Sitting of 1 July 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Inland Warehousing; Glass Duties; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Bills of Exchange.—Read a second time:—Bankrupts Liabilities; Pleadings in Court—Read a third time:—Bankrupts (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Sir John Seale, from Dartmouth, in favour of the County Courts Bill.—By Mr. Plumptre, from two places, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; from several places, against compelling Soldiers
1060
in India to attend Idolatrous Worship.—By Mr. Gillon, from Faikirk, against any further Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By Lord Grimston, from Hertford, for a Tax on Railroads.—By Messrs. Wallace, T. Duncombe, G. Knight, and Miles, from a number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Sir Stephen Lushington, from St. Christopher Nevis, for carrying into Execution the Measures which have passed the Legislature here, in the West Indies.—By Sir J. Y. Buller, and Messrs. G. Palmer, Cartwright, Hope, Clive, and Lockhart, from a number of places, against the Government plan for National Education.—By Sir J. Graham, from Glasgow University, for the Appointment of a Professor of the Gaelic Language.

ALLEGED INSULT TO THE BRITISH FLAG.
Lord Ingestriesaid, having been rather irregular the other evening in putting a question to the hon. Baronet, the Member for Sandwich, in reference to an outrage supposed to have been committed on the British Flag in the Mexican seas, he begged now to inquire either of that hon. Member, or of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Admiralty, first, whether the Admiralty had received any official communication of the fact of that outrage having occurred; and next, whether, supposing the statement of the papers to be true, the midshipman who was stated to have been ordered by Commodore Douglas to be reprimanded, had received such reprimand: and whether, if he had so received it, the Board of Admiralty concurred in the propriety of its infliction.
Mr. Charles Woodconceived the noble Lord to allude to a letter which appeared in the Times newspaper in the course of last week.—[Lord Ingestrie had read the account of the outrage in question in the Hampshire Advertiser.] The material point of the statement was, that shortly before the capture of Vera Cruz by the French, subsequent to the affair of the Express packet, and while her Majesty's ship Vestal was lying off Vera Cruz, with a British sloop in company, Captain Carter, of the Vestal, being senior officer, an English boat from the sloop, under command of a midshipman went on shore, and that a Mexican subject took refuge in the boat for protection, but was taken by force from thence by the French officer in command. The Admiralty, however, had received no account whatever of any such transaction, for a very good reason; because no such transaction had taken place. His attention had first been called to the subject by the question of the noble Lord on a former evening, and it at once appeared that if the dates given with the statement in the Hampshire Advertiser were correct, it was utterly impossible that

1061
the transaction in question could ever have occurred, because, at the time named, the Vestal was not at Vera Cruz. She arrived there on the 28th of December: this occurrence is said to have taken place on the 5th of December. He could have wished to have stopped here, as this answer would no doubt have been deemed satisfactory by the noble Lord and the House; but rather than lie under the imputation of concealing any circumstance known to him on the subject, he would give to the House a statement of some facts connected with it. For this statement, however, he could not personally vouch, having received it at second hand, as he might say, from an officer whom he had not since been able to see on the subject, he having been out of town. This statement was, that two British officers went out in a Mexican fishing boat to learn to catch turtles, when they chose to hoist the British ensign. This boat came among the French squadron, where the French guard boat was, when her commander took the Mexican out of the boat. Upon this, some representation was made by Captain Carter to the French Admiral, who said he would communicate with the commodore. Whether that communication took place or not, the Mexican who had been taken out of the boat was set at liberty within twenty-four hours. This he presumed to be the foundation for the story which had appeared in the papers. Whether that statement was correct or not he could not positively say. If it was, it was clear the English officers were in the wrong in hoisting the English flag in a Mexican fishing boat; and under such circumstances no Mexican could have claimed the protection of that flag. The commodore did not think it worth while to report this affair to the Admiralty at home, and the noble Lord, who had been so recently afloat, must be well aware that many irregularities might occur on foreign stations, which might be quite fit to be animadverted upon and reported upon, but which ought not to be brought before the House of Commons.
Lord Ingestriesaid, as to the rebuke which the hon. Secretary had given him for bringing the subject before the House, he had done so from having seen the accounts in the public organs, and therefore invested with some probability. In those accounts, it appeared that a subordinate officer, for doing what he deemed his
1062
duty, had been reprimanded by his superior. Was that a proper way of keeping up the discipline of the service? Hence it was he asked the question—and the more especially, since the present was the third instance which had occurred in that part of the world within six months. He was glad, however, to find that the Admiralty had received no account of such a transaction, and that the further stain did not rest upon the British flag. He had been actuated by no party motives in bringing forward this question; but merely the desire that a subordinate officer might not be unjustly reprimanded without public notice being taken of the fact.
Sir F. Burdett said, the country should feel indebted to his noble Friend for putting the question. The accounts referred to had appeared in very authentic public organs; and he trusted that no time would be lost by the Admiralty in making inquiry into the facts.

SHIPWRECKS.
Mr. G. Palmerwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade respecting a subject of vast importance involving the lives of British sailors; and as it was now getting late in the Session, he wished to press that subject the more earnestly upon the attention of her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a committee had sat to consider the means that should be taken to preserve the lives of seamen, and to prevent, if possible, the frequency of shipwrecks; that committee had made their report, which was laid on the Table of the House last Tuesday week, but he believed that the printer had not been able to send a copy to every Member yet. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had no doubt possessed a copy for some days, and he wished to ask him, therefore, whether he thought of bringing forward any measure upon this subject in the pressent Session?
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, the very state of things to which the hon. Gentleman alluded rendered it almost impossible that any measure could be proposed this Session. The report had been laid on the table, but not printed, and of course it was necessary that it should be circulated amongst the Members of that House, and that the important facts it contained should go forth to the public before they could well proceed to legislate on this subject. He very, greatly doubted, therefore, that

1063
it would be possible to bring forward any such measure this Session.

FACTORIES.
Mr. F. Maulemoved, that the House resolve into a committee on the Factories' Regulation Bill,
Mr. Wilson Pattenrose not for the purpose of prolonging any discussion before the House went into Committee, but for the sake of obtaining information by which his opinion, and the opinions of many other hon. Members, he thought, would be influenced in respect to this bill. Those who had looked into it must have seen that extraordinary powers—greater powers than the local magistracy possessed—were to be given to persons holding very subordinate situations under the inspectors; and those powers, he was convinced, would tend very much to injure the bill in its operation. Now he wished to enquire of the hon. Gentleman what salary he intended to give under the new bill to each of the sub-inspectors, and whether be would consent to increase the number of inspectors, with a larger salary to each, and to do away with the sub-inspectors altogether? He was convinced that the roaster manufacturers, who considered themselves rather hardly dealt with by this bill, wished that the inspectors should be persons of such authority that they should be above suspicion of collusion with themselves or with any other party.
Lord Stanley, before the hon. Gentleman answered the question proposed by his hon. Friend, perhaps might be allowed to say that he was satisfied that the Government would find this bill much facilitated if they gave a greater character of respectability—he did not mean mere personal respectability—but that which consisted in weight and authority also, to the inspectors rather than to adopt the plan of having sub-inspectors or superintendents. Setting aside the legislative powers to be given to the inspectors, for such they were, there were also great inquisitorial powers given to them, and such persons should be, as his hon. Friend had observed, above all suspicion, and they should be placed in that position, not only by their personal character, but by a proper salary. Not that he meant to say that an increase of salary would produce an increase of respectability, but he did not think that 350 l. a-year to cover all travelling and incidental expenses, was an income sufficient to place men beyond the temptations
1064
of bribery and a collusion with manufacturers to which they might be exposed. The manufacturers complained, and with great justice, without saying one word of the manner in which the inspectors discharged their duty at present, that their visits were only periodical, and that they were made at remote intervals, and therefore the inspectors could not have that effective control over their districts, which ought to accompany personal observation. It would be much better then, rather than giving to non-resident superintendents large salaries, to increase the number of inspectors, and to increase their salaries, and to take such methods as would give them a greater control over the factories. He would remind the Government that the manufacturers were not the only persons against whom they had to take precaution; but the natural feeling of the parents of the children were against the measure, and they were bent upon evading the provisions of the Act, because they felt that the employment of the children enabled them to eke out their weekly earnings, and thus in a small measure to improve their incomes. If it was intended to provide against an evasion of the law by both parties, there was but one chance of success, which was, that while the operation of the law was made stringent and effectual as to the protection of the workpeople, care should be taken to carry with the law the goodwill of the manufacturers. This could only be done by providing that the law, though stringent, should not be vexatious, and that those who carried the law into operation should be persons of influence and station, and that the manufacturers should not be made subject to officers of a subordinate or inferior character. The answer given to these queries might have an effect on the temper and manner in which the friends of the manufacturers in that House would deal with the bill before them.
Sir G. Stricklandremarked, that the dissatisfaction he had heard expressed by the manufacturers was of a different character from that stated by the noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire. The noble Lord had stated, that the cause of dissatisfaction was, that the sub-inspectors were persons of inferior character; he had not heard this, but he had heard that the manufacturers complained of being made subject to inspectors' law; they said, "We will obey the laws made by

1065
the Legislature, but we do not like inspectors' law." He did not think with the noble Lord, that the proper remedy was giving higher salaries, for he was not of opinion that high salaries produced good work—on the contrary, they were productive of indolence and no work at all; in his judgment the House would better gratify the manufacturers by depriving the inspectors of the power of making laws, and by teaching them that their duty, as well as that of the masters was to obey, and not make, the law. To that part of the bill which enabled the inspectors to make regulations and rules that had the force of law he objected, and would take away that clause entirely.
Mr. M. Philipsthought the observations which had fallen from the hon. Baronet who had just sat down were well worthy the consideration of the House. Let the law be clearly laid down and defined in the act itself; for supposing the sub-inspectors had nothing more to do than to carry out the proposed law, still the manufacturers were exposed to their putting their own interpretation upon it. He believed that the master manufacturers in the district with which he was connected did not, by objecting to sub-inspectors, seek to free themselves from the vigilance which the law had imposed over them; but they did desire that they should not be intruded upon by persons of inferior stations, a circumstance which they, gentlemen of character and honour, had felt severely. That they were gentlemen of character and honour would, he believed, not be denied, and therefore the feelings of those gentlemen were entitled to the fair consideration of the House. He did not mean to cast the slightest imputation on the character of any individual now holding the office of superintendent or inspector; he only looked forward to the operation of the proposed bill, and he must say it was possible, nay probable, that under the proposed bill appointments night be made extremely obnoxious to the manufacturers whose works they might be appointed to visit. In the town with which he was connected it might happen that persons might be appointed who were practically acquainted with the details of the machinery and process of manufacturing, and might not such individuals take advantage of the improvements made in the machinery which
1066
in the course of their duty they had to inspect, and divulge those improvements afterwards to others? The Legislature, he thought, therefore, was called upon to take care that persons were not appointed who would be likely to betray the trust reposed in them. It would, in his judgment, be best to place the inspectors all on one footing, instead of a class of inspectors and a class of sub-inspectors; he thought, also, that in each district there ought to be one resident inspector, who could at all times present himself at the doors of the manufactories, where he was sure he would meet with every facility in the discharge of his duty. Approving of the views of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), he joined in the expression of the opinion as to the necessity of re-modelling the appointment of the inspectors.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House, he thought he should do better if he waited until the House got into Committee before he entered upon the various details' which had been alluded to. With regard to the salaries of the sub-inspectors, it would be seen by a reference to the bill that it was not intended to touch upon them. There were many respectable persons in those offices, and it was not intended to come to Parliament for any fixed salaries for them. With respect to altering the proposition empowering the inspectors to make regulations, he was so perfectly convinced of the necessity of that power in order to procure the proper administration of the act, that he should be most unwilling to depart from the clause giving that power.
Lord Stanleyrepeated, that the manufacturers objected to the inspectors having the power to appoint any number of sub-inspectors, every one of whom would have-the powers of inspectors. The manufacturers said, let there be in each district one resident inspector, whose duty it should be to visit at all times the factories in his district.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, the existing law-had failed, owing to its complicated nature. He would recommend the Government to adopt such a bill as would meet the general interests and feeling of the people, and by so doing they would go far to render inspection and its attendant expense unnecessary.
Lord Ashleywas well aware that the regulations established by the inspectors under the act of 1833 had been the great cause of annoyance to the masters, and yet under this bill a new system of regulations by the same authority would be brought into operation. He agreed with his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Wilson Patten), that it was most desirable that the persons intrusted with the very high powers conferred on the inspectors by this bill should be persons of financial respectability. He had thought that the expenses of travelling were to be defrayed by way of mileage, for it was impossible that an inspector with 250 l. or 300 l. per year, could make the requisite number of visits within his district at his own expense, and out of that sum be left sufficient to repay him for his personal labour and trouble. He concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Salford; the system of inspection introduced by the bill of 1833 had failed in consequence of the complicated nature of that act. Under it there were two periods for labour fixed, and two certificates were required; but if that bill was simplified—if there was one fixed period for work, and if one certificate only was required, he was convinced the House might get rid of the system of sub-inspection altogether, and he had no doubt the bill would work better if the hours of labour were put on the same footing as under Sir John Hobhouse's Act. He should, however, have no objection that the inspectors should have very largely increased salaries, but if the sub-inspectors were got rid of, he trusted the number of inspectors would be increased to that of both those classes combined.
Mr. Hindleyobserved in the votes notice of several amendments as to the number of hours children should be employed. He wished to ask the Government if it was intended to make any alteration as to the number of hours? It was his desire to make the bill as agreeable to all parties as possible, and he therefore hoped by his hon. Friends on both sides of the House, some compromise would be entered into.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, it was not intended to make any alteration in the principle of the bill, either as regarded age or time.
On the motion "that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Lord Ashley did not rise to oppose that
1068
motion, but to protest against the manner in which the bill had been delayed. The bill had been introduced on the 14th of February last, and had since been delayed by various adjournments until this first day of July—nay, it had been adjourned in such a manner, as he confessed, had induced him and others to believe it would not be discussed at all during the present session. The consequence was, that there was now a very scanty attendance of Members. Many on whom he relied for support on a division, and for assistance in debate, were not now able to attend, and thus, owing to the long delay, the noble Lord opposite had gained a great advantage—an advantage which would be apparent on a division.
Lord John Russellwould not detain the House by giving any answer to the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord.
Lord Ashleywas not aware that he had said anything at all uncourteous, or that he had conducted himself with any discourtesy towards the noble Lord. If he had done anything of that kind, he was quite ready, in the face of the House, to make an ample apology; but he did not think he deserved an answer in such a tone as that just spoken by the noble Lord.
The Speaker left the chair. House in Committee. On clause 1st,
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that this was a matter of the utmost importance, as involving the interests of 400,000 persons employed in mills and factories. The object of the measure was no doubt to give protection to the children employed in the factories, and he gave Government full credit for its intentions, and the only difficulty with him was as to the means by which the end might be obtained, for he did not think that the provisions of that bill would effect the object in view as satisfactorily as other means which had been devised. The hon. Member then went into a review of the various Acts which had been passed on this subject since 1809, when the age of the persons brought within the operation of the Act was fixed. A similar bill passed in 1825, extending the enactments of the former bill; and in 1831, an act was passed, when the legislature fixed the age for, protection at eighteen, and declared the number of hours' work in a week should be fixed at 69. In 1833, the present Act

1069
was passed; by this, children under 13 were prevented working in factories for more than 48 hours a-week, or eight hours a-day; but above the age of 18, they might be employed any number of hours. It was also required that children, to be enabled to work in the factories, must produce certificates from their parents and surgeons; and provision was also made that they should go to school a certain number of hours in the week. These provisions, however, did not extend to silk-mills, for children of six years of age might be made to work in silk-mills twelve hours a-day; while, according to the Act, children of twelve years of age could not be made to work more than eight hours a-day in a cotton-mill. The details of the Act were so complicated, that they led to the commission of all sorts of frauds, and the consequence was, that the provisions of the bill had not been fairly carried into effect. It was a measure most objectionable to the masters, oppressive to the workmen, and did not afford protection to the children. The penalties paid under the bill last year amounted to 8,300 l. and notwithstanding all their exertions; it was notorious that the inspectors could not prevent the children or young persons being overworked. Mr. Horner and other inspectors had admitted that it was impossible to prevent the law being invaded, and it was well known that in Nottingham and its neighbourhood, great numbers under the legal age were working sixteen hours a-day. It might be carried into effect apparently in some few places; but the truth was, that on an extensive scale it really did not afford protection to children under thirteen. It appeared, from the returns before the House, that in 1835 there were 56,700 children under the age of thirteen employed in factories, and the total number of children and young persons under the age of eighteen, was 354,384. The result of the return for last year was, that the total number employed was 413,465 persons, and of those 34,234 were under the age of thirteen. Thus it would appear, that the number of children employed under the age of thirteen, was as one in six at the first period, but last year, the number would be as one in twelve. In gross numbers, the difference in the number of children employed in 1835 and 1838 was upwards of 22,000. He would ask any hon. Gentleman acquainted with the subject, whether he be-
1070
lieved that anything like that number of children had been thrown out of work in the factories during these three years. Again, in Scotland, in 1835, the number of children under thirteen that were unemployed in the factories, was about one in seven, as compared with the total number of persons employed; but at present, according to the returns, the proportion was one in thirty-two. The great improvements that had been made in the machinery in the factories within the last few years had greatly diminished the amount of labour required of the adults, and he believed that he was not going beyond the mark when he stated, that in some branches of trade, the services of nearly one-half the number of adults had been dispensed with since 1831. Was it, however, expedient for the interests of the community, that any portion of the work people should be kept so long at labour in the factories as to prevent them obtaining any share in those humble enjoyments which were within their grasp. By the long confinement in close atmospheres these labourers were rendered almost incapable of enjoyment, and they had no means of cultivating their minds, or improving the slender education they might have received in childhood. The females, also, were not fit for their situations as wives and mothers, as they had no means of mental improvement. These evils were constantly increasing, and he believed that the only effective remedy that could be applied would be to prevent the factories being worked more than a certain number of hours a-day. What he should propose would be, that there should be an uniform time of working for all persons in factories, and that all ages should be placed on the same footing and the same principle applied to them. He also did not see why silk or lace mills should be exempted, and not be placed under the operation of the act. He had been told, that there were many of these mills where the persons employed in them were engaged fourteen or fifteen hours a day, and females went on at five o'clock at the morning, and were kept constantly at work there until nine o'clock at night, with the intermission of a few minutes for meals, which they were obliged to take within the walls of their factories. What he intended to propose in this clause was, that the age should be increased of the parties who were to come within the operation of the Act, namely,

1071
from eighteen to twenty-one. He was also most anxious that a ten hours' a-day system should be adopted for all the factories, as this was quite enough for man, woman, or child, and he thought that if it were made general, it might be done in a manner to prove satisfactory to the masters. He thought, that by proper regulations on this subject, the trade of the country could be carried on with advantage, and he had no doubt that, if the occupation was confined to ten hours a-day, the employment in factories would be found to be healthy instead of being unhealthy. He was not so alarmed for the situation of the country, that he would consent to sacrifice the interests of those persons because it was against one of the dogmas of political economy. He should conclude, with proposing, that the words "under the age of eighteen years," should be struck out; and the words "under the age of twenty-one years" be substituted.
Lord Ashleysupported the amendment, and begged to remind the House that a similar amendment had been proposed in the other House in the bill of 1833, but this House refused to agree to it. In all other cases, the interest of persons under the age of twenty-one years was protected, and he thought that the interest of those who had only their labour to depend upon should be so likewise.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that the object of his hon. Friend evidently was to impose restrictions on the period of adult labour in factories, and that the period of work in mills should be ten hours. If such restrictions were allowed, the effect would be that those parties who were dependent on their labour would be deprived of so much of the means at their command. It might be said, that this was the principle of the bill; but in it the legislature proposed to protect the interests of those who could not protect themselves; but no one would say that, looking to the character of the working classes of this country, that those above the age of eighteen were not in a situation to protect themselves. He confessed, that he thought that one of the evils of the factory system was to make the children independent of their parents at too early an age. He hoped the House would not consent to this amendment.
Mr. O'Connellthought, as a general principle, that it was inexpedient to interfere between the employer and employed. The only case that could justify such a
1072
proceeding was for the protection of the interests of children; this was the practice of the Court of Chancery on other matters, and he thought that they might act as chancellors for the time, and take the age of twenty-one years.
Mr. Mark Philipsthought, that if an amendment was adopted, it would have a great practical difficulty in the working of the bill. It would prevent any persons under the age of twenty-one attending in the factories at such times for the purpose of cleaning the machinery. This was necessary to be done two or three times a week, and was generally done during meal times by young men, by the mill-owner, or be liable to a heavy penalty if he employed any one under the age of twenty-one.
The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 87; Noes 44: Majority 43.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, Peter

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Baines, E.

Lister, E. C.

Baring, F. T.

Lockhart, A. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Lygon, hon. General

Bewes, T.

Macauley, T. B.

Bowes, J.

Marsland, H.

Broadley, H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Brien, W. S.

Busfeild, W.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Byng, right hon. G. S.

Palmer, G.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Parker, John

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Parker, R. T.

Childers, J. W.

Patten, J. W.

Craig, W. G.

Pease, Joseph

Currie, Mr. Sergeant

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Dalmeny, Lord

Philips, M.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Philips, G. R.

Duff, James

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Price, Sir R.

Egerton, W. T.

Price, R.

Ellis, John

Richards, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gordon, Robert

Rundle, John

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord John

Greene, T. G.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sheppard, T.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Slaney, R. A.

Hastie, Archibald

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Heathcoat, John

Stanley, Lord

Hinde, J. H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hodgson, R.

Steuart, R.

Hope, G. W.

Stewart, J.

Houldsworth, T.

Surrey, Earl of

Hurt, F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Jackson, Mr. Sergeant

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

James, W.

Thornley, T.

Kemble, H.

Verner, Col.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wall, C. B.

1073

Warburton, H.

Wood, C.

White, A.

Wood, G. W.

Wilbraham, G.

TELLERS.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Maule, F.

Williams, W. A.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hughes, W.

Alsager, Captain

Hume, J.

Attwood, W.

Humphery, J.

Baring, H. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Blake, M. J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Corry, hon. H.

Maunsell, T. P.

D'Israeli, B.

Miles, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Norreys, Lord

Buncombe, hon. W.

O'Connell, D.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Packe, C. W.

Eliot, Lord

Pringle, A.

Estcourt, T.

Rushout, G.

Ewart, W.

Shirley, E. J.

Fielden, J.

Trench, Sir F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Grant, F. W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hale, R. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Halford, H.

Walker, R.

Harvey, D. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Heneage, G. W.

Yates, J.A.

Hepburn, Sir T.B.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hogg, J. W.

Ashley, Lord

Hope, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

On the third clause,
Lord Ashleyproposed to strike out those words in the clause which excepted silk mills from the operation of the bill, as he had never seen any reason why children in silk mills should not receive the same advantages which the Factory Bill would confer on others. He was aware that he might be met with the objection that their work was lighter than that in other mills, but it should not be forgotten that it involved the necessity of their standing upon their legs for very many hours together. When he was at Macclesfield he had devoted much of his time both in the day and at night to seeing the children both at work and at their homes; and he had never before witnessed, and he hoped he should never again behold, so much bad health and deformity as had there been caused by this excess of toil. With respect to the education to be given to the children under the Factory Bill, the noble Lord here read an extract from a report made by a factory inspector, who had stated, that soon after the bill was passed in 1833 he had received a letter from the chairman of the Macclesfield Union informing him that much agitation prevailed there and at Manchester in consequence of the
1074
prevalence of an opinion said to have been expressed at Manchester under the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that it was not intended that the children of silk mills should be educated. Why, he asked, should not these children receive the same advantages as other children? Was there anything in the nature of their employment which did not entitle them to the same degree of protection; or could it be said that they did not require the same advantages of that moral and religious education which was to be given to the children in the cotton factories? The work in the silk mills and lace factories was not only very fine, but performed by gaslight, and he had been informed by some ladies connected with a Sunday school, that from these causes the eyesight of the children was so materially injured that they could not read either Bibles or Prayer-books unless they were printed in unusually large type. He would not detain the committee longer, but he did think that if the facts which he had stated were not overthrown, it was the duty of that House to extend to those children all the protection which this bill would afford. These were the grounds upon which he founded the amendment which he had proposed.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that, as the silk mills were excluded from the bill of last year, the Government did not think themselves authorised to make the alteration in this bill which the noble Lord now proposed. He was willing to admit, that he could see no material reason why the silk mills should be excluded from the operation of this measure up to a certain point, and the reason why they were omitted last year was on account of the manufacture being young in this country, and because it seemed justified by other peculiar circumstances connected at that period with the silk trade. It should not be forgotten that employment in the silk mills was not as unhealthy as that in cotton mills. The temperature was much lower, but still, from what had been stated by the inspector, he was not inclined to oppose their being included in the present bill, so far as respected hours, but not as regarded age; for he thought there were good grounds for believing that children of nine years of age might be allowed to work in silk mills without any disadvantage to them.

1075
Ten was the age fixed upon with regard to cotton factories, but, considering that the process of silk manufacture required much more delicacy than that of cotton, it was absolutely necessary in order to their attaining the proper degree of skill that children should be admitted into the silk mills at an earlier period. His objection to including the lace factories proceeded upon a totally different ground. The parties affected by the proposition of the noble Lord were taken unawares, no notice having been given to them that the bill would apply to them, and thinking that they had a right to hare an opportunity of representing their own case to the House, he could not consent to this part of the motion of the noble Lord until further information had been obtained upon the Subject.
Mr. Heathcotesaid, that even if the proposition of the noble Lord were adopted it would only apply to one-fifth of the lace factories in the kingdom, while the remaining four-firths would be wholly untouched by it. The factories to which the bill would apply were those which were best regulated, and, therefore, called for the least interference on the part of that House. He, however, should not object to having the whole of the lace factories placed under the provisions of this bill when proper information on the subject had been obtained, and, therefore, if the noble Lord would defer the matter for another year he would then be most happy to lend his assistance in carrying the object which the noble Lord had in view into effect.
Mr. Slaneyobserved, that as the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade was willing to include the silk mills, the noble Lord ought to be satisfied, and not press his proposition with reference to the lace factories.
Mr. PouleltThomson begged it to be understood that although he had no objection to have the silk mills included, so far as hours were concerned, he should object to any limitation of age.
Mr. T. Egertonagreed that the nature of the employment rendered it necessary for children to be admitted into silk mills at an earlier age than into cotton mills.
Lord Stanleysaid, that for his own part, he could see no delicacy or dexteity which could not be acquired by a child of ten yean of age equally as well as by one
1076
of nine. He, therefore, did think that his noble Friend was perfectly right in the course which he had taken.
Mr. Humedid not think there was any evidence before them to warrant this alteration. The people wanted cheap bread, and not restrictions upon labour of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had assigned no sufficient reason for this alteration, and certainly such a course should not have been taken without proper information having been given to the parties interested in the change.
Lord Ashleysaid, he had given notice months ago that he intended to move that both the silk and lace factories should be included in this measure.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that he should not bring forward the amendment of which he had given notice until that of the noble Lord had been disposed of.
Lord Stanleythought, that his noble Friend intended to persevere in his proposition with respect to the lace factories.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that if this were the case, for the reasons which he had already stated, he must vote against it if they came to a division.
Mr. S. O'Briencontended, that nine was too early an age for permitting children to work either in silk or any other factories.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the proper way to better the condition of the poor was by affording them the necessaries of life at a cheap rate. The motion for the repeal of the corn-laws which he had made had this object in view, but the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now wished to appear so humane, by rejecting that motion, proved that when the factory children asked them for bread they would give them a stone.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, that he could see no inhumanity in allowing children of a tender age to work in silk or lace factories. He had visited many of those places and he could only say that the children whom he saw appeared both healthy and happy.
Mr. Heathcotethought the information which the noble Lord had received on this subject was incorrect, and that if the matter were properly examined into he would see the necessity for waiving his present objection.
Mr. Slaneysaid, there seemed to be a misunderstanding on this point, which he thought it right to explain away. The de-

1077
lay for which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade asked was not until next Session, but only until the bringing up of the report.
Mr. Darbyobserved, that unless the Government undertook to communicate with the parties, it could not be expected that his noble Friend could ascertain their sentiments between now and the bringing up of the report.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that all the delay he asked for was such as would enable him to communicate with the parties. Having had no notice of the noble Lord's proposition, it was only fair to give them an opportunity of expressing their views upon it.
Lord Ashleysaid, that if the object were not to throw the matter over to another Session, he would not, of course, object to afford the right hon. Gentleman the time he required.
The Committee divided on the original question: Ayes 49; Noes 55; Majority 6.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Parrott, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Philips, M.

Baines, E.

Philips, G.

Bannerman A.

Pigot, D. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Price, Sir R.

Chapman, Sir M.L.C.

Rich, H.

Craig, W. G.

Rundle, J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Russell, Lord J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Egerton, W. T.

Stansfield, W. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Steuart, R.

Fenton, J.

Stewart, J.

Finch, F.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hastie, A.

Thornely, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Walker, R.

Hoskins, K.

Warburton, H.

Howick, Viscount

Wilbraham, G.

Lister, E. C.

Williams, W. A.

Macleod, R.

Wood, Sir M.

M'Taggart, J.

Wood, George W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Yates, John A.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Parker, J.

TELLERS.

Parker, R. T.

Maule, F.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Brocklehurst, Mr.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Cayley, E. S.

Aglionby, H. A.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Alsager, Captain

Courtenay, P.

Bewes, T.

Darby, G.

Brotherton, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Elliot, Lord

Butler, hon. Colonel

Ellis, J.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Ewart, W.

Cavendish, hon. H.

Fielden, J.

1078

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Pringle, A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pusey, P.

Halford, H.

Richards, R.

Hinde, J. H.

Round, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Sheppard, T.

Hodgson, R.

Slaney, S. B.

Hughes, W.B.

Stanley, Lord

Humphery, J.

Style, Sir C.

Jackson, Mr. Sergt.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Kemble, H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Langdale, hon. C.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Lockhart, A. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Marsland, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Norreys, Lord

Wilbraham, hon. B.

O'Brien, W. S.

Williams, W.

Patten, J. W.

Pease, J.

TELLERS.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ashley, Lord

Polhill, F.

Hindley, Mr.

Clause as amended to stand part of the bill.
On the 9th Clause on the question that the blank be filled up with the words sixty nine,
Lord Ashleysaid, that it was not his intention to detain the House at any great length, for he felt that at the present period of the Session, and in the present state of the House, it was almost impossible to sustain any long debate upon this question, nor could he hope to be supported by all those friends for whose assistance he might have looked under more favourable circumstances. Nevertheless he could not find it in his heart to let this opportunity go by without asserting the principles which he had so long contended for, and stating the opinions which he had so long entertained. It was no new principle that he asked for, because the House had already, in the year 1816, assented to a bill, which went through a first and second reading in which the hours of labour were limited to ten and a half hours. That bill was introduced by the father of his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, and would have found its way to the House of Lords but for the sudden and unexpected termination of the Session. But if ten hours and a half were then thought sufficient, how much more requisite was it to fix that as the limit now, when it was notorious that labour had increased, and pressed with tenfold severity on the operative classes? He himself (Lord Ashley) had attempted to reassert the principle in 1832 and 1833. No change had yet been effected: the motives for introducing it now were doubly powerful, looking to the great mass of evidence

1079
which had been collected with respect to the moral and physical evils endured, exhibiting an increase of suffering and mortality unprecedented in any other country. The population employed in these mills amounted to 419,590, of which 242,296, or 57¾ per cent., were females. Between the age of thirteen and eighteen, the period to which his amendment extended, there were 98,174, of whom 56,792 were females. The age of thirteen for a female was very critical, and with respect to their mental and moral improvement, Mr. Inspector Homer said, "I restricted myself to children of thirteen and fourteen years of age, who by working twelve hours a-day could have no time for their mental and moral improvement." Unless therefore the House were prepared to maintain that after the age of thirteen young women had nothing further to acquire in the way of mental and moral improvement, they must agree to his proposition to shorten their hours of labour, so as to afford them some better opportutunity than they now enjoyed for attaining it. He had often in that House heard expressions of an anxiety to limit the period of labour provided they could do so with benefit to the working population; but the great obstacle to the limitation of labour in this country, it was constantly asserted, was the existence of the Corn-laws. The Corn-laws, it was said, necessarily gave rise to long hours of labour; but was it really so? Did they find shorter hours in other parts of the world where no Corn-laws existed? Quite the reverse. He held in his hand a series of returns, from which Ministers at least could not dissent, having been furnished by their own officers, exposing the whole question of the cotton manufacture in all parts of Europe as connected with the state of the hand-loom weavers in this country. The necessary inference from the data thus supplied was, that the abolition of the Corn-laws, so far from abridging, would rather extend the hours of labour. What were the hours on the continent where no Corn-laws existed? In Argovia the hours in the cotton mills were twelve and a half, no children under fourteen being admitted. In Zurich the hours of actual labour were thirteen per diem. In Austria they varied from fifteen to seventeen, and even in Mr. Kennedy's factories in the Tyrol from thirteen to fourteen hours a-day In Alsace thirteen to fourteen; Lyons twelve
1080
to fifteen; Normandy eighty to eighty-four per week; Elbeuf thirteen and a half hours actual work; and in Belgium, always quoted as our greatest and most formidable rival, the hours were generally thirteen daily, and at present—the report was dated March, 1839—they varied from fourteen to fifteen, the commissioners adding this most important statement, that cheapness of labour in Belgium is over stated, and that while combinations are on the increase among foreign workmen, the rate of wages, &c, is approximating to the English. In no one of those countries did Corn-laws exist, and therefore it was impossible to contend that there was any necessary connexion between the Corn-laws and long hours of labour. But there was another country always held up as a very formidable rival—Prussia; what was the course lately adopted there? That great and good Prince, who always took the lead in everything which affected the welfare of his people—the King of Prussia, had lately issued an ordinance, limiting the hours of labour in the factories throughout his dominions to the period for which he had contended during so many years of his life—ten hours a-day. And with credit be it spoken of the master manufacturers of Elberfield, the proposition first came from them in the shape of a petition to the King, who replied, that their prayer was so entirely in accordance with his own wish, that he should certainly grant it, adding however, that a thing so good should not be confined to one district, but should extend over the whole length and breadth of the kingdom. He did not wish to detain the House with details of this question; he contented himself with resting his motion on the assertion that labour by children and persons of tender years since 1816, when the House sanctioned the principle for which he contended, had greatly increased, bringing along with it a vast and alarming increase of suffering and mortality, holding himself ready, if called on, to prove the statement by most indubitable authorities. At present he would merely move as an amendment, that the blank in the clause be filled up by "58," instead of "69."
Mr. Ewartwould support the proposition of the noble Lord, but he could not give his assent to the noble Lord's reasoning with respect to the Corn-laws. Did the noble Lord mean to say that the

1081
manufacturers of this country would not be in a better condition to shorten the period of labour if the persons employed in the manufactories had cheaper food? It was quite evident that whatever country had the cheapest food was best able to reduce the hours of labour, and the fact of the hours not having been reduced upon the continent did not go to disprove that statement. He should vote with the noble Lord, but not upon those arguments which were founded upon the Corn-laws.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that the disease and mortality of manufacturing towns proceeded from many causes besides the hours at which the people were employed in the factories, and he therefore could not admit that argument. The noble Lord had told them that on the continent the hours were longer. Now would he say that the children in Britain were less robust or capable of sustaining exertion? He would remind them that whilst they imagined they were engaged solely in legislating, for the advantage of the children, they might be really legislating upon the moving powers of machinery. He objected to the amendment, and he trusted the Committee would not adopt it.
Mr. Villierssaid, that the noble Lord was under a misapprehension with respect to the Corn-laws, and he had also mentioned places where Corn-laws were in existence, such as Lyons. If the manufacturers in this country were allowed the advantage which would arise from the increased demand for their goods, that would be consequent upon an open trade in corn, the persons employed in the manufactories would receive a corresponding advantage. He believed if the Corn-laws were repealed, it would have a most beneficial effect in stimulating the manufacturers of the country, by the increased demand for our manufactures which it would produce. He believed the noble Lord to be perfectly sincere in his wish to benefit the manufacturing population; but he would ask the noble Lord to consider upon the question, would they receive the same amount of wages for a reduced number of hours which they at present receive? or was he prepared with a means of raising their wages?
Mr. Cayleysaid, the real question was one of humanity, and had nothing to do with the Corn-laws.
Mr. Bainessaid, that if a proposal were made to diminish the amount of agricul-
1082
tural labour, the landed interest would be in arms against it. He gave the noble Lord credit for being actuated by the best principles and the highest motives of humanity, but he believed that if his proposition were to be carried into effect it would be injurious to the manufacturing interest. If they reduced the term of labour, they must likewise reduce the amount of wages; so that, so far from benefiting the operative, it would be injurious to him.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, that the noble Lord could not have chosen a worse opportunity than the present for bringing forward his proposition, when the manufacturers of this country were exposed to so much active competition on the part of foreign countries. The injurious effect of this proposition would first be felt by the operatives themselves, for if a diminution took place in the hours of labour, they must make a corresponding reduction in the price of labour, for it would be impossible for the manufacturer to pay the same amount of wages for a diminished supply of labour. Whatever the noble Lord might think of the effect of foreign competition, he contended that it would be impossible for the manufacturer to resist that competition with diminished hours of labour. He did not mean to discuss the question as one of feeling or humanity, but as a question of existence. He spoke as a practical man, and he contended that the competition was so great that the manufacturers of this country would not be able to stand if they were compelled to adopt such an alteration as this. He did not speak thus from any want of feeling for those employed in factory labour, but, as a practical man, he must bow to circumstances over which he had no control.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, that human nature was the same on the Continent as in the country, and that there as well as here there was a disposition to get rich as soon as possible. He contended that without legislative interference the children would be worked unmercifully. By a return made in 1819 it had been clearly shown that the average rate of time in factories was seventy-seven hours per week. In Nottingham and the neighbourhood they worked in the factories to the extent of thirteen, and in some instances, of fifteen hours per day. He would at once admit that if they reduced the term of labour they would thereby increase the cost of

1083
production. He was quite aware that if they could with difficulty stand against foreign competition whilst the term of labour was twelve hours, if they reduced the term to ten hours there must be a reduction of wages. It was impossible for the manufacturers of this country to contend with the competition of countries where food was so much cheaper, and the remedy would be found in an alteration of the Corn-laws. As he could not get at the right end by a repeal of those laws, he would, as an indirect means, vote for the proposition of he noble Lord, because he was sure it would have the effect of sooner bringing the question to an issue.
Mr. O'Connellwould have been very glad if the noble Lord had commenced his career of philanthropy by inducing his class to sacrifice their individual interests by giving the people cheaper bread. The Corn-laws were good for nothing to the landlords if they did not make bread dear. He had merely risen to protest against that part of the speech of the noble Lord in which he eulogised the King of Prussia as a man of the finest feelings. Now, would the noble Lord wish to see a King of this country lay hold of two archbishops, and how would the noble Lord relish it to see one of these imprisoned in a fortress for two years without trial or investigation? The noble Lord would not eulogise any sovereign of this country who should so treat the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. There was no occasion at all to have introduced this subject.
Lord Ashleysaid that if the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had acted in the manner in which those other two bishops appeared to have acted, he thought they ought to be similarly treated.
Mr. O'Connellsaid that their sole crime was being quite consistent with their principles, and maintaining that discipline which it was their duty to maintain. The conduct of the King of Prussia was, therefore, doubly tyrannical.
Lord J. Russellbegged to make one observation on the question itself. It seemed to him that the noble Lord (Lord Ashley) had not answered the question put by his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) namely, whether, having reduced the hours of labour, the noble Lord could provide at the same time that the same remuneration should be given for the shortened hours of labour? Did the noble Lord mean to
1084
carry his principle to the extent of fixing wages by law, or did he not? If he did mean to do so, the Committee knew of course the impossibility of adopting such a course; and if he did not, the Committee must know that whatever shortened the hours of labour, and with the present high price of provisions reduced the rate of wages, instead of being a proposition of humanity, would be a proposition of the greatest inhumanity. Therefore as he thought the proposition, if carried into effect would be cruel in its operation, he must vote against it.
Lord Ashleysaid that there was nothing in his proposition that went to the extent of defining the amount of wages. As to the question of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, he must say that he did not entertain the same apprehensions as that hon. Gentleman; because in 1818 and 1819, when the hours of labour were limited, precisely the same arguments were used. It was then said that if they reduced the hours of labour they must reduce the amount of wages, and thus produce great consequent misery to the manufacturers. What was the result? The hours of labour were greatly reduced by the bill of 1819; but were the wages reduced? Not in any one single respect. They continued at the same amount for four years after, and were reduced from other causes. It was found also that the reduction of the hours did not lead to any diminution of production.
Mr. Peasesaid that all practical men knew that when the hours of labour were shortened the children were over-worked and over-driven, and the exertions of the children were rendered much more intense and cruel. He employed a great many hands, and he must say, as a practical man, that if the hours of labour were abridged, he must, unless he submitted to torture and over-drive the children, inevitably close his manufactory.
The Committee divided on the original motion: Ayes 94: Noes 62—Majority 32

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Blackett, C.

Ainsworth, P.

Blair, J.

Alcock, T.

Busfeild, W.

Bailey, J.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Baines, E.

Chapman, Sir M. L. C.

Bannerman, A.

Craig, W. G.

Barnard, E. G.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Bewes, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

1085

Dundas, Sir R.

Philips, M.

Egerton, W. T.

Philips, G. R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Pigot, D. R.

Ellis, W.

Price, Sir R.

Evans, W.

Rich, H.

Fenton, J.

Roche, W.

Ferguson, Sir rt. A.

Russell, Lord J.

Finch, F.

Russell, Lord C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Greene, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Scrope, G. P.

Grote, G.

Seymour, Lord

Handley, H.

Slaney, R. A.

Hastie, A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hawes, B.

Stanley, Lord

Heathcoat, J.

Stanley, W. O.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Steuart, R.

Hoskins, K.

Stewart, J.

Howick, Visct.

Stock, Dr.

Hurt, F.

Surrey, Earl of

Knight, H. G.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Thornely, T.

Langdale, hon. C.

Turner, W.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Lennox, Lord A.

Walker, R.

Lister, E. C.

Wallace, R.

Loch, J.

Warburton, H.

Macleod, R.

White, A.

Mactaggart, J.

Wilbraham, G.

Marsland, H.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Marton, G.

Williams, W. A.

Morpeth, Visct.

Winnington, T. E.

O'Brien, W. S.

Wood, C.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Wood, Sir M.

Parker, J.

Wood, G. W.

Parker, R. T.

Yates, J. A.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Parrott, J.

TELLERS.

Patten, J. W.

Maule, F.

Pease, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Heneage, G. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hinde, J.H.

Alsager, Captain

Hodges, T. L.

Broadley, H.

Hope, hon. C.

Brotherton, J.

Hughes, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Jervis, S.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Kemble, H.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Knatchbull, r. h. Sir E.

Cayley, E. S.

Lockhart, A. M.

Courtenay, P.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Lygon, hon. General

Dick, Q.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Miles, W.

Du Pre, G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Eastnor, Visct.

Morris, D.

Eaton, R. J.

Noel, hon. W. M.

Eliot, Lord

O'Connell, D.

Ellis J.

O'Connell, J.

Ewart, W.

Owen, Sir J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Plumptre, J. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Polhill, F.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Pusey, P.

Halford, H.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hall, Sir B.

Richards, R.

1086

Round, C. G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Round, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Sheppard, T.

Wakley, T.

Smith, A.

Welby, G. E.

Style, Sir. C.

Williams, W.

Talfourd, Sergeant

TELLERS.

Teignmouth, Lord

Ashley, Lord

Thompson, Alderman

Feilden, J.

Clause agreed to.
On clause 11, which proposes to enact that where the machinery is "wholly moved by the power of water," the time lost by the total stoppage of the water wheel from want of water, or from too much water, may be recovered,
Mr. Mark Philipsmoved an amendment to have the words "or partially," inserted before the words "by the power of water."
The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 48: Noes 106—Majority 58.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bailey, J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Lister, E. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Loch, J.

Busfeild, W.

Marsland, H.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Morris, D.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Parker, R.

Eastnor, Visct.

Patten, J. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Philips, G. R.

Ellis, J.

Pusey, P.

Ellis, W.

Round, C. G.

Fenton, J.

Rundle, J.

Finch, F.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Forester, hon. G.

Scrope, G. P.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Sheppard, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stanley, Lord

Greene, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Grimsditch, T.

Turner, W.

Handley, H.

Walker, R.

Hastie, A.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Heathcoat, J.

Williams, W. A.

Hindley, C.

Yates, J. A.

Hope, hon. C.

Hope, G. W.

TELLERS.

Hoskins, K.

Philips, M.

Houstoun, G.

Wood, G.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Adam, Admiral

Burrell, Sir C.

Aglionby, H. A.

Chalmers, P.

Archdall, M.

Childers, J. W.

Ashley, Lord

Chute, W. L. W.

Baines, E.

Clay, W.

Bannerman, A.

Collins, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Blackstone, W. S.

Craig, W. G.

Blair, J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

Blake, W. J.

Davies, Colonel

Broadley, H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Brotherton, J.

Duncombe, T.

1087

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pattison, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Pigot, D. R.

Eaton, R. J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Eliot, Lord

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Evans, W.

Power, J.

Ewart, W.

Price, Sir R.

Fielden, J.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rich, H.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gladstone, W. E.

Round, J.

Gordon, R.

Rushout, G.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Grots, G.

Shirley, E. J.

Halford, H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Hall, Sir B.

Slaney, R. A.

Hawes, B.

Smith, A.

Heneage, G. W.

Smith, R. V.

Hinde, J. H.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stanley, W. O.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Steuart, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Stewart, J.

Hodgson, R.

Stock, Dr.

Hutt, W.

Style, Sir C.

Kemble, H.

Surrey, Earl of

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Langdale, hon. C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Lowther, J. H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Macleod, R.

Thompson, Alderman

Mahon, Visct.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Marton, G.

Vivian, J. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Wakley, T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Wallace, R.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Warburton, H.

Miles, W.

Wilbraham, G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, D.

Winnington, T. E.

O'Connell, J.

Wood, Sir M.

Palmer, G.

Young, J.

Parker, J.

TELLERS.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

O'Ferrall, M.

Parrott, J.

Seymour, Lord

On the question that the clause as amended stand part of the bill,
The committee divided: Ayes 112: Noes 40—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Clay, W.

Ainsworth, P.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Anson, hon. Col.

Davies, Col.

Attwood, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bailey, J.

Duncombe, T.

Baines, E.

Dundas, Sir R.

Bannerman, A.

Eastnor, Visct.

Barnard, E. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Ellis, W.

Blake, W. J.

Evans, W.

Broadley, H.

Fenton, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Buller, C.

Ferguson, R.

Busfeild, W.

Finch, F.

Cavendish, hn. G. H

Gordon, R.

Chalmers, P.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Childers, J. W.

Greene, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

1088

Grimsditch, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Grote, G.

Power, J.

Halford, H.

Price, Sir R.

Hastie, A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hawes, B.

Round, C. G.

Heathcoat, J.

Rundle, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Hope, hon. C.

Scrope, G. P.

Hope, G. W.

Sheppard, T.

Hoskins, K.

Slaney, R. A.

Houstoun, G.

Smith, J. A.

Hurt, F.

Smith, A.

Hutt, W.

Smith, R. V.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Jervis, J.

Stanley, Lord

Kemble, H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Langdale, hon. C.

Steuart, R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Stewart, J.

Lister, E. C.

Stock, Dr.

Loch, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Macleod, R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Marsland, H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Marton, G.

Turner, W.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Vivian, J. H.

O'Connell, D.

Walker, R.

O'Connell, J.

Wallace, R.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Warburton, H.

Palmer, G.

White, A.

Parker, R. T.

Wilbraham, G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Parrott, J.

Williams, W. A.

Patten, J. W.

Wood, G. W.

Pattison, J.

Yates, J. A.

Pease, J.

Philips, M.

TELLERS.

Philips, G. R.

Maule, F.

Pigot, D. R.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Archdall, M.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ashley, Lord

Pringle, A.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Pusey, P.

Blackstone, W. S.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Round, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Darby, G.

Rushout, G.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Eliot, Lord

Style, Sir C.

Ellis, J.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Fielden, J.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Thompson, Alderman

Freshfield, J. W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Heneage, G. W.

Williams, W.

Henniker, Lord

Wood, T.

Hindley, C.

Young, J.

Hodgson, R.

Lowther, J. H.

TELLERS.

Mahon, Visct.

Hinde, H.

Morris, D.

Wakley, T.

Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12,
Mr. Hindleymoved an amendment to

1089
the effect that the hour and a half for meal-times be at any time.
The Committee divided on the amendment: Ayes 46: Noes 109—Majority 63.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, M.

Lowther, J. H.

Bagge, W.

Mahon, Visct.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Morris, D.

Blackstone, W. S.

Plumptre, J. P.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pringle, A.

Burrell, Sir C.

Rae, rt. hn. Sir W.

Chute, W. L. W.

Round, J.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Darby, G.

Rushout, G.

Duncorabe, hon. W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Duncombe, hon. E.

Sheppard, T.

Eastnor, Visct.

Shirley, E. J.

Eliot, J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Ellis, J.

Smith, A.

Farnham, E. B.

Style, Sir C.

Fielden, J.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Freshfield, J. W.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Gore, O. W.

Thompson, Alderman

Hall, Sir B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wakley, T.

Heneage, G. W.

Williams, W.

Henniker, Lord

Hinde, J. H.

TELLERS.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Ashley, Lord

Kemble, H.

Hindley, Mr.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Grimsditch, T.

Aglionby, H. A.

Grote, G.

Ainsworth, P.

Hastie, A.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Attwood, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bailey, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Baring, F. T.

Hodgson, R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hope, hon. C.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Broadley, H.

Houstoun, G.

Brotherton, J.

Howard, Sir R.

Busfeild, W.

Hurt, F.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Hutt, W.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

James, W.

Chalmers, P.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Childers, J. W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Davies, Colonel

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Duncombe, T.

Lister, E. C.

Egerton, W. T.

Loch, J.

Ellis, W.

Macleod, R.

Evans, W.

Marsland, H.

Fenton, J.

Marton, G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Maule, hon. F.

Ferguson, R.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Finch, F.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Gordon, B.

O'Brien, W. S.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

O'Connell, D.

Greene, T.

O'Connell, J.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

1090

Parker, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Parker, R. T.

Steuart, R.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Stewart, J.

Parrott, J.

Stock, Dr.

Pattison, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Pease, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Pigot, D. R.

Teignmouth, Lord

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Price, Sir R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Pusey, P.

Turner, W.

Rich, H.

Vigors, N. A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wall, C. B.

Rundle, J.

Wallace, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Warburton, H.

Rutherford, rt. hn. A.

White, A.

Sanford, E. A.

Wilbraham, G.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Scrope, G. P.

Williams, W. A.

Slaney, R. A.

Wood, C.

Smith, J. A.

Wood, G, W.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

TELLERS.

Stanley, Lord

Patten, W.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Philips, M.

Amendment rejected.
Clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.
On Clause 14, which authorises a deduction of not more than three-pence in each week from the wages of the child towards the payment of the schooling of such child, and on the question that the blank be filled up with the words three-pence,
Lord Ashleyproposed that two-pence a-week be substituted as the amount of contribution.
The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 51; Noes 96: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Archbold, R.

Parker, R. T.

Baring, F.

Parrott, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Patten, J. W.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Pease, J.

Blake, W. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Childers, J. W.

Power, J.

Evans, W.

Rich, H.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gordon, R.

Rundle, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Grote, G.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hastie, A.

Sanford, E. A.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Scrope, G. P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Smith, R. V.

Howard, Sir R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hutt, W.

Steuart, R.

Lister, E. C.

Stuart, Lord J.

Marsland, H.

Stock, Dr.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Tancred, H. W.

O'Connell, J.

Thomson, rt hn. C. P.

O'Connell, M. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Parker, J.

Williams, W. A.

1091

Wood, C.

TELLERS.

Wood, G. W.

Philips, M.

Yates, J. A.

Maule, F.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

James, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Ainsworth, P.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Attwood, T.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Bagge, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Bailey, J.

Mahon, Lord Visct.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Morris, D.

Baines, E.

Packe, C.W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Blackstone, W. S.

Praed, W. T.

Broadley, H.

Price, Sir R.

Brotherton, J.

Pringle, A.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pusey, P.

Burrell, Sir C.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Busfeild, W.

Redington, T. N.

Chalmers, P.

Round, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Clerk, Sir G.

Rushout, G.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Darby, G.

Sheppard, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Shirley, E. J.

Duncombe, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Easthope, J.

Slaney, R. A.

Eastnor, Lord Visct.

Stanley, Lord

Egerton, W. T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Eliot, Lord

Style, Sir Charles

Ewart, W.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Parnham, E. B.

Teignmouth, Lord

Fielden, J.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Thompson, Mr. Aid.

Gore, O. W.

Thornely, T.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Turner, W.

Greene, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Grimsditch, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Hall, Sir B.

Waddington, H. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Wakley, T.

Henniker, Lord

Warburton, H.

Hinde, J. H.

White, A.

Hindley, C.

Wilbraham, G.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hope, hon. C.

Williams, W.

Hope, G. W.

Houstoun, G.

TELLERS.

Hurt, F.

Ashley, Lord

Ingestrie, Lord Visct.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.
On Clause 17, (Inspectors may declare schoolmasters incompetent,)
Mr. Colquhounmoved that that part of the clause conferring the power upon the inspector to certify the incompetency of the schoolmaster, should be expunged.
Mr. F. Maulethought that this was the only mode of regulating schools which could be adopted.
Lord Stanleysaid a few words in support of the amendment, and suggested that it was giving the inspector too much power to say that he might ruin a school-
1092
master, merely upon the opinion which he might entertain of his competency.
Mr. C. P. Thomsonthought that the probability of the abuse of the powers conferred upon the inspectors would be nothing in comparison with the difficulty that might be produced by the omission of this part of the clause.
Mr. Grotedeclared his opinion that this was one of the most salutary provisions in the bill, and that the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Knares-borough would create little change.
Mr. C. P. Thomsonrequested the House to recollect, that under the present Act the inspectors had the effective power of disqualifying schoolmasters, for the salary of the schoolmaster or schoolmisstress was to be withheld whenever the inspector declared such person to be incompetent.
The Committee divided on the original question, Ayes 67; Noes 53: Majority 14.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, W. S.

Ainsworth, P.

O'Connell, M. J.

Archbold, R.

Parker, J.

Baines, E.

Parrott, J.

Baring, F. T.

Pigot, D. R.

Beamish, F. B.

Price, Sir R.

Blake, W. J.

Redington, T. N.

Brocklehurst, J.

Rich, H.

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Busfeild, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Chalmers, P.

Sanford, E. A.

Childers, J. W.

Scrape, G. P.

Duncombe, T.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Easthope, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Evans, W.

Stewart, J.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, Lord J.

Fenton, J.

Stock, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Style, Sir C.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Talfourd, Mr. Sergt.

Gordon, R.

Tancred, H. W.

Greene, T.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thorneley, T.

Grote, G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Warburton, H.

Hinde, J. H.

Westenra, hon. H. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wilbraham, G.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Williams, W. A.

James, W.

Wood, C.

Lister, E. C.

Wood, G. W.

Macleod, R.

TELLERS.

Marsland, H.

Maule, F.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Solicitor-General, Mr.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Ashley, Lord

1093

Bagge, W.

Morris, D.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Packe, C. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Parker, R. T.

Broadley, H.

Patten, J. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pease, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Chute, W. L. W.

Praed, W. T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pringle, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Egerton, W. T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Farnham, E. B.

Rushout, G.

Fielden, J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Fellowes, E.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Freshfield, J. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Gore, O. W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Grimsditch, T.

Stanley, Lord

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Teignmouth, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Thompson, Alderman

Hodgson, R.

Turner, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hope, G. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Houstoun, G.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hurt, F.

Williams, W.

Ingestrie, Lord Visct.

TELLERS.

Lowther, J. H.

Colquhoun, J. L.

Mahon, Lord Visct.

Darby, G.

Mr. Redingtonproposed that a proviso be inserted in the clause, declaring that in such case where the inspector declared a schoolmaster to be incompetent that he should give a copy in writing of his reasons for his belief in such incompetency on the part of such master or mistress.
Mr. Bainesthought that this would be giving a dangerous power to the inspector, as, by giving such reasons in writing, he might be brought within the operation of the law of libel, in a similar manner that the printer of that House had been.
Lord Stanleyadmitted the force of the objection of the hon. Member, but it applied equally to the former part of the clause, by which the inspector had to make a declaration of the incompetency of the schoolmaster, &c.
The Attorney-Generaldid not think that even the Court of Queen's Bench would allow such a view to be taken of the subject, although he confessed, after what had taken place, that he felt great diffidence in giving an opinion.
Sir J. Grahamconceived that this would evidently be considered a privileged communication, directed to be made by Act of Parliament, and therefore was not open to such an objection.
The proviso adopted, and the clause agreed to.
On the next clause being put,
Mr. Darbymoved that the Chairman report progress.
Lord John Russelltrusted, that the Committee would proceed with the remaining clauses respecting education. He certainly should feel it to be his duty to resist the proposition of the hon. Member.
Lord Stanleycould not understand why his noble Friend could not as well consent to the Chairman's reporting progress now as after these clauses. The next clause would take some time to discuss, as several hon. Members had amendments to propose in it, and he believed the sense of the Committee would be taken on it. They had now been sitting in the Committee from half-past five o'clock to nearly one, and several Members had had no opportunity of procuring refreshment.
Lord John Russelldid not conceive that there would be any lengthened discussion on these clauses after the time the last clause had engaged their attention. If they then adjourned, the whole subject of education would be re-opened the next time they went into Committee.
Lord Ashleycould not understand why the noble Lord was so adverse to the discussion of the provisions of that bill. The noble Lord seemed to be very peppery on the subject of this bill. He should have some consideration for those sitting on the benches on that (the Opposition) side, as they had had no opportunity of getting any refreshment for several hours. He trusted that the motion for adjournment would be persisted in.
Lord John Russellwas anxious that that bill should pass, as the other measures that he had introduced; he thought, therefore, that it was not justifiable on the part of the noble Lord to insinuate that he was actuated by sinister motives with respect to the bill, and although he often had similar charges thrown out against him, it could hardly be expected that he could be indifferent to such accusations. He had also been constantly charged with not proceeding with the business of the country; but was it surprising that delay arose when such impediments were thrown in the way of public measures.
Lord Ashleywould remind the noble Lord, that the bill had been introduced on the 14th of February, and it was the 1st of July before they went into Committee on the bill.
The Committee divided, Ayes 34; Noes 49: Majority, 15.

List of the AYES.

Acland, T. D.

Bentinck, Lord G.

1095

Broadley, H.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Packe, C W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Parker, R. T.

Burrell, Sir C.

Patten, J. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Praed, W. T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Pringle, A.

Egerton, W. T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Fielden, J.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Freshfield, J. W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Grimsditch, T.

Stanley, Lord

Henniker, Lord

Waddington, H. S.

Hodgson, R.

Wakley, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Hope, G. W.

Ingestrie, Lord Visct.

TELLERS.

Lowther, J. H.

Ashley, Lord

Mahon, Lord Visct.

Darby, G.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Parker, J.

Ainsworth, P.

Parrott, J.

Baines, E.

Pease, J.

Baring, F. T.

Philips, M.

Beamish, F. B.

Pigot, D. R.

Blake, W. J.

Redington, T. N.

Brocklehurst, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Busfeild, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

Sandford, E. A.

Chalmers, P.

Scrope, G. P.

Childers, J. W.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Duncombe, T.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Easthope, J.

Stewart, J.

Fenton, J.

Stock, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Style, Sir C.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Thornely, T.

Grote, G.

Turner, W.

Hawes, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Heathcoat, J.

Walker, R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wilbraham, G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Williams, W. A.

Macleod, R.

TELLERS.

Morpeth, Lord Visct.

Maule, F.

O'Connell, M. J.

Solicitor-General, Mr.

The House resumed. Committee to sit again.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS SUSPENSION.
Lord John Russellmoved for leave to introduce a bill for the further suspension of ecclesiastical appointments. It was not, as he had stated the other evening, his intention to proceed further this Session with the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill, and he therefore wished to continue the bill now in force for the suspension of ecclesiastical appointments for another year, with some slight alterations. He proposed to give power in certain cases to renew leases, the want of this power being now greatly complained of, and he proposed also, that where there
1096
should be vacancies in ecclesiastical preferments, they should be disposed of on the same principle as was intended by the Revenues Bill. Thus, if there were two vacancies in the dignitaries of the cathedral of Canterbury, and another vacancy should occur, he proposed that the third vacancy should be filled up. Leave given.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that some amendments had been made in the other House to this bill, which would render farther alterations necessary; and as the bill, after all these amendments, would be but an incomplete measure, he would ask leave to bring in a bill which should carry out the intentions of both Houses of Parliament in a perfect manner. In the meantime, he would not discuss the amendments made by the Lords, but when the House had both bills before them, they would be able to determine which was best.
Bill brought in and read a first time.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—Bishops Residences; and a great number of Private Bills.—Read a first time.—Sugar Duties; Electors Removal; Bankrupts Estates (Scotland); Borough Watch Rates.—Read a third time:—Common Pleas Regulation.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of Argyle, Earls Fitzwilliam, Rosebery, Radnor, and Harewood, and a number of other noble Lords, from a great number of places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Earl Fitzwilliam. from St. Ives, against entrusting the system of National Education to any particular Sect.

GOVERNMENT OF JAMAICA—SECOND MEASURE.
The Marquess of Normanby 1030
having presented to the House copies of all Acts of the Jamaica Legislature which had expired in October last, proceeded to move the second reading of the Jamaica Bill. He said, that during the short time that he had had the honour of holding a seat in their Lordships' House, he had frequently-felt, when called upon to address them, the peculiar disadvantages under which he laboured in having been so long a period—almost all the time that he had been a Member of that House—absent abroad in the discharge of other public duties besides those which he would have been called upon to perform as a Peer, in his place, in Parliament. This circumstance had created difficulties which had proved exceedingly embarrassing on his being called upon to press any measure upon their Lordships' attention; but his necessary absence had produced effects equally troublesome, in consequence of his labouring under the want of that information which alone would be obtained by listening to the discussions which took place in their Lordships' House. It so happened, that he had never been present in that House at any previous discussion of that description; but, at the same time he might claim for himself some countervailing advantage. He meant in his possessing some local experience of the island, the circumstances of which were now under discussion, and in his having had some opportunity of studying the negro character, and of examining the state of society there, and it was from that experience that he was now induced, with the earnestness of conviction, to endeavour to impress upon their Lordships the importance of the decision to which they were this night to come. His opinion had been confirmed by intelligence which he had received this morning, for he found that the bill which had been before their Lordships, but was now no longer in agitation had been received in the island of Jamaica, by all the popular party, by all the newly-emancipated negroes, as the greatest possible boon that could be conferred upon them. It was viewed by them as giving them the security of protection until they should be able to protect themselves; and he most sincerely apprehended, that if their Lordships now rejected this measure or mutilated its provisions, to which the negro looked as the ground-work on which impartial protection would be afforded to him, the impression of his mind would be that all parliamentary protection was withdrawn from him. It was his duty to endeavour, so far as he

1031
was able, to do away with that impression, but he very much feared, from all the information he had received, that it would still remain if their Lordships' decision should not be such as the negro should desire. Their Lordships were told the other night, that the kindly feelings which existed between the newly-emancipated population, and the House of Assembly ought not to be interrupted by the adoption of this measure; but although false views of the state of society might be urged for the sake of the influence they might gain there, he should not be candid if he did not say that those kindly feelings did never exist. He sincerely trusted the change that had recently taken place would amalgamate all classes, and that the House of Assembly and the free population would forget past differences and by-gone distinctions; but that event was only to be attained by a complete change in the conduct of the House of Assembly, and by such a course being pursued as had not been adopted since the Emancipation Act. Their Lordships had had the advantage of hearing, at their bar, the agent of that colony; they, therefore, had before them all that the greatest talent and experience, and certainly the most earnest zeal could urge on behalf of the Assembly of Jamaica against the bill. A considerable number of their Lordships had listened to the address which had been made to them, and had gave to it earnest attention. He regretted that much of their Lordships' time had been consumed on that occcasion by considerations with which they had nothing to do with the present question. They had been informed of a former quarrel with Governor Littleton and the House of Assembly—they had heard of the resistance to the examination of General Carmichael before a Committee of that House, and a trivial mistake made by his noble successor in the Government, and their Lordships were told of the rights of the House of Assembly and of the reparation to which they were entitled. Why, were there ever two things more unlike? That was the case of a difference between two local conflicting authorities, but was it an instance in point? Was it to be alleged that the United Parliament of England was to make such reparations to the House of Assembly? Were they to say, "you are right and we are wrong, we acknowledge our error, and we hope you will resume your duty?" The learned counsel was also pleased to state, that this measure must have origi-
1032
nated in a general wish and desire, for change. He sincerely hoped that every thing in the island of Jamaica would be changed, for if things remained as they were, Jamaica would not be what it was the wish of the British Parliament and of the British people it should be. He considered that the change proposed to be made was the safest, the best, and the most praiseworthy change of all that had been effected in this age of progressive amelioration. They had been told of the respect that ought to be paid to the established institutions there. Why, could they forget that slavery was an established institution?—that it was a plague spot on every other institution, and that wherever it touched it left its contaminating influence? Every institution there should be examined and changed to get rid of that plague spot, and of that contamination. The learned gentleman had thrown a considerable portion of blame on her Majesty's Government, and had employed much vituperation as to the course which it had pursued, both before and after this measure had been proposed. He had, however, passed over but lightly another culprit—he had evaded remarking upon the part which that other culprit had sustained in this transaction. It was in the presence of that culprit that he now stood. It was their Lordships, who were above all answerable for the state of things that had introduced the division between the Assembly of Jamaica and the Imperial Parliament. Their Lordships had adopted the measure that gave offence. They had not adopted it at the suggestion of the other House of Parliament, but it had originated with their Lordships, and it was to them that the learned gentleman should have addressed himself. They certainly could not evade all responsibility by any suggestion of the measure having been passed without due consideration, for although certainly it had not undergone much discussion, yet he believed that they were sincere in their conviction and belief, that the measure which they had passed was necessary to remedy the state of things then existing in the colony of Jamaica. But if they were to set aside the question of reparation, that brought him to the real question before the House, and that was, were they or were they not justified in passing the Prisons Bill? He candidly avowed that he did not consider that the measure which he was now proposing was the best remedy that could be applied; and he owned that

1033
he thought it would have been better to refer to the despatches of the 13th February, which were received before he was a Member of the Government; but he had adopted this measure, conceiving it to be necessary for the existing state of things in Jamaica, for he thought that it was necessary for carrying out the great change which society was undergoing. He had, on former occasions, pointed out the impossibility of carrying out the great measure of emancipation in Jamaica through the medium of machinery intended for another state of things and for a totally different purpose. The opinion he had entertained of the necessity for a temporary suspension of the state of things then existing in Jamaica, he had formed while residing there, and he had communicated it to the noble Lord, the then Colonial Secretary, shortly after his return. He did not press it at the time, and although he saw that there would be some difficulty in acting upon it, he never entertained any doubt as to its being the best course which could be adopted. He was surprised at the expressions which had been used by the learned gentleman at the bar of that House a few nights since. Was it not, in point of fact, a mockery to talk of depriving the people of Jamaica of their elective rights, when the House of Assembly represented neither the population nor the property of the island? Was it not a mockery to talk of the benefit of free Government when the representation was in the hands of those who had no share in the interests of the great mass of the population? Such were his feelings with regard to the inefficiency of that engine for carrying out the most mighty and the most delicate change which had ever taken place in the framework of any society; and he conceived that there was no choice left them but to pass the present measure, the House of Assembly not having returned to what he considered their duty. They must provide means to establish the proper machinery of government which would be necessary to support the relations between masters and servants, and to establish laws to which the servant might look with confidence, and from which the master should sustain no injury. Making every allowance for the statements of an advocate who was naturally disposed, when addressing an assembly not very well acquainted with the details of the measure to make the best of his own case, he had been really surprised to hear the learned gentleman who had appeared before their Lordships' House state
1034
that from the year 1832, the House of Assembly had always shown its willingness to attend to the subject of the prisons. He had had some experience himself on that subject in the autumn of 1832, and he had, at that time, made some remarks upon the state of the workhouses and of Kingston gaol, which showed that abuses of the most horrid and revolting nature existed. With regard to Kingston gaol, there was one great objection, which applied to the system which prevailed there of confining the felons with the slaves in custody for debts due to their masters. He had communicated the circumstance to many members of the House of Assembly, who all admitted the evil, and promised to remedy it; but, as in many cases, although they expressed their own unqualified opinion when separate, when they were collected together, they completely disregarded what they had said. He held in his hand an extract from a despatch of the 16th December, 1832, and in stating on that occasion what were the duties of the House of Assembly, and what they had not done, he particularly alluded to the state of the prisons, pointing out their refusal to refer to a committee the proposal which had been made to them, for substituting a treadmill for the ordinary mode of punishment in the gaol at Kingston. That was the state of the gaols and workhouses in 1832, and in the following year, he again endeavoured to persuade all those individuals who he thought possessed influence in the House of Assembly to remedy some of those vile evils which existed, but with no better success.
"On the 12th of April, 1835, the Governor reported the cases of two female apprentices who had been flogged in the Kingston workhouse, and on the 7th July, 1835, that the Gaol Act of 1834 authorises the common council, or five magistrates in session, to pass rules, saying they have passed rules authorising the supervisors of workhouses to inflict corporal punishment on all persons, not even-excluding females; they have also adopted the custom of cutting off the hair of all females who are sent into the houses of correction for confinement or punishment. They have, in some instances put untried people to hard labour, and cut off their hair."
On the 29th August, 1835, Lord Glenelg, in reply, adverted to the indecorum and injustice of scourging, or cutting the hair off women for any imputed or real misconduct. The governor was instructed to apply to the Assembly to amend the act; and it was added, that if such

1035
practices should be continued under the sanction of any colonial enactment, the government would feel it their duty to apply to Parliament. On the 17th of November, 1835, Lord Sligo, in obedience to these instructions, sent a message to the Assembly, suggesting important amendments in the Gaol Act, and calling especial attention to the fact that women were flogged on the treadmill. This message was referred to a special committee, but no amended bill was passed. On the 5th of March, 1836, the Governor reported the result of inquiry into transactions at the St. Andrew's workhouse, and he said:—
"It proves that I have not lightly made the charge of the corporal punishment of females being still, in spite of all my efforts, administered in the different workhouses of this island."
He (the Marquess of Normanby) had had an opportunity himself of observing the disgraceful extent to which corporal punishment was carried. Accompanied by two of his suite, he had gone unexpectedly to examine into the system pursued, and the punishment that he saw inflicted upon women was of such a nature, that the officers who were with him some days after-wards declared that they had never witnessed any thing to equal it, even by sentence of court-martial. He had made application to the directors of the workhouse upon the subject of the officer who had superintended this punishment, but he soon found that it would be impossible to procure his discharge. He was reprimanded, but for any thing he knew to the contrary, he was still in the same situation which he then filled. On the 30th of March, 1836, the Governor referred to the conviction of the supervisor of Trelawney, for flogging Jane Reid, and added:—
"That the punishing women who would not work at the treadmill, by the cat, had become so general, that, in his opinion, an example should be made."
On the 9th April, 1836, the Governor reported the evidence on the inquest of Louis Beveridge, who died at the treadmill at Morant Bay, after having been tied upon the treadmill with four other females, the verdict being "apoplexy occasioned by excitement." On the 11th June, 1836, Lord Glenelg observed that it appeared from this evidence that in the Morant Bay workhouse:—
"The women who refused to work at the
1036
treadmill were fastened to it by ligatures round the arms for twenty-four successive hours, in such a manner as to endanger the lives of all, and actually to occasion the death of one."
And, in reference to the same workhouse, on the 31st of August, 1836, his Lordship observed that it appeared that,—
"Out of eleven deaths in that workhouse on which inquests had been held since Jan. 1835, three were confessedly owing to injuries received on the treadmill, and eight were ascribed to the visitation of God, under which general description it was obvious that many cases may have been included in which the death of the prisoner was not unconnected with the treatment which she had previously undergone."
Repeated acts of cruelty subsequently appeared, and on the 1st of August, 1836, Lord Sligo, in reference to his instructions from home to endeavour to procure a remedy for the deficiencies in the law for preventing cruelties in workhouses, in his answer said: "I again say, advisedly, the remedy must come from home." On the 13th March, 1837, the Governor reported a message, sent by him to the Assembly on the 22nd February, 1837, calling the attention of the Assembly to this subject. This message was referred to a special committee, who reported to the effect that the existing laws were sufficient to prevent abuses, and nothing was done. On the 1st July, 1837, Lord Glenelg said:—
"I have already had occasion to advert more than once to the abuses alleged to exist in these places (gaols and workhouses), and I have intimated an opinion that unless some remedy should be applied to them, it might be necessary for the stipendiary magistrates to abstain from committing apprentices to the workhouses."
Occasion arose to reiterate these instructions on the 14th October, 1837, and on the 1st of August Lord Glenelg sent out the report of the select committee on the working of the apprenticeship system appointed in May, 1837, in which it was commanded that there should be instituted without delay a strict and searching examination into the state of the workhouses in the West India colonies, and especially into the construction and use of treadmills, &c. On the 27th of October, 1837, a dispatch from the Secretary of State (dated May 21, 1837) was laid before the Assembly reviewing at length the provisions of the Gaol Act of 1834, and urging various alterations and amendments. This message

1037
was referred as before to a special committee, and no further proceedings were taken. On the 13th of February, 1838, Lord Glenelg in his dispatch said:—
"I apprised you that it was my intention to address you in a separate despatch on the subject of the requisite measures for the immediate prevention of abuses of a flagrant character in the houses of correction. It would be a great satisfaction to me to learn that a law of this nature were passed by the Colonial Legislature, but should this not be the case, there is no subject which, in my opinion, more imperatively demands the interference of the Imperial Legislature."
On the 21st of February, 1838, the Assembly was again solicited by message to entertain the question of prison discipline, and a further despatch was laid before it with exactly the same result as before—reference to a committee without further proceedings; and, finally, in the month of June, 1838, the Assembly met, but did not entertain the question of prison discipline. He alluded to these cases only, because they had been told by the agent of the House of Assembly, that the Assembly up to 1832 had always shown a disposition to interfere. He had now brought the question to the state in which it was at the meeting of the House of Assembly, and to show the temper in which that House already was, he would allude only to the protest in which they referred to an Act which was universally thought to be necessary, the Act in Aid, a measure which was not now denied by any party in this country to be a proper and fair interference of the British Parliament to carry out the measure of Emancipation. They said expressly,
"It is unreasonable and unnatural that one nation should assume to pass laws to bind another nation, of whose customs, wants, constitution, and physical advantages and disadvantages, she is and must be profoundly ignorant; and whose distance opposes an insurmountable barrier to the attainment of local information."
And then they went on to assert that,
"When lawyers consent to sit in judgment on an Assembly in no respect their inferiors, except in extent and magnitude of power—when they condemn and presume to punish upon charges kept secret from the accused, they cannot be expected to listen to a defence which would convict them either of imbecility and cowardice, if they were urged to the injustice by popular clamour; or of fraud and malice, and a thirst for omnipotent authority, if the injustice were the result of deliberation and design."
1038
Not content with this, they proceed to contend for their own uncontrolled powers;
"We will also," say they, "acknowledge that they can seize by force on the powers which they do not possess in law or reason. There cannot be two legislatures in one state. If the British Parliament were to make laws for Jamaica, it must exercise that prerogative without a partner."
Those were the decorous terms in which the House of Assembly addressed the two branches of the Imperial Legislature. So that the Assembly absolutely placed itself on a level with their Lordships and the other House of Parliament, and declared, that if the Imperial Legislature presumed to interfere on any one point, they would abstain from the due exercise of their duty. Their Lordships' House did not escape.
"The taxation of the colony may, perhaps, be delegated to the House of Lords, into which was first introduced the infamous bill for our destruction; and the first lime, for many ages, their Lordships in that bill were permitted to exercise the privilege of laying on British subjects grievous pecuniary penalties. The power of taxing Jamaica may console their Lordships for its deprivation elsewhere."
Such was the language of the House of Assembly previous to the last offence said to be offered it by the passing of the Prisons Bill, and this was what the counsel at the bar had to offer as a proof of the wish of the Members to conciliate this country. With reference to the particular question to be that night decided, he was anxious to show their Lordships, that if they determined to do nothing, that determination would not be effectual. He had not heard that any one of their Lordships intended to move the repeal of the Prisons Bill, and out of the mouths of the Assembly itself it was clearly demonstrated, that no debasement short of the repeal of that Act, would induce it to resume its functions. The Assembly stated, in its first resolution, that the Act of the British Parliament "is a violation of our inherent rights as British subjects;" and, further, "that the same has not, and ought not, to have the force of laws in this island." Thus they not only decided that this Act was a violation of their constitution, but, by this document, they averred, that an Act of Parliament passed by their Lordships, and by the other branch of the Legislature was not law, and ought not to have the force of law in the island. They distinctly declared also, on three separate occasions, that till her Majesty's gracious pleasure was known—and

1039
it was clearly shown that nothing, except the repeal of the Prisons Act would satisfy them—until they were informed "whether they were henceforth to be treated as subjects having the power of making laws as hitherto for their own government, or whether they were to be treated as a conquered colony, and governed by Parliamentary legislation"—they would not proceed with their duties. And here he might observe, that in the addresses of both the learned counsel, though they dwelt upon the conciliatory tone that should have pervaded the despatches, yet anything less conciliatory than this address of the House of Assembly, he was at a loss to conceive; and in the speeches of the learned Gentlemen themselves there was a reassertion, though in other terms, of the same doctrines which the House of Assembly had propounded three several times. Therefore it was, that he said, that unless they were prepared to go to that extent which the House of Assembly required, and unless they were prepared to repeal or to forego the Prisons Act, and not to force it as law upon the colony, they would not satisfy the Assembly; and if they did not satisfy the Assembly, they were bound to provide not only for the wants of the public service, which the abrupt termination of its duties by the House of Assembly had produced, but also to do their utmost to supply materials for improved legislation with reference to some points which, if not dealt with at the present time, the laws would come too late to produce that influence on the habits of the negro population which was necessary for the well being of the colony and the mutual interests of all classes therein. The learned counsel had said that there was no urgency for this legislation, but the House of Assembly had distinctly in so many words admitted, in their address to Sir Lionel Smith, that they felt, in common with his Excellency, the necessity for laws regulating vagrancy, the duties between masters and servants, and the regulation of the militia; and, they added, that they were truly alive to these facts, but so long as their rights were violated, so long as their privileges were invaded, they would continue to adhere to their decision. There could not be a more distinct declaration that unless the Imperial Parliament would recal the obnoxious law, and unless there was a promise on the part of their Lordships to offend no more, they could not depend upon a resumption of its duty by the
1040
House of Assembly. Then, with regard to contracts, it was admitted at the bar that the present law of contracts was not such a law as the negro could act upon, and it was stated that by the advice of the Baptist missionaries the negroes would not sign written contracts. And why was this? Because the law was such that those who he must say had in this instance done right in judging for those who were not fit to judge for themselves, could not advise the negroes to acquiesce in; in fact, that the present contract law was not such as established equal liabilities between the two parties. Allusion had been made to the influence of the missionaries. When he was in the colony, he knew from personal inquiries something of the relations existing between the negroes and the missionaries. When he went to Jamaica, immediately after the insurrection, he found a very large share of that proceeding unjustly ascribed to the missionaries, but the influence of the missionaries, and particularly the Baptist missionaries, over the negroes was founded on the preparation the missionaries had given to the negroes to look for the great boon which afterwards arrived; the missionaries had assured the negroes, that such was the disposition of the mother country, that the boon could not longer be withheld; they consequently acquired an influence with the negroes, and from everything he had seen, he must declare, that this influence had been exercised beneficially; but he must add, he hoped that when the Government at home should have established a fair tribunal for regulating the relations of master and servant, the missionaries-would feel that ft was no part of their duty to interfere with the amount of remuneration given, and that they would abstain from all interference with a trust reposed in those who were prepared to exercise it beneficially for all parties. When, however, a distinction was drawn between the treatment of the Baptist missionaries, and those of other denominations, he trusted that this difference did now exist. During the short time he was connected with the colony, there was no such distinction; indeed, one of the most difficult, and one of the most unpleasant acts of his ministry was, to save a Wesleyan missionary in the court-house of St. Anne, when the custos who administered the oath was assaulted by a gentleman of great influence in that part of the country, and a member of the House of Assembly. When it was said, then, that all but the

1041
Baptist missionaries now received good treatment, he hoped that there had been a change in this respect, for not long ago there was an interference, not only with the temporal concerns, but with the spiritual ministration of the missionaries generally. As to the argument on the contract law, he must especially refer to the declaration on the part of the Assembly, which he trusted would go forth to the country, and to the negro, as a point against which they must guard themselves, a declaration that the House of Assembly would not pass any measure giving a decision as to the execution of the contracts to the stipendiary magistrates; and he did hope that the country would pledge itself to the introduction of a power of superintendence on the part of some body as independent as the stipendiary magistrates. The master knew well the purport of his contract; he was well able to protect himself, but their object ought to be the protection of the negro; they ought to act so as to obtain the well-founded confidence of the negro, and there was no chance of procuring so desirable a result so long as they left the power of legislation in the hands of the House of Assembly. Several of the provisions of the contract-law were highly objectionable; it was not necessary for him to enter upon the consideration of those parts of the law, because the House of Assembly had admitted, that the law of contracts required an alteration; otherwise he might have pointed out many sufficient reasons why the negroes hitherto had been unwilling to bind themselves by written contracts. Then they were told that the vagrant law which permitted whipping was repealed; but, in the opinion of the Chief Justice of Jamaica, this was not so; he was the person who had to administer the law in the island, and there were not any means here of correcting his judgments; and unless their Lordships interposed, the act of Charles the 2nd must be considered as practically in force in Jamaica. Again, with respect to the waste lands, all those who knew any thing of Jamaica knew that to the planters this was an unobjectionable measure; he presumed that even the advocates of the planters did not seriously object to it, but they said, "Why pass laws for the benefit of the planters?" He denied that any laws which would amend the habits of the negro would be laws for the planters alone; they would be laws for the negroes also, and, if rightly understood and fairly en-
1042
forced, they would promote as well the permanent interest of the negroes, as the temporary advantage of the planters. They were told also to take care that in passing laws for the benefit of the planter, they did not deprive the newly-enfranchised negroes of their political rights, and that they did not, by making the House of Assembly refuse the terms of this Act, cause as a necessary consequence the entire abrogation of the constitution. Now he was not sure that when the matter came again before the House of Assembly, they would refuse to act; but when they were told, that if the Assembly did so refuse, they would deprive the newly emancipated negroes of their franchise, he must ask, whether their Lordships were aware, that even if the negroes had freeholds, which very few of them had, but which were necessary to entitle them to vote, it would require fifteen months before they could exercise their right. [Lord Ellenborough: Fifteen months, from 1st August last.] But they must be registered, and the number of persons either registered, or in a situation for registration, might be counted easily within the walls of that House. Let the House, too, consider who the parties, were who made this appeal. In 1836, an act was passed by the House of Assembly, raising the franchise to 30 l. a year; and in the last year, the franchise, which had been 10 l., was increased to 15 l. or 16 l. These were the parties who stated, in their memorial to him, that one reason why they objected to the interference with the Jamaica House of Assembly was, that being, anxious to protect the rights of the emancipated population of Jamaica, no less than those of the other classes of the community, they objected to the late bill, which would have deprived the emancipated population of those elective franchises, which, from the small value of the qualification, and the facility of its acquisition, might be and were so completely within their reach. With reference to the second clause, and to the expired laws, he held that it was unnecessary to say much to induce their Lordships to adopt the clause. There was no provision in the clause to make it necessary for the governor to revive all the laws; it only enabled the governor in council to revive such as they might deem requisite. It was said, independently of the financial arrangement, that if the object were to revive the taxes, they might do so, but that they could not revive the appropriation; but many important services were provided for

1043
annually of exactly the same amount, which might be provided for under the present appropriation. There was also the question of the rules, &c, articles of war, which had been passed slightly over; no one would say, that in such a crisis, and in such a state as this, that the governor should be left without such a power as this act provided. Again, as to the militia laws, Sir Lionel Smith had shown, that by the exhortation of the baptist missionaries to the negroes to obey the laws, those missionaries had stood in the light of a police, but this was not such a security as they would wish the tranquillity of the country to rest upon. Provisions would also be made for the additional pay of the officers, which was not now secured. The Insolvency Debtors' Act had also expired. They were told the other day, that the number of persons in gaol for debt was not great, for creditors would not put their debtors in gaol if they could not get their money; but, by the accounts he had that day received from Jamaica, it appeared that the prisons of the island were crowded with debtors who would have been discharged if the Insolvent Debtors Act had been in force. In proposing the present law, therefore, he intended to give the governor in council sufficient power to provide for some of the laws which were of the utmost importance to the tranquillity and the well-being of the country. Returning once again to the imputation that this law would oppress the negroes and benefit the planters, the manner in which the former Act had been received, the thankfulness which they displayed for the intended protection, induced him to hope that to whatever decision their Lordships might come on this bill, they would qualify the negroes disappointment, and that they would declare their intention to provide that remedy for the evils of the great change which, in his opinion, could not longer be delayed. And as to the intended injury to the negroes, the manner in which they themselves had received the account of the alteration proposed in their behalf was a sufficient answer to the charge. He had had peculiar opportunities of judging of the impressions likely to be made upon the negro mind. Subsequent to the Emancipation Act of 1832, he had spent much time in travelling to every corner of the island to explain that act, with respect to which there was on the negro mind much apprehension. They were told that the law, when it came from England, would
1044
not be in force for a considerable interval; it was necessary that this point should be explained, and that their anticipations of happiness should be limited; he had succeeded in convincing the negroes under those circumstances. He had not been able to see the ultimate termination of the system on the 1st of August, but he understood that the negro never showed more willingness to work than he did throughout the whole interval after that announcement, on his part, on the day when the first step in that change came into operation. He had heard that some Jamaica interests were opposed to this bill; he knew that meetings had been held, and that many were opposed to the bill; but when they examined such opinion, they would surely doubt its correctness. Those who knew the constitution of the Assembly of Jamaica, knew that many persons of great weight in the island had declined to become members of the Assembly; it was notorious that the persons now in that Assembly were inferior to those who were formerly members; few actual proprietors were members, and many most respectable attorneys were told by the proprietors that they did not wish them to belong to that body; as a consequence, many influential attorneys refused to become members of the Assembly; and two of those attorneys, who had the management of numerous properties, he (the Marquess of Normanby) appointed to be members of the much-despised council. All, however, were not opposed to the bill; the noble Lord then at the table, whose good conduct towards his negroes had always been remarkable, and who had ever treated them as an English landlord did his labourers, was not opposed to the bill; the opinion of his noble Friend, too, who was not then in his place (the Marquess of Sligo) was entitled to some weight, for he had not only been Governor of Jamaica, but he was the owner of considerable property there; and he did think that other proprietors, who like the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Harewood) had much property in this country to occupy their time, would find themselves deceived by taking the opinions of others; and he said distinctly, that it was not by confiding to the House of Assembly the exclusive power of making laws in cases of emergency, nor by leaving matters under present circumstances to the decision of that House alone, that the permanent interests of the island could be provided for. He trusted that this subject would upon the present occasion be

1045
approached without any spirit of party; he could not say in former attempts in this cause of emancipation that this had been the case. He believed that many parties in another place had been precluded from giving the vote that they would wish. He conjured their Lordships to remember that they were approaching hallowed ground, and must not trample on national humanity; great and enduring interests were at stake; the question they had now to decide was most important; the country had called upon the House of Commons to interpose in the cause of humanity, and the House of Commons called upon their Lordships to provide for the consequences of that interference. The British Parliament had enacted emancipation, and it remained for the British Parliament and the British people to see that it was carried out. He would make no reference to the cost willingly and generously paid for this mighty change; but if they now neglected their duty they would have to deplore benefits which must be sacrificed, and there will be lost the credit of one of the noblest acts ever recorded in the British annals.
The Earl of Harewood, after what had fallen from the noble Marquess who had just sat down, must say he extremely regretted that in the critical and delicate position of Jamaica, as the noble Marquess had the power in his hands of official information, he should have appeared in their Lordships' House not so much to have spoken on the material question of the Imperial Parliament acting over the heads of the Assembly, but to have spoken and acted hostilely against the House of Assembly and the institutions of Jamaica, and should have opened his speech with a declaration which he (the Earl of Harewood) thought was very ill-timed, of having received his information from the popular party. If the noble Marquess supposed that there was any person connected with the West Indies who denied the power of Parliament to legislate in certain circumstances, he was completely mistaken, for there was no such denial either on the part of any person or the House of Assembly. On the contrary they had admitted it, and therefore to say it was one of the assertions of the House of Assembly was incorrect. He would, however, say that the discretion of Parliament must be very great in exercising that power, and that they were to consider Jamaica as an independent legislature, with a consti-
1046
tution of its own, and unless they showed that a great emergency had arisen on the point on which they intended to legislate, they were not justified, even as the Imperial Parliament, in interfering. Now the point in the present instance was the Prison Act; but that was not all, for though the Prison Act had occasioned the present crisis, on which this dispute had broken out, a variety of circumstances previous to that had caused an irritation and excitement in the colony, such, for example, as withholding from the colonists every description of information; and even on the Prison Bill itself, when it was brought in by the colonial-office, not a single word was uttered as to the effect of that bill on the constitution of Jamaica. It was brought in, too, at a time of year when only a few Members of either House of Parliament were in town; passed through both Houses without any information on the subject having reached the colony from their agent, it having gone through two stages in the House of Commons before he was aware of it, and the first time it was heard of in Jamaica was its being stuck up on the doors of the House of Assembly. That surely was not the way to treat any person. But with regard to legislation on the subject of prisons, he must say, that the House of Assembly did not refuse to legislate. The noble Marquess had stated, that in 1832 a representation was made to the House of Assembly concerning the state of the prisons, but he had omitted to say that on that subject in 1834 the House of Assembly received the commendation of the then governor of the colony for having taken it into consideration, and also that the present Prisons' Bill contained many of the same provisions as that of the Assembly. Captain Pringle was then sent out to make inquiry, and the House of Assembly stated to the governor that as soon as Captain Pringle had made his report they intended to take up the subject; and, indeed, they had so far taken it up as to have twelve clauses prepared to be proceeded with in the next Session. But before that time Captain Pringle had made his report here, and the Prisons Bill was passed and sent out. With regard to the question of the legislative power, he would put it to their Lordships to consider what would be the operation of the measure upon society in Jamaica, when its effect, and still more its intention, were indirectly to supersede the House of Assembly of the island. If the Government meant to

1047
do so, let them say so; but let it not be put into the power of the governor to say that the House of Assembly shall be called upon to do certain acts, and that if they do not, then his own legislative power shall be brought into play to effect them by his authority. He had no doubt—he had not the slightest doubt on earth—that the intention of Government was to do away with the House of Assembly. If it was not, he should like to hear it said by the noble Lords on the opposite side. As to legislation for the colony, he declared that the Imperial Parliament had the right; but if there was a right of this nature in their hands, certainly the occasion of the Emancipation Act would have been the occasion on which of all others that right would have been exerted most strongly; for that was a national concern, and a subject of national interest. The Imperial Parliament might have interfered with propriety on most points connected with that measure; yet they referred to the House of Assembly of Jamaica to pass measures relating to two most important points connected with that act. As to the noble Marquess' observations respecting the popular party in Jamaica, he believed that he was himself substantially a friend of the popular party, and he did not want to take from them the rights to which they had lately succeeded. The shortest way for the Government would be to do away with the House of Assembly at once, if that was their indirect object. At all events, of this he was quite sure, that looking to the present state of the island of Jamaica, it was the duty of Government to proceed with the utmost caution and circumspection. He did not complain, therefore, of any measures of a cautionary character which the Government might have thought proper to put in execution, but what he did complain of was the same as had been complained of elsewhere that the reports which had been made of the state of the island were all on one side; they were not taken with due care; nor were all that had been received communicated to their Lordships; he feared that all the reports of the stipendiary magistrates were not laid on the Table of the House. With regard to the acts enumerated in the second clause of the bill, the noble Marquess admitted that they were of no importance, with the exception of the Police Acts, and the noble Marquess had
1048
instructed the governor how to act in the event of the former Act not being passed. But it ought to be observed, that if their Lordships meant to conciliate the people of Jamaica, it would be necessary, out of those seventeen Acts, to exempt from the operation of this law seven, for seven only were money bills strictly speaking, the others not being so; but these seven money bills, if it were their object to declare themselves anything short of hostile to the constitution of Jamaica, they would think it necessary to exempt from this clause, on the ground that they were money bills. For himself, however, he must say, he objected wholly to the measure. He did not think that they were justified in carrying the Prisons Act in the way it had been carried. Still, if that measure had been carried in haste, he was not for begging pardon of the House of Assembly of Jamaica. Not the. But he thought that the Imperial Parliament might possibly have legislated hastily on that occasion, and that nevertheless the hand of conciliation might possibly yet be held out, and that not in a mean or unworthy manner, for he was persuaded it required only the commonest assurances to effect the end they wished. This was the state of the case. In consequence of the passing of the Prisons Act the House of Assembly say, "We cannot go on." What happens? The House of Assembly is prorogued; and it is kept prorogued; from the 3rd of February to the present hour they had remained under prorogation. Not one word in explanation had been allowed them. But he was sure that a common softening down as to the Prisons Act would have done all that was required. But he said that the House of Assembly had not had an opportunity given them of explanation. Sure he was, that if one word of conciliation was offered to them, instead of hostility, they would come to work again as willingly as ever. There was another view of the subject, which appeared not undeserving of their Lordships' consideration. On the first division of the two on this bill there was a very large minority in the House of Commons, who voted against annihilating the power of the House of Assembly. On the second division the majority in favour of the bill was only ten, clearly showing that it was not very acceptable to the House of Commons. But, without referring further to that point, he would merely add, that having mixed himself up with the West-

1049
Indian Proprietors elsewhere, he felt bound to call upon the House to give a decision one way or the other upon this important question, and he should press this, unless it should be proved to him that the money bills were to be omitted from the second clause. As this was not done, he moved that the bill be read a second time that day three months.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that in speaking of the popular party in Jamaica, and the intelligence he had received from them, he only meant to refer to intelligence received through the ordinary channels of information.
Lord Brougham: as he could not say that nothing ought to be done, would vote for the second reading of the bill. He could not think but that the object of the noble Earl (Harewood) would be as well gained by stating his objections to the clauses in the committee to-morrow. After the able speech of the noble Marquess, he thought it would be better to take the discussion to-morrow. As to the bill itself, he objected to the principle of it, as he objected to the principle of all such bills, whether they were island bills or Canadian Bills. In the latter case they would not have had the opposition of the noble Lord, he presumed, for his noble Friend did not oppose the suspension of the Canadian constitution, his noble Friend being only against the suspension of an island constitution, not of a Canadian constitution. If his noble Friend had been a Canadian he would have felt on the late occasion with him, but as he was a Jamaica man, his noble Friend was opposed to this bill. On the whole he thought it would be better to take the discussion to-morrow, particularly as he for one, when he came down to the House that evening, thought it was already so arranged. As their Lordships were obliged to do something, they might as well do it in the Committee, where it could be done with least waste of time.
The Duke of Wellington: he could not allow the evening to pass without offering a few remarks to their Lordships. He stood in the singular position of having opposed the Negro Emancipation Bill, which he certainly did endeavour to prevail upon their Lordships not to pass. In fact, he divided the House against it. But from the day that measure was passed into a law to the present, he begged to observe, that Parliament having thought proper to pass that measure, he had agreed to every measure which had been proposed by the
1050
Government in order to carry negro emancipation into execution: he had agreed to all those measures, though he confessed with great pain, always protesting against them, and considering them invasions of the constitution of Jamaica. But considering that the Planters of Jamaica had received compensation for emancipating their negroes, and that measures for carrying into execution that provision had been instituted, he considered that they ought to carry the measures necessary for completing the Emancipation Act into execution. He, therefore, had agreed to all those measures, at the same time that he protested against them, and invariably called upon their Lordships to endeavour to settle the affairs of Jamaica with the concurrence of the House of Assembly and the authorities of the island, rather than to take it upon themselves. But he had no recollection of the measure which had been the cause of the existing disagreement between the Governor and the House of Assembly of Jamaica. He certainly did attend very constantly to the proceedings of their Lordships' House, and to the measures which came under consideration, and more especially last year he gave great attention to the measures relating to the West Indies; but he had not the smallest recollection of the Prisons Bill. Probably indeed he was out of town at the time, and if he had been in his place, most probably he should have opposed the bill. But the measure was carried, and having passed Parliament, it appeared to him that the measure was communicated in a very extraordinary, a very unusual, and a not very decorous manner to the House of Assembly of Jamaica. But, however all that might be, he could not think that the House of Assembly was justified in coming to the resolution that it would not perform its duty, and that it would suspend its functions. Under these circumstances he confessed, that notwithstanding the speech of his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Harewood), he should vote for the second reading of the bill, though he certainly did so very unwillingly. He confessed, that what had given him the greatest doubt on the subject was the speech of the noble Marquess in moving the second reading of the bill. He never had heard a speech of a Minister of the Crown coming down to Parliament to expound the principles of a measure for imposing restrictions upon the constitutional rights of the population of a portion of the British empire, which was

1051
so little calculated to conciliate the bearers of it, and so little calculated to conciliate the public, and he declared most solemnly, that the greatest doubt which he felt to the second reading arose from the speech of some of the topics of the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess, almost in so many words, declared his object to be the destruction of the legislature of Jamaica, and the noble Marquess yet entained an opinion, which he also said he had held from an early period, that the most effectual way of protecting the negroes was the destruction of the House of Assembly. But it should be remembered, that if it had been possible, those who brought forward emancipation would have brought it forward by means of the House of Assembly of Jamaica. They regretted they could not do this though to the very last moment they were desirous of it. What his noble Friend had stated was perfectly true—that Parliament had refused last year to put an end to slavery on the 1st of August, 1838. That part of the measure was enacted by the House of Assembly of Jamaica, because Parliament positively refused to adopt it; and yet the noble Marquess came down and told them, notwithstanding that, as he believed, the very last act of the Jamaica Legislature was to pass this enactment for emancipating all negroes in the island on the 1st of August, 1838, that the Jamaica House of Assembly could not be trusted to carry into execution the new regulations which became requisite under the new relations of society in that island, and that the functions of the House ought to be put an end to. Still the very last measure which they had passed was the law emancipating their negroes two years sooner than the period settled by Parliament. He said, therefore, that under these circumstances, showing as they did the injustice of the noble Marquess's remarks and opinions in opposition to this House of Assembly, he doubted the propriety of agreeing to the second reading of this measure. He was one of those who always considered—and he thought their Lordships were of the same opinion, he was sure the Ministers of the day so stated—that it was their duty and their intention to do all they could to preserve and protect property in that island, to protect the civilization of society, and encourage it by every means in their power. Now, he should like to know how property was to be protected, how civilization was to be established? If they were to begin by
1052
destroying the House of Assembly, and establishing there a despotism in the person of the governor of the colony, acting with his council, he believed that there would be no safety for liberty, no safety for persons in the state of society which would then exist in Jamaica; he believed that neither liberty nor property would be secure, unless the House of Assembly and its authority were maintained. He knew this, that when he first heard of these intentions of putting down the House of Assembly, according to reports which had been confirmed by the speech of the noble Marquess that evening, it was his firm opinion that the intention existed to withdraw every white from the island. If that were not the intention of her Majesty's Government, then he would say, that those who proposed such measures as these were not in a state of sanity. Property could not exist either there or elsewhere without drawing to it a certain degree of power, and if they destroyed the House of Assembly, they must withdraw the whites. That they might rely upon. He certainly was anxious to vote for the second reading of this bill. He wished it to go into Committee, that it might receive such amendments as might be necessary to render it palatable to the House of Assembly, and at the same time to insure the execution of those measures which were required for carrying on the Government of the colony. He confessed, that when he heard of the misbehaviour of the House of Assembly and their neglect of all their duties, he could not avoid reminding those who spoke in this tone, that the House of Assembly had been in a state of prorogation from February to the present time. The noble Lord opposite now came down to ask their Lordships to visit with vengeance the House of Assembly by authority of the Legislature of this country, but had never even hinted any intention on the part of Ministers to instruct the governor, who was now about to go out, to call the Assembly together. Now, he thought it was the duty of those who were in possession of authority to endeavour to conciliate those who might feel offended, to give them a chance at least of continuing in their functions by treating them with civility and kindness. The noble Lord had done no such thing; on the contrary, his whole speech was made up of violent threats against the House of Assembly, made for no other reason except that the House of Assembly had disapproved of an Act of Parlia-

1053
ment passed in usurpation of their own authority and communicated to them in away in which he did not think any private gentleman would like to have an order from a superior delivered to him. He advised their Lordships to vote for the second reading of this bill; he was sorry his noble Friend had moved that it be read a second time that day three months. He advised their Lordships to go into Committee, that they might consider the various clauses of the measure, and make such amendments as might appear proper, with the view of sending it down to the other House in such a shape as that it might be sent out to the island of Jamaica with some hope and prospect of being effectual.
Lord Glenelgwished to guard their Lordships against supposing that the subject of the prisons in the island of Jamaica was one that had recently arisen. The state of the workhouses and prisons of Jamaica had been a constant topic of complaint in the despatches of the Marquess of Sligo and Sir Lionel Smith to the Colonial Office. It had been constantly pressed on the attention of the House of Assembly during the years 1836 and 1837. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), in a speech delivered by him last Session, had directed their Lordships' attention to the frightful abuses which disgraced the gaols of Jamaica, and had called on Government by every sacred consideration of justice, to put an end to the cruelties perpetrated in those horrid dungeons. He said in reply, that he could not but admit that the time had at length arrived when Parliament must interpose in its strength and majesty to repress practices equally revolting to justice and common humanity. The Prisons Bill had in consequence been introduced, after the report of Captain Pringle, the inspector, had been received. He maintained that the Prisons Bill was a necessary part of the Abolition Act Amendment Bill, to which their Lordships had agreed last Session. The House, by acceding to the Abolition Act Amendment Bill, gave its sanction to the Prisons Bill. The latter measure was founded on the previously expressed opinions of their Lordships, and was destined to apply permanently and to a future condition of society the same principles which the other measure only put into temporary operation. The Prisons Bill had been passed without any opposition, but nothing could be further from the truth than to say that it was a measure passed in ignorance, and without a full ex-
1054
pression of their approbation. It had been further stated, in the course of the debate, that the Prisons Bill had been promulgated in Jamaica in a very extraordinary manner. He could only say, that until the present moment he was not aware of that circumstance. He supposed it was proclaimed, as all other bills of a similar nature were proclaimed, in the colony. This he knew, that looking over the debates which took place in the House of Assembly at the time that the Act was sent out, he did not find in any one of the speeches, whether of speakers hostile or favourable to the Government, the slightest allusion to any want of civility or courtesy on the part of the Home Government in the mode of promulgating the Act. Many of the speakers were extremely hot, extremely violent, against the conduct of the Government generally; but not one of them contained any complaint upon this particular subject.
Viscount St. Vincentwas understood to state, that it was ungracious towards the House of Assembly, after what they had already done to forward the operation of the Emancipation Act, not to give them some credit for what they might do hereafter. Looking at their past proceedings, he thought it could not be said, that the House of Assembly were indisposed to adopt all the necessary measures to carry out the Emancipation Act. The mode of introducing the Prisons Bill last year was certainly much less courteous than usual. He admitted that the prisons of the colony required a remedy; but he thought the Government had not adopted the proper one. He objected strongly to the principle of the present bill; and when he knew that a few kind words would have been sufficient to induce the House of Assembly to resume their functions, he should have thought that the noble Lords opposite, having suspended their functions a short time since, and having then experienced the effect of a few kind words themselves, would have hesitated a little before they proposed to Parliament to deal so harshly and severely with the Assembly of Jamaica. As the bill was not to be opposed in the present stage, he hoped when their Lordships went into Committee they would be careful to expunge all the objectionable clauses. He trusted that they would expunge not only the first clause, but that part of the second which gave to the Governor in Council the power of enacting tax-bills, provided the House of Assembly did not resume its functions within a cer-

1055
tain time. Jealous as the other House of Parliament usually was of its privileges, he could not help feeling some surprise that it should last year have allowed the Prisons Bill, which was a money bill, to be mutilated in their Lordships' House, and to be passed and sent down to them without one word of comment.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, that as it appeared that their Lordships were not disposed to divide, he should not press his amendment; but in withdrawing it for the present he begged to say, that he did so under a firm conviction that such alterations would be made in Committee as would enable him to agree to the bill when it came out of the Committee. If that conviction turned out to be well founded, he should deem it his duty to move his amendment again on the motion for the third reading.
Viscount Melbourne, as it was not intended to take the sense of the House upon the subject in the present stage of the Bill, thought it was hardly expedient that he should occupy one moment of their Lordships' time. It was certainly his intention to reserve whatever observations he intended to make upon the subject of the bill till it arrived at its next stage; but at the same time he could not but say that he thought the noble Duke had treated his noble Friend the noble Marquess (Normanby) near him with great harshness and great injustice. He had listened very attentively and carefully to the whole of his noble Friend's speech, and he declared he could not perceive in any part of it anything of the neat—anythingof the violence—anythingof the acrimony—anything of the irritating nature which the noble Duke had so liberally imputed to it. The fact was, that owing to circumstances the Government were forced upon a course of action of which they did not themselves approve—which they did not think the best that could be adopted—which they did not think would be successful—which they believed would ultimately terminate in the necessary adoption of the measure which had been rejected; but at the same time as his noble Friend had most clearly and distinctly stated, they were willing to give the present bill, which must be regarded as an experiment, a full and fair trial. His noble Friend distinctly stated that he meant to treat it fairly; and unquestionably if the House of Assembly should do that, which he did not think they would do—if they should show a disposition to resume their functions—to perform
1056
the duties which were imposed upon them—the duties for which they were constituted—if they should show a disposition to take such a course, unquestionably there would be every disposition on the part of the Government to do that which he admitted with the noble Duke would have been, if circumstances would have permitted it, by far the most prudent course that could be adopted—namely, to concert all the measures connected with the completion of the Act of Emancipation with the House of Assembly, and thereby to secure the consent, concurrence, and authority of that body. Unquestionably that would have been the best course that could have been adopted; but the Government had been driven out of that course by the conduct of the House of Assembly itself. It was with the deepest regret and concern that the Government had felt itself compelled to adopt a different course. The better course, the course they originally intended to pursue, they should be ready to resume when they felt that they could do so with justice to themselves—justice to the country, and justice to the colony itself. When the noble Viscount spoke of the impropriety of having originated a money bill as he said the Prisons Bill was in that House, and when he commented upon the apathy of the House of Commons in not vindicating its privileges upon that occasion, he must be allowed to express his surprise that the noble Viscount himself, seeing the great impropriety of the bill, had not taken the opportunity of resisting it. [Viscount St. Vincent: I was not in the country.] He was surprised also that the noble Duke had not stated last year what he had stated that evening—namely, that he considered the Prisons Bill an usurpation of the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly. The noble Duke could not plead his absence from the country as an excuse. The noble Duke was in the habit of paying the closest attention to the business which came before their Lordships; and he was therefore surprised that the noble Duke had not then stated those objections to that measure which he now deemed so formidable. He again repeated, that he should reserve his observations in support of this bill till its next stage; for he had merely risen to state that the remarks which the noble Duke had made upon his noble Friend's speech were too severe—nay, more, that they were utterly unfounded.
Lord Ellenboroughexpressed his concur-

1057
rence in every one of the animadversions which the noble Duke had passed upon the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary for the colonies. The violence and intemperance of that speech had deprived the present bill of all chance of a fair trial in Jamaica. He regretted deeply to hear the tone and temper with which the noble Marquess had delivered the language which he used. He likewise regretted deeply the tone and temper displayed by the noble Baron (Glenelg) who followed on the same side, although his speech was calculated to produce less effect in the colony than that of the noble Marquess, as he had ceased to have any official connexion with it. He regretted, he said, deeply the tone and temper on the other side of the House, as it had led to an imprudent revival of charges against the House of Assembly, which were now forgotten, and which ought not to have been recalled from oblivion. He also regretted the tone of debate which had been assumed on his side of the House by the noble Earl and noble Viscount who had taken part in it. He thought that the Prisons Bill was perfectly justifiable. He thought so on reading Captain Pringle's report, and also on the description which a noble Friend of his had given the country of the atrocities practised under the old system. He therefore was of opinion that the time had arrived for legislating upon that subject. As he was of opinion that the Imperial Parliament was justified in passing the Prisons Bill, he could not be of opinion that the conduct of the House of Assembly was altogether justifiable. He was, however anxious that legislation for the colony of Jamaica should be carried on by the House of Assembly under its existing constitution. He disliked all suspensions of constitutions, they altered the tone of men's thoughts and feelings, and were in their results highly Injurious to general liberty. It had been well said by a high political authority, that slavery, even if it commenced at the extremities, was inconceivably rapid in its progress, and was certain before long, to carry its contagion even to the heart of an empire. He might add that it was of the very essence of arbitrary Government, when it was once commenced, to create necessities for its own continuance. It was for this reason that he had objected to the measure which was introduced into the other House of Parliament on this subject, but which in deference to public opinion was subsequently abandoned. It would
1058
have been destructive of liberty in Jamaica, and the destruction of liberty in Jamaica would have been detrimental to the cause of general liberty in this country.
The Duke of Wellingtonin explanation justified his having called the Prisons Bill "an usurpation of the rights and privileges of the House of Assembly." He had to apologize to their Lordships for not having attended to that Act at the time it was under their consideration last year. Perhaps if he had attended to it he should have voted for it, as he had done for other acts which he considered to be necessary to carry into execution the Negro Emancipation Act, against which, be it recollected, he had voted originally. When, however, that measure became an act of the Legislature, he had voted in favour of all measures necessary to give it effect. He had no recollection of the Prisons Bill being mentioned at all in Parliament, but if he had been in the House at the time he should probably have voted in favour of it, on the grounds he had already stated.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that if he had deserved the animadversions which the noble Duke had just passed upon him, no one would have felt more severely than he should the weight of censure falling upon him from such a quarter. But he had the consciousness of feeling that he did not deserve them. He did not therefore require the weight of the sentence with which the noble Baron opposite (Ellenborough) had sought to overwhelm him, to induce him to rise and protest against those animadversions as unfounded and unjust. The noble Baron, however, had divided his censures so equally amongst all their Lordships who had taken share in this debate, that they must make up their minds to bear it among them as they best could. The noble Duke had found fault with him, because he had not stated distinctly that the House of Assembly would be called again together before this bill was put into operation. Now, when he said that this experiment should be fully and fairly tried, he meant, of course, that the House of Assembly should be called together in time to prevent the necessity, in case it resumed its functions, of those Orders in Council being carried into execution. The noble Duke had also charged him with having used intemperate language. Now, he would appeal to their Lordships whether he was in the habit of using such language. But any person who had been an eye-witness, as he had been,

1059
of the practical evils of slavery, might be expected, when he saw impediments to the remedy thereof raised and created by the House of Assembly, to express himself rather warmly. At the same time, he could not tax his memory with having used on the present occasion a single expression which he felt himself called upon to retract.
Lord Broughamwished to ask a question of the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in reference to a statement which had gone the round of the American and European newspapers. He entertained no doubt that it would be in the power of the noble Lord to give it a decided contradiction, but the sooner the contradiction went forth the better. The statement in question was, that five slavers had put into Rio on the 25th of March last, and that the slaves which they carried were sold to a slavery of eight years at 5l. a-head. He believed the whole of that to be untrue. But it was true that a practice prevailed which demanded the immediate attention of her Majesty's Government. It was this, that when negroes could not be properly located, as it was called, they were taken to Cuba and other places, where it was legal to indenture them as apprentices. The noble and learned Lord further stated, on the authority of a gentleman of high respectability connected with Dominica, that 430 negroes had been recently brought there in a slaver, which afterwards remained for the purpose of being repaired. He was bound also to observe, that his informant stated, that wherever the negroes were located they generally, if not uniformly, behaved with the utmost correctness and propriety.
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that he had received no information on the subject of the noble and learned Lord's first inquiry: as regarded his second, he should take care to ascertain if there were any information in the Colonial-office relating to it.
Bill read a second time.