The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-23 00:00:00

BRIDPORT ELECTION.

Mr. CHRISTIE postponed his motion on this subject until
Thursday next.
RAILWAY COMPANIES' BILL.

Sir GEORGE CLERK expressed his intention of pro-
ceeding with this Bill after the other orders of the day had
been disposed of.
MR. SMITH O'BRIEN.
On the order of the day for the consideration ef Mr. Smith
O'Brien's letter to the Speaker being read,
Mr. O'CONNELL moved that the minutes connected with
the committal of that gntleman be read.
The minutes having been read,
Mr. O'CONNELL said that it was his intention to state the
facts of the case as they really occurred, and to move a resolu-
tion that the order of the 27th April should be discharged, it
being illegal in the first place, and obtained by gross mis-
representation to the ,House. Of course he did not impute
to the Honourable Genthman any wilful misrepresentation,
of which he believed him to be perfectly incapahle.
But he had, in his opinion, grossly misinformed the House,
which would never have made the order except upon his state-
ment. The gentleman represented himself to be the chairman
of the Committee of Selection, the existence of which he
begged leave to deny. However, he called himself the chair-
man of it, and stated the substance of a correspondence
which took place between themselves and the Honour-
able Member fur Limerick, and upon that statement he ob-
tained the order which he now moved should be discharged.
Now if he was able to show that it was obtained on statements
founded on error, he considered he had a fair claim upon the
House to accede to his motion. He denied the existence of
the Committee of Selection. He granted that ' the
materials for such Committee existed, but that the
Committee itself existed he wholly denied. And now
he would direct the attention of the House very shortly
to another part of the subject, which, in his judgment,
was one of the utmost importance, and which, on consideration
of the matter, ought to be first attended to. They would
find that by the first standing order of the House a Committee
ef 42 Members was appointed, and by the second standing order
these were allowed to be divided into sub-Committees,each Com-
mittee appointing its own chairman, and the next order decided
a Committee should be appointed every session, and that such
Committee should be a Select Committee of Standing Orders.
It was enacted, and to this he begged to'sall the particular at-
tention of the House, that that Committee should he appointed
at the commencement of every session and that it should con-
sist of the chairman of the standing orClers, and the chairman
of Sub-Committees, three of whom was to form a quorum, and
that that Committee should be denominated the Committee of
Selection. If that Committee had been formed at the com-
mencement of the session he would give up the question, but
he asserted that no such Committee had been appointed • that
no question of its appointment was brought before the House ;
in short a total vacancy existed as to the formation of a
Select Committee. This brought the matter within
a very narrow compass, and the letter which
had been rec.. ived from the Chief Clerk showed clearly that
such a Committee had not been formed at the commencement
of this Session. He had taken the trouble to search the
votes on the journals of the House, and he could find
none such. But it had been suggested to him
that as the materials of the Select Committee were
igthhterefboere, suitpsposerde_aptpoointtnt fullyon
eicnvoenrysetixtui stteedn,7a, nditthamt,
succeeding session was unnecessarv. He utterly denied
that because it would deprive every Member of the House
of a right to which he was entitled. The House, it
was well known, did not appoint the Chairmen of the
Committees, they were elected by the Committees themselves.
He found in the Journals of the House, of the 28th of
February, 1845, that the order of the House had been moved,
relative to the appointment of the Committee of Selection ;
and that such an appointment was accordingly made fair
a similar order in the session of 1846. He found that
none such existed. No opportunity had been afforded to the
Hon. Member for complying with the orders of the House.
He then had to consider the right of the Committee of Selection
to enforce his opinions. This was precisely the principle upon
which Mr. Smith 0 Brien had acted, and when the Committee
of Selection, he believed, had acted beyond their powers, he
refused to acknowledge their authority, and he believed
that it was quite in accordance with the rules of this House,
Mr. Smith O'Brien had accordingly refused to take any notice
of the application of the Committee of Selection. The ques-
tion then arose, whether the authority of the Committee
of Selection was to be attended to in preference to the rules of
the House of Commons. According to the rules, as he under-
stood them, there was an express direction that this Committee
should act in accordance with the rules of the House.
He should, therefore move, that as the Committee of Selection
had not, on examination, been instituted in accordance
with the rules of the House, that the order of the
27th of Apt il should be discharged; and, secondly,
that Mr. Smith O'Brien should be remitted from
custody. If he succeeded in the first of these motions, the
second would follow as a matter of course, and Mr. S. O'Brien
would be discharged from custody. If he did not succeed in the
thet, he would have a right to take the sense of the House.
and he should therefore, on that point, move for the discharge
of Mr. Smith O'Brien.
Mr. ESTCOURT said, he had little or no answer to make
to the motion of the Hon. Member. Acecording to th,
rules of the House there had been two Committeesuestnio_
established, which involved the whole of
the q
the
He need not tell the House what had been the course
e ind them of, that these
pursue. But this much he might r m
Hon. Member (Mr. Smith O'Brien) had thought proper to
g on the
of 48 Members,
and that they had been constituted
business of the country, an
Membersngout the orders
several Committees had been appointed for carrying
as pos-
sible. with as much view
u Committeesrvpons e co:fn carrying
iaosrtfreyd:
(4 these Committee of Selection. Another Com-
as inbdl ew. a
sOne termed
mittee was appointed for t_ ep
of the House; it consisted of se e Members, and was called
the Conshmi
the Standing Orders' Committee. It was in contravention of
the rules of this Committee that the Hon. Member for Imes
rick had committed this default. That Committee was called
the Committee of Selection. It was to that Committee that
the Hon. Gentlemen took exception. He stated as the
grounds of that exception, that unless that Committee was
ap-
pointed in every sessien, it could not discharge the duties as-
signed
to it by the House. It was on that point that he was
t heH
o He
se e
were(lll r.
aEts
ti
es issue t
)w
ei with
etehiev e
dH othria.t atnhed Learnedsanding Gentleman.
orders of
the laws which regulated the proceedings of the House of Com-
mons. It was well known to the House, and, in fact, by
others, that the standing orders of the House were not an an-
nual piece of legislation, but were laws which would continue
in force to govern the House of Commons until altered or re-
pealed. The Committee of Selection had been established for
several years—it was seven years, he thought, since they were
constituted, under the auspices of the House. Now, he con-
tended that when the Standing Orders' Committee, or the
Committee of Selection had been consttiuted, that those Com-
mittees 'were appointed and established by the express rules of
the House, and they mast continue until altered
or dissolved. He was borne out in this, because
it was no unfrequent proceeding of the House to appoint Com-
mittees for various purposes each session, whose labours were
confined to that particular session of Parliament, unless they
became sessional orders by direction of the House. The die-
tinetion between Committees so appointed for a particular
purpose in one session of Parliament, and sessional orders,
whish continued from session to session, until altered or re-
pealed by the Howe, was, in his opinion, perfectly evident. '

With regard to Committees on Private Bilk, did the Hon
Member for Derby come to the house to move for the sr
pointment of a Committee on a petition on a Private Bill?
The Hon. Member did not submit a motion to the House.
He did not give notice that on a given day he should move for
the appointment of a Committee on a petition on a Private
Bill. He came to the House and directed that the standing
order shall be read, then nominated the Committee, and th.t
nomination was entered on the journals. The same thing oc-
curred with regard to himself when the standing order was to
be appointed. He did not come to the House and give notice
of a motion, that the Committee on a standing order should be
appointed, but he came to the House and required that stand-
ing orders 3 or 4 should be read, and when they were read, he
nominated the Members to constitute the Standing Orders'
Committee. With regard to the Committee of Selection, be
was aware that at the beginning of last session there was an
entry on the Journals that the Committee of Selection was ap-
pointed, or was to be appointed, but he considered that that
entry was not regular; and en consulting the highest authority
he could consult on the subject this sessions, his apprehension
was confirmed by those authorities, viz —that it was not ne-
cessary to enter the appointment of these Committees, if they
were appointed according to the proper construction
the standing orders. He contended that the nomination of
these Committees ought to be found in the journals of the
House. All Committees were appointed by the standing
orders, and nothing more was necessary than to call out and
nominate the Members, and then turn to standing order 4,
and the entry made there. The appointment of the Com-
mittee was by the standing orders, but the nomination of the
Member was not by the House. At the same time that the
Committee was appointed, the Members were nominated, gene-
raily being the chairman of the standing orders, and the (bail,.
men of the Committees and Sub. Committees on petitions Oa
Private Bills, and of whom three should be a quorum. He
considered that the appointment of the Committee was good.
With regard to their being no entry of the appointment of such
Committee, it was wholly unnecessary that there should be
such an entry upon the journals of the House, the Committee
being constituted in accordance with the standing orders.
It did not appear to him that the Hon. Gen leman had rested
his objection on any other ground than informality, and be
trusted he had shown that the appointment was sufficient, and
that there had been no deficiency whatever in the forms eehich
had been followed. He did not think that any grounds what-
ever had been shown for the interference of the House. He
trusted, therefore, the House would see that the construction
be put upon the case was the correct one, and be hoped that it
would not take the view of the Hon Member (Mr. O'Connell)
but would support the Committee of Selection.
Mr. WARBURTON thought the question should be con-
sidered totally irrespective of the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien.
The question for them to consider simply was whether the
Committee of Selection was appointed or not. If the construc-
tion of the Hon, Member for Oxford be the true one,
the language would not have been " that a Committee be ap-
pointed at the commencement of every session ;" the lan-
guage would rather have been, " That the chairman of the
Select Committee on standing orders, and the chairmen of
the Sub-Committees on petitions for private Bills be a Com-
mittee for such and such purposes." That clearly would have
been the language of the standing order, had it been the in-
ten! ion of the House that the sessional order should be mg'
tinned in the sense taken of it by the Hon. Member for Ox-
ford. But who had appointed this Committee ? It was quite
clear that some one roust have appointed it. The Committee
could not appoint itself. The Speaker, he believed, had not
appointed it, and again he must ask who had appointed the
Committee ? He thought it better that they should confess
at once that there had been some negligence shown souse;
where or other, or that some misinterpretation of the words of
the standing order had taken place, and, therefore, the sooner,
they returned to the weeding of the Act, the sooner would
they do justice to the Hon. Member, and to that House itself.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that, in his opinion, the words
of the statute were to be interpretatcd in precisely a similar way
with the wording of other private Bills, and the House had
a
sanctioned by many precedents this view of the case. -n
found, in reference to the nomination of Committees on physic
Bills, that the standing order No. 1 should be moved at the
commencement of every session. He found tha that order waS
that the Committee should consist of 42 Members, five to be as
quorum in opposed cases, and three a quorum in cases not iop-
posed. But the House did not in every case require that this
order should be substantiated by a motion. He found indeed
that with the exception of 1845, the year adverted to by the
,
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, it had never been deemed
necessary to adopt this course. The Hon. Member had re-
fused fused to comply with the call made by the House; he we'
therefore guilty of contempt, and he had been accordingly come
mitted.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. STURT said, there was no doubt that some difficulty
arose from the method in which the standing order was framed
but at the same time, looking at the words, and also at what
had been the practice of the House. He did not think
they could have any difficulty at arriving at a decision. All
the Committees of the House had been appointed by the same
order, which only required that a Committee should be ap-
pointed at the commencement of the session ; and it could not
he done otherwise, for the Speaker could not, consistently with
his duty, have put a question to the House which would have
negatived its own authority, which, he contended, would be
the case if, having ordered the appointment of a Committee hi
a sessional order, they put it in the power of the Member t°
make lightiof that appointment. It stated that these Committee*
should be appointed at the commencement of each sessions
and the order recommends that these selections should be re-
ported to the House. He could not speak of the perfect accu-
racy racy of the phraseology employed, but such as it was
were bound to act upon it. The words made use of were_
" shall be appointed.;" and he was not of opinion
that the terms of a standing order were to be
construed with the strictness of a phrase of an Act o_
Parliament, or of a bill of indictment, but still in taking these
words in their common sense of construction, it was impossible
for the Standing Orders' Committee to act otherwise than they
had done. With such an impression he could not help voting.,
with the Hon. Member for Oxford on this occasion, and giving
his decided opposition to the motion.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the Right Hon. Member
for Devonport had entirely misapprehended the terms of his
motion. Its object was not that Mr. O'Brien be immediately
discharged from custody, but that he should be discharged to
attend the Committee to which he had been appointed. He
must say, that he trusted the decision to which the House was
about to come would be more in accordance with common
sense than were the terms of the standing orders on which
Mr. O'Brien was committed.—( Laughter.) What might be the
meaning of the terms of the standing orders under which M,re
O'Brien was committed he could not pretend to say, but !!
trusted the House would net become wiseacres to interpret
—( Laughter)—but certainly it would be out of rule to Intel,:
pret it according as the Standing Orders' Committee had 11,1
it out. The wording of the standing order, as he elm
comprehend it, was at variance with common
sense, and he thought in violation of all the rules
of grammar. He thought then that on consideration
the House would perceive that it would he impossible to con'
fine Mr. Smith O'Brien, when the phraseology of the stand!!g
order was so contradictory in itself, especially when they ee,T,r_
sidered how many persons were interested in the result.
loot
this occasion, therefore, he trusted that the House would °J;
upon the question as he viewed it, and with that hope he move"
that Mr. Smith O'Brien be discharged.
Mr. WAKLEY rose, amidst loud cries of" Divide, dividei:.
He said he hoped that this question would not be decided
out the officers of the Crown stating their opinion of it.
(" Oh! oh !" and cries of " No. no")—for he was stir!:
in consequence of what had transpired before en this subject,
that if it was not debated and decided on the grounds o
common sense, and on the words of the standing order, that
great dissatisfaction would be felt by the country, and still
greater dissatisfaction by the Members of that House on some
future occasion, when they themselves might be placed in
similar position to Mr. Smith O'Brien. Now, could anything
be plainer than the words of the order:--" At the commence-
ment of every session the Committee shall be appointed"--
(Several Hon. Members here called out, "Be appointed")
—For his Honourable Friend the Member for Ken--
dal, had in his (Mr. Wakley's) opinion, given a correct
interpretation of the words. The right interpretation of that
order was as plain and obvious to his (Mr. Wakley's) appre-
hension as anything they could place before him. New, whatj
had been the practise of the preceding session ? No one had
asked that question. Was there a precedent for the course
they had taken? He put that question to the House, and ',
there was not he was at a loss to know on what right they had
now a gentleman, one of their Members, in custody ? It was,
at
the very best, a doubtful proceeding. But would they interpret
the law its most stringent sense ? Why should they not a
to this gentleman, " We don't think you have been very wise,__
and it is not pleasant that our wisdom should be discussed; n;
will let you out, and let us shake hands ?"—(Laughter.) :,
did not think that any degree of want of dignity would attach
to such a course ; but, at any rate, it was the honest coue'
for it was plain and obvious that a mistake had been committed,
and he thought they ought not to make another person suffer
for their own fault.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was not his intention to healui3t
troubled the House with any observations on this subject, e, _
as the Hon. Gentleman hail raised a technical objection to tell,'
order, and insisted that the House had made a mis'ake,eeir
which opinion he could not coincide, he wished to occupY,"ass,
attention for but a few moments. He would not glee his
officers
if to the opinion of the Hon. Gentleman, that the law
the Crown ought to express their opinion of the order,t_nt
be-
fore the House adopted any steps respecting it ; for, had
been a question of mere law, it might have been necessary to
have received their opinion, but in this case they would not, t,be
con idered other than simply Members of the House.
it livuss
orders had been drawn up by the House, and therefo
andre who
the House who were only competent to discus them,
or to alter add
ought to be appealed to as to their construction,
repeal Hon. and Learned
merits as the
competent to discuss their
arose on the words 6, be
them, so that the othfer alwee.mi
Gentlemen opposite. The question Member for Derby had adduced argu-
ments The Hon.
oa
at these arguments, and. said that
the thing, but the Hon. Member
on. Memberbenature,
for
ttehret yon d s
opinion, d that, in his the words " be appointed
Cork state
meant at least some sort of appointment by the House itself.
pidany member of the Committee of Selection, or did the
House, wish to place a harsh construction on the standing
order Hear, hear.) He for one would, with all possible
readiness, agree to such a construction of the words;
as would aemit of the dottier f stody
the par .
Mr. Smith O'Brien, were nge rom cu How
0 consequences to lo
such a step. Hear, hear.) At disautto
present they were to
the matter as if the Hon tosli
. Gentleman never was in Liss
and never had been lf the ar
committed. of the 11
l-
and Learned guments
roce
Member for Cork were to be taken, everyT
ing of the Committee on standing orders, and of all Co
mittees appointed' by that body, would be entirely nu
and void. If the Committee of Selection were never n
ap-
pointed,
so as to have no authorit everact emanating fr:
it would be vicious, and every proceeding of the CommComit!liee
on Groups of Railways would be in like manner void!
House might remedy this by a vote, orb which would "
matter
Lion the proceedings of these Committees ; but that was
obser,
of comparatively amall import. He would confine his_ntained
vations to the single words, "be appointed." He mat„, and
that the Committee had been appointed constitutioe?"l It
strictly according to the words of the standing orders.aeoted
was not necessary that the Committee should be 1;_le order
trued the • d
by the House, as the Hon. Men ber had cons cote
to mean ; neither was it necessary that it should be
•a_P_ewhich
in the House. It was virtually appointed by somethinfeenteer
had previously been done by the House. The Hon.
of the
also said, that the House had not the appointmeetrish, fey
chairman. The moment the House named the Ine`,'n force,
the Committee, the standing orders, No. 4, came
s'a slues'
and ipso fact) the appointment was made. This e
had
been ar
tion for the House to decide, for the Committeoe,.Govern-
pointed by the House, and not by any Member !t!'_ny floe•
ment, and he laded it would no' be thought that
Member had taken it in any other light. wished
only
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that heto wall
to make one remark. He could fed it was unnecessary
the siteee-t
any comment on the motion bsfose the House after _ bad put
of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Davenport, woe L. front
remarks
the question in its proper light, and made any
him wholly uncalled for. otsse
•
Lord I'OLLINGTON said that the question for the H
do
to consider was, whether or not a mistake had been made
the committal of the Hon. Member. They had • noshing_yin to _
g
with the inconvenience which might arise out of rectifying
e, let t"-
error.—( Hear, hear.) If a mistake had been mad
at once d'6-
House give the Hon. Member the benefit of it by
only
charging him from custody.—( Hear, hear.) He h,a_a_ of
say that, having groat doubts as to the construc

1,

standing order, which was also doubted by other Hon. Mem-
bers, he thought that Mr. O'Brien ought to have the benefit
of the doubt, and was entitled to his liberation from confinement.
Sir R. PEEL said that the Right Hon. Baronet who had
preceded him in his remarks, had not said that there was con-
siderable doubt as to the true construction of the order, but he
observed that there was doubt on the merits of the case.
Ile thought that if there was any difficulty at all it existed in
the interpretation of the words "be appointed in standing
order." The words meant that the Committee was in existence.
The House of Commons, for the purpose of insuring regularity
in its proceedings had placed the rules to be determined by its
standing orders out of its own power to alter, or to
interfere with, except by repeating the order. There
were instances in which the House of Commons
bad, by a preceding regulation, bound themselves to
abide by the standing order. He would take a
case which appeared to him to possess some analogy
to the present. It was one of the standing orders that every
private Bill not being the Royal Bill should be referred to a
Committee of Selection. How was that to be decided ? Hs
apprehended it could not be settled by the question in the
House. As a matter of course the matter would be referred
to a Select Committee, which would not be refused unless the
standing order was specifically repealed. So, in the present
case, it was not a question whether Mr. Smith O'Brien ought
to be excused because he had refused to obey an order of the
!louse. If the Hon. Members of the House thought the
authority of the House had been sufficiently vindicated, why
then release him at once by a special order. But to say that
the present was a doubtful case, and that they should slink out
of a compliance with the standing order in order to shake hands
with Mr. Smith O'Brien would be derogatoryto the dignity of
that House.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL did not think thP comparison of
the Right Hon. Gentleman was very good. He did think the
character of the present debate was calculated to have a very
bad effect in Ireland. It would be as well to endeavour to
conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland, and not to exas-
perate them by endeavouring to explain away doubtful words.
The proper course to be adopted would have been to allow Mr.
Smith O'Brien the benefit of the doubt, in order that he might
be liberated from confinement.
Sir GEORGE GREY made a few observations, which
were inaudible in the gallery.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the Hon. Member for Devon-
port had expressed an opinion that there could be no doubt as
to the common sense construction of the standing order. Other
Hon. Members had corroborated that opinion. With reference
to the observations of the Hon. Member for Cork, there was no
doubt the construction of the standing order might be improved,
but as there was no doubt as to the real meaning of the order,
he should certainly oppose the motion.
Mr. WATSON said, when the House was proceeding
to decide on a standing order on which the conse-
quences were of a nature that affected the liberty of the
subject, it behoved them to be very careful before they came
to any decision as to its real construction. He had serious
doubts as to the construction which had been put upon it.
He must give his vote in support of the motion, because he was
not satitied that the meaning of the order was sufficiently
clear for 'ins to give a proper vote on an occasion when the
cortsesAences might be attended with punishment of a harsh
mature.
The, House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it

Majority against Mr. S. O'Brien's release ... —144
Mr. SHAW gave notice that he would porsist in the motion
cf which he had given notice for Monday next, namely, that
the group on which Mr. O'Brien was selected to serve having
terminated its labours, that Hon. Member should be discharged
from custody.
Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say that, under those
circumstances, he should refrain from pressing on the attention
e
f. the House the motion which he had intended to make that
tutght for Mr. O'Brien's discharge.
THE TEN HOURS' BILL-ADJOURNED DEBATE.
The order of the day for the adjourned debate on the second
reading of this Bill hatiing been read,
Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from the town of Not..
tingham, in which the petitioners stated that the present fac-
e .y_ system was most pernicious to the health and morals of
children ; that it produced premature death, was most dange-
rous to the manufacturing portion of the community,and they
therefore prayed the House to enact the Ten Hoursy:Bill.
Mr. G. BANKS then rose and said, that in 1
sup-
port to the pr.nciple which was
now under g°mg his
consideration, and
1110ppoting the amendment which had been proposed by the
Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment he was aware that he was bound in the first place to
show that the principle of this Bill was consistent with te wel-
fare, the interests, and safety of the community at large. He
was aware also that it was incumbent on him to show that this
Mill, while it proposed to confer a benefit on the operative classes,
Would not produce at the same time on those classes any injury
to preponderate over that benefit. It was incumbent also upon
him to maintain and to prove,ttoats.hnee thought he should, that the
principle of this Bill would
to the employers of those operatives fossrarwy whose
occasion
benefit a n injury
ta3
brought forward.—( Hcar, hear.) He hoped he should be able
to show that whilst the operatives received a benefit, neither'
they nor their employers would receive any harm. He thought
that it would be unwise and unsafe to reject this measure ; and
when he used those terms he was far from wishing them to be
taken in the same light as some Hon. Members had done during
the course of the se,sion, when other topics were brought
under their consideration. The danger to which he referred
was one of a very different kind. It was the danger of
destroying the physical enemy, and the moral character of
those with respect to whom they were about to legislate.—
(Hear, hear.) The number of children employed latterly in
factories had greatly increased, whilst the number of adults
had proportionably decreased Those young persons were
growing up to become adult labourers in their turn, and they
would find that there was nor sufficient to absorb that number,
and the consequence would be that they must seek
too_ earn their livelihood from some other sources
employment. Let the House then endeavour to secure
to
such a population some other employment, which would be
preserving them as honest and industrious members of the
State. They would find, however, under the present factory
system, the education of the younger persons had been so much
heglected , and their physical powers so diminished, that they
were totally unfit to enter into any other employment than that
which theywese brought up. In their youth, there had
been a total neglect of the instilment of religious truths and
Moral discipline, as regarding the persons employed in fac-
tories ; and when they grew up, the necessary consequence was
that they were unfit for any industrious or honest employment.
The Legislature had, he believed, provided for the education of
the younger classes of operatives, namely, of those under 13
years of age, who now only worked six hours a day ; but were
they to be told that education had ceased at 13 years of age ?
( Hear, hear.) He appealed to those who heard him, many of
Whom were fathers, whether education ceased, or had ap-
proached to anything like perfection, at 13 years of age? Was
mot that a period when something else was springing up
besides the good seed which had been sown ? Was not
that the time when there was springing up seeds of a
nature opposed to religion. And did they not know that the
cultivation of the mind consisted not merely in what was
sown, but in what was to be eradicated ? and that period he
took to be the most important with regard to the cultivation of
the human mind. ire alluded to the period between thirteen
and eighteen years of age. It was, therefore, safe and whole-
some to pass this Bill, and it was dangerous to reject it.
They had been told, in the course of the debate which had
lately occurred in that House, that the people of Lancashire
and the manufacturing interests were to govern Great Britain.
He admitted that those districts were the very life and heart of
the income ; and, taking the words of Hon. Members, he
would say that they should take care that the blood which
_ll?wed through the veins of the people of that portion of the
kingdon, and their morals were preserved in a moral condition
The Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home'
Department had entirely misrepresented the opinions of the late
Robert Peel on the factory question—(Cries of
Hear, hear")—because, although the Bill passed in
his time was only an Eleven Hours' Bill, he was
yet in favour of a Ten Hours' Bill. He did not think
that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth
was then unfriendly to the Eleven Hours' Bill. He hat'
then called the elder Sir Robert Peel as a witness in support
of
Mils views. He would now call another gentleman, and he be-
lieved his testimony would carry with them considerable weight,
as he and all his connexions were largely connected with manu-
factures, he meant the Member for Oldham.—( !fear, hear. )
That Hon. Gentleman said, that if his support of the present
measure would bring ruin upon the manufacturers, he would
be bringing ruin upon himself.—( Hear, hear.) Ile told them,
however, that it would not ruin his interests, nor any of those
who were engaged in manufacture. So far from any diminu-
tion taking place, there had been an increase in cotton manufac-
ture since 1819, when a different system prevailed. fie had
ether witnesses to call of the same description, whose testimony
'was most valuable. He had the evidence of the Hon. Member
for Senderland, who spoke the other night, and that of other
gentlemen ; he did not think that their evidence would
be counterbalanced. He had other witnesses also. He had
the oeeratives themselves. In the county which he represented
he felt it to he his duty to collect all the information he could
upon the subject, and the result of that investigation had been
a most decided conviction on his part of the justice of the pre-
sent measure. It was said that the operatives had made no
strikes on the present question, and had exhibited no violent
demonstration in its favour. That he considered was a reason
why their demands should be acceded to. The Bill for cruelty
to animals was met with great ridicule ; it was annually lost ;
but it was taken up by a gentleman who finally carried it. He
enentioned these circumstances, in order to show how little
arguments of this kind, urged by the Right Hon. Baronet,
should be attended to. The Hon. Member for Montrose said
that if they passed the Bill, the operatives would be the first to
desire that it should be repealed. Well, if that was so. they
would be happy to do so.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Ward.)
Ile could not see the danger of such an experiment.—( Hear,
If he established the point that a very considerable benefit to
the public would accrue from the passing of the measure, he
was entitled to go to those views of the subject on which 'hey
were all agreed, that if it were for the public good to effect the
object he proposed, that it was their duty at once to give it
their assent.—( Hear, hear.) They heard the other day, in
n
the sipeech of an Hon. Member, of the great increase
the demand for the Bible among the operatives ;
read.
itthen, he would be an advocate for giving them time to
. It Vr a
was rejected he strtrsut
Mr. WARD slide
true they had been silent, and if the measure
it.ilothat they would continue so.
the people of Sheffield, rbepresented, to the best of his abilities,
did not represent their ut he would certainly admit that he
nor was he nor cold was not a oil ert to the°Noincti"r upon the subject, because he
ited Mr. contained in the preamble
Carlyle in defence of his prin-
ciples ; but he would remind hi
.üb_ntoi t
had
of Carlyle's
m that
dangerous ground,
corn, for
woncioniod ado t he was treading on
opinions respecting
d on this subject
so much force and consistency. He wjohuelahhbeaoldmheoswt arintxteionuwaittho
convinced,
be convinced that the opinions wbhnitc
fTo he Hon.
were those of the Noble Lord ;
duty to express his sentiments. hhe Was
nott so
r all
and he felt it his
and
Member lai I down that if they could not legislast.e
should legislate
.for as many as they could,
he said i
there was no injury done to any interest they should atf
concede the measure he sought. He perfectly coincided oncewit
the expression, "your if is a great peacemaker," for if all theh
things which the Hon. Gentleman assumed were true, why,
he (Mr. Ward) would say, pass the measure by all means.
That was one of the results of this experimentaiising on the
' He did not deny the right of Parliament to
question.legis-
late for the protection of those who were unable to help
themselves; but he objected to the interference with adult
labour. If they could show that women could do without em-
ployment, then, indeed, he would be one of the first to support
such a proposition. That, however, was not the case, for he
believed that there was not a more helpless creature than a
poor woman, without friends to assist her ; and instead of Par-
liament interfering to prevent females from employing their
industry, it would be better, if possible, to interfere so as to
ensure her a proper amount of labour. An interference, such
as the present, would have the effect of reducing the female
working classes to the miserable pittance of slop labour. He
considered that they were already sufficiently trammeled by the
combinations of the working men, who shut them cut from
Many trades. flow was it on the continent—how was it at
Rouen, and other places ? At those places it was well known
that the most respectable portion of the female population—
the daughters of the most respectable middle classes, were
employed in factories. Well, then, there was nothing of a
Ten Hours' Bill known there. Labour was not restricted,
and the results were not injurious, but, on the contrary, the
good effects were must apparent in toe condition of that mass
of persons. The Hon. Member for Oldham said that the Bill
in 3 to be a Ten Hoar,' Bill, and no compromise. He said

that that would not reduce the amount of labour nor the re-
, muneration, but, on the contrary, it would cause an advance
in some branches of female labour. He felt that this was
most contradictory, for he could not see how the advance in
wages was to result, as labour was not increased—the quantity
of work would not be more. In another part of the
Honourable Member's speech, be was found stating
that if the diminution of the hours of labour should he
calculated to reduce wages, the working classes were quite
willing to take their share of the injury. The Hon. Member
would have it that the Bill was not calculated to redice wages ;
but this was a most vague calculation, and he would prove it
by a reference to Adam Smith, who was a great authority on
such subjects. The lion. Member then read an extract from
Adam Smith to prove the fallacy of the arguments of the Hon.
DI-amber for Oldham. He begged to tell the supporters of
this measure that he was not one of those who was at all in-
clinedp e r ya
yard
do
uponregard
shirting
rhtei n
sdtuticift:o reduction ofsa
a matterpenny to b uis or
e vena
bu halfpenny
t
appeared to him that those who supported tbcTß slighted,
he Nobleidillddidnnottsseeeemm
to know what it was they were supporting—thee
Lord,
to understand the principles of the
ure mb
to think it was what no man
gd
with the A le Member
op, oe r
if)or ;se, w
for a
dealing
k, had foundi
t etaaefaultsutrswe .
andith thefig inures
Right Hon.
Gentleman
illus-
trating his case, and l
ouightattoisdqoe;esbtuiotnlettbehyaipmpsbeaornemidinbdearthien Hreoensiei
eetthioatn
tir dealing
wth in-
volved the welfare of more than half a million of people, of a
vast amount of property, and of the interests of the manufactu-
rers; and let him then ask were they not to have a due regard
for facts and figures ? He could tell them that if they
had not they would only involve themselves in irre-
trievable mischief by a bungling piece of legislation.
Another principle hich an Hon. Member near him had
broached, was that capital and labour were antagonistic powers
—that was the doctrine of his Hon. Friend, but he begged to
tell him that before he had enunciated it, he should have read
Adam Smith, in which he would find it laid down, that as
labour derived its remuneration from capital, the one was
necessary to the existence of the other, and here was an in-
stance of it—here, in this country, millions of capital were in-
vested in manufactures, for the production of which large
masses of the people were necessarily employed. This was a
fact and a principle, and it would be neither wise nor judicious
to interfere with it. Let care be taken hew they were deprived
of their foreign market, for it was quite clear, that without the
foreign market they could not employ their people at home,
and even now it was only by producing a superior article, and
by having cheap labour, that they were enabled to rival foreign
manufactures.--( Hear, hear.) In fact, the attempt at
legislation on this subject only showed that those
who attempted it did not understand the question at all.—
( Hear, hear.) Hon. Members had stated authorities in sup-
port of their arguments, bnt he begeed to tell them that if they
had no better support than those, they had no support at all ;
but, on the contrary, they were practically undermining the
best interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He begged to
tell the House that this Ten Hours' Bill was identical with the
system of the combinations and strikes so common in the manu-
facturing towns, and of which Hon. Members who supported
this Bill knew nothing whatever. By that system. at present
what he would call the tyrannical interference of the overseers
with the masters was such that the management of the con-
cerns was, for the present at least, in the hands of the men.
Some of their resolutions were most absurd, and were to this
effect—that a workman having three sons could only put one of
those to his trade, and could not put the other
two to any trade, so that the likelihood was.
that those two wandered into the agricultural distric's,
and became outcasts or dissolute characters, while the
system of intimidation amongst the men was so great, that
threatening letters were as rife there as in Tipperary. Another
result of their system was, that where a man could earn from 61.
to 61. per week, by working every day, they now earned only
from 50s. to 60s. If such, then, was to he the result of this
pernicious system in one town, what would it be when it had
spread to all the others? In fact it would be better for all the
masters to combine for a universal free trade, now that the
great monopoly in food had been removed, than submit to this.
He could tell the House that they were too much in the habit
of under-rating the pernicious effects upon the minds of the
workmen, of many of the debates that had taken place in that
House ; they little knew the amount of poison instilled into the
minds of those men by those speeches, and for which the em-
ployers would have to pay. The results of this system of com-
bination was to leave the town of Norwich in a state of desola-
tion and ruin, or if it still retained any vestiges of its former
prosperity, it was owing to the enterprise of a few; but he
would just give an instance of the feeling entertained in that
town towards the masters, and he should say it was one of the
most horrible exhibitions he had ever heard of.
A manufacturer having died, his body Wl°
brought to Norwich to be interred—it was met by
a large body of the workmen, who, believing that he had in-
jured them, followed the funeral to the churchyard, uttering
tee most foul imprecations. Now, he begged to tell the
House that there was no remedy for this but time. The Bill
now before the House was certainly no remedy ; on the con
trary, it was a step backwards—a step in the wrong direction
—and he should give the second reading of it his most.
strenuous opposition. He had heard it said that this question
involved one of importance to the present Government—that
this was a critical time to oppose it—that it was regarded as a
great national measure, and that it was probable the Govern-
ment might be defeated on it ; but he could only say, that if
they shou d be defeated, he would have the honour of sharing
in that defeat.—( Cheers. )
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK said that his Hon. Friend
who had just sat down had charged his friends around. that
n supporting the measure which was then before the House
they were making themselves parties to a great party move-
ment, and that the only interest entertained on this question
was by the Hon. Gentlemen on the benches near him. As
for the charge made against him by the Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite, he could refer them to the corn-law question, for he
thought that, during the debate on the second reading of the
Corn Bill, the opposite side of the House was en-
tirely deserted, and not one single gentleman could
be seen sitting on tip. Opposition benches. He had
however, a right to say for his Hon. Friends around him that
which he could not soy for himself, that, far from being a
party question with them, the great majority of his friends
were supporters of a similar measure two years ago. In the
year 1844 his Hon. Friends around him, he might say almost
in a body, supported Lord Ashley's Ten Hours Bill, and he
should like to know what right the Hon. Member for Sheffield
had to cha..ge his friends with supporting the measure from
party views? It there were any party in the House, who had
a better title to claim for themselves an honest and disinterested
course on that subject, it was that composed by the Gentlemen
sitting near him. The Hon. Gentleman had said that it was
very easy to purchase cheap popularity by joining in this
humanity-cry ; and they retorted the charge, by asklng who
had supported cry for cheap bread, in the question
on the repeal of the corn-laws? In this measure,
they were not joining in the humanity-cry, nor were
they risking all the great interests of the country.
If there was any question on which they might be said to have
proceeded with great caution it was on this question. Two
years ago they reduced the hours of labour, and what had been
the result of the experience of the two years which had since
elapsed? Had this destroyed the cotton trade? Hind they
reduced the wages of the labourer? or had they diminished
the export trade ? Far from it. The cotton trade, both in
the export trade and the home consumption, had greatly in-
creased in the year 1845, and they had reason to believe so
had the wages of the operatives. Where was the danger or the
risk of a further extension of the principle? They were not
treading on untried ground, they had gene cautiously to work.
They had tried the reductien of the hours of labour to twelve
hours in 1844, and they now asked to reduce the hours in 1846
by five hours a week. There was another consideration mixed
up with this Bill, a great measure had just passed this House,,
and should that measure become the law of the coun-
try, there was great reason to believe that a num-
ber of unskilled artisans from trades, amongst the
agricultural labourers, would be thrown into the market.
They must feel that in those trades, now the subjlect of legisla-
tion, some protection and some division of labour would be
required. He admitted that the same quantity of work could
tot be done in ten hours as could be done in twelve hours ;
of that there could be no doubt; but, at the same time, he
did not admit that there would be one-sixth more work done
in twelve hours than could be done by the same hands in ten
hours, especially as they were dealing with persocncuitauurntadbleartlnBo
suchyearsroefgualgatei.ons ereTwhetl unMember
fur
Sthhechiaegirdf
made as regarded
inte-
rest, and the labourer engaged in agriculture—for the beat f
saobnosu, r noser sbuacdh
twelve
we ge uvl
ea t
bi onnusr
aw eorfe
arbe
iquuri c
out
oTf The
iaegbr itchuel; atullrrael
had one hour for dinner, and half an hour for breakfast • d
in the winter time they had only ten hours labour, having and
rmar
senedsu
ufnnocdoreetarmeals.etmoigp hlt
et,
eighteen
eeTndhhoi)en,
hours,
limited:sawnoaeufnrfdeaaegttehuertmanufacture.
eo
ns hours
Their
time
leas
aaol cour
custom
labourers
laboura
by,
wisher]ly e
kind
tshu
which full-grown men, by practice and custom,
twbeereweenstitlled
tdoi
e. s ? Had
athey b
enot n
ol lt
egislated
thefor ttihmeenoefglraobeosuirr:
to nine hoturus? And was the air of the West Indies more feefid or unhealthy
than the atmosphere of our manufactories, in which our children
laboured. It had been said in the course of this debate, by the
Hon. Member for Paisley, that by a reduction of the
uis of
labour from twelve to ten hours, they would be reducing the
cotton manufacture, to the extent of the whole of the home
consumption of this country. That statement was not founded
in fact. The Hon. Gentleman had said that the cotton manu-
facture of this country amounted to one-seventh of the goods
imported. If that were the case, the consumption of cotton in
this country would just exceed in value four millions sterling;
and was there any man in that country who believed that its
home consumption did not exceed four millions sterling? Twenty
years since Mr. Huskisson had said that he had taken the
greatest pains to ascertain the real facts upon this point, and
the result of his inquiries was, that the home consumption of
the cotton in England in the year 1823 had amounted
to 32,000,0001. sterling. The export of cotton goods in the
year 1844 amounted to no more than 25,000,0001., including
cotton yarn. If that were so, and if the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Glasgow, who ought to be well informed on the
subject, was right, that there were but 3i millions of cotton
goods used in this country, with theia population, this would be
but half-a-crown a-head. In the Canada?, the consumption
was 7s. per head. and in our West Indian possessions, dividing
the value of the co' ton by the population in 1840, it would appear
that the consumption in the West Indies amounted to 1/. 6s.
per head. Was it not ridiculous to suppose that the popula-
tion of this empire, consumed but at the rate of half.a.crown a
head, while the West I.dies consumed IL 6s. ? Wh-n they saw
;his measure supported by greatmen, the Hon. Members for
01.1 ham, and Southwark, it was rather too much to charge
them with supporting this measure to purchase cheap popu-
la- ity by an humanity cry. This measure would be for the
interest of the manufacturing classes, and the change would
not be made too suddenly. The children in the factories re-
quired more protection as the cotton trade increased, for then
it was that the millowners committed the greatest number of
The Bill would benefit that
oTences against their operatives.
class, and for this reason he should give his support to the Bill.
Lord MORPE f H said, that he hoped the House would
allow a Member who represented a great portion of the opera-
tives and manufacturing labourers, and who had not had an
opportunity of giving his opinion on this Bill two years since, to
make a short trespass upon their time. He owned that he re-
garded with a considerable feeling of envy those who,
on the other side of the question, could feel a com-
fortableconfessed
assurance as to the truth of their own opinions.
He confessed that he looked on both sides of the question, and
whichever cuhceh looked misg
ore he
in
ewould side with he viewed with much doubt,
premature i v
wing.tb
m beh
aa
,mt
ue
rvi
seeg. r v ci
leo
gue r
sst
heo
uthe
e
consequences of any rash or
House might adopt,
feel an inexpressible relief
but to be sure that he thou onlyto be sure that he was right,
admitgt thatt he was right ; for on the
one hand he was ready to
a
tions put forward by the promotersusome degree the representa-
tions and supporters of the Bill,
but he thought they took rathern egerate
case. He did not believe that factory labour d view of the
labour in the average
number of instances, thous,h it might be wearing, could
be regarded as severe or injurious. lie die] not believe that
ao though it
sme
in the average condition of the factory labourers,
was not so good as if they had greater en
hear)—greater exercise, and time, there
waioyurers, s
ont mnet(iear,
H
produced upon their health. Their real condition and health
depended much more on the proprietor of the mill, and the
arrangements he might adopt with respect to the cleanliness and
ventilation than upon the hours of work. In all respects
the master of these mills had more intelligence than
they usually received credit for. As an instance he
referred them to many mercantile houses who were distinguished
for their efforts in the cause of the working classes He was
sumennies ready to admit that the condition of the men,
women, and children, engaged in the manufacturing labour,
would derive great benefit from shorter hours of labour, lie

believed that they would derive solid advantage from having
more time for recreation—( Hear, hear)—both with regard to
their moral arid social condition; and it would be better for
the
such a relation
to promoters
omtrirnsdso,fbii;hdiiessß,
ialln;d
bsuoutltsh.
theirs, in which all departments of labour had
enSoinfasruhche awesntattaeloofn- gsowciitet
of any disturbing clause which
they might introduce. He need not remind
Members
Hon.
to each other, and all kinds of business ran into each other,
they could not calculate the effect
who were familiar with the history of the colonies, of the cir-
cumstance of Spain, in order to relieve the red Indian, intro-
ducing the black negro.—( Hear, hear.) Thus it was they
often tound their benevolence defeat the very parties they were
endeavouring to serve. But on reference to the
present Bill, be conld not consent to any reduction
in the hours of labour beyond one hour ; or, in
other words, he was in favour of its being restricted to
eleven hours labour per day. But he might be asked, was not
the proper way, in that case, for him to go into Committee,
and to propose that reduction ?—(Bear, hear.) Under ordi-
nary circumstances, that course might be advisable, but, at
present, he felt that he could not consent to that course.
Judging from what had already fallen from Hon. Members on
the q estion, there was no certainty of that proposition being
carried in Committee. He thought other quarrels, and feelings
arising out of other questions, had been introduced into the
discu,sion of the present Bill.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord who last addressed the House, who, he (Lord Morpeth)
befieved, was actuated by the most honourable motives, had
said that he had changed his opinion on the present question.
If so, that should teach him to regard with a little
more allowance the change which had taken pla e
on another question in the minds of others.—(Loud cheers.)
His Noble Friend had admitted that an experience of two
years had led to that alteration ; why not, then, concede a si-
milar change to the three years' experience of others.—
(Cheers.) But beyond this he (Lord Morpeth) was firmly
persuaded they should confine the reduction to eleven hours a
day. He could not consent that the Bill should go so far as
ten hours, and even with respect to the former reduction he
did not feel prepared on the present occasion to go into Com-
mittee. With regard to going into Committee the session and
the time was adverse. They ought, in his opinion, to suspend
their decision, :for he thought the present Bill was so much
connected with the Bill for the repeal of the corn-laws, or, in
other worits, the Bill for regulating the payment of labour,
that he could not consent to the one till he had ascertained
the fate of the other.—(Loud cheers from the pro-
tectionists.) Why was he interrupted by that cheer ?
He was persuaded the Bill before the House would greatly injure
the working classes—those who subsisted by labour—unless
they were sere of the other measure to augment their wages.
Would the Hon. Gentlemen on the other side who had cheered
consent that the other Bill to which he referred should pass
int. a law in order to give effect to this ?—(Cries of " No,
no.") He b°lieved that prudence ansi procrastination were
neceaaary cn the present occasion, and that the state of the
Bid for the repeal of the corn-laws offered a consideration why
they should not press the quesi ion to so early a decision. They
should trot only wait to ascertain tie fate of that measure, hut
they should wait until the, had further learnt the experience
of the effects that had arisen from voluntary experiineroa
beterean masters and men for the abridgements of the hours of
labour. Already, experiments of this kind had been made, and
he did not abandon the lope that they would be carried out
much further, if the Legislature did not interfere. His Right
Hon. Friend had been much disappointed in what he hail stated
respecting strikes to abridge the hours of labour. He did not
advise strikes to obtain that end, but what he said was that
the operatives, while they had struck repeatedly for
an increase of wages, had never entered into strikes
for the reduction of the hours of labour. They had never
struck for a reinction of the hours of labour. Nay, he was
persuaded that it the operatives asked the masters for a reduces
Lion of the hours of labour, and if they would submit to a com-
mensurate reduction in their wages, he had no doubt it would
be conceded.—( Hear, hear.) They had but to go to the
masters and state this determina• ion, and it would be done.
But the fact was, in some parts of Lancashire there were some
of the operatives working long hours, and others short hours, at
a proportionate reduction of wages ; and it was a remarkable
fact that they preferred the longer hours with the increased
wages, than the shorter hours with the reduced wages.
Much has been said of the superiority of the
English labourer—of their sinewal muscle. He admitted
that superiority. He acknowledged their strength and skill,
but he could not see how it could maintain itself if this Bill
were passed against the labourers of foreign countries. Ac-
cording to a report which had been made to that House, which
was an authoritative stateneent, the factory labourers had to work
75, 84, and 92 hours a week. In Prussia and Austria the
hours were from 92 to SI ; in the Tyrol from 72 to 83 ; in
Belgium from 81) to 90 ; and in other nations they were of a
similar character. In England, however, it was proposed to
reduce them to 59 hours a week. If so, he was sure no in-
feriority of strength or skill could avail to balance 91 hours
against 59. Now in regard to the great immorality which
was alleged to exist in the manufacturing districts, according
to the returns which had been made to that House, giving the
commitments which had taken place all over England, it was
shown that in Yorkshire and Lancashire a great decrease had
taken place in the years 1843, 1844, and 1845. In Yorkshire
it had been in the last year as much as nineteen per cent. In
Leicester also, which was extensively engaged in the silk, lace,
and hosiery trades, a great decrease in those years
had also taken place, last year; it had been as much
as 22 per cent. In Staffordshire and Warwickshire, the great
seat of the hardware trades, there had been a great reduction
in the last three years. So had there also been in Glouces-
tershire, to the extent of 9 per cent. This must satisfy them a 3
to the charge of immorality, and was a just reason why they
should not, without great consideration, seek to disturb the
present system. Whatever might be thought of the abstract
merits of the measure, while they were as yet ignorant of the
fate of that other measure which was proposed as an equivalent
for any injury that might arise from this, he thought the Hon.
Members who had introduced the Bill, and the House, should
suspend their decision. But, whatever they might determine,
he could not omit declaring, that on no account could he sanc-
tion a greater reduction than one hour a (lay, or fixing the
number of hours at eleven; and further, that, under present
circumstances, he was not prepared to accede to any reduction
at all till the fate of the Bill with which it ought to be accom-
panied was known.—( Cheers. )
Mr. MACAULAY, in rising to support the Bill, said that
if, as complained of by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, any
unjust aspersions had been cast upon the manufacturers of the
country 'or opposing the present Bill, such aspersions met
with no sympathy from him. He had no sympathy with such
aspersions, as he was fully convinced the interests cf the manu-
facturers of this country—the interests of the whole of so. iety
—but especially the interests of the labouring classes, was de-
pendent on the present question, and the vote they should give
that night. Under no circumsteeces should feelings of political
hostility be allowed to interfere, or any ruse of political party
and political warfare, be allowed to interfere with a question so
deeply interesting to the great body of the people. He could
assure the Hon. Member for Sheffield, and his Hon. Friends on
his side of the House, that he had no desire to obtain any
credit for humanity at their expense. He believed that their
feelings in all respects were as kind and cordial as his own.
They agreed with him as to the end to be obtained, but their
present difference of opinion was in regard to the means. Dis-
missing from their minds all extraneous considerations, the real
point they had to consider was—was the present subject a legi-
timate one for them to interfere with and settle, or was it one
that was likely to settle itself? It was important that there
should be no mistake on this head. There were two kinds of
Government to which he had great objection, and he did not
know which was the greatest pest; the one was the patriarchal
form of Government, or a meddling Government, who thought
they could do every other persons' business better than they
could themselves, and the other form of Government was a
careless, indolent one, who would suffer the greatest social
abuses to exist without interfering—a Government who said
that things should go on without interference, as they would be
sure to find their level. —( Hear, hear.) If he had any objec-
tion to the past proceedings of Government in this country, it
was that they had assumed too much function of
the patriarchal form, and meddled with things that
were not within the legitimate sphere of their influence.
Great philosophers, during the last generation, had drawn the
attention of the speculative to this object. He did think he
sow some danger in the carrying these principles to the other
extreme, for it was a very remarkable circumstance that they
should have lived to see that all the great communications of the
empire had been abandoned by the Government to private spe-
culation.—( Hear, hear.) Another instance of an error
was the manner in which some Gentlemen looked at the
question before the House. The Hon. Members for Sheffiel d
and 'Montrose (Mr. Ward and Mr. Hume) resolved it into one
merely of free-trade, and told them not to legislate upon the
subject, the contract between the master an the labourer
being merely one like any other commercial transaction. They
said we did not interfere with the hosier at what price he was
to sell his stockings, or with the grocer as to what kind of stock
he should lay in, and whether he was to give long credit and
charge high prices. They argued that the labourers and the
grocers would judge much better for themselves than the legis-
lature could do for them. He believed he was as much attached
to the principle of free-trade as any other man in that House,
but that was when the principle was rightly stated. It was
casting ridicule on the principle of free-trade when they were
pushed to an extreme. They had restricted the number of cabs;
it was a rainy day, and there were few upon a stand ; in fact,
there was none ; and why was it not competent for any man to
bring out his own cab and charge what price he liked? That was
the principle of free-trade; but they had yielded that principle
to the consideration of the police, and so also had they sacrificed
it when a question of revenue came to be considered. Well
then, the health of the community was a matter to which it
should be yielded also. He had read with much satisfaction a
report signed by two of the officers of the Government,
the Duke of Buccleueh arid the Noble Lord, who was lately
at the head of the Woods and Forests, and who was now
Secretary for Ireland, and there was not any document more
repugnant than it to the principle of free trade, for he found
in it, that a man could not on his own ground, build a house
less than thirty feet wide, nor could he build a new one in a
new street, without giving notice to certain Commissioners.
He was obliged to make a drain to his house, and if he refused,
the Commissioners could make a drain, and send him in the
bill to pay, and he was obliged to pay it. Those who took
their stand upon the extreme principle of free trade, would
tell us, that they were to buy cheap and to sell dear. Now,
why should not that apply to the man who ran up a cheap
house without a drain, and endeavour to get the highest price
for it ? Because the health of the community was concerned.
He defied them to defend free trade upon these extreme prin-
ciples, and that was the reason that free trade, which was so
excellent in itself had so much to struggle with to obtain the
general assent of society. But there were other interests
which demanded their attention—interests far higher than
those which were merely commercial—they were those
which concerned the public weal—and they were to decide
whether the great masses of the people should live in a method
the effect of which was to abridge life, to send them to untimely
graves, leaving behind them a miserable progeny.—( Hear.)
Whenever the public health or the public morality was con-
cerned, the Legislature ought to interfere. Take, for instance,
the case of lotteries. Wnat had they to do with the contract
between the parties in the case of a lottery ? A man put his
hand voluntarily into his pocket, and paid the money—there was
no delusion—no injustice practiced by any one—and one would
think it a fair commercial transaction, in which they could not
interfere to prevent a party from risking his money. They
had, however, nothing to do with the matter in a commercial
point of view. They interfered with the system because they
felt such things as lotteries gave encoutagement to certain
habits of mind and body which were incompatible with every
good
interfere with the public heath and the
ought therefore, to
ask whether the public
public
morals; and he would
quality of either happiness or health.—(Cheers.) They
health and the
public morals were not concerned in
d
ne
the time of labour ? Did any one who examined
his own feelings upon this matter,
doubt whether twelve
hours a day labouring in a factory was desirable for health,
morals, or education. Were they not justified then in inter-
firing to prevent the poor from injuring themselves by means
of premature and excessive labour ? Did any one doubt that
leisure was necessary for education ? Well, then, after twelve
hours a day had been consumed in factory labour, and the few
hours devoted to refreshment and rest, what time remained
for the operative portion of this country to devote to that educa-
tion which they ought to possess? Was there enough? No.
He was sure they must all answer that question in the negative.
hjustifiedbelieved
wouldthei r interfering
prejudicialto to prohibit
public contracts
morality,
jwhichus justi-
fied wi(.,Cheera. ) He repeated, then, that the same principle
)
The temporal inconvenience pt hrirniiy;e,
injurious to puit. health.—(e Hear, hear, and cheers. fied their interfering
e preventoti,ese nts rwaecrt
es
sNovhiclv
they were not great might
ha that
observed, and were finally allowed to fall into
di3uetude. Were Hon. Gentlemen aware that the Long Par.