rose to present a Petition, to which, from the importance of the subject, he earnestly invited the attention of the House. He was the more anxious that the statement contained in the petition should be distinctly understod, as the great question on the subject stood for discussion this evening. The petitioners were Messrs. Rodwell and Martin, eminent booksellers in Bond-street. They complained of the grievous operation of the Copyright act as affecting their trade and property. As the law now stood, they were bound to furnish to certain public bodies eleven copies of every new work they published, no matter what was its nature, and the amount of its expense. The petitioners, among other injuries received from this impolitic regulation, stated some particular instances, to show the extent of the demands made upon them under the act. They had lately published a work, called "Views in Italy," with plates, and the copies they were obliged to deliver amounted to 70l. in value. The expense of the copies they must furnish of a work called "Antiquities of Greece," with drawings of Athens, would amount to 300l. The value of this work was so well appreciated that the author was offered permission to publish it in France, free of the duties on works sent from another country, if he would send the work there. In the one country an encouragement by the remission of heavy duties was held out, but in the other, a grievous and oppressive tax was imposed upon publishers for the benefit of bodies who had ample funds for the purchase of any works they required.

The Petition of John Rodwell and John Martin, of Bond-street, London, booksellers, publishers, and co-partners, was then brought up and read; setting forth,

"That the petitioners are booksellers and publishers, and frequently purchase the copyright of various works at a considerable price; and that, in common with all other publishers, they have severely felt the burthen of an act of parliament passed in the 54th year of his present majesty, compelling the gratuitous delivery of every new publication to various public institutions, amounting in the whole to eleven copies, in addition to one which, by another act of parliament, is required to be deposited with the printer of the work; that the compliance with such requisition has in many instances occasioned great positive loss to the petitioners, being, in the case of one work recently published by them, and intituled, "Views in Italy," not less than the sum of 70l., and in the publication of another work, by sir William Gell and J. P. Gandy, architects, to describe and illustrate the ruins of Pompeii, amounting to the sum of 50l., and making, upon the whole, a very serious annual drawback from the fair profits of the petitioners' trade; that the loss occasioned by such compulsory supply must necessarily fall either upon the publisher or author of every work; in the former case it is an exclusive, and (as can be proved) a very burthensome tax upon the profits of the petitioners' particular branch of trade, in addition to those which they already bear in common with their fellow subjects, and besides the tax upon paper and the duty on advertisements, whereby their business is greatly affected, and upon which a very considerable revenue accrues to the country; but, where it falls upon the author of a work, it becomes a severe tax upon the produce of intellectual exertion, and to the extent of its operation its tendency must be to restrain the advancement of literature and impede the progress of knowledge, in fact, such can be proved to have been already its actual effects and consequences in several instances, it having been the sole cause of preventing the publication of many interesting and valuable works, that would have proved beneficial to literature and honourable to our age and country; that the petitioners have recently agreed with Edward Dodwell, esq for the purchase of drawings and designs, with observations and remarks, illustrating the antiquities of Athens and ancient Greece, which that gentleman has made and collected at a very great expense during a long residence in Turkey, and with the assistance of the most eminent artists; that the cost of purchasing and the expense of publishing such a work are so great, that the eleven copies required by the act to be supplied will be an absolute charge upon the petitioners of nearly 300l. independent of such gratuitous supply diminishing the number of those who might reasonably be expected to become purchasers; the petitioners are in fact hesitating between the prudence of incurring such an expense, or the alternative of publishing these splendid engravings unaccompanied by the letter-press that should explain and illustrate them; the petitioners will no further observe upon the interest and importance of this work, in a national point of view, than by remarking, that such was the opinion of the French government as to its merits and value, that the very heavy duty legally payable thereon, upon its entrance into their territory, was ordered to be remitted to Mr. Dodwell, who was pressed to publish the same in Paris, under the sanction of government, upon very ad- vantageous terms, and free from the burthensome claim of any national institutions upon the profits of his labour or talent; the petitioners, therefore, most respectfully pray the House to take the foregoing facts into their gracious consideration, and to grant such relief in the premises to the petitioners, and publishers in general, as to their wisdom shall seem fit; but, if it should be deemed beneficial to the interests of literature that certain institutions should be made depositaries of every publication of merit, the petitioners humbly submit it to the consideration of the House, that it would, in every point of view, be fair and reasonable that such public bodies should be required to pay a moiety of the price of those books it may be desirable for them to possess, which would be a considerable relief to the petitioners, and to others of the same trade, and but a trifling object of expense to the respective institutions; it would moreover render them more discriminative and less vexatious than they have been in their requisition of books, by limiting their demand to such alone as had merit or usefulness to recommend them, and would prevent the abuse, destruction, and improper disposal of them, which it can be shown too frequently takes place under the present system."

On the question, that the petition do lie on the table,

observed, that the House should consider what the petitioners had stated, with respect to the sums which would be lost to them, by the eleven copies. They stated, that by one work they should lose 70l. and by another 300l., but the House should bear in mind, that though that might be the price at which the works might sell, yet it could not be supposed that they stood the publishers the same sum. It did not appear that they would lose so many customers, by giving away the eleven copies, for it did not follow, that if they were not so given away they would be purchased. He thought it right to state this to the House that it should not be led away by an erroneous idea of the loss which was complained of.

said, he could not state the mode of calculation adopted, but it was quite clear that, when the publisher was called upon to give gratuitously eleven copies of each work he published, to the value of these eleven copies, be it 70l. or 300l. he was most unjustifiably in- jured—the money was clearly lost to him of such copies as, by disposing of in the usual course of trade, he might derive a profit from.

thought the right hon. and learned gentleman could not be serious in the distinction he had attempted to draw between the first cost, and the sale price. The losses were as great, he could assure that right hon. gentleman, as the principle on which they were taken was unfair and oppressive. At any calculation it must be obvious that the author and the publisher must be greatly injured.

was at a loss to understand the meaning of the hon. baronet's remark. He could not conceive how any greater loss could be occasioned by the giving away eleven copies, than the value of those copies.

said, that the loss could be exactly explained. Suppose a bookseller intended to print 250 copies of a work for sale, he would be obliged to print eleven copies more, in order to send them to the universities. Now, by a regulation of the trade, the printing of those eleven additional copies would cost as much as if 250 copies more had been printed.

remarked, that this loss, if any, was caused by an arbitrary law among the booksellers themselves, and if they consented to such a law they ought to abide by the loss it occasioned. It was for them to repeal this regulation, and not to call upon the House to repeal a law of long standing and useful operation.

replied, that the publishers had nothing to do with the rule, which, in point of fact, belonged to the printers, and until the legislature adopted a rule to control and alter the existing rates of wages, the arrangement complained of must be acted upon.

was clearly of opinion, that the publishers were harshly used by this law. As to the quantum of the injury it mattered little—it was still oppressive, and universally so from the extent of its operation. With respect to the right hon. and learned gentleman's observation on the mode of calculating the evil, surely, if a farmer was obliged to give away a bushel of wheat which he could sell at a certain sum, the loss he would sustain would not merely be what the bushel had cost himself, but the price at which he might sell it.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. On the order of the day for the second reading of the Copy-right Bill,

said, he would take that opportunity of recommending that the subject should be referred to a select committee up stairs, who could resort to all the practical information which some gentlemen appeared to wish for. This would greatly facilitate the general discussion on the merits of the question before the House.

thought this would be the better course. He had no objection to the second reading of the bill, but on this condition, that no gentleman who held the opinion which he did on the subject, should be understood as compromising that opinion in allowing the second reading without opposition, or in agreeing to the committee up stairs.

had not the least objection to refer the matter at issue to a committee up stairs, and on this understanding he would consent to take the second reading in the manner it was proposed to him. He would therefore move, that the bill be read a second time.

would not interfere with that which seemed to be the understanding of the House. As the representative of one of the universities, whose rights were to be affected by the bill, he would put in his protest against it. The subject was one entitled to serious attention, and it was not generally understood, or else the difference of opinion which prevailed would not be so wide on the occasion. It might be right to state, that previous to the act of 1802, Ireland was unaffected by the act of Anne which prevailed here, and the Irish publisher was at perfect liberty to reprint any books which were published in England, without incurring any penalty for a piratical invasion of the author's privileges. So extensive was this trade of reprinting carried on at the time to which he alluded, that most of the literature of England found its way to the United States of America, through the medium of the printers in Ireland. When the alteration took place after the Union, this most valuable trade, which had been profitably exercised, was given up. And, were the provisions then entered into to be now repealed, without the parties standing in statu quo, after the manner of their respective relations, when the present measure was enacted? He was sure the English booksellers would, not take the repeal on the terms of reverting to the former plan: they knew their interest much better. To repeat this act in the manner proposed, would at once be to commit an act of national injustice towards Ireland, who, before the Union, might print from English copies as the publishers here do from those of France or any other country, without incurring any penalty for so copying.

willingly acquiesced in the matter being sent to a committee up stairs, though he begged to record his objection to the principle of the bill, and to express his determination to oppose the bill in every stage. He would suggest, however, the propriety of postponing the second reading of the bill for a fortnight, in order to enable the committee up stairs to sit first. Nothing would be lost by this course, as the second reading being now only taken pro formâ, did not advance the progress of the bill.

approved of sending the matter to a committee up stairs.

observed, that in point of form the proper time for having a committee up stairs would be between the second reading of the bill and its committal in the House. He looked forward to some arrangement through the medium of the committee up stairs, by which the great injury suffered by publishers might be considerably obviated without trenching on the privileges of the universities and other public bodies. One half the books taken from publishers were of no use to the bodies receiving them, though the loss was still suffered by those who had to furnish them. As to the former act in Ireland, there were no greater sufferers by it than the enlightened natives of that country, who had contributed their portion to the literature of this side of the water; for instance, what must Mr. Burke, Dr. Goldsmith, and many of the chief ornaments of our literature, have suffered from the practice of reprinting among their own countrymen, from English editions. He was sure that an arrangement of an equitable nature might be come to.

said, he was one of those who contended against the whole principle of the bill, and could not admit it under any qualification. As it could be no inconvenience to postpone the second reading, he thought it would be the better course to send the subject at once to a committee up stairs.

said, that previously to the act of union it was no piracy to reprint in Ireland books that had been originally printed in England, any more than it would be in an English bookseller to reprint in England, works that had been originally printed in France.

thought there was not much difference in the two modes of proceeding. The only objection to the appointment of a committee was, lest it should occupy too much time, which, however, he hoped, would not be the case.

said, that the clause proposed to be inserted against the copies due to certain public bodies, was only a repetition of one that had been inserted three years ago in a similar bill, and had then been negatived. He thought the second reading should be postponed till after the report of the committee.

expressed his hope, that the hon. baronet would consent to postpone the second reading of the bill, which seemed to be the wish of the House.

replied, that on the subject of referring the matter to a committee up stairs, he would be happy to comply with the sense of the House; but as to the postponement of the second reading, he could not consent to it, after the arguments with which the discussion had been anticipated, for the purpose of prejudicing the general question. He could not accede to it, unless it should be imposed upon him by the general expression of the House. A right hon. and learned gentleman had said the subject was but little understood, and had expressed a wish to be communicative on the real bearings of the question. Now he fully agreed with him, that it never had been sufficiently understood; but he differed with him in his conclusion; for he thought that the moment the subject was understood, that instant the existence of the evil would be admitted, and a remedy forthwith applied to the grievance.

could not conceive what objection there could be to the course proposed by the hon. baronet. Nothing was more common, than that a bill should be read a second time pro formâ, and for members to reserve their opinions as to the principle of it, till the question for the Speaker leaving the chair. He approved of the principle of the bill, considering the existing system a heavy tax on literature.

expressed his determination to oppose the bill, when the proper time for discussion arrived.

thought the second reading might take place now, on a distinct understanding, that it should not be inferred that the principle of the bill was agreed to.

The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 27th. Mr. Wynn gave notice, that on Monday he would move for a select committee to consider the Copy-right acts.

said, he held in his hand a petition, to which he begged to call the most serious attention of the House. It was from a respectable gentleman, Mr. Gibbons, a colonist and settler at the island of Cape Breton, and who had acted for some time as attorney-general of that island. The petitioner complained most seriously of the grossly improper conduct of the governor of that island; and also of that of the chief justice. He stated, that he, as well as several of the settlers in that colony, had been forcibly dispossessed of their property by the arbitrary authority of the governor, aided by the decisions of the chief justice. If the statements of the petitioner were true, he was certain the House would concur with him in thinking, that neither of these personages were fit for the situations which they held. The charges made against the governor were of the most aggravated nature, and deserved the most minute inquiry. The first charge was, that the petitioner, as well as some other individuals, had been forcibly dispossessed of property which they had long and lawfully possessed, and that this had been done by the arbitrary fiat of the governor and council, without any right or legal authority whatever. On the pretence of orders received from the British government, they had been guilty of the most wanton and arbitrary acts, levying taxes on their own authority, and dispossessing individuals of their property. The sham proceedings got up by the chief justice, to second the views of the governor, were most discreditable to that individual. The governor of this island was that governor Ainslie, of whom the House had already heard so much, and who, after the most atrocious conduct in the island of Dominique, had been placed by his majesty's ministers in the situation which he now filled. Governor Ainslie's conduct in the island of Cape Breton did not indeed equal his conduct in the island of Dominique—he had indeed been guilty of but a small part of the enormous act committed by him in Dominique—he had not decorated the coast of Cape Breton with human heads as he had done that of Dominique. But though he had not been guilty of these enormities, he had nevertheless conducted himself in the most inhuman manner. He did not mean to introduce his private moral character, and the excellent example he sat to the colonists, but he should state what had been his public conduct. It was alleged against him, that on several occasions he had made it a practice, when persons came to him for redress, to seize them by the collar, and absolutely kick them down the stairs—[Hear, hear! and a laugh].—However ridiculous this might appear, it was nevertheless true; and he was in a situation to prove it. It could also be proved, that on one occasion he challenged an officer, and offered to go to Newfoundland for the purpose of fighting. Of the conduct of the chief justice he should say nothing more at that time, than that his private conduct set an equally good moral example to the colonists with that of the governor; he should however, take an opportunity of bringing the matter before the House at a proper time, and should move for the papers and other documents connected with the transactions complained of, which, he trusted, would not be refused. He then moved, that the Petition be read.

thought, if any man had heard the question put by the hon. gentleman to him the other night, he would have been as astonished as he himself was at what he had just heard. The hon. gentleman had asked, whether government had not an intention of establishing a separate legislature for the island of Cape Breton; and if they had, what was the description of that legislature, as he was anxious for information on that subject, on account of a petition connected with that subject, which had been put into his hands? He, therefore, put it to the House, if, from the question of the hon. gentleman with respect to a separate legislature, he could have been prepared to expect a crimination of the governor and chief justice of Cape Breton? It was impossible for him, therefore, to answer the charges made by the hon. gen- tleman in any other than such a general manner as could neither be satisfactory to the House nor to himself. Another extraordinary circumstance in the speech of the hon. gentleman was, that having announced his intention to move for papers, being ignorant whether those papers would be conceded or refused, and possessing no other information than that which he had received from the individual from whom he presented the petition, he had come down and made a charge of a most fearful nature against two individuals in high situations. He had heard of Mr. Gibbons's complaints, but he was not aware that Mr. Gibbons had ever made any complaint against governor Ainslie. He knew of his complaints against his predecessors, but he knew of none against governor Ainslie. If that gentleman was desirous of attaining his ends, he ought to have brought his complaint in the first instance, before the proper tribunal. As to the alleged conduct of the chief justice, there was one circumstance which deserved to be mentioned. The petitioner had complained of certain duties imposed by the local authorities, and these were subsequently declared invalid by the chief justice, who, in that instance at least, showed no inclination to court the favour of the governor, with whose concurrence the regulations were entered into. He certainly complained of this mode of proceeding, where the parties accused could not possibly reply.

The Petition of Richard Gibbons, of Sidney, in the island of Cape Breton, esq was then read; setting forth,

"That the Petitioner is possessed, in fee simple, of several tracts of land in the island of Cape Breton, some of which he holds in his own and some in right of his wife, under grants from the crown to the original grantees; that the petitioner begs leave most respectfully to state to the House, that without previous notice, or his consent and concurrence having been obtained, or the slightest indemnification offered, he has been arbitrarily and illegally disseized of part of his said lands, in virtue of orders made by the colonial council of that island, who have not only thus assumed the greatest legislative power, but have oppressively invaded the highest and most sacred property of the subject, and also at the same time, as a concurrent consequence, have arrogated to themselves the alarming judicial one of revoking, by their own authority, the king's grants, solemnly made under the great seal; that, at the time of issuing those orders, affecting the rights, liberties, and properties of the subject, that have been sanctioned and acted upon under major general Swayne, colonel Fitzherbert, and lieutenant governor Ainslie, no legal colonial council actually existed, of the number and qualifications required by his majesty's commission and instructions to the governor in chief of Cape Breton, which explicitly and positively forbid the augmentation or diminution of that body, as specifically therein constituted; and, with all due deference, the petitioner is induced to believe the disobedience of that regulation has, in a great degree, facilitated the exercise of those acts of injustice, of which he complains; that he most humbly conceives, that from the period when his majesty was pleased to require a provincial general assembly to be convened, for the purpose of making local laws, statutes, and ordinances, in that island, no legislative power could be exercised by the governor and colonial council, unless assembled in general assembly, and the taxation of real and personal property that has been and is still inforced under this authority, is not merely a violation of that constitutional law clearly defined and solemnly declared on many occasions in the British courts, but is in direct contravention of his majesty's instructions to the governors of that colony; that the petitioner begs permission to add, that major general Swayne, while exercising the government in Cape Breton, by his own authority, directed what he was pleased to term a military road to be opened through the most valuable part of the petitioner's land: and with such arbitrary violence was this order carried into effect, that his aide-de-camp ordered the fences and inclosures thereon (if found in the way) to be thrown down, burnt, and destroyed; that the petitioner received from major general Swayne no previous intimation of his intended invasion and seizure of his property, or offer of the smallest compensation; neither has the petitioner, or any other person having lawful authority, directly or indirectly, given the most distant sanction to this measure of unnecessary and unjustifiable aggression; that he has also to complain to the House of acts of similar violence, supported and countenanced by lieutetenant governor Ainslie, that have been recently perpetrated on other lands belonging to the petitioner, and on which he now resides; that he presumes respectfully to represent to the House, that he should have sought redress for those, and many other injuries he has sustained in his personal property and reputation, by an appeal to the supreme and only court of judicature in Cape Breton, empowered to hear and determine such causes of action, but for the following reasons, which he confidently trusts will be deemed by the House conclusive and satisfactory; first, that the hon. Archibald Charles Dodd, chief justice and only judge in the supreme court, and president of the colonial council, from partial and interested motives, did, with very few exceptions, suggest, prepare, and procure to be passed, all those orders that more immediately militate against the constitutional laws of England, and the liberties and properties of the subject, as pledged and secured to the colony by his majesty; secondly, that although in an action commenced by the collector of the provincial revenue, against the son-in-law of the said chief justice, for money due under an ordinance he had very recently advised major general Swayne to revive (notwithstanding it had been previously voted by the council unlawful and oppressive), he, in November term 1816, adjudged this order (as being a tax) not binding on the people, but soon discovering this decision had given great dissatisfaction to lieutenant governor Ainslie, he shortly after advised the magistrates to enforce other ordinances, imposing a general tax upon the inhabitants by compulsive means, but refused himself to comply when required by the proper officer; however, a few days after that refusal, he again, publicly in open court, announced the legality of those orders, and in his ardent zeal to please, in March term 1817, went so far as to stigmatize those who doubted their validity as evil disposed or disaffected persons; thirdly, that the said chief justice has assumed to himself the arbitrary, unconstitutional, partial, and dangerous discretionary authority, of extra-judicially refusing to allow any person the necessary privilege of commencing or instituting any action in the supreme court, until his permission was first solicited and obtained, and the petitioner was accordingly refused, not having sued for such permission; the petitioner feels he should have been guilty of a dereliction and serious violation of duty to himself and others, could he even for a moment have supposed such permission would not have been withheld from him, to have submitted to, and sanctioned, this tyrannical assumption of unauthorized power, as he humbly conceives the said chief justice had no option to refuse or grant this inherent and immutable right to the meanest subject of the realm; and the petitioner begs leave to add, that it appears to him this doctrine is subversive of the constitution, and against all manner of forms, principles, practices and rules of law, equity, and justice, as rendering the tenure on which the security of our persons, properties, and reputations, are held, uncertain, and solely at the discretion and capricious will and pleasure of one man; that the petitioner, thus deprived of his birth-right, and stripped of his property and privileges as a British subject, appealed to lieutenant governor Ainslie, his majesty's representative in that island, for justice, protection, and support, but this he was pleased peremptorily to refuse, unless as the lieutenant governor informed the petitioner, lord Bathurst, to whom he had referred the petitioner's complaint, should determine that the petitioner might be permitted to enjoy and receive the protection of the laws of his country; and the petitioner humbly and respectfully implores that the House will be pleased to direct that an early inquiry be made, and restore and secure to him those rights, of which he has been so unjustly deprived, and grant to him such further relief in the premises, as to the wisdom and justice of the House shall seem meet."

Ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

said, he had every reason to believe that it would give satisfaction to the House to know, that her royal high- ness the duchess of Cumberland had determined to accept the provision which the House had been pleased to make for her. The first impression on the mind of her royal highness was, that although it was impossible for her not to feel a grateful sense of the kindness of the House, yet from delicacy she ought not to accept of the provision, lest, by concurring in any measure of that nature, she might appear to be separating her own interests from those of her royal consort. But as it was the anxious desire of his royal highness the duke of Cumberland that, whatever might happen to him, her royal highness should be amply provided for, she had made to the wish of the duke a sacrifice of that feeling to which he had alluded. Her royal highness, while she had the highest sense of the kindness of the House, hoped and trusted that she might never become a burthen on a people by whom she had been treated with so much generosity.

said, he had to confirm the explanation just given of the views of her royal highness the duchess of Cumberland on the subject of the dower provided for her by that House. Her royal highness had explained to him that she yielded her repugnance to being considered as in any degree a burthen on the people of this country, to the earnest entreaties, he might say injunctions, of her royal husband on this occasion. And he had farther to say, that if the vote had been one of direct, instead of eventual, advantage to her royal highness, and subject to a change of situation which she earnestly hoped might never occur, it would have been impossible to have induced her to overlook the view which she at first took of this subject, or to come to the conclusion she now did of receiving, with grateful kindness, the provision made for her by parliament, in the event of her surviving her royal husband.

The resolution was then agreed to.

suggested, that according to the ancient practice in cases of this kind, it would be proper that these grants should be charged on the hereditary revenue of the Crown, instead of the consolidated fund, as was intended.

said, that a proper arrangement would be made on that point, though at first a difficulty arose, in consequence of the number of grants that had been made chargeable on the consolidated fund.

presented a Petition from certain individuals in Manchester, complaining that they had been maliciously attacked in a pamphlet which had been published on the subject of the employment of children in cotton factories, and which pamphlet was also highly prejudicial to the views of those who opposed it. The petitioners prayed that the House would not proceed farther with the bill until the petitioners had time to adduce evidence in disproof of the allegations contained in the pamphlet alluded to. The noble lord trusted that the hon. baronet would postpone the farther progress of the bill, in order that this time might be afforded to the petitioners. He hoped he would consent to the bill being sent to a committee up stairs to examine the matters alleged on both sides.

observed, that the petition had, in strictness, nothing to do with the bill. The pamphlet only contained the opinions of certain medical men, upon the effect which the present system of employment was likely to produce.

conceived that the petition before the House was connected with the bill, as the pamphlet to which it alluded had raised a strong prejudice against those who opposed the bill. He thought it would be better to let the bill go to a committee up stairs, and there let medical men be examined as to what would be the best means of securing the health of the children employed. He conceived that legislative enactments would not be the best means of securing the object which the bill had in view. The notice which had been taken in the House of the present system, would be sufficient to remedy any evil which had existed, without proceeding any farther.

observed, that if the system of thus debating bills before they came regularly to be discussed by the House were continued, it would lead to much inconvenience. The bill to which such allusion had been made stood as an order of the day, and he submitted that any discussion on the subject of it ought to be reserved until it was regularly before the House.

did not mean to enter into the merits of the bill, but merely wished to observe, that if the system of delaying the progress of a bill before the House until time was given to answer a pamphlet written against it, there would be no carrying any measure through the House. The same thing was attempted to be practised in 1804, when Mr. Pitt was bringing forward the Slave trade bill, but he strongly objected to the principle which would be laid down by such a proceeding.

said, he happened to know that this bill proceeded out of that evidence which had been clandestinely circulated. The evidence taken in 1816 had lain dormant till other evidence was circulated among members. If this system was to be permitted, of collecting clandestine information for the purpose of circulation, neither character nor property in the country would be safe. He could see no impropriety in sending the bill to a committee up stairs.

did not know one member who had been operated on by any other evidence than that taken in the committee. He would forego every particle of evidence that was not taken by the committee, and contend that there was more than enough to satisfy every member of the necessity for this bill. With respect to the persons accused of getting up surreptitious evidence, it ought to be borne in mind, that they could not have any interested motives, and that those whom they opposed were interested in their proceedings from beginning to end.

contended, that it was indecent for a publication, containing such accusations, to be drawn up and then circulated only among certain members, for a particular object, while it so grossly attacked individuals. The Manchester gentlemen who had signed this petition could not at first get a sight of the pamphlet; they applied in vain to the printer at Manchester for a copy of it, on the 14th of April. The persons who had been accused were the parties who had been precluded from seeing the pamphlet. The petitioners begged that the House would take sufficient time to examine into the real state of the manufactories, before they consented to pass the bill—that they would make themselves acquainted with all the facts, and not proceed in the dark.

expressed his wish that gentlemen would agree to postpone the discussion of the merits of the bill at present. The petition had given rise to a warmth of debate, which, however natural it might be, was not favourable to calm deliberation.

The petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed. The House then resolved itself into a committee to reconsider the cotton factories bill. On the clause for limiting the hours of labour for children under sixteen years of age to twelve hours and a half, including an hour and a half for meals.

stated his objection to the proposed classification of children, and the allotment of hours of labour as appropriate to those classes which had been introduced in the bill. It had restricted children between the age of nine and sixteen years, to certain hours of labour. Now it was cruel to imagine that children of nine years of age were able to sustain labour as long as those of fourteen or sixteen years. He should therefore propose, that there should be two classes, one containing those from nine to twelve, the other those from twelve to sixteen.

said, he had, as a person tolerably well acquainted with the nature and interests of the cotton factories, prepared the bill in such a way as was most likely to give free scope to the operation of the remedial part of the act, without trespassing very materially on the convenience of the proprietors of those concerns in which such considerable properties were necessarily embarked. He hoped the House would see the expediency of reconciling the relief of the labouring class to the interests of the proprietor, and suffer the bill to proceed through the present stage, that the report might be brought up.

said, that he had, by a misconception of the course of proceeding, abstained from discussing the principle on the previous stage of the bill. To that principle he objected, but if it was sanctioned by the House, he should propose amendments which would render the details less objectionable. But till that principle was sanctioned, he would not bring forward those amendments, and should therefore reserve himself for the discussion on the report.

said, he believed the time for considering the principle of the bill was passed. It had been expected that he was to oppose it, and he certainly thought it due to himself to state, that he had not done what he should have done. With regard to the bill itself, he did not consider it at all as it respected the interest of the spinners. The most proper mode, in his opinion, for coming fairly to a conclusion on the bill, would be to give an opportunity for those parties to be heard who had statements to make on the subject. He did expect that that would be done, for he thought it only justice to all concerned. Every parent was the natural guardian of his child. It was too much, perhaps, to take that guardianship out of the parent's hands, by the interference of that House. If a parent derived assistance to the amount of 8s. a week from his child's labour, it might seem cruel an Unjust to deprive him of it. This interference with free labour appeared to him the most objectionable circumstance connected with the measure; but his real wish was, that the parties accused should have an opportunity of justifying themselves.

was sorry that the motion made by an hon. gentleman opposite had dropped, because there had yet been no discussion on the principle of this bill, although such a discussion was essential to the right understanding of the measure. He knew not, in the present shape of the question, how to come to any decision. Many gentlemen had left the House with an understanding that no discussion was to take place on the several clauses of the bill. If the discussion did not take place on the clause now read, which in fact involved the whole principle of the bill, he would move that the chairman do leave the chair.

said, that if the chairman were now to leave the chair, it would put an end to the bill altogether; but if he were to report progress, and to ask leave to sit again, it would afford an opportunity of discussing the principle of the bill afterwards, on the question that the speaker do leave the chair.

by no means wished to put an end to the bill, and therefore he adopted the amendment that the chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.

was unwilling to accede to the proposed delay, and principally because the bill, being of a popular nature and affecting the labouring classes, excited much interest out of doors. It was not desirable to protract a measure of such a description for many reasons, and chiefly because, in the present instance, a false idea might be entertained of the cause of delay. The objections to the bill were limited to the clause now read; for the objections to other clauses had been withdrawn. Any discussion upon the prin- ciple might, therefore, take place now on the reading of that clause. All those gentlemen who had left the House might be presumed to be favourable to the bill.

said, that as one of the friends of the bill, he had no objection to any arrangement which would ensure a full discussion, without compromising the object of the bill itself. But it appeared to him that objection to the principle of the bill, in reality, there was none. On the ground of principle, it was as much an interference with parental authority to say children should not work under five as to say they should not work under nine years of age, yet to some regulation on this subject no one objected. He could not see any reason why the bill should not go through a committee; but if the opposers of the bill thought they thus lost any advantage, he had no objection to take the discussion on another stage.

did not see that any opportunity was lost for discussing the principle. Nothing was foregone yet in that respect. Much injury would necessarily arise from delaying the measure. The subject had been long before the House, and had produced no small degree of agitation throughout the country. He was, therefore, anxious that they should now proceed with the bill.

hoped the supporters of the bill would not, in so thin a House, show an unbecoming anxiety to proceed to a hasty conclusion upon a question affecting so great a proportion of property, and so wide a range of interests, in the county of Lancaster.

regretted that a bill of so much importance had been allowed to pass thus far without discussion. The objection to the principle must be first disposed of, and if that objection were unsuccessful, then, it would be of importance to alter the bill in a committee, in order to make it more acceptable to those interested in it. It seemed, therefore, necessary to have the bill re-committed. He lamented the delay, because the bill ought to be disposed of as soon as possible.

said, he was no party to the delay of the discussion on the principle of the bill. He had understood the commitment to be only pro forma. His sole view had been to refer the subject to a committee up stairs. Much alteration was required in the bill. The limitation of hours he considered to be extremely improper and injurious.

said, that there could be nothing more futile than these discussions on the course of proceeding. The hon. gentleman had some amendments to propose, by which he conceived the bill would be improved. Why could he not now propose those amendments, reserving to himself the right of opposing the principle hereafter?

did not think it would be consistent with the course of proceeding to state at present the nature of his amendments. He objected to the bill altogether. He was convinced it would do much more harm than good. This was his firm and deliberate conviction. He had given his attention to the subject for twenty five years, and he felt satisfied that parliamentary interference in such a business would be productive only of mischief. He would, therefore, propose no modifications until he saw how the House were disposed towards the principle of the measure.

did not think there would be any inconsistency or absurdity in the hon. gentleman's stating to the House what the nature of those modifications were which he was desirous to propose. It would enable them to form a better judgment upon a subject which had not yet been discussed in a regular manner, though numerous speeches had been made upon it upon the presentation of petitions.

said that, besides the friends of the bill and the opposers of the bill, there was another class in the House, and he was one of them, who were very desirous indeed to hear a discussion of this subject. He had hitherto heard nothing respecting this bill. This was not from inattention, but from aversion to discussions that arose on the presenting of petitions, a practice on which the hon. baronet had justly animadverted. Discussion consisted of argument, and of the warmth excited by argument. The discussions on petitions contained all the warmth, and had no argument. If ever he came to the House without prejudice respecting any subject, it was with respect to this subject The only prejudice he felt was, the conviction resulting from all speculations on political economy, in favour of non-interference in contracts between man and man. But that degree, not of prejudice, but of disinclination, was, by mere examination, he would not say changed, but become the ground of much desire to hear discussion upon the subject. But the more he considered it, the more disposed was he for the discussion, and the more he expected a full discussion on the principle of the bill, before it should go through a committee, by those whose information and experience enabled them to understand all the parts of the question. He thought it improper to make amendments before the discussion of the principle, because they would be made at random, and without a fixed object. The subject was itself of a very delicate and complicated nature, and its consequences deserved much consideration. He did not say any thing decisive on the question; but it certainly ought to be examined with great caution and coolness. The bill had, somehow or other, slipped from under them, without the necessary discussion, and it must therefore be brought back again to them.

The bill was ordered to be re-committed on Monday.

observed, that in submitting the Estimates for the Irish Miscellaneous Service, he did not think it necessary to enter into any details with regard to the various items of which they were composed. If any difference of opinion should be indicated upon any particular point, he should be willing to postpone for the present the grant to which it referred. It was not his intention to propose any but the ordinary votes, and of these there was but one case in which any addition was made. He had stated last year, that there was a reduction in the aggregate expenditure under this head of the public service, as compared with former years, of 123,000l., and he had now to state that a farther decrease had been effected to the amount of 10,000l. He was not disposed to move for any additional sum to the charitable institutions in Ireland, because he had seen reason to entertain considerable doubts of their policy and utility. He feared that, whilst they collected in a particular spot a great mass of wretchedness, they had not the means of extending relief to the increased number of applicants who crowded to them under the false impression that there relief was certainly to be found. It would be seen that upon some particular items a diminution had taken place, whilst a very small comparative addition had been made. He should now conclude by moving his first resolution, "That a sum not exceeding 38,331l. be granted to his majesty, for defraying the expense of supporting the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland, for one year, ending the 5th of January 1819."

animadverted upon the amount of this sum, for the education of only 2,430 children. Such a sum, well applied, would, he was convinced, serve to educate a much greater number. But of this sum, no less than 7,000l. was allowed for officers of the several institutions, namely, for masters, ushers and catechists. To the grant for catechists he particularly objected; because he thought, where the clergy of the established church had, in many instances, so little to do, the parish rectors should act as catechists at those schools. He was free to confess, that the system upon which those schools were conducted had undergone considerable improvements, in consequence of the discussions which had taken place upon the subject since the Union; and among these improvements was the removal of the absurd regulation which excluded all the children of Protestants. But still farther improvements was necessary; and he threw out those observations, not with any view to hostile opposition, but in the hope of extracting observations from others, and of directing the attention of the House to the subject.

agreed with the right hon. baronet, that the Charter Schools in Ireland could be made subservient to a much more extensive system of education than they had been. This had been the opinion of gentlemen commissioned to inquire into the national education there. A very minute examination had been made last year into this particular branch of it, and with such useful results, that it was intended to be resumed next summer. Catholic children were no longer excluded from these seminaries; they were open to the children of persons of all religious persuasions: That a much larger number could be educated in those institutions he was certain. There were thirty-six of them in all, and, under proper management, they would form a cheap mode of education for the lower orders. The system had been so long established that it would not be wise to abandon it. As they were already established in every part of Ireland, he thought it better to take advantage of them. The right hon. baronet had complained of 7,420l. being appropriated to catechists, observing, that the duty might be done by the incumbents of the next parishes. He had to state, that that sum was not received by the latter, but by the curates, who devoted their care and attention to the progress in learning, the morals and habits of the children, and on whose exertions depended all the benefit to be derived from the establishments. He was glad, however, to hear the remarks of the right hon. baronet, because they would tend to excite the attention and diligence of the Irish gentlemen to the subject.

would repeat, that to establish thirty-six schools for the education of 2,430 children, and to pay 7,420l. for the superintendence of it, was out of measure extravagant.

observed, that the children in those establishments were not only educated, but maintained and clothed.

said, that these charter schools, in their original construction were bad. The system was, however, under the vigilance of public opinion, much improved. If the question was, whether Protestant schools under a principle of proselytism ought to be supported by parliament, he should object to it; but as the present was an old grant, improving in its operation, and capable, by being watched, of being rendered more beneficial, he should not oppose it.

The several resolutions were then agreed to.