Sitting of 29 January 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Factories.
Reported.—Public Works (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Eastrington, and a great number of other places, against Alteration, and from Forres, Hereford, and Clitheroe, for Repeal of the Corn Laws.—From Ashton-under-Lyne, and a great number of other places, for limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories.—From Wexford, for Repeal of Colleges (Ireland) Act.—From Reading and Maxwelltown, against Enrolment of the Militia.—From Chairman of Dundalk Union, for Alteration of Mode of Rating, Poor Law (Ireland).—From Kilbarchan, for Remission of Sentence on Frost, Williams, and Jones.—From Marylebone, against Union of that Parish with other Parishes for the Maintenance of an Asylum for the Houseless Poor.—From John Williams (2 Petitions), suggesting the importance of forming Sub-archways for the Streets of London.—From Rev. William Augustus Morgan, for a Legislative Enactment, enabling Parish Clerks to enforce Payment for the performance of their Duties.

ADJOURNMENT.—THE MILITIA.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that a notice had been given on his behalf, by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, which he believed would meet with the general concurrence of the House, and not subject any parties to inconvenience, either on account of public or private business. To-morrow being the 30th of January, he proposed that the House at its rising do adjourn until Monday next.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEwished to ask a question on a subject which had caused considerable excitement in various parts of the country—he alluded to the supposed intention which existed on the part of the Government to enrol and embody the militia. It was generally understood that the Government intended to enrol the militia under the Act now in existence. The right hon. Baronet was perhaps aware that militia clubs had been established, for the purpose of enabling persons to afford a passive resistance to the enrolment. Some
368
individuals had scruples against serving, and others thought the circumstances of the country did not require the embodiment of the militia. If the Government did not intend to enrol that body, he trusted they would at once put an end to the excitement which prevailed. He wished to ask, in the first place, whether it was the intention of the Government to embody the militia during the present year; and if so, whether the enrolment would take place under the existing law, or under a new law? If it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present year, he trusted it would be brought forward at an early period, and not be postponed until nearly all the Members had left town.
SIR J. GRAHAMreplied that his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War intended to lay upon the Table a Bill for the propose of amending and consolidating the Militia Acts. The Bill was in course of preparation, and would be laid before the House at an early period.
Mr. ROSSwas opposed to the adjournment of the House. He considered a reformed House of Commons ought not to keep such holidays as the one named, and for which the House was asked to adjourn. He thought that it was a reproach to those hon. men, Sir John Elliott, Pym, Hampden, and others, who had shed their blood in order to retain the chartered liberties of the country. They had sacrificed their lives in the defence of those liberties, and he thought that it would be foolish, with that fact before them, to keep that absurd fast. That was his opinion, and he felt bound to declare it. At least that was his impression, and he found it was published in the Papers of the House, and entered in the Notice-book, that to-morrow was to be observed as a fast in commemoration of the martyrdom of King Charles. There could be no doubt that such was the case, and if he only went out with one or two of his friends, he would divide the House on the subject.
SIR R. PEELsaid, that he had yesterday endeavoured to put the matter in such form as would not offend the most sensitive mind, and to express the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for moving the adjournment. He had expressly stated that the reason of the adjournment of the House was really because there was no public business before them for that day, and because it would conduce very much to the public convenience. He conceived

369
that this constituted a sufficient reason for the adjournment.
MR. ROSSwas satisfied with the reasons of the right hon. Baronet.
MR. BRIGHTthought the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had not given a distinct answer to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury. He understood from the answer of the right hon. Baronet that some new law was to be introduced; but the question put by his hon. Friend was, did the Government intend to call out the militia during the present year? A permanent law, perhaps, might be necessary; but the country wished to know whether the Government intended to call out the militia in the course of the year.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, from the manner in which the question had been put, the hon. Member did not appear to be aware of the existing state of the law. By the Act annually passed, power was given to Her Majesty in Council, in the event of certain contingencies, to call out the militia within a fortnight. At the present moment there was no intention of acting upon that power; but if the contingency should arise, it would be open to Her Majesty, by the advice of Her servants, to call out that body at a fortnight's notice. In answer to the other question, put by the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had already stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to submit to the House a Bill for the purpose of amending and consolidating the Militia Acts; and his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War would, at an early day, give notice of the time of the introduction of the measure.
MR. WILLIAMSunderstood the right hon. Baronet's proposition was that the House should adjourn over to-morrow in consequence of there being no business, and not on account of its being the anniversary of the martyrdom of King Charles I. With that understanding, he (Mr. Williams) had no objection to the adjournment. But this he must say, that nothing could be more derogatory to the present generation than an adjournment on account of the martyrdom of that tyrant ["Oh!"]. Yes, he repeated, of that tyrant, whose head was laid upon the scaffold in consequence of his superseding the authority of the House of Commons. If he had not violated the Constitution of the country by an attempt to supersede the authority of the House of Commons, in levying taxes upon the people
370
without the authority of Parliament, that event never would have occurred. The character of that Parliament who resisted the tyrant ought to be respected, rather than the fate of that man. However, as the adjournment was not moved on the ground to which he had alluded, he would make no objection to the adjournment.
LORD J. MANNERSsaid, whatever the understanding of the hon. Member for Coventry might be, it was not his (Lord J. Manners') wish to enter into any discussion of the topic suggested by him; but he must protest most distinctly that he utterly and entirely dissented from every word which had fallen from the hon. Member; and in approving of the adjournment of the House, he did not coincide in the reasons assigned by the hon. Member.

BUENOS AYRES AND MONTE VIDEO.
LORD J. RUSSELLwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, relative to the transactions which had recently occurred at the River Plate. He wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet was prepared to lay on the Table such documents as would elucidate the transactions to which he alluded?
SIR R. PEELsaid, he had not the slightest objection to lay upon the Table of the House those documents which would explain the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government had acted in concert with France — namely, the instructions which had been given to Mr. Ouseley. He had rather not, at present, produce the proposition made by General Rosas, which, although not accepted, might lay the foundation for an adjustment of the matters in difference. So long as there was any chance of such adjustment, he thought it would be better not to lay on the Table any proof of the atrocities which had been committed during the lamentable struggle which had taken place. But he had no objection to lay before the House the Convention with France, and the instructions given to Mr. Ouseley, detailing the grounds on which this country, after a long delay, most reluctantly interfered.
LORD J. RUSSELLhad no wish to ask for the Papers showing the atrocities which had been committed, but he thought it would be necessary, for the information of the House, to produce, not only the instructions given, which were the result of previous negociations, but what were the demands which led to hostilities.
SIR R. PEELsaid, the nature of the demands would be fully understood from the instructions, which would show the proposals made by the Government on the part of this country and France.

STANDING ORDERS—RAILWAY DEPOSITS.
MR. HASTIEsaid, he rose to complain, on behalf of the bankers, merchants, and traders of this country, against the Standing Orders of that House. By Standing Order, No. 39, it was rendered necessary that deposits on account of Railway Bills should be paid to the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery. He (Mr. Hastie) did not complain of the amount 10 per cent., but of the mode of payment, and the delay occurring between the Accountant General and the Bank of England. When the money had passed into the hand of the Accountant General, a week must elapse before the Bank could use the deposits. It was estimated that this year the deposits would amount to eight or ten millions, which amount must all be paid within two weeks of the sitting of Parliament. Any one who had the least acquaintance with the currency of the country must know that to lock up so large a sum must create great alarm and difficulty. What he complained of was the delay between the Court of Chancery and the Bank of England. The Bank of England, if the money were paid directly into their account, would feel itself at liberty to use the deposits; discounts would thus go on as usual, and the great inconvenience to the mercantile world of which he complained would be avoided. He was aware that many representations had been made to the Government on this subject, and he blamed them not for the caution with which they had acted; but while they were anxious to discourage mere speculation, they should take care that their caution did not affect others than those against whom it was directed, and limit the commercial transactions of those who had no connection, and were wholly unacquainted, with those railway speculations. It was well known to all commercial men that nearly the whole of the mercantile transactions of this country were carried on by means of bills of exchange. All the goods sent from hence to South America, China, and the West India Islands, were paid for by bills; the remittances were wholly in bills, which could immediately be discounted in London at the current rate of discount, and thus
372
the inconvenience which would be occasioned by the locking up of the money until the bills became due was prevented, and the operations of commerce facilitated. But the course that had been adopted in regard to these deposits had stopped this accommodation, and during the last three days it had been found impossible almost to obtain discount in the City. The extent of the inconvenience might be judged of by the fact, that the bills connected with the South American, West Indian, and China traders, alone discounted in the year, averaged about 150,000,000 l. If these railway deposits were removed from the account of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, and placed to that of the Bank of England, the Bank, knowing the requirements of the mercantile community would still give that accommodation which it had been usual for the last fifty years to afford. If he thought such a relaxation would in any way tend to encourage undue speculation in railway schemes, he would be the last person to ask for it; but he did not believe it would have any such effect, while to continue the present arrangement, would embarrass the mercantile community, which had nothing to do with such speculations, and put a stop to commercial operations. He had given a notice upon this subject on a previous evening, but had been informed by the Speaker, that as the restriction he complained of was imposed by an Act of Parliament, such notice would be ineffectual for his object. Under these circumstances, he was anxious to press the matter on the attention of the Government, in the hope that they would propose some alteration of the law, by which the evil would be prevented.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould assure the hon. Member who had just sat down, that he deplored as much as the hon. Member the effect which undue speculation had had upon the innocent individuals who had embarked in them. But the embarrassment alluded to was one of the misfortunes incident not only to railway speculations, but applied to all those other mercantile speculations which had occurred at a time when railway speculation could not have been among the causes of such embarrassment. He doubted, however, whether the hon. Member had taken a correct view of the evil, or had suggested that which would afford any remedy. The hon. Gentleman said that the House, by a Standing Order, required parties to a railway to deposit a certain amount of the sum

373
subscribed. By an Act passed in the beginning of the reign of Her Majesty, it was enacted, that whenever a deposit was required to be made by either House of Parliament, it should be paid into the Bank of England, and placed to the credit of the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery. The money, therefore, that was now paid on account of the deposits required, was paid into the Bank of England, and, in fact, was there transferred from the account of bankers who had an account with the Bank, to the account of another individual, who also had an account with the Bank—viz., the Accountant General. The deposits were, therefore, as much available for commercial purposes, when standing in the name of one individual, as if they had stood in the name of several individuals, with this advantage, that when they stood in the name of the Accountant General they could not be drawn out of the Bank without certain preliminaries in the Court of Chancery, which gave to the Bank an opportunity of knowing the particular time when the demand would be made upon them. The hon. Member said that it would be of material benefit if these deposits were placed to the account of other parties in the Bank of England, and that he would recommend an alteration of the Act in this point. He should be glad to hear when the hon. Gentleman brought forward his Motion, what benefit he proposed to derive from the deposits standing in the name of any other party than the Accountant General? He did not see how that could affect the power of the Bank in making advances on bills in the ordinary manner, as their doing so did not depend on the number of parties in whose name deposits were placed, but on the amount of deposits in their possession. The hon. Gentleman would, therefore, see that what he proposed would not remedy the evil, and that the payments to the Accountant General did not call for the absorption of the circulation which he complained of.
MR. HASTIEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that the money was transferred from one account in the Bank to that of the Accountant General. His complaint was that when so transferred it was locked up from general use.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was altogether in error. If the money were placed to the credit of any ordinary account
374
with the Bank of England, the person who had that account might draw on the Bank at an hour's notice. But when placed to the credit of the Accountant General, it would require the party wishing to draw to undergo a delay of about ten days, as notice to that effect was rendered necessary.
Mr. P. M. STEWARTsaid, the mercantile community in general must feel obliged to his hon. Friend (Mr. Hastie) for bringing the matter forward; and as the mischief was at work, whether it rested on the authority of an Act of Parliament, or on an Order of that House, he hoped he would not delay in pressing it upon the attention of the House. He was quite sure that any Bank Director present would admit that, so far as commercial accommodation was concerned, the distinction drawn by his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley was perfectly correct. Supposing the money to be placed in the Bank in the names of five of the provisional committee, he admitted that they had the same power over it as a private individual would have, were it placed in his name; but if it was placed there under the authority of the Speaker's warrant, it would remain in the Bank, and could only be drawn by parties possessing certain official documents passing from the Speaker. The parties lodging it had no power to draw it, and it became available to the Bank of England for commercial purposes. But in the case of deposits paid into the credit of the Accountant General, there was no power to dislodge them for such purposes. The purpose of the law that had been made on that subject was to secure the public from injury, and that object would be amply effected by the lodgment of the money in the Bank of England, under authority from the proper quarter. No practical man or Bank of England director would contradict him when he said, that if the money were placed in the Bank of England under restraint, it would not be available for commercial purposes. Whereas if it were paid in, as he had said, under the authority of the Speaker's Order, it would be available to-morrow. During the last few days it had been impossible to get discounts; and what he contended was, that this money was so abstracted from circulation, and the mercantile transactions of the country brought to a stand-still, for no good purpose whatever. Six or seven millions were thus lodged as deposits, occasioning the withdrawal of about one-fifth or one-sixth

375
of the whole circulation of the country. It would be so for a certain time at least. He trusted that the Government would turn their attention to the subject. If any good reason could be shown for continuing the law, let it remain; but his belief was, that it was a defect in the law to require these deposits to be placed in the hands of the Accountant General; and if that law were not altered it would inflict great injury on the commercial interests of the country.
MR. GISBORNEwas anxious that the interests of depositors—the shareholders in these railways—should be considered. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken proposed that the money should be paid into the Bank, under the Speaker's warrant, and only taken out by the authority of the Speaker's warrant; that was in effect to say, that the money should remain in the Bank — unavailable to the depositors — until either the Bill passed or was thrown out. This would be most unjust, as the Bank allowed no interests on such deposits.
Mr. HUDSONwould offer a practical suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which he was persuaded would obviate the difficulty complained of. If the companies seeking to obtain the consent of Parliament to Railway Bills, were, in place of money, to be allowed to deposit Exchequer bills, or stock, the difficulty would be met. By requiring the deposits to be made in money, the promoters of railway schemes were prevented from investing their money in good securities; but were they allowed, as they ought to be, to make the deposits in securities, the only object being that security should be taken for the due execution of the works undertaken—then the deposit of 10,000 l. or 20,000 l. of Exchequer bills or consols would be as good as a deposit of hank notes to an equal amount, and the inconvenience complained of be altogether avoided. The House of Commons wonld get the security, if required—the railway companies would be receiving interest on their money, the circulation would not be interfered with, and all parties would be benefited: whether the deposits in that case were paid to the account of the Bank of England, or the Accountant General, would not matter; and he agreed with the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the advantage of the notice in the latter case—in either case the evil would be remedied. He was satisfied if his suggestion were adopted, it
376
would remove the difficulty, and advantage all parties.
MR. RICARDOsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland had changed the nature of the discussion. This was not a question of convenience to the railway companies; but as regarded the public whether the circulation of the country should be diminished. It mattered little whether the deposits were paid to the credit of one name or another, and still less did it matter by whom the money was invested; neither did it appear to him—though large payments of money to one particular purpose must always occasion disarrangement to the currency to some extent—that if the bankers themselves had confined their operations to legitimate accommodation, and not attempted to commit certain imprudencies of which many of them had been guilty—if they had acted with common prudence, no difficulty would have arisen. In regard to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, he thought much of the inconvenience might be avoided, if at the period of registration the time were fixed for the repayment of the deposit: say that the money should remain there four months after the date of registration. The Bank would thus know, as soon as the money came into their hands, when they would have to repay it, and might deal with it with certainty.
MR. MUNTZconcurred that it mattered not by whom the money was paid. He thought that it was very strange that the Government should refuse to receive their own securities as a payment into the public Treasury, especially when they were only held as a trustee fund; and he conceived that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was throwing something like disgrace on the credit of those securities. The proposal of the hon. Member, for Sunderland was a proper one, and if he had not made it, he would.
SIR R. PEELhoped the House would not lightly interfere in this matter. It was impossible to place any check upon extravagant speculation in railways, without subjecting the public to some inconvenience. One of the securities Parliament had thought fit to require for the purpose of preventing, as far as possible, delusive speculations in railways, was, that before the petition for the Bill should be presented, a certain deposit upon the capital to be subscribed should be made. Formerly that deposit was five per cent.; but that being thought

377
too small, the House, with the view of discouraging unsound speculations, only last year determined that it should be increased to 10 per cent., and at the same time required that the amount to be paid into the hands of the Accountant General should be in money. He must say that looking at the many notices of railway speculations that were given in July last, he thought those who dealt in money had had full notice of the probable pressure that would ensue; and it was quite open for them to refuse discount on long bills, and to take the necessary precautions against that pressure. It would be unwise for Parliament lightly to interfere, now that the difficulty was beginning to be felt, and to relax those checks which it had imposed to discourage improper and unwise speculations. Above all, it would be unwise for Parliament to make alterations in the rules it had laid down, which would not give the relief required—as, for instance, the making of the Bank of England the party to whose account the deposits should be paid instead of the Accountant General. With regard to the subject of discounts, by the Bank of England, the hon. Gentleman said he hoped the attention of the Government would be called to it. He assured him that both his hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and himself, had had their attention called to it, and had had repeated interviews with the highest authorities in reference to it; and the hon. Gentleman would find that many of the most important authorities in the monetary world deprecated Parliamentary interference, with the view to relax the checks that now existed. As to whether or not it might be proper to permit deposits to be made in Exchequer bills and stock, he would not now enter into that question. It was a new proposal, which he had not yet considered; but he hoped they would consider whether any advantage or relief would result to those who required the accommodation of discount for the purpose of carrying on their mercantile operations, that the money should be lodged to the credit of the Bank of England, instead of to the account of the Accountant General. His belief was that the Bank could use the money with greater security now than if the proposed change were made. But as to saying, as the hon. Gentleman who last spoke suggested, that there should be a period of time, as three or four months, elapse before the money deposited should be returned, that would be most unjust to the
378
promoters of these speculations. They might fail before the Standing Orders' Committee, or at an early period of the proceedings, and it would be most unjust to refuse to return their money at the earliest possible moment after the decision of the House against them was known. Such an arrangement, therefore, he considered, would be most unfair.
MR. P. M. STEWARTrose to explain. He thought the interval between the depositing and the release of the money could be determined by the fate of the Bill when certified by the proper authority.
SIR R. PEELobjected, on the ground that the fate of a Bill might not be decided for perhaps two or three months.
MR. STEWART: Why, the Standing Orders are to decide it.
MR. F. T. BARINGconsidered it would be hard to lock up money for an indefinite time, without interest, until the fate of the Bill might be known. He confessed—but he might be mistaken — that he could not understand what disadvantages could arise from the deposit of Exchequer bills instead of money. The object of the deposit was, that the Government and the public might have a security that the undertaking for which it was proposed to obtain an Act of Parliament was of a bonâ fide nature. He hoped the House would well consider the subject.
The Question of Adjournment agreed to.

THE TEN HOURS' FACTORY BILL.
LORD ASHLEYpresented petitions from various places in Scotland in favour of a measure for limiting the hours of labour of young persons in factories to ten hours.
SIR G. STRICKLANDand one or two other hon. Member's presented petitions to the same effect.
LORD ASHLEY, on rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to effect this object, said: Sir, it has so often been my duty to solicit the indulgence of the House, that I may seem to be acting merely in conformity with ceremonial when I prefer my earnest entreaty for its patient attention on this occasion; but at no time have I felt it more necessary to make this request. I am about to revive the discussion of a proposition oftentimes propounded in this House, and as often rejected; one upon which I can offer no novel arguments, and which moreover was submitted to the House at a period not very distant, and was then determined and decided. I think, however, that I can assign good reasons for the

379
course I am about to take. In the first place, I must assert very respectfully, though very positively, that the decision was not a decision of the House; it was the decision of the Minister. This House has twice affirmed my proposition; and we all know in what way the reversal of that judgment was obtained. Next I observe, that a very large majority of those Gentlemen who from their position and knowledge must be best acquainted with the feelings of the manufacturing and commercial districts, indeed no less than thirty-three of forty-two of the Representatives of those districts, supported my proposition, and voted for the Ten Hours' Bill through all its divisions; and I do expect a similar exhibition of local opinion on the present occasion. Moreover, I must assert the continued and undiminished desire of the workpeople for this measure—a desire that, instead of abating, seems, as far as I can see, to gather strength and resolution under every defeat. Nearly two years have elapsed since I last submitted this question to the House; and during the interval events have occurred of such a character as will illustrate in the most forcible manner the truth and the safety of the principles I have endeavoured to maintain; I have also obtained from foreign countries most important information, justifying, as I think, the strongest assertions and strongest arguments I have ever been able to adduce in this House. It will be my endeavour to abstain from wearying the House by the production of evidence which has oftentimes been brought before it in various reports and debates. I believe it will be some disadvantage to my argument, if I abstain from refreshing the memory of hon. Members with a detail of all that evidence which shows the great pressure upon the physical condition of the workers; but I will forego the advantage, because the question now is narrowed to a single proposition—can this be done without injury to the manufacturer, and without a serious diminution of the wages of labour? For I have met with no one, wherever I have been, who will deny the great moral and physical benefits to be derived, if this limitation were assigned to the hours of work. The first matter to which I shall call the attention of the House is a series of experiments instituted in the manufacturing districts by various parties in respect of the reduction of the hours of labour. Mr. Gardner, a gentleman who has very large mills in Manchester
380
and Preston, instituted those experiments; and he was good enough, in the course of last year, after his experiments had run through twelve months, to send up his son and his principal agent to London, to give me an account of his operations. I put to them several questions, the answers to which were committed to writing; and they are so exceedingly important that I must solicit the indulgence of the House while I read them: they completely prove that the hours of labour may be reduced, not only without loss, but with actual benefit both to the master and operative. The first question I put to them was with respect to the comparative produce of labour where the limitation was eleven hours instead of twelve. The reply was this—
"The produce of eleven hours at Mr. Gardner's mills was not reduced at all."
He added an observation—
"I could not understand how it was that our men could turn off as much work (and some a little more) in eleven hours as ever they did in twelve. I said to one of them, 'John, will you tell me how it is that you can do more work in eleven hours than you did in twelve?' 'Why,' said he, 'we can lay to in eleven hours a day better than we could when we worked twelve, because we get more rest at night, and we are in better spirits all the day through, and, besides, the afternoons are not so long.' He could spin, he said, ten years longer, if Mr. Gardner would keep on eleven hours."
I could give you more such cases. The second question I put to them was, was the quality of the produce for eleven hours better or worse than that from twelve? To this I received the following answer:—
"The work is decidedly better since the change to eleven hours; when we worked twelve hours I had very often to find fault with the spinners for not making their cops hard enough. Most of our spinners are generally spinning pin cops, which have to be wove wet, and if they are not made very hard they will fly off in the weaving, and they are nothing but waste. I can say that since the change the work is decidedly better. At the present speed at which the machinery is generally run it is very hard work for the spinners to keep up and make such work as will give satisfaction, particularly where they spin coarse numbers and work twelve hours in the day."
The next question I put was—
"Were the wages reduced or raised or kept at the same level in eleven hours as compared to twelve hours?"
The answer was to the effect that the wages were the same. And the gentleman then gives a statement showing the average rate of wages paid for a certain number of weeks, when they worked twelve hours, and eleven hours; and by this it appears

381
that in fact there was a slight increase of wages under the eleven hour system as compared with the twelve. The next question I put was—
"What were the effects of the change of system upon the health of the workers?"
To this it was answered, that—
"The hands undoubtedly have better health since the change to eleven hours, and I could give you several cases of both weavers and spinners; I will give but one. Joseph Parker, a very sober industrious man, and a very good spinner, having been in the employ of Mr. Gardner for seventeen years, was so often off his work in the winter time, when we worked until half-past seven, that he was obliged to conclude that he could not stand spinning any longer. … Since the change to eleven hours he has done more work than ever he did before, and has only been off work once through sickness, which will be very soon two years."
The next point to which I turned my inquiries was, whether the means of improvement (if any) which the diminution of daily labour gave to both sexes for the comfort and duties of domestic life had been turned by the parties concerned to any advantage in their social and moral condition? To this I received the following reply:—
"Whenever mills worked 12 hours, the number that attended night school were 27; and a few months after the change they increased to 96. The female part of our hands turn their leisure time more to the needle, and those that are married to their domestic concerns. I believe there is a better taste for reading among the workpeople. Mr. Gardner intimated that, as he was a subscriber to the Bible Society, he wished his hands to have bibles and testaments at the society's prices; and the first week I sold myself 136 books, and every week's end I sell a few."
On asking as to the feeling produced between employers and employed under the operation of this system, I received the following information:—
"I can confidently say, that there is not a gentleman in all Lancashire that stands so high in the estimation, not only of his own workpeople, but of all the operatives. I will conclude by saying, first, that the present speed at which machinery is generally run, it is impossible for the hands to keep up, when they work 12 hours a day. Secondly, when the speed and time they work and the atmosphere they breathe is taken into consideration, no one will wonder at the death-like appearance of the factory workers; and if the hours of labour were reduced, it would be like giving them so much more life."
But Mr. Gardner himself published a letter describing the results of his experiments; he says—
"I am quite satisfied that both as much yarn and power-loom cloth may be produced at quite as low a cost in 11 as in 12 hours a day. … All the arguments I have heard in favour of long time appear based on an arithmetical question; if 11 produce so much, what will 12, 13, or even 15
382
hours produce? This is correct so far as the steam-engine is concerned; whatever it will produce in 11 hours, it will produce double the quantity in 22; but try this on the animal—horse—and you will soon find he cannot compete with the engine, as he requires time both to rest and feed."—"It is, I believe, a fact, not to be questioned, that there is more bad work made the last one or two hours, than the whole of the first nine or ten hours."
I saw this gentleman in October last, and he still maintains all the opinions he has expressed heretofore, as to the result of the limitation-of-time system. But there are various other places where this system is in operation, and with similar advantageous consequences. The Messrs. Horrocks and Jackson, of Preston, have made similar experiments, and with equal success. These gentlemen have been working on the eleven-hours system since May last. Mr. Knowles, of Bolton, a very considerable spinner, commenced the reduction in April last.
"I saw Mr. Knowles," says the writer of a letter, "three weeks since, and he said so satisfied was he with the change, that he never intended to work his mill any longer than 11 hours per day. He had been connected with the working of factories more than 40 years, and he always thought that the hours in factories were far too long. I asked him respecting the work turned off in 11 hours compared with 12 hours. He said, when he made the change, he never expressed any wish that his hands would turn off as much work in 11 hours as in 12; but some of the spinners did as much work in 11 hours as ever they did in 12; others did a little less, but not in proportion to the diminution of time. The difference was so little, that he had no hesitation in saying, that he did not lose one penny in the year by the change."
The following is an extract of a letter from a large power-loom weaver in Scotland, which he communicated to me, knowing the part I have always taken with regard to this question; he writes to me thus:—
"Six months ago we came to the resolution of employing our workpeople only 65 hours a week instead of 69. It has been entirely successful; we have had no reason to regret the change, neither have our workpeople. We make no alteration in the wages, and there never was more earned in our works than at present by those employed at work paid by the piece. We have it in contemplation now to reduce our time to 60 hours. The more I have considered the matter, the more convinced have I become, that for all parties a Ten Hours Bill would be advantageous."
A communication received from a worsted mill, near Bradford, informs me—
"The proprietor has lately been trying the ten hours' principle with his weavers, and with profit and advantage."
From a woollen mill near Leeds, I have received the following:—

383
"The limitation of the hours of labour has been of the most incalculable benefit to the people in that neighbourhood, not only in relieving physical suffering, but in distributing wages over a longer period during the year."
From the West Riding of Yorkshire, a worsted manufacturer writes as follows:—
"I have been trying the ten hours' principle; I get nearly as much work as — gets, who works a longer time for the same wages. — used to work 16 hours a day; he declares that he gets more work and better work than ever he did in 16."
These were the experiments made in various parts of England, and in every single instance you have found that the amount of produce has not fallen off, neither have the wages of the operatives been diminished; and the general facts show a great moral and social improvement in the condition of the people. I was anxious also to ascertain what was the result of this system in Prussia, where, in 1839, the King passed a decree limiting the hours of labour to children under 16 years of age in factories to 10 hours, and where the system has been in full operation ever since. In reply to various questions of mine, I received the following answers from Elberfeld:—
"There has been no diminution of work in consequence of the limitation of the time for children at 16 and under to 10 hours a day."—"The salutary influence of the law on the physical as well as moral condition of the labouring classes is evident."—"There is no diminution of the wages perceptible in consequence of the limitation of the hours of labour."—"At first there was undoubtedly a very strong feeling against the law in a considerable body of the millowners; but this has literally disappeared."
With respect to the observance of the law, on making inquiry of the Director of the Home Department, he says—
"Not a single remonstrance has been addressed by any one of the millowners to the Government or the provincial states, much less has any resistance taken place."
He further says—
"There were some malcontents. They were afraid of foreign competition; but they seem soon to have been satisfied that this fear was imaginary, the produce of the work not having diminished."
The example we have set with respect to the regulation of labour in factories has been followed by various foreign countries. It has been followed by France, and the French Government has passed a law as nearly as possible a transcript of our own. Our example has forced the Government of Prussia into an enactment which provides for the moral and physical improvement of the operatives of that country; and you
384
may depend upon it that if we persevere in the course on which we have entered, we shall compel foreign countries to adopt a similar policy. Let me just point out to the House what are the general results of our factory regulations on the moral, physical, and financial condition of our operatives. I request the particular attention of the House to this subject, for I believe that the results in question offer a complete contradiction to all the opinions put forward in the year 1833, against the measure which I introduced at that period. Let the House see what were the predictions then made, as compared with the actual results of our legislation. I recollect that in the year 1833, when I first brought forward a Bill for a limitation of the hours of labour, there were four predictions, which were constantly ringing in our ears, which were repeated at every meeting, and were transcribed into every journal adverse to the measure. The first of these predictions was, that the great cotton trade would be destroyed by any limitation of the hours of labour; the second was, that the wages of the protected parties would be diminished; the third was, that the wages of children would be reduced to a mere fraction; and the fourth was, that the children would be dismissed, and that great suffering would universally ensue. Now, let the House permit me to state the actual results, as compared with those predictions. It has been said, in the first place, that our great cotton trade would be destroyed by any diminution of the hours of labour. In answer to that prediction, I need only refer to the state of our cotton trade in the years 1835 and 1836, and during the last three years; and it is not, I believe, necessary that I should dwell any further upon that part of the question. But it was predicted, in the second place, that the wages of the protected parties would be diminished. Now, there were two classes who were at that time protected by our legislation. There were, first, persons under the age of thirteen, who were called "children;" and there were, secondly, persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, who were called "young persons." The law enacted that young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen should not be exposed to a longer duration of work than twelve hours in the day. Now, before the year 1833, the average wages of those young persons were 5s. 4d. per week, while their average wages since that period have been 6s. 11 d. per

385
week; thus showing an increase of 30 per cent. in the averages drawn from the four great towns of Manchester, Bolton, Preston, and Oldham. Let us next pass to the third prediction, that the wages of children would be reduced to a mere fraction. The average wages of children under thirteen years of age, for twelve or more than twelve hours labour a day, were, before 1833, 3s. 1d. per week; and since 1833, their average wages for six hours labour a day have been 2s. 2d. per week. But although there has been in that case an apparent abatement of wages, the families have not, in many instances, suffered in consequence; because, by that admirable provision restricting the labour of children to six hours a day, a greater demand has been created for the labour of those children, and many families which could formerly obtain employment for one child only, now find employment for two children; so that the aggregate wages are at present frequently greater than the wages received under the old system. Let us look at the fourth prediction, which was that the children would be dismissed, and that much physical suffering would ensue. It is very difficult to obtain statistical returns with respect to children under thirteen years of age employed before the year 1833. But this we know—that very few of them indeed were receiving any education at all; whereas, I have grounds for asserting that there are now 30,000 children, under thirteen years of age, working six hours a day, and receiving education during three hours, that education being in many instances of a very excellent description, and having been much improved during the last two or three years. I have also been informed that in the towns of Manchester, Bolton, and Preston, the increase of children at school has been, since the year 1833, as eight to one, exclusive of those who attend night schools; while the increase of those above thirteen years (who labour twelve hours a day), in places for teaching persons of that age, has been little or none. Let me add the remarks of the Committee of Operative Spinners upon that point—remarks which ought to carry with them great weight, for they had been extremely opposed to the clause which limited the labour of children to half time. They have written to me as follows:—
"We also instituted an inquiry into the moral and physical condition of piecers and young persons now, as compared with the same class in 1833, and from every quarter we learn that it is much improved; and since the Bill of 1833, which restricted
386
the hours of labour to eight in the day, and that of 1844 to six in the day, with enactments for education, their physical and moral condition has been improved to such an extent that they do not appear to be the same race of beings. We have recently conversed with a large number of the operatives, and those men especially who have devoted a large portion of their time and much of their means to the promotion of this question, and they all declare that the benefits which have arisen to themselves and their children are more than sufficient to repay them for their time and sacrifices, and that sooner than go back to their old system they would part with the last shilling they have in the world in defence of the restrictive system of factory labour."
I have felt great satisfaction in reading that statement, for it not only justifies my past conduct, but gives me great assurance of future success in my efforts upon this subject. I hope I am not assuming too much for our efforts, when I ascribe to them the collateral advantage of the half-holiday system for warehousemen in Manchester, and other great towns, at one time so energetically opposed, but now as warmly approved by the employers. I have reason to know that the system has been attended with the most beneficial results; and I believe that the hon. Member for Durham will bear me out in that statement. Among all the alterations that have been effected since the year 1833, I am sorry to perceive that nothing has been done for the benefit of young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen. Those young persons are exposed under the existing law to twelve hours' actual labour per day; now a very large portion of them are females, and I think I may appeal to the House to say, whether it is not cruel to take a young female on the very day on which she has passed the age of thirteen, at the most tender period of her life, and to demand of her precisely the same work in duration, and frequently the same in intensity, which is demanded from ripe and vigorous manhood? Observe the results to which this practice must lead. I believe every one will admit that it is a matter of vital importance to the peace and welfare of society, and to the comfort and well-being of the working classes, that females should be brought up with such a knowledge of domestic arts and household concerns as may enable them efficiently to discharge the various duties of wives and mothers. But how can it be possible that young women, whose labour has been so heavy and so prolonged, that they are in many cases unable to cook their own suppers, or even to eat the suppers prepored for them—how is it possible

387
that they should learn the details of domestic life which constitute the comfort of the working man's home, and contribute so powerfully to the morality of the rising generation, because women must have, and ought to have, almost undivided influence on children during the earliest and most impressible years of their existence? I am not expressing my own opinions merely upon that point, because the Commissioners appointed in the year 1840 to inquire into the employment of young persons, went so far as to state, that it was the universal opinion of clergymen, medical men, teachers, and others, that the condition of the women was one great and universally prevailing cause of the distress among the working classes. I will now read to the House the result of an experiment made by a friend of mine, who had set up in the neighbourhood of several large factories a night school, for the purpose of affording education to the young people employed in those factories. That gentleman writes to me as follows:—
"In October, the schoolmaster opened two evening classes, one for the young men, and the other for the young women, employed during the day in the mills of —. Each class met twice in the week, on alternate evenings, and between the tours of eight and nine. The eagerness to receive instruction was so great that forty young men, and thirty-eight young women entered immediately … Some of the pupils, after leaving the mills at eight in the evening, came the distance of nearly two miles to the classes. But so great was the fatigue they had undergone during the day, that although they evinced an earnest desire to be instructed, it was soon found that their physical powers were too much exhausted by the day's work to enable them to give proper attention to the teachers, and as many as four and five together were observed to have fallen asleep. Within the space of a few months, the classes were deserted by all but five young men. They were accustomed to excuse their want of attention to the teachers, by saying that they were up at five o'clock in the morning, and that after leaving the classes they had to take their suppers; and, consequently, did not get to bed till eleven, and that owing to the long hours and short nights' rest, they found it impossible to keep awake during the evening lessons."
I have often heard it said, that there is a factory establishment in another country which completely proves that twelve hours' labour a day are quite consistent with health, comfort, happiness, and moral and intellectual improvement; and when discussing this snbject, we have always been referred to the case of Lowell, in the United States. Now, I believe that this case of Lowell fully establishes everything that I have urged upon this matter. Let us begin by assuming—for it is only nominally
388
the case—that the hours of labour are the same in both countries—that is to say, twelve hours a day. You must still observe, at the very outset, that there is one great and leading distinction. Dr. Bartlett, an eminent physician of the United States, wrote a book, entitled, "A Vindication of Lowell," and in that book he states—
"By a statute of the commonwealth it is provided that no person under the age of 15 years shall be suffered to work more than nine months of any year in a manufacturing establishment, the remaining three months to be passed at school."
Dr. Bartlett further avers, that—
"The law is enforced with unflinching strictness, so that even in times of scarcity of hands no plea that he ever heard of was admitted for the wresting of the law from its important design."
There is another very great and leading distinction. What is the case in the English factory? In the English factory, children having reached the age of 13 years, are admitted to the full period of 12 hours' labour, and for the whole year. What is the period at which the young people at Lowell begin to work? The average age is very much higher than in England. Out of nearly 2,000 girls employed there, the average age was 23 years. I will take two or three mills. In one mill, 657 young women are employed; what is their average age? Twenty-two years and a quarter; and the average time during which they have been at work in the mill is three years and three quarters; and, consequently, at the period of their entry they were about 19 years of age. In English factories they begin to work 12 hours a day at 13 years of age. I will take the instance of another mill, in which there are 203 young women, whose average time of employment is four years and a quarter. They also were about 19 years of age when they began work. I will just quote now from a most interesting and authentic work, published at the end of last year, called "Lowell as it was, and as it is," published by an American clergyman, the Rev. Henry Mills, who wrote the work at the solicitation of the great proprietor of Lowell, who furnished him with the necessary statistics for the purpose. Observe another great and leading distinction between our factory people and those at Lowell; observe whence they come, and how long they remain in the mills. What does the Rev. Mr. Mills say? He says—
"We have no permanent factory population.

389
This is the wide gulf which separates English manufacturing towns from Lowell; only a very few of our operatives have their homes in this city; the most of them come from the distant interior of the country."
They are mostly, says Dr. Scoresby, the daughters of the provincial farmers. Mr. Mills goes on to say—
"To the general fact here noticed should be added, that the female operatives in Lowell do not work, on an average, more than four and a half years in the factories; they then return to their homes, and their places are taken by others. Here then (he says) we have two important elements of distinction between English and American operatives. The former are resident operatives, and are so for life, and constitute a permanent dependent factory caste—the latter come from distant homes, to which in a few years they return. The English visitor to Lowell, when he finds it so hard to understand why American operatives are so superior to those of Leeds and Manchester, will do well to remember what a different class of females we have to begin with—girls well educated in virtuous rural homes."
Now, let us look at the statistical returns respecting female operatives. On inquiry it has been found that—
"Of the 6320 female operatives in Lowell, 527 have been teachers in common schools."
Again, it is to be observed—and this is another very leading distinction between the two countries—that with us "there are mere married women," says Dr. Seoresby, "than at Lowell." Just let me point out that even at Lowell there is the same predominance of females employed in mill labour, an evil of which we have complained so often in this country, and which I have so often heard ascribed to the operation of the Corn Laws. The total population of Lowell is 30,000, of which the operatives number about 10,000, of which 2915 are males, and 6320 females. So, you observe, even in that country, there is the same predominance of female over male labour; and it must be ascribed to some other cause than to those commercial restrictions that are said to be the cause of so much mischief with us. Well, but now observe again, that notwithstanding all these flattering statements as to the condition of Lowell, notwithstanding that there is in America complete freedom from all commercial restrictions, no limitation, nothing which can prevent the free action of the manufacturer in any way he may think proper—yet in Lowell, with all these advantages, you may hear the language of complaint; you may hear the same language which you hear in this country; you will hear stated by operatives, by word of mouth as well as by petition, the same
390
complaints of overtoil, of premature decay, of sinking health, and an early grave. Look at these documents. I quote now from a public document, proceeding from the commonwealth of Massachusetts' House of Representatives:—
"Special Committee report that four petitions, signed by 2139 persons, of which 1151 are from Lowell, mostly females, have been presented, praying the Legislature 'to pass a law providing that ten hours shall constitute a day's work.' The petitioners declare that they are confined from thirteen to fourteen hours per day in unhealthy apartments, and are thereby hastening, through pain, disease, and privation, down to a premature grave."
If that be true, how much more true must be the language if applied to the case of our own operatives, who begin their labour at eight years of age, confined in the unhealthy towns in which labour is carried on, and continue their work till the latest period at which they are able to gain their livelihood? What opinion does the Select Committee, to whom the petition was referred, express?—
"We think (say the Committee) there are abuses. We think many improvements may be made. We think it would be better if the hours of labour were less—if more time was allowed for meals—if more attention was paid to ventilation and pure air."
They then proceed to comment, with very great severity, and in many instances with unfairness, on the state of the English factories and the people engaged in them. They go on to say:—
"We acknowledge all this; but we say the remedy is not with us. We look for it in the progressive improvement of art and science—in a higher appreciation of man's destiny—in a less love for money, and a more ardent love for social happiness and intellectual superiority."
These are the opinions of the Committee, expressed in their special report; and it appears to me that they have passed an opinion which is applicable, in all respects, to the case before us. Sir, it would really be well, for all parties, both master and operative, if this long-agitated question could be finally set at rest. If you will not concede the whole that we require, concede at first some part of it, and let the success or the failure of the experiments determine the further progress or revocation of the measure. Nothing, you may be assured, will be easier than to repeal such a law should its results prove injurious; the operatives will, themselves, be the first to cry out if their condition be seriously affected; should the results be beneficial, we shall trust to your willingness to accomplish our desires, and give us

391
the remainder of our present prayer. We are ready, at any rate, to try that issue. But without some such arrangement as this, the manufacturing population will never desist from their efforts for redress; vain is the hope to weary them out by perpetual refusals; they gather resolution under defeats; and at no period have they been more unshaken and courageous than in this present hour, in which I am urging, for the tenth time, I believe, their just and reasonable demands. You cannot wonder at their perseverance, it is natural and praiseworthy; they feel the pressure of intolerable and all-absorbing toil, they perceive the success of experiments towards the alleviation of it in their own department of industry; they perceive too the contemporaneous efforts, arising in no small degree out of their own, to obtain the half-holiday system and the early closing of shops, both of which, wherever practicable, have proved highly beneficial. Their growing intelligence shows to them the moral and physical advantages of abridged labour; and their claims, when stated in this House, alway meet with respect, and sometimes with considerable support. Sir, in stating these claims, I have abstained from a repetition of evidence adduced, at various times, to exhibit the amount of moral and physical suffering endured by these young persons. This has been a disadvantage to my argument; but I was fearful of wearying the House. I have abstained also from repeating the several calculations made by experienced operatives themselves, on which we maintained that either there would be no abatement of wages, or that, if there were any, they would be enabled, under a reduced period of labour, to establish such economies as would more than compensate for a diminished income. Be this as it may, I do say on their behalf, that they are fully prepared—and I did not, when I proposed the question to them, hear a dissentient voice—to submit to any contingency, in return for this concession to their prayers. Sir, we have reason to thank this House, that its successive interpositions in behalf of the factory population have produced most beneficial results, and specially by its enactments which enjoin that certain hours in every day should be set apart for the education of the younger workers; but the education of a people requires something more than this one provision: you must give them time, not only for the acquisition of the necessary elements, but time to retain
392
and practise them. You give to the children, by your present system, a certain amount of literary teaching until the age of 13; they are then, at that period, when the acquisition and experience of whatever is practical would begin, advanced to the full extent of labour, and debarred by their unceasing occupation from the attainment of knowledge, useful—we may say indispensable—to their welfare in after life. This is especially true of the females, who form so large a proportion of the manufacturing population. Their accomplishments, though few and simple, yet unspeakably important to society at large, must be learned in the daily detail of household affairs. They are unsexed in nature and habits by such constant abstraction from domestic duties—duties which they alone can perform—and the community suffers in their toilsome devotion to employments which demand the powers and habits of men. It can find no compensating circumstances in any system which hinders the peace, the comforts, or the honour of the working man's home; but these things will rise or fall with the character and condition of the females; and all the statesmen of every age, and all the maxim-mongers have never surpassed the concentrated wisdom of Madame Campan, who, in answer to a question of the Emperor Napoleon, "What shall I do for the benefit of France?" replied without hesitation, "Give us, Sire, a generation of mothers." Sir, I cannot conclude the appeal that I have now ventured to make to the House without a retrospect at the manner in which the question has been conducted from the beginning to its present position. I believe that it has been eminently beneficial to the operatives themselves. Of oversights and mistakes, through human infirmity, I may have committed an abundance, but in expressions and in sentiments, I have nothing to recall or even to regret. I have carefully abstained, both here and among the people themselves, from all exciting language; I have studied to produce and to maintain a good understanding between the employer and the employed; I have never ceased to exhort those who confided this measure to my charge, that their thoughts, their feelings, and their actions, must be brought under the dominion of self-control. Well, Sir, I rejoice to say that the effort has been successful. I might have resorted to other means, and kept up their zeal by every inflammatory topic on a subject—be

393
assured—not less interesting to them than the repeal of the Corn Laws; I might have collected them, not by hundreds but by thousands, and talked to them of their wrongs and their rights, of where submission ends, and where resistance begins; but I have done no such thing; and I may now say, to the high honour of those who have so long and so patiently sustained this conflict, that I have never witnessed one menacing effort, or heard from them one vindictive expression. Sir, we must not shut out of our view the wide surface of society to be affected by our decision. It is the concern of many thousands. This single class has been selected out of many to bear the forefront of the battle; but the vote of this evening will affect them all alike, for it may fairly be taken as a representative of the whole: it will be a fatal night whenever you decide adversely, for you will have closed all hopes of moral, and even of secular improvement to multitudes of the young and helpless. And will not this tend to widen the interval—already a deep and yawning gulf—that separates the rich from the poorer sort? The rise of the more affluent classes is very observable; numberless luxuries of mind and sense, hitherto attainable by none but the wealthy, are brought within the reach of much smaller people—they are elevated proportionally in the scale of society. The overtoiled operatives, both as children and as adults, are alone excluded from the common advantage; a few, it is true, of special genius, may triumph over every opposing obstacle; but the mass are abandoned to a state of things in which moral and intellectual culture, forethought and economy, and the resources of independent action, are far beyond their means, and not even in their contemplation. This, surely, is an unsound and fearful position; the contrast is seen, felt, and resented; it revives and exasperates the ancient feud between the House of Want and the House of Have; and property and station become odious, because they seem founded on acquirements from which multitudes are excluded by the prevailing system. Sir, I cannot fail to perceive that to weary the House with repetitions of these things would be useless, and, therefore, disrespectful. I will persist, nevertheless, to anticipate success, though I must, perhaps remember that the array of capitalists, backed by the weight of the Ministry, will present an obstacle almost insuperable by persons
394
of far greater power and station than myself. By my course in the last few years, I have accumulated such an amount of public and official odium and distrust, that I cannot but feel I am addressing many whose minds are already averted from the proposition. Should I be defeated, I shall wait for fairer times, and more propitious hearts, conscientiously resolved never to abate one iota of my principles; and fully convinced that if this now mighty nation be destined to sustain its independence, and glory, and power, the counsels of thinking and unselfish men, for the social and religious improvement of all classes of the realm, must eventually and abundantly prosper.
Sir J. GRAHAM: Sir, by the courtesy of the noble Lord I have been enabled to acquaint myself with the provisions of the Bill; and in the course of the morning I apprised the noble Lord that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer, on the present occasion, any opposition to the introduction of the Bill. The noble Lord said, in reviewing his conduct in reference to this subject, that he had seen no reason to reproach himself for the part he had taken. In that sentiment I entirely concur; for I am aware that the noble Lord, in the course he has pursued on this question, has undergone great sacrifices, and has discharged his conscientious duty at a greater cost than falls to the lot of most men. But, as I do not rise with the intention of opposing the Motion of the noble Lord on the present occasion, I do not think it necessary to advert to many of the arguments the noble Lord has advanced in support of his measure. I might, if I thought it necessary, follow the noble Lord through the various topics he has referred to on former occasions. I might, in the first place, remind the noble Lord of what he stated as having taken place in the manufacturing districts since the passing of the Act of 1844, and which, so far from rendering legislative interference necessary or expedient, rather implies that the House should abstain from any interference between the employer and the employed in these branches of industry. The noble Lord stated that in some manufactories, which he specified, it had been found to be the interest both of the masters and the operatives that the period of labour should not be allowed to extend to the maximum period allowed by the law. The noble Lord stated that, in some instances, it had become quite common to work only eleven

395
hours, instead of twelve hours, the period for which the machinery is by law allowed to run; and the noble Lord stated that the result of that experiment was, that more work had been done, and better work as regarded the interests of the masters, and that equal, if not higher, wages had been obtained by the men. If that be the case—and I am rejoiced to hear it—nothing can be more satisfactory; and, so far from legislation being necessary, it appears to me a conclusive argument against calling on the Government to interpose. I do not mean to deny to the noble Lord merit for the arrangements he has already effected; but I wish to call the attention of the House to the changes which have already been accomplished through the unwearied efforts of the noble Lord. Since 1832, the age at which young children employed in factories have been permitted to enter them, has been limited to eight years, and the period of the work of these young children has been limited to six hours. All night-work has been abolished; we have even gone the length of prohibiting adult female labour for more than twelve hours, and young persons between the age of 13 and 18 are restricted from working more than twelve hours out of the twenty-four. I am quite sure that the noble Lord will admit, and I hope the House will remember, that the restriction on the labour of young persons is virtually and completely to restrict the working of the machinery itself, and the labour of adult males, to the same period of twelve hours; and thus the practical result of our our legislation is this—that in the four great staple manufactures of cotton, woollen, silk, and flax, it is not permitted, by law, that any man shall work his machinery, whatever power it may be worked by, for a greater period than twelve hours per day. I will not, on the introduction of the Bill, pursue the arguments to which the consideration of these matters would naturally bring me; but I must say, that to carry interference further in its application to capital and labour, is a dangerous experiment in a country dependent for much of its prosperity on its commercial and manufacturing resources. The noble Lord adverted to many instances of what had been done in foreign countries, and the state of the law in them; but the noble Lord surely will admit that it matters little what may be the law on the Statute-book in any country respecting the regulation of labour; everything depends upon inspection, and the manner in which the law is administered.
396
No reliance can be placed on regulations only. It is not enough to have such a law: you must have the most accurate inspection with regard to its working day by day, and the manner in which its provisions are enforced. It may be asked, entertaining these opinions, which I might state at greater length, and might advert to former debates in which these opinions have been more fully expressed—it may be asked why, entertaining these opinions, I have consented, on the part of the Government, to the introduction of the Bill. In the first place, I reply that this is the first time—although the noble Lord says the question has been distinctly brought before the House since 1833 eight or nine times—this is the first time the noble Lord has moved for the introduction of a substantive measure. On every former occasion the noble Lord has raised the question incidentally, either in committee on some Bills introduced by the Government, or in some of their various stages. But the noble Lord on the present occasion, representing, as he said, the condition of a very large portion of the manufacturing community, has proposed, on his own responsibility, the introduction of a substantive measure. The noble Lord also adverted to the magnitude and importance of the subject. I at once recognise its magnitude and importance; but, in my opinion, while it is our duty to consider—respectfully and tenderly consider—the hopes and expectations of the working classes in respect to a measure of this description, it is the paramount duty of the Legislature and the Government to consider the real interests and permanent welfare of those classes who are so deeply affected by a measure like this. And with reference to the general interests of the public, I cannot lose sight of the moment at which we are called upon to discuss this question—at a moment when a measure intimately connected with it, and of paramount importance, is under our consideration—I allude to the proposed measure with reference to restrictions upon the importation of the first necessaries for the consumption of all classes of the community, and particularly of the class to which the noble Lord has referred—looking to the whole state of matters, I am deliberately of opinion that it will be expedient to postpone the decision of the House upon the principle of this Bill until its opinion has been pronounced upon the great proposition of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, in respect to the supply

397
of corn and the laws which regulate that supply. I should be sorry, however, that any misapprehension should go forth in respect to the feelings and intentions of Government with respect to the particular question now under discussion. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that no decision with respect to the Corn Laws—intimately connected as that subject is with the one now under discussion—can ever alter my opinion with respect to the propriety of interfering with adult labour in the manufacturing districts. I cannot anticipate that the noble Lord would use—certainly he has never yet used—any arguments which can induce me to support the second reading of the Bill. At the same time I must repeat that, considering the circumstances of the moment in which the Bill is introduced—considering that this is the first time the noble Lord has proposed a substantive measure on the subject on his own responsibility—and considering the importance of the interests concerned in it, I think it would not be just to a person of the noble Lord's high station, and one whose motives are so pure, not to allow him an opportunity of laying his proposed measure before the House. On these grounds, I assent to the introduction of the Bill.
SIR G. STRICKLANDwas of opinion that it had been fully proved that every alteration which had taken place with regard to the law regarding the limitation of the hours of labour had been attended with signal benefit to the operatives themselves; and it required more ingenuity than any Member of that House possessed to prove that any thing done further in this matter would be productive of injury. The right hon. Baronet said, that this was a wrong time to introduce such a measure, because the alteration in the Corn Laws the repeal of which he always so determinately supported, would give a great stimulus to manufactures and commerce. If the Corn Laws were to give such a great stimulus, they must foresee a greater demand for labour; and surely, if he understood the subject at all, these were the very reasons why they ought to take the opportunity of doing away with those evils which were in existence, now that they could anticipate the great demand for labour which these evils so much affected. If he understood the noble Lord correctly, he was desirous that the hours of labour should be reduced to ten hours. From the first day he had any thing to do with the question, it was always his endeavour to
398
produce a good understanding between the operative and the master; and his desire was always to induce them to meet in good feeling to settle the grievances of both parties; and he was glad to see that now there existed a better understanding and a more cordial feeling between them, than ever there was since he had any knowledge of them. That cordial and good understanding ought to be taken advantage of to produce a termination of the existing evils; and he thought that the operatives themselves were likely to receive a compromise, however desirous they were to reduce the time of labour to ten hours. He could not sit down without saying a few words to express, at least, his admiration of the great improvement that had taken place in the town which he had the honour to represent. It was in Preston, first of all, that the experiment had been tried; no disadvantage arose; there was no reduction of wages; and he was fully convinced that, if they did not carry the Ten Hours' Bill, some change in the law ought to take place which would prove satisfactory to labourers in the manufacturing districts.
MR. TRELAWNYopposed the introduction of the Bill. He thought persons occupying the position of the noble Lord ought to be the last to touch and injure the rights of property. The noble Lord who had introduced the Bill had stated that no reduction had taken place in the rate of wages since the working of short time; but had he considered a large demand for labour had taken place, which had raised the market? Judging from the exposition made by the noble Lord, the effect of what had been done resembled the action of the Irishman who cut off the bottom of the blanket and sewed it at the top by way of making it longer. If the condition of the labouring classes was as bad as it was said to be, let the Government put on additional taxes to support them—an addition to the Property Tax, if that was deemed proper—but do not make attacks upon the manufacturing interests, which could only end in their injury.
LORD JOHN MANNERShoped that the House would not be induced by the "wet blanket" eloquence of the hon. Member to reject the wise and humane measure of the noble Lord. With respect to the hon. Member's argument against any invasion of the rights of property, he was deeply impressed with the conviction that if the rights of property were ever disregarded

399
in England, it would be in consequence of their suffering such a defence as that of the hon. Member. He was strongly of opinion that hon. Members should be careful in the utterance of sentiments of this description. He would turn, however, with pleasure to the course taken by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. But how did the right hon. Baronet connect the Ten Hours' Bill with the anticipated measure on the Corn Laws? Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman urged the rejection of this measure on the ground that if carried it must necessitate a repeal of the Corn Laws; well, the right hon. Gentleman was going, if he could, to repeal the Corn Laws; he was still of opinion that there was a most intimate connexion between the two measures, and yet he now said that, whether the Corn Laws were repealed or not, he never would assent to the Ten Hours' Bill. That enigma needed explanation. There was another observation, too, of the right hon. Gentleman, which created his surprise; it was when the right hon. Baronet argued, that in consequence of the good effects which had been produced by the alteration which had already been made, there should be no further legislative interference. When he heard that appeal to the present state of the manufacturing districts, and the good which had resulted already from the laws which had been passed, and when he heard the right hon. Baronet from these facts draw the conclusion that they had better remain as they were, he was forcibly struck by the counter arguments used the other night by the right hon. Baronet at the head of Her Majesty's Government. His argument, after three years' experience, was, that they should not remain where they were. If they were right in repealing the Corn Laws because a certain diminution in protection in 1842 was found to work beneficially to the country, why not put the same argument in operation in this case? He would say, then, that for the present every argument against the Bill of his noble Friend was completely exploded. He should like to hear the arguments against it after the carrying of the repeal of the Corn Laws. He was convinced that he could do nothing more effectual in conciliating the feelings of the operative to the master than to support this Bill. It was because he wished to see a friendly and cordial feeling between all classes that he gave his most unhesitating and determined support to the Bill of his noble Friend.
MR. HUMEsaid, that while he could not but approve of the good intentions which actuated the noble Lord the Member for Dorsetshire, yet, with all respect for the noble Lord, he could not but think that instead of endeavouring to reconcile differences and to promote good feeling between masters and men, he sought by this legislation to make the masters oppressive, and to interfere with the working man's property, namely, his labour, and with a man's management of his own affairs. His hon. Friend near him (Mr. Trelawny) was, therefore, correct in designating the plan of the noble Lord as an interference with the rights of property. There had been a time (which the noble Lord seemed to have forgotten) when artisans of all descriptions were, by law, thwarted and kept down in all their endeavours to maintain the privilege of using their capital, that was to say, of employing their own time as to them should seem fit. Anterior to the year 1824, only about twenty-three years ago, no labourer could meet with his fellows to talk over or discuss the hours of labour, the amount of wages he received, or to demand 2d. or 1s. a day more than he got, or to seek an amelioration of his condition, without the whole party running the risk of being brought before the courts of law on a charge of conspiracy, and if convicted for the mere attempt to persuade masters to give them an additional shilling per day, might have been liable to undergo, for twelve or fourteen hours per day, six months' hard labour at the treadmill. But Parliament then swept away the laws which so operated, and, under the law as it stood at present, it was impossible that the labourers of the country could be exposed to such injustice. The labourer was now as much protected in his rights as any proprietor of land or manufacturing capitalist in the country. All were equally entitled to protection, and they now to the full equally enjoyed it. But the noble Lord now proposed a different law to operate upon those masters who had embarked their capital in machinery and mills; and by that law to restrict them in the employment of the capital so invested. This he could not but designate as an invasion of the property of the master; because it would prevent him applying it to the best of his skill and judgment. He, looking back to past events, contended that industry and capital ought to be free; and that no individual, possessing either the one or

401
the other, should be restrained, except on the single rule of doing no injury to his neighbour, from exercising his right over that which he possessed. This was the principle, and this had been the object of modern legislation upon the subject. On these grounds, he had objected to former measures which had been submitted with reference to this subject to the Legislature. He had bowed to the decision of Parliament, confident that the time was fast approaching when, from the exposure of the errors committed, the necessity of repealing the whole system would be manifest. Sure he was, that the effect of the laws so passed, had been to produce injury, instead of benefit, to the working classes. He could state that he had himself been at Macclesfield within about a week or some short period, after the noble Lord's Bills had come into operation last year, and he had himself seen 300 men there thrown out of employment, because they could not obtain the labour of a sufficient number of children in the silk factories, where they formerly had full employment. The labourers themselves complained that such was the operation of the noble Lord's enactments. He much lamented that it was necessary, as the noble Lord wished it to be believed, that they should work from the earliest dawn till long after night had closed in; but, at the same time, this circumstance afforded no reason why he should consent to make matters worse, by now adopting the views of the noble Lord. He should wish the noble Lord to look at the state of things in a neighbouring country. In Ireland, the population complained of the want of labour, and would be happy to take the place and situation of those on whose behalf the noble Lord was now interfering upon principles which, if carried into effect, would bring actual misery upon them. On the whole, therefore, he could not think, with the noble Lord, that the laws he had succeeded in passing had either been judicious or beneficial; and hence he concurred in the views expressed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He was satisfied that every argument which had been adduced to-night by the noble Lord could be answered, when the subject came to be fully discussed, to the perfect conviction of every man who gave attention to the subject. The noble Lord had spoken of the town of Lowell, in the State of Massachusetts, and had compared the condition of the labouring population there
402
with similar classes in this country. The comparison, however, could not hold good. The two districts stood in a totally different position. In America the farmers' daughters came to Lowell to spend three, four, or five years, in order, by their industry in manufacturing employment, to earn a dowry for themselves; and after that they returned again up the country, where they married and became farmers' wives. He wished that such could be the case with the unfortunate females who were obliged to toil in the factories of this country. With one part of the speech of the noble Lord he was quite prepared to coincide. He referred to the noble Lord's allusion to a necessary interference by Parliament for the education of the young in principles which would be useful to them in after-life. This he considered an interference which was necessary, and which the welfare of the State required. To afford assistance to the education of young persons in their duties as citizens, and to take that duty where it was neglected by their parents, he would agree; but to interfere, as now proposed, with the employment of capital, whether embarked in machinery or anything else, was in his (Mr. Hume's) humble opinion very injudicious—nay, he would add, very unjust. He was aware that both the noble Lords opposite (Lord Ashley and Lord J. Manners) were sincere in their anxiety to see the condition of the working classes of this country improved; but he regretted to add, that he thought the views they advocated would be mischievous instead of beneficial; and if carried to the utmost extreme, would involve the ruin of the country. On the whole, he was glad the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had not objected to the introduction of the noble Lord's Bill, because he was convinced that when the matter was fully debated, the noble Lord would himself feel, at the conclusion of the debate, that it would be best to leave the matter alone.
MR. BICKHAM ESCOTTsaid, that as the Bill was not to be opposed until the second reading, it was not necessary to enter upon a debate on its principle to-night; and he should not have risen, were it not for an observation which had fallen from the noble Lord by whom the motion for the introduction of the Bill had been submitted to the House. The noble Lord had stated, in reference to former decisions of the House, that they had not been the decisions of the House of Commons, but the decisions of Her Majesty's Government.

403
This seemed to him to be a novel doctrine. If the House of Commons, after a long debate, had rejected a measure which was not palatable to the majority, the noble Lord turned round upon the representatives of the people and said, that they had not exercised any discretion, but had been influenced by Her Majesty's Ministers. As one who had voted in the majority against the noble Lord's proposition, and who would do so again, he protested against this assumption; and he would tell the noble Lord that there were some persons in the country who attributed the rejection of the measure not to the Government—not to the House of Commons—but to the noble Lord who had himself given up his own measure. With regard to the present proposition, the noble Lord said that it would be good for the people and the capitalist that there should be further interference between capital and labour; but the noble Lord had not ventured to argue that question. The noble Lord had not shown that the working man ought not to be allowed to make his own terms; and, maintaining as he did the strongest opinion that nothing could be so detrimental to the interests of the labouring classes as any interference with them, he had also a strong opinion that some of the alterations already carried into effect at the suggestion of the noble Lord, with the most benevolent intentions, had not produced the good the noble Lord contemplated; but on the contrary, that many hundreds labouring men and their families had been reduced to beggary and ruined by the noble Lord's measures. Believing this to be the case, he should endeavour to show it on the second reading of the Bill, from the evidence contained in the noble Lord's own "Blue Books," which the noble Lord quoted fully, but not fairly. The noble Lord, when he quoted, ought to state the evidence taken on the spot, both on one side and the other. When the proper time came, he trusted that the evidence on the question would be fully gone into and discussed, and then it would be seen whether any further interference ought to be made with the capital or labour of the adult; and whether the strong, sturdy, active, and energetic was to be crippled in his means to support his family, by the mistaken philanthropy of the noble Lord.
MR. COLQUHOUNobserved, that the charge brought by the hon. and learned Member for Winchester against his noble Friend (Lord Ashley), was quite novel,
404
and certainly unfounded; for he was in the recollection of the House when he asked if his noble Friend did not travel over the evidence in the most painstaking and persevering manner, before he came to his conclusion upon the evidence. He would ask if two-thirds of his noble Friend's speech was not composed of a statement of evidence and facts. If his noble Friend were to read the whole of the "Blue Book," he would inflict something like a speech in the American Congress, where a gentleman could occupy the floor of the assembly for a week together. He could not concur with the views propounded by the hon. Member for Montrose, when he stated that the delusions which the noble Lord had raised would be dispelled under a sounder view of the question. If any Member had applied the same arguments to a question of trade, the hon. Member for Montrose would exclaim loudly, and by his gesticulations convey a strong dissent to such a line of argument. After thirteen years' experience, he had voted, in 1833, with the hon. Member for Montrose against the Motion of the noble Lord, and he had then said that it was most dangerous to interfere, by legislation with trade or manufactures. He had then said that their interests were combined, and if by any measures, whether philanthropic or not, manufacturing prosperity was affected, great damage would be done to the operative as well as the manufacturer. But when he found, after the experience of twelve years, that no injury had occurred to the manufacturer, and that wages had rather remained stationary, or had increased, he thought the operative had a right to demand a moderate restriction to his labour. Seeing then that no injury had accrued to either party affected, the claims of humanity required a moderate restriction. A reference had been made to Ireland and the want of employment in that country. What was the reason why manufactures were not introduced into Ireland? The answer was, that the local condition of the people afforded no security for the existence of manufactures and that development of manufacturing industry so much to be desired.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the proposal of the noble Lord was to restrict the hours of labour of persons under a certain age, and who were not sui juris. Granting the admissibility of some such plan, he could not for a moment approve of going a step further—a step he believed the noble Lord meant to take—and interfering with the

405
labour of adults. He would ask the noble Lord what, on his principles, he would do in the following case? Suppose there were a capital of 100 l., out of which ten labourers were to be employed, at the rate, say 1s. a piece—that was to say, 10 s. a day. Well, the capital was to be thus absorbed. What, then, would be the consequence were Parliament to step in and say to the capitalist, "You shan't employ the labourers for the time sufficient to earn the shilling—we restriet the hours of toil?" The necessary consequence would be, that, as the employer was obliged to have the quantity of labour done paid for in the ratio which would be represented by 1s. per day, in order to obtain his ordinary profits from his money, he would say, "If your hours are so restricted, I must make you work, or get others to work, by the hour, at a proportionate price to that I paid you for the day." Of course, as the same number of hours were not to be employed in labour, wages would fall exactly in the proportion that they were so restricted. Let them depend upon it, that the price of labour depended upon the supply and demand, and that no legislative interference could satisfactorily regulate its wages. Increase the demand for labour by taking away restrictions from trade, and they would be taking the proper plan to raise wages. But attempt to limit hours, and the result would be failure, however philanthropic the motive. He quite coincided with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. B. Escott) in what he had said as to the evidence generally adduced by the noble Lord. No doubt that evidence was, as one of the noble Lord's defenders (Mr. Colquhoun) had characterized it, very full and very elaborate; but he knew enough of evidence to know that there was such a thing as very full and very elaborate garbling of evidence. Nor let them be led away by the hon. Gentleman's appeal to experience, the experience of the last few years. Why, what did that experience prove, but that they had enjoyed a great increase in the demand for labour? But, supposing that the great changes which they were all anticipating, by some accident did not take place, and that the demand for labour should fall off; then they would see, in spite of their legislative attempts, that labour would not be employed, that wages would rapidly fall, and that the operative would be a sufferer instead of a gainer by their philanthropy. The only way to aid the labourer was to give full, free, and complete
406
employment to his powers. The best way to protect labour was to allow it to protect itself. Then it would get its own reward, and legislation would have done for it all that legislation could do. He objected to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in so easily consenting to the introduction of this Bill. He did see both difficulty and danger in allowing this game to be played. No doubt it was a very advantageous one for those concerned in it. No sort of reputation was so readily gained as that of humanity. It was wonderfully easy—a thing to be achieved by merely accusing oneself of all the cardinal virtues. Indeed, he was surprised that many more hon. Gentlemen did not act upon the plan, did not come forward, and with great pretensions to be kinder-hearted than their fellow men, talk very largely of humanity, and of being the labourer's friends, until their professions came to touch their own pockets, until they were told the real method of relieving the poor—a method involving, perhaps, some self-sacrifices — when in an instant all their humanity vanished—all their generosity was bound up—and it was suddenly found out that to proceed would only end in the dissolution of the State and the destruction of the community. So long as the thing meant words not deeds—bringing in Bills, not practising self-denial—it was very easy to be the poor man's friend.
MR. WODEHOUSEcould not enter into the sublime views propounded by the hon. Member for Bath, nor did he agree with the hon. Member for Winchester, for it so happened that in his neighbourhood there were hundreds of women and children who would be benefited by this Bill. He therefore would support the noble Lord.
MR. P. HOWARDthought that further interference at present would be attended with anything but beneficial results towards that portion of the community whose cause the noble Lord advocated. If a ten hours' system were advisable, it would be better it should be put in force by general agreement amongst the manufacturers than by legislative enactment. In agriculture it would be difficult to limit the hours of labour; and if it were difficult to do so in time of harvest, it might also be difficult for a manufacturer, when he received a sudden order, to execute that order within a prescribed period. If this Bill should pass, the noble Lord would have a stronger ground for appealing to the generosity of

407
the manufacturer to persuade him, as a general rule, to limit the time of labour to ten hours. Such an appeal to his generosity would be more efficacious than legislation.
MR. MUNTZthought the noble Lord had not been fairly dealt with. The question had been argued as if it concerned legislation all over the country. He admitted that the argument was a sound one, if you took the general labour of the country; but he did not admit that it was a sound one in the present case. This Bill was intended to apply to factories, or places where spinning or weaving was done by machinery. So far as his knowledge went, the owner fixed the time the engineer should work, and made the people work. He would advise the Government to take particular care on this subject. He did not think that a manufacturer should fix the time, and then make the women and children work that time, whether they wished it or not; and if they did not wish it, then undertake not to give them work at all. There was another circumstance of great weight upon his mind, which occasioned him to vote for the noble Lord's Motion last year, after he had fully examined the question; and that was, that women's labour was preferable, in this species of manufacture, to that of men, and that if a sufficient quantity of women's labour could be obtained, they were employed to an immense extent, and the men walked about doing nothing. He should feel it to be his duty to vote for the noble Lord's Motion, unless on further inquiry he found he was misinformed; because, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Bath, he felt it would be for the interest of the people.
MR. J. O'CONNELLwished to make one remark on the observation of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne—that manufactures had not succeeded in Ireland because of the want of security there. Now, he did not hesitate to say that this was one of those calumnies which were often circulated out of doors, but which he thought it rather too bad to hear repeated in that House. It was utterly untrue that manufactures were driven from Ireland by want of security; but they were extinguished by the very country amongst whose people this taunt was readily accepted as true, depriving the Irish of the only means of manufacturing enterprise—capital and rich consumers. He should be most ready to give his support to this Bill, believing it to be intended for the benefit of the people.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord appeared to him to be a better speech than he had ever before delivered. There had been no factory cripples paraded on the floor of the House, or statements as to the horrible condition of the people amongst whom he (Mr. Bright) had the good fortune to live. The noble Lord had quoted some extract of a Report of a Committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, and he had complained that that report painted the condition of the manufacturing population of England with great unfairness. Who was so eminently responsible for any unfairness which might hereafter be committed against the manufacturing population of England as the noble Lord? For if the committee had read the speeches of the noble Lord, and believed them, he did not wonder they should make statements which bore very unfairly on the population of Lancashire and Yorkshire. There was one part of the question which all were agreed on, and that was, that to work ten hours was more comfortable than to work twelve. They were all anxious that the labouring population should work less and have better wages; but when the noble Lord came to demonstrate that, by a forcible suspension of labour, nobody lost and everybody gained, he was altogether wrong. He had brought before the House the case of Mr. Gardner of Preston, and had gone into details as to his establishment. He had listened to the noble Lord; but he had not told the House that when Mr. Gardner, had reduced the time of working from twelve hours to eleven, the speed of his machinery was increased, and that by a unanimous determination to make the experiment answer, certain minutes at breakfast, dinner, and tea time were spared that before had been squandered, and by extraordinary exertion the same amount of work was produced. But Mr. Gardner gave an expectation to his workpeople that he would proceed further in the reduction of hours, and they expected that this winter the time was to be reduced to ten hours; but he believed that he had not made such a reduction in the hours of his mill, and that his manager had informed Mr. Gardner that such further reduction would not be desirable. The noble Lord did not know so much about mills as he ought to do in order to meddle with this question. He (the noble Lord) had once come to the counting-house of the establishment with which he was connected, and one of his (Mr. Bright's) brothers

409
had invited him to look through the establishment. The noble Lord declined to do so; perhaps he might have seen elsewhere all that he could have seen there; but if he had been anxious to know the exact truth, he would not have refused to make himself acquainted with what was going on. The noble Lord was rather too much disposed to look at one side of the question, and attributed evils to the working of mills which in reality arose from the circumstance of large towns and the labourers being left by their more powerful neighbours in a state of very great neglect. It was proved, by the report of Mr. Clay, chaplain to the Preston house of correction, that that class of persons which furnished the smallest number of offenders, in proportion to its numbers, was the class of female workers in factories. The prisoners were classified according to their occupations, from No. 1. class, which furnished the largest number, down to No. 20, the smallest number. No 19 was the class of domestic servants, and No. 20 was the class of female operatives in factories, and No. 14, he thought, was the class of male operatives in factories. This he took to be, in some degree, a proof that there were not those demoralizing and degrading influences connected with the factory system which the Members of that House had been led to believe from the statements of the noble Lord. Whatever evils did exist, he was persuaded, were diminishing at a very rapid rate; and there was now, on the part of the employer and the employed, a very cordial and unanimous endeavour to improve, as far as possible, the condition of those who were working in mills and factories. There was one reason which the noble Lord's friends amongst the operatives were constantly bringing forward, in defence of a Ten Hours' Bill. He had met it only the last week, when a deputation called upon him, on this question, in the town of Oldham. As far as Rochdale was concerned, he knew that the last ten hours' meeting held there had been got up principally by the hand-loom weavers in the woollen trade; and they openly avowed that their object in seeking a Ten Hours' Bill was to put impediments in the way of working the power-looms, in the hope that hand-loom labour would be made more valuable. He had said to a deputation at Oldham, the other day, "This is your object;" and one of them replied, "Well, you cannot deny that it is a very good object." He denied that it was; for he thought that
410
to place impediments in the way of machinery would be about the most disastrous thing that the House could do. The hon. Member for Birmingham had referred to the old story about women being employed, and men walking about, and he stated that he had carefully examined into this question. But his examination must have been of the most superficial character; for it was notorious that, at this moment, in no part of the country was labour more scarce than in Lancashire; it was notorious that, instead of men being thrown out of work because women were employed, the very employment which the women carried on gave additional employment to the men. And it was also notorious that, in that district, there was, from year to year, a more steady and continuous extension of the demand for labour, and a better remuneration for it, than in any other part of the United Kingdom. In speaking against the Bill which the noble Lord wished to introduce, he confessed he did it with extreme reluctance; for he acknowledged that a large number of the working classes were in favour of some such measure as this. He did not believe that a majority of them were in favour of it; still less, that a majority of the most intelligent were in its favour; but he believed that a large number were in favour of it, and he was extremely sorry to give his vote, or to speak in opposition to the wishes of a number of honest men. He regarded the measures proposed by the Government—measures which he trusted would be rendered more perfect before they passed this House—as an infinitely greater relief to the working class than any which could possibly come from such legislation as this. And more than this, he was satisfied that when this measure had passed, and there was a steady prosperity prevailing throughout the kingdom, the very laudable feeling which now existed in favour of a reduction of the hours of labour would spread very rapidly. For, whilst manufacturers felt that greater justice was done to them, and that their trade was such as would afford something on their part, the working classes would every day become more powerful and more intelligent — not by violent combinations, or collisions with their employers, but—by a rational union among themselves, by reasoning with their employers, and by the co-operation of all classes; and he firmly believed that many years would not pass over before the measure which the noble Lord recommended, so far as an Eleven

411
Hours' Bill was concerned—not a Bill, but an eleven hours' system—would be altogether universal throughout the woollen and cotton districts of the North of England. And no man, not even the noble Lord himself, would more thoroughly rejoice in such a consummation than he should, though he was now compelled to give his firmest opposition to the Bill of the noble Lord.
MR. JOHN FIELDENsaid, he feared the hon. Member for Durham had mixed himself up so much with some other association, that he had not had time to attend to this question. However, his experience with regard to the factory workers had been as long and as continuous as that of the hon. Member for Durham; and he thought that a Ten Hours' Bill might be passed this Session with the greatest chance of proving a blessing, not only to the working classes, but to the whole country. He would not now advert to any objection that had been made, except one that had been started by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and caught up by the hon. Member for Durham. It was this: the question was put, "Why don't you at once adopt the ten-hour system, without asking the Legislature for a Bill?" Now, he confessed he should be much more satisfied if the manufacturing interest would adopt the system without any such legislative interference. But the hon. Member for Durham knew what the effect of factory working was; he knew that those working in factories were compelled to be there from a certain hour in the morning till evening. They were not free agents; they had not control over their time; and he was surprised at the two hon. Gentlemen below him, who had taken the same course of argument, to the effect that this measure was an interference with the rights of property and of labour; and they designated labour as property. He did not disagree with the opinion that labour was property, though it was not generally considered such; and he thought it as much entitled to protection as any other property. But, in protecting labour, they must take care they did not injure or destroy the labourer. By refusing the labourer protection, they suffered him to be destroyed by the capitalist, and the Legislature neglected its duty. The protection of labour implied that those who ought to be able to labour should have not only the ability but the means of labouring. By working them too many hours in the day, their power to labour at all was
412
destroyed. The commonest and most every-day experience was sufficient to convince every one that a child of thirteen years of age was not capable of sustaining as much toil as the full-grown man. He would ask hon. Members opposite, would they like one of their children, thirteen years of age, to be dragged out of its bed at five o'clock in the morning, and sent to labour in a factory, whence it did not return until eight o'clock in the evening—thus occupying fourteen or fifteen hours? And was this sort of slavery to be continued? The two hon. Members had urged, that to protect labour was to interfere with the rights of property. That was just the hackneyed argument that had been used in that House when it was appealed to to abolish the Slave Trade. As to the opponents of the measure having the public with them, he contended they had not one in a thousand. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Durham advocating this protection of property of labour, without taking into consideration human beings. By connecting the labourers with the steam-engine, they were compelled to work the same time; and this was the state of the factory slaves. He did not rise to make an appendix to the speech of the noble Lord; it needed none, it was complete in itself; but he had risen to answer the arguments of the hon. Member near him. The factory slaves would never forget the services of the noble Lord. Notwithstanding the opposition now made to the Ten Hours' Bill, he was confident it would pass. And what the hon. Member said of the feeling in favour of the Bill, was a very strong argument why the House ought to pass it. On Monday week he had attended, at the request of his constituents, a Ten Hours' Bill meeting at Oldham. The two chief constables had called the meeting, two cotton spinners of considerable importance, who had always before been opposed to the Bill. One of them took the chair; and both expressed their determination to support, in the best way they could, the obtainment of this Bill from the House. Such was the feeling, according to his experience, that prevailed in the country; and the hon. Member for Durham could not deny it. The operatives themselves had no fear of being injured by the result; for they knew that every time the hours of labour had been shortened, more employment had followed, and there had been no suffering from the reduction of wages. And he was quite satisfied, if they passed the Ten Hours' Bill this Session,

413
that the question would be set at rest, agitation would cease, and the country would prosper better under a Ten Hours' Bill than it had done under the twelve hours' system.
MR. WAKLEYbegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if, after hearing the speech of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat, his opinions had not undergone a change? His hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was one of the most experienced, most wealthy, most intelligent, and most humane men in the kingdom—a man universally respected, and one who had ever been the friend of the poor. He was a practical man, not a mere theorist, who would run through granite after a principle. He was not so bigotedly attached to what was called principle as to refuse to change his opinion, or to resist the conclusions to which facts would lead him. The question was, whether infants in this country were to be sacrificed to a principle? The hon. Member for Oldham, he understood, was at the head of a firm which employed thousands of hands; in his establishment was wrought up nearly one-hundredth part of the cotton imported into this country; and what did he say? Surely, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department would not be insensible to the effect of that speech which the hon. Member had delivered. The right hon. Baronet had intimated that his opinions on this subject were unaltered. Did he not think it rash to make such a statement, after what had lately passed in that House? He must be permitted to say that it was rash and unphilosophical. It was proved now that men could bend their minds to circumstances; that men who had set out with a principle could deviate and adopt a very different course, when reason intimated that it was for the general good to do so. He gave the right hon. Baronet opposite full credit for the sincerity of his change of opinion on the Corn Law question; nothing could be more invidious, or more irrational, than to charge men with dishonesty, because they changed their opinions. In his opinion, that was a disgusting charge, and one altogether unfitted for a legislative assembly. Infinitely worse, and infinitely more dishonest would it be, for a man when his opinions were changed, to utter a falsehood within the walls of that House. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would apply his mind seriously to the subject, and reflect upon the facts that had been adduced for his information. He was
414
extremely sorry to hear that the right hon. Baronet had given an intimation to the House that he should oppose the Bill. His hon. and learned Friend was an advocate for the representation of the working classes; and he had always advocated the widest extension of the suffrage; he had thought that the working classes ought to be represented here, and it would delight him to see the working men voting in that House. The speeches of some of them would be no disgrace to that Assembly; more splendid speeches, indicative of natural eloquence, he had never heard; and he trusted the day would come when they would be heard in that Assembly. Supposing the working people to have been adequately represented in that House, how many Sessions would pass over before there was a Ten Hours' Bill? It would be passed in the first Session; it would take precedence of everything else. But did the noble Lord, the Mover of the Bill, ask for a Ten Hours' Bill with reference to the working classes generally? Nothing of the kind; all he asked was the interference of the Legislature to protect those infant beings who could not protect themselves: and was not this the business of legislation? The wealthy and intelligent, and those of mental and physical vigour, could protect themselves; it was the infant that sued for succour in this case; and every one who had paid any attention to the subject, who knew what was the condition of our overworked population, must anticipate, with the greatest possible joy and satisfaction, the success of the noble Lord's Bill. If they wished a horse to be a perfect animal, how was it treated when young? Did they begin to work it at two, or three, or even at four years old? If this were done, its physical development would be checked; and the laws of animal life were, in this respect, the same in all. Everybody knew that, in our manufacturing towns, the physical system was becoming imperfect; that was universally acknowledged by all writers on the subject. There was not a medical writer who had devoted his attention to the question who did not express his fears for the results to this country, should the system continue of working the young as we now did. The principles of physiology were the same in all animal life; and the imperfection that must arise from this system would be most deplorable in its effects on the people of this country. His hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, had stated in his speech that he adhered firmly

415
to the principle involved; but he had afterwards knocked down his own arguments, and had completely tripped himself up. The hon. Gentleman had declared his readiness to interfere with reference to mental education, and yet refused to support the noble Lord, whose Bill went at once to promote that object, by raising the physical condition of the working classes. In this case he had completely abandoned his principle. He hoped the noble Lord would be industrious in the collection of his facts—that he would not garble them, but quote fairly. Let him adduce all the facts he possibly could in reference to this question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would bring a candid and unprejudiced mind to the investigation of the subject; and if he did so, he must come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord.
Mr. NEWDEGATErejoiced to hear the speech that the hon. Member for Finsbury had just made. It did him good to hear that theoretical principle was not to be allowed to overbear the experience of many years in the Legislature; and that the people of this country might still hope that our representative system furnished them enough of experienced men to set at nought theory and its mischiefs. He trusted that the right hon. Home Secretary would consider the relation of this measure to those which Her Majesty's Government had introduced. He had, perhaps, cast aside long experience in favour of theory in that matter; but let him well weigh this consideration, whether, when he was about to introduce the competition of the world with the labourers of this country, it would not be well to afford them some protection; and whether their claim to protection was not strengthened by the force of competition which was about to be brought against them. Allusion had been made to America, the great increase of whose manufactures seemed to threaten a severe competition with our own products. Were the labourers there not protected; and was not the protection afforded to their products the means of enabling the masters there to give relaxation and shorter hours of labour to their operatives? If the Government of this country reversed the case—removed protection, and increased competition—had not the noble Lord a still better claim on the Legislature for protection to the operatives of this country? He trusted that Government would reconsider this question before the Bill came to a second reading. He deeply lamented the course
416
they had adopted; he deeply lamented that they had cast aside a weightier and still more extensive measure than the one proposed; but he trusted that, if only in this little item, they would be warned by experience—by the experience of the manufacturers to whom this Bill principally related, and the experience of one whose medical knowledge gave him a good claim to be heard.
MR. S. CRAWFORDsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be introduced without expressing the favourable sentiments he entertained towards it. He represented a manufacturing town, where the cotton and woollen manufactures were extensively carried on; and when the noble Lord proposed his measure on a former occasion, he had taken the pains to make himself acquainted with the feelings of the manufacturing classes of that town, and he was convinced that the working classes were strongly in favour of a reduction of the hours of labour by the Legislature. On that ground, he had supported the noble Lord all in his power; and he had seen nothing since, and heard no argument on the present occasion, to induce him to alter his opinion. He trusted most sincerely that the object of the noble Lord would be attained, and that the working classes would be thereby greatly benefited.
LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said he would now refer to two statements made by the hon. Member for Durham. The statements which had reference to the increased rate of speed of Mr. Gardner's mills, he, on the best authority, had reason for believing to be incorrect. As to the other statement, he had requested the hon. Member for Durham to wait until he had explained the circumstance to which he had referred. [The noble Lord inquired if the hon. Member was in the House, and having been informed in the negative, proceeded.] He had to complain of great discourtesy on the part of the hon. Member for Durham, who, having made a charge against him—a charge of a personal nature—had not remained in the House to hear his reply to it, though he had been requested by him (Lord Ashley) to do so. The circumstance to which the hon. Member alluded was briefly this. The year before last he was in Lancaster, on a visit with the hon. Member for Oldham; and it occurred to him that, as he was within a short distance of Rochdale, where were situated the mills of the hon. Member for Durham, he might as well go over there. He believed himself to be perfectly conversant

417
with all the operations of mills, and therefore did not deem it necessary to add to his experience by an additional inspection of the mills at Rochdale; but he visited them simply and solely that he might see the hon. Member, or leave his name, because the hon. Member having attacked him in the House in a way which was highly unjustifiable, he thought he would be acting, in colloquial phrase, "like a gentlemen," to show him that he entertained no resentment towards him, and wished to meet him on friendly terms. He saw the hon. Gentleman's brother on his arrival—conversed for half an hour with him, but said that he did not think it necessary to go over the mills. Why did he say so? Because he was afraid, had he done so, that it would have been said by the hon. Member that he wanted to spy out some defect, or discover some mismanagement in their arrangement: that, he solemnly declared, was the reason he did not inspect them. He could not help, therefore, stating that he thought the hon. Member for Durham had travelled a little out of the record, when he stated that he was one-sided in all his statements because he had not gone over his mills; for he could assure the House that he had given them the whole history of the case.
Leave given. Bill brought in, and read a first time.

LOCAL TAXATION.
MR. WODEHOUSEhaving asked leave to withdraw a Notice, relative to returns of the amount of certain local rates, for this day, and to renew it for Monday next,
MR. F. T. BARINGbegged to express his opinion that it would be much better if the whole subject of local taxation, its extent and details, were contained in one paper, than exhibited in various returns, such as the one just postponed, He hoped the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, would accede to that suggestion. He did not ask him for any fresh information, but merely to get that information which they already possessed arranged in a proper form by some public department, by which it would be much better performed than in any other way. It was desirable that the whole statement of local taxation, amounting to 16,000,000 l., should be laid before the House from the documents already existing; for it would be better to possess the information desirable for them even in an imperfect form, than to be compelled to look through the whole of the various returns
418
on that subject. He did not wish any now return, but wished the right hon. Baronet to have a statement compiled on one sheet from those already existing.
SIR J. GRAHAMquite concurred with the hon. Member who had just spoken, in thinking it most desirable that such a document as he had alluded to should be in the hands of the House; but at the same time was of opinion that for such a return to be useful, it was absolutely necessary it should be accurate. His hon. Friend had consented to withdraw his Motion, for the purpose of allowing time to confer with the authorities at Somerset House. Any one who had read the very able Report on Local Taxation would know that there were no less than twenty-two local rates, levying 12,000,000 l. a year. Under the head of the burdens on land, therefore, there would not only be those twenty-two local rates, but the borough rates, as well as all the local rates under the various local Acts. To present all those within a fortnight in one accurate view, was far beyond any means which Government possessed, and he was afraid, were they to attempt to carry it out, so far from the result leading to any accurate conclusion, it would impede the judgment of the House in forming any opinion on the subject. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton had moved for an extensive return of a similar nature, and but three-fourths of the necessary documents had yet reached the Home Office. There were about 16,000 different local highway rates levied, and of those the returns of 12,000 only had been obtained up to the present time. The preparation of the return obtained by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had occupied nearly a twelvemonth, and he thought the hon. Gentleman must admit that a perfect return could not be made out in the course of a fortnight.
MR. F. T. BARINGthought that if the information already existing in the public offices could be presented at one view, it would be a very valuable document.
MR. HUMEsaid, it was a reflection on the Government that so much confusion should prevail on the subject, and suggested that the 16,000 existing rates might be reduced to two or three.
Leave given—Notice withdrawn.

POOR LAW (IRELAND).
MR. F. FRENCHsaid, he understood it had been intimated last Session that some inquiry should be instituted by Her Majesty's

419
Government into the working of the Poor Law in Ireland. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to grant a Committee of Inquiry in either House of Parliament in the course of the present Session. He was the more anxious upon this subject on account of the danger which was in all probability to be apprehended of a famine coming upon Ireland within the lapse of a few weeks. He had conversed with persons in all parts of Ireland, who agreed that not the slightest dependence was to be placed on the present Poor Law for the alleviation of the distress that might be expected. Under the circumstances, he thought it imperative that some inquiry should be instituted into the working of the law.
SIR J. GRAHAMsaid, that no inquiry would be gone into on the part of the Government; the law, he feared, was about to undergo a severe trial from the impending distress, but already the Government had reason to be satisfied that it had been established. The existence of workhouses in different districts at this time was most fortunate and opportune; there were also, now, in every moderately sized district, boards of guardians, including magistrates and gentlemen of the locality, who formed an organized body, adapted to the application of means of relief. He was by no means satisfied that the law was a perfect measure; but still, when compared with the absence of any law, they might congratulate themselves on its establishment. He could only repeat the assurance he gave in the last Session, that if any Member of either House of Parliament asked for an inquiry into the operation of the law, the Government would offer no opposition to it; the hon. Gentleman was perhaps aware, that in the other House of Parliament notice of a Motion for an Inquiry had been given by Lord Clancarty. That Motion, or any made by a Member of that House, the Government would not oppose.
MR. J. O'CONNELLsaid, the New Poor Law, even in the most favourable times, had been found a heavy grievance in Ireland, and had never relieved the pauperism of the country. It had now to undergo a severe test, and he was convinced it would never succeed. The effect of the approaching calamity could not be exaggerated; they were within three or four weeks of famine, and it should be borne in mind that in Ireland a famine never occurred that was not attended by
420
that dreadful pestilence the typhus fever. An eminent medical gentleman of Dublin, Dr. Corrigan, had shown by inquiries into past history that in Ireland famines were always accompanied by typhus fever. It would give great satisfaction to the people of Ireland to have it declared to them that the Government was prepared, without any unnecessary delay, to carry out some measure, with the object of relieving the existing distress, on a plan more extensive than that which had already been brought forward; that plan was one, indeed, totally unfitted for the occasion, and he wished it to be distinctly understood that he entered his protest against the expectation, if any such there was, that that measure was to be received as a boon by the Irish people. It was nothing for which thanks or gratitude were due; it was but a small return for the money of Ireland which had been taken away from that country by the rulers of this, without qualification or pretext.
MR. S. CRAWFORDwas glad to find that such a measure had been decided upon, and that all was to be done which could be done by the Government to meet the demands of a people visited by unforeseen distress; but it would have to be recollected that the Irish Poor Law Bill did not provide for external relief; and, in the event of a famine, some provision should be made for the unfortunate, to have food supplied to them in their own houses. It was to be hoped this would not be overlooked by the Government.

PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
House in Committee on the Public Works (Ireland) Bill.
SIR T. FREMANTLEmoved to omit the 4th, 5th, and 6th Clauses, and to bring up a Clause for extending the provisions of the old Act to the Public Works.
The Motions agreed to. House resumed.
Report brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration.
House adjourned at half past 10 o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a. Turnpike Roads (Scotland); High Constables.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Jedburgh and Melrose, praying for Repeal of so much of the General Turnpike Act (Scotland), as authorizes the Granting of Ale and Spirit Licences to Toll House Keepers.—From Landowners, Tenants, Labourers, and others interested in Protection to Agriculture, residing in the Parishes of Woodburgh, and several other places, in favour of the Corn Laws.—From West Harley, for the adoption of a Measure to prevent the Unconstitutional Proceedings of the Anti-Corn-Law League, in relation to the Corn Laws.—From Bolsover, for Protection to the Agricultural Interest.—From the Royal Burgh of Stranraer, for Repeal of the Corn Laws.

CORN LAWS—PETITION.
The DUKE of RICHMONDpresented a petition, signed, he said, by a large number of gentlemen, farmers, and labourers of West Harlsey, praying the House not to consent to any alteration in the Corn Laws, and complaining of the unconstitutional course of the Anti-Corn-Law League. The noble Duke, in continuation, said, he had had opportunities of seeing a very large number of the gentry and tenantry of the country since the opening of the "comprehensive scheme," as it was called, of the Ministers had been made known in another place, and he could only say that that "comprehensive scheme" had been repudiated by every one of these individuals who came from every part of England. They viewed the proposed measure with strong indignation, and, one and all, they were prepared to stand to the last to maintain protection, not only for themselves, but protection for the domestic industry of the country. They considered they had been grossly ill-treated and deceived: for the men who by their support were sent into the House of Commons upon the faith that they would maintain the protective system, were — at least many of them—now wavering and doubting; and they thought that the men who had made such pledges were bound to resign their seats in order to see whether they would again be returned. He entirely
338
concurred in these opinions. He thought the abandonment of the system of protection would have an injurious, indeed a ruinous, effect upon the great interests of the country; and the manner in which the subject had been agitated by the Anti-Corn-Law League ought to be one reason, even if there were no others, that the Ministerial measure should be thrown out. At all events, he called on their Lordships to pause before they gave the people of this country reason to suppose that no confidence could be placed in their public men. That feeling would be most injurious. He contended it was most inconsistent, seeing we had enjoyed great prosperity under the present Corn Law, to seek now to repeal it. The time for it was badly chosen; and the arguments and statements by which the repeal was supported, would prove upon examination most fallacious. He did not intend to go into details at the present moment, because he hoped the subject would be discussed upon the principle of protection or no protection; then would be the time to go into details. There should be no compromise at all. To talk of compromise was ridiculous. The compensation offered to the agriculturists for the loss of protection was absurd. The highways were to be put under surveillance, and the parishes were to be relieved of half of their apothecaries' bills, or some nonsense of that sort. But would Her Majesty's Ministers tell him what they believed would be the price of corn under the new law; for unless they could tell that, how on earth could they say whether they were not giving too much to the manufacturer, and too little to the agriculturist? They must make up their minds what would be the price; and he should like to know their expectations in this respect, because then he could tell whether it would remunerate the British farmer, or whether it would throw out of cultivation a large surface of land. He for one was decidedly opposed to this country being dependent upon foreign nations for supplies of food. He was for protection to native industry; and the same views were maintained by a very large body of the people, men not easily roused, but who were now roused because they felt they had been deceived and ill treated. It would be most dangerous for Parliament to carry the present measure against so marked an opinion against it on the part of a great body of most respectable, quiet, and unobtrusive men—men not open

339
to the bribes of the Anti-Corn-Law League, but who felt it their duty to protect themselves and their brother men, be they manufacturers or agriculturists. He hoped, then, that their Lordships would not scruple to give the country an opportunity of judging whether the protective system was right or wrong, by throwing out the measure when it came before them, and thus force the Minister to a dissolution. Let the question be made the subject of discussion at the hustings. If it were said that exactly the same question was discussed at the hustings in 1841, he denied the assertion. The questions were not identical. The men who supported the Government measure at that time voted against the proposition for a fixed duty of 8s., on the ground that the protection which it afforded was not sufficient; yet these very same men were now found ready to vote for a repeal of the Corn Laws which was to take place in three years. If protection was "the bane of agriculture," he should have preferred the more open, manly, and straightforward course of its abolition altogether, rather than the Ministerial scheme, for he was convinced it would be less mischievous.
LORD KINNAIRDsaid, the noble Duke had thought proper to attack the Anti-Corn-Law League, and to charge that body with the use of bribes. He (Lord Kinnaird) was a member of the League, and he was willing to stand by its conduct as a body, and he positively denied that it employed bribes, or did anything either illegal or unconstitutional. He would not go so far as to render himself responsible for the statements made or the language used by individual members of the League, because that could not be expected from any man; but he would ask the noble Duke whether he considered himself responsible for the language used at the meetings of the Protection Society?
The DUKE of RICHMOND: Yes; I am prepared to be personally responsible for any language I ever heard at any meeting of any protection society.
LORD KINNAIRDthought the noble Duke deserved credit for his chivalry, because language had been used at some of those meetings which no man and no Christian ought to have used. Was the comparison of an hon. Member of the Legislature to Satan, language for which the noble Duke would be responsible? Such language as that had frequently been used
340
in meetings of protection societies. The noble Duke, at no very late period, was not so willing to offer his responsibility, for he formally repudiated the responsibility of the language used at a protection meeting at which the Times newspaper had been burnt, in paltry spite; but now he rendered himself liable for all the foolish language of the farmers, and he wished the noble Duke joy of his now undertaking. He (Lord Kinnaird) should be sorry to render himself responsible for the expressions of any party; but at the same time he could undertake to deny positively that the Anti-Corn-Law League gave or offered bribes. Their object was a constitutional one, and they were carrying it out legally: it was merely to facilitate the creation of votes to act upon the Legislature; and the protectionists had openly avowed their determination to adopt the same course. It was somewhat extraordinary to hear the League charged with interference at elections, whilst he (Lord Kinnaird) would venture to say that there were not twenty Peers, Members of that House, who had not subscribed towards the expenses of elections. The country could not be ignorant that in so subscribing those noble Lords subscribed beyond the legal expenses of the election; and he ventured to say there was no Member of that House, either on one side or the other, who had not subscribed either to the Reform or the Carlton Club.
The DUKE of RICHMOND: I never have.
LORD KINNAIRDknew that most of the Members of that House had. They all knew how elections were carried. They all know that at the time of an election parties went to the committee sitting at one of those clubs, stating the price of their boroughs. That had been done over and over again, and he had known individual instances of it. Yet many of those same parties—he would not say individuals for whose language the noble Duke was now responsible—were the people who complained it was illegal and unconstitutional to facilitate the registration and the purchase of freeholds. Talk of interfering at elections! Why, they knew that the elections for counties in Scotland were carried by faggot votes which were systematically created for the purpose; and at the present moment they were qualifying their own servants to vote. The League, he repeated, merely facilitated a legal and constitutional right, and he denied

341
they were guilty of bribery. Those who lived in glass houses should not throw stones. He (Lord Kinnaird) did not know whether it was according to the rules of the House, but as the noble Duke had been permitted to allude to the "comprehensive scheme" submitted to the other House by Her Majesty's Government, he probably might be allowed to add a few observations. He was not going to enter into the details of that scheme. He was happy to say that, although he wished the repeal of the Corn Laws had been more immediate than was proposed, that scheme was fully satisfactory. The protectionist party called upon the Government to appeal to the country. It was, indeed, a strange doctrine, that the Government should not first try the House of Commons. If the Government were beat in the House of Commons, they would, of necessity, appeal to the country; but to appeal at once, without taking the sense of the existing Parliament, would be a practical adoption of the Chartist doctrine of annual Parliaments. As far as he had had opportunity for judging, he believed there would be a majority, both of the people and the Parliament, for the Government measure; but what would be the consequences of postponement? The noble Duke might approve of it; but how long would the question be allowed to exist? Did the noble Duke consider it was possible that the country would very long submit to delay? The consequence of delay, he (Lord Kinnaird) said, would be a sweeping reform in the Parliamentary constitution. The people, disappointed in their desires, would not submit to the continuance of protection after having had the abolition of it within their grasp; and if it were denied, they would not submit to the present constitution of the House of Commons, with regard to the number of nomination boroughs in the hands of the protectionists.
Petition to lie on the Table.

THE OREGON BOUNDARY.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, he begged to ask him a question which, he thought, would not require a very great deal of consideration. He (Lord Brougham) had purposely avoided giving notice of his intention to put the question, lest it should be considered offensive in any quarter, but he was not to be held answerable for having drawn out the truth, if the truth were offensive. There
342
had been no concert between the noble Earl and himself on the subject. Had the noble Earl seen a new argument for the American claim to the Oregon territory, in the shape of globes made and sold in London, wherein the boundaries of the Oregon were described according to the American doctrine?
The EARL of ABERDEEN(in apparent astonishment) replied in the negative.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not wonder at his noble Friend being surprised. He (Lord Brougham) would give him the name of the globe-maker in question; and he would find, upon inquiry, that the Oregon boundary had been put by the maker upon a globe before it was finished, and that same globe was purchased by no less important a person than the American Minister in this country. He did not believe that his excellent friend, Mr. Everett, was a party to the proceeding; and it might possibly prove to have been done by the tradesman out of kindness and respect for his customer.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had heard something of this matter, but he attached no importance to it. It referred to an older transaction than Mr. Everett's time. The globe had been purchased by an American, but not by the American Minister.

THE CORN LAWS.
EARL GREYsaid, he should be sorry if the discussion commenced by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond) should have terminated before he had had the opportunity of adding one or two observations. There was one part of the remarks of his noble Friend, in which he entirely concurred; and that was, that this question, when it came on for discussion, ought to be discussed as it deserved, seriously and solemnly. He should greatly rejoice if his noble Friend, who truly stated the question really at issue to be the principle of protection or no protection, would adopt the suggestion which had been made elsewhere, and submit a resolution calling upon their Lordships to affirm the principle of protection. There was also another point on which he concurred with his noble Friend. He (Earl Grey) must say, he regarded with great satisfaction the measure which had been propounded in another place, and which was likely soon to come before that House; but, like his noble Friend, he should have been better pleased, if, when so much was proposed to

343
be done, the proposition had gone a little further. It would have been better, he thought, if the measure, which substantially amounted to the abolition of the protection on corn, had, that object being contemplated, proposed the abolition at once. For his part, he regarded the modified sliding scale, which was to be continued for three years, as neither more nor less than a mockery of protection. It was clearly considered so by those noble Lords who advocated the principle of protection, and being so regarded, he (Earl Grey) was totally at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be recommended to them. He confessed that as a landowner, this was the only part of the measure of which he was afraid. He was not afraid of a fair and free competition, for he was perfectly persuaded that the agriculturists of this country were no less able than the manufacturers to compete fairly in the market with their foreign rivals; but he was seriously afraid, when a change in the policy of the country was about to take place, and the avowal was made that protection could not be maintained, that the interposition of an interval of delay before that suggested change was carried into effect would be most injurious, by prolonging those evils with which a state of transition in commercial affairs was invariably attended. In his opinion, it was perfectly clear that during those three years it would be scarcely possible for a satisfactory arrangement to be come to between landlords and tenants. He believed also that the continuance of this modified protection, would afford an excuse for continuing the great evil of agitation; and would have the effect of throwing obstructions, by the uncertainty which it tended to promote, in the way of the extensive employment of capital in the improvement of land. No man who looked into the matter could doubt that, for some years past, since the apprehension of a further modification of the Corn Laws had become strong, that there had been an indisposition among all persons to invest any great amount of capital in the permanent improvement of the land—that there was an indisposition to make bargains for land for any lengthened periods. As he thought that any great improvement in agriculture must be founded on the granting of leases, and of thus giving the necessary security to the tenant before he could be expected to effect improvements, so he felt that whatever tended to continue agitation, and consequent
344
insecurity, must be most injurious to the landed interests. But, further, by continuing this modified protection for two or three years, it seemed to him that a considerable increase would be made in the difficulties attending the transition. They all knew that the stock of corn in foreign countries was low at present; so low, that the demands of the market in this country, even under the existing law, had completely swept all the foreign ports from which corn could be shipped, and that, therefore, an immediate alteration of the law could be made with comparatively slight effects; but if the measure that had been announced in another place became law, and a modified scale of duties were continued for three years longer, to be followed at the end of that time by a free trade in corn, the necessary tendency of such a law would be to induce the foreign grower, instead of gradually feeding our markets, and bringing his competition with our farmers to bear gradually on prices, to check and dam up the current of importation from abroad for three years, and at the end of that time to let a great quantity of foreign corn into our markets, to the great detriment of all parties; for a sudden influx of that kind would be no less injurious to the consumer than to the producer. He firmly hoped that those among their Lordships who, like himself, were deeply interested in the prosperity of agriculture, would look well into this matter. It was, no doubt, for the purpose of conciliating their Lordships' support that this scheme had been proposed; but if he were right in believing that of all plans that could be adopted such a one must be the most detrimental to their interests, he trusted they would use their influence to prevent the passing of a measure which was really calculated to injure rather than to benefit the agriculturists. There was another point on which he was nearly ready to concur with his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Richmond). His noble Friend had spoken with something like ridicule and contempt of what was called compensation to the landed interest in the proposed measure. Now he did not think that, on reflection, their Lordships could view this compensation in any other light than that in which it had been represented by the noble Duke; for though he thought some of the relief proposed was perfectly just, quite irrespective of the Corn Laws, still to talk of a measure involving some half a million annually, spread over all the landed interests

345
of Great Britain and Ireland, as one of compensation for the injury they might receive (supposing they received such injury), was, he should say, to practise a gross delusion towards their Lordships. He believed that the only real compensation that could be made to them would be that contained in the promises that had been held out, but which, he was sorry to say, appeared from the printed papers not intended to be fulfilled. He meant that if the principle of free trade were adopted with respect to corn, so it should be with regard also to other matters. It seemed to him beyond all things just, that if they were to sell their corn, regulated by competition, they should have an opportunity of buying the things they required at prices also regulated by competition; that if they sold cheap corn, they had a right to buy cheap sugar, cheap tea, and cheap coffee. He would like to know on what principle of common justice and equity, the contrary practice was intended to be maintained; more especially with regard to the Colonies. If the English landowner was expected to meet competion, and to take his chance in the market with foreign nations—if he was expected to bear with the effects of free trade, he would wish to know on what ground the Colonial landowner should not bear competition also. The English landowner was taxed largely to maintain the military and naval forces necessary for the protection and safety of the Colonies. Nor was this all: large sums of money were voted annually for the maintenance of civil and religious establishments in many of the Colonies, and when they took these burdens off the Colonial landowner, was it, he asked, common justice and equity, that when the principle of free trade was extended to the British landowner, it should be withheld in regard to them? He trusted their Lordships would insist, when the proper time arrived, for the full extension of the principles of free trade; and if these principles were, as he thought they ought to be, extended to the landowner at home, he hoped and trusted their Lordships would insist on having them carried out with regard to others also. This course was the more advisable, because the remission of protecting duties on such articles as sugar and coffee would afford great relief to the consumer, and would at the same time ensure an increased revenue to the Treasury. In fact, the Treasury and the consumer would be benefited together, and thus Her Majesty's Government would be
346
enabled to afford more easily the remission of those protective duties to an extent, which, in the absence of such an addition to the revenues, must now he regarded as impossible without—what he would much regret to see—the imposition of new taxes. He thought the continuance of protection in the manner proposed, was calculated to throw discredit on the great principle on which this important measure was said to rest, when he found that it was not finally and resolutely carried out; and, above all, it created the greatest surprise in his mind to perceive that Her Majesty's Government should still think it worth their while to cripple and diminish the efficiency of this measure by adhering to the plan—which he thought had been now completely exploded—of making a distinction between the duty on sugar the produce of free labour and of slave labour. He thought this system had been completely exploded, and that those who had first brought it forward had long since got ashamed of advocating it. Considering how much of the language of wooing, which had been adopted when the possession of office was the object in view, had been since given up; considering how many of the pledges then given had been departed from, it seemed to him to be a highly unnecessary sort of squeamishness not to have gone a little farther, and to have abandoned the most groundless of all the doctrines that had then been brought forward. He had hoped that they were now to start entirely from fresh ground, and that the just and sound principles of free trade, now announced, would be carried into effect for the benefit of the whole nation. The remarks which had fallen from the noble Duke had induced him (Earl Grey) to trouble their Lordships with these observations, and he feared that he had, perhaps, gone further than he ought to have gone on this occasion; but considering how, generally, such matters were decided—that is, practically and virtually decided—before their Lordships had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion regularly upon them in that House, he thought there was some justification for Members of their Lordships' House venturing—perhaps a little irregularly—to state their views on important questions. This principle of free trade was one on which he had always felt most deeply, ever since the first Session that he had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament. When the question of the corn trade first came before

347
the House after that period, he was one of those who had voted in the small minority by which the principle of the sliding scale had been opposed. From that time to the present, whether in or out of office, his course had been the same. His belief had always been that the whole principle of protection, from first to last, was a mistake—that it was injurious to the protected interests as well as to the consumer—and that the sooner they adopted the principles of common sense—the principles upon which every great writer on political economy for the last fifty years had argued the question—the sooner they adopted these principles in their legislation, the better.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, that as there were millions of persons who believed that their fortunes and existence were at stake on this question, it was not to be expected that they would be very nice in the expressions they made use of when discussing it. On what might be called the main question, that of free trade, which the noble Earl contended for, the Government of the Crown could never, in his apprehension, be able to carry on the business of the State. He admitted, that the principle of perfect free trade, for which the noble Lord argued on the present occasion, and of which he was aware the noble Earl had always been a consistent supporter, was, if it could be established, the principle of common sense. It was completely undeniable that the principle of free trade was in accordance with common sense; but the question which they had to consider was, how that principle could be established in a country having such complicated interests—placed in such an artificial position with regard to other countries of Europe, which were placed in positions equally artificial, and which had interests that were fighting against this country in every possible way—this country having, too, a debt of eight hundred millions upon its shoulders. How, he asked, was it possible that the principle of free trade, even admitting—which he did—that it was the principle of common sense, could be applied in such a case? He not only admitted that perfect free trade, if practicable, would be in accordance with common sense, but that it would be consistent with the best interests of all countries. The noble Lord advocated entire free trade; but how, he would to ask the noble Lord, would he be prepared go into a Committee of Ways and Means, to pay the interest of the national debt,
348
and to maintain the credit of the country, without meeting with all the difficulties and chances of a loss of revenue, which his principle would oblige him to risk. Take, for instance, the article tea, which the noble Earl had omitted from amongst those which he enumerated; and from which millions of revenue were derived: this was an article of consumption which the British farmer required, and which those with whom he had to compete obtained at one third the price he did. The noble Earl had referred to the difficulty which the British farmer would have in meeting the corn growers of other countries in the market on equal terms. It required no great study of political economy to state the simple fact which this question involved, that while the man on the shores of the Baltic, in the north of Germany, paid his workman 6d. a day, and the Britsh farmer paid his workman 2s. a day—it required, he repeated, no great skill in political economy to perceive that these two persons did not meet each other in the market on equal terms. Again, those countries were free from tithe, from the poor-rates, and other burdens imposed upon the British farmer, the general rule being that the poor-rate was taken from the municipalities of the different towns, while the country districts were usually left entirely free. All these were difficulties which, much as he admired the general principles of free trade laid down by the noble Earl, were, he thought, insuperable in the way of establishing them in this country, under the artificial circumstances in which the country was placed. In fact, they had no wise man amongst them, who had not over and over again told them the same truths. Mr. Huskisson had in all his speeches laid down the principle, that when they no longer wanted to raise fifty or sixty millions a year of taxation, then they might demand cheap bread even on the principles of the most perfect free traders. Other political economists, down to Mr. Ricardo, had all admitted that the British farmer required some compensation for the disabilities under which he laboured. They differed much as to the amount of such compensation; but all admitted that it was to some extent or other necessary. Another difficulty in the way of free trade in corn he would also allude to, with the conviction that others who understood the subject would carry out the point more fully. Other European countries, as France, Prussia, Holland, Spain, all derived their

349
supplies of corn in times of scarcity from the shores of the Baltic, or from the Black Sea; but principally from the former. Now, all these countries had scales of protective duties. They protected themselves against the importation of corn in years when it was not wanted; but in times of scarcity they all went for their supplies to the same shop or granary, namely, the Baltic. Now, what was the consequence? The seasons usually produced the same results over all the northern countries. The consequence was, that though while in times of scarcity they were all obliged to purchase corn at the same time, the effect in years when the crop, as in the case of last year, was pretty nearly sufficient to supply the wants of the country, would be most destructive to the British farmer. In such years, all the other countries to which he alluded shut their ports. The ports of Great Britain were the only ones open—they were, in fact, a sort of refuge for the destitute, for every thing grown in other countries in plentiful years—and that, too, not only for the corn intended for this market, but for the corn grown on the calculation of the possible wants of a large extent of Europe, in which the ports were kept closed. The markets of Great Britain would thus be paralysed, and the difficulties against which the British farmer would have to contend, would be materially advanced. The farmer would, in fact, have to go for week after week to market, without being able to effect a sale. Nothing but the very finest quality of grain would sell at all: and what, he asked, would be the consequences? The British farmers were not very rich, the greater portion of them being just able to pay their rents when called upon to do so, but no more. The fallacy, therefore, lay here, that they did not, and could not, establish free trade. So long as they had their debt, with all the rest of the world fencing and fighting with them, the Utopian scheme of which the noble Earl was the advocate, and of which they heard so much, was wholly impracticable. With regard to what had fallen from another noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) respecting the Anti-Corn-Law League, he would make but a single observation. He did not complain at all of the League subscribing money for the purpose of watching the registration, and of canvassing; but when he saw them opening in every town of the kingdom a regular shop for the purpose of furnishing what he could hardly call fictitious voters, but,
350
according to their advertisements, offering for a sum of 45 l. to give a vote in any county; and when a majority of two thousand on one side, in a particular county—Lancashire—had been by this means converted into a minority of one thousand, he would ask whether such a system ought to be allowed to continue, if the present constitution of the Empire was to be maintained?
LORD MONTEAGLEobserved, that the doctrine just propounded by his noble Friend they had often heard elsewhere, namely, that all customs duties were against the principle of free trade. Now, this opinion, which had been put prominently forward by his noble Friend, as well as by some extreme advocates of free trade, was carrying the argument in favour of free trade far beyond its legitimate principle. He protested against the assumption that the imposition of revenue duties was to be considered as obstructive to the system of free trade; and he was surprised that his noble Friend, with his extensive knowledge on the subject, and with his great experience, should have started such an objection; and he must say that it was a most unexpected and singular observation, coming from such a source. He was surprised to hear his noble Friend allude to the tea duty, and the tobacco duty, as being against the principles of free trade. These duties might, indeed, be too high to insure the largest return of revenue—they might have passed the maximum point of productiveness; but how it was possible to show that they were against free trade he could not understand. Until we could produce tea and tobacco in this country, the duties on these commodities had no more to do with protection or with the principles of free trade, than any subject of foreign policy which could be brought forward. It appeared to him that the course taken by his noble Friend was not the most legitimate mode of arguing the question. He would not refer to old doctrines; because he thought it was not very just, nor could it be very agreeable to argue the case on personal grounds; but he must say, in reference to the persons who had been lately attacked upon this subject—his noble Friend himself had often been attacked upon it—that he had known very few men indeed who had been perfectly consistent on the subject of the Corn Laws. But there was one peculiarity in these changes of opinion. They were

351
all in one direction—in favour, and not against, freedom of trade. With one exception—a very strong exception he admitted—and that was his noble Friend, all who changed their opinions were persons who had previously adopted the doctrine of protection and restriction of commerce, who had abandoned it by degrees. Even the Legislature of the country, in all its alterations of the Corn Laws, from the year 1815 up to the present time, had been departing steadily from the doctrine of protection, and gradually approximating to that of free trade. Let them compare the Bill of 1815, which his noble Friend so vigorously opposed, with the Act of 9th George IV., and again let them compare the 9th George IV., with the Act of 1842, and they would find that the cause had been steadily advancing, notwithstanding the national burdens, notwithstanding the progress of civilization, in the cause of free trade. His noble Friend considered freedom of commerce to be inconsistent with the interests of the country, and with its progress in wealth; but, without referring further to the opinions of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen, he might be permitted to direct their attention to a most important document. He referred to the celebrated petition of the merchants of London, presented to the other House by his noble Friend, at a time when the burdens of the country were greater than they are now, in which the doctrine of free trade was laid down in the most lucid, the most admirable, and, at the same time, most absolute manner. He could refer to that most important document, in which his noble Friend had entirely concurred, as a justification of his denial that taxation imposed on importation for the sole purpose of revenue was an obstacle to free trade. But supposing that these taxes were imposed only for revenue purposes, to be extended in maintenance of our establishments, and the payment of the interest of the debt, these could only be regarded as legitimate taxes, and however onerous they might be, they only furnished a stronger argument for leaving the industry of the country unfettered and unshackled—leaving every possible reward to the labours of the merchant, and to the powers of production of the farmers and manufacturers; and this he contended was best done by abandoning protection altogether. With reference to one part of the plan submitted by the Government to the other House, he concurred with his noble Friend (Lord Grey), that, viewing it as an agricultural
352
question, an adherence to the interval of three years of duty previous to the total abolition of the Corn Laws, would prove greatly prejudicial to the interests of those classes for whose benefit it was now proposed. But it was not for him to object, if those who were mainly concerned differed from him in opinion on that point: he would not reject the Bill on that account; for, taking the measure as a whole, he considered that it was the greatest step that had hitherto been taken in the improvement of the commercial legislation of the country. He should have preferred it if the measure had been brought immediately into full operation; but he trusted that the agricultural interest, when they came to consider the effect of the proposed limitation, with a free trade in corn in prospect, to be established after an interval of three years, would arrive at the conclusion that it would be better for their interests at once to bring the measure into full operation; and if it should appear that the parties most interested objected to the continuance of the interval of restricted trade, he trusted that the Government would consent to abandon it. He must protest, in passing, against the doctrine of his noble Friend, that tithes should be considered a burden upon land, for which the landed interest was entitled to protection. He could on this subject rely on the authority of Mr. Ricardo, who clearly showed that when tithes became a rent charge, they ought not to be considered as a peculiar burden on land, augmenting the cost of production. Tithes were only a different mode of apportioning the produce. They never had belonged to the landlord, and therefore neither the landlord nor the occupier of the land had any claim to protection in that respect. He could not conceive how tithes could be brought forward by his noble Friend as an argument against free trade.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that it should be remembered that the farmers were obliged to employ even more men than they really wanted. Before establishing free trade this state of things should be got rid of. If the Legislature was determined to make corn cheap, the farmers should be enabled to get their labour at the cheapest possible rate. He knew, that the lowering the wages of the labourers would be most repugnant to their feelings; but still the circumstances should be taken into consideration. With respect to the malt tax, he would ask, why not remove

353
it, and give the labouring classes cheap beer as well as cheap bread? Why, he would ask, was it proposed to reduce the duty on brandy, unless they sought to make a greater number of drunken people about the streets? Perhaps, however, the object was to do an injury to the smugglers. Now, he regarded a smuggler and a free trader in the same light. The smuggler was a brave man, and the free trader was a reckless man. He considered that the Government should have made a reduction in the malt tax. It appeared, however, that Government would not do this, because they feared that the Leaguers would say that it was a boon to the farmers, whereas it would be only a boon to the consumers of malt. He did not think that it was generally expedient to take up the time of the House on measures of this kind; but when he was called upon to present between four and five hundred petitions from farmers demanding protection to native industry, he trusted that the House would not prevent discussion, as he conceived that those persons had a right to be heard, instead of the petitions at once being placed in the blue bag. For his own part, he thought that it would be better to have free trade at once; but this was only his own individual opinion; but he knew that the great body of the farmers did not concur with him in this opinion. The farmers were in hopes, that if the interval continued, circumstances might arise which might produce a change of opinion; and that that system of protection which had always existed in this country would be continued. All that the farmers required was fair play, and that the Legislature should not lightly overturn a system which had existed for ages.

RAILWAY BUSINESS.
The EARL of DALHOUSIEsaid, that in rising for the purpose of proposing to their Lordships to appoint a Committee for the purpose of considering the mode of dealing with railway business in that House during the present Session, he should endeavour to lay before their Lordships, and to state, as briefly as he could, the facts and grounds upon which it appeared to him to be desirable to consider the mode of dealing with that class of Private Bill business connected with railways, that was likely to occupy so much of their attention. In former years, the amount of Railway Bills brought under
354
the consideration of the House, had been but inconsiderable. In the Session of 1845, however, it appeared from the Returns on the Table, that there were deposited with the Board of Trade 248 railway projects; but during the present year, up to the 30th of November last, there were deposited in like manner with the Board of Trade the plans and sections of 815, of which 606 were for railways in England, 126 for Scotland, and eighty-three for Ireland. Before the 31st of December, there was a very considerable reduction of that number; but upon that day there were deposited in the Private Bill Office, and now stood there, Bills for railways to the number of 687. He did not wish their Lordships to imagine that that number was likely to come under the consideration of the House. Some had already disappeared. Some projects had formed junctions with others; and from the extreme haste and inaccuracy with which many of those schemes had been prepared, no doubt a very great number more would disappear from that list, when they came before the Standing Orders' Committee, before coming under the consideration of Parliament; but, after making every allowance for all these contingencies, there could be no doubt whatever that the number of Railway Bills that would come under the consideration of Parliament in the present Session would infinitely exceed the number in any previous Session; and when their Lordships considered, even with the limited number of last Session, the very great labour that pressed upon the Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and of the other House especially; and when they adverted further to the fact that this enormous mass of legislation was in addition to the ordinary Private Bill business that came before Parliament, he thought it would be almost impossible to find committees enough to take these numerous schemes into consideration; or, if they could find Members enough to constitute committees for the purpose, that those committees could give to them sufficient attention to be satisfactory either to themselves, or to the public. Upon that ground, therefore, if there were no other, some interference would be necessary; but there was a still graver difficulty than that, and that was the amount of capital proposed by those Bills to be employed in the formation of lines of railway. The capital, as shown by the official statements of the different

355
companies which it was supposed would be required by those 687 Bills, amounted to not less than 370,000,000 l. But he did not wish their Lordships to suppose that that amount of capital was likely to be called for; because, in addition to the number of Bills that would, no doubt, be relinquished, there were a vast number of competing schemes, one only of which could, of course, receive the sanction of Parliament. But after making every deduction from the estimated sum upon that account, and taking even the lowest sum he had heard mentioned by those who were most interested in making it appear as small as possible, it was supposed that the lowest amount of capital that would be called for, to carry into operation the schemes provided by the Bills which it was proposed to pass this Session, would be upwards of 100,000,000 l. of money. But they were not in a condition to calculate the total amount that would be demanded for railway purposes during the coming years, unless they considered the amount of their present obligations. In the last Session, there were sanctioned 118 Railway Bills, the capital of which was about 56,000,000 l., and in the previous year there were upwards of forty Railway Bills, involving capital to the amount of upwards of 14,000,000 l. In the last two years, therefore, there had been authorized to be laid out in railways very nearly 70,000,000 l. Their Lordships would recollect that the demand for that money was not gradual, so as to lighten the difficulty of meeting it. It appeared that the time employed in the completion of these railways, did not ordinarily exceed three years. The demand, then, for that 70,000,000 l. would fall within three years; and, after making a deduction for the expenditure already made for the Bills of 1844, their Lordships must calculate that during the years 1846, 1847, and 1848, there would be on an average a demand of 20,000,000 l. for each of these years, even as things stood at present. Therefore, taking the lowest estimate of the amount of capital, for the railways which would be brought under the consideration of Parliament in the present Session at 100,000,000 l., and adding it to the 70,000,000 l. already sanctioned, he thought it was impossible for any man to consider the possibility of Parliament going on to take into consideration that mass of Bills, involving so vast an amount of capital, without feeling the necessity of looking also to the effect of those schemes on the general interests of
356
the country. It seemed then to be necessary for Parliament now to consider whether the diversion of such a mass of capital into the one line of railway investment might not be at variance with the general good; whether it would not have an injurious effect upon trade generally; and whether some sort of limitation should not by some means be placed upon that extraordinary expenditure. He was not unnecessarily anticipating the inconvenience that would arise, for he was sure it must be perfectly notorious to all, that the inconvenience which he anticipated was even already beginning to be felt. It was perfectly well known, from the information which was coming from every part of the United Kingdom, or at all events from every part of Great Britain, that already the price of labour was enhanced to an extraordinary, and almost to an inconvenient degree. The price of materials was also enhanced; and if they were to have a further expenditure, it would have the effect of driving up still higher the price of labour and materials — an effect that must everywhere be felt to be most inconvenient. He would go farther than that, and say, he believed it was not for the interest of railway enterprise itself that unbounded sanction should be given to the demand of capital for it. He believed the effect of it would be to drive up prices in the manner he had described. Indeed, he had heard it said, that it was unnecessary for Parliament to interfere at all; because the price of labour would be so high as to prevent the full execution of all the plans. However, he thought their Lordships would not think it convenient that they should pass Bills for the incorporation of those companies, with vast capital, and armed with great powers—powers which, if the lines were not constructed, they would keep suspended over the heads of all those who were affected by them, whilst in the meantime they would deprive the public of the advantages which it was intended they should derive, and in consideration of which Parliament was induced to grant those great powers to them. On the other hand, there might be companies who would go on at all hazards till they should have expended all their money before they had by any means concluded their undertaking, and the consequence would be, that in both cases the railway people themselves would not be benefited, and the country would be left without the advantages intended by the Legislature

357
to be provided for them. On all these grounds—in consideration of the extreme difficulty felt in conducting the business; in consideration of the risk which he thought might be involved in the division of so great an additional capital on railways; and in consideration of the interests of parties engaged in railway undertakings themselves—it was wise to consider whether they could safely pursue the course they had heretofore followed in railway legislation; and whether they ought not to place some sort of limitation on that expenditure. It had been remarked the other evening by a noble Marquess, whom he expected to have then seen in his place (the Marquess of Clanricarde), that it was the duty of the Government to have come down with some specific plan to recommend to Parliament, and that it was unworthy of the Government to apply for the appointment of a Committee. The noble Marquess said, that it was unworthy of the Ministry to throw the responsibility from their own shoulders to those of Parliament. But it was not in the power of the Executive Government to determine what course should be adopted; nor did they shift the responsibility, for the responsibility must ultimately have rested with Parliament; and even if it had been in their power, seeing that there was already in existence a system which had worked well, and which had been approved of, and adopted by Parliament itself, it would have been unbecoming in the Government to come down with a demand for the adoption of some other plan, without giving the opportunity to Parliament to consider the system in existence, before adopting any amendments. He admitted that it was the duty of the Government to take these matters into consideration, and to arrange the mode in which Parliament could deal with them with the least possible delay; and to give their advice as to the course which should be pursued. That the Government had done, and on the very first day of the Session notice had been given in the other House of the appointment of a Committee; and a Select Committee had been then appointed to consider the existing state of Private Bill business. In the meantime, means would be afforded by the aid of maps, distinguishing the different lines of railroad already constructed, and those sanctioned by Parliament, and those now to be brought under their consideration, for knowing the districts still to be accommodated, and showing the enormity and complexity of the schemes that were
358
now to be submitted to Parliament. The schemes would also be classified as they were last year; and again it would be shown what were the particular objects of each scheme. It would have been fruitless and impossible in that or in the other House of Parliament for the Government to have laid before the House any general scheme, and to have invited discussion upon it, since the result would have been, that, after eliciting as many opinions as there were Members in the House, the scheme would have been referred to a Committee after all. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had moved for a Committee in the other House; that Committee had already entered upon its inquiries, and he now moved for a similar Committee in that House. If this Committee were granted, the Government would be prepared to lay before it all the information they had collected; and to state not only their views with respect to railroad legislation, but to suggest also the course which they thought it would be wise for Parliament, under existing circumstances, to adopt. If the views of the Committee should be in accordance with the opinions of the Government, the Report would be presented to the House, backed by the authority of those Members of the House who had most devoted their attention to the subject; but, upon the other hand, if the Committee did not approve of the views of the Government, such alterations might be proposed as should be considered to render the plan most effectual. There were other matters which might come under the consideration of that Committee; and he did not despair that some plan could be suggested, or some arrangement made, that would facilitate the transaction of railway business between the two Houses of Parliament, and not only conduce to the convenience of the Houses, but to the benefit of the parties interested. Under these circumstances, looking at the impossibility of working the system as it now stood, and looking at the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, he would move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Mode in which the House shall deal with the Railway Bills proposed to be submitted to the House during the present Session."
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his entire approval of the course which the noble Lord proposed to pursue. He thought this was the most convenient mode of dealing with a subject which, as every one must see, was very complicated in its details,

359
and very extensive in its relations. He agreed, too, in the expressions of the noble Lord with reference to the point on which the greatest alarm was entertained—the immense amount of capital which had been, and was about to be, invested in these undertakings. God forbid that he should appear to coincide in any such doctrine, as that Government should in any way interfere with the application of capital. That would be the wildest, maddest, of all possible visions; but if Parliament called on to give extraordinary, nay, even extravagant powers, in certain cases, it must not, if it thought right to adopt checks and precautions, be said to interfere with the voluntary use and employment of capital, but rather to employ a salutary restraint where those extraordinary powers appeared to involve the distraction of capital from natural, and its investment in artificial employments. He had never said, and never contemplated, that it was not right to make grants for railway purposes, provided they were made with a proper degree of care and circumspection; but when he was called upon to extend those grants to the extent spoken of by the noble Lord—from twenty millions even up to fifty-three millions of money for the next three years—it did appear to him that it behaved Parliament to pause and institute inquiry before it proceeded headlong in such a career. There was another part of the subject not broached by his noble Friend, on which he (Lord Brougham) hoped he would be heard by their Lordships; or, if he were a Member of the Committee, he hoped to be heard on the subject in Committee. He thought it to be of consequence to the character of Parliament that there should be a due and satisfactory performance of its functions in dealing with that mass of business, and that they should give such skilful experience and satisfactory attention to those Bills, as he (Lord Brougham) did not think, with all possible respect for both Houses of Parliament, could by possibility be given by them if the Private Bill business was to continue precisely on the same footing as it was. He (Lord Brougham) was as jealous of the just and due privileges of Parliament as any Member of their House could possibly be. God forbid those just privileges should ever be interfered with, or that any attempt should be made to transfer them to any other quarter; but he was persuaded that to vest in Parliamentary Committees — in the very
360
worst tribunals that mortal man's wit ever devised — the entire management of so enormous a proportion of the judicial business of the nation—for judicial business it was—to permit such a tribunal to sit in judgment on such a mass of property as was daily subject to the decision of Committees of that House—property exceeding, by a hundredfold, all the property under litigation in the Courts of Law, in the Courts of Equity, ay, and in the Courts of Quarter Sessions to boot—to vest in such a species of tribunal such powers, such authority, such responsibility, was, in his opinion, an arrangement so ill adapted to public exigencies, so little calculated to satisfy suitors, that he did hope that in that House an early opportunity would be afforded him of stating to their Lordships the result of his experience, in both Houses of Parliament, and also in his professional and judicial capacity, for the purpose, and with the view, of helping them to come to an arrangement more satisfactory, and more suited, not only to the people, who were their suitors, but, he would add, to their own dignity and authority.
LORD KINNAIRDwas glad to hear of the noble Lord's intention. He thought that by bringing the subject of Private Business under the consideration of the whole House, the noble Lord would be doing an essential service to the public. With regard to this Committee, he much wished that its deliberations could be extended to the subject of consolidating railways. He believed that, in several cases, one line was now working against another; and that this was a great cause of those irregularities which resulted in accidents more or less serious. In the course of his own travelling experience, he had often found that, where there was cause for complaint, the blame was shifted to the management of some other line; and that he got no redress, because each party insisted in laying the blame upon the other. With reference to another branch of the subject, he wished to take this opportunity of giving a notice: it was, that on Monday next he would move for a Return of the Fees paid and payable in the House on the introduction of Railway Bills, and of petitions connected with them. He understood that these fees were enormous; that whilst, for instance, the expense of opposing a Bill on the part of a petitioner was about 800 l., the fees were not less than 300 l. of the money. In a matter

361
where justice was involved, no man ought, in his opinion, to be put to such costs as these fees entailed.
LORD ASHBURTONsaid, it seemed to him that something might be provided with respect to the inconvenience mentioned by the noble Lord; but not by this Committee. He approved of the appointment of the Committee; but if many of these adventures were to be put off to a distant period, and if the money was to be locked up, and professional labour uselessly expended, it was of importance that an early decision should be come to on the subject; and he, therefore, hoped that the Committee would sit assiduously. Amongst other arrangements, it was highly desirable that the railway business should be brought under the consideration of that House at an earlier period of the Session. Under the present system the Bills often came up to that House at a late period of the Session, and then they incurred much odium for their not being passed. He perfectly agreed in all that had been stated by the noble Lord as to the necessity of putting some limitation on the calls for capital and labour in this country. They must recollect a little how some of these schemes were got up. A country attorney and an engineer were all the staff necessary to prepare a "great competing line;" and surely therefore it was necessary to put a check on a system so peculiarly liable to abuse. He felt, moreover, that such a limitation was not more necessary on monetary considerations than on considerations having reference to labour. It was, no doubt, for the public interest, that there should be abundance of employment, which involved, of course, high rates of wages; and he believed that at present there was that abundance of employment with its necessary accompaniment. But how long, let him ask, was this state of things to last? If substantial good was to accrue to the country, the employment must be spread over a series of successive years, and must not merely serve the purposes of securing a temporary advantage. They must beware how they scattered away their money all at once. They might take a warning on the point of what had occurred at former periods of temporary prosperity. Any one could recollect during the last war how prosperous all appeared, whilst 15,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l. were raised and spent each year, being laid out in the expenses of that war. They knew what was the prosperity then. The same system
362
showed itself now, only in a better way. Then large sums were wasted in subsidies to Austria, to Prussia, and to other Powers; whilst at present all was spent among our own people, and in most instances with a reasonable prospect of return. He only mentioned this, because the present extraordinary prosperity was said to arise from an approximation to free trade, and that this was to be seen in the demand for labour. Any one, however, who had seen what took place during the last war would see the history of that prosperity, great as it was, in every part; and he took the liberty of admonishing their Lordships that they should not be quite sure they could scatter away the revenue, and trust to the continuance of that prosperity. This subject was not immediately connected with the measure then before the House; but those who were connected with the Government would do well to consider the suggestions he had made. It was clear that by the appointment of a Committee the subject of railway legislation would be best brought forward.
The DUKE of MONTROSEexpressed an earnest hope that the course the Government intended to pursue would be made publicly known at an early day. In a few days hence the deposits were to be paid to the Accountant General. Unless this Committee was prepared to report before the payment of those deposits, they might be receiving them under very unsatisfactory circumstances. Suppose reports were made against certain lines the money for which had been deposited; why, the consequence would be that that money would be locked up, and that great inconvenience would ensue. He must admit that by reporting in a hurried manner it would be impossible in all cases to decide properly; but, on the other hand, it was very desirable that they should learn on what principle the Government proposed to act. It was said, in the other House, that a decision would be first arrived at, as to the railways most wanted by the country; but on what principle was the decision to be made? Some would say, that the districts most requiring lines of railway were those in which the population and manufactures were the greatest; whilst others would hold to the opinion that those districts should be first assisted which had no lines of railway in their neighbourhood. Although it was true, no doubt, that some lines had been got up, as the noble Lord who had spoken last had described, yet

363
there were other Bills which were bonâ fide—which were promoted and supported by the landowners of the districts through which they would pass, and which ought rather to be facilitated than impeded in their progress through Parliament. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would endeavour to secure an early report of the proceedings of this Committee.
EARL GREYwould give his vote in favour of the Resolution for the appointment of the Special Committee, but wished to have it distinctly understood, that in so doing he did not desire to be interpreted as giving his sanction to the principle which appeared to be advocated by many who were anxious for the formation of the Committee—the irrational, he would say rather unconstitutional, principle, that Parliament had a right to interfere in the speculations of private individuals, or to attempt to prescribe limits to the amount of capital which the British public might, in the exercise of their discretion, think fit to expend on any particular project or projects. The more arguments he heard in sustainment of that principle, the more strongly was he inclined to doubt that it had any consideration either of sound policy or common sense to recommend it. It appeared to him that what Parliament in the discharge of its legitimate duties was called upon to do was this—first, to inquire and ascertain whether the parties who had applied for Bills to enable them to construct railways, were really in possession of the capital which they professed to have at their command; secondly, whether that capital was sufficient for the proper carrying out of the project they had in contemplation; thirdly, whether that project was calculated to be beneficial to the public interests; and lastly (and this indeed was a consideration of such importance that it ought, perhaps, to take precedence of all others), whether it was an undertaking which interfered unjustly, unfairly, or unnecessarily with private property. To these considerations the House ought to limit its inquiries; and if satisfactory answers were returned to all these questions, he for his part very much doubted whether, with respect to railways, or any other description of enterprises, Parliament would be justified in exercising any interference, with a view to dissuade or prevent the people of this country from laying out their money in the manner most agreeable to themselves. It should be left to the parties who subscribed the capital, and to them exclusively,
364
to determine whether it was likely to prove advantageous to their interests, or the reverse, that they should withdraw their funds from other enterprises, and devote them to railways. This was a consideration for them, and for them alone; and Parliament, in his opinion, stepped beyond the province of its legitimate functions when it attempted to prescribe and define the exact amount of national capital which it was desirable should be withdrawn from other enterprises, to be expended upon railway projects. It was for the individuals who thought fit to embark in those enterprises to determine how far they were likely to prove profitable or otherwise. No doubt errors of judgment would occasionally be committed, but individuals were much more likely to form a just estimate of what would probably prove advantageous to them than that House could possibly be. They could better judge of matters affecting their own interest than that House could; and it should be borne in mind that what was for the interest of each individual, or of a vast proportion of individuals, was, in fact, for the interest of the public. If their Lordships should be of opinion that the rules and formularies which governed their House were not sufficiently stringent to prevent men who really had no capital at command from undertaking great public enterprises, and plunging the public in unavailing outlays, let them, with a view to the remedying of this evil, make their regulations and restrictions more severe—let them revise their Standing Orders, and take especial care not to give Parliamentary powers to those who were not in a condition to use them. But their Lordships would be entering upon an inquiry from which no beneficial results could possibly flow if they were to attempt, on a hasty and superficial examination (for such it must of necessity be) to determine which of the railway projects of this year should go forward, and which should be suspended. He thought it necessary to make these remarks, lest it should be supposed that in advocating the appointment of the Committee, he was recognising the justice of one of the principles which it appeared that Committee intended to proceed upon. Nothing could be more remote from his intention. One word now before he resumed his seat. He thought it was highly desirable that the Committee should take into its most serious consideration any measures that might be suggested with a view to those two objects—the lessening

365
of the expense of Parliamentary proceedings in railway matters, and the diminution of the labours which devolved upon Committees of the House in consequence of the great pressure of business of this description. A suggestion had been thrown out last year, which he regretted had not been acted upon, with respect to the advisability of there being a joint Committee of both Houses to decide upon matters of this kind. It had sometimes occurred in cases of competing railway companies that one House had decided in favour of one line, and the other House of another line, and the consequence was that both fell to the ground altogether, after a vast deal of expense had been incurred by the promoters of each. He suggested whether it might not be better to make some arrangement with a view to the formation of a joint Committee for both Houses.
LORD ASHBURTONobserved upon the difficulty of that House being able to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion in the event of their instituting (as suggested by the noble Duke who had just sat down) an inquiry respecting the amount of bonâ fide capital in the possession of railway companies. How was the House to ascertain this? How was the capital of most of these railway schemes represented, except by an interminable list of high-sounding names, with certain figures written after each of them? In point of fact, it was with a long list of names, and not with real substantial capital, their Lordships had to deal.
LORD MONTEAGLEconfessed he thought that their Lordships were engaged in an impracticable effort. It mattered not what number of Committees they might appoint—it mattered not what improvements they might introduce into their system—they could not effect the object they had in view as long as Railway Bills were dealt with by the House of Commons as though they were money bills, which could only originate with that House. It was a mistake to suppose that such measures could only originate with the Commons. They might just as well originate with their Lordships. Some change was absolutely necessary. Even supposing that the railway business were not to exceed this Session what it had been last year—and they all knew that it would be incomparably heavier—they had not the least chance in the present state of things of being able to discharge their duties with justice to the parties concerned,
366
with satisfaction to the public at large, or with credit to themselves. The present system was a most vicious one, and he must say that, in his opinion, that House had not been treated as it should have been. Look at the period of the Session at which the railway bills were sent up to them last year from the other House. One hundred and eighteen railway bills were passed during the Session. During the months of February, March, April, and May, only eleven of those Bills came before their Lordships' House. Eighty-one were sent up from the Commons in the month of June, and twenty-five in the month of July—thus showing that the whole railway business of the country was thrown almost simultaneously upon the House of Lords at the period of their present difficulty and pressure. As long as railway bills were dealt with as though they were money bills, and that an impression prevailed that they must of necessity originate with the other House, so long their Lordships would be in a position of difficulty and perplexity, from which it would be impossible to extricate themselves. There was, at one time, an idea respecting Bills having reference to pecuniary penalties—an idea similar to that which now prevailed respecting railway bills, namely, that they were like money bills, and must originate with the Commons; but this notion had to be abandoned, and he hoped that it would be thus also with railway bills. With respect to the various projects now under the consideration of Parliament, it was of course impossible that they could all have precedence; but the peculiar position of Ireland just at present was such, that he was sure their Lordships would concur with him in thinking that it was only right that as much encouragement as was possible, under all circumstances, should be given to enterprises projected in that country. Most assuredly regard should be had to the present unhappy condition of Ireland.
LORD BROUGHAM: Oh, certainly. In coming to a decision give the cast of the balance that way, by all means.
LORD MONTEAGLEcontinued to observe that if the railway business were fairly divided between the two Houses of Parliament, reasonable progress could be given to the consideration of Irish measures, without at all interfering with the English business.
LORD REDESDALEthought that the question the House had to consider was one of possibility. There were no less than 600

367
new railway schemes to be decided upon, and he held it to be absolutely impossible that all these should be disposed of, under the present system, in the course of a single Session. The Committees last Session had acquitted themselves in a most creditable manner. Their decisions were upright and honest, and in no instance had the Members been biassed by feelings of private interest. However, the work was now so onerous as to be impossible of achievement.
Motion agreed to. Committee named. House adjourned.