Sitting of 14 June 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Incorporation of Boroughs Confirmation (No. 2).
Reported.—Metropolitan Interments; Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Borough Courts of Record (Ireland).

TREATMENT OF MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
SIR L. O'BRIENhoped that the House would hear with him if he brought before them the case of his brother, Mr. Smith O'Brien. His reason for doing so was the statements which had appeared in the public prints, He ought to apologise to the House for taking upon himself this task. But the House must be aware that the subject had been pressed upon Members from the sister country, and it was thought better that he should not bring it before the House. But others thought that it was his duty to do it, and for this reason, that it was naturally supposed he must be better informed than any other person upon the subject, inasmuch as every person who had received a letter from Van Diemen's Land had kindly favoured him with a perusal of it. The last communication he had received from Van Diemen's Land was dated the 31st of January, and it appeared that three weeks before that letter was dated, his brother had fallen into so bad a state of health that his life was despaired of. Now, if by any treatment that was designedly harsh, or if by not taking what might appear to be only the ordinary precautions, his brother's life should be lost, or his reason become impaired, the Government would incur a severe responsibility. It would be used as a handle against them, and in Ireland a fatal use might be made of it, which the Government, as public men, might well wish to avert. it appeared that on his brother's arrival in Van Diemen's Land he refused to accept a ticket of leave, and he was accordingly placed in Maria Island, a small island, the property of two or three individuals, and situated, he believed, about ten miles from the shore. The inhabitants of the island appeared inclined to treat him with much civility, and sent messages and called upon him; for two or three weeks accordingly his brother felt as comfortable as he could be under such circumstances. But in that space of time orders came that no one was to have any intercourse with him. For eight weeks afterwards his brother was not allowed to hold
1232
intercourse with any person whatever. The person who brought him his food was the only person he saw, with one exception, and he was not allowed to hold any conversation with him. A religious instructor was allowed to visit him, but he was also not allowed to converse with him, except upon religious subjects. A Roman Catholic clergyman lived in the island, but he was not allowed to visit or to speak to him. He was allowed to live in a cottage, surrounded by what was called a garden, but which was nothing more than a plot of potato ground. He was allowed to walk upon a rough and exposed piece of ground 70 yards long and 20 yards across, without shade or shelter, and exposed to the sun in hot weather and the winds in boisterous weather, so that he could only walk out for an hour in the evening as the sun was setting. The natural consequence was, that he began to fall into a state of health such as he had described; and this change in his health having been reported to the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, he was happy to inform the House that, in consequence of the report of the medical inspector, the keeper who had charge of his brother was allowed to walk about the island with him. His health improved, his spirits began to recover, but it was feared that as soon as it was known that this improvement had taken place, these relaxations would be withdrawn, and he would be again plunged in a state of despair. His brother was wrong in not accepting the ticket of leave. It was easy to persuade him (Sir L. O'Brien) of that; but what could he do? He went to Dublin to persuade him to accept it if it should be offered him, but to no purpose; and if he went to Van Diemen's Land it would be of as little use. The question for the Government was, whether, under these circumstances, they would pursue a person to the death—and whether, if he remained obstinate, they would persevere in a course of treatment which would bring him to the grave? This was not in accordance with the mild spirit of the British constitution. His brother thought he was engaged in a good cause. He (Sir L. O'Brien) thought him very wrong and injudicious, and never by word, sign, or otherwise, had his brother received any encouragement from him. But if a man thought himself right, and remained in this frame of mind, was it right to pursue him to such an extremity as to cause the loss of his life? It took

1233
four months to receive a letter from Van Diemen's Land, and another four months must elapse before any instructions which the Government might send out would reach the island, or before he could know what had passed in that House to-night. If, therefore, he remained consistent or obstinate, whichever they might term it, he would have been eleven months in the same state of mind. He therefore put it to the Government whether they would continue this treatment or not?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that every Member of the House must sympathise with the position, of the hon. Gentleman who spoke, naturally, with strong feelings on this subject. He only regretted that the hon. Gentleman had not informed him of his intention to make this statement on the present occasion; because if he had been aware of it he would have refreshed his memory by referring to the despatches received by the Government, and with the purport of which the hon. Gentleman himself was acquainted. The hon. Gentleman had truly stated that the Government, wishing to act with as much indulgence in this ease as was consistent with their public duty, had departed from the usual practice pursued towards ordinary convicts, and issued instructions to the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, on the arrival of the hon. Gentleman's relative and his fellow-prisoners, to offer them tickets of leave immediately, provided they would give an engagement that they would not avail themselves of the indulgence in attempting to escape. But this privilege, which was certainly a very great indulgence, was positively refused by the relative of the hon. Gentleman; and the Governor, acting then in the discharge of a responsible duty, and in conformity with the instructions which he had received, took the only course open to him under the circumstances—he placed the hon. Gentleman's relative on Maria Island, a place for the reception of convicts. He was not placed with the other convicts, but had consigned to him the separate apartment to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and was put under the charge of a responsible officer. He had not the opportunity possessed by the ordinary convicts with tickets of leave of having intercourse with the inhabitants of the island; but he had held communication both with the bishop and the chaplain, and also with other persons, and had received every indulgence AS to rations, and in every other respect that was Consistent with the duty—the
1234
painful duty—which the Governor had to perform. And he (Sir G. Grey) therefore felt that if any charge could fairly be brought against the Government in the matter, it would be for having shown in this more indulgence than perhaps public opinion would have justified them in doing. With regard to the relaxation in the treatment of Mr. Smith O'Brien, which was said to have taken place, the hon. Gentleman knew more on that subject than he (Sir G. Grey) did, as he had received no information whatever as to anything of the kind. But he had no doubt, if Mr. Smith O'Brien's health was seriously affected by his confinement, that the regulations would be relaxed in his behalf in the same manner as they were relaxed for any other prisoner whoso health suffered from carrying out the sentence of the law.
MR. GRATTANsaid, that this was the case of a countryman of his, and he knew of no law of this country that imposed torture. This was a question of humanity; and the right hon. Baronet forgot about the 50 l. that was sent to this gentleman to buy tea and clothes with. It was known that he was a teetotaller, and yet he wasn't allowed to buy tea or clothes. The right hon. Baronet said, this was the law of the land. He (Mr. Grattan) begged his pardon: it was not the law of the land; and the Earl of Clarendon agreed with him; because, when a deputation waited upon him at Dublin Castle, the Earl of Clarendon told them what was humanity; for he said that the parties should not be pursued further than the claims of justice and the necessity of the country required. But he (Mr. Grattan) would remind the right hon. Baronet of another great prisoner who had been cruelly treated by the British Government. Bonaparte, at St. Helena, was denied the enjoyment of a pianoforte by a decision of the Privy Council of England. And that was what they called justice and humanity.
Subject dropped.

FACTORIES BILL.
Bill, as amended, considered.
LORD ASHLEY LORD ASHLEY moved, as an Amendment, to insert the words "no child" after line 12, page 2. This was an Amendment of the greatest importance, but as it was precisely the same question upon which the House had come to a decision a few days ago, it would not be necessary to detain the House at any length. By the Bill now before the House, the labour of young persons

1235
and adult females was to begin at six in the morning, and close at six in the afternoon; while by their previous legislation the labour of children between the ages of 8 and 12 might be carried on between the hours of half-past five in the morning and half-past eight in the evening. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, that the position of young children was not affected by this Bill, and that it remained the same as before. But he contended that the position of these young children was relatively altered by the present Bill to a considerable extent. These children used to come with their parents, or went away with them. In the rural districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, the children had sometimes to walk two or three miles, and if they were to be kept in the mill till half-past eight in the evening during the winter season, and then had to walk two or three miles, they would be kept out of bed until ten or half-past ten o'clock at night. Formerly, if they were kept until this hour in the mill, they had their relatives and friends to take them home. But these would leave the mill at six, and they could not be expected to wait until half-past eight to take these children home. He therefore proposed this Amendment, which would permit these children to be employed within the same margin, from six to six, during which young persons and females would be employed.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 12, after the word "Act," to insert the words "no child."
MR. S. CRAWFORDseconded the Amendment.
SIR G. GREYhad before stated that the Bill had nothing to do with the labour of children, who were already protected to a much greater degree, for no child could now be employed for more than seven hours in any one day in some cases, or for more than six hours and a half in the majority of instances. Ample provision was also made for their attendance at school. He was not prepared to deny that some inconvenience would result from the circumstance pointed out by his noble Friend; but that arose from the necessity of affording greater protection to children than to young persons and adult females, and, unless the noble Lord was prepared to place them on the same footing, he did not see how the House could agree to this clause. The two sets of children now employed, some for seven hours, and others for six hours and a half,
1236
making thirteen hours and a half altogether, could only be employed together if this Amendment should pass, or for the limited term of ten hours and a half per day. Now, that would be a serious restriction upon the motive power of machinery when the pressure and the demand for manufactures became great. Suppose the decision of the Court of Exchequer had been against the system of relays, and the House were not asked to pass any law upon this subject. Or suppose the Bill originally brought in by the noble Lord for declaring the intention of the Legislature had been carried. In either case, the labour of children would have been left as it now stood, and they would have been liable, under the noble Lord's Bill, to work, in different sets, between half-past five in the morning and half-past eight in the evening. This was the state of the law at present, and it was identical with that which he now proposed to continue.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that the Ten Hours Bill had been broken through, and the manufacturers had got two and a half hours additional. This was a compromise, and the gain to the manufacturers justified the present proposal of the noble Lord. He thought that children were more entitled to protection than any others, and he wished to protect them against very early and very late hours.
MR. S. CRAWFORDconcurred in the view that this had now become an open question. The House was now called upon to decide in what manner children could be best protected. A Bill which made children leave their beds at half-past four did not protect these children; and, in the same manner, any Bill that would permit them to be kept up till after eight in the evening would be in the highest degree injurious. He thought that, whatever might have been the state of the law hitherto, such measures should now be enacted as would give sufficient protection to children, and therefore he would support the Amendment of the noble Lord.
MR. BRIGHTwished to call the attention of the House and of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, to the practical effect of the propositions, if carried; because, if the noble Lord was as convinced of what the effects would be as he (Mr. Bright), who understood something about the matter, why the noble Lord would be the last person in the House to propose the measure now submitted to it. At present children under thirteen years of age

1237
—for it was only to these that the Motion applied—could not work, speaking generally, more than 6½ hours a day. Now, when that great restriction was enacted, the result was that many hundreds—he might almost say thousands—of children, were discharged from factory employment. The reason of this was obvious, for if persons who had been in the habit of working 10, 11, and 12 hours a day were restricted to 6 or 6½ hours, they could only expect half the wages they received before; and thinking that too small they remained away from work, and the labour of young persons was too costly to make use of. Thousands of persons under 13 years of age were driven from factory employment in consequence of the hours of working being restricted to 6½ hours. Let them bear that in mind in considering the proposition of the noble Lord. That proposition was that in future no child should work before six in the morning, or after six in the evening; that was, that they should not work for more than the time to which young persons and women were restricted. But, supposing that the morning class of children worked six and a half hours, the second class would have only to work four hours in the afternoon; and was it not clear, for the reasons he had stated, that the discharge of thousands of factory children would be the result, and the same consequence would follow even if they divided the time into two equal portions of five hours and a quarter. If any alteration was to be made at all in the Bill, it should be on a different system—namely, by allowing them all, men, women, and children—to work for the ten hours. That would give rise to less inconvenience, and would be far more merciful to the young children, than the proposition of the noble Lord. The question was one which would not materially affect the larger portion of the manufacturers, but it would have a most injurious effect on the children by throwing numbers of them out of employment. He thought it right to state the effect of the proposition before the House divided upon it.
MR. EDWARDS: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester asserts that many thousands of children have been discharged from factory employment by the Act of 1847. Now, I will take the liberty of asking the hon. Member, what has become of all these unfortunate children of whom he has spoken? In the district with which I am most acquainted,
1238
I believe at the present moment it is difficult to meet with a strong healthy child between the age of eight and thirteen out of employment; and I can state as a fact within my own knowledge, that children in the neighbourhood of Halifax employed in woollen factories are earning on an average nearly 5s. a week—a sum almost equal to the earnings of an agricultural labourer in many parts of the south and west of England, who may have a wife and large family depending upon him for support and existence
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYasked if the rejection of the noble Lord's Amendment would not have the effect of encouraging a system of relays, in which adults and young children would be employed, and thus injure, if not entirely cut off, the work of women and young people?
MR. T. EGERTONsaid, the great objection he had to the measure proposed by the noble Lord was, that it would indirectly attack the motive power of the country, and that it would prevent adult labour being employed. At present the time of adult labour might be 13 or 14 hours, and children were employed to assist them. Now, if they restricted children in the way proposed, they would actually limit the moving power in all the mills in the country to 10 hours a day. He asked the House to weigh well the consequences of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord.
MR. ELLIOTwas satisfied that if the proposition now before the House was agreed to, the effect of it in his part of the country (Roxburghshire) would be to put an entire stop to the moving power of the mills at the end of 10 hours every day; and he could not help thinking that this was the intention of the noble Lord.
MR. HUMEsaid, that the hon. Member for North Cheshire directed the attention of the House to the real character of the proposition. Its object was to restrict the hours of labour by legislative interference, which he considered to be a most pernicious course to adopt. The great object of the Legislature ought to be to improve the condition of the operative classes. He believed Englishmen worked harder than the men of any other country; and if the hours of labour could with safety be diminished, he would be most happy to acquiesce. He believed it was only by capital and machinery that they could employ the millions at manufacturing labour; and he therefore deprecated the attempts of

1239
those gentlemen who, in the idea of improving the condition of the operatives, were only endangering the whole population. He regretted the present was not a Motion to remove all legislative interference with labour. They were essentially a manufacturing country; and, being mainly dependent on manufactures, they were nevertheless about to limit the means of employment. To he sure it was hard to see so many of their countrymen doomed to such severe labour; but it would be still worse—as in the case of Ireland—if they had not Work to give them. He therefore would support the views of Her Majesty's Ministers.
LORD R. GROSVENORbegged to deny the conclusion arrived at by the hon. Member for Montrose, that labour would be injuriously interfered with by the Amendment of his noble Friend the Member for Bath. It merely went to protect children; and if hot carried, the children would be at the option of the employers to be worked, not merely ten hours per day, but perhaps twelve or even fifteen hours per day.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think they had successfully applied the argumentum ad absurdum, to this case when they showed that, incidentally, the proposal of the noble Lord would limit adult labour to ten hours a day; but he did not think they had done any such thing. For himself, he could see nothing in such a result to deprecate; and, though some of the manufacturing capitalists might look upon it with aversion, yet the great body of the operatives would rejoice in such an incidental result. Gentlemen spoke as if it were intended to prevent men who were desirous to labour for a longer time than at present from doing so; whereas the opinions of the operatives had been most distinctly expressed in a contrary way. He believed the hon. Member for Montrose was for a free-labour market; so was he, but could a man be said to sell his labour in a free market who was in this position, that he must either work fourteen hours a day or have no work at all? There was only one way in which men could exercise their freedom in this respect, and that was by exercising it in masses—by a great general movement, and not by individual operatives sacrificing themselves in the vain endeavour to procure a different mode of operation with respect to their employment. The great majority of the working men had decided for ten hours a day; they were not willing to sell
1240
their labour for more hours than that, and, if they did sell it for more, it was by constraint, and because they had not a free labour market in this particular. If it was alleged that the operatives were led by agitators, the Government could easily ascertain what was the fact. The factory inspectors stated that 60 per cent of the factory workers were in favour of ten hours, 25 per cent in favour of twelve hours, and 12 per cent in favour of eleven hours' labour. They had thus made their choice, and he thought they had made a wise one. The House ought not to look at the incidental result of this measure, but at the direct result, and that was, that children should not work before six o'clock in the morning, nor after six o'clock in the evening; and what person with the common feelings of humanity would wish his children to be employed at these hours? Children of that age should not be in the factory, but in the school. He should like to see the labour of children entirely prohibited; but till that could be done, let them not be torn from their beds in the morning at an unsuitable hour, and again in the evening kept back from school by being compelled to labour in a heated factory.
MR. W. BROWN: The hon. Member for Oldham had told them that the workmen did not wish for more than ten hours' labour a day. Now the fact was, that where works were kept going beyond that time, the choice of the best men was always at the command of the employers.
Question put, "That the words 'no child' be there inserted."
The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 160: Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bromley, R.

Adderley, C. B.

Brotherton, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brown, H.

Alexander, N.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Bagge, W.

Cayley, E. S.

Baillie, H. J.

Chatterton, Col.

Baldock, E. H.

Childers, J. W.

Bankes, G.

Clifford, H. M.

Bateson, T.

Clive, H. B.

Beckett, W.

Cobbold, J. C.

Beresford, W.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Best, J.

Cocks, T. S.

Blackstone, W. S.

Conolly, T.

Blair, S.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Boldero, H. G.

Cubitt, W.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Davies, D. A. S.

Bremridge, R.

Denison, E.

Broadley, H.

Dick, Q.

Broadwood, H.

Disraeli, B.

Brocklehurst, J.

Drummond, H.

1241

Duncuft, J.

Muntz, G. F.

Dunne, Col.

Naas, Lord

Du Pre, C. G.

Napier, J.

Edwards, H.

Neeld, J.

Farnham, E. B.

Neeld, J.

Farrer, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fellowes, E.

Nugent, Sir P.

Floyer, J.

O'Brien, Sir T.

Foley, J. H. H.

O'Flaherty, A.

Forbes, W.

Ossulston, Lord

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Packe, C. W.

Fox, W. J.

Pakington, Sir J.

Fuller, A. E.

Palmer, R.

Galway, Visct.

Perfect, R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Portal, M.

Goddard, A. L.

Prime, R.

Gooch, E. S.

Rendlesham, Lord

Grattan, H.

Repton, G. W. J.

Greenall, G.

Rushout, Capt.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Sandars, G.

Gwyn, H.

Scholefield, W.

Halford, Sir H.

Scully, F.

Hall, Sir B.

Seymer, H. K.

Halsey, T. P.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hamilton, G. A.

Sidney, Ald.

Heald, J.

Simeon, J.

Herbert, H. A.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Smyth, J. G.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Smollett, A.

Hill, Lord E.

Spooner, R.

Hood, Sir A.

Stafford, A.

Hornby, J.

Stanley, E.

Hotham, Lord

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Hudson, G.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Sullivan, M.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Taylor, T. E.

Jones, Capt.

Thompson, Col.

Keating, R.

Thompson, G.

Ker, R.

Thornhill, G.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Knox, Col.

Trollope, Sir J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Waddington, D.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Waddington, H. S.

Meagher, T.

Wakley, T.

Mandeville, Visct.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Manners, Lord J.

Walpole, S. H.

Masterman, J.

Walter, J.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Wawn, J. T.

Miles, P. W. S.

Welby, G. E.

Miles, W.

Williams, J.

Milner, W. M. E.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Moody, C. A.

Wood, W. P.

Moore, G. H.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Morgan, O.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Morris, D.

TELLERS.

Mullings, G. R.

Ashley, Lord

Mundy, W.

Crawford, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Alcock, T.

Bowles, Adm.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Bagshaw, J.

Bright, J.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Brown, W.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Browne, R. D.

Barnard, E. G.

Busfield, W.

Bass, M. T.

Carew, W. H. P.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Carter, J. B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Caulfeild, J. M.

1242

Chaplin, W. J.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Clay, Sir W.

Lewis, G. C.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Locke, J.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Lockhart, A. E.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lockhart, W.

Corbally, M. E.

Mackie, J.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Crowder, R. B.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Marshall, J. G.

Damer, hon. Col.

Marshall, W.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

Martin, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Matheson, J.

Divett, E.

Matheson, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Melgund, Visct.

Duff, G. S.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Duke, Sir J.

Mowatt, F.

Duncan, Visct.

Mure, Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Norreys, Lord

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Ebrington, Visct.

O'Brien, J.

Egerton, Sir P.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Paget, Lord G.

Ellis, S.

Palmerston, Visct.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Evans, J.

Patten, J. W.

Ewart, W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Fagan, W.

Peel, F.

Fergus, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn J. W.

Powlett, Lord W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Price, Sir R.

Fordyce, A. D.

Pugh, D.

Forster, M.

Rawdon, Col.

Fortescue, C.

Ricardo, O.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Rich, H.

Freestun, Col.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Romilly, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Glyn, G. C.

Russell, F. C. H.

Grace, O. D. J.

Seymour, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Grenfell, C. P.

Smith, J. B.

Grenfell, C. W.

Somers, J. P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Grey, R. W.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Harris, R.

Stuart, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Tenison, E. K.

Hatchell, J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hawes, B.

Thornely, T.

Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Headlam, T. E.

Towneley, J.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Trelawny, J. S.

Heneage, E.

Tufnell, H.

Heywood, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Heyworth, L.

Villiers, Visct.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Vivian, J. H.

Houldsworth, T.

Wall, C. B.

Howard, Lord E.

Watkins, Col. L.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

West, F. R.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Hughes, W. B.

Williamson, Sir H.

Hume, J.

Wilson, J.

Hutt, W.

Wilson, M.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Wrightson, W. B.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Wyvill, M.

Lacy, H. C.

Langston, J. H.

TELLERS.

Legh, G. C.

Hill, Lord M.

Lemon, Sir C.

Bellew, R. M.

LORD J. MANNERSthen proposed the Amendment of which he had given notice; and said, if the Amendment were carried, he would propose the following supplement:—"In Clause 3, line 39, to omit the word 'six,' for the purpose of inserting the words 'half-past five.'" He expressed his regret that he could not follow the guidance of that chivalrous and high-minded man Lord G. Bentinck, who was no longer amongst them, and who had devoted so much time and energy to this question. The appeal now made to Parliament was not for the concession of any new favour, but to confirm that which had been already conceded. The appeal was made by a great portion of the working classes of this country, and their demand was that the benevolent intentions of the Legislature in their behalf might not be frustrated. The question which the House of Commons had now to decide was, would they allow those poor people to be deprived of a boon which had been deliberately accorded to them? That was the real question upon which they had to decide; and Heaven send that the decision of English Gentlemen upon it might be in accordance with English honesty and English honour! From what had recently passed in that House, one would have thought that such a thing had never happened before, as that it was necessary to amend in one Session of Parliament an Act passed in the preceding one; but every Gentlemen knew that such things were not of rare occurrence. The House would remember that in 1846, when Parliament had determined to abrogate all the laws imposing duties on the importation of grain, it was discovered towards the close of the Session that, owing to an inaccuracy in the Bill, a fixed duty for a limited period was left on beans and peas. The time for which the duty could be raised was so limited, that it was not thought worth while to pass a distinct Act remedying the defect; but let it be supposed that, instead of a verbal inaccuracy, affecting only the import of beans and peas for a limited period, it had been discovered a year or two after that there were conflicting decisions in the inferior courts on the subject, and that it was decided by one of the supreme courts that not only beans and peas, but every kind of cereal product, would have to pay a fixed duty, not for a limited time, but for ever, what then would have been the language of the right hon. the Member for Tamworth and the hon. Member for the West Riding? They
1244
would at once have insisted upon a remedy being introduced. But what would have been thought if they (the Protectionists) had turned round and thrown every obstacle in the way of repairing the blunder? Yet such a course would not have been more blameable than that pursued by Gentlemen opposite with reference to the Factory Bill. In point of principle, what was the difference between the proposition of the Ministry and that to which he had alluded? But in the one case the parties were powerful, in the other they were poor and friendless, and could appeal to nothing but the honour and justice of the House of Commons. Well, but that was the case here. Conceal it as they might—evade it as they might—mystify it as they might—the people of England well knew that the decisions of the Barons of the Court of Exchequer was not in the spirit or intent of the principle affirmed by both Houses of Parliament, and sanctioned by the Sovereign. There were three grounds upon which they might now be asked to support the law as it now stood, and three only. The first was a doubt as to the intentions of the Legislature in framing the Act; the second, that the Ten Hours Act had worked so ill that it was the duty of Parliament to alter it; and the third, that the proposed measure would confer equal advantages upon the factory population. In reply to what had been said by the hon. Member for Manchester, he would quote the opinions of Mr. Leonard Horner, one of the factory inspectors, a man of all others, perhaps, best calculated to give an opinion upon the subject. He stated in his report—
"Among the opperatives, a very large majority, and among them those whose earnings have been most reduced by the restriction, appear to be in favour of the shortened hours of labour. That feeling has evidently increased with their extended experience of the effects of the Act; and, in confirmation of this, there is this very significant fact, that, so far as I have learned, there has been only one petition from the workpeople in my district complaining of the Act, and praying that their hours of labour may be again extended; while, on the other hand, numerous meetings have been held in various parts of the kingdom, at which petitions have been agreed to, praying that the existing Act may be more generally enforced according to what the petitioners believed to be its true intent, and that the evasions of it may be put down. The one petition above referred to is that presented last Session to Parliament by the operatives in the employment of Messrs, Jones Brothers. Among the owners of factories, the majority, as might be expected, appear to be against the restriction to ten hours; but my recent communications with them lead me to say that the minority

1245
is by no means small, and that a feeling in favour of the shortened hours is much more frequently met with now than it was twelve months ago. Many have said to me, 'We can do very well with ten hours, and would not object to the Act if we were all alike; but we do complain that while the generality of millowners are working in conformity with the law, so many, who come into the same markets with us, are allowed to work their mills eleven, twelve, and some thirteen hours a day.' It has been repeatedly stated to me that, partly by increased speed of machinery, but mainly by the increased activity and closer attention which the workers are able to give during their shortened hours of labour, the diminution in the quantity they produce is far less than was expected and predicted by those who opposed the Ten Hours Bill."
And, again, to this passage he invited the attention of the House:—
"I can speak from positive knowledge that it was the intention of the framers of the Bill of 1844 that the working by shifts which had been practised under the Act of 1833 should be prevented. By referring to the reports of the inspectors, prior to 1844, it will be seen that frequent and urgent complaints had been made by millowners that the principle so essential in such a law, namely, that all millowners should be placed on one footing as to the number of the hours of work, was grossly violated in some districts by the evasive practice of working by shifts, and which could not be prevented by the Act of 1833. When the Bill of 1844 was preparing, the inspectors were called upon by the Secretary of State to suggest enactments which would remedy that defect of the Act of 1833, and they did so. But the law phraseology and construction of the clauses in which their suggestions were afterwards embodied have unfortunately created, in the minds of some magistrates in my district, an ambiguity which has led them to dismiss cases I brought before them under the firm belief that the true intent and meaning of the Act had been violated; a belief founded upon my own knowledge of the intentions of those who framed the Bill of 1844, and supported by that interpretation of the Act, by the law officers of the Crown, which has been given to the inspectors as their guide."
But what said the noble Lord at the head of the Government in reply to a deputation upon this subject? He said, there was a large amount of prejudice in favour of the Ten Hours Bill; but there would be much difficulty in obtaining a change in the law. "But" (and to this passage of the noble Lord's reply he asked hon Gentlemen to attend)—
"there could be no doubt that the intentions of the Legislature when passing the Bill was, that it should be virtually a Ten Hours Bill, and that the power of working by relay had not been contemplated by Parliament."
He thought that what had been stated was conclusive as to the intentions of the framers of this Act. Well, then, as to the second question—had the law worked so badly that it might be altered? Upon this point
1246
his noble Friend the Member for Bath had laid before the House such a mass of evidence, and had put forward statements of so irrefutable a character, that scarcely anything was left for him to advance; yet, as he had understood it was the intention of the hon. Member for Manchester to dispute the arguments and evidence of his noble Friend, he would say a few words upon the question. Now, neither upon this nor upon any other matter at issue in this debate, would he quote the opinions of men who were open to the charge of enthusiasm or sentimentalism, but of those who were thoroughly conversant with the subject, and who had calmly weighed and considered the whole bearings of the question, and whose opinion might, at least, be regarded as impartial. The Special Commissioner of the Morning Chronicle in Manchester said—
"One point, however, my informants almost universally conceded, and what they stated is strongly verified by my own observations, that it is the best conducted, the most thoughtful and well-informed workmen in each mill who have been most earnest in the ten hours agitation, and who are now most zealous in the support of the present law. The matter is to so great an extent a labourer's question that the feelings of the people themselves are of the most primary consequence in forming a judgment. I have, therefore, in every mill which I have visited in Manchester, Bolton, Ashton, and Oldham, taken opportunities of personally learning the opinions of the workpeople from their own lips and in their own phraseology. I have thus examined probably nearly 100 persons, and the result is, with two exceptions, I was told by one and all that they preferred the ten hours system to the twelve, even if they only got ten hours instead of twelve hours' wages.
MEN'S OPINIONS.
"A. Likes the ten hours time. Thinks that it is better for trade than twelve, because if they'd been working twelve hours last summer, they would be working regular short time now.
"B. Hopes allow that relay system to go on, for it's very tyrannous to the poor.
"C. Was a great deal better and a great deal happier since the ten hours.
WOMEN'S OPINIONS.
"A. The Ten Hours Bill was the greatest thing that ever came into operation. Every woman in the shed will tell you the same as me.
"B. Can do her washing now, which she always put out before, and saves money that way. The Ten Hours Bill is a good thing, and shell always say so.
"C. Believes that ten hours' work a day is enough for any Christian; at least it's enough for her, and she don't care who knows it.
"D. Is sure it is a great blessing to a woman to get home to her children sooner than she used. All the women in her street are for the ten hours."
Three hundred and eighty-seven of the managers and overlookers of the mills of Salford and its vicinity had petitioned the House in favour of the law of 1847. Mr. Leonard Horner, in his report, bore testimony to the improved condition of the factory population since this Bill came into operation; indeed nothing else could be anticipated. The means of obtaining education had been greatly increased, the period for recreation enlarged, and more time was left for the performance of those domestic and social duties which no plan of legislation ought to disregard. That opinion was corroborated by every report from the factory inspectors, by every petition presented to the House, and particularly by the remarkable petition he had himself presented from the managers and overlookers of mills in Rochdale and Halifax. Mr. Saunders, another factory inspector, also quoted, as a satisfactory proof of the beneficial operation of that Act, the increased power it had given to the working people in Yorkshire to obtain small plots of ground, and to cultivate little gardens for their own use. Then, if such were the beneficial results of the Act of 1847 on the condition of the manufacturing population—if their toil had been lightened, their means of obtaining education greatly increased—the comforts of thousands of homes promoted by the cultivation of the soil, perhaps the purest and most simple of enjoyments permitted to the dwellers upon earth, he would ask whether it had been accomplished by any great sacrifice on the part of the master manufacturers? He asserted boldly and without fear of contradiction that such had not been the case. And if it were necessary to establish this position, he could refer to almost every speech that had been delivered by hon. Gentlemen on the Manchester bench. Why, on the contrary, those Gentlemen assured them, day after day, that trade in their districts had never been so brisk nor the mills so busy, never was manufacturing prosperity placed upon so sure a basis. And yet they now came forward to say that, if this small boon were conceded to their overworked labourers, the masters would be all sacrificed at the shrine of humanity—that if this slight privilege were granted, the manufacturing prosperity of England was gone for ever. He believed the working people of England had had sufficient experience of these gentlemen to treat their vaticinations upon this and other such questions with the ut-
1248
most indifference. The time had long since gone by when their prophecies were respected, and, of all men, the factory population had the least reason to value them. Those poor people had been accustomed for thirty years to their predictions and to their professions. They now declared they were prosperous, and that the condition of the manufacturing districts was most enviable—
"Sed medio de fonte leporum
Surgit amari aliquid quod in ipsis floribus angat."
The manufacturers must not be interfered with. Let them do as they pleased with their operatives, and then all would be right. But no sooner did Parliament step in on behalf of women and helpless children, than those Cassandras of Staley-bridge gave utterance to the most woful predictions—no sooner did an hon. Member in that House ask for a little less toil for the child, than the manufacturers who had before been so loud in their denunciations of protection, declared they must be protected against this interference; and that, unless the additional half hour's labour was left with them, there was an end to their successful competition with foreign nations. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might speak of American competition, but let the House consider what that American competition was? It was either a bugbear or a sad and stern reality: if it were the former, let the House disregard it: if the latter, could any Gentleman think that this solitary half hour would enable the master manufacturers successfully to resist it? He dismissed, then, the assumption that the Act of 1847 had worked ill, and would assert that its effect had been beneficial to the working people, and not detrimental to the masters. If indeed any doubt were entertained on the subject, he would refer to a petition in favour of the Ten Hours Bill which had been presented to that House, and which was signed by a number of the master manufacturers in Lancashire employing a great number of workmen. He would read the petition to the House:—
"TO THE HONOURABLE THE COMMONS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED,
"The humble petition of the undersigned masters, employers of children, young persons, and women in factories, and the neighbourhood,"
Showeth—That your petitioners have been subjected to the provisions of the Acts for regulating labour in factories.
"That your petitioners have a deep interest in the morals and worldly welfare of those who work for them, as well as an interest in the prosperity of their own trade, and that, having observed the operation of the Ten Hours Act, both as regards their working hands and as regards its effects on trade, your petitioners are convinced that its advocates did not over-estimate its value when they promoted it in Parliament.
"That, as regards the working people, it has produced the good that was expected from it—more attention to their work, more healthful appearance, more cheerfulness and contentment, mothers more happy and industrious in their homes, fathers more frugal and more given to rational occupations, sons and daughters passing their time of leisure in assemblies for mutual improvement, and in the enjoyment of rational and invigorating exercises and games.
"That the 'shift' and 'relay' system which the Judges in the Court of Exchequer have declared to be legal, but which has never been adopted in Yorkshire, is destructive of all the advantages above enumerated, and that, under such a system, an efficient inspection (which seems to be unavoidable in order to make all conform to the law) is impossible, as is well known to all persons of practical experience.
"That such a state of things is most injurious and unjust to those masters who faithfully obey the law, inasmuch as it is material to them that all masters should be placed upon the same footing, and that those who conform to the Acts which the Legislature deems it advisable to pass, should not be left to suffer by the violation of those Acts by the less scrupulous of their order.
"Your petitioners therefore pray your honourable House to take the most speedy and efficient means to put an end to the system of working in factories by 'shifts' and 'relays,' and thus make all masters equally amenable to the law.
"And your petitioners will ever pray."
And amongst the signatures were the following millowners, employing a very large number of hands:—Todmorden; Fielden Brothers and 17 others, employing 2,000 hands. Bolton (45 signatures): Robert Knowles, employing 411 hands; Robert Burton and Sons, Thomas Taylor, Johnson and Reeves, John Gray, employing 405 hands. Rochdale (45 signatures): Henry Kenwall, William Chadwick, Joshua and James Radcliffe, Thomas Ashworth, and others, James King, jun., employing 2,100 hands. Preston: John Cooper, Hinxman, Fronico, and Co., Richard Riley, William Ainsworth. Heywood: John Wild, Hilton Kay, and 23 others, employing upwards of 10,000 hands. Manchester (21 signatures): Blackburn: William H. Hornby and Co., Pilkington Brothers and Co., Sir William Feilden, Son, and Co., Robert Hopwood and Son, William Eccles and Co., employing 7,090 hands. Bury: John Robinson Kay, Richard Ashton, Thomas Carlow and Sons, James Openshaw and Brother,
1250
Richard Hamer, employing 4,200 hands. Oldham: Joshua Milne, William Taylor, John Cooper and Brothers, Joseph Baxter, D. Dronsfield and Co., Jonathan Mellor. Burnley: 9 signatures. Stockport: 10 signatures. He now came to the third point, namely, what advantages the present Bill offered. In the opinion of a great body of the master manufacturers, their interests were not sacrificed in continuing the boon which every one admitted had been conferred on the working people. As to any advantage that this Bill would confer on the working people, let him ask, what was the advantage in taking from them two hours a week? What was the compensation which dignified this measure by the name of a compromise? It was said that the object of it was to prohibit women and young persons from working after six o'clock in the evening; but he would appeal to any man practically conversant with the manufacturing districts whether, after the decision in the Court of Exchequer, in 99 cases out of 100, women and young persons did not leave off their work at half-past five, and not six? In those cases, therefore, the boon now proposed was not a boon, but was an addition of half an hour's work. It was true that when the Government proposal was first made, sedulous attempts were made to induce the working people to believe that the effect of this Bill would be to make them leave the mills at six o'clock, and prevent adults working after that hour. But now his noble Friend the Member for Bath had learnt, he doubted not with regret and indignation, that neither was such the effect of the Bill nor the intention of Ministers, and he thought his noble Friend had some reason to complain of a want of ingenuousness on the part of Ministers, who permitted his noble Friend, and their advocates in the papers, and their daily organ, the Times newspaper, to promise the working people that such would be the result of the measure, that the moment the clock struck six every mill would necessarily be closed; and now, after two divisions, it turned out that the Government never did intend that such should be the result of their measure. They had it, therefore, established now that under this Bill mills might be worked by adult males and young children until half-past eight o'clock, and so the sole boon conferred on the working people was, that in 99 cases out of 100, women and young persona would be compelled to work

1251
half an hour longer than at the present moment. But, it might he said, why make such a strife for so small an object as half au hour? He should have thought that half an hour taken from the working people against their wishes, against their admitted rights, against the intention, would not have been regarded as a light or trivial matter. He knew with what feelings the working people, and the clergy, and gentry in those districts regarded this proposition of the Government. Let him refer to the statement of the committee of managers, overlookers, carders, spinners, and other branches of factory work in Bolton on this point. The committee said, that during this half hour, if taken from the working people, they would learn this lesson—they would regard this matter as a violation of their Magna Charta, and would look upon the Legislature as the invaders of their ceded rights, and the defrauders of the working classes. It was not the way to form loyal and loving subjects. It would be deeply injurious to the cause of order and good government if the manufacturing portion of the community had just cause to accuse the Legislature of depriving them of their just rights. By this act of Her Majesty's Ministers, 10,000 of Her subjects would, during half an hour every day, be learning the dangerous lesson of discontent. He was not surprised that the working men were indignant at this invasion of the just rights of their wives and children. The clergy of Preston had met to consider this subject, and the result of their deliberations was a respectful memorial addressed to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, which he would now read to the House:—
"In this town, and we believe generally in Lancashire, the present hours of factory labour are from 6 a.m. to 5½ p.m., allowing one and a half hours for meals, and we are convinced that, in order to carry out fully the principle which led to the Ten Hours Bill, it is essential that the hour of half-past five shall remain unchanged for the cessation of work. In Preston, evening schools have now been established; the young factory hands attend them with much readiness and interest; they are open from 7 to 9 o'clock; the scholars generally cannot get home from the mills, take their supper, wash and clean themselves, and reach the schoolrooms in less than one and a half hours; and if the school hours are to be curtailed, the routine of instruction will be so interrupted as to be productive of serious injury."
This memorial was signed by the vicar and six other clergymen. He would next read them the opinion of the vicar of Leeds on this question:—
1252
"The loss of the half hour in the evening of every day is a serious evil. It cuts off just that much time which might otherwise be devoted to moral, intellectual, and religious improvement. Returning home, washing and dressing themselves, and getting their tea, will take little short of one hour and a quarter. The young people can hardly be at school before half-past seven. They ought not to be there later than nine; thus they will have half an hour's less teaching than there would be if they left the factories at half-past five."
Instead, therefore, of the addition of this half hour being attended with practical results so unimportant as hon. Gentlemen would lead them to believe, it would have a most important practical effect on the education of the rising portion of the manufacturing community. He would ask those who were engaged in passing this Bill, how they could reconcile it with the discharge of the important duty they had undertaken, to take away the time set apart for the moral and intellectual improvement of a great portion of their fellow-creatures? But he would be told he did not take into consideration the great boon of half an hour offered by the Government on the Saturday. He had considered it, and, so far from regarding it as a boon, he thought it was productive of no insignificant evil; and when the House bore in mind that the factory people on Saturday worked four hours and a half continuously and then went to dinner, and afterwards returned to the mills to perform that part of their tasks which was admitted on all hands to be the most severe, the hardest, and most exacting of all their toil, and reflected that under the Government measure they would have to work five hours continuously on Saturday, and then, unrefreshed and without having their dinner, would go to the most severe of their working hours of labour, he thought the House would agree with him, that so far from this half hour being a light or trivial matter, it was a most serious and crying evil. No Englishman liked to work upon an empty stomach, and yet it was now proposed that these people should work longer on Saturday, when their labour was most severe, without their meal. It was indeed a compromise of nothing, unless it were of the rights of the people and the honour of Parliament. Were he a political supporter of the Government, he should regret the course they had taken, even on partisan and political grounds; but as an opponent of their political policy, he did regret it on national considerations. He thought it was not well that any portion of the work-

1253
ing people of this country should be taught by the sworn maintainers of the law and order that wealth was more powerful than justice, and that agitation, more formidable than the secret pressure of associated mill-owners, was required to procure from the Executive Government the sanction of Parliament to the admitted rights of the people. The Act which it was now proposed virtually to repeal, was granted to the people with the deliberate consent of all branches of the Legislature, and was ratified in a peculiarly solemn manner by the special approbation of that Gracious Lady who reigns over us. Was it well that the Government should invite the House to come to a vote that should compel Her Majesty to return into the hands of the working people that testimonial which She had been so graciously pleased to accept from them? Upon the reverse of that medal purchased by the pence of Her toiling subjects, and cherished as he knew by Her Majesty as one of the not least glorious of the many trophies attached to the Imperial Crown She wore, were inscribed the words "The Ten Hours Bill." Was it well that the Ministers, the confidential advisers of that Sovereign, should ask the House now to come to a vote which should render that precious medal a most meaningless coin, or, if it meant anything, that it should be a memorial of the inconstancy of Parliament, of the levity or fickleness of the Government, or of the folly of the people that would confide in either? Let not the House come to a decision on this question with their eyes closed. Let not Members flatter themselves that, by rejecting the Amendment, they would settle the question and put an end to agitation. Did those who had a dread of professional agitators and demagogues, and wished to remove all the materials of seditious agitation, imagine that they would attain their object by adding two hours to the toil of a great body of the working classes? Was there a Socialist or Chartist, dissatisfied with the institutions and form of government established in this country, who would not point exultingly to Parliamentary fickleness, levity, subservience to wealth, and indifference to the claims and rights of the poor? They would point to the vote of the House and say—
"Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridæ."
Depend on it, that by adopting the course recommended by the Government, the House would place arms in the hands of
1254
those men, and arguments in their mouths; and this would be the result of what was Jesuitically recommended as a settlement of the question! Most earnestly did he deprecate that result, and invited the House to avert the threatening mischief. If further evidence were necessary to justify the course which he recommended, it might be found in a declaration which the hon. Members for Manchester made, after the Ten Hours Act passed, to a deputation of millowners who waited on them for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was any chance of obtaining a 12, 11, or even a 10½ hours Bill. Upon that occasion the hon. Members for Manchester declared that so strong was the feeling of the House of Commons, that it was pledged to the Ten Hours Bill, that it was impossible for them to hold out the smallest expectation that any one of these propositions would be adopted. He hoped that the hon. Members for Manchester would prove correct exponents of the feeling of the House. At any rate he invited the House to redeem the pledge which they had given, and to prove to the working people of this country that they attached more value to the declared intentions of an Act of Parliament, to the claims and rights of the working people, and to the beneficial working of the Act which Her Majesty had sanctioned, than they did to the backstairs influence and coffeehouse combinations of any set of associated millowners. He appealed to the ancient spirit of English honour in vindication of the rights—the admitted rights—of English labour; he appealed to the House to show that they were not only in name, but in very deed and reality, the representatives of the Commons of England.
Amendment proposed, page 2, line 14, to leave out the words "after six," and to insert the words "after half-past five," instead thereof.
MR. HORNBY, in seconding the Amendment, said, that if anything could tend to reconcile him to the loss caused by the desertion by the noble Lord the Member for Bath of this Bill, it was the fact that they had found so able a successor in the noble Lord who had just addressed the House. For his part, he could never understand what was the great difficulty in amending the Act of 1847. The Government had proposed to amend it by limiting the hours for labour from six in the morning till six in the evening; but he could not see why the remedy could not have

1255
been as easily provided by limiting the hours from six in the morning till half-past five, as now proposed by the noble Lord. He had not heard a single argument advanced in the course of the various debates on this subject to show that there was the slightest ground for insisting upon this additional half-hour being taken from the workpeople. With regard to the advantages which had been predicted from the operation of the Ten Hours Bill, he asked whether they had not been realised to the full extent? They had the testimony both of inspectors and medical men, that the limitation of the hours of labour had distributed labour more equally, had increased social comfort, and had led to more moral and orderly conduct among the population. A working man with ten children, who went with a deputation to the noble Lord opposite, told him that a certain number of his children worked under the relay system, while others worked for masters who adhered to the law. Those who worked under the system of shifts were dreadfully harassed, and had no time to attend school, while the others were enabled to improve their education, and to mend and make their own clothing. Why, then, was the House asked, on account of the obstinacy—for it was nothing better—of a small section of the manufacturers, to repeal an Act concerning which not a single prediction of advantage had been unfulfilled? He asserted that very few millowners had violated the Act; and he believed that the indignation of those who were employed would very soon have compelled those who evaded it to comply with its provisions. The people were told, when the repeal of the corn laws was in agitation, that if the corn laws were repealed, they should have twelve hours' wages for ton hours' work. The hon. Member for Manchester, following the hon. Member for the West Riding, had said so on more occasions than one, observing also that, if the corn laws were repealed, the masters and men would come to a satisfactory arrangement with regard to the hours of labour. How did the hon. Member reconcile that with the statement which he made in this House not long ago, that the master manufacturers were so much annoyed at these restrictions, that they would not consult the convenience of those whom they employed? The corn laws were now repealed; sugar and other necessaries of life were much cheaper, and, after such a declaration as that, following
1256
upon the promises previously made, the operatives could have no confidence in the masters unless they were protected by the strict letter of the law. The hon. Member for Manchester had charged the advocates of a restriction of the hours of labour with ignorant sentimentalism. Everybody, however, knew that the unfortunate children employed under the relay system were obliged to be at the mill, in the most inclement weather, at half-past five to a minute, and then were told that they were not wanted for two or three hours, and in the mean time might dispose of themselves as they liked. He was sure that the hon. Member would not be accused of sentimentalism if he defended this odious system. He did not know why Her Majesty's Government opposed this Amendment. In 1844, during a critical state of parties, and when the Members of the present Government sat on the Opposition benches, the right hon. Member for Tamworth being Premier, the present First Lord of the Treasury said—
"He was much struck with the statement of the hon. Member for Leeds, that, out of seventy owners of mills, forty were ready to adopt ten hours, and had signed a petition to that effect. Now, when they were told of the alarm which existed (and he believed alarm did exist) at their legislation on that subject, was it not something to be urged in support of the principle, that practical men, who, it might be thought, ought naturally to have opposed it, were ready to adopt the proposition? It was a difficult thing to interfere with toil, but the time was come when he thought they ought to do so. And if he were called upon to point out another measure of relief, it would be that which would allow of a greater supply of food; thus insuring the double boon of diminished labour and increased enjoyment of the necessaries of life."
On the same occasion the right hon. Baronet the present Secretary for the Home Department said—
"They should look to the reasonable wishes of the great body of operatives, and approach ten hours gradually; that they were fully competent to take a just view of the question; that they had admitted to him that they had expected a reduction of wages, and that the evidence preponderated in favour of ten hours."
If the evidence then (in 1844) preponderated in favour of ten hours, why are we now to depart from the principle of strong, and it may be just, fears, even in the first instance entertained as to making the experiment; but the right hon. Baronet even then considered those fears to be groundless. The experiment has now been fully made—the anticipations of the opponents of the experiment have not been realised,

1257
and yet the right hon. Baronet now unites with those opponents in reversing a policy which upon trial has proved sound, and in every way unobjectionable. The House would recollect the struggles of 1844; and he took out of the division list the other day the names of ten Gentlemen who supported the noble Lord, leaving the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tam worth in a minority of eight. There was the hon. Member for Rochester, the hon. Member for Hertford, the hon. and gallant Member for Greenwich, the hon. Member for Plymouth, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, the hon. Member for Lichfield, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury, and the hon. Member for Devonport. If, then, the House was called upon to revoke and alter the policy of 1847, the reasons for the change ought to be stated. If the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord wished to avoid the imputation of having, in 1844, acted on factious and party motives, they were bound to declare why they now came forward to oppose this Amendment. He called upon the House, if they regarded their character for honour and good faith, to refuse to allow the noble Lord, at the bidding of the hon. Member for Manchester, to deprive the operatives of what was their just and most indisputablo possession.
SIR G. GREYhoped the House would not adopt the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester. In the hope expressed by the noble Lord, that the House would not decide the question in ignorance of facts, and with its eyes closed against them, he entirely concurred. If any Member had come into the House uninformed upon the question, and heard only the speeches of the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, they would be wholly ignorant of the real merits of the case. The hon. Member for Blackburn, who last addressed the House, taunted him and his colleagues with giving a vote in 1844, when sitting on the other side of the House, which they were now prepared to nullify in deference to the secret advice of the hon. Member for Manchester. The hon. Member ought, however, in candour, to have mentioned that the Members of the Government, to whom he referred, when holding their present offices, voted in 1847 in conformity
1258
with the vote which they gave in 1844. That fact, in itself, was a sufficient answer to the contrast which the hon. Member sought to establish between the vote of 1844 and the course which the Government was at present taking; but he would go further than that, and show that what the Government now proposed was quite consistent with the spirit of the Act of 1847, and the attainment of the objects sought to be secured by that Act. It was his firm conviction that the object of the Act of 1847 would be better secured than it yet had been by the adoption of the Bill before the House, whilst, at the same time, the attainment of that object would have the concurrence and assent of the great body of millowners—an advantage which he had always desired to obtain in the settlement of this question. It must not, however, be supposed that the supporters of the Bill were acting only on information received from the millowners, which was the impression the noble Lord the Member for Colchester and the hon. Member for Blackburn sought to convey. On the contrary, the Government had derived information from various trustworthy quarters, and the result was a conviction that the benefits which the honest advocates of the Act of 1847 sought to obtain for the working classes would be secured by this Bill, and that when passed into a law the measure would prove satisfactory to the operatives themselves. The noble Lord and the hon. Member insinuated that Ministers were acting as mere machines for carrying into effect the will of a Secret Committee of millowners; but the fact was, that the Government had received deputations from the operatives, had listened to their opinions, and had been in communication with them as much as with any other parties. The noble Lord had needlessly spent twenty minutes in showing that when a clerical error crept into an Act of Parliament it was the duty of the Legislature to pass another Act to correct it, and to give effect to the intention of the original enactment. No doubt existed upon that point; but there was no clerical error in the present case. The operatives themselves did not treat the matter as being a clerical error, but begged the Government to abstain from all legislation on the subject until a court of law should decide on the construction of the Act. Every facility was given by him for obtaining a judicial decision on the point,

1259
and when it was obtained it proved to be adverse to the construction which the operatives wished to put upon the Act. Then, the noble Lord the Member for Bath, feeling that it was the intention of the Legislature not to permit working by-shifts and relays, asked for leave to introduce a Bill to give effect to the intention of Parliament on that point. To that proposition he (Sir G. Grey) offered no obstruction, although he told the noble Member for Bath that he would not find it as easy to effect the object he had in view as he imagined, because it was not a clerical error with which he had to deal. The Government offered no opposition to the second reading of the Bill; but, after it had been committed, the noble Lord discovered that it would not effect the object which he had in view. The Bill was recommitted, and a fresh clause introduced; but it was not long before the noble Lord found that this, too, would be inoperative for the attainment of his object. In that view of the subject he (Sir G. Grey) entirely concurred, for the factory inspectors assured him that it would be as easy to evade the proposed enactments as the provisions of the existing law. It was under these circumstances, and not until the noble Member for Bath had avowedly failed in framing an enactment to effect the object he had in view, that he (Sir G. Grey) came forward with his proposition. It was painful to hear the noble Lord the Member for Bath traduced for his conduct in reference to this question. The hon. Member for Blackburn, and also, he was sorry to say, the noble Lord the Member for Colchester, had spoken of the noble Lord the Member for Bath as being a deserter from the cause of which he had been, in times past, the faithful and, some thought—though he (Sir G. Grey) was not one of them—the too zealous advocate. The noble Lord the Member for Bath seeing that the course proposed on the part of the Government was an honest course, according to his view, said he would offer no opposition to the proposition they had placed on the table of the House. Among the supporters of the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester the name of the noble Lord the Member for Bath would not be recorded. Any man of common sense might see that it was easy to substitute half-past five for six o'clock, and subtract half an hour from the working time; but if they did that they would take only a one-sided view of the case;
1260
they might adhere to the letter of the Act of 1847, but they would disregard the undisputed intention of their legislation, namely, that the millowner should have a range of fifteen hours—a range productive of great convenience to him. Feeling that in the proposal now before the House, benefits would be secured to the millowner on the one hand, and that benefits were secured to the working classes on the other hand, which were not secured by the existing Acts, the Government did feel that they were acting entirely in the spirit of the Act of 1847 in submitting this proposition to Parliament, and in asking the House of Commons to accede to it. What was the state of the case? There was a range from half-past five in the morning to half-past eight o'clock at night under the existing law, within which women and young persons might be employed. Under that law the relay system was acted upon—a system which was convenient for the millowner. But it had interfered with the benefits intended to be secured to the working classes. They were deprived of the advantage of the evening hours, during which they might apply themselves to education and domestic occupations. Supposing the noble Lord the Member for Colchester could have remedied by a stroke of the pen what he called a clerical error, it would only be by providing that the ten hours' labour should be continuous. The inspectors pointed out that, if it were meant to secure for the operatives the advantage of the proposed limitation, it must be enacted that one hour and a half only should be allowed for meals. The millowner began about six o'clock in the morning. If the clerical error were corrected so that one hour and a half only were allowed for meals, the working time ended at half-past five. Supposing the millowner disposed to evade the law, he might propose to give three hours for meals instead of an hour and a half. Immediately two hours would be added to the period between the commencement and conclusion of work. It was all very well for the noble Lord to superadd the provision that an hour and a half should be the maximum for meals; but that was not the correction of a clerical error by the stroke of a pen; it was the introduction of a new measure. And that the noble Lord the Member for Bath felt. He said he could not introduce new restrictions, but, seeing the advantage which would attend the proposition of the

1261
Government to the millownors as well as the labourers, he left the matter in their hands, and would offer no opposition: such was the language he used, believing that they were acting for the benefit of the operatives. A charge of inconsistency had been brought against him (Sir G. Grey); but he was not ashamed of being charged with inconsistency under the circumstances he had stated. He voted for the Act of 1847, which he believed to be for the advantage of the working classes; but he utterly denied that the proposition of the Government would take away the boon secured to the working classes under that Act. The noble Lord the Member for Colchester had alluded to the reports of the Morning Chronicle, and had given a resumé of the advantages derived by the working classes from the Act of 1847. The great advantages wore, that they had their evenings uninterrupted for the purposes of education, recreation, and domestic employments. Well, under the present Bill the labouring classes would be free, at six o'clock in the evening, to spend their time as they pleased, which was not the case under the existing law. He was surprised to hear the noble Lord the Member for Colchester say, that one hardship under the Bill would be the half-holiday on Saturday. This was the first time he (Sir G. Grey) had heard any suggestion of that kind made; and from various quarters he had received assurances that the greatest value was attached to the free enjoyment of half the Saturday, and that the operatives looked upon it as an additional boon not secured to them under the existing law. The noble Lord the Member for Colchester spoke of good faith and honour, as if there was a breach of good faith and honour in acting in the spirit rather than in adhering to the letter of previous enactments. He hoped the House would not be led away by declamation from adopting a measure which would, in his opinion, be satisfactory to the great body of operatives in this country. He did not mean to say there were not many men who would desire to see restriction carried further, and would support the noble Lord the Member for Colchester if he proposed an eight hours Bill; and if the noble Lord thought the whole of the operatives would be satisfied even with his measure, he would find himself much mistaken. He (Sir G. Grey) was ready to repeat the opinion, which he did not recollect having expressed, but of which he had been re-
1262
minded to-night, that he thought it desirable that Parliament should attend to the reasonable wishes of the operative classes, and that those classes should feel that their interests were cared for in that House. There were reasonable men among them; and such, he believed, were the great majority who would be glad to see the Bill before the House carried into effect; and he hoped the House would not, in deference to the arguments which had been urged against it, reject what, in his opinion, afforded a fair prospect of a satisfactory solution of this difficult question. The House was now in possession of the facts of the case. It was for thorn to decide; and he should only say, that if the House should think fit to depart from the settlement of 1847, by imposing another and a great restriction on the hours of labour within which millowners might employ the classes to which this Bill applied, he should regard that as such a departure from the spirit of the existing Acts, that he should feel bound to take no further charge of the Bill which the noble Lord the Member for Bath had introduced.
MR. BANKESsaid, that he was glad to find any confirmation of the fact that the object of the Bill was to make a satisfactory settlement of the question. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, however, had entirely failed to answer the arguments of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester. They ought to observe that a very large proportion of the Bill, instead of being a boon, was an acknowledged loss; and they had the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment stating that this shift and relay system met with so little favour from the manufacturers themselves, that public opinion alone, in his judgment, would be sufficiently poworfully to set the question at rest if the law were to remain as it was; and it was for the House to consider whether it would not be better that no Act should pass at the present moment, which would be, in 99 cases out of 100, a loss and no gain whatever. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to think a great deal of the comparison which had been drawn between his conduct and that of his Colleagues in 1844. It was impossible not to see that there was a most essential variance between the doctrines held out by hon. Gentlemen when sitting on the the Opposition benches and their opinions and acts when in power at the present moment. With respect to his noble Friend

1263
the Member for Bath, he was confident that in every step he had taken in this matter, he had been guided by the sincerest desire of acting in conformity with what he had said, to the effect that he thought it would be a good compromise for the working people. But why should they have compromises at all? Was it any error of theirs that the Act of 1844 was insufficiently framed; and had they, in any respect, by their conduct when brought under the operation of the Act, failed to fulfil the provisions made on their behalf by those who had advocated their interests? They had obtained an Act, not by favour but by right (for it was their right)—an Act not passed in a hurry, but gradually and solemnly, with the universal sanction and approbation of the Legislature. Why were they to be told they were to have a compromise? They had a proof that this compromise was not altogether satisfactory to his noble Friend; but this he knew, that he considered it a most essential part of the benefit which had been obtained to the working people by this compromise—namely, to secure opportunities of education and mental cultivation for their children. When, on this point, the right hon. Home Secretary told the House that it was a great boon that the hours were limited, he doubted whether he understood the full benefit of the Bill he was sanctioning. Let him (Mr. Bankes) tell him that the range of hours with regard to children was from half-past five in the morning till eight in the evening, and that the boon of the range of hours was not secured to children by the operation of this Bill, in respect to which the greater part of the public thought that to be the chief object of the Bill. He felt that he should ill occupy the time of the House, after the admirable manner in which the noble Lord the Member for Colchester had introduced the Amendment to their consideration—an Amendment which had been seconded by a Member of practical knowledge, who had stated what were the opinions of the master manufacturers, and the wishes of the operatives; but he had heard nothing from the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Office that answered either those feelings touched upon by the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, or those facts which were adverted to by the hon. Gentleman who seconded it. His noble Friend desired that the Bill they had provided should be effectual for the object they had in view;
1264
and he said, let that which is to be satisfactory to them be given to them, not as a compromise, but as a right which you the Members of the Legislature have already agreed to accord.
MR. STANFORDthought the country would have a very unfavourable opinion of the House if, after coming to a decision in favour of an enactment supposed to be intelligible to all the world, declaring that ten hours was to he the duration each day of a factory workman, that principle was not to be confirmed by Parliament when an opportunity was presented to them by the circumstances of a legal decision being adverse to the principle contained in a former measure. That statute having been in effect thus set aside, the operatives came now to the House to ask us to put them in that position in which it was evidently intended by Parliament they should be placed by the former measure. He could not understand how the House could come to any other decision now than that it was the intention of Parliament to place them. He did not wish to treat this question with ridicule, but he could not avoid comparing the decision that had been come to to a nursery rhyme—
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
And all the King's Ministers and Parliament men
Could'nt set Humpty Dumpty on the wall again."
He could not entertain the slightest doubt but that the noble Lord the Member for Bath was influenced by the most honourable and conscientious feelings in the course he had taken in reference to this Bill, as well as to any other to which he had been a party. He (Mr. Stanford) would give his cordial assent to the Motion before the House.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had listened with much attention to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had informed them that there had been a misunderstanding of the Act of 1844, when that Act was tested by the operation of the measure of 1847, and he would now ask him this question: Did the right hon. Gentleman, or did he not, when, in 1847, he voted for the Ten Hours Bill, intend to restrict the hours of factory labour to fifty-eight hours per week? Would—and he now addressed himself to the hon. and learned the Attorney General—would the insertion of the words proposed by the

1265
noble Lord the Member for Colchester invalidate the legal form and effect of this Bill if passed? [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: No!] If not, why then not introduce words that would limit the hours of labour to fifty-eight per week? Really the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary ought to explain this—why he supported the limitation of the hours of labour to fifty-eight per week in 1847, and now proposed to add two hours to that limit. That was the essence of the compromise, as it was called; but they—the advocates of the operatives' cause—maintained that that which was the original object of Parliament in regard to this subject, and had been sanctioned by Parliament, was their right; and whilst they were much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for his legal assistance in giving effect to the intention of the former Act, they, at the same time, thought that such assistance was somewhat too dearly purchased by the addition of two hours per week to the present hours of labour of the working man. He must say he did not think it was creditable to the Government to take away two hours from the operatives' leisure for his own purposes, because they had found a difficulty in the construction of a few words in an Act of Parliament. He trusted that in private life he kept his word, and in his place in that House he would do so. In his opinion, those who now gave up the Act they voted in favour of in 1847 did not keep their words with the factory operatives of this country. The majority of the people of this country looked upon Parliament as having broken faith with the colonies, with the farmers, and with the shipowners; and if they now did the same thing with the operatives, he must assure them that they were taking a course which would lead to more serious results than they would seem to be aware of. For his own part, he had always imagined that this system of what were termed compromises always involved something either more or less than what they ought to do, but not what they ought to do; and he was persuaded that, in the long run, they would find that the adoption of such a course was an inexpedient arrangement. It was his intention to vote for the Amendment.
MR. MUNTZwould ask the manufacturers who refused the limit of ten hours, whether they ever did work the ten hours, and whether, if they did, they did not find
1266
it more than enough. However, that was not the question. The real question with hon. Members of that House was this: What did they vote for in 1847? Did they mean to give the people a bonâ fide Ten Hours Bill, or did they not? As far as his own memory served him, every man that voted for the Act of 1847 fully intended that the parties to whom it referred should have a bonâ fide Ten Hours Bill. Would, then, this measure of the Government give the people that, or would it rob them of two hours per week? He thought it would rob them, and he asked the House if they were doing that, what would they say to the operatives if they came to that House and said, "You have passed a bungling measure—you see you have, and it is your own fault; but it is now our turn, and we will have something in our own favour if we can—we will now have only fifty-six hours per week instead of fifty-eight?" This compromise that was now proposed was, to use a commercial analogy, like proposing to a man to whom one had given a bill for 300 l. to take 290 l. for it. He felt he could not take away two hours from the working men—two hours which he had participated in the giving to them—as an honest man; and wishing to act honestly by the people, he could not vote otherwise on this subject than he had done in 1847. He should, therefore, give his support to the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester.
MR. HEALDdid not feel justified, representing, as he believed he did, the third largest cotton-consuming population on the face of the globe, to give a silent vote upon this occasion; and, considering the large number of factory operatives in the borough which he represented, he thought he might state that he represented their opinions in the vote he was about to give. He confessed with frankness that he had never approached a subject to which he had felt it necessary to give a more careful and anxious consideration, and the conclusion at which he had arrived was based simply upon the dictates of conscience and honour. He certainly agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose that it was not only a delicate but a dangerous thing to interfere much with the question of labour; and, taking into consideration their mixed character and the dependency of one class of operatives upon another, he thought it was possible to err by legislating too much upon the subject. He had

1267
never been able to see why the hours of factory labour should exceed the ordinary period for the toil of man, namely, from six to six; and when he first saw the letter in the Times, and afterwards the Bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he thought at once that it was approximating more closely to his own views of what ought to be the standard for the regulation of the hours of labour in factories than anything he had seen before. If this were an open question, therefore, he should have had no difficulty in recording his vote; but his present difficulty arose from the question being so much fettered by previous legislation. He had formerly been in communinication with the chairman of the Limited Hours Committee in his own district, and had presented many petitions from them, all agreeing in asking for a 58 Hours Bill in its integrity. When, therefore, the noble Lord the Member for Bath communicated to him, the night previous to his letter appearing in the Times, the nature of that letter, he at once wrote down to the chairman of that association, stating the case to him; and, since that time, he had not heard a single word in reply. From this and other circumstances, he was persuaded that there had entered into the minds of the factory operatives a strong conviction that it was the honest intention of Parliament to have given them a Bill limiting their hours of labour to fifty-eight in the week. He believed that it was about the most dangerous thing the House could do to weaken in the minds of those people their perfect belief in the integrity and honour of the British Parliament. He knew the danger of a system of agitation being again allowed to organise, for if it were, no one could tell to what length it might extend. He felt, therefore, after the most serious and conscientious examination of the bearings of this case, that the House would gain by coming to a decision which should maintain the high standard of honour of the British Parliament, although for the time being he confessed they might suffer some inconvenience. In addition to this, there was a question of the supply of cotton to these mills, and he agreed that unless a larger and more certain supply of cotton was insured, there would not be sufficient on the average for some years to come to employ the factory operatives ten hours a day. Under these circumstances he was bound to the conclusion, that conscientiously, and as a man of
1268
honour, he must support the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that it appeared to him, in a case like the present, in which a Bill had been passed some years ago by Parliament, on which the masters were not consulted in any way, that it was perfectly open to Parliament to reconsider the matter; and it was very well known that the master manufacturers themselves would be glad of eleven hours per day. In his opinion, the Bill might be made to work very harmoniously, by the proposed alterations, and to create a much better feeling than had hitherto existed. He should, therefore, give it his support.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, he thought it had been generally agreed on both sides of the House to throw over all arguments as to the policy of the Act of 1847, that having been already settled. He considered that what they had to do on the present occasion was not to discuss its policy, but to fulfil its requirements. He had heard no valid reason for the alteration of that policy. The exigencies of trade did not require it. They had heard that no mill, on an average, worked ten hours; while, on the other hand, they could not expect to satisfy its opponents, seeing that the Millowners' Association of Manchester had declared unequivocally for 11 hours a day. Such would always be the case if they persisted in this unhallowed compromise, which, in fact, compromised nothing but the faith and honour of Parliament. The great majority of millowners had conformed to the Act, and yet were not ruined. The cotton trade had not gone to the dogs. As to the parties more immediately concerned, its results had been satisfactory beyond calculation. Its good effects, which were described in the last report of the factory inspectors, must be most gratifying to Parliament. There was nothing unreasonable in the limitation established. In 1833, when they abolished slavery in the West Indies, they limited the labour of the apprentices to 45 hours a week, while the factory operative was content to work 58. In 1849, they assigned 7 hours as the day's work of the Hill Coolies, while the factory labourer willingly gave 10. What they asked now was simply, that the House should keep faith with them. There could be no doubt as to how the Act of 1847 was understood by them who were its objects; and they had the authority of a great moralist for stating that a promise

1269
was binding in the sense it was understood by the person to be benefited, that understanding being affirmed at the time by the parties by whom it was made. Taking the Act of 847 in that sense, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, the question was, whether the Bill granted in 1847 was to be renewed now, or whether advantage was to be taken of a technical error, and 58 hours a week substituted for 60. The Government would deceive themselves greatly if they considered that this Bill would be a settlement of the question; and remembering, as he did, the excitement that prevailed in the manufacturing districts in 1830, the monster meetings that were held, and the agitation that was organised, he warned the House against again giving occasion to such proceedings on the part of the factory operatives of the North, The operation of the Ten Hours Bill since 1847 had been most satisfactory—the manners, the morals, and the habits of the people had been essentially changed—time had been afforded them for reflection and recreation, and they had been taught habits of providence; why, then, when this was the case, and when the maximum amount of labour imposed upon criminals was 10 hours a day, from which one hour was to be deducted for exercise and another hour for instruction, should they condemn women and young persons under 18 years of age, in factories, to labour 10½ hours a day? He entirely concurred that this was a question in which the honour and integrity of the House were concerned, and he should support the Amendment.
MR. W. PATTENsaid, this question had been hitherto improperly argued, simply and solely upon the assumption of a contract having been entered into between Parliament and the operatives. The fact was this—in 1847 the Ten Hours Act was passed, after many years' discussion; and even then with a strong feeling on the part of many of the impolicy of the measure. Since then, as the representative of the county of Lancaster, he had been requested, over and over again, to endeavour to get the Act modified; but he had always advised his friends not to interfere with the decision at which Parliament had arrived. Now, however, when an opportunity offered, be thought it was perfectly legitimate for those who had opposed the Bill of 1847 to come forward and urge their objections to the system. In doing so, he held that
1270
they were guilty of no breach of contract, but that they assisted in an honourable compromise. It was a great ingredient in the success of any law, that, in carrying it out, it should receive the cordial co-operation of all parties concerned; but there were hundreds in his county who would oppose the Bill if amended as proposed by the noble Lord, who would yet give it their cordial co-operation if the proposed compromise was accepted. He had accompanied a deputation of master manufacturers to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, who were entirely opposed to the law, but who had offered their cordial co-operation in carrying out the compromise. His belief also was, that the compromise was approved of by all the enlightened operatives. Believing, then, that he committed no breach of contract, and that a compromise was the best thing for all parties, he should give his best support to the Bill as it stood.
MR. C. ANSTEYsaid, that the case of the cotton spinners of Lancashire had been fully stated by their representatives. The hon. Member for North Lancashire had denied the existence of a compact with regard to the Bill of 1847, because the millowners were not consulted. But the hon. Member should recollect that for 16 years before that time there had been a constant struggle between the operatives on the one hand, and the laissez faire, laissez passer people on the other. The millowners were worsted, and the operatives reaped the benefit. Since then almost every millowner had acted under the law as if he construed it as it was now sought to be construed by the Amendment. Was it, then, to be contended that society was to be torn up, and the operatives oppressed, to gratify the cupidity of a few millowners? He was sure that there could be but one opinion on the subject as to the arguments by which the compromise was sought to be made palatable to the operative. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, clinging to the habits of the Western Circuit, had told them, that if they wanted to know the meaning of an Act of Parliament, they should read the volume of the Statutes at large in which it was contained. That might be a very good argument for quarter-sessions, but it was a very poor one for the floor of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet should remember that the business of Parliament was not litigation, but legislation. The meaning

1271
of the Act was to limit the labour of the operative to ten hours a day; and for that meaning he should vote in supporting the Amendment. A pledge had been given, not by the millowners, but by the House of Commons in 1847; that pledge he wished to see carried out, and with that view should support the Amendment.
MR. B. COCHRANEwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether he had not denied that this was an amended Bill, or an alteration of the law, as he found the Bill was accepted by the hon. Member for North Lancashire, on the part of the millowners, as an alteration in their favour. For his own part, he looked upon it as an alteration of the law, or, in other words, as a breach of the promise made by that House to the factory operatives. The right hon. Baronet talked of the concurrence of the manufacturers. That was not what he (Mr. B. Cochrane) wanted. He wanted the concurrence of the operatives; the Bill being passed for their benefit, it surely ought not to be altered without their consent. It was evident, from the allusion made by the hon. Member for North Lancashire to the interview, that there was a good understanding between the deputation of manufacturers and the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department; but that did not satisfy him (Mr. B. Cochrane). What he required was the fulfilment of that engagement into which the House had entered with the operatives. He cared not if the Bill stipulated for ten minutes only of work beyond the ten hours: he asserted pro tanto to that extent it was a violation of the engagement into which the House had entered. This was the only view he could take of the subject. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for North Lancashire express so strongly an opinion that it would be no violation of a promise. He hoped, for the sake of the character of the House, and for that of the character of all those who voted on a former occasion, that the House would, to the fullest extent, carry out the pledge it had given to the operatives of this country.
MR. S. CRAWFORDsaid, that in his communications with the operatives of Rochdale he had been called upon by them to give his vote in favour of maintaining the principle of the measure of 1847—to maintain that in its integrity. He held in his possession the names of forty-four proprietors of mills who were supporters of the ten hours system, and in thus laying
1272
before the House his own opinions in favour of the Amendment, he felt that he was giving expression to the sentiments not only of the operatives but of the mill-owners also. In legislating upon a question of this nature, the House was bound to respect the opinions of the working classes, and to accede to their reasonable
MR. GREENALLsaid, that he felt more difficulty in the course which he had resolved to pursue in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Lancashire. Upon the present occasion he (Mr. Greenall) had no choice open to him. He was in almost daily communication with the operative classes upon the subject, and it would be next to impossible for any one to over-estimate the intense interest with which they regarded this question. Their feelings were alive and strong on the subject. The measure of 1847 was one which they had struggled all their lives to obtain, and they lost it by no fault of theirs; it evaded their grasp by a mere Parliamentary blunder. It was, at all events, his determination not to let the working man be able to say that he had not kept faith with him. As to children, they would be great sufferers by the proposed change. The severity of factory labour would now fall principally upon them; and having said thus much, he trusted that he had fairly laid before the House the grounds of the vote that he intended to give.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I rise. Sir, to state the grounds on which I shall support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The hon. Member for Oldham has argued this question as if the Bill of 1847 has proved entirely satisfactory—as if its provisions are indisputable—and as if the millowners are coming forward seeking to alter and amend that Act. Now, that I think is as far as possible opposed to the fact. For my own part, in 1847, I considered the Act of that Session was a great advantage to the families of the working classes belonging to the mills. I considered it enabled them to have time for their domestic duties, for education and instruction, and for such other improvements in their social condition which could not otherwise be effected. I did not think it likely to justify the predictions of its opponents, that it would destroy one-sixth of the manufacturing power of the country, and thereby occasion a great diminution of the wealth and industrial power of the empire.

1273
Sir, I still retain the opinion I then gave. I believe the Act of 1847 was founded on sound principles, and I have no wish to repeal that Act. Indeed, being a supporter of that Act, for my own part I should have been quite willing, and thought it would be the best course, to leave the measure entirely undisturbed during the present Session—to leave its provisions to the interpretation put upon it by the courts of law, and not to evoke the intervention of Parliament to make any explanation or alteration of that Act. But who was the first to wish an alteration? Was it any of those who contended that twelve or eleven hours a day ought to be the time fixed for factory labour? It was my noble Friend the Member for Bath, who came forward on behalf of the factory operatives, and as the advocate of the young persons engaged in factories, and said it is absolutely necessary to call for the interference of Parliament with respect to that Act. Well, then. Sir, if I am bound against my will to pronounce an opinion regarding that Act, I must look at it in conjunction with former Acts, and see what it does and what it does not do. Some seem to regard it as if it decided the whole question, and gave all that the present Bill proposes to confer. But that is absolutely not the case. There is no provision in the Act of 1847, or in the Act of 1844, that these persons shall not be employed at any time between six and six—that they must not begin earlier than six in the morning—and not finish later than six in the evening. On the contrary, these Acts provide that this class of persons may begin work at half-past five, and that the conclusion of their labours shall not be later than half-past eight. There are here not twelve hours, but fifteen hours, according to these Acts, during which labour can be performed. Therefore, I cannot conceive why it can be said that the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester that they shall work no more than ten hours, and that these ten hours shall be taken between six and six, are merely carrying into effect provisions which Parliament has already enacted. And as to there being any breach of faith in making any alteration in that Act, why, the noble Lord himself proposes a very considerable alteration when he makes an entirely new restriction with respect to factory labour. There was, indeed, a forced construction of that Act saying that if any person began work at half-past five, and if any person afterwards
1274
came at twelve, one, or two o'clock in the day, the last person should be construed to have begun work at half-past five, with the first. That, I think, was a forced construction of the Act, But this, at all events, was indisputable. It was in the power of the millowner to bring in young persons at half-past five, and keep them till five in the afternoon, giving an hour and a half for meal-times; or to begin at nine o'clock, and continue till half-past eight in the evening. Therefore, any Bill which proposes that they shall only work between six and six must be a considerable alteration—must impose a fresh restriction, and, as I think, give a fresh benefit to these classes. Now, I ask whether, being called upon to legislate by the noble Lord the Member for Bath—whether, if you place fresh restrictions on the employers of these young persons, by obliging them to give up three hours out of the fifteen during which they may at present employ them, and thereby so far diminish their power of employment, it is not fair, on the other hand, to say that the hours of their labour shall be somewhat lengthened, so that on the whole, according to the Bill of my right hon. Friend, two additional hours per week shall be given to the millowners? And, seeing that we have departed from the Act of 1847 and the Act of 1844, I think the question really for the House to consider is, whether this arrangement is, on the whole, an arrangement that will be beneficial to the operative classes and their families, and to which they can agree. But the hon. Member for Stockport, who is going to vote against my right hon. Friend, says, he has no doubt, on the whole, that the classes for whose benefit the Act of 1847 was originally passed, will derive considerable advantage from these enactments. Well, then, I say, if that be the case—if they are to derive benefits from those enactments, and if the mill-owners, on the other hand, who originally contended for twelve hours, and for the last two years have asked for eleven hours, are contented that this Bill should become law, is it not consonant with the wisdom of Parliament to endeavour to make an arrangement, confessed even by some of those who oppose it, to be beneficial to the operative classes for whom it is enacted, and which, at the same time, is so far acceptable to the millowners that, according to the hon. Member for North Lancashire, many who entirely disagreed with the policy of this Bill, would consent to

1275
act with cordial good-will in conformity with the law, supposing this Bill to be passed? I say, then, if such an advantage can be obtained—and, according to almost, all those who have spoken on the subject, it can be obtained—there cannot be any weight in the objection, that because you passed the Act of 1847, which is said to have had in contemplation an unrestricted ten continuous hours, you ought not to pass this Bill. Because it is obvious—and I think none will gainsay this—that the Act of 1847 never did contain any provisions that young persons should not work between six and six; and therefore, supposing the Bill to be carried with the noble Lord's alteration, it would not he a mere correction of a technical error in the Act of 1847, or the Act of 1844, but it would be in effect a new enactment, considerably more restricted, and thereby tending to that fresh agitation which it ought to be the wish of this House to avoid. Sir, with these opinions, therefore, being in favour of the Act of 1847, I still think it would be expedient that the House should adopt the proposal of my right hon. Friend. There is only one case in which I can conceive that the plan of my right hon. Friend would not be acceptable; but I think the same objection would be equally fatal to the proposal of the noble Lord. I can imagine the whole operative body in a mass saying we wish to maintain the law as it is; we object altogether to the alteration which you say will be to our benefit; we made a compact in 1847, and we require that it shall be abided by. Now, so far as I can learn, there is no such general and universal feeling on the part of the operatives of the manufacturing districts. My noble Friend the Member for Bath, immediately on the proposal of my right hon. Friend being announced, wrote a public letter, in which he earnestly advised all those whose cause he advocates to accept that proposal, which he declared would be advantageous to them. That was a considerable testimony, I think, coming from one who has studied this question so constantly and advocated it with such zeal and earnestness. We find that a great attempt has been made, as usual, by warm and impassioned language, to induce the operatives to think that faith is broken with them if this proposal is accepted; and they have been called upon with the utmost indignation to repudiate and reject it. But I do not find that those efforts have been attended with anything
1276
like the success which formerly attended the endeavours to induce the operatives to ask for a Ten Hours Act. As far as I can judge, the followers of this agitation have not been considerably numerous; and the hon. Member for North Lancashire tells us that, as far as he knows, all the most intelligent men among the factory operatives are opposed to the agitation, and wish this Bill to succeed. [Mr. W. PATTEN: The great body of the intelligent workmen—not all.] Well, then, if that be the case, there are good grounds for Parliament proceeding with this Bill, and not adopting the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester. Now this proposition does certainly amend the law—it does propose a new enactment; but it proposes a new enactment, which, in the somewhat doubtful state of the law, after the decisions of the Superior Court, would give certain advantages to the two parties which have been in controversy on this subject. The advantage to one of these parties is, that their labour can only be performed between six and six, and cannot begin at half-past five, or extend to half-past eight, according to the present law; and it does, on the other hand, give the employer the advantage of two additional hours a week. There is, therefore, a fairness and an equity in this proposal. But the proposal of the noble Lord is, to have new legislation, and to have it entirely on one side—not carrying into effect the law of 1847, containing no clauses like my right hon. Friend's proposal, but proposing fresh restrictions, and giving no advantage on the other side of the question. I think the proposal of the noble Lord, if it were carried, would be the signal for an attempt to prevent any further legislation at all on the subject, to rest satisfied with the Act of 1847, as interpreted by the courts of law, and thereby entail considerable disadvantage on the operatives. On these grounds, then, and believing this Bill proposes to confer great advantages on the class of factory operatives, and is at the same time a Bill acceptable to those who have hitherto contended against any legislative enactments to limit the hours of labour, and hoping that the measure will effect the settlement of a vexed and difficult question which the Amendment of the noble Lord will not settle, but cause to be agitated again throughout the country in a way which I think would be a great misfortune, I shall oppose the Amendment before the House.

1277
With respect to a very great portion of the mills of this country which only work eleven hours and a half, the Amendment will make no alteration; but with regard to all those mills which work with shifts and relays, those shifts and relays will be put an end to by the Amendment, and that is another reason why this House should reject it.
MR. ELLIOTsaid, he wished to point out to the House the difficulties which this Amendment would entail on the mills that were worked by water power. By tying these mills to particular hours of the day, they would not be able to compete any longer with the mills that were worked by steam; and the workmen dependent on the former must be thrown out of employment. In the winter months, work could not be commenced in these mills until the accumulations of ice that obstructed the supply of water were removed. These preparations often took till nine o'clock in the morning; and instead of being bound down to certain hours of the day, the operatives at present had to work when the circumstances of the mill would allow them. He appealed to the House, therefore, not to suffer such an injustice as this Amendment would inflict on this class of mills,
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, he had always been favourable to any measures for ameliorating the condition of the operatives, and he conscientiously believed that this Bill would be highly to their advantage. The rejection of the Bill would carry dismay to the working classes, while it would give extreme satisfaction to those employers who had availed themselves of the range of fifteen hours to evade the operation of this Bill. It was said that the House were bound to carry out the Bill of 1847. But were they contented with the name of the thing rather than the reality? The present was to all intents and purposes a Ten Hours Bill. If the House rejected it, the relay system would become more general than at present, and the operatives would be some time before they got an enactment that would be beneficial to them. He should give the present measure his hearty support, and he should therefore vote against the Amendment.
MR. EDWARDS: It is not my wish or intention again to intrude myself upon the notice of the House at this hour of the evening and at this stage of the Bill, having already experienced so much indulgence; and if I were to attempt to do so, and to speak for an hour upon the question, I could only reiterate the
1278
sentiments and opinions I have submitted to the House on previous occasions. There is one point, however, which has not yet been mentioned in the debate, and which I consider so essential, that I cannot resist bringing it before the House, especially as I find that hon. Members on the Treasury Bench appear to be labouring under an erroneous impression. In the town which I represent, a petition has been sent up in favour of a Ten Hours Act from every mill; I believe without an exception; and not one single petition has emanated from the manufacturers themselves against such an Act; and this applies to many other places in Yorkshire. Before I sit down, I wish to say that an earnest desire exists on this side of the House, to hear the hon. Member from Manchester on the subject. I really can hardly understand how it happens that the hon. Member, who is ostensibly the organ of a great party, and who it is generally supposed is at the bottom of the whole agitation, should sit quietly in his place and not give the House the benefit of his ideas on this important question.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I hope the House will permit me, notwithstanding its anxiety for a division, to offer a few observations in explanation of the vote I am about to give. Although I have been in Parliament more years than I care to remember, I have hitherto registered my vote on this subject without ever presuming to address the House upon it. I have listened with the interest which all must feel to the discussion which has taken place. It appears to me that the question which the House is called upon to decide, is really one of a simple, though of a very serious character. More than thirty years ago, the hon. Member for Stockport reminded us, the working classes in the north of England originated what is called an agitation in favour of the principle which we recognised as law by the Act of 1847. In looking upon that event with the advantage of experience, and taking that general view of the question which has (and very properly) characterised the present discussion, I perceive in that movement of thirty years ago what may fairly be described as the conviction of an overworked population. And I think it is a subject of much gratification when we remember that in this country a large portion of the community, finding themselves in such a position, had not recourse to those arts and means which generally distinguish a population under such circumstances; that

1279
they did not attempt to find relief in conspiracy or combination, but that thirty years ago, when the means of education among the working classes were more limited than at present—when the political instruction which pervaded that order of society was less than it is now, they still had confidence in the Parliament of their country, and in an appeal to that Parliament sought relief from the sufferings which they experienced. Thirty years have elapsed, according to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, who has accurately reminded us of the dates; but it was not until 1847 that you recognised the authenticity of their convictions, and that a legislative enactment sanctioned the instincts of the working community. I am not surprised that so great an interval should have occurred between the expression of the popular will and the act of the Legislature; for the Legislature has been at all times unwilling to interfere with regard to labour, and statesmen and senates have been appalled at the idea of placing any check on the powers of production. I can, therefore, Sir, easily understand that it was only after much deliberation—after anxious doubts and hesitation—after a thorough acquaintance with the wants and feelings of the population, that the Parliament of this country sanctioned the principle which the working people of this country had long desired to see embodied in the law. We all remember the predictions which were made at the time of the legislative interference with regard to children. It was acknowledged to be a great experiment. Has it failed? One would suppose, from the position in which we are now placed, that, although we might then have been justified in the course we took, yet that experience had convinced the House of Commons and the country that they committed a great error. But there is something yet more strange. It is. Sir, at a moment when the class with which that labouring population is immediately connected, is, according to its own account, most prosperous—at a time when, as they state, the condition of the operatives is morally and physically so much improved—that we are called upon to retrace our steps—to annul our previous legislation—in short, to admit that the law was a mistake, at a moment when it is proclaimed that its consequences have been most successful. Now there is one circumstance connected with this question which particularly demands the attention of Parliament.
1280
Long as was the period during which the agitation existed which heralded this law, notwithstanding it passed through a period during which political ardour and party passions occasionally produced, as they must ever in a free country produce, feelings of the greatest possible excitement—still, I will not say by a lucky accident, but rather a happy providence, the factory question was never indissolubly connected with the fortunes of any political party. And when, in 1847, that important Act was passed, it was proposed by a distinguished Member on this side of the House, it was cordially supported by the Prime Minister of the country, in opposition to the opinions of many of his political supporters, and it was passed, if not with the concurrence of all parties, in a manner which convinced the people of this country generally that it was the result of an unimpassioned belief, and not of any party combination. Well, this Act having been, as it is admitted, most successful, proved by experience that its consequences have been concomitant with the greatest commercial prosperity, with not only the maintenance, but the increase of wages amongst the labouring classes, with not only the maintenance, but the increase of exported commodities to those markets where we have been told the demand for those commodities would be most materially injured by the adoption of the law, without any complaint against the action of this law, by a strange combination of circumstances we are now called on to give a verdict on its character. What I want to know is this—what is the reason that, after so prolonged an agitation, and after such an elaborate and calm discussion, Parliament three years ago having passed the Ten Hours Act; we should now, in 1850, be called upon to repeal and abrogate it? If, indeed, the consequences that were predicted from the passing of this Act had occurred, I could understand our position. If the hon. Members for Manchester and the great towns of the north were to come forward and say that their mills were stopped because they could no longer afford to export to those foreign markets, which they have always said were their most important markets—if they came forward and said that the working classes were now discontented with the Bill, by reason of the want of employment and diminished wages to which they were subject—if they came forward and gave so gloomy a picture of the state of society in which they mix, and of which many of

1281
them are the leaders, I can comprehend, not that we should hastily, precipitately, without due cause, repeal the law which we had enacted—but I could understand why this House should seriously, calmly, and specially examine their complaints; and if you were convinced that this law was the cause of their adversity, you should not he ashamed to repeal that which you have already passed. I can equally understand that, under such circumstances, the Minister of this country would be only doing his duty if he came forward and confessed an error of judgment, when, in 1847, he had lent the high sanction of his justly great name to this law. But are we in this position—have any of these circumstances occurred? Not the least of them. Night after night, whenever a fitting opportunity happens, Gentlemen opposite, who are connected with the Ministry, tell us that this country was never in such a flourishing condition. Night after night Gentlemen who represent the great towns of the north re-echo their assertions. Night after night we are assured that the working classes are in the enjoyment of a higher rate of wages, and have a greater command over the necessaries of life than they have enjoyed at any former period. Were not those tests of our manufacturing prosperity so many proofs of the wisdom of the Legislature? You are agreed in the good fortune and the avowed content of the working classes under the legislation which exists. On what principle, then, do you come forward and ask us to repeal this important statute? But you do not come boldly forward and ask us to repeal it. Yon cannot say that you are damaged—you cannot say that the working classes are injured by the effect of this law. It is not on any ground so broad, upon any principle so clear, that you ask us to act. No, but you take advantage of a nisi prius exception to a statute. Legislating on what should influence the fruits of a great industry, and the reward of a great working community, instead of coming forward with some intelligible principle, you take advantage of a flaw in an Act of Parliament, and are about to deprive the people of the consequences of an agitation of thirty years—of an Act of Parliament which they struggled for, which was ratified by the concurrence of the great parties of the State, and sealed by the approbation of the Prime Minister. You are about to rifle the people of this country of the conse-
1282
quences of that agitation, and the legislation which followed—not on the merits of the case—hut by acts which an attorney would despise. The noble Lord who has just addressed us, says that it is not the Government who are dissatisfied, it is not the Government who wish to disturb the Act of 1847. It is the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley) who wishes to disturb the arrangement of 1847. But what the noble Lord the Member for Bath wanted was, not that you should interfere with the Act of 1847, but that you should remedy the Act of 1844. That which the factory workers look upon as sacred is the Act of 1847. I strip the question of all hair splittings. The working classes of this country imagine that, when they gained the Act of 1847, they succeeded in restricting the hours of their labour to ten hours a day. When you toll them, in consequence of an Act which passed in 1844, they are virtually to be deprived of the fruits of their labours, exemplified in the Act of 1847, you enter into a mystification which they cannot comprehend, and which, as clearsighted men, they do not wish to understand, and they ask you, will you stand to the Act of 1847? If you do so, amend the Act of 1844; but if you resolve otherwise—if you resolve to deprive them of the fruits of their labours, let me tell you that, while you do not satisfy their reasons, you may lose the allegiance of their hearts. It does not appear to me that the ground taken by the First Minister of the Crown is one which can he admitted into this discussion. I entirely deny the correctness of the position which he takes up. I think we have nothing whatever to do with the economical considerations involved in the consideration of this question. They have been discussed in this House, and out of this House. The result to which Parliament arrived may he erroneous, but, morally, we have no right to re-enter that domain of argument. It may have been most unwise and impolitic—it is not my opinion that it was unwise or impolitic—to have passed the law of 1847. We are not here now to discuss whether the tendency of our legislation is to cheek, or not to check, the power of production. It is a moral and not an economical question, which we are now called upon to decide. I agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that in this question what is concerned is the honour of the Parliament of England. I implore the House

1283
to consider what is contained in those momentous words. If it is the greatest calamity which can befall an individual to encounter a slur upon his faith—if, under the merited consciousness of such an imputation, his energy withered, and his influence vanished, do you think that the same fearful consequences are not attendant on a perfidious Parliament, or a treacherous nation? The voice of outraged faith is no respecter of persons. Its cry cannot be stifled; it will penetrate the Senate, and reach the Throne. We have always acknowledged that the most important elements of Government were its moral influences. The reason that the Government of this country is more powerful than other Governments is, because the moral influences are those which predominate. What you have to decide to-night is, whether you will taint this fountain of security, whether you can govern millions of freemen, except upon the principles of justice, benevolence, and truth. I ask you, the House of Commons, you who are always so prompt on all occasions to maintain faith with the public creditor at all costs, and to vindicate the honour of the country with foreign nations at all hazards, whether you are prepared, by opposing the Motion of my noble Friend the Member for Colchester, to make an exception in the brightness of your course, and, above all, to make that exception against the trusting and trustworthy working classes of the community?
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 142: Majority 39.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, Sir T. N.

Brotherton, J.

Adair, R. A. S.

Brown, W.

Alcock, T.

Browne, R. D.

Anson, hon. Col.

Burke, Sir T. J.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Carter, J. B.

Cavendish, W. G.

Bagshaw, J.

Childers, J. W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Clay, J.

Baring, H. B.

Clay, Sir W.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Clifford, H. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Bass, M. T.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Berkeley, Adm.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Collins, W.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Corbally, M. E.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Blackall, S. W.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Crowder, R. B.

Bright, J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Brocklehurst, J.

Davie, Sir H. R. F.

1284

Devereux, J. T.

Marshall, W.

Duke, Sir J.

Martin, J.

Duncan, Visct.

Matheson, Col.

Dundas, Adm.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Ebrington, Visct.

Melgund, Visct.

Egerton, W. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Ellis, J.

Moffatt, G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Monsell, W.

Enfield, Visct.

Moody, C. A.

Evans, J.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Evans, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Ewart, W.

Mure, Col.

Fagan, W.

Norreys, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

O'Brien, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

O'Connell, M.

Fordyce, A. D.

O'Connell, M. J.

Forster, M.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Fortescue, C.

Paget, Lord A.

Freestun, Col.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Parker, J.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Patten, J. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Peel, F.

Grace, O. D. J.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Greene, J.

Perfect, R.

Grenfell, C. P.

Price, Sir R.

Grenfell, C. W.

Pusey, P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Rawdon, Col.

Grey, R. W.

Rich, H.

Hall, Sir B.

Roche, E. B.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Romilly, Col.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Romilly, Sir J.

Harris, R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hastie, A.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hatchell, J.

Seymer, H. K.

Hawes, B.

Seymour, Lord

Havter, rt. hon. W. G.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Headlam, T. E.

Simeon, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Smith, J. A.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Smith, M. T.

Heywood, J.

Smith, J. B.

Heyworth, L.

Somers, J. P.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Spearman, H. J.

Hodges, T. L.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Howard, Lord E.

Stanton, W. H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hughes, W. B.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hume, J.

Talbot, J. H.

Humphery, Ald.

Tenison, E. K.

Hutchins, E. J.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Hutt, W.

Thornely, T.

Jermyn, Earl

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Towneley, J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Townloy, R. G.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Townshend, Capt.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Traill, G.

Lacy, H. C.

Tufnell, H.

Langston, J. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Villiers, Visct.

Legh, G. C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Wall, C. B.

Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F.

Watkins, Col. L.

Lewis, G. C.

West, F. R.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Lockhart, A. E.

Wilson, J.

Mackie, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Wood, W. P.

M'Gregor, J.

Wyvill, M.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

Magan, W. H.

TELLERS.

Mahon, Visct.

Hill, Lord M.

Marshall, J. G.

Bellew, R. M.

1285

List of the NOES.

Alexander, N.

Hildyard, R. C.

Anstey, T. C.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Hill, Lord E.

Arkwright, G.

Hood, Sir A.

Bagge, W.

Hornby, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Hudson, G.

Baldock, E. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Baldwin, C. B.

Jones, Capt.

Bankes, G.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Baring, T.

Knight, F. W.

Bateson, T.

Knightley, Sir C.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Law, hon. C. E.

Best, J.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Blair, S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Boldero, H. G.

Meagher, T.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Mandeville, Visct.

Boyd, J.

Manners, Lord G.

Bremridge, R.

Manners, Lord J.

Broadley, H.

Masterman, J.

Brockman, E. D.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Bromley, R.

Miles, W.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Morgan, O.

Bunbury, W. M.

Morris, D.

Burroughes, H. N.

Mullings, J. R.

Cabbell, B. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Cayley, E. S.

Naas, Lord

Chatterton, Col.

Napier, J.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Neeld, J.

Cobbold, J. C.

Neeld, J.

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Codrington, Sir W.

Newport, Visct.

Conolly, T.

Newry &c Morne, Visct.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Cubitt, W.

O'Connor, F.

Davies, D. A. S.

Packe, C. W.

Denison, E.

Palmer, R.

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

Palmer, R.

Dick, Q.

Powlett, Lord W.

Disraeli, B.

Prime, R.

Dod, J. W.

Rendlesham, Lord

Duncan, G.

Renton, J. C.

Duncuft, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Dundas, G.

Rushout, Capt.

Dunne, Col.

Scholefield, W.

Du Pre, C. G.

Scott, hon. F.

Edwards, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Egerton, Sir P.

Sidney, Ald.

Farnham, E. B.

Smyth, J. G.

Farrer, J.

Stanford, J. F.

Floyer, J.

Stanley, E.

Forbes, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Fox, W. J.

Taylor, T. E.

Fuller, E. E.

Thompson, Col.

Galway, Visct.

Thompson, G.

Gaskell, J. M.

Thornhill, G.

Goddard, A. L.

Tollemache, J.

Gooch, E. S.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Gore, W. R. O.

Trollope, Sir J.

Granby, Marq. of

Turner, G. J.

Granger, T. C.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Greenall, G.

Villiers, hon. F. W. C.

Grogan, E.

Waddington, H. S.

Gwyn, H.

Wakley, T.

Halford, Sir H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Halsey, T. P.

Welby, G. E.

Hamilton, G. A.

Williams, J.

Heald, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Herbert, H. A.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

1286

TELLERS.

Beresford, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.

METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
Clauses from 54 to 63 were agreed to.
Clause 64.
MR. LAW HODGESbegged to substitute the following:—
"And be it enacted, that the said board shall from time to time be assessed or rated to all county, parochial, or other local rates, for or in respect of any burial ground provided under this Act, and any building or place of burial therein, or other lands acquired by them for the purposes of this Act, in such and the same proportion as, but not at any higher value or improved rate than other lands lying near or adjacent thereto, are or shall, for the time being, be rated at, and as the lands to be so required and taken by the said board, would have been assessable or rateable in case the same lands had continued in their former state, and had not been acquired and used by the said board for the purposes of this Act."
SIR G. GREYhad no objection to the provisions, as he found they were inserted in most Cemetery Acts.
Clause agreed to.
The remaining Clauses agreed to, as were also the schedules.
MR. LACYrose, pursuant to notice, to move the addition of three clauses: the first, giving power to overseers to charge in their accounts the costs they may incur for the conveyance of the corpses of paupers dying within their parishes to any cemetery appointed under this Act. The second gave power to the Board of Health to enter into any contract with any railway company for the carrying out of corpses in properly constructed carriages to cemeteries; and the third giving power to directors of railway companies to make such contracts, and making the contracts binding on future directors.
MR. BAINESsaid, he would effect the object of the first clause, by introducing a few words on the bringing up of the report.
LORD D. STUARTsaid, he wished to make an attempt to obtain from Government information as to the mode intended to be adopted for the removal of corpses. If they allowed corpses to be carried by water they might propagate disease and contagion, for it had been observed that the cholera and infectious diseases followed the courses of rivers. He hoped Government would state the general mode to be followed of removing bodies from the metropolis. He suggested that the duty on horses should not be charged in respect of horses used by undertakers.
SIR G. GREYsaid, he could give no

1287
opinion as to the post-horse duty. With regard to the question of his noble Friend, the conveyance of the corpses would be included in the contract; but he could not say whether the corpses would be all carried by water. There was at present no prescribed mode. He had no doubt that the clause proposed would facilitate the cheap carriage of bodies to the cemeteries, and he felt no objection to it or the similar clause moved by the hon. Member.
MR. D'EYNCOURTasked whether it was intended to have one large cemetery for London, or several?
SIR G. GREYsaid, it would be clearly impossible to have one cemetery for the whole of the metropolis. As yet there had been no selection of cemeteries. It was an open question to be decided by the board when constituted, but it was under-Stood that the existing cemeteries would be made available for the purposes of the Act as far as possible.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, he wished to know whether there was to be a separate cemetery for Her Majesty's Government; and if that cemetery was to be paid for out of the public purse?
Clause agreed to.
MR. LAW HODGESproposed a clause authorising the board to pay compensation to owners and occupiers of land near or adjoining to lands taken, in the manner provided by the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act.
The ATTORNEY GENERALobjected to the clause, as, if it were adopted, owners at a distance from the lands taken might consider themselves aggrieved, and demand compensation.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read the First Time."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 180: Majority 161.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL The ATTORNEY GENERAL moved the following Clause:—
"And be it enacted, that the salary of the additional member of such board, to be appointed and fixed as aforesaid, shall not exceed the annual sum of 1,500 l., and shall be defrayed out of the fees and sums received by the said board under this Act."
MAJOR BERESFORDthought 1,200 l. a sufficient salary for the new officer.
SIR B. HALLbelieved that the office was to be created only for the purpose of placing patronage at the disposal of the Government. Ministers had been asked repeatedly who was to fill the office, but had never answered the question. Hon.
1288
Members could draw their own conclusions from that circumstance.
SIR G. GREYthought it unreasonable to expect that the Bill could be carried into effect without the assistance of another paid officer, there being at present only one.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, that the taxpayers would not like the additional burden thrown upon them by the Bill. He should move that the salary be only 1,000 l. a year.
LORD ASHLEYassured the Committee that the charge made against the Government of seeking patronage under this Bill was unfounded. The proposition which the Board of Health originally submitted to the Government was, that a distinct Commission to consist of four paid members, should be established. The Government said, they were unwilling to extend the number of paid Commissioners, and expressed a hope that the Board of Health, with some assistance, would be able to discharge the functions the Bill would impose upon them. An idea, he understood, prevailed, that the office of paid member of the board was destined for him. The notion was completely unfounded. It was his happiness to have served the public without remuneration, and it was his intention to continue in that course so long as he was allowed to do so. His experience of the working of the board satisfied him that additional assistance was necessary. It was impossible the board could go on with its present staff, even if no additional duties should be thrown upon it.
MAJOR BERESFORDdid not dispute the necessity of appointing another paid member to the board; he merely objected to the amount of salary proposed to be given him.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, that a salary of 1,000 l. was enough, and more than enough, in these times.
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he could not state who was to fill the office, because he did not at present know. As to the salary, he would not object to fix it at the sum suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Essex—namely, 1,200 l.
VISCOUNT GALWAYthought the House ought to act consistently with respect to salaries. It had recently been determined that a dean should receive no more than 1,000 l. a year. Surely that which we thought enough for a dean ought to satisfy a member of the Board of Health.
COLONEL SIBTHORPwould support the

1289
hon. Alderman if he divided. It had been considered the other evening that 1,000 l. a year was enough for a dean, who was to superintend the living; and if so, 1,000 l. a year was enough for a commissioner to superintend the dead.
The Amendment proposed by Mr. Alderman SIDNEY was withdrawn, the words "twelve hundred pounds" were inserted, and the clause, so amended, agreed to.
SIR B. HALLthen moved the following Clause:—
"That no compensation shall be awarded to incumbents, clerks, or sextons for the loss of any fees for the burial of persons who may have been brought for interment from other parishes."
It was known that certain days were set apart for funerals of paupers, who were crammed into a pit together, one funeral service read in the plural number, and a fee demanded for each interment separately, as if there was a separate service over each. This was a most indecent and disgraceful proceeding. In St. Giles's-in-the-Fields there were 360 fees charged for the burial of that number of paupers in 1847, and only about 100 services read, being about one service to 3½ bodies. In 1848 there were 426 fees, and only 104 services, being about 4¼ bodies to each service. In 1849 there were 482 fees for only about 120 services performed. He believed that St. Giles's was not the only instance in the metropolis where this abominable conduct was pursued by the clergyman; and he thought care ought to be taken in passing a compensation clause. There were interred in St. Giles's burying ground a much larger number of bodies than the number of persons who died in the parish. The rector charged 4s. for the burial of each pauper, though five or six of them were put in one grave, and the clerical sexton read one service over them.
LORD ASHLEYbegged to state, that in consequence of what passed on a former occasion the Board of Health had directed one of their inspectors to examine the state of things in this burial ground, and make a report upon it; his report was now ready, and would be immediately presented. The result was this: that the burial ground was constructed under an Act of Parliament passed in 1803, which not only gave power for the construction of the burial ground, but regulated the fees, and gave permission to inter non-residents; that the Rev. Mr. Tyler found the custom prevailing when he became rector in 1826, and conformed to the custom; but so far
1290
from being anxious to exaggerate the fees, the fees had been reduced since he took the incumbency, at his instance, with the consent of the vestry. It was stated that the rector's fee was 9s. 6d. for the interment of each pauper, but only 4s. of that went to the rector; the rest went in what was called the churchwarden's fee, and to the clerk and sexton. Other matters had been stated with which the report would be found to deal. It was said that the Rev. Mr. Tyler praised the condition of the graveyard in 1842, and afterwards it was found in a had condition. The evidence was given in 1842, and the statement upon which the charge was made related to 1846, and was examined and refuted in 1847. It was not to be denied that the system of pauper funerals was not such as any one could wish; but he (Lord Ashley) sincerely hoped that a remedy would be applied. If there could be any doubt of the necessity of such a measure as that now introduced, it must be removed by the state of the graveyards under the control of the parishes. The rector was not the chargeable party. This graveyard was under the management of trustees, of whom he was only one, and taking no more part than occasionally to interpose and correct where he had the power. The rector had not been cognisant of many of the misdeeds referred to; but no doubt a system had prevailed which was excessively disgusting, and which it was to be hoped would cease after this Bill became law. He (Lord Ashley) trusted that then the pauper would receive decent and proper interment.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERwas per suaded that the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone totally misunderstood the ground on which these fees for interments were taken. The hon. Member must be totally ignorant of the mode of performing all the services and offices of the Church of England under circumstances in which more than one body was to be buried in the same place at the same time, if he thought it the duty of the clergyman to read the service more than once. The service was adapted to be read with the substitution of the plural for the singular. So with regard to baptisms, marriages, and all the services of the Church; and the fees were to be paid to the clergyman, not for reading the service, but for performing his office according to the custom and manner of the Church. Therefore, the hon. Baronet complained of the law

1291
and universal custom of the Church, in which there was neither impropriety nor indecency in reading one service when there was more than one body, if otherwise the funerals were conducted in a proper and decent manner. He had heard with great pain an attack made in a very unkind and unfair spirit on a gentleman who had discharged the important duties of his office in a laborious, pious, exemplary, and most successful manner, and who was spoken of by the poor and rich through his parish in terms of the highest respect, veneration, and affection.
SIR B. HALLsaid, that if the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth had laid down the law correctly, the rev. gentleman had taken the most convenient way of discharging his duties. But he only allowed two days in the week for the interment of paupers. It was said that the reverend gentleman was not responsible for what was done, and that the whole was conducted under a board of trustees. In order to show how far the reverend gentleman was responsible, he should refer to a resolution of the joint vestry of Holborn, which declared that, in the event of proceedings being taken by the Board of Health against the churchwardens, their Solicitor should be instructed to defend the churchwardens, and take such steps as counsel might advise. The rector of St. Giles was in the chair, and signed that resolution. The evidence he (Sir B. Hall) had cited the other day was given by most respectable people; and it would be a very great satisfaction to himself, if he found the report to be laid on the table could refute that evidence, which showed the state of matters to be most disgraceful.
MR. GOULBURNthought that what had fallen from the hon. Baronet was only a proof of the facility with which he could make charges against a reverend gentleman whose character ought to protect him against imputation from any one, at least, who knew him. The hon. Baronet, he presumed, did not know that reverend gentleman. The hon. Baronet argued that the clergyman was responsible in these matters, because he signed a resolution against the interference of the Board of Health. But the clergyman was chairman of the meeting of vestry by law; although he had been in a minority of one he would have signed that document; and he was as little responsible for the resolution of the body over which he presided as the Speaker for a decision of that House. The attack
1292
of the hon. Baronet had given the Reverend Mr. Tyler the satisfaction of receiving from the persons best acquainted with the affairs of the parish an address, which was presented yesterday, expressing in the most gratifying terms their sense of his kindness, and of the mode in which his duties were discharged, and adding that they represented the general opinion entertained by all who had observed his conduct during the twenty years of his ministration in that parish. He might, then, fairly endure the imputations which, in ignorance of the facts, the hon. Baronet had thought it necessary to bring against him.
CAPTAIN BOLDEROhad seen twenty or thirty couples married at the same time a few days ago, and suggested that an alteration should be made in the fees for marriages as well as for burials.
Amendment negatived.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.
The House adjourned at One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Public Houses (Scotland).
Reported.—Distress for Rent (Ireland); Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Amendment; Sheriff of Westmoreland Appointment; Judgments (Ireland).

CHANCERY COURT OF APPEAL BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BROUGHAM: * I am now to solicit the attention of your Lordships
1200
while, according to my notice, I state the reasons which induce me to postpone the further proceeding with this Bill. I introduced it first in 1833, while a Minister of the Crown, and with the entire concurrence of my Colleagues. But I then stated that we were fully aware of the great difficulties which surrounded the measure, that we by no means pledged ourselves to abide by it after fuller consideration should be given by Parliament and by the legal profession, that we presented it as the result of the attention which we had been able to bestow upon the very difficult subject, and that we desired to have it stand over for more deliberate discussion during the approaching vacation, The other Bill which we presented in the following year contained new provisions; but the measure of 1833 is the one which I lately reintroduced, and which now stands for a second reading.
It was a deep sense of the existing evils, and a conviction that some remedy ought if possible to be applied, that influenced the Government of 1833 in bringing the subject before Parliament; and when the retirement of the Chancellor and the appointment of Commissioners to hold the Great Seal, seemed to give a favourable occasion for again considering this important matter, I was naturally led to press it upon the attention of the Government, in the hope that some arrangement might be made for meeting the great exigency of the case. This led to my reintroducing the Bill of 1833. I must now ask your attention to this subject—if it be possible, your patient attention. For I am well aware that it is none of the most attractive, although it is one of the most important. It is surrounded by none of the flowers which recommend other questions to the sense of public assemblies; it is unconnected with personal matter, unmixed with party topics, unadorned by amusing details—in a word, it is of a dry, of a forbidding, even of a repulsive aspect. It is only of vast importance to the country and to the constitution. It is one of those questions, therefore, which being of all others the most important, are exactly those, according to a well known pleasantry of Mr. Canning, which nobody at all ever cares anything at all about. As, therefore, I have nothing to recommend my subject but its intrinsic value, stripped of all outward charms, I have but a moderate chance of engaging your attention to

1201
its details. Nevertheless, it is my duty to explain those details; because at the present moment the greatest ignorance of them prevails both out of doors and within. The subject is known only to professional men; others are wholly unacquainted with it. Such of my noble Friends opposite, and such of the House at large as may honour me with their attention, will very soon perceive both the importance of the question, and the difficulties that encumber it; both the reasons for applying a remedy, and the obstacles in the way of its application.
The complaint is not of yesterday that the Lord Chancellor has more duties cast upon him than can be satisfactorily performed by a single individual. As long ago as the days of the Bacons and the Cokes, the same grievance was complained of, and loudly. Early in the seventeenth century, Lord Coke said that there was more for the Chancellor to do than could be got through satisfactorily by him and the Master of the Rolls, his helpmate. He spoke from observation; and Lord Bacon, speaking from experience, gave the same opinion. Yet in those days the claims upon that great officer's time, his industry, his ability, were not a fifth part equal to their present amount. First of all he presides nearly ten months in the year, and presides sole Judge, in the Court of Chancery; next he presides in the House of Lords as Speaker, in which capacity he is chief Judge of all appeals from England, Scotland, and Ireland—and I may observe in passing that the weight of the Scotch and Irish Appeals has been cast into the scale since the days of Lord Coke; then he is a Minister of the Crown, a Member of the Cabinet, with great authority and influence among his Colleagues, who accordingly expect, and justly expect, that he should with them give his best attention to the arduous concerns of the realm; again, he is the Minister of Justice, whose high office it is to select the persons fit for the Bench, and for whose learning, capacity, and integrity as Judges he is solely responsible. But further, upon all matters connected with criminal and civil jurisprudence he has to counsel the Sovereign, for it is to him that on all such questions the Crown and the Cabinet looks Lastly, as by a strange anomaly, this highest of the Judges, but that he exercises himself no criminal jurisdiction, is removable at pleasure, and as a member
1202
of a political party, the party in power for the time being, he must bear his share, and an ample one it is sure to be, in the contentious and not seldom fatiguing debates of this House.
Such are the various and heavy duties of the Great Seal; and hence the wonder is not great that working under the pressure of such a load, few Chancellors are equal to cope with the business of their courts and to keep down the arrears whether of Chancery or of the Lords. When I took the Great Seal in November, 1830, I found above 150 appeals that stood for hearing, with a heavy arrear, I believe of near 100 causes, in this House. By great exertions on my own part and on that of the Bar this heavy arrear was got rid of; 147 Appeals having been heard and determined in Chancery, besides other business to a great amount, and above 80 causes in the Lords. But not only had I to sit early and late, sometimes till past midnight, during those eleven months; from the controversy on the Reform Bill this House sat till the middle of October, and hence, after the Court of Chancery had adjourned for want of fresh business, I could sit for six weeks or more to hear causes in this House—I remember coming down at twelve o'clock on the 12th of October, having only left the woolsack at seven that morning, when the five days' debate closed on the Reform Bill. It is true that we thus overcome the arrear, and I was enabled to keep it down during the four years I held the Great Seal; but it is no less true that exertions like these cannot be often made either by the Bench or the Bar—they cannot be undergone twice by the same individual—and no individual expects to be called on to make them once. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Cottenham), not now present, ascribed my bad health in 1836, which prevented me from attending the service of the House, to these labours; but this was a mistake. I felt fatigued during the winter of 1831–2; but in 1833–4 I had completely recovered. However, the case is quite strong enough in its true colours and just proportions, and needs no exaggeration to prove how grievous a load the Great Seal lays on the shoulders of him who undertakes to hold it. The general impression on men's minds is, that something must if possible be done for his relief. But then arises the question—what is that something? How are you to apply remedy which will be

1203
both effectual and safe—will relieve the grievous pressure, without occasioning other evils yet more serious?
Having stated the mischiefs complained of, I am now bound to state the difficulties we have to grapple with in remedying it—difficulties which form my reasons for asking your Lordships to postpone the Bill on your table—difficulties which I shall do a good service to the State, by describing them in connection with the proposed remedies, not as believing them to be insurmountable, but as convinced that they must receive a calm and deliberate consideration from well-informed men, before any plan can be safely adopted for meeting the evil, whose existence and magnitude all confess.
The first expedient that presents itself, and which is supposed to be so easy as to be deemed quite a matter of course, is the division of the Chancellor's office into two—separating his purely judicial duties from his functions partly judicial, partly political, depriving him of his place in the Court of Chancery, confining him to his seat on the woolsack, and his duties as Minister of Justice. As the bulk of his labours are those in Chancery, and the arrear chiefly arises there, nothing can be more natural than this suggestion. As he is a sole Judge in Chancery, and therefore should be irremovable like all other Judges, nothing can be more plausible than the plan of a permanent Chief Judge in Equity, while the Speaker and the Minister, and the President of the Judicial Committee, continue removable—I say nothing of the anomaly of having a Chancellor minus the Court of Chancery—a Chancellor to sit every where but in his own Court—a Chancellor admitted to judge in the Lords and in the Privy Council, but expelled from the Court of Chancery—for all this I should not value at a rush, were there not more substantial difficulties in my way. But such unhappily there are, well known to Chancery men, easily apprehended by all the profession, and which I hope to make also comprehensible by your Lordships. There must be an appeal within the Court of Chancery. At present the appeal is from the Rolls and from the Vice Chancellors to the Chancellor; from him to this House. I say an appeal from these Equity Judges there must be. No one can have a greater respect than I have, in common with all the profession, for the Master of the Rolls—his great learning and long experience—for the profound knowledge and
1204
practical ability of the Vice-Chancellor of England—for the talents, assiduity, and learning of the Vice Chancellors Knight Bruce and Wigram—and the integrity of all these eminent Judges stands wholly un impeached and unsuspected. But no Judge, whatever be his accomplishments or his industry, can be safely trusted without the control of superintendence, to stimulate if tardy, to curb if hasty, to correct if mistaken. An appeal then there must be, were it only that each may sit and judge with the knowledge that his decisions are subject to review elsewhere. Nor can this appeal be to your Lordships' House direct, because many causes will not bear the labour, the expense, and the delay of this resort to the highest Court. Then motions often raise most important questions, and interlocutory orders made upon motions, regulate the course, and may determine the fate of the most important causes. Yet, though by law an appeal lies to this House on every interlocutory order, as well as final decree, I have hardly the recollection of above one or two motions, brought here by appeal in the last 30 years. Numberless motions are constantly disposed of with great forensic contention by the four inferior Judges in Equity, often being on mere points of practice, but important points, as I have shown. It is necessary that there should be a superintending power over the Judges who deal with and decide upon them. Hitherto appeal motions have come before the Great Officer at the head of the Law, first of all Judges, as well as first of Equity Judges, and clothed with the respect which distinguished eminence in various kinds is fitted to command. Such an appeal involves no inconsistency or absurdity—it is not from a Judge to his equal or co-ordinate, but to his superior. From one Vice-Chancellor to another—every one at once perceives an appeal would be preposterous: still more from the Master of the Rolls to a Vice Chancellor. Then so would an appeal be from the Judges to the new Chief Judge in Equity, whom it is proposed to create; for it is quite manifest that this new Judge will be only a kind of Vice-Chancellor—a Vice-Chancellor whose higher salary will not more than make up for his lower antiquity. Nay, certainly, he will stand in lesser estimation than an ancient officer who sits at the Rolls.
To meet this obvious difficulty, it has been proposed to have the Court of Appeal

1205
in Chancery composed in each case of three Judges, from whose decisions the appeal does not come, preserving the analogy of the Common Law, which gives to the Judges of the two Courts jurisdiction in writs of error from the third; so that the Common Pleas and Exchequer decide in error from the King's Bench, and the King's Bench and Common Pleas in error from the Exchequer. But then see the other difficulty to which this apparently plausible scheme leads. The experience of the last five and thirty years shows that there are always appeals in Chancery fully to occupy one Court. Since the Vice Chancellor was created in 1813, as Sir Samuel Romilly foretold, the Chancellor became a mere Judge of Appeal. I had full experience of this in the four years of ray office—exactly four years—for I took the Great Seal on the 22nd of November, 1830, and quitted it November 22nd, 1834. I heard no more than some eleven or twelve original causes, the rest were appeals. Many motions I heard no doubt, but chiefly appeal motions. There is, therefore, quite appeal business enough for one Court, especially since the creation of two new Vice-Chancellors. Thus the now Chief, sitting with two or three of the inferior Judges, would form a Court of Appeal all the year round; or, in other words, all the Courts but one would be closed against original causes; and the Great Seal would be permanently in Commission—an arrangement which would at once create an arrear far greater than ever en-encumbered the Court in the worst of times.
This difficulty throws us back on the House of Lords; but no prospect of relief from its appellate jurisdiction can be afforded, even if expense were out of the question, because the Appeal Court must be constantly sitting, at least for motions, and your Lordships only sit half the year. It has indeed sometimes been proposed to sit for judicial business during the Parliamentary vacation. But to this there are the greatest objections. If the House is sitting at all, though only for causes, how can you prevent any person having privilege of Peerage from interfering with questions and motions upon seeing the Chancellor in his place? And if a statutory prohibition of all business, except judicial, is enacted, it is plain that a very awkward division is, for the first time, made of the House's functions, and it can hardly any more be Said, either that the Lords are
1206
Judges indiscriminately, or that an Appeal lies in Parliament. An arrangement of this kind seems very much akin to a transition from our present constitution to a new and untried one; if it be not in itself an abdication of our judicial functions. However, I would by no means be understood to give a final and positive opinion, even on this part of the question. I avoid above all things speaking dogmatically. It is my purpose to express the difficulty, and suggest the doubts which experience and reflection have pointed out to myself and others. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) now absent from, I rejoice in common with your Lordships to think, a temporary indisposition, has fully gone into all these questions with me; and our last conference upon them was aided by a most learned and able Common Law Judge, who had formerly exercised equitable jurisdiction. We felt the pressure of the difficulty; we did not wholly despair of being able, by apt provisions, to overcome it; we were only quite assured of one thing, that further inquiry and fuller discussion were absolutely necessary before a plan could safely, or, in any manner of way, usefully be framed and adopted.
But suppose this difficulty overcome, and by a satisfactory arrangement: I proceed now to one of a more general nature, and the extent of which, in all its relations, has formed the chief cause of postponing further proceedings for the present. The question which now occupies us is of a general nature, affecting not only the whole equitable jurisdiction, but the whole judicial system, the whole law, and the constitution itself of our mixed Government.
First, to sustain our judicial system, and to secure the due administration of justice, it is necessary that great powers, great learning, capacity and integrity on the Bench, should be met by eminent talents and accomplishments at the Bar. If the judge is the dispenser of justice, the advocate is its minister. And from among the practitioners at the Bar must the Judges themselves be selected. Now, if anything is more clear in our system than another, it is this—that the character of the profession at large is bound up with the dignity of the Great Seal, its powers, its privileges, its splendour—but, above all, the high character, the professional eminence, the transcendent qualities of him who holds it. If

1207
you do anything to lower that dignity, to obscure that lustre, you remove from the eye of the profession the great prize, the sight of which in prospect, remote and precarious though it be, quickens and invigorates every man who wears the advocate's robe—everyone who toils in the humble walk of the profession, the special pleader, the equity draftsman, the students who labour at their desks, the youths not yet admitted to share that toil; you veil from their eyes that lofty and dazzling summit, the view of which sweetens their daily and nightly toil, consoling them under all privations, cheering them in the disappointments to which our profession is peculiarly exposed. No longer do those laborious and deserving men proudly exult in feeling that they belong to a body from whom must be chosen, not only the ordinary Judges, but the supreme of all, the Lord High Chancellor, endowed with title, fortified with power, exalted by rank, strengthened with emolument, "by merit raised to that good eminence," because called to the discharge of duties which only the able and the learned can perform. The character of the profession is lowered with that of its chief; the body from which all the other Judges are chosen is deteriorated in quality; these Judges are lessened in estimation with the exalted functionary who stands at their head, whose fiat planted them on the bench, and whose name protects and sustains them. These Judges shine much by their own lustre, but much also by the splendour of their great chief, which they share while they reflect. It is a vain and empty error which they commit who talk of the useless splendour and expensive dignity of the Great Seal. I am here using no romantic fanciful language, when I describe the vast practical importance of its being clothed with the utmost splendour which exalted station and eminent merit can invest it withal. It is a matter of constant and actual experience that the whole profession of the law, as well Bench as Bar, is affected by the splendour and qualifications of its chief. But then both must combine, both personal merit and political attributes; individual eminence and official supremacy. It may be hoped, that by retaining great income, high station and ample power, the office of Chancellor, though stript of its judicial functions, will still hold out a dazzling prize to the legal body. That is not sufficient; if it no longer is held by truly worthy men, if it is either bestowed upon party zeal
1208
and subserviency, or upon mediocrity favoured by personal connexion with the distributors of favour—the name may remain—the substance is gone. The Great Seal may glitter, but it becomes a bauble. That which men revered, because a Bacon, a Nottingham, a Hardwick, an Eldon, had once held it, they will no longer observe with respect in the hands of a race, successors of Shaftesbury. They had been wont to fix their eyes on the great men themselves, at least as much as on their names and their robes. They will turn away from the externals of the office when no longer sustained by internal merit and enduring renown.
This it is that makes me hesitate to sever the Lord Chancellor from his proper functions and expel him from Chancery. I can no longer see any security against party zeal, or favoured mediocrity clutching the Great Seal. While no one can hold it without sitting continually in open court, alone and unassisted, to answer whatever motion may be made, often without the security of having both parties before him, in the face of an able, astute, jealous Bar, without time for consultation, without the possibility of applying in any quarter for help; while he must in like manner, though less suddenly, dispose alone of the most difficult cases, whether original causes or appeals; we have a reasonable security against any one venturing to seize the great prize by climbing to this perilous height, if he feels that he is likely to expose his incapacity, and be tumbled headlong by public scorn; but we have a perfect security against any Government consenting to elevate such an one, though his own blind presumption should tempt him to run the risk. Hitherto we have never seen any such promotion of known incapacity, and very rarely indeed, perhaps not above once in a couple of centuries, mediocrity, whether personal or professional, thrust into the place consecrated to eminent merit. But how will it be with the place of Chancellor stripped of equitable jurisdiction? I see nothing so very appalling in the Speakership of this House as would necessarily deter ambitious mediocrity from climbing or crawling to the woolsack. Different, far different from the functions I have feebly pourtrayed—functions that may stagger the boldest aspirants to office—are the judicial duties that devolve upon your President. He can never by any possibility have to dispose of any matter which has not been

1209
long before him, and with full materials for deciding it. Every cause has been printed in all its details, with all the arguments of counsel on either side, the cases relied on, and the opinions and reasonings of the Judges who have decided in the court below. All this has been in his hands for many weeks, generally many months. And in any case of the least difficulty he may have the assistance of the Common Law Judges (it is now proposed to give him also the aid of the Equity Judges) who not only fully inform him, but relieve him from the whole responsibility of the ultimate decision. It plainly requires very little of the courage which vaulting ambition is proverbially endued withal, to covet so safe an elevation—a position as little attended with hazard as it is greatly clothed with powerful attractions; it requires also but little firmness of purpose in a Minister thus to elevate his adherent, at once repaying servility with promotion, and securing the advantages of patronage for his other tools.
But the Chancellor is, by Lord Lyndhurst's judicious suggestion, ex officio to preside in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I can assert that this will make no material difference in the question, and in no degree get rid of the difficulty which meets us in such formidable shape. By the rule which I originally laid down, when I founded that most important and useful Court, the course pursued is this: the four Judges take the causes in rotation, turn and turn about. All four thus work equally; for each assists, to the best of his ability, the one who is in his turn: but each in his turn prepares and gives the judgment which is written, according to a wholesome practice which I introduced also into the Court of Chancery and this House sitting in Appeals. The judgment is then revised by the other three; and so it is, when pronounced, the judgment with the reasons of all four. It needs hardly be observed that this course, though it is highly beneficial to the administration of justice by securing the fullest consideration of each particular in every case, a thing the most essential in a tribunal of the last resort, whose decision can only be altered by an Act of the Legislature, yet is calculated to remove all peculiar weight from the presiding Judge's shoulders, and to leave him with no greater individual responsibility than any one of his brethren. Hence I am, I fear, too well warranted in the ap-
1210
prehension that the newly endowed and commissioned Chancellor will have no material addition made to the difficulties of his position, the responsibility under which he is laid, the anxiety which he may feel on undertaking the office, by his Privy Council duties; and that he is still left in a very different situation in all these material respects from his present position of first Equity Judge presiding in the High Court of Chancery, as well as Chief Judge of Appeal, in this House. I dread the effects of this change, then, in lessening the security both that inferior men will fear to take the Great Seal, and that Ministers will fear so to bestow its great privileges. I look with much anxiety to the probable result that a very different succession of Chancellors will be found to bear the name of the high functionary illustrated by the great men who have presided over the law, aye, and over the Lords—a succession of Chancellors whose principal claim to the remembrance of after ages may be the office they held, peradventure, degraded by coming into comparison with their renowned predecessors.
Aye, and the Lords! For it well becomes you, my Lords, to give this topic your best attention. It is not merely the law and its practitioners that are deeply interested in the question. Tua res agitur, I say to this House. Whatever lowers the high judicial officer of whom we are speaking, lowers the Lords' House of Parliament in the most important of all its high functions. Let it not be supposed that I am romancing or declaiming—indulging in fanciful speculations, or in empty or unprofitable talk—when I express my apprehension of anything that can lower your estimation in the country, or your authority in the Constitution as the Supreme Judicature of this realm. On your judicial character mainly rests that estimation and that authority. Strip the House of its judicial attributes, you endanger its very existence. Judicature is to the Lords as important as money to the Commons. Strip either of their peculiar attributes, and the virtue has departed from it. But I protest I rather think the loss of those functions altogether is less to be dreaded than the lowering of the capacity worthily to perform them. If you are converted into an inferior Court of Justice, no longer looked up to with awful reverence, no longer declaring the law of the land with the universal acceptance of the people, you become worse than a blank—you may be a blot on

1211
the Constitution—instead of that venerable body, its strength and its ornament, in respect for which I have grown old, and of which I am proud to be a Member.
These considerations it was that induced me, with the concurrence of my Colleagues, to make a material addition in 1834 to the measure of the preceding year. The Chancellor was to be the Chief Judge of Appeal in Chancery, sitting with one other Judge and a Baron of the Exchequer, then a Court of Equity, which it afterwards ceased to be. But there was this unanswerable objection to that arrangement—it got rid of one difficulty in a certain degree, not entirely; it gave the Chancellor more duties to perform, and prevented his entire separation from his proper Court. But then in proportion as it effected this, it lessened the value of the change; for it failed to relieve the Chancellor, whose over burthened state is the very ground of all our attempts to new-model his office. The Court of Appeal in Chancery would have as much labour cast upon it as the single Judge now has cast upon him; and you would thus lessen his industrial responsibility, while you left him with the same amount of labour to undergo. I think, therefore, that the answer to the objections which press us is not to be found in this direction.
All the considerations to which I have adverted, will, I hope, indeed I am sure, meet with the attention their importance so well deserves in the proper quarter, both from your Lordships and from the Government. My noble and most esteemed Friend at the head of the Government has announced elsewhere that the subject now occupies its attention; and the moment for the inquiry is most opportune. The Great Seal is to be put in Commission. This will give ample time fully to discuss all the measures which learned and experienced men can propound for remedying the evils complained of. They are exceedingly ignorant of the subject who object to this Commission, and deprecate it even as a temporary measure—for temporary, of course, it only can be. The judicial force in Chancery is so greatly increased since 1835, when the last Commission continued for nine months, that no material inconvenience can now comparatively be experienced. In. fact, the creation of two Vice-Chancellors in 1842 makes a Commission of which two Equity Judges form part, exactly the same thing as the Court of Chancery without any Commission
1212
before that year. There are always three Courts of Equity sitting, only instead of one of them being under a single Judge, it is under three. Some practitioners may be injured to the extent of a few hundred pounds, by having, in 1850, only the same number of courts that they had in 1841, and fewer than they had in 1849—that is really the whole difference, and I am sure of that they will never be heard to complain. Compared with their gains in 1841, they have no shortcoming by possibility to lament. Therefore the Commission gives a very favourable opportunity for dealing with this most important subject, and examining it in all its bearings. The great object of our endeavours, the problem in jurisprudence to be solved, is, that the attributes of the Great Seal may be so moulded as to give the requisite relief to the officer who holds it, without lessening his just importance in the law and in the constitution; above all, without lessening our security that he shall be fully adequate to the discharge of his duties, including, among the most essential of these, his functions as Minister of Justice. The difficulties which beset this problem, I have endeavoured to describe; and very far indeed from despairing of success, when time shall have been taken for the investigation, I again express my satisfaction at finding it in the hands of my friends and former colleagues, from whom I expect a diligent care of the matter they have undertaken, but from whom I also exact a very anxious regard to all the difficulties of the question. For what I have shown in detail, though I am far indeed from despairing of success, is abundantly sufficient to warn against every thing like precipitate legislation—that great haste which proverbially is nothing like good speed.
Let the long vacation be taken for reflection, and deliberation, and, above all, due inquiry. Don't fancy you can strike out at a heat plans of judicial improvement, which the most practised lawyers of the largest and most varied experience, find the utmost difficulty in conceiving. Dismiss from your minds the vain notion that the difficulties don't exist which their well-skilled eyes perceive, obstructing each step of their progress; nor imagine that ignorant men, being blind to them, proves them easily overleapt. With the exception of one learned friend of mine, formerly high in office, whom, by a mere accident, I have not been able to consult, I

1213
have discussed this subject with all the leading members of the profession, as well as my noble Friend already named, and other Judges. I well remember the phrase of one learned and able person, also once a high officer in the law. "It would be less absurd and less presumptuous to think of extemporising a Reform Bill than a Bill for new modelling the Chancellor's office." It may be said that the Government can throw out a plan, and let it stand over for consideration. But I dread this, because when once committed, a Government finds it difficult to retrace its steps. Take then time; the long vacation approaches; that season is very much fitter for the consideration of such matters than the hurried weeks of an expiring Session—a Session peradventure expiring in the throes of a Government assailed from many quarters. But in the recess, the strife of party has ceased; the noise of debate is still; the contentions of this House are over; the hum of the Commons no more fills the ear. ["Hear, hear!"] I protest, my Lords, that I use the expression without the least disrespect. Nay, that respectable body may well regard it as highly flattering to be compared with the most ingenious and industrious of insects, which never wastes its time in empty noise, but ever perseveres in its work, and allows no minute to pass without storing up the valuable produce of its labours. Drones there will be in the best regulated hive; a wasp or two may find its way into the abode of work and of sweets; but profitable labour undisturbed by strife is the characteristic of that scene—and the word which escaped me betokened not only respect but a disposition to somewhat hyperbolic eulogy. In the recess, then, when all is still in the House, when the business of office is relaxed, the din of the courts, the strepitus fori is heard no more, and the agitators of the popular assembly cease to trouble, when their ordinary occupations do not press on Ministers to absorb, or the claims of their suitors to distract their attention, let my noble Friends prosecute their inquiries.
Another reason suggests itself to show that the delay is accompanied with no real loss of time; but I reserve the mention of it until I add a word on what seems to me the proper course of investigation. For I don't wish to deal in generals; I have stated in full detail the difficulty, and I will now suggest what appears to me the fit and the safe way of endeavouring to van-
1214
quish it. The course which I shall propose is plain and simple, yet I hesitate to propound it, lest, coming from me, my noble Friends opposite should have jealous scruples about adopting it. However, I will state my proposal. Let a Commission be entrused with the important inquiry—well composed of three, or not more than five competent persons, not being Judges of any court. Let them examine all the heads of the Courts of Equity, both at present presiding there and those retired from the bench, all the Masters in Chancery, the other officers of the Court, the chief practitioners at the Bar, and the respectable Solicitors, a body deserving of all praise from me who know their valuable aid to the cause of law amendment—for they are my useful and disinterested coadjutors. From the examination of all these persons, from discussing with them the various plans propounded, and from receiving their suggestions, I entertain very sanguine hopes that the greatest benefit will result to the question, and that a body of information will be collected, on which the Government may safely proceed to ground their measures. Even if it should—which God forbid!—be found that the evils complained of unhappily admit of no safe and effectual remedy, at least we shall have the satisfaction of reflecting that all means have been fully and honestly tried, and that the causes of our failure have been fully explained. Let then my noble Friends pursue this safe and rational plan, and not be borne away by ignorant clamour, by the impatience of thoughtless and uninformed men, rashly and presumptuously to devise schemes that will not bear the test of examination by a learned and practised eye. To yield to the pressure from without—never a very creditable course—is absolutely fatal on a subject like this, which only experienced men can even pretend to understand.
I have said that the delay will occasion no real loss of time, because of a consideration of which I postponed the mention till I had stated my plan. Even if all were ready before the Session closed, and if a measure had received the sanction of Parliament, ample time must be given for selecting the men to whom you may safely entrust the working of the new scheme. It may be, that the profession does not at present furnish them—above all, the great officer who is to come in the Chancellor's place. But at all events, great deliberation will be required to make the choice. For of this you may be well assured, that

1215
suppose two new functionaries are to divide between them the duties of the Great Seal, the success of the plan, aye, the whole success of it, will depend upon the first choice. Men must be pitched upon who unite in their favour, to the greatest degree possible in the present state of the profession, the approving voices of their brethren, and the respect of the country. Woe to the Government, if yielding to the clamours of party zeal or subserviency, or even to the feelings of personal attachment, still more of private connexion, they select for either place, but above all for the highest, any whose known and acknowledged station at the Bar, as testified by the confidence of numerous clients, whose capacity and learning by all confessed, and above everything whose untarnished purity of character are not such as to make every voice join in approval as soon as their names are pronounced. Yes, woe to the Government! but also to the new measure—for assuredly such a choice, be it rash and careless, or be it the dictate of impure motives, will be the utter destruction of the plan. Pressed on all sides by the current of strong prejudices adverse to every change, labouring in the cloud of public suspicion, buffeted by the gales of professional discontent—on the rock of which I have now made bold to warn you, it is absolutely certain to make a total shipwreck.
Before I close my observations, I must advert to one point, which I omitted when speaking of our Appellate Jurisdiction in this place. Friends, in whose judgment I repose much confidence, are anxious that I should broach before your Lordships the notion, once a favourite with Lord Eldon, of giving you in your judicial capacity the aid of a Scotch Judge—whether taken from the Courts of Scotland, or appointed permanently as your assessor on cases from that part of the island. It certainly is an anomaly of our system, that in the great majority of instances those cases are decided by men not of the Scottish Bar. In justice, however, to this House, I must add that some of the most important decisions ever given here were upon points of purely Scotch Law, the law of real property—and reversing the judgments below. One of them was Lord Mansfield's, another Lord Eldon's, the third my own; and it is right to observe that however dissatisfied at first, the Scotch Bar and the Bench ultimately confessed that we were in the right, and had restored the Scotch Law to
1216
its real and original position by our reversals. However, I cannot deny that there may be cases in which we, sitting here upon the law of a Foreign country, are apt to hesitate before we reverse, and that sometimes we affirm when we ought not. One instance I know of, where a very large sum was awarded to the wrong party, as I always thought, and as I had distinctly stated the Session before, in contemplation of the pending appeal—awarded differently from what it would have been had I assisted—and awarded (as I told the Scotch Judges afterwards, in discussing the subject), because in my absence my noble Friend, not bred to the Scotch bar, had been too slow to interfere with a decision on a purely Scotch Law point. There is therefore some reason for the complaint. We may say that the Scotch Appellate Jurisdiction works better than might be expected; that the want of aid from Scotland produces less mischief than might be supposed—but this is a moderate justification of the defect. I remember Lord Lyndhurt saying that he found the absurd mode of taking evidence in Chancery practically far less inconvenient than could be expected—the mode of putting questions one after another to a witness in utter ignorance of his answer to the preceding ones. But when I asked if therefore he approved of this absurdity, he only said it got out more of the truth than might be supposed—in other words, that it was not quite as bad as it looked. This is a poor defence or even palliation. But I am ready to admit, as I always was in Lord Eldon's time, that serious objections exist to the appointment of a permanent Scotch Law asessor. One is, that the judgments given by us who are not Scotch lawyers, would always be supposed our assessor's judgments, not our own—an objection to which our consultation of the English Judges is not exposed. However, this, as all other matters, may well be examined by the Commission, which I hope and trust will be issued.
Then the Order of the Day for the second reading was discharged.

AUSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee, read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 26 to 29 agreed to.
On Clause 30, which provides for the establishment of a general assembly of the

1217
delegates from the different colonies included in the Bill.
LORD STANLEYsaid: My Lords, this clause involves a principle which, to say the least, requires grave consideration. The noble Earl, as far as I know, as yet, has given no reason for the course to be pursued in this wholly new system of colonial government, and, in the absence of any such reason on the part of Her Majesty's Government, I confess that I am at a loss to understand why so extensive an innovation is to be introduced. It may be certainly true, with regard to the various colonies, that in the great continent of New South Wales and the adjoining-island of Van Diemen's Land, as there are with regard to the North American colonies, and also with regard to the West Indian colonies, there are several subjects of common interest, and in which it would be desirable that these colonies should have an opportunity of coming to a common understanding. But, undoubtedly, on the other hand, there will be subjects in which the interests of these different colonies will be widely different and separate, and whose interests the legislative assembly, constituted as the noble Earl now proposes to constitute it, may altogether overbear; and they may have inflicted upon them, thereby, a system wholly discordant from their wishes, and wholly opposed to their interests. I will take the liberty of reminding your Lordships that these colonies, immediately adjoining each other, occupy a territory no less than the whole expanse of Europe, and have districts as widely apart, climates as distinct, products as varied, and employments as different, as in any two countries upon the continent of Europe. Now, my Lords, here we are to have introduced into these colonies a supreme legislative assembly, the limits of whose power cannot be defined by this Bill, but which is to override the separate legislation of all these separate colonies, and that without any application from these colonies for the introduction of such a system. Such a proposal appears to me to be a most rash and perilous innovation in legislation. And, my Lords, the mode in which the experiment is to be carried out, is, I think, not less objectionable than the experiment itself. For it is proposed that when two or more of these colonies, even the most insignificant, shall signify to their Legislative Councils their desire to have a federal assembly constituted, it shall then be lawful for Her
1218
Majesty to constitute such federal assembly; and I beg your Lordships to observe that you do not by this alone give power to Her Majesty to establish such a general assembly, but you also usurp the functions of Parliament, as far as the constitutional character of this general assembly is concerned. The Bill provides that the members of the said assembly shall be elected, and all laws to be made and enacted by such general assembly—
"shall be so made and enacted, and the business thereof conducted in such manner and form, and be subject to such various conditions, as Her Majesty by Order in Council shall direct; and such general assembly shall consist of the Governor General and the House of Delegates; and such House of Delegates shall consist of such members, &c"
The whole constitution, therefore, of this legislative assembly—the whole manner in which it is to be constituted—is not to be settled by Parliament upon a knowledge of the facts, but prospectively to be delegated to the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department for the time being, who shall have absolute authority, by Order in Council, to constitute a most important legislative body in the colonies. Well, but then you say you reserve the power to that legislature, after it has been so constituted, to alter itself. Now, I must say, I think this is a most objectionable mode of proceeding. My Lords, have not some of the colonies protested against it? Have not some of them assured us that such a system would have a most mischievous and dangerous effect? Well, then, you say they are not compelled to agree to it. No, it is true they are not; but you may have three or four of these colonies calling for a federal league, and the necessary consequence will be, that the remaining colonies will find themselves drawn into that league, even against their will, and contrary to their true interests. But you appeal to the practice of the United States as a precedent in this matter. But the constitution of the legislatures of these States is wholly different from that now proposed. The truth is that this is an entirely novel and an untried system of government. Now, I want to know on what principle the delegates to this assembly are to be elected? The Bill declares that each colony shall appoint, in the first place, four delegates, and then for every 20,000 inhabitants there shall be an additional member. Why, my Lords, the consequence of that will be, that the influence and authority of a great colony will be

1219
overbalanced by the smaller colonies. For example, the colony of New South Wales will return four representatives in the first place as a separate colony, and in respect of its population of 220,000 it will return eleven; that is to say, fifteen in all. Well, there is another State which has only 20,000, and it, in consequence, will return five representatives. Then suppose there is another colony which has only 20,000 inhabitants—it will return five members also. Thus two colonies with an aggregate population of 40,000 only will return, as nearly as possible, as many representatives as the whole of New South Wales, with a population of 220,000. Now, my Lords, I do not see why such a system has been adopted. But, my Lords, it is not to the details of the plan that I object. What I object to is this—that, without knowing what may be the necessary extent of the counsels of this body, without attempting to define the limits of its authority. Parliament is asked blindly to commit itself into the hands of the Government in this matter, to enable any future Government by an Order in Council to deal with a most important question. Your Lordships are asked to walk upon wholly untrodden ground, without the least experience to guide you. As far as the experience of all nations and of all ages has gone, that experience is against the proposal of the Government. If the colonies think that their common good requires that they should have some common body to superintend their affairs, then let them make application for that which they know they want. Now, let us look what the noble Earl proposes to do. He says he shall not prevent the legislatures of the different colonies from legislating upon their own affairs. But he proposes that this supreme legislature shall step in and override the legistion of separate colonies. What are the attributes of this legislative body? If an appeal is attempted to be made from the overriding decision of that body to Her Majesty in Council, there must necessarily be a delay of two years and great expense. Now, I must say that this appears to me a plan altogether impracticable, unwarranted by experience, and, as far as our knowledge extends, not desired by the colonies themselves. I think, then, that I am justified in calling upon Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their proposition—to reconsider whether it is necessary, even for their own purposes, to press for the adoption of this clause without
1220
further information—without further knowledge of the wishes of the colonies—without farther experience as to the necessity of the case; and without intending to trouble your Lordships at greater length, having very shortly stated those grounds upon which I think this plan is objectionable in the first place, and wholly unnecessary in the next place, I shall venture to submit to your Lordships the propriety of expunging the 30th clause and the following clauses dependent thereon. I do not at present propose to include the 35th clause, because that is a wholly different question. I wish at present merely to reserve to each of these colonies in the Australian group, as in the West Indian group, and as in the North American group, independent and separate legislatures, and to leave the establishment of any superintending authority to some future Parliament, which shall have a full knowledge of the facts and information as to the steps which the colonies themselves desire to be taken on this subject. My Lords, I move that the 30th clause, and those which have relation to the constitution of the general assembly, be expunged.
EARL GREYtrusted that the House would not adopt this Amendment. These clauses were proposed under a conviction that there were common interests upon certain subjects among these different colonies which would require almost immediately to be considered by some common authority. For instance, an Act had just come home from New South Wales, by which, following the example of this country, a uniform low rate of postage—2d. or 3d. he believed—would be established over the whole of that colony; in the absence of any common authority, this would lead to embarrassing questions between New South Wales and Victoria, if there was any division upon the subject. The same remark would apply to an Act which New South Wales had passed, granting a sum of money for the encouragement of steam navigation; and, unless there could be some delegation from the different legislatures in order to the discussion of matters of this kind, and if every thing was to be done by correspondence, a settlement of such affairs would be almost impracticable. He was, therefore, fully persuaded that nothing could tend more to the advantage of those colonies than the establishment of such a general body as that proposed by the Bill. In the West Indies formerly there existed a general legislature

1221
for the Leeward Islands; and its re-establishment was highly desirable, but it had been prevented by circumstances. There was another object which made some general authority desirable, namely, the constitution of a court of appeal, there being no effective appeal except to the Judicial Committee here; and the expense and delay of a reference here in every case, had frequently been matter of complaint. Now, a single colony could hardly constitute an effective court of appeal; but if the colonies were joined together, so as to have some common authority, there would probably be no difficulty in establishing a system by which the chief justices of all should meet together and constitute a court of appeal for the whole, in the manner often proposed in reference to the West Indies, where, however, there was no mode of bringing the colonies together upon the matter. It would be observed that the general assembly was only to act for those colonies that desired it. He (Earl Grey) thought it probable that, in the first instance, it would act only for New South Wales and Victoria, which would have, in many respects, such intimate relations; in order to maintain a common tariff and the existing facilities of intercourse arising from the absence of intercolonial customs duties, it was probable that these two colonies might create some authority of this kind for themselves. It was only with certain subjects that this general assembly was to deal; and in consequence of the discussion the other evening, he had prepared an Amendment which he would move that evening, or on the report, if there should be previous notice of it, enabling any legislature applying to be included in this arrangement to require to be included only for certain purposes. Thus, with regard to Van Diemen's Land, it was improbable that the people there should wish to be included in a customs union with the other colonies, being separated by sea, and the productions being different; but, for postage, a court of appeal, and some other purposes, a union would be desirable. The noble Lord objected to the wide authority which was to be given to Her Majesty's Government. The mere formal regulations as to the manner of electing to the general assembly parties who, in the first instance, would probably be little more than commissioners from the different legislatures to regulate certain matters of common interest, might surely be left to the Government for the
1222
time being; certainly, if the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) should again succeed to the office which he (Earl Grey) at present held, much as he differed from the noble Lord on many points, he should not have the slightest objection to see these regulations determined by the Government in the first instance; and the moment the new assembly should be created, it would be empowered to revise and alter the regulations. With regard to the conflict of authority, it was scarcely possible to constitute a system of this kind without some danger of that; the only way of providing for it seemed to be, that the general assembly should decide in the first instance, and if they exceeded their power there should be a reference to Her Majesty in Council, which would be a reference to the Judicial Committee. If the general assembly should hereafter constitute an effective court of appeal, questions arising between the different colonies might be determined on the spot by that court, as similar questions were, he believed, decided in the United States. The noble Lord had objected to the mode in which the power was to be divided between the different colonies. It would be wrong to give entirely an equal weight in the united body to each province, whatever its population; and it would be equally unjust to go by mere numbers, in which case New South Wales would, for the present, have an overwhelming preponderance. In the United States the difficulty was met by having two houses—one elected in proportion to the population; while, to counteract the influence thus given, the other chamber consisted of an equal number of representatives for each State; so that, in the senate, the little State of Rhode Island had as much weight as the great State of New York. In this case, it would be inconvenient, from the distance, that a large number of persons should be deputed to the assembly in the first instance. In arranging the general assembly for the Australian colonies, they had endeavoured to combine these two principles as far as could be done in the case of a single chamber. They believed that the body would necessarily be very small in the first instance, and that it was, therefore, not desirable to divide it into two chambers; and, accordingly, with a view of not giving too much weight on the one hand to mere population, or on the other to the separate provinces, however small they might be, they had made a rule half way between the two

1223
principles, so as to give a certain weight to each colony, first, as a separate province, and, secondly, according to its population. In order that their Lordships might know the probable numbers that the general assembly would receive from each colony, he might state that, according to the latest accounts, the population of the several colonies was as follows: New South Wales, when Victoria was taken from it, would contain 171,000 inhabit ants, and would, therefore, be entitled to four members as a separate colony, and to eight members additional for population, or twelve members in all. Victoria had 51,000 inhabitants, and would therefore have four members as a separate colony, and two for population, or six members in all. South Australia had 49,000 inhabitants, and would also have six members. Van Diemen's Land had a population of 70,000, and would have seven members; so that it was clear that no colony would have an overwhelming influence in the assembly. Besides, it should be recollected that this provision would only come into operation at the desire of the local legislatures; it might very likely be limited to two or three in the first instance, but his firm conviction was, that for certain purposes some such common authority was necessary. Sir C. Fitzroy expressed an opinion so long ago as 1846, that this was a matter requiring to be considered. It was not unprecedented. The noble Lord said nothing of the kind had ever been heard of before; but there was a remarkable example of a similar institution being proposed in the early history of our American colonies. Long before the American war something of the kind had been adopted in that country; and Franklin had the following passage upon it:—
"In 1754, war with France being again apprehended, a Congress of Commissioners from the different colonies was by an order of the Lords of Trade to be assembled at Albany, there to confer with the chiefs of the Six Nations, concerning the means of defending both their country and ours. In our way thither I projected and drew up a plan for the union of all the colonies under one Government, so far as might be necessary for defence and other important general purposes. As we passed through New York, I had there shown my project to Mr. James Alexander and Mr. Kennedy, two gentlemen of great knowledge in public affairs, and, being fortified by their approbation, I ventured to lay it before the Congress. It then appeared that several of the commissioners had formed plans of the same kind. By my plan the general government was to be administered by a President General, appointed and supported by the Crown; and a Grand Council to be chosen
1224
by the representatives of the people of the several colonies met in their respective assemblies. The plan was agreed to in Congress, but the assemblies of the provinces did not adopt it, as they thought there was too much prerogative in it; and in England it was judged to have too much of the democratic. The different and contrary reasons of dislike to my plan makes me suspect that it was really the true medium, and I am still of opinion it would have been happy for both sides if it had been adopted. The colonies so united would have been sufficiently strong to have defended themselves; there would then have been no need of troops from England; of course the subsequent pretext for taxing America, and the bloody contest it occasioned, would have been avoided."
His (Earl Grey's) firm conviction was, that if these clauses were adopted, they might not make any extensive or very important alteration in the first instance, but they would be the beginning of a system which would swell and develop itself with the growing wants of these colonies, and tend to bind them into one great nation, intimately and closely connected with this, and subjects of the British Crown. He believed, that if we did not provide, before difficulties and disputes and questions arose, some mode of solution, we should have infinitely greater difficulty afterwards in bringing different parties to concur in some arrangement that would be fair to all.
LORD WHARNCLIFFEsaid, that notwithstanding his willingness to support the noble Earl (Earl Grey) in other parts of this Bill, he still thought there was great force in the arguments used by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), though the alterations now made in the Bill had considerably mitigated the objections he entertained to this provision. It was not to be doubted that a considerable time must elapse before this part of the Bill could be brought into operation. He entertained a strong objection to such premature legislation as the Bill exhibited. He saw no reason for passing a Bill in 1850 for the regulation of points on which it would always be competent for the colonists hereafter, when the proper time arrived, to make application to the Imperial Government. But, besides its being premature, it appeared to him that the mode of constituting this assembly was objectionable in another and a very important point of view, inasmuch as their Lordships could scarcely know from the Bill what the fabric was they were about to erect. They were, indeed, about to provide that the delegates when appointed should proceed according to the regulations laid down in the measure; but

1225
where was it provided that to these regulations they should adhere? For so soon as they were assembled they might proceed to exercise the powers contained in the 31st clause, which provided that it should be lawful for the federal assembly to supersede or alter the rules, and to increase or reduce the number of its members. He was well aware the Colonial Secretary meant that the federal assembly should be elected according to the provisions of this Act; but yet he (Lord Wharncliffe) feared, from the manner in which the Bill had been drawn up, that their Lordships were about to establish, before it was needed, an assembly, which so soon as it was established would have the power of altering its constitution altogether. For these reasons he thought it desirable that this portion of the Bill should be postponed to some future period, when their Lordships might be better able to judge of the sentiments of the colonists on the subject than they were at present.
EARL GRANVILLEunderstood that some noble Lords objected to the measure as premature; but he begged to remind their Lordships of the topics to which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had alluded—the postage question, and differing customs duties. He (Earl Granville) thought that uniformity in those matters would be highly desirable; and to secure this object alone proved the necessity for immediate legislation. The intention of the clause was to give the colonists the option of sending delegates to the general assembly. With regard to the power given to the general assembly by Clause 31, to supersede or alter the rules prescribed concerning the election of members of the house of delegates, and the conduct of the business of the assembly, he thought it would be impossible for the assembly to work unless it possessed powers of that description. The noble Lord opposite had on this and other occasions strongly objected to the proviso that no such law should take effect until it bad been confirmed by order of Her Majesty in Council; but he (Earl Granville) considered it advisable to leave with Her Majesty the power, acting under the advice of Her Ministers, of approving, or disallowing, or modifying any changes in the colonial constitution which might be adopted by the assembly.
The EARL of HARROWBYthought the objects proposed by the creation of a federal assembly would be attained as well by a meeting of commissioners from each
1226
colony; an expedient which, if adopted, might remove the objections brought against the present plan.
EARL GREYobserved, that Clause 32 very clearly defined the objects for which the assembly were to meet. He thought it would be unfair that New South Wales, which had three times the population of Victoria, should have no more weight than the latter colony in the representation. He was anxious that the Bill should as far as possible guard against local jealousies amongst the colonists, because jealousies of that nature would prevent any arrangements being come to which had for their object the general good.
LORD KINNAIRDconsidered that their Lordships had sanctioned a very dangerous measure in assenting to that clause of the Bill which established only one legislative chamber in each of these colonies; for ha believed that the very first thing the colonists would do would be to endeavour to alter that constitution. He believed the object of the colonists would be to get rid of the Government nominees; and if they succeeded in that object, and applied to the Home Government to confirm the new constitution, it might be found very difficult to refuse their request. He thought there would be great danger in passing the 31st clause, for it would virtually give the whole control of the government of the colonies to the Colonial Secretary for the time being. He believed that few of their Lordships entertained more liberal opinions than he did; but he had some fear of democracy, and especially when he considered the source from which the population of many of the Australian colonies had sprung. He feared that if this Bill passed, some of their Lordships might live to rue the day when they had given power to a convict population—for that was the character of the population in some of these colonies—to form constitutions according to their own views. He hoped, however, that his fears on this head might be groundless, not only for the sake of this country and of our colonial empire, but for the credit of the noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Office, whom he considered, from his comprehensive views, as a statesman peculiarly fitted for the present day; and he should regret that the name of that noble Earl should be coupled with any measures relating to the colonies which proved unsuccessful. The noble Earl had, in his opinion, effected a great improvement in the Bill by the alteration he had

1227
made in the franchise; and he thought the measure would not be damaged if the noble Earl would consent to postpone these clauses, if not to omit them altogether.
LORD LYTTELTONsupported the Amendment, and contended that the proposal for a federal assembly was contrary to the feelings of the colonists. They were evidently unripe for the creation of such a body. But it was said the creation of a federal assembly was merely permissive. This was by no means clear on the face of the Bill; but whether that were so or not, he contended that, in the circumstances of the Australian Colonies, an assembly of such a nature could not work well. He advised their Lordships to wait until there was a necessity for a federal assembly before they consented to its creation; let them wait until the colonists themselves said they wanted it—until they said they could not meet the case by voluntary delegation.
On Question,
Their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Non-Contents 22: Majority 1.

List of the CONTENTS.

MARQUESS.

Limerick

Lansdowne

BARONS.

EARLS.

Byron

Carlisle

Dormer

Granville

Dunally

Grey

Erskine

Lismore

Eddisbury

Minto

Foley

Morley

Lovat

Oxford

Langdale

Shaftesbury

Overstone

Waldegrave

Say and Sele

BISHOPS.

Seaton

Down

Clause agreed to.
EARL GREYstated, that he intended, on the report being brought up, to move the addition of a proviso to the clause, enacting that when the Legislative Councils of any Colonies in their address for the establishment of a General Assembly desired that certain subjects, so far as these Colonies were concerned, should be excepted from the decision of that Assembly, the General Assembly should not have power to make laws on such subjects affecting those Colonies.
LORD STANLEYsaid, it was quite obvious that such a clause would introduce unnecessary complication. The General Assembly, under it, would be placed in this position, that with regard to some Colonies it would have the power of legis-
1228
lating only on post-office matters, in four or five on commercial affairs, and on all other matters with regard to the rest. From each of those Colonies gentlemen would be sent to the General Assembly, with powers to vote on some questions, but not on others; consequently, there would be perpetual doubt as to the subjects on which they were enabled to exercise their privilege. He would not, however, discuss the clause now, but on a future stage he would state his objections to it. At present he only called their Lordships' attention to the complication it would introduce.
LORD REDESDALEalso objected to the clause, and asked if the assent of the Governor General would be necessary to the validity of the acts of the General Assembly.
EARL GREY: Undoubtedly.
On Clause 31, empowering the General Assembly to make certain laws.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that one of the objects of this clause was, to give the General Assembly power to enact laws for the formation of roads, canals, or railways, traversing any two or more of the Colonies. Now, would the noble Earl say that, in the event of establishing a railroad between Victoria and New South Wales, for instance, the Colonies of Van Diemen's Land and Western Australia should contribute towards the expense of its construction in proportion to the revenues of each colony? In that case, the contribution of Victoria would be very small, whilst that of Van Diemen's Land, which would have no interest in the work, would be very large indeed. Surely the Noble Earl would not give power to the General Assembly to tax the whole of the Colonies for a purpose of that sort.
EARL GREYreplied, that that power would only be exercised for purposes of common interest.
LORD STANLEYsaid, that one of the powers of the General Assembly was the establishment of lighthouses upon the coast. Now, what advantage would Western Australia gain by the erection of a lighthouse upon the coast of Sydney, that she should be taxed for it? Their Lordships might as well say that this country ought to be taxed for the erection of a lighthouse at Constantinople. Yet it was proposed that for all works of this description the General Assembly should have the power of taxing all the Colonies to the full extent of a per centage upon their revenue.
EARL GREYdid not understand the clause quite in that manner. The General Assembly would have a power to appropriate from the revenues of all the Colonies all sums required for common purposes.
The EARL of HARROWBYcontended that there was no sufficient identity of interest to render such a power acceptable to the Colonies, and that it would be liable to abuse in various ways.
EARL GREYobserved, it was hardly possible, in creating a new authority like a General Assembly, to devise words which would prevent all abuses that might be suggested; but it was the general object of the Bill to create a representative power which would deal fairly by the whole country. The General Assembly would be empowered to make appropriations for the benefit of particular districts; at the same time, he admitted it might be necessary to add a proviso to the clause, to provide that, where all the Colonies did not derive an equal benefit, they should not be called upon for equal contributions. The clause, however, would be printed, and their Lordships would then be better enabled to consider its provisions.
LORD STANLEYwould suggest another point for the noble Earl's consideration. Suppose a railway was proposed to be made between New South Wales and Victoria. The principle laid down was, that each colony should be taxed in proportion to the interest they had in the undertaking; consequently the colonies not interested in it would not be taxed; but still the delegates from Western Australia, Van Diemen's Land, and South Australia would all vote aye or no whether the railway should be made, though they would bear no portion of the expense. In other words, the colonies which would derive no benefit from any particular undertaking, would yet have a voice in its construction.
LORD LANGDALEsuggested that the words "should be charged in such proportion in each colony, as shall be determined upon by the General Assembly," would meet the difficulty.
The EARL of HARROWBYobjected to the delegates from one Colony having the power to vote on the internal affairs of another.
The EARL of CARLISLEcontended that the objection just raised by the noble Earl might apply, if it had any reality, to the case of English and Scotch Members sitting upon an Irish Railway Bill. They
1230
had no interest in the construction of a line of railway in Ireland, yet they voted upon that question according to their convictions of public benefit.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 35, which gives power to Governors and Councils, with the assent of the Crown, to alter the constitution of the Legislative Council,
EARL GREYproposed a verbal Amendment, intended to limit a power which he perceived the clause, as it at present stood, conferred upon the local assemblies, of excluding the nominee Members from their seats. He believed the wording of the clause extended further than he intended, and he proposed to alter it, so that the particular points on which the Colonies should be at liberty to make alterations in the constitution should be defined by Act of Parliament.
LORD STANLEYsaid, the alteration did not altogether remove his objection to the clause; but he should wish to have the opportunity of considering whether or not he ought, under the circumstances, to waive it. But by assenting to the clause now he must not be understood as precluded from raising the question on the report, when it was probable that the question would be again raised which had just been decided by a majority of one vote, as to the propriety of introducing the General Assembly.
In reply to Lord HATHERTON,
EARL GREYexplained that the effect of the clause was to give to all the Colonies a general power of reforming their own constitutions, but such reforms were not to come into operation until sanctioned by Her Majesty.
LORD STANLEYsuggested that as by this clause they were giving to each Colony the power of varying its constitution, it might make some difference in regard to the election of the delegates to the General Assembly. In one Colony there might be one legislative body, in another two. One set of delegates might represent one chamber wholly elected, another an elective body of two chambers, and a third might represent two chambers partly elected and partly nominated. How was this difficulty to be met?
Clause, with verbal Amendments, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned to Monday next.