Sitting of 14 July 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] Bill. Public.—l° Election Petitions Trial; Court of Exchequer (England) | Common Law Courts (Ireland).
2° St. Asaph and Bangor Cathedrals.
Reported.—Testtabny perpetuating.,
3° and passed:—Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: Chelsea-Hospital; Militia Ballots; Military Savings Banks; Sudbury Disfranchisement; Witnesses Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED By Sir E; Knafchbull, from Sheppy Union, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.— By Mr. Ferrand, from Neath, for Abolition of the Truck System. By Mr. French, from file Grand Duty at Roscommon, for controlling the Expenditure in the Shannon Navigation.—From the Directors of the Dublin Hospital, complaining of the Municipal Corporations Act, and praying for Relief.—From Joseph Count de Golejewski, to be Replaced on the Polish Pension List.

ADMISSION TO PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS.
Mr. Humerose to call the attention of the House to the report of the select commit of of June, 1841, on National Movements, and to demonstrate the propriety of the recommendation contained in that report being fully carried out. This was not a party question. The object Which he had in view was one to which, he conceived, no party in that House could possibly have any objection. It had long been made a charge against the people of this country, that they could not be admitted to visit Public Institutions, where there Were collections of paintings, statues, and other works of aft, without endangering the

125
safety of those precious deposits; and they were, on that point considered to be inferior to the French and other nations of the continent. Now, he was one of those who had, for a very long time, studied the character of the great mass of the people, and he observed, uniformly, that where they were kept at a distance—where little confidence was placed in them—no matter whether it was in affairs of mere amusement, or in matters that were of importance to society in general—he had uniformly observed, that this suspicious distrust of the people led to those very consequences that were deprecated, and which a more kind and generous expression of feeling towards them would assuredly prevent. Until within a very short period all our valuable collections of the paintings and work of art were, in consequence of this jealous and distrustful feeling, shut up from the great body of the people. They were prevented from examining those objects of curiosity and instruction to which, in other parts of the world, individuals of their own class were allowed easy access. Some of those places were indeed open; but they could not be entered except at such an expense as confined their inspection to persons in the middle and higher classes of society. A better state of things had, however, grown up of late years; and the experiment had shown, so far as it had been tried, that the English populace might be permitted to enjoy the treasures of art collected in different parts of this metropolis without those treasures receiving the smallest injury. In June, 1841, he moved for and obtained a committee on this subject. That committee had effected much good; but they were not able, in consequence of the shortness of the Session, to do that justice to the question which they otherwise would have done. He was anxious, how-ever, to place before the House the result of the labours of that committee, in order to show, on the part of the working community, bow far the benefits expected to be derived from their recommendations had been realized, and how far it would be proper and beneficial to carry out the principle which, in consequence of the report of the committee, had been first acted on. It was important to the working classes that that principle should be fully carried out. Very many of these individual had no opportunity to cultivate the arts o reading and writing. It was
126
not in their power to study at home during the few hours' respite which they had from labour. They were obliged to devote almost all their hours to providing for the wants of their families. They were literally excluded, in many instances, from any opportunity of education. It, there-fore, appeared to him, that the opening the doors of these public institutions to the working classes in the metropolis did in itself actually afford a species of education. The inspection of these works of art gave rise to habits of thinking in minds that had never thought before, and thus, in the very outset, a great good was attained. He believed that the character of the working classes in general was in a great degree influenced by the character and conduct of the higher classes; and if higher classes treated those whom providence had placed below them with coldness, indifference, or harshness—if they kept them at a distance, like beings of a different species, it was not difficult to see that such conduct must lead to unpleasant consequences. This had been too much the case in this country; and he believed the result of the system had been to place the population of this country in a worse moral position than their continental neighbours. The brutality and rudeness which they every day saw exhibited could not but be extremely painful to those Who witnessed it. He would remove this by directing the minds of the people to amusements that were not only harmless but instructive. Ignorance led to crime, and in that respect it was lamentable to observe how degradingly this country was situated, as compared with any other nation in the world. On the committee of 1841 they had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire, and five other hon. Gentlemen, who were now Members of that House, men who advocated different classes of political opinion; and he was free to say that throughout all their proceedings, and up to the close of the labours of that committee, they had only one dissention, and that was with respect to the insertion of three words, whether the British Museum and other Public Institutions should be "open on Sundays." Those who opposed the proposition were afraid that, if these places were open when divine service was being soleminised in the afternoon, the multitude would go to view objects of art and science instead of attending public worship. The answer

127
to this was, that in every class of society a time for amusement and recreation must be set apart. Now, the time when it was proposed to open these Public Institutions, on the Sunday, was the only one of which the poor man could avail himself, and he believed, that for the want of a better mode of employing and amusing themselves on that day, the working classes had recourse to public-houses. Was it not better, he would ask, that instead of besotting themselves in public-houses, the National Gallery, British Museum, and other places of a similar character, should be opened on the Sunday afternoon, where the working classes might amuse as well as instruct themselves? If this plan were adopted, he thought that the working man, with his wife and family, would partake of this innocent enjoyment, instead of, as was now too often the case, the husband proceeding alone to the public-house, where he wasted his money, wasted his time, destroyed his constitution, and demoralised his character. These were the arguments in favour of opening public institutions on the Sunday afternoon. He thought they carried great weight with them. In his mind they were conclusive. Such was the practice abroad. If he went to Belgium or to Holland (and no place was more religious than Holland), he found that, after the hours of divine service, the husband, wife, and such members of the family as were able to go abroad proceeded to the country; or if the weather was not fine, or they preferred it, visited the museums and public institutions, where they examined and admired the splendid collections of works of art or of mechanical ingenuity. But what was the case in this country? Let any Gentleman ride round the environs of London on a Sunday evening, and in every quarter he would see flags displayed from public-houses, apprising the artisan where he might procure beer and spirituous liquors. He did not wish to shut those houses up; but certainly he would not encourage them by preventing the people from having recourse to a more salutary and harmless enjoyment—that of inspecting works of genius. The whole evidence before the committee of 1841 satisfied his mind of the utility of acting on this principle. It proved to him, that if the recommendation of the committee were carried out to its full extent, it would improve the morals and add greatly to the happiness of the
128
industrious, honest, hardworking classes. Great benefits had accrued from opening the public parks. Let any hon. Member visit the Regent's-park next Sunday, and he would behold a most gratifying scene. He would see the whole of that extensive area crowded with families—men, women, and children, happily enjoying themselves. Undoubtedly their constitutions were renovated, their health was improved, in that pure atmosphere; whereas, if they had not such a place to proceed to, if they were compelled to remain in their murky and unwholesome districts, their health would be deteriorated and their constitutions impaired. He rejoiced that so much had been done, but he was anxious that still more should be done; and when the weather did not allow the toil-worn artisan to rove through the fields, he would open to him the various public institutions, and permit him to enjoy the different objects of art that were there assembled. This would do more to sober the minds, and improve the morals of those too much neglected classes, than all the rigour and all the severity with which the more strict religionists would visit them for the purpose of compelling them to act as they did. In respect to promenade accommodations for the inhabitants, the eastern parts of the metropolis had been much neglected. Much good, however, would be effected by the formation of Victoria Park; and hundreds of thousands of artisans living in murky and unwholesome dwellings in the east of London would be enabled to enjoy that air and exercise which those who resided in the western part of the town could at present boast of. A petition had been presented to the House signed by almost all the inhabitants of Bermondsey and its vicinity, praying that a similar park should be formed in that neighbourhood. There was a piece of ground centrally situated with reference to St. George's-fields, Bermondsey, and Lambeth, which could be procured by Government on easy terms, and might be appropriated to that beneficial object. He did not want the expenditure of money, as his object would be by an exchange of Crown property in one place to procure appropriate sites in another. With respect to the improvement which took place amongst the people, by opening up to them the means of innocent and wholesome recreation, he had the testimony of Colonel Rowan, who stated, that since the

129
facilities of this sort were increased one policeman was now found sufficient where ten had been required before; that at Greenwich fair, after which, formerly, the prisons were full of offenders, there were now no riots whatsoever. This, in the Colonel's opinion, was owing to the facilities for recreation which had been afforded, and he recommended that further means should be adopted for forwarding the same object. When, on a former occasion, it was urged that the Museum should be opened during the holidays, the answer was, that the adoption of such a course would be attended with considerable hurt; now that the trial had been made the result was highly gratifying. In the report of 1835 and 1836, Sir Henry Ellis said, there would be great danger in opening the establishment during the holidays, and that the collection could not be kept safe from the crowds which were likely to attend. From the evidence of the same Gentleman it now appeared, that from 16,000 to 32,000 visited the Museum in the course of one day, and during the four years that it had been open to such numerous assemblages, not one instance occurred in which the aid of the police was required, though the changes which were taking place during the time offered great temptation. He had it from the Secretary, that up to the 2nd of July the institution had been visited by 232,778 persons. Amongst the complaints at present made, one related to the exclusion of children under eight years of age, even though under the care of their guardians. These children had to be left in some neighbouring shop with one of the parents, whilst the other visited the collect on, and then the person who had charge of the child took his or her turn. Children were now admitted to Hampton-palace. Before that injury used to be sustained, but since then not sixpence worth of damage had been done. That was a fact well worthy of consideration. He was anxious that children should be admitted to the British Museum and to the National Gallery, as well as to Hampton Court, and if it was understood that their parents were to hold them by the hand no injury could be done. A great inconvenience also arose from making parties write their names upon entrance, as it occasioned a crowd in the passage. It was a useless practice, and according to the testimony of the porters and the
130
best informed officers, no benefit resulted from it. He thought it right too, that the King's library should be thrown open to the public. As to the objection that the admission of a great number of people would raise too great a dust, it would be easily obviated by adopting the same precautions which had been taken with respect to that House. At present the Museum was opened only for four days in the week. He imagined that the public might now with great ease and safety be allowed the accommodation of an additional day. Ingress was now afforded to the public up to six or seven o'clock; but the number seeking entrance after five o'clock was very inconsiderable. By gaining the two hours the labour of the persons employed would not be increased, and two hours additional might be afforded to students. He visited the Museum on last Easter Monday, when he found that from 15,000 to 16,000 passed through with the greatest regularity—indeed, he might almost say with the discipline of soldiers. Thence he went to the National Gallery, where he found 13,000 persons had passed through with the same order as at the Museum, and departed with equal readiness when the proper hour arrived. In the year 1840 there passed through the gallery 503,011; in 1841, 538,355; and on the 7th of July of the present year, the numbers given by the Secretary were 370,105. This would sufficiently testify the desire of the people to indulge in those habits which, whilst they gratified, at the same time improved the public taste. Whilst the admission of visitors to the Tower was as high as 2s., the sum acquired from visitors was very small, and the visitors themselves very limited. For the last year at that price the number of visitors was 8,000, exclusive of 2,000 admitted on orders. When the amount was reduced to Is. in 1838, the number of visitors was 40,000; the next year, when the admission was reduced to. there were 84,000 visitors; the next year 94,000, and the year following, 103,000. At 2s. the amount raised for entrance was but 800 l. in the year, whilst at 6d. it was '2,570 l. Of the sum thus acquired, the Master-general of the Ordnance had been enabled to appropriate 1,059 l, to the purchase of ancient armour. There was one improvement which he would suggest as respected those who visited the Tower, namely. that they should not be hurried F

131
through a hasty inspection, but be allowed the privilege which they had at the Museum. As another example of the good effects of reducing prices, he would mention that when 2s. was charged for admission to see the jewels in the Tower, no more than 6,000 or 7,000 persons visited charge 20,000 did so. It was quite delightful to see the eagerness of the public to visit Hampton Court Palace. He understood it was now common among the working classes for a party to hire a waggon to go there, which they could do for Is. a head, and frequently twenty or thirty waggons would arrive from London in a day, the inmates of which, after having enjoyed themselves in the palace and park, returned to their homes in the evening. He was happy to acknowledge the gratitude he felt for the handsome conduct of Sir R. Stopford, Governor of Greenwich Hospital, in opening the chapel and hall to the public on two days of the week, free of charge, from ten o'clock in the morning to four o'clock in winter, and six o'clock in summer—an act which reflected the highest credit on the gallant admiral. Sailors, who had been formerly obliged to pay, were now also freely permitted to see the records of our naval glory which that institution contained. There was much still to be done to facilitate the access of the public to cathedrals. The committee had proposed that St. Paul's should be opened to the public for two hours every day, not during divine service. It was well known that now, during the hours of service, crowds of persons entered, because they were not admitted at any other time without paying, but whose entrance now was productive of little other result than to disturb divine worship. Mr. Britton, Mr. Cunningham, and other men eminent in art, had borne ample testimony to the strong desire which the public felt to view works of art, and to the entire absence of any disposition to do injury to them and Stated that they might be admitted freely to Westminster Abbey and other similar buildings without the least danger. He had written a letter to the dean and chapter of every cathedral in the kingdom, soliciting that free access might be granted to visitors, and in consequence arrangements had been made in the cases of Norwich, Durham, and Bath and Wells, for the admission, of the public at certain
132
times. He hoped that they would have the assistance of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government towards opening Public Institutions of all kinds. As an instance of the success of an experiment of this kind, he might mention Newcastle, the museum of which place was visited by vast numbers of persons from the country resorting to the town on market days, and at other times, with the best effects. The Dulwich Gallery, near the metropolis, contained a collection of pictures which had been left expressly for the use of the public, but he regretted that he had been unable to induce the warden to meet the public convenience by opening the gallery; the vexatious regulation of requiring tickets was still kept up, and the consequence was that the poor, as well as many persons of the middle class who had no time or opportunity to procure tickets, were excluded from seeing the gallery. He wished he could say anything in favour of the Royal Academy: but he found them, who ought to be the patrons of art and taste, more inexorable than any others. A sum of 50,000 l. had been ex. pended by the public to provide them accommodation, and surely the public had a right to derive some advantage from that expenditure. He wished them to permit the exhibition to remain open gratis for a week or a fortnight after those who paid had seen it, or to be gratuitously open for one day in the week during the time the exhibition lasted. He believed them to be the only body in Europe who did nothing towards the promotion of those objects for which it was established. He saw no other course that could be adopted on the present occasion than to address her Majesty, praying for her assistance for the attainment of the objects he had indicated, and he was sure, from the readiness with which she had consented to the prayer forwarded to her soon after her accession relative to the royal palaces, that she would not refuse her aid on the present occasion in the work of humanizing the minds of her people, and disseminating, taste. He was perfectly willing, however, to adopt any other course that might be thought preferable; to carry his object was what he wished. The hon. Member concluded by moving,
"That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions to the trustees of the British Museum and of the Na-

133
tional Gallery, to the authorities having charge of the armouries and jewels in the Tower of London, and to all other persons having the management or direction of public edifices and cathedrals, for the adoption of those facilities and improvements recommended in the report of the select committee on public monuments."
Mr. Ewartseconded the motion, and recommended that a commission should be instituted for the inspection and preservation of all the national monuments and works of art.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerconcurred most cordially in the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Montrose, as to the importance of throwing open to the public, as far as possible, all those exhibitions and works of art which tended to elevate their ideas to higher objects than those by which they were immediately surrounded, and by improving their taste, contributed so essentially to humanize and elevate their character. The only point in which he differed from the hon. Gentleman was a technical one,—as to the mode in which the common object might best be attained. He agreed that nothing could be more advantageous to the public in the largest sense, than the opening of the parks in the neighbourhood of London. It was beneficial not only to the lower classes, as af3ording admirable facilities for healthful recreation and enjoyment; but even to those in the higher ranks of society nothing could afford greater gratification than to see their humbler fellow-subjects innocently enjoying themselves, and partaking of those blessings which Providence had placed within their reach. There w as scarcely a Sunday he did not himself go to those scenes of enjoyment; not so much for the purpose of his own recreation, as deriving the higher gratification of seeing his fellow-creatures innocently enjoy themselves. The only point on which, as the hon. Member observed, there was any difference of opinion in the committee, was as to the propriety of opening the National Gallery on Sundays; and he, with many others, conscientiously entertained the opinion that the opening of such exhibitions at all on Sunday, and especially during divine service, would be extremely prejudicial to the moral habits and feelings of the people. He knew well that arguments of a religious character were particularly out of place in the House of Commons; and the hon. Gentleman might
134
be disposed to designate the opinion he had expressed as a mere prejudice; he called it an honest, conscientious feeling, but in either view of the matter he would recommend him not to press his motion for an address, Let him take what advantages he could, and leave prejudices to be counteracted by the silent operation of public opinion. Within the last few years great progress had been made in this question, and there was now a readiness displayed by those who had charge of the public, and even of many private collections, to open their doors to all classes of the community, which no interference of that House, by means of an address to the Crown, could have brought about. With respect to the Museum, the hon. Gentleman had proposed that it should be opened an additional day in the week for the accommodation of the public; but it was extremely difficult to hit the precise means of reserving a sufficient time for those who resorted to the Museum to study, without encroaching on the accommodation which he admitted was due to all classes of the community. He believed the desire existed on all hands to accommodate the public as far as possible. The same might be said with reference to the cathedrals. In Westminster Abbey a great reduction of the charge had taken place; and it had, therefore, proved the greatest attraction to a very large body of the people. In common with the hon. Member for Montrose. he wished the Dean and Chapter of Westminster would consent to throw the Abbey open to the public some portion of every day, under proper regulations, but he did not think that object would be gained by the proposed address. There was a natural disposition in mankind to resist the exercise of an assumed authority to which they were not bound to give obedience; and he doubted whether the direct interposition of Parliament, through the medium of the Crown, would not retard rather than accelerate the accomplishment of the great end in view. He would undertake, however, to say for himself and her Majesty's advisers, that they anxiously wished to extend the means of innocent enjoyment to all classes, even to the lowest order of the people; and, as far as they had the direction of public establishments, or any means of persuasion over those who had, they were determined to lose no opportunity of ex. Lending the means of access to them one

135
the part of the people. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member, having originated this matter and having obtained a general expression of opinion on the part of the House, would be content to leave the question on that footing, without insisting on an address, which might give rise to opposition on the part of some who could not agree to the full extent of the recommendations of the committee.
Sir R. H. Ingliscould not admit that the hon. Member for Montrose had obtained a general expression of opinion on the part of the House. In fact, he had yet only received the concurrence of the hon. Member for Dumfries and the more qualified approval of his right hon. Friend. He did not wish that this metropolis should run a race with Paris in the desecration of the Lord's-day. It was not always the case that a high taste for the fine arts and public virtue were necessarily co-existent. The period when the fine arts most flourished in ancient Athens and Rome, and when taste was at its highest pitch, was the time when the morals of the people were most corrupted, and when the greatest abominations were practised.
" Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes Intulit agresti Latio;"
and a flood of corruption followed. The hon. Member for Montrose had referred to the Royal Academy, and said that that institution derived 10,000 l. a year from the public, and had done nothing to benefit their fellow-men. Now, he must inform the hon. Member that the Royal Academy was not a Public Institution, and was not amenable to that House. It was not right to say that a public building had been erected for the convenience of the Royal Academicians, for they had previously apartments in Somerset-house, and on giving them up it was stipulated, that they should occupy the new apartments in the National Gallery exactly on the same footing. If the hon. Member's motion was pressed to a division, he should vote against it, as he was decidedly opposed to opening Public Institutions on the Lord's day.
Mr. H. G. Knightregretted that his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, should have thought it necessary to throw cold water on the liberal unanimity with which the House appeared disposed to receive the motion
136
of the hon. Member for Montrose. He still more deeply regretted that, his hon. Friend should have gone so far as to launch his anathema against the cultivation of the arts. Were we living in the nineteenth century, or thrust back into the darkness of the middle ages? When his hon. Friend was addressing the House, it appeared to him Mr. Knight) that he was listening to some venerable monk who was commending Virgil and Cicero to the flames, and doing his best to re-plunge the country into that barbarism and that ignorance which, we have always been told, is the fertile parent of crime. For his own part, he would cordially support the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, both for the sake of the cultivation of the arts, and with a view to its moral effect. This country, great in many ways, had not, hitherto, been equally remarkable for its preeminence in the arts. Yet commerce was not adverse to the arts, for the arts had been restored to life in the commercial towns of Italy—in Florence, in Pisa, in Venice—and in those towns the arts had flourished more and more in proportion as their commerce had extended. But the truth was, that the arts cannot flourish unless the public at large take an interest in them, and are capable of appreciating their merits—and this was not as yet the case in England. Now, with regard to the moral effect how desirable was it that the people should have the opportunity of contemplating the sculptured resemblances of those great men by whom their country had been assisted or adorned ! It was for this reason that the Greeks and Romans filled their streets and their forums with the statutes of their distinguished men. They knew that the sight of those statutes would supply the state with a constant succession of poets, and philosophers, and heroes. They knew that nature sows the seed of genius in every soil; that in all the walks of life there exist hearts that are "pregnant with celestial fire"—hearts that, admonished by such remembrances, kindle at once, and exalt those who own them to the loftiest heights of virtue and of fame. For these reasons it was his earnest desire that all the doors should be thrown open as wide as possible; and he would further admit that, in cases where public monuments had been raised at the expence of the country, the will of an individual who may be weak, who may

137
be haughty, who may be narrow-minded, should not be permitted entirely to stand in the way of great national objects. He further agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose in opinion, that there would be nothing improper in providing the working classes with opportunities of innocent recreation on a Sunday afternoon. It would go far to divert them from those habits of intemperance, of which we hear such frequent complaints. If a working man went to church in the morning, he would not quarrel with him, if, in the afternoon, he visited the National Gallery, or took a walk with his wife and his children in the parks, where, as he inhaled the fresh air, beheld the blue canopy of heaven, and gazed on the verdure of the lawns and the woods, his thoughts would ascend in gratitude to Him who made them all. But, if the cathedrals of this vast metropolis were thrown open to the public, great care must be taken that the house of God should not be desecrated in any way, nor the performance of divine worship be disturbed: this could only be done by multiplying the number of vergers, and, perhaps, introducing policemen; and the expence of this additional force., as it would be incurred for the accommodation of the public, should be sustained by the public, and not thrown on the chapters. An idea had occurred to him by which public monuments might, in future, be offered to the contemplation of the people, in a manner that would be wholly unobjectionable. He would have spacious cloisters, like the Campo Santo, at Pisa, or a church, like the Madeleine, at Paris, built at the expence of the public, and devoted, hereafter, to receive the monuments of our distinguished men. Into such a building the people might at all times be admitted without any inconvenience. The building itself would be ornamental to the metropolis. He hoped the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would take this subject into his consideration, and not disdain to be handed down to posterity as the pericles of his time. His hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, had mentioned a subject which, in his (Mr. Knight's) opinion, was well deserving of attention: he had expressed a wish that a commission might be appointed to examine and report upon the state of our cathedrals, and the historical monuments which they contain. But he (Mr. Knight) would prefer an inspector
138
to a commission. Such an officer existed in France, and had been found exceedingly useful. But if such an officer were appointed, the hon. Member for Montrose must so far restrain his economical propensities as not to find fault with the expence which such an appointment would necessarily entail; for such an officer must be a professional man of acknowledged ability, who could not be called upon to give up his time without a liberal compensation; and there would be no use in his making reports unless the recommendations contained in those reports were to be carried into effect. This, however, was a subject to itself—a project which could not be adopted without much and mature consideration. He would leave it in the hands of Government, and content himself with repeating his candid concurrence in the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. Wysesaid, he had never heard, that giving the humbler classes access to our national monuments, was attended by evil consequences; on the contrary, it was one of the best links between the higher and lower classes. But he would ask the House, whether it was not for the interest of artists, as individuals, that opportunities should be given to the public of improving their taste in works of art by public exhibitions. With respect to the productions of the middle ages, of which this country had so much reason to be proud, he regretted that means should not be taken to preserve them from that destruction to which so many had been consigned, not by the barbarism of our ancestors, so much as by the neglect of the present age.
Sir R. Peelhoped, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his motion to a division, but it appeared to him that on technical grounds there was a strong objection to it, because communications between that House and the Crown were of a formal nature, and he thought the hon. Gentleman would feel that to refer the Crown to the report of a select committee, and ask her Majesty to carry into effect the recommendations of the committee, without particularizing what they were, was a course of proceeding not exactly consisteut with the respect that was due to the Crown. He was almost inclined to doubt the power of the Crown with reference to the opening of cathedrals, as that remained with the deans and chapters;

139
and the only effectual way to get ready access to them was to apply to the persons having charge of these buildings to increase the facilities of access. Undoubtedly, access to our national monuments could be afforded, and, in his opinion, the greatest advantage would result from it to the working classes of this country; but it was proposed only as a substitute for dissipation and vice. Now, their whole time could not be absorbed by such exhibitions, and all that he contended for was, to show the public the wonders of the creation, and the works of art, so that their taste might be gradually refined. It was very difficult for the State to come into contact with great masses of the people in granting these indulgences; but if they could in their expenditure attend to the health and improvement of the people it would tend to strengthen the monarchy and our form of Government, and would be giving a new guarantee for the preservation and stability of the Slate. They would then show the people that in the expenditure of the public money, their interests, their enjoyment, and their improvement were regarded; and when they heard of millions being necessarily raised by taxation for the conduct of the public service, it would not be so much objected to. At the same time, with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose, he must object to the British Museum and National Gallery being opened on Sunday. Why should they refuse to allow those who were employed there one day of rest after the six during which they were engaged? With respect to the charges that were made for admission, one of the arguments in favour of it was, that it was necessary for the purpose of insuring the respectability of the visitors; but he understood that it was rather from the vulgar rich than from the artisans that any damage arose to public monuments; and he referred the House to the evidence printed in the report on the subject in Confirmation of that opinion. Much more might be expected to be achieved through the influence of public feeling than by anything peremptory or compulsory.
Mr. Mackinnon,as one of the committee whose report referred to this subject, he found himself in the novel situation of concurring with the hon. Member for Montrose. Every facility ought to be given for the inspection of public exhibitions of works of art.
Mr. W. Cowperheartily agreed in wishing the cathedrals to be opened to the public gratuitously, as had been the intention of their founders. He was persuaded that no inconvenience would result there-from, and that the real obstacle arose out of consideration of pounds, shillings, and pence.
Mr. Bernalfelt very strongly on the question of opening the exhibitions or museums on Sundays. He would ask any one on what other days could our artisans and those engaged in constant servitude find time for enjoying the glorious emanations of genius? It need not follow that the exhibitions should be opened during the hours of divine service; and he was sure that the effect would be beneficial, in affording sources of refined and elevated pleasure in place of other and less worthy ones.
Mr. Escottthought, that this was a subject of the greatest moral importance. He agreed with the hon. Member for Hertford that many recreations had been taken from the people, and that no subject was more entitled to the attention of Parliament than that of providing innocent amusements for the people. He therefore cordially concurred in the motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Montrose. At the same time, he thought that there was great danger in making any extensive change against the opinions of the best portion of the people. He trusted, that something would be done to revive the spirit for the games and pastimes of former times, for he was sorry to say, that they were now almost forgotten among the villagers in England, and nothing tended more to promote the health and happiness of the working classes than these innocent out-door recreations.
Mr. C. Bullerwas glad, that a question of this importance had been so favourably received on both sides of the House. He wished to cull the attention of the noble Lord opposite to the exceedingly capricious rules by which some of the parks were regulated. The remarks which he had to make would apply to all the parks, but more particularly to St. James's, because it seemed to be the one where the demon of the Woods and Forests most delighted to interfere with the enjoyments of the people. What could be said for the rule which excluded from that park every person carrying a bundle. The keepers very often exercised a wicked sort of malice in this respect—they would let the person

141
walk half-way down the park, and then up would come one of the gentlemen in Lincoln green, and turn the unfortunate individual back. It was only the other day that the hon. Member for Bath, in his way down to the House, and carrying a book and some papers tied with a string, presented himself at one of the gates. One of the gentlemen in Lincoln green came up and stopped him, saying "You have got a bundle, Sir." The hon. Member remonstrated, and carried on the discussion with the keeper on general principles—he told him who he was, and the keeper, having no doubt the fear of the inquisition before his eyes, at last allowed the hon. Member to pass. He thought, the regulations with regard to games were also absurd. The other day he saw four little boys playing at leap-frog in the park, but, one of the gentlemen in Lincoln green coming in sight, they all ran away. He went up to the keeper, and asked him if his orders were to prevent the boys playing, and he answered that his orders were to prohibit every game. Could anything be more absurd than such a rule? Then with regard to sleeping in the park, No one, it seemed, was allowed to sleep,
" Sleep that knits up the ravelled sleeve of care."
The moment any one threw himself down on the grass, and appeared as if inclined to sleep, out darted a gentleman in Lincoln green, and told him that he must not sleep there. Now, all these were absurd regulations, and as they interfered with the comforts of the people, he hoped the noble Lord would excuse him for having taken advantage of this discussion to draw his attention to the subject, and he hoped, that the good principles laid down by the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government with regard to the admission to the Museum and the picture gallery, would be also applied to the admission of the people to the parks.
The Earl of Lincolndoubted, whether the House would expect him to answer the hon. Gentleman on the present occasion, and he regretted, that the hon. Gentleman had introduced topics of this nature into the present debate—topics, he might observe, not worthy their discussion. The hon. Gentleman was quite mistaken in supposing that any instructions were given by the authorities to interfere with the innocent enjoyments of the people. The reverse was the case: there existed
142
every inclination in the office which he held to extend the enjoyments of the people, and to facilitate their admission to the public parks. In St. James's park, he had himself done one or two things, which he thought would add to the enjoyment of the people, he had introduced various botanical plants, and had effected a botanical classification of them. The keepers might occasionally have exceeded their authority, but they had no instructions to interfere with the innocent amusements of the people. With regard to the rule respecting bundles, he thought that if persons carrying bundles were admitted, a serious impediment would arise to those persons who went there for relaxation With regard to the rule against persons being allowed to sleep in the park, he had only to say that the practice had of late been very common, and it had been found necessary to enforce the rule. There certainly was a regulation against admitting persons in a working dress, but there, was scarcely a mechanic in London who had not a decent dress, and no person who was decently dressed was ever refused admission. All these rules had been established from a desire not to interfere with the general accommodation of the public, and if the hon. Member for Liskeard had in future any complaints to make, he hoped he would make them to him, and not to the House.
Mr. Laboucherecould not see what harm there would be in allowing a man in his working dress to pass through the park. It was a bad principle which excluded a man from places of that description merely because he happened to have on a working dress.
The Earl of Lincolnbegged the right hon. Gentleman to recollect that the rule existed during the whole time that the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the late Government. No new rule had been made, and any alterations that had been made were alterations of relaxation, and not of obstruction.
Mr. Borthwickentirely concurred in the views taken by the hon. Member for Montrose and the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government. He saw no objection to opening the edifices alluded to on Sunday, and he thought the Church might well afford the expense of keeping them open out of its own funds.
Mr. Curteiscomplained of the barricades erected on Sundays in Westminster Abbey for the purpose of preventing the people getting a view of the monuments.

143
He complained also of the manner in which the public were driven out of the abbey after the service; the vergers were always telling the people to move on, and no one could get even a glance at the monuments. He hoped the Dean and Chapter of Westminster would imitate the conduct of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's in this respect, and he thought the public ought to be grateful to the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's for having removed the barricades in that cathedral. He thought great advantages would result to the people if these edifices were thrown open, as proposed.
Mr. Humewas not surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford University objected to this motion, because he never expected to hear anything liberal from the hon. Member. He was therefore not disappointed in this respect, but he confessed that he was agreeably surprised at the manner in which the motion had been received by the House and the Government. Far from the churches being desecrated by consenting to a motion like the present, he thought they were desecrated at present, by taking filthy lucre for admission to see them, and refusing to admit a man because he was poor. All he wished was that the public should be permitted after divine service to see those noble edifices. After what had been said in the course of the discussion, he would not press his motion, and he therefore begged leave to withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn.

SCHOOLS OF DESIGN.
Mr. Ewartrose, in pursuance of notice, to move,
" That it is expedient that the Government school of design be formed into a central normal school, for the instruction of teachers of design, in communication with other schools of design throughout the country; and that the general recommendations of the committee, which reported on this subject in the year 1836, be adopted."
The committee recommended the establishment of a central school, which should issue casts and books of prints for the use of other schools. This recommendation had been complied with, and casts had been issued, and one book containing the most approved patterns had been sent forth. The commission which was issued to inquire into the condition of the handloom weavers, and which sat for two years, made a similar recommendation with regard to designs and patterns. The
144
committee of 1836 further recommended, that there should be a normal school established for the instruction of persons who should afterwards be employed as teachers at the provincial schools. It was his conviction, that it became the duty of the Government to encourage the formation of provincial schools. He did not mean to say, that the Government ought to create them; but that whenever they were established, the Government ought to afford them every facility. The great benefit which these schools were calculated to effect, by encouraging improvements in our manufactures, and enabling us to compete with foreign manufactures, entitled them to the favourable consideration of Parliament and the Government.
Dr. Bowringseconded the motion. The superiority of France in the art of design, as applied to manufactures was traceable primarily to the encouragement given to the schools established there for teaching youth the art of design. One great house in Paris, the chief member of which had the order of the Legion of Honour conferred on him by Napoleon, paid 10 per cent, upon their capital for patterns. In another establishment 180 artists were employed to prepare designs; while in the city of Lyons,, between 500 and 600 youths were constantly under artistical instructions for improving manufactures. There was a general impression throughout this country, that Parliament ought to countenance and encourage the art of design; and he was therefore glad that his hon. Friend had brought the subject before the House.
Mr. Gladstoneobserved, that the motion of the hon. Gentleman consisted of two parts; the first part referred to the general recommendations of the committee of 1836, and the second referred more particularly to the School of Design now existing in London being constituted a general normal school. With regard to the recommendations of the committee, he believed that every recommendation which Could be acted upon by the council of the School of Design had been adopted and carried into operation. There were, indeed, some important recommendations, having reference to changes of the law, which it was not competent for the council to meddle with. But all the subjects contained in those recommendations would, he hoped, be provided for. So far as the general recommendations, therefore, were concerned, he thought he might pass them

145
by. But as to that portion of the motion which went to constitute the London School of Design into a central normal school, the only objection which he could see applicable to so formal a proceeding was, that it would be a title rather more ambitious, and one signifying more than the present experiment in this country could warrant. As regarded the substance and object of the proposition, he believed it was an accurate conception of that which the council of the School of Design entertained. They were of opinion that it was by no means the main purpose of the institution simply to establish a good drawing school, nor one at which parties might learn the habit and art of applying designs to manufactures. They conceived it rather as the foundation of a school for training teachers for the purpose of carrying out the great object of the Government in encouraging art in various parts of the country, where similar institutions were to be established. He believed that the council had decided upon five places, at which it was their intention to assist in conducting such institutions. It was the opinion of the council that there ought to be six schools of that description. These were as many as they thought advisable to contemplate. With regard to the five places on which they had fixed, they were Manchester, Birmingham, Norwich, York, and Coventry; as to the place where the sixth should be instituted, that was still under consideration. It was the intention of the council to appropriate a sum in aid of these schools. So much with regard to the foundation of a normal school. With regard to the supply of teachers, the council had felt very strongly the difficulty of finding suitable teachers for Schools of Design in London, from the circumstance that the application of art to manufactures was comparatively novel in this country. They had established a probationary class for persons of good character for the purpose of being trained as teachers of design in the provincial schools. It had been also proposed to offer six exhibitions of 30l. a year each for open competition; these to be enjoyed for three years. The council of the school now stood upon a more permanent basis than it did last year. Many members had been appointed to it who would afford valuable aid to those who originally belonged to it; and the director of it had borne testimony to the efficacy of the plan on which the school had been established.
Mr. Labouchereconsidered the encouragement of this institution to be an object of the greatest national importance. This school had been instituted a very few years, and, considering how slow necessarily must be the growth of any such institution, he thought its progress, as far as it had gone, was most satisfactory. He hoped a report would be made of the actual state of the School of Design before the end of the present Session. He thought the council had acted wisely in proceeding gradually and cautiously, but he had no doubt that, as the benefit of these establishments came to be felt in the country, there would be an increasing desire, on the part of the people, to participate in the advantages they were calculated to afford. He agreed in opinion with his hon. Friend, that the establishing of a normal school was one most important duty devolving on the council; and he was glad to know that this great object had not been neglected. There was a normal class established, to which great attention would, he was perfectly assured, be paid. One master had already been perfectly qualified, and sent forth to preside over a provincial school. Females were also educated for those departments of manufacture in which their labours were engaged, and he had no doubt that all the benefit that could be expected from an establishment of this description would ultimately be realised.
Mr. Wysesaid, that one of the first objects of the council, on its formation, was to ascertain whether there was any warmth of feeling existing in the country to acquire the necessary knowledge for the application of art to manufactures. They soon found that there was a very earnest desire on the part of persons in the principal towns of the country, not only to acquire that knowledge, but that there was the greatest anxiety to obtain the advantage of the opportunity and means proposed, and placed within their reach by the Government. The art of design had not by any means been sufficiently followed out as a branch of education, and he hoped that Government would direct their attention to the subject. He had no doubt that the time would come when they would be able to compete in the art with any foreign country.
Mr. W. Williamshad heard the statement of the] right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade with much satisfaction. The Somerset-house school would not, he believed, be of much

147
service in promoting design in connection with manufactures. It was impossible to teach persons the art, with the view of the knowledge being applied to manufactures, unless they also had some acquaintance with the species of manufacture to which it was to be applied. As yet no pains had been taken to cultivate the innate talent in the country. The feeling of the higher classes on the subject, their ideas of the want of taste of native manufacturers, had been most detrimental to the cultivation of that taste. He would give an instance of the extent to which this feeling was carried and of its consequences. A manufacturer in Coventry brought out a pattern which he expected would take; he had in fact a very high opinion of its taste, but it proved a complete failure, and he sold off at very low prices a considerable part of the goods so manufactured. It so happened that a French manufacturer obtained the pattern and introduced it as the new French style. It proved quite successful everywhere, and that part of his stock which he was still possessed of he sold at 40 per cent, higher than the price for which he had disposed of the remainder. In many cases, however, he believed that, notwithstanding the tendency of the public taste, that the English designs were superior to those of the continental manufacturers. He trusted that the Government would be liberal in establishing the proposed schools, and that they would consider the advisability of exceeding the number of six.
Mr. Gally Knightwould only trouble the House with a few words, after the full and lucid statement which had been made by his right, hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board of Trade; but, as a Member of the new council of the School of Design, he felt it right to assure his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, and also the House, that the new council were animated with the same spirit which had guided their predecessors, and that they were diligently employed in carrying into effect all the recommendations of the committee, of which the hon. Member for Dumfries had been Chairman. They had assumed as the basis of their operations, that the school was not to be a common school for drawing, but a school for the practical combination of the arts with manufactures. They had obtained casts from Paris, and of the most celebrated works of art, from which moulds were to be taken, and sent to the branch Schools of Design,
148
which were to be established in the provincial towns. They had begun to issue a periodical work, prepared by Mr. Dyce, the director of the School of Design, with engraved outlines, which would be of great assistance to the scholars. They had examined into the merits of the probationary class, and found that amongst them there were already young men who were sufficiently advanced to be sent down as masters to the schools that were about to be. established in the manufacturing towns. In fact, therefore, though the School of Design did not bear the name of a normal school, it was, practically, and in reality, a school for training masters. The council were in correspondence with five towns, in which branch schools were about to be established—Manchester, Coventry, Norwich, Birmingham, and York, The local committees had engaged to bear a proportion of the necessary expenses. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Dumfries, would see that all his wishes had been attended to. These schools, he trusted, would be of the greatest use to our manufactures; and when the hop. Member for Coventry regretted that the British public had not as much confidence as they ought to have in British produce, he would beg leave to remind him that it was but a short time since the School of Design had been established, since which time there had been a decided improvement in the taste of our manufactures; and it might be hoped that, when the public were aware of this, they would give that confidence which they had hitherto withheld. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries had stated, that one of the recommendations of the committee bad been the encouragement of British artists; and this, he could inform him, was in a way to be accomplished by the appointment of the commission for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. At the head of this commission was a Prince, (Prince Albert), who in so short a time had won the hearts of a whole nation, who took the greatest interest in the management of the arts, had regularly presided at the commission, and not only protected the arts, but understood them. Under such auspices his hon. Friend might feel sure that the recommendation of the committee would be carried into effect.
Mr. Hutt,having been one of the committee which had originally recommended the foundation of a School of Design, had heard with satisfaction the statement made

149
by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that Government had recognized and meant to act upon the principle recommended by that committee. In the list of towns in which schools of design were to be formed, he was sorry not to find the name of Newcastle. It deserved to be included for it had done much, by the establishment of local schools, for the encouragement of the art of design. He trusted, that Government would not allow his suggestion to pass without some consideration.
Mr. Ewarthad heard the sentiments expressed with general satisfaction, and was sure that progress had been made, and made, too, in the right direction. He would withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.

TRIAL OK ELECTION PETITIONS.
Sir R. Peelwould not preface the motion he was about to make by more than three sentences. On the 22nd of June, 1841, a bill was passed relative to the formation of a tribunal to decide upon the merits of contested elections. The duration of that act was limited to the two Sessions which should elapse after the then pending general election. One of these Sessions scarcely lasted six weeks; it was so short that there was no opportunity of appointing election committees, and the consideration of the petitions against returns at the general election was postponed until the present Session. In point of fact, there had been only one Session since the passing of the act, and he now proposed to bring in a bill which should continue the law as it at present stood, but not for a longer period than the act originally contemplated. The law would expire, as was originally intended, at the end of next Session; and he could not help thinking, that any discussion upon the subject should be for the present postponed, although he know that the hon. gentlemen acting upon the general election committee had some amendment to propose. For his one part, he would not say one word upon the merits of the question; but would simply content himself with proposing a bill to continue the operation of the act for the period originally contemplated. The right hon. Baronet then moved for leave to bring the bill
Lord Mahonsaid, the intention he had entertained of moving an amendment to the proposition before the House was greatly modified by the length to which previous discussion on the subject had been carried. He doubted whether he
150
should be treating the House with due respect, were he, under the circumstances, and so late in the evening, to submit an amendment to amotion of such importance as that now before the House, but he must say, that when he gave his notice of amendment, he did not know that the motion was such as it was now explained to be, namely, the prolongation of the operation of the existing law for one year only. There was nothing in the terms of the notice of motion to indicate its purport; and until very recently the impression in his mind was, that the right hon. Baronet intended to continue the act, not for another year, but to propose that the act, which had only been temporary in its nature, should be permanent. It was under that impression that he had now given notice of his intention to propose an amendment. He thought the right hon. Baronet had pursued a judicious course in proposing to continue the act for only one year; and he hoped that when it came on for discussion it might be at a period of the Session which would admit of its full consideration.
Mr. Sheilhad been a member of a committee under the act in question, during the proceedings of which he had had an opportunity of forming some judgment as to the working of the law and he had had occasion to remark how important it was to have some legal gentlemen to direct the committee on questions where men who were really most anxious to arrive at the truth and justice of the case were much at a loss to come to a sound determination. There were nice points of evidence on which the chairman felt some hesitation in pronouncing, and in which persons unacquainted with legal science were at a loss not help thinking, that any discussion upon what course to follow. Perhaps if the aid the Masters in Chancery was to be called in, the effects would be beneficial, but, at all events, he was sure that these tribunals would bring the House into disrepute, if some legal assistance was not afforded to them.
Mr. Bannermandiffered from the right hon. Gentleman as to the necessity for legal assistance. He thought, that in the cases referred to, after a little discussion, the committee were enabled to come to a sound decision
Sir R. Peelmust say, that he had proposed a bill of very limited duration, not from the slightest doubt that it was not necessary for the House, in order to preserve its own character, to keep its

151
jurisdiction in disputed elections in its own hands, but he had adopted the course which he had pursued, because, from the advanced period of the Session, and the general anxiety of Members to leave town, he did not wish to propose any extensive changes in a measure of such importance.
Leave given. Bill brought in and read a first time.

NAVAL PROMOTIONS.
Mr. Hume,in rising to move for some returns relative to Naval Promotions, of which he had given notice, said that the system of Naval Promotions was so extravagant and unjust, that if once fully understood by the public it could not be continued. He wished for full information on the subject, and he was sure it would show that the navy was a complete pension list of the aristocracy. He found that there were 2,879 lieutenants on the list in the Royal Navy, and the average period of their service was five years, six months, and twenty-seven days. For that length of service 2,879 lieutenants received half-pay. There were 807 commanders, of whom 419 had never been employed since they were promoted, and upon an average of the whole, each had only served eleven months and two weeks. There were 683 captains, on the list, of whom 313 had never served a day since they were promoted, and the average period of service had been two years, two months, and ten days. The average period since each was employed was twelve years and seven months, 249 had been receiving pensions from twenty years to fifty-five years. Those facts showed a wasteful and extravagant system of promotion, having no just relation to the wants of the service. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, that there be laid before the House
"Copy of the last patent constituting the commission for executing the office of Lord High Admiral, with a return of the names and rank of the persons constituting that commission, and the pay and allowances of each, and whether they occupy the houses appropriated for them by Government.
" Return of the names and present rank of the naval Lords of the Admiralty, stating their age at the time of their entry into the service, and the date of such entry: the date, and where they passed their examination for lieutenant, and copy of certificate of such examination; the dates of their promotion' to each rank, and the number of officers passed over by such promotions, stating the period which each has served in commission in each rank.
" Return, showing the services of all flag Officers in the navy promoted since the 29th
152
day of June, 1838, stating the date of entry of each officer into the service, and the date of the several commissions which they have obtained, distinguishing the period passed in commission in their respective ranks, the period on half-pay in each rank, and the total period on full and half-pay; and showing also the period when and in what ship each was last employed, and the age of each officer at the date of last promotion (in continuation of the returns No. 6 of Appendix in the Report of the Commission of Naval Inquiry, 1840)."
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, that it was a most unjust aspersion on the half-pay officers to call them pensioners. As to the large number of officers, it might be readily accounted for, when it was called to mind that, at the end of the war, there were upwards of a thousand officers whose services being no longer required, they were placed on half-pay. In the case of the admirals, too, several had been appointed to the rank without receiving the additional pay. It was not the fact that the total amount of half-pay had increased; on the contrary, it had decreased. He had no objection to give a copy of the last patent, but he objected to the second paragraph. As to the other return, he did not object to give part of it; but he thought it quite unnecessary to give the personal details required, as to time of service, and so on.
The first part of the return for a copy of the last patent was agreed to. The second paragraph of the motion was withdrawn.
On the last paragraph of the motion to which Sir G. Cockburn objected—The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 99: Majority 76.

List of the Ayes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lambton, H.

Aldam, W.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Cobden, R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, J.

Curteis, H. B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Etwall, R.

Thornely, T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Wood, B.

French, F.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Hume, J.

Johnson, Gen.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the Noes

Allix, J. P.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Antrobus, E.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Arkwright, G.

Blackburne, J. I.

Bagge, W,

Borthwick, P.

Baird, W.

Broadley, H.

153

Broad wood, H.

Howard, P. H.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hughes, W. B.

Buckley, E.

Hutt, W.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Jackson, J. D.

Burroughes, H. N.

Jermyn, Earl

Campbell, A.

Jolliffe. Sir W, G. H,

Chetwode, Sir J.

Jones, Capt

Clerk, Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Cochrane, A.

Lefroy, A.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Lennox, Lord A

Codrington, C. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Litton, E.

Cripps, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Darby, G.

Mainwaring, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E,

Manners, Lord C. S.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Morgan, O.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Eaton, R. J.

Norreys, Lord

Eliot, Lord

Northland, Visct.

Escott, B.

Pakington, J. S.

Feilden, W.

Palmer, B.

Ferrand, W. B.

Palmer, G.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Patten, J. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Ffolliott, J.

Peel, J.

Forbes, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fuller, A. E.

Pringle, A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Rolleston, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Scott, hon. F.

Gore, M.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Gore, W. O.

Somerset, Lord G.

Goulborn, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, Lord

Greene, T.

Stuart, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M

Hamilton, W. J.

Thompson, Ald.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hardy, J.

Verner, Col.

Hastie, A.

Vesey, hon. T.

Henley, J. W.

Waddington, II. S.

Henniker, Lord

Wood, Col. T.

Herbert, hon. S.

Young, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Hodgson, R.

Baring, H.

STAMPS AND ASSESSED TAXES.
The Chancellor of the Exchequermoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a committee on Stamps and Assessed Taxes.
Mr. John O'Connellrose to move the amendment of which he had given notice, namely a resolution to the effect, that, considering the heavy existing taxation of Ireland, it was not expedient to increase the stamp duties in Ireland. He felt the full disadvantages and difficulties before him—first, from the lateness not only of the period of the Session, but also from the lateness of the hour (twelve o'clock). He was not, however, to blame for this, as he had been patiently waiting during the Session for an opportunity, which the
154
Government had not given till then, although to convenience the Government he had given way last March on the resolution respecting Irish stamp duties; having done soon the understanding, as he conceived, that Government would have given a speedy opportunity of discussing the principle of that resolution. As to the lateness of the hour, he was only complying with the wish expressed to him by several Members, to have his amendment disposed of as soon as possible, and also with an intimation he considered he had received of the convenience it would be to the Government. He had to deal with a most intricate subject, and therefore should claim the indulgence of the House. Another formidable disadvantage under which he laboured was his want of experience in dealing with financial matters, especially when contrasted with the long experience and financial skill with which he was provoking a contest. It might be asked why he had not made a motion against adding to the taxation of Ireland on the bringing in of the Spirit Duties Bill. But he had refrained, as he heard that a large number of that most respectable body, the Irish Distillers, were in London then, endeavouring by private remonstrance to obtain some alleviation of the grievances under which they laboured; and any public opposition might indispose the Minister to attend to them. He regretted to say that he believed that, notwithstanding this forbearance, the distillers did not obtain the redress they sought. He came now to his subject. His simple statement was, that Ireland had been taxed too much, and ought not to be more taxed. To make his case it was necessary to go into some details. The existing financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland were founded upon an act passed in 1816, for consolidating the two Exchequers, and rendering them liable to indiscriminate contribution, by equal taxes, to the united expenditure. Before that act their contributions were in the proportion of two parts for Ireland to fifteen parts for Great Britain. These proportions were fixed by Lord Castlereagh at the Union, although much protested against at the time by the Irish lords and others, as imposing too high a rate of contribution upon Ireland. Lord Castlereagh himself allowed at the time that he was not satisfied as to its justice but it was not necessary to dwell on this point, as presently; he (Mr, J. O'Connell) would be able to

155
bring forward the opinions of Members of the Government in 1816, condemning the 2–17ths for Ireland as unjust and oppressive. The arrangement of the debts at the Union, and up to 1817, was, that each country should separately provide for its debt previously contracted. Lord Castlereagh said, in 1800, that a perfect consolidation and union in financial matters was then impossible, consistent with common justice to Ireland, as her debt was so much smaller than that of Great Britain, the Irish debt on the 5th of January, 1801, as represented by the annual charge upon it, requiring annually only 1,194,000 l., while the annual charge on the British debt was then 16,600,000 l. This was the case, notwithstanding that the Irish debt had been most grievously and unjustly swelled, especially during the three preceding years, by her being called on to pay the expenses, first of the fostering by the Government of the rebellion, and afterwards of the putting it down. But he would not go into matters that occurred before the Union, as his present motion had nothing to do with the discussions on that measure. The question of the repeal of the Union was too grave and important to be based upon a question of pounds shillings and pence; and his present motion was to redress financial grievances, which should be redressed whether the Union were repealed or not. Lord Castlereagh further said that at the' Scotch Union a consolidation was effected by giving Scotland a money-compensation for taking on her the English liabilities, but that this was impossible in the case of Ireland, as the debt of the latter country was so much inferior to the British. He said, however, that as England might be able to reduce her debt—that, if she did so, in the course of some years, so far down, at least, as to bring it to bear no higher a proportion to the Irish than that of their rates of contribution, it would be well in such case to leave the Imperial Parliament the power of effecting the consolidation. Accordingly the act of Union provided, that whenever the two debts should come to bear that proportion to each other, the consolidation might take place; provided however, also, that a second condition should occur at the same time. This second condition was, that the respective circumstances of the two countries should appear at that time to justify their being called upon henceforth to contribute, indiscriminately, by equal taxes
156
in each. Thus, Ireland seemed to have two safeguards against being made at any time liable for the excessive debt of Great Britain; first, in Lord Castlereagh's ex planation that the manner in which the required proportion between the two debts was to be attained, should be by the reduction of the British debt, not by the increase of the Irish; and secondly, that no step could be taken in the contemplated consolidation unless the respective circumstance of each country should appear to justify equal taxation—in other words, until the ability of Ireland to bear taxation should have much increased. But the House would scarcely believe that the first of these conditions was attained by the wanton and flagitious increase of Irish debt, and not by any decrease of the British; and, as to the second condition, it was not taken into consideration at all. Thus he Contended, that the act of consolidation was totally illegal and void, as it violated the expressed intentions and views of its author, Lord Castlereagh, with regard to one condition, and as it was carried without reference to the second condition. The latter did not exist, and could not have been said so to do, as the very increase of the debt of Ireland, under a limited system of taxation, was in itself a proof of her inability to bear the same taxes as Great Britain; and even that limited system of taxation was too high for her. The present Lord Fitzgerald and Vesci, President of the Board of Trade, was, when Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer in 1816, the mouthpiece of Lord Castlereagh's Government, in proposing the consolidation of the exchequers, and in doing so he thus denounced the injustice of the Union rate of contribution imposed upon Ireland, and its grievous effects upon her:—
" I hope it will not be said that Ireland throws a great burden on the empire to save herself. Oh, no ! The necessity of reviewing the act of Union has been caused by the sacrifices she has made, doing her best to keep pace with you. You contracted with her for an expenditure she could not meet. She had been led to hope that her expenditure would be less when united to you than before. She has absolutely paid more in taxes since the Union than seventy-eight millions, being forty-seven more than her revenue in the fifteen years on which her contribution was calculated. "
Thus the Government itself, in 1816, confessed that the rate of contribution was too high. But the present Chancellor of the Exchequer bore witness himself to the

157
same fact. In 1822, when speaking to a motion of Sir J. Newport's, the right hon. Gentleman himself said—" The Union contribution of 2–l7 ths for Ireland is now allowed on all hands to have been more than she was able to bear." He should content himself, and he thought the House should be content with these admissions, coming as they did from two Gentlemen high in office at present, and one of them in that House. Thus the Union rate was established to have been unjust, and being so, the consequence necessarily follows, that the increase of Irish debt between 1800 and 1837 was unjust, it having been caused by the inability of Ireland to meet the unjustly grievous rate in question. What ought to have been done instead of consolidation of the Exchequers was, to have lowered the rate of contribution for Ireland, and to have made some arrangement by which the burden of the unjust increase of her debt since 1801 should be taken off her shoulders, at least for the greater part. But, instead of this measure of justice, the consolidation was forced on, although, as he had before shown, one condition of that consolidation was wrongfully and iniquitously attained, and the second condition was shamefully and totally disregarded. The consequence of that consolidation of the Exchequers have been to Ireland the increase of her taxes—the liability to further increase at the will and pleasure of England—the being compelled at present to a large portion of the payments on account of the British debt contracted before the Union—a debt with which she was promised by Lord Castlereagh in 1800 that she never should have anything to do. Finally, the consequence has been, and is, to Ireland, that from that hour she became, and is now, mortgaged in every acre and every one of her resources for the whole amount of the enormous debt of Great Britain, and no matter what may at any time be her surplus of revenue it must go away from her and into the coffers of Great Britain. But the consolidation had been a great gain to Great Britain. In the first place, she obtained what was in itself a most important benefit — namely, the security to her national creditor of the present and future resources of Ireland. And then she has been able to relieve herself of much of the separate taxation which she was previously compelled to endure. This would be seen by examining into what was the utmost that could be set down for the
158
separate taxation that is so much talked of at present. In excise she pays on hops, bricks, soap, post-horse duty, and licensee, &c, about 1,700,000 l There is then the product of her duties on home spirits, which are much higher than the Irish, and may be about 2,200,000 l. In stamps she pays on newspaper supplements, medicines, cards, dice, stage and hackney coach licenses, &c, 560,000 l., and by higher rates than the Irish on other items of stamps she pays a further sum of nearly the same amount. Land and assessed taxes gave last year 4,700,000 l. The total of all these was 9,600,000 l., which he took to be even an exaggerated statement of the British separate taxation, but his endeavour was to take the case as strongly against himself as possible, as he thought the case of Ireland so strong that it could afford to be under stated. But although he would not disturb the exaggerations in the statement he had just read, he should say there were deductions to be made from the total of 9,600,000 l., on account of what are called in the finance accounts "drawbacks, re payments, allowances," upon the duties mentioned in the statement. Thus, for instance, hops, on exportation to Ireland, have the duty remitted upon them, or in other words, the duty is paid back by the Government to the exporter. Again, a portion of the amounts he had read were really paid by Ireland, as money went from Ireland to effect insurances in England, and as stamped medicines, cards, and some minor articles of stamp duties were imported from England paying the duty there. There was also what was in fact an unrcedited contribution from Ireland in the benefit the British Exchequer receives from the expenditure in Great Britain of millions of Irish absentee rents. He thought he was not saying too much when, taking all these deductions into account, he considered they amounted to at least 600,000 l; and that, therefore, the separate taxation of Great Britain did not, at the very outside, exceed a net amount of 9,000,000 l., and he believed they were really less. But, taking them at that sum, see how the case stands:—

Annual charge of the British debt contracted before the Union (see Par.
Paper 256, of 1824)

£16,600,000

Separate taxation of Great Britain

9,000,000

Excess of annual charge

7,600,000

This amount of British debt, over and

159
above her separate payments, she, by the powers given her by the Consolidation Act, compels Ireland to assist her in paying although at the Union Ireland was strongly and repeatedly assured she should never have anything to do with the British debt contracted previous to the Union. Such being the benefit to Great Britain, what did the consolidation do for Ireland? It is pretended that she got great benefits, as it abolished the unjust and universally-condemned rate of contribution the Union had put upon her; and further, that Great Britain took on herself the burden of the increase of the Irish debt between the Union and 1817. But as to that increase, it having been declared and admitted to have been unjust, no argument can be fairly founded upon the burden of it having been taken off; and especially when its amount, viz., an annual charge of 2,700,000Z., was such moderate purchase money for getting the security of the resources of Ireland for the whole enormous amount of the British debt. He trusted now to show, that notwithstanding that the Union rate of contribution had been condemned, and that at the consolidation it was declared that Ireland should be released from that unjust and condemned rate, yet she has since been forced to pay, at the very least, as much as that rate. To show this he had taken the average of the revenues of the two countries during the twenty-five years, since 1817, with, also, the average of their united expenditure, and of the charge of their united debts; and, deducting the latter from their united expenditure, had got the amount of expenditure common to both, on which he had calculated the average of their respective contributions, taking the Union rates in each. It was necessary to premise that the respective amounts of income in the calculation should be altered by taking into account the uncredited payments by Ireland on articles chiefly of customs' revenue, which she imported from England, paying the duty there. These latter payments were different from the uncredited payments he had before spoken of, which were under heads under which Ireland was supposed to pay nothing at all. But those he now would speak of were upon items on which the rates of duty are the same as in England. The late Lord Congleton, in his ' Financial reform," estimated these at 300,000 l. annually, and did not include in
160
his estimate any portion of the customs' receipts on tea for consumption in Ireland. Those receipts were, at the time he wrote, and for some time after, credited to the British revenue, and amounted then to nearly 500,000 l. Neither did he include the Irish quit and Crown rents, which, by a paper of the present Session, No. 222, continuing a former return, have averaged about 65,000 l., annually, since the Union. As to the present uncredited payments by Ireland on foreign articles imported through England, it was only necessary to compare the details of foreign imports into either country, in this year's finance accounts. On some articles of common consumption, there appeared no receipt whatever in the Irish list; on others a receipt of 1l., of 5l., of 16 l. or 20 l., while the English receipts on them amounted to many thousands—in some to hundreds of thousands. Thus there must be an uncredited payment by Ireland upon such articles; or, if that were contested, and that the amount in the Irish list was held accurately to represent Irish consumption, then a most convincing argument was furnished of the utter inability of Ireland to bear further taxation, when she was so poor, as only to consume those articles to the amount stated in her lists. Under all these circumstances, he did not think he was overstating his case, in taking the aggregate of the Irish payments uncredited to have amounted to an annual average during the twenty-five years of 400,000 l. Subtracting this from the average of British income, and, of course, adding it to the Irish, the twenty-five years' averages will stand thus. British income, 49,671,330 l.; Irish ditto, 4,930,473 l.; united expenditure, 53,198,413 l.; charge of united debts, 29,363,422 l. Subtracting the charge of debts from the expenditure, we have 23,834,991 l. as the amount of common expenditure—viz., that on which, according to the terms of the Act of Union, the amounts of contribution were to be calculated in the ratio of two to fifteen, or two-seventeenths for Ireland. Now, first take the case, that England took off the burden of the Irish unjust increase of debt between the Union and 1817, there will remain 1,194,000/., being the charge of the Irish debt at the Union. Subtract this from the amount of Irish income, and there will remain 3,736,473 l., which has gone to England, and which will be found to amount, not to the condemned propor-

161
tion of two-seventeenths, but to the far higher and more grievous proportion of two-twelfths of the common expenditure. But, if we take it on the ground that Ireland should not be totally absolved from the whole amount of her increase of debt from 1801 to 1817, but that that amount should have been shared between the two countries, the following would be the re-suit—taking, as before, the annual charge to represent the debt, for the sake of the convenience of the calculation. Charge of the Irish debt on 5th of January, 1801, 1,194,000 l.; charge of the Irish "debt on 5th of January, 1817,3,927,000 l.; being an increase of 2,733,000 l., or 229 per cent.; whereas, the charge of the British debt in the same interval had only increased from 16,600,000 l. to 27,750,000 l., or 67 per cent. Now, he would show what would have occurred had the arrangement been that an increase equal in proportion to the British, should be paid for by Ireland, and that the excess of her increase above that, was to be put on the two countries in the proportion of their rates of contribution:—

Irish debt charged at the Union

£1, 194,000

67 per cent, increase, up to the year 1817, as in England

799,980

Add 2–17ths of the excess of increase (viz., 1,933,020 l.)

227,414

Total average for 25 years debt liabilities of Ireland

2,221,394

A deduction, however, is to be made as follows:—The charge of the United debts in 1837 was 31,677,000 l., and it is now no more than 29,450,110 l., showing a decrease since 1817 of 2,226,890 l. It would be only fair in the calculation to give Ireland at least two-seventeenths of this reduction, which would amount to 261,986 l; and this sum subtracted from the debt liabilities of Ireland, would leave only 1,959,408 l, after providing for which, the Irish income would give still 2,971,065 l to meet her proportion of the common expenditure. Two-seventeenths of this common expenditure would be 2,804,116 l, leaving a surplus of Irish income over expenditure of 166,949 l, which surplus is the one-eighth of the surplus of the united income over the united expenditure on the average of the twenty-five years since 1816. Thus, he contended, that even under the harsh and stringent arrangement he had supposed, it. would be found that, in reality, the con-
162
solidation had not relieved Ireland from the condemned rate of contribution; while under any more favourable arrangement —such as that asserted by the defenders of the consolidation namely, that England kindly took the whole burden on herself of the unjust increase of the debt of Ireland—it would be found, that the latter had been forced to pay not two-seventeenths, but. two-twelfths of the common expenditure. Where, then, was the benefit, of the consolidation to Ireland, or rather, where was not the injury? If in consequence of it the British market was more freely opened to the Irish corn and cattle, that was a benefit to England herself, and besides, she took care, in return, to get the command of our market for her manufactures. But an argument might be raised, that as be had shown that Ireland since, 1817 had at least, paid the Union rate of contribution, which same rate she had been found unable to pay before 1817, therefore, that he had proved her to have increased in ability. But this was not the case; she had not paid that rate since because of greater ability than before, but because the expenditure of the empire had materially diminished. That expenditure diminished 26,000,000 l. the year that the Consolidation Act came into force, and even the heavy expenditure of the year 1841 was 14,000,000 l. less than that of 1817, making a total of reduction of expenditure since 1816 to the present time of 40,000,000 l. It was this reduction which enabled England to drain from Ireland the full amount and more of her Union contributions to the common expenditure. But the expenses of Great Britain are on the increase, and the Consolidation Act gives her the power of un-limitedly drawing upon Ireland. The latter will be again rendered bankrupt as she was before, and therefore it was, that he thought it was time to protest, and that Ireland should demand at least some modification of the Act of Consolidation, if not its total repeal, on the grounds of its undeniable illegality and grievous oppression to Ireland. The hon. Member quoted the expressions of the late Lord Sydenham, in 1830, denouncing the financial injustice with which Ireland had been treated, and showing that an increase of taxation upon her had led to an alarming decrease of revenue, owing to the exhaustion of Ireland. He also quoted from the report of a finance committee in 1815,

163
to show, that while the taxation of Great Britain from the Union, including not only permanent taxes, but also the extraordinary and war taxes, had increased only as twenty-one to ten, the permanent taxation of Ireland had increased as twenty-three to ten. He also stated some figures from a parliamentary return of the year 1820, showing the number of notices in the two or three preceding years to the commissioners of assessed taxes in Ireland, of the intention of persons paying those taxes, to give Up the objects of them, such as carriages, horses, servants, &c; in consequence of which notice the assessed taxes in Ireland became unproductive, and were consequently given up. He gave those quotations to show the efforts that had been made to tighten the screw of taxation in Ireland, and the result always was, to diminish the receipts of revenue, and to impoverish Ireland more than before, as would be found to be the case again if her taxes were now increased. If she ought to be made to contribute to the growing expenditure caused by the rather questionable wars into which Great Britain had plunged, she ought, at any rate, to be relieved from the necessity of contributing to the 7,000,000 l. which went to pay the annual charge of the British debt, contracted previous to the Union, over and above the amount of separate taxation which Great Britain paid for that purpose. The making Ireland pay to that debt was utterly unjustifiable. Some persons had asserted that if Ireland had been treated with injustice, it had been compensated for by relief of taxation, and a greater proportion of public money, in loans and grants, than England had got. But by a return he had moved for this Session, which, amongst other things, continued a former return relative to taxes in the two countries, he found that of the relief of taxation, that is, the gross amount since the Union, Great Britain had got 42,000,000 l.. while Ireland had got but 2,300,000 l. On the other hand, while of taxes imposed, 6,900,000 l. were put on Great Britain, Ireland had had the large proportion of 900,000 l., that is to say, her relief of taxation was less than one-eighteenth part, her share of the imposition of taxation was nearly one-seventh. And as to the assessed taxes, which were made the occasion of taunting Irish Members with the indulgence they had received by. the remission of them, the total
164
amount of relief given by their remission in Ireland, including a partial relief some years previous to the total repeal, would be found by those papers to have been about 500,000 l. or 600,000 l., while, in the same papers, Great Britain would be found to have given herself relief under the same heads to the amount of upwards of 5,000,000 l. Then, as the public money spent on the two countries, a return of the year 1839 gave 8,000,000 l. odd, as the amount spent upon Ireland, and looking through the finance a sum should be added, which would give a total for Ireland of, in round numbers, 9,000,000 l. One of the returns he had moved for this year was similarly worded by him as the return of 1839, and was for a parallel amount for Great Britain, and it gave an amount of 15,600,000 l., notwithstanding some unexplained omissions that he would not now delay to discuss. Again, it had been said that Ireland never repaid a loan of public money; but the finance accounts of the present year would show that she has repaid more than 5,000,000 l., whereas Great Britain has repaid only a little more than 3,000,000 l. And money advanced to Ireland bore interest at 5 per cent., though obtained by the Government at 3 per cent., which was not the case in Great Britain, where the percentage was seldom above 4, and several advances bore no interest at all, such as, among others, the 250,000 l. advanced to the projectors of the Thames Tunnel. In fact, Ireland had got nothing to compensate her for the drains, direct and indirect, that were made from her. The papers he had so often mentioned showed, upon an account of the remittances of moneys from the Irish Exchequer to the British, and vice versa, there had, on the whole amount since the Union, been an excess of Irish remittances of no less than 25,000,000 l. Then there was the loss by diminished expenditure of public offices, owing to their being removed to England. Ireland lost the amount of their expenditure, which, in her anomalous and wretched condition, was of importance to her; and if any reduction of the imperial expenditure were effected in consequence, the benefit of the economy was spread over the three countries, while the loss was to Ireland alone. Then came the enormous absentee drain, nearly 4,000,000 l. destroying much of what benefit Ireland could otherwise expect from her provision

165
and cattle exports, as the money the latter produced went away for the greater part into the pockets of landlords living abroad. It was ridiculous to institute a comparison between the contributions of Great Britain and Ireland. One was a rich, the other a poor country. Great Britain had various manufactures—Ireland but one, and that failing. There was a bitter complaint the other day that agricultural wages had fallen in some English counties to 7s. or 8s. a week. But the average of agricultural wages in Ireland was not 6s. Again, out of the 53,000,000 l., making the amount of the united income of Great Britain and Ireland last year, Ireland paid equal rates on articles that produced 44,000,000 l., and yet the produce credited and uncredited was but one-eleventh of that amount. Was not that a sign of poverty in a people who are one-third of the population of the empire? But the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had himself admitted this poverty, when he confessed that an Income-tax in Ireland would not pay the expenses of collection. The hon. Member read an extract from the works of Mr. Ricardo, showing that the ability of England to bear taxation had increased faster even than her taxation, and he asked how could this be shown in Ireland. He read from the railway report a return of the decrease in the period from 1825 to 1835, in the Irish import of cotton manufactures and yarn, of sugar, and various other important articles, and also a decrease of Irish exports of value; and contended that, although in consequence of no returns being kept at the Custom-house since 1825 of the cross-channel trade, Mr. Drummond had been obliged to get his statements as to that trade from interested parties, and that, therefore, much reliance could not be placed upon their accounts of prosperity, yet their accounts of adversity and diminution were much less suspicious, as no trader would willingly undertake his dealings. He also read Mr. Willam's evidence as to the decline of the woollen trade, and various extracts from the hand-loom weavers' report showing the decline, or annihilation of nearly all manufactures in Ireland. The linen trade was nearly the only one left to Ireland, and even that was much declining. At a meeting in Belfast last autumn, it was declared that the linen manufacturers had lost 300,000 l. by the 20 per rent increase
166
of duty on import into France, and the recent French ordinances would complete the ruin. But even if the linen trade flourished, one trade and the prosperity of one town would be bad proofs of the prosperity of a nation. The hon. Member concluded by urging the Government not to cripple Ireland against the day of any real emergency of the empire.
Mr. Brothertonmoved the adjournment of the debate.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in that motion, but surfer the debate to be brought to a close at once. The object of going into committee was not to add anything to the burdens of the people, but on the contrary to relieve them, by alterations in the stage-coach duties, the railroad duties, and the stamp duties. The subject of the hon. Member's speech undoubtedly deserved the serious consideration of Parliament.
Amendment negatived.
House in committee. Resolutions relative to reducing the duties on stagecoaches, and assimilating the stamps between England and Ireland were agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. public—1a Attornies and Solicitors; Protection of her-Majesty's Person; Slave Trade Treaties Continuance; Rivers (Ireland); Turnpike Acts Continuance; Linen Manufacturers (Ireland); London Bridge Approaches Fund; Fisheries Treaty.
2a—Mines and Collieries; Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts.
Committed.— Railways; Charitable Pawn Offices (Ireland}.
Reported.—Right of Voting (Dublin University); British Possessions Abroad; Tithe Commutation.
3a and passed:—Perth Prison.
Private.—2a Lord Dinorbens Estate; Cambuslang and Muirkirk Roads.
3a and passed:—London and Greenwich Railway; London Bridge and Royal Exchange Approaches.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Miners of the Township of Churwell, and Members of the Kirksession of Inverness, against parts of the Mines and Collieries Bill, and also to the. same effect from Newmarket Colliers Wood Pit, and-a number of other Collieries.—By the Bishop of London, from Islington and Camberwell; by the Archbishop of Canterbury, from Coal Miners of Whitley, in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill.—By the Marquess of Londonderry, from Owners and Occupiers of Mines and Collieries in the West Riding of Yorkshire, to be heard by counsel against the Bill.

RAILWAYS.
House in committee on the Railways Bill.
Lord Campbellbrought up a clause to the effect that no railway carriages should be locked up without the consent of the passengers.
On the motion that it be read a second time,
The Earl of Riponopposed the clause. No person could be more convinced than he was of the futility of the reasons assigned in favour of the practice. At the same time, he did not think it desirable that any department of the Executive
100
Government should assume more control over the railways than was absolutely necessary, the effect of which would be to diminish the responsibility of the directors. He felt bound to say, in justice to the railway companies, that in every instance in which the Board of Trade had felt it necessary to point out anything for the convenience or safety of the public they had shown themselves most ready to adopt it, whatever might be the opinion of the directors as to its propriety.
The Marquess of Clanricardewould support the clause. If the railway directors did not lock the carriages the clause would remain a dead letter, and could not be vexatious to them; whereas, if they did lock the carriages, the clause would then be a protection to the public.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that the railway companies knew their own interests as well as any other body of men, and if they found that the public disapproved of locking the carriages, they would abandon the practice.
Lord Cottenhamsupported the clause. The argument made use of against it would go the length of showing that the railway directors ought not to be interfered with at all—that they ought to be left to themselves, and to do as they liked. But the object of the bill was to regulate their practices, and he thought it was absurd to leave it to the discretion of the directors whether or not they should return to so dangerous and unnecessary a practice.
The Earl of Mount Cashelsupported the clause, which he thought calculated to ensure the public safety.
The Earl of Radnorwould oppose the clause, because he thought the locking of the carriages was not dangerous, and he did not know but it might under some circumstances be necessary. He was rather in favour of the practice than otherwise.
The Earl of Riponridiculed the clause on account of the provision which it contained, that all the persons inside a carriage should be asked whether they would be locked in or not, so that if the majority thought that precaution necessary to their safety, one passenger, like the one juror, might overrule the judgment of all the rest.
Bill passed through committee. To be reported.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the clause be read a second time: Not-content 35; Content 31: Majority 4.
Bill passed through committee. To be reported.

PROTECTION OF THE QUEEN'S PERSON.
Messengers from the House of Commons brought up the bill for the better protection of her Majesty's Person.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he Would now propose to their Lordships that this bill be read a first time. To-morrow he should mote the second reading of the bit] and should also submit that the standing orders be suspended in order to facilitate its passing into law.
Lord Campbell,did not, of course, rise to oppose the progress of this bill, but he wished to give notice, that in committee he should propose to introduce some words for the purpose of supplying what he conceived an omission, in the want of a provision to meet a case where no attempt was made, but where a person came into her Majesty's presence with arms, destructive instruments, or any explosive matter, or thing not exhibited, but with intent to make use of the same against the Queen, her life, or person.
The Lord Chancellor,of course, could not be expected to give at the moment any opinion upon the subject of such a clause; but he would promise the noble Lord, that his suggestion should meet with consideration, and he had no doubt but that such an arrangement would be made as would secure for bill the unanimous concurrence of the House.
Bill read a first time.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
The Bishop of London,presented a petition from a body of coat-masters, supporting the bill in. all its clauses. He strongly approved of the measure on moral and religious grounds, and he earnestly trusted their Lordships would pass the bill without alteration.
The Archbishop of Canterburyhaving presented a petition to the like effect from a body of the inhabitants of the parish of Camberwell, also briefly expressed his high approval of the bill.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, this was a measure which affected property to the amount of 10,000,000 l and such a measure should not be hurried through Parliament. It had been said in another place-," Thank God, there is a House of Lords;" which implied an expectation that the bill would undergo careful consideration here. Time should be given to collect impartial evidence—not such as was contained in the 2,000 pages, before the House, obtained from interested persons
102
—but from persons employed in the mines from the lowest to the highest. He wished to correct an impression which seemed to prevail—namelv, that this bill had passed the House of Commons on the understanding that some concessions had been made which induced the coal-owners of the north to approve of it. Now he should be able to prove that this was not the case, by the letter of Mr. Buddie, the agent of the coal-owners in the north, in answer to a letter written by Lord Ashley, who appeared to imagine that there had been some departure from an agreement which it was said Mr. Buddie had entered into on the part of those whom he represented. He would first read Lord Ashley's letter, which was as follows: —
July 8, 1842.
" Dear Sir—Your letter has greatly astonished me, containing, as it does, a scheme of projected departure from the engagement into which I entered during my interview with yourself and the gentlemen representing the coal districts; I think I am entitled to, and I therefore request a public letter, to announce the wishes of the proprietors connected with the coal trade.
" I have said nothing about ' underground inspectors'—the Secretary of State has power to send down, from time to time, commissioners to ascertain whether the law be observed: but their jurisdiction will not extend to the discipline of the mines.—Your very obedient servant,
ASHLEY.
" John Buddle, Esq."
The answer which Mr. Buddle wrote was as follows:—
(Copy.)
" Newcastle-on-Tyne, July 11, 1842.
" My Lord—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of the 8th instant,
" Agreeably to your Lordship's request that I should announce to your Lordship the wishes of the proprietors connected with the coal trade, I do not think I can answer this inquiry better than by referring your Lordship to the resolutions of the meeting of the united committees of the trade, held on the 13th ult., which contains the instructions given to me when I was deputed to wait upon your Lordship and the other parties mentioned in those instructions, a copy of which I herewith enclose.
"I this day laid your Lordship's letter of the 8th instant before the united committees of the two counties (Durham and Northumberland), who authorized me to say, in reply, that they see no reason for departing from the opinions expressed in the enclosed copy of resolutions.
" The coal-owners object to the alternate

103
days' working, as being likely to involve many practical difficulties. The limitation of the employment of the boys to one month after the passing of the Act, is considered to be too short a period; and prohibiting * such male persons from being employed during one and the same week in more than one mine or colliery, unless the mine or colliery in which he shall be employed shall belong to the same owner,' is also thought inexpedient.
" The fourth" clause (B) of the bill is likewise strongly objected to; and it is for those reasons that the coal-owners are desirous that this bill should not be hurried through Parliament this Session, but that more time should be allowed for the due consideration of the whole subject.
" I regret that there was not time between the meeting at the House of Commons, on the 20th of June, and your Lordship's bill being brought into Parliament, to communicate with the coal committees of the two counties, as, if such communication had taken place, any misapprehension as to the extent of my instructions might have been avoided.
" Your Lordship will recollect, that in the private conversation which [had the honour to have with your Lordship on the 18th of June, I stated that I was not authorised to take upon myself the responsibility of sanctioning ten as the proper age for boys going to work in the pits, on condition of their working only three days in the week, alternately, and therefore begged to refer the discussion of this branch of the subject, together with others, to the meeting at the House of Commons on the 20th.
" I beg to apologize for having troubled your Lordship so much at length.—I have the honour, &c. &c. " J. BUDDLE.
" The Lord Ashley, M. P., &c."
From this he (the Marquess of Londonderry) should say it was sufficiently clear that these gentlemen had never intimated an intention of not opposing the bill. In the other House of Parliament, the Secretary of State declared that the Government admitted the principle of the bill, and in their Lordships' House the Lord President of the Council said that the Government intended to be passive on the subject. There was here a great discrepancy of opinion, and he thought it placed the Government somewhat in a dilemma. Considering the immense importance of this bill, and the vast amount of property to which its provisions would apply, he thought that the House could not possibly proceed with it at this late period of the Session. Inquiries ought to be made, and practical men ought to be examined; and the House ought not to legislate, exclusively on evidence which had been collected by interested parties. All he could say
104
was, that if the House should be of opinion that the bill should be read a second time, it might be regarded as the commencement of a series of grievances which would be got up for the purpose of working on that hypocritical humanity which reigned so much at present, and that year after year they would be beseiged with such appeals as these. He did not wish to treat this as an individual question. He wished to treat it as a national question. This bill would revolutionize the whole of the coal trade—a trade which connected itself with our shipping interest and with our navy— and, therefore, he trusted that the House would pause before it legislated on the subject in the present incomplete and unsatisfactory state of our information. He had thought it due to the coal-owners of the north to make this statement, to prove that there had been no compromise or agreement, as had been stated elsewhere.
The Marquess of Clanricardesaid, that the noble Marquess had repeated his conviction that there had been no compromise for the purpose of allowing the bill to pass in another place. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman of the highest character (Mr. Hedworth Lambton), who was present at the interview which took place with Lord Ashley on the subject, and that Gentleman stated that his impression was the same as that which Lord Ashley had formed. No doubt the understanding was, that with certain concessions, the bill would be passed with the support of those who were then present. However, there was a higher light in which the question ought to be viewed, it ought to be viewed as a question of humanity and apart from all considerations of compromises or agreements. He thought it only right to state this, in order to show that Lord Ashley's impression was also shared by another gentleman of the highest character and respectability.
The Marquess of Londonderrymust protest against the statement made by the noble Marquess, that Mr. Buddle had accepted the compromise on the part of the coal-owners. There appeared to have been some mistake, and no doubt it was an unfortunate one.
The Earl of Devonthen rose to move the second reading of the Mines and Colleries Bill. The time had arrived when it became necessary that this bill should be opened to their Lordships, in order that their Lordships might know what it was. The ground upon which he intended to

105
ask their Lordships' consent to the bill was entirely independent of anything that had been said elsewhere, or of any admission or agreement elsewhere. Their Lordships were aware that the inquiry which had led to this result had been instituted by commissioners appointed by her Majesty, in consequence of an address from the House of Commons, moved by his noble Friend Lord Ashley, when in opposition to the then existing Government, which Government had appointed four persons, independently of any recommendation of Lord Ashley, and he thought that, looking at the manner in which they had executed their duty, their Lordships would agree with him, that the late Government had been fortunate in their choice. Those commissioners had employed sub-commissioners to make inquiries on the spot. The foundation of the inquiry was perfectly fair. The commissioners thought it right to invite information from all persons willing to afford information, and they wrote a circular letter to all proprietors of mines, so far as they could find them out, and with the circular they sent a tabular form requesting them to answer certain queries relative to the employment of females and children in mines. A considerable number of proprietors did make returns, and many others did not. The sub-commissioners, then, under the instructions of the commissioners, proceeded to make inquiries, and the result had been communicated to both Houses of Parliament by her Majesty's Government, in the report of the commissioners and the appendix of evidence thereto. He had, as was his duty, examined that report and evidence, and he had no doubt that not one of their Lordships who had taken the same course would think that there was not abundant evidence of facts, which no further evidence could alter. When he undertook to move the second reading of this bill, he could not undertake to propose to their Lordships to enact any one of its provisions that was not based upon conclusive evidence, and, believing the bill to be based upon such evidence, he hoped their Lordships would pass it into a law. With respect to the employment of females, if there had been no evidence at all, and if their Lordships consulted only the common feelings of humanity—not spurious humanity, but the common feelings of human nature, — their Lordships would, a priori, and without any evidence, consider that the employment of females under
106
ground in mines, under circumstances which afforded no means of regulating the conduct of the persons with whom they were employed, was a practice which it was most desirable to put a stop to. It, would, indeed, be infinitely better if the husbands and fathers of these females would refuse to permit their wives and daughters to be placed in such circumstances; but when it was found from experience that the feelings of these persons did not thus operate, and that there was incontestable evidence that females were sent down into mines and placed in situations utterly disgraceful to humanity, their Lordships would feel that it was absolutely necessary for the Legislature to interfere, and by some regulations to prevent so great an abomination. That was a part of the bill in which he was sure their Lordships would concur, and in support of which he begged their Lordships attention to a few passages from the report of the commissioners. In that report the commissioners had embodied a good deal of the evidence which appeared in a larger form in the appendix. In page 256 of the report the commissioners stated,
"That in the districts in which females are taken down into the coal mines, both sexes are employed together in precisely the same kind of labour, and work for the same number of hours; the girls and boys, and the young men and young women, and even married women and women with child, commonly working almost naked, and the men, in many mines, always working quite naked; that in the districts in which females are not allowed to descend into the pits there is a universal expression of disgust from all classes of witnesses at this practice; and that in the districts in which the practice prevails all classes of witnesses bear testimony to its demoralizing influence."
[The Marquess of Londonderry: In what colleries does the practice prevail.] Such appeared to be the general result, although he did not mean to assert, nor was there evidence to show, that the practice prevailed in all the colleries. As a wish had been expressed, that this part of the bill should be postponed, he must advert to some further evidence on the subject in order that their Lordships might perceive how necessary it was that something should be done to remove the evil. In page 24 it was stated, as part of the report, that in many colleries in the West Riding of Yorkshire there was no distinction of sexes, and that the women were naked to their waists, and the men entirely so.

107
Some of the details were so disgusting, that it would not be proper for him to read them. In page 31 of the report, a wish was expressed, that the Government would expel all females from the mines, as their presence gave rise to acts of the greatest indecency. The report then went on to state that which, must obviously happen under such circumstances, To the first clause in the bill, therefore, which sought to put an end to such scenes, he was sure their Lordships could have no objection. He at once admitted to his noble Friend, who opposed the measure, that there were many collieries in which those abominations did not exist. [The Marquess of Londonderry: Some seams of coal require the employment of women.] He would ask what peculiar seam of coal rendered it necessary to employ grown women instead of grown men? Females had been excluded from the collieries of the Duke of Buccleuch without any inconvenience. That was an important fact, as bearing upon this part of the case. The manager of the Duke of Buccleuch's collieries stated that, since the employment of females had been done away with in his grace's collieries, they had had no occasion to raise the price of coal. He had no wish to prohibit the employment of women immediately. The present was certainly a period when they should not be severe in arrangements of that nature, and he was therefore willing indeed he should propose instead of the words, " Six calendar months," to substitute these words, " First of March, 1843," as the period at which it should no longer be lawful to employ females in mines or collieries. That would give nine instead of six months for making the new arrangements. The second clause in the bill regarded the age up to which males were to be excluded from mines and collieries. Originally the bill proposed that males should not be employed under the age of thirteen. A difference of opinion arose upon the point, and the limitation had been altered to ten years of age. Finding this alteration made, he did not desire to press any opinion that he might entertain on the subject. He would now only observe, that there was abundant evidence to show that it would neither be unfair, unreasonable, nor unjust to prohibit the employment of children under ten years of age. He was aware, that in some collieries as much pains and care as could well be taken were taken with the children employed in them but he felt,
108
that no pains or care that could be taken would suffice to do justice to children under ten years of age, if they were employed at all. How was it possible, if they tolerated such abuses as these, if they permitted the employment of children of six or eight years of age, that any attention could be paid to their moral or religious education? With regard to the first clause, it might be objected, that at the present period of distress we should be slow to curtail the means of gaining a livelihood by the exclusion of women; but he contended, that in every instance in which females were prevented from obtaining wages by labour in mines and collieries men could be employed, although, perhaps, at somewhat greater expense. He was sure, that, after all, their Lordships would look upon this part of the case as a question of expense, and that it would be perfectly possible for all proprietors of mines who now employed females to work them in the same way, he should say more effectually, although it might cost something more, by the employment of men in their stead. As he had already told their Lordships, the exclusion of women from the Duke of Buccleuch's mines had caused no loss to the public. With regard to boys, he had no doubt that it might be desirable to have a large proportion of them in mines. The bill in its present shape would not prevent that, and where, by its operation, boys under ten years of age would be sent away, and their families deprived of the wages which they earned, other boys above the age of ten would be employed in their stead, and their wages added to those of some neighbouring cottager. Thus the bill, while it prevented certain boys from occupation in the collieries, would open the door in the same proportion to others. It was not uncommon that men who did not wish to labour more than three days a week allowed their families' support to be eked out by the degradation of their wives and children, but that was not a class of labourers to whom they should give particular advantages. From the evidence which was given by the colliers themselves, it was evident that their wives and children should not be sent into the mines and collieries. Women, who were brought up in them, were unfitted to be good wives or mothers, their habits being wholly inconsistent with those domestic duties which it should be the desire of the Legislature to encourage, Their children were necessarily neglected, and sever received

109
anything in the shape of moral or religious instruction or example. Upon these two clauses some opposition he believed would be offered, but in that opposition he expected that very few of their Lordships would join. There was abundance of evidence from medical men, showing the bad effects in a physical respect which working in the mines and collieries had upon the women and children, while the evidence of clergymen was equally strong as to its bad effects upon them in a moral point of view. He would also beg to remind their Lordships that hundreds of those persons who were thrown out of employment in the manufacturing districts would be glad to get employment in the mines, and would readily undertake the work from which women would be excluded by the operation of this bill. With regard to the third clause, which regulated the time of employment of persons under the age of thirteen, he would at once state that he was not anxious to press it upon their Lordships. If he were addressing their Lordships at the beginning instead of at the close of the Session, he should propose a committee of inquiry upon this and some other points on which parties concerned in collieries had a good deal to say. He did not feel that the regulation proposed by this clause would interfere with the management of collieries, as some had stated it would, but he must admit that there was not sufficient evidence to enable him to say with perfect confidence that the clause would not operate injuriously. He was therefore not disposed to press for a restriction, of which he must say he did not quite see what the effect would be. He did not say that it might not be injurious, and without inquiry he had no right to say that it would. The particular mode which the clause proposed of regulating the time of labour was adopted from the necessity of the case. The obvious mode would be to say that children should be employed only during certain hours; but with respect to mines that was impossible, as the moment children were admitted into mines they were removed from all supervision. In proposing this clause, therefore, his noble Friend conceived that he was doing what was best for the children, and what at the same time would least interfere with the management of mines. His noble Friend proposed that the children should have at least the alternate day for the purposes of instruction and recreation, in order that
110
they might hereafter be good men and useful members of society. It was not from want of an anxious desire to see these poor creatures protected and employed to their own advantage that he declined to press this clause at present upon the House but because if he were now to ask for inquiry it would not be possible to terminate it. The next clause regarded the appointment of inspectors. The object of it was simply this:—that as the regulations were such as to prevent evidence being obtained in the ordinary way, the Government should, in any particular case where it should deem it necessary so to do, send down persons to visit and inspect any particular mine or colliery, and report thereon in such manner as might be directed by the Secretary of State. He could state of his own knowledge that many of the miners were rather glad than otherwise of the opportunity of having some system of inspection. This subject, however, would be for the committee. The next clause related to the important subject of apprenticeship. He proposed to alter the clause as it stood, by a provision that no person should be taken as an apprentice in any mine or colliery under the age of ten years, and that no apprenticeship should be for a longer terra than eight years. This would release young persons bound at the former age as soon as they attained the age of eighteen. In the ninth clause he had felt obliged to make an alteration which he would much rather not have made. It related to the age of young persons to be employed in mines and collieries. He repeated, that he regretted to have been obliged to make an alteration in this respect, but at the same time he felt that it was one on which the owners of mines and collieries, from their practical experience, were entitled to be heard, as to whether or not it was a good provision that no person under the age of twenty-one years should be employed at the winding engines used for the purpose of drawing persons up and down in the mines. He had felt bound to listen to re presentations that had been made on this subject, and he certainly was most anxious that such a course should be taken as, while it afforded a guarantee for security, would at the same time not be likely to inflict injury and inconvenience on those engaged in the mines. He believed that fifteen was an age at which there could be no danger in allowing the persons usually engaged to work at those

111
engines, and he proposed to alter the bill to that effect. There were some other minor alterations, the details of which he would defer till they went into committee. The noble Lord concluded by moving that the bill be read a second time.
Lord Hathertonsaid, the noble Earl had exhibited so much judgment in the alterations which he proposed, that he did not feel warranted in going on with the motion of which he had given notice, for a select committee to take evidence as to the probable effect of the proposed enactments, which, had the noble Lord pressed forward his bill without alterations, he should have felt bound to press also; but he should have done so without the slightest desire or intention to impugn in any way the strict rectitude, honour, and sincerity of the commissioners on whose reports the bill had been founded. He desired also to bear testimony to the undoubted and exalted purity of the noble Lord with whom the bill had originated in the other House. That noble Lord had had extensive communications on the subject with delegates from all parts of the kingdom; and although they, of course, had not succeeded in inducing him to go the full length of their wishes, they unanimously concurred in asserting that they had never communicated with any individual whose motives were more philanthrophic, or one more sincere in his desire to serve the objects of his benevolent exertions. With regard to the principle of a measure of this kind, although the promotion of religion and of education among the classes affected by it was a paramount object, yet at the same time it was not the only object to which they ought to look. It was quite necessary in legislating on such a subject not to act upon first impressions only, but to consult before doing so the experience and opinions of the masters, and of the working classes themselves. They would have done wrong, therefore, to have agreed to this measure without taking those precautions. Had they done so its first effect would have been the abandonment of several very valuable seams of mineral. With regard to the provisions of the bill, he had never intended to oppose the clause prohibiting the employment of females in mines and collieries under ground; but at the same time it might be worth while to consider whether that rule ought to be rigidly extended to persons of a mature age, who had already been for years employed; as for instance widows, who might have fami-
112
lies, and who would, under the operation of such a clause, be deprived of their usual means of supporting their families. This however, was a branch of the subject with which he was not at all practically acquainted, as the employment of females was unknown in the part of the country with which he was connected. He could not have consented to the bill as first introduced in respect of another subject, embraced by it, that of the age at which children should be allowed to be employed in these mines and collieries. He was ready, however, to acquiesce in the reduction to ten years. He could never have agreed to the proposed restriction confining the work of the children to alternate days. Those who were acquainted with the actual working of mines declared such a regulation to be utterly impracticable. When trade was bad the miner seldom worked more than two or three days in the week at the' most; and, when trade was very good, such were the habits of the miner, that he would not consent to work a longer period, or at the utmost not longer than four days in the week. He was bound to say that the noble Earl's proposed alteration with regard to apprenticeship had already given satisfaction to those with whom he had been in communication. In the county (Staffordshire) which he had so long represented, the practice of apprenticing had become almost universal. There were thousands of young persons apprenticed to mining, for the reason that it was the best trade the district afforded, and the parents of poor children were anxious to bring them up to it. Though the duration of the apprenticeship had hitherto been too long, apprenticeship as a practice was certainly rather popular than otherwise in the district in question. For these reasons he approved of the proposed alteration of the noble Earl, which would terminate at the age of eighteen. The apprenticeship commenced at the age of ten. He would suggest to the noble Earl, whether it might not be well to subject existing apprenticeships to a similar limitation. He believed that the system of apprenticeship was absolutely necessary for the thick mines. Were it to be abolished the contract system would still remain. The collier would contract with the parents for the labour of the children, with this difference, as compared with the apprenticeship system, that the parents would then get all the benefit of the services of the children, instead of

113
the children themselves. Illegitimate children, and orphans too, were gainers by the system of apprenticeship. He also agreed in what had fallen from the noble Earl on the subject of a system of inspection. There would be found to be no opposition on the part of the miners were a commission of inspection appointed. He also quite agreed with the proposed alteration with respect to the age of the persons to be employed, at what the noble Earl had termed the winding engine. Upon the whole, he believed that the noble Earl's alterations in the bill were improvements, and he had to thank the noble Earl, in the name of the delegates with whom he had communicated, for the courtesy with which the noble Earl had treated them, and the good sense with which he had dealt with their proposals; at the same time they, of course, thought he had not gone all the lengths which they desired, especially with regard to the age of persons to be employed. There was one subject which he desired to urge on the noble Earl, which he conceived to be quite germane to the matter, though not included in the bill. He alluded to the almost universal practice of paying the wages of the men at public-houses on Saturday night. This was an almost universal system in the colliery districts. The result of the practice was, besides the demoralizing habits it led to, that the wife could only get a limited portion of her husband's earnings. Some law to put an end to this practice was almost universally demanded in the Staffordshire district. The excellent diocesan of Lichfield saw so fully, on coming to the see, the evils of paying colliers' wages on a Saturday night; that he had exerted himself strenuously to have the practice put a stop to, and he was happy to say the right rev. Prelate had met with considerable success. Indeed, so many important considerations were involved in this matter that he recommended the payment of wages to be made otherwise than on a Saturday night, not only to persons having property in mines, but to all of their Lordships who had labourers to pay on their estates.
The Earl of Radnorobjected to the bill, because he objected to interferences with the market of labour, or attempting to enforce morality by act of Parliament. As for the Chimneysweepers' Act, which had been cited as a precedent for this description of legislation, he believed from the conversation which he had held with various noble Lords on the subject, that if
114
that measure were now to come before their Lordships it would be thrown out. As for the employment of women in mines, it was an old practice dying away. That appeared from the report of the commissioners. It appeared from that document that this practice was prevalent principally in the Scotch mines and collieries; but there was the evidence of a clergyman, the rev. Mr. Adamson, who said, " I am led to believe that a wholesome change is taking place." If, then, the feelings of the people were making a change in this practice, was it not uncalled for—he had almost said rash, to interfere with those feelings? With respect to the alleged demoralization arising from the promiscuous and unrestrained admixture of the sexes in the mines, were the mines the only places where this took place? No such thing; they had it in evidence, that the cottages in some of the agricultural districts were so constituted that the whole family, young and old, were huddled together in the same room, from which considerable demoralization was represented to originate. If, therefore, they were to legislate to prevent demoralization in mines, they ought to go a step further, and prevent the construction of cottages of this kind. He was from the first indisposed to consider this bill to be necessary; but, after the alterations which had been made by the noble Earl opposite, he thought it was still less necessary. What was the origin of the bill? A great feeling against the mode of conducting the labour in mines had been raised, nobody very well knew why, and then the bill was founded on that feeling. But feeling was at all times a bad ground of action, even in private life, much more to legislate upon. The parties promoting the bill ought to reflect, that in their endeavours to do good it was possible they might cause mischief; for if it passed into a law, great numbers of persons must be thrown out of employment, and the old and helpless, who were dependent upon them for support, would be left destitute. On these grounds, he could not help thinking that their Lordships would do well to throw out the bill for the present. In that case, people might have time to consider the subject; a bill in place of this would not need to be hurried through either House of Parliament—this had been carried with railroad speed through the other House, and above all reference might be made to the commissioners, and their opinions taken on

115
the necessary provisions. The part of the bill relating to the prevention of women labouring in mines was not to come into operation till March nest. Why, then, not wait till next Session, and pass a new bill, which could be done by March? [The Earl of Devon: The provision, so far as regards, females not now employed underground, is to come into operation immediately.] The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Buccleuch) had the other evening presented a petition, stating that in one mine—the name he did not recollect— females had been excluded, and with benefit to the owners. Now, when this was found, to be the case by the public, the owners generally, it was probable, would adopt the practice of excluding females. The change ought to be allowed to come on of itself, or perhaps, It would best be left in the bands of the Poor-law commissioners. Then there was the subject of apprenticeships—a very great point, and requiring great consideration, and on that ground, in his opinion, it ought to be excluded from the bill.
The Earl of Gallowaysaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had pledged himself and the Government in his place in Parliament to give this bill their warm and cordial support, and in his opinion, their Lordships ought to know under what circumstances, and under the pressure of what necessity it was, that the Ministers of the Crown in that House found that they were not able to redeem the pledge given by their Colleague. He thought it due to their Lordships that some more explicit explanation of this should be given than had yet reached them. With respect to the bill, he thought that some unwise concessions had been made in the other House. He did not at all concur in the objection that the evidence was not satisfactory; it was collected by a commission regularly appointed, but placed in such a position that of necessity it required to have BOOM latitude allowed it. Of what use was their boasted zeal for education if this state of things were permitted, if importunity was not to be afforded to the children of attending the schools, or if when they did attend them they were so overwhelmed with fatigue that they were unable to receive benefit from their instruction? Was it fit, too, that after having been taught to pray, "Lead us not into temptation," they should be led to the coal' pit to see everything that was subversive of good morals? He sincerely hoped, for
116
the cause of religion, for the happiness of these poor creatures, for the social well' being of the state, for the character of this country, and for the hope of the Divine blessing on its institutions, that that House would not be over-scrupulous in attending to those who attempted to thwart this measure, and that they would turn their attention to this crying evil. Let it not be said that that House was jealous of the rights of property, but that it was not equally jealous of the rights of poverty.
The Duke of Wellingtonthought it proper to tell their Lordships what were his opinions, and his intentions with regard to this measure. On a former occasion the question under the consideration of the House had been whether or not it was prudent to make further inquiry into this subject before the House should proceed to the consideration of this bill. On that occasion he had stated his opinion to the House with respect to this commission. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) had explained to the House what confidence the House ought to place in the names of the commissioners, and particularly in one gentleman, a member of the commission. He certainly felt a very great respect for that gentleman, as well as for the persons acting under the commission of the Crown granted under the great seal. But be observed that this inquiry had not been carried on by these commissioners—that these commissioners had, in fact, themselves, done none of the business.—that the inquiry had not been carried on by one, two, or more commissioners having and exercising the power of administering an oath, but had been carried on by a number of sub-commissioners, properly, no doubt, appointed by the Secretary if State, but not having the power of examining on oath, and that they bad made their inquiry under instructions very properly given them by the commissioners, and which their Lordships would find at the end of the two volumes which contained the report. Now, he certainly did think that that mode of proceeding was not exactly in conformity with the intentions announced in the commission granted by her Majesty, and that the evidence was not exactly of the nature which ought to carry with it their Lordships' full confidence; and, therefore, when a bill such as that which had been brought up to the House came before their Lordships, it might be expedient for

117
their Lordships to make further inquiry, and that they should know a little more, and ascertain some points arising from these volumes of evidence which they had before them. He had stated his opinion on a former occasion to the House, and had said, that the report had made a great impression on his mind, and that he sincerely wished to be able to vote for a bill to remedy the evils which were apparent on the face of that report. He believed, that the opinion which he had then stated to the House was pretty nearly the unanimous opinion and wish of their Lordships. He had not heard anybody except the noble Lord (Lord Radnor) who had spoken, and who objected to the bill on other grounds altogether, but who wished to get rid of the facts stated in the report as much as any of them, except the noble Earl (Earl Vane, the Marquess of Londonderry): he had not heard on the part of any noble Lord an objection to some legislation, in order to remedy the evils apparent on this evidence. It was not necessary for him to declare exactly what he should vote for. His noble Friend (the Earl of Devon) had very properly undertaken the conduct of this bill through the House, and in bringing forward the measure that evening he had stated to their Lordships his intention of proposing certain amendments in the bill. When the bill was in committee he should think it expedient to state his opinion on those amendments; in the meantime he intended to vote, and had always intended to vote, for the second reading of the bill — for the principle of the bill—for a measure to remedy the evils which existed, and which appeared from the report. He did net think it necessary to do more at present than to state what his opinion was on the evidence.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that entire credence ought not to be given to this report. He was authorized by four gentlemen who came up from South Staffordshire last week as a deputation from the coal-owners there, employing 1,000 workpeople, to state that the whole of the statement as to the employment of boys in pumping on Sundays was entirely without foundation. The coal-proprietors of South Staffordshire never heard of the commissioners being in their district till they heard of this bill.
The Marquess of Londonderryregretted from what had passed that he felt himself compelled to take a line of conduct which he was not at first prepared to take. He understood that the noble Lord opposite
118
had withdrawn his motion for a select committee of inquiry. He was surprised at that, because the noble Lord had said that the bill now before the House was founded on evidence on the table which was falsely represented. [Lord Hatherlon: I did not say "falsely."] He thought it strange that the noble Lord was now disposed to legislate on improper evidence. He could not understand why the noble Lord had withdrawn his motion. He was afraid there was some compromise, coupling it with what had fallen from the noble Earl (Earl Devon). The bill might be applicable to particular coal districts, but the mines and collieries of the north of England did not require it. The commissioners and sub-commissioners who had furnished the report on which they were about to legislate had not been, according to the information which he had received, at all competent to give their Lordships correct impressions: they were not people of the calibre to do it. The evidence was so full of mistakes that it was impossible that their Lordships could give full credit to it, and he therefore thought it very desirable that his noble Friend should have persevered in his motion for a committee of inquiry. He had statements by him that some of the sub-commissioners were wholly unfit for the duty cast upon them. He was informed that one of the sub-commissioners, named Franks, had kept two hat-shops, one in Regent-street, and the other in the city, and had failed, and that he had afterwards been imprisoned for a libel on the clerk of the Fishmongers' Company. He had other statements respecting the other commissioners, regarding their unfitness for their office, and he could net therefore place any faith in their report. They had got up the evidence by under-hand means, and had finished it with exhibiting upon their Lordships Table the most disgusting pictorial illustrations that ever were seen. He was opposed to the employment of women in the mines. Great praise had been given to Ireland on that account. It was said the women were never employed there; but there was good reason for that, for the labour of men was cheap enough. But Irish women might be seen in the south of Ireland naked, or nearly so, digging potatoes with their bare feet; and he was sure his noble Friend would admit that that was harder labour than working in the collieries. He complained that this measure

119
had been passed with such haste in another place that time had not been afforded to parties interested in the subject to consider its provisions. He had received a letter from a person at Edinburgh, in which the writer stated that in the collieries in Mid-Lothian it was impossible to employ horses for bringing up the coals from the pits; that women were generally employed in this work, that they brought up the coal on their backs, ascending by ladders, and that they preferred this mode of gaining a livelihood, because by this work they could earn higher wages than by other employment. The writer also stated, that if the women were debarred from gaining a livelihood by this means they would, in a majority of instances, be unable to obtain other employment; and he added, that the collieries at present yielded little profit, and if the owners had to employ men to do the work which was now performed by women, they must require higher prices for the coals, and he believed that eventually many of the collieries would be given up. The colliers, his informant added, were perfectly aware of this, and they were, therefore, desirous that the employment of women should continue; and he stated, also, that the women engaged in this labour were ready to declare before a justice of the peace that they did not object to work below ground, because they were unable to obtain other employment. He believed that if the employment of female labour was entirely interdicted, the result would be that the working of many collieries would be abandoned, and not only the women, but the men who were now employed in them, would be deprived of the means of subsistence. On receipt of the letter to which he had just referred, he wrote to Sir G. Clerk, who was a colliery owner, requesting to know his opinion on the subject. The hon. Gentleman replied:—
" My principal objection to the provisions of the bill is, that Lord Ashley does not allow sufficient time for making the alterations which will be necessary in the collieries if women are not permitted to work in them. Many of our small collieries with which I am acquainted will be altogether abandoned, as the profit derived from them is not sufficient to bear the expense of working them in any other way than that now pursued. In the larger collieries, if women are excluded, there must be in six months a suspension of work, for it will be impossible to change the present system of working them in so short a time. The women, by being excluded from working in
120
the collieries, will be deprived of obtaining the means of subsistence."
He thought these documents afforded satisfactory ground for the belief that the exclusion of female labour would be an injurious measure. He considered that the condition of the female labourers in Ireland — many of whom worked barefooted, and nearly in a state of nudity, in the potatoe-fields—was much worse than that of the women employed in the collieries. With regard to the age at which boys should be employed in these collieries, he thought they were as fit for the work at the age of eight as when they were ten. If they refused to permit boys to be employed in this work before they arrived at the age of ten years, how were the colliers to bring up and educate their children? In most cases the parents were too poor to maintain them, and utterly unable to procure for them any education; and, though he was glad an alteration had been made, to permit the employment of boys above ten years of age, instead of excluding all who were under fifteen, he thought the great body of the colliers were desirous that children should be allowed to work when eight years of age, and he hoped such a regulation would be adopted. He would move that the bill be read a second time this day six months; and as the noble Lord opposite had abandoned his motion for a select committee, he was determined to divide the House on the question, although not more than half-a-dozen noble Lords might vote with him. He hoped that early in the next Session a select committee would be appointed to inquire into this subject; and he had no doubt such a committee would obtain information which would enable Parliament to adopt just legislative measures. He thought, at this late period of the Session, it was not advisable to legislate upon the evidence obtained by the commissioners, in which the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had admitted he placed no confidence, and of which he had expressed his disapproval. He would, therefore, move the postponement of the second reading to this day six months.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, a noble Earl who had spoken on this subject had inferred that the Members of the Administration in that House had adopted a different course with regard to this bill to that which was pursued by the Members of the Government in another place. It was true that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary

121
of State for the Home Department had stated, on the introduction of this bill in the other House, that the Government was anxious, and that he was also personally desirous, that some alteration should he made in the law on this subject; and the right hon. Gentleman said, that he would give his support to the bill, and that the Government approved of the principle of the measure. What he had stated was, that the Government would be passive with respect to this bill. That was, he believed, the expression he had used. The Government had been passive —they had waited to see what amendments would be proposed—but he believed every Member of the Government intended to vote for the second reading, and to affirm the principle of the bill. He thought that, with regard to this measure, they were legislating on a sudden impulse, and he allowed that this was extremely dangerous. It I might be right that the attention of the Legislature should be directed to this subject; but he thought they should give careful and mature consideration to any measure they might adopt to remedy the grievances complained of. It was acknowledged that evils existed, and that means should be taken for their removal; but he was anxious that, before they adopted legislative measures, they should give due consideration to the subject. He must say, with all deference, that he thought the House of Commons had not done its duty with regard to this measure. He considered that an opportunity ought to have been afforded to the owners of collieries and mines, who had an extensive capital embarked in those undertakings, to meet the complaints and statements which have been advanced. It was, he conceived, the duty of their Lordships to consider whether the House of Commons, which had passed the bill now before them, had not only remedied the grievances complained of, but had acted justly towards the parties who were interested in this description of property. He would admit that he was quite prepared to give his assent to this bill, when it was amended, according to the suggestions of his noble Friend; for he believed that the regulations it introduced would operate beneficially. With respect to the employment of females, he thought it had not been satisfactorily proved that it was advisable to prevent women—up-grown women he meant—from working in collieries. If the women employed in this
122
branch of labour were, by the passing of this act, thrown out of work, he thought the measure would not, in many parts of the country be hailed as a boon, for its effect would be to create great distress in numerous districts. He considered, however, that a very praiseworthy anxiety had been evinced to ameliorate the condition of the colliery and mining labourers, and he would give the bill his support. He thought that if they had adopted the regulations proposed by Lord Ashley, with regard to the labour of boys, they would have acted with great injustice. It would, he conceived, have been most improper to interdict the employment of boys until they had attained the age of fifteen years; and he hailed with satisfaction the alteration which had been made, permitting boys of upwards of ten years of age to labour. He did not agree with that provision of the bill, which required that no person under twenty-one years of age should have charge of the engines. He thought this an unnecessary regulation; for he believed that frequently persons of eighteen years of age were as competent— if not more so—to manage the engines, as persons of twenty-one. He must repeat, that it appeared to him—speaking with all respect—that the House of Commons had proceeded in too hurried a manner with regard to this bill, and that they had not afforded time for due inquiry. He thought they had not given an opportunity to the parties interested in this species of property, of answering or explaining the statements which had been made. It had been said on a former occasion, "Thank God, there is a House of Lords." He said so now, and he trusted that justice would be done to all parties.
The Bishop of Gloucesterwould not have risen, if a noble Earl on the other side (the Earl of Radnor) had not advanced the monstrous proposition, that it was not the duty of the Legislature to enforce moral duties, which, he said, should be left to the religious pastor. Now, he apprehended that, as Christian legislators, it was the most important of their duties to enforce morality by legislation, as far as legislation could with propriety be carried to prevent crime and immorality. The chief object of legislation was not so much to punish crimes as to prevent them; and nothing they could do for this purpose could be more efficacious than to provide for the people that moral and religious education by which they best could better

123
their condition He knew not how this education was to be given to the people if children Were to be employed in such occupations from the age of eight years upwards but, however, he did not wish to do more than protest against the doctrine which the noble Earl had propounded apparently with so much confidence in his own judgment. Some allusion had been Made to the term " humanity mania," which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) had applied to the promoters of the measure; but the noble Marquess bad been also pleased to attribute to theft* " hypocritical humanity." He trusted the noble Marquess would, on consideration, withdraw that term, for he firmly believed that higher and purer consideration never actuated any public man than those which influenced the noble Lord who introduced the measure, and those who in either House of Parliament supported it.
The Marquess of Londonderryhad not intended to allude to the noble Lord who introduced ft at all. His remarks applied to those who had misled him.
The Duke of Buccleuckwished to say a few words on this subject. He never had women employed in the mines on his property. He had great difficulty in over cowing the prejudices of the wives and daughters of the men; but they bad all now united in the testimony that it Was best to keep Women out of those Works; To Mr. Wardlaw Ramsay the credit Was one of preventing women from working in mines in his part of the country. The noble Marques was quite right in saying that some of those engaged in these Occupations in Mid-Lothian were opposed to this bill. He had presented a petition, signed by men and women, praying that at all events the women who were willing should be suffered to continue at this employment, They, however, agreed in the ©pinion that for the future no Women should be employed. He was certain that most (be aid not say all) those pits could be worked without the use' of Women. He know it Was objected! that those women must he thrown upon the parish. Alt he could say was, that in his neighbourhood two considerable coal mines bad put an end to this practice, sad others were proceeding to do so without any such result. Although the bill had been much altered since it came up from the Commons, be treated that all the abuses sought to be remedied by the original bill would be duly
124
considered, and that whichever of them Were proved would be remedied.
The Earl of Mountcashelldefended the report made by the commissioners, as he believed no Government would appoint men to engage in Such an inquiry unless every confidence was to be placed in their credibility. He was decidedly opposed to the employment of women underground, as also children of such tender years as were now engaged. He was not aware that in districts where no mines existed children of eight years of age were required to maintain themselves; they were fed by their parents, and why should there be any difference, made between different classes of labourers? He believed the work in mines to be very unwholesome, and he thought that no child under twelve years of age ought to be employed at it.
The House was cleared for a division, but no noble Lord bating seconded the motion of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry) no division took place, and the bill Was read a second time.
The House adjourned.