Sitting of 5 July 1853

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT. — For Derby County (Northern Division), v. William Evans, Esq. Chiltern Hundreds.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4,
MR. HUDSONmoved that the clause be amended by the insertion of certain words, the effect of which would be to make Sunderland an independent port, without reference to Newcastle. He considered the port of Sunderland as one of the most extensive and rising ports in the kingdom, and he thought it was quite entitled to be placed in the independent position which it sought.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that, however he might be willing to accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, it would not be consistent with the scope and object of this Bill to agree to it. The grievance of which the hon. Gentleman complained, was not a practical one, and he hoped he would wait for another opportunity to redress it.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, that looking at the position of Ireland, he thought she ought to be considered in discussing this Bill. The Ballast Board of Dublin had now a balance in her favour of 104,000 l., while Scotland owed 10,000 l, and England had only a small balance; yet, by this Bill, it was proposed to place all three countries upon an equal footing.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he certainly thought the Ballast Board of Dublin were entitled to credit for the 104,000 l. which they had in hand, as there were several lighthouses now under consideration to which the money could be applied.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the subject to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (Mr. F. French) had referred, did not apply to the present clause. He could say, however, that no injustice whatever would be done to Ireland by the proposal to place the three countries upon the same footing.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 5.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he objected to Kingstown Harbour not being looked upon as an imperial harbour, and its expenses

1219
defrayed in the same manner as that of Holyhead. He should prefer seeing this clause more like the preceding one, and should therefore move to leave out the words after the word "fund," and to insert words similar to those at the end of Clause 4.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he must oppose the Amendment. He submitted that if Ireland expected to get the advantages of the measure, she should he prepared to bear her fair proportion of its liabilities. It was clear if there was a material object, it was the lighting the coasts of this Imperial Kingdom out of a common fund, subject to Parliamentary control; and, besides, he considered the proposed arrangement was exceedingly fair towards Ireland.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought that Ireland had hitherto to bear the largest share of Imperial burdens, and that the Trinity House had not provided anything like sufficient accommodation in the way of lighthouses along the Irish coast.
MR. R. M. FOXsaid, he wished to have some explanation with regard to the balance of 170,000 l. lightdues in Ireland.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the balance was not 170,000 l., but 104,000 l., and that this sum was charged with an annual payment of 3,600 l. There was also a sum of 5,000 l. for Dunleary harbour, which was not defrayed by Ireland, and Ireland would be relieved of both of those sums if this Bill were passed. She had, therefore, no reason to complain of the injustice of the arrangement.
MR. FERGUSsaid, he must complain of the employment of irresponsible Commissioners in Scotland. These gentlemen, called the Northern Light Commissioners, were the Judges of the County Courts, and never did any business whatever, save to make one or two yachting excursions, and to eat dinners on board. The whole of the work was done by the secretary, and, although the Commissioners had only thirty-two lights under their charge, they had twenty-two superannuations. He did not wish to deprive those gentlemen of their dinners and yachting expeditions, but he protested against the expense being charged to the shipping interest. Let it be charged to the Consolidated Fund.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, the complaint made by his hon. Friend applied with equal force to the Trinity Board, where the same
1220
yachting and festivities went on with the same irresponsibility.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he must protest against the balance of the Irish accumulations being transferred to England, on the ground of the expenditure upon Kingstown harbour. This was another step towards that centralisation which had already so grievously injured the country.
Amendment withdrawn; Clause agreed to.
Clause 6.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that there was no provision for the management of pensions and charities.
MR. LABOUCHEREfeared that the operation of this clause would hold out to the existing Boards to be lavish in granting pensions before the passing of the Act.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, this subject would come under consideration more properly upon the 12th clause. But nothing could be more honourable or straightforward than the proceedings of the Trinity House on this subject, for they had, since the correspondence with the Executive Government, acted precisely in the spirit of the Bill. He had no reason to suppose that the other boards would do otherwise, but, if they did, the Board of Trade would have the power of revising their Acts.
MR. LABOUCHEREbegged to explain that he had no intention to make any imputations against the Trinity Board.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURwould suggest that the local authorities at seaports should have the privilege of recommending persons for pensions.
MR. CARDWELLreplied that the habit of placing pensioners upon the list would now cease. Hereafter, no pensions would be paid except in those cases where promises had been made by the Trinity House before the passing of the Act.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 7.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the working of the latter part of the clause, which he was afraid would have an injurious operation. The bodies whose duty it was to supply deficiencies might hesitate in doing so if they had any reason to fear that any item would be objected to by the Board of Trade; and it might happen that if a light-vessel got adrift, such hesitation in supplying the deficiency would be productive of serious injuries to the shipping interest.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, be quite agreed that it was of the utmost importance that the bodies to whom the working of this Bill was intrusted should not be afraid, in ease of any deficiency occurring, of immediately repairing it; but he did not share in the apprehensions of the right hon. Gentleman, for he did not understand why there should not be the most cordial understanding between those bodies and the Board of Trade. He was, however, of opinion that all expenditure incurred should be subject to the most strict control.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that it was not intended to consider the items of expenditure incurred by those bodies in a niggardly spirit; but he did not think it was expedient that they should have the power of incurring expenditure subject to no control. It was proposed by this Bill to make them accountable to the President of the Board of Trade, who, in his turn, would be responsible to Parliament.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not entertain any apprehension of the items of expenditure being examined in a niggardly spirit; but what he feared was, that the operation of the clause would be to divide the responsibility, and that was not, in his opinion, desirable.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 13 were also agreed to.
Clause 14.
VISCOUNT GODERICHmoved to leave out the proviso at the end of this clause, and substitute in lieu thereof the following:—
"Provided that, in addition to the duties hitherto performed in consideration of the said bal-lastage rates, the Trinity House shall place their ballast on board of, and unload ballast from, all ships requiring to be so ballasted or unballasted; and they shall be entitled to charge for such additional duties such reasonable rate per ton for ballast so placed on board, or unladen, as Her Majesty, by Order in Coucil, may from time to time approve."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought the matter had better be left to the discretion and judgment of the Trinity House.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 19 were then agreed to.
Clause 20.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that this clause gave a power to Her Majesty in Council to appoint inspectors in certain cases after complaint made; he thought it would be far better to make this a general power. This would be better than waiting to institute inquiry until complaints were made.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that general approval had been expressed of the management of the lighthouses, and that he thought the object of the Bill would be better promoted by not implying any suspicion on the conduct of the bodies who had them in charge.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed in thinking that it would be better to make a general inspection, than merely to cause an inquiry where a complaint was made.
MR. HUDSONsaid, that if the Board of Trade were to cause an inspection, they would have to make the inspection an annual one. He thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the Trinity Board.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would consider the suggestions thrown out by hon. Gentlemen.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 21 omitted.
Clauses 22 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would take this occasion to ask the right hon. President of the Board of Trade what progress had been made in winding up the Seamen's Fund?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that considerable progress had been made. It was anticipated that only 180,000 l. would be realised, whereas 210,000 l. had been already got; and, therefore, the sum which the country was bound to provide would be less by 30,000 l.
Clause agreed to; as was also Clause 28.
Clause 29.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he must protest against the anti-national spirit in which this clause was framed, and he would predict that, if adopted, it would engender a spirit of disappointment, if not disaffection, among the seamen, and drive them in disgust into the service of the United States. The law which this clause would alter had continued in force since the time of Charles II., and it provided that vessels engaged in foreign trade should not have more than 25 per cent of foreigners in their crews, while it prohibited the employment of any foreigners whatever in the coasting trade. The reason for the latter provision was obvious: the coasting trade was the home nursery for seamen. He might be told by the President of the Board of Trade that this question was the very pivot of free trade; but let the House remember that when

1223
the Navigation Laws were discussed, in 1849, a free-trade Parliament had rejected these very manning clauses. It was his duty to warn the Government and the House that the adoption of this clause would produce most disastrous results. He had received many letters, informing him that at certain ports the seamen had entered into a common agreement pledging themselves, if the clause should be adopted, to enter the American service. At Liverpool a large meeting of seamen had been held to consider the clause, and when it was suggested that they should petition the House of Commons against it, the answer was, "We have petitioned it long enough; we will now petition the President of the United States." It might be said that this clause was the completion of free trade. Shame upon such a doctrine! Were we to make our seamen the subjects of barter—to buy them like slaves in the cheapest and sell them in the dearest market? Its effect would be to enable the shipowner to traffic his crew, and to exchange them for the seamen of Norway, Sweden, or Holland. This was one of the most important questions which could possibly occupy the attention of Parliament, because if British seamen were driven from the mercantile marine, we could no longer expect to retain the supremacy of the seas. Let them remember what Napoleon—Napoleon the Great—had said: "Give me the command of this Channel for three days, and I will land 100,000 men on the coast of England." There was no doubt that Napoleon could have done this, and would have done it had it not been for the battle of Trafalgar. Much had been said about maintaining the dignity of the British flag, but Parliament was now about to entrust the keeping of that flag to a crew of foreigners. We refuse to admit foreigners into the House of Commons, or into our dockyards, or police, and yet we were ready to place them in the van of our protective power. Recollect that every foreigner who might be employed must displace an Englishman. Imagine, too, the confusion which must prevail on board a vessel where foreigners of different nations were employed on account of the variety of languages spoken. For his part, he would compel these foreign crews to sing "Rule Britannia" every morning, the master accompanying them on the French horn, and the mate on the German flute. There was another important consideration connected with this subject: our national honour
1224
would be committed to the charge of foreigners, and if our flag should be insulted while under their charge, we must claim, and, if necessary, enforce redress. What could be more absurd than to allow our ships to be manned with foreigners at the very moment when high authority had announced the practicability of an invasion of the country? The President of the Board of Trade knew nothing of the feelings or habits of seamen; he was not old enough to know anything of war, though, perhaps the battle of Waterloo might have celebrated his chistening. The right hon. Gentleman had been put forward to move this clause by persons who wished to keep in the background. He entreated the shipowners to pause for their own sakes before supporting the clause. If their ships came to be manned exclusively, or in great part, by foreigners, the charge for insurance would be much increased. What a time to select for bringing forward this unpatriotic proposal! Russia had in the Baltic a fleet perfectly manned. In the Black Sea she had a fleet perfectly manned. We, too, had a good fleet near the Black Sea when it was united with that of France — not otherwise — and would France always be our ally? They had now a fleet at Spithead. Spithead had become a sort of naval Chobham for the exercise of vessels of war; but why were not those vessels sent to sea, or ventured to the back of the Isle of Wight? In the French fleet no foreigner was taken, for they knew too well the value of keeping up their marine for that. He believed that America was destined to be our great antagonist upon the sea, and that a generation would not pass away before his words would be verified. America had already upwards of 20,000 British seamen in her service; and in the late war it was found, when English and American frigates closed in action, that the American had numbers of English seamen on board, and that they had christened their guns by the names of the English ships in which they had served. He assured the House that he was speaking with as much earnestness for the safety of the country as if that safety was in his own keeping. There were 47,000 seamen in league together on this subject, and they had passed a resolution pledging themselves to avoid the Navy or quit the country if this clause were passed. They were casting the safety and honour of Her Majesty's dominions away by sanctioning this policy, for it was inimical to the very best

1225
interests and security of the country. They had the evidence of Lord Brougham that Belgian seamen could be had for half the wages of the British seaman, and inferior food, and, that, if war were declared with England 56,000 British seamen would he found in the service of foreign Powers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), when President of the Board of Trade, had said that it was impossible for us to keep up an efficient naval power without a powerful mercantile marine. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) had also said that the effect of the clause would be to throw the entire trade open to unqualified competition, and to on-able a shipowner to man his vessel altogether with foreigners. Again, the Economist even, which might be regarded as an authority, had admitted that the effect of the clause would be to enable the shipowners, by employing foreign crews, to withstand the unreasonable demands of the British seaman. But these unreasonable demands were merely applications for increase of wages, and surely seamen were as much entitled to share in the general prosperity in this respect as any other class of the community. There was also the testimony of Lieutenant Brown, who ought to have been an admiral long ago, but who was now the secretary for the registration of seamen, and that gentleman had said that the seamen looked upon their registration ticket as a proof that they were British seamen in contradistinction to foreigners. The First Lord of the Admiralty found it difficult to get seamen now; but the difficulty would be greatly increased if the clause should pass. There were causes now existing—to which it was unnecessary more particularly to allude— which indisposed men to enter the Royal Navy; the First Lord of the Admiralty was trying to turn landsmen into seamen for the Navy, but by no system of training could you make a sailor of a landsman. You never could have a good seaman without bringing him up to the business from a boy. We had lately gone to considerable expense in embodying militia, and now it was proposed that our primary defence, our ships, should be intrusted to foreigners. Why not have foreign militiamen as well as foreign seamen? The permission to employ foreign seamen was not limited to the foreign trade—it was extended to the coasting trade. Why, this was a suicidal act; it was downright madness. If the President
1226
of the Board of Trade persevered in retaining this clause in the Bill, he ought to he placed in the lunacy ward. [Laughter.] Really, he was speaking sincerely. If his voice should never he heard in that House again, he should rest satisfied, conscious of having fulfilled his duty. He spoke on this subject as if the safety of the nation were in his hands, and, knowing the responsibility which rested on the occupants of the Treasury bench, he could not for the life of him understand how they could sit calmly looking on, and thinking perhaps, in their own minds how they would cut him up by and by. He cared little for what they might say, for he knew that on this point he should have the country with him. The wages of foreign sailors were, he understood, not above one-half of those ordinarily paid to British seamen: but he did hope that the shipowners of this country would not be induced, by a desire of obtaining men who would take less wages and cat inferior food, to advocate a step which must be hazardous to the defences of this country. [The hon. and gallant Member then read extracts from the evidence given on this subject by eminent authorities, advocating the importance of the merchant service as a school for training seamen for the Navy.] At the present time every labourer was trying to get as high wages as he possibly could, and he did not see why sailors should be excluded from that competition. He would advert to a statement made in another place to point out what he considered a fallacy in it. Lord Grey, in speaking on this subject, said, that as German sugar bakers were allowed to come and exercise their occupation without restriction in this country, he saw no reason why foreign sailors should not be allowed to come in the same manner; but he would ask the Committee to consider what analogy there could possibly be between seamen and German sugar bakers The mere fact of the presence of foreign sugar bakers in this country could have no influence whatever on our national defences, while they would certainly be impaired by throwing discouragement in the way of the seamen of this country. He felt it his duty to state, that even at present, to his knowledge, many English seamen had obtained American protection. He would appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Admiral Berkeley) who, when examined before the Committee, said, that we ought not to give up manning merchant vessels with at

1227
least a large number of British seamen. The only naval authority who had ever, to his knowledge, spoken in favour of the clause proposed was Sir James Stirling, and he had laid himself open to severe strictures; and he considered his evidence completely neutralised by that of the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester and others. The forecastle men and the captains of tops and able seamen had nearly all been brought up in the merchant service; and he did hope that, after the authorities which he had adduced, Her Majesty's Government would pause before pressing this clause. It was a clause of only four lines and a half, and it was hard to know at first what it really meant, for it only provided for the repeal of certain existing Acts of Parliament. He would not trespass longer on the time of the Committee, but he would only say, that he had placed before them a question of the utmost importance, for he felt the question of the state of defence of this country to be one of the most important points which could be brought on for discussion; and the matter which the Committee had now to determine was of a more weighty nature than any they had lately been called upon to decide. If this clause were passed, the effect of it would be to outrage and trample upon the feelings of the sailors of this country, and that to the advantage of the foreigner and the shipowners, if advantage it really were to them. He contended that the effect would be most injurious, and he wished that some shipowner would get up and repudiate the charge of wishing, by foreign competition, to reduce the wages of the British seaman. It might be true that at times the English sailor would ask a higher rate of wages than a shipowner felt disposed to pay him; but that was no reason for a wholesale introduction of foreign sailors into our mercantile Navy. The question was one of considerably more importance than the India Bill, for here it was proposed, for the first time, to repeal laws which had existed for upwards of 200 years, and under which the safety and honour of the country had always been maintained. He trusted that in a question of such paramount importance the independent Members in that House, and those who might waver in their opinions on this subject, would side with him, and that even if the working of the present system were, in point of fact, a source of some evil to certain individuals, they would still think that the national
1228
security ought not to be sacrificed for individual advantage. The seamen already displayed reluctance in entering the service; but if this clause were passed, their feelings would be outraged, and they would display more reluctance still, and a blow would be inflicted upon the prosperity which now fortunately pervaded the length and breadth of the land. While the Navy was on a good footing, the defence of the country was secure; but diminish its efficiency, as the passing of this clause would unquestionably do, and there would be nothing to rely upon to avert the horrors of war from our own shores. He trusted that the Committee would not consent to the clause.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTseconded the Motion.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he considered the hon. and gallant Officer's anticipations relative to the operation of this clause on the seamen's labour market as altogether illusory. The clause would not deprive a single British seaman of employment, nor would it benefit in any appreciable degree a single shipowner. Independently, however, of these considerations, the clause was open to serious objection. By the existing law three-fourths of the crew of a British vessel must be composed of British seamen, and be commanded by a British captain. It was in the power of the Crown at any time to relax this law by an Order in Council, and to permit a large proportion of the crew, or even the whole of it, to be composed of foreigners. This power was, he believed, uniformly exercised by proclamation at the breaking out of a war, or at any period when, owing to temporary causes, it was difficult to obtain a supply of British seamen. The permission accorded by law of employing one-fourth foreigners in the mercantile marine had never been acted on. The principle of our law was adopted by every other mercantile nation in the world, although the relative proportion between natives and foreigners might vary. Parliament was now called upon to enact a law by which it would hereafter be sufficient for a merchant ship to have what was called a "British owner," without having a single English soul on board, from the captain to the cabin boy. For aught he knew, this "British vessel" might never come near our shores—she might be built at Bordeaux, and navigated by Frenchmen, and trade with every country but England. In objecting to the proposed change, he was

1229
actuated by no party feeling. Ever since the formation of the present Government, he had given it his humble support, and he hoped to be able to continue so to do; but this question was of such vast importance that he felt bound to express his apprehension on the subject, even at the risk of appearing to act in opposition. What he had said on former occasions on this subject was, that he trusted the Government, in proposing this important change, had well weighed and considered all the consequences of the step they were inviting Parliament to take. He believed that by this change in their practice they were incurring great danger of another description. His opinion was, that the English sailor was not only the best but the cheapest in the world. He, therefore, did not fear that their interests would be at all hurt by the carrying of this clause. He found that even America, though they had the whole world as a market for their crews, yet always preferred the English sailor. Although, then, he did not oppose the clause on the grounds chiefly relied upon by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Scobell), he doubted its policy for other reasons. He knew how easily the feelings of English sailors could be worked upon, and how such a measure as this might be made a handle of to wean them from their loyalty. He thought, therefore, that a Bill of this kind was calculated to afford the occasion of much dissatisfaction. He regretted that the Government had introduced a measure which tended so much to excite the sensibility of the British sailor, and to raise the fears—however mistaken they might be —of this valuable class of men. The main objection which he had to the measure was, that he believed it would have the effect of wounding the sensibilities of British sailors, and that it would involve us in a difficulty as to the national character of our ships. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to give them a satisfactory explanation for proposing this clause, he would be compelled to vote against it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the observations of his right hon. Friend had left him not without a hope that before the debate on this subject was brought to a conclusion, the Government would have the advantage of his vote. His right hon. Friend had indeed disposed himself of nine-tenths of all the arguments against the clause, for he had said that after all the British seaman was the best and cheapest in the
1230
world, and that this measure would not affect him injuriously. He could also assure his right hon. Friend, that in order to secure the British character and register of the ship, and to guard against the inconveniences to which he had alluded, this measure had not only been most maturely considered by the Government, but that the clauses on this subject had been also considered by the learned Judge who presided over the Admiralty Court. He believed the time had arrived when the Government might safely propose a measure of this kind. As regarded the hon. and gallant Member for Bath (Captain Scobell) it was impossible to doubt his sincerity; but substitute "ships" for "seamen" and his speech was a counterpart of one of those directed a short time back against the change in the navigation laws. It was filled with the same gloomy predictions which characterised those effusions, all of which had been falsified by events. The year last expired was that of all others in which the greatest number of British seamen had been employed. It was also the year in which the greatest number of ships had been built, and, beyond all exception, it was the year in which the greatest entry of British shipping, inwards and outwards, had taken place. Turning to the coasting trade, it would be found that the tonnage of ships entered inwards in 1851 was 12,394,902 tons, while in 1852 it was 12,475,405 tons. The increase was continuing. Comparing the tonnage of the first five months of 1852 with the first five months of the present year, it appeared that the tonnage entered inwards in the first period was 5,420,064, and in the latter 5,495,381. The coal trade presented results equally satisfactory. The quantity of coal brought into London by railway in 1851 was 247,908 tons; in 1852 it was 377,908 tons; that brought by canal in 1851 was 24,206 tons; and in 1852 37,009 tons. In spite of the influence of these causes, operating to reduce the amount of tonnage employed in the coal trade, it had increased from 3,236,542 in 1851, to 3,330,428 in 1852. Wages, which were in one part of last year 3l. 10 s. had then risen to 4l. 10 s. for all the year round. Comparing the first six months of 1852 with the first six months of the pre sent year, the tonnage of vessels employed in the coal trade appeared to have in creased 27,880 tons. All this was in the face of increased competition by railroads. Freights had also increased. The freights

1231
of colliers from the Tyne and Wear to London, which in 1851 were from 5s.1d. to 5s. 10 d., had risen in 1853 to from 7s.6d. to 8s. 6d. Under these circumstances, it was surprising that any persons should he found endeavouring to fill the minds of that loyal and useful body, the British seamen, with idle apprehensions, [The right hon. Gentleman was proceeding with his argument, when he was abruptly interrupted by the Chairman retiring from his seat, the hour of 4 o'clock having arrived, when, by a Standing Order of the House, the adjournment until 6 o'clock takes place.]

ABOLITION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
MR. COLLIERrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to transfer the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Courts of Common Law and the County Courts. It might he in the recollection of many Members of the House that he some time ago moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole of the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts. Upon that occasion he attempted an explanation—feeble and inadequate, no doubt— of some of the principal defects and abuses of these courts. He on that occasion called the attention of the House to the nature of their jurisdiction, which he showed to be usurped, and to which they had originally no title. He pointed out that that jurisdiction was spread amongst many courts, such as archiepiscopal, episcopal, rectorial, peculiar, diocesan, and diaconal, amounting in all to not fewer than 372. It was often very difficult to define the limit of jurisdiction of each of these courts. On the last occasion on which he spoke on this question, he showed the inconvenience arising from the present law relating to bona notabilia, which occasioned the necessity of obtaining two, and even sometimes more than two, probates of the same will. He called attention to the defective machinery by which the business in those courts was administered, the cases being decided entirely on written depositions, and not upon the viva voce examination of witnesses. Those courts had no machinery for trying cases by jury. He showed that it was necessary to employ a proctor, and sometimes two proctors, as well as an attorney in them, and thus to incur double charges. He called attention to the enormous sinecures in those courts, by which vast amounts of money were paid to persons who performed
1232
no services whatever—some of those sinecure offices were filled by old men, others by women, and some by children, whose services were performed by deputies, and by deputies' deputies. He showed, also, that notwithstanding the vast sum which the public had for so long a period paid in respect of those courts, up to this moment there was no proper registration in the case of wills. The public had not that access to wills which they ought to have, and there was no adequate place for then-custody and preservation. Such were the defects in the present jurisdiction of wills, that litigation with respect to a will had often to be carried on in three courts at once—that was to say, in a court of common law, in the Court of Chancery, and in an ecclesiastical court. He reminded the House that commission after commission, and committee after committee, had sat upon those courts, and had uniformly condemned them. That a number of Bills had been introduced into that and the other House of Parliament, for the purpose of dealing with their abuses, but that by some influence or other all these efforts at reforming the ecclesiastical courts had failed. Although reforms had been effected in almost every other department for the administration of justice, the abuses of the ecclesiastical courts, which had been condemned for more than twenty, he might say fifty, years, resisted reform and improvement with the most extraordinary pertinacity and success. He ventured to say that the state of those courts was a reproach to the times in which we lived, and a disgrace to the civilisation of the age. Upon the occasion he referred to, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General was pleased to say that he recognised in the statement which he (Mr. Collier) made nothing hut the acknowledged truth; and he understood that the Solicitor General, as well as his learned Colleague the Attorney General, concurred in the opinion that it was necessary to deal speedily and effectually with these enormous abuses. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department stated that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to lose no time in cleansing out this Augean stable. Many Members took part in the debate, and not a voice was raised in favour of these courts, with the exception of that of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. R. Phillimore), who, with that judgment for which he was distinguished, did not venture to defend these

1233
courts, which he adopted as his clients, but simply spoke ad misericordiam. On that occasion, relying upon the assurance of Her Majesty's Government that they would bring in a Bill to deal speedily and at once with these disgraceful abuses, he (Mr. Collier), at the request of the Attorney and Solicitor General, withdrew his Motion, but with an intimation that if the Government were not prepared to deal with the question, he should think it his duty to proceed with his proposed measure of reform. He should state that since then a measure had been sketched out by the Solicitor General—a measure, no doubt, of a somewhat comprehensive character, with part of which he agreed, and from part of which he differed—with respect to these courts. He should have been extremely glad to have seen that measure introduced into that House; but he understood that Her. Majesty's Government were not prepared to proceed with any measure whatever on this question during the present Session. He did not say that for the purpose of throwing any blame on the Government. It might be there were impediments in their way with which he was not acquainted; but seeing they were not prepared to deal with the subject, he had resolved, though he knew it was too late to pass a measure through the House that Session, to propose his measure for their consideration. In doing so, he did not propose to go over the ground which he occupied on the last occasion; he had done with the abuses, and would now deal with the remedies. The Bill which he proposed to introduce would deal with the testamentary jurisdiction of these courts, and with the testamentary jurisdiction only. They had jurisdiction over many other matters, such as church rates, brawling in churches, and defamation; and he might be asked what he meant to do with the rest of their jurisdiction? His answer was, that no doubt every department called for the attention of the House, but that the testamentary jurisdiction was their great source of pabulum and nutriment; and it was believed that if they were deprived of that, all the rest of their functions would in the course of time cease. He could only say that if such a calamity should happen, the country, he had no doubt, would support itself under it with fortitude and resignation. It would be a melancholy pleasure, no doubt, to hear the hon. Member for Tavistock announce their funeral oration; but no man was better qualified than he to
1234
undertake that office for his clients. He (Mr. Collier) trusted that he proposed to deal with this subject in a straightforward manner. He saw no mode of effectually and thoroughly settling this question short of the abolition of every ecclesiastical court in the kingdom, and transferring all their jurisdiction that was of a useful character to the other tribunals, and having new and efficient ecclesiastical courts, if that were thought necessary, for the purposes of church discipline. The House was aware that the jurisdiction of these courts consisted in granting probates of wills and letters of administration with respect to the effects of persons dying intestate; that they decided all disputes as to the right of probate or right of administration; in other words, their jurisdiction might be shortly stated as comprising all disputes concerning the devolution of the personal property throughout the kingdom. Probate of wills applied to personal property only. At present disputes concerning the devises of real property were tried in the courts of common law in the shape of actions of ejectment, brought by the heir against the devisee, or vice versa, by actions for rents and profits, or by an issue of devisavit vel non directed by the Court of Chancery—for the Court of Chancery had hitherto considered itself incompetent to deal with those questions of fact which arise upon disputed devises, and had sent them to be tried by courts of common law. As the law now stood, if there were a dispute concerning the devise of personal property and real property, you might carry on the dispute as to the personalty in the ecclesiastical courts, and from them you might have to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; if you went into the Court of Chancery, with respect to a will, the Lord Chancellor might send you to a court of common law for the purpose of trying issues of fact as to a devise; the matter might be removed from the Exchequer Chamber, and thence to the House of Lords—so that you might have three processes of litigation going on at the same time. Now, he proposed to abolish the testamentary jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts altogether; and herein his Bill differed from that sketched out by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General; for his hon. and learned Friend proposed to abolish all the courts except the diocesan. He (Mr. Collier) proposed to abolish them altogether. Then the next question was, what was to he done with this abolished jurisdiction? They must do

1235
one of two things: they must either give this jurisdiction to new courts to he created, or to an existing court, or existing courts. Now, the complaints which he had most generally heard were, that we had not too few hut too many courts; and he did think that the public had reason, before they were saddled with the burden of a new court, to demand satisfactory explanation, showing that the existing courts were not available for the purpose. He ventured to think that we had existing courts available for the transaction of all the testamentary jurisdiction of the country, in a manner entirely satisfactory, and with very slight modifications. In all questions of law reform, he thought it was of the utmost importance to adhere to established principles, otherwise our legislation would be but patchwork—our laws would be devoid of all harmony. Now, one of the most important principles in legislation recently recognised by the House and approved by the country, was, he thought, that of the local administration of justice—that of bringing cheap and speedy justice, as far as possible, to every man's door. For that purpose, before the county courts were established, a Commission instituted inquiries as to the most convenient divisions of the country for the purposes of the local administration of justice. Inquiries were made as to the situation of the large towns, as to the nature and extent of the population, and its distribution, the state of the roads, and other particulars; and the districts of the county courts were mapped out with a view to the convenience of the public. It seemed to him very desirable to adhere as much as possible, in all further local legislation, to those districts. It was very inconvenient to have many districts for the local administration of justice. We had too many separate divisions of the country already. We had districts of assizes, districts of sessions, districts of county courts, districts of bankruptcy commissioners, and districts of ecclesiastical commissioners. Now, the Scotch, he thought, had the advantage over us in that respect; for, as far as he was acquainted with that country, the divisions of the sheriffs' courts were divisions for all purposes, and certainly for ecclesiastical as well as civil purposes. It seemed, then, important to him to adhere to the districts of the county courts; and he proposed that all wills, respecting which there Was no dispute, should be proved in the county courts. He proposed to divide
1236
the country into districts, corresponding with the circuit of each county court Judge. Bach county court Judge went a circuit, comprising many districts, and he proposed to make that circuit a district for ecclesiastical purposes. He proposed that the will of every person who dwelt at the time of his death within the jurisdiction of the circuit of a county court Judge, should be proved in one of the county courts of that district. By that means, there would be a local administration of justice, and they would, at the same time, get rid of all the difficulties attending the law of bona notabilia. At present, if a man died possessed of goods above 5l., out of the diocese in which he died, probate had to be granted by one, and sometimes by both of the Archbishops. He proposed to do away with all this law of bona notabilia, which gave rise to great difficulties and expense, as it was difficult in some cases, such as those of a testator dying possessed of railway shares, canal shares, &c, to determine in what particular diocese or province they were situate. That extremely expensive and unsatisfactory system he proposed to do away with entirely, and to adopt a simple system—namely, that of proving a will in a certain ascertained district, within which the testator lived at the time of his death, and with respect to which very few eases of dispute were likely to arise. He proposed, also, to introduce a new system of registration—that was to say, he proposed that every will should be taken to a county court, and there registered; that probate of it should be granted, and that the original should be sent to a registrar general in London, who should have an office for the purpose of registering all the original wills in the kingdom, so that there should be no difficulty in finding any will whatever, by any person. That plan would remedy a very great defect in the present system. In order to carry out this system, he proposed that the county court Judge should appoint one of the present registrars of the ecclesiastical courts to some office which would facilitate the process which he (Mr. Collier) ventured to introduce. That plan would be attended with the advantage of enlisting experienced officers in the management of matters of detail; and, at the same time, of avoiding compensation for abolished offices. He proposed to extend this system of the proof and registration of wills to wills of real as well as personal property; and, he must say, that it seemed to him desirable

1237
that their course of legislation should tend, as far as possible, to an assimilation of the law of real and personal property. He had the precedent of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to justify his (Mr. Collier's) assimilation of the proof of real to that of personal property. If that were done, the collection of the revenue would he greatly facilitated with respect to the duty upon the devolution of real and personal property. But the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, at present, might be divided into what were called the common and the contentious forms. The common form was that in which no dispute about the will occurred. He saw no reason of departing, in matters of small moment, from the principle already recognised, of trying disputes in the localities in which they arose. He accordingly proposed, where the property left by the will was of a certain amount—say about 300 l.— that any dispute relating to it should be tried by the county court Judge of the locality in which the parties dwelt. To do otherwise—to compel a party, in all cases where the dispute was very small, to try his case in London, would be, in fact, to close the doors of the courts of justice against a man. Where the property was small, the property was never worth litigating. It frequently happened that, where the property left was small, and a family dispute arose, the case was never submitted to a court. If the family should be so foolish in those cases as to go to law, the consequences were ruin to all, and probable fraternisation in gaol. He therefore thought that he ought to propose that, with respect to contentious jurisdiction in all matters under 300 l., the county court Judge of the district in which the claimants resided, should have jurisdiction in matters of wills. He proposed also to give to the county courts equitable jurisdiction in all matters below 300 l. He knew it was said that county court Judges were incapable of exercising such jurisdiction. He had read a pamphlet which had been published by the proctors of Doctors' Commons with reference to the proposed reform of the ecclesiastical courts. They set forth that the difficulties and perplexities connected with the proceedings in Doctors' Commons were so great as to make it utterly impossible for any other body of men to transact the testamentary business of the country. According to those gentlemen, all the routine business which was transacted with the greatest ease by the practitioners in
1238
Doctors' Commons, was such as to entirely overwhelm men of ordinary understanding. They spoke as if the most serious and fatal consequences would accrue to England if any interference were made with the proceedings in Doctors' Commons. According to their statement, Doctors' Commons was one of the most vital institutions of this country—one without which this country could scarcely preserve its existence. If their statements were true, neither a Russian nor a French invasion, nor the loss of our Indian empire, could operate half so prejudicially to England as an invasion of Doctors' Commons. Now, he ventured to think that the difficulties of the administration of justice in those courts had been greatly exaggerated. It was very easy to puzzle the uninitiated with technical statements and difficulties; but he ventured to say, that if any half-dozen of attorneys or barristers set their heads together, they could produce cases full of technicalities quite as puzzling to the unintiated as those on which the practitioners of Doctors' Commons prided themselves. He believed that the county court Judges could with ease transact the business that he proposed to transfer to them. He had consulted some of the most eminent of the county court Judges on this subject—men who stood high in their profession—and they were unanimously of opinion that the county court Judges were perfectly competent to this jurisdiction. And in making this proposition he was only proposing such a system as had been already adopted in the courts of Scotland. In Scotland the jurisdiction of the commissary court had for many years been transferred to the Court of Session, and he had yet to learn that any difficulty had been experienced by that court in the transaction of the business. In the United States of America, the same principle was in operation; and in our own country down to the time of the Conquest the county courts had this jurisdiction. He had every reason, then, to believe that this jurisdiction might be exercised with perfect satisfaction by the county court Judges. But it was unquestionably necessary that some superior court should have jurisdiction in cases where the amount claimed was considerable, and for the purpose of revoking probates that might have been improperly granted; and for the purpose of appealing against the decision of inferior courts. The question then arose whether the jurisdiction should be given to the courts of common law or of

1239
Chancery. That was a very serious question. He proposed to give this appeal to the courts of common law, and he would shortly state his reason for making that proposition. In the first place, the courts of common law could exercise this jurisdiction without imposing the burden even of another shilling upon the country. No additional Judges would be required, and scarcely any additional expense. The county courts had, of course, abstracted a great deal of business from the superior courts, and the Judges of the latter courts, had in consequence a great deal of time left on their hands, and they would be ready and willing to devote it to the transaction of this kind of business. It could hardly be said that these Judges were incompetent to transact this business, because several of them were already Members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and as such sat to hear appeals from the ecclesiastical courts. Whether, therefore, he considered the amount of business before the courts of common law, or the experience of the Judges of those courts, he thought he was justified in proposing that they should have jurisdiction in wills where the matter in dispute was of considerable amount. He agreed that expense was not the only object, but that the question was, whether this species of jurisdiction was adapted to the courts of common law or not. The questions which arose before granting probate of a will were such as these:—Was the testator sane at the time of making the will?—Was any fraud or undue influence exercised over him?—Was the will properly executed? As the law at present stood, these questions would be decided in the ecclesiastical court, without a jury, and upon written interrogatories. But, with respect to real property, these questions were now decided by the courts of common law in actions of ejectment and issues of devisavit vel turn. He, therefore, proposed to retain in the courts of common law the jurisdiction which they now possessed to try the validity of devises of real property, and to give them also the jurisdiction possessed by the ecclesiastical courts in the matter of personal property. Moreover, it should be borne in mind, that the Judges visited the provinces twice in the year, and that constituted an important consideration. It was a matter of enormous convenience that persons residing in distant places, as Northumberland or Cornwall should have an oppor-
1240
tunity of having these cases tried on the spot, without incurring the expenses of a trial in London. There were other reasons why the courts of common law would be peculiarly qualified to exercise this jurisdiction, because the Court of Chancery had hitherto declined it, on the ground that all those questions respecting the validity of devises were questions of fact for a jury and a common law court to decide, and that it would be a serious inroad on the constitutional practice of the country for a court of equity to decide upon such disputed questions of fact without the intervention of a jury, and with the examination of witnesses viva voce in open court. He was one of those who thought that suitors ought to have the option of having their causes tried before a single Judge, with or without the assistance of a jury; but if the Court of Chancery was to do hereafter what it did at present—namely, send these questions to be tried by a jury, he asked why should they not send them at once to a court of common law, without requiring the suitors to take a circuitous route and to pay a double toll? But it might be said that the Court of Chancery, having the power to construe a will after it had obtained probate, ought, on the principle of the fusion of jurisdiction which was now so much in vogue, to try all questions subsequently arising with respect to that will. Now, by fusion of jurisdiction, he did not understand that any suitor was to say at his own option that his case was to be tried in one court or another, thus disregarding the careful principle of a division of labour; but he understood by it that, when a court had cognisance of a matter, it was to take full and complete cognisance of such matter. As an illustration of the inconvenience of the existing system, he might mention the case of the bellringing at Clapham, "Soltau v. Du Helde," in which the Lord Chief Justice said that he could give damage for the nuisance occasioned by the bellringing, but he had no power to restrain it by injunction—for which remedy the party must go to the Court of Chancery. But his principle did not trench on the principle of the fusion of jurisdiction; for it was one thing to try whether a will was valid, and another to decide on its construction and to administer the assets under it. The questions which he wished to refer to the courts of common law to decide were questions of fact, similar to those which fell within its ordinary jurisdiction; and he would leave

1241
to the Court of Chancery still to deal with all equitable questions relating to the administration of assets, and all questions of construction. By this course he believed that he should be carrying out the sound principle of fusion. He had stated the provisions of his measure thus fully, because he wished that all the Members of the House should take an interest in thoroughly understanding questions of law. There was no reason why law should be a mystery. He remembered the memorable words of the Master of the Rolls in that House, who said that he saw no reason why any proposition in respect to jurisprudence should be so abstruse that a man of ordinary apprehension could not understand it; that when points of law were very abstruse they were not very valuable; and that many of the technicalities by which the law was surrounded were merely kept up for the purpose of creating costs. Consequently those who wished to reform abuses were desirous of making the case thoroughly understood. He (Mr. Collier) feared that during the present Session nothing would be done in the shape of law reform. A report from the Common Law Commissioners had recently been presented, which was of the most satisfactory character, and for which the country was mainly indebted to the enlightened services of the Attorney General. In that Report the Commissioners took the true direction of law reform, and recommended that the superior courts of common law, which anciently had an equitable and legal jurisdiction (and their equitable jurisdiction they ought never to have parted with), should have an enlarged jurisdiction conferred upon them, so as to enable them to administer full and complete justice in every case brought before them. It appeared then to him desirable to give to the superior courts of common law complete jurisdiction where the matter was above 300 l., and the power of hearing appeals from the inferior courts. He would now advert to some other provisions of his Bill. He proposed to add to each county court an officer, to be called the Clerk of Probates, appointed from the experienced officers of the present ecclesiastical courts, and by this means a large amount of compensation would be saved. He also proposed to consolidate the whole metropolitan county courts districts into one Court district for the purposes of this Bill. It would no doubt be necessary to make compensation to those officers who were deprived of office; but he did not think that Parliament would be justified in giving com-
1242
pensation to mere practitioners—to the civilians, and proctors, who, he believed, from their learning and experience, would follow this jurisdiction wherever it went, and whose assistance, he was persuaded, would be eagerly sought after by the suitors. He proposed to give the proctors the power of practising as solicitors and attorneys in any superior court in the kingdom. He would not trouble the House by going through the minor points of his Bill; but he must express his hope that he had made his statement intelligible. It might be said that this was a somewhat sweeping measure; but he did think that the time had come when sweeping measures of law reform were absolutely necessary. Within the last few years they had had many large and sweeping measures of reform—reform in our representative institutions, which he trusted would be followed by a larger instalment of reform next year —reform in our municipal institutions— reform in our financial and fiscal systems; and he hoped that a sufficient Bill for the future government of our Indian empire would be passed during the present Session: but all our efforts in the cause of law reform during the same period had been little better than patchwork. He knew that the country did not take the same interest in matters connected with the administration of justice as in the; grant to Maynooth, and the reason was that those who were inclined to agitate: were not acquainted with the subject, and those who were acquainted with the subject were not disposed to agitate. The cause of law reform had never had its Covent Gardens or Exeter Halls; and he said it would be creditable to the Legislature if it were to deal with these questions without any pressure from without. Law reform had been left almost entirely in the hands of lawyers; and though it could not be said that they had disregarded it, he was afraid that the legal mind generally laboured under a malady which he might describe as an undue preponderance of the Conservative element—too great an attachment to forms and precedent; and the con-sequence of this was, that the machinery by which the administration of the law in! this country was carried on, had become more inconvenient and cumbrous than was known in any other country. What was old was retained, and what was new was joined on to the old, and many parts of the machinery were so clogged by the accumulation of dust and rubbish from the middle ages that courts of equity were often

1243
obliged to intervene to restrain the common law courts from doing what would be positive iniquity. The suitor in equity was often compelled to resort to a court of common law—the suitor at common law was often compelled to resort to a court of equity; and here there was a third system —that of the ecclesiastical—which possessed none of the advantages or recommendations either of a court of equity or of a court of common law. Many men applied themselves to the study of the common law, the ecclesiastical law, or the equity law, separately; but few applied themselves to the study of the laws of England as a whole, and, though they had a number of good lawyers, they had comparatively but few comprehensive jurists. He did trust, then, that Parliament would deal with this matter, and that his learned Friends the Attorney General and Solicitor General would be prepared, if not in the present, at any rate in the next Session, to take up the question. In conclusion, he would venture to suggest to the noble Lord the leader of that House, whose name was associated with so many measures of reform, that there was the new and untrodden field of law reform before him, in which trophies were to be won as honourable as any of those which he had heretofore gained. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
MR. HUMEseconded the Motion, saying that the speech which had been made on this subject some time ago by the Solicitor General had given the greatest satisfaction; but as no measure had been introduced by the Government, he hoped that the House would give its best consideration to the measure of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Collier), as well as to the clear and able statement by which he had introduced it.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Courts of Common Law, and to the County Courts."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech made by my hon. and learned Friend in moving for leave to bring in this Bill. Indeed, I may say that this House must be anxious to see the results of the workings of a mind which has showed itself so capable of maturing the whole of a most difficult and complicated subject; for my hon. and learned Friend
1244
has proved by his speech that he has dived deep into the recesses of the whole matter. At the same time, my hon. and learned Friend has, I think, shown in the able and comprehensive speech which he has made, that the subject is exceedingly complicated, and full of very considerable difficulties. My hon. and learned Friend said that there is this peculiarity with regard to law reform, that we have had no Covent Gardens or Exeter Halls to agitate on the subject—that the public mind seemed to be careless in regard to it. I think that fact, which is not to be questioned, does in some degree afford a proof that there is some mitigation of the deficiencies which exist in our legal system; for it is plain, if the ultimate results obtained by the administration of the law in this country were not substantially sufficient, there would be then Exeter Hall and Covent Garden meetings crying out for great comprehensive and speedy changes. I think it, therefore, fair to infer from that fact that the ends of justice are generally well and effectually obtained. But this does not affect the fact that these very ends are arrived at by circuitous and thorny paths, through sloughs and quagmires and delays, during which people often break down, and others pass a great portion of their lives without accomplishing any result; and the fact that justice is obtained in this way is no reason why we should not apply a remedy to evils which have been so clearly and so comprehensively pointed out. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that Her Majesty's Government are not less sensible than he is, I will not say of the expediency, but of the necessity, of applying practical remedies to those evils; but I think he has shown to all those who have listened to his able and admirable speech, that this branch of the subject is peculiarly full of difficulty. It is said that right is a single thing, and that wrongs are multifarious; but here the wrong is single, and the remedies must be multifarious; and this being the case, it is clear that Her Majesty's Government would not be justified in dealing with the matter without very great deliberation, and without perfectly satisfying themselves that the remedies proposed are the best which, in their judgment, can be applied. I have stated on a former occasion that Her Majesty's Government intended to propose a measure. The time of the House, as everybody must know, has hitherto been so fully engaged with other topics, that it would have been utterly impossible for us,

1245
even if we had had it prepared, to have launched it with any expectation of carrying it through Parliament during the present Session. Besides, a Commission was appointed by the late Government to consider this subject; and as it is hopeless to bring in a Bill this Session with any chance of its passing, Her Majesty's Government, under the circumstances, have thought that it would be better to wait for the report of that Commission, which, no doubt, would throw considerable light on the subject. All that I can is, that if a measure has not been proposed by the Government, it is not from any indifference on the subject, or from any change in our intentions with respect to this matter; but it has arisen, first, from the great pressure of public business in this House; and, next, because we thought it better, rather than laying a Bill on the table, and letting it stand over until next Session, to delay proposing any measure until we had the benefit of the report of the Commissioners, and the leisure which the recess affords for deliberately weighing the propositions which it may be our duty to submit to the House. The Government agreed most frankly to the bringing in of this Bill. I therefore beg to assure my hon. and learned Friend that I trust Her Majesty's Government will he able themselves, at an early period of next Session, to propose some measure on this subject which will be calculated to correct the evils which he has so fully and so ably pointed out to the House.
MR. HADFIELDthought the country had just reason to complain of the grievous annoyance and inconvenience to which it was subjected, in consequence of the existence of those evils to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Collier) had alluded; and he regretted that so long a period had elapsed without the introduction of any measure on the part of the Government. He was grieved to say that the confidence of law reformers generally in the present head of the law was not so great as in his predecessor. He must say for himself and his constituents that great confidence was placed in the late Lord Chancellor, but that an equal confidence was not felt in the present one. He must further observe that the country was much disappointed that the scheme of law reform, so ably indicated by the present Solicitor General, had been laid on the shelf; and he believed the fault did not lie with the Solicitor General, who found himself
1246
fettered, and could not perform the promise which he had conditionally made to the House. He feared that hon. and learned Gentleman could not afford to him that aid which he would he otherwise disposed to give, in carrying through that small measure which stood on the paper for to-morrow. The question of law reform was one of the greatest importance —it was one which involved an immense amount of property; and it could not be denied but the present state of the law inflicted losses and inconvenience, not only on the owners of large properties, but on small properties, to an incalculable extent. It affected the whole personal property of the country — funds, railway shares — in fact, hundreds of millions. He felt sorry that the measure of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth would not afford any relief to Ireland or Scotland—it simply related to England and Wales. He would just mention a few cases to show the evils of the existing system. In one case, where four members of one family died in five years, the executor was obliged to prove the wills in York, Canterbury, and in Ireland, and to take out confirmation in Scotland—ten probates and two confirmations were obliged to be taken out in five years on account of that one family. In another case, where a testatrix had 580 l, in the funds, the cost of the probate, including 11 l. duty, was 60 l. He had lately received a letter from a highly respectable gentleman relative to a property wholly in Cheshire. It appeared that an Act had been passed for amalgamating a railway with the London and North Western; and after taking the first probate, it became necessary to prove a second time, to enable him to give a title to the shares in consequence of the amalgamation, and the principal office having been removed from Manchester to London. In a case which occurred at Sheffield, two administrations to recover property of the value of 50 l., cost 22 l. In the case of one small estate in Ireland, the proofs exceeded the value of the property. In another case, a testator died, leaving property under 100 l. in value; but it being necessary to take out probate in Chester and Canterbury, the cost was nearly 20 l. In one case with which he was acquainted, the cost to recover 25 l. was 20 l.; and in another case the expenditure attached to the probate at Canterbury exceeded the amount of the property. He would like to hear something from the Government a little more specific than they

1247
had yet heard; and he also desired to know when the promised report of the Commission would appear, and whether the public might be assured that in the next Session of Parliament a measure would be brought forward, by which those intolerable grievances would be remedied. The country had a just claim on the Government to remove those annoyances, inconveniences, and caprices, since a new system of fiscal regulations was to be imposed, by which increased revenue was to be derived from the property affected by these courts. It would gratify the public if the Government would state their intentions, so that they might inform their constituents on the subject.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, as his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had assented to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman to bring in this Bill, he would not now take up the time of the House by offering any very extended observations on this subject. Still he must say one or two words on the general question. When his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth brought forward a Motion on a former occasion, and moved for a Committee to inquire into the abuses of Ecclesiastical Courts, it was objected that in 1850 a voluminous report with the evidence was laid before the House, which went so fully into this question; that it was almost impossible to conceive any further inquiry was either necessary or expedient. His noble Friend had truly said that this was a very complicated subject; he (Sir B. Hall) thought that that was the very reason why the Government themselves should have brought in a Bill in preference to allowing an independent Member to undertake a task so important. With reference to the Commission which was now sitting, no statement had been made by any Member of the Government as to when that Commission would be likely to make a report; and, consequently, they did not know whether they would have time to consider that report previous to the introduction of a measure by the Government during the next Session of Parliament. But from what had fallen from his noble Friend, he thought it possible that that report would be made before the end of the present Session, or, at any rate, during the recess, so that there would be time to consider a Bill before Easter next. The hon. Gentleman had said truly, that although the public mind had been attracle to the subject by the statements continually
1248
made in reference to those abuses, no great meetings on the question had been held in Exeter Hall or in Covent Garden, as when other points of great magnitude had been brought before the House; and his noble Friend, in alluding to this statement, had come to the conclusion that the ends of justice had been, generally speaking, attained. But the abuses of these courts had attracted public attention, and many other great abuses had been reformed without such meetings; and was it to be supposed that these meetings must be invariably held before they were to expect the reform of public abuses? If such an announcement was to be made by a Minister of the Crown, he (Sir B. Hall) would undertake that Exeter Hall and Covent Garden, and Drury Lane as well, could easily be filled to discuss that subject in a week. But when his noble Friend said that the ends of justice had been attained, he would call his attention to a recent correspondence which had taken place between the Bishop of Bath and Wells and Archdeacon Denison. It appeared, so far as his memory served him—and he regretted that he had not brought the papers down to the House—that the Archdeacon intimated to the Bishop his desire that some question, in reference to ecclesiastical discipline, should be considered by the Ecclesiastical Courts; and the Bishop replied, that while he should be happy to see the question tried before these courts, and that he would offer every facility for that purpose, the expense of a cause before these tribunals would be so great that it would be impossible for him to undertake it, even in a question of so much importance to the Church. Such a statement coming from one of the dignitaries of the Church—one who was to some extent the president over one of these courts, and had the appointments of its officers, ought to show the Government the necessity of bringing in a Bill so necessary to the interests of the laity, that the subject might be fairly considered, and that the expenses might be duly diminished. In order to show that the attention of the public really was very much attracted to these abuses, he would quote one or two statements from a paper which had been extensively circulated by hundreds and thousands, and several copies of which had been sent to him, which included an extract from a return which was laid upon the table of the House in the spring of last year, and which set forth the enormous sums received by the various

1249
officers holding sinecure appointments in those courts. The effect of these sinecures was to render the administration of justice so expensive, that in the case just referred to, the (bishop himself was compelled to abstain from trying a question of the very greatest importance to the interests of the Church. There was one case which particularly excited public attention —he might almost say disgust—it was stated in that paper that one individual, whose name was mentioned, had held his sinecure office fifty-three years, during which period he had received 577,399 l. In the diocese in which he (Sir B. Hall) resided, there was a rev. gentleman, of whose name he had never heard, at any rate for the past forty years—the Rev. R. Watson —who was appointed at the age of five years registrar of the Ecclesiastical Court. He was the son of a bishop, and had held his office for fifty-nine years, and received altogether from that sinecure office 40,803 l.; and, not content with that, the right rev. Prelate, his father, got him appointed to a registrarship, also a sinecure office in this diocese, at the age of eight, and this he had held for fifty years, and received 27,720 l. from this source for literally doing nothing. There was another who had received a similar sum in the diocese of Norwich—a diocese in which there were some of those appointments well worthy of the consideration of the House—a Mr. Bathurst appointed at the age of six; he had received 13,600 l. from his office. There was also the Rev. E. Bathurst, appointed at the age of ten years, who had received from a similar appointment 38,000 l.; another in the same diocese had received 16,800 l. The paper showed that the total sum received by sinecurists, according to the returns presented to that House, for offices in connexion with these courts, for which they had done nothing whatever, was 1,146,128 l. 14 s.9d.
MR. HUME: These are living sinecurists?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLreplied in the affirmative, and added that they were now going on receiving the money, and doing no duty whatever. The paper, however, from which he read these extracts was very incorrect as regarded the total amount; for it appeared to have been drawn up before the remainder of the returns ordered by the House had been presented; and, consequently, the sum of 1,146,128 l. fell very far short of the whole sum which subsequent returns prove to have been received
1250
by the sinecurists. The hon. Baronet con-eluded by expressing a hope that some full, comprehensive, and efficient measure would be introduced to correct these abuses.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, there was one thing on which he took it they were all agreed, both in that House and out of it, and as to which even Doctors' Commons hardly ventured to raise a; dissenting voice—namely, that the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in matters testamentary did require great and complete-reform. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the mode of carrying out that reform was a matter of considerable difficulty. Whether they should establish one single court apart for the purpose, with all proper guarantees for a good and simple system of procedure, the evidence being taken in the manner in which it was taken in the courts of common law, was one question. On the other hand, whether they should transfer the jurisdiction to some other court, and, if so, whether to a court of common law or to a court of equity—the one possessing a peculiar aptitude for the trial of wills, the other having better machinery for the administration of the property of a person deceased, was another question. At the same time, he did not mean to say that was not a question with which the Government might perfectly well grapple; but it did so happen that there was sitting at that peculiar conjuncture a Commission of persons of very great ability; and, under these circumstances, it was deemed better to wait until they had reported the result of their deliberations, and to see what measures they might recommend to the consideration of Parliament. They had been led to suppose that the report was on the eve of publication; and the moment it was before the House it would be the duty of the Government to turn their most anxious attention to the subject. In the meantime, the House would agree with him that they and the country were largely indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) not only for having brought the subject for ward, but for the care and attention which he had bestowed upon it, and the singular ability with which he had placed it before the House. Every one must rejoice at the manner in which the subject had been discussed and ventilated; all were agreed on the necessity of some measure, and he trusted that another Session of Parliament would not pass over their heads without a great reform on this subject.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, that as far as Scotland was concerned, they already possessed a speedy and cheap mode of administering justice in these matters by means of the Sheriffs' Courts, and he was happy to say that they did not require any measure on this matter 'for that country.
MR. A. PELLATTthanked the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth for introducing a Bill to remedy these abuses, which would prove a great boon to the commercial portion of the community.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. 'Collier and Mr. Hume.

FACTORIES.
MR. COBBETT*rose to ask the House to give him leave to bring in a Bill-to limit the hours of labour of women, young persons, and children, in factories, to ten in the day for the first five days of the week, and seven and a half hours on-Saturday; or, in other words, practically to restore the Ten Hours' Bill of 1847 and to include, as it were, in that Bill children from the age of eight to thirteen, who had hitherto been excluded from it He had been strongly urged by a large number of his own constituents, and by others in the factory districts, to bring in a Bill which should both shorten the hours of labour, and secure a perfect inspection of factories. He would briefly recall to the House the state of the law upon this subject. In 1833 an Act was passed which made the factory day, in point, of fact, one of fifteen hours duration, since it provided that labour should commence not earlier than half-past five, and should terminate not later than half-past eight. In 1844 another Act was passed by which the labour of young persons between the ages of twelve and eighteen, and of all women, should be limited to twelve hours a day. 'That Act also permitted children from eight to thirteen years of age to work six and a half hours each day, so that it was competent to manufacturers to employ two sets on any one day, and thus it created in effect two factory days. In 1847 the Ten Hours' Act passed, limiting the labour of women and young persons to ten hours a day. This left the law so that where mill-owners chose to employ two sets of young-children and adult males they could work a large number of hours, while those who employed women and young persons could work only ten hours a day. This led the millowners to endeavour to escape the
1252
effects of the Act, which they accomplished by adopting what was called the "shift" system. They tools advantage of Clause 26 in the Act of 1833, which did not define that the labour of women or young persons should be taken in ten consecutive hours, and, by employing a larger number than they actually required, and shifting them into the mill as others came out, they were enabled to effect their object. By that mode the Act of 1847 was successfully evaded. Its operation of course caused great dissatisfaction among the work people, and those millownere who chose to run their machinery only the legal number of hours, worked at a great disadvantage. At length it was agreed, after many convictions had taken place, and after various appeals to the Quarter Sessions, that a case should be submitted to the Court of Exchequer. That was done. Elaborate arguments were heard, and the learned Barons came to the conclusion that though they had no doubt, morally speaking, that the intention of the Legislature was to restrict the labour of women and young persons to ten consecutive hours of the day, yet that the words of the statute were not strong enough to render the carrying out of that view of the law imperative, and that working therefore by the system of shifts was not an infringement of the Act. This decision -naturally led to a great desire upon the part of the operatives for an amendment of the law. He should here state that the working of the Ten Hours' Act of 1847, so far as it had been carried out, had proved most beneficial. This was clearly proved at a meeting held at Manchester on the 14th of April, 1849, when the hon. Member for Ashton under-Line was present, and when a number of doputies and delegates attended and stated what the effect of it had been in their several districts. These persons entered into very detailed statements on the subject. They were the overlookers and managers of factories in their several districts, and were the persons best acquainted with the working people and with the working of the Act; consequently, he was giving to the House the very best testimony that could be given on the subject of the efficiency of the Ten Hours' Act, where it had been carried into effect. He would now quote from the appendix to a report of the speech made at this meeting by the hon. Member for Ashtan (Mr. C. Hindley), in which the statements of the delegates were set forth.

1253
Here the hon. Member read the following extracts:—
"The delegate from the Manchester Spinners Committee said the people employed the two hours allowed by the Act very well indeed. A number of the men he had worked with were now going to school, and there was a prospect of their being good scholars in a short time. Wages had considerably advanced, and were higher than before the Ten Hours' Bill passed. Many of the men in this branch were now cultivating small plots of garden ground; the females were attending decidedly better to their domestic duties, and the men were made more comfortable at home. Of the females who were subjected to the shift system many were spending their interval of time in the beer-houses.
"On behalf of the Short-Time Committee, the answers were, that the females and young persons were much more at home attending to their social, domestic duties, and the young especially were attending better to moral and religious education. The lathers of families in numbers of instances were attending to the education of their children. The wages of the hands had not been reduced in proportion to the time of working. Indeed, the hands in many cases were now receiving as much for ten hours' work as they had received for twelve in the year 1844.
"On behalf of the power-loom overlookers, the report was to the same effect. Where the Bill had been fairly and fully carried into effect, the delegate stated that the improvement in the physical aspect of the workers under him was such as he could not persuade the meeting to believe unless they saw it for themselves. The moral disposition of these hands was also undergoing a most satisfactory change. Before the Factory Act came into operation he had noticed the avidity with which the young men would rush into the first jerry shop after leaving the mill, often followed thither by the boys to get some of the drink. Now, since they got away at the same time with their wives—for many wives worked in the mills with their husbands—early in the evening, they would be seen walking off home with their wives. The children, too, were being sent to school all clean and tidy, and many of them actually teaching their fathers the lessons they learned at school. There was now such a disposition to get learning, and to render themselves respected and respectable members of society, on the part of the factory operatives as only those who have seen it will believe. As to wages, he could state that in the weaving department the same quantity and quality of work were now generally produced in the mills in ten hours, that were formerly produced in twelve hours, and there was more money for the same amount of work. The reason of this was obvious. It was better work, and there was not the perpetual? abatement which used to be taken off for bad work.
"At Astley Bridge all the mills were worked in accordance with the law. A school for factory operatives had been set up, called the' Sharpus Institute,' open three nights a week. It had a body of ninety-five members, chiefly factory operatives and supporters of education to the rising generation. The females had been more able to attend to their domestic duties, and the men were
1254
decidedly more comfortable. The masters were considering about the erection of schools.
"The men, by hundreds, are to be seen at their small plots of ground. If you were here you might see them going to their plots of ground with their shovels and spades on their shoulders, eager as possible to get to their gardens; others are engaged in leaching at night-schools, and some go to those schools to learn. The young females as well as wives, are improving in every respect; they are fresher in appearance; more clean and active, the wives are attending better to their domestic duties, and we find their homes improved. There have been some schools opened for the purpose of learning the young females to dressmake, and a great number are attending; one man told us his daughter had there learned so that his wife and daughters could make their own dresses, and this instruction is given by some benevolent ladies in the town voluntarily. The wages are as high as when they worked twelve hours per day, and in some cases higher; and in every way the working people, both young and old, are in better circumstances, and the result is more comfort and contentment. Let us work on in the good cause, and not be weary, and be assured that God will cause right to triumph over might.—I remain, yours in the cause,
"JOHN RAWSON."
He was sorry to weary the House by reading these extracts, but he wished to establish the facts that the Ten Hours' Act, when carried honestly into effect, had fully answered the objects of its most sanguine friends, and had completely falsified every prediction that had been uttered in that House and elsewhere adverse to its principle and proposed effects; nay, he might say that, of all legislation that he remembered, this was the most signally successful; and the extracts he had read went to prove that without doubt. At the meeting of delegates the hon. Member (Mr. C. Hindley) spoke, and denounced the vicious system of "shifts" that he had just described; but went on also to recommend the meeting to adhere firmly to the Tea Hours' principle, and to obtain, as well for the sake of the adult men as for that of the young children, an abolition of the system of relays instituted by the Act of 1844. The hon. Member (Mr. C. Hindley) recommended, in short, precisely that which would be found embodied in his (Mr. Cobbett's) Bill—namely, a limitation of the hours of work of women and young persons to ten in the day, and an abolition of the relay system of working the children. That would cause all to work in one uniform day of ten hours, and that both he (Mr. Cobbett) and the hon. Member for Ashton contended for. He would now read an extract from the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton delivered on

1255
that occasion, because the hon. Member had always been a Ten Hours' man, and spoke with the authority of a practical manufacturer, which would doubless lend greater weight to his words. The hon. Member here read the following extract from the speech of Mr. C. Hindley:—
"It may be said, and will be said by the Government, if they introduce a measure— We do not interfere with the principle of the Act, which is that no young person shall work more than ten hours a day.' I am anxious to press this point on your attention, because I know a great deal of stress has been laid upon it, and will again he laid upon it if the relay system is brought forward in Parliament. It will be said—' We are not at all affecting the principle of this Act; we are protecting women and young persons from working more than ten hours a day, just as we did before; and, therefore, in order that the machinery may be employed for a longer period, we think it but reasonable, observing the principles of the Bill, and protecting women and young persons, that we should allow the system of relays.' That will be the argument. It is not necessary for me to answer this argument here; but it may be in the House of Commons. There are two reasons why this system should not be allowed. In the first place, is there no consideration for adult men? You have already put them in connexion with, and chained them to, the mule, and to the loom, and to the engine; you have bound them to iron, and to brass, and to steel; and you are now—whilst they had before certain protection in the physical weakness of the women and youth with whose working they were associated—you are now going to infuse fresh life and blood into those beings with whom they are to be co-workers on the relay system; so that the question is now to be as to the adult male, whether he shall be worked to death or not?—fifteen hours a day!—sixteen hours a day! Allow the relay system, and who will tell where mammon will stop in its attempt to destroy men's lives? For my part, I can regard it as little less than murder; and I trust the Legislature will never allow a system to which such strong objections may be offered. The argument on the other side will be—' But these are freemen. You talk of their inevitable connexion with brass and iron! Those are all figures of rhetoric Aye! are these figures of rhetoric? We know here they are practical facts. Talk of freedom! The man in a factory is not free."
He thought he had said enough to satisfy the House that the Ten Hours' Act had been a most beneficial one, and that there required a uniform time of working; but he could not help observing, with regard to the first point, and before he quitted it, that his own personal observation fully confirmed the words of the delegates who described the beneficial effects of the Ten Hours' Act. He (Mr. Cobbett) could assure the House that in his own visits to the large establishment of the Messrs. Feilden, he had been struck by the great improvement in the appearance of the
1256
factory hands; the change was quite observable to any one who took the slightest notice, and, therefore, he himself could confirm the words of the delegates, and say that no one would believe it who had not actually seen it. From their own lips he had heard how thankful they were for the limitation of the hours of their work, because of the increased social and domestic enjoyment they had; and as to the fall in wages that was so confidently predicted, he had it from them and their overlookers that the reduction in wages was not more than one-sixth in most eases, and in many it was no reduction at all. Indeed, the spoiled work of the twelve-hour system was generally the cause of so much abatement that the trifling deficiency in the production of the ten hours was more than compensated. He could not, therefore, but be earnest on this question; and he consequently hoped the House would indulge him with their attention, in order that he might ask them, with the greater chance of ultimate success, to allow him to introduce a Bill on the subject. He was sorry to say that the consequences which followed the violations of the Act of 1847 were not so satisfactory as the other parts of this matter, which he had already detailed to the House. The Parliament received petitions from all parts of the country asking them to pass, not an Act containing any new principle, but simply a declaratory Act, which should convey to the factory masters, and to everybody concerned, a clear and distinct intimation as to what the Legislature really intended in passing the Act of 1847. These petitions, however, though signed by numbers whose voices ought to have been attended to, failed to have the desired effect. Instead of passing an Act merely declaratory of the Act of 1847, the Legislature passed the Act of 1850, generally called the Compromise Act, by which the hours of labour for women and young persons were extended to ten and a half a day, with the exception of Saturday, when they were limited to seven and a half hours. Now, he could not help asking the House what reason there was for Parliament imposing on the factory people one minute more than was imposed on them by the Ten Hours Act? These people had not violated that Act. It had, indeed, produced upon them all the effects which its promoters had intended. One would have thought, therefore, that no person who

1257
had the slightest regard for the moral and social improvement of the working classes, could have seen the effects which he had described without saying, "We will not infringe for one instant the provisions of an Act which has done so much good; let us, for God's sake, not seek to deprive these people—let us not seek to deprive society, of any of its benefits; but let us explain the Act, and see that it shall be carried fully into effect." Parliament, however, did not say so. The Compromise Act was passed. It was, by some, called a compromise between the factory people and some of their friends, who were never very clearly perceived; but the fact was, it was no compromise on the part of the people. On the contrary, the people of the factory districts strongly protested against it. He appealed to the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) who took up the question at the time with great alacrity, and to whom he tendered his thanks, in the name of the workpeople, for his exertions on the occasion—he appealed to him whether the workpeople were a party to any compromise, or whether they did not rather resent the passing of what was called the Compromise Act? The compromise was warmly denounced in another place by the Bishop of Ripon on the 15th of July, 1850, in. the words which he would now read to the House: —
"It was impossible to exaggerate the benefits which had accrued from the Act of 1817. The cause of education had greatly progressed, and it had been stated, that, in the parish of Leeds alone as many as 100 night schools had been established since the passing of the Bill. The number of allotments of land had also increased. He had yet to learn that the consent of the factory operatives had been given to the compromise proposed by this Bill. As far as his knowledge extended, the case was directly the reverse; for in every manufacturing parish or district of any consequence in his diocese public meetings had assembled, insisting upon a Ten Hours' Act, without a single voice being raised against it. It was said that the present measure would be a final settlement of the question, but he did not believe it. There was a strong feeling of indignation among the manufacturing operatives on the subject."
Notwithstanding this firm attack, followed by others from other quarters, the Compromise Act passed and was in operation immediately. It professed to give the workpeople in the factories an equivalent for the half-hour which was taken from them, inasmuch as it fixed the factory day between six in the morning and six in the evening; or, in certain cases, between
1258
seven and seven. But where was the "equivalent?" What did it give the factory people in return for the half hour that it took from them? The millowner would, for his own profit and to save the expense of gaslight, choose those very hours of working: he did it before the Act; he would of course do it again. It was, in point of fact, no equivalent whatever. And here he (Mr. Cobbett) must meet the observation that he had heard from one or two persons, namely, that half an hour was not much after all. He denied that it was not much in such a case. Hon. Members of that House were many of them men of so much leisure that they were puzzled to know sometimes how to kill an hour or two; and such persons were ill qualified to judge of the value of half an hour to these hardworking people, who had, for the most part, to rise at five in the morning, and were engaged in following a noisy untiring machine throughout the whole day, breathing an unwholesome atmosphere, and inhaling the flying fibres of cotton. He denied, then, that the working factory people had received any equivalent in this so-called compromise. There was another branch of the question which exhibited peculiar injustice. Who were the delinquents? They were the factory masters. The women and children did everything in their power to show themselves grateful for the Act of 1847. They did all that the promoters of the Act expected—they were faithful to the intentions of Parliament; and yet Parliament, instead of giving them that encouragement which was their due, had actually inflicted punishment upon them at the instance of the masters, who had violated the Act. This appeared to him a peculiar hardship, and the Parliament that did so seemed to him to be worthy of condemnation. Well, then, what had been the effect of the Compromise Act? Had it been beneficial to the workpeople, or obeyed by the masters? The fact was, that from the very first report that was made to the Home Secretary by the inspectors after the Act was passed, down to the very last report of the Inspectors, there had been continual complaints of the fraudulent manner in which the master manufacturers had evaded the Act—ending in a joint report by all the inspectors calling upon Parliament to give them an amending Act, in order that they might be able to carry the intentions of the Legislature into effect. In proof of this

1259
he (Mr. Cobbett) would be compelled to read some extracts from the reports of the factory Inspectors, for no one would believe otherwise that the masters, whose Act this was, and who pretended it was a compromise in which the people were parties, would themselves set the example of violating the law in so peculiarly gross a manner. After giving a description of various frauds on the Act, Mr. Horner says in his report for 30th April, 1851, what he would now read:—
"The greatest of these offenders was Mr. 'William Bracewell, of Barnoldswick, near Colne, the owner of large cotton mills. This person was prosecuted last June for transgressing the law in this manner, as was fully narrated in my last report. The skill by which his attorney then contrived to prevent convictions in the greater number of the informations, and the great leniency of the magistrates in imposing the lowest penalty the Act allows, in those cases which were proved by such of the witnesses as, disregarding threats of consequences, fearlessly told the truth, appear to have encouraged Mr. Bracewell to continue his practice of working contrary to law. Information was last winter given to Mr. Jones, on which he could perfectly rely, that it was the regular practice in Mr. Bracewell's mill to begin work, with young persons and women, at half-past five in the morning; but he was told, at the same time, that his coming by the usual road to Colne would be of no use, because arrangements had been made by which information was given as soon as an Inspector appeared within some miles of the factory. Mr. Jones, determined that so gross a violation of the law should, if possible, be checked, took very effective steps to ascertain the correctness of the charges, by going in the night by a circuitous route, accompanied by police officers, and arriving in the neighbourhood of the mill at five in the morning. Soon afterwards the lights appeared in the windows, and on entering the mill, a little after half-past five, he found the machinery in full operation, with young persons and women at work. Some made their escape, fearing, no doubt, by past experience, the consequences of being produced as evidence, but he got the names and addresses of several. Informations were laid before the magistrates at Colne, and the same attorney who had defended Mr. Bracewell on the former occasion, with the assistance this time of a barrister from Manchester, made so strenuous a defence, that only five of sixty-six informations were heard in six hours; but in these there were four convictions. The magistrates adjourned the hearing of the remaining cases for a fortnight; and the newspaper report states that 'a hope was then expressed that some arrangement would, in the meantime, be effected to avoid the necessity of the parties again appearing.' A few days afterwards, I received a letter from Mr. Bracewell's attorney, offering to pay 20 l. on my consenting to withdraw the remaining charges.
"I do not enter into any particulars of the other prosecutions for offences of this description, as it would only be a repetition of what I have often before reported of the difficulties we have to contend with to check this infringement of the law, which is naturally felt by the honest mill-
1260
owner as a great grievance. You will readily believe that men who seek to put money in their pockets by deliberately resorting to illegal practices, will not be very scrupulous either in the means they will resort to to escape detection, or, if detected, to prevent conviction before the magistrates by the intimidation of witnesses, over whom, as dependent upon them for their bread, they have practically almost absolute power, and by resorting to every subterfuge which an ingenious attorney can devise. If magistrates would in such cases consider themselves as the defenders of honest millowners, against those who, by fraudulent means, gain an advantage as competitors in the same markets, and, when a case of illegal working is proved to the satisfaction of their own minds, would inflict the highest penalty, the temptation to break the law would be considerably diminished."
The next quotation he would make was from Mr. Horner's report of the 31st October, 1851, in which it would be seen that the millowners had resorted to a regular system of looking out for the Inspector, in order to defeat the vigilance of those very useful officers, and in order to break with impunity their own Act!
"It is therefore most natural that I should hear, as I frequently do, great indignation expressed by those who are strictly obeying the law against the fraudulent advantages which many competitors in the same market have over them; that I should be often exhorted to put a stop to these violations of the law; and that it should sometimes be said, in very plain terms, that the Inspectors were remiss in their duty. I am not aware of any case where there has been a want of exertion on the part of any of the Sub-inspectors or myself to detect and bring to justice any persons accused of such fraudulent overworking. But the difficulties we have to contend with are very great, and I feel myself called upon, in justice to the gentlemen who act as Sub-inspectors in this district, to point them out. It must be borne in mind that, in laying an information against a millowner, we must charge him with the illegal employment of certain individuals on a particular day or days. In cases where the additional time is gained by a multiplication of small thefts in the course of the day, there are insuperable difficulties to the Inspector making out a case that he can take into court with any hope of obtaining a conviction, There are three periods of the day when the steam engine starts, viz., when the work begins in the morning, and when it is resumed after the two meals of breakfast and dinner; and there are three periods when it stops, viz., at the beginning of each meal time, and when the work ceases in the evening. Thus there are six opportunities when five minutes may be stolen, or half an hour each day. The Inspector, if he came unnoticed, might detect one of these petty thefts; but very good care would be taken that he should have no other case on that day. If we take into account the plausible excuses that would be made, such as irregularity of clocks, the mistake of the engineman, &c.—defences that have again and again been made— nothing short of its being made clear to the magistrates that it was a part of a systematic course of overworking would, I believe, induce them to con-

1261
vict. To prove a systematic coarse of overworking, made up of minutes taken at six different times of the day, could manifestly not be done by the observation of an Inspector; it could only be so by the people working in the mill voluntarily coming forward to give evidence. When the fraud is committed by starting the steam-engine half an hour, or a quarter of an hour, before six in the morning, and going on in the same way after six in the evening, or after two o'clock on Saturdays, detection is more easy, and several informations have been laid, and convietions have been obtained in eases of this kind. But even here the difficulty of making out a dear case is great, for in those places which have acquired a notoriety for overworking, there is an organised plan for giving notice at the mills of the appoach of an Inspector; and I have reasons for believing that servants at railway stations, and at inns, are employed for this purpose. If those who feel themselves aggrieved, who know the internal system of a factory, and are acquainted with the Factory Acts, would go beyond the general statements, and the Inspector or Sub-inspectors' specific instances, and would lend their aid in obtaining legal proof of the offence, much might be done in putting a stop to these malpractices; but until the workpeople themselves who are illegally employed can be induced to come forward as witnesses, it must always, in the present state of the law, be very difficult to obtain convictions. I must further add, that when a case is proved, magistrates must not, as they usually do, inflict the lowest penalty the law allows, but fine the offender in such a sum as will considerably diminish the profit obtained by the fraud."
The House would see, from these quotations, that the Factory Inspectors were, in some districts, completely frustrated in their attempts to cause the Acts to be obeyed by the masters. The hon. Member, however, observed that that disobedience to the law was not universal, for the law was tolerably well observed in the large towns, such as Manchester and Black-bum, in consequence of the eyes of the different masters being jealously fixed upon each other's operations; but in the outlying and thinly-populated districts, where there was no such cheek, it was found extremely difficult to procure the thorough observance of the Act. There were no specific recommendations in the reports of the Inspectors, except that Mr. Howell suggested an alteration of that part of the Factory Act of 1844 which allowed the making up of lost time in watermitls, and that Mr. Horner proposed, in order to provide that women and young persons should not be worked before six o'clock in the morning, or after six o'clock in the evening, that the machinery should be stopped for a limited time before these persons entered the mill, and for the same time after they quitted it—a short stoppage, in fact, of the motive power; but, in his (Mr.
1262
Cebbett's) opinion, an inconvenient mode, and more oppressive to the adult males and the young children than even the present system. Taking the circumstances altogether, and weighing them carefully, and consulting with practical manufacturers, he had framed the Bill which he should now ask leave to bring in, the main object of which was to restrict the labour of all persons whose labour was at present re-, stricted, to ten hours a day;. and next, to enact that the motive power of factories, should be stopped from half-past five o'clock in the afternoon until six next morning,, every day for the first five days, of the week, leaving Saturday as at present— seven and a half hours' work. Since he had given notice to the House of his intention to bring this question forward, he had, in the course of casual conversation, with hon. Members, been asked several questions with regard to this motive power. He was happy to say, that he had found a general disposition in favour of a uniform period of work, and of limiting the hours of the labour of restricted persons to ten in the day; but all of them, with very few exceptions, were afraid of the stopping of the motive power. It had been supposed that this was some theory or crotchet of his own; but the truth was, it was as old as the thought of factory legislation itself. Every one must be convinced, alter the daring and systematic violations which he bad detailed to the House, and which were going on every day, that it was nearly hopeless to expect to have the full benefit of the Ten Hours' Act until they had some enactment like that he proposed. Mr. John Cheetham, in his evidence before the Factory Commissioners of 1833, declared that it was only by restricting the motive power, by prohibiting the machinery from being worked after a certain time in the evening, and before a certain hour in the morning, and by suffering no lost time to, be made up, that it would be possible to render the Ten Hours' Act efficient—but he would read to the House an extract from that gentleman's evidence, in order that he might not be charged with garbling a statement. The gentleman he was about to quote, was, he believed, the hon. Member for South Lancashire, who was not now in his place, but who was, at the time he gave this evidence, and was at that moment, one of a very well-known firm of cotton spinners, Messrs. George Cheetham and Sons. The extract was;—
"Mr. John Cheetham examined; Would it be

1263
possible to make an efficient Bill? Yes; by restricting the moving power, or prohibiting any machinery to be worked after a certain hour in the evening, or before a certain hour in the morning, and no lost time to be worked up; and in our opinion any legislative measure that does not restrict the moving power, and include all ages, will be found inoperative. I think a mill inspector, elected in every township, whose business it should be to see that the law was observed, would be the best means of preventing its evasion."
This was the evidence of one large practical manufacturer on this point. He would now refer to others; and he found that in a Bill brought into this House in 1835 by Mr. Hindley and Mr. Brotherton, the third clause limited the hours of labour for all persons under twenty-one years to ten hours in the day, and to eight hours on a Saturday, while the fourth clause enacted that the hours of working the machinery should be the same as those fixed for the labour of the children. Surely this was authority enough to show that the Bill he wished to introduce asserted no new idea. In addition to these precedents, however, he could state that the people working in factories were perfectly unanimous in wishing for the limitation of the hours he proposed, and in wishing the machinery to be restricted, seeing that without this restriction there could not be a perfect Bill. The manufacturing districts were stirring in this matter, and the numerous petitions which had been hitherto presented to the House on the subject showed a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill. Not only, too, did the manufacturing operatives petition, but a vast number of the petitions which had been laid on the table of the House in favour of the Bill had been represented as coming from the master manufacturers. In the borough which he had the honour to represent, twenty-one master manufacturers of great consequence had adopted this course; and he believed the petition was signed by the mayor of the borough, one of the most respectable manufacturers in the whole district. The overlookers and managers—an influential and intelligent body of men—were also in favour of the Bill. Mr. H. Edwards, who represented Halifax in the last Parliament, had, on the 9th of April, attended a meeting at Halifax, at which the very proposition he should have the honour of submitting to the House was mooted. That Gentleman declared his opinion that it was only by restricting the motive power that the object of the Ten Hours' Act could be attained. More recently the
1264
partner of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Jackson) had in public stated distinctly, being a large manufacturer, and having been in business for a considerable time in one of the largest manufacturing concerns in the borough of Blackburn, that, having been formerly opposed to the Ten Hours' Act, he was now, from having seen its beneficial effects, earnestly in favour of it, and that there was nothing but a restriction of the motive power which would render that Act effective. The hon. Member here quoted the following passage from a speech of Mr. Edwards, at Halifax, on the 9th of April last, as reported in the Halifax Guardian, as follows:—
"At one time I was not a great advocate for the restriction of the moving power. And why? Because I knew that the late John Feilden, a man we must all lament to have lost, and whose son has been here to-night advocating this question with such energy and with such honour to himself, was also against the restriction of the moving power, until he found that his own Act could not be carried into effect as it was intended. Had that man lived, he would have been foremost in the ranks of those who are advocating a restriction on the moving power; he would have declared that the miserable compromise of 1850 was to all intents and purposes a robbery—a robbery of your rights and privileges, and would have said, that as this has failed, let us now advocate nothing more nor less than a restriction on the moving power. It is only by this that your object is to be attained."
He (Mr. Cobbett) had now done with the main portions of the Bill. There would be a few provisions on minor subjects; with regard, for instance, to penalties, and the mode of recovering penalties; but all of these provisions were, he thought, such as the House would consider reasonable. With regard to the question whether a new mode of recovering penalties should be resorted to, he proposed that there should be an additional mode of recovering them, so that there should be a direct encouragement given to those informers on whom the Factory Inspectors must much depend. He proposed that there should be a right of recovering penalties in the County Court, and also that the informer, upon giving notice to the inspector that he was about to bring an action, might have liberty to do so, provided it was within a certain number of days. There were some hon. Members who had been always opposed to every act of factory legislation, and not a single Act on this subject had ever been passed of which it was not predicted that it would ruin the commerce of the country, and involve us in chaos. Every one of

1265
these predictions however, from 1802 to 1850, had been fully and completely falsified. Then it had been constantly denied that in the factory districts any mischief arose from excessive labour. Upon this subject he might refer to the inquiries made by an eminent surgeon in the town of Bury, with regard to the several districts in that town, and the proportion of deaths of different classes in the community. That gentleman had ascertained, to his great astonishment, that of the factory operatives the average age at death was only eight years. Such a startling fact seemed almost incredible, but, inquiring further, Mr. Fletcher found that the enormous mortality was among the children of the factory operatives, of whom there died, under two years of age, on an average, 60 in the 100; while of the children of all other operatives living in the same districts only 33 in the 100 died under two years of age. This statement was collected from the books of the registrar of births, deaths, &c, and was made on an average of seven years. He had very lately conversed with Mr. Fletcher, who assured him that having made renewed inquiries, he had ascertained that there was no exaggeration in these results, and that his tables were perfectly correct— adding, that the cause of this mortality among the children might be looked for in the long hours which the mothers were obliged to remain in the factories. It was for the Legislature to adopt a cure for such enormous mischief; and, apologising for having so long occupied the attention of the House, he hoped that he should obtain leave to introduce a Bill, the aim of which was to render the existing measure effective, and to extend the benefits which had resulted from it.
MR. M. J. FEILDEN: I rise to second the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham; and in doing so, I have to crave the indulgence of the House as a junior Member of this august assembly, in addressing it on a subject of great personal importance to myself, and of deep interest to the constituency I have the honour to represent. Being extensively engaged in the manufacturing trade and commerce of this country, employing between 1,300 and 1,400 workpeople, whose wages amount to nearly 1,000 l. weekly, I feel less hesitation in approaching this subject than I otherwise should, were it one of a more ordinary character, or not local in its bearing. In order to lay my views clearly before the
1266
House, I beg to ask the following questions, and, in replying to them, endeavour to point out as forcibly as possible the necessity that exists for the adoption of the proposition of my hon. Friend. In the first place, does the existing law, in regard to the labour of females and young persons in factories, effect the object for which it was enacted? In the second, if not, how does it affect the employer and the employed? and, thirdly, if perniciously, what is the remedy? With regard to the present law, I think the evidence of the Government officials, printed by the Government, under the sanction and authority of Parliament, from whose reports I quote the following extracts, sufficiently prove its inefficiency. Mr. Horner says—"
"I should have been able to give, upon the whole, a satisfactory account of the observance and beneficial working of the Factory Acts during the last half-year, had it not been for the continuance of the practice, and that to a great extent in some parts of my district, of mills working twelve hours a day, instead of all hands leaving off at six o'clock in the evening, as is the case in the far larger proportion of the factories in other parts of my district. Ashton-under-Line, Stalybridge, Mossley, Glossopdale, Oldham, and Lees, are the places where it has been almost the general rule. Of this employment of male persons above eighteen years of age after six o'clock in the evening, the law takes no cognisance, and I am only called upon to notice it by the evasions practised under that system, by the employment of young persons and women, after six o'clock, along with the men. I have in my late reports dwelt so much upon this subject, that I need say no more than that the evil continues, and that it will continue, I believe, until the law is amended, so long as adult males are willing to work after six o'clock. It is the source of many and well-founded complaints among the millowners who close their mills at six o'clock, suffering, as they do, from the unfair advantages obtained in the same market by those who systematically practise this fraudulent overworking of young persons and women."
As to its effect upon the employer and the employed, as one of the former of considerable standing, I am one of those who do not hesitate to express my indignation at the conduct of others, who, less scrupulous themselves, evade and violate the law, to the prejudice of all honest employers of labour, and obtain undue advantages for themselves in markets where, as competitors, we ought to stand upon a perfect equality. Before proceeding, Sir, I will again venture to read a short extract from: Mr. Horner's last half-yearly report for the six months ending April 30th last, especially relating to the district I come from, and where the evasions and violations of the Factory Act appear to be more common than in any other. After enumerating

1267
the eases of infringement of the Act which have occurred in this district, Mr. Horner says—
"I believe that the serious violations of the law which I have now brought under your Lordship's notice, and which are felt to be a very great grievance by a large majority of millowners, might be effectually put a stop to by amendments of the law which would involve no new principle, would subject no occupier of a factory working from six to six to any inconvenience, would in no degree prevent the daily employment of adult males to the fullest extent they have ever worked in factories, or even to the utmost length their physical strength could bear, and would only impose a very moderate and reasonable restraint upon mill-owners working before six in the morning, or six in the evening, in order to afford an effective protection to the young persons and women."
As to its effect upon the employed, I think that after the mass of petitions that have lately been presented on the subject to this House, no doubt can exist in the minds of hon. Members, that the operatives, as a body, are most earnestly desirous of obtaining a uniform system of working in factories throughout the United Kingdom; which, if not conclusive in itself, must surely be so regarded, in conjunction with the monster meetings that are taking place in reference thereto, all over the manufacturing districts. The hon. Member for Oldham has alluded to one of these large meetings lately held at Manchester, and made honourable mention of my partner, who attended and argued his views on this question very forcibly, to the great satisfaction of his audience, principally constituted of adults of both sexes. In regard to the remedy, I trust it will not be urged by the opponents to this measure that it would be An unjust interference with the rights of adult labour, and that the remedy lies with the operatives themselves. This is not thought by them to be the case, or I should not now be appealing on their behalf for the alteration in the law that they seek so anxiously to obtain, by placing the restriction upon the moving power; though, if those objections be raised, I trust that it will also be borne in mind that that restriction does already extensively exist, a few places only of evil notoriety being excepted; and, secondly, that even if such be the fact, as no other remedy is feasible or attainable, the necessity of the case warrants the application to protect those efficiently who are totally unable to protect themselves. On this point Mr. Horner further says—
If those who in 1333 predicted (and there were some of great authority among our political economists who did so) the ruin of our manufac-
1268
turers if the then proposed restrictions on factory labour were adopted, will now fairly and candidly look at the results of this great practical experiment in legislation, whether in relation to the improved condition of the factory workers, or to the increase of mills, and to the fortunes since made in every department of manufacture subject to the law, they must, I think, admit that they have seen grounds to make them pause before they, in future, condemn measures for elevating the moral and social condition of the humbler classes by the regulation of their labour, as being opposed to principle; for the factory legislation has been proved to be in entire accordance with principle, even with that of the production of wealth, when the term principle is understood in an enlarged and comprehensive sense."
These are my views, Sir, on this important question, and if by anything I have said I may have induced hon. Members, and more especially Her Majesty's Ministers, to look with favour upon this question, I shall never regret having had the opportunity of raising my voice in the Legislature of the country, on behalf of what I may justly call the suffering interests of humanity in the crowded districts of the North of England.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the hours of labour of women, young persons and children in the Factories of the United Kingdom, and to provide for a more perfect inspection of the said Factories."
MR. WILKINSONdeprecated the notion of regulating the hours of labour by Acts of Parliament. He did not question the benefits which had accrued from the Ten Hours' Act. They could not shorten the hours of labour without doing good to the operatives; but he did not think it was the duty of Parliament to interfere with a matter of that kind. The country was now in a prosperous state, trade was flourishing, and the manufacturing population enjoyed their share at least of the general comfort and contentment. Yet the present was the moment fixed upon for bringing forward a measure which would have the effect of rendering our manufacturers unable to compete so successfully as they would otherwise do with their foreign rivals. He trusted the House would pause before venturing upon a course so full of peril.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONdid not mean to oppose the bringing in of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member, but at the same time he did not pledge himself as to the course which he might feel it his duty to take on the second reading of the Bill when it had been brought in. At the same time he might state that he himself intended to bring in a Bill for the purpose of limiting

1269
the hours for the employment of children. What he should propose would be, that children should not be employed earlier than six o'clock in the morning, nor later than six in the evening. At present, as had been stated by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, children might be brought out at half-past five in the morning, and kept until half-past six or seven in the evening. Now, he really thought that to have little children of from eight to twelve years of age brought out on a drizzling winter's morning at five, or half-past five, when they perhaps lived three or four miles distant from the place where they worked, and then in the evening to have them walking hack, possibly alone, to their homes in the dark, with, perhaps, snow on the ground, was a practice which must entail such evils that no one could be surprised at the extreme mortality among the children of factory operatives to which the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cobbett) had alluded. It was a matter of considerable delicacy to interfere by legislation with the employment of those who, being of age to determine for themselves, were to be considered as free agents, and therefore ought to be at liberty to work as long or as little as they should think fit to do. But his own opinion was, that millowners were not pursuing their own real interest by dealing with the persons whom they employed as if they were mere machines, as if the longer they could work them the more profit they could make out of them, and as if all other considerations should be set aside except the quantity of work which, in the greatest number of hours, could be got out of the men so employed. His own opinion was, that employers would do better —and he knew many of them did act upon that consideration—they would do better to reflect that these workmen were moral and intelligent agents; that, unless they were allowed that moderate degree of leisure which was essential to their well-being and their domestic economy, the employers would certainly fail to get out of those agents the full amount of good labour which they might under a more judicious system extract from them. It was said that to limit the number of hours, as he should propose to do, for the employment of children, would indirectly tend to limit the employment of persons of more advanced age; but all he could say was, he thought it was so essential to protect these children from being overtasked that he could not consider the results which it might be imagined would flow from it, as
1270
a reason why such a limitation should not be adopted. He, therefore, without pledging himself as to the details of the Bill, or as to the course he might think fit to pursue when the Bill came to a second reading, had no objection to offer to the introduction of the Bill now, and to its being read a first time. It was, however, his own intention to submit to the consideration of the House a Bill for the limited purpose which he had just mentioned.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he feared that the proposal of the noble Lord who had just sat down would not prove more satisfactory to the opponents of factory legislation than the proposal of the hon. Member who had spoken with such signal moderation that evening. He thought, too, he might safely say that the proposition of the noble Lord, however well meant it might be, and however well calculated to remedy a certain portion of the evils complained of, would not satisfy the wishes of the working people so well as the proposal of the hon. Member, and would not have the effect of settling this question now that it had unfortunately been reopened. In the year 1850, he (Lord John Manners) had felt it his doty to express his strong conviction, that the measure erroneously called a compromise, which was brought forward at that period, was in reality a compromise of nothing but the rights of the people and of the honour of Parliament. He still retained that conviction; and if that Bill had not been attended with all the injurious effects which he had then predicated, that circumstance was owing solely to the moderation and the loyalty of the operatives; and he believed that it had been the moderation, loyalty, and contentment of the people which had prevented the fulfilment of a prediction he had been disposed to make as to the immediate efforts that would probably be made by the people in order to win back the inheritance of which they had been wrongfully deprived; and he was afraid that if they looked at the subsequent reports of the Factory Inspectors, they would find reason to attribute the present great movement in which the Bill before the House had originated, to the systematic and constant evasions on the part of the master manufacturers of the very compromise which had been passed at their suggestion and in their interest in the year 1850. He had ventured, at an early period of the Session, to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department (Viscount Palmerston)

1271
to the then last half-yearly report of the Factory Inspectors, and he had asked the noble Lord whether he intended to introduce any measure for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of those gentlemen, and preventing the future evasion of the existing factory Acts. In replying to that question, the noble Lord had, as was his wont, given one of those agreeable and airy answers from which a person might draw any inference he pleased. He (Lord John Manners) had put the most favourable construction on the answer he received upon that occasion; and it would appear from the statement of the noble Lord that evening that they might expect to find him introducing a measure for remedying, to a limited degree, some of the evils of which the factory workpeople complained—although he (Lord John Manners) could not say whether they would be able to pass that measure into law in the course of the present Session. However that might be, he thought that a reference to the reports of the Factory Inspectors would show that the proposal of the noble Lord would go but a very little way to satisfy the just demands of the operatives: that which these people asked for, and which he believed they would not be content until they should receive, was what they had a perfect right to demand—namely, the full charter which had been conferred upon them by the legislation of the year 1847. If the hon. Member who now proposed to introduce a Bill upon the subject, felt himself obliged to bring a new principle into our factory legislation, he (Lord J. Manners) believed he could show, that if blame could attach to any parties for the necessity of the introduction of such a measure, that blame must lie on the shoulders of those who pertinaciously and systematically evaded the compromise which they themselves had induced the Legislature to pass. The Inspectors of Factories, in their joint report to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole), on the 4th of September, 1852, said—
"The infringements of the Factory Acts in some parts of the country by the employment of young persons and women for a longer time daily than is legal, which have, we believe, been represented to you as a great evil calling for correction In memorials from certain owners of factories, have been often under the consideration of the inspectors at their statutory half-yearly meetings, in the hope that they might be able to adopt some course of proceeding which would put an end to such violations of the laws. We now feel ourselves called upon to represent to you in this our
1272
joint report, that experience has proved that when the Acts of 1833 and 1844 were framed, the measures that have been resorted to by certain occupiers of factories to evade the limitations of the hours of work fixed by these Acts were not contemplated, consequently no sufficient security against them was provided. The clear intentions of the Legislature are defeated, because of the conditions to which the inspectors are restricted in their endeavours to obtain the conviction of an offender, and thus extensive frauds have been practised, and in some places we have reason to believe are now habitually practised with impunity."
And, again, they said—
"Those who are strictly observing the law naturally claim that the provisions of the Act in so important a matter shall not be suffered to be violated with impunity, and that all occupiers of factories shall be compelled to adhere to the same hours of work as limited by law. To carry this into effect has been our constant aim; but without an amending Act, which will make the detection of offences more easy, and the punishment of them more certain and more severe, we have little hope that the desired uniformity will be accomplished."
Mr. Horner, whose services in this cause were beyond all praise, said, in his report—
"This illegal working of young persons and women will never be effectually put down without an amending Act, which shall take away the facilities for evading detection and punishment now existing, which shall make the occupier of the factory alone responsible, and which shall, moreover, inflict as the lowest penalty such a sum as will at least considerably diminish the gain by fraudulent working; for the shame of a prosecution appears to be no restraint on such men."
Let him now call the attention of the House to the last report of the Inspectors, presented a few days ago, in which Mr. Horner said—
"I should have been able to give, upon the whole, a satisfactory account of the observance and beneficial working of the Factory Acts during the last half-year, had it not been for the continuance of the practice, and that to a great extent in some parts of my district, of mills working 12 hours a day, instead of all hands leaving off at 6 o'clock in the evening, as is the case in the far larger proportion of factories in other parts of my district. Of this employment of male persons above 18 years of age after 6 o'clock in the evening the law takes no cognisance, and I am only called upon to notice it by the evasions practised under that system, by the employment of young persons and women after 6 o'clock along with the men. I have in my late reports dwelt so much upon this subject, that I need say no more than that the evil continues, and that it will continue, I believe, until the law is amended, so long as adult males are willing to work after 6 o'clock."
They might say, therefore, that the uniform recommendation of all the factory inspectors was, that there should be considerable amendments and emenda-

1273
tions of the existing Factory Acts in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member. And now let him ask if the factory operatives had not a right to demand that fresh legislative boon at their hands? The hon. and learned Member had reminded the House of the conditions on which and the solicitations by which Parliament had been induced to take from the leisure of the working people half an hour per day; and one object of the hon. Gentleman's Bill was to restore that half hour. He (Lord J. Manners) should say that, unjust and unfair and inequitable as the imposition of that additional half hour of labour had been at the time it had been enacted, events had since occurred which would make its continuance still more unjust and unfair and inequitable, for the very men who induced Parliament to pass that alleged compromise, and who then promised, through the mouth of the then Secretary of State for the Home Department, that they would regard it as a final settlement, and that they would respect its conditions, had been guilty of repeated and constant evasions of the measure—evasions carried out in so fraudulent a spirit as to call down from the factory-inspectors, and from magistrates who had from time to time to adjudicate on these evasions, the severest terms of censure to which a respectable and opulent body had ever had to submit from any constituted authority. Mr. Horner, in his last report, said they were habitual and unscrupulous law breakers, and suggested that the only way to stop them was the infliction of such penalties as should make them feel they were not pursuing their own interest in practising those evasions of the Act. These men did not violate the law from any religious scruple, from ignorance, or from any belief they were vindicating a principle, but a sordid pecuniary gain was the only motives of their evasion and degradation. Was it not a mockery to deal harshly with the poor man for breaking the law, and then to make a rich one pay a pound or two, and allow him to go back to repeat his offences ad infinitum? They must make the penalty large enough to prevent the repetition of the evasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced that Bill sought to make their factory legislation a reality, instead of leaving it a system which was liable to such frequent and fraudulent evasions. It would no doubt, however, be urged as an objection to that proposal, that that was the
1274
first time they had ever attempted to restrict by Act of Parliament the motive power in factories. Now, he freely admitted that he shared with many Gentlemen in a sort of apprehension which would lead him to abstain, if possible, from any interference with that motive power. But when he saw that master manufacturers, so far from respecting the arrangement into which they had themselves induced Parliament to enter, were determined to obey no law which they could by any possibility evade, he felt bound to consider whether the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, with respect to the motive power, had in it anything so inimical to the best interests of the master manufacturers, that he ought to refuse to try the experiment in question. In directing his attention to that point, he could not see that the restriction of the motive power would have any detrimental effect on the manufacturers. The hon. Gentleman who had seconded the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill (Mr. Feilden) had been able to speak with great authority upon that point, as he was himself one of the largest manufacturers in the district with which he was connected; and that hon. Gentleman had told them that that measure would in no way militate against the true interests of the employers of labour in factories. It appeared too, to him (Lord J. Manners) that the result of the prophecies which had formerly been made with respect to the fatal policy of any interference on the part of the Legislature with factory labour, justified him in believing that an effective ten hours' factory Bill, which would restrict the motive power in factories, would not in the slightest degree endanger the continuance of that manufacturing prosperity which it was evident from the reports of the factory inspectors, and from the accounts of medical men and clergymen connected with the manufacturing districts, had been very greatly promoted and increased by the operation of the Ten Hours' Bill in the first instance, and afterwards of the Ten and a Half Hours' Bill. At present, when the question was reopened, Parliament was bound not to shrink from the duty of doing full justice to the factory operatives, whose claims had been slighted, and whose rights had been invaded by the Parliament of 1850. They were the more bound to discharge that duty, because that question had been reopened, not through any misconduct of the operatives, but in consequence of the systematic, and he was

1275
afraid in many instances the successful, attempt of the master manufacturers to evade the provisions of an Act which they had themselves forced on a deceived Parliament. After the declaration which had been made by the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) he thought it would be but fair on his part to state that while he gratefully admitted that the measure which the noble Lord proposed to introduce would to a certain degree meet the grievances complained of, he could not regard it as one which would permanently settle this long-agitated and most important question —a question which he believed it was for the interest—not of a class, but—of the whole community, to see settled on a basis of justice; and therefore it was that he had risen to make these few observations, and to join the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the measure in expressing an earnest hope that the House would unanimously consent to the Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and would be prepared to consider it in its future 6tages in a calm and impartial spirit.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was anxious to say a few words after the direct allusions which had been made as to the part which he had taken in passing what was called the Compromise Act of 1850. He must express his regret that the question had been reopened. He had been one of those who advocated a restriction of the hours of labour of women, young persons, and children; and he shared in the gratification which all supporters of the legislation of 1847 must feel at the consequences which had followed from the restricted measure then passed, aided, as it had been, by the Act of 1850. But he owned he was surprised to hear the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Manners), with the reports of the factory inspectors in his bands, treating the exceptional instances mentioned in those reports as specimens of the general way in which the law was evaded, and stating that it was almost universally violated by the manufacturers, forming a direct contrast to the statement of the hon. Member, who said that generally the Act was obeyed not only in letter but in spirit. He (Sir G. Grey) must also say that the Act of 1850 had been totally misrepresented by the noble Lord. It had been his duty to introduce that Bill, for the purpose of removing evils of which the working people complained much, but which were not objected to by the manufacturers. The noble Lord was
1276
also mistaken in supposing the Bill was introduced for the behoof of the master manufacturers, or that he (Sir G. Grey), when Secretary of State, promised compliance with the law on their part. The truth was, that complaints were made by the operatives that the spirit of the Act of 1847 was violated by the system of relays; and the Government, by way of remedy, thought of fixing the hours from six o'clock in the morning to six o'clock at night as the limits within which labour could be enforced, thereby putting an end to the system of relays. Half an hour was at that time added to the ten hours, for which the noble Lord said that the workpeople had got no equivalent; but they had got this, that their hours of labour were now fixed and certain, leaving the whole evening to themselves; and he had watched with the most sincere gratification the operation of that Act, which, instead of being a source of injustice to the working classes, had conferred on them the greatest benefits. Let him just read a short extract from the last report of Mr. Horner on that subject. He said—
"I believe the workpeople never were so well off as they are at present; constant employment, good wages, cheap food, and cheap clothing; many cheap, innocent, and elevating amusements brought within their reach; and, thanks to the last Factory Act, the greater proportion of all the operatives in mills have at length time for some mental improvement, healthful recreation, and enjoyment of their families and friends."
He might also refer to the opening sentence of Mr. Redgrave's report, in which he said the limitations of hours of labour under the 13 & 14 of Vict., c. 54, continued to give general satisfaction. He (Sir G. Grey) believed that nineteen-twen-tieths at least of the master manufacturers had conformed to the spirit as well as to the letter of the law; and he challenged the noble Lord to produce one sentence from the reports of the factory inspectors recommending a further limitation of the hours of labour by a reduction of the ten hours and a half under the Act of 1850 to ten hours. He earnestly deprecated any renewal of agitation as to the amount of labour with regard to that class to whom the Act of 1850 referred. The question of children's labour stood on quite different grounds; but he must express his regret that the noble Lord the Secretary of State, in announcing his intention of bringing in a measure on that subject, had shown some doubt as to whether Parliament might not be induced to sanction

1277
the principle of restricting the hours of labour for adults. He hoped that the noble Lord would never yield his assent to a principle which had always been repudiated by every eminent statesman in that and the other House of Parliament.
MR. I. BUTT: Sir, a challenge has been thrown out by the right hon. Baronet who has just sat down, which must not pass unanswered. As no opposition is given to the bringing in of this Bill, I had not intended to have risen on this occasion; but having long taken a deep, very deep interest in this question-—having been in communication with the delegates of the factory workmen—and having been consulted by the hon. Member for Oldham, I do not think I ought to let the challenge of the right hon. Baronet pass without a reply. The right hon. Baronet denied the assertion of my noble Friend near me (Lord John Manners) that the law had been systematically violated; he has challenged him to record any evidence from the report of the Inspectors of Factories in support of it.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I challenge him to record any recommendation from the Factory Inspectors to reduce the hours of working to ten, and I said that the law was generally observed, was observed in nineteen-twentieths of the factories, and the violations of it were exceptional cases.
MR. I. BUTT: Sir, I understood the challenge to be this: to call on my noble Friend to prove that there was such a general and systematic violation of the law as demanded legislative interference. There are two things perfectly distinct. The right hon. Baronet is too clear in his views to confound them, as he will permit me to say he seems to do. Sir, the question what shall be the limit of your hours of labour is one thing—the enforcement of your limit, whatever it may be, is another. It is one thing to assert that legislative interference is absolutely necessary to prevent your limit of ten hours and a half being evaded—and quite another thing to assert that you ought to reduce that limit from ten hours and a half to ten. The assertion of my noble Friend was that the existing law is scandalously, generally, and systematically violated. We say that this violation is such, that unless you are willing to make law a mockery and bring the authority of the Legislature into contempt, Parliament must interfere with a high hand to put it down. Did the right hon. Baronet challenge them to read extracts from the
1278
reports of the Factory Inspectors to sustain this assertion? In his report of October, 1832, Mr. Leonard Horner writes—
"I regret to say that the offence of working young persons and women for a greater number of hours daily than is legal, long complained of, still prevails to a considerable extent in some parts of my district. In my two last reports I have dwelt at some length on this subject—on the wilful commission of the fraud by persons of large property—on the mean contrivances to which they have recourse in order to elude detection—and the obstacles which the Inspectors meet with, from the imperfect provisions of the Act, in their endeavours to put down an evil so great as a systematic violation of law—one so justly complained of by millowners who are strictly obeying the Act. All that I have stated in these reports is equally applicable to the last half-year and to the present time; and I presume that you will not think it necessary for me to repeat what I said on those occasions, as my former statements can be easily referred to."
Were these the very rare and exceptional cases of which the right hon. Baronet had spoken—so few and so insignificant as to be totally unworthy the notice of Parliament? The Inspector uses the very words "systematic violation of the law;" the illegal practices still prevail "to a considerable extent" in his district, one embracing no inconsiderable tract; something more, I rather think, in itself than one-twentieth of the factory districts of England. He refers to his former statements, and says that they are equally applicable to the last half-year. What were these statements? They represented a state of things utterly disgraceful. A regular system of scouts was established in whole districts to give intimation of the approach of the Inspector. The moment he appeared, no matter how unexpectedly, persons ran through the district to give warning of his approach. Opulent millowners might be seen running in breathless haste from their home to the factory gate, that they might, have it shut when the Inspector came. When be did obtain an entrance, the young persons who-were working over hours were concealed. In some instances they have been discovered in receptacles and hiding places which would have justified far stronger language than even the expression "mean contrivances," and these things, Mr. Horner told them, "frequently prevailed." They were continuous; they had been, described in former reports, and all that had been formerly stated was equally applicable to the last half year. But what say the. Inspectors in their joint report, made in October last? Here is the joint evidence

1279
of the four Factory Inspectors for the United Kingdom:—
"We now feel ourselves called upon to represent to you in this our joint report, that experience has proved that when the Acts of 1833 and 1844 were framed, the measures that have been resorted to by certain occupiers of factories, to evade the limitations of the hours of work fixed by these Acts, were not contemplated, consequently no sufficient security against them was provided. The clear intentions of the Legislature are defeated, because of the conditions to which the Inspectors are restricted, in their endeavours to obtain the conviction of an offender; and thus extensive frauds have been practised, and in some places we have reason to believe are now habitually practised with impunity."
Sir, I apprehend that my noble Friend is fully borne out in the statement he has made, and that I have answered the challenge of the right hon. Baronet opposite. But, Sir, the factory inspectors go further —they distinctly say that they cannot administer the law without legislative aid. I quote again from the report of October, 1852, the joint report of the four inspectors:—
"Those who are strictly observing the law, naturally claim that the provisions of the Act in so important a matter shall not be suffered to be violated with impunity, and that all occupiers of factories shall he compelled to adhere to the same hours of work as limited by law. To carry this into effect has been our constant aim; but without an amending Act, which will make the detection of offences more easy, and the punishment of them more certain and more severe, we have little hope that the desired uniformity will be accomplished."
No man, Sir, I presume, will now tell me that legislation is not imperatively called for—that we are not to prevent our authority, the authority of the Legislature, being set at defiance, because rich men and great capitalists are the systematic violators of the law. Then, Sir, if legislation be now thus imperatively demanded, the Act of 1850 has not settled the question. Sir, even if it had been observed, and been effectual, I deny that it could have done so; but it has been systematically violated—it has been a palpable and undeniable failure. We are driven back to consider the question as it stood when that Act passed. That Act took the half-hour from the operative under the pretence that it would make the restriction efficient. Well, Sir, it has not made the restriction efficient. Upon the plainest grounds the question of that half-hour is now reopened. I do not hesitate to say that, looking anxiously as I did, although then not having a seat in this House, to the proceedings in reference to this question in Parliament,
1280
I thought the Act of 1850 one utterly disgraceful to Parliament. Sir, wholly irrespective of any consideration of its admitted failure, I think so still. The right hon. Baronet has inaccurately represented what took place; I then watched the proceedings upon this question too anxiously not to be able upon the moment to set him right. In 1847 the Statute was passed which limited the hours of labour for women and young persons to ten hours. That Act was intended to have set the question at rest, and for nearly three years it was at rest; but the ingenuity of lawbreakers discovered a technical flaw in the wording of the present clauses of the Act. No one ever denied that the intention of the Legislature was to prevent that which is termed the system of relays—every one so understood the Statute—lor nearly three years it was so acted on, until sometime in 1850 (if I remember right) a judicial decision quashed a conviction for this offence of working for more than ten hours by relays. Sir, this decision took every one by surprise. The Judges who so decided it admitted that of the intention of those who passed the Statute there could be no moral doubt; but they were of opinion that, in an Act creating an offence and imposing penalties, the Legislature had not used words of sufficient precision. Sir, it was a mere technical flaw—a miscarriage of the draughtsman. Well, in the Session of 1850 the factory operatives came to Parliament to remedy this purely technical defect, and make the Act of 1847 what it was intended to be. A noble Lord, now in the other House, then a Member of this House, brought in a Bill to do that which surely was plain justice—to declare the true intention of the former Act, and make the words of the Statute speak what the mind of the Legislature meant. This was all that was necessary—all that was asked. There never was a plainer case; there never was a more just demand. But to this, opposition was offered; the battle of the ten hours was to be fought over again; and then it was that the right hon. Baronet interfered; he took the matter out of Lord Ashley's hands—I will not say as the mouthpiece of the millowner, as the right hon. Baronet denied it—but he brought in a Bill, which, as the price of remedying the technical defect in the Act of 1847, filched from the operatives half an hour of the time secured to them by that Act. Lord Ashley, it is true, assented to that Bill; he (Mr. Butt) must ever think as-

1281
sented to in a moment of weakness; but Lord Ashley assented to it, not as the measure to which the factory operatives were entitled, but as the best that could be carried in the face of the opposition by which his own Bill was encountered. That transaction, he (Mr. Butt) repeated, was a disgrace to the Statute-book. Upon what principle had Parliament fixed the limit of labour at ten hours? Upon the principle that justice demanded it should be so fixed; upon the evidence of all persons acquainted with the constitution of the human frame, who were examined upon the subject, that ten hours of labour was the utmost that the strength of young persons could endure; upon the perfect proof that longer hours of labour were equally destructive to their physical and moral welfare. This was the principle upon which the Act of 1847 was passed into a law; and then when that measure was found technically defective, they turned round upon the workmen in factories, and they told them we will not give you that protection which we have said justice and humanity and the interests of society demand you should have. We will not make our own law effectual, unless upon the terms of making you toil half an hour in the day beyond the time which we have already solemnly declared to be the utmost limit for which you ought to work. This was the transaction of 1850. It was said to be a final settlement of the question. It was called a compromise—a compromise between whom? The factory workers were no parties to it: they had resisted it, and protested against it, and petitioned against it to the very last. But even if it could be termed a settlement, it had been broken through; if it were a compromise, it had been violated by the millowners—by the very men who had insisted on the extra half-hour as the price of their obedience to the spirit of the law. They had not obeyed even the letter of the law; they had not, even on the bargain of their own making, any right to insist on the time they had extorted for an allowance they never gave. He did not speak of mill-owners as a class; he believed nothing could be more unfortunate for this question than to turn it into a question between master and workman. The best and the wisest of the millowners were with the operatives on this question. He spoke of those who had resisted the limit of ten hours, who had next insisted on another half-hour as the price of their making the
1282
law effective, and who now, when they had got that half-hour, still evaded and made ineffectual the law. Under these circumstances the question now came before the House. The conduct of the millowners had made new legislation absolutely indispensable. The factory operatives now appealed to the justice of the House. They asked them to restore to them the half-hour which never ought to have been taken from them, and which it now plainly appeared had been taken without the benefit of an effective law which had been promised them in return. It was now plain the question had not been settled by the law of 1850. He ventured to tell the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) that it never would be settled by any Bill that would not be raising up the principle of a ten hours' limit to the labour of the young. This principle the Legislature had solemnly and deliberately conceded in 1847. That concession could never be retracted. They had a perfect right upon every ground now to ask the House to make effective that principle; to give them a Ten Hours' Act which would secure them the limit of ten hours, which would contain provisions that could be effectually enforced, which would admit of no evasion, and become ineffectual by no flaw. Such a measure his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobbett) asked leave to introduce. To any such measure he (Mr. Butt) would give his most cordial and earnest support. He (Mr. Butt) knew of no subject that could better occupy the attention of that House than one which concerned the wellbeing and engaged the feelings of the great masses of the working people of this nation.
MR. W. J. FOXtrusted the House would allow him to say a few words, feeling, as he did, that he owed it to many thousand of the inhabitants of the borough which he had the honour to represent, to express his entire concurrence in the object contemplated by his hon. Colleague (Mr. Cobbett). He could bear witness to the intensity of the interest which they felt upon this question: it was almost the burden of their thoughts; while to many of them it had been a matter of earnest exertion through twenty, thirty, ay, even forty years. They regarded it as paramount to all political questions, and there was no subject whatever in which their feelings were so deeply and so firmly entwined as they were in this. He heartily concurred, then, in the object of the Motion, understanding that object to be the restoration of the Bill of

1283
1847, and giving back to the labouring classes in factories the half-hour of which they were so unjustly deprived by the Act of 1850. At the time the latter Act was passed, he concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners), in regarding the conduct of Parliament in depriving the operatives of the half-hour as iniquitous and unjust. The arrangement contemplated by the Act of 1847 was satisfactory to the working classes, but it broke down from some technical defect in its provisions, and a mean and ungenerous advantage was taken of this defect to alter the arrangement; but even under the new Act, no one could look over the reports of the Factory Inspectors without being satisfied that the advantages which had been anticipated from that measure had never been derived by the working people, and there was a continual violation of the law going on, and the time had at length arrived when the Legislature must again interfere to protect the labourer. In recognising the object of his hon. Colleague, however, he reserved to himself the right of expressing an opinion as to the means by which it was proposed to accomplish this object. Whether the Bill he had introduced would be the most effectual method, was a matter for subsequent discussion. The promise of the noble Lord the Home Secretary with regard to the better care of children, was valuable as far as it went, He (Mr. Fox) trusted that the noble Lord would not neglect to put that promise into effect, while at the same time he would remember that it was not merely sufficient protection for children that was wanting, but that also sufficient protection for women and young persons was now claimed. The noble Lord had traced the mortality of children to what they endured after they had entered the mills; but it was a mistake, for the evil arose before they went there, and had its origin in the physical and moral condition of the women. The persons who were aggrieved were in every way worthy of the consideration of the Legislature, for there was a disposition to obtain information, even by self-culture, if no other means were attainable, which had been remarkably exhibited in persons connected with factories; and many of the clerks and supervisors in the factories in the borough with which he was connected, were young men who, with scarcely any exception, had improved themselves by self-culture, by means of mutual and self-supporting educational institutions; and among the petitions
1284
he had presented were several from establishmenta of that kind, in which the violation of the Act of Parliament was distinctly stated to be an invasion on their time and means of acquiring knowledge. Mr. Horner, in his last report, quoted some remarks of Mr. Kennedy in his report in 1851, which were to the effect, "that he could not give a stronger instance of the value of the half-day to the children, than the fact that in sixty-one schools which had pupil teachers, there were twenty-eight instances of pupil teachers who had received instruction while working for half-days." Let everything be done for the protection of children by all means; but it was when they became young persons that the pressure on them was greatest; and then it was most difficult to follow up the instruction they had received in their earlier years. This was a proper object of legislation. He agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), that to interfere with the machinery of labour, was a delicate question; but another question was, whether or not the law should be enforced. He would ask Ministers, could they, and would they, enforce it?—for hitherto it was notorious that it had not been done. He had always objected to interfere with labour; but if there was no other means which could be enforced to compel employers to obey a wholesome law, some stringent powers must be employed to oblige them to observe it. He had thought it due to the interests he represented to express his opinions on the question, and he was glad to find that the House was disposed, without a division, to hear the prayer of those whose interests were advocated by his hon. and learned Colleague.
MR. WILSON PATTENsaid, he would not have troubled the House on this occasion were it not for the observation that had been made by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester, who, if he remembered rightly, had alleged that there was a systematic evasion of the law.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I assure my hon. Friend I never said anything like it; but I said there was a systematic attempt on the part of some of the master manufacturers to evade the law.
MR. WILSON PATTENwas sure the noble Lord could not have meant what his words implied; but he had proceeded to class the masters on one side, and the men on the other, an dhow the masters did this,

1285
and the men did that; and his observations would lead the public to believe that there was a systematic evasion of the law. Representing a county in which there was a large manufacturing interest, he should neglect his duty if he did not say that in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire the present law was acted upon not only to the spirit, but to the letter. He owned there were instances in which there had been an evasion of the law; it was impossible to read the reports of the Inspectors without seeing that there had been an evasion of it. It would be a very great misfortune if in debating this question they went back to the old system of setting the master against the man, and the man against the master, who felt a desire to act fairly towards each other. The hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. I. Butt) had quoted a report to show that there was a systematic evasion of the law throughout the manufacturing districts; but if he would refer again to the report, and would read the paragraph that followed the one he had quoted, he would perceive that the Inspector mentioned that there had not been a general evasion of the law in the manufacturing districts. If the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department was contemplating the introduction of any measure by which he would propose to put a restriction on the moving power, he hoped he would give the country an opportunity of knowing what he was about. He (Mr. W, Patten) could imagine nothing more mischievous than to adopt a system of restriction in reference to the motive power in manufactories, unless it was found impossible to enforce the law by any other means.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The only motive power I spoke of restricting is the motive power of the children.
MR. LABOUCHEREdid not think that was the proper time to go at length into the details of the question; but there was one point in the Bill of such novelty and importance that he could not help calling the attention of the House to it for a few moments. The advocates of the preceding Factory Bills had always indignantly disclaimed the intention of limiting the hours of adult labour, and always said their object was to protect those who could not protect themselves, namely, the women, children, and young persons. They must all be aware of the danger and of the injustice of that House preventing the labouring man, under the plea of affording protection to others, from using that which was his only
1286
capital, the labour of his hands, to such an extent and in such a manner as he might think right for his own interest. Now, if he did not greatly mistake, it was proposed by the Bill now sought to be introduced, by stopping the motive power of mills for a certain time, to place a restriction upon the hours of adult labour. He would not now discuss all the consequences of such a proceeding, but he would say it was one of the very gravest questions which the House could entertain. He did not complain of the Government for allowing this Bill to be brought in; there might be provisions in it which it would be right to consider; and if the legislation of the House had been set at nought and eluded, it was the duty of the House to make that legislation effectual; but he joined in the regret that had been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department did not, when he gave his consent to the introduction of the Bill, state on the part of the Government his determination to resist that principle. The holding out of false hopes to the labouring population of the country was fraught with danger. He (Mr. Labouchere) respected and loved the population as much as the loudest defender of their interests in that House could do; and he felt that nothing could be more unjust to them, or more fraught with danger, than to interfere with their right of selling their labour for such a price and in such a manner as they should1 think fit for their own interest. He dared say the observation of the noble Lord was inadvertently made, and he hoped some member of the Government would say that it was their determination steadily to oppose any attempt to limit the hours of adult labour.
MR. BOOKERsaid, that, in his opinion, this was not a question of the rights of capital, and labour, and industry, but of the rights of nature. He did not on this occasion, any more than the right hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat, intend to approach the principle of the Bill which it was proposed to introduce. He merely wished to say that as one engaged—largely engaged—in the employment of manufacturing industry, he gave his most unqualified assent to a measure involving so great a principle as that included in the Bill now submitted for consideration. Now he humbly conceived that the principle involved in this measure was, not the mere principle of whether the me-

1287
chanical power of the country should be stopped or kept in active operation. No; what was contended for was this, that a law which the Legislature had deliberately passed for the protection of the bone and sinew of England—for the protection of the industrious classes, whether they were engaged in agriculture, commerce, or in manufactures—on whom the welfare of England depended, should be enforced; and it was because he felt the full force of that principle that he freely confessed he entertained an honest pride and satisfaction, representing, as he did, a great agricultural constituency, with having been entrusted with the petitions which he had that evening presented from the great seats of manufacturing industry. He hoped and trusted that the Bill being introduced with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government—a Bill so nearly concerning the rights and interests of the industrial and manufacturing population of the country—that he (Mr. Booker) would have the opportunity of proving that he was as prepared as any hon. Gentleman in that House to give his vote in favour of those classes receiving all that protection which the Legislature should consider them entitled to receive. But to allude for one moment to a subject immediately brought under consideration—namely, the interference with what was called the mechanieal power—he certainly could not conceive any body enacting any such interference. At the same time, he would beg most strongly to observe that if any parties were found knowingly, wilfully, and perseveringly to transgress a law Which the Legislature had deliberately passed—while he owned he would have recourse to such a step as a last resource—if he saw those who wielded the capital of the country, the great employers of labour, electing for their own personal aggrandisement, and in order to obtain revenue at the expense of those who were honestly engaged in competition with them, wilfully to transgress the law, under such eircumstances he must say it did become a legitimate matter for inquiry and consideration whether the House of Commons should not, by the strongest means in its power, prevent the exercise of those powers which their capital alone enabled such persons to exercise. It was the duty of the Legislature, by stringent laws, to prevent capital from dealing harshly with labour. To the introduction of the Bill, therefore, he gave his most cordial, his most cheerful assent. LORD JOHN RUSSELL wished to say
1288
a few words, in order to prevent the continuance of the misapprehension under which his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir G. Grey), and his right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere), seemed to labour. For they were inclined to imagine that his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had hold out some false hope that he would consent to a restriction with respect to the motive power. Now the fact was, that his noble Friend, in assenting to the introduction of the Bill, had said nothing whatever with regard to motive power, carefully reserving himself from giving any opinion upon the whole subject until the second reading of the Bill. The only observation which he made at all in allusion to motive power, though it certainly had a very material bearing upon the question, was, that he would not consent to any restriction upon adult labour. Now he (Lord J. Russell) was prepared to maintain that it would neither be right nor necessary to impose any restrictions upon adult labour, for it would be a violation of all the principles which ought to govern our legislation upon this subject, and he therefore would not consent to any provisions of such a nature. However, in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed this Bill, there were many observations with respect to the infringement of the present factory laws, and pointing out the means of obtaining the more strict observance of those laws—a course which was perfectly legitimate, and it was therefore only fair that the House should allow of the introduction of the Bill. When the Bill came to be read a second time, its principle could then be fairly discussed. He must say before he sat down, speaking as to what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey), in reference to the Bill of 1850, that he entirely supported his statement—namely, that the object of that Bill was not simply, as had been stated, to remedy a verbal inaccuracy of the Act of 1847, which prevented its being fully carried out, but because the system of relays had been found to work most injuriously for those in whose interest the measure had been framed. And while, therefore, his right hon. Friend consented to allowing of an extension in the hours of labour to ten hours and a half, he placed a further restriction upon labour on Saturdays. The whole of the matter was then very fully considered, and he believed the

1289
propositions of his right hon. Friend were just to all parties.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the question which the House had to determine was, would it take the necessary steps to make its legislation effectual? He, for one, would be very sorry to sanction any restriction upon the motive power of factories without a cause; but if the legislation of that House—if the laws of the country—were to be systematically violated, not, indeed, by a majority of those who employed our factory operatives in textile manufactures, but by a minority, then, in justice to those whose interests they sought to protect by their factory legislation—in justice to the women and children of England — in justice to those fair traders who were content to abide by the provisions of our laws—if no other means could be found effectually to guard against such abuses, he (Mr. Newdegate) was prepared to consent to a restriction upon motive power—at all events, in cases where there was proved a wilful and systematic violation of the law. As the representative, indeed, of a large manufacturing district, he should be very sorry to have it go forth that he wantonly sanctioned the introduction of any restriction upon motive power; but at the same time he must say that it ill became Parliament—it ill became the Government —unguardedly to declare such intentions upon the Motion for introducing this Bill, as would preclude them from having recourse to those means which, they might afterwards find, were the only resources effectual for the prevention of frauds which were alike oppressive to the operatives, and unfair to the competitors in trade of those guilty of them. He would support the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, because he would not consent to behold the laws of the country violated, because he would not see the just claims of the operatives in the northern districts set at naught; and because he would not tie his hands against the enforcement of a principle which had been repeatedly sanctioned by the House of Commons. They might depend upon it that nothing was to be expected from such mealy-mouthed declarations as that of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. All that he had said to-night he had said before: he had given the same liberal promises, but he adhered to those means which had proved insufficient; this was equivalent to promising that his future should be as ineffectual as his previous
1290
legislation on this subject. He (Mr. Newdegate) most sincerely hoped that the House would not be induced to refuse its sanction to the introduction of the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. E. BALL,having hitherto appeared before the House chiefly as the advocate of the agricultural interest, was anxious on an occasion like the present to express his sympathy for the working classes of the towns. It was a very remarkable circumstance that he should have been selected for the honour of presenting petitions from Manchester, complaining of oppression. Why had not those petitions been sent to the Members for that City? Really, if he should ever quarrel with the constituents of Cambridgeshire, he should give the Members for Manchester a turn, for the many good turns they bad done him—by turning them out. With respect to the question before the House, he had only to say that if any persons had been guilty of any oppression of the poor, it was the most terrible transgression that men could be guilty of; and the reports of the Inspectors showed that there was great reason for concluding, that the law had in too many instances been infringed.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Feilden, and Lord John Manners.

DOCKYARD PROMOTION.
MR. SPEAKERthen called upon Mr. Henry Keating to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, with respect to the Naval Administration of the late Government, when
MR. DISRAELIsaid: The hon. and learned Member will perhaps allow me to interpose for one moment between him and the Chair; but I see that the Motion of which he has given notice, is a Motion of an important and very peculiar nature. It is a Motion which is, in fact, a censure upon the late Administration, and especially upon the late Board of Admiralty, who are alleged to have acted in a manner "calculated to reflect discredit upon that Department of the Government, and to have impaired the efficiency of the service." I can hardly suppose that he would, at this hour of the night, a quarter past eleven o'clock, wish to make an ex parte statement. I can assure him that the late Government are perfectly ready and anxious to meet any charge which can be made against any branch of the Administration

1291
for which they were responsible. If I am not regular in making these observations, I will conclude with a Motion that this House do now adjourn, to place myself in order. But with regard to the administration of the Admiralty, I cannot refrain from observing that I should be prepared to appeal to the fleet now at Spithead as a proof of the efficiency with which that department of the Administration was conducted.
MR. HENRY KEATING: If the right hon. Gentleman has any intimation to give to me as to any course which he thinks I should pursue under present circumstances, I, for one, should be most happy to hear any proposition which the right hon. Gentleman has to make; but I should submit to you, Sir, that it is scarcely in order for him to anticipate the subject-matter of my Motion, and to do that which he apprehends I am about to do—to make an ex parte statement. I trust, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will confine himself strictly to asking me any question he may think it right to put to me, or to making any proposition he thinks it right to make to me. And if he has no question to put to me, I hope he will allow me to proceed with the Motion, which I should be allowed by the rules of the House to do, as I am in possession of the Chair.
MR. DISRAELI: I believe I was strictly in order for rising to move that the House should now adjourn; but I did not wish strictly to obey the rule. What I wished was to ask the hon. and learned Member— [Cries of "Order!"]
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he must appeal to Mr. Speaker to state whether the right hon. Gentleman was in order in interposing a Motion for adjournment, when the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Keating) was already in possession of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was not in order in making a Motion for adjournment, after he (Mr. Speaker) had called upon the hon. and learned Member for Reading to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice.
MR. DISRAELI: I was not going to make that Motion, and, therefore, it is not necessary for me to apologise to the House. I rose to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thought it fair to bring forward a Motion such as that of which he has given notice at an hour when it was
1292
impossible to listen to anything hut the charge he made.
MR. HENRY KEATING: I have great pleasure in answering the question the right hon. Gentleman has put to me. I should be extremely sorry to have the slightest appearance of doing anything unfair, especially upon an occasion which involves a Motion of no ordinary importance. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I, as a private Member of this House, am in a very considerable difficulty, for if I put off the Motion, I know not when I can bring it on; and, having given the notice, I think I am bound to go on with it. If the right hon. Gentleman can assist me in fixing it for an early day, it will give me great pleasure to accede to his request; but if the only power that can give me such a day—the Government—declines to do so, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to believe that I have scarcely an option, but to proceed even at this late hour.
MR. DISRAELI: I would suggest that the hon. and learned Member should appeal to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), to give him an early day for the discussion of this Motion.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONexpressed his hope that the noble Lord would be able, consistently with his views of public duty, to allot a day for the discussion of this question. As a Member of the late Government, he wished to say that he did not shrink from the discussion.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have to say that the Government business now before the House is of such vast and pressing importance that it is impossible for me to assign a day within a short time for the discussion of this Motion.
MR. HENRY KEATINGsaid, that he begged to assure the House that he brought forward this Motion under a very deep conviction that the Report of the Select Committee on Dockyard Promotion, recently laid on the table, rendered absolutely necessary an expression of the opinion of that House upon the important facts which it contained. When the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone (Sir B. Hall), originally brought this subject before the House, he stated in a clear and able speech that an alteration of a very important kind had been made by the late Board of Admiralty, in an unusual if not an irregular way, in reference to the cancellation of an important circular issued by their predeces-

1293
sors in the year 1849, and regulating the mode of promotion in the dockyards, in conjunction with a previous order issued in 1847. And the hon. Baronet stated upon that occasion that he had reason to believe that that proceeding was adopted by the]ate Board of Admiralty with a view to the coming elections, and for political purposes. Upon that occasion he stated several eases, which, if he had a Committee, he said he thought he could undertake to prove, and he also alluded to certain personal matters which were not important on the present Motion. A discussion of sonic considerable length followed his speech. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House were heard also at considerable length. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), who was particularly interested in the Motion, made a very able and impressive statement; but, notwithstanding that, the House—the Government assenting—thought the matter one of such deep importance that the Motion of the hon. Baronet was assented to, and a Committee was appointed without a division. That Committee, chosen as it was from Members on both sides of the House, and comprising men of station, great knowledge, and considerable Parliamentary experience, was exceedingly well qualified for the discharge of the duty assigned to it. It was presided over by a noble Lord (Lord Seymour) whose talents for the conduct of business would be readily acknowledged, and whose exalted rank and long acquaintance with official life rendered him eminently qualified to preside over such an investigation. He added one further qualification to these—that he was the able and untiring Chairman of the Committee which sat, in 1848, upon the subject of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates. That Committee conducted the inquiry which had been committed to them in a very able manner, and faithfully discharged their duty to that House and the country. The public at large regarded their proceedings with the greatest possible anxiety. Their inquiry involved the interests of the Navy—the arm upon which this country must always rely in her hour of peril whenever it should arrive; and as this was evidently a subject of the highest moment, he did not think he exaggerated or misde-scribed the state of public feeling with respect to it, when he said that there never was a Committee of that House the proceedings of which were watched with more intense interest by the people
1294
generally. After sitting for many days, and examining a great number of witnesses, that Committee made its Report; and, confining itself strictly to the terms of the reference which had been made to it, contented itself with finding the facts, and not giving any opinion whatever upon those facts. In his judgment, the Committee acted most wisely in so doing. The inquiry committed to their charge was not only of an important, but of a very delicate, nature; and he thought, when the terms of the reference to that Committee were considered, it would be seen that they exercised a wise discretion under the circumstances in which they were placed, and that it would have been too much for that House to have expected that the Committee would go beyond the letter of that reference to pronounce any opinion on a matter of so much delicacy, and of such grave importance. The terms of that reference were—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which a 'circular sent to the superintendent of Her Majesty's dockyards, dated September 26, 1849,' was cancelled on the 19th day of April, 1852, without any order or minute of the Board; also, to inquire into the circumstances under which a letter addressed by Sir Baldwin Walker to Mr. Stafford, as Secretary to the Admiralty, in which letter Sir Baldwin Walker tendered his resignation, as Surveyor of the Navy, was withheld from the Board; also, into the circumstances connected with the appointment of Mr. James Wells, as master smith in the dockyard at Portsmouth, the subsequent cancelling thereof, and the appointment of Mr. George Cotsell in his stead; and generally into the exercise of the influence and patronage of the Admiralty in the dockyards and Government departments connected with the several Parliamentary boroughs."
The terms of that reference were quite general. There was no question put to which the Committee could give any answer; there was no precise point raised on which they could give an opinion, and therefore, as he had already said, it appeared to him the Committee exercised a wise discretion in solely reporting the facts, leaving the House, which had directed that those facts should be elicited, to dispose of them as they thought proper. That Report was laid upon the table, and, to be fully appreciated, required a very minute acquaintance with the evidence upon which it was founded. As a masterly analysis of that evidence, he had no hesitation in saying that that Report was one of the ablest documents ever laid on the table of that House. He believed if hon. Members had read the evidence upon which it was founded—evidence necessarily of a discursive,

1295
complicated, and difficult nature, they would agree with him that, as an analysis of evidence, the Report was such as he described. The Report merely finding the facts placed the House in this position. They had, without even a division, referred matters to that Committee, and the facts directed to be inquired into had been stated. Whatever hon. Members on either side of the House might think about those facts— whatever conventional Parliamentary idea they might entertain with regard to those facts—he believed they were considered important and startling by the country at large. And it was with a deep conviction that the expression of opinion on those facts, so reported by the unanimous voice of the Committee, involved the credit of that House, that he ventured to solicit their assent to the Motion he was about to make. He had endeavoured to frame that Motion in a sincere desire to avoid giving to it the appearance of personal hostility to any individual whatever. He need scarcely disclaim for his own part entertaining any such feeling; for, perhaps, the only element of fitness he possessed for the task which he had undertaken was, that he had not the slightest personal acquaintance with any individual mentioned in the Report of the Committee; and he could assure hon. Members it was foreign to his feelings and his nature to wish to convert that which he thought was a great public question into a matter of personal reflection. He thought he had framed his Resolution in terms which did not approach anything like personal hostility, and he undoubtedly entertained the opinion that to enter into the departmental arrangements of the late Board of Admiralty, and to seek out where the responsibility was to be laid—how it was to he apportioned—ill what way and to what extent the members of that Board were to be held responsible, did not comport with the dignity of that House, nor with the position which they ought to assume on an occasion of this importance. In addition, it seemed to him the feelings of the people of the country would be that they were not at all concerned with the precise part taken by any particular individual, but only with the system which the Report disclosed. It was against that system, and that system alone, that the present Resolution was directed; and he must be allowed to say the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was greatly mistaken in supposing that the Resolution was levelled at anything more than the exposure of the sys-
1296
tem which unfortunately was adopted with reference to dockyard promotions by the late Board of Admiralty. At that late hour of the evening he should proceed as shortly and succinctly as possible to lay before the House a statement of facts which seemed to him to call upon the House to assent to the Resolution which he proposed; and if those facts were not sufficient, the House ought not to be influenced by any comments upon them. The House were aware that in the year 1847 the state of the dockyards attracted the serious attention of Lord Auckland, who was then at the head of the Admiralty. There was, no doubt, looking at the terms of the circular which was then issued, that the state of the dockyards at that time was extremely unsatisfactory, partly, if not mainly, attributable to the circumstance of political influence controlling promotions in the dockyards. The circular recited the cause of its issue:—
"Their Lordships will not entertain any general charges of indifference to expense on the part of the officers, or of inertness on that of the men; and they are equally unwilling to dwell upon representations made to them of the effect of political feeling, in some of the yards, upon the course of promotion, though they can conceive nothing more dangerous to their discipline, if true, or more detrimental to the public interest. They wish to look forward, not to look back; their object being to introduce a system that may inspire every man with the belief that his conduct will be known and appreciated by his superiors, and that, however humble his position originally, his future fate depends upon his own exertions. Their Lordships see too much reason to apprehend that such is not the present state of feeling in the dockyards; but that the rise from shipwright to leading man, and from leading man to inspector, is regarded rather as a matter of accident, or favour, than as a reward due to merit, and to be dispensed upon plain and equitable principles. They feel that wherever such an impression prevails, subordination must be weakened; and they have, consequently, resolved to lay down one fixed and intelligible rule of promotion for all classes, as the best foundation of that more vigilant and intelligent superintendence which they regard as indispensable."
The circular laid down certain rules for the entrance of apprentices to the dockyards, and for the promotion of all parties found in those yards; but it would occupy much less time if he read that part of the Report of the Committee which gave the effect of the circular:—
"The Lords of the Admiralty state their determination to introduce and maintain a system of promotion, under which every man who shall have once entered the service of the dockyards, may learn to look to his own exertions as the only means of future advancement. With the view of giving effect to this determination, the circular

1297
contains a scheme, according to which, whenever a vacancy offering an opportunity for promotion shall occur, the principal officers of the dockyard are directed to select three names of the persons who, after examination, shall appear best qualified to fill the vacancy, and they are required to submit these names, with a full report of the respective merits of the candidates, to the superintendent of the dockyard. The duty is then imposed on the superintendent of investigating closely these returns, and of satisfying himself as to their perfect impartiality; after which he is authorised to reduce the number of candidates to two, by striking out the name of that candidate whom he considers least qualified. The report of the superintendent, containing his opinion of the merits of the candidates, with the original documents annexed, is then to be forwarded to the Admiralty; and the Lords of the Admiralty announce their intention to be guided by these reports in the selection of one from the two names submitted to fill the vacancy. In laying down this scheme of promotion, the Lords of the Admiralty reserve to themselves the right of making any further inquiries which they may see fit; but they state that they will in all cases seek the advice and concurrence of the superintendent before their choice is finally notified. They call upon the superintendents and the principal officers of the dockyard to assist them in working out this plan honestly. They further assert, that by the surrender of their own patronage they have given proof of their sincerity, and have removed everything which can warrant a suspicion that preferment will he the result, not of services, but of political favouritism. They conclude by observing, that the good or bad working of every system must depend, in a great measure, upon those who are entrusted with its administration, and they can only express their determination to mark with their severest displeasure every attempt to thwart their intentions, and to reward those who shall cheerfully second them by every proof of their favour and approbation."
The Board of Admiralty by the force of that circular gave up absolutely all patronage with respect to promotions in the dockyards. It preserved to itself undoubtedly the patronage in original appointments or first entries, but it parted completely with the patronage of promotions, beyond the single reservation of selecting one of two names sent up by the superintendent of the dockyards. In making that selection, they would unquestionably consult the persons they made the judges of merit, namely, the superintendent and principal officers of the dockyard, and according to the spirit of that circular they were bound to regard only the merits of the parties, and not to allow of any political interference. The House would bear that in mind, as it was made extremely clear by the subsequent construction put upon the circular, and the mode in which that construction was carried out. In the early part of 1849, on the death of Lord Auckland, the right hon.
1298
Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring) succeeded as First Lord of the Admiralty; and it would be an act of injustice, in looking over this Report and evidence, not to pay to that right hon. Gentleman the tribute which he so richly deserved, and it could be paid to him with the greater propriety that he was now out of office. During the whole course of his administration, that right hon. Gentleman seemed to have had one object, and one object alone, in view—the good of the public service. Looking neither to the right nor to the left—treating, to use a phrase in one of his letters, friend and foe alike—dispensing the patronage without reference to anything but the merits of individuals, he discharged his trust in a manner which reflected upon him the greatest possible honour. When the right hon Baronet was called to administer the affairs of the Admiralty, in consequence of a reconstruction which had recently taken place in the department of Surveyor of the Navy, a corresponding change with reference to the routine of the dockyards became almost absolutely necessary. And, as one of the great matters in consideration would be what seemed to him to have been a most unjustifiable interference with the department of that high officer, it was right that the House should be reminded what his functions were, and what was his responsibility, as fixed by the letter of Lord Auckland's administration, recognised and adverted to by the Report of the Committee of 1848, to which he had alluded—
ADMIRAL BERKELEYhere rose and said: I beg leave to call the hon. Member for Donegal (Mr. Conolly) to order. His conversation is so loud, his interruption is so great, that, interested as I am in the present discussion, I beg leave to call him to order.
MR. CONOLLYrose from the Opposition side, but did not proceed further than to address the Speaker, being met by loud calls to order.
MR. KEATINGresumed: It was right that the House should be reminded of the functions of the Surveyor of the Navy, and he found that the Report of a very influential Committee, which sat in 1848, referred to them, and stated that the proper application of the sums voted by Parliament for the Navy department depended greatly on the superintendence of the Surveyor of the Navy, and that to him was committed the whole control of the dockyards, be being required to decide upon the amount

1299
of work and number of artificers necessary. Such being the duty of the Surveyor of the Navy, his responsibility was, of course, great in proportion. When the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth assumed the head of the Admiralty Board, a change was suggested by Sir Baldwin Walker, which convenience had rendered absolutely necessary, and which was subsequently adopted by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The change was this—that the reports of the superintenden ts should be sent direct to the Surveyor, instead of being first sent to the Admiralty, and that the Surveyor should then make what was called his "submission" on them. To carry out this object, the circular of September, 1849, was issued. Undoubtedly, that was not technically a Board Minute, but it was a Minute, approved by the First Lord of the Admiralty, after discussion with the members of the Board—was countersigned by the Secretary, issued to the dockyards, and acted upon from September, 1849, until the 19th April, 1852; and when he said that the circular of 1847, carried out in its provisions by the circular of 1849, had secured as much as possible the object intended, he stated that which was fully borne out by the evidence. He might allude to the Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee of 1848, in which Sir Henry Ward, then Secretary to the Admiralty, being asked by the present First Lord whether the circular of 1847, as carried into effect by Lord Auckland and the Board of Admiralty, had given satisfaction to the working men, read a letter from Admiral Sir John Louis, superintendent at Devonport, dwelling upon the good effects of the new system of promotion on the habits and morals of the men affected by it. When the circular of 1847 was issued, the men in the Royal yards were in a state of great disadvantage as compared with workmen in private yards. Before 1847, political influence did enter into consideration in arranging promotions, independently of the merits of the men, and this circular proposed a change of system, in order to counterbalance the larger pecuniary rewards of private dockyards, which had obtained for them a decided advantage over the Royal dockyards. Among the officers who had given the most decided testimony to the entire success of the experiment were Captain Milne, Captain Richards, Admiral Sir Thomas Herbert; and even the Duke of Northumberland, himself, was strongly in
1300
favour of consulting the Surveyor of the Navy as to the plan carried into effect by the circular of 1849. Admiral Parker, Commodore Seymour, Commodore Eden, and every officer called before the Committee who had anything to do with the working of this circular, bore the most complete and unqualified testimony to its success. In these witnesses there was one exception, and a very characteristic one— that of an electioneering agent for the borough of Devonport, who seemed to have been led away by his partisan feelings, for he stated that not only had the circular which produced such excellent results been insufficient for the object proposed, but that political influence was more rife, or certainly as rife, in the borough of Devon-port after 1847, than it had been before; that nobody but Whigs were promoted, the utmost proportion of Conservatives being two out of thirty-six. The House would recollect that these promotions took place under the direct superintendence of the Commodore Superintendent, Commodore Seymour, a gentleman whom the electioneering agent to whom he had alluded, Mr. Beer, pronounced to be a Conservative; but, to the honour of the gallant officer in question, he said that nobody had discovered what his politics were from the manner of dispensing patronage. Mr. Beer also stated a course of proceeding which must have been unknown to a succession of superintendents, and he charged the administration of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth with every species of political corruption that could well exist in a dockyard; he said they had created superannuations wantonly and needlessly, for the purpose of getting an opportunity of making appointments; but he certainly was most unhappy in his selection of topics. This gentleman charged against that administration that they not only created superannuations needlessly, but that they actually superannuated men who were Conservatives, whilst they retained men who ought to have been superannuated, because they were Whigs. He might refer, as an instance, to the case of a man of the name of Honey. The House would see what credit was to be attached to the witness's (Mr. Beer's) statements when they were told how he came by his information, which, he said, was furnished to him in order that he might make some use of it at the hustings. Mr. Beer stated—
"Amongst them, looking through the list, I see that there were two men brought up for super-

1301
animation, one of whom was called Honey, and the other was called Axford. They were both over sixty years of age. Honey had always voted for the Conservatives, and Axford was a very active partisan of the Whig side; Honey was told that he was too old, and that he must be superannuated, and Axford was kept, though he was seven years older, and, as I am told, the inferior workman of the two; and it is a fact, that those two men were brought up for superannuation at the same period.
"At what date was that?—Honey, I think, was superannuated on the 10th of March, 1849, and he complained a great deal about it at the time, and insisted upon it, that he was a better workman than the other.
"Who was the Superintendent at the time?— Sir John Louis.
"Does not the Superintendent of the yard attend at the examination of the men named for superannuation?—I do not know.
"Your impression is, that men have been unfairly superannuated?—I should consider that if Honey is as good a workman as Axford, if age had anything to do with it, Axford ought to have gone, because he was seven years older; and I consider that if they were equally good workmen, a very gross injustice was done in that case.
"Do you know of your own knowledge the state of the health of those men, or their fitness comparatively for superannuation? — I do not know; I speak of the reports that were brought to me.
"Lord Hotham: You know this from Honey's own complaint?—Yes, he complained a great deal about it.
"The Chairman; What superannuations were there during the nine months that Lord Derby's Government were in office?—I do not know.
"That would be a question in which your friends at Devonport would be greatly interested, would they not?—Yes, but I do not remember; in fact, it is probable that I should not have known so much of the superannuations at the time of which I have spoken, except that they were furnished to me for the purpose of making some use of it at the hustings at the election. A great deal is said at the time, whichever party is in power, about political patronage; and I was anxious to be in a situation to show the effects of Government patronage before that period."
He (Mr. Keating) was informed that these examinations took place in the presence of the superintendent, of two surgeons, and of other officers; and Mr. Beer was therefore, in effect, charging these gentlemen with a conspiracy for the purpose of superannuating one man, and retaining another of more advanced age and le3S ability in the public service. Another case was that of Burt and Oram, as to which Mr. Beer stated:—
"I was consulted upon it, Burt was a man who had always voted with the Whigs, I believe, until the last election; and, at the last election, he voted for one or both of the Conservative candidates; but, from a communication made to me, it appeared to have not been generally known. He called upon me one day, and told me that an order had been received in the
1302
dockyard to send a man to Portsmouth to learn the planing machine; that he had been sent for by Mr. Edye, and he had been recommended for the situation; and he expressed himself in this way, 'I hope you will not interfere to prevent my getting it. 'I said I should not; if I had known it at all I should not have interfered at all in the matter. I said, 'You speak to me as though you were recommended. I understand from another source that you are not recommended.' Then he said, 'I assure you I am; it must be a mistake of yours; Mr. Edye sent for me, and examined me as to whether I would like to go, and told me that he would recommend me:' and I said, 'If you make inquiries, I think you will find that after you were sent for, another man was sent for, and he, I believe, is on his journey to Portsmouth at this moment.' I have never seen him since; and he found, on returning to the yard, that although he was sent for, and promised to be sent, the other man was sent."
It happened, however, that Commodore Seymour instituted an inquiry on the subject; he had the two men before him; and he came to the conclusion that the appointment had never been promised to Burt, and that Oram had been appointed in consequence of his merit, which was unquestionably superior to that of his competitor. The circular of 1847 itself presupposed that the system previously in use in the dockyards with respect to political influence was bad, and established another for the purpose of getting rid of it. Not only did the testimony of every witness who could be supposed to know anything of the matter contradict Mr. Beer, but he was contradicted by facts that admitted of no dispute. The efficiency of the dockyards was impaired by the system that prevailed prior to 1847, and the circular of 1847 was written for the purpose of bringing the Royal dockyards as nearly as possible to a par with the private yards. What was the consequence? That between the years 1846–47 and 1851–52 there was a saving of 139.000 l. in the annual expenditure for wages; the number of men was reduced from between 12,000 and 13,000 to between 9,000 and 10,000, and as large a quantity of work was obtained from the latter number as had been obtained from the former. He thought, therefore, looking at the evidence, it would be extremely difficult for any hon. Gentleman on the other side to contend that the circulars of 1847 and 1849 did not answer the purpose for which they were issued. Indeed, with respect to the circular of 1847, there was evidence entitled to the greatest possible weight from them—the evidence of the Duke of Northumberland and the late Secretary of the Admiralty, who made it

1303
their excuse for rescinding the circular of 1849 that they wished to return to the system of 1847, though how far they did so return would he seen presently. This was the state of things at the beginning of March, 1852, when the late Administration came into office. Immediately upon the accession of the Earl of Derby to power, he stated in another place his intention to dissolve Parliament. It was upon the 31st of March, 1852, that a gentleman distinguished in these proceedings, Mr. Grant, a clerk of the Admiralty, and private secretary to the late Secretary of the Admiralty, found himself at Somerset House; and being there, he went to the Surveyor of the Navy, Sir Baldwin Walker, and made to him, according to the statement of that functionary, the following extraordinary proposition:—
"About the 31st of March, 1852, Mr. Grant came to me from Mr. Stafford with a request that I would not submit the names of the persons to be promoted into the vacancies for foreman and inspector of shipwrights in Devonport dockyard, as Mr. Stafford's political friends were dissatisfied; he wished to promote some of their party. I felt annoyed at receiving such a message, and requested Mr. Grant to inform Mr. Stafford that I had been upwards of four years in the department; that I had not allowed political motives to influence my submissions to the Board with respect to promotions in the dockyards; and that I was not going to commence jobbing for him or anybody else; and I requested that such a proposition should never again be named to me. Mr. Eden, of my department, entered the room during the conversation, and heard what I said to Mr. Grant."
From the tenor of Mr. Grant's evidence, it was clear that the state of that gentleman's recollection as to what took place on the occasion referred to, was such as scarcely entitled him to be placed in comparison for accuracy with Sir Baldwin Walker, who was perfectly clear where Mr. Grant had only a belief, and whose statements, also, were corroborated by Mr. Eden. The late Secretary to the Admiralty had stated before the Committee that he had not sent Mr. Grant to make this communication to the Surveyor of the Navy; and that statement was confirmed by Mr. Grant. He (Mr. Keating) had no doubt that Mr. Grant had not been sent on this mission, but it was wholly inconceivable that a clerk in the Admiralty should go to the Surveyor of the Navy and make a proposition of this sort if he had not ascertained, in some shape or way, that the proposition would not be unpalatable to some of the highest authorities at the Admiralty. On the day but one afterwards, the following letter was sent to Sir Baldwin Walker:—
1304
"Dear Sir Baldwin—I find that great dissatisfaction exists among my political friends as to the present arrangement of appointments and promotions in the dockyards, as there is a very general impression that all those things are dispensed among our political opponents, insomuch that there seems no alternative but to resume the system which existed previous to September, 1849. I need not tell you that no one considers the blame, if blame there be, to rest with you; but you are thought too far removed from politics altogether to understand the small intrigues which go on in these places. For myself I hate the notion of patronage altogether, and the change of the existing arrangement would only expose me to perpetual annoyance and trouble; but in any case your wishes would always have great weight with me. In the perfect frankness with which I now state the case and ask your opinion, I hope you will perceive the sincere respect, with which I remain, dear Sir Baldwin, yours, &c,
"AUGUSTUS STAFFORD."
The letter of Sir Baldwin Walker, in reply, was of a very sturdy character:—
"My dear Sir—In reply to your letter respecting the great dissatisfaction which exists among your political friends, as to the present arrangement of appointments and promotions in the dockyards, I can only refer you to their Lordships' circular of the 27th November, 1847, by which you will perceive that, unless these regulations are withdrawn, and fresh ones substituted, advancement on political grounds is totally impossible, if the Superintendents of the dockyards perform their duty. It is needless for me to disclaim having favoured any political party, for you will clearly perceive, on reading the existing regulations, that merit alone can obtain advancement. With reference to that part of your letter in which you state that there seems no alternative but to resume the system which existed previous to September, 1849, I have to observe that it was only reverting to a system which had always been in force prior to 1845, and was then discontinued, I have reason to believe, on personal grounds. It is for their Lordships to decide whether they will rescind the order of September, 1849, which has been the means of causing an annual reduction in the wages of the dockyards of upwards of 10,000 l.; but if it is, of course the Surveyor will be deprived of that control which is so highly necessary, and can no longer be responsible for keeping the establishments under the estimates. I have now stated the case frankly, and I beg you to believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,
"B. WALKER."
Now, subsequently, the late Secretary to the Admiralty took credit to himself for having asked Sir Baldwin Walker for his opinion on this matter; and certainly the opinion of Sir Baldwin Walker was expressed in the most distinct terms, about which there could be no mistake. It appeared, however, that that opinion was asked rather as a compliment than with any intention of acting upon it. Sir Baldwin Walker afterwards waited upon the Secretary to the Admiralty, and a discussion took place between them as to the

1305
tendered resignation of Sir Baldwin Walker. It was desirable that the House should understand that the Surveyor of the Navy had no patronage, properly so called, and that his function was to forward the names sent him by the Superintendent, giving his own opinions on them, to which opinions, no doubt, the Admiralty paid due attention. It was impossible to conceive how the object of getting rid of political influence in the dockyards could be attained by the cancellation of the circular of 1849. Sir Baldwin Walker had an interview with the Secretary to the Admiralty on the 5th April, and a warm discussion took place. It was on that occasion, that, according to Sir Baldwin Walker, the Secretary to the Admiralty said that there was no use blinking the question, for that he was so pressed by Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he could not help himself, but must have recourse to some change in the system of promotions. According to the Secretary of the Admiralty, the words given by Sir Baldwin Walker were not exactly the words used on that occasion. The Secretary to the Admiralty says that the words that he used were, as near as he recollected, that the Government of Lord Derby and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow political promotion to go among their enemies, any more than any other Government would. Now, he did not think it material to inquire whose version— Sir Baldwin Walker's or the Secretary to the Admiralty's—was accurate. It signified little which was accurate, because, as the Report said, all that was the least material in the matter was, that the names of these two distinguished personages were mentioned in a discussion in which the Secretary to the Admiralty wished to constrain Sir Baldwin Walker to adopt a system which he disapproved. The opinion of Sir Baldwin Walker on the point of promotion ought to have had great weight with the hon. Gentleman; and the hon. Gentleman asked him his opinion, and not only received his opinion, but also his most positive assurance, that the change would affect his control over the dockyards, and consequently their efficiency. With regard to the undue influence which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) alleged had been used in the dockyards against the Government, the circumstances were these: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) said, that he had been informed that certain persons in the
1306
Surveyor's office, whose names were afterwards mentioned, had acted from political bias, and that by their means, and not through the means of Sir Baldwin Walker, situations had been obtained in the dockyards. Now, Sir Baldwin Walker, when called, stated that this could not be so, because no person at all in his office had influenced his submissions. The Secretary of the Admiralty said that this might be true, and yet that these parties, having communication with the dockyards, had been enabled to have the right names sent up. Well, he (Mr. Keating) asked, if that were so, how could repealing the circular of 1849 prevent such a system, as the names had then to be submitted to the Admiralty? There were persons in the hon. Gentleman's office who knew better than the hon. Gentleman could do about the details of the department—he meant the parties whom the hon. Gentleman eon-suited; and they must at least have been fully aware of the effect which the cancellation of the circular would have upon the object which the hon. Gentleman said he had in view. One reason for giving this control to the Surveyor of the Navy was, that he alone could judge what vacancies were to be filled up. The Captain Superintendent of a particular dockyard, of course, could only know what passed in his own domain; the Surveyor of the Navy was the only person who had the supervision over the whole of the dockyards, and who could regulate the wants of one by means of the excess of another. Now, although the repeal of the circular of 1849 could not effect the hon. Gentleman's object, yet it would be accompanied, and was accompanied, by the cutting off of all communication with the Surveyor's office, and thus deprived the Surveyor of the control over the filling up of offices which he could alone satisfactorily exercise. He (Mr. Keating) did not believe the hon. Gentleman was at all aware of the effect of this proceeding; he had, no doubt, been told merely that the repeal of the circular would effect a certain object, and had taken the matter for granted; but those who counselled him were wiser than the hon. Gentleman, and therefore, whilst he acquitted the hon. Gentleman, he could not acquit his advisers of a knowledge of the effect of the cancellation of the circular of 1849. The Duke of Northumberland had stated that he thought the consultations with Sir Baldwin Walker were still continued; but, with the exception of

1307
an instance in which the papers, by some chance, found their way to the Surveyor's office, and when the Surveyor made certain submissions, which were, however, disregarded, the intercourse with the Surveyor's office was entirely cut off, and the control of the Surveyor was taken away. Commodore Eden admitted that the superintendents often wished to have the vacancies in their yards filled up, because the more hands the lighter the work; but added that they ought not to be filled up without the leave of the Surveyor, because the proceeding might not be for the interest of the service. Now, of these vacancies there were between 200 and 300 at the time of the preceding Government leaving office; and, therefore, there was good and sufficient reason why the cancellation of the circular should take place, followed up as it was by the cutting off of the communication with the Surveyor. In 1848–9, in consequence of the Report of the Committee to which he had referred, there was a vast number of superannuations, and the establishments were reduced, and the appointments were very considerable. In 1852, the superannuations were nearly 200, or more than the average of the four preceding years, including the exceptional 1848–9; and there were 735 appointments. This corroborated what Sir Baldwin Walker said, as to the large number of vacancies existing when the preceding Administration went out of office. Sir Baldwin Walker said that these vacancies were kept partly for the number of apprentices who were coming out of their time in 1853. Yet, without consulting him, they were all filled up, and in 1853, when 161 apprentices had finished their period of service, there were only thirty-four vacancies left to give them. This was an illustration of the mischief to the service, as the consequence of a step taken upon such slight consideration, and without the sanction of the Surveyor. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford) admitted in evidence that it was for the Lords of the Admiralty to rescind the circular, and said that he consulted the First Lord respecting the cancelling of the order, and that he could not have cancelled it if the First Lord had refused his assent. The Duke of Northumberland, when questioned by the Committee with reference to his consultation with the Secretary of the Admiralty, on the subject of rescinding the circular of September 1849, stated that he had not considered one way or another
1308
the expediency of rescinding it, but that the Secretary of the Admiralty had complained to him of the difficulty he experienced in the discharge of his duty, owing to the whole of the appointments and the patronage of the Admiralty being in the Surveyor's office, and being used against the Government. He (Mr. Keating) said that this was an entire mistake, because the Surveyor had not a single appointment, nor any patronage whatever in his hands. The noble Duke further stated that he always refused to interfere from his want of experience; and on being asked whether, when he was told of the patronage being used in favour of his political adversaries, he instituted any inquiries at the time, his Grace's answer was, "None whatever;" and he also added that he never knew, during the whole period that he held office, whether the patronage was in the hands of the Surveyor or of the Secretary of the Admiralty— that he never knew anything about it— that it was never brought to his knowledge. All that he (Mr. Keating) could say with regard to the evidence of the noble Duke was, that the impression which it left upon his mind was one of deep regret, that, occupying so responsible a position, he should have handed over to the Secretary of the Admiralty, without further inquiries, the control of the patronage of his department, and should now seek to disconnect himself from the course that had been pursued by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stafford). The Duke of Northumberland said—
"On every occasion when it was mentioned to me by Mr. Stafford, on his representations I objected to interfere. I would not interfere because I had not had sufficient experience; but he afterwards represented to me that Mr. Parker's circular had been written by him, and was not a Minute of the Board, and that he as Secretary had the same power to revoke it as Mr. Parker had to issue it; he said also that he would do so on his own responsibility."
And the Duke further said that on that ground, and that ground only, did he give authority to cancel the circular. The Duke further stated that he relied entirely upon the assurance of Mr. Stafford, that he had power to cancel the circular of 1849 irrespective of any order or Minutes of the Board, and that he on several occasions refused to interfere to cancel the order— that he was unwilling to interfere—that he did not wish, without more experience, to do anything in the matter. He had no hesitation in saying that upon such evidence it would have been impossible

1309
properly to suspend the function of the meanest clerk or lowest porter in the Admiralty. It would have been perfectly unjustifiable to have done so without some better information than that on which this important circular was cancelled. The hon. Secretary to the Admiralty stated that he had the assent of the First Lord for the issue of the circular of the 19th April, 1852; and that could not be denied, because it was recognised in the Minutes of the Board. [Cries of" Divide, divide!"] Hon. Gentlemen must be aware it was quite necessary, in a case of this kind, for him to advert to the evidence and the circumstances on which he relied. He would ask, how was the circular of 1847 regarded by the Board of Admiralty? It was distinctly stated that the object of cancelling the circular of 1849 was to revert to that of 1847. Now how was that? The first case which he wished to detail to the House was the case of Ridgway at Chatham. That person was reported against by Captain Richards, who said he was not a fit man to be promoted. Ridgway had previously attempted to gain promotion from the right hon. Member for Portmouth (Sir F. Baring), by means of an application through his constituents in that borough; but the right hon. Baronet sent immediate directions to the dockyard at Chatham to reprimand Ridgway. These were his claims to promotion, and yet the Board of Admiralty sent down an order to promote him. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] He should begin to think shortly that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not desirous of hearing the circumstances of the case. The case of Ridgway was a strong case. ["Oh, oh!"] If hon. Gentleman could prevent its being heard, so much the better for them. It was a distinct violation of the circular. Captain Richards wrote to the Secretary to the Admiralty, calling his attention to the impropriety of that appointment, stating all that had occurred, and all the particulars of his disqualification; notwithstanding which an order was sent down that the promotion should go forward, and if he was found incompetent he might be reported to the Board. But Captain Richards, considering the manner in which his letter was treated, declined to take any further notice of the matter. That case was followed by another of a similar description, where an incompetent man was appointed, the service was damaged, and the circular of 1847 was distinctly violated. There were ten cases at Chatham in which
1310
that circular was violated. At Devonport there were twelve similar cases. At Dept-ford several instances occurred, in one of which a person who had been previously discharged for drunkenness, was, by an order of the Admiralty, directly promoted, against the recommendation of the superintendent. There were eight cases at Woolwich, differing in this respect, that undoubtedly the letter of the circular of 1847 was not violated. Now he contended that in every one of these cases—thirty or forty in number—the circular had been violated for political purposes. The Secretary to the Admiralty had stated that in most of these cases in which he differed from the superintendents, they were cases of the recommendation of unworthy persons—
MR. BOOKERrose to order. The hon. and learned Gentleman had broadly stated that individuals of blemished character were promoted merely for the sake of political purposes. [Cries of "Order, order!"and "Chair, chair!"]
MR. KEATINGresumed: The word3 of the Committee's Report were these:—
"There can be little that these results have attended the appointments adverted to by witnesses well qualified to give an impartial opinion on this subject. Officers of high character in the Navy, distinguished alike for professional abilities and unblemished honour, observed the course of promotion in the dockyards during the last summer with apprehension, with feelings of humiliation, with dismay, and even with disgust."
That statement was amply borne out by the letters of Commodore Seymour, Admiral Parker, and Captain Richards, which had been put in evidence. It had been proved also that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty stood at the ticket-office at Devonport, with the Government candidates for that borough, as the workmen came out of the yard; that he entertained the political friends of the candidates there, the expenses of his trip and of the dinner being charged to the contingencies fund. It could not be doubted that such proceedings tended to impair the efficiency of the service, and to bring discredit upon the Government. However that might be regarded by hon. Gentleman opposite, these matters were viewed very seriously throughout the country at large, and he believed they were calculated not alone to damage this or that party, but to bring the entire Government of this country into discredit. Under these circumstances, he called upon the House to confirm the Resolution of which he had given notice.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That, referring to the Report of the Select Committee on Dockyard Promotions, and the Evidence upon which it is founded, this House is of opinion, that during the administration of the late Board of Admiralty, the patronage of Dockyard Promotions, and the influence of the Admiralty, were used and exercised for political purposes, to an extent and in a manner calculated to reflect discredit upon that department of the Government, and to impair the efficiency of the Service."
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I rise, Sir, to move the adjournment of the debate; and I do so because the extraordinary course which the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought it fit and becoming in him to pursue, has precluded the possibility of any fair discussion of his Motion, or any fair reply to the charges which he has advanced. Sir, I cannot congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on the course he has taken. Perhaps he may be learned in the law; but it is clear that he has a very limited sense of justice. Not even his short experience in this House can for a moment excuse the unjust course he has adopted, or the gross impropriety—[Cries of" Oh, oh!"]—the gross impropriety which I believe almost, and I had hoped quite, every man in this House would condemn. The hon. and learned Gentleman at one time when he was interrupted, spoke of the importance of this subject. Very true, the subject is important; but the more important the subject, the more fatal was that admission to the decorum of the course which he has thought proper to take. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have had only a short experience in this House; but he has had long experience in a Court of Justice, and there he must have learned, and he ought to know, that the more important the subject, the more imperatively necessary is it that that subject should be adequately, fairly, and justly discussed. In a speech of more than two hours, he has criminated hon. Members— he has brought heavy charges against the Board of Admiralty, and that at a moment when he knew it was physically impossible that he should have any answer to the accusations he was bringing forward. Sir, I, for one, and I believe many others, were prepared to discuss the question. I begged the Government to appoint a day for its discussion. I said then, and I repeat it now, that as a Member of the late Government I do not shrink from this question. I was prepared, had I been permitted, to contend that the Board of Admiralty, as
1312
constituted under the Administration of the Earl of Derby, is entitled to the gratitude, and not to the censure, of this House; ["Oh, oh!"] This, I maintain, I was prepared to contend for, and I would have done so, but for the course which has now-been taken, and which I hold to be a greater outrage on the principles of justice than any course that I ever remember to have seen followed. If I had had time, it would have been my duty—and I believe others would have followed me—to take grave exceptions to the Report of the Committee. I am aware that it was presided over by a noble Lord of great ability, and of long experience in this House, and that it consisted of Gentlemen with whose honour and character I should be the last person to find the slightest fault; but I think that that Committee, influenced by what bias or by what circumstances I cannot say, were led to make a report which is open to grave exceptions, the tone of which is bitter and severe—a tone of bitterness and severity which I would have endeavoured to show is not borne out by the evidence. I would have shown that, while they profess to give no opinion, they throw out sarcasms and insinuations which are far more severe, and far more difficult to grapple and to deal with, than any direct accusations would have been; and I am sorry to say that their Report, however unconsciously it may have been on their part, is open to the grave objection of being characterised rather by party prejudice and party bias, than by that judicial impartiality which ought to have been its first and chief characteristic. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through his long two hours' speech about "beer and honey." But had I had time I would have commented upon the manner in which that Report refers to my hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford), and would, I trust, have been able to show-to the House—what is of more importance to the public—that the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire is harshly and partially dealt with in that Report. With regard to the Duke of Northumberland also, the First Lord of the Admiralty, say what you will, no one can have read the Report, or listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, without feeling that while they profess to attack my hon. Friend the Member for North Northamptonshire, the real object of crimination is the nobleman who presided over the Admiralty. Sir, I had the honour to be a

1313
Colleague of the Duke of Northumberland; lie was in office at a time when it was essential to increase and to improve the naval defences of the country; and I am free to say—I know what I am saying—that there never was a human being who was more anxious to benefit that noble service, and to increase its efficiency, than the Duke of Northumberland. There is one point, though it is a minor one, on which I would have felt it my duty to complain of the Report. It is said that the Duke of Northumberland abandoned the whole of the civil patronage of the Board of Admiralty to his Secretary. Sir, it was no such thing. It ought to be known by the public that all the minor appointments through successive Boards of the Admiralty were in the hands of the Secretary, and never were administered by the First Lord. The time forbids me to go on, but I have in this book the means of showing that no First Lord of the Admiralty in recent times ever administered the patronage of the minor appointments in the dockyards; and I would have shown that even in regard to these minor appointments in the dockyards the Duke of Northumberland was influenced throughout by a laudable anxiety that they should be carried out in a manner that would benefit the naval service of the country. Sir, I must allude to one harsh and unjust passage in the Report which refers to the Duke of Northumberland—a passage which, I must say, I heard with regret and astonishment;—
"One officer, of high standing in the Navy, and supreme at the Admiralty, had power to check these proceedings. An appeal was more than once made to him; he intimated his disapproval, but he declined to interfere. His rank and station in the country, his position in the Government, his connexion with the gallant; service of the Navy, were deemed to be securities for the administration of a department confided to the Duke of Northumberland."
I ask the right hon. Baronet opposite, the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in his opinion, the administration of that great department really turns upon the appointment of joiners, caulkers, sawyers, and smiths? He will tell you that it does not, but that there are other great subjects connected with the administration of that department which it is more important to consider and determine. How has the Duke of Northumberland administered the patronage which was really his? What was the composition of his Board of Admiralty? Did it show party feeling; did it show political bias? What were his in-
1314
structions to Admiral Fanshawe? Did they show political bias? Let me appeal again to the composition of the Committee which he appointed to consider the subject of the manning of the Navy. Were they party appointments? Who was the Chairman of that Committee? Sir William Parker. Why was he appointed? Because he was one of the most distinguished officers of the British Navy. He had been a Lord of the Admiralty under the Whig Government, and he differed from the Duke of Northumberland in politics. In addition to Sir William Parker, the Committee was composed of three gentlemen whose politics were entirely opposed to those of the Duke of Northumberland, of one whose politics were similar to his own, and of one who was of no politics at all. Again, the most important portion of the patronage of the First Lord of the Admiralty is the appointment to the commands of vessels. How did the Duke of Northumberland dispose of those appointments? I have here a list of every appointment he made, and if time permitted I could show that, to his honour and the advantage of the service, in the great majority of instances he paid no heed to the politics of the men whom he appointed; but that with regard to those I whose politics he did not know, the greater number were of the politics of his opponents, a minority only being of the same-political opinions as himself. Two of the very first appointments he made were Captain Hamilton and Captain Locke—officers of great distinction, who were promoted solely for their professional merit, and who were opposed in politics to the Duke of Northumberland. I contend, therefore, that in the exercise of patronage, with regard to which a charge has been brought against the Duke of Northumberland, there never was a First Lord of the Admiralty more free from any imputation of political bias than his Grace; and in saying that, I do not even except the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), to whose conduct while at the head of that department I am ready to do the fullest possible justice. But the services rendered by the Duke of Northumberland to the Navy were not limited to these considerations. Had time permitted, I would have referred the House to the Committee for the manning of the Navy, and to the fact that on the notice paper for this evening the name of the present First Lord of the Admiralty stands at the head of two Bills for the manning and improvement of

1315
the Navy. For these two Bills—and I am sure the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) will not contradict me when I say it —you are indebted to the Committee conceived and appointed by the Duke of Northumberland when First Lord of the Admiralty. I believe no greater service was ever rendered to the Navy by a First Lord of the Admiralty than was rendered by the Duke of Northumberland when he appointed that Committee to consider the subject of manning the Navy. Let it not be forgotten also that the noble Duke drew up with his own hand the instructions for that Committee. I would likewise, had time allowed, have referred to one of the first matters which occupied the attention of the late Government, namely, the state of the fisheries on the coast of North America. That is one subject connected with my own department, with reference to which I could have shown the effective assistance which Her Majesty's Government derived from the vigorous and able administration of the Admiralty at that period under the auspices of the Duke of Northumberland. I will not longer detain the House. It is impossible, at this late hour, to go into the merits of the case, and my object in rising was to protest against the injustice of the course which has been taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and to state that had time permitted I could have proved to the satisfaction of the House and the public that the Board of Admiralty, over which the Duke of Northumberland presided, was entitled to the gratitude, rather than to the censure, of the House and the country.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to say one word upon the Amendment which has just been proposed. As far as I can understand, there seems to be very little prospect of this debate being renewed, and I think, therefore, that there could be nothing more unjust or unfair than to allow it to drop as it stands. I trust my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) will not persevere in his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, but will ask the House to vote at once upon the question. At the same time I acknowledge that we shall go to a division under the greatest disadvantage, the Motion haying been urged at considerable length and in great detail, without the possibility of a sufficient reply being made. I have only one observation myself to make upon my late colleague the Duke of Northumberland. The noble Duke has been inferentially charged with a num-
1316
ber of very paltry accusations upon this and other occasions. All I can say myself is, that I believe there never was an instance in which more energy, more ability, and more devotion were brought to the administration of a great office, than were brought by the Duke of Northumberland to the administration of the Admiralty under the late Government. Let me remind the House that that nobleman was only ten months in office, that he was hardly absent from a single Board meeting, and that, in that brief space of ten months, he protected your colonies, defended your coasts, and manned your Navy. Allow me to remind the House, also, that these three great operations were conceived and mainly conducted by himself, and that with his own hand he wrote the instructions which guided the Committee for examining the subject of manning the Navy, and which, on being laid on the table, were read with approbation by every Member of this House. Sir, the man who has been actuated by such a high sense of duty, and proved himself capable of performing such deeds, will not be crushed by factious attacks of this kind. I trust my right hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment, and ask the House to give its decision at once upon the merits of this great question.
LORD SEYMOUR: Sir, the right hon. Baronet who moved this Amendment began by telling us of his great love of justice, and by blaming other Members of this House for not proceeding in a manner consistent with that sense of justice; but he proceeded himself to attack the Report of the Committee, of which I had the honour to be Chairman—a Report carried unanimously by Members belonging to both sides of the Houses and in attacking that Report he did not bring forward the exact point upon which he wished to condemn it. Now, Sir, if we are not to have this debate adjourned, I want to know how the right hon. Baronet is to prove his case? He says the Report is unjust and unfair, and he quotes that part of it which refers to the Duke of Northumberland having given up the civil patronage of the Navy. Why, Sir, those were the very words which the Duke of Northumberland himself used to the Committee, and I have yet to learn that it is wrong to quote a witness's own words in evidence of his opinions and practices. I ask the right hon. Baronet if that is the way he proves that the Report is unjust and unfair? He then went on to state other points, with reference to which

1317
he said very generally he was prepared to prove that the Report is unjust and unfair; but when I watched with attention to see whether, with regard to any of those points, he would attempt to show that the Report was contradictory to the evidence, I noticed that he never even attempted to adopt that course. Now I want, in justice to this House, to say that when I presented the Report in question to the Committee, I told them that I was anxious, above all things, that every word of the Report should be fully borne out by the evidence. The Committee concurred with me, and we went through the evidence most carefully, comparing it with the Report. The result was, as I said before, that the Report was unanimously adopted by a Committee composed of Members belonging to both sides of the House; and I am prepared to show that it is rather under than overstated. I think it is necessary that this debate should be adjourned, in order that we may go into the whole subject; and therefore I shall vote for the Amendment.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 95: Majority 16.
Question again proposed.
Sir THOMAS ACLANDmoved that the House should adjourn.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he believed that an adjournment at that moment would be most prejudicial to the interests of the country, and not creditable to the House. Charges of a grave character had been made against the late Board of Admiralty, which, as it appeared to him, it behoved Gentlemen opposite to answer, and against the Committee that had sat upon the subject, which were, he believed, most undeserved. He was anxious, therefore, that the question should not be stifled, and he thought it would be undesirable, after what had occurred, to get rid of it by an adjournment.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that having brought the subject forward on a former occasion, and having moved for a Committee, which the House was pleased unanimously to grant; and having been a Member of that Committee which had presented a Report to the House founded upon the Minutes of Evidence given before them; — he had determined not to take any part in the discussion which might arise upon the present Motion, unless some hon. Member should find fault with the Report of the Committee, in
1318
which case, he should feel that he was doing his duty to rise up and defend himself and his colleagues from any attacks that might be made against them. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich had not only referred to the Report in terms condemnatory of its purport, but had actually stated that it was based upon party feeling, and partook of a party character. He (Sir B. Hall) must deny any such allegations. If the right hon. Gentlemen would read the evidence, and compare the Report with that evidence, he would find there were full and ample grounds for every single word contained in the Report, and that even its very phraseology was, in many cases, the phraseology used by the witnesses upon the Committee; whilst in the margin of the Report, figures were placed in order to show the exact questions and answers which justified the statement put forth in the document. But when the right hon. Gentleman said that the Report was the emanation of party feeling or political bias, he seemed wholly ignorant of all the material facts of the case. It was true that having moved for the Committee, that Committee was necessarily nominated by himself (Sir B. Hall); but not until he had expressed a desire that the nomination should not rest with him, but that the selection should be made by the Committee of Selection, or the General Committee of Elections. This was objected to, and the Committee was agreed to by the late Secretary of the Admiralty and himself, as being the fairest selection that could be made, and was unanimously assented to by the House. The five Members composing that Committee represented the various shades of political opinions of the House. They agreed to the Report unanimously, and from the first day they commenced their duties to the very close of their labours, there was not the least difference of opinion in the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman had, therefore, no right to make the assertions he had uttered, because there was not the slightest ground for any such imputations. But how-could the right hon. Gentleman justify his own conduct, and what would the public make of such conduct when it was made known? The right hon. Gentleman had moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the whole question might be fully discussed. Such was the ground of his Motion; and yet as soon as he finds the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committee prepared to defend the Committee

1319
from the unjust and ungrounded attacks made upon himself and his colleagues, the mover of the adjournment goes into the opposite lobby and votes against the Motion which he himself deliberately submitted to the House. He (Sir B. Hall) should vote for the adjournment of the debate if the Motion was again put, as it probably would be, and as he had done already; because he desired to have an opportunity of showing that the Report of the Committee was not only just, but that it was founded on the evidence of men of the highest and most unimpeachable character. But he would not vote for the adjournment of the House as proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, because he would not be a party to thus shelving a question which was worthy of the fullest investigation, and which in justice to a Committee unanimously approved and appointed by the House, ought to be gone into and considered after the unjust assertions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that there were two points, at least, on which there could be no difference of opinion. One was, that after the course which the debate had taken, there must be very considerable discussion on the subject; and the other was, that it was impossible that that discussion could take place then [two o'clock in the morning]. He, therefore, thought that the House would do well to adjourn the debate. An appeal had been made to the Government to give a day for this discussion; but it was impossible, owing to the pressure of public business, that that could be done. On Tuesday next, however, the Motion of chief interest appeared to be that of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) upon a question certainly of not very pressing importance— the malt duty. He would, therefore, suggest that the hon. Baronet who had proposed the adjournment should arrange with his hon. Friend to give up Tuesday next to this debate.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he could understand very well that the course of the debate had not been so satisfactory as had been expected by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was great complaint now that the statements made must be answered; but there had been no such complaint on the other side when a statement was made past midnight by the hon. and learned Member for Reading, with the moral con-
1320
viction upon the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman that no answer could be given to him at that hour; that his manifesto of spitefulness would remain unanswered; and that not a single Member of the late Government would have the opportunity of replying to him. For himself, he should not countenance any attempt to evade the discussion of the main question; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite pleased to sneak out of the position in which they had placed themselves, he could only say that, upon his side, he challenged a decision upon the Resolution which they had proposed.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, which had been conveyed in such elegant expressions, came with an ill grace from him, seeing the line of policy which his friends had adopted. Sneaking indeed! why, the right hon. Gentleman's own colleague, the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), moved that the debate be adjourned, and then voted against his own Motion. That fact alone would show the country which side was anxious to shirk the discussion of this question.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he must express his surprise at the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) saying that the subject of his Motion was unimportant. He must decline to give up the advantage he now possessed, of bringing on that Motion on Tuesday next.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes None; Noes 172.
Question again proposed. Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.
The House divided: —Ayes 70; Noes 98: Majority 28.
Question again proposed.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he wished to move as an Amendment, to strike out the latter part of the Resolution, and insert in its stead words to the effect that it appeared that during every administration of the Board of Admiralty, its patronage and influence were used for political purposes; and that the Report of the Chatham Election Committee stated that there was no instance of an election taking place in that borough in which the Government candidate was not returned. That was the whole truth, which had been elicited by late discussions. Government had not been

1321
deprived of any patronage, and he, for one, should oppose any proposition for depriving it of any.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out from the word 'founded' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'it appears that, during every administration of the Board of Admiralty, the patronage and influence have been used and exercised for political purposes; and that the Report of the Committee on the Chatham Election states that there is no instance of an Election in that place not terminating in favour of the Government Candidate,' instead thereof."
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that, considering the high character and standing of the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), he should hardly have stooped to be made a bridge for the late Board of Admiralty to escape by. For, since the truth must be spoken, it was not the Duke of Northumberland and the late Secretary for the Admiralty, who were on their trial—it was the character and conduct of that House. They had deputed a Select Committee, composed of Members of both sides of the House, to examine into the truth of certain allegations; they had made their Report; and then the late Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Paking-ton) came down at two o'clock in the morning, deprecated a debate, and moved an adjournment, which he eventually voted against, and took that opportunity of bringing forward egregious charges against the Select Committee. He would not say a word against his predecessor at the Admiralty (Mr. Stafford); he thought he had been ill used by his party; they made use of him, and then, when they found he could not be of any further use to them, they threw him over, and fell down and worshipped the Duke of Northumberland, who they hoped might yet be of service to them. ["Oh, oh!"] At least he believed that would be the opinion of the country tomorrow. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had used the words "sneaking out." Now, the right hon. Gentleman had on many occasions shown himself a great proficient in that art; but he (Mr. Osborne) would ask him, if he did not wish to sneak from this debate, to use the little influence he might yet exercise with his party to bring this matter to an open discussion. He hoped he would use his influence with the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball), who, he believed, was still one of
1322
his few followers, to give up Tuesday next for this purpose. Let not hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to avoid this discussion by the sneaking Amendment of the hon. Member for West Surrey. By so doing, they would not whitewash the character of the Duke of Northumberland, but would damage that of the House in the eyes of all honourable men.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, they had got into a difficulty, and he did not see how they were to get out of it, unless they had a full discussion of this very important question, for the country would otherwise not be satisfied. There had been grave charges against the late Board of Admiralty, and against the Committee, and for both reasons it was desirable that they should have discussion. The hon. and learned Member who brought forward the question no doubt commenced it at a late hour. He did so, because of the difficulty of getting a day. There were those in the House who might get them out of the difficulty. It was in the power of the Government, and he hoped out of regard for the character of that House the Government would grant a day. With that view he should move that the debate be adjourned. VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that, for his own part, he regretted that the question had ever been brought forward, as he thought it might have rested with the Report of the Select Committee. As, however, it had been brought forward, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite if it was not essential for the character of that House, and of the party they represented, to work this debate out fairly and deliberately. It was evident that their object was to weary out the House, and insist! on having a division, which it was evident, if taken at that late hour in the morning, and when it had been universally expected' that a division would not take place, could settle nothing. If the division was against: the Motion, as was probable in the then state of the House, there would be nothing to prevent those who supported it from bringing it forward in another form. He would, therefore, put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree to the very reasonable proposition of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that the debate should be adjourned. It had been put to the Government to find a day for the discussion; but his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had stated to him, before leaving the House, that this was impossible in the present state of public business. He would

1323
make another appeal to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. E. Ball) to give up next Tuesday for the purpose. In all probability there would yet be many Tuesdays open to him to bring forward his Motion. At all events, let the debate be adjourned to any day they pleased, and some arrangement might be afterwards made for taking it.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought that the course which the Government had indicated was the best that could be pursued. Let a division be taken, and then let those who brought it on renew it in a different form, if they were defeated. It was true he had moved the adjournment of the debate; but his friends felt that that would not be a satisfactory solution of the difficulty in which they were placed, of either concluding a debate without the possibility of discussing the question, or of consenting to an adjournment to which they saw no period. The request which he made in the early part of the debate, that the Government would name a day, was refused; and in the difficulties in which they were placed, the party with whom he acted thought it would he very undesirable to adjourn the discussion to an indefinite period. He had wished to withdraw his Amendment, but it was refused, and under the unusual circumstances he felt bound to vote against it.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he wished to give another reason why the House should accede to the suggestion of dividing at once on the main question. The present Secretary of the Admiralty entirely exonerated his predecessor in office, and said it was desired to screen his superior by throwing the odium upon him. He asked hon. Gentlemen, could there be a more severe reprobation and condemnation of the Report of the Committee? The Report pointed to no one so much, so strongly, or so bitterly, as the predecessor of the present Secretary of the Admiralty.
MR. PIGOTTsaid, another division would leave them just in the same position; he therefore hoped the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would give way. There was no Motion for Tuesday week; and if the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would take his Motion on that day, this might be taken on Tuesday.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, be bad earnestly urged upon his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Keating), at half-past ten, to postpone a question of this gravity, since it could not be decently or decorously discussed.
1324
He had thought proper to persevere, and it would be a very salutary lesson to take the division now, and leave the hon. and learned Gentleman to revive the question on another occasion.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, a great deal of blame, also, attached to Her Majesty's Government for not using any effort to bring home to the hon. and learned Gentleman the unfairness, injustice, and impropriety of bringing forward his Motion at the late hour he did. He hoped the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire would not give way, and that the suggestion of dividing on the main question would be adopted.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 64; Noes 98: Majority 34.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. PIGOTTsaid, he must deprecate at that late hour a division on the main question. He should still press for an adjournment of the debate.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, that the House ought, in common justice, to be allowed to come to a decision on the question, which had occupied so much of their time. At least the debate ought to be renewed at some time when they could come to a decision upon it.
MR. CRAVEN BERKELEYsaid, he believed that the hon. Member was not in order in moving as an Amendment that the debate be now adjourned; and he, therefore, begged to move, as an Amendment, that the other Orders of the Day be now read.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Gentleman might agree to adjourn the debate to this day.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, he was extremely anxious that the House should take such a course as would be satisfactory to all parties. He agreed with the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hildyard), and thought that the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Keating) should not have pressed his Motion at the time he did, but have brought it on at a more favourable time. If, however, any Motion were now made for the adjournment of the House, he should be ready to acquiesce in it, regarding it as equivalent to a negative on the Motion.
MR. HENRY KEATINGsaid, it was certainly true that the hon. Member for Whitehaven had suggested to him not to

1325
bring on his Motion after ten o'clock; but the lateness of the hour at which he had brought it forward was occasioned by hon. Members opposite, who had evidently been speaking against time.
LORD JORN MANNERSsaid, he felt bound to say, after that observation of the hon. Member, that the speeches which occupied so much time on the Factory Bill proceeded from the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on his own side of the House; and he had yet to learn that one of the most important subjects, affecting the condition of the great mass of the working people of this country, was art unfit subject for discussion.
VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, he would now move the adjournment of the House.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 100; Noes 59: Majority 41.
House adjourned at a quarter before Four o'cloek.

MINUTES.
Tool the Oaths.—The Earl Ferrers.
PUBLIC BILLS.—la Company's European Troops (India).
Reported. —Public Works Loan.
3a Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Continuance; Malicious Injuries (Ireland).

THE INDIAN ARMY—COMPANY'S EUROPEAN TROOPS (INDIA) BILL.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he begged leave to lay upon the table of the House a Bill comprising but one clause,
1202
and which was taken from the Government Bill on India now before the House of Commons. It was not a clause of which he himself particularly approved; but he certainly thought he should fail in any endeavour to induce their Lordships to join in the exact conclusion which he might have formed upon this subject. It was a clause by which the Company were enabled to increase the European force now in their service by 7,810 men. At present the European force allowed to be employed by them, under the law, was 12,200; but under the new Bill they would be enabled to have 20,000 in their service. And, further, instead of having in this country only 2,000 troops, they might have 4,000. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) felt so strongly the necessity of losing no time whatever in increasing the number of the European forces in India, that he thought it most highly desirable that their Lordships should at once pass, as a separate Bill, this clause, and send it down to the House of Commons, so that it might become law some six or eight weeks sooner than it would do if their Lordships were to wait until the Government Bill came before them. The recruiting service might then very shortly commence; and from 2,000 to 3,000 men might be forthwith sent out to India, to be at the disposal of the Government, to meet any emergency which might arise consequent upon the withdrawal of Her Majesty's troops for our requirements elsewhere. He begged, therefore, to move the first reading of the Bill. Bill read 1a.

JUVENILE MENDICANCY (No. 2) BILL.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURY,on moving that their Lordships should resolve themselves into Committee on the above Bill (on recommitment), said, that if they would be good enough to give him their attention for a very short time, he thought he would be able to show them that it was a measure worthy of their fullest and most serious deliberation. The Bill was intended to consider and remove one of the prime causes of the crime which prevailed in town and country, and more especially in the large towns and cities—to open a new career to thousands of your juvenile population—to spare the nation the disgrace of this enormous mass of juvenile delinquency, and ourselves the pain, and he might say the peril, of its adult life. Now, such a policy as this, desirable and important as it was at all times, was indispens-

1203
able in the present day, when, as he believed, they were about to abolish the system of transportation, either altogether or to a very great extent. One of two courses must be adopted. It would be necessary to restrain our felons with greater severity, or to do something to reduce their numbers. But the country appeared to him to be quite weary of speeches, of pamphlets, and of Select Committees on the subject of secondary punishments, and he thought it would be well to see if they could not introduce some measure to meet the end in view, and to check this growing evil. The class of children brought under their Lordships' consideration, and contemplated in the present measure, were not to be considered actual delinquents, but as those who were, so to speak, ante-delinquents— as those who were placed in a state in which it was almost inevitable they must become so, by their parents or by those who had the care and custody of them, thereby forming the seed-plot of half, nay, almost all, the crime perpetrated in the realm. He thought it might be safely affirmed and easily proved that two-thirds of all the crime in this country took its first commencement in the early years of the perpetrators, showing that, if they had been trained in the way they should have gone, they would not have departed from it in their old age. He thought he could show, further, that of the causes of this juvenile delinquency the first and greatest were the parents, the next society, and that, last of all, and least, were the culprits themselves whose case was before the House. He held in his hand a very remarkable paper, which clearly illustrated the rise and progress of the criminal class in the kingdom. It was a table which contained the statements made by ninety thieves now living in one institution, and it might be regarded as being in some measure the record of their past lives. Without entering into the minute details of the document, it would be sufficient to state that sixty-two of these began to thieve when under fifteen years of age, and that fifty began to thieve when between twelve and sixteen. He believed, indeed, that if an inquiry was instituted into the general state of that class, in any part of England, and over any surface, it would come to the same result, and that it would prove crime almost always commenced in the earlier period of the culprit's life. That view was much confirmed by the answers given to him by 100 of the city missionaries and ragged school
1204
teachers in reply to a question which he put to them. He had been anxious to ascertain how far their experience proved that crime commenced at an early period of life, and he had, therefore, asked them this question:—"How many lads do you estimate are there who, having lived honestly up to the age of twenty, afterwards fall away, enter upon vicious courses, and turn out criminals?" And the answer he had received from every one of these 100 gentlemen was, "Not two in a hundred." That was the experience of 100 gentlemen conversant particularly and practically with that class, who gave it as their opinion— the result of long experience; and this was a manifest proof that childhood was the seedtime of crime, and, that if they wished to remove children from temptation, they must either abate the noxious influences to which they were exposed, or remove the children from its reach; and it showed very clearly, as he thought, and in the most forcible manner, that if they protected the early years of the child, principle, good sense, experience, and habit would protect him in his maturer life, and that it was but the ill-trained and neglected child that grew into the desperate uncontrollable man. There was not one of their Lordships who could have failed to see a large number of children at all times of the day or of the night, mischievous and neglected, wandering in the streets and localities of the metropolis—whether they were increasing, were diminishing, or were stationary, was little to the purpose—statistical returns would, on this subject, be very difficult to get, and, after all, might prove fallacious; but no one could say they were not more than they ought to be, and that they should not be reduced. Children of this class might be divided into two great divisions—the mendicants and the vagrants. Of these the mendicants held a higher rank—first, because they had a certain semblance to a profession, and appeared to belong to one, too, which had its grades, honours, and emoluments; and, secondly, because the mendicant might, by assiduity in his calling, rise to the dignity of belonging to the begging-letter department, than which there could be nothing more lucrative, profligate, and comfortable; and he begged to say that the noble Earl opposite, the First Misister of the Crown, had few things to give away more really enviable, more comfortable, or more profitable than the post enjoyed by the real begging-letter writer; and that he knew

1205
from persons who were well acquainted with them, who saw them going out to their business, and saw them returning home to dine on the fat of the land, and on all the luxuries of the season. Successful mendicancy, too, required a great deal of cunning, experience, cleverness, and ingenuity. There were many tricks practised which required much experience and art before they could be attempted. One boy told him he never received so much money as by putting on rags, assuming a melancholy face, and then standing before the door of a cook-shop, and gazing into it with wistful looks. Their Lordships might easily imagine what a source of vice, fraud, and deceit, such a life must be. The vagrants came next, and made up the whole seedplot of crime of that great metropolis, which furnished such an abundant crop for our magistrates, our gaols, our hulks, our prisons, and transports, and gave them seven-tenths of their occupants. These children might be considered in another light. Many of them were orphans; some had only one parent; some had both. Very many of them were driven from home, and turned into the street by the ferocity of their step-parents; for, remarkable it might be, but most true it was, that there was no cause of vice, misery, or suffering, more common than the domineering temper of stepmothers, who would not allow their step-children to remain in the same house with them. Some of these children were turned out from home and abandoned, and some were regularly trained up in habits of mendicancy; and it was a fact that there were artisans in receipt of large wages who were in the habit of turning their children into the streets early in the morning, forbidding them to come back till late at night, and telling them to live as they could on the exercise of their wits during the whole day. Now, all vagrants, from whatever cause they were such, were exposed to the greatest temptations. The history of the vagrants and mendicants of the metropolis was the history of the race everywhere; they might differ in numbers, but in principle and proportion they were the same; and they might infer, from the statements of any large town, the condition of any, or every other. Now, such facts as the following were very illustrative. The Rev. Mr. Clay, of Preston, whose excellence and experience were known to all the world, said, in quoting the testimony of a very practical thief—
"A third class, who were the dregs of society,
1206
form about 80 per cent of all professional thieves.…The whole of this class, with few exceptions, have been nurtured in crime from their cradles. Dirty, filthy, ragged, hungered, and neglected by their parents, they commence a petty career of pilfering."
A city missionary had lately informed him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that there were—
"In his district at least 100 families, where the parents daily send out their children with every species of smallware for sale—boxes, oranges, matches, &c.—giving them to understand, and acting on the advice they give, that nothing will come amiss, however obtained."
This might be well illustrated by another statement of Mr. Clay, in his 27th report. Speaking of a family, he said—
"The parents, as is too usual, bestowed no moral nor religious care upon the children, who, in consequence, soon picked up bad companions, and thus gradually entered on a course of crime; at first the parents scolded, and gave good advice, but never hesitated to accept all that was offered to them of their children's ill-gotten gains; the mother encouraged and assisted practices which provided means for enabling her and her husband to live in idleness and luxury."
Letters from all parts of England were received; one from Staffordshire said—
"A greater boon than the suppression of juvenile vagrancy could not be conferred.…The practice of sending poor children out to beg prevails most extensively in this district; vast numbers are daily despatched from the filthy lodging-houses, and spread themselves all over the surrounding villages."
The report of 1852, from Newcastle and Gateshead, said—
"There is a considerable amount of the juvenile population exposed to the most demoralising influences; parental neglect and advice, utter ignorance, brutal intemperance, filth. Children growing up in such an atmosphere cannot be otherwise than criminal."
Mr. Clay, in his report for 1851, said—
"There are hundreds of poor children in all great towns training up as thieves. The children are sent out in the morning with watercress, chalkstones, cocoanut husks, &c, and at night with firewood. The whole of these children are dirty, ragged, without covering to head or feet. They must bring home a certain sum or value, whether obtained by begging, selling, or stealing. Nothing comes amiss to them—anything, if left exposed…Many of the boys are only six or seven years of age."
Evidence of this kind could be indefinitely multiplied, but it was surely needless to detain the House by longer statements of such things. It was very desirable, in cases such as these, to estimate, so far AS was possible, the numbers with which they had to deal. The imagination of mankind expanded very rapidly; it was astonishing what proportions a difficulty assumed, and

1207
persons were frequently deterred from undertaking a cause by the terrors of its apparent magnitude. He had heard this objection a thousand times; he would not say that he had ever felt it himself. He trusted, however, that it would not be allowed to prevail in the present instance. In the second report of Captain Hays, that gentleman said—
"The number of children 'at large' in the metropolis, and living in idleness without education, and apparently neglected by their parents, of the lower classes, who are generally in the receipt of wages, amounts, as near as can be ascertained, to 20,641 under 15 years of age."
Now, this number, though large and perilous, is not any immediate concern. The total number, as stated by the police, of trained mendicants and vagrants, frequenters of lodging-houses, nearly, if not actually, is about 3,098; of these, without parents, 148; with parents able to maintain them, 336; with parents able to contribute to them, 1,770—making of children whose parents could maintain them, but did not, 2,106; the number whose parents sent them out to beg, and live in idleness and profligacy on their earnings, equal the remaining 844. This is confirmed by the testimony of a person engaged last year to perambulate the town, and examine the vagrants. He stated that of several hundred children traced to their homes, a very large proportion were of parents who could maintain them—"many earning as much as 16s. a week and upwards." He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was assured by Mr. Serjeant Adams that it was the result of his judicial experience that "the ability of these parents to support their children was the rule, and not the exception." This was an important fact, because it showed the evil to be within compass, and, if it were so in the metropolis, it was equally so in all parts of England. It was worth while to verify the table by another important statement—one, too, on which great exaggeration had prevailed. He was desirous to ascertain whether the total number of professional, not occasional, thieves—he meant, of course, those who, having no other calling or means of subsistence, lived entirely by plunder— bore any proportion to the numbers of these juveniles. He found that it was so; and that in the metropolis the number of them was under 6,000, a crop not greater than might be expected from such a seed-plot; and, like the other, within the reach and compass of remedial legislation. The
1208
truth was, the number of offences stated in the returns did not show the number of offenders. The number of habitual offenders was far less than most people imagined; the heavy aggregate was made up by the repeated offences of the same individuals. This, while it showed how small a number might disturb the peace and shake the security of a whole community, proved also how reachable was the evil, if taken at its source. It was very difficult to restrain or reform 6,000 adult thieves, but it was not difficult to insist on the education of 3,000 children. Now, it was the concurrent testimony of every one, whether by written or oral evidence, before Parliament or in conversation, that such was the destiny of these children. Small as the number was, compared with the whole population, it was enough, if unchecked, to devastate and disgrace the whole kingdom. And where lay the fault? Was it not manifestly with the parents? The very statement would seem to involve the proof; but he would adduce the testimony of experienced persons; but, first, let us get rid of the notion that mendicancy and vagrancy and the beginning of crime were the effects of poverty —of the poverty, he meant, of the parents. It was no such thing. In the first place, the returns he had quoted amply snowed it. Mr. Clay asserted that his informant, a very practised thief, knew but one instance of actual distress as the cause of crime; the inspector he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) himself employed told him that he found the parents of about 200 earning 16s. a week and upwards, and as many more, quite capable of work, living in idleness and dissipation on the earnings of their wretched children. Now, was it not manifest that the parents were the true criminals? He knew nothing on which all testimony was so concurrent; it had passed into a proverb at all meetings and discussions—always asserted and never disputed—that we "should never do any real good until we should have a new generation of parents." The children were despatched with orders to bring back a certain sum of money. Should they fail to obtain enough, they feared to go home, and wandered about the streets for days and nights together. Well, then, see the temptations to which they were exposed. It appeared, from a return of some offences within the metropolitan police district for 1852, that the number of larcencies of goods exposed for sale was 1,479. Here

1209
was a very fruitful source of juvenile crime. Could it be otherwise? The neglect and carelessness of the shopkeepers were most reprehensible. Stealing from unfinished houses, 596; from carts or carriages, 211; linen exposed to dry, 228; by doors being left open, 1,912. Now, consider that these children were hungry, naked, untaught, without any moral sense or any definite ideas of meum and tuum, and all these opportunities placed before them! He had already stated Mr. Clay's opinion. Then came the penny theatres, the prime source of corruption, many a child having committed its first offence to obtain money for that amusement. It was unnecessary to set out these things in detail; they must be evident to every thinking mind. Now, the culpability of the parents could not be more truly and unanswerably exhibited than in the answers he received to queries submitted to 100 persons who had been professional thieves and misdemeanants. The questions he submitted were these—
"1. What is the cause of children begging in the streets? 2. Is the money appropriated to the use of the parents or of the children?"
He would given the answers in the writing of one, because it was a sample of the rest. To the first he replied—
"I believe the cause of children begging in the streets is on account of the parents being addicted to drink and to idle habits."
To the second—
"The money is generally appropriated to the parents' use, to spend in drink and all sorts of debauchery."
Now the only law by which they could reach this state of things was the Vagrant Act of the 5th Geo. IV., chap. 83, a brief summary of which he had taken from a digest by Mr. Parker:—
"Vagrant, Rogue, Vagabond—Section 3. Idle and disorderly persons committing certain offences herein mentioned, how to he punished:—Every person being able, wholly or in part, to maintain himself, or herself, or his or her family, by work, or by other means, and wilfully refusing or neglecting so to do, by which refusal or neglect he or she, or any of his or her family whom he or she may be legally bound to maintain, shall have become chargeable to any parish, township, or place; every petty chapman or pedlar wandering abroad and trading without being duly licensed or otherwise authorised by law; and every person wandering abroad and placing himself or herself in any public place, street, highway, court, or passage, to beg or gather alms, or causing, or procuring, or encouraging any child or children so to do— shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person within the true intent and meaning of this Act; and it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such offender (being thereof convicted
1210
before him by his own view, or by the confession of such offender, or by the evidence on oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses) to the house of correction, there to be kept to hard labour for any period not exceeding one calendar month."
But this was not sufficient—it provided for a moderate punishment of the parents, but did not secure the peace and welfare of society by the better care and instruction of the child. We required, therefore, a power to take the child in such circumstances; a power to detain him or her for purposes of education, and to make the parents responsible for the maintenance and education necessary. This was what he proposed to do; and he found very general concurrence in this view. It seemed founded on justice and common sense; nor could he do better than produce a continuation of the evidence he before adduced. The questions proceeded:—
"What would be the most likely way to suppress begging and vagrancy?—To punish old offenders.
"What do you know about children being hired for the purpose of begging?—I have known of half-a-crown a day being given for the hire of one child.
"What is your opinion of a fine being inflicted on the parents?—It would be the best means of suppressing mendicancy.
"Would they be able to pay it?—In some cases they would.
"What sum of money can they gain a-week?— I have known children getting 3s. a-day."
Mr. Claysaid—
"Truly something must be done to make the parents themselves sensibly, if not painfully and penally, alive to the conviction that society ought not to submit, and will not submit, to the consequences of their conduct."
Well, then, they had come to the conclusion which few would gainsay, that the source of nine-tenths of the juvenile delinquency, and through that of adult crime, were the parents of the children. Why should we not, then, come unanimously to another conclusion—no longer to deal with results, but to attack the causes; not to filter the stream, but cleanse the fountain, and lay hold of the parents themselves? Various remedies had been tried and been found ineffectual, and so they would ever be so long as they continued penal and reformatory, and wanted an anticipative and preventive character. Now the Vagrant Act, which gave considerable powers to the magistrate, did not confer the powers precisely wanted—a slight addition was required; and on that addition the whole difference, if any, would arise. They wanted the power to supersede the autho-

1211
rity of a corrupted and corrupting parent— to place the child in a safe place of education, and make, at the same time, the parent responsible for all charges. This was no new principle; it had been asserted at various times, and specially in the case of Mr. Long Wellesley. Here was the legal language on that occasion, heard and assented to by Lord Chancellor Eldon:—
"It cannot be denied that the Court has authority to control the legal rights of the father, if the welfare of the infant renders its interference necessary. If a father is abroad, or purposes to send his children out of the jurisdiction—if their continuance under his care and custody is likely to prevent them from being brought up in a manner suited to their expectations in life—if he is addicted to habitual drunkenness or blasphemy— if their moral or religious principles are likely to be injured by living with him, or under his superintendence—in such circumstances as these the Court has never hesitated to exercise its jurisdiction. In the present case, the infant plaintiffs are designed to fill important situations in society; in the right formation of their character is involved the welfare of many others besides themselves."
But how much stronger was the case here. The whole argument in the Wellesley case turned on the welfare of the child, on its right to education, on a fit preparation for its place in society, and on the duty of rescuing it from the influence of immorality and blasphemy. However much they might deplore such things, and desire the welfare of all these children, they made no such demand on the ground of their personal rights. The law sought for was grounded on the wants and rights of society, which prayed to be delivered from nuisances that endangered its peace, poisoned its morality, drained its pockets, and altogether impeded its healthy progress. These children were knowingly and pertinaciously brought up, not for their own ruin only, but to be pests to all mankind; and it was a monstrous perversion both of language and fact to say, that to take from these parents such a power was to deprive them of anything they had, or ought to have, by the laws of God, or by the ordinary principles of human justice. There was no distinction between nuisances such as these, and nuisances which were indicted, because a man was not to use property to the peril of his neighbour. Surely, parents who persisted in this course must be considered to have abdicated the functions of parents, and surrendered their right to some other authority; they disregarded every obligation of civilised and uncivilised life; they were neither Christians nor heathens; they were
1212
not men, nor even savages, but beasts. They had renounced their proper functions, nor could these functions be resumed, unless some competent tribunal should have previously inquired and given its assent. But though they had renounced the functions, they had not renounced, for they could not do so, the responsibilities of parents; society might, in self-defence, take the custody of the children, but society was not summoned to discharge the parents of the burden, and give them the ease they desired for indolence and debauchery. Now, on the power of detention, as demanded by the Bill, the necessity must be manifest. These evil and godless parents, having no object but their indulgences, would claim the children the very instant at which they could again be rendered servicable in the streets and alleys. A very striking case occurred under his own eyes, and might be taken as an illustrative instance of the whole system. A lad who had been discarded by his parents fell down with a fever on the steps of a house. A gentleman who was passing by had him conveyed to the Fever Hospital. The fever was a godsend to the lad. In the hospital he was placed under the care of his excellent and able friend, Dr. South-wood Smith. The kind Doctor had brought the case under his notice for the purpose of inquiring whether there was not some refuge in which the lad might be placed. He knew of one, into which the boy was introduced. The boy remained in the refuge until he was about 13 or 14 years of age, when he certainly was a most towardly youth, exhibiting great mental and bodily improvement. After he had been in the institution some time, his mother presented herself at the gate, and demanded that her son should be restored to her. Such cases frequently happened. He fortunately happened to be in the refuge at the moment, and resisted the woman's wishes. He found her a drunken, dirty person, and perhaps he went beyond the law, but he succeeded in frightening her by a threat of prosecution for neglect of her child. He mentioned this instance to show, in the first place, how the parents endeavoured to recover their children as soon as they could be made serviceable instruments, and also to prove how easily the children could be trained to good purposes. It would have touched their Lordships very deeply if they could have witnessed the agony in which the lad clung to the teacher and the other lads in the place, imploring that

1213
he might not be sent away. At this moment the lad was in the receipt of very large wages in a very respectable situation in Nottingham; and he no sooner was in this situation than he sent for his mother, took her to his home, and that woman was now as respectable a person as could be found in the neighbourhood of Nottingham. Many such instances would occur if such a measure as he now asked for were passed. What was said on such a state of things by our brethren in the United States of America, who were quite as much as ourselves sticklers for liberty and individual right?—
"The law permits some things, and compels some things. It permits a man to select his own occupation, religion, and mode of life; it compels him to respect his neighbour's occupation, religion, and rights. But how is it with his own children? It compels him to support them, to furnish them with raiment, food, and shelter; it permits him utterly to neglect their training and occupation. It compels him to be responsible for their acts, until they shall attain a certain age; it permits him to suffer them to become vagabonds and culprits. It compels him to provide for their physical necessities; it permits him to allow them to grow up in idleness and vice; compels him to provide for the body that shall perish, permits him utterly to neglect, nay, worse, to deprave the spirit that shall live for ever. If the parent, guardian, or master of the child is intemperate, incompetent, or indifferent, the law should take their place, and sec that the child is properly trained. If they are avaricious, and desire to speculate for gain out of the tender bones and sinews of the child, to the entire neglect of its mental and moral culture, and the debasement of its character, the strong hand of the law should restrain that avarice, and enforce the child's just rights."
Was not the whole principle contained in the ancient Saxon law of frankpledge? Could they desire for the present case stronger and more constitutional precedents than those set forth in the earliest times? He found the case well stated in Miss Carpenter's excellent book on juvenile delinquents, in a quotation from Mr. David Power, Recorder of Ipswich?—
"Wherever a number of persons, "he says," are gathered together, so as to form a community, whether in a village or a town, it is their Christian duty to take care that none of their younger members are growing up untrained, and, therefore, in circumstances to become criminal; and if such be their duty, the consequences of its breach should fall on those who commit it, and upon no others.…Our ancestors were wiser in their legislation in this respect. By the old law of frankpledge, the existence of which has been traced nearly to King Alfred's time, the freeholders of a tithing were sureties or free pledges to the king for the good behaviour of each other;
1214
and if any offence were committed in their district, they were bound to have the offender forthcoming,"
In all his private communications he had heard but two objections stated by persons in authority, and they were not to' the principle, but to certain details of the Bill. It was urged, in the first place, that workhouses were not houses of detention, and that they ought not to be, in any way, considered as prisons. In the second place, it was urged that the accommodation would be neither proper nor sufficient to meet such a pressure of fresh inmates. Now, to the first, it might be replied that it was detention, not of the person as a prisoner, but against the demand of the profligate parents, who would seek, as in the instance quoted, to recover possession of their children for the worst purposes. To the second, he would reply that, for so good an end he would incur some slight hazard, believing that the means would be easily adapted to the events—-the district schools would alone, these being a union-charge, suffice; but he was convinced, from the most minute inquiry, that nothing of the sort would occur. It had been seen that the parents were, in almost all cases, able to sustain their children; they might depend upon it that the terrors of this law, after two or three convictions, would cause the removal from the streets of two-thirds of these mendicant children; the numbers really taken into charge would be very few—very few, indeed; and, even though they were many, it would be a wise economy, for it would cost far less to educate a child as a Christian, than to punish him as an established felon. But he might add here, and he rejoiced that he had the permission to do so, the full approbation of several of that zealous and intelligent body—the police magistrates of the metropolis. In the principle and object they heartily concurred; a few of them only had suggested some slight alterations in details. He must strengthen his case by the quotation of their names. They were—Mr. Henry, Mr. Trail, Mr. Paynter, Mr. Long, Mr. Corrie, Mr. Brode-rip, Mr. Tyrwhitt, Mr. Bingham, and Mr. Hammill. He had reserved them to the last, because he considered their authority as the best winding up to the arguments he had adduced. Never could they have a more favourable opportunity. The Lodging-house Act was clearing out these sinks of iniquity and abodes of vice; the increasing demand for labour and increasing wages

1215
were taking away the slight pretext for mendicancy and almsgiving. The police were never more active and experienced, nor the magistrates more watchful and zealous. "Now was the accepted time— now was the day of salvation." It would be a happy undertaking to maintain, not only in principle and in argument, as we had hitherto done, but also in execution, a measure which avoided all talk of penalty upon mere children, of reformatories, houses of correction, and prison discipline for juvenile delinquents, which was one altogether of mercy and prevention, and which, by the blessing of Almighty God, would anticipate in a great measure both the gaoler and the hangman. The noble Earl concluded by moving that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought the words "any child," were too vague! There ought to be some definition of what was meant by a child.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYsaid, that he had taken the Vagrant Act as his model, and that Act contained no definition of a child.
LORD CAMPBELLheartily concurred in the object the noble Earl had in view, but he thought the language which had been employed in framing the Act was very loose. It was impossible to tell what was meant by a child. Why, Childe Harold was a child. Then, no provision had been made for those children who had no parents or guardians, or whose parents or guardians it was impossible to trace. They would, in effect, be sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. If the Bill remained in its present shape, although he concurred in its principle, he should be bound to say, "Not content" to the third reading, for it would be impossible that it could work if it were placed on the Statute-book.
The LORD CHANCELLORalso objected to the working of the clause, providing that the child should remain in the workhouse until an order should be made upon the parent or guardian. He was sure that the objects which the noble Earl and the rest of their Lordships had at heart, would be defeated rather than promoted by the passing of the Bill as it now stood. He should suggest that it should now be reported pro formâ in order that it might be amended and recommitted.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he entirely
1216
approved of the object of the noble Earl, to whom he was extremely grateful for the statement he had made, which must have removed all the doubts that might have existed in the minds of their Lordships on the subject; but he also felt the weight of the objections which had been stated by his noble and learned Friends. The last objection, he thought, might be removed by the addition of the words, "or any person having the care of the child." He thought, also, that the effect of the Bill would not be to sentence some children to perpetual "imprisonment," as the Lord Chief Justice had stated, as it was only detention in a workhouse. It was obvious that some definition was required of what was meant by a child; but this might be given by a statement as to age. He thought the best course would be to adopt the recommendation of his noble and learned Friend, and recommit the Bill, in order to remodel it. He was strongly impressed with a sense of the immense and incalculable importance of this subject. The system of juvenile mendicancy was, in fact, at the root of nearly all the miseries of society in great towns; and the receptacles for such mendicants were the nests and nurseries of criminals. Various plans had been suggested to meet the evil; different descriptions of punishment had been proposed at various times as specially applicable to these cases; and he was perfectly certain that some such measure as that now before their Lordships was the only mode of laying the axe at the root of this giant evil. He believed that if children in the condition referred to were separated from bad parents, not only would a reform of the children be effected, but indirectly, and to a certain degree, an improvement and reformation of the parents themselves might be anticipated.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, he thought the defects pointed out might easily be amended: for instance, there could be a definition of the word "child" by some limitation of age, as thirteen or fourteen, or the clause might be referred to a Select Committee, who, in a couple of hours, especially with the aid of the noble and learned Lords opposite, could easily obviate all difficulties. It would be a great pity if a Bill, in the object of which all concurred, should be lost by reason of slight defects not inherent in its nature, nor connected with its principle.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the

1217
Government had not the least desire to get rid of the Bill, for they thought it would be a most useful one; but, on the other hand, they considered that in its present form it would be inoperative, and, perhaps, more than inoperative.
LORD CAMPBELLmight mention, by way of encouragement, that, in the City of Glasgow Police Act, there was a clause in reference to the suppression of mendicancy, which had been attended by very beneficial consequences. The clause in question permitted the apprehension of all young persons found begging, or sent out for that purpose, and also the parents or other relations of such young persons, or any parties by whom they were so sent or suffered to go out, and, on the complaint being established, made it lawful for the magistrates to punish such young persons, parents, or relations, by imprisonment for any period not exceeding sixty days, or that the young persons should be sent to houses of refuge.
The EARL of SHAFTESBURYwas quite ready to leave the definition of a child to the Committee. Two suggestions had been made as to the course which he should adopt: the one that he should refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and the other that he should withdraw it, and introduce it in an amended shape. He had brought forward the measure simply for the purpose of obtaining discussion, and his noble Friends whom he had invited to come down, knew that was his object. He wanted to set before them the whole circumstances connected with the Bill, and to induce all the active spirits in the country to put their heads together in order to see if they could not devise some good measure on the subject. He would add that he was perfectly willing to consent either that the Bill should be withdrawn, or that it should be referred to a Select Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLORsuggested that it would be expedient to lay the Bill before the Poor Law Board, in order to obtain their opinion upon it. So far, however, from the Government wishing to show any hostility to the Bill, why, they would be unworthy the position they occupied, if they did not desire to give every facility in their power to its passing.
House resumed; and to be again in Committee, on recommitment, on Tuesday next.
House adjourned to Thursday next.