Sitting of 17 May 1847

MINUTES.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Captain Duff, from William Longmore, Distiller, Milton, Keith, (Banff-shire), respecting the System of Bonding Spirits.—By Mr. Bankes, from Inhabitants of Affpuddle (Dorsetshire), respecting the Poor Law.

RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS.
On the Motion of MR. FITZROY, the Resolution of April 22nd was read as follows:—
"Resolved—That all Railway Bills in the present Session be referred to the Railway Commissioners, for their Report to this House upon the following points previously to a decision on the Preamble of any Bill by the Committee thereon."
MR. FITZROYthen moved—
"That the said Resolution be suspended for the remainder of the Session."
He made this Motion on the ground of the delay in the production of the Commissioners' Reports, and the comparative in-utility of those documents.
MR. STRUTTsaid, that it was not possible that the reports of the Railway Commissioners could be more ably or expeditiously made out; no expense or trouble was spared, and their authority was very great, and he could not think that they were valueless. They had prevented a great many evils from occurring, and, especially, they had prevented railway companies from increasing their capital to an unlimited amount.
MR. SHAWhad no desire to disparage the exertions of the Railway Commissioners, or the importance of their reports on the Railway Bills in progress; all he sought was, that the Committees on those Bills should not be delayed as they had been. He should be afraid to name the sums that he understood had been expended in consequence of the interruption of the sittings of the Railway Committees upstairs in pursuance of the resolution of the House, that Committees should not proceed to a decision on the preamble, until the reports of the Railway Commissioners had been presented; but he believed the expense of the delay to the several parties writing for those reports had already exceeded many hundred thousand pounds. That could not be allowed to continue; and what he would suggest was, that either the Committees should not sit until the reports were ready, or that the resolution should be modified so as only to require that the Bills should not be read a third time until the reports were before the House. The present prac-
948
tice led to the absurdity, that although the decisions could not be formally, yet they were virtually made, and communicated to the parties, as had been the case in a Committee of which he was then chairman; otherwise the expense that would have been caused to the parties would have been enormous.
MR. ELLICEsaid, that no person lamented more than he did the difficulty which had been experienced in carrying out the resolutions which he had ventured to propose; and he must again say, in his own defence, that this matter of difficulty should not have been allowed to remain in the hands of any individual Member of that House. What had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of the Railway Board fully bore out his original statement, in which he had recommended the House to come to this decision. He would not repeat what his right hon. Friend had said; but there were in many of the Bills which had been prepared during the present Session, so many conflicting propositions with respect to the powers for raising capital and for raising loans, and for amalgamating and uniting companies, and many of which had been so preposterous, that upon the first attempt at examination before the board, the parties themselves had been ashamed of their own propositions, and had withdrawn them. Many of them, quite contrary to all principle, and in defiance of the Standing Orders of the House, had gone before different Committees of the House to ask for powers which they knew could not be granted. He certainly thought it was not fit this state of things should continue, and something ought to have been done to effect an Amendment. The whole question of railways was one which Parliament ought to take up, in order to provide a remedy for the evils which were complained of in the debate of last Friday. He should recommend his hon. Friend to put up with the present inconvenience, in order to have an inquiry taken in that Committee which the Government had declared was necessary for the public safety.
MR. HUDSONthought there was great delay in the production of the Commissioners' reports, and the consequent expense caused to parties engaged before the Railway Committees was, as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw) had said, enormous. He supported the Motion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that it was an universally

949
agreed proposition by the House, that no Committees should come to a decision before they received the report of the Railway Commissioners. This was the unanimous opinion of the House. Nothing had been found to affect the character of the reports of the Railway Commissioners, and yet the object of the hon. Member was to enable Committees to come to a decision on the preamble of the Railway Bills before the Committees received those reports. He did not see any reason for the alteration.
MR. HUDSON and MR. W. PATTENsupported the Motion.
MR. BAILEYsaid, the resolution was not only an inconvenience to the Members of that House, but to all parties who came before the Committees; and it ought, therefore, to be rescinded.
MR. F. T. BARINGtrusted that the House would not abandon the resolution which it had passed at a former period of the Session. The object of that resolution was to draw the attention of the Committees to a matter of very great importance, which had been formerly neglected-the amount of capital raised and paid up by these railway companies. It was true there had been some inconvenience and delay resulting from the operation of this resolution; but then the business of the House was to make good and perfect laws. If every resolution were to be set aside on the ground of delay, the House would find that none of its salutary resolutions would be attended to. Besides, the fault of the delay did not rest with the Commissioners. In fact, it had been stated that the delay of completing some of the reports had arisen from some of the companies not having sent in their returns. He should most certainly oppose the Motion.
MR. E. ELLICE, JUN., thought that a part of the difficulty might be obviated if an understanding were come to between the chairman of Select Committees and the chairman of the Commissioners of Railways.
MR. FITZROYsaid, that the feeling of those who were opposed to his Motion might perhaps be got over if he inserted the words "Committees now sitting." His impression was that his Motion was necessary; and as he heard no objection to it to warrant him to withdraw it, he would press it to a division.
The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 102: Majority, 32.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Hope, Sir J.

Allix, J. P.

Hornby, J.

Bailey, J., jun.

Houldsworth, T.

Baillie, H. J.

Hudson, G.

Baillie, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Balfour, J. M.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bankes, G.

Layard, Maj.

Barrington, Visct.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bell, M.

Lockhart, W.

Benett, J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bennet, P.

Mackenzie, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Marton, G.

Blackburne, J. I.

Masterman, J.

Blackstone, W. S.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Boyd, J.

Morris, D.

Buck, L. W.

Mundy, E. M.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Drummond, H. H.

Neville, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Newport, Visct.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Northland, Visct.

East, Sir J. B.

Palmer, R.

Entwisle, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Escott, B.

Scott, hon. F.

Fielden, Sir W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Ferrand, W. B.

Smollett, A.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Forbes, W.

Spooner, ft.

Fuller, A. E.

Tollemache, J.

Gladstone, Capt.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Goring, C.

Waddington, H. S.

Grogan, E.

Wall, C. B.

Hall, Sir B.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Hodgson, R.

Cripps, W.

List of the NOES.

Antrobus, E.

Ewart, W.

Arkwright, G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Baine, W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M

Barclay, D.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Greene, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bellew, R. M.

Hamilton, W. J.

Bowring, Dr.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Hastie, A.

Browne, hon. W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hawes, B.

Carew, W. H. P.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Christie, W. D.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Clay, Sir W.

Hodgson, F.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Howard, P. H.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Hume, J.

Collett, J.

Hussey, T.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Hutt, W.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Deedes, W.

James, W.

Denison, W. J.

James, Sir W. C.

Denison, J. E

Jervis, Sir J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Kemble, H.

Dickinson, F. H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H

Divert, E.

Langston, J. H.

Duncan, G.

Le Marchant, Sir D.

Dundas, Sir D.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ebrington, Visct.

Lincoln, Earl of

Egerton, W. T.

Lindsay, Col.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Loch, J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Etwall, R.

Maitland, T.

951

Mangles, R. D.

Scrope, G. P.

Martin, C. W.

Shelburne, Earl of

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Sheppard, T.

Milton, Visct.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Mitcalfe, H.

Thornely, T.

Morgan, O.

Trotter, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Tufnell, H.

Ord, W.

Turner, E.

Oswald, A.

Walker, R.

Paget, Col.

Watson, W. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Wawn, J. T.

Parker, J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Patten, J. W.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Pattison, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Philips, G. R.

Young, J.

Rich, H.

Russell, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord C. J. F.

Hill, Lord, M.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

QUARANTINE.
DR. BOWRINGwished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman below him, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. It was reported that a considerable change was to take place, or had already taken place, with regard to the quarantine laws. He wished, therefore, to know if any new regulations were contemplated, and what they were?
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, that orders had been given that, with regard to vessels from Egypt and Syria, they were to be put under the same regulations as were applicable to vessels from Turkey, and they were to be admitted to free pratique provided they had clean bills of health, and were not laden with susceptible articles. There were further regulations under consideration.

SOLDIERS' KNAPSACKS.
MR. WAKLEYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War what steps had been taken to investigate the merits of the knapsack and girdle invented by Mr. Berington, according to the promise which the right hon. Gentleman would remember he had given in the debate on the Army estimates last Session?
MR. F. MAULErecollected that the subject had been brought under the consideration of the House when the Army estimates were brought in last year; but he did not recollect that he had said anything which could induce the hon. Gentleman to suppose that he would subject the knapsack to any inquiry. He himself, however, had since that debate looked at the knapsack, and he had no hesitation in saying that he did not think it deserved
952
the encomiums which had been passed upon it. It was inconvenient, inasmuch as before you could get anything out of the bottom it was necessary to turn the contents on the ground; it was complicated in its details; it was thirteen ounces heavier than the knapsack at present in use, and its price was 28 s., the price of the present knapsack being only 14 s., which, as the soldier paid the price in case of losing his knapsack, was to him a matter of no slight importance. He had therefore thought it his duty not to recommend the use of Berington's knapsack.

FOOD RIOTS (ENGLAND).
MR. ESCOTT, referring to the accounts in the newspapers that large bodies of people in Exeter and Taunton and some other towns in the west of England had proceeded to the markets, and compelled the dealers in provisions, both corn and meat, to sell them at such prices as those bodies of people chose to fix, begged to ask the Home Secretary whether those accounts were authentic, whether there was occasion for that alarm which certainly prevailed throughout the western parts of England, and whether there was any information upon the subject which he was prepared, consistently with his duty, to lay before the House?
SIR G. GREYhad received communications from the Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall, and from the civil authorities of Exeter, giving an account of some disturbances which had occurred in the latter part of the week at Exeter and in its neighbourhood, and in several parts of the east of Cornwall, alleged to be in consequence of the high prices of provisions; from Taunton, however, he (Sir G. Grey) had received no official representation of any such disturbances, although he had seen statements respecting them in the newspapers and in private letters. But he was happy to state, that in consequence of the prompt and judicious measures adopted by the local authorities, order had been restored; and he hoped that there was no cause for alarm with respect to the future.

DISTILLATION FROM GRAIN AND SUGAR.
MR. H. J. BAILLIEasked whether the Government had now any intention of prohibiting distillation from grain in consequence of the high price of provisions?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERentertained very great doubt whe-

953
ther any considerable advantage would arise from adopting such a measure; and the hon. Member must see that, unless very great advantages would arise, much inconvenience could not but result from putting a violent stop at once to a large branch of commerce. Nothing gave so great a stimulus to illicit distillation as putting an end to the legal traffic. In Ireland, at this moment, illicit distillation prevailed, where it certainly might have been supposed that the wants of the people would have prevented it. The measure alluded to by the hon. Member could produce very little good effect just now. About 1,300,000 quarters were used in distillation in the year, but 1,000,000 of them had been already used; only about 300,000 more would be used before the harvest, and 100,000 of these had been already prepared; and, therefore, the utmost advantage that would be derived from stopping distillation from grain would only involve about 200,000 quarters, which had probably been already bought by distillers, and which they would be compelled by such a course to sell. Distillation from sugar was already carried on in Glasgow and other parts of the country; and notice had been given by some large distillers in the metropolis, that they were about to commence it on a large scale. Any obstacles that stood in the way of distillation from sugar would be removed, and he believed it would be carried on to a very great extent, and would have a very considerable advantage in price. Some further reports had been laid before the Board of Excise upon the subject, fully corroborating the report laid on the Table early in the Session, and showing the very great advantage which would arise from the use of sugar.

COLONIAL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENTS.
In answer to MR. HUME,
MR. HAWESstated, that a measure was in contemplation—he might say in preparation—with a view to give the benefits of the British constitution to the Australian colonies generally, which undoubtedly would comprehend Van Diemen's Land. There were some difficulties with regard to Van Diemen's Land, arising from the relative proportions of free and convict population; but the subject was under consideration. He could not say that a measure would be produced so late in the Session; but it was in an advanced
954
state, and had been well considered, and would assuredly very speedily, either in this Session or the next, be brought under the notice of Parliament.
MR. HUMEinquired whether that measure would include the West Indies?
MR. HAWESwas not prepared to give any decided answer with respect to the West Indian colonies; but several of them had representative institutions already.

THE POOR LAW COMMISSIONERS.
LORD J. RUSSELL LORD J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Poor Laws Administration Bill.
MR. FERRANDrose to put a question of which he had given notice. It would be recollected that the Andover Union Committee sat for four months; and the Poor Law Commissioners were examined and re-examined, and recalled at their own request to contradict any evidence brought to bear upon their characters and conduct. On the 20th of August last, the Committee reported—
"That the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners had been irregular and arbitrary, not in accordance wito the statute under which they exercised their functions, and such as to shake public confidence in their administration of the law."
The public then expected that those Gentlemen would have been instantly dismissed from the offices they held; but what was the conduct of the Government? On the 31st of August, the Home Secretary sent them a letter conveying certain instructions; and on the 8th of September they sent him their private defence. That defence had been since laid on the Table of the House; and on the 5th of March it was ordered to be printed. He had it then before him; and he declared unhesitatingly that it contained the most audacious untruths. ["Oh, oh!"] He was prepared to prove that, if any hon. Member disputed his assertion. But what had the Poor Law Commissioners done? They had published that defence at Her Majesty's stationers', and emblazoned it with the Royal Arms. Not content with this, they were circulating it not only among Members of Parliament, but among persons entirely unconnected with either House, or with any of the public offices; a copy was sent, for instance, to a tradesman in Oxford-street, with the Commissioners' seal. He begged to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the private defence of the Poor Law Commissioners to the charges brought against them before the Andover

955
Union Committee (entitled Letters addressed by the Poor Law Commissioners to the Secretary of State, respecting the Transaction of the Business of the Commission," &c. embellished with the Royal Arms, and "printed by W. Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, for Her Majesty's Stationery Office,") had been printed and circulated with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government? If printed and circulated with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, whether he intended the expense to be defrayed out of the public purse? If printed and circulated at the public expense, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House a statement of the expense?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, did not mean to say that the hon. Gentleman was out of order, but certainly it was inconvenient, when notice of putting a simple question had been given, to go into an impeachment of the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, asserting that they had told a direct falsehood with respect to a matter not quite directly connected with the question. If that were the hon. Member's opinion, he would be right in making a Motion upon the subject; but it was hardly fair to introduce such a charge under the guise of putting a question. In answer to the question or questions put, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must first observe, that the hon. Member was wrong in speaking of this as "a private defence." The Commissioners were called upon by the Home Secretary to answer certain inquiries which he addressed to them on certain subjects connected with the administration of the Poor Law; and they made what could not be called a private defence, for it was a public answer to a public requisition on the part of the Secretary of State; they wrote certain letters which had since been laid on the Table of the House. It was true that those letters had since been published in the form alluded to, and circulated by the Commissioners; and it was true that this had been done without the previous sanction of the Government. But it had been the invariable practice, since the Board was instituted, to publish the reports of the Commissioners, and with very great advantage, in a more convenient form than that of the "blue book," and to circulate them throughout the country in a much more readable shape; and the Commissioners, in accordance with what had been their practice, had printed in the same
956
shape the correspondence connected with their proceedings, in reply to questions put to them officially by the Secretary of State. With regard to the expense of the publication being defrayed out of the public purse, he thought it ought to be so paid, because they had only acted in accordance with their previous practice. The expense, he believed, would be about 10 l.; but he should be perfectly prepared to lay an estimate of it on the Table if the hon. Member wished for it.

TEMPORARY RELIEF (IRELAND).
MR. P. SCROPEwished to ask the question of which he had given notice—whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was prepared to lay before the House any statement as to the progress of the system of relief in Ireland under the Temporary Relief Act? That measure passed on the 26th of February. Three months had since elapsed, and, so far as he had ascertained, it had not been carried into effect in a very large number of districts. Accounts were continually arriving of delay. The Dublin Evening Post of last Saturday stated that there were many districts in which nothing practical had been done, or, what was worse, in which tricks and pretences were resorted to so as to avoid carrying the Act into effect. From the union of Bantry it was stated, upon good authority, that as yet in no union, electoral division, or district in the great county of Cork, was the Act in operation; though it was said that there the people were perishing at the rate of 1,000 a week; 13,000 persons had consequently been swept off to the churchyard since the Act had passed. Such was the statement of the Cork Southern Reporter, which, however, remarked that it was hard to hold the Government responsible; the relief committee at Bantry had not completed its preliminary arrangements, though these were begun in March last. The committee consisted of twelve men. In the previous October two gentlemen had completed the relief list in six or seven days; yet the same task had not been completed by the entire Bantry committee in six weeks. That statement seemed to bear out the charge of blame-able, wilful, culpable delay against the relief committees in carrying out the measure in that district. And supposing there was culpable delay, what was the consequence? The people were dying, as described, in large numbers. He had re-

957
ceived a letter from a gentleman, who stated that in Bantry there had been two large pits dug at Lord Berehaven's gates to receive the bodies of those who died of starvation; 247 bodies had been thrown into one without a coffin, and 403 into the other, making 650 in all. Lord Berehaven was said to have subscribed only 20 s. per month to the soup kitchen, and that subscription was withdrawn because the list of subscriptions was published; he had never been seen outside his demesne for a month past, and no employment had been given by him to the people. The people in Ban-try workhouse were described as in a state which was scarcely credible. The report of Dr. Stephens, who had been appointed officially to examine the patients, stated that some were lying in their own excrement—that people labouring under fever he found lying five and six in a bed, without one to help them, and without a drop of water to moisten their palates. The relief committee in the district of Bantry having pretended to sit for six weeks without completing a single list, not one ration of food had been distributed among the people. On the 10th of March, sixty labourers were dismissed, and on the 20th of March, six hundred more, representing a population of 4,000 persons. More than two months, then, had elapsed, and no relief had been afforded by the relief committees, which were to provide a substitute for the relief given by the Board of Works. If culpable delay could be brought home to those parties, and it could be proved that they wilfully withheld the relief they were bound to give, he could not otherwise characterize their conduct than as chargeable with wilful murder. They had the law to execute; the law required them to relieve the destitute in the mode prescribed by the Government; and if they did not afford relief according to the necessities of the case, they exposed themselves to a charge of criminal neglect of duty. There were accounts of food riots every day; in five counties, Clare, Limerick, Cork, Mayo, and Kilkenny, there had been repeatedly food riots within the last three months; and if there was such negligence as that alleged in the case to which he had referred, was it astonishing that the people in those unions should try to help themselves, and that the law should be obliged to interpose for the purpose of putting down, perhaps at the expense of bloodshed, such attempts as those unfortunate people made to obtain relief for their families?
958
The danger arose from not providing the means of support in the interval between breaking up the relief works and opening the soup depots which the law required. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there was no means in the power of the Government to compel those of whom he complained to discharge their duty, or to appoint paid officers to provide the relief the committee were so unwilling to provide? He was not quite sure but the Relief Commissioners had power to appoint such paid officers.
MR. LABOUCHERE: I cannot help repeating an observation made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is not a convenient course for an hon. Gentleman, in putting a question to a Member of the Government, to make a general statement, and one especially containing charges against individuals. The hon. Gentleman has alluded by name to a noble Lord. All I can say is, that I have been in personal communication with that noble Lord; and from my general knowledge of his character, I should be very much surprised if he has acted with the inhumanity with which he has been charged. In reply to the question of which the hon. Gentleman gave notice, I can only state that there is now in possession of the Government the Second Report of the Relief Commissioners in Dublin, containing very ample information as to the working of the late relief measure. That report is in the hands of the printer; it will be ready in a very few days, and will furnish my hon. Friend with the fullest information upon all the points to which he has adverted. In the meantime, I shall only say, that whatever obstacles may have occurred in bringing the new relief measures into operation, they have arisen from no want of zeal, ability, and energy on the part of Sir J. Burgoyne and his colleagues, who are members of the Relief Board. On the contrary, I believe they have laboured with the utmost energy and ability to carry into effect the intentions of the Government and the Legislature. They have had to contend with great obstacles on the part of relief committees, who—I do not say universally, but in many instances—have shown an unwillingness to assist; and they have also been impeded by a very great unwillingness on the part of the people to accept relief in the form now provided, instead of the wages which hitherto they have received. Those people are induced to believe that by resisting the new system

959
of relief, sometimes even by acts of violence, they will oblige the Government to resort to the old system of roadmaking. I trust the firm manner in which the Irish Government is checking violence, and showing that they will not be coerced by these ebullitions of popular violence to resort to a system which, though justifiable as a temporary system, would not be justifiable as a permanent system, will serve to disabuse those people of the delusion under which they are labouring; that a better spirit will prevail, and the measure be carried into effect, so as to afford relief to the really destitute, without involving the abuses to which the roadmaking system was exposed. But, as the most ample information will be contained in the forthcoming report of the Relief Board on the whole subject, I trust my hon. Friend will be satisfied with my referring him to that report, rather than going into any matters of detail on the present occasion.
MR. SHAWsaid, he rose to deprecate the attacks the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope) was in the constant habit of making upon the landlords and gentry of Ireland, and particularly the attack he had made that night, upon no other authority than that of anonymous publications and newspaper paragraphs. Lord Berehaven, whom the hon. Member (Mr. Poulett Scrope) in total ignorance of facts, and in the absence of authentic information, accused of little less than wilful murder, because he was among those whom the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Scrope) chose to say were systematically neglecting the distressed poor in their neighbourhoods; Lord Berehaven, he would undertake to assert, was a man of as humane and benevolent a disposition as was to be found in any country. He was a constant resident in Ireland, in a very remote district beyond Bantry, where he was incessantly employed in improving the condition and administering to the wants of the people. If, as the hon. Gentleman represented, it was attempted by relief committees to extort subscriptions by the threat of publishing lists of names, then he thought Lord Berehaven, or any other gentleman, evinced a proper manliness by refusing to yield such threats; but he did not mean, and he was sure Lord Berehaven would not so act, that the poor should be losers on that account, but that only each person should be allowed to give in the way he considered most conducive to the advantage of the poor. It was very easy for the hon. Gen-
960
tleman (Mr. P. Scrope) to talk in that House of administering the Temporary Relief Act in Ireland; but in practice it was extremely difficult. He believed that, generally speaking, the relief committees were exerting themselves to the utmost to execute the Act; but he had frequent communications, and these not from the worst parts of Ireland, representing the extreme difficulties they had to contend with; and the people were not only as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had stated, discontented with the particular relief provided by the Act, but the applications were so numerous, so almost universal among the labouring and poorer classes for relief of some sort, to which they now considered they were entitled by law, that you must either give to them all indiscriminately, or (as members of the relief committees wrote to him) have, in each union, on an average, about 25,000 cases weekly to investigate. How, under these circumstances, the Act was to be administered, he was unable to conjecture. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Scrope) had disclaimed that night any intention to use his position as a Member of that House for the purpose of maligning the resident landlords and gentry of Ireland; but the hon. Gentleman must permit him, on behalf of that body, to say that the hon. Gentleman was in the constant habit of abusing his privilege as a Member of that House, by applying language there to the resident gentry of Ireland which he would not venture to do out of that House.
MR. B. OSBORNEthought the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin might have let the charge pass in silence. The hon. Member for the University ought to have taken into consideration that this sort of attack was excessively popular just now with some constituencies; and that if the hon. Member for Stroud found his popularity on the wane, he was not to be blamed if he joined in the cry of "mad dog" against people whom he knew very little about. He quite agreed in the remarks which had been made concerning the ability and exertions of Sir J. Burgoyne; but he believed that his (Mr. Osborne's) anticipations were about to be realized, and that the Act would prove a failure. He had that very morning received a letter from one of the poor-law guardians of Clonmel, which showed that it had broken down, and stated that the poor people were assembled for twelve hours to receive relief, and that all did not get tickets, though they stood for that time

961
under a pouring torrent of rain. He thought if the hon. Member for Stroud would volunteer a journey into Ireland, and act as a member of a committee at a soup-kitchen, he would hesitate when he came back how he gave his opinions as to the difficulties of working the measure, or carrying the law into effect.
SIR J. WALSHwished to ask the hon. Member for Stroud before the debate came on, if, when he had brought forward such charges against the character of Lord Berehaven, he had taken the precaution of giving notice to the noble Lord, in order that he might meet them?
MR. P. SCROPEsaid, he had not done so. The general charge had been made before, and no names were given. When general charges were made it was said, "Oh, that is unfair to make such vague accusations;" and when names were given it was said, "You should not mention names." He had, however, given the noble Lord an opportunity of rebutting those charges; and he (Mr. Scrope) was happy he had done so, by stating them in the fairest way he could to the House and the public.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENobserved, that the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, whatever charge he brought forward, if he named the individual, he was fully justified. The state of the case in the county of Clare was this; that the relief committee opened their soup-kitchens, made out lists, and began to administer relief; but the people rushed upon the soup-kitchens and broke the boilers; whoever was to blame for this, it was certainly not the committee. He (Mr. O'Brien) could confirm what had been stated by the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, that there did exist a repugnance in the one system for the other. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Scrope) thought that the system of unproductive works should go on, let him say so at once; but if the hon. Gentleman objected to the continuance of that system, and at the same time blamed the relief committees when they were unable to administer relief because the boilers were broken, he put it to the hon. Gentleman if that was fair? He wished the hon. Member would turn his attention to the subject practically, instead of theoretically; that he would go over to Ireland and see the working of the system; or, what would be better, purchase an estate in Ireland, and then he would be better able to speak upon it.

DELEGATED AUTHORITY.
MR. FERRANDrose to put the following questions:—By what authority Parliament is invested with the right to delegate to any person, or body of persons, the power of making rules and orders which shall be as binding and authoritative upon the people of England and Wales as an Act of Parliament? If Parliament is not thus authorized, by what statute can the people of England and Wales be forced to obey as law the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners? If there be no statute, have not all persons committed to prison for disobeying the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners been illegally deprived of their liberty?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would answer the hon. Gentleman as briefly as possible. With respect to the first question, he apprehended that Parliament had an inherent authority to delegate to any person or body of persons the right of making rules and orders which should be as binding on the people of England as an Act of Parliament. All the rules of the Courts of Law were founded on this principle; and the Parliament having given to the Judges the power to make those rules, they had, in consequence, all the force and effect of statutes. AH the schemes of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were founded in a similar way; and by the powers of the House the Commissioners could issue their scheme, as it was called, which should have the force of an Act of Parliament. If it were necessary, he could give numerous examples of a similar kind; but he conceived that these were quite enough to show that Parliament had such power. With respect to the second question, his answer was, that Parliament was thus authorized; and that the people of England could be forced to obey the rules and orders of the Poor Law Commissioners by the statute which expressly gives them that power. His answer to the third question was, that because there was that statute, no person committed to prison for disobeying those rules and orders had been illegally deprived of liberty.

DISMISSAL OF MR. MOTT.
MR. FERRANDput the following questions to the Secretary of State for the Home Department:—"Whether the appointment of Mr. Mott to the office of district auditor received the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners after he had been dismissed from the office of assistant

963
poor-law commissioner? Whether the Poor Law Commissioners allowed him to hold the office of district auditor at the time that he was part proprietor of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, or after the Commissioners in Lunacy declared, in their report on the state of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum, that Mr. Mott had failed to fulfil a positive and solemn pledge which he had given to the justices of Lancashire; and that he appeared quite unworthy of the trust, and became most negligent and remiss in the discharge of his functions? Whether they have allowed him to hold the office of district auditor of Lancashire, whilst living in the Isle of Man, out of the way of his creditors; after he was seized by a sheriff's officer, when on his road to audit the union accounts; during the time he was a prisoner in Lancaster Castle; and after a public advertisment appeared in The Times newspaper warning the public not to pay him money belonging to the proprietors of the Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum? Whether he has again abandoned the discharge of his duties, and left England, although holding the office of district auditor?"
SIR G. GREY: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman in the order of his questions. With respect to the first question, I may premise, that though the matter occurred before I held the office I now occupy, I have been informed that it was not the fact that Mr. Mott was dismissed from the office of assistant poor-law commissioner; but that he ceased to hold that office in consequence of the reduction of the number of assistant commissioners. With regard to Mr. Mott's election as district auditor, the circumstances are explained in the following extract from a letter addressed to the Under Secretary of State (Sir W. Somerville) by the Poor Law Commissioners, in consequence of a communication sent from the Home Office immediately after the discussion which took place in this House on the subject at the end of last Session:—
"By the 32nd section of 7 and 8 Victoria, c. 101, the district auditors are to be elected by the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the different unions comprised in the district. No disqualification which would attach to Mr. Mott is laid down in the Act. The circumstances of Mr. Mott's election were as follows:—On the 4th of September, 1845, Mr. Twisleton, then the assistant commissioner of the district, issued an advertisement inviting candidates for the auditor-ship to transmit their names to him. Thirty-seven persons announced themselves as candidates; a printed list of whom, in alphabetical
964
order, with the profession, age, and residence of each, was forwarded to each of the electors. Mr. Mott's name appeared in this list as 'late Assistant Poor Law Commissioner, now Superintendent of Haydock Lodge Asylum.' The position of Mr. Mott was therefore made known to the electors. From the 37 candidates, two were selected as having received the largest number of votes. These were Mr. Gardiner, Clerk of the Manchester Union, and Mr. Mott. According to the provisions of the order of the Commissioners, these two names were again forwarded to the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the several boards of guardians, when the numbers were—for Mr. Gardiner, 10; for Mr. Mott, 14. Mr. Mott, therefore, being legally qualified, was elected, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, by the majority of the chairman and vice-chairmen of the following unions, which constitute the district, viz. Altrincham, Ashton-under-Line, Bolton, Bury, Chapel-en-le-Frith, Chorlton, Congleton, Glossop, Haslingden, Hayfield, Leigh, Macclesfield, Manchester, Rochdale, Salford, and Stockport. The Act of Parliament does not require, in express terms, any sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners; and with regard to the auditor, as well as other officers, their power of sanction is a consequence only of their power of dismissal for unfitness. The Commissioners did not refuse to sanction Mr. Mott's appointment. It did not appear to them that the fact of his being superintendent of Haydock Lodge Asylum constituted such an 'unfitness' as was contemplated by the statute as the ground of dismissal, and consequent disqualification for office; and unless they took this view and were prepared ultimately to act upon it, they could not venture to set aside the decision arrived at by the electors under the statute."
With respect to the second question, I can only state that the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers is not quite correctly quoted in his question; but substantially that report does aver, that Mr. Mott had proved himself unworthy of the trust reposed in him at Haydock Lodge Lunatic Asylum; but the Commissioners did not think that his conduct constituted such unfitness in terms of the statute as to justify them in dismissing him from the office of auditor, to which he had been elected by the chairman and vice-chairman of the union, so long as the duties of it were regularly discharged. With regard to the third question, I am informed that the Commissioners have received no official or authentic information of the allegations of the hon. Gentleman respecting the conduct of Mr. Mott, and they have no reason to suppose that he is not discharging the duties of his office as auditor with propriety. With respect to the fourth question, as to whether Mr. Mott has again abandoned the discharge of his duties and left England, I have to state that the Poor Law Commissioners have within the last week or ten days received an official letter from

965
him, dated "Manchester, the 7th of May," connected with the discharge of his duty as auditor, and that they believe him to be there now.

POOR LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
Order of the Day read. Motion made for the Second Reading of the Poor Law Administration Bill.
MR. FERRANDrose, pursuant to notice, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The hon. Member said: I have to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) for the manly and straightforward manner in which he replied to my question; but, however high an opinion I may have of the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal attainments, I believe I shall be able to bring before the House far higher legal authorities than his to bear out the positions I intend to take. I must say I was never more astonished in my life than to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department say, that Mr. Mott was not dismissed from his office of assistant poor-law commissioner. Why, Sir, when the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Home Department was defending himself against certain statements which I made, he asserted that Mr. Mott was dismissed from his office, and that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) knew the reason why. I leave the two right hon. Gentlemen to settle the question between them. All I know is, that somebody has stated that which is not true. It is not for me to decide which of them it is. I may only say that I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) fully believes the statement he has made to be true; and, therefore, I find no fault with him for making it. I now proceed to the question of the Poor Law; and here let me remind the House, that at the end of last Session of Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department gave a distinct pledge to the House and the country, that when Parliament should again meet, a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the whole proceedings and conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners. [Sir G. GREY: NO.] Most distinctly did the right hon. Gentleman make this statement to the House at the time when the Andover Union report was laid on the Table, and in reply to a question from me. [Sir G. GREY: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.]
966
If the right hon. Gentleman denies that this is the case, of course I must believe him. I can only say that he was reported to have said so in all the public papers, and that remarks and comments were made upon it at the time. But in the present Session the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, with that boldness of spirit for which he is conspicuous, has declared that he is prepared to justify the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and is, I understand, to defend the New Poor Law itself. If that is the case, he has an opportunity of doing so to-night. I do trust that he will not shrink from the duty which he has undertaken to perform, and that he will do his best both to justify the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and to prove that the New Poor Law has yielded all the advantages which its promoters promised should flow from it, and bear a blessing instead of a curse to the country. I suspect the noble Lord will find it a difficult task to establish either of those points, for I think I am myself prepared to prove to-night that this law has failed to perform what its promoters promised—that, in fact, it has been a total failure, and that, so far from their having been able to carry it into effect, it has crumbled to pieces. The people of this country have long boasted that they were never called upon to obey any law except those passed by the three estates of the realm. But for thirteen years the poor and undefended masses of the country have been subject to the rule of three irresponsible men, who have had the power to make laws and enforce them where and as they thought proper, without being subject to any control either by Parliament or by Government. And after they have been acting in this manner for thirteen years, a Committee of this House having sat for four months inquiring into their conduct reported that towards the assistant commissioners they had acted with cruel injustice, and that their proceedings were unjust, arbitrary, and such as to shake public confidence in the law. If that was their conduct towards men who had friends in this House to defend them with talent and ability, how have they acted towards the poor and undefended in the secret corners of the land? To-night it is my intention to inform the House on. this point, and in doing so I hope to be able to induce the House to believe that it is high time to repeal this law, as well as to dismiss the Poor Law Commissioners. I shall first bring under the notice of the

967
House what were the intentions of the original concocters of this law; next, what have been the results of its operation; thirdly, I shall notice the remedy now proposed; I shall then show that Parliament has no power to pass such a law; and, lastly, that the poor have a sacred, legal, and inalienable right to relief. When the New Poor Law was first broached, it was supported by men who were determined to annihilate all Poor Laws in this country, to reduce the wages in the manufacturing districts, and to punish poverty as a crime. The noble Lord who first volunteered his services to bring this measure before Parliament was Lord Brougham; but before he did so he got a distinct pledge from the leaders of both political parties, that whoever should be in power no opposition should induce them to repeal the New Poor Law. And who was the person then consulted, and who guided the parties who drew up the Bill? It was a man whose name was odious throughout the country—I mean Mr. Malthus; and Mr. Malthus, who was Lord Brougham's guide, as well as guide to the Commissioners who drew up the dark document to which I shall presently further allude, thus expresses himself as to the right of the poor to relief:—
"A man who is born in a world already possessed, if he cannot get subsistence from his parents, on whom he has a just demand, and if the society do not want his labour, has no claim of right to the smallest portion of food, and in fact has no business to be where he is. At nature's mighty feast there is no vacant cover for him. She tells him to be gone, and will quickly execute her own orders if he do not work upon the compassion of some of her guests."
He also says—
"I have reflected much on the subject of the Poor Laws, and hope, therefore, that I shall be excused in venturing to suggest a mode of their gradual abolition, to which I confess that at present I can see no material objection. As a previous step even to any considerable alteration in the present system, which would contract or stop the increase of the relief to be given, it appears to me that we are bound, in justice and honour, formally to disclaim the right of the poor to support."
Now hear what Lord Brougham said of his friend Mr. Malthus when he in another place moved the second reading of the New Poor Law, and which speech he afterwards published—I know not whether at the expense of Government, but at somebody's expense—and circulated it throughout the country:—
"Before quitting the subject of population, may I step aside for one moment, and do justice to a most learned, a most able, a most virtuous indi-
968
vidual, whose name has been mixed up with more unwitting deception, and also with more wilful misrepresentation, than that of any man of science in this Protestant country, and in these enlightened and liberal times? When I mention talent, learning, humanity, the strongest sense of public duty, the most amiable feelings in private life, the tenderest and most humane disposition which ever man was adorned with—when I speak of one, the ornament of the society in which he moves, the delight of his own family, and not less the admiration of those men of letters and of science amongst whem he shines the first and brightest—when I speak of one of the most enlightened, learned, and pious ministers whom the Church of England ever numbered amongst her sons, I am sure every one will apprehend that I cannot but refer to Mr. Malthus."
That was the way in which Lord Brougham had in another place alluded to Mr. Malthus, after having quoted him largely in defence of his opinion on the New Poor Law. Well, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the operation of the 43rd of Elizabeth throughout the country; and assistant commissioners were sent into various parts of England for the purpose of obtaining evidence. Of course, the evidence so obtained was all of the strongest kind against the old Poor Law. The Commissioners knew the wishes and intentions of Government, and acted like good and obedient servants; and upon the information derived from those Commissioners, and from the writings of Mr. Malthus, the Commissioners appointed in London to receive the evidence and report upon it to Government, drew up what has been called "the dark document"—a document which, although the First Lord of the Treasury may smile at what I say—I hesitate not to describe as so disgraceful, so scandalous, nay, so wicked in its suggestions, that the Government of the day in this House, and the Duke of Wellington in another place, thought it of sufficient consequence to deny its existence: and it was not until an hon. Friend of mine (Mr. Walter), who now lies, I regret to say, on a bed of sickness, but whose services will he remembered after the baronetcy of Hogg has ceased to exist—I say it was not until my hon. Friend produced that document in this House that the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham), who had previously denied its existence, said that he had some faint recollection of it. It is my duty to bring under the notice of the House what was suggested in that dark document. The first recommendation was—
"The Commissioners shall have power to reduce allowances, but not to enlarge them." After

969
some further suggestions:—"After this has been accomplished, orders may be sent forth, directing that, after such a date, all out-door relief should be given partly in kind; after such another period, it should be wholly in kind; after such another period, it should be gradually diminished in quantity until that mode of relief was exhausted. From the first relief should be altered in quality, coarse brown bread being substituted for white; and, concurrently with these measures as to the out-door poor, a gradual reduction should be made in the diet of the in-door poor, and strict regulations enforced."
I am shocked to say that this document had the signatures of two bishops, viz., the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Chester, as well as other persons high in authority. At last Lord Althorp introduced into this House the New Poor Law Bill, and he gave a distinct pledge to the House that some of the most cruel provisions which have since been enforced should never be enforced; that, in fact, they did not exist. Upon that occasion no fewer than 5,519,596 people petitioned against the Bill; but in spite of these petitions the Bill was carried. When the Bill was before the other House, Lord Brougham stated that the ultimate object was to abolish all Poor Laws; and Lord Fitzwilliam said he should vote for it with the conviction that it would lead to no Poor Law at all. I have now given to this House proofs that it was the intention of the original promoters of the Bill to abolish all Poor Laws; and, having done so, it is now my duty to bring before the notice of the House as disgraceful a scheme as was ever entered into by employers to rob the employed of their wages; I allude to a correspondence which took place between certain cotton spinners in Lancashire and Mr. Chadwick, one of the parties who was employed to prepare the Bill, and which correspondence took place in 1834 and 1835. But, lest the Government should attempt to explain away the correspondence, and say that the Poor Law Commissioners regretted after it had taken place the sale and transportation of large masses of the agricultural population who were sent down to the manufacturing districts, I think it my duty, before quoting the letters of Messrs. Ashworth and Greg, to read to the House an extract from a report by the Poor Law Commissioners themselves:—
"The Commissioners think it necessary to observe, that in case of a strike of workmen for higher wages than their employers are willing to give, a question arises whether the guardians would be justified in refusing or discontinuing relief when the men might obtain employment, if they chose to accept it, at wages sufficient to fur-
970
nish the means of subsistence for themselves and their families. If, therefore, the guardians are in a situation to say that the men now applying for or receiving relief may obtain work within their reach at wages sufficient for their maintenance and that of their families, and it only depends upon themselves to accept it, they are justified in refusing relief to those persons, simply because they can no longer be considered destitute?"
That was the opinion of the Poor Law Commissioners, and Messrs. Ashworth and Greg wrote to them and suggested what I am about to read to the House:—
"The suggestion which I wish particularly to make is, that in the New (Poor Law Amendment) Bill, the greatest possible facility should be afforded to families of this description (agricultural labourers), who should be willing or desirous of removing from the agricultural counties, where work is scarce, to the manufacturing districts, where it is abundant. I am most anxious that every facility be given to the removal of labourers from one county to another according to the demand for labour; this would have a tendency to equalize wages, as well as prevent, in a degree, some of the turn-outs which have been of late so prevalent."
As soon as the New Poor Law was enacted, the Commissioners employed persons as assistant poor law commissioners, whom they sent into different agricultural districts for the purpose of inducing agricultural labourers to leave their homes under the most solemn pledges that they should have the highest wages which could be given in the manufacturing districts; and for the purpose of more easily inducing the poor ignorant men, women, and children, to believe the tales which they told them, they placarded the whole agricultural districts from which the people were removed with lists of wages which it was never intended they should receive, and which they never did receive. But one of the blackest stains on the New Poor Law is this—that Dr. Kaye was employed as an assistant poor-law commissioner in Suffolk and Norfolk for the purpose of inducing the agricultural labourers to go to Manchester and the manufacturing districts—that very Dr. Kayo having, within three years of that period, published a pamphlet, entitled "The Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes employed in the Manufactures of Manchester," in which he states what I will read to the House. Recollect, within three years after this Dr. Kaye had written his description of the working population of Manchester, he was employed in sending to that very town, to be absorbed in that population, the poor agricultural labourers of the south, who had been brought up in the green fields and

971
shady lanes, about which I was taunted with "babbling" by the late First Lord of the Treasury—sending them ticketted and labelled, like beasts for slaughter. I see that an hon. and learned Friend smiles at the idea of the poor people being ticketed like beasts for slaughter, and therefore I feel it to be my duty to tell him that they were so ticketed; the tickets were tied to them, and they were embarked in boats, and sent hundreds of miles from home without a person to guide and direct them whither to go, and they were turned adrift in the streets of Manchester at dead of night. The police reports of that town frequently afterwards gave harrowing accounts of the sufferings of these poor agricultural labourers. The House shall now hear the description which Dr. Kaye had given of the working population of Manchester three years previous to the period to which I am referring.
"Interested in the fatal secret of subsisting on what is barely necessary to life, the labouring classes (of Manchester) have ceased to entertain a laudable pride in furnishing their houses, and in multiplying the decent comforts which minister to happiness. He neglects the comforts and delicacies of life. He lives in squalid wretchedness, on meagre food, and expends his superfluous gains in debauchery. Domestic economy is neglected, domestic comforts are unknown. A meal of the coarsest food is prepared with heedless haste, and devoured with equal precipitation. His house is ill furnished, uncleanly, often ill ventilated, perhaps damp. His food, from want of forethought and domestic economy, is meagre and unnutritious. He is debilitated and hypochondriacal, and falls the victim of dissipation."
That was Dr. Kaye's account of Manchester, published three years, before he was employed as a Poor Law Commissioner, in sending thousands of ignorant labourers to that very district to be "absorbed," as the master manufacturers in their correspondence with the Poor Law Commissioners termed it, in the manufacturing population there, and by that means to cause a reduction in the amount of wages which they were in the habit of paying to their workpeople. Tens of thousands of poor labourers were despatched from the agricultural districts to Manchester, and there I will leave them for the present. It will now be my duty to refer to the cruelty inflicted on the agricultural poor of the south of England, where the Poor Law Commissioners endeavoured to enforce a law which set at defiance the laws of both God and man. In the first instance the law was put in force at the point of the bayonet. Not content
972
with calling on the military for aid, you despatched the metropolitan police to various parts of the country, and armed with cutlasses they assisted in enforcing the law. You attempted uniformity of practice wherever you could. You produced an in-door labour test, and you refused outdoor relief. You sold up thousands and tens of thousands of the poor of England. When the poor went to the boards of guardians and asked for that to which they had a right as sacred as the Monarch has to her Crown, the Peer to his palace, or any Member of this House to the coat which he wears upon his back, what cruelty did you not inflict upon them? You erected immense buildings, which are justly termed "bastilles," the windows of which are placed at such a height from the floors that it is impossible for the inmates to look through them. You immured them in cells, and did not allow them to leave their prisons even to go to a place of public worship on Sunday. Their diet table was worse than that of felons by far; it was drawn up by Mr. Mott, a person who had made a large fortune by farming the poor of several workhouses in London. You compelled them to wear a felon's dress; but not content with that, you branded the dress with the name of the workhouse in which the poor were confined, on the back, on the breast, on the knees, and on the caps. Whenever they left the workhouses they went in those dresses in order that the finger of scorn might be pointed at them; but, instead of that, the spectacle only roused feelings of indignation in the breasts of the English people. You broke up households and you scattered families; you separated husband from wife, and you took children—you stole them—from their parents, and sent them thirty or forty miles in another direction; and when they happened to die, the parents were not informed of the loss which they had sustained. Harrowing details have occasionally been given to the public by the press of the agony which the poor have suffered on unexpectedly learning that some dear relative had expired in a union workhouse, perhaps years before. Ay, and after treating the unhappy poor in this manner, you have cleared the union workhouses of them and sold them to taskmasters. I have brought several cases of the kind before the House; and I now hold in my hand a application made by a manufacturer to an union workhouse for men, women, and children. It is most revolting to the feel-

973
ings of human nature that our poor and unprotected fellow-subjects in this country should he sold like beasts, used up and worked to death in factories. The letter to which I refer is from Messrs. W. J. Walmsley and Brothers, of Marples, near Stockport—for I will give authority for all I state—and is dated the 3rd of March, 1846. The letter which is addressed to the master of the union workhouse at Llanfyllin, Montgomeryshire, is couched in the following terms:—
"It is probable there may be in your union, as we hare found there are in others, parties chargeable and not chargeable, who might better themselves by removal to the manufacturing districts. We can find employment in our cotton mill here for ten or twenty females from thirteen to eighteen, and a few boys turned thirteen years of age. The average weekly wages of females is from 7s. to 13 s., and boys from 5s. to 9s. 6d.; but when the boys become spinners they may earn from 32 s. to 38 s. per week, or even more, the work being paid for by the piece. If you can recommend any such parties, we should be glad if you would favour us with a line, stating their names and ages by return, when one of our firm will come over. We shall take charge of any children coming without parents."
The House will observe, that it was arranged that "one of the firm" should go over to the workhouse in order to examine the unfortunate inmates, and ascertain whether they were sound in wind and limb; and if they proved so they were then to be handed over to their taskmasters. These things are done under the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners; year after year such transactions have taken place, and you, the Government, know it and have suffered it. Who, I ask, are the persons whom you have appointed as masters of union workhouses to tyrannize over and persecute the poor? Whenever you can obtain a man who has been in the Army—a discharged soldier—if you can only get an ex-sergeant of dragoons, artillery, or engineers, he is sure to be preferred by the Poor Law Commissioners. Those are the men who have been appointed to oppress, to persecute, ay, and to murder, the poor. I use that word advisedly; for since the law has been in force, many juries have unanimously declared, that persons confined in the union workhouses have died from ill treatment and want of food. Now, in the next place, I ask you, how have you proceeded to carry your law into force out of the union workhouses? The unions are themselves so large, that the poor find it almost impossible to travel to the boards of guardians. Ten, twenty, and thirty
974
miles have the poor to travel for a pittance of sixpence or a shilling, and in some instances they spend three days in going and returning. I hold in my hand a letter written by a clergyman in Yorkshire, giving a description of the hardship and inconvenience to which the poor are subjected in consequence of the large size of the unions in that county, and mentioning the case of a poor man who was obliged to travel twenty-four miles to seek relief from the board of guardians of the Skipton Union. I once saw a man who had travelled twenty-four miles to plead his cause before a board of guardians; he was between seventy and eighty years of age, and the guardians dismissed him with 6d. What has been your medical treatment of the poor? You remember the evidence given before the Committee appointed to inquire into the medical treatment of the poor, of which Lord Ashley was chairman. Some of the most eminent medical men in London were examined before that Committee, and they proved that the Poor Law Commissioners would sanction no higher scale of payment to medical officers than 3d. or 4d. per case. The consequence has been, that the poor have died for want of proper medical treatment. I have now given a sketch of the way in which it has been attempted to enforce the blood-stained law; for recollect that, at Bradford, the military cut down the people when an attempt was made to put the law in operation. I say, therefore, that blood has been shed in the attempt to enforce a law which you yourselves now declare to be an utter failure. Before I proceed to show what has been the effect of the New Poor Law upon the people, I think it my duty to read to the House the solemn pledges which were given by Lord Brougham at the time when he pleaded for the second reading of the Bill. His Lordship addressed the following language to the House of Peers:—
"I say, my Lords, you not only may but you must listen to these recommendations, when you have the best judges in matters of opinion, and the best witnesses to the matter of fact, all in one voice representing to you a state of things which has made industry and idleness, honesty and knavery, change places; and which exposes the property of the community—and with its property, every law, every institution, every valuable possession, every precious right—to the ravages of that remorseless pestilence before whose strides you, the guardians of the social happiness of those who live under your protection, have beheld the peasantry of England abased to a depth which I am at once afflicted and ashamed to contemplate, which I shudder to describe, and which I could not bear to think of, did I not know that the

975
same hand which lays it bare to your eyes, and makes its naked deformity horrible in your sight, will be enabled, by your assistance, to apply to the foul disease a safe and effectual remedy—restoring to industry its due reward, and visiting idleness with its appropriate punishment—reinstating property in security, and lifting up once more, God be praised! the character of that noble English peasantry to the proud eminence where, but for the Poor Laws, it would still have shone untarnished—the admiration of mankind and the glory of the country which boasts it as its brightest ornament!"
I will presently show how the New Poor Law has elevated the character of the working men, how it has restored prosperity to them, and how it has destroyed idleness and vice. If the pledges given by Lord Brougham upon that occasion have not been fulfilled, then I say that for thirteen years you have in vain oppressed, persecuted, and plundered the poor, and that the new law has been a greater failure than it can be pretended the 43rd of Elizabeth ever was. If you, the Government, are prepared to take on yourselves the responsibility which attaches to the Poor Law Commissioners—if you are prepared to do that, you are braver men than I gave you credit for being; and I think that before I have done, I shall be able to satisfy the House that, as the Poor Law Commissioners have failed, so will the four Cabinet Ministers fail to administer the law in a manner to satisfy the country. Before I proceed further, however, let me refer to the sufferings of the poor "emigrants," as they are called, who were taken from the agricultural districts and carried to Manchester and Yorkshire in 1835, 1836, and 1837. They were promised in the most sacred manner that they should have good wages, plenty of food, and comfortable homes; but what was their condition in 1840 and 1841? Why, I heard from the lips of the then and present Member for Manchester, that the poor workpeople of that town were then in such a frightful state of distress that they were living on 1d. a day, and that some even had no food whatever; that they were digging up the carcases of horses which had been buried, and devouring the flesh. The hon. Member for Bolton also told tales of the distress in that town, which so shocked the feelings of the House that the Poor Law Commissioners attempted to deny them on the authority of a report drawn up Mr. Mott. That report, however, turned out to be so false that the Poor Law Commissioners, acting under the authority of the then Secretary
976
of State for the Home Department, were obliged to dismiss Mr. Mott for having drawn it up. I thought it my duty to move for a return of the poor agricultural labourers who had been sent into the north of England under the solemn pledges that they should be sent back to their homes whenever they expressed a wish to return. What was the return made to my Motion? The poor-law authorities were unable to account for a single soul of those whom they had kidnapped and sold into the manufacturing districts. Let us now see what has been the effect on the comforts, morals, and habits of the people of this law, which Lord Brougham pledged himself should raise them in the social condition and restore them to comfort and respectability. On this point I shall quote from a Cabinet Minister, a Member of the present Government and a staunch supporter of the new Poor Law. I allude to Earl Grey, then Lord Howick, who, in March, 1846, spoke in these terms of the condition of the working people of Sunderland:—
"The borough of Sunderland consisted of three parishes, Sunderland, Bishopwearmouth, and Monkwearmouth. The first of these parishes was chiefly inhabited by the working classes, and the rates on the last six months had been 18 s. in the pound…It was frightful to contemplate this state of things. In 1837, the amount expended in relief was only 7,035 l.; in 1842 it amounted to 14,232 l. In addition, a sum of 2,192 l., and also from 800 to 1,000 tons of coals, were subscribed and appropriated to the relief of the poor. In illustration of the actual state of the country he would refer to a return of casual poor relieved at Alnwick in different years, from which it appeared that, not to go further back than the year 1841, itself a year of great pressure, there were relieved 1,826 casual poor; in the year just closed there were relieved 3,653 casual poor. Having then taken one great town and one agricultural district, he thought, from what he had stated of them, that he was justified in concluding, that the distress which the expression used in Her Majesty's Speech would lead one to conclude was confined to the manufacturing districts, was, in reality, a wide-spread distress.… When such a falling-off in the revenue took place, caused, as it could only be, by the forced economy that was the offspring of distress, they might judge what the amount of that distress must be. In every class of life forced economy was painful… What must it be to the working man when he was compelled to surrender his few luxuries one after another—to give up his tobacco, his sugar, and his tea or coffee—when he was no longer able even to afford his family bread, for at length bread became a luxury which he could no longer afford, and a coarser kind must be substituted? But, above all, what must it be to him to watch his wife and children gradually falling into rags, and pining in wretchedness and despair? But worst of all were the corroding anxieties that beset him as he saw week

977
after week and day after day passing on, and things getting worse and worse, whilst starvation appeared to be staring him in the face! It was such a state as this that many among the working classes had to endure, who, a little time ago, were well paid, well fed, and well clad. It was the case of many of those, who, but a little time ago, earned more than enough to support themselves and their families."
I must also read to the House a statement made by Lord Brougham in 1843:—
"He entirely concurred in the respect and admiration expressed by his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, as well as his noble Friend opposite (Earl Stanhope), of the peaceful and patient conduct of the working classes under the grievous infliction they had lately endured; but he could see no way, unhappily—if he did, his misery would be less—if he or any one else could see a way out of those difficulties which would restore the working classes to their former state of comfort."
Why, we were told that this new Poor Law would work the regeneration of the people of this country; yet, here is the author of that measure, after it had been nine years in operation, admitting that he can see no way of relieving the poor from their distress. Sir, to show the regular operation of the law, I will now read an extract from The Times of the 18th of February, 1843:—
"The distress at Stourbridge is stated to have become so alarming that numbers are subsisting on turnips alone. From a field belonging to Mr. Thomas Parginter, as many as from five to six tons a week have been taken for several weeks past; nor does he think it expedient to attempt to put a stop to the peculation."—Worcester Journal.
Here was a case where the poor were in such a starving state that they stole at the rate of five or six tons of turnips per week, and the owner was so struck with their sufferings that he never thought fit to stop them. That is one instance of the state of the poor under this law in the year 1843. I will also refer to the proceedings at the Brentford petty sessions in the same year, where several magistrates were present, and where two men were brought before them in their prison dress, and branded in the manner I have already described. All the magistrates present spoke in indignation of the manner in which the poor were treated by the Poor Law Commissioners; and one of them, Mr. Armstrong, observed that, "it seemed as if the country were returning to a state of feudal tyranny. He was glad to see that the Bench were unanimous in deprecating such proceedings." I hold also in my hand extracts from the different county newspapers in 1842 and 1843, giving ac-
978
counts of the manner in which numbers of poor men had been sent to gaols in different parts of the country, for only disobeying the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. I will not weary the House by reading them all; they are from the county papers of Sussex, Hampshire, Essex, Kent, and Surrey. Yet at the very time these things were occurring, the late Government always maintained that the law worked well. They were always ready to screen the Poor Law Commissioners against public inquiry and indignation; and the present Government, when in opposition, were always ready to support them. Whenever the Commissioners appeared to be hard pressed, the noble Lord now at the head of the Government always with great chivalry rose and defended them; and when the right hon. Baronet the late Secretary for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham), was beginning to be rather squeezable on the subject—when he seemed disposed to make some alterations in the working of the law for the purpose of conciliating public opinion, the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was always ready to get up and protest against any relaxation, and to call for uniformity of practice. And the noble Lord was always sure to be cheered by his Whig friends when he did so. Why, I myself, Sir, have seen the bodies of persons who were starved to death under this law. I have attended inquests where juries have wished to return verdicts of wilful murder against the relieving officer, and the coroner approved of their doing so; but the relieving officer has drawn out of his pocket instructions of the Poor Law Commissioners, and snapped his fingers at the coroner, who, on perusing those instructions, told the jury he had been justified in acting as he had done. Well, Sir, I come to the year 1844, when the Poor Law Commissioners came and asked for further powers, more tyrannical and illegal than those which they had enjoyed before. You passed a law appointing auditors. What was their conduct? Every post brings me letters detailing the arbitrary conduct of these auditors; and I cannot do better than mention to the House one case, where a correspondence has passed between the Commissioners and the guardians of the Dudley Union, the auditors having commenced an action against the guardians for having treated the poor to beef and pudding at Christmas. I have moved for returns relating to the proceedings of these auditors, and I think the House will agree with me

979
that such proceedings as this I have referred to are disgraceful. Yet the law which allows them is upheld. I now come to the year 1845. In that year the hon. Member for Finsbury came down to the House and made the appalling statement, that the poor in the Andover Union were so starved that they were living on carrion, and were fighting for the putrid hones they were employed to grind. And now, in 1847, where are the Poor Law Commissioners? where are the men who have been guilty of these acts? You say that they are to be dismissed from their offices, but you are still prepared to defend them and to justify their conduct. Why are you so prepared to defend them? Do you think them innocent? Can you deny one statement I have made against them? Can you suppose that the public indignation would have been roused against them from one end of the country to the other, unless they were guilty of the offences laid to their charge? But it seems that not only are you going to get rid of your Commissioners, but also of your uniformity of practice. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department has told us the operation of the Bill must vary with the different circumstances of different parts of the country. But do you expect the feelings of the masses in the country to vary with the varying circumstances of the law, the operation of which you thus propose to alter? Do you expect that in one part of the country there shall be no natural affection between parent and offspring, or between husband and wife? Are you to have one law in the south, where you expect the people will submit, and another in the north, where perhaps you are afraid that the people will rise and resist your tyranny—your attempts to separate husband and wife, and to tear parents and their children from each other? Why not define the law at once, and let the people know what you mean? Let us know exactly what is to be the difference between the old law and the new one? Let the poor know at once what cruelties are to be practised on them by authority of this House, in place of those heretofore adopted by an irresponsible body of men. Sir, I have read the "defence" of these Commissioners, filled with extracts from the evidence before the Andover Union Committee. It is not a defence—it is an ex-parte statement; but what, after all, is their boast? Why, that they have saved 1,000,000 l. a year. But how many of
980
the poor have been robbed in order to save that 1,000,000 l. a year? How many have been robbed of their just legal rights in order to enable the Commissioners to make that boast? They may have saved the rates in the south, where incendiarism still blazes in the rickyards; or in the agricultural districts, where they sold the people to the manufacturers to bring down wages; or where they have driven them into gaols to escape from their persecution. But they have not saved them in the north of England, as this petition will show:—
"Wakefield Union.—The following is the copy of the Petition sent to the Poor Law Commissioners from the Guardians of this Union:—
"To the Poor Law Commissioners, Somerset House, London.
"In pursuance of a resolution passed unanimously (one member excepted) at the Wakefield board of guardians, on Wednesday, the 22nd inst., 'That the working of the New Poor Law, in the Wakefield Union, is fraught with great evil, and that it is desirable the said union should be dissolved.'
"We, therefore, whose names are hereunder subscribed, being guardians of the Wakefield Union, beg leave most respectfully to call the attention of the Poor Law Commissioners to the alarming increase in the amount of poor rates collected in the several townships within the said union, for the three years ending last March, as compared with the three years previous to the commencement of the union, to wit, a total increase of rate of 10,306 l.
"Fully convinced, from the above circumstances, not only that the New Poor Law in this neighbourhood is a perfect failure, but also that the ratepayers are fast verging to pauperism, without adding one extra comfort to the poor, we cannot do otherwise than listen to the imperative dictates of our own consciences, and pray most earnestly that the Poor Law Commissioners will be pleased to dissolve this union, and allow each township to have the management of its own poor."—Wakefield Journal, Aug. 25, 1843.
I have also accounts of the expenditure in different districts of my part of the country, all which show that it is still increasing. Now what is the price you have had to pay for the enforcement of this unconstitutional law for fourteen years? You have had a rebellion in Wales; an outbreak in the north of England; incendiarism still rife in the south; a frightful and increasing system of child murder; coroners' juries charging the Poor Law Commissioners with destroying the poor; increase of rural police; 10,000 armed pensioners called out; gaols enlarged and new ones erected; sessions every six weeks instead of every twelve weeks; winter assizes; the statement of Judge Coleridge, that crime is rapidly increasing all over the country; central barracks erected at

981
Birmingham; a discontented people; peace only maintained by the military; and poverty and distress greater than ever before known in England. These are a few items of the price you have paid for the enforcement of your law. And how long do you suppose the country will submit to this state of things? You may suppose that you are going, to use a common phrase, to let the Poor Law and the Commissioners down easily; but do you suppose that the people of this country are not awake enough to make this a great question at the next general election? It is true that the Whigs have stood firm to their declarations at the last election. But what was the conduct of the late Government and their supporters? How was the election for Cambridge carried? The New Poor Law was the rallying cry. It is disgraceful and degrading that persons should have wrought up to the highest pitch of indignation the feelings of electors and non-electors, only that they might come here and betray them. I could name a borough where the two candidates took it by turns to do the pathetic on the New-Poor Law. One of them was returned to this House, and he certainly has given a little opposition to the Poor Law; but the other has since got a seat for another place, and he has actually voted for the very measure which I myself had heard him denounce as blasphemous. Having now stated these faults of the system, I leave them, with a challenge to you to deny them if you can. If you cannot deny them, then you admit the system to be a complete failure. It has not only been that, but also a bitter curse to the country. And now what is your remedy? Why, you propose to re-establish the same cruel and unconstitutional system under another form. You give all the powers of the Commission to four Cabinet Ministers empowered to maintain the law against all opposition. Is the right hon. Baronet going to sanction the same system of tyranny that was carried on under the Commissioners? Is he going to tear parent from child—husband from wife? Is he going still to transport the natives of the agricultural districts to the manufacturing districts? What right would he have to do so? The poor man's right to relief is as sacred as the right hon. Baronet's to any property he possesses. Is he prepared to have the provisions of this law tried on those who are near and dear to himself? If not, what right has he to inflict on the
982
poor man that which he would not bear himself? I can tell him that the poor man loves his wife as well as he loves his; and degraded must that Cabinet Minister be who would enforce the law against the poor man, for no other reason than that he is poor and is unable to procure protection. By Clause 20, it appears, Her Majesty may, if she pleases, by the advice of Her Privy Council, disavow the acts of the Board; but as those who would have to advise her would constitute the Board, it is not likely they would give her such advice. I have now given a brief sketch of the powers which the Government propose to take under this Bill; and from this tyranny to what tribunal are the poor to appeal? To the Government? Why, they will be their oppressors. To this House? Why, the Government of the day must have a majority behind its back in this House. To whom, then, are the poor to appeal against the tyranny and oppression of four Cabinet Ministers? You will say they may petition the Sovereign. But their petition must pass through the hands of the Home Secretary, whose conduct they are complaining of. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman opposite me would do it, but we know that the last Home Secretary kept back a memorial addressed to Her Majesty. I will tell you what the poor man may appeal to—he may appeal to the common law of England and to the British constitution. And although the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General has given ready answers to the questions I have put, and which elicited frequent cries of "Hear, hear," from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, it will be my duty to prove to the House that this House of Commons, and that the Parliament of this country, have no power to pass this Bill, and that if it does pass, it is null and void. I ask the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) while I give him my authorities, and I think he will admit that they are equal to his own. I will prove from the most eminent authorities that Parliament has no power to delegate the power of making laws. Locke says—
"The Legislature is empowered only to make laws, and not to make legislators."
Justice Blackstone says—
"Whenever the legislative and executive powers are found together, there is an end of public liberty."
You have both legislative and executive powers in the hands of the Poor Law Com-

983
missioners, and, according to Blackstone, there is therefore an end of public liberty. Lord Coke from the judgment seat declared—
"It appears in our books, that in many cases the common law will control Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void; for when an Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant and impossible to be performed, the common law will control it, and adjudge it void."
It is clear that the New Poor Law is "against common right and reason." Magna Charta, the charter of our rights, asserts—
"We will not, by ourselves or others, procure anything whereby any of these concessions or liberties be revoked or lessened, and if any such thing be obtained, let it be null and void."
Lord Eldon declared, a short time before he died, to a friend of mine—
"It is an unconstitutional Bill, but it is sure to pass; for now-a-days they will pass anything. There is no authority to empower the Legislature to pass such a Bill, nor, when passed, any constitutional power to enforce it. If matters have indeed come to this, a national convention should be called."
Lord Eldon also said, when addressing a noble Friend—
"It is the most infamous law that ever was enacted in a Christian country. If the Parliament will not do its duty, the people must do theirs. Nothing can be done till the country is ready for it, which it soon will be."
I hold in my hand a statement made by Lord Wynford, late Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, upon the second reading of the New Poor Law Bill in another place. Lord Wynford said—
"Never was there an instance in either ancient or modern times when such a power as this was given to any set of men. Blackstone himself contemplated with horror the power that was given to the King under the Mutiny Act. He thought it was unconstitutional that His Majesty should have the power of making laws, deciding upon laws, and rescinding laws; and yet the power which Blackstone thought unfit to be placed in the hands even of the King, was to be given to these Commissioners. They were even to have the power of delegating that power; and the only restraint by which they, or those delegated by them, would be subject, would be in making general regulations. Their general regulations would have to be submitted to the Secretary of State; but no control whatever was intended to be exercised over their other proceedings. He did not think that even the noble and learned Lord himself could defend delegating such enormous powers as these; but even if he should, then he must say that he was certainly too jealous about granting arbitrary power ever to permit it, except in a case of absolute necessity; but no such necessity has yet been made out. He had shown that it would not only affect property generally, but that it would enable the Commissioners to determine
984
whether the unfortunate pauper should eat his miserable pittance in a state of liberty or of thraldom. Whilst in the workhouse, they could treat the pauper just as they pleased, and in them was to be vested the power to say, 'You shall have relief or you shall not.' He could not help saying that it was utterly impossible for him to contemplate those powers without alarm. They had abolished negro slavery: but if this Bill passed, he very much feared that a short time only would elapse until they saw the condition of the poor of this country infinitely worse than that of the serfs of the Continent, or the villains of former ages; worse even than that of the West Indies, to whom they had given their freedom."
That was the opinion of Lord Chief Justice Wynford. Lord Abinger, another Judge, and a high authority in this country, gave a similar opinion in the other House. Are these authorities not sufficient? The poor have been reduced to an abject state of misery and want; they can only obtain food on condition of being branded with a felon's dress. Why, Sir, the working population of this country to a man believe that no Parliament has the right to pass such a law as this; and they are backed by the high authorities I have read, and which will have great weight with the people of this country. I will venture to say that if a poor man, who had been imprisoned under the unconstitutional powers of this Bill, were to carry his case before the twelve Judges, they would declare, notwithstanding your Act of Parliament, that the man had been illegally imprisoned. Having given these high authorities, let the House listen to the opinions of a working man on this question, and then they will see that the working people of this country are thinking deeply upon the treatment they are receiving from the Government and from the Parliament of this country. I have received this letter within the last few days from a working man:—
"To leave Her Majesty's poor subjects in the hands of an irresponsible power, is but cruel mockery. It has been the boast of Great Britain that the home of the poor man was his castle—that it is held as sacred as the palace; such were the views of Lord Chatham in his day. He said, By the British constitution every man's house is his castle; it may be a straw-built shed; every wind of heaven may whistle round it—all the elements may enter it—but the King cannot, the King dare not.' And since his time it was the boast of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent (our present Sovereign's father) that 'it is the glory of the British constitution that it protects the poor as well as the rich—the peasant as well as the prince; whoever has the temerity to injure either the person, property, or character of the meanest of His Majesty's subjects, must be prepared to grapple with the strength of the empire."

985
I tell Her Majesty's Government, that if they mean to bolster up the present Poor Law under another name, they too "must be prepared to grapple with the strength of the empire." The Poor Law deprived hon. Gentlemen opposite of office at the last election, and it will deprive them of office at the next general election. For, although they may try to blink this question, I tell them every man in the country is denouncing the conduct of the Poor Law Commissioners, and declaring that your New Poor Law is an utter and disgraceful failure. I have now shown to this House that you have no power to pass this Bill, and that if you pass it, it will be null and void. I will now show the House that the poor have a right to relief; and if they have a right to relief, I ask the Government, who will have to enforce this law, by what right they will refuse relief except upon the condition of these parties degrading themselves? Why, Sir, until you passed this New Poor Law, the poor were ready to shed their blood to defend their country. They are now compelled to sacrifice their liberty to save their lives. To prove that the poor have a right to relief, I will quote John Locke, who says—
"A man can no more make use of another's necessity to force him to become his vassal, by withholding that relief which God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can seize upon a weaker, and with a dagger at his throat, offer him death or slavery. As justice gives every man a title to the product of his honest industry and the fair acquisition of his ancestors descended to him; so charity gives every man a title to so much of another's plenty as will keep him from extreme want, when he has no means to subsist otherwise."
You do "force" the poor man to "become "your vassal" when you refuse to admit him into a poor-law union except upon degrading conditions. Archdeacon Paley says —
"When the partition of property is rigidly maintained against the claims of indigence and distress, it is maintained in opposition to the intention of those who made it, and to His who is the supreme proprietor of every thing, and who has filled the world with plenteousness for the sustenance and comfort of all whom he sends into it."
I might quote Puffendorf, Grotius, and Coke, who all agree on this point; but hear what Blackstone asserts:—
"The law not only regards life and member and protects every man in the enjoyment of them, but also furnishes him with everything necessary for their support. For there is no man so indigent or wretched but he may demand a supply sufficient for all the necessaries of life from the
986
more opulent of the community, by means of the several statutes enacted for the relief of the poor—a humane provision, dictated by the principles of society."
Judge Hale said, from the bench—
"The laws of this kingdom made sufficient provision for the supply of persons in necessity, by collections for the poor, and by the powers of the civil magistrates; and the Act of Elizabeth has reduced charity to a system, and interwoven it with our very constitution."
These are high authorities, both in the House and out of it, and they prove that the poor have a right to relief. I will finish my authorities by an extract from Lord Brougham, who himself admitted, in the other House, that the poor have a right to relief. On the second reading of the New Poor Law, Lord Brougham said—
"I grant that this was the original distribution of the tithe (one-third going to the fabric of the church, one-third to the parson, and one-third to the poor); and I also admit, that in much later times, as far down as the 15th of Richard II., this right of the poor was recognised by Parliament; for in that year an Act passed which in terms admitted the right of the poor to sustentation out of this fund. I admit, too, that still later, in the reign of Elizabeth, the judges of the land recognised the same right—and that other cases are to be found decidedly in favour of the principle—one of the judges of that day quaintly observing, that it is the business of the parson pascere gregem verbo, exemplo, cibo. Indeed your Lordships will find both the Courts and Parliaments, as late as the reign of George III., recognising the claims of the poor against the parson, grounded upon the same principle."
Now you have it here distinctly maintained, even by Lord Brougham, that the poor have a right to relief; and if so, you have no right to claim any act of vassalage from them, or deprive them of their liberty as the price of giving them relief when they have a right to demand it. I will now assert, that if you refuse the poor relief, they have a right to take it. Will the Government dispute that point? The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is silent. Am I to understand that he does not deny my position? [Sir G. GREY: One at a time.] But there are four of you going to have seats in the new Commission. You may depend upon it that you will be severely questioned, and that the debate tonight is only a slight sketch of what you will have to experience. To show you that the poor are justified in stealing, if not relieved, I will remind you of what Lord Bacon, one of the authors of the 43rd Elizabeth, says:—
"The law chargeth no man with default where the Act is compulsory. Where man's nature cannot overcome, such necessity carrieth with it a privilege in itself. Necessity is of three sorts:

987
necessity of conservation of life; necessity of obedience; and necessity of the act of God, or a stronger. First of conservation of life; if a man steal viands to satisfy his present hunger, his is not felony, nor larceny."
Judge Blackstone give this passage his high authority, and adds—
"This cannot now happen in England, where the Poor Law of Elizabeth suffers no one to be in a state of destitution."
I will now give you an authority which must be a high one with you, the Poor Law Commissioners themselves, who in one of their reports affirm that—
"To punish even depredation, apparently committed as the only resource against want, is repugnant to the common sentiments of mankind."
I have no doubt that also was the feeling of the gentleman in Worcestershire, who had six or seven tons of turnips taken every week by the poor. I have now proved my positions, and I have a right on the part of the suffering starving poor to require some explanation from the Government, whether they intend to carry out the Bill. There is one question on which I have a right to demand a distinct pledge. Are you intending to enforce the New Poor Law upon the same system as it has been administered for the last fourteen years with the intention of proceeding with it until you have abolished the Poor Law altogether? Or are you prepared to revert to the powers of the 43rd of Elizabeth? What has Ireland become from the want of a Poor Law? Why you have been obliged, as a last resort, to pass a Poor Law to save the people from destitution; and the hon. and learned Member for Bath, who has been the able supporter of that measure, has told you, that, to save Ireland, you must pass the 43rd of Elizabeth. Before many years are passed, you will have to rest upon the principles of that Act in England; I mean the principles of local self-government. You must have boards of guardians to assist in carrying out the law; but if they refuse to act under the Commissioners—and they often do so refuse—the poor are left to the tender mercies of the relieving officers to whom the poor are no more than the dirt they tread upon. No doubt during this discussion on the New Poor Law, many hon. Members will take part in the debate who can narrate what has been the working of the New Poor Law in the different parts of the country in which they reside. I can't refrain—as I see the late Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
988
ment (Sir J. Graham) in his place—I can't refrain from referring to a letter I have received within the last few days; for of all the accounts of the disgraceful conduct of poor-law unions, nothing surpasses the accounts of the Longtown Union, of which the right hon. Sir J. Graham, of Netherby Hall, is the president. The letter is written by the Rev. John Maughan, who dates from "Bewcastle Rectory." The writer gives a long account of the proceedings of the Poor Law Commissioners in screening parties who had robbed the ratepayers, and in preventing inquiry. Mr. Maughan concludes his letter by saying—
"The above facts are sufficient to show that there has been gross mismanagement of the Long-town Union, and gross negligence on the part of the Poor Law Commissioners themselves. Other facts might be mentioned of a similar nature, and too many others of a character too much resembling the atrocities of Andover."
That is the description of the Longtown Union by the rector of a parish in that union. No wonder that Mr. Parker was screened—at least not screened, but that an attempt was made at the Home Office to induce him to destroy his report, lest The Times should be in the ribs of the late Home Secretary for the next six months. No wonder such things should be, when the late Home Secretary had in his own union atrocities as bad as at Andover. I have said, that the private defence of the Commissioners contains an audacious untruth, and I will prove it. I recommend this to the attention of the late Home Secretary, and the Government. [The hon. Member read the extract from the pamphlet, which he said was untrue.] In 1842, two reports were used against me (the hon. Member continued) in this House; but I will not, for particular reasons, allude to the subject further than to state, that in a report which was drawn up by Sir J. Walsham, the most harrowing and frightful details were given of the state of the poorhouse in the parish in which I reside. That report stated that forty-nine inmates of that workhouse slept in, I think, some twelve or fourteen beds. It was handed by the late Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham) to the right hon. Baronet the late First Lord of the Treasury (Sir R. Peel), who read the harrowing account to the House. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) turned up his eyes to heaven and smote his breast, and was horror-stricken at the poor being thus treated under my authority, as he was pleased to intimate—for he pointed to

989
me at that time. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Yes, and within a mile and a quarter, too, of his (Mr. Ferrand's) own house." They were delighted at the exposure; I was crushed for a season, but I believe I have now recovered. Now what was the state of that poorhouse on the last day on which the old law was in operation? It contained twelve inmates; but in the course of four years, under the management of the Poor Law Commissioners, the number of inmates increased to forty-nine; and from 1838 until 1842, when Sir J. Walsham visited the workhouse, I believe no Poor Law Commissioner had ever entered it. The late Prime Minister, after reading the report I have mentioned, said, "It is high time for the Poor Law Commissioners to interfere." The House shall hear how they did interfere. That report was got up against me in 1842; and when did the Poor Law Commissioners interfere to put a stop to the state of things which it represented as existing? Not until May, 1846, after the lapse of four years. Could anything be more disgraceful than this? The return of the assistant commissioner gives a flat contradiction to the bold assertions, the audacious untruths, which I have read from the defence of the Poor Law Commissioners. But what does the House suppose was the cause of this visit to the poorhouse? In May, 1846, I came down to this House and asked the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), who was then at the head of the Government, to insist upon an assistant poor-law commissioner being sent to Brugley to examine the state of the poorhouse. Let me state to the House the visits which had been paid to that union by the Commissioners during the few years preceding. On the 20th of July, 1842, Mr. Mott attended the meeting of the board of guardians; on the 17th of May, 1843, after an interval of ten months, Mr. Clements attended; twelve months afterwards, on the 8th of May, 1844, Mr. Clements paid the board another visit; and on the 2nd of October, 1844, the same person again visited them. And yet we were paying these men some 1,200 l. or 1,400 l. a year for performing their duties! The union was not again visited by an assistant Poor Law Commissioner until the 21st of May, 1846, after the lapse of a year and a half from the previous visit; and then that Commissioner was sent down at my request—at the request of the man who had been traduced in this House in the
990
most scandalous manner by persons who ought to have been ashamed of their conduct. Upon my interference and at my request an assistant commissioner was sent down to rescue the poor from their sufferings; and what do hon. Gentlemen suppose was the state of the poorhouse? On the 9th of June, 1842, there were fifty-five inmates; on the 1st of January, 1843, forty-three; on the 1st of January, 1844, fifty-seven; on the 1st of January, 1845, forty-two; on the 1st of January, 1846, fifty-three; and on the 1st of January, 1847, forty-four; so that during two years out of the five, there was a larger number of inmates in the union poorhouse, than on the day when it was visited by Sir J. Walsham, at the suggestion of the late Secretary of State for the Home Department. Thus, then, I give a flat contradiction to the audacious statements of the Poor Law Commissioners in their private defence; and I could point out many other statements in that defence which are as unfounded and as untrue as that which I have just read. This, however, is sufficient to stamp the whole of that defence with falsehood, and to show that it is not worth the paper upon which it was written. Before I conclude I will merely ask the Government this simple question—do you not believe, if you were to attempt to enforce the powers of this new Poor Law against the aristocracy or the middle classes of this country, that you would produce a rebellion within a week? There cannot be a doubt of it. Those classes of the English people would rise as one man to defend themselves against such tyranny and oppression. But it is the poor alone who are thus oppressed and persecuted; it is against them only that you enforce this harsh and cruel law. Let me ask you to choose a happier course—to become the protectors of the poor instead of being their oppressors; for there is not on the face of God's earth a more loyal, a more peaceful, a more obedient, a more grateful, a more industrious body of working people than those within Old England; and what they have done to merit such treatment as this, neither I nor any other man in this country can understand or find out. They have borne this tyranny for thirteen years. How much longer do you intend them to submit to it? Depend upon it the day of reckoning must come. Amidst all their sufferings they are discontented from the knowledge that you have shown no pity for them—that you

991
have deprived them of what God and the laws of their country have given them as a sacred and a legal right; and you cannot now appeal to them with the generous confidence you would have felt before the accursed principles of Malthus inoculated your laws. No; you have no right to appeal to them for allegiance if you refuse to protect them. Protect them with equal laws, equal rights, and equal liberty, and I have no fear for the peace of this country. Refuse them that protection, and the day must come when you will have reason to regret your oppression. I beg leave to move, Sir, that this Bill he read a second time this day six months.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid: Sir, I have no doubt that I should be paying the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Ferrand) a compliment if I denounced him as a dangerous person; but as an idiot may set fire to a haystack, the language of the hon. Gentleman may he productive of very mischievous consequences. The hon. Gentleman has talked for the last two hours about the law, about inalienable rights, about the 43rd of Elizabeth, about the tyranny of the new Poor Law, and about a variety of other things, without understanding anything of the subject. He is totally ignorant of what he has been talking about of the 43rd of Elizabeth. He has never read that Act, I am sure, and I am here to prove it. Nothing is more easy than to rant about that which you do not understand, and nothing is so easy as to obtain popularity by pretending liberality with respect to the poor. I will prove to the House that the 43rd of Elizabeth has not in reality been departed from, and that the present law—which is called "the New Poor Law"—has been, if anything, a reaction towards the old law, the 43rd of Elizabeth. Now, before we go further, let us understand under what circumstances the 43rd of Elizabeth was adopted. That Act was the result of the consequences which followed from the putting down of the religious houses in this country. The convents and monasteries had been in the habit of maintaining a certain number of the poor around them, furnishing them the means of support. The Reformation came, and the religious houses were put down. What was the consequence? A number of "sturdy beggars," to use the language of the Acts of Parliament, wandered about the country, and had to be provided for. Now, what was the object of the Act of the 43rd of Elizabeth? I have here the
992
43rd of Elizabeth, chap. 2, and I think it is proper that the world at large should fairly understand the provisions of this Act. We hear constant appeals about inalienable rights founded upon an Act of Parliament, and an hon. Gentleman gets up in his place in this House and says, that that which an Act of Parliament has created, an Act of Parliament cannot undo; and he tells the Attorney General, "I will prove that an Act of Parliament cannot do that which you have attempted to do by your New Poor Law." Now, what was the 43rd of Elizabeth?—
"That the churchwardens of every parish, with other persons mentioned in the Act to be called overseers of the poor, shall take orders from time to time by and with the consent of two or more such justices of the peace for setting to work the children of all such above parents, as shall not by the said churchwardens and overseers or by the greater part of them, be thought able to keep and maintain their children, and also for setting to work all such persons, married or unmarried, and having no means to maintain them, and use an ordinary and daily trade to get their living by."
That is the sum and substance of the 43rd of Elizabeth, and the remainder has reference to the mode of taxation, and matters not concerning the poor. After the 43rd of Elizabeth was adopted, there was a great change in the administration of the law, and a rate was imposed by means of which farmers and others were enabled to employ the poor by deriving certain sums from the parishes to make up their wages. To meet this state of things the New Poor Law was devised. I am now about to maintain the rights of the industrious poor against the lazy poor; and that is a distinction never drawn in this House. Under the old law the lazy poor came and braved the local authorities in the vestry; I have seen them march into the vestry and say, "You shall give us relief, and we will do no work." The poor farmers were frightened out of their wits by these men; and why? Because they knew that if they refused relief to these persons, their stacks would be burnt the next night, and their ploughs would be cut to pieces, and their cattle and horses maimed. Indeed, if they refused to maintain, not the industrious, but the idle poor, they were robbed of that which was the result of their own industry. Now, for God's sake, let the country and the House understand what was done under these circumstances by Parliament, They said, "The local authorities are totally unable to deal with these difficulties; the idle poor come into the parish vestry

993
and brave the farmer, and what can he do? Now, let us unite a number of parishes together; let us put the authorities at a distance from these men, and let there be a central authority in London, to whom an appeal may be made." Let me point out the advantages of this arrangement, and let me ask, about what has all the riot and noise with reference to the New Poor Law been made? Why, about the central authority. I recollect reading, in my youthful days, a poem called The Country Justice, written, I think, by Dyer, which contains a description of a dispute between contending parishes respecting the settlement of a poor woman with child; and the poet describes the unfortunate woman as lying-in in the cart while the parish officials were disputing as to where they should be sent. You allowed these country justices to administer the law most inefficiently without complaint; but the moment three men, sitting in Somerset House, were appointed to control its administration, there was not a trading politician, however feeble his intellect or however low his capacity, but pointed his forefinger at the three tyrants of Somerset House. But this system concentrated the responsibility; it provided for that which had all along been wanted, namely, that there should be an appeal from the local authorities to some other authority amenable to this House. This was the great benefit of the new law. It concentrated responsibility; it marked out the persons who were to be the administrators of that law; it made them amenable to the great public opinion of this country; and I am satisfied we never should have heard of the evils of the New Poor Law if it had not been that three Commissioners were appointed. They have been curbed, thwarted, and controlled; and you find that the popularity hunters by whom they are assailed are egged on by the justices at sessions, who are glad to see those who succeeded to the exercise of many of their functions with regard to the Poor Law thus treated. Let us understand what the Commissioners were appointed to do. I am about to speak of what they have done, and I am about to show that what they have done has been in contravention of the law and in obedience to the cry out of doors—that cry of which the hon. Member for Finsbury has been one of the loudest and most eloquent supporters. The fact of their having deviated from the law certainly shows that they were unfit to administer it; but they
994
deviated from the law in a direction precisely contrary to that which the hon. Member for Knaresborough supposes they took. The law is this—that a man who is unable to maintain himself shall be maintained by the State—that a poor man, being unable to maintain himself and his family, has, under the law, a right to relief. Now that is what I have desired for the Irish people; it is that which I have fought for; and it is some little pride for me that I have been singular in this House in supporting such a scheme, and that I have stood almost alone in debate and in division. ["No, no!"] Aye, aye. I have maintained for the Irish people a right to relief; but the right to relief does not mean that they shall be relieved whether they be idle or industrious—it does not mean that the idle poor man shall come in before the industrious poor man and say, "Give me relief; I'll have it; I care not for the poor labouring man who works twelve hours a day, and who has an honest feeling about his independence; I have a right to relief under the law, and I will have it." That is the notion of the hon. Member for Knaresborough; but it is not the notion of the law, and it is not the notion of common sense. The notion of common sense is that if a man, under the pressure of unfortunate circumstances, is unable to maintain his family, he shall be maintained by the State; but some test is necessary, for the vagabond may say, "I have as much right to relief as the industrious man; and if you don't give me it, look out, for you shall see the consequences." Some test, then, is necessary to enable us to distinguish between the idle vagabond, who demands relief without any industrious habits or any wish to labour, and the honest poor man, who by unfortunate circumstances is reduced to such a position as to require relief. For this purpose a poorhouse is established. Now, nothing is more easy than for Gentlemen to talk about the poor in these matters, without having the slightest wish to enable the poor to decide for themselves; for I undertake to say that, with one or two exceptions, the persons who preach about the Poor Law are always opposed to giving the poor equal political rights. These canting hypocrites, who declaim so loudly about the poor, will refuse to give them the right to vote. But the poor know their real friends from those pretended friends who, out of their necessities, would carve their own way to fortune. The plan established

995
by the law is, that the man who comes to the poorhouse, being in a state of necessity, and willing to take the relief offered by the State, should have that relief provided. And now I come to the question of the right to relief. The hon. Member for Knaresborough talks about the inalienable right to relief. For my life, I cannot understand this inalienable right to relief which he speaks of. The hon. Gentleman talked about Puffendorf, but I will stake my life he has never read Puffendorf. I will be bound that he has never opened Vattel; and as for Grotius, I do not believe that he knows whether Grotius lived in the time of George III., Charles II., Queen Elizabeth, or the Emperor Adrian. Any child might talk of Grotius or of Puffendorf, whose names he might have heard, but whose works he never read. I think very little of the authority of the hon. Gentleman on any matter of learning, and still less on any matter of common sense. The hon. Member for Knaresborough has talked about the inalienable right to relief, and he has quoted from Coke and Blackstone, into whose works it appears he has been dipping. Dipping is a most easy thing; but I am not quite sure that he knows which of the two preceded the other; and I may here mention, that I find a pamphlet, written, I believe, by one of those who pretend to be in favour of the poor, speaking about the revocation of the edict of Nantes, and the consequent massacre of St. Bartholomew. [Some hon. Member here observed, that it was written, perhaps, by a Poor Law Commissioner.] If it were the work of a Poor Law Commissioner, why did not the hon. Member for Knaresborough comment on it then? No, it is not the work of a Poor Law Commissioner, but of one of those gentlemen who talk about the Poor Law, and do not understand it. But what is the meaning of that inalienable right to relief of which the hon. Member for Knaresborough speaks? Let us understand it. He says that the 43rd of Elizabeth confirmed that right. Now, the 43rd of Elizabeth is an Act of Parliament passed in consequence of a necessity by the Queen, Lords, and Commons, of that day. This I will say, that an Act of Parliament which creates a right on the part of certain classes, and imposes an obligation on certain others, is repealable by Parliament; and, if it had been repealed, the repealing Act would have been law, and the hon. Gentleman would not have found the twelve Judges so
996
thoroughly fatuous and so gone beyond common sense as to have determined that an Act of Parliament is not the law of the land. Were I to find a Judge doing that, I should call him to the bar of this House to answer for his conduct; but I never in my lifetime found one of the Judges adopting the language of the hon. Gentleman. We may have heard a Judge complaining of the slovenly mode in which Acts of Parliament are passed, but none of them have ever maintained a doctrine so contrary to the constitution as that which the hon. Gentleman has broached. The Judges are appointed to administer that which we and the other portions of the Legislature determine should be law; and if ever one of them shall be so audacious as to say that that is not the law, I would bring him to the bar of the House to answer for his transgression. What is the meaning of this inalienable right to relief? What the hon. Member for Knaresborough talks about is the right to relief under the 43rd of Elizabeth; according to which the poor were to be set to work. [Mr. WAKLEY: Not in a gaol.] The hon. Member for Finsbury says—"not in a gaol." What does he mean? Has the hon. Gentleman ever gone into a poor man's cottage? Does he ever employ and pay a poor man? If so, he must be aware that the cottage of the poor, honest, and laborious peasant is, I am sorry to say, a far more miserable habitation than that which the beneficence of the law has provided for the indigent poor. In the cottage there is no medical adviser—no cleanliness—in it there is neither that warmth nor shelter which the law has provided for the poor in the poorhouse. I speak on this subject knowingly. It is my habit month after month, week after week, and day after day, to go into the habitations of my poor fellow-countrymen. I employ a great number of them. I know their feelings and their condition. I know this also (and I defy any one to tell me the contrary), that the labouring poor at this moment in their own habitations are far worse off than in those habitations which the hon. Member for Finsbury has designated as bastiles and gaols. [Mr. WAKLEY used the word gaol only.] Well, a gaol is a place where a man is put for an offence. [Mr. FERRAND: The offence of the poor is their poverty.] Let us see whether this is the case. A man by unfortunate necessity is poor, and unable to maintain himself. He goes to the State Exchequer and asks relief. The State says—"We

997
cannot tell whether you are an honest man or not, but if you are an honest poor man, you will make no objections to the conditions on which relief is granted, and you will come into the workhouse." But "oh!" says the hon. Gentleman—and his eloquence here is most affecting—"the poor man has a wife and children, and there would be a separation of the husband from his wife and family." Well, is not the soldier separated from his wife, and the sailor also? They are sent to the farthest points of the world, while the wives are left behind, and we never see any one get up and contend that the soldier and the sailor should be accompanied by their wives and families. How would the hon. Member for Brighton act, supposing he was in command of a ship, and the crew were to tell him they were married, and they wanted their wives and families along with them? Is there any man in society, under all the exigencies of life, that is not constantly separated from his wife and from his family? Even in this House there are a large number of gentlemen so situated. The hon. Gentlemen from Ireland do not bring their wires with them. If any do, they are very happy men. But a large number of them do not, and who ever got up in Parliament, and exclaimed, with patriotic furor, "For God's sake, look at the Irish Members deprived of every domestic happiness, because they do not bring their wives along with them." Every man, then, who comes to the State for relief is bound to submit to the regulations of the State; and when any one talks of an inalienable right to relief, I reply that there is no such thing, and that the poor have a right to relief by an Act of Parliament, which very rationally says that no man shall be fed by the State but those who are really paupers, and that is ascertained by means of the workhouse test. The workhouse test is very unpopular; and although this is the last year of the present Parliament, yet I will now speak, as I began in favour of that test. I believe that, in the present situation of England, the workhouse test is not an unfair or cruel mode of ascertaining and separating the really industrious and unfortunate poor who require relief, from the vagabonds who would absorb the means intended for the support of the industrious poor. If any one can show me a better mode of distinguishing between these two classes, I will adopt it with the utmost alacrity; but until you show me a better, I am compelled to take this. There is,
998
however, a distinction which I wish to draw, which I have always insisted on, and which I hope the Legislature will adopt means to establish. I object to the feeding of the idle and the vagabond, because that constitutes a bad example, and leads to the demoralisation of the industrious population. But this objection does not attach to the maintenance of the old and the infirm. Therefore, the moment you have ascertained that the aged and infirm are unable to obtain the means of subsistence, do not apply to them any test, but give them those means to the uttermost necessary extent; for, by so doing, you are not indulging bad habits, nor creating a pernicious example. This will not in any way militate against the industrious habits of the poor, but will as much as possible tend to conciliate the kind feelings and good wishes of the poor towards those who by circumstances are placed in a happier situation. If this distinction were established throughout the parishes of England, I think that the occupation of the hon. Member for Knaresborough would be at an end. He could then do nothing to excite the poor, for the large mass of them are industrious, and are anxious that the means which should be applied to the support of the industrious poor should not be given to the misbehaving and undeserving. Now I come to the Poor Law Commissioners, and with great pain I am obliged to say that the Poor Law Commissioners have not carried out the law. They have quailed before the outcry raised by one influential journal—I may as well mention it—The Times newspaper. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, who has talked so loudly to-night, is merely but a faint echo—a will-o-the wisp—the almost imperceptible shadow of the great Times newspaper. He is one of the persons pushed on by the means of The Times newspaper, and his every word, every blow on the red box, every emphasis, every parenthesis, and every single sentence is but a bad imitation of The Times newspaper. The Times newspaper is written by a man of classical attainments, and by a man of knowledge, and herein is wonderfully different from the hon. Member for Knaresborough; his knowledge and attainments distinguish him from that hon. Member as the sun may be distinguished from that gas light. The Times newspaper is the great parent of all this opposition to the Poor Law, and it is enabled to carry out its opposition in consequence of what I believe to be the unfortunate wavering on

999
the part of the Poor Law Commissioners. If they had stood steadily to their duties—not listening to outcry from one side or from the. other, but had carried out what I believe to be the spirit of the law, they would then have had with them the support of the people of this country, and they would have prevented The Times newspaper from doing what I know it has done—overturned the Commission. In consequence of The Times newspaper constantly hammering at the Commissioners, and frightening them, they deviated from the line which they ought to have maintained;—the acute authority of The Times newspaper took advantage of their blunder, and we are now unable to defend the Commissioners, because they are unable to carry out the law. This is my objection to the Commissioners. They have yielded to popular outcry; and the mischief is, that after a good law was passed, you got inefficient persons to carry it into execution. If you had sternly administered the law—I use the word advisedly—you would have made friends of the poor, because the law is one passed for the industrious poor against the idle and the vagabond poor; and the idle and vagabond poor, as every one knows, are but a small section of the whole, though a noisy section, and constantly at work. They, however, have advocates in the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in The Times newspaper, and all who are fond of popularity-hunting. What is the inalienable right to relief of which the hon. Member for Knaresborough talks? The 43rd of Elizabeth justly says, that those receiving relief shall be set to work. [An hon. MEMBER: Crushing bones.] There are many occupations of the poor which are painful to go through, and against which, if directed by the Poor Law Commissioners, there would be a great outcry. There is the occupation of the nightman; there is the occupation of the typemaker. He does not live more than a very small number of years; but type-founders are to be had—they are got for money. No man is obliged to be in want of books, and yet every book that he gets, in the present state of the art, goes to seal the doom of some working man. It is true that philosophy may invent a mask for him who files iron, to prevent its affecting his lungs; but does the hon. Member for Knaresborough get up and say, "The poor of this country are filing iron, by which their lungs are destroyed?" He does get up and talk about "devil's dust;" I never knew him
1000
talk about this dust. The type-founder has no such protection, and to this hour he is the subject of disease. Take a painter; he is daily subjected to the destruction of the power of his limbs. Or what say you to the colliery? You will tell me you have relieved the women and children from working there; but you have not relieved the men. The men work many fathoms under ground, groping their way for miles along in an infected atmosphere; and you sit in your homes round your cheerful Christmas fire, and no patriot talks about that. The fact is, this is all misplaced humanity, to give it the mildest name. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wakley) may shake his head; has he never dissected a body? [The hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to describe the painful nature of a surgeon's duties, and then continued.] Society is unfortunately so constituted that this is the inevitable lot of humanity, though it may be that some are more fortunate than others, and labour at a happier vocation. But if you cannot show me that there is no necessity for the performance of all these painful duties, you are not justified in getting up and saying that it is improper to employ the poor in this, that, or the other. I will agree at once that there is no necessity for employing in any of these operations the poor unfortunates who are obliged to ask the State for subsistence. But why? Because society has the services of those who are willing to undertake these occupations. But then, mark: I labour all my life; born to nothing, I earn every thing; and shall it be said to me, "You are bound to maintain the vagabond outside your gate, who will do nothing?" Who has a right to come to me and say, "Give me of your substance, for you are rich?" I say, I am not rich; everything I gain is my own, won either by my hands or my head, and you have no right to come to me but from necessity. That is what the labouring man has a right to say, and I am here standing up for the labouring man; I want that understood—it shall be understood before I have done. The labouring man says—"I work ten hours according to Act of Parliament, I have got a. wife and children, I maintain them honestly, I live in a house for which I have to pay poor-rate; and what right has John Thomas to take of my earnings? That John Thomas there—he won't work; I know him well; I have known him from his childhood; he has been in the workhouse twenty times; he

1001
won't work." Does the hon. Member for Finsbury say that that is an uncommon case? No; he knows it is not. Well, but then how am I to know that the applicant is John Thomas, the idle vagabond, and not John Smith, the honest labourer? Set him to work, says an hon. Member, and out comes the 43rd of Elizabeth to prove it? To work at what? Beating hemp. Where? In a shed. Oh, but this is "a bastile?" Why, what is a poorhouse? A well built, well ventilated, well warmed, well cleaned habitation, out of which a man may walk at any hour of the day, and you cannot stop him. And are we to have the hon. Member for Knaresborough, with all his vulgar rhetoric and misquoting Lord Chatham, talking about a place with all the winds of heaven blowing round it? God help the right hon. Member for Dorchester (Sir J. Graham) too; what a stream of turbid and muddy rhetoric was poured upon him! But the hon. Member must not come down and talk to us about poor wretches beating hemp under a miserable shed which he would not put his cattle in; the poor are not in a shed, but in a beautifully built house. The last I passed this morning, about five o'clock, is situated in the midst of the New Forest, looking out upon its beautiful scenery on the one side, and almost to the Solent on the other. "Oh, but," says the hon. Member for Finsbury, "that is a gaol." A gaol! how so? You do not keep the people in. "Oh, but they are in a prison dress." Why, you are obliged to dress them, to give them warm clothing, and it is more economical that it should be after one fashion; and really I should be glad to be assured of having all my life such comfortable clothing—a good coat, good trowsers, a clean shirt, clean stockings, honest good shoes, and a felt hat. At all events, that is much better than many an honest man has out of the workhouse. I give away clothes that I call worn out, and they are accepted with grateful thanks; but when the State offers a man a thoroughly good dress, up jumps the hon. Member for Finsbury, and says, "Holloa, here is a prison dress!" Was there ever such an unhappy statement put forth for any unfortunate people—unfortunate indeed—most miserable in their wretched friends? The hon. Member for Finsbury cries "Hear!" I believe the description is an honest one; let him answer it. Let him prove that the dress, the economical dress, warm and comfortable, which is given to the poor in the work-
1002
houses of this country, because it happens to be a uniform, is a prisoner's dress. But the hon. Member for Finsbury will not (if I may use a commercial phrase) indorse the Bill of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. He talked about the prison dress; a prison dress, because it happens to be brown, or grey, and is uniform. Suppose it was red, and uniform; would that be a prison dress? Oh, but it is the colour! Can anything be so thoroughly wretched and paltry and miserable as to make this turn upon the colour of a coat? If it be red, it is an honourable uniform, belonging to Her Majesty's troops, and linked with glory and renown; but if it happens to be grey, with a brown felt hat, instead of a black one with a feather in it, then it is a prison dress! When these things are but stated fairly and honestly, they are in reality an answer to all the rhodomontade statements of such Gentlemen as the hon. Member for Knaresborough, with whom I do not class the hon. Member for Finsbury. But now, what is to be done with the labouring poor of this country? That is what the question comes to. I am not about to assume any patriotic air, or to lay claim to all the virtues of humanity; but I will say, that with the labouring and honest poor of this country I sympathize as deeply as any man in this House; and I am prepared, by any system of legislation with the hon. Member for Knaresborough will propose, to maintain them in their industrious habits. I have met working men with this argument—men that I could hold up as an example to the hon. Member—men that are very acute and logical, not given to vulgar rhetoric, and, above all, extremely careful in their statements; I have said, "You object to the New Poor Law; bring forward your own plan." Now, I challenge the hon. Member for Knaresborough to bring forward his plan, and the hon. Member for Finsbury his. Let us have no more criticism; do not be pullers down; there is a great deal of talk about destructiveness—do show your ability now in an Act of Parliament. What would I give for an Act of Parliament propounded by the hon. Member for Knaresborough? Conceive such a production! I dare say the hon. Member has some spice of kindly feeling in his nature. I have no doubt, upon an extraordinary occasion, he would even go so far as to do me a good turn. He would give me inexpressible delight—and that is what he does not often do when he speaks—if he would only concoct an Act of Parliament

1003
for the poor. I think I could pretty soon rout him and his Act of Parliament. Or, if he likes, let him go to the hon. Member for Finsbury. But really it goes beyond a joke, for I find everybody ready to criticise, and nobody ready to say what ought to be done. The other night the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) described the Poor Law Committee, and told us that every body on it was finding fault with the law as it exists; but when, by one of those strange freaks of fortune which are employed to damp men's audacity, they were set to work to legislate, there was such a farrago of contradictory plans, such a hurly-burly of confusion, as passed even his capacity to describe. And there sits the hon. Member for Evesham, who says that the law of settlement is no part of the Poor Law: that is a specimen of the way in which some persons will "rush in." It was in the Settlement Committee, where all parties said that the law of last year was bad, and when they were asked for a remedy they all went together by the ears, unable to determine anything. We are now about to legislate for the poor of this country; and I, who am not accustomed to flatter the House, will say, that I do believe it is the sincere wish of all parties here to do by the poor that which is just and for their interest. It is most easy to affirm that the poor have ceased to have any regard for our opinions; but if that were put into a proposition, I should say it was untrue and unfair, both to this House and to the people themselves. My belief is, that we really desire to do that which is for the good of the people; but we differ about the means. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, indeed, throughout his harangue, indulged in one constant tirade against this House, against the Ministers of the Crown, against the right hon. Member for Dorchester, against the right hon. Member for Tamworth, against everybody that had been in power—Lord Brougham among the rest (but I strongly suspect he knows very little of Lord Brougham)—and taunted them all with utter disregard to the people, and assumed, forsooth, that he represented the people. First of all, I suppose he means to say that he represents their intelligence; but that I deny. Then, that he represents their feeling; but that also I am compelled to deny. I am certain, that if you took the sense of the people, you would find they go along with us in our view of the case. And he cannot twit me with ever
1004
shrinking from meeting with the people; I never feared to stand before them, and invariably I have maintained the doctrines I am maintaining in this House; I am convinced that the rational part of the population agree with me, and the rational part of the labouring population. If you depart from the principle of the present law, you will no longer stand as you now do, the lords of the human kind, setting an example worthy to be followed. I can conceive nothing so detrimental to the whole character of the English people as carrying out the wretched philosophy of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, which requires relief to be given without asking whether a necessity for it exists. Instead of an honest, upright, dignified population—for the poor man is dignified in his calling—instead of such a population winning their way by honest industry, and fulfilling all their duties, you will have a craving, subservient, subjected population; a miserable race of crouching slaves, instead of upright and honest freemen. Because I believe it to be our first duty to preserve this character of the people, I ask you to maintain in its integrity this great measure for the relief of the poor, giving with an unsparing hand when dire necessity demands relief, but not giving to the undeserving poor that which was intended for the labouring population. I wish to say only one word respecting the Commission. I say it with great pain. I do not shrink from the principle of the law; but I do say the Gentlemen who have hitherto carried out this law have not had that steadfastness of mind requisite for administering so great and necessary a measure. I do, therefore, beseech the noble Lord to let no personal feeling interfere in a matter which affects the welfare of all the labouring population of this great country, but to give us a Commission that is above all suspicion.
MR. BANKEScould not but think it remarkable that while the hon. and learned Member for Bath professed to set so little store upon the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, because deserving of little weight, he had nevertheless occupied so much time in animadverting upon it. Nor had the hon. and learned Gentleman been at all felicitous in his observations; certainly he was not original in the taunt he threw out when he invited the hon. Member for Knaresborough to bring in a Bill. That was but a repetition of the taunt which the hon. and learned Gentle-

1005
man himself received from the Prime Minister a few evenings since—a taunt, by the way, much more feeble in the repetition than when delivered from the Treasury bench. He must remind the hon. and learned Member, that if he meant to support the Bill as introduced by the Government, the observations he had made on the Commissioners and their conduct should have led him to precisely the opposite conclusion, for the Ministers did not disapprove of the conduct of the Commissioners. They especially told the House that they would enter into no undertaking that the present Commissioners should not be appointed to the posts of honour created by this Bill. The subject really before the House was not the provisions of the Poor Law. The question they had to consider Was not whether they were to new-model the Act of 1844, but whether, in reconstructing that part of which related to central control, they should retain substantially the same system and the same men. But the Commissioners were to be installed in higher dignity and honour than ever. They were to be declared competent to hold seats in that House. To such a proposition there were constitutional objections; and there were other acts of the Government with which it might be viewed in connexion. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had spoken of the overwhelming pressure of business upon public men. He did the noble Lord the justice to believe that, overwhelmed as he was with business, he had not had time to read over the Bills which had been introduced under his sanction by different Members of his Government; for it would be matter for surprise, indeed, if it should happen that, with the knowledge of one so distinguished for his adherence to constitutional principles, two, three, or four Bills had been brought in which created so many new pieces of patronage. It was the fashion among hon. Members to get up speeches upon topics which promised to be popular, such as the sanitary condition of towns, or prison discipline. All joined in applause of the introductory speech, which throughout the country was hailed as giving birth to a new era. But the Health of Towns Bill turned out to be a new creation of Commissioners and subordinates, and an invasion of private rights to such an extent that London rebelled, and the noble Lord did not dare to dine with his constituents till he was able to assure them that they would be exempted from its ope-
1006
ration. Marylebone joined in the outcry; and then the Bill was so framed that it expressly excluded London, and, by implication, the metropolitan districts. Under the Prisons Bill commissioners and inspectors were to be appointed, superseding those who had hitherto been thought guardians to be trusted with the management of gaols. In Swift's Advice to Servants, there was a maxim which ran somewhat in these terms:—"Take care each of you in your own department to make provision to expend exactly the whole of your master's income, for that is what will do him the greatest credit, and show your respect for his credit." And so in the present instance. Every one who drew up a Bill, made places for commissioners and inspectors to the full amount of the sum at the disposal of the noble Lord. One placeman, say the Railway Commissioner, might have escaped notice. But here were two other Commissioners provided for; and the very men who had already been so greatly condemned might be appointed. Nay, some checks which previously existed on their conduct were to be taken away. They did not require to keep a record of their proceedings; the Commissioners had never kept any, though bound to do so; but that which the old Commissioners had neglected to do, the new Commissioners were to be exempted from doing. Was this new Whig plan intended as an absolution of the Commissioners? The First Minister of the Crown had said he did not think there was anything in the conduct of those persons to prevent them from holding office in the new Commission, which was subjected in a smaller degree to check, and invested in an extended degree with powers, while the station of the Commissioners was improved, being rendered admissible to that House. He had always thought it desirable to have, in regard to the poor, a representative connected with the Home Office. Before adding two placemen to the House, the propriety of leaving out two Lords of the Treasury or Admiralty, or a clerk of the Ordnance, and some other functionary, might be suggested as a question for consideration. Something almost like a trap seemed to be laid for the House; by swallowing such a proposition they would be sent with a very ill grace to their constituents. The Commissioners had the power to create laws. The Attorney General had stated that this power was not entirely anomalous, because it was possessed by

1007
courts of law. But the other example—the Ecclesiastical Commission—was rather unhappy; it did not follow that because the House had made one unfortunate experiment, they ought to make another. If the Commissioners were to have seats in Parliament, why should they not make their laws there instead of making them in their private chambers? One object of their being admitted to Parliament, he understood, was, that they should from time to time propose those laws which might he recommended; as in the instances of the Railway Commissioner. The best circular letter was an Act of Parliament. After ten or twelve years' experience, it was time to say what rules and regulations ought to be retained or abrogated; but if new experiments were to be made, they ought to be discussed in that House, and not at a private board. Would the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department inform the House why, at that late period of the Session, they were called upon to consider this proposition? The hon. Member for Bath had made merry with the Committee sitting in the other House, and not altogether without reason; but the inconclusive result of such an inquiry he had always anticipated. He could not consent to the second reading of the Bill, unless assured that it would be freed from those objections to which he had alluded. As to the details, there was much room for amendment; but the Bill could not be allowed to pass its present stage unless the Government announced their intention of making alterations in those points which affected the vital principle. As to the Poor Law, he had always thought it very unfortunate that it was taken up as a new measure. Additions were made to the old law; but the originator of the new law was neither Chadwick nor Senior: the real author was no other than Sir Matthew Hale. He had the original treatise in which Sir Matthew Hale recommended it to the public in his own beautiful language. But, though it was chalked out, the Whig party, it was said, had an unhappy mode of managing matters; and hence they spoiled the plan. The Commission was an addition of the Whigs, and not of Sir M. Hale's; and there were other additions equally pernicious. But all its beneficial parts, all the portions which gave rights to the poor, were propositions of Sir M. Hale's. There was, he (Mr. Bankes) believed, very little difference in that House as to the mode in which the Poor Law
1008
ought to be carried out; but the hon. Member for Bath seemed to admit that the central control was not a happy one. He could not think that this country would ever approve of conferring on people the power of making rules such as that which had been exercised by the Poor Law Commissioners. The Commissioners had few opportunities of ascertaining the real sentiments of the country. He had been struck in Committees with their ignorance of the feelings of the people. In reading Mr. Chadwick's evidence, he was led to contemplate, as he did with great alarm, the probability that it was to Mr. Chadwick's system that the Government were looking. That system was to abolish all local authority whatsoever. Mr. Chadwick thought it unnecessary to have meetings of guardians oftener than once a month. Yet, one great advantage of the New Poor Law was said to be, that it would bring different classes together. The further progress of this central control must be viewed with great alarm; even while the necessity was admitted of some central power ready to interfere when there was occasion, but interfering as little as possible. The Poor Law would never work beneficially or attain popularity till that principle was secured. He had that day presented a petition, complaining of the conduct of certain district auditors. Instructions had been issued requiring them to audit the accounts twice in the year; but the fact was they had not audited them at all. He had also presented a petition the other day concerning a relieving officer who was said to have embezzled certain funds, but which allegation had never been attended to. This showed that the Poor Law Commissioners were either not acquainted with the working of the Act, or were unable to carry it into operation. If the Government attempted in the present Bill to supersede those who had local knowledge in the administration of the law, they would render the measure deservedly an unpopular one. The present Act had become unpopular, he concurred with the hon. Member for Bath in thinking, mainly from the unfortunate conduct of the Commissioners. It was a matter well worthy of deep consideration what change should be introduced; but before he voted for the second reading of this Bill, he must see a better prospect of amendment than anything he found there. He was truly anxious for a change, because he found that in the country confidence was shaken in the present Act, and it was very re-

1009
quisite that some change should be made. The reason of the change now proposed, however, had never been given by the Government; for they denied that it was occasioned by the conduct of the Commissioners; and he defied them to show that there was any other reason for the change, except it were to give seats in Parliament to two additional officers of their appointment. If they introduced the amendments he had suggested, however, he believed that the Poor Law would work well, and be no longer unpopular. Under these circumstances, although not agreeing in many of the points which had been brought before the House by the hon. Member for Knaresborough, he still felt it to be his duty to vote with him in opposing the second reading of this Bill.
SIR G. GREY: I confess that after hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House, differing as it did in all its parts from the speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, I was rather surprised to hear him conclude by saying that he should vote with that hon. Member. The speech of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bankes), as well as the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, has disposed of so many of the objections of the hon. Member who moved the rejection of this Bill, that it will save me the trouble of replying to them. I shall only notice, therefore, a small portion of his speech. The whole speech of the hon. Member for Knaresborough was directed against the amended Poor Law of 1834, which he described as a complete departure from the original Poor Law of the 43rd Elizabeth, and as a new and tyrannical law. He asserted that the object of the original promoters of the measure was to get rid of Poor Laws altogether. The hon. Member told us (though where he got his information I do not know) that it was the result of a compact between the leaders of the two political parties in this House, that whoever should be in power the New Poor Law should never be disturbed; and maintained that it was a law which was unfit to be on the Statute-book. With respect to the principle or details of the present Bill, he never once adverted to them; but, on the principle of opposition to the existing law, he was opposed to the further progress of this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has said, and said truly, that no alteration of the principle of the Bill of 1834 was proposed in the Bill before the
1010
House; and, if there had, it is probable he would have opposed it, because he told us that the Poor Law Amendment Act contained no new principle, but was merely an adaptation of the old law to altered circumstances; and, that so far from having been concocted by a party of modern political economists, who were determined to abolish Poor Laws altogether, it was the same as the scheme proposed by Sir Matthew Hale. I have therefore the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the principle of the Act of 1834. The hon. Member for Knaresborough, I must say, entirely misrepresented the intentions of the authors of this Bill. He has quoted large extracts to show that their object was to abolish all Poor Laws; but if he had read the speeches throughout he would have found that the responsible advisers of the Crown disavowed the intentions which have been imputed to them. For instance, Lord Althorp, in introducing the Poor Law Bill of 1834—
"Begged that he should not be understood as expressing his disapprobation of a well-regulated system of Poor Laws. So far from that being the case, he was of opinion that a well-regulated system of Poor Laws would be productive of great benefit to the country. He was aware that he was now expressing an opinion contrary to the more strict principles of political economy."
After describing the principles of political economy, Lord Althorp went on to say—
"Such was the doctrine of political economy. But as long as we were accessible, not only to the feelings of religion, but to the dictates of humanity, we must be convinced that the support of those who were really helpless, and really unable to provide for themselves, was not only justifiable, but a sacred duty imposed on those who had the ability to assist the distressed. It was, therefore, to the abuses of the system of Poor Laws, not to the system itself—it was to the bad administration of those laws, not to their principle—that he objected."
Such was the language of Lord Althorp, in moving the Bill of 1834. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand), will not again assert that it was the design of the authors of that Bill to deprive the poor of the right to relief under a good system of Poor Laws. Their real design was that which they avowed, and which I believe they have in a great measure accomplished, namely, to cure the abuses which had crept into the administration of the Poor Law prior to 1834; abuses which have been truly described as not more injurious to property itself than to

1011
the real interests of the poor, which the law was intended to promote. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that the Act of 1834 had been productive of innumerable evils. He said, that before the House passed that law the poor of this country were a loyal, obedient, peaceful and well-conditioned body of people; that there was no want, no riots, as in 1835—no rick-burnings, no agricultural labourers with 8s. a week; and, but for that law, there would have been none of the working classes now suffering the punishment of transportation for those riotous proceedings which it was found necessary to put down by the strong arm of the law. The hon. Gentleman has been accused of ignorance in the course of this debate; and I must say that, judging from his speech, he does seem to have taken a very cursory and superficial view of the subject, and that his reading seems to have been principally directed to the ephemeral pamphlets of the day; and that he has not, in fact, fully looked back to the real state of the law on which he professed to speak. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the multiplication of gaols find gaol deliveries as the effects of the law of 1834. I thought it was admitted that the enlargement of our gaols and the increased number of gaol deliveries were two manifest improvements, and that every one rejoiced that attention had been called to those subjects. Surely the hon. Gentleman will not say that, because, by the enlargement and improvement of our prisons, they have been made more healthy and better adapted to an efficient system of penal discipline, and by the increase of gaol deliveries justice is more speedily administered, any subject of complaint exists, or any injury is done to the poor. But the hon. Gentleman would pull down our prisons, as well as repeal the Poor Law, and believes that by restoring the old Poor Law he would empty the gaols and produce a happy and contented people. Now, I need not refer to the state of things which took place under the old Poor Law, they must still be fresh in the recollection of the House. No one who knows anything of the subject can doubt that the effect was to confound the industrious and the idle, to pauperize and demoralise the people, and to reduce them to a state of dependence. The object of the Bill of 1834 was to correct these evils. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes), has truly stated, that we have
1012
not now to consider whether the law of 1834 should be repealed. To the repeal of that Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman would himself object. He began by saying, that he did think that a central authority was essential; but I do not exactly understand what the nature of that control is which he considers essential. In moving for leave to bring in the Bill now before the House, I stated that the Government felt that the reasons which in 1834 led Government to propose to Parliament to establish a body with a central power, remain in full force. But the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bankes) says that he objects to vesting such powers in Commissioners, and that whatever alterations or regulations they may wish to propose in the administration of the Poor Law, should have the sanction of Parliament. Now, I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman really means that the Commissioners should be obliged in every instance where they may find it necessary, to adapt the general regulations under the Poor Law to the peculiar circumstances of particular localities? we shall be obliged to introduce a Bill to enable them to do so. Or does the hon. Gentleman ask for absolute uniformity? In introducing this Bill, I said that there should be a central control; and on that point the hon. Gentleman concurred with me. Now, I thought that the great advantage to be derived from this central control was, that the persons in whom that control would be vested, would have discretionary powers to enable them, in cases which might arise from time to time, to alter the general rules, in order to suit the exigencies of particular localities. The hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, thinks that whenever any suspension or limitation of the general rules is required, a Minister of the Crown should come down to Parliament and propose a Bill applicable to some particular union or a variety of unions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, when he has some further opportunity, or that some hon. Gentleman who concurs in his opinion, will inform the House by what means, or by what machinery, he proposes to effect his plan. But the hon. Gentleman told us that his great opposition to this Bill is founded upon the amount of new patronage which it will create; and although he professed a desire to confine himself to the subject, his patriotism led him to speak of the Sanitary Bill and the Prisons Bill, both which measures he denounced as schemes merely for increasing

1013
the power of the Crown by creating new patronage. Now, I wish to know how this Bill will create any new patronage? It does not propose to give employment to any more Commissioners than are at present actually employed under the Government; and, in fact, in a pecuniary point of view, the expense of those Commissioners will he less under this Bill than they are at present. The hon. Gentleman talked a good deal about the Sanitary Bill; but I will, at present, refrain from replying to his arguments on that Bill, because that question is not now under the consideration of the House. I will, however, ask whether the hon. Gentleman wishes the people to continue in filth and fever, rather than see some new officers appointed who will superintend measures essential for promoting the health of towns? The hon. Gentleman has also spoken of the Prisons Bill, and the number of inspectorships to be created under it; but he is not aware that there will be a substitute of one officer for another, and that the proposed Commissioner will take the place of a superintendent of convicts, whose office was prospectively abolished by an Act of last year. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought the Constitution was in danger, in consequence of the proposal of this Bill to have two placemen in the House; but I will remind the hon. Gentleman that, within the last few years, five or six placemen have been excluded from Parliament, so that the contemplated increase of placemen in the House cannot be quite so dangerous to the Constitution as he imagined. Not many years ago there was one Lord of the Admiralty struck off the list, and the Lieutenant General of the Ordnance. The office of Paymaster of the Forces now combined those offices formerly held by three distinct indviduals—namely, the Paymaster General of the Navy, the Treasurer of the Navy, and the Treasurer of the Ordnance. The office of Judge of the Admiralty Court has also been abolished. I want, then, to see how far the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. He agrees with me in supporting the Act of 1834; he agrees with me that we ought to have a central authority; he also agrees with me that that central authority ought to be represented in this House. I am perfectly astonished that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not support the Bill, in place of joining with the hon. Member for Knaresborough in opposing it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the central authority should
1014
not have the power of making laws. The hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded to the Prisons Act, which gives a distinct power to the visiting justices of making rules and regulations for the government of prisons, subject to the approbation of the Secretary of State. Now, this power, which the hon. Member for Knaresborough has denounced as monstrous and unconstitutional, which he has pledged all his legal acumen and knowledge to prove—this power was possessed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Bankes), as one of the visiting justices of Dorchester gaol, and was exercised by him on every occasion, when the prison regulations were under the consideration of the justices. [Mr. BANKES here intimated his dissent.] The hon. Member shakes his head; but I assure him that such is the case. I maintain that Parliament has the power to delegate its authority for the purpose of making rules and regulations, and that, in the case of the Poor Law, it is utterly impossible to dispense with such a power without a code of such stringent rules as would render it utterly impossible to carry the law into effect. With reference to giving seats in Parliament to the President and one of the Secretaries of the proposed Board, I can only repeat what I stated upon a former occasion, that when the Act of 1834 was passed, His Majesty's Government felt that the persons to be entrusted with discretionary power to carry this Act into effect should be kept aloof from all party conflicts and popular influence. I stated, however, that experience had proved the inconvenience of this arrangement, and that the removal of the Poor Law Commissioners from the influence of popular opinion had a bad effect upon them, as well as interfered with that direct responsible discretion which in the case of the Ministers of the Crown was found so beneficial. I also stated that I felt strongly that the law suffered from not having a member of the Board in Parliament ready and able to answer any charges with respect to its maladministration, and to give, if not a satisfactory, at least a full explanation of all their proceedings. The Poor Law Commissioners have often suffered much from not being able personally to vindicate their conduct in Parliament; and therefore it is that Her Majesty's Government have proposed that there should be an immediate personal responsibility in this House on the part of those who are to administer the law. The

1015
hon. Member for Dorsetshire has made many objections to the measure; but what does he propose to substitute for it? He has omitted to define what kind of superintendence it is which he would consider more satisfactory than the system proposed by the Bill. As he admits the principle, however, his objection is surely one rather for the Committee than the second reading. There remains only one objection—that this Bill is introduced so late in the Session. But it is really no very common thing to hear the 17th of May spoken of as being so late in the Session; and if the hon. Member will consider how the last three months have been occupied—especially with respect to the measures relating to Irelend—I think he will see how impossible it would have been to introduce the measure sooner with any chance of getting forward. But at the close of his speech the hon. Member forgot his objection about the lateness of the Session, for he called on us to withdraw this Bill, and said there would be plenty of time to introduce a new one; so that the hon. Member is not really of opinion that it is too late. I would beg to remind him also, that within two days of the opening of the Session, my noble Friend at the head of the Government stated fully what the new measure was intended to be, so that there has been ample time to consider its principle. With respect to what has been said as to the Andover Committee, it does not appear to me that the present is the proper time to go into that subject; but at the same time I do not find in the report of that Committee one word of objection to the principle of the measure of 1834, nor do I find anything there to justify what the hon. Member for Knaresborough has said of it. In conclusion, I have only to state my acquiescence in the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that there is on the part both of the Government and this House a wish to act with fairness and equity towards the poor, and a desire to promote that which is likely to be most conducive to their interests—an object which I think would be best attained by an adherence to the measure of 1834. I must, add, with reference to the Government pledging itself to exclude from office, under the Bills, certain individuals, such a course would be highly improper, and one which no Government worthy of the confidence of the House would ever think of taking.
COLONEL SIBTHORPjoined in the op-
1016
position of his hon. Friends to this Bill, as he considered a change in name of the persons concerned did not also constitute a change in the character of the former Bill; and instead of being a boon to the working classes, he believed it would only be the perpetuation of an injury to them. The new Bill was one for the purpose of creating patronage; and it added to the public expenditure, though both patronage and expense had been denied. There was to be an individual called a President; but there was no hint as to the amount of salary he was to have. Then there were to be inspectors; but neither the number nor the cost was stated: but he supposed that would be as the Government pleased, both as to pay and to number. He protested against a Bill which gave a power of centralization, and placed its working in the hands of persons who had no local knowledge of the situation, wants, or character of the poor in the different districts. The relief of the poor ought to be in the hands of the local authorities, who had the best means of knowing the deserving and the undeserving. The poor would have greater confidence in seeking relief, and those who supplied the funds for that relief would be better satisfied. If the hon. Member for Knaresborough—a Gentleman who, without flattery, he believed had a better knowledge of the feelings and condition of the poor than any other Member of that House—thought it his duty to divide on the question, he should vote with him. This was a Bill got up at the last moment of the Session—one of those ad captandum measures, such as the Health of Towns Bill—for the purpose of enabling the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, "See what a humane Government we are; see how anxious we are to help the poor." He did not believe sympathy for the condition of the poor was the object of the Government in introducing this Bill. "Conscience makes cowards of us all," it was true; but there were times when conscience fell asleep, and he thought most often on the Treasury benches. On these grounds he doubted the honesty of the Government, and thought the Bill was pumped up to create patronage, and to satisfy the longing expectancy of some of their friends. He opposed the Bill because it created new Commissioners; and he hated the very name of Commissioners, unless they worked without pay; and because it was brought in so late; for it was late, notwithstanding the remarks of the Home Secretary, in the

1017
Session. The Government were anxious to bring in Bills at the end of a Session, in order that when hon. Members were tired out, they might be smuggled in without opposition. It was a mere farce, and he would not support such a proceeding. It was his intention to vote for the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Knaresborough.
Debate adjourned.

SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION.
MR. SPOONER MR. SPOONER moved that the Seduction and Prostitution Suppression Bill be read a first time.
MR. C. BERKELEY MR. C. BERKELEY moved that the House do now adjourn
COLONEL SIBTHORPsuggested that the hon. Member (Mr. Spooner) would attain his object by introducing a clause in the Health of Towns Bill.
House divided on the question that the House do now adjourn:Ayes 7; Noes 60: Majority 53.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

Williams, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

TELLERS.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Berkeley, C.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hope, Sir J.

Arundel and Surrey,

Ingestre, Visct.

Earl of

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bankes, G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bodkin, W. H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brotherton, J.

M'Neill, D.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Buller, C.

Masterman, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Craig, W. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Cripps, W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mure, Col.

Drummond, H. H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Oswald, A.

Duncan, G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Rashleigh, W.

Evans, W.

Rice, E. R.

Finch, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Floyer, J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Forbes, W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Frewen, C. H.

Smollett, A.

Gill, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gladstone, Capt.

Spooner, R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Greene, T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Trotter, J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Neville, R.

Henley, J. W.

Parker, J.

Question again put.
MR. DUNCOMBE MR. DUNCOMBE moved that the debate be adjourned.
The House again divided:-Ayes 7; Noes 58: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Escott, B.

Williams, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

TELLERS.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Berkeley, C.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Ingestre, Visct.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Bankes, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Blackstone, W. S.

Lockhart, W.

Bodkin, W. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brotherton, J.

M'Neill, D.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Mangles, R. D.

Buller, C.

Masterman, J.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Craig, W. G.

Milnes, R. M.

Cripps, W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Dickinson, F. H.

Mure, Col.

Drummond, H. H.

Neville, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duncan, G.

Oswald, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Palmerston, Visct.

Evans, W.

Parker, J.

Finch, G.

Rashleigh, W.

Floyer, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Forbes, W.

Rutherfurd, A.

Frewen, C. H.

Sheridan, R. B.

Gill, T.

Smollett, A.

Gladstone, Capt.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Greene, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Trotter, J.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Borthwick, P.

Hope, Sir J.

Spooner, R.

COLONEL SIBTHORPrecommended the hon. Member to leave this measure in the hands of the Government, and moved that it be read a first time that day six months.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, if hon. Gentlemen did not object to the principle of the Bill, they ought to wait for Committee to test its details. He had heard no objection to its principle; therefore he was at a loss to know why these repeated adjournments were moved.
SIR G. GREYrecommended that the Bill should be read a first time, as this was not even the time for testing its principle.
Mr. C. BERKELEYsaid, he should at that hour of the night oppose the Motion, and move that the House do now adjourn.
MR. FORBEShoped the hon. Member would not persist in his opposition to the first reading of the Bill. Government had consented to its introduction, and the

1019
feeling of the country was in favour of it. He trusted that out of common courtesy to the hon. Member for Birmingham, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Berkeley) would withdraw his Amendment.
The House again divided on the question of adjournment:—Ayes 6; Noes 51: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Escott, B.

Williams, W.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Berkeley, C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hope, Sir J.

Arundel and Surrey,

Ingestre, Visct.

Earl of

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bankes, G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Bodkin, W. H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Buller, C.

M'Neill, D.

Craig, W. G.

Mangles, R. D.

Cripps, W.

Masterman, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Milnes, R. M.

Drummond, H. H.

Neville, R.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Duncan, G.

Oswald, A.

Dundas, Adm.

Palmerston, Visct.

Evans, W.

Parker, J.

Finch, G.

Rashleigh, W.

Floyer, J.

Rutherfurd, A.

Forbes, W.

Sheridan, R. B.

Frewen, C. H.

Smollett, A.

Gill, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gladstone, Capt.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Greene, T.

Trotter, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

TELLERS.

Hawes, B.

Brotherton, J.

Henley, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Finally the debate was adjourned till Friday.
House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Huggen's College Incorporation; Factories.
3a and passed:—Landed Property (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Factory Workers of Manchester and several other places, in favour of the Factories Bill; and from Dundee and Glasgow, against the same.—From Clonfert and Kilmacduagh, complaining of certain Provisions in the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill.—From Staines and several other places, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.

PUBLIC GRANARIES.
The EARL of WINCHILSEA,pursuant to notice, rose to bring under the consideration of the House the expediency of establishing public granaries. He had every reason to suppose, from the information he had received, that if the coming harvest were late, the quantity of corn now in the country would be inadequate to the wants of the people in the meantime. In the year 1835, he remembered that the price of wheat was as low as 35 s. a quarter; and if public granaries had been established at that time, 2,000,000 of quarters might have been bought for 3,500,000 l., and a sufficient stock might always have been kept on hand. What he wished, then, to advocate was this—that there should be national granaries in the hands and under the control of the Government, and that as long as the agricultural interests or the corn trade should supply the best quality of wheat at a reasonable price, those granaries should be kept closed; but that if the time should arrive when, from any danger of the crops at home, or unfair speculation, the corn traders should withhold a supply at a price at which the great body of the labouring classes could afford to buy, then the doors should be opened, and the price of corn kept as level and low as possible. We could not rely upon the harvest: it depended upon the will and bounty of a superior Power, and no foresight could assure us of an adequate supply. If, then, with our existing scarcity of corn, we allowed the stock we now possessed to be poured out to the assistance of our foreign neighbours (and he understood that within the last few days the French Government had bought in this country flour and wheat to a great extent), considering the dense mass of our population in the manufacturing districts and in the metropolis, a frightful state of things must be the consequence. He did not intend, however, to conclude with any Motion on the subject, but would

891
be satisfied with having called the attention of the Government to it.
EARL GREYhoped that his noble Friend would not think he was in any degree wanting in respect to him if he said that the subject to which his noble Friend had referred, was too large and important to be disposed of by any incidental discussion, opening as it did the whole question of free trade and various other matters; and that, as important business stood for that evening, he was afraid it could not then be discussed with advantage. He would, therefore, abstain from making any remark upon what had fallen from his noble Friend; not because he agreed with him, or because he differed from him, but because he looked with great anxiety to the state of the country, and thought that the subject ought to be discussed when more attention could be given to it.

FACTORY BILL.
The EARL of ELLESMEREsaid: In rising to discharge the duty I have undertaken of moving the Second Reading of the Bill now before your Lordships for limiting the Hours of Labour in Factories, I should be sorry to waste your Lordships' time with any prefatory matter of a personal nature. I must, however, take permission frankly and briefly to express my regret that a subject which has of late years excited so much interest and discussion elsewhere, but which has little occupied the direct attention of your Lordships here, should not have the advantage of being introduced to it by some voice more familiar to your Lordships' ears, and by some authority to which your Lordships are more accustomed to defer. My apology to your Lordships and myself consists in the circumstance, that having having taken, in the discussions which the subject has undergone in another place, a part which, however humble and occasional, was not inconsistent with the task I have now undertaken, I have been invited to its performance by a numerous body of those who are directly interested in the fate of this measure, and who earnestly desire its success. I must also state, that I am acting at the earnest desire of a noble Friend of mine, of whom I may say, as was said of certain great men whose images were missed in the procession of the Roman triumph, that, with reference to this subject, his absence from either House of Parliament makes him even more conspicuous-
892
ly present to the mind than if he was present in either. His labours on this subject, from their earnest sincerity and singular perseverance, as well as from substantial sacrifices which have attended them, at least entitle him, in my opinion, to the readiest acquiescence in his wishes, and to the largest measure of co-operation and support in his views which the opinions and abilities of any friend of his enable you to afford. My Lords, I have spoken of the subject of this Bill as one which, comparatively speaking, has occupied little of your Lordships' time and attention. I have, nevertheless, the satisfaction of feeling that I am not under the difficulty of recommending to your Lordships the adoption of any new principle of legislation, and still less of any origination in this House of any proposition whatever. My Lords, the measures now proposed for your acceptance have originated in far different quarters than in the mind of one so little entitled to your Lordships' attention as myself. They have originated in the crowded receptacles of human labour—they have been elaborated in the factory and the alley, amid the whirl of machinery, and in those long rows of lodging houses which grow up around the giant chimneys of Lancashire and Yorkshire. This Bill has its root in the stern experience of the husband and the father. From this humble, but, I am sure in your Lordships' view, not contemptible seed, the idea has mounted upwards in the shape of such petitions as those which have encumbered your Lordships' Table. Men of higher education—men whose lives are one professional and practical exercise of philanthropy, have assisted the progress of the measure to the ears of the Legislature by their sanction and their advocacy; medical men in every branch of practice, clergymen of every religious persuasion. Springing from such a source, founded on such a basis of feeling and opinion, it has made its way through much difficulty against powerful opposition, till it has obtained the sanction of an influential portion of the Cabinet, of a conclusive majority of the House of Commons, and, so supported and recommended, has reached the Table of your Lordships' House. I state these things, my Lords, not for the purpose of inducing any one of your Lordships to abdicate your privilege of free discussion or of deliberate judgment. Latest and least of the accessions to your Lordships' House, I should be sorry to signalize my first en-

893
deavour at addressing your Lordships by proposing any surrender of your independence, any infraction of your privileges. Considering, however, the nature of the question at issue—considering that in the majorities which have sanctioned this measure elsewhere—considering that every debateable point has been argued elsewhere by men who have stood on their own weary feet at the mule, and pieced the thread with their own hands, and who, by the strong exercise of that strong intelligence which appears to me an indigenous plant of the manufacturing districts of England, by their perseverance in honest industry, have raised themselves to the House of Commons—I ask yon this at least—I ask you to receive this Bill with something of that primâ facie deference with which, some months ago, I as a Member of the House of Commons should have received some measure of equity law perchance, which had come down to that House, having passed through the ordeal of those legal minds which adorn and instruct, and in such measures greatly govern your Lordships' deliberations. My Lords, the principle of this Bill has been impugned, as involving legislative interference with the rights of capital and labour. I might slur over this objection on the ground of repeated precedent. In the House of Commons I would do so; but addressing your Lordships, who have been less engaged with the subject, I think it more respectful briefly to attempt my own vindication on this head. I am not one of those who presume out of their own ignorance or idleness to cast reflections on the acute and laborious men who have devoted themselves to the science of political economy, nor am I a sceptic as to the general validity of the main tenets of that school, nor an impugner of the truths which it professes to have demonstrated. I am prepared, however, if necessary, to contend that I am advocating nothing inconsistent with the doctrines of political economy at all. I do not wish to enter at length on such debateable ground, but I would much rather refer your Lordships to an argument which you will find in the debates, delivered by a noble Earl now on the Ministerial bench, who drew the just distinction between restrictions on labour and capital devised to increase wealth, and those intended for other purposes—to guard against want and physical evils. My Lords, I dislike a meddling Government. I believe, with him, that for the creation of the greatest producible wealth
894
in any given community, and therefore for the widest diffusion of that material well-being which attends the production of wealth, the policy of abstinence from legislative meddling is the surest policy; and, therefore, I think it incumbent on any one who departs from that policy to assign distinct grounds for his justification. The master manufacturer and the operative have both a right, I admit it, to say to me, "you are interfering with my free action, you are selecting mine from a crowd of other occupations, to make it the subject of experimental legislation. I claim an explanation. I demand an exceptional reason for your conduct." My Lords, I find that justification, as most of your Lordships will anticipate, in the inherent, inalienable tendencies of that agent which Watt forced into the service of man, as applied to the four great branches of our textile industry which come under the provisions of this Bill: I mean the tendency, in the first instance, to attract to its ministration the labour of those whom in respect of age or sex, or both, nature never intended for hard and continuous labour; and, next, in its tendency to make that labour continuous, and unceasing, and protracted, to a limit of physical and mental endurance, which, in my opinion, no Christian Legislature can see its subjects approach without acknowledging the duty of interfering—if it can interfere;—for their relief and protection. It is on this ground, my Lords, that, finding as I do with regard to these branches of industry, the means and opportunity of interference, I claim the right to exercise them. I say, my Lords, finding the means and opportunity, for this also is an essential element of practical interference, and is my reply to an argument, which, though often used, is, I think, singularly inconclusive—to a course of reasoning very commonly adopted towards any man who is hunting down a particular grievance, and which endeavours to divert his attention by pointing out fifty other objects in pursuit. My Lords, there is doubtless enough of abuse and misery and oppression in the world to make a sentimental or flighty philanthropist fold his arms in despair. My Lords, I invite your Lordships to interfere with these large collective aggregations of labour, because theory and experience tell me you can do so with effect—because they are open to inspection, and capable of control—because you can do much to prevent abuse, and, if the hard necessity arise, to punish it. I

895
am aware that this very feature of the case has been alleged as a reason for non-interference; it has been said that the factory system is the very department of our industry in which abuse and oppression are most discoverable, and can least escape detection. We have been repeatedly told that we take an unphilosophical view of the effects of the use of machinery; that it is the great diminisher of the sum of mental and physical labour, the fertile source of leisure and contentment; and that we should be cautious how we meddle with its operations. I admit these facts; but I demand your Lordships' attention to some further facts connected with the employment of that fixed and expansive capital, into the scope and effect of which it becomes a duty from which, as a legislator, I cannot shrink from inquiring. There is, in my opinion, no grander result of human intelligence than a large cotton mill; but I say this of it, that from the moment its engine is started, raised by the capital and governed by the will of the acute and enterprising individual who sits in its office, it becomes the direct interest of that presiding genius that its motions should be as unceasing and continuous as human contrivance can make them—that there is no part of that vast system of wheels and levers which can rest without loss, or, in the ordinary and average course of commercial prosperity, pursue its motions without gain. The human labour attached hand and foot to that system, for the most part, admits not of relays. What is the natural, the inevitable consequence of this? Why, that which has resulted—that with which, step by step, gradually, cautiously, effectually, and successfully, you have been endeavouring for thirty years to moderate and curtail, in wise defiance of the stated principles of political economy. That the strong impulse of gain is placed in direct and dangerous antagonism with the claims of humanity—that it almost invariably prevails in the struggle, as for a time it was left, and if left to itself, unchecked and uncontrolled, it reduces a part of your population to the condition of slavery, unmitigated by that interest in the physical well-being of the party which does operate on the slave-owner of Carolina. My Lords, such things have been; to prevent them you have repeatedly interfered, and your exertions have not been in vain. Now, my Lords, does the same reason hold good with other departments of human industry in which machinery of human contrivance is less con-
896
cerned? I say machinery of human contrivance, for I hold that, in some sense, the earth itself is a machine—that the clod of the valley in which you drop the germ of future vegetation is as much a machine as that in which you deposit your portions of raw cotton. In another place, my Lords, I took the liberty of telling the lords of the soil, that in this point of view I considered them as monster manufacturers; and I re-assert that opinion here. Your Lordships, in the management of hereditary estates which have descended to you from the Conquest, are connected with machinery as well as Mr. Greg; but, my Lords, there is a difference between the machinery of God's contrivance and that of his creatures. The earth will work alone, in the silence of night, under the stars of heaven, unlit by your gas, unfed by your fires, admitting at intervals, which nature indicates, the regulated assistance of man, taking him into partnership, but with no direct tendencies to make him its slave. Such, my Lords, are the considerations which have induced me to overcome the repugnance I individually entertain to meddling with concerns which, from their magnitude and complexity, I dread to approach. If they act upon your Lordships' minds, as they have acted upon mine, as they have already, in repeated instances, acted upon the Legislature at large, the question of principle is disposed of, and we enter upon the more delicate and practical consideration of the degree to which we shall extend our interference. My Lords, after long discussion, after repeated consideration, the House of Commons has decided, so far as that branch of the Legislature can decide, that the labour of women and young persons under 18 years of age shall be limited to ten hours of work, exclusive of the two which are necessary for refreshment. I am bound to state, though no one of your Lordships can be ignorant of the fact, that from the necessary intermixture of the hands of different ages and sexes in the operations of the manufacture, this provision will include in its indirect operation those whom it does not directly affect. Adult man is not affected directly by it; but I can by no means avail myself of that circumstance in arguing as to the real effect of the measure; well knowing this, the adult population of the manufacturing districts so far from shrinking from the consequences, is to an enormous extent interested in its acceptation by your Lordships. I believe that an overwhelming ma-

897
jority of it is at this moment trembling with expectation, perhaps with just apprehension, that the cause they support may suffer prejudice from my own incapacity as an advocate. I do not state this as an argument to your Lordships—I admit it—but as a subordinate consideration to myself. I think it an unquestionable collateral advantage that its acceptance will realize hopes which have been entertained and fostered since the attempt of the late Sir R. Peel, in 1815, whose measure, which was on the verge of completion, was nearly a fac-simile of the present. I think it a vast advantage that it will put a close to a peaceful and orderly, but an intense and peculiar agitation; but I do not state this as a reason for influencing your Lordships' better judgments. I think a Bill, supported by such majorities in the House of Commons entitled to much respect; but I am not here to register the decisions of that House, or to induce your Lordships to do so. I accept this measure because we find, after some hesitation—after listening much, and thinking much, and speaking a little, I think it a beneficial bargain, by which the parties to be affected will obtain certain advantages of incalculable importance to them, at a risk of certain sacrifices which it is not possible precisely to calculate, but which will leave at the least the balance of advantage largely in favour of those who have to make them. Two main objections have been taken to the measure, two principal and inevitable consequences have been held out as certain to ensue. It is said that, by striking off a twelfth from the time during which, when employment is rife, you are at present able to labour, you will either diminish wages or cause defeat from foreign competition. I am not hound throughout to argue with those who predict both these consequences, because I think the one consequence lost in connexion with the other. For the first of these consequences I have always advised those with whom I had been in communication to be prepared, and I have certainly always received the advice that, to the best of their ability, they had counted the cost and were prepared on behalf of themselves and their families to encounter it. I am not fond of prophesying in matters of this description; but if on the one hand I am not prepared to risk my reputation for accuracy on a calculation of the exact effect upon wages, on the other, I ask any man to favour me with a calculation
898
of the amount of actual domestic economy which may be effected by the mother of three children who returns to her home two hours sooner than at present. I cannot calculate this, because I cannot sew—I cannot darn—I cannot wash—and I cannot cook—still less can I calculate the evanescent quantities, the social effects of leisure and repose to the mind, or lay down in advance statistical results on bodily health or longevity. I have no doubt whatever that the average sum total of these elements, if they could be calculated, would show a set-off to any probable diminution of money wages, which will one day be satisfactory to those who have cooperated in passing this measure. On this subject I must also call your Lordships' attention to another circumstance—the deductions are made, when the article is brought in by the operative, for waste and spoil. My Lords, from such information as I can obtain, it is my firm belief that nine-tenths of that spoiled will arise in the last weary hours of the operative's present average toil. I have never met with any man of any class, conversant with the subject, who has not laid much stress on this circumstance. I pass, my Lords, to the question of foreign competition. I do not profess to receive with indifference, from men for whose station, acquirements, and abilities I have profound respect, their ideas on this subject; but I am consoled by the reflection that no step has been taken in this matter which has not been preceded by similar warnings of ruin, and similar threats of emigration by them, which I doubt not have assailed many of your Lordships as they have assailed me. And yet, my Lords, I hold in my hand a paper which shows that England has yet held her own against the competition of the world, and which leads me to think that if she is allowed to suffer decay, it will originate rather in a diminished supply of the raw material than in any legislation which, for the sake of the highest interests of humanity, we may have consented to adopt. My Lords, I must say that the language of some of these parties has varied very much with circumstances, in a very short space of time. I am addressing many now who retain, through evil report and good, the opinions which they have uniformly expressed in favour of restrictions on the free importation of corn; but I doubt whether the sternest adherent to that system would not admit that, whilst those restrictions existed, the case of the master manufac-

899
turer, as an opponent to this Bill, did not present a difficulty in the way of limiting the hours of labour. My Lords, I speak for myself at least, and say I had no occasion to broach what was then urged by the millowner. From what I have lately heard, I can hardly believe that the old corn law and the duty on raw cotton are not still on the Statute-book. I look for them there in vain; but I also listen in vain for a repetition of language which was used at the period when a struggle was going on for their removal. Then the grievance and the evil of long hours were admitted; then the factory delegates were told, it is true, that overwork is decreasing your stature, but do not agitate for the immediate alteration of those laws. Join us in agitating to remove the real obstacle to that measure, and that removed you shall gain your object at least with our consent, if not with that active co-operation which might be too much to expect. My Lords, such was the nature of the language—and I have proofs of it—used by some Gentlemen, who, doubtless in the heat of the moment, in the ardour of pursuit of a great political object, thought and intended what they said, but who now discover that free trade and relief from duty is no guarantee against the danger, and is not to be spoken of as a palliative of the effects of foreign competition. My Lords, I believe that from a concourse of circumstances peculiar to the character of this nation, England is in a condition to set an example to the world in this matter, as she has done in others; that she is able to do right and fear not; and, more than this, that her example will be followed, and that foreign statesmen who may not be disposed to follow it will be pressed by that influence of public feeling and opinion which is acting upon ourselves. If I look to Prussia, I see the evidence already on record in the acts of her Government; and I find that the proceedings of that Government were directly founded on that example of England which I trust will still prevail. I know nothing in the character of the French nation which induces me to suppose that public feeling will he far behind our own in the consideration of this subject. I have in my hand at this moment some reason to think that French statesmen are directing their attention to what is passing in England, and are looking on in a spirit of approbation. It is a letter addressed to Lord Ashley by Baron Charles Dupin:—
900
"Paris, May 3, 1847.
"My Lord—Can I inquire from your kindness to know whether the third reading of the Ten Hours Bill shall soon take place, and whether this Bill shall likely pass into the House of Lords before the end of this Session?
"I have now to write a report for a new law relating to the protection of children in our factories. I have perused anew all your benevolent exertions in favour of children, and I shall be happy to present them to the esteem and admiration of my countrymen.
"I am, my Lord, with the highest consideration, your most obedient servant,
"BARON CHARLES DUPIN,
"Pair de France.
"To Lord Ashley."
What has been hitherto that answer to all who in the various other countries of the world have been disposed to check the evil of excessive toil? Why, that no step could be taken in advance while England maintained her ground. With respect to Spain, I have a statistical account of its cotton manufacture:—
"The total number of steam-engines in all Spain is 86; average power of each, 16·49 horses; aggregate power, 1,418 horses. Total number of water-wheels, 31; aggregate power of water-wheels, 383 horses; average power of each wheel, 12·35 horses. Total number of mills worked by animal power, 27; average power of mills, 2 horses; aggregate power of mills, 54 horses. Total number of cotton-mills in all Spain, 144; total number of cotton spindles, 468,700; average number of spindles in each mill, 3,254. Two hundred and sixty days of twelve working hours in a year; average numbers, 18's; each spindle produces on an average three ounces of No. 18's per day of twelve hours.

Annual Produce.

468,700 X 3 X 260=

22,849,125 lb.

yarn.

Add 10 percent waste

2,284,912

Total

25,134,037 lb.

raw cotton imported.

The real quantity of raw cotton imported into Spain has never been clearly ascertained. According to a Government account, in the three years ending 1840 the average quantity imported was 12,703,233lb.; whilst according to the statements of the Catalonian manufacturers, the quantity imported in 1841 was 18,409,407lb. According to the figures above given, the quantity imported in 1846 was 25,134,037lb. I am confident I am not far off the true quantity. I took every pains, and employed persons on whom I could rely to assist me, in ascertaining the number of mills, the number of spindles, power of engines, &c.; and with these data, assuming the fineness of the average quality to be No. 18, it is impossible to be far wrong. The number of working days in the year does not exceed 260. Every saint's day in the Roman calendar is strictly observed as a fiesta, or holiday. All the mills are closed; but the hands receiving weekly wages are paid for the whole six days of the week, though it sometimes happens that two fiestas fall between Sunday and Sunday. The condition of the factory hands is far superior to that of the same class in

901
other countries; that is, that while they do not work more than an average of five days per week, they are paid for six, at a rate at least 20 per cent higher than in Lancashire. I do not know if this explains the turbulent character of the Catalonians, I think not; certain it is, they are a spirited dare-devil set. At all events, it is better to have a well-fed easy-to-do class of poor, though noisy and insolent, than the want and squalor often seen in Salford. The master spinners are in a brilliant position. Ready sales and very large profits. The manufacture is greatly on the increase, and ere long Spain will count as many spindles as France. There never was a greater error than to suppose a want of energy in Spanish manufacturers, or anything approaching to listless indolence in the workpeople. I am most anxious to point out to your Lordship that notwithstanding the mills do not work more than five days, or sixty hours per week, wages maintain the highest maximum, and masters make large profits whilst competing with smugglers. Cotton mills in France profess to work seventy-two hours per week—that is, when on full time. Taking the time really worked for the last four years, there can be no doubt the average would be much below sixty hours per week. The condition of the workpeople there is engaging the anxious consideration of all in authority. A great and speedy amelioration must be attempted, and will be carried out, or a fearful convulsion must come, and will not tarry. Mill hands do not possess a very long-suffering patience. The utmost discontent prevails amongst them. They have heard of our free-trade revolution, and now understand it rightly, as intended to benefit the poor. The Ten Hours Bill will not have passed the Lords a week before it will be known from one end of France to the other—before it will be discussed in all the mills and workshops throughout the country—before a million of imprecations, 'Notre sacre Gouvernement, nom de Dieu, si'—will have partly expressed the pent-up feeling which cannot much longer be kept under control. With respect to the Ten Hours Bill, I feel no doubt about it now. It must do good. Nor can I see any probability of inconvenience or loss to masters arising from such a law. It is nonsense to suppose it can lessen our ability to undersell in foreign markets; and as to the impolicy of interfering with the liberty of labour, such a doctrine leads at once to brutal slavery, and every species of bodily prostitution. We all buy in the cheapest market, so does the manufacturer; he gets as much as possible out of his workpeople at the lowest cost. It is the same in all countries; and it is a remarkable fact, everywhere and at all times the same—the more hours men work in any staple branch of manufactures, the less they receive in the form of wages."
My Lords, these, and such as these, are considerations which divest me of any serious apprehension for the results of the measure I propose—which inspire in my mind a strong hope that its advantages will not he purchased at the price which some predict. It is said sometimes that, after all, these advantages will be small—that we overrate the opportunities which a reduction to ten hours will afford to the artisan; and it would almost appear as if
902
some supposed that his time may be as profitably employed in an honest and respectable occupation as it will be when at his own command. There may, there probably will, be cases in which these hours may be misspent; the factory may be exchanged for the ginshop. I am not of opinion that the hours so torn from the mill and the loom will be sufficient to raise materially the standard of education or mental culture. I shall speedily witness such results; but I am not caring to inquire where or how the man, woman, or child who has worked hard for ten hours employs the remainder, I do not think, on the average, that the population of Manchester is the least disqualified for exercising its own judgment, and following its own tastes, in this particular, or in the least requires any meddling supervision of mine. My Lords, in the course I have taken, in accepting the conduct of this Bill, I have undertaken a given responsibility for its eventual consequences. Should it prosper to the extent of my hopes and expectations, and should I live to see that result, I reserve to myself, as my sole but all-sufficient reward, the gratification of that spectacle. Popularity I have not sought, and utterly disdain. If that reward should eventually fall due, it is impossible that the intelligence and justice of the people should not place that saddle on the right horse. It will be due, in the first instance, to my noble Friend; it will be due to the master manufacturer, who has not allowed himself to be swayed by circumstances which would insure his own interests, in securing, as I believe, completed contracts with others. It will be due to those who have worked through the long hours of this Bill in the workshop of the Legislature, and not to the labourer of the eleventh hour, who now bog your Lordships' pardon for so long trespassing on your Lordships' attention. The noble Earl concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
LORD FEVERSHAMseconded the Motion. He thought that the present measure was one of the greatest importance to the moral and social welfare of the operative classes employed in the manufactures in this kingdom, and, if carried, would enhance the national honour and character. The people deserved this measure. They had for many years besought Parliament to grant them a Ten Hours Bill; and he thought that the manner in which they had agitated the question entitled them to

903
the most favourable consideration of the Legislature. They had sought to obtain it by the most peaceable means; they had never had recourse to violent agitations, to strikes, or combinations against their employers. They never had committed a breach of the peace at any of the great meetings held upon this question; but their conduct had always been characterized by regularity, and by manifestations of loyalty. It would, therefore, be only an act of justice to those loyal, peaceable, and industrious men to pass this Bill. The question of wages had been discussed at the public meetings over and over again. At the meetings in Yorkshire and in Scotland the question was invariably submitted to the working people—"Were they or were they not prepared to submit to a reduction of wages, in case that should be the consequence of the passing of this measure?" and their answer always was, "Rather than lose the benefit we anticipate will result from this Bill, we are willing to submit to a reduction of wages." It appeared to him that one great advantage of this measure would be, more constant employment, and a more regular rate of wages, without those fluctuations which attended the present system; and he thought that in an average of years there would not be any diminution in the amount of wages. Whenever this subject had been brought forward in Parliament, it had always been prophesied that it would ruin the manufacturers; but in no instance had these predictions been verified. Would so large a number of master manufacturers have supported the measure, if it had been of so ruinous a character? Who was the individual that brought the Bill into the other House of Parliament? It was the Member for Oldham, who had spent a long life in conducting a large manufacturing establishment, and who had reared up his sons in the same occupation; and it was supported by upwards of a thousand of the principal master manufacturers. From the practical knowledge which such men as these possessed, they entertained no apprehension that this Bill would inflict any injury upon the manufacturers of the country. With respect to the argument that legislation upon this subject would ruin the manufacturers of this country, he would remind their Lordships of what had been already done in relation to it, and of the effects which had been produced thereby. With respect to legislation on this subject, in 1802 the late Sir Robert Peel intro-
904
duced a Bill for limiting the number of hours during which children of certain ages should work at certain employments. In 1815, another Bill was brought in, having a more general application; but the matter was then referred to a Committee, which took evidence upon it; and amongst others, the late Sir Robert Peel himself bore testimony to the necessity of such limitation. The Bill did not succeed in that year; but in 1819 a Bill was carried, regulating the hours of labour for children from 12 to 16 years of age. In 1825, another Bill was introduced; and in 1831, Sir J. Hobhouse introduced a Bill limiting the hours of labour to ten for children under 18. Another Committee was then appointed. Practical men of various classes were examined before that Committee; and a great number of medical men of the highest reputation bore their testimony to the serious consequences resulting from the absence of the limitation then proposed. Subsequently a Motion was made for a Commission to collect further evidence; and that Commission having issued, and the evidence having been taken, the report of three Commissioners confirmed these statements in every respect. The result of all these inquiries was, that Lord Althorp introduced a Bill, by which the system of relays was established; and in 1844 Sir J. Graham brought in another Bill to reduce the hours of labour from nine to eight with regard to children below the age of 13. So the question went on from 1819 to 1844, the result being, that the hours of factory labour had been greatly ameliorated. He would now show their Lordships what had been the result as affecting the cotton trade and the manufactures of this country. [The noble Lord read accounts of the consumption of cotton wool in our manufactories between 1819 and 1845, namely, that in 1819 the consumption was 39,000,000 lbs.; in 1844, 492,000,000 lbs.; while, in 1845, it amounted to 532,000,000 lbs.—an increase between those years of 400 per cent.] All experience, therefore, was in favour of the measure, even with reference to its effects upon our manufactures. But the evil consequences of long hours of labour, in restricting the means of instructing the labouring classess, demanded the serious consideration of their Lordships; for it was impossible that that could be in a satisfactory condition unless the hours of labour were reduced; and it was certain

905
that the effect of the present duration was to induce neglect of the ordinances of the Sabbath. He hoped, therefore, under all the circumstances of this most important case, that their Lordships would not refuse their consent to the second reading of this Bill. He was not aware what course would he taken by Her Majesty's Government upon the subject in that House; but he would fain hope that they would be unanimous in favour of the Bill. In the other House of Parliament, the noble Lord at the head of the Government had most honourably redeemed the pledge he gave to his constituents in the city of London in the autumn of last year, when, addressing them, he told them that one of the most important subjects which Her Majesty's Government would take into their consideration, was the moral and social improvement of the people, with the view of raising their condition and character. This Bill was, indeed, only a part, but it was by no means an unimportant or insignificant part, of the great question. The noble Lord had, however, redeemed the pledge he gave on the part of the Government; for, although he was in favour of an Eleven Hours Bill, yet, after he found that there was a large majority in favour of a Ten Hours Bill, rather than that the measure should be rejected, he gave his vote in favour of the third reading of this Bill. Measures had been passed by Parliament which had benefited the master manufacturers; the duty on wool had been repealed; the corn law had been repealed; and it had been held out to the working classes that, after the corn law had been repealed, they should have this measure. [The Earl of RADNOR was not aware of any such understanding.] There might not have been a positive pledge, but there was a general understanding upon the subject. With respect to the principles of political economy which this measure was supposed to contravene, there were, on the other hand, to be considered the principles of humanity, of justice, and of the Christian religion; and he trusted that the cordial, zealous, and, he hoped, unanimous support of their Lordships, would be given to a Bill which would confer a great benefit and boon upon the working classes.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was sorry to interrupt the unanimity of the House, but he, for one—and he hoped he should not be the only one—looked at this measure with great alarm. The more he had considered this measure since it was first pro-
906
pounded some two years ago, and especially latterly, since it was accepted by the other House of Parliament, the more alarm he had felt. He was happy to see present so large a number of the occupants of the Episcopal Bench, for he had no manner of doubt that they had been induced to attend from the discussions which they had read on this subject, and from the tendency which it had been represented to have to promote the comforts of the working and more unfortunate classes of the community, and from its connexion thereby with a cause ever so dear to their hearts, and which was placed under their superintendence—the moral and religious concerns of the people. He should, however, do his endeavour, by Divine assistance, to lay before them such views of this question in its relation to the real good of the working classes—in relation to the moral and religious interests of those classes—in relation to the only chance they ever could have of improving themselves in temporal matters, and of carrying on with that an improvement also in their moral and religious condition—he should endeavour, by addressing himself mainly and principally to those considerations, to show the right reverend Prelates that this Bill was not such a measure as they ought to support; for he was one of those who regarded it as enough that the whole, or nearly the whole, of this question was bound up in the interests of the working classes. It was not on account of the capitalists or the commercial classes of the country, nor of the upper classes of the community, that he viewed this question with anxiety, and this measure with alarm; but it was on account of the poor and working people of the country—those who had no capital, who drove no trade, either domestic or foreign—those whose only wealth was the labour of their hands, and who gained their only profit by the sweat of their brow—that he opposed this measure; and it was his deep and conscientious belief—a belief strengthened by his experience ever since he entered public life, or was able to reason on such subjects.—that the interests of this large class, above all other interests, required that no interference should be suffered, or by any power in the State attempted, with the free employment of that which was their only wealth, their only capital, and their only means of subsistence—the labour and honest industry of their hands. It might be objected to him, that he was about to enter into the consideration

907
of this question on the almost forbidden ground of political economy; but there was no connexion between the question and the doctrines of political philosophy, except this, that if these doctrines were sound and were founded on plain common sense, and were the result of every day's experience, then every part of the proposal made in this Bill was an outrage on that common sense, and an ostentatious neglect of the lessons taught by that experience. To relieve himself, however, from the odium which might attach to him on this ground, he would ask if it required a person to be a political economist to be able to say that, if a man hitherto had been allowed to work 12 hours, but was now prevented by law from working more than 10 hours, he was not likely to do the same amount of work and have the same amount of wages as before? This was not political economy—it was judging of the matter by the doctrines of plain common sense; and the result was the same whether they tried it in goods—say cotton-twist—or in time. If a man for spinning twelve ells of cotton-twist got 6s., was it not clear that for five-sixths of that amount he would only get 5s.? It was admitted on all hands—and his noble Friend who commenced the debate admitted it frankly, because there could not be a doubt of it—that there must be a reduction of wages if the operative classes were not allowed to work the same number of hours. Having relieved himself from the odium connected with this point, he would observe that this was a question which ought to impose upon their Lordships great caution, prudence, and circumspection, as one affecting large and important interests. Our exports amounted, one year with another, to somewhat about 50,000,000 l.; and how much of this consisted of the produce of each of the four great departments of industry affected by the Bill—the cotton, the silk, the flax, and the woollen manufactures? Not less than from 37,000,000 l. to 38,000,000 l.. This was a marvellously grave subject in legislation for any man to volunteer himself upon. It was one that ought to be approached with the greatest possible calmness and circumspection, because it was surrounded with interests of so enormous a magnitude that a false step might produce consequences which hereafter it would be found impossible to grapple with, and because a step once taken could not be retraced. A man must have great confidence in his own powers who would say,
908
"It is a vast measure, which touches, no doubt, 37,000,000 l.. of your trade—almost the whole, indeed, of your foreign trade; but I have so much confidence in my theory that I have no doubt whatever you may safely move in the direction I propose." Men could see very clearly what was past—they could see less clearly what was beside them—but there was one direction in which they could not penetrate at all, and that was the direction of the future. It, therefore, behoved a man to gather all the wisdom he could by looking at the experience of the past, and to fortify himself by all he could learn by looking around him in the present, before he set his foot forward in that dark and hidden region of the future into which mortal eye could not penetrate. He (Lord Brougham) was not, however, one of those who said that on no account and in no circumstances should labour be interfered with so as to give protection to parties who, from their naturally helpless condition, required it; and he might be permitted to observe that he did not object to limit the labour of very young children. But even here there were difficulties; and as to children under thirteen, what had been the effect of our legislative limitation? In the whole kingdom of Scotland, numbering between two and three millions of people, no child under thirteen was allowed to be employed in factories. What had become of those children? He grieved to say, contemporaneous with their exclusion from the factories, meeting after meeting had been held in a great and important city—he meant Glasgow—which showed they were there overwhelmed with a numerous body of destitute children, many of them orphans; those unhappy children were in a state of destitution, accompanied, as that condition ever would be, with moral and religious degradation, which made those interested in their welfare look back with deep regret upon the times when there was unrestricted employment for them in the factories. There was, however, one point in which Parliament had done well, and that was in the establishment of a narrow inspection upon the proceedings of millowners. He spoke on this subject without any prejudice in favour of mill-owners; he had scarcely known more than half a dozen of them in his life, highly estimable as a class though they were; but he spoke in favour of the workmen and their children. Previous to the time when the measure of the late Sir R. Peel was brought in, it was not to be denied that

909
there existed peculiar circumstances which required a remedy. He had seen romances describing them, which at one time he thought might be fairly accused of exaggeration; but on inquiry he found that the picture had not been drawn in colours too horrid. The only difference was, that there was exaggeration in the picture, produced by the poetical license being resorted to of combining on one canvas all the varied features of the evil as spread over a great number of localities, but that each feature of which the picture was composed really did exist. It was, therefore, right that a remedy should have then been applied; and he now believed the factories were so improved in themselves, and so well looked after, that no harm whatever resulted from the system; but it was the greatest of all fallacies to say, that because at one time we interfered to a limited extent in one particular direction, and that we were compelled to interfere, therefore, when the mischief had been removed, we had a right at all future times to interfere in any direction, and to any possible extent, when there was no case of abuse, when there was no crying enormity calling for interference in the same way. This desire for interference had given rise to every sort of absurd legislation; and he would ask what was the nature of this measure? It was a great mistake to call the Bill a Bill for diminishing the number of hours labour of boys, girls, and women only. The fact was the Bill was nothing like what it professed to be. It stopped all labour at every mill employed in the four great staple manufactures of the country for more than ten hours a day. It professed to stop the labour of adult women, but not that of the men; but it did, nevertheless, stop the labour of adult men above ten hours, just as much as if they were included in the Bill, because it was impossible they could work unless the labour of the others were continued—in short, the Bill was just as much a Bill prohibiting any person of any age, and of either sex, to work beyond ten hours a day, as if it contained an expressly prohibitive clause to this effect, 211,000 adult women, above twenty, were employed in factories, and 35,000 under twenty. All these were to be taken under the stepmother protection of the Legislature. It was not contended that the mills could go on without their labour; but as they were prohibited from working beyond ten hours, the adult men who depended upon them would not be able to labour more
910
than ten hours; to say, therefore, that the Bill prevented only women and young children from working more than ten hours, was just as correct as if he were to prohibit a servant of his from going to Barnet, or to the north of London, in the first instance, and then say, "Oh, I do not prohibit him from going to York; I only say he shall not go ten miles north of London." Why, if he were prevented from going the first ten miles, how was he to get to York? Just so, if young people were to be prevented from working in the manufactures of cotton, flax, silk, or woollen, by which upwards of 1,000,000 of working people were supported, such a measure would have the effect of likewise preventing the adults being employed. Another point of great importance was that the limitation of labour to ten hours per day was a limitation of it to five days per week. This, indeed, was not only the tendency, but the avowed object, of the Bill; and he would ask what would be the consequences to those who, according to his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellesmere), professed themselves willing to adopt this somewhat extravagant step? The first consequence would be a diminution of one-sixth part of the trade; for how could the same quantity of goods continue to be manufactured, unless means were discovered for making the whole amount of labour to be distributed over five-sixths of the time? That was to say, six and a half millions of our exports, besides a similar proportion for the home consumption, in these great branches, would be cut off and swept away by the operation of the Bill. It was enough if it was shown that our whole manufactures would be diminished one-sixth, to conclude that the people who would most suffer would be the workpeople. How would they suffer? At once he replied by a diminution in their wages, of which there would be an absolute necessity, without the possibility of an escape. An example of this might be shown in the case of a manufacturer who employed 1,600 workmen in two mills, driven by two steam engines. One of the engines stopped for necessary repairs for one hour in the week, and he was told the wages of those 800 sensibly felt the reduction which it caused. A halfpenny or a penny per day was the merest trifle to any of their Lordships; but the effect of sudden and temporary stoppages upon the factory operatives, entailing such a loss, was really one of the most painful parts of the subject. The earnings of

911
these poor persons were always at the lowest possible point at which human nature could be sustained. That was the necessary consequence of the general competition to which manufacturers were subjected; and the labourers were necessarily close cut to the quick, as it were, by every little stoppage to which they were subjected. But what were their Lordships going to do now to the factory he had mentioned? They were going, not to stop one of the steam engines for one hour in the week, but they were to stop both the steam engines for twelve hours in the week. They were going to prevent the people from working more than five days in the week at twelve hours a day, or six days at ten hours a day—it signified not which—and the consequence might be conceived, when, according to the statement of a respectable manufacturer, the stoppage of half his steam power for one hour in the week was sensibly felt by his labourers as depriving them of some of their wages, and consequently of some, not of their comforts, but of the necessaries of life. Now, however, their Lordships were to interfere to twenty-four times the extent of the picture which he had been drawing. Then the millowner would be all the worse off for this; they took away one-sixth of the master's profits; and in fact—and this was the worst part of the whole story—a great deal more. It was accepted as a fact, that working a mill ten hours a day, that was, five days in the week, was just sufficient to pay the expenses of the establishment, the wages of the workmen, and the cost of the goods manufactured. The entire profit made by working a mill was consequently derived in the other two hours, or in the sixth day, and the whole of his profit they would, by this enactment, completely sweep away. If there were any doubt about this, let inquiry be made; it had not been denied elsewhere, and it was assumed on all occasions to be a correct calculation. Would they not pause before they ran the risk of doing this? If the profits of the masters disappeared, what became of the men? The master would not go on working without a profit, and so the men would be disbanded, the mill would be stopped, and, seeing the mischief caused, they would be compelled to retrace the step they were now about to take, as soon as ever they recovered from the humanity fever under which, for some years past, we had been severely suffering. "Oh, but," said his noble Friend, "there is
912
no difficulty at all. The mills are already only working six hours a day." Was it possible that his noble Friend, coming from a part of the country where the people were famed for their sagacity, should not discover the inference which was to be drawn from such an argument so made use of? In other words it amounted to this. The people were half ruined—they were struggling for existence—the manufacturers were turning off 50,000 men in Manchester, and 25,000 men in Nottingham, in consequence of being utterly unable to give them employment. The distress and misery thus produced were excessive. And in such a state of things what was the remedy proposed? His noble Friend proposed what the sailors called to belay it—to keep it as it was, to prevent them from recovering, and to leave the people permanently in the desperate condition into which they had been plunged. His noble Friend's argument was just this: we are in a state of temporary distress; we cannot work full time, and when the distress of the moment passes away, we shall be as badly off under the pressure of the law as we are now under the pressure of the famine. His noble Friend had alluded to the question of competition, and had plumed himself on using a new definition of that state of trade, in calling it "barter." It was barter between us and our customer; but then there was another party tempting the same customer, and this was the foreign competitor, whose operations we were bound to consider before we interfered with our existing means of carrying on the competition. His noble Friend who first addressed their Lordships had passed over this argument by expressing a sanguine hope that the foreign competitor would soon follow our example. He (Lord Brougham) very much doubted if their Lordships would live to witness this result. He, too, entertained a sanguine hope that sound principles would make progress among other nations with all the more speed if we first led the way and gave to such principles a practical development; but he questioned if our neighbours the French, whom he highly respected; the Belgians, the Dutch, or even the Americans—whom, once also, he had highly respected, and whom he should again respect, if his good opinion offered any inducement to that people, when they ceased to guide their actions by the detestable doctrine, that all America belonged to the United States, and that, therefore, the

913
United States were privileged to make war and carry rapine into the territories of other nations, and when they also discontinued making use of that singular invention of modern times, repudiation—but he doubted very much if these competitors would make any great haste to follow the example we wore about to set them. Were the principle sound, they might pursue the same path; but, in the first place, they would see that the principle upon which we had based our legislation was altogether unsound. Let him remind their Lordships of the effect of the abolition of the slave trade. How many years passed before we were imitated? Even to this day the Governments of some European countries had not even stepped in the direction in which we had proceeded. It was said there might be a little national feeling on that question; he did not deny it; but would there be no national feeling here? What temptation wore we not holding out to French commerce, and what reason were we not giving the French manufacturers for continuing to work twelve hours, and, it might be, for increasing the ordinary time to fourteen hours? We beat them now in every market, though we had dearer labour and dearer living. How? By the amount of our capital, by the perfection of our skill, and by the exquisite machinery we employed to drive our trade by that skill, and to make that capital produce its gains. But if we now reduced the labouring power of the country—if we sacrificed one-sixth part of the great staple branches of manufacture—if we threw out of employment so largo a number of men, did not their Lordships think these foreign competitors would be strongly tempted to say, "Oh! now we see the means of beating the English; we begin to see how we can rival them; we will keep our law as it is, and their law will enable us to undersell them in every market in the world?" That, indeed, was a likely and a probable result; and there was little reason to think our example, our fatal example, would ever be followed. Their Lordships ought to remember that the workman would suffer if the means of the manufacturer were reduced. Some years ago Parliament passed a law permitting the workmen to combine for the prosecution of their common interest; but let this enactment now before the House operate, and the employed would he at the mercy of the employer, and would no longer be in a position to co-operate with his fel-
914
low-labourers—the competition now was for work not for workmen. The manufacturer must of necessity maintain his present rate of profits, for they were already reduced to the lowest possible amount, in consequence of the competition with which he had to contend—or give up business altogether. Capital, in the long run, would overpower the labourer; the person who had the capital would defeat the labourer, and would throw the whole loss of one-sixth upon the wages of the men whom he employed. That he must do for the reasons which he (Lord Brougham) had given; if he did not in some way replace the loss of two hours he was enforced to endure, he would be a ruined man. If any one was romantic enough to suppose that the millowner who last year cleared 5,000 l. would this year content himself with 2,500 l., merely for the abstract benefit of the labourer—if any one was so romantic as to entertain such a notion, he was sure it was not his noble Friend who came from Yorkshire, at all events, or any noble Lord who was acquainted with Lancashire, or the other manufacturing districts. But at the same time the depriving these poor people of 2s. a week of their labour, would, as he said before, cut them to the quick. Those who wore already reduced to the most scanty subsistence could not afford to lose one-sixth of their means of support; and even granting that they would never want employment—and on that they had no right to calculate—still they left them in a condition of permanent poverty. The next consideration was, what effect would this have upon the moral condition of these poor people? He believed there was not a more sound principle, he did not say of political economy but of social philosophy, than this, that poverty was the root of many evils—that distress, that uncertainty of possessing the common necessaries of life—that the fear of want continually haunting the mind—was just as injurious to the mental organization as it was to the physical health of a man. To deprive a man having 6,000 l. a year of 1,000 l. would be doing him little harm; it would not at all interfere with his comforts, and little with his luxuries; but to take away from the labourer the sum which such an enactment as this would take away, would be to cut into, not his comforts, but the necessaries of his existence. There was nothing more certain than that whatever tended to relieve the mind from great anxiety, and operated to keep a person in tolerably comfortable

915
circumstances, was the parent of right feelings and the parent of sound principles. And if we now, all of a sudden, exposed our labouring population to the chance of poverty, and all the cares and anxieties by which poverty was accompanied, we must be prepared for the consequences which this would have upon the moral condition of the people. Let noble Lords, again, take another view of the subject. This Bill dealt with factories; 57 per cent of the labour of the country was factory labour; the remaining 43 per cent was not composed of factory workmen, and these workmen the Bill professed not to touch. But, in point of fact, this measure, professing to leave them alone, would interfere with them, and would touch them most vitally. It would drive those workmen, those with whom the Bill did directly deal, and who would be prevented by the Bill from working twelve hours a day, from their occupation. If they restricted the opportunities of the factory workman, and prevented him making the utmost possible profit of his industry, energy, and skill, then, naturally, he would go out of the factory and become one of those labourers with whom legislation did not meddle, and who, did it so please them, could work sixteen hours in the day. Precisely, therefore, in the self-same proportion in which the measure lowered the wages of those employed in the manufactures, would the factory operatives be driven into those branches of trade upon the operations of which no visible restriction was to be placed. This was a legislative premium given to those branches of trade at the expense of the manufacturer. It would benefit the masters by increasing the number of hands; but of course it would lower the wages in those trades not touched by the Bill. There was, however, one argument urged by his noble Friend which seemed most plausible. His noble Friend said, that the loss of the two hours would be amply compensated in the increased production to be speedily ensured by the introduction of more perfect machinery. God forbid that anything should be done to cramp mechanical genius, or to limit inventive power; but still he could not help feeling that every increase of the powers of machinery displaced so much labour. Would they, then, take legislative means to increase the power of machinery, and to displace labour to the extent of which he had spoken? And this would be the consequence, undoubtedly, of the measure.
916
What was the manufacturer to do? He could only labour ten hours to produce the article for which twelve hours had before been required; and nothing was left him but to make machinery do the work upon which otherwise human hands would have been engaged within the time permitted by the law. This was a view of the case which it was of the utmost importance should be carefully examined. He had never put the matter to a workman, or to a deputation from workmen, in this light without staggering them, and without inducing them to pause; it was a view which had been carefully kept out of sight, and which had never been referred to by those who had carried on an agitation in favour of the Bill. The men were struck with the argument; and, on consideration, they always admitted that they were better where they were. And the cause which would call for improved machinery would also have its effect upon the labourer; he would have to work all the harder for having to work shorter time; and thus, whatever physical benefit he might have derived under other circumstances would be counterbalanced and rendered nugatory. He now came to a point which had been made prominent in the discussion of this question. No person undervalued less than he did the importance and the good of education; he had, ere now, made many efforts to promote the education of the people; and he would be the last man in this world to oppose himself to any measure calculated to advance that cause. But if this Bill was framed to afford the opportunity of moral instruction and education to adults, it did not go far enough; and this the consistent advocates of short-time legislation had acknowledged when they demanded a restriction to eight hours. Some of Her Majesty's Ministers, regardless of this objection, had offered to split the difference between ten and twelve hours, and to make it an Eleven Hours Bill. Others, with still more refinement, made known that they would agree to a Bill for eleven and a half hours; and one or two persons had spoken of eleven and a quarter hours, and had recommended this idea in a way perhaps that did not greatly enhance the general respect for their abilities or their wisdom. If, however, moral instruction was their purpose, and they decided upon violating every rule, and infringing on every right of the labourer, then, in God's name, let them go about it in such a way as to attain their object.

917
Did any one think that by taking two hours from the twelve, they enabled the labourer to improve his moral condition? On the contrary, they would allow him to work twelve hours in the day, provided only that he worked no more than fifty-nine hours in the week, and remained idle on one day. What would be the consequence? The workpeople would not have time to read during the week; but then it was said there was the Saturday. Oh! profound ignorance of the factory man, of the factory nature and disposition! It was supposed that when you allowed them to work for twelve hours a day for five days of the week, and gave them a whole holiday on Saturday, they would say, not "We have lost a day," with the Roman Emperor, but "We have lost five days—let us make up for it, let us eschew the beer-shop; let us look on the public-house as if it were not; let us go to our homes; let us seek the pastor to commune with him; let us send for the moral preacher and speak with him; let us send right and left to societies and mechanics' institutes, and the apprentices' libraries for books; let us take advantage of the various institutions for the diffusion of useful knowledge—wo have only this one day, to-morrow is Sunday, we cannot do it then; let us devote this day to our moral improvement." But then, unhappily, these people would be mulcted of their wages all the while; and with some that fact was a reason for thinking they would refrain from going to the public-house. But every one knew that the pressure of want and necessity induced men to indulge in intoxicating drinks; and it had been proved that classes of men suffering great necessity and privation indulged in opium eating. In Nottingham, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, this practice was so common, that persons were in the habit of going about selling a preparation of opium. ["No, no!"] Depriving the workmen of 2s. of their wages would not prevent them from indulging in intoxication and intemperance. He therefore could not help feeling that there would have been more sense in an Eight Hours Bill, than one for ten hours; the former could not have been a greater offence against all principle and expediency, and there would have been some little chance of its doing some little good; for, supposing the men worked the ten hours every day, and did not take the Saturday as a day of leisure, every one knew a man after ten hours' toil was too much fatigued to think of anything but rest and relax-
918
ation; and, above all, he was most in want of "tired nature's sweet restorer, balmy sleep." He had been trying to educate the peasantry for these forty years; and his constant competitor and antagonist, by which he had always been defeated, was—sleep! The labourer always thought that sleep was the best relief both for body and mind after a day's labour. Mr. R. Oastler, who with some peculiarities was one of the best and kindest men living, and whose perseverance in this question was worthy of a better cause, did not approve of an Eight Hour Bill; it was too much, too hazardous, it would take off one-third of the wages of the people and of the capital of the manufacturer at one blow; but striking off one-sixth of the wages was only one-half less hazardous! Now, he believed there was very great delusion at the bottom of this question; he believed the workpeople did not see it. Unhappily, he knew pains had been taken to mislead them. They had been blinded by very positive statements and assertions that there could be no diminution of wages, or a very partial one. Did the agitator go to them saying—"I warn you that, in agreeing to this, you do it with the peril that wages will be diminished one sixth?" and did the generous workman, the noble spinner, or the romantic weaver say, "Be it so; we are anxious for our moral improvement, and have no objection to lose that one sixth of our earnings?" No; they did not say that: that the agitator kept in the dark; they might not possibly object to lose 1½d. or 2d. of their wages, but they did not say they were ready to have 2s. taken from them. If they were so anxious for moral improvement as to be content to lose that amount, they wore very different from the 800 men who, in one case he had mentioned already, were tremblingly alive and nervously anxious as to the loss of 1d. or 2d. If the loss were fairly explained to them, if they were fairly told it would be no less than one-sixth of their earnings, he had no doubt they would retract their opinion. He knew the proter-pluperfect of the subjunctive mood was a difficult and perilous tense to speak in; it was most difficult to say what might, could, would, or should have happened, if certain circumstances had happened that never happened. But he ventured to use this perilous tense now because he spoke with the knowledge of a fact. There existed in the West Riding of Yorkshire no more respectable man than Mr. Ackroyd; he was a great manufacturer,

919
a wealthy capitalist, and a more humane master, or one more attentive to the wants of his numerous workmen, he had never known or heard of. He had four mills, employing numerous people; he heard of the anxiety among some of the men for short time, and agreed if the men resolved on it, to begin working short time on a fixed day; the largest mill was against short time, so was the second; the other two were in favour of it. It was tried, but not at the same wages; and the moment the men discovered that, short time was given up by all the men. He therefore ventured to speak in this dangerous and difficult tense, or rather in a safer and easier one; for on experience of the past he assumed what would happen if the plan should be adopted. He had some other facts of the same sort with which he would not trouble the House. He thought, therefore, the authority of the workmen themselves was slender on the present occasion; leaving the results of this experiment out of the question, setting aside the difference of opinion, and taking it entirely on its own merits, if all the workmen with one voice were for it, he was bound as a lawgiver, he was bound as a statesman, to consider, not what they wished, not what they said they would have, not what the agitators had got them to say they would have, but what was good for them, what was for their benefit and the benefit of the community; and what they themselves would finally and deliberately wish and approve. But then he was told there was another authority on the question; it was said the House of Commons had sent up this Bill supported by a very large majority. Yet it was the very same House of Commons—for there had been no general election—that formerly rejected the measure by a largo majority. On the 2nd of March, 1844, there was a majority of three, the numbers being 186 to 183, against the Twelve Hours Clause. It would naturally be supposed there would have been the same majority against the Ten Hours Clause; he was sorry to say this was not the case; on the next division there were 181 in favour of a Ten Hours Clause, and 188 against it. Thus the House of Commons would neither have a Twelve Hours nor a Ten Hours Bill. The eleven hours party had not then come into existence. What in the name of fortune would they have? On the 13th of May in the same year, the Bill was brought forward again as
920
precisely the same measure; be it recollected some understanding appeared to have been come to in the interval between the twelve hour and the ten hour parties, and the numbers upon the division were then 297 to 159, rejecting the Bill entirely by a clear working majority of 138. Three short years only had then elapsed since the same House of Commons from which the Bill had now come, had rejected it by the enormous majority of 138. Then came the year 1846, in the month of May of which year a change seemed to have come over the spirit of their dream, for the Bill was again rejected; but by a majority of only 10. The clear working majority of 138 had dwindled down to what, for distinction sake, they might call the Whig majority of 10. When he saw a phenomenon, he liked to trace it to its cause. What was the cause of this sudden change? The same cruelty, the same hardships, the same want of instruction existed in 1844 as in 1846; but it did happen that in the interval the corn laws had been repealed. It happened in the course of the severe contest which preceded that repeal that the landed men were ranged against the cotton and wool men; the repeal was supported chiefly by the cotton men, and the spinners and millowners were constantly abused by the landed aristocracy. The manufacturers having beaten the land on the corn question, the land said, "We will retaliate a little on mills;" and it did so happen that, in connexion with this quarrel between the land and the mills, the majority came down from 138 to 10. This year there had been a continuation of the same events, of the same conversions; the movement downward had been accelerated, and the Bill came up to their Lordships now backed by a large majority in its favour, though two years only had elapsed since an equally large majority was against it, and all the circumstances of the case remained precisely the same. He begged pardon of their Lordships for saying the circumstances were the same; circumstances were infinitely stronger against the Bill now than ever they were before. What time had these men taken to change the opinion they had when the Bill would have done comparatively little mischief, and convert the numerous votes they gave against it to an immense majority in its favour? When men were being thrown out of employment by thousands and scores of thousands—when Providence had afflicted them with a

921
scarcity in England, and an actual famine in Ireland—when in every point of the compass to which they could turn their eyes, abroad and at home, there were thick storms gathering, and the heavens lowering about them all around—this was the time the House of Commons had chosen to retrace its steps and alter its votes, from a majority of nearly 150 against the measure to one of more than 100 for it. This was the crisis, of all conceivable periods in the history of the country, when a prudent, conscientious regard for the safety of the people and the best interests of the country—above all for the best interests of the working people—made it an imperative duty that they should show the utmost reluctance to change their commercial policy. While they were menaced with dangers like these, when the poor rates of 6,000,000 l. a year were likely to increase to one-half more—when Ireland was suffering and bleeding from every pore—when they were obliged to send over supplies of food and money to prevent the death of hunger from thinning the land—when the public peace was disturbed—when in one county, within the last three days, two hundred special constables had been sworn in, and the yeomanry called out, to quell food riots—this, it seemed, was the time we were called on, without experience, upon speculation, on assertion, on assumption, upon fantasy, to pass a measure which must affect every working man in the country in the four great branches of its manufacture. The promoters of the measure now before their Lordships desired to see it enacted at the moment when, of all others, such a change seemed to his mind the least desirable. Most men must admit that if such an alteration were at all to be effected, it ought not to be brought about when the people of this land were in the utmost extremity of distress. Then, in God's name, why not wait for the blessings of peace and tranquillity? Do not fly in the face of Providence by such an experiment as that which it was proposed to try through the present measure. If they had no consideration for its direct effect upon the manufactures of the country, let them at least consider for a moment its probable operation upon the landed interest. Let it not for a moment be supposed that the present was not as much the case of the landlords as it was the case of the manufacturers. Nothing could injure the one without deeply affecting the other. That great merchant and banker, Mr. Child,
922
well said that land and trade were so knit together that together they must wax and wane; nor could any ill happen to trade but land must suffer, nor any ill to land without trade feeling it. With respect to the speeches which their Lordships had already heard upon the Bill then before them, he was bound in justice to both the noble Lords to render them his unfeigned thanks for the tone in which they had addressed the House. He was bound injustice to them to say that he never had heard speeches uttered in a manner more cautious and measured; he never in his life witnessed a more admirable shunning of every invidious topic; there had not been one unfair or unjust allusion to the manufacturing classes; on the contrary, every portion of the subject had been discussed with kindness and courtesy, and therefore the remarks which he made were not for them or any of their Lordships, but for less wise men. He would ask the supporters of the Bill then before the House, did they, or did any man in the country, doubt that its effect must be to throw a large proportion of the people who worked in factories upon the poor's rates? And who paid the poor's rates? Did not that burden in a great degree fall upon the land? That the poor's rates must be augmented by the proposed change, and that the landed interest must therefore heavily suffer, appeared to him propositions almost self-evident. He would say to the authors and supporters of this measure, don't be led away by any notions of benevolence: benevolence to be practically useful must work good—benevolence to be a fit principle of action for statesmen and legislators must be combined with beneficence; and before they hazarded an experiment so bold, so extensive, so unlike anything that they had previously tried, they ought to consider most carefully how far they were likely to injure the classes whose advantage they so earnestly sought to promote. Moreover, if they interfered with one class of labourers, they ought to interpose in favour of all, those who worked out as well as those who worked within doors; and there were none whose case was more deserving of commiseration than the agricultural labourer. He doubted not that their feelings of benevolence had been most strongly excited by the exaggerated accounts which had reached them respecting the unheard-of, the deplorable privations which those classes were supposed to endure. From every quarter they were

923
told of the hard toil which they underwent—of their comfortless abodes—of their brief rest and continued hunger—that the system by which they were governed rendered it impossible for them to be otherwise than hardworked, hard fed, and poorly lodged—that they were, therefore, naturally prone to grasp at the least chance of improvement. Hence the Legislature was called upon not to form its judgments upon any principles of sound reasoning, but to listen to the feelings which such statements were calculated to arouse. The House, therefore, grasped at what was offered, without carefully weighing what was its probable result. No man could be more alive than he to the sufferings which the factory labourer endured. He felt as deeply as the most clamorous advocates of the measure how important it was that their interests should be well and carefully considered—he felt the deepest commiseration with the working classes. He knew the hunger they suffered—the toil they underwent; he knew the abodes in which they lived; and all their miseries met his sympathy and wrung his heart. But his sympathies were not confined to those who worked within doors; they reached, without distinction, the men who worked abroad in the fields, as well as those who toiled in factories. The fatigue and misery that might be seen in the peasant's cottage, quite equalled, if it did not surpass, the wretchedness they were told the factory labourer alone endured. The peasant rose to his hard toil at five o'clock in the morning; he snatched a hasty morsel, which deserved not to be called a meal; and during one brief half-hour he escaped from the scorching sun or the pitiless rain to eat what no other man would consider a dinner. Animal food he rarely tasted; and at the latest hour he returned to his squalid home, drenched either with rain, or with perspiration. He was bound to earn his scanty morsel, not only with the sweat of his brow, but by the most intense exertion of his whole muscular power—without the support of sufficient food—without the comfort of even a change of raiment; and, excepting in the northern counties, he was obliged to struggle through half the year, ever wet and ever chilled because without the comfort of fuel. Hence his wretched clothes, and his still more wretched bed, were scarce ever dry. The peasantry of England never knew half the comforts that were to be found in the factory. Hence the peasant, who began his
924
course as an agricultural labourer at the age of fifteen or sixteen, grew old before his time. Yes, he took it upon himself to say, that such men scarcely ever reached the natural term of human existence. But if it became so necessary to legislate thus stringently, and against all principle, for the men who toiled in cotton factories, why did the Bill stop there? Why was not provision made for those whose lives were shortened by working amongst filings of steel, and those workers in brass who since the time of Tubal-cain had been victims to their occupation? Sir Samuel Romilly, than whom a more humane man never existed, could never be brought to support even the moderate measure introduced by the late Sir R. Peel in the year 1809; and why? That most excellent and benevolent man was accustomed to say, "Beware how you endeavour to find a substitute for parental feeling, lest parental feeling should resent the interference, and, becoming less pure, should seek to render nugatory that which was attempted to be put in place of those affections, without which it would be difficult to preserve the frame of society." And this was said even against the moderate interference of protecting very young children from the avarice of their parents. What would the same benevolent and wise man have said of a Bill to confine all labour of all ages and both sexes compulsorily within given limits? He could not conclude without apologizing to their Lordships for having occupied so much of their attention; and, though it would be easy for him to address to the House many more arguments against the measure then before them, he hoped he had laid sufficient grounds to induce them favourably to receive that which he intended to move as an Amendment, namely, that the Bill then before them be read a second time that day six months.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that no one could be more sensible than he was of the great disadvantage under which he addressed the House when he rose to speak immediately after the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down. He was the more especially affected by that consideration, when he remembered how deeply the noble Lord had studied the question which the present Bill brought under discussion—how often he had considered its hearings, and how strongly he had permitted his feelings to be excited by circumstances connected with that subject. Reflections of that kind, therefore, led him (the Bishop

925
of London) to be most unwilling to address their Lordships at a moment like the present; but he could not shrink from the imperative duty imposed on him then to stand up in his place, and declare his cordial assent to the Bill before the House. He conceived that the working classes would have great reason to be thankful for the measure which the House was now about to pass. Their Lordships had heard many arguments in favour of the measure, but he could not help reminding them that it was one which enlisted in its favour the holiest sympathies of our nature; while the arguments against the Bill were for the most part theoretical, and drawn from principles which required to be modified by various practical considerations. For surely the measure now before their Lordships was not one to be judged by the purely abstract principles of philosophy or science, however true they might be in themselves; it should be looked at in connexion with the numberless anomalies resulting from the highly artificial state of society in which we live, and it should be judged of by the preponderance of good or evil that was likely to result from it. If all men were instructed in, and prepared to obey, the theoretical rules of political science, then those abstract theories might be carried out; but whilst they saw around them such a state of things as at present existed—whilst they were dealing with misery, with ignorance, with wretchedness, and vice—they, as legislators, should be influenced by charitable considerations towards those who had not as yet been emancipated from that species of slavery—they should bend and modify that rigid rule of theory to meet the exigencies of the case. It might be perfectly true as a general proposition that the competition for labour ought not to fettered with any restrictions whatever; but he would repeat, that the assistance which abstract principles gave to practical legislation was a species of aid which had its limits. The noble and learned Lord said that Parliament ought not to legislate upon subjects which did not come properly within their scope; and he called upon the House to refrain from such a course of legislation as would interfere with the freedom of the labour market, which in a nation of great commercial enterprise ought not to be interfered with. But he would take the liberty of telling the noble and learned Lord that Government best answered the purposes of its institution when it came nearest to
926
paternal rule; and when parents neglected parental duty, the Government was bound to assume those functions which the natural guardians of youth abandoned or perverted. And, therefore, he thought that one of the most important duties of the Legislature was to interfere so as to prevent excessive injury from accruing to a large proportion of the population, which was least able to protect inself; and that where one portion of the subjects were ignorant and powerless, the law might interfere to prevent injury from being inflicted upon a large class of those who might be otherwise left unprotected. He could not help remarking that throughout the whole of the speech which the House had just heard, the question had been dealt with as one which solely concerned the adult population. But he thought that a great part of the question concerned that very numerous and unprotected class—the children who were employed in factories; and it was with reference to them particularly that he wished to ask for their Lordships' attention to the observations he had to offer. The factory workmen, acting under the constraint of that necessity which was produced by the peculiar state of the labour market in the manufacturing districts, seemed to regard their children as mere instruments for making money; and here again he thought the parental functions of the State came into play, and ought to interpose to relieve those children from that necessity. If the cupidity of their employers or the ignorance of their parents compelled them to extend their labour far beyond those limits of exertion which their bodily constitution was suited for, and, therefore, he might say beyond that point which their benevolent Creator designed for them, he thought it became the sacred duty of the Legislature to interfere and afford them that protection which their natural guardians were unable or unwilling to give them. If they desired that the evil should not be perpetuated or aggravated, and that some chance should be given to the rising generation of growing up in habits of religion and morality, their Lordships must interpose to save them from their ceaseless round of exhausting toil, and leave them more time for improvement, Their intellectual faculties were contracted by the monotonous and wearisome labour to which they were subjected; and that formed no unimportant consideration in the question then before their Lordships. The agricul-

927
tural labourer, notwithstanding the eloquent description of his noble and learned Friend of the effect which the toil of that labourer produced on his health and spirits, was in a much more favourable condition for carrying out the great object of his being than the factory workman. His work was carried on in the open field, where he was inhaling pure air and saw the pure light of heaven; and at any moment he might suspend his toil, for a brief interval, to prevent the exhaustion of his strength and spirits. It was not so with the factory workman. The mill must move on with unceasing motion for the appointed number of hours, to complete the proper quantity of work; and it admitted of no intermission in the labour of those children who were deputed to carry on and watch its ceaseless process. Now that imprisonment, as it were, of a large class of our fellow-creatures was a case in which the Legislature ought to interfere, unless the evils which were wrought by it could be shown to be less than those which would be produced by their interference. The evils, however, of the present system were so great, that they could hardly be contemplated by any humane man without shuddering. The debility of frame, the shattered strength, the exhausted spirit, the early death, were various and lamentable evils; but they were not the worst. Before, however, he proceeded to the consideration of the latter point, he would advert to the mortality of the manufacturing districts. It was proved that the exhaustless process of factory labour did tend to shorten life in the manufacturing districts. It might be argued, that the diminished average of human life in those districts was to be ascribed to the unhealthy condition of large towns; but that was completely refuted by certain facts which had been ascertained. It appeared from a statement which had been made by a most able and benevolent individual, Mr. Fletcher, a medical man, who had made a close investigation of this subject, that the average duration of life of the factory operative was somewhat less than one-half that of other operatives in the same districts. He would now advert to what he considered as the worst consequences of the present system, namely, that it entirely disqualified the children from receiving the benefits of education after a certain age, when perhaps it was not going too far to say education was more important to them than before. He would admit, that, up to
928
the age of 13 years, those children were comparatively well provided for, as the hours of labour up to that age were limited to six hours; but the moment they attained that age their work was doubled, and they very soon lost all they had learned before, because, after twelve hours of exhausting labour, they had no spirit or strength left to attend school or to profit by it. Their Lordships must also consider that in addition to those twelve hours for which they were obliged to work in the factory, two more were reckoned in going to and from the mills, and in the necessary cleansing and refreshment; so that, even if this Bill passed, and the hours of labour were restricted to ten hours, there would be still twelve hours of the day no portion of which could be devoted to school for the purpose of deriving sound and wholesome instruction. Under these circumstances, it was no wonder that the clergy and medical men of the manufacturing districts were all but unanimous in favour of this Bill, which they believed would at least diminish, if not altogether cure, the evils that existed. But the Bill was also supported by a large portion of those whose interests would be most deeply affected by it, not merely by factory workmen, but by many of the great millowners, who, according to the opinions of the opponents of the measure, would be great losers by it. It was said that they would lose one-sixth of the factory labour of the country, and to that extent our manufactures would be destroyed. But, on the other side, he placed the great gain the measure would produce to morality and humanity. He confessed himself quite incompetent to judge of the ultimate bearing of the measure on the commerce of the country; but he was very much encouraged when he looked back and saw what had resulted from the steps they had already taken in the same path of humane legislation. They were told when the Twelve Hours Bill was introduced, that the same evils would result from it as were now predicted of this measure; but what had been the result of that Bill? He was going to say that it was in a precisely opposite direction to what had been predicted. It appeared from a statement made by a very intelligent person who was one of the most strenuous opponents of that Bill, that the following effect had been produced on the wages of the factory labourer by the successive steps taken by the Legislature. In 1813 the wages of women in factories were 8s. 4d. a week,

929
in 1833 they were 8s. 10 d., and in the mean time the price of food had become much lower; so that the change was all in favour of the workpeople. His noble and learned Friend had said that in ten hours it would be impossible to produce as great a quantity of cotton manufactures as in twelve hours. He admitted that with the same means only it would be so; but his noble and learned Friend had himself taken off much of the effect of his own argument by speaking of the improvement that might be made in machinery, whereby labour might be diminished. And again, his noble and learned Friend spoke of its being a certain effect of this Bill that it would drive from the mills a very considerable number of those who were now employed, but who would no longer stay there when they found that better wages might be obtained in other parts of the country; but if that were so, and any considerable emigration from the manufacturing districts or mills did take place, the consequence would be that there would remain a smaller number of workmen, and wages would rise in proportion. He must be permitted to think, when his noble and learned Friend spoke of the delusions that had been practised upon the factory workpeople in this matter, especially from the experience he had had whilst he was connected with that part of the country which was the chief seat of the cotton manufacture, that those workpeople were a very intelligent and sagacious body of men, alive to their own interests, and not so easily deceived as his noble and learned Friend supposed; and when he found so large a number of those persons pressing their Lordships, with great earnestness, by petitions, to pass this Bill, and saying that they believed it would confer upon them the greatest possible boon, even if it should be wrong, he could not think it would be injurious to them to the extent which his noble and learned Friend supposed; whilst they would have, at least, the satisfaction of having done the best in their judgment, by listening to the importunate prayers preferred to them. He could not suppose that if the mill-owners had had any suspicion that this measure would be so productive of ruin to themselves as his noble and learned Friend represented, any of them would have advocated it; nor would he believe that if they had entertained any reasonable suspicion that it would not only injure themselves, but also that class who had been instru-
930
mental in producing their wealth, they would have supported it. On the contrary, he thought that they had the best interests of their workpeople at heart. He was ready to admit that all legislative interference was an evil, and could only be justified so far as it prevented an evil of a greater kind; but the evils which were now sought to be remedied were of the most serious kind; they were nothing less than the physical deterioration and moral degradation of a large portion of the most helpless classes of the community. Unless there were some improvement in the moral condition of those classes, the country would be thrown into a situation of the greatest danger; but that necessary moral and religious reformation never could be wrought unless they allowed the younger portion of those classes to bestow a larger part of their time on self-improvement and learning that which would be useful to them in their future life. With respect to the concluding argument of his noble and learned Friend for inducing their Lordships to pause before they passed this Bill, that the present was an unfavourable moment for making this experiment, he (the Bishop of London) considered that no time could be more favourable. If the factory workpeople were not fully employed, and mills were doing no more than ten hours' work a-day, what evil could arise—what chance was there of exciting any angry feeling if they restricted them by law to that period of labour which, practically, they were limited to at the present time? On the other hand, he saw great danger in turning a deaf ear to the petitions of so large a portion of their fellow-creatures, of that class too who were unhappily too often not restrained by motives which were the result of general religious instruction and moral education from giving vent to their feelings, and endeavouring to accomplish their ends by the most unlawful and dangerous means. He could conceive nothing more calculated to disquiet the mind of the manufacturing population, and make them unwilling to bear with patience and submission those privations which they were suffering at that moment, and which he feared they must be prepared to suffer to a greater extent still, than the absence of a ready acquiescence on the part of their Lordships to those earnest petitions which had been so long sent up to their Lordships' House, praying for a more enlarged relaxation of the incessant and wearisome toil of the factory labourers, which was injurious and

931
hurtful, not only to them, but to their children, who were to form the future manufacturing population of this country. For these reasons, he should give his most cordial assent to this Bill.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, that, though his noble and learned Friend had stated that the operatives were not in favour of this Bill, no less than 295,000 had petitioned for it; and he believed there were not a dozen who had petitioned against it. The noble and learned Lord declared also that an agricultural labourer of 45 was not so strong as one of their Lordships at 70; but he could produce labourers in Sussex, of the age of 45, who would carry every one of their Lordships out of that House; and when it was said that they laboured from six o'clock in the morning till eight at night during harvest, he must ask why they did so? Because it was task-work; and, so far from going home to meals, the agricultural labourer sat on the sunny side of the hedge, and ate his meat and drank good beer; and would drink more of it if the malt tax were repealed. Then the noble and learned Lord said, that the agricultural labourer had no change of clothes. Why, where had the noble Lord been living? Had he ever been within an agricultural labourer's cottage? He very much doubted it. He wished that they were better off; but if they were badly off, was that any reason why they should allow hundreds of thousands of other labourers to be destroyed? The right rev. Prelate had so ably stated the reasons for this Bill, that he would not enter into any details; but he trusted their Lordships would not turn a deaf ear to the prayers of so large a portion of the operatives. No one in the country disliked the Anti-Corn-Law League more than he did; but he knew the value of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures going together; one great cause of his opposing free trade was, that it would limit manufactures, and get rid of the home market; and, while he disliked the League, he had a great respect and regard for the intelligent manufacturers and operatives of this country.
The EARL of CLARENDONwished shortly to state the reasons which would induce him to support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend. He should have been glad if he could have concurred in the opinions which were expressed with so much eloquence by the noble Earl, and by his noble Friend who moved the second
932
reading of the Bill—if he could have supported the Bill on the ground on which his noble Friend supported it, and have concurred in his opinions, and given him his support, that it was for the benefit of the labouring classes. But, on fully considering the subject, and looking to the best interests of these classes, he found himself called upon to support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend; for he believed that this measure was much more calculated to be hurtful to those for whose benefit it was intended, than to be of any advantage to them; and he was satisfied that if it passed, it would inflict great evils on the operatives engaged in the manufactories, by taking from them one-sixth of their labour: for the operation of this Bill would extend much farther than his noble Friend intended. It would extend not only to young children, who were entitled to protection, but to full-grown men and women, who were as well able as any of their Lordships to judge what was for their own interest; and if they chose to work for any number of hours they pleased, he did not see what business the Legislature had to interfere. He was as anxious as the right rev. Prelate to promote the social interests and religious improvement of the class of people to which he referred; but he did not believe that this object would be obtained by depriving the working man of one-sixth of the means (and they were not superabundant at any season) of supporting his family. This would be inevitable if the distribution of the produce of labour was to bear the same proportion which it did at present. It was perfectly clear that in the present times of competition the profits of the manufacturer were not so great that they would bear reduction. If they limited the number of hours during which the machinery might work, they must, as a consequence, limit the quantity of produce. This appeared to him to be inevitable. In going into the subject, he would, in the first instance, call the attention of the House to what was the existing law and practice in the manufacturing districts, and what was the state of things in former years. The reasons which were urged in former years for legislative interference with the factories no longer existed. All those abuses to which so many allusions had been made, had been got rid of. They no longer heard of the cruelty of the masters, and of their compelling children to work sixteen hours a day. Many improvements had

933
been made through the instrumentality of the present law. The existing law provided that children under 13 years of age should work only six hours a day, and that they should attend school for at least two hours a day. Young persons and women were not allowed to work for more than sixty-nine hours a week. There was also a very important provision, that no time should he made up for time lost by accidents to the machinery. At present, the sixty-nine hours were thus distributed, namely, twelve hours for five days in the week, and nine hours on Saturday. The stoppages to the machinery in consequence of accidents reduced the actual work to about eleven hours. Again, the workpeople were employed in comfortable places, and not in such filthy places as had been described by the right rev. Prelate. The workrooms were airy and well-ventilated buildings, and were much more healthy than those devoted to other descriptions of employment. He believed this to be a fair and unexaggerated state of the case. By the Bill, however, it was proposed to reduce the hours of labour from sixty-nine to fifty-nine, while holidays and other deductions, such as the stoppage of the machinery through accidents, were to remain as they were. The consequence of this would be the reduction of the period of labour for five days in the week from twelve hours to ten, and nine hours on Saturday. The effect of this state of things would be to strike off one-sixth of the fertile produce of the country, for the produce would be in exact proportion to the period of the working of the machinery. Of course this diminished proportion of produce would strike off one-sixth of the wages of the operatives. His noble Friend who had moved the second reading of the Bill, did not argue that this would be the case. It should be remembered that wages formed but a small component part of the cost of an article produced; that there was the charge for the raw material; then came the capital of the manufacturer sunk in the mill machinery; and lastly came the wages of the labourers. The diminished production which would ensue from the reduction of the hours of labour from twelve hours to ten, would undoubtedly increase the price of the manufactured article. As had been justly observed by his noble and learned Friend, the same number of mills would not produce the same quantity of manufactured goods as were now produced. Fresh mills must, therefore, be built; those who were wise
934
men would build them abroad, and shortsighted men would build them at home. We should have one-sixth of our manufacturing population more than we had at present dependent for employment and wages upon the production of a diminished quantity of manufactures; and he, for one, could not look without alarm at such a state of things. He had no doubt that there was an honest belief that the increase of price in the manufactured article would permanently compensate the manufacturer for the diminished amount of production; but he believed this to be an erroneous view of the case. If, however, it were true that this increase of price would be permanent, would it not be tantamount to imposing on every labourer in the country a higher price for his clothing, solely for the benefit of those who worked less and were paid more than others in a similar rank of life? Such, then, being the direct consequences of this measure, he would ask their Lordships to look also to the indirect consequences which would flow from it. In the first place, there would be less coal, oil, tallow, leather, and flour, all of which were used to a great extent in manufactures, consumed than there used to be. There would also be less flax, silk, woollen, indigo, madder, and other dyes used; and there would be less shipping employed. All the trading interests in the country would suffer in proportion from this apparently humane measure for limiting the hours of labour. Then, again, their Lordships must remember that hand-loom industry competed in certain districts with the power-loom even now, when the power-loom was working sixty-nine hours per week; and when the power-loom came to work fifty-nine hours only per week, the hand-loom weavers would beat the power-loom, and the manufacturers must come to Parliament and ask that the hours of labour of the hand-loom weavers should be restricted also. Such were some of the indirect effects of this measure, although they were of little importance when viewed with reference to foreign competition. If we were the only manufacturers in the world, and possessed a monopoly, we should be enabled to lay a tax on everybody by reducing the hours of labour. But so far were we from having a monopoly, that we had the greatest difficulty in competing with our numerous and formidable rivals in the principal markets of the world. Our principal monopoly formerly consisted of machinery, but the exportation of that was now permitted,

935
for our best workmen were seduced from us by the high wages which were offered them from abroad; and by permitting the exportation, we had now converted an inevitable loss into a certain gain. The consequence, however, was, that every manufacturer of machinery in Lancashire was busied with foreign orders, and all our improvements in machinery were immediately sent to Belgium, Italy, Austria, Russia, and the United States. At present Russia imported 15,000,000 lbs. of cotton yarn; but last year she imported a large quantity of raw cotton; and we should ere long lose her market. Switzerland now consumed 50,000 bales of cotton, and all but the finest numbers of our yarns were excluded by her own cheaper productions. France now spun 350,000 bales of cotton; and America, which was our most formidable competitor, having cheaper cotton and unlimited water power, completely beat us in low and stout cottons, and not only supplied her own consumption, but exported to China, Canada, and New Brunswick. The present consumption of America was 450,000 bales of raw cotton. It should be remembered also, that all the continental nations, as well as the United States, worked longer hours even than we did now, and that this Bill would affect our staple article of manufacture, which formed four-fifths of our exports. He asked, then, whether this was a matter which should be lightly or inconsiderately dealt with, and against the wishes of those whose capital gave employment to the operative classes? Was this, too, a moment for trying a rash experiment, the result of which would be the same as if one-sixth of the mills in England were burnt to the ground. He entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that the operatives, whose wishes the House was bound to consult, did not desire this Bill with its consequences, and that they did not apprehend that they would get only ten hours' wages for ten hours' work. This was proved by the fact, which was worth all the declamation on the subject, that none of them had asked their masters for ten hours' work and ten hours' wages. The master who worked short time, and therefore gave short wages, found his hands leave him. He considered that all these attempts at interference with labour and capital were unfounded and mischievous. Why should they apply this principle solely to factory labour, and why not carry it into every branch of industry
936
where labour was employed? Were their Lordships prepared to carry this law into every workshop and counting-house in the country? Were they prepared to assent to a Bill compelling their Lordships to give up one-sixth of the time of their domestic servants, because Parliament thought that they ought to have more time for intellectual improvement? He would ask the noble Duke on the opposite side whether he was prepared to pass such a law for agricultural labourers?
The DUKE of RICHMONDwas understood to observe, that half of the agricultural labourers died from excess of labour.
The EARL of CLARENDONsaid, that his noble Friend had not answered his question, whether he would like to have a law which would make it penal to employ labourers in harvest time more than nine hours a day, and only eight on a Saturday? He should like to know what the tenant farmer would say if a law were passed that he should not employ a labourer to work when he pleased, and as long as he thought proper. He would beg their Lordships to remember that oscillations in trade must occur, and that periods must arrive when the operatives would be obliged to work short time against their will; and he would ask whether it was humane or justifiable to say that the operatives should not earn wages in times of prosperity which would enable them to make some provisions for disastrous periods. In the order of nature better seasons than the present would arrive, and with them would come large demands for our manufactures from abroad; but if this law was to limit the amount of production, and increase prices, it would deprive our manufacturers of all means of recovering from periods of depression. The effect of the Bill was to put an income tax on the poor factory operatives, not of 3 per cent, but of 15 per cent, with this difference, that a deduction to that extent from his comforts was more injurious to him than a similar deduction from a rich man's income. He fully believed that all attempts on the part of Parliament to regulate capital and labour would fail, and for these reasons he must give his vote against the second reading of the Bill.
The BISHOP of OXFORDfelt that he owed an apology to their Lordships for rising to address them at so late an hour; but he had a pressing desire in his own mind to make some observations upon

937
what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend who had moved the Amendment, and also from the noble Earl who had just sat down; and he should therefore state very briefly the simple ground on which he desired to give his vote in favour of the Motion of the noble Earl. It seemed to him that the opposition to this Bill was grounded to a very remarkable degree upon a number of unproved assertions. It had been taken for granted, in the first place, that they would be running a great risk of driving the British manufactures abroad; in the next place that they were about to pass a law to which the factory labourers were themselves unwilling to assent; while, in the third place, they were going to force upon the master manufacturers a measure which would deprive them of an adequate supply of labour to carry on their mills with profit. Now, what was the fact? So far from the factory labourers being unwilling to accept this Bill, more than two-thirds of that very body had petitioned their Lordships to pass it; and the same fact might be asserted of the master manufacturers. The noble Earl had supposed the case of a Minister imposing an income tax upon their Lordships to increase their knowledge and improve their morals; but was that case a parallel to the present? Was it like the case of answering the prayer both of the workmen and of the master manufacturers, who alike called upon their Lordships to shelter them from the covetous desires of a few, and whose endeavours were unavailing without the agency of their Lordships to introduce this great national good? The noble Earl had argued, that the wages of the labourer would fall one-sixth in consequence of the time of labour being reduced one-sixth. But the question was not, what was the portion of time deducted in the course of a single day, but what was the amount of prohibition from labour for the year round? He considered it to be only a prohibition against uncertain labour, and that, taking the period of the last ten years, it would be found, though at some intervals men were idle, and at others they were overworked, that upon the average the work actually performed was not more than ten hours a day. What was the result? It showed that there existed a great desire on the part of the manufacturers to employ large bodies of men extra hours at uncertain periods, to meet sudden demands, instead of being willing to share the market with others by employing men
938
for limited hours, thereby keeping up a continued stroke of work, and a continued average demand of labour. But was it true that this deduction of time from the labour of the factory would amount to a loss of one-sixth, as stated by the noble Earl? It was a matter of calculation. The first expense in a factory was the purchase of the raw material in the country where it was produced; the next expense was the bringing the raw material to this country; then there was the interest of the money vested in the machinery; then he had to pay for the labour in manufacturing it; and next, the expense of exporting the goods when manufactured. Now, the manufacturer reckoned in this way. Supposing that upon the whole capital laid out he made a profit of 24 per cent, he would appropriate it thus:—5 per cent upon his money; 6 per cent for wear and tear of machinery; 12 per cent for oil, coal, &c.; 1 per cent for gas light—making up altogether 24 per cent. Now, it was only upon the 5 per cent item that any possible increase of expense could be occasioned to the manufacturer by this Bill; because upon all the other items of per centage there must necessarily be a diminution of expense, which would, of course, so far diminish his loss upon the 5 per cent item, that was to say, the wear and tear of the machinery would be less, the consumption of oil, gas, &c, would be less; so that the actual amount of loss on the interest of the capital was not to be ascertained merely by considering the deduction from the hours of work. This was a most important point in considering this question. It had been assumed in argument that if one-sixth of the labourer's work were taken oft', one-sixth of his pay must also be deducted; and the noble Earl had stated that the workpeople had been altogether deceived upon this question, and that they had been made to believe that they would be paid just the same amount of wages which they now received, although they worked less time. Now he (the Bishop of Oxford) had himself addressed the labourers upon this very subject, and had urged the argument which the noble Earl had himself advanced; and what was the answer which the people gave him? "Why," said they, "that is the argument of my Lord Brougham; but there is nothing in it." He (the Bishop of Oxford) did not say that there was nothing in the noble and learned Lord's argument; but, at all events, it showed that

939
there was nothing so very new in the proposition. However, to return to the working men's answer:—"That," said they, "was Lord Brougham's argument; we have gone thoroughly into it, and we have come to this conclusion, that our wages will probably sink one-twelfth by the reduction of one-sixth of our work." Reckoning three in a family, earning 9s. a week each, making 27 s. a week for the whole family, this amount might possibly he reduced by one-twelfth by this alteration. This reduction they were prepared to stand the loss of; and from the highest motives—for they declared that they could not hear to see, as they now saw, a young female, who, if the Legislature willed it, might grow up to be the healthy mother of a family, wasted in body and injured in morals by the overworking system that obtained for them a miserable addition of one-twelfth of what they otherwise would earn. These men accordingly said, that so far from acting blindly and in the dark, they rejoiced to forego the one-twelfth. But the great weight of the noble Earl's argument appeared to be directed to a point on which he seemed to entertain very serious fears—namely, that this measure would encourage foreign manufactures, and disturb the present commercial relations of the world. The noble Earl had on this occasion somewhat yielded to a fear of foreign competition, to which, in former days, he was so magnanimously a stranger; but to him (the Bishop of Oxford) it seemed that the noble Earl had greatly misrepresented the risk that would be run. The noble Earl stated that 37,000,000 l. of goods were exported annually; and he argued that this measure would at once, perforce, inflict a loss of one-sixth of that amount upon the trade of this country. The noble Earl went further, and said, that the whole gain of the manufacturers was obtained in the last two hours of each day's work, and that if those two hours were taken away the consequence would be that the British manufactures would be driven abroad. That, however, was no new argument; but it was altogether untrue. Did their Lordships believe that all the wealth and power of the manufacturers of this empire was made up of a small fraction of a factory labourer's day's toil? Could they for a moment conceive, that by limiting the labour of the factory worker to ten hours a day instead of twelve, they would sweep away all the manufactures of
940
the country, and drive them abroad? It seemed to him that the humanity of the noble Earl was leading him astray. Let their Lordships remember what those two last hours were. Let them place themselves for a moment in those factories which the noble Earl had described as being so comfortable and pure. Let them remember that he was speaking of young females who had to follow the rapid motions of the machinery of a mill; it was a disputed point in the manufacturing districts, whether the time these poor females had to walk in the fœtid atmosphere of those mills was twelve, eighteen, or twenty-seven miles a day. Let their Lordships remember this, and remember also the fixedness of the attention which was necessary for these young women to maintain when walking in the midst of a factory, where danger threatened them at every turn, and where a single instance of negligence might be attended with loss of life or limb. Let their Lordships consider all these things, and then let them say whether they will believe that the last two hours of that easy work in a comfortable warm room was the basis of that greatness of which the British manufacturer might so justly boast? Could their Lordships believe that upon the last two hours' labour of that trembling hand, tending upon that machinery, after long, unceasing, and heart-consuming attention, when nature almost refused to perform her functions—could their Lordships believe that upon those two last hours depended all the profits and accumulations of the manufacturers? He believed that the work done in those two last hours was infinitely inferior in quality to that which was done in any other portion of the day. It was demanding work when nature refused the power of working. So far from this measure being a speculation, the Messrs. Marshall, of Leeds, had reduced their time of labour voluntarily to eleven hours a day. Many other firms had done the same. He had a return of the quantity of work done during five weeks when the mill was worked twelve hours a day, and also of the quantity of work done during five weeks when the mill was worked only ten hours a day; and it appeared that during the five weeks, at ten hours' labour a day, the master's profits slightly exceeded the profits of the five weeks labour at twelve hours a day. But then the friends of this measure were told that they were acting rashly, and upon the dictates of an

941
unmeaning humanity. But this measure was no new experiment. Why, their Lordships would remember, that so long back as 1815, Sir R. Peel, the father of the present right hon. Baronet, introduced a Bill for the purpose of limiting the hours of labour; and it was that Bill which formed the foundation of the present measure. That Bill had been argued, sifted, and, at length, adopted, from a growing conviction on the part of the manufacturers that it was a sound and wholesome measure. Every master manufacturer was at first opposed to it; now two-thirds of them were for it. For all these years this cause had been slowly winning its way against the greatest of all human passions—the love of gain; and yet their Lordships were now told not to act suddenly; not to take a step which they would afterwards bitterly and hopelessly lament. Many attempts had been already made of a similar kind. Their Lordships would remember the Bill passed two years ago to prevent women working in mines. Every argument employed at the present time against this measure had been used then. They were told when the Bill to effect that improvement was brought in, that it was the maddest thing in the world to endeavour to settle by legislation the connexion between labour and wages. They were told that the persons whose labour was to be affected would be reduced to starvation in consequence of the interference; but they did not heed these anticipations—they passed the measure, and the result was, that more work was done than before, and in a better manner, while the condition of the women, both in a moral and physical sense, had been greatly ameliorated; and, in fact, all the good which had been expected from the measure had been produced. The principle of non-interference with labour had been given up, in fact, when it was agreed that twelve hours was to be a limit, and when the labour of children was regulated; so that the objection could not be held upon that principle. This measure formed no exception to the rules of political economy. If, indeed, they attempted by legislation to regulate the wages of labour, it would be an infraction of the principles of political economy; but by this measure they did not make any such proposition—they merely said it was wrong to create wealth by the sacrifice of the health and morals of a portion of the people—that wealth so obtained was unlawfully obtained—and that any nation which
942
sanctioned such a mode of obtaining wealth could not prosper. Such a statement could not be said to be opposed to the principles of political economy; and it might as well be said that it was opposed to political economy to abstain from working on Sundays. There was no doubt that it would be more profitable to work seven days than six; but would it be right to do so? The folly of legislation was needless interference—the wisdom of legislation was necessary interference where it was demanded by the moral and physical condition of the people. They did not say to a man that he would be allowed to build a house in any manner he pleased, even on his private property, without regard to the interests and rights of society. No; but they said that he should not interfere with the rational liberty of others, and that he should not build an unsafe house, or one which would be dangerous to the public. It was the duty of the Legislature to do as it was proposed to do by this Bill, namely, to protect those who could not safely protect themselves. From what were they to protect them? From being forced to work to such an extent that the interests of society would be sacrificed by that labour. He did not speak of the danger of allowing people to remain with sorrowing and saddening hearts under sufferings which they had borne with such exemplary patience, and thus driving them to take the law into their own hands. He did not speak of that danger, although he believed there was nothing more dangerous than for the representatives of a great people to leave one of their justest desires unsatisfied, and to put off the remedy with cold negation or needless delay. The employers of labour had it in their power to remove the objections which now exist; but if the Legislature did not interfere in this case, how could the people proceed to obtain a remedy? Only by combination. Were their Lordships then to show to the people that their only mode of obtaining redress was by combination amongst themselves? He had spoken to them upon this subject, and they told him that in the combinations which had been entered into on the subject of adult labour, great difficulty was found in preventing unlawful proceedings from being mixed up with their undertakings, and that formed a great objection to any combination in order to provide a remedy for the evil of the present hours. If they were driven to combina-

943
tion for redress, it would, in his opinion, be productive of one of the greatest dangers which could exist. He besought their Lordships, therefore, not to deprive them of this relief—he besought them not to refuse them redress from any fear that it would diminish our manufacturing productiveness, or drive our manufacturers to foreign countries. What gave us this great and magnificent superiority in manufactures which we possessed? In the first place, the security of all property which is invested in manufactures in England, and next the wonderful industry, power, and patience of the persons who work our machinery. See, then, what we were doing. If we were bringing up in our manufacturing districts a vast population who were altogether strangers to the highest motives of moral conduct, it was surely scarcely consistent with the security of this great nation; and so far as regarded the maintenance of our manufactures, nothing was so likely to drive our manufacturers abroad as to feel that in this country they were not safe from the violence of an untaught and ungovernable populace. He besought their Lordships to consider that by doing anything which tended to the physical deterioration of the people, they were diminishing the strength of the right arm of the country. Let, them think as they might, this world was governed on moral principles, and retribution would surely come. They might depend upon it that what was politically wrong could not be politically expedient—there could be no trifling with moral principles; and in the long run they might depend upon it that by some of those numerous channels which regulate productive labour, the Government would discover that if they neglected the people's welfare to make the nation rich, they would make the nation poor in debasing the people.
LORD WHARNCLIFFE,who was very imperfectly heard, said, their Lordships were not now to debate the principle of interference with labour; that had been introduced so long ago as 1801; and in 1815, in 1819, and again in 1844, that question had been raised and decided. The state of society required such interference in particular cases; and the circumstances under which some portions of the labouring population were compelled to sell their labour, exempted them from the ordinary rule. It was a mockery to talk of the freedom of the labourer; there was, in fact, no free-labour market. After all the dis-
944
cussion which this subject had undergone, what had been the effect produced upon the public mind? Why, the result had been most favourable to this measure; for to the number of petitions in favour of the Bill, there had been 178,000 signatures, and only about 1,000 against it. He contended, that by requiring females to be at work for fourteen hours, including the two hours for meals, they were exacting more labour from them than was taken from the men employed in almost any other department of industry in the country. He believed that among a great mass of the people of this country there was a growing conviction that some interference was necessary to protect the moral and religious interests of the working people; and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would consent to the passing of the present Bill.
The BISHOP of ST. DAVID'Sfelt it his duty to say a few words on this question, though he did so with reluctance, because what he did say might have a tendency to weaken the impression their Lordships had received from the most eloquent and effective address of the right rev. Prelate who had already delivered his sentiments. Nevertheless, the subject was one of such great importance, that he craved their indulgence for a few minutes, while he gave the reasons which, notwithstanding all that had been said on the opposite side, would induce him to vote for the Motion of the noble Earl. He agreed with the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham), that the physical comfort and welfare of the working classes were the most essential of all considerations, and ought to be especially attended to by their Lordships, because they were the basis of every other benefit which could be conferred upon them, and were necessary to their receiving other and higher degrees of improvement. The noble and learned Lord, however, had failed to prove that the limitation of the hours of labour proposed in the Bill, would be injurious to the physical comfort of the people. The noble and learned Lord had admitted that there were cases in which it was the duty of the Legislature to interfere for the protection of the labouring portions of their subjects; and he thought that this was clearly one of the cases in which such interference was justified. It was a question on which they could not plead want of information; for the Legislature had the fullest means of obtaining all the information that was requisite to form a judgment.

945
He agreed with the noble and learned Lord, that the principles of political economy were the principles of common sense; and he should like to know in what particular the proposed measure, if enacted, would infringe on the principles either of political economy or common sense. Instead of that—instead of being a constraint upon the rights of freedom, he appealed to past experience whether or not in too many instances the employers in this country had not abused the powers they possessed; and, therefore, instead of the present Bill being an interference with labour, it would constitute a wholesome restraint against the abuse of power—it was substituting a system of restraint for a pernicious system of coercion. There was, he believed, no view of the subject taken up by the noble and learned Lord which had not been present to the minds of the working men of this country. They had fully considered the question—they had the means of forming an enlightened judgment on that question; and in the conclusion they had come to, he believed they were more likely to be right than those with whom they differed, as no other persons, whatever might be their station, could have the same advantage in fully considering the subject. They had been told that the most disastrous consequences were likely to arise from the adoption of this measure; and much stress had been laid on the injury it would create to the comfort and welfare of the working men, and the reduction of wages which would be occasioned. But the working men themselves did not entertain these opinions; and they expressed their belief that the statements of the noble and learned Lord on this part of the subject were greatly exaggerated. He found then, on the one hand, that there were objections to the Bill, denied by those who knew best their real force—the working men themselves; and, on the other hand, there were the interests and well-being of the working classes, the necessity of supporting which was acknowledged and admitted by all. He entreated their Lordships, then, not to be carried away by the idea that if they adopted this measure, they were making a perilous experiment. He maintained that the peril was all on that side on which the evil was now manifest, and that, by adopting the present measure, they were taking the safest and wisest course—and that which, to all appearance, was calculated to give the greatest benefit to the greatest number of their follow creatures.
LORD ASHBURTONconsidered, that, in a case in which the interests of humanity and benevolence were deeply involved, it was but natural that the right rev. Bench should be interested in it; but they ought to make it clear that the cause they espoused was one of humanity; and their Lordships were bound to consider whether, in carrying out that principle of humanity, the manufactures of the country would survive the operation. The great objection which he entertained to now giving his vote in favour of this measure, was founded on the fact that they were proceeding to legislate with but imperfect information. He denied that, generally, the operatives would be found to be in support of the Bill; and, even granting that such was the case, he doubted if the operative was not guided too much by his wishes and hopes, and too little by his judgment. The master manufacturer was in a position to discern with far greater clearness the probable effects of such a restriction upon labour both upon himself and upon those he employed; and, while he reminded their Lordships that the majority of the millowners were opposed to the Bill, he admitted that the number of those who had declared an opinion in its favour offered a strong reason why those practically unfamiliar with the question should now lean to the side of that which was supposed to be humanity. If he had seen any disposition on the part of their Lordships to reconsider the subject in Committee, and then agree to an Eleven Hours Bill, he should have voted for the second reading on this occasion; but, as there was no ground for such a supposition, he felt himself called upon to support the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
On question, that "now" stand part of the Motion, House divided:—Contents 53; Not-Contents 11: Majority for the second reading 42.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

Cottenham, Lord Chancellor.

Radnor

LORDS.

EARLS.

Ashburton

Auckland

Beaumont

Burlington

Brougham

Clarendon

Monteagle of Brandon

Lonsdale

Wrottesley

Bill read 2a.
House adjourned.