Sitting of 14 March 1850

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—Factories; Parish Constables; Titles of Religious Congregations; Copyholds Enfranchisement.
2° Highways; Chief Justices' Salaries.
Reported.—Titles of Religious Congregations (Scotland); Consolidated Fund (8,000,000 l.).

INTRAMURAL INTERMENTS.
MR. LUSHINGTONwished to put a question to the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and who was also a Member of the Board of Health, and which question he asked under the influence of intense feelings of disgust at witnessing almost the actual perpetration of the nuisance of which he meant to complain. As he was coming to that House to perform his duty that afternoon he passed through St. Margaret's churchyard, and under the tower of that church, and within a few yards of the House of Commons, he saw an open grave ready for the interment of a corpse. Now, it being in evidence that interments in St. Margaret's churchyard were injurious to the health of Members of that House, and also to the public in general, he begged to ask ths noble Lord whether he had any power to check or put an end to a nuisance against which the universal voice of the community has protested.
LORD ASHLEYdid not wonder that the hon. Gentleman expressed himself with disgust at the continuance of this horrible system of intramural interment; and hoped that he and other hon. Gentlemen would direct their attention to the report lately

883
issued by the Board of Health, and then they would see, in all its length and breadth, the enormous mischief which this practice engendered. But he regretted to say that the Board of Health had no power whatever, under the General Health Act, to remedy the evil. Under the Nuisances Removal Act, during the late prevalence of the cholera, they indeed made the attempt to close some of the worst of the metropolitan churchyards; but the proprietors and the other authorities brought the case before the magistrates, when the magistrates declared that the Board of Health had exceeded its powers, and that it had no means whatsoever of interfering with these churchyards, excepting now and then to apply certain disinfecting processes. He trusted that a measure would soon be brought before the House to suppress so abominable and dangerous a practice.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer he had had a communication with the parish authorities, and was assured by them that they were about to purchase a piece of ground for a new churchyard.
SIR G. GREYhad been in communication with the present Dean of Westminster and the other authorities on this subject, and was informed by them that they were about to purchase a piece of ground for a new churchyard; but they had only been waiting in expectation that Parliament was about to introduce a measure respecting interments in towns, in order to ascertain first what conditions the Legislature should prescribe in any such Act. The report of the Board of Health had not been long in the hands of the Government, but it was now under its earnest consideration; and he hoped shortly after Easter to be able to present a Bill to the House founded on that report.
Subject dropped.

FACTORIES.
LORD ASHLEYthen rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Act in respect of the hours and mode of working under the Factory Acts. He said: The House will recollect, that in 1847 a Bill was passed for limiting the hours of labour in factories from 12 to 10 in the case of persons under 18 years of age. That Bill, consisting of one or two clauses, was engrafted on the existing Bill of 1844, which it left untouched in all its provisions
884
except the limitation of the hours of labour to 10 in the day. By the Act of 1844 the time ranged from half-past 5 in the morning to half-past 8 in the evening; 15 hours' duration was allowed as the period during which labour might be carried on. But there was also in that Act a clause which enjoined that the labour of all young persons should date from the time at which any child or young person began to work in the factory, and should not last for more than 10 hours in the day. The result of that legislation was, that the labour of all young persons was continuous from the time at which it began, and therefore the system of shifts and relays under that interpretation of this section of the Act was impossible. After passing the Act of 1847, however, it was discovered by some parties that the section which affected the period to which the labour of children and young persons might be extended, was not so stringent in the wording as to preclude altogether the employment of relays, and relays were therefore introduced into a certain number of mills. Very great discontent in consequence arose, and very great confusion was created by the great number of contradictory decisions on the subject. The magistrates of Bradford took one view, and those of Manchester another; in short, so contradictory were the decisions all over the country, that no one knew what the law was. The inspectors of factories acted upon the interpretation that relays were altogether forbidden, and proceeded on that principle, but they were often defeated before the magistrates, and the result was, that, to prevent any further confusion, it was considered advisable that the case should be tried in one of the superior courts. A case was accordingly brought into the Court of Exchequer, and there a decision was given adverse to the interpretation put upon the Act by the inspectors. Mr. Baron Parke, in giving judgment, declared that the words of the Act were not sufficiently stringent to carry into effect what the Court strongly conjectured must have been the intention of the Legislature. That being the case, and believing that to prohibit shifts and relays was the intention of the Legislature, I now bring this matter before the House, asking to be allowed to introduce a Bill that will carry into effect what were the intentions of Parliament in 1844. There can, I think, be little or no doubt that it

885
was the intention of the Legislature that the labour of all young persons employed in a factory should be continuous from the time at which that labour was begun. Baron Parke, in giving his judgment, shows clearly enough that he believed it must have been the intention of the Legislature to prohibit relays; but he says—
"It is not enough that we conjecture, even strongly, that it was the intention of the Legislature to have prohibited the Act; there must be words indicating plainly and clearly that it has done so; and, applying this rule of construction, we do not think that there are words in the statutes sufficiently plain and clear to render the conduct of the defendant in the case above-mentioned liable to punishment."
But let me go to the next step. In the last report of the inspectors of factories laid on the table of the House, I find these words from the pen of Mr. Inspector Horner:—
"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."…"When the Bill of 1844 was preparing, the inspectors were called upon by the Secretary of State to suggest enactments which would remedy the defect of the Act of 1833, and they did so."
It may be stated in confirmation, that in 1845 the Home Secretary (Sir J. Graham) directed his Under Secretary, Mr. Manners Sutton, to write to the inspectors of factories a letter, in which he told them that their interpretation of the law was in his view correct, and that relays were interdicted, inasmuch as the work should date from the time any child or young person began to work. You have, therefore, the full testimony of the framers of the Act as to what their intentions were in framing it; and I appeal to every Member who voted for the Bill in 1844 if they did not intend that the relay system should be interdicted, and that the ten hours' labour should be continuous labour, except with those intervals necessary for meals. Moreover, I recollect that in the same year in which the Bill passed, I proposed an Amendment, and twice I carried it, to the effect that the hours of labour in each day should be from six to six, with two hours for meals. This pretty strongly declared on the part of the House that its intentions were that all shifts and relays should be interdicted. Let me now call the attention of the House to the reason and necessity of this prohibition. The Act was granted not only for the limitation of toil to ten
886
hours, but the main arguments used in the House in favour of the limitation were, that the working people should thereby be enabled to employ themselvos every evening for purposes of improvement, in promoting their moral, domestic, and religious benefit, and in recreation—in everything, in short, that tends to keep body and soul in a healthy condition. If this be so, then, let m show that by the present arrangement of shifts and relays, the purpose of the Legislature must be unavailing. What is the effect of these shifts and relays? Do we know the monstrous condition to which the people in these mills are reduced by this system of interminable labour? I cannot do better than read to the House a letter I have received, which gives in very few words a graphic account of the privation and losses to which the people are exposed by this system. A gentleman writes me as follows—[Mr. BRIGHT: Name.] I do not think it is necessary to give the name of the, writer; but I can state on my word of honour as a gentleman that he is a person of high standing, and as competent as any in this House to give an account of what he has observed. He is a gentleman on whom the greatest reliance can be placed; and I am ready to admit that if, in such circumstances, I were to impose upon the House the testimony of a person not to be trusted, I should feel that I ought to retire from this House and even from the society of gentlemen. I do not, however, feel myself called upon to give the name, but am willing to inform the hon. Member for Manchester that the letter is dated March, 1849, and that the place to which he refers is Staleybridge. He says—
"I have been to-day to see some factories where the so-called relay system is in full work, and have seen such evidence of the evils of that mode of working the people that I cannot refrain from pouring out my feelings to you. In one factory I found 335 young persons and women working by relays; they are sent out at different times of the day, so as to bring their actual working to ten hours. They are sent out of the mill without any regard to the distance of their homes or the state of the weather. Some of them, I ascertained, lived two miles off, and thus the half hour, or one hour, or two hours, can be turned to no good account. The lads of 13 up to 18, and the young girls and women, are wandering about the streets, and to what temptations of vice and profligacy they are thus exposed I need not say. The manager of one of the mills spoke of the system with abhorrence; and he told me that one of his own daughters is exposed, in another mill, to all that mischief. He and another manager said that the factory law has never worked so oppressively to the operatives as it does now."

887
Another strong argument against the present system is the utter impossibility of detecting evasions of the law, and the great facility it gives the employers to keep parties at work during a time exceeding ten hours, and to extend it to eleven or twelve hours. Mr. Inspector Horner, in his report of 1848, says—
"One millowner, employing more than 1,000 hands, said to me, 'Give me the power you de scribe, and, if I were so disposed, I should have no difficulty in cheating you, if you were actually living in the mill.'"
A second said—
"If working by relays were allowed, the Act would speedily become utterly abortive."
Another manager said—
"If there were twenty inspectors we could defy them all if relays were allowed."
That being the case, and the system of shifts and relays being so very subversive of all comfort and peace among the workmen, I have thought it my duty to come to the Legislature and ask for leave to bring in a Bill that should declare what I consider to have been the intention of the Legislature at the time the Act of 1844 was passed. In doing so I will keep so strictly to the point in dispute that I will not deviate by one hair's breadth to the right or to the left. Doubtless, there are other branches of the question that might be maintained, but I will touch only on the single point of the continuity of labour, and I cannot help believing that in doing so I shall have the full concurrence of the House. Now, I have exhausted my imagination to conceive the grounds on which any resistance could be offered to this measure, but I cannot call up any such arguments, and therefore I am unable to anticipate them. This I know, that every prophecy and every argument employed in 1844 and 1847 as to the evil consequences of the measures we have passed, have been not only falsified, but actually reversed. After two years' experience of the Ton Hours Bill, I will undertake to show—and if I do not I will retire from the charge of this measure—that every single prediction of evil has been falsified, and that benefit only has resulted where nothing but mischief was dreaded. Those who recollect the debates of 1844 and 1847 will remember that nothing was foretold but complete ruin to the manufacturing interest if the short hours Bill was passed. Now, observe, that the Eleven Hours Bill has been in operation for three years, and the Ten Hours Bill for two years, short of six
888
weeks, and I appeal to all who heard the speeches of Gentlemen on the other side of the House on the first night of this Session, to declare whether the prediction of complete ruin to the manufacturing interest has in any degree been fulfilled? Did we not hear speeches of the most glowing description as to the wonderful prosperity of the manufacturing interest? The hon. Member for Wolverhampton in one of those speeches told us among many other things that wages were high at Bradford, and that there was reason to believe they would rise still higher. Indeed, one Member after another spoke of the prosperity of our manufactures; and I ventured at the time to say to a friend of mine at my right hand, "Listen to all these glowing accounts, and remember that all this prosperity has taken place under the operation of the Ten Hours Act, from which nothing but destitution to the workmen and ruin to the manufacturer were to flow." The next argument against the Ten Hours Bill was, that capital would leave the country. How often did an hon. Gentleman, no longer a Member of this House, Mr. M. Phillips, declare that the very hour that Bill passed he would get rid of his mill property, and transfer it to another land? The hon. Member for Lancashire said it would produce on the industry of this country the same effect as the revocation of the Edict of Nantes produced on the industry of France. But what has been the result? Since 1848 there have been vast additions, involving great outlay of capital, to many existing mills, and many new mills are in the course of construction. Capital is being invested in great amount in this trade and business that was to be ruined. But, if I am answered that the Bill has brought more capital and called more labour into the field, then I say it has done more good than could have been imagined, and that Gentlemen have invested their capital in this way because they derive considerable profit from it. The third argument was, that production would be diminished by one-sixth in proportion to the reduction of time. Let me take the two years 1845 and 1846, preceding the period of limitation. The total export of cotton goods in those years was 2,157,146,658 yards. Taking 1848 and 1849, being the two years following the reduction, I find the total exports of cotton goods have been 2,432,406,574 yards, being an increase of 275,259,916 yards, or 12 per cent; whereas the prediction was

889
a decrease of 16 per cent. Again, for cotton twist and yarn for 1846 and 1847, the quantity was 282,163,491lb., whilst in 1848 and 1849 it was 285,333,657lb., being an increase of 3,170,166lbs, Production, in fact, has increased to an enormous extent. In 1844 a petition was presented from Manchester against the Bill, and embodied these four points. It was said, that "the passing of a Ten Hours Bill would cause a diminution of produce." You have heard how far production has increased. Next, it was said, "there would take place a reduction in the same proportion of the value of the fixed capital employed in the trade." No such thing has occurred. Machinery has been speeded, and any reduction that was anticipated has been met by greater velocity. Next, it was said, "that a diminution of wages would ensue, to the great injury of the workpeople." I will show that no such injury has occurred; and that in a vast number of cases wages have not been reduced—that in some cases they have been raised—and that in all where they have been reduced, they have been met by compensating circumstances. Then, it was said, "there would be a rise of price, and consequent peril of foreign competition." There has been no rise of price, and consequently no fear of foreign competition. That is the case of the opponents of the measure, and I shall be glad to hear in what point those predictions have been verified, and in what point we have been at fault when we asserted that no harm whatsoever would arise to the capitalists. I now come to the case of the working people, and this is well worthy of the attention of the House; for I think I shall be able to show that so great has been the improvement in the moral and social condition of the working people as almost to border on the marvellous; and, if I had not these statements from the most authentic sources, I should hesitate to believe that in so short a time such beneficial effects could have been produced. The first assertion that was made was that wages would be reduced in many instances to the minimum of subsistence. How has that been fulfilled? I will take it under three heads: either wages have been diminished, or have continued stationary, or have increased. I find that wherever wages have been diminished, in no single instance have piece wages been reduced by 1–6th, in proportion to the reduction of time. I will take one mill, and I wish
890
here to state that, to avoid too long an occupation of the time of the House, I will give instances, as samples of the whole, and thus limit the details. A gentleman has sent me up this from his own mill. In the spinning department the reduction of time has been 1–6th, the reduction of work 1–10th. He tells me the total loss on a pair of mules, per week, in 10 hours, as compared with 12, would be 5s.; but that loss is to be divided among four persons, so that the loss to each would be of no considerable amount. But in the same mill, in the weaving and manufacturing departments, it was the reverse. The gain on a pair of mules, in 10 hours, as compared with 12 hours, would be 5s. 5d. 5 8ths; and the millowner adds this note—"A general improvement of the hands by full 50 per cent." In another mill the reduction in the weaving department, under the Ten Hours Bill, as compared with 12 hours, is only 1–17th; and on the self actors 1–9th; and, from some extensive inquiries I have made, I find that the average reduction is not more than 1–24th; so that where wages have been reduced, in no instance have they been reduced by 1–6th in proportion to the time; in some instances they have risen; and where they have been reduced, they have been reduced in the proportion of 1–17th or 1–24th. But how have these reductions been met I ventured, in 1844, to state to the House some homely details, some of which I must now repeat, and, however homely they appear, the House will bear in mind that these small details make up the daily life of the working man. I showed that if the hours were reduced to 10, and wages were reduced in proportion, the working people would, by economy, be enabled to meet more than the reduction, and find themselves altogether in a far better condition; that they were prepared to abide by the reduction, even if it took place to the full extent, but that, even if it took place to 1–6th, they would find compensation for it. I will now show you, in the clearest manner, that they have made more than compensation, and are better off with the reduction and ten hours labour, than with the higher wages and twelve hours labour. Here is an instance given me by an operative yesterday morning, and this is a very fair sample of the effect of the Ten Hours Act on wages, and the possibility of economy. He says, that under the twelve hours system he and his family of seven children worked at a fac-

891
tory, and earned 2l. 15 s. a week. Deducting 10 s. for rent and fire, it left 2l. 5s.; the expense of 26 meals a week required by the family, being four for five days, when they were in full work in the mill, and which number was then indispensable, and three for two days. Saturday and Sunday, when the mill was not in full work, at 1s. 8¾d. a meal, consumed the whole of the 2l. 5s., and left nothing for other expenses. The same persons are working now under the ten hours system. Allowing a reduction of 7½ per cent, which is above the average, they earn 2l. 1s. a week. Deducting, as before, 10 s. for rent and fire, it left 2l. 1s.; but instead of 26 meals, they require now but 21 in the week, being three a day, and at the same coat of 1s. 8¾d., they amounted to 2l. 1s., being a saving for meals alone of 4s. 8d.; and then comes in other considerations worthy of the attention of the House; 8d. a week more is saved in this way—the eldest daughters, no longer confined to the mill, are able to make their own dresses and under garments, and therefore there is a saving altogether of 5s. 4d. a week; and this operative, and many like him, are better off then, under the Ten Hours Act, than with higher wages under the twelve hours system. The reduction of wages, therefore, is more than met by compensating circumstances; and there must be taken into account the improved health and condition of the parties, the smaller subscription to the pay of the sick list, and the fewer times they are obliged to call on the sick club. But it was next said, "You are saying to a man willing to work, 'You shall not lay up against an evil day.'" Now, I have not got statements from savings banks, but I have some important statements that have been sent to me by a clerk of some of the societies in different parts of the country, in which he shows the most improved state of the finances of those societies in consequence of the Ten Hours Bill. The clerk to the St. John's Female Friendly Society writes:—
"The number of members was 800; factory workers, 17–20ths. In 1846–47 the income was 153 l.; expenditure, 157 l.; deficiency, 4l. In 1848–19, the balance over the expenditure was 44 l. In the present year an equal surplus is expected. St. John's School Sick Club.—Members 400. From 1843 to 1847, much difficulty in covering the expenditure; but, in 1848–49, income 73 l.; expenses, 46 l.; balance, 27."
He adds—
"Same results observed in many other societies. My opinion is, that a great saving has been
892
effected here, and the general health of the population considerably improved, since the Ten Hours Bill came into operation. The working classes appear more disposed to cleanliness and sobriety."
The officers of the Oakenshaw Sick Society write:—
"We, the officers of the Oakenshaw Sick Society, do certify that the funds of the sick society have increased considerably during the time of the Ten Hours Bill; and we attribute the cause of it to the members having more time for recreation and working shorter time.'"
That of itself affords the means of making some saving against an evil day. The fact of being in better spirits and health prolongs his life, and, instead of being obliged to give up work at forty years of age, as the spinner was obliged to do, he may now be able to carry it on to fifty. It was then said that the time so granted will be ill used. Nothing has been more frequently urged than that that time would be converted to the worst purposes. What is the evidence upon that point? No doubt, in so large a mass, some few instances may be found where the people have not turned to account the great blessing they have received, but an enormous majority have acted in the sense intended by the House in passing the Bill. I have here statements from the clergy of the Church of England, from schoolmasters and dissenting ministers throughout Lancashire and Yorkshire, all speaking one and the same thing. Let me take the case of the women first. How have they used their time? There are hundreds of grown girls and women now attending evening-schools, and learning to read and write, to knit and sew, learning things they could not have learnt under the pressure of the twelve hours system. "You may see," writes a clergyman, "the women clean and comfortable, and engaged in domestic duties." I remember in the last report of Mr. Inspector Horner he states the fact of several young women having given up the business of dressmaking ever since the limitation of time came into opera-ration, because, in consequence of that, young people in the mills now made their own clothes. Is that no important consideration for people of that class? Unless they are acquainted with those duties, how can they undertake to discharge the duties of wives and mothers? An inquiry was made under my direction in 1833. Twenty-three factory houses were examined successively, and not in one of them was found a female who could darn a

893
stocking, mend a shirt, or make any article of clothing for her husband. The consequence was, that those things were put out and paid for, which was a very considerable reduction in the wages. That work is now done at home, and there are other most blessed results from the Ten Hours Act. I have a statement from a burial society in one of the largest towns in Lancashire. The clerk says—
"The number of burials during the last two years has fallen off considerably, although the cholera raged in the town; and I observe the diminution is of children under five years of age; and I assume the reason to be that mothers are able to come home much earlier, and give that attention to their children which no hired servant can ever bestow."
Let me tell the House how the males have occupied their time. A person of great experience, who has been clerk to many societies for many years, writing from Blackburn, says—and the same may be said of many other towns—
"In connexion with some of the mills are young men's improvement societies, in which are taught the rudiments of the language, and also a sound knowledge of mechanics, geometry, chemistry, and general literature. These societies are solely supported by the young men's private contributions."
I received, only this morning, a letter from Dr. Hook, of Leeds, and he is no idle pastor, but gives more attention and more labour in his mighty parish of Leeds than almost any clergyman ever known there or elsewhere. He writes to me in full admiration of the working of the Ten Hours Act, and says—
"Since the passing of the Ten Hours Act fifty night schools have been opened in Leeds, most of which will be closed if we are deprived of it."
Here, then, I ask this House, talking as it often does about the education of the people, and having received with some favour a proposition from the hon. Member for Oldham—a proposition that contained a new principle hitherto maintained in this House, and which was received simply and solely on account of the conviction of the necessity of extending education—shall we not be chargeable with the most undisguised hypocrisy, if we allow these people to be deprived of the advantage of these schools, if we come here afterwards and prate about the education of the people? But there is another way in which the males have employed their time. In many of the districts the operatives have got small portions of land, and have cultivated them in their leisure hours, and have in
894
some instances raised not only vegetables fur themselves, but enough food for a cow, and so get a supply of milk, and so eager are they in this work that frequently they labour until twelve o'clock at night. I am not stating this on my own authority. The sub-inspector writes to Mr. Saunders, one of the factory inspectors:—
"Todmorden, Nov. 24, 1849.
"My dear Sir—The information you received when at Todmorden, in reference to garden allotments, was, in the main, true. The system had been adopted to a limited extent before the ten hours law came into operation; but then an impulse was given to it which had not been before known. Three-fourths of the land which is now appropriated to garden purposes in this neighbourhood have been called into existence by the factory labourer having more spare time. I can give you a number of cases where the factory hand keeps a cow, partly from the produce of his garden, to supply the little ones with honest milk. A great deal of good arises, and much evil is avoided, by this very rational system. Some of the parties are so attached to their little gardens that I have seen them at work in the moonlight. Thirty acres in this locality are thus used. Diverge from Todmorden, which way you please, 2½ miles, and you will find plots of land, railway slopes, odd hits and ends, which used to be waste, now furnishing recreation, health, and food to the cottager.—Yours, &c. "JAMES HARDMAN."
The fact is, that in many of those desert places parcels of the land had been converted into gardens. This is confirmed by evidence from Keighley:—
"The Ten Hours Act gives greater facility for this enjoyment. Indeed, by far the greater number of allotments I have enumerated have commenced since the Ten Hours Act came into operation, and I believe never would have commenced, had the hours of labour in factories not been shortened."
And I received this morning a very important statement from Oldham, which I dare say the hon. Member for that borough will be able to corroborate, to show that the Spinners' Association have taken a considerable piece of land, and whenever any one of the body was out of work, instead of feeding him in idleness, they put him on that piece of land, and the result has been a saving in the rates of 75 l. last year. Could they have employed their time in a better way than that in which they have employed it? Is there any man who will say that this does not far exceed the hope he formed of the good working of the Act? Sanguine as I was of its result, I was not prepared to expect so much from it, and can any person say that these people are not in the highway of right, moral, and social amelioration and improvement? Another argument

895
was urged with great solemnity in these words:—
"This Bill is not for the benefit of the working classes; it will not tend to their advancement or intellectual culture, or of their social improvement."
Most undoubtedly, if the relay system is persevered in, it will tend not to their intellectual culture, but to their physical and intellectual debasement. But does it not tend to their intellectual and social improvement? Hear the evidence on this subject of Mr. Saunders, the inspector. In his valuable report, recently laid on the table, speaking of Keighley, he says—
"Prior to the Ten Hours Act coming into force the Mechanics Institute was composed of about 200, now it numbers about 400, members; of these 48 are males in classes, learning reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar, and drawing. These are nearly all connected with factories. There are also 118 females who learn reading, writing, arithmetic, and plain sewing two nights a week, from 7 to 9 o'clock. These are nearly all power-loom weavers at various neighbouring factories; the male and female classes together number 166, or nearly one-half of the total number of the members of the institution. None out of either of those classes were members prior to the passing of the Ten Hours Act, nor would they continue in the classes henceforth were the eleven hours system to come into operation; indeed, they arose and were formed entirely in consequence of the relaxation of the hours of labour by the Ten Hours Act."
And here is the report from Manchester:—
"Night-schools, institutes, and other places of teaching, on the increase; all the ministers of religion declare a better attendance."
The Rev. Mr. Sharples, writing from Blackburn, says—
"Immediately from the passing of the Ten Hours Bill reading-rooms and schools for mutual instruction sprang up on all sides."
What is the result at Bolton and Stockport, I can state on the authority of the Roman Catholic priests of those towns:—
"The number of factory workers attending schools and institutes has more than doubled. There is not the slightest doubt that the social, moral, and physical condition of the factory workers has been improved. Under the shift system these advantages would be destroyed. I am of opinion that the Ten Hours Bill is one of the best measures ever passed."
And so, I believe, the majority of this House will affirm; and let me call attention to this fact, that these two gentlemen are speaking of the Irish part of the population of these towns; and here you may see some hope for Ireland, because you may see there is a mode of legislation by which
896
those who are in the lowest state of degradation may be brought to something like a state of humanity. In the factory of Messrs. Gardner and Co., at Preston, before the Ten Hours Act there was no night-school. Now there is one attended by 250 females. At Horrocks' mill, at Preston—
"out of 270 hands 104 attend night-schools; and one master finds them so improved that he joins us at our tea parties, and is quite rejoiced at the improvement."
I presented this evening a petition from Dundee signed by many persons; by the bishop, 15 clergy, 18 medical men, and 20 millowners, all denouncing the shift and relay system, and calling for a continuance of the Ten Hours Act. Another clergyman writes to me, a pastor in a dense population—
"I can speak of the effects of the Ten Hours Act on my daily evening service. The majority of the regular attenders consists of persons engaged in factories. Their conduct and spiritual condition are the most satisfectory of any persons attending my church.……Deeply would they grieve, and deeply should I grieve, if the Legislature sanctioned a system such as the relay system, which must entirely deprive them of these benefits, and would very deeply injure their moral and religious character."
A great change, too, has also come over the minds of many millowners who formerly opposed the Act. One extensive millowner, Mr. Eccles, formerly an opponent of the Bill, who was a magistrate, stated the other day, on the occasion of several persons being convicted of evading the law, that he would on all occasions enforce the law with the utmost rigour; that the Ten Hours Act had produced a vast deal of good, and that the people were more healthy and cleanly than before. Another writes to me thus:—
"I feel satisfied that no millowner can come forward honestly to say one word against the well-working of the Ten Hours Bill. The abominable system of shifts and relays is obnoxious even to those who practise it: and it is only adopted in a spirit of opposition to one of the best measures of legislative enactment.….The average wages per head in this town are as great as I have ever known, though the time is reduced by one-sixth. An improvement in the health, happiness, and contentment is quite manifest among the operatives—a sure index to moral and religious progression……In fact, it has done much good to the trade generally."
I have now put before the House a statement of the case of the working people. I have put before the House the arguments that were adduced against the Ten Hours Bill, and I have shown the utter and complete refutation of those arguments. I

897
have stated the error in that Act. I ask, then, that the error of legislation be redressed, and that a law, so fruitful in every good result, be confirmed without delay. This is the question that, after seventeen years of effort, I propose to this House on behalf of the great mass of the operatives of the counties of Lancaster and York. I can hardly anticipate either an immediate or a future opposition, and yet I am told that some attempt will be made to qualify our demand, and give but a scanty answer to our prayer. I, for one, am resolved not to accept any such concession; nor do I believe that those whom I represent will be less resolved to maintain a certain good than they were during twenty-five years to pursue one that was problematical. They have proved the virtue of the measure, have entered into possession, and nothing will turn them from it. And, God be praised, I say it emphatically, that they are so determined; it is a noble proof of social and moral amelioration; it shows to us that they prize, and that they will use, the opportunity of intellectual and religious culture, and of all the domestic virtues; it fill us, in a time of many fears, with hope for these realms, nay, more, with hope, that this great nation may be an example to others for the advancement of mankind. Sir, Her Majesty has invited the people of all nations to flock, next, year, to this country, and witness an exhibition of all that the world can produce; every class, every calling, every profession, will contribute something to show its peculiar industry. Let it be the work of this House to show a contented, happy, and well-governed people—hœ tibi erunt artes. You are not called upon to begin afresh; the blessed work is already half accomplished, and you are now only besought not to destroy it. Formerly, Sir, I appealed to the humanity of the Legislature; I do so no more, for I stand on our Magna Charta, on our accorded rights; and feeling convinced as I do, from the bottom of my soul, that this question secures the temporal and eternal welfare of many thousands, I appeal alone, in the name of Almighty God, to the justice and the honour of Parliament.
MR. H. EDWARDS: Scarcely three hours have elapsed since I was informed that it would be my privilege to second the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for Bath, and not being in the habit of addressing the House, and, moreover, never wishing to do so except on matters referring to the general interest
898
of the district which I represent, I throw myself upon the indulgence and generosity of the House with great confidence. This, however, is a question so vitally affecting the mass of the people in the manufacturing districts, that I accept the opportunity with much satisfaction. The manufacturers in the neighbourhood in which I reside almost unanimously object to the shift system, and even since the decision of the Judges in the Court of Exchequer has rendered it legal, very few have shown any disposition to avail themselves of it; and I find from Captain Hart, the sub-inspector of the district, that not one information has been laid by him for a breach of the law as respects relays or shifts since the Ten Hours Act came into operation in any part of the country over which his jurisdiction extends. It is my decided conviction that this system would deprive women and young persons of the benefits intended by the Act of Parliament; for, although not absolutely worked more than ten hours, their time would necessarily be at the disposal of their masters during the entire fifteen hours between half-past five, A.M., and half-past eight, P.M. Besides this, I question the practicability of carrying out the law, as recently constructed, unless indeed the present staff of inspectors were greatly augmented; and even then, supposing two sots of hands are working fifteen hours, the difficulty for any inspector to ascertain whether any one individual had not worked for more than ten consecutive hours, or for a longer period, would be almost insurmountable. I have ever been a strenuous supporter and advocate of the Ten Hours Bill, and, since the Act came into operation, I have seen no reason to change my opinion; for, by the increase of speed in machinery, and the closer attention of the workpeople, the amount of production will not, I think, eventually, be materially diminished, especially in the worsted and cotton factories. Whatever difference of opinion may exist amongst manufacturers as regards this Act, contrasted with one of eleven hours—when the former he-came the law of the land—with the true and loyal spirit of Englishmen, they all united in a desire to uphold it against all attempts at evasion. Very few, I think, will be found to advocate any restriction of the motive power, or to interfere with adult labour; for, whilst by the former step we should only multiply the number of mills, by the latter we should deprive the frugal

899
and industrious artisan of an opportunity of increasing the amount of his wages, and thereby adding to the comforts, perhaps, of a large family, when orders were plentiful, and the trade of the country in a prosperous state. Besides, it would clearly be an unjust interference with the rights of the subject. We want the Act of 1847, and with nothing short of it will the people of the united kingdom be satisfied. I have reason to believe that by all constitutional means it is the intention of the men of Yorkshire and Lancashire, by a simultaneous effort throughout the manufacturing districts, so to impress upon the Government the necessity of keeping faith with the originators and framers of the Act of 1847 (for which the operatives had manfully struggled upwards of 30 years), by carrying out its provisions in their true spirit, that Ministers could not long hesitate to rectify the blunders they have allowed to pass into law. My views and principles have ever been favourable to protection with temperate modifications; but as soon as free trade became the law of the land, I felt bound to give it a fair trial. I have heard a great deal in this House of the steady, sound, and healthy state of trade throughout the country. I only trust it may be so in reality; but I entertain great doubts about it. It is perfectly true that in Bradford, the great emporium of the worsted trade, a state of things exists hitherto unprecedented. Orders for yarn cannot be executed with sufficient despatch, and thousands of poor woolcombers, who only two short years ago, I well remember, were wandering about the streets in a state bordering on starvation, are at the present moment fully employed, and at fair wages. May they long continue to reap the blessings they now enjoy! In the woollen districts—I mean Halifax, Huddersfield, &c., with which I am most familiar—the same thing exists, although in a more limited degree; but is it so in the cotton districts? No. We have merely to cross the border to the neighbouring county—Lancashire to wit—and we shall find a very different state of things. Already a reaction has taken place, and, if we can rely upon the weekly circulars, a large proportion of the mills are working short time; the home market is overdone, the foreign markets are positively glutted with Manchester cotton fabrics. I attribute, in the woollen and worsted districts generally, the wonderful trade we have enjoyed during the last
900
twelve months, not altogether to the effect of free trade, which I allow has not yet had a fair trial, but that it is partly to be accounted for by the extraordinary—I had almost said undesirable—cheapness of money, which has enabled the manufacturer to supply that vacuum which has been caused by the unexampled depression of two preceding years. These facts may appear to the House irrelevant; but I mention them to strengthen my argument that it would be unwise to place any restriction on the motive power, or to interfere with adult labour; for, whilst by the former we should be induced to build a greater number of factories, and create a false demand for labourers from the agricultural districts, who would starve when any reaction took place; by the latter we should deprive the industrious operative of the benefit he might derive by a few extra hours of labour, and extra wages when the state of trade was prosperous. One remark, and I have done. It is a remarkable fact that the families of the majority of the Members of the West Riding, including my own—and I take pride in admitting it—have risen from trade, and some of them even within the last quarter of a century. I now fervently appeal to them, one and all, to embrace this opportunity of acknowledging a debt of gratitude to the working classes, by giving their unqualified support to the prayer of the parties to whom, in truth and reality, they owe their present proud and honourable position in the Commons' House of Parliament.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that although he certainly had indulged the hope that, after the protracted discussions which had formerly taken place upon the much-disputed question of the propriety of imposing a restriction on the hours of labour of certain classes of persons employed in factories, Parliament had at length arrived at a settlement of the question, and that it would have been unnecessary to revive a discussion which every one must deprecate, because it could hardly be carried on without placing in apparent antagonism the interests of persons engaged in a great branch of national industry, whose interests, however, were inseparably combined, and between whom it was essential that sentiments of kindly feeling should exist; nevertheless he must admit that in the present ascertained state of the law his noble Friend and those who were acting with him were justified in coming to the House and asking for a

901
legislative remedy for what they believed to be an evil. He would say nothing then of the nature of the remedy which his noble Friend proposed; on that subject, indeed, the noble Lord had said but little himself, and rather allowed it to be gathered from the general purport of his observations than from any specific declaration of its nature. Speaking for himself, and looking back to the part which he took in supporting the existing restrictions on the labour in factories of the classes before referred to, he must say that whilst admitting that some amendment of the law was expedient, and, although he thought it was of great importance that the amendment should, if possible, be proposed and adopted—as he hoped it would be—with the concurrence of reasonable and moderate men, who, on former occasions, entertained conflicting views on the subject, still he was not prepared either to propose or to advocate any amendment of the law which would be inconsistent, he would not say with the letter of the Act of 1847, but with the main object for which restrictions were imposed on the labour of women and children employed in factories. The House would, perhaps, allow him to take a rapid glance at the course of legislation on this subject. The Act of 1833 enacted that no young person should work at night in a factory, and the night was defined to be between half-past eight in the evening and half-past five in the morning, leaving a period of fifteen hours during which young persons might be employed; but by the second section of the Act it was provided that no young person should be actually engaged in working for more than twelve hours out of the fifteen, and the sixth section of the Act also provided that one hour and a half should be allowed for meals. Under that Act it was beyond all doubt lawful to employ young persons at any periods between half-past 5 A.M. and half-past 8 P.M., provided that the time during which they were so employed did not exceed twelve hours. By the 7th and 8th of Victoria, c. 15, sec. 32, the Act of 1844, women were classed with young persons, and became subject to the same regulations. Sections 30 and 31 regulated the hours of work for children. Section 26 provided that the hours of work of children and young persons in every factory were to be reckoned from the time when any child or young person should first begin to work in the morning in such factory. The definition of night remained
902
unchanged. It was then lawful to employ young persons and females at any period of the day between 5.30 A.M. and 8.30 P.M., provided the whole period did not exceed twelve hours. But the 26th section contained this important provision, that the commencement of the hours of working for all young persons was to be the same. The next Act was the 10th and 11th of Victoria, c. 29, by which the hours of labour were reduced, first to eleven, and then to ten. His noble Friend contended that the ten hours should be continuous. Conflicting decisions were made by the magistrates. The factory inspectors took the same view of the matter as the noble Lord, and the question being referred to the law advisers of the Government, they decided in favour of that view, which was also coincident with the opinion held by successive Ministers themselves. But the opinion of the Home Secretary and of the law officers of the Crown did not constitute the law, and the question having ultimately been carried to a court of competent jurisdiction, a decision had been given which declared that, under the Act, it was not necessary that the ten hours' labour should be continuous, He had not a word to say against the arguments by which the judgment of the Court of Exchequer was supported, but the construction which it gave to the law was open to serious practical objection. There could be no doubt, as the noble Lord had stated, that a strong feeling prevailed, not only amongst workmen, but employers, that legislative interference was necessary to avert the inconveniences which must result from a strict adherence to the construction which had been put on the law by incontestable authority. The object of the limitation of the hours of labour was, in his opinion, twofold—to promote, first, the physical, and, secondly, the social improvement of the classes to which it applied. It was not desirable to revive discussion as to the injury which it was alleged protracted labour in factories inflicted on the persons who were subjected to it; but it was notorious that one of the main grounds on which the noble Lord and others advocated the restriction of the hours of labour was the physical injury caused by it. The noble Lord was of opinion that the system of relays and shifts were equally prejudicial to health; but he (Sir G. Grey) thought that there was a distinction between shifts and relays, and that under proper regulations a

903
system of relays would be perfectly compatible with the physical object of the restriction or the hours of labour. In such a system of relays the labour would be cuntinuous, while in the shift system it might be opened over the whole fifteen hours with various intervals of rest. He did not, however, think that either of these systems was acceptable generally to the millowners or the workpeople. Before adverting to the moral part of the question, be must be permitted to observe that the noble Lord lost sight of the distinction which the law observed between different classes of persons employed in factory labour. Whatever might be the effect of the restriction placed upon the labour of young persons, it evidently was not the intention of the Legislature to impose any restriction on the labour of adults, yet many of the instances of moral improvement to which the noble Lord had referred as resulting from the operation of the ten-hour clause were furnished by adult males. There could, however, be no doubt that one of the objects which the Legislature had in view in restricting the hours of labour of women and children was to provide those classes with opportunities for moral and social improvement. It was expected that females would have time in the evenings to attend to the instruction of their children and to their domestic affairs. It was with much satisfaction that he was able to say, that in a moral point of view the result of restricting the hours of labour had equalled all that the most sanguine advocates of the measure anticipated from it. The reports of the inspectors of factories, of ministers of religion, and all authentic information which had reached him from various quarters, proved that women and young persons duly appreciated the advantages they derived from the operation of the ten-hour Act. Schools had been opened, and instruction had proceeded to an extent not before known—instruction, not only in reading and writing, but in needlework and those branches of industry which were essential to the comfort of a well-ordered family of the lower classes. It might be remembered, too, that when the Bill was under discussion, it was predicted that the harmony which, up to that time, had subsisted between employers and employed, would thenceforth be liable to disturbance; but it was only just to the great body of millowners to say that the beneficial results to which
904
he had just adverted were, in a great measure, owing to their cordial concurrence in the spirit and tenor of the Act of 1847. Many of the millowners who opposed the Act in its progress had seen cause to modify their opinions; and if they were now not prepared to go to the same length as the noble Lord, they were at least disposed to agree to a measure framed, if not to the letter, yet in the spirit of the Act of 1847. He thought, however, that the shift system deprived the parties of the advantages of the limitation. As an illustration of the shift system, one of the factory inspectors stated that a manufacturer divided his hands into six sets, all of whom commenced working at the same time—six in the morning—in order to comply with the 26th section of the Act; but then all but one set, after merely drawing out an end, were taken off and obliged to return at later periods of the day. One girl who lived at no great distance from the factory stated that she went home again, and got into bed until she was wanted again at the factory. Another girl, who walked some miles to her work, said she was obliged to spend her time in an eating-house until her hour for resuming work in the factory arrived. It could not be denied that it must be a great inconvenience to females to be thus obliged to wait about for several hours on a dark winter's morning. The inspectors said, in allusion to this and similar cases—
"Thus the beneficent intentions of the Act are frustrated, and the hours of rest are unnecessarily curtailed."
A letter which he had received that day from Mr. Saunders, one of the factory inspectors, contained the following passage—
"Neither relays nor shifts of young persons or women prevail in any considerable number of mills in my district; nevertheless, the number of parties who have applied for information, and the complaints made as to the general effect of the system on a certain class of workpeople, induce me to apprehend that other mill-occupiers will resort to it, unless the Act be amended, and the practice cither altogether prevented or strictly regulated.…In every case that I have visited, great dissatisfaction has been expressed at the necessity of adopting so complicated a system, especially the necessity of reckoning or computing the hours of work from the early hour—in almost all the desire has been expressed that relays or shifts should be prevented. It will of course be understood that I have excluded all reference to relaya of children."
The question was, how the benefit intend-

905
ed to be conferred by the amendment of the law could best be secured with the least injury to the parties whoso interests were concerned. He would not be prepared to consent to an amendment of the law which was inconsistent with the enactment of 1847, or with the attainment of the main object of its promoters, namely, to give the persons to whom it applied that opportunity of duly attending to domestic duties which would be afforded by the free, uninterrupted enjoyment of their evening hours. Those persons had shown that they were able to appreciate that enactment. With respect to the proposal of his noble Friend, he understood him to say that proceeding on a clear and undisputed intention of the Legislature, he desired to enact that the labour of all persons of this class should be continuous labour for not more than ten hours. He (Sir G. Grey) did not go the length of his noble Friend in saying that the intention of Parliament was clear to that effect. His noble Friend quoted from Mr. Inspector Horner's report a passage, in which Mr. Horner said—
"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."
His noble Friend rather assumed Mr. Horner's statement to be what he (Sir G. Grey) did not think it was. His noble Friend assumed that it referred, not to the Bill of 1844, but to the Act of 1844. He assumed it as a matter free from doubt, that Parliament had the intention which he alleged. The intention of Parliament, however, must be deduced from the Act of Parliament, not from any debates in that House. There was no doubt the statement of Mr. Horner was perfectly correct as regarded the Bill of 1844 when first introduced. It would be observed by those who had read the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, that the remark was made, if it had been the intention of Parliament clearly to enact that the hours of labour for persons of this class should not only begin simultaneously but end simultaneously, they would have inserted a provision that the hours of labour should so end simultaneously when ten hours had elapsed. That was precisely what was done in the Bill of 1844, to which, no doubt, Mr. Horner's observation referred. That Bill contained a clause which was precisely in accordance with
906
what Mr. Baron Parke said might have been the terms of the Act of Parliament. The 8th clause of the Bill was as follows:—
"Be it enacted, that no young person, and no female of any age, shall be employed in a factory in any one day more than twelve hours, or after the expiration of twelve hours from the time when any child or young person in the factory first begins to work in the morning, over and above the time given for meal times, save in the cases hereinafter excepted"
These were explicit words, "after the expiration of twelve hours" from the time of beginning to work. There was an unambiguous clause, a clause which could have left no doubt as to the intention of the Legislature. The intention of the framers of the Bill was to put an end to working by shift or relay. But the House was dealing not with the intentions of Mr. Horner, or of his right hon. Friend opposite the Member for Ripon, who introduced the Bill, but with the intentions of the Parliament which passed that Bill. The Bill, as originally introduced, was withdrawn. Clause 8 was found wanting in the new Bill, and a substitute was proposed for that clause in Section 26, which was differently worded. Whether these views were right or wrong with respect to the intention of the measure, what he meant to ask the House was not hastily to assume that Mr Horner was referring to the Act of 1844, as contained in the Statute-book; as there appeared to be ground for presuming a change of intention, and that for some reason or other a provision which would have removed all doubts was excluded from the measure. The judgment of the Court of Exchequer stated, that however their opinion might be, that it was the intention of Parliament to fix a period for the cessation of labour:—
"We must, then, consider whether, in the absence of express words to this effect, we can collect from other parts of the Act that was the meaning of the Legislature so clearly and unequivocally as to call upon us to give effect to it."
"Undoubtedly," the judgment proceeded to say—
"Undoubtedly, if there was such an enactment, it would have the effect of securing to the children and young persons whom it, was most certainly the object of the Legislature to protect against their own improvidence, or that of their parents, the more effectual superintendence and care of the inspectors. Without question it would more certainly prevent them from being overworked, and secure to them more completely the benefit of some education in public schools which

907
the Legislature meant them to enjoy—it would advance the intended remedy. But then this result could only have been obtained by a larger sacrifice of the interests of the owners of factories, and we cannot assume that Parliament would disregard so important a consideration."
His noble Friend did not propose a declaratory Bill, though the notice he had given seemed to point to such a measure. However he might have argued the case, the Bill was free from all exception in respect of the form in which it was proposed, because his noble Friend did not call on the House to declare the law to be what the Court of Exchequer had declared not to be the law. He (Sir G. Grey) would offer no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, but he cherished the hope that means might be found to combine persons holding different opinions on the subject—those who had been formerly hostile to the enactment under which the case had arisen as well as those who had supported it—to combine all parties in one movement for the purpose of securing to the classes to whom the Act of 1847 related opportunities for instruction, recreation, and the discharge of their domestic duties. Whether that result were attainable remained to be seen; but he did not think the object of the noble Lord could be attained till he reverted to another principle in the Bill of 1844, which it was to be regretted had not found its way into the Statute-book, which the noble Lord had himself advocated in that House, and which consisted in making an alteration in the definition of "night," by which the range of hours for labour would have been reduced. It was a matter for consideration whether that was not the best mode of proceeding. Great and important interests were at stake; and by personal communication with gentlemen holding different opinions on the subject, and with the inspectors of factories, he had endeavoured to ascertain what was the real injury done to the classes whose interests were involved in the matter, with the view of applying a remedy, which in the spirit of the Act of 1847 might be most conducive to the object they desired to accomplish. The noble Lord alluded to the opinion of Mr. Eccles, and adverted to the impossibility he conceived to exist of ever enforcing penalties for a breach of the law under existing circumstances. This very case of Messrs. Hopgood, in which a magistrate, who had been a strong-opponent of the Factory Acts, pronounced the decision, showed that it was not impossible to obtain full justice for per-
908
sons overworked. The facts of the case, which was tried at the sessions in Blackburn, were remarkable. There were no less than fifty cases in which penalties were sought to be recovered; and the amount of penalties imposed on Messrs. Hopgood was 70 l. Speaking of the Act of 1847, Mr. Eccles said—
"If, in this instance, the violation of it had been a slight one; if it had been only for a few minutes, we should have thought that we were dealing hard with Messrs. Hopgood to make them accountable for such a slight violation; or if we had any grounds to believe that it took place without their connivance—without their fully knowing of it."
And he went on to say—
"I will not say that in every instance a master can prevent an infraction of the Act, but he should take care that there is no material violation of it. I cannot help taking this opportunity of saying that since the Act came into operation, young people have seemed to me to be more clean, and healthy, and comfortable than they were before. That is my impression, and I, for one, shall feel exceedingly sorry to see any material change in it."
With respect to the specific remedy pro" posed by the noble Lord, he (Sir G. Grey) wished to keep himself unfettered. He was unwilling to make any propositions till the matter had advanced further, and it should be seen what were the prospects of effecting a settlement without bringing into collision those classes whose interests were so closely combined. He did not know whether the noble Lord had not acted wisely in the course he had taken, and he trusted the result would be to bring about a satisfactory arrangement.
MR. BANKESsaid, that the right hon. Baronet had with his usual candour stated the real views which he entertained on this subject. They, however, who acted in eon-cert with his noble Friend the Member for Bath, being anxious for a speedy decision upon the point, could not but regret that the right hon. Gentleman's mind should not be made up, and that the Government should not be prepared to give any answer to the present application. It was a matter that must be decided at no very distant time, and he believed that the Government, as well as the House generally, would feel greatly obliged to his noble Friend for taking up the question, since the Government had declined to do so. It was most injurious to the masters, as well as the operatives, to allow the question to remain in its present state. It appeared that the difficulty arose not from the last statute of 1847, but from a clause which

909
had been introduced into the Bill of 1844. He hoped, that before they proceeded much farther into the discussion of this question, they would have the advantage of being enlightened by the former Secretary of State for the Home Office as to what the real state of the case was when this Act of 1844 was passed. The Bill had been introduced in 1844 by his noble Friend the Member for Bath, who having reason to understand that it would be sanctioned by the Government, he gave up into their hands the conduct of the measure. It was, consequently, a matter of surprise to him to find that when the Bill was passed into a law, it did not contain that which he considered the main principle of the measure. Although no person would call into question the decision of the Court of Exchequer, it should be recollected that it was not pronounced until after much argument and some degree of doubt on the part of the learned Judges. Previous to this decision being pronounced, decisions of a very opposite character had been given by judges of an inferior tribunal. Consequently it might be assumed that the law would bear that interpretation which by many was put upon it. In consequence of the decision pronounced by the superior Judges, his noble Friend was compelled to apply to that House for a remedy. His noble Friend had confined his speech simply to the one point, namely, that of proposing to enact that that should be the law which was understood to be the law when the Acts of 1844 and 1847 were passed. He thought that the Bill should be rather an enacting than a declaratory Bill; because, if it were the latter, it might seem to imply a doubt against the decision of the Judges of the land. When the Act was under discussion in that House, it was viewed in the light of a measure that proposed in its consequences to confine the work of the operatives to ten hours only, for this was the only difficulty which the opponents to the measure had to grapple with. These restrictions upon the time during which the operatives were to work, commenced as far back as 1833; and subsequently they were slowly and cautiously increased, according as the experiment was found to answer. The first measure was one having reference to children only. A measure was subsequently introduced, which was made applicable to all young persons under 18 years of age. The result of these enactments was found to be most advantageous, for, without injuring the manufacturers, they conferred
910
great and acknowledged benefits upon the operatives. They found that both the moral and physical condition of the operatives was considerably improved by these measures. They found that all the predictions made by the opponents to these Bills had been falsified, and the hopes of those who entertained a favourable view of these restrictions had been more than realised. In regard to the intentions of the Legislature in 1844, it was not in his power to speak with confidence, inasmuch as the want of practical knowledge to justify him in forming a sound opinion as to the possible operations of that measure, made him hesitate in taking a prominent part in favour of this Bill. He did not become a strong adherent to the principle therein propounded until he had given the subject much consideration. He felt generally satisfied when be had the authority of his noble Friend in all such works of benevolence; but were it not for the great authority of Mr. Fielden upon the subject, he never should have been induced to concur in the votes which he then gave. In 1844, however, he merely took the humble part of giving a silent vote. But when, from time to time, he heard such favourable reports of this measure, that no evil result whatever had arisen from these restrictions of the working hours—when he heard, on the contrary, that great benefits were springing up, and great improvements were effected in the physical as well as the moral condition of the operatives, he then did feel himself fully justified in following up more earnestly the course which he had before so cautiously taken. At a subsequent period, when his noble Friend was not in Parliament, he (Mr. Bankes) came forward in his absence to take, as far as he could, that part which he knew the noble Lord would have taken if he were present. Accordingly, in 1847, he did take an active part in the passing of that measure, and he could positively state that it was the feeling upon all sides of the House that it was a Ten Hours Bill they were about to confirm; because, although it was true that that enactment did not touch adults, they were told by the manufacturers on all sides that the effect of such a Bill would be to limit the hours of all workmen. The idea of relays or shifts was never entertained then by any person; and from what the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had said, these relays or shifts had been resorted to by comparatively few manufacturers. This

911
Bill was then intended to protect those who did not resort to that system, which they thought would be beneficial to neither operatives nor manufacturers; but unless such an enactment was passed they might be forced to adopt the same system upon the principle of self-defence. In the largest manufacturing districts he understood that this practice was altogether unknown, and they now desired to restrain those who had adopted it. They had been told that in the Bill of 1844 there was, when the Bill was first introduced, a clause expressly referring to this system of relays, and he believed that the predecessor of the right hon. Baronet would not deny that there was no intention at that time of sanctioning such a system. This, therefore, was not unjustly called an evasion of the Act. He did not use the expression in any offensive way. He did not mean to throw out the insinuation that the manufacturers entertained any design to evade the law. He could not say so, for it appeared by the decision of the Judges of the superior courts that they had not violated any law. These parties, however, would not deny that this practice was not supposed to be legal either in 1844 or in 1847; and it was not resorted to until there was an extraordinary demand for our fabrics, which of course was a circumstance that occasioned much rejoicing. The experiment was then made as to whether the system could or could not be resorted to. If he did not believe that the measure now submitted to the House by his noble Friend would prove beneficial to the manufacturers as well as to the operatives, he should hesitate to give it his support. He believed that the measure was one that in nowise ran counter to the sound principles of political economy, and that it was merely intended to confirm a law which had been found to confer the greatest blessings upon all parties concerned. He was strengthened in that opinion by the authority of an hon. Member of great talent and distinction, who addressed the House upon the subject when the Bill of 1844 was under discussion. He would read from Hansard the opinions of that hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of showing the impressions of those who then took part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman, whose name he would withhold until he had quoted the observations to which he referred, said—
"If we enlarge the various markets for our productions—if we allow a full and fair exchange of our commodities for the corn, and sugar, and
912
coffee of other countries—this would be the practical means of raising the value of our products, and consequently of raising the value of that labour which produces them. So that, indeed, then ten hours' labour might be as good or better than what twelve hours' labour was now for the pockets of the labourer, and might produce as much profit to the master."
This was the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire now, who was then the hon. Member for Stockport. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a Ten Hours Bill as being the point in question, and he said that if they increased the demand for their produce, they would be at the same time enhancing the price of labour—that if they allowed corn, and tea, and sugar to come into the country, they would find that ten hours' work would be as good as the twelve hours which the operatives were then obliged to give. He (Mr. Bankes) would feel himself justified in calling upon that hon. Gentleman when he saw him in his place to fulfil those expectations which he held out in 1844. The hon. Member said, that when the demands which he then made were fulfilled, he, on his part, would admit that the advantages which would accrue would be such as had been stated. The question now for their consideration was, whether they could safely give the ten hours asked in favour of the operatives. Let those who were opposed to this demand now state, from their experience and practical knowledge, what mischiefs and difficulties had ever arisen from the experiment that they had already tried. He did not believe that they could do so. He had seen manufacturers and labourers from different parts of the kingdom upon this subject, and he declared he had not the slightest doubt but that those alterations in the law had worked most beneficially up to this time, and had given the greatest satisfaction to the people.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated in more direct terms than those used by the noble Lord the Member for Bath, what was the real object of the Ten Hours Bill. He told them plainly and distinctly that one object of that Bill was to limit adult male labour.
MR. BANKESsaid, he had only admitted that to be a necessary consequence.
MR. M. GIBSONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated that such was the intention of those who passed it.
MR. BANKESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman misrepresented his meaning. He had not spoken of the intention, but of the necessary consequence.
MR. M. GIBSONhad certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the limitation of the hours of adult labour had been the object, but he submitted to the hon. Gentleman's explanation. He must, hovever, say, that if that were the object, the best course would be to include male adults in so many words in the Bill. His object in rising, however, was to guard against the supposition that by consenting to the introduction of this Bill, he sanctioned the plan shadowed forth by the noble Lord the Member for Bath. He used the words "shadowed forth," because the noble Lord had not explained in a definite and clear manner the precise nature of the scheme which he proposed. So far as he understood the noble Lord's plan, it did not seem to him likely to obtain the sanction of the House. He admitted that in its present state the law required some alteration. He believed that the whole difficulty arose from the circumstance that the clauses of a Twelve Hours Bill were imported without due consideration into a Ten Hours Bill. Parliament, in fact, did little more than substitute "ten" for "twelve," thus evincing, as usual, what he must be permitted to describe as the little consideration with which that House had dealt with great and important inter-eats. He did not know precisely whether the Twelve Hours Bill prohibited relays and shifts or not; some thought that it did, and such, he admitted, might have been the intention of its framers. But, in truth, the effect of the clauses of the Twelve Hours Bill was never thoroughly tested until there arose a necessity or desire to have recourse to the relay system under the Ten Hours Bill; and when the Ten Hours Bill came to be worked with the clauses imported into it from the Twelve Hours Bill, it was found that the probable intentions of the framers of the last measure were not carried out, and the courts had decided that the relay system was not prevented. He never thought the clauses of the Twelve Hours would work with a Ten Hours Bill. On the framers of the measure, who had undertaken to regulate employment in factories, must rest the blame of the difficulties which had arisen. They supplied the law, and were responsible for it. The manufacturers and millowners were not justly chargeable with having sought to evade the law. Much as they might have objected on principle to legislative interference with the hours of labour, he believed he might declare with truth
914
that they had, for the most part, earnestly desired to carry out honestly the intentions of the Legislature. They might have denied that it was good policy to interfere at all; they might have doubted whether the Legislature consulted the best interests of the country in enacting such a measure as the Ten Hours Bill; but he could not admit that when that measure had been placed on the Statute-book they had systematically endeavoured to evade it. They had merely used those powers, and availed themselves of those rights, which the Legislature had in the enactment placed at their disposal. He must say that he thought the noble Lord had allowed his feelings to lead him into no little exaggeration in reference to the effects of the factory legislation. In speaking of the condition of the labouring classes, be took credit for the improvement, as if it were entirely owing to this imperfect factory legislation, not saying one word about those important changes in our commercial system which had recently taken place, though he (Mr. M. Gibson) believed that those beneficial alterations contributed far more to the improvement of the physical condition of the great mass of those who were employed in factories than any of the regulations which had been imposed on factory labour. He thought it only fair to make that remark; and he must add that the improvement referred to was observable in the case of other trades and occupations, besides those which were included in the Factory Bill of 1847. He repeated that he thought the noble Lord's feelings had carried him away, and had led him to make too highly coloured a statement with regard to the effects of the Factory Bill. With respect to the case mentioned by the noble Lord, that of a bishop in the north, the bishop in Dundee, he believed, who had observed such a marked improvement since the reduction of the hours of labour—[Lord ASHLEY: I said no such thing.] He had understood the noble Lord to state, on the authority of the bishop, that the congregations had increased, and that a greater desire had been manifested for spiritual instruction. [Lord ASHLEY: I said not a word about it.] With all deference for the noble Lord, he must say that such representations ought not to weigh with that House. If the twelve hours' system had produced the degrading and demoralising effects which the noble Lord had described, in was inconceivable that the imperfect and partial adoption of the ten hours' system—for such

915
the noble Lord himself admitted it to have been—should, in the course of a year and a half, have turned all these great sinners into comparative saints, and wrought such an enormous change in the feelings and habits of the people employed in factories in so short a period of time. He thought the noble Lord's speech was on the whole marked by what might be called a socialist and sentimental tone. It was not a speech suited to the character of that assembly—which was a business and practical assembly, alive, of course, to whatever bore on the physical and moral welfare of the bulk of the population, but not to be addressed in those sentimental and impassioned appeals, and with a tissue of representations which, he was certain, the noble Lord himself would, on calmer reflection, feel to have been exaggerated. Not having the details of the noble Lord's measure before him, without saying that the law ought to remain as it stood at present, he should reserve to himself the right of offering any opposition which might seem to him desirable on the second reading.
MR. O'CONNORwondered how the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down could reconcile his speech with the Motion of which he had given notice for next Thursday, as to the best means of instructing the working classes of this country. When the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of being afraid of creating "an antagonism," it was pretty evident that the antagonism the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of was losing the support of the hon. Gentlemen who sat behind him, who lived upon the labour of the poor and unprotected factory infants. The right hon. Member for Manchester had charged the noble Lord the Member for Bath with making a lax speech; but the right hon. Member must have discovered that be himself was standing on a weak crutch in that respect, after the very limping and incoherent speech he had made. All that he (Mr. O'Connor) asked was, that the House should put its own construction on the Act in question, and so promote the amelioration of the people. When they talked of the ignorance of the working classes, they must surely be aware that it was caused by the tyranny of the manufacturers. He denied that it was intended by this Bill to limit adult labour to ten hours a day. There was nothing of the kind in the noble Lord's Bill; but he (Mr. O'Connor) contended that it was only right and just that this should be done.
916
The manufacturers had taunted the landed proprietors with harshness and indifference towards the agricultural labourers, but they were never called upon to work more than eleven hours a day; but in the manufacturing districts the workmen were often engaged sixteen hours a day, and they at other times were employed only three days in a week, and had to pay the same rent for their holdings as if they had six days' work. A labourer in the manufacturing districts was worn out as much at the age of twenty-eight as an agricultural labourer was in Dorsetshire at fifty-three. They stood in the same relative situation towards each other as a race horse and an agricultural horse did; the former was worn out at five years of age, while the latter lasted twenty years. If the manufacturers had a spark of humanity, they would not allow the persons labouring for them to remain in their present condition. Was it not the common case now, that a mother, on hearing the factory bell, was obliged to take her child from her breast and throw it to a stranger to take care of, while she rushed off to her labour in the factory to get a bit of bread? The representatives of the manufacturing districts knew that the Government were dependent on them when they were in a fix, so that their power was very great in that House; but still when they went down to the manufacturing districts, what apologies would they make to the great bulk of the inhabitants for the votes they would give on this subject? He was sure no one would be against the measure of the noble Lord who would not be branded hereafter as an enemy to his fellow-creatures. People talked about the condition of the agricultural labourers, and of the way in which they were treated by their employers! Why, let them look at a Dorsetshire labourer, and compare him with a manufacturing operative from Lancashire or Yorkshire; the one was as decrepit, old, and worn out at twenty-eight as the other was at fifty-three. Let them see this, and compare the factory children with the healthy, stalwart little fellows in the agricultural districts—and he asked whether they must not admit that the factory system of this country was an abomination, and reflected dishonour and disgrace upon the legislation of this country? There was a man who had done more than any other person in this country for the operative classes, and whom the noble Lord the Prime Minister had had the audacity and impertinence—[Cries of "Chair! "and"Order!"]

917
—he repeated it, for it was no more audacious for him (Mr. O'Connor) to do so than for the noble Lord to have charged the philanthropist to whom he alluded—Mr. Richard Oastler—with all but treason and rebellion, on account of his unexampled efforts on behalf of the labouring classes. If there were to be any investigation of this matter, that gentleman could give the House a true and fair account of the factory children. If he were asked to place his hand upon the men who lived exclusively upon the sinews, marrow, bones, and blood of women and children, if he could group them all in one lump, he would put his hand upon the master manufacturers of this country. He would only add, in conclusion, if there were ever a body of tyrants which existed in any country, it was the manufacturers of England.
SIR R. H. INGLISsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had accused his noble Friend who had brought forward this measure of yielding too much to his enthusiastic zeal. In the first place, he (Sir R. Inglis) believed that nothing good had ever been effected in this world except by those whom many of their co-temporaries had called enthusiasts. That great work, the Reformation, by Luther and his compeers, was called an act of enthusiasm, and so it had ever been with any great work, and it was to the credit of the noble Lord that his exertions had been so designated by the right hon. Member for Manchester. The speech of his noble Friend was, however, as little open to the charge as any he had ever heard, as it was a speech filled with facts. Was it enthusiasm to state as a fact that, since the introduction of the measure three years since, fifty-nine night schools had been opened in Leeds for the young persons engaged in the day time in the factories? Was this an instance of the imaginative feeling; of his noble Friend? Was it also a piece of imagination to refer to the fact, that since that time there had been such an increase in the amount of deposits in the savings banks? The right hon. Gentleman might say it was not post hoc, ergo propter hoc in this case; but if he urged that those improvements were not to be attributed to the operation of the Factory Act, it was for the right hon. Gentleman to assign another cause. He (Sir R. Inglis) would ask whether, if wheat had been at 80 s. the quarter, it would have altered the fact as to the situation of these schools? It was suggested that those subjects for congratu-
918
lation might not have resulted from the Ten Hours Bill; at any rate, the people had done in the course of the last two years and a half what they had not done before; and he contended that a great deal at all events of the observable improvement in the labouring classes depended not upon the cheapness of articles and the free-trade tenets of the Manchester school, but on the use which they had made of the leisure secured to them. They were all agreed happily upon this one point, that the state of the law was uncertain, and that the measure of the noble Lord must be introduced. [An Hon. MEMBER: The law is not at all uncertain.] He retracted the expression as to the uncertainty of the law; but he would maintain that there never was a decision of a court of law, however well-founded it might be as to the mere verbal construction of the statute, which had been more unexpected, or which was more contrary to the intentions of the framers of the Act. Under these circumstances—having endeavoured to state to the House that his noble Friend, eminent, as he was, and had always been, for his untiring energy and zeal, and for the devotion of his great and high talents to high and holy purposes—had never condescended to use for the accomplishment of his objects anything but a direct appeal to stern facts—having so far defended his noble Friend, he would not further trespass on the time of the House except to express a hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, who he saw was about to address the House, would imitate the enthusiasm for good which had distinguished his noble Friend throughout the whole course of his life.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that all must admit that the Bill proposed to be brought in was intended to settle what was in some degree an unsatisfactory state of the law. He had not risen for the purpose of entering into the main question, but rather to express an opinion, which he was anxious to do at that early stage of the discussion, on a point which he thought of quite as much importance as the question of the particular words to be introduced into the Bill, or the exact time during which factories were to be permitted to work. He was, as the House knew, connected in business with concerns which came under the operation of the Factory Act: and of one thing he was most thoroughly convinced, namely, that for the beneficial working of any factory legislation, it was of the first importance that it should pass

919
that House and become law, with a fair amount of concurrence on the part of the employers as well as of the employed. One of the great faults of the Ten Hours Bill was that it had not had that concurrence on the part of the employing class; and, without entering into any discussion as to the hours, he would merely state that from his own experience and observation, he could assure the House that the working classes did not gain as much by the concession of half an hour, or even of an hour, in the time of working, as they would gain by the operation of a law which was received by the employers as a fair law, and which the employers generally were willing to carry out in a fair spirit. He had known many cases himself, and, if he were at liberty to state details, he could convince the House that there were many cases in which the working people in many concerns had been placed under disadvantages which they would not otherwise have suffered if this law had not been carried to that extreme length which created hostile feelings on the part of the capitalist classes, and induced them to abstain (and there were cases in which they did abstain) from entering into a system of co-operation with the working people, which would be beneficial to them, and which would have taken place if the estrangement which had arisen out of the law had not existed. He was not about to say a word about the Ten Hours Bill; but he merely made an appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Bath, who knew full well the importance of this suggestion. The noble Lord was not bound down to the doctrine which had been inculcated by the Ten Hours Bill, and was not indisposed to take a course which might bring about a settlement of this question different from that which was contained in the Bill which was laid before them that night. He (Mr. Bright) had been led to believe that not a small portion of the working classes, and a very large portion of the employing classes, were willing to approach the question with a more moderate disposition than that which they formerly entertained; and if Gentlemen opposite were sincerely anxious that the working people should receive the greatest amount of good out of such legislation, they should endeavour, in some degree, to meet the views of those large employers of labour, without whose co-operation and concurrence it was quite impossible that this question could be finally and satisfactorily settled. He should
920
not now make any reply to the coarse vituperation of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham. That hon. Gentleman had tried his hand at bettering the condition of the factory labourers, and had invited them from the districts where they were well employed and well paid, and had allured them on to his lands, and then had left them in a quagmire of misery and despair. And when the hon. Gentleman returned to those operatives the contributions which he had induced them to lay out in his most foolish scheme, then he would have more reason to stand on the floor of that House to advocate the cause of those who worked in the factories. He (Mr. Bright) would only state that the cause which he advocated with regard to this question, and those who advocated it, could receive no injury whatever from any calumnies that might come from the hon. Member. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, as might be expected, had spoken in a very different spirit. He joined the hon. Baronet in thinking that the term enthusiast had been often applied to some who were engaged in noble and generous pursuits; but yet it did not follow from that that all those who were enthusiasts were engaged in noble pursuits. The noble Lord made a speech in which he pictured the condition of the manufacturing districts. He (Mr. Bright) admitted that the necessary consequence of reducing the hours of labour in the manufacturing districts was, that beneficial results in some directions would follow. The noble Lord made speeches some years ago of a very different complexion. At that time he spoke as if he were the hired advocate—when he used the words "hired advocate" he hoped that the noble Lord would not misunderstand him—he meant to say that he appeared as if he were the pledged advocate of those who were anxious to paint, in the blackest colours, the condition of the manufacturing districts. But on the present occasion he had spoken as if he were engaged on the other side, and as if his object was to paint an entirely different picture. The noble Lord attributed the whole of the improvement which had taken place to the passing of the Ten Hours Bill of 1847. If so, it was surely a most extraordinary fact, that under the operation of the Twelve Hours Bill the demoralisation and degradation of the operatives should have reached such an extreme point that it was necessary for Parliament to interfere, and that the mo-

921
ment the Ten Hours Bill came into operation in May, 1848—[Lord ASHLEY: The Eleven Hours Bill was in operation in 1847.] Yes; but the noble Lord must be aware that during 1847 the factories in Lancashire were not employed more than eight hours a day, owing to the failure of the cotton crop. The Ten Hours Bill, as he had said, did not come into operation until the month of May, 1848; and surely it was enthusiasm, after all, to suppose that that demoralised and degraded people, the moment the Ten Hours Bill passed, should be full of anxiety for schools, and books, and savings hanks, and all sorts of improvements. The noble Lord had proved a great deal too much. Let him look back to the year 1841, when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth came into office. The manufacturing districts were then in deep distress, and hon. Gentlemen opposite refused almost to credit the heartrending details of the sufferings of the people. After the good harvest of 1842, some improvement was visible; and in 1843, 1844, and 1845, a great change took place, and it was observable that the chapels and the schools were much better attended. That improvement arose from causes which could not he traced to any Factory Act; and whether the Act of 1847 had passed or not, and other changes had taken place which did take place, the improved condition of the people would have been hardly distinguishable from that which existed at the present moment. He thought that a proposition on the question introduced by the noble Lord should have come before the House in some shape or other, and for this reason, that under the present system the adult men had some ground of complaint, inasmuch as the margin of from half-past five o'clock, A.M., to half-past eight o'clock, P.M., showed that a man may be induced, if not forced, to work more than twelve—aye, more than thirteen hours per day. Under the restrictions which had been fixed on labour, the employers were disposed, perhaps, to go a little further than they were inclined before this legislation had taken place. Mills had been worked under the system of relays, and the men were worked the whole of the time while the mills were at work. The condition of these men was, therefore, worse than it was before this Act was passed, when they were never asked to work more than twelve hours. Under these severe restrictions relays were introduced, and adults were
922
worked more than twelve hours. He should be sorry that a practice should arise from any cause whatever which would compel men to work more than twelve or thirteen hours per day. He did not wish to speak further on the subject of the Bill, but he asked the House to come to the consideration of the subject in a spirit different from that which actuated them in their discussion of the question in 1847. Let them not see that hostility exhibited by Gentlemen on the other side of the House against the manufacturers on his (Mr. Bright's) side of the House. It was his opinion that there could not be a final and satisfactory conclusion arrived at unless there was a fair amount of agreement between the capitalists who paid the wages and the labourers who found the labour. He would now ask the noble Lord the Member for Bath whether, with the influence which he possessed out of doors, representing as he did a large number of persons on this question, not a few of whom were willing to take a fair and a broad view of the question, it would not be possible to come to some arrangement which would meet with the concurrence of the rational of all parties? The hon. Gentleman concluded by observing that it was for the purpose of bringing about this feeling and this mode of settlement that he made this appeal to the noble Lord and to the House.
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, if a stranger to that House had been present on that occasion, he must be surprised, when there was no objection to the introduction of the Bill, that the debate should not have ended with the speech of the noble Lord who brought forward the question, and with the observations of the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department. As there was very important business on the Paper, he would not trouble the House with more than a very few remarks. The right hon. Member for Manchester said this question should be treated as a matter of business, and not as a mere question of humanity. In this opinion he (Mr. Aglionby) perfectly agreed. He also agreed with the hon. Member who spoke last, in professing a hope there would be some degree of harmony and good feeling prevailing in carrying out this measure respecting the factory system; but he could not agree with him in his appeal to the noble Lord to abandon the limit of time for labour which he had proposed in his Bill. The hon. Member intimated that the manufac-

923
turers were prepared for a compromise, if instead of ten hours the noble Lord substituted eleven hours, eleven and a half hours, or twelve hours, but he did not distinctly gay which. If this was persisted in, he (Mr. Aglionby) had no hesitation in saying that all attempts would fail to promote that feeling of harmony which the hon. Member wished to carry out. It was not in human nature, when they had been struggling for years to attain this great end, and for which purpose the noble Lord had been the honest, able, and generous advocate, that these persons shall agree, in consequence of a mistake of the Legislature, to have an advantage taken of them, and that they should consent, from a mere quibble of the law, to the getting rid of that which they had obtained with so much exertion. He believed a most bitter feeling would arise if any such attempt was made, and he warned the hon. Member for Manchester that he could not expect to be successful. From inquiries made of many persons of practical experience, he could say the operation of the last Factory Act had been most successful and beneficial as regarded all the labouring classes who were affected by it. It was the duty of the House of Commons at once to say that it would not allow an error in their legislation to be taken advantage of in the way suggested. He did not charge the millowners with evading the law, for a legal construction had been put upon it by the proper tribunal, and, therefore, they were justified in carrying it out.
LORD J. MANNERSthought it right, after the speeches of the hon. Member for Manchester, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to express his own determination, and the determination of those who had supported the Ten Hours Act, not to accept any compromise on this question. He announced this intention without the least heat of temper, or the least desire to create that estrangement between the employers and the employed to which the hon. Member for Manchester had alluded. It was his object, in avowing that determination, to prevent this estrangement, and, therefore, he thought it best to assert at once that the working people of Yorkshire and Lancashire—of Scotland, and of the north of Ireland—having obtained, after a struggle of thirty-three years, that which they justly called the Magna Charta of the people, would not abate one tittle of their claim, in the enforcement of which
924
they would be backed by those in the House who felt its justice. He did not intend to enter into the controversy which had sprung up between the hon. Member for Nottingham and the hon. Member for Manchester; but he could not permit the observations of the latter hon. Member, as far as they concerned the noble Lord who had introduced the subject, to go forth unnoticed. The hon. Member had alleged that the noble Lord had suffered his enthusiasm to carry him away, and to attribute to the Bill of 1847 the benefits which were attributable to the course of commercial policy pursued by the House. The noble Lord had come to no such conclusion. His conclusions were drawn from the testimony of those who had furnished him with the statistical information on which he had grounded his statement. It might be that the inspectors of factories, the secretaries of savings banks, and the hardworking clergy, were sentimental enthusiasts; but these were the gentlemen whose character and veracity were not impugned, who had furnished that statistical information on which the noble Lord relied, and whose conclusions the noble Lord had quoted. The hon. Member for Manchester considered that the evils resulting from the shift and relay system, arose from a want of consideration of the question on the part of the House. "Want of consideration!" when the question had been debated in that House, and by the country, for a period of thirty-three years. "Want of consideration!" when it was admitted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the flaw in the Act of 1847 arose not from a want, but from a surplusage, of consideration, and that it was on the Bill being withdrawn, and another substituted, the error crept in. They were all agreed that some measure was necessary, and he would defer the observations he was anxious to make until some real opposition were shown to the Bill. Hon. Members on his side of the House would then have an opportunity of vindicating the course which the Legislature had pursued, and of showing that when Her Majesty accepted the affecting testimonial of a grateful and a loyal people. She accepted it from a people fully sensible of the benefits which the Legislature had secured to them, and resolutely determined to maintain them.
MR. W. J. FOXperfectly agreed with the hon. Member for Manchester, that a satisfactory settlement of this question

925
must have the concurrence of the employer and the employed; but not only was there the difficulty that arose from the determined pursuit of a certain object, against any compromise which should affect the ten hours, there was also this difficulty, that no plan was so likely to meet the views of all parties, as a realisation of the scheme which had been believed to exist, which certainly did exist in the generally understood intentions of the Legislature, and which had the concurrence of so large a proportion of those by whom the operatives were employed. He thought that those who resorted to the shift system were an exception to the rule. The inspectors had taken the opinions of masters and operatives on the different suggestions which had been made. Mr. Inspector Homer had taken the opinions of upwards of fifty masters. He found that twenty of them preferred ten hours, twenty-two preferred eleven hours, and fifteen preferred twelve hours. The same inspector had taken the opinions of men and women employed in the factories. The total number consulted was 1,153; the number of men was 651. Of these 651 male operatives, 441 were for the ten hours system, 96 for the eleven hours, and 114 for the twelve hours. Of 502 women, 272 were for ten hours, 51 for eleven hours, and 179 for twelve hours. So that the greater number of males and females, if they were to lose the benefits of the ten-hour system, even preferred twelve to eleven hours. He also coincided in the opinion of the hon. Member for Manchester as to the cause of the present state of things in the manufacturing districts. He did not regard the ten hours as the cause of the present prosperity; he ascribed it to those measures which had made food more cheap and more abundant; but he would remind the hon. Member at the same time that the change would not have produced the result which had been described, had it not been accompanied by the other, and that no cheapness of food could alone have given to the operatives the improvements of education and character, of which they had not been neglectful. He trusted that the noble Lord who had introduced this discussion would adhere most strictly to his terms of not deviating one hair's breadth from what' had been understood to be the design of the enactment of the law as it now existed. There was some suggestion of relays, as distinguished from shifts. He could not
926
understand how that plan would operate. He understood the distinction of relays from shifts to be that relays having filled the hours of continuous labour, were dismissed, and gave the labour to others. The employment on the shift system was to make a small number of persons work longer, by employing them in gangs and parties; but if you introduced two sets at different times of beginning and leaving, it was obvious that the millowner would gain nothing, and must have fewer hands He thought, then, that it was as well to leave the Bill in its present integrity. As to the purpose, which was most distinctly declared by a late Member of the House who introduced the Bill on the last occasion, the opening sentence of his speech was that he meant to restrict women and young persons to twelve hours a day; and within that time to have their meals. The parties most deeply affected were the women and young persons, who, in their dependent condition, were sometimes the objects of harsh treatment, not only by their masters, but also in their own households. Instances had been known in which men had sent their wives and children to the factory, and had betaken themselves to the beer shop. It was an evil against which this Bill provided, and it had been well said, that in cases of children, and in many cases of women, "freedom of contract meant nothing more than freedom of coercion." The benefits which had resulted from this Bill, he was glad to find, were so numerous as to endear the measure to the mass of the people. Having tasted of these benefits, they would surely not be induced easily to relinquish thorn, and he trusted that the law being distinctly declared, there would be a more general concurrence than existed in the minds of the masters, and a close of that agitation, the continuance of which was to be ever deprecated; an agitation which was much worse than a political struggle, because it struck deeper into the social system, and inflicted more serious wounds on the interests of society.
LORD R. GROSVENORsaid, it had been propounded that those who had detected the evil now denounced—and sought to apply a remedy—were Communists and Socialists. This was a somewhat portentous accusation, particularly at a time when Communism and Socialism seemed rife and near at hand—paries cùm proximus ardet. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen need not be alarmed. It was pre-

927
cisely those who, in the following of his noble Friend the Member for Bath aided the work which in this direction he had so long and so ably pursued, that were preventing Socialism and Communism from raising their heads in this country. As to the question whether the present state of things in the manufacturing districts had been produced by the Ten Hours Act, or by the recent legislation on other matters, at all events the operatives seemed to assign the improvement to the former cause. He regretted the fatal hesitation that had manifested itself in the speech of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and could not understand what sort of compromise it was he could possibly invent with any idea of a good result.
SIR J. GRAHAMfelt that he should fail in the respect due to the House if, after the appeal which had been made to him, he omitted to offer a few observations. As he understood, there was no opposition to the introduction of the Bill; and he was disposed to approach the question in the most dispassionate temper, and to give it his most deliberate consideration. His noble Friend the Member for Bath must excuse him if he said that he thought his noble Friend had himself provoked a discussion of a hostile character, when, before ascertaining whether or not there was to be any opposition to the Bill, he went through all the arguments which were used against the Ten Hours Bill three or four years ago, and proceeded to attempt to refute him with considerable eagerness and with some asperity. He had also been somewhat astonished at the speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion, which seemed to hold out a threat that if the House came to a decision adverse to the wishes and expectations of the operatives, those operatives, who had, under the most trying circumstances, hitherto conducted themselves in a manner above all praise, would depart from the admirable course of conduct they had pursued, and would refuse to submit quietly to the decision of the House. The result of some political experience had long since warned him of the evil of dealing in prophecies as to the future, and he had accordingly religiously abstained from addressing anything of the sort to the House. He was now really beginning to be afraid, also, of making any assertions even with respect to the past; because, had he addressed the House before his right hon. Friend opposite addressed it, it had been
928
his intention to have given his evidence, as a witness, of what occurred when he brought the Factory Bill before the House in 1844; and he should have stated, unequivocally and distinctly, that his object in framing the measure, as introduced, was to prohibit absolutely and peremptorily the shift and relay system in any form whatever; and he should have said that such had been his invariable intention. He would state to the House, as far as his recollection served, what occurred on the occasion. He could not say that at any time, following the bent of his own reasoning on the subject, he was friendly to restrictions interfering with the rights of capital on the one hand, and of labour on the other; but finding, from the representations of Mr. Horner and the other factory inspectors, that the Twelve Hours Act, on account of the introduction of the system of shifts and relays, worked unequally and therefore unjustly, and that its salutary provisions were nugatory because easily evaded, he maturely considered the representations impressed upon him as to the necessity of a direct Act putting an end to the shift and relay system, and, reluctantly consenting to the measure, directed Mr. Horner to have a clause framed giving effect to the views which the inspectors entertained. Up to this point his recollection was distinct, and further, that such a clause was accordingly embodied in the Bill laid before the House. Certainly, until he heard the right hon. Gentleman's statement he was not aware that the shape which the clause bore in the first draught of the Bill had been materially altered in the second; but, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, a most important change had taken place, and having had no opportunity of communicating with any of the inspectors, he could not now state what were the circumstances which led to that important change. It was possible that he might have had interviews with master manufacturers, who might have remonstrated against the stringency of the clause, and that he might have consented to a modification; but his intentions had certainly remained unchanged. He had, however, had no opportunity of refreshing his recollection on the subject, but before the question again came before the House he would ascertain what the facts really were. He considered it most desirable that before the discussion proceeded further, and before hon. Gentlemen pledged themselves as to the course they intended

929
to take, they should see the measure of his noble Friend. He must say, that he thought, from the arguments of the noble Lord, that his Bill would be one of a very stringent description; for he understood his noble Friend's arguments to go the full length of requiring that by Act of Parliament the machinery should be prohibited from running for more than ten hours a day. That, he really believed, was the object desired by the operatives themselves, and was also the object which his noble Friend—if he could accomplish it—would consider most desirable for the social and moral welfare of the working classes engaged in manufactures. The noble Lord appeared to suppose, judging from his arguments, that the manufacturers had nothing to apprehend from such a measure. He (Sir J. Graham) did not wish to revive the old and angry discussions upon this point. It had been his misfortune to have taken much part in those discussions; they had brought him into collision with noble and hon. Friends whom he highly esteemed; but, from a sense of public duty, yielding to his reason, he had done violence to his feelings on this subject. He must say, that his reasons remained unchanged, and his feelings towards the working classes were unaltered—they were kind and warm as they ever had been; but he must assure the House that deliberation upon this subject, unshaken even by the experience of the last three years, led him to believe that if this experiment was carried out in all its consequences, and with its full stringency, the time would come when the working classes themselves would be convinced that the enactment was not conducive to their welfare; and he was satisfied that, in the end, it would also prove inconsistent with the prosperity of the manufacturing interests of this country. That was his deliberate conviction; but, at the same time, He looked upon this as a question of honour on the part of the Legislature. He had stated, he believed, that the original enactment of 1844 was intended to put an end to the shift and relay system. He agreed with the right hon. Member for Manchester that improvidently and hastily the provisions adapted to the Twelve Hours Bill were carried over to the Ten Hours Bill, working very different consequences; but he believed the working classes did understand that they were to have the full benefit of the arrangement with respect to the shift system. There
930
were, on the other hand, circumstances which must not be forgotten or overlooked by the House. The factory inspectors, whose duty it was to carry the Act into operation, came to very opposite conclusions among themselves as to the intention and legal effect of the clause. One of those inspectors, now no more, Mr. James Stuart, to whom was confided the superintendence of all the factories in Scotland and Ireland, permitted the relay system. No complaints were made from Scotland or Ireland, and he (Sir J. Graham) was not aware that any bad effects had been experienced. He might mention one very singular fact, showing the absolute necessity of uniformity if justice was to be done. He understood that in the foreign markets the Scotch manufacturers had had some advantage with respect to the price of their goods over the English manufacturers, clearly showing that the relay system, where it had been in full operation, had been of great benefit and assistance to the manufacturers, and that in close competition it was absolutely necessary that they should have one uniform system and rule. But he believed if his noble Friend wished to be strictly just, such was the stringency of the rule, and the certainty of the desire to evade it, that they would have no perfect equality unless they regulated the run of machinery; and the limitation of ten hours would be so violent and restrictive as to prove ruinous in its results. He had gone further than he intended into the question, and he would only say that he was most anxious to sec the Bill of his noble Friend, and that he would approach its consideration in the most dispassionate temper, and see whether it was possible to give it his support. Before the second reading of the Bill, he would endeavour to refresh bin memory as to what took place between the introduction of the first Bill of 1844 and the subsequent measure in which the change of language was said to have taken place. The right hon. Home Secretary had drawn a distinction between the shift and relay systems. It was quite possible to condemn the one and not to repudiate the other; and although he was aware that compromises were not regarded with much favour, he would remind the House of a saying of Mr. Burke—that, after all, the great art of government was an affair of constant compromise.
MR. H. EDWARDSwished to explain that he had had no intention of holding out

931
any threat. The words he had used were, he believed, that it was the intention of the men of Yorkshire and of Lancashire, by all constitutional means, so to press upon the Government the necessity of keeping faith with the promoters of the Act of 1847, for which they had struggled during a period of thirty years, that he conceived it would be impossible for the Government much longer to resist their demands.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, that when this question was first brought under discussion, he was opposed to it, considering it to be an attack on the manufacturing interest. Time had gone by, and perhaps the position of things had changed. He had received instructions from his constituents of various classes; the operative classes certainly; from various descriptions of manufacturing capitalists, and it did so happen that all these communications pointed one way. They all said they were anxious that the Ten Hours Bill should be restored to its integrity, and they particularly represented the interest they felt in that part which would give employment to all at the same time; for they said that they had set on foot institutions for education and improvement of various kinds, the carrying on successfully of which did depend mainly on the point, that all in their employ should be liberated at one and the same hour.
LORD ASHLEY, in reply, said that his only object in proposing this Bill was to settle the disputed question as to the continuity of labour. He proposed to enact what had been the received interpretation of the Act of Parliament upon which the factory inspectors had acted, confirmed by the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, that the period of labour for young persons, being limited to ten hours in the day, should be continuous hours, dating from the time when any child or young person began to work. His object was merely to render the Act of Parliament what it was supposed to be when it received the Royal Assent. He had not charged the great body of the master manufacturers with practising the shift and relay system. If he had done so, he would at once have destroyed his case, for it would then have followed that all the good results of which they had heard had been produced by that system. He was glad to say that the shift system had only been practised by a small minority of manufacturers. It had obtained no footing at all in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and among
932
the vast numbers of manufacturers in Lancashire there were only 200 firms that had adopted the relay system. He wished to take this opportunity of expressing his admiration at the manner in which a large body of the master millowners had received the Act of Parliament, had carried it into effect, had promoted its good working, and had declared their opinion of its results. He was most anxious to know what course the Home Secretary would take on this subject, for the present uncertainty led to much agitation and to most unfortunate heartburnings and hostility between the employers and their workmen. He declared most solemnly that, during the seventeen years of his pursnit of this measure, there was no one thing he had more sincerely desired than the restoration of harmony and good feeling between the employers and the employed. He was, therefore, most anxious that this Bill should not be held in abeyance. If it was read a first time to-night or to-morrow, he should be called upon to fix a day for the second reading, and although he was anxious to give hon. Gentlemen who opposed the measure fair time for its consideration, he was most desirous that the second reading should take place before Easter. The House might depend upon it that there never was a subject upon which the people felt so deeply, and which they would pursue with greater energy. They would devote everything they possessed—their very lives if necessary—to the attainment of their object. He must, therefore, ask the Government when this measure should be discussed, and he called upon them as conservators of the public peace to take care that the question was soon settled, or it would be the source of constant agitation. He wished to say one word before he sat down to the hon. Members for Manchester. If they chose to quarrel with his sentimentality they were perfectly justified in so doing, and he could find no fault with them; but when one of them charged him with being a hired advocate, and the other spoke of him as no better than a Socialist, he could only reply that he rejoiced in such a manifestation of the feebleness of their cause, which had led them to adopt the old and coarse rule—"If you cannot refute your antagonist, why then abuse him."
MR. BRIGHT, in explanation, wished to say that the words he had used were not intended in the sense understood by the noble Lord. The instant he found

933
they created a wrong impression, he retracted them, and used the words "pledged advocate" instead. He thought the noble Lord was attempting to take an unfair advantage by closing his speech with the observations he had made.
MR. W. BROWNwas understood to say that he did not think a restriction of the hours of labour would work so advantageously for the operatives as they anticipated, and that he had no doubt they would eventually call upon Parliament to reverse its decision on the subject.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Lord Ashley, Lord John Manners, and Mr. Aglionby.

HIGHWAYS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
SIR. W. JOLLIFFEobjected to the measure, as putting the management of the highways under the direction of a body by no means the best qualified to conduct such matters economically and well, namely, the guardians of the union. Why not enact that the ratepayers, when electing a board of guardians, should also elect a separate board of waywardens? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home Department would perhaps consent to refer this question to a Select Committee. With all his anxiety for the amelioration of the existing system, he (Sir W. Jolliffe) would rather see legislation upon it postponed to another Session, than agree to such a measure as this, likely to work expensively and ill, and to have a demoralising tendency in regard to the employment of the poor.
MR. RICEsupported the Bill, and hoped the second reading would not be opposed, and that objections to the details would be reserved until the Bill was in Committee.
SIR G. STRICKLANDdid not believe the machinery proposed would work well, and thought it would be very hard that a new and expensive system should be forced upon the whole country, because in certain parts of the kingdom the roads were badly managed. He hoped the Bill would be put off to another Session, by which time it would be better understood throughout the country, and the opinions of competent judges of the proposed change could be had.
MR. HENLEYhoped, at all events, the Bill would be postponed till after Easter. Two years ago, the principle which it embodied had been objected to by that House—namely, that of a central controlling power in London; and a more inconvenient arrangement could not be easily conceived. The unions were formed for a different purpose, and would be found to vary most inconveniently in regard to size and otherwise. The guardians found their proper occupation heavy enough; and, in some parts of the country, the Bill would cast upon them work which would very much interfere with the due administration of the poor-law.
SIR J. PAKINGTONcould not join in the proposal to postpone this Bill either until next Session, or until after Easter, For fifteen years the subject had been before the House. Every one acknowledged that something ought to be done, and yet, the moment a Bill was introduced, the Government were asked to postpone it until next year. He owned he regarded with some jealousy the proposal to make the boards of guardians discharge the duties of way wardens, which were in many respects extraneous to their proper functions, and to some degree inconsistent with them. As a friend to the new poor-law, he was anxious not to see any addition made to the duties of the guardians which might interfere with the efficient working of that measure. Could not the Government avail themselves of the existing machinery, and have a double election every year for guardians and way wardens? The same body of ratepayers might vote, and the same persons might be elected, if they pleased to serve both offices, but let them be a distinct body. This, however, was a matter that might be discussed in Committee, and meanwhile he would support the second reading.
MR. R. C. HILDYARDthought there were grave objections to placing the control of the expenditure at the discretion of boards of guardians, who would often be tempted to repair the highways on a profligate system for the purpose of finding employment for their surplus labour. He trusted the Government would postpone the Bill so as to allow hon. Members the opportunity of discussing the details with their country constituents at the Easter quarter sessions.
MR. AGLIONBYrecommended the Government to press the second reading, after the ample opportunities which the

935
House and the country had already enjoyed of discussing this subject.
CAPTAIN HARRISsaid, considering the objections that had been made to the principle of the Bill by the right hon. Member for Tamworth, and other hon. Members, on a former occasion, he thought it might be postponed without injury to the country. It was obviously unjust to press it on the House at that moment, as none of the country Members were present; indeed, none of them believed it would come on until after Easter. He doubted whether boards of guardians would be able to find a committee; while, if they could not, the highways would be neglected.
MR. C. LEWISwould have been willing to entertain the proposal to postpone the Bill if the subject were now brought before Parliament for the first time; but, as the subject had been repeatedly considered in that House, had been referred to Select Committees, and brought under the notice of Gentlemen at quarter-sessions, he thought that no advantage could arise from any further postponement of the Bill. He had reason to believe that the general principle of this Bill, namely, the formation of districts of parishes for the maintenance of highways, and the appointment of a paid surveyor, had met with general concurrence. He also believed it was generally felt that the appointment of a paid surveyor would conduce to real economy instead of leading to a larger expenditure. Whether the board of guardians were the fittest body to have the management of the highways, was a question which might be fairly discussed in Committee. For himself, he had doubts whether a separate body of elected way wardens would be very different from the board of guardians. Substantially the two systems would be found in their results to be the same. If the House would agree to the second reading now, he would fix the Committee for some day after Easter, in order that hon. Members might have the opportunity of discussing the details of the Bill with their constituents during the Easter recess.
MR. HODGSONsaid, the magistrates upon the grand jury in Cumberland were unanimously opposed to this Bill. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the word "upon this day six months."
COLONEL SIBTHORPseconded the Motion.
MR. CARDWELLwished to know whether districts where the highways were now administered under special Acts of Parliament, would be interfered with by the present measure?
MR. C. LEWISreplied, that it was not intended that this Bill should extend to any districts which at present appointed a surveyor under local Acts.
VISCOUNT EMLYNhoped the hon. Member would not proceed to a division. He was sure it would produce a very bad effect, as there seemed a general feeling in favour of the Bill.
SIR G. STRICKLANDthought it unfair that a sweeping and offensive Bill should be introduced, because the roads in some districts were bad, putting counties to very great expense for an object not wanted.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the existing officers of the board of guardians would be the officers to discharge the duties imposed under this Bill, with the exception of one district surveyor, who, it was admitted on all sides, ought to be appointed. Much had been said about the roads of Cumberland. There were many bad roads, and some good ones too, in that county, but he knew it to be a fact, that not only in the north of England, but throughout every part of the country, a very strong feeling prevailed that a general system of management ought to be introduced. He trusted the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that a day after Easter should be fixed for the Committee.
MR. P. BENNETobjected to the creation of 650 new officers throughout the country, as the salaries would fall principally on the distressed agriculturists. He should therefore support the Amendment.
MR. FREWENsaid, that his objection to the Bill was, that a sweeping measure was to be introduced, entirely levelling the existing system in parts of the country where the roads were admitted to be good. He also objected to putting the roads under the boards of guardians. In one case a representation had been made to him, that out of a board of thirty-two guardians, only two had any property at all, and he believed it was not uncommon to see tavern keepers elected guardians who did not occupy more than some twenty acres of land. He objected to the Bill, in the third place.

937
because he thought it would lead to considerable jobbing.
MR. DEEDESsaid, that as he believed the Bill might be rendered much less objectionable in Committee, he should vote for the second reading. He would feel strongly opposed to any Bill that referred merely to a part of the country. He intended in Committee objecting to giving the power to the board of guardians collectively, but he thought that if it were made compulsory on the guardians to elect a committee of their body for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Bill, much of the difficulty which he saw to the Bill would be removed.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEsaid, the principle of the Bill, as described, was the dividing of the country into districts, and appointing skilled officers over each. To that principle he would give his cordial assent, but on looking into the Bill he found the principle of it to be the mixing up of the highways with the poor-law—one of the greatest disadvantages that could possibly take place. He should therefore feel bound to vote against the second reading.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he had served on the Committee on this Bill two years ago; and he recollected that the great difficulty felt by the Committee when they tried to form separate boards of way-wardens was, that such boards would become in most, if not in all, instances identical with the boards of guardians. As the principle of the Bill was the extension of the districts, and the appointment of adequate surveyors—a principle that the House had concurred in for the last fifteen years—he thought it would be a very strange proceeding to oppose the second reading of the Bill on points of detail, which should more properly be considered in Committee.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 144, Noes 55: Majority 89.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Bernal, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Anstey, T. C.

Bowles, Adm.

Arkwright, G.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Armstrong, R. B.

Bramston, T. W.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Brocklehurst, J.

Brockman, E. D.

Bagshaw, J.

Brotherton, J.

Bailey, J.

Brown, W.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Buxton, Sir E. N.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

Cardwell, E.

Bass, M. T.

Carew, W. H. P.

938

Carter, J. B.

Moffatt, G.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Monsell, W.

Christy, S.

Morris, D.

Clay, J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Mundy, W.

Clive, H. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Cobden, R.

Mure, Col.

Cocks, T. S.

Norreys, Lord

Compton, H. C.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cowan, C.

Pakington, Sir J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Palmer, R.

Deedes, W.

Parker, J.

Denison, E.

Patten, J. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, F.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Pelham, hon. D. A.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Perfect, R.

Duncuft, J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Dundas, Adm.

Power, Dr.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Power, N.

Ebrington, Visct.

Pusey, P.

Ellis, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Reynolds, J.

Emlyn, Visct.

Ricardo, J. L.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Ricardo, O.

Foley, J. H. H.

Rice, E. R.

Forster, M.

Rich, H.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Romilly, Col.

Glyn, G. C.

Romilly, Sir J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Rushout, Capt.

Greenall, G.

Sandars, G.

Greene, J.

Scholefield, W.

Grenfell, C. W.

Seymer, H. K.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Seymour, Lord

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Simeon, J.

Harris, R.

Smith, J. A.

Hatohell, J.

Smith, J. B.

Hawes, B.

Smollett, A.

Heneage, G. H. W.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Henry, A.

Spearman, H. J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Stanley, hon. E. H.

Heywood, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Heyworth, L.

Tenison, E. K.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Tennent, R. J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hollond, R.

Thicknesse, R. A.

Howard, P. H.

Thompson, Col.

Howard, Sir R.

Thornely, T.

Jackson, W.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Jermyn, Earl

Walpole, S. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Keating, R.

Willcox, B. M.

Kershaw, J.

Williams, J.

Legh, G. C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lennard, T. B.

Wilson, J.

Locke, J.

Wilson, M.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Wood, W. P.

Martin, C. W.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Masterman, J.

Wyvill, M.

Mathesonp Col.

TELLERS.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Lewis, G. C.

Mitchell, T. A.

Hayter.W. G.

List of the NOES.

Bennet, P.

Dodd, G.

Blackall, S. W.

Edwards, H.

Bremridge, R.

Farnham, E. B.

Broadley, H.

Farrer, J.

Chaplin W. J.

Fellowes, E.

Chatterton. Col.

Filmer, Sir E.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Floyer, J.

Coles, H. B.

Forbes W.

939

Frewen, C. H.

Lockhart, W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Long, W.

Goddard, A. L.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Grogan, E.

Manners, Lord G.

Guernsey, Lord

Miles, P. W. S.

Gwyn, H.

Mullings, J. R.

Halsey, T. P.

Naas, Lord

Hamilton, G. A.

Newdegate, C. N.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Portal, M.

Heathcoat, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Smyth, J. G.

Hildyard, R. C.

Spooner, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Stanford, J. F.

Hood, Sir A.

Stanley, E.

Hornby, J.

Sullivan, M.

Hudson, G.

Vesey, hon. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Waddington, H. S.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Lennox, Lord A. G.

TELLERS.

Lewisham, Visct.

Strickland, Sir G.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Hodgson, W. N.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday, 11th April.

CHIEF JUSTICES' SALARIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GOULBURNwished to know from the Attorney General whether he included in the reduction of the salary of the Chief Justice any alteration of the retiring allowances?
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that might be a question for consideration in Committee. The present Bill did not propose to diminish the retiring allowance of the Judges. A maximum was fixed by Act of Parliament, but the Treasury was not bound to give the maximum.
MR. MULLINGSthought this Bill ought not to be proceeded with until a return which he had given notice of his intention to move for, of the appointment of officers of courts of justice, and the salaries attendant upon them, had been made. He was of this opinion, because the salary in some measure depended upon the patronage and the emolument of the officers appointed by the chief justices. Nothing was said in the Bill about retiring pensions, and it appeared to him essential that there should be some provisions in the Bill stating what the retiring pensions should be. The very principle of the Bill was involved in the amount of the retiring pension coupled with the patronage. He gave the hon. and learned Gentleman fair notice that, considering the state of the country and the circumstances of the times, he meant to propose a reduction in the salary of 8,000 l. a year which it was intended to give to the chief justices. He believed the salary of the Secretary of State for the
940
Home Department was 5,000 l. a year; and he believed that the labours and the responsibility of the chief justices were not equal to the labour and responsibility of the Secretary for the Home Department. He was not disposed to underrate the learning and the talent of the chief justices; but the time had arrived when stern necessity called upon them to cut down those salaries—salaries that were more than sufficient to secure the performance of the duties attached to the different offices. He had been for the last two quarter-sessions in Gloucestershire sitting upon committees of magistrates, to consider what reductions might be made. They had reduced the salaries of the officers there, and he gave them a pledge that when he came back to the House, he would pursue the same practice. It was in pursuance of that pledge that he voted the other night on the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding; and he should, whenever occasion offered, always support economy.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that as he belonged to a branch of the profession from which chief justices were not usually selected, he might speak as a person not partial on this subject. He thought it was above all things to be deplored if the House should go too fast in the direction of the reduction of judicial salaries. Nothing was of greater importance to the wellbeing of the country than that justice should be administered by men of learning and impartiality, such as they had seen occupying the bench, and that could not be done unless they gave them salaries such as would command men who by their experience and practice were at the head of their profession, and had attained a competent degree of public confidence and respect to fill these situations. When the hon. Member for Cirencester asked why the Chief Justice was to be paid 8,000 l., whilst the Home Secretary of State received but 5,000 l., he forgot that the Home Secretary was not taken from a class of persons who made an income by their professional exertions to support themselves and their families, and which, upon the acceptance of that office, they were obliged to give up. It was indeed of the highest importance to the Government that the Secretary of State should not be taken from a class of persons dependent upon the emoluments of the office. But they could not expect great lawyers to be found in other way than by persons choosing that profession and attaining eminence

941
in it as a means of supporting themselves and their families; and if they took men earning their 8,000 l., 9,000 l., or 10,000 l a year to fill these important situations, it was absolutely necessary to give them great salaries. In the United States, whore the salaries of the judges were small, it was notorious that they could not get the best men to accept the office, or, when accepted, to retain it; and it was not uncommon for a judge to descend from the bench to a subordinate office in his own court, the salary of which was higher. He therefore implored the House not to travel too fast in that direction, for he was convinced it was the most false, ruinous, and unconstitutional economy that could possibly be adopted.
MR. SPOONERwould remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, that if he were not of that branch of the profession from which chief justices were usually selected, he did belong to that branch from which lord chancellors were taken; and if he (Mr. Spooner) could form an accurate judgment of the hon. and learned Gentleman's talents from what they had seen in that House, he hade very fair, some time or other, to occupy the woolsack, and the vote come to now would necessarily involve the consideration of all other judicial salaries. Lord Denman had been Chief Justice seventeen years, and would the House say that what was a competent salary seventeen years ago, was not too much now? Another reason for postponing the Bill was that they might know the result of the Motion of which the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had given notice as to the salaries of public officers.
SIR G. GREYsaid, it was not very encouraging to bring in a Bill for the reduction of salaries if they were to meet with such opposition as was now offered to the second reading of this Bill. At present the salary of the Chief Justice, as fixed by Parliament, was 10,000 l It was proposed that it should be immediately reduced to 8,000 l.; but if this Bill were abandoned, the effect would be that the Chief Justice would have a right to draw for 10,000 l. The proper time for discussing the amount was in Committee, but by agreeing to the second reading they sanctioned the principle that the salary of the Chief Justice should be reduced.
COLONEL SIBTHORPsaid, reduction ought to take place, not only in the salaries of the Judges, but of those on the Treasury benches. They had too much.
942
they were too fat, too well fed, and therefore they were useless. He suggested that the Bill should be postponed until the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his financial statement.
Bill read 2°.

PROCESS AND PRACTICE (IRELAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
Clauses from 12 to 35 inclusive were agreed to.
On Clause 36.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that as this clause was a compensating one, he would postpone its consideration until the bringing up of the report.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, that he understood great injustice had been done to several clerks in the Rolls Court, and he wished to call attention to the circumstance.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the claims of those persons were in no ways connected with this Bill. The proper time for urging the claims of those persons would be when the Bill for the amendment of the Court of Chancery should be brought forward.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that there were upwards of fifty copying and engrossing clerks who would lose their employment by the contemplated changes. Those persons had been servants of the public, some of them for the last fifty years; surely their long services gave them some claim to consideration.
MR. SADLEIRalso urged the claims of those persons as worthy of consideration.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that, no doubt, a general compensating principle would be recognised in all cases where compensation would be extended under similar circumstances in England.
MR. REYNOLDSsaid, that there was no precedent in England for the description of persons whose case he had mentioned—the copying and engrossing clerks—all of whom would be ruined by this Bill, unless they got compensation.
The clause was then struck out, in order that a new clause might be substituted on the bringing up of the report.
Clauses from 37 to 47 inclusive were agreed to.
On Clause 48,
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that he proposed to make the operation of

943
the Bill commence on the first day of Trinity term next ensuing. It would be much more convenient to fill up the blank in this way than to make the Bill commence on the first day of Michaelmas term. Since he had postponed the compensating clause, he had been informed that he could not bring in a compensating clause unless in a Committee of the whole House. Under these circumstances, after the remaining clauses were disposed of, he should move that the chairman re port progress, and sit again on Friday week.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, that at this stage of the Committee he wished to introduce a clause, the object of which would be to prevent fraud, and to abolish the system of city attachments, so much complained of, in Dublin, and one or two other cities in Ireland. By the law, as it at present stood, a creditor could, upon his simple oath, issue an attachment, and sweep away the goods of the debtor; and it often occurred that fraudulent executions were put in at the instance of debtors to the injury of the creditor. His object was to give a remedy against the goods instead of the person of the debtor.
The SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the clause would give to the creditor the benefits of an execution without having first obtained a judgment. All the creditor had to do was to swear that he believed the debtor was going out of the country, in order to obtain an execution against his goods; and he would be able to do so upon the ex parte swearing of an interested party.
The ATTORNEY GENERALconsidered the clause highly objectionable, and must oppose it.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONconsidered that the Amendment should be made the subject of a specific Bill, if the principle involved in it was adopted by the House.
MR. REYNOLDSobjected to the introduction of the clause, it gave such immense power to vindictive creditors.
MR. SADLEIRsaid, as the Irish Members did not take a very lively interest in the Bill, and as the Government opposed the clause, he would withdraw it.
Committee report progress; to sit again on Friday, 22nd March.
The House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Convict Prisons.

CONVICT PRISONS BILL.
EARL GREYrose to move the Second Reading of the Convict Prisons Bill, and said: The Bill, my Lords, which I now move to read a second time, is a Bill for the better management and government of Convict Prisons. The prisons to which it refers are the prison of Parkhurst, a prison set apart for the reformation of juvenile offenders under the direction and control of visitors appointed by Her Majesty in Council—the prison of Pentonville, under the government and superintendence of

853
Commissioners appointed by the same authority—the prison of Millbank, under the control of visitors appointed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and the hulks and the establishment at the Isle of Portland, under the government of persons appointed by the Secretary of State, to exercise the powers formerly exercised under the Transportation Act by the Superintendent of Convicts. These prisons now contain 5,400 convicts, sentenced to various periods of transportation, and are, as your Lordships will perceive, under the control and management of four separate and distinct authorities. As every one of these establishments is maintained for the safe custody and punishment of persons sentenced to transportation, and as it is considered to be of the first importance that there should be concert among the governing powers, and an uniformity of system for the management of the convicts, it has been found that a division of authority is inconvenient, and prejudicial to the public service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has therefore made arrangements for practically uniting this divided authority in the same hands, in order to secure the necessary co-operation between these different establishments, and unity of system. This is effected by giving to the same individuals appointments under the different Acts of Parliament relating to the prisons of Parkhurst, Pentonville, Millbank, and Portland, and the hulks; but this mode of accomplishing unity of management is incorrect and irregular, and it is only a temporary expedient adopted until a more satisfactory and permanent system can be established by passing the present Bill, the object of which is to place these different prisons under a board of visitors to be appointed for that purpose. In stating the grounds upon which I recommend this alteration of the law to your Lordships, I may be permitted to premise that the experiment of the prison at Pentonville—for that prison was at first nothing but an experiment—was placed under the superintendence and control of certain persons of great weight and influence. The Commissioners of Pentonville consisted of distinguished Members of both Houses of Parliament, and of professional gentlemen of the highest character and reputation. Two of the Commissioners were Members of your Lordships' House. I do not see them now in their places; but they were the
854
Duke of Richmond and Lord Chichester—who both of them took great pains and afforded most valuable assistance in the management of that prison. The prison of Pentonville, as most of your Lordships are well aware, has now been open for more than seven years, and is therefore now no longer an experiment. Those Commissioners who first undertook the voluntary office of superintending it have gradually withdrawn their attendance from it; and it is the object of this Bill to substitute for them public officers more directly responsible to the Secretary of State. But it must not be supposed that Her Majesty's Government have been influenced by any idea that the services of the Commissioners had been ineffective. On the contrary, I am happy to be able to declare that their services have boon of the highest value, and that the public is deeply indebted to them for the zeal and assiduity which they displayed. Their authority, however, will now be at an end; and the prison of Pentonville will fall under the general regulations for the government of the prisons for the detention of convicts sentenced to transportation. As the object of this Bill, my Lords, is to provide for the management of these prisons to one or other of which all offenders sentenced to transportation will be sent, and thus to ensure a better and more uniform execution of the sentence of transportation, I think it is right that I should state briefly what the mode of carrying that punishment into execution has been and now really is.
I think that all your Lordships will admit that no subject is of greater importance than that of secondary punishments. On the efficiency of those punishments depends the authority of the law and the good order and tranquillity of society. To have a good system of secondary punishments is, therefore, an object of primary importance. The difficulty, however, of obtaining such a system is at least equal to its importance. It has been felt, and it is still felt, in every country of the world, and under every form of government, that the question how to dispose of offenders is a constant subject of perplexity and difficulty. The utmost that we can expect is this—that by watching the operation of the secondary punishments which have been adopted as tie best which experience has suggested, and introducing from time to time improvements where we see defects, we may arrive at last at a satisfactory result after a long

855
series of experiments, all tending to progressive amelioration. To suppose that we can arrive at perfection at once by any sudden effort of legislation, is, in my opinion, as wild and visionary an idea as ever entered into the imagination of man. This process of gradual improvement in the system of punishment has been going on in this country for many years, and more especially since an inquiry was instituted into it by a Committee of the House of Commons in the year 1838. That Committee sat during two Sessions of Parliament, and the result of its investigations was of the very highest importance. It opened the eyes of Parliament and the public to the existence of an enormous mass of evils of a frightful character, the existence of which before was not even suspected, and it led to the general conviction of the absolute necessity of an early and complete reformation of the system. Very soon after the reports of that Committee were published, as a first step in the right direction the prison of Pentonville was erected as an experimental prison. Shortly afterwards directions were given by the Government at home for the discontinuance in the colonies of the assignment system, which had previously prevailed there. In the year 1840 this step was followed up by an Order in Council, issued by the advice of my noble Friend Lord J. Russell, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, whereby the colony of New South Wales ceased to be a place for the transportation of convicts. It was not, however, till the year 1841 that the assignment of convicts was practically discontinued; and in the following year the noble Lord opposite, who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies (Lord Stanley), issued full instructions as to the regulations under which convicts were to be placed when sent, in pursuance of the sentence of transportation, to Van Diemen's Land. Those instructions were the same in principle with those which have since been substituted for them. The mode of applying the principle differed indeed from that which has since been adopted, but the principle of the instructions of the noble Lord is substantially the same with that of the existing regulations. The principle was that persons sentenced to transportation should ultimately become free in the colony to which they were transported, after having undergone penal labour under the control of the Government for a certain period of time proportioned partly to the severity of their sentence, and partly to their good
856
conduct while under punishment. The system imposed a certain minimum amount of punishment upon all; but at the same time left open to all a prospect of ameliorating their condition by good conduct and regular obedience. I think, my Lords, that to the principle of those instructions no objection can be fairly taken; but certainly in practice the measure founded upon them was a failure. And I think that it was a failure owing to these reasons: first, that there were no adequate means in Van Diemen's Land for carrying it properly into effect; there were neither suitable and sufficient buildings nor properly qualified officers to superintend the operation of the system then adopted; and, secondly, and principally, because too large a number of convicts had been sent out to that colony. When my noble Friend Lord J. Russell advised that New South Wales should cease to be used as a place for the punishment of convicts, it was his intention to revert to the former practice of the country, that is, only to remove to a penal colony a small proportion of the convicts sentenced to transportation, and to keep the remainder in the hulks or other prisons at home. But in the year 1841 resolutions were carried in the House of Commons against the Government of the day, and condemnatory of the retention in this country of convicts sentenced to transportation. In consequence, a vast number of convicts were poured into Van Diemen's Land and Norfolk Island; and those settlements were compelled to endure, as they best might, the undue number so suddenly cast upon them. As a proof this I will only mention to you, my Lords, that the whole number of male convicts who arrived in Van Diemen's Land in the five years ending with the close of the year 1840, did not exceed 7,942; whereas, in the five years from that time to the close of 1845, the number of male convicts transported there was not less than 17,637. The arrival of this large number of convicts not only broke down all the arrangements which had been made for the safe custody and superintendence of the convicts in the island, but it also so glutted the labour market that the easy means by which convicts on becoming entitled to tickets of leave or conditional pardons had formerly been able to obtain subsistence for themselves by honest labour, ceased to be available, and thus that which had really constituted the chief recommendation of transportation was entirely lost.

857
The convicts who had acquired the privilege of discharge from the probation gangs were obliged to return to hiring depôts which it was necessary to establish, because they were unable to procure labour from private individuals. This led to a state of things which was absolutely frightful. The reward to which convicts in the gangs had been accustomed to look for good conduct ceased to be one, since there was little difference between their situation in the hiring depôts and in the gangs, and thus mere coercion became the only means of maintaining discipline. This, together with the other causes I have referred to, led to a demoralisation which was shocking to contemplate; and the whole colony was thrown into confusion and disorder owing to the large number of convicts who were unable to find employment. This was the state of affairs when we, my Lords, came into office. We could not doubt the absolute necessity of the determination to which our predecessors had very properly come, to suspend trasportation to Van Diemen's Land for two years. As to that point we had no doubt; and we also came to the conclusion that any future transportation to Van Diemen's Land should not be carried on upon the old system. We thought that penal labour, previous to transportation to a distant land, should always be inflicted at home, or at Gibraltar or Bermuda, where we could command more vigilant and careful superintendence than we could by any possibility command either in Van Diemen's Land or in Norfolk Island; where abuses could not grow up without being much more promptly discovered; and, besides, we thought that that penal labour should in all cases be preceded by separate confinement for a certain period. We also thought that after enduring this punishment at home the conviots should not be sent out as convicts, but as exiles. This proposed alteration was stated by myself and by my right non. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department to this and to the other House of Parliament in the year 1847. Objections were taken to it in both Houses, and a Committee was appointed by your Lordships to investigate the matter, and to hear evidence upon it. That Gommittee collected much valuable evidence; and, at the same time, information was received from the colonies which led to the conclusion that this plan of sending out convicts as exiles was not likely to succeed, and that it would be advisable that they should
858
rather be sent in a manner which admitted of their being placed under some control. Accordingly a modification of the original plan was determined on, and it was decided that convicts, after suffering a certain degree of punishment at home, should be sent to the colonies, not as exiles with conditional pardons, but with tickets of leave. The difference of these two states is one of great importance, to which I shall have occasion by and by to advert. The nature of the system under which it was now proposed to carry into execution the sentence of transportation was fully described by myself in a despatch dated the 17th of April, 1848, which was laid before Parliament in the course of the month of May following. The system so described is substantially that which is still in operation, though some improvements in its details have been already introduced, and others are still in contemplation. I am anxious, therefore, to call your attention, my Lords, to the views on which that system is founded, and to the results by which it has been, and by which I think it likely that it will be, attended. Ever since transportation was known to the law of England as a punishment, it has been found that mere removal from this country would not answer the object in view. For, when we know that thousands of honest and industrious labourers are not merely anxious, but absolutely eager, to go out to our colonies in the hope of bettering their condition, it is clear that removal from this country cannot by itself be a sufficient punishment to deter from crime, and, therefore, that coercion and penal labour must be added to it. Looking at the results of experience, I think it is also clear that penal labour cannot be inflicted in the colonies without greater risk than is incurred at home, of abuses arising which may remain long undiscovered. This was shown by the long continuance of abuses without detection under the assignment system, and equally so under the plan of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley), which worked so differently from what he expected, but of which it is clear the evils would never have risen to the frightful pitch which they actually attained, had not the great distance of the scene where they occurred deprived the noble Lord of the means of obtaining early and accurate knowledge of the first symptoms of the failure of his measures, which would have enabled him in time to adapt them to the exigency of the case. Hence,

859
my Lords, we concluded that the penal labour of the convict should be inflicted principally at home, where it could be more effectually superintended, where its effects would be sooner and better known, and where there were advantages for inflicting it much greater than in any colony. We thought also that part of the convict's punishment should be separate imprisonment. I need not describe to your Lordships what separate imprisonment is. There are, my Lords, a series of the most valuable reports from the Commissioners of Pentonville prison, describing the nature and results of separate confinement. There are those who, looking only to the physical condition of the prisoner, think that separate imprisonment is not a sufficient punishment. Looking at this confinement in a separate cell, which is well warned and regularly ventilated, where he is well clothed and well fed, and called upon to perform but little labour, they think that it is a very light punishment for a criminal who has been convicted of heinous crime. It has not, however, been found so in practice; on the contrary, it has been fairly tried—its chief defect has been discovered to be this—that it cannot be continued for a sufficient length of time without danger to the individual, and that human nature cannot bear it beyond a limited period. The evidence of medical authorities proves, beyond dispute, that if it is protracted beyond twelve months the health of the convict, mental and physical, would require the most close and vigilant superintendence. Eighteen months is stated to be the maximum time for the continuance of its infliction, and, as a general rule, it is advised that it should not be continued for more than twelve months. It inspires great horror and dread among those who have undergone it. There are also satisfactory grounds for believing that, as a reformatory system of discipline, it is most efficacious, and amongst those grounds I may refer to the small number of recommittals of persons who have suffered this punishment in comparison with that of those who have suffered any other species of secondary punishment. On this point I will refer you to the returns published annually on this point; but if you want other evidence, I will refer you to a pamphlet which has been recently published anonymously, but which I believe to be written by the very excellent chaplain of one of the prisons in which this system of discipline is adopted. His description of its
860
effects, which I believe to be most just, is as follows:—
"But whatever may be thought of the influence of separate confinement as a means of reformation, there should be no doubt about its utility as a punishment, if not carried to an extreme. It is a most severe one, certainly…Criminals, of all men, can least bear to be alone. A thoroughly bad man, by himself, is the greatest coward, and without his accustomed stimulants the most wretched of beings. We have no hesitation, therefore, in stating that such a man would prefer even the scanty food, the vermin, and the sloth of such a place as Newgate, where he might gamble for his supper, learn new tricks, or instruct the novice, sing, play, and quarrel by turns in the night-room, than the very best treatment and the most abundant diet of a prison on the new plan. The reformatory character of such a gaol is, to such persons, an object of real terror."
This point, my Lords, does not rest on the evidence of those who have watched the progress of this new punishment, and who may, therefore, be supposed to entertain a prejudice in favour of the work which they have superintended. Sir W. Denison, the authorities in New South Wales, the excellent chaplain to the convicts employed on the public works at Gibraltar, the Governor of Portland Island, every person who has to take charge of convicts after they have undergone separate imprisonment, all report that it is a most excellent punishment for inspiring dread, and for producing a desire of reformation on the part of the prisoner. The concurrence of the authorities on this point is most satisfactory and conclusive. For this reason, my Lords, it is proposed that all convicts sentenced to transportation shall undergo a greater or less period of separate imprisonment. While the prison at Pentonville was only an experiment, and there were not the means elsewhere of inflicting the punishment, this could not be done, and only a limited number of convicts selected from the whole body could be so treated. But while this was the case, whatever advantage might be derived from the discipline of Pentonville in the reformation of the particular convicts sent there, it is obvious that it could have little effect in deterring from crimes. In order that it should produce its full effect in this respect, it is necessary that all convicts sentenced to transportation should undergo a certain period of separate imprisonment. Means now exist for this. In addition to the establishment at Pentonville, part of the Penitentiary at Millbank has been fitted up with separate cells, and arrangements have been made with the

861
magistrates of several of the county prisons, whereby a number of their cells will be at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government. There are now 2,000 cells placed in this manner at the disposal of the Government, and this arrangement will enable us to apply the system of separate imprisonment to the average number of convicts sentenced each year to transportation. After undergoing this separate imprisonment, it is proposed that the convicts shall be employed for a certain period on penal labour on the public works, either in this country, or at Gibraltar, or at Bermuda. I know, my Lords, that there are objections, and strong and plausible objections, against the employment of convicts on public works. When we reflect on what the hulks were, and to a certain degree still are, in this country—when we look at the galleys in France—and when we turn our eyes to the road-gangs in some of our colonies, I am not surprised that objection is taken against the association of convicts in gangs on the public works. But it does not appear to me to be proved that such abuses as have existed in the cases I have mentioned, are of necessity inseparable from the infliction of forced labour on offenders; and, at all events, the means of inflicting adequate punishment for serious offences without such labour, have not hitherto been discovered. It is absolutely necessary, my Lords, that you should keep these convicts under coercion for some time after they emerge from separate confinement; that imprisonment, I have stated, cannot be prolonged beyond twelve or at most eighteen months, and this would obviously not be sufficient in itself for aggravated crimes, especially where a convict has perhaps narrowly escaped the punishment of death. Such a person it would be wrong to set at liberty, either at home or in the colonies, after only eighteen months separate imprisonment; it is, therefore, indispensable that farther punishment should be inflicted, which, in the present state of our knowledge, can only be effected by a system of forced labour. I am happy to believe that, by judicious regulations, coercion and imprisonment of this kind may be successfully carried on. The first judicious attempts to improve the system of managing convicts employed on public works, was made some years ago at Bermuda. Under the direction of the engineer officers in charge of the works in that island, there has been gradually established a system of taskwork, which has been most
862
effectual in stimulating industry on the part of the convicts. My Lords, when you have made convicts industrious, you have not done all that you want and ought to do, but you have accomplished a good deal. When you have succeeded in making them work hard, you have made a great step towards improvement. Idleness, it has often been said, is the mother of all mischief, and this is more especially true as to convicts; they have very generally been seduced into crime by their love of idleness and their hatred of continuous labour; and I believe that when they find the consequence of crime is to subject them to continuous labour of a much harder character than that to which an honest man is subject, the result cannot but be the most beneficial. Besides, when a convict has been engaged in and fatigued by hard labour during the whole day, he will not be inclined, when his hour of rest arrives, to pass his time in immoral conversation, or to indulge in other demoralising habits. Hence when you shall have succeeded in making the labour of the convict really hard work, you will have made a decided step to his improvement. The system of taskwork, by which the industry of convicts is powerfully stimulated, I have already informed your Lordships, was first enforced at Bermuda; it has since been extended to other penal establishments. But, my Lords, much more must be done in addition to this, and much more, I am happy to say, is in progress for the moral reformation of the convicts. Greater exertions must be made for their instruction, moral and religious. The noble Lord on the opposite benches (Lord Stanley) added largely to the means of such instruction by the arrangements which he made for sending additional religious instructors to take charge of the transported convicts in Van Dieman's Land. From the failure of the noble Lord's measure in other respects, this increase in the means of religious instruction was less useful than was expected; but yet I feel certain that if these unfortunate men are placed under proper instruction, both moral and religious, and if such regulations are enforced among them as will stimulate industry, much greater reformation than any we have yet witnessed may be accomplished among them. The great difficulty with which we have hitherto had to combat has arisen from the want of adequate buildings for the proper custody of convicts. The hulks are utterly unsuitable for this purpose, and must

863
always be most objectionable as prisons; first, because they are very costly, far more so than any prisons on shore, and next, because from their confined space, and the difficulty of preventing communication, they are unfitted for any system of proper prison discipline, I therefore hope that in a few years more they may be discarded. Many of the convicts employed on the public works at Gibraltar have accommodation found for them on shore; and at Portland a new prison has been erected for their reception. A few days ago, my Lords, I laid upon your table a report on the state of that prison. I recommend that report to your attention. From the unavoidable delay of the printer in completing the plans, it has not yet been delivered to you, but as soon as it is in your hands, I recommend its perusal. The prison at Portland is one of the prisons to the management of which this Bill applies. The first time convicts were sent there was in November, 1848. They were employed at first in completing those portions of the prison which had not been entirely finished. In the July of last year, however, the preliminary operations were so far completed, that the convicts could be sent to the quarries, where they will now be regularly employed. You are no doubt aware, my Lords, that the construction of a harbour of refuge at the Isle of Portland has long been considered an object of national importance. The commissioners who were appointed some years ago to inquire into the expediency of constructing harbours of refuge along our coasts, reported that Portland was one of the situations in which a harbour of refuge was most wanted, both for the purposes of war in times of war, and for commercial purposes in times of peace. The Isle of Portland offers also the advantage of affording great facilities for keeping the prisoners, when on the works, entirely isolated from the population of the place. I believe that the breakwater, of which the construction is required for the harbour of refuge, would have been deferred for many years, had it not been for the facility of employing upon it convict labour. The labour on that breakwater was just the labour suited for men in the unhappy condition of these convicts. The first set of labourers was sent to the quarries last year; and now, out of 800 convicts confined in Portland, 500 have been sent to the quarries to raise stone for the construction of this harbour of refuge,
864
the remainder being employed on various works for the completion and maintenance of the prison and buildings belonging to it. The result of the system established in the prison at Portland has thus far been most satisfactory; the amount of labour actually performed has been quite as great as could be expected; discipline has been perfectly maintained, and the conduct of the prisoners has been so good, that in only one instance has corporal punishment been inflicted on any of their number, with the exception of some men brought from the hulks, and immediately removed from the island on account of their riotous and insubordinate behaviour. I hope, my Lords, that before long it will be demonstrated that convicts may be employed on public works in such a manner as to render their labour not merely a portion of their punishment, but beneficial both to society and themselves. We cannot, however, altogether discontinue the infliction of penal labour in the colonies; for although the great proportion of the convicts are capable of being reclaimed, and rendered useful members of society, yet there is still a small percentage of convicts on whom neither separate imprisonment, nor any other secondary punishment, produces the slightest impression. It has been found that the best mode of dealing with such refractory convicts, is to send them to Norfolk Island. I have come to that conclusion with great reluctance, and after grave consideration. I know all the danger of sending the worst of our criminal convicts to a remote island far out of our sight and superintendence; but over some men the removal to such a distance, and the confinement in such a place, out of sight, and almost out of mind, exercises a great and salutary influence, and, moreover, the dread of being so sent, produces a good effect on those who are employed on the public works. It is, therefore, intended that the small proportion of convicts who may be expected to prove otherwise unmanageable shall be sent to Norfolk island; but, judging from experience, it is hoped that the number will not exceed between one and two per cent of the whole body. But there is another circumstance which will also create a necessity for making provision for subjecting some convicts to penal labour in the colonies. I have mentioned that in future convicts are in general to be sent to the colonies not with conditional pardons, but with tickets of leave, the essential difference between the two is, that convicts with

865
tickets of leave can at once, in case of misconduct, be brought back under punishment; hence, in all colonies to which convicts are sent with tickets of leave, there must be penal establishments to which they may be remanded as a punishment. But, with the exceptions which I have just mentioned, the more experience we have, the more clear appears to me the expediency of inflicting that part of the punishment of transportation which insists of penal labour, under the eye of the Government, in order that improvements in the system should be made as soon as possible after their necessity became obvious. Still I think that removal to a foreign land should constitute a portion of their sentence; for, although removal is by itself inadequate as a punishment, yet it is powerful as an element in the system of transportation. Even voluntary emigrants consider removal from the land of their birth as a painful resource. No man leaves the country of his birth unless he finds it difficult to maintain himself comfortably at home, and has some hope of bettering himself in another land. It is to raise himself in life, it is in the hope of raising himself above the difficulties to which his destiny consigns him at home, that a man submits, though reluctantly, to expatriation. I therefore think that removal from this country should form a part of every sentence of transportation. I find it stated in the last report from the chaplain of Pentonville prison, that it is the combination of punishments in our present system of secondary punishments that renders the punishment of transportation effectual. He says—
"The sentence of transportation henceforth may well strike terror into the stoutest heart, divested as it is of well-known chances of escape, and involving a course of previous discipline, penal and reformatory, distasteful beyond measure to criminals. It will come home to every class of mind. There is a surprising; diversity of feeling amongst prisoners as to the comparative degree of severity belonging to the several sorts of punishment. Therefore, that which is most uniform is also most unequal in its pressure. The adventurous young criminal, for instance, and all who have no friends or home, make very light of being sent out of the country. To many, indeed, of this class, transportation has been an object of desire, as giving them a chance of bettering their condition, or of ambition as the completion of their education in crime. But the thought to such an one of being shut up by himself for 12 or 18 months first, having only respectable and religious persons to speak to—the very sort of persons he has been fleeing from all his life—fills him with dismay. The educated and well-brought up, desiring concealment, and
866
having mental resources, can bear the thought of seclusion for a while, and of an exile to follow, in a country where he is not known; but his heart sinks within him when he hears that, after the ordeal of separate confinement, he is to be worked at penal labour in a convict dress, and in some measure exposed to public view. Others, again, and perhaps the greater part, accustomed to labour, and contemplating the advantages to be derived from education whilst in prison, could bear both these stages of discipline with little mental or bodily suffering, to whom removal from home and country is perfectly appalling."
But this is not the only nor the most important object of the removal of criminals. My Lords, I must again endeavour to impress on your Lordships that it is of the utmost importance to society that ultimate removal from England should form part of the punishment of transportation; because, owing to the circumstances in which in our crowded population criminals would be placed if enlarged here after punishment, they could not remain without being a source of inconvenience and danger. This reason for the ultimate removal of convicts is well explained in the first instructions addressed to the Commissioners of Pentonville by Sir J. Graham, when Secretary of State for the Home Department. He says—
"Considering the excessive supply of labour in this country, its consequent depreciation, and the fastidious rejection of all those whose character is tainted, I wish to admit no prisoner into Pentonville who is not sentenced to transportation, and who is not doomed to be transported. The convict on whom the discipline might have produced the most salutary effect, when liberated and thrown back on society here, would still be branded as a criminal, and would have an indifferent chance of a livelihood from the profitable exercise of honest industry. His degradation and his wants would soon obliterate the good impressions he might have received, and, by the force of circumstances which he could not control, he would be drawn again into his former habits—he would rejoin his old companions and renew the career of crime. Not so the convict transported from Pentonville. The chain of former habits would be broken, his early associations would be altered; a new scene would open to his view where skilled labour is in great demand, where the earnings of industry rapidly accumulate, where independence may be gained, and where the stain of tarnished character is not quite indelible."
Nothing, my Lords, can he more true than the description of the convict's fate given in this extract. I believe it has been known, in more than one instance, that a convict, after having served out the term of his sentence, has gone to a distant place from that in which he committed his offence against the law, and has there endeavoured to obtain by his industry an honest and independent livelihood.

867
But it has happened that such individuals, so disposed to return to habits of industry and honesty, have been found out by their former associates in crime, and have been immediately threatened with a disclosure of their former misconduct and transgressions unless the silence of their old confederates in crime was purchased by money; cases have been known in which these men, so desirous of avoiding a return to a life of crime, have, after submitting to repeated exactions to purchase silence, been driven perforce into rejoining their former associates. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, to the interests of society that criminals after having undergone punishment should be removed to the colonies, where they would have the chance of becoming useful members of the community; instead of remaining in this country where by the force of circumstances they would almost be driven into the commission of new crimes. It will be apparent to your Lordships that this is a matter of the most urgent necessity, when you consider the large number of men who have once been convicts now at large in Australia. From the best calculation that can he made from the various documents in the Colonial Office, it appears that there are now at large in Australia no less than 48,000 persons who have had sentence of transportation passed upon them, and this, too, in addition to those who are still under punishment, and reckoning only those who have become free, or have obtained conditional pardons. If you add those still in the condition of convicts, but not actually under punishment, It may be reckoned that there at this moment In the Australian colonies not less than 68,000 persons upon whom the sentence of transportation has been passed, and who are now living in a state of perfect or qualified freedom, and in general earning their bread by honest industry, but who would have had no resource but to fall back into the commission of crime, if removal had not been made a portion of the punishment of transportation, and they had consequently been discharged at home. This would have been not merely a great evil, but I think it a very great danger, when I remember what we have heard of the army of forçats now in existence in France, and of the part which they have taken in all the late commotions In that country. I therefore hope that removal from this country will continue to constitute a portion of the punishment of trans-
868
portation. I believe that under a proper system it may do so, and that convicts may be sent to our colonies, not merely without disadvantage to the colonies, but with positive advantage to them. This, however, will mainly depend upon the manner in which they are sent, and I have now to call your Lordships' attention to the Importance of the change by which convicts are now to be sent out with tickets of leave instead of with conditional pardons. When they were sent out with conditional pardons, they were under no control whatever. If they fell in with their old associates on arriving in the colonics, and were in possession of a little money, they were immediately laid hold of, dragged into the public-houses, and there seduced into crime by every temptation. The convicts holding tickets of leave can be required, on their arrival in the colony, to go into the more distant parts of it. In those districts they will be obliged to go into the employment of private individuals. It is proposed that this shall be the regular system hereafter. The ticket of leave men will be required to go into the remote districts; they will be required to remain there; they will be required to take service with some respectable settler in the colony before they are allowed to pass out of the Government control. It is likewise proposed that they shall pay out of their wages a certain sum to the Government before they gain a conditional pardon. One purpose of requiring that payment is to provide a fund out of convict transportation for free emigration; but its more important object is, that of subjecting the convicts to an obligation calculated to exercise a beneficial influence over them. I have to point out to your Lordships in explanatlon of this regulation, that ever since transportation has been a punishment, the Crown has had a property in the services of the transported convict. Under the assignment system, the convict was, on his arrival in the colony, assigned over by the Crown to some colonist, who had a right to all the work which he could get out of him in return for a daily ration of food and a certain allowance of clothing. The assigned convict was thus the slave, and nothing better than the slave, of his master, in more ancient times this slavery was still more complete, for in the earlier days of transportation to Virginia, the convicts were sold by public auction to the highest bidders. Of such sales, and of

869
the state of society which then existed in Virginia, your Lordships may remember a curious description in one of Defoe's amusing novels. In recent times in Australia the convict who was assigned to a master was hardly less a slave than if he had been thus avowedly sold as such, since he was obliged to work for the benefit of a private individual, in return for little more than that which was necessary to supply his hare necessities. This system of assignment gave rise to such grave abuses, that, when they were brought to light by the Committee of 1838, they led to a very general concurrence of opinion as to the necessity of altogether putting an end to the practice. In some cases masters made complaints against good servants who had been assigned to them, for no other reason than to monopolise to themselves the services of the convicts beyond the period when as good servants they would have been entitled to a conditional pardon. In other cases masters treated their servants with great and undue severity, and thus drove them to become bushrangers. There were also masters who gave to the convicts assigned to them very improper indulgences sometimes from corrupt motives. Cases also were not wanting in which convicts had contrived to get themselves assigned to those who had served out their sentences, and who had been previously their associates in crime in this country, and virtually escaped all punishment. Abuses of this kind undoubtedly existed to a great extent, and most justly led to the condemnation of the system; but yet it is equally true that when the convict was assigned to a good, and respectable, and intelligent master, he was placed in a situation which experience clearly proved to be highly favourable to his reformation, and in which his services were most useful to the colony. Your Lordships are probably aware that there are in New South Wales many persons in good circumstances, and some even in great wealth, who have risen out of the class of assigned convicts. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have seen a letter addressed to me on this subject by Mr. Hall, who was formerly the editor of an Australian newspaper, and has had great experience of the effects of the former convict system. His description of its working is highly interesting, and he has shown very clearly that in very many cases the practice of assignment proved highly beneficial to all parties. The object of the
870
arrangement now adopted is to assimilate the situation of holders of tickets of leave with that of assigned servants under the old system, and yet to guard against the abuses of that system. It is with this view principally that it is proposed to require the convict to repay from his wages the cost of his conveyance to the colony. Experience has shown that it is too sudden a change for men who have been under punishment, deprived of all command of money, and compelled to labour for certain regulated supplies of food and clothing, to become at once their own masters, with the free disposal of the high wages which labour generally commands in these colonies. But, if required to proceed to the remoter districts, and to pay a certain sum from his wages, the convict will be taken away from the temptation of the towns—his command of money will be greatly diminished, and, at the same time, he will have a strong motive to industry to discharge his debt, and thus acquire his freedom. It is this, not the realising a sum of money, which is the principal object of the regulation. At the same time, my Lords, I do not hesitate to say that the mere payment of this money by the convicts, and thus increasing the fund for free emigration or public works, is calculated to be of great advantage to the colonies, whose interests we are bound to consult. The principle of this regulation was adopted, as regards passholdera, in the regulation established some years ago by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley). I think that the principle of that regulation was sound, although there were some difficulties in carrying it practically into execution—difficulties which I trust will be removed by the modifications which are now proposed. Your Lordships will have already perceived that I think it of great importance that the convicts should be dispersed in the remote parts of the colonies; I certainly do think so, and would therefore disperse them, not only in the remote parts of the colonies, but also in different colonies; and it was with that view that we recently proposed to send convicts to the Cape of Good Hope, and other colonies. Our object, however, was defeated by the reluctance of those colonies to receive convicts. We thought ourselves not at liberty to overrule that reluctance in colonies which were not founded as convict colonies. We felt that colonies founded as free colonies should not be compelled to receive convicts against their will;

871
and we were of opinion that, after the implied pledge which had been given to the colony of New South Wales, by the Order in Council of 1840, by which it was declared to be no longer a place to which convicts would be transported, that that colony could not he treated as a penal one, but must be considered as a free colony, because a large proportion of inhabitants have settled there since the date of the Order I have adverted to, and on the faith that transportation to it was to cease. But in Van Diemen's Land, in which we have expended large sums to fit it for the reception and custody of convicts, and to which the free inhabitants have gone with their eyes open, knowing it to be a convict colony, I do think that the inhabitants have no just claim upon the mother country to discontinue this use of it, thereby rendering it necessary to incur the very heavy expense of preparing some other colony for the reception of convicts sentenced to transportation. But, while I must on this ground maintain our full right to go on sending convicts to Van Diemen's Land, while the interests of this country requires it, as I think it now does; on the other hand, I think the colonists are entitled to demand that we shall exercise this right with the least possible injury to them, and that, at all events, we should not allow it to be any burthen or expense to them; and I am glad that in that view of the subject I am supported by the example both of the noble Lord opposite, and of my immediate predecessor in the office which I now hold. The noble Lord, acting on the principle that no pecuniary burthen should be allowed to fall on the colony from the continuance of transportation, made an arrangement with the Treasury, by which a sum of 24,000 l. a year has been paid out of the money voted by Parliament for convict services, for defraying the increased charge of the police force of that colony, rendered necessary by the presence of a large number of convicts. Acting on the same principle, Mr. Gladstone made an arrangement by which an addition has been made to the salary of the Lieutenant Governor from the Parliamentary vote, and he was thus enabled to secure the services of Sir W. Denison, who previously held a confidential situation under the Admiralty at home. Of the great public advantage which has arisen from this arrangement, and from this appointment, I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing my sense. Sir W. Denison's
872
professional knowledge as an engineer officer of great ability, has been of much service in turning the labour of the convicts to good account; in his general measures for effecting the reform which was so greatly needed in the management of the convicts, he has shown sound judgment, an earnest wish to promote the welfare of the convicts in the performance of his duties, and also strong religious feelings, the influence of which cannot be over-estimated in the management of such a colony as that intrusted to his charge. The present Comptroller General of Convicts, Dr. Hampton, has acted in the same spirit, and ably seconded the Lieutenant Governor. Since our appointment to office we have acted upon the same policy as the late advisers of the Crown, in endeavouring to render the continuance of transportation, as far as possible, a source of advantage to the colony. Amongst other things, our wish has been to promote free emigration as much as possible, and at the same time to advance as much as possible the execution of public works. To that end two objects have appeared to us of special importance: first, to encourage the settlement of free emigrants; and, secondly, to employ convict-labour in the execution of public works calculated to develop the resources of the colony, and thus increase the means of employment. With that view the territorial revenue which had been ordered to be applied towards the reduction of the expenditure on account of convicts by this country, at the time of making the grant of 24,000 l. a year for the police, to which I have already adverted, has been restored to the colony, and this fund is again applicable to its legitimate object of improvements calculated to add to the value of the land, from the sale of which it is derived. Orders have also been given to relieve the colony from any expense connected with the employment of convicts on public works, beyond the supply of superintendence and tools. Formerly it was the rule that the colony should pay 6d. a day towards the wages of the convicts employed on public works, and the orders were, that when this payment could not be made, convicts should not be allowed to work for the colony, but should be employed in raising food for themselves, and in other ways calculated to reduce the charge on the British Treasury. But as the colonial finances, when the territorial revenue was withdrawn, were not in a state to provide for such

873
payments, for some time little work for its benefit was performed by the convicts, while they were most inefficiently employed on account of the Home Government in raising supplies for themselves. Now, that rule has been altered, and works of considerable magnitude are now proceeding, because the colony is not called upon to do more than pay for the tools necessary for the men engaged on them, and to pay the persons who may be employed as superintendents. The result is, that roads, affording improved means of communication have been constructed or improved, and that others are in course of being so. The port of Hobart Town has been improved by the construction of a wharf, and a similar work has been undertaken at Launceston. All these objects, I am enabled to state, have been accomplished; but, as I am informed, three times the money expended would not have effected them, but for the employment of convict labourers, under the improved system of management which has so greatly stimulated their industry. These measures, by developing the natural resources, and advancing the prosperity, of the colony are, I hope, calculated to attract free settlers; but as, in sending convicts to any particular colony, it has always appeared to Her Majesty's Government a matter of the highest importance that free emigration should take place at the same time to such an extent as not to allow the convict element to predominate in the population of the colony, additional measures have been taken with that view. In the estimate which was last year submitted to Parliament for the convict service, Her Majesty's Government recommended that a sum of 30,000 l. should be voted for the expense of promoting free emigration to those colonies to which convicts might be sent. This vote, I am happy to say, was passed without objection from any quarter; and it is our hope that, by means of it, to whatever extent we may find it necessary to send out convicts, we may be able at the same time to promote free emigration to a corresponding extent. One important application of this fund has been to send out the wives and children of such convicts as might be reported fit persons to receive such an indulgence. Formerly it was the practice to grant this indulgence to convicts as an encouragement to good conduct; but a few years ago this practice was altered, as I think very unfortunately. We have thought it right to resume it, and
874
for this, among other reasons, that the opposite system has the effect of greatly demoralising not only the convicts themselves, but also the families whom they leave behind them. We have thought also that we shall greatly improve the moral condition of the convicts, as well as advance the best interests of the colony, if we can promote the emigration of a rather superior class of persons to that colony. It is quite obvious that it would be in vain to incur the expense of sending emigrants of the labouring class to Van Diemen's Land, since the superior wages to be found in the neighbouring colonies would induce them to leave it immediately, and our object there ought to be to encourage the settlement of the class of emigrants who would give employment to the convicts—I mean by that, people with some capital. Our object, I say, has been to give every encouragement to persons of small capital to go to Van Diemen's Land, and regulations have been adopted with this object, and promulgated by the Emigration Committee, by which very considerable advantages have been offered to those who may settle there. I am bound to say, that up to this time very few persons have availed themselves of the boon thus offered; but when the real advantages which are held out to settlers come to be understood, I trust that the candidates for them will increase. Free passages are granted to those who are prepared to purchase a certain quantity of land, and by means of the territorial revenues improvements will be made in the districts where these purchases may be effected, of a nature calculated to enhance the value of the land so bought by these free emigrants. Measures are now being taken to make these advantages known to all persons likely to emigrate to Van Diemen's Land. These are some of the measures which have been adopted, in order to render the continuance of transportation no disadvantage to that colony. But what, in my opinion, will most contribute to that end, is the improvement of the previous discipline at home. The most gratifying testimony has been borne to the manner in which what has been done with this view has hitherto worked, as shown by the conduct, both while in this country and while on their voyage to the places of their destination, of those convicts who have been subjected to that system of moral discipline which has now been established. Your Lordships will find in the papers lately laid

875
upon your table an account of the convicts sent out in the Hashemy. This vessel was sent out last summer to New South Wales laden with convicts who had been subjected to the improved discipline. She arrived at a time when there were four other ships in the port laden with free emigrants, to the number of not less than 1,000 souls. On the voyage, and previous to the voyage, the convicts had been so disciplined that their conduct obtained for them the highest praise, and won the confidence of the colonists to such an extent, that almost all the convicts received immediate engagements as servants, even before the free emigrants at the same time in the harbour. The arrangements made with this view by the colonial authorities were most judicious and perfectly successful. The convicts were not permitted to land until they had entered into engagements; and respectable settlers from the remote pastoral districts were admitted on board, by whom most of the convicts were speedily engaged at wages varying from 12 l. to 16 l. per annum, in addition to very liberal rations. These engagements having been entered into, the men were sent at once to their destination, without being allowed to go into the town of Sydney. It was also part of the arrangement that their masters were to pay a part of the wages they agreed to give direct to the Government, in discharge of the debt which I have mentioned to your Lordships that convicts are now considered as having incurred. Within a very short time, a second ship laden with convicts arrived, and the convicts by it were also at once engaged as servants for persons residing in the pastoral districts of the colony at even higher wages than the first. Looking to these facts, I cannot but regard it as an unfortunate circumstance, that, owing to the address to the Crown which has been voted by the legislature of New South Wales, no more convicts can now be sent there. In the northern part of that colony, there are districts of pastoral land of the very best description and of almost unlimited extent, on which the sheepowners possess flocks of which the increase is only checked by the want of a sufficient number of servants to look after them. Now, this service of attending to sheep in these remote and solitary regions is precisely that which experience shows to be the best for convicts, with a view to their reformation, while it is an employment in which it is often difficult to find any other persons to
876
engage, though it adds so much to the wealth of the colony. I must, therefore, regard it as a very great mistake to suppose that the presence of convicts may not, under some circumstances, be a great advantage to a colony; and I repeat that I think it unfortunate that the people of New South Wales should no longer enjoy the benefits of an increasing supply of convict labour for the extension of sheep farming. In. considering this question, we ought not to overlook the fact that those pastoral districts of New South Wales have greatly benefited our woollen manufactures; that the fine qualities of wool imported from that country have greatly aided the woollen manufacture of England. I therefore greatly regret the course that has been taken with respect to convicts in that colony. I am not without hope that it may yet be corrected, and that the colony may once again be opened for the reception of convicts. It is very well known that free emigrants going to New South Wales do not like going to the more remote paris of the colony; they object to live so secluded a life, and for such a course of existence the convict, with a ticket of leave, is perhaps the most useful description of servant. For the present, at least. New South Wales is, however, closed against convicts; but an opening for their reception has presented itself in another quarter, by the application of Western Australia for the formation of a penal establishment. Looking at the condition of Western Australia, which offers so little hope of improvement without the advantage of convict labour, there can, I think, be no doubt that the application for it has been wise. Western Australia has long been in a most deplorable condition, in consequence of the mistaken system originally adopted there, of making extravagant grants of land to the first settlers. The consequence of that system has been that there was no emigration fund to afford the means of sending out free labourers, and there consequently has always been a want of available labour which has effectually arrested all attempts at improvement there. The colony, entirely, as I believe, owing to the fatal error of making profuse grants of land, has remained for years in a stationary condition; and whilst Port Phillip, a colony established long subsequently, is in a most flourishing and advancing condition, Western Australia is in a hopeless condition of stagnation. The colonists have, therefore, asked for convict

877
labour. They wish to have a convict settlement established there, and Her Majesty's Government have determined to accede to their request, and to send convicts out there. A convict establishment, in the first instance, on a very small scale, is to be formed there, and a month has not elapsed since a vessel with a few convicts, selected for good conduct, and under the guard of a small party of pensioners, has been sent out; but it is necessary not to proceed too hastily with the work of sending convicts to that colony, as suitable buildings for their reception have not yet been erected, and I apprehend that for some time to come those convicts will be employed in raising a suitable edifice for their own use, and that the colony will not all at once enjoy the advantage of their services. It is not, however, intended that a penal establishment should ever be formed there on a very large scale. What is desired is, that the convicts sent out should, after a short time, obtain employment in the service of individuals as the holders of tickets of leave; and the main object of having a certain number employed in penal labour, under the charge of the Government, is to keep up an establishment to which the holders of tickets of leave may be remanded for misconduct. At the same time, it is my confident hope that by means of the convict labour which will be at the disposal of the Government, a much-needed impulse will be given to the progress of the colony. They are to be employed under the direction of an officer of the Royal Engineers—Captain Henderson, who gave proof of great ability in the survey of the projected line of railway from Halifax to Quebec. He has been instructed, in the first instance, to endeavour to improve the communication between the capital of the colony and the sea. There is reason to hope that it may be found practicable to render the entrance of the river available for vessels of ordinary burden; and if this can be accomplished, they will be able to come close to the town of Perth, which would thus gain an advantage of the highest importance. Should this be impracticable, a good road is at all events to be made from the town to the present port. Should these measures succeed as I trust, the resources of Western Australia will be developed, and very abundant employment will be hereafter provided for an increased number of convicts. In my opinion—and, I am sure, in the opinion of your Lordships—this part of the subject is of much
878
importance. The development of the resources of Western Australia is a matter of great interest. Coal is to be found there; and with a view to the projected measures for establishing steam communication with Singapore, I need scarcely remind you of the vast value of such a product. Further, I may state, that Western Australia abounds with forests of the finest timber, while it possesses a climate and a soil capable of producing anything which a hot, though not a tropical, region of the earth may be expected to yield. It is to be hoped, then, that the settlement of convicts in that colony may be productive of great advantage to them, by giving them facilities for recovering their position as useful members of society; to the people of the colony, as affording them a supply of labour; and, in both points of view, to the mother country. I have now, my Lords, stated most of the measures which are now in progress with regard to the management and disposal of convicts sentenced to transportation; and while I freely admit that there are many points of detail on which I have no doubt that improvements will from time to time be required, some of which are even at this moment in contemplation, I hope I may be permitted to express my confidence that the leading principles of these measures are proved by experience to be sound. Your Lordships will observe that throughout the whole of this statement I have confined myself to convicts from Great Britain. My remarks, hitherto, have been limited to offenders convicted in England, Wales, and Scotland; because these only can be sent to the prisons, the management of which will be confided to the visitors appointed under this Bill. The same policy is, however, applicable to Ireland; and it is intended that, as soon as possible, there should be made arrangements for the punishment of Irish convicts in the same manner as those from Great Britain. But these arrangements are at present in a much less state of forwardness as regards Ireland. A great and unforeseen calamity occurring in Ireland has prodigiously increased the number of persons who have been sentenced to transportation. The average of the three years preceding the famine shows that 681 persons had been sentenced to transportation annually. The average of 1847, 1848, and 1849, was no less than 2,658; and I still further regret to be obliged to add, that the highest of those years was the last—in the

879
year 1849 the number of convicts sentenced to transportation exceeded 3,000. This great increase in the number of convicts sentenced to transportation in Ireland, together with the absolute necessity of closing Van Diemen's Land against the reception of convicts, for some time imposed upon Her Majesty's Government a difficulty of the very gravest kind. Every effort has, however, been made to meet it. Under the former state of the law, Bermuda and Gibraltar were not available for the reception of convicts from Ireland; this law has been altered, and they have been sent there. We have thus been enabled to increase the average number of convicts sent from Ireland to 636 from 435, which was the number in former years. Besides that, additional establishments have been formed for the reception of convicts in Ireland at Mount-joy, not far from Dublin, and at Spike Island, which latter establishment, I am sorry to say, has become crowded most inconveniently—1,400 convicts being now there. The prison at Mounjoy is conducted on the plan of Pentonville, and it is now occupied. At Spike Island, also, every effort is being made to improve the prison discipline. I will not, however, go at any further length into this part of the subject. I am reminded that I have been occupying your Lordships' attention for an unreasonable length of time, much more so than I had myself anticipated. But the subject is one of such great importance, and one which it is so desirable to have well understood, both at home and in the colonies, that it was necessary I should take this opportunity of explaining to your Lordships the views and the measures of Her Majesty's Government. In doing so, I have carefully avoided any reference to matters of controversy, and all allusions to those various imputations which have been thrown out against the conduct and motives of Her Majesty's Government; for however our motives may have been misunderstood or misconstrued by others, I am persuaded that your Lordships will give us credit for having made the best arrangements in our power under circumstances of no ordinary difficulty. I certainly see some points in which, with the experience we now have, I could wish that our measures had been somewhat different from what they were, and with respect to which I acknowledge that a better course might have been adopted; but now, upon looking back at all
880
the circumstances under which we were compelled to act, I may be permitted to doubt whether we could have been fairly expected to have avoided the errors into which we may have fallen; while I think I may state, with confidence, that a foundation has been laid for establishing a system of convict discipline which will have the effect of deterring criminals from the commission of offences, and which is, at the same time, calculated to promote their improvement, and to protect, to some extent, society at large from the effects of their example and their offences. The experience which we have had, limited as it still is, seems to me to justify this conclusion, and I am sanguine in believing that the accounts which we are receiving from the colonies will be found still further confirmatory of it.
Bill read 2°, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

FACTORY LABOUR—THE TEN HOURS SYSTEM.
LORD STANLEYsaid, he had some petitions to present, signed by a large number of operatives in Rochdale, on the subject of factory labour. The fact was notorious that the Ten Hours Bill which had been passed two years ago, to restrain the labour of women and children, had not been effectually carried out in consequence of the relay system, and that the recent decision of the Court of Exchequer had helped very much to frustrate the law. As matters stood at present the object of the Legislature had not been carried out, and the time which it was intended should be given to women and children for domestic duties and recreation had not been afforded them. He was not one of those who had been very sanguine with respect to the success of the Ten Hours Bill, but he was bound to say that the measure had, during the period of its operation, realised the hopes of its promoters, and had worked well for the operatives and for the employers. Under these circumstances it would be most lamentable if, by any technical construction of the Act, its excellent purposes should be frustrated. He was glad to hear that a Bill had been introduced into the other House directed to the subject; and though he would have preferred to see the matter taken up by the Government, still, as it was in the hands of a private individual, he hoped there would be a general desire, no matter what

881
views might have been entertained with respect to the original Bill, that the purport of that Bill should not he frustrated by any technical informality. The persons who had signed the petitions presented by him, prayed that the House would support a Bill for restoring the original construction of the Factory Act, and he had only to add the expression of his anxious hope that such a Bill would pass.

BURIAL CLUBS.
LORD MONTEAGLEwould take that opportunity of asking a question of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) regarding the laws affecting burial societies. Nothing could be more painful than to see by the reports of the proceedings in our criminal courts, the vast increase of crimes of a most horrible nature—domestic murders, poisonings, and other violent deaths, inflicted by persons between whom and their victims ties of the most tender and the closest nature existed; and it was most shocking to observe that these crimes were perpetrated chiefly in those districts in which burial clubs or societies existed, by the present rules and arrangements of which a pecuniary interest was given to some members of families on the decease of others. He trusted those dreadful crimes and their origin had attracted the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that some remedy would be applied as soon as possible. He believed that a simple enactment, which need not cover more than a sheet of note paper, providing that the duty of burial should be performed by those clubs for their members, instead of giving any money upon death taking place, would amply suffice to meet the exigencies of the case; and he wished to know whether any such measure was in contemplation, as, if it were not, he would himself take the liberty of introducing one?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that the subject was one extremely deserving the attention of Her Majesty's Government. There could be no doubt that crimes of the most horrible and iniquitous nature had been perpetrated to a degree perfectly surprising, under the inducement of the burial money to be derived from those clubs, and that the effect was most injurious to public morality. He need not add that the subject was one which had attracted the attention of Her
882
Majesty's Government, and his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Carlisle) hoped to include it in a general measure upon the subject of interment which would be brought in before the end of the present Session of Parliament. He could only add, in answer to the concluding portion of his noble Friend's (Lord Mont-eagle's) question, that, although his noble Friend (the Earl of Carlisle) would hardly forgive him if he expressed any doubt upon the subject, yet, if such a Bill should happen not to be passed during the present Session, he would be ready to support such a one as that which his noble Friend said he would introduce.
House adjourned till To-morrow.