Sitting of 4 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Non-Parochial Registers.—Read a second time:—Bills of Exchange; Court of Chancery; Imprisonment for Debt.—Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Exchequer Bills; Dublin Police; Postage; Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 1); Linen, &c. Manufactures.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill,
Mr. Humesaid, he would take that opportunity of drawing the attention of the House to the conduct of that House, and to the state and feelings of the people. He exceedingly regretted the manner in which the most numerously signed petition ever presented to Parliament—that for the Charter—had been treated. Had it not been treated in that manner, he thought the present discontents would not have existed. The Reform Bill had disappointed the people. The democratic prin-

1255
ciple was not properly represented. He was of opinion that every man who paid taxes, or who was liable to be drawn in the militia, had a right to vote in the election of Members of Parliament. The prisons were now filled by persons who only sought for change in the same manner as the changes of 1832 were produced. He admitted that those who had had recourse to physical force and to the destruction of property ought to be punished; but the greater part of those now in prison were placed there for making use of seditious language, and for attending public meetings. The ministry ought to recollect their own conduct in 1832, and not press so hardly upon those who were seeking further reforms, and who were only pursuing the same course that they themselves had pursued to carry the Reform Bill. He complained that they had nothing whatever to show at the end of the Session. Nothing had been done but enormously increasing their war establishment, and the consequence was, that new taxes were obliged to be laid on the already overburdened people of this country. As the present was the last occasion on which he should have an opportunity of pronouncing his opinion upon the finances of the country, he begged to enter his protest against the policy of the Government. He feared as the House was at present constituted, it would be impossible to expect anything satisfactory from it.
Bill read a third time and passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS—JOHN THOROGOOD.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the third reading of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill (No. 1).
Mr. T. Duncombewould take that opportunity to thank her Majesty's Government for bringing in the present bill, but he must at the same time say, that he was afraid that the bill would not effect the benevolent intention of its authors, namely, the release of John Thorogood. The bill left that dependent upon the consent of his prosecutors, and, judging from all that had taken place up to the proceedings at the last meeting at Chelmsford, he feared that this bill would avail nothing to effect the object which the House had in view.
Dr. Lushingtonthought it necessary, in vindication of himself and the proceedings that had taken place in the court over which he presided, that the House should be apprised of the course that had been
1256
taken there. Mr. Thorogood having questioned the validity of a rate, and having been summoned in the Ecclesiastical Court, thought fit not to appear. Now, under such circumstances, what was the judge bound to do in virtue of his oath? He was bound to administer the law as it stood, without the slightest reference to any other consideration. He was bound to pronounce the individual in contempt. He had no choice; and if he had refused to do so, he would have subjected himself to proceedings in other courts, for the purpose of making him do his duty, and also the censure of the public. A doubt had arisen whether, with the consent of the parties, he could release the individual. He asked those who said he had the power, to look to the statute of the 53rd George 3rd, c. 127, in which they would see that when a party was in custody for contempt, he had no power to discharge that individual, unless he had purged his contempt. But it was said another course might have been adopted, similar to that which had been pursued in the case of Mr. Baines of Leicester, which was much more merciful. Now, with respect to the mercy of that course, he would only say, that Mr. Baines had been sued for 2l. 12 s. 6d., and, after various proceedings, the Lord Chancellor had directed a new writ de contumace capiendo to issue for the 2l. 12 s. 6d., and 125 l. costs, those costs being only for one side. He believed there was no well-authenticated instance of a party being released from contempt without purging his contempt.
Mr. Hawessaid, the House ought to pronounce a strong and decided opinion upon the course that might be taken by the churchwardens of Chelmsford, as well as with regard to the proceedings of suitors in the ecclesiastical courts. Such a state of things as that mentioned by his right hon. Friend (Dr. Lushington), namely, 125 l. costs upon a debt of 2l. 12 s. 6d., was a reproach to the Legislature of any country. With regard to the bill itself, it was clear that some alteration must be made. By the bill, as it stood, if the party suing refused his consent to the discharge of the prisoner, the whole of their benevolent course of legislation would be so much waste paper. He hoped, therefore, the House would leave out the last proviso of the first clause, and then the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, if he thought that the vengeance of the law was, sa-

1257
tisfied, might, on his own mere motion, discharge the prisoner. He begged to ask, supposing the proviso to be struck out, whether Mr. Thorogood could be discharged without payment of cost's, al otherwise the intention of the Legislature would not be effected?
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that if the proviso j were struck out, undoubtedly the judge of the Ecclesiastical Court would have absolute power to release prisoners according to his judgment and discretion. This would be a very great concession of power; and although he thought such a power might safely be conceded, in cases where the sum in question was of small amount, yet if they gave such a power in all cases, in testamentary and other cases, no one could foresee the effect. Justice might be wholly evaded in cases of the utmost importance, if they transferred to one court a power wholly incompatible with the powers conferred upon the highest courts in the kingdom.
Mr. Briscoe—although he could not consent to the expunction of the proviso, would be very glad to agree to any clause which should provide for the immediate release of Mr. Thorogood, upon the simple payment of the rate with costs. He hoped soon to see a change in the system of church rates altogether.
Mr. Ewartbegged to ask his right hon. and learned Friend, whether he (Dr. Lushington) could not frame a clause, which, without giving undue power to the court, would effect the object the House had in view?
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that he did not like to take upon himself to propose an alteration of that nature, without communicating with the Government. It might be done by adding these words to the bill, "in cases where the amount sued for, together with costs, has been paid into court." That would give power to release in the present instance, and would still preserve the law as it stood. The only difference would be, to give the court the power of release without the consent of the churchwardens.
Lord G. Somersetsuggested, that it would be expedient to postpone the question till to-morrow. He thought that in the case of Mr. Thorogood, the amount of punishment had gone as far as the fault deserved, and he therefore hoped some means might be adopted by which he could be turned out of prison.
Mr. F. Maule—he would take the third reading of the bill then, and the further proceedings might be adjourned till to-morrow.
Bill read a third time.

INFANT FELONS.
On the motion that the report on the Infant Felons Bill be received,
Mr. Ewartopposed the motion. The object of this bill was, to transfer from the hands of parents to the care of a benevolent society, children who should have been convicted of crime. The bill provided, that the transfer should take place under the sanction of the Lord Chancellor; but he did not consider this a sufficient safeguard. If such a proceeding were adopted at all, it ought to be done with the sanction, and upon the responsibility of the Secretary for the Home Department; in which case that House might, by asking questions or otherwise, interpose a useful check upon the proceedings of the society.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that the children of vicious parents would be greatly benefitted, if not altogether saved, by means of such a bill as the present, which he thought would improve the morality of the country.
Mr. Langdalesaid, that the operation of the bill was not confined to the children of vicious parents, but might be made to apply to the children of honest and industrious parents. They legislated in that House very differently for the rich and for the poor. What, however, he objected to in this bill was, that it afforded no protection for the religious education of the children, but, on the contrary, he feared that it would be made an instrument of proselytism. He should certainly oppose the bill by every means in his power.
Mr. Hawessaid, that before this bill could come into operation, the civil rights of the infant must be forfeited by a conviction, and the court might extend that forfeiture to parental control. There was no novelty in the present measure. Several charitable institutions, by the common consent, and for the benefit of society, were, without the sanction of law, doing what this bill proposed to give the sanction of law to. It was rather too late, therefore, to raise an unfounded prejudice against this individual measure—a measure which was founded upon the whole

1259
of our penal discipline. He denied that j that this bill made the slightest distinction between the children of the rich and of the poor, and he must say, that he was surprised to hear hon. Gentlemen express such great alarm at this measure.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that the bill might operate cruelly to both parents and children in certain cases. He objected to power being given to the Lord Chancellor, or any other authority, to deprive parents of the care of their children without their own consent.
Sir C. Greysaid, that some objections to the meaaure might be got rid of, if the judge who should try the child should have power to order that, after the period of confinement, the child should, for a certain period, be placed under the care of this society. For his own part, however, he must say that he would prefer an enquiry before the Lord Chancellor; but he thought it desirable to introduce a clause into the bill to prevent these children from being subtracted from the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor without special notice and application.
Mr. Briscoehoped that the bill would be allowed to stand over to the next Session of Parliament, because he thought that it must be admitted, that it was not in a fit condition to be adopted. The bill was so opposed in every respect to justice and humanity, that he should feel it his duty to join the hon. Member for Knares-borough to offer every opposition to it in his power.
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, he should throw the responsibility of rejecting the bill upon the House, because he conceived that this, above all other measures which had ever been introduced with the same object, was calculated to produce benefit to the poorer classes. He was ready to assent to the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tynemouth.
Lord Granville Somersetwas of opinion that this bill was calculated to carry the principle of punishment beyond that point which was contemplated by the law. He conceived that great injustice would be done to poor persons living in distant districts, who would have no means of resisting any steps which were taken to put its enactments into operation.
The House divided: Ayes 40; Noes 5; Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Muntz, G. F.

Ashley, Lord

Muskett, G. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Oswald, J.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Parker, J.

Brotherton, J.

Pattison, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Philips, M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Protheroe, E.

Easthope, J.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Eliot, Lord

Seymour, Lord

Euston, Earl of

Smith, B.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Somers, J. P.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Stewart, J.

Gordon, R.

Stock, Dr.

Harcourt, G. G.

Style, Sir C.

Hector, C. J.

Thornely, T.

Hindley, C.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

TELLERS.

Lynch, A. H.

Maule, hon. F.

Morris, D.

Shell, rt. hn. R. L.

List of the NOES.

Estcourt, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Irton, S.

Briscoe, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Langdale, hon. C.

Report received.

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
Lord Ashleyspoke as follows:* It is, Sir, with feelings somewhat akin to despair, that I now rise to bring before the House, the motion of which I have given notice. When I consider the period of the Session, the long discussions that have already taken place to-day, the scanty attendance of Members, and the power which any Member possesses of stopping me midway in my career, I cannot but entertain misgivings, that I shall not be able to bring, under the attention of the House, this subject, which has now occupied so large a portion of my public life, and in which are now concentrated, in one hour, the labours of years. Sir, I must assure the House, that this motion has not been conceived, nor will it be introduced, in any hostile spirit towards her Majesty's Ministers; quite the reverse. I do indeed trust, nay more, I have reason to believe, that I shall obtain their hearty and effectual support. Sir, I know well that I owe an apology and an explanation to the House for trespassing on their patience at so late a period—my explanation is this: I have long been taunted with narrow and exclu-
* From a corrected report.

1261
sive attention to the children in the factories alone; I have been told, in language and writing, that there other cases fully as grievous, and not less numerous; that I was unjust and inconsiderate in my denouncement of the one, and my omission of the other. I have, however, long contemplated this effort which I am now making; I had long resolved that, so soon as I could see the factory children, as it were, safe in harbour, I would undertake a new task. The committee of this Session on mills and factories, having fully substantiated the necessity, and rendered certain the amendment of the law, I am now endeavouring to obtain an inquiry into the actual circumstances and condition of another large part of our juvenile population. Sir, I hardly know whether any argument is necessary to prove that the future hopes of a country must, under God, be laid in the character and condition of its children; however right it may be to attempt, it is almost fruitless to expect, the reformation of its adults; as the sapling has been bent, so will it grow. To ensure a vigorous and moral manhood, we must train them aright from their earliest years, and so reserve the full development of their moral and physical energies for the service hereafter of our common country. Now, Sir, whatever may be done or proposed in time to come, we have, I think, a right to know the state of our juvenile population; the House has a right, the country has a right. How is it possible to address ourselves to the remedies of evils which we all feel, unless we have previously ascertained both the nature and the cause of them? The first step towards a cure is a knowledge of the disorder. We have asserted these truths in our factory legislation; and I have on ray side, the authority of all civilized nations of modern times; the practice of this House; the common sense of the thing; and the justice of the principle. Sir, I may say with Tacitus, "opus adgredior, opimum casibus… ipsâ etiam pace sœvum:" to give but an outline of all the undertaking, would occupy too much of your time and patience; few persons, perhaps, have an idea of the number and variety of the employments which demand and exhaust the physical energies of young children, or of the extent of suffering to which they are exposed. It is right, Sir, that the country should know at what cost its pre-eminence is purchased,
1262
"Petty rogues submit to fate,
That great ones may enjoy their state."
The number I cannot give with any degree of accuracy, though I may venture to place them as many-fold the numbers of those engaged in the factories—the suffering I can exhibit, to a certain degree, in the documents before me. Sir, I will just read a list of some of these occupations, as many as I have been able to collect; but I will abstain from entering into detail upon every one of them: I will select a few instances, and leave the House to judge of the mass, by the form and taste of the sample. Now, this is a list of some of the occupations in which I find them engaged (I have not, by any means, a full statement); and in which the employment is both irksome and unhealthy:—
"Earthenware, porcelain, hosiery, pin-making, needle-making, manufacture of arms, nail-making, card-setting, draw-boy-weaving, iron-works, forges, &c., iron foundries, glass trade, collieries, calico-printing, tobacco manufacture, button factories, bleaching, and. paper-mills."
Now, Sir, will the House allow me to set before them, in a few cases, the evidence I have been able to obtain illustrative of the nature and effects of these several departments of industry? The first I shall take is the manufacture of tobacco, a business of which, perhaps, but little is generally known; in this I find that—
"Children are employed twelve hours a-day. They go as early as seven years of age. The smell in the room is very strong and offensive. They are employed in spinning the twist tobacco; in the country, the children work more hours in the day, being frequently until nine and ten o'clock at night. Their opportunities for education are almost none, and their appearance altogether sickly."
The next department I shall take is that of bleaching. In bleaching—
"Children are employed at eleven, and oftentimes younger. They go to work at any time of the day or night, when they have a deal of work. The same children labour all night for two or three nights in a week. Their opportunities for education very few, except in a Sunday school."
Now, here let the House observe the extent of toil and of watchfulness oftentimes imposed on children of very tender years. During two or three nights in a week, they are deprived altogether of their natural rest; a demand so severe on the bodily powers, that, when exacted of the police

1263
and soldiery of this metropolis, it has been found most pernicious to their physical constitution. From the Potteries, Mr. Spencer (a factory commissioner) reported, in 1833:—
"The plate-makers of most works employ boys, often their own, to be their assistants; their occupation is to remove the plates to the drying houses, which are heated to 120 degrees; and in this occupation, in which the boy is kept on the run, he is laboriously employed from six o'clock in the morning till seven in the evening, excepting the intervals of breakfast and dinner. (Again), In other works some of the children called cutters, in attendance upon the printer, appear to me to suffer from a prolonged attendance at the factory. They are compelled to attend in the morning an hour before the printer, to light fires and prepare his apartment, and often wait in the evening for some time after the rest have departed, to prepare for the ensuing day. (Again), When there is a fair demand, the plate-makers and their assistants, work three or four nights per week till ten, and sometimes as late as eleven."
Sir, I will proceed. On the subject of Draw-boy-weaving, Mr. Horner and Mr. Woolriche reported from Kidderminster in 1833:—
"Every weaver of Brussels carpeting must have an assistant, called a drawer, who is usually a boy or girl; few are taken under ten years of age; the working hours are extremely irregular; this irregularity tells very severely on the drawers, who must attend the weaver at whatever time he is at work; they are often called up at three and four o'clock in the morning, and kept on for sixteen or eighteen hours."
With respect to the iron foundries I have not obtained any evidence; though much, I am sure, would be derived from an investigation of this department. As to iron mines, it will be unnecessary to do much more than simply refer the House to a report from the mining districts of South Wales, by Mr. Seymour Tremenheere, the Government-inspector, dated February, 1840, and published in the extracts from the proceedings of the Board of Privy Council on the matter of education. I will, however, take the liberty to read one or two extracts:—
"Parents, (says the Inspector), if they send their children at all to school, seldom do so for many months at a time. They are liable to be away whenever the father has not earned as much as usual, or has spent more. They think instruction of any kind very little necessary for the girls. The boys are taken into the coal or iron mine at eight or nine years old."
1264
Elsewhere he says:—
"Hence the custom of taking their children of seven years old, to sit for eight and ten hours a day in the mine; it is certain from the time he (the child) enters the mine, he learns nothing more there than to be a miner."
Now let the House hear the consequences of this defect of education—the result of this overwork in the first years of life:—
"They leave their homes at an early age, and they spend the surplus of their wages in smoking, drinking, and quarrelling. Boys of thirteen will not unfrequently boast that they have taken to smoking before they were twelve. Early marriages are very frequent They take their wives from the coke hearths, the mine, and coal-yard, having had no opportunities of acquiring any better principles or improved habits of domestic economy, and being in all other respects less instructed than their husbands."
As to the frame-work-knitters, a department of the lace trade, nothing can be worse or more distressing. Mr. Power, a factory commissioner, wrote from Nottingham, 1833:—
"A great proportion of the population of the county of Leicester is employed in the frame-work-knitting; of this number more than one-half, probably two-thirds, are young persons between the ages of six and eighteen; that they work an inordinate number of hours daily; that the hours of work of the young persons are, for the most part, commensurate with those of the older class; that the occupation is pursued in very low and confined shops and rooms, and that the hours of labour are sixteen in the day. With regard to the state of health of men, women, and children employed, their habits of work and subsistence are more destructive of health, comfort, cleanliness, and general well being, than any state of employment into which I have had at present an opportunity of inquiring. Mr. Macaulay, a surgeon of great talent and experience at Leicester, observed to me, that scarcely any of them of long-standing in the trade were quite sound in constitution."
Sir, there is another department of industry called card-setting, in which children are employed to make part of the machinery of the cotton-mills. In answer to some questions I put to a gentleman resident in the neighbourhood of some card-setting establishments, he says:—
"Children are employed from five years old and upwards; their length of labour extends from five or six o'clock in the morning to eight at night."
I will now, Sir, exhibit the state of the

1265
collieries, and I cannot well imagine any thing worse than these painful disclosures. In reference to this, I will read an abstract of evidence collected from three witnesses by Mr. Tuffnell, in 1833:—
"Labour very hard, nine hours a-day regularly, sometimes twelve, sometimes above thirteen hours; stop two or three minutes to eat; some days nothing at all to eat, sometimes work and eat together; have worked a whole day together without stopping to eat; a good many children in the mines, some under six years of age; sometimes can't eat, owing to the dust, and damp, and badness of the air; sometimes it is as hot as an oven, sometimes so hot as to melt a candle. A vast many girls in the pits go down just the same as the boys, by ladders or baskets; the girls wear breeches; beaten the same as the boys; many bastards produced in the pits; a good deal of fighting amongst them; much crookedness caused by the labour; work by candlelight; exposed to terrible accidents; work in very contracted spaces; children are plagued with sore feet and gatherings." "I cannot but think, (says one witness), that many nights they do not sleep with a whole skin, for their backs get cut and bruised with knocking against the mine, it is so low. It is wet under foot; the water oftentimes runs down from the roof; many lives lost in various ways; and many severely injured by burning; workers knocked up after fifty." "I cannot much err, (says Mr. Commissioner Tuffnell), in coming to the conclusion, both from what I saw, and the evidence of witnesses given on oath above, that it must appear to every impartial judge of the two occupations, that the hardest labour, in the worst room, in the worst conducted factory, is less hard, less cruel, and less demoralizing, than the labour of the best of coal mines."
Now, Sir, the next is a trade to which I must request the particular attention of the House. The scenes it discloses are really horrible; and all who hear me will join in one loud and common condemnation. I speak of the business of pinmaking. Several witnesses in 1833 stated that:—
"It is very unwholesome work; we do it near the wire-works, and the smell of the aquafortis, through which the wire passes is a very great nuisance. Children go at a very early age, at five years old, and work from six in the morning till eight at night. There are as many girls as boys."
One witness, a pin-header, aged twelve, said:—
"I have seen the children much beaten ten times a-day, so that with some the blood comes, many a time; none of the children where I work can read or write."
Another witness said;—
1266
"It is a sedentary employment, requiring great stress upon the eyes, and a constant motion of the foot, finger, and eyes."
This is fully confirmed in a letter I have just received; there it is stated:—
"Eye-sight is much affected, the overseers of the poor have sent many cases of this nature to the eye institution of Manchester." "Each child (reports Mr. Commissioner Tufnell), is in a position continually bent in the form of the letter C, its head being about eight inches from the table. My inquiries (he adds), fully corroborated the account of its being the practice of parents to borrow sums of money on the credit of their children's labour, and then let them out to pin heading till it is paid. One woman had let out both her children for ten months, and another had sold her's for a year."
Now I must entreat the attention of hon. Members to this system of legalized slavery; and I cannot better invite it, than by reading an extract from a letter which I have lately received:—
"You also know (says my informant), the practice of the masters in securing the services of these little slaves. One man in this town employs from four to five hundred of them. A very ordinary practice is, for the master to send for the parents or guardians, offer them an advance of money, an irresistible temptation, and then extract a bond, which the magistrates enforce, that the repayment of the loan shall be effected through the labour of the child. A child of tender age can rarely earn more than from 9d. to 1s. a-week. Thus the master becomes bodily possessor of the children as his bonâ fide slaves, and works them according to his pleasure."
And now mark this;—
"If he continues, with the employment to pay wages, and keep the loan hanging over the head of the parents, who do not refuse to take the wages, yet cannot repay the loan, the master may keep possession of the child as his slave, for an indefinite time. This is done to a great extent; the relieving-officer has tried in vain to break through the iniquitous practice; but it seems that the magistrates have not power to do it."
Now, Sir, may I ask, is this not a system of legalized slavery? Is not this a state of things which demands the interposition of Parliament, or at least an investigation, that we may know to what an extent these horrid practices have been carried? Surely the House will not now be astonished at the concluding remark of Mr. Tuffnells report:—
"Knowing (says he), the cruelties that are sometime practised, in order to keep those infants at work, I was not surprised at being

1267
told by a manufacturer, that he had left the trade, owing to the disgust he felt at this part of the business."
Let me conclude this branch of the subject by an extract from a letter descriptive of these works:—
"These children are collected in rooms varying in size, height, and ventilation; the filthy state and foul atmosphere of some of these places is very injurious to the health of the children—they are filled to a most unwholesome extent. No education during the week, and very few go to a Sunday-school. I can only tell you, that from my own observation of the effect of the trade as now carried on, I do not hesitate to say, that it is the cause of utter ruin, temporal and spiritual, to eight out of every ten children that are employed in it."
This, Sir, is the language of a gentleman of great experience, and very conversant too with the temporal and spiritual condition of the poorer classes of whom he is speaking. Sir, the next and last trade which I shall now describe, is the calico printing; a business which demands the labour of several thousand children. Mr. Horner, in an admirable pamphlet, which be has recently published, on the subject of infant labour, both at home and abroad, says:—
"It is by no means uncommon for children to work as teer-boys as early as six and seven years of age, and sometimes as young as five. Children of six, seven, and eight years old, may be seen going to work at"—
What hour will the House think? at what hour of a winter's night? or at what hour of the night at all? Why, he proceeds:—
"At twelve o'clock of a winter's night, in large numbers, sometimes having to walk a mile or two to the works. When they are twelving, the first set goes at twelve o'clock in the day, and works till twelve at night. Sometimes they do not send away those who have worked from twelve in the day to twelve at night, but let them sleep a few hours in the works, and then set them on again. There is no interval for meals in the night set, except breakfast, the children taking something with them j and even their breakfast is taken at the works. The custom of taking their meals in the works is very injurious, for they do not wash their hands, and they consequently sometimes swallow deleterious colouring matter."
A person, whose name is not given, states, that:—
"Being frequently detained in his counting-house late at night, till twelve or one o'clock, he has often, in going home in the depth of
1268
winter, met mothers taking their children to the neighbouring printworks, the children
crying."
All this I can confirm and exceed, by the statements of a letter I hold in my hand, from a medical gentleman, living in the very centre of print works. I wish there were time to read the whole of it, but I fear I have already fatigued the House by the number of my extracts:—
"Many children (he writes), are only six years of age; one-half of them, he believes, are under nine; the labour of children is not only harder, but of longer duration. During night-work the men are obliged to shake their teerers to keep them awake, and they are not seldom aroused by blows. This work is very fatiguing to the eyes; their sight consequently fails at a very early age. They have to clean the blocks; this is done at the margin of the brook, on which the works stand. I often see these little creatures standing up to the calves of their legs in the water, and this, even in the severest weather, after being kept all day in rooms heated to a most oppressive degree. The injurious effect of this close and heated atmosphere is much aggravated by the effluvia of the colours; these are in most cases metallic salts, and ‥‥ very noxious. The atmosphere of the room is consequently continually loaded with poisonous gases of different kinds."
Sir, these are a few facts, and only a few, of the many that I could adduce for your consideration, were I not afraid, of being wearisome to the House. But I think I have sufficiently proved, that there prevails a system of slavery under the sanction of law; that parents sell the services of their children, even of the tenderest years, for periods of long and most afflicting duration; that, in many instances, children of not more than five or six years old are employed in these trades from twelve to sixteen hours a-day, of course deprived of all means of education, while their health is undermined, or utterly destroyed. If the inquiry I move for be granted, it will develope, I am sure, cases far more numerous, and quite as painful, as those I have been able to produce. Now, Sir, I may be called upon to suggest a remedy; Sir, I am not yet prepared to do so, but I will state my objects, and the motives of my proposition. My first and great object is to place, if possible, the children of this land in such a position, and under such circumstances, as to lay them open to what Dr. Chalmers would call "an, aggressive movement" for education; to reserve and cherish their physical energies,

1269
to cultivate and improve their moral part, both of which, be they taken separately or conjointly, are essential to the peace, security, and progress of the empire. Sir, we have had the honour of setting the example in these things, and other nations of the world have begun to follow that example; we must not now fall back into the rear, and become the last where once we were first. Sir, I have here a most valuable document, for which I am indebted to the kindness of that distinguished Frenchman, the Baron Charles Dupin; it is the Report of a Commission of the Chamber of Peers, dated February, 1840, on the propriety, nay, the necessity, of extending the protection of the laws to the young and helpless workers in all departments of industry.
"What is the state of morality, (says the document, among the young children employed in the workshops?)—None at all; everywhere there is want. It is a curious fact, (the reporter adds), that the immorality seems to be greatest in those very places where the children are admitted into the workshops at the earliest ages."
Now let the House pay attention to what follows.
"We were desirous of ascertaining the amount of difference in force and physical power between parties which had respectively attained the age of manhood in the parts of France most devoted to agriculture, and those where manufacturing industry is more generally diffused. The councils of revision in the recruiting department exhibited the following facts:—For 10,000 young men capable of military service, there were rejected as infirm or otherwise unfit in body, 4,029 in the departments most agricultural; for 10,000 in the departments most manufacturing there were rejected, 9,930."
The reporter then proceeds to speak in detail.
"There were found, (he says) for 10,000 capable of military service, in Marne 10,309 incapable; in the Lower Seine 11,990 incapable; in L'Eure 14,451 incapable."
After such a statement as this, will not the House be prepared to concur in his closing observation:—
"These deformities cannot allow the Legislature to remain indifferent; they attest the deep and painful mischiefs, they reveal the intolerable nature of individual suffering, they enfeeble the country in respect of its capacity for military operations, and impoverish it in regard to the works of peace. We should blush for agriculture, if in her operations she brought, at the age adapted to labour, so
1270
small a proportion of horses or oxen in a fit state for toil, compared with so large a number of infirm or misshapen."
Doubtless, Sir, if we could conduct the same investigation (which, I fear, we have not the means of doing), we should obtain, in respect of the greater extent, and longer prevalence of these trades among us, far more distressing results;—this report, I must say, is most honourable to the Chamber of Peers, most honourable to the Baron Dupin, and it will be honourable to the French nation, if they adopt the advice, and enact the provisions suggested by these wise and excellent statesmen. Sir, I next desire to remove these spectacles of suffering and oppression from the eyes of the poorer clases, or at least to ascertain if we can do so: these things perplex the peaceable, and exasperate the discontented; they have a tendency to render capital odious, for wealth is known to them only by its oppressions; they judge of it by what they see immediately around them; they know but little beyond their own narrow sphere; they do not extend their view over the whole surface of the land, and so perceive and understand the compensating advantages that wealth and-poverty bestow on the community at large. Sir, with so much ignorance on one side, and so much oppression on the other, I have never wondered that perilous errors and bitter hatreds have prevailed; but I have wondered much, and been very thankful that they have prevailed so little. Again, Sir, this inquiry is due also to the other branches of trade and manufacture, which are already restricted in their employment of children by the acts of the Legislature—it is requisite we should know how far the exception operates unfavourably on the restricted trades, and how far it impedes the full development of the protective principles of existing laws. Manufacturers, I know, loudly complain, and I think with some reason. A respectable mill-owner in the West Riding of Yorkshire writes to me.
"When the cotton trade is brisk, we find the demand for young persons to set cards so great, that hands are with difficulty obtained for woollen-mills in this neighbourhood."
The House will with difficulty believe, for how minute an addition to the daily wages, parents will doom their children to excessive labour.
"The proprietor of a large cotton-mill told

1271
me, (says Mr. Homer,) that they suffer severely from the neighbouring printworks carrying off the children under thirteen years of age, where they employ them at any age and any number of hours; that they would gladly employ two sets of children, each working half a day, both for the sake of their work, and for the sake of the children themselves, that they might be more at school, and have more play, but that they cannot get them, as the printworks carry them off."
No doubt, Sir, provisions still more beneficial to the children, and more convenient to the mill-owners, might be introduced, under a more wide-spread system of restriction—the supply of hands for moderate toil would be increased, and more work would be done, at far less expense of health and happiness. Sir, I next propose by this inquiry, and the remedy which may follow, to enlarge the sphere of safe and useful employments. How many are there now, to which no one of principle or common humanity would consign the children! by this excessive toil, moreover, one unhappy infant does the work of two; redress this grievance, and you will have opened a comparatively safe and healthy career to twice as many children as can now be employed. I have heard, on the Authority of the Poor-law Commissioners, that they have now under their guardianship more than 30,000 children, for whom they must provide a calling; they hesitate, and most laudable is their hesitation, to consign these helpless infants to such a destiny; why, will the House listen to a statement I received only a few mornings ago? it is well worthy of your attention, as showing how this system has proceeded to so frightful an extent, that even persons, whose interest it is to get rid of the children, shrink from the responsibility of exposing them to its horrors.
"I have now, (says my informant), made more minute inquiry into this business of wholesale demoralization. I have examined the relieving-officer of the board of guardians. He assures me, that he has rarely known an instance of children in a family turning out respectable members of society, who have been brought up in pin-shops; that the board of guardians have been obliged to give up the sending children from the poor-house to the pin-works, on account of the invariable consequences of it—the entire corruption of the children; and that children, once contaminated in these works, very rarely are found worth having in factories or elsewhere."
Now, Sir, if this be the case; if the
1272
children be thus contaminated by the employment of their earliest years; if they really become not worth having in factories or elsewhere, what kind of citizens will they make in after life? what has this country to hope for in their peaceful obedience or beneficial activity? Next, Sir, I hope to trace some of the secret and efficient causes of crime and pauperism; and by learning the causes, to ascertain the remedy. It is very curious and very instructive to observe how we compel, as it were, vice and misery with one hand, and endeavour to repress them with the other; but the whole course of our manufacturing system tends to these results: you engage children from their earliest and tenderest years in these long, painful, and destructive occupations; when they have approached to manhood, they have outgrown their employments, and they are turned upon the world without moral, without professional education; the business they have learned, avails them nothing; to what can they turn their hands for a maintenance? the children, for instance, who have been taught to make pins, having reached fourteen or fifteen years of age, are unfit to make pins any longer; to procure an honest livelihood then becomes to them almost impossible; the governors of prisons will tell you, the relieving-officers will tell you, that the vicious resort to plunder and prostitution; the rest sink down into a hopeless pauperism. Again, Sir, intemperance, the besetting sin of England, and the cause of many of its woes, is itself the result, in many cases, of our system of labour; just hear the effects of it in one department. The letter I shall quote, refers, it is true, to calico-printing only; it furnishes, nevertheless, a very good example of the effects of that unhealthy and prolonged toil I have endeavoured to describe.
"The most prominent evil, (says the writer,) is the excitement to habits of intoxication. The heated atmosphere in which they work, and the profuse perspiration, occasion a burning thirst; and the mouth and throat are often so parched, as to cause a very distressing sensation; they drink excessively: on leaving their highly-heated workshops, they feel disagreeably chilled, and relieve it by taking spirits. A tendency to drunkenness is thus produced; the drunkenness, gambling, and vicious habits of the men, are imitated by too many of the children."
Imitated by the children, to be sure they are—but such is our system; we not

1273
only withdraw them, when young and pliable, from the opportunities, at least, of doing good, but we thrust them, un-watched and uncared for, into dens of vice, and misery, and crime.—I should indeed be glad to read the whole of this admirable letter, but I have already trespassed too long on the indulgence of the House. These things, Mr. Speaker at all times worthy of deep and anxious consideration, are now ten-fold so, when we remember the vast and rapid tendency there is in the present day to multiply infant labour, to the exclusion of that of adults; the House is, perhaps, but little aware of the mighty progress that has been made during the last fifteen years, towards the substitution of the sinews of the merest children for the sinews of their parents. Lastly, Sir, my object is to appeal to, and excite the public opinion; where we cannot legislate, we can exhort, and laws may fail, where example will succeed. I must appeal to the bishops and ministers of the Church of England, nay, more, to the ministers of every denomination, to urge on the hearts of their hearers, the mischief and the danger of these covetous and cruel practices; I trust they will not fall short of the zeal and eloquence of a distinguished prelate in a neighbouring country, who, in these beautiful and emphatic words, exhorted his hearers to justice and mercy:
"Open your eyes, (says the Prince Archbishop,) and behold; parents and masters demand of these young plants to produce fruit in the season of blossoms. By excessive and prolonged labour they exhaust the rising sap, caring but little that they leave them to vegetate and perish on a withered and tottering stem. Poor little children! may the laws hasten to extend their protection over your existence, and may posterity read with astonishment, on the front of this age, so satisfied with itself, that in these days of progress and discovery, there was needed an iron law to forbid the murder of children by excessive labour."
This is language worthy of the compatriot of Massillon and Fenelon. It is the language of the primate of Normanby, uttered in the cathedral of Rouen, "that country of France," says M. Dupin, "in which the early labour of children has produced the greatest evils." Sir, I must say, from the bottom of my heart, that it is not a little agreeable, amid all our differences of opinion and religious strifes, to find one common point, on which we can
1274
feel a mutual sympathy, and join together in harmonious action. And now, Sir, to conclude this long, and, I fear, wearisome address—my first grand object, as I have already said, is to bring these children within the reach of education; it will then be time enough to fight about the mode. Only let us exhibit these evils—there in wit enough, experience enough, activity enough, and principle enough in the country, to devise some remedy. I am sure that the exhibition of the peril will terrify even the most sluggish, and the most reluctant, into some attempt at amendment; but I hope for far better motives. For my own part I will say, though possibly I may be charged with cant and hypocrisy, that I have been bold enough to undertake this task, because I must regard the objects of it as beings created, as ourselves, by the same Maker, redeemed by the same Saviour, and destined to the same immortality; and it is, therefore, in this spirit, and with these sentiments, which, I am sure, are participated by all who hear me; that I now venture to entreat the countenance of this House, and the co-operation of her Majesty's Ministers; first to investigate, and ultimately to remove, these sad evils, which press so deeply and so extensively on such a large and such an interesting portion of the human race. I will, therefore, Sir, with very sincere thanks to the House, for the patience with which they have heard me now move,,—
"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct an inquiry to be made into the employment of the children of the poorer classes in mines and collieries, and in the various branches of trade and manufacture in which numbers of children work together, not being included in the provisions of the acts for regulating the employment of children and young persons in mills and factories, and to collect information as to the ages at which they are employed, the number of hours they are engaged in work, the time allowed each day for meals, and as to the actual state, condition, and treatment of such children, and as to the effects of such employment, both with regard to their morals and their bodily health."
Mr. Brothertonseconded the motion. He felt grateful to the noble Lord for the exertions he had made to ameliorate the condition of our juvenile population employed in manufactories. He did not think there was any necessity for overworking

1275
them, or any other class of the operatives in this country. It was highly creditable to this country that they had directed their attention to legislation for those employed in the mills and manufactories; and other nations, he was glad to say, had followed their example. He had recently received a communication from the United States intimating that the American President had issued an order that all persons employed in the public works should be restricted in their labour to ten hours a-day; and resoluions had been passed by the operatives in different parts of the country conveying a vote of thanks to the President for his humane, politic, and wise interference. The inquiry proposed by the noble Lord would show the necessity there was for legislation in order to promote the general welfare of the working classes. In that respect he anticipated great good would result from the labours of the commission; he, therefore, most cordially seconded the motion.
Mr. Fox Maulecould not proceed to state his opinion with respect to this motion without expressing, as an individual, his grateful thanks to the noble Lord for the manner in which he had introduced this subject, and for the appeal which he had made on behalf of those children, in language which he knew not whether to admire most for its simplicity or the kindliness of feeling which it evinced. So far from opposing this motion, her Majesty's Government would give every assistance to the noble Lord in carrying out the object which he had in view. It was possible that in that House some Members might object that the Government were eager to seize the opportunity of issuing another commission; but he could assure the House that not only should the whole investigation of the subject be most fully and fairly Conducted, but every means should be taken to use the present force at the disposal of the Government so as to make the inquiry as economical as possible. He agreed with the noble Lord that if they looked to the permanent interests of this country, they must pay especial regard to the physical and moral condition of the young amongst the lower classes. Since the last census, he believed that the population of this country had increased by about one-third; and those increasing numbers ought to warn them more especially that, within the narrow limits of this island, the only means of
1276
preserving order and good conduct was to look to the training, both mental and physical, of the young and rising generation. For that purpose, nothing was so essential as an intimate knowledge of the manner in which their early years were spent: and it was a melancholy fact that their present distressing situation was to be traced no more to the cupidity of the masters than to the conduct of the parents themselves. It was, however, their duty to protect those children against the tyranny of their parents, and against the temptations to which they were subject; and, therefore, in this inquiry, though they would be interfering between parent and child, it was, to be remembered that, from the report of the factory commissioners, that had been proved to be necessary. It would be premature now to advert to the result of the inquiry; but that ultimately some legislative measure on the subject must be adopted, he was thoroughly convinced. In the same manner, as his noble Friend had taken that opportunity of appealing to all authorities to assist him, he would express a hope that, as in the conduct of such inquiries much depended upon the readiness with which information was furnished, every person who read the statement of the noble Lord would give his mind to the state of things there described, and feel it his duty to assist those commissioners, whoever they might be; and on the part of the Government he gave this pledge to his noble Friend and to the House, that they would make the inquiry as full, complete, and early as possible. This inquiry would bring to light the state of the working classes, and he was certain that the utmost benefit would result from it.
Mr. Villiersthought the motion might be useful, and it was creditable to the noble Lord to have proposed it. Its chief utility, however, would be not merely to bring to light facts connected with the bad condition of the working classes, but that it would lead to active and general inquiry as to the causes of that condition, and of the evils to which the noble Lord had pointed; and as the circumstances influencing the character and condition of the great body of the working classes were connected with the security, happiness, and prosperity of the country, no inquiry could be more important. So far he valued the motion of the noble Lord; and it would not be to qualify what had

1277
been said of his motives in bringing it forward, if he observed that the noble Lord had not taken so wide a view of the matter as the subject suggested. The noble Lord appeared satisfied with referring to the hardships, the habits, and the vices of certain classes of the poor, and he seemed to expect that these could be checked by legislating for them directly. Now, certainly, he thought this stopped far short of what was required. He feared that too many of these evils were necessarily connected with the circumstances under which the laws themselves placed the poor and industrious classes in this country, and mere legislation for symptoms, without attacking the cause of disease, would be of little avail. He believed that much of that criminality and cruelty which the noble Lord would prevent, sprang from causes over which the poor had little control, lie meant from poverty and necessity, arising from a dearth of employment, and the difficulty they had in consequence to procure what was essential to life, without sacrificing their health and all comfort and leisure. They were now living crowded together in bad habitations, in populous places where slackness of trade and increasing numbers create a fearful competition among them for employment; and their wages being reduced, bread and provisions of all kinds were cruelly enhanced to them in price. Surely, then, it was more natural to refer to such causes the practices mentioned by the noble Lord, than any natural disregard for the moral or physical condition of their children, indeed, if parents did bring their children into market as it were, for sale, with no thought but what their premature labours would fetch, was not that another proof of the miserable condition of such parents? It was, indeed, one of the most unfortunate consequences to the poor, of being compelled to pay the present inordinate price for provisions, that they were actually compelled to withdraw their children from school when they might be receiving that moral culture which the noble Lord so justly thinks essential to their future well-being. Numerous instances of this kind had been communicated to him, of parents withdrawing their children from school, because they could not afford, either at the present price of provisions to pay for their schooling, or were not able to spare the time of those children, which was required to procure for the family the means of
1278
support. He ventured to say, that if commissioners for this inquiry were appointed, they would hear amongst the first things, that it was one of the effects of the laws that thus artificially enhanced the price of food, and which lately had so seriously impaired the trade, that all the evils to which the noble Lord had directed their attention had greatly increased, and that habits of prudence among the poor, and of providing education for their children, had been greatly shaken by the absorbing effects of their sad physical condition. If this, then, were the case, it surely was a more important subject to consider in what way the Legislature could extend the trade, increase the demand for labour, and give the people more ready access to all the necessaries and comforts of life, for until they had more leisure and more time for instruction and mental improvement, they would neither be raised in character, nor be in any way morally changed. However, as he said before, as the noble Lord's motion might tend to elicit information and secure for the condition of the working class a larger share of the public attention than it had hitherto obtained, and as it might ultimately lead to the change of those laws which have reduced them in condition, he should cordially give it his support.
Mr. Humeconcurred in the remarks of his hon. Friend who had just sat down. No man could hear the statements of the noble Lord without regretting that, in a Christian country, such a picture could be drawn. But he wished the noble Lord to go to the causes of the evils he had described. One was the want of proper remuneration for the labour of the parents. If parents could earn enough, the common feelings of humanity would prevent their employing their children as they now did. But did the noble Lord recollect that he was himself one of those who kept restrictions on the food of man, who limited the supply of bread to the working classes? The noble Lord complained of their poverty, but seemed to think that the exclusion of cheap corn did them no harm. He hoped that the result of this inquiry would be to induce the Government to come forward early in the next Session with a bill for the repeal of those starvation laws.
Dr. Nichollsaid, he came from a part of the country where the people had ade-

1279
quate wages about the iron works. Constant wages of 30 s. 35 s. and even 40 s. and 50 s. a-week. Carpenters had from 6s. to 7s. a day, and masons from 5s. to 6s., and yet the children in that district were employed at laborious work, and for an immense number of hours. He could state further, from his knowledge of the neighbourhood, that before the manufacture of iron was introduced, there had been a large number of children attending the National School, but since the rise of wages caused by those works, a great number of the children had been withdrawn from school in order to be employed.
Motion agreed to.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.
Mr. Mackinnonrose to call the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on the health of towns, when—
House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent by Commission:—Regency; Soap Duties; Assessed Taxes Composition; Parliamentary Boroughs; Poor-law Commission; Insane Prisoners; West India Relief; East India Mutiny; Blenheim Palace; Turnpike Trusts; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Caledonian Canal; Canal Police; Toll on Lime; Settled Estates Drainage; Entailed Estates (Scotland); Prisons (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Newgate Gaol (Dublin); and Weaver Churches—Read a first time;—Consolidated Fund; Appropriation; Dublin Police; Postage; Linen Manufacturers.—Read a second time:—.Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; Population; New South Wales; Pilots; Slave Trade Treaties; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland); Isle of Man; Slave Trade Treaties (Venezuela); Joint Stock Banking Companies; Bank of Ireland; Population (Ireland); East India Shipping; Notice of Elections; Railways.—Read a third time:—Admiralty Court; Oyster Fisheries (Scotland); Non-Parochial (Registers); Metropolis Improvements; Poddle River (Dublin); Sugar (Excise Duties); Fisheries; Insolvent Debtors (India); Chimney Sweepers; Grammar Schools.
Petitions presented. By Lord Dacre, from Bishops Stortford, and by the Bishop of London, from Stoke Newington, to prevent Idolatrous Worship in India.

PROSECUTIONS FOR BLASPHEMY—ABEL HEYWOOD.
The Bishop of Exeterseeing the noble Marquess the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, rose to present a petition which appeared to him to be of great importance, as it deeply concerned the preservation of the morality of the country and the due and impartial administration of the law. In the outset he would not disguise from their Lordships that the petition contained grave charges of criminality against the noble Secretary of State, and he hoped that the noble Secretary would be able to explain the facts alleged against him in such a manner as would be satisfactory to their Lordships and to the country. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that in the commencement of the present Session, he had troubled the House with certain statements relative to the progress of that horrid system called "Socialism." The consequence of what occurred in that House on the subject was, that in many of the large towns through-

1225
out the kingdom numbers of most respectable individuals associated together for the purpose of checking and correcting the hourly growing mischief as far as they possibly could. Amongst other places, a body of persons associated together in Manchester, for the express purpose of discouraging and putting down blasphemous and immoral publications in that town; and the committee of that society had intrusted to his care the petition which he was then about to present to their Lordships. Of that committee, five were clergymen of Manchester, two were Wesleyan ministers, two were solicitors, and four were respectable laymen. These thirteen persons formed the committee of that society. The petition, however, could only be received as the petition of the chairman and secretary, their names alone being appended to it. The petitioners stated that Abel Heywood, a bookseller at Manchester, was indicted at the Sessions held early this year for the publication of a blasphemous libel, and it was his painful and most unpleasant duty to read to their Lordships the libel for the publication of which Heywood was called on to answer to the outraged laws of his country. The writer of the libel said—
"What wretched stuff this Bible is, to be sure! What a random idiot its author must have been! I would advise the human race to burn every Bible they have got. Such a book is actually a disgrace to ourang-outangs, much less to men! I would advise them to burn it, in order that posterity may never know we believed in such abominable trash. What must they think of our intellects? What must they think of our incredible foolery? And we not only believe it, but we actually look upon the book as the sacred word of God, as a production of infinite wisdom! Was insanity ever more complete? I, for one, however, renounce the book. I renounce it as a vile compound of filth, blasphemy, and nonsense; as a fraud and cheat; and as an insult to God."
That atrocious libel was prosecuted, and lie was rejoiced to say by the direction of the noble Marquess, in accordance with his promise made, when early in the Session he brought the subject of those blasphemous publications before their Lordships. The trial took place in May, and Heywood pleaded guilty to the indictment. On his having so pleaded guilty, he put in an affidavit in extenuation of his offence, and for a mitigation of punishment. In that affidavit he swore—
1226
"That, having learned early in the month of February last that certain printed papers, and, amongst others, certain printed papers it that time published by the deponent in the way of his trade, were deemed improper, offensive, and illegal, by persons of eminence in church and state, and more especially by the right rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, the deponent did thereupon immediately give orders to the persons by him employed in his said trade not to publish or sell any more of the said printed papers so deemed to be improper, offensive, and illegal as aforesaid; and that the deponent did not himself, publish or sell any of such printed papers; and that he did verily believe that the said persons by him employed in his said trade did not publish or sell any of the said printed papers after the deponent had learned, as aforesaid, that the said printed papers were so deemed improper offensive and illegal."
On the production of this affidavit, the counsel for the prosecution stated that Heywood had pleaded guilty at the request of the Crown, and that he was instructed by her Majesty's Government not to press for judgment against the defendant, but to consent to his discharge on his entering into recognizances for his good behaviour. Here there was a primâ facie case of offence alleged against the noble Marquess, and it would be for him to explain what were the circumstances, looking to the situation in which the country was then placed, that operated to prevent the law of the land from taking its just course in the case of this defendant? Sorry, however, he was to say, and this was the complaint which he made against the noble Marquess, that, at the time he suggested to the defendant to plead guilty, and directed counsel not to press for judgment against him, at that very time he was in a condition not merely to assert but to prove it, and calling on the noble Marquess to disprove the fact if he could), at that very time and moment a stipendiary magistrate was furnishing the noble Marquess with evidence against this individual—evidence which proved that this man, who swore that he had discontinued the sale of those blasphemous libels in February, had repeatedly sold libels of that description in the month of March, of a nature infinitely more disgusting, filthy, and revolting, if possible, than that which he had read, and which he would not offend their Lordships' ears by alluding to further. The stipendiary magistrate of Manchester proved that the defendant, not only by his shopkeeper,

1227
but by himself, and with a guilty knowledge of what he was doing, had sold these horrible publications in the month of March. And yet, with these proofs in his possession—proofs placed in the noble Marquess's possession in consequence of the circular letter addressed by him to the Lords-lieutenant of counties, calling upon them to communicate with the magistrates for the purpose of putting down these blasphemous publications—proofs placed in his possession in consequence of his own proclamation, in alluding to which the noble Marquess boasted in that House of the zeal and anxiety he manifested for the preservation of morality—in the face of these proofs the noble Marquess had ventured to urge the counsel for the prosecution to advise the defendant to plead guilty, in order that he might have an excuse for liberating him on his entering into recognizances. These facts involved matter of grave accusation against the noble Marquess; the more especially as, connected with other circumstances disclosed in the petition, they showed that a corrupt motive existed for the course of proceeding adopted in this matter. It appeared that this proceeding—the liberation of Heywood—took place at the suggestion of certain Members of Parliament. It was alleged in the petition that this individual was dealt with as he had described on the representations made by the Members of Parliament for Manchester and Salford. Here he was bound to add that those three Members for Manchester and Salford did not deny that they had presented a memorial at the Home-office in favour of Abel Heywood. In saying this he did not mean to assert that those Gentlemen knew exactly the nature of the charge against the defendant. He did not mean to charge them with the guilt of favouring blasphemy. But he must say, that it would become a high officer of the Crown, in whose hands was especially placed the guardianship of the laws and morals of the country, to be peculiarly jealous of the interference of Members belonging to either House of Parliament in matters of this serious and important nature. Such an interference ought to have induced the noble Marquess to use the utmost caution even without being; in possession of the evidence to which he had alluded, before the noble Marquess consented to deal so lightly with one who was not a casual, but
1228
an habitual vendor and propagator of these blasphemous tracts. The facts of the case showed that the defendant knew he was doing wrong when he was selling these publications; for it appeared that when he was applied to for them, he did not at first consent, but was finally induced to go into his inner shop, and from his stock there he placed the copies in the hands of those who were employed to procure them. Under these circumstances he contended that a grave wound had been inflicted on the justice of the country, lie should now beg leave to read the concluding paragraph of the petition, which ran thus:—
"That your petitioners are most strongly of opinion that the discharge of the said Abel Heywood under the circumstances aforesaid, the said Abel Heywood having been a notorious vendor of such publications as aforesaid, and being a member of the said society of Socialists, was naturally calculated to encourage the principles of the said society, and particularly such sentiments as are contained in the said blasphemous and obscene publications, and to induce a general belief, especially in the minds of those persons whose welfare is more immediately endangered by the propagation of infidel opinions, that her Majesty's Government were perfectly indifferent as to the maintenance of the interests of religion and good order; or were, at all events, unwilling to put into operation those laws for the repression of blasphemy and vice which are confided to their administration; and that a still greater danger has ensued, lest the lower classes of society should be led to imagine that political influence will induce her Majesty's Government to dispense with the punishment of the most flagrant and most scandalous offences. That your petitioners, although unwilling to express their own concurrence in the conclusions which they conscientiously believe will be formed, from the facts before stated, by the mass of the people, feel nevertheless bound to express their deep regret at the conduct pursued by her Majesty's Government—conduct which, as they conceive, has tended to throw discredit upon the laws of the land, rather than upon the crimes which those laws were intended to repress. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Lordships' lion. House will be pleased to institute an inquiry into the facts before stated, and also into the circumstances under which her Majesty's Government were induced to forego the passing of any sentence upon the said Abel Heywood, and to give to your petitioners such further or other relief in the premises as to your Lordships' hon. House shall seem meet."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that as their Lordships might well suppose, he

1229
was naturally anxious to take the first opportunity of giving the fullest explanation of his conduct in reference to the case on which this petition was founded. But before stating the facts, which would show that he had taken a course which was most likely to lead to what all their Lordships must think most desirable—the complete stoppage of the publication of such libels as those which the right rev. Prelate had read, and which by general concurrence ought to be suppressed—he would beg leave to repudiate with all the contempt which his respect for the right rev. Prelate's station would permit him to exhibit, to the insinuation which the right rev. Prelate had thrown out, that he had been operated upon in the discharge of his duty because three Members of Parliament came to him. The right rev. Prelate said, that they came to the Home Office, and stated, "We are three;" and then he insinuated that this influenced him in the discharge of his duty. True it was that three members of Parliament came to him, and presented a petition on the subject of Abel Heywood; but, as their Lordships must well know, there was nothing more common than for persons, who had petitions to present at the Home Office, to put them into the hands of the Secretary of State. To those who had left this petition, he had stated that he could give them no reply then to the course which he should adopt, as the case of Abel Heywood was already under examination, and he must act as might seem best upon the report which should be made to him. He had received previously to their call a memorial from Heywood, which, at that very time, had been transmitted to Sir Charles Shaw for inquiry. In that memorial, Abel Heywood stated—
"A prosecution had been instituted against him for having published Haslam's letters to the clergy of all denominations, which he had afterwards discovered to Contain a blasphemous libel, and that he had been tried at the last Midsummer sessions for the publication of that blasphemous libel."
Another proof of the unwarrantable contradiction of the right rev. Prelate to the assertion he had ventured to interrupt him by making when he endeavoured to set him right as to the time when the prosecution occurred. The trial did take place at the Midsummer sessions. It was true, that he had previously received from Mr. Crook, the stipendiary magis-
1230
trate of Manchester, some of these letters and having agreed in the opinion expressed by the right rev. Prelate of their character, he had placed them in the hands of the law officers of the Crown for inquiry whether they should not be prosecuted. The petitioner said, also—
"That I am a general publisher and wholesale bookseller, not confined to any particular class of books, but that I do sell every description of books, and that I have published, sold, and circulated five different pamphlets written in opposition to, and condemnatory of the language made use of in ' Haslam's letters.' I solemnly declare that I was not. aware of the libel complained of in this pamphlet, until the evening on which I was arrested, and that I have not, since the circular issued by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, sold a copy of ' Haslam's Letters,' but I have done all that I could to put a stop to their circulation, and have induced the author to destroy the whole stock on hand, to prevent the further circulation, although the author had bought types, a press, &c, to publish the work himself."
The time when this person was arrested was on the 14th of April. Now, the right rev. Prelate had alluded to many other documents sent up to the Home Office by the secretary of this society. A great many documents had been undoubtedly transmitted, with the proof marked at the back, of the place where they were bought. These were all sent to the law officers of the Crown on the 11th of April, three days before Heywood's arrest, without any particular attention having been paid to the names of the persons from whom they were bought. The memorialist stated that, subsequently to the date of his arrest, he had never published this work. If he had so published it he had stated inaccurately, but if, as the right reverend prelate had averred, he had sworn, in his affidavit, that he had not published any after the month of February, and yet had published so late as March or April, this person was liable to an indictment for perjury. This portion of the case had never before come to his knowledge; but if, as the right reverend prelate had said, Abel Heywood did swear that he had published none since February, and yet there could be proof brought of subsequent publication he was liable to punishment. All that he thought it necessary to state in explanation of his conduct was, that as to the facts set forth in the memorial he did make such inquiry as he thought necessary of Sir Charles

1231
Shaw, the commissioner of police at Manchester, who communicated with others. The reply was, that it was certain that this person was a general publisher of books of all descriptions, and that they did not think that he had sold any subsequently to his arrest. Their Lordships knew the situation in which that part of the country had been placed, and Sir Charles Shaw did urge strongly that the Government should take the course which it afterwards adopted in consequence of Heywood's having rendered him great assistance in preserving the peace last winter in that part of the country. It was certainly very proper that general publishers should be made answerable for libels of this description. At the same time the power of publication was a very difficult one to exercise, while, on the other hand, it was liable to great abuse. But, from the best information he could obtain, it did appear to him that this individual had been unconsciously the instrument of publishing this objectionable work; and as he had declared he was not aware of the libel contained in it, and as he had undertaken not to publish any more copies, and had adopted the best means to suppress the publication in any shape, by prevailing on Mr. Haslam to destroy the copies remaining unsold, he felt himself perfectly justified in taking the course he did, because, by doing so, he had promoted that result which every one must desire, which was the suppression of these works in a manner that should meet with the most general concurrence of public opinion. Suppose, after the party had pleaded guilty, first denying that he was aware of the existence of the libel, and declaring that he would not repeat the offence of again publishing this work, he had taken an opposite course and had given to the proceedings the character of persecution, would there not have been great danger, that under these peculiar circumstances an erroneous impression might have been created, and a spurious sympathy excited, in a case in which the only wish ought to be, that the feelings of the country should be sound and justly indignant against the offence. What had been the result? It had been distinctly ascertained that publications of this nature, since the prosecution of Mr. Heywood, had very sensibly and materially declined. So far, therefore, it could not be said that the course he had adopted had tended to promote
1232
this description of works. On the contrary, he believed, that while the course he had taken had had the effect of showing those persons the risk they incurred, and the certainty there was that Government would prosecute if they repeated their offence, the inevitable effect of an opposite line of conduct on his part would have been to have excited attention to this publication, and thereby have increased the public demand for it. With regard to the petition which the right reverend prelate had just presented, as far as he was informed, it by no means expressed the state of feeling generally prevailing-among the clergy of Manchester, or among the most respectable, religious, and well-disposed of all parties, and who were the most anxious for the suppression of this kind of publication. The right rev. prelate had stated that the petition was only signed by two persons, and it could, therefore, be considered only as the petitions of those individuals. One of them was the Rev. Mr. Stowell, who he (Lord Normanby) understood was himself at this moment under prosecution for a libel; it, therefore, perhaps, would have been more seemly on his part to have abstained from urging in the manner he had done in this petition, that severe measures should be taken against a person who had been convicted of an offence similar to that with which he had himself been charged. The result of such a course would have been to have made the individual the object of a spurious popularity, which would have done more injury to the cause of truth, of morals, and of religion, than any other that could have been pursued. He would not trespass upon their Lordships' attention any further, but he really felt indignant at the manner in which the right reverend prelate had presumed to impute motives to him. On this occasion, as on all other occasions, he had acted only from a sense of duty. He had not acted merely on the representations of three members of Parliament, but from the information he had received from other quarters, and also from his own sense of what was right, in order to produce that result which all must desire—namely, the suppression of this description of books, the circulation of which could not be more effectually promoted, than by the notoriety given to them by the system which the right rev. prelate had throughout pursued during the present session of Parliament,
The Bishop of Exeterhad only said, that under the circumstances of the case, the effect of the Members for Manchester and the Member for Stockport going to the Secretary of State was to say to him—not in words, but in a manner stronger than by words—"We are three." He had never charged those gentlemen with using any such expression. With regard to the language which the noble Marquess had been pleased to use, he had no intention of retaliating; he entertained no contempt for the noble Marquess; he entertained contempt for no one, and therefore not for the noble Marquess. There were, however, two or three things in the noble Marquess's speech of which he felt bound to take notice. The noble Marquess said he had been informed, upon good authority, that Mr. Heywood was not habitually a vendor of blasphemous publications. Now, whoever told the noble Marquess that, told him what the noble Marquess had in his own possession the most ample means of contradicting. He would read to their Lordships one of the statements in the possession of the noble Marquess:—
"Manchester, March 24. John M'Dowall, of No. 40 Cotton-street, Manchester, weaver, states that he called at the shop of Abel Heywood, bookseller and publisher, 60 Oldham-street, Manchester, on Saturday evening, the 21st of March, about half-past seven o'clock, and asked for Nos. 1 and 2 of Clarke's Critical Review; that a woman was attending in the shop, and she said they had none; that having been referred to Abel Heywood's shop for them, and believing they had them notwithstanding such refusal, he called again the same evening about a quarter to ten o'clock, and saw Abel Heywood himself, and asked him for the same numbers; that after some hesitation he fetched the numbers asked for out of an inner room and handed them to M'Dowall."
He held in his hand a copy of the work referred to, but it was of so shocking a description, that nothing less than absolute necessity would induce him to bring any passages of it before their Lordships. He would put it into the hands of the noble Marquess, in order that the noble Marquess might judge for himself. He believed, indeed, that a copy of the work accompanied the communication which had been addressed to the noble Marquess (as we understood). Four of these statements had been sent to the Home-office, proving not merely technical and constructive, but actual and guilty know-
1234
ledge, on the part of this individual of the blasphemous character of the publications. He told the noble Marquess, that the country would never believe that the Government were resolved to put down publications of this kind, nor that the Government cared anything whatever for the religion or morality of the country when put in competition with their continuance in office, if the noble Marquess merely deluded the public by a show of proceeding against offenders of this description, and then allowed them to escape with impunity on the first application that was made. The noble Marquess stated, that the consequence of the system that had been pursued, had been to diminish the number of these offences. Some accounts had reached him however, and he would tell the noble Marquess of one meeting that had taken place which certainly did not confirm the statement. The noble Marquess must indeed have known of the meeting taking place, as information respecting it was forwarded to the noble Marquess by a magistrate of the county of Surrey. At this meeting, which took place on Ham-common on Tuesday last, discourses had been uttered in public of a most frightful kind. He would read to their Lordships what had been said by Mr. Owen on that occasion, according to the statement of two respectable individuals. In answer to the question whether man is responsible for his actions? Mr. Owen replied in the negative, illustrating his answer by a tumbler glass and decanter in his hand, which he said were not responsible for having clean or dirty water put into them, "and such is man; therefore, man is not responsible, either for murder or any other act that he commits." His informant then said, "Am I to understand that man is not responsible for murder or any other act?" "Decidedly so," said Mr. Owen, "man is not responsible; no, not for murder or anything else he does." This was the language held at a public meeting, of which notice had been given, and at which, therefore, it could not be doubted the noble Marquess had persons present to take notice of what occurred. He would mention another instance: he had received a letter as he came down to the House stating, that a blasphemous publication was suspended in a shop in the Strand, and that the writer having addressed the noble Marquess on the subject, had hoped that

1235
the publication would have been suppressed, but that it still continued to be exhibited and to disgrace this Christian city. He had furnished to the noble Marquess an offer of evidence against the individual in whose shop this work was exhibited. He did not know whether proceedings had been commenced in consequence; he hoped they had, and that it was only the "law's delay" which had prevented their being yet brought to a satisfactory result; but it was in April last that he made the communication to the noble Marquess. The noble Marquess had not been contented with standing on the defensive, for he gave their Lordships to understand, that the persons from whom the petition emanated were not entitled to much respect, and that as one of the gentlemen by whom it was signed was under prosecution for libel, it would have been in better taste on his part to have abstained from signing the petition. Now, he had that day received a communication from a gentleman concerned in the case, who was a respectable solicitor in Manchester, and who stated, that so far was it from being true, that Mr. Stowell was under prosecution for libel, that no prosecution was ever thought of being instituted against him. It was true that some proceeding had been taken, but it was in the nature of an action, and he would tell their Lordships what the words were for which this action had been commenced. He had no personal acquaintance with this gentleman, but he had heard much of his learning, his talent, and of his zeal, both as a Christian pastor and as a defender of the doctrines of the Church of England (although the noble Marquess might not think this a ground for praise) against the attacks of Roman Catholics. He admitted that Mr. Stowell entertained an ardent wish, as he also did, that the Roman Catholics might not be able to succeed in what Mr. Stowell believed, and what he believed, to be their objects. But he (the Bishop of Exeter) had never heard that this Gentleman had taken any unworthy course in his hostility. It appeared that the words which had been made the ground of the action had been read by Mr. Stowell at a public meeting held at Manchester, to petition their Lordships, and he believed the other House of Parliament, against any further grant to the College at Maynooth. The statement read by Mr. Stowell was to the effect that
1236
a Roman Catholic priest in Manchester bad ordered one of his congregation, named John O'Hare, to do penance, by going on his hands and knees in the public road. For this statement the action had been brought. He was assured and believed that there was no doubt whatever of the fact that O'Hare had been found on his hands and knees in the streets, and had been seen in this position by four policemen, who, being surprised at so extraordinary a spectacle—for we were not living in Ireland—inquired the reason of it, and were told by the man that he was commanded to do so as a penance by his priest, and could not have remission of his sins, or at all events of their punishment, unless he did this penance. Under these circumstances, Mr. Stowell considered himself at liberty, as he should have done, and as he believed the noble Marquess would have done, to state this fact at a public meeting. The man turned out to be a lunatic; he therefore could not be called upon as a witness, and the priest had brought this action, but the opinions had been taken, of some of the most eminent law authorities, who ridiculed the idea of the action being maintained. Such was the ground on which the noble Marquess considered a clergyman disqualified from remonstrating against the publication of blasphemous libels.
The Marquess of Normanbyonly rose to notice that part of the right rev. prelate's speech in which the right rev. prelate stated that he had in his possession proofs of the guilt of Mr. Heywood. He could only say, that he had received a large packet of papers, which he had referred to the law officers of the Crown, and had not seen since. The result of the single proceeding which was now brought under their Lordships' notice, would not affect the course which the law officers of the Crown might think proper to adopt with respect to the other publications.
Conversation dropped.

CINQUE PORTS—PILOTS.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the second reading of the Pilot Bill. This bill was for regulating the system of pilotage in the Cinque Ports. The inhabitants of those ports, who were part owners of vessels, claimed the privilege of being free from pilotage; and although when there were only sailing vessels little inconvenience arose from it, yet now that there were so many steamers, it be

1237
came a matter of consequence, for the captains or mates of those vessels having taken a lodging in one of the towns of the Cinque Ports for a short time, and having entered their names as part proprietors, were thus enabled to evade the pilotage dues. The French government had complained of steamers from Havre to England being obliged to pay 18 l. a voyage for pilotage, while British steamers were, in fact, exempt from it, and this bill was, therefore, brought in to prevent such frauds being practised by British steamers in future.
The Duke of Wellingtonregretted that the whole correspondence between the Board of Trade and the Warden of the Cinque Ports on this subject had not been laid on the table of the House, as it would show the grounds on which the system now proposed was founded. The privilege to which his noble Friend had alluded, was one that had become an abuse, as the pilots were deprived of their business of pilotage. All he desired was, that justice should be done to that class of men, who, he would answer for it, did their duty, and who were put to great expense in order to enable them to perform that duty. He certainly preferred the first scheme that was proposed by the Board of Trade; but he would not oppose the second reading of the bill.
The bill read a second time.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
House in committee on the Clergy Reserves (Canada) Bill.
On Clause 2.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that the bill directed the investment annually of the funds arising from the sale of the clergy reserves. It appeared to him that the sum so arising, and so to be invested in the public securities of the colony, would bear a very large proportion to the debt of Canada, and its periodical investment as a part of that debt would have the effect of a very large sinking fund, the tendency of which must obviously be to increase the value of public securities. But eventually the time must come when those investments would cease, and it was not impossible that the interest on them might cease to be payable, the necessary consequence of which would be to leave the clergy without any provision. No prudent person would regard an investment in these funds as a secure provision
1238
for his family, and that which could not be considered a permanent provision for a family that might expire must be quite insufficient for a clergy intended to be perpetual. He should, therefore, propose an amendment to this effect—that the Crown shall have the power of assenting to any bill which might pass the Colonial Legislature for investing the proceeds of the clergy reserves as a part of the public debt irredeemable for ever at a fixed rate of interest. Ha also thought that the Government ought long since to have assisted the people of Canada in forming the important ship canal so necessary to the prosperity of that colony, by giving them the advantage of the credit of this country. It was now well known that that province only wanted those proceeds of the clergy reserves for the purpose of effecting that great object, and the present bill would materially assist in accomplishing that, providing it underwent the necessary amendments. If the bill now before them remained unchanged, the Government could do no more than make the investments in the present securities; but by the change in the measure which he proposed, the Crown could give its assent to any bill which might pass the Colonial Legislature for effecting a different species of investment. He looked upon the practice of coming to that House year by year to legislate for that colony as highly inconvenient, and therefore it was, that he at once proposed to invest the Crown with the requisite power, without rendering it necessary to come to Parliament. He was decidedly of opinion that the interest ought to be fixed, and it appeared to him that 5 per cent, would be a good rate of interest.
Viscount Melbournesuggested that the amendment of the noble Lord would convert the measure into a money bill, and their Lordships could not adopt it without an infringement of the privileges of the other House.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that the amendment which he proposed only amounted to the insertion of a permissive clause, and he took upon himself to say that their Lordships might do anything that they thought necessary relating to the taxation of the province, without at all interfering with the privileges of the other House.
Lord Seatonsaid, there could be no doubt that the measure would be received

1239
in the colony with great joy, and on the whole he must say that the bill appeared to him much less objectionable than any that had yet been proposed. At the same time some further provision for the clergy would be necessary for the measure would make provision for only 125 clergymen of the Episcopal Protestant Church.
The Earl of Riponhad some doubt as to the policy of the amendment. He feared that its effect would be to deprive the clergy of the power of acquiring lands in any form, however necessary for building churches or residences for themselves, all which objects were certainly contemplated in the act of 1827, which gave the power of selling these reserves.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, their Lordships must have heard with great satisfaction from the noble Lord (Seaton), that the effect of this bill would be to tranquillize the agitation which had so long pervaded that country, with which the noble Lord was so well acquainted, with respect to the distribution of the Canada Clergy Reserves. It was that feeling which had induced him to accede to the bill, believing that there was little or no chance of those jealousies and animosities which prevailed in Upper Canada being healed and subdued until this question of the clergy reserves should be settled. But their Lordships would have heard with the utmost concern the other part of the noble Lord's statement, with which he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was already fully acquainted from the various corresponding accounts he had received from every person having a knowledge of that province, and taking the deepest concern in its religious welfare—namely, the state of spiritual destitution in which that province was plunged, and which almost exceeded belief. From accounts given by missionaries, who had travelled through the several parts of the province, it appeared that they found whole masses of the population, equal to ordinary parishes in England, who had not seen a minister of the gospel more than once in a year, and some had not seen one more than once for two or three years, while in other parts of the country the people had not had the benefit of any religious instruction for twelve or fourteen years together, and were left literally in a state of heathenism. Their Lordships would also regret very much, that no better provision had been
1240
made for the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, and, in fact, for the ministers of religion, of whatever denomination they might be, than the proceeds of these clergy reserves. The noble Lord had stated, that the portion for the Church of England would amount to 25,000 l. at the utmost. The income of the Church already nearly equalled that sum; receiving about 7,000 l. or 8,000 l. from the clergy reserves and the Government, and about 16,000 l. from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. A most wretched pittance, indeed, that was which was derived from the first-named sources, and it had been daily diminishing up to the introduction of this measure into Parliament. The state of the country itself, liable to the continual changes and uncertainties resulting from emigration, and to the inconveniences of a new condition of society, coupled with the comparative heathenism in which the population were placed, induced him earnestly to call upon their Lordships to take this subject into their most serious consideration. It was not right that this country should be neglectful of the religious welfare of her subjects residing in her colonies. Our possessions extended into every part of the world, and prosperity had marked our national history for a long series of years. We had become rich and powerful amongst the nations of the globe, but what must be the retribution that awaited a country which had received so many blessings from heaven, and which was so little anxious to diffuse that religious knowledge amongst mankind, to which it owed all its prosperity and power? He thought the amendment of the noble Baron liable to the objection stated by the noble Earl (Ripon). He should be sorry to see the money vested in colonial securities. What he should expect was, that the whole of these funds should be placed at the disposal of their owners, and that they should be laid out in the purchase of lands and secured in other ways, in property not dependent on the state. It would be an evil to suffer the church to be for ever a burden on the funds of the country, because it would be exposed to all the unpopularity arising from being maintained out of the public taxes. From this the Church would be relieved if the money was vested in the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, which had.

1241
done so much already as a charitable institution for the support of religion in that country. It was in this way that property was vested in that society for the benefit of the Episcopal Church in the United States, and up to this moment that society remained the trustee of that property, which had been respected through all the changes and revolutions that had taken place there, and which had placed the Episcopal Church in America, in a situation of pre-eminence and stability beyond all other churches. At the same time, after all he had heard from the noble Lord, he could not object to the passing of a bill which he understood would tend to restore tranquillity to Canada.
The amendment negatived. Clause agreed to.
On Clause 3,
The Bishop of Exeterwished to know from the noble Viscount what was to be understood from that part of the clause which provided that the proceeds of the clergy reserves should go
"To satisfy all such annual stipends and allowances as had been heretofore assigned and given to the clergy of the Churches of England and Scotland, or to any other religious bodies or denominations of Christians in Upper Canada, and to which the faith of the Crown is pledged."
He could not suppose that her Majesty's Ministers intended to include Roman Catholics; yet the words were so large as to include them or any other religious body or faith. He should move that the word "Protestant" be inserted, so as to render the clause positive and certain in its meaning.
Lord Ellenborough,—My Lords, I solemnly conjure you not to concede that. I implore you not to agree to that proposition.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged the noble Baron's pardon, but he had not yet done. Their Lordships would do well to remember, that they were now disposing of a fund given by an act of Parliament in order to carry into effect the pious intention of George 3rd—the permanent maintenance and support of the Protestant clergy. True, doubts had arisen upon the meaning of the phrase "Protestant clergy." But did their Lordships ever hear a doubt that those words excluded the Roman Catholic clergy? Well then, he besought them not to pass the clause
1242
in its present shape. The noble Baron had risen and solemnly conjured their Lordships not to insert the word "Protestant." He as solemnly conjured them to do so, if they had any value at all for that religion they professed—that religion which he believed they anxiously desired should have its full and free course in America as well as in England. Need he remind their Lordships of what had been solemnly declared to be the purpose of these endowments of lands? When the judges decided that the clergy both of the Churches of England and Scotland should be admitted to share in the proceeds, they certainly intimated that there might be other persons of whom they knew nothing, but even then they distinctly said, that the words were intended to exclude the clergy of the Church of Rome, and that the endowments were rather designed to aid the Protestant Church and support the Protestant faith, than the clergy of the Church of England in particular. Would their Lordships consent, then, that this property should be seized and confiscated, and give n to the Catholic clergy of Upper Canada, because it was quite clear that such would be the effect of the bill?
Viscount Melbourne,—It does not bear that construction.
The Bishop of Exeterbegged the noble Viscount's pardon. The clause described the manner in which the property was to be apportioned, /n the first place, "to satisfy all such annual stipends and allowances as have been heretofore assigned and given to the clergy of the churches of England and Scotland, or to any other religious bodies or denominations of Christians in Upper Canada, and to which the faith of the Crown is pledged." [Viscount Melbourne: Such as have been "heretofore assigned."] He was glad to hear the noble Viscount repeat those words, because it seemed that he meant that the Roman Catholic clergy were not to be considered as included in the terms of the clause; therefore he could have no objection to admit the qualification which he (the Bishop of Exeter) wished to have inserted. Would the noble Lord say distinctly that Roman Catholics were excluded? Would he say that they were not included? [Viscount Melbourne: The clause does not bear the construction put upon it.] He thought it did; and he was confirmed in that opinion by a return from Sir George Arthur, which had been printed

1243
and circulated, and might be found in their Lordships' library. The accuracy of that return might be tested by an appeal to the noble Lord seated on the cross benches (Lord Seaton). It was a list of those payments to which "the faith of the Government was pledged," and amongst them was no less a sum than l,500 l.. a year to the Roman Catholic clergy. [Viscount Melbourne: Then it ought to be continued.] The noble Viscount said it ought to be continued. He was not now contesting the point whether it ought to be continued or not. He would not be drawn into any unnecessary discussion. What he contended for was, that it ought not to be charged upon that fund which was given expressly for the support of Protestant clergymen; and he thought no Protestant House of Parliament could consent to such a diversion of this property. The clause was in truth a proposition for taking money out of the small funds expressly designed for the support of a Protestant clergy, and applying it to the maintenance of a Roman Catholic clergy. They were gravely told that more than a tenth part of what had been realized for a long time past was to go to the maintenance of a Popish clergy. He thought it scarcely possible that their Lordships could entertain such a proposition. The consideration of another circumstance might make this proposition still more intolerable to their Lordships; it was, that they were forcing this money upon the acceptance of the Catholics. He was sure that the noble Baron, when he rose and conjured their Lordships not to agree to the amendment, did so with the most laudable feelings, being influenced by an opinion that this bill was to restore tranquillity to the province of Upper Canada. But what notion would their Lordships have of the matter, when he read to them a proof that the Roman Catholics themselves did not expect that this should be done for them—nay, more, that they actually wished and asked that it should not be done? In the appendix to, the report on the affairs of British North America, by Lord Durham, p. 45, was to be found the address of Roman Catholic inhabitants of Upper Canada to the Earl of Durham, signed by the Catholic bishop and thirty of the principal residents. That report contained the following passage:—
"With respect to the clergy reserves, considering that we were expressly and de-
1244
signedly excluded by the act of 1791 from any participation in them, we have resolved not to embarrass the settlement of that question by making application for any portion of them."
But they proceeded to recommend that these reserves "be not bestowed exclusively on the Church of England," but that they be "devoted to the religious and moral instruction of the whole people." They there disclaimed any desire to participate in these funds: would any noble Lord say it was fitting after that to entertain the proposition of the clause as it stood? He should move to insert the word "Protestant" before the words "religious bodies or denominations of Christians in Upper Canada."
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that what he conjured their Lordships to do was, not to introduce any words or provisions into the bill which would deprive the Raman Catholics of Upper Canada of any portion of what they now derived from the bounty of the Crown, and to which the honour of the Crown was pledged. He felt perfectly convinced that if their Lordships ventured to touch that subject, there was not the slightest hope of tranquillity in Canada. A Catholic question would be created that instant, and the Roman Catholics, forming two-thirds of the population of Upper Canada, would be united, they and their representatives in the Assembly, against the Government of this country. Happily up to this moment there had been no religious, dissensions in Canada. That country had been spared that greatest of all curses, and he did trust that their Lordships would introduce no words into this bill which would in the slightest degree diminish the emoluments which the church of Rome now derived.
Viscount Melbournehad the very strongest objection to the amendment proposed by the right rev. Prelate, and exactly on the same grounds as those stated by the noble Baron. The object of the clause was to continue the payment of those stipends to which the faith of the Crown had been pledged, and if the payment had been hitherto made, it ought to be continued.
The Earl of Riponregarded the bill as a compromise on the part of the Church, by which compromise, however, she obtained a legal title to something which did not proceed from the clergy reserves. The Crown was obliged by the bill to make

1245
good, up to a certain sum, any deficiency in the revenue arising from the clergy reserves, to which guarantee, on the part of the Crown, the Church of England, under the Act of 1791, had no positive right. He said, therefore, that upon the whole it was but a reasonable settlement that the bill should be so constructed as not to leave any ground of dissatisfaction in the colony; if, however, no compromise had been made, he should have thought that it might have been very doubtful whether the Roman Catholics would have had any right to participate in the clergy reserves.
The Bishop of Exeter, in reply, admitted that a compromise had been made—but between whom? Between the parties who were really parties to the discussion, which the Roman Catholics were not. It was contrary to all good faith to fasten a charge for their support upon funds belonging to the Protestant clergy. If the Government had pledged their faith to find means for the support of the Roman Catholic clergy, let them go to Parliament and ask for the necessary supplies; but let them not steal from the miserable modicum which was left to maintain true religion.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the word Protestant be inserted: Contents 17; Not-Contents 27: Majority 10.
Remaining clauses agreed to, the House resumed; Report to be received.

RATING STOCK IN TRADE.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he rose for the purpose of moving, which he did with very great regret, that the order of the day for going into committee on the Stock in Trade Bill be read in order to be discharged. There were some words in the last clause of the bill which had occasioned very considerable doubt whether they did not carry the exemption provided for by the bill much further than was originally intended. He would move that this bill be committed that day three months.
Lord Portmanremarked, that it was necessary to make it clearly understood that their Lordships' House having found that a large amount of property would have been exempted from rating by this bill, had taken care to prevent such an error being committed. He wished to mention that a right rev. Prelate, who had, been obliged by illness to leave the
1246
House, had consented to the arrangement proposed, on the condition that the bill to be brought in should be merely temporary. He must say, that his noble Friend at the head of the Home Department, could do no greater service to the country during the recess, than by preparing himself carefully on the subject to which this bill related, as it was of the very highest importance.
Lord Ellenboroughdid not know what service the noble Marquess might have it in his power to do the country during the recess, but he knew that he could not do the country a greater disservice than by passing temporary acts of Parliament.
The Marquess of Normanbyadmitted the correctness of that observation as a general principle, but, as he was obliged to withdraw the present bill, he thought the introduction of a temporary measure justifiable.
Committee on the bill put off for three months.

AFFIRMATIONS.
Lord Monteagle Lord Monteagle moved the second reading of the Affirmations Bill. In 1828, the Legislature had admitted Quakers and Moravians to make a declaration instead of an oath in criminal as well as in civil proceedings. In 1833, it went a step further, and abolished oaths not only in all judicial proceedings, but in all proceedings whatever, so far as the Quakers and Moravians were concerned. In the same year, another act was passed by which the same privileges were extended to the Separatists. Again, in the year 1838, the same relief was given to certain parties who had been Quakers, Moravians, or Separatists, but who, having ceased to hold those opinions, had become members of the Church of England. The class to which the present bill referred was not numerous, consisting as it did of persons who, being members of the Church of England, might feel a conscientious objection to taking an oath. He must remind their Lordships that all those bills had been introduced with the sanction of the judges, and the bill now before them had been drawn up by Mr. Baron Alderson. The whole argument in favour of the bill might be found in the preamble to the Act 3 and 4 William 4th, c. 82, since there was not one word in that preamble which applied to the Separatists, and which had received the sanction of the Legislature, which did not

1247
equally apply to the persons contemplated by the provisions of this bill. Was it to be said, that a member of the Church of England should be compelled to take an oath against his conscience, or should cease to belong to it if he refused? He entreated their Lordships not to deny relief to the members of the Church of England on this point, and to give the bill a second reading. The bill provided, that any party desiring to avail himself of the permission to avoid an oath should appear before two justices of the peace, and give evidence that his opinions were unfavourable to oaths, and that he must register his name previous to claiming the privilege of affirmation. If the party affirmed without going through this progress, it would be a misdemeanour, and if he affirmed falsely, he was made subject to all the penalties of perjury, as if he had sworn in the usual way.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the noble Lord had stated it as a reason for agreeing to this bill, that several other bills of the same character had been passed. He (the Duke of Wellington) entreated their Lordships to pause, and recollect, that the foundation of all justice was truth, and that the mode of discovering truth had always been to administer an oath, in order that the witness might give his deposition under a high sanction. He hoped their Lordships would not proceed to adopt another of those bills which had been before their Lordships only a few days, and which was, in truth, nothing more than a way of enabling a witness, who thought proper to say he had conscientious scruples, to escape the solemnity of an oath. He admitted, that the inconvenience which the present state of the law produced fell rather on the community in general than the individuals, but, at the same time, he thought that by every one of those relaxations they shook the foundations of justice. This bill ought to be brought before them at a period of the Session when they could ascertain the opinions of more of the learned Members of that House than were now at hand, and also the opinion of the learned judges, if their Lordships would think it necessary to call for them. The bill, indeed, hardly went far enough, for if the principle were just, why not dispense with the previous examination altogether? But he would suggest that in any future bill it would be right to have some testimony as
1248
to the character of the person wishing not to take the oath, which would be a kind of substitute for the sanction departed from. In the mean time he should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the very provision required by his noble Friend opposite was to be found in this bill. The party who had scruples against taking an oath was required to go before a magistrate, and in case the justice were satisfied, on the testimony of one or wore credible witnesses, that he was a person of good character and a believer in the Christian religion, and conscientiously believed the taking of oaths to be unlawful, then he was to grant a certificate to that effect. There were some parts of the bill of which he did not altogether approve. He objected to any thing in the nature of a test, and he agreed with his noble Friend opposite, that it would be better to have the bill more extensive, and to place the recusants in general on the footing of the Quakers, Moravians, and others, dispensing with the previous examination. Heartily agreeing, however, in the principle of the measure, he should give his vote for the second reading. He was as much averse as any man could be to diminish the sanctity of the obligation to truth, on which all the administration of justice depended; but he thought this bill would leave it all the security which human institutions could confer. The experience of those who were best acquainted with courts of justice did not tend to show that those who took affirmations were less careful or scrupulous as to what they swore, or swore in a less trustworthy way, than those of their fellow citizens who continued to take oaths.
Lord Lyndhursthad a great aversion to this bill. The question was, whether they should allow any person who chose to say he had a conscientious scruple to taking an oath to dispose of the lives and fortunes of his fellow-subjects without the sanction of that obligation. He was not at all disposed to adopt the principle without going into a minute inquiry as to the inconveniences of the law as it at present stood. The noble Lord who moved the bill said it was full of securities against the abuse of the principle. Any person at all acquainted with the administration of justice, would see that the pretended securities were a mere mockery. The man who objected to the oath was to go before a magis-

1249
trate, and call a witness to prove that he was a man of good character, and had conscientious scruples. That was entirely an ex parte proceeding; the magistrate would be ignorant of the parties, and would have no opportunity of sifting the evidence, so that this proceeding would be quite nugatory. If, then, the promoters of the bill thought a security necessary, and if on inquiry their Lordships found that it amounted to nothing, there was an end of the bill even on the showing of those who introduced it. The noble Lord had said, that the bill was drawn up by a learned judge. Of course, he could not suppose that any one of the learned judges could have been concerned in drawing up such a bill as this, so that that assertion he took for a mere make weight. But this was not all. The man who had a scruple against taking an oath, must, of course, have a similar scruple against calling any person into a court of justice to take an oath for him. The man, therefore, was to call another into court to do that which he considered in his own conscience ought not to be done. Such was the extravagant absurdity of this bill. Yet their Lordships were to suppose that one of the learned judges had drawn it. Again, how were the conscientious scruples of the recusant to be investigated? All that the witness could say was, that the man said he had those scruples, which meant nothing. But after the witness was examined, it was not imperative on the justice to grant a certificate. If he refused it, the consequence would be that every one would set down the man who had applied for it, as one who was not considered a man of good character or a Christian. Suppose that this unhappy man were afterwards called into a court of justice to be examined, the fact of this refusal would be conclusive against his evidence. Again, every one knew, that when an oath was prescribed in an act to be taken, it must be repeated verbatim et literatim, without deviation. Yet this form of affirmation given in the bill was, "I affirm and declare, &c." There was only one other instance of an oath in an act of Parliament containing an "&c." which had been made the subject of ridicule against the nation by historians, yet this bill was ascribed by the noble Baron to a judge of great learning, intelligence, and acuteness, who was incapable of committing such
1250
absurdities. With regard to the general question, he was unwilling to discuss it on such a bill as this, but when a less objectionable measure was introduced, he thought it might be made the subject of grave and serious consideration by a Committee up stairs.
Lord Brougham: Although he never said, that Mr. Baron Alderson drew this bill, he certainly considered, that it might have been drawn by any judge, without impeachment to his learning or accuracy. As to the "&c." what was it? Nothing at all. It simply meant in the bill, "I affirm and declare as is here set forth," or "as follows." It was common enough in other Acts, as for instance, "justices sitting for, &c." meant "justices sitting for such a town or county." The only other observation of his noble and learned Friend worthy of notice was, that as to the person who objected to take an oath calling on another person to take one for him, which certainly had, at first sight, some plausibility. But why should not the objector call upon another man to take the oath, if that man did not share in its conscientious scruples, and had no repugnance to do so?
The Earl of Devonobjected to introduce into the practice of our criminal proceedings evidence not on oath, unless under peculiar circumstances indeed, and in cases established after a full and deliberate inquiry. His own experience had taught him, that men would refuse to swear a falsehood which they would affirm over and over again. In those cases where relief had been afforded the class of persons were known, and a test could be applied to their religious opinions. In this case the door was opened wider, without evidence to show the necessity for it. He was always ready to bear his testimony to the scrupulous correctness of Quakers in giving their testimony; but still the principle of our criminal law was to require an oath.
Lord Monteaglesaid, his noble Friend must recollect, that they had the authority of the Legislature in favour of the bill. The Legislature had passed former bills of this kind. If the object were the discovery of truth, and if it were said, that an oath was an aid to the discovery, he (Lord Monteagle) said, that an oath against conscience was an impediment to the discovery of truth. If it were otherwise, the Legislature had done wrong, for it had abolished hundreds of thousands of oaths

1251
on the very ground, that an oath misapplied was an impediment to, and no test of, truth.
Amendment carried.
Bill put of for six months.

LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND).
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Law of Evidence (Scotland),
The Earl of Haddingtonobjected to the further progress of the bill, though he was aware, that he should expose himself to the fire of the great law guns in this House. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had treated the opinion of the faculty of advocates very lightly; but he (Lord Haddington) had made inquiry and had found, that they had considered the report of the committee which had been rejected, only three of the learned body having voted for it. The noble Earl then went into some details respecting the law of evidence in Scotland. He proposed to the noble and learned Lord, that he should drop this bill during the present Session, and bring in another bill on this subject next Session after a full and due inquiry into it. If the noble and learned Lord would not agree to that proposition, he would move, that this bill be read a third time that day six months.
The Lord Chancelloradvocated the propriety of passing this bill during the present Session. It had been before th House nearly all the present Session; and, if any measure could have undergone more investigation than this had, he should be obliged to the noble Earl if he would mention what that measure was. There were no grounds for the imputation, that this bill had been hurried through Parliament.
Lord Wharncliffewould support the amendment of his noble Friend. He thought, that his noble Friend had made out distinctly, that the Scotch bar was not prepared at this moment for the alteration proposed in the bill; he would rather therefore postpone it to the next Session, that a general consent might be procured on the part of the bar of Scotland.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 15; Not-Contents 11; Majority 4.
Bill read a third time and passed.

RAILWAYS.
The Earl of Clarendon The Earl of Clarendon moved the second reading of the Railways Bill.
The Marquess of Salisburybegged to
1252
direct the noble Earl's attention to the 16th clause, which gave, in his estimation, too extensive powers to the railway officers over persons charged with obstructing or otherwise interfering with them. These underlings were but too apt at present to exceed the powers with which they were intrusted by the law.
Lord Wharncliffethought it advisable, that there should be a board of inspection, but was of opinion that there was an important omission in the 5th clause, by which the board was to be constituted. He thought, that the operation of the clause should be made retrospective, and that persons having held any office of emolument connected with any railway for the space of one year previously should be made ineligible.
The Earl of Clarendonthought, that it would be better to leave the responsibility in the hands of the Board of Trade.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that by the 16th clause it was provided, that if any person was found trespassing upon a railway, or if any person impeded any of the officers, that officer should have the power of taking the person offending into custody and detaining him. That he thought was an extent of power with which these railway officers ought not to be intrusted. He could not think, that it was right to give an unlimited power of detaining offenders.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, the officer must of necessity detain the offender till he could be taken before a magistrate.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad often turned his attention to this subject, and be was glad that at last something was to be done. He had formerly proposed the insertion of clauses in the different railway bills which had passed the House, placing those undertakings under the control of the Government, but the course which he had proposed had not been adopted, and, in fact, the Government had done nothing in the matter. The consequence had been, that those railway companies had got a monopoly of the whole carriage along the different lines, and he was therefore happy to see, that at last a measure was proposed taking the management of those concerns into the hands of the Government. This measure, however, did not in his opinion go far enough. By the bill the Government would have the power of inspecting the rules and regulations of the different companies, but those rules and regula-

1253
tions were not sufficient for the management of those concerns, and there was no power given to make additional rules. There were two railways passed near his house, and he must say, that he derived no advantage from either. In fact, he had been almost obliged to establish a stage coach for his own use. Those railway companies had driven the carriers and stage coaches off the road, and but for the exertions which he and a few other gentlemen had made, the West of England would have been put to the greatest inconvenience. He must say, that the Government ought to look after the rules and regulations of railway companies as respected the carriage department, for by the present bill, as it stood, the Government would have no power to order any new regulations. He was, however, glad, that the powers of the inspectors were to be carried further, and he hoped the measure would be productive of good effect.
The Earl of Clarendonsaid, it had been proved before a committee of the House of Commons, that the railway companies had obtained a complete monopoly, and that the interference of Parliament was now absolutely necessary. A compromise however, had been made, and it had been agreed that this bill should be considered only as an experimental measure. There was, however, a clear understanding, that if the powers granted by this bill were found insufficient by the Board of Trade, further powers should at once be asked for.
The Earl of Glengallsaid, that nothing could be more scandalous than the system of the railway companies as respected carriage.
Bill read a second time.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS.
The Earl of Devon The Earl of Devon moved the second reading of the Parochial Assessments Bill, but
Lord Portmanobjected to a bill of this kind being proceeded with at so late a period of the Session, and moved that it be read a second time this day three months.
The Marques of Salisburydid not feel any very strong objection to this measure, but thought that at this late period of the Session his noble Friend had better withdraw it.
Second reading put off for three months.

LOAN SOCIETIES.
Lord Monteagle Lord Monteagle
1254
moved the order of the day for the House going into committee on the Loan Societies Bill, when
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that this bill asked their Lordships to pass an art of indemnity for all usurious acts committed by those societies up to the present time. To that he did not so much object, but he did object to the power which was asked to charge 15 per cent. upon loans. There was, however, some difficulty in fixing what the rate of interest should be, and on this point he had looked to the rate of interest fixed by loan societies in Ireland. He thought 15 per cent. too high, and he should therefore propose to reduce the rate fixed in the bill from 15 to 10 per cent. He should also propose to amend the bill further, by providing that the meetings of loan societies should not be held in public-houses.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas glad to think that the loan societies in Ireland had succeeded. Much credit was due to Mr. Bagot, of Bagot Castle, for the interest he had taken in the establishment of those bodies in that country, and he was happy to find that the example of Ireland in this particular had been followed in London.
The House in committee. Bill passed with amendments.
House resumed.