Sitting of 25 July 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER. John Campbell Colquhous. Esq., for Newcastle-under-Lyme.
BILLS. Public.—1° Bankruptcy Act Amendment; Dublin Boundaries; St. Asaph and Bangor Preferments; Western Australia.
3° and passed:—St. Briavel's Small Debts; Stamp Duties; Game Certificates (Ireland); Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland); Joint Stock Banking Companies.
Committed.—Court of Exchequer (England).
Reported.—Ordnance Services; Bonded Corn No. 2); Lunacy.
Private.—1°. Sewell's Divorce.
Reported.—Birmingham School.
3° and passed:— Marquess of Tweedale's Estate; Mostyn's Estate; Joint Stock Banking Companies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Campbell, from Burghs and Parochial Schoolmasters of the Presbytery of Islay and Jura, for ameliorating their condition.—By Mr. Wyse, from Members of the Shropshire and North Wales, and Bath and Bristol Medical, and Surgical Association, for Medical Reform.—From the Bakers of Waterford, for regulating the Working Hours of Bakers in Ireland.—From Joseph Mainzer, for a site to erect a School—By Mr. Litton, from the Gunmakers of Ireland, for Regulating their Trade.—From Arthur Bache David Plunkett, and Christ. Antiseli, fox Compensation.— From Castlederg Union, complaining of the conduct of the Poor-law Commissioners with regard to the Building of the Workhouse,—From the Union of Creagh Balliinasloe, for an Inquiry into the course of Instruction pursued at Maynooth.—From W. H. Stuckey, for Inquiry into his plan for supplying the Metropolis with Water. —From James Price, for the Abolition of Church Rates. — From Wm. Hammond, complaining of the Assignees of the insolvent Debtors Court (Ireland).—From T. R. Wilson France, against attending a County Courts Bill to Lallea.Ster.—By Mr. Beckett, atom Leeds, for Inquiry into the Distress of the Manufacturing Districts.

EDUCATION.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he would now answer a question which the noble Lord opposite put to him the other night, with the view of ascertaining whether it was the intention or the Government to propose an additional grant for the purpose of education. He found that the funds placed at the disposal of the Education Committee were nearly exhausted, and he, therefore, intended to propose a supplemental estimate of 10,000 l., which would be distributed in precise conformity with the minutes of the Privy Council, which were drawn up after consultation with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York.
Viscount Palmerstonwished to know whether any of the 10,000 l. would be

589
applied to the encouragement of the classes at Exeter-hall, from whom the right hon. Baronet and the president of the council had presented petitions,
Sir R. Peelreplied in the negative. Applications for aid had been made from classes in several large towns, as well as from those at Exeter-hall. The subject required consideration, and he was not now prepared to state whether the Government would propose an additional estimate for the singing classes.

RIGHT TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS.
On the question that the Order of the Day for the Committee of Supply be now read,
Mr. T. Duncomberose to renew the motion of which he had given notice some time ago, and which he had postponed at the request of the hon. Member for Stafford and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The observations of the right hon. Baronet on that occasion had been read with much astonishment and surprise by the persons interested in the fate of the unhappy men who were now suffering in Stafford Gaol. The trial took place on the 2nd of the present month, and they were immediately sent to prison. A petition and memorial were immediately forwarded to the Home Office on the 13th, and on the 16th a reply was received which purported to be written by the direction of the Home Secretary; and yet, when questioned upon the subject in the House, the right hon. Baronet said, he had never received any memorial, and, of course, had caused no reply to be written to it. Considering that the present Government had taken credit to itself for " never making mistakes, never stumbling over stones, or falling into puddles," this contradiction certainly appeared very extraordinary. It would seem that the business of the public departments was not conducted in a more accurate manner under the present than it was under the late Government. If Lord Normanby had happened to have made the declaration of the right hon. Baronet, with respect to this transaction, the public would not have heard the last of it for some time. The question which he was about to bring under the consideration of the Rouse was one of a serious nature. It involved the sacred right of the people to meet peaceably in public to discuss public grievances. Ifs it should appear that that right had been violated by the magistrates of Staf-
590
fordshire, he hoped the House would aid him in obtaining from the Government that information for which he was now about to move. It appeared a report had gone abroad that a statement bad been made by some magistrates in Sedgeley, that if a Chartist dared to show his face in the town, he should be immediately arrested. Mr. Mason, a Chartist lecturer, however, thinking that the magistrates had no right to make such a statement, determined on holding a meeting in Sedgeley. He had proceeded about ten minutes in his lecture, whet) he was interrupted by a constable of the name of Beman, who, it should be observed, was the only witness who appeared on the trial I against the prisoners. And what, after all, was the language to which the constable deposed? According to his account, Mason was telling the people, and telling them, as he (Mr. Duncombe) believed truly, that the laws of this country were made by the aristocracy—that the people had no voice in the election of their representatives—that the laws which were to be obeyed by all should be made by all, and consented to by all; that the individuals in this country who worked the hardest received the least; and that those who worked the least received the most. The constable then interrupted the lecturer, saying that he could stand that no longer, that he at all events should do something for his pay; that Mason was using seditious language; and that it would be his duty to break up the meeting. Mason told the constable that he had no business to interrupt him; that his only business would be, if he was using seditious language, to go before a magistrate and lodge information against him, which might be tried on a future day. The constable persisted in putting an end to the meeting; he took hold of the bench on which Mason was standing, and tilted up the lecturer. The people interposed, but finally Beman carried off the bench. No breach of the peace was committed, except by the constable. Mr. Mason took out a warrant against the constable, upon which the constable took another against Mason, and caused him to be apprehended. The magistrates committed Mason for trial, and dismissed the charge against the constable. Mr. Mason and seven others were committed for attending. an unlawful meeting, and for assault. The meeting was one which no lawyer would call unlawful or

591
illegal. It was perfectly peaceable till interrupted by the constable. These poor working men were committed on a charge of unlawfully meeting, and on a charge of riot and assault. All the charges against them, except for unlawfully meeting, had subsequently vanished, and he denied that for even that part of the charge there was any good ground. They had not come with arms, or with banners, or in anything like military array, nor was the meeting accompanied by any circumstances that could constitute it an unlawful assembly. Mason had not been guilty of using seditious language; but that even if he had been guilty, the constable would not have been justified in interrupting the meeting. Mason had been found guilty of attending an unlawful meeting; the others had been found guilty of a common assault. He complained of the arrest; he complained of the circumstances that had taken place at the trial; and he complained of the sentence that had been passed. The constable had evidently a dislike to Mason, and yet the chairman in passing sentence gave one man two months' imprisonment, another man four, and another six months' imprisonment, having no other evidence than the dictum of the constable. If guilty, they were all equally guilty, and in awarding punishment to refer to a partial witness could certainly not be fair. These men were now prisoners in Stafford Goal, after having been sacrificed to the party spite of the magistrates. In the present state of feeling in Staffordshire such treatment, he contended, of the working classes was anything but prudent. When they coupled such occurrences with what had lately occurred in Ireland, the people naturally asked, were they returning to the days of Sidmouth and of Castlereagh? He maintained that the people had a right to meet peaceably and discuss what they deemed to be grievances, and this prosecution, instituted by the magistrates, was disgraceful to the county of Stafford. He did not believe that any judge of assize would have found these unhappy men guilty, and it would therefore be better if the power of magistrates to try such offences at quarter sessions were taken away. It was too late in the Session to ask for a committee of inquiry to investigate these charges, but he would endeavour to obtain the best information within his reach. The hon. Member concluded by moving—
592
" That there be laid before the House a copy of the depositions upon which J. Mason, Chartist lecturer, Thomas Casswell, and six others, were committed for trial at the late Midsummer sessions for the county of Stafford, together with copies of the indictment, or indictments, and the names and addresses If the magistrates and jury before whom they were tried,"
Mr. Humeseconded the motion. Some forbearance should be shown in such cases; particularly at the present time, when so much distress prevailed, the people should at least have full liberty to complain.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, in reference to certain observations which had fallen from:he hon. Member for Montrose, that he absolutely denied that, the administration of justice in this country should be made dependent on circumstances. It was the duty of the Executive Government to take care that the laws of the country were administered with strict justice, tempered with mercy; and he did not feel that it was their duty to consider, in the execution of the laws, any particular circumstances, such as the hon. Member had alluded to. With reference to the mistake which he had committed the other night in relation to the motion before the House, he might state, that about 4,000 cases connected with criminal proceedings annually came before him; and that at the present period of the year he was obliged, besides attending to other business, to be present in that House about ten hours every day. He did, however, plead for pardon on this account for the error he committed, but would state how it arose. The motion of which the hon. Member gave notice related to a person named John Mason; and he (Sir J. Graham) found in the Home Office a memorial, headed by the signature of Thomas Caswell, and not John Mason. It referred, it was true, to the conviction of John Mason; and he (Sir J. Graham), after reading the short statement, expressed his opinion that there was no reason to alter the sentence. With respect to the persons named in the hon. Member's motion, the Government had nothing to do with their apprehension or prosecution, and he thought the hon. Member for Finsbury was taking a strong step when he asked the House to constitute itself into a court of appeal against the verdict of a jury and the proceedings of a competent tribunal. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the

593
constable exceeded his duty in attempting to apprehend John Mason; but he (Sir J. Graham) had yet to learn that it was not the duty of a constable, when he saw an assembly tending to a breach of the peace, and heard language used of a most exciting character, to apprehend the parties engaged in the proceedings of such an assembly. [Mr. Hawes : " Hear, hear."] The hon. Member might deny his statement, but he (Sir J. Graham) repeated it. If a constable interfered without sufficient cause, he would do so at his own peril. At all events, this question had been decided by a competent tribunal; and surely the hon. Gentleman would not contend that a jury of twelve men were not competent to decide upon it, and bring in a verdict founded on the facts of the case? He (Sir J. Graham) was informed that the chairman of the magistrates before whom the case was tried was a gentleman of the legal profession, and had presided at the sessions for seven years. This gentleman stated, in a paper forwarded to him (Sir J. Graham) that during those seven years he had made a point of never attending any political meeting and that he had refrained from giving any public expression of his politics, in order to prevent even the shadow of a suspicion that he was influenced by political opinion in the administration of the laws. He also said, that he never heard any political discussion among the magistrates when assembled at the sessions, and he therefore trusted that both he and his brother magistrates would be defended from the aspersion of being actuated by political feelings. This was the statement made by the Gentleman, who had shown, he believed, the utmost skill and impartiality while presiding at the sessions where these parties were tried. He did not wish to go into the evidence, but he was told that the language used by Mason was of the most exciting description and of a seditious character; and the jury found him guilty on two counts—for aiding and abetting in an unlawful meeting, and for riot. The prisoners were charged, first, with aiding in an unlawful assembly; second, for riot; third, with assaulting the constable in the execution of his duty; and fourth, for a common assault. The jury brought in a verdict against all the prisoners for aiding in an unlawful assembly, and against seven Of them for an assault. As it was Mason's
594
conduct and language that gave to the assembly its unlawful character, the chairman passed on him the heaviest sentence. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the time had arrived when the people were not to be permitted to meet lawfully together? He (Sir J. Graham) replied, God forbid that it should not be competent for any multitude to assemble lawfully and peaceably to discuss grievances and petition for their redress. But in this case the question was submitted to the jury, " Did the multitude meet peaceably and lawfully?" and he asked, had they arrived at that time when hon. Gentlemen opposite, the great advocates of trial by jury, would contend that that was lawful which a jury, by their verdict, had declared to he unlawful? It was quite superfluous to argue this question, or to defend the verdict of the jury, whose impartiality could not be impugned. The conduct of the chairman was also irreproachable, and the imputation that he had tampered with the jury had been abandoned by the hon. Gentleman himself. It appeared that the trial began at nine o'clock in the morning, and lasted till four in the afternoon. Previous to summing up the chairman retired, and at the same time two of the jury asked leave to retire, and left the jury-box in the custody of an officer. Being ignorant of the passages of the court, the jurymen went out at the same door with the chairman, who merely pointed out to them the proper way. The trial was a fair, honest, and impartial one; and nothing could be more inexpedient than that that House should constitute itself into a court of review on a trial so conducted. He opposed the motion.
Mr. E. Bullerconfirmed the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that the chairman only pointed out the proper direction to the jurymen. Any one who was acquainted with the gentleman in question very well knew be was perfectly incapable of tampering with the jury. He also bore testimony to his impartial conduct on the bench, and expressed his regret that the present question had been raised at a time when all the Gentlemen of the legal profession, who were best qualified to give an opinion as to this Gentleman's conduct and impartiality on the bench, were absent from the House.
Mr. Aglionbytotally dissented from the doctrine of the right hon. Baronet opposite, that such questions as the present

595
were improper for discussion in that House. He thought it right, on the contrary, that in all cases concerning the liberty of the subject that House should be a supreme court of appeal. They, however, were not now called on to decide whether the chairman and the jury had acted properly, but whether they ought to have a copy of the documents moved for by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He did not mean that every Member would be justified in bringing such questions before the House for any frivolous cause, but the present was a case of doubt and suspicion, as the only, evidence on which those men were convicted was that of the constable, who put his own construction on the language made use of. He dissented from the right hon. Baronet's description of an unlawful meeting. To constitute an unlawful meeting, and to render interference justifiable, it was necessary that the meeting should, in consequence of being armed, or by its violence, or some such cause, occasion a belief in the minds of reasonable people that a breach of the peace would ensue. In this case no breach of the peace was committed until the constable interfered, and he denied that this single constable had the high authority given him to decide that the meeting was unlawful. He should support the motion of his hon. Friend with the greatest pleasure; and whenever he saw a case of this kind, which was not light or frivolous, he should assume the right of that House to be a court of appeal as the rule, and the refusal as the exception.
Mr. Haweshoped that the law officers of the Crown would stand up and protest against the unconstitutional doctrine of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary. With regard to the circumstances Of the case, he knew nothing; but the right hon. Baronet declared that it was competent for a constable, who might attend a public meeting, to judge whether the language of the speakers was seditious Or not, and that upon his view of the case lie might take them into custody.
Sir J. Grahamwished to explain. He said, not that the constable was justified in doing so, but that he did it at his own risk. A constable hearing language used which, in his judgment, tended directly to a breach of the peace, was justified at his own peril, in apprehending the party using it.
Mr. Hawesresumed. Of course the
596
constable was not exempt from the penalty of the law if he acted against it; but he protested against the doctrine of his being a judge of such a matter as the one in question. Since Lord Sidmouth's circular there bad not been a more invidious attempt to put down public discussion. That circular was universally scouted, and Lord Sidmouth could not maintain his ground. He hoped, then, that the opinion of the right hon. Baronet would meet with the same condemnation throughout the country. There was a long debate on the circular in 1817, and Lord Holland and Lord Erskine then declared that it might be true that from constables not having full power offenders might here and there escape; but better it was that they should escape than such an officer as a constable should have powers like a judicial authority.
The Attorney-generalsaid, that after the sort of challenge which the hon. Member for Lambeth had thrown out to the law officers of the Crown, it seemed to be his duty to take some notice of what had fallen from the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Finsbury. A debate had been attempted to be raised upon an expression of his right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to which expression, if it were not misunderstood, he himself had no objecjection whatever. What were the papers that were called for? If they were for any practical purpose, he should like to know what it was; if not, it must be to cast a slur on the magistrates and jury. The part of the motion relating to the notes of the chairman was abandoned. He should, had it been persisted in, certainly have objected to the production of them, but that was the only document which there was any pretence to call for. As to the copies of the depositions, every person committed for trial had a right to such copies, and he had no doubt the parties in question had received them. They might have been put into a petition to that House, and if they furnished any matter of complaint, they might have been brought under the notice of that House. With respect to the copies of the indictment, he would undertake to say that they were nothing more than copies from some book of Crown law, containing charges of attending unlawful meetings, but of those the parties might have had copies. Then the last part of the motion was for the names of the magistrates and the jurymen.

597
The former must have been appended to the commitment, and the latter must have been notorious to every one who attended the trial. He knew nothing of the merits of the case, except from what had passed in the House, and from the petition which had been presented to the House on this subject. To the petition he wished to call their attention. The petitioners expressed their surprise at the verdict of the jury. Now, that House was the last assembly in which the verdict of a jury ought to be made the subject of comment or inquiry. if it were a criminal case, let it be brought before the Secretary of State, and if that Officer did not do his duty, let his conduct be brought before that House. The petitioners also said, there was no breach of the peace until the constable went into the assembly, and that there was no justifiable cause to interfere. But he would say, that the officer who saw a person measuring out the ground in a convenient spot, and others standing near, was not bound to wait until a pistol was fired before he took the parties into custody. It was sufficient if he saw enough to convince him, that a duel was about to take place. He begged, then, to say, that in his view of the law, whenever a constable saw any act done, or heard language, the immediate tendency of which was to lead to a breach of the peace, it was his business to watch and take care, that no such breach was committed; and it might become his imperative duty to interfere at once to prevent it; but if he did so, it was on his own responsibility. He should be sorry to see revived the old proceedings which tended to put down public opinion; but when he saw a constable acting in a way which the verdict of a jury had sanctioned, he thought the House ought not to interfere. Under these circumstances, he trusted the House would feel that this was not a case for the interference of their inquisitorial powers in calling for papers of this description.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it struck him that the party in question had been accused of one offence and convicted of another. The charge made against him was for using seditious language, and the depositions were necessary to hear what it really was. He must repudiate the doctrine that a constable was to decide whether language was seditious or not. This party was found guilty of attending a seditious as-
598
sembly; but that was not the original charge; that was made after Mason had charged the opposite party. The first person who commenced the violence was the constable. How could the meeting be called au unlawful one? Would it be permitted, if a number of gentlemen assembled together to discuss any public question, for any constable, how strong so ever the language used might be, to interfere? He should therefore support the motion for a copy of the depositions; but should advise his hon. Friend to withdraw the part relative to the names of the magistrates and jurymen.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had thrown over one part of the motion, and the hon. Member for Finsbury himself had thrown over another; and with respect to the depositions, what had they to do with the trial? On the whole, he was of opinion that they had not evidence before them even for the hypothesis that the constable had executed his duty. Upon those grounds he should oppose the motion.
Mr. T. Duncombewould not press for the names of the magistrates or jurymen.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, there could be no other object to be attained by this motion than to cast a censure on the magistrates and jurymen. The hon. and learned Member for Coekermouth said that that House ought to be a court of appeal. If there were any real grievance that House was the place where it ought to be made known; but he protested against the doctrine of that House being made a court of appeal on the decision of a judge or jury in any matter civil or criminal,—that House was wholly incompetent to such an object; and it was because this was intended as an appeal against the decision of the magistrates and the jury that he now objected to this motion. Upon what ground was it made? Take the petition, which, as he had understood, was presented to the House by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury disclaimed any intention of bringing charges against the magistrates, the chairman, or the jury, he declared that he did not mean to ask for the names of the jury, or the magistrates, or the chairman, but yet what did the petition say? It proceeded in these words:—
" That your petitioners are fully convinced,

599
from the proceedings connected with the trial, that the prosecutors, and the magistracy, and the jury who were sworn to return a verdict in accordance with the evidence, were influenced more by factious motives than a strict regard to equity."
Now, he would ask with what view was the House of Commons called upon to agree to this motion? It was said that there existed no intention of pronouncing censure upon either the magistrates, the chairman, or the jury; then with what view was the question raised? In order, it was said, that an inquiry might be instituted; but he professed himself at a loss to discover how a case even for inquiry had been made out. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork county had told the House that he was not in possession of any information on the subject, and so had almost every Member who addressed the House; he would, therefore, just briefly state, that the first count in the indictment charged the prisoners with having created a riot; the second, with holding an unlawful assembly; the third, with assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty; the fourth with a common assault. Upon the question of law to which this trial gave rise the chairman pronounced a judicial opinion, and surely it would not now be maintained that the hon. Member for Finsbury wished the House of Commons to pronounce a censure upon that, for, if such were his wish, why should he disclaim it? The hon. Member said, he did not complain of the chairman or any one concerned, yet he presented a petition preferring charges against all concerned, he got that petition printed with the votes, and he founded a motion upon it. Each of the charges in the petition were gone through and denied, and after giving up every one of the papers which lie demanded in the first instance, he then asked for the depositions. What could the production of the depositions effect? No practical result could be obtained from any papers except the chairman's notes; for those, however, the lion. Member did not ask. If the House went into an inquiry, the depositions would be wholly immaterial. It was suggested, that if the depositions were produced they would show the grounds of the committal; but of what importance would the grounds of the committal be after the question had gone before a grand jury? After they had investigated the question, after they
600
had found a true bill, after the prisoners had been tried, nay, after they had been convicted, of what possible use could the depositions be? No censure, no suspicion ever could rest upon the chairman, upon the magistrates, or upon the jury. What advantage could result from agreeing to the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury?
Mr. Sheilsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury did not mean to cast any imputation upon the chairman, the magistrates, or the jury; neither had the motion which he brought forward been founded upon the petition, as stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor-general. The petition was not once mentioned in his notice of motion. What, then, would be the advantage of producing those papers? The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary admitted that a constable in the performance of his duty had exercised some discretion; that he had received an impression from overt acts, or from words, that a certain meeting was an unlawful assembly, and he interfered to disperse that assembly without the authority of a magistrate. It was true the right hon. Baronet did not say that the constable was justified in taking such a course; but he would ask were the circumstances of such a nature as to call for the approbation of the Government? On the contrary, the Attorney-general admitted that it was inexpedient for constables thus to interfere. Was it not, then, pushing the power of the Executive Government to a great length, under these circumstances, to refuse the production of the papers? Summum jus, summa injuria. If the doctrine now insisted upon were to prevail no public meeting could be held without such meeting being liable to dispersion at the will of a constable. Suppose 10,000 persons were assembled upon any occasion; suppose a constable—an ignorant man, but one anxious to do his duty—heard or witnessed that which he conceived to be illegal, and thereupon he dispersed the meeting ex mero motu: the question came to be tried, not before any one of the judges of the land, but before an inferior tribunal; and such being the facts of the case, it would surely be inferred by the country that the refusal to grant papers was a retrospective ratification of the course of proceeding adopted by the constable, An assembly might be unlawful, but it would be most unadvisable to give

601
to constables the power of judging with regard to that unlawfulness, and he trusted the House would agree with him, that to grant the depositions in such a case as the present would not be understood to imply any censure upon the judge or the jury. If the papers were granted it would be received as an expression of the opinion of the House of Commons that public meetings ought not to be dispersed by the authority of constables; but, if they were refused, an opposite inference must be drawn.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had not attended to the manner in which the motion had originated. It was originally founded upon the petition, and the hon. Member moved that the petition be printed, in order, as his original notice stated, that he should call the attention of the House to the prayer of that petition, and induce the House to consent to a motion for the production of these papers, on the ground that the judge, the jury, and the magistrates were influenced by factious motives rather than a strict regard for equity. Let any hon. Member compare the original notice with the present motion, and he would find that it had dwindled down almost to nothing; but yet, if the House agreed to the motion, it would amount to saying that the verdict had been given against evidence. That allegation, in fact, constituted the first charge. The second, as already stated, accused the jury, the judge, and the magistrates with being influenced by factious motives; the third paragraph of the petition asserted the innocence of the accused; and the fourth was as follows:—
" That previous to the chairman of the sessions summing up the evidence, he and two of the jurymen left the court by the same door; and, after being absent for some time, the chairman and one of the jurymen returned together, the other immediately following, which circumstance ought not to be allowed to transpire in any court of justice, it being palpably indicative of unfairness, if not injustice, towards the accused."
That statement was most positively denied. Though the departures from court were simultaneous, it was a circumstance purely accidental. Every one of the charges had been abandoned excepting one, and that was not contained in the petition. As to the chairman of the quarter sessions, he had not the honour of his acquaintance, and
602
had never even seen him, but had always heard his name mentioned with the highest esteem, and believed, that his services in the administration of justice (as had been handsomely acknowledged by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire) were highly appreciated in the county. That the House of Commons had not jurisdiction in any case to inquire into the administration of justice, he could not lay down, neither could he undertake to define that jurisdiction, though, assuredly, if there were reason to believe, that a chairman had been tampering with the jury, there might be ground for intervention; but nothing could be more dangerous than, on light grounds, to interfere with the administration of justice, and set up the House as a court of appeal from juries. As to calling for the names of the jurymen, the hon. Member for Finsbury's own good sense induced him to withdraw so very monstrous a proposition. The most observable thing was, that the hon. Member had called for the names of all the parties concerned in the matter except the very person who had just the greatest concern in it—viz., the constable. And as to the charge against the constable, what was there to sustain it? With regard to what his right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Home Department, had said, he had not understood him to lay down any doctrine abstractedly. Surely his right hon. Friend had done nothing more than refer to the circumstances of this particular case. His right hon. Friend would not, of course, lay down in that House, without any deliberation, what were absolutely the duties of the constabulary in a most difficult class of cases. In the present case (which was all that his right hon. Friend had meant to advert to), the constable bad certainly performed a part very doubtful, as all cases of the sort must be doubtful, till set at rest, as this had been, by the verdict of a court of justice. The jury had found, that the meeting was an illegal one, and thus had justified the man's conduct. There had been, too, more than one appeal to law; the party complaining had brought his action for the assault (of which nothing had been said), and that action had been dismissed. Why should not, then, the decisions of a court of law be deemed sufficient? It would never do, certainly, for the House to interfere, till all legal means had been exhausted; and if once the House adopted the princi-

603
ple of interfering, in cases so slight, with the judgments of courts of law, depend upon it, there would not be one night without some case of the sort being brought forward, for to the end of the world, losing parties would be dissatisfied with verdicts. On these grounds, then, he hoped, that to maintain intact the great principles of law, the House would negative decidedly a proposition so fraught with danger to the administration of justice in this country.
Viscount Palmerstonagreed in the propriety of the general principle, that that Rouse ought not in any way to interfere with the decisions of courts of justice; but it was also admitted that cases might occur, of which it was fitting that some notice should be taken in that House; and not long ago it had been laid down by a high legal authority, one of the judges in Ireland, that the decisions of courts of justice ought not to be made the subject of discussion by the press but that parties aggrieved should either apply to the Executive, or address themselves to Parliament. In the present case he understood application had been made to the Executive: the right hon. Baronet had more or less carefully considered the case, and had decided that there was no ground for the application. Well, then, they had the highest legal authority in another part of the kingdom for this application to the House. His opinion was, that the questions which had been mooted in this debate rendered it expedient that the papers should be produced; it was said that a constable might act on his own responsibility in interrupting a public meeting, and that if it turned out that he had mistaken his duty, then he was liable to an action. That doctrine put him in mind of a story of a party of gentlemen playing at cards, one of whom believing that one of his opponents had an ace of spades concealed under his hand, took a fork, and with it pinned his hand to the table, saying, "If you have not the ate of spades under your hand I beg your pardon." He supposed that hon. Gentlemen would say that this card-playing gentleman was justified in acting upon his own responsibility in sticking the fork into his opponent's hand, in the same way at they were told a constable would be justified in acting on his own responsibility. He, however, did not deny that when any conduct was being recommended or pursued clearly end directly tending to a breach
604
of the peace, not only an officer, but any one, would be justified in interfering; but he understood that at this meeting doctrines, certainly, in his opinion, highly objectionable were advocated; that the proceedings consisted entirely in the promulgation of mere abstract opinions upon the question of the representative system in that House, and upon the subject of wages; nothing, therefore, to justify any interference on the part of a constable. He thought, under all the circumstances, that there was a sufficient ground for inquiry, and he did not think that the objections to the motion were very consistent, for, first, it was said that the motion could not be agreed to because it was too comprehensive; and, secondly, that it ought not to be agreed to because it had dwindled down to nothing.
Mr. Villiersadmitted the evil of suffering illiterate men to be expounders of law; but, in this case, a chairman of Sessions and a jury had justified the constable whose conduct was in question. But that, in his opinion, made the case of his hon. Friend still stronger for his application to have the depositions produced; for, as he had now framed his motion, there was no question of the mode in which the law had been administered, or any appeal to this House from a verdict of the court, but simply a request to have the depositions on which the prisoner was committed produced, which was information that was peculiarly interesting for them at this time to possess, for the Attorney-general says, that there are many laws which he should be sorry to see construed strictly, and his hon. Friend says, that if the prisoner was convicted properly, the law is in a singular state. For their information, therefore, as a legislative body, it was important that they should know under what circumstances this person had been indicted and subsequently convicted, and how far meetings to discuss political questions might be held, or might be interrupted; for if the law, as it had been construed at these sessions, was known, it might prevent violations of it in future; and if it was bad or improper to continue it, this House might desire to know that, with the view to alter it. Raising, therefore, as it did, the question of the law, as it might be then enforced, he should vote for the depositions being produced, as the best evidence they could get of the matter.
Mr. Ewartthought a constable was not a proper party to decide as to the unlawfulness of a meeting. In the Manchester case the people had implements calculated to excite terror in the people, and Mr. Justice Bailey had laid it down at York, that there must be something to terrify the people before a meeting could be said to be unlawful; but at the meeting alluded to on the present occasion, there were no implements calculated to excite terror.
Mr. M. Philipsdenied that there were arms at the Manchester meeting. It might appear in evidence that there were, but such was not the case; there were no arms; nothing but flags. With respect to the present motion, he must say, that he did not think a constable a fit person to judge of the legality of a meeting.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 116; Noes 32: Majority 84.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Acland, T. D.

Ffolliott, J.

A'Court, Capt.

Forbes, W.

Allis, J. P.

French, F.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Fuller, A. E

Arkwright, G.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Baird, W.

Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.

Baldwin, B.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Bateson, R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Greene, T.

Boldero, H. G.

Grogan, E.

Botfield, B.

Guest, Sir J.

Bradshaw, J.

Halford, H.

Broadley, H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Broadwood, H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hardinge, rt. hn.SirH.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hardy, J.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hawkes, T.

Chute, W. L. W.

Henley, J. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Hodgson, R.

Cochrane, A.

Hogg, J. W.

Cockburn, rt.hn.Sir G.

Hope, hon. C.

Collett, W. R.

Hughes, W. B.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Hussey, T.

Courtenay, Lord

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cripps, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Damer, hon. Col.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Darby, G.

Johnson, Sir J.

Douglas, Sir H.

Jones, Capt.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knatchhull, rt. hn. SirE

Duncombe, hon. A.

Knight, H. G.

Eliot, Lord

Knight, F. W.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Feilden, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Flower, Sir J.

Litton, E.

606

Lockhart, W.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Lowther, J. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Russell, C.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Sandon, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Somerset, Lord G.

Masterman, J.

Stanley, Lord

Mundy, E. M.

Stewart. J.

Neeld, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Neville, R.

Taylor T. E.

Norreys, Lord

Taylor, J. A.

Northland, Visct.

Thornhill, G.

Puke, C. W.

Tollemache, J.

Palmer, G.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Patten, J. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Pemberton, T.

Williams, T. P.

Polhill, F.

Wodehouse, E.

Pollock, Sir F.

Young, J.

Praed, W. T.

Pringle, A.

TELLERS.

Rashleigh, W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Richards, R.

Baring, H,

List of the NOES

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Brien, J.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Browne, hon. W

O'Conor, Don

Bryan, G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Buller, C.

Philips, M.

Cobden, R.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Crawford, W. S.

Tancred, H. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Villiers, hon. C.

Ewart, W.

Wall, C. B.

Fielden, J.

Williams, W.

Gibson, T. M.

Wood, B.

Gore, hon. R.

Wood, G. W.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Yorke, H. R.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Howard, hn. C.W.G.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Duncombe, T.

Humphrey, Ald,

Hawes, B.

Order for committee read.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,

DISTRESS (IRELAND).
Mr. S. Crawfordsaid, he was very unwilling to interpose any obstacle to going into supply, but he felt called upon to take the course which he now did in consequence of the conduct of the Government. He admitted, that the right hon. Baronet opposite had always treated him with courtesy, but he could not accept of any courtesy, at the expense of the cause which he advocated. The right hon. Baronet, on a late occasion said, with reference to the English Poor-law, that not more than one-fifth of the poor had been relieved inside the workhouse; and it had been admitted, that a law to give relief only in the workhouses was unjust and oppressive

607
to the poor. He begged to remind the House that Ireland was under the operation of such a Poor-law, and he wished to know why some relaxation of the law had not been made in Ireland. The right hon. Baronet admitted, that the commissioners in England had made some discretionary power in administering relief; but in Ireland the commissioners could give no other relief than relief in the workhouse. On a former occasion he had made various statements with regard to the distress of the poor, and he apprehended Government would not deny that great distress existed in Ireland. Since that time he had found a confirmation of the distress in a document signed by the Rev. Mr. Hughes, of Clare-Morris, describing the distress that existed in his district. It appeared from this document, that in that district there were nearly 500 families in a state of destitution, subsisting chiefly on the charity of their neighbours. In other parts the poor were described as subsisting on green weeds and inferior flour, the consequence of which was that dysentery prevailed among them to a lamentable extent. He had been informed that neither the distress of 1831, nor that of 1835, was at all to be compared with that which at present existed. The distress in Belfast was described to him as very great, and likely to increase. In Belfast the distress was confined chiefly to the working classes and manufactures, but in other parts in Ireland great distress also existed among the agricultural population. It was said that the Corn-law bad been beneficial to Ireland; but how could this be the case, when they saw that such distress prevailed in the agricultural parishes? In his opinion the Corn-law had been productive of great evil in Ireland; it had taught landlords to depend on high prices; while, if there had been no Corn-law, they would not have bad those high prices to depend on, but would have taken some other means to raise the value of their land. The effect of the Corn-laws in Ireland was to produce the greatest possible stagnation in its manufactures; and his firmest conviction was, that nothing could tend so much to the promotion of those as the abolition of those laws. He attributed much of the evil existing in Ireland to the maladministration of the Poor-laws; but that evil was greatly aggravated by the bad management of the landlords. The bad arrangement of the law between landlord
608
and tenant had a most injurious effect, and still more had the dealings of the landlords as individuals. One of the effects of the establishment of the Poor-laws in Ireland had been to check the benevolence of voluntary associations. The commissioners of the Poor-laws seemed to set their faces against the voluntary system. There was another evil connected with those laws—the transmission of Irish paupers from England to Ireland. Men who had been ten or twenty years in England, when removed to Ireland, had no place of settlement. They were removed there and then left to starve, or else they were sent back again to England, and after that sent to and fro, without any fixed locality. The powers of the commissioners ought to be such as to place these persons in a better situation. He wished to impress upon the House the consideration what was to be done with these poor persons, placed as they were under the dreadful circumstances he had stated. The Irish Poor-law was an experiment, and it had been sufficiently proved not to have succeeded. His wish was to prevail on the Government to re-consider that law. He was willing to bear any additional tax which might be required to effect the object he sought to obtain, and he hoped there would be no objection to the motion he had to propose. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, a resolution,—
"That the distressed state of Ireland requires the immediate attention of the House and of her Majesty's Government, with a view to devise and adopt such measures as may be advisable under the present circumstances of the extreme destitution of the working classes in that country."
Mr. Fieldenseconded the motion.
Lord Eliotgave the fullest credit to the hon. Member for Rochdale for the object which he was desirous to attain by the amendment he had proposed, and it would be a mark of disrespect if he did not offer a few observations in reply. At the same time he trusted the hon. Member would believe that the Irish Government were equally anxious with himself to attend to that which the hon. Member had made the subject of his observations. It would, undoubtedly, be a very easy and cheap mode of meeting the difficulties the hon. Gentleman had pointed out by applying the public resources in aid of the distresses of the country; but while the

609
Government were bound to aid all public works, they were at the same time equally bound not to go too far. It was incumbent on them not to check charity and private benevolence. The Irish Government had endeavoured to do what the exigency of the case required. Allusion had been made by the hon. Member to the Corn-laws. It was far from his intention to go into any details upon that subject, but since he had resided in Ireland, he had made inquiries of persons of authority, who well knew the situation of Ireland, and the reports he had received were not such as to inspire anything like despondency. On the contrary, he believed there was a general improvement in the condition of the people. He did not think that the distress which existed was anything more than that partial distress which had almost every year prevailed. So long as the population depended almost entirely upon potatoes for existence, he was afraid that periods of distress could not be avoided. He believed that in a few years the people of Ireland would not depend upon potatoes for subsistence. Meal was now becoming a part of their food. He had received a letter from Mr. Griffiths, who had been for ten years employed as a valuator in Ireland, and he said, in answer to questions which had been put to him, that he considered the people were gradually and steadily progressing in civilization and comforts, and that in the south and southwestern districts of Ireland the system of drainage of the lands, and the improved method of tillage, held out a prospect of considerable benefit for the future. The communications of the surveyor of Ireland authenticated this anticipated result. These accounts were supported by men of respectability, and of all political opinions. He was, therefore, not speaking without authority when he stated that the condition of the people in Ireland was gradually improving. With regard to the Poor-law, the hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the people of Ireland had been deprived of the advantages of voluntary benevolence by this law. He would merely observe, that no rights and privileges of the people had been at all curtailed. It would be rash to say that relief should be given to every poor man in Ireland, but the regulation was, that assistance and relief should be given to the aged, the infirm, and the impotent. That had been
610
practically the case. He hoped that the power of giving out-door relief in Ireland would never be conceded by Parliament; such a change would be attended with the most dangerous consequences; in that case, many of the evils which had prevailed, and were still prevalent in England, would be introduced into Ireland. In conclusion, he begged to add his testimony to that of the hon. Member, who had only paid a just tribute to the patience and forbearance of the people of Ireland under their privations.
Major Bryanwas understood to say, that in the district with which he was particularly connected (Kilkenny) he never knew the distress to be more extensive than at present.
Lord Eliotdid not deny, that the distress was severe in some particular localities, but he believed it had arisen from the failure of the potato crop.
Mr. F. Frenchsaid, the Poor-law had been forced on Ireland by an English majority, arid he was glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given notice of his intention to bring the subject fully before the House in the course of the next Session of Parliament. He thought it strange that the administration of the Poor-law in Ireland should be continued in the hands of a person who estimated the expense of its working at 300,000 l., while the cost in reality had been 1,300,000 l.
Mr. O'Connelldid not think any good object could be attained by continuing the present discussion. He felt greatly obliged to his hon. Friend for the patriotism and humanity which he had evinced on the present occasion, and he would ask, what could possibly result from the success of his motion? At this late period of the Session, the House could do little but express its sympathy and sorrow for the situation of Ireland. He considered the Poor-law inapplicable to the situation of that country; but if they were to have a Poor-law, he should certainly prefer out-door relief to its being confined merely to a state of imprisonment in the House. The noble Lord had afforded him some consolation by his prophecy of future amelioration, and of the improvements gradually taking place in Ireland. This, however, was neither the first nor the tenth time when such prophecies had been made. The committee of 1830 held out a most splendid prospect of the improve-

611
ments in agriculture—they gave a complete view of a land of promise, of a terrestrial paradise, and yet two years afterwards, when the people of Ireland were enumerated and classified, it appeared there were not less than 2,300,000 paupers returned. He contended that the evils of Ireland were to be traced to bad Government. It had been said that the result would have been different if the 43rd of Elizabeth had been extended to Ireland. But how was that Queen employed? According to Spenser she was employed in destroying, year after year, the harvests of Ireland—her troops went from county to county, as the harvest was coming on, for the purpose of totally annihilating it, until by the force of sheer famine the subjugation of Ireland was complete. To imagine a poor law applied to Ireland in the reign of Elizabeth, would be a stretch of imagination far beyond that of a poet. The noble Lord seemed to imagine that the present distress was not so great as that which formerly existed. He begged to assure the noble Lord that he was completely mistaken on that point. The hon and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny county, as a resident landlord, was perfectly acquainted with the state of the Irish poor. Few landlords could have greater claims on their gratitude, and he said that he had never known the distress so terrific as at present. At some periods there had certainly been less provisions; but the distress now arose from the total want of employment, and the consequent want of wages. He was bound to bear testimony to the conduct of the present Irish Government on this occasion. They had evinced the greatest promptness and readiness to relieve the distress which existed; and he mentioned this without the slightest hesitation or reluctance. Some of the features of the present Poor-law were of terrific import. There was scarcely an able-bodied man in any of the poorhouses in Ireland. There was not one in the house in Cork or Dublin. But what was taking place? Formerly young men remained at home rather than emigrate to places where they could obtain greater wages, in order that they might support their mother or unmarried sisters. Now, however, a man's family could not go into the workhouse unless he accompanied them. The consequence was, that many men absconded, leaving misery accumulating in the poor-houses without the possi-
612
bility of redress. There was something essentially wrong in the state of that country, which the Poor-laws would not remedy; and he ventured to say that, when the rate came to be levied, it would be met by a more determined and strenuous resistance than any regulation that had ever been enforced in that country. He thought his hon. Friend had attained his object in calling the attention of the House to this subject, and he respectfully advised him to withdraw his motion.
Mr. S. Crawfordwould not divide the House.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
On the question being again put,
Mr. Humesaid, that since the House had last met there had been a meeting of some thousands of his constituents, who had asked him to do what he could to obtain relief for their distresses. He had endeavoured to prevail on the Government to apply a proper remedy, and had failed. He had not been able to obtain that which would afford relief, viz., a free-trade in corn. He hoped that in the recess Government would endeavour to guard against the evils which were likely to arise In Scotland, in some parishes there were rates for the relief of the poor, and in others there were none. That part of the country deserved immediate attention. The letters which he had received expressed a degree of alarm and general gloom at the prospect that a large body of that hitherto industrious population would be utterly unemployed.

SUPPLY-MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee of Supply.
On the question that 12,434 l. be granted for the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland,
Mr. Humeobjected, and referred to his proposal, seventeen years ago, to abolish the office of Lord-lieutenant. As it was understood that the present Lord-lieu- tenant was about to be withdrawn, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would appoint no successor.
Sir R. Peel: As reference has been made to the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, I may be allowed to say that, so far from there existing any intention to withdraw my noble Friend, his conduct has met with the most decided approbation of Government. He is about to leave Ireland, it is true, but only for a short time, and for the recovery of his health, which has suffered from too close application to the

613
duties of his office— duties which are so numerous, and which he has so zealously discharged. His leave of absence will be short, for the recovery of that health which is so valuable to the public service.
Mr. Humewished the noble Lord to he relieved altogether from such onerous and unhealthy duties in future.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that 35,630 l. be granted for Non-conformist, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.
Mr. Humeobjected to it on two grounds —first, that to pay Dissenting Ministers in this way was contrary to the voluntary principle adhered to generally by that body; and secondly, that if the money were granted, it ought to be equally distributed in England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Dr. Bowringalso urged, that to receive this money was contrary to the principles of Dissenters; it could only be taken by them upon undissenting principles.
Sir R. Peelcongratulated the hon. and learned Member upon having introduced into our language a new word from his abundant stores of philology; he referred to the word " undissenting," which he had never heard before, and never wished to hear again.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, this was an old grant, and in justice to the loyal and respectable body it could not he taken away without much injury.
Vote agreed to.
Sir G. Clerkwould next propose to take the notes in class No. 6 of the Miscellaneous Estimates, which included the vote for the Caledonian canal. A million had already been expended, and there was now a fair prospect that if the works were put into a perfect state the canal would be generally used, and the saving in insurance alone on vessels going north about, would amply remunerate any further expenditure that might still be required. The works might be completed in three years far 150,000 l., and he should therefore propose to take 50,000 l. a year. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving a vote of 50,000 l. towards the completion of the Caledonian Canal.
Mr. Williamsdescribed these works as a scandalous job. The canal had been open thirty years, was now in a very dilapidated condition, and could not be finished under 300,000 l. If there were any chance of the canal being ever of any
614
value, it might be some consolation, but he felt convinced it would never be worth anything.
Sir R. Peelconcurred in much of what had been said by the hon. Member. He had formerly been opposed to the expenditure of the public money upon the undertaking, which lie did not hesitate to say was a most absurd speculation. Had it not been for the application of steam navigation the canal would have been worth absolutely nothing. But the question was, whether it was not better to expend 150,000 l., with the hope of a profitable return, than 40,000 l. for the purpose of destroying the works. He was reluctant to take the latter course. This notch he would say, that if parties could not he found to contact for the whole works for the sum famed, no part of the money should be laid out, and then it could be left to the House to determine whether they would destroy the works or not. Having, however, already spent 1,035,000 l. on the work, his advice was to permit the Government to ascertain whether it was a bonâ fide estimate to complete the work.
Mr. Humewas satisfied that no one would be found to undertake the work on the proffered conditions. In 1822 he had recommended that the work be abandoned, and he thought the first expense was the best. The evidence of Captain Parry was conclusive that the work was hopeless.
Mr. F. Frenchsaid, the work was strictly national as regarded Scotland, and the expense ought not to fall upon the United Kingdom, and he contended that no such advantages had been extended to Ireland.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if an unwise and extravagant course had been taken in one part of the empire, that was no reason why the precedent should be followed in another.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY. — SYRIA.
On the motion that a sum of 60,000 l. be granted to her Majesty, for a gratuity to the officers, marines, and seamen employed in the late war on the coast of Syria,
Mr. Humewished to be informed of the reasons for this grant. He did not understand the principle of giving soldiers and sailors gratuities of this sort. We kept an army and a navy; and paid constantly for them; then why should they be paid

615
extra when wanted? The Syrian expedition, he thought, had been a very improper one, and at all events there was no necessity for this extraordinary grant, similar to that which had been, in his opinion, so improperly awarded in the case of the " untoward" Navarino affair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought his explanation would be deemed satisfactory. Every one would agree with him that it would be most improper, in discussing a question of this sort, to enter at all into the merits of the policy in furtherance of which, in obedience to orders which they disputed not, our gallant sailors had been engaged. The gallantry of our troops or of our sailors ought fairly to be considered with reference to what had been the prevailing custom of warfare. That custom had been, it was well known, to give a portion, at least, of all captures to the captors. Now, our soldiers and sailors had stormed and carried Acre with a skill and bravery which had been the admiration of Europe, and in the fortress had been found a great quantity of stores, &c. According to the old practice these stores would have been sold and the produce distributed among the captors. As, however, the goods were delivered along with the fortress to the power whose property they properly were, it was thought fair to give to our brave seamen and soldiers some compensation for the loss of what would, under ordinary circumstances, have become their lawful booty. There had been many parallel cases. In fact, the practice had been uniformly such as he had represented, and except in the case of Navarino, where a question of disobedience to orders arose, it had not been disputed. On the ground of precedent alone the grant was quite justifiable, but when it was considered that our forces had, in a few hours, taken a fortress which had baffled the most renowned and consummate generals of Europe, surely no one could grudge these gratuities. These were the circumstances under which he recommended the vote to the House, and he did trust, that when they considered the gallantry and good conduct of our troops, they would be of opinion that this gratuity was well deserved.
Lord C. Hamiltonwas of opinion, that the placing those officers and seamen on full pay during a time of peace was of itself a sufficient remuneration for all their services. He must say, he thought it
616
rather curious that the good conduct and courage of the troops should be urged as a claim for extra pay. If it were to constitute such claim there were soldiers and sailors in other parts of the world equally deserving, or if they looked at home they would find plenty of operatives whose good conduct in an alarming period of distress merited every return at the hands of the Government. For his own part, he thought that if a gratuity was to be awarded at all, those soldiers and sailors had the better claim to it who had not had the opportunity of distinguishing themselves, and gaining the renown and honour attained by their comrades in Syria. The officers and sailors whose services they were now discussing had obtained the advantage of achieving for themselves high honour and distinction. Those of rank among them bore on their breasts glittering marks of the favour of the Sovereigns of Europe. Those in less elevated positions had achieved a credit which might be their proudest boast. It was those who were absent from the scene of such exploits who were to be pitied, and for whom, in his opinion, they ought rather to grant a gratuity.
Captain Pechellthought that the noble Lord should follow up his proposition, and instead of consenting to reward our foreign ambassadors and attaches, should propose to reward those noblemen and gentlemen who were disappointed of obtaining such honourable offices. The noble Lord seemed to desire that our forces should only be rewarded for the cannon and stores they absolutely captured. Let hon. Members recollect, however, that the Government always had a good haul at the prize-money before the soldiers and sailors could share it, and that it too frequently turned out a miserable pittance after all. As for being satisfied with their stars and orders, however much they might be esteemed, something more substantial was required; and with respect to the argument that full pay in peace was a sufficient reward for service, the noble Lord should recollect how many expenses a captain was put to when he took the command of a ship of war. Why, he was obliged to entertain ambassadors and to feast bishops, just as if he was a prince himself. [Laughter.] They might laugh, but there was a vote on the paper now of 931. for the expense of carrying the Bishop of Exeter to the Scilly Isles. Who, he should like to know, en-

617
tertained the right rev. Prelate on his passage? After all, the vote was hardly worth the conversation it occasioned. When the money came to be divided it would be a very poor pittance, arid certainly a very inadequate reward to our brave marines for all the perils and dangers they had undergone.
Sir Charles Napiersaid, that the argument of the noble Lord was one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard in or out of the House. He wanted to reward those who were not present in Syria for no other reason than because they were absent. He would not propose a grant of the description now under discussion, but he was not prepared to vote against it. The noble Lord talked of promotions and honours and rewards being showered down upon the officers and men who were in Syria. True, they had been showered down, and in a very extraordinary manner, by both the late and present Governments. But he should like to ask the noble Lord what the men who did the service would receive? Why the money would not pay for the clothes which those men who were obliged to act both as soldiers and sailors had worn out in the service. Their prize-money would not buy them a pair of shoes, or a jacket and trousers. Would the committee grudge the little they were to have, then? He did not think that the British Government ought ultimately to pay these charges; they ought to go to the Turkish government, and get this sum of 60,0001. from them, and that government ought to think themselves lucky if it got off so cheap. The exertions of the allies had restored to the Turks a kingdom; and he was sorry for it, for he did not think that they deserved it. Also, a large fleet, of the salvage of which the sum of 60,000 l. was a part. He thought the Government ought to propose three times this sum, and insist upon the Sultan paying the money for that fleet and all the stores which he got chiefly through the bravery of the British. The noble Lord had said it was not a war;—it was very much like one, as the Duke of Wellington had said. It was one of those "little wars" which the late Government had carried on, and he did not think that 60,000 l. was too great a reward for the men who had fought in it.
Mr. Humewished to know how many persons were to share in this gratuity
618
He found that there were 15,074 men and 50 ships in the Mediterranean at one particular time, at the beginning of the war. Were they all to share? He should like to know upon what plan the Government intended to proceed in the distribution of this money. He belie red it would turn out that the seamen would receive about 4s. 6d. each. To call it a reward, then, was a mockery.
Sir G. Cockburnwas somewhat surprised at the turn the debate had taken, and particularly at what had fallen from the noble Lord, with whom, however, he agreed so far as to believe that the officers and men serving in Syria, if they had known they were to receive no prize- money or gratuity whatever, would have done their duty, and been as bold and brave as they were on that occasion. It was certainly most proper for a nation like this to reward its officers and men when they had done their duty; it always had a good effect in awakening their zeal and stimulating their activity. But he had risen to explain to the hon. Member for Montrose that this grant was to be given to those officers and men only who were engaged in the war in Syria, for war it was. The gallant Commodore was mistaken if he thought that all the ships at Alexandria were to share in it. He was ready to admit that it was a very small sum; but at the same time It would be gratifying to those seamen who, as the gallant Commodore had said, acted both as soldiers and sailors. With regard to officers being satisfied when placed on full pay, and their anxiety to be employed, he would only remark that in almost every instance when a captain of the navy was appointed to a ship in time of peace, be was a loser and not a gainer by it. Some difficulty was experienced in manning those ships, the crews of which had behaved so gallantly, because they could have remained in the merchant service, but their cheerfulness and zeal in coining forward to serve their country were, he would not say unparalleled, but certainly pre-eminent amongst similar instances of British valour. The manner in which they ran down the enemy's coast, and took every fortified place one after the other, and then ended by that great operation, the taking of Acre, reflected the highest honour upon those who were engaged in that war, and upon the country generally; and therefore he must say that it would

619
be unworthy of the House of Commons if they did not unanimously agree to this vote.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.
Adjourned at half-past one o'clock.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1a Manchester, Birmingham, and Bolton Police.
2a.Exchequer Bills Preparation; Licensed Lunatic Asylums; Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; Customs' Acts Amendment; South Australia.
Committed.—Mines and Collieries; Linen Manufactures (Ireland); Prisons.
3aand passed:—London Bridge Approaches Fund;

569
New South Wales; Military Savings Banks; Chelsea Hospital; District Courts and Prisons.
Private.—Reported.—Southwark Improvement (No. 2);Duke of Buckingham's Estate; Hele's Charity.
3a. and passed:—Sewell's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Earl of Ripon, from Marylebone; by the Earls of Wicklow and Clarendon. and the Marquess of Clanricarde, from Miners and Colliers of Thornley, Kirkburton, Thornhill, Lepton, and Whitley, Breistfield and Emley, and Middleton and Thornhill Edge, in favour of the Mines and Collieries Bill.—By the Earl of Clancarty, from Ballinasloe, against any further grant to Maynooth.—From John Turner, not to appropriate Grants for Musical Education to any System.—From St. Mary's, Truro, and from Houghtonle-Spring, against parts of the Poor-law Amendment Bill.

PUBLIC EDUCATION.
The Bishop of Londonpresented a petition from a gentleman of independent fortune, named Turner, who stated, that he had anticipated the system of vocal instruction, adopted by Mr. Hullah, and humbly prayed, not for any sum by way of compensation, but that in any future grant, which might be made for the encouragement of vocal education, regard should be had to the efficiency of the plan, rather than to the claims of any individual. He did not mean to pronounce an opinion one way or the other: but he should take this opportunity of asking two questions of the noble President of the Council, whose speech on the subject of education had, as might be expected, occasioned a considerable sensation throughout the country. There were one or two points in that speech which he was desirous that the noble Baron should have an opportunity of giving his opinions upon more precisely and closely than he appeared to have done on a former occasion. One related to his allusion to the grants made for the promotion of education in the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society. The noble Baron stated, in rather strong terms, that he should feel it his bounden duty not to make any distinction between the Members of the Church and the Dissenters on the subject of education. He did not understand the noble Lord to say, as an abstract proposition, that he saw no difference between the two, so far as education was concerned. Undoubtedly, if he understood the noble Lord in that sense, as a minister of that Church, he should have felt bound early to protest against such a conclusion, because the Church of the country was entitled to claim the instruction of the people, though it did not assert the right to teach the children of those who differed from it. It might be a question, what provision should be made for the education of those children who
570
did not belong to the Church? The whole subject of education had been discussed with considerable warmth some years ago in that House, and a mode of regulating the national schools, and those of Dissenters, was then agreed to, to which he understood the noble President of the Council, the other evening, to declare his intention of adhering. That was the sense in which he took it—the phrase " equal terms," were used, and to that he could have no objection, for he acquiesced in the original plan. He wished to know, then, whether he rightly interpreted the noble Lord's statement? The second question he wished to put, related to the instruction given at Exeter-hall. He was a subscriber to the system of vocal instruction adopted there, and he should persevere in promoting its success. But he understood, that lectures were given there also in the mechanical parts of education, and in linear drawing. Now, he confessed that the addition of other branches of education excited in him, and in others, some apprehensions, not as to which might now occur, but as to the results to which it might possibly lead, because one species of instruction might be added to the other, and a normal school being once established, without any religious instruction being provided by the Government, to retrace our steps would be impossible, and the question of religious instruction might be practically decided against it. On the information he had received, he doubted, too, whether the instruction given was really beneficial, so far as the object of the national education scheme was concerned. He was informed, that very few teachers attended the lectures he had alluded to who belonged either to the National Society, or to the British and Foreign Society. The attendants at the lectures were teachers of Sunday schools and mechanics—classes, no doubt, for whom it was very important that such instruction should be given, but who were not the parties contemplated in the original scheme for teaching masters. The question he wished to ask on this point was, whether the committee of the Privy Council, which represented the Government, had any intention of acknowledging the formation of a normal school without any religious instruction?
Lord Wharncliffe:The right rev. Prelate had interpreted most correctly the meaning of the expressions which he had used on a former night. All he meant to

571
say Was that he should be unfit for the office Which he occupied, if he were to favour a far different distribution of the pint for education from that acted on by his predecessor. Now, as to the classes at Exeter-hall, he must confess, that their formation seemed to be viewed with a degree of jealousy, for Which he could not account. He could not help thinking, that the object of those classes was much misunderstood. Their Lordships knew, that by recent discoveries, reading, writing, and drawing could be taught in a simpler method, end in a Much shorter time than they could be acquired hitherto. It appeared $0 those having Control over this institution, that Easters should be instructed in these improved Methods of teaching. Classes for reading, writing, arid linear drawing were firmed on the synthetical method, as it was called. They were at Mat frequented by Mine but schoolmasters, bet in a very short time it was found that mechanics Shopmen, and even those in a higher situation in life, were anxious to Obtain the Information which was afforded. When such men could not read or write, or were bad accountants; it Was not wonderful that they should adept a method of learning which afforded them such advantages, at a much cheaper ran, and in a Shorter time thin they could formerly have procured theta. But how such a practice could militate against religious education, of how it was to be inferred from its adoption that a normal school was about to be established for teaching the people every thing without religion, he could not divine.
Conversation at an end.

MINES AND COLLIERIES.
The Earl of Devonmoved, that the Mines and Collieries Bill be re-committed.
Lord Broughampresented himself thus early to their Lordships' attention, to state his opinions on this bill, rather with a view to further measures of a like kind which he understood Were contemplated, having been prevented from taking part in the earlier discussions by accidental circumstances. some persons argued that this bill went too far; others that it did not go far enough, (he meant as it was altered by their Lordships); while a third party contended that it exactly hit the Oft line Which should be taken in horning Such a measure. He was quite willing to bear testimony to the pure spirit
572
of philanthrophy which characterised the noble Lord who introduced this bill into the other House of Parliament; and whom to praise would be superfluous, for none have presumed to utter a whisper against him. it Was probable that that noble Lord might be right in supposing that if the whole matter had been referred to a committee, a smaller Change would have been made in the bill than had actually been effected; but it was also possible that the results might have been of an opposite kind. It was impossible for him, occupied as he had been daily With judicial business here and elsewhere uninterruptedly since the time when the report of the Commissioners was published, to be conversant with the 2,000 pages of that report, and he believed that their Lordships hi general had not had sufficient time Well to consider the great mass of evidence which was collected; but he also believed that there Were in that evidence some Aida, the truth of which could not be denied? facts which would warrant them in passing a part at least of the bill without further inquiry. But would their Lordships suffer him to comment for a little while upon the course of legislation into which they were about to enter There was nothing more easy, and there was nothing more natural, than when any evil practices were revealed to exclaim at once " This must not be," and to demand a law to punish them, a proclamation to denounce them, or it might be a standing order to put them down. But as there was nothing more difficult than legislation, so there was nothing which demanded greater degree of circumspection and caution; in proportion as the future is veiled from Our eyes, so ought we to point them the more earnestly in all other directions, fixing them upon the present and the past; and if it was so in all cases, if it was necessary to exercise this caution and this circumspection at all times, it was emphatically and most necessary to exercise these faculties when called upon to legislate upon a no less important, delicate, and difficult subject than that of the employment of the labouring classes of this country. As a general principle, he thought nothing should be done by means of legislation to draw out of their usual Channels, out of those Channels into which they would naturally flow, capital and labour, forcing and reducing them into other channels which they do not naturally seek. He did not say that

573
there were no exceptions to this rule. If any kind of employment amounted to an offence, to a crime, then it became the duty of the Legislature to interfere. Upon grounds like these, Parliament had interfered with what was called a trade, but which was in reality a crime, the slave-traffic. In like manner, after still further inquiry, after still longer and wholly inexcusable delay, it was admitted at length that no man possessed a right to hold property in the persons of his fellowmen, and the holding of such property was prohibited, but with an ample compensation to those whom the change in the law affected. But if any species of employment which was not actually criminal, was yet immoral in its nature, or even if it had a manifest tendency to produce immorality, it was also the duty of the lawgiver to interfere and to prohibit its existence. Every thing, however, in the latter case depended upon degree, upon whether that tendency was certain, direct, and immediate, or not; a remote, and uncertain tendency was not enough to justify interposition; but upon these grounds, and within the scope of these principles, he was disposed to maintain that one part of this bill, that relating to the employment of female children, should be an exception to the general rule which he had laid down with reference to the inexpediency of drawing and still more of forcibly repelling capital and labour from their natural channels. But they should take care not to be led away by feelings of humanity however natural in themselves, and however honourable, in considering this measure. If the operation of a species of labour should be found prejudicial, manifestly and certainly prejudicial to certain classes of the community, possibly an exception might also be made in that case to the general rule which he had referred to. But it became them to consider in what way such a trade or employment was pernicious. If it was merely disadvantageous to the interests of the persons concerned in it, in a temporal point of view, if we thought that the persons employed in such a trade might earn more, or might be better off, by engaging in another, in that point of view legislation had no right whatever to interfere between them and their occupation. Their interest was their own affair. With reference to the effect of trades on health, it was, he much feared, the lot by which men lived that they should earn their bread not only in
574
the sweat of their brow, but by the wear and tear of their constitutions. It was as lamentable as true that many employments there were, not healthy any more than easy, and he was almost afraid to think of the vast number of instances in which the labouring classes were and must be employed in trades which tended directly to injure the constitution, to engender disease, to inflict suffering, and to shorten life. The subject was a painful one, but he was forced upon its consideration, not so much by the particular measure before the House, as by measures of a similar tendency, which he was confident would spring from it, which he was sure were lurking in its shade, and it became their Lordships to meet the subject betimes. How many unwholesome trades were men engaged in, trades for examples the effects of which paralysed the limbs, such occupations as those of the painter, in which white lead was used, or that of the brazier, which occasioned partial disease of a paralytic kind, or those trades in which steel filings were diffused through the atmosphere, giving rise to asthmatic complaints. Again, let any man go amongst the peasantry, and examine the difference between the husbandman who had passed his life in hard labour up to the time of, perhaps, forty-five years of age, and the man of sixty-five or even seventy, who had passed his life in the ordinary pursuits in which men of their Lordships station in society were generally engaged. Let any man compare the two classes; in one case he would put the peasant of forty-five or fifty down for seventy years of age, and in the other case he would be likely to fix the age of the gentleman of seventy at from forty-five to fifty years. It would be said that workmen pursued these exhausting and injurious occupations with their eyes open; that they had the management of their own time; that they, knowing their callings to be unhealthy, yet voluntarily chose to enter upon them; and that, therefore, the Legislature ought not to interfere with them. But the case of children, it might be admitted, was different. They required protection. They could not judge for themselves. They were put, by the indifference of their parents, or by worse feelings, by their sordid propensities, into those occupations in which their health was injured, their education, their moral and intellectual training utterly neglected. But this consideration would not bear out

575
the argument involved in measures like the bill before the House; for if it be granted that persons must be found willing to enter into occupations unhealthy in their nature, such as those which he had mentioned (and he might cite worse cases than he had named, as those of men who worked in glass-houses, and attended furnaces), if it was admitted that the Legislature could not or should not interfere with such occupations, then he averred that a certain inference followed, and which could not be escaped, and this was, that to a certain degree comparatively young persons must be allowed to enter into those employments. There were many such occupations the duties of which could not be learned unless young persons began at twelve or thirteen years of age to be initiated into them. Therefore these unwholesome trades, if they were to be exercised at all, must not only be exercised by men, but by youths under the age of twenty-one, nay, under the age of seventeen or eighteen. This argument might be held to apply to boys of ten years of age and upwards, but he believed that it ought not and did not apply to children of more tender years. But when, under the guidance of natural and humane feelings, they were entering upon this field of legislation, it was very fit that they should look about them to see how wide that field was, and to reflect, before they set out, how far they proposed to advance into it. He would, in entering upon this consideration, first of all, remind their Lordships that they were making laws to bind the labouring classes of the community, and not intended to affect the rich. They were rearing up a power to attack not the strong but the weak, not to control the great, but to crush the feeble, and let them take very good care that they did not subject themselves to the well-grounded imputation which had been made against almost all legislators, in every age and in every country, that they were very apt to forge fetters for the humble, but only to cast a gossamer over the powerful. Such had been the saying of the wise man to whom his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne) lately referred; it was in substance the saying by which Solon was known among the ancient sages. Now they were dealing with the weak, and it became his duty to remind their Lordships of some circumstances which seemed to have escaped their attention. Nothing could be more miserable, nothing more to be
576
deplored, than the destitution, in all means of instruction, which prevailed in mines; nothing could be more lamentable than the conduct of parents to children in those mines, and nothing was more to be desired than well-directed efforts to put au end to the scenes sometimes witnessed in them. But the colliers were not the only parents whose conduct towards their children was extremely to be lamented, and much to be blamed. It was bad, it was lamentable, to see children carried at a tender age to the mine, and there made to crawl through damp caverns, and crawling to work for a greater number of hours than their strength permitted, and then to be sent home in a state of mental and bodily exhaustion, perhaps to a scanty meal, and certainly fit only for sleep; but this, bad as it Might be, was not much worse than the cautious provision which was made by some parents in order to stunt the growth of their children, to prevent them from attaining a certain stature with the due proportion of their strength, lest they should also attain a certain weight. This was done in order that they might, when arrived at manhood, only attain a certain small size, and, consequently, a certain light weight, and then these unhappy wretches, old before their time, these stunted creatures, after performing the services of those who hired them, and caused them to be so tortured and trained, died without ever reaching anything like old age, and during their lives never had anything like a healthy constitution. He spoke of these matters of course not from practical experience, but he stated what from the reports of such of their Lordships as were practically conversant with the subject, he believed to be true. Again, was there anything more certain than that the most wholesome nutriment a child could receive was that with which bounteous nature had furnished its mother—was there anything more certain than that by withdrawing this natural food, you entailed the absolute necessity of bringing the child up in a less wholesome manner?—was there anything more certain than that children, for want of their mother's nursing must often perish before their time?—was there anything more certain than that this was an unnatural and a mischievous departure from the duty of a mother to suckle her own child? But did he blame those poor women who handed over their infants

577
to the care of a foster-mother, in order to get advantageous places for themselves? Did he blame this? No, he lamented without blaming it, but he could not close his eyes to the fearful extent of the evils produced on the bodies and minds of children, and he would add, on the minds and feelings of the mothers too, by that system which was now freely practised by parents among the working classes, when opportunity offered, of not suckling their own children, in order to be employed in suckling the children of those in easy circumstances, and especially in that rank of life to which their Lordships and the Members of the other House of Parliament belonged. Sure was he that if commissioners were empowered to inquire into the nursing of children and their removal from their mothers, they could produce with half the skill and diligence employed by the mining commission, a report, which would trace most frightfully a picture of the consequence of the practice. If such report were presented, and if, in consequence of what it was quite sure to recommend, any one were to bring in a bill for prohibiting such practices, and were to get that bill hurried through the other House, he was confident that nine-tenths of the measure would be rejected in their Lordships' House. It might be feared, that in such an event, it would cross the minds of many how ready the two Houses were to interfere with the working classes, but how apt they were, when practices were denounced in which they themselves were sharers, to turn a deaf ear to the denunciation. Would it not be said they were great dealers in cheap virtue?—a commodity which, unlike all other commodities, was more in demand the less difficult it was to procure; and although in great vogue and much request, was of little cost, and less value. But their Lordships, he trusted, would never deal in that worthless commodity more largely than was absolutely necessary, or be forward to display that species of vicarious courage which dared to encounter risks in the persons of others, and bore with patient resignation sufferings that could never be known or felt. When a case attended with circumstances such as are now described was brought before them, he thought that they should weigh well all the considerations to which he had adverted, and the effects which they were likely to have on the character of
578
the Legislature, among not rash and unthinking, but intelligent and reflecting persons. He did not say that it was wrong to prevent the employment of young children: and where there was a case of outrage to morals, or even to delicacy and to feelings, the matter was, of course, clear; he repeated that it was not improper to interfere for the protection of young children, as they had already done in the cases of chimney-sweepers and factory children; they were right in such cases to interpose, but, in doing so, let them be very cautious of interfering between the parent and the child. Nature had implanted deeply, the strongest feelings in that connection, and if they attempted to make acts of Parliament more tender towards children than the cherishing affection of mothers, let them rely upon it that not only they would fail, but they would not fail with impunity; they would not merely fail to provide a better substitute, but they would destroy the natural agent; the provision of any poor substitute for the tenderness of a mother, could not but lead to the deadening of that primary natural sentiment, so deeply seated and so strongly felt. He hoped that the cautions which he had thrown out, would not be forgotten in legislating upon the subject. To the bill as amended in this House he offered no objection; but he entreated their Lordships to bear in mind 'the cautions he had ventured to suggest, when they were again called upon to deal with such subjects.
The Marquess of Londonderry, was understood to speak nearly as follows. He must, at the beginning, express the great pleasure with which he had listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. That noble and learned Lord had argued the question in a straightforward manner with his usual ability; and had made several observations well worthy of their Lordship's attention. He regretted, however, that he should again have to present himself to the attention of their Lordships on this subject, but he had a duty imposed upon him, from which he felt it impossible to shrink. He must first offer a few observations on the general alterations which I had been made in the bill. In the bill as I originally introduced into the House of I Commons, it was provided,
" That after six calendar months from the passing of this bill, it should not be lawful for

579
any owner of a colliery to employ any female person."
The alteration made by their Lordships was,—
" From and after the 1st day of March, 1843."
In fact, the bill was so completely changed, that the only clause which stood the same was that relative to the appointment of Government inspectors. As the bill, therefore, would not come into operation until 1843, was there not ample time for some further enquiry. With regard to the report which had been laid on the Table, and which contained 2,000 pages, he must object to the railway pace with which the evidence on which it was founded had been prepared. He must mention one curious fact in relation to this report, and that was, that copies had been sent into the country for the purpose of obtaining the favourable comments of the press before it was laid on the Table of their Lordships' House. The noble Lord, the President of the Council, who was certainly a coal-owner, but who could not he said to be the organ of the coal-owners of the North, said that those gentlemen did not object to the Government inspectors. He believed he might have the honour of considering himself the organ of the coal. owners of the North, and to prove that the noble Lord President had not been correct in his impression, he would read the following resolutions of the committee of coal-owners, dated the 23rd of July. That document was as follows:—
" Coal-Trade Office, Newcastle, July 23, 1842.
" Meeting of the committee—Robert William Brandling, esq., in the chair.
" Resolved, That the committee return their best thanks to Lord Londonderry for his kind communication of the 16th instant, and acknowledge with feelings of gratitude the unwearied exertions of his Lordship to promote the interest of the trade at large by rendering the bill for the employment of persons in mines comparatively innocuous, and though unwilling to give his Lordship any additional trouble—
"It is further resolved, That he be respectfully requested again to urge in the House of Lords the entire omission of the clause, appointing inspectors, the parents being employed with their children, and the existing power of the magistrates having been found sufficient to afford all necessary protection to both parties. But, should his Lordship be unable to exceed to that extent, that it is very desirable, that the words scored under in the
580
returned copy or the bill should be omitted for the reasons stated in the margin.
"ROBERT W. BRANDLING,
Chairman.
His noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had very truly observed, that if Parliament once began legislating for this trade, that other trades would soon be attacked also. He concurred in that opinion, and if this measure passed, he had no doubt a similar one would be soon introduced affecting the iron trade, and when this species of legislation would stop nobody would be able to tell. Its mischievous nature had been well described in the following article from one of the public prints (The Sun), to which he would call the attention of the House:—
" In the course of a pretty long experience we have seen so many laws, passed from the most benevolent motives, turn out complete failures, that we are no longer susceptible of being seduced by temporary expediency to forsake general principles. It has been established, for example, by a wide induction, since writers began to observe and classify political facts, that the interference by law with the application of individual industry is invariably mischievous. That principle is agreeable to the theory of Government, which is constituted not to direct the labour of any part of the community, except that which is employed in the public service, but to protect the rights of individuals. Add to these general facts the particular fact, that our Legislature is almost exclusively composed of opulent and leisure classes; that no mere manual labourer has any share in it; that a very small proportion indeed of the manual labourers, even concur In electing the law-makers; and there is a strong case established against the interference by such a Legislature with the industry of the people, in any shape or form. It seems to us also a necessary consequence of the Legislature undertaking to regulate any one particular class of labourers, that it becomes bound to regulate the whole. Our system of production, by which society is sustained, is one of great combination or division of labour,—the weaver, depending on the spinner, the spinner on the steam-engine, and the steam-engine on the coal-hewer; and the legislator who undertakes to regulate a part must, if he can, regulate the whole. The chances are, as he really knows nothing, and can know nothing, of a system which is obviously in progress of development with population, that he will inflict on the whole a serious injury. The assumption of regulating any one part constitutes the legislator the judge of what employments are proper and what improper, and how much or how little time individuals should be engaged in them. If there be one needless and unwholesome occupation in society, on that principle the legislator is to blame."
He must again entreat the House not to pass this measure without some further consideration. Those persons who were most competent to give opinions had not been examined, for none of the overmen or viewers had been examined. The statements in the digest were altogether exaggerated, and in proof of this he would read a letter which he had recently received, which he thought was important as to the employment in collieries generally. The letter was this:—
No. 8, Park-place, Bayswater
" Mr Loan—For the first time in my life, in word or deed, have I intruded myself on any measures passing through either Houses of Parliament; but seeing from report that your Lordship's opinions and my own correspond in a great degree upon the Colliery Bill, I am disposed, and I hope your Lordship will not in think me presumptuous doing so, to give a few remarks from experience in a practical way; and I am induced thus to step out of my way, from the extreme feeling made upon the Houses of Parliament by the reports of certain commissioners of inquiry into the cruelty and hardships of boys being worked in mines under thirteen years of age—leaving girls or women out of the question, for that is disgusting, nor did I ever see either down, even in a coal mine, in my life, in our part of the country, North Staffordshire. Having commenced, I feel, my Lord, I am going too far for such an humble individual to trespass on your Lordship's time; if so, cast it away, my Lord. I will state, my Lord, my pretensions for addressing your Lordship. I was employed in thin seams of coal from eight years of age until I was fifteen, and my forefathers before me, all of whom are gathered to their fathers. Therefore, I have no interest beyond that of humanity; and I will fearlessly state, that there is no employment more healthy, in well-ventitilated and drained mines, than that of colliery, although nearly all to a man in both Houses of Parliament scoff at the assertion; but I can prove facts, and the parish register of Cheadle in Staffordshire, shall bear me out. I will mention but three, out of some hundreds. My grandfather died eighty-four; my father's eldest brother, eighty-five; my father, eighty-three, who worked in the mines from six years of age up to their death, except my father, who it pleased Providence to enable his children to soothe his declining years, by keeping him from labour. I am induced to say this from a firm conviction that if this bill passes in its present shape, that it will entail misery upon thousands of families; and if such a law had existed when I was a child, I should have been a collier now; for, being enabled at an early period to obtain our own living, we were able to pay the schoolmaster, and make a tidy appearance. I have only seen the garbled ac count of the report of the commissioners,
582
as it appears in the papers, and I am foolish enough to think that I could dispel one half of it, to the satisfaction of any dozen Members of either Houses of Parliament, in one hour. I left the mines at fifteen, and have passed my time in this metropolis since 1807, and cease to have any interest; but early impressions are so strongly impressed upon my mind, that it has induced me to obtrude myself upon your Lordship's notice; and if I have not done so in a manner becoming your Lordship's exalted rank, I rust your Lordship will attribute it to its true source, namely, my not being accustomed to correspond beyond my own sphere of life.
" I am, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant, " WM. PLANT.
"The Most Noble the Marquess of Londonderry, &c. &c"
In the year 1843, when the bill was to come into operation, all these women would be thrown out of employment. What was to become of them? He must say, that practical benevolence was more praiseworthy than mistaken humanity. The question altogether had not received the consideration which it deserved, and he thought, that the Government ought to have expressed some decided opinion on the subject. He contended, that one direct effect of the bill, if passed into a law, would be to increase the Poor-rates to an enormous amount. It was stated, that the result of the bill would be favourable to the morality of the persons affected by it. It might be so, or it might not; and he was an advocate of morality in all its forms. But he would ask their Lordships whether such an uncertainty as contingent morality ought to be purchased at the fearful price of beggary and starvation. He would read to their Lordships an extract to that effect:—
" If, however, the bill does pass, none will, I suppose, doubt the result as to the Poors-rates, if families are now supported by their labour, and by an act of Parliament they are deprived of that labour, a substitute must be found in the shape of excise or increased rates. Can these be desirable, and yet they must, to all intents and purposes follow, as to attempt to seek the means of existence elsewhere, crowded as every spot is, would be madness, fallacious. See then the blessed effect of the change—the price to be paid for the purchase of ' moral' feeling. Morality is all very well but will it flourish in beggary and starvation?"
He concluded with a perfect conviction, that the House of Commons could not pass the bill before their Lordships in the shape in which it was put by the noble Earl who introduced it, and, therefore, he

583
should move that it be referred to a select committee.
The Earl of Devonthought a great part of the speech of his noble and learned Friend opposite was a good argument in favour of the present bill, for the exceptions introduced by his noble and learned Friend, to the general rule of non-interference, distinctly applied to the present bill. Did not their Lordships see that the state of things which consigned women of all ages to work in collieries with men, almost in a state of nudity, must have a direct and immediate tendency to promote vice and immorality? The employment of young children, inasmuch as it precluded any attention being paid to their education, also constituted an exception to the general rule of non-interference. It was the duty of the Legislature to interfere to prevent the demoralization of the rising generation. He had no wish to contravene the principles of political economy, but there were higher duties than any that political economy could teach. They had to take care that none of their institutions should be conducted so as to destroy the mind of the infant child, and it was of the utmost importance that children should be so brought up as that hereafter they might become good citizens and good men, and to neglect to take measures to secure this, was to commit not only a great moral crime, but a great political mistake. He had naturally expected that the noble Marquess would have pointed out those parts of the bill on which he thought there was any doubt, and on which, therefore, further inquiry might be necessary; but he would ask if there was any fact on which this bill was founded on which the noble Marquess had thrown the slightest doubt? He contended that he had not. There could be no doubt but that women were employed in the mines, and if they were thrown out of employment their places would be supplied with men, who were more fit for that sort of work. Unless the noble Marquess could get rid of the fact that women and children were employed in the mines he could do no good by referring this bill to a select committee. He believed that he had not, by altering the bill, committed the suicidal part that the noble Marquess had supposed. On the contrary, he thought the bill would be well received elsewhere, and that the promoters of it would be of opinion that he had exercised a sound discretion in introducing those alterations. If a small in-
584
crease in the price of coal, or a small diminution in the profits of the coal-owner, should be the result of this measure, it would be a cheap price to pay for getting rid of so much misery. The House of Commons had been accused of legislating hastily on this subject; he thought the House of Commons had only done its duty in bringing forward the measure in the manner it had done, and he trusted their Lordships would reject the amendment.
Lord Broughamhad not argued this question on the grounds of political economy at all, but on the ground of the injustice of interfering between the labourer and the manner in which he might choose to employ himself, and of interfering with the control exercised by the parent over the child. He felt they ought to be extremely temperate in their reprehension of the labouring classes respecting the employment of their children in various occupations and employments, when they recollected the manner in which those classes were induced, and almost forced to do so, both by their circumstances and by the conduct of the higher classes.
Lord Hathertonsaid, that although he had formerly submitted a very similar proposition to that of the noble Marquess, he could not now give his vote in favour of the amendment, inasmuch as the bill had undergone modifications which removed the greater part of the objections he originally entertained to it.
The Earl of Gallowayremarked that the petitions against the measure all admitted the facts on which the bill was founded.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble Earl's observation was very true, but it was no argument in favour of the passing of the bill. Women and children might be employed in collieries, and might be improperly or indecorously employed, but the condemnation of the system, or even the desire to put an end to it, was not altogether a sufficient ground for passing an act of Parliament to carry out such a desire. In fact, in all such cases it was found in the long run, that the evils of the system worked out the remedies without legislative interference. In this particular instance they had an old practice, and a practice which was on the decline; on what ground, then, were they all at once to step in and to legislate to stop the evil? It seemed to him, that the chief argument in favour of this bill was, not the hard-

585
ship of the system, but its indecency, Now, if they began to legislate for the purpose of checking what was indecent or indecorous, they might cut out for themselves more work than they would be able to perform. The sexes mingled indiscriminately in cottages above the earth as well as in coal pits under it, and really, if they began to pass acts to check immorality in the pits, they ought also to pass acts to regulate the building of cottages, so that a number of men and women should not sleep in the same room. But with regard to the question of immorality, the evidence went to show, that it was by no means so great as was by sonic alleged. Four clergymen declared, that the immorality was not so great in the mining as in the manufacturing districts; and one of the four went so far as to say, that, setting aside the drunkenness, it was not so great as in the agricultural districts. Another reason for delay was, that the commissioners had promised another report, which was to have reference to the influence of the colliery system upon the morals of those who were subjected to it, and he thought it would be more prudent for their Lordships to defer legislating on the subject until they received that report.
Their Lordships divided on the question, that the bill be re-committed:—Contents 49; Not-Contents 3;—Majority 46.
Bill recommitted.
On the first clause,
Lord Beaumontmoved the omission of that part of it which prohibited the employment of women under eighteen years of age in mines or collieries from and after three months from the passing of the act, He thought they should be placed on the same footing as the other females, and that the discontinuance of all should take place at the same period—namely, the 1st of March. His object in moving this omission was to afford a sufficient time to those women (which three months was not) to qualify themselves for some other species of employment, and at the same time to bring them over the winter, lest during that period they might be driven by want to crimes of a deeper die than those committed in the collieries.
The Marquess of Londonderrysuggested, that the period of six months be substituted for three, as he had no hopes that the longer period of nine months would be agreed to. His suggestion would meet the object of the noble Baron,
The Marquess of Clanricardeobjected to both amendments as he was desirous of seeing the employment of, women in collieries put an end to at once. The suggestion of the Marquess of Londonderry was put in the form of an amendment, and negatived without a division. On Lord Beaumont's amendment being put,
The Earl of Wicklowobjected to it, that it would partly defeat the object of the bill.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Lyttletonthen moved as an amendment the substitution of the words, " 1st of May " for " 1st of March." The noble Lord stated the object of his amendment was to allow the females more time to procure other employment, and to discharge them from the mines at the most advantageous period of the year.
The Earl of Devonthought, that the sooner the arrangements were carried into effect the better. He opposed the amendment.
Amendment negatived.
The Earl of Dunmoremoved a proviso, allowing females of twenty-one and upwards to continue working in the mines, if unmarried. He considered, that the clause as it stood would be injurious both to the females who would be thrown out of employment, and to the lessees of mines who were under fixed engagements, entered into in the belief, that the existing state of things would continue.
Lord Campbellopposed the amendment; the sooner the females were rescued from their degraded position the better; even a workhouse would be preferable to the slavery of the mines.
The Marquess of Londonderrysupported the amendment, on the ground that a gradual change was better than a sudden one.
Lord Hatherton, though generally he might have approved of the object of the amendment, could not vote for it, because it excluded widows who had children dependent on them for support.
Amendment negatived.
Lord Skelmersdaleproposed a proviso to allow any female of forty years of age or upwards, who had been accustomed to work in mines or collieries, and shall be doing so at the time of the passing of the act, upon making a declaration before a justice of the peace (not being a mine-owner), that she has attained the above age, and that she makes the declaration of her own free will, and wishes to continue

587
to be employed in the mine or colliery, 80 to continue.
The Earl of Devonobjected to the alteration, and he had less difficulty in doing so as the number of such females could not be large.
Lord Colchestersupported the amendment. The smallness of the number did not lessen the individual hardship of each case.
The Earl of Wicklowopposed the proviso, which he thought was calculated to let in more evil than it would do good. It vitiated the principle of the bill, and would undoubtedly cause it to be rejected in another place.
Committee divided, on inserting the proviso. Contents 15; Not-Contents 29:— Majority 14.
Clause agreed to.
The Earl of Mount Cashelthought, that boys of ten years of age were too young to he worked in the pits. Working them so young, had the effect of stinting their growth. He moved, that " twelve years" should be substituted.
Lord Hathertonsaid, nine years of age had been universally insisted on by the delegates from the coal-owners.
The Earl of Gallowaysaid, thirteen years of age was originally proposed, and he regretted, that this age had not been adhered to in the bill. He could never be persuaded, that children were so healthy or well-educated when worked in a coal-pit at this age, as when allowed to run about in the open air.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
The Marquess of Londonderryobjected to the particular supervision given in the 3rd clause to the inspectors to be appointed. He moved an amendment, that words be substituted to the effect that the inspectors be required to report generally whether the provisions of the act were followed in the mines which they had to inspect.
Lord Wharncliffeproposed a similar amendment in a different form; otherwise, under the bill as it stood, the inspectors would be authorized to inquire into the management of many things about which they bad no business.
The Marquess of Londonderryconcurred in Lord Wharncliffe's amendment, and withdrew his own.
Lord Skelmersdalehoped, power would he given by the bill to inspectors to compel coal-owners to lower them into and out
588
of the mines, otherwise they might go to the pits and be refused to be let down.
Amendment agreed to.
The clause, as amended, agreed to.
The other clauses agreed to.
Bill, with amendments, reported to be read a third time.
Adjourned at eleven o'clock.