, in presenting a Petition against the monopoly of the East-India Company, took the opportunity to inquire whether the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was aware what portion of the Sugar imported into this country as Mauritius Sugar, was, in fact, Java Sugar, imported from that island into the Mauritius, and then exported to England as the produce of the Mauritius. He had heard this was the case, an assertion that was borne out by the great increase in the quantity of Sugar imported from the Mauritius, which in 1828 was only 48,000,000 lbs., and last year was 90,000,000 lbs.

replied, that if Java Sugar were so imported into the Mauritius, and re-exported to England, it was done contrary to law, and it could not be done unless there were connivance and criminality on the part of the Custom-house officers at the Mauritius. He was not however aware that any such thing had occurred. A limited quantity of foreign Sugar might he occasionally introduced there by a vessel having sustained damage at sea, when she might be allowed to land part of her cargo, and dispose of it to pay the expenses of her repairs; but if more than that were introduced, it must be effected by fraud. The increased quantity of Sugar imported into this country was to be accounted for by the increased cultivation of sugar-cane in the island. The Mauritius having been placed on the same footing in our markets as the West-India islands, the planters had given up the cultivation of Coffee for the cultivation of Sugar. The great advantages also accruing from that cultivation had at one period led to the importation into the Mauritius of persons who were then Slaves, or were afterwards enslaved, in violation of the law, and that importation had extended the cultivation of Sugar.

thought the admission of the right hon. Secretary, relative to the importation of Slaves into the Mauritius, of great importance, as that fact had formerly been strenuously denied, and the statements of his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, were declared to be entirely destitute of foundation.

wished that the right hon. the member for Liverpool had been present, because he was interested both in the quantity of Sugar imported from the Mauritius, and in the fact of Slaves having been imported into that island. He certainly did not calculate on such a large quantity of Sugar being brought from that country, and as it was alleged to be partly Java Sugar, the subject was worthy of the consideration of the Government.

concurred in the opinion that this subject was of importance, and the attention of the Custom-house officers ought to be directed to it. With respect to the illegal importation of Slaves, to which he had alluded, he begged leave to add, that it took place in 1819 and 1821.

was deeply interested in the admission of the right hon. Secretary, for he had been exposed to much obloquy for making a similar assertion, and his statement had been flatly contradicted.

stated, that the late governor of the Mauritius, when the investigation took place, admitted that there had been an importation of Slaves, but he proved, to the satisfaction of all candid men, that the practice was suppressed as soon as he had the power to suppress it. The charge made against him was groundless, and if the committee had continued its labours, he had no doubt that his hon. friend would himself have admitted that.

, in presenting a Petition from 697 of the inhabitants of the City of Edinburgh, praying for the abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, stated, that the signatures of a considerable number of the petitioners were those of men of the most distinguished ability in Edinburgh. There were Clergymen of all denominations, the leading Professors of the University, the chief members of the Bar, and eighteen Bankers, in a city the chief business of which was banking. The latter body of petitioners especially stated their insecurity under the present system of law. He thought that the nature of these petitions, and the classes of men who had signed them, showed that the people of this country were ripe for the abolition of the punishment of death in case of Forgery.

said, that on every occasion when this question was discussed, he should support the abolition of the punishment of death; for he was persuaded that it was not for the interest of the bankers that it should be maintained.

bore testimony to the high respectability of the petitioners, and said, that if the House should be of opinion that the law ought to be altered in this country, he should certainly do his best to introduce the alteration into Scot- land. But he must say, that in his opinion, the law did not accomplish the proposed end of repressing crime. The law was not severely executed in Scotland, for the officer of the Crown there possessed the power of exercising his discretion in putting a restriction upon the infliction of the punishment of death. Since he had been in his present office, he believed he had not severely enforced the law, and he would refer to some returns, which would show in how few cases it had been necessary to carry the law into full effect. From the year 1815 to 1826, the number of persons committed for forgery was 194, out of whom, during the seven first years, only seven suffered death; and during the years 1824, 1825, and 1826, not more than one or two had suffered death. Considering the increase of other crimes in Scotland, these numbers showed that the crime of Forgery was not very extensive there.

said, the question was one of great importance, affecting the general feelings of the people on one side, and the interests of very numerous classes of men on the other; and any alteration of the law that should destroy the security of signatures, as respected bills and notes, would be most mischievous. His decision upon the question would depend on what the advocates of the abolition of the punishment of death offered in the way of a secondary punishment. Transportation for seven years would be treating it with too much levity, and transportation for life was a less punishment than for a shorter period. If the remedy were imprisonment, with hard labour, or any other punishment which, in the opinion of mankind, would not convert the offender into a pitied sufferer, he might, perhaps, support it, especially if the offender were taught not to look for an early remission of his punishment. He did not say, that he wished the punishment of death to be inflicted for Forgery, but he would say, that a punishment ought to be inflicted sufficiently severe to operate as a terror to those who would otherwise be inclined to violate the laws, and to attack private property. He must, however, observe, that if this alteration were made in the criminal law, it must be extended further: for he could not see, if they removed the penalty of death from Forgery, how they could retain it in other cases, that of sheep-stealing for instance.

believed the fact to be well known to those who had inquired into the matter, that it generally happened that individuals going out of the country under sentence of transportation, were in a short time better off than they would have been had they remained at home. If transportation were the punishment finally fixed upon in cases of Forgery, he trusted it would be rendered a punishment to be dreaded. Those who committed Forgery were ordinarily of a higher rank than the majority of other offenders: they were persons sensible to the pleasures of society, and in the habit of enjoying amusements: and the House ought to take away from them those pleasures and amusements which formed their enjoyment, and the extravagant use of which probably led to their crimes. He could not dissent from the observation that doubts might be fairly entertained, whether, in a great commercial country like this, the punishment of death in cases of Forgery could be safely done away with. At the same time he admitted the great disinclination which every man who was a sufferer by Forgery felt at prosecuting a fellow-creature for a crime, the punishment of which might be death; and that, he also admitted, made the subject difficult of decision.

said, the great object of punishment in cases of Forgery should be the protection of property; but there were hundreds of cases of' Forgery which were not prosecuted, because the punishment was death, which would be prosecuted if the penalty were less: therefore, upon the simple principle of taking the most effectual measures for the protection of property, and not upon any vague idea of humanity, he was a friend to a mitigation of the present punishment. He had in his possession a Petition, signed by 400 individual Bankers, belonging to 200 firms, in which, on the principle of affording further and more efficacious protection to property, they asked for a remission of the punishment of death in cases of Forgery.

admitted, that transportation was a most unsatisfactory punishment in cases of Forgery, as not carrying with it, to the persons likely to commit that offence, those terrifying consequences which a punishment intended to prevent a crime of such magnitude should. Certainly the reluctance at present felt to prosecute would be removed if the punish- ment of death were abolished; and this would be a desirable object to accomplish; but the punishment substituted for that of death should be of a nature to deter men from the commission of the crime. In his opinion, no crime should be punished with death but murder, burglary, or offences involving a violation of property, accompanied by violence to the person. As matters now stood, in nineteen cases out of twenty, the law by its severity defeated its own object. Persons were deterred from prosecuting by the amount of punishment; and this being the case, and a probability of escape afforded, offenders over-calculated the chances in their favour, and were thus encouraged to commit crimes. Certainty of punishment, even though the punishment were comparatively light, had a much greater effect in preventing crime, than severity of punishment with a chance of escape. The reluctance of injured parties to prosecute, and of juries to convict, arose from the severity of the law, and led to an increase of crime.

thought, that Forgery was an offence which might be suppressed more effectually than at present, by what we were in the habit of considering inferior punishments,—transportation or solitary confinement for any great length of time. If so, the purposes of humanity would be attained, and crime checked. His hon. relative was mistaken in his opinion of the nature of transportation, which, however, he believed to have been formerly what was described. Transportation was then regarded by the lower classes as a change from misery to comparative enjoyment; but now the case was different: convicts were put to hard labour, and their condition was rendered anything rather than too comfortable. He believed that nine persons out of ten who committed. Forgery escaped through the feelings of the sufferers, and their reluctance to enforce a severe law.

agreed with the hon. Baronet, that at present transportation was a punishment very different from what it once was, and thought it might be rendered a punishment of great severity. Certainly it was no sufficient excuse for a government to adopt the punishment of death, because it had not succeeded in making transportation severe enough. He was satisfied that, under proper regulations, it would be a more efficacious punishment for Forgery than the punishment of death. The argument of the hon. member for Callington, when he contended that we ought not to remit the capital punishment for Forgery, as we still retained the punishment of death for Sheep-stealing, presented no serious obstacle to the desired change. We could remit the punishment in both cases. He should support any measure that might be introduced with a view to mitigate the existing law.

supported the prayer of the Petition, and stated, that he had been long of opinion, that the punishment of death should be abolished in all cases of offences unaccompanied by actual violence. He should give his decided support to any measure for the abolition of capital punishments in cases of Forgery.

said, it had been stated that the severity of the law prevented prosecutions in cases of Forgery; but many persons might be deterred from the commission of the crime by apprehensions of the severity of the punishment. The effect might be injurious to property if the law were too suddenly relaxed. On this point he admitted it might be difficult to form a precise opinion, but the experiment would certainly be hazardous in a country where such a large amount of property was at stake. In his opinion, his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) acted wisely in proposing gradually to remit the punishment of death, first abolishing it as applicable to one class of forgeries, thus giving an opportunity to conjecture what might be the effect of withdrawing capital punishments in other cases of the crime, by observing the consequences of the mitigation in a single instance. This was the safest, and, he was sure, would ultimately prove the most humane course.

said, if it were considered desirable, with respect to one branch of forgeries, to mitigate our sanguinary law, he could not see why we should make trial of one portion, and leave the other untouched. The mischief of our laws consisted in the uncertainty of punishment, arising from their unusual severity. He was of opinion, that the punishment of death should not be inflicted except for murder or treason, which latter crime might involve many deaths. The right hon. Gentleman, who had effected so many improvements in the criminal law, ought to carry the principle still further. If evil should arise from a mitigation of the present system, we had the power of reverting to the plan of severity. In America capital punishments were inflicted only in cases of murder. Let Gentlemen inspect the calendars of crime in that country, and it would be found that America was infinitely above us in point of freedom from offences,—a powerful argument in favour of a merciful code of laws. He hoped the House would support any measure that might be brought forward to lessen the sanguinary character of laws which were a disgrace to the country.

observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had only to look at the petitions proceeding from the monied interests which had been presented in favour of the abolition of capital punishments in cases of Forgery, in order to see how ill-grounded were his apprehensions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the hazard of relaxing our present system, but did he perceive no danger in statements being made, as they had been, and would be, on the part of bankers, expressive of their determination not to prosecute in cases of Forgery while the law continued in its present state? Was there no danger that such declarations and such a practice (both growing out of the seventy of our code) might increase the crime of Forgery? He thought that the statement made by the Lord Advocate furnished an argument in favour of a mitigation of punishment. The learned Lord said, that during twelve years, the crime of Forgery had not increased in Scotland; and he also stated, that although the punishment of death in such cases nominally existed in that country, yet that it was, in point of fact and practice, abolished. Did this state of things furnish any grounds for apprehensions, that the monied interests would be less protected than at present, if capital punishments in cases of Forgery were abolished? He had no doubt we might substitute a more effectual preventive for the crime of Forgery than was afforded by the punishment of death. He should have a variety of petitions to present on the subject, calling for the abolition of capital punishment, and he had received letters from many bankers, expressive of their disapproval of the existing system.

said, that the present law was equally impolitic and inhuman; it prevented prosecutions and encouraged the offence. Whenever a motion should be made to do away with capital punishment he should support it.

said, the present law was decidedly bad, because it was contrary to the feelings of the people; even bankers would not carry it into execution. There was a committee of bankers established, before which, every banker who was a member of it was expected, as a matter of duty, to bring all forgeries that might be committed upon him, in order that the culprits might be prosecuted, but he knew that bankers did not act up to the spirit of this regulation, and why did they not? It was because the punishment was too great. Every day's experience proved, that the law as it stood was bad. It was the certainty, not the severity of punishment, that prevented crime.

expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the Lord Advocate as to Scotland, and begged leave to take that opportunity of expressing his approbation of the manner in which that learned Lord executed the duties of his office.

said, that it was the opinion of merchants, bankers, and others most interested, that the law did not afford protection to the banker and commercial man,—because the severity of it prevented prosecutions. For this reason, if for no other, the severity of the law ought to be mitigated.

knew from observation and personal experience that the severity of the punishment prevented prosecutions in nine cases out of ten. The case of the bankers was a hard one. Their feelings would not allow them to prosecute while the penalty of the offence was death; and thus they were without protection against this dangerous crime of forgery.

said, that he concurred in what had been stated in favour of the abolition. He had a Petition to present from the Bankers of Belfast, who expressed similar opinions. They stated that they had a great interest in preventing the crime of forgery, but that in consequence of the severity of the punishment, they were prevented from prosecuting. Thus the law afforded no protection whatever to property.

said, that he had to present a Petition respecting the present mode of Interment in the Metropolis. It was from George Frederick Carden, Bar- rister-at-law, of the hon. Society of the Inner Temple. The petitioner stated the number of interments annually in the metropolis to be not less than 40,000, and described the places of sepulture as offensive to public decency and dangerous to the health of the people. Any hon. Member who had visited the burial grounds of the metropolis would agree in the correctness of this description. The petitioner went on to state many other things respecting the system of interments now practised in the metropolis, which were deserving of attention, but with which he would not trouble the House, as he intended to move that the Petition be printed. He would however add, that since the Petition had been put into his hands, other cases had been mentioned to him. The burial grounds of a chapel in Fetter Lane, of St. Mary Abchurch, and of St. Giles's church, were all offensive and dangerous nuisances. With respect to the latter, he found that an able and intelligent officer of the House, Mr. Luke Hansard had, in his evidence before the Select Vestries Committee, described the St. Giles's church-yard to have been a nuisance from time immemorial, and shown that Pennant spoke of it as such. The petitioner prayed that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the evils of the present system of interment within the metropolis, and to take into consideration the plan proposed by the petitioner, of establishing a general cemetry without the metropolis. For his own part, he was convinced of the necessity of some alteration, but he thought committees of that House were more remarkable for blaming abuses than for remedying them. He should content himself for the present with moving that the Petition be printed, in order that all Gentlemen might read it, and he should consider what would be the best mode of proceeding.

agreed with the petitioner as to the impropriety of the present system. In St. Martin's church-yard, the only place over which he had any control, he had had catacombs dug under ground, and he hoped to see the example followed in other places.

said, it would have been better if the noble Lord had removed the burial-place out of the metropolis altogether.

admitted that the suggestion of the hon. Member would have been a greater improvement, but he had not power to make it.

said, that there ought to be an Act prohibiting all burials in the metropolis for the future. Decency and the health of the inhabitants called for such a measure.

, in bringing forward, pursuant to notice, his Motion for a Select Committee to consider the means of lessening the evils arising from the Fluctuation of Employment amongst manufacturer, said, he should have been much surprised at the thinness of attendance, if he were not aware of the character of the House. He knew the subject was not a pleasant one, and he must throw himself on its indulgence while he went into some details. If they looked to the humble portion of their fellow-countrymen, they would see them divided into large classes—both distinct from each other, and both in their present situation demanding the attention of the Legislature. The first of those, the agricultural class was affected by circumstances entirely distinct from the circumstances which affected the second; and the agricultural labourers of the south were in quite a different situation from those of the north of England. Incidentally he might observe, that the people of the south were some time since in a worse situation than at present; and he hoped they would speedily improve, and be in as good a condition as their brethren of the north. Before he should proceed to consider the situation of the other great class, the manufacturers, he begged to say that he feared there existed, with respect to them, some prejudice, some fear, lest the manufacturing class might be extending too far; but if those who indulged such a prejudice would only allow themselves to take a large and liberal view of the interests of society, they must perceive that the interests of both classes were closely united—that they were inseparable, and that the advancement of one must always depend upon the success of the other. For the purpose of establishing some of the positions for which he contended, it would be necessary for him to enter somewhat into detail. He should begin by calling the attention of the House to the relative amount of the agricultural and manufacturing population at different periods, and in different parts of the kingdom. In 1801, the manufacturing population was to the agricultural as six to five; in 1821, as eight to five; but in 1830, they became as two to one; thus, in England, the difference was at one period as two to one, and at another as six to five. In Scotland in 1808, they were as five to six; in 1821, as nine to six; in 1830, as two to one. During the last twenty years, the population of the country generally had increased thirty per cent. the manufacturing population forty per cent. In Manchester the population had increased fifty per cent; Liverpool fifty per cent, and Coventry the same; Leeds fifty-four per cent; Birmingham fifty per cent, and Glasgow 100 per cent. That was an increase equal to what might be found on the most recent settlements and the richest soils of North America. As the population had increased thirty per cent, and as the people generally were better off than formerly, so there was reason to believe that the capital of the country had increased at least thirty per cent. As an evidence of the extent to which trade and manufactures were carried, he would remind the House, that while the average annual importation of cotton in 1813 amounted to 79,000,000 pounds, in 1829 it amounted to 220,000,000 pounds. The importation of wool in 1813 was 7,000,000 pounds, and in 1829 it was 27,500,000 pounds. During that time the increase of machinery had been without example. Great as was his sense of the services of the noble Duke who had conducted the military operations of the country, still, if he were asked to name the person to whom England was most indebted in bearing up against nearly all Europe, he should say that James Watt was that person. The suggestions of Watt in the use of steam had been productive of incalculable benefit to the country. In 1814 we had eleven steam vessels, and the number of tons was 542; in 1828, we had 338 steam-vessels, and the number of tons was 30,000. Thus, in the space of fourteen years, the steam-vessels had increased thirty-fold in number, and sixty-fold in tonnage. Another fact connected with the manufacturers was, that a very large portion of them were unrepresented in that House, and this gave them a strong claim on the attention of Parliament. He hoped, however, that the motion of which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had given notice, might have the effect of relieving them from that disadvantage. It was not so much the depression of trade which he meant to bring before the House as the occasional fluctuations to which manufacturers were exposed—fluctuations which at one time, by raising the price of their labour, led them to riot and extravagance, and at another, by greatly depressing it, led to want and to crime. It became the more necessary to consider the situation of the manufacturers at present, because, till within a few years, this country had enjoyed almost a monopoly of the trade of the world, though now, owing to a combination of circumstances, it was gradually losing that. This monopoly was nothing more than a monopoly springing from the freedom of the country, which had promoted the growth of industry, and everything connected with industry, more than any other circumstance. We now had opposite to our shores two great countries, which were in most respects copying our institutions, and in which manufactures were greatly encouraged and protected. He did not state this as a reason for jealousy, but for the purpose of showing what necessity there was for this country being alive to its situation. The fluctuation of the employment of our manufacturers arose from two or three causes. One of the causes was the vast improvement in machinery; not that he intended to say that this would not finally benefit the manufacturing labourers, but, at all events, at present it was acting to their injury. To show this he might state, that the number of hand-looms now was much the same as it was in 1820, being about 240,000 in England and Scotland; but during this period power-looms had been greatly on the increase. In 1820 the number was 14,000, while now it amounted to 55,000. Each power-loom might be calculated as about equal to three hand-looms. The number of power-looms in 1820, therefore, might be calculated as equal to 42,000 hand-looms, while the number now was equal to 165,000; so that, taking it in this point of view, there had been an increase since 1820 of 123,000 hand-looms. He did not state this as a matter of complaint, but only to show that labouring weavers must at present be suffering from the circumstance—for he might express his own opinions in the words of an eminent author on the subject, who had said, that machinery brings into exercise the intellectual power of man, while hand-labour only exercises the mere animal force;" and certainly one great advantage of machinery was, that it enabled women and children to take part in providing for the wants of the family. But besides this, an extraordinary change had taken place in the locality of many of our manufactures. Since steam-engines had been so much used, it had become the interest of the proprietors to fix their works where there were coal-pits. The woollen manufactures that had formerly abounded in the southern part of the country, had now found their way to the north. In addition to these reasons, fashion often made a great alteration. Cottons, for instance, had to a great extent displaced woollens; and linens and silks had changed places in the like manner; all which changes, of course, had been felt in some quarters. It had been stated, that the manufacturers of Worcester had been injured by the introduction of certain foreign goods which had formerly been prohibited. He, however, had had an opportunity of conversing with those who were intimately acquainted with the trade in that part of the country; and the reason given to him for the great depression there was, the change which had taken place in the fashion with respect to gloves. A few years ago, the general wear had been beaver gloves, which were manufactured out of sheep skins; but subsequently the whole demand had been for kid gloves, which were manufactured out of lamb, goat, or kid skins, chiefly imported from abroad. From returns which he held in his hand, it appeared, that in 1820, the manufacture had amounted to 182,000 dozen pairs of gloves; in 1825, the number was 430,000 dozen: in 1826, when the admission of foreign gloves first commenced, a slight decrease took place, the amount being only 389,000 dozen: in 1827, however, in spite of the importation, amounting to 56,000 dozen, the manufacture rose to 576,000 dozen: and in 1828 (the last return he had), in addition to an importation of 95,000 dozen, the gloves manufactured at home was 669,000 dozen pairs. It appeared, then, from these returns, that since the trade had been opened, the manufacture had greatly increased. An illustration of this change of fashion might be cited, in what probably some of the older Members of that House might remember—he meant the change from shoe-buckles to shoe-strings. At that time, the alteration was so much felt, that the Birmingham manufacturers remonstrated, but the complaint was wisely answered by observing, that if the Legislature prevented the use of shoe-strings, it would be injuring Coventry for the sake of Birmingham. Other changes, such as political and commercial changes, were also important and worthy of observation, inasmuch as they had a considerable effect upon the happiness of the manufacturing classes. In the years 1827–8, the export of cottons amounted to 17,500,000l.; of woollens, 5,250,000l.; and of hardware, 2,500,000l.; or 25,000,000l. altogether. Germany and the Netherlands alone took 4,200,000l. worth of cottons, and the United States 2,500,000l. He only mentioned this to show that the trade of this country was more vulnerable now than it had been formerly; and his argument was, that against such an attack upon the trade of the country the Government ought to provide, by affording the manufacturer every fair facility that was practicable with the general interests of the country. He did not mean that the Government should force any measures on the manufacturers, but it ought to facilitate to them the means of preventing fluctuation of employment. In touching upon this part of the subject he would take the practical example of Benefit Societies. The principle of those societies was, to insure their members against illness, old age, or any other natural contingency; and it was his intention to propose to the House the appointment of a Select Committee for the purpose of inquiring whether it was not practicable to extend the same privileges to the humbler classes of society, as a provision against other sorts of contingencies, which were no less continually occurring. To shew the number of persons exposed to these fluctuations he would refer to the cotton-trade. The returns of our cotton manufacturers showed more completely than any circumstance the triumph of freedom over mere natural advantages. In the case of cotton, the raw material was first brought over to this country from America, and, after having manufactured it, we were able to send it back again to its original country, and actually undersell the native manufacturers of that country at its own doors. The value of raw cotton imported into this country amounted to five millions sterling per annum; the manufactured article was worth fifty millions; and the quantity exported was worth nearly twenty millions, Now Manchester might be taken as the centre of that manufacture; and within a circle of thirty miles in diameter, with that town for the centre, there were about half a million of persons engaged in the cotton trade; and the rate at which they were paid showed that they were capable of insuring themselves against the changes which he had already pointed out. Of this half million, one-fifth (all of whom were men) earned 20s. a week; a second fifth, consisting of men and women, earned 12s. a week; a third fifth, 7s. a week; and a fourth fifth, 2s. 6d. a week; and these four-fifths among them supported the old and infirm, which constituted the last fifth. The whole of their wages was earned by piece-work, and paid in money. Scotland did about one-seventh of the whole of this manufacture, and the proportion performed by that country was continually on the increase. He had made inquiries upon the subject, and had been told that the habits of many of these persons were prudent as well as industrious; though there were others whose behaviour was different. He might also state, that the condition of these persons was better than it had been at the commencement of the present century; of course he did not speak to any particular moment of time, but on a general average of a certain number of years. Now all these persons, amounting to no less than half a million, had no funds for their support when they were thrown, by any unfortunate run of circumstances, out of employment. Next let the House look at the woollen trade, the export of which was five and a quarter millions. In this trade there were, within the district of Leeds, twenty thousand persons employed, and this number might be divided into three classes:—the weavers, who earned 14s. a week; the spinners, who earned 21s. a week; and the dressers, who earned 21s. a week. All these persons worked for twelve hours, on six days in the week, and were paid in money: the weavers and spinners by the day, and the others by the piece. Besides these, the women were able to earn 6s. a week, and the children a smaller sum, in proportion to their ages. But unfortunately, among these classes, the whole of their earnings were expended, and they had no fund to go to when they found themselves in distress from the want of work. He would then mention hardware; and in this trade the town of Birmingham was mainly engaged, which had often gone by the name of the toy-shop of Europe, and which might still claim that title. In that place the manufacturers worked ten hours in the day, and six days in the week, their labour being all done by the piece, and paid for in money: the working classes there, however, were very improvident, and seldom had any provision against a slackness in work. At Sheffield, where the finer sorts of cutlery were produced—such as table-knives, pen-knives, pocket-knives, scissors, razors, and files, with edged tools, &c.—a vast deal of ingenuity and sub-division of labour was effected. There were three sorts of workmen mainly employed, whose wages respectively were 25s., 20s., and 16s. With respect to Wolverhampton, where the manufactures were of a coarser sort, the Germans and the Flemings were already beginning to compete with the manufactures of that town, greatly to the disadvantage of its trade. The American tariff had likewise operated greatly to its disadvantage, and was very severely felt there. From what he had stated it would appear, that the wages of these classes were sufficient to enable them to lay by a provision against a want of work. What possible objection, then, could there be, to give facilities to them in that respect, by extending the privileges that already belonged to Benefit Societies? With this feeling he intended to propose the appointment of a committee, for the purpose of practically considering how far the principle of those societies could be extended. The clause in the 10 Geo. 4th, c. 56, which he would extend, was this: "It shall be lawful, by subscription or otherwise, to raise funds for the relief and maintenance in sickness, infancy, advanced age, or any other natural state or contingency whereof the occurrence is susceptible of calculation by way of average;" and this he proposed to extend to the contingency of occasional want of employment. He knew that objections would be made to the course which he was proposing, and that perhaps it would be said that such facilities would be used by the manufacturing classes for the purpose of combination, and of raising their wages. Now he had turned his particular attention to that point; and it seemed to him that such an objection might be greatly removed by certain rules and regulations to be recommended by the committee, The case, too, was very different since the Combination-laws had been removed. There were no Combination-laws now in force, except in cases of violence or intimidation. It had been given in evidence in the committee of which the hon. Member for Montrose was the Chairman, that the Combination-laws had always tended to increase combination; and it certainly was clear, that in proportion as funds were provided by which the manufacturing classes might be saved from distress, they would become more tractable. Two of the great causes which had formerly caused fluctuation in wages were now removed—the one was the alteration which had taken place in the currency, and the other the sudden changes in the price of food. With respect to this latter he might observe, that from the year 1795 to 1820, the variations in the price of corn were so great, that in one year it was frequently three times as dear as it had been in the preceding year, and then, in the course of the next year, the fall was as sudden; and as corn was one of the chief articles of consumption to the manufacturer, the consequence of this was, that the same wages would not always procure the same articles of comfort and support. But now no such fluctuations were likely to take place in the price of corn, and therefore there was no danger of the manufacturer suffering in that way. By some of the trades of London the insurance system was carried to a state of great perfection. This was the case with the tailors in particular; among whom it was so managed, that when they were out of work, they were put on an allowance, by which they were kept from distress. A somewhat similar system existed among the carpet weavers and paper-makers of Kidderminster, but it was not nearly so perfect as the one to which he had already alluded. When these persons were out of work, they had travelling tickets given them, which entitled them to receive a small sum in every town they passed through, on condition that they did not appear there again for three months; and on coming to London they got 5s. with a bed for two nights, and two pots of porter. But no others of the manufacturing classes had any such provision, and in the event of being out of work they were left entirely destitute. In addition to this, the way in which things were managed, when the trade was bad, was highly disadvantageous to them The price of their labour was lessened, and the quantity of work increased in proportion; the effect of which was, that the manufacturer extended his labour from twelve to sixteen hours a day, in the hopes of increasing his pittance, from which circumstance more was produced, the market soon became overstocked, and the low prices were confirmed for a much longer period of time. An instance of this might be seen in the manufacturers of Wolverhampton, who worked sixteen hours in the day, and only obtained the merest pittance. To so great an extent was this the case, that he had been told that excellent currycombs were sold there for a penny a-piece. In conclusion, the hon. Member observed that it would be prudent, as well as wise, for the House to extend its care to the classes he had mentioned. They were the sources of our power, and would yet be a mine of wealth to the country, if they could only be brought to employ that forethought which raised the middle classes so high in the social scale. He would trouble the House with but one observation more, and that related to the effects of intelligence in making the workmen obedient. He had consulted several manufacturers on this subject, and he had received the same testimony from them all; in particular he had the authority of Mr. Kirkman Finlay, whose experience was perhaps equal to that of any man—he had his authority to assert, that just in proportion as the condition of the workmen was improved—just in proportion as they became possessed of knowledge and of facilities for obtaining information—just in proportion as they acquired habits of forethought and prudence—just in that proportion had he and other manufacturers found them tractable, obedient, and industrious. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That a Select Committee be appointed for considering means to lessen the evils arising from the Fluctuation of Employment in Manufacturing Districts, and to improve the health and comfort of the Working Classes dwelling in large Towns."

seconded the Motion. He did not anticipate all the benefits from it that his hon. friend expected, but he thought at least that some valuable information might be obtained. He was happy to say, that the average wages of workmen in the manufacturing districts were now as great as at any former period, and that, on the whole, their condition was very much improved.

said, he did not mean to enter into the subject at any length, and he should detain the House but a very few minutes by his observations. He did not rise to throw cold water on the hon. Member's Motion, but to guard the House against supposing that the plan of the hon. Member would be as advantageous as he supposed. He admitted readily, that nothing was more beneficial to the working classes than Benefit Societies, and he could say that he had, on many occasions, witnessed the advantages they had conferred on the members of them. But the House was aware that many benefit societies had been destroyed, by not acting on the recommendations of an hon. Member below him, in becoming enrolled. When the hon. Member, however, assumed that the House might look to the extension of the principle of such societies, to equalise the fluctuations in trade, he was afraid that the difficulties would be far greater than the hon. Member expected. He wished that the committee might find men with an amount of earnings sufficient to subscribe to such funds. The hon. Member had stated correctly the earnings of several classes of workmen, but they seemed to him so moderate as to preclude the workmen from making those weekly allowances which were necessary to support a Benefit Society. At present the wages of workmen were extremely low, and it was impossible that out of their scanty earnings they could raise, by weekly subscriptions, a fund to support their brethren who might be out of employment. The amount necessary for that could hardly be calculated, but it would certainly be beyond their means. The hon. Member had alluded to the southern counties of England, but he could not be blind to the difference between them and the northern counties. He could not suppose, looking at the situation of the people in the southern counties since 1825, that it would at anytime have been possible for the workmen to club 6d. a-week for the support of their fellows out of employment. All that the workmen in employment could contribute would be only a drop in the bucket to support the workmen out of employment. If 10,000 or 12,000 men were out of employment in one district, what could the club do? If indeed the workmen were capable of supporting themselves, they might make themselves independent of their employers. This, according to the information laid before the House, already happened with the tailors. They earned more money than any other class of workmen. No people had such high wages. They could afford to subsist each other when out of work; and what was the consequence? Why they did subscribe; not, however, to keep tailors from the parish, but to get what they called sufficient wages for themselves. In guarding against one evil it was necessary not to run foul of another. Suppose that wages were so high as to enable the workmen to support each other in idleness if they did not choose to work for a season, or if they would not work unless they received 4s. or 5s. a-day, could that be considered an advantage? They might employ their funds to keep up wages, not to prevent fluctuations. He could not say that it would be desirable to have Friendly Societies with such an object in view. He had no doubt that the hon. Member intended to do good—he gave him credit for his motives, but there were so many difficulties belonging to the subject, that he was not warranted in expecting so many advantages from his proposed committee.

only rose to say a word on a subject connected with the town which he represented. The hon. Member stated the quantity of gloves before and subsequent to the change in our commercial policy, when the prohibition to import gloves was removed. The hon. Member had stated that more gloves were made since than before. He wished to know whence he obtained his information. There were statements laid on the Table which informed the House what quantity of gloves was imported or exported, but he did not know how the hon. Member could have ascertained what quantity was made. He wished to be informed how that information was obtained. The hon. Member had stated, that it was fair play to the glove-trade to let in foreign-made gloves. He could understand that it might be expedient, that it might be good policy, but -he could not understand how it was fair play. He could not understand why the glove-trade was to be estimated by the quantities made, and other trades were to be estimated by the price of their produce. If the principles of Free Trade were to be acted on, why were they not extended to corn as well as gloves? But the corn-grower was protected, so as to obtain a good price for his commodity; it was considered sufficient for the glove-maker that he made a great many pairs of gloves. Other interests were estimated by quantities. The corn-grower was protected by price. He could account for the increase in the quantity of gloves made; it was owing to their cheapness. Gentlemen now probably wore two pairs of gloves when formerly one pair was thought sufficient. But that fall of price, which was advantageous to the wearer, came out of the profits of the manufacturer and the wages of the labourer. He knew that the hon. Member had been at Worcester, and he had no doubt that he had taken great pains to obtain correct information; but he was afraid that the hon. Member had got his information concerning the glove-trade from the factors and dealers in gloves, and not from the manufacturers. They had an interest in selling a great many. He believed that the information concerning the silk-trade had been derived from the same class of persons. That accounted, too, for some of the discordant statements made to that House—some of them being derived from the factors, and others from the manufacturers. The factors stated that the trade was flourishing, while the manufacturers, who had a different interest he admitted, stated that the trade was not paying them. He did not mean to enter further into the subject, but thought it necessary to say so much with a view of obtaining the information he desired from the hon. Member.

said, he entertained some doubts as to the utility of the results of appointing the proposed committee. His doubts were as to the advantages of the hon. Member's plans, but he supposed the committee might be a means of obtaining some very useful information, and with that view he should not oppose the Motion. He could not hope that the object of the hon. Member would be accomplished, but he hoped to obtain through the committee some valuable information. In admitting the advantages of Benefit Societies, he had some doubts whether they could be so extended—which was what, he believed, the hon. Member meant—as to meet all the fluctuations in trade. That was an object he was afraid it was not possible to obtain. As far as these societies were now constituted, they were intended to assure individuals, by small subscriptions, when they had any superfluous money, against periods of difficulty and distress, which might be a matter of accurate calculation. It was possible to calculate the average quantity of sickness and distress among a number of persons within a given time, and such calculations were accurately made; and then it was possible to calculate the average payments which would provide against these casualties, and preserve the funds of the society. To apply these principles to the fluctuations of trade, and call on the labourers to contribute small sums when they were fully employed, so that they might be maintained when they were not employed, was, he was afraid, not possible, because these fluctuations were not susceptible of calculation. The calculation of probabilities could be applied to Friendly Societies; the principles on which these calculations were founded were invariable; but that could not be said of trade. Another difficulty was, that Friendly Societies being intended to provide against sickness, the assistance they supplied was limited to parties actually needing it; but that principle could not be applied to the fluctuations of trade. Perhaps the hon. Member's system might be applied if the great majority of manufacturers were situated together, so that the deficiencies or want of work in one might be compensated by much employment in another. But it was well known that our different manufactures were limited to different places, and were not mingled together so that the superfluous funds in one might supply the want of employment when it occurred in another. The fluctuations operated on all the persons engaged in the same trade at the same time, and generally involved so great a number in distress, that it would be impossible to provide for them by the means proposed by the hon. Member. Another difficulty, he believed, would be found to arise from the impossibility of telling whether individuals were unwilling to work, and idle, or could not get employment from the fluctuations of trade. The hon. Gentleman would have many difficulties to encounter, and some evils to provide against, which he was afraid would render his wishes abortive. As he felt anxious, however, to elicit any information which could be obtained concerning the manufacturing classes—though, on considering the subject, he did not expect such a favourable result as the hon. Member expected—he should not oppose the appointment of the committee.

said, that though he could not hope to obtain the same advantages from the committee as the hon. Mover, he did not mean to oppose the Motion; but at the same time he looked upon Savings Banks as more likely to be beneficial to the working classes than Benefit Societies. What they could place in the Savings Banks they could at all times look on as their own; it belonged to themselves, and they were encouraged by that consideration to take care of it. He was happy to confirm the statement of the hon. member for the county of York (Mr. Marshall), that the people employed in factories—and there was a general tendency to employ all the manufacturers in factories—were much better off than those not employed in factories. He believed, too, that he might state that the workmen employed in factories were a great deal better off than workmen were thirty or forty years ago. Owing to the great quantity of machinery now employed in our manufactures, the workmen were continually employed, for the necessity of keeping the machinery at work compelled the manufacturer to employ his men. At present he believed too that the workmen were generally employed at full wages. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that it was impossible that the men in the manufacturing districts could contribute anything to such a fund; but at present he believed the manufacturers were not in so bad a condition as the hon. Member supposed. He had visited Lancashire during the holidays, and had learned, both from observation and information, that wages there had lately risen, and that few persons were out of employment.

said, that the House appeared fond of meddling with what did not concern it, and of neglecting what it ought to perform; it would not grant a committee to inquire into the distress which was complained of in so many petitions; and as the House would not inquire into the truth of the allegations in these petitions, he should look on a committee appointed on this Motion as a mere delusion. It could lead to no good whatever.

presented a Petition from St. Mary's, Dublin, against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland. The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that in making the proposition which he should submit to the House, he had the satisfaction of knowing that it was a proposition which, though advantageous to Ireland, and meant to be so, would also be a great benefit to England. He considered that the increased consumption of coals which would take place in Ireland if the duties were removed, would be no inconsiderable benefit to the coal districts of England. To Ireland the remission of the duties would be a great relief. He begged leave to remind the House that he had cheerfully voted for those reductions of taxation in England which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed. He rejoiced in those reductions; and he had even voted for the reduction of some taxes, as that on Salt, which it was supposed the interest of Ireland required should be maintained. His proposition, he would also remind hon. Gentlemen, would not deprive the Revenue of any great sum. The amount of revenue raised by the tax on coals in Ireland did not exceed 50,000l. or 60,000l., but that did not express the amount of the inconvenience it imposed. It was the same with that particular tax as with all taxes—it imposed a very great number of inconvenient restrictions, which were felt to be far greater evils than the amount of the tax. If the tax were removed, it was impossible to say to what extent trade might be increased. There was a want of return cargoes from England, and it could not beforehand be known how much manufactures would be augmented in Ireland if there were no tax on Coals. In particular, the increase of distilleries would promote very much the increase of the consumption of Coals, and giving freedom to the coal-trade would very much promote the manufactures of Ireland. He contended, that this tax put a restriction on industry generally. He admitted the repeal of it rested on similar grounds as that in England would; but there were peculiar circumstances connected with the pressure of this tax in Ireland. There it obstructed the play of all the springs of productive industry, and consequently, more injury was inflicted on the country, than could be possibly compensated by the return to the Revenue. Thus he rested his argument on the grounds of general policy. Scotland, he remarked, had Coal of its own, and there was no duty on it. There was no Coal in Ireland, and therefore how much harder was it that the people there should be called upon to pay a tax upon this necessary? There were now 7,000 persons unemployed in Dublin. The repeal of this tax would be of the greatest use in alleviating the pressure of the distress now prevailing there. He knew that there was one woollen manufacturer who would increase his establishment by 1,000 men, if the tax were removed; and if one-seventh of the whole number of men unemployed were thus relieved by a single person concerned in the woollen trade, what might not be expected from the increased activity of all the other trades carried on in that capital? The question was one, too, that affected the interests of England; for the number of Irish paupers who, it was so loudly complained, thronged the shores of Britain, were much increased by the pressure of this tax. He thought, too, he had a right to complain, that while 3,000,000l. of taxation were taken off in England, at least 100,000l. additional taxes should be imposed on Ireland. He contended, also, that the amount of this tax was so trifling, that it might be re- moved without any great loss to the Revenue. It was only 50,000l.; the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, 73,000l., and he proposed an equivalent for it—economy in the Irish establishments. He was convinced that if Gentlemen would apply themselves with care and assiduity to the Irish Estimates, they could reduce more than the amount of this tax. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for a "Committee to consider the Acts respecting the Coal Duties in Ireland, with a view to their Repeal."

seconded the Motion.

regretted that he was obliged to oppose the Motion. There was no disposition upon his part to create an unequal pressure of taxation in Ireland, but there were peculiar circumstances which compelled him to adopt the course he had proposed; and looking at the general pressure of taxation on the country, he did not see what other he could have pursued. And, taking this tax, as affecting the two portions of the United Kingdom, he found that in Ireland it was only 1s. 10d. a bushel, while in England it amounted to 4s.; consequently, if repeal were applied at all, it would appear but fair to apply it to the greater burthen. He admitted that Scotland had been relieved from the Coal-tax, and he admitted the validity of the argument founded on this; but he asked, how would the repeal of this duty also in Ireland operate on the Coal consumed in England? Would not England then have a fair claim to demand the repeal of the tax, as well as the other two countries? Therefore the House were not to look to the small revenue in Ireland, but to the whole tax on Sea-borne Coal, which exceeded 800,000l. per annum. He accordingly put it to the House, if, after the relief he had already afforded, he could, with any regard to the obligations of this country, grant the repeal of that tax to Ireland, when he considered what consequences it would entail? In answer to the hon. member for Limerick's remarks about economy in the public establishments, he had to observe, that Ministers had already determined upon all practicable economy, and in his financial statement he had taken credit for it. Enough too, had been already done in the way of reduction to make this economy decidedly necessary. He did not think that the tax was any violation of the Union and he should oppose the Motion.

supported the Motion. The tax was originally intended only to be a war-tax, and as it was most partial and oppressive it ought to be repealed.

also supported the Motion, and said, that a tax on Canadian timber, which would be just and proper, and would yield 1,500,000l. to the Revenue, might enable the Government to take off the tax on Coals. By the heavy duties now levied on Baltic timber, the community was obliged to consume a bad article at a high price.

supported the Motion. There was no tax the repeal of which would give so much relief to Ireland. It had been promised at the time of the Union to repeal this tax, and that ought now to be done, if it were wished that the Union should be advantageous to both countries. He called on the House to answer this appeal of the Irish people, and show that those were calumniators, who said that the House had no sympathy with the distresses of the Irish.

wished to hear no more of the proportion of taxes to be paid by England and Ireland, than to be paid by Yorkshire and Kent. The only consideration for the House was, to raise the necessary Revenue with the least possible inconvenience. He would support the Motion, because, from the smallness of the amount, the repeal of the tax would not be unfair towards England, and it would confer a great benefit on Ireland. The introduction of steam into manufactures had made Coal indispensable in almost all branches of manufacture, and the condition of Ireland could not be improved by becoming a manufacturing country, unless she had free access to the market for Coals. He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some difficulty in passing his Beer-bill, and therefore he would recommend him to change it to a Coal-bill, abolishing the whole duty on Sea-borne Coal, which should have his hearty support.

hoped, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal the tax, he would, at least, exempt from duty all coal used in manufactures.

regretted that the Government would not accede to the Motion. The tax could not be supported by argument, and he should bring the general subject forward on a future occa- sion. The continuance of the tax on Coals in its present form was equally discreditable to the statesman, and injurious to the interests of the country.

differed, with the greatest regret, from the hon. member for Callington, and could not but think that, however the price of Coals might be diminished to the consumer, it could never be so much reduced as to enable people to establish manufactories in other parts of the kingdom than those which were at a moderate distance from the place where the Coal was obtained. He could not but view this question differently from some of the hon. Members, for, in his opinion, a tax on Sea-borne-Coals was a tax on an article of commerce; but a tax imposed on Coals at the pit's mouth would be a tax on a necessary of life, and on one which the people in the Coal districts had immemorially enjoyed at a very moderate price. Any person acquainted with the manufacturing districts, must see at once how heavily such a tax would fall on the manufacturers. The tax on Sea-borne-Coals did not amount to more than one-eighth or one-ninth of the price of the article, and the repeal of that tax would not so much benefit the people as would the reduction of some other taxes, which, though they hardly produced more to the Revenue, were more oppressive in their operation upon the people.

regretted that he was obliged to oppose the Motion of his hon. friend; but he could not avoid doing so when he observed that it was a Motion j which went to benefit one class or body of the people at the expense of another. If the measure had been more general—if it had been for the repeal of the duty, not in one, but in all parts of the kingdom—it should have had his support; for he considered that policy and expediency, as well as justice, called on them to abolish a duty which the manufacturers along the whole eastern coast of England felt was one that disabled them from a fair competition with the foreigner.

was aware that the Coal-tax was very unpopular in Ireland, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer entertained certain projects, with regard to Ireland, which were still more unpopular than the Coal-tax. In the hope that by allowing that right hon. Gentleman to retain the Coal-tax, he would not push his equalizing measures of taxation through the House, he should vote against the Motion of the hon. member for Limerick.

supported the Motion most cordially. He had presented several petitions in favour of the total repeal of the duty, and he would now support its partial abolition. If it were true that manufactories could not be established in parts of the kingdom distant from those where the Coal was obtained, they at least ought not to add a legislative disadvantage where there were but few natural advantages for their establishment. He must confess his astonishment at what he had heard from the noble Lord, the member for Yorkshire, who seemed to-night to have appeared as the advocate of restrictions on trade, because they were in favour of Yorkshire, though they operated against Devonshire, and all the Southern parts of the country. He should vote with pleasure for the Motion, especially as it went to the relief of Ireland, and as it was, by the confession of his right hon. friend opposite, the commencement of the operation of a principle, which he trusted would soon be extended to the repeal of the whole tax.

said, that this was an English question, because it was an Irish question, for the interests of the two countries were the same. The system of agriculture now employed in Ireland was to create large farms, by which the small agriculturists were driven from the country into the town, where they were now suffering severely from want of employment. If this tax were repealed, though possibly no new manufactures could be established, yet the increase of those which had been long in existence would be materially promoted. He believed that as far as the Revenue was concerned, the abolition of the tax might safely take place, and as that would be very much for the benefit of the consumer, he should therefore now vote even for its partial reduction.

supported the Motion to take off what he must call a most inquitous tax upon the poorer classes of the community.

, in reply, said, that he disagreed with his hon. friend the member for Dover, as to this being a partial measure for the benefit of one portion of the people; or, if it were so, he could not see that by the people of Ireland being still made to suffer by this tax, the people of Norfolk or Kent would be benefitted. He should be glad to see a general measure for the repeal of this tax introduced; but since he could not obtain all that he wished, he was anxious to get as much as he could.

rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the duties, Salaries, and Emoluments, of Hackney-coach Commissioners, and the present state of public carriages in the Metropolis. The hon. Baronet prefaced his Motion by stating the inconvenience which arose from the present system, and the necessity which existed for some change for the public advantage: he conceived that that necessity must be apparent to every person who had had an opportunity of observing the present state of things. By the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the subject, a fair opportunity would be afforded to all parties interested to state their case. Should a change be determined upon with regard to the present system, a considerable change, he was sure, would be recommended by the committee: it would be open to any individuals to prefer claims for compensation; but, if it should appear that they had not done their duty, he did not conceive that they could be entitled to any compensation. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Duties, Salaries, and Emoluments of the Commissioners for the regulation of Hackney-coaches within the Bills of Mortality, and into the state of the public Carriages within the said Bills, and to report the evidence, and their opinion thereon, to the House; and also to inquire into the state of the Law affecting the same, and to report their opinion thereon to the House."

did not rise to give any opposition whatever to the Motion of the hon. Baronet—on the contrary, he was extremely glad that the hon. Baronet had moved for this Committee. This was a question which, however trifling it might appear, had occupied for a considerable period much of the attention of the department over which he presided, and the only difficulty which appeared opposed to that change which seemed so desirable, consisted in the adjustment of those claims for compensation which individuals filling certain public situations might set up with re- gard to what they might consider exclusive rights and exclusive emoluments. These were matters which could be no where so satisfactorily adjusted as in a Select Committee of that House. He should not, at that late hour, go further into the question. He should content himself with saying, that he most readily acquiesced in the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and he had no doubt that the result of that committee's labours would be, to place the accommodation afforded by public carriages on a better footing than it was at present, and one more calculated for the public advantage. It was his intention to effect great convenience for the public in this respect, by a provision in the Bill which he should shortly lay before the House for the amendment of the Stamp-acts, relating to the regulation of stage-coaches. As the law at present stood, with regard to Hackney-coaches, stage-coaches were prevented from taking up passengers upon what were called "the stones," and no Stagecoach could ply for passengers in London. Now he proposed to remove that impediment. He was of opinion that the greatest possible convenience would arise to the public by permitting those coaches to ply regularly from one part of this metropolis to the other, for, by that means, the middle and poorer classes would be enabled to travel cheaply and expeditiously from one end of London to the other. He had had an interview with the parties whose interests were principally involved in the coaches which under the existing law, were allowed to ply in London, and no difficulty had been started by them to this proposition. He was satisfied that the arrangement would not only be beneficial to the public, but that it would not be injurious to the owners of those coaches; for the class of persons who would travel in the Stage-coaches when they should be suffered to ply in town, were not those who would at any time take a Hackney-coach if the law remained as it was at present.

said, he rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to do away with the present system of Half-pay Apprentices in the Manufacturing Districts. His Motion was founded on the reports of two Select Committees of that House, extracts from which he would read. The first was from the report of the committee which sat in 1804, and was as follows. "The system prevails amongst the calico printers in the Counties of Lancashire, Derby, Chester, and Stafford in England; in Scotland—in Lanark, Renfrew, Dumbarton, Stirling and Perth." The masters, continues the report, "decline entering into any indenture, but merely take the boy to serve upon a verbal agreement for seven years, to enforce the performance of which agreement, he takes a bond from the boy's parents for 501. and also withholds a certain portion of the boy's earnings in his hands, generally about 10l., until the period of servitude agreed upon shall expire, and thus a fraud is committed on the Revenue by evading the Stamp-act upon indentures. Your Committee feel themselves particularly bound to call the attention of the House to this practice, as it, involves a violation of the principles of common equity. The master taking care to subject himself to no legal obligation towards the apprentice can dismiss him at pleasure, and such dismissals actually take place; on the other hand, apprentices serve sometimes no less than eight or ten years instead of seven, for if the master wants employment for the apprentice at any time he obliges the apprentice to serve over again that time during which he may have been unemployed, not from any disinclination on his part to work, but from the inability of his master to furnish him with employment. Your Committee felt surprised that any parents could be persuaded to apprentice their children on such terms, but the surprise soon ceased when they found that masters have compelled journeymen in their service so to bind their children, under the threat of dismissal from employment if they refused." The report of the committee of 1818 states "That a system of half-pay apprenticeship has been resorted to; which has been attended with ruinous consequences to the morals of such apprentices, and is exceedingly injurious to the trade. That in order to enable the weavers to support themselves and their families, and also for protecting the parishes in which these trades are carried on, some legislative interference should take place." These extracts shewed the House what were the evils of the system, and how necessary it was to take the step he proposed. He would make no further observations, but move that leave be given to bring in a Bill "to amend the Law relative to Half-pay Apprentices."