rose and said.—Previous to entering on the subject which it is now my duty to submit to the House, I wish to explain and apologize for having taken up a business that would have come so much better from many other members. I was induced to embark in it from the assistance afforded me by one of the ablest and most constitutional lawyers of the day, I mean my friend baron Wood. I trust this will not only be received as a justification, but entitle me to the attention of the House. The measure is, doubtless, one of great importance, both as it affects property, and as it has influence on the morals of the community. In order that the object of the bill I have to propose, might be fully understood, and to prevent also groundless alarms, it was judged expedient to introduce it in the last session,^* in order to have it printed and widely dispersed. The avowed intention of the measure is, for the security of tithe property, and the prevention of the extended and extending scale of litigation. By the papers before the House it appears 120 tithe causes were decided in the last seven years, and that an equal or greater number are pending. When it is considered, that each of these causes may have continued for six or seven years, occasioning feuds and animosities that cause the church to be totally deserted; this alone presents an evil that calls loudly for redress, were there no other grounds of claim for the interference of the legislature. From the moderation and liberality which generally distinguishes the church, I am satisfied it would not be their wish or desire the law should afford them facilities for the invasion of the rights and properties of others. God forbid any attempt should be made to invalidate the security of the vested rights of any body! I need not disclaim it for myself, arid still less for the quarter from whence I have received such able assistance. The jealousy of this House on all subjects which can be supposed to innovate on the rights of property, are highly honourable to it, and must render hopeless all attempts to infringe on vested interests of any kind. I contend for nothing that has not the sanction of the highest law authorities of ancient as well as modern times. I need scarce observe to the House, that, primâ facie, all lands are liable to the payment of tithes. That the grounds of exemption are the payment of moduscs or exemptions, prescriptions, compositions, or discharges. Moduses suppose a commencement prior to Richard 2nd.—Forty years uninterrupted payment presupposes a title, which is impeachable in two ways; first, by showing its commencement to be antecedent to Richard

^*See Vol. 36, p. 1070.

1st; and latterly, that is, within little more than a century, by impeaching it on the ground of rankness. Exemptions, prescriptions) compositions, and discharges, are not proved by immemorial possession, but by the production alone of the original grant or deed, by which they were created. These exemptions would be legally granted till the 13th of Elizabeth. Before I proceed to discuss these different branches, it may be expedient to advert to the law as it stood, with respect to other property. Previous to the 9th of the present reign, possession was no bar to the claims of the Crown. The injustice and oppression which arose out of this, and especially out of one of the last cases, I mean that of the duke of Portland and sir James Lowther, when, from the embezzlement or destruction of a deed enrolled in one of the public offices, the noble duke had nearly been deprived of his property. This produced the nullum tempus act, by which the rights of the Crown are limited to sixty years. This act is a full recognition on the part of the legislature of the principle I am wishing to contend for. For strict legal pleadings in the courts of law, it was necessary that deeds should be lodged in the court, that the opposing parties might have access to them. Forty eight years ago, lord Ken-yon, in the cause of Reid v. Brookman, ruled, that instead of the prefect, it might be alleged that the deed was lost or destroyed by time and accident, and that usage would prove it. Lord Kenyon observed, "And this is founded on necessity, since no human prudence can render deeds existing for ever." It will be incumbent on those who oppose the truth and justice of this noble lord's observation, to show why a decision that has preserved many just rights, should not equally be applied to tithes. Having shown both the proceedings of this time—and the latter practice of the courts has gone to strengthen and establish the rights of possession, and to attribute to it the best beginnings—I shall now proceed to discuss what the defects of the laws relative to tithes are, and the remedies I would propose. The ancient mode of the clergy's proceeding for the recovery of tithes, was in their own ecclesiastical court. When matters of fact arose, the court of King's-bench stayed the proceeding till they were decided. Disputes arising between the ecclesiastical and law courts, as to the exercise of their jurisdiction, the same came to a solemn hearing before king James 1st, who decided, with the unanimous approbation of the judges of the land, that the ancient law of the kingdom should be abided by; Magna Charta having provided, "that no man should be deprived of his freehold, or free custom, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." This decision seems acquiesced in for upwards of 50 years, when, by a fiction of law, the clergy commenced their proceedings in the Exchequer, by acknowledging themselves to be debtors of the king, from the payment of tenths. Thus things proceeded till the ease of Gardiner and Pole, 1705, when chief baron Ward, and other barons, held twelvepence an acre for hay a rank modus. This was appealed against, and reversed in the House of Lords, and held a good modus. In the case of Sansom and Shaw, in the Common Pleas, 1748, when it was contended that tenpence for meadow or pasture was rank, Serjeant Belfield said, he was so old as to remember almost the very beginning of the name of rank modus; that lord chief baron Ward was the first that introduced it; that he was a great patron of the clergy, and carried their rights a great way. "Lord chief justice Willes says," I am afraid, truly, there have been many cases determined upon the footing of rankness. The fewer the better; and I am glad they are not in print, for then they might have misled, more than they have already;" and he observes, that "the consequence of these determinations is, to deprive the landholders of what they have fairly purchased and paid for. "Mr. Justice Burnet says," My brother Belfield has given us the history of the beginning of the doctrine of rank moduses, in lord chief baron Ward's time; and I have had another case given me by a learned judge, which shows the end of it. "See the case of Gifford and Webb in the Exchequer. Unfortunately this did not prove to be the case. In defence of the courts of equity deciding on matters of fact, is alleged, the prejudices of juries, and their ignorance of the value of money, in the time of Richard 1st. On this head I have an authority that will weigh with this House, and I hope on the members opposite me—I mean that of the present lord chancellor, who, in the case of O'Connor and Cooke, gives this true and constitutional answer:" I cannot hold the language that has been held, as to sending this to the prejudice of a jury. A jury is the constitutional tribunal of the country, and I am not at liberty to suppose it will be guided by prejudice."—Now, Sir, of the integrity and ability of those who preside in our courts of justice, no one entertains a higher opinion than I do; but with every deference, I would ask, is it possible for them to establish any rule of discussion that can suit all cases? Does not the quality of land as well as locality, produce a great and material difference? What might be right in one case, would be quite the reverse in another; and docs not this form a very material fact for a jury to inquire into? There it one rule of the courts of equity, the grounds and justice of which I do not comprehend. In all cases where the rector prays an issue, a trial by jury, it is granted. Even were the modus such as the court would sustain, still they send it to a jury. Why the defendant should not equally be entitled to have a trial by jury, is quite incomprehensible to me, and I own savours strongly, as I view it, of injustice. That next point to which I would wish to call the attention of the House, is to compositions real, which are compositions made between person, patron, and ordinary, which might legally have been done till the restraining act of the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 10. Many such, no doubt, were made. In a lapse of 240 years since these agreements were restricted, many deeds have been destroyed or lost. At the Reformation, the 31st of Henry 8th, 1539, nearly one-third of the whole property of tithes, passed into the hand of the Crown, and was sold and disposed of. This portion of tithes became, to all intents and purposes, a temporal possession, and was parcelled out and sold to individuals many of whom never had the original deed of conveyance in their possession. Now, the law rules as to compositions, that pos- session is no proof of title, no presumption of an original grant. The deed, and the deed only, is proof of any title. This is a monstrous doctrine; what does lord Ellesmere, lord chancellor, with the principal judges say, "for tempus est edax return, and records and letters patent, and other writings, either consumed or are lost, or are embezzled; and God forbid that ancient grants and deeds should be drawn in question, although that cannot fee. shown which at first was necessary to the protection of the thing." Lord Hobart, in Slade and Drake says, "It is a strange anomaly to be thus differing from all other cases of law; for whereas prescription and antiquity of time justifies all other titles, and supposeth the best beginning the law can give them, in this case it works clean contrary, and this in favorem ecclesiœ, lest laymen should assail the charge. Now, if just and equitable as to the church, it can have no reference to the lay impropriator." In the case of Barry and Evans, 1735, the court will not presume any grant or purchase of tithes, not even in a case of a lay impropriator. Many judges have at different times expressed dissatisfaction at this doctrine. The late lord chief baron of the exchequer, in a case, lord Peter and Blencow, 1797, expressed himself thus: "These determinations are perhaps to be lamented; I should have liked better to have found, in regard to tithes, the same principle of decision which regulates the title to every other fee. If nonpayment for any length of time forms no presumption of a grant of the tithes, then the length of enjoyment, which in all other cases is the best possible title, serves only to weaken the claim of exemption from tithes, as the difficulty of tracing the origin is increased." Lord Loughborough, in the case of Rose and Collard, in chancery, 1S00, also expressed his dissatisfaction. And the present lord chancellor, in the case of Berney and Harvey, in 1809, says, "I do not think that I ought now to disturb this doctrine, which has prevailed so long, whatever I might have originally thought of it." In the case of Fans-haw and Hare, in the exchequer, 1743, baron Clark expressed himself on this point, as follows:—"I know no case that deserves more consideration than this: for though the authorities against such a prescription"(meaning a prescription in non decimanda) "are very great, yet the objections to them grows weaker every day. Before the Reformation, all tithes were ecclesiastical, and a layman could have them by discharge only, by the grant of parson, patron and ordinary. Since that time there are many other ways, both of having tithes, and being discharged from them. Since tithes have been in the hands of lay impropriators, many persons have purchased discharges for their particular lands; yet if these grants are lost in the common fate of things, those persons must lose the benefit of their purchases, and that must often happen, though they be inrolled, or any other way be taken to preserve them. Very few records relating to the church are now extant, and it would be very hard that time, that strengthens all other rights, should weaken this." I should hope, Sir, there will be little doubt of the justice of giving to uninterrupted possession that right it has in all other cases against the church. Against the lay-impropriators there cannot be a shadow of pretence for withholding it. On this point I do not anticipate an objection. From and after the 12th of Elizabeth, 1570, agreements were made for conveyances, exchanges, and compositions, sanctioned by a decree of chancery; all inclosures of wastes, drainages, &c. were carried into effect by this mode, and valid, till the discussion by lord Nor-thington, 1766, in the case of the iattor-ney-general and Blois, v. Cholmley, when they were declared to be invalid. In the space of 196 years, many agreements were made and carried into effect between rectors and spiritual persons and land owners, in exchange of land for other lands, and pecuniary payments upon inclosures and drainages, sanctioned by chancery. These are now liable to be set aside, and, in fact, many have been so. I instanced, last session, in the case of Dr. Peplow Ward, the rector of Cottenham. I am sorry to find the reverend gentleman, whom I believe to be a highly respectable character, was hurt by the statement. Had it been in any way incorrect, I should not have hesitated to have immediately retracted it; but believing it perfectly correct, I must restate it.—In 1596, composition had been made by articles of agreement, and confirmed by a decree in chancery, by which lands had been allotted to the rector and his successors for ever, in lieu of tithes of the before-mentioned land with a view to the drainage and improver ment of it. The defendants, who were thirty-two in number, filed a cross bill, founded on the composition deed, praying, that Dr. Peplow Ward, might be declared not entitled to the tithes he claimed, and if entitled, might account to them for the profits of the inclosures and inclosed grounds, which he held in lieu of tithes, and that he might be decreed to vacate the possession. The court, bound by former decisions, held the composition void, and decreed an account of tithes to the rector, and costs, as the composition deed was not stated in the answer; and if it had, the court might have left him to his remedy, in which he must have recovered as the law stands at present; and the cress bill was dismissed, because the complainants in it could make no title to the and allotted in lieu of tithes. Can a more palpable-case of injustice be adduced? Admitting the result was not in the rev. doctor's contemplation, it is not in his power, beyond the term of his own life, to cure this monstrous injustice; the lands must descend to his successor. A case was at issue in the county of Lancaster, between the late rector of Mailing, and persons with whom exchanges of certain portions of glebe had been made, highly beneficial to the church. Though above 250 years had elapsed, the probability was, the lands would have been recovered, and possession kept of the grounds given in exchange. Some remedy should be provided against such palpable acts, if wrong. It might, indeed, be stigmatized by a much stronger epithet. I should propose, on such agreements being set aside, the lands should be held for the use of the poor, till the legal owner should appear to claim. The last regulation in the bill I should wish to propose, would be, to give power to a jury to apportion lands covered by moduses, when the bounds were, from changes, lost or changed. These would be the objects I would wish to provide for. Whilst provision was made to assimilate the law of tithes to that of every other property, injustice would be prevented, and litigation most considerably checked. I dislaim all interference with any rights of the Church, or asking any thing more than what the legislature has established with regard to the Crown—that possession should work for and not against the holders of tithes. The hon. gentleman then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the Amendment of the law in respect to Tithes."

believed, that if the petitions which had been presented upon this subject last year were carefully attended to, and the grounds upon which they proceeded duly considered, the House at least upon such grounds as the petitions stated, would not see the necessity of giving the subject any very grave consideration. Many of them related to a. single parish. They were determined upon in about four days. They were all drawn up in the same, or nearly the same terms. They were circulated through the country, and signed by women and by persons of the lowest class. The con- tents of those petitions wore extremely absurd. They stated, that the system of tithes was injurious to the agricultural interests of the country and the christian religion; they prayed the House to make such regulation in them as might best suit the insular situation of Great Britain, and be most consistent with its political relations. There was one from Horn-church, in Essex, which complained that the tithe was let to a lawyer and a clergyman, and that this was ruinous as well to agriculture as to religion. There were some petitions from Ireland upon the same subject, and he could not say whether the local situation of that country might not admit of some beneficial amendment with respect to tithes. There were also two from Gloucester, which prayed for redress upon the principle that the system of tithe placed too large a proportion of property in the hands of the clergy. The object of the bill was, to alter the provisions of the Jaw as they at present existed upon the subject of tithe. He did not rise to oppose the introduction of the bill. There would be other opportunities for objecting to it if he should consider objection necessary. On so delicate a matter he would call upon the House to proceed with the utmost caution. If necessary at any time it was most certainly so when they were about to touch one of the most ancient institutions of the country—one which, for centuries, had been undergoing the revision of the wisest and the ablest men, and who had transmitted to posterity that system in the state in which they now found-it. The question was between the landholders on one side, and the tithe proprietors on the other. It was one of great delicacy, and required the utmost caution and prudence. He did not mean to oppose the introduction of the bill, but he should watch its progress through the different stages.

said, that the bill of last year, in his mind, promised the most extensive and beneficial improvements. So far from seeking to put an end to tithes, the bill sought to strengthen the system throughout, by adopting a principle of tithe more equitable and rational. As to the operation on the minds of members, by the petition mentioned, the right hon. gentleman might as well have attributed the introduction of the bill to the diffusion of the principles of the Spenieeans or of the Hampden club. The ob- ject of the last year's, and, no doubt, the present year's bill, was, to put an end to the inconvenience and anomaly of the present principle of tithe law. In the instance of the Crown an undisputed possession of sixty years put all its claims to rest, whilst a tenfold latitude was given to claims on the part of the church. In fact, to give a title to a modus, which barred all inquiry on the part of the clergy or impropriator, it must be shown to have had its existence prior to the time of Richard the first, a period of 600 years. What he had said had merely originated in a desire to do away with the impression he felt was likely to be made by the grave arid solemn warning given by the learned judge of the Admiralty, to abstain from intermeddling with rights so sacred and generally recognised as those of the clergy. It was too absurd a proposition to be gravely entertained in that House, that any thing in the tithe system militated against the interests of the christian religion, except in the angry feelings which not unfrequently were the consequence of feuds and contentions between pastors and their flocks, upon the subjects of litigation respecting tithe cases. By the present system, the older a man's claim to a right of modus or composition, the weaker it was—contrary to the general and well-known principle of law in all other cases. It was now two centuries and a half since the disabling statute of queen Elisabeth, which followed about thirty years after the dissolution of the monasteries by her father. Lay impropriators still continued capable of alienations, until the decision of the corporation of Berwick disturbed the foundations of the law as it had previously stood; of which decision he could only say, he knew not whether most to reprobate, its folly or its dangerous consequences—as its direct tendency was, to protect lay impropriators, as if they had been ecclesiastics. There were parts of the bill to which, though trifling in themselves, he felt an objection; although he acknowledged, that, in the course of his experience, he had never seen an act of parlialiament drawn up with a juster or more profound knowledge of the subject treated, nor one more admirably adapted to erasure the execution of its several provisions. He should reserve his objection until a more advanced stage of the bill, and should for the present give it his most decided support.

said, he did not feel that awe and that tremor which the right hon. gentleman seemed to feel upon this bill, arid which he expressed as it were for the purpose of preventing the House from entering upon it. The bill in its object was a most useful one. The object was only to legislate upon one species of property in the same way as was done upon all others. The right hon. gentleman seemed inclined to cast a slur upon the committee and upon the House by the allusions which he had made to the petitions presented last year upon the subject. The committee were not at all influenced by the language of those petitions. He had been a member of that committee, and he never sat with any set of gentlemen who seemed to have more regard for the interests of the church. They, however, had made no objection to the measure. As to the case alluded to of the lawyer and the clergyman who held the tithe, it gave rise to a great deal of litigation, and was by no means an unfit subject to be mentioned in a petition. The bill he considered as one which ought to receive the countenance of the legislature.

observed, that he did not understand his right hon. friend to say that he looked upon the bill as one to provide for; the abolition of tithe. A proof of this was, that his right hon. friend had acquiesced in the motion for bringing it in. He merely recommended that the House should use some caution in countenancing a measure for the removal of a practice upon which the country had acted for centuries. It would not, in his opinion, be difficult to show, that, however they might in appearance be founded on equality, the application of the same principle of prescription to tithes as to other property would be very unjust. This bill would rather contribute to increase, than to suppress litigation. The statement that there were now 120 causes pending in the court of exchequer might, if not explained, seem to make against the clergy. The truth was, that only 69 of these causes had been instituted by the clergy. Only 35 of them had been commenced within the last three years. That did not amount to twelve in each year, which was no proof of excessive litigation. He should reserve to another stage of the bill whatever objections he had to make.

said, he would not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, although he was apprehensive that it would be difficult to reconcile some parts of it to principles of sound policy. He thought there were many serious difficulties which it would not be easy to get over. It was a measure of great importance, and required the utmost caution.

admitted that the subject was one of great importance. This, however, was not the time for proposing any objections against it or arguments in its favour. It would be better to wait until they had an opportunity of seeing the bill. They would then be better able to judge of its objects. He did not understand his right hon. friend to say any thing that could tend to prejudice the House against the measure. He merely recommended caution in the adoption of it. When any legislative regulations were proposed with respect to tithes, they should be approached with the same caution as those proposed with respect to other property. He could not collect from any thing which had fallen from his right hon. friend, that he was inclined to bar a fair discussion. He merely recommended that church property, being as sacred as any other, should be touched with the same caution.

agreed with the noble lord that it was better not to anticipate any objections or arguments upon the bill. He thought, however, that his hon. and learned friend was very justifiable in the remarks he had made upon what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman opposite. His (Mr. Brougham's) habitual veneration for that right hon. judge induced him to pay the utmost attention to what had fallen from him, and it did strike him that the object of his language was, to stigmatize the measure in its birth, and to set it forth to the world as one by which it was meant to trench upon the property of the church. It was now stated, that such was not his intention, but merely to caution the House against rash legislation. He wished just to mention one thing, which would show what it was the bill was meant to remedy, and the groundlessness of the clamour that was raised against it. What he should mention was, the right of composition. Composition real was legal 248 years back. Suppose a composition of that kind effected while it was legal, that it was acted upon and no tithe paid, but the parson possessing the land for 200 years. Under such circumstances, the parson at present had only to file his bill for tithe, and the court could not refuse him a decree unless the other party could produce his composition real; not an old moth-eaten parchment, but one quite legible. It had been so decided in the court of exchequer. So that, by this means, the parson might retain the land which he got in composition, and get the tithe besides. It was not the object of the bill to unsettle the right of church property, but to clear it of difficulties. The property of the church should be held sacred, but not more so than the property of the crown, which had long lost the benefit of the nullum tempus

wished to know the name of the case alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman.

could not immediately recollect the name of the case, but he was quite certain of it.

was surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman take such a view of the case as he had given to the House. He had put the bill into his hands before he had moved for leave to bring it in. He did not then make the same objections against it which had fallen from him that night; nor did he (Mr. Curwen) expect that an attempt would have been made to create a prejudice against it in consequence of the petitions alluded to. With those petitions he had nothing to do.

said he rose to do what he conceived to be but an act of justice. At the conclusion of the last session he had presented a petition complaining of the conduct of one of the Irish judges, in his observations on a case of murder in a duel. That petition had been delivered to him in the middle of the session, and contained very serious allegations, which were, however, couched in such strong language, that he told the person who gave it to him that he could not present to the House any such petition. Afterwards he had seen the published trial, and the terms of the petition being moderated, he consented to present it. He had since, however, learned, from several persons of high consideration and respectability, that there was no foundation whatever for the charges. He had also had a communication from the learned judge himself, for whom, he begged leave to say, he entertained the highest respect. He was now convinced that the allega- tions of the petition were utterly groundless, and he was happy to be able to make this statement. One of the allegations was, that the person tried was a relative of the judge. As to this, he stated himself, that it was not the fact, at least, that the relationship was scarcely more than that which existed among all the members of society. Another was, that he had thrown difficulties in the way of procuring the writ; so far from this, it appeared he had advanced money out of his pocket for the purpose of procuring it. A third was, that the person indicted was of a powerful family, and that that had been a source of favour. He was authorized to say, that there had been no show whatever to support this. He was rejoiced to be able to make this reparation to the character of that respected individual, the only one in his power. He was anxious it should be as public as possible, since the imputations contained in the petition had received a very extended circulation. Judge Day, the learned judge in question, in the conscious dignity of innocence, had abstained from prosecuting the libeller. But at the suggestion of the lord chancellor, he had instituted a civil action against the author of the slander, thereby giving the party an opportunity of proving, if he were able, the truth of the allegations. He thought it due from him to apologise to the House for having presented the petition in question, and to declare it to be his full belief and conviction, that the statements which it contained were altogether groundless [Hear, hear!].

complimented the hon. gentleman on the very proper and liberal manner in which he had conducted himself on this occasion. So far was he from being sorry at the circumstance, that he was extremely happy an opportunity had thus been afforded of furnishing so public a refutation of the calumny in question. Had he been in England at the period in the last session when the petition was presented, his knowledge of the integrity of judge Day would have induced him to beg the House to suspend their opinion on the allegations which it contained. Since that time the learned judge had put him in possession of the most satisfactory evidence on the subject, namely, his private note book, which showed, that so far was he from having conducted himself in the way imputed to him, that he had acted in a manner most consistent with the dignity of the situation that he held, and with his duties both as a judge and as a christian. The learned judge, would, he was sure, be equally satisfied with himself, at the statement made by the hon. gentleman, and the handsome and liberal manner in which it had been made.

rose to make his promised motion on a subject, the importance of which increased more and more on every consideration of it. About fifteen years ago he had brought in a bill for the Regulation of Apprentices in Cotton Manufactories. At that time they were the description of persons most employed in those manufactories He himself had a thousand of them, and felt the necessity of some regulation with respect to them. Since that time, however, the business had been much extended. Manufactories were established in large towns, and the proprietors availed themselves of all the poor population of those towns. In Manchester alone 20,000 persons Were employed in the cotton manufactories, and in the whole of England about three times that number. The business was of a peculiar nature, requiring of necessity that adults and children should work in the same rooms and at the same hours. It was notorious that children of a very tender age were dragged from their beds some hours before day light, and confined in the factories not less than fifteen hours; and it was also notoriously the opinion of the faculty, that no children of eight or nine years of age could bear that degree of hardship with impunity to their health and constitution. It had been urged by the humane, that there might be two sets of young labourers for one set of adults. He was afraid this would produce more harm than good. The better way would be to shorten the time of working for adults as well as for children; and to prevent the introduction of the latter at a very early age. Those who were employers of the children, seeing them from day to day, were not so sensible of the injury that they sustained from this practice as strangers, who were strongly impressed by it. In fact, they were prevented from growing to their full size. In consequence, Manchester, which used to furnish numerous recruits for the army, was now wholly unproductive in that respect. He hoped the House would allow him to bring in the Bill that night; he would then move that it be printed, and-the second reading might take place at any future period that might seem convenient. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in. a bill to amend and extend an act made in the 42d year of his present majesty, for the preservation of the health and morals of Apprentices and others employed in cotton and other mills, and cotton and other factories."

said, he felt considerable difficulty on the present subject, which was of the highest importance to the manufacturing districts. It was not all evils that were fit subjects for legislative interference; for instance, he highly applauded the bill of an hon. friend of his, respecting chimney-sweepers. But in the present case it should be recollected, that the individuals who were the objects of the hon. gentleman's proposition were free labourers. This excited his jealousy; for, were the principle of interference with free labourers once admitted, it was difficult to say how far it might not be carried. If there existed any thing radically vicious in the system, it ought to be inquired into. In fact, a parliamentary inquiry had taken place by a committee in 1816, and he could not help expressing his surprise, if the evils existed described by the hon. baronet, that no legislative measure had sooner been proposed. When the House were about to legislate on a large scale, they ought at least not to do so on ex-parte evidence privately obtained, but on evidence openly taken before a committee of the House or otherwise. If the evils stated in this ex-parte evidence really existed, it might be extremely desirous that something should be done to remedy them; still, however, the House ought to entertain a great jealousy on this subject. At all events, the subject ought to be canvassed and examined in the most open manner.

thought the principle of the bill would be discussed more advantageously on the second reading, and he merely rose to say, that the measure had its origin in the report of the committee which sat in 1816, which contained fully sufficient grounds for it, although those grounds were certainly not weakened by the additional evidence which had been produced, and shown to particular individuals. He would also remind the House, that a petition had been received from the adult persons in this employment, against the existing practice, which alone proved the necessity of some farther regulation.

strongly objected to the adoption of any measure of this description, and denied that the employment of children in the cotton factories operated, as had been described, to stint their growth, impair their comfort, or scatter disease amongst them. If he conceived that the establishment with which he was connected, though he was only what was called a sleeping partner in it, scattered disease and death in the manner which had been described, he should take shame to himself if he did not immediately attempt to remedy the evil. The fact was, however, that that establishment had been conducted in such a manner that it was an important benefit to the poor, and an example to other factories. In this, however, he himself had no merit, for the whole was done independently of him. During the twenty-seven years which that establishment had existed, no contagious disease had ever been known in it; and during eleven of those years returns of the state of health had regularly been made, and the sickness amounted only to a small fraction per cent. Out of a thousand persons employed, the whole sum paid to them in poors-rates did not exceed 5l. per annum—a fortieth part of the sum which the factory contributed to the poor. If such was the fact, could any man say that the employment was unhealthy? There was no manufactory in the country, from which, if the same means were taken which had been resorted to in this case, numerous petitions and complaints might not be got. About four or five persons had been very active in looking out for complaints; they had dispatched their emissaries secretly about the country, and had circulated papers among the people in the different factories for their signature. The hon. baronet had said, the petitioners, in order to have the number of hours reduced, would willingly submit to a reduction of wages; but the petitioners did not say one word about reduction of wages; and if they said they would con- sent to such reduction, he would not believe them. The habits of these people led them to combine together; and it required great delicacy on the part of their employers to prevent much mischief being done in this way. Small factories were: often ill ventilated, and from that circumstance the health of a person might suffer more in six hours in one of these factories, than in fifteen hours in a factory which was well ventilated and properly constructed in other respects. But how could this evil be cured by any bill? The small factories generally went to ruin, and that was the cure for the evil. From the returns made to the House, out of 31, 117, the number of persons employed in these returns, 1717, or 5½ per cent, were of the age of 10 and under, 13,203 from 10 to 18, and 16,197 of the age of 18 and upwards. Out of 27,827 persons, there were 1830 only who could not read. Out of 25,000 the number of persons returned sick was 163, very little more than ⅝ths per cent. For these and other reasons, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the hon. baronet's measure.

was desirous that the discussion should be reserved till the whole subject should be fully before them. If different systems of management prevailed in the conduct of different factories, that was a sufficient reason for inducing the House to require farther information. His hope and belief was, that a fair inquiry would prove that the interests of the manufacturers and those of humanity were not at variance. Whatever might be the result of the measure, he was sure the House must feel obliged to the hon. baronet. Discussion must lead to useful results. He was convinced that whatever originated with the hon. baronet was the result of experience, prudence, and humanity.

said, that excepting in one instance, in the county of Lancaster, there was no proof of the existence of any evils which could justify legislative interference. In that case indeed, evils existed of the highest description. But this was a factory conducted under the provisions of an act of parliament—a proof that no law could prevent bad men from doing wicked things. Even in this factory, however, it was proved, that though children were employed fourteen hours, they were notwithstanding in exceeding good health. He warned the House against entertaining any measure, which went, like the present, to interfere with a manufacture of such vital importance. It was the most important ever established in this country; indeed, he believed, it employed more people than all the other manufactures of the country taken together. The exports from it exceeded 20 millions a year; and what was exported was not equal to what the home con- sumption was. The whole amount of the manufactures was little short of 40 millions a year. The bill should extend to the linen and woollen manufactories, as the hours of confinement were in them equally long. The medical men, whose opinion had been quoted, had never been in the cotton factories, and a medical man had told a friend of his, six months ago, that within six months he would be a dead man. He mentioned that, to show that medical men were not infallible. In 1802 the hon. baronet had opposed a measure similar to the present, on the ground that it was impracticable. For himself, he should allow no one stage to pass without discussion, and he must express his regret, that on a question of such importance, none of the ministers should be present.

wished to observe, that the bill now proposed to be brought in, was introduced in 1815: it was then withdrawn, as it was contended, that there was not sufficient evidence on the subject before the House. In 1816, a committee sat for the purpose of investigation. A bill was not introduced last year from the indisposition of the mover; but that was no reason why one should not be introduced now. It was no argument against such a bill that some factories were well regulated. If same factories were well regulated at present, that was a reason for the House adopting the regulations on which those factories were conducted. With respect to the instance of misconduct in Lancashire, which had been alluded to, it was proved that children were employed there fifteen hours a day, and after any stoppage, from five in the morning till ten in the evening—seventeen hours, and this often for three weeks at a time. On the Sunday they were employed from six in the morning till twelve, in cleaning the machinery. The medical men examined by the committee were some of them related to manufacturers, and well acquainted with factories. It was on evidence, that children had even been employed at an age as early as five, and some were employed under the age of seven. Could any person say, that a child of seven years of age ought to be employed fourteen hours? Was it necessary to have the evidence of medical men to prove that to employ a child of seven years of age was unfavourable to health? At the same time, he allowed that the subject was not without difficulty. A sort of personal reflection had been thrown out against an individual with whom he was nearly connected. An hon. gentleman had observed, that the individual in question had not introduced the bill till after he had acquired his wealth, and abandoned the trade. So far the hon. gentleman was perfectly correct in his facts. The hon. gentleman had stated, that the magistrates had complained of the manner in which the establishment with which the individual in question was concerned, was conducted; but he had stated this without qualification as to the time of such complaints. This referred to a period so far back as 1784, and again in 1796; and it was in consequence of these complaints that the bill of 1802 was introduced. A great change had taken place in the manner of conducting that manufactory since that period. Before the application of steam, it was necessary to select situations where falls of water could be had; these situations were frequently mountainous, and the population thin, and children were obtained as apprentices from large towns; but now these manufactories were in populous neighbourhoods. The individuals in question finding that in his own establishment abuses had taken place, and were kept from his knowledge by the overseer, and learning that the same abuses took place in other manufactories, gave a proof of his sincere wish to remedy the evil by bringing in the bill of 1802.

, in explanation, observed, that the bill of 1802 was completely a dead letter, but that the manufactories were now in a far better state than they were at that time. The hon. member paid several compliments to the worthy baronet who had introduced the bill.

observed, that at the passing of the bill in 1802, the manufactories were conducted most infamously, but he could now state, from actual observation, that they were much better managed. The present measure did not appear to him to have been well digested; for instead of weighing the whole of the matters it was intended to embrace, the hon. baronet appeared contented with weighing parts. He thought he might be allowed to put the question, whether it was possible that individuals in the situation of parents, who, it must be generally admitted, had some portion of the milk of human nature where their offspring was concerned, should seek to wear away the health and spirits of their children by over exertion. Dr. Blane, previous to his examining some of the factories, had expected to find a great degree of sickness, and was greatly astonished at finding the very reverse. What, then, could have produced effects so striking, but that improvement in the system of preserving health which had been found so efficacious in many of his majesty's gaols? In fact, no set of persons could be more healthy than the children so employed, and he could have wished, before the House had been called upon to legislate, that a committee had been appointed to examine into the real state of the case. Before he sat down, he thought it right to remark upon the propriety of legislating between the parent and the child: it went to say, that those of the poorer order were not fit to be trusted with the management of their own children. Let the House not disguise from itself, that the moment it was ascertained that the hours of labour were to be reduced, that moment there would be an outcry for an increase of wages. It had been said, that the parties themselves would consent to a diminution of wages, and farther, that the measure would be the means of calling a greater number of persons into employment. But then the consequences must be, that if the earnings of persons were lessened in point of hours, there must be some means found for increasing their wages. In that case it must be ruinous to the individuals and hurtful to the country: for the well-being of the cotton manufacture must depend on our foreign relations, and the ultimate effect must be, that the trade would be destroyed, and a number of persons thrown out of employment. On a former occasion, he concurred in opinion with those who thought an alteration in the system not only proper, but necessary; but since then he had had many opportunities of becoming more practically acquainted with the details and with the real facts; and he now felt confident, that to legislate at all upon the subject, would be ruinous to the trade, and injurious to the parties who were intended to be relieved.

thought, as the House had given their attention to the amelioration of the situation of slaves abroad, that they could not in reason neglect their fellows-subjects at home. It was totally impossible that children kept at work for so many hours could be brought up with a due impression of their moral duties. He had had much conversation upon the subject with many persons connected with cotton mills, and particularly with the conductor of the establishment at New Lanark, and the general opinion was, that something was necessary to be done. He hoped, therefore, that the bill would be carried through the House. It came from an excellent quarter, for it was impossible to select a person more experienced in the business than the hon. baronet.

was of opinion, that if children who were apprenticed were restrained from working sixteen hours a day, the House ought not to put any restraint upon free labour. As far as went to the relief of apprentices, it was proper to legislate; and he should be ready to go as far as any one in forming any measure for their amelioration. The House must be aware, that a committee upon this subject was appointed in 1815,but nothing final was agreed upon. In 1816 the same committee again sat, and their inquiry was proceeding when the session closed. The committee was not able to lay any report before the House, but they expected to be called upon to resume the inquiry. As nothing had resulted from the labours of that committee, the present bill was founded upon an ex parte exposition of the subject. The hon. baronet was not perhaps aware of this fact, but it was one which, in his opinion, ought to weigh with the House. He would not oppose the bringing in of the bill, but he would take every means of obstructing its progress upon every point which interfered with free labour.

presented petitions from William Robertson of Meikle Govan, and from William Murray and David Smith in Calton of Glasgow, complaining of the Operation of the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and praying for redress.

said, that these persons had mistaken the fact. They had not been taken up under the Habeas Corpus Suspension, act, for no person whatever had been so confined. He had seen a gentleman who had lately come from Glasgow, who stated to him, that these persons had been examined before magistrates, after they had been taken, and had been so well treated that they returned thanks for the treatment which they and their families had received. There was, in fact, not one word of truth in the petitions from beginning to end. At any rate, if they had thought proper they might by the usual process have obtained their liberty or their trial within sixty days.

thought it very natural for the petitioners to imagine that they were detained under the Suspension act, nor could he conceive, why, if they were properly confined, they had been discharged without being brought to trial.

moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.

conceiving that the bill would not tend to suppress the vice of gaming, moved that it be read a second time on that day six months.

said, that so far from putting down gaming, this bill went to encourage it. This was evident from the title of the bill, for it professed to have for its object to regulate houses kept for the purposes of play; and regulation, he observed, was not suppression. He thought nothing could he more injurious to property, reputation, and life than the vice of gaming. It had brought many individuals to ruin, had produced great private misery, and had deprived the country of many persons who might otherwise have been useful and valuable members of society. Upon these considerations, it ought to be suppressed but this, he repeated, was a bill which professed to regulate, and not to suppress. Me should, therefore, vote for the amendment, for he could never consent to license the practice, as was done in France, both for gaming and brothelkeep-ing.

said, it was impossible to give effect to this bill, for at common law a gaming house was a nuisance, and there was no power vested in magistrates to grant a licence under such circumstances.

remarked on the extent of ginning houses in London. There were more than a thousand of them creating all sorts of mischief. He did not think that the bill, would, interfere with the common law of the laud, he would, however, consent to withdraw it.