The Sun. — London, England, 1850-06-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, June 14. Their Lirdships met at Five o'clock. PUBLIC-HOUSES (SCOTLAND) BILL. The Public-houses (Scotland) Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed, on the motion of Lord KINNAIRD. CHANCERY COURT OF APPEAL BILL. Lord BROUGHAM said that this Bill, which stood for second reading, was not a new Bill, for it was intro duced as long ago as last session, and had been lying in abeyance ever since for the consideration of their Lordships and the public. It dealt with a dry subject, but when their Lordships remembered the suf ferings which they and their families and titles suffered from the injuries existing is the Court of Chancery, they would at once see the importance of a measure which had for its object the removal of some of those evils. Now the complaint that the Great Seal was dilatory in its proceedings was not a new complaint, it was as old as the days of Lord Bacon and Lord Coke. In the seventeenth century, it was admitted by those two eminent and learned judges that the work done by the Lord Chancellor was greater than that done by any two other judges in Chancery, and he believed the office was still as much, if not more, overburdened. Let him I just recapitulate some of the duties of the Lord Chancellor. For ten months in the year he had to sit in the Court of Chan cery, besides presiding in their Lordships' House, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and sitting as the Speaker, while it was part of the duty of the Chan cellor to advise the Cabinet and attend to all matters connected with the criminal jurisprudence of the , country. That was enough to show that the office was still overburdened with work. Tho evils which resulted from this overburdening were too well known to need recapitulation, but the difficulties in the way of removing these evils were so great that he hardly knew how to deal with them. The first remedy which naturally suggested itself was the separation of the judicial from the political functions of Chancellor, but then arose the difficulty of how to create a Court of Appeal similar to that which now existed in the High Court of Chancery. Daring the four years that he sat in the Court of Chancery, there were only twelve original suits origi nated-in that Court—all the rest were appeals from the court below. Considering the extent of these duties, it was not surprising that arrears should grow up in the Court of Chancery. In fact the number at one time was perfectly frightful, but by great industry and hard work he (Lord Brougham) was enabled, in the course of about ten months, to clear off about 147 cases. Such exertions no man would make a second time, and, perhaps, no se cond man would undertake such duties, and the result was that in the course of a few years the arrears must again accumulate. Something, then, ought to be done for the relief of, the individual holding the office of Lord Chancellor. And now arose the difficulties, which he would very shortly state. The first thing to be con sidered was the Court of Chancery. It was said that it would be an easy arrangement t 3 separate the equitable jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor from his appellate and judicial functions. It was said, " You have only to ap point ehief judges in equity, and leave all the other pre rogatives and functions of the great seal vested in the great minister of justice." He admitted there was much plausibility in that scheme, but he would state why Ihe could net give his assent to it. The first thing to be suggested was a chief judge in equity, who ought to be a Chancellor, minus a Court of Chancery. But there must be an appeal in the Court of Chancery from the Master of the Rolls, the Vice-Chancellor of England, and the other two Vice:Chancellors, for it would be a perfect denial of justice to send appeals to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, on account of the enormous expense of such a course of proceeding. Some sort of an appeal there must therefore be in the Court of Chancery. At pre,eet the appeal was from the inferior judges to the Lord Chancellor ; and no difficulty arose, because the Lord Chancellor, being at the head of the law—being the highest officer of the law—being at the head of the Judges, and a person of the greatest eminence in the profession—his very station, besides his personal quali fication, rendered him a suitable person to whom to ap peal. But, supposing tee r.ew Chief Judge in equity to be only another Vice-Chancellor, with a higher name and a higher salary, this difficulty would arise—that his hearing an appeal would amount to a second trial of the same cause by nearly the same person. An immense portion of the business of the Court of Chancery con sisted of appeals. He bad certainly heard a great number of original motions, but ninety-nine parts out of one hundred of the great mass of business consisted of appeal causes and appeal motions ; and, as was pro phesied by Mr. Canning and Mr. Romilly, in 1812, the court had become a court of a pp ea l. Th e L or d Chancellor, except in bankruptcy and lunacy and certain official motions, was a judge of appellate jurisdiction in the, Court of Chancery. And what was the conse quence? There was sufficient business to keep that ap peal court sitting all the year round. The expedient of keeping the great seal in commission, which some per sons thought so excellent, would rob some of the courts of their judges, and render the Chancery judges com missioners, and not the Lord Ch ance ll or hi mse lf. H e had considered this difficulty along with Lord Lynd hurpt, and it certainly appeared very great, but, perhaps, not'insuperable, because on further investigation it was possible that new minds might offer fresh suggestions. He had the fullest confidence in the present Vice-Chan cellor and the other judges, but would not trust them unless properly watched, and checked, and controlled. Their decisions must be open to appeal and review— not in the House of Lords, on account of the ex pense and delay which would be occasioned. But there were also constitutional objections to such a course of proceeding. These difficulties, perhaps, might be got over; but he now came to one much greater, which had induced him to postpone further proceedings on the Bill. It was important to the due administration of jus tice that there should be a union of great judicial honour with the greatest powers of practitioners. These advan tages should be combined in order to give the country that greatest of all blessings, a pure, satisfactory, and able administration of justice. If they did anything that tended to lower the dignity of those who were called upon to fill this high office—if they did anything that should lower the dignity or obscure the splendour of the situation—if they took away from the bar that prize which all now looked up to, which quickened and in vigorated every man who put on the pleader's robe— which quickened and invigorated the highest, down to the obscure and plodding, though meritorious special pleader and equity draftsman; if they took away this stimulus to exertion—this soother of those who might labour under temporary disappointment and privations —it they made the bar feel they no longer belonged to a body of which the Lord Chancellor was the illustrious head—if they felt they no longer belonged to a body so adorned, fortified, and exalted, it was perfectly certain the effect would be that we should have a lower class of men as practitioners at the bar, and we should lower in proportion that body out of which the judges themselves must be chosen. It was a vain and empty error to talk of the uselessness of the office cud its barren splendour. Its utility, he main tiined, was a fact—a visible fact—of daily observation and experiecce, and daily felt by all lawyers and judges. —(Hear, beer.) Wishing to retain all the honours, im portance, and splendour of the office, at the same time he desired to have security that an unfit man should not be pat in that high pla^e. The subject had been carefully considered by Lord Lyndhurst and others, and the case was found to be one which presented grave difficulties. No office was more important than that of the Lord Chancellor, and every one who knew the Constitution was aware that, as far as the House of Lords was concerned, its judicial attributes were those which gave it the greatest weight and importance. If this were changed it would become a useless blot in the Constitution, because it would be a totally diffe rent body from that over which he once had the honour to preside, and in which he had the supreme honour of holding a seat. The difficulties were so great with which the question was surrounded, the he dared not ask th e i r L or d s hi ps to proceed with the measure i which he h a d fi rst i ntro d uced in 1833. He had hopes, o t eve r, of b e i ng a bl e to overcome the difficulties rela tingami he , the appellate juri s di ct i on o f t h e House of Lords, e thought in a short time some plan might be de vised to meet existing objections. With reference to the great seal being in commission, he did not think there was any very great grievance in that stat e o f t hi ngs , as some bad ignorantlyasserted, with a one-sidedness and obliquity of vision that was really marve l lous. The great seal - had b een in commission in 1835 f or e i ght months, without any public aubhlaicieen injury;l since th en two V ice- Chancellors additional appointed, so that i n fact no evil, as far as the public interests werete concerned, need be apprehended in consequence ot . the suggestvgareeaatti o sealvacation ato being held in commission. What he w ou ld that their Lordships should take the l ong consider the whole question. He recommend e d them too enter on the inquiry with unprejudiced minds, and with a strong desire to elicit truth, and to come to a correct conclusion. Let them do all this in the calm of the long vacation, when the voice of party was still, w h en the hum of the Commons was no more heard.--(Laugh ter.) He assured their Lordships he meant to be flatter ing and complimentary to that honourable assembly by comparing them to so industrious and useful a body as the bees—to a body where there was as few drones and as little a sprinkling of wasps as possible. —(Laughter.) Let th e m t a k e ti me to reflect and deliberate, and mature their plans, without supposing that every suggestion way exhausted, or that what they knew by intuition others failed to know by experience and long practice. Lot th e i r L or d s hi ps do this in the calm of the long vacti tioa, and then they could approach the question with a fair chance of coming to some proper determination on it, •He greatly rejoiced that the question had been given up to his Noble Friend at the head of tho Government. Ile v however, recommended caution and care, and that no plan should be hastily introduced, because there would be a difficulty in withdrawing it when once intro dueed. Whatever they did he should strongly counsel Government net to appoint two men to the new offices unless their choice was concurred in by the voice of the profession and the publi c . There was one other point to which he wished t o d raw attention. e r lated to Scotch cases brought b e f ore t h e House, which were to be decided without the advantage of the aid of Scotch lawyers. He was of opinion that this was an evil that ought,not to continue, and as no vested interests were to he interfer e d w ith, h e recommen d e d the House to take steles - to provide a remedy for it. The Noble and 1.e.-killed Lord concluded by moving the discharge of the order: Order disco arged accordingly. ,DISTRESS FOR RENT (IRELAND) BILL. Qn the .motion of the Earl of LUCAN the Rouse went into Committee on the Distress for Rent (Ireland) ThwEarl of CARLISLE suggested that as there were two Bills in the House of Commons, and one in the 'House of Lords, which would have the effect of re the grievanc e , th e N oble Lord should suspend medying hi s p l e a sure until they could be all considered together THE SUN, by the House, otherwise he should feel bound to op pose it. After a few words from the Earl of LUCAN, the Bill was postponed. ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. On the motion of the Marquis of WESTMEA 1H the House went into Committee on the Encumbered Es tates (Ireland) Bill. The Earl of CARLISLE had no objection to the principle of the Bill; but he objected to the amendments to be proposed in it. wasT The a M n a x r i q o u u i s s H confiscating the entire property of the countr y . to of W press E S t h T e M ßill T w , said that the C r e o a u s r o t e was The Earl of CARLISLE suggested that the Bill could be passed through Committee pro forma, and the amend ments could be discussed at a tuture stag e. , The Bill was then passed through Committee; the third reading and the amendments to be taken on Tues dATSTRALIAN COLONIES GOVERNMENT BILL. Earl GREY moved the order of the day for the Com mittee on the Australian Colonies Government Bill, and the House went into Committee thereen accordingly. Clauses 26 to 29 inclusive were adopted. On clause 30, conferring power to establish a general assembly for the Australian eolonies being proposed, Lord STANLEY said the Noble Earl (Earl Grey) had given no reason that he (Lord Stanley) knew for establishing the system of government proposed to be introduced to the colonies. It might be true that in regard to those various colonies there might be several subjects, as in the case of the North American colonies, of common interests, in which the colonists themselves might have an opportunity of knowing and understanding what was best for their interests; but no such case had been made out by the Noble Earl, wherein some colonies should overrule others. They were now legislating, they should recollect, for colonies having separate interests, and they should take care, by no act of theirs, to give one body of the colonists a power of over-riding the acts of others. He thought the course of proceeding in this way was very contradictory. For example, they first proposed, by an order in council, to delegate to the colonies a power of local legislation, and then, by another order in council, they proposed to give to the legislative council, or federal assembly, a power over the acts of the colonial legislatures. The Noble Lord then proceeded to analyse the constituent power of the several colonies, and having protested against the power proposed by the Bill to be delegated to the supreme legislative body, concluded by moving, as an amendment, the omission of the 30th clause and the following clauses to 34 inclusive. Earl GREY trusted their Lordships would not adopt the amendment proposed by the Noble Lord. Those clauses were proposed under the condition that there were common interests in several of the colonies. For instance, an Act had recently come home from New South Wales, proposing to establish an uniform rate of postage (2d.) for the whole colony. In the North Ame rican colonies there was a difficulty. In the Australian colonies the subject was one of very great interest. Again, in New South Wales, there was an Act under consideration for establishing steam navigation. In the West Indies a general assembly had been established, and they were anxious to re-establish a corresponding interest between one state and another. There was ano ther point of great importance in the settlement of the Australian colonies question,—namely, the establishment of a court of appeal, so as to avoid the trouble and delay of an application to this country. Now a single colony could not have a court of appeal. He had not the least objection to it; on the contrary, he bad proposed an amendment, the effect of which should be to enable any legislature applying to be included in the arrangement proposed by the Bill to be included only for certain purposes. The Noble Lord had objected to the wide authority to be given to her Majesty's Govern ment by the provisions of the measure, especially with regard to the details of the elections, but he did not think his objection was founded on justice, and certainly if the Noble Lord succeeded to the Colonial-office, he (Earl Grey) should never drea m o f o ff er i ng oppos i t i on to their exercise by him. Having stated other reasons in support of the measure, be proceeded to contend that it was by no means of the unprecedented character at tempted to be shown, and in support of his argument he quoted from the Autobiography of Franklin, to show that a congress of commissioners, as similar as the altered circumstances of the times and the country would permit, had taken place in the United States long be fore the American war, in the year 17.54.—(Hear.) This circumstance confirmed, he thought, the opinion, that the measure rested upon some strong foundation. Unless they adopted some such measure as the present, doubts and . di ffi culties and questions wo u ld con ti nua ll y ar i se, which would create greater doubts and difficulties in their settlement than those now apprehended. Lord WHARNCLIFFE generally supported the Bill, but recommended a postponement of the clause objected to by Lord Stanley. Earl GRANVILLE said he approved of the general tenour of the measure, and he had not gathered from either of the Noble Lords who had spoken against those four clauses that something of what they proposed to enact was not desirable. The Noble Earl who had charge of the Bill had stated that those colonies who refused to send delegates to the proposed assembly could not be compelled by the measure to do so; and he had also stated that he would introduce a clause, on a former stage of the measure, to leave it o pti ona l to j o i n w i t h t h e othr colonies in this assembly, but on what particular subjects or interests they should feel themselves most in terested. That he considered a fair proposal, and one which would prove most beneficial, and therefore he must oppose the amendment. The Earl of HARROWBY said if it was the case that those clauses only proposed to give those colonies an opportunity of conferring together on what was best fur their mutual interests, he could not oppose the whole of them, but he would alter them so as to limit them simply to electing commissioners for that purpose, and not for controlling the legislature of those colonies. Earl GREY agreed that the proposed meeting of as semblies would be more a meeting of commissioners than anything else, but it would be unfair not to give New South Wales, which had three times the population of Victoria, a preponderance over the latter in such assem bly, and, therefore, having those commissioners elected according to the population of the different colonies was desirable. Lord KINNAIRD said, he firmly believed that the first thing those delegates would do on meeting would be to alter the constitution proposed by this measure in re spect of one chamber, and that not to elect an additional one, but to get rid of the nominees. The danger, there fore, of passing the clause was plain, for by doing so they gave virtually over the control of the Secretary of State in this country respecting those colonies to the caprice of those delegates. He had some fear of demo cracy becoming the prevalent doctrine in those colonies, and he thought the passing of those clauses would be the means of giving an impetus to the establishment of that principle. He was sorry to have to differ from the Noble Earl at the head of the Colonial-office; but so sure was he that those clauses would be productive of evil that he was compelled to do so. Lord LYTTELTON supported the amendment. He contended that the colonies who refused to send a deputy to this league would be placed in a most invidious position. The House divided, when there appeared— For the clause... ... ••• 23 Against it Majority f or t h e clause 22 ... —1 Earl GREY gave notice, that upon the report being brought up he should move the addition of a clause to provide that a colony sending delegates to the general assembly might except certain local questions from the jurisdiction of that assembly. Lord STANLEY said the effect of such a clause as this would be to send delegates from the different colo nies with power to vote upon some questions and with. out power to vote upon others, and that there would thus arise perpetual doubt as to what questions they would have power to vote upon. On the 32d clause, empowering the general assembly to make certain laws, Lord STANLEY said that one of the objects cf this clause was to give the general assembly power to enact laws for the formation of roads, canals, or railways, tra versing any two or more of the colonies. Now, would the Noble Earl say that in the event of establishing a railroad between Victoria and New South Wales, for in stance, the colonies of Van Diemen's Land and Western Australia should contribute towards the expense of its construction in proportion to the revenues of each co lony? In that case the contribution of Victoria would be very small, whilst that of Van Diemen'sLand, which would have no interest in the work, would be very large indeed. Surely the Noble Earl would not give power to the general assembly to tax the whole of the colonies fur a purpose of that sort. Earl GREY—The clause gave power to the general assembly to tax the colonies for purposes of common interest. Lord STANLEY—They were also to hare power to enact laws for the erection of beacons and lighthouses, and to raise the sums which might be necessary by . an equal per-centage on the revenues of all the colonies. Now, supposing a lig hthouse were erected at the port of Sydney, of what ben efit would that be to the colony of maintenance of a peo p l e Western Australia of England for the erection and to tax the whollveaosf well tax the Why the noble Earl might as given to the General y the clau se p ew „ to the benefit which the colonies—not in p ro portion Assembl y lighthouse at Constantinople. Yet b to the full extent of might each be supposed derive, but in proportion they m i to understandgs the clause in that re venues. Earl GREY did not words A their the General Assembly money only for common light. As he read it, it power to make appropriation of Assembly clause were purposes. Lord STANLEY—The --.1 , That the said General should have power to make and enact such of Australia m ight be required for t he f ormation of roads, l a a r s as r a ilways traversing any two or mo re of the an -e-5 colonies, or the erection and maint enance of beac ons and lighthou ses for on the coasts of suc h colonies, and for the appropriat io n -u" -to any of the objects or purposes for which such assem bly should legislate of such sums as might be necessary for the same, and for the raising of such sums by an equal per-centage on the revenues of all such colonies." Lord WHARNCLIFFE was of opinion that th e machinery of the Bill would make the assembly a mere congress of commissioners, whose proceedings would create the greatest possible confusion. Earl GREY—It was hardly possible in creating an authority like this to devise words which would effectu ally prevent all abuse of authority; but the very object of creating a representative assembly was to deal fairly with the whole community. He admitted that it was necessary that some proviso should be introduced by which the colonies net equally benefited by any public work should not be called on to be equal contributors. After a short conversation the clause was agreed to. Clauses 33 and 34 were agreed to. On clause 35, Earl GREY , 11a1'd ,in accordance with what be had LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUNE 15, provided they would not avail themselves of that indul e.,rc-, .:!,, Th.t: by three of the convicts, but it was positively refined by the relative of the I ion. Gentleman. The Governor, act ing inconformity with instructions which he had received, placed the Hon. Gentleman's relative on a part of th-> island appropriated to the reception of convicts, but assigned him separate apartments. He was of course there as a convict, not thinking that a ticket of leave was worth acceptance, he (Sir G. Grey) regretted to say; but he had had communication both with the bishop. with the chaplain, and other persons, and every indulgence had been shown him, consistent with the painful duty which the Governor had to discharge.—(Hear, hear.) And he (Sir George Grey) thought if any complaint was to be brought against the Governor, it was for showing more indulgence in this case than he was entitled to show.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to a relaxation as to his treatment, he (Sir G. Grey) only knew it from a communication which he had received from the Hon. Member; but he (Sir G. Grey) had no doubt that if the health of the Hon. Member 'a relative was likely to be endangered, that such relaxa tion would take place as was accorded in similar cases. Mr. GRATTAN said this unfortunate gentleman was a countryman of his ; and he (Mr. Grattan) knew of no law for imposing torture on a maa in this country. This was a question of humanity, and he hoped the Govern ment would treat it as such. This unfortunate gentle man bad not been allowed to buy tea, or coffee, or cloth ing, and his present treatment was worthy the country whose Privy Council refused to allow Bonaparte the lutury of a pianoforte when incarcerated at St. Helena. THE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION. Mr. HEADLAM wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford whether it was his intention to bring before the House the subject of the proposed Commission for the Univer sities on the adjourned debate? iir:dLADgTONE said that the debate was adjourned on the motion of the Member for Plymouth, and he was the person most proper to apply to on the subject. FACTORIES BILL. The House then proceeded to consider the amendments to this Bill. presented petition s f rom severa l places Lor d in j. M Lan A ca N sh N ir E e ß a S nd Cheshire praying the House to pass this Bill in its integrity. Sir G. GREY then proposed, as an additional clause, after section 5, to the effect, that every young person, and every fomale above the age of 18 years, who shall be employed in any factory, or shall be allowed to remain in any room where any manufacturing process is then carried on in any factory during any part of the times which by the notice then fixed up in such factory in that behalf are mentioned as the times allowed for meals, shall be deemed to be employed contrary to the pro visions of the said recited Acts as amended by this Act. Agreed to. Lord ASHLEY proposed the following amendments: —P. 2, 1. 12, after the word " Act," to insert " no child." Same page, 1. 16, after the words " provided and," to insert "no child." Sir G. GREY opposed the amendments. He contended that the present Bill had nothing to do with children. It was merely a Bill to carry out the very Bill which had been introduced by the Noble Lord himself. The effect of the amendment of the Noble Lord would be to place a material restriction on the working of the machinery in factories, because it was impossible to carry on the usual operations in those establishments without having recourse to the labour of women and young chil dren, and the amendment would limit the hours during which they were employed, further than was the case at present. On these grounds, he should oppose the pro position of the Noble Lord. Mr. AGLIONBY supported the amendment. He was not only anxious to limit the period during which women and young persons were engaged in factories, but also to prevent them beginning labour at too early an hour in the morning, or leaving off at too late an hour in the evening. Mr. S. CRAWFORD considered that any Bill which called a child up from its bed at half-past four, was a Bill which ought not to receive the sanction of the House. Mr. BRIGHT wished to place before the House what would be the practical effect of this proposition. If the Noble Lord understood the effects, be thought that he would be the last person to propose these amendments. When an alteration was formerly made in the law re garding the hours of working for children the effect had been that many hundreds of children had been driven from factory employment. If they pursued that course, as was now proposed, that none should work before six in the morning and after six at night, the consequences would be that still more would be driven from it. It was not a question which very materially affected the interest of employers so much as the children, and he thought it desirable that the House should be made aware of the effect of these amendments. Mr. ED WARDS said that in his part of the country, Halifax, it was unusual there to find a child unemployed, and many of them were getting as much as ss. a week. Sir H. WILLOUGHBY said he would be glad to know what the effect of this amendment would be on the adult labour of the manufacturing districts. Mr. TATTON EGER rON said that the effect of this amendment would be entirely to restrict the moving power of adult labour, and he asked the House if they were prepared to do this ? Mr. ELLIOT was of the same opinion, and he be lieved that this amendment was nothing more than a blow by a side-wind at adult labour, which hitherto had not been sought to be interfered with. Mr. HUME asked if the House were in a condition to limit, as was proposed by this amendment, the working of the machinery of the country to eight or nine hours? He deprecated any attempt to interfere with the labour of the working man; under the pretence of removing a pressure from the people they would divert the capital of the country, on the employment of which the working classes were wholly dependent, since it gave them the means of employment and subsistence.—(Loud cries of " Divide.") Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR denied that this amendment interfered with the labour of the people; it was only meant to protect children from being over worked. Mr. W. J. FOX said the great body of the operative of this country would hail this measure as a great boon, notwithstanding that it was so vehe mently opposed by the manufacturing capitalists. He denied that this Bill meant to prevent the factory operatives of this country labouring for a longer period than they desired to do. If it was true that the operatives had been misled or overawed, the Government had the power to ascertain the fact, and to find out their real opinions. This had, indeed, been done, and the result was, that 50 per cent were in favour of ten hours, 25 per cent. in favour of 12 hours, and 12 or 13 per cent. in favour of 11 hours. He believed that the choice had therefore fallen on a Ten Hours Bill. It was of the greatest possible importance that children should be protected against excessive labour, and that they should not be prevented having the advantage of educa tion by being kept employed to a late hour in the evening. After a few words from Mr. BROWN and Mr. STANS FIELD, who wore not heard in the gallery, owing to the impatience of the [louse to have a division, The House then divided, when there appeared— For Lord Ashley's amendment 159 Against it •-• ..• ... 160 Majority against the amendment 1 The result was received with loud cheers by the members in favour of the Noble Lord's amendment. On re-entering the gallery we found Lord J. MANNERS addressing the. House in support of the amendment of which he had given notice, for the purpose of limiting still more the hours of labour in the case of women and young persons. Disguise the ques tion before them as they mighr, its real import wae, would the Parliament of England refuse to the working people of this country a boon which they had on a former occasion freely accorded to them? That was the real question upon which they had to decide, and Heaven send that the decision of English gentlemen upon it might he in accordance with English honesty and English honour! From what had recently passed in that House one would have thought that such a thing had never happened be fore, as that it was necessary to amend in one session of Parliament an Act passed in the preceding one; but every gentleman knew that such things were not of rare oc currence. The House would remember that in 1846, when Parliament had determined to abrogate all the laws imposing duties on the importation of grain, it was discovered towards the close of the session that, owing to an inaccuracy in the Bill, a fixed duty for a limited period was left on beans and peas. The time for which the duty could be raised was so limited, that it was not thought worth while to pass a distinct Act reme lying the defect; but let it be supposed that, instead of a ver bal inaccuracy, affecting only the import of beans and peas for a limited period, it had been discovered a year or two after that there were conflicting decaions in the inferior courts on the subject, and that it was decided by one of the supreme courts that not only beans and peas, but every kind of cereal product, would have to pay a fixed duty, not for a limited time, but for ever, what then would have been the lan.uage of the Right Hon. the Member for Tamworth, and the Hon. Member for the West Riding ? They would at once have insisted upon a remedy being introduced. But what would have been thought if they (the Protectionists) had turned round and thrown every obstacle in the way of repairing propositionpoi n t o f principle, of the Ministry the blunder ?—(llear , hear.) Yet such a course would not have been more ' blameable than that pursued by ( I between Bill.-- (Hear.)the d th th e at d t iff o e w re h n ie c h e Geatlemen opposite with respect to the Factory he had alluded? But in the one case the parties were powerful, in the other they were poor and friendless, and could appeal to nothing but the honour and justice of the House of Commons. The Noble Lord then referred to the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, and to the last factory report and other au whatwaan thorities to show that it was the intention of the framers of the Act of 1844 that the working by shifts practised under the Act of 1833 should be prevented, and that it should be virtually a Ten Hours Bill. The Noble Lord the Member fur Bath, when be introduced his mea sure, had brought forward a conclusive chain of evidence as to the beneficial working of the Ten Hour s Bill ; yet , as he (Lord J. Manners) und e r s tood is was the intention of the Honourable limber for Manchester to give reasons to show that the statement of his Noble Friend were er roneoue, he thought it right to confirm those statements by evidence which he thought could admit of no dis pute. He should not quote from the statements of men a gentleman perfectly capable of forming an opinion, and inclined from his position to take a view hostile to the enthusiasts, hut from the calm opinions recorded by t i l l: of 1844. He w ou ld re f special commissioner o f the Morn i ng Ch r onicle sent down to the manufict ur i ng districts to repor t on the conditi on of the people. to the statement of the Speakine of the Ten Hours Bill, that gentleman acid ho found onepoint almost uniformly p conceded, and w hi ch was strongly verified by his own observation, th a t t h e best conducte d wor k me n i n ( acts mill were thos e w h o were most earnes t f o r the Te n Hours Bill, and as to the females, the testimony was universal that it Was one of the greatest boons that had been granted. That opinion was corroborated by ey reeeie from ',114. , evy let out' pee: eeted to the liowe, and particularly by the remarkable petition he had himself presented from the maaagers and overlookers of mills in Rochdale and Halifax. The same thing was also stated in a peti tion presented from 387 overllookers in Manchester. Mr. Sanders also quoted, as a satisfactory proof of the beneficial operation of that Act, the increased power it had given to the working people in Yorkshire to obtain small plots of ground, and to cultivate ',tile gardens for their own use. Then, if such were the beneficial results of the Act of 1847 on the condition of the manufac turing population—if their toil had been lightened, their means of obtaining education greatly increased— the comforts of thousands of heroes promoted by the cul tivation of the soil, perhaps the purest and moat simple of enjoyments permitted to the dwellers upon earth, he would ask whether it had been accomplished by any great sacrifice on the part of the master manufacturers. tie asserted that such was not the case, and he would refer, as a proof of it, to almost every speech delivered from the Manchester benches opposite on every debate during the present session on the condition of the csuntry. They had told the House that never in their memory was trade so brisk, or the interest of the manufacturing districts placed on so safe and secure a basis ; and yet he supposed they would now say that if this great boon was not taken away from the factory worker the employers would be sacrified on the shrine of a mock humanity. But the factory workers would not, he thought, be disposed to attach much weight to prophe cies of that kind. They had been, in the last twenty years, too well accustomed to such prophecies to put much faith in them. If Hon. Gentlemen opposite said, " We admit that the manufacturing interest is flourishing —‘ sed medio in fonte leporum surgit amari aliquid quod ipsis in floribus angst' "—if these Cassandras of Staley bridge should say that the weal or woe of the manufac turing interests of Yorkshire and Lancashire depended upon this half-hour he would take leave to doubt the value of that assertion. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might speak of American competition, but let the House con sider what that American competition was. It was either a bugbear or a sad and stern reality; if it were the former let the House disregard it; if the latter, could any gentleman think that this solitary half-hour would enable the master manufacturers successfully to re sist it? He dismissed, then, the assumption that the Act of 1847 had worked ill, and would assert that its effect had been beneficial to the working people, and not detrimental to the masters. If in deed any doubt were entertained on the subject, he would refer to a petition in favour of the Ten Hours Bill which had been presented to that House, and which was signed by a number of the master manufacturers in Lancashire employing a great number of workmen. In the opinion of a great body of the master manufacturers, their interests were not sacrificed in continuing the boon which every one admitted had been conferred on the working people. As to any advantage that this Bill would confer on the working people, let him ask what was the advantage in taking from them two hours a week? What was the compensation which dignified this measure by the name of a compromise? It was said ,that the object of it was to prohibit women and young persons from working after six o'clock in the evening, but he would appeal to any man practically conversant with the manufacturing districts whether, after the decision in the Court of Exchequer, in 99 cases out of 100, women and young persons did not leave off their work at half-past five and not six? In those cases, therefore, the boon now proposed was not a boon, but was an addition of half-an-hour's work. It was true that when the Government proposal was first made, sedulous attempts were made to induce the working people to believe that the effect of this Bill would he to make them leave the mills at six o'clock, and prevent adults working after that hour. But now his Noble Friend had learnt, he doubted not with regret and indignation, that neither was such the effect of the Bill nor the intention of Ministers, and he thought his Noble Friend bad some reason ti complain of a want of ingenuousness on the part of Ministers, who permitted his Noble Friend and their advocates in the papers and their daily organ the Tunes newspaper, to promise the working people that such would be the result of the mea sure, that the moment the clock struck six every mill would necessarily be closed ; and now, after two divi sions, it turned out that the Government never did in tend that such should be the result of their measure.— (Hear, hear.) They had it, therefore, established now that under this Bill mills might bo worked by adult males and young children until half-past eight o'clock, and so the sole boon conferred on the working people was that in 99 cases out of 100 women and young persons would be compelled to work half-an-hour longer than at the present moment. But, it might be said, why make such a strife for so small an object as half-an-hour? He should have thought that half- an-hour taken from the working people against their wishes, against their ad mitted rights, against their intention, would not have been regarded as a light or trivial matter. He knew with what feelings the working people and the clergy and gentry in these districts reg a rd e d thi s proposition of the Government. Let him refer to the statement of the committee of managers, overlookers, carders, spinners, and other branches of factory work in Bolton, on this point.: The committee said that during this half hour, if taken from the working people, they would learn this lesson—they would regard the matt er as a violation of their Magna Charta, and would look upon the Legislature as the invaders of their ceded rights and the defrauders of the working classes. It was not the way to form loyal and loving subjects. Ile would not quote the language of the working men, justly indig nant at this invasion of the rights of their wives and children, but he entreated the House to listen to the calm opinion of calm men, delivered solemnly to the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, telling him tbat in Preston, and generally throughout Lancashire, it was essential, in order to carry out the principle that led to the Ten Hours Bill, that the hour of half-past five should remain unchanged for the cessation of work; that evening schools were generally established, and that the young factory hands attended them with much be nefit; that they were open from seven to nine, but that unless the children left the factory by half-past five they could not refresh and clean themselves so as to be at school by seven, and that if the schools were interfered with it would be productive of much injury. That statement was signed by the clergy of Preston, and he found that their opinion was shared by the vicar of Brad ford, the vicar of Leeds, than whom no person knew better the practical working of this measure, and by the vicar of Bingley. This half-hour was, in fact, nearly a fourth part of the time appropriated to the improvement of the rising generation of the factory workers; and he would ask those who were so interested in the spread of education, and who were so anxious to bring before that House Bills for the establishment of public libraries and museums, how they could reconcile it with their own professions, and he doubted not their own earnest convictions, to take away, against the intentions of the Legislature and the wishes of the people, a fourth part of the time devoted to the religious, moral, and in tellectual improvement of the great body of the working people of this country. But he would be told he did not take into consideration the great boon of half-as-hour offered by the Government on the Saturday. He had considered it, and, so far from regarding it as a boon, he thought it was productive of no insignificant evil, and when the House bore in mind that the factory people on Saturday worked four hours and a half continuously and then went to dinner, and afterwards returned to the mills to perform that part of their tasks which was admitted on all hands to be the most severe, the hardest, and most exacting of all their toil, ,aannddr,etflheenctuendr:hfraetsuhnedde,artitdhi:Githoi vernment measure they would have to work five hours coountthinavuionugsltyhol dinner, would go to the most severe of a t h g e r i e r e w w o i t r h t g m h , o t h ur a hours s o o f fn r labour,from he thought half.h t o h u e r l a tu n s g e awould light i or trivial matter, t was a most serious and crying ma ry st i o nge c v h il : No Englishman liked to work upon an empty and yet it was now proposed that these people should work longer on Saturday, when :their labour was most severe, without their meal. It was indeed a compromise of nothing, unless it were the rights o f th e people and the honour, of Parliament. Were he a political sup porter of the Government, he should regret the course they had taken; even on partisan and political grounds, but as an opponent of their political policy, he did regret it on national considerations.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was not well that any portion of the working people of this country should be taught by the sworn maintainers of the law and order that wealth was more powerful than justice, and that agitation, more formidable than the secret pressure of associated millowners, was required to procure from the executive Government the sanction of Parliament to the admitted rights of the people. The Act which it was now proposed virtually.to repeal was granted to the people with the deliberate consent of all branches of the Legislature, and was ratified in a peculiarly solemn manner by the special approbation of that gracious lady who reigns over us. Was it well that the Government should invite the House to come to a vote that should compel her Majesty to re turn into the hands of the working people that testimo nial which she had been so graciously pleased to accept from them?—(Hear, hear.) Upon the reverse of that medal, purchased by the pence of her toiling subjects, and cherished, as he knew, by her Majesty as one of the not least glorious of the many, trophies attached to the imperial crown she wore, were inscribed the words, " The Ten Hours Bill."—(Hear.) Was it well that the Ministers, the confidential advisers of that So vereign, should ask the House now to come to a vote which should render that precious medal a most mean ingless coin, or, if it meant anything, that it shoud be a memorial of the inconstancy of Parliament, of the levity or fickleness of the Government, or of the folly of the people that would confide in either? Let not the House come to a decision] onf this question with their eyes closed. Let not Members flatter themselves that, by rejecting the amendment, they would settle the question, and put an end to agita tion.—(Hear, hear.) Did those who had a dread of professional agitators and demagogues, and wished to re move all the materials of seditious agitation, imagine that they would attain their object by adding two hours to the toil of a great body of the working classes?— (Hear, hear.) Was there a Socialist or Chartist, dissa tisfied with the institutions and forms of government es tablished in this country, who would not point exult ingly to Parliamentary fickleness, levity, subserviency to wealth, and indifference to the claims and rights of the poor? They would point to the vote of the House, and say— " Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridre." Depend on it, that by adopting the course recommended by the Government, the House would place arms in the hands of those men, and arguments in their mouths; and this would be the result of what was ,Tesui,ically recommended as a settlement of the queltiot , !—(Hear, hear•) Most earnestly did he deprecati that result, anti invited the House to avert the threatening' mischi e f, If farther evidence were ❑ecessary to justify the course which he recommended, it might be found in a d. duration which the Honourable Member for Man chester made, after the t Ti, Hours Act passed, to a deputation of millowners, who waited on them for the 1850, purpose of ascertaining whether there wns any chance of a 12, li, l; p.)Ti that occasion he Members tor Manchester declared that so strong was the feeling of the House of Com mons that it was pledged to the Ten Hours Bill that it was impossible for them to hold out the smallest expec tation that any one of these propositions would be adopted. Lie hoped that the Hon. Members for Man chester would prove correct exponents of the feeling of the House.—(Hear, hear.) At any rate he invited the House to recloetn the pledge which they had given, and to prove to the working people of this country that they attached more value to the declared intentions of an Act of Parliament, to the claims and rights of the working people, and to the beneficial working of the Act which her Majesty had saectionwl, than they did to the back stairs influence and coffee-house combinations of any set of associated mill wilers.—(l-lear, hear.) He appealed to the ancient spirit of English honour in vindication of the rights—the admitted rights—of Eeglish labour; he appealed to the House to show that they were not only in name, but in very deed and reality, the representa tives of the Commons of England,—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord concluded by moving the following amendments:—lu clause 1, line 14, that the word "six" be omitted for the purpose of inserting the words " half past five;" and in line 18, that the word " two" be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words "half past three." Mr. HORNBY expressed his regret that the support ers of the Ten Hours Act were no longer led by the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, though that regret was somewhat diminished at finding their former leader had found a most able successor in the Noble Lord who had just addressed the House.—(Hear.) At the same time he feared that the desertion of the cause by the Noble Member for Bath would cause it to loss the sup port of a large number of votes in that House. The operatives were much indebted to the Noble Member for Bath for his former exertions in their behalf, and it was only to be regretted that he had not given notice in suf ficient time of his intention to abandon the tea hours clause. The Legislature had now the advantage of ex perience in favour of the ten hours clause, for all the predictions of evils to result from it had been falsified, whilst all the promises of good to follow from its adop tion had been verified.— (Hear.) The Hon. Member for Manchester once declared that if provisions were re duced in price the working classes would be as well off by working ten hours as they then were after working twelve, and at another time ho said that if the corn-laws were repealed the masters and their workpeople would come to an agreement about the hours of labour. How did the Honourable Member reconcile those statements with his recent declaration, that the masters were so annoyed by the legal restric tions imposed on them that they were resolved not to consult the comfort of the persons they employed ? (Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member accused the supporters of the 10 hours clause with being actuated by ignorant sentimentalism; but certainly no one would charge the Hon. Member with acting under the influence of senti ment of any kind.—(Hear, hear.) In 1844, during a critical state of parties, and when the members of the present Government sat on the Opposition benches, Sir R. Peel being Premier, the present First Lord of the Treasury said:— " He was much struck with the statement of the Hon. Member for Leeds, that, out of 70 owners of mills, 40 were ready to adopt 10 hours, and had signed a petition to that effect. Now, when they were told of the alarm which existed (and he believed alarm did exist) at their legislation on that subject, was it not something to be urged in support of the principle, that practised men, who, it might be thought, ought naturally to have op posed it, were ready to adopt the proposition? It was a difficult thing to interfere with toil, but the time was come when he thought they ought to do so. And if he were called upon to point out another measure of relief, it would be that which would allow of a greater supply of food ; thus insuring the double boo❑ of diminished labour and increased enjoyment of the necessaries of lite." On the same occasion the present Secretary for the Home Department said:— " they should look to the reasonable wishes of the great body of operatives, and approach ten hours gradually; that they were fully competent to take a just view of the question; that they had admitted to hint that they expected a reduction of wages, but that the evidence then preponderated in favour of ten hours." The Noble Lord itnd the Right Hon. Baronet, supported by eight other Members of the present Government, voted against the then Government upon the question, and put it in a minority of eight. If the Noble Lord and the Bight Hon. Secretary for the Home Depart ment wished to escape the imputation of being actuated in 1844 by factious and party motives, they must state the grounds on which they were now prepared to aban don the policy they then advocated.—(Hear, hear.) Whether the Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Baronet were governed by the private influence and advice to which they were subjected from those who sat behind them he knew not, but the House and the country had a right to be informed of the grounds on which the opera tives were to be deprived of the boon which the Legis lature had conferred on them. In conclusion, the Hon. Member called upon the House to support the amend ments proposed by the Noble Member for Colchester, if it wished to maintain its honour and good faith.—(Hear.) Sir G. GREY hoped the House would not adopt the amendment of the Noble Lord, and he hoped further that it would nut decide in ignorance of its effects and bearings. If anybody had come suddenly into the House, and had heard only the speeches of the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester and of the Hon. Member who had followed him, they would be quite igno rant of the real merits of the question. Having stated what the members of the present Government said in 1844, the Hon. Gentleman said he could not understand their gross inconsistency. But when the Hon. Gentle man spoke to him (Sir George Grey) of having given a vote in deference to the secret advice of the Hon. Mem ber for Manchester, he must take leave to remind the Hon. Gentleman that when professing to contrast the vote he (Sir G. Grey) had then given with the vote he was now about to give, he had omitted to state one im portant fact—namely, that when in office in 1847 he had given effect to that vote by supporting the Bill then brought forward.—(Hear, hear.) In taking the course they were now adopting he contended that the Govern ment was doing nothing in contravention of the Act of 1847, but on the contrary that they were doing that which they believed would secure the attainment of those objects to a far greater degree than they could be se cured by any other mode; and above all with the cordial concurrence and consent of the millowning interest in that country. And he had certainly always contended that it was most desirable for the interests of all parties that any settlement that was come to should be made with the combination and concurrence of the millowners and great body of the operatives. Notwithstanding the strong terms and violent language of the Noble Lord, who had thought proper to come down to that House prepared to denounce it, he had the best possible rea-on to believe and the best possible evidence that the Bill before the House would secure to the operatives the be nefits intended by the Legislature in a greater degree than they had ever enjoyed them before. One word with regard to the charge insinuated by the Noble Lord that the Government were mere shields to carry on the secret councils of the millowners and of the Hon Member for Manchester—he could assure the House and the Noble Lord that he had never refused to see any parties In connexion with the subject, and that both himself and his Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had had more interviews with the delegates and factory operatives, and had devoted more time to discussing the question with them, than with the millowners. They had had an opportunity of clearly stating their views, which he be lieved to be honest but mistaken, and it was riot in the =absence of due communication with them that they had adopted the course now before the House. The Noble Lord had spent a great deal of time in arguing that the error in the Bill was a mere clerical mistake, and when such occurred that an Act was passed as a matter of course, to give effect to the original intention. But the question was was it a mere clerical error? why, it turned upon the construction that could be legally given to the Act of 1844. If it had been only a clerical mistake, it would have been long ago corrected. All parties were anxious to have the decision of a court of law upon the disputed point; that decision was at length obtained, and, being adverse to the operatives, the Noble Lord the Member for Bath asked leave to bring in a Bill to carry the intentions of Parliament into effect. He (Sir G. Grey) pointed out the difficulties the Noble Lord was likely to encounter in the progress of his mea sure; but neither himself nor any of the mem bers of the Government offered any opposition to it. The Noble Lord thee, finding that his Bill did not carry the intention of Parliament into effect, asked leave to have it committed pro forma, then with drew it, and introduced another, which it was found would be equally inoperative. He (Sir G. Grey) had been in communication with the factory inspectors and others, and they assured him that the Bill was equally open to evasion as the other. He had then interposed himself, and the plan he proposed was admitted by the Noble Lord to be decidedly preferable to any other for carrying out the intentions of the Act of 1847, and his Noble Friend who had been traduced that night—(Hear, hear)—by an Hon. Gentleman who called him a deserter from the cause, and by the Noble Lord who said that he experienced a feeling of shame standing in the place of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath—had, he (Sir G. Grey) maintained, been throughout the faithful and, some might say—although he would not sayso—the too zealous advocate of the rights of the factory operatives. —(Hear, hear.) That Noble Lord saw at once the ad vantages his Act was likely to confer upon the working classes, and said at once he would surrender his Bill, and place the matter in the hands of the Government.— (Hear.) Certainly, taking the Noble Lord's amendment as it was now proposed, they would be able to secure, arithmetically, 5i hours instead of six; but they would do away with the intention of the Acts of 1844 and 1847, which gave the millowners a range of fifteen hours during which their ten hours might be taken. If the millowner wanted to evade the law, instead of giving the hands one hour and a half for meals, he might say that he would give them three hours, and thus keep the bands at the mill one hour and a half later than half past five, at which hour under the present measure they would be relieved. Now, the Noble Lord the Member for Bath, seeing the advantages of his (Sir G. Grey's) proposition, had acted as he believed for the benefit of the operatives, and left the matter in his hands, and he must say that he (Sir G. Grey) was not ashamed, under such circumstances, to be suhjscted to the charge of in consistency. It was asserted by the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester that if the present measure passed it would take away from the operatives the benefit of the Act of 1844 and the Act of 1847. lie de nied that utterly. The great advantage of his proposi tion was, that the operatives had their evenings secured to them from six o'clock for recreation and improvement. This much was cortain, that if they adopted any other alteration, whatever s t r i c t ness th e y might introduce, the millowners would be able to make arrangements that would deprive th e operatives of the adva nta g es Legislature interd.d th e y should enjoy. Noble Lord had complained of the hardship of allowing the workman a half-holidev on Saturday. All he could ssY ee a .1.-e. e.e. t etee Li ; ei (ejection teade, and be believea that the operatives at tached the greatest value to the enjoyment of a half holiday on Saturdays. Sir J. HOBEOUSE—The greatest importance vets always attached to it by the operatives. Sir G. GREY—Hie Right Hon. Friend, whose expe rience was touch greater than his own, fully corroborated him. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would pause b-tore it adopted the amendment of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had talked of gocd faith and honour, as if there was any violation of either in carrying out the spirit of the Act of 1847. He hoped the House would not be induced to reject the pro position he had submitted to it, and which offered, he believed, the only satisfactory solution that could be ob teined of the question. He repeated what the Hon. Gentleman had reminded him he had said on a former occasion—that it was most desirable that the reasonable wishes of the operatives should be attended to. It W 36 in that belief that he had submitted that proposition to the House ; and he must say that if the amendment of the Noble Lord was adopted he should be compelled to abandon any wailer charge of the I.3lll.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BANKES observed that the Right Hon. Bare net had omitted to notice a statement of' the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester, which showed that to a large portion of operatives the Bill would, so far from being a boon, be a decided loss. That statement was, that at the present moment 99 out of 190 operatives had the full benefit of the Ten Hours Act; and the Hon. Member who seconded the amendment observed tilt" the relay system met with so little sanction from mane : facturers themselves, that public opinion would be sun. cient to put it down if 'the law were left as it was. was for the House to consider whether, if this amend ment were not adopted, it would not be better for the operatives that no Bill should pass than that one shoul d pass which would confer no benefit on 99 out of 100 operatives. He thought there was nothing unfair in the comparison which had been instituted between the con duct of the Right Honourable Baronet in 1844 and the principle of the Bill; there was an essential variance be tween the views of Honourable Members now on the Treasury bench at that period, and their acts at the pre sent moment. None would be less disposed than he was to believe that any imputation could rest on the charac ter of the Noble Lord the Member for Bath. In this , as in every action of his life, the Noble Lord, he be. lieved, was interested by a sincere desire to act in con formity with what he said and honestly intended to do; and, since the Noble Lord stated so, it was manife st that he regarded this as a good compromise for the - working people. But why should there be a comnr° - raise at all ? Under this Bill the range of hours Wa s not limited. As regarded children, it was still from half-past five A.M. to eight P.M.; yet that was the class whom it was the intention of their p as t l eg i s l a ti on chienr to benefit. Mr. STANFORD thought that considering the cir cumstances under which the statute bad been set aside' the class of persons who were affected by the decision of the Court of Exchequer were entitled to be placed 41 the position in which it was originally intended Parliament that they should be placed. He should sur port the amendment of the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester. Mr. NEWDEGATE inquired whether, in the opinion of the Attornay-General, the insertion of the words pro posed by the Noble Lord the Member for Colchester would invalidate the Bill? [The ATTonems-GENES' intimated that it would not.] Why did the Right 1 1 °' nourable Baronet the Secretary for the Home Depart- ment, in 1847, approve of limiting the hours of !abater to 58, and now propose to add two hours more The effect of the amendment was to give the operatives the advantage intended to be conferred by the Act of 1847. It was lamentable that the Government should shrink from their own acts. To such proceedings—proceeding s which were neither creditable to Ministers nor fair to the operatives—he would be no party. He trusted in private lite he kept his word; and he said here, in his piece' that those who gave up the limitation of 1847 did not keep their word with the factory workers. Mr. MUN FZ observed that if he thought the fee,' tory question was now to b e di scusse d, h e m i g ht eiw Honourable Members connected with trade whether in any one manufactory they worked ten hours a day ? And if they did, whether they would not produce mote than what they had orders for ? He would endow' roar to undress the case—(Hear, hear, and a laugh) --- about which there had been great mystification. Th e question with Members o f th a t H ouse was, w h a t did they vote fur in 1847 ? Did they mean to give bona fide Ten Hour s Bill or not : - -(Hear, hear.) e, far as his memory served, every man who voted fur the measure of 1847 fully intended that the parti es should have a bona fide Ten Hours Bill. The question then was, would the proposed measure give them a bona fide Ten Hours Bill, or would it rob them of two hours a week? If Parliament robbed them of two hours a week, contrary to its intentions and declarations at the time, what would Hon. Members think if the parties interested said the Legislature had made a bungling jo b of it, and asked an alteration in their own favour by reduction to fifty-six hours a week? Supposing a Win drew a bill on him for 3001., which he accepted; sur posing it was afterwards discovered that the stamp was wrong one, and he was to say to the man, " I won't psi the bill, bat I'll give you 280Z"—(L ou d cr i es o f " H e ar. ) That was a case in point. Parliament had not only offered, but had given, a bond fide Ten Hours Bill; bu t it was now said to the people to whom the Bill had he r r given, " You shall wo r k t wo h ours a week extra?' L.'s should vote for the amendment, and, as an honest man , he could not do otherwise. If the House reversed th e vote of 1847, under the pretence that thereby the work' ing classes would be benefited, they would do mor e than by anything else to discredit themselves—(Hear) — and to make the people believe they were not honestli represented. Mr. HEALD, as representative of a constituend that was one-third the largest consumers of cotton upon the face of the globe, begged leave to express his opinion upon the subject before the House. Upon the prin ciples of honour and conscience, he felt himself emir pelled to a certain conclusion upon this question. If bji vote was not in conformity w ith t h e i nterests o f the l i people, it should be pl a c e d t o th e f au l t o f h i s judgment in not corresponding with th e j u d gment o f t h ose he ha d the honour to represent. He partly agreed with 113 . 1 : Hon. Member for Montro se i n hi s o b servat i on that 2, was not only delicate, b u t d angerous to i nter f e re b f legislation with labour. He thought that they w ere more in danger by legislating too much than by stop' ping short in the amou n t o f l eg i s l at i on. H e never coil , understand why the hours of factory labour should ex' ceed the hours of labour of an or di nary workman. The Act of 1844 provided for those very young persons favour of of whom he gave his vote that night. He sIX; persuaded that the facto r y operatives believed it was honest intention of Parliament to limit their hours of labour to 58 hours in the week. It was then most de n . ; gerous to weaken in th e i r m i n d s t h at perfect conv iction which they entertained in the integrity a n d the honou r of the British Parliament. He believed that they. Inf i ; ferred the Bill that li m it e d t h e i r t i me o f l a b our 10' hours in the week, and if th e y did not rece i ve a wimps „ „ measure there would be n o sett l ement o f t h e questiel A system of agitation wo u ld t h en b e create d , t h e wea n of which no person cou ld t e ll. Af ter a full exam ination of all the bearings of thi s ca s e , h e f e l t t h at t h e y woul d gain considerably by mai n t a i n i ng t h e hi g h standard or honour which it was the pride of Parliament to posses"! even though for the time being they should suffer som e inconvenience. Ther e was t h e quest i on of the supply c idcotton to those mills. He th oug h t t h at ten h our s a . would be too much labour to expect unless they all t b get a more certai n su ppl y o f cotton. He l oo k e d " I for immense interest to th e mot i on o f t h e H on. M em ber Manchester.—(Hear, bear.) A s a roan of honour, he telt he should support the amendment of the Noble L ot ' the Member for Colchester. tot Mr. HEYWOOD su p porte d the Bill. The InVflie manufacturers demanded an e l even h ours Bill, and -13$ operatives dem an d e d a ten hours Bill. The Governtol3 offered a ten and a half; and he thought that it was nt perfectly fair compromise, and one calculated to bend all parties. ide Mr. W. J. FOX sa id t h at t h ey had not now t o d ( s ° 11 on the policy o f a ten h ours or an eleven hours 131 t he. whether they s h ou ld con fi rm the former intent i on as de ,, Legislature as expressed in the Act which it ha d ' es.s eet liberately passed. In the present case he saw 1 : 1 2,, r . e %i• for departing from the decision come to in 1847. 1 "'"i• tett gencies of the trade did not require it, for instead 0., hours being an inconvenient maximum of time, it ws , i ' o nla no means the averag e w hi c h t h e f actory oper atiyes4tor reach for some years t o come . Thi s Bi l l wou ld n- nor satisfy the Millewners' Association of Manches_,tefss fi r the factory operatives ; the former would be as u s e eer• fled as ever, and the latter more discontented 11 c -I g o ele The Bill, therefore. appeared to him to be, es the it, Is e Lord the Member f or C o l c h ester had desc ribed , compromise of nothing b u t t h e f a i t h an d hnecc r 011 Parliament. The G overnment had ass i gne d to the' b e n Coolies in Jamaica ni ne h ours a day labour; w h l st ives should they wish t o ma k e our own f a ctory (To r o alit work 10 i? He simply asked that the House s do keep faith with th ose peop l e. T here cou ld be Insby of the construction p u t upon t h e Bill o f 1847 who aP" operatives themselves, and upon that feeling' be cheerfully support the amendment.—(Hear, heart ,; Mr. Alderman SIDNEY sa id t h e eltles n e - w ees whether the Bill grant e d in 1847 was to be techne now, or whether advant age was to b e taken of a _ cal error and 58 hours a week substituted tor_ e i e e - (Hear, hear.) The Government would deceiveer, be selves greatly if they considered that this Bill vv: r _t_c t ud a settlement of the question; and remembering Du efacturi og the excitement that prevailed in the at were hel districts in 1830, the monster meetings s"l i s e warn ed t and the agitation that was organised, e to House against again giving occasion of the nort ings on the part of the factory operates rsince 1847 hi td The operation of the Ten Hours nil and t the morals, a . been most satisfactory—the manners, changed—tit ee habits of the people had been essentially and reereaticen suoh prooee had been afforded them for reflection th,oo, and they had been taught habits of providence;, rnura w u l ina when this was the case, and when the maximum am a ' was 10 hours _ of labour imposed upon criminals for „cease from which one hour was to be deducted condeleta and another hour for instruction, should they s of age, women and young persons under 18 factories, 0 labour 10i hours a day? curred that this was a question in which the h o e 8. oa bi integrity of the House were concerned, and n support the amendment. hithet Mr. PATTEN said, this question hael been 98 ro r HYrernhti entirely i improperly argued, simply and solely npon the u e „ tion of a contract having been entered into hbetW° 4: Parliament and the operatives. Toe ficc was this' 1847 the Ten Hours Act was passed, after many ye a h t dismission, and even then with a strong feeling ori.r:.!: part of many of the impolicy of the measure. o, St__ to then, as the representative of the county of LI he had been requested over and over again to en . , o ur to get the Act moeified; but he had always advised friends not to interfere with the decision at which liament had arrived. Now, however, when an oppertwd, stated the other evening, he should propose an alteration in the clause, to modify the power l u c i , l l in blies with reference to the nominee members of the le gislativaassemblies. Lord STANLEY gave the Noble Earl notice that the question which had been decided that night by a single vote would be again raised on the bringing up of the reportßy consenting to this clause, as now amended, he did‘lt hold himself precluded from raising a discus sion on it at a future stage. He should have dune so now were it not that he believed it would be more conve nient to their Lordships that he should take another opportunity for the discussion. The clause was then agreed to, as were the remaining clauses, and the House resumed. The Estates Leasing (Ireland) Bill then went through Committee. The Judgments (Ireland) Bill passed through Com mittee. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 14. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Fo'ur o'clock. The Sheriffs of London appeared at the bar and pre sented a petition agreed to by the Lord Mayor, Alder men, and Common Council of the city of London, in Common Couneil assembled, praying that the Interments Bill may not pass into a law as it now stands. THIRD READINGS. The following Bills were read a third time and passed:— British Electric Telegraph Company. South Wales Railway (Alterations of Works). BILSTON IMPROVEMENT, MARKET, WATER WORKS, AND CEMETERY BILL. , Upon the motion for reconsidering this Bill, Mr. THORNELY moved the insertion of a clause. Mr. 7 71La114PAITEN said the clause provided that the cemetery should not be opened within 300 yards of any house of 501. value. Now, if it was necessary to protect houses of 501 value it was of equal importance to protect houses of less value, and he should, therefore, object to the clause, unless some explanation could be given to justify its introduction. Mr. THORNELY had been told that the standing orders of the House of Lords required its insertion. Their Lordships would not pass the Bill without it. Mr. W. PATTEN said the sooner, then, that order was rescinded the better. Mr. THORNELY observed that smaller buildings were pretected by the General Cemeteries Act. Mr. MACKENZIE announced his intention to oppose the clause, and ultimately it was withdrawn. The Bill was then ordered to be engrossed. SECOND READING. The Sir Peter Hesketh Fleetwood's Estate Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed. PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON presented a petition from the body known as the Society of Friends, approving of the principle of the Interments Bill, but suggesting certain amendments, and praying to be exempted from certain of its provisions. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Christ Church, Birmingham, against the Savings Banks Bill. Lord HOTHAM presented a petition from the East Riding against the admission of Jews into Parliament. Captain FORDYCE presented a petition from Aber been against any alteration in the parochial system of education in Scotland. Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from Glasgow against the Marriage Bill. - Sir H. WILLOUGHBY presented a petition from a body of factory workers in favour of a Ten Hours Bill. Sir G. STAICKLAND presented a similar petition from Preston, Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from Flintshire praying the ( - louse to take measures to prevent the ap pointment of any person to any ecclesiastical office in Wales who was not conversant with the Welsh language. Mr. MILES presented a petition from Somersetshire against the admission of Jews into Parliament — Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the Irish Church Building Society against national education in Ireland. Mr. WYLD presented a petition from Chelsea, sug gesting alterations in the Interments Bill. - CoK)nel L. WATKINS presented petitions against Post-office labour on the Sabbath-day, from the parish and town of Lampeter, the Welsh Calvinistic chapel in Llangarthe, from Tregarron and Llanilar, all in the county of Cardigan, most numerously sand respectably signed. Mr. ADDERLEY presented a petition from the House of Assembly of Prince Edward's Island praying that the House would protect their rights as British subjects. Mr. MACKINNON presented petitions from Lam beth and Southwark in favour of the Marriage Bill. THE CENSUS. Mr. MACGREGOR gave notice that, at a subsequent stage of the Census Bill, he would move the insertion of a clause in the form of a schedule, to contain the descrip tion of the trade or occupation of each person in Great Britain, and certain agricultural statistics. SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. Mr. C. LUSHINGTON said, with reference to the petition he had presented that evening, from:the Society of Friends, protesting against their being compelled to collect the rate for ecclesiastical purposes under the Metropolitan Interments Bill, he gave notice that on the proper occasion he should move a clause for exempting the members of the Society of Friends from the perform ance of that duty when acting as overseers. VENTILATION OF MINES. Mr. WYLD rose to ask the Right Hon. the Secretary of S►ate for the Home Department, if, as the reports of Messrs. Blakwell and Phillips are now presented, it was his intention to introduce any measure for the better ventilation and inspection of mines and collieries. Sir G. GREY said a Bill had been prepared on the subject, and he hoped to lay it before Parliament almost immediately. BOARD OF HEALTIL In reply to Mr. B. OSBORNE, Sir GEORGE GREY said he would shortly lay be fore the House the evidence on which the Board of Health founded their report. RATING OF STOCK IN TRADE. Sir R. INGLIS asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether at this period of the session it was his intention to proceed further with the Bill now before the House, providing for the rating of stock in trade? Sir G. GREY said that there was but little prospect of proceeding with the Bill this session. BOUNDARY COMMISSIONERS (IRELAND). Mr. CLEMENTS wished to know the reason why the report of the Boundary Commissioners of Ireland had been delayed so long, and if any alteration had been made in the report? Sir G. GREY said that this was a report which had to pass through the hands of the Government, and ho was not aware that any alteration had been made in the report. THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. Mr. HUME wished to put a question, which he had put last night, to which be had not received an answer, and that was, whit was the meaning of those external illuminations, with which Hon. Members had been sur rounded last night in the new House. As Mr. Greene was not in the House no answer was returned to the question. RAILWAY ABANDONMENT BILL. Sir JAMES GRAHAM wished to ask the Attorney- General if the third reading of the Railway Abandon ment Bill would be proceeded with to-night. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he knew it was the in tention of his Learned Friecd not to proceed with the Bill to-night. LORD-LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND ABOLITION BILL. In answer to a question from Sir R. H. INGLIS, Sir G. GREY said, the abolition of the Lord-Lieute nancy Bill would be the first order of the day on Monday night. __ _ - ENFRANCHISEMENT OF COPYHOLDS. In reply to Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. MULLINGS said that it was not his intention to bring in his Bill this session for the enfranchisement of copyholds. TRANSPORTATION OF MR. SMITH O'BRIEN. Sir LUCIUS O'BRIEN begged that the House would bear with him for a short time while he brought before it the case of his brother, Mr. Smith O'Brien.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") His ex cuse for doing so was that the treatment of his brother had been the subject of comment in the public prints.— (Hear.) Other Members of the sister island had been asked to introduce the subject, and perhaps many in the House thought it would have been bettor that they should have done so. He, however, thought it was his duty to undertake the task, as he was better informed as to the facts of the case. From a letter which he had received from Van Diemen's Land, dated the 31st of January last, he found that his brother had for three weeks previously been in such a bad state of health that his life was despaired of. It appeared that when he arrived there he refused to take a ticket of leave, although his companions availed themselves of the privilege, and the consequence was that he was placed on a small island known as the island of Maria. He was there treated with the greatest kindness by the inhabitants, but shortly after his arrival orders came that no one should be allowed to hold conversation with him except his religious instructor. The hsaibtiatatted, beingionin which ex posedhe had to t o the t k et turbulence e his le e abode f was tbe badlywie and the powerfuld situated, rays of the sun, so that he could only take exercise for an hour in the evening. Such being his position his health rapidly declined, and the medical inspector was compelled to request the authorities to adopt some change in respect to his treatment.—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Sir L. O'Brien) knew very well that, if he was to go to Van Diemen's Land, he should not be able to convince hi s b ro th er th a t he was in the wrong. Then the question arose, would the Government pur sue a person to death? If a man was obstinate, would they persevere in a treatment of him that would bring him to his grave ?—(Murmurs). His brother thought he was in the right. He (Sir L. O'Brien) thought differently, and his brothernever received the least encouragement from him.—(Dear, hear.) But would the Government pursue that man to an extremity which would cause the loss of his life? Under these circumstances, he (Sir L. O'Brien), thought this was a moment when the House should consider whether the treatment which he had described should be continued.—(Hear, hear.) Sir G. GREY said every Member in the House would sympathise with the Hon. Member (Sir L. O'Brien). on this occasion. Had the Hon. Member apprized him (Sir G. Grey) of his intention to bring this matter before the House, he should have had an opportunity of consulting the dispatches on the subject, and been the better able to throw some light on the matter. The Hon. Member had truly stated that the Government. wished to act with as much indulgence in this case as was consistent with their public duty; and they issued instructions to the Governor of Van Diemen's Land, on the arrival of the Hon. Gentleman's relative and three other persons, to offer them tiokets of leave,