rose to present a Petition, to which he begged to call the attention of the House, and particularly that of an hon. member opposite (Mr. Goulburn). He was the more particular in requesting the attention of the House to this petition, as it was from a person whom the chance of war had placed under the protection of the British government. The petitioner, count Cladan, was a most respectable individual, and a man of a very ancient family, and of high rank in his own country. He complained of gross misconduct on the part of general Campbell, who had been governor of the Ionian Islands. Count Cladan had been three years a suitor to the government of this country, for the redress of alleged grievances, yet he had hitherto failed in his efforts. He complained of this great delay of justice to him. He had, when he first presented a memorial of his wrongs, been referred for redress to one place, and from that back to another. He had been referred to a place where of all others he was least likely to meet with redress—to the tribunals of his own country. But it should be recollected, that in any complaint which he might make there against any British officers for excess in, or non-performance of their duty, the courts of the Ionian islands had no jurisdiction, and could not, under such circumstances, make the officer against whom such charge might be preferred amenable to their authority. It was only in this country that such charges could be properly decided upon, and having failed hither to of procuring attention to his case, the petitioner was forced to apply to the legislature for redress. The first charge which he alleged against general Campbell, and which he stated he could be able to prove by 150 witnesses, was, that he had, without any authority, assumed the dispensing power of repealing or annulling the decrees of the tribunals—that he had assumed the right of ordering a person to be executed, whom the tribunals had absolved from any crime—and not only that, but had instituted a mode of punishment, before unknown in that country and abhorred in every country; he meant the infamous punishment of the pillory; that he had not only used the lash in the punishment Of soldiers but also on some of the inhabitants.—He did not mean to assert that all the allegations contained in this petition were true, but he knew that the person who made them, was a most respectable individual, the descendant of a very ancient family, and from his general character and the nature of the complaint he thought it was entitled to immediate consideration. The petitioner had, as he before observed, been three years in endeavouring to obtain justice and had failed. On one occasion, accounts respecting these transactions had been sent for, and a very voluminous collection of papers been transmitted by sir Thomas Maitland. He respected sir T. Maitland very much on his own account, and that of his connexions; indeed, more on the latter account than the former, but he could not quite approve of his manner of treating the petitioner in his communication. He speaks of him as a person styling himself count Cladan, when he ought to have known well that he was in fact count Cladan. He was a member of the senate, a councillor of state, and had been sent as ambassador to the court of Russia, as the representative of the Ionian islands. He at present came before the House as a person seeking redress for injuries sustained. That redress, he trusted, would not be refused, or delayed.

The Petition was then read; setting forth, "That three years have nearly expired since the arrival of the petitioner in London, to claim justice from his majesty's government against the proceedings of lieut. general Campbell, late commanding officer of his majesty's forces, and commissioner of the liberated Ionian islands, against lieut. colonel Schummelketel, late commandant of the island of Cephalonia; the petitioner's remonstrance is proved parly by documents, by the signatures of the above-mentioned officers, and can be testified by more than 150 witnesses, many English gentlemen, some of his majesty's officers, natives of distinction, and by the ten tribunals, exhibiting measures at once partial and oppressive to the petitioner and other persons; 1st, that by a decree 21st April 1813, general Campbell refused the execution of a law by which the tribunal ruled, assuming thereby a despotic authority and a dispensing power superior to the laws, and in opposition to the faith pledged by the British nation that the island should be governed by its own laws; 2dly that the said general Campbell caused to be hanged, 13th April, 1813, Andrea Mingarde, of Cephalonia, although only sentenced to imprisonment by the legitimate tribunal of appeal who tried him, preventing the judgment of the definitive tribunal, to which the sentence had been referred; which the petitioner considers to be a proceeding forming a precedent deeply injurious to him as a member of the said tribunal; 3d, that the petitioner, being president of the said tribunal, obtained from the secretary a copy of the sentence, and other documents, in order to make a representation against such excessive violence; and for the compliance of the secretary general Campbell deprived him of his employments under the local government, although some of them had been purchased, according to custom, sending him a prisoner to the castle of Cephalonia, and mulcting him of a sum of money; 4th, that general Campbell by his decree, without form of law, deprived count de la Decima, of Cephalonia, of his feudatory property, which the petitioner considers to be a proceeding forming a precedent deeply injurious to his interests as a feudator; 5th, that general Campbell, by decree, obliged Constantine Corafan to pay his sister-in-law four times the amount of her demand on him, though this demand had been rejected by the tribunals, and directed the local government to take, possession of his houses and property of ten times the value of her demand, and put him under arrest, an act so despotic as not to be equalled; by decree 14th February 1814, contrary to law, he annulled the Fidei Commissum, to which this property was subject, and ordered it for sale, but no purchaser appearing, he directed her to be paid by the government of Cephalonia, and to reimburse itself by the produce of the property; 6th, that, contrary to public faith and law, general Campbell did by decree deprive Spyridian Baratta of the collection of certain duties legally acquired at a public, sale made by the government of Zante; 7th, that general Campbell introduced many thousand pieces of foreign coin, obliging the inhabitants to receive them at a certain rate, enormously exceeding what they passed for in the islands, impressing them with the figures of their current amount, and serious consequences have resulted from this arbitrary act; 8th, that contrary to law and the sentence of the tribunal of Zante, general Campbell, by decree, caused to be sold by auction, the brig Pauline, as may be seen by the redress sought from the colonial department nearly three years ago by Vincenzo Acquilina, the merchant, who was ruined by that decree; 9th, that general Camp-bell caused to be erected at Zante a pillory, horrible to the inhabitants, previously unknown in the islands, on which he exposed an inhabitant contrary to law, then ordering him to be mounted on an ass, conducted round the city, and to be flogged at certain distances; 10th, that a legal commission having been appointed to give judgment on the proofs of the forgery of the name of the petitioner's father in his last will, also on two false oaths, and the falsification and violation of the seals of government, with other crimes, the verification of which being highly important to the petitioner, and to take cognizance respecting the petitioner's feudatory property, and other important questions connected with the judgment to be given in the aforesaid criminal pointy general Campbell, by decree 21st December 1814, ordered the commission to submit to him a plan of their sentence, without law, or permitting the said crimes to be tried, deciding judgment without a hearing, although remonstranced by the petitioner that the proceedings were prejudicial to him; 11th, also by a second decree 18th February 1814, general Campbell notified, that no appeal should be admitted on the subject; 12th, that the petitioner, thus injured in the grossest manner by these proceedings, did present to general Campbell a memorial on the subject, addressed to his royal highness the Prince Regent, requesting he would transmit the same to London, and to be allowed copies of the necessary documents to verify this memorial, which were deposited in the office of the secretary of government at Zante, but these requests were refused, and the memorial returned; 13th, that on the petitioner's return to Cephalonia, colonel Schummelketel prevented his departure for four months to London, likewise refusing the authentication of the documents obtained by the petitioner of his cause in Cephalonia, although customary, and which he readily granted to others; the degrading treatment the petitioner received was like to a person outlawed for his crimes, and the doors of justice shut against him; 14th, that general Campbell, by an abuse of his power, did take possession of the country house and premises of the noble Spiridion Chessari of Corfu, and prevented his access to them by ten military guards, and also hindered him from collecting the products of the adjoining lands; the injured proprietors supplicated general Campbell, praying that his property should be restored, or an equitable rent allowed him; but in disregard to his petition, general Campbell, in abuse of his power, did continue to occupy the said houses and land, and at length leaving the said island, without restoring the premises, or in any way remunerating the unfortunate proprietor; and the petitioner prays the House that they will be pleased to direct such inquiries into his complaints, as may to their wisdom seem meet, and that the laws of the empire may be put in force, so that he may obtain justice."

On the motion, that the Petition do lie on the table,

observed, that, whatever might be the merits of the case referred to in the petition, he submitted that that House was not the proper place for inquiring into or deciding upon it. The petitioner attributed several criminal acts to general Campbell, and, among others, the murder of an individual. If these charges were founded, he appealed to the House, whether that was the proper tribunal to try the accused? He had not himself the honour of knowing general Campbell, and therefore he could not be influenced by any considerations of private friendship. But he could not allow himself to decide against the character of that officer upon the various charges preferred against him by the petitioner; for what the House had heard from the hon. mover and from the petition did not form a fiftieth part of the charges inserted in the petitioner's memorial to his majesty's government. Count Cladan, no doubt, alleged that he could prove the truth of these charges; but, if he even could, that was not the proper place to try the case. There were tribunals to take cognizance of such charges as count Cladan preferred, and to those tribunals it was open to him to make his appeal. The count had stated, that he had a number of witnesses to substantiate his charges; he had indeed given in a list of above a hundred. But all these witnesses were resident in the Ionian islands and there, therefore, count Cladan was told that he ought to try has case. As to the animadversions upon sir Thomas Maitland, the character of that officer stood too high to require any defence from him, especially against the bare allegation of the petitioner. But be thought it proper to state, that general Maitland always expressed a readiness to go into the petitioner's case, and to hate it fully investigated before the proper tribunals in the Ionian isles, where the petitioner would have all the means of legal redress. As to the conduct of government, he could not see what any government could do in such a case; for it was not within its province to institute inquiry, or to inflict punishment, upon an affair of this nature. It was but very lately that count Cladan objected to the trial of his case in the Ionian isles. He had expressed his apprehension of some interdict to prevent his proceeding; but he was told, that if there were any such interdict, it should be immediately removed, and that he should be at full liberty to proceed.

expressed his surprise, that while the hon. gentleman observed that general Campbell was in England, he should still refer the petitioner to the tribunals of the Ionian isles for the trial of his charges against that officer.

explained, that he only referred the petitioner to the tribunals of the Ionian isles for the trial of that part of his case which referred to questions of property, but as to his charges respecting general Campbell, it was open to him to institute proceedings against that officer before the proper tribunal in this country.

thought the appeal of count Cladan to that House extremely proper. He had applied in vain to government for redress—he felt it absurd to look for justice, in such a case, to the tribunals of the Ionian islands, and being, without the means of supporting a lawsuit against general Campbell, where else was he to look for any remedy but to that House? The House had heard the most extraordinary language from the hon. gentleman, according to which, it would seem, that the British government was not responsible for the conduct of its officers.

thought, that there being no remedy in the courts of the Ionian Islands for the grievances complained of, was the very best reason why a remedy should be sought for here in the manner which had been mentioned.

said, it was no doubt true that the courts of law were open, but, as it was formerly well observed, "so was the London tavern to those who could afford to pay" But the petitioner was not in a condition to go to law with a general who had made a fortune out of those very islands, the population of which he had most harshly treated Count Cladan became poor through the very means by which general Campbell became rich. But was it meant to be stated that when an officer of the government behaved ill, the only remedy against him was in an appeal to a court of law? Such, indeed, appeared to be the doctrine of the hon. gentleman opposite; but this was, he believed, the first time, that, when an officer of the government was charged with murder, with pilloring and flogging, according to his own will, with breaking into private houses, with appropriating to his own use the property of the people whom he was appointed to govern and protect, and with a variety of false and fraudulent acts, an under secretary of state rose in that House to say that government would institute no inquiry into the conduct of such an officer, but refer the party aggrieved to a court of law.

did not mean to say, that persons who acted improperly abroad were not responsible for their conduct. But, he wished to ask, whether government were to punish general Campbell, after he had, for several years, given up the situation he held in the Ionian islands, on the mere statement of the petitioner?

expressed his anxious hope that government would not exercise a greater degree of power in the Ionian islands, than was sanctioned by the treaty of Paris. The great object was, to establish an English influence in the Levant, and that end would best be attained by protecting, not by oppressing the people.

The Petition was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

then observed, that he should next move the commitment of Mr. Ferguson to Newgate. Undoubtedly that was not the only punishment which precedent justified in cases similar to the present. Our ancestors had, in their jealous care of the rights and privileges of the House, placed other guards around them besides that of punishing their breach by imprisonment. It appeared that the person in custody was an officer of the revenue, and several acts had prescribed that any person engaged in the revenue, who should be found to have interfered in the election of a member of parliament should be fined 100l. deprived of his situation, and rendered incapable of ever serving his majesty again in any capacity. The committee had not, in their report, said any thing upon the subject. He should, however, as a member of that committee, take an opportunity, on a future occasion, when the committee had finished their labours, of making a motion upon the subject. If the person in custody was to receive but one punishment, it ought in his opinion to be dismissal from the situation which he held. The hon. member concluded by moving "That Thomas Ferguson for his said offence be committed to his majesty's gaol of Newgate, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly." At the same time he gave notice, that on a fit occasion he should move, that an humble address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying he might be graciously pleased to order, that the said Thomas Ferguson be dismissed from any employment which he held under the crown.—The motion was then put and agreed to.

, in moving for the committal of this bill, expressed his regret that it had not before excited discussion, because had that been the case many misrepresentations that had gone abroad would have been corrected. There was something so exceedingly delicate in a matter relating to public charities that he would say a word or two to prove how void of foundation the reports on this par- ticular point were. The present was stated to be a bill which would interfere with the management of charitable funds. A more gross misrepresentation never was set afloat It was a bill, not to interfere with the management, but with the mismanagement of charities—and that by inquiry and report. It was next stated, that the bill went to trench on private property. This was as gross a misrepresentation as the former. The fact was, that persons receiving money for charitable purposes, were, as much as any officer of the government, entrusted with public property, and had a right to account for it. The powers of the bill were not greater than those granted to the commissioners of accounts in 1781, to the commissioners of naval inquiry in 1803, and of military inquiry in 1804.

did not mean to offer any opposition to the House going into the committee, but rose merely lest his silence on the present occasion should be construed into an approval of the bill, to many parts of which he had strong objections. He said thus much to guard against any advantage which might be taken at another time. To the committee he would not object then: but he should at another time state his opinion as to the constitution and duration of the commissioners.

was glad the attention of the House was called to the bill in its present stage, as he wished to make some observations before it went into the committee. He must object to the exceptions in the bill in favour of Oxford, Cambridge, Westminster, and Winchester. In consequence of these exceptions, he understood that farther exceptions would be proposed. It seemed strange, that any persons should wish for exemption from inquiry in such matters. One would rather suppose they would think it a kind of insult to them if they were so exempted. He should have expected that the members for the universities would have stood up and desired inquiry, as leaving them out might seem to throw an imputation on their conduct. He happened to know a gentleman, in a county not far off, who had been able to discover, by his inquiries, extraordinary abuses of charitable funds in that county. It appeared that only one-fourth of the amount of the funds had been returned, and that the returns thirty years ago, were 2,000l. or 3,000l. a year more than lately. He hoped gentlemen were sincere in their object; and he thought that if a commission were appointed, it would be proper to put the gentleman he had alluded to into it.

observed, that if the object of the bill was in reality what it appeared to be to the noble lord, it was deserving of the most minute attention. The bill had been stated to relate to the education of the poor, and to the charitable institutions that were connected with that object. But it would appear that the bill was to embrace all charities whatever, and in that point of view the universities would be included, if not particularly exempted. In the case of the Charter-house no objections had been made. From lapse of time no doubt, and from other causes, the funds of charitable institutions might be occasionally misapplied, but he saw no reason why the funds of the universities should be placed in the power of the commissioners. The original object of the bill had referred to funds only connected with the poor, and yet, though in many cases no abuses had been shown, the funds of other institutions were to be submitted to the control of the commissioners. No discussion had hitherto taken place upon the principle of the bill, the object and nature of which ought to be ascertained.

suggested, that neither the right hon. gentleman nor the noble lord were, by permitting the bill to go through this stage, pledged to give their assent or support to it in any other stage of its progress; and the question might, with equal advantage and facility, be argued upon the principle of the bill, whenever the motion should be again put that the Speaker leave the chair, for the purpose of recommitting the bill. At first sight it might be imagined that the bill had not confined itself strictly to the purposes to which was intended it should apply, namely, charitable foundations for the education of the poor; but it appeared, upon examination, that even these greater bodies, not excepting the universities, had part of their funds or endowments derived from donations granted with a view to educate those whose means were too contracted to admit of the expenses entailed on students at those seminaries or colleges. He could most heartily have wished that those five excepted learned foundations had challenged inquiry into the administration of their affairs. He thought that those great bodies would more truly consult their own real dignity, by challenging inquiry, and wishing the provisions of the bill to extend to their institutions. That venerable man, earl St. Vincent, had afforded an example on such subjects, which whenever they were considered, it was impossible too often to press upon the attention of the House, and to hold up to imitation. He meant his noble example in putting at the very head and front of the inquiry into the abuses in public offices, the offices of the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, he being at that time himself the first lord. The noble earl said, "let the commissioners come into his office, and examine all papers, and all persons in the office, in all departments, from the top to the bottom." That was the practice of that venerable earl, and the inquiries into the other offices were not the less successful by the example which the noble earl had set. He readily allowed two post captains, two lawyers, and two laymen, to go into the Admiralty and search for information, and thus effected one of the most important reforms in the management of public offices that had taken place since the time of the revolution. He began, in fact, the system of closely inquiring into the uses made of the public money in the offices, which had never been well set about until he procured the appointment of his committee. That investigation he had taken for his model. The appointment of commissioners did not proceed from jealousy of his majesty's ministers, but in consequence of the precedents established in all former cases. He should have no objection that ministers should propose the commissioners, provided the patronage thus put into their hands should not be abused, and that inefficient men should not be appointed. For his own part, he would not consent to the appointment of a single cypher. The reason for the measure was the necessity of the case. Three-fourths of the charitable funds is Berkshire were unaccounted for, and out of the annual sum of 20,000l. only 5,000l. had been applied to the purposes for which it had been originally destined. A return of only 7,000l. had been made to parliament, and but for, the gentleman formerly alluded to (Mr. Parry), there would not have been the means of investigating the application of a single pound. The commissioners must repair to the spot, and have full power to call all persons before them. Inquiry was often useful to the parties themselves. Thus in the case of the Charter-house school, it appeared upon inquiry, that scarce any abuses existed in the application of their funds, as had been previously suspected.

observed, that similar objections had been made to the commission for inquiry into the fees of courts of justice in Ireland. Ministers, however, had not the appointment of the commissioners, and could not throw cold water upon the investigation. Though the law officers had stood embattled against the motion he had then made, he had succeeded by a majority of one, and many abuses though previously denied, had been found to exist. A great saving had in consequence accrued both to the suitors and to the public.

admitted that the inquiry alluded to by the right hon. baronet had been productive of the best effects; but the course of proceeding on that occasion had been by an address to the throne; and in consequence of the address, the commissioners were appointed. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, there were surmises against the Charter-house, and that by the inquiry every suspicion had been removed. But what analogy was there between that institution and the universities? Did any one say that there was any suspicion against those learned bodies? For his own part, he wished the exemption had been made more extensive, and had included Harrow, Rugby, and other well conducted charters, against which there was not the smallest suspicion.

, in reply, adverted to the inquiry that had taken place two years ago, relative to the Charter-house and Christ's hospital. Respecting the former, the charge was, that the funds for the education of the poor had been employed in educating the rich. The Charter-house stood on the same footing as Christ's hospital, where it was proved, among other abuses, that a clergyman of 700l. or 800l. a year had a son. They were called on at the Charter-house to produce their deed. They refused and said, "we have nothing to do with the education of the lower orders." The committee answered, "Show us your charter, and we will tell you whether you have or not." They did, with some difficulty; when the first three lines proved it was for the education of the lower orders. It was the committee that had reason to complain, rather than the Charter-house. The persons who were examined said, "Do you know who are the governors of this institution? They are the archbishop of Canterbury, and such and such noblemen; in fact there, is only one single member, who is not in the House of Peers." The committee answered, "The reason you have given is exactly the reason why we call on you; because the governors you speak of would not answer our summons." The result was, that by this inquiry far less abuses were discovered than were expected.

The Bill was then committed pro formâ.

stated, that he had a petition to present from the magistrates and trustees of certain public charities of Abingdon, in Berkshire, complaining that they had been calumniated in the statements that had been made to the House on the subject of the charities belonging to that town, and that these charities were as well managed as any others of the same description.

observed, that an imperfect statement had been made of what he had said upon the subject. He had stated that there were 25 benefactions in the town of Abingdon, of a large annual amount, and that no return had been made respecting them to the House. On the subject of the misapplication of the funds he had said nothing.

said, that one thing was clear, that something must be done relative to these charitable institutions, of the nature and amount of which the public had not been put in possession. Only twenty-one counties had made a return to the crown-office in Chancery, on the subject of charitable donations. He thought, that a penalty should have been inflicted in the event of no return being made.

On the motion, that the Petition do lie on the table,

said, the House would see the impossibility of this petition lying on the table, for it stated that calumnious misrepresentations had been made in that House, because a false statement had been made in some newspaper. What they had founded their assertions upon was, a total misrepresentation of what had passed, and which the petitioners had no right to notice.

said, that whether the statement were correct or not, the petitioners had no right to call in question any representation that had been made in that House. He thought the hon. baronet had better withdraw the petition.

The Petition was then withdrawn.

said, he was desirous, in consequence of what had occurred in former discussions upon the subject, to take the present opportunity of explaining the nature of this bill. Those who were interested in the measure, and desirous of opposing it, had, through some inadvertence, missed the opportunities of debating its principle in former stages of the bill. This he regretted, as it could then have been done with the least inconvenience. He, however, had acted towards those gentlemen with the utmost fairness, and the House had also departed from a point of form to enable these gentlemen to resume the discussion, and he would now, in a few words, explain to the House the part he had taken in the business. About 16 years back he had been induced (as he trusted) by motives of humanity to bring in a bill, called the Apprentices bill, the object of which was to provide some remedy for abuses of a very serious nature which then prevailed in the cotton business. It met, at that time, with the approbation both of the House and of the government, and was attended with beneficial consequences; but they were not of long duration. It was soon after however rendered almost a dead letter, from the great change which took place in the manner of conducting the business to which it referred. The cotton trade found its way from the country into large towns, where, the population being numerous, manufacturers were no longer under the same necessity of receiving children as apprentices. Although ten times the number of children were employed, compared with the period when the apprentices bill had passed, none of them were bound by articles, or any thing in the nature of a permanent contract. The result was, that the children now employed in the factories were totally unprotected, because the apprentices bill could not reach them. The children were not entitled to, nor could they rely on the protection hitherto afforded by to masters to those in their em- ployment. If they met with an accident, or were ill, the masters were not bound to look to, or provide for them. He, therefore, took the liberty of introducing the present measure with reference to such children, employed in the Cotton trade, as were not protected by any contract. The difference between this and the apprentices bill was very material. The latter was for the protection of apprentices by the then existing law entitled to protection from their masters, this for the protection of those poor children who had no legal, and often no natural protector, but who, he trusted, would find protection in that House. Their case was truly, distressing; the hours of labour in those factories in which there were no apprentices being not less than 14 out of the 24. To endure such fatigue and confinement was quite above their strength, and could not but tend, in a short time, to injure their constitution, and render them afterwards unfit for any thing that required health and strength of body. The inconvenience of such long confinement and attention to business in persons so young was felt and expressed by the workmen themselves. Numerous petitions had been presented to parliament praying that that time might be shortened, and more especially one from Manchester, proceeding from persons wholly uninterested, except from motives of humanity; among which persons were 30 medical men, and 21 clergymen. Humanity was the only motive by which these individuals could be influenced, for they had no connexion of any kind with the cotton factories. There were petitions praying for the same object, from the spinners themselves; and even from some of the master manufacturers—the sole motive of most of whom, must be, a benevolent wish to alleviate their situation. Indeed he believed that the number of master manufacturers who supported the bill was greater than that of those who opposed it, and that many of them were even anxious that its provisions should be extended to adults. It was fit that the House should be made acquainted with the circumstances of the trade, and with the situation of the people employed in it. The only mode by which such information could be obtained was by the examination of witnesses upon the spot. There had been an allusion made by some hon. gentlemen to general principles, and it was said to be impolitic to interfere with free labour by legislative acts. Could this fairly be denominated free labour? or, if it were even considered to be such (which he for one, could never concede) would not the House feel it a duty to yield to the pressing remonstrance of the medical, clerical, and all other respectable classes of society, who had no interested object, and who had stated the dreadful effects to these little children, and even to adults resulting from this incessant application to laborious occupation in strongly heated apartments, and which had been found, in the case of the younger children, to prevent their arriving at their full growth, or even assuming the appearance of maturity when of full age? It was obvious to every person who had taken the trouble of reflecting upon the subject, that human nature, at so early an age, was not capable of bearing such excessive fatigue as must arise from 13 or 14 hours uninterrupted labour. It could have no other effect than to destroy the constitution of children, and to prevent them from becoming healthy and useful subjects. For these reasons he would entreat the House to take the subject into their serious consideration, and to go into the committee, for the purpose of seeing whether some means might not be devised for alleviating the hardships and sufferings of these little helpless and unprotected victims of our manufacturing prosperity. He therefore moved, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."

rose to oppose the measure. The object of it was, he said in opposition to the feelings of many with whom he was in the habit of acting both in and out of the House. In the county of Lancaster particularly, the bill had excited a strong sensation. No doubt many respectable inhabitants of Manchester had petitioned in favour of it, but the House ought to consider that the question involved considerations affecting not merely the interests of the children employed in the cotton factories, but the interests of the cotton manufacture, and the interests of the empire at large. The present bill was represented by the hon. baronet as only an intended amendment of the 42nd of the king. To this assertion, coming from the quarter it did, he was bound to give credit; but the two measures appeared to him substantially different. The Apprentice act took care of the interest of a large body of children, who, at the time it was passed, were placed in a situation that called for the protection of the House. At that period he was well aware, that great abuses had existed, with respect to the treatment of children employed in the cotton manufactures. They had been frequently removed under the conduct of parish officers, against their own will and that of their nearest connexions, to some distant manufactory, and bound apprentices in troops to those with whom they and their parents were totally unacquainted; and they experienced in their full rigour all the severities of such a system. The cotton trade was not then what it was at present. Those who were engaged in it at that time, were anxious to procure, in a short time, immoderate returns from their capitals. In pursuance of that object many abuses crept in with respect to apprentices, to prevent which it was judged expedient to pass the Apprentice act. But it could not be denied, that a great amelioration in the system had since taken place. The bill now before the House, however stated that the Apprentice act was now insufficient, but from what reason he did not know. Were any of the clauses evaded? Or were they rendered null? This he believed could not be asserted. The reason why that measure was now inefficient was, because it had no object to act upon, the abuse with respect to apprentices no longer existing. The present bill had in view not only apprentices, but all persons who worked in cotton factories. Two years back, when a committee was moved for to inquire into this subject, he voted in furtherance of it. They sat for some time without interruption. Much important evidence was laid before them, and communicated in their report, but yet they gave no opinion upon the question. They merely stated, that the evidence itself would lead to the proper conclusion. No farther steps were then taken, but the hon. baronet who promoted the committee, still persevered in the measure, and brought in a bill in the present session. The present bill, when sent to the country, coming unexpectedly, created alarm; the manufacturers were astonished to find their interests had been decided upon without any opportunity being given them to represent their case to the House, or be heard by counsel at the bar. His great objection to the measure, however, was on the principle that it went to interfere with free labour. Had it been confined merely to apprentices, he should not oppose it, but in the law of this country, there was no precedent for such an interference. Where was any instance of it to be found The measure would tend not to regulate, but to destroy the cotton trade altogether. He Considered the principle of free labour to be inviolable by the laws; but still he did not mean to say that the legislature had not power to make such provisions as it might deem most expedient for the regulation of a trade which was found to be injurious to health. But this was not a new trade. It had long been one of the principal branches of the country, in which a vast amount of capital, and great numbers of people were employed, and it would require the most satisfactory evidence to show that it affected the morals, or undermined the constitution of those who were engaged in it. Here the interference with free labour was particularly objectionable, as these children or adults were themselves free labourers, and often the children of free labourers, who were upon the spot to watch over their interests. Another point of consideration was, that it at once militated against the exercise of particular trades without the previous qualification of apprenticeships. The object of the bill was said to be the protection of children's health and morals against the rapacity both of their parents and masters. This was as much as to say that parliament would no longer trust parents with the care of their own children. The professed object of this bill was, to interpose between the parent and the child, the master and the juvenile work-person, and to hold out to the public that those whose duty and whose interest dictated affection and care to those about them, were indifferent to the first moral obligations they were bound to consider. The manner in which it was proposed to carry this object into effect was, by fixing a minimum with respect to age, and also by diminishing the hours of labour. Allowing that good effects as to health, might result from such regulations, they should still consider what other effects might arise from them. Fixing a minimum, it was true, might prevent the employment of children under a certain age. At present, when they were taken under that age, it was rather at the desire of their parents than of the masters. They worked in the factories under the eye of the former, and contributed by that means towards the support of the family. This advantage would be lost if the present measure were allowed to pass; for it struck directly against that established principle which gave the parent the labour of his child during his minority, so long as he gave him adequate support. The result of such a regulation must inevitably be, that the children would cease to be employed, and that their parents would lose the value of their labour, while the children were consigned to unprofitable idleness. It could be shown, that children employed in cotton factories, were not put to business at an earlier age, or kept longer to labour, than in many branches. As to the general opinion that the cotton trade was so far more unwholesome than others as to call for the interference of the House, of that there was no proof. Water-gilding was very pernicious to those employed in it, yet it was not under the operation of any legislative restriction. The plate glass business was allowed to be highly insalubrious. Children, however, were employed in it, though exposed to violent heats and drafts of air. Glass-cutting also was unhealthy. The work was carried on in damp places; people of tender age were employed in it, but yet, in none of these cases did the legislature think it necessary to interfere. Was the weaving trade less unwholesome than the cotton? And were not children put to it at as early an age, and kept as long at work? The weaver was pent up in a lone, Close, confined cabin, and often obliged to work upon a damp floor. Working people were exposed to the vicissitudes of excessive heat and cold, to damps of every kind, and to every species of bodily infirmity, in the coal and lead mines, and yet nobody ever called for such legislative enactments in the management of those concerns. During the late distresses which pressed upon the country, those employed in the cotton business were better off than others; with the assistance of their children, they were enabled to obtain sufficient for the support of the family Such he feared would not be the case if the bill were to pass into a law. It would take away half their usual earnings from the working spinners. Masters might avoid any inconvenience by employing in their works only men and women, but what could the children do when their means of support were taken away? At present parents found a difficulty in bringing them up well, even by the united produce of their labour. The difficulty would be much greater when the children themselves were prevented from contributing any thing towards their own support. It should be considered what effect the measure was likely to have upon morals. Limiting the hours of labour could not tend to improve them. On the contrary, it would only give more opportunities for idleness, and all the bad consequences arising from it. The result of the evidence laid before the committee two years back, tended to prove that the morals of persons employed in cotton factories were not worse than in other situations. One consequence of this bill would be, to create disunion between children and their parents. What effect must it have on a child, to perceive that those to whom his interests ought to be most dear, were not considered by the legislature as fit to be trusted with the regulation of his conduct! With respect to the petition from manchester, which was spoken of in such high terms, he was aware of the respectability of many of the gentlemen who signed it, and had the highest respect for them. With one of these gentlemen, the rector of St. John's, he had the pleasure of being particularly acquainted, and a more feeling heart or virtuous mind than that gentleman possessed, was no where to be found. Such indeed was the goodness of that rev. gentleman's nature, that whatever had even the shadow of virtue was sure to meet his unqualified support and advocacy. He thought on this occasion, that the reason why the name of the rev. gentleman to whom he alluded was attached to the petition, was to be found in his anxious desire to remedy what was represented to him to be an evil, without his being fully aware of the effects which it would produce. As to the other signatures to the petition, he believed that many, that the greater part of them were procured by delusion, by a report circulated through the town and its neighbourhood that the persons employed in manufactories would receive the same if not more wages, though their hours of labour were lessened. It had been said by some hon. members who supported the bill, that the children working in cotton factories being crippled or enfeebled, it would in a short time be difficult to find soldiers capable of serving the country. To this he should reply, that he had some experience on that head from the situation he hold as an officer of a militia regiment in Lancashire, and he could inform the House, that in no one instance had he found that any of the disabled persons who offered to enlist in that corps, had worked in cotton manufactories. He had made this a particular object of inquiry, and such he had found to be the result. It had been said, that the opinions of medical men were, that working in those manufactories was peculiarly unwholesome; but if the hon. baronet would take the trouble to inquire into the subject, he would find, that those opinions had been given without any inspection into the actual state of the labourers. He did not wish to take up the time of the House; but he was prepared to prove, if necessary, that those pulmonary and other complaints were not peculiarly limited to persons working in manufactories. There were other gentlemen, however, who would follow him, and who, from their more intimate acquaintance with the cotton trade, could give the House more information on the subject than he could be supposed to do. From every view that he could take of the subject, he thought the bill uncalled for; it was founded upon a new principle, and that principle was about to be acted upon where it was least required. It had a tendency, as he before said, to create disunion between the parent and the child, the workman and the master; and while it was said to give time for the instruction of children, it took away the means by which such instruction was to be obtained. It would, in fact, have an effect quite the reverse of what he was convinced the hon. baronet hoped to produce by it. It would have the effect of increasing the difficulties of our manufacturers in their competition with those abroad; it would be giving a premium to mills in particular situations, namely, the mills which went by steam, while the mills which went by water would, in many cases, be unable to go on. There were many instances in which it would be the ruin of labour, and it would offer a premium to those establishments that were situated in large towns. Considering it, therefore, in every shape objectionable, he felt it his duty to move, as an amendment, "That the House should resolve itself into a committee on the bill on this day four months."

thought the question was of such importance, that he could not allow it to pass without offering a few observations upon it. He should direct himself solely to the principle upon which the measure was founded, and in doing so, he should call upon the House to recollect what it was they were about to do. If they thought legislative interference necessary in the regulation of cotton factories, why should they not also interfere in the regulation of all other sorts of labour, and point out what was the number of hours during which the different trades should be carried on? It ought to be considered whether that House was justified in regulating every branch of trade in the country, and ordering what degree of labour was to be endured by people in different trades. If he did not see the question in this point of view, he would not, by any means, oppose a question of humanity, as he knew that all who attempted to oppose a question of such a nature were sure to be run down. But whatever might be the humanity which dictated the measure, he would say again to the House, be cautious what you are about, as, if you interfere now in this instance with the regulation of labour, you will find it difficult to find out when to stop." Such a measure would have the effect of discharging from those factories children under 16 years of age, and then they would be thrown upon their parents, and from their parents upon the parishes. In that case, it would not be bettering the condition of either the children or the parents. It was nonsense, he begged pardon of the House for the expression, but it was really nonsense to say that the children would be improving themselves in the hours when they were not employed; the event would not be so. Their time would be principally spent in idleness. If the children under 16 were discharged, it might be asked would that be a beneficial effect of the bill? The advantage would be thrown into the populous towns. And what, it might be asked, would be the effect on those factories out of the reach of population, where it was possible, that if they were obliged to submit to all the regulations imposed by the bill, they might not be able to go on at all? There were many mills obliged to wait for water till other mills had used it, which would not agree at all with the regulations of the bill. Out of 16 factories in a small district of the county of York, 15 were worked upon water. The hon. member for Coventry had made a remark which he thought deserving of notice. He had said that the deterioration of health in those employed in the cotton factories was observable at a first glance, in the distorted limbs and unhealthy appearance of the objects; so that they were not fit either for the army or for the navy. These might be facts with regard to some individuals, and yet the general trade might not be answerable for them. But if such an argument was good for any thing, the blow ought to be struck at the whole system—the House ought to go the length of altering, or rather putting an end to the trade altogether; for, if the present system was to have the effect of depriving them of an army, the proposed reduction of one or two hours in the period of labour could not be supposed to be sufficient to counteract so great an evil. The labour as at present followed, was undoubtedly, in his opinion, free labour, as he did not know how the parent was to be separated from the child by any mode of legislative interference, and as free labour it should undoubtedly be allowed to continue. To any motion which the hon. baronet should bring forward, he would wish to give the greatest consideration, but with all due respect to that hon. member, he believed the present question did not originate with him. He believed it had its origin from a gentleman who had, for the last twelve months, made much noise in the public prints, he meant Mr. Owen, with whose improvements on some occasions he was not fully prepared to agree; and that it formed a part of that system of moral education which was projected by that individual, in the management of this branch of trade, who said, that from his own experience at Lanark, the reduction in the hours of labour, so far from diminishing the general produce of the factories, rather tended to increase it; a proposition beyond his (lord Lascelles) comprehension. On that ground, he should repeat, that he did not consider the motion in the same light as he should have done if it had emanated from the hon. member himself. But with whomever it might have originated, the House ought not to come to a hasty decision, and that too on ex-parte statements. They ought to inquire into the subject with the closest and most impartial attention; and even after such inquiry he should doubt whether it was a matter which allowed of legislative interference. He knew that many facts had been mentioned of persons who had worked in cotton manufactories having become lame and disabled; but was that an argument to prove that their debility was occasioned by their work? It might be proved that a man working in a mill had become lame or unable to work; but such a circumstance would not prove that his working in a mill was the cause of the lameness or inability to work. Of such a nature, he conceived, were the instances so often repeated relative to the children and grown persons employed in manufactories.—He had no interest, either directly or indirectly, in any cotton manufactories; and could not, therefore, be supposed to have any prejudice on the question. He knew that some cases of hardship did exist in the cotton as well as other factories; but the question was, whether such hardship required or allowed of the interference of the legislature, whether it allowed them to interfere between parent and child? He objected as much as any man could do to looking to the interest of the manufacturer at the expense of the labourer, but seeing the inroads the bill, if carried, would make on all trades, he felt it his duty decidedly to oppose the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair, unless on a distinct understanding that after the bill had passed through the proposed stage it should be referred to a committee above stairs, which alone could get at such information as might enable the House to pronounce a wise and well digested opinion on the subject. In recommending this course he was actuated only by a sincere desire to do justice to all parties.

considered the noble lord who had just sat down to have acted the most manly part, by coming forward to state his sentiments on this measure without disguise, and he was perfectly satisfied that in the course he had taken he was solely actuated by humanity. He, however, could not think that the noble lord was justified in objecting to this bill, because a gentleman who inculcated certain speculative opinions on subjects of political economy was supposed to have been concerned in bringing it forward. Whether that gentleman was concerned in it or not, was a matter of indifference to him, and he called upon the House not to reject a judicious measure because it might have the misfortune to be supported by an indiscreet advocate. Against such a doctrine he would protest—and maintain, that the question must rest on its own merits, and not on any adventitious circumstance. The noble lord had said that he objected to this bill being passed on ex parte evidence, and he therefore wished the subject to be referred to a committee above stairs. He (Mr. Peel) would limit his defence, of it to ex parte evidence, to that furnished by the opponents of the bill, and on that he thought it would not be difficult to convince the House that, if without contravening some great general principle, they could apply a remedy to the existing evil, it was their duty to do so. He considered that he had two classes of opponents to reply to—those who admitted there was an evil to remedy, but were fearful of the principles on which the bill was founded—and, in the second place, those who were not afraid of the principle, but who considered there was no evil which required legislative interference. To the first, he replied, that in ten thousand cases connected with commerce, remedies had been supplied to particular evils without prejudice to general principles. To say the principle of interference was without a precedent was contrary to the fact, for it was constantly acted on in commercial regulations where peculiar exceptions from the general rule of trading practices called for a particular mode of relief. Now, did the cotton trade present such an exception as called for the application of this remedy? He thought it did and for this reason—it was carried on in immense buildings, in many of which more than 1,000 children were kept at work, 12, 14, and sometimes 15 hours a day—no distinction being made between the child of the tenderest age and the most grown, or between the imbecile and the strong. These children were obliged to work the same hours as men, and if in manufactories where the average time of working did not exceed 12 hours, from accidents which stopped the mill, they lost a few hours, they were obliged to fetch them up by "extra time," and this imposed upon them occasionally the necessity of working 15 hours in one day. The business, besides, was carried on in an heated atmosphere. In the finer branches of the manufacture, he believed, it was necessary that the body should be kept in such a temperature that the threads would adhere to the fingers of the work-people! In some, the atmosphere, was polluted by small flying particles of cotton, and this evil, though guarded against in some manufactories, could not be prevented in all. The numbers employed in the cotton trade was another of its peculiarities. If the evil were a small one, then legislative interpo- sition might be necessary, on the maxim, de minimis non cur at lex, but here the evil was confessedly great, for in Manchester alone no less than 11,600 children were employed in this trade. The noble lord had objected to any interposition, on the ground that it would alter the relations between the parent and the child, the child and the master, and affect that arrangement of free labour, or, as he afterwards qualified it, by saying, "what was called free labour."

observed, in explanation, that he used the words "free labour" in the sense of the child being so employed by consent of its parents.

resumed, and said that the erroneous conclusion of the noble lord was that the parents had an option in the business. The parents had no objection to this measure. It appeared they were willing that the hours of labour in each day should be limited to eleven; but they had no alternative, as the masters said they must either remove their children altogether, which they could not afford to do, or they must let them work 12 or 14 hours, as the men did. The noble lord had approved of the Apprentices bill, but he (Mr. Peel) contended that those who were to be protected by the present measure, were less protected by the interest of the master from the abuses complained of, than ever apprentices had been. The master had an interest in preserving the health of his apprentice, particularly during his early years, for he was bound so to apply his time, as to prevent his being a burthen upon him by indisposition or otherwise during the subsisting engagement it was imperative upon him to maintain but in the factories the terms of engagement were either daily, or weekly, and the proprietor, in case of illness or accident, had always at hand the means of replacing the person, discharged. This particularly struck him from the evidence of Mr. Lee, the partner of the hon. gentleman opposite, who had said this measure would press harder on the manufacturer in the country than on him who resided in Manchester, as the latter was "nearer the market of labour." The meaning of this was, that if the children in his employ failed him, he could easily procure others from "the market of labour." What was this but saying that because hands might always be obtained by the manufacturer with facility, there existed no necessity of his relaxing any part of that system under which so many were willing to act? Substitutes were easily had for the sick or the weak child, and no very great inducement was held out to show the necessity of restricting the hours of labour. Look, then, in case of the accidents to which these mills were liable, and the consequent practice of making up for lost time in the mode of pursuing the business when the machinery was again put in motion, and the House must be at once struck with the severe duties imposed upon children. If, as had been said, the consequence of this bill would be, that the masters would supplant the children by the employment of adults, then it was clear that the former were merely retained for their labour, and that the interest of the master was not, as had been asserted, a sufficient security for the treatment of the child. If the system was so much improved as some of the opponents of the bill contended it was, this made his argument but the stronger. He could wish to know when the eyes of the masters were first opened to their true interest, and whether the alteration which had taken place had not been made as a preparation for an expected inquiry? At all events it was necessary to guard against a recurrence of the evils from which it appeared those employed in the cotton factories had but recently escaped. What security was there that the factories would not relapse into the system of bad management from which they had emerged? What security was there that if parliament withdrew its interference, the arrangements of those establishments would not again fall into that irregular and oppressive distribution of labour which previously characterized them? The number of hours during which children were employed at these factories, appeared, from the evidence of the proprietors themselves, to vary, on an average, of from twelve to fifteen hours each day. In one manufactory at Manchester, which employed 600 persons, 374 of them were under 18 years of age; and when they considered that 11,600 children were thus employed in one town, it was an argument, à priori, without any reference to the other parts of the subject, that, from the mode of labour pursued, the injurious consequences to the health of the children must be manifest. That they ought to work, and to work hard for their subsistence, was what he did not mean to deny. That a large propor- tion of society must earn their bread by the sweat of their brow, was what might appear hard to the philanthropist, though the philosopher must think it necessary; yet necessary as it was in the state and condition of society, it was yet incumbent on the legislature to see that such a system of over-working was not applied to the infant race, as paralysed their future exertions, and deprived them of all fair and useful recreation. Even what was said of the measures taken to give these poor children education, proved to his mind the hardships to which they were subjected. He learned with disgust that they were not sent to school to receive that instruction which might raise them above the machine at which they worked, till they had been exhausted by 13 or 15 hours of labour. In the evidence before the committee, Mr. Sandford had quoted the returns from the Sunday schools, for the purpose of contrasting the superior appearance of the children employed in the factories with those in other employments; they attended more regularly than the other children, were cleaner and more orderly. But then came the part of the explanation to which he (Mr. Peel) begged to direct the attention of the House—"the children of the cotton factories were in as good health as the others, though they did not look as well." [Hear, hear!] It was also said, "they came as early to school as the other children, except in some of the evenings of the winter months." This explanation afforded room for much consideration. Was it not disgusting to see that education, which was intended to be the greatest of blessings, converted into a curse by this mode of compelling the children to try and avail themselves of it, after thirteen hours and a half of fatigue, when, throughout the day, labour had drained from them every spring of action that could refresh their faculties, and benumbed that elasticity of mind which could excite them in the pursuit of study?—was it not disgusting to see them thus transferred, after 13 or 15 hours of bodily exertion, to close the day under the hands of a writing-master?—Of the children who worked fifteen hours possibly not one resided in the mills; many of them were obliged to come from the distance of a mile, and the time so taken up was to be added to that of their employment in the mill. He would appeal to the common sense and feeling of every man to admit —he wanted no evidence to prove—it was impossible that it could be requisite to the prosperity of this great and flourishing country that such enormous labour should be exacted of near twelve thousand children in one town. The facts acknowledged were enough for his purpose. An hon. member laughed when he said he wanted no evidence. Did the hon. member mean to say no evidence could be produced? That there was no evidence before the House? If evidence was wanted, he need go no farther than a petition which he himself had the honour to present, of the highest character, signed by thirty medical gentlemen and twenty-one clergymen. In answer to the allegations of, and inferences from this petition, the noble lord said he would grant it was signed by one gentleman of great respectability, but of so easy a disposition, and over-compassionate temper, that he might readily be prevailed upon to lend the sanction of his name to any document of the description. It was in this manner the noble lord endeavoured to shake the testimony of a name so elevated and respected. The noble lord was compelled to acknowledge that the legislature had already acted on the principle of interference with free labour, as it was called, in the instance of the chimney-sweepers. He had indeed afterwards laboured to establish a distinction, by which that case would be taken out of the general principle; but he had failed—he was mistaken in his opinion—his opposition was too late. "The Chimney Sweeper's act," said the noble lord, "altogether abolished—this bill goes to regulate, a certain species of labour for children." But surely the noble lord must confess that an act which absolutely prohibited the employing of children in any occupation was a far more violent interference with free labour than one which only limited it to a certain period—eleven hours for example. Others again who spoke of the unhealthiness of cotton mills were answered by some hon. members, who seemed to think that of all the healthy spots on the face of the globe, a cotton mill was the most healthy. Indeed if all that these hon. members said of the healthiness of cotton mills were true, application ought to be made to the legislature for the erection of cotton mills, for the purpose of further and more effectually providing for the health of his majesty's liege subjects. The instances produced from the evidence were certainly strong enough to support the most unqualified of the assertions which had been made as to the healthiness of cotton mills. One of the instances was that of a mill at Glasgow, in which he believed an hon. gentleman opposite was concerned. It was given in evidence that in this mill 873 children were employed in 1811, 871 in 1812, and 891 in 1813. Among the 873 there were only three deaths; among the 871 two deaths; among the 891 two deaths; being in the proportion of one death in 445 persons. So very extraordinarily a small proportion had naturally excited the astonishment of the committee, and therefore, as was to be expected, they questioned medical gentlemen as to the proportion of deaths in different parts of the kingdom. When this statement was shown to sir Gilbert Blane, he expressed his surprise, and observed, that if the fact was not asserted by respectable persons, he should not believe it; and being asked why he distrusted it, he said, that the average number of deaths in England and Wales was one in 50 (in 1801 there had been one in 44). There were favoured spots certainly, Cardigan, in which the deaths were as one in 74; Monmouth, in which there were one in 68; Cornwall, one in 62; and Gloucester one in 61; yet in the cotton factories they were stated to be as one in 445! In one of Warton's beautiful poems, which began with these lines:—

"Within what mountain's craggy cell,

"Delights the goddess Health to dwell?"

After asking where the abode of this coy goddess was to be found—whether on "the tufted rocks," and "fringed declivities" of Matlock—near the springs of Bath or Buxton—among woods and streams—or on the sea shore, it would certainly have been an extraordinary solution of the perplexity of the poet, if when he inquired

"In what dim and dark retreat

"The coy Nymph fix'd her fav'rite seat?"

it had been answered, that it was in the cotton mill of Messrs. Finlay and Co. at Glasgow, yet such was the evidence respecting this mill, that its salubrity appeared six times as great as that of the most healthy part of the kingdom. This was the sort of evidence which had been brought to disprove the evidence of disinterested persons, of medical men, and even of persons who had an interest opposed to the measure before the House. He held in his hand resolutions by the cotton spin- ners of Ashton-under-Line, and also of Halifax, which stated their opinion that it was become highly necessary to limit the hours of labour in cotton and other mills. They wished, indeed, that the number of hours should be greater than that in the present bill—for they wished the hours of labour to be twelve; and they said they were willing to confine themselves to that number of hours, but that others would not do it, and they should therefore be subjected to unfair disadvantages. But the number of hours was comparatively of small consequence, provided it was within due limits, for they all admitted the principle of the present bill. Here were proceedings on the part of the masters themselves admitting the propriety of interference by the legislature, and the ground alleged for the resolutions they had come to was, that they did not find that the limitation of labour by the masters had produced the bad effects once apprehended from it—but then they added, that they alone could not do this, because the parents, and some of the children themselves would prefer factories where the time of working was fourteen hours, on account of the additional wages; but if the House would make the regulation general, so far from objecting to it, they would hail it with joy as an important boon. This was the last evidence which it was necessary to mention to the House, for it was the evidence of the party interested. With all this, then, before the House, it was surely enough to show that justice and humanity and good policy, called upon them to pass this bill; and to accede to the proposition of limiting the hours of labour of children in cotton factories to eleven and a half.

felt much difficulty in contending against the humane and benevolent feelings of members however injudicious, especially as they were raised to an unusual ardour by the speech of the right hon. gentleman, and by the means formerly used to excite and inflame prejudice on this subject. If cotton mills were such as they were represented, he should at once say, "Sweep them away altogether." He disclaimed any personal views or interested motives on this question. Great pains had been taken to excite prejudice, and out of doors suspicion was at work on this subject. The manufacturers of cotton were objects of hostility to the manufacturers of piece goods, who were desirous of reducing the productive power of cotton manufactories in order to in- crease their own exports. Amongst cotton-spinners themselves too, there were jealousies and divisions. Some employed children, others employed apprentices, among the latter the hon. baronet who brought forward the bill had himself been. Those who employed apprentices being under the regulation of an act of parlialiament; and conceiving that they were thus disadvantageous situated in comparison of those who employed free labour wished to reduce the latter to their own condition. There was an impression created too, that an act of parliament would reduce the hours of labour without reducing wages. It was necessary to mention these facts, to account for the petitions which had been presented in favour of the bill; and when it was also taken into account, how easy it was to procure signatures to any petition which purported to be for an increase of wages and a reduction of the hours of labour, when a gentleman chose to send for persons to his house to give flattering representations of the benefits to result from the bill, and to solicit their signatures, the petitions could not be a matter of surprise. The advocates of the bill dealt in general assertions which it was difficult to disprove, but which had been uniformly disproved when they had been founded on tangible statements. It was said that children in cotton mills were inferior to other children—1. In education. 2. In morals; and 3. in health. It had been proved in opposition to this, that the number of children employed in mills, who attended Sunday schools at Manchester, was equal to that of other children; that their morals were as good, and it would have been strange, if habits of order, industry and regularity had produced immorality. As to their health, if the House instead of looking to opinions without any facts stated in support of them, looked to the facts themselves, and to opinions founded on an examination of them, they would find that the statements respecting their health were as devoid of truth, as those respecting their education and morals. Dr. Henry had borne evidence that in hospitals there was not 1 in 12 from the manufactories. Even in the female wards there was only 1 in 12. As to morals, it would be strange if those who were industrious, regular, and cleanly should not be superior to others. Dr. Henry, Dr. Bordsworth and Dr. Symonds of the Manchester House of recovery had said that the pro- portion of sick from the cotton factories, compared with those who came from other factories, was as one to twelve. Mr. Ranson an eminent surgeon, stated, that cases of white swelling and deformity were much more common to weavers than cotton spinners, the cotton spinners being less exposed to changes of temperature. Mr. Morris another eminent surgeon had declared that 14 years of experience in the Manchester Infirmary had convinced him that cases from cotton-factories were less numerous than from other trades. In the Manchester Infirmary, in Feb. 1817, the patients who had been employed in cotton mills were as one to six to others. In March 1818, the in-patients who had been employed in cotton mills were as one to 11, the out patients as one to five or six to those who had been otherwise employed. Mr. Ransom had also said, that he found the children who had been employed in cotton mills much less subject to glandular swellings, scrophula and white swellings, than the weavers. The surgeon of the Manchester workhouse had declared himself in favour of legislative interference before he had examined into facts; but he had after a minute examination confessed his error, and had proclaimed the balance to be in favour of the cotton-factories. He had declared that if his experience in the workhouse might be taken as a test, the children belonging to cotton factories were more healthy than other children:—he supposed, therefore, that cleanliness and ventilation made up for the disadvantages of their situation. Those who knew Manchester knew the difficulty there was to get the medical men there to agree in the same opinion. Their disagreement there was proverbial. When he had mentioned to a friend Dr. Henry's opinion, the reply was, "You know that if Dr. Henry thinks one way, Dr.—is sure to think another." Many medical men, who had put their names to petitions, regretted that they had done so since they had made an accurate inspection; certificates that the factories enjoyed good health, and were well ventilated, were signed by Drs. Henry and Hamilton, who had originally signed petitions for legislative interference. Medical men were now going through all the factories in Manchester, and all authorities were unvarying to show, that the condition of the people in cotton factories was better than in any other; this assertion was made on the most conscientious conviction. In other factories the work and wages were irregular; in the cotton factories both were uniform, and all were compelled to admit that the labour was light; they were therefore better clothed and better fed than others. The right hon. gentleman had expressed incredulity at the very small proportion of deaths in the factory at Glagow, but the persons employed there were in the most healthy period of life, and therefore there was nothing incredible in the statement, neither was it stated that the numbers mentioned were all who had died. They were all whose deaths were recollected. Mr. Sandford's evidence had been referred to, but the most material fact stated by him had been omitted, viz. that when five hundred persons at a Sunday school had clubbed a certain sum for their support in case of sickness, the sum drawn out in the year by those employed in cotton mills was 2s. 0½d., the sum drawn out by the others, 3s. 1d. for each. In one large factory, only 5l. had been received for poor-rates for the whole year; and in 1816, a year of the greater distress, one factory had contributed 24l to a soup society. The hon. gentleman had complained that the children were worse off and more under the control of their masters than apprentices; but that was not the case; they could now go home, and be attended to by their parents, an advantage which the proposed regulations would destroy. Taking children from their parents, and placing them under the control of others, had excited a great outcry in a discussion on the poor laws; it was equally impolitic in the present instance to attempt what never could and never ought to be effected. In a country like this it was dangerous to violate the most perfect freedom of arrangement between wages and labour. It was not enough to act under the impulse of humane feelings alone. To real charity many things were essential, besides almsgiving, which, when indulged indiscriminately, provoked the very evils it wished to alleviate, and caused nothing but idleness and discontent. In the exchange between wages and labour, interference must have a most pernicious tendency. The effect of interfering on behalf of the Spitalfields weavers had been to establish that manufacture in Cheshire. In Cheshire they were now petitioning for the same interference, and the result would be, to drive the manufacture from Cheshire also. The labour of cotton-factories was nothing compared with the labour of other employments, and yet the others, with every exertion, were hardly able to procure a subsistence. Suppose in those cases any one were to say, "Take care of your health; you will hurt your constitution; you will bring on disease." If a similar measure to that now proposed for the spinners had been applied to other branches of the cotton trade, what would have been the consequence? When the weavers were working 16 hours a-day for small wages, if parliament had stepped in and said, "you shall only work 10 hours—you shall not receive less than so much wages," what would have been the consequence?—They would have been starved into rebellion. Whereas, by their persevering labour at that low rate, they had done what no one could have anticipated. The low rate at which we had been able to sell our manufactures on the continent, in consequence of the low rate of labour here, had depressed the continental manufactures, and raised the English much more than any interference could do; and if the legislature interfered now, they would repress the English, and raise the continental manufactures: but if our produce continued to sell on the continent, the increased demand must afford more employment and higher wages for our workmen here. The general hours of work now were from twelve to twelve and a half. The tendency of interference would be, first, to increase wages—workmen would do less and receive more; an increase of population would follow on this comparative case, and the increased competition for labour must in the end lower wages; while the temporary increase of price, consequent on a temporary increase of wages, would give the continental manufactories a start, by enabling them to sell at a lower price than ourselves, and thus by lessening our sale, lessen the demand for labour, while the demand for employment was increasing. Messrs. Lee and Holdisworth had reduced the hours of labour in their factories, and the people, instead of being better off, had been much worse off, and more discontented, and had withdrawn their subscription from the sick-fund. Here then the very experiment had been made which the House wished to attempt. An hon. bart. had said that there were no petitions against the proceedings of 1802. But the factories of Manchester were as improved at that period as at the present day. And this improvement was not confined to one, but was common to all. Mr. Birley's factory was very well conducted, whatever might have been said of it, and none could be found in which disease was prevalent. There was also a strong fact to show that the factories of Lancashire were not inferior to any others. By the returns to the committee on the poor laws, the number per cent who received relief in Lancashire was less than in any other county, except Cumberland; the number was 5 for Cumberland, and 5½ for Lancashire. In Buckinghamshire 13, in Wales 7, &c. The amount too of relief per head was less in Lancashire than in any county except Cumberland, 10s. in Lancashire, 9s. 9d. in Cumberland; and 20s. or 26s. in some other counties. These facts were incontrovertible, and the inference was, that the cotton-spinners were well off. If the present principle of interference were to be applied, there was no manufacture or employment to which objections might not be made: the farmer was exposed to the inclemency of the seasons, and subject to chronic complaints. Mines were of all places the most notoriously unhealthy, especially lead mines. Potteries were far from being salubrious. The Speaker himself, sitting in that chair, went through more labour in a single session calculated to impair his health, than the people in a well regulated factory endured for the whole year. Confinement, he would allow, must have an effect upon the complexion—it had in that House.—They had not within their walls the ruddy complexion of the husbandman, except in a few instances. The temperature of factories, whatever had been said, need not be in general above 63. Mr. Moles-worth had represented it as not more than 74 degrees, even for the finest spinning; but even taking it from 70 to 80, the excess was not very great, particularly when it was recollected that the numbers employed in this fine spinning which required so much heat did not; exceed 600 or 700 persons. However, nothing could be done by interference but mischief, and it was most dangerous to manufactures, by producing combinations among workmen. [Hear, hear!]. Gentlemen might cry hear! but he should conceive it his duty on all occasions to speak against combinations, destructive to the happiness and morals, as well as the existence of the working classes, be- sides being ruinous to our manufactures. A spirit or false honour was created which it was most difficult to cope with: the present bill held out a temptation to all such combinations by exciting petitions, and promising little work and high wages. But the House ought to know that these petitions were obtained by disorderly workmen meeting at public-houses, and forming themselves into central committees. The purpose of those who petitioned for the bill was to reduce the hours in order to increase the wages of labour. This, certainly, would be the first of its effects. But he besought the House to consider where they would stop if they interfered in the present instance. Every other class of manufacturers would come forward with their demands, and the regulation introduced in this case could not be refused in others. The principle now introduced would extend to all. There was no peculiarity in the case of the cotton-spinners that did not extend to other manufactories. The linen and the woollen manufactories would require a similar regulation. He had been in some woollen manufactories, and he found no other difference between them and those now under consideration, except that in the former a greater quantity of oil was used, and of course there was a much Worse smell. With regard to the linen manufactories, there could be no reason why they should not be regulated as well as the cotton, except that in the latter case the yarn was exported, and in the former not, a distinction which might soon cease by such a violent interference with labour as the present bill would in principle authorize. Any person who considered the subject would see that the same abuses, if abuses existed, were to be found in all our manufactories, and, therefore, that they ought all to be regulated on the principle which would admit an interference with one. It was impossible to draw a distinguishing line between them.

wished to say only a few words. His attention had been long turned to the subject before the House, and he zealously supported the bill. The petitioners for its passing had great weight with him, and should have great influence on the House. The hon. gentleman had endeavoured to make an impression upon the House, by seeming to insinuate that the petitions in favour of this bill proceeded from some discontented manufacturers, or from the rivalry of the woollen manufacturers. This, however, could not have been the case with respect to the petition from Manchester, for it was signed by the clergy and by the medical men of the town, all of whom concurred in representing the length of time employed in labour as inconsistent with the health of the children. The statements against the bill came from people whose interests were opposed to it, while those who supported it by their petitions and representations from without, could have no interest but those of humanity to serve. The hon. gentleman spoke of the effect that the measure might have in increasing population, and creating paupers. This was an evil not to be dreaded, or at least was to be compensated by the good that it would produce. The 1,800 petitioners who supported it were so disinterested as to give it their concurrence, though if, as had been stated, all children under 16 years of age should by this Bill be thrown out of employment, these gentlemen were in fact promoting a measure which would throw a very great additional burthen upon the poor laws, to be defrayed by themselves. Much had been said about the danger of interfering with labour as a general principle: but the House had already during this session interfered with labour in the case of the Chimney sweepers bill, which had passed as it were, by acclamation; and therefore it ought, in consistency, to sacrifice the objections which were brought from this source. The hon. gentleman read some of the clauses of that bill, and contended that, as the principle of interfering with labour had been already acted upon, it was inconsistent now to object to it, because the objects of that benevolent interference were at a distance of 2 or 300 miles.

entered fully into the discussion of the principle of the bill, stated the reasons which called for some legislative enactment, detailed the evidence taken by the committee in support of the present, produced the opinions of physicians against the system pursued in cotton factories, answered the objections of the opponents of the bill, and gave the measure his warmest support. He agreed with his hon. friend on the impropriety and danger of giving the slightest countenance to combinations among the labouring classes; but the best and most legislative way of preventing such combinations was to remedy their just com- plaints. He also agreed with his hon. friend in the great importance he attached to our cotton manufactures, but did not think that he was right in his apprehensions of the injury which the present bill would produce with regard to them. He concurred with him, generally, on the impropriety of interfering with labour on indefinite grounds; but here was something tangible and definite, in regulating the age at which persons might enter the cotton factories, and the number of hours which they should work each day. Into the consideration of what was the proper or the exact number of hours he would not now enter. He would put it generally ought persons under the age of 12 to be employed from 13 hours and a half to 15 hours a day in a cotton factory; and was it not injurious to their health and growth to be so employed? He did object to the employment of children; but was it fitting that they should be confined to labour in a close manufactory, longer than adults in agricultural labour or in other healthy employments. They had only three quarters of an hour allowed for their dinner time, and if they staid five minutes beyond their time, were compelled to work a quarter of an hour longer at night. His hon. friend had said, that the care of their children ought to be left to the parents, who would not allow them to work longer than was conducive to their welfare; but in using such an argument he had forgotten that the parents confessed their inability of themselves to limit their labour, by applying to the House in their petitions for the passing of the present bill. Much had been said of the means employed to procure these petitions, and of the representations put forth to influence the decisions of the House. But it ought to be recollected, that if representations were made on the one side, they were likewise made on the other, and that too by persons who had more weight than those unprotected individuals, and an apparently greater interest to stimulate their zeal. The evidence of physicians and others, who having no personal interest to serve, could not be supposed to have a wrong bias, was in favour of legislative interference. All the members of the faculty, from Machaon down to doctor Solomon, would be found to declare, that children of the age alluded to, could not, without injury to their health, work so long in factories as children meant to be protected by the bill now did. It was a fact which appeared in evidence, and could not be contradicted, that the cotton spinners of Preston had agreed during the discussion of this measure to employ their children only 13 hours a day. His right hon. friend, who said every thing he did say with great talent, had excited a laugh at the supposition that Hygeia would take up her abode in a cotton manufactory; but he had not stated the case so strongly as he might have done. Here the hon. gentleman entered into some statements of the comparative number of deaths between the ages of 8 and 20, in different places and different professions. After a long and minute examination of the different objections to the bill, the hon. gentleman concluded by giving it his warmest support.

protested against the introduction of fresh evidence after the inquiry before the committee had closed. The right hon. gentleman had brought forward a most extraordinary witness—the goddess of health; but unfortunately she proved nothing in his favour; he had probably found that she could not reside in the factory with which the right hon. gentleman had been connected. He was ready to admit that the number of hours consumed by children in labour was too great—and he would even acknowledge that it was fully competent for the legislature to interfere in correcting the evil; but he feared that the remedy proposed would not be attended with that salutary effect: he feared that it was worse than the disease, for it would drive people from an healthy to an unhealthy employment. He was convinced that if the bill were passed into a law, it would have the effect of driving children from a state of comparative ease and happiness to one of severity and hardship. The measure had been supported by some petitions, and those were in favour of it—in particular from the work-people in Mr. Owen's manufactory. Mr. Owen, it appeared, had probably with a good view to his own in terest, consented to reduce the hours of labour to ten and a half.—It was very natural that the labourers in that manufactory should desire that their brethren elsewhere should share an equal advantage, and no less so, that Mr. Owen should desire to have other manufacturers equally limited; but if the hours of labour were thus abridged, he could assure the House, that this country could no longer enjoy her present superiority in manufactures in the foreign markets. He hoped they would not, by acting on a principle of mistaken humanity, and without having sufficiently investigated the subject, endanger the national prosperity. On such a principle the poor laws were originally founded, and the results had been distress and confusion wholly unparalleled.—It had been asked when those laws were first introduced "who could refuse charity to the poor?" but if but a hundredth part of the evil consequences which had resulted from that measure had been then anticipated, its framers would have shrank from the task which their humanity had suggested. In a great many instances the bill would compel the master-spinners to dismiss all persons between the ages of 9 and 16 years, and those poor children would be thrown upon the world without means of support, for no poor-rate could be competent to their maintenance. He insisted that the children employed in the cotton factories were more healthy than in many other employments, and he referred to the evidence to show that this was the uniform opinion of practical men; theoretical speculations were comparatively of little value. He put it to the House, whether, with the contradictory testimony before it, it was prepared to legislate upon the subject—to regulate free labour, and to interpose between the father and his child? There was an inconsistency in the hon. baronet's conduct, which was, that in limiting the time of labour for free children, he made no provision for apprentices, whom he still left, under the provisions of his own former act, to work 12 hours a day; so that while the present measure was endeavouring to limit the time of work for free children to 11 hours, the masters or parents had only to bind them as apprentices, and they could then, under the apprentice act, compel them to work for twelve hours a day. He could not conceive the motive of the present bill, unless, indeed, the hon. baronet's own manufactories were all worked by apprentices. He believed that the hon. baronet meant very well, but he executed very ill; he found no fault with his motives but with his measure,, After having given the subject his fullest consideration and being convinced that the bill not only would not produce any advantage, but would absolutely create great mischief he should most decidedly vote for the noble lord's amendment.

said, it was with reluctance he differed from so many friends to whose opinions he was always inclined submit, but he felt himself obliged to do so on the present occasion. He had been long enough in the House to remember the arguments urged against the abolition of the Slave trade which at first, by the planters was called a measure of in-humanity and mischief, and yet was now admitted to be one of the greatest blessings that had ever flowed from parliament. He contended, that the important allegation in the petition of the workmen of Mr. Owen had not been contradicted, viz. that in the shorter time of work they were able to spin quite as much cotton as when they laboured a greater number of hours in the day. In Mr. Owen's factory at New Lanark, the people did as much in ten hours and a half as was done by any other factory in fifteen. The reason was, that knowing they were not required to work beyond their strength, they went about it with more cheerfulness and alacrity. The petition in question had been put into his hands by the individuals who had drawn it up, and a more modest or respectable body of men he never saw. In supporting the bill, he acted merely from motives of conscience and conviction, opposing the opinions of many most respectable individuals to whom he was under great obligations, and who had made many powerful representations to him on the subject.

conceived, that the question was one surrounded with many difficulties. He was always of opinion that the less the legislature interfered in regulating matters of trade and commerce, the better it would be for the country; but he did not mean to deny, that there where cases where it might be proper to interfere. One strong objection which lay to this bill was, not the effect which it might have upon one branch of trade for, he looked upon it not in that point of view, but that by it the House might be driven to a principle of interfering in the regulation of all other branches—a course, in his opinion, which would by no means be of service to the country. In examining the difficulties which lay on both sides of the bill, he thought that to justify legislative interference a strong case should be made out. With this impression he had determined to hear the subject discussed before he decided; and now, after it had been fully, fairly, and coolly discussed, he conceived that a case had been made out to justify the proposed interference. The admissions of those who opposed the bill were in themselves sufficient to warrant this conclusion. To him it appeared, that the tender ages of the children, and the long time at which they were kept at work, were sufficient to diminish their health, and shorten their lives. Indeed, the circumstance that few persons were seen in the manufactories over forty-years of age, was a proof that their strength had been wasted before they arrived at maturity. If the bill went directly to interfere in the labour of adults, he thought it would be objectionable; but it would be going too far to say, that by protecting the children the adults might be incidentally interfered with and that therefore the children should be left as they were. That would be establishing the position, that there was no possible case, however strong it might be where interference could be justified. This was his conviction on the subject of the bill, and he thought it right to state it before the question went to the vote.

The House then divided: Ayes, 91. Noes, 26. The House accordingly resolved into the committee, in which Mr. Finlay protested against any farther proceeding upon the bill this night, after having been occupied in the discussion for so many hours, and expressed his resolution to avail himself of the forms of the House to give the bill every obstruction in his power. Mr. Lambton observed, that the objection as to the discussion for a few hours came with a very ill grace from those who were so indifferent about the laborious occupation of children for so many hours each day. After some desultory conversation, it was agreed that the chairman should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

observed, that as he understood an agreement had been entered into between the right hon. gentleman and the Bank, by which the Bank were to receive 800l. upon each million of money deposited by the subscribers to the loan, and 400l. upon each million of exchequer bills, he wished to give notice, if this information was correct, that he should oppose this arrangement as an extravagant grant, without any foundation in justice or equity, when the bill should come into the committee.

agreed that the committee was the proper stage for entertaining the motion. It related to a distinct clause, which might, if it should be the pleasure of the House, be struck out without prejudicing the other parts of the enactment.

now wished to put a question to the right hon. gentleman on a point with respect to which a great deal of doubt and some agitation had lately prevailed. It was desirable that it should be clearly understood, whether the subscribers to the new loan would be at liberty to fund any part of their respective portions, according to their own convenience or discretion or whether no option was left but that of finding the whole or none.

admitted that the question put by the hon. gentleman was perfectly clear and intelligible, and felt happy in being enabled to give him an immediate explanation. The provisions of the bill were certainly intended to secure to every subscriber the option of finding either the whole or a part of the proportional amount of exchequer bills limited by the terms of the original contract.

was anxious to obtain some information from the right hon. gentleman on another topic relative to the loan, upon which great uncertainty at present prevailed. The time was at hand for paying in 15 per cent on the new stock, and he understood that the Bank refused to those who wished to transfer from the 3 per per cents, the favour of so doing unless in their own names. Now it was well known that many eminent merchants, and other individuals, had large sums vested in the name of their bankers, and it was obvious, therefore, that this regulation on the part of the Bank must be productive of much inconvenience. What he was desirous of ascertaining was, whether the right hon. gentleman intended to support the Bank in their adherence to this regulation.

Said, that a complaint of this nature had reached him shortly before he entered the House The rule adopted by the Bank was, he believed, to require either the actual signature of the proprietor, or a warrant of attorney to the exclusion of the mere representation of a third party. It appeared him that this principle was quite regular, as the subject now presented itself, but it might be expedient in the committee to frame some provision with a view of meeting this difficulty.

The Bill was read a second time.