Member's Bill. It was impossible to compel men to work, and the
1164
Hand-loom Weavers could combine to any extent to raise their wages. The fact was, that the circumstances under which the Hand-loom Weavers were placed, put it beyond the power of the House to afford them a remedy. One of the witnesses examined before the Committee, stated that for the trade of hand-loom weavers, neither strength nor skill was required; the consequence of which was, that numberless swarms of workmen flocked to it. But in truth, the Hand-loom Weaver was not much worse off than other labourers. By means of their own labour, and that of their families, it appeared that they could earn about 25 s. per week, which was more than could be earned by the agricultural labourer. He did not think that the remedy proposed by the hon. Member would have the desired effect. In his opinion the Bill, if passed, would seal the ruin of the persons for whose benefit it was intended. Upon these grounds he felt bound to oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Dr. Bowring:*—Sir, as a Member of the Committee, and disagreeing, in toto, with the Report, and the recommendations which have been introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Lanark, I venture to submit a few observations to your attention. I should be sorry if it could be supposed that in views so erroneous as those which have been adopted by a majority of the Members who were present when that Report was framed, any large number of Members of Parliament could concur. Sir, the Report represents the opinions of fifteen Members of the Committee, the majority out of twenty-five who were present when that Report was adopted, ten having voted against it, of whom I was one. A very large majority of those whose names appear as on the Committee, never attended at all—and the result, after all, is, that of sixty-seven Members of which the Committee is composed, fifteen only have concurred in the Resolutions submitted to the House. The Resolutions have in their progress been considerably modified. There were on that Committee hon. Gentlemen whose consistency I very much honour, whatever opinion I may form of their policy, who would have willingly grappled with all the difficulties of the Question. They would have taxed ma-
*From a corrected report.

1165
chineiy—they would have debased the currency; and they were right: for if the Resolution is to do nothing more than Mr. Fielden's Bill proposes, all that it will effect will be to withdraw capital from hand-loom weaving, to give a new premium to the power-loom, and thus infallibly to degrade and distress the hand-loom weavers, more and more. The hon. Member for Falkirk would have removed the fatal competition of machinery by visiting it with such heavy imposts as should make manual labour as cheap, or cheaper, than that of the machine; he would have relieved all debtors of a certain extent of responsibility, and all creditors of a certain amount of wealth; he would thus have compelled some sacrifices from the rich to the poor—and he was willing to push his views to their full consequence. I may agree with him that much is to be done—that much ought to be done—for the labouring community—though exceedingly unwilling to concur in his proposition for their relief, or to recognize as remedies what would be only aggravations of the evil. I should have been glad if the Report had made any, even the slightest, reference to many of the really valuable suggestions and facts which were elicited in the course of the inquiry. The relief which had been given by the transfer of many hand-loom weavers to power-loom weaving—the recommendations that the weavers should be instructed in those arts connected with their trades—the establishment of economical tribunals for the settlement of disputes between masters and men—the oppressive character of our taxes on industry and on consumption—were worthy of more special notice. And I cannot but observe, in passing, that the public money has been employed in committing to print in that Report some of the most intolerable nonsense that has ever been uttered. What will the House think of schemes gravely propounded for negotiating with foreign countries, in order to induce them to put a heavy export duty on the raw materials which our manufacturers consume, and of opinions which have calculated that our foreign trade has been carried on at a loss of millions to the nation? It is to be regretted that the public purse should be drawn on for the printing, publishing and circulation, of trash like this, Sir, I feel it most peculiarly my duty to give my opinions on the subject of this Bill, and
1166
he grounds of those opinions to the House, I have a large body of hand-loom weavers among my constituents, who have petitioned in favour of the regulation of wages by Boards of Trade, and the Town Council of Kilmarnock has expressed views favourable to their introduction. I differ from those whom I highly respect, and to whom I am deeply indebted, and though I do not mean to vote on the Question at all (in deference to the wishes of my constituents), yet as I took rather an active part in the discussions in the Committee, and as I am known to hold opinions wholly opposed to those of my hon. Friend, the Member for Lanarkshire, I feel it incumbent on me to justify my conduct to the House and to the community. And I am the more strongly compelled to this from the language that was held during the recent sittings of the Committee, in which those who opposed Mr. Fielden's Bill were menaced with exposure, and even told that they should be published and denounced by name to the world, as hard-hearted and unfeeling men, who had no pity for the poor, who did not sympathize with their misery, nor were willing to relieve their distress. Sir, I never uttered a word in that Committee which I am not ready and desirous of repeating here, or before the world. I do not consider those as the best friends of the people who encourage the delusions of the people. I should despise myself, and deserve to be despised by others, if I allowed myself to be swayed against my better judgment—against my experience—against all facts and all reasonings—to do legislative mischief, or to encumber our Statute-book with useless and dangerous laws, merely because they are asked for by those whom they will not relieve, while they recognize the most dangerous of principles—that a man is not the master of his own labour—that his labour is not his own property—but that he must hold it to be disposed of on terms which others shall fix for him. There are many hon. Members who say, "We know the hand-loom weavers are wrong—we know these Boards of Trade will do them no good; but let them be indulged—let the experiment be made—they will soon see their error." Sir, I cannot so act. I will not, for the sake of dissipating a delusion, introduce a bad principle; I will not create false hopes, or legislate for error instead of truth. Where are such laws to

1167
stop? Give them to the hand-loom weaver, you can deny them to no part of the community. Acts of Parliament must establish all wages of all professions. If a master wants to hire a servant, he must submit to a tariff established by law. You must go from manufactures to agriculture; you must decide what shall be paid for every ploughman, every hedger and ditcher in the land. Are hon. Gentlemen prepared to carry out their principle?—or do they at once shrink from its absurdities? It was to be hoped, Sir, that the inquiries and Resolutions of former Committees would have put the proposal of establishing fixed minimum tariffs of wages at rest for ever. I do not know that I can do better than read to the House, verbatim, the Report of the Committee of 1808:—"Your Committee are unanimously of opinion, that the proposition stated in the said petitions, for fixing a minimum price of labour in the cotton manufacture, is wholly inadmissible in principle, incapable of being reduced to practice by any means which can possibly be devised, and, if practicable, would be productive of the most fatal consequences. Your Committee has also resolved unanimously, after mature deliberation, that any legislative interference, for establishing an uniformity of prices, would tend to aggravate the distress which it is the earnest wish of your Committee, and must be of the House, to alleviate or remedy." The Committee which sat for three years afterwards, in 1811, are not less decided in the Report which they presented to this House. They say, "That to arrest the progress of improvement and of facilities for abridging labour, would be to put forward grounds, which, in former periods were equally strong against the loom itself; and that the proposed measure would infringe on personal liberty in that most essential point, the free exercise of industry, of skill, and of talent. They are of opinion, that no interference of the Legislature with the freedom of trade, or with the perfect liberty of every individual to dispose of his time and labour, in the way and on the terms which he may judge most conducive to his own interest, can take place without violating several principles of the first importance to the prosperity and happiness of the community—without establishing a very pernicious precedent, or even without aggravating, after a very short time, the pressure of the
1168
general distress and opposing obstacles against that distress being ever removed; or, if the interference were extended to all trades and occupations, as it manifestly must be when the system has been acted on in any, without producing great public mischief, and bringing destruction of the happiness and comfort of individuals." In these views, so strongly and emphatically put, I wholly concur. I do not deny—it is impossible to deny—the existence and the frequent occurrence of severe distress among the hand-loom weavers. Their condition is most deplorable. And while I feel that it is the duty of Parliament seriously and thoughtfully to take this subject, or any other subject of public suffering, into their consideration—while I claim for others, and for myself, as strong a title to be considered as friendly to the labouring many, as is demanded by the advocates of this Bill—while I assert, that their sympathies for the industrious poor are not stronger than mine, nor their desire to relieve them more intense—I venture to pronounce that, by-and-by, when reflection and instruction shall have made their way, a very different judgment will be formed by the weavers themselves, from that under which they are now acting. I will recall to the House some few facts elicited before former Committees, showing that this distress of the weavers has been but of too frequent occurrence—and I think I can show that it is an inevitable condition of a species of labour easily learned—and constantly intruded on and superseded by cheaper means of production. A very short cessation of demand, where the competition for work is so great, and the workmen so multitudinous, produces a crisis. The hand-loom weavers are on the verge of that state beyond which human existence can hardly be sustained, and a very trifling check hurls them into the regions of starvation. The Committee of 1818, asserted that the silk-ribbon-weavers were suffering great privations and distress. Witnesses then stated, that a warper could only get 3s. 6d. per week, and a weaver 4s.—that ordinary weavers were only paid 5s. 6d. a-week. Now, if the price of food at that period be considered, their distress must have been extreme; and the same or similar details have been brought out at every investigation. In 1826, the silk-weavers were stated to have earned on an average only 5s. 6d. per week; and the Hand-loom

1169
Weavers' Committee have had it given in evidence, that in certain districts not 3s. 6d. per week was paid to the weaver. To deny their right to commiseration would be as thoughtless as cruel. I do not deny it. I only implore a fit attention to the remedies proposed. No one can shut his eyes to the great changes which the improvements of machinery have introduced into the whole field of manufacturing industry, improvements which, by superseding manual labour more and more, infallibly bring with them in the transition much of temporary suffering. The condition of the man who has to compete with a cheaper, better, or more rapid mode of production, must be deteriorated. The national good cannot be purchased but at the expense of some individual evil. No advance was ever made in manufactures but at some cost to those who are in the rear; and of all discoveries, the power-loom is that which most directly bears on the condition of the hand-loom weaver. He is already beaten out of the field in many articles; he will infallibly be compelled to surrender many more. I hold, Sir, in my hand, the correspondence which has taken place between the Governor-General of India and the East-India Company, on the subject of the Dacca hand-loom weavers. It is a melancholy story of misery as far as they are concerned, and as striking an evidence of the wonderful progress of manufacturing industry in this country. Some years ago the East-India Company annually received of the produce of the looms of India to the amount of from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 of pieces of cotton goods. The demand gradually fell to somewhat more than 1,000,000, and has now nearly ceased altogether. In 1800, the United States took from India nearly 800,000 pieces of cottons; in 1830, not 4,000. In 1800, 1,000,000 pieces were shipped to Portugal; in 1830, only 20,000. Terrible are the accounts of the wretchedness of the poor Indian weavers, reduced to absolute starvation. And what was the sole cause? The presence of the cheaper English manufacture, the production by the power-loom of the article which these unhappy Hindoos had been used for ages to make by their unimproved and hand-directed shuttles. Sir, it was impossible that they could go on weaving what no one would wear or buy. Numbers of them died of hunger; the remainder were for the most part,
1170
transferred to other occupations, principally agricultural. Not to have changed their trade was inevitable starvation. And at this moment, Sir, that Dacca district is supplied with yarn and cotton cloth from the power-looms of England. I will ask the advocates of Mr. Fielden's measure, whether his Bill, or a thousand such Bills, would have kept up wages in Dacca, or have prevented one iota of the calamities which there had but one possible remedy, a change of occupation? The language of the Governor-General is, "European skill and machinery have superseded the produce of India. The Court declare, that they are at last obliged to abandon the only remaining portion of the trade in cotton manufactures, both in Bengal and Madras, because, through the intervention of power-looms, the British goods have a decided advantage in quality and price. Cotton piece goods, for so many ages the staple manufacture of India, seem thus for ever lost. The Dacca muslins, celebrated over the whole world for their beauty and fineness, are also annihilated from the same cause. And the present suffering, to numerous classes in India, is scarcely to be paralleled in the history of commerce." Ordinary hand-loom weaving is, perhaps, the lowest grade of manufacturing industry. In many districts, it is scarcely more highly paid than common field labour. So little experience is required, that in our manufacturing towns the new settlers, and especially the Irish, speedily learn it. An ordinary loom costs little; and as soon as a man can throw a shuttle, he has some resource against starvation. As women and children easily learn to weave, they increase the competition. The demand being always great, so is the supply. The number of labourers is immense; and when "bad times" arrive, the consequences spread over an immense number of operatives. There is a peculiar cause of permanent distress constantly in action—I mean the Corn-laws. Hon. Members may fancy that, as we do not import corn, the Corn-laws are wholly inoperative; but I think I can show that the consequences of the Corn-laws, their mischiefs, their injuries, are far more wide than would at first appear. I can demonstrate, as I imagine, that they are the cause of the low wages of our artisans in general, and of the Hand-loom Weavers in particular. Their removal, which I believe would do no injury to the agricultural, would vastly

1171
benefit the manufacturing and commercial interest. Their removal would bring with it a general rise of wages. We export fifty millions sterling of manufactures. Does anybody imagine these are not affected in foreign markets by the price of foreign corn? Does any one suppose that they have not to suffer in value from the fact of their having to meet as rivals with goods produced in countries where the price of corn is lower, and the average of wages less, than any in England? Does anybody believe, that if prices and profits fall abroad, that the rate of wages at home will not fall, and the power be diminished of consuming British corn? We have forced many countries to manufacture, because we have refused to take their corn in exchange for our manufactures. We have thus done two foolish things. We have kept down the prices of their corn by refusing to consume their surplus produce, and in keeping down their prices, have given them great advantage over us in their rates of wages, and consequently in their manufactured productions. We made them manufacturers, and then enabled them to manufacture on the most advantageous terms. We have to meet them as rival manufacturers everywhere, created originally by our own illiberality, and furnished with constant advantages over us by the continuance of a narrow policy. If we took the surplus produce of corn-producing countries, which is only a few days' consumption for Great Britain, I believe it would be consumed in consequence of the increase of prosperity, in addition to our own average growth, prices would be generally levelled, wages would rise in the manufacturing countries on the Continent, and we should possess all the advantages of superior capital, superior machinery, superior activity, and the benefits of a longer experience. The Corn-laws press with peculiar hardness on the hand-loom weaver; very large portions of the articles he produces are exported to foreign lands, and have to undergo the severest competition there. For as foreign manufacturing countries have succeeded best in producing those articles in which wages form a considerable part of the cost of production, and machinery a small portion, they are enabled to manufacture such, as cheap or cheaper than the English prices. Hence a constant decline; hence, again, a lowering of wages in England. For the price of corn abroad does, in fact,
1172
determine the rate of wages here, inasmuch as we have to meet the foreigner in most of the markets of the world. If the price of corn were levelled, as must be the case whenever there is a free-trade in corn, English Hand-loom Weavers would have nothing to fear from competition; as it is, they have nothing to hope. Whatever may be our opinions as to the cause of the evil, it is right that we should lend an attentive ear to the opinions of the petitioners who have appealed to the House, for relief from acknowledged distress. Now what is the principal grievance of which the Hand-loom Weavers complain? It is of that which cannot be changed by legislation, for legislation cannot destroy human interests and human passions; it is of competition. They say their distresses are caused by dishonest and heartless competition. But so long as man is man, so long as he wishes to obtain the supply of his wants on the cheapest terms, so long as he desires to drive the best bargain with his fellow, so long will competition exist; and the tone and temper of that competition will be determined by the various characters and positions of those engaged in it. The more suffering there is among the weavers, the keener will be their competition for work; the more demand that exists for labour among the manufacturers, the more eager will be their competition for hands. Competition is only another word for demand and supply. Without it, trade would be smitten with death. But does Mr. Fielden's Bill destroy his competition? Not at all. It introduces another and a new source of competition; we have now the competition of individual against individual; it would add to that, the competitions of district against district. It would be running a race at fixed rates of wages in every locality, but varying one with another, and all regulated by law. It would give to two or three manufacturers the power of combining at any time to reduce wages by the legal machinery of his Bill. They might, by an understood arrangement, and at a given time, lower wages, lower the price of goods, and, were the Bill operative at all, make it operative by increasing the distress of those it professes to relieve. But I know very well it would not be operative. There is an elasticity in the transactions of commerce, a powerful tendency in all matters of trade to regulate themselves, which sets legislation at de-

1173
fiance. If Mr. Fielden's Bill could be made efficient, it would be far more a handle in the hands of masters to oppress, than a security in the hands of labourers to resist oppression. But it cannot be made efficient; one single weaver without work, and all the machinery of the Bill is shaken. But what if a hundred, what if a thousand are out of employ? Does any body fancy the Bill will then keep up wages? Let the table of prices be fixed at 10 s., and the starving weaver find employment at 9s. and no employment at 10 s., which is the price fixed, will he take the 9s., or will he stand out and perish? Everybody knows what the result would be; the hon. Member himself knows full well. Again, let the price be 10 s., and let there come an active demand for goods; let all the weavers be engaged at 10 s., and who will say that the law will keep them at 10 s. from the moment when a master finds it for his advantage to offer 11 s., and can get fair profit on 11 s.? The regulation of rates of wages, at given periods, is a chimera; they may, they must vary, from time to time, according to the state of the markets. Establish rates to-day—the fairest, the best arranged—they will be inefficient for to-morrow; one article rises in demand, another falls; your tariff will be soon found too high for some, too low for others. Besides, there are a thousand ways of evading them. The infinite varieties of length, breadth, and quality offer abundant means of escaping and defeating any regulations you may establish. Such regulations always have been leaped over or turned aside, and always will be. They will be respected by the honourable man, against whom you do not want them, and whom you ought not to embarrass by them; but the pettifogger, the interloper, the grasping and hard master, those, in fact, for whom you intend them, will laugh them to scorn. Experiments enough have been made to bring experience to confirm what reason would anticipate; and if there seem any instances which prove that Boards of Trade and high wages exist together, sure I am the high and sustained wages are not attributable to any table of prices, or to any similar cause. I believe combinations, well devised, among workmen, may raise wages by restricting the supply of labour. I do not object to such combinations; I think they are the right of the artisan; they are legal, they are useful. But what
1174
I contend for is, that no table of prices ever kept up wages, for any long period, when there was an excess of hands or a want of work. The highest wages exist where there are neither Boards of Trade nor tables of prices, but where the artisans are few and the labour plentiful. Let the facts, however, be looked into. They had, by the common consent of masters and men, fixed tables of prices in Coventry. Now, what is the evidence given before former Committees? Why, that they were no sooner established than abandoned; that they were found to check nobody. Mr. Gregory states, that the table of prices were not conformed to for a week, though agreed to by all the respectable manufacturers. The Spitalfields' weavers, I know, are very desirous of establishing the old and vicious state of things that existed formerly in that district. They now say they prospered under it. I am persuaded a calm investigation into the facts will show that the state of the weavers in Spitalfields has been, on the whole, far more satisfactory since the Spitalfields' Acts were repealed than before. At the present moment, I am assured there is general employment among them. Who can have forgotten the frightful distress into which that district was frequently plunged under the old system? Who can have forgotten the narrative of privations, of sufferings, of death from starvation, and the many tales of misery, which periodically pressed themselves on the public attention? Who does not remember the processions of squalid and ragged silk-weavers, whose pitiable case excited so general a sympathy, and who were relieved by public subscriptions and personal interferences? How could it be otherwise? What led to the repeal of the Spitalfields' Acts but the conviction that they were destructive to the trade itself? Before they were repealed, a large amount of the trade had quitted the neighbourhood. That was inevitable while the rate of wages which the tariff established was so much higher than the rate paid at Manchester and elsewhere. Had the Acts continued a short time longer, the trade would have abandoned Spitalfields altogether. Nobody will contend that this consummation would have been favourable to the weavers. How could it be otherwise? It was proved that the price for weaving bombazines in Spitalfields was 2s. 6d. per piece above the Kidderminster price; that for bandanas, from.

1175
4s. 8d. to 5s. 3d. was paid in Spitalfields, and at Manchester 3s. to 3s. 6d. When an attempt was made to introduce tables of price at Macclesfield, the trade went to Manchester. It is the natural, the necessary course of things; trade will escape from trammels. I may, however, particularly refer the House to the last and most remarkable attempt to regulate wages by law. As I had the opportunity of seeing, with my own eyes, the extent of suffering with which Lyons was visited during the late insurrection, I may be allowed to mention some of the circumstances. The misery, the bloodshed, the devastation of property, the sacrifice of life, of which Lyons was the scene, had their origin in an attempt to establish a minimum tariff of wages. When discontent was at its height, when the Government was hourly afraid of the outbreak of the labouring population, the Prefect of Lyons sanctioned a meeting of the representatives of the weavers and of the manufacturers, and a tariff was fixed on, after a thorough investigation of the then state of the trade; which tariff, being recognised by the authorities, became the law. What was the consequence? A week did not pass before it was violated. Masters refused to give the prices recognised for some articles, and offered higher prices for others. On all sides there was an interest in violating the tariff, and it was violated. Those who observed it very naturally complained to the magistrates of those who disregarded it. But how could the magistrates force masters to give work to the operatives? Many of them said they could not afford to give the tariff prices. They gave out no work; some of them offered work at terms below the tariff; many of the weavers consented to take work on lower terms. The magistrates were again called in, but their interference led to general confusion. Hands were dismissed, work could not be found, the distress widened, and the exasperation with it. The weavers insisted on their rights, rights now established by law; they assembled in large bodies, they armed themselves: the consequences are too well known. The weavers obtained possession of the town, commerce was paralyzed, the Prefect was dismissed by the Government for want of firmness, sanguinary combats took place, the tariff was overthrown by the interference of the Government, and, I may add, by the universal conviction that its consequences had been most bane-
1176
ful. The trade of Lyons has received a shock from which years will not recover it. Thousands of weavers were forced to exile themselves, and to seek other employments. Does any hon. Member desire to witness similar scenes of wretchedness in England? Yet here the experiment was made, and made on a grand scale; here were minimum wages established under the sanction of the law; here was the principle which has been contended for, pushed to all its consequences, and bearing all its natural fruits. Let it not, however, be supposed, because I object to the particular form of relief which is solicited by the petitioners, and recommended by the hon. Member for Lanark, that I am, therefore, unwilling to suggest and to support what I consider the practicable and the desirable changes in favour of so valuable a part of the population, as are the Hand-loom Weavers. The hon. Member has indulged in a passing glance at my opinions on the great and imposing topics of free-trade. Sir, it is true I hold that if nations, instead of pursuing a narrow, selfish, wretched policy of alienation and jealousy, would endeavour each to turn to friendly account the aptitudes of the rest, if they would act on the motives to love instead of the motives to hatred, if they would draw on the various sources of profit and pleasure that each offers to the other, if the duties and the demands of brotherhood were more habitually thought of and more constantly recognised, very much, indeed, of present evil would be got rid of—very much, indeed, of future evil would be prevented. But I did not intend to enlarge on this. There are some immediate and practical results to which I hope this discussion will lead. I trust it will induce the Hand-loom Weavers, when any fair and proper occasion presents itself of seeking and finding profitable employment, to embrace it. The power-loom is invading, successfully invading, their territory. They cannot stand against it in any department, where it comes immediately into competition with them. We heard in the Committee, that the position of many of the weavers had been greatly bettered by being attached to power-loom manufactures. Anything to encourage this sort of transfer is undoubtedly to be desired. There have been emigrations of agricultural labourers to districts where there was a want of power-loom operatives. The demand had far better be supplied, by the Hand-loom

1177
Weavers, who may be considered already as half-trained to the work. I do not think that better advice can be given to the Hand-loom Weavers, than to seek all fair occasions of abandoning a trade which must be more and more invaded, and in which the average rate, of wages will necessarily be lower than in almost any other handicraft labour. Something may be done for the improvement of the condition of the Hand-loom Weavers, especially in the silk-trade, by instruction in the arts of design. The study of drawing, the production of patterns, the combinations of form and colour, may give much added value to the labour of the loom. In France, a weaver of taste can always obtain higher wages than an ordinary workman. Such a class is much wanted in this country. They should be encouraged where they exist, and created, if possible, where they do not exist. I think, too, if a tribunal were established by law, something like the Council of Prud'hommes in France, that it would be a very valuable instrument for the settlement of disputes between master and workmen, for the recognition of the copyright of patterns, and for the cheap and prompt adjudication of the manufacturing questions which arise in different localities. They might be charged with the publication of tables of prices, not compulsory prices, but such as are generally paid. Such tables would have the effect of regulating usefully the price of labour; they would soon bring about average wages; they would, by instructing weavers where work was plentiful, and where work was slack, tend to prevent some of the many inconveniences and uncertainties which grow out of the present state of things; they would instruct every body; they would coerce nobody. With these views, I am sorry to be compelled to dissent from the proposition of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, as leading to nothing like practical or substantial good.
Mr. Richardsthought, that his Majesty's Government took the line dictated by true wisdom and policy, in opposing the introduction of this Bill. The speech of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had given him great satisfaction. The principles laid down by him were consistent with those of political economy, and would stand the test of experience. He hoped, that the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion.
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodwas of opinion,
1178
that the Hand-loom Weavers knew what was best for themselves, and that their demands ought to be complied with. He felt bound to advocate the interests of that class of persons, and to endeavour to place them on the same footing with other classes. That House represented the property of the country, and it ought to advocate every measure calculated to benefit the working classes. The hours of labour of the Hand-loom Weavers ought to be lessened, in order to afford them time to cultivate their minds, which would be one great means of ameliorating their condition. He denied, that the wages which the Hand-loom Weavers received, were sufficient for the sustenance of themselves and their families; and he, therefore, thought it hard, as their distress was admitted on all hands, that a measure like the present, which was intended for their relief, should be met by a direct negative. He was disposed to consider, that the low rate of wages given in this branch of trade arose more from home than foreign competition, and this he thought was proved by the fact, that in all other trades in which unions existed among the workmen the rate of wages was kept up. The Hand-loom Weavers were without any protection whatever, and as he thought, that they were entitled to the favourable consideration of that House, he felt great pleasure in giving his best support to the present Bill.
Mr. William Williams(Coventry) said, that as the House had been so long engaged in the discussion of this question, he would not have trespassed on its time if he did not feel a deep interest in the welfare of this meritorious class of artisans, from whom he had derived, in a variety of ways, so much benefit. He could not help expressing his surprise, as well as regret, at the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, opposing the introduction of the Bill, without even knowing its contents. Committees of that House had, both last year and this year, devoted a great deal of time in investigating the deep distress which had been stated to exist by upwards of 112,000 petitioners. Both those Committees had reported to the House, that the deepest distress did exist, and had recommended some legislative enactment for its relief. The President of the Board of Trade had completely mistaken the object of the Bill in stating that that House was called upon

1179
to establish a minimum of wages, when, in point of fact, the Bill suggested by the Committee placed the power of regulating the wages in the hands of the manufacturers. Other hon. Members had fallen into the same error. Therefore, in order distinctly to understand what relief the Bill proposed, the only method would be to allow its introduction, when its merits would be fairly before the House and the country. He thought this was due to the Committees who had recommended it, as well as to that numerous and distressed class of artizans who looked to the House for relief with the greatest possible anxiety. If a legislative enactment, as had been contended by some, could not effect a remedy for the distress, which was on all hands admitted, let the House at least allow the Bill to be introduced; and as those distressed weavers were intelligent men, he was sure they would be the first to express their concurrence in such an opinion if it could be made manifest to them. The introduction of the Bill would at least show a desire to attend to their complaints and to relieve their distress. His long experience had satisfied him that the deepest distress had at numerous periods, been produced by an unnecessary and uncalled for depression of wages, and he could not doubt, that a Bill might be framed, so as at all events to mitigate their present acknowledged state of destitution.
Mr. Labouchereregretted, that the statement made by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had not been satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was the duty of the Members of that House to watch over the permanent interests of all classes of the community; and they were also bound to resist any proposition having apparently for its object the removal of distress, but which was likely to be injurious. This should be done even for the sake of those whom they were anxious to benefit. He lamented as much as any one the state of distress in which this meritorious class of persons was placed; but if they passed a Bill like that now proposed, instead of alleviating, they would aggravate their misery. The very introduction of the Bill would excite delusive hopes, and would on that account alone be highly injurious. However much the matter might be disguised, the truth was, that the whole end and object of the Bill was to endeavour to establish a minimum,
1180
of wages, which he need hardly say would fail in the end, and would be productive of the most pernicious consequences. He sympathized with this class of persons in their distress; but he could not bring himself to consent to the measure which was now proposed as a remedy.
Mr. Emerson Tennentcould not but regret the course which the right hon. President of the Board of Trade had adopted upon this occasion, in opposing altogether the introduction of this Bill. Although he (Mr. Tennent) could not agree in all the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Lanark, he still felt it his bounden duty to give his support to the Motion. He could bear testimony to the fact, that the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Lanark, of the existing distress among the Hand-loom Weavers was even below the reality. He could well remember the once flourishing condition of this most extensive class in the town and district which he had the honour to represent (Belfast), where their number amounted to some thousands. He remembered when the quarter they inhabited was remarkable for its neatness and order; he remembered their whitewashed houses, and their little flower gardens, and the decent appearance they made with their families at markets, or at public worship. Those houses were now a mass of filth and misery, and their families clad in rags, were ashamed to appear in public. At the time of which he spoke, a weaver in Belfast could earn from 15 s. to 25 s. a week by eight or ten hours' labour, but they could now only earn from 3s. 10 d. to 6s. though the whole family laboured from fourteen to sixteen hours a day,—they had seen ruin progressively gathering round them, but their conduct had been peaceable, submissive, and resigned; and in 1826, several hundreds of them, fathers of families, had actually submitted to break stones for the public roads at 10 d. a day. The only question for the House was, this evil being proved to exist in all its frightful enormities, whether it were prepared to try this or any other remedy for their relief? He wished the question to have a fair discussion, as well with the hope of discovering a case for the existing distress as to show the weavers that their cry had not arisen in vain to the Legislature for inquiry and redress.
Mr. Humecontended, that the only

1181
result of the Bill would be, to excite delusive hopes of relief, which never could be realized. He had opposed the appointment of the Committee on this subject on the same ground as he should now resist the introduction of the Bill. It appeared to him to be a monstrous absurdity, in the present day, to introduce a measure which had indirectly for its object the establishment of a minimum of wages. Some relief would be afforded by the reduction of taxes, and by the repeal of the Corn-laws; but he hoped, in the course of a short time, the great body of the persons now in such distress would turn themselves to other occupations. One hon. Gentleman, however, admitted, that although he did not expect much from this measure, he should vote for it; but he considered, that the great remedy of the distress would be altering the standard. He was sure, that the House would not countenance a measure which was likely to create delusive hopes, and had for its ultimate object the lowering the currency. These persons had a right to complain of some laws, and especially the Corn-laws; but instead of demanding that, they called for a remedy, which, if granted, would be highly injurious to them. If they took the course which the hon. Mover recommended, they would drive away the capital at present employed in trade and increase the existing distress. They might compel the manufacturers not to employ men at the low rate of 5s. 6d., and oblige them to pay not less than 6s. 6d.; but was it to be supposed, that they could force the public to pay the additional charge? And if not, what became of the manufactories, and of those now employed in them? It was impossible to fix a minimum price of wages in a country in which the commercial transactions were so numerous and extensive as in this. He would ask any commercial man to say whether a minimum price of wages would not be fraught with mischief? The men of Coventry had suffered much—indeed, he did not know any who had suffered more—by an attempt to fix a minimum price of wages. On the same mistaken principle, the men of Macclesfield had destroyed machinery on its introduction, and what was the consequence? Why, the trade had gone from them. He was ready to vote for a removal of the Excise duties on manufactured articles, for a commutation of taxes, or for a Property-tax, because he thought, that such mea-
1182
sures as these would afford substantial relief. He wanted to see every man remunerated for his labour; but he thought it cruel to encourage the delusion which he considered this Motion calculated to perpetuate.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, the distress of the Hand-loom Weavers was admitted; it was also unquestionable, that the principle on which the Motion was founded, was opposed to the sound principles of political economy; but the present application was made because there appeared to be no other remedy for the evil. He confessed, that it was most absurd to seek to fix a minimum price of wages. At the same time he would ask, had not the House already imposed a minimum price on corn—a minimum price on the food of the people? He was prepared to vote for this proposition to-night, unless his Majesty's Government would tell him that they knew of some other mode by which the evil would be redressed.
Mr. Bainessaid, that the hon. Gentleman, who had just sat down, described the proposal to fix a minimum of wages as most absurd; yet he concluded his observations by saying that he would support that most absurd proposition. What would be their situation next year if they made the concession now asked? The agricultural labourers would next come forward to put in their claim. They were equally distressed—indeed he might say more so, because the families of the manufacturers contributed their work to the general fund, but the agricultural labourer had to work for his whole family. He thought there were means by which the Hand-loom Weavers might relieve themselves. The present practice was for the heads of the various families to educate their children in their own trade, and thus they themselves increased the amount of competition. What they should do was as much as possible to relieve their trade by bringing up their children to other employments.
Mr. Fieldensupported the Motion in a speech of considerable length, in which the hon. Member dwelt much on the depreciation of the wages of weavers; but his speech was quite inaudible.
Mr. Mark Phillipswas opposed to the principle of this Bill, because he did not consider that it was likely to meet the difficulty or remedy the evil complained of. As to any other measures which the

1183
case called for, he did not think his Majesty's Government could with any justice be blamed for neglect, when the most zealous advocates of the distressed artisans could propose no more reasonable measure than the present. He believed, if any Bill to establish a minimum of wages were passed, the result would be the entire stoppage of manufacture, where-ever the Bill was brought into application. It would, therefore, aggravate, instead of alleviating the distresses under which the Hand-loom Weavers already laboured.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, he should feel it to be his duty to press the Motion to a division.
The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 41; Noes 129—Majority

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Lucas, T.

Arbuthnot, General

M'Cance, J.

Archdall, M.

M'Kinnon, W. A.

Attwood, M.

Pigot,R.

Attwood, Thos.

Plunkett, Hon. R.

Boldero, Captain

Robinson, G.

Bolling W.

Ruthven, E.

Brotherton, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Scholefield, J.

Campbell, Sir H. P.

Speirs, A.

Cayley, E. S.

Stewart, Sir M.

Cole, Viscount

Stuart, Lord D.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Tennent, E. J.

Euston, Lord

Wallace, R.

Fielden, John

Williams, W.

Finch, G.

Wood, Alderman

Fleetwood, H.

Young, G. F.

Forbes, G.

Hallyburton, Hon. D.

TELLERS.

Hardy, John

Maxwell, J.

Hayes, Sir Edward

Gillon, W. D.

Jackson, Sergeant

PAIRED OFF.

Lewis, D.

Wakley, Thomas (for)

Lowther, Colonel

Bowring, Dr. (against)

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. William Alexander Mackinnon: In the Motion that I am about to submit to the House, I can assure you, Sir, there is nothing whatever of a political nature. The subject is one of considerable importance, and requires most urgently the attention of the Legislature. Gentlemen here assembled are bound to promote whatever has a tendency to increase the facility of communication in the country, to promote its welfare and augment its resources. We are sent here by our constituents and are assembled to deliberate and to consult the interests of the great empire, the population of which we represent, not solely to be occupied in contention for political supremacy or to
1184
espouse the cause of contending parties. This question, Sir, would not have been taken up by me if any other Member of this House or of the Government had expressed a willingness to undertake it. My noble Friend, the Member for Westmoreland, has so much benefited his country by the measure he brought forward of consolidating the trusts and roads round the Metropolis, that he would have been perhaps the fittest person to be in the Committee which I am about to ask the House to grant, to consider some of the most important points relative to the management of the Turnpike Trusts of the kingdom. In furthering this measure I trust I may obtain the support of Gentlemen belonging to both sides of the House, I feel satisfied they will not oppose a measure that may prove beneficial to the community, merely because it originates with a Member who does not always coincide with them in political opinions. I find since I gave notice of my intention to make this Motion that a Member of his Majesty's Government has expressed a desire of supporting the principles which I recommend by introducing a Bill into this House relative to the consolidation of Turnpike Trusts. It is not my wish that any statement made by me should be taken for granted unless supported by such evidence as cannot be refuted. I will, in as concise a manner as the nature of the subject will admit, lay before the House my reasons for this Motion, and briefly state the most important points that I am desirous of bringing under the notice of a Select Committee for their attentive consideration; the great amount of debt, the number of small trusts, and the manner in which the roads are managed, and also the mode of collecting the revenues for the road by tolls, I say tolls, because, statute labour and composition ought, of course, to be abolished, are not such as can be tolerated in the present day, and are entirely at variance with the wisdom and policy that ought to guide the management of such an important cause of the national wealth and prosperity as the means of communication are in this country. The House and the public, perhaps, may not be aware, that the amount of debts incurred by the several Turnpike Trusts amounts (speaking in round numbers) to nearly nine millions, the gross income about 1,500,000 l., and the expenditure rather more, and like the debt yearly increasing. Assuming, as a matter of course, that both statute labour and

1185
composition might be abolished, I will place the points for the consideration of the Committee as follows:

1. The expediency of consolidating the management and revenues of several small trusts into one trust not exceeding 150 miles.

2. The policy of raising a revenue by some other means than by tolls for the support of the roads.

3. The possibility of establishing a highway police over the turnpike roads of the kingdom.

4. The eligibility of having a central board of Commissioners in the Metropolis, to control the financial department of the several trusts, but not to have any executive power whatever over the roads as to the management; which should continue as at present, in the hands of the Trustees.

Now with respect to the first of these points, the expediency of consolidating small trusts. It may be necessary to observe to those Gentlemen not acquainted with the subject, that in many parts of the kingdom there are several small trusts not averaging more than eight or ten miles of road, each having a separate set of Trustees, Clerks, Surveyors, and Treasurer, and other most expensive machinery, the length of the turnpike roads is 19,798 miles and the number of trusts 1,119. The evidence before the Lords' Committee states that round the town of Stamford there are seven or eight small trusts, each having a set of officers and most expensive machinery; these several trusts have all separate meetings and separate management, and thereby incurs a most heavy and unnecessary expense as well as injury to the roads from want of union and co-operation. The same appears to be the case at Winchester, and in many other places. The disadvantages arising from these petty trusts are great. From the evidence, it appears that nearly 200,000 l. a-year, is expended in salaries to the officers, in stationery, in various other charges which by a consolidation could be nearly done away. Another disadvantage is, that these small trusts as they now are established bid against each other for materials. From the evidence of Sir James M'Adam, it appears, that before the union of the roads round the Metropolis, the price paid for road materials brought by sea, was nearly double the price paid at present. There is no competition in the market when the consolidation is effected, and consequently, the supply is obtained at a lower rate. Another very important advantage arising from consolidation would be the saving of a high rate of interest paid for
1186
money borrowed. At present if a small trust requires the loan of a sum of money, the amount required cannot be obtained much under 5 per cent from the smallness of the income and the uncertainty of collection. Now, if a consolidation was effected, no reasonable doubt can be entertained that if a loan was required money might be obtained at from 3 to 4 per cent. Another point also which is of importance under a consolidation, horse labour might be saved and manual labour substituted in its place, by men wheeling the materials. In the evidence of Sir James M'Adam before the Lords, that gentleman states, that he has substituted manual labour for horse labour in the large trusts, not only at a saving of expense, but also to the satisfaction of the labourers, who invariably prefer wheeling the materials to carting them, even if to be taken to some distance. At a period when by the great increase of machinery so many hands are put out of employment, any measure that may give employment to the poor without additional charge on the public purse appears to me most desirable. Under these circumstances, Sir, when there does not exist one reason for continuing the present small trusts, but on the contrary, every advantage on the other side, I confess, Sir, I am at a loss to imagine why such a change should not be effected. The plan I would propose is not to consolidate the trusts into 150 miles, in one straight line which would render it most inconvenient for the trustees to attend, but to unite them round a town radiating like a star, each radius not to exceed, say twenty-five or thirty miles. If any further argument were necessary so shew the expediency of the measure, the following extract from the Report of the Lords' Committee may be stated to the House.
"The Committee have not failed to observe, from the evidence adduced, the great benefits that have arisen from the consolidation of trusts round the metropolis. One of the greatest evils in the present road system is the number of trusts, as well as their limited range and extent. The Committee would, therefore, recommend every consolidation of trusts which their localities and other circumstances will permit." Mr. Irish, in his evidence, states, not only that 200,000 l. a-year is expended in salaries, &c.; as I have already stated, but that double the amount of manual labour might be employed under a better system, and yet the funds be economized.
The next point to which I would desire

1187
the attention of the House, is the policy of raising some other revenue for the roads than by tolls. The inexpediency of a revenue by tolls will be evident on a little reflection. The number of toll-gates is nearly five thousand. A great proportion of the gates in the kingdom may be said to average an amount of toll of, say from 120 l. to 160 l. per annum, take the mean, and say 140 l. is paid by the public at a toll-gate. How much of this sum goes into the Treasurer'? hands? The expense of a toll-collector cannot be estimated at less than 12 s. per week, which is 31 l. 4s. per annum. The profit made by the lessee 10 l., and take the repairs and rent of the toll-house at 5l., a moderate sum: the total to be deducted is 46 l. 4s. from 140 l. leaving only a balance for the trust of 93 l. 16 s. Thus we perceive that nearly one-third of the tolls paid by the public are lost to the Trust of the roads, it does not even find its way into the hands of the Treasurer. It appears further by the evidence to which I have so often alluded, that near large towns where the tolls are considerable in amount, certain individuals form themselves into companies, and rent tolls in a large district to a very considerable amount. Would any men of capital engage in such a speculation unless the profit was considerable, and whatever profit they make in such a speculation is so much loss to the public. Turnpikes have been established in England for a considerable time, and it is only since the year 1767 that the roads have been in a tolerable state, their present state, therefore, cannot be attributed to the turnpike system, but to the wealth of the country. Let any one consider the exact number of horses and carriages kept in this metropolis for luxury and pleasure, scarcely any of these pay any toll from one week to another. I am fully aware of the trite remark, that the repairs of the road ought to be borne by those who use them. In answer, I should say, that every individual in the community is benefited by communication, and that he pays, either himself directly, or by money indirectly for their maintenance, by an additional per centage on his goods and parcels, or by the travelling of some member of his family; and to him it matters little, or, indeed, to any man in the community, whether he pays for the roads in one way or in another. Whether a rate on horses and carriages used for pleasure might be substituted for tolls, or a rate on all inhabited houses of above ten pounds rent, is not for me to
1188
have the presumption of stating to the House, but I leave it to the wisdom of this Assembly for consideration. At any rate, it cannot but prove more agreeable to the mass of the community to pay so much less annually in the shape of a rate, than to pay one-third more in amount in tolls. For example, supposing that any individual, either in or out of this House, pays annually in tolls 15 l., surely it would be better if that individual paid only 10 l. in a rate, and certainly it would be less troublesome and annoying. The toll system ought to be abolished, and the country freed from such an impost entirely. I will only trouble the House further on this point by giving them the following extract from the Lords' Committee: "It appears that combinations have been successfully organized to defeat the provisions of the Act of George 4th, with respect to letting tolls." We next come to the consideration of the establishment of a highway police over the roads of the kingdom. Gentlemen, must bear in mind that although the lower classes are better educated, and, in general, I believe that less crime is committed on an average than formerly, yet from the great facility of communication and increase of education and intelligence, the lower classes can combine together with more facility, and are, therefore, more powerful, and more likely to be aware of their strength by means of combination. As long as the wages of labour are adequate to their support, they, the mass of the agricultural and manufacturing population, remain quiet, but should any change in the value of the circulating medium, as in the price of provisions, cause them to suffer privations to which they are unaccustomed, great dissatisfaction would naturally arise, and that Government is sleeping on a barrel of gunpowder that does not, by all the means it may command, suppress crime of every description, and also prevent the escape of criminals from justice or their acting with impunity. Of late years the crime of arson has been prevalent in the country, and may occur again. No means seem so effectual to check such a recurrence as the formation of a rural or highway police, placed like constables, under the entire control of the local Magistracy, and established under a well-organized system. Such a police would effectually check smuggling into the interior of the country, and prove useful in many other ways not necessary to mention here, and if any illicit distillation was practised, nothing better

1189
could put a stop to the practice. Those men have deserved well of their country who have established the police-force in the metropolis. The boon has not yet, perhaps, been duly appreciated, yet every one must admit the additional security to persons and property since the police-force has been established and made effective. Admitting that a consolidation of roads can be effected, I think that men of good character, working as labourers on the roads, could, on being sworn as constables, be placed under the same control, though not exactly under the same system of management as the police in the metropolis. The present is not the time, nor is this the place, to enter into any details on such a subject, I will only throw out the idea, and repeat to the House a sentence of the Select Committee of the Lords, in the following words: "The measure of employing permanent milemen with occasional labourers on the roads has combined such indisputable advantages that the Committee submit such a system might be rendered contributary to objects of general security." In what I have here suggested, therefore, I am only developing the idea thrown out by an able Committee, headed by a well-informed noble individual, who has bestowed much time and patience on the subject, and to whom, should the measure now submitted to the House ever be carried into effect, the country will feel much indebted.
The next point for the consideration of the Committee I propose to ask the House to grant is one which I believe, is inseparable from the Question of a consolidation of the trusts, or, indeed, of any of the measures which I have proposed, and without which I do not see how it would be possible to carry any of them into effect. It is far from my intention to propose any Commission that would be the means of taking any power out of the hands of the local authorities or Trustees, or Sessions, or of making any Commissioners responsible and acting as they thought fit about roads or their revenues. The example of France, and the state of their roads prove clearly the impolicy and insufficiency of the entire administration of the roads being under the orders of the Government; and in England, where you have the advantage of a county Magistracy of the most enlightened and superior description, and where so many active country gentlemen are found who promote with zeal every object that may benefit the community, the intention of placing the
1190
management of the highways under the Government would be quite preposterous; yet I think, that to prevent the needless waste of money in some trusts, the undertaking of roads as private jobs in others, and to enable a rich trust to advance money to another in want of assistance, that the Committee may discuss the eligibility of establishing a Central Board of Commissioners to control the financial department of the several trusts in the kingdom without possessing any executive power whatever, the Trustees to retain all the power, but only the state of the finances and the expenditure to be submitted to this Board of Control, but the country gentlemen to exercise their functions of Trustees as at present. Before entering into any remark on the expediency of such a Board, I will just give the House the words of the Lords' Committee in one sentence. "All the witnesses who Lave been examined to that point concur in recommending a system of general control over the management of the roads of the kingdom." It must be apparent to every one present that the suggestions which I have proposed in the observations already made cannot be brought to a satisfactory termination without Commissioners, two only of whom might be salaried, the others might be honorary. Those receiving remuneration might be paid out of the large saving that would accrue from the improved system of managing the road funds. The advantages of such a Board are apparent; they would, by assisting the funds of a poor trust from advances made by one more wealthy, prevent the recurrence of those shameful jobs, and improper system of management which the evidence already so often alluded to has disclosed. Considerable saving in interest would arise, as it appears that most trusts now pay five per cent. for money borrowed, whereas, under a Board of Control, all trusts might obtain loans at three and a-half, or not higher than four per cent. I have now, Sir, submitted to the Mouse the outline of the plan that I would lay before the Committee, which I now ask the House to grant me for that purpose. However, Sir, in moving for such a Committee I am not so visionary, or so much enamoured, or engrossed with the subject and plan proposed as not to foresee very great, if not insuperable, difficulties in the way of an entire alteration of the present system. The opposition will be from the Treasurers, Clerks, Solicitors, and other officers of the

1191
small trusts who will not relish giving up emoluments and perquisites of more than 150,000 l. a-year. The objections and arguments against a change or any alteration, will be without number, and unless the Government lend a powerful hand in support of the measure, there is not the slightest chance of its being carried into execution. Before I sit down I will, for a moment only, intrude further on the attention of the House to observe that speaking in round numbers and assuming the debt to be nine millions, and at 5 per cent, the interest 450,000 l. a-year, if the interest is reduced to 3½ per cent, 135,000 l. a-year would be saved to the public. If to this be added the amount saved by a better system of management of the funds under a board, and the economy in the expenditure when a consolidation takes place, and if I (which I can scarcely hope ever to have accomplished) another mode of obtaining a revenue for the roads is adopted either by a rate on houses or some other means, I think I am not exaggerating when I assert, that a sum not far short of half a million annually might be saved to the public with a far better management of the roads and a more extensive use of the labouring population than is now in demand for that purpose. A most intelligent surveyor has stated his opinion as follows:—"It appears to me that an arrangement might easily be made by Parliament for the direction and control of all trusts, and for the gradual amendment of road affairs, which would save half a million a-year to the nation besides gradually paying off the existing debt and securing good roads every where." In the present state of the agricultural interest, I think that Gentlemen connected more particularly with that branch of national prosperity ought to support me in a measure that would lighten the burthens of the farmer, by abolishing statute labour and composition, a system of little service to the roads, and equally troublesome and vexatious to the landed interest, a plan that would lay the burthen of keeping the roads in order on the wealthy part of the people and on the community at large, and in many ways, unnecessary to repeat here, improve the high ways, promote the wealth and stimulate the industry of this great empire.
Mr. Fox Maulewas of opinion, that there had already been sufficient inquiry by both Houses of Parliament upon the subject of consolidating turnpike trusts. He had Bills before the House for the
1192
regulation of turnpike trusts, which he thought met all the suggestions of the hon. Member. If the hon. Member should not be of that opinion at least, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion at this late period of the Session.
Mr. Mackinnon, as courtesey seemed rather in fashion, would consent to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICE OF PAY- MASTERS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the office of Paymaster of the Forces, Paymaster of the Navy, Paymaster of Chelsea-Hospital, and Treasurer of the Ordnance. At present his right hon. Friend (Sir Henry Parnell) held those offices under separate appointments; the object of the Bill he wished to bring in was, to authorise one appointment for the whole of them. From the experience they had had during the time his right hon. Friend had held those offices, they felt convinced that the duties of all might be advantageously discharged by one person; and this with a prospect of further reductions being effected in the subordinate branches of these departments. He would briefly state some of the expenses of each department in times past, and what would be the effect of the proposed consolidation. In 1783, the salary of Paymaster General was 4,000 l. a year. In 1784, two Paymasters General were appointed at salaries of 2,000 l. each. In 1823, the salary of that office was reduced to 2,000 l. a year. The Deputy Pay-Master General in the first period received 1,000 l. a year. That was afterwards reduced to 500 l.; but in 1830, that office became vacant, and was then discontinued. With respect to the Treasurer of the Ordnance, the expense of that office in 1815, was 1,858 l.; in 1825, it was reduced to 1,500 l.; and in 1830, it was further reduced to 1,000 l. But the duties of that office were now discharged by his right hon. Friend without any emolument whatever. Before 1817, the salary of the Treasurer of the Navy was 4,000 l. a year; it was then reduced to 3,000 l. a year. The Bill dealt with these offices only so far as parliamentary authority was required for effecting a consolidation of them; the power that might be exercised by the Government itself was

1193
reserved to that authority. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Humewas extremely happy, that the right hon. Gentleman had brought in the Bill at last. He hoped it would simplify the duties of these offices as much as the measure lately passed had simplified the duties of the Exchequer. Indeed he believed it would have that effect, and be likewise productive of considerable economy.
Mr. Barlow Hoyalways thought, that the division of labour led to facility and perfection; he therefore feared, that whatever might be gained with regard to expense would be lost in efficiency by the proposed consolidation of these offices.
Leave given.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Lunatic Act Continuance.
Petitions presented. By Lord WILLOUGHBY DE ERESBY, from Grantham, in favour of the Prisoners' Defence Bill. By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE, the Earl of RADNOR, and Viscount MELBOURNE, from a Number of Places, in favour of,—and by the Dukes of CUMBERLAND, WELLINGTON, BEAUFORT, Marquesses of SALISBURY and AYLESBURY, Earls of HAREWOOD, BROWNLOW, DEVON, HADDINGTON, OXFORD, ABINGDON, DE GREY, and Lords DVNEVOR, PRUDHOE, ASHIBURTON, SKELMERSDALE, STUART DE ROTHSAY, and a NOBLE LORD, from a great Number of Places, against the Municipal Corporations' Bill.

CORPORATIONS—PETITION.
The Earl of Falmouthpresented a Petition from Truro, against the Corporation Reform Bill, and would take that opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation of what had fallen from him yesterday as to the borough
1126
of Weymouth and Meleombe Regis. He found it stated in the public prints that he had said that the Corporation of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis had the administration of funds amounting to 30,000 l. a year. He wondered how the mistake could have been made, for he had read the statements from a printed paper. He should now beg leave to read it again. The noble Earl read a statement which in substance set forth that the Corporators were the Trustees of several charitable funds, some of which had been managed by themselves, and some by other persons for more than two hundred years, that the Bill was about to interfere with this trust property, which could not properly be done unless with the consent of the representatives of the donors. He had said nothing whatever about 30,000 l. a year. He had pointed out. the mistake of the Commissioners, which in charity he hoped was unintentional, as to the election of Mayor of the borough. It was stated by the Commissioners, that the election was made by thirty-six corporators from four persons presented by the Aldermen. Now, the fact was, that the election was made by the Aldermen from four persons presented to the Corporation by the 1,500 householders and inhabitants of the borough.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that the statement of yesterday as to Melcombe Regis and Weymouth having been this day repeated by the noble Earl, he begged leave to take that opportunity of showing that the noble Earl himself was under a mistake as to what the Commissioners said on the subject of that borough. The noble Earl had stated that the Report of the Commissioners misrepresented the mode of the election of the Mayor of Weymouth. Having heard that statement, he had the curiosity to refer to the Report, and there he found the noble Earl's mistake. The Report stated, that the election was by the Corporation from four names presented to the Mayor and Aldermen, and by reference to the account of the Corporation itself it appeared that the. Corporation consisted of the Mayor and Aldermen, and burgesses and inhabitants, so that in fact, the Report stated that which the noble Earl now declared the fact.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, that he. had looked into the Report, and that having looked into it, he was saved from saying any thing of the trash it contained—and much trash it did contain; but his

1127
attention had been particularly called to a statement of the mismanagement of certain trust estates at Truro by the Corporation of that town. He found it stated in the Report, under the head of charities, that the members of the Corporation were the trustees for several charitable funds, the total income of which was 125 l. 19 s. 4d. and that a portion of the property was let on leases for terms of years. This was the statement. Then came the "Observations," which were to the effect, that it appeared that the amount of the reserved rent for the charities was 6l. 9s. 3d., but the amount of the rents received was 334 l. 10 s.; that the Corporation had paid the amount of the reserved rent to these charities, but that they had applied the rents otherwise received to other purposes. Now the fact was, that they were not trustees for several charities, but for one charity. That trust was erected in 1792, for the maintenance of an hospital, in which ten poor widows were to be maintained from that time forward. The lands for the support of this hospital had been let on lease; the trustees might run out the existing leases, but then they must have starved the poor widows, and therefore they continued those leases in existence. The whole reserved rents amounted to 125 l.; from other sources about 12 l. more were derived, making the whole a sum of 137 l. 19 s. 4d. The cost of the ten widows had been about 124 l. which, with some other small charges, left a balance of 12 l. 15 s. and some odd pence. The necessary repairs of the hospital had cost a sum of 20 l., so that the Corporation was rather in advance than otherwise, and there was no charge whatever made for the management of the funds. The hospital was extremely well kept so as to be an object with the best class of poor widows. These were the facts of the case, and he asked their Lordships whether twenty-four men of fortune and of high character, such as were the members of the Corporation of Truro, whether they were to submit to go down to posterity in a record of this nature as persons who mismanaged a charitable trust. He hoped that this calumniated body of Gentlemen would have an opportunity of being heard at their Lordships' Bar in their own defence.
Viscount Strangfordrose in pursuance of notice to present a Petition from the Mayor, Bailiffs, and commonalty of the city of Coventry, under their common
1128
seal, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill for regulating Municipal Corporations in England and Wales. He would not trouble their Lordships with any expression of his own sentiments respecting either the principle or the provisions of the Bill. He would confine himself to a brief statement of the grounds on which the Corporation of Coventry claimed that which he thought their Lordships could hardly deny them—an opportunity of showing how grievously their rights, privileges, and property, were affected by its enactments. It was mainly a question of property, and it was not their Lordships' practice to dispose of such questions without affording a fair hearing to those whose interests were concerned in them. The Petitioners were seized in fee-simple of large estates, of which a great portion had been acquired by purchase. These possessions, together with certain rights, privileges, and immunities, were secured to them by a long series of charters from the Crown. They also held very extensive estates on trust for purposes of charity and education, and for the maintenance and support of the Established religion, which had been vested in them, from time to time, by members of their own body, or others, and secured to them by an Act of Parliament, by various decrees of Courts of Equity, and by a decision of that very House of Parliament, acting in its judicial capacity. Their administration of these estates, had elicited the most honourable testimony from the Commissioners of public charities, after an inquiry of several months, although that testimony was singularly—he would say suspiciously—suppressed in the Report of the Municipal Commissioners, one half of that Report being neither more nor less than a transcript of the previous Report made by the Commissioners of public charities. Now, by the Bill before the House, all the rights and privileges growing out of the possession and occupation of these estates, and solemnly guaranteed to the petitioners, in the manner which he had described, were to be swept away, without any previous proceeding having been instituted in any one of his Majesty's Courts of Law, for any malversation in the discharge of their corporate duties, or in the exercise of their corporate rights. The Aldermen and members of the Council of Coventry, were, moreover, elected for life; and under the foundation deed, and

1129
under the sanction of a decree of that House, they were entitled during life to certain annual payments for their management of the trust estates. They were also Justices of the Peace for life, ex officio, for the county and city of Coventry; and of this property and of these honours they were to be despoiled by the Bill before the House, in violation of that immutable maxim of law which says, that no degradation or ouster from office or estate, corporate or private, can take place without process, founded on inquiry, in some one of his Majesty's superior Courts of Law. The Petitioners held their chartered rights, dignities, and privileges by a tenure precisely analogous to that by which their Lordships' held their own rights and privileges, and enjoyed their own titles and honours. The Bill before the House went absolutely to confiscate every species of property held by the Corporation of Coventry. It despoiled them of the estates which they held in fee-simple, and without condition; and with respect to the estates which they held in trust for charitable and religious purposes, and for the sole and exclusive benefit of the freemen, it diverted that property into other hands, to whom the donors never meant to confide it, and that too, without a scintilla of proof of violated trust, and, what was more without the concurrence, and even without the knowledge of the parties to whom such estates would pass by operation of law, whenever the class of persons for whose benefit the trusts had been created should cease to exist. He would not then enter at length into the case of another description of persons whose privileges were invaded, in truth, annihilated, by this Bill. He meant the freemen of Coventry. They certainly did not appear by this petition, but their rights were so involved in, and derived from those of the Corporation from which the petition proceeded, that he must take that opportunity of stating that, by the provisions of the Bill, the important right of acquiring the freedom of Coventry would hereafter be utterly extinguished and abolished, to the manifest injury of upwards of 2,000 young men, who were then serving under indentures of apprenticeship, and who had contracted the engagements by which they were bound on the faith that, at the expiration of their term of servitude, their diligent, and in their humble station, their
1130
honourable exertions, would earn for them not only a participation in those valuable rights of property to which he had already referred, but also the, to them, still dearer and prouder privilege of the elective franchise in their native city. Such was the regard shown by the Bill to the principle of that celebrated "fixed settlement," called the Reform Act, that its inevitable operation would be, that when the existing race of freemen should cease to be, the number of electors for Coventry would be reduced from 3,600 to something under 1,500. So much for the boasted principle of the Reform Bill, as aided, and brought, forth, and extended to the provisions of the Bill for regulating Corporations in England and Wales. He had endeavoured to confine his observations on this petition as much as possible to the mere question of property, because he was sensible that it was upon that ground that its claim to their Lordships' attention was principally founded. There was, however, another point of a somewhat different nature, to which, in justice to the case of the petitioners, he was bound to advert. They had placed him in a condition to show their Lordships, and they were themselves prepared to prove at the Bar, that the evidence on which the House was proceeding to consider that Bill of pains and penalties against them—the Bill which robbed them of their property, and their fellow-citizens of their dearest and most precious rights—was, to use the least offensive terms that he could devise, mutilated, imperfect, and founded on biased, unfair, distorted and partial statements. He would add no more, hoping that he had said enough, to induce their Lordships to abide by constant practice and precedent, and to grant to the petitioners a fair, full, and candid hearing, against a measure which subverted all their rights of property, of which their Lordships had ever been the faithful, and he trusted ever would be the fearless protectors.
Lord Broughamsaid, I know not whether my noble Friend intends or not to follow up the petition with a Motion at this moment that the petitioners be heard by counsel against the Bill, but he must allow me to tell him that if he will look at the 67th section of the Bill, he will see sufficient to show him that these petitioners have quite misunderstood the measure against which they call on your Lordships

1131
to allow them to be heard by counsel. One part of the complaint of these petitioners is, that all their property is to be confiscated —that is, it is to be treated exactly as your Lordships treated the property of all the Scotch boroughs, without a division on the matter, just two years ago. [The Earl of Haddington: not without opposition,] Ay, I know that the noble Lord was not gratified by what then took place; but I speak to your Lordships, not to the noble Lord alone; I am not using an argumentum ad hominem, much as I esteem the man. It is easy to say, but the abler his resistance was, and the stronger his case, the worse did your Lordships treat the Scotch boroughs, for your Lordships I did not even take the trouble to divide on the Question. The petitioners call this confiscation, I say it is restoration and the confiscation which your Lordships are charged with committing when you passed the Bill in 1833 is the same sort of confiscation which your Lordships are in the habit of committing every time that you sit as Judges in this House, when one man by fraud gets possession of property, and you take it from him and give it to the rightful owner. It is the same sort of confiscation which my noble and learned Friend (turning to Lord Plunket) commits in like cases in the Court of Chancery in Ireland—it is the same sort of confiscation which I was in the habit of committing for four years, wanting one day, in the Court of Chancery in England, and it is the same sort of confiscation which my right hon. and learned Friend, the Vice-Chancellor—to whom I might appeal as he is here, but that I am sorry to say, though here, he has not the privilege of answering my appeal—it is the same sort of fraud which his Honour the Vice-Chancellor is in the habit of committing when upon an information for the abuse of charitable funds, he pronounces a decree, declaring the true and proper uses of the trust property. The petitioners call this the confiscation of the property—we call it, in equity, the restoration of the property to the right owners. I should have said nothing about this matter at present, but should have reserved my observations for the discussion of the Bill itself, but that this is a grave charge thus to be brought against the Bill by the petitioners. They state, that they are now the holders of a large property, left by pious individuals for charitable uses, and that this Bill is now
1132
proceeding to lay hands upon it to confiscate it, and to apply it to different uses from those to which it was originally destined. Now, let my noble Friend, and your Lordships, hear the sixty-seventh Clause. The noble and learned Lord here read the Clause, to the following effect;—"And be it enacted in every borough in which the body corporate or any one or more of the members now stands seised or possessed for any estate interest whatsoever of and in any hereditament, the council of such borough shall nominate from among the burgesses persons of whom the Mayor for the time being shall be one, who shall be charitable trustees for such borough, and shall be one body corporate, shall have perpetual succession, and shall stand seised and possessed of the said hereditaments, sums of money, and securities for money, and other personal estates, for such uses and trusts respectively as they were subject to before the passing of this Act." I am one of those who think that in this part of the measure some further guards may possibly be necessary, and I have given the best proof that I think so by having brought in a Bill which now stands for a second reading in your Lordships' House, and which the noble Lord in the other House has said, might, with his consent, go on step by step with the present measure, and with reference to which I will venture to say, with the utmost positiveness, that it will prevent in future the happening of one-twentieth of those abuses which have before now happened under the old Corporations and the old Corporation management.
The Petition was laid on the table.

CORPORATION REFORM—COUNSEL.
Viscount Strangfordmoved, that the Petitioners from Coventry be heard by Counsel at the Bar, in support of their privileges, and in opposition to some of the allegations in the Report of the Commissioners of Municipal Inquiry. The noble Lord complained of the manner in which the Bill would dispose of particular kinds of property, which had been bequeathed to Corporations for charitable purposes. He alluded in particular to Sir Thomas White's estates, which had been given for the benefit of the Freemen of Coventry, but which under the operation of this Bill, would be diverted to uses totally at variance with the intention of the donor.
Viscount Melbournesuggested to their Lordships, that it would be utterly impossible for them to concur in the Motion of the noble Lord who had just sat down, because that Motion was consistent neither with precedent, reason, nor principle. If the Report of the Commissioners, against which the petitioners desired to be heard, imputed any misconduct to the borough of Coventry in particular, he was perfectly ready to admit that the case would be a proper one in which to hear Counsel. But this was a measure founded, not upon the malfeasance of any particular corporation, but upon one broad, fixed, and general principle, applicable alike to all corporations. It was a general Bill, founded upon a general principle, for the general advantage of the country. It was a Bill similar to that which their Lordships had formerly passed for the disfranchisement of 40 s. freeholders in Ireland, and with respect to which it was not deemed necessary that Counsel should be heard at the Bar. It was a Bill similar to that which was passed a few years since for the general Reformation of the Representation of the People throughout the kingdom—a Bill disfranchising many, enfranchising others, depreciating the value of the property of some, enhancing the value of the property of others—destructive of power and authority here, communicative of power and authority there—and yet that Bill, effecting so many changes, and variously affecting so many various interests, was passed by both branches of the Legislature without any Counsel having been heard, or any such proposition as that of the noble Viscount (Strangford) being made; or if made, not for a moment listened to. He might advert, indeed, to another Bill, more immediately applicable to the Bill then under consideration, than either of the two measures to which he had already adverted—he meant the Bill which was passed towards the close of the Session of 1833, for Reforming the whole of the Corporations of Scotland. By that Bill, important interests, and an immense mass of commercial property in the great towns—such as Edinburgh and Glasgow—were very materially affected, yet no Counsel was heard; no such motion as that of the noble Viscount was made; nor if made, would it have been listened to. Upon those general grounds, he submitted to their Lordships that there was no pre-
1134
tence whatever for hearing Counsel in the present case. There could be no pretence whatever for adopting such a course, unless, indeed, it were their Lordships' wish and intention to defeat the Bill by delay. If it were their Lordships' intention to defeat the Bill by delay, then they might hear Counsel; but if they had no such intention—if they meant to give the measure a bona fide consideration—if they meant to give it fair play—if they meant to give it that calm and considerate attention which its importance, and the anxiety of the whole country with respect to it demanded—they would not pursue such a course as that which the noble Viscount had called upon them to adopt. "I respect," continued his Lordship, "I respect your Lordships—I respect your authority—I respect your dignity—I respect the position you occupy relative to the constitution. Your dignity is well assured, and your power is well settled; but the power, and dignity, and authority of no body of men, either in these or in any other times, was ever so settled and secured as to enable them with impunity to trifle with the popular opinion." He implored their Lordships, therefore, not to listen to the Motion which had been made by the noble Viscount, but to go fairly, and without delay, into the consideration of the Bill. The noble Viscount had made a great many observations with respect to the Reform Bill, and to the diversion of the funds of charities to other purposes than those to which they were originally intended. The noble Viscount said, that Sir Thomas White's charity was vested in the freemen of Coventry, and in justice could be extended to no others. But supposing that the freemen of Coventry ought to be abolished in other respects, did the noble Viscount mean to say, that they ought to be kept up for the purpose of enjoying Sir Thomas White's charity. Surely their Lordships would not say, that to fulfil the will of a donor they were bound to maintain that which was acknowledged or found to be an abuse? If their Lordships were to accede to the noble Lord's proposition, it would be impossible to tell to what an extent it might be carried; because, if it were once admitted that one corporation had a right, to be heard, all would claim to be heard, and thus it would be rendered impossible to carry the Bill through during the present Session. If their Lordships intended

1135
to put an end to the measure in that way, they would accede to the motion: if they had a bona fide intention of fairly discussing it, they would not for a moment listen to such a motion.
The Duke of Wellingtonagreed with the noble Lord who had just spoken, that nothing would be more unbecoming or unworthy of that House than to trifle with the property or privileges of any class of the community, or to attempt, by vexatious delay, to defeat any measure that might be submitted to their consideration. But never was there an occasion on which such an imputation as that thrown out by the noble Lord was more unfounded, or more undeserved; for if ever there was a question on which any body of men seemed disposed to move with all the celerity that circumstances would admit of, it was the question then under their Lordships' consideration. In point of fact, the evidence upon which they had to proceed in legislating upon the subject, had only for a few days (at least the greater part of it) been upon their Lordships' Table, and he would venture to say, that not one in ten of their Lordships had perused more than a very small portion of that which had been produced. He had not the smallest desire to delay the second reading of the Bill, or any of the future proceedings upon the subject. Nay, if the noble Lord had not made such a charge upon that side of the House, he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to come forward with a proposition with respect to the hearing of Counsel, which, in his opinion, would have precluded the possibility of any delay, whilst at the same time full justice would be done to all parties. The noble Lord (Melbourne) began by stating, that this was a measure of general policy and not a measure embodying separate and distinct charges against individual boroughs. He (the Duke of Wellington) admitted it was a measure of general policy, but it was a measure of general policy founded upon the Reports laid upon their Lordships' Table, and of the truth of which the parties, in many instances, complained and desired that their Lordships would be pleased to hear their complaints. The noble Lord had been pleased to compare this transaction with another transaction in respect of the 40 s. freeholders of Ireland. The noble Lord forgot that the offer had been made for the disfranchise-
1136
ment of the 40 s. freeholders, on certain conditions, not less than two or three years before the measure by which they were actually disfranchised was carried. Neither did the noble Lord state that it was admitted, in the discussions in that House upon the Report, that the 40 s. freeholders were useless, nay injurious, as members of the electoral body. That being the case, it was natural enough that they should not be heard by Counsel. With respect to the Reform Bill, it was perfectly true that many persons had been injured in their property, in consequence of the adoption of that Bill; and it was also true, that many, very many interests had been entirely set aside by it; and although Counsel were not heard upon that Bill, any more than on the case of the Irish 40 s. freeholders, and the Scotch Corporations' Bill, the noble Lord (Melbourne) should not forget that there were other measures, having as strict an affinity to the present Bill as any he had mentioned, upon which Counsel were heard. For instance, in the case of the Bill for the Abolition of Heritable Jurisdictions in Scotland, Counsel were heard on the second reading, and on the Question for going into Committee. In the present instance he (the Duke of Wellington) was prepared to offer to the noble Lord (Melbourne), in order to create no delay, supposing the House to agree to the second reading, that Counsel should be heard on the Question for going into Committee; and he (the Duke of Wellington) was perfectly ready to proceed with the discussion the very day after the second reading should be disposed of. He must say, therefore, that the charge which had been made against any body of persons in that House having an intention to defeat the measure by delay, was unjust and uncalled for; and he must go further, and say that it was not quite founded upon the fact. As to going into Committee on the Bill, it could not be expected that any one would be prepared to do so, for some few days to come. To hear Counsel, therefore, previous to going into Committe, would, in fact, be to create no delay whatever.
Lord Broughamwas sure no person felt more strongly than he did the impropriety of any such charge against that House as that to which the noble Duke had alluded; but if he rightly heard his noble Friend, (Lord Melbourne) he rather

1137
thought that his noble Friend particularly endeavoured, fruitlessly, as it would seem, to guard himself against the very charge which the noble Duke had brought against him, because he expressly said, that he would impute no such desire to their Lordships as that of defeating the measure by delay, but that he wished to warn their Lordships not by any act of theirs, to induce the people out-of-doors to suppose that they were actuated by such a desire. But, passing from that point, he begged for a moment to call their Lordships' attention to what the result would be, if such a motion as that of the noble Lord opposite (Strangford) were carried. If it should succeed, every corporation in the kingdom would set up its right to be heard by Counsel, and if the right were acknowledged in one instance, it must necessarily be acknowledged in all. Coventry had no greater claim to be heard than Liverpool, or Warwick, or Maidstone, or any other of the corporate towns of the kingdom whose interests would be affected by that Bill. Sir Thomas White's was not the only charity in which corporate bodies had an interest. There was Smith's charity, and the Bedford charity, in each of which precisely the same claims might be put forward. Already there were twenty towns claiming to be heard by Counsel; accede to the present proposition, and by the end of another week there would be two hundred. In each of those two hundred cases at least two Counsel would be employed, and thus not only would the House have to listen to four hundred speeches, of the duration of each of which two hours might be taken as a short average, but there would also be all the details of evidence obtained from perhaps as many as a thousand witnesses. It was clear, therefore, that their Lordships must either make their own sittings perpetual, or else reject such a proposition as that which the noble Lord (Strangford) had brought forward. There certainly was one arrangement under which it would be possible, and perhaps advantageous, that Counsel should be heard. If all the parties opposed to the Bill would consent to consolidate their opposition under one banner—select two Counsel to conduct their case, and agree to abide by the result of the argument which those two Counsel should be enabled to advance against it; he was not aware that there would be any objection to the
1138
adoption of such a course. If, for instance, Sir Charles Wetherell and Mr. Knight, two of the most eminent men at the bar, should be selected to conduct the argument, and should be admitted to their Lordships' Bar to oppose the principle of the Bill, he was quite sure that any particular corporation would be very foolish in afterwards expressing a wish to be heard separately; because if those learned and accomplished gentlemen could not convince their Lordships by the arguments which they should advance upon the subject, he did not know who could. To such an arrangement he (Lord Brougham) should not be opposed; but he did most peremptorily object to the Motion then under the consideration of the House, because it seemed calculated by a side-wind to get rid of the whole subject.
The Earl of Riponhad heard with satisfaction the manner in which the noble and learned Lord had vindicated their Lordships from the charge that there existed on their part any desire to interpose any unreasonable or unjustifiable delay in the early and immediate consideration of the Bill. For his own part, he (Lord Ripon) thought that nothing would be more unbecoming, more absurd, or less creditable, than the adoption of such a course; but it did not follow from that, that there might not be circumstances in the case which would make it advisable and just for their Lordships to give some hearing to the petitioners who appeared before them; and he had, therefore, heard with great satisfaction the suggestions thrown out by the noble and learned Lord (Brougham), by which, as it seemed to him, justice might be done without the interposition of any inconvenient delay. If, indeed, the effect of the proposition made by his noble Friend on the right (Lord Strangford) were to be that they should hear Counsel from every borough which should petition against the Bill, it must be obvious that the labours of the House must be interminable. But it appeared to him that there would be no improper delay, if they were to accede to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord, which, judging from what had fallen from the noble Duke, would not be objected to by him. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would be induced to adopt that proposition. But if it were right and practicable to take that course with respect to the principle of the Bill, he thought it would

1139
be equally right and equally practicable to do the same with regard to those peculiar objections on which so many of the petitioners relied. It appeared to him to be of the utmost importance that those parts of the Bill should be argued which affected, not the political rights, but the pecuniary interests of the parties.
The Earl of Falmouthagreed with the noble Lord who had just sat down, in the distinction which he had drawn between the hearing of Counsel merely on the principle of the Bill, and the hearing of them on those particular parts of it which affected individual interests. Why were the petitioners to be deprived of the right of being heard in opposition to the charges which had been brought against them? They were British subjects—they had a right to be heard; but, said the noble Viscount (Melbourne), "We have nothing to do with the charges contained in the Report—we legislate generally." That might be true enough; but in point of common sense and common reason, he asked, on what was the Bill founded? Was it not founded on the Report of the Commissioners, setting forth the very charges of Which the petitioners complained? With respect to the evidence taken before the Commissioners, he could not speak of it with any patience. He had looked into that evidence, and he would venture to say, that a mass of grosser exaggeration and misrepresentation never disgraced the table of a legislative assembly. He was willing to accede to the proposition of limiting the opposition to the principle of the Bill to the argument of two Counsel; but he still thought that the petitioners had a right to be heard upon those points which affected their individual interests.
The Duke of Newcastlethought, that if the House wished to do justice to those whom it proposed to disfranchise, it ought first to hear them; and, in his opinion, the parties ought to be heard before the principle of the Bill was recognized by their Lordships, as it would be after the measure had been read a second time.
Lord Wharncliffeobserved, that the last portion of the observations which had fallen from the noble Viscount at the head of his Majesty's Government, certainly held out a threat against the rights, privileges, and independence of that House. It was too clear not to strike every one of their Lordships, and he was sure it would
1140
be equally obvious out of doors. An attack was made by the Bill on the actual property of the Corporations who were affected by it; and, in his opinion, they had an unequivocal right to be heard in defence of that property. Delay was by no means his object, and he was quite aware that if Counsel were to be heard in every case, it would be a virtual defeat of the Bill. But he thought that they might all be called upon to state their cases, and that their Lordships might then determine what cases should be defended by Counsel. That would save the appearance of denying the right, and yet would not waste their Lordships' time. He rather wished that his noble Friend near him had postponed his proposition until after the second reading of the Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that nothing could have induced him to present himself to their Lordships that night, but his deep sense of the injustice and unconstitutional nature of the measure, which, if passed into a law, would affect all existing privileges, all property, and all existing rights, from those of the Crown itself down to those of the lowest subject connected with it. He could offer to his fellow-countrymen no stronger proof of his desire faithfully to discharge his duty by them, and to guard their rights and privileges, which were as dear to them as his own were to him (Lord Winchilsea), than his having been induced to appear among their Lordships that evening, and thereby showing the sincerity of the advice he had so often urged there and elsewhere—namely, that every Englishman must consider that the time had come when private feeling must yield to public duty. Never, in his opinion, had their Lordships, who stood the guardians of property and of the public peace, to discharge so important a duty as at present. From the bottom of his heart he could say, that if the Bill went only to the extent of communicating additional rights and privileges, upon constitutional grounds, to a great portion of his countrymen—if the measure, going further, went only to correct the abuses which had crept into the management of property, he would give it his most cordial support. He found, indeed, that these two principles were, to a certain extent, embraced in the measure, but it contained others to which he never could assent. He never could consent that any class of his fellow-

1141
countrymen should be deprived of privileges which were relatively of as much value to them as those he enjoyed were to himself. They were called too to alter the tenure of property, and they were asked to make this change without any other evidence excepting that of the Report laid on the Table—the Report on which the Bill was founded—the Report against the allegations in which the petitioners prayed to be heard. Allusion had been made to the 40 s. freeholders; he had voted in their favour, and was therefore not acting inconsistently now in raising his voice in favour of justice, and a fair trial for the freemen. Certainly he should divide the House, unless the noble Viscount (Melbourne) pledged himself that he would not unnecessarily destroy any of the existing rights and privileges in esse or in posse. He had been anxious to record his opinions on this occasion, and was thankful to their Lordships for bearing him.
Lord Broughamthought, that something like the course which he was about to suggest might enable their Lordships to do justice without subjecting themselves to any undue imputations. It was founded on a precedent in 1808, when a measure having been brought into Parliament affecting the interests of five great trading communities, viz., Liverpool, Manchester, Hull, London, and Birmingham, those communities agreed to consolidate their claims, and to be heard by one counsel. He (Lord Brougham) was the counsel employed; and he remembered that he occupied only about two hours of their Lordships' time, and only about three hours of the time of the other House of Parliament. A similar precedent might be found in 1746, the year after the rebellion. What he suggested was, that the Bill should be read a second time, sub silentio, if their Lordships pleased; and that the Committee should be put off until a period when Counsel might be prepared to attend.
The Duke of Cumberlandhad no objection to such a proposition, if it were distinctly understood that their Lordships did not concede the principle of the Bill by acceding to it; but that the principle of the Bill should be still open to discussion on the Report, or on the third reading. He by no means wished for delay; he was only anxious that justice should be done.
Lord Lyndhurstdid not understand that the petitioners wished to be heard by
1142
Counsel against the general principle of the Bill; he understood that they wished to be heard against the charges which the Bill contained against them. [Viscount Melbourne: There are no such charges in the Bill.] Why, the noble Viscount could not have read the Bill. "And, whereas, partly by defects in the Charters by which the said bodies corporate have been constituted, partly by neglect and abuse of the privileges by such Charters granted and confirmed to the inhabitants of the said cities, towns, and boroughs, and partly by change of circumstances since the said Charters were granted, the said bodies corporate for the most part have not of long time been, and are not now, useful and efficient instruments of local Government." Charges of abuse against the different Corporations, therefore, formed one of the foundations of this Bill. He understood that the parties now desirous of being heard by Counsel at the Bar did not wish to argue against the principle of the Bill, but to disprove these charges, and it was material that they should be permitted to do so, as the Bill did not apply to all Corporations. The petitioners said, that the evidence adduced in support of these charges was garbled—that they were desirous of exculpating themselves, and they prayed the House that, they might be at liberty to bring forward evidence in support of their case. This was the petitioners' object, and to it he should call their Lordships' attention, in the hope that some understanding might be come to as to what Counsel it was necessary to hear. If the House should decide that Counsel were not to be heard against the principle of the Bill, then they ought to be allowed to reserve their observations to the going into Committee. One of the objections urged against hearing Counsel at the Bar on this Bill was, that so much time would be occupied by their arguments. Now, here was a great sweeping measure, affecting 240 Corporations, If only one of these Corporations were sought to be affected, it was admitted on all hands that in justice that Corporation ought to be allowed to defend itself, but now, on this sweeping measure, not one of them was to enjoy that privilege. If the House determined upon hearing Counsel, it would then be their Lordships' duty to decide as to what extent they ought to be heard. In the case of the borough of Coventry

1143
the petitioners did not wish to be heard against the general principle of the Bill, but solely for the purpose of disproving the charges brought against them. He had had some communication with those petitioners, and they had told him certain facts which, if they could be substantiated, would cover with disgrace a particular Gentleman, in whose Report the charges made against them were found.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, petitions had been presented from about six or eight Corporate bodies, wishing to be heard against this Bill by Counsel; and Bristol and Liverpool, as wishing to be heard against the Bill by their Recorders. If the House were pleased to accede to the proposition for hearing two Counsel on the whole case, the Bill might be read a second time now, and the Motion for going into a Committee be fixed for some day in the latter end of the week, on which day the Counsel might be called to the Bar.
Lord Ellenboroughcould understand how the different parties might agree to be heard by two Counsel against the general principle of the Bill; but could not understand how they could agree to be heard by two Counsel against its numerous and distinct details.
Viscount Melbournerose to say a few words in explanation of the observations he had before made, and to answer the remarks of some of the noble Lords opposite. Their Lordships would recollect, that when he last spoke he had not heard the statement of the noble Duke, and all that he would now say, was, that several petitions having been presented, a noble Lord (Viscount Strangford) got up, and made a Motion that the petitioners be heard at the Bar by Counsel. He, therefore, contended that he was perfectly justified in saying that if noble Lords resorted to the same course on all the other petitions the present measure would be smothered. Such a course would have another effect. He had not addressed any threat to their Lordships, as he had been charged with doing, out he would admit that he had addressed a strong admonition—an admonition which he should always consider himself bound to address to their Lordships when he saw them likely to fall into that which he thought would be prejudicial to the House and prejudicial to the interests of the country. The noble Duke himself some-
1144
times addressed very strong admonitions to him (Viscount Melbourne), respecting the course which he, as a Minister of the Crown, thought proper to pursue. He was always glad to receive, and he always received with the greatest deference any opinion of the noble Duke; but, at the same time, he thought he had a right to address noble Lords in the same strain of Counsel and advice. His opinion on this question still remained the same as he had expressed it at an earlier part of the debate. He could not deny but that there might certainly be cases on which Counsel ought to be allowed to observe, and if Counsel were to be heard at all, he was extremely anxious to agree to any feasible plan that might be come to on the subject. Counsel might be heard in behalf of those Corporations which had already presented their petitions, but could the House in justice merely confine itself to those? If it should so resolve all the other boroughs would be discontented, and say that they had just as good a right to be heard on the subject. He was perfectly willing to admit that the object of noble Lords' opposition was not to delay this Bill, but the carrying of the present Motion would certainly have the effect of procrastinating or impeding its progress. He again repeated that he was most anxious to come to an agreement on the subject.
The Earl of Mansfieldsaid, that if the noble Viscount was only inclined to do justice, there was not the slightest wish on his opponents side for procrastination. But they contended, that in all cases in which the interests of individuals, or of communities were involved, no legislative measure ought to be adopted without, in the first place, affording the parties concerned an opportunity of stating and proving in what manner they were unjustly affected by it. The petitioners in the present case claimed to be heard against the Bill, not in its legislative character, but as affecting them in its details, which they characterized as partial and unjust. They declared that they had reason to complain of the ground on which, according to the preamble of the Bill, they were charged with neglect and abuse; and prayed to be allowed to defend themselves by Counsel against the imputation; nay, to support that defence by evidence; nay, to show also that the manner in which the evidence in the Report of the Commissioners had been obtained was irregular and

1145
partial. Under such circumstances he was at a loss to understand how their Lordships could say to Counsel, "You are at liberty to argue against the principle of the Bill, but you must not touch upon its details." Considering, however, that there was a Committee from the several Corporations now sitting in London, he thought that that Committee might advantageously compress their claims into a single statement, and then intrust the advocacy of them to two Counsel; and he hoped there would be no addition to the number of Corporations requiring to be heard by Counsel, although if there were, he could not see how their Lordships could impose any limit.
The Earl of Harewoodcould not see how it would be possible for Counsel to avoid touching on the particular interests of particular places. That would certainly lead to delay; but it would only be that delay which would be just, and which the Corporate bodies affected by the Bill had a right to expect. The House would, he was persuaded, do its duty by endeavouring to protect the people from a violent and unprecedented measure, required by no necessity whatever. With respect to what had been said by the noble Viscount respecting admonitions, it should be considered that an admonition from one noble Lord to another, and an admonition from a noble Lord—and that noble Lord at the head of his Majesty's Government—addressed to the whole House, were two very different things.
Lord Plunkettbegged leave to refer the House to a precedent which had not yet been cited. The precedent of the Reform Bill had been objected to. It had been said, that in the present case the property was vested in individuals, and that on public grounds, the property being so vested, these individuals ought not to be deprived of it without being heard. He (Lord Plunkett) begged to refer the House to a case in which one hundred Corporations, which possessed property infinitely more valuable than that to be affected by the present Bill, had been actually disfranchised, not certainly by that House, but by the Irish Parliament, at the time of the Union—a Union which he trusted in God was to be considered as a final and irrevocable measure. In the case of the Union one hundred Corporations, sending two hundred Members to the Irish Parliament, were disfranchised, and none of them
1146
were heard by Counsel. Was not that a case in point? He should be glad to know why it was not a case in point, and why it was not a precedent? His noble Friend (Viscount Melbourne) had distinctly declared, that he had held out no threat, but the noble Earl who had just sat down, had been pleased to say that there was a great distinction between an admonition addressed to an individual, and an admonition addressed to a body of men. He confessed, that he could see no distinction between the two cases; and, humble an individual as he was, he thought he had a right to offer his advice whenever he thought it would tend to the good of his country. He had heard with great satisfaction the speech of the noble Duke, and that of the, noble Lord opposite, who, however, were willing to recognize the unreasonable claim on behalf of the Corporators to be heard by Counsel. If such a claim were recognized, he saw no prospect of ever coming to a conclusion within any reasonable period of time. Every one of the boroughs to be affected by this Bill, as well as the borough of Coventry, would claim to have a right to be heard by Counsel, and an additional ground for complaint would be thus given, by refusing their petitions. It was said, that there were parties in town who represented the Corporations which objected to the Bill. If that were the case, what objection could there be to those persons naming Counsel to represent the whole of the Corporations? It would be said, that the arguments in favour of one borough would not apply to the others. That difficulty could be easily obviated by the Counsel making judicious arrangements by dividing their arguments into several heads, and by making the House understand that such observations had reference to such a class of boroughs. He did not desire, that the arguments should be confined merely to the principle of the Bill, but he thought that the Counsel ought to be permitted to touch upon particular points and facts, to show how and where they were in contradiction to the evidence on which the Report was founded.
Lord Fitzgeraldsaid, that he had not expected, that the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, would have drawn his arguments and based his proposition on certain Acts of Parliament which that very same noble and learned Lord had at one time described as the most indefensible

1147
of all the Acts of the Irish Parliament. He must repeat that he did not expect the noble and learned Lord would have had recourse to such a precedent. The noble and learned Lord had stated, that at the time of the Union, 100 Corporations were disfranchised, and that the Corporators were not heard by Counsel. Now, it perhaps might be sufficient for him (Lord Fitzgerald and Vesey) to show that no application was ever made to that effect. But, perhaps, it might be still more important for him to state that the measure was totally different from the present Bill. That measure was similar to the Reform Bill in principle, because it deprived a certain number of boroughs of the right of returning Members to Parliament; but no part of the enactment went to deprive the Corporations of their property, or to extend the Corporate rights to any individuals but those who had before enjoyed them. The noble and learned Lord would admit this to be the fact; but there was another circumstance which very easily accounted for the reason why the parties did not choose to offer any opposition to that measure. Joining, as he did, in the prayer of the noble and, learned Lord, that the measure of the Union would be final and, irrevocable—and believing, as he did, that both for this country and for Ireland there was no hope for security, peace for the empire, respect for the Sovereign, or safety for the subject, but in the preservation of that Union, he most earnestly prayed that that measure might remain undisturbed; but, at the same time, he must remind the noble and learned Lord, that a sum of 15,000 l. was given to every one of those Corporations—to reconcile them to their disfranchisement; and that in all probability would account for their not offering any opposition to the enactment in question. Having made these observations on the precedent cited by the noble and learned Lord as analogous to the question now before the House, he should only say, before sitting down, that he was most anxious that the petitioners should be heard in defence of their just claims; but if he considered this Motion only as a means of delay he should look upon such a means of defeating the Bill as most unworthy, and as a course to which he never would consent to be a party.
The Earl of Falmouthcould not consent to confine the hearing to such Corporations as had petitioned. It should be
1148
remembered, that some of the Corporate bodies were three or four hundred miles off, and that some time would elapse before they could be apprised of what had occurred.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that their Lordships would not be called upon to attend to any further petitions which might be presented from Corporate bodies, praying to be heard by Counsel; because the measure had been so long in agitation, that the various Corporations whose interests were affected by it, had had ample time to petition the House on the subject. He took it for granted, that a majority of that House were sufficiently convinced of the necessity of some measure of Corporate Reform. It was, therefore, evident—the principle of a measure of Corporate Reform being admitted—that no arguments of Counsel could induce the House not to allow the Bill to be read a second time. Whilst, then, he expressed it as his own opinion that there was no necessity that Counsel should be heard on the principle, he felt bound to admit the fairness of the proposition which had been made, and which seemed to meet with the approval of both sides, that two Counsel should be heard on the principle of the Bill, with reference to the representations contained in all the petitions already presented. But he considered it perfectly consistent with propriety, and conformable to the rules of the House, to grant the prayer of the petitions already presented, with regard to hearing Counsel, without acceding to that conveyed in any other petition which might hereafter be presented.
The Marquess of Londonderrywas of opinion, that they should first decide that Counsel were to be heard. After they had decided that, they might then determine as to the classification of the topics to which they (the Counsel) should address themselves.
The Earl of Haddingtonwas by no means disposed to have his own discretion tied up, and he should be very sorry that their Lordships should be tied up by any pledge that they would not grant the prayer of any petition which might hereafter be presented on this subject to that House. It was, he thought, natural to suppose that questions might arise, fresh matter might be stated, and new views taken, which their Lordships would be perfectly justified in taking into consideration, though not touched upon in any petitions.
The Earl of Wicklowwas not for shutting out the consideration of anything which might imperatively call for their Lordships' attention. All he had said was, that by granting to their full extent the prayers of the petitions which had been already presented with respect to the subjects to which Counsel should be allowed to address themselves, they would act in a way which was sanctioned by every principle of fairness and justice.
The Marquess of Salisburyperfectly concurred in the propriety of hearing only two Counsel with regard to the principle of the Bill, and hoped they would extend that indulgence as to the details of the measure, if a case of necessity were made out for their doing so.
Viscount Melbournefelt no hesitation in agreeing to the proposition that Counsel should be heard, it being of course distinctly understood that there should be a fair determination on the part of the House to proceed with the Bill as rapidly as possible, and to discountenance any unnecessary delay. The course, then, which he understood to be agreed to was this:—That on Thursday and Friday next, Counsel should be heard, with the hope that their speeches should be limited to these two days, and that on Monday the principle and details of the measure should be discussed on going into Committee.
Lord Broughamsuggested, that the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, which referred merely to the borough of Coventry, should be withdrawn. With respect to the hour at which their Lordships should meet on Thursday, he thought twelve o'clock would be a good hour, though he himself had no objection to meeting at the earlier hour of ten o'clock. There was one other point on which he wished to say a word, as it might be imagined, from what had that night occurred, that he had in any way differed from his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), or that he countenanced delay in the slightest degree by the proposition which he had submitted. The impression which he had originally formed was now, he found, turned into a certainly; for it was ascertained that the progress of the measure would be forwarded by the course now taken, because, instead of the Bill being now proposed for second reading, and the debate on it occupying to-night and to-morrow night, and the postponement of the Committee being (in conse-
1150
quence of the fatigue and weariness which would, no doubt, follow so protracted a discussion) determined to be moved to Tuesday or Wednesday, the Bill would, by the present arrangement, be committed as early as Monday.
The Duke of Wellingtondid not see that there was any necessity for his noble Friend's withdrawing his Motion respecting Coventry. He did not see that it at all interfered with the Motion that the Bill be read a second time. With regard to the second reading of the Bill, the course which should be adopted depended, of course, entirely on the feeling of their Lordships. If their Lordships wished that the second reading should pass without discussion, he had no objection to accede to that proposition, provided that it was clearly understood, that the principle of the Bill was not now agreed to, but reserved for discussion by Counsel. Without that reservation, he did not think it would be right to agree to the second reading of a Bill of such a nature, and not discuss the principle on which it was founded.
Lord Alvanleysaid, that he considered the discussion of the principle of the Bill for two days by Counsel would, be a perfect waste of time, and derogatory to the character of their Lordships' House. Surely his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) were perfectly competent to argue the principle of the measure.
Lord Broughamassured his noble Friend that, submitting the proposition which he had laid before the House, he did so from no anxiety to hear the arguments of Counsel. He had quite as great an aversion to them as the noble Lord possibly could have. Indeed he might be fairly supposed to be more sick of them than his noble Friend, inasmuch as he had, during his life, heard a greater number of them, But a great number of their Lordships, and the parties themselves whom this Bill affected, did not feel satisfied that the measure should be taken into consideration without Counsel being heard. Therefore, it was that he had approved the suggestion with reference to the hearing of Counsel. He understood, however, that these Counsel should be allowed to make two speeches, which were not to be confined to the principle of the Bill merely.
The Motion of Viscount Strangford was withdrawn.

CORPORATION REFORM—SECOND READING.
On the Motion of Viscount Melbourne the Bill was read a second time.
The Duke of Newcastlethen said, that he had a question to put to the noble Viscount opposite, which he considered of some importance. He was anxious to know whether the noble Viscount would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House, the Minute Book kept by the Court of Commissioners sitting in London. He had reason to believe, that the production of this Minute Book would relieve the House from the considerable difficulty arising from what he was going to call the blunders, but certainly from the mistakes contained in the Report of the Commissioners.
Viscount Melbourneanswered, that the Minute Book was kept merely with a view of managing and directing the affairs of the Board. He could not, therefore, agree to the production of such a document.
The Duke of Newcastleobserved, that he did not see why such a book should not be produced. There was a Clause in the Poor-law Act directing that a Minute Book should be kept, and all the proceedings of the Board should be entered into it. He wished to know, then, whether the noble Viscount would produce the Minute Book of the Corporation Commissioners. [Viscount Melbourne, "No!"] Well, then, let it go forth that the noble Viscount refuses to produce the document.
Bill to be committed.